# Public Use Regulations for the Alaska Peninsula/Becharof National Wildlife Refuge Complex

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A95-17192

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** July 17, 1995
- **Citation:** 60 FR 36576

## Text

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes regulations
to implement portions of the ``Alaska Peninsula/Becharof National
Wildlife Refuge Complex Public Use Management Plan.'' The proposed
rulemaking would allow the Service to manage public uses by adopting
regulations addressing off-road vehicles, camping, and temporary
facilities. The regulations will provide for continued public use of
the refuge complex while protecting refuge resources and resolving
conflicts between refuge users.

DATES: Written comments, suggestions, or objections will be accepted
until September 15, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Assistant Regional Director--Refuges and Wildlife, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Attention: Bob Stevens, 1011 East Tudor Road,
Anchorage, AK 99503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald E. Hood, Refuge Manager, Alaska
Peninsula/Becharof National Wildlife Refuge Complex, P.O. Box 277, King
Salmon, AK 99613, telephone: (907) 246-3339; or Bob Stevens, Public
Involvement Specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor
Road, Anchorage, AK 99503, telephone: (907) 786-3499.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16
U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) was signed into law on December 2, 1980. The broad
purpose of this law is to provide for the disposition and use of a
variety of Federally owned lands in Alaska. Section 302 of ANILCA
established Alaska Peninsula and Becharof National Wildlife Refuges
(NWRs) and Section 303 of ANILCA expanded Alaska Maritime National
Wildlife NWR. ANILCA states that the purposes for which Alaska
Maritime, Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWRs were established and shall
be managed include:

(A) Alaska Maritime Refuge * * * to conserve fish and wildlife
populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but
not limited to marine mammals, marine birds and other migratory
birds, the marine resources upon which they rely, bears, caribou and
other mammals;
(B) Alaska Peninsula Refuge * * * to conserve fish and wildlife
populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but
not limited to, brown bears, the Alaska Peninsula caribou herd,
moose, sea otters and other marine mammals, shorebirds and other
migratory birds, raptors, including bald eagles and peregrine
falcons, and salmonids and other fish;
(C) Becharof Refuge * * * (i) to conserve fish and wildlife
populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but
not limited to, brown bears, salmon, migratory birds, the Alaskan
Peninsula caribou herd, and marine birds and mammals;
(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the
United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats;
(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with the purposes set
forth in subparagraphs (i) and (ii), the opportunity for continued
subsistence uses by local residents; and
(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a
manner consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraph (i),
water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge[s].

In 1987, the Service decided to manage the Ugashik and Chignik
units of the Alaska Peninsula NWR, the Seal Cape area of the Alaska
Maritime NWR and the Becharof NWR as a ``complex.'' These units share a
contiguous boundary and common resources and resource issues.
Legislation to formalize the ``complex'' has been drafted. The Public
Use Management Plan, and the proposed regulations cover the Ugashik and
Chignik Units of Alaska Peninsula NWR, the Seal Cape area of the Alaska
Maritime NWR, and Becharof NWR.

Refuge Planning

Section 304(g) of ANILCA directs the Secretary of Interior to
prepare a comprehensive conservation plan (comprehensive plan) for each
national wildlife refuge in Alaska. The Alaska Maritime NWR
comprehensive plan was completed in 1988; the Alaska Peninsula NWR
comprehensive plan was completed in 1987; and the Becharof NWR
comprehensive plan was completed in 1985. A number of public use
management issues were identified and resolved in the comprehensive
plans. Other issues involving public use of the refuges were identified
as needing more thorough investigation. These issues were addressed in
the Public Use Management Plan (public use plan) approved in May 1994.
Public involvement was an important part of the public use
management planning process. In February 1989 a citizen participation
plan was approved and initiated. The plan specified that public
involvement activities were to occur during the winter months when most
rural Alaskans and other interested citizens would be available.
On March 1, 1989, a letter announcing the start of the planning
process was sent to each address on the mailing list as well as to each
box holder/general delivery recipient in the refuge complex area. That
letter was followed by two workbooks which were sent to those people
indicating a desire to be a planning participant. Each workbook was
also followed by a newsletter summarizing comments from the workbooks.
In December of 1989, 12 public workshops were held in local
villages and in Anchorage and Kodiak addressing Workbook No. 2. Written
responses on Workbook No. 2 were received from 80 people and 130 people
attended the public workshops. Individuals accounted for almost two
thirds of the written responses. Commercial operators, conservation
organizations, and local and State governments represented the
remainder.
Because of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the refuge complex staff
needed to devote extensive time and energy to projects related to that
event. As a result the pace of the planning process slowed. A
newsletter was mailed to all entries on the refuge complex mailing list
in October 1992; it was also distributed within each community in the
area of the refuge complex. The purpose of the newsletter was to bring
the public up-to-date on the planning process and let people know that
the draft plan would be released for public review during the winter of
1993. This newsletter summarized earlier efforts and identified key
issues and proposed management alternatives.
Personal contacts were also made with over 50 interested citizens
and group representatives to make certain they had received the
newsletter and to determine if they had any major concerns about public
use of the refuge complex that were not addressed in one or more of the
preliminary alternatives. Comments were not formally solicited on the
newsletter; however, 43 written comments were received.
These comments, previous comments, and analysis of the impacts of
each preliminary alternative led to the construction of the preferred
alternative identified in the draft public use management plan and
environmental assessment which was released to the public for review on
March 1, 1993.

