Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
i
Abstract
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge
Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Type of Action: Administrative
Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service
Responsible Official: Robyn Thorson, Regional
Director, Twin Cities
For Further Information:
Victoria Hirschboeck
Refuge Manager
Trempealeau NWR
W28488 Refuge Road
Trempealeau, WI, 54661
(608) 539-2311
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to adopt and implement a Com-prehensive
Conservation Plan (CCP) for Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge.
The Refuge was established by Executive Order in 1936 to provide a refuge and
breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife. The Refuge encompasses
6,226 acres in western Wisconsin. The CCP will guide the management and admin-istration
of the Refuge for 15 years and help ensure that it meets the purposes for
which established, and contributes to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge
System. Three alternatives for future management are described: A) no action or
current direction, B) wildlife and habitat focus, and C) integrated public use, habi-tat,
and wildlife focus. The preferred alternative is Alternative C. This Environ-mental
Impact Statement considers the physical, biological, and socioeconomic
effects that the three alternatives would have in terms of the issues and concerns
identified during the planning process.
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge
Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
iii
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................... i
Reader’s Guide .....................................................................................................................................xiii
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues ...................................................................1
1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose and Need for Action .........................................................................................................1
1.2.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................1
1.2.2 Need ....................................................................................................................................3
1.3 Decision Framework .....................................................................................................................5
1.4 Planning Background ....................................................................................................................5
1.4.1 Legal and Policy Framework ...............................................................................................5
1.4.2 The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................5
1.4.3 The National Wildlife Refuge System ................................................................................5
1.4.4 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and Related Policies ...........6
1.4.4.1 Compatibility Policy ................................................................................................7
1.4.4.2 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy ............................7
1.4.4.3 Public Use Natural Area Policy ................................................................................7
1.4.5 Refuge History and Purposes ..............................................................................................7
1.4.6 Relationships to Other Agencies, Partners and Other Initiative Planning .........................8
1.4.6.1 Partnerships .............................................................................................................8
1.4.6.2 Other Conservation and Planning Initiatives ...........................................................8
1.4.6.2.1 Federal Government ............................................................................8
1.4.6.2.2 State of Wisconsin ............................................................................12
1.4.6.2.3 Town of Trempealeau Land Use Plan ................................................13
1.4.6.2.4 Buffalo County ....................................................................................13
1.4.6.2.5 Aghaming Park-City of Winona, Minnesota ......................................13
1.4.7 Refuge Vision and Goals ...................................................................................................15
1.4.7.1 Refuge Vision .........................................................................................................15
1.4.7.2 Refuge Goals ..........................................................................................................15
1.4.8 Planning Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities .................................................................15
1.4.8.1 Goal 1: Landscape ..................................................................................................16
1.4.8.1.1 Land Acquisition .................................................................................16
1.4.8.1.2 Refuge Boundary ................................................................................16
1.4.8.1.3 Flood Protection ..................................................................................16
1.4.8.1.4 Natural Areas and Special Designations ...........................................16
1.4.8.1.5 Archeological Resources ....................................................................16
1.4.8.2 Goal 2: Wildlife and Habitat Issues .......................................................................17
1.4.8.2.1 Forest Management ...........................................................................17
1.4.8.2.2 Forest Bird Management ....................................................................17
1.4.8.2.3 Wetland Management .......................................................................18
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
iv
1.4.8.2.4 Water Quality .....................................................................................18
1.4.8.2.5 Water Level Management .................................................................18
1.4.8.2.6 Waterbird Management .....................................................................18
1.4.8.2.7 Furbearer Management ......................................................................20
1.4.8.2.8 Emergency Response to Spills ...........................................................20
1.4.8.2.9 Grassland Management .....................................................................20
1.4.8.2.10 Invasive Plants and Animals ..............................................................21
1.4.8.2.11 Monitoring Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Populations ..............................21
1.4.8.2.12 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................21
1.4.8.2.13 Deer Herd Management .....................................................................21
1.4.8.2.14 Deer Hunting ......................................................................................22
1.4.8.2.15 Wildlife Disease Management ..........................................................22
1.4.8.3 Goal 3: Public Use Issues ......................................................................................22
1.4.8.3.1 Wildlife Observation and Photography ..............................................22
1.4.8.3.2 Interpretation ......................................................................................23
1.4.8.3.3 Environmental Education ....................................................................23
1.4.8.3.4 Hunting ...............................................................................................23
1.4.8.3.5 Fishing .................................................................................................24
1.4.8.3.6 Harvesting Fruit, Nuts, and Other Plant Parts ....................................24
1.4.8.3.7 Horseback Riding ................................................................................24
1.4.8.3.8 Domestic Pets .....................................................................................24
1.4.8.3.9 Non-Refuge Sponsored Events ..........................................................25
1.4.8.3.10 Non-Refuge Sponsored Research ......................................................25
1.4.8.3.11 General Public Use Regulations .........................................................25
1.4.8.4 Goal 4: Neighboring Landowner and Community Issues ......................................25
1.4.8.4.1 Community Outreach ..........................................................................25
1.4.8.4.2 Friends Groups ....................................................................................25
1.4.8.4.3 Volunteers ...........................................................................................25
1.4.8.4.4 Partnerships ........................................................................................25
1.4.8.4.5 Private Property Rights .......................................................................26
1.4.8.4.6 Easement and Right-of-Way Management .......................................26
1.4.8.5 Goal 5: Administration and Operations Issues ......................................................26
1.4.8.5.1 Entrance Road Flooding ......................................................................26
1.4.8.5.2 Facilities ..............................................................................................26
1.4.8.5.3 Staffing ...............................................................................................26
1.4.8.5.4 Operations and Maintenance Need ...................................................26
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ................................................................27
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................27
2.2 Development of Alternatives .......................................................................................................27
2.3 Alternative Components Not Considered for Detailed Analysis .................................................28
2.4 Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis ...................................................................29
2.4.1 Elements Common to All Alternatives ...............................................................................29
2.4.2 Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction) .....................................................................32
2.4.3 Alternative B: Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................45
2.4.4 Alternative C: Integrated Public Use and Wildlife and Habitat Focus
(Preferred Alternative) .......................................................................................................62
v
Chapter 3: Affected Environment .........................................................................................................93
3.1 Ecosystem Setting .......................................................................................................................93
3.1.1 The Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem ................................................93
3.2 Physical Environment ...................................................................................................................93
3.2.1 Climate ...............................................................................................................................93
3.2.2 Hydrology ...........................................................................................................................94
3.2.3 Geology and Soils ..............................................................................................................98
3.2.4 Environmental Contaminants .............................................................................................99
3.2.5 Water Quality .....................................................................................................................99
3.3 Vegetation and Habitat Resources ..............................................................................................99
3.3.1 Habitats and Vegetation Types ..........................................................................................99
3.4 Fisheries Habitats and Resources .............................................................................................102
3.4.1 General .............................................................................................................................102
3.4.2 Commercial Fishing ..........................................................................................................102
3.4.3 Forage Fish .......................................................................................................................102
3.4.4 Sport Fish .........................................................................................................................103
3.4.5 Threatened and Endangered Fish ....................................................................................103
3.4.6 Invasive and Exotic Fish and Molluscs ............................................................................103
3.5 Wildlife .....................................................................................................................................103
3.5.1 Waterfowl ........................................................................................................................104
3.5.2 Waterbirds .......................................................................................................................104
3.5.2.1 Pelicans and Cormorants ....................................................................................104
3.5.2.2 Herons, Bitterns and Egrets .................................................................................105
3.5.2.3 Cranes and Rails ..................................................................................................105
3.5.2.4 Gulls and Terns ....................................................................................................105
3.5.3 Shorebirds ........................................................................................................................105
3.5.4 Upland Game Birds ..........................................................................................................106
3.5.5 Passerines (Songbirds) .....................................................................................................106
3.5.6 Mammals .........................................................................................................................106
3.5.7 Reptiles and Amphibians ................................................................................................107
3.5.8 Invertebrates ...................................................................................................................107
3.5.9 Invasive and Exotic Wildlife Species ..............................................................................107
3.5.10 Federally Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species ..............................................108
3.5.11 State Listed Species ......................................................................................................108
3.6 Special Uses ..............................................................................................................................108
3.6.1 Scientific Research .........................................................................................................108
3.6.2 Utilities ............................................................................................................................108
3.7 Public Access, Education and Recreational Opportunities .......................................................109
3.7.1 Public Access ..................................................................................................................109
3.7.2 Recreation .......................................................................................................................109
3.7.2.1 Wildlife Dependent Recreation ..........................................................................109
