Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Upper Mississippi River
National Wildlife & Fish Refuge
Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
and
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions; set
forth goals, objectives and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the
Fish and Wildlife Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning
levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are
primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not
constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or
funding for future land acquisition.
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of
lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the
fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of
present and future generations of Americans.
Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect,
and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
people.
Cover photograph by Robert J. Hurt
i
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
May 2005
Type of Action: Administrative
Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service
Responsible Official: Robyn Thorson, Regional Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building
1 Federal Drive
Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056
Cooperating Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Mississippi Valley Division
For Information: Eric Nelson, Refuge Biologist
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge
51 E. Fourth Street
Room 101
Winona, Minnesota 55987
Abstract
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to adopt and implement a Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. The
Refuge was established by Congress in 1924 to provide a refuge and breeding ground for migratory
birds, fish, other wildlife, and plants. The Refuge encompasses approximately 240,000 acres and 261
river miles in four states. The CCP will guide the management and administration of the Refuge for
15 years and help ensure that it meets the purposes for which established and contributes to the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Four alternatives for future management are
described: A) no action or current direction, B) wildlife focus, C) public use focus, and D) wildlife and
integrated public use focus. The preferred alternative is Alternative D. This Environmental Impact
Statement considers the physical, biological, and socioeconomic effects that the four alternatives
would have in terms of the issues and concerns identified during the planning process.
iii
Reader’s Guide
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge Draft EIS and CCP
This is a large and daunting document! Below are some questions and answers to help you, whether
your review is short and specific or long and comprehensive.
How is the document organized?
Like a book, the document is organized by chapters. Chapter 1 provides the purpose and need,
background information, and details on nearly 40 issues addressed in the plan and EIS. Chapter 2
describes the four alternatives considered, with each issue an objective. These alternatives are like
four separate plans, arranged identical. Chapter 3 describes the physical, biological, and
socioeconomic environment of the Refuge and contains the facts and figures related to the issues.
Chapter 4 discusses the impacts or consequences of the four alternatives by a series of parameters.
Other chapters provide detail on public involvement, preparers, and references. Appendices provide
great detail in maps, tables, and supporting documents.
I just have time for an overview. What should I look at?
Start with the EIS Summary which briefly describes the Refuge, the issues, the alternatives, and the
consequences of each. Tables 1 and 2 at the end of Chapter 2 provide a quick and easy guide to what
is proposed in each alternative.
I’m just interested in a couple issues. How can I find them?
The Table of Contents is useful in finding a particular issue of interest. For example, if you are
interested in waterfowl hunting, start with the discussion of the related issues in the wildlife-dependent
recreation section of Chapter 1, then you can find waterfowl hunting related objectives in
Chapter 2, background on waterfowl and hunting in Chapter 3, and a section on impacts of
alternatives on hunting in Chapter 4. Maps in Appendix P (bound separately or available on the web
at http://midwest.fws.gov/planning/uppermiss/index.html) will show the areas affected by the
alternative objectives.
How do I keep from getting lost?
If you look at the Table of Contents, you’ll see a decimal numbering system used throughout. The
first number is the chapter, the second number is subchapter, the third number a section, and so on.
Notes on the bottom of each page (footers) also tell you where you are. In the alternatives, a
reminder of which alternative you are looking at is in the upper margin of each page, and each
objective is numbered the same regardless of alternative. So, if forest management is your issue of
interest, its 3.9 in all four alternatives and in Table 1, the useful comparison matrix.
How much will it cost to implement the plan?
Appendix L is a plan of implementation and summarizes the actions to be taken and their estimated
cost.
Upper Mississippi River
National Wildlife and Fish Refuge
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table of Contents
v
Summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................................ xv
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background .......................................1
1.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................................3
1.2.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................3
1.2.2 Need ...........................................................................................................................................4
1.3 Decision Framework ..............................................................................................................................6
1.4 Planning Background ............................................................................................................................. 7
1.4.1 Legal and Policy Framework ........................................................................................................7
1.4.1.1 The National Wildlife Refuge System ............................................................................7
1.4.1.2 The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and Related Policy ...7
1.4.1.3 Research Natural Area Policy .........................................................................................9
1.4.2 Brief Refuge History and Purposes .............................................................................................9
1.4.3 Relationship to Corps of Engineers and the States, and Other Conservation Initiatives .........10
1.4.3.1 Corps of Engineers ........................................................................................................ 10
1.4.3.2 The States ..................................................................................................................... 13
1.4.3.3 Other Conservation Initiatives .......................................................................................14
1.4.4 Refuge Vision and Goals ...........................................................................................................16
1.4.4.1 Refuge Vision ................................................................................................................17
1.4.4.2 Refuge Goals .................................................................................................................17
1.4.5 Planning Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ...........................................................................17
1.4.5.1 Landscape Issues ..........................................................................................................18
1.4.5.2 Environmental Health Issues .........................................................................................19
1.4.5.3 Wildlife and Habitat Issues ...........................................................................................20
1.4.5.4 Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Issues .........................................................................23
1.4.5.5 Other Recreational Use Issues ......................................................................................27
1.4.5.6 Administration and Operations Issues ..........................................................................29
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ................................................................30
2.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................30
2.2 Development of Alternatives ...............................................................................................................30
2.3 Alternative Components Not Considered for Detailed Analysis .........................................................31
2.4 Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis ...........................................................................32
2.4.1 Elements Common to All Alternatives ......................................................................................32
2.4.2 Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction) ............................................................................34
2.4.3 Alternative B: Wildlife Focus ....................................................................................................53
2.4.4 Alternative C: Public Use Focus ................................................................................................78
2.4.5 Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) ..................101
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
vi
Chapter 3: Affected Environment ......................................................................................................164
3.1 Physical Environment ........................................................................................................................164
3.1.1 Geomorphology – Effects of Water, Wind and Ice .................................................................165
3.1.2 Land Use Characteristics of the Upper Mississippi River Basin ............................................167
3.1.3 Locks and Dams and River Reaches .......................................................................................167
3.1.4 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................................170
3.1.5 Soils........................................................................................................................................ 171
3.1.6 Climate ................................................................................................................................... 172
3.1.7 Contaminants ..........................................................................................................................173
3.1.7.1 Refuge and Vicinity on the Upper Mississippi River .................................................. 173
3.1.7.2 Lost Mound Unit ..........................................................................................................175
3.2 Fish, Wildlife and Habitat .................................................................................................................175
3.2.1 Navigation Pools and Habitat Change.................................................................................... 175
3.2.2 Special Management Areas ...................................................................................................179
3.2.2.1 Wilderness ..................................................................................................................179
3.2.2.2 Special Designated Areas ...........................................................................................179
3.2.2.3 Conservation Easements .............................................................................................179
3.2.3 Notable State Management Areas .........................................................................................182
3.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species .....................................................................................183
3.2.4.1 Bald Eagle ...................................................................................................................183
3.2.4.2 Higgins Eye Pearlymussel ...........................................................................................184
3.2.5 Candidate Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................184
3.2.5.1 Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake ..............................................................................184
3.2.5.2 Sheepnose ...................................................................................................................185
3.2.5.3 Spectaclecase .............................................................................................................185
3.2.6 Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities ..............................................................................186
3.2.7 Migratory Birds ....................................................................................................................... 186
3.2.7.1 Waterfowl ...................................................................................................................186
3.2.8 Other Migratory Birds ............................................................................................................. 195
3.2.8.1 Songbirds ....................................................................................................................195
3.2.8.2 Colonial Nesting Birds ................................................................................................ 198
3.2.8.3 Secretive Marsh Birds .................................................................................................200
3.2.8.4 Raptors ........................................................................................................................200
3.2.9 Fish .........................................................................................................................................201
3.2.9.1 Sport Fish ....................................................................................................................201
3.2.9.2 Other Fish ....................................................................................................................202
3.2.9.3 Fish Passage ................................................................................................................203
3.2.10 Freshwater Mussels ..............................................................................................................204
3.2.11 Reptiles and Amphibians ......................................................................................................204
3.2.11.1 Turtles .......................................................................................................................205
3.2.11.2 Frogs and Toads ....................................................................................................... 205
3.2.12 Invasive Species ....................................................................................................................206
3.2.12.1 Invasive Fish ..............................................................................................................207
3.2.12.2 Invasive Plants ..........................................................................................................207
