# 2016-2017 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2016-23190

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** October 4, 2016
- **Citation:** 81 FR 68874

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 32
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2016-0007; FXRS12650900000-167-FF09R26000]
RIN 1018-BB31
2016-2017 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, add 1 national wildlife refuge (NWR or refuge) to the list of areas open for hunting, increase the hunting activities available at 12 other NWRs, open 1 refuge to fishing for the first time, and add pertinent refuge-specific regulations for other NWRs that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing for the 2016-2017 season.

DATES:

This rule is effective October 4, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jillian Cohen, (703) 358-1764.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 closes NWRs in all States except Alaska to all uses until opened. The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) may open refuge areas to any use, including hunting and/or sport fishing, upon a determination that the use is compatible with the purposes of the refuge and National Wildlife Refuge System mission. The action also must be in accordance with provisions of all laws applicable to the areas, developed in coordination with the appropriate State fish and wildlife agency(ies), consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, and otherwise in the public interest. These requirements ensure that we maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

We annually review refuge hunting and sport fishing programs to determine whether to include additional refuges or whether individual refuge regulations governing existing programs need modifications. Changing environmental conditions, State and Federal regulations, and other factors affecting fish and wildlife populations and habitat may warrant modifications to refuge-specific regulations to ensure the continued compatibility of hunting and sport fishing programs and to ensure that these programs will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of refuge purposes or the Refuge System's mission.

Provisions governing hunting and sport fishing on refuges are in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations in part 32 (50 CFR part 32). We regulate hunting and sport fishing on refuges to:

• Ensure compatibility with refuge purpose(s);

• Properly manage fish and wildlife resource(s);

• Protect other refuge values;

• Ensure refuge visitor safety; and

• Provide opportunities for quality fish- and wildlife-dependent recreation.

On many refuges where we decide to allow hunting and sport fishing, our general policy of adopting regulations identical to State hunting and sport fishing regulations is adequate in meeting these objectives. On other refuges, we must supplement State regulations with more-restrictive Federal regulations to ensure that we meet our management responsibilities, as outlined in the Statutory Authority section, below. We issue refuge-specific hunting and sport fishing regulations when we open wildlife refuges to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, or sport fishing. These regulations may list the wildlife species that you may hunt or fish, seasons, bag or creel (container for carrying fish) limits, methods of hunting or sport fishing, descriptions of areas open to hunting or sport fishing, and other provisions as appropriate. You may find previously issued refuge-specific regulations for hunting and sport fishing in 50 CFR part 32. In this rulemaking, we are also standardizing and clarifying the language of existing regulations.

Statutory Authority

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 [Improvement Act]) (Administration Act), and the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) (Recreation Act) govern the administration and public use of refuges.

Amendments enacted by the Improvement Act built upon the Administration Act in a manner that provides an “organic act” for the Refuge System, similar to organic acts that exist for other public Federal lands. The Improvement Act serves to ensure that we effectively manage the Refuge System as a national network of lands, waters, and interests for the protection and conservation of our Nation's wildlife resources. The Administration Act states first and foremost that we focus our Refuge System mission on conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats. The Improvement Act requires the Secretary, before allowing a new use of a refuge, or before expanding, renewing, or extending an existing use of a refuge, to determine that the use is compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established and the mission of the Refuge System. The Improvement Act established as the policy of the United States that wildlife-dependent recreation, when compatible, is a legitimate and appropriate public use of the Refuge System, through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife. The Improvement Act established six wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public uses of the Refuge System. These uses are: Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

The Recreation Act authorizes the Secretary to administer areas within the Refuge System for public recreation as an appropriate incidental or secondary use only to the extent that doing so is practicable and not inconsistent with the primary purpose(s) for which Congress and the Service established the areas. The Recreation Act requires that any recreational use of refuge lands be compatible with the primary purpose(s) for which we established the refuge and not inconsistent with other previously authorized operations.

The Administration Act and Recreation Act also authorize the Secretary to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of the Acts and regulate uses.

We develop specific management plans for each refuge prior to opening it to hunting or sport fishing. In many cases, we develop refuge-specific regulations to ensure the compatibility of the programs with the purpose(s) for which we established the refuge and the Refuge System mission. We ensure initial compliance with the Administration Act and the Recreation Act for hunting and sport fishing on newly acquired refuges through an interim determination of compatibility made at or near the time of acquisition. These regulations ensure that we make the determinations required by these acts prior to adding refuges to the lists of areas open to hunting and sport fishing in 50 CFR part 32. We ensure continued compliance by the development of comprehensive conservation plans, specific plans, and

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

Summary of Comments and Responses

On July 14, 2016, we published a proposed rule (81 FR 45790) to add 1 refuge to the list of areas open for hunting, increase the hunting activities available at 12 other refuges, open 1 refuge to fishing for the first time, and add pertinent refuge-specific regulations for other refuges that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing for the 2016-2017 season. We accepted public comments on the proposed rule for 30 days, ending August 15, 2016. By that date, we received 601 comments. Below, we discuss the comments we received by topic.

Comment (1):
Many commenters expressed general opposition to any hunting or fishing in the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). In many cases, commenters stated that hunting was antithetical to the purposes of a “refuge,” which, in their opinion, should serve as an inviolate sanctuary for all wildlife.

Our Response:
The Administration Act, as amended, stipulates that hunting (along with fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation), if found to be compatible, is a legitimate and priority general public use of a refuge and should be facilitated. The Service has adopted policies and regulations implementing the requirements of the Administration Act that refuge managers comply with when considering hunting and fishing programs.

We allow hunting of resident wildlife on NWRs only if such activity has been determined compatible with the established purpose(s) of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System as required by the Administration Act. Hunting of resident wildlife on NWRs generally occurs consistent with State regulations, including seasons and bag limits. Refuge-specific hunting regulations can be more restrictive (but not more liberal) than State regulations and often are more restrictive in order to help meet specific refuge objectives. These objectives include resident wildlife population and habitat objectives, minimizing disturbance impacts to wildlife, maintaining high-quality opportunities for hunting and other wildlife-dependent recreation, eliminating or minimizing conflicts with other public uses and/or refuge management activities, and protecting public safety.

Each refuge manager makes a decision regarding hunting on that particular refuge only after rigorous examination of the available information. Developing or referencing a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP), a 15-year plan for the refuge, is generally the first step a refuge manager takes. Our policy for managing units of the Refuge System is that we will manage all refuges in accordance with an approved CCP, which, when implemented, will achieve refuge purposes; help fulfill the Refuge System mission; maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; help achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and meet other mandates. The CCP will guide management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies to accomplish these ends. The next step for refuge managers is developing or referencing step-down plans, of which a hunting plan would be one. Part of the process for opening a refuge to hunting after completing the step-down plan would be appropriate compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.
), such as conducting an environmental assessment accompanied by the appropriate decision documentation (record of decision, finding of no significant impact, or environmental action memorandum or statement). The rest of the elements in the opening package are an evaluation of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.
), copies of letters requesting State and/or tribal involvement, and draft refuge-specific regulatory language. We make available the CCP, hunt plan, and NEPA documents and request public comments on them, as well as on any proposed rule, before we allow hunting on a refuge.

In sum, this illustrates that the decision to allow hunting on an NWR is not a quick or simple process. It is full of deliberation and discussion, including review of all available data to determine the relative health of a population before we allow it to be hunted.

The word “refuge” includes the idea of providing a haven of safety for wildlife, and as such, hunting might seem an inconsistent use of the NWRS. But again, the Administration Act stipulates that hunting, if found compatible, is a legitimate and priority general public use of a refuge. Furthermore, we manage refuges to support healthy wildlife populations that in many cases produce harvestable surpluses that are a renewable resource. As practiced on refuges, hunting and fishing do not pose a threat to wildlife populations. It is important to note that taking certain individuals through hunting does not necessarily reduce a population overall, as hunting can simply replace other types of mortality. In some cases, however, we use hunting as a management tool with the explicit goal of reducing a population; this is often the case with exotic and/or invasive species that threaten ecosystem stability. Therefore, facilitating hunting opportunities is an important aspect of the Service's roles and responsibilities as outlined in the legislation establishing the NWRS, and the Service will continue to facilitate these opportunities where compatible with the purpose of the specific refuge and the mission of the NWRS.

Note that not all refuges are inviolate sanctuaries. If we acquired a refuge as an inviolate sanctuary, we may open up to 40 percent of that refuge's area for hunting of migratory game birds (16 U.S.C. 668dd(d)(1)(A)). However, if we acquired a refuge without the stipulation that it be an inviolate sanctuary, we may open 100 percent of the refuge's area for hunting.

The Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-616) amended section 6 of the Administration Act to provide for the opening of all or any portion of an inviolate sanctuary to the taking of migratory birds if taking is determined to be beneficial to the species. Such opening of more than 40 percent of the refuge to hunting is determined by species. This amendment refers to inviolate sanctuaries created in the past or to be created in the future. It has no application to areas acquired for other management purposes.

We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (2):
Many commenters expressed support for hunting and fishing expansions on NWRs. One commenter expressed support for the openings and expansions described in the proposed rule, but felt that the Service has not opened enough refuges to hunting or increased hunting at enough refuges. According to the commenter, more than 40 percent of the more than 562 NWRs still prohibit hunting; with the clear directives from the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal Government to increase hunting activities, the Service must open refuges to hunting at a faster pace. The commenter also strongly recommended that the Service engage in discussions with State wildlife managers and with representatives of the hunting community, to facilitate and expedite these openings and make

certain that these and all NWRs become or remain open to hunting.

Our Response:
As noted in our response to
Comment (1),
the Administration Act, as amended, establishes that the Refuge System was created to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats and that the Service should facilitate opportunities for Americans to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting and fishing, on Refuge System lands and waters. Therefore, the Service will continue to facilitate hunting and fishing opportunities where doing so is compatible with the purpose of the specific refuge and the mission of the NWRS.

The Service continues to open and expand hunting opportunities across the NWRS, as evidenced by this final rule; however, as detailed in our response to
Comment (1),
above, the decision to allow hunting on a refuge is not a quick or simple process. Once the Service determines that a hunt can be carried out in a manner compatible with individual refuge purposes and the mission of the NWRS, we work expeditiously to open it. We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (3):
Many commenters stated that the majority of Americans do not hunt and were of the opinion that allowing hunting would impede “non-consumptive” uses of refuges, including photography and wildlife viewing. Several users claimed that hunting turns refuges into “war zones” unsuitable for wildlife viewing. One commenter said wolves at Yellowstone and Denali became harder to observe after hunting was allowed, asserting that hunting would diminish the quality of wildlife viewing for non-hunters.

