2010-2011 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations, 3938-4000 [2011-225]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3938-4000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-225]



[[Page 3937]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 32



2010-2011 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations; Final 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2011 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 3938]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 32

[Docket No. FWS-R9-NSR-2010-0036; 93250-1265-0000-4A]
RIN 1018-AX20


2010-2011 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service adds one refuge to the list of 
areas open for hunting and/or sport fishing and increases the 
activities available at seven other refuges, along with pertinent 
refuge-specific regulations on other refuges that pertain to migratory 
game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport 
fishing for the 2010-2011 season.

DATES: This rule is effective January 21, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie A. Marler, (703) 358-2397.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Wildlife Refuge System 
Administration Act of 1966 closes national wildlife refuges in all 
States except Alaska to all uses until opened. The Secretary of the 
Interior (Secretary) may open refuge areas to any use, including 
hunting and/or sport fishing, upon a determination that such uses are 
compatible with the purposes of the refuge and National Wildlife Refuge 
System (Refuge System or our/we) mission. The action also must be in 
accordance with provisions of all laws applicable to the areas, 
developed in coordination with the appropriate State fish and wildlife 
agency(ies), consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife 
management and administration, and otherwise in the public interest. 
These requirements ensure that we maintain the biological integrity, 
diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System for the 
benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
    We annually review refuge hunting and sport fishing programs to 
determine whether to include additional refuges or whether individual 
refuge regulations governing existing programs need modifications. 
Changing environmental conditions, State and Federal regulations, and 
other factors affecting fish and wildlife populations and habitat may 
warrant modifications to refuge-specific regulations to ensure the 
continued compatibility of hunting and sport fishing programs and to 
ensure that these programs will not materially interfere with or 
detract from the fulfillment of refuge purposes or the Refuge System's 
mission.
    Provisions governing hunting and sport fishing on refuges are in 
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations in part 32 (50 CFR part 
32). We regulate hunting and sport fishing on refuges to:
     Ensure compatibility with refuge purpose(s);
     Properly manage the fish and wildlife resource(s);
     Protect other refuge values;
     Ensure refuge visitor safety; and
     Provide opportunities for quality fish- and wildlife-
dependent recreation.
    On many refuges where we decide to allow hunting and sport fishing, 
our general policy of adopting regulations identical to State hunting 
and sport fishing regulations is adequate in meeting these objectives. 
On other refuges, we must supplement State regulations with more-
restrictive Federal regulations to ensure that we meet our management 
responsibilities, as outlined in the ``Statutory Authority'' section 
below. We issue refuge-specific hunting and sport fishing regulations 
when we open wildlife refuges to migratory game bird hunting, upland 
game hunting, big game hunting, or sport fishing. These regulations 
list the wildlife species that you may hunt or fish, seasons, bag or 
creel (container for carrying fish) limits, methods of hunting or sport 
fishing, descriptions of areas open to hunting or sport fishing, and 
other provisions as appropriate. You may find previously issued refuge-
specific regulations for hunting and sport fishing in 50 CFR part 32. 
In this rulemaking, we are also standardizing and clarifying the 
language of existing regulations.

Statutory Authority

    The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Improvement Act of 1997 [Improvement Act]) (Administration Act), and 
the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) (Recreation 
Act) govern the administration and public use of refuges.
    Amendments enacted by the Improvement Act, built upon the 
Administration Act in a manner that provides an ``organic act'' for the 
Refuge System, are similar to those that exist for other public Federal 
lands. The Improvement Act serves to ensure that we effectively manage 
the Refuge System as a national network of lands, waters, and interests 
for the protection and conservation of our Nation's wildlife resources. 
The Administration Act states first and foremost that we focus our 
Refuge System mission on conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant 
resources and their habitats. The Improvement Act requires the 
Secretary, before allowing a new use of a refuge, or before expanding, 
renewing, or extending an existing use of a refuge, to determine that 
the use is compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was 
established and the mission of the Refuge System. The Improvement Act 
established as the policy of the United States that wildlife-dependent 
recreation, when compatible, is a legitimate and appropriate public use 
of the Refuge System, through which the American public can develop an 
appreciation for fish and wildlife. The Improvement Act established six 
wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public 
uses of the Refuge System. These uses are: Hunting, fishing, wildlife 
observation and photography, and environmental education and 
interpretation.
    The Recreation Act authorizes the Secretary to administer areas 
within the Refuge System for public recreation as an appropriate 
incidental or secondary use only to the extent that doing so is 
practicable and not inconsistent with the primary purpose(s) for which 
Congress and the Service established the areas. The Recreation Act 
requires that any recreational use of refuge lands be compatible with 
the primary purpose(s) for which we established the refuge and not 
inconsistent with other previously authorized operations.
    The Administration Act and Recreation Act also authorize the 
Secretary to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of the Acts 
and regulate uses.
    We develop specific management plans for each refuge prior to 
opening it to hunting or sport fishing. In many cases, we develop 
refuge-specific regulations to ensure the compatibility of the programs 
with the purpose(s) for which we established the refuge and the Refuge 
System mission. We ensure initial compliance with the Administration 
Act and the Recreation Act for hunting and sport fishing on newly 
acquired refuges through an interim determination of compatibility made 
at or near the time of acquisition. These regulations ensure that we 
make the determinations required by these acts prior to adding refuges 
to the lists of areas open to hunting and sport fishing in 50 CFR part 
32. We ensure continued compliance by the development of comprehensive 
conservation plans and specific plans,

[[Page 3939]]

and by annual review of hunting and sport fishing programs and 
regulations.

