1997-98 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 32

RIN 1018-AE18

1997-98 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule adds additional national wildlife refuges to the

list of areas open for hunting, along with pertinent refuge-specific

regulations for such activities; and amends certain regulations on

other refuges that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game

hunting, big game hunting and sport fishing. The Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) provides notice that they will manage the size of the

bison herd by removing animals with firearms on the National Elk Refuge

(Refuge) in Wyoming.

DATES: This rule is effective February 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Vehrs; (703) 358-2397.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the July 21, 1997, issue of the Federal

Register (62 FR 38959) the Service published a proposed rulemaking and

invited public comment that would allow the public to hunt bison on the

National Elk Refuge. The Service working with the National Park

Service, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and the U.S. Forest Service

developed a management plan for the Jackson Bison Herd (JBH) addressing

the public's desire to maintain large populations of wildlife in

limited and diminishing habitat while human habitation increases

demands on the land. In the case of the JBH, public views vary widely

about bison. The goal of the Service and cooperators is maintaining a

free-roaming bison herd in Jackson Hole, as free from human

intervention as practical. Given the existing behavior of the JBH,

prevailing snowfall patterns, geography, and other constraints, the

September 30, 1997 Final Management Plan meets public desires and

provides for a viable free-roaming bison herd. The Service received two

requests from The Fund for Animals to extend the comment period on the

proposal to permit bison herd reduction within the Refuge. The original

comment period was open for 30 days (62 FR 38959, July 21, 1997), and

then extended to September 19, 1997, (62 FR 47372, September 9, 1997)

to accommodate public review of a pending update to the Jackson Bison

Herd Long Term Management Plan. Due to the need by the Service for

additional time to complete modifications to the final herd management

plan and review information and comments from interested parties on

this proposed action, the comment period was then reopened for an

additional 30 days (62 FR 53773, October 16, 1997). Other documents,

such as a refuge Compatibility Determination and the National Elk

Refuge Hunt Plan Amendment were approved on October 1, 1997. Copies of

the Hunt Plan Amendment and the Compatibility Determination are

available from the Refuge Manager, National Elk Refuge, Box C, Jackson,

Wyoming 83001.

National Wildlife Refuge System (System) hunting programs are

reviewed annually to determine whether additional refuges should be

added or whether individual refuge regulations governing existing

programs should be modified, deleted or have additions made to them.

Changing environmental conditions, State and Federal regulations, and

other factors affecting wildlife populations and habitat may warrant

modifications ensuring continued compatibility of hunting with the

purposes of individual refuges, and the Mission of the System.

The Mission of the System is to administer a national network of

lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and

their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and

future generations of Americans. The System was created to sustain and,

where appropriate, restore and enhance, healthy populations of fish,

wildlife, and plants utilizing, in accordance with applicable Federal

and State laws, methods and procedures associated with modern

scientific resource programs. Such methods and procedures include,

consistent with the provisions of law: protection, research, census,

law enforcement, habitat management, propagation, live trapping,

transplantation, and regulated taking. The Mission is being facilitated

by providing Americans opportunities to participate in compatible

wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting and fishing, on System

lands and to better appreciate the value of and need for fish and

wildlife conservation.

The Service generally closes national wildlife refuges to hunting

and sport fishing until opened by rulemaking. The Secretary of the

Interior (Secretary), acting through the Director of the Service may

open refuge areas to hunting and/or fishing upon a determination that

such uses are compatible. A compatible use is a wildlife-dependent

recreational use or any other use of a refuge that, in the sound

professional judgment of the Director, will not materially interfere

with or detract from the fulfillment of the Mission of the System or

the purposes of the refuge. The action also must be in accordance with

provisions of all laws applicable to the areas, must be consistent with

the principles of sound fish and wildlife management and

administration, and otherwise must be in the public interest.

50 CFR part 32 contains provisions governing hunting and fishing on

national wildlife refuges. Hunting and fishing are regulated on refuges

to:

Ensure compatibility with refuge purposes and the System's

Mission;

Properly manage the fish and wildlife resource;

Protect other refuge values; and

Ensure refuge user safety.

On many refuges, the Service policy of adopting State hunting and

fishing regulations is adequate in meeting these objectives. On other

refuges, it is necessary to supplement State regulations with more

restrictive Federal regulations to ensure that the Service meets its

management responsibilities, as outlined under the section entitled

``Statutory Authority.''

The Fund for Animals, a non-government organization provided the

only public comments on the proposed rulemaking. Their comments and the

Service's responses follow:

Comment 1: The JBH Management Plan and Environmental Assessment

(EA) are in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),

by the Service:

Comment 1a: failing to evaluate the impact of the Refuge

supplemental feeding program on the JBH.