Our Response:
Congress, through the Administration Act, as amended, envisioned that hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation would all be treated as priority public uses of the NWRS. Therefore, the Service facilitates all of these uses on refuges, as long as they are found compatible with the purposes of the specific refuge and the mission of the NWRS. For this rulemaking, we analyzed impacts of the proposed changes to hunting programs at each refuge through the NEPA process, which included analyzing impacts to other wildlife-dependent uses. Ten refuges completed environmental assessments (EAs), while Alamosa, Baca, and Monte Vista NWRs, as part of the San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex, completed a combined environmental impact statement (EIS). We also provided opportunities for the public to comment on the proposed hunt opening and expansions when we developed the CCP, hunt plan, and compatibility determination, and through the NEPA process. When looking at the 10 EAs and one EIS completed for this specific rulemaking, collectively with the refuges that already allow for hunting, the Service has determined that there are no significant impacts to other wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities.

The refuges in this rulemaking use a variety of techniques to reduce user conflict, such as specific hunt seasons, limited hunting hours, restricting which parts of the refuge are open to hunting, and restricting the number of hunters. Refuge managers also use public outreach tools, such as signs and brochures, to make users aware of hunting and their options for minimizing conflict. Most refuges have refuge-specific regulations to improve the quality of the hunting experience as well as provide for quality wildlife-dependent experiences for other users. The Service is aware of several studies showing a correlation between increased hunting and decreased wildlife sightings, which underscores the importance of using the aforementioned techniques, particularly time and space zoning of hunting, to ensure a quality experience for all refuge visitors. We also note that Denali and Yellowstone are part of the National Park System, not the NWRS. More information on how a specific refuge facilitates various wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities can be found in the refuge's CCP, hunt plan, and/or refuge-specific EA/EIS for this rule. The public may contact the specific refuge for any of these materials.

We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (4):
One commenter was of the opinion that hunting can disrupt the natural balance of the ecosystem that people enjoy and can deter people from going to visit areas even at times when there are not people actively hunting wildlife.

Our Response:
We do not allow hunting on a refuge if it is found incompatible with that individual refuge's purposes or with the mission of the NWRS. In addition, the Service's Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health (BIDEH) policy (601 FW 3) guides decisionmaking with respect to management of activities on refuges, including hunting. Service biologists and wildlife professionals, in consultation with the State, determine the optimal number of each game animal that should reside in an ecosystem and then establish hunt parameters (
e.g.,
bag limits, sex ratios) based on those analyses. We carefully consider how a proposed hunt fits with individual refuge goals, objectives, and strategies before allowing the hunt. None of the known, estimated, or projected harvests of migratory game birds, upland game, or big game species in this rulemaking is expected to have significant adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to hunted populations, non-hunted wildlife, endangered or threatened species, plant or habitat resources, wildlife-dependent recreation, prescribed fire, air, soil, water, cultural resources, refuge facilities, solitude, or socio-economics. Further, we address the relationship between hunting and wildlife sightings in our response to
Comment (3).
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment (5):
Several commenters were of the opinion that expanding hunting on NWRs could cause refuge visitors to be accidentally shot or otherwise injured.

Our Response:
The Service considers public safety to be a top priority. Hunting of resident wildlife on refuges generally occurs consistent with State regulations, which are designed to protect public safety. Refuges may also develop refuge-specific hunting regulations that are more restrictive than State regulations in order to help meet specific refuge objectives, including protecting public safety. Refuges use many techniques to ensure the safety of hunters and visitors, such as requiring hunters to wear blaze orange, controlling the density of hunters, limiting where firearms can be discharged (
e.g.,
not across roads, away from buildings), and using time and space zoning to limit conflicts between hunters and other visitors. It is worth noting that injuries and deaths related to hunting are extremely rare, both for hunters themselves and for the non-hunting public. We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (6):
Several commenters felt that expanding hunting on NWRs would increase the likelihood of wildlife being taken illegally (poaching). One commenter was of the opinion that no significant penalties or charges will be brought against individuals who illegally take wildlife on NWRs.

Our Response:
Hunters on NWRs must comply with State regulations and any refuge-specific regulations, which would ban taking wildlife illegally (poaching). The Service takes poaching very seriously, as allowing poaching

would seriously undermine the conservation mission of the NWRS. Refuge managers use a variety of techniques to help ensure that hunters are aware of relevant laws and regulations, such as requiring hunters to carry a signed refuge hunt brochure at all times while in the field. Also, refuge managers may institute check stations when hunters leave the refuge. The priority for Federal Wildlife Officers and other refuge staff is to educate the public so that violations do not occur in the first place. In addition, our Federal Wildlife Officers routinely partner with State and other Federal law enforcement agents to coordinate efforts and share information to counter poaching. In 2013, the Strategic Wildlife Enforcement Program, an initiative that leverages funding for enforcement activities by partnering with State and local agencies, resulted in 1500 contacts, 149 warnings, and 127 violation notices. Some activities funded through this program include long-term surveillance to detect take violations at Willapa Bay, Lewis and Clark, and Ridgefield NWRs; patrolling waterways to conduct waterfowl compliance checks at Patoka River NWR; a deer decoy operation at Seney NWR; and checking deer harvests to ensure hunters complied with size limitations at Patuxent Research Refuge.

The commenter is incorrect in assuming that no significant fines or charges are associated with hunting violations. Penalties for illegally taking wildlife on a refuge can range as high as 1 year in jail and/or $100,000 in fines (16 U.S.C. 668dd(f)(1)). In some cases, felony provisions of the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371
et seq.;
18 U.S.C. 42-43) may be used to prosecute violators of wildlife laws; for example, see prosecution of poaching on Sherburne NWR at:
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/news/721.html.
Further, the Service may suspend a hunt at any time if there is evidence that the hunt is no longer meeting our objectives. We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (7):
One commenter said the Service should manage predators as a means to promote bird nesting success, small game opportunities, and other considerations appropriate to the mission of enhancing our wildlife populations and diversity. Conversely, one commenter was very opposed to hunting predators, including bears and cougars.

Our Response:
Refuge managers consider predator management on a case-by-case basis. As with all species, a refuge manager makes a decision about allowing predatory species to be hunted only after careful examination to ensure the hunt would comply with relevant laws, policies, and directives. The Administration Act, as amended, directs the Service to manage refuges for “biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health.” Moreover, the Service manages refuges in accordance with the BIDEH policy described in our response to
Comment (4).
Predators play a critical role in the integrity, diversity, and overall health of ecosystems, so managing predators is not always appropriate. Before allowing predators to be hunted, a refuge manager would have to ensure that the hunt would not threaten the integrity, diversity, or health of the refuge ecosystem. The manager would also have to determine that the hunt was compatible with refuge purposes and was in keeping with the refuge's CCP and hunt plan. The Service manages 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. In addition, the refuge manager would have to analyze the impacts of the proposed hunt through the NEPA process, which would include the opportunity for public comment. Finally, the proposed hunt would be open to public comment through the rulemaking process. We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (8):
Some commenters were of the opinion that hunters target the strongest and healthiest animals in a population, thereby degrading the gene pool and putting the viability of the population at risk.

Our Response:
We disagree with the above comment that hunters will have a significant enough impact to affect the gene pool of an entire population. We are not aware of any information that suggests hunting programs, as they are conducted on refuges, are shifting the genetic makeup of a population. In many cases, hunting is a tool used to manage populations and ensure a healthy ecosystem. If hunters are targeting older males in a way that threatens the viability of a population, as is sometimes the case with trophy hunting, refuge managers have several tools at their disposal to protect the population, such as limiting hunting days or only allowing hunters to take antlerless animals.

We considered the impacts of hunting on target and non-target populations through individual EAs or an EIS for each of the proposed hunting openings and expansions. We also consider the cumulative impacts of all proposed hunts in the 2016-2017 Cumulative Impacts Report accompanying the proposed rule. In each case, the number of animals to be taken is too small to shift the genetic makeup of the population in any significant way. We made no changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (9):
One commenter asserted that we should prepare an EIS before proposing to expand hunting and fishing opportunities on many NWRs. According to the commenter, the proposed rule is of sufficient context and intensity to indicate that it is significant enough to warrant an EIS because refuges attract people from all across the country, and because of the severity of the impacts. Specifically, the commenter stated that the 13 refuges where we proposed to add or increase hunting activities represent “unique geographic areas.” According to the commenter, the hunting programs we proposed will likely last at least 10 years and set a precedent for continued management on NWRs.

Our Response:
The Service disagrees with the assertion that we should prepare an EIS before proposing expanded hunting and fishing opportunities on NWRs. The Service's analysis of the impacts of the proposed rule demonstrated that the rule would not have significant impacts at the local, regional, or national level, and the commenter has provided no additional information that would change our analysis. As discussed above, we annually conduct refuge management activities on NWRs that minimize or offset impacts of hunting on physical and cultural resources, including establishing designated areas for hunting; restricting levels of use; confining access and travel to designated locations; providing education programs and materials for hunters, anglers, and other users; and conducting law enforcement activities.

The Service completed individual EAs for 10 refuges and one EIS for the San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex (which includes Alamosa, Baca, and Monte Vista NWRs) in compliance with NEPA to evaluate the impacts of opening or expanding hunting opportunities on refuges in connection with this rulemaking. These EAs/EIS underwent regional and national review to address and consider these actions from a multi-State or flyway perspective, and to discuss the cumulative impacts from this larger geographical context. The 2016-2017 Cumulative Impacts Report supports

this finding, concluding that, after analyzing the impacts of these 10 EAs and EIS collectively with the refuges that already allow hunting, the proposed rule would not result in significant adverse impacts to the human environment. A court found that this approach was an appropriate way for the Service to analyze the impacts of the rule in compliance with NEPA (see
Fund for Animals
v.
Hall,
777 F. Supp. 2d 92, 105 (D.D.C., 2011)). Therefore, we did not find that the impacts to the human environment were severe, as the commenter suggests.