3.2.12.3 Invasive Invertebrates ...............................................................................................209
3.2.13 Other Aquatic Invertebrates ..................................................................................................210
3.2.14 Mammals ..............................................................................................................................210
3.2.15 Vegetation .............................................................................................................................214
3.2.15.1 Submergent Aquatic Vegetation ...............................................................................215
vii
3.2.15.2 Emergent Aquatic Vegetation ...................................................................................215
3.2.15.3 Floodplain Forest .......................................................................................................216
3.2.15.4 Grasslands ................................................................................................................ 217
3.2.16 Natural and Current Role of Fire ...........................................................................................217
3.2.16.1 Wild Fires and Prescribed Burns ............................................................................... 218
3.2.17 Environmental Management Program .................................................................................. 218
3.2.18 Water Level Management ....................................................................................................225
3.3 General Public Use ............................................................................................................................230
3.3.1 Hunting ...................................................................................................................................230
3.3.2 Closed Areas ........................................................................................................................... 232
3.3.3 Fishing ....................................................................................................................................233
3.3.4 Wildlife Observation and Photography ...................................................................................233
3.3.5 Interpretation and Environmental Education ..........................................................................235
3.3.6 Recreational Boating, Camping, and Other Beach-Related Uses ...........................................235
3.3.7 Public Use Facilities ................................................................................................................236
3.3.8 Scenic Byways......................................................................................................................... 237
3.4 Socioeconomic ..................................................................................................................................237
3.4.1 Population, Income, Employment and Demographics .............................................................237
3.4.2 Refuge Economics ...................................................................................................................240
3.4.3 Commercial Use of Refuge ......................................................................................................241
3.4.3.1 Hunting, Fishing and Other Guide Services ................................................................241
3.4.3.2 Commercial Trapping ..................................................................................................241
3.4.3.3 Fish Float Operators ....................................................................................................242
3.4.3.4 Commercial Fishing .....................................................................................................242
3.4.3.5 Clamming .....................................................................................................................243
3.4.4 Administration and Facilities ..................................................................................................243
3.5 Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation ...................................................................................245
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................248
4.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 248
4.2 Effects Common to All Alternatives .................................................................................................. 248
4.2.1 Environmental Justice............................................................................................................. 248
4.2.2 Cultural and Historical Preservation .......................................................................................249
4.2.3 Climate Change .......................................................................................................................250
4.2.4 Prescribed Fire .........................................................................................................................250
4.2.4.1 Physical Fire Effects ....................................................................................................250
4.2.4.2 Biological Fire Effects ..................................................................................................251
4.2.4.3 Socioeconomic Fire Effects .........................................................................................251
4.2.5 Adjacent Land Owners ............................................................................................................251
4.2.6 Marinas and Other Water Related Business ..........................................................................252
4.2.7 Commercial Navigation ...........................................................................................................252
4.2.8 Commercial Forest Harvest .....................................................................................................252
4.2.9 Threatened and Endangered Species .....................................................................................252
4.2.10 Furbearer Trapping ................................................................................................................ 253
4.3 Effects of Alternatives on Physical Parameters/Concerns ................................................................254
4.3.1 Water Quality ..........................................................................................................................254
4.3.2 Sedimentation ......................................................................................................................... 254
4.3.3 Geomorphology .......................................................................................................................255
4.3.4 Hydrology and Water Level Management ..............................................................................255
4.3.5 Landscape Considerations ......................................................................................................256
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
viii
4.4 Effects of Alternatives on Biological Parameters/Concerns .............................................................256
4.4.1 Threatened and Endangered Species .....................................................................................256
4.4.2 Waterfowl ...............................................................................................................................257
4.4.3 Other Migratory Birds .............................................................................................................259
4.4.4 Sport Fish ...............................................................................................................................260
4.4.5 Other Fish ...............................................................................................................................260
4.4.6 Freshwater Mussels ................................................................................................................261
4.4.7 Reptiles and Amphibians ........................................................................................................262
4.4.8 Invasive Species ......................................................................................................................263
4.4.9 Invertebrates ...........................................................................................................................264
4.4.10 Mammals ..............................................................................................................................264
4.4.11 Aquatic Vegetation/Wetlands ..............................................................................................265
4.4.12 Floodplain Forest ...................................................................................................................266
4.4.13 Terrestrial Habitat/Grasslands .............................................................................................267
4.5 Effects of Alternatives on Socioeconomic Parameters/Concerns ....................................................267
4.5.1 Hunting ...................................................................................................................................267
4.5.2 Fishing ....................................................................................................................................271
4.5.3 Fishing Tournaments ...............................................................................................................273
4.5.4 Commercial Fishing .................................................................................................................273
4.5.5 Fishing Floats .......................................................................................................................... 274
4.5.6 Interpretation and Environmental Education ..........................................................................275
4.5.7 Wildlife Observation and Photography ...................................................................................276
4.5.8 Recreational Boating, Camping and Other Beach-Related Uses ............................................277
4.5.9 Commercial Guiding and Tours............................................................................................... 279
4.5.10 Refuge Access .......................................................................................................................279
4.5.11 Control of Dogs and Other Domestic Animals ......................................................................280
4.5.12 Property Taxes .......................................................................................................................280
4.5.13 Refuge Administration and Operations ................................................................................281
4.6 Cumulative Impacts ...........................................................................................................................282
4.6.1 Cumulative Impacts – Physical Environment ..........................................................................282
4.6.2 Cumulative Impacts – Biological Environment .......................................................................283
4.6.3 Cumulative Impacts – Socioeconomic Environment ...............................................................284
Chapter 5: List of Preparers ................................................................................................................288
Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination With the Public and Others .................................... 291
6.1 Scoping and Public Involvement .......................................................................................................291
6.2 Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation ...................................................................................293
6.3 List of Contacts .................................................................................................................................293
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS and Response ...............................................................300
Chapter 8: References .........................................................................................................................301
ix
Appendix A: Glossary ........................................................................................................................309
Appendix B: Initialisms and Acronyms .........................................................................................315
Appendix C: Legislation Establishing the Upper Mississippi River NW&FR ..........................319
Appendix D: Applicable Laws and Executive Orders ..................................................................325
Appendix E: Draft Compatibility Determinations .........................................................................333
Appendix F: Cooperative Agreement with Corps of Engineers .................................................431
Appendix G: Land Acquisition Maps ..............................................................................................443
Appendix H: Project Features Tables .............................................................................................457
Appendix I: Current Hunting Regulations .....................................................................................509
Appendix J: Public Use Regulations ..............................................................................................517
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists ................................................................................523
Appendix L: Plan Implementation ...................................................................................................581
Appendix M: Distribution List ...........................................................................................................593
Appendix N: Example of Environmental Pool Plans ....................................................................597
Appendix O: Vegetation Classification System Reference and Sample ..................................603
Appendix P: Maps of Management Alternatives ........................................... (Bound Separately)
Upper Mississippi River
National Wildlife and Fish Refuge
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
List of Tables
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Environmental Impact Statement/Comprehensive Conservation Plan
x
Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River NW&FR ...................133
Table 2: Summary of Project Features by Alternative .........................................................................145
Table 3: Degree to Which Alternatives Meet Refuge Needs .............................................................147
Table 4: Refuge Priority Locations and And Actions that Contribute to Implementation of
Environmental Pool Plans, 2005-2020*, Upper Mississippi River NWFR .............................148
Table 5: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries, Alternatives A-D, Upper Mississippi River NW&FR ...........160
Table 6: Climate Data, Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge,
River Mile 764 to 503. ............................................................................................................173
Table 7: Special Designated Areas Within the Upper Mississippi River NWFR ................................180