Response to Comments Received

    In the September 15, 2010, Federal Register (75 FR 56360), we 
published a proposed rulemaking identifying changes pertaining to 
migratory game bird hunting, upland game bird hunting, big game 
hunting, and sport fishing to existing refuge-specific language on 
certain refuges for the 2010-2011 season. We received 14 comments on 
the proposed rule during a 30-day comment period; seven of those 
comments were supportive of the rulemaking.
    Comment 1: Four commenters expressed opposition to the Service 
banning lead sinkers on several of our refuges. They feel that this ban 
would necessitate them having to purchase new nontoxic sinkers and this 
would be hardship on all anglers, especially in light of current 
economic conditions. They feel that the amount of lead left in waters 
is minimal and not the same as that in ammunition used by waterfowl 
hunters.
    Response 1: Three refuges in this rule have language banning lead 
sinkers on their refuges: Patuxent Research Refuge in Maryland, Seney 
National Wildlife Refuge in Michigan, and Rappahannock River Valley 
National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia. Lead is a toxic metal that, in 
sufficient quantities, has adverse effects on the nervous and 
reproductive systems of animals, and can be lethal to wildlife if 
ingested, even in small amounts such as that contained in a fishing 
weight. According to the American Bird Conservancy and Center for 
Biological Diversity, an estimated 10 million to 20 million birds and 
other animals die each year from lead poisoning in the United States. 
Some animals die a painful death from lead poisoning while others 
suffer for years from its debilitating effects. Current estimates are 
that approximately 4,000 tons are lost in ponds and streams as fishing 
lures and sinkers. This metal is poisoning at least 75 wild bird 
species, including loons, golden and bald eagles, ravens and endangered 
California condors. Bald eagles are especially vulnerable to lead. 
Eagles eat fish, including the bottom-feeding varieties most likely to 
scoop sinkers from the sediments. It is true that sinkers are only part 
of the lead problems. Raptors can also pick up bullet fragments from 
deer carcasses, and other birds can pick up lead shot showered over 
fields and wetlands by years of hunting activity. But lead shot for 
waterfowl hunting has been illegal since 1998. There are nontoxic 
fishing weights (split shot) for use in nontidal waters that are 
readily available in the marketplace. Many anglers are using fishing 
tackle made from nontoxic materials such as tin, bismuth, steel, and 
tungsten, alternatives which are found in all 50 States. The difference 
in cost between nonlead tackle and lead is not great, especially for 
basic items. For example, a \3/0\ reusable split shot costs $.03 for 
lead and $.04 for tin.
    This ban of lead sinkers is not new to any of these refuges. In the 
case of Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge, they have 
banned lead sinkers since 2004 in their freshwater ponds, where there 
is a greater likelihood of lead split shot being ingested by wildlife. 
They do allow the use of lead sinkers in tidal creeks because to hold 
bait in a tidal situation anglers need heavier weights, and heavier 
nontoxic weights are not as available in the marketplace. There is also 
less likelihood of weights in tidal waters being ingested (larger size, 
deeper water).
    Seney National Wildlife Refuge has banned lead sinkers since 2002. 
They have several fish-eating predators (bald eagle, osprey, 
kingfisher, otter, loon) that are susceptible to incidental lead 
ingestion on the refuge along with swans that may ingest lead weights 
while feeding in shallow waters. From 1987-2004, lead toxicosis 
accounted for 22 percent of the 204 Michigan common loon deaths that 
were necropsied by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' Rose 
Lake Wildlife Disease Lab.
    Patuxent Research Refuge banned lead sinkers as of April 12, 2010 
(it was effective in the 2009-10 rulemaking). We are making no change 
to the regulations as a result of these comments.
    Comment 2: Two commenters feel that we are making more refuges into 
killing fields for wildlife and birds. One of these commenters also 
wishes to extend the comment period by 60 days. Both commenters feel 
that by spreading lead shot all over the environment it kills a second 
time and more with other animals feeding from the dead carcass. They 
feel that the use of the refuge is taken away from nonhunters who 
cannot use the site when ``the wildlife murderers are there shooting,'' 
and that hunting is incompatible with any other use of the site.
    Response 2: The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 
Act stipulates that hunting (along with fishing, wildlife observation 
and photography, and environmental education and interpretation), if 
found to be compatible, is a legitimate and priority general public use 
of a refuge and should be facilitated. The Administration Act 
authorizes the Secretary to allow use of any refuge area for any 
purpose as long as those uses are compatible. In the case of each 
refuge opening/expansion in this rule, the refuge managers went through 
the compatibility process (which allows for public comment), in 
addition to complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) (which also allows for public comment) to 
make the determination before opening or expanding the refuge to allow 
for hunting.
    We disagree that the comment period is insufficient. The process of 
opening refuges is done in stages, with the fundamental work being done 
on the ground at the refuge and in the community where the program is 
administered. In these stages, the public is provided other 
opportunities to comment, for example, on the comprehensive 
conservation plans, the compatibility determinations, and the hunt 
plans and accompanying NEPA documents. The final stage is when we 
publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for additional 
comment, commonly providing a 30-day comment period.
    We make every attempt to collect all of the proposals from the 
refuges nationwide and process them expeditiously to maximize the time 
available for public review. We believe that a 30-day comment period, 
through the broader publication following the earlier public 
involvement, gives the public sufficient time to comment and allows us 
to establish hunting and fishing programs in time for the upcoming 
seasons. Many of these rules also relieve restrictions and allow the 
public to participate in wildlife-dependent recreational activities on 
a number of refuges. Even after issuance of a final rule, we accept 
comments, suggestions, and concerns for consideration for any 
appropriate subsequent rulemaking.
    We are and have been phasing out the use of lead shot by hunters on 
refuge lands. However, we are doing this phase-out of lead shot in a 
coordinated manner with the respective State wildlife agency. The 
National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 directs the Service to 
make refuge regulations as consistent with State regulations as 
practicable. See additional discussion on the lead shot issue in 
Response 1. There were no changes to this rulemaking as a result of 
these comments.

