Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Driftless Area
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
and Draft 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.
i
Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Driftless Area
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
May 2005
Introduction
This document is an integrated Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Driftless Area National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR) in Iowa. The Driftless Area National
Wildlife Refuge was established in 1989 with the purpose
of conserving threatened and endangered species.
Specifically, the Refuge conserves populations of the
endangered Iowa Pleistocene snail and threatened
Northern monkshood. These species occur on a rare and
fragile habitat type termed algific talus slopes (cold air
slopes). These are areas where cold underground air
seeps onto slopes to provide a constant cold
microenvironment. This habitat harbors species, some of
which date from the Ice Age, that require a cold
environment.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
of 1997 requires all national wildlife refuges to complete
a CCP to describe Refuge management for a 15-year
time frame. Refuge management is currently guided by
endangered species recovery plans, general policies, and
shorter-term plans. The CCP and preferred alternative
in the EIS describe the direction for the Refuge for the
next 15 years (2005-2020). The aim is to conserve enough
populations of the above species to reach recovery goals, as well as conserve unique algific talus
slope habitat and the associated community of rare plants and animals. This plan also describes
habitat restoration and management for other wildlife that includes the use of prescribed fire.
Visitor services goals are also part of the plan. 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 purposes and goals of the Refuge are directly tied to recovery plans which describe the steps
needed to recover and conserve the Northern monkshood and Iowa Pleistocene snail. Because of the
fragile nature of their habitat and the low number of populations for each of these species, the
primary recovery goal for both species is protecting and conserving the majority of remaining
populations and their habitat. The primary threats to the habitat are grazing, logging, sinkhole
filling, erosion, pesticides, invasive species, and development. Therefore, it is desirable to protect
land surrounding the endangered species habitat to provide a buffer area from some of these
threats.
Algific talus slope on Driftless Area NWR. USFWS
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
ii
Achievement of the Refuge purpose will help reach endangered species recovery goals, which will
lead to delisting. The Refuge has reached its existing approved acquisition acreage. The original
authorized acquisition area for the Refuge was approximately 700 acres in eight counties in Iowa,
Illinois, and Wisconsin (Figure A) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986). A preliminary project
proposal for Refuge expansion was approved in 1993. However, the Refuge did not pursue further
study for the 1993 proposed expansion until the CCP process began in 2002. A Land Protection Plan
is also included with the EIS that outlines the overall expansion plan for the Refuge. Since Refuge
establishment, additional information indicates the need to expand the Refuge geographic area and
acreage, and to address ecological issues related to protection of endangered species. The CCP will
achieve the following Refuge goals:
Goal 1. Habitat: Conserve endangered species habitat and contribute to migratory bird and other
wildlife habitats within a larger landscape.
Goal 2. Species Management: Manage and protect endangered species, other trust species, and
species of management interest based on sound science through identification and understanding of
algific slope communities and associated habitats.
Goal 3. Visitor Services: Visitors understand and appreciate the role of the Refuge in protecting
endangered species.
The Refuge consists of nine scattered tracts or ‘units’ totaling 781 acres containing upland hardwood
forest, grassland, stream and riparian habitats. The current management practice is to protect
endangered species habitat, restore other habitats to presettlement vegetation when possible, and
control invasive species. Prescribed burning is used in habitat management. Two Refuge units are
open for hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation and photography. Presentations and tours are
given as requested and staff time allows. The Refuge is managed under the Upper Mississippi River
National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which includes three Refuges. The Refuge office is co-located
with the McGregor District of Upper Mississippi River NWFR. One full-time Refuge Operations
Specialist is assigned to the Refuge.
Planning Issues
From public involvement activities that occurred when planning began in 2002, the Service learned
about issues that concerned people about management of the Refuge. Refuge staff also identified
issues. We organized the issues into four categories: Habitat Management, Visitor Services, Refuge
Expansion, and Species Assessments.
Issue 1: Habitat Management
Land acquired for the Refuge typically has been impacted by agricultural or logging activities.
Refuge lands are small parcels, often fragmented from similar habitat in the area. Current
management is to restore as much as practical to presettlement habitat types around algific slopes,
although lack of funds and staff limit restoration efforts. Several external factors are influencing
management efforts on the Refuge. Invasive species such as garlic mustard are impacting
endangered species and other wildlife habitat. High local deer populations may also impact habitat.
Erosion from farming adjacent to the Refuge can affect habitat on the Refuge.
Potential solutions identified by the public were to develop management strategies for forests,
including consideration of deer impacts, expand management of habitats surrounding endangered
species habitat, and work to control invasive species.
iii
Figure A: Current Driftless Area NWR Lands in Iowa
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iv
Issue 2: Visitor Services
Public use has not been emphasized on Driftless Area NWR
because of concern for the fragile endangered species habitat,
and the small size and lack of access to some units. Two of nine
units are currently open to public use. Potential solutions
suggested by the public were to maintain current hunting policies
but increase awareness of regulations at the site, consider trail
development in less sensitive areas, provide on-site information
and education at select algific slopes while restricting direct
access and negative impacts, provide guided walks, and
encourage volunteers.
Issue 3: Refuge Expansion
Refuge expansion will facilitate recovery goals and allow delisting
of target species. Refuge land acquisition is aimed at protecting
the entire algific slope system (endangered species habitat),
including upland sinkholes and buffer area around the slope.
Many of the currently protected algific slopes do not have
adequate protection of sinkholes nor provide buffer from
adjacent agricultural or other uses. Conservation of additional
snail and monkshood populations is also needed to preserve
genetic diversity over their range and protect the majority of the
populations as required by the recovery plans. In addition, protection of Service species of concern
may preclude the need for future listing and would conserve a unique representative natural
community and its biodiversity.
Potential approaches raised by the public were to investigate alternatives to acquisition (e.g.
conservation easements), increase funding for land protection, connect parcels of land where
possible and expand boundaries to roads, railroads, or more recognizable features.
Issue 4: Species Assessments
Additional information about algific talus slopes and the species that inhabit them is needed. For
example, locations of sinkholes and specific information on distances and function of the cold air flow
have not been studied. There are nearly 400 algific slopes/maderate cliffs in the Driftless Area, but
not all are occupied by currently listed species. Few in-depth species surveys were done and many of
the known algific slope sites were only visited once. There may be rare, endemic, or unidentified
species in this habitat. It is important to know what plants and animals depend on this habitat to
prepare effective management strategies. Although original surveys to locate this habitat type were
systematic and comprehensive, some sites likely remain undiscovered.
Management Alternatives
The Service constructed a range of alternatives from ideas provided by the public and Refuge staff.
Many of the ideas were identified at a “Manager for a Day Workshop” open to the public.
Three alternatives for future Refuge management are described: A) no action, B) habitat protection
emphasis, and C) habitat protection, increased management, and integrated wildlife-dependent
recreation. Our preferred alternative is identified as Alternative C. This EIS considers the
biological, environmental and socioeconomic effects that the three alternatives would have on the
most significant issues and concerns identified during the planning process.
Northern monkshood. Bob Clearwater
v
Alternative A: No Action: Status Quo (No Action)
This alternative assumes no change from past management programs and is considered the base
from which to compare the other alternatives. There would be no lands added to the Refuge and no
major changes in habitat management or public use programs. The Refuge would assist others in
protection of additional endangered species habitat.
The primary consequence of this alternative is that endangered species recovery would likely not
occur. Minimal management of other habitats may result in increased invasive species, increased
erosion, and undesirable wildlife habitat. There would be no change in public support for the Refuge
mission and no increase in public use opportunities.
Alternative B: Habitat Protection Emphasis
The approved acquisition area is proposed to be 6,000 acres in 22 counties in Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The primary emphasis of the Refuge would be land acquisition and other
forms of habitat protection to expand the Refuge by 3,400 acres in the next 15 years for endangered
species recovery and proactive protection of species of concern. This alternative also emphasizes
minimal physical disturbance of endangered species habitat. Alternative B is primarily aimed at
reaching habitat protection recovery goals for both species with more land acquisition than
Alternative C. Some aspects of recreation, habitat restoration and control of invasive species would
be at current levels and some would be reduced. The amount of public use would be monitored.
Although this alternative would make significant
progress to permanent protection of habitat,
recovery would likely not occur under this
alternative because it would not address
multiple recovery tasks that are needed to delist
species. Other rare species would be protected
under this alternative, but no further
information would be gained on them. The
physical environment of algific talus slopes
would be more strictly protected under this
alternative. Land acquisition would also protect
water quality, soils, and aesthetic qualities of the
region. Less habitat restoration under this
alternative may result in increased invasive
species and erosion. There would be no change
in public support for the Refuge.
Alternative C: Habitat Protection, Increased Management, and Integrated Wildlife-Dependent
Recreation (Preferred Alternative)
The approved acquisition area is proposed to be 6,000 acres in 22 counties in Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin. This alternative would provide for expansion of the Refuge by 2,275 acres
in the next 15 years for endangered species recovery and proactive protection of species of concern.
Alternative C includes increased land acquisition for recovery and delisting of the Iowa Pleistocene
snail. Many of the recovery goals addressed for the snail would also benefit Northern monkshood.
More active management of Refuge lands and endangered species habitat would take place under
Alternative C to meet multiple recovery tasks for delisting of the Iowa Pleistocene snail. Restoration
of forest habitat would be increased; there would be increased attention to control of invasive
species, and inventory of plants and wildlife. Public use would be increased for environmental
education and wildlife observation only where adequate public access and sufficient buffer areas
around endangered species habitat exist. The amount of public use would be monitored.
Coyote. USFWS
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
vi
The consequences of Alternative C include delisting the Iowa Pleistocene snail, habitat restoration
that would benefit other wildlife species, and improved water quality and soils. Other rare species
would also benefit. There would be greater potential to impact habitats with more emphasis on study
and management, as well as greater emphasis on public use. However, these increases are minor and
minimized by conducting work in specific ways.