3.7.2.2 Non-Wildlife Dependent Recreation ..................................................................112
3.7.3 Environmental Education ................................................................................................112
3.7.4 Resource Protection ........................................................................................................113
3.8 Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation ...........................................................................113
3.8.1 Native American Cultural History and Landscape ..........................................................113
3.8.1.1 Prehistoric ............................................................................................................113
3.8.1.2 Historic Native American Groups ........................................................................114
3.8.2 Archaeological Resources ................................................................................................114
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
vi
3.8.3 Euro-American Cultural History ......................................................................................114
3.9 Existing Facilities and Infrastructure ........................................................................................115
3.10Socioeconomics ........................................................................................................................117
3.10.1 Socioeconomic Setting ..................................................................................................117
3.10.1.1Population and Demographics ............................................................................118
3.10.1.1.1 Trempealeau County ........................................................................118
3.10.1.1.2 Buffalo County ..................................................................................118
3.10.1.2Employment and Income ....................................................................................119
3.10.1.2.1 Trempealeau County ........................................................................119
3.10.1.2.2 Buffalo County ..................................................................................119
3.10.1.3Transportation Patterns ......................................................................................119
3.10.2 Land Use ........................................................................................................................119
3.10.2.1General Land Use and Management .................................................................119
3.10.2.1.1 Trempealeau County ........................................................................120
3.10.2.1.2 Buffalo County ..................................................................................120
3.10.2.2Special Status Lands ..........................................................................................120
3.10.2.2.1 Black Oak Island Natural Area .........................................................120
3.10.2.2.2 Great River State Trail ......................................................................121
3.10.3 Refuge Management Economics ...................................................................................121
3.10.4 Area Recreation Sector ...................................................................................................121
3.10.4.1Trempealeau County ...........................................................................................123
3.10.4.2Buffalo County ...................................................................................................123
3.10.5 Agricultural Sector .........................................................................................................123
3.10.5.1Trempealeau County ...........................................................................................123
3.10.5.2Buffalo County ....................................................................................................123
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................124
4.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................124
4.2 Effects Common to All Alternatives ..........................................................................................124
4.2.1 Climate Change ................................................................................................................124
4.2.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................125
4.2.3 Emergency Response to Contaminant Spills ...................................................................125
4.2.4 Management of Wildlife Diseases ..................................................................................125
4.2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ..............................................................................125
4.2.6 Furbearer Trapping ...........................................................................................................126
4.2.7 Adjacent Landowners ......................................................................................................126
4.2.8 Land Use ..........................................................................................................................126
4.2.9 Management of Easements and Right-of-Ways .............................................................127
4.2.10 Revenue Sharing .............................................................................................................127
4.2.11 Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................127
4.2.12 Cultural and Historical Preservation ...............................................................................127
4.3 Effects of Alternatives on Physical Parameters/Concerns ........................................................127
4.3.1 Ecosystem ........................................................................................................................127
4.3.1.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................127
4.3.1.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus ........................................................128
4.3.1.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat, and Public Use Focus ...................128
4.3.2 Water Quality ...................................................................................................................128
4.3.2.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................128
4.3.2.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus ........................................................128
vii
4.3.2.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat, and Public Use Focus ...................128
4.3.3 Sedimentation ..................................................................................................................128
4.3.3.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................128
4.3.3.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................129
4.3.3.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat, and Public Use Focus ...................129
4.3.4 Geomorphology ................................................................................................................129
4.3.4.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................129
4.3.4.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................129
4.3.4.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat, and Public Use Focus ...................129
4.3.5 Hydrology .........................................................................................................................129
4.3.5.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................129
4.3.5.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................129
4.3.5.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat, and Public Use Focus ...................129
4.3.6 Use of Prescribed Fire ......................................................................................................129
4.3.6.1 Alternative A - No Action ....................................................................................129
4.3.6.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................130
4.3.6.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat, and Public Use Focus ...................130
4.3.7 Flood Protection ...............................................................................................................130
4.3.7.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................130
4.3.7.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................131
4.3.7.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ....................131
4.4 Effects of Alternatives on Biological Parameters/Concerns .....................................................131
4.4.1 Threatened and Endangered Species – Bald Eagle .........................................................131
4.4.1.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................131
4.4.1.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................131
4.4.1.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ....................131
4.4.2 Waterfowl ........................................................................................................................131
4.4.2.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................131
4.4.2.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................131
4.4.2.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ....................132
4.4.3 Waterbirds .......................................................................................................................132
4.4.3.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................132
4.4.3.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................132
4.4.3.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ....................132
4.4.4 Shorebirds ........................................................................................................................132
4.4.4.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................132
4.4.4.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................132
4.4.4.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ....................132
4.4.5 Raptors/Owls ...................................................................................................................132
4.4.5.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................132
4.4.5.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................132
4.4.5.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ....................132
4.4.6 Upland Game Birds ..........................................................................................................133
4.4.6.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................133
4.4.6.2 Alternative B - Wildlife and Habitat Focus ..........................................................133
4.4.6.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ....................133
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
viii
4.4.7 Songbirds .........................................................................................................................133
4.4.7.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................133
4.4.7.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus ........................................................133
4.4.7.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ....................133
4.4.8 Fish ..................................................................................................................................133
4.4.8.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................133
4.4.8.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus ........................................................134
4.4.8.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ....................134
4.4.9 Freshwater Mussels ........................................................................................................134
4.4.9.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................134
4.4.9.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus ........................................................134
4.4.9.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ....................134
4.4.10 Reptiles and Amphibians ................................................................................................134
4.4.10.1Alternative A – No Action ..................................................................................134
4.4.10.2Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus ........................................................134
4.4.10.3Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ...................135
4.4.11 Control of Invasive Species ............................................................................................135
4.4.11.1Alternative A – No Action ..................................................................................135
4.4.11.2Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus ........................................................135
4.4.11.3Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ...................135
4.4.12 Invertebrates ...................................................................................................................135
4.4.12.1Alternative A – No Action ..................................................................................135
4.4.12.2Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus ........................................................135
4.4.12.3Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ...................135
4.4.13 Mammals ........................................................................................................................135
4.4.13.1Alternative A – No Action ..................................................................................135
4.4.13.2Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus ........................................................135
4.4.13.3Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ...................136
4.4.14 Wetlands .........................................................................................................................136
4.4.14.1Alternative A – No Action ..................................................................................136
4.4.14.2Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus ........................................................136
4.4.14.3Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ...................136
4.4.15 Forests .............................................................................................................................136
4.4.15.1Alternative A – No Action ..................................................................................136
4.4.15.2Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus ........................................................136
4.4.15.3Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ...................136
4.4.16 Grasslands ......................................................................................................................137
4.4.16.1Alternative A – No Action ..................................................................................137
4.4.16.2Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus ........................................................137
4.4.16.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ..................137
4.5 Effects of Alternatives on Socioeconomic Parameters/Concerns ............................................137
4.5.1 Hunting .............................................................................................................................137
4.5.1.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................137
4.5.1.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .......................................................138
4.5.1.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ....................138
4.5.2 Fishing ..............................................................................................................................139