[[Page 36577]]

Public Use Management Plan Issues Addressed in the Proposed Rule

Relevant issues identified through the public involvement
activities discussed above and addressed in the draft and final public
use management plan and these proposed regulations are outlined below.
1. Off-Road Vehicles (ORVs): Should additional ORV use be allowed
on the refuge complex or are additional limits needed on ORV use on the
refuge complex? Motor vehicle use, including ORVs, had occurred
historically in some areas and on some trails in the refuge complex.
2. Guided and Non-Guided Use: Should the number of guided and/or
non-guided users and/or the length of time they are allowed to stay at
one location be limited to protect important refuge complex resources
or to reduce conflicts between user groups?
3. Temporary Facilities: Are additional temporary facilities
(especially tent platforms) needed? How should temporary facility
applications be evaluated? How should temporary facilities be managed?

Public Comments Received on the Draft Public Use Management Plan

The draft public use management plan was released for public review
March 1, 1993. Over 1,000 notices of availability were mailed to
persons on the refuge complex mailing list; notices were also sent to
all post office box holders in the 12 refuge complex area communities.
Approximately 500 copies of the plan were distributed. Public workshops
were held in Anchorage, Chignik Bay, Chignik Lagoon, Chignik Lake,
Egegik, Ivanof Bay, Kodiak, Naknek, Perryville, Pilot Point, Port
Heiden, and South Naknek during March and April of 1993. One hundred
thirty-four people signed-in at these workshops. Public comments were
documented at each of the workshops.
Public comments were accepted until June 30, 1993. Forty-seven
written responses were received: 34 from individuals, four from the
guiding industry, four from Native corporations/organizations, two from
conservation organizations, and three from state or local government.
Twenty-nine of the comments were from the Alaska Peninsula/Bristol Bay
area, six from other parts of Alaska and 12 from other states. The vast
majority of public comments were from Alaskans, predominately those
residing within or near the refuge complex. All public comments
(workshop and written) were used to develop the final public use
management plan.
Comments relative to the proposed regulations are summarized below:
(1) Off-Road Vehicles (ORVs): The greatest number of comments addressed
ORV use. The overwhelming majority of comments supported the continued
use of ORVs for subsistence. Some opposed ORV use and several
recognized that they could be destructive. One suggested allowing ORV
use only on established trails. Local residents provided detailed
information about where and when they use ORVs for subsistence
activities.
The State objected to the Service determining, independently and
without study, what access to allow or prohibit. They recommended a
cooperative State and Service study to document traditional subsistence
access prior to any limits being placed on this access.
(2) Guided and Non-Guided Use: Some commented that guided visitors
and perhaps non-guided visitors should be limited. Comments ranged from
support for to opposition to camping limits. Those supporting camping
limits suggested two days, seven days, and 10 days. Some questioned the
need for a seven day camping limit in an area that is otherwise
uncrowded. A guide organization said limits on camping in key areas
should not be implemented until a specific and documentable problem is
defined. Concerns about the cost of enforcing camping limits were
expressed.
(3) Temporary Facilities: Several people suggested allowing
temporary facilities; some said they should be allowed for local
residents only. Those who said temporary facilities should be allowed
said they should not be allowed in sensitive areas. One individual said
that when tent frames are allowed, a property ownership atmosphere is
created. Conservation groups and some individuals suggested the Service
prohibit new temporary facilities. Conservation groups suggested
removal of existing facilities that cause conflicts, eyesores, or
concentrate use leading to adverse impacts on refuge complex values and
resources.
The final public use management plan was prepared considering these
public comments. The preferred alternative for ORV use was changed to
allow the continued subsistence use of ORVs throughout the refuge
complex while proposed regulations limit the weight of these vehicles
to protect refuge complex soils and vegetation. Additional details
about ORVs appear in the section by section analysis which follows.

