Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 41351 

(b) The Contractor shall deliver under this 

contract only such of the following 

commercial or non-commercial items, either 

as end products or components, that have 

been grown, reprocessed, reused, or 

produced in the United States: 

(1) Clothing and the materials and 

components thereof, other than sensors, 

electronics, or other items added to, and not 

normally associated with, clothing and the 

materials and components thereof; or 

(2) Tents, tarpaulins, covers, textile belts, 

bags, protective equipment (such as body 

armor), sleep systems, load carrying 

equipment (such as fieldpacks), textile 

marine equipment, parachutes or bandages. 

(c) The Contractor shall deliver under this 

contract only such of the following noncommercial items, either as end products or 

components, that have been grown, 

reprocessed, reused, or produced in the 

United States: 

(1) Cotton and other natural fiber products. 

(2) Woven silk or woven silk blends. 

(3) Spun silk yarn for cartridge cloth. 

(4) Synthetic fabric or coated synthetic 

fabric (including all textile fibers and yarns 

that are for use in such fabrics). 

(5) Canvas products. 

(6) Wool (whether in the form of fiber or 

yarn or contained in fabrics, materials, or 

manufactured articles). 

(7) Any item of individual equipment 

manufactured from or containing any of the 

fibers, yarns, fabrics, or materials listed in 

this paragraph (c). 

(d) This clause does not apply— 

(1) To items listed in (FAR) 48 CFR 25.104, 

or other items for which the Government has 

determined that a satisfactory quality and 

sufficient quantity cannot be acquired as and 

when needed at United States market prices; 

(2) To incidental amounts of cotton, other 

natural fibers, or wool incorporated in an end 

product, for which the estimated value of the 

cotton, other natural fibers, or wool is not 

more than 10 percent of the total price of the 

end product; or 

(3) To items that are eligible products per 

(FAR) 48 CFR Subpart 25.4. 

(End of clause.) 

[FR Doc. E9–19647 Filed 8–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–9B–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Parts 25 and 32 

[Docket No. FWS–R3–NSR–2009–0007] 

[32579–1261–0000–4A] 

RIN 1018–AW48 

2009–2010 Hunting and Sport Fishing 

Regulations for the Upper Mississippi 

River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service or we) amends the 

regulations for the Upper Mississippi 

River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge 

(refuge) that pertain to existing 

programs for migratory game bird 

hunting, upland game hunting, and big 

game hunting. These changes take effect 

with the 2009–2010 season, implement 

portions of the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for the refuge 

approved in 2006, and amend other 

regulations. We also make amendments 

to reflect recent OMB approval of new 

hunting and fishing application forms 

and activity reports for national wildlife 

refuges. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 17, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick 

Frietsche, (507) 452–4232; Fax (507) 

452–0851. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

by the National Wildlife Refuge 

Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd–668ee), authorizes the Secretary 

of the Interior (Secretary) to allow uses 

of refuge areas, including hunting and/ 

or sport fishing, upon a determination 

that such uses are compatible with the 

purposes of the refuge and National 

Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) 

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), and 

consistent with the principles of sound 

fish and wildlife management and 

administration. 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. 

The law requires the Secretary to 

prepare a Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) for each refuge and to 

manage each refuge in a manner 

consistent with the CCP. Each CCP is 

guided by the overarching requirement 

that refuges are to be managed to fulfill 

the purposes for which they were 

established and the mission of the 

Refuge System. In addition, we must 

administer the Refuge System to provide 

for the conservation of fish, wildlife and 

plant resources and their habitat and to 

ensure their biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health. 

Each CCP must identify and describe 

the refuge’s purposes; fish, wildlife, and 

plant populations; cultural resources; 

areas for administrative or visitor 

facilities; significant problems affecting 

resources and actions necessary; and 

opportunities for compatible wildlifedependent recreation. Each CCP must 

also be developed through consultation 

with the States, other Federal agencies, 

and the public, and be coordinated with 

applicable State conservation plans. 