The following apply to all alternatives:
# Cultural resources would be managed the same as under current Refuge management.
# Endangered species habitat would remain closed to all public entry.
# At least the current level of public use would remain under all alternatives.
# Prescribed fire would be used under each alternative to manage habitats under the current
approved Refuge fire plan.
# The Iowa Pleistocene snail and Northern monkshood recovery plans would be revised and
updated.
The economic effects of the alternatives are also discussed in the EIS. Alternatives B and C would
remove lands from agricultural and timber uses with associated economic losses. However, the
additional Refuge acquisitions will be small parcels scattered over a large area. Refuge Revenue
Sharing payments would continue and recreation on some of these lands would provide local income.
Refuge budget and associated expenditures would increase the most under alternative C.
The cumulative impacts of the preferred alternative are delisting the Iowa Pleistocene snail,
protection of other biological and physical resources, and beneficial habitat for wildlife. There is
more potential for cumulative disturbance impact under the preferred alternative, but these are
minor, and management actions would be completed in ways that minimize disturbance.
vii
Abstract
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Driftless Area National Wildlife
Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
May 2005
Type of Action: Administrative
Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Responsible Official:Robyn Thorson, Regional Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Henry Whipple Federal Building
1 Federal Drive
Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056
For further information: Cathy Henry
Refuge Operations Specialist
Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge
PO Box 460
McGregor, IA 52157
563/873-3423
Abstract
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP) for the Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), Iowa. The CCP will guide
management for the next 15 years. Three alternatives for future Refuge management are described:
A) no action, B) habitat protection emphasis, and C) habitat protection, increased management, and
integrated wildlife-dependent recreation. Our preferred alternative is identified as Alternative C.
This Environmental Impact Statement considers the biological, environmental and socioeconomic
effects that the three alternatives would have on the most significant issues and concerns identified
during the planning process.
Alternative A: No Action: Status Quo – This alternative assumes no change from past management
programs and is considered the base from which to compare the other alternatives. There would be no
lands added to the Refuge and no major changes in habitat management or public use programs.
Alternative B: Habitat Protection Emphasis – The primary emphasis of the Refuge would be land
acquisition and other forms of habitat protection to expand the Refuge by 3400 acres within 22
counties in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin for endangered species recovery and proactive
protection of species of concern. This alternative emphasizes minimal physical disturbance of
endangered species habitat. Some aspects of recreation, habitat restoration and control of invasive
species would be at current levels and some would be reduced. The amount of public use would be
monitored.
Alternative C: Habitat Protection, Increased Management, and Integrated Wildlife-Dependent
Recreation – This alternative would provide for expansion of the Refuge by 2,275 acres within 22
counties in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin for endangered species recovery and proactive
protection of species of concern. This alternative addresses multiple recovery goals for delisting of the
Iowa Pleistocene snail through increased habitat management. Public use would be increased for
environmental education and wildlife observation. The amount of public use would be monitored.
ix
Reader’s Guide
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will manage the Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in
accordance with an approved Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). The CCP provides long range
guidance on Refuge expansion and management through its vision, goals, objectives, and strategies.
The CCP also provides a basis for a long-term adaptive management process including
implementation, monitoring progress, evaluating and adjusting, and revising plans accordingly.
Additional step-down planning will be required prior to implementation of certain programs and
projects.
This document combines both a Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact
Statement (Draft CCP/EIS). Following public review and comment, we will publish a Final EIS
followed by a Record of Decision (ROD) that identifies the alternative selected as the CCP. We will
then publish a stand-alone CCP made up of Chapter 1, the selected alternative from Chapter 2, all of
Chapters 3, 5, and 6 and the appendices. The following chapter and appendix descriptions are
provided to assist readers in locating and understanding the various components of this combined
document.
Chapter 1, Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues, includes the regional context, establishment,
and purposes of Driftless Area NWR; vision and goals for future management; and the purpose of and
need for a comprehensive conservation plan. This chapter also provides background on major
planning issues identified by Refuge staff, state and local agencies, and the general public.
Chapter 2, Alternatives, describes three management alternatives. Each alternative represents a
potential comprehensive conservation plan for Driftless Area NWR. Alternative A describes current
management on the Refuge. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, is the proposed Draft CCP for
Driftless Area NWR.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment, describes the existing physical and biological environment, public
uses, cultural resources, and socioeconomic conditions. They represent baseline conditions for the
comparisons made in Chapter 4.
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, describes the potential impacts of each of the three
alternatives on the resources, programs, and conditions outlined in Chapter 3. This is perhaps the
most important part of the EIS component of this document.
Chapter 5, List of Preparers
Chapter 6, Consultation and Coordination with the Public and Others
Chapter 7, Reserved for Public Comments on Draft EIS
Chapter 8, References Cited
Appendices
Driftless Area
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
xi
Summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Driftless Area
National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan ....................................................................i
Abstract .....................................................................................................................................................vii
Reader’s Guide ...........................................................................................................................................ix
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background ...............................................1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose and Need for Action .........................................................................................................2
1.2.1 Purpose ...............................................................................................................................2
1.2.2 Need ....................................................................................................................................2
1.3 Decision Framework .......................................................................................................................4
1.4 Planning Background ......................................................................................................................4
1.4.1 Recovery Plans .....................................................................................................................4
1.4.1.1 Iowa Pleistocene Snail .............................................................................................4
1.4.1.2 Northern monkshood ................................................................................................5
1.4.1.3 Leedy’s Roseroot ......................................................................................................5
1.4.2 Previous Acquisition Planning .............................................................................................6
1.4.3 Overview of the Planning Process .......................................................................................6
1.4.4 Legal and Policy Framework ................................................................................................8
1.4.5 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, Goals, and Principles ......................................8
1.4.6 Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System ...................................................................8
1.4.7 The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and Related Policy ........9
1.4.7.1 Compatibility Policy ................................................................................................10
1.4.7.2 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy ..........................10
1.4.8 Wilderness Review ............................................................................................................11
1.4.9 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................11
1.5 Other Conservation Initiatives ......................................................................................................11
1.5.1 Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem .......................................................11
1.5.2 Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives .............................................................................11
1.5.3 Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities ...........................................12
1.5.4 Other Plans .........................................................................................................................14
1.6 Brief History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition, and Management ......................................14
1.6.1 Refuge Establishment and Acquisition ..............................................................................14
1.6.2 Management History .........................................................................................................15
1.6.3 Current Refuge Management Activities ............................................................................15
1.6.3.1 Endangered Species ...............................................................................................17
1.6.3.2 Grassland Habitat ..................................................................................................27
1.6.3.3 Forest Habitat .........................................................................................................27
1.6.3.4 Streams ..................................................................................................................27
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
xii
1.6.3.5 Recreation ..............................................................................................................28
1.6.3.6 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................28
1.7 Refuge Purposes ..........................................................................................................................28
1.8 Refuge Vision Statement .............................................................................................................28
1.9 Refuge Goals ...............................................................................................................................28
1.9.1 Habitat Goal ......................................................................................................................28
1.9.2 Species Management Goal ...............................................................................................29
1.9.3 Visitor Services Goal .........................................................................................................29
1.10 Planning Issues ..........................................................................................................................29
1.10.1 Issue 1: Habitat Management ........................................................................................29
1.10.2 Issue 2: Visitor Services .................................................................................................29
1.10.3 Issue 3: Refuge Expansion ..............................................................................................30
1.10.4 Issue 4: Species Assessments ........................................................................................30
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies .......................................................................32
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................32
2.2 Formulation of Alternatives .........................................................................................................32
2.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study ..............................................................................32
2.3.1 “Care-taker” Status ...........................................................................................................32
2.3.2 Transfer lands to the Iowa DNR ........................................................................................33
2.4 Summary of Alternatives .............................................................................................................33
2.4.1 Alternative A – No Action .................................................................................................33
2.4.1.1 Habitat ...................................................................................................................33
2.4.1.2 Species Management ............................................................................................33
2.4.1.3 Visitor Services ......................................................................................................33
2.4.2 Alternative B – Habitat Protection Emphasis Alternative .................................................34
2.4.2.1 Habitat ..................................................................................................................34
2.4.2.2 Species Management ............................................................................................34
2.4.2.3 Visitor Services ......................................................................................................34
2.4.3 Alternative C – Habitat Protection, Increased Management, and
Integrated Wildlife-dependent Recreation Alternative (Preferred Alternative) ............35
2.4.3.1 Habitat ...................................................................................................................35
2.4.3.2 Species Management ............................................................................................36
2.4.3.3 Visitor Services .....................................................................................................36
2.5 Detailed Description of Alternatives and Relationship to Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ....36
2.5.1 Features Common to All Alternatives ...............................................................................36
2.5.1.1 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................36
2.5.1.2 Fire Management ...................................................................................................36
2.5.1.2.1Prescribed Fire .........................................................................................40
2.5.1.2.2Fire Prevention and Detection .................................................................41
2.5.1.2.3Fire Suppression .....................................................................................41
2.5.2 Alternative A: No Action ...................................................................................................42
2.5.2.1 Habitat Goal ...........................................................................................................42
2.5.2.2 Species Management Goal ...................................................................................44
2.5.2.3 Visitor Services Goal ..............................................................................................44
2.5.3 Alternative B: Habitat Protection ......................................................................................45
2.5.3.1 Habitat Goal ...........................................................................................................45
2.5.3.2 Species Management ............................................................................................47
2.5.3.3 Visitor Services Goal ..............................................................................................48
xiii
2.5.4 Alternative C: Habitat Protection, Increased Management, and
Integrated Wildlife-Dependent Recreation ....................................................................48
2.5.4.1 2.4.4.1 Habitat Goal ...............................................................................................48
2.5.4.2 Species Management ............................................................................................52
2.5.4.3 Visitor Services Goal ..............................................................................................53
2.6 Comparison of Alternatives ..........................................................................................................55
2.6.1 Comparison of Funding and Personnel Needs by Alternative ...........................................55
Chapter 3: Affected Environment .........................................................................................................65
3.1 Physical Environment ...................................................................................................................65
3.2 Biological Environment .................................................................................................................65