Statutory Authority

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, (16
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit
and regulate the use of any area within the National Wildlife Refuge
System for any purpose whenever it is determined that such uses are
compatible with the major purposes for which such area was established.
The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4)
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer national
wildlife refuges for public recreation as an appropriate incidental or
secondary use when such use does not interfere with the primary
purposes for which the area was established.
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101
et seq.) Section 304(b) emphasizes the authority of the Secretary of
the Interior to prescribe such regulations as necessary to ensure the
compatibility of uses with refuge purposes. Section 811 states that the
Secretary of the Interior ``shall permit * * * appropriate use for
subsistence purposes of snowmobiles, motorboats, and other means of
surface transportation traditionally employed for such purposes by
local residents, subject to reasonable regulations [emphasis added].''
Section 1316 states, in part, ``* * * the Secretary shall permit,
subject to reasonable regulations to ensure compatibility, the
continuance of existing uses, and the future establishment, and use, of
temporary campsites, tent platforms, shelters, and other temporary
facilities and equipment directly and necessarily related to such
activities * * * the Secretary may determine, after adequate notice,
that the establishment and use of such new facilities or equipment
would constitute a significant expansion of existing facilities or uses
which would be detrimental to the purposes for which the affected
conservation system unit was established, including the wilderness
character of any wilderness area within such unit, and may thereupon
deny such proposed use or establishment.''
Executive Order 11644, ``Use of Off-road Vehicles on the Public
Lands,'' February 8, 1972, (37 FR 2877) called for each agency to
establish regulations addressing off-road vehicle use. ``These
regulations shall be directed at protecting resource values, preserving
public health, safety, and welfare, and minimizing use conflicts.'' The
Order also states, ``* * * trails shall be located in * * * National
Wildlife Refuges and Game Ranges only if the * * * agency head
determines that off-road vehicle

[[Page 36578]]
use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural,
aesthetic, or scenic values.''
Section-by-Section Analysis