Upper Mississippi River National 

Wildlife and Fish Refuge 

The Upper Mississippi River National 

Wildlife and Fish Refuge (refuge) 

encompasses 240,000 acres in a moreor-less continuous stretch of 261 miles 

of Mississippi River floodplain in 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and 

Illinois. Congress established the refuge 

in 1924 to provide a refuge and breeding 

ground for migratory birds, fish, other 

wildlife, and plants. The refuge is 

perhaps the most important corridor of 

habitat in the central United States due 

to its species diversity and abundance 

and is the most visited refuge in the 

United States with 3.7 million annual 

visitors. Approximately 187,000 acres of 

the refuge is open to all hunting, and 

approximately 140,000 acres of surface 

water is open to year-round fishing. 

On July 11, 2006, we published a 

notice of availability of our Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

and CCP for the refuge (71 FR 39125), 

and we accepted public comments on 

the Final EIS for 30 days. On August 24, 

2006, the Regional Director of the 

Midwest Region of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service signed the Record of Decision 

that documented the selection of 

Alternative E, the Preferred Alternative 

presented in the Final EIS. We 

published a notice of availability of that 

Record of Decision on November 2, 

2006 (71 FR 64553). In accordance with 

the Record of Decision, we prepared a 

CCP based on Alternative E. The CCP 

was approved on October 24, 2006. The 

Final EIS and CCP are available at 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/ 

uppermiss/. 

We developed the CCP for the refuge 

in accordance with all requirements 

including the consultation and public 

involvement provisions of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act. These include new compatibility 

determinations for hunting and fishing, 

which are referenced and listed in 

Appendix E of the Final EIS (which 

includes recreational and commercial 

fishing, migratory bird and big game 

hunting, wildlife observation and 

photography). We completed hunting 

and fishing regulations in 2007 to 

implement the goals, objectives, and 

strategies described in the CCP 

pertaining to hunting and fishing and 

related uses. We published a proposed 

rule in the Federal Register on June 28, 

2007 (72 FR 35380), and a final rule was 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
41352 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

effective on September 7, 2007 (72 FR 

51534). 

We based these compatibility 

determinations on all changes 

anticipated in the CCP, including the 

changes described in this rule, and they 

remain valid as approved in 2006. We 

then developed this rule to complete 

implementation of the hunting- and 

fishing-related portions of the CCP. 

Even after we enact the changes, 

opportunities for waterfowl hunting on 

the 240,000-acre refuge will remain 

abundant with 49,239 acres closed to 

waterfowl or other hunting compared to 

a pre-CCP total of 48,099 acres. 

Proposed Rule 

On April 28, 2009, we published a 

proposed rule (74 FR 19318) to make 

four changes to the existing refuge 

regulations (see our final rule of 

September 7, 2007 (72 FR 51534), for 

more details on closure restrictions). We 

proposed to modify the refuge’s 

Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas and/or 

No Hunting Zones in Pool 4; add a new 

No Hunting Zone in Pool 5A as 

scheduled in the CCP; make permanent 

an interim No Hunting or Trapping 

Zone on the recently acquired Mathy 

Tract (75 acres) on Brice Prairie near 

Pool 7, which would be used as a future 

office and visitor contact facility; and 

add a regulation on the immediate 

retrieval of waterfowl taken during 

hunting that would be applicable 

refuge-wide. 

We made no substantive changes in 

this final rule. However, we are making 

a minor edit to correct an administrative 

error. In the Statutory Authority section 

we are correcting the date in the 

reference to the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1977 to 1997. In addition, on January 

15, 2009, OMB approved the use of nine 

new hunting and fishing application 

forms and activity reports for use on 

national wildlife refuges (control 

#1018–0140). Therefore, we are also 

amending 50 CFR 25.23 to reflect the 

addition of these forms to those already 

used on national wildlife refuges. 

The retrieval regulation resulted from 

discussions we had with State law 

enforcement personnel and was 

endorsed by 33 of 35 participants at a 

public waterfowl hunting workshop in 

February 2007. This regulation is 

designed to reduce the loss of downed 

waterfowl by adding a time element 

(i.e., ‘‘immediately’’) to existing State 

retrieval regulations and to reduce the 

crippling loss of waterfowl by 

discouraging hunters from shooting at 

birds that are beyond effective shotgun 

range. The change in Pool 5A is the 

addition of a 24-acre Fountain City Bay 

No Hunting Zone encompassing a 

backwater bay adjacent to Merrick State 

Park, Wisconsin. This new zone, 

identified in the CCP, is designed to 

reduce conflicts with park users and 

will also provide a resting and feeding 

area for migrating puddle ducks such as 

mallards and blue-winged teal. 