Table 8: Conservation Easements Maintained by Refuge ..................................................................181
Table 9: Notable State Management Areas .......................................................................................182
Table 10: Estimated Waterfowl Food Plant Production in Closed Areas on Pools 4-14 Under
Four Alternatives, Upper Mississippi River NW&FR .............................................................193
Table 11: Partners in Flight, Physiographic Region 16 Priority Bird Species Found on
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Including Seasonal Occurrence and
Habitat Associations. .............................................................................................................197
Table 12: Occurrence of Frogs and Toads on Upper Mississippi River NW&FR, 1994 to 2004 ...........206
Table 13: Invasive Plants and Their Control on the Upper Mississippi River NW&FR .........................208
Table 14: Summary of Environmental Management Program Habitat Rehabilitation and
Enhancement Projects On or Adjacent to the Upper Mississippi River NW&FR
(Adapted from USACE, 2004a) ...............................................................................................220
Table 15: Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program Habitat
Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project Techniques. (USACE, 2004a) ...............................223
Table 16: Upper Mississippi River Pools on Refuge Most Suited for a Drawdown
(Adapted from USACE, 2004b), Upper Mississippi River NW&FR ........................................228
Table 17: Estimated Annual Hunting Visits to the Upper Mississippi River NW&FR
(Fiscal Years 1999-2003 Refuge Management Information System Reports) ......................230
Table 18: Comparison of Hunting Seasons 2003 - 2004 on Upper Mississippi River NW&FR
For Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois ..............................................................................231
Table 19: Estimated Annual Fishing Visits to the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife
and Fish Refuge (Fiscal year 1999-2004 Refuge Management
Information System reports. ...................................................................................................233
Table 20: Summary of Upper Mississippi River Fishing Tournaments by State ...................................234
Table 21: Estimated Annual Wildlife Observation and Photography Visits to the
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR (Fiscal year 2002-2004 Refuge Management
Information System reports) ..................................................................................................234
Table 22: Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Visitor Contact Stations ...................................................237
Table 23: Employment Characteristics by Major Economic Sectors and Refuge District .....................239
xi
Table 24: Total Economic Impacts of Recreational Use: Upper Mississippi River NW&FR, 2003 .......240
Table 25: Comparison of Trapping Seasons, Upper Mississippi River NW&FR ...................................241
Table 26: Estimated Gross Revenue from Furbearers Harvested by 245 Trappers During the
2003-2004 Trapping Season, Upper Mississippi River NW&FR ...........................................242
Table 27: Summary of Commercial Fishing, Upper Mississippi River NW&FR .....................................243
Table 28: Annual Economic Effects of CCP Alternatives: Hunting ........................................................268
Table 29: Annual Economic Effects of CCP Alternatives: Fishing 2 .........................................................71
Table 30: Annual Economic Effects of CCP Alternatives: Wildlife Observation ...................................276
Table 31: Annual Economic Effects of CCP Alternatives: Recreational Boating, Camping and
other Beach-related Uses ......................................................................................................277
Table 32: Summary of Annual Economic Effects of CCP Alternatives on Recreational Use 2.................84
Table 33: Summary of Alternative Impacts ...........................................................................................286
Upper Mississippi River
National Wildlife and Fish Refuge
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
List of Figures
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Environmental Impact Statement/Comprehensive Conservation Plan
xii
Figure 1: Location of Upper Mississippi River NWFR ..................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Watersheds of the Rivers and Streams that Impact Upper Mississippi River NW&FR .............. 166
Figure 3: Upper Mississippi River Navigation System with Locks and Dams numbered;
Navigation Pools Occur Above Each Lock (Source: Lubinski, 1999) ............................................. 168
Figure 4: Typical Floodplain and Bluff Habitats of the Upper Mississippi River ......................................... 169
Figure 5: Landcover Maps of Pool 8, 1890s and 1989; Upper Mississippi River NWFR ............................. 177
Figure 6: Island Loss in the Lower Half of the Upper Mississippi River Pools,
Upper Mississipi River NW&FR .................................................................................................... 178
Figure 7: Annual Bald Eagle Production on Upper Mississippi River NWFR, 1986-2004 ........................... 183
Figure 8: Percent of the Eastern Population of Canvasbacks that Occurred on Upper Mississippi River
NW&FR During the Coordinated Canvasback Survey, 1974-2002 ............................................... 188
Figure 9: Peak Number of Mallards and Canvasback Ducks on Upper Mississippi River NW&FR,
1956 to 2002 ................................................................................................................................ 188
Figure 10: Peak Number of Canada Geese and Tundra Swans on Upper Mississippi River NW&FR,
1956-2002 .................................................................................................................................... 189
Figure 11: Average Dabbling Duck Use-days by Pool, 1997-2002, Upper Mississppi River NW&FR ........... 190
Figure 12: Average Diving Duck Use-days, 1997-2002, Upper Mississippi River NW&FR ........................... 190
Figure 13: Average Tundra Swan and Canada Goose Use-days by Pool, 1997-2002,
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR .................................................................................................. 191
Figure 14: Average Number of Duck-use-days per Acre of Closed Area, 2000-2003,
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR .................................................................................................. 195
Figure 15: Average Number of Waterfowl (Ducks, Geese, and Swans) Use-days per Acre of
Closed Area, 2000-2003, Upper Mississippi River NW&FR ......................................................... 196
Figure 16: Puddle Duck Portion of the Average Number of Duck Use-days per Acre of
Closed Area, 2000-2003, Upper Mississippi River NW&FR ......................................................... 196
Figure 17: Average Number of Bird Species Observed and Number of Counts Conducted,1994-99,
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR .................................................................................................. 197
Figure 18: Number of Colonies and Number of Nests of Great Blue Herons on the
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, selected years 1960-2003. ........... 199
Figure 19: Average Number of Zebra Mussels per Meter Square Collected During
Fall Sampling Periods in Selected Areas of Pools 7, 8, 9, 11, and 13, 1997-2003,
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR .................................................................................................. 210
Figure 20: Average Number of Mayflies per Meter Square Collected During Fall Sampling Periods,
1994-2003, Upper Mississippi River NW&FR .............................................................................. 211
Figure 21: Average Number of Fingernail Clams per Meter Square Collected During Fall Sampling Periods,
1993-2003, Upper Mississippi River NW&FR .............................................................................. 211
Figure 22: Number of Beaver Harvested, 1990-2003, Upper Mississippi River NW&FR ............................. 212
Figure 23: Number of Muskrats Harvested, 1990-2003, Upper Mississippi River NW&FR ......................... 213
xiii
Figure 24: Number of Active Trappers, 1990-2003, Upper Mississippi River NW&FR .................................213
Figure 25: Number of Raccoon Harvested, 1991-2003, Upper Mississippi River NW&FR ...........................214
Figure 26: Number of Mink Harvested, 1990-2003, Upper Mississippi River NW&FR .................................214
Figure 27: Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program Habitat
Rehabilitation and Enhancement Projects ....................................................................................219
Figure 28: Phase II Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project, Stoddard Islands,
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR, Aerial Photo Sequence (Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources) ........................................................................................................................224
Figure 29: Constructed Islands with Sacrificial Berms, Rock Groins, and Native Vegetation,
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR ..................................................................................................225
Figure 30: Seed Islands Constructed and “Growing” on Upper Mississippi River NW&FR .........................226
Figure 31: Wildlife Loafing Structures Placed on Constructed Islands Upper Mississippi River NW&FR ...227
Figure 32: Pool 8 Drawdown Sequence (USACE, St. Paul District) ...............................................................229
Figure 33: National Scenic Byways Bordering the Upper Mississippi River NW&FR ...................................238
Summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement
xv
Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Introduction
A Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
is being prepared to guide the
administration and management of the
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife
and Fish Refuge (Refuge) for the next 15
years. The draft document integrates the
components of a CCP, namely goals,
objectives, and strategies; with the
requirements of an Environmental Impact
Statement, namely alternatives and
consequences.
Comprehensive conservation plans are
required by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 to ensure
that refuges are managed 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. The Refuge
System is the largest collection of lands and waters in the world set aside for the conservation of
wildlife, with over 540 units covering more than 95 million acres in the U.S. and its territories.
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
Mississippi River floodplain from near Wabasha, Minnesota to near Rock Island, Illinois (Figure A).
The seemingly endless panorama of river, backwaters, marshes, islands, and forest, framed by steep
bluffs, makes the Refuge a national scenic treasure.
The Refuge is 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. Fish and wildlife is varied and generally abundant with 306 bird, 119 fish, 51 mammal,
and 42 mussel species recorded. Up to 40 percent of the continent’s waterfowl use the Mississippi
Flyway during migration, and up to 50 percent of the world’s canvasback ducks and 20 percent of the
eastern United States population of Tundra Swans stop on the Refuge during fall migration. There
were 136 active Bald Eagle nests in 2004 and up to 1,000 eagles can be on the Refuge in the winter.
Approximately 5,000 heron and egret nests can be found in up to 15 colonies.
Egrets. Copyright by Sandra Lines
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
xvi
Figure A: Location of Upper Mississippi River NW&FR
Summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement
xvii
With an estimated 3.7 million annual visitors, the Refuge is the most heavily visited in the Refuge
System. It has interface with 4 states, 70 communities, 2 Corps of Engineers districts, 11 locks and
dams which help maintain water depths for commercial navigation, and is represented in Congress
by 8 senators and 6 representatives.
The Refuge has its headquarters in Winona, Minnesota, and district offices with managers and staff
in Winona; La Crosse, Wisconsin; McGregor, Iowa; and Savanna, Illinois. There are currently 37
full-time permanent employees and a base annual budget of $3.1 million.
Public Involvement and
Decision Process
Internal scoping of issues began in March 2002
followed by 10 public scoping meetings held in
August and September of that year. Day-long
public workshops on issues and potential
solutions were held in four locations in January
and March 2003, and there were three special
public meetings on Waterfowl Hunting Closed
Areas the same year. Four Interagency
Planning Team meetings involving the Corps of
Engineers, and Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and
Illinois departments of natural resources were
held in 2001 to 2004; follow-up meetings were
held with the St. Paul and Rock Island Districts, Corps of Engineers, and the Minnesota and
Wisconsin departments of natural resources. Briefings with various commissions, associations, and
Congressional offices occurred throughout the process, along with periodic news releases to 52
media outlets, and special CCP newsletters mailed to 2,600 citizens.
Following public review and meetings on the Draft CCP and EIS, the Regional Director, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota, will make a decision on which alternative in the Draft
CCP and EIS will become the Final CCP. This decision will be recorded in a formal Record of
Decision included in the final documents. Substantive comments from the public, agencies, and other
groups will be included in the Final EIS, along with a Service response.
Refuge Vision and Goals
The Refuge Vision provides a simple statement of the desired, overall future condition of the Refuge.
Goals provide the themes or framework for measurable objectives and strategies which are the heart
of the CCP and the basic structure of the alternatives considered.
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.
Participants in a scoping meeting identify priority issues.
USFWS
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
xviii
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, wildlife, and plants.
Wildlife-Dependent
Recreation We will manage programs and facilities to ensure abundant and
sustainable hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, interpretation, and environmental education
opportunities for a broad cross-section of the public.
Other Recreational Use We will provide opportunities 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
Scoping and public involvement helped identify numerous issues facing the Refuge and formed the
basis for crafting the Draft CCP and EIS. These issues are summarized below by related Refuge
goal.
Landscape Issues
Refuge Boundary Maintaining an accurate and clearly marked boundary
is a critical basic need of resource protection.
Land Acquisition Approximately 30,000 acres within the approved
Refuge boundary has yet to be acquired. These lands
and waters will fill habitat gaps between existing
Refuge lands and benefit fish, wildlife, plants, and
public use.