4.5.2.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................139
ix
4.5.2.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................139
4.5.2.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ....................139
4.5.3 Interpretation ...................................................................................................................139
4.5.3.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................139
4.5.3.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................139
4.5.3.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ....................139
4.5.4 Environmental Education .................................................................................................140
4.5.4.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................140
4.5.4.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................140
4.5.4.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ....................140
4.5.5 Wildlife Observation and Photography ............................................................................140
4.5.5.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................140
4.5.5.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................140
4.5.5.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ....................141
4.5.6 Other Uses ........................................................................................................................141
4.5.6.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................141
4.5.6.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................141
4.5.6.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ....................141
4.5.7 Protection of Archeological Resources ............................................................................142
4.5.7.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................142
4.5.7.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................142
4.5.7.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ....................142
4.5.8 Refuge Access ..................................................................................................................142
4.5.8.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................142
4.5.8.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................142
4.5.8.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ....................142
4.5.9 Community Outreach ........................................................................................................142
4.5.9.1 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................142
4.5.9.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................142
4.5.9.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ....................142
4.5.10 Partnerships ....................................................................................................................142
4.5.10.1Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................142
4.5.10.2Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus ........................................................143
4.5.10.3Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ...................143
4.5.11 Friends/Volunteers ..........................................................................................................143
4.5.11.1Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................143
4.5.11.2Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus ........................................................143
4.5.11.3Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ...................143
4.5.12 Regional Economics ........................................................................................................143
4.5.12.1Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................143
4.5.12.2Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus ........................................................144
4.5.12.3Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ...................144
4.5.13 Refuge Administration and Operations ..........................................................................144
4.5.13.1Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................144
4.5.13.2Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus ........................................................144
4.5.13.3Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ...................144
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
x
4.6 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................................................145
4.6.1 Cumulative Impacts – Physical Environment ...................................................................145
4.6.2 Cumulative Impacts – Biological Impacts .......................................................................145
4.6.3 Cumulative Impacts – Socioeconomic Environment .......................................................146
4.7 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ............................................................................147
4.8 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...................................................................................................148
Chapter 5: List of Preparers ................................................................................................................159
5.1 List of Preparers .........................................................................................................................159
Chapter 6: Compliance, Consultation, and Coordination with Others .......................................162
6.1 Compliance ...............................................................................................................................162
6.2 Consultation and Coordination with Others ..............................................................................162
6.2.1 Public Outreach ................................................................................................................162
6.2.1.1 Public Meetings/Open Houses ............................................................................162
6.2.1.2 Workshops ...........................................................................................................162
6.2.1.3 Congressional Outreach ......................................................................................163
6.2.1.4 Planning Update Mailings ...................................................................................163
6.2.1.5 Federal Register Notices .....................................................................................163
6.2.2 Interest Groups and Other Agency Consultation/Coordination ......................................163
6.3 Contacts ....................................................................................................................................164
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS and Response ...............................................................166
Chapter 8: List of References .............................................................................................................167
Appendix A: Glossary ........................................................................................................................169
Appendix B: Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................177
Appendix C: Distribution List ...........................................................................................................181
Appendix D: Applicable Laws and Executive Orders .................................................................185
Appendix E: Executive Order Establishing Trempealeau Migratory Waterfowl
Refuge Wisconson ......................................................................................................193
Appendix F: Economic Analysis of Refuge Alternatives and Demographics ........................197
Appendix G: Species Lists ................................................................................................................205
Appendix H: Plan Implementation ..................................................................................................245
Appendix I: Draft Compatibility Determinations .........................................................................259
Index........................................................................................................................................................293
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge
Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
List of Tables
xi
Table 1: Management Strategies for Invasive and Non-indigenous Plant Species
Under Alternative A ...................................................................................................................38
Table 2: Management Strategies for Invasive and Non-indigenous Plant Species
Under Alternative B ....................................................................................................................55
Table 3: Management Strategies for Invasive and Non-indigenous Plant Species
Under Alternative C ....................................................................................................................72
Table 4: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Trempealeau NWR .............................................86
Table 5: Species With Special State Designation, Trempealeau NWR ...............................................108
Table 6: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Hunting, Trempealeau NWR ....138
Table 7: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Fishing, Trempealeau NWR .....139
Table 8: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Observation,
Trempealeau NWR ...................................................................................................................141
Table 9: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Public Use,
Trempealeau NWR ...................................................................................................................146
Table 10: Summary of Environmental Consequences, Trempealeau NWR ............................................149
Table 11: List of Preparers .......................................................................................................................159
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge
Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
List of Figures
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
xii
Figure 1: Location of Trempealeau NWR in Wisconsin .............................................................................2
Figure 2: Trempealeau NWR Boundary .....................................................................................................9
Figure 3: Great River State Trail, Winona Connector .............................................................................14
Figure 4: Watershed of the Trempealeau and Buffalo Rivers .................................................................19
Figure 5: Alternative A (Current Management), Habitat .........................................................................33
Figure 6: Alternative A (Current Management) Public Use .....................................................................34
Figure 7: Alternative B (Fish and Wildlife Focus), Habitat .......................................................................46
Figure 8: Alternative B (Fish and Wildlife Focus), Public Use ..................................................................47
Figure 9: Pre-European Settlement Vegetation, Trempealeau NWR ......................................................53
Figure 10: Alternative C (Integrated Public Use and Wildlife and Habitat), Habitat ................................63
Figure 11: Alternative C (Integrated Public Use and Wildlife and Habitat) Public Use .............................64
Figure 12: Alternative C (Integrated Public Use and Wildlife and Habitat) Public Use Close Up .............65
Figure 13: Trempealeau NWR and Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem .......................94
Figure 14: Portion of Trempealeau NWR Above the 100-Year Flood Elevation (1965) .............................95
Figure 15: Existing Water Management, Trempealeau NWR ...................................................................96
Figure 16: Landcover/Land Use Map, 1994, Trempealeau NWR ............................................................100
Figure 17: Current Public Use, Trempealeau NWR .................................................................................110
Figure 18: Facilities and Structures, Trempealeau NWR ........................................................................116
Figure 19: Adjacent Conservation Areas, Trempealeau NWR ................................................................122
Reader���s Guide
xiii
Reader’s Guide
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will manage the Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in
accordance with an approved Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). The CCP provides long
range guidance on Refuge expansion and management through its vision, goals, objectives, and
strategies. The CCP also provides a basis for a long-term adaptive management process including
implementation, monitoring progress, evaluating and adjusting, and revising plans accordingly.
Additional step-down planning will be required prior to implementation of certain programs and
projects.
This document combines both a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (Draft EIS/CCP). Following public review and comment, we will publish a
Final EIS followed by a Record of Decision (ROD) that identifies the alternative selected as the CCP.
We will then publish a stand-alone CCP made up of Chapter 1, the selected alternative from Chapter
2, all of Chapters 3, 5, 6, and 8, and selected appendices. The following chapter and appendix
descriptions are provided to assist readers in locating and understanding the various components of
this combined document.
Chapter 1, Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues, includes the regional context,
establishment, and purposes of Trempealeau NWR; vision and goals for future management; and the
purpose of and need for a comprehensive conservation plan. This chapter also provides background
on major planning issues identified by Refuge staff; federal, state, and local agencies; and the
general public.
Chapter 2, Alternatives, describes three management alternatives. Each alternative represents a
potential comprehensive conservation plan for Trempealeau NWR. Alternative A describes current
management on the Refuge. Alternative C, the Preferred Alternative, is the proposed Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Trempealeau NWR. Alternative A represents baseline
conditions for the comparisons made in Chapter 4.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment, describes the existing physical and biological environment, public
uses, cultural resources, and socioeconomic conditions.
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, describes the potential impacts of each of the three
alternatives on the resources, programs, and conditions outlined in Chapter 3. This is perhaps the
most important part of the Environmental Impact Statement component of this document.
Chapter 5, List of Preparers, contains the names, positions, education, and years of experience of
persons involved in the preparation of this Draft EIS/CCP.
Chapter 6, Compliance, Consultation, and Coordination with Others, provides details on public
involvement and interagency coordination, along with a list of agencies, groups, and citizens
contacted during the planning process.
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
xiv
Chapter 7, Public Comments, Copies of written comments on this draft and our response will be
included in the Final EIS. This chapter is blank now.
Chapter 8, List of References, This chapter provides bibliographic citations and references used in
this document.
Appendix A, Glossary of Terms, contains definitions of terms used in this document.
Appendix B, Acronyms and Abbreviations, contains the meanings of these short-hand notations
used in this document.
