Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Mark Twain
National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for
management decisions; set forth goals, objectives and strategies
needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the Fish and
Wildlife Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above
current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service
strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do
not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and
maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
Cover Photograph: Jim Rathert
Table of Contents
Mark Twain
National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1: Introduction and 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 Goals ......................................................................................................4
Area of Ecological Concern .....................................................................................................................5
Need for Action/Planning Perspectives .................................................................................................6
Organizational Change in Stations within Mark Twain Complex ..........................................................8
Legal, Policy and Administrative Guidelines ..........................................................................................10
Legal Mandates (including FWCA, Refuge Improvement Act) ........................................................10
Relationship to Other Plans ..............................................................................................................12
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ....................................................................................12
Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem Team ....................................................13
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 .................................................................................................21
Mark Twain NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Natural Resources Conservation Service ..................................................................................21
Farm Service Agency (FSA) .......................................................................................................22
Chapter 2: Public Involvement and Identification of Refuge Planning Issues ........................23
Issues .....................................................................................................................................................25
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resources Description .............................................................................26
History and Establishment of Mark Twain NWR ...................................................................................26
Pre-Refuge History ...........................................................................................................................27
Corps of Engineers Activity on the UMR .........................................................................................27
The 1945 Cooperative Agreement ...................................................................................................29
The 1954 Cooperative Agreement and General Plan ......................................................................29
The 1961 General Plans and 1963 Cooperative Agreement ............................................................31
Mark Twain Refuge Established ......................................................................................................32
General Plan (GP) Lands and the National Wildlife Refuge System ...............................................33
Description of Existing Units within Mark Twain NWR Complex ..........................................................34
Port Louisa NWR ..............................................................................................................................35
Big Timber Division ...................................................................................................................35
Louisa Division ..........................................................................................................................36
Horseshoe Bend Division ..........................................................................................................37
Keithsburg Division ...................................................................................................................38
Great River NWR ..............................................................................................................................39
Fox Island Division ....................................................................................................................39
Long Island Division .................................................................................................................39
Delair Division ..........................................................................................................................40
Clarence Cannon NWR ..............................................................................................................41
Two Rivers NWR ..............................................................................................................................42
Batchtown Division ...................................................................................................................42
Calhoun Division ........................................................................................................................42
Gilbert Lake Division .................................................................................................................43
Portage Islands Division ............................................................................................................44
Middle Mississippi River NWR ........................................................................................................44
Meissner Island Division ...........................................................................................................44
Harlow Island Division ..............................................................................................................45
Wilkinson Island Division ..........................................................................................................45
Service Fee Title Properties Acquired From USDA ..........................................................................45
Area of Ecological Concern Setting .......................................................................................................46
Climate ............................................................................................................................................46
Geomorphology of the Upper Mississippi River ..............................................................................47
Lateral Variation of Geomorphology .........................................................................................50
Socioeconomics ...............................................................................................................................52
Current Status of Area of Ecological Concern Resources ......................................................................54
Fish and Wildlife ..............................................................................................................................54
Birds ..........................................................................................................................................54
Endangered Species ..................................................................................................................67
Habitat .............................................................................................................................................72
Table of Contents
Wetland ....................................................................................................................................72
Forest .......................................................................................................................................73
Grassland ..................................................................................................................................74
Soils .................................................................................................................................................75
Water Quality ..................................................................................................................................75
Sedimentation ...........................................................................................................................76
Nutrients ...................................................................................................................................77
Other Contaminants ..................................................................................................................78
Keithsburg Division ...................................................................................................................79
Cultural Resources – Archeology and History .................................................................................80
Chapter 4: Management Direction ..................................................................................................82
Refuge Management Considerations .....................................................................................................82
Wetland Management .....................................................................................................................82