The most significant of the changes 

above is the modification of the 

Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas in Pool 

4 of the refuge, a change described and 

scheduled for the 2009–2010 season in 

the CCP. This pool currently has 6,884 

acres designated as closed areas, and 

under this rule the acreage will drop to 

3,500 acres designated as closed areas or 

no hunting zones. The entire Nelson– 

Trevino closed area will be open to 

hunting (3,773 acres), and a new closed 

area will be established that 

encompasses Big Lake (2,210 acres). The 

current Peterson Lake closed area of 

3,111 acres will be reduced to 1,290 

acres and also divided into more 

recognizable subunits, namely Peterson 

Lake closed area (572 acres), Rieck’s 

Lake closed area (499 acres), and Buffalo 

River no hunting zone (219 acres). 

These changes, although resulting in 

more acreage open to hunting in Pool 4, 

are predicted to dramatically improve 

the effectiveness of Pool 4 in providing 

waterfowl secure resting and feeding 

areas based on an analysis of aquatic 

foods and bird use patterns completed 

for the Final EIS and CCP. An effective 

system of strategically located waterfowl 

closed areas on the 261-mile-long refuge 

is critical to waterfowl using the 

Mississippi Flyway, and allows hunting 

to remain compatible. We will monitor 

the effectiveness of the modification to 

Pool 4 and will make future changes if 

warranted by waterfowl use surveys. 

Finally, we make corrections to some 

acreage figures for the ‘‘No Entry— 

Sanctuary,’’ ‘‘Area Closed,’’ ‘‘Area 

Closed—No Motors,’’ ‘‘No Hunting 

Zone’’ and ‘‘No Hunting or Trapping 

Zone’’ listings in the respective sections 

of this rule to reflect increased accuracy 

based on actual signing and mapping in 

the field and subsequent Geographic 

Information System analysis since we 

published the 2007–08 Hunting and 

Fishing final rule. These are considered 

administrative changes since the 

corrections match the areas shown on 

maps provided to the public since 2007. 

We have summarized these 

administrative changes below: 

No Entry—Sanctuary Areas 

Pool Slough, Pool 9, Minnesota/Iowa, 

from 1,112 to 1,126 acres 

Spring Lake, Pool 13, Illinois, from 

3,686 to 3,697 acres 

Areas Closed and Areas Closed—No 

Motors 

Big Lake, Pool 4, Wisconsin, from 

2,626 to 2,210 acres 

Peterson Lake, Pool 4, Wisconsin, 

from 672 to 572 acres 

Spring Lake, Pool 5, Wisconsin, from 

243 to 254 acres 

Polander Lake, Pool 5A, Minnesota/ 

Wisconsin, from 1,907 to 1,873 acres 

Lake Onalaska, Pool 7, Wisconsin, 

from 7,369 acres to 7,366 acres 

Wisconsin Islands, Pool 8, Minnesota/ 

Wisconsin, from 6,510 to 6,538 acres 

Wisconsin River Delta, Pool 10, 

Wisconsin, from 1,406 to 1,414 acres 

12-Mile Island, Pool 11, Iowa, from 

1,145 to 1,139 acres 

Kehough Slough, Pool 12, Illinois, 

from 343 to 333 acres 

Pleasant Creek, Pool 13, Iowa, from 

2,067 to 2,191 acres 

Elk River, Pool 13, Iowa, from 1,237 

to 1,248 acres 

Beaver Island, Pool 14, Iowa, from 717 

to 864 acres 

No Hunting or No Hunting or Trapping 

Zones 

Upper Halfway Creek Marsh, Pool 7, 

Wisconsin, from 141 to 143 acres 

Goose Island, Pool 8, Wisconsin, from 

986 to 984 acres 

Goetz Island Trail, Pool 11, Iowa, 

from 32 to 31 acres 

Crooked Slough Backwater, Pool 13, 

Illinois, from 2,467 to 2,453 acres 

Crooked Slough Proper, Pool 13, 

Illinois, from 192 to 270 acres 

Response to Public Comment 

In the April 28, 2009, proposed rule 

(74 FR 19318), we invited public 

comments on the proposed amendments 

to the refuge-specific regulations for the 

refuge. We reviewed and considered all 

comments received by May 28, 2009, 

the end of the 30–day comment period. 