As for the comment on precedential future refuge management, most of the activities that are part of this rulemaking are either expanding the areas for existing hunts or adding new species to existing hunts—species that are already hunted nearby off refuge. We also note that the Service annually conducts notice-and-comment rulemaking to revise the refuge-specific regulations at 50 CFR part 32; therefore, if, in the future, the Service obtained new information that changes our analysis of impacts either locally, regionally, or nationally, we would promptly undertake revisions to the regulations as needed. It is also worth noting that each refuge must revise its CCP every 15 years, which would include an evaluation of any hunting or fishing programs. Finally, as noted in our response to
Comment (6),
the Service may suspend a hunt at any time if there is evidence the hunt is no longer meeting our objectives. For these reasons, we made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment (10):
Many commenters were of the opinion that the proposed opening and expansions would turn refuges into “danger zones” for wildlife by interrupting migration, disrupting hibernation, and destroying wildlife families. Many also felt that the Service should consider the suffering of fish and other animals as a result of the proposed opening and expansions. One commenter stated that we fail to include a serious discussion of the ethical implications of the proposed action to expand hunting and fishing on multiple refuges and that we should prepare an EIS that includes a legitimate discussion of ethics and the rights of wildlife in order to assist the public and decision makers in fully considering the best alternative to choose.

Our Response:
As detailed in our response to
Comment (1),
above, we do not take lightly the decision to allow hunting on a refuge, and we never allow hunting if there is evidence that it will impair the purposes of the refuge or the mission of the NWRS. Refuge managers use a variety of techniques to minimize disturbance to non-target species of wildlife, such as time and space zoning. In some cases, hunting may be part of a management program to reduce the population of nuisance species; otherwise, hunt programs are carefully designed and regulated so as not to affect the sustainability of wildlife populations. Refuge managers are authorized to suspend a hunt program at any time if it appears as though the hunt is causing unacceptable impacts to refuge values or resources.

The Service understands that some members of the public do not believe that hunting on refuges is ethical. However, the Administration Act, as amended, stipulates that hunting and fishing, if found to be compatible, are legitimate and priority public uses of a refuge and should be facilitated. As detailed above in our response to
Comment (1),
the decision to open a refuge to hunting must comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies; requires rigorous examination; and provides many opportunities for public comment, all to ensure that hunting is consistent with the purpose of the specific refuge and the mission of the NWRS. Specifically, each refuge complies with NEPA in keeping with procedures outlined in the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 1-7) and other appropriate policies and guidance.

We must base our decisions on the best available science, and commenters have not provided information that would change our analysis. Our hunting programs are consistent with State regulations and, where necessary, use more stringent refuge-specific regulations to ensure that hunting and fishing are carried out in a safe, responsible manner. We made no changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (11):
A commenter asserted that our analysis of cumulative impacts in the Cumulative Impacts Report is vague and superficial, and fails to consider the cumulative impacts for expanding hunting and fishing on 13 refuges at the same time. The commenter further stated that we failed to consider how increased hunting will affect the distribution, migration patterns, and abundance of fish, wildlife, and plant populations across multiple refuges, and that while we claim that there will not be significant impacts due to certain mitigation measures, we fail to disclose where and how we will implement those mitigation measures. The commenter gives the example that, although we claim to conduct annual refuge management activities that minimize or offset the disturbance and impacts of hunting and/or fishing, such as the establishment of non-hunted sanctuary areas, we do not specify what, if any, areas have been established as non-hunted sanctuary areas or whether we will expand sanctuary areas to a sufficient degree to mitigate for expanded hunting and fishing. Thus, it is unclear to the commenter whether these activities are sufficient to mitigate the impacts of the proposed rule.

Our Response:
The Service disagrees with the commenter that we have not considered how increased hunting will affect the distribution, migration patterns, and abundance of fish, wildlife, and plant populations across multiple refuges. As discussed in our response to
Comment (1),
the Service does a very rigorous analysis before opening or expanding hunting and fishing opportunities on refuges. The Service works very closely with the States to develop refuge-specific regulations consistent with State hunting programs that carefully consider the amount of hunting that can occur so as to not significantly affect the distribution, migration patterns, and abundance of fish and wildlife populations. Additionally, the refuge manager must determine that the hunting and fishing opportunities will meet both the purpose of the individual refuge and the mission of the NWRS, which is to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitat. As part of this rulemaking, each individual refuge prepared an EA or EIS that analyzed the cumulative impacts of expanding or opening hunting on fish, wildlife, and plant populations at both a local and regional level, including the cumulative impacts of hunting across multiple refuges that are geographically connected. Finally, the 2016-2017 Cumulative Impacts Report looks at the refuge-specific EA/EISs collectively to determine the national cumulative impacts of the proposed rule on fish, wildlife, and plant populations. As discussed in our response to
Comment (9),
this method was approved by a Court.

Furthermore, the Service would like to address the comment about certain mitigation measures such as “sanctuary areas.” To the contrary, the 2016-2017 Cumulative Impacts Report concluded that none of the refuge-specific EAs found that there would be significant adverse cumulative impacts to wildlife populations. Additionally, when looking at the EA/EISs collectively with the refuges that already allow hunting, the Service concluded that the cumulative impacts on non-hunted wildlife populations would be

negligible. However, the Service does manage hunting on refuges to minimize any impacts to non-hunted wildlife populations by establishing non-hunted sanctuary areas, conducting habitat management and restoration activities, and minimizing illegal take through enforcement of applicable Federal, State, and refuge-specific regulations.

The Service is not required to mitigate for every impact from hunting. The Service will mitigate where there are:

• Population-level effects to non-sensitive wildlife, including game species, through future restrictions, such as smaller bag limits or season closures; or

• Potential impacts to sensitive wildlife, such as species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

The Service may close or alter hunts as needed.

The specific refuge makes all of these management decisions, and, therefore, we do not discuss them in detail in the 2016-2017 Cumulative Impacts Report. However, more information on a refuge-specific hunting plan, including the establishment of non-hunted sanctuary areas on a refuge, can be found in the refuge's CCP, hunt plan, and/or refuge-specific EA/EIS for this rulemaking. The public may contact the specific refuge for any of these materials.

Comment (12):
Many commenters expressed concern that fishing paraphernalia would be tossed aside, injuring companion animals and non-target wildlife.

Our Response:
It is illegal to abandon property or dispose of waste on a refuge (see 50 CFR 27.93 and 27.94), whether fishing-related or not. It is also illegal to disturb or injure any non-target plants or wildlife (see 50 CFR 27.51) on a refuge. Further, many refuges have specific regulations to guard against littering associated with fishing. We did not make any changes to the rule in response to these comments.

Comment (13):
One commenter suggested that the Service use “mammalian birth control” as a management tool, rather than hunting.

Our Response:
Under the Administration Act, as amended, hunting is a priority use of refuges, along with fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The Administration Act directs the Service to facilitate priority uses as long as they are compatible with individual refuge mandates and purposes. In some cases, hunting may also function as a management tool, but this is not the primary justification for allowing hunting on refuges. We made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment (14):
Several commenters expressed concern over allowing lead ammunition to be used on refuges; some requested that the Service ban lead ammunition for all hunting. Some of these commenters specifically requested that we prohibit hunters from using lead ammunition when hunting elk at Alamosa, Baca, and Monte Vista NWRs. One commenter stated that lead-based ammunition could harm endangered and threatened species on refuges. Another commenter asserted that the Service did not adequately analyze the cumulative impacts of the regulations in the Cumulative Impacts Report because the analysis does not disclose or evaluate the cumulative impacts on non-target wildlife that will result from the regulations that continue to allow the use of toxic (lead) ammunition on some of the refuges for some types of hunting. One commenter felt that it is confusing that several refuges in California (Don Edwards, Salinas, and San Pablo NWRs) removed language requiring the use of nontoxic shot from their refuge-specific regulations.

Our Response:
The Service is concerned about the impacts of spent lead ammunition on scavengers, especially bald eagles and ravens. Lead shot for waterfowl hunting has been illegal on refuges since 1998. We continue to look at options and ways to reduce the indirect impacts of toxic shot. Generally, we are and have been phasing out the use of lead shot by upland and big game hunters on refuge lands.

The Service continues to research this issue and engage with States and other partners to promote the use of non-lead ammunition. The Administration Act, as amended, directs the Service to make refuge regulations as consistent with State regulations as practicable. We share a strong partnership with the States in managing wildlife, and, therefore, we are proceeding with the phase-out of toxic ammunition in a coordinated manner with each respective State wildlife agency. Notably, as part of this rulemaking, 22 refuges have limited the use of toxic shot for hunting either upland game, big game, or both. None of these refuges is in the State of California, where lead ammunition is already banned under State law and is therefore banned on all refuges in California.

Currently, the State of Colorado does not require the use of nontoxic bullets for either rifles or muzzleloaders. As part of this rulemaking, Alamosa, Baca, and Monte Vista NWRs require nontoxic ammunition for migratory game bird and upland game hunting. The Service will continue to work with the State of Colorado to further phase-out toxic ammunition on these refuges.

We disagree that any use of lead shot related to the opening or expanding hunting and fishing on the 13 refuges in this rulemaking will harm endangered or threatened species. Each of the refuges carefully evaluated possible effects to endangered and threatened species as part of the NEPA process. In addition, each refuge complied with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, which requires Federal agencies to ensure that the actions they carry out, fund, or authorize do not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species (“listed species”). For each refuge, the Service determined that the proposed action was not likely to affect any listed species.

While the Service is concerned about the impacts of spent lead ammunition on scavengers, we can conclude without a detailed cumulative impacts analysis that the limited use of lead ammunition allowed on refuges will have an insignificant effect on refuge resources. We reach this conclusion because the amount of spent lead ammunition on refuges nationwide is so small compared to the amount of spent lead ammunition in the environment. Therefore, the Service has not revised the 2016-2017 Cumulative Impacts Report based on these comments. Lastly, for the comment about California refuges, under the Administration Act, as amended, refuge-specific regulations can be more restrictive, but not more liberal, than State regulations. We are removing the provisions regarding nontoxic shot from some California refuges' regulations to avoid redundancy and confusion now that the State has banned lead ammunition for hunting. The regulations for each of the refuges in question clearly state that State regulations apply. It would be confusing for the public to pick certain State provisions to repeat in our refuge-regulations and not others. It is important to note, however, that the refuges may still remind the public of the prohibition on lead ammunition through hunt brochures, announcements at meetings, postings at visitor's centers, and through interactions with refuge staff.

We made no changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (15):
According to one commenter, in the proposed rule, the Service contends that on some occasions we must impose regulations regarding hunting on NWRs that conflict with State laws and regulations. The commenter stated that the Service

should not adopt or implement management strategies that lead to overreach and infringement on State prerogatives for refuges in Alaska or in any other State. The commenter added that the Service should defer to the States' expertise in managing their wildlife and should make every effort to conform refuge hunting regulations to the regulations already adopted and followed by State managers.