Forest Management .........................................................................................................................85
Cropland Management ....................................................................................................................87
Prescribed Fire Management ...........................................................................................................89
Invasive Species Management .......................................................................................................90
Plants ........................................................................................................................................91
Exotic Mussels ..........................................................................................................................93
Exotic Fish .................................................................................................................................94
Other Invasive Species ..............................................................................................................95
Commercial Fishing ..........................................................................................................................96
Trapping ..........................................................................................................................................97
Environmental Management Program (EMP) ...................................................................................97
Navigation Pool Water Level Management ..............................................................................98
Management of Lands Associated with Agriculture Department (USDA) ......................................100
Conservation Easements ...........................................................................................................100
Private Land Assistance Through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program .........................101
Goals, Objectives and Strategies Discussion .........................................................................................102
Habitat Goals ..................................................................................................................................102
Goal 1 Discussion: Wetlands and Aquatic Habitat ..................................................................105
Goal 2 Discussion. Forest Habitat .............................................................................................116
Goal 3 Discussion. Other Terrestrial Habitats ..........................................................................125
Goal 4 Discussion. Sedimentation and Water Quality .............................................................135
Goal 5 Discussion. Floodplain Management ............................................................................140
Goal 6 Discussion. Public Use and Education ...........................................................................147
Goal 7 Discussion. Monitoring ..................................................................................................164
Chapter 5: Refuge Boundary Expansion .........................................................................................171
Land Acquisition Factors ......................................................................................................................171
Revenue Sharing ....................................................................................................................................175
Chapter 6: Plan Implementation ......................................................................................................176
Funding ...................................................................................................................................................176
Personnel Needs ....................................................................................................................................183
Mark Twain NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Step-down Management Plans ..............................................................................................................183
Partnerships ...........................................................................................................................................183
Appendix A: Refuge Complex Maps .................................................................................................................. 187
Appendix B: Species List ................................................................................................................................... 231
Appendix C: List of Abbreviations and Acronyms .......................................................................................... 261
Appendix D: Glossary .......................................................................................................................................... 265
Appendix E: Cooperative Agreement ................................................................................................................ 269
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations ...................................................................................................... 281
Appendix G: Mailing List .................................................................................................................................... 285
Appendix H: Environmental Assessment ......................................................................................................... 291
Appendix I: Guiding Laws and Orders .............................................................................................................. 391
Appendix J: Soil Associations ........................................................................................................................... 397
Appendix K: Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 403
Appendix L: List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................. 415
Appendix M: Land Protection Plan .................................................................................................................... 419
Appendix N: Summary and Disposition of Comments on Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan .... 435
List of Tables and Figures
Table of Contents
Table 1: Changes in Organizational Structure, Mark Twain NWR Complex ............................................... 10
Table 2: Average Temperatures, Precipitation, Snowfall and Humidity in a Few AEC Counties,
From North to South ...................................................................................................................... 47
Table 3: Waterfowl Species for Which the Upper Mississippi River Valley is Critical
Migration Corridor ......................................................................................................................... 55
Table 4: INHS Aerial Canada Goose Counts, Mark Twain NWR Complex ................................................. 56
Table 5: INHS Aerial Canada Goose Count, Mark Twain NWR Complex River Reach ............................... 56
Table 6: Peak Snow Goose Numbers Using the UMRS .............................................................................. 59
Table 7: Prescribed Burn Units, Mark Twain NWR Complex ...................................................................... 90
Table 8: Predicted Reliability of Pool Level Management in St. Louis District ........................................... 99
Table 9: Mark Twain NWR Complex Habitats and Prevalent Wildlife Associations ................................. 104
Table 10: Connectivity and Sedimentation, Mark Twain NWR Complex ................................................... 143
Table 11: Cover Types for CCP Habitat Management Strategies ............................................................... 166
Table 12: Mark Twain NWR Complex Funding Needs Summary as of September 2002 .......................... 177
Table 13: Port Louisa NWR Funding Needs Summary / RONS Tier 1 ......................................................... 177
Table 14: Port Louisa NWR Refuge Funding Needs Summary / RONS Tier 2 ............................................ 178
Table 15: Port Louisa NWR Funding Needs Summary / MMS Deferred Maintenance Projects ................ 178
Table 16: Great River NWR Funding Needs Summary / RONS Tier 1 ........................................................ 179
Table 17: Clarence Cannon NWR Funding Needs Survey / Maintenance Management System (MMS)
and Deferred Maintenance Projects ............................................................................................ 179
Table 18: Two Rivers NWR Funding Needs Summary / RONS Tier 1 ......................................................... 180
Table 19: Two Rivers NWR Refuge Funding Needs Summary / RONS Tier 2 ............................................ 181
Table 20: Two Rivers NWR Funding Needs Summary, Maintenance Management System and
Deferred Maintenance Projects ................................................................................................... 181
Table 21: Middle Mississippi NWR Funding Needs Summary, Maintenance Management System
and Deferred Maintenance Projects ............................................................................................ 182
Table 22: Mark Twain NWR Complex RONS Projects ................................................................................ 182
Figures
Figure 1: Figure 1: Organization of Refuges Within Mark Twain NWR Complex ....................................... 11
Figure 2: Figure 2: Mark Twain NWR Complex Staffing Chart ................................................................. 184
1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Chapter 1: Introduction and 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.
