[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 102 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33892-33919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12931]



[[Page 33891]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act as Amended by the 
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge 
Planning Policy; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / 
Notices

[[Page 33892]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Refuge Planning Policy Pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge 
System Administration Act as Amended by the National Wildlife Refuge 
System Improvement Act of 1997

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) establishes 
requirements and guidance for National Wildlife Refuge System planning, 
including Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) and step-down 
management plans. This policy, which incorporates the CCP provisions of 
the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, 
replaces Part 602 Chapters 1, 2, and 3 of the Fish and Wildlife Service 
Manual. The new policy will appear as Part 602 Chapters 1, 3, and 4.
    Our policy for managing units of the National Wildlife Refuge 
System (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. We also may require step-down management plans 
to provide additional guidance for meeting CCP goals and objectives and 
to describe strategies and implementation schedules. Each plan will be 
consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management, 
available science, legal mandates, and our other policies, guidelines, 
and planning documents. We will prepare refuge plans that, above all 
else, ensure that wildlife comes first on national wildlife refuges.

DATES: This policy is effective upon publication in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: We will send a copy of the Fish and 
Wildlife Service Manual chapters on Refuge System planning to those who 
submitted comments on the draft policy and to anyone who would like to 
receive them. Please contact Liz Bellantoni, Refuge Planning 
Coordinator, Division of Refuges, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at 
(703) 358-2422 if you would like to receive a copy. In addition, these 
chapters will be available on the Refuge System web site (http://refuges.fws.gov [select link to ``Manual/Policies: Refuge Planning 
Policy']).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Wildlife Refuge System 
Administration Act of 1966 as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge 
System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee (Refuge 
Administration Act), provides an ``Organic Act'' for the National 
Wildlife Refuge System. It clearly establishes that wildlife 
conservation is the principal mission of the Refuge System; provides 
guidance to the Secretary of the Interior for management of the Refuge 
System; reinforces the importance of comprehensive planning for all 
units of the Refuge System; and gives Refuge Managers uniform direction 
and procedures for making decisions regarding wildlife conservation and 
uses of the Refuge System.

Planning and the Refuge Administration Act

    Except for those refuges in Alaska (which are subject to the refuge 
planning provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 
Act [ANILCA]), the Refuge Administration Act requires that we manage 
all national wildlife refuges according to an approved CCP. We will 
prepare a CCP by October 2012 for each refuge in existence at the time 
of passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. For 
refuges established after passage of this Act, we will prepare CCPs 
when we staff the refuge and acquire a land base sufficient to achieve 
refuge purposes, but no later than 15 years after establishment of the 
refuge. The Refuge Administration Act also requires that we provide an 
opportunity for active public involvement during the preparation and 
revision of CCPs. These plans will guide management decisions and 
establish strategies for achieving the mission of the Refuge System and 
the purposes of each refuge unit.

Purpose of This Policy

    This policy establishes requirements and guidance for National 
Wildlife Refuge System planning, including CCPs and step-down 
management plans, and ensures that planning efforts comply with the 
provisions of the Refuge Administration Act.

Response to Comments Received

    On August 13, 1999, we published a notice in the Federal Register 
(64 FR 44368) to establish requirements and guidance for Refuge System 
planning, including CCPs and step-down management plans. During the 60-
day comment period, we received 41 comments from the following sources: 
non-government organizations (16), State agencies (14), Service 
employees (5), other Federal agencies (1), private citizens (4), and 
commercial businesses (1). Key points raised by the public and 
addressed in the final policy include:
    <bullet> placing greater emphasis on wildlife first and elevating 
our commitment to maintain and, where appropriate, restore the 
ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System as mandated 
by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997;
    <bullet> basing management decisions on a thorough assessment of 
available science;
    <bullet> defining our relationship with States and other agencies 
and their programs;
    <bullet> identifying biological information necessary for planning 
and management;
    <bullet> clarifying under what conditions we should revise a CCP;
    <bullet> expediting or further clarifying our planning process;
    <bullet> describing the relationship of CCPs to refuge purposes and 
Refuge System mission; and
    <bullet> addressing issues related to recreation and public use.
    We reviewed and considered all substantive comments received. 
Following are public comments and our responses grouped under eight 
broad headings:

I. Placing Greater Emphasis on Wildlife First and Elevating Our 
Commitment to Maintain and, Where Appropriate, Restore the Ecological 
Integrity of Each Refuge and the Refuge System as Mandated by the 
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

    Comment: The Service's drafting of the proposed planning policy is 
pursuant to the mandates contained in the National Wildlife Refuge 
System Improvement Act of 1997. The first and foremost goal of the 
Refuge Improvement Act is to ensure that wildlife conservation is the 
principal mission of the Refuge System. Although the Refuge Improvement 
Act established a hierarchy of appropriate and compatible wildlife-
dependent uses of a refuge, wildlife conservation is paramount and 
every aspect of the Service's planning process must reflect this 
principal goal. The planning process should be preceded by, and indeed 
founded upon, first establishing the wildlife and ecological priorities 
of

[[Page 33893]]

the refuge. Then the plan should consider certain public uses deemed 
compatible with the refuge purpose, the Refuge System mission, and the 
particular conditions of the refuge. This is particularly important 
since the CCP process includes the drafting or recertification of 
compatibility determinations.
    Response: We have strengthened Section 1.5, ``What are the goals of 
refuge planning?,'' by adding as the very first goal, ``A. To ensure 
that wildlife comes first in the National Wildlife Refuge System.'' We 
have strengthened Section 3.3 (formerly Section 2.3), ``What are our 
goals for Comprehensive Conservation Planning?,'' by revising goal A. 
to read: ``To ensure that wildlife comes first in the National Wildlife 
Refuge System and that we manage each refuge to help fulfill the 
mission of the Refuge System; maintain and, where appropriate, restore 
the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; as well 
as achieve the specific purposes for which the refuge was 
established.''
    Comment: The draft planning policy should be revised each and every 
place where it pledges allegiance to the mission of the Refuge System 
and purposes of the individual refuges in order to also ensure that the 
planning process will advance the maintenance and restoration of 
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. For example, 
Section 602 FW 1.3 should be modified to state that, ``We will manage 
all refuges in accordance with an approved CCP which, when implemented, 
will achieve refuge purposes, fulfill the System mission, maintain and 
restore biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health, and 
meet all other relevant mandates. The CCP will guide management 
decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies to accomplish 
these ends * * *.''
    Response: We have incorporated similar language into the final 
policy. We are now using the term ``ecological integrity'' in lieu of 
the phrase ``biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 
health.''
    Comment: Reword Section 602 FW 1.5 B to state that the goal of 
refuge planning is ``To help ensure that we restore and maintain the 
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of each 
refuge and the Refuge System, and contribute to the conservation of the 
structure and function of the ecosystems of the United States.''
    Response: We have revised the text with modification. See 602 FW 
1.5 C.
    Comment: Reword Section 602 FW 1.6 B to define the term CCP as ``A 
document that describes the desired future conditions of the refuge and 
provides long-range guidance and management direction to accomplish the 
purposes of the refuge, fulfill the mission of the System, restore and 
maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health 
of each refuge and the Refuge System, and meet other relevant 
mandates.''
    Response: We have revised the text with modification. See 602 FW 
1.6 E.
    Comment: Amend Section 602 FW 1.7 D, 2.1, 2.3 B, 2.4 A, 2.4 C 
(1)(b), (c), and (d)(ii), 2.4 C (4), 2.4 C (4)(d), and 2.4 C (7) to 
highlight the restoration and maintenance of biological integrity, 
diversity, and environmental health as a major feature of CCPs.
    Response: We have amended the text where appropriate. See Section 
602 FW 1.7 D, 3.1 (formerly 2.1), 3.3 A (formerly 2.3 B), 3.4 A 
(formerly 2.4 A), and 3.4 C (1)(d) (formerly 2.4 C (1)(c)).
    Comment: Reword Section 602 FW 2.4 C (1)(f) to require that CCPs 
set goals for appropriate indices of biological integrity, diversity, 
and environmental health.
    Response: We have incorporated similar language into the final 
policy. See 602 FW 3.4 C (1)(g).
    Comment: Reword Section 602 FW 2.4 C (1)(g) to require that CCPs 
identify additional problems, e.g., ``Identify any significant problems 
that may adversely affect the population and habitats of fish, 
wildlife, and plants (including candidate, threatened, and endangered 
species), the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health 
or the wilderness characteristics within the planning unit, and the 
actions necessary to correct or mitigate such problems.''
    Response: We have addressed the need to identify and describe these 
problems in Section 3.4 C (1)(e)(x) and (xii) (formerly 2.4 C (1)(d)).
    Comment: Reword Section 2.4 C (4)(d) to require that CCPs set 
objectives for appropriate indices of biological integrity, diversity, 
and environmental health.
    Response: We believe this is more appropriately done at the goal-
setting level and have revised the text in Section 3.4 C (1)(g) 
(formerly 2.4 C (1)(f)) accordingly.
    Comment: The policies that guide the refuge planning process must, 
above all else, ensure that CCPs put wildlife first. The draft planning 
policy makes an important start towards accomplishing this end, but 
should be modified in several places to drive home this point more 
explicitly and emphatically.
    Response: We have modified the final policy in various places to 
emphasize that we will prepare CCPs that, above all else, ensure that 
wildlife comes first on national wildlife refuges. See 602 FW 1.3, 1.4 
A, and 1.5 A, and 602 FW 3.3 A.
    Comment: Existing language in the draft policy regarding the 
proposed action is inappropriately and inexplicably weak. Section 602 
FW 2.4 C (4)(c) should be reworded to reflect that the planning team 
shall select as the proposed action in each CCP the alternative that 
best achieves planning unit purposes, vision and goals; fulfills the 
Refuge System mission; maintains and restores biological integrity, 
diversity, and environmental health; addresses the significant issues 
and relevant mandates, and is consistent with principles of sound fish 
and wildlife management.
    Response: We strengthened the language in the final policy as 
suggested, with minor modification. See 602 FW 3.4 C (4)(c).
    Comment: Section 2.4 C (1)(c) should be modified to place the 
emphasis on meeting refuge purposes, Refuge System mission, and 
ecological integrity.
    Response: We made a related change in the final policy. See 602 FW 
3.4 C (1)(d).
    Comment: The planning policy appropriately makes conservation of 
biological diversity a major goal of refuge planning (Section 602 FW 
1.5 B). What is lacking however, is a simple explanation of what this 
means. The Service should clarify within this section or in another 
appropriate place in the policy, that it intends to adopt a regional/
ecological approach to conserving biological diversity. Simply put, the 
Service should ensure that its management activities benefit-- and do 
not harm--those species, habitats, and natural processes that are rare 
and/or declining within the regional ecological context within which 
the planning unit occurs.
    Response: We feel the recommended change is beyond the scope of 
this policy. A new policy addressing the ecological integrity of the 
National Wildlife Refuge System is currently being developed and will 
be published as 601 FW 3 of the Service Manual.
    Comment: The planning policy needs to refer to the biological 
integrity policy when relying on that document for guidance. The 
planning policy also needs to incorporate these fundamental concepts to 
the extent possible in the absence of clear guidance from the future 
biological integrity policy. For example, 602 FW 1.3 should be revised 
as follows (underscored text are changes

[[Page 33894]]

from the original language): ``Each plan will be founded on principles 
of sound fish and wildlife management, available science, and the 
maintenance of biological integrity, diversity, and ecosystem health. 
Each plan will be consistent with legal mandates and our other 
policies, guidelines, and planning documents.'' Amend 602 FW 2.1 to 
include similar language: ``Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) 
describe the desired future conditions of a refuge, and provide long-
range guidance and management direction for the Refuge Manager to 
accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute to the mission of the 
System, ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and 
environmental health of the System are maintained, and meet other 
relevant mandates.'' Biological integrity, diversity, and ecosystem 
health also need to be defined within the planning policy.
    Response: We have incorporated the suggested text changes, with 
slight modification, into the final policy. In addition, we have 
defined the terms biological integrity, biological diversity, 
ecological integrity, and environmental health. These definitions are 
consistent with those which will appear in 601 FW 3 (ecological 
integrity policy).
    Comment: Add the following language to Section 2.4 C (1)(g): 
Internal Scoping: ``Identify significant opportunities to improve the 
health of refuge habitats or to improve the functioning of ecological 
systems.''
    Response: We have addressed the need to identify these 
opportunities in Section 3.4 C (1)(e).

II. Basing Management Decisions on the Best Available Science

    Comment: With regard to developing scientific and other data, such 
information may be gathered from a number of sources, including the 
various public comment periods provided by the proposed policy. Thus, 
when the CCP is presented for public comment, refuge planners should be 
seeking input and assistance from the scientific community and the 
public at large, and be responsive to and accountable for considering 
such scientific input, as would be the case during a notice and comment 
period under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
    Response: Indeed, we must seek and be responsive to considering the 
scientific input provided by resource experts, and all other publics, 
under NEPA. The final policy reflects these points.
    Comment: Section 602 FW 2.3 D of the draft policy establishes a 
goal to ``support management decisions and their rationale by sound 
professional judgment,'' a statement that appears reactive and 
defensive of status quo operations. To highlight the importance of 
science in decision making, this goal should be reworded.
    Response: We revised the above goal as follows: ``To support 
management decisions and their rationale by using a thorough assessment 
of available science derived from scientific literature, on-site refuge 
data, expert opinion, and sound professional judgment.'' See 602 FW 3.3 
D.

III. Defining Our Relationship With States and Other Agencies and 
Their Programs

    Comment: One commenter states that in Alaska the Department of Fish 
and Game is woefully underfunded and the Alaska State Legislature has 
imposed management ``standards'' regarding priorities for wildlife 
management that are inconsistent with the major purposes of National 
Wildlife Refuges in that state (e.g., to conserve fish and wildlife 
populations and habitats in their natural diversity). The commenter 
states that it is unrealistic to expect that refuge management plans 
will be the same as State plans especially when dealing with 
controversial issues. Furthermore, the public, Tribes, and non-
governmental organizations should have the same opportunities for 
participation in the development and review of CCPs as do State and 
local governments and adjacent landowners.
    Response: Section 668dd (e)(1)(A)(iii) of the National Wildlife 
Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as amended by the National 
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, instructs the Secretary 
to ``issue a final conservation plan for each planning unit consistent 
with the provisions of this Act and, to the extent practicable, 
consistent with fish and wildlife conservation plans of the State in 
which the refuge is located * * *'' We believe that we have an 
obligation under this and other provisions of the Refuge Improvement 
Act to work closely with State fish and game agencies as we prepare our 
plans. It is important to note that the Act calls for our plans to be 
consistent with State plans ``to the extent practicable,'' and that our 
Regional Directors are the ultimate decision makers in the process. 
Congress directs our close working relationships with the States. We 
also believe we built sufficient opportunities into the process to 
allow all interested parties to participate in our planning efforts.
    Comment: We received a number of comments that the refuge planning 
teams should also include members of State and Tribal conservation 
agencies.
    Response: We changed the policy in Section 3.4 C (1)(a) to state 
that, ``We will provide representatives from appropriate State and 
Tribal conservation agencies * * * the opportunity to serve on planning 
teams.'' We will provide a formal written request inviting States, 
Tribes, and other appropriate agencies to join the refuge planning 
effort at the beginning of the process.
    Comment: Some commenters requested that States be involved in step-
down management plans.
    Response: The planning policy guidance provides for and we 
encourage this opportunity.
    Comment: Many commenters requested that the Service participate in 
cooperative planning efforts with States and/or other agencies.
    Response: We have worked closely with many States, other Federal 
agencies, and others and encourage cooperative management planning for 
fish and wildlife and natural resources whenever feasible.
    Comment: Some of the commenters questioned whether State agencies 
could be involved in addressing comments, plan review and 
implementation.
    Response: We encourage State and other agency involvement 
throughout the planning and management processes--including 
implementation and review. Furthermore, by being a member of the refuge 
planning team, State agencies will have a direct opportunity to assure 
that we accurately reflect or respond to their comments in the CCP 
document or in our analysis. While we recognize the need for input and 
feedback from others, we recognize the possibility of debate or 
alternative management direction, if guided solely by other influences. 
For this reason, while we encourage full input from the States and 
other entities in our plans, we retain management and decision-making 
authority for all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 
including approval of CCPs.
    Comment: Some commenters asked about other possible partnerships 
with the Service, beyond CCPs, such as joint ventures and ecosystem 
planning.
    Response: We are appreciative of the interest of States and other 
organizations who wish to participate as a partner in our refuge and 
non-refuge projects. We encourage partnerships through our ecosystem 
approach. We invite agencies and organizations to contact our Regional 
Offices for more information on how to participate as a partner in our 
activities.

[[Page 33895]]

    Comment: Some commenters questioned what determines adequate 
coordination with States, other agencies, and the public.
    Response: Adequate coordination with States, Tribes, other 
agencies, and the general public includes an invitation to participate, 
actual participation in our processes, regular and good communication, 
use of appropriate tools and materials to aid coordination, a sense of 
teamwork from all parties, and resulting successful partnerships beyond 
the planning phase. The Service's refuge planning policy developed 
herein provides for all the processes and procedures for us to meet our 
burden of responsibility, in regard to agency coordination.