Bluffland Protection The 1987 Master Plan identified 13 bluff areas with
notable wildlife values, namely peregrine falcon
nesting potential. None have been acquired, either fee
or easement, to date.
Natural Areas and Special Designations Management plans are needed for the four federally-designated
Research Natural Areas within the
Refuge, and the Refuge should be nominated as a
“Wetland of International Importance.”
Summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement
xix
Environmental Health Issues
Water Quality Water quality related concerns include sedimentation
which is filling backwaters and nutrient loads from
land use in the Refuge watershed.
Water Level Management A substantial loss of islands and marsh habitat has
occurred due to stable water management for
navigation and erosive actions of wind and waves. Fish
and wildlife use and productivity has declined.
Invasive Plants and Animals Invasive species like reed canary grass, Eurasian
milfoil, zebra mussel, and various Asian carp pose a
threat to native species and their habitat.
Wildlife and Habitat Issues
Environmental Pool Plans This 50-year habitat vision for each of the pools on the
Refuge seeks to reverse the long-term trend of habitat
loss or degradation. Implementing the plans presents
a challenge from both a priority-setting and funding
perspective.
Guiding Principles for Habitat Projects Guiding principles for habitat projects on the Refuge
are needed to ensure adherence to policy and to help
conserve the natural and scenic qualities of the
Refuge.
Monitoring Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Monitoring is a requirement of the Refuge
Improvement Act, but meeting this requirement on
the Refuge has been hampered by funding and
staffing levels.
Threatened and Endangered Species Increased attention is needed on listed species due to
their often precarious population status and the need
for special management consideration and protection.
Furbearer Trapping The Refuge needs to update the 1988 Trapping Plan to
reflect recent national policy and regulation changes
governing compatibility of uses and economic uses.
Fishery and Mussel Management The Refuge needs to play a larger role in fishery and
mussel management in keeping with its mandated
purposes, and because of the high intrinsic,
recreational, and commercial value of these resources.
Commercial Fishing, Clamming and
Turtle Harvest. Refuge oversight of these uses needs to be brought in
line with current policy and regulations through
cooperative work with the states.
Turtle Management New and emerging information on the importance of
the Refuge to a variety of turtle species calls for
increased monitoring and research on turtle ecology
and effects of certain public use.
Forest Management The 51,000 acres of floodplain forest on the Refuge is
even aged, growing old, and in many cases, not
regenerating itself. Proactive management is needed
to safeguard this important resource.
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
xx
Grassland Management The 5,700 acres of grassland on the Refuge, some of
which is rare tallgrass prairie, needs to be monitored
and actively managed to ensure its continued diversity
and health.
Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Issues
General Hunting Hunting is an important priority public use on the
Refuge and a vital part of the cultural, social, and
economic fabric of adjacent communities. The Refuge
Hunting Plan needs to be updated to reflect land
acquisitions and new policies.
Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas Established in 1958, the current closed area system is
no longer providing a desirable distribution of feeding
and resting areas or an equitable distribution of
hunting and wildlife observation opportunities due to
habitat decline. With birds predominantly using only a
few areas, there is a risk of serious impacts from an
environmental accident or crash in aquatic food
resources.
Waterfowl Hunting Regulations Due to continued high hunter numbers on the Refuge,
there is a need to review current waterfowl hunting
regulations to ensure continued hunt quality and
fairness, and to minimize crippling loss.
Firing Line, Pool 7, Lake Onalaska Crowding, hunter behavior, and crippling loss need to
be addressed in this highly popular hunting area to
help maintain a quality and equitable hunting
experience.
Permanent Blinds on Savanna District The use of permanent blinds for waterfowl hunting
has led to increased debris, confrontations between
hunters, private use of public land, and reduced
hunting opportunities for many hunters. There is also
an issue of consistency since permanent blinds are not
allowed on the other three districts of the Refuge.
Potter’s Marsh Managed Hunt This hunt has entailed high administrative and
management costs, problems with permanent blinds
as noted above, and a drawing process that has
evolved into private exclusive use for some parties.
Changes are needed to maintain a quality and
equitable hunting experience in this popular area.
Blanding Landing Managed Hunt This hunt, inherited with the transfer to the Refuge of
the former Savanna Army Depot, Savanna District,
needs to be reviewed for consistency with other
Refuge hunts and to address permanent blind issues
noted above.
General Fishing Fishing is an important priority public use on the
Refuge with over one million angler visits yearly.
Attention to quality habitat and support facilities
(boat ramps, other accesses, and fishing docks) is
needed to maintain and improve this sport.
Summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement
xxi
Fishing Tournaments Tournament fishing continues to grow and is posing
conflicts with other anglers and small craft users on
the Refuge, and can cause habitat damage and fish
and wildlife disruption in shallow backwater areas.
Oversight is needed to help coordinate timing and
spacing of tournaments with the states.
Wildlife Observation and Photography Public interest in these activities on the Refuge
continues to grow, and there is a need for additional
facilities that foster these priority public uses while
limiting wildlife and habitat disturbance.
Interpretation and Environmental
Education Demand for these priority public uses of the Refuge
needs to be addressed through facilities and staffing
levels.
Commercial Fish Floats These private fishing platforms below locks and dams
provide an important fishing option for visitors.
However, administration of this commercial use has
been expensive due to permit compliance issues. Also,
new standards need to be developed to ensure
adequate and safe operations.
Guiding Services Guiding businesses are increasing on the Refuge and
oversight has been inconsistent. The potential for
conflicts with the general public and among competing
guides is growing. Some guides are operating without
the proper Coast Guard licensing.
Other Recreational Use Issues
Beach Use and Maintenance Beach-related uses on the Refuge such as camping,
social gatherings, recreational boating, picnicking,
and swimming account for over one million visits and
these uses continue to increase. There are concerns
with Refuge regulation violations, human health and
safety, officer safety in crowds, disturbance to other
visitors, and wildlife and habitat disturbance. New
policies and regulations are needed to ensure these
popular uses remain compatible with the purposes of
the Refuge.
Disturbance in Backwater Areas Technology in the form of jet skis, air boats, bass
boats, and shallow water motors have introduced
more users, more noise, and more disturbance into
backwater areas of the Refuge. Citizens have
expressed concern over the declining opportunities to
experience the quiet and solitude of these unique
Refuge areas, while managers are concerned about
the effects of disturbance on sensitive wildlife species.
Slow, No-Wake Zones On a few areas, boat traffic levels and size of boats is
creating a safety hazard due to blind spots in boating
routes, or causing erosion to island and shoreline
habitat. Creating slow, no-wake zones on these areas
needs to be explored.
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
xxii
Dog Use Policy The current regulation is causing confusion with the
public and enforcement challenges for officers. The
result is visitors letting dogs run free, posing a threat
to other visitors and disturbance to wildlife. A clear
policy on the use of dogs and other domestic animals is
needed to protect visitors and the resource while
taking into account the public’s interest in training
and exercising their dogs.
General Public Use Regulations The current public use regulations for the Refuge
were updated in 1999. A general update is needed to
reflect changing use levels and patterns and to
provide clear guidance to visitors and enforcement
officers.
Administration and Operations Issues
General With nearly 240,000 acres over 261 miles and 3.7
million visitors, management and administration of
the Refuge is a huge undertaking requiring staffing
and funding for programs, facilities, and equipment.
Current office and maintenance facilities are
inadequate at most locations, both from an employee
and public service standpoint. Public information
efforts are inadequate to keep the public abreast of
opportunities and issues. Public access to the Refuge
needs to be increased where feasible to meet demand
and distribute visitor opportunities.
Summary of Alternatives
Considered
Four reasonable alternatives were developed to
address the variety of issues and opportunities
facing the Refuge now and during the 15-year
horizon of the CCP. These alternatives are
summarized below in terms of the actions that
would be undertaken under each alternative.
Alternative D is the Service’s preferred
alternative. However, the final decision can be
any of the alternatives, and may reflect a
modification of certain elements of any
alternative based on consideration of public
comment.
Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction )
Continue current level of effort on fish and wildlife and habitat management. Public use programs
would remain virtually unchanged.
Turtles basking in the sun. Copyright Sandra Lines
Summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement
xxiii
Alternative A Summary
Boundary issues would be addressed as time and funding for surveying allow. There would be a
continuation of acquisition of lands at a modest rate within the approved boundary, or about 200
acres per year. No special effort would be undertaken to safeguard blufflands and manage Research
Natural Areas. Guiding principles for habitat projects would not be established.
Existing programs and effort would address
sedimentation and other water quality issues.
Pool-scale drawdowns would continue at
current, intermittent level. Control of invasive
plant species would be modest, and control of
invasive animals would be minimal, relying on
the work of the states and other agencies.
Environmental Pool Plans would be
implemented on a strategic and opportunistic
basis using the Environmental Management
Program. Wildlife inventory and monitoring
would remain unchanged with continued focus
on waterfowl, colonial nesting birds, eagles, and
aquatic invertebrate/vegetation sampling.