Jim Rathert
2
Mark Twain NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 partnership 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.
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 highlights
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 outlined 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 information 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 planning 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, connectivity or flood-friendly facilities. The Environmental
Assessment associated with this plan focuses on the implication of these broad
factors and future outcomes.
3
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
■ 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 document pulls together the
purpose and need for land protection and rehabilitation 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.
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 information 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 generations of Americans1.
National Wildlife Refuge System Goals
Fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge purpose(s) and further the System mission.
■ Fulfill our statutory duty to achieve Refuge purposes 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 environmental education and
interpretation.
1. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Section 4(2)
4
Mark Twain NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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.
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 sedimentation and other
water quality factors, such as contaminants, on fish and
wildlife resources.
Floodplain Management: Enhance floodplain functions and where practicable 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 interagency efforts
along the River corridor, to evaluate the effectiveness of
refuge management programs and to provide information for
adaptive management strategies.
2. Details provided in Chapter 4, “Refuge Goals, Objectives and Strategies.”
5
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
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 Mississippi 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
Complex needs an organized approach to consider how it fits and contributes to these
larger river values, as well as identifying the best opportunities for reversing habitat
declines outside current refuge boundaries.
This planning activity on the Mississippi River started as a watershed perspective effort,
however, the resulting “planning area” would have included a good 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 Ecological 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 floodplain extends a long distance inland from the
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 def-inition
was later used to develop the “planning area” for the 1994 Lower Colorado River Refuge
Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Mark Twain NWR Complex
6
Mark Twain NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 strategies 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 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 Mississippi 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, however, 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
4. See Monitoring Goal Section for further information on these programs.
7
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
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 conditions
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 considered (wildlife and habitat diversity) on the
appropriate landscape scale, a “Species 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
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 (Myotis sodalis)
Birds
American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus)
Canada Goose (Branta canadensis)
Wood Duck (Aix sponsa)
8
Mark Twain NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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)
During plan implementation the Complex will continue to track the status of all Regional
Resource Priority species within the AEC and, to the degree practicable, 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 originally
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 organized 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 “command 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, administrative 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 headquarters is no longer one of directing the
habitat management decisions at each unit. It is now focused on Service involvement and
9
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
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 Agreements.
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 conservation 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 recognition 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: 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 structure of the Refuge.
To address these issues, a solution was proposed and implemented, and is documented 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
5. In 1963, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approved the purchase of lands for the Anna-da
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, which
was approved at the August 10, 1964, MBCC meeting.
