2007-2008 Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations for the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, 51534-51545 [E7-17458]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 173 (Friday, September 7, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51534-51545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-17458]



[[Page 51533]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 32



2007-2008 Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations for the Upper 
Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 173 / Friday, September 7, 2007 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 51534]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 32

RIN 1018-AV36


2007-2008 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, big game hunting, and sport fishing. 
These changes take effect with the 2007-2008 season and implement the 
recently completed Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the 
refuge. This amendment replaces current refuge regulations found at 50 
CFR part 32.32 (Illinois), places the regulations at 50 CFR part 32.42 
(Minnesota) to match the State listing with the location of the refuge 
headquarters, and cross references those regulations in 50 CFR parts 
32.34 (Iowa) and 32.69 (Wisconsin).

DATES: This rule is effective September 7, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Hultman, (507) 452-4232; Fax (507) 
452-0851.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Upper Mississippi River National 
Wildlife and Fish Refuge (refuge) encompasses 240,000 acres in a more-
or-less continuous stretch of 261 miles of Mississippi River floodplain 
in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois. The refuge was established 
by Congress 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.
    The development of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and CCP 
for the refuge began with a notice of intent to prepare the EIS, which 
we published in the Federal Register on May 30, 2002 (67 FR 37852). We 
followed with a notice of availability of our Draft EIS (April 28, 
2005; 70 FR 22085), and we accepted public comments on the Draft EIS 
for 120 days. On October 7, 2005, we published a notice of intent to 
prepare a Supplement to the Draft EIS (70 FR 58738). We made the 
Supplement to the Draft EIS available on December 5, 2005 (70 FR 
72462), and accepted public comments on that document for 60 days, 
extended to 90 days.
    We offered public involvement through 46 public meetings and 
workshops attended by 4,500 persons in 14 different communities in four 
States during the 4-year planning process. In addition, we held or 
attended 80 other meetings with the States, other agencies, interest 
groups, and elected officials to discuss the Draft EIS, and mailed 
three different planning update newsletters to up to 4,900 persons or 
organizations on our planning mailing list. We also issued numerous 
news releases at various planning milestones, and held two press 
conferences.
    On July 11, 2006, we published a notice of availability of our 
Final EIS (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 
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 
668dd-668ee, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act 
of 1997), requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to manage 
each refuge in a manner consistent with a completed CCP. The Final EIS 
and CCP are available at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/uppermiss.
    This hunting and fishing rule implements the goals, objectives, and 
strategies spelled-out in the CCP pertaining to hunting and fishing and 
related uses.
    The rule also reflects a fine-tuning of language in the current 
refuge-specific regulations for clarity and ease of enforcement, and 
other modest changes to modernize regulations and make them consistent 
with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management. For example, 
this rule includes the new requirement for hunters to use nontoxic shot 
shells for turkey hunting, the only exemption the refuge had allowed 
under the nontoxic shot shell regulation at 50 CFR 32.2(k).
    When all changes in the CCP are implemented in 2009, there will be 
24 closed areas or sanctuaries totaling 43,683 acres, compared with the 
current 15 areas totaling 44,544 acres. Another 1,406 acres will be 
open the first 30 days of the season, closing November 1. An effective 
system of strategically located waterfowl closed areas on the 261-mile-
long refuge is critical to the Mississippi Flyway, and allows hunting 
to remain compatible.
    There is also a change to open water hunting regulations on 4,000 
acres of Pool 11 in Grant County, Wisconsin, and a phase out of 
permanent hunting blinds on the only areas of the refuge they are still 
allowed. The Grant County area remains open to hunting, but restricts 
open water hunting from boats to protect large rafts of scaup and 
canvasback.
    The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 
authorizes the 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 Secretary is required to prepare a CCP for each refuge and 
shall manage each refuge consistent with the CCP. Each CCP must 
identify and describe the refuge 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 wildlife-dependent 
recreation. Each CCP must also be developed through consultation with 
the other States, agencies, and the public, and be coordinated with 
applicable State conservation plans.
    Each CCP is guided by the overarching requirement that refuges are 
to be managed to fulfill their purposes for which established and the 
mission of the Refuge System. In addition, the National Wildlife Refuge 
System Improvement Act requires that the Refuge System be administered 
to provide for the conservation of fish,

[[Page 51535]]

wildlife, and plants and their habitats; and to ensure their biological 
integrity, diversity, and environmental health.
    We developed the CCP for the refuge in accordance with all 
requirements and in accordance with the consultation and public 
involvement provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Improvement Act. This includes new compatibility determinations for 
hunting and fishing, which are referenced and listed in Appendix E of 
the Final EIS. We then developed this rule to implement portions of the 
CCP.

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'').

Statutory Authority

    The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Improvement Act of 1997 [Improvement Act]) (Administration Act) and the 
Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) (Recreation Act) 
govern the administration and public use of refuges. 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 doing this 
to implement the refuge CCP, better inform the general public of the 
regulations at 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 each 
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.
    This rule includes cross-references to a number of existing 
regulations in 50 CFR parts 27 and 32 to assist hunting and sport 
fishing visitors with understanding safety and other legal requirements 
on refuges. This redundancy is deliberate, with the intention of 
improving safety and compliance in our hunting and sport fishing 
programs.

Response to Public Comment

    In the June 28, 2007, Federal Register (72 FR 35380), we published 
a proposed rule identifying amendments to the refuge-specific 
regulations for the refuge and invited public comments. We reviewed and 
considered all comments received by July 30, 2007, the end of the 30-
day comment period. We received 23 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.
    In addition, one commenter posed eight questions to the Service. 
Although not specifically comments on the proposed rule, the questions 
represent concerns on issues that the Service took seriously in the 
development of the CCP and takes seriously in this rulemaking. We have 
answered similar questions in public meetings and other forums, and we 
welcome the opportunity to address them here. We quote these questions 
verbatim and answer in turn following the comment and response section 
below.
    Comment 1: A commenter was opposed to hunting on the refuge and 
feels it is not compatible with other activities on the refuge.
    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 Administration Act (Refuge 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, is a compatible use on the refuge. We 
made no change to the rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment 2: Several commenters expressed general support for the CCP 
and the proposed regulation changes.
    Response 2: We have noted these comments but did not change the 
rule as a result.
    Comment 3: One commenter asked that the Service not open or expand 
the refuge to hunting citing concerns over compliance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act, Section 
7, and concerns that non-consumptive uses are not given enough 
emphasis.
    Response 3: This rule does not open or expand hunting opportunities 
but amends an approved and long-standing hunting and fishing program on 
the refuge. We have complied with NEPA requirements through the 
completion of an EIS and Record of Decision which took into account the 
changes reflected in this rule (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). We also 
completed the necessary endangered species review (see Endangered 
Species Act Section 7 Consultation in this rule) and the required 
compatibility determinations for hunting and fishing. Since this rule 
deals only with hunting and fishing regulations, it is not our intent 
to address nonconsumptive uses. However, nonconsumptive uses such as 
wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental 
education were addressed in considerable detail in the CCP. We believe 
we conducted our planning to ensure the proper balance between all 
priority public uses in accordance with the Refuge Improvement Act's 
recent amendments to the Refuge Administration Act. We made no change 
to the rule as a result of these comments.
    Comment 4: Several commenters expressed general opposition to the 
CCP for the refuge and thus opposition to the proposed rule.
    Response 4: We understand that many citizens remain opposed to 
changes reflected in the CCP. We made a concerted effort to keep 
citizens informed and to consider their comments and suggestions in 
crafting the CCP. We developed the CCP through extensive public 
involvement including 46 public meetings or workshops attended by 4,500 
citizens, and offered longer than normal comment periods on the Draft 
EIS and subsequent Supplement. However, we have an obligation to manage 
the refuge in accordance with the Refuge Administration Act and 
policies and

[[Page 51536]]

regulations governing the Refuge System. These mandates require that we 
manage refuges to accomplish their established purposes and that 
recreation and use opportunities afforded the public are compatible 
with those purposes. The CCP was approved October 24, 2006, and we are 
now obligated to implement the plan in accordance with the Refuge 
Administration Act. The new rules implement portions of the CCP dealing 
with hunting and fishing, and ensure that these activities remain a 
safe and compatible use on the refuge. We made no change to the rule as 
a result of these comments.
    Comment 5: Several commenters expressed concern that the rule is 
not in compliance with laws and regulations governing Federal and State 
cooperation since the resulting regulations would differ from State 
regulations.
    Response 5: The Refuge Administration Act says, ``Regulations 
permitting hunting or fishing of fish and resident wildlife within the 
System shall be, to the extent practicable, consistent with State fish 
and wildlife laws, regulations, and management plans.'' This directive 
does not apply to migratory bird hunting on refuges. However, our 
regulations for all hunting and fishing on the refuge are consistent 
with State laws and regulations in many ways (e.g., seasons, species, 
take limits, methods, weapons, required licenses or permits). As a 
landowner, we impose conditions on those who come onto the refuge to 
engage in hunting and fishing such as when, where, and how those 
activities take place. We believe that refuge regulations that differ 
from State regulations are at times, and under certain circumstances, 
the only practicable or feasible way to ensure a refuge meets its 
mandated purpose and other tenets of the Refuge Administration Act. We 
believe the conditions we are imposing under these rules for the refuge 
are those that allow us to meet these responsibilities. In addition, 
Service hunting and fishing policies say that refuge-specific 
regulations may be necessary when they seek to conserve the resource, 
when they assist in managing the resource, and when they ensure public 
safety. The changes to closed areas and other regulations in this rule 
are all designed to address one or more of these standards. We made no 
change to the rule based on these comments.
    Comment 6: Several commenters contend that the refuge does not have 
the authority to restrict uses on navigable waters within the refuge. 
They contend the CCP and these proposed rules usurp Wisconsin authority 
on sovereign waters, violate Wisconsin's Public Trust Doctrine, and are 
a breach of Wisconsin's original conditioned consent to establishment 
of the refuge.
    Response 6: We received similar comments during preparation of the 
CCP. Neither the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources' nor the 
Wisconsin Attorney General's comments included in the EIS said the 
Service has intruded or impinged on State authority. In particular, the 
Attorney General's comments on this issue did not say that the Service 
crossed a line that would constitute intrusion into State authority. 
The Attorney General's comments indicate that Wisconsin's Public Trust 
Doctrine embodies exactly the type of program we have been trying to 
develop, namely, balancing competing uses, acknowledging that no one 
public right is absolute. We also believe our proposal is in keeping 
with the Attorney General's urging that ``any such restrictions are 
reasonable and are not imposed to the exclusion of other key factors 
that affect the conservation of resources in the Refuge.'' We addressed 
the State's 1925 consent language in the EIS and CCP and developed our 
plan and regulations to meet those conditions. We continue to recognize 
and respect the various State and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
authorities while carrying out our responsibilities to manage a 
national wildlife refuge in accordance with the Refuge Administration 
Act. We made no change to the rule based on these comments.
    Comment 7: Several commenters opposed changes to Waterfowl Hunting 
Closed Areas, or any restrictions to hunting, and some noted that the 
changes were not based on sound science. Several noted that during the 
State's spring 2007 annual hearings, Wisconsin hunters and anglers 
voted overwhelmingly against a proposal by the Wisconsin Department of 
Natural Resources to adopt identical Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas for 
the State's regulations.
    Response 7: 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.
    Comment 8: Several commenters expressed support for the changes to 
the system of Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas.
    Response 8: We have noted these comments but did not change the 
rule as a result.
    Comment 9: One commenter voiced concerns with what was perceived as 
a mandated approach to limiting disturbance to waterfowl in Waterfowl 
Hunting Closed Areas versus a voluntary and collaborative approach. The 
commenter was also concerned that the proposed rule does not provide 
access around or through the closed areas to make compliance by anglers 
and boaters feasible.
    Response 9: We changed to a voluntary versus mandatory approach to 
reducing disturbance to waterfowl resting and feeding in closed areas 
based on public comment during preparation of the Final EIS and CCP. As 
the term implies, compliance is voluntary and the effectiveness of the 
approach will rely on the good will of anglers and boaters, not 
enforcement action. We included the provision in this rule to match 
language in the CCP and to heighten awareness of the need for reducing 
disturbance to waterfowl. On six large closed areas, we have provided a 
travel corridor to allow anglers and boaters to travel around the core 
of the closed area. On remaining closed areas, a travel corridor was 
either not feasible due to the small size of the area or not needed due 
to the location of the closed area in relation to the main channel of 
the river or other natural travel ways. We made no change to the rule 
based on these comments.
    Comment 10: Several commenters raised concerns about the loss of 
recreational opportunities and economic activity from these rules.
    Response 10: The changes to Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, 
Sanctuaries, and No Hunting Zones reflected in the rule were thoroughly 
analyzed during preparation of the EIS and CCP. As noted in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION and Regulatory Planning and Review sections 
of this rule, there will be relatively minor change to the overall area 
open to hunting and fishing.

[[Page 51537]]

Opportunities for recreation will remain abundant and we expect 
visitation and resulting economic activity to continue to increase with 
these rules. We believe that the CCP, and these resulting regulations, 
will help ensure that the refuge remains a destination of choice for 
wildlife and people. We believe this approach may prove more 
sustainable and have positive, long-term natural resource, social, and 
economic impacts both on the refuge and in surrounding communities as 
documented in the EIS. We made no change to the rule based on these 
comments.
    Comment 11: Several commenters suggested bag limit reductions for 
waterfowl or a moratorium on taking specific species as strategies to 
address declining waterfowl numbers.
    Response 11: Since waterfowl are a national and international 
resource, we defer to the Service's Division of Migratory Bird 
Management, the Flyway Councils, and the States for the setting of bag 
limits or species-specific closures. However, we believe the refuge 
plays a critical role in meeting the life-cycle needs of waterfowl by 
providing rest and food. Refuge-specific regulations, in conjunction 
with State regulations, help manage the means and methods of harvest to 
safeguard the waterfowl resource and ensure a quality waterfowl hunting 
experience. We made no change to the rule as a result of these 
comments.
    Comment 12: Several commenters expressed concern that the CCP and 
this resulting rule have destroyed the refuge's working relationship 
with the public and eroded public support for the refuge.
    Response 12: We remain committed to working with the public, and 
this is reflected in the CCP since virtually every objective has 
partnerships and coordination as a strategy. We are prepared to 
continue working relationships with long-term partners and new 
partners, regardless of disagreements on certain aspects of the CCP. 
However, we realize that doing the right thing for the refuge, its 
resources, and the public as a whole may mean the loss of support by a 
few. Any loss of support is usually off-set by new partners who emerge. 
An example is the 300-member ``Friends of Pool 9'' support group which 
was created by citizens due to the CCP public involvement process. We 
made no change to the rule as a result of these comments.
    Comment 13: Two commenters endorsed the new dog regulation and the 
requirement for using non-toxic shot shells for all hunting on the 
refuge.
    Response 13: We have noted these comments but did not change the 
rule as a result.
    Comment 14: One commenter made suggestions on the posting of the 
Spring Lake (Pool 5) and Lake Onalaska (Pool 7) Waterfowl Hunting 
Closed Areas to enhance sign visibility, ease public confusion, improve 
enforcement, or retain some portion of a traditional hunting area.
    Response 14: We will take these suggestions into consideration when 
signing the boundaries of these areas. We acknowledge that maps of 
Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, regardless of scale, do not contain 
enough specific detail to show exact boundaries. This is why we state 
in the rule ``areas posted and shown on maps'' to emphasize that 
signing is an important aspect of area delineation. It also recognizes 
that we must temper mapped boundaries with the realities of vegetation, 
visibility, and other physical conditions on the ground when posting 
areas. It is also our intent, as described in Appendix Q of the EIS, to 
continue to offer some level of waterfowl hunting adjacent to these 
Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas. We made no change to the rule as a 
result of these comments.
    Comment 15: Several commenters expressed opposition to the rule 
because Wisconsin conservation officers will not be able to enforce the 
amended Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas without a matching State 
regulation.
    Response 15: We prefer to see identical regulations in Wisconsin so 
that the State's conservation officers can continue to assist in 
enforcing refuge regulations related to hunting and other fish and 
wildlife-related recreation. We will continue to work with the State, 
but we are prepared to implement needed regulatory changes regardless 
of the outcome of the State rulemaking process. To do otherwise would 
be abdicating our responsibilities to manage the refuge in accordance 
with its establishing legislation, the Refuge Administration Act, and 
Refuge System policies and regulations. We believe our refuge officers, 
along with appropriate signing and outreach to the hunting public, will 
ensure a high level of compliance. We made no change to the rule as a 
result of these comments.
    Comment 16: Two commenters were opposed to the restriction on open-
water hunting in a 4,000-acre portion of Pool 11 of the refuge in Grant 
County, Wisconsin, citing that it is eliminating a traditional style of 
hunting.
    Response 16: We believe this restriction, as documented in the EIS 
and CCP, is needed to protect the large concentrations of lesser scaup 
and canvasback ducks that stage in this area each fall. The area 
remains open to hunting, and this regulation only affects the means of 
hunting. We learned during public involvement for the CCP that only a 
handful of hunters now hunt from boats or skiffs in open water in this 
area, and since Wisconsin regulations allow open-water hunting on the 
rest of the Mississippi River in Grant County, there will still be 
several thousand acres around the restricted area where hunters can 
hunt from boats in open water. We made no change to the rule as a 
result of these comments.
    Comment 17: One commenter was opposed to Waterfowl Hunting Closed 
Area changes in Pools 4 and 5 of the refuge.
    Response 17: Changes to the Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas in Pool 
4 are not a part of this rule since, in accordance with the CCP, those 
changes would not be made until 2009 and then only if current waterfowl 
use monitoring confirms the need for change. In Pool 5, we are making 
minor corrections to the existing Weaver Bottoms closed area resulting 
in an addition of 369 acres. However, this addition should have little 
to no impact on hunting since the addition encompasses the main channel 
of the river where hunting is not practical. We have added one new 
closed area in Pool 5 in the rule (Spring Lake, 243 acres) to provide 
rest and food for puddle ducks in a recently completed island and 
backwater habitat project. We believe this closed area will help 
provide a better distribution of waterfowl and complement the larger 
Weaver Bottoms closed area which is large enough to accommodate diving 
ducks. We made no change to the rule as a result of these comments.
    Comment 18: Several commenters were opposed to the establishment of 
the Wisconsin River Delta Special Hunt Area that would be open to 
hunting until November 1, and then closed until the end of the State 
waterfowl season.
    Response 18: We understand that opposition to this new restricted 
area remains. However, based on public input during preparation of the 
CCP, we modified the original proposal of a standard Waterfowl Hunting 
Closed Area that would be closed the entire waterfowl hunting season to 
a less restrictive designation to take into account local needs and 
desires. We continue to believe, as supported by our survey data and 
energetics modeling, that this area will provide a critical link in the 
series of rest and feeding areas throughout the length of the 261-mile 
long refuge. The partial-season closure will still allow hunting during 
the most

[[Page 51538]]

popular first half or more of the waterfowl season, while providing 
sanctuary for late migrating waterfowl. We made no change to the rule 
as a result of these comments.
    Comment 19: Several commenters noted that the CCP does not address 
the most serious environmental issues facing the refuge, namely 
sedimentation, water quality, and invasive species.
    Response 19: We did not intend for this rule to address all the 
issues facing the refuge since the rule deals only with hunting and 
fishing regulations. However, we believe the CCP does address resource 
issues in a realistic and measurable way by a more aggressive 
implementation of Pool Management Plans (a 50-year vision for habitat 
for each pool done collaboratively by the Service, Corps of Engineers, 
and the States), by marked expansion of the Partners for Fish and 
Wildlife Program in watersheds leading into the refuge, by calling for 
a 10 percent reduction in invasive plants by 2010, and by working with 
others on invasive animal issues. We devote about 78 percent ($170 
million) of the projected funding needs for the life of the plan to 
habitat improvement and finishing land acquisition within the approved 
boundary of the refuge, both of which directly improve the quality and 
quantity of fish and wildlife habitat. The CCP outlines more than 360 
habitat-related actions that are refuge priorities. We made no change 
to the rule as a result of these comments.
    Question 1: ``Under the Wisconsin Administrative Rule process rules 
are published and voted on at the Spring Hearings. Identical rules to 
these proposed by your agency were voted down overwhelmingly this past 
April. How will you proceed in light of the overwhelming public 
opposition as recorded in the vote? How do you think the State of 
Wisconsin should proceed considering the votes?''
    Answer 1: We refer to comments 5, 6, 7, and 15 above and our 
responses. We also do not think it appropriate to advise the State on 
how it should proceed, but stand ready to assist and work with the 
State regardless of their course of action.
    Question 2: ``Under the State's Public Trust Doctrine and the 1925 
refuge agreement the state maintains its authority over its waters. 
What is the basis for your agency's authority over the navigable waters 
of Wisconsin? Please be specific.''
    Answer 2: Our authority is derived from several sources including 
the Property Clause (Article IV) of the Constitution, the Migratory 
Bird Treaty Act, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the Refuge 
Recreation Act of 1962, the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Administration Act of 1966, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and 
the Upper Mississippi Wild Life and Fish Refuge Act.
    Question 3: ``Federal rules regarding hunting and fishing must 
comply with the State's ``to the extent practicable''. Can you explain 
how it is not ``practicable'' for your rules to comply with 
Wisconsin's?''
    Answer 3: We refer to comment 5 and our response.
    Question 4: ``When you consider the different rules at the state 
and federal level and the confusion that may ensue, does that figure 
into the ``to the extent practicable'' definition? Is it 
``practicable'' for the USFWS to have additional rules that your 
limited staff cannot enforce?''
    Answer 4: We certainly prefer to have State conservation officers' 
assistance in enforcing refuge regulations. Of the four States 
encompassing the refuge, only Wisconsin requires that State regulations 
match refuge regulations in order for them to be enforced by their 
officers. We believe we have the capability to enforce any new refuge 
regulations in the Wisconsin portion of the refuge by pooling resources 
as needed from other districts of the refuge or from other refuges in 
the region. However, our experience has shown that most hunters and 
anglers comply with regulations once they are aware of them and 
understand them. We will be providing leaflets and maps to the public, 
as well as having areas adequately signed, to help ensure awareness. We 
also note that State officers currently do not enforce, and have no 
desire to enforce, many of the refuge-specific regulations dealing with 
uses other than hunting and fishing.
    Question 5: ``Do you feel your agency has a clear understanding of 
the Wisconsin Public Trust Doctrine and its associated case law?''
    Answer 5: The Wisconsin Attorney General provided valuable analysis 
in this regard in comments on the Draft EIS.
    Question 6: ``Do you understand the authority of the Wisconsin 
Legislature when it comes to the waters of the state?''
    Answer 6: We believe we do.
    Question 7: ``How do you plan to modify these rules to respect the 
authority of the State of Wisconsin?''
    Answer 7: We believe these rules are a proper exercise of our 
authority in full recognition of the authority of the State of 
Wisconsin. We have responded to every concern raised by the State 
during the 4-year development of the CCP, and, as a result, believe 
these rules do not create any State authority issues.
    Question 8: ``Where does the USFWS derive its authority to control 
navigation on the Upper Mississippi River?''
    Answer 8: We do not claim authority to control general navigation 
on the Upper Mississippi River as this is under the purview of the 
Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, and various State agencies. We 
believe we do have the authority to control public entry and use on the 
refuge under the authorities cited in response to question 1. In 
summary, we believe the United States owns the bed of the inundated 
areas of the refuge where we have proposed any restrictions, and thus 
the Property Clause of the Constitution and laws that established the 
refuge and govern the administration of the Refuge System apply. These 
laws grant authority to control all entry and public use. In addition, 
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act grants authority for management of 
migratory birds and the closing of any areas to migratory bird hunting. 
However, we believe we have been diligent in meeting Wisconsin's 
consent conditions and balancing the public need to enjoy the refuge 
while safeguarding fish and wildlife resources and habitat. The CCP and 
this rule continue to ensure relatively free and open access. We 
believe this has been accomplished through controlling the means of 
navigation within the refuge on specific areas when necessary rather 
than controlling navigation itself.

Modifications from the Proposed Rule

    We are making a change in the final regulations to correct an 
inadvertent omission in the proposed rule. The CCP, developed through 
extensive public involvement and review, states that ``no hunting 
should occur on the refuge from March 16 to August 31 of each year, 
except for spring wild turkey hunting and, on the Illinois portion of 
the refuge, squirrel hunting.'' During public review and comment 
periods for the EIS, there were no objections made to this provision by 
either the public or the States. We included this provision in the 
general hunting objective of the CCP to minimize potential conflicts 
between user groups during the peak fishing, boating, and camping 
period when more than two million refuge visits occur. Since most State 
seasons start in September or later, this change has little effect on 
hunting, affecting for only a short time the hunting of crow and State-
listed unprotected or open-season animals. We have changed the 
introductions to the Migratory Bird Hunting, Upland Game Hunting, and

[[Page 51539]]

Big Game Hunting regulation sections to correct this omission.
    We are making minor edits in this final rule to correct 
administrative errors or update information in the proposed rule. These 
corrections and one update by section are as follows: (1) In the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section we are correcting the summary of 
closed areas and sanctuaries from 23 areas and 43,652 acres to 24 areas 
and 43,683 acres; (2) 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; (3) in the Migratory Game Bird 
Hunting regulation section we are correcting Bertom Island Sanctuary, 
Iowa to Bertom Island Sanctuary, Wisconsin; (4) in the Sport Fishing 
regulation section we are correcting Mertes Slough, Pool 5 to Mertes 
Slough, Pool 6; and (5) in the Endangered Species Act Section 7 
Consultation section we noted the scheduled delisting of the bald 
eagle.

Fish Advisory

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 
the Service asserts that this rule is not a significant regulatory 
action. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) makes the final 
determination under E.O. 12866.
    a. This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 
million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 
environment, or other units of the government. A cost-benefit and full 
economic analysis is not required. However, a brief assessment follows 
to clarify the costs and benefits associated with this rule.
    The purpose of this rule is to implement amended hunting and sport 
fishing regulations on the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife 
and Fish Refuge beginning with the 2007-2008 seasons. These regulations 
are derived from and are consistent with the CCP approved October 24, 
2006, and whose environmental and socioeconomic impacts are documented 
in the Final EIS (available at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/
uppermiss).

Costs Incurred

    Costs incurred by these regulations include signing of areas, 
leaflet preparation, and printing to provide information to the public, 
and law enforcement and monitoring. However, these are regular and 
reoccurring functions on the refuge with or without these regulations 
and can be handled within normal budget and staffing levels. Therefore, 
we expect any costs to be minor in the short term and negligible in the 
long term.

Benefits Accrued

    These regulations will have several effects on current hunting 
opportunities on the refuge. Although some areas open to hunting are 
changed, the quality of hunting could increase, especially for 
waterfowl, since the refuge would likely hold more birds in more areas 
for longer periods of time in the fall. In addition, improvement of 
habitat quality from ongoing habitat projects will likely result in an 
increase in some game populations and positively affect the hunting 
experience for many. Also, the CCP calls for an increase in land 
acquisition over time, opening several thousand acres to all forms of 
public hunting. For example, in 2005, an additional 2,000 acres was 
open to public hunting at the Lost Mound Unit, Savanna District, due to 
acquisition of the former Savanna Army Depot.
    We estimate that hunting visits will increase 10 percent over the 
15-year life of the CCP due to overall long-term trends in hunter 
visits, expected improvements to the hunting experience, and a better 
distribution of waterfowl and, thus, hunting opportunity. We predict 
these regulations to have a corresponding increase in positive economic 
impact as reflected in Table 1 below.
    Table 1 shows the expected change by the end of the 15-year life of 
the CCP resulting from the implementation of the 2007-2008 hunting 
regulations compared with FY 2003 for the 19-county area on and 
adjacent to the refuge. We expect annual hunting visitation to increase 
by 10 percent resulting in 26,362 more hunter visits. Retail 
expenditures associated with this increased visitation total $520,399 
with total economic output (based on an output multiplier of 1.23 for 
the 19-county region impacted by the refuge) of $642,526. An additional 
nine jobs with associated income of $145,343 occur along with an 
additional $68,909 in Federal and State tax revenue.

   Table 1.--Annual Economic Impacts of 2007-2008 Hunting and Fishing
       Regulations Compared With FY 2003 Impacts: Hunting Visitors
                             [2003 Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2007-2008
                                                           Regulations
               Impacts                     FY 2003       (change from FY
                                                        2003 for 15-year
                                                          span of CCP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunting Visitors....................           263,623           +26,362
Expenditures........................        $5,203,988         +$520,399
Economic Output.....................        $6,425,261         +$642,526
Jobs................................                87                 9
Job Income..........................        $1,453,433         +$145,343
Federal and State Taxes.............          $689,090          +$68,909
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These regulations will have several effects on current fishing 
opportunities on the refuge. A minimum of approximately 140,000 acres 
of water will remain open to year-round fishing, a decrease of about 
500 acres from existing conditions. This decrease will be due to 
changes in waterfowl sanctuaries where we allow no entry during the 
respective State waterfowl hunting season. However, effects on fall 
fishing in approximately 31,000 acres of waterfowl hunting closed area 
included in voluntary avoidance guidelines will be variable since 
compliance is

[[Page 51540]]

voluntary. In addition, the voluntary avoidance provision is only in 
effect from October 15 to the end of the respective State waterfowl 
hunting season when fishing pressure is much reduced.
    Overall fishing opportunities will remain abundant, and fishing 
will be welcome in closed areas during the peak spring, summer, early 
fall, and winter period. As called for in the CCP, the improvement of 
habitat quality from ongoing and planned habitat projects will likely 
result in an increase in some sport fish populations and positively 
affect the fishing experience for many. Increased efforts to improve 
water quality through work with private landowners in tributary 
watersheds, and more emphasis on control of aquatic invasive species, 
could also result in increases in sport fish populations and thus 
fishing success. Despite voluntary guidelines or motor restrictions 
that may limit fall fishing in waterfowl closed areas, we expect 
fishing visits to increase 5 percent based on long-term trends in 
angling visits, improvements in fish habitat, and additional fishing-
related facilities. We predict the 2007-2008 regulations to have a 
corresponding increase in positive economic impact as reflected in 
Table 2.
    Table 2 shows the expected change by the end of the 15-year CCP 
lifespan resulting from the implementation of the 2007-2008 fishing 
regulations compared with FY 2003 in the 19-county area. We expect the 
annual number of fishing visitors to increase by 60,696, with 
associated retail expenditures of $1,478,817 and total economic output 
of $1,811,153. We associate these expenditures and output with 24 jobs 
and $405,965 in job-related income. Federal and State tax revenue would 
increase by $194,241.

   Table 2.--Annual Economic Impacts of 2007-2008 Hunting and Fishing
       Regulations Compared With FY 2003 Impacts: Fishing Visitors
                             [2003 Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2007-2008
                                                           Regulations
               Impacts                     FY 2003       (change from FY
                                                        2003 for 15-year
                                                          span of CCP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishing Visitors....................         1,213,916           +60,696
Expenditures........................       $29,576,333       +$1,478,817
Economic Output.....................       $36,223,053       +$1,811,153
Jobs................................               483                24
Job Income..........................        $8,119,297         +$405,965
Federal and State Taxes.............        $3,884,811         +$194,241
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' 
actions. This action pertains solely to the management of the Refuge 
System. The fishing and hunting activities located on national wildlife 
refuges account for approximately 1 percent of the available supply in 
the United States. Any small, incremental change in the supply of 
fishing and hunting opportunities will not measurably impact any other 
agency's existing programs.
    c. This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user 
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. 
This rule does not affect entitlement programs. There are no grants or 
other Federal assistance programs associated with public use on 
national wildlife refuges.
    d. This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues that were 
not addressed in the Final EIS. This rule continues the practice of 
allowing recreational public use of the refuge. Many refuges in the 
Refuge System currently have opportunities for the public to hunt and 
fish on refuge lands.

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. Therefore, we certify that this action 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.
    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 (Table 3).
    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. Using the estimate derived 
in the Regulatory Planning and Review section, we expect recreationists 
to spend an additional $2 million annually in total in the refuges' 
local economies. As shown in Table 3, 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 2007-2008 hunting and fishing 
regulations occurred in Buffalo County,

[[Page 51541]]

this would amount to 3.4 percent increase in annual retail 
expenditures.

 Table 3.--Comparative Expenditures for Retail Trade Associated With Additional Refuge Visitation From 2007-2008
                                         Hunting and Fishing Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Change due to
                                                     2007-2008
                                                    hunting and      Change as     Total number   Establishments
                                 Retail trade in      fishing       percent of       of retail      with fewer
                                      2002          regulations    total retail   establishments      than 10
                                                   (15-year span       trade                         employees
                                                      of CCP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Will 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 will 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 will 
not be sufficient to make this a major rule. The impact will be 
scattered across 19 counties and will 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. Additional refuge hunting and fishing opportunities will 
account for less than 0.0001 percent of the available opportunities in 
the United States.
    c. Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This 
rule represents only a small proportion of recreational spending of a 
small number of affected anglers and hunters, approximately a maximum 
of $2.5 million annually in impact (economic output). Therefore, this 
rule will have no measurable 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 applies to public use of a federally owned and 
managed refuge, it will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, 
or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million 
per year. The rule 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 will not have significant 
takings implications. These regulations will 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 Regulatory Planning and Review and Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act sections above, this rule will not have sufficient 
Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment under E.O. 13132. In preparing 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 the rule will 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 clarifies established regulations and results in 
better understanding of the regulations by refuge visitors.

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

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations 
that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 
13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when 
undertaking certain actions. Because this rule is a modification of an 
existing hunting and fishing program on the refuge, it is not a 
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, and 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This regulation 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 Number is 1018-0102). 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.

[[Page 51542]]

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 effect individuals of listed or candidate species 
or designated critical habitat of such species. The Service's 
Ecological Services Office concurred with this determination. Listed 
species on the refuge at the time of the determination were the Higgins 
eye mussel and bald eagle (the bald eagle was removed from the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife on August 9, 2007); 
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 any of the refuge offices 
listed in the Available Information for Specific Districts of the 
Refuge section of this document.

National Environmental Policy Act

    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 and fishing changes 
reflected in this rule. The NEPA documents are available on our Web 
site at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/uppermiss.

Effective Date and Notice

    This rule is effective upon filing in the Federal Register. We have 
determined that any further delay in implementing these refuge-specific 
hunting and sport fishing regulations would not be in the public 
interest, in that a delay would hinder the effective planning and 
administration of the hunting and sport fishing programs this season or 
shorten their duration and thereby lessen the management effectiveness 
of this regulation. This rule does not impact the public generally in 
terms of requiring lead time for compliance. These regulations 
implement management decisions made and published in the final 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan adopted October 24, 2006, giving refuge 
users and 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 date of filing.

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 particular 
closed area, no hunting zone, managed hunt, or other feature discussed 
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.

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 in 50 CFR Part 32

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

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we amend title 50, Chapter 
I, subchapter C of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 32--[AMENDED]

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

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


0
2. Amend Sec.  32.32 Illinois by revising Upper Mississippi River 
National Wildlife and Fish Refuge to read as follows:


Sec.  32.32  Illinois.

* * * * *

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge

    Refer to Sec.  32.42 Minnesota for regulations.

0
3. Amend Sec.  32.34 Iowa by revising Upper Mississippi River National 
Wildlife and Fish Refuge to read as follows:


Sec.  32.34  Iowa.

* * * * *

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge

    Refer to Sec.  32.42 Minnesota for regulations.

0
4. Amend Sec.  32.42 Minnesota by revising Upper Mississippi River 
National Wildlife and Fish Refuge to read as follows:


Sec.  32.42  Minnesota.

* * * * *

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge

    A. Migratory Game Bird Hunting. We allow hunting of migratory game 
birds on areas designated by the refuge manager and shown on maps 
available at refuge offices in accordance with State regulations. We 
prohibit migratory bird hunting March 16 through August 31 each year. 
All migratory bird hunting is subject to the following conditions:
    1. You must possess a hunting license valid in the State in which 
you are hunting and be in compliance with all applicable State and 
Federal regulations and requirements (see Sec.  32.2). You cannot 
reserve hunting areas, except at Potter's Marsh Managed Hunt Area, Pool 
13, near Thomson, Illinois, in accordance with procedures established 
by the refuge manager.
    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, 1,112 acres.
    ii. Bertom Island, Pool 11, Wisconsin, 31 acres.
    iii. Guttenberg Ponds, Pool 11, Iowa, 252 acres.
    iv. Spring Lake, Pool 13, Illinois, 3,686 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

[[Page 51543]]

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. Nelson-Trevino, Pool 4, Wisconsin, 3,773 acres (no voluntary 
avoidance provision).
    ii. Peterson Lake, Pool 4, Minnesota/Wisconsin, 3,111 acres (no 
voluntary avoidance provision).
    iii. Weaver Bottoms/Lost Island, Pool 5, Minnesota/Wisconsin, 3,508 
acres.
    iv. Polander Lake, Pool 5A, Minnesota/Wisconsin, 1,907 acres.
    v. Lake Onalaska, Pool 7, Wisconsin, 7,369 acres (voluntary 
avoidance on 3,356 acres until mid-November).
    vi. Wisconsin Islands, Pool 8, Minnesota/Wisconsin, 6,510 acres.
    vii. Harpers Slough, Pool 9, Iowa/Wisconsin, 5,209 acres.
    viii. Wisconsin River Delta, Pool 10, Wisc