[[Page 3940]]

    Comment 3: A commenter asked whether a change could be made to Cape 
May National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), which is opening the Great Cedar 
Swamp Division section of its refuge to wild turkey hunting, to include 
the Delaware Bay Division. The commenter explains that he/she 
understood the reason why Delaware Bay Division was not listed during 
the time of the comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) approval was that 
no wild turkeys were likely to be found in that Division, but feels 
that is not the case today. Also, the commenter feels that the turkey 
hunting disturbance footprint/impact is far less than other user groups 
who currently venture onto the refuge--that some of the nonhunting user 
group activities involve large numbers of individuals, moving as a 
single group, which creates a much larger disturbance to the wildlife 
population than a single individual transiting the same area. The 
commenter goes on to state that other users are not limited in any 
fashion as to the amount of time spent inside the ecosystem, unlike 
hunter users who are limited by Federal and State regulations.
    Response 3: In accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Improvement Act of 1997, the 2004 Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) 
for Cape May NWR provides a strategic management direction for the 
refuge over a 15-year period. As described in the 2009 Turkey, Rabbit, 
Squirrel Hunt Management Plan, the Preferred Alternative implements the 
strategies as outlined in the CCP for providing new compatible upland 
game hunting (turkey, rabbit, and squirrel) on the refuge. We consider 
this activity to be a wildlife-dependent public use activity. The 
exclusion of the Delaware Bay Division for turkey hunting meets the 
purposes of the Cape May NWR, as outlined in the 2004 CCP. 
Opportunities for turkey hunting and other wildlife-dependent public 
use activities on the refuge will be re-evaluated during the CCP's 
revision in 2019.
    We designed hunting opportunities provided on Cape May NWR to 
result in minimal disturbance to trust resources. Minimizing 
disturbance factors and potential impacts are a primary consideration 
in season and regulation development. Because hunters may only harvest 
turkey during the spring in the Great Cedar Swamp Division on 4,492 
acres, fewer biological impacts would occur than if we allowed turkey 
hunting in the Delaware Bay Division as well. We allow turkey hunting 
in limited areas of the refuge in order to reduce the cumulative 
negative impacts to wildlife and conflicts among other user groups on 
the refuge. No changes were made to the regulation as a result of this 
comment.
    Comment 4: Another commenter felt that Federal hunting and fishing 
rules should not only be consistent with State hunting and fishing 
regulations but provide a practical, easy-to-use structure to permit 
hunters and anglers on Federal refuges. In particular the commenter 
suggests that we should provide notice in State hunting and fishing 
guides of opportunities found in refuges along with permitting 
requirements, allowing hunters and anglers to obtain required permits 
in a similar manner as State fishing and hunting licenses or permits.
    Response 4: Most State hunting regulation pamphlets identify 
hunting opportunities on refuges. In addition, many States also assist 
in and coordinate the issuance of refuge hunting permits, and many 
assist in running the hunting program on a specific refuge by providing 
staff. We are seeking additional opportunities to harmonize the refuge 
and State regulations. In addition, the process of selecting hunters 
for various hunting opportunities undergoes annual reviews, often in 
conjunction with State wildlife agency staff, and we are seeking 
opportunities to improve these processes. However, an important 
distinction between refuges and other lands within a State is that 
national wildlife refuges are closed to hunting in the lower 48 States 
until the Service opens them through a prescribed series of steps set 
forth both in regulation (50 CFR 32.1) and in policy (605 FW 2). 
Furthermore, if we do open a refuge, not all lands within a refuge are 
opened in their entirety, and we are very specific about exactly how 
this hunt will take place.
    The decision to open a refuge to hunting involves numerous steps 
where each refuge manager determines, after completing a compatibility 
determination, hunting and/or fishing opening package, appropriate NEPA 
documentation, section 7 consultation, and consultation with State fish 
and game agencies, the conduct of the hunting or fishing opportunity. 
While we make every effort to be consistent with State regulations, 
there are instances when it is appropriate that we be more restrictive 
than the State. Our regulations at 50 CFR 32.2(d) state that, ``Each 
person shall comply with the applicable provisions of the laws and 
regulations of the State wherein any area is located unless further 
restricted by Federal law or regulation.'' [Emphasis added.]
    For example, States may typically allow a longer hunting/angling 
season or larger bag limits than do many refuges. Most refuges have 
shorter seasons not only to ensure healthy wildlife populations, but to 
also allow other users opportunities to visit and observe wildlife on 
our refuges (i.e., bird watchers, school groups, other refuge visitors) 
free of any safety concerns related to hunting in particular. We allow 
refuge managers the latitude to be more restrictive than the State when 
they deem it necessary and appropriate for a particular refuge.
    The commenter also referred to a condition that required hunters 
wishing to participate in a hunt to submit a Big/Upland Game Hunt 
Application (FWS Form 3-2356). We recently secured OMB approval of nine 
new forms allowing the refuges to keep track of various activities on 
the refuges. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.) (PRA) determines how we may collect information from 10 or more 
individuals. We strive with every annual regulation to comply with the 
PRA and this is an attempt to do so. This law is unique to the Federal 
Government and compliance is not discretionary. The collection of this 
information enables refuge managers to more appropriately manage hunts 
helping to ensure quality opportunities for the hunting and angling 
public in addition to better managing wildlife populations. We made no 
changes to the regulation as a result of this comment.
    Comment 5: A commenter says that the Service should only propose 
rules that it reasonably believes it can enforce and that is consistent 
with the purposes of allowing hunting in refuges. Specifically, the 
commenter assumes that the requirement for hunters in tree stands to 
use a safety belt or harness (as proposed at Choctaw NWR) is proposed 
for safety purposes, but we provide no analysis justifying this rule. 
Further, the rule is overly prescriptive and will be difficult to 
enforce without undermining the hunting.
    Response 5: This is not a new proposal for Choctaw NWR. The refuge 
has had this regulation in place since 2004. The commenter states that 
in order to enforce this regulation, the law enforcement officer would 
disturb any wildlife. Often officers (Federal or State) make use of 
spotting scopes and binoculars enabling them to check compliance from a 
distance and also are able to examine equipment at check-in and check 
out stations, in addition to field checks. Furthermore, this is a 
requirement for hunters using State wildlife management areas in 
Alabama. According to State statistics, falling

