Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex

              Acknowledgments
Because it will serve as a guide to management of the Refuges that comprise
Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex over the next 15 years, public
input into the draft comprehensive conservation plan is vital. We would like to
thank all of the people who have contributed their time, expertise and ideas to
this planning process, and we would like to invite you to review the draft plan
and let us know what you think. All of your ideas are valuable and will contribute
to the success of the plan.
In addition o the public input received during the planning process, Refuge staff
engaged individuals from other Service programs, other Federal agencies, state
agencies – particularly field biologists from Illinois, Iowa and Missouri – as well
as non-governmental agencies that all made contributions to the material pre-sented
in this draft comprehensive conservation plan. Refuge involvement
established in interagency teams resulted in an ongoing collaborative effort in
identifying issues and planning treatments to restore and maintain natural
resource values within the Upper Mississippi River System. Projects such as the
development of the Habitat Needs Assessment (HNA) and the Upper Mississppi
River Conservation Committee “A River that Works and A Working River,” to
name two examples, were particularly helpful in ensuring that the draft compre-hensive
conservation plan was developed in concert with broad systemic efforts.
Input from the Ecological Services offices at Rock Island and Marion was
essential in developing workable solutions for Refuge management. Data pro-vided
by the U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Science Center, funded by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, provide the backbone of strategies that can
be evaluated in a seamless, systemic manner. The continuing availability of the
data will provide the basis for future adaptive management strategies.
The primary writer/contributors on the Refuge staff were: Karen Westphall,
wildlife biologist; Amy Sprunger-Allworth, Refuge Operations Specialist; Dave
Ellis, Great River and Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuge Manager;
Howard Phillips, former Two Rivers National Wildlife Refuge Manager; John
Mabery, Two Rivers National Wildlife Refuge Manager; Kathy Maycroft, former
Port Louisa National Wildlife Refuge Manager; Tom Cox, Port Louisa National
Wildlife Refuge Manager; Sara Hollerich, Port Louisa National Wildlife Refuge
wildlife biologist; Michael Dixon, interpretive ranger atRiverlands Project;
Durinda Hulett, former Complex administrative officer; Donna Zanger, Complex
administrative officer; and Dick Steinbach, Refuge Complex Manager.
We are especially grateful to Jim Rathert of the Missouri Department of Conser-vation
for the use of his superb photographs in this draft comprehensive conser-vation
plan.
And, finally, we are grateful to everyone who contributes time and energy as a
Refuge volunteer. You are truly the backbone of conservation.
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction/Background ........................................................................................................... 1
Vision Statement ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
Manager’s Note on the CCP .................................................................................................................................... 2
Refuge System Mission ............................................................................................................................................ 3
National Wildlife Refuge System Goals ........................................................................................................... 3
Mark Twain Refuge Complex Goals2 ...................................................................................................................... 3
Area of Ecological Concern3 .................................................................................................................................... 4
Need for Action/Planning Perspectives .................................................................................................................. 5
Organizational Change in Stations within Mark Twain Complex ....................................................................... 8
Legal, Policy and Administrative Guidelines ....................................................................................................... 11
Legal Mandates (including FWCA, Refuge Improvement Act) ................................................................ 11
Relationship to Other Plans ............................................................................................................................. 11
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ............................................................................................... 11
Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem Team ............................................................. 12
Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee .............................................................................. 13
Army Corps of Engineers St. Louis District Master Plan .................................................................. 14
Army Corps of Engineers – Rock Island District Land Use Allocation Plan .................................. 14
Army Corps of Engineers Operational Management Plans (OMP) ................................................... 15
Other Plans / Studies Relevant to This Document ....................................................................................... 15
Upper Mississippi River Summit............................................................................................................. 15
Report of the Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee to the Administration
Floodplain Management Task Force (The “Galloway Report”) .......................................................... 16
The Floodplain Management Assessment of the Upper Mississippi and Lower Missouri Rivers
and their tributaries (FPMA) ................................................................................................................... 17
Upper Mississippi River System Habitat Needs Assessment - 2000 ................................................ 17
Special Land Use Designations ....................................................................................................................... 18
Wilderness Review ................................................................................................................................... 18
Other Special Land Designations ............................................................................................................ 18
Cooperative Agreement with COE for General Plan (GP) Lands ..................................................... 18
Other Interagency Coordination ..................................................................................................................... 19
Spill Response ............................................................................................................................................ 19
Channel Maintenance and Dredge Disposal........................................................................................... 20
U.S. Department of Agriculture .............................................................................................................. 22
Natural Resources Conservation Service .............................................................................................. 22
Farm Service Agency (FSA) .................................................................................................................... 22
Chapter 2: Public Involvement and Identification of Refuge Planning Issues.................................. 23
Issues ......................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resources Description ........................................................................................ 25
History and Establishment of Mark Twain NWR 12 .......................................................................................... 25
Pre-Refuge History ................................................................................................................................................. 25
Corps of Engineers Activity on the UMR ..................................................................................................... 26
The 1945 Cooperative Agreement .................................................................................................................. 27
The 1954 Cooperative Agreement and General Plan .................................................................................. 28
The 1961 General Plans and 1963 Cooperative Agreement........................................................................ 30
Mark Twain Refuge Established ............................................................................................................................ 31
General Plan (GP) Lands and the National Wildlife Refuge System ............................................................... 32
Description of Existing Units within Mark Twain NWR Complex .................................................................. 34
Port Louisa NWR ............................................................................................................................................ 35
Big Timber Division .................................................................................................................................. 35
Louisa Division .......................................................................................................................................... 36
Horseshoe Bend Division .......................................................................................................................... 36
Keithsburg Division .................................................................................................................................. 37
Great River NWR ............................................................................................................................................ 38
Fox Island Division ................................................................................................................................... 38
Long Island Division ................................................................................................................................. 39
Delair Division ........................................................................................................................................... 40
Clarence Cannon NWR ................................................................................................................................... 41
Two Rivers NWR ............................................................................................................................................. 41
Batchtown Division ................................................................................................................................... 42
Calhoun Division ....................................................................................................................................... 42
Gilbert Lake Division ............................................................................................................................... 43
Portage Islands Division ........................................................................................................................... 44
Middle Mississippi River NWR....................................................................................................................... 44
Meissner Island Division ........................................................................................................................... 45
Harlow Island Division .............................................................................................................................. 45
Wilkinson Island Division ......................................................................................................................... 45
Service Fee Title Properties Acquired From USDA .................................................................................. 46
Area of Ecological Concern Setting ....................................................................................................................... 46
Climate ............................................................................................................................................................... 46
Geomorphology of the Upper Mississippi River 20...................................................................................... 47
Lateral Variation of Geomorphology ...................................................................................................... 50
Socioeconomics ......................................................................................................................................................... 52
Current Status of Area of Ecological Concern Resources ................................................................................. 55
Fish and Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................... 55
Birds ............................................................................................................................................................ 55
Waterfowl ............................................................................................................................................ 55
Shorebirds and Marsh Birds ............................................................................................................. 59
Songbirds............................................................................................................................................. 61
Raptors ................................................................................................................................................ 62
Fish .............................................................................................................................................................. 63
Freshwater Mussels ................................................................................................................................. 65
Macroinvertebrates .................................................................................................................................. 66
Reptiles and Amphibians .......................................................................................................................... 67
Endangered Species......................................................................................................................................... 68
Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) ..................................................................................................................... 68
Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirynchus albus) ................................................................................................... 69
Higgins’ Eye Pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsi) ................................................................................... 70
Fat Pocketbook Mussel (Potamilus capax) ............................................................................................ 71
Winged Mapleleaf Mussel (Quadrula fragosa) ....................................................................................... 71
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ................................................................................................... 71
Interior Least Tern (Sterna antllarum athalassos) ............................................................................... 72
Decurrent False Aster (Boltonia decurrens) ......................................................................................... 72
Habitat 23 .......................................................................................................................................................... 73
Wetland ....................................................................................................................................................... 74
Forest .......................................................................................................................................................... 75
Grassland .................................................................................................................................................... 76
Soils .................................................................................................................................................................... 76
Water Quality .................................................................................................................................................... 77
Sedimentation ............................................................................................................................................ 77
Nutrients .................................................................................................................................................... 79
Other Contaminants ................................................................................................................................. 79
Keithsburg Division .................................................................................................................................. 81
Cultural Resources – Archeology and History ............................................................................................ 81
Chapter 4: Management Direction............................................................................................................. 83
Refuge Management Considerations .................................................................................................................... 83
Wetland Management 24 ................................................................................................................................. 83
Forest Management 25 .................................................................................................................................... 85
Cropland Management 28 ............................................................................................................................... 87
Prescribed Fire Management .......................................................................................................................... 90
Invasive Species Management ........................................................................................................................ 91
Plants .......................................................................................................................................................... 93
Exotic Mussels ........................................................................................................................................... 95
Exotic Fish ................................................................................................................................................. 96
Other Invasive Species .............................................................................................................................. 96
Commercial Fishing ......................................................................................................................................... 97
Trapping ............................................................................................................................................................. 98
Environmental Management Program (EMP) ............................................................................................. 98
Management of Lands Associated with Agriculture Department (USDA) 33 ...................................... 102
Conservation Easements ........................................................................................................................ 102
Private Land Assistance Through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ........................... 103
Goals, Objectives and Strategies Discussion ...................................................................................................... 103
Habitat Goals .................................................................................................................................................. 103
Goal 1 Discussion: Wetlands and Aquatic Habitat .................................................................................... 107
Open Water .............................................................................................................................................. 108
Permanently Flooded Aquatic Plants ................................................................................................... 108
Semi-permanently Flooded Vegetation ................................................................................................ 108
Seasonally Flooded Emergents ............................................................................................................. 109
Goal 2 Discussion. Forest Habitat ............................................................................................................... 116
Fragmentation ......................................................................................................................................... 117
Diversity ................................................................................................................................................... 118
Spatial Distribution ................................................................................................................................. 120
Refuge Complex Forest Management .................................................................................................. 121
Goal 3 Discussion. Other Terrestrial Habitats ........................................................................................... 126
Grassland .................................................................................................................................................. 126
Wet Meadow............................................................................................................................................. 127
Scrub-Shrub ............................................................................................................................................. 128
Agriculture ............................................................................................................................................... 128
Goal 4 Discussion. Sedimentation and Water Quality ............................................................................... 134
Management Approaches ....................................................................................................................... 135
Goal 5 Discussion. Floodplain Management ............................................................................................... 140
Natural River Hydrologic Cycle ............................................................................................................ 140
River Modifications and Modified Hydrology ...................................................................................... 140
Floodplain Management and the Flood of ‘93 ...................................................................................... 142
Mark Twain Complex Floodplain Management ................................................................................... 142
Connectivity and Sedimentation ............................................................................................................ 143
Re-creation of natural wet/dry cycles ................................................................................................... 145
Reduction of farming and facilities in the floodplain ........................................................................... 145
Partnerships and System-wide Floodplain Management .................................................................. 145
Other Considerations ............................................................................................................................... 146
Goal 6 Discussion. Public Use and Education ............................................................................................. 148
St. Louis Area Wildlife Education and Urban Outreach – Riverlands Demonstration Area ...... 151
Goal 7 Discussion. Monitoring ...................................................................................................................... 163
List of Figures:
Figure 1: Organizational Change .................................................................................................. 9
Figure 2: Mark Twain NWR Complex Staffing Chart ............................................................... 184
List of Tables:
Table 1: Changes in Organizational Structure ............................................................................ 10
Table 2: Average Temperatures, Precipation, Snowfall and Humidity
in a Few Area of Ecological Concern Counties ............................................................................ 47
Table 3: Waterfowl Species for which the Upper Mississippi River Valley is a
Critical Migration Corridor ............................................................................................................. 56
Table 4: INHS Aerial Duck Counts .............................................................................................. 57
Table 5: INHS Aerial Canada Goose Counts ............................................................................... 57
Table 6: Peak Snow Goose Numbers Using UMRS ................................................................... 59
Table 7: Prescribed Burn Units ..................................................................................................... 91
Table 8: Predicted Reliability of Pool Level Management in St. Louis District .................... 101
Table 9: Refuge Complex Habitats and Prevalent Wildlife Associations ............................... 105
Table 10: Connectivity and Sedimentation .................................................................................. 144
Table 11: Cover Types for CCP Habitat Management Strategies ........................................... 165
Chapter 5: Refuge Boundary Expansion ................................................................................................. 170
Land Acquisition Factors ..................................................................................................................................... 170
Revenue Sharing ............................................................................................................................................ 173
Chapter 6: Plan Implementation .............................................................................................................. 175
Funding ................................................................................................................................................................... 175
Personnel Needs .................................................................................................................................................... 183
Step-down Management Plans ............................................................................................................................. 183
Partnerships ........................................................................................................................................................... 183
Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 185
Appendix A: Refuge Maps .................................................................................................................................. 187
Appendix B: Species List ..................................................................................................................................... 231
Appendix C: List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................................................... 261
Appendix D: Glossary .......................................................................................................................................... 265
Appendix E: Cooperative Agreement ................................................................................................................ 271
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations ...................................................................................................... 283
Appendix G: Mailing List .................................................................................................................................... 313
Appendix H: Environmental Assessment ......................................................................................................... 319
Appendix I: Guiding Laws and Orders ............................................................................................................... 429
Appendix J: Soil Associations ............................................................................................................................... 435
Appendix K: Bibliography .................................................................................................................................... 441
Appendix L: List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................. 453
Appendix M: Land Protection Plan .................................................................................................................... 457
Chapter 1 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1
Chapter 1: Introduction/Background
Vision Statement
For thousands of years, the Mississippi River (River) corridor has served as an
important migration route for millions of ducks, geese, shorebirds, waterbirds,
songbirds, hawks, eagles and gulls. This network of wetlands, forests, and
grasslands has also provided habitat for a variety of fish and resident wildlife
species. The Upper Mississippi River (UMR) floodplain has been greatly altered
for agriculture, urbanization, navigation and flood control. The
quantity and quality of wildlife habitat on the River has declined.