3.2.1 Habitat/Vegetation ............................................................................................................65
3.2.2 Algific Talus Slopes ...........................................................................................................66
3.2.3 Wildlife ..............................................................................................................................67
3.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................69
3.3 Soil and Water .............................................................................................................................69
3.4 Public Use ...................................................................................................................................70
3.5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................70
3.6 Fire ...............................................................................................................................................71
3.7 Socioeconomic Environment ........................................................................................................72
3.8 Refuge Staff and Budget ..............................................................................................................72
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................................73
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................73
4.2 Issues/Impacts Common to all Action Alternatives .....................................................................73
4.2.1 Prescribed Fire ...................................................................................................................73
4.2.1.1 Social Implications .................................................................................................73
4.2.1.2 Cultural and Archaeological Resources .................................................................74
4.2.1.3 Flora ........................................................................................................................74
4.2.1.4 Listed Species ........................................................................................................74
4.2.1.5 Soils ........................................................................................................................74
4.2.1.6 Escaped Fire ...........................................................................................................75
4.2.2 Environmental Justice .......................................................................................................75
4.2.3 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................75
4.2.4 Climate Change ..................................................................................................................76
4.3 Alternative A: No Action ..............................................................................................................76
4.3.1 Impacts on Resources ........................................................................................................76
4.3.1.1 Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species ..............................................................76
4.3.1.2 Refuge Expansion ...................................................................................................76
4.3.1.3 Habitat ....................................................................................................................77
4.3.1.4 Wildlife-Dependent Recreation .............................................................................77
4.3.1.5 Other Rare Species ...............................................................................................77
4.4 Alternative B: Habitat Protection Emphasis .................................................................................77
4.4.1 Impacts on Resources ........................................................................................................77
4.4.1.1 Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species ..............................................................77
4.4.1.2 Refuge Expansion ...................................................................................................77
4.4.1.3 Habitat ....................................................................................................................78
4.4.1.4 Wildlife-Dependent Recreation .............................................................................78
4.4.1.5 Other Rare Species ...............................................................................................78
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
xiv
4.5 Alternative C: Habitat Protection, Increased Management, and
Integrated Wildlife-dependent Recreation (Preferred Alternative) .........................................78
4.5.1 Impacts on Resources ........................................................................................................78
4.5.1.1 Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species .............................................................78
4.5.1.2 Refuge Expansion ..................................................................................................79
4.5.1.3 Habitat ...................................................................................................................79
4.5.1.4 Wildlife-dependent Recreation .............................................................................79
4.5.1.5 Other Rare Species ................................................................................................80
4.6 Water Quality and Soils ...............................................................................................................80
4.7 Economic Effects of Alternatives .................................................................................................80
4.7.1 Refuge Expenditures ..........................................................................................................80
4.7.2 Wildlife-dependent Recreation .........................................................................................80
4.7.3 Refuge Land Acquisition ....................................................................................................81
4.8 Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................................81
4.9 Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative ..........................................................82
Chapter 5: List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................86
Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination with the Public and Others ......................................87
Chapter 7: Public Comments on Draft EIS .........................................................................................88
Chapter 8: References ...........................................................................................................................89
Appendix A: Comprehensive Conservation Plan Chapters ..........................................................91
Appendix B: Glossary ........................................................................................................................103
Appendix C: Species List ..................................................................................................................111
Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations ...................................................................................121
Appendix E: Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Maintenance
Management System (MMS) ...................................................................................141
Appendix F: Compliance Requirements ........................................................................................145
Appendix G: List of Initialisms and Acronyms ..............................................................................151
Appendix H: Mailing List ..................................................................................................................155
Appendix I: Refuge Staff Organization ..........................................................................................163
Appendix J: Land Protection Plan ..................................................................................................167
Driftless Area
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
List of Figures
xv
Figure 1: Refuge Land Acquisition Boundaries .........................................................................................7
Figure 2: Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem .............................................................12
Figure 3: Watershed Surrounding Driftless Area NWR ..........................................................................13
Figure 4: Bird Conservation Regions, Region 3 of the USFWS ...............................................................14
Figure 5: Location of Driftless Area NWR in Iowa .................................................................................16
Figure 6: Bankston Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR .......................................................................18
Figure 7: Cow Branch Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR ...................................................................19
Figure 8: Fern Ridge Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR .....................................................................20
Figure 9: Hickory Creek Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR ................................................................21
Figure 10: Howard Creek Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR ...............................................................22
Figure 11: Kline Hunt Hollow Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR .........................................................23
Figure 12: Lytle Creek Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR ....................................................................24
Figure 13: Pine Creek Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR .....................................................................25
Figure 14: Steeles Branch Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR ..............................................................26
Figure 15: Algific Slopes Species Occurrences in the Driftless Area .......................................................31
Figure 16: Future Desired Conditions, Fern Ridge Unit, Driftless Area NWR ..........................................37
Figure 17: Future Desired Condition, Howard Creek Unit, Driftless Area NWR ......................................38
Figure 18: Future Desired Condition, Pine Creek Unit, Driftless Area NWR ............................................39
Figure 19: Algific Talus Slope Diagram ....................................................................................................67
Figure 20: Algific Talus Slopes Target Species Occurrences in the Driftless Area .................................68
Driftless Area
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
List of Tables
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
xvi
Table 1: Driftless Area NWR Units in Iowa (2004) ................................................................................17
Table 2: Comparison of Alternatives .....................................................................................................56
Table 3: Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................................83
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background
1
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need,
Planning Background
1.1 Introduction
This document is an integrated Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP) and Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Driftless Area
National Wildlife 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 Driftless Area NWR was established in 1989 under the authority of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 for the protection and recovery of the federally threatened Northern monkshood plant
(Aconitum noveboracense) and endangered Iowa Pleistocene snail (Discus macclintocki). These
species primarily occur on a rare and fragile habitat type termed algific talus slopes (cold air slopes).
The habitat harbors species that require a cold environment, some of which date from the ice age.
The habitat is described in more detail in Chapter 3. These are areas where cold underground air
seeps onto slopes to provide a constant cold microenvironment.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires all national wildlife refuges
to complete a Comprehensive Conservation Plan to describe Refuge management for a 15 year time
frame. The Comprehensive Conservation Plan and preferred alternative described herein will
describe direction for the Refuge for the next 15 years (2005-2020) aimed at conserving enough
populations of the above species to reach recovery goals, as well as conserving unique algific talus
slope habitat and the associated community of rare plants and animals. The lands that are part of the
Refuge also harbor other wildlife. Therefore, this plan describes general habitat restoration and
management for other species. Refuges are for people, too. We describe how we envision a balance of
public use and habitat preservation, within the National Wildlife Refuge System management
principle that wildlife comes first. Detailed habitat, land acquisition, and visitor services
management plans will be developed to provide further guidance for management activities.
Algific slope located on Driftless Area NWR. USFWS
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
2
We prepared this Environmental Impact Statement using guidelines of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969. The Act requires us to examine the effects of proposed actions on the natural and
human environment. In the following sections we describe three alternatives for future Refuge
management, the environmental consequences of each alternative, and our preferred management
direction. We designed each alternative as a mix of fish and wildlife habitat prescriptions and
wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, and then we selected our alternative based on its
environmental consequences and its ability to achieve the Refuge’s purpose.
1.2 Purpose and Need for Action
1.2.1 Purpose
The purpose of this EIS is to adopt and implement a CCP for Driftless Area NWR. 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 (FMP) for the Refuge.
CCPs are designed to guide the management and administration of national wildlife refuges for a 15
year period, help ensure that each refuge meets the purpose for which it was established, and
contribute 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 wildlife and people.
A long-term management direction does not currently exist for Driftless Area NWR. Management is
currently guided by endangered species recovery plans, general policies, and shorter-term plans.
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 several reasons why preparation of a CCP is needed at this time.
There are new threats to endangered species habitat, new laws and policies have been put in place,
new scientific information is available, and levels of public use and interest have increased.
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.
Finally, the planning process is 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 Driftless Area NWR.
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.
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background
3
The alternatives, 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 1.10 Planning Issues.
Need 1: Contribute to the Refuge System 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 Refuge Purpose. The Refuge purpose is defined by the Endangered
Species Act of 1973; that is: to conserve fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered or threatened
species or plants (16 USC 1534 ESA). Achievement of the Refuge purpose will help reach
endangered species recovery goals that will lead to delisting.
The Refuge has reached its existing approved acquisition acreage. Since Refuge establishment,
additional information indicates the need to expand the Refuge geographic area and acreage, as well
as to address ecological issues related to protection of endangered species.
Need 3: Help Achieve Refuge Goals.
Goal 1. Habitat: Conserve endangered species habitat and contribute to migratory bird and other
wildlife habitats within a larger landscape. Related needs are to:
# permanently conserve additional endangered species habitat to achieve delisting of the
target species.
# permanently conserve additional habitat for glacial relict species of concern to preclude
listing
# manage invasive species
# restore grassland and forest habitats
# assist others to manage off Refuge impacts to endangered species habitat
Goal 2. Species management: Manage and protect endangered species, other trust species, and
species of management interest based on sound science through identification and understanding of
algific slope communities and associated habitats. Related needs are to:
# ensure all algific slopes and endangered species locations are known
# inventory plants and animals associated with algific talus slopes
# update the recovery plans for Iowa Pleistocene snail and Northern monkshood
# determine the amount of buffer area needed to adequately protect algific slopes
# assess deer impacts to the Refuge and endangered species
Goal 3. Visitor Services: Visitors understand and appreciate the role of the Refuge in protecting
endangered species. Related needs are to:
# provide wildlife-dependent recreation while protecting endangered species habitat
# provide environmental education
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
4
1.3 Decision Framework
The Service’s Regional Director (Region 3) in the Twin Cities, 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 that 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 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 Recovery Plans
The goal of the Endangered Species Act is the recovery of
listed species to levels so that protection under the Act is no
longer necessary. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
develops and implements recovery plans for species that are
listed as threatened and endangered. These plans outline
tasks necessary to stabilize and recover listed species.