IV. Identifying Biological Information Necessary for Planning and 
Management

    Comment: Criteria should be established for assessing the adequacy 
of data for making management decisions. The Service should consider 
delaying management choices until adequate information is available to 
make a decision informed by science. The U.S. Forest Service proposed 
planning rule states that if data are not adequate, this triggers a new 
or supplemental broad-scale assessment or local analysis before 
proceeding to decision making. It is suggested that the Service 
consider a similar modification of the proposed policy.
    Response: In situations where we are unable to develop new data for 
the CCP, the plan may identify the need for further data collection. In 
such cases we may delay decision making, pending additional data 
collection and analysis. There are many sources of data that can aid in 
plan development. We include a list of potential data sources in 602 FW 
3.4 C (1)(e). A lack of data should not delay completion of the CCP.
    Comment: A number of commenters requested that the Service expand 
and clarify its policy and procedures for collection of data associated 
with CCPs.
    Response: Based on the comments received, we have made extensive 
changes to Sections 3.4 C(1)(e) and (f), including additional 
discussion on data needs, data collection, data sources, use of outside 
experts and literature reviews, and data standards.

V. Clarifying Under What Conditions We Should Revise a CCP

    Comment: Additional guidance is necessary to clarify the limits of 
the adaptive management strategy. The Service's intention of revising a 
CCP every 15 years after establishment of the initial CCP comports with 
the requirements set forth in the Refuge Improvement Act. Moreover, the 
Service indicates that it will revise a CCP sooner than 15 years after 
the initial CCP is approved, ``if conditions that affect the refuge or 
planning unit change significantly.'' It is unclear at what point or 
under what conditions the CCP should, or must, be reviewed or 
reassessed, prior to the expiration of the 15-year period. The 
commenter believes that both the Refuge Manager and the public need 
further guidance as to when a review should be conducted as a result of 
changing ecological or other conditions presented to the refuge 
environment, including changes in science which may render a certain 
use obsolete or no longer compatible with the purposes for which the 
refuge was established. The Service should amend the draft policy so as 
to establish as near of an objective standard as possible, and include 
guidelines and examples for the use of refuge planners.
    Response: We have modified Step 8, ``Review and Revise Plan,'' to 
provide additional guidance. We have revised Subsection (a) to instruct 
refuge planners and managers to ``Modify the plan and associated 
management activities whenever monitoring and evaluation determine that 
we need changes to achieve planning unit purpose(s), vision, and 
goals.'' Subsection (b) now states: ``Revise the CCP when significant 
new information becomes available, ecological conditions change, major 
refuge expansion occurs, or when we identify the need to do so during 
plan review.'' While these revisions are minimal, we believe we must 
provide additional guidance dealing with the principles of adaptive 
management and monitoring. However, we do not believe this type of 
guidance is appropriate in our planning policy. Fulfilling the Promise: 
The National Wildlife Refuge System includes a number of 
recommendations focused on developing programs for natural resource 
inventory and monitoring, habitat monitoring, and adaptive management. 
Once we fully implement these recommendations and establish programs, 
we will provide appropriate guidance and initiate training courses. 
Only then will we be able to utilize the principles of adaptive 
management to refine our approaches and determine how effectively we 
are accomplishing refuge goals and objectives.
    Comment: Some commenters asked the Service to clarify what level of 
planning and plan revision is required for refuges.
    Response: Chapter 1 of the policy provides a general description of 
planning requirements. Chapter 3 (formerly Chapter 2) deals 
specifically with CCPs. Section 3.4 C(8) provides details on plan 
revision. In general, all newly established refuges will have a 
Conceptual Management Plan in place at the time of refuge 
establishment. We will develop CCPs as soon as possible but not later 
than 15 years after establishment of a refuge. We will review CCPs 
annually and make revisions as needed. We will revise CCPs at least 
every 15 years.
    Comment: Some commenters were concerned that a change of management 
direction could occur with a change of Refuge Manager.
    Response: The planning policy states that the Refuge Manager shall 
manage the refuge under an approved CCP, and that plan revision should 
occur only when monitoring and evaluation documents the need for change 
in order to achieve planning unit purpose(s), goals, and objectives. 
The Regional Director approves the CCP with input and concurrence from 
many levels within the Service, as well as outside review and comment.

VI. Expediting or Further Clarifying Our Planning Process

    Comment: Implementing a ``Public Participation Plan'' early in the 
planning process before developing alternatives or drafting the plan 
will help the Service identify issues and define the desired future 
condition(s) of a particular refuge. Extra effort will be needed at 
this step of the process in order to establish a firm foundation for 
subsequent planning phases. Additional guidance would be helpful to 
ensure refuge planners make this effort.
    Response: We require the preparation of a ``Public Participation 
Plan'' (referred to as a ``Public Involvement/Outreach Plan'') in Step 
1, ``Preplanning: Planning the Plan,'' of our Comprehensive 
Conservation Planning process. We also provide guidance on preparing a 
``Public Involvement/Outreach Plan'' during the Refuge Comprehensive 
Conservation Planning course offered at our National Conservation 
Training Center. This course is available to Service personnel and 
other planning team members who are about to begin the preparation of a 
refuge CCP.
    Comment: Integrating the CCP with various Environmental Assessments 
(EA)/Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) from the outset may not 
achieve the planning expediency that it is intended to achieve. To save 
time and money, it is suggested that the first step in the CCP process 
should be the development of a stand-alone ``vision document'' that 
generally describes the

[[Page 33896]]

goals of the refuge and its desired future condition. After the goals 
of the refuge and its desired future condition are documented and 
agreed upon, then various EAs/EISs can be developed as a mechanism to 
examine the alternatives on how to achieve them.
    Response: There is no need for a stand-alone vision document. The 
refuge vision statement and goals are integral parts of our CCP 
process. Identified in Step 1, ``Preplanning: Planning the Plan,'' we 
subsequently share them with the public in Step 2, ``Initiate Public 
Involvement and Scoping,'' and, based on the public's comments, modify 
them as appropriate in Step 3, ``Review Vision Statement and Goals and 
Determine Significant Issues.'' We ultimately use them to help identify 
our Proposed Action in the draft NEPA document in Step 4, ``Develop and 
Analyze Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action.'' The proposed 
action will be the one that best achieves the refuge purpose(s), 
vision, and goals; helps fulfill the Refuge System mission; maintains 
and, where appropriate, restores ecological integrity; addresses the 
significant issues and relevant mandates; and is consistent with 
principles of sound fish and wildlife management.
    Comment: Incorporating ``compatibility determinations'' within the 
CCP process is a laudable goal. However, in light of the previously 
completed determinations, it may be advisable to allow this process to 
have its own time line independent from, but monitored by, the CCP 
process. These determinations may be examples where interim 
modifications (of the size or scope that would not require reopening 
the planning process) are needed between scheduled planning cycles. 
Additional guidance may be necessary to help determine when, where and 
how these interim modifications are made.
    Response: We believe that incorporating compatibility 
determinations in our refuge CCPs is both efficient and makes good 
sense. The degree of public review and opportunities to comment 
provided in the CCP process will be more than adequate to fully comply 
with the provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 
Act of 1997. We believe that we will be able to accommodate most, if 
not all, interim modifications required for these determinations 
through the revision procedures of the process. While we will likely 
accommodate many of these modifications without reopening the entire 
planning process, we will undoubtedly reopen some. The process will be 
able to accommodate both situations.
    Comment: A commenter expressed the concern that the lack of 
specific data should not impede the planning process, but rather 
incorporate and identify this shortcoming as a specific need of a 
particular refuge in the planning process. While the draft policy 
specifically mentions that the CCP can identify data needs as part of 
the plan, it does not provide direction to the effect that the planning 
process should continue and not be stalled as a result of incomplete 
data.
    Response: We revised the text of the policy in Step 1, 
``Preplanning: Planning the Plan, (e) Planning Area and Data Needs,'' 
to indicate that ``While we may not be able to develop new data for the 
CCP, we may identify the need for further data collection. A lack of 
data should not delay the completion of the CCP.''
    Comment: A concern has been raised regarding the ``Internal 
Reviews'' of the CCP, or subparts thereof, that are called for in the 
draft policy. In each reference to internal reviews, the draft policy 
directs that these should be conducted by ``* * * following established 
regional procedures,'' yet fails to identify what these procedures may 
be. The commenter believes that additional guidance is needed to 
provide a greater degree of consistency to the manner in which internal 
reviews are conducted.
    Response: The ``established regional procedures'' to which we refer 
deal primarily with the internal distribution of documents. We have 
revised the text of the policy in both Step 5, ``Prepare Draft Plan and 
NEPA Document, (d) Internal Review,'' and Step 6, ``Prepare and Adopt 
Final Plan, (c) Internal Review,'' to provide further guidance on the 
internal distribution of documents to include: ``* * * refuge program 
managers, ecosystem managers, refuge staff and other appropriate 
Service programs and divisions, as well as other agency partners.''
    Comment: From a public participation point of view, a commenter 
recommends that a generalized description of the types of circumstances 
in which ``categorical exemptions'' may be invoked would be helpful to 
include in the final policy. Another commenter noted that Section 2.4 C 
(8)(b) states that CCPs will be periodically reviewed and revised ``* * 
* generally through the use of a categorical exclusion.'' It was 
requested that the Service define exactly what category of actions, 
either individually or cumulatively, it determines will not have a 
significant effect on the human environment (40 CFR 1508.4).
    Response: When revising a CCP, we expect our decision makers to 
ensure that, when we can categorically exclude an action, the action 
does, in fact, comply with the requirements and limitations described 
in the categorical exclusion. Because most categorical exclusions apply 
to a variety of our actions and different program activities, it is not 
possible, nor desirable, to address in this policy all possible actions 
or situations covered by a given categorical exclusion. Our NEPA policy 
already provides such guidance (see 550 FW 3.3).
    Comment: The opening section of Part 602, (National Wildlife Refuge 
System Planning), Chapter 2, (Comprehensive Conservation Planning 
Process), says: ``it is not the intent of this policy to provide step-
by-step direction on how to prepare a CCP but rather to establish the 
requirements and standards to which we will hold all CCPs.'' However, 
``requirements and standards'' are either non-existent or very weak. 
Instead, the subsequent sections primarily describe the steps of the 
planning process. This is particularly apparent when it comes to 
wildlife-dependent recreational uses.
    Response: We have revised the text of the policy in Section 3.1 
(formerly Section 2.1), ``What is the purpose of this chapter?,'' to 
read, ``This policy provides guidance, step-by-step direction, and 
establishes minimum requirements for all CCPs.'' We will address the 
``requirements and standards'' to which we originally referred in Part 
601 of the Service Manual, ``Mission, Goals, and Purposes of the 
National Wildlife Refuge System,'' as well as through recommendations 
in Fulfilling the Promise: The National Wildlife Refuge System.
    Comment: After describing the steps to be taken to ensure public 
involvement in the scoping process in Section 2.4 B(2), the policy 
requires a review of the vision statement and goals to determine 
significant issues (Section 2.4 B(3)). Item B(3) says, ``based on this 
review, modify the vision and goals for the planning unit as 
appropriate.'' The planner needs to keep in mind that Congress has set 
certain policies and requirements for the administration of the Refuge 
System. The following sentences should be added to B(3)(a):
    ``We need to keep in mind that the law sets forth some very 
specific policies and requirements for the administration of the Refuge 
System. These include the basic mission of the System and the direction 
that compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and 
appropriate general public use of the

[[Page 33897]]

System, directly related to the mission of the System and the purposes 
of many refuges. Regardless of what may or may not develop during the 
public involvement and scoping process, the law requires that wildlife-
dependent recreational uses be facilitated and expanded.''
    Response: Step 2, ``Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping,'' 
instructs the planner to involve the public and gather comments on the 
existing vision statement, goals and objectives, potential issues, 
management actions and concerns, significant problems or impacts and 
opportunities or alternatives to resolve them. This is the very essence 
of the scoping process mandated by NEPA. Step 3, ``Review Vision 
Statement and Goals and Determine Significant Issues,'' further 
instructs the planner to review and evaluate the public's comments on 
the vision statement and goals and modify them as appropriate. It may 
not be appropriate to modify them based on the comments received. 
Professional planners understand that decisions are not based on 
majority opinion, and we charge them with making certain the public 
understands this most basic tenant of NEPA.
    Comment: The Service properly states that one of the goals for the 
CCP is to ``ensure that we manage each refuge to fulfill the mission of 
the System as well as the specific purposes for which we established 
that refuge.'' The purposes for which the refuge was established should 
be the very foundation of every CCP. Thus, each CCP should begin with a 
recitation of the goals for which that particular refuge was 
established, as enunciated in the text of the refuge's authorizing 
documentation, and a narrative of how those goals relate to and fulfill 
the NWRS mission. Such an approach would not only ensure adherence to 
the refuge's purposes and Refuge System mission, but would be 
consistent with the intent of Congress in enacting the Refuge 
Improvement Act.
    Response: Step 1, ``Preplanning: Planning the Plan,'' now includes 
a new Subsection (b) Identify Refuge Purpose(s), History, and 
Establishing Authority. We instruct those preparing CCPs to ``Document 
the history of refuge establishment and management, as well as refuge 
purposes and authorizing authority * * *'' which ``* * * will become 
driving forces in the process * * *'' This is the first task the newly 
formed planning team undertakes, and we include this important material 
in Chapter I, ``Introduction/Background'' of the CCP (also see Exhibit 
3-4).
    Comment: The Service's proposed policy would require additional 
expenditures of time on the part of FWS personnel, particularly Refuge 
System field personnel. There is concern that the demands imposed on 
Refuge Managers and their staffs by these proposed planning and related 
NEPA compliance requirements will adversely affect refuge staff's 
ability to maintain their commitment to current refuge operations, if 
additional funds and personnel are not made available. Thus, it is 
imperative that the level of commitment on the part of the Service 
toward proper planning and administration of the Refuge System be 
matched by a commitment from the Department of the Interior and 
Administration to seek an appropriate level of funding on a yearly 
basis, to provide additional staff and other resources, where needed.
    Response: We recognize this potential problem. Congress increased 
our budget in 1996 to include funding dedicated to the preparation of 
CCPs. Our regional and field offices are using these funds to provide 
professional planning staff and services to assist refuge field 
personnel in the preparation of their plans. The CCPs themselves also 
will document the increased staffing and funding levels required for 
their full implementation.
    Comment: Public participation is critical to the administration of 
a refuge and the Refuge System. Proposed Section 2.4 C (2)(a) appears 
to only provide the public with the ability to comment on the Notice of 
Intent to prepare a CCP only if the Service intends to prepare an EIS 
for the CCP. The public should have the ability to provide public 
comments as part of the scoping process when the Service intends to 
prepare a CCP, whether or not an EIS is drafted. This section should be 
amended to make clear that a comment period will follow the publication 
of a Notice of Intent to prepare a CCP, whether or not the Service 
intends to prepare an EIS, and if later in the process the Service 
decides to prepare an EIS, a public comment period would follow that 
announcement as well.
    Response: We did not intend to limit public participation during 
the scoping process. We have revised the text to remove any possible 
misconceptions concerning our desire to openly solicit public comment 
throughout the scoping process, whether or not we prepare an EIS. We 
have modified Section 3.4 C (2)(b) (formerly Section 2.4 C (2)(b)) to 
read: ``Public scoping will continue until we prepare a draft CCP/NEPA 
document.''
    Comment: Amend the proposed public review period for a draft CCP/
NEPA document to provide a 60-day comment period for an EA, as well as 
the currently proposed 60-day comment period when an EIS is to be 
drafted.
    Response: We modified the final policy (see 602 FW 3.4 C (5)(e)) to 
read, ``Provide a minimum of 30 days for public review of a draft CCP 
with an EA and 45 days for a draft CCP with an integrated EIS.'' The 
comment periods noted reflect the minimum comment periods authorized 
under current NEPA policies. We recognize that under many circumstances 
the comment period associated with a particular CCP will often be much 
longer depending on the nature and complexity of the plan.
    Comment: Scientific data, collected from governmental and non-
governmental organizations, academia and other sources are vital to 
refuge planning. Although the Service's draft policy acknowledges this 
importance, we feel that identifying the need for additional data is of 
equal importance to acknowledging the existence of data already in 
hand. The current reading of Section 2.4 C (1)(d) states that the 
planner ``can identify the need for additional data.'' Such language 
does not adequately emphasize the importance of developing additional 
data. Hence, we recommend that the last sentence of 2.4 C (1)(d) be 
modified as follows: ``You do not need to develop new data at the time 
of drafting the CCP. If current data exists, the CCP should state so 
and summarize the existing data; if no current data exists, the CCP 
should state so, and identify to the extent possible the type of data 
that will need to be developed.''
    Response: We have substantially revised the text of Section 3.4 C 
(1)(e) (formerly Section 2.4 C (1)(d)) based on a number of comments we 
received.
    Comment: 1.6 K. Planning Team Leader. Revise last sentence to read: 
``The Planning Team Leader manages the refuge planning process, and 
ensures compliance with applicable regulatory and policy 
requirements.''
    Response: We made the recommended change in the final policy. See 
602 FW 1.6 Q.
    Comment: 1.8 E. Planning Team Leader. Revise second sentence to 
read: ``The Planning Team Leader, in consultation with the Refuge 
Manager, is responsible for identifying appropriate and proper 
representation on the interdisciplinary planning team.* * *''
    Response: We made the recommended change in the final policy. See 
602 FW 1.8 E.
    Comment: 1.8 F. Refuge Supervisor. Insert at the end: ``Once the 
plan is approved by the Planning Team Leader