10
Mark Twain NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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
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
Table 1: Changes in Organizational Structure, Mark Twain NWR Complex
Past Organizational Structure Current Organizational Structure
Mark Twain NWR Headquarters Mark Twain NWR Complex 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, Missouri Middle Mississippi NWR
11
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Figure 1: Organization of Refuges Within Mark Twain NWR Complex
12
Mark Twain NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 Conservation
Plans, primarily for landbirds, in numerous physiographic areas; these plans include
priority species lists, associated habitats, and management strategies. The same elements
will be by-products of ongoing planning efforts for 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 surrounding 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 effectively 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 accomplished through coordinated efforts at international, regional, state and local
levels, and supported by sound science and effective management.9
6. More information on NAWMP is found at: http://www.fws.gov/r9nawwo/nawmphp.html
7. Species priorities for these areas can be found at: hppt://www.cbobirds.org/pif/physios/index.html
8. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan website is at: http://www.manomet.org/USSCP.htm.org. 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
13
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
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 integrity 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 corridors, and associated habitats; and the
mainstem Mississippi River corridor. Five goals were developed in the plan, with
associated objectives and strategies.
Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee
“A River That Works and A Working River – A Strategy for the Natural Resources 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; describes 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 objectives.
■ Sever the pathway for exotics into and spread within the Upper Mississippi
River System.
■ Provide native fish passages at dams.
14
Mark Twain NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 organizations 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, recently completed 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 primary 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 Master Plan,
including several boundary adjustments between the State of Illinois and the Two Rivers
NWR. This document has incorporated those changes in the CCP as part of the desired
future condition mapping.
Army Corps of Engineers – Rock Island District Land Use Allocation Plan
The Land Use Allocation Plan (LUAP) established the land resource management
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 of
recreational structures such as boat docks 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 address this issue, and public concerns about
15
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
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
Agreement 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 administration 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 mentioned 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, included in its OMP, is to manage
project lands to provide a continuing public benefit from natural resources by
perpetuating a diversity of ecological communities 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 Natural Resource Management staff 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 organizations, to
discuss their visions of the Upper Mississippi River. The objective of this Summit meeting
was to seek commitment to develop a multi-interest strategy 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 cooperative
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.
b) Operations and maintenance activities that enable increased environmental
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
16
Mark Twain NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
models to achieve a greater understanding of the economic and ecological
interrelationships of management alternatives;
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 blueprint 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 mitigation 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 implemented before the 1993 flood, these programs would have restored
natural lands and provided a measure of flood protection through reduced runoff
and increased floodwater storage.
■ Action 7.1: The administration should establish a lead agency for coordinating
acquisition of title and easements to lands acquired for environmental purposes.
The report goes on to say, “Because the mission of the 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)
17
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
The Floodplain Management Assessment of the Upper Mississippi and Lower Missouri
Rivers and their tributaries (FPMA)
The Great Midwest Flood of 1993 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 alternatives 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 developed, 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:
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
18
Mark Twain NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 suitability 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 wilderness. 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 (Convention on Wetlands, signed in
Ramsar, Iran in 1971) designations have been considered 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
designated 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 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.
19
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
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 damage from hazardous substance spills.
In response to this need, the Upper Mississippi Spill Response Plan and Resource 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 investigation is
initiated to determine the severity of the spill. It is also the responsibility 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 expected, 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 transportation related facilities. In all
other federal responses, the EPA serves as the FOSC.
The Service's primary role in responding to spills is to provide technical assistance 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.
20
Mark Twain NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
■ 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 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
21
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
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 sediment 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.
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 Emergency 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 conservation
provision of the Farm Bill known as Swampbuster. This provision makes eligibility for
receiving USDA program benefits conditional on wetlands stewardship. The Service
provides technical assistance to USDA on wetland identification, assessment of wetland
10.Additional information on easements and FSA properties managed by the Mark Twain NWR staff
is found in the CCP Refuge Management Consideration section, under “Refuge Lands Associated
with Farm Services Agency.”
22
Mark Twain NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 resources; and, 2)
the fee title transfer of inventory properties to State or Federal agencies for conservation
purposes. A third area in which the Service occasionally 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.
23
Chapter 2: Public Involvement and Identification of Refuge Planning Issues
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 interacted 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.
11.The name of this process was subsequently changed to Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) by
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act signed into law on Oct. 9, 1997.
USFWS
24
Mark Twain NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 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 coordinate
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
assistance 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.