1.4.1.1 Iowa Pleistocene Snail
The Iowa Pleistocene snail (Discus macclintocki) was listed
as endangered in 1977 because of the small number of
populations, small total population, and its very restricted
and fragile habitat type. It is also listed as endangered by the
states of Iowa and Illinois. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
completed a recovery plan in 1984 written by Dr. Terry Frest. At that time the snail was known from
18 small sites in Clayton and Dubuque Counties, Iowa and Jo Daviess County, Illinois. Fossil records
indicate that the snail was once widely distributed in the Midwest during the Pleistocene era
(approximately 300,000-500,000 YBP). It is therefore considered a glacial relict species and its
habitat is restricted to cold algific talus slopes (see Section 3.2.2 for a description). Threats to the
species and its habitat listed in the recovery plan are human disturbance, logging, grazing, road
building, quarrying, sinkhole filling, pesticides, house construction, and natural factors such as rock
slides and stream undercutting or weather related factors. An additional, more recent threat is
invasive species.
The main features of the recovery plan are to gain control of algific talus slopes where the snail
occurs and protect them from human disturbances. Restoration and monitoring are also stated as
being important. The Iowa Pleistocene snail can be considered for reclassification from endangered
to threatened if permanent protection of 16 of the existing colonies can be achieved and
documentation of stable or increasing populations can be done. Delisting can be considered if
stringent protection of at least 24 or more sufficiently dispersed viable breeding colonies is obtained.
A viable population from a genetic standpoint would be a breeding population of 500; however,
further study on this number is needed. Dr. Frest states that it is likely other sites remain to be
found. Indeed, further surveys by him and others in the 1980s discovered a new total of 37 sites in
Clayton, Clinton, Fayette, Delaware, Dubuque, Jackson Counties, Iowa and JoDaviess County,
Illinois.
The basic premise of the recovery plan is to protect all of the sites with viable breeding colonies.
Even though the number of sites has since increased, it still is not large and nearly all should be
Golden saxifrage. Bob Clearwater
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background
5
protected for delisting. The recovery plan needs updating to include all known sites, new monitoring
information, new threats, and to refine downlisting and delisting criteria. Although 22 snail sites
currently have some protection, 12 of these need additional protection of algific slopes and/or
sinkholes to be considered fully protected for delisting purposes. Some of the largest populations are
not protected and the species needs protection across its range to preserve genetic differences and
to protect against catastrophic events in one area.
1.4.1.2 Northern monkshood
Northern monkshood (Aconitum noveboracense) was listed as threatened in 1978 because of its
limited range and habitat preference. It is also listed as threatened by the states of Iowa, Wisconsin,
and New York and endangered in Ohio. A recovery plan was completed in 1983. It was one of the
first plant species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Monkshood requires a cold soil
environment associated with cliffs, talus slope, algific slope, or spring/headwater stream situations.
Its habitat is typically in rugged areas and on fragile cliffs or slopes that cannot tolerate a great deal
of disturbance. In 1983, there were 24 sites known in Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and New York. The
authors acknowledged that Iowa had the greatest potential for discovery of new sites. There are now
83 known sites in Iowa, 18 in Wisconsin, two in New York, and one in Ohio. Sites vary greatly in
population size from just a few plants to thousands of plants. Threats are dams and reservoirs, road
construction, power line maintenance, logging, quarrying, grazing, developments, scientific
overcollecting, and natural events. On algific slope sites, disturbance or filling of the sinkholes is also
a threat. More recently, invasive species, and in particular garlic mustard, have become a threat as
well.
The primary goal of the recovery plan is to provide a basis for delisting by providing security for all
known northern monkshood locations against damage or destruction of the existing habitats. This
security could be in various forms of acquisition, easement, fencing, landowner awareness.
Additional goals were searches for new sites, much of which was completed in the 1980s, and
propagation research.
This recovery plan also needs revision to include all of the known sites, more recent research, and
more precise downlisting and delisting criteria. The viable population size for protection efforts
needs to be determined. Currently there are 45 monkshood sites in some form of permanent
protection. Some of these are small populations. Similar to snail sites, many of the protected sites
need additional slope/cliff, sinkhole, or buffer area protection to be considered fully protected for
delisting purposes. Monkshood also needs additional protection across its range.
1.4.1.3 Leedy’s Roseroot
Leedy’s roseroot was listed as threatened in 1992 because of its low numbers, few and disjunct
populations, and specialized cliffside habitat. It is also listed as threatened by the state of Minnesota.
The recovery plan was approved in 1998. The plant is found in only specialized Cliffside habitat. In
Minnesota, it occurs on maderate cliffs which are cooled by air exiting underground passages (see
Section 3.2.2). There are only three populations in New York and four in Minnesota. One site in
Minnesota is owned by the Department of Natural Resources. Besides its disjunct occurrences and
low numbers, the major threats are on-site disturbances and groundwater contamination.
Leedy’s roseroot may be considered for delisting when all three privately owned Minnesota
populations are protected by conservation easements or fee title acquisition by a public agency or
private conservation organization, the contamination threat is removed from the fourth Minnesota
population, and specific protection measures are taken for New York populations. Protected
populations must be geographically distinct, self-sustaining, and have been protected for five
consecutive years by measures that will remain effective following delisting. Additional tasks needed
include locating new populations, determining the hydrologic relationship of cliffs with upland areas,
securing funding for site protection, securing landowner involvement, implementing monitoring,
providing public education, and maintaining a genetic bank.
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
6
1.4.2 Previous Acquisition Planning
The original land protection plan (LPP, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986) for the Refuge outlined
the purposes, objectives, protection alternatives, and proposed action for the Refuge related to land
acquisition. The LPP called for protection of approximately 25 sites cumulatively containing
approximately 700 acres in eight counties (Figure 1). A project of this size was expected to bring
approximately 70 percent of the known Northern monkshood population and 75 percent of the
known Iowa Pleistocene snail population under direct Service protection.
More locations occupied by these species have been discovered since the LPP and recovery plans
were written. Currently known sites include 83 Northern monkshood sites in Iowa and 18 in
Wisconsin. There are 36 known snail sites in Iowa and one in Illinois. Forty-five of the monkshood
sites and 22 of the snail sites are in some form of permanent protection including Refuge, state,
county, and Nature Conservancy lands.
In 1993, a preliminary project proposal (PPP) was approved by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service to develop a detailed plan to acquire up to an additional 6,220 acres in 25 counties in Illinois,
Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin to protect enough monkshood and snail sites to meet recovery plan
goals. The PPP also added acquisition areas for the plant, Leedy’s roseroot (Sedum integrifolium
ssp leedyi), which was listed as threatened in 1992. The plant grows on similar maderate cliff habitat
on four sites in southeast Minnesota. The primary recovery goal for Leedy’s roseroot is permanent
protection of all known sites on which it occurs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998).
The PPP also aimed to protect other rare species associated with algific talus slopes and similar rare
habitats. The plants golden saxifrage (Chrysosplenium iowense) and sullivantia (Sullivantia
sullivantia) and eight species of glacial relict land snails are associated with algific talus slopes and
similar habitats throughout the Driftless Area. At that time these were Category 2 candidate species
for federal listing1. Some of these species occur only in the Driftless Area, or the majority of their
populations occur in the Driftless Area. Known locations were documented during surveys done in
the 1980s. Since that time, sullivantia was found to occur more commonly on cliff habitats in
Wisconsin and Iowa. It is now only state listed in Illinois and Minnesota and is not a U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service species of concern. It was first thought to be specific to algific talus slopes and
maderate cliffs, but is now considered relatively common on these, and other cliff habitats. Some of
the counties proposed in the 1993 PPP were included only for protection of sullivantia and are no
longer considered areas for potential acquisition (Figure 1). The other species are included in a
preliminary draft species of concern list for Region 3. None are candidate species at this time. An
updated status assessment for the snail species is currently being completed by the Service’s Region
3 Division of Endangered Species.
Mitchell County in Iowa contains only two sites which are already protected in a county park.
Therefore, this county was removed from the 2004 expansion proposal. Crawford County, Wisconsin
was added to the 2004 expansion proposal because of its potential to contain habitat for endangered
species and species of concern.
1.4.3 Overview of the Planning Process
This CCP process began in April 2002 as part of the Upper Mississippi River NWR Complex CCP.
The Complex consists of four districts on the Mississippi River, Trempealeau NWR in Wisconsin,
and Driftless Area NWR in Iowa. Because of the different purpose, land base, and management
needs of Driftless Area NWR, it is treated as a separate CCP following much of the same process
and timeline as the Upper Mississippi Complex CCP.
1. The Service discontinued the use of a list for “category 2 candidates” in 1996. None of these species are currently
candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background
7
Figure 1: Refuge Land Acquisition Boundaries
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
8
We are required to do detailed planning (Service policy) when we anticipate adding more than 40
acres to a refuge. Because the Refuge is proposing to expand its acquisition boundary in two of the
alternatives, we completed a Land Protection Plan (Appendix I), which gives the details of the
proposed expansion. The Refuge did not pursue detailed planning under the 1993 PPP until the CCP
process began in 2002. The CCP effort was the logical time to examine all management and land
protection issues related to the Refuge. The LPP addresses the total Refuge acreage desired for the
life of the project and is a longer term plan than the CCP.
A stakeholder group was first formed with State agencies and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Meetings with stakeholders were held to introduce the CCP and identify management issues and
concerns. Because of the geographic area covered by the Upper Mississippi River Complex as well
as the Driftless Area NWR, several public scoping meetings were held in the fall of 2002. Meetings
about the Driftless Area NWR were held in Dubuque, Elkader, and Lansing, Iowa, and Prairie du
Chien, Wisconsin. The purpose of these scoping meetings was to gather the public’s issues and
concerns. A ‘Manager for a Day’ workshop was held in February 2003 in Elkader, Iowa, to develop
alternatives to the issues raised by the public and Refuge staff. Three project updates were also sent
to approximately 2,600 citizens, non-governmental organizations, media, and legislators.