[[Page 33898]]

and the Refuge Manager, the Refuge Supervisor will also be responsible 
for review and approval of the plan prior to its submission to the next 
approval level.''
    Response: We made the recommended change, with slight modification, 
in the final policy. See 602 FW 1.8 F.
    Comment: 1.8 G. Refuge Manager. Revise second sentence to read: 
``The Refuge Manager assures that the refuge staff participates in plan 
development, and is responsible for its content in terms of information 
relating to management of refuge resources and use activities.''
    Response: The latter is the responsibility of the entire planning 
team, and not just the Refuge Manager. We have added this 
responsibility to 1.8 H., ``Planning Team.''
    Comment: Section 1.2, ``What does Part 602 apply to?'' should be 
amended to include at the end of the sentence, ``except coordination 
areas,'' to be consistent with Section 1.6 C, which states ``[w]e do 
not require CCPs for Coordination Areas.''
    Response: To clarify, Part 602 includes four parts. Part 602 FW 1 
is a general overview of refuge planning and addresses more than just 
CCPs. It applies to all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
    Comment: Although recreational and commercial trapping are clearly 
``wildlife-dependent recreational uses'' of the Refuge System, it is 
unclear whether the planning policy requires compatibility 
determinations for these activities. Although the Refuge Improvement 
Act does not identify trapping as a ``priority use'' of the Refuge 
System, trapping is still a ``wildlife-dependent recreational use'' and 
should therefore mandate production of a compatibility determination, 
with full public review and comment. This point should be clarified in 
the planning policy.
    Response: If a refuge plan included trapping as a use in our 
proposed action, it would require a compatibility determination under 
the provisions of this policy. We believe we adequately addressed this 
concern in Step 5, ``Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA Document, Subpart (b) 
Compatibility Determinations.'' This subpart requires refuge planners 
to ``Complete new compatibility determinations or re-evaluate existing 
compatibility determinations as part of the CCP process for all 
individual uses, specific use programs, or groups of uses associated 
with the proposed action, when adequate information is available and 
where possible.'' It further requires that we incorporate the draft 
compatibility determinations into the draft CCP as an appendix and 
obtain the required public review and comment as part of the draft CCP 
and NEPA document.
    Comment: The draft policy only lists trapping as a component of 
``Population Management'' in its list of step-down management plans in 
Section 3.5 of Part 602 FW 3. Step-down management plans are required 
for all hunting and fishing programs, but not for recreational and 
commercial trapping. The commenter interprets this to mean that 
commercial and recreational trapping will not be allowed on the 
National Wildlife Refuge System. If this interpretation is incorrect 
and commercial and recreational trapping will be allowed on the Refuge 
System, then the draft planning policy should include a step-down 
management plan for this wildlife-dependent recreational activity.
    Response: The commenter's interpretation is incorrect. Commercial 
and recreational trapping may be allowed on a refuge, but only if done 
as part of ``Population Management.'' As the commenter notes, we 
include ``Population Management'' in the list of step-down management 
plans. If trapping is to be a part of the management of wildlife 
populations, such as management of furbearer populations, protection of 
facilities, or controlling problem predators, we would require the 
refuge to address trapping and associated means of the population 
management program in such a plan. The reason that trapping does not 
appear on the list of priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses is 
that only the six activities listed therein are specifically identified 
in the Refuge Administration Act. Other refuge uses, whether listed on 
the list of step-down management plans specifically, or under a general 
category, will require planning and compliance, including a 
compatibility determination. As such, the current reference to trapping 
in 602 FW 4, Section 4.5, under ``Population Management'' was 
intentional and is correct.
    Comment: The Service needs to disentangle NEPA from the CCP 
process. To that end, the commenter recommends that we revise Section 
2.4 to require that an EA or an EIS be a document entirely independent 
of the CCP process. Alternately, the commenter requests that we justify 
the legal distinction behind the determination to integrate a NEPA 
document within a CCP and a determination to forego integration.
    Response: The language in Section 3.4 B (formerly Section 2.4 B) is 
correct. The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations 
require that ``to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare 
draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated 
with environmental impact analyses and related surveys and studies 
required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et 
seq.), the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et 
seq.), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and 
other environmental review laws and executive orders'' (40 CFR 
1502.25). The regulations also tie a similar requirement to the 
preparation of environmental assessments (40 CFR 1501.7(b)(3)). The 
confusion lies in the fact that the development of alternatives, 
analysis of impacts, and public participation occurs throughout this 
integrated process, up until the agency makes the final decision in the 
Record of Decision (ROD) (for an EIS) or a Finding of No Significant 
Impact (FONSI) or decision to prepare an EIS (for an EA). However, 
after the agency has made a decision on the content of the CCP, the CCP 
serves as the management plan for the Service. The NEPA document is 
useful then as a reference and to ensure that the Service maintains its 
commitment to the actions it intended to take, as analyzed in its NEPA 
document. The final policy recognizes the independent nature of the CCP 
following the completion of the integrated process.
    Comment: The draft policy authorizes the continuance of wildlife-
dependent recreational uses on an interim basis for lands newly 
acquired into the Refuge System, pending completion of a CCP. Section 
2.4 (5)(d) states: ``* * * the draft CCP and NEPA documents also must 
identify any existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses occurring on 
those lands. Also identify those uses deemed compatible that we may 
allow to continue on an interim basis once we acquire the lands, 
pending completion of a CCP.'' However, it is unclear what authority 
makes an interim compatibility determination for such wildlife-
dependent uses.
    Response: Section 668dd(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the National Wildlife 
Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as amended by the National 
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, states that: ``On lands 
added to the System after March 25, 1996, the Secretary shall identify, 
prior to acquisition, withdrawal, transfer, reclassification, or 
donation of any lands, existing compatible wildlife-dependent

[[Page 33899]]

recreational uses that the Secretary determines shall be permitted to 
continue on an interim basis pending completion of the comprehensive 
conservation plan for the refuge.'' We will use our compatibility 
policy to make such determinations.
    Comment: Section 2.4 B (6)(i), Part 602 FW 2 states that ``[I]n 
some cases, we may require a 30-day public review period for the 
FONSI.'' However, the proposed policy does not define what will trigger 
public review. This section should be revised to outline the criteria 
FWS will use to make this determination.
    Response: The CEQ established criteria for requiring such a review 
in the ``Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the 
National Environmental Policy Act'' (40 CFR 1500-1508), and Executive 
Orders 11988 (Floodplain Management) and 11990 (Protection of 
Wetlands). The regulations require public review ``* * * (a) if the 
proposal is a borderline case, i.e., when there is a reasonable 
argument for preparation of an EIS; (b) if it is an unusual case, a new 
kind of action, or a precedent-setting case such as a first intrusion 
of even a minor development into a pristine area; (c) when there is 
either scientific or public controversy over the proposal; or (d) when 
it involves a proposal which is or is closely similar to one which 
normally requires preparation of an EIS.'' The executive orders require 
public review if a proposed project would be built in and negatively 
impact a floodplain or wetland.
    Comment: Exhibit 2 lists 41 statutes and executive orders that must 
be considered during Comprehensive Conservation Planning. All of the 
listed statutes and executive orders provide for environmental or 
cultural protections while the authorities applying to FWS land 
management responsibilities are missing. The list would be complete if 
the following statutes and executive orders were added:
    1. Executive Order 12866 requiring economic impact analyses of any 
Federal action.
    2. Regulatory Flexibility Act requiring the evaluation of the 
effects of any proposed action on small entities.
    3. Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 that applies to the 
Secretary of the Interior in carrying out any program as may be 
authorized by any law.
    4. National Materials and Minerals Policy Research and Development 
Act of 1980, which mandates similar requirements as under the Mining 
and Minerals Policy Act.
    Response: We do not intend the list of statutes and executive 
orders in Exhibit 3-2 to be all inclusive. It is simply a list of some 
of the more common ones that apply to many refuges. Other statutes and 
executive orders, such as those cited, also must be taken into 
consideration by the refuges to which they specifically apply.
    Comment: The policy should have better requirements for public 
involvement so there is a consistent way for the public to be involved 
throughout the Refuge System. One commenter recommends the requirement 
for Federal Register notices for all CCPs at the scoping and public 
review stages, in addition to notices in local newspapers or radio. In 
many areas, refuge offices are not located within the actual refuge 
areas, so greater effort needs to be made to involve the public. Public 
notification and opportunity for comment should be required for all 
CCPs at the scoping phase when plan development or revision is 
initiated, in addition to a 30-60 day or more public comment period for 
draft plans. Copies of draft and final plans should be made available 
to any member of the public upon request and on a website. Statements 
that FWS shall ``develop and implement a process to ensure active 
public participation'' (see ``Planning and the NWRSIA-97) give a 
minimum standard that is woefully inadequate and sets the stage for 
poor performance. Although later sections of the policy better explain 
notice and comment procedures, there are loopholes indicating that not 
all CCPs will require full public input and review.
    Response: The policy, as currently written, requires full public 
input and review for all CCPs. Step 1, ``Preplanning: Planning the 
Plan,'' requires the preparation of a Public Involvement/Outreach Plan 
for each CCP, and notes that ``We integrate public involvement and 
outreach into each step and it continues throughout the planning 
process.'' Step 2, ``Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping,'' 
requires that we publish a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register for 
each CCP, and ``Using news releases to the local media and other 
appropriate means, (to) notify the affected public of the opportunity 
to participate in the preparation of the CCP * * *'' Step 2 also notes 
that ``Public scoping will continue until we prepare a draft CCP/NEPA 
document.'' Step 5, ``Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA Document,'' requires 
that we publish a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register for 
each CCP, and ``Notify the affected public of the availability of these 
documents through other appropriate means, as identified in the Public 
Involvement/Outreach Plan.'' Step 5 also requires that we ``Conduct 
appropriate public involvement activities as called for in the Public 
Involvement/Outreach Plan.'' Step 6, ``Prepare and Adopt Final Plan,'' 
requires that we ``Prepare a summary of the public comments received 
and a statement of the disposition of concerns expressed in those 
comments * * *'' Step 6 also requires that we publish a Notice of 
Availability of the final approved CCP and NEPA document(s) in the 
Federal Register. Step 8, ``Review and Revise Plan,'' calls for us to 
``Continue informing and involving the public through appropriate 
means.''
    Comment: One commenter commended the Service's statements in the 
draft planning policy that new wilderness reviews be conducted as one 
of the ``required elements'' of the CCP planning process but expressed 
disappointment that the draft policy does not provide guidance on how 
to conduct a wilderness review. (In fact, it alludes to a policy that 
has yet to be written.) Worse still, the policy includes a loophole 
that would allow refuges to defer wilderness reviews indefinitely. (A 
footnote to the policy reads: ``Some of these required elements may not 
be available. In these cases, you need to develop objectives or 
strategies in the plan to acquire that information.'')
    Response: We do not believe that our policy on National Wildlife 
Refuge System planning is the proper place to provide detailed guidance 
on conducting wilderness reviews. We will provide this guidance in the 
forthcoming Director's Order on ``Wilderness Review and Evaluation.'' 
This Director's Order will provide guidance on conducting wilderness 
reviews pending completion of Part 610 of the Fish and Wildlife Service 
Manual, ``Wilderness Management.'' Concerning the ``loophole,'' we have 
removed the footnote from Exhibit 3-3.
    Comment: Amend the policy to ensure that the vision statement for 
the refuge is clearly tied to the mission of the Refuge System, the 
purposes of the refuge, and the maintenance and restoration of 
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. The draft 
policy does not appear to provide guidance on the preparation of 
appropriate refuge visions.
    Response: We have revised the definition of ``Vision Statement'' 
accordingly. See 602 FW 1.6 Z. We also have added additional guidance 
on the preparation of refuge vision statements to 602 FW 3.4 C (1)(g).
    Comment: Some commenters requested that the Service add

[[Page 33900]]

information on the history of settlement, land use, and land tenure of 
the refuge planning area.
    Response: We have modified the policy by adding this item to 
Section 3.4 C (1)(e) and the Refuge Planning Checklist (Exhibit 3-3).
    Comment: Some comments were made about the National Wildlife Refuge 
System compatibility policy and process and the need to further explain 
its relationship to refuge planning.
    Response: When preparing Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) 
and Conceptual Management Plans, refuge planning teams will use the 
compatibility process outlined in the agency's compatibility policy as 
defined in regulations. (See 603 FW 2 of the Service Manual.) We do not 
find it necessary to duplicate this information herein.
    Comment: Some commenters requested that CCPs should provide 
supporting documentation and rationale for refuge objectives.
    Response: We have modified Section 3.4 C (4)(d) (Objective 
Development) to require that CCPs include a short narrative summary, 
including appropriate literature citations, which provides the 
rationale for each objective.
    Comment: Some commenters requested additional information on 
adaptive management and monitoring.
    Response: The refuge planning policy only touches on the need for 
adaptive management and monitoring to assure that we are meeting refuge 
purposes, goals, and objectives and that management strategies are 
appropriate. We will develop additional Service policy and guidance on 
both the adaptive management process and monitoring.
    Comment: Some commenters requested that the policy include examples 
of planning products, such as statements for refuge goals, objectives, 
and strategies.
    Response: We find that having a number of examples in the actual 
policy is not appropriate. What we have done and will continue to 
improve upon, is to provide a handbook on developing quality goals, 
objectives, and strategies. Also, the National Conservation Training 
Center course on Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Planning provides 
both a training session as well as an expanded guide of resource 
material, including many examples of planning products. It is our 
intent to keep this information current and up-to-date with the best 
available information and examples.
    Comment: Comments were raised which asked us to identify the 
standards for measuring Service success in achieving Refuge System and 
refuge planning goals.
    Response: In general, our measure of success is as follows: (1) 
complete plans; (2) implementation is preceding; and (3) monitoring and 
evaluation are under way to help assess and determine successful 
management actions. Additionally, we are in the process of developing a 
new policy chapter for the National Wildlife Refuge System, which will 
include identification of Refuge System goals. We have identified 
refuge planning goals in Chapter 1 of our planning policy. We also have 
initiated a process for national review of refuge CCPs to help us 
evaluate our planning process and products, including the capability to 
measure our successes and establishing standards to assure we are 
achieving our goals. We also are developing further guidance on 
adaptive management and monitoring, which will play key roles in 
determining the success of the refuge planning process. We sense that 
it may take a number of years until we can make an adequate assessment 
of the planning process and the resulting products before we can fully 
identify such measures and standards. As we further develop and refine 
this information, including it in future updates of the refuge planning 
policy will be appropriate. We invite feedback from the public and 
other agencies on our successes and needs for refinement throughout our 
planning efforts.
    Comment: Some commenters asked how we would determine whether a CCP 
should be prepared for a single refuge or a complex of refuges.
    Response: We will determine the scope of a CCP on an individual, 
case-by-case basis. Developing a CCP or CCPs for an administrative 
complex of refuges is ecologically efficient and generally our desired 
approach. However, in many cases, doing single refuge plans, or plans 
for less than an entire refuge complex, may be more effective and 
efficient.
    Comment: Some questions were raised about the lead 
responsibilities, coordination and organizational relationship for 
developing CCPs within the Service.
    Response: The Refuges and Wildlife Program has the lead in 
preparing plans (see ``Who is responsible for implementing our 
policy?,'' 602 FW 1.8).
    Comment: A recommendation was made to provide a review copy of the 
draft CCP to all resource experts who contribute to a CCP's 
development.
    Response: We changed the policy in Section 3.4 C(5)(e) to reflect 
this recommendation.
    Comment: Commenters requested that the Service clarify the 
definition of ``objective,'' and expand upon the description of the 
objective development process, including explaining how objectives 
should be worded.
    Response: We have included a revised definition of objectives in 
Section 1.6 N and a revised and expanded description of the objective 
development process in Section 3.4 C(4)(d).
    Comment: Section 602 FW 1.3 and various other sections in the draft 
policy indicate that the plans will ``contribute to'' the System 
mission. In each such instance, the phrase ``contribute to'' should be 
replaced with the word ``fulfills.''
    Response: We slightly modified the recommended change in the final 
policy to read, ``help fulfill the Refuge System mission.''
    Comment: The policy should call for bold vision statements of what 
the planning unit should be, or what we hope to do. The draft language 
in Section 602 FW 1.6 S uses words that are passive and indirect (what 
the planning unit ``could be'').
    Response: We made the recommended change in the final policy. See 
602 FW 1.6 Z.
    Comment: Section 2.4 C(1)(d) should be modified to place the 
emphasis squarely on conservation of wildlife, habitat, and biological 
integrity, where it belongs. The Service should establish a two-stage 
process that first identifies and describes the management steps that 
are necessary to accomplish the first priority (``wildlife first'') and 
only then determine what opportunities for wildlife-dependent 
recreation will be provided (``wildlife-dependent recreation second'').
    Response: The Refuge Improvement Act clearly states that wildlife 
comes first on refuges. We only would allow those wildlife-dependent 
uses deemed compatible and appropriate to occur. Section 602 FW 3.4 
C(1)(e) (formerly Section 602 FW 2.4 C(1)(d)) identifies the steps in 
preplanning. At this stage we are gathering information only. Hence, we 
see no need to establish a two-stage process as suggested.
    Comment: A two-stage process is also recommended for determining 
goals and objectives: wildlife comes first, wildlife-dependent 
recreation comes second. There is a fear that the draft policy would 
mix wildlife conservation and recreation together.
    Response: Again, we see no need to establish a two-stage process as 
suggested. The Refuge Improvement Act makes it quite clear that 
wildlife comes first on National Wildlife Refuges.