A draft CCP was released for public review in August 2003. The draft plan was posted on
the Service’s web site, and paper copies were mailed to individuals who had requested
one. A summary of the draft plan was sent to everyone on the project mailing list. People
were invited to submit comments either in writing or by talking to Refuge staff. A
summary of the comments received and how we responded in included in Appendix N.
During the comment period, a series of open house events was conducted to give people
interested in the Refuge Complex an opportunity to meet with staff and discuss the draft
CCP. Meetings were held in Annada, Missouri, on August 20, 2003; Quincy, Illinois on
August 21, 2003; Wapello, Iowa, on August 26; Keithsburg, Illinois, on August 27; Chester,
Illinois, on September 4, 2003; and in Brussels, Illlinois, on September 8, 2003.
Open House, Mark Twain NWR Complex
25
Chapter 2: Public Involvement and Identification of Refuge Planning Issues
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.
26
Mark Twain NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 3: Refuge and
Resources Description
History and
Establishment of
Mark Twain NWR12
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
“environmental” 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
managing 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.
12.Most of the material for this section came from files at the Refuge Complex Office and an unpublished
document prepared by Michael Fiarchild, 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 Upper Mississippi River NWFR
Master Plan process, which was completed in 1987.
Port Louisa NWRP
27
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resources Description
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 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 Congress provided funding for the establishment of a
biological station in the “Mississippi Valley.” The UMR and its floodplain flats had been a
particularly fertile habitat for numerous freshwater fish, mussels, fur-bearing animals and
migratory birds. These same lands and waters were considered wastelands for agriculture,
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 navigation 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
28
Mark Twain NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 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.
Consequently, both commercial fishing and mussel harvesting were dramatically
decreased13. 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 conflicting 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 agricultural 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
13. Henderson, 1931
Moist-soil unit, Mark Twain NWR Complex
29
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resources Description
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 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 Cities14, 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
14.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 man-aged
out of the Upper Mississippi NWFR office in Winona until the creation of the Mark Twain NWR
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.
30
Mark Twain NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
states and the relative authority of the 1946 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Amendments and the 1946 Flood Control Act. Although 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 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
compromise 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 transferred from the Service to the states (Illinois, Iowa and
Missouri) for administration.
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 management program . .“subject to numerous conditions and reservations.
The Department of Army reserved “all rights . . . not . . . specifically granted . ...." and
specifically reserved the right to change water surface elevations, to dredge and 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 objective, no refuge use
31
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resources Description
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 impossible 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 administration with the COE in that pool.15
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 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
15.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 are in favor of a
direct transfer from the COE. Each of the states have reaffirmed the status quo arrangement.
32
Mark Twain NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 Island16. 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 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.”
A news release dated August 1, 1958, stated that “Secretary of the Interior, Fred A. Seaton
signed a document giving official Refuge status to certain lands along the Mississippi River
between Rock Island and Alton, Illinois. The new Refuge, comprising some 20,000 acres in
Illinois, Iowa and Missouri will be known as the Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge.”
The release also stated that portions of the Refuge would be designated for public hunting,
while other important waterfowl concentration points would continue to be maintained as
sanctuaries for migratory birds and other wildlife. On August 28, 1958, the Director
published a Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the Federal Register to permit the hunting
of game birds and mammals on certain lands of the Refuge. At the time of establishment
16.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 the
Mark Twain NWR. Since this name never resonated with the public, as a result of this planning pro-cess
the Division is no”w referred to as the Long Island Division, as it is known locally.
USFWS
33
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resources Description
the Refuge contained the following lands, by county: Iowa (10,328) - Muscatine, 1200;
Louisa, 6064; Des Moines, 3,064; Illinois (9,909) – Mercer, 1,466; Adams, 1,426; Calhoun,
6,409; Jersey, 608; Missouri (232) – St. Charles, 232; for a total of 20,469 acres. At the time
an additional 2,500 acres on Long Island in Adams County, Illinois was in the process of
being transferred from the COE to the Service. In 1958, the State managed GP land areas
totaled 43,643 acres. Of that total 3,134 acres were in Iowa, 28,141 acres were in Illinois and
12,368 acres were located in Missouri.