Subsection 36.39(c)(1) states that the proposed regulations apply
to the administratively established refuge complex consisting of
Becharof NWR, the Seal Cape area of the Alaska Maritime NWR and the
Ugashik and Chignik units of Alaska Peninsula NWR.
Subsection 36.39(c)(2) provides direction for management of off-
road vehicles (ORVs) on the refuge complex. It begins by limiting the
type and weight of ORVs authorized for subsistence use and on
designated trails for general public use. It then designates three
trails for general public ORV use. The final public use plan decision
stated that the Service would also evaluate the use of airboats as off-
road vehicles on the refuge complex. After additional research, it was
determined that airboats have been used within refuge complex
boundaries on waters that are probably navigable and thus managed by
the State of Alaska. As long as this use continues at the present low
level with no discernible effects on refuge complex resources there is
no need for the refuge complex to attempt to regulate this airboat use.
However, expansion of the use of airboats onto refuge complex lands and
waters is likely to have significant adverse effects and therefore is
not proposed to be allowed.
Subsection 36.39(c)(2)(i) proposes size and weight restrictions for
general public and subsistence ORV use. These restrictions are proposed
to address a number of public and resource concerns and are realistic
to implement. The draft public use plan called for limiting subsistence
use of ORVs to frozen water bodies and their adjacent non-vegetated
shorelines. Other alternatives considered were: allowing subsistence
ORV access with the same size and weight restrictions as proposed only
when the ground is frozen; no ORV use; and certain designated winter
trails.
In response to public comments received, field visits were made to
sites where ORV use was known or reported to occur throughout the
refuge complex. Photographs and narrative were used to document
observed conditions. Off-refuge complex sites where heavy recreational
ORV use was known to occur were also visited. Damage at these off-
refuge complex sites was documented since similar damage could occur on
the refuge complex if such use were permitted on the refuge complex.
The field review showed no significant ORV damage. In fact, no
impacts could be detected in two areas where the refuge manager had
observed winter ORV use occurring and expected to find impacts. Upon
review of the public comments, these new data, relevant scientific
literature, and the requirements of 50 CFR 36.12 for managing
subsistence use of ORVs, the Service concluded that the current level
of ORV use is not ``causing or is likely to cause an adverse impact on
public health and safety, resource protection, protection of historic
or scientific values, subsistence uses, . . . or other purposes for
which the refuge was established.'' (50 CFR 36.12(b)).
It was also determined, after review of available scientific
literature, that the first impacts likely to occur from ORV use in the
refuge complex would be clearly visible and easy to monitor from the
air with existing staffing and funding. Therefore, the Regional
Director decided that continued use of ORVs for subsistence on the
refuge complex was appropriate.
The final public use plan limits ORV use to three- and four-wheel
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 650 pounds or less. Three- and
four-wheel ORVs are commonly used in refuge complex area communities.
The rationale for limiting the weight and width by regulation is that
from studies (Ahlstrand and Racine 1990, Racine and Ahlstrand 1991,
Sinnott 1990) it appears that smaller vehicles cause less damage.
Ground pressure would probably be a more reliable predictor of impacts,
however, through contacting ORV dealers the Service found that this
information is not available. Therefore, it was determined to limit the
gross vehicle weight which is readily available to a purchaser of an
ORV and can be easily measured. Limiting vehicle weight and limiting
the types of vehicles to those commonly used in refuge complex area
communities would pose no hardship on local residents yet continue to
provide protection for refuge complex resources. It is recognized that
many ORV users also tow small trailers to carry items that will not fit
on the ORV. The staff determined that there did not appear to be any
need to regulate the use of trailers and the regulations do not include
trailers with the understanding that their use is not restricted. The
size and weight of trailers will indirectly be affected by size and
weight restrictions on the vehicles that tow them.
Subsection 36.39(c)(2)(ii) designates three trails for general
public ORV use: Yantarni Bay Airstrip, Yantarni Bay Airstrip to beach
trail, and Yantarni Bay Airstrip to oil well site trail. The Yantarni
Bay Airstrip is an approximately one mile long by 250 foot wide gravel
landing strip located about six miles northeast of Yantarni Bay on the
Pacific coast of the Alaska Peninsula. Constructed in the early 1980s
for oil exploration, the airstrip provides access for wheeled aircraft
to this rugged, remote coast. Public lands in this area were selected
by the Afognak Native Corporation under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601-1624) prior to creation of the Alaska
Peninsula NWR. These lands were relinquished to the refuge complex in
1994.
During the time the Yantarni Bay area lands were in private
ownership, a sport fishing guide and several big game guide/outfitters
began using the airstrip. Their operations included use of three- and
four-wheeled ORVs to transport supplies and guests along the airstrip
and the two connected trails. The connected trails are located on roads
constructed for oil exploration. In the public use plan, it was decided
to allow general public use of these ORV trails. Sport fishing,
hunting, and guiding are all considered compatible uses of refuge
complex lands and resources. As these trails are all located on
constructed gravel roads, there is almost no potential for soil and
resource damage with the current type of ORV use.
The trail to the oil well site allows hunters and others to get
away from people at or near the airstrip. The trail to the beach is
primarily used to transport anglers along the beach to fish at various
nearby streams. The beach (below mean high tide) is owned by the State
of Alaska and not subject to refuge complex regulations. The combined
total distance of these trails is less than four miles. The beach to
the airstrip trail is less than one-half mile long; the airstrip is
approximately one mile long; and the airstrip to the oil well site
trail is approximately one and one-half miles long.
Subsection 36.39(c)(2)(iii) allows subsistence use of ORVs to
continue as authorized in 50 CFR 36.12(a) subject to the size and
weight limitations of subsection 36.39(c)(2)(i).
Subsection 36.39(c)(3) addresses camping on the refuge complex.
Subsection 36.39(c)(3)(i) clarifies that special use permits are
required for campsite improvements that would remain after camping
ceases. Temporary improvements, such as constructing fire rings, would
be allowed under these regulations; but permanent improvements, such as
leveling tent pads would not be allowed without a permit.
Subsection 36.39(c)(3)(ii) places limits on the length of time
visitors may camp at one campsite at six specific locations