Our Response:
The Service works closely with our State partners in managing hunt programs on refuge lands. Whenever possible, we defer to State regulations related to hunting and fishing. However, we may create refuge-specific regulations that are more restrictive than State regulations if necessary to meet the establishment purpose of the refuge or the mission of the NWRS. Our authority to do so stems from the Administration Act, as amended, which states: “When the Secretary [of the Interior] determines that a proposed wildlife-dependent recreational use is a compatible use within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated, subject to such restrictions or regulations as may be necessary, reasonable, and appropriate” (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(3)(D)), and “Regulations permitting hunting or fishing of fish and resident wildlife within the System shall be, to the extent practicable, consistent with State fish and wildlife laws, regulations, and management plans” (16 U.S.C. 668dd(m)). We also note that this final rule does not address refuges in the State of Alaska. We made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment (16):
One commenter was of the opinion that we failed to identify what species of migratory game birds and “other big game” would be open to hunting on Baca NWR.

Our Response:
In the proposed rule, in the proposed entry for Baca NWR at 50 CFR 32.25, we specify that migratory game bird hunting at the refuge would be limited to the hunting of Eurasian collared-doves and mourning doves and that big game hunting would be limited to the hunting of elk. We do not have a category that authorizes the hunting of “other big game.” We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment (17):
One commenter expressed concern that residents living near refuges might act prejudicially toward certain wildlife species, such as wolves, and that refuge managers would share these prejudices. The commenter asked how the Service can assure proper oversight of refuge managers.

Our Response:
Allowing hunting on a refuge requires rigorous examination, State consultation, and multiple opportunities for public comment, as detailed in our response to
Comment (1),
above. This prevents an individual manager from prejudicing the process. In addition, the Service has a robust supervisory system in place to ensure that individual refuge managers execute their duties appropriately. Each refuge manager reports directly to a Supervisory Refuge Program Specialist (Refuge Supervisor), who exercises supervisory line authority in the management of refuges within a defined geographic area. Among other duties, the Refuge Supervisor conducts site-visits to evaluate whether refuges are being managed in accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and policies. Where necessary, the Refuge Supervisor is empowered to institute corrective actions for refuge staff. Beyond the Refuge Supervisor, there are additional lines of supervision. We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment (18):
A commenter stated that if the refuge cannot be sustained financially, we should open it up to hunting and fishing and charge a daily permit fee. However, the commenter also stated that if the refuge can be supported financially without charging a daily permit fee, then hunting and fishing opportunities should not be expanded.

Our Response:
The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLRA; 16 U.S.C. 6801-6814) authorizes the Secretary to establish, modify, charge, and collect recreation fees at Federal recreational lands and waters. FLRA also specifies how these recreation fees can be spent. The three types of recreation fees are entrance fees, amenity recreation fees, and special recreation permit fees. In addition, 36 CFR part 71 sets forth regulations for establishing recreation fees on a specific area. The intent of FLRA was not to generate revenue for public lands, but instead to reimburse agencies for the costs of administering recreational activity.

When developing the CCPs and step-down hunting plans for each refuge, the refuge manager takes into account budgetary needs for increased hunting opportunities. The refuge manager only proposes a hunt if he or she anticipates having sufficient funds to ensure compatibility and administer the activity appropriately. Typically, you can find this information under the “Staffing and Funds” section of each refuge's hunt plan, which were made publicly available when first issued, and remain available at each refuge's Web site. In some cases, refuges find some budgetary relief in user fees, which are sufficient to cover the cost of increased opportunities.

Finally, as discussed earlier in our response to
Comment (1),
with the passage of the Improvement Act in 1997, Congress mandated that hunting was one of the six priority public uses that refuge managers were to facilitate when compatible. We made no change to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment (19):
One commenter expressed support for opening and expanding hunting opportunities on refuges but requested sign-in sheets in parking lots and end-of-year surveys to account for the amount of big and small game taken.

Our Response:
Individual refuges have a variety of options for collecting information about the number of hunters as well as hunter harvest. Refuges may require hunters to sign in using the Visitor Check-In Permit and Report (FWS Form 3-2405) or report harvest using the Big Game Harvest Report (FWS Form 3-2359), Migratory Bird Hunt Report (FWS Form 3-2361), or Upland Game Hunt Report (FWS Form 3-2362). The forms each refuge requires are indicated in the refuge-specific regulations in 50 CFR part 32. We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment (20):
Two commenters suggested changing the name of National Wildlife Refuges to National Wildlife Management Areas.

Our Response:
In 1966, the Administration Act consolidated various lands previously known as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, or waterfowl production areas and designated them as part of the “National Wildlife Refuge System.” We made no changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (21):
Several commenters expressed concern about expanding the number goose hunting days at Montezuma NWR from 3 to 7. According to one commenter, it is of greater benefit to the hunter to hunt 3 days a week because it manages hunting pressure better and the geese (as well as the ducks) will hold on the refuge longer.

Our Response:
During the regular waterfowl season (October to December), we will allow waterfowl hunting on only 3 days a week: Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. The 7-days-per-week hunting refers only to a limited set of seasons, including the September Canada goose hunting season, the late snow goose hunting season (January to March), and the Light Goose Conservation Order season

(March to mid-April). Expanding our program to include the September Canada goose season, the late snow goose season, and the Light Goose Conservation Order season is not only a recreational opportunity, but also a management tool for over-abundant geese. Service biologists and wildlife professionals, in consultation with the State, analyzed the goose population dynamics and considered refuge purposes and management objectives when designing this hunt program. The hunt plan, compatibility determination, and NEPA documentation were all made available for public comment. We made no changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (22):
One commenter requested permanent tree stands in dedicated areas of Montezuma NWR to facilitate deer hunting. The commenter also requested that the refuge expand the number of blinds for waterfowl hunting.

Our Response:
In order to meet habitat management objectives for migratory waterfowl, Montezuma NWR actively manipulates water levels throughout the refuge. Therefore, conditions in any given area of the refuge are likely to vary from year to year and throughout the year. For this reason, the refuge has not installed permanent structures such as tree stands and waterfowl blinds. However, the refuge does allow portable tree stands and blinds, which must be removed at the end of each day. We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment (23):
Several commenters expressed interest in hunting upland game birds and webless migratory game birds at Montezuma NWR.

Our Response:
The hunt plan for Montezuma is a result of the CCP process. As part of the CCP process, we invited the public to comment during the scoping period, as well as on the final draft plan. The refuge did not encounter a call for upland game or webless migratory game bird hunting during those comment periods, nor did we get requests for such hunting through our personal interactions with hunters. We appreciate the feedback but we cannot accommodate these requests in this final rule; adding new species to hunt would require us to update our hunt plan, compatibility determination, and NEPA documentation and allow for additional public comment. Therefore, we made no changes as a result of these comments. However, we may consider making these changes in a future regulatory proposal.

Comment (24):
Several commenters requested the ability to hunt with dogs at Montezuma NWR.

Our Response:
In response to these comments, we are adding in this final rule a provision to allow hunters to use dogs when hunting migratory game birds in Montezuma NWR. The Montezuma NWR CCP, compatibility determination, and environmental assessment all address hunting migratory game birds with dogs so we can accommodate this request in the present rulemaking.

Comment (25):
According to one commenter, the regulations for Montezuma NWR state that the refuge manager reserves the right to restrict hunting implements beyond State restrictions based on hunter satisfaction and visitor safety. The commenter remarks that there is no definition in the regulations describing hunter satisfaction and visitor safety, and, therefore, this requirement is ambiguous. The commenter goes on to say that this provision gives too much discretion to the refuge manager, without any public or stakeholder input; hunters and other stakeholder groups should be given the opportunity to meet with the refuge manager and their input given significant weight to accept, provide plausible alternatives, or to refute the claims of the refuge manager.

Our Response:
Refuge-specific hunting regulations can be more restrictive than State regulations and often are more restrictive in order to help meet specific refuge objectives. The refuge manager is best equipped to understand how regulations can help meet refuge objectives. However, Montezuma NWR welcomes feedback from the public through a variety of means, such as calling the refuge, writing a letter, or sending an email. Contact information for the refuge can be found at:
http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Montezuma/.
In response to this comment, we revised the language in paragraphs B.6 and C.11 for Montezuma NWR to be more consistent with other refuge-specific regulations.

Comment (26):
One commenter took issue with the prohibition against “use of silencers or any like device that alters the noise on a firearm,” which appears in the proposed regulations for Buffalo Lake NWR. According to the commenter, using firearms-mounted hearing protection is good for the surrounding neighbors and for abatement of hearing loss to the hunter and hunting party (which may include youth). The commenter asks that we remove this provision from the regulations for Buffalo Lake NWR or change it to reflect most States' hunting laws that allow the use of hearing protection devices mounted to the firearm.

Our Response:
The Administration Act, as amended, directs us to make refuge regulations as consistent with State regulations as practicable. Thirty-eight States currently allow the use of silencers for hunting, including Texas, where Buffalo Lake NWR is located. In response to this comment, we have removed the prohibition against the use of silencers or any like device that alters the noise on a firearm for the hunt in question, a youth hunt outside the general deer season.; however, the Service will continue to monitor the use of silencers on Service lands. If we find that silencers lead to an increase in illegal hunting activity, create a public safety problem, reduce high-quality hunting opportunities, or otherwise interfere with the purpose of the specific refuge or the mission of the NWRS, then we may prohibit their use.

Comment (27):
One commenter questioned the motivation for allowing hunting on Baca, Monte Vista, and Alamosa NWRs. According to the commenter, calls for hunting on refuges at this time come from ranchers, farmers, hunters, and property owners; they are not to protect an ecosystem and its biodiversity. The commenter states that it appears that human/elk conflicts are part of the issue and that increased revenue from license sales motivated the Service and the State to allow the hunt. Finally, the commenter suggested that the refuge let natural predators do the work, instead of hunters.

Our Response:
The San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which includes Alamosa, Baca, and Monte Vista NWRs, recently completed a CCP and EIS, which complied with NEPA and included an affirmative compatibility determination for hunting on the three refuges. During this process, we received relatively few comments regarding proposed elk hunting on these refuges. Some comments were in opposition, while others greatly supported the proposed elk hunting opportunities.