[[Page 33901]]

    Comment: Section 602 FW 2.4 C(1)(d) states that ``You do not need 
to develop new data for the CCP.'' This statement belies the 
commitments in Fulfilling the Promise to address the Refuge System's 
biological shortcomings. This sentence should be replaced with an 
admonition that a certain level of information is necessary before the 
planning process can be initiated in earnest.
    Response: We made the recommended change in the final policy. We 
modified 602 FW 3.4 C(1)(e) (formerly 602 FW 2.4 C(1)(d)) to read: 
``While we may not be able to develop new data for the CCP, we may 
identify the need for further data collection. A lack of data should 
not delay the completion of the CCP.''
    Comment: Section 602 FW 2.4 C(1)(d)(i) should be reworded to ensure 
that CCPs identify and describe the ``current and historic 
distribution, migration patterns, and abundance of fish, wildlife, and 
plants * * *'' In addition, this section should be amended to identify 
and describe ``those fish, wildlife, and plants that are rare and/or 
declining within the regional ecological context within which the 
planning unit occurs.''
    Response: Although we added the suggested language regarding rare 
and/or declining species to the final policy (see 602 FW 3.4 
C(1)(e)(vii)), language pertaining to the ``distribution, migration 
patterns, and abundance of fish, wildlife, and plants'' remains 
unchanged to be consistent with language that appears in the Refuge 
Improvement Act. To help address the commenter's concern, we modified 
602 FW 3.4 C(1)(e)(v) in the final policy to read, ``Current and 
historic description of the flora and fauna, and the diversity of 
habitats and natural communities.''
    Comment: Section 602 FW 2.4 C(1)(d)(iii) should be reworded to 
ensure that CCPs identify and describe the ``current and historic 
diversity of habitats and natural communities and those habitats and 
communities that are rare and/or declining within the regional 
ecological context within which the planning unit occurs.'' In 
addition, Section 602 FW 2.4 C(1)(d)(vii) should be reworded to ensure 
that the plans identify and describe the ``current and historic role of 
fire and other natural processes.''
    Response: We incorporated the suggested changes, with slight 
modification, into the final policy. See 602 FW 3.4 C(1)(d)(v), (viii), 
and (xiii).
    Comment: Section 602 FW 2.4 C(2)(c) should be modified so as to 
ensure that planners ``identify any new information, issues, concerns * 
* *''
    Response: We made the recommended change in the final policy. See 
602 FW3.4 C(2)(c).
    Comment: Section 602 FW 2.4 C(4)(d) should be modified to adopt a 
System-wide general policy for implementing the Refuge Improvement 
Act's monitoring requirement.
    Response: A System-wide policy that addresses monitoring within the 
Refuge System already exists in 701 FW 2 of the Service Manual. We are 
currently revising this policy guidance and will address the monitoring 
mandates of the Refuge Improvement Act, as necessary.
    Comment: Concurrent with the publication of the final planning 
policy, the Service must publish interim guidance on how wilderness 
reviews are to be conducted. The guidance should state that the reviews 
should include: (1) An inventory of all qualifying areas, (2) an 
analysis of the suitability for their designation as wilderness, and 
(3) a recommendation for wilderness designation.
    Response: We expect that both the interim and final policy on 
wilderness will include inventory, study, and recommendation as steps 
needed to complete wilderness reviews. The inventory of the refuge 
should be broad-based to determine what areas would qualify as 
wilderness. The study would analyze in detail the resources, values, 
uses, and other characteristics of the qualifying areas (Wilderness 
Study Areas). The recommendation follows the study and would depend on 
its conclusions.
    Comment: Section 1.7 A should be modified by adding ``or critical 
habitat designations or proposals'' after the words ``endangered 
species recovery plans.'' In addition, Section 2.4 C(1)(d)(xiii) should 
be amended to read ``Existing special management areas or designations 
(e.g., wilderness, critical habitat designation or proposal, research 
natural area * * *).''
    Response: We believe the recommended change is unnecessary since 
the list is not meant to be all inclusive.
    Comment: A new Section 2.4 C(1)(d)(xiv) should be added that 
indicates ``Opportunities to reintroduce endangered, threatened, 
candidate, or other rare species to the planning unit.''
    Response: We do not believe this information is appropriate to 
include in a section dealing with preplanning data needs (602 FW 3.4 
C(1)(e)). Such actions would be more appropriate to include in the 
range of alternatives in the NEPA document.
    Comment: Section 602 FW 2.4 C(5)(a) should be modified as follows: 
``Ensure that no activities are authorized on a national wildlife 
refuge that may interfere with the recovery of a threatened or 
endangered species, and ensure compliance regarding other programs and 
policies, including the Clean Water Act * * *''
    Response: We believe the current language in 602 FW 3.4 C (5)(a) 
that states ``Ensure compliance regarding other programs and policies, 
including Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; Sections 401 and 404 
of the Clean Water Act * * *'' already addresses the above concerns.
    Comment: Section 1.5 F should be amended to reflect the Refuge 
Improvement Act by adding at the end ``and to ensure that these uses 
receive enhanced consideration over general public uses in the Refuge 
System.''
    Response: We made the recommended change in the final policy. See 
602 FW 1.5 G.
    Comment: Section 2.4 C (1)(d) should be amended by adding at the 
end a new paragraph ``(xv) Conflicts that may occur or be expected to 
occur between non-priority uses and priority uses of the planning 
unit.''
    Response: We believe this information is more appropriate in the 
section dealing with environmental consequences (602 FW 3.4 C (4)(f)) 
rather than the section dealing with preplanning data needs (formerly 
602 FW 2.4 C (1)(d)). We made the suggested change in the final policy. 
See 602 FW 3.4 C (4)(f).
    Comment: Planning requirements should be issued as regulations not 
as policy. Comprehensive Conservation Planning is an integral part of 
the Refuge Improvement Act, and issuing planning regulations to 
implement the Act is entirely consistent with Congressional and 
Administrative intent to promulgate nationally consistent plans for the 
Refuge System. This is an opportunity to institutionalize better 
science and clear national direction and maintain this guidance through 
changes in agency personnel, changes in agency structure, and changes 
in administrations. This would increase consistency, accountability, 
and enforceability within the Refuge System. Further, if promulgated as 
regulations, the Service would have additional justification to 
increase funding for refuge planning because the provisions of the 
regulations would be mandatory, as opposed to discretionary.
    Response: We assume that the commenter intended to suggest that our 
planning requirements be published in the Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) rather than in the Service Manual. We believe that one of the 
main objectives of this effort is to institutionalize better

[[Page 33902]]

science and clear direction that will be maintained regardless of 
changes in personnel, etc. We believe that, for a number of reasons, 
the Service Manual, rather than the CFR, is the proper vehicle.
    The issuance of planning requirements as part of the Service Manual 
will accomplish the requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Administration Act, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Improvement Act. Publishing planning rules in the Service Manual rather 
than the CFR does not diminish the requirements that they contain. 
Refuge Managers will be bound by those requirements that are mandatory 
whether or not we publish them in the CFR. In addition, because the 
planning chapters contain rules, we will have to use the same notice 
and comment procedure utilized to adopt these chapters if we decide to 
amend or change them.
    We have chosen to use the Service Manual because: (1) The 
requirements are primarily working rules of procedure for Refuge 
Managers to follow with regard to areas that they manage; (2) the 
planning chapters contain a mix of rules that we must follow and 
general guidance that we normally will adhere to but that we may 
deviate from as the particular situation warrants; (3) the planning 
chapters do not directly regulate the public; (4) the planning chapters 
and the Service Manual are available to the public through either the 
Department of the Interior or the Fish and Wildlife Service home pages 
on the World Wide Web or by request made to any refuge or Service 
field, regional, or headquarters office and, therefore, are as 
available to the public as they would be if published in the CFR; and 
(5) publishing in the Service Manual rather than the CFR does not 
affect the strength of any rules that are in the chapters nor does it 
exempt us from procedural requirements.
    Comment: The introductory sections of the draft planning policy 
identify an important and useful set of refuge planning goals (Sections 
1.5 and 2.3). Especially important are the goals of ensuring that the 
System ``contributes to the conservation of biological diversity and 
integrity and to the structure and function of the ecosystems of the 
United States'' (Section 1.5 B) and encouraging that refuge planning be 
done in concert with an ecosystem approach (Section 2.3 C). However, 
those goals are not clearly identified as ``national policy'' and they 
are not integrated into the development of a vision and goals. While 
there is strong support for basing future refuge management on 
ecosystem goals, this emphasis needs to be much more clearly 
articulated.
    Response: We recognize the need to establish national policy 
regarding Refuge System goals. This policy is currently under 
development and will eventually appear as 601 FW 1 of the Service 
Manual. We expect this policy to be available for public review and 
comment in spring 2000.
    Comment: The definition of ``all available information'' should be 
adopted from the Proposed Compatibility Regulations (64 FR 49056) which 
includes as sources of information ``planning documents, environmental 
assessments, environmental impact statements, annual narratives, 
information from previously conducted or on-going research, data from 
refuge inventories or studies, published literature on related 
biological studies, State conservation management plans, field 
management experience, etc.''
    Response: We made the recommended change in the final policy. See 
602 FW 3.4 C (1)(e).
    Comment: The FWS must ensure that plans at the national, regional, 
and ecosystem levels are in place before refuge planning begins. The 
current schedule for CCP completion does not consider whether larger-
scale priorities are in place, and does not provide enough time to 
develop sound individual CCPs. If this recommendation is not adopted, 
Refuge Managers must at the very least be required to state minimum 
inventory needs in their plans, if for no other reason than to ensure 
that they have the minimum baseline data they need in order to write 
their next plan.
    Response: We will coordinate CCP schedules so that they follow 
completion of national, regional, and ecosystem plans whenever 
possible. However, we recognize that in some instances we will develop 
CCPs before ecosystem and other plans are in place or updated. Our 
policy is to make management decisions using a thorough assessment of 
available science derived from scientific literature, on-site refuge 
data, expert opinion, and sound professional judgment. In situations 
where we are unable to develop new data for the CCP, the plan may 
identify the need for further data collection. In such cases we may 
delay decision making, pending additional data collection and analysis.
    Comment: A section in the planning policy should be dedicated to 
issues external to refuge boundaries including how land acquisition and 
other ecosystem management tools fit in the context of Comprehensive 
Conservation Planning.
    Response: We recognize the need for this additional guidance. 
Consequently, we will be adding an additional chapter, Land Protection 
Planning (602 FW 2), to the Service Manual in the near future.
    Comment: Endangered and threatened species should be addressed 
separately within the planning policy. The Service's recommendations 
should provide direction for specific conservation and recovery 
planning for threatened and endangered species. Each refuge should be 
required to integrate specific threatened and endangered species 
Conservation and Recovery Plan implementation tasks into their CCP.
    Response: We do not believe there is a need to address endangered 
and threatened species separately within our policy. We address 
endangered and threatened species concerns at various steps throughout 
the planning process (see 602 FW 1.7 A and 602 FW 3.4 C (1)(a), (1)(e), 
(4)(d), (4)(f), (5)(a)). We agree that we should integrate Conservation 
and Recovery Plan implementation tasks for threatened and endangered 
species into refuge CCPs, where applicable. We advocate the development 
of goals, objectives, and strategies for the recovery and conservation 
of threatened and endangered species for any refuge with the potential 
for such.
    Comment: The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) has identified 
four practical steps to successfully implementing ecosystem management 
(RCED-99-64). The Service should identify opportunities to make the 
proposed planning process more consistent with these steps, to ease the 
transition to an ecosystem approach. It is believed that the steps for 
ecosystem management that GAO has identified are consistent with the 
Refuge Improvement Act and with the Service's compatibility approach to 
determining the appropriateness of refuge uses.
    Response: We feel the recommended change is beyond the scope of 
this policy.
    Comment: Section 2.4C (1)(d) should be modified to require 
identification of the relationship between the planning unit and its 
watershed, and planning teams should be encouraged to identify water 
quality threats by collaborating with the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA).
    Response: We see no need to specifically mention the relationship 
between the planning unit and its watershed since this relationship is 
encompassed by 602 FW 3.4 C (1)(e)(ii). With regard to the 
identification of

[[Page 33903]]

water quality threats, we have incorporated the above suggestion with 
the exception that we did not specifically mention collaboration with 
the EPA. We added text to 602 FW 3.4 C (1)(e) that states: ``Obtain 
information from Federal, Tribal, State, and local agencies * * *'' We 
imply consultation with the EPA, as appropriate.
    Comment: The Forest Service rule, released on October 5, 1999, 
acknowledges the dynamic nature, uncertainty and inherent variability 
of ecological systems of which we have incomplete data and knowledge. 
As a result the Forest Service explicitly encourages that variable 
natural processes be considered when defining desired future ecological 
conditions. The Forest Service also shifts its perspective from a focus 
on habitat and population to a focus on the ecosystem conditions 
necessary to assure a high likelihood of maintaining the viability of 
native and desired non-native species over time within the plan area. 
This shift in perspective would benefit the management of wildlife 
refuges as well.
    Response: We recognize the benefit of looking at the ecosystem 
context of each refuge. Our policy provides direction for the Refuge 
Manager and planning team to assess ecological conditions of the 
watershed, ecosystem, and the relationship to the refuge (see 602 FW 
1.7). Our policy also provides direction for adaptive management and 
monitoring, as well as direction to change refuge management in the 
event of new circumstances or information (see 602 FW 3). The Service 
also has existing policy and guidance on ecosystem management and will 
be developing new policy and guidance on ecological integrity.
    Comment: Section 2.4 C (1)(d) should be modified to direct the 
planning team to identify and describe as appropriate, the structures, 
components, and functions of the ecosystem(s) of which the refuge is a 
part. In addition, Section 2.4 C (4)(d) should be modified to direct 
planning teams to develop objectives for ecosystem structures, 
components, and functions to maintain or restore the ecological health 
of the refuge.
    Response: We revised Section 3.4 C (1)(e) to reflect that the 
planning team should identify and describe the structures, components, 
and functions of the ecosystem(s) of which the planning unit is a part. 
However, we do not believe the planning team should be responsible for 
developing objectives related to the larger ecosystem. This 
responsibility belongs to our ecosystem teams.
    Comment: Section 2.4 C (3)(b) should be modified to require that 
planning teams ``determine significant issues and the appropriate scale 
at which to consider those issues.''
    Response: We made the recommended change in the final policy. See 
602 FW 3.4 C (3)(b).
    Comment: The Forest Service rule proposed that ``focal species'' 
should be selected to serve as surrogate measures in the assessment of 
ecological integrity. We believe that with limited resources for 
monitoring and a need to assess the health of refuge habitats and 
ecological processes, the Service should adopt this strategy for 
monitoring ecological health. Specifically, 602 FW 2.4 C (7) should be 
modified to require monitoring of focal species, since their status and 
time trend provide insights into the integrity of the larger ecological 
system to which refuges belong, and ecological health is a strong 
overarching indicator of whether refuge management is generally 
successful or requires significant modification.
    Response: We feel this recommendation is more appropriately 
addressed in 701 FW 2 (the Service Manual chapter dealing with 
inventory and monitoring). This policy, currently under revision, will 
help provide guidance on how to accomplish monitoring strategies 
identified in the CCP.
    Comment: It would be useful for Refuge Managers to seek out 
information regarding trends in refuge ecological conditions. It is 
important not only to know the current status of refuge conditions, but 
also whether they are improving or declining, in order to most 
effectively prioritize management activities. Hence, Section 2.4 C 
(1)(d) should be modified to read: ``Identify and describe the 
following conditions and their trends as appropriate.''
    Response: We made the recommended change in the final policy. See 
602 FW 3.4 C (1)(e).
    Comment: It is recommended that Section 2.4 (1)(d) be amended so 
that planning teams would be strongly encouraged to collaborate with 
adjacent landowners including State, Federal, Tribal, and private 
landowners, especially to acquire data that may be relevant to planning 
decisions. Furthermore, planning teams should be encouraged to 
collaborate as appropriate with the Environmental Protection Agency, 
the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service and Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, the Department of Commerce's National Marine 
Fisheries Service, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and 
relevant bureaus within the Department of the Interior such as the U.S. 
Geological Survey. Each of these agencies may be able to provide 
information that may dramatically improve the quality of CCPs with 
limited expense by the Service.
    Response: We incorporated the above suggestion into the final 
policy. We added language to 602 FW 3.4 C (1)(e) which states: ``Obtain 
information from Federal, Tribal, State and local agencies, and private 
landowners concerning land management issues that may impact or relate 
to the planning unit.'' We also substantially modified this section of 
the draft policy to include a wide variety of additional sources of 
information we will consult during the preplanning stage.
    Comment: Section 2.4 C (3)(b) limits the consideration of issues in 
the CCP to those that are determined to be ``significant'' by the 
planning team. To ensure consistency across refuge units and to ensure 
that important ecological or public use issues are not excluded from 
consideration in some plans, it is necessary to establish criteria for 
determining which issues are ``significant'' and thereby warrant 
consideration in the CCP.
    Response: We incorporated the above recommendation into the final 
policy. We added the following language to the end of Section 602 FW 
3.4 C (3)(b): ``Significant issues typically are those that are: within 
our jurisdiction, suggest different actions or alternatives, and will 
influence our decision.''
    Comment: Section 2.4 C (4) should be significantly modified to 
ensure wildlife conservation objectives are considered first in the 
planning process. In addition, another slight modification of this 
section should be considered. For example, 602 FW 2.4 C (4)(e) directs 
planning teams to ``develop inventory and monitoring strategies to 
measure implementation results in quantifiable and verifiable ways.'' 
This should be elaborated to include direction to prioritize inventory 
and monitoring efforts in a manner ``that maximizes the usefulness of 
acquired information in directing management activities toward the 
improved ecological health of the refuge.'' This additional direction 
will lead to a more productive use of limited resources for monitoring.
    Response: We feel this recommendation is more appropriately 
addressed in 701 FW 2 (the Service Manual chapter dealing with 
inventory and monitoring). This policy, currently under revision, will 
provide guidance on how to accomplish monitoring strategies identified 
in the CCP.