Appendix C, Distribution List, contains the list of federal, Tribal, state, and local agencies;
nongovernment organizations; academic institutions; and individuals who received planning updates,
summaries, and other mailings associated with this planning effort.
Appendix D, Applicable Laws and Executive Orders, contains brief descriptions of some of the
more pertinent laws and executive orders applicable to management of Trempealeau NWR.
Appendix E, Executive Order 7437, this is the executive order which established the Trempealeau
NWR.
Appendix F, Economic Analysis of Refuge Alternatives and Demographics, contains tables
generated in preparation of this document.
Appendix G, Species Lists, lists plants and animals that have been observed on Trempealeau NWR.
Appendix H, Plan Implementation, summarizes the actions to be taken for the Preferred
Alternative.
Appendix I, Compatibility Determinations (CDs), describe uses, anticipated impacts, stipulations,
and a determination of compatibility for all existing and proposed public uses on Trempealeau NWR.
Trempealeau
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
Commprehensive Conservation Plan
Summary
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
xv
Introduction
A Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) is
being prepared to guide the administration and
management of Trempealeau National Wildlife Ref-uge
(Refuge) for the next 15 years. The draft docu-ment
integrates the components of a CCP, namely
goals, objectives, and strategies; with the require-ments
of an Environmental Impact Statement,
namely alternatives and consequences.
Comprehensive conservation plans are required
by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improve-ment
Act of 1997 to ensure that refuges are man-aged
in accordance with their purposes and the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System,
which is part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The CCP describes a desired future condition of the
Refuge, and provides both long-term and day-to-day
guidance for management actions and decisions.
The CCP provides broad and specific policy on vari-ous
issues, sets goals and measurable objectives,
and outlines strategies for reaching the objectives.
Preparation of an Environmental Impact State-ment
(EIS) as part of the CCP planning process
establishes scientific data on which to base a selec-tion
of a management direction and provides an
opportunity for residents, communities, state agen-cies
and governments, and non-government organi-zations
to express their ideas on Refuge
management. The EIS process will assure that the
direction set forth in the CCP best achieves the Ref-uge’s
purposes, vision and goals; contributes to the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; is
consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife
management; and addresses relevant mandates and
major issues developed during scoping.
The Refuge System is the largest collection of
lands and waters in the world set aside for the con-servation
of wildlife, with over 540 units covering
more than 95 million acres in the U.S. and its terri-tories.
Trempealeau NWR was established by Exec-utive
Order in 1936 as “a refuge and breeding
ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” The
6,226 acre Refuge is a backwater of the Mississippi
River and is strategically located within an impor-tant
migration corridor, providing resting and feed-ing
habitat for thousands of waterfowl and other
birds during spring and fall. The Refuge also
includes more than 700 acres of native prairie and
oak savanna, habitat types that are scarce in Wis-consin.
An estimated 70,000 visitors enjoy birding, hik-ing,
biking, hunting, fishing, or photography at the
Refuge. Over 2,000 young people learn about their
environment each year through education pro-grams.
A dedicated force of volunteers contributes
to the quality of the visitor experience, as well as
successful habitat management.
Staff offices are located at the Refuge near the
City of Trempealeau, Wisconsin. The Refuge is a
unit of the Upper Mississippi National Wildlife and
Fish Refuge Complex with headquarters in Winona,
Aerial view of Trempealeau NWR pools adjacent to the Upper
Mississippi River. Photo by Robert Hurt.
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
xvi
Minnesota. There are currently four full-time per-manent
employees and a base annual budget of
$400K.
Public Involvement and
Decision Process
Scoping of issues began in September of 2002
with a public meeting in Centerville, Wisconsin to
identify issues. Key issues identified at the meeting
and by Refuge staff, were summarized in 12 “fact
sheets” that provided the basis for discussion
groups at an all-day workshop in March of 2003.
Workshop participants were “managers for a day”
making tough decisions about how to balance often
conflicting Refuge uses. A website was maintained
with up-to-date news about the process. Follow-up
meetings with Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources and briefings with various commissions,
associations, and Congressional offices occurred
throughout the process.
Following public review and meetings on the
Draft EIS, a final EIS will be prepared. The
Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Twin Cities, Minnesota, will make a decision on
which alternative in the Final EIS will become the
Final CCP. This decision will be recorded in a formal
Record of Decision included in the final documents.
Substantive comments from the public, agencies,
and other groups will be included in the Final EIS,
along with a Service response.
Refuge Vision and Goals
The Refuge vision provides a simple statement of
the desired, overall future condition of the Refuge.
Refuge goals are “stepped down” from the vision
and provide a framework for more detailed, measur-able
objectives which are the heart of the CCP.
Refuge Vision:
“Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge is
enjoyed and appreciated by the people of
America as a beautiful, scenic place where a
diversity of native plants and animals thrive in
healthy prairies, forests, and wetlands.”
Refuge Goals
Landscape
We will strive to maintain and improve the scenic
and wild character, and environmental health of
the Refuge.
Wildlife and Habitat
Our habitat management will support diverse and
abundant native fish, wildlife, and plants.
Public Use
We will manage public use programs and facilities
to ensure sustainable, quality hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife photography, inter-pretation,
and environmental education opportu-nities
for a broad cross-section of the public; and
provide opportunities for the public to use and
enjoy the Refuge for traditional and appropriate
non-wildlife dependent uses that are compatible
with the purposes for which the Refuge was
established and the mission of the Refuge Sys-tem.
Neighboring Landowners and Communities
We will communicate openly and work coopera-tively
with our neighbors and local communities
to help all benefit from the aesthetic and eco-
White sage, Trempealeau NWR nomic values of the Refuge.
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
xvii
Administration and Operations
We will seek adequate funding, staffing, and facil-ities;
and improve public awareness and support
to carry out the purposes, vision, goals, and
objectives of the Refuge.
Planning Issues, Concerns and
Opportunities
Scoping and public involvement helped identify
numerous issues facing the Refuge and formed the
basis for crafting the Draft EIS/CCP. These issues
are summarized below by related Refuge goal.
Landscape Issues
Land Acquisition
Only 340 acres within the acquisition boundary
approved in the 1983 Refuge Master Plan have not
been acquired. Acquiring these lands would allevi-ate
issues with the entrance road flooding, and allow
the Refuge to restore and protect bottomland forest
and emergent mash.
Refuge Boundary
Brush cutting, dumping, mowing, illegal hunting
and fishing, and vehicle trespass all occur along
areas of the boundary, often intruding onto Refuge
lands. A clearly marked and maintained boundary
would be a deterrent to encroachment and other
illegal activities and would help to maintain positive
relations with neighboring landowners.
Flood Protection
The Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad
(BNSFR) dike separates the Refuge from the main
channel of the Mississippi River. During the near-record
flood in 2001, floodwaters put severe pres-sure
against the river side of the dike. At the
request of BNSFR the Service allowed floodwater
to enter the Refuge. Severe damage occurred to
Refuge habitats and infrastructure and offered
insufficient protection for the railroad dike. The
Refuge has no official policy for dealing with water
management during flood events, making it vulnera-ble
to impacts from emergency actions.
Natural Areas and Special Designations
In 1986, Black Oak Island was designated a Pub-lic
Use Natural Area as an example of undisturbed,
mature, eastern deciduous forest. A management
plan is needed to ensure the future integrity of the
area.
The Great River State Bike Trail passes through
the Refuge with an estimated 20,000 cyclists riding
through each year. Improved signing and interpre-tive
materials, and alleviating the spring flooding of
the entrance road are issues that need to be
resolved to improve the bike trail.
Archeological Resources
As a pre-eminent conservation agency, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has a responsibility for
the protection of the many known and unknown cul-tural
resources located on Refuge lands. Trempea-leau
NWR has been described as one of the most
important archeological sites in the Midwest.
Human use dates back 12,000 years. The majority of
the Refuge has not had baseline surveys and the
locations and extent of archeological resources are
unknown. Protection of sites is difficult and the Ref-uge
has a long history of illegal collecting. Habitat
management is often delayed pending site surveys.
The Refuge does not have an Archeological
Resource Protection Plan or an inventory plan.