Through sound professional judgment, as well as consultation with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, we found that the limited number of elk that will be harvested will not affect the sustainability of the population. We designed refuge-specific regulations to provide a safe and high-quality hunting experience, minimize wildlife disturbance, ensure wildlife conservation, and reduce or avoid conflicts with other refuge users. In addition to providing quality elk hunting opportunities, another objective

of the hunt is to redistribute elk, via hunting pressure, away from sensitive habitats, such as riparian areas, where intense elk browsing on willow and cottonwood plants is occurring. Reduced elk browsing on these plants will promote growth, providing improved nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of songbird species as well as other riparian dependent wildlife species.

There was no financial motivation behind opening the elk hunts in the San Luis Valley. The hunts will generate relatively little revenue, as only a limited number of elk hunters will be allowed. Moreover, these hunters would likely have purchased licenses anyway for hunts elsewhere, even if these particular hunts were not offered.

Currently, relatively few natural predators exist for elk on the refuges, with the exception of coyotes. There currently is no control of coyotes on any of the refuges. During the development of the CCP, the introduction of other natural predators was addressed, but was determined not to be a viable option based on substantial public opposition. We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment (28):
Three commenters expressed a desire to have a dove hunt in New York State.

Our Response:
By law, refuge-specific hunting and fishing regulations can be more restrictive than State regulations, but not more liberal. Refuges in New York State do not allow mourning dove hunting because the State does not allow mourning dove hunting. Allowing dove hunting in New York State is a State matter; therefore it is not germane to this rulemaking. We made no changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (29):
One commenter drew attention to the fact that in the entry for Choctaw NWR, the requirement to use nontoxic shot is embedded in a provision that begins by allowing take of incidental species. The commenter stated that these two provisions are unrelated and should be separated so that the requirement to use nontoxic shot is clear and easy to find.

Our Response:
We agree with the commenter that separating the two provisions would improve clarity. Therefore, we separated the two statements in this final rule.

Comment (30):
One commenter stated that concerning sport fishing within the Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually NWR, the management of fishing activities is under the jurisdiction of the State. The commenter remarked that if the intent of the revisions in the proposed rule is to restrict access (versus fishing) on the refuge, then the wording in the entry should be specific to that. Also, the commenter stated that the reference to “allowing” shellfishing on the tideflats indicates where they allow access (
i.e.,
Luhr Beach); however, those wishing to take part in shellfish or fishing activities may access the tideflats from anywhere outside the refuge. In this case, the commenter believes that the language in the entry may be too specific, unintentionally inferring that Luhr Beach is the only access point to harvest these shellfish.

Our Response:
In consultation with the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, in this final rule, we revised the language concerning sport fishing under the entry for the Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge to clarify where the Service has jurisdiction over fishing and clarify land access restrictions to fishing areas from refuge lands.

Comment (31):
A commenter requested that we make information on access points, campsites, or lodging on or near NWRs readily available.

Our Response:
Information on access points is routinely available on refuge maps and brochures. These maps and brochures can be found at the refuge headquarters or on the refuge's Web site. Some refuges may allow camping and that information can be found at refuge headquarters, or on the refuge's Web site. Some refuges may have information about lodging near the refuge. We encourage you to contact the refuge directly and inquire about lodging in the local area. We maintain a list of all of the NWRs on our National Wildlife Refuge System homepage at:
http://www.fws.gov/refuges/.
Look for the “Find Your Refuge” section on the first page and you can query the system by State, by zip code, alphabetically by refuge, or by certain other means. When you link to the refuge of interest, you will find its address, phone number, and a link to its individual Web site. We made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

As discussed above, under Summary of Comments and Responses, based on comments we received on the proposed rule, we made changes to the regulatory text in this final rule from what we proposed for Montezuma NWR (in New York), Choctaw NWR (in Alabama), Buffalo Lake NWR (in Texas), and Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually NWR (in Washington). In general, we make these changes for clarity and consistency. Specifically, for Montezuma NWR, we removed reference to “hunter satisfaction” in the provisions concerning when the refuge manager may restrict hunting implements beyond State restrictions, and we allow dogs when hunting migratory game birds. For Choctaw NWR, we separated the provision concerning the use of nontoxic shot from the provision concerning the take of incidental species. For Buffalo Lake NWR, we removed the prohibition on the use of silencers or any like devices that alter noise on a firearm for the youth hunt, which is consistent with Texas' regulations. For Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually NWR, in consultation with the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, we revised the language concerning sport fishing to clarify where the Service has jurisdiction over fishing and how refuge users can access areas to fish.

We also made minor editorial changes to the entries for several refuges to clarify which forms or other documentation are required for certain activities. For example, for several refuges, in certain provisions, we stated that a hunter needs a valid permit, without specifying whether that permit is a State-issued or a refuge permit. We clarify those instances in this rule. As another example, for some refuges, we stated in the proposed rule that a hunter must obtain a refuge Special Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383) to hunt in certain areas of a refuge or conduct certain other activities. FWS Form 3-1383 is, however, not a complete FWS form number, but a generic reference to the category of Special Use Permits used by the Service. In this final rule, we specify complete and exact Special Use Permit form numbers, such as FWS Form 3-1383-G, in those places of the proposed rule where we used the abbreviated form number.

Effective Date

This rule is effective upon publication in the
Federal Register
(see
DATES
, above). We have determined that any further delay in implementing these refuge-specific hunting and sport fishing regulations would not be in the public interest, in that a delay would hinder the effective planning and administration of the hunting and fishing programs. We provided a 30-day public comment period for the July 14, 2016, proposed rule. This rule does not impact the public generally in terms of requiring lead time for compliance. Rather, it relieves restrictions in that it allows activities on refuges that we would otherwise prohibit. Therefore, we find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective upon publication.

Amendments to Existing Regulations

This document adopts in the Code of Federal Regulations all of the Service's hunting and/or sport fishing regulations that we are updating since the last time we published a rule amending these regulations (80 FR 51878; August 26, 2015) and that are applicable at Refuge System units previously opened to hunting and/or sport fishing. We are taking this action to better inform the general public of the regulations at each refuge, to increase understanding and compliance with these regulations, and to make enforcement of these regulations more efficient. In addition to now finding these regulations in 50 CFR part 32, visitors to our refuges may find them reiterated in literature distributed by each refuge or posted on signs.

We cross-reference a number of existing regulations in 50 CFR parts 26, 27, 28, 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 2016-2017 Hunting/Fishing Season

Refuge/region (*)
State

Migratory bird
hunting

Upland game
hunting

Big game hunting
Sport fishing

Alamosa (6)
Colorado
D
Already open
B
Closed.

Anahuac (2)
Texas
C/D
Closed
Closed
Already open.

Atchafalaya (4)
Louisiana
Already open
Already open
D
Already open.

Baca (6)
Colorado
A
A
A
Closed.

Black Bayou Lake (4)
Louisiana
C
C
C
Already open.

Buffalo Lake (2)
Texas
Closed
Already open
B
Closed.

Detroit River NWR (3)
Illinois and Missouri
C
C
C
Closed.

Lake Andes (6)
South Dakota
Already open
Already open
Already open
B.

Monte Vista (6)
Colorado
D
Already open
B
Closed.

Montezuma (5)
New York
C/D
Closed
C/D
Already open.

Patoka River (3)
Indiana
C
C
C
C.

Waccamaw (4)
South Carolina
C
C
C
Already open.

Washita (2)
Oklahoma
Already open
Already open
D
Already open.

Key:

* Number in ( ) refers to the Region as defined in the preamble to this rule under Available Information for Specific Refuges.
A = New refuge opened.
B = New activity on a refuge previously open to other activities.
C = Refuge already open to activity, but added new lands/waters or modified areas open to hunting or fishing.
D = Refuge already open to activity but added new species to hunt.

The changes for the 2016-17 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. In this rule, we are also adopting new names for two refuges, White River National Wildlife Refuge and Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. The new name for White River National Wildlife Refuge is Dale Bumpers White River National Wildlife Refuge, and the new name for Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge is Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge.

Fish Advisory

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

Plain Language Mandate

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

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rulemaking is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act [SBREFA] of 1996) (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.
), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (
i.e.
, small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule 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 1 national wildlife refuge to the list of refuges open to hunting and increases hunting or fishing activities on 12 additional national wildlife refuges. It adds one national wildlife refuge to the list of refuges open to fishing. As a result, visitor use for wildlife-dependent recreation on these NWRs will change. If the refuges establishing new programs were a pure addition to the current supply of those activities, it would mean an estimated increase of 4,045 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 2016/2017
[Dollars in thousands]

Refuge
Additional days

Additional
expenditures

Alamosa
499
$19.4

Anahuac
350
13.6

Atchafalaya
200
7.8

Baca
970
37.8

Black Bayou Lake
200
7.8

Buffalo Lake
12
0.5

Detroit River
115
4.5

Lake Andes
0
0.0

Monte Vista
499
19.4

Montezuma
945
36.8

Patoka River
185
7.4

Waccamaw
10
0.4

Washita
60
2.3

Total
4,045
157.7

To the extent visitors spend time and money in the area of the refuge that they would not have spent there anyway, they contribute new income to the regional economy and benefit local businesses. Due to the unavailability of site-specific expenditure data, we use the national estimates from the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation to identify expenditures for food and lodging, transportation, and other incidental expenses. Using the average expenditures for these categories with the maximum expected additional participation of the Refuge System yields approximately $158,000 in recreation-related expenditures (Table 2). By having ripple effects throughout the economy, these direct expenditures are only part of the economic impact of these recreational activities. Using a national impact multiplier for hunting activities (2.27) derived from the report “Hunting in America: An Economic Force for Conservation” and for fishing activities (2.40) derived from the report “Sportfishing in America” yields a total economic impact of approximately $358,000 (2015 dollars) (Southwick Associates, Inc., 2012). Using a local impact multiplier would yield more accurate and smaller results. However, we employed the national impact multiplier due to the difficulty in developing local multipliers for each specific region.

Since we know that most of the fishing and hunting occurs within 100 miles of a participant's residence, then it is unlikely that most of this spending would be “new” money coming into a local economy; therefore, this spending would be offset with a decrease in some other sector of the local economy. The net gain to the local economies would be no more than $358,000, 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 $72,000 annually.