[[Page 33904]]

VII. Describing the Relationship of CCPs to Refuge Purposes and Refuge 
System Mission

    Comment: Some commenters requested that the agency not overlook the 
quality of the individual refuges for sake of the ``System.''
    Response: Many sections of the policy identify the need for the 
planning team to acknowledge individual refuge purposes and functions. 
For example, see Sections 1.3 and 3.1.
    Comment: Some comments were received that requested the CCP policy 
provide more guidance on the implications of the Service's ecosystem 
approach to refuge planning and management. In particular, it has been 
noted that while the Service's ecosystem approach has goals for the 
effective conservation of natural biological diversity, and the 
perpetuation of natural communities, many refuges have created or 
possess artificial habitats, croplands, dikes and other structures. It 
has been pointed out that more guidance may be needed to help reconcile 
the differences between areas which may be managed for ``naturalness'' 
and those that may need to be highly manipulated or developed to 
support objectives.
    Response: We recognize the great variability in the Refuge System. 
Many areas are representative of intact ecosystems or vegetation 
communities, while we may have developed others to provide for wetland 
habitats lost at a greater scale. We will require refuge planning 
efforts to review a host of information, including establishing 
authorities, refuge purposes, past management practices, ecosystem and 
watershed goals, activities of neighboring lands, and species goals and 
objectives throughout their ranges. Goals for the restoration or 
maintenance of biological diversity will be high on our list of 
priorities for many refuges, however, it will not be appropriate for 
every refuge in the Refuge System. For unless restoration of wildlife 
habitat takes place on vast developed areas so that we no longer have 
to manage highly manipulated refuges to make up for the loss of 
wetlands or the recovery and restoration of habitats for endangered 
species, some of our refuge management will continue to be 
``unnatural,'' yet for the benefit of numerous wildlife species. We 
will be working nationally, and with our partners, to help identify and 
define how units of the Refuge System can best contribute to 
maintaining biodiversity and the context of each refuge within the 
greater ecosystem and landscape.

VIII. Addressing Issues Related to Recreation and Public Use

    Comment: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act makes 
it clear that part of the planning process must be to consider, on a 
priority basis, wildlife-dependent uses and to facilitate such uses. In 
order to carry out the intent of Congress, the Service should add real 
``requirements and standards'' to assure that adequate attention is 
paid to wildlife. For example, there should be language in Section 2.3 
dealing with wildlife-dependent uses. This section sets out the goals 
for Comprehensive Conservation Planning mentioning the ecosystem 
concept, the use of sound professional judgment, public comment and 
several other ``goals,'' but nowhere does it refer to the goal of 
giving priority consideration to wildlife-dependent uses or to 
facilitating them. The commenter recommends the insertion of a new 
Subsection E, reading as follows, and the re-lettering of the existing 
Subsections, E, F, and G:
    ``E. To assure that wildlife-dependent recreational uses receive 
priority consideration during the planning process and that plans 
include steps to facilitate such uses.''
    Response: We have inserted a new Subsection 602 FW 3.3 E in the 
final policy that reads: ``To ensure that the six priority wildlife-
dependent recreational uses receive priority consideration during the 
preparation of CCPs.'' We have re-lettered subsequent subsections F, G, 
and H.
    Comment: In Section 2.4 B (1)(d), which deals with ``planning area, 
data needs, and data standards'' in the preplanning process, item (x) 
should be expanded. Currently, that item says that the planning team 
should ``identify and describe the following * * * (x) opportunities 
for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.'' This is quite weak 
compared to the stress on ``facilitating'' wildlife-dependent 
recreational uses contained in the Refuge Improvement Act. Item (x) 
should be revised to read as follows:
    ``(x) existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses, opportunities 
for continuing, facilitating and expanding such uses, and strategies to 
accomplish such continuation, facilitation and expansion.''
    Response: We have modified the wording in Step 1, ``Preplanning: 
Planning the Plan, (e) Planning Area and Data Needs'' (602 FW 3.4 C 
(1)(e)), to read as follows: ``(xix) Existing and potential 
opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation.'' Developing the 
strategies associated with continuing, facilitating, or expanding such 
uses more appropriately belongs in Step 4, ``Develop and Analyze 
Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action, (e) Strategy 
Development.''
    Comment: In Section 2.4 B(1)(f), Vision and Goals, the third 
sentence contains a reference to ``compatible wildlife-dependent 
recreation'' in discussing the minimum goals that should be included in 
a CCP. This sentence should be expanded to read:
    ``At a minimum, each refuge should develop goals within the 
following management areas: the continuation, facilitation and 
expansion of opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation 
* * *''
    Response: We believe the policy's current wording is appropriate.
    Comment: Section 2.4 B(1)(g), Internal Scoping, refers to 
identification of problems with wildlife and habitats, assessments of 
water quality and quantity, potential need for administrative sites or 
visitor facilities, land acquisition, and controversial management 
actions. There is no reference at all to the continuation, facilitation 
and expansion of wildlife-dependent uses! The following sentence should 
be added to this provision:
    ``We also need to evaluate the current or potential wildlife-
dependent uses and consider opportunities to continue, facilitate and 
expand such uses.''
    Response: We have moved the list to which you refer to Section 3.4 
C (1)(e) ``Planning Area and Data Needs,'' and have added the following 
item, ``(xix) Existing and potential opportunities for wildlife-
dependent recreation.''
    Comment: There is concern that with no public review and comment 
process in place, some wildlife-dependent uses may be allowed that are 
detrimental to the refuge and/or to wildlife inhabiting the refuge. 
Such uses may be allowed for many years, as refuges are not required to 
prepare CCPs until October 2012. The planning policy should reflect 
that a public review and comment process will be implemented for all 
interim wildlife-dependent uses.
    Response: We believe we adequately addressed this concern in Step 
5, ``Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA Document, Subpart (c) Pre-acquisition 
Compatibility Determinations.'' This subpart requires that: ``If our 
proposed action includes expanding the planning unit by acquiring new 
lands, the draft CCP and NEPA documents also must identify any existing 
wildlife-dependent recreational public uses deemed compatible that we 
will allow to continue after acquisition.'' The public will have an 
opportunity to review and comment on all compatibility determinations. 
Our refuge planning

[[Page 33905]]

policy directs that we incorporate pre-acquisition compatibility 
determinations into the draft CCP and NEPA document, where they will 
receive their required public review and comment.
    Comment: A few commenters stated confusion with, or recommended 
changes to, the definition of wildlife-dependent recreational uses. In 
particular, some suggested we reconsider trapping, and other uses, as a 
wildlife-dependent recreational use.
    Response: While we recognize that trapping of animals may be a form 
of wildlife-dependent recreation, the Refuge Administration Act, as 
amended, binds our definition of wildlife-dependent recreational uses, 
which only includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 
photography, environmental education and interpretation. These are the 
priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. We 
recognize that we may consider other recreational and other activities, 
such as trapping, during the planning process. Such other uses or 
activities proposed on a refuge may or may not be both appropriate on 
the refuge and compatible with refuge purposes. We would not label 
other recreational uses that we find to be appropriate and compatible 
through the planning process as wildlife-dependent recreational uses, 
but would place them in a category of other recreation. Specific to 
trapping, we note that in many cases we would classify this activity as 
a commercial use, and require a permit and compatibility determination. 
We acknowledge that many of the wildlife-dependent recreational uses 
are ``more than recreation,'' in that the outdoor experience can 
provide the visitor with a wealth of experiences. However, we support 
and are bound by the definition in the Act.
    Comment: At least one commenter requested that we consider 
establishing carrying capacities for public uses and other uses.
    Response: The Service is developing new policies on habitat 
management, priority wildlife-dependent recreation, and refuge uses 
(appropriate uses). We will recommend that carrying capacities be 
considered in the development of these policies.

Primary Author

    Charles J. Houghten, Acting Chief, Division of Refuge Planning, 
Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the primary author 
of this notice.
Refuge Management--Part 602 National Wildlife Refuge System Planning

Chapter 1 Refuge Planning Overview.--602 FW 1

    1.1  What is the purpose of Part 602 and this chapter? Part 602 
provides guidance for National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) 
planning, including specific chapters on the Comprehensive Conservation 
Planning Process (602 FW 3) and Step-Down Management Plans (602 FW 4). 
This chapter (602 FW 1) provides an overview of refuge planning. We 
will add an additional chapter, Land Protection Planning (602 FW 2), in 
the near future.
    1.2  To what does Part 602 apply? Part 602 applies to all units of 
the National Wildlife Refuge System.
    1.3  What is our policy for managing refuges? The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (Service or we) will manage all refuges in accordance 
with an approved Comprehensive Conservation Plan (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. We also may 
require step-down management plans to provide additional details about 
meeting CCP goals and objectives and to describe strategies and 
implementation schedules. Each plan will be founded on principles of 
sound fish and wildlife management and available science, and be 
consistent with legal mandates and our other policies, guidelines, and 
planning documents. We will prepare refuge plans that, above all else, 
ensure that wildlife comes first on national wildlife refuges.
    1.4  What are our authorities? Authorities listed below include 
laws that require us to manage units of the Refuge System in accordance 
with approved CCPs and to integrate refuge planning decisions with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.
    A. National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as 
amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 
16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee (Refuge Administration Act). This law states that 
``* * * the Secretary shall--(i) propose a comprehensive conservation 
plan for each refuge or related complex of refuges * * * in the System; 
(ii) publish a notice of opportunity for public comment in the Federal 
Register on each proposed conservation plan; (iii) issue a final 
conservation plan for each planning unit consistent with the provisions 
of this Act and, to the extent practicable, consistent with fish and 
wildlife conservation plans of the State in which the refuge is 
located; and (iv) not less frequently than 15 years after the date of 
issuance of a conservation plan under clause (iii) and every 15 years 
thereafter, revise the conservation plan as may be necessary.'' This 
law provides additional detail on conservation planning for the Refuge 
System. Above all else, the law directs that wildlife comes first in 
the National Wildlife Refuge System. It does so by establishing that 
wildlife conservation is the principal mission of the Refuge System; by 
requiring that we maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and 
environmental health of each refuge and the Refuge System; and by 
mandating that we monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and 
plants on each refuge.
    B. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 as 
amended, 16 U.S.C. 140hh-3233, 43 U.S.C. 1602-1784 (ANILCA). Section 
304 states, in part, ``The Secretary shall prepare, and from time to 
time, revise, a comprehensive conservation plan * * * for each 
refuge.'' You may find additional guidance on the content of these 
plans and management direction in this and other sections of ANILCA. If 
any provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 
of 1997 conflict with the provisions of ANILCA, the provisions of 
ANILCA will prevail for refuges in Alaska.
    C. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, 42 
U.S.C. 4321-4347, and the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) 
Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, 40 CFR 
1500-1508. NEPA is the basic national charter for protection of the 
environment. The procedural provisions in CEQ's regulations require 
Federal agencies to integrate the NEPA process with other planning at 
the earliest possible time in order to provide a systematic 
interdisciplinary approach; identify and analyze the environmental 
effects of their actions; describe appropriate alternatives to the 
proposal; involve the affected State and Federal agencies, Tribal 
governments, and the affected public in the planning and decision-
making process; and fully integrate all refuge proposals that may have 
an impact on the environment with the provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 
1501.2).

[[Page 33906]]

    1.5  What are the goals of refuge planning?
    A. To ensure that wildlife comes first in the National Wildlife 
Refuge System.
    B. To ensure that we manage the Refuge System for the conservation 
of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats and that refuge 
management achieves our policies, the Refuge System mission, and the 
purposes for which the refuge was established.
    C. To ensure that the administration of the Refuge System 
contributes to the conservation of the ecological integrity of each 
refuge, the Refuge System, and to the structure and function of the 
ecosystems of the United States.
    D. To ensure opportunities to participate in the refuge planning 
process are available to our other programs; Federal, State, and local 
agencies; Tribal governments; conservation organizations; adjacent 
landowners; and the public.
    E. To provide a basis for adaptive management by monitoring 
progress, evaluating plan implementation, and updating refuge plans 
accordingly.
    F. To promote efficiency, effectiveness, continuity, and national 
consistency in refuge management.
    G. To help ensure consistent System-wide consideration of the six 
priority public uses--hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 
photography, and environmental education and interpretation--
established by the Refuge Administration Act and to ensure that these 
uses receive enhanced consideration over general public uses in the 
Refuge System.
    H. To ensure that we preserve the wilderness character of refuge 
lands.
    1.6  What do the following terms mean? (Quotations are from the 
Refuge Administration Act unless otherwise noted)
    A. Adaptive Management. The rigorous application of management, 
research, and monitoring to gain information and experience necessary 
to assess and modify management activities. A process that uses 
feedback from refuge research and monitoring and evaluation of 
management actions to support or modify objectives and strategies at 
all planning levels.
    B. Alternatives. Different sets of objectives and strategies or 
means of achieving refuge purposes and goals, helping fulfill the 
Refuge System mission, and resolving issues.
    C. Biological Diversity. The variety of life, including the variety 
of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the 
communities in which they occur.
    D. Biological Integrity. Biotic composition, structure, and 
functioning at the genetic, organism, and community levels consistent 
with natural conditions, including the natural biological processes 
that shape genomes, organisms, and communities.
    E. Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). A document that describes 
the desired future conditions of a refuge or planning unit and provides 
long-range guidance and management direction to achieve the purposes of 
the refuge; helps fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; maintains 
and, where appropriate, restores the ecological integrity of each 
refuge and the Refuge System; helps achieve the goals of the National 
Wilderness Preservation System; and meets other mandates.
    F. Coordination Area. A wildlife management area made available to 
a State, by ``(A) cooperative agreement between the United States Fish 
and Wildlife Service and the State fish and game agency pursuant to 
Section 4 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 664); or 
(B) by long-term leases or agreements pursuant to the Bankhead-Jones 
Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525; 7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.).'' States manage 
Coordination Areas, but they are part of the Refuge System. We do not 
require CCPs for Coordination Areas.
    G. Ecological Integrity. The integration of biological integrity, 
natural biological diversity, and environmental health; the replication 
of natural conditions.
    H. Ecosystem. A biological community together with its environment, 
functioning as a unit. For administrative purposes, we have designated 
53 ecosystems covering the United States and its possessions. These 
ecosystems generally correspond with watershed boundaries, and their 
sizes and ecological complexity vary.
    I. Environmental Health. Abiotic composition, structure, and 
functioning of the environment consistent with natural conditions, 
including the natural abiotic processes that shape the environment.
    J. Goal. Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of 
desired future conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define 
measurable units.
    K. Issue. Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, 
e.g., an initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat 
to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or the 
presence of an undesirable resource condition.
    L. National Wildlife Refuge (refuge). ``A designated area of land, 
water, or an interest in land or water within the Refuge System, but 
does not include Coordination Areas.'' Find a complete listing of all 
units of the Refuge System in the current Annual Report of Lands Under 
Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    M. National Wildlife Refuge System Mission (mission). ``The mission 
of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters 
for the conservation, management, and, where appropriate, restoration 
of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within 
the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of 
Americans.''
    N. Objective. A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how 
much we want to achieve, when and where we want to achieve it, and who 
is responsible for the work. Objectives derive from goals and provide 
the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge 
accomplishments, and evaluating the success of strategies. Make 
objectives attainable, time-specific, and measurable.
    O. Planning Area. The area upon which the planning effort will 
focus. A planning area may include lands outside existing planning unit 
boundaries currently studied for inclusion in the Refuge System and/or 
partnership planning efforts. It also may include watersheds or 
ecosystems outside of our jurisdiction that affect the planning unit. 
At a minimum, the planning area includes all lands within the 
authorized boundary of the refuge.
    P. Planning Team. Planning teams are interdisciplinary in 
membership and function. Teams generally consist of a Planning Team 
Leader, Refuge Manager and staff biologists, a state natural resource 
agency representative, and other appropriate program specialists (e.g., 
social scientist, ecologist, recreation specialist). We also will ask 
other Federal and Tribal natural resource agencies to provide team 
members, as appropriate. The planning team prepares the CCP and 
appropriate NEPA documentation.
    Q. Planning Team Leader. The Planning Team Leader typically is a 
professional planner or natural resource specialist knowledgeable of 
the requirements of NEPA and who has planning experience. The Planning 
Team Leader manages the refuge planning process and ensures compliance 
with applicable regulatory and policy requirements.
    R. Planning Unit. A single refuge, an ecologically or 
administratively related refuge complex, or distinct unit of a refuge. 
The planning unit also may include lands currently outside refuge 
boundaries.
    S. Purposes of the Refuge. ``The purposes specified in or derived 
from the law, proclamation, executive order,