We believe that partnerships will play a key role in achieving the
long-term ecological integrity of the UMR.
Cooperative working relationships between federal and state
agencies, industry, and the public are crucial to achieving a
balance between commercial navigation, recreation, River habitat
for wildlife and safe municipal water. Mark Twain National
Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex) lands will contribute to
larger public policy goals regarding floodplain management.
Research and monitoring data must be current, readily available,
and applicable to land management decision-making needs. In the
future, the Complex management program on 500 miles of the
UMR will be an exemplary model for partnerships and science-based
wildlife management.
The River will provide a mosaic of habitats to sustain healthy populations of
native wildlife. Managed lands, such as those within the Complex, have become
critical for the ecological sustainability of the UMR. A balanced program of
habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration will consider overall habitat
needs on the pool, reach, and watershed levels. The Complex will provide high-quality
habitat along the UMR for migratory birds, other wildlife species, and
fish. Management programs will be effectively monitored for success and
adapted and modified as new scientific information becomes available.
While wildlife management remains the primary purpose of the Refuge Complex,
compatible public use and enjoyment of those resources is also important. The
Complex will provide an array of environmental and wildlife education programs
and wildlife-dependent recreational activities. Habitat management programs
and public use facilities will attract thousands of visitors annually. The partner-ship
with the Army Corps of Engineers involving the Riverlands Project Area
provides an opportunity for conducting a quality off-refuge wildlife education and
interpretation program within a large metropolitan area. Local communities will
appreciate the role of the Service in managing quality wildlife habitat and
contributing to improved floodplain factors such as flood water storage and
helping to provide for clean, safe water in the River corridor.
Photograph by Jim Rathert
American Bittern
Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex
2
Manager’s Note on the CCP
The following plan, along with appendices, is a large document because it covers
five National Wildlife Refuges (Port Louisa NWR, Great River NWR, Clarence
Canon NWR, Two Rivers NWR, and Middle Mississippi River NWR) and nearly
500 miles of Mississippi River corridor. The plan was written in a fashion that
was intended to give the citizen reader enough common language information to
understand the Fish and Wildlife Service role on the River. However, the
primary purpose of the CCP is to be a guide for current and future refuge
managers.
We would like to direct the reader’s attention to several specific points or high-lights
within the overall plan:
■ The planning process was undertaken at a landscape scale, including the
500-year floodplain through nearly 500 miles of the Upper Mississippi
River and a portion of the lower Illinois River. The level of detail out-lined
for areas within the existing Refuge boundary is much greater than
for strategies outside the boundary in the River corridor area. See
section “Area of Ecological Concern” in this chapter for more informa-tion
on the planning area.
■ Due to expansion of the Refuge in the late 1990s and overuse of the name
“Mark Twain,” the Refuge was reorganized into several separate refuges
within a Complex. See the section in this chapter called “Organizational
Change in Stations Within Mark Twain Complex.” This plan includes all
five resulting refuges.
■ As a landscape-scale plan, albeit a long and relatively narrow corridor,
goals were developed for habitats to meet wildlife needs, but no wildlife
goals themselves are present. Wildlife populations are dependent on too
many factors outside the Refuge planning area to be “controlled” enough
for good objectives and strategies.
■ Some of the desired future conditions outlined for the end of the planning
period reflect program adjustments that occurred since the Flood of
1993. As the first comprehensive conservation plan since the “flood era,”
several rehabilitative actions have never been put into an overall plan-ning
context. Actions such as the spillway construction at Clarence
Cannon NWR underwent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
evaluation, but the effects of the overall Refuge Complex program had
not been evaluated as a whole to address floodplain functions, connectiv-ity
or flood-friendly facilities. The Environmental Assessment associated
with this plan focuses on the implication of these broad factors and future
outcomes.
■ The plan includes a new 27,659-acre boundary expansion proposal. For
the 10 years prior to this effort there were various evaluations conducted
on resource needs along the Mark Twain reach of the River. This docu-ment
pulls together the purpose and need for land protection and reha-bilitation
in the historic floodplain to address deteriorating habitat
conditions and is consistent with other federal policies and management
goals for the River. The boundary addition represents a strategy to meet
identified needs. See Chapter 5 for more information on the proposed
boundary expansion.
Chapter 1 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
3
This plan has been prepared by the refuge staff at the field level. The process
involved a considerable amount of coordination with the public and with the
States of Illinois, Iowa and Missouri, the Corps of Engineers and the U.S.
Geological Survey. It is our intent to constantly gain more and better informa-tion
which will help us refine the strategies contained herein, and to fuel adaptive
management adjustments.
Refuge System Mission
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 genera-tions
of Americans1.
National Wildlife Refuge System Goals
■ Fullfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge purpose(s) and further the
System mission.
■ Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish,
wildlife, and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming
endangered.
■ Perpetuate the migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine
mammal populations.
■ Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife and plants.
■ Conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems of
the United States, including the ecological processes characteristic of
those ecosystems.
■ Foster an understanding and instill appreciation of fish, wildlife, and
plants, and their 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 environmen-tal
education and interpretation.
Mark Twain Refuge Complex Goals2
Wetlands and Aquatic
Habitat: Restore, enhance, and manage refuge wetland
and aquatic areas to provide quality diverse
habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, big river fish,
and other wetland-dependent species.
Forest Habitat: Conserve and enhance floodplain forest to meet
the needs of migrating and nesting neotropical
birds and other forest-dependent wildlife.
1 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, Section 4(2)
2 Details provided in Section “Refuge Goals, Objectives and Strategies.”
Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex
4
Other Terrestrial Habitats: Protect, enhance, and restore other terrestrial
habitats to benefit grassland birds, waterfowl,
and neotropical migrants.
Sedimentation and
Water Quality: Identify and reduce the impacts of sedimenta-tion
and other water quality factors, such as
contaminants, on fish and wildlife resources.
Floodplain Management: Enhance floodplain functions and where practi-cable
mimic historical water level fluctuations in
the River corridor.
Public Use and Education: Provide wildlife-dependent recreation and
education opportunities where appropriate, and
improve the quality and safety of the visitor
experience.
Monitoring: Develop and implement a
wildlife, habitat, and public
use monitoring program,
integrated with inter-agency
efforts along the
River corridor, to evaluate
the effectiveness of refuge
management programs
and to provide information
for adaptive management
strategies.
Area of Ecological Concern3
The lands and waters of the Mark Twain Refuge Complex (Complex) contain
valuable and important habitat areas along the lower half of the Upper Missis-sippi
River System (UMRS). The UMRS includes the Upper Mississippi River
and navigable tributaries, including the Illinois River but excluding the Missouri
River. While the entire river corridor is important, particularly to the health and
recruitment of aquatic species, habitat values change along each river mile.
Locations where habitat diversity, quantity and quality are currently the highest
are considered core areas for long-term attention. However, due to some of the
problems identified in this plan, such as sedimentation, the entire UMRS riverine
habitat condition has been in decline. As an integral part of the system, the
Refuge needs an organized approach to consider how it fits and contributes to
these larger river values, as well as identifying the best opportunities for revers-ing
habitat declines outside current refuge boundaries.
This planning activity on the Mississippi River started as a watershed perspec-tive
effort, however, the resulting “planning area” would have included a good
3 An Area of Ecological Concern can be defined as: “An essentially complete ecosystem (or set of
interrelated ecosystems) of which one part cannot be discussed without considering the
remainder.” [Malheur, National Wildlife Refuge Master Plan and Environmental Assessment,
1985, p. 7] This definition was later used to develop the “planning area” for the 1994 Lower
Colorado River Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Mark Twain NWR Complex File Photo
Chapter 1 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
5
portion of the continent. While it is helpful to consider all the cause/effect actions
within the entire watershed, such as farming practices and development that
accelerates runoff, this macro scale view is clearly beyond the management
capability of the Refuge staff. A more manageable approach was to outline the
500-year floodplain between the Quad Cities (Illinois/Iowa border) and the
confluence of the Ohio River (River Mile, or RM, 493 to RM 0). This area covers
about 1.6 million acres.