Small businesses within the retail trade industry (such as hotels, gas stations, taxidermy shops, bait-and-tackle shops, and similar businesses) may be affected by some increased or decreased refuge visitation. A large percentage of these retail trade establishments in the local communities around NWRs qualify as small businesses (Table 3). We expect that the incremental recreational changes will be scattered, and so we do not expect that the rule will have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities in any region or nationally. As noted previously, we expect approximately $158,000 to be spent in total in the refuges' local economies. The maximum increase at most would be less than one-tenth of 1 percent for local retail trade spending (Table 3).

Table 3—Comparative Expenditures for Retail Trade Associated With Additional Refuge Visitation for 2016/2017
[Thousands, 2015 dollars]

Refuge/county(ies)
Retail trade in 2012

Estimated maximum
addition from new activities

Addition as
% of total

Establishments
in 2012

Establ. with <10 emp in 2012

Alamosa:

Alamosa, CO
$320,858
$9.7
0.003
85
64

Costilla, CO
13,340
9.7
0.073
10
10

Anahuac:

Chambers, TX
323,766
13.6
0.004
85
75

Atchafalaya:

St. Martin, LA
638,981
3.9
0.001
142
101

Iberville, LA
319,242
3.9
0.001
88
61

Baca:

Saguache, CO
26,605
37.8
0.142
16
13

Black Bayou Lake:

Ouachita, LA
2,728,780
7.8
<0.001
710
498

Buffalo Lake:

Randall, TX
2,063,425
0.5
<0.001
352
246

Detroit River:

Monroe, MI
1,681,716
2.2
<0.001
377
264

Wayne, MI
19,901,061
2.2
<0.001
6,091
4,738

Monte Vista:

Rio Grande, CO
114,102
19.4
0.017
48
41

Montezuma:

Cayuga, NY
999,879
18.4
<0.001
260
195

Seneca, NY
559,990
18.4
<0.001
183
114

Wayne, NY
940,334
1.2
<0.001
267
181

Patoka River:

Gibson, IN
637,370
3.7
0.001
120
84

Pike, IN
82,914
3.7
0.004
31
23

Waccamaw:

Georgetown, SC
803,958
0.2
<0.001
303
230

Horry, SC
5,990,133
0.2

1,666
1,185

Washita:

Custer, OK
606,827
2.3
<0.001
149
102

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.
). A 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 U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This rule represents only a small proportion of recreational spending at NWRs. 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 rule affects only visitors at NWRs and describes what they can do while they are on a refuge.

Federalism (E.O. 13132)

As discussed in Regulatory Planning and Review and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, above, this rule will not have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement 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 Department of the Interior has determined that this 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 rule clarifies established regulations and will result in better understanding of the regulations by refuge visitors.

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

E.O. 13211 of May 18, 2001, requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Because this rule adds a new hunt at 1 NWR, increases hunting or fishing activities at 12 other NWRs, and adds fishing to 1 NWR, it is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, and we do not expect it to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is 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 NWRs with Tribal governments having adjoining or overlapping jurisdiction before we propose the regulations.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain any information-collection requirements other than those already approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.
) and assigned OMB Control Numbers 1018-0102 (expires June 30, 2017), 1018-0140 (expires May 31, 2018), and 1018-0153 (expires December 31, 2018). 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 and step-down management plans—which 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 because 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 (43 CFR 46.120).

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 proposed refuge hunting and fishing activities in the refuge comprehensive conservation plan 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 comprehensive conservation plans 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 through 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 office 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, P.O. Box 1306, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Albuquerque, NM 87103; Telephone (505) 248-6937.

Region 3—Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458; Telephone (612) 713-5360.

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) 253-8307.

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

Jillian Cohen, Division of Natural Resources and Conservation Planning, 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.

Regulation Promulgation

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—HUNTING AND FISHING

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.

§ 32.7
[Amended]

2. Amend § 32.7 by:
a. Adding, in alphabetical order, an entry for “Dale Bumpers White River National Wildlife Refuge” in the State of Arkansas;
b. Removing the entry for “White River National Wildlife Refuge” from the State of Arkansas;
c. Adding, in alphabetical order, an entry for “Baca National Wildlife Refuge” in the State of Colorado;
d. Adding, in alphabetical order, an entry for “Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge” in the State of Washington; and
e. Removing the entry for “Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge” in the State of Washington.
3. Amend § 32.20, the entry for Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge, by:
a. Revising paragraph B;
b. Revising paragraphs C.1, C.2, and C.4;
c. Removing paragraph C.5; and
d. Revising paragraphs D.2, D.4, and D.7.
The revisions read as follows:

§ 32.20
Alabama.

Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge

B. Upland Game Hunting.
We allow hunting of squirrel and rabbit on designated areas of the refuge in accordance with State regulations and subject to the following conditions:

1. We prohibit access to closed areas and hunting within 100 yards (91.4 meters) of the fenced-in refuge work center area, designated hiking trails, and refuge boat ramps.

2. We prohibit leaving unattended personal property, including, but not limited to, boats or vehicles of any type, geocaches, lumber, and cameras, overnight on the refuge (see § 27.93 of this chapter). We prohibit marking trees and using flagging tape, reflective tacks, and other similar marking devices.

3. You may take incidental species (coyote, beaver, nutria, and feral hog) during any hunt with those weapons legal during those hunts as defined by the State of Alabama.

4. You must possess and carry a signed refuge hunt permit (signed brochure) when hunting.

5. All persons age 15 or younger, while hunting on the refuge, must be in the presence and under direct supervision of a licensed or exempt hunter at least age 21. A licensed hunter supervising a youth must hold a valid State license for the species being hunted. One adult may supervise no more than two youth hunters.

6. The refuge is open daily from 1 hour before legal sunrise to 1 hour after legal sunset.

7. We require all hunters to record hours hunted and all harvested game on the Visitor Check-In Permit and Report (FWS Form 3-2405) at the conclusion of each day at one of the refuge check stations.

8. Persons possessing, transporting, or carrying firearms on the refuge must comply with all provisions of State and local law. Persons may only use (discharge) firearms in accordance with refuge regulations (see § 27.42 of this chapter and specific refuge regulations in this part 32).

9. We prohibit equestrian use, domestic livestock, and use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and utility-type vehicles (UTVs).

10. You must restrain all pets, except during squirrel and rabbit hunting, when you may hunt with unleashed dogs.

11. Public use information and hunting and fishing dates are available at refuge headquarters and specified in the refuge brochure.

12. We prohibit the use or possession of alcoholic beverages while hunting (see § 32.2(j)).

13. We prohibit hunting with the aid of baits, salts, scent, or ingestible attractant (see § 32.2(h)).

14. For hunting, you may possess only approved nontoxic shot (see § 32.2(k)), .22 caliber rimfire or smaller rifles, or legal archery equipment according to State regulations.

C.
* * *

1. Conditions B1 through B14 apply.

2. Deer hunters may place one portable stand or blind on the refuge for use while deer hunting, but only during the open deer season. The stand must be clearly labeled with the hunter's name, address, and phone number. You may leave the stand or blind on the refuge overnight in a non-hunting position at ground level.

4. We prohibit damaging trees, including driving or screwing any metal object into a tree or hunting from a tree in which a metal object has been driven or screwed to support a hunter (see § 32.2(i)).

D.
* * *

2. Conditions B1, B2, B4, B6, B8 through B13, and C4 apply.

4. We prohibit the taking of frogs, turtles, and crawfish (see § 27.21 of this chapter).

7. We require a refuge Special Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383-C) for commercial activities.

4. Amend § 32.22, the entry for Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, by revising paragraphs A, B.2, C.1, D.3, and D.6 to read as follows:

§ 32.22
Arizona.

Havasu National Wildlife Refuge

A. Migratory Game Bird Hunting.
We allow hunting of mourning and white-winged dove, duck, coot, moorhen, goose, and common snipe on designated areas of the refuge in accordance with State regulations and subject to the following conditions:

1. We prohibit falconry.

2. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot while in the field (see § 32.2(k)).

3. You may not hunt within 50 yards (45 meters) of any building or public road.

4. We prohibit target shooting.

5. Persons possessing, transporting, or carrying firearms on the refuge must comply with all provisions of State and local law. Persons may only use (discharge) firearms in accordance with refuge regulations (see § 27.42 of this chapter and specific refuge regulations in this part 32).

6. We prohibit the construction or use of pits and permanent blinds (see § 27.92 of this chapter).

7. You must remove temporary blinds, boats, hunting equipment, and decoys from the refuge following each day's hunt (see §§ 27.93 and 27.94 of this chapter).

8. We prohibit retrieving game from closed areas. You may retrieve game from areas closed to hunting, but otherwise open to entry, as long as you possess no hunting firearms or other means of take.

9. Anyone hired to assist or guide hunter(s) must possess and carry a valid Special Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383-C) issued by the refuge manager.

10. We prohibit hunting on those refuge lands within the Lake Havasu City limits.

11. The following conditions apply only to Pintail Slough (all refuge lands north of North Dike):

i. We require a fee for waterfowl hunting. You must possess proof of payment while hunting.

ii. Waterfowl hunters must hunt within 25 feet (7.5 meters) of the numbered post of their assigned blind.

iii. We limit the number of persons at each waterfowl hunt blind to three. Observers cannot hold shells or guns for hunting unless in possession of a valid State hunting license and stamps.

iv. We limit the number of shells a waterfowl hunter may possess to 25.

v. Waterfowl hunters must possess at least 12 decoys per blind.

vi. You may use only dead vegetation or materials brought from off refuge for making or fixing hunt blinds. We prohibit the cutting, pulling, marking or removing vegetation (see §§ 27.51 of this chapter).

vii. Waterfowl hunters must be at their blind at least 45 minutes before legal shoot time and not leave their blind until 10 a.m. MST.

viii. We allow waterfowl hunting on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Waterfowl hunting ends at 12 p.m. (noon) MST. Hunters must be out of the slough area by 1 p.m. MST.

ix. We allow qualifying youth to participate in the youth waterfowl hunt.

x. We allow dove hunting at Pintail Slough only during the September season.

12. The following conditions apply to all waters of the lower Colorado River within the refuge:

i. We close designated portions of Topock Marsh to all entry from October 1 through the last day of the waterfowl hunt season (including the State youth waterfowl hunt). These areas are indicated in refuge brochures and identified by buoys and/or signs.

ii. We prohibit hunting in the waters of the Colorado River and on those refuge lands within
1/4
mile (.4 kilometer) of the waters of the Colorado River from and including Castle Rock Bay north to Interstate 40.

iii. We allow hunting on refuge lands and waters south of Castle Rock Bay to the north boundary of the Lake Havasu City limits.