1.4.4 Legal and Policy Framework
Driftless Area NWR 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 E.
The Driftless Area NWR is managed as part of the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and
Fish Refuge Complex. The complex is completing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each unit,
including Upper Mississippi River NWFR, Trempealeau NWR, and Driftless Area NWR. Because
of the different purpose, land base, and management needs of Driftless Area NWR, this CCP is
separate but following much the same time line and process as the other CCPs.
1.4.5 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, Goals, and Principles
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to work with others to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for conserving,
protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people. Specific responsibilities include enforcing Federal wildlife laws, managing
migratory bird populations, restoring nationally important fisheries, administering the Endangered
Species Act, and restoring wildlife habitat such as wetlands. The Service also manages the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
1.4.6 Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System
The Refuge System had its beginning in 1903 when President Theodore Roosevelt issued 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 purposes 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.
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background
9
# 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.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is a
network of more than 540 refuges encompassing
95 million acres of lands and waters, 41 wetland
management districts that are responsible for
2.4 million acres of Waterfowl Production areas,
and 50 coordination areas covering 317,000 acres
that are managed by State fish and wildlife
agencies under cooperative agreements. Refuge
System lands span the continent from Alaska’s
Arctic tundra to the tropical forests in Florida
and from the secluded atolls of Hawaii to the
bogs of Maine.
National wildlife refuges are established for different purposes. Most refuges have been established
for the conservation of migratory birds, while some have been established to provide habitat for
endangered species. Others have been formed to protect and propagate large mammals such as
bison, elk, and desert bighorn sheep. Refuge habitats consist of a great diversity of plants and
animals.
Refuges also provide unique opportunities for people. When it is compatible with wildlife and habitat
needs, refuges can be used for wildlife-dependent activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, photography, environmental education and environmental interpretation. Many
refuges have visitor centers, wildlife trails, automobile tours, and environmental education
programs. Nationwide, an estimated 39.5 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2003.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established many mandates aimed
at making the management of national wildlife refuges more consistent. The preparation of
comprehensive conservation plans is one of those mandates. The legislation requires the Secretary
of the Interior to ensure that the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and purposes of the
individual refuges are carried out. It also requires the Secretary to maintain the biological integrity,
diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System.
1.4.7 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.
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.
Northern Flicker. USFWS
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
10
# 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 receive 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 existed 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.
1.4.7.1 Compatibility Policy
No uses for which the Service has authority to regulate may be allowed on a unit of the 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 D.
1.4.7.2 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
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background
11
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.
1.4.8 Wilderness Review
As part of the CCP process, we reviewed the lands within the boundaries of Driftless Area NWR for
wilderness suitability. No lands were found suitable for designation as Wilderness as defined in the
Wilderness Act of 1964. The Refuge does not contain 5,000 contiguous roadless acres, nor does the
Refuge have any units of sufficient size to make their preservation practicable as Wilderness.
1.4.9 Cultural Resources
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires consideration of
archeological and cultural values as part of the planning for each Refuge. A cultural resources
management overview and plan was conducted and completed in November 2002 (Commonwealth
Cultural Resources Group, Inc.) under contract with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
overview included counties with existing Refuge lands and counties with potential acquisition areas.
They reviewed lands in Allamakee, Clayton, Delaware, Dubuque, Fayette, and Jackson counties,
Iowa and Grant County, Wisconsin. Two historic archeological sites were identified on the Refuge.
The location of 27 previously identified archaeological sites within one mile of the study units and
statistical analysis of other data indicates a high probability for unrecorded sites on the Refuge.
1.5 Other Conservation Initiatives
1.5.1 Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has implemented an ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife
conservation. Under this approach the Service’s goal is to contribute to the effective conservation of
natural biological diversity through perpetuation of dynamic, healthy ecosystems by using an
interdisciplinary, coordinated strategy to integrate the expertise and resources of all stakeholders.
Driftless Area NWR lies within the Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem
(Figure 2). The Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem is one of eight ecosystems that
comprise the Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region (Region 3) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem is a large and ecologically diverse area that
encompasses land in the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. The
Mississippi River bisects the Ecosystem east and west. Major rivers in the Ecosystem include the
Minnesota, Chippewa, Black, Wisconsin, Iowa, Rock, Skunk, Des Moines, Illinois, and Kaskaskia
(Figure 3).
1.5.2 Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other conservation plan priorities for migratory birds, such as
Partners in Flight, are used to develop management guidelines for birds. The Refuge is within the
Upper Great Lakes Plain physiographic area 16 as identified by the Partners in Flight Bird
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
12
Conservation Plan (Knutson et al. 2001) and Bird Conservation Region 23 (Prairie Hardwoods
Transition) identified by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (Figure 4).
Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois are currently writing state wildlife conservation plans.
Wisconsin has a Bird Conservation Plan, and Minnesota is working towards one. The Refuge will
incorporate elements of these plans into management when possible.
1.5.3 Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) required the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to identify its most important functions and to direct its limited fiscal resources toward those
functions. From 1997 to 1999 within Region 3, a group looked at how best to identify the most
important functions of the Service within the region. The group recognized that the Service has a
complex array of responsibilities specified by treaties, laws, executive orders, and judicial opinions
that dwarf the agency’s budget. The group recognized that at least two approaches are possible in
identifying conservation priorities – habitats and species. The group chose to focus on species
because 1) species represent biological and genetic resources that cannot be replaced; 2) a focus on
species conservation requires a concurrent focus on habitat; and 3) by focusing on species
assemblages and identifying areas where ecological needs come together the Service can select the
few key places where limited efforts will have the greatest impact. Representatives of the migratory
bird, endangered species, and fisheries programs in Region 3 identified the species that require the
utmost attention given our current level of knowledge. Representatives prioritized the species based
on biological status (endangered or threatened, for example), rare or declining levels, recreational or
economic value, or “nuisance” level. The group pointed out that species not on the prioritized list are
important too. But, when faced with the needs of several species, the Service should emphasize the
Figure 2: Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background
13
Figure 3: Watershed Surrounding Driftless Area NWR
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
14
species on the priority list. The Iowa Pleistocene snail, Northern monkshood, Leedy’s roseroot, and
glacial relict snails are among the Regional Resource Conservation Priorities.
1.5.4 Other Plans
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) completed a Prairie-Forest Border Ecoregion Plan in 2001. The
Iowa Pleistocene snail, other glacial relict snails, Northern monkshood, and threatened Leedy’s
roseroot were identified as conservation targets in that plan. Algific talus slopes were identified as
ecologically important areas by The Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy Plan also
identified Important Bird Breeding Areas in northeast Iowa that include potential Refuge
acquisition areas. Elements of The Nature Conservancy Plan, primarily for land protection, are
related to habitat management for the Refuge.
1.6 Brief History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition, and
Management
1.6.1 Refuge Establishment and Acquisition
The Driftless Area NWR was established in 1989 under the authority of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 for the protection and recovery of the federally threatened Northern monkshood and
endangered Iowa Pleistocene snail. The Refuge currently consists of nine units in Allamakee,
Clayton, Dubuque, and Jackson Counties in northeast Iowa (Figure 5). The Refuge encompasses 781
acres, with individual units ranging from 6 to 209 acres (Table 1). The original authorized acquisition
area for the Refuge was approximately 700 acres in eight counties in Iowa, Illinois, and Wisconsin
Figure 4: Bird Conservation Regions, Region 3 of the USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background
15
(Figure 1) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986). Section 1.4.2 has additional background information
on Refuge acquisition planning. The most recent acquisitions were through land exchanges in 2001
and 2002. The Refuge has reached its approved acquisition acreage.
The purposes and goals of the Refuge are directly tied to recovery plans which describe the steps
needed to recover and conserve the Northern monkshood and Iowa Pleistocene snail (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1983, 1984). Because of the fragile nature of their habitat and the low number of
populations for each of these species, the primary recovery goal for both species is protecting and
conserving the majority of remaining populations and their habitat. The primary threats to the
habitat are grazing, logging, sinkhole filling, erosion, pesticides, invasive species, and development.
Therefore, acquisition also includes land surrounding the endangered species habitat to provide a
buffer area from some of these threats.
1.6.2 Management History
A management prospectus was completed by the Refuge in 1990 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to
guide Refuge management. At that time, the Refuge consisted of the Howard Creek (208 acres) and
Steeles Branch (15 acres) units. The prospectus outlined the need for strict protection of the algific
slopes including fencing and signing, a low public use profile, and no development of public use
facilities. Buffer areas to protect sinkholes, and cleaning of debris from sinkholes were also
mentioned. Management of habitat surrounding algific slopes was to be through natural succession
or planting, depending on the site. Most habitat management has occurred on the Howard Creek
unit. Two former agricultural fields (51 acres) at the Howard Creek unit were planted with cool
season grasses after cooperative farming ended around 1992. Over the years, box elder trees
invaded these fields. Box elder trees and other invasive species were controlled with cooperative
farming beginning in 1999 and 51 acres have been recently planted to native prairie grasses and
forbs. Restoration and management of invasive species at this site are ongoing. Management on the
other units has consisted of signing, fencing, law enforcement, and maintaining good relationships
with the Refuge neighbors. The Howard Creek and Fern Ridge units were opened for public use in
1994 (see section 1.6.3.5). Northern monkshood population monitoring began in 1991 and Iowa
Pleistocene snail population monitoring in 2001. Monitoring occurs on Refuge and sites owned by
others.