[[Page 3941]]

from tree stands is the leading cause of injuries to hunters in 
Alabama. Injuries from tree stand accidents could be minimized or 
prevented by wearing a safety belt or harness. Alabama regulations now 
require all hunters using a tree stand on wildlife management areas to 
wear a safety belt or harness. We make no changes to the regulation as 
a result of this comment.
    Comment 6: A commenter feels that a condition for Bald Knob NWR 
Arkansas (A6) is overly broad and without reason. Specifically, he/she 
does not disagree with the requirement for use of only approved 
nontoxic shot shells for waterfowl hunting, and feels that the proposal 
to disallow shells in/on vehicles will result in unwarranted searches 
and seizures and possibly increase the Service's liability.
    Response 6: Bald Knob NWR is both a popular waterfowl hunting 
refuge and known as one of the best areas for waterfowl hunting in the 
State. Over the years disputes between hunting parties escalated based 
on various reasons such as hunting too close together, ``sky busting'' 
(shooting birds at long ranges when there is only a small chance of 
taking a bird), and other problems. The refuge addressed those problems 
in 2001 by implementing a minimum distance between different hunting 
groups to be at least 100 yards (90 m). They addressed the ``sky 
busting'' issue by implementing the 25 shell possession limit, 
including in vehicles. This significantly reduced ``sky busting'' 
forcing hunters to make better judgments and shots in the field. 
Consequently, hunters are more peacefully coexisting resulting in a 
more enjoyable and quality hunt. No major hunter conflicts have arisen 
since the refuge implemented these rules. The logic behind the wording 
``including in vehicles'' is because hunters would bring 25 shells into 
the field and once expended, the law enforcement officers would find 
them returning to their vehicles to get another box of 25. If the 
officers imposed a limit of 25 shells only in the field, as suggested 
by the commenter, we are not reducing sky busting because there is 
potentially an unlimited supply of ammunition available to the hunter 
in his or her vehicle. By limiting hunters' possession to 25 shells, 
including in their vehicles, we have eliminated (or nearly so) the 
problem as evidenced by the few disputes in the past 9 to 10 years.
    Finally, on Bald Knob NWR all hunters must possess the refuge 
brochure, which when signed becomes their refuge hunting permit. Their 
signature indicates that they have read and understood the refuge 
hunting regulations and willingly agree to allow law enforcement 
officers to inspect or search their equipment used during the hunt. We 
made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment 7: A commenter feels that hunting and fishing age 
requirements should be consistent throughout the country and points out 
that Bayou Cocodrie NWR listed a different age threshold for youth 
hunters than other Louisiana refuges. The commenter also felt that 
instead of prescribing Federal hunting supervision laws that the refuge 
should defer to State law.
    Response 7: After submission by the refuge of their regulations, 
the State proposed an age change for youth hunters. Bayou Cocodrie NWR 
is effecting that change with this final rule and modifying the age for 
youth hunters from age 17 and under to age 16 and under. As a general 
rule, we strive to be consistent with State regulations. As for the 
comment about supervision of youth hunters and the comparison to other 
refuges, each refuge manager determines the conduct of a hunt on the 
individual refuge. They take into consideration such factors as habitat 
types, endangered species, and public hunting pressure present on their 
particular refuge. At Bayou Cocodrie NWR, the manager determined that 
there needs to be a more experienced hunter accompanying and teaching 
the younger hunter the responsibilities of hunting on the refuge. Other 
than modifying the age of youth hunters to age 16 and under, we made no 
changes to the regulation as a result of these comments.
    Comment 8: A commenter, though supportive of expanding hunting on 
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota, expressed 
concern about expansion of hunting on wildlife refuges in general. The 
commenter expressed that the cumulative impact assessment of each 
refuge was made available online in a prior stage of this process but 
is not available online now while the regulation is in its final 
stages.
    Response 8: We disagree. We posted on https://www.regulations.gov a 
cumulative impacts assessment report of the entire rulemaking (23 
pages) on the day the Federal Register published the proposed rule, and 
we simultaneously posted the proposed rule on that Web site. This 
report addresses a description of the subject and issues involved and 
assesses the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed 
hunting activities on hunted populations of migratory birds and 
resident wildlife, nonhunted migratory and resident wildlife, 
threatened and endangered species, plant and habitat resources, other 
wildlife-dependent recreational uses, physical resources (including 
air, soil and water) cultural resources, refuge facilities, solitude 
and socioeconomics. We also assessed impacts of the proposed opening 
and/or expansion of hunting activities on the seven refuges by 
evaluating Compatibility Determinations prepared by each refuge for 
their respective hunting programs, and intra-Service consultations on 
the effects of hunting on endangered and threatened species conducted 
for each refuge hunting program as required by section 7 of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
    When contacted by the commenter, he/she did not inquire about the 
cumulative impacts assessment, but rather about the general process of 
the rulemaking, including the 2003 Fund for Animals litigation. We 
explained to the commenter that this rulemaking was a compilation of 
the changes needed by refuges for this particular season and that the 
bulk of the economic analysis is done, appropriately, at the field 
level. We directed the commenter to contact individual refuges if they 
wished to receive the NEPA documentation created at the refuge level. 
The commenter did so, received the information that he/she was seeking, 
and supports the expansion of hunting in Minnesota Valley NWR. The 
commenter further stated that he/she felt there should be more 
information available to the public about proposed hunting regulations, 
specifically the readily available environmental assessment of each 
refuge. As discussed in the preamble of the rule, the decision to open 
or expand a refuge is a public process. All elements of that decision, 
including the hunt plan, compatibility determination, and appropriate 
NEPA analysis, are the subject of a public review and comment process 
and are available upon request. The decision to post online individual 
refuge-specific environmental analyses lies with the refuge manager; 
however, we will make the suggestion to refuge managers that they do so 
in the future to facilitate additional public inspection of documents 
after the appropriate public review process has ended and we have made 
a decision. We made no changes to this rulemaking as a result of this 
comment.