Wildlife and Habitat Issues
Forest Management
More than 85 percent of the forests are domi-nated
by non-native trees and shrubs. Efforts to
control invasive understory plants are limited by
current staff and funding. Commercial harvest of
Winter ice over a Refuge pool. USFWS
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
xviii
pines and black locust, and firewood cutting are dif-ficult
because of pending archeological surveys. The
Forest Management Plan is outdated.
Wetland Management
Stable, deep water and poor water clarity have
led to a general declining trend in productivity in
impounded wetlands on the Refuge. Wind, waves,
and rough fish create poor conditions for aquatic
plant growth by suspending bottom sediments.
Invasive aquatic plants are increasing. Smaller
management units, rough fish removal, and water
control are needed to improve wetland productivity.
Some areas, particularly those fed by the Trempea-leau
River are impacted by high sediment loads
from upstream agricultural lands. Repairing these
streams at the top of the watershed is critical to
keeping sediments on the land rather than flowing
into the Refuge and the Mississippi River. Full
implementation of the Partners for Wildlife Pro-gram
is needed to address watershed concerns.
Grassland Management
Historically, much of the upland areas of the Ref-uge
were dominated by prairies and oak savanna.
Non-native pines, black locust, and other invasive
shrubs threaten to take over prairie habitats on the
Refuge. Control of invasive plants is an ongoing,
labor intensive and costly management tool. Success
is often limited. Prescribed fire is an essential com-ponent
of grasslands and is used under prescrip-tions
described in an approved 2001 Fire
Management Plan.
Invasive Plants and Animals
Invasive plants continue to pose a major threat to
native plant communities and the wildlife that
depends on them. All habitat types on the Refuge
have invasive plants of some variety or another. Bio-logical
control is available for some species but,
mechanical removal is the mainstay of the control
program. While volunteers, school groups and staff
have made some headway, labor is a limiting factor.
Years of impoundment and stable water have led
to a fishery dominated by carp and other non- desir-able
rough fish. Invasion by Asian carp may be
imminent. The Fishery Management Plan needs to
be updated to aggressively manage non-native fish.
Monitoring Fish, Wildlife, and Plant
Populations
Although monitoring has been a part of managing
the Refuge for many years, gaps remain in baseline
population data for many species. A Wildlife Inven-tory
Plan was completed in 1987, but needs updat-ing
to reflect changes in habitat, the status of many
species, and new policies, procedures, and technolo-gies
for monitoring and investigation as issues arise
and change.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Increased attention is needed on listed species
due to their often precarious population status and
the need for special management consideration and
protection.
Deer Management
Deer hunting is used to reduce vegetation browse
impacts and to maintain populations in-line with
State goals for adjoining lands. Accurate deer num-bers
are needed to determine the appropriate har-vest
in consideration of browse impacts.
Wildlife Disease Management
A wide range of issues are currently in the public
eye regarding wildlife disease and potential impacts
to human populations. A Disease Contingency Plan
needs to be developed to identify available resources
and procedures for responding to disease outbreaks
in wildlife.
Public Use Issues
Wildlife Observation and Photography
The public desires more opportunities for wildlife
observation and photography. There is a need to
provide enhanced opportunities during all seasons
and to improve facilities for people with disabilities.
The Service needs to evaluate the pros and cons of
an entrance fee program that may provide addi-tional
funds for visitor services.
Environmental Education
The demand for formal environmental education
has been increasing and staff has few resources to
accommodate requests. The Refuge would benefit
from all-weather group teaching and restroom facil-ities.
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
xix
Hunting
Waterfowl hunting is a priority public use and is a
vital part of the cultural, social, and economic fabric
of communities around the Refuge. The public
desires more hunting opportunities, particularly in
high quality habitats like those found on the Refuge.
However, managers must balance hunting opportu-nities
with the need to limit disturbance to wildlife
and accommodate other visitor interests. The Ref-uge
needs a Hunt Plan and a Visitor Services Plan
that includes a detailed evaluation of the benefits of
opening new areas to hunting.
Fishing
As habitats for fish improve demand for fishing
may increase. Attention to support facilities (boat
ramps, fishing platforms) is needed to improve
access and quality of the fishing experience.
Harvesting Fruit, Nuts, and Other Plant
Parts
Some plants growing on the Refuge produce edi-ble
parts such as fruit and nuts. In the past, harvest
of some fruits and nuts was allowed, but new
requests for medicinal plants, seeds, and wild rice
have increased. There is a need to clarify the policy
on harvest of plant part and what levels can be sus-tained
without jeopardizing habitats or wildlife.
Horseback Riding
As more hobby farms become established in the
vicinity, interest in the use of the Refuge for horse-back
riding has increased. The potential for conflicts
with other visitors and damage to Refuge habitats
necessitates careful consideration and review of
Service policy.
Domestic Pets
Dogs on a leash are permitted on the Refuge.
Requests for opening areas to unleashed pets dur-ing
the winter, and for dog field trials necessitates a
review of current regulations and careful consider-ation
of the need to protect visitors and wildlife
while taking into account the public’s interest in
training and exercising dogs.
Non-Refuge Sponsored Events
Scout jamborees, overnight camping by school
groups, weddings, family reunions, and fund raising
walks or runs by charities are examples of non-Ref-uge
sponsored events that are considered non-wild-life
dependent activities. Each of these activities
must be considered individually to determine if they
are compatible with the purposes of the Refuge and
if they are likely to impact resources.
Non-Refuge Sponsored Research
At times, research projects, although interesting,
do not further the management objectives of the
Refuge. Clear guidelines need to be developed as to
what research is compatible with the Refuge pur-poses
and is in the best interest of staff and funding
resources.
General Public Use Regulations
The current public use regulations (hours of
operation, vehicle access, fires, camping, etc.) were
updated in 1992. A general update is needed to
reflect changing public use patterns and to provide
clear guidance to visitor and law enforcement offic-ers.
Neighboring Landowner and
Community Issues
Community Outreach
Numerous opportunities exist to build connec-tions
between the Refuge and the community. Ref-uge
planning must include a strong component of
community outreach and participation.
Waterfowl hunters with disabilities. USFWS
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
xx
Friends Group
Friends groups play a critical role in helping the
public understand the importance of protecting and
preserving refuges. The Refuge needs a Friends
group that will provide an independent citizen voice
for the protection, conservation, and enhancement
of resources.
Volunteers
The Refuge has a core of dedicated volunteers
who are committed to protecting the beauty and
health of the Refuge. Volunteers perform many of
the surveys and maintenance tasks that the staff
can not. The Refuge needs to find ways to foster a
sense of pride and ownership in the volunteers,
while continuing to recruit new help.
Partnerships
The Refuge administers the Partners for Wildlife
Program for two Wisconsin counties. Opportunities
for watershed improvements and reductions in sedi-mentation
abound. Funding and staff levels allow
completion of only a few of these projects each year.
Also, the Refuge could benefit from more coordina-tion
with Perrot State Park.
Private Property Rights
A variety of issues cross property lines and affect
neighboring landowners. Likewise, farming opera-tion
and private hunting clubs may impact Refuge
lands. There is a need to communicate more effi-ciently
and frequently with Refuge neighbors.
Easement and Right-of Way Management
Work crews and equipment need to cross Refuge
lands to access infrastructure on easements on the
Refuge. The Refuge needs to develop a manage-ment
plan for easements and right-of-ways that is
consistent with current policies and management
recommendations.
Administration and Operations Issues
Entrance Road Flooding
The main entrance road to the Refuge floods
most springs and is impassable for several months.
The Refuge needs to develop a year-round access
road for staff and visitors.
Facilities
Current office, maintenance, and public use facili-ties
are inadequate to support many Refuge pro-grams.
Facilities need to be replaced and/or
enlarged to accommodate current operations.
Staffing
Staffing levels are below essential staffing needs
and reflect gaps between what should be done and
what can be done. As public demand for educational
programs, biological information, and resource pro-tection
increases adequate staffing becomes more
critical.