Management of threatened and endangered
species would focus on protection versus
recovery. The furbearer trapping program
would continue but be brought into compliance with policies by doing a new plan. There would
continue to be limited emphasis on fishery and mussel management and commercial fishing
oversight. Cooperation with the states and Corps of Engineers on turtle monitoring and research
would continue, and a forest inventory on the Refuge would be completed in cooperation with the
Corps of Engineers. Existing grassland habitat on the Refuge would be maintained and enhanced
using fire and other tools.
Hunting and fishing opportunities would continue on a large percentage of the Refuge. The system
of waterfowl hunting closed areas would remain the same except for minor boundary adjustments.
Entry into closed areas for purposes other than hunting, trapping and camping would continue to be
allowed, although the voluntary avoidance area on Lake Onalaska would remain in place. No action
would be taken on the firing line issue north of the closed area in Lake Onalaska. No major changes
would be made to current hunting regulations. Permanent blinds for waterfowl hunting and the
Potter’s Marsh and Blanding Landing managed hunts in the Savanna District would continue,
although administrative changes would be made to promote fairness and efficiency. No action would
be taken on regulating fishing tournaments.
There would be no increase in facilities or programming for wildlife observation, photography,
interpretation and environmental education, with a focus on maintaining the status quo. There would
be a modest increase in Refuge access through improvement of existing boat ramps, pull offs, and
overlooks. Commercial fish floats or piers would be governed by current permit procedures and
stipulations. Guiding on the refuge would continue with little oversight. Beach-related public use
(camping, swimming, picnicking, social gatherings) would continue with little change and beach
planning and maintenance would continue at low levels. One electric motor area would remain
(Mertes Slough, Pool 6), and no new slow, no-wake zones established. Current regulations on the use
of dogs would remain in place. There would be no substantive changes made to current public use
regulations.
There would be no new offices or shops constructed for Headquarters or the Districts, with the
exception of a new shop for the Winona and Savanna districts since they are already scheduled.
Monarch butterfly amidst duckweed. Copyright by Sandra
Lines
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
xxiv
Staffing levels for the Refuge would remain the same as current, as would public outreach and
awareness efforts.
Alternative B: Wildlife Focus
Increase level of effort on fish and wildlife and habitat management. Some public use opportunities
and programs would remain the same, others reduced in favor of wildlife and habitat protection.
Alternative B Summary
Boundary issues would be aggressively addressed and the entire Refuge boundary would be
surveyed. The rate of land acquisition within the approved boundary would increase to complete 58
percent of the total, an average of 1,000 acres per year. All bluffland areas identified in the 1987
Master Plan would be protected by fee-title acquisition or easement, and there would be an increase
in oversight and administration of Research Natural Areas. Guiding principles for habitat projects
would be established.
There would be an increase in efforts to achieve
continuous improvement in the quality of water
flowing through the Refuge, including
decreasing sedimentation. Pool-scale
drawdowns would be accomplished by working
with the Corps of Engineers and the states.
Control of invasive plant species would increase,
and there would be increased emphasis on the
control of invasive animals. Environmental Pool
Plans would be implemented on a strategic and
opportunistic basis using the Environmental
Management Program or other programs and
funding sources. Wildlife inventory and
monitoring would increase and include more
species groups beyond the current focus of waterfowl, colonial nesting birds, eagles, and aquatic
invertebrates/vegetation. Management of threatened and endangered species would focus on
helping recovery, not just protection. The furbearer trapping program would continue but be
brought into compliance with policies by doing a new plan. The Refuge would become much more
active in fishery and mussel management, and provide commercial fishing oversight. The knowledge
of turtle ecology would be increased through research, and there would be continued cooperation
with the states and Corps of Engineers on turtle conservation efforts. A forest inventory on the
Refuge would be completed in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, leading to completion of a
forest management plan and more active forest management. The existing 5,700 acres of grassland
habitat on the Refuge would be maintained and enhanced using fire and other tools.
Hunting and fishing opportunities would continue on a large percentage of the Refuge. The system
of waterfowl hunting closed areas would increase substantially with 14 new areas. Entry into closed
areas would be prohibited during the respective state duck season, although the voluntary avoidance
area on Lake Onalaska would remain in place. The firing line issue north of the closed area in Lake
Onalaska would be addressed by expanding the closed area northward. Current Refuge-wide
hunting regulations would be changed to include a 25 shotshell limit during waterfowl season and to
address open water hunting in portions of Pools 9 and 11. Permanent blinds for waterfowl hunting
would be eliminated Refuge- wide, including those used in the Potter’s Marsh and Blanding Landing
managed hunts in the Savanna District. The Potter’s Marsh managed hunt would continue with
administrative changes to promote fairness and efficiency. The Blanding Landing managed hunt
would be eliminated, but the area would remain open to hunting. General fishing would continue to
be promoted, although the Refuge would begin oversight of fishing tournaments in cooperation with
the states and other agencies.
Egrets wading. Copyright by Sandra Lines
Summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement
xxv
There would be no increase in facilities or programming for wildlife observation, photography,
interpretation and environmental education. There would be a modest increase in Refuge access
through improvement of existing boat ramps, pull offs, and overlooks, and a boat launch fee would be
initiated at Refuge-operated boat ramps. Commercial fish floats or piers below locks and dams 6, 7,
8, and 9 would be eliminated to reduce administrative and oversight costs. Commercial guiding on
the Refuge would be prohibited. Areas open to beach-related public use (camping, swimming,
picnicking, social gatherings) would be reduced under a “closed-until-open” policy, and beach
planning and maintenance would not be allowed on Refuge lands. A total of 10 electric motor areas
and 10 new slow, no-wake zones would be established. Current regulations on use of dogs would be
changed to require that dogs and other domestic animals be leashed at all times except when used
for hunting. General public use regulations would be reviewed annually and changed as needed.
Existing offices would be maintained, but new maintenance facilities or shops would be constructed
at the Winona, McGregor, and Savanna districts, and eventually, at the Lost Mound Unit. Public
information and awareness efforts would be decreased 50 percent to focus on wildlife-related work.
Staffing levels for the Refuge would increase by 17.5 full-time equivalents with the priority being
biologists, a forester, other specialists, and maintenance persons.
Alternative C: Public Use Focus
Increase level of effort on public use
opportunities and programs. Continue current
level of effort on many fish and wildlife and
habitat management activities, and decrease
effort on others in favor of public use.
Alternative C Summary
Boundary issues would be addressed and the
entire Refuge boundary would be surveyed. The
rate of land acquisition within the approved
boundary would increase to complete 58 percent
of the total, an average of 1,000 acres per year,
with priority given to tracts that also further
public use access and opportunities. All bluffland
areas identified in the 1987 Master Plan would be protected through fee-title acquisition or
easement, and low-key oversight and administration of Research Natural Areas would continue.
Guiding principles for habitat projects would be established, but they would not restrict any public
use opportunities.
There would be increased effort to achieve continuous improvement in the quality of water flowing
through the Refuge, including decreasing sedimentation. Pool-scale drawdowns would continue at
current, intermittent level. Control of invasive plant species would be modest, and control of invasive
animals would be minimal, relying on the work of the states and other agencies. Environmental Pool
Plans would be implemented on a strategic and opportunistic basis using the Environmental
Management Program or other programs and funding sources. Wildlife inventory and monitoring
would decrease by reducing the number of species groups surveyed. Management of threatened and
endangered species would focus on protection versus recovery. The furbearer trapping program
would continue but be brought into compliance with policies by doing a new plan. There would
continue to be limited emphasis on fishery and mussel management and commercial fishing
oversight. Cooperation with the states and Corps of Engineers on turtle monitoring and research
would continue, and a forest inventory on the Refuge completed in cooperation with the Corps of
Engineers. The existing 5,700 acres of grassland habitat on the Refuge would be maintained and
enhanced using fire and other tools.
Bicyclists on the Refuge. Cindy Samples, USFWS
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
xxvi
Hunting and fishing opportunities would continue on a large percentage of the Refuge. The system
of waterfowl hunting closed areas would remain the same except for minor boundary adjustments.
Entry into closed areas for purposes other than hunting, trapping and camping would continue to be
allowed, and the voluntary avoidance area on Lake Onalaska would remain in place. The firing line
issue north of the closed area in Lake Onalaska would be addressed by moving the north boundary
southward. Current Refuge-wide waterfowl hunting regulations would be changed to include a
hunting party spacing requirement of 100 yards. No action would be taken in regards to open water
hunting in Pools 9 and 11. Permanent blinds for waterfowl hunting would be eliminated Refuge-wide,
including those used in the Potter’s Marsh and Blanding Landing managed hunts in the
Savanna District. The Potter’s Marsh managed hunt would continue, but administrative changes
would be made to promote fairness and efficiency. The Blanding Landing managed hunt would be
eliminated, but the area would remain open to hunting. General fishing would continue to be
promoted, although the Refuge would begin oversight of fishing tournaments in cooperation with the
states and other agencies.
There would be a major increase in facilities or programming for wildlife observation, photography,
interpretation and environmental education. There would be some increase in Refuge access
through new facilities and improvement of existing boat ramps, pull offs, and overlooks. A boat
launch fee would be initiated at Refuge-operated boat ramps. Commercial fish floats or piers below
locks and dams 6, 7, 8, and 9 would be retained if standards met, and a new fish float proposed in the
Savanna District. Commercial guiding on the Refuge would be allowed, but with consistent policy
and permit procedures. Areas open to beach-related public use (camping, swimming, picnicking,
social gatherings) would remain virtually unchanged, although regulations would be changed to
safeguard users, a policy on beach maintenance would be implemented, and an annual Refuge
Recreation Use Permit and fee would be initiated to improve recreation management. A total of 15
electric motor areas and 9 new slow, no-wake zones would be established. Current regulations on use
of dogs would be changed to allow dogs to be exercised and trained under certain conditions. General
public use regulations would be reviewed annually and changed as needed.