13. We prohibit the use of all air-thrust boats and/or air-cooled propulsion engines, including floating aircraft.

14. Dogs must be under your immediate control at all times.

B.
* * *

2. We prohibit the possession of rifles for hunting.

C.
* * *

1. Conditions A2 through A9, and A12ii apply.

D.
* * *

3. Anyone hired to assist or guide anglers must possess and carry a valid Special Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383-C) issued by the refuge manager.

6. The following apply to improved areas within the refuge. Improved areas consist of the Mesquite Bay areas, Castle Rock, the Diving Cliffs, Catfish Paradise, Five Mile Landing and North Dike.

i. We prohibit entry of all motorized watercraft in all three bays of the Mesquite Bay areas as indicated by signs or regulatory buoys.

ii. Improved areas are day-use only and are open from
1/2
hour before legal sunrise to
1/2
hour after legal sunset. We allow fishing and launching water craft at these and other areas 24 hours a day.

iii. We prohibit the possession of open containers of alcohol or the possession of glass beverage containers in improved areas.

5. Amend § 32.23 by:
a. Under the entry Bald Knob National Wildlife Refuge:
i. Revising paragraphs A.1, A.2, A.9, A.11, and A.22;
ii. Revising paragraphs B.1 and B.3 through B.6;
iii. Revising paragraphs C.1, C.3, C.5, C.6, C.9, C.10, C.11, and C.17;
iv. Adding paragraph C.19; and
v. Revising paragraph D introductory text and paragraphs D.1 and D.2;
b. Under the entry Big Lake National Wildlife Refuge:
i. Revising paragraphs B.15, B.17, and C.7; and
ii. Adding paragraph C.12;
c. Under the entry Cache River National Wildlife Refuge:
i. Revising paragraphs A.2 and A.23; and
ii. Revising paragraph C introductory text and paragraph C.12;
d. Revising paragraphs B, C, and D under the entry Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge;
e. Under the entry Wapanocca National Wildlife Refuge:
i. Revising paragraphs A.5, A.10, and A.11;
ii. Revising paragraph C.6; and
iii. Adding paragraph C.9; and
f. Under the entry White River National Wildlife Refuge:
i. Revising the heading of the entry to read, “Dale Bumpers White River National Wildlife Refuge” and moving the entry into alphabetical order within the section;
ii. Removing paragraph A.14;
iii. Redesignating paragraphs A.15 through A.26 as A.14 through A.25, respectively;
iv. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs A.16, A.17, A.20, and A.24;
v. Revising paragraphs B.1 and B.6;
vi. Revising paragraphs C.1, C.2, C.3, C.8, and C.10;
vii. Removing paragraph C.11;
viii. Redesignating paragraphs C.12 through C.20 as C.11 through C.19, respectively;
ix. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs C.18 and C.19; and
x. Revising paragraph D.5.
The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 32.23
Arkansas.

Bald Knob National Wildlife Refuge

A.
* * *

1. We require refuge hunting permits (signed brochure). The permits are nontransferable, and anyone on refuge land in possession of hunting equipment must possess a signed permit at all times.

2. We prohibit migratory game bird hunting on the refuge during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt.

9. We open the refuge to daylight use only, with the exception that hunters may enter the refuge beginning at 4 a.m. and must exit by 1 hour after legal shooting time ends.

11. You may possess only biodegradable materials to mark trails.

22. We prohibit the use or possession of alcoholic beverages while hunting (see § 32.2(j)). We prohibit open alcohol containers on refuge roads, all-terrain vehicles (ATV) trails, boat ramps, observation platforms, and parking areas.

B.
* * *

1. Conditions A1, A6, A9, A11 through A13, and A17 through A23 apply.

3. We allow squirrel hunting September 1 through February 28 on the Mingo Creek Unit and on the Farm Unit, except for season closure of the refuge during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We allow dogs.

4. We allow rabbit hunting in accordance with the State season on the Mingo Creek Unit and on the Farm Unit, except for season closure of the refuge during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We allow dogs.

5. We allow quail hunting in accordance with the State season except for season closure of the refuge during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We allow dogs.

6. We allow daylight hunting of raccoon and opossum with dogs on all

refuge hunt units. Nighttime hunting of raccoon and opossum is allowed only on the Mingo Creek Unit with a Special Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383-G). We require dogs for hunting raccoon/opossum at night. We list annual season dates in the refuge hunting brochure/permit. We prohibit field trials and organized training events.

C.
* * *

1. Conditions A1, A6, A9, A11 through A13, A17 through A23, and B8 through B12 apply.

3. The archery/crossbow hunting season for deer begins on the opening day of the State season and continues throughout the State season in the Mingo Creek Unit and Farm Unit except for the season closure of the refuge during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We provide annual season dates and bag limits in the hunt brochure/permit (signature required).

5. The modern gun hunting season for deer will begin in November and continue for a period of up to 9 days in all hunting units with annual season dates and bag limits provided in the hunt brochure/permit.

6. We prohibit leaving any tree stand, ground blind, or game camera on the refuge without the owner's name, address, and phone number clearly written in a conspicuous location.

9. Immediately record the zone (002) on your hunting license and check all harvested game according to State regulations.

10. You may use only shotguns with rifled slugs, muzzleloaders, and legal pistols for modern gun deer hunting on the Farm Unit.

11. We allow only portable deer stands capable of being carried in their entirety by a single individual. You may erect stands 7 days prior to the refuge deer season and must remove them from the waterfowl sanctuaries prior to November 15, except for stands used by Quota Gun Deer Hunt permit holders (signature required), which you must remove by the last day of the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. You must remove all stands on the remainder of the refuge within 7 days of the closure of archery season (see § 27.93 of this chapter).

17. We allow only Quota Gun Deer Hunt permit holders on the refuge during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt and only for the purposes of deer hunting. We close the refuge to all other entry and public use during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt.

19. You may enter the refuge at 4 a.m. and remain until 1 hour after legal shooting time.

D. Sport Fishing.
We allow fishing in accordance with State regulations subject to the following conditions:

1. Conditions A9, A11, A19 through A23, B11, and C18 apply.

2. We close waterfowl sanctuaries to all entry from November 15 to February 28. We also close the refuge to all entry and fishing during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt.

Big Lake National Wildlife Refuge

B.
* * *

15. We prohibit the use or possession of alcoholic beverages while hunting (see § 32.2(j)). We prohibit open alcohol containers on refuge roads, trails, boat ramps, parking areas, fishing piers, observation decks, and photo blinds.

17. We prohibit loaded hunting firearms or muzzleloaders in or on a vehicle, or boat while under power. We define “loaded” as shells in the firearm or ignition device on the muzzleloader.

C.
* * *

7. We allow only portable deer stands capable of being carried in their entirety by a single individual. You may erect stands 7 days prior to the refuge deer season and must remove them 7 days before the closure of archery season (see § 27.93 of this chapter).

12. We prohibit leaving any tree stand, ground blind, or game camera on the refuge without the owner's name, address, and phone number clearly written in a conspicuous location.

Cache River National Wildlife Refuge

A.
* * *

2. We prohibit migratory game bird hunting on the refuge during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt.

23. We prohibit loaded hunting firearms or muzzleloaders in or on a vehicle, ATV, or boat while under power. We define “loaded” as shells in the firearm or ignition device on the muzzleloader.

C. Big Game Hunting.
We allow hunting of deer and turkey on designated areas of the refuge in accordance with State regulations and subject to the following conditions:

12. We prohibit leaving any tree stand, ground blind, or game camera on the refuge without the owner's name, address, and phone number clearly written in a conspicuous location.

Dale Bumpers White River National Wildlife Refuge

A.
* * *

16. We require hunters born after 1968 to carry a valid hunter-education card. We do not require hunters under age 16 to have a hunter-education card while under direct supervision (within arm's reach) of a holder of a valid hunting license who is at least age 21. Youth hunters under age 16 must remain within sight and normal voice contact of an adult age 21 or older, possessing a valid hunting license. An adult may supervise only one youth for big game hunting but may supervise up to two youths for waterfowl and small game hunting.

17. We allow take of beaver, nutria, and coyote, incidental to any daytime refuge hunt with weapons authorized for that hunt. We prohibit take of beaver, nutria, and feral hog with the aid of dogs or after the hunter has taken the daily bag limit for that hunt. We allow feral hog to be taken during modern gun and muzzleloader deer hunts.

20. We allow camping only in designated sites and areas identified in the refuge user brochure/permit, and we restrict camping to individuals involved in wildlife-dependent activities. Campers may stay no more than 14 days during any 30 consecutive-day period in any campground site or area and must occupy camps daily. We prohibit all disturbances, including use of generators, after 10 p.m.

24. We prohibit hovercraft, personal watercraft (
e.g.
, jet skis, etc.), and airboats.

B.
* * *

1. Conditions A1, A9, A10, A11, A12, and A15 through A25 apply.

6. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot when hunting upland game (see § 32.2(k)).

C.
* * *

1. Conditions A1, A9, A10, A11, A12, and A15 through A25 apply.

2. Archery deer seasons on the North Unit are from the beginning of the State

archery season until the end of January except for refuge-wide season closure during quota muzzleloader and quota gun deer hunts. We provide annual season dates and bag limits in the refuge user brochure/permit.

3. Archery deer seasons on the South Unit are from the beginning of the State archery season until the end of December except for refuge-wide season closure during quota muzzleloader and quota gun deer hunts. We provide annual season dates and bag limits in the refuge user brochure/permit.

8. If you harvest deer or turkey on the refuge, you must immediately record the zone number (Zone 146 South Unit and Zone 145 North Unit) on your hunting license and later check deer and/or turkey through State phone or online checking system.

10. You must follow refuge guidance regarding flood-zone closures during the deer hunt. Guidance is found in the refuge brochure, which you must carry at all times.

18. We prohibit hunting on the Kansas Lake Area after November 30.

19. We prohibit the possession of buckshot on the refuge.

D.
* * *

5. We prohibit all commercial and recreational harvest of turtle on all property administered by Dale Bumpers White River National Wildlife Refuge.

Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge

B. Upland Game Hunting.
We allow hunting of squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, opossum, beaver, armadillo, coyote, and bobcat on designated areas of the refuge in accordance with State regulations and subject to the following conditions:

1. We require refuge hunting permits (name, address, signature required). The permits are nontransferable, and anyone on refuge land in possession of hunting equipment must sign, possess, and carry the permits at all times. Your hunt permit will also act as your entrance pass to the refuge.