We received four comments on the 

proposed rule. Since comments were 

often similar or commenters covered 

multiple topics, we have treated the 

comments/responses by major issue 

area. 

Comment 1: Two commenters 

expressed their disapproval of hunting 

programs on refuges in general. 

Response 1: We understand some 

citizens’ concern with hunting on 

national wildlife refuges. However, 

hunting on refuges remains an 

important form of outdoor recreation for 

millions of citizens and a use which we 

are to facilitate when compatible with 

the purpose of the refuge and the 

mission of the Refuge System per the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administrative Act (Refuge 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 41353 

Administration Act). We have taken 

care to ensure the right balance between 

the needs of wildlife and people on the 

refuge in keeping with the Refuge 

Administration Act and Service policy 

and regulation. We have also 

determined in a compatibility 

determination that hunting, with 

stipulations such as a system of hunting 

closed areas included in this and 

previous rules, is a compatible use on 

the refuge. We made no change to the 

rule as a result of these comments. 

Comment 2: A commenter suggested 

that we include a clause requiring the 

use of steel shot in shotshells for 

hunting on the refuge. 

Response 2: This rule amends existing 

regulations for hunting on the refuge. 

The full regulations not cited in this 

amendment require the use of steel or 

other nontoxic shot. The actual 

regulations in 50 CFR 32.42, Section A.8 

(migratory bird hunting) and Section B.7 

(upland game hunting) read: ‘‘You may 

possess only approved nontoxic shot 

shells while in the field’’ and ‘‘You may 

only use or possess approved nontoxic 

shot shells while in the field, including 

shot shells used for hunting wild 

turkey.’’ We made no change to the rule 

as a result of this comment. 

Comment 3: One commenter was 

opposed to the hunting program 

changes in Pool 4 of the refuge citing 

loss of a traditional waterfowl hunting 

area, lack of reason for the change, and 

saying there were plenty of other closed 

areas available for waterfowl. 

Response 3: We understand that 

changes to the system of Waterfowl 

Hunting Closed Areas of the refuge 

reflected in this rule are generally met 

with resistance since some of the 

changes affect long-standing patterns of 

use by waterfowl hunters and others. 

However, we thoroughly documented 

the issue, the science, and the need for 

change in the Draft and Final EIS. We 

added Appendix Q in the Final EIS, 

which gives details on each closed area 

and rationale for changes based on 

public questions and concerns. The 

system of Waterfowl Hunting Closed 

Areas has remained virtually unchanged 

since 1958, and we believe we need the 

adjustments reflected in the CCP and in 

this rule based on current habitat 

conditions, waterfowl population and 

use data, human disturbance studies, 

and energetics modeling. These changes 

also allow waterfowl hunting and other 

uses to remain compatible. We made no 

change to the rule based on these 

comments. 

Available Information for Specific 

Districts of the Refuge 

The refuge is divided into four 

districts for management, 

administrative, and public service 

effectiveness and efficiency. These 

districts correspond to two or more 

Mississippi River pools created by the 

series of locks and dams on the river. 

District offices are located in Winona, 

Minnesota (Pools 4–6), La Crosse, 

Wisconsin (Pools 7–8), McGregor, Iowa 

(Pools 9–11), and Savanna, Illinois 

(Pools 12–14). If you are interested in 

specific information pertaining to a 

specific area encompassed in this rule, 

you may contact the appropriate district 

office listed below: 

Winona District, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 51 East Fourth Street, 

Room 203, Winona, MN 55987; 

Telephone (507) 454–7351. 

La Crosse District, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 555 Lester Avenue, 

Onalaska, WI 54650; Telephone (608) 

783–8405. 

McGregor District, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 460, 

McGregor, IA 52157; Telephone (563) 

873–3423. 

Savanna District, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 7071 Riverview Road, 

Thomson, IL 61285; Telephone (815) 

273–2732. 

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/waterscience/ 

fish/. 