Effective Date

    This rule is effective upon publication in the Federal Register. We 
have determined that any further delay in implementing these refuge-
specific hunting and sport fishing regulations would not be in the 
public interest, in that a delay would hinder the effective

[[Page 3942]]

planning and administration of the hunting and fishing programs. We 
provided a 30-day public comment period for the September 15, 2010, 
proposed rule. An additional delay would jeopardize holding the hunting 
and/or fishing programs this year or shorten their duration and thereby 
lessen the management effectiveness of this regulation. This rule does 
not impact the public generally in terms of requiring lead time for 
compliance. Rather it relieves restrictions in that it allows 
activities on refuges that we would otherwise prohibit. Therefore, we 
find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective 
upon publication.

Amendments to Existing Regulations

    This document codifies in the Code of Federal Regulations all of 
the Service's hunting and/or sport fishing regulations that are 
applicable at Refuge System units previously opened to hunting and/or 
sport fishing. We are doing this to better inform the general public of 
the regulations at each refuge, to increase understanding and 
compliance with these regulations, and to make enforcement of these 
regulations more efficient. In addition to now finding these 
regulations in 50 CFR part 32, visitors to our refuges will usually 
find them reiterated in literature distributed by each refuge or posted 
on signs.
    We have cross-referenced a number of existing regulations in 50 CFR 
parts 26, 27, and 32 to assist hunting and sport fishing visitors with 
understanding safety and other legal requirements on refuges. This 
redundancy is deliberate, with the intention of improving safety and 
compliance in our hunting and sport fishing programs.

                              Table 1--Changes for 2010-2011 Hunting/Fishing Season
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Migratory bird      Upland game
   National Wildlife Refuge      State         hunting           hunting      Big game hunting       Fishing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modoc........................  CA         C...............  Already open....  Closed..........  Already open.
Cape May.....................  NJ         Already open....  B...............  D (turkey)......  Already open.
Fort Niobrara................  NE         Closed..........  Closed..........  B...............  Already open.
Caddo Lake...................  TX         Closed..........  Closed..........  A...............  Closed.
Deep Fork....................  OK         Already open....  Already open....  C...............  Already open.
Bosque del Apache............  NM         Already open....  Already open....  D (turkey)......  Already open.
Rappahannock River Valley....  VA         Closed..........  Closed..........  Already open....  C.
Minnesota Valley.............  MN         C/D.............  C/D.............  C...............  Already open.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A = New refuge opened.
B = New activity on a refuge previously opened to other activities.
C = Refuge already open to activity but added new land/waters which increased activity.
D = Refuge already open to activity but added new species to hunt.

    The changes for the 2010-11 hunting/fishing season noted in the 
chart above are each based on a complete administrative record which, 
among other detailed documentation, also includes a hunt plan, a 
compatibility determination, and the appropriate NEPA analysis, all of 
which were the subject of a public review and comment process. These 
documents are available upon request.

Fish Advisory

    For health reasons, anglers should review and follow State-issued 
consumption advisories before enjoying recreational sport fishing 
opportunities on Service-managed waters. You can find information about 
current fish consumption advisories on the Internet at: https://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/.

Plain Language Mandate

    In this rule we made some of the revisions to the individual refuge 
units to comply with a Presidential mandate to use plain language in 
regulations; as such, these particular revisions do not modify the 
substance of the previous regulations. These types of changes include 
using ``you'' to refer to the reader and ``we'' to refer to the Refuge 
System, using the word ``allow'' instead of ``permit'' when we do not 
require the use of a permit for an activity, and using active voice 
(i.e., ``We restrict entry into the refuge'' vs. ``Entry into the 
refuge is restricted'').

Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB 
bases its determination on the following four criteria:
    (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
    (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
use fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.
    (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act [SBREFA] of 1996) (5 
U.S.C. 601, et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish 
a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare 
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis 
that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a 
regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a 
threshold for ``significant impact'' and a threshold for a 
``substantial number of small entities.'' See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). SBREFA 
amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to 
provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    This rule adds one national wildlife refuge to the list of refuges 
open to hunting, increases hunting activities on six national wildlife 
refuges, and increases fishing activities at one national wildlife 
refuge. As a result, visitor use for wildlife-dependent recreation on 
these national wildlife refuges will change. If the refuges 
establishing new programs were a pure addition to the current supply of 
such activities, it would mean an estimated

[[Page 3943]]

increase of 12,330 user days (one person per day participating in a 
recreational opportunity) (Table 2). Because the participation trend is 
flat in these activities since 1991, this increase in supply will most 
likely be offset by other sites losing participants. Therefore, this is 
likely to be a substitute site for the activity and not necessarily an 
increase in participation rates for the activity.