[[Page 33907]]

agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative 
memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge 
unit, or refuge subunit.'' For refuges that encompass Congressionally 
designated wilderness, the purposes of the Wilderness Act are 
additional purposes of the refuge.
    T. Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS). The Refuge Operating Needs 
System is a national database that contains the unfunded operational 
needs of each refuge. We include projects required to implement 
approved plans and meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates.
    U. Step-Down Management Plan. A plan that provides specific 
guidance on management subjects (e.g., habitat, public use, fire, 
safety) or groups of related subjects. It describes strategies and 
implementation schedules for meeting CCP goals and objectives.
    V. Strategy. A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of 
actions, tools, and techniques used to meet unit objectives.
    W. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission. Our mission is working 
with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and 
plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 
people.
    X. Wilderness Review. The process we use to determine if we should 
recommend Refuge System lands and waters to Congress for wilderness 
designation. The wilderness review process consists of three phases: 
inventory, study, and recommendation. The inventory is a broad look at 
the refuge to identify lands and waters that meet the minimum criteria 
for wilderness. The study evaluates all values (ecological, 
recreational, cultural), resources (e.g., wildlife, water, vegetation, 
minerals, soils), and uses (management and public) within the 
Wilderness Study Area. The findings of the study determine whether we 
will recommend the area for designation as wilderness.
    Y. Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use. ``A use of a refuge 
involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or 
environmental education and interpretation.'' These are the six 
priority public uses of the Refuge System as established in the 
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended. 
Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other than the six priority 
public uses, are those that depend on the presence of wildlife. We also 
will consider these other uses in the preparation of refuge CCPs, 
however, the six priority public uses always will take precedence.
    Z. Vision Statement. A concise statement of what the planning unit 
should be, or what we hope to do, based primarily upon the Refuge 
System mission and specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. We 
will tie the vision statement for the refuge to the mission of the 
Refuge System; the purpose(s) of the refuge; the maintenance or 
restoration of the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge 
System; and other mandates.
    1.7  What is the relationship between Refuge System planning and 
other planning efforts? Refuge planning should maintain continuity and 
consistency with other planning efforts. The relationship between these 
planning efforts is hierarchical, starting from national plans to 
regional, State, and ecosystem-level plans, stepping down to refuge-
specific plans. See Exhibit 1-1. The process of adaptive management 
uses feedback from refuge research and monitoring, and evaluation of 
management actions to support or modify objectives and strategies at 
all planning levels.
    A. National and Regional Plans. We will review other Service 
documents that address particular programs, species, habitats, public 
uses, economic uses, archaeological resources, etc., when identifying 
issues to address in refuge planning. National and regional goals, 
objectives, strategies, and policies influence management planning for 
refuges. Source documents include: Fulfilling the Promise: The National 
Wildlife Refuge System, the Service Manual, the North American 
Waterfowl Management Plan, National Outreach Strategy, regional 
resource plans, endangered species recovery plans, migratory bird and 
flyway plans, fishery resource plans, Joint Venture plans, Partners in 
Flight plans, and strategies to promote the conservation of natural 
biological diversity. The contribution of the refuge to achieving 
regional and national goals will help implement our mission and ensure 
integrity of the Refuge System.
    B. Service Ecosystem Plans, State Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
Plans, and Other Landscape-Level Plans. Refuge planning will reflect 
conservation goals and objectives for the landscapes in which the 
refuges are located. Refuges must review goals and objectives of 
existing ecosystem plans and determine how the refuge can best 
contribute to the functioning of the ecosystem. We will coordinate 
refuge planning with State conservation agencies, Tribal governments, 
other government agencies, and nongovernmental organizations. To the 
extent practicable, refuge plans will be consistent with the fish and 
wildlife conservation plans of the State and the conservation programs 
of Tribal, public, and private partners within the ecosystem.
    C. Land Acquisition Planning. We integrate land acquisition and CCP 
planning throughout the land acquisition planning process. We describe 
three opportunities for integration in the following paragraphs:
    (1) Refuge planning typically begins before the establishment of an 
area as a unit of the Refuge System. Land acquisition planning (usually 
resulting in a Land Protection Plan [LPP] and associated NEPA document) 
is a preliminary step in the continuous, integrated refuge planning 
process. This process eventually results in completion of a CCP and 
appropriate refuge step-down management plans. Other land use, species, 
or habitat protection planning efforts, or legislative or executive 
directives may precede land acquisition planning. Refuge establishment 
documentation (LPP and associated NEPA document) should identify the 
approved refuge boundary, refuge purpose(s), goals, and general 
management direction. See 341 FW 2.
    (2) Planning for proposed new refuges or major expansions to 
existing refuges not undergoing a CCP will include the development of a 
Conceptual Management Plan (CMP) for the new unit. The CMP provides 
general, interim management direction. The CMP should identify refuge 
purpose(s), interim goals, and pre-existing compatible wildlife-
dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 
photography, environmental education and interpretation) that we will 
allow to continue on an interim basis. The interim period is the 
duration of time between establishment of a new refuge or refuge 
expansion and the completion of an approved CCP. Refuges functioning 
under CMPs also will develop step-down management plans, as 
appropriate.
    (3) Fully integrate land acquisition planning efforts into CCP 
preparation whenever possible. Some proposed new refuges or refuge 
expansions may warrant CCP development at the time of acquisition 
planning. Include appropriate Realty staff on the planning team when 
considering land acquisition during the CCP process to ensure 
consistency with land acquisition policy. See 341 FW 2.
    D. Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP). The CCP is a document 
that describes the desired future conditions of a refuge or planning 
unit and provides long-range guidance and management direction to 
achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the

[[Page 33908]]

mission of the Refuge System; maintains and, where appropriate, 
restores the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; 
helps achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; 
and meets other mandates. See 602 FW 3. For refuges established after 
October 9, 1997, prepare CCPs when the refuge obtains staff and 
acquires a land base sufficient to achieve refuge purposes, but no 
later than 15 years after we establish the refuge. Convert refuge long-
range management plans (e.g., master plans and refuge management plans) 
approved prior to October 9, 1997, into CCPs with appropriate public 
involvement and NEPA compliance no later than October 2012.
    E. Step-Down Management Plans. Step-down management plans provide 
the details (strategies and implementation schedules) necessary to meet 
goals and objectives identified in the CCP. CCPs will either 
incorporate or identify step-down management plans required to fully 
implement the CCP. After completion of the CCP, modify existing step-
down management plans to accomplish stated goals and objectives as 
needed. See 602 FW 4.
    F. Integration With Budget Development and Implementation. We will 
use CCPs to guide annual budget requests. We will identify the unfunded 
costs of implementing strategies in refuge plans using our budget 
databases, including the Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS), 
Maintenance Management System (MMS), and Land Acquisition Priority 
System (LAPS). As we complete or update each plan, we will review and 
update these databases to incorporate projects identified in CCPs. The 
total funding and staffing identified in these databases represents the 
additional resources required to fully implement the refuge plans.
    1.8  Who is responsible for implementing our policy?
    A. Director. The Director is responsible for providing national 
policy and ensuring adherence to refuge planning policy.
    B. Regional Director. The Regional Director: (1) Ensures compliance 
with national planning policy, NEPA, and other applicable laws and 
policies; (2) approves CCPs, amendments to CCPs, and associated NEPA 
and other agency compliance documents; and (3) ensures that we manage 
refuges in accordance with approved CCPs. The Regional Director or 
designee approves step-down management plans, determines planning 
priorities, and allocates funds to develop and implement plans.
    C. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System. The Regional 
Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, is responsible for initiating 
and completing refuge plans, budgeting for planning, ensuring 
programmatic staff participation, and developing regional planning 
priorities. The Special Assistant for Ecosystems is responsible for 
ensuring that ecosystem teams participate in developing plans and 
implementing approved plans.
    D. Refuge Planning Coordinator. The Washington Office, Division of 
Refuges, and each Region will designate a Refuge Planning Coordinator. 
In cooperation with representatives of our National Conservation 
Training Center, the Coordinators will establish and maintain 
appropriate training courses. Refuge Planning Coordinators will provide 
guidance and direction to assist Planning Team Leaders, regional and 
field-based planning staff, and planning team members. The Coordinators 
also are responsible for maintaining regional planning schedules and 
updating status reports and funding needs for the planning program. The 
Coordinators periodically will meet to review and recommend changes to 
planning policy, resolve common planning problems and issues, and help 
ensure national consistency.
    E. Planning Team Leader. The Planning Team Leader is responsible 
for initiation of the planning process, preparation and completion of 
refuge plans, and ensuring that we meet compliance requirements. The 
Planning Team Leader, in consultation with the Refuge Manager, is 
responsible for identifying appropriate and proper representation on 
the interdisciplinary planning team, including team members, support 
personnel, and outside or contract assistance. The Refuge Manager and 
Planning Team Leader will submit the final CCP through line supervision 
for concurrence and approval by the Regional Director.
    F. Refuge Supervisor. The Refuge Supervisor is responsible for 
overseeing participation of the Refuge Manager in CCP preparation and 
implementation, and for providing direction and guidance on compliance 
with Refuge System policy and regulations. Once the Planning Team 
Leader and Refuge Manager submit the plan, the Refuge Supervisor will 
be responsible for review and concurrence of the plan prior to its 
submission to the next level.
    G. Refuge Manager. The Refuge Manager participates in the 
preparation of the CCP working closely with the Planning Team Leader. 
The Refuge Manager assures that the refuge staff participates in plan 
development. The Refuge Manager and Planning Team Leader submit the 
final CCP through line supervision for concurrence and approval by the 
Regional Director. The Refuge Manager is responsible for: making 
compatibility determinations; implementing approved CCPs and step-down 
management plans; tracking progress; and recommending changes to plans 
based on monitoring and evaluation. The Refuge Manager also reports 
plan accomplishments through standard reporting mechanisms and 
budgeting procedures.
    H. Planning Team. The planning team, coordinated by the Planning 
Team Leader, is responsible for the initiation and completion of all 
planning steps, including public involvement and NEPA compliance, 
resulting in a refuge CCP. We describe the steps in 602 FW 3.4C. The 
planning team is responsible for the CCP's content in terms of 
information relating to management of refuge resources and use 
activities. The planning team will ensure that the CCP, when 
implemented, will achieve the purposes of the refuge and help fulfill 
the Refuge System mission.
    I. Regional Environmental (NEPA) Coordinator. The Regional 
Environmental (NEPA) Coordinator provides technical assistance on NEPA-
related matters.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 33909]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25MY00.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 33910]]

Refuge Management--Part 602 National Wildlife Refuge System 
Planning

Chapter 3 Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process 602--FW 3

    3.1  What is the purpose of this chapter? Comprehensive 
Conservation Plans (CCPs) describe the desired future conditions of a 
refuge and provide long-range guidance and management direction to 
achieve refuge purposes; help fulfill the National Wildlife Refuge 
System (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 purpose of this chapter is to describe a 
systematic decision-making process that fulfills the requirements we 
are establishing for developing a CCP. This policy provides guidance, 
step-by-step direction, and establishes minimum requirements for all 
CCPs. Experienced planners lead the CCP process. We require all of our 
planners and strongly encourage Refuge Managers and other key planning 
team members attend the National Conservation Training Center (NCTC) 
course on Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Planning.
    3.2  What is our policy for CCPs? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (Service or we) must manage all national wildlife refuges 
according to an approved CCP. We will prepare a CCP by October 2012, 
for each refuge in existence at the time of passage of the National 
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. For refuges established after 
passage of this Act, we will prepare CCPs when we staff the refuge and 
acquire a land base sufficient to achieve refuge purposes, but no later 
than 15 years after establishment of the refuge. To the extent 
practicable, we will coordinate the development of CCPs with affected 
States. We will continue to manage each refuge or planning unit with 
existing plans effective prior to October 9, 1997, to the extent these 
plans are consistent with the Refuge Administration Act, until we 
revise such plans or new CCPs supersede them. Upon completion of a CCP, 
we will manage the refuge or planning unit in a manner consistent with 
the CCP. We will revise the CCP every 15 years thereafter, or earlier, 
if monitoring and evaluation determine that we need changes to achieve 
planning unit purpose(s), vision, goals, or objectives.
    3.3  What are our goals for Comprehensive Conservation Planning?
    A. To ensure that wildlife comes first in the National Wildlife 
Refuge System and that we manage each refuge to help fulfill the 
mission of the Refuge System, maintain and, where appropriate, restore 
the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System, as well 
as achieve the specific purposes for which the refuge was established.
    B. To provide a clear and comprehensive statement of desired future 
conditions for each refuge or planning unit.
    C. To encourage use of an ecosystem approach when we conduct refuge 
planning. This includes conducting concurrent refuge planning for 
refuges within the same watershed or ecosystem and considering the 
broader goals and objectives of the refuges' ecosystems and watersheds 
when developing management direction (see Ecosystem Approach to Fish 
and Wildlife Conservation [Part 052 of the Service Manual]).
    D. To support management decisions and their rationale by using a 
thorough assessment of available science derived from scientific 
literature, on-site refuge data, expert opinion, and sound professional 
judgment.
    E. To ensure that the six priority wildlife-dependent recreational 
uses receive priority consideration during the preparation of CCPs.
    F. To provide a forum for the public to comment on the type, 
extent, and compatibility of uses on refuges, including priority 
wildlife-dependent recreational uses.
    G. To provide a uniform basis for budget requests for operational, 
maintenance, and capital improvement programs.
    H. To ensure public involvement in refuge management decisions by 
providing a process for effective coordination, interaction, and 
cooperation with affected parties, including Federal agencies, State 
conservation agencies, Tribal governments, local governments, 
conservation organizations, adjacent landowners, and interested members 
of the public.
    3.4  What is the Comprehensive Conservation Planning process?
    A. The CCP process (see Exhibit 3-1) provides consistent guidelines 
for developing CCPs. We designed the planning process to result in the 
development of vision statements, goals, objectives, and strategies 
that achieve refuge or planning unit purpose(s); 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.
    B. Each CCP will comply with the provisions of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) through the concurrent preparation of 
an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) that will accompany or be integrated with the CCP. We have 
integrated NEPA compliance requirements directly into the CCP process. 
When preparing an EA, consider integrating it into the draft CCP. When 
preparing an EIS with a CCP, integrate the documents. Following 
completion of the final CCP/NEPA document, the product of the planning 
process will be a stand-alone CCP, separate from the EA or EIS.
    C. Our CCP planning process consists of the following eight steps. 
Although we display the steps sequentially, CCP planning and NEPA 
documentation are iterative processes. Cycling through some of the 
steps more than once or having several steps occurring simultaneously 
is normal. Actions within each of the eight steps may not be 
sequential.
(1) Preplanning: Planning the Plan
    (a) Planning Team. The Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge 
System, appoints the Planning Team Leader. The Planning Team Leader 
assembles the planning team, which consists of the Planning Team 
Leader, the Refuge Manager and key staff members, and appropriate 
support staff or specialists from both regional and field offices 
(e.g., fisheries, cultural resources, endangered species, external 
affairs/outreach, realty, contaminants, migratory birds, water 
resources, etc.). We will provide representatives from appropriate 
State and Tribal conservation agencies, and any public agency that may 
have a direct land management relationship with the refuge, the 
opportunity to serve on planning teams. The Planning Team Leader will 
prepare a formal written request for participation by appropriate State 
and Tribal conservation agencies for signature by the Regional 
Director. Included in this request is an invitation to attend the NCTC 
course on Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Planning. Participation by 
these State and Tribal agencies shall not be subject to the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act.
    (b) Identify Refuge Purpose(s), History, and Establishing 
Authority. Document the history of refuge establishment and management, 
as well as refuge purposes and authorizing authority (e.g., legislation 
[including wilderness designation, if applicable], executive orders, 
administrative memoranda) (see 601 FW 1). These will become driving 
forces in the process and subsequently be reflected in the