Plain Language Mandate 

In this rule, we comply with a 

Presidential mandate to use plain 

language in regulations. As examples, 

we use ‘‘you’’ to refer to the reader and 

‘‘we’’ to refer to the Service, the word 

‘‘allow’’ instead of ‘‘permit’’ when we 

do not require the use of a permit for an 

activity, and we use active voice 

whenever possible (i.e., ‘‘We allow 

hunting of upland game on designated 

areas’’ vs. ‘‘Upland game hunting in 

designated areas is allowed’’). 

Effective Date 

This rule is effective upon publication 

in the Federal Register. We have 

determined that any further delay in 

implementing these refuge-specific 

hunting and sport fishing regulations 

would not be in the public interest as a 

delay would disrupt goals, objectives, 

and strategies described in the CCP. All 

changes in the refuge’s hunting program 

found in this rule were described in the 

CCP. A description of the 

comprehensive coordination of these 

regulations with the public through the 

development of the Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) and CCP is 

found in the ‘‘Background’’ section of 

this document. Implementing these 

regulations immediately will allow the 

Service to better manage refuge 

resources in time for the opening of the 

various seasons. These regulations also 

improve the conservation of resources 

and a delay would lessen the 

management effectiveness of this 

regulation- the requirement for a 

reasonable attempt at immediate 

retrieval of downed waterfowl reduces 

waste, while closing portions of pool 4 

will provide additional secure 

waterfowl resting and feeding areas. 

This rule does not impact the public 

generally in terms of requiring lead time 

for compliance. These regulations 

implement management decisions made 

and published in the final CCP adopted 

October 24, 2006, giving refuge users 

and the affected public significant 

advance notice (see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). Therefore, we find good 

cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make 

this rule effective upon publication. 

Statutory Authority 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 

(Administration Act), as amended by 

the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement 

Act), (16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee) and the 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 

U.S.C. 460k–460k-4) (Recreation Act) 

govern the administration and public 

use of refuges. In addition, the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C 

703–711) grants authority for 

management of migratory birds and the 

closing of any areas to migratory bird 

hunting. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA) designates the protection of 

migratory birds as a Federal 

responsibility. The MBTA enables the 

setting of seasons, and other regulations 

including the closing of areas, Federal 

and non-Federal, to the hunting of 

migratory birds. You can find 

regulations stemming from the MBTA 

pertaining to migratory bird hunting in 

50 CFR part 20. 

This document codifies in the Code of 

Federal Regulations amended hunting 

and sport fishing regulations that are 

applicable to the Upper Mississippi 

River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. 

We are amending these regulations to 

implement the refuge CCP, better inform 

the general public of the regulations at 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
41354 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

the refuge, increase understanding and 

compliance with these regulations, and 

make enforcement of these regulations 

more efficient. In addition to finding 

these regulations in 50 CFR part 32, 

visitors will find them reiterated in 

literature distributed by the refuge and 

posted on signs at major access points. 

Visitors will also find the boundaries of 

closed areas or other restricted-use areas 

referenced in this document marked by 

specific signs. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant under Executive Order 

12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its 

determination on the following four 

criteria: 

(a) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(b) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(c) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, use fees, loan 

programs, or the rights and obligations 

of their recipients. 

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

[SBREFA] of 1996) (5 U.S.C. 601, et 

seq.), whenever a Federal agency is 

required to publish a notice of 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., 

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies that the rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis 

to be required, impacts must exceed a 

threshold for ‘‘significant impact’’ and a 

threshold for a ‘‘substantial number of 

small entities.’’ See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

This rule does not increase the 

number of recreation types allowed on 

the refuge but amends hunting and 

fishing regulations on the refuge. As a 

result, opportunities for hunting and 

fishing recreation on the refuge will 

remain abundant and increase over time 

based on analysis done in the Final EIS 

and CCP for the refuge. 

Many small businesses within the 

retail trade industry (such as hotels, gas 

stations, taxidermy shops, bait and 

tackle shops, etc.) may benefit from 

some increased refuge visitation. A large 

percentage of these retail trade 

establishments in the majority of 

affected counties qualify as small 

businesses (see table below). 