Service Response: Supplemental feeding of the Jackson elk herd is a

longstanding practice dating back to 1911, when first initiated by the

State of Wyoming and long before NEPA required analysis of the action.

The objective of the program is to feed wintering elk and this

management action stands alone.

The JBH has wintered on the Refuge for many years and has used a

portion of the supplemental feed provided to elk since 1980. Winter

range for large mammals in Jackson Hole is limited by winter snow

accumulations, and particularly by human occupation, development and

livestock use on most of the private lands in the valley, where the

least snow accumulates. The need to limit the size of the bison herd as

well as elk, mule deer, and other species of

[[Page 2179]]

large mammals is largely a function of the limited availability of

suitable natural winter habitat. In the absence of winter feeding of

elk, excess numbers of bison must still be controlled due to the

geography of the Jackson Hole area. Bison follow the snow gradient down

the valley and are brought into close association with the human

population during the winter and spring months. In the absence of

supplemental feeding, bison would still wander onto private ranchlands,

roadways, and residential areas causing complaints from valley

residents and state livestock officials, thus causing their numbers to

be controlled by refuge management actions.

Comment 1b: failing to substantiate the justification for the JBH

plan, reduction of risk of brucellosis transmission, or to quantify the

risk of transmission.

Service Response: As noted earlier, the goal of the JBH Management

Plan is to maintain a free-roaming herd of bison in Jackson Hole, as

free from human intervention as practically possible. Disease

management was one of the four management issues addressed in the

planning and impact assessment to achieve this goal. Much of the

justification for development of the management plan was to address the

increasing size of the JBH and the lack of suitable winter range for

the animals. To steward the habitat resource that must support not only

bison but also a diversity of other wildlife species that inhabit

Jackson Hole, controls on population growth of the JBH are required.

Certainly, increasing bison numbers and intermingling of bison with

livestock are of concern to various public groups and agencies. These

issues were addressed in the Plan. However, in the absence of

additional suitable winter habitat for bison, and given the current

(annual) growth rate of the herd (16-18%), limiting population growth

of the JBH was a fundamental basis for the Plan's development.

Comment 1c: failing to adequately evaluate the feasibility of using

immunocontraception as a means for controlling size of the JBH.

Service Response: The JBH Plan did address the use of

immunocontraceptives to control bison numbers, however, the use of

immunocontraceptives in wild and free-ranging wildlife populations is

in its formative stages. Such chemicals have been experimentally used

in a number of species with varied success and mixed results as

discussed below.

The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has

expressed the following concerns to the Service:

Immunocontraception is highly experimental;

Secondary effects on populations have not been explored;

Drugs are not approved by FDA and other agencies, thus no

information on effect of ingesting treated animals by humans or

predators;

Behavorial complications have been noted in some species;

and

Before Service experimentation, State fish and wildlife

agencies should be consulted.

Research is making some headway. First effective control of

fertility in free-ranging animals was demonstrated in 1990 using PZP on

Assateague Island National Seashore's feral horses. Study showed: (a)

Vaccine could be dart delivered, (b) no adverse affect on pregnant

mares noted, (c) no effect on social behavior, (d) reversibility of

vaccine. Assateague Island NS has begun using PZP to manage

Assateague's horses, having released an EA and FONSI in 1995.

Behavioral complications have been noted in some wildlife species.

Study in Virgin Islands National Park shows PZP is 90% effective in

controlling fertility of feral burros.

White-tailed deer on Fire Island National Seashore are being

treated with PZP. Those treated show 70% less fawning.

Major PZP disadvantage is that females must be inoculated twice

three-weeks apart in first year of administering vaccine. Protection in

subsequent years requires single booster.

Studies of PZP with wild horses (NV) and white-tailed deer at

Smithsonian Conservation & Research Center (VA) focus on one single

inoculation that will deliver one to three years of protection.

USDA-ADC's Denver Wildlife Research Center has been studying

immunocontraception of white-tailed deer (including oral delivery),

wild rats, starlings, coyotes, and wild horses. Cooperators include

Baylor, Penn State, Vassar and Rutgers.

USDA does not regulate immunocontraception research but FDA

suggests experiments, establishes restriction, and sets standards for

data collection and record keeping.

The positive science needed to administer such chemicals, as

explained in the Plan, to free-ranging public bison herds is inadequate

to justify the use at this time.

Comment 1d: planning to maintain the size of the JBH between 350-

400 animals. This size is not sufficient to insure a large enough

breeding population to protect the herd's genetic diversity.