[[Page 33911]]

refuge vision statement, goals, objectives, and strategies in the CCP.
    (c) Identify Planning and Compliance Requirements and Special 
Designations. Review our agency and Refuge System mission statements 
and policies, as well as other existing legislation to help identify 
planning and compliance requirements. See Exhibit 3-2 for a list of 
laws and executive orders that may apply and Exhibit 3-3 for a 
checklist of elements we must include within a CCP. Identify and review 
other Service guidance such as Fulfilling the Promise: The National 
Wildlife Refuge System and mandates including laws, executive orders, 
regulations, and our policies, especially those with compliance 
requirements. Also review any existing special designation areas such 
as wilderness, research natural areas, wild and scenic rivers, wetlands 
of international importance (Ramsar sites), Western Hemisphere 
Shorebird Reserves, etc., and specifically address the potential for 
any new special designations. Concurrent with the CCP process we will 
conduct a wilderness review and incorporate a summary of the review 
into the CCP. (See Part 610 of the Service Manual for guidance on 
conducting wilderness reviews.) Complete the inventory phase of the 
review during preplanning. If a Wilderness Study Area is identified, 
proceed with the study and recommendation phases of the review. (Note: 
An EIS is the NEPA document we must include in a recommendation or 
report on a legislative proposal to Congress [40 CFR 1506.8]. This 
requirement applies to all CCPs that contain wilderness 
recommendations.)
    (d) Purpose and Need for the Plan. The purpose of developing the 
CCP is to provide the Refuge Manager with a 15-year management plan for 
the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 
related habitats, while providing opportunities for compatible 
wildlife-dependent recreational uses. The CCP, when fully implemented, 
should 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 must be specific to the planning unit and identify the overarching 
wildlife, public use, or management needs for the refuge.
    (e) Planning Area and Data Needs. Delineate the planning area on a 
map. Identify the relationship between the planning unit and its 
ecosystem(s) and watershed(s) as well as relationships between the 
planning unit and any other refuges or other important fish and 
wildlife habitats in the vicinity. Identify data available to address 
issues discussed in Step (h) Internal Scoping. Obtain information from 
Federal, Tribal, State and local agencies, and private landowners 
concerning land management issues that may impact or relate to the 
planning unit. To assist in determining species or resources of 
concern, consult the following: Federal threatened and endangered 
species lists; Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the 
United States; Partners in Flight Watch List; State lists of rare, 
threatened, endangered, or species of concern; National Audubon Society 
State Watch Lists; The Nature Conservancy's heritage program and 
ranking system; as well as State heritage databases and conservation 
data centers for additional sources of information. Also identify 
resource experts familiar with the key species and habitats in the 
planning area, and consult with these experts during the development of 
habitat objectives. Base CCPs on a comprehensive assessment of the 
existing scientific literature. Potential sources of information 
include planning documents, EAs, EISs, annual narrative reports, 
information from previously conducted or ongoing research, data from 
refuge inventories or studies, published literature on related 
biological studies, State conservation management plans, field 
management experience, etc. While we may not be able to develop new 
data for the CCP, we may identify the need for further data collection. 
A lack of data should not delay the completion of the CCP. Identify and 
describe the following conditions and their trends for the planning 
unit and, as appropriate, for the planning area:
    (i) Context of the planning unit in relation to the surrounding 
ecosystem.
    (ii) Structures, components, and functions of the ecosystem(s) of 
which the planning unit is a part.
    (iii) Natural and historic role of fire and other natural 
occurrences affecting ecological processes.
    (iv) Past land use and history of settlement, including a 
description of any changes in topography, hydrology, and other factors.
    (v) Current and historic description of the flora and fauna and the 
diversity of habitats and natural communities.
    (vi) Distribution, migration patterns, and abundance of fish, 
wildlife, and plant populations, including any threatened or endangered 
species, and related habitats.
    (vii) Fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats and communities 
that are rare and/or declining within the ecosystem.
    (viii) Water resources including quality and quantity.
    (ix) Archaeological and other cultural resources.
    (x) Significant problems that may adversely affect the ecological 
integrity or wilderness characteristics and the actions necessary to 
correct or mitigate the problems.
    (xi) Identify opportunities to improve the health of habitats or 
the functioning of ecosystems.
    (xii) Significant problems that may adversely affect the 
populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants (including 
candidate, threatened, and endangered species) and the actions 
necessary to correct or mitigate the problems.
    (xiii) Known or suspected sources of environmental contaminants and 
their potential impacts on the planning unit (refer to the Contaminant 
Assessment Program).
    (xiv) Land acquisition or habitat protection efforts.
    (xv) Habitat management practices.
    (xvi) Existing administrative resources, including staffing, 
funding, and facilities.
    (xvii) Existing transportation patterns and related visitor 
facilities.
    (xviii) Potential need for administrative sites, transportation 
improvements, or visitor facilities and areas within the planning unit 
that are suitable for such sites.
    (xix) Existing and potential opportunities for wildlife-dependent 
recreation.
    (xx) Existing special management areas, or the potential for such 
designations (e.g., wilderness, research natural areas, and wild and 
scenic rivers).
    (f) Review All Available Information, Plans, Data, Maps, and Data 
Standards. Based on this review, determine what the initial planning 
area includes and identify any additional information and data needs, 
including mapping and GIS needs. Note: All Federal agencies and their 
contractors must comply with data standards endorsed by the Federal 
Geographic Data Committee (Executive Order 12906; 59 FR 17671, April 
13, 1994). Of particular relevance to refuge planning are the National 
Vegetation Classification Standard (FGDC-STD-005) and the 
Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats (FGDC-STD-004). 
Compliance with these standards will facilitate the sharing and 
exchange of high-quality vegetation and wetland data among Federal 
agencies and their

[[Page 33912]]

partners. We also are developing other data standards, such as 
cartographic standards for delineation of refuge boundaries and land 
status.
    (g) Vision and Goals. Review the existing planning unit vision 
statement and goals and determine the need for revision. If these do 
not exist, prepare a draft vision statement and goals for consideration 
during public scoping. The vision statement should focus on what will 
be different in the future because of our efforts, capture the essence 
of what we are trying to do, and why. It should be future-oriented, 
concise, clear, compelling, and give a sense of purpose to our efforts. 
At a minimum, each refuge should develop goals for wildlife species or 
groups of species, habitat (including land protection needs), 
compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, other mandates (such as 
refuge-specific legislation, executive orders, special area 
designations, etc.), and fish, wildlife, and plant populations, as 
appropriate. The vision statement and goals will reflect planning unit 
purposes; help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; maintain and, 
where appropriate, restore ecological integrity; and will be consistent 
with mandates and principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 
Planning unit goals also will reflect our ecosystem goals to the extent 
these goals do not conflict with the Refuge System mission or the 
purposes for which the refuge was established. We also may develop 
refuge goals for our other mandates. Subsequently, we will develop 
objectives for achieving planning unit goals (see 602 FW 3.4 C (4)(d) 
Objective Development). For additional information on developing goals 
and objectives, see the current edition of Writing Refuge Management 
Goals and Objectives: A Handbook.
    (h) Internal Scoping. Begin the internal scoping process by 
identifying management concerns, issues, and opportunities to resolve 
them, as well as any potential impacts and alternatives that we may 
need to address in the CCP and NEPA analysis. Review the background, 
rationale, and the success or failure of any controversial management 
actions and identify any additional information and data needed where 
appropriate.
    (i) Public Involvement/Outreach Planning. Prepare a Public 
Involvement/Outreach Plan indicating how and when we will invite the 
affected public to participate in CCP development. This plan will 
include establishing a mailing list and identifying appropriate 
techniques and materials to use in public involvement. We integrate 
public involvement and outreach into each step, and it continues 
throughout the planning process. For additional information on public 
involvement techniques, consult the Public Participation Handbook (U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985) or the NCTC Refuge Comprehensive 
Conservation Planning Course Handbook and Reference Notebook.
    (j) Work Plan/Planning Schedule. Establish a work plan or planning 
schedule for the CCP. Determine who will be responsible for carrying 
out identified tasks, gathering information and data, and preparing 
products identified in the work plan or schedule. Identify all key NEPA 
compliance steps and public involvement activities. Identify any 
additional expertise, besides the planning team, required to prepare 
the CCP. This may include an economist, a facilitator for public and 
other meetings, other contracted professional services, etc.
    (k) Planning Record. Establish a planning record to document the 
preparation of the CCP and NEPA compliance, and assign its maintenance 
to a team member. The planning record will serve as a valuable 
reference and provide important background and historical information. 
If there is a legal challenge to the CCP, use the planning record to 
construct the administrative record. For additional information on the 
planning record, consult the NCTC Refuge Comprehensive Conservation 
Planning Course Handbook and Reference Notebook.
(2) Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping
    (a) Notice of Intent. Prepare a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a 
CCP, with appropriate NEPA compliance, and publish the NOI in the 
Federal Register. The NOI initiates public scoping for the CCP/NEPA 
planning and decision-making process. If we initially determine that we 
will prepare an EIS for the CCP, the NOI should specify that. If at any 
time during the planning process we decide to prepare an EIS, we will 
publish in the Federal Register a new NOI to prepare an EIS and provide 
additional time for the public to comment. Should we publish a new NOI, 
we will use news releases and other appropriate means to notify the 
public.
    (b) Public Scoping. Using news releases to the local media and 
other appropriate means, notify the affected public of the opportunity 
to participate in the preparation of the CCP and begin the scoping 
process. Involve the public and gather comments on any existing 
planning unit vision statement and goals. Encourage the public to help 
identify potential issues, management actions and concerns, significant 
problems or impacts, and opportunities or alternatives to resolve them. 
Public scoping will continue until we prepare a draft CCP/NEPA 
document.
    (c) Issues and Data Needs. Analyze all comments gathered and 
recorded during the scoping process. Identify any new information, 
issues, concerns, or significant problems, opportunities to resolve 
them, and potential refinements or revisions of any existing planning 
unit vision statement and goals. Based on this analysis, identify any 
additional information and data needed.
(3) Review Vision Statement and Goals and Determine Significant Issues
    (a) Vision and Goals. Review and evaluate the public's comments on 
the planning unit vision statement and goals. Based on this review, 
modify the vision and goals for the planning unit as appropriate.
    (b) Determine Significant Issues. Review and evaluate all potential 
issues, management concerns, and problems and the opportunities to 
resolve them that the planning team and the public have identified. 
Identify those issues and concerns that are significant, and the 
appropriate scale at which to consider those issues. Document the 
rationale for selecting significant issues, as well as the rationale 
for not selecting the other issues and concerns (e.g., outside the 
scope of the CCP, does not contribute to achieving refuge purposes, 
Refuge System mission, etc.). Significant issues typically are those 
that are: Within our jurisdiction, suggest different actions or 
alternatives, and will influence our decision. We will refer those 
issues identified outside the scope of refuge planning to the pertinent 
Service program office or division.
(4) Develop and Analyze Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
    This part of the process is not sequential, it is iterative. 
Iterative procedures in this step of the process include: Issue 
assessment; refinement and development of goals, objectives, and 
strategies; analysis and comparison of impacts and benefits of 
management actions; and the packaging or combining of similar themes or 
programs to develop preliminary alternatives and assessment of their 
environmental consequences. The alternatives should reflect different 
sets of objectives and strategies to achieve refuge purposes, vision, 
and goals, help fulfill the Refuge System mission, and resolve issues. 
Prepare maps depicting the different strategies reflected in each 
alternative. Also display this information in a

[[Page 33913]]

matrix comparing issues, impacts, and benefits for each alternative.
    (a) No Action Alternative. Define the No Action Alternative, which 
is usually a continuation of current planning unit objectives and 
management strategies, with no changes or changes that would have 
occurred without the CCP.
    (b) A Range of Alternatives. Develop a range of alternatives, or 
different approaches to planning unit management, that we could 
reasonably undertake to achieve planning unit goals and 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; meet other mandates, and resolve any significant 
issues identified. Alternatives consist of different sets of objectives 
and strategies for management of the refuge. Give equal effort to each 
alternative regarding specific objectives and strategies so that the 
decision maker can make an informed choice. NEPA requires an equal and 
full analysis of all alternatives considered for implementation.
    (c) Proposed Action. The planning team will recommend a proposed 
action in the NEPA document for the CCP identifying the alternative 
that best achieves planning unit purposes, vision, and goals; helps 
fulfill the Refuge System mission; maintains and, where appropriate, 
restores the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; 
addresses the significant issues and mandates; and is consistent with 
principles of sound fish and wildlife management. The proposed action 
is, for all practical purposes, the draft CCP for the planning unit.
    (d) Objective Development. Develop objectives to address each goal. 
Word objectives so it is clear what we can measure during monitoring to 
assess progress toward their attainment. Consult the Service Manual 
chapters on habitat management, populations management, wilderness 
management, and wildlife-dependent recreation during the development of 
objectives. Develop detailed, measurable objectives using available 
scientific literature and other appropriate information. Develop 
objectives with consideration of regional and Service ecosystem goals 
and objectives. Develop objectives for specific refuge habitat types, 
management units, key species (e.g., migratory birds and threatened and 
endangered species), wildlife-dependent recreation, monitoring 
populations of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, and other 
areas of management, as appropriate. Objectives also may deal with 
refuge information needs (for example, including the development of 
baseline data), administrative needs, and any other issues we need to 
address to meet the goals of the refuge. Document in a short narrative 
summary the rationale, including appropriate literature citations, that 
supports each objective. Also consult the current edition of Writing 
Refuge Management Goals and Objectives: A Handbook. Developing detailed 
objectives at this stage will expedite development of step-down 
management plans when required.
    (e) Strategy Development. Develop strategies to identify the 
specific actions, tools, or techniques that are necessary to accomplish 
each objective. Strategies represent specific projects that provide the 
detail required to assess and develop funding, staffing, and 
partnerships needed to implement the plan. Develop inventory and 
monitoring strategies to measure implementation results in quantifiable 
and verifiable ways. We may require step-down management plans to 
provide the specific details of how to achieve goals and objectives 
identified in the CCP.
    (f) Environmental Consequences. Assess the environmental 
consequences (direct, indirect, and cumulative) of implementing each 
alternative as required by NEPA. Compare the consequences of 
implementing each alternative in relation to the No Action Alternative, 
which serves as a baseline. Describe the adverse and beneficial impacts 
of implementing each alternative on fish, wildlife, and plants, and 
their habitats; any threatened or endangered species; cultural 
resources; the local economy; the ability to provide opportunities for 
compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses; conflicts between 
priority uses and other uses; and other issues identified earlier in 
the planning process. This analysis must provide the level of detail 
necessary to assess the compatibility of all proposed uses. Describe 
each alternative's ability to achieve planning unit purpose(s), vision, 
and goals; help fulfill the Refuge System mission; ensure that we 
maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of 
each refuge and the Refuge System; and address the significant issues 
and mandates. This assessment also will identify the funding, staffing, 
and facilities required for implementation of each alternative.
(5) Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA Document
    (a) Draft CCP and NEPA Document. Concurrently prepare the draft CCP 
and appropriate NEPA documentation (EA or EIS). When preparing an EA, 
consider integrating the draft CCP with the EA. When preparing an EIS 
with a CCP, integrate the documents. If the decision is to prepare a 
separate EA, see Exhibit 3-4 for a recommended CCP outline. If the 
documents are separate, the proposed action in the EA must contain all 
of the major actions of the draft CCP. If the decision is to merge the 
CCP and EA, see Exhibit 3-5 for a recommended outline. During the 
process of preparing the CCP, refer to Exhibit 3-3 to ensure inclusion 
of all required elements in the plan. Ensure compliance regarding other 
programs and policies, including: Section 7 of the Endangered Species 
Act; Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act; Sections 106 and 110 
of the National Historic Preservation Act; Section 14 of the 
Archaeological Resources Protection Act; Executive Order 13007--Indian 
Sacred Sites; Executive Order 11988--Floodplain Management; Executive 
Order 11990--Protection of Wetlands; etc. See Exhibit 3-2 for a list of 
mandates to consider during the planning process.
    (b) Compatibility Determinations. Complete new compatibility 
determinations or re-evaluate existing compatibility determinations as 
part of the CCP process for all individual uses, specific use programs, 
or groups of related uses associated with the proposed action. Prepared 
concurrently with the CCP, incorporate the draft compatibility 
determinations into the draft CCP as an appendix. We require public 
review and comment for all compatibility determinations. We can achieve 
this concurrently through public review and comment of the draft CCP 
and NEPA document. While other alternatives do not require 
compatibility determinations, assess the environmental consequences, 
and, for all practical purposes, compatibility of all uses proposed in 
those alternatives in the NEPA document. For additional information on 
compatibility determinations, see 603 FW 2.
    (c) Pre-acquisition Compatibility Determinations. If our proposed 
action includes expanding the planning unit by acquiring new lands, the 
draft CCP and NEPA documents also must identify any existing wildlife-
dependent recreational public uses deemed compatible that we will allow 
to continue after acquisition. Incorporate these pre-acquisition 
compatibility determinations into the draft CCP and NEPA document.
    (d) Internal Review. Submit the draft CCP and NEPA document for 
internal review within the Region following established procedures. 
Include in the review refuge program managers,

[[Page 33914]]