The floodplain area was further modified, as appropriate, to accommodate the
practical limits of Refuge Complex habitat concerns. For instance, highly
developed areas such as towns are obviously not the most suitable locations for
riverine habitat restoration and were excluded from further consideration. A
revised map to reflect such changes was created and defined an Area of Ecologi-cal
Concern (AEC) for refuge planning purposes. The AEC totals nearly
1,400,000 acres and extends from RM 493 at Lock and Dam 15 to RM 0 on the
Illinois side. In Illinois where the Shawnee National Forest area borders the
River, only aquatic and River border habitats have been evaluated for potential
restoration in this plan. The remaining 500-year floodplain between Grand
Tower and the Thebes area falls within a Forest Service study area for the
Shawnee National Forest. The major adjustment on the Iowa/Missouri side of
the River was located at the last 30 miles on the Missouri side where the flood-plain
extends a long distance inland from the River. The AEC relates to the
practical limits of the Complex’s evaluation of floodplain areas for possible
restoration activities, including potential land acquisition. However all land
types and uses are being monitored by other programs within the 500-year
floodplain to the Ohio River to track present River status and trends compared
to past resource values. The Habitat Needs Assessment (HNA), and the Long
Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) are Corps of Engineers funded
efforts to monitor the environmental conditions of the UMRS. Each of these
efforts address the historic 500-year floodplain of the River.4
Need for Action/Planning Perspectives
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) is intended to outline how the
Complex will fulfill its legal purposes and contribute to the National Wildlife
Refuge System’s wildlife, habitat and public use goals. The plan articulates
management goals for the next 15 years and specifies the objectives and strate-gies
for each unit of the Complex that will help achieve those goals. While the
planned future condition is 15 years out, or 2016, the Complex anticipates plan
updates every three to five years due to the volume of information available
through the LTRMP monitoring program. Monitoring data will be used to
implement adaptive management strategies, which will be documented in future
plan revisions. Development of this CCP has been guided by legislative mandates
contained in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
These mandates include:
■ Wildlife has first priority in the management and uses of refuges.
■ Wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental (wildlife and
habitat) education and interpretation are priority public uses of the
4 See Monitoring Goal Section for further information on these programs.
Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex
6
Refuge System. These uses will be facilitated when they do not interfere
with the Refuge’s ability to fulfill its purposes or the mission of the
Refuge System.
■ Other uses of the refuges will only be allowed when they are determined
to be appropriate and compatible with the refuge purposes and the
mission of the Refuge System.
Due to the scope and scale of the planning area and the variable nature of River
conditions that affect the use patterns of the migratory species using the Missis-sippi
River flyway, a decision was made to concentrate future management
actions on habitat conditions rather than wildlife abundance. Since the Refuge
cannot control many of the factors relating to wildlife populations, there are no
specific wildlife goals included in this CCP. This approach was reinforced by the
U.S. Geological Survey, (Schroeder et al., 1998) in addressing the manner in
which habitat management strategies should be selected on refuges:
“The presence of high quality habitat is a necessary prerequisite for, but does
not guarantee, an abundant wildlife population. Inadequate habitat, how-ever,
will cause wildlife to be absent or less abundant. Because wildlife
populations are affected by factors other than habitat, a logical goal of
habitat management is to focus on the habitat conditions required to provide
the greatest potential for the species or resources of concern. To the extent
that limiting factors other than habitat can also be successfully managed, the
greater the likelihood that the species or resource will actually reach the
limits imposed by the habitat.”
This CCP replaces the Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Master Plan, which
was completed in 1979. In that plan, habitat was not presented directly in goals
or objectives but was included as the means of getting to the detailed wildlife
objectives. Implementation of the plan was measured by resulting wildlife
population levels in terms of “use days.” However, animal populations on-refuge
may be influenced by weather, disease or other off-refuge habitat conditions. If
populations do change, it is impossible to prove a causal link to specific refuge
management actions, which also precludes practicing adaptive management
based on those results. By pursuing habitat goal based planning, the Complex
can focus on manipulating habitat components and creating a direct link between
those actions and responses on the ground. Due to the variable habitat condi-tions
inherent in the UMR floodplain, these refuges will also need to employ
adaptive management strategies to adjust to droughts, floods, invasive species
and other major influences. It should be noted that these conditions are so
dynamic and unpredictable that habitat strategies, particularly those for various
wetland types, have been developed which reflect “target” conditions for at least
3 out of every 5 years. The plan is designed to make the best of the variable
conditions the River gives each year.
Although the CCP is habitat based, Complex lands and waters are managed for
wildlife. Decisions had to be made first about which wildlife species, guilds or
groups to consider in determining which habitats to promote. To help focus this
decision process and to ensure that a broad array of wildlife needs were consid-ered
(wildlife and habitat diversity) on the appropriate landscape scale, a “Spe-cies
Priority List” was generated for the Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge
Complex. These species were selected by “funneling down” the Fish and Wildlife
Service Resource Priorities List for Region 3, which was developed in 1998. This
list was first narrowed to all those priority species found within the UMR
Chapter 1 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
7
ecosystem, then to those found within the planning area, or AEC. The resulting
list was further modified by considering Refuge purposes, the species, historic
range, habitat types found within the AEC and whether there were major voids
or duplications. These species are essentially “indicators” with associations to
AEC habitats upon which the Refuge Complex can relate the effect of CCP
habitat goals, objectives and strategies on wildlife. The Refuges within the
Complex are not managing exclusively “for” these species. This planning process
studiously avoided any single-species management directions. Species on the
Priority List can be considered representatives of guilds or other groupings of
species that are dependent on a particular type of habitat. For that reason they
provide an identifiable link between a wildlife species and its associated habitat
managed by the Complex. Establishing these associations during the planning
process will help in future monitoring activities and adaptive management
decisions. Most of the identified fish and wildlife concerns are reflected in the
habitat goal section of this plan. However, the floodplain management and water
quality goals also relate directly to desired outcomes for wildlife, and fisheries in
particular.
The Complex Species Priority List contains one mammal, 15 birds, two fish and
one mussel guild, including the following species:
Mammals
Indiana bat
Birds
American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus)
Canada Goose (Branta canadensis)
Wood Duck (Aix sponsa)
Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)
Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors)
Canvasback (Aythya valisneria)
Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis)
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus)
Least Tern - interior population (Sterna antillarum athalassos)
Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea)
Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum)
Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii)
Short-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus)
Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)
Fish
Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirynchus albus)
Paddlefish (Polydon spathula)
Mussels
Sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus)
Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua)
Round Pigtoe (Pleurobema coccineum)
Rock Pocketbook (Arcidens confragosus)
Pistolgrip (Tritigonia verrucosa)
Monkeyface (Quadrula metanevra)
Higgins’ Eye (Lampsilis higginsi)
Fat Pocketbook (Potamilus capax)
Black Sandshell (Ligumia recta)
Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex
8
During plan implementation the Complex will continue to track the status of all
Regional Resource Priority species within the AEC and, to the degree practi-cable,
all species utilizing the River corridor. Appendix B contains a list of
species found in the AEC, including their habitat preferences and any State or
Federal listing information. The Complex will modify these lists and plan
strategies as needed through an adaptive management process.
Organizational Change in Stations within Mark Twain Complex
Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1958 from lands origi-nally
purchased by the COE for construction of the Mississippi River 9-foot
navigation channel project. The headquarters was located in Quincy, Illinois,
with district offices in Annada, Missouri; Brussels, Illinois; and Wapello, Iowa.
These three District field offices were originally one-person sub-stations orga-nized
to conduct the habitat and survey work locally due to the distance of these
units from Quincy. For years, the Quincy Headquarters was run as the “com-mand
and control” center, making habitat and budget management decisions for
the whole Refuge. Over the years additional Refuge lands were acquired. Part-time
administrative staff were added to the Districts and each station started to
manage its own budget. During this time, Maintenance and Assistant Manager
positions were added to meet the growing responsibilities. Eventually, adminis-trative
positions were made full-time and the Districts operated as separate
refuge field offices for most day-to-day issues. Today, the role of the headquar-ters
is no longer one of directing the habitat management decisions at each unit.
It is now focused on Service involvement and responsibilities on fish and wildlife
issues within the entire lower half of the UMR. Within this charge, the highest
priority is facilitating management of the core habitats in the National Wildlife
Refuge System, including the nearly 50,000 acres of General Plan land out-granted
to the states of Illinois, Iowa and Missouri through Cooperative Agree-ments.
Districts still coordinate management efforts with the headquarters to
ensure a consistent Service approach in addressing River resources, policy
implementation and continuity with interagency partners.
From the Great Flood of 1993 through this plan process a large amount of Refuge
headquarters time was devoted to land acquisition issues and the subsequent
management direction of new units. Areas on the open River section between
St. Louis and the mouth of the Ohio River, referred to as the “Middle Miss,” were
added as un-staffed divisions of the Refuge in 1996-97. The distance from Quincy
to these purchased areas compounded the logistical difficulties that existed in a
large, sprawling, single refuge. Since considerable interest remains for Refuge
expansion along the River, particularly among the three border state conserva-tion
departments, floodplain farmers and non-governmental organizations, the
work load was destined to grow in that distant part of the Refuge.
In addition to the logistical difficulties resulting from the distance of Refuge
units, another organizational problem was identified in the planning process.
There has been a considerable issue involving Refuge name recognition in the
planning area. Samuel Clemens, pen name Mark Twain, brought national recog-nition
to the Mississippi River with his entertaining and colorful stories. The
Refuge was named with an intention to capture the existing public recognition of
Mark Twain and the association with the Mississippi River. However, it has
become apparent that there is also public confusion about the Refuge due to its
namesake. “Mark Twain” is now overused in the area. Other facilities include:
Chapter 1 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
9
Figure 1: Mark Twain NWR Complex Organization
Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex
10
the Corps of Engineers’ large and popular Mark Twain Lake, the Mark Twain
National Forest, caves, banks, buildings, a bridge, a casino and numerous other
landmarks utilizing the name. This has understandably resulted in confusion
about what and where the Refuge is, particularly since its units are scattered
over such a large area. The Refuge staff has found that local citizens, politicians
and partner agencies get confused about the identity and organizational struc-ture
of the Refuge.
To address these issues, a solution was proposed and implemented, and is docu-mented
in this CCP. The Service converted each of the three Mark Twain Refuge
Districts into separate refuges with separate names. An additional refuge was
established on the Middle Mississippi River. The restructuring is intended to
assist the public in identifying the local refuge places they relate to and enjoy.
The Service will maintain overall program continuity, with a watershed and
ecosystem perspective, through a Refuge Complex Office located at Quincy.