Service Response: The Joint Agencies contracted two studies

concerning the effect of population size on genetic sustainability of

the JBH. The first study recommended a herd size of 250 bison (Shelley

and Anderson 1989). As new information surfaced on population genetics

of bison, particularly the work of Dr. Joel Berger, the agencies

contracted a second study on population genetics of the JBH (Berger

1996). Berger's analysis suggested that 400 bison would be adequate to

maintain the genetic diversity of the JBH, without any gene flow from

other populations. Periodic introductions from other bison populations

would permit the population to maintain heterozygosity at a lower herd

size.

The JBH Plan calls for managing the herd at a 5-year running

average of 350-400 bison during winter. The plan also notes that

genetic contributions from another bison herd, animals that are part of

the Yellowstone National Park (YNP) bison population, are likely.

Several bison form YNP joined the JBH prior to the 1997-breeding

season. The Service has not promoted the migration of bison from YNP to

Jackson Hole. That is a phenomenon attributable to bison behavior and

possibly enhanced by snowmobile trails in the Park. Bison are nomadic

and commonly pioneer new areas, possibly in search of better foraging

conditions or mates. Animals from the JBH have done the same on several

occasions in the past.

It is inaccurate to state that no genetic work has been done on the

JBH. Shelly and Anderson (1989) presented data on genetic status of the

JBH. Those data indicated that JBH ranked third in genetic diversity

compared to 13 other public bison herds in the United States.

Comment 2: Because the Service has failed to disclose information

relevant to the proposed action in the JBH Plan and EA, a supplement to

the EA is required:

Comment 2a: Information concerning changes in plant communities

including a decline in abundance and health of woody plants was not

contained in the bison plan and Environmental Assessment.

Service Response: The southern half of the Refuge is occupied by

both elk and bison for approximately 6 months/year. Bison damage woody

plants, particularly cottonwood trees, through their grooming

activities. This was discussed in the final Plan and EA. Bison are

primarily grazers but do consume some woody plants. The JBH Plan notes

that woody vegetation on the refuge is suffering damage from

overabundant ungulates. The JBH Plan is a bison management plan and

therefore primarily discusses damage

[[Page 2180]]

due to bison, but elk certainly are responsible for plant damage as

well.

Comment 2b: The Service failed to disclose how the proposed bison

hunt would be conducted.

Sevice Response: The JBH Plan and Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI) both discuss the bison hunt, including intent to harvest

animals from all age classes and both sexes to maintain maximum genetic

variability of the herd. The Plan states that approximately even sex

ratios will be maintained to simulate a herd sex ratio expected under

natural conditions. Additional information on how the hunt is to be

conducted is provided in the response item 4(a), below.

Comment 3: The Service failed to comply with its own regulations in

proposing to hunt bison on the Refuge:

Comment 3a: Since the herd objective is 350-400, the FWS has

apparently concluded that any bison in excess of 350 are surplus and

are available to be hunted.

Service Response: The FONSI calls for maintaining a winter herd

size of 350-400 bison post harvest until the year 2000. Thereafter, the

herd will be maintained at 350-400 animals on a running 5-year average.

Reductions certainly may occur when the population is less than 400

bison.

Comment 3b: In addition to its arbitrary determination that surplus

bison exist, the possibility that the animals may be hunted as early as

December, is entirely inconsistent with the population census strategy

described in the bison hunt plan amendment.

Service Response: Bison are censused each winter on the Refuge

during February and March. New calves as well as total numbers of bison

are repeatedly counted on summer range in Grand Teton National Park.

Each fall's reduction will be based upon the number of bison alive at

that time. The fall population size is derived from the previous

winter's herd size, plus the number of new calves documented during

summer, minus known losses due to natural causes and vehicle

collisions.

Comment 4: The proposed bison hunt is in violation of Service

hunting policies:

Comment 4a: Because of the protection afforded to these bison over

the past decades, these animals have virtually no fear of humans. They

have become acclimated to the presence of people on both their summer

and winter range. The agencies, including the FWS, have contributed to

this behavior by providing supplemental feed for these animals in the

winter while promoting bison observation in the summer. Consequently,

the proposed hunt, if implemented, will not be challenging, sporting,

ethical, or consistent with the concepts of fair chase.