ecosystem managers, refuge staff and other appropriate Service programs 
and divisions, as well as other agency partners. Also submit these 
documents for internal review to the Regional and Washington Office 
Planning Coordinators. Consider all comments received from the internal 
reviews and make appropriate changes to the draft document. Print the 
draft CCP and NEPA document and prepare for public review.
    (e) Public Notice, Review, and Comment. Prepare a Notice of 
Availability of the draft CCP and NEPA document and publish it in the 
Federal Register. Notify the affected public of the availability of 
these documents through other appropriate means, as identified in the 
Public Involvement/Outreach Plan. Public notices will make clear that 
we are seeking concurrent review on compatibility determinations. 
Provide a minimum of 30 days for public review of a draft CCP with an 
EA and 45 days for a draft CCP with an integrated EIS. Make copies of 
the draft CCP and NEPA document available to appropriate elected 
officials; Federal, State, and local agencies; Tribal governments; 
organizations; libraries (including NCTC); resource experts; adjacent 
landowners; and individuals requesting them. Conduct appropriate public 
involvement activities as called for in the Public Involvement/Outreach 
Plan. Document all public comments, both written and oral, received on 
the draft CCP and NEPA document as part of the planning record.
(6) Prepare and Adopt Final Plan
    (a) Public Comment, Analysis, and Response. Review and analyze all 
written and oral comments received from the public on the draft CCP and 
NEPA document. Determine which comments are substantive and warrant 
written response. Modify the document(s) as appropriate. Prepare a 
summary of the public comments received and a statement of the 
disposition of concerns expressed in those comments, noting where we 
have changed the document(s) or why we did not make such changes. 
Incorporate the summary and statement of disposition into the final 
document(s) (usually in the NEPA document or a CCP appendix).
    (b) Final CCP and NEPA Document(s). Identify the preferred 
alternative and prepare the final CCP and appropriate NEPA 
documentation. The preferred alternative can be the proposed action, 
the no action alternative, another alternative, or a combination of 
actions or alternatives discussed in the draft CCP and NEPA document. 
Following completion of the final CCP/NEPA document, the product of the 
CCP process is a stand-alone CCP (the preferred alternative for the 
planning unit). During the process of preparing the final plan, refer 
to Exhibit 3-3 to ensure inclusion of all required elements.
    (c) Internal Review. Submit the final document(s) for internal 
review within the Region according to established procedures. Refer to 
3.4 C (5)(d) for a list of those to include in the review. Consider all 
comments received from the internal review and make appropriate changes 
to the final document(s).
    (d) Decision Document. The decision document (either a Finding of 
No Significant Impact [FONSI] or a Record of Decision [ROD]) will 
certify that we have met agency compliance requirements and that the 
CCP, when implemented, will achieve the purposes of the refuge and help 
fulfill the Refuge System mission.
    (i) CCP with an EA and FONSI. The Refuge Manager and Planning Team 
Leader submit the final CCP and FONSI through line supervision for 
concurrence and approval by the Regional Director. The Regional 
Director will sign and date both the FONSI and the final CCP. Following 
approval, print and distribute the final document(s) and appropriate 
appendices. Provide the FONSI to all interested and affected parties. 
Concurrent with the distribution of the FONSI, provide the final, 
approved, stand-alone CCP or a summary to all interested parties. In 
some cases we may require a 30-day public review period for the FONSI 
(see 550 FW 3.3 B (4)(c)). In these cases, we may not sign or release 
the final CCP until the end of the 30-day review.
    (ii) CCP with an EIS and ROD. The Refuge Manager and Planning Team 
Leader submit the final EIS/CCP through line supervision for 
concurrence and approval to release these documents to the public. 
Provide these documents to interested and affected parties for at least 
30 days prior to issuing a ROD. Following this period, submit the ROD 
through line supervision for concurrence and approval by the Regional 
Director. The Regional Director will sign and date both the ROD and the 
final CCP. Following approval, print the final documents and 
appropriate appendices. Provide the ROD or notification of its 
availability to all interested and affected parties. Concurrent with 
the release of the ROD, provide or make available the final, approved, 
stand-alone CCP or a summary to interested parties. Effective with the 
signing and release of the ROD, implement the CCP.
    (iii) Stand-Alone CCP. The final product of the CCP process is a 
stand-alone CCP (the preferred alternative for the planning unit).
    (e) Public Notice. Prepare a Notice of Availability of the final 
approved CCP and NEPA document(s) and publish it in the Federal 
Register. Notify the affected public of the availability of the final 
document(s) through other appropriate means, as identified in the 
Public Involvement/Outreach Plan. Send copies of all final documents to 
the Regional and Washington Office Planning Coordinators. Make copies 
of the final approved CCP and NEPA document(s) available to appropriate 
elected officials; Federal, State, and local agencies; Tribal 
governments; organizations; libraries (including NCTC); adjacent 
landowners; and individuals requesting them.
(7) Implement Plan, Monitor, and Evaluate
    Following approval of the CCP and public notification of the 
decision, begin implementing the strategies identified in the CCP. 
Allocate funding and staff time to the priority strategies as defined 
in the CCP. Initiate the monitoring and evaluation process identified 
in the CCP to determine if we are making progress in achieving the 
planning unit purpose(s), vision, and goals. Monitoring should address 
habitat or population objectives, and the effects of management 
activities. See 701 FW 2. Describe the sampling design sufficiently so 
it may be replicated. Through adaptive management, evaluation of 
monitoring and research results may indicate the need to modify refuge 
objectives or strategies.
(8) Review and Revise Plan
    (a) Plan Review. Review the CCP at least annually to decide if it 
requires any revisions. Modify the plan and associated management 
activities whenever this review or other monitoring and evaluation 
determine that we need changes to achieve planning unit purpose(s), 
vision, and goals.
    (b) Plan Revision. Revise the CCP when significant new information 
becomes available, ecological conditions change, major refuge expansion 
occurs, or when we identify the need to do so during plan review. This 
should occur every 15 years or sooner, if necessary. All plan revisions 
should follow the procedures outlined in this policy for preparing 
plans and will require NEPA compliance. Document minor plan revisions 
that meet the criteria of a

[[Page 33915]]

categorical exclusion in an Environmental Action Statement, in 
accordance with 550 FW 3.3 C. Contact the Regional NEPA Coordinator for 
an up-to-date list of categorical exclusions and for other NEPA 
assistance. If the plan requires a major revision, then the CCP process 
starts anew at the preplanning step. See 602 FW 3.4 C (1).
    (c) Ongoing Public Involvement. Continue informing and involving 
the public through appropriate means.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 33916]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25MY00.001

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 33917]]

Exhibit 3-2.--Mandates To Consider During Comprehensive Conservation 
Planning

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Yes/No
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable Statutes:
    Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation     ____________________
     Act of 1980, as amended...................
    American Indian Religious Freedom Act of        ____________________
     1978......................................
    Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990....     ____________________
    Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965,       ____________________
     as amended................................
    Antiquities Act of 1906....................     ____________________
    Archaeological and Historic Preservation        ____________________
     Act of 1974...............................
    Archaeological Resources Protection Act of      ____________________
     1979, as amended..........................
    Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of         ____________________
     1940, as amended..........................
    Clean Air Act of 1970......................     ____________________
    Clean Water Act of 1974, as amended........     ____________________
    Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as         ____________________
     amended...................................
    Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986...     ____________________
    Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.     ____________________
    Farmland Protection Act of 1981, as amended     ____________________
    Federal Cave Protection Act of 1988........     ____________________
    Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1990...........     ____________________
    Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956..............     ____________________
    Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958.     ____________________
    Fishery (Magnuson) Conservation and             ____________________
     Management Act of 1976....................
    Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as        ____________________
     amended...................................
    Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929....     ____________________
    Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation         ____________________
     Stamp Act of 1934.........................
    Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as           ____________________
     amended...................................
    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969..     ____________________
    National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,     ____________________
     as amended................................
    National Wildlife Refuge System                 ____________________
     Administration Act of 1966, as amended....
    Native American Graves Protection and           ____________________
     Repatriation Act of 1990..................
    Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended..     ____________________
    Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.............     ____________________
    Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (sole-     ____________________
     source aquifers)..........................
    Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as          ____________________
     amended...................................
    Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended.........     ____________________
Applicable Executive Orders:
    Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-Road          ____________________
     Vehicles on Public Lands..................
    Executive Order 11987, Exotic Organisms....     ____________________
    Executive Order 11988, Floodplain               ____________________
     Management................................
    Executive Order 11990, Protection of            ____________________
     Wetlands..................................
    Executive Order 12898, Environmental            ____________________
     Justice for Minority Populations..........
    Executive Order 12962, Recreational             ____________________
     Fisheries.................................
    Executive Order 12996, Management and           ____________________
     General Public Use of the National
     Wildlife Refuge System....................
    Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites.     ____________________
    Executive Order 13084, Consultation and         ____________________
     Coordination With Indian Tribal
     Governments...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This list is not all inclusive. There may be other executive
  orders and statutes that apply to a particular planning unit.

Exhibit 3-3.--Checklist of Required Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Elements

____Short description of the planning unit to include:
____Size
____Establishment date
____Regional setting (include area map)
____Land acquisition or habitat protection efforts
____Current management (including a map)
____Current staffing
____Existing partnerships
____Purpose(s) for which the refuge was established
____Past land use and history of settlement, including a description 
of any changes in topography, hydrology, and other factors
____Existing transportation patterns and related visitor facilities
____Habitat management practices
____Refuge System mission and goals.
____Ecosystem goals and objectives.
____Goals and objectives for other landscape-level plans.
____National goals and objectives for species, species groups, 
habitats and communities, or programs (e.g., shorebirds, an 
endangered species, priority public use program).
____Identify any mandates that apply to the area or the proposed 
plan.
____Description of the planning unit environment to include:
    ____distribution, migration patterns, and abundance of fish, 
wildlife, and plant populations, including any threatened or 
endangered species and related habitats;
    ____current and historic description of the flora and fauna, and 
the diversity of habitats and natural communities;
    ____wildlife habitat and species relationships;
    ____ability of the planning unit to meet the habitat needs of 
fish, wildlife, and plants, as they occur throughout their natural 
ranges;
    ____vegetation types (Federal Geographic Data Committee 
compliant map required);
    ____vegetation/land cover and wildlife habitat relationships;
    ____significant problems that may adversely affect the 
ecological integrity or wilderness characteristics and the actions 
necessary to correct or mitigate the problems;
    ____context of the planning unit in relation to the surrounding 
ecosystem;
    ____structures, components, and functions of the ecosystem(s) of 
which the planning unit is a part;
    ____fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats and 
communities that are rare and/or declining within the ecosystem;
    ____archaeological and cultural resources of the planning unit;
    ____refuge land status map;
    ____natural and historic role of fire and other natural 
occurrences affecting ecological processes;

[[Page 33918]]

    ____existing special management areas (e.g., wilderness, wild 
and scenic rivers);
    ____relationship between the planning unit and other refuges and 
protected areas.
____Document and describe the following:
    ____significant problems that may adversely affect the 
populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants within the 
planning unit (including candidate, threatened, and endangered 
species) and the actions necessary to correct or mitigate such 
problems;
    ____water resources including quantity and quality;
    ____known or suspected sources of environmental contaminants and 
their potential impacts on the planning unit (refer to the 
Contaminant Assessment Program);
    ____potential for special management area designations (e.g., 
wilderness, research natural areas, and wild and scenic rivers);
    ____summary of management history;
    ____other significant issues of management or public concern;
    ____existing and potential opportunities for wildlife-dependent 
recreation;
    ____existing administrative resources, including staffing, 
funding, and facilities;
    ____potential need for administrative sites, transportation 
improvements, or visitor facilities and areas within the planning 
unit that are suitable for such sites.
____Vision statement.
____Goals for at least the following areas:
    ____wildlife species or groups of species;
    ____habitat (including land protection needs);
    ____fish, wildlife, and plant populations, as appropriate;
    ____compatible wildlife-dependent recreation;
    ____others as needed to meet mandates (such as refuge-specific 
legislation, executive orders, special area designations, etc.).
____Objectives for each goal.
____Strategies to achieve each objective.
____Map(s) of desired future conditions (e.g., habitat management 
areas, facilities, wildlife-dependent recreation sites, etc.).
____Identification of step-down management plans required to fully 
implement the CCP.
____Prioritized list of projects and estimated project costs (update 
priorities and cost estimates annually).
____Staffing and funding required to implement the plan.
____Potential partnership opportunities.
____Monitoring plan to evaluate the effectiveness of the plan and 
project implementation, including monitoring of target fish, 
wildlife, and plant populations and their habitats.
____Summary of public involvement process, comments received and 
their disposition, and consultation and coordination with other 
Federal agencies, State conservation agencies, and adjacent 
landowners.
____Compatibility determinations (including pre-acquisition 
compatibility determinations).
____Wilderness review.
____Habitat/Land Protection Plans (if applicable).
____NEPA documentation.

Exhibit 3-4.--Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Recommended 
Outline

Cover Sheet
Title/Approval Page
Acknowledgments
Table of Contents
Summary
I. Introduction/Background
    Refuge Overview: History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition, 
and Management
    Purpose of and Need for Plan
    NWRS Mission, Goals, and Guiding Principles
    Refuge Purpose(s)
    Refuge Vision Statement
    Legal and Policy Guidance
    Existing Partnerships
II. Planning Process
    Description of Planning Process
    Planning Issues
III. Summary Refuge and Resource Descriptions
    Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
    Refuge Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Uses
    Special Management Areas
IV. Management Direction
    Refuge Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
    Refuge Management Policies and Guidelines
V. Implementation and Monitoring
    Funding and Personnel
    Step-Down Management Plans
    Partnership Opportunities
    Monitoring and Evaluation
    Plan Amendment and Revision
Appendices
    Glossary
    Bibliography
    RONS List
    MMS list
    Compatibility Determinations
    Habitat/Land Protection Plan(s)
    Compliance Requirements
    NEPA Documentation
    Summary of Public Involvement/Comments and Consultation/
Coordination
    Mailing List
    List of Preparers
    Others, as appropriate

Exhibit 3-5.--EA or EIS Incorporating Elements of a CCP Recommended 
Outline

Cover Sheet
Acknowledgments
Table of Contents
Summary
I. Introduction, Purpose of and Need for Action
    Purpose of and Need for Plan
    NWRS Mission, Goals, and Guiding Principles
    History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition, and Management
    Legal and Policy Guidance
    Refuge Purpose(s)
    Refuge Vision Statement
    Refuge Management Direction: Goals
    Refuge Management Policies and Guidelines
    Step-Down Management Plans
    Description of Planning Process
    Planning Issues
    Plan Amendment and Revision
II. Alternatives, Including the Service's Proposed Action
    Description of Each Alternative (also include maps depicting 
strategies for each alternative)
    Refuge Management Direction: Objectives and Strategies
    Funding and Personnel
    Partnership Opportunities
    Monitoring and Evaluation
    Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Study
    Summary Comparison of Alternatives
III. Affected Environment
    Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
    Refuge Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Uses
IV. Environmental Consequences
    Environmental Effects of Each Alternative (also include a matrix 
comparing issues, impacts, and benefits for each alternative)
V. List of Preparers
VI. Consultation and Coordination with Others
    Summary of Public Involvement/Comments
    Mailing List
Appendices
    Glossary
    Bibliography
    RONS List
    MMS List
    Compatibility Determinations
    Habitat/Land Protection Plan(s)
    Compliance Requirements
    Others, as appropriate

Refuge Management--Part 602 National Wildlife Refuge System 
Planning

Chapter 4  Step-Down Management Planning--602 FW 4

    4.1  What is the purpose of this chapter? This chapter provides 
guidance on step-down management planning.
    4.2  What is our policy for step-down management planning? The U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) will prepare step-down 
management plans when required by policy or when they may be necessary 
to provide strategies and implementation schedules for meeting goals 
and objectives identified in Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs). 
Step-down management plans should include public involvement and 
National

[[Page 33919]]

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance documentation, as 
appropriate. Develop step-down management plans following the planning 
process guidance in 602 FW 1 and 602 FW 3.
    4.3  What is the applicability of step-down management planning and 
its relationship to Comprehensive Conservation Plans?
    A. Step-down management planning is the formulation of detailed 
plans for meeting goals and objectives identified in the CCP.
    B. Step-down management plans describe the specific strategies and 
implementation schedules we are to follow, ``stepping down'' from 
general goals and objectives. The preparation of new step-down 
management plans or substantial changes to existing step-down 
management plans typically will require further compliance with NEPA 
and other policies, and an opportunity for public review. For public 
use plans or other step-down management plans dealing with proposed 
uses of the refuge, prepare and append compatibility determinations to 
the plans.
    C. The CCP will identify which step-down management plans are 
necessary and provide a schedule for their completion. After completion 
of the CCP, modify existing step-down management plans as needed to 
accomplish stated objectives. See 602 FW 3. In the absence of an 
approved CCP, we will develop step-down management plans to describe 
goals, objectives, strategies, implementation schedules, and details 
necessary to implement a management program.
    D. As an alternative to separate step-down management plans, we may 
address management programs in detail during preparation of the CCP. 
Determining which programs we can address in detail in the CCP depends 
on several factors, including the degree of public interest, the amount 
of available information, and the complexity of the issues.
    4.4  How do we combine step-down management plans? Address 
management subjects individually or combined into a single, integrated 
step-down management plan. This decision rests with the Refuge Manager. 
Base the decision on strategies defined in the CCP, the relationship 
between program areas, and the complexity of the programs under 
consideration. Some program areas, such as fire management and habitat 
management, logically suggest an integrated approach.
    4.5  What is the list of potential step-down management plans? 
Following is the current list of potential refuge step-down management 
plans. Consider all of these plans during the CCP process. The CCP will 
document which plans we require for the planning unit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Step-down  management plans           Service manual  reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Safety and Health.......  (Parts 240-249)
  Safety Program.....................  (240 FW 1-9)
  Safety Operations..................  (241 FW 1-9)
  Industrial Hygiene.................  (242 FW 1-13)
  Hazardous Materials Operations.....  (242 FW 6)
Water Rights.........................  (Part 403)
  Policy, Objectives, and              (403 FW 1)
   Responsibilities.
Law Enforcement......................  (Parts 440-459)
Pollution Control....................  (Parts 560-569)
  Policy and Responsibilities........  (560 FW 1)
  Pollution Prevention...............  (560 FW 2)
Compliance Requirements..............  (Part 561)
  Clean Water Act....................  (561 FW 3)
  RCRA--Hazardous Waste..............  (561 FW 6)
Pesticide Use and Disposal...........  (Part 562)
  Pest Management....................  (562 FW 1)
External Threats to FWS Facilities...  (Part 563)
  Air Quality Protection.............  (563 FW 2)
National Wildlife Refuge System        (Part 603)
 (NWRS) Uses.
  NWRS Uses (Appropriate Refuge Uses)  (603 FW 1)
Priority Wildlife-Dependent            (Part 605)
 Recreation.
  Hunting............................  (605 FW 2)
  Fishing............................  (605 FW 3)
  Wildlife Observation...............  (605 FW 4)
  Wildlife Photography...............  (605 FW 5)
  Environmental Education............  (605 FW 6)
  Interpretation.....................  (605 FW 7)
Wilderness Management................  (Part 610)
Special Area Management..............  (Part 611)
  Research Natural Areas.............  (611 FW 1)
  Public Use Natural Areas...........  (611 FW 2)
  Wild and Scenic Rivers.............  (611 FW 3)
  National Trails....................  (611 FW 4)
  Man in the Biosphere Reserve
  Western Hemisphere Shorebird
   Reserves
  Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
Minerals Management..................  (Part 612)
  Minerals and Mining................  (612 FW 1)
  Oil and Gas........................  (612 FW 2)
Cultural Resources Management........  (Part 614)
Habitat Management Planning..........  (Part 620)
Fire Management......................  (Part 621)
Population Management................  (Part 701)
  Inventory and Monitoring...........  (701 FW 2)
  Propagation and Stocking...........  (701 FW 3)
  Marking and Banding................  (701 FW 4)
  Disease Prevention and Control.....  (701 FW 7)
  Trapping...........................  (701 FW 11)
Fishery Resources Management.........  (Part 710)
Exotic Species.......................  (Part 751)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: May 16, 2000.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director.
[FR Doc. 00-12931 Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P