Operations and Maintenance Needs
Plans and planning should articulate the need for
staff and funding to manage and administer pro-grams,
facilities, and equipment. These needs must
be represented in databases and other documents
that are used in budget decision-making at the
national and regional levels.
Summary of Alternatives
Considered
Three reasonable alternatives were developed to
address the variety of issues and opportunities fac-ing
the Refuge now and during the 15-year horizon
of the CCP. These alternatives are summarized
below in terms of the actions that would be under-
Girl Scouts learn about the land. USFWS
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
xxi
taken in each alternative. Alternative C is the Ser-vice’s
preferred alternative. However, the final
decision can be any of the alternatives, and may
reflect a modification of certain elements of any
alternative based on consideration of public com-ment.
Alternative A: No Action (Current
Direction)
This alternative assumes no change from past
management programs and is considered the base
from which to compare the other two alternatives.
Boundary issues would be addressed as time and
funding allow. The remaining 340 acres within the
approved acquisition boundary would be purchased
as opportunities arose.
Habitat management would continue to remain a
priority. Invasive plant control in prairie, forest, and
wetlands would continue at its present level. The
Refuge would maintain its present 335 acres of prai-rie
and savanna using prescribed fire. Biological
control of leafy spurge and purple loosestrife, and
mechanical and chemical control of black locust,
Siberian pea and exotic elm species would limit the
spread of these invasive species. In upland forests,
the Refuge would restore native species composition
to both the understory and overstory by removing
black locust, buckthorn, exotic elms, Siberian pea
and honeysuckle.
Commercial fishing would continue to be used to
manage carp and other rough fish in Pool A. A per-mitted
deer hunt would continue for both the 9-day
gun season and the late archery season in order to
manage deer numbers. Trapping for raccoon, musk-rat,
beaver, mink, and opossum would continue.
Public use opportunities would remain at present
levels. Limited school programs and programs for
scouts and other organized groups would be con-ducted
by staff. Limited waterfowl hunting opportu-nities
would be available for hunters with
disabilities. Bank fishing would continue along any
shoreline, as well as boat fishing from hand-powered
or electric motor powered craft. Hiking would con-tinue
on all roads and trails
The staff would remain at its current level of a
permanent full-time refuge manager, park ranger,
maintenance mechanic, and administrative techni-cian.
Volunteers would be used in a variety of pro-grams
including biological, public use, clerical, and
maintenance. The Refuge would maintain its
present entrance road, which is open to all traffic
except for an average of 6 weeks each year when the
road is flooded.
The Refuge office would remain as is, but the 70-
year-old shop would be replaced.
Alternative B: Wildlife and Habitat
Focus
This alternative favors minimal disturbance to
wildlife from public use and increased level of effort
on fish and wildlife habitat management.
Boundary issues would be addressed with annual
inspections, new surveying and installation of an
automatic gate at the main entrance. The remaining
340 acres within the approved acquisition boundary
would be purchased as opportunities arose.
Habitat management would be a high priority.
Invasive species control in the forested habitats
would allow restoration of prairie and oak savanna.
Pine plantations would be eliminated. Prescribed
fire and mowing would be used to manage the
resulting 11 prairie units totaling 585 acres.
Researchers would be actively sought to conduct
research to determine effects of management strat-egies.
Monitoring of grasslands, aquatic vegetation,
and extent of invasive plant species would be con-ducted.
Additional dikes and water control structures
would be placed within existing impoundments. The
C2 impoundment would be divided into three sepa-rate
units to allow for moist soil management. Three
other impoundments would be carved out of Pool B
Bird identification program. USFWS
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
xxii
to create manageable units as well as additional
emergent habitat. Islands would be built in Pools A
and B. Water level management in Pools A and E
would continue on their present course. Rough fish
would be intensively managed in all pools using
commercial fishing and water level management.
The managed deer hunt would continue, but har-vest
levels would be regulated based on deer popula-tion
and vegetation monitoring. Furbearer trapping
would continue with harvest levels based on popula-tion
estimates and habitat monitoring. No waterfowl
hunting would be allowed. Public use opportunities
would be reduced. Environmental education pro-grams
would be limited to those that explain Refuge
regulations. To reduce disturbance to migrating
birds, all pools would be closed to water craft during
fall migration (from September 15 through Novem-ber
15).
The staff would include the addition of a perma-nent
full-time biologist and a private lands biologist
and a seasonal biological technician and tractor
operator. A law enforcement officer would be shared
with the Winona District. The Refuge would main-tain
its present entrance road, which is open to all
traffic except for an average of 6 weeks each year
when the road is flooded. The Refuge office would
remain as is, but the 70-year-old shop would be
replaced.
Alternative C: Integrated Public Use
and Wildlife and Habitat Focus
(Preferred Alternative)
This alternative focuses on returning upland
areas to pre-European settlement habitats, increas-ing
flexibility in wetland management within
impoundments, and increasing public use opportuni-ties.
Boundary issues would be addressed with annual
inspections, new surveying and installation of an
automatic gate at the main entrance. The remaining
340 acres within the approved acquisition boundary
would be purchased as opportunities arose.
Prairie and oak savanna restoration would be a
high priority. Increased efforts to control invasive
species would be made using biological, mechanical,
and chemical methods. Prescribed fire and mowing
would be used to manage 11 prairie units totaling
435 acres. Half of the trees in the pine plantations
would be removed through selective thinning.
Additional dikes and water control structures
would be placed within existing impoundments. The
C2 impoundment would be divided into three sepa-rate
units to allow for moist soil management. The
remaining three impoundments (Pools C1, D, and F)
would reduce the size of Pool B to a manageable unit
as well as create additional emergent habitat.
Islands would be built in Pools A and B. Water level
management in Pools A and E would continue on
their present course. Rough fish, particularly carp,
would be managed in specified pools using commer-cial
fishing and water level management.
Researchers would be actively sought to conduct
studies that would determine effects of manage-ment
strategies. Grasslands, aquatic vegetation, and
the extent of invasive plant species would be moni-tored.
The deer hunt would continue as in the past,
except harvest levels would be based on population
and habitat monitoring. Furbearer trapping would
continue and the number of beaver and muskrat
taken would be determined based on annual moni-toring
of harvest and of dike damage and interfer-ence
with water control structures.
Public use opportunities would be expanded.
Environmental education programs would be pro-moted
at local schools and to community groups and
the general public. A multi-purpose room would be
added to the office/visitor contact station to accom-modate
larger groups and provide a place for orien-tation.
Waterfowl hunting opportunities would be
expanded by opening the area west of the Canadian
National Railroad dike to a limited hunt. Ski trails
would be maintained when conditions permit.
Options to alleviate flooding of the entrance road to
provide year-round access to the Refuge would be
explored.
Use of volunteers would be expanded in all pro-grams.
A Trempealeau NWR Friends Group would
be started. Outreach would be expanded to provide
opportunities for awareness and understanding of
Refuge management and the National Wildlife Ref-uge
System. Traveling exhibits that bring the Ref-uge
to the people would be developed.
The staff would include the addition of three sea-sonal
positions, including a biological technician, a
tractor operator, and a park ranger. Law enforce-ment
duties would be covered by a new position
shared with Winona District. A private lands biolo-gist
would also be shared with Winona District.
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
xxiii
Summary of Environmental
Consequences
Consequences Common to All
Alternatives
Under all alternatives, there would be no dispro-portionate
adverse effect on minority or low-income
populations. No significant changes are expected to
climate, soils or environmental contaminants. Cul-tural
and historical resource protection would be
addressed in accordance with current laws, regula-tions,
and policies. Prescribed fire would be used
under all alternatives to maintain health and vigor
of grassland habitat. Any negative effects would be
short-term and mitigated by long-term habitat
improvements and higher grassland species popula-tions.
Landowners adjacent to the Refuge would not
see a significant effect on the use or value of their
property since none of the alternatives radically
change land management direction. Bottomland
hardwood forests would increase in acreage under
all alternatives. Furbearer populations would not be
impacted and trapping would continue for all alter-natives,
although methods of allocating trapping
permits would vary. All alternatives call for imple-menting
a new flood policy that would protect ref-uge
infrastructure and habitats from damaging
flood waters.