[[Page 36579]]
during the fall hunting season from August 1 through November 15,
annually. All are popular camping areas during hunting season and
conflicts were reported to have occurred between hunting parties using
these areas. The camping limits were selected to ensure that no one
party monopolizes a prime hunting area and that various members of the
public can all have an opportunity to visit these locations. It is not
likely to cause hardship to those users as the average fall hunting
trip is seven days or less.
Camping limits do not apply to subsistence users at five of the six
locations as reported conflicts have been between different parties of
sport hunters or sport hunters and subsistence hunters. However, in the
Big Creek area, conflicts have been reported among subsistence hunters.
The area is located immediately adjacent to the two largest communities
in the refuge complex area, Naknek and King Salmon. Most of the camping
is by local residents. There is also substantial day-use by local
residents engaged in subsistence activities along Big Creek.
Subsection 36.39(c)(4) addresses temporary facilities under
authority of Section 1316 of ANILCA. Subsection 36.39(c)(4)(i) provides
that temporary facilities shall be authorized by special use permits.
Under subsection 36.39(c)(4)(ii) new temporary facilities are
prohibited within 1/4 mile of the Becharof Lake shoreline other than
for subsistence or administrative purposes. Subsistence is a purpose of
the refuge complex and having temporary camps located by others within
this subsistence use area would have the potential to adversely affect
subsistence activities of rural residents of the area. There are
currently some sort of facilities, including abandoned structures which
could be used in an emergency, located every few miles around the 100+
mile circumference of the lake.
Subsection 36.39(c)(4)(iii) closes five areas of the refuge complex
to temporary facilities other than for administrative use. The Regional
Director found in the public use plan that location of additional
temporary facilities would be a significant expansion of existing
facilities which would be detrimental to the purposes for which the
unit [refuge complex] was established. The proposed closed areas
already contain a number of facilities and receive relatively high
levels of public use. It is unlikely that additional facilities would
be necessary in these areas and their presence would potentially affect
subsistence and general public access to and use of the areas. The
closed areas were designed to be the minimum necessary to meet refuge
complex purposes.
Gertrude Lake is approximately one mile long and the entire
shoreline is clearly visible from any place along the lake. Placing a
temporary facility at this popular hunting location would, in effect,
``privatize'' the lake--deterring others from using the area. Long Lake
is a similar situation and is also on the boundary with Katmai National
Park. The airstrip at the confluence of Gertrude Lake and King Salmon
River is a small undeveloped landing area. If a facility were
constructed adjacent to the strip, other users would likely be
displaced from the area.
Upper and Lower Ugashik Lakes present a situation similar to
Becharof Lake except they are smaller and contain relatively more
facilities. There are several parcels of private land adjacent to the
lakes and facilities present include numerous cabins, a lodge and other
private developments. Locating additional facilities on public lands
would likely affect use and enjoyment of refuge complex resources.
The Becharof Lake outlet area contains private and refuge complex
lands. There are several facilities present in this area. Becharof Lake
outlet is readily accessible by boats and aircraft. Additional
facilities would detract from other refuge complex uses.
The prohibition on temporary facilities along Big Creek is in
addition to the limit on camping. As stated before, Big Creek is very
close to King Salmon and Naknek and receives substantial day use.
Temporary facilities would potentially restrict use of important
hunting areas by residents and visitors.

Request for Comments

A complete public involvement process was conducted during the
development of the Alaska Peninsula/Becharof plan and the environmental
assessment that accompanied the draft plan. As stated earlier in this
document, public meetings were held in all refuge complex area
communities, Kodiak and Anchorage during preparation of the draft and
final public use management plans. Public comments received were
reviewed and considered prior to drafting these proposed regulations.
As stated in the final public use plan, in addition to accepting
written public comments regarding the proposed regulations, public
hearings will be held during the public comment period. All relevant
comments received in writing or at public hearings will be reviewed and
considered prior to preparing the final regulations. During the 60-day
public review period public hearings will be held in Chignik Bay,
Chignik Lake, Chignik Lagoon, Egegik, Ivanof Bay, Naknek, Perryville,
Pilot Point, Port Heiden, and South Naknek, Alaska.

Conformance With Statutory and Regulatory Authorities

The impact of these proposed regulations on subsistence uses has
been evaluated as required by Section 810 of ANILCA. A subsistence
evaluation was included in the public use management plan environmental
assessment and the Regional Director found that the plan would not
significantly restrict subsistence use on the Alaska Peninsula/Becharof
National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Subsistence uses and access are
expected to differ little, if any, from existing uses. The regulations
are consistent with the purposes and intent of Section 810 and will
result in no significant restrictions on subsistence uses.
These proposed regulations are consistent with the purposes for
which the Alaska Maritime, Alaska Peninsula and Becharof national
wildlife refuges were established. A compatibility determination was
approved for the public use management plan.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule does not contain collections of information that
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

National Environmental Policy Act

An environmental assessment accompanied the draft public use
management plan. On May 21, 1994, a Decision Notice and Finding of No
Significant Impact was signed by the Regional Director. Copies of these
documents may be obtained from the Alaska Peninsula/Becharof National
Wildlife Refuge Complex, P.O. Box 277, King Salmon, Alaska 99613.
Telephone: (907) 246-3339. No further documentation is required by the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347).