We expect that the incremental 

recreational opportunities will be 

scattered, and so we do not expect that 

the rule will have a significant 

economic effect (benefit) on a 

substantial number of small entities in 

any given community or county. We 

expect recreationists to spend an 

additional $2 million annually in total 

in the refuges’ local economies. As 

shown in the table below, this 

represents 0.02 percent of the total 

amount of retail expenditures in the 19- 

county area. For comparison purposes, 

the county with the smallest retail 

expenditure total, Buffalo County in 

Wisconsin, is shown. If the entire retail 

trade expenditures associated with the 

hunting and fishing regulations 

occurred in Buffalo County, this would 

amount to 3.4 percent increase in 

annual retail expenditures. 

TABLE: COMPARATIVE EXPENDITURES FOR RETAIL TRADE ASSOCIATED WITH ADDITIONAL REFUGE VISITATION

2009–2010 HUNTING AND FISHING REGULATIONS

Retail Trade in 2002 

Change Due to 

2009–2010 Hunting 

and Fishing Regulations (15–year span 

of CCP) 

Change as Percent 

of Total Retail Trade 

Total Number of Retail Establishments 

Establishments with 

fewer than 10 Employees 

19-County Area $9.8 billion $1,999,216 0.02% 24,878 17,957 

Buffalo County, WI $58.3 million $1,999,216 3.4% 350 290 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This 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. Would not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more. 

By the end of the 15–year CCP lifespan, 

the additional fishing and hunting 

opportunities on the refuge would 

generate an additional $2 million in 

angler and hunter expenditures with an 

economic impact estimated at $2.5 

million per year (2003 dollars). 

Consequently, the maximum benefit of 

this rule for businesses both small and 

large would not be sufficient to make 

this a major rule. The impact would be 

scattered across 19 counties and would 

most likely not be significant in any 

local area. 

b. Would not cause a major increase 

in costs or prices for consumers; 

individual industries; Federal, State, or 

local government agencies; or 

geographic regions. We do not expect 

this rule to affect the supply or demand 

for fishing and hunting opportunities in 

the United States, and, therefore, it 

should not affect prices for fishing and 

hunting equipment and supplies, or the 

retailers that sell equipment. 

c. Would 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 of a 

small number of affected hunters. 

Therefore, this rule would have 

virtually no economic effect on the 

wildlife-dependent industry, which has 

annual sales of equipment and travel 

expenditures of over $72 billion 

nationwide. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Since this rule would apply to public 

use of federally owned and managed 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 41355 

refuges, it would not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

Tribal governments or the private sector 

of more than $100 million per year. The 

rule would 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 would not have significant takings 

implications. This rule would affect 

only visitors to the refuge and describe 

what they can do while they are on the 

refuge. 

Federalism (E.O. 13132) 

As discussed in the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act section above, 

this rule would not have sufficient 

Federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment 

under E.O. 13132. In preparing the CCP 

for the refuge, we worked closely with 

the four States bordering the refuge, and 

this rule reflects the CCP. 

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 

In accordance with E.O. 12988, the 

Office of the Solicitor has determined 

that this rule would not unduly burden 

the judicial system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. This rule would clarify 

established regulations and result in 

better understanding of the regulations 

by refuge visitors. 

Energy Supply, Distribution or Use 

(E.O. 13211) 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

E.O. 13211 on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 

requires agencies to prepare Statements 

of Energy Effects when undertaking 

certain actions. Because this rule is a 

modification of an existing hunting and 

fishing program on the refuge, we do not 

expect it to significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, and use. 

Therefore, this action is a not a 

significant energy action and no 

Statement of Energy Effects is required. 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 

13175) 

In accordance with E.O. 13175, we 

have evaluated possible effects on 

federally recognized Indian tribes and 

have determined that there are no 

effects. We coordinate recreational use 

on national wildlife refuges with Tribal 

governments having adjoining or 

overlapping jurisdiction before we 

propose changes to the regulations. 

During scoping and preparation of the 

Final EIS, we contacted 35 Indian tribes 

to inform them of the process and seek 

their comments. Only the Iowa Tribe of 

Oklahoma provided comment on the 

Draft EIS, saying they have an historic 

presence in counties adjacent to the 

refuge, and they wish to be kept 

informed of any artifact discoveries as 

we implement refuge plans. We replied 

in the Final EIS that we appreciated 

their interest in the refuge and would 

keep them informed of any cultural 

resource issues and discoveries. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements 

other than those already approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (OMB Control 

Numbers 1018–0102 and 1018–0140). 