1.6.3 Current Refuge Management Activities
The Refuge consists of nine scattered tracts or ‘units’ totaling 781 acres (Table 1, Figure 5). The
Refuge contains upland hardwood forests, grassland, stream and riparian habitats. The landcover
for each unit is displayed in the following figures:
# Bankston Unit (Figure 6)
# Cow Branch Unit (Figure 7)
# Fern Ridge Unit (Figure 8)
# Hickory Creek Unit (Figure 9)
# Howard Creek Unit (Figure 10)
# Kline Hunt Hollow Unit (Figure 11)
# Lytle Creek Unit (Figure 12)
# Pine Creek Unit (Figure 13)
# Steeles Branch Unit (Figure 14)
The current management practice is to protect endangered species habitat, restore other habitats to
presettlement vegetation when possible, control invasive species, and permit limited public use that
is compatible with the purposes of the Refuge. Presentations and tours are given as requested and
staff time allows. The Refuge office is co-located with the McGregor District of Upper Mississippi
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
16
Figure 5: Location of Driftless Area NWR in Iowa
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background
17
River NWFR. An equipment storage warehouse and information kiosk were constructed in 2004 on
the Howard Creek unit of the Refuge. Boundary fences and dirt surfaced roads are the only other
constructed developments on the Refuge. One full time Refuge Operations Specialist is assigned to
the Refuge and supervised by the District Manager, McGregor District, Upper Mississippi River
NWFR.
Partners have been important players in Refuge activities over the years. The Nature Conservancy
helped establish the Refuge and has worked extensively with the Refuge since then. TNC owns
several preserves on which algific talus slopes occur and works to preserve the biodiversity of the
Driftless Area. They have conducted algific slope inventory and research, contacted landowners,
provided summer interns, and worked on acquisitions in a cooperative effort to protect the unique
resources of the area. The Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation has also been a valuable partner in
landowner contacts and land acquisition. Other agencies and individuals have assisted with prairie
restoration at the Howard Creek unit. The Iowa DNR also owns preserves that protect algific talus
slopes and federally listed species and has been an important partner in land protection and
management.
1.6.3.1 Endangered Species
The primary goal of Refuge management for endangered species is preventing disturbance to their
habitat. Endangered species habitat is closed to all public entry because the species and their habitat
are fragile. Algific slopes are typically steep, with a loose talus rock layer on the surface. Seven of the
nine Refuge units are closed to all public entry because there is inadequate buffer around the algific
talus slopes to allow human activity and there is not sufficient public access. Entry to several units is
via an easement granted across private land. The two largest units, Howard Creek and Fern Ridge,
are open to hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation. These units lie adjacent to public roads from
which there is public access. The algific talus slopes are posted as closed to public entry on these
open units. All units are periodically inspected by Refuge staff and law enforcement officers.
Most of the Refuge units are fenced to keep cattle from entering Refuge lands and to delineate
boundaries. Refuge personnel maintain regular contact with neighboring landowners.
The invasive species, garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) has invaded some algific slopes. There is
concern about its competition with Northern monkshood and other rare plants as well as possible
Table 1: Driftless Area NWR Units in Iowa (2004)
Unit Name Acres County Year Acquired Species present
Bankston 57 Dubuque 1991 Iowa Pleistocene snail
Cow Branch 110 Clayton 1996 Iowa Pleistocene snail Northern
monkshood
Fern Ridge 207 Clayton 1991 Iowa Pleistocene snail
Hickory Creek 17 Allamakee 2001 Northern monkshood
Howard Creek 209 Clayton 1989/1990 Iowa Pleistocene snail Northern
monkshood
Kline Hunt Hollow 6 Clayton 1991 Northern monkshood
Lytle Creek 20 Jackson 1991 Northern monkshood
Pine Creek 140 Clayton 2002 Northern monkshood
Steeles Branch 15 Clayton 1990 Northern monkshood
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
18
Figure 6: Bankston Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background
19
Figure 7: Cow Branch Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
20
Figure 8: Fern Ridge Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background
21
Figure 9: Hickory Creek Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
22
Figure 10: Howard Creek Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background
23
Figure 11: Kline Hunt Hollow Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
24
Figure 12: Lytle Creek Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background
25
Figure 13: Pine Creek Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
26
Figure 14: Steeles Branch Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background
27
effects on snail food sources. Garlic mustard is abundant on two slopes and has been hand removed
from them during the last three years to begin control. Removal will likely be a continual effort until
the seed bank is depleted. The forest surrounding these algific slopes also has abundant garlic
mustard.
The recovery plans for both species require population monitoring to determine population status. A
monitoring plan for Northern monkshood was developed cooperatively with the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources and TNC in 1991. This monitoring has been conducted on Refuge sites as well as
Iowa Department of Natural Resources preserves, The Nature Conservancy preserves, and private
lands since 1991. A protocol for Iowa Pleistocene snail monitoring was developed in 2001 (Henry et
al. 2003) and has been carried out each year since. Monitoring for both species occurs on a subset of
the total number of known sites.
Refuge staff maintain contact with private landowners who have endangered species on their land in
order to educate them about the fragile area on their land and inquire about possible acquisition or
other forms of permanent protection. Some sites have been fenced through the Service’s
Endangered Species Landowner Incentive Program to prevent damage from cattle. The Nature
Conservancy, Iowa DNR, and the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation have been partners in
landowner contact and land acquisition. The Refuge recently acquired Hickory Creek and Pine
Creek units through land trades involving Upper Mississippi River NWFR lands. But, acquisition is
currently limited by available funds and the need for additional Service authorization for Refuge
expansion.
1.6.3.2 Grassland Habitat
There are 175.6 acres of grassland on the Refuge. The majority of grassland habitat exists on the
Howard Creek unit (109.93 acres) and the Fern Ridge Unit (42.22 acres) (Figure 10 and Figure 8).
Remnant native prairie exists on the Howard Creek unit (approximately 6 acres). The remainder of
the grassland on Howard Creek unit is either cool season grasses or has been recently planted to
native prairie species. The grassland on the Fern Ridge unit was cleared of trees by the previous
owner for agriculture and is currently vegetated by cool season exotic grasses.
Prescribed burning has been used since 1996 to restore prairie remnants and control woody
vegetation on the Howard Creek unit. Forty-eight acres of native prairie have been planted in
former agricultural fields on the Howard Creek Unit. Cooperative farming has been used to prepare
fields for planting. Currently, there are 81 acres in the cooperative farming program, primarily at
the Pine Creek Unit. Invasive species control has taken place as staff time allows through the use of
biological, mechanical and chemical control, mainly at the Howard Creek unit.
1.6.3.3 Forest Habitat
There are 535.32 acres of forest habitat on the Refuge. The majority of Refuge forests have been
impacted by past grazing and logging. No restoration of forest habitats has been completed;
however, tree seeds were collected in 2003 and sent to a nursery to grow trees for planting on the
Refuge. Forest inventory and management plans are needed.
1.6.3.4 Streams
Cow Branch, Fern Ridge, Howard Creek, Pine Creek, and Steeles Branch units contain coldwater or
warmwater streams with associated riparian areas. Lytle Creek, Hickory Creek, and Kline Hunt
Hollow units have streams adjacent to the boundary. Spring fed streams on Pine Creek and Cow
Branch units flow into designated trout streams off of the Refuge. Hickory Creek is a designated
trout stream stocked with brown and brook trout by the Iowa DNR. Dry Mill Creek on the Fern
Ridge unit is a put and grow trout stream that flows into the Turkey River. Steeles Branch creek
was formerly stocked by the Iowa DNR but is no longer. Springs on the Refuge feed most of these
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
28
streams. The Pine Creek unit also has a small manmade pond about one acre in size. Bankston unit
does not contain any streams.
1.6.3.5 Recreation
Currently, the Howard Creek and Fern Ridge units of the Refuge are open for deer and upland
game hunting. Special regulations regarding hunting dates and weapons are in place. Specifically,
deer hunting is allowed only with archery and muzzleloader. Hunting dates are restricted to
November 1 to January 15. Upland game hunting is allowed with approved non toxic shot. Spring
turkey hunting is prohibited. These two units are also open for wildlife observation and photography.
Fern Ridge and Steeles Branch units are open for fishing. All algific slopes are posted closed areas
with no public entry. There are no public use trails. Educational programs and tours are occasionally
given as requested by local groups or photographers.
Volunteers have assisted with habitat restoration at the Howard Creek unit. The Nature
Conservancy has provided a summer intern for several years to work at the Refuge. Interns have
assisted with endangered species monitoring, landowner contacts, invasive species removal, and
other Refuge and TNC activities.
1.6.3.6 Cultural Resources
Reviews for threats to cultural resources on Refuge units are currently completed and submitted to
the Regional Historic Preservation Officer as management activities arise. Recent examples of
management activities include stabilizing a stream bank, building a warehouse, and burying debris
from tree clearing.
1.7 Refuge Purposes
The purpose of Driftless Area NWR is to conserve fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered or
threatened species or plants (16 USC 1534 Endangered Species Act of 1973). The purposes and goals
of the Refuge are directly tied to recovery plans which describe the conditions needed to recover the
Northern monkshood and Iowa Pleistocene snail (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983, 1984). See
Section 1.4.1.
1.8 Refuge Vision Statement
The vision for the Upper Mississippi River NWR Complex is: The Complex is beautiful, healthy, and
supports abundant and diverse native fish, wildlife, and plants for the enjoyment and thoughtful use
of current and future generations. This can be stepped down to apply to Driftless Area NWR as
follows: The Refuge is beautiful, healthy, and supports and conserves native and rare wildlife and
plants for current and future generations.
1.9 Refuge Goals
The goals for Refuge management were formulated from major issues identified by staff and the
public.
1.9.1 Habitat Goal
Conserve endangered species habitat and contribute migratory bird and other wildlife habitat within
a larger landscape.
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background
29
1.9.2 Species Management Goal
Manage and conserve endangered species, other trust species, and species of management interest
based on sound science through identification and understanding of algific slope communities and
associated habitats.
1.9.3 Visitor Services Goal
Visitors understand and appreciate the role of the Refuge in conserving endangered species.