Economic Effects

This rulemaking was not subject to the Office of Management and
Budget review under Executive Order 12866. In addition, a review under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) has been
done to determine whether the proposed rulemaking would have a
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, which
include businesses, organizations or governmental jurisdictions. This
proposed rule would have minimal

[[Page 36580]]
effect on such entities as the proposed rule impacts the refuge complex
only to the extent that off-road vehicles and camping are better
administered. Temporary facilities are only allowed for administrative
and subsistence purposes at particular sites. These provisions are
seen, therefore, as administrative in nature and having little or no
impact on small entities.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from Bob Stevens (See ADDRESSES above).

Primary Author

Helen Clough, Refuges and Wildlife, Alaska Regional Office, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska is the primary author of
this proposed rulemaking document.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 36

Alaska, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife refuges.
Accordingly, Part 36 of Chapter I of Title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 36--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 36 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 460(k) et seq., 668dd et seq., 742(a) et
seq., 3101 et seq., and 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

2. Section 36.39 Public use is amended by adding paragraph (c) to
read as follows:

Sec. 36.39 Public use.

* * * * *
(c) Alaska Peninsula/Becharof National Wildlife Refuge Complex--(1)
Public use area. The Alaska Peninsula/Becharof National Wildlife Refuge
Complex includes the Becharof National Wildlife Refuge, the Chignik and
Ugashik Units of the Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge and the
Seal Cape Area of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge.
(2) Off-road vehicles. (i) Off-road vehicles operated on the refuge
complex under Sec. 36.12(a) or paragraph (c)(2)(ii) or (c)(2)(iii) of
this section are limited to three or four-wheeled vehicles with a
maximum gross weight of 650 pounds as listed by the manufacturer.
(ii) The following trails are designated for off-road vehicle use:
Yantarni Bay Airstrip; Yantarni Bay Airstrip to beach trail; and
Yantarni Bay Airstrip to oil well site trail. Maps of the areas in this
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) are available from the Refuge Manager.
(iii) Subject to the weight and size restrictions listed in
paragraph (c) (2)(i) of this section, subsistence use of off-road
vehicles, as authorized by Sec. 36.12 (a) is allowed throughout the
Alaska Peninsula/Becharof National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
(3) Camping. Camping is permitted on the Alaska Peninsula/Becharof
National Wildlife Refuge Complex subject to the following restrictions:
(i) No permanent improvements may be made to campsites without a
special use permit. All materials brought on to the refuge complex must
be removed upon cessation of camping unless authorized by a special use
permit.
(ii) Other than reserved sites authorized by special use permits,
camping at one location is limited to seven consecutive nights from
August 1 through November 15 within \1/4\ mile of the following waters:
Becharof Lake in the Severson Peninsula area (Island Arm); Becharof
Lake Outlet; Ugashik Narrows; Big Creek; Gertrude Lake; and Gertrude
Creek between Gertrude Lake and the King Salmon River. Maps of the
areas in this paragraph (c)(3)(ii) are available from the Refuge
Manager.
(iii) Tent camps must be moved a minimum of one mile following each
seven-night camping stay during the periods specified in paragraph
(c)(3)(ii) of this section. The camping limits in this paragraph
(c)(3)(iii) do not apply to subsistence users except at Big Creek where
they apply to all refuge complex users.
(4) Temporary facilities. (i) New temporary facilities may be
authorized on the Alaska Peninsula/Becharof National Wildlife Refuge
Complex by special use permit only.
(ii) Except for administrative or subsistence purposes, new
temporary facilities are prohibited within \1/4\ mile of the Becharof
Lake shoreline.
(iii) Except for administrative purposes, new temporary facilities
are prohibited in the following areas: within \1/4\ mile of the
shorelines of Gertrude Lake and Long Lake; within \1/4\ mile of the
airstrip on the south side of the King Salmon river approximately \1/2\
mile above the confluence of Gertrude Creek and the King Salmon River;
within \1/2\ mile of the shoreline of Upper and Lower Ugashik lakes;
within \1/4\ mile of the shoreline of Becharof Lake outlet; and within
\1/4\ mile of the shoreline of Big Creek. Maps of the areas in this
paragraph (c)(4)(iii) are available from the Refuge Manager.
* * * * *
Dated: June 16, 1995.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 95-17192 Filed 7-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A95-17192. Public record. Not legal advice.