See 50 CFR 25.23 for information 

concerning that approval. An agency 

may not conduct or sponsor and a 

person is not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Endangered Species Act Section 7 

Consultation 

During preparation of the Final EIS, 

we completed a section 7 consultation 

and determined that the preferred 

alternative, which included hunting and 

fishing changes reflected in this rule, is 

not likely to adversely affect individuals 

of listed or candidate species or 

designated critical habitat of such 

species. The Service’s Ecological 

Services Office concurred with this 

determination. The listed species on the 

refuge is the Higgins eye mussel; 

candidate species are the Eastern 

massasauga and spectaclecase and 

sheepnose mussels. A copy of the 

section 7 evaluation and accompanying 

biological assessment is available from 

the refuge at the locations listed in the 

‘‘Available Information for Specific 

Districts of the Refuge’’ section of this 

document. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

Concerning the actions that are the 

subject of this rulemaking, we have 

complied with NEPA through the 

preparation of a Final EIS and Record of 

Decision, which include the major 

hunting changes reflected in this rule. 

An Environmental Assessment (EA) was 

prepared for the 75-acre No Hunting and 

Trapping Zone on Brice Prairie near 

Pool 7. The NEPA documents are 

available on or through our website at 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/ 

UpperMississippiRiver/. Then click on 

Current Topics on the left, which will 

bring you to the Mathy Tract EA. 

Primary Author 

Don Hultman, Refuge Manager, Upper 

Mississippi River National Wildlife and 

Fish Refuge, is the primary author of 

this rulemaking document. 

List of Subjects 

50 CFR Part 25 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Concessions, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Safety, 

Wildlife refuges. 

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 25—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 25 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 460k, 

664, 668dd, and 715i, 3901 et seq.; and Pub. 

L. 102–402, 106 Stat. 11961. 

■ 2. Revise § 25.23 to read as follows: 

§ 25.23 What are the general regulations 

and information collection requirements? 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has approved the information collection 

requirements contained in subchapter C, 

parts 25, 32, and 36 under 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and assigned the following 

control numbers: 1018–0014 for Special 

Use Permit Applications on National 

Wildlife Refuges in Alaska; 1018–0102 

for Special Use Permit Applications on 

National Wildlife Refuges Outside 

Alaska; and 1018–0140 for Hunting and 

Fishing Application Forms and Activity 

Reports for National Wildlife Refuges. 

We collect information to assist us in 

administering our programs in 

accordance with statutory authorities 

that require that recreational or other 

uses be compatible with the primary 

purposes for which the areas were 

established. Send comments on any 

aspect of these forms to the Information 

Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, MS 222 ARLSQ, 

Washington, DC 20240. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
41356 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 32—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. 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. 

■ 4. Amend § 32.42 Minnesota by 

revising paragraphs A.2., A.3., A.4., and 

A.6. of Upper Mississippi River 

National Wildlife and Fish Refuge to 

read as follows: 

§ 32.42 Minnesota. 

* * * * * 

Upper Mississippi River National 

Wildlife and Fish Refuge 

A. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. * * * 

* * * * * 

2. In areas posted and shown on maps 

as ‘‘No Entry—Sanctuary,’’ we prohibit 

migratory bird hunting at all times and 

all public entry except as specified. 

These areas are named and located as 

follows: 

i. Pool Slough, Pool 9, Minnesota/ 

Iowa, 1,126 acres. 

ii. Bertom Island, Pool 11, Wisconsin, 

31 acres. 

iii. Guttenberg Ponds, Pool 11, Iowa, 

252 acres. 

iv. Spring Lake, Pool 13, Illinois, 

3,697 acres. 