The changes listed in Table 1 were approved by the Director of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service on May 31, 2000. Another proposal was made regarding the
Clarence Cannon NWR5, which was approved to pursue. Clarence Cannon NWR
has been managed as a unit of the Annada District of Mark Twain and it was
suggested that the name of the Congressman be retained with the unit, as the
Clarence Cannon Division of the Great River NWR, rather than as a separate
refuge. However this change could not be approved solely by the Director and
will require the approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. This
approval will be requested from the Commission following the completion of this
planning effort. All other approved changes, as noted in Table 1, have been
incorporated into this document.
The Complex also includes the Iowa River Corridor Project (IRCP), which
includes nearly 10,000 acres of Service fee title lands located along the Iowa
River between Amana and Tama in Iowa. This project was born out of the Great
Flood of 1993 when the corridor area was covered with floodwater for 5 months.
Prior to this event the Iowa River Valley had experienced at least one flood in 28
of the previous 30 years. This chronic problem, along with associated public and
private expenditures to deal with it, brought together a partnership of Federal,
state, local and private interests to explore alternatives. This partnership has
resulted in the Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) purchasing over 13,000 acres of Emergency Wetland Reserve
Program easements to reduce agriculture losses in the floodplain, along with the
5 In 1963, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approved the purchase of lands for the
Annada Division. The Commission added lands to the Division on June 24, 1964. At that same
meeting it was suggested that the Annada Division be named in honor of Congressman Clarence
Cannon, whcih was approved at the August 10, 1964 MBCC meeting.
Table 1: Changes in Organizational Structure
Past Organizational Structure Current
Mark Twain NWR Headquarters
Wapello District Port Louisa NWR
Annada District/Clarence Cannon NWR Great River NWR/Clarence Cannon NWR
Brussels District Two Rivers NWR
New Divisions south of St. Louis Middle Mississippi NWR
Chapter 1 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
11
Service picking up the residual fee title value for much of that area. Service
involvement was key to success since most landowners were not willing to pay
for general maintenance, restoration upkeep and property taxes for land that
would provide little income. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
already had a presence on the corridor and an expressed interest in its role there.
This resulted in the development of a cooperative agreement between the
Service and the state for shared management responsibilities for the project,
with the primary day-to-day management role given to the Iowa DNR. The
IRCP has been placed administratively under the Port Louisa NWR, but it is
outside the AEC and is not included in this planning effort. Future planning
efforts on the corridor will be a collaborative effort with the Iowa DNR and
NRCS.
The 270-acre Apple Creek Division is a former Farmers Home Administration
property that was transferred to the Service and is also outside the AEC. This
unit has been managed in the same manner as conservation easements (See
Refuge Management Considerations-Management of Lands Associated with
Agriculture Department section). Any further plans for the area will be included
in tiered documents such as a Habitat Management Plan for Two Rivers NWR.
Legal, Policy and Administrative Guidelines
Legal Mandates (including FWCA, Refuge Improvement Act)
See Appendix H, Guiding Laws and Orders
Relationship to Other Plans
The Mark Twain Complex staff work closely with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, other Federal and State agencies and other Service programs in
developing or consulting on a variety of plans and initiatives. The following
paragraphs describe some of the plans pertaining to the Refuge Complex.
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
Several ongoing migratory bird conservation initiatives are relevant to this
planning effort. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) is
a partnership effort to restore waterfowl populations to historic levels; it was
developed in 1986, with objectives and strategies evolving through NAWMP
Updates (the latest produced in 1998). Refuges found within NAWMP Joint
Ventures should strive to achieve waterfowl objectives outlined in the pertinent
Joint Venture Implementation Plan. The Mark Twain NWR Complex lies within
the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture area.6
Several nongame bird initiatives are in the planning stage, with implementation
beginning in the near future. Partners In Flight (PIF) is developing Bird Con-servation
Plans, primarily for landbirds, in numerous physiographic areas; these
plans include priority species lists, associated habitats, and management strate-gies.
The same elements will be by-products of ongoing planning efforts for
6 Additional NAWMP information is found at: http://www.fws.gov/r9nawwo/nawmphp.html
Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex
12
shorebirds (U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan) and colonial waterbirds (North
American Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan). The Mark Twain NWR
Complex lies primarily within PIF Physiographic Areas 31, and the Prairie
Peninsula, 32, the Dissected Till Plains. Small portions of PIF Areas 19, the
Ozark - Ouachita Plateau, and 14, Interior Low Plateaus, also abut our AEC.7
The American Bird Conservancy has included Mark Twain refuges and surround-ing
river reach in it’s Important Bird Areas program.
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP) and the North American
Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan (NACWP) have identified priority species
and conservation strategies, mostly focused around habitat, that will address the
needs of those groups of birds. The Mark Twain NWR Complex lies primarily
within Shorebird Planning Regions 22 (Eastern Tallgrass Prairie) and also 24
(Central Hardwoods).8
The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is a continental
endeavor to improve all habitats for all birds through a united effort of individual
programs and agencies. The previously mentioned initiatives (PIF, NAWMP,
USSCP, and NACWP) have joined together to work more efficiently and effec-tively
to achieve their mission. Migratory bird initiatives will operate under
common Bird Conservation Regions, major ecologically based geographic units
covering the entire continent. In the U.S., the vision is to restore, protect and
enhance populations and habitats of North American birds. This is to be accom-plished
through coordinated efforts at international, regional, state and local
levels, and supported by sound science and effective management.9
Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem Team
The Complex lies within the Service’s Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie
(UMR/TGP) Ecosystem. Members of the ecosystem team are comprised of
representatives from each of the Service’s offices including Ecological Services,
Fisheries, Federal Aid, Private Lands, Law Enforcement and Refuges. The
vision for the UMR/TGP Ecosystem team is to perpetuate the ecological integ-rity
of the UMR/TGP Ecosystem through the protection, restoration, and
enhancement of the Ecosystem’s function, structure, and species composition by
full implementation of the Service’s mandates.
An Action Plan was developed by team members defining six ecotypes as the
focus areas for this ecosystem: prairie wetland and associated habitats; oak
savanna and forest lands; the Driftless Area; streams, riparian woodland corri-dors,
and associated habitats; and the mainstem Mississippi River corridor. Five
goals were developed in the plan, with associated objectives and strategies.
7 Species priorities for these areas can be found on the following website:
http://cbobirds.org/pif/physios/index.html
8 The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan website is http://www.manomet.org/USSCP.htm.
The website for the North American Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan is: http://
www.nacwcp.org
9 The NABCI website is www.crossdraw.com/cec/about_frame.htm
Chapter 1 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
13
Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee
“A River That Works and A Working River – A Strategy for the natural re-sources
of the Upper Mississippi River System,” was prepared by the Upper
Mississippi River Conservation Committee (UMRCC). Led by the five Upper
Mississippi River System states, this process consolidated the input of state,
federal and non-governmental organizations for a conceptual plan of action. It
includes a description of the significance of the River’s natural resources; de-scribes
a set of objectives to maintain those resources; describes the physical
River processes that support those resource values; and, outlines an overall
strategy using nine tools and associated measures to restore natural river
processes. The document also recommends implementation and leadership roles
for agencies, organizations and individuals, including the national wildlife refuges
managed by the Service on the River. The five main issues addressed are:
■ Levee construction and the subsequent loss of over 50 percent of the
historic floodplain.
■ Construction and operation of the locks and dams have converted most of
the free-flowing River into a series of pools, or reservoirs.
■ The River has been channelized and maintained for navigation.
■ Changes in land use and land practices have degraded water quality and
increased sediment and nutrient problems in the River and the Gulf of
Mexico.
■ By connecting Lake Michigan to the Illinois River, we crated a pathway
for non-native species in both directions.
The nine objective areas identified are:
■ Improve water quality for all uses.
■ Reduction in erosion and sedimentation impacts.
■ Return of natural floodplain to allow channel meanders and habitat
diversity.
■ Provide for seasonal flood pulse effect and periodic low flows to improve
nutrient base, plant growth and succession.
■ Enable connectivity of backwaters to main channel.
■ Provide for opening of side channels, create islands, shoal and sandbar
habitat.
■ Manage channel maintenance and disposal to support ecosystem objec-tives.
■ Sever the pathway for exotics into and spread within the Upper Missis-sippi
River System.
■ Provide native fish passages at dams.
Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex
14
This effort was prepared during the same period as the first half of the Complex’s
comprehensive conservation planning process, and was published in 2000. Since
its release, the document has been used by a number of agencies and organiza-tions
to plan their partnership role on the River. The Mark Twain Complex draft
comprehensive conservation plan is consistent with the interagency concept plan
and contributes to most of the referenced objectives.
Army Corps of Engineers St. Louis District Master Plan
The St. Louis District, U.S. Army COE of Engineers, is currently developing a
Rivers Project Master Plan for the management of the natural, cultural and
recreation resources on federal lands and waters associated with Mississippi
River Navigation Pools 24, 25, and 26 (including the lower 80 miles of the Illinois
River), Pool 27, the Kaskaskia River Navigation Project and applicable portions
of the Mississippi River from St. Louis to the Ohio River confluence. The pri-mary
objective of the Master Plan is to publish a clear, practical, and balanced
plan that will guide future COE land use decisions and public use development
actions on the St. Louis District’s portion of the UMRS. The overall goal of the
document is to provide a guide for effective management of the federal lands,
natural and constructed resources, while preserving habitats, accommodating
public recreational demands and insuring continued river navigation.
Several issues relevant to the management of the Mark Twain Complex and
partner states managing COE owned General Plan lands are included in the draft
Master Plan, including several boundary adjustments between the State of
Illinois and the Two Rivers NWR. At this writing the COE plan has not yet been
finalized or approved. However this document has incorporated those tentative
changes in throughout the CCP as a desire future condition.
Army Corps of Engineers – Rock Island District Land Use Allocation Plan
The Land Use Allocation Plan (LUAP) established the land resource manage-ment
policies, objectives and uses for federal lands under the jurisdiction of the
Rock Island District within the Upper Mississippi River Navigation System. The
Rock Island District encompasses Pools 11-22. Management guidelines are in
accordance with Federal regulations and programs concerning natural resource
practices, and are directed toward optimum use of such resources in the overall
interests of the general public and the nation. Objectives considered in plan
development included navigation, recreation, fish and wildlife, forestry, cultural,
environmental, and floodplain management. The LUAP is part of the project’s
comprehensive Recreation-Resource Master Plan documentation. A significant
feature of the LUAP is the Shoreline Management Plan, which establishes the
Rock Island District’s administrative policy concerning private, exclusive use
permitted on project-owned lands and waters.
Public involvement during the comprehensive conservation planning process
raised the issue of barge fleeting on government owned lands. Currently there
are no fleeting sites attached to the Refuge Complex or at General Plan lands
within the St. Louis District. However, there are several locations in Rock Island
District where “casual mooring” of barges has occurred at the same locations for
many consecutive years and have essentially become permanent uses.