New offices and maintenance facilities would be constructed at the Winona, La Crosse, McGregor,
and Savanna Districts (shop only at Savanna), and eventually the office and shop facilities at Lost
Mound Unit would be remodeled or replaced. A major new visitor center would be constructed in
either Winona or La Crosse. Public information and awareness efforts would be increased 50
percent. Staffing levels for the Refuge would increase by 17.5 full-time equivalents with the priority
being public use related positions.
Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred
Alternative)
Increase level of effort on fish and wildlife and habitat management. Take a more proactive approach
to public use management to ensure a diversity of opportunities for a broad spectrum of users, both
for wildlife-dependent uses and traditional and appropriate non-wildlife-dependent uses.
Alternative D Summary
Boundary issues would be aggressively addressed and the entire Refuge boundary would be
surveyed. The rate of land acquisition would increase within the approved boundary to complete 58
percent of the total, an average of 1,000 acres per year. There would be more effort to protect
through easements or fee-title acquisition all bluffland areas identified in the 1987 Master Plan, and
an increase in oversight and administration of Research Natural Areas. The Refuge would be
nominated as a “Wetland of International Importance” (Ramsar). Guiding principles for habitat
projects would be established and stress an integrated approach.
There would be an increase in effort to achieve continuous improvement in the quality of water
flowing through the Refuge, including decreasing sedimentation. Pool-scale drawdowns would be
Summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement
xxvii
accomplished by working with the Corps of Engineers and the states. The control of invasive plant
species would increase, and there would be increased emphasis on the control of invasive animals.
Environmental Pool Plans would be implemented on a strategic and opportunistic basis using the
Environmental Management Program or other programs and funding sources. Wildlife inventory
and monitoring would increase and include more species groups beyond the current focus of
waterfowl, colonial nesting birds, eagles, and aquatic invertebrates/vegetation. The management of
threatened and endangered species would focus on helping recovery, not just protection. The
furbearer trapping program would continue but be brought into compliance with policies by doing a
new plan. The Refuge would become much more active in fishery and mussel management, and
provide commercial fishing oversight. Knowledge of turtle ecology through research would increase,
as would turtle conservation efforts in cooperation with the states and Corps of Engineers. A forest
inventory on the Refuge would be completed in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, and a
forest management plan prepared, leading to more active forest management. The 5,700 acres of
grassland habitat on the Refuge would be maintained and enhanced using fire and other tools.
There would be a continuation of hunting and
fishing opportunities on a large percentage of
the Refuge. The system of waterfowl hunting
closed areas would change with some eliminated,
some reduced in size, and several new areas
added for a total of 21 closed areas. Motorized
watercraft and entry into closed areas for
fishing, along with hunting, trapping, and
camping would be prohibited during the
respective state duck season, although the
voluntary avoidance area on Lake Onalaska
would remain in place. The firing line issue north
of the closed area in Lake Onalaska would be
addressed by initiating the Gibbs Lake Managed
Hunting Program involving a limit to the
number of hunters through drawing, assigning
hunters to areas, and charging a fee. The current
Refuge-wide hunting regulations would be
changed to include a 25 shotshell limit during the waterfowl season and a 100-yard waterfowl
hunting party spacing requirement, and a provision to address open water hunting in portions of
Pools 9 and 11. Permanent blinds for waterfowl hunting would be eliminated Refuge-wide, including
those used in the Potter’s Marsh and Blanding Landing managed hunts in the Savanna District. The
Potter’s Marsh managed hunt would continue with administrative changes to promote fairness and
efficiency. The Blanding Landing managed hunt would be eliminated, but the area would remain
open to hunting. General fishing would continue to be promoted, although the Refuge would begin
issuing permits for fishing tournaments in cooperation with the states and other agencies.
There would be an increase in facilities and programming for wildlife observation, photography,
interpretation and environmental education. There would be a modest increase in Refuge access
through new facilities and improvement of existing boat ramps, pull offs, and overlooks. A boat
launch fee would be initiated on Refuge-operated boat ramps. New standards for the commercial
fish floats or piers below locks and dams 6, 7, 8, and 9 would be developed and implemented, with a
phase out of floats which do not meet the standards. A consistent process for issuing permits for
commercial guiding on the Refuge would be implemented. Areas open to beach-related public use
(camping, swimming, picnicking, social gatherings) would be reduced to some degree under an
“open-unless-closed” policy, new regulations would be implemented, and a beach maintenance policy
established. Initiating a Refuge Recreation Use Permit and fee would be explored to defray costs of
managing beach-related uses. A total of 16 electric motor areas and 10 new slow, no-wake zones
would be established. Current regulations on the use of dogs would be changed to allow dogs to be
Ben Freeman, the great-grandson of conservation leader Aldo
Leopold, observes wildlife at the Refuge. Cindy Samples,
USFWS
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
xxviii
exercised and trained under certain conditions. General public use regulations would be reviewed
annually and changed as needed.
New offices and maintenance shops would be constructed at the Winona, La Crosse, and McGregor
Districts, and at the Lost Mound Unit. The office would be expanded at the Savanna District and a
new shop constructed. Public information and awareness efforts would be increased 50 percent.
Staffing levels for the Refuge would increase by 19.5 full-time equivalents with a balance among
biological, maintenance, visitor services, technical, and administrative staff.
Summary of Environmental
Consequences
Consequences Common to All Alternatives
Under all alternatives, there would be no disproportionate adverse effect
on minority or low-income populations. Cultural and historical resource
preservation would be addressed in accordance with current laws,
regulations, and policies. Prescribed fire would be used under all
alternatives to maintain health and vigor of grassland habitat. Any
negative effects would be short-term in nature and mitigated by long-term
habitat improvements and higher grassland species populations.
Landowners adjacent to the Refuge would not see a significant effect on
the use or value of their property since none of the alternatives radically
change land management direction. The economic activity of marinas,
other water-related businesses, and commercial navigation would not be
affected by any of the alternatives, although marinas and private
campgrounds could see some inconvenience during periodic pool
drawdowns proposed in all alternatives. Commercial tree harvest on the Refuge is expected to be
modest, selective, and restrictive across all alternatives once a Forest Management Plan is
completed. This harvest will have a minor and local positive economic impact, and a long-term forest
health and wildlife impact. All alternatives continue furbearer trapping without change until a new
Trapping Plan is completed. A separate environmental assessment will be done for this plan.
Consequences, Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)
This alternative will cause little change in water quality, sedimentation rates, geomorphology of the
floodplain, or river hydrology since current modest programs will continue. There will likely be a
continued long-term decline in the scenic and wild qualities of the Refuge due to little land
acquisition within the approved boundary and loss of lands to development.
Biologically, Alternative A would have a neutral impact on threatened and endangered species,
reptiles and amphibians, mammals, wetlands, and upland habitat. Sport fish populations would likely
increase due to specific habitat projects and pool drawdowns. Waterfowl, other migratory birds,
other fish, and mussels would likely continue their long-term trend downward in terms of species
diversity, use of the Refuge, or overall population. The floodplain forest would continue to decline in
diversity and structure. Invasive species will likely continue to expand under this alternative,
negatively impacting both species and habitat. Disturbance to wildlife and habitat disruption or loss
is likely to increase under this alternative since no new restrictions will be placed on public uses of
the Refuge.
Copyright by Sandra Lines
Summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement
xxix
Socioeconomic impacts under Alternative A will be mixed. All current uses will continue with an
estimated $89.9 million in economic output. Hunting, fishing, commercial fish floats, interpretation,
environmental education, wildlife observation, and photography will continue, although
opportunities for certain user groups will continue to be limited. Keeping current policies or
regulations will be favored by many long-term visitors, while others may be disappointed that issues
are not being addressed, with a resulting decline in the quality of the experience. Recreational
boating, camping, and other beach-related uses will not be affected since no major time and space
restrictions or regulations will be implemented. This is likely to be viewed positively by this user
group and visits should continue to increase. Likewise, fishing tournaments and commercial guiding
will not be subject to new Refuge oversight and sponsors/operators will benefit. However, the
general public is likely to face continued frustration with disturbance from these activities. Staffing
levels and facilities will continue to be inadequate and negatively impact wildlife and habitat
monitoring, habitat improvements, interagency coordination, and personal contact, programs, and
facilities for the public.
Consequences, Alternative B: Wildlife Focus
This alternative should result in improvements in water quality, sedimentation rates, floodplain
geomorphology, and river hydrology due to increased effort on private lands in watersheds and an
emphasis on habitat projects and pool drawdowns. There will likely be a long-term improvement in
the scenic and wild qualities of the Refuge due to increased emphasis on finishing land acquisition
within the approved boundary of the Refuge, management plans for Research Natural Areas, and
increased effort on floodplain forest management.
