33892 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

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:

• 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;

• basing management decisions on a

thorough assessment of available

science;

• defining our relationship with

States and other agencies and their

programs;

• identifying biological information

necessary for planning and

management;

• clarifying under what conditions

we should revise a CCP;

• expediting or further clarifying our

planning process;

• describing the relationship of CCPs

to refuge purposes and Refuge System

mission; and

• 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

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

33894 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

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 longrange 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 decisionmaking 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.

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

33896 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

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

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

33898 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

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 reevaluate 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 wildlifedependent 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

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

33900 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

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-todate 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, caseby-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, wildlifedependent 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.

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

33902 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

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

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

33904 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

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 wildlifedependent 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 wildlifedependent 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 wildlifedependent 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 wildlifedependent 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices 33905

policy directs that we incorporate preacquisition 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 wildlifedependent 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 wildlifedependent 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).

33906 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

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 Systemwide 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,

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

33908 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

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 stepdown 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 stepdown 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 NEPArelated matters.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices 33909

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

33910 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

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 longrange 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

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

33912 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

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 wildlifedependent 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 decisionmaking 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

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

33914 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

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 standalone 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

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

33916 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

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

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 ........................................................................................................ llllllllll

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 ...................................................................................................................... llllllllll

Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965, as amended ......................................................................................... llllllllll

Antiquities Act of 1906 ................................................................................................................................................. llllllllll

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 ................................................................................................. llllllllll

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended ................................................................................ llllllllll

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended ..................................................................................... llllllllll

Clean Air Act of 1970 ................................................................................................................................................... llllllllll

Clean Water Act of 1974, as amended ........................................................................................................................ llllllllll

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended ................................................................................................ llllllllll

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 ............................................................................................................. llllllllll

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended .......................................................................................................... llllllllll

Farmland Protection Act of 1981, as amended ........................................................................................................... llllllllll

Federal Cave Protection Act of 1988 ........................................................................................................................... llllllllll

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1990 ............................................................................................................................. llllllllll

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 ....................................................................................................................................... llllllllll

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 .................................................................................................................. llllllllll

Fishery (Magnuson) Conservation and Management Act of 1976 .............................................................................. llllllllll

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended ................................................................................................ llllllllll

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 ..................................................................................................................... llllllllll

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934 ..................................................................................... llllllllll

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended .......................................................................................................... llllllllll

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 .................................................................................................................. llllllllll

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended ............................................................................................ llllllllll

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended ................................................................ llllllllll

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 ............................................................................. llllllllll

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended .............................................................................................................. llllllllll

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 ................................................................................................................................... llllllllll

Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (sole-source aquifers) ................................................................................... llllllllll

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended ...................................................................................................... llllllllll

Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended .......................................................................................................................... llllllllll

Applicable Executive Orders:

Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands .......................................................................... llllllllll

Executive Order 11987, Exotic Organisms .................................................................................................................. llllllllll

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management ........................................................................................................ llllllllll

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands .......................................................................................................... llllllllll

Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice for Minority Populations .................................................................... llllllllll

Executive Order 12962, Recreational Fisheries .......................................................................................................... llllllllll

Executive Order 12996, Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System .................. llllllllll

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites ............................................................................................................... llllllllll

Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments ......................................... llllllllll

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

llShort description of the planning unit to

include:

llSize

llEstablishment date

llRegional setting (include area map)

llLand acquisition or habitat protection

efforts

llCurrent management (including a map)

llCurrent staffing

llExisting partnerships

llPurpose(s) for which the refuge was

established

llPast land use and history of settlement,

including a description of any changes in

topography, hydrology, and other factors

llExisting transportation patterns and

related visitor facilities

llHabitat management practices

llRefuge System mission and goals.

llEcosystem goals and objectives.

llGoals and objectives for other landscapelevel plans.

llNational goals and objectives for species,

species groups, habitats and

communities, or programs (e.g.,

shorebirds, an endangered species,

priority public use program).

llIdentify any mandates that apply to the

area or the proposed plan.

llDescription of the planning unit

environment to include:

lldistribution, migration patterns, and

abundance of fish, wildlife, and plant

populations, including any threatened or

endangered species and related habitats;

llcurrent and historic description of the

flora and fauna, and the diversity of

habitats and natural communities;

llwildlife habitat and species

relationships;

llability of the planning unit to meet the

habitat needs of fish, wildlife, and

plants, as they occur throughout their

natural ranges;

llvegetation types (Federal Geographic

Data Committee compliant map

required);

llvegetation/land cover and wildlife

habitat relationships;

llsignificant problems that may

adversely affect the ecological integrity

or wilderness characteristics and the

actions necessary to correct or mitigate

the problems;

llcontext of the planning unit in relation

to the surrounding ecosystem;

llstructures, components, and functions

of the ecosystem(s) of which the

planning unit is a part;

llfish, wildlife, and plants and their

habitats and communities that are rare

and/or declining within the ecosystem;

llarchaeological and cultural resources

of the planning unit;

llrefuge land status map;

llnatural and historic role of fire and

other natural occurrences affecting

ecological processes;

33918 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

llexisting special management areas

(e.g., wilderness, wild and scenic rivers);

llrelationship between the planning unit

and other refuges and protected areas.

llDocument and describe the following:

llsignificant 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;

llwater resources including quantity and

quality;

llknown or suspected sources of

environmental contaminants and their

potential impacts on the planning unit

(refer to the Contaminant Assessment

Program);

llpotential for special management area

designations (e.g., wilderness, research

natural areas, and wild and scenic

rivers);

llsummary of management history;

llother significant issues of management

or public concern;

llexisting and potential opportunities

for wildlife-dependent recreation;

llexisting administrative resources,

including staffing, funding, and

facilities;

llpotential need for administrative sites,

transportation improvements, or visitor

facilities and areas within the planning

unit that are suitable for such sites.

llVision statement.

llGoals for at least the following areas:

llwildlife species or groups of species;

llhabitat (including land protection

needs);

llfish, wildlife, and plant populations,

as appropriate;

llcompatible wildlife-dependent

recreation;

llothers as needed to meet mandates

(such as refuge-specific legislation,

executive orders, special area

designations, etc.).

llObjectives for each goal.

llStrategies to achieve each objective.

llMap(s) of desired future conditions (e.g.,

habitat management areas, facilities,

wildlife-dependent recreation sites, etc.).

llIdentification of step-down management

plans required to fully implement the

CCP.

llPrioritized list of projects and estimated

project costs (update priorities and cost

estimates annually).

llStaffing and funding required to

implement the plan.

llPotential partnership opportunities.

llMonitoring plan to evaluate the

effectiveness of the plan and project

implementation, including monitoring of

target fish, wildlife, and plant

populations and their habitats.

llSummary of public involvement process,

comments received and their

disposition, and consultation and

coordination with other Federal

agencies, State conservation agencies,

and adjacent landowners.

llCompatibility determinations (including

pre-acquisition compatibility

determinations).

llWilderness review.

llHabitat/Land Protection Plans (if

applicable).

llNEPA 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices 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 stepdown 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 stepdown 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 stepdown 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 stepdown 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 stepdown 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 stepdown management plans? Following is

the current list of potential refuge stepdown 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 Responsibilities.

(403 FW 1)

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 (NWRS)

Uses.

(Part 603)

NWRS Uses (Appropriate Refuge

Uses).

(603 FW 1)

Step-down

management plans

Service manual

reference

Priority Wildlife-Dependent Recreation.(Part 605)

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