During the 1940s and 50s, the exact legal status of state managed GP lands within the
system of lands managed as National Wildlife Refuges in the Bureau of Sport Fish and
Wildlife was uncertain. After the establishment of Mark Twain Refuge in 1958, and the
subsequent legislation relating to the National Wildlife Refuge System, the status of state
managed GP lands were further confused.
General Plan (GP) Lands and the National Wildlife Refuge
System
In 1966, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
(NWRSAA), for the express purpose of “consolidating the authorities relating to the
various categories of areas that are administered by the Secretary of the Interior for the
conservation of fish and wildlife.” The Act also provided the Secretary of Interior with the
authority to acquire land or interests in land in exchange for existing acquired land. The
NWRSAA did not explicitly include lands acquired through cooperative agreement, or
address whether the provisions of cooperative agreements remained valid after the
passage of the NWRSAA. Hence, prior to 1976, it was not clear that land acquired under
cooperative agreement were within the National Wildlife Refuge System.
In 1976, the NWRSAA was amended by what became known as the Game Range
Amendments. The amendments provided that suitable lands acquired through cooperative
agreement were part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, but could be disposed of in
accordance with the terms of the cooperative agreement. Questions were still raised
regarding the effect of the NWRSAA, as amended, on the Upper Mississippi River
cooperative agreement lands. The Game Range Amendments appeared to include only
those cooperative agreement lands which were acquired before January 1, 1975, if sufficient
managerial authority was transferred to the Secretary of Interior. In addition, the
amendments appeared to allow only those provisions of the cooperative agreement to
remain in effect that related to disposal of lands. The Acting Associate Solicitor for
Conservation and Wildlife addressed these questions in a memorandum of August 8, 1980.
He concluded that the Secretary of the Interior had the authority to enter into cooperative
agreements for lands that would be included within the National Refuge System, whether
or not entered into before or after January 1, 1975. The wildlife lands would be part of the
System on the terms contained in the cooperative agreements without regard to the
managerial authority reserved to the cooperating agency. He concluded that it was
unreasonable to believe that Congress intended to rewrite management arrangements for
lands under cooperative agreement to give the Secretary of the Interior total managerial
authority. Thus, lands that are managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service under cooperative
agreement, whether entered into before or after January l, 1975, are part of the National
Wildlife Refuge System under the terms for management and disposal as contained in the
agreement. Thus, GP lands managed as part of the Mark Twain Complex are subject to all
the laws and policy of the National Wildlife Refuge System, including compatibility, to the
extent of the authority granted to the Fish and Wildlife Service in the cooperative
agreement.
34
Mark Twain NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
On October 9, 1997, the President signed Public Law 105-57, “The National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act” (RIA), which amended the NWRSAA. The RIA spoke to
elements of “Coordination Areas” within the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS).
According to the RIA, “the term 'Coordination Area' means a wildlife management area
that is made available to a State....by cooperative agreement between the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service and a state agency having control over wildlife resources
pursuant to Section 4 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 664)....” The term
'Refuge' is defined as a designated area of land or water, or an interest in land or water
within the system, but does not include Coordination Areas. The House Report on the
Refuge Improvement Act gives a good understanding of the intended relationship of these
particular state managed areas and the issue of compatibility. It states that while these
areas are considered a part of the Refuge System, they are specifically excluded from the
definition of the term 'Refuge' so as not to require every state management decision to be
approved by the Service. Thus, Coordination Areas are a part of the NWRS, but are not a
part of any particular Refuge and are not subject to refuge compatibility standards. Each
area is subject to the provisions of the Cooperative Agreement between the state and the
Service, and as a part of the NWRS it is intended that each will contribute to the mission of
the Refuge System. The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands
and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the
fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit
of present and future generations of Americans.
The Mark Twain Refuge Complex is deeply entwined with the COE on the lands and
waters of the Mississippi River. The Cooperative Agreement, included in Appendix D, was
revised during the CCP planning effort and details those topics in wh