Biologically, Alternative B would have a positive impact on threatened and endangered species,
reptiles and amphibians, mammals, wetlands, and upland habitat. Sport fish populations would likely
increase due to specific habitat projects and pool drawdowns. Waterfowl, other migratory birds,
other fish, and mussels would improve in terms of use of the Refuge or overall population. The
floodplain forest should improve in terms of sustainability, diversity of species, and structure.
Invasive plant species would likely stabilize or decline under more aggressive management. Invasive
animals may increase, decrease, or stabilize depending on the outcome of interagency initiatives,
biological or technological solutions, and funding. Disturbance to wildlife and habitat disruption or
loss is likely to decrease markedly under this alternative due to a more restrictive approach to
managing public uses on the Refuge.
Socioeconomic impacts under Alternative B will be the greatest of all alternatives considered.
Although most current uses will continue, many will be subject to new regulations and restrictions,
resulting in an estimated loss of $7.5 million, or 8 percent, in economic output due to decreased
visitation. However, opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and photography will
remain abundant, while interpretation and environmental education programs will likely decline.
Time, space or other restrictions in some areas and for some uses will be viewed negatively by many
long-term users, while others will welcome the diversity of opportunity provided. Commercial fish
floats and guides will be severely impacted since these uses would be phased out. Camping and other
beach-related recreational opportunities would decline as many areas would be closed to these uses
to protect wildlife and habitat. Fishing tournaments would be subject to Refuge permitting
requirements which could reduce the number of tournaments, improve the quality of tournaments,
and reduce impacts to others using the Refuge for recreation. Staffing levels and facilities would be
better suited to meet the demands for wildlife and habitat monitoring, habitat improvements, and
interagency coordination, and eventually, improve personal contact and programs for the public.
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
xxx
Consequences, Alternative C: Public Use Focus
This alternative should result in improvements in water quality, sedimentation rates, floodplain
geomorphology, and river hydrology due to increased effort on private lands in watersheds. There
will likely be a long-term improvement in the scenic and wild qualities of the Refuge due to increased
emphasis on finishing land acquisition within the approved boundary of the Refuge and management
plans for Research Natural Areas. However, this effect will be negated by no increased emphasis in
forest management or pool drawdowns, and an overall emphasis on recreation benefits of projects
versus fish and wildlife benefits.
Biologically, impacts of this alternative are similar to Alternative A. However, disturbance to wildlife
and habitat disruption or loss is likely to increase above levels in Alternative A due to a more liberal
approach to regulations and policy.
Socioeconomic impacts under Alternative C will be mixed. All current uses will continue, and likely
increase, resulting in an estimated gain of $5.6 million, or 6 percent, in economic output.
Opportunities for hunting and fishing will remain virtually unchanged, while opportunities for
commercial fish floats, interpretation, environmental education, wildlife observation, and
photography will increase through new facilities and programs. Changes in current policies or
regulations (for example electric motor areas and elimination of permanent hunting blinds) will be
opposed by many long-term area users, while others will welcome the increase in diversity of
opportunity. Camping and other beach-related uses will not be measurably affected, although
boaters will be restricted in electric motor areas. Commercial guides will be impacted since Refuge
permits will be required which could limit the number of qualified guides. This may be viewed
positively by the general public who views guides as competition for public hunting and fishing.
Fishing tournaments would be subject to Refuge permitting requirements which could reduce the
number of tournaments, improve the quality of tournaments, and reduce impacts to others using the
Refuge for recreation. Staffing levels and facilities would be better suited to meet the demands for
public information and programs, but at some expense to wildlife and habitat monitoring, habitat
improvements, and interagency coordination.
Consequences, Alternative D:
Wildlife and Integrated Public Use
Focus (Preferred Alternative)
Physical environment impacts of Alternative D
would be similar to Alternative B. However,
there would be more improvement in conserving
the scenic and wild values of the Refuge through
the implementation of guiding principles for
habitat projects which include a principle for
considering esthetics in project design.
This alternative would have similar positive
impacts to fish, wildlife, and habitat as in
Alternative B. Disturbance to wildlife and
habitat disruption or loss is also likely to
decrease under this alternative due to a more
balanced approach to fish and wildlife
conservation and public use.
Socioeconomic impacts under Alternative D will also be mixed. All current uses will continue, and
likely show modest increases, resulting in an estimated gain of $3.5 million, or 4 percent, in economic
Sandhill Cranes and chicks. Copyright by Sandra Lines
Summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement
xxxi
output. Opportunities for hunting and fishing will remain abundant, but methods or seasonal
restrictions in some areas will change long-standing expectations and practices. Opportunities for
commercial fish floats will remain the same depending on operator compliance with new guidelines,
while interpretation, environmental education, wildlife observation, and photography will increase
through new facilities and programs. Change in current policies or regulations (for example electric
motor areas and elimination of permanent hunting blinds) will be opposed by many long-term area
users, while others will welcome the increase in diversity of opportunity. Camping and other beach-related
uses will continue, but restricted on certain areas important for wildlife. Impacts to
recreational boating, commercial guiding, and fishing tournaments will be similar to impacts in
Alternative C. Staffing levels and facilities would be better suited to meet the needs of an overall
program balanced between fish and wildlife monitoring, habitat management, and public use.
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background
1
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need,
and Planning Background
1.1 Introduction
This document is an integrated Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and
Fish Refuge (Refuge). It will follow the basic and
accepted format for an EIS and each alternative
presented will contain the core of a CCP, namely
goals, objectives, and strategies. Since it is an
integrated document designed to meet the
requirements for both an EIS and a CCP, some
sections in the EIS format were expanded
(notably Chapter 1, Planning Background) to
meet this dual function. In addition, various
referenced appendices relate to either the EIS,
CCP, or both, as applicable.
The Refuge was established by an Act of Congress 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. See Appendix C for the legislation
establishing the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge.
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 visitors in 2004, 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;
Entrance sign at Upper Mississippi River NW&FR.
Upper Mississippi River NWFR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
2
Figure 1: Location of Upper Mississippi River NWFR
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background
3
# 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;
# 136 active Bald Eagle nests in recent years;
# A peak of up to 1,000 Bald Eagles during winter months;
# Approximately 5,000 heron and egret nests in up to 15 colonies;
The Refuge is a part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, which includes more than 540 refuges
and more than 3,000 waterfowl production areas, a total of 95 million acres of lands set aside for
wildlife habitat. The Refuge System is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior.
The Refuge is divided into four districts for management, administrative, and public service
effectiveness 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,
Trempealeau and Driftless Area, are also part of the Refuge Complex and are under the supervision
of the Winona and McGregor district managers, respectively. Separate CCPs are also being
prepared for Trempealeau NWR and Driftless NWR, although scoping was done concurrently with
scoping for this CCP and EIS.
1.2 Purpose and Need for Action
1.2.1 Purpose
The purpose of this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to adopt and implement a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish
Refuge. The Service is considering a range of alternatives of how best to manage the Refuge. A
second purpose of the EIS is to present and adopt a Fire Management Plan for the Refuge.
Comprehensive conservation plans are designed to guide the management and administration of
national wildlife refuges for a period of 15 years and help ensure that each refuge meets the purpose
for which it was established and contributes to the overall mission of the Refuge System. The CCP
helps describe a desired future condition of the refuge, and provides both long-term and day-to-day
guidance for management actions and decisions. It provides both broad and specific policy on various
issues, sets goals and measurable objectives, and outlines strategies for reaching those objectives. A
CCP also helps communicate to other agencies and the public a management direction for a refuge
to meet the needs of both wildlife and people.
The Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 mandates that the Secretary of the Interior, and thus the
Service, prepare CCPs for all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System by October 2012. In
addition to this mandate, there are other reasons why preparation of a CCP is needed at this time.
Upper Mississippi River NWFR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
4
The last comprehensive plan (known as
a Master Plan) was completed in 1987.
Since then, the river environment has
undergone change affecting habitat and
wildlife; new laws and policies have been
put in place; new scientific information
is available; and levels of public use and
interest have increased. The planning
process is also an excellent way to
inform and involve the general public,
state and federal agencies, and non-government
groups who have an
interest, responsibility, or authority in
the management or use of certain
aspects of the Upper Mississippi River
and the Refuge.
Finally, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires that federal agencies, and thus the
Service, follow basic requirements for major actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment. These requirements are: 1) consider every significant aspect of the environmental
impact of a proposed action; 2) involve the public in its decision-making process when considering
environmental concerns; 3) use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to decision making; and 4)
consider a reasonable range of alternatives. This EIS documents those requirements and provides
the necessary information and analysis to the decision-maker or responsible official.
1.2.2 Need
The CCP that ultimately arises from this Draft CCP and EIS will help ensure that management and
administration of the Refuge meets the mission of the Refuge System, the purpose for which the
Refuge was established, and the goals for the Refuge. The mission, purpose, and goals are
considered the needs or benchmarks for defining reasonable alternatives presented in Chapter 2,
and along with an evaluation of consequences in Chapter 4, will form the basis for a decision. These
three needs are summarized below. More detail on issues related to these needs can be found in
Section 1.4.5.
Need 1: Contribute to the Mission The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System set forth
in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management, and where appropriate,
restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their
habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and
future generations of Americans.”