3. In areas posted and shown on maps 

as ‘‘Area Closed’’ and ‘‘Area Closed—No 

Motors,’’ we prohibit migratory bird 

hunting at all times. We ask that you 

practice voluntary avoidance of these 

areas by any means or for any purpose 

from October 15 to the end of the 

respective State duck season. In areas 

also marked ‘‘no motors,’’ we prohibit 

the use of motors on watercraft from 

October 15 to the end of the respective 

State duck season. These ‘‘Area(s) 

Closed’’ are named and located as 

follows: 

i. Big Lake, Pool 4, Wisconsin, 2,210 

acres. 

ii. Weaver Bottoms/Lost Island, Pool 

5, Minnesota/Wisconsin, 3,508 acres. 

iii. Polander Lake, Pool 5A, 

Minnesota/Wisconsin, 1,873 acres. 

iv. Lake Onalaska, Pool 7, Wisconsin, 

7,366 acres (voluntary avoidance on 

3,365 acres until mid-November). 

v. Wisconsin Islands, Pool 8, 

Minnesota/Wisconsin, 6,538 acres. 

vi. Harpers Slough, Pool 9, Iowa/ 

Wisconsin, 5,209 acres. 

vii. Wisconsin River Delta, Pool 10, 

Wisconsin, 1,414 acres (closed 

November 1 to end of duck season). 

viii. 12-Mile Island, Pool 11, Iowa, 

1,139 acres. 

ix. Bertom–McCartney, Pool 11, 

Wisconsin, 2,384 acres (no voluntary 

avoidance provision). 

x. Pleasant Creek, Pool 13, Iowa, 2,191 

acres. 

xi. Elk River, Pool 13, Iowa, 1,248 

acres. 

The ‘‘Area(s) Closed—No Motors’’ are 

named and located as follows: 

xii. Peterson Lake, Pool 4, Wisconsin 

572 acres. 

xiii. Rieck’s Lake, Pool 4, Wisconsin, 

499 acres. 

xiv. Spring Lake, Pool 5, Wisconsin, 

254 acres. 

xv. Sturgeon Slough, Pool 10, 

Wisconsin, 340 acres. 

xvi. 12-Mile Island, Pool 10, Iowa, 540 

acres. 

xvii. John Deere Marsh, Pool 11, Iowa, 

439 acres. 

xviii. Kehough Slough, Pool 12, 

Illinois, 333 acres. 

xiv. Beaver Island, Pool 14, Iowa, 864 

acres. 

4. In areas posted and shown on maps 

as ‘‘No Hunting Zone’’ or ‘‘No Hunting 

or Trapping Zone,’’ we prohibit 

migratory bird hunting at all times. 

These areas are named and located as 

follows: 

i. Buffalo River, Pool 4, Wisconsin, 

219 acres. 

ii. Fountain City Bay, Pool 5A, 

Wisconsin, 24 acres. 

iii. Upper Halfway Creek Marsh, Pool 

7, Wisconsin, 143 acres. 

iv. Mathy Tract (Brice Prairie), Pool 7, 

Wisconsin, 75 acres. 

v. Hunter’s Point, Pool 8, Wisconsin, 

82 acres. 

vi. Goose Island, Pool 8, Wisconsin, 

984 acres (also no motors and voluntary 

avoidance as in condition A3). 

vii. Sturgeon Slough, Pool 10, 

Wisconsin, 66 acres. 

viii. Goetz Island Trail, Pool 11, Iowa, 

31 acres. 

ix. Crooked Slough Backwater, Pool 

13, Illinois, 2,453 acres. 

x. Crooked Slough Proper, Pool 13, 

Illinois, 270 acres. 

xi. Frog Pond, Pool 13, Illinois, 64 

acres. 

xii. Ingersoll Learning Center, Pool 13, 

Illinois, 41 acres. 

* * * * * 

6. You must immediately make a 

reasonable attempt to retrieve downed 

waterfowl unless the bird lies in plain 

sight of you, is clearly dead, and there 

is no risk of the bird drifting off due to 

wind or current. You may retrieve dead 

or wounded game from areas posted 

‘‘Area Closed,’’ ‘‘No Hunting Zone,’’ and 

‘‘No Hunting or Trapping Zone’’ 

provided you do not attempt to chase 

birds from the area. You may not use a 

motor to aid in the retrieval of game in 

areas posted ‘‘Area Closed—No 

Motors.’’ You may not retrieve birds or 

other game from areas posted ‘‘No 

Entry—Sanctuary.’’ 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 6, 2009. 

Jane Lyder, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. E9–19590 Filed 8–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES