Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              iii
Acknowledgements
Many people contributed to the process and
preparation of the Comprehensive Conservation
Plan for the Upper Mississippi River National Wild-life
and Fish Refuge. First and foremost are the
numerous refuge employees who assisted at 46 pub-lic
meetings and workshops and countless other
meetings with conservation partners and organiza-tions,
and who helped gather and write information
on often tight deadlines. This planning work was
done in addition to their regular duties of managing
and administering the refuge.
A special thanks to Refuge Biologist Eric Nelson
for coordinating much of the planning for four
years, for his writing and editing, and for being
there every step of the way. Thanks also to the Dis-trict
Managers and assistant managers, some now
retired, who led the charge for their areas of the
Refuge and contributed in all phases of public
involvement and plan preparation. Thanks to Biolo-gist
Brian Stemper for his wizardry in preparation
of maps, and to Public Use Specialist Cindy Samples
for many Powerpoint productions, video record
keeping, and for providing and taking photos for the
various documents. Thanks to Administrative Assis-tant
Lee Donahue for processing thousands of writ-ten
comments, handling phone calls, and performing
many, many tasks along the way.
Other staff contributors included Sharonne Bay-lor,
Tex Hawkins, Lisa Reid, Vickie Hirschboeck,
and Vicky Drieslein.
The Regional planning staff provided outstand-ing
support and advice. Of special note are the
extraordinary efforts of Writer/Editor Jane Hod-gins
who transformed our words to numerous draft
and final documents, newsletters, and the website;
Planner John Schomaker who provided overall pro-cess,
logistical, and technical support; and Editorial
Assistant Jane Lardy-Nelson who handled multiple
distributions, mailings, comments, and Federal Reg-ister
notices. The contributions of John Dobrovolny
(cultural resources sections), Jeff Gosse (NEPA
review), and James Caudill of the Division of Eco-nomics
in Washington, D.C., (economic report and
analysis), are appreciated.
Thanks also to numerous upper level managers
and leaders from the Regional and Washington
offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well
as the Assistant Secretary of the Interior’s office,
for their time, review, and support in dealing with
challenging issues.
The wonderful professionals of the Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois departments of natural
resources, along with the Corps of Engineers and
other U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service offices, served
on the Interagency Planning Team and offered criti-cal
review and suggestions throughout the process.
They also handled countless inquiries and attended
many of their own internal meetings on the plan.
Their time, patience, and expertise is most appreci-ated.
Finally, a special thank you to the thousands of
citizens who attended meetings and workshops,
offered criticism and suggestions, and stayed
engaged throughout the process in the true spirit of
democracy. Their interest and commitment to the
resource, even though viewpoints and opinions var-ied,
made for a better plan. Their passion for the
Mississippi River, and the refuge, bodes well for this
unique national treasure.
Don Hultman
Refuge Manager
September, 2006
Executive Summary
v
Executive Summary
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
will guide the administration and management of
the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and
Fish Refuge (Refuge) for the next 15 years and
meets a requirement in the Refuge Improvement
Act of 1997.
The Refuge was established by act of Congress in
1924 for the purpose of providing a refuge and
breeding ground for migratory birds, fish, other
wildlife, and plants. The Refuge encompasses
approximately 240,000 acres in four states in a
more-or-less continuous stretch of 261 miles of Mis-sissippi
River floodplain from near Wabasha, Minne-sota
to near Rock Island, Illinois.
This CCP is the result of four years of extensive
public involvement and planning. A Final Environ-mental
Impact Statement was released July 11,
2006 and a Record of Decision was signed August
24, 2006. That decision selected Alternative E,
Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus,
as the CCP for the Refuge.
This CCP contains 43 measurable objectives and
many associated strategies that will be carried out
over the next 15 years. The objectives are designed
to help the Refuge achieve its purposes and contrib-ute
to the mission and policies of the National Wild-life
Refuge System, while being sensitive to the
needs of partner states and agencies, conservation
organizations, communities, and the general public.
Below is a summary of the major objectives of the
CCP.
# Acquire from willing sellers 15,000 acres of land
within approved boundary.
# Seek protection for 13 bluffland areas within the
approved boundary.
# Improve water quality and reduce and/or
address sedimentation.
# Complete pool-wide drawdowns on as many
pools as practicable to enhance habitat.
# Inventory and reduce invasive plants 10% by
2010, work with others on invasive animals.
# Complete $150 million worth of habitat
restoration and enhancement projects or $10
million per year compared to $2.7 million per
year on Refuge from the Environmental
Management Program.
# Increase wildlife monitoring and research
efforts to guide management.
# Increase emphasis on fishery and mussel
management in cooperation with the states and
Corps of Engineers.
# Complete an inventory of the 51,000 acres of
Refuge forest and begin management actions.
# Maintain abundant hunting and fishing
opportunities, and increase opportunities for
wildlife observation, photography,
interpretation and environmental education.
# Adjust the system of Waterfowl Hunting Closed
Areas established in 1958 to meet the food and
© Sandra Lines
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
vi
rest needs of migrating waterfowl. This means
deleting some closed areas, adding some, and
adjusting boundaries on others. Total acres will
drop from 44,544 acres to 43,652, although a
special hunt area, no open water hunting area,
and administrative no hunting zones will
increase overall acreage that has some
restrictions.
# Reduce human disturbance to waterfowl and
other wildlife using closed areas with a blend of
voluntary measures and targeted regulations.
# Help ensure a quality hunting experience for
the broadest cross-section of the public by
eliminating permanent blinds in Pools 12-14 and
addressing crowding/behavior issues on a
portion of Pool 7.
# Better manage commercial-type activities on
the Refuge such as guiding services, fish floats,
and fishing tournaments in cooperation with the
states and Corps of Engineers.
# Fine tune existing beach-related uses such as
camping and general recreation to safeguard
both wildlife and people.
# Establish 5 electric motor only areas totaling
1,852 acres (1 exists now) and 8 seasonal slow,
no wake areas totaling 9,720 acres to reduce
disturbance to fish and wildlife in backwater
areas and provide alternative experiences for
Refuge visitors. These areas represent about
8% of the water area of the Refuge, and less
than 5% of the entire Refuge.
# Establish a new and relaxed dog policy that
allows owners to exercise and train their dogs
while safeguarding other visitors and wildlife.
# Improve Refuge boat, canoe, and walk-in
accesses.
# Replace or construct 4 new offices and 5 new
maintenance facilities to replace rental space or
aging facilities.
# Increase public information efforts and
programs.
# Increase staff to minimum levels to increase
stewardship capabilities for private lands work,
fisheries, forestry, biological monitoring,
maintenance, visitor services, and law
enforcement.
# Estimated cost over 15 years if every objective/
strategy funded: $227.8 million, of which $177
million (78%) is habitat restoration,
maintenance, and land acquisition.
© Sandra Lines
Upper Mississippi River
National Wildlife and Fish Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ v
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background .................................................................................. 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Planning Background................................................................................................................................... 3
Legal and Policy Framework ................................................................................................................. 3
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ....................................................................................................... 3
The National Wildlife Refuge System .......................................................................................... 3
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and Related Policy ................. 3
Research Natural Area Policy ....................................................................................................... 5
Brief Refuge History and Purposes ....................................................................................................... 5
Relationship to Corps of Engineers and the States, and Other Conservation Initiatives .................... 6
Corps of Engineers ........................................................................................................................ 6
The States .................................................................................................................................... 8
Other Conservation Initiatives ....................................................................................................... 9
Refuge Vision and Goals ............................................................................................................................ 12
Refuge Vision .............................................................................................................................. 12
Refuge Goals ............................................................................................................................... 12
Planning Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ........................................................................................... 12
Landscape Issues ............................................................................................................................... 12
Environmental Health Issues .............................................................................................................. 14
Wildlife and Habitat Issues ................................................................................................................ 14
Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Issues ............................................................................................... 17
Other Recreational Use Issues ........................................................................................................... 21
Administration and Operations Issues ............................................................................................... 23
Chapter 2: Consultation and Coordination With the Public and Others ............................................. 24
Scoping and Public Involvement ................................................................................................................ 24
Internal Scoping ................................................................................................................................. 24
Public Scoping Meetings and Workshops .......................................................................................... 24
Public Meetings and Workshops to Review Draft EIS/CCP, Alternatives A-D .................................. 26
Public Meetings and Open Houses to Review Preferred Alternative E ............................................. 26
State and Federal Interagency Meetings ........................................................................................... 26
Congressional Briefings and Meetings .............................................................................................. 27
Other Meetings .................................................................................................................................. 27
Newsletters, News Releases and Executive Summaries .................................................................. 27
General ............................................................................................................................................... 28
Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation ........................................................................................... 28
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
viii
List of Contacts ......................................................................................................................................... 28
Chapter 3: Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 31
Physical Environment ................................................................................................................................ 31
Geomorphology – Effects of Water, Wind and Ice ............................................................................ 31
Land Use Characteristics of the Upper Mississippi River Basin ........................................................ 32
Locks and Dams and River Reaches ................................................................................................... 34
Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................. 34
Soils ................................................................................................................................................... 37
Climate............................................................................................................................................... 38
Contaminants ..................................................................................................................................... 39
Refuge and Vicinity on the Upper Mississippi River................................................................... 39
Lost Mound Unit .......................................................................................................................... 41
Fish, Wildlife and Habitat .......................................................................................................................... 41
Navigation Pools and Habitat Change ............................................................................................... 41
Special Management Areas ............................................................................................................... 45
Wilderness ................................................................................................................................. 45
Special Designated Areas ........................................................................................................... 45
Conservation Easements ............................................................................................................. 45
Notable State Management Areas .................................................................................................... 46
Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................................. 47
Bald Eagle ................................................................................................................................... 48
Higgins Eye Pearlymussel ........................................................................................................... 48
Candidate Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................... 49
Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake ............................................................................................... 49
Sheepnose .................................................................................................................................. 49
Spectaclecase ............................................................................................................................. 50
Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities ......................................................................................... 50
Migratory Birds.................................................................................................................................. 50
Waterfowl .................................................................................................................................. 51
Other Migratory Birds......................................................................................................................... 58
Songbirds .................................................................................................................................... 58
Colonial Nesting Birds ................................................................................................................. 62
Secretive Marsh Birds ................................................................................................................. 63
Raptors ....................................................................................................................................... 63
Fish ..................................................................................................................................................... 64
Sport Fish .................................................................................................................................... 64
Other Fish ................................................................................................................................... 65
Fish Passage ............................................................................................................................... 66
Freshwater Mussels ........................................................................................................................... 66
Reptiles and Amphibians .................................................................................................................... 67
Turtles ......................................................................................................................................... 67
Frogs and Toads .......................................................................................................................... 68
Invasive Species ................................................................................................................................ 68
Invasive Fish ............................................................................................................................... 68
Invasive Plants ............................................................................................................................. 69
Invasive Invertebrates ................................................................................................................. 70
Other Aquatic Invertebrates ............................................................................................................... 72
Mammals ........................................................................................................................................... 73
ix
Vegetation ......................................................................................................................................... 77
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation .................................................................................................. 77
Emergent Aquatic Vegetation ..................................................................................................... 77
Floodplain Forest ......................................................................................................................... 78
Grasslands .................................................................................................................................. 78
Natural and Current Role of Fire ........................................................................................................ 79
Wild Fires and Prescribed Burns ................................................................................................. 79
Environmental Management Program................................................................................................. 79
Water Level Management .................................................................................................................. 87
General Public Use .................................................................................................................................... 91
Hunting .............................................................................................................................................. 91
Closed Areas ...................................................................................................................................... 91
Fishing ................................................................................................................................................ 93
Wildlife Observation and Photography .............................................................................................. 94
Interpretation and Environmental Education ...................................................................................... 95
Recreational Boating, Camping, and Other Beach-Related Uses ...................................................... 95
Public Use Facilities ............................................................................................................................ 96
Scenic Byways................................................................................................................................... 97
Socioeconomic .......................................................................................................................................... 97
Population, Income, Employment and Demographics ........................................................................ 97
Refuge Economics .............................................................................................................................. 99
Commercial Use of Refuge ............................................................................................................... 100
Hunting, Fishing and Other Guide Services .............................................................................. 101
Commercial Trapping ................................................................................................................ 101
Fish Float Operators .................................................................................................................. 101
Commercial Fishing ................................................................................................................... 102
Clamming .................................................................................................................................. 103
Administration and Facilities ........................................................................................................... 103
Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation ......................................................................................... 104
Chapter 4: Management Direction ........................................................................................................... 107
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 107
Elements Common to All Objectives ........................................................................................................ 107
Interagency Coordination and Collaboration .................................................................................... 107
Agency Access to Restricted Public Use Areas (Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, Slow,
No Wake Areas, and Electric Motor Areas) ................................................................................. 107
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance ................................................................... 108
Threatened and Endangered Species Protection ............................................................................. 108
Archeological and Cultural Resource Protection .............................................................................. 108
Fire Management ............................................................................................................................. 108
General Water-Based Recreation .................................................................................................... 109
Mosquito Management .................................................................................................................... 109
Fish and Wildlife Disease Control .................................................................................................... 109
Volunteers and Friends Groups ........................................................................................................ 110
Goals, Objectives and Strategies ............................................................................................................. 110
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ............................................................................................................... 159
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 159
A Word about Priorities ........................................................................................................................... 159
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
x
Actions – Existing Funding and Staffing .................................................................................................. 160
Actions – New Funding and Staff ............................................................................................................ 162
Funding Summary .................................................................................................................................... 162
Summary of Step-Down Plans Needed ................................................................................................... 162
Summary of Step-down Plans Needed ............................................................................................ 165
Near-term Implementation (3 years) ........................................................................................................ 166
Monitoring and Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 166
Plan Review and Revision ........................................................................................................................ 166
Partnerships ............................................................................................................................................ 167
Appendix A: Record of Decision .............................................................................................................. 169
Appendix B: Glossary ................................................................................................................................ 177
Appendix C: Project Features Tables ...................................................................................................... 183
Appendix D: Applicable Laws and Executive Orders .......................................................................... 197
Appendix E: Maps Showing CCP Actions .............................................................................................. 203
Appendix F: Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................... 217
Appendix G: National Wildlife Refuge System Policy Changes ........................................................ 225
Upper Mississippi River
National Wildlife and Fish Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
List of Tables
xi
Table 1: Climate Data, Upper Mississippi River Refuge, River Mile 764 to 503. ........................................ 39
Table 2: Special Designated Areas Within the Upper Mississippi River Refuge ........................................ 45
Table 3: Conservation Easements Maintained by Upper Mississippi River Refuge .................................... 46
Table 4: Notable State Management Areas ................................................................................................. 47
Table 5: Estimated Waterfowl Food Plant Energy Production in Closed Areas on Pools 4-14
Under Four Alternatives, Upper Mississippi River Refuge ............................................................. 57
Table 6: Partners in Flight, Physiographic Region 16 Priority Bird Species Found on
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Including Seasonal Occurrence and Habitat Associations. ....... 61
Table 7: Occurrence of Frogs and Toads on Upper Mississippi River Refuge, 1994 to 2004 ...................... 68
Table 8: Invasive Plants and Their Control on the Upper Mississippi River Refuge .................................... 70
Table 9: Summary of Environmental Management Program Habitat Rehabilitation and
Enhancement Projects On or Adjacent to the Upper Mississippi River Refuge
(Adapted from USACE, 2004b) ........................................................................................................ 82
Table 10: Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program Habitat
Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project Techniques. (USACE, 2004b) ........................................ 85
Table 11: Upper Mississippi River Pools on Refuge Most Suited for a Drawdown
(Adapted from USACE, 2004c), Upper Mississippi River Refuge ................................................... 89
Table 12: Estimated Annual Hunting Visits to the Upper Mississippi River Refuge
(Fiscal Years 1999-2003 Refuge Management Information System Reports) ............................... 91
Table 13: Comparison of Hunting Seasons 2003 - 2004 on Upper Mississippi River Refuge
For Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois ....................................................................................... 92
Table 14: Estimated Annual Fishing Visits to the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and
Fish Refuge (Fiscal year 1999-2004 Refuge Management Information System reports.) ............. 93
Table 15: Summary of Upper Mississippi River Fishing Tournaments by State ............................................ 94
Table 16: Estimated Annual Wildlife Observation and Photography Visits to the
Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Fiscal year 2002-2004 Refuge Management
Information System Reports) .......................................................................................................... 95
Table 17: Upper Mississippi River Refuge Visitor Contact Stations .............................................................. 97
Table 18: Employment Characteristics by Major Economic Sectors and Refuge District .............................. 99
Table 19: Total Economic Impacts of Recreational Use: Upper Mississippi River Refuge, 2003 ................ 100
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
xii
Table 20: Comparison of Trapping Seasons, Upper Mississippi River Refuge ............................................ 101
Table 21: Estimated Gross Revenue from Furbearers Harvested by 245 Trappers During the
2003-2004 Trapping Season, Upper Mississippi River Refuge .................................................... 102
Table 22: Summary of Commercial Fishing, Upper Mississippi River Refuge ............................................. 102
Table 23: Objective Comparison – Existing and CCP .................................................................................... 139
Table 24: Summary of Project Features ........................................................................................................ 146
Table 25: Refuge Priority Locations and Actions That Contribute to Implementation of
Environmental Pool Plans, 2006-2021, Upper Mississippi River NWFR ...................................... 147
Upper Mississippi River
National Wildlife and Fish Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
List of Figures
xiii
Figure 1: Location of Upper Mississippi River NWFR ..................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Public Involvement Timeline ........................................................................................................... 25
Figure 3: Watersheds of the Rivers and Streams that Impact Upper Mississippi River Refuge .................. 33
Figure 4: Upper Mississippi River Navigation System with Locks and Dams numbered;
Navigation Pools Occur Above Each Lock (Source: Lubinski, 1999) ............................................... 35
Figure 5: Typical Floodplain and Bluff Habitats of the Upper Mississippi River ........................................... 36
Figure 6: Landcover Maps of Pool 8, 1890s and 1989; Upper Mississippi River Refuge .............................. 42
Figure 7: Island Loss in the Lower Half of the Upper Mississippi River Pools,
Upper Mississippi River Refuge ..................................................................................................... 44
Figure 8: Annual Bald Eagle Production on Upper Mississippi River Refuge, 1986-2005 ............................ 48
Figure 9: Peak Number of Mallards and Canvasback Ducks on Upper Mississippi River Refuge,
Selected Years 1956 to 2005 .......................................................................................................... 52
Figure 10: Percent of the Eastern Population of Canvasbacks that Occurred on
Upper Mississippi River Refuge During the Coordinated Canvasback Survey,
1974-2005 ...................................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 11: Peak Number of Canada Geese and Tundra Swans on Upper Mississippi River Refuge,
Selected Years 1956-2005 .............................................................................................................. 53
Figure 12: Average Dabbling Duck Use-days by Pool, 1997-2004, Upper Mississppi River Refuge .............. 54
Figure 13: Average Diving Duck Use-days by Pool, 1997-2004, Upper Mississippi River Refuge ................. 54
Figure 14: Average Tundra Swan and Canada Goose Use-days by Pool, 1997-2002,
Upper Mississippi River Refuge ..................................................................................................... 55
Figure 15: Average Number of Duck-use-days per Acre of Closed Area, 2000-2003,
Upper Mississippi River Refuge ..................................................................................................... 59
Figure 16: Average Number of Waterfowl (Ducks, Geese, and Swans) Use-days per Acre of
Closed Area, 2000-2003, Upper Mississippi River Refuge ............................................................. 59
Figure 17: Puddle Duck Portion of the Average Number of Duck Use-days per Acre of
Closed Area, 2000-2003, Upper Mississippi River Refuge ............................................................ 60
Figure 18: Average Number of Bird Species Observed and Number of Counts Conducted,
1994-99, Upper Mississippi River Refuge ...................................................................................... 61
Figure 19: Number of Colonies and Number of Nests of Great Blue Herons on the
Upper Mississippi River Refuge, Selected Years 1960-2005. ........................................................ 62
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
xiv
Figure 20: Average Number of Zebra Mussels per Meter Square Collected During Fall Sampling Periods
in Selected Areas of Pools 7, 8, 9, and 13, 1997-2005,
Upper Mississippi River Refuge ..................................................................................................... 71
Figure 21: Average Number of Mayflies per Meter Square Collected During Fall Sampling Periods
From Selected Areas on Pools 7, 8, 9 and 13, 1995-2003,
Upper Mississippi River Refuge ..................................................................................................... 72
Figure 22: Average Number of Fingernail Clams per Meter Square Collected During Fall Sampling
Periods From Selected Areas on Pools 7, 8, 9 and 13, 1995-2005
Upper Mississippi River Refuge ..................................................................................................... 72
Figure 23: Number of Beaver Harvested, 1990-91 Through the 2004-2005 Seasons,
Upper Mississippi River Refuge ..................................................................................................... 73
Figure 24: Number of River Otter Harvested Between 1997-1998 and 2004-2005,
Upper Mississippi River Refuge ..................................................................................................... 74
Figure 25: Number of Muskrats Harvested, 1990-91 Through 2004-2005 Season,
Upper Mississippi River Refuge ..................................................................................................... 75
Figure 26: Number of Active Trappers, 1990-91 Through the 2004-2005 Season,
Upper Mississippi River Refuge ..................................................................................................... 75
Figure 27: Number of Raccoon Harvested, 1990-91 Through the 2004-2005 Season,
Upper Mississippi River Refuge ..................................................................................................... 76
Figure 28: Number of Mink Harvested, 1990-91 Through the 2004-2005 Season,
Upper Mississippi River Refuge ...................................................................................................... 76
Figure 29: Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program Habitat
Rehabilitation and Enhancement Projects ..................................................................................... 81
Figure 30: Phase II Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project, Stoddard Islands,
Upper Mississippi River Refuge, Aerial Photo Sequence
(Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources) .............................................................................. 86
Figure 31: Constructed Islands with Sacrificial Berms, Rock Groins, and Native Vegetation,
Upper Mississippi River Refuge ..................................................................................................... 86
Figure 32: Seed Islands Constructed and “Growing” on Upper Mississippi River Refuge ............................. 87
Figure 33: Wildlife Loafing Structures Placed on Constructed Islands Upper Mississippi River Refuge ....... 88
Figure 34: Pool 8 Drawdown Sequence (Upper Mississippi River Refuge, La Crosse District) ...................... 90
Figure 35: National Scenic Byways Bordering the Upper Mississippi River Refuge ...................................... 98
Figure 36: Refuge Staffing ............................................................................................................................. 168
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background
1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning
Background
Introduction
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
will guide the administration and management of
the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and
Fish Refuge (Refuge) for the next 15 years.
Comprehensive conservation plans are required
by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improve-ment
Act of 1997 to ensure that refuges are man-aged
in accordance with their purposes and the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System,
which is part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service). The Refuge System is the largest collec-tion
of lands and waters in the world set aside for
the conservation of wildlife, with over 540 units cov-ering
more than 95 million acres in the U.S. and its
territories.
The Refuge was established by an Act of Con-gress
on June 7, 1924, as a refuge and breeding
place for migratory birds, fish, other wildlife, and
plants. The Refuge encompasses approximately
240,000 acres of Mississippi River floodplain in a
more-or-less continuous stretch of 261 river-miles
from near Wabasha, Minnesota to near Rock Island,
Illinois.
The location and surrounding area of the Refuge
is shown in Figure 1.
The Refuge is an invaluable natural legacy in a
complex geopolitical landscape:
# A national scenic treasure – river, backwaters,
islands, and forest framed by 500-foot high
bluffs;
# Interface with four states, 70 communities, and
two Corps of Engineers districts;
# A series of 11 navigation locks and dams within
overall boundary;
# Represented by eight U.S. Senators and six
U.S. Representatives;
# National Scenic Byways on both sides;
# 3.7 million annual visits, the most of any
national wildlife refuge;
# Diverse wildlife: 306 species of birds, 119
species of fish, 51 species of mammals, and 42
species of mussels;
# Designated a Globally Important Bird Area;
# Up to 40 percent of the continent’s waterfowl
use the river flyway during migration;
# Up to 50 percent of the world’s Canvasback
ducks stop during fall migration;
# Up to 20 percent of the eastern United States
population of Tundra Swans stop during fall
migration;
© Stan Bousson
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
2
Figure 1: Location of Upper Mississippi River NWFR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background
3
# 167 active Bald Eagle nests in recent years;
# A peak of 2,700 Bald Eagles during spring
migration;
# Approximately 5,000 heron and egret nests in
up to 15 colonies.
The Refuge is divided into four districts for man-agement,
administrative, and public service effec-tiveness
and efficiency. The Refuge is also divided
geographically by river pools that correspond with
the navigation pools created by the series of locks
and dams on the Upper Mississippi 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). The
Refuge currently has 37 permanent employees and
an annual base operations and maintenance budget
of $3.1 million.
The Refuge has an overall Headquarters in
Winona, Minnesota which provides administrative,
biological, mapping, visitor services, planning, and
policy support to the districts. District managers
are supervised by the refuge manager located in
Winona. Two other national wildlife refuges, Trem-pealeau
and Driftless Area, are also part of the Ref-uge
Complex and are coordinated by the refuge
manager in Winona. Separate CCPs are also being
prepared, or are completed, for Trempealeau NWR
and Driftless NWR, although scoping was done con-currently
with scoping for this CCP.
Planning Background
Legal and Policy Framework
The Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife
and Fish Refuge is managed and administered as
part of the National Wildlife Refuge System within
a framework of organizational setting, laws, and pol-icy.
Key aspects of this framework are outlined
below. A list of other laws and executive orders that
have guided preparation of the CCP, and guide
future implementation, are provided in Appendix D.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The Refuge is administered by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. The
Service is the primary federal agency responsible
for conserving and enhancing the nation’s fish and
wildlife populations and their habitats. Although the
Service shares this responsibility with other federal,
state, tribal, local, and private entities, the Service
has specific trust responsibilities for migratory
birds, threatened and endangered species, certain
interjurisdictional fish and marine mammals, and
the National Wildlife Refuge System. The mission of
the Service is:
“Working with others to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats
for the continuing benefit of the American people.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System
The Refuge System had its beginning in 1903
when President Theodore Roosevelt used an Execu-tive
Order to set aside tiny Pelican Island in Florida
as a refuge and breeding ground for birds. From
that small beginning, the Refuge System has
become the world’s largest collection of lands specif-ically
set aside for wildlife conservation. The admin-istration,
management, and growth of the Refuge
System are guided by the following goals1 (Direc-tor’s
Order, January 18, 2001):
# To fulfill our statutory duty to achieve Refuge
purpose(s) and further the System mission.
# To conserve, restore where appropriate, and
enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants
that are endangered or threatened with
becoming endangered.
# To perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdic-tional
fish, and marine mammal populations.
# To conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and
plants.
# To conserve and restore where appropriate
representative ecosystems of the United States,
including the ecological processes characteristic
of those ecosystems.
# To foster understanding and instill appreciation
of native fish, wildlife, and plants, and
conservation, by providing the public with safe,
high-quality, and compatible wildlife-dependent
public use. Such use includes hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 and Related Policy
The Improvement Act of 1997 amended the
National Wildlife Refuge System Administrative
Act of 1966 and became a true organic act for the
System by providing a mission, policy direction, and
management standards. Below is a summary of the
1. These goals were changed late in the planning proceess by a
new policy released June 26, 2006. The new goals are similar
in scope and intent and are included in Appendix G.
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
4
key provisions of this landmark legislation, and sub-sequent
policies to carry out the Act’s mandates.
Established Broad National Policy for the Ref-uge
System:
# Each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the
mission and its purposes.
# Compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a
legitimate and appropriate use.
# Compatible wildlife-dependent uses are the
priority public uses of the System.
# Compatible wildlife-dependent uses should be
facilitated, subject to necessary restrictions.
Directed the Secretary of the Interior to:
# Provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife,
and plants within the System.
# Ensure biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the System for the
benefit of present and future generations.
# Plan and direct the continued growth of the
System to meet the mission.
# Carry out the mission of the System and
purposes of each refuge; if conflict between,
purposes takes priority.
# Ensure coordination with adjacent landowners
and the states.
# Assist in the maintenance of adequate water
quantity and quality for refuges; acquire water
rights as needed.
# Recognize compatible wildlife-dependent
recreational uses as the priority general public
uses of the System.
# Ensure that opportunities for compatible
wildlife-dependent recreation are provided.
# Ensure that wildlife-dependent recreation
receives enhanced consideration over other uses
of the System.
# Provide increased opportunities for families to
enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation.
# Provide cooperation and collaboration of other
federal agencies and states, and honor existing
authorized or permitted uses by other federal
agencies.
# Monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife,
and plants in each refuge.
Provide Compatibility of Uses Standards and
Procedures:
# New or existing uses should not be permitted,
renewed, or expanded unless compatible with
the mission of the System or the purpose(s) of
the refuge, and consistent with public safety.
# Wildlife-dependent uses may be authorized
when compatible and not inconsistent with
public safety.
# The Secretary shall issue regulations for
compatibility determinations.
Planning:
# Each unit of the Refuge System shall have a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan completed
by 2012.
# Planning should involve adjoining landowners,
state conservation agencies, and the general
public.
Compatibility Policy
No use for which the Service has authority to
regulate may be allowed on a unit of Refuge System
unless it is determined to be compatible. A compati-ble
use is a use that, in the sound professional judg-ment
of the refuge manager, will not materially
interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the
National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the
purposes of the national wildlife refuge. Managers
must complete a written compatibility determina-tion
for each use, or collection of like-uses, that is
signed by the manager and the Regional Chief of
Refuges in the respective Service region.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and
Environmental Health Policy
The Service is directed in the Refuge Improve-ment
Act to “ensure that the biological integrity,
diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge
System are maintained for the benefit of present
and future generations of Americans…” The biolog-ical
integrity policy helps define and clarify this
directive by providing guidance on what conditions
© Sandra Lines
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background
5
constitute biological integrity, diversity, and envi-ronmental
health; guidelines for maintaining exist-ing
levels; guidelines for determining how and when
it is appropriate to restore lost elements; and guide-lines
in dealing with external threats to biological
integrity, diversity and health.
Research Natural Area Policy
The Refuge currently has four Research Natural
Areas (Nelson-Trevino, 3,740 acres, Wisconsin,
Winona District; Reno Bottoms, 1,980 acres, Minne-sota,
McGregor District; Twelve Mile Island, 900
acres, Iowa, McGregor District; and Thomson-Ful-ton
Sand Prairie, 321 acres, Illinois, Savanna Dis-trict).
The Service’s Refuge Manual, Section 8 RM
10, provides guidance for management, administra-tion,
and public use of Research Natural Areas, and
lists the following objectives of the designations:
# To participate in the national effort to preserve
adequate examples of all major ecosystem types
or other outstanding physical or biological
phenomena;
# To provide research and educational
opportunities for scientists and others in the
observation, study, and monitoring of the
environment; and
# To contribute to the national effort to preserve a
full range of genetic and behavioral diversity for
native plants and animals, including
endangered and threatened species.
Brief Refuge History and Purposes
The creation of the Refuge was largely the result
of the Izaak Walton League, and in particular, the
efforts of its founder and leader, Will Dilg. Dilg, an
advertising executive in Chicago and an avid angler
and lover of the outdoors, formed the Izaak Walton
League in 1922. For nearly two decades, Dilg had
spent much of the summer fishing and enjoying the
Upper Mississippi River. In the summer of 1923, he
learned of a plan to drain a large portion of the river
backwaters and came up with an ambitious solution
to the drainage scheme: turn the entire stretch of
river into a federal refuge. Remarkably, one year
later, due to Dilg’s determination, Congress passed
the Upper Mississippi River Wild Life and Fish Ref-uge
Act on June 7, 1924. The act authorized the
acquisition of land for a refuge between Rock
Island, Illinois and Wabasha, Minnesota.
The Refuge name was changed administratively
to the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife
and Fish Refuge in 1983 by adding the word
“National” and changing the two-word Wild Life to
the accepted and widely-used single-word “Wildlife”
(Regional Director Bulletin, February 28, 1983). The
new name was affirmed legislatively by Congress in
1998 through amendment to the original act (Public
Law 105-312, October 30, 1998).
The 1924 act set forth the purposes of the Refuge
as follows:
# “...as a refuge and breeding place for migratory
birds included in the terms of the convention
between the United States and Great Britain
for the protection of migratory birds, concluded
August 16, 1916, and
# to such extent as the Secretary of Agriculture2
may by regulations prescribe, as a refuge and
breeding place for other wild birds, game
animals, fur-bearing animals, and for the
conservation of wild flowers and aquatic plants,
and
# to such extent as the Secretary of Commerce2
may by regulations prescribe as a refuge and
breeding place for fish and other aquatic animal
life.”
The 1924 Act also had stipulations that would
prove to have management implications to this day.
First, the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and
Illinois had to give their consent before land acquisi-tion
could occur. This consent was granted, with
varying conditions, by all the states in 1925. Second,
the act specifically prohibited any interference with
the operations of the War Department in carrying
out any project now or in the future for the improve-
2. Changed to Secretary of the Interior pursuant to
reorganization and transfer of functions in 1939 (16 USC
721-731).
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
6
ment of the river for navigation. Both of these stipu-lations
are discussed more fully below.
Land acquisition proceeded rapidly beginning in
1925 using funds appropriated by Congress, and
from the withdrawal of public domain or federally-owned
islands and other lands in the floodplain.
Approximately 90,000 acres were acquired. In 1930,
Congress authorized the 9-foot navigation project
on the Upper Mississippi River, and the Bureau of
Biological Survey (precursor to the Fish and Wild-life
Service) soon suspended most acquisition. The
Corps of Engineers acquired approximately 106,000
acres within the generally accepted boundary of the
Refuge that was needed for the construction of a
series of locks and dams and subsequent raising of
water levels. Management jurisdiction over much of
the Corps of Engineers-acquired land was trans-ferred
to the Service, with reservations, through a
series of cooperative agreements in 1945, 1954, and
1963. The agreement was simplified and language
updated in a 2001 amendment. The agreement is
discussed more fully below.
Spanning 80 years, the history of the Refuge is
varied, storied, and complex, and shaped by organi-zational,
political, and social influences. Surpris-ingly,
there is no consolidated history of the Refuge
and historic information remains a mostly disjointed
collection of notes, memos, files, and reports. The
most complete legal history is contained in a report
done by law intern Michael Fairchild in 1982 titled
“The Legal and Administrative History of the
Upper Mississippi River Wild Life and Fish Ref-uge.”
This report is available at Refuge headquar-ters
in Winona.
Today, the Refuge encompasses more than
240,000 acres of land and water as determined by
Geographic Information System, or GIS, analysis.
The Refuge remains perhaps the most important
corridor of fish and wildlife habitat in the central
United States, an importance which has increased
over time as habitat losses or degradation have
occurred elsewhere.
Relationship to Corps of Engineers and
the States, and Other Conservation
Initiatives
Corps of Engineers
The Corps of Engineers, Department of the
Army, has played an active role in the physical and
environmental changes on the Mississippi River,
and thus the Refuge, for more than 100 years. In
1871, Congress approved funding for the Corps of
Engineers to improve the river for navigation,
mainly through the removal of snags and occasional
dredging. By 1878, the Corps of Engineers was
maintaining a 4-foot deep navigation channel on the
river and in 1910, Congress authorized a 6-foot navi-gation
channel. The channel was maintained mainly
by directing more river current to the main channel
of the river through wing dams and backwater clos-ing
structures. Demand for greater river shipping
capacity and reliability led to Congress in 1930
authorizing and funding a 9-foot navigation channel,
and eventually, a series of 29 locks and dams
between St. Louis, Missouri and Minneapolis, Min-nesota
(11 are within the generally accepted bound-ary
of the Refuge). With the Refuge already
established, the 9-foot channel would forever link
the fate of the Refuge with the Corps of Engineers.
First, acquisition of land for the Refuge by the
Bureau of Biological Survey (now the Service) was
suspended since the Corps of Engineers had more
funding and needed to move quickly to keep the 9-
foot project on track. The planned locks and dams
would flood thousands of acres of floodplain that
needed to be acquired. It also made sense to not
have two federal agencies competing for the same
land. The Corps of Engineers thus acquired approx-imately
106,000 acres within the generally accepted
boundary of the Refuge. Some of the Corps of Engi-neers-
acquired land was transferred to the Service
via Executive Orders in 1935 and 1936. Locks and
dams were completed on the stretch of the river
designated for the Refuge between 1935 (Lock and
Dam 4 and 5) and 1939 (Lock and Dam 13).
However, it did not take long for conflicts to
emerge since the Service and the Corps of Engi-neers
acquired land under different authorities for
markedly different purposes: fish and wildlife con-servation
versus commercial navigation. To help
clarify agency roles and responsibilities, cooperative
agreements were negotiated and signed in 1945,
1954, 1963, and 2001 (amended the 1963 agreement),
each time bringing more clarity to who managed
what within the Refuge. An excellent and thorough
history of the cooperative agreements is found in
the CCP for Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge
Complex, Chapter 3, available on-line at http://mid-west.
fws.gov/planning/marktwain/index.html.
In summary, the cooperative agreement, with
some reservations, grants to the Service the rights
to manage fish and wildlife and its habitat on those
lands acquired by the Corps of Engineers. These
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background
7
lands are managed by the Service as a part of the
Refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The Corps of Engineers retained the rights to man-age
as needed for the navigation project, forestry,
and Corps of Engineers-managed recreation areas,
and all other rights not specifically granted to the
Service. A copy of the cooperative agreement can be
found online (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/
uppermiss) and in Appendix F of the Final EIS/
CCP. As part of the planning process, the Refuge
initiated efforts with the Corps of Engineers to
amend the current agreement to clarify language on
the responsibility and authority of each agency,
especially in regard to recreational uses. These dis-cussions
will continue.
Other conflicts over the years between naviga-tion,
fish and wildlife conservation, and recreation
influenced Refuge and Corps of Engineers coopera-tive
working arrangements. In the 1950s and 1960s,
there was growing concern over the common prac-tice
of placing dredged material from navigation
channel maintenance in the marshes and backwa-ters
of the river. These concerns were heightened
with talk of a 12-foot navigation channel in the mid-
1960s; new studies on dredging impacts; and new
national environmental laws such as the Water
Resources Planning Act of 1962, National Environ-mental
Policy Act of 1969, and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972. In 1973, the State of
Wisconsin sought a preliminary injunction against
the Corps of Engineers to prevent the disposal of
dredged material on Crosby Island and vicinity
(Pool 8), and in 1974 filed another injunction for dis-posal
at several other sites in Pools 4-8 and one fur-ther
down-river. The State of Minnesota joined
Wisconsin in the 1974 injunction. These legal actions
were the impetus for more structured cooperation.
In 1974, the Corps of Engineers and the Service
began work on a long-range management strategy
for the Upper Mississippi River. A broad-based task
force representing five states and several federal
agencies was formed under the auspices of the
Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission, and
became the Great River Environmental Action
Teams (GREAT). The Great River Study was autho-rized
by Congress in 1976 and called upon the Corps
of Engineers, in concert with other agencies and the
states, to develop a management plan that looked at
the needs of navigation, barge traffic, fish and wild-life,
recreation, watershed management, and water
quality. The resulting GREAT studies not only pro-vided
a comprehensive look at all aspects of the
Upper Mississippi River, but provided the institu-tional
framework for the Service, Corps of Engi-neers,
states and other agencies to work together to
meet often divergent needs and mandates.
In 1978, Congress mandated that the Upper Mis-sissippi
River Basin Commission complete a com-prehensive
master plan for the Upper Mississippi
River, which includes the Refuge. The plan was com-pleted
in 1982 and encompassed many of the recom-mendations
developed in the GREAT studies for
dredge material disposal, fish and wildlife conserva-tion,
and recreation management.
In 1983, the Service and the Corps of Engineers
(St. Paul District), in cooperation with Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Iowa, completed a Land Use Alloca-tion
Plan for Refuge- and Corps of Engineers-acquired
lands in Pools 1-10 (Pools 4-10 affect the
Refuge). The plan, through policy statements and
detailed maps, provided a clear, practical, and bal-anced
plan to guide future federal land use actions.
In effect, the plan was a zoning plan for federal
lands, allocating lands in the floodplain for wildlife
management, navigation project operations, low-density
recreation, intensive recreation, and natural
areas. A similar plan for Pools 11-14 was completed
with the Corps of Engineers (Rock Island District),
in cooperation with Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois in
1986 as part of the Refuge Master Plan process
completed in 1987. Both Land Use Allocation Plans
remain important references for day-to-day opera-tions
and project planning for the Refuge and the
Corps of Engineers, although updates are needed to
reflect new acquisitions and changing resource
needs.
In 1986, Congress authorized the Corps of Engi-neers
to carry out an Environmental Management
© Stan Bousson Program (EMP) as part of the Water Resource
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
8
Development Act of the same year. The EMP is
composed of two elements: 1) planning, construction
and evaluation of fish and wildlife habitat rehabilita-tion
and enhancement projects, or HREPs, and 2)
long-term resource monitoring including analysis
and applied research, known as LTRMP. To date,
the EMP has completed 40 habitat projects with
many under construction or in various stages of
design with a total affected area of 140,000 acres.
Many of these projects are on the Refuge as well as
the other Upper Mississippi River refuges of Trem-pealeau,
Mark Twain Complex, and Illinois River
Complex. The LTRMP element has provided critical
information on the status and trends of fish, wildlife,
and aquatic plants; GIS habitat analysis; and other
useful scientific information used in refuge manage-ment
and planning.
In 2005, the Corps of Engineers released a Final
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System
Navigation Feasibility Study after nearly 10 years
of effort. The Service and the Refuge have been
involved in review and comment of the study at vir-tually
every stage. The study recommends a dual-purpose
approach of improving both navigation effi-ciency
and river ecosystem restoration, the latter at
a scale that would be many times larger than the
current EMP, and more comprehensive in terms of
the floodplain affected and the scope of projects that
could be undertaken. Although action by Congress
is uncertain, the study may hold great promise in
reversing decades of habitat decline on the Upper
Mississippi River and the Refuge.
Ongoing Refuge coordination with the Corps of
Engineers and the states is accomplished at several
levels. One of the long-standing coordination frame-works
is the interagency teams organized by each of
the three Corps of Engineers Districts on the Upper
Mississippi River. These teams provide field-level
coordination for dredging and other navigation
operations, habitat project planning, pool habitat
plans, monitoring efforts, recreation planning,
water level management (pool drawdowns), forestry,
and education and outreach programs. Teams
include the River Resources Forum (St. Paul Dis-trict,
Pools 1-10), River Resources Coordination
Team (Rock Island District, Pools 11-22), and the
River Action Team (St. Louis District, Pools 24 to
open river). The Refuge is active on the St. Paul and
Rock Island district teams, and their various sub-teams
and workgroups.
The States
The Refuge has always enjoyed a unique relation-ship
with the four states of Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Iowa, and Illinois. As noted earlier, the Act which
created the Refuge in 1924 had a specific stipulation
which said:
“No such area shall be acquired … until the
legislature of each State in which is situated
any part of the areas to be acquired under
this Act has consented to the acquisition of
such part by the United States for the
purposes of this Act …”
Consent from the state legislatures was granted
in 1925, and each state had varying conditions for
their consent. In Minnesota, the legislature granted
consent March 19 without condition and ceded all
state-owned overflow lands to the United States.
The ceded lands provision was later rescinded in
1943.
Iowa gave their consent March 31 provided that
acquisitions were first approved by various state
conservation boards and officials. An additional con-dition
by Iowa granted the United States exclusive
jurisdiction over the lands acquired, a condition that
would later be reduced in scope to just “jurisdiction”
in 1943.
Wisconsin granted consent on May 19 with sev-eral
conditions. First, their consent was conditioned
on the other three states granting consent and that
acquisition of tracts be approved by the Governor on
the advice of the Conservation Commission. Sec-ondly,
the state and its agents reserved the rights of
access for fish-related conservation work such as
fish rescue in backwaters and operation of hatcher-ies.
Third, Wisconsin retained title to, and custody
and protection of, the fishery in the river and adja-cent
waters. And lastly, their approval was on the
condition that:
“the navigable waters leading into the
Mississippi and the carrying places between the
same, and the navigable lakes, sloughs and
ponds within or adjoining such areas, shall
remain common highways for navigation and
portaging, and the use thereof, as well to the
inhabitants of this state as to the citizens of the
United States, shall not be denied.”
See Chapter 7, “Public Comment on Draft EIS
and Response,” in the Final EIS/CCP for a more
detailed discussion of this condition.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background
9
Illinois granted consent June 30 with the condi-tion
that the state retained concurrent jurisdiction
over the areas acquired.
Due to often overlapping and shared responsibili-ties
and authorities for fish and wildlife resources
between the states and the Refuge, cooperation and
coordination have been standard practice since the
Refuge was established. The Refuge generally
adopts or defers to state regulations and license
requirements for the use and enjoyment of fish and
wildlife resources. Refuge law enforcement efforts
are coordinated with respective state conservation
officers. The states are also closely involved in the
efforts outlined in the preceding Corps of Engineers
section, and often provide the lead for interjurisdic-tional
issues such as pool drawdowns. The Refuge
Improvement Act of 1997 also solidified the role of
the states in coordinating Refuge management
plans and activities.
The states also manage some important and often
magnificent wildlife management areas, parks, and
forests adjacent to the Refuge, both in and outside
the floodplain. Coordination of similar land manage-ment
needs and programs is regular and ongoing
since fish and wildlife, and at times the public, do not
distinguish between administrative boundaries.
Notable state resource lands are summarized in
Chapter 3.
Structured coordination with the states is pro-vided
through the Upper Mississippi River Basin
Association and the Upper Mississippi River Con-servation
Committee. Both are key coordination
and communication links with the states for conser-vation
efforts on the Mississippi and the Refuge.
The Basin Association was formed by a joint res-olution
of the Governors of Missouri, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois in 1981 to replace the
former federally-authorized Upper Mississippi
River Basin Commission. Several federal agencies,
including the Service, are non-voting advisory mem-bers,
but never-the-less, the Basin Association pro-vides
an important regional forum to discuss major
policy and management issues that affect the Mis-sissippi
River and the Refuge.
The Conservation Committee is also a state-spon-sored
organization with executive board delegates
from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, and Mis-souri.
However, its membership since establishment
in 1943 has grown to more than 200 resource man-agers
from both state and federal agencies. The
manager of the Refuge is a recognized, but non-vot-ing,
participant at board meetings, and the Service’s
LaCrosse Fishery Resources Office provides a coor-dinator.
Other Conservation Initiatives
The Refuge’s location in the floodplain of the Mis-sissippi
River makes it an important component of a
host of conservation initiatives, plans, and reports.
Several of these efforts are outlined below and con-tain
important guidance and direction for prepara-tion
of this CCP.
Ecosystem Approach
The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach
to conservation which stresses a landscape perspec-tive
and cooperation across Service programs and
with the wide variety of partners and stakeholders.
The Refuge is part of the Service’s Upper Missis-sippi
River and Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem and
strives to contribute to these five team goals:
# Protect, restore, and enhance populations of
native and trust species and their habitats.
# Restore natural ecosystem processes, including
hydrology and sediment transport to maintain
species and habitat diversity.
# Promote environmental awareness of the
ecosystem and its needs with emphasis on
sustainable land use management.
# Identify water quality problems affecting native
biodiversity and habitat of trust species.
# Reduce conflicts between fish and wildlife needs
and other uses.
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
Blueprint for Migratory Birds (USFWS, 2004):
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for
the conservation and management of more than 800
species of migratory birds that occur in the country.
In 2004, the Service released the Migratory Bird
Program’s ten-year strategic plan entitled: “A Blue-print
for the Future of Migratory Birds.” It calls for
cooperation from all governments and partners to
ensure the continued survival of migratory birds.
The Blueprint identifies three priorities for the
Migratory Bird Program: 1) address the loss and
degradation of migratory bird habitat; 2) improve
scientific information on bird populations; and 3)
increase partnerships to achieve bird conservation.
Refuge management activities stemming from the
CCP will complement these priorities by addressing
needs of some Birds of Management Concern listed
in the Blueprint.
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
10
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
(USDOI and EC, 1986): This plan is a partnership
effort to restore waterfowl populations to historic
levels through habitat conservation. The plan out-lines
several geographic areas, called joint venture
areas. The Refuge is a part of the Upper Mississippi
River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture. The
goal of the joint venture is to increase populations of
waterfowl and other wetland wildlife by protecting,
restoring, and enhancing wetland and associated
upland habitat. Objectives for the joint venture are
1.54 million breeding ducks and 773 million use-days
during migration.
Partners in Flight (Pashley et al. 2000): This ini-tiative
seeks to conserve songbirds by identifying
priority species, important habitats, and manage-ment
strategies. Conservation plans have been
developed for different regions across the continent
and the Refuge lies within the Upper Great Lakes
Plain, also known as Physiographic Area 16.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. (Manomet,
2001): This plan seeks to conserve shorebirds by
identifying priority species and important breeding
and migration areas, and outlining strategies. The
Refuge is included in the Upper Mississippi Valley/
Great Lakes Regional Shorebird Conservation
Plan.
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan:
Volume One of this plan focuses on 165 species of
seabirds and colonial nesting birds such as herons,
egrets, and terns. Volume Two focuses on 44 species
of non-colonial marsh birds. The plan outlines spe-cies’
population status, habitat needs, and strategies
for conservation.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative
(http://www.bsc-eoc.org/nabci.html): This initiative
is a continental effort to bring all migratory bird
conservation programs together to optimize conser-vation
objectives and strategies. The goal is to facili-tate
the full spectrum of bird conservation through
regionally-based, biologically-driven, landscape-ori-ented
partnerships.
Globally Important Bird Area (American Bird
Conservancy, 2004): The Refuge was designated a
“Globally Important Bird Area” by the American
Bird Conservancy in 1997 due to its national and
international importance for migratory birds. The
designation helps protect the Refuge through recog-nition
and awareness.
State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Plans
All states are responsible for developing and
implementing a comprehensive wildlife conserva-tion
plan/strategy as a condition of receiving federal
funding through the Service-administered Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration Program and State
Wildlife Grant Program. To date, Illinois, Minne-sota,
and Wisconsin have completed such plans and
Iowa is near completion. States developed these
plans in cooperation with many agencies, organiza-tions,
and individuals. These plans address a full
array of wildlife (including fish and many inverte-brates)
but must focus on wildlife “Species of Great-est
Conservation Need.” The Refuge can play a role,
through cooperative implementation of conservation
actions and resource monitoring efforts, in fulfilling
state goals to enhance key habitats (especially flood-plain
and grasslands) essential to conservation of
target species.
Regional Resource Priorities
In 2002, Region 3 of the Service assembled a list
of 243 species in the greatest need of attention
under the Service’s full span of authorities. The pri-orities
are linked to key habitats, concerns, desired
outcomes, obstacles, and broad strategies. The pri-orities
help direct human and fiscal resources and
are a useful reference and guide when preparing
CCPs.
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
Since 1987, the Service has worked beyond the
boundaries of refuges with landowners and other
partners to improve habitat on private land for fish
and wildlife. The program is voluntary, relies heavily
on a partnership approach, and leverages both ideas
and funding from a variety of sources. Through the
Partners program, the Service in Region 3 has
restored or enhanced 24,780 wetland basins, nearly
189,000 acres of uplands, and nearly 200 miles of
streams and riparian areas. Cost sharing agree-ments
and technical assistance are an important
© Sandra Lines
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background
11
part of the program. The Partners program remains
an effective tool in influencing land use off-refuge to
improve water quality and quantity on-refuge, as
well as meeting the landscape needs of fish and wild-life.
Interagency Reports and Assessments
Over the years, there have been scores of reports,
studies, assessments, and action plans done by fed-eral
and state agencies, commissions, and work-groups,
either singly or as cooperative efforts.
Below is a summary of recent works which have
been important guides for the preparation of this
CCP.
FINAL Integrated Feasibility Report and Pro-grammatic
Environmental Impact Statement for
the UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility
Study (USACE, 2004): This report and study pro-vides
a long-term plan for ensuring navigation effi-ciency
and environmental sustainability on the
Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. Of particular
interest to the Refuge is the $5.3 billion long-term
ecosystem restoration plan to be accomplished by
the Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the Ser-vice,
the five states, and private non-profit groups to
improve the natural resources of the river through
projects for habitat creation, water level manage-ment,
fish passage, and floodplain restoration.
Ecological Status and Trends of the Upper Mis-sissippi
River System 1998(USGS, 1999): This
report of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Pro-gram
examines and summarizes data collected in
the monitoring program since the late-1980s, pro-vides
historical observations, and other scientific
findings. The report, along with unpublished
updates since 1998, provides invaluable science in
the areas of river geomorphology and floodplain
habitats, watershed relations and changes, hydrol-ogy,
water and sediment quality, submersed aquatic
vegetation, floodplain forest, macroinvertebrates,
freshwater mussels, fishes, and birds.
A River That Works and a Working River
(UMRCC, 2000): Completed by the Upper Missis-sippi
River Conservation Committee in 2000, the
report presents a strategy for the natural resources
of the Upper Mississippi River System. The report
lists 9 objective areas and discusses tools and mea-sures,
or strategies, for achieving. The 9 objective
areas are:
# Improve water quality
# Reduction in erosion, sediment and nutrient
impacts
# Return of natural floodplain to enable more
habitat diversity
# Seasonal flood pulse and periodic low flow
conditions
# Restore backwater/main channel connectivity
# Management of sediment transport, deposition
and side channels
# Manage dredging and channel maintenance
# Sever pathways for exotic species
# Provide opportunities for native fish passage at
the dams
Habitat Needs Assessment (USACE, 2000): This
assessment was prepared by the Corps of Engi-neers
in 2000 under the Environmental Manage-ment
Program in cooperation with the states and
federal agencies involved in Upper Mississippi
River management. The assessment provides a sys-tem-
wide analysis of historical and existing habitat
conditions, and desired future habitat conditions. It
is an important guide to ongoing and future habitat
restoration projects.
Environmental Pool Plans (River Resources
Forum, 2004): Completed by the interagency Fish
and Wildlife Workgroup for Pools 1-10 in 2004, and
underway by the River Resources Coordinating
Team for Pools 11-22, the Environmental Pool Plans
provide a detailed desired future condition of each
pool in a 50-year planning framework. These plans
have been adopted as the desired future habitat con-ditions
for the Refuge in the Final EIS/CCP (see
Appendix O of the Final EIS/CCP for an example of
Environmental Pool Plans) .
Upper Mississippi and Illinois River Floodplain
Forests (UMRCC 2002): This report was issued in
2002 by the Upper Mississippi River Conservation
Committee, Wildlife Technical Section. It provides a
historic context, current status and future outlook
for the expansive floodplain forest of the Upper Mis-sissippi
River System, and recommended actions to
sustain and improve the forest habitat on the river
and the Refuge.
Conservation Plan for Freshwater Mussels of the
Upper Mississippi River System (UMRCC, 2004b):
This report was released in 2004 by the Upper Mis-sissippi
River Conservation Committee, Mussel Ad
Hoc Subcommittee. The plan outlines the history of
harvest, biology, status, concerns, and numerous
strategies for the conservation, including restora-tion,
of the freshwater mussels in the Mississippi
and other rivers.
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
12
Refuge Vision and Goals
The vision for the Refuge provides a simple state-ment
of the desired, overall future condition of the
Refuge. From the vision flow more specific goals
which in turn provide the framework to craft more
detailed and measurable objectives which are the
heart of the CCP. The vision and goals were also
important in developing alternatives, and are impor-tant
reference points for keeping objectives and
strategies meaningful, focused, and attainable.
Refuge Vision
The Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife
and Fish Refuge is beautiful, healthy, and
supports abundant and diverse native fish,
wildlife, and plants for the enjoyment and
thoughtful use of current and future
generations.
Refuge Goals
Landscape: We will strive to maintain and
improve the scenic qualities and wild character of
the Upper Mississippi River Refuge.
Environmental Health: We will strive to improve
the environmental health of the Refuge by working
with others.
Wildlife and Habitat: Our habitat management
will support diverse and abundant native fish, wild-life,
and plants.
Wildlife-Dependent Public Use: We will manage
public use programs and facilities to ensure abun-dant
and sustainable hunting, fishing, wildlife obser-vation,
wildlife photography, interpretation, and
environmental education opportunities for a broad
cross-section of the public.
Other Recreational Use: We will provide opportu-nities
for the public to use and enjoy the Refuge for
traditional and appropriate non-wildlife-dependent
recreation that is compatible with the purpose for
which the Refuge was established and the mission of
the Refuge System.
Administration and Operations: We will seek
adequate funding, staffing, and facilities, and
improve public awareness and support, to carry out
the purposes, vision, goals, and objectives of the
Refuge.
Planning Issues, Concerns and
Opportunities
Issues, which are often synonymous with con-cerns
and opportunities, were identified through the
scoping and public involvement process described
in Chapter 2. The issues represent input from the
public, other agencies and organizations, and Ref-uge
managers and staff, as well as the mandates and
guidance reflected in earlier sections of this chapter.
This CCP is issue-driven, and as such, each issue is
defined and discussed below. More details pertain-ing
to each issue can be gleaned from Chapter 3,
Affected Environment.
The issues were critical in framing the objectives
and strategies for the various alternatives consid-ered,
and formed the basis for evaluating environ-mental
consequences.
Also, these issues do not represent every issue
which faces the Refuge and the Upper Mississippi
River as a whole, as issues had to be pared to a rea-sonable
level in terms of planning horizon, imple-mentation
practicalities, and jurisdictional realities.
However, they do represent a reasonable and com-prehensive
set of issues, which, when converted to
measurable objectives in Chapter 4, create a mean-ingful
plan of action to help meet the mission of the
Refuge System and the purposes and goals of the
Refuge.
Landscape Issues
Refuge Boundary: In many areas of the Refuge,
a visitor can locate the Refuge boundary by recog-nizing
where the natural vegetation of the floodplain
stops and human development begins. This pres-ence
of the Refuge in the floodplain has played a
© Sandra Lines
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background
13
crucial role in protecting the natural and wild char-acter
of the river for 80 years. However, there is
constant pressure to the integrity of the Refuge
from development that encroaches upon Refuge
land via tree cutting, dumping, construction, and
mowing along the Refuge boundary. Maintaining an
accurate and clearly marked Refuge boundary is a
critical basic need of resource protection.
Land Acquisition: Acquisition of land remains a
key conservation tool for the well being of fish and
wildlife resources, for providing public use opportu-nities,
and for maintaining the wild and scenic char-acter
of the Refuge and the Upper Mississippi River
as a whole. It is also cost effective to acquire key
lands before they are developed, both from a land-cost
perspective and from the cost of dealing with
negative impacts associated with development adja-cent
to a national wildlife refuge.
The 1987 Refuge Master Plan identified approxi-mately
36,000 acres of additional lands to be
acquired to meet various resource needs. Goal acres
by state were: Minnesota – 6,770 acres; Wisconsin –
9,130 acres; Iowa – 7,000 acres; and Illinois – 13,100
acres. Many of these areas are gaps in floodplain
habitat between what the Service originally
acquired through 1934, and what the Corps of Engi-neers
acquired for the navigation project. Approxi-mately
6,800 acres have been acquired since 1987, or
19 percent of the Refuge Master Plan objective. In
addition to Master Plan goals, the Service has previ-ously
approved acquisition of approximately 900
acres in the Halfway Creek area of the La Crosse
District as part of a water quality and sediment con-trol
partnership. To date, about 146 acres have been
acquired in this area. A previous proposal to acquire
approximately 5,800 acres in the lower Root River
floodplain, La Crosse District, is not being carried
forward at this time, mainly because the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources has been actively
pursuing acquisition in this area. Collectively, there
are approximately 25,000 acres remaining to be
acquired within the approved boundary of the Ref-uge
(see maps, Appendix G of the Final EIS/CCP).
In September 2003, the Service and the Depart-ment
of the Army signed an agreement to add 9,404
acres of the former Savanna Army Depot to the
Refuge. An amendment to the agreement in August
2004 added another 311 acres, for a total of 9,715
acres. Approximately 3,000 acres of this total was
transferred outright with the September 2003
agreement, with the remaining 6,715 acres to be
managed as part of the Refuge and transferred as
clean-up is completed. This sizeable addition is
known as the Lost Mound Unit of the Refuge. In
October 2004 another 143 acres (Apple River
Island) was added to the Lost Mound Unit by
including it in the Cooperative Agreement between
the Corps of Engineers and the Service, for a total
of 9,858 acres.
There are also a few Refuge tracts intermingled
with state wildlife management areas. It would ben-efit
both the Refuge and the states to consolidate
ownerships through land exchanges. Examples
include tracts within the Whitman Dam Wildlife
Management Area (Pool 5) and Van Loon Wildlife
Management Area (Pool 7), Wisconsin. Consolida-tion
would provide consistent management and reg-ulations
and reduce confusion by visitors to these
areas.
Bluffland Protection: The stunning bluffs which
frame the 261-mile long Refuge are a key compo-nent
of its scenic and wild character, and critical to
the entire viewshed of the river valley. Most of the
bluffs are in private ownership, while some are pro-tected
by state and local parks, forests, and wildlife
management areas. The 1987 Master Plan identified
13 bluff land areas for acquisition, primarily to pro-tect
potential nesting sites for the peregrine falcon,
an endangered species at that time. These areas
contain bluffs, rock outcrops, dry “goat” prairies,
and other relatively inaccessible features that con-tribute
to the wild and scenic qualities of the river
corridor, and harbor a stunning plant and wildlife
diversity. However, bluff areas are increasingly
being developed for private residences or other uses
which threaten these values.
Natural Areas and Special Designations: The
Refuge currently contains four federally-designated
Research Natural Areas totaling 6,946 acres. Some
of the biological values which led to the designation
of these areas are threatened by habitat changes.
Management plans are needed to ensure the future
integrity of these areas and to increase public
awareness and appreciation.
There is also an opportunity to add the Refuge to
the list of Internationally Important Wetlands
under provisions of the Ramsar Convention. The
treaty resulting from the convention, ratified by the
U.S., maintains a global registry in Switzerland of
wetlands designated as internationally significant
for migratory birds and other natural and cultural
values. An attempt to get the Refuge designated fell
short in the 1990s.
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
14
Environmental Health Issues
Water Quality: The Refuge Improvement Act of
1997 called upon the Secretary of the Interior to
administer the Refuge System in a way that will
“ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the System are maintained
for the benefit of present and future generations”
and “assist in the maintenance of adequate water
quantity and quality to fulfill the mission of the Sys-tem
and the purposes of each Refuge.” Water qual-ity
is a key to the overall health of the food chain
which drives and sustains the multitude of fish, wild-life,
and plant species which rely on the Refuge for
critical parts, or all, of their life cycle requirements.
Although pollution from urban centers has been
drastically reduced, and certain toxic chemicals such
as DDT have been banned, several water quality
concerns remain. These include sediment which is
filling main pools, channels and backwaters; toxic
substances in both the water and sediment which
pose direct and indirect threats to animals and
humans; and nutrient loads from land use practices
or inadequate waste treatment.
Water Level Management: Completion of the
current 9-foot navigation project with its series of
low head dams had a tremendous ecological impact
on the Upper Mississippi River, and the Refuge.
This system of locks and dams (11 on the Refuge)
changed the previously free flowing river to a series
of shallow reservoirs from St. Louis, Missouri to
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
For several decades, the newly created “pools”
supported a wealth of fish, wildlife, and aquatic hab-itats.
However, typical of dammed river systems,
the initial productivity of the pools diminished sig-nificantly
over time. Although water level manage-ment
of the pools changed some over the years, the
defining purpose for water level management was,
and is, to ensure navigation pool water depths for a
defined commercial navigation channel. The result
is a deeper, relatively stabilized water system, espe-cially
during the summer. Over time, stable water
levels have adversely affected many of the biological
resources of the river, and thus the Refuge. Among
the principal results have been a reduction in sea-sonal
mudflat/sandbar areas; loss of islands; and a
significant decline in aquatic plant community abun-dance,
diversity, and distribution. Fish and wildlife
dependent on these plant communities have also
declined and/or moved elsewhere. Recent efforts to
reverse this resource decline through pool-wide
summer drawdowns show great promise, but fund-ing
levels or sources remain a limiting factor for
broader application.
Invasive Plants: Invasive plants continue to pose
a major threat to native plant communities on the
Refuge and beyond. Invasive plants displace native
species and often have little or no food value for
wildlife. The result is a decline in the carrying
capacity of the Refuge for native fish, wildlife, and
plants. Control of invasive plants on a predomi-nantly
floodplain environment is extremely chal-lenging
due to difficulty of access and the rapid
dispersal of plants. In addition, control has been
hampered by staff and funding limits for basic
inventory, direct control, and research into species-specific
biological controls.
Invasive Animals: Invasive animal species can
often be a biological storm which wreaks havoc on
native plants and animals in a matter of years.
Zebra mussels swept through the Upper Mississippi
River incredibly fast, decimating many native mus-sel
beds. A variety of Asian carp are poised to make
a similar assault and are perhaps of most concern
since they may compete directly with a large num-ber
of native fish species through direct food compe-tition.
In some areas where Asian carp have taken
hold they represent 98 percent of the animal biom-ass.
Direct control of invasive animal species is diffi-cult
in a large riverine system due to the mobility of
the animals and the rich nutrient base which pro-vides
abundant food.
Wildlife and Habitat Issues
Environmental Pool Plans: As noted earlier,
Environmental Pool Plans detail the desired future
habitat conditions of each navigation pool of the
Mississippi River. The challenge is to mesh the pur-poses
and goals of the Refuge with these inter-agency
plans, and to set priorities for the 15-year
planning framework in the CCP within the 50-year
vision of the pool plans (see Appendix O of the Final
EIS/CCP for an example of Environmental Pool
Plans) .
Guiding Principles for Habitat Projects: Virtu-ally
all habitat improvement projects undertaken on
the Refuge are interagency in nature due to shared
and overlapping jurisdictions, responsibilities, and
interests. Guiding principles for projects on the Ref-uge
are needed to provide consistency throughout
the Refuge, help communicate to cooperating agen-
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background
15
cies and citizens our needs and standards for project
design, and help ensure that Refuge System policy
is reflected.
Monitoring Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Popula-tions:
One of the directives in the Refuge Improve-ment
Act of 1997 was to monitor the status and
trends of fish, wildlife, and plants on each national
wildlife refuge. Although monitoring has been a part
of managing the Refuge for decades, gaps remain in
baseline population data for a large number of spe-cies.
A Refuge Wildlife Inventory Plan was com-pleted
in 1993 but needs updating to reflect changes
in habitat, the status of many species, and new poli-cies
and procedures for monitoring. In addition,
management in a changing river environment must
be adaptive in nature which requires ongoing moni-toring
and nimble investigative capability as issues
arise and change. Meeting these needs have been
hampered by biological staffing and funding levels.
Threatened and Endangered Species: There
are currently two federally-listed threatened or
endangered species (Bald Eagle and Higgins eye
pearlymussel) and two candidate species (massas-auga
rattlesnake and sheepnose mussel) confirmed
on the Refuge. One candidate species, the specta-clecase
mussel, may occur on the Refuge but there
are no recent records. Threatened and endangered
species are issues due to their often precarious pop-ulation
status, and the need for special consider-ations
and protection which influences Refuge use
and management activities.
Furbearer Trapping: Furbearer trapping on the
Refuge has a long-standing tradition and has been a
useful tool in maintaining balance between furbear-ers
and habitat, and safeguarding Refuge infra-structure.
The Refuge has regulated trapping
within its boundaries since 1929. The existing trap-ping
program is regulated by issuing Special Use
Permits to state-licensed individuals who may use a
maximum of 40 traps (all marked with Refuge tags)
per day during the state season. The final day of
trapping on the Refuge is no later than March 15.
All trappers must submit a Fur Catch Report fol-lowing
the season. The 1988 Trapping Plan needs to
be updated to reflect recent national policy and reg-ulation
changes governing compatibility of uses,
commercial uses on Refuges, the latest furbearer
population and Refuge habitat information, and new
management needs.
Fishery and Mussel Management: The fishery
and mussel resources of the Mississippi River are an
important aspect of both federal and state manage-ment
efforts due to their recreational and/or com-mercial
value. Even prior to establishment of the
Refuge in 1924, federal and state governments were
actively involved in fish rescue operations in isolated
backwaters, returning millions of fish to the main
channel during low flow periods. Agencies were also
involved in mussel propagation, and eventually reg-ulations,
due to a thriving button-making industry
using mussel shells. Congressional hearings on the
establishment of the Refuge included abundant tes-timony
on the value of the area to fish, and espe-cially
the black or largemouth bass due to its
sportfishing value. After Refuge establishment, the
Refuge and states were still heavily involved in fish
rescue operations. These efforts were curtailed
after the locks and dams went into operation and
higher water levels reduced the entrapment of fish
in backwaters.
Changes in river ecology have had a dramatic
impact on fishery and mussel resources. Many fish
species dependent on a free-flowing river declined
with the construction of navigation improvements,
while others increased under stable pool conditions.
Mussels have been impacted by pollution, harvest,
sedimentation, loss of free-flowing habitat, reduc-tion
in species-specific host fish, and zebra mussels.
Asian carp pose an increasing threat to both fish
and mussels. Of the 35 mussel species in the Ser-vice’s
Region 3 Conservation Priority list, 19 are
found in the Upper Mississippi River ecosystem.
Several species are listed as either federally listed
threatened, are candidates for federal listing, or are
on state threatened and endangered species lists.
Fish and other aquatic life conservation is one of
the major purposes of the Refuge. It also accounts
for one of the highest public use activities on the
Refuge, with more than a million fishing visits per
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
16
year. However, the Refuge has played a relatively
minor role in fishery management, deferring to the
states for most monitoring, management, and regu-lations.
In 1981, the Service established a Fishery
Resources Office in Winona, which was moved to La
Crosse in 1995. Staff at this office are an important
resource for addressing Refuge fishery questions
and needs, as well as assisting other Refuges, tribes,
military bases, and the states. But the La Crosse
Fishery Resources Office covers a large geographic
area, and with multiple responsibilities, cannot limit
its activities to the needs of the Refuge. The Genoa
National Fish Hatchery, located along the Missis-sippi
River and established in 1932, also provides
assistance to the Refuge primarily through limited
stocking of panfish and work on threatened and
endangered mussels.
The Refuge should play a larger role in fishery
and mussel management in keeping with its man-dated
purposes and the high intrinsic, recreational,
and commercial values of the resource. A Fishery
and Mussel Management Plan should be in place to
help communicate to the states and public the Ref-uge
and Service perspective on fishery and mussel
management issues and needs, and to help set com-mon
goals, objectives, and means of collecting and
sharing information. The plan would be program-matic
in nature, as the states should rightly continue
to be the main lead for fishery and mussel manage-ment
and regulations. The Refuge is currently ham-pered
by having no fishery biologist on staff for full
time coordination of fishery and mussel monitoring
and management efforts with other Service offices,
the states, and the Corps of Engineers. A fishery
biologist would help ensure that fishery and mussel
considerations are integrated with Refuge habitat,
biological, and public use decisions.
Commercial Fishing, Clamming, and Turtle
Harvest: Commercial fishing on the Refuge is an
important economic use for scores of people and
communities along the river. Besides its economic
value, commercial fishing has strong cultural and
social ties for many. In 1998, 6.27 million pounds of
fish of 17 species were reported caught. Carp, buf-falo,
drum, channel catfish, carpsucker, and red-horse
and sucker make up the bulk of the catch by
pound. Commercial fishing is a viable use of a
renewable resource, and it can be an important tool
in reducing populations of some invasive species.
However, there can be some impact to non-target
species such as paddlefish, sturgeon, and diving
ducks, and disturbance to rafts of waterfowl in the
fall from commercial fishing activities in closed
areas.
Mussel harvest, or clamming, has enjoyed a col-orful
history on the Mississippi River, first with a
thriving button industry from the late 1800s to the
1930s, and secondly, beginning in the 1950s, with
harvest to provide mussel shell “seeds” for the Jap-anese
cultured pearl industry. The states regulate
the harvest of mussels and have been moving
toward standardizing regulations and reporting.
Mussel harvest can be a concern due to often incom-plete
population information, continued environ-mental
stressors on mussels, threatened and
endangered status for some species, and enforce-ment
challenges.
New information on turtle ecology and popula-tions
has raised questions about the effects of com-mercial
harvest, for both the food and pet trade, on
turtle populations. In 1998, the states reported a
commercial catch of nearly 10,000 pounds of unspec-ified
species on the Mississippi River.
The number of commercial operators harvesting
fish, mussels, and turtles on the Refuge is not
known since records kept by the states do not distin-guish
by pool number. However, in 1998 the total
number of commercial fishermen on the Refuge was
576 and their total catch had an estimated value of
nearly $8.5 million.
The Refuge has provided little to no oversight of
the commercial fish, mussel, and turtle harvest on
the Refuge, deferring to the states’ expertise and
experience. However, federal regulations state that
“fishery resources of commercial importance on
wildlife refuge areas may be taken under permit in
accordance with federal and state law and regula-tions”
as long as such economic use “contributes to
the achievement of the national wildlife refuge pur-poses”
and is determined to be compatible (50 CFR
31.13 and 29.1). Some Refuge oversight is thus
required to ensure compliance with regulations and
policy.
Turtle Management: The Refuge provides
important and often critical habitat for a variety of
turtle species, some of which are listed as threat-ened
or endangered by the states. Recent surveys in
the Weaver Bottoms area of Pool 5 revealed that the
area harbors one of the largest and most diverse
turtle assemblages in the U.S. (8 species). There are
numerous potential negative and positive impacts
from activities on the Refuge since turtles nest on
sand areas that are also important for navigation
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background
17
channel maintenance and used heavily by recre-ationists.
Marsh and backwater areas also provide
important food and cover for young turtles. More
rigorous monitoring and research is needed to
understand turtle populations and ecology on the
Refuge, and to guide a coordinated approach to pop-ulation
monitoring and harvest regulations.
Forest Management: The Refuge includes
approximately 51,000 acres of floodplain forests, one
of the largest contiguous areas of floodplain forest in
the Midwest. This habitat is critical to the river eco-system,
providing habitat for a variety of wildlife
including songbirds, Wood Ducks, Bald Eagles,
Red-shouldered Hawks, herons, egrets, and numer-ous
mammals and amphibians. It also provides sce-nic
beauty, a welcome place for recreation, protects
soils, and improves water quality.
The floodplain forest of the Refuge has under-gone
a series of changes since Refuge establish-ment.
A more diverse forest gave way to a more
monotypic forest dominated by silver maple. The
current forest is even aged, growing old, and in
many cases, not regenerating itself. In many areas,
reed canary grass is replacing former forest areas
by choking tree regeneration. If current trends con-tinue,
there could be a marked loss of forest within
the Refuge and elsewhere in the river floodplain. A
baseline forest inventory plan needs to be com-pleted
as a first step in developing a management
plan, or prescription, for forest health. Despite the
size and importance of the forest resource on the
Refuge, there are currently no foresters on staff.
Grassland Management: Although mainly a
river floodplain, the Refuge does contain 5,700 acres
of scattered grassland habitat important to numer-ous
species of grassland birds and other wildlife.
Some of these grasslands are tallgrass native prai-rie,
one of the rarest ecosystems in the United
States. Active management is critical to safeguard
and maintain these grassland areas. Management
tools include prescribed or controlled fire to setback
the natural succession of shrubs and trees, and the
control of invasive species.
Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Issues
General Hunting: Hunting remains an impor-tant
and popular form of wildlife-dependent recre-ation
on the Refuge. In 2003, an estimated 285,000
visits were recorded for hunting, with waterfowl
hunting accounting for 87 percent. Hunting is one of
the priority public uses of the Refuge System, and
remains a vital part of the cultural, social, and eco-nomic
fabric of the communities along the Refuge.
The Refuge Hunting Plan needs revision to reflect
land acquisitions and new policies.
In recent years, six administrative “No Hunting
Zones” totaling 1,073 acres were established (5 on
Pool 13 and 1 on Pool 7) for public safety, to reduce
potential user group conflicts, and provide opportu-nities
for wildlife observation. In addition, approxi-mately
2,400 acres of the recently established Lost
Mound Unit remains closed to all entry because of
contaminant issues. These areas need to be
reviewed in light of new acquisitions, and changes in
public use facilities and use levels. There are several
specific issues related to hunting outlined below.
Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas: Portions of
the Refuge currently designated as closed areas are
actually areas closed only to hunting, furbearer
trapping and camping during the duck hunting sea-son
and to migratory bird hunting at all times. They
are generally open for other uses, including recre-ational
boating and sport and commercial fishing.
The only exceptions are the Spring Lake Closed
Area (Pool 13) which is a sanctuary and closed to all
public entry October 1 to the end of the duck hunt-ing
season, and the Goose Island No Hunting Zone
(Pool 8) which is closed to hunting at all times.
The core of the current Refuge closed area sys-tem
was established in 1957-58 after nearly 10 years
of coordination. The system began with 14 closed
areas, including Trempealeau National Wildlife Ref-uge,
and encompassed about 41,600 acres. Consider-ing
the dominant role of the Refuge in the
Mississippi Flyway migration corridor, the closed
area system was established to provide migrating
waterfowl with a network of feeding and resting
areas, and to disperse waterfowl hunting opportuni-ties
on the Refuge. These goals were initially met.
After nearly 45 years, changes have occurred in
the closed area system, including the amount and
quality of habitat available, the number and species
of waterfowl using the system, and the size and
number of closed areas. Fewer islands and acres of
plants are generally available to provide shelter,
food, and cover. More diving ducks, tundra swans,
and Canada Geese are now present, but fewer pud-dle
ducks. For example, because of habitat decline,
fewer mallards are using closed areas today com-pared
to the early years of the closed area system.
In addition, some waterfowl (e.g., Canvasbacks) are
now concentrated in a few functioning closed areas
rather than dispersed throughout the Refuge. Up to
50 percent of the continent’s canvasback duck popu-
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
18
lation utilizes the Refuge, however, the vast major-ity
of these birds are found only on Pools 7-9. An
environmental accident or crash in submergent veg-etation
or other food sources in these pools could
have serious impacts to the canvasback population.
The impact of human-caused disturbance to
waterfowl concentrated in closed areas is also being
reviewed. The public can motor through closed
areas and fish in them during the fall migration, and
new shallow water boating technology makes most
areas accessible. As a result, not all closed areas are
fully functional, that is, they are not providing food
and rest for migrating waterfowl. Human distur-bance
disrupts feeding activities of waterfowl and
potentially could reduce the quality of staging sites.
To waterfowl, the energy cost of disturbance may be
appreciable in terms of disruption of feeding, dis-placement
from preferred habitat, and the added
energy expended to avoid disturbance. One tool cur-rently
being used by the Refuge to address human-caused
disturbance during fall migration is the Lake
Onalaska Voluntary Waterfowl Avoidance Area
(Pool 7). This program has been operational each
year from October 15 through mid-November since
1986. Although the program has reduced distur-bance,
disturbance still occurs. It is also a costly and
challenging program to administer in terms of buoy
placement and maintenance, especially given the ice
conditions that form late in the waterfowl season.
Besides providing sanctuary for waterfowl, the
closed area system was also designed to provide bet-ter
hunting opportunities to more people through
the length of the Refuge. However, with habitat
decline in many closed areas, birds are being con-centrated
in fewer and fewer areas, thus creating
gaps in hunting opportunity. Hunters tend to con-gregate
near concentrations of waterfowl. As a
result, “firing lines” have developed along some sec-tions
of closed area boundaries. Firing lines have an
increased incidence of waterfowl crippling loss.
Also, firing lines create a climate of competition
which fosters poor hunter behavior reducing the
quality of the experience for many.
The need for modifying the closed area system
was recognized as early as 1978, when the Upper
Mississippi River Conservation Committee issued
proposed changes to several of the Refuge closed
areas (in Pools 4, 5A,8, 9, 10, 13, and 14). However,
some of these changes would not be appropriate
under today’s habitat conditions.
Waterfowl Hunting Regulations: The Refuge
provides outstanding public waterfowl hunting
opportunities and is very popular with the public.
Annual visits for waterfowl hunting are approxi-mately
250,000. Competition for birds and hunting
spots can lead to disruptive and unethical behavior
among some hunters, affecting the quality of the
hunt for many and having a direct impact on birds
through crippling losses. There is a need to review
current Refuge waterfowl hunting regulations to
ensure continued hunt quality and fairness, and to
minimize crippling loss.
Firing Line, Pool 7, Lake Onalaska: Hunters
tend to congregate near concentrations of water-fowl.
Some sections of the closed area boundary,
particularly those that bisect emergent marsh, are
popular and can attract large concentrations of
hunters who pass shoot as waterfowl leave closed
areas. One such area is the so-called Barrel Blinds
area just north of the Lake Onalaska Closed Area.
Unfortunately, “skybusting,” or shooting at birds
out of range, often results in increased crippling
loss. For example, 63 of 141 (44.7 percent) hunting
parties observed by law enforcement personnel dur-ing
the 1991-93 seasons hunting along firing lines in
Pool 7 skybusted at least once during the time they
were observed. Skybusting was defined as shooting
at waterfowl at distances of 50 yards or more. The
number of shots required to retrieve one bird was
11. During the 1992 hunting season, these same
observers working Pool 7 firing lines and other
areas, found that hunters who did not skybust had a
crippling loss rate of about 27 percent for the ducks
or coots they downed. The crippling loss rate for
ducks and coots downed through skybusting
increased to nearly 57 percent.
Hunter behavior can also deteriorate in crowded,
competitive situations. Behavior observed or
reported along the Barrels Blinds area includes peo-
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background
19
ple claiming preferred sites by spending the night,
handing-off sites to friends or co-workers after a
party’s hunt is over, verbal confrontations, late
arriving hunters disrupting those set-up, flaring
birds before they can work decoy sets, failure to
retrieve birds, and increased littering.
These behaviors are not in keeping with guidance
in the Refuge Manual which helps set the standard
for hunting on refuges: “Refuge hunting programs
should be planned, supervised, conducted, and eval-uated
to promote positive hunting values and hunter
ethics such as fair chase and sportsmanship. In gen-eral,
hunting on refuges should be superior to that
available on other public or private lands and should
provide participants with reasonable harvest oppor-tunities,
uncrowded conditions, fewer conflicts
between hunters, relatively undisturbed wildlife,
and limited interference from or dependence on
mechanized aspects of the sport. This may require
zoning the hunt unit and limiting the number of par-ticipants.”
Permanent Blinds and Decoy Sets on Savanna
District: Permanent hunting blinds are wooden
(dimensional lumber) structures built by waterfowl
hunters and placed along some areas of the Refuge
for a dry, stable hunting platform. The blind does
not have to be removed at the end of the hunt sea-son,
thus it is considered a permanent structure.
In some Mississippi River areas, permanent
blinds have been part of the waterfowl hunting tra-dition
for many decades. In other Mississippi River
areas, permanent blinds have been eliminated due
to management problems associated with the per-manent
structures. In 2000, the northern Districts
(Pools 4-11) of the Refuge eliminated permanent
blinds and now only allow blinds to be made out of
natural vegetation. Presently, only the Savanna Dis-trict
still allows permanent blinds.
The placement of wooden structures within the
river eventually results in those materials being
deposited in the river due to deterioration, floods,
and ice or wind/wave action. These materials may
become safety hazards for boaters.
Most permanent blinds sites are claimed year
after year by the same group of individuals. This
regulation promotes private exclusive use, which is
inconsistent with Refuge objectives to allow equal
opportunity for public recreation.
Permanent blinds limit hunting opportunities due
to: a) the 200 yard spacing requirement, even for
boat blinds, regardless if the blind is empty; b) no
shoreline jump-shooting allowed; and c) the best
hunting sites are taken year after year.
Due to an increase in new hunters to the Savanna
District, confrontations and incidents related to per-manent
blinds have increased. Incidents include
verbal threats, physical confrontations, assaults,
blind burnings, and guns being pointed in a threat-ening
manner.
Related to permanent blinds is the issue of leav-ing
duck hunting decoys on Refuge waters in Pools
12-14 (Savanna District). This is an exception to
Refuge-wide regulations which state that decoys
may not be in place one-half hour after the close of
legal shooting hours and 1 hour before the start of
legal shooting hours. Hunters who leave decoys out
overnight, and in some instances multiple days or
the entire season, are in effect practicing private,
exclusive or proprietary use of public waters by
tying up a hunting area. This has the effect of limit-ing
places for the general public to hunt.
Potter’s Marsh Managed Hunt: Since 1980, the
Savanna District has conducted a lottery drawing
for waterfowl hunting blind sites on 1,923 acres of
Potter’s Marsh in Pool 13. Applicants pay a $10 non-refundable
application fee, and successful applicants
pay an additional $100 fee for one of the 49 blind
sites. Successful applicants construct blinds for the
season using materials in the guidelines provided.
Over 500 persons apply for a blind permit annually.
In 2002, hunter bag checks showed that hunters
using Potter’s Marsh blinds averaged 3.8 birds/day
compared to 2.9 birds/day on other areas in Pool 13.
This hunt requires more than 400 hours of staff
time, annually, to answer inquiries, accept applica-tions,
collect and process fees, conduct two draw-ings,
inspect blinds for compliance, and post the
area. The time spent on this hunt detracts from
other resource projects and needs. In addition, 90
percent of the hunters selected hunt less than 10
days, which is not a very high public use return for
the effort involved.
The fees collected do not cover the total expenses
incurred for administering and managing the hunt
due to the amount of staff time required. Addition-ally,
under new national policy implemented in 2003,
only 80 percent of fees are returned to the Refuge,
compared to 100 percent returned in previous years.
The random drawing process has been manipu-lated
to the point that it is no longer an equal oppor-tunity
program. Some hunting parties hunt from the
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
20
same blind year after year and the program has
evolved into private exclusive use of public lands
and waters.
Blanding Landing Managed Hunt: Blanding
Landing is an area within the former Savanna Army
Depot that is now part of the Lost Mound Unit of
the Refuge. The Illinois Department of Natural
Resources conducts a managed hunt on the area
with 15 hunting sites. This hunt, now on the Refuge,
needs to be reviewed for consistency with other Ref-uge
hunts and hunting issues associated with per-manent
blinds and administrative costs, as noted
previously.
General Fishing: Fishing is an important, tradi-tional
use of the Refuge enjoyed by nearly a million
visitors each year and contributes substantially to
many local economies. Fishing is also one of the pri-ority
wildlife-dependent uses of the Refuge System
that is to be encouraged when compatible with Ref-uge
purposes.
The Refuge has made great improvements in
facilities that promote fishing including the rehabili-tation
of numerous boat ramps and parking areas,
dock facilities, and accessible fishing piers. In 2003
alone, work was started on five fishing piers. Main-taining
fish habitat and fishing opportunity remains
an important issue for anglers, businesses, and the
general public.
Fishing Tournaments: Fishing tournaments,
particularly for bass and walleye, are growing recre-ational,
commercial, and fund-raising events on the
Refuge. To date, the Refuge has deferred to the
states for management and permitting of these
events and has provided little to no oversight or
review. Exact numbers of fishing tournaments are
unknown since each state or other authority often
has different permit and reporting requirements, or,
may not issue permits at all.
There is growing concern about the impacts of
fishing tournaments on other users of the Refuge.
Large boats, high speeds, and the competition
involved in tournaments disturb other anglers and
small craft users, and can churn-up vegetation and
sediment in backwaters, thus impacting fish and
wildlife habitat. Increased wake action can acceler-ate
shoreline erosion. There is some concern about
the impacts of handling, holding, and later release of
fish caught in tournaments, both on individual fish
and overall populations.
Wildlife Observation and Photography: Wild-life
observation and photography are becoming
increasingly popular activities for visitors, and a
source of economic growth for many communities.
As two of the six priority public uses of the Refuge
system, these uses are to be encouraged when com-patible
with the purposes of the Refuge. The Refuge
provides outstanding wildlife viewing opportunities
due to the abundance of eagles, swans, ducks, war-blers,
pelicans, herons and other birds people find
unique and interesting. The National Scenic Byways
which border the Refuge for hundreds of miles, and
the relatively open access to lands and waters of the
Refuge, make the Refuge one of the premier wildlife
viewing and photography areas in the nation. The
public and communities desire more opportunities
for these uses, while managers must balance oppor-tunities
with the need to limit disturbance.
Interpretation and Environmental Education:
Interpretation and environmental education are
also priority public uses as outlined in the Refuge
Improvement Act of 1997. Interpreting the
resources and challenges of the Refuge to the gen-eral
public and incorporating these topics into
school curricula is a service welcomed by the gen-eral
public, communities, and schools. The major
issue facing the Refuge is how to meet the demand
for these staff-intensive services, a demand which is
expected to grow.
Commercial Fish Floats: Fish floats are private
businesses which provide very popular fishing
opportunities to the public for a fee. Operators pick
up customers via boat and transport them to the
fishing facility (float) below a lock and dam where
fishing can be excellent. The Refuge currently
allows four fish floats through an annual permit and
annual fee of $100. At least one fishing float has
been in operation since 1937. However, administra-tion
and enforcement of fish float operations greatly
exceeds the permit fees collected. There is also a
history of permit noncompliance with some opera-tions
which has increased the staff time needed to
oversee the use. In 2003, three of the four fish float
operations were not in compliance with one or more
permit requirements. Other concerns include the
condition and safety of the fish floats and compli-ance
with policies and regulations governing for-profit
concessions on a national wildlife refuge.
Guiding Services: Guiding businesses are on the
rise and promise to become an increasingly common
activity on the Refuge. Without proper oversight,
this activity could lead to disturbance to sensitive
areas and wildlife, and increase conflict with individ-uals
or other guides as volume and frequency
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background
21
increases. In addition, some guides are not in com-pliance
with regulations designed to safeguard cli-ents,
such as Coast Guard regulations governing
licensing of persons transporting the public.
Other Recreational Use Issues
Beach Use and Maintenance: There is a long
history of beach use on the Upper Mississippi River
as the public took advantage of beach areas created
by side-channel placement of dredged sand during
navigation channel maintenance operations. The
creation of new beaches and additions to existing
beaches came to a virtual end following a lawsuit on
dredge placement by the State of Wisconsin and the
subsequent Great River Environmental Action
Team (GREAT) reports and recommendations.
There are basically three types of manmade or
natural beach areas on the Refuge:
# Remnant channel maintenance islands and
shore areas formed by the side-casting of
dredged sand material. These are used for a
variety of day uses and the majority of camping.
Some sites remain relatively open while others
are nearly covered with woody vegetation.
# Permanent dredged sand placement sites
traditi