1.10 Planning Issues
Four public scoping meetings were held in August and September, 2002 to obtain input on issues.
The meetings were held in Dubuque, Elkader, and Lansing, Iowa, and Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin
in combination with the Upper Mississippi River NWFR meetings. Eighty-four citizens attended
and 21 comments were received. One additional written comment was received after the meetings.
An evening “Manager for a Day” workshop was held in Elkader, Iowa in Spring 2003 to obtain
potential solutions to the issues. There were 15 participants at the workshop. Four mailings of a CCP
newsletter have been sent to a mailing list of 2,800 people including individuals, landowners,
organizations, media, and congressional staff (“Appendix H:” on page 155).
From public involvement activities, the Service learned about issues that concerned people about
management of the Refuge. Refuge staff also identified issues. We organized the issues into four
categories: Habitat Management, Visitor Services, Refuge Expansion, and Species Assessments.
1.10.1 Issue 1: Habitat Management
Because of the purpose of the Refuge, management of endangered species habitat is the top priority.
Land acquired for the Refuge typically has been impacted by agricultural or logging activities.
Habitats include hardwood forest, grassland and riparian areas. Refuge lands are small parcels,
often fragmented from similar habitat in the area. Current management is to restore as much as
practical to presettlement habitat types around algific slopes, although lack of funds and staff limit
restoration efforts. Several external factors are influencing management efforts on the Refuge.
Invasive species such as garlic mustard are impacting endangered species and other wildlife habitat.
High local deer populations may also impact habitat. Erosion from farming adjacent to the Refuge
can affect habitat on the Refuge.
Potential solutions identified by the public were to develop management strategies for forests,
including consideration of deer impacts, expand management of habitats surrounding endangered
species habitat, and work to control invasive species.
1.10.2 Issue 2: Visitor Services
Public use has not been emphasized on Driftless Area NWR because of concern for the fragile
endangered species habitat, and the small size and lack of access to some units. Two of nine units are
currently open to public use. Potential solutions suggested by the public were to maintain current
hunting policies but increase awareness of regulations at the site, consider trail development in less
sensitive areas, provide on-site information and education at select algific slopes while restricting
direct access and negative impacts, provide guided walks, and encourage volunteers.
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
30
1.10.3 Issue 3: Refuge Expansion
The Refuge has reached its approved acquisition acreage. Refuge expansion will facilitate recovery
goals and allow delisting of target species according to their recovery plans. Refuge land acquisition
is aimed at protecting the entire algific slope system (endangered species habitat), including upland
sinkholes and buffer area around the slope. Many of the currently protected algific slopes do not
have adequate protection of sinkholes nor provide buffer from adjacent agricultural or other uses.
Conservation of additional snail and monkshood populations is also needed to preserve genetic
diversity over their range, protect large populations, and protect the majority of the populations as
required by the recovery plans. Therefore expansion in Wisconsin is needed. Expansion in
Minnesota would also allow protection of threatened Leedy’s roseroot and species of concern.
Protection of Service species of concern may preclude the need for future listing and would conserve
a unique representative natural community and its biodiversity.
Potential approaches raised by the public were: to investigate other alternatives in addition to
acquisition (e.g. conservation easements), increase funding for land protection, connect parcels of
land where possible and expand boundaries to roads, railroads, or more recognizable features.
1.10.4 Issue 4: Species Assessments
Algific slopes were first described and mapped in the 1980s (Frest 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987).
Additional information about algific talus slopes and the species that inhabit them is needed. For
example, locations of sinkholes and specific information on distances and function of the cold air flow
have not been studied. There are nearly 400 algific slopes/maderate cliffs in the Driftless Area, but
not all are occupied by currently listed species (Figure 15). Few in-depth species surveys were done
and many of the known algific slope sites were only visited once. There may be rare, endemic, or
unidentified species in this habitat. It is important to know what plants and animals depend on this
habitat to prepare effective management strategies. Although original surveys to locate this habitat
type were systematic and comprehensive, some sites likely remain undiscovered.
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background
31
Figure 15: Algific Slopes Species Occurrences in the Driftless Area
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
32
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Objectives, and
Strategies
2.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the three alternatives
that we consider in this Environmental Impact
Statement:
Alternative A – No Action Alternative
Alternative B – Habitat Protection Emphasis
Alternative C – Habitat Protection, Increased
Management, and Integrated Wildlife-dependent
Recreation
2.2 Formulation of Alternatives
The Service constructed a range of alternatives from ideas provided by the public and Refuge staff.
Many of the ideas were identified at a “Manager for a Day Workshop” open to the public.
Some alternatives were eliminated from detailed study. The alternatives eliminated are identified
below with an explanation of why they were not considered further.
2.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study
2.3.1 “Care-taker” Status
Refuge staff, funding, and management activities would be reduced to a level whereby the only Fish
and Wildlife Service presence would be land ownership.
This alternative is not consistent with the Refuge purposes nor intent of the Endangered Species
Act. Endangered species habitat could not be fully protected under this alternative. Fencing and law
enforcement are needed to ensure fragile endangered species habitat is not threatened. Habitat
restoration and invasive species control would not take place. The legal responsibilities associated
with ownership of the Refuge would not be met. Commitments to adjacent landowners, communities,
and partners would be unfulfilled.
Prothonotary Warbler. USFWS
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies
33
2.3.2 Transfer lands to the Iowa DNR
Although the Iowa DNR owns state preserves with algific talus slopes and federally endangered
species and has been a partner in protection, they would not have sufficient funds or personnel to
manage these additional lands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has jurisdiction over federally
threatened and endangered species and the Refuge was established to aid the recovery of these
species. In addition, it is not within the Service’s authority to dissolve units of the Refuge System.
The DNR likely would not have the funding to protect enough additional areas to meet recovery
goals. Furthermore, this alternative would not include acquisition needed in other states to meet
recovery goals.
2.4 Summary of Alternatives
The alternatives are summarized in Table 2 on page 56. Alternative A is the no action alternative.
Alternatives B and C include increased habitat conservation and land acquisition. Alternative B is
primarily aimed at reaching habitat protection recovery goals for both species with more land
acquisition than Alternative C. Alternative C includes increased land acquisition for recovery and
delisting of the Iowa Pleistocene snail along with more active management of Refuge lands and
endangered species habitat to meet multiple recovery tasks for delisting. Alternative C includes
more environmental education than the other two alternatives. Endangered species habitat within
Refuge units would remain closed to all public entry for all alternatives. Management of cultural
resources would be the same for all alternatives with all actions referred to the regional Historic
Preservation Officer. Prescribed fire would be used to some degree under all alternatives for habitat
management following the existing approved Refuge fire plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002).
2.4.1 Alternative A – No Action
Background: Present management practices continue if this Alternative is selected. The No Action
alternative is a status quo alternative where current conditions and trends continue. It also serves as
the baseline to compare and contrast with the other alternatives. This alternative would be similar to
current management as stated in Section 1.6.3. Acquisition efforts would not occur under this
alternative because there would be no approved expanded acquisition boundary.
2.4.1.1 Habitat
Closed areas (endangered species habitat) would be maintained and inspections of Refuge units
would remain at about 4 hours per week. Law enforcement patrols would remain at about 1 day per
month. Forty acres of native prairie and 48 acres of forest would be planted at the Howard Creek
and Fern Ridge units. Remaining forests and former agricultural fields would be left to natural
succession. Invasive species would be controlled only as staff time allows. Landowner contacts for
endangered species protection on private land would continue as staff time allows. The Refuge would
assist partners in conserving 1000 additional acres. Endangered species monitoring would continue
at current levels. Monitoring of soil/vent temperatures on algific talus slopes would continue.
2.4.1.2 Species Management
Deer populations would be evaluated and managed at a level and population structure that does not
negatively impact algific slopes or associated habitats. The recovery plans for Iowa Pleistocene snail
and Northern monkshood would be updated.
2.4.1.3 Visitor Services
Current public use at the Howard Creek and Fern Ridge Units would be maintained. The McGregor
District Visitor Contact Station would be the primary public contact location. The current level of
off-site environmental education of one to two programs per year would occur.
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
34
2.4.2 Alternative B – Habitat Protection Emphasis Alternative
Background: This alternative was formulated to place the primary focus of Refuge activities on
permanent protection of endangered species habitat through land acquisition and minimal physical
disturbance of endangered species habitat. Permanent protection of habitat is the primary recovery
goal for these species as the habitat cannot be restored once lost. These species are also difficult to
reintroduce. Algific slope habitat experts have stressed the fragility of, and need for, minimum
disturbance of these sites because of the possibility of disruption of cold air flow and disturbance to
rare snails and plants (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). Protection of additional algific slopes or
maderate cliffs would also meet the Service’s goals of conserving biological integrity, diversity and
environmental health. Refuge land protection would meet some recovery goals for these species and
may prevent future listing of other land snail and plant species.
The total approved acquisition area for the Refuge would be 6,000 acres in 22 counties (four states)
according to a revised Land Protection Plan (Appendix I). Expanding into additional counties will
allow potential acquisition and protection of large populations, populations across the species’
ranges, and protection of the majority of populations. The 3,400 acres listed in the objectives for this
alternative is the acreage that we believe we can protect within the 15-year life of the CCP given
anticipated levels of willing sellers, funding, and Refuge personnel. The acreage for all sites includes
algific talus slopes, associated sinkholes, and buffer areas around the slopes to protect them from
adjacent land uses. Protection may also be achieved in cooperation with other agencies.
Refuge activities are directly tied to recovery plans. Recovery plans for both species are outdated.
The plans do not reflect current information on all known locations, monitoring data, or threats, and
do not provide specific recovery goals. These plans would be updated under this alternative.
2.4.2.1 Habitat
Under this alternative, Refuge management activity on algific slopes would be limited to only
occasional monitoring of endangered species. Invasive species control would occur adjacent to, but
not on, endangered species habitat in order to minimize physical disturbance. Limited resources
would therefore be focused on preventing further encroachment of invasive species onto algific
slopes. Inspection of Refuge units would increase to 8 hours/week. Monitoring of soil/vent
temperatures on algific slopes would continue. Approximately 40 acres of native prairie would be
restored at the Howard Creek Unit and prescribed burning would continue in order to maintain
prairie habitat. Other forests and former agricultural fields would be left to natural succession.
Conservation site plans for potential acquisition areas would be completed. The 3,400 acres of
endangered species habitat above the 2004 level would be conserved through acquisition or other
means to meet recovery goals for the Iowa Pleistocene snail and contribute to Northern monkshood
and Leedy’s roseroot recovery goals. Two hundred acres of habitat for glacial relict snails would be
conserved.
2.4.2.2 Species Management
Searches for new algific talus slopes or endangered species locations would be done. Recovery plans
for the Iowa Pleistocene snail and Northern monkshood would be updated.
2.4.2.3 Visitor Services
Public use opportunities on the Howard Creek and Fern Ridge units would remain the same.
However, there has been and will likely be an increase in the number of visitors as the public learns
about the areas. At a certain amount of use, impacts to wildlife and their habitat may be seen.
Therefore, threshold public use levels would be determined. The McGregor District Visitor Contact
Station would be used as the primary public contact location. Some off-site environmental education
would occur at current levels of one to two programs per year.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies
35
2.4.3 Alternative C – Habitat Protection, Increased Management, and
Integrated Wildlife-dependent Recreation Alternative (Preferred
Alternative)
Background: Permanent protection of habitat is
the primary recovery goal for the Iowa
Pleistocene snail and Northern monkshood as
the habitat cannot be restored once lost and the
species are difficult to reintroduce. As well as
meeting recovery goals, protection of additional
algific slopes or maderate cliffs would meet the
Service’s goals of conserving biological integrity,
diversity and environmental health. Refuge land
protection will meet key recovery goals for these
species and may prevent future listing of other
land snail and plant species.
Permanent conservation of algific talus slopes
goes beyond protection of the slope itself from
physical disturbance. New information and
threats since the recovery plans were written increase the need for active management to meet
multiple recovery goals for delisting. Therefore, fewer acres acquired in this alternative will allow
limited Refuge resources to address all impacts to the habitat in order for delisting of these species
to occur. Some slopes are, or may be, impacted by invasive species (garlic mustard), high local deer
populations, erosion runoff into sinkholes, and vegetative succession on adjacent habitat. This
alternative takes a long term ecological approach to endangered species conservation and meets
multiple recovery goals that can lead to delisting of the Iowa Pleistocene snail during the life of the
CCP. The Service also has the responsibility to manage Refuge lands in an ecologically sound
manner for other wildlife species. The objectives in this alternative are aimed at taking care of
existing Refuge habitats as well as adding lands for endangered species protection.
The total approved acquisition area for the Refuge would be 6,000 acres in 22 counties (four states)
according to a revised Land Protection Plan (Appendix I). The LPP is the total Refuge acreage
desired to complete the Refuge project and is a longer term plan than the CCP. Expansion into
additional counties will allow potential acquisition and protection of large populations, populations
across the species’ ranges, and protection of the majority of populations. The 2,275 acres listed in
the objectives for this alternative is the acreage we believe we can protect within the 15-year life of
the CCP given anticipated levels of willing sellers, funding, and the need to accomplish other Refuge
objectives in this alternative. The acreage includes that needed to permanently protect algific slopes
including sinkholes and buffer areas to protect from adjacent land uses. Protection may also be
achieved in cooperation with other agencies.
2.4.3.1 Habitat
Inspection of Refuge units would be increased to 8 hours/week and a law enforcement officer shared
with the McGregor District of Upper Mississippi River NWFR. Invasive species control,
particularly for garlic mustard, would be increased. Iowa Pleistocene snail and Northern monkshood
monitoring would continue. More study of algific slopes, such as determining the impacts of shade to
aid with restoration decisions on adjacent habitat, would be completed. A biologist would be added to
the staff. Conservation site plans for potential acquisition areas would be completed. Approximately
2,200 acres of endangered species habitat above the 2004 level would be conserved through
acquisition or other means to meet delisting criteria of the Iowa Pleistocene snail and contribute to
recovery goals for Northern monkshood and Leedy’s roseroot. Seventy-five acres above the 2004
level would be conserved to help preclude listing of glacial relict snail species of concern.
Cold air vent on Driftless Area NWR. USFWS
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
36
Forty acres of grassland would be restored at the Howard Creek Unit. Forty-one acres of forest
would be reestablished at the Fern Ridge unit (Figure 16), 7 acres at the Howard Creek unit
(Figure 17), and 68 acres at the Pine Creek unit (Figure 18). A management plan would be developed
for all other forest lands to describe how forests would provide habitat for migratory birds and other
wildlife. Habitat management plans would be prepared for newly acquired lands.
2.4.3.2 Species Management
Surveys for new algific talus slopes and associated species would be done. Species inventories of
selected algific talus slopes would aid in understanding of these unique communities. Recovery plans
for the Iowa Pleistocene snail and Northern monkshood would be updated. Study of the location and
function of sinkholes would be initiated. An evaluation of deer populations and their impacts on the
Refuge would be completed.
2.4.3.3 Visitor Services
A wildlife observation trail would be added to the Howard Creek unit. Office and Visitor Center
space would continue to be shared with the McGregor District, although space is limited. A new
professionally developed interpretive display, as well as increased environmental education would be
completed. An interpretive park ranger would be shared with McGregor District under this
alternative. Threshold visitor use levels would be determined. A Visitor Services Plan would be
completed.
2.5 Detailed Description of Alternatives and Relationship to Goals,
Objectives, and Strategies
2.5.1 Features Common to All Alternatives
2.5.1.1 Cultural Resources
Archeological and Cultural Resource Protection: Cultural resources on federal lands receive
protection and consideration that would not normally apply to private or local and state government
lands. This protection is through several federal cultural resources laws, executive orders, and
regulations, as well as policies and procedures established by the Department of the Interior and the
Service. The presence of cultural resources including historic properties cannot stop a federal
undertaking since the several laws require only that adverse impacts on historic properties be
considered before irrevocable damage occurs. However, the Refuge will seek to protect cultural
resources whenever possible.
During early planning of any projects, the Refuge will provide the Regional Historic Preservation
Officer (RHPO) a description and location of all projects and activities that affect ground and
structures, including project requests from third parties. Information will also include any
alternatives being considered. The RHPO will analyze these undertakings for potential to affect
historic properties and enter into consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and other
parties as appropriate. The Refuge will also notify the public and local government officials to
identify any cultural resource impact concerns. This notification is generally done in conjunction
with the review required by the National Environmental Policy Act or Service regulations on
compatibility of uses.
2.5.1.2 Fire Management
The following section contains detail about the prescribed fire and wildfire suppression procedures
used on the Driftless Area NWR. We have included more detail on this subject here and in Chapter 4
in order to fully document the Refuge's recent Fire Management Plan in compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies
37
Figure 16: Future Desired Conditions, Fern Ridge Unit, Driftless Area NWR
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
38
Figure 17: Future Desired Condition, Howard Creek Unit, Driftless Area NWR
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies
39
Figure 18: Future Desired Condition, Pine Creek Unit, Driftless Area NWR
Driftless Area NWR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
40
2.5.1.2.1 Prescribed Fire
Prescribed fire is used regularly on the Refuge as a habitat management tool. Periodic burning of
grasslands reduces encroaching woody vegetation such as box elder. Fire also encourages the
growth of desirable species such as native, warm-season grasses and forbs.
Trained and qualified personnel perform all prescribed burns under precise plans. The Refuge has
an approved Fire Management Plan that describes in detail how prescribed burning will be
conducted. A burn is conducted only if it meets specified criteria for air temperature, fuel moisture,
wind direction and velocity, soil moisture, relative humidity, and several other environmental factors.
The specified criteria (prescription) minimize the chance that the fire will escape and increase the
likelihood that the fire will have the desired effect on the plant community.
Constructing firebreaks usually involves some shallow ground disturbance that could damage or
destroy cultural and archaeological resources. If a firebreak is needed on undisturbed ground, the
area will be surveyed prior to construction to protect any cultural or archaeological resources.
Prior to the burning season, the Service’s Division of
Ecological Services will review the Refuge’s Fire
Management Plan to ensure that prescribed burning will
not negatively impact listed species. Precautions will be
taken to protect threatened and endangered species
during prescribed burning. Algific slopes, where
endangered species occur on the Refuge, likely would not
burn if a fire escaped into those areas. They are cool,
damp, rocky, and contain mosses, ferns and vegetation
that provides little fuel. If prescribed burning occurs
near an algific slope, a fire break is placed adjacent to it.
Vehicle tracks through the burn are visible on the freshly
burned ash and may be longer lived if the vehicle created
ruts in the ground. Travel across the burn area will be kept to a minimum. Vehicle travel is necessary
in some instances, such as lighting the fire lines or quickly getting water to an escape point. Disced
fire breaks may still be visible for a few months after the burn, but are not visible by the next season.
Thus far, all prescribed burning has occurred in the spring. Fall burns may be used in the future.
How often established units are burned depends on management objectives, historic fire frequency,
and funding. The interval between burns may be 1 to 5 years or longer. As part of the prescribed fire
program, we will conduct a literature search to determine the effects of fire on various plant and
animal species, and we will begin a monitoring program to verify that objectives are being achieved.
Prescribed fires will not be started without the approval of the Regional Fire Management
Coordinator when the area is at an extreme fire danger level or the National Preparedness level is V.
In addition, we will not start a prescribed fire without first getting applicable concurrence when local
fire protection districts or the State of Iowa have instituted burning bans.
The impact of smoke can be reduced through management actions, which include: signing, altering
ignition techniques and sequence, halting ignition, suppressing t