Consequences, Alternative A: No
Action
This alternative would cause little change in
water quality, suspended sediments or nutrient
loading. The quality of wetland habitats would con-tinue
to decline as carp and invasive aquatic plants
continue to increase. Invasive plants would continue
to spread over prairies, oak savannas, and upland
forests.
Biologically, Alternative A would have a neutral
impact on threatened and endangered species, rep-tiles
and amphibians, and mammals. Wildlife use
would continue at existing levels, although in gen-eral
understory and grassland species would find
poor quality habitat invaded by exotic species.
Socioeconomic impacts under Alternative A
would be minimal. All current uses would continue
with an estimated economic output of $250,000.
Hunting fishing, interpretation, environmental edu-cation,
wildlife observation, and photography would
continue at current levels. The annual economic
impact to regional and local economies would
remain at current levels.
Consequences, Alternative B: Fish and
Wildlife Focus
Under this alternative, reduction of carp and con-struction
of new dikes, islands and water control
structures would result in improved water quality, a
reduction in suspended sediments, and improved
conditions for germination of wetland plants.
Biologically, the manipulations in water levels
would improve wetland plant vigor and habitat for a
wide range of wetland-dependent fish and wildlife.
Alternative B would have a positive impact on
threatened and endangered species, waterbirds,
landbirds, reptiles and amphibians, and mammals.
Upland habitats would benefit from more aggres-sive
control of invasive species. Prairie and oak
savanna habitats would expand. Diversity and abun-dance
of native wildlife would increase.
Public use and recreation would be limited as
resources are diverted to improving habitats for
wildlife. Community involvement would decrease
due to lack of public outreach, and less money would
flow to local economies from wildlife-dependent rec-
Tree swallow. USFWS
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
xxiv
reation. An estimated $11,000, or a 4 percent loss, of
economic output would occur due to loss of visita-tion.
Staffing levels would be better suited to meet
demands for wildlife and habitat monitoring.
Consequences, Alternative C:
Integrated Public Use and Wildlife
Habitat Focus (Preferred)
Under this alternative, reduction of carp and con-struction
of new dikes, islands and water control
structures would result in improved water quality, a
reduction in suspended sediments, and improved
conditions for germination of wetland plants.
In general, habitat quality for wildlife would
improve under this alternative. While invasive spe-cies
would not be totally eliminated, their spread
would be controlled and some upland habitats would
be restored to historic conditions. Wildlife diversity
and abundance would increase. Alternative C would
have a positive impact on threatened and endan-gered
species, waterbirds, landbirds, reptiles and
amphibians, and mammals.
Opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation
would improve with additional area open to water-fowl
hunting. More resources and staff would be
devoted to environmental education and interpreta-tion.
Local communities would benefit as more peo-ple
visited the refuge. Economic output would
increase by $28,000 or 11 percent as more opportu-nities
became available for wildlife-dependent recre-ation.
Staffing levels and facilities would be better
suited to meet the needs of an overall program bal-anced
between fish and wildlife monitoring, habitat
management, and public use.
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
1
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need,
and Issues
1.1 Introduction
This document is an integrated Draft Compre-hensive
Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmen-tal
Impact Statement (EIS) for the Trempealeau
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge). It will
follow the basic and accepted format for an EIS and
each alternative presented will contain the core of a
CCP, namely goals, objectives, and strategies. Since
it is an integrated document designed to meet the
requirements for both an EIS and a CCP, some sec-tions
in the EIS were expanded (notably Chapter 1,
Planning Background) to meet this dual function. In
addition, various referenced appendices relate to
either the EIS, CCP, or both, as applicable.
Trempealeau NWR is located within the Missis-sippi
River Valley in southwestern Wisconsin
(Figure 1). This 6,226-acre Refuge in Buffalo and
Trempealeau counties is managed by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. The Refuge was established by
Executive Order 7437 in 1936 as “a refuge and
breeding ground for migratory birds and other wild-life”
(Appendix E). Trempealeau NWR is part of the
Upper Mississippi River NWR Complex with head-quarters
in Winona, Minnesota. The Complex
includes Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife
& Fish Refuge and Driftless Area NWR.
Trempealeau NWR lies adjacent to Navigation
Pool 6 of the Mississippi River and is strategically
located on this important migration corridor, provid-ing
resting and feeding habitat for thousands of
waterfowl and other birds during spring and fall.
The Refuge also includes more than 700 acres of
rolling native prairie and oak savanna, habitat types
that are scarce in Wisconsin.
1.2 Purpose and Need for
Action
1.2.1 Purpose
The purpose of this EIS is to adopt and imple-ment
a CCP for Trempealeau NWR. The Service is
considering a range of alternatives of how best to
manage the Refuge.
Comprehensive Conservation Plans are designed
to guide the management and administration of
National Wildlife Refuges for a period of 15 years
and help ensure that each refuge meets the purpose
for which it was established and contributes to the
overall mission of the National Wildlife Refuge Sys-tem
(NWRS) (see Section 1.4.3 on page 5). The CCP
helps describe a desired future condition of the Ref-uge,
and provides both long-term and day-to-day
Northern Shoveler Hen, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
2
Figure 1: Location of Trempealeau NWR in Wisconsin
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
3
guidance for management actions and decisions. It
provides both broad and specific policy on various
issues, sets goals and measurable objectives, and
outlines strategies for reaching these objectives. A
CCP also helps communicate the Refuge’s manage-ment
direction to other agencies and the public.
The Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (see
Section 1.4.4 on page 6) mandates that the Secre-tary
of the Interior, and thus the Service, prepare
CCPs for all units of the National Wildlife Refuge
System by October 2012. In addition to this man-date,
there are several reasons why preparation of a
CCP is needed at this time.
The last comprehensive plan (known as a Master
Plan) was completed in 1983 (USFWS 1983). Since
then, the Refuge environment has undergone
change affecting habitat and wildlife, new laws and
policies have been put in place, new scientific infor-mation
is available, and levels of public use and
interest have increased.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) requires that federal agencies follow basic
requirements for major actions significantly affect-ing
the quality of the human environment. These
requirements are:
# Consider every significant aspect of the
environmental impact of a proposed action.
# Involve the public in its decision-making
process when considering environmental
concerns.
# Use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to
decision making.
# Consider a reasonable range of alternatives.
This EIS documents those requirements and pro-vides
the necessary information and analysis to the
decision-maker.
Finally, the planning process is an excellent way
to inform and involve the general public, state and
federal agencies, and non-government groups that
have an interest, responsibility, or authority in the
management or use of certain aspects of the Trem-pealeau
NWR.
1.2.2 Need
The CCP that ultimately arises from this draft
CCP and EIS will help ensure that management
and administration of the Refuge meet the mission
of the Refuge System, the purpose for which the
Refuge was established, and the goals for the Ref-uge.
The mission, purpose, and goals are considered
the needs or benchmarks for defining reasonable
alternatives presented in Chapter 2 and, along with
an evaluation of consequences in Chapter 4, will
form the basis for a decision. These needs are sum-marized
below. More detail on issues related to
these needs can be found in Section 1.4.8 on page 15,
Planning Issues, Concerns and Opportunities.
Need I: Contribute to the Refuge System Mission
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge Sys-tem
set forth in the Refuge Improvement Act of
1997 is:
“To administer a national network of lands and
waters for the conservation, management, and
where appropriate, restoration of the fish,
wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats
within the United States for the benefit of
present and future generations of Americans.”
Need II: Help Fulfill the Refuge Purpose
The purpose of the Refuge comes from the
authority under which it was established and in the
case of Trempealeau NWR, from the authorities
under which subsequent major land additions to the
Refuge were made. Purposes for Trempealeau
NWR are as follows:
“ ...a Refuge and breeding ground for migratory
birds and other wildlife”
Executive Order 7437, dated August 21, 1936.
(Appendix E)
Trempealeau NWR from the air.
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
4
“suitable for-(1) incidental fish and wildlife
oriented recreational development, (2) the
protection of natural resources, (3) the
conservation of endangered species ...”