2. During the refuge archery season, you may take only squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, opossum, beaver, armadillo, coyote, or bobcat.

3. We allow gun hunting of raccoon and opossum with dogs every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday until legal sunrise during the month of February. We prohibit field trails and organized training events (see § 26.21(b) of this chapter).

4. Persons possessing, transporting, or carrying firearms on the refuge must comply with all provisions of State and local law. Persons may only use (discharge) firearms in accordance with refuge regulations (see § 27.42 of this chapter and specific refuge regulations in this part 32). We prohibit target practice or nonhunting discharge of firearms (see § 27.42(a) of this chapter).

5. We prohibit the use or possession of alcoholic beverages while hunting (see § 32.2(j)). We prohibit open alcohol containers on refuge roads, boat ramps, observation platforms, and parking areas.

6. We only allow all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) for hunters and anglers with disabilities. We require a refuge ATV permit (Special Use Permit; FWS Form 3-1383-G) issued by the refuge manager.

7. We prohibit the use of horses and mules.

8. We prohibit hunting from a vehicle.

9. We only allow vehicle use on established roads and trails (see § 27.31 of this chapter).

10. You must enter and exit the refuge from designated roads and parking areas. We prohibit accessing refuge waters and land from the Arkansas River. We prohibit boating over the dam at the Old River Channel from either direction.

11. We prohibit hunting within 150 feet (45 meters) of roads open to motor vehicle use and nature trails.

12. We prohibit marking trails with tape, ribbon, paint, or any other substance other than biodegradable materials.

13. We allow the use of nonmotorized boats during the refuge fishing/boating season (March 1 to October 31), but we prohibit hunters leaving boats on the refuge overnight (see § 27.93 of this chapter).

14. You must adhere to all public use special conditions and regulations in the annual public use regulations brochure/permit.

15. You may not possess live hogs or live coyotes.

C. Big Game Hunting.
We allow hunting of deer and turkey on designated areas of the refuge in accordance with State regulations and subject to the following conditions:

1. Conditions B1 and B4 through B15 apply.

2. We allow archery/crossbow hunting for white-tailed deer and turkey. We provide annual season dates in the public use regulations brochure/permit (name, address, signature required).

3. The refuge will conduct one youth-only (between ages 6 and 15 at the beginning of the gun deer season in Zone 7) quota gun deer hunt. Specific hunt dates and application procedures will be available at the refuge office in July. We restrict hunt participants to those selected for a quota permit, except that one nonhunting adult age 21 or older must accompany the youth hunter during the youth hunt.

4. We open spring and fall archery turkey hunting during the State spring and fall turkey season for this zone.

5. We close the refuge to all entry and public use during scheduled youth quota gun hunts, except for those allowed to participate in the youth quota gun hunt.

6. The refuge will conduct two youth-only (age 6 to 15 at the beginning of the spring turkey season) quota spring gun turkey hunts, each 2 days in length. Specific hunt dates and application procedures will be available at the refuge office in January. We restrict hunt participants to those selected for a quota permit (name, address, phone number required), except that one nonhunting adult age 21 or older must accompany the youth hunter during the youth hunt.

7. An adult age 21 or older must accompany and be within sight or normal voice contact of hunters age 15 and under. One adult may supervise no more than one youth hunter.

8. We allow only portable deer stands and blinds capable of being carried in their entirety by a single individual. You may erect stands 7 days before the start of the season and must remove the stands from the refuge within 7 days after the season ends (see §§ 27.93 and 27.94 of this chapter).

9. You must permanently affix the owner's name, address, and phone number to all tree stands, ground blinds, or game cameras on the refuge.

10. We prohibit the use of dogs during big game hunting.

11. We prohibit hunting from paved, graveled, and mowed roads and mowed trails (see § 27.31 of this chapter).

12. We prohibit hunting with the aid of bait, salt, or ingestible attractant (see § 32.2(h)).

13. We prohibit all forms of organized game drives.

14. You must check all game at the refuge check station.

15. We prohibit commercial hunting/guiding.

D. Sport Fishing.
We allow sport fishing and frogging in accordance with State regulations and subject to the following conditions:

1. Conditions B6, B7, B9, and C5 apply.

2. Waters of the refuge are only open for fishing March 1 through October 31 during daylight hours.

3. We do not require a permit to fish but do require an entrance pass to the

refuge, which can be purchased at the entrance fee station or refuge office.

4. We limit free-floating fishing devices, trotlines, and tree limb devices to 20 per person. Each device must have the angler's name and address.

5. You must reset trotlines and limb lines when receding water levels expose them.

6. We prohibit leaving trotlines and other self-fishing devices overnight or unattended.

7. You must enter and exit the refuge from designated roads and parking areas. We prohibit accessing refuge waters and land from the Arkansas River. We prohibit boating over the dam at the Old River Channel from either direction.

8. We prohibit anglers from leaving their boats unattended overnight on any portion of the refuge (see § 27.93 of this chapter).

9. We require a Special Use Permit (FWS form 3-1383-C) for all commercial fishing activities on the refuge.

10. We prohibit the take and possession of turtles and/or mollusks (see § 27.21 of this chapter).

11. We prohibit airboats, hovercraft, and personal watercraft (Jet Skis, etc.) (see § 27.31 of this chapter).

Wapannoca National Wildlife Refuge

A.
* * *

5. We prohibit all-terrain vehicles (ATVs).

10. We prohibit the use or possession of alcoholic beverages while hunting (see § 32.2(j)). We prohibit open alcohol containers on refuge roads, trails, boat ramps, parking areas, fishing piers, observation decks, and photo blinds.

11. We prohibit loaded hunting firearms or muzzleloaders in or on a vehicle or boat while under power (see § 27.42(b) of this chapter). We define “loaded” as shells in the firearm or ignition device on the muzzleloader.

C.
* * *

6. We allow only portable deer stands capable of being carried in their entirety by a single individual. You may erect stands 7 days prior to the refuge deer season and must remove them from the waterfowl sanctuaries by December 1. You must remove all stands on the remainder of the refuge within 7 days of the closure of archery season (see § 27.93 of this chapter).

9. We prohibit leaving any tree stand, ground blind, or game camera on the refuge without the owner's name, address, and phone number clearly written in a conspicuous location.

6. Amend § 32.24 by:
a. Under the entry Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge:
i. Revising paragraphs A.1 and A.2;
ii. Removing paragraph A.3; and
iii. Revising paragraph C.1;
b. Revising paragraphs A.2 and A.3 under the entry Colusa National Wildlife Refuge;
c. Revising paragraphs A.2, A.3, and A.12 under the entry Delevan National Wildlife Refuge;
d. Under the entry Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge:
i. Revising paragraphs A.2.iii, A.2.iv, A.3, A.4, A.5, A.6, and A.7;
ii. Removing paragraph A.8;
iii. Redesignating paragraphs A.9 and A.10 as A.8 and A.9, respectively; and
iv. Revising newly redesignated paragraph A.8;
e. Revising paragraph A.4 under the entry Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge;
f. Revising paragraphs A.2, A.3, and A.12 under the entry Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge;
g. Revising paragraph A under the entry Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge;
h. Revising paragraphs A.1, A.3, A.4, A.5, A.6, and A.8 under the entry San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge;
i. Revising paragraphs A.2 and A.3 under the entry Sutter National Wildlife Refuge; and
j. Under the entry Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge:
i. Revising paragraph A.4;
ii. Redesignating paragraphs A.5 through A.9 as A.6 through A.10; and
iii. Adding a new paragraph A.5.
The revisions and addition read as follows:

§ 32.24
California.

Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge

A.
* * *

1. We allow waterfowl hunting on designated areas of the refuge 7 days per week during the State regulated season.

i. You may hunt from the shoreline only.

ii. You may not use a boat of any kind while conducting waterfowl hunting activities.

2. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot while in the field (see § 32.2(k)).

C.
* * *

1. You may hunt only in the unit for 9 consecutive days beginning on the first Saturday following the third Wednesday in August.

Colusa National Wildlife Refuge

A.
* * *

2. You must return the State-issued entry permit and vacate the refuge no later than 1
1/2
hours after legal sunset unless participating in an overnight stay in accordance with A13.

3. Youth hunters must be accompanied by an adult (age 18 or older) at all times while hunting.

Delevan National Wildlife Refuge

A.
* * *

2. You must return the State-issued entry permit and vacate the refuge no later than 1
1/2
hours after legal sunset unless participating in an overnight stay in accordance with A14.

3. Youth hunters must be accompanied by an adult (age 18 or older) at all times while hunting.

12. We prohibit snipe hunting in the assigned pond/spaced blind areas.

Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge

A.
* * *

2. * * *

iii. Ponds AB1, A2E, AB2, A3N, and A3W in the Alviso Unit. These ponds are located on the west side of the Bay between Stevens Creek and Guadalupe Slough. You must obtain a refuge permit (name, address, phone number, and signature required) to hunt these ponds. Access to Ponds AB1 and A2E will be from the Crittenden Lane Trailhead in Mountain View. Access to Ponds A3W will be from the Carl Road Trailhead in Sunnyvale. Access to Ponds A3N and AB2 is by boat from the other ponds. We allow hunting only from existing hunting blinds. We allow hunting only on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays on these ponds.

iv. Ponds A5, A7, and A8N in the Alviso Unit. These ponds are located on the south end of the Bay between Guadalupe Slough and Alviso Slough. You must obtain a refuge permit (name, address, phone number, and signature required) to hunt these ponds. Access is via walking and bicycling from the Gold Street gate in Alviso. We allow hunting by boat and by walking pond levees. We allow hunting only on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays on these ponds.

3. During the 2 weeks before the opening of the hunt season, you may bring a boat into Ponds AB1, A2E, AB2, A3N, A3W, A5, A7, and A8N, and moor

it at a designated site. These boats will be used to access the hunting ponds and can stay on the refuge during the hunt season. You must remove your boat within 2 weeks following the close of the hunt season. We allow nonmotorized boats and motorized boats powered by electric, gasoline direct fuel injection 2-stroke, or 4-stroke gasoline motors only.

4. You may maintain an existing blind in the ponds open to hunting if you have a refuge permit (name, address, phone number, and signature required), but the blind will be open for general use on a first-come, first-served basis. We prohibit pit blinds or digging into the levees (see § 27.92 of this chapter).

5. You must remove all decoys and other personal property, except personal boats, from the refuge by leg

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2016-23190. Public record. Not legal advice.