Service Response: The bison hunt is not a recreational hunt, but

rather is a tool to reduce the size of the bison herd. It has been

structured to be consistent with Service policy and the principles of

sound wildlife management and in the public interest. The herd

reduction plan is based on public comments received during the planning

phase as well as professional biological input provided by the Joint

Agencies. An array of methods for controlling the size of the JBH were

considered. A combination of herd reduction by trained and certified

Native Americans, public sportsmen and Agency personnel as needed was

selected as the most feasible alternative. Herd reduction will follow a

one-day orientation, safety training, and firearms efficiency

qualification, by the permitted participants. Those individuals

qualifying to participate in the herd reduction program will be

permitted to take bison in a swift and humane manner following State

and refuge regulations and permit conditions.

The Service reviewed, considered and responded to the above

comments regarding bison herd management at the National Elk Refuge and

determines that the Bison Plan is compatible and will be permitted and

carried out as planned.

Statutory Authority

The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k); and the

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA) of 1966, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd), govern the administration and public use of

national wildlife refuges. The Refuge Recreation Act (RRA) authorizes

the Secretary to administer areas within the System for public

recreation as an appropriate incidental or secondary use only to the

extent that it is practicable and not inconsistent with the primary

purpose(s) for which the areas were established. Wildlife-dependent

recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge when they are

compatible and not inconsistent with public safety. Except for timely

and effective cooperation and collaboration with Federal agencies and

State fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and

managing refuges, no other determinations or findings are required to

be made by the refuge official under this Act or the Refuge Recreation

Act for wildlife-dependent recreation to occur. Section 4(d)(1)(A) of

the NWRSAA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit the use

of any area within the System for any purpose, including but not

limited to, hunting, fishing and public recreation, accommodations and

access, when he determines that uses are compatible with the major

purpose(s) for which the area was established.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub.

L. 105-57) amends and builds upon the NWRSAA in a manner that provides

an ``Organic Act'' for the Refuge System similar to those which exist

for other public lands. It serves to ensure that the Refuge System is

effectively managed as a national system of lands, waters and interests

for the protection and conservation or our nation's wildlife resources.

The RRA, NWRSAA and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of

1997 (NWRSIA) authorize the Secretary to issue regulations to carry out

the purposes of the Acts and regulate uses. The NWRSIA states first and

foremost that the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System be

focused singularly on wildlife conservation--``Wildlife First.''

The NWRSIA gives guidance to the Secretary in the overall

management of the Refuge System. The Act's main components include:

A Strong and singular wildlife conservation mission for

the Refuge System;

A requirement that the Secretary of the Interior maintain

the biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of the

Refuge System;

A requirement that no refuge use may be allowed unless it

is first determined to be compatible;

A requirement that wildlife-dependent recreational uses

(including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and

environmental education and interpretation), when determined to be

compatible, shall receive priority consideration over other public uses

in refuge planning and management;

A new definition and process for making compatibility

determinations;

A requirement for preparing comprehensive conservation

plans.

The Service develops hunting and sport fishing plans for each

existing refuge before opening it to hunting or fishing. The Service

develops refuge-specific regulations to ensure the programs do not

detract from the fulfillment of the Mission of the System or the

purposes of the refuge. Initial compliance with the RRA, NWRSAA and

NWRSIA has been ensured for hunting and sport fishing on newly acquired

refuges through an interim determination of compatibility made at

[[Page 2181]]

the time of acquisition. This ensures that the determinations required

by these acts have been made before the addition of refuges to the

lists of areas open to hunting and fishing in 50 CFR part 32. Continued

compliance is ensured by the development of long-term hunting and sport

fishing plans and by annual review of hunting and sport fishing

programs and regulations.

In accordance with the RRA, NWRSAA and NWRSIA, the Service

determines that this opening is compatible and will not detract from

the fulfillment of the Mission of the System or the purposes of the

refuge.

Paperwork Reduction Act

These regulations have been examined under the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 and have been found to contain no information collection

requirements.

Executive Order 12866

This rule is being implemented with approval and cooperation of the

National Park Service, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and the U.S.

Forest Service who, along with the Service developed a management plan

for the Jackson Bison Herd, that calls for a bison hunting program.

This document is not a significant rule subject to Office of Management

and Budget review under Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Determination (5 U.S.C. 601)

Service review has revealed that this rulemaking will increase

hunter visitation to the surrounding area of the refuge before, during

and after bison hunting, compared to the refuge being closed to this

recreational use.

This refuge is located away from large metropolitan areas.

Businesses in the area of the refuges consist primarily of small

family-owned stores, restaurants, gas stations and other small

commercial enterprises. In addition, there are several small,

commercial recreational fishing and hunting camps, dude ranches and

marinas in the general area. This final rule will have a positive

effect on such entities; however, the amount of revenue generated to

businesses is very small.

Many area residents enjoy a rural lifestyle that includes frequent

recreational use of the abundant natural resources of the area. A high

percentage of the households enjoy hunting, fishing, and boating in

areas mountains, valleys, wetlands, rivers and lakes. Refuge lands were

not available for general public use before government acquisition;

however, they were fished and hunted upon by friends and relatives of

the ranchland owners. Many nearby residents also participate in other

forms of non-consumptive outdoor recreation, such as biking, hiking,

camping, birdwatching, canoeing, and other outdoor sports.

Economic impacts of refuge hunting programs on local communities

are calculated from average expenditures in the ``1996 National Survey

of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation''. In 1996, 39

million U.S. residents 16 years old and older hunted and/or fished.

More specifically, 35.2 million fished and 14 million hunted. Those who

both fished and hunted account for the $10.2 million overage.

Nationwide expenditures by sportsmen totaled $72 billion. Trip-related

expenditures for food, lodging, and transportation were $14 billion or

19.4 percent of all fishing and hunting expenditures; equipment

expenditures amounted to $44.2 billion, or 61.4 percent of the total;

other expenditures such as those for magazines, membership dues,

contributions, land leasing, ownership, licenses, stamps, tags, and

permits accounted for $13.8 billion, or 19.2 percent of all

expenditures. Overall, anglers spent an average of $41 per day. For

each day of hunting, migratory bird hunters spent an average of $33,

upland game hunters an average of $20, and big game hunters averaged

spending $40.

At the National Elk Refuge included in this final regulation, less

than 500 hunters will spend $20,000 annually hunting on the refuges'

purchasing supplies, food and lodging in the area of the refuge, since

most hunters live within commuting distance of the refuge hunt. While

many of these hunters already make such expenditures before the refuge

opening, some of these additional expenditures directly are due to the

land now being open to the general public.

This rulemaking will have a small but positive impact on local

economies by increasing visitation and expenditures in the surrounding

area of the refuge. Therefore, based on the above analysis, the

Department certifies that this document will not have a significant

economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., Pub. L.

104-4, E.O. 12875)

The Service has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded

Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking will not

impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or

State governments or private entities.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

The Department has determined that these final regulations meet the

applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12988.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 40 CFR 1500,

516 DM)

The Service ensures compliance with the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332(c)) when developing hunting

and sport fishing plans, and the determinations required by NEPA are

made before the addition of refuges to the lists of areas open to

hunting and fishing in 50 CFR part 32.

Section 7 Consultation (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., 50 CFR 402)

The Service reviewed the opening package documents for bison

hunting on the National Elk Refuge with regards to Section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). The Service is

concerned with grizzly bear-human conflicts and habitation of bears due

to hunters not taking necessary precautions. In accordance with the

Biological Opinion, hunter education will include precautions for bear

country, that bison will not be concentrated in bald eagle roosting

areas, and that helicopter hazing will not be used. Based on this

understanding, the Service finds the action as presented is not likely

to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or

threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification

of habitat of such species. In particular, this action is not likely to

adversely affect the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), peregrine

falcon (Falco peregrinus), whooping crane (Grus americana), gray wolf

(Canis lupis), or grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis). The

Environmental Assessment and Section 7 Consultation documents are on

file in Service offices and may be viewed by contacting the primary

author.

Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs (E.O. 12372, 43 CFR 9, and

the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968)

The Service reviewed this rule under E.O. 12372 and accommodated

the recommendations of state and local governments concerning Federal

programs affecting their jurisdictions.

These documents are on file in Service offices and may be viewed by

[[Page 2182]]

contacting the primary author noted below. Individual refuge

headquarters also retain information regarding hunting permits and the

conditions that apply to refuge hunts, and maps of their respective

area. You may also obtain information from the regional office at the

address listed below:

Region 6--Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South

Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. Assistant Regional Director--Refuges and

Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Box 25486, Denver Federal

Center, Denver, Colorado 80225; Telephone (303) 236-8145.

Primary author: Stephen R. Vehrs, Division of Refuges, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC 20240, is the primary author of

this final rulemaking document.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 32

Fishing, Hunting, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,

Wildlife, Wildlife refuges.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Service amends Title

50, Chapter I, subchapter C of the Code of Federal Regulations as

follows:

PART 32--[AMENDED]

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, and 715i.

2. Amend Sec. 32.70 Wyoming by revising the introductory text of

paragraph C. of National Elk Refuge to read as follows:

Sec. 32.70 Wyoming.

* * * * *

National Elk Refuge

* * * * *

C. Big Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt elk and bison on designated

areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:

* * * * *

Dated: January 7, 1998.

Donald J. Barry,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 98-947 Filed 1-13-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-M