As part of this planning process, the Complex and the COE began discussions
regarding the problem of tree, riverbank and near shore habitat damage as a
result of these activities. The Service will continue working with the COE and
the navigation industry to devise a better method for barge storage than that
which now occurs on public lands. Complex adaptive management strategies to
Chapter 1 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
15
address this issue, and public concerns about it, will be developed in collaboration
with the COE. One forum in which this topic will be addressed in the newly
established annual coordination meeting between all the General Plan land
managing agencies, which is now mandated by the revised Cooperative Agree-ment
for General Plan lands. In general, the Service supports the move of fleeted
barges to off-shore site that are located through a consideration of navigation
system needs, proximity to loading terminals, environmental resources and
public recreation.
Army Corps of Engineers Operational Management Plans (OMP)
The COE “Environmental Stewardship Operations and Maintenance Policies”
guidance (ER-1130-2-540, 15 November, 1995) establishes policy for administra-tion
and management of natural resource activities at COE civil works water
resource projects. “Policy and Planning: Planning Guidance”, (ER-1105-2-100, 28
December, 1990) describes the types of Army civil works planning programs and
studies, the various purposes served by the water resource projects and principle
guidance for the formulation and evaluation of water resource plans. As men-tioned
previously, the St. Louis District has an updated Master Plan, however
the Rock Island District does not currently have a contemporary Master Plan for
project lands. Operational Management Plans (OMP) detail objectives and
strategies to implement programs within the Environmental Stewardship,
Recreation and Flood Damage Reduction areas conceptually addressed in Master
Plans. Rock Island District staff have continued to update OMPs to provide
effective guidance to daily operations. The long-term goal of the District, in-cluded
in its OMP, is to manage project lands to provide a continuing public
benefit from natural resources by perpetuating a diversity of ecological commu-nities
that are suitable for a variety of public purposes. Forest management
objectives on refuge lands are directed whenever possible to improve timber
quality for wildlife habitat. The St. Louis District will be developing several
OMPs, as step-down plans from the Master Plan during the next several years.
In an effort to maintain consistency between agencies in the these documents,
Refuge Complex staff have consulted with COE foresters in the development of
goals, objectives and strategies for this CCP on the management of GP lands
regarding forestry, recreation and other stewardship issues.
Other Plans / Studies Relevant to This Document
Upper Mississippi River Summit
In 1998, an Upper Mississippi River Summit sponsored by the COE was held
that attracted a variety of Federal, State and many non-governmental organiza-tions,
to discuss their visions of the Upper Mississippi River. The objective of
this Summit meeting was to seek commitment to develop a multi-interest strat-egy
for managing the River. The group’s vision is to seek long-term compatibility
of the economic use and ecological integrity of the Upper Mississippi River. The
group committed to several key issues including:
■ Identifying and prioritizing issue and geographic areas in which coopera-tive
action is most likely;
■ Seeking ways to remove obstacles to cooperative action within existing
programs and authorities;
■ Seeking funds and/or new authorities, as appropriate for the following:
a) Continue enhanced environmental pool management in navigation
pools.
Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex
16
b) Operations and maintenance activities that enable increased environ-mental
benefits while maintaining a safe and dependable navigation
system;
c) An evaluation of the current and future physical structure of the
River floodplain under current management practices and the
development of models to achieve a greater understanding of the
economic and ecological interrelationships of management alterna-tives;
d) Restore 60,000 acres of floodplain habitat by making the UMR
floodplain a high priority for federal conservation easements. In
addition, coordinate federal, state, local and non-profit programs to
acquire fee title from willing sellers for conservation purposes, and
work with landowners to protect and restore private lands within
the floodplain by increasing funding for conservation programs like
Partners for Fish and Wildlife and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program;
e) Support the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as part of the revision of
refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans in evaluating expanded
refuge boundaries to acquire land from willing sellers in the UMR
floodplain;
f) Improved operation and maintenance for the Mark Twain National
Wildlife Refuge Complex and the Upper Mississippi River National
Wildlife and Fish Refuge.
Report of the Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee to the Administration
Floodplain Management Task Force (The “Galloway Report”)
The Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee proposed a blue-print
for “a better way to manage the nation’s floodplains.” This comprehensive
review contained many recommendations, several of which were relevant to this
plan, including:
■ To provide integrated, hydrologic, hydraulic, and ecosystem management
of the Upper Mississippi River basin............(5) Charge the Department of
the Interior with conducting an ecosystems needs analysis of the UMR
basin. This action has been partially completed through the first Habitat
Needs Assessment (HNA) (see below)
During the 1993 flood, environmental easement and land acquisition
programs became tools in assisting recovery and in removing people
from long-term flood vulnerability. In addition to meeting the needs of
disaster relief victims, these programs can be effective in achieving the
nation’s environmental goals. Environmental enhancement and mitiga-tion
programs essential to ecosystem management are often part of
federal development projects. In the past, though, such programs have
been delayed, underfunded, or not funded at all. Had they been imple-mented
before the 1993 flood, these programs would have restored
natural lands and provided a measure of flood protection through re-duced
runoff and increased floodwater storage.
■ Action 7.1: The administration should establish a lead agency for coordi-nating
acquisition of title and easements to lands acquired for environ-mental
purposes. The report goes on to say, “Because the mission of the
Chapter 1 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
17
FWS within the DOI, the Committee suggests that the DOI coordinate
federal acquisitions of environmental lands.
■ Recommendation 10.2: The USACE should consider land acquisition as
an alternative during planning and design of habitat rehabilitation and
enhancement projects under the Environmental Management Program
(EMP)
The Floodplain Management Assessment of the Upper Mississippi and Lower Missouri Rivers and
their tributaries (FPMA)
The Great Midwest Flood of 1193 generated Congressional authorization and
appropriations for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a comprehensive, system-wide
study to assess flood control and floodplain management along these river
corridors.
Probably the most notable work on this subject by others is the report commonly
referred to as the “Galloway Report”, described above. The FPMA attempted to
complement the findings and recommendations contained in that report for which
the Corps has authorities and expertise. The FPMA focuses on a comparison of
impacts and costs of implementing a wide array of alternative policies, programs,
and structural and nonstructural measures by assuming they had been in place
during the flood. It explores three scenarios of change in flood insurance, State
and local floodplain regulation, flood hazard mitigation and disaster assistance,
wetland restoration, and agricultural support policies. The structural alterna-tives
ranged from levees high enough to contain the 1993 flood event to totally
removing the levee systems, with several intermediate alternatives. The Fish
and Wildlife Service and other State and Federal partners participated in this
process.
Among many conclusions the report recommends a reduction of agriculture in
the most flood prone areas, expanding the flood storage capacity in some areas,
and restoring wetlands as an “alternate” land use in increasing floodplain health
and function.
Upper Mississippi River System Habitat Needs Assessment - 2000
The primary objectives of this initial Habitat Needs Assessment (HNA) are the
evaluation of existing habitat conditions throughout the UMRS, forecasting
future conditions, and quantifying ecological sustaining and socially desired
future habitat conditions. The HNA addresses the system-wide, river reach, and
pool levels of spatial scale and includes the bluff to bluff extent of the floodplain.
The HNA used 18 land use/land cover classes to represent habitat types along
the corridor. Each individual type was quantified and predictions were devel-oped,
based on river geomorphic processes, about the amount of change for each
type. Consultations were held with river resource managers and the public to
help define a desired future condition. These sessions were based on information
provided on historic conditions, existing conditions, the available forecast of
future conditions as provided by models, and information about the geomorphic
processes influencing river conditions. A loss of diversity is a major concern.
Bathymetry is becoming more homogenized as deep holes become filled in while
islands are eroding away. For the Mark Twain reach of the river the HNA
summary needs are:
Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex
18
Lower Impounded Reach Needs (Pools 14-26)
■ Reduce main channel habitat by 1,800 acres
■ Create or restore: 9,000 acres of secondary channel habitat; 10,500 acres
of contiguous backwater habitat; 5,000 acres of isolated backwater
habitat; and 3,000 acres of island habitat.
Open River Reach Needs (Middle Mississippi River)
■ Create or restore 25,000 acres of backwater and secondary channel
habitat, of which 7,000 acres should be isolated backwaters
■ Increase the amount of prairie, marsh and forest by about 100,000 acres
■ Restore geomorphic processes that create and maintain sand bars and
shoals
Special Land Use Designations
Wilderness Review
Lands within the existing and proposed boundaries of each unit of the Mark
Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex were evaluated for wilderness suitabil-ity
as part of this planning process. No lands were found suitable for designation
as wilderness as defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964. The Refuge Complex
AEC does not contain 5,000 contiguous, roadless acres nor does the Complex
have any units of sufficient size to make their preservation practicable as wilder-ness.
The lands of the refuge have been substantially affected by humans,
particularly through agriculture and the navigation system.
Other Special Land Designations
As a part of the planning process, other land designations potentially appropriate
to the National Wildlife Refuge System were evaluated. Public Use Natural
Areas, Research Natural Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers and RAMSAR (Conven-tion
on Wetlands, signed in Ramsar, Iran in 1971) designations have been consid-ered
and none are proposed at this time. Due to the same factors influencing
wilderness considerations mentioned previously, as well as the scattered nature
of the divisions within each refuge, it is thought that refuge management under
the guidance of the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act is sufficient for meeting the
goals and objectives of the project. The American Bird Conservancy has desig-nated
Mark Twain Complex refuges as Important Bird Areas (IBAs).
Cooperative Agreement with COE for General Plan (GP) Lands
The Cooperative Agreement addresses Service management of COE GP lands.
It defines the privileges granted to the Service for refuge overlay areas, as well
as some of the authorities reserved by the COE. At the start of this CCP
planning process the existing agreement, which covered all lands owned by the
COE within the Mark Twain Complex, the Upper Mississippi River National
Wildlife and Fish Refuge and state managed areas, was signed into place in 1963.
(See Section on History and Establishment of Mark Twain NWR). Certain
provisions of the agreement had long been recognized by both Service and COE
personnel as deficient. However, the fact that the agreement area covered two
refuges, three COE Districts, two COE Divisions and three states always
seemed to stall any attempts to revise the document. In late 1997 the COE
implemented a reorganization that put all three of the UMR Districts under the
Mississippi Valley Division in Vicksburg, Mississippi. This streamlined the COE
involvement and provided an opportunity to address the document’s problems at
Chapter 1 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
19
the same time the refuge was beginning this CCP process. A revised agreement
was finalized in the summer of 2001. Highlights of the revision include:
■ Added an introduction on the Corp’s overall role and the existence of
other interagency involvement.
■ Deleted several elements on commercial development and reserved
private rights.
■ Clarified boundary management and trespass issues.
■ Removed the restriction on converting farm lands to other habitat uses.
■ Changed the extensive annual reporting requirement.