Need 2: Help Fulfill the Purposes The 1924 Refuge act set forth the purposes of the Refuge,
which remain valid to this day, and guide planning,
management, administration, and use of the refuge:
“a. 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
Lesser Scaup
Copyright by Sandra Lines
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background
5
b. to such extent as the Secretary of Interior 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
c. to such extent as the Secretary of Interior may by
regulations prescribe as a refuge and breeding place for fish
and other aquatic animal life.”
Need 3: Help Achieve Refuge Goals 1. Landscape. We will strive to maintain and improve the
scenic qualities and wild character of the Upper Mississippi
River NW&FR.
Related needs are to:
a. maintain the integrity of the refuge boundary
b. complete acquisition within approved boundary
c. protect blufflands for scenic qualities and migratory birds
d. ensure integrity of designated Research Natural Areas
e. seek designation as a Wetland of International Importance.
2. Environmental Health. We will strive to improve the
environmental health of the Refuge by working with others.
Related needs are to:
a. reduce sediment, nutrient, and contaminants in water
b. restore aquatic vegetation in navigation pools on the Refuge
c. understand and reduce invasive species
3. Wildlife and Habitat. Our habitat management will support
diverse and abundant native fish, wildlife, and plants.
Related needs are to:
a. improve habitat on all pools within Refuge
b. provide guidance for habitat management projects
c. monitor status and trends of key fish and wildlife
d. protect and enhance federally listed threatened, endangered
and candidate species
e. evaluate and update furbearer trapping program
f. improve fishery and mussel conservation efforts
g. improve management and oversight of commercial fishing
h. improve understanding and management of turtles
i. evaluate and manage forest resources
j. maintain and enhance grassland habitat
4. Wildlife-Dependent Recreation. We will manage programs
and facilities to ensure abundant and sustainable hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography,
interpretation, and environmental education opportunities for
a broad cross-section of the public.
Related needs are to:
a. ensure diverse and abundant hunting and fishing
opportunities
Upper Mississippi River NWFR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
6
b. improve effectiveness of Closed Area system to meet the
food and rest needs of waterfowl
c. ensure consistency and efficiency of hunting programs
d. reduce user conflicts and ensure equitable hunting
opportunities for a broad cross-section of the public
e. reduce environmental and social impacts from competitive
sporting activities
f. improve opportunities for wildlife observation and
photography
g. improve opportunities for interpretation and environmental
education
h. bring all commercial fish floats/piers into compliance with
safety and administrative guidelines
i. improve management and oversight of growing number of
commercial guide services
5. Other Recreational Use. We will provide opportunities 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.
Related needs are to:
a. reduce environmental and social impacts from beach-related
uses and develop beach maintenance policy
b. address fish and wildlife disturbance and user conflicts in
backwater areas
c. reduce safety and erosion problems on some boating
corridors
d. clarify domestic animal use regulations
e. update public use regulations for clarity and effectiveness
6. 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.
Related needs are to:
a. provide adequate staff to meet resource and public
challenges and opportunities
b. provide staff with adequate office and maintenance facilities
c. provide adequate information to the public on recreational
opportunities and resource challenges
d. improve access to the Refuge for public enjoyment
e. identify operational and maintenance shortfalls
1.3 Decision Framework
The Service’s Regional Director at Ft. Snelling, Minnesota, is the responsible official for approving
the Final CCP and EIS in a Record of Decision. The Record of Decision will identify the selected
alternative which will become the Final CCP. The selected alternative will be one of the alternatives
in this Draft CCP and EIS, although the final decision may reflect modification of certain elements
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background
7
of the alternatives based on public review and comment. The Final EIS will also contain individual
substantive comments, or a summary of like-comments, received from the public, agencies, and
other interested parties, along with a Service response.
1.4 Planning Background
1.4.1 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
policy. Key aspects of this framework are outlined below. A list of other laws and executive orders
that have guided preparation of the CCP and EIS, 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.”
1.4.1.1 The National Wildlife Refuge System
The Refuge System had its beginning in 1903 when President Theodore Roosevelt used an
Executive 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 specifically set aside for wildlife conservation. The administration, management, and growth of
the Refuge System are guided by the following goals (Director’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, interjurisdictional 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.
1.4.1.2 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 key provisions of this landmark legislation, and
subsequent policies to carry out the Act’s mandates.
Upper Mississippi River NWFR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
8
Established Broad National Policy for the Refuge 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 compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional
judgment 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 determination 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. Draft compatibility determinations applicable to uses described in this draft CCP and EIS
are included in Appendix E.
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background
9
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Service is directed in the Refuge Improvement 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 biological integrity policy helps define and clarify this
directive by providing guidance on what conditions constitute biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health; guidelines for maintaining existing levels; guidelines for determining how and
when it is appropriate to restore lost elements; and guidelines in dealing with external threats to
biological integrity, diversity and health.
1.4.1.3 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, Minnesota, McGregor District; Twelve Mile Island, 900
acres, Iowa, McGregor District; and Thomson-Fulton Sand Prairie, 321 acres, Illinois, Savanna
District). The Service’s Refuge Manual, Section 8 RM 10, provides guidance for management,
administration, 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.
1.4.2 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
Refuge 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:
Bald Eagle
Copyright by Sandra Lines
Upper Mississippi River NWFR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
10
# “...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 Agriculture1 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
acquisition 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 improvement of the river for navigation. Both
of these stipulations are discussed more fully in section 1.4.3.
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 Wildlife 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-acquired land was transferred 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 in
section 1.4.3.1.
Spanning 80 years, the history of the Refuge is varied, storied, and complex, and shaped by
organizational, political, and social influences. Surprisingly, 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 Refuge.” This report is available at Refuge headquarters in Winona.
Today, the Refuge encompasses nearly 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.
1.4.3 Relationship to Corps of Engineers and the States, and Other
Conservation Initiatives
1.4.3.1 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
1.Changed to Secretary of the Interior pursuant to reorganization and transfer of functions in 1939 (16 USC 721-
731).
2.Changed to Secretary of the Interior pursuant to reorganization and transfer of functions in 1939 (16 USC 721-
731).
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background
11
1871, Congress approved funding for the Corps to improve the river for navigation, mainly through
the removal of snags and occasional dredging. By 1878, the Corps was maintaining a 4-foot deep
navigation channel on the river and in 1910, Congress authorized a 6-foot navigation channel. The
channel was maintained mainly by directing more river current to the main channel of the river
through wing dams and backwater closing 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, Minnesota (11
are within the generally accepted boundary 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 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 thus acquired approximately 106,000 acres within the generally accepted boundary of the
Refuge. Some of the Corps-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 acquired land
under different authorities for markedly different purposes: fish and wildlife conservation 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://midwest.fws.gov/planning/marktwain/index.html.
In summary, the cooperative agreement grants to the Service the rights to manage fish and wildlife
and its habitat on those lands acquired by the Corps. These lands are considered part of the Refuge
and the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Corps retained the rights to manage as needed for the
navigation project, forestry, and Corps-managed recreation areas, and all other rights not
specifically granted to the Service. A copy of the cooperative agreement can be found in Appendix F.
As part of the planning process, the Refuge initiated efforts with the Corps to amend the current
agreement to clarify language on the responsibility and authority of each agency, especially in
regard to recreational uses.
Other conflicts over the years between navigation, fish and wildlife conservation, and recreation
influenced Refuge and Corps cooperative working arrangements. In the 1950s and 1960s, there was
growing concern over the common practice of placing dredged material from navigation channel
maintenance in the marshes and backwaters 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 Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. In 1974, the State of
Wisconsin filed suit against the Corps prohibiting further dredge spoil on lands within the state.
Minnesota followed with their own prohibition. These actions were the impetus for more structured
cooperation.
In 1974, the Corps 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 authorized by Congress
in 1976 and called upon the Corps, in concert with other agencies and the states, to develop a
management plan that looked at the needs of navigation, barge traffic, fish and wildlife, recreation,
watershed management, and water quality. The resulting GREAT studies not only provided a
Upper Mississippi River NWFR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
12
comprehensive look at all aspects of the Upper Mississippi River, but provided the institutional
framework for the Service, Corps, states and other agencies to work together to meet often
divergent needs and mandates.
In 1978, Congress mandated that the Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission complete a
comprehensive master plan for the Upper Mississippi River, which includes the Refuge. The plan
was completed in 1982 and encompassed many of the recommendations developed in the GREAT
studies for dredge material disposal, fish and wildlife conservation, and recreation management.
In 1983, the Service and the Corps (St. Paul District), in cooperation with Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Iowa, completed a Land Use Allocation Plan for Refuge- and Corps-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 balanced 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 (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 operations and project planning
for the Refuge and the Corps, although updates are needed to reflect new acquisitions and changing
resource needs.
In 1986, Congress authorized the Corps of Engineers to carry out an Environmental Management
Program (EMP) as part of the Water Resource Development Act of the same year. The EMP is
composed of two elements: 1) planning, construction and evaluation of fish and wildlife habitat
rehabilitation 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 another 8 under construction and 16 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 Trempealeau, 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
management and planning.
In 2004, the Corps of Engineers released a Draft 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 virtually every stage. The study recommends a dual-purpose
approach of improving both navigation efficiency 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 c