   Table 2--Estimated Change in Recreation Opportunities in 2010/2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Additional      Additional
                 Refuge                        days        expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modoc...................................             130         $13,868
Cape May................................           1,700         181,356
Fort Niobrara...........................             250          26,670
Caddo Lake..............................             225          24,003
Deep Fork...............................             177          18,882
Bosque del Apache.......................               8             853
Rappahannock River Valley...............             640          51,510
Minnesota Valley........................           9,200         981,454
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................          12,330       1,298,596
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent visitors spend time and money in the area of the 
refuge that they would not have spent there anyway, they contribute new 
income to the regional economy and benefit local businesses. Due to the 
unavailability of site-specific expenditure data, we use the national 
estimates from the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and 
Wildlife Associated Recreation to identify expenditures for food and 
lodging, transportation, and other incidental expenses. Using the 
average expenditures for these categories with the maximum expected 
additional participation of the Refuge System yields approximately $1.3 
million in recreation-related expenditures (Table 2). By having ripple 
effects throughout the economy, these direct expenditures are only part 
of the economic impact of these recreational activities. Using a 
national impact multiplier for hunting activities (2.67) derived from 
the report ``Economic Importance of Hunting in America'' and a national 
impact multiplier for fishing activities (2.79) derived from the report 
``Economic Importance of Fishing in America'' yields a total economic 
impact of approximately $3.5 million (2009 dollars) (Southwick 
Associates, Inc., 2007). Using a local impact multiplier would yield 
more accurate and smaller results. However, we employed the national 
impact multiplier due to the difficulty in developing local multipliers 
for each specific region.
    Since we know that most of the fishing and hunting occurs within 
100 miles of a participant's residence, then it is unlikely that most 
of this spending would be ``new'' money coming into a local economy; 
therefore, this spending would be offset with a decrease in some other 
sector of the local economy. The net gain to the local economies would 
be no more than $3.5 million, and most likely considerably less. Since 
80 percent of the participants travel less than 100 miles to engage in 
hunting and fishing activities, their spending patterns would not add 
new money into the local economy and, therefore, the real impact would 
be on the order of about $695,000 annually.
    Small businesses within the retail trade industry (such as hotels, 
gas stations, taxidermy shops, bait and tackle shops, etc.) may be 
impacted from some increased or decreased refuge visitation. A large 
percentage of these retail trade establishments in the local 
communities around national wildlife refuges qualify as small 
businesses (Table 3). We expect that the incremental recreational 
changes will be scattered, and so we do not expect that the rule will 
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small 
entities in any region or nationally. As noted previously, we expect 
approximately $695,000 to be spent in total in the refuges' local 
economies. The maximum increase ($3.5 million if all spending were new 
money) at most would be less than 1 percent for local retail trade 
spending.

                      Table 3--Comparative Expenditures for Retail Trade Associated With Additional Refuge Visitation for 2010/2011
                                                                [Thousands, 2009 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Estimated
                                                               Retail trade  in       maximum      Addition as  % of   Establishments     Establ. with
                      Refuge/County(ies)                        2002  (2009 $)     addition from         total             in 2007       <10 emp in 2007
                                                                                  new activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modoc: Modoc, CA.............................................            51,719              13.9              0.027                33                22
Cape May: Cape May, NJ.......................................         1,649,345             181.4              0.011               746               597
Fort Niobrara: Cherry, NE....................................            80,374              26.7              0.033                44                28
Caddo Lake:
    Caddo, LA................................................         3,329,277               6.0              0.000               999               685
    Bossier, LA..............................................         1,369,032               6.0              0.000               469               201
    Harrison, TX.............................................           505,210               6.0              0.001               209               160
    Marion, TX...............................................            63,964               6.0              0.009                38                30
Deep Fork: Okmulgee, OK......................................           302,176              18.9              0.006               128                98
Bosque del Apache:
    Bernalillo, NM...........................................         9,354,821               0.3              0                 2,272             1,512
    Socorro, NM..............................................            91,494               0.3              0                    47                35
    Sierra, NM...............................................            85,374               0.3              0                   563                40
Rappahannock River Valley:

[[Page 3944]]

 
    Caroline, VA.............................................           306,350               2.6              0.001                64                52
    Essex, VA................................................           193,558              24.5              0.013                61                39
    Richmond, VA.............................................            88,581              24.5              0.028                41                29
Minnesota Valley:
    Hennepin MN..............................................        20,238,488             245.4              0.001             4,399             2,742
    Carver MN................................................           703,601             245.4              0.035               232               142
    Scott MN.................................................           878,227             245.4              0.028               358               240
    Dakota MN................................................         5,787,006             245.4              0.004             1,181               722
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule reflects a change for Rappahannock River Valley NWR 
as being in three different counties in Virginia: Caroline, Essex, and 
Richmond. The proposed rule incorrectly stated the refuge was located 
in Northumberland County.
    With the small change in overall spending anticipated from this 
rule, it is unlikely that a substantial number of small entities will 
have more than a small impact from the spending change near the 
affected refuges. Therefore, we certify that this rule will not have a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities 
as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. 
seq.). An initial/final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not 
required. Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. We anticipate no 
significant employment or small business effects. This rule:
    a. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more. The minimal impact will be scattered across the country and will 
most likely not be significant in any local area.
    b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions. This rule will have only a slight 
effect on the costs of hunting opportunities for Americans. If the 
substitute sites are farther from the participants' residences, then an 
increase in travel costs will occur. The Service does not have 
information to quantify this change in travel cost but assumes that, 
since most people travel less than 100 miles to hunt, the increased 
travel cost will be small. We do not expect this rule to affect the 
supply or demand for hunting opportunities in the United States and, 
therefore, it should not affect prices for hunting equipment and 
supplies, or the retailers that sell equipment.
    c. Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based 
enterprises. This rule represents only a small proportion of 
recreational spending at national wildlife refuges. Therefore, this 
rule will have no measurable economic effect on the wildlife-dependent 
industry, which has annual sales of equipment and travel expenditures 
of $72 billion nationwide.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Since this rule applies to public use of federally owned and 
managed refuges, it will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, 
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 
million per year. The rule will not have a significant or unique effect 
on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A 
statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

Takings (E.O. 12630)

    In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule will not have significant 
takings implications. This regulation affects only visitors at national 
wildlife refuges and describes what they can do while they are on a 
refuge.

Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    As discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review and Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act sections above, this rule will not have sufficient 
Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment under E.O. 13132. In preparing this rule, we worked with 
State governments.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 
determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and 
that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the 
Order. The regulation clarifies established regulations and results in 
better understanding of the regulations by refuge visitors.

Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 13211)

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations 
that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 
13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when 
undertaking certain actions. Because this rule increases activities at 
seven refuges and opens one new refuge, it is not a significant 
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and is not expected to significantly 
affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action 
is a not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects 
is required.

Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 
13175)

    In accordance with E.O. 13175, we have evaluated possible effects 
on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there 
are no effects. We coordinate recreational use on national wildlife 
refuges with Tribal governments having adjoining or overlapping 
jurisdiction before we propose the regulations.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This regulation does not contain any information collection 
requirements other than those already approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget

[[Page 3945]]

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (OMB Control 
Numbers are 1018-0102 and 1018-0140). See 50 CFR 25.23 for information 
concerning that approval. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a 
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless 
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation

    We comply with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), when developing Comprehensive 
Conservation Plans (CCPs) and step-down management plans (which would 
include hunting and/or fishing plans) for public use of refuges, and 
prior to implementing any new or revised public recreation program on a 
refuge as identified in 50 CFR 26.32. We have completed section 7 
consultation on each of the affected refuges.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), 
43 CFR part 46, and 516 Departmental Manual (DM) 8.
    A categorical exclusion from NEPA documentation applies to 
publication of amendments to refuge-specific hunting and fishing 
regulations since they are technical and procedural in nature, and the 
environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to 
lend themselves to meaningful analysis (43 CFR 46.210 and 516 DM 8). 
Concerning the actions that are the subject of this rulemaking, we have 
complied with NEPA at the project level when developing each proposal. 
This is consistent with the Department of the Interior instructions for 
compliance with NEPA where actions are covered sufficiently by an 
earlier environmental document (516 DM 3.2A).
    Prior to the addition of a refuge to the list of areas open to 
hunting and fishing in 50 CFR part 32, we develop hunting and fishing 
plans for the affected refuges. We incorporate these refuge hunting and 
fishing activities in the refuge CCPs and/or other step-down management 
plans, pursuant to our refuge planning guidance in 602 Fish and 
Wildlife Service Manual (FW) 1, 3, and 4. We prepare these CCPs and 
step-down plans in compliance with section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, and the 
Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA in 
40 CFR parts 1500-1508. We invite the affected public to participate in 
the review, development, and implementation of these plans. Copies of 
all plans and NEPA compliance are available from the refuges at the 
addresses provided below.

Available Information for Specific Refuges

    Individual refuge headquarters have information about public use 
programs and conditions that apply to their specific programs and maps 
of their respective areas. To find out how to contact a specific 
refuge, contact the appropriate Regional offices listed below:

Region 1--Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Regional Chief, 
National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Eastside Federal Complex, Suite 1692, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 
97232-4181; Telephone (503) 231-6214.
Region 2--Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Regional Chief, 
National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Box 
1306, 500 Gold Avenue, Albuquerque, NM 87103; Telephone (505) 248-7419.
Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 230, Karnack, TX 75661; 
Telephone (903) 679-9144.
Region 3--Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, 
and Wisconsin. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1 Federal Drive, Federal Building, Fort 
Snelling, Twin Cities, MN 55111; Telephone (612) 713-5401.
Region 4--Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, 
and the Virgin Islands. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge 
System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, 
Atlanta, GA 30345; Telephone (404) 679-7166.
Region 5--Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Regional Chief, National 
Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate 
Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035-9589; Telephone (413) 253-8306.
Region 6--Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South 
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge 
System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 134 Union Blvd., Lakewood, CO 
80228; Telephone (303) 236-8145.
Region 7--Alaska. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Rd., Anchorage, AK 99503; 
Telephone (907) 786-3545.
Region 8--California and Nevada. Regional Chief, National Wildlife 
Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Room 
W-2606, Sacramento, CA 95825; Telephone (916) 414-6464.

Primary Author

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 32

    Fishing, Hunting, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Wildlife, Wildlife refuges.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we amend title 50, 
chapter I, subchapter C of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 32--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 32 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 460k, 664, 668dd-668ee, and 
715i.


Sec.  32.7  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  32.7 ``What refuge units are open to hunting and/or 
sport fishing?'' by:
0
a. Adding Michigan Wetland Management District, in alphabetical order, 
in the State of Michigan; and
0
b. Adding Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge, in alphabetical order, 
in the State of Texas.

0
3. Amend Sec.  32.20 Alabama by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs B., C., and D. of Choctaw National Wildlife 
Refuge; and
0
b. Revising paragraph A.1., adding paragraph A.6., and revising 
paragraph C.3. of Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge, to read as follows:


Sec.  32.20  Alabama.

* * * * *

Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge

* * * * *
    B. Upland Game Hunting. We allow hunting of squirrel, rabbit, 
raccoon, and opossum on designated areas of the refuge in accordance 
with State regulations subject to the following conditions:
    1. We prohibit hunting within 100 yards (90 m) of the fenced-in 
refuge work center area, hiking trail, and refuge boat ramp.
    2. We prohibit marking trees and using flagging tape, reflective 
tacks, and other similar marking devices.

