50 C.F.R. § 26.41

What is the process for determining if a use of a national wildlife refuge is a compatible use?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The Refuge Manager will not initiate or permit a new use of a national wildlife refuge or expand, renew, or extend an existing use of a national wildlife refuge, unless the Refuge Manager has determined that the use is a compatible use. This section provides guidelines for making compatibility determinations, and procedures for documenting compatibility determinations and for periodic review of compatibility determinations. We will usually complete compatibility determinations as part of the comprehensive conservation plan or step-down management plan process for individual uses, specific use programs, or groups of related uses described in the plan. We will make all compatibility determinations in writing.

(a) What information do we include in a compatibility determination? All compatibility determinations will include the following information:

(1) The proposed or existing use;

(2) The name of the national wildlife refuge;

(3) The authorities used to establish the national wildlife refuge;

(4) The purpose(s) of the national wildlife refuge;

(5) The National Wildlife Refuge System mission;

(6) The nature and extent of the use including the following:

(i) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use?;

(ii) Where would the use be conducted?;

(iii) When would the use be conducted?;

(iv) How would the use be conducted?; and

(v) Why is the use being proposed?.

(7) An analysis of costs for administering and managing each use;

(8) The anticipated impacts of the use on the national wildlife refuge's purposes and the National Wildlife Refuge System mission;

(9) The amount of opportunity for public review and comment provided;

(10) Whether the use is compatible or not compatible (does it or will it materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purpose(s) of the national wildlife refuge);

(11) Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility;

(12) A logical explanation describing how the proposed use would, or would not, materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purpose(s) of the national wildlife refuge;

(13) The Refuge Manager's signature and date signed; and

(14) The Regional Chief's concurrence signature and date signed.

(15) The mandatory 10- or 15-year re-evaluation date.

(b) Making a use compatible through replacement of lost habitat values or other compensatory mitigation. We will not allow compensatory mitigation to make a proposed refuge use compatible, except by replacement of lost habitat values as provided in paragraph (c) of this section. If we cannot make the proposed use compatible with stipulations we cannot allow the use.

(c) Existing right-of-ways. We will not make a compatibility determination and will deny any request for maintenance of an existing right-of-way which will affect a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System, unless: the design adopts appropriate measures to avoid resource impacts and includes provisions to ensure no net loss of habitat quantity and quality; restored or replacement areas identified in the design are afforded permanent protection as part of the national wildlife refuge or wetland management district affected by the maintenance; and all restoration work is completed by the applicant prior to any title transfer or recording of the easement, if applicable. Maintenance of an existing right-of-way includes minor expansion or minor realignment to meet safety standards.

(d) Termination of uses that are not compatible. When we determine an existing use is not compatible, we will expeditiously terminate or modify the use to make it compatible. Except with written authorization by the Director, this process of termination or modification will not exceed 6 months from the date that the compatibility determination is signed.

[65 FR 62482, Oct. 18, 2000]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2006–2024 · leading case: Prince v. Ark. State High. Comm'n, 576 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2019).
Prince v. Ark. State High. Comm'n, 576 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2019). · cites it 2× “" 50 C.F.R. § 26.41 . The requirements of a given compatibility determination are substantial and varied.”
Town of Superior v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 913 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (D. Colo. 2012). · cites it 4× “§ 668dd(d); 50 C.F.R. § 26.41 . Defendants contend that such an analysis is not required because the RFA supersedes the Refuge Act’s compatibility determination requirement.”
United States v. Millis, 621 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 2010). “at § 668dd(d)(1)(A); see also 50 C.F.R. § 26.41 . As the district court correctly noted, therefore, the intent of the regulatory scheme is to prevent the disposal or abandonment of unauthorized property on refuge land.”
Woodstock v. Kempthorne, 448 F. Supp. 2d 382 (E.D.N.Y 2006). “55; see also 50 C.F.R. § 26.41 (“The Refuge Manager will not initiate or permit a new use of a national wildlife refuge or expand, renew, or extend an existing use of a national wildlife refuge, unless the Refuge Manager has determined that the use is a compatible use.”
Protect The Peninsula's Future v. Haaland (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 4× “See 50 CFR 26.41.; 50 C.F.R. § 25.21 (b). A “compatible use” is one 15 which the Refuge Manager determines “will not materially interfere with or detract from 16 the fulfillment of the mission of the System or purposes of the refuge.”
Nat'l Wildlife Refuge Ass'n v. Rural Utils. Serv. (W.D. Wis. 2022). · cites it 3× “” 50 C.F.R. § 26.41 . Fish and Wildlife has defined a compatible use as “a wildlife-dependent recreational use, or any other use on a refuge that will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Service or the purposes of the refuge.”
Defenders of Wildlife v. US Fish & Wildlife Serv. (D.S.C. 2021). “§ 668dd(d)(3)(A)(i); see also 50 C.F.R. § 26.41 (a). For a use to be “compatible” it must be “a wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the [Service], will not materially interfere with or detract from the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.