■ Added element to clarify COE “harvest and selling of merchantable
timber.”
■ Added a dispute resolution process.
The 2001 revised Cooperative Agreement between the COE and Service relating
to GP lands and refuge management is attached as Appendix E.
Other Interagency Coordination
Spill Response
Response to oil or hazardous substance spills is a coordinated effort between
local, state, and federal authorities. Spills on the UMR have the potential to
affect people and natural resources far downstream of the original incident, so
quick coordination and response by all parties is essential to minimize the dam-age
from hazardous substance spills.
In response to this need, the Upper Mississippi Spill Response Plan and Re-source
Manual was developed in a cooperative effort of the five states bordering
the upper River, the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, USFWS, and the Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA). The manual addresses some of
the unique circumstances that may arise in coordinating spill response on the
Mississippi River and includes emergency telephone numbers for all agencies
that may be involved in initial spill response efforts.
When a spill occurs, state authorities are responsible for assuring that an investi-gation
is initiated to determine the severity of the spill. It is also the responsibil-ity
of the state to notify other potentially-affected states and the appropriate
federal response and natural resource agencies. The level of response necessary
is determined by considering such factors as size and location of the spill, type of
material spilled, damage potential, cost of clean-up versus effectiveness ex-pected,
and media/political interest.
When a federal response is deemed necessary, the Coast Guard and EPA share
the responsibility as predesignated federal on-scene coordinators (FOSC) for the
UMR. Per EPA/Coast Guard memorandums of understanding, the Coast Guard
serves as FOSC for all incidents involving commercial vessels or marine trans-portation
related facilities. In all other federal responses, the EPA serves as the
FOSC.
Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex
20
The Service’s primary role in responding to spills is to provide technical assis-tance
to the coordinating agency, incident commander, or on-scene coordinator to
minimize adverse effects to fish, wildlife, and other trust resources. A field
response coordinator has been designated for each Service facility to provide
initial on-site response when necessary. For Mark Twain NWR Complex, the
coordinator is the Wildlife Biologist in the Quincy office.
Refuge staff may be asked to provide their expertise and assistance to spill
response personnel. This may include, but is not limited to, advising as to
resources at risk from the spill, advising on River conditions and possible access
points, hazing waterfowl and other wildlife from areas known or likely to be
impacted, and coordinating oiled wildlife collection and rehabilitation efforts.
Only properly trained Service personnel can participate in spill response and
clean up activities. The Region 3 Oil Spill Response Plan identifies minimum
training requirements for all participating personnel.
In addition, each refuge may need to have its own Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan on file. According to the Federal Register for all
agencies, 40 CFR 112, a plan is required for any facility where all three of the
following conditions are met:
■ The facility is non-transportation related.
■ The above-ground storage capacity of any single container is in excess of
660 gallons, or the aggregate above-ground storage capacity is greater
than 1,320 gallons, or the total underground storage capacity is greater
than 42,000 gallons.
■ Due to its location, oil spilled at the facility could reasonably be expected
to reach waters of the United States.
Spill Prevention and Control, Control and Countermeasures Plans are designed
primarily to prevent any discharge of oil and oil products from the refuge, but
also to address control and clean-up measures in case of an accidental spill. More
specific information on plan development can be found in 40 CFR 112 and the
Service document “Guidance for SPCC Plans” prepared by the Service Pollution
Control Office in Denver.
Channel Maintenance and Dredge Disposal
Maintenance of the 9-foot navigation channel on the UMR requires maintenance
of channel training structures and dredging in areas of sand deposition by
keeping scouring flows directed to the main channel. Wing dams and closing
dams were constructed with the intent of reducing the need for dredging. Also,
banks along the channel have been protected with revetment where necessary to
maintain channel position. Continuous adjustments and repairs to these control
structures are necessary to maintain their hydraulic effectiveness. Each of these
actions has an effect on riverine habitat for fish and wildlife. For this reason the
Refuge Complex is working with the Ecological Services Offices in Rock Island
and Marion, the COE, and the States to address this program throughout the
AEC.
Erosion accounts for a major portion of the coarse material sedimentation
problems and subsequent dredging requirements, but even optimum control of
upland erosion would not eliminate dredging needs. Other factors also influence
Chapter 1 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
21
the amount of material dredged in a given location such as: channel width and
depth, water flow and current patterns. Due to the influence of these hydraulic
factors, certain portions of the River are more prone to deposition than others.
Specific dredging locations and quantities vary annually due to continually
changing flows, but many areas in the AEC have a number of chronic dredging
sites. All material dredged from the River must have a disposal site on land and/
or water. Where and how dredged material is placed can influence the potential
for impacts on water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, side channel conditions,
flood levels, cultural resources, and recreation. Dredged material historically has
been placed in close proximity to the dredging site along the shoreline, on inland
sites, or in open water since placement near the dredge site is generally the least
expensive alternative.
In 1974, the Great River Environmental Action Team (GREAT) was authorized
by Congress to “investigate and study” a realistic River resource management
plan that would provide for multiple-use management of the UMR. The GREAT
studies (GREAT I in St. Paul District, GREAT II in Rock Island District, and
GREAT III in St. Louis District) identified potential placement locations along
the UMR that would minimize adverse environmental impacts. Within the Rock
Island District, several coordinating groups were formed following the GREAT
II recommendations. The River Resources Coordinating Team (RRCT) provides
a mechanism for all federal and state agencies with management or regulatory
responsibilities in the Rock Island District area to coordinate their programs and
activities. Three coordinating groups report to the RRCT. The Fish and Wildlife
Interagency Committee (FWIC) provides coordination regarding dredging
impacts on fish and wildlife, dredged material disposal, River and backwater
modifications, habitat restoration projects, and River management studies and
investigations. The FWIC is composed of fish and wildlife biologists from the
Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, FWS, and COE. The inter-agency
On-Site Inspection Team (OSIT) was developed to more effectively deal with
site-specific dredged material problems. The OSIT reviews each proposed site in
the field and makes recommendations pertaining to the placement of dredged
material, so as to minimize any impacts on backwaters, wetlands, and other
sensitive habitats. The Committee to Assess Regulatory Structures (CARS)
recommends repair and modification of channel training structures with the
objective of reducing dredging needs.
The St. Louis District developed the Great River Resource Management Study
(GRRM) under GREAT III. Its recommendations included: continuing existing
dredging coordination activities; initiating a program to modify, design, and
evaluate channel training structures to benefit aquatic resources on the Middle
Mississippi; and conducting additional studies on fish/wildlife habitat and sedi-ment
transport. Currently, interagency coordination in the St. Louis District
includes an annual channel inspection boat trip to discuss channel maintenance
and habitat restoration issues. The District and its partners have recently
established a more formal River Resources Advisory Team (RRAT) as a forum
for interagency coordination and for long-term continuity.
Each station on the Mark Twain Complex has been involved with these groups as
appropriate. The Complex Office assumes the lead to represent refuge interests,
and occasionally Service interests, in these forums throughout the AEC.
Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex
22
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees provide biological technical assistance
to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agencies for implementation of key
conservation programs of the Farm Bill. The Service’s assistance helps USDA
meet the technical challenges presented by these programs while maximizing
benefits to fish and wildlife resources. The Service also assists in on-the-ground
habitat restoration actions associated with several of these programs, including
the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP), administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
and Farm Service Agency’s (FSA) Farm Credit Programs.10
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Under the Wetlands Reserve Program, conservation easements are acquired
that restore and protect degraded agricultural wetlands. Service employees
provide technical assistance to USDA and private landowners on site selection,
restoration planning and compatible uses for easements. Four divisions of the
Mark Twain Refuge were acquired through a WRP provision, namely the Emer-gency
Wetland Reserve Program. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
provides substantial benefits to fish and wildlife resources by temporarily
retiring up to 40 million acres of environmentally sensitive cropland nationwide.
Refuge employees provide technical assistance in order to maximize the wildlife
values of enrolled lands. The Service may also provide direct assistance to
landowners to further enhance wildlife benefits beyond those achievable by CRP
on its own.
The Service assists USDA and landowners in implementing the wetland conser-vation
provision of the Farm Bill known as Swampbuster. This provision makes
eligibility for receiving USDA program benefits conditional on wetlands stew-ardship.
The Service provides technical assistance to USDA on wetland identifi-cation,
assessment of wetland functions relative to minimal effects and mitigation
exemptions, and wetland restoration planning. Prior to the 1996 Farm Bill,
USDA was required to consult with the Service by statute; however, under the
1996 amendments, this consultation is discretionary on the part of USDA.
Farm Service Agency (FSA)
The Service provides technical assistance to the FSA’s Farm Credit Programs in
the implementation of three of FSA conservation programs. Two of these
elements are related to disposal of property obtained through loan failure.
Service employees review inventory properties and make recommendations on:
1) the establishment of permanent conservation easements for the protection and
restoration of wetlands and the conservation of other important natural re-sources;
and, 2) the fee title transfer of inventory properties to State or Federal
agencies for conservation purposes. A third area in which the Service occasion-ally
provides technical assistance involves private property owned by FSA
borrowers. The Service can assist in evaluating natural resource values of
property and make recommendations for conservation contracts where FSA
borrowers voluntarily set aside land for conservation purposes in exchange for
partial debt cancellation.
10 Additional information on easements and FSA properties managed by the Mark Twain NWR
staff is found in the CCP Refuge Management Considerations section, under “Refuge Lands
Associated with Farm Services Agency.”
Chapter 2 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
23
Chapter 2: Public Involvement and Identification
of Refuge Planning Issues
On October 1, 1997, the Service issued a Notice of
Intent to prepare a number of Comprehensive
Management Plans (CMP), along with associated
environmental documents, in the Federal Register,
Vol. 62, No. 190. This Notice of Intent included the
preparation of a Comprehensive Management Plan
(CMP)11 for the Mark Twain National Wildlife
Refuge Complex.
Following internal scoping and other preparations,
the Refuge Complex hosted six open houses
(August 25-27, November 17-18, and December 15,
1998) to inform the public of the planning process.
These open houses were held at Wapello, Iowa,
Keithsburg, Illinois, Alexandria and Annada,
Missouri, Ursa and Brussels, Illinois, respectively.
Refuge staff provided maps, National Wildlife
Refuge System information and were available to
answer questions from visitors. Interested citizens
attending each open house were asked to express
their thoughts, ideas and concerns regarding refuge programs and operations.
Most of the interactions were verbal conversations with staff but visitors were
also encouraged to fill in comment sheets that could be turned in at the open
house or mailed in later. In either case, issues raised in these sessions were
recorded and are on file at Complex headquarters. News releases were issued to
local communities prior to each open house. News and/or television media
covered four of the events.
The following spring, Refuge staff participated in additional public involvement
by joining in six of the 12 Habitat Needs Assessment public meetings held in
April and May 1999 (those held within the AEC). The National Audubon Society
and Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee (UMRCC) gathered
public input on current and future priorities for the River system. Staff inter-acted
with members of the public, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and
personnel from other Federal and State agencies as an integrated part of our
CCP public involvement process.
Mailing lists were compiled of interested individuals, adjacent property owners,
non-governmental organizations, State and Federal agencies, and political
interests from each open house and public meeting. Comprehensive conservation
planning updates were mailed periodically to these parties. The updates were
11 The name of this process was subsequently changed to Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) by
the Refuge Improvement Act (RIA) signed into law on October 9, 1997.
USFWS File Photograph
Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex
24
intended to inform those who had expressed an interest in the status of the
planning process and to invite additional comment. The mailing list continues to
grow and at last count was approximately 700 contacts, including the media.
Because the Complex overlays thousands of acres of COE General Plan (GP)
lands within the floodplain, the COE was asked to participate in the CCP process
as a cooperating agency in accordance with NEPA guidelines. Coordination
efforts have been established with the Rock Island and St. Louis Districts, as
well as the Mississippi Valley Division (MVD) in Vicksburg, Mississippi. A joint
CCP briefing for both Districts’ field operations staff was held in Quincy on
March 28, 2000. The Directors of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources
and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and the Director of the Missouri
Department of Conservation designated points of contact at their State Office
level for providing state input on the CCP process and, in particular, to coordi-nate
comments from their various organizational levels and programs into a
single state position. Briefings for these points of contact and other staff were
held in Iowa on December 9, 1999, in Missouri on December 10, 1999, and in
Illinois on January 24, 2000. Additional briefings were conducted at the St. Louis
and Rock Island Corps Districts and at state headquarters of the Illinois DNR,
Missouri DNR and Iowa DNR in July 2001. Input and ideas reflected in this plan
have been gained through interactions with State field level biologists both
before and during the formal CCP process.
In June 1999, Complex staff met at the Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences
Center (UMESC) with research biologists from three locations of the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) Biological Resources Division. The 2-day workshop
focused on the development of habitat management objectives for the Complex.
The Service developed a Memorandum of Agreement with UMESC for assis-tance
with interpreting existing data and for utilizing the expertise at UMESC to
help provide the best available scientific information for consideration in the
development of the plan.
Issues
The following, in no particular order, is a summation of major issues discussed at
open houses and inter-agency meetings. Refuge program goals, objectives and
strategies listed later in this document address each of these issues.
■ Water level management
■ Fishery resources
■ Forest management
■ Recreational opportunities
■ Wildlife disturbance by recreational visitors
■ Waterfowl habitat management
■ Environmental Management Program
■ Siltation and water quality
■ Habitat for non-game migratory birds
■ Facilities repair and upkeep
■ Contaminant-free, abundant wildlife
■ Hunting/fishing/trapping opportunities
■ Land acquisition
■ Interagency partnership and coordination
■ Balance between the competing uses and user of the River, and,
■ Restoration of backwaters, side channels, and associated wetlands.
Chapter 3 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
25
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resources Description
History and Establishment of Mark Twain NWR 12
Mark Twain Refuge, and consequently the individual refuges within it as a
Complex, shares much of its history with the Upper Mississippi River National
Wildlife and Fish Refuge, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the five states
of the UMRS. The Refuge was officially established in 1958, but the Department
of the Interior had been involved on the Upper Mississippi River for many years
regarding navigation, protection of wildlife, and public recreation. At all times in
the nation’s history, including the present, the dominant objective of the Federal
government in the Mississippi River was the
use of the River for navigation. Even though
wildlife and habitat concerns were expressed
early in the 20th century, these “environmen-tal”
objectives have remained secondary to
the economic benefits associated with the
navigation system. The current day Refuge
is obliged to plan and operate within the
context of this history, along with the physical
and legal constraints attendant with manag-ing
a subordinate River objective. This
section of the CCP is more extensive than
that for most refuges, however the history of
the Mark Twain NWR Complex has many
twists and turns that continue to have a
bearing on the daily operations of each refuge
within the Complex.
Pre-Refuge History
As early as 1882, unpatented islands in the Mississippi River below Cairo, Illinois
were withdrawn by the Secretary of the Interior at the request of the Secretary
of War to serve the interests of navigation. The COE had been authorized to
maintain channels of varying depths since the 1880s. The COE believed that by
withdrawing islands from disposal by the Federal government, the islands would
be used by all navigating on the River, or could be removed as necessary to
maintain a navigable channel. In 1891, a similar request was made for the
removal of islands in the Mississippi above Cairo. The islands were temporarily
withdrawn by the Secretary of the Interior on April 10, 1891. Withdrawal
protected the islands from private ownership and maintained them in a relatively
12 Most of the material for this section came from files at the Refuge Complex Office and an
unpublished document prepared by Michael Fairchild, May 1982, titled “The Legal and
Administrative History of the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge.” The
research and resulting report completed by Mr. Fairchild fulfilled a contract service to the FWS
during the UMRNW&FR Master Plan process, which was completed in 1987.
Mark Twain NWR Complex File Photo
Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex
26
undisturbed state. These islands were among the first lands to be included in the
Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge. On June 7, 1924, Congress
passed legislation creating the Refuge. Shortly thereafter, the Secretary of War
notified the Secretary of the Interior that the islands were no longer needed by
the War Department and, on April 25, 1925, the 1891 withdrawal order was
revoked. Authority over the islands, no longer withdrawn, and other vacant
public lands was transferred to the Department of Agriculture for inclusion in
the Refuge as a result of Executive Order 4519 of October 2, 1925.
As early as 1900, conservationists were trying to maintain and restore wildlife of
the River and urged the Bureau of Fisheries of the Department of Commerce
and Labor to begin fish rescue operations along the UMR. This effort was
expanded to include the propagation of freshwater mussels in 1908, when Con-gress
provided funding for the establishment of a biological station in the “Missis-sippi
Valley.” The UMR and its floodplain flats had been a particularly fertile
habitat for numerous freshwater fish, mussels, fur-bearing animals and migra-tory
birds. These same lands and waters were considered wastelands for agricul-ture,
homesteading and industrial development. The dominant uses of the area
were sport and commercial fishing, mussel harvesting for the pearl and button
industry, hunting and furbearer trapping. But by the 1920s, the UMR was being
threatened by over-hunting, pollution and drainage of the surrounding wetlands.
Within a few years of the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish
Refuge’s creation, the Corps of Engineers became highly involved in the process
of developing a 9-foot channel in the Mississippi River upstream from the
confluence of the Missouri River. After construction and when operational, the 9-
Foot Channel Project greatly increased commercial traffic and drastically altered
the type of habitat in the River and Refuge. Most of the Upper Mississippi
River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge lands were submerged by the naviga-tion
pools created by the locks and dams. The project changed nearly everything
about the existing Refuge, and it created new opportunities south of the Refuge
from Rock Island to the Missouri River where the Mark Twain Complex is now
located.
Corps of Engineers Activity on the UMR
Army Corps of Engineers flood control and navigation improvement activities on
the Upper Mississippi River had begun long before the Upper Mississippi River
Refuge was established. In 1871, funds were appropriated by Congress for the
COE to improve navigation on the Mississippi River above the confluence with
the Ohio River. Most of the initial COE activity on the channel involved keeping
the River clear of snags. On occasion, the COE was also authorized to conduct
dredging operations. By 1878, the COE had begun work on maintaining a 4-foot
channel to Minneapolis. In 1910, Congress authorized the COE to pursue a 6-foot
channel project above the confluence of the Missouri River. The demand for
greater shipping use of the River created the demand for a deeper channel
through to the Minneapolis grain elevators. Congress approved the 9-Foot
Project and between 1930 and 1940 26 locks and dams were constructed from
Alton, Illinois to Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Both the Bureau of Biological Survey (BBS), which later became the FWS, and
the COE recognized the damage to wildlife that was resulting from the first locks
and dams installed at Hastings, Minnesota, and Keokuk, Iowa. The pools that
formed behind the dams slowed flowage and decreased the oxygen level in the
Chapter 3 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
27
water. Silt on the riverbed killed some aquatic animals, such as mussels and food
sources for fish. In addition, because the locks and dams were unequipped to
facilitate fish movement, a dozen species of migratory fish were affected by the 9-
Foot Channel Project. Consequently, both commercial fishing and mussel
harvesting were dramatically decreased. On the other hand, both agencies also
recognized that new aquatic habitats were created and that in spite of the above
problems, it would be many years until those values would be overtaken by those
problems. One solution considered by the BBS and COE to address the conflict-ing
Congressional directives was for the COE to purchase the lands to be flooded
in fee and transfer those lands unnecessary for managing the navigation project
to the Bureau. The BBS urged the COE to manage the pools in a manner that
would stabilize the water level rather than managing mid-winter drawdowns in
support of downstream navigation. (While “abnormal” water level spiking is still
a concern, the Service is now working with the COE to accomplish early summer
seasonal drawdowns – see Pool Level Management.)
Negotiations for early interagency agreements were necessitated by conflicts
between Refuge and COE objectives resulting from different project purposes.
Refuge staff wanted to reduce or eliminate secondary interests, such as agricul-tural
leaseholds, cabin sites, or timber rights, which parties had on COE land.
The COE, on the other hand, wished to have all the land it purchased readily
available to serve the COEs’ primary navigation purpose (as well as all support
activities) and secondary purposes (economic uses and recreational), while
avoiding the direct policing and maintenance of so much land. The Refuge
viewed the land as wildlife habitat that needed protection from various uses,
while the COE at that time viewed the land excess to its primary purpose as an
investment from which an economic return could be derived.
In 1931, the Secretary of Agriculture initiated
negotiations with the Secretary of War to develop
a working agreement between the two agencies,
and an informal agreement was achieved. The
first formal documentation of an agreement
between the BBS and the COE is provided by
three executive orders issued by President
Roosevelt between September 1935 and October
1936. The executive orders were issued at the
request of the Secretary of War and the Secretary
of Agriculture. These executive orders differed
only as to which lands were reserved to the Refuge. The orders reserved COE
lands.... “for the use of the Department of Agriculture as a breeding place for
migratory birds, other wild birds, game animals, fur-bearing animals, fish and
other aquatic animal life and for the conservation of wild flowers and aquatic
plants, to be administered as a part of the Upper Mississippi River Wild Life and
Fish Refuge.” The executive orders noted that the lands “are primarily under
the jurisdiction of the War Department” and conditioned the reservations with
the right of the COE to pursue its activities without interference. A 1940
executive order (No. 8331) reserved additional COE lands for Refuge use.
The 1945 Cooperative Agreement
By the 1940s, both the FWS and the COE recognized that a more structured
arrangement between the agencies was necessary to facilitate the administration USFWS File Photo
Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex
28
of COE owned lands within the Refuge. Coordination of the land transfers were
facilitated by Executive Order Number 9146 (later addressed by E.O. 9337) that
vested the authority to withdraw or reserve public lands in the Secretary of
Interior, provided that concurrence for the withdrawal or reservation was
obtained from the head of the agency or department having primary jurisdiction.
To help clarify their relationship to these federally owned lands, the COE and
[FWS] began to plan for cooperative use in late 1941 by classifying the lands and
preparing a written agreement. In 1942, the Secretary of the Interior suggested
to the Secretary of War that all COE lands not used for navigation should be
transferred to the Department of Interior for administration as part of the
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. Interior Secretary
Ickes pointed out that there had been an agreement to that effect since the early
1930s. Shortly thereafter, additional COE lands were reserved by the Interior
Department as part of the Refuge. Negotiations were held from 1941 through
1945 between the FWS and the COE, without the participation of the states,
which were successfully concluded with the signing of the first cooperative
agreement on May 15, 1945.
The 1945 agreement categorized lands within the Upper Mississippi River
National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, as well as new Refuge areas through the
pooled project south of the Quad Cities13, into red, brown, blue and uncolored
areas. Red and brown areas were to be administered by the FWS. Hunting was
prohibited on COE lands adjacent to “Brown lands” but not on lands adjacent to
“Red lands.” “Blue lands” were administered by the FWS for hunting and
trapping only. “Uncolored lands” were those that would be maintained and
administered by the COE for project operations. The COE retained the right to
administer timbering programs on all lands it had originally purchased. All lands
originally purchased by the COE, whether transferred or not, were to remain
under COE primary jurisdiction even if management of the lands had been
transferred.
Not long after completion of negotiations for the first cooperative agreement, the
FWS requested further control by the Refuge because the leasing authority
retained by the COE continued to interfere with administration of the Refuge.
Another concern was whether the COE could transfer lands directly to the states
for administration, or whether the transfer had to be made through the FWS.
The 1954 Cooperative Agreement and General Plan
The first conference between the COE, FWS, and the states to negotiate general
plans was held in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1950. The COE still resisted land
transfers through any devices other than revocable permits. Related issues were
direct land transfers to the states and the relative authority of the 1946 Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act Amendments and the 1946 Flood Control Act. Al-though
these last two issues were related because the COE insisted that the 1946
Flood Control Act called for direct transfer of land (except those necessary for
13 The reach of the river that included pools 15 through 26 was beyond the original Upper Miss
Refuge project area. These additional FWS interests, as they developed with the COE and
states, were managed out of the Upper Miss Winona office until the creation of the Mark Twain
as a separate Refuge in 1958. The first Service employee in the new area was assigned to the
Alton Pool (26) in the autumn of 1943.
Chapter 3 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
29
the purposes of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act) to the states for water use
projects, the issues were negotiated and resolved separately.
By late 1951 the Department of the Interior and Department of the Army
reached an agreement to dispose of wildlife lands in accordance with the 1946
Coordination Act Amendments. Direct land transfers were resolved simply for
Illinois, Missouri and Wisconsin because these states were satisfied with the
system already in effect whereby land was first transferred through the FWS.
Iowa was at first interested in direct transfers particularly to allow Iowa to
develop the Lake Odessa area for hunting. After the FWS clarified to Iowa that
the State would obtain control of the same lands under cooperative agreement
with the FWS as it would from direct leases from the COE, Iowa dropped its
interest for direct transfers. Minnesota also requested direct COE-to-State
transfers for the land within the Pool 3 area. Minnesota later withdrew its
request to facilitate a five state/FWS unity on negotiating with the COE over the
general plans. As a result, by mid-1952, direct land transfers were no longer a
topic of dispute. At the time the COE insisted on 25-year revocable permits for
use by the Refuge. The FWS wanted transfer of complete jurisdiction over all
lands, unencumbered by any COE leases or reservations. In late 1952, a compro-mise
was reached which allowed for the transfer of land without time limitations
and revocation only upon mutual consent by the COE and FWS or in the event of
national emergency.
The General Plans all had been executed by the states and forwarded with the
COE/FWS Cooperative Agreement to Washington, D.C. by April 1953. In
October 1953, the Secretary of the Army approved the General Plans for all five
states the General Plans had been completely executed and were signing by the
Service and the COE by January 21, 1954. Additional step-down cooperative
agreements were established between the states and the Service for state
managed areas. The final action taken to place all transferred lands under the
authority of the 1954 Cooperative Agreement was the revocation of all executive
orders and public land orders that previously transferred COE lands to the
Refuge. This was accomplished on February 19, 1954, by the publishing of Public
Land Order 936. Henceforth, Service authority over COE land within the
Refuge depended exclusively on the cooperative agreement.
The 1954 Cooperative Agreement and the 1953 General Plans provided a unified
system of administration over COE lands. Only three major categories of land
were to exist: “Green lands” were Upper Miss. Act land as part of the original
Refuge; “Blue lands” were non-transferred COE land; and “Red lands” were
those transferred by cooperative agreement. Some project lands were trans-ferred
from the Service to the states (Illinois, Iowa and Missouri) for administra-tion.
Although the new agreements appeared to clarify the rights and responsibilities
of the parties involved, the shortcomings of the cooperative agreement soon
became apparent. The Refuge staff had believed that the FWS had exclusive
jurisdiction over transferred lands, referred to as “Red lands.” The cooperative
agreement, however, made Nine-Foot Channel Project lands “available . . . for
the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof,
and its habitat thereon, in connection with the national migratory bird manage-ment
program . .“ subject to numerous conditions and reservations. The Depart-ment
of Army reserved “all rights . . . not . . . specifically granted . ....” and
specifically reserved the right to change water surface elevations, to dredge and
Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex
30
dispose of spoil, to dispose lands for commercial and industrial sites, and to issue
leases for accommodating public uses of the land. And, given the Federal objec-tive,
no refuge use could interfere with navigation. The cooperative agreement
did not specify any of the rights or uses which the Service could exercise over
“Red lands.” The failure to enumerate which rights the Service obtained over
lands transferred through the cooperative agreement made it practically impos-sible
to determine just which rights the Service obtained. Calls for further
negotiations on this subject began shortly after the documents were signed.
The 1961 General Plans and 1963 Cooperative Agreement
With the passage of the 1958 Coordination Act Amendments, all parties agreed
that the general plans and cooperative agreement needed to be renegotiated.
Among other issues addressed was the transfer of land from the COE directly to
the states, then made possible by the act amendments. The 1958 amendments
clarified the relationship between the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and
other statutory authorities over federal activities regarding waterways. It
directed that the consultation and modifications requirements contained within
Section 2 applied retroactively to projects not yet 60 percent complete. Section
2(b) was added, requiring government agencies to give “full consideration” to the
report supplied by the Secretary of the Interior regarding modifications of water
projects for the protection of wildlife. Consequently, the Coordination Act clearly
applied to future COE activities on the Upper Mississippi, and the COE was
required to act on recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior to the extent
necessary to comply with the full consideration requirement. Merely consulting
with the Secretary of the Interior was insufficient.
Another of the 1958 Coordination Act Amendments added section 3(e) which
settled the dispute over the relationship between the Coordination Act and the
1946 Flood Control Act. Section 3(e) stated that “Federal lands acquired or
withdrawn for Federal water resource purposes and made available to the states
or to the Secretary of the Interior for wildlife management purposes, shall be
made available for such purposes in accordance with this Act, notwithstanding
other provisions of law.” The effect of Section 3(e) was to prohibit the COE from
unilaterally issuing cottage siting or other public use leases or licenses on land
turned over to the Refuge for wildlife management. In addition, the amendments
clearly authorized direct transfers of land for administration by the states where
such transfers would be in the public interest. The Service decided to allow the
states to determine if direct transfers would be incorporated into the general
plans. Direct transfers were of no concern to the Wisconsin Conservation
Department because it did not administer any COE land for wildlife purposes.
Iowa, Illinois and Missouri were opposed to any alterations in the 1954 transfer
arrangements. Only Minnesota was interested in direct transfers for limited
acreage in Pool 3, and that general plan was modified to allow for direct adminis-tration
with the COE in that pool.14
Prompted by the 1958 amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
the FWS and COE developed a new system for coordinating public use of COE
14 As a part of this planning process the Service asked Illinois, Missouri and Iowa to review the
status of General Plan lands managed by their departments to determine whether they now be
in favor of a direct transfer from the COE. Each of the States have reaffirmed the status quo
arrangement.
Chapter 3 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
31
land with other Refuge activities. Section 10 was added to the cooperative
agreement whereby the COE retained the authority to develop public use
facilities and issue leases in coordination with the Refuge’s programs. In line
with Section 10, a zoning plan was to be developed “whereby specific areas for
public use, recreational [sic], cabin sites, etc.” would be designated. The COE
agreed to stop issuing cottage site leases and to phase out existing leases and
agricultural leases. In their stead, the COE planned to convert some cottage
sites into public access, camping, picnicking or boat launching areas. Section 6
was added to require the consent of both the Department of Interior and the
Department of the Army before any rights of way for roads, telephone lines,
power lines or other uses over either COE or FWS lands. Thus, involvement of
both Departments was required for the approval of public uses and grants of
rights of way. In addition, the 1963 Cooperative Agreement provided authority
to the Service “to prevent and eliminate any trespass or unauthorized use” of
property made available through the cooperative agreement.
One of the objectives of the 1958 negotiations was to provide for a system
whereby minor changes in the land categories covering transferred lands could
be made without requiring the signatures of the Secretaries of the Army and
Interior. A provision was made in the general plans which allowed that “minor
adjustments may be made in the boundaries . . . by mutual agreement” between
the District Engineer, Regional Director, Service, and the appropriate state
official.
Mark Twain Refuge Established
In the late 1940s several GP land units managed by the
Service south of the Quad Cities were designated
separate national wildlife refuges administered by the
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish
Refuge through publication in the Federal Register.
These Refuges were located at Batchtown, Calhoun,
Louisa, Keithsburg and Flannigan Island15. Due to the
great distances involved in dealing with issues south of
the Quad Cities from Winona, Minnesota, a proposal was
made in June 1957 to “divorce the management of the Corps of Engineers land
which have been made available to the [Service] south of Rock Island from the
administration of the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge.” In a
memo to the Director dated October 31, 1957, the Regional Director stated, “it
would be logical to designate these lands as a single refuge unit and suggest the
Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge as an appropriate refuge designation. This
is a very logical name for the refuge, since it encompasses those portions of the
15 The process to transfer additional COE lands at Flannigan Island to the Service was begun in
1957. Following the addition, this unit was referred to as Gardner Refuge, and later Gardner
Division of Mark Twain NWR. Since this name never resonated with the public, as a result of
this planning process the division is now referred to as the Long Island Division, as it is known
locally.
File Photo
Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex
32
Mississippi River which were made famous by the writings of Mark Twain.” The
memo also stated that the refuge should “establish a new headquarters office for
this area somewhere in the vicinity of Quincy, Illinois.”16
A news release dated August 1, 1958, stated that “Secretary of the Interior, Fred
A. Seaton