[[Page 3946]]

    3. We allow take of incidental species as listed in the refuge hunt 
permit (signed brochure) during any hunt with those weapons legal 
during those hunts.
    4. Hunters must possess and carry a signed refuge hunt permit 
(signed brochure) when hunting.
    5. All youth hunters age 15 and younger must remain within sight 
and normal voice contact of an adult age 21 or older, possessing a 
license and permit. One adult may supervise no more than two youth 
hunters.
    6. We prohibit overnight mooring or storage of boats.
    7. We require hunters to check all harvested game at the conclusion 
of each day at one of the refuge check out stations.
    8. A hunter may only use approved nontoxic shot (see Sec.  
32.2(k)). We restrict hunting weapons to shotguns with shot size no 
larger than No. 6 or rifles no larger than .22 standard rimfire or 
legal archery equipment.
    9. We prohibit the use of mules, horses, and ATVs.
    10. We allow dogs for upland game hunting except in Middle Swamp. 
We allow dogs only in Middle Swamp the last 2 weeks of upland game 
season.
    C. Big Game Hunting. We allow hunting of white-tailed deer and 
feral hog in accordance with State regulations subject to the following 
conditions:
    1. Conditions B1 through B9 apply.
    2. We require tree stand users to use a safety belt or harness.
    3. We prohibit damaging trees or hunting from a tree that contains 
an inserted metal object (see Sec.  32.2(i)). We require hunters to 
remove all tree stands and blinds daily (see Sec.  27.93 of this 
chapter).
    4. We prohibit participation in organized drives.
    5. We prohibit hunting by aid or distribution of any feed, salt, or 
other mineral at any time (see Sec.  32.2(h)).
    D. Sport Fishing. We allow fishing in designated areas of the 
refuge in accordance with State regulations subject to the following 
conditions:
    1. We allow fishing year-round, except in the waterfowl sanctuary, 
which we close from December 1 through March 1.
    2. With the exception of the refuge boat ramp, we limit access from 
[frac12] hour before legal sunrise to \1/2\ hour after legal sunset.
    3. We allow a rod and reel and pole and line. We prohibit all other 
methods of fishing.
    4. We prohibit the taking of frogs and turtles (see Sec.  27.21 of 
this chapter).
    5. We prohibit bow fishing.
    6. We prohibit the use of airboats, hovercrafts, and inboard-water-
thrust boats such as, but not limited to, personal watercraft, 
watercycles, and waterbikes.
    7. We require a refuge Special Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383) for 
commercial fishing. Commercial anglers may use nets, seines, baskets, 
and boxes legal for use within the State of Alabama.
    8. We prohibit mooring or storing of boats from \1/2\ hour after 
legal sunset to \1/2\ hour before legal sunrise.

Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge

    A. Migratory Bird Hunting. * * *
    1. You must possess and carry a signed refuge hunt brochure 
(permit) when hunting.
* * * * *
    6. All waterfowl hunting opportunities are spaced-blind and 
assigned by lottery. Hunters wishing to participate in our waterfowl 
hunt must submit a Waterfowl Lottery Application (FWS Form 3-2355). 
Consult the refuge brochure for details.
* * * * *
    C. Big Game Hunting. * * *
* * * * *
    3. All youth gun hunting opportunities are spaced-blind and 
assigned by lottery. Hunters wishing to participate in our youth gun 
hunt must submit a Big/Upland Game Hunt Application (FWS Form 3-2356). 
Consult the refuge brochure for details.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  32.22 Arizona by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs A.2. through A.6., A.10., C.1., and C.2., adding 
paragraph C.3., and revising paragraphs D.1. and D.3. of Bill Williams 
River National Wildlife Refuge;
0
b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph A., and revising 
paragraphs B. and C.2. of Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge; and
0
c. Removing paragraph B.4. and redesignating paragraph B.5. as B.4. of 
Imperial National Wildlife Refuge.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  32.22  Arizona.

    * * *

Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge

    A. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. * * *
* * * * *
    2. You may possess only nontoxic shot while hunting in the field 
(see Sec.  32.2(k)).
    3. We prohibit hunting within 50 yards (45 m) of any building, 
road, or levee open to public use.
    4. We allow hunting/angling on the refuge only in those areas 
posted or designated as open. The public hunting area is generally 
described as south of the Bill Williams Road and east of Arizona State 
Rt. 95 plus the south half of Section 35, T 11N-R 17W as posted. We 
close the isolated grow-out cove near the visitor center to fishing as 
posted.
    5. We allow hunting/angling in accordance with State regulations 
only for the listed species.
    6. You may retrieve fish or game from an area closed to hunting or 
entry only upon specific consent from an authorized refuge employee.
* * * * *
    10. All refuge visitors must remove all personal items from the 
refuge at the end of each day's activity, i.e., boats, equipment, 
cameras, temporary blinds, stands, etc. (see Sec.  27.93 of this 
chapter).
* * * * *
    C. Big Game Hunting * * *
    1. Conditions A4 through A11 apply.
    2. In Arizona Wildlife Management Unit 44A, we allow hunting on the 
refuge only in those areas south of the Bill Williams River Road and 
east of Arizona State Rt. 95 plus the south half of Section 35, T 11N-R 
17W as posted.
    3. In Arizona Wildlife Management Unit 16A, we allow hunting for 
desert bighorn sheep only in those areas north of the Bill Williams 
River.
    D. Sport Fishing. * * *
    1. Conditions A4 through A11 apply.
* * * * *
    3. We designate all refuge waters as wakeless speed zones (as 
defined by State law).
* * * * *

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge

    A. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. We allow hunting of goose, duck, 
coot, and dove on designated areas of the refuge in accordance with 
State regulations subject to the following conditions:
* * * * *
    B. Upland Game Hunting. We allow hunting of rabbit, coyote, and 
skunk on designated areas of the refuge in accordance with State 
regulations subject to the following condition: Conditions A1 through 
A3 apply.
    C. Big Game Hunting. * * *
* * * * *
    2. Conditions A1 through A3 apply.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  32.23 Arkansas by:
0
a. Revising Bald Knob National Wildlife Refuge;
0
b. Revising paragraphs B., C.1., C.3., C.5., C.8., and C.12., removing 
paragraph C.13., and revising paragraph D. of Big Lake National 
Wildlife Refuge;
0
c. Revising Cache River National Wildlife Refuge;

[[Page 3947]]

0
d. Revising paragraphs A., B., C.1., C.3. through C.9., C.13. through 
C.15.,