Refuge Recreation Act(16 U.S.C 460k-460k-4),
as amended (Appendix D)
“...for the development, advancement,
management, conservation, and protection of
fish and wildlife resources.”
16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)(Fish and Wildlife Act of
1956.) (Appendix D)
Need III: Help Achieve Refuge Goals
Goal 1: Landscape – We will strive to maintain and
improve the scenic and wild character, and environ-mental
health of the Refuge.
Related needs are to:
# Complete acquisition within approved
boundary
# Maintain the integrity of the Refuge
boundary
# Ensure integrity of lands designated as
Natural Areas or with other special
designations
# Protect archeological and cultural resources
and ensure consideration of preservation of
historic properties.
# Protect Refuge habitats and facilities during
flood events
Goal 2: Wildlife and Habitat – Our habitat manage-ment
will support diverse and abundant native fish,
wildlife, and plants.
Related needs are to:
# Evaluate and manage forest resources
# Manage non-native trees and downed fuel
# Restore and enhance wetlands
# Restore productivity to Refuge pools
# Prepare for quick response to contaminant
spills from train derailments or accidents
# Reduce sediment, nutrients, and
contaminants in waters upstream of the
Refuge
# Restore and enhance prairie and oak savanna
habitat
# Understand and reduce invasive plants and
animals
# Monitor the status of key fish and wildlife
# Protect and enhance federally listed
threatened, endangered, and candidate
species and their habitats
# Manage deer herds to prevent over-browsing
and loss of plant diversity
# Manage beaver and muskrat populations to
limit damage to dikes and structures
# Improve fishery conservation efforts
# Provide adequate undisturbed areas to meet
the nesting, feeding and migration needs of
waterfowl
# Protect and enhance habitat for forest birds
# Understand and be ready to respond to
wildlife disease outbreaks
Goal 3: Public Use – We will manage public use
programs and facilities to ensure sustainable, qual-ity
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, interpretation, and environmental
education opportunities for a broad cross-section of
the public; and provide opportunities for the public
to use and enjoy the Refuge for traditional and
appropriate non-wildlife dependent uses that are
compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge
was established and the mission of the Refuge Sys-tem.
Related needs are to:
# Improve opportunities for wildlife
observation and photography
# Improve opportunities for interpretation
Black-eyed Susan. USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
5
# Improve opportunities for environmental
education
# Provide diverse, high quality, hunting and
fishing opportunities for people of all abilities
# Provide opportunities for appropriate non-commercial
harvest of plant parts.
# Improve opportunities for non-motorized
biking
# Respond to requests for other uses such as
horseback riding, dog trials, camping, and
special fundraising events
# Update general public use regulations for
clarity and effectiveness
Goal 4: Neighboring Landowners and Communities –
We will communicate openly and work cooperatively
with our neighbors and local communities to help all
benefit from the aesthetic and economic values of
the Refuge.
Related needs are to:
# Improve community outreach
# Establish a Refuge Friends group
# Promote an active and rewarding volunteer
program
# Improve communication and cooperation with
other agency partners
# Improve communication and cooperation with
adjacent private landowners
# Coordinate with utilities and transportation
departments to minimize impacts of
easements and rights-of-way to habitats
Goal 5: Administration and Operations – We will
seek adequate funding, staffing, and facilities; and
improve public awareness and support to carry out
the purposes, vision, goals, and objectives of the
Refuge.
Related needs are to:
# Provide year round access to the Refuge
# Provide adequate office and maintenance
facilities
# Provide adequate staff to meet resource and
public challenges and opportunities
# Identify operational and maintenance needs
1.3 Decision Framework
The Service’s Regional Director in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, is the responsible official for approving
the Final EIS in a Record of Decision. The Record
of Decision will identify the selected alternative
which will become the Final CCP. The selected alter-native
will be one of the alternatives in this Draft
EIS, although the final decision may reflect modifi-cation
of certain elements of the alternatives based
on public review and comment. The Final EIS will
also contain individual substantive comments or a
summary of like-comments, received from the pub-lic,
agencies, and other interested parties, along
with a Service response.
1.4 Planning Background
1.4.1 Legal and Policy Framework
Trempealeau NWR is managed and administered
as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System
within a framework of organizational setting, laws,
and policy. Key aspects of this framework are out-lined
below. A list of other laws and executive orders
that have guided preparation of the CCP and EIS,
and guide future implementation, are provided in
Appendix D.
1.4.2 The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
The Refuge is administered by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of Interior. The Ser-vice
is the primary federal agency responsible for
conserving and enhancing the nation’s fish and wild-life
populations and their habitats. Although the
Service shares this responsibility with other federal,
state, tribal, local, and private entities, the Service
has specific trust responsibilities for migratory
birds, threatened and endangered species, certain
interjurisdictional fish and marine mammals, and
the National Wildlife Refuge System. The mission of
the Service is:
“Working with others to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for
the continuing benefit of the American people.”
1.4.3 The National Wildlife Refuge
System
The Refuge System had its beginning in 1903
when President Theodore Roosevelt used an Execu-tive
Order to set aside tiny Pelican Island in Florida
as a refuge and breeding ground for birds. From
that small beginning, the Refuge System has
become the world’s largest collection of lands specif-ically
set aside for wildlife conservation. The admin-
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
6
istration, management, and growth of the Refuge
System are guided by the following goals (601
FW1.8):
The Refuge System’s goals are to:
# Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants
and their habitats, including species that are
endangered or threatened with becoming
endangered.
# Develop and maintain a network of habitats for
migratory birds, anadromous and
interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal
populations that is strategically distributed and
carefully managed to meet important life
history needs of these species across their
ranges.
# Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities,
wetlands of national or international
significance, and landscapes and seascapes that
are unique, rare, declining, or
underrepresented in existing protection efforts.
# Provide and enhance opportunities to
participate in compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife
obser vati on and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation).
# Foster understanding and instill appreciation of
the diversity and interconnectedness of fish,
wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
1.4.4 National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 and Related
Policies
The Improvement Act of 1997 amended the
National Wildlife Refuge System Administrative
Act of 1966 and became a true organic act for the
System by providing a mission, policy direction, and
management standards. Below is a summary of the
key provisions of this landmark legislation, and sub-sequent
policies to carry out the Act’s mandates.
Established Broad National Policy for the Refuge
System:
# Each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the
mission and its purpose.
# Compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a
legitimate and appropriate use.
# Compatible wildlife-dependent uses are the
priority public uses of the System.
# Compatible wildlife-dependent uses should be
facilitated, subject to necessary restrictions.
Directed the Secretary of the Interior to:
# Provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife,
and plants within the System.
# Ensure biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the System for the
benefit of present and future generations.
# Plan and direct the continued growth of the
System to meet the mission.
# Carry out the mission of the System and
purposes of each refuge; if conflict between,
purposes takes priority.
# Ensure coordination with adjacent landowners
and states.
# Assist in the maintenance of adequate water
quantity and quality for refuges; acquire water
rights as needed.
# Recognize compatible wildlife-dependent
recreational uses as the priority general public
uses of the System.
# Ensure that opportunities for compatible
wildlife-dependent recreation are provided.
# Ensure that wildlife-dependent recreation
receives enhanced consideration over other uses
of the System.
# Provide increased opportunities for families to
enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation.
# Provide cooperation and collaboration of other
federal agencies and states, and honor existing
authorized or permitted uses by other federal
agencies.
# Monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife,
and plants in each refuge.
Bird Festival celebration of the Refuge’s 70th birthday.
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
7
Provide Compatibility of Use Standards and Pro-cedures:
# New or existing uses should not be permitted,
renewed, or expanded unless compatible with
the mission of the System or the purpose(s) of
the refuge, and consistent with public safety.
# Wildlife-dependent uses may be authorized
when compatible and not inconsistent with
public safety.
# The Secretary shall issue regulations for
compatibility determinations.
Planning:
# Each unit of the Refuge System shall have a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan completed
by 2012.
# Plans must identify and describe the
archaeological and cultural values found on the
refuge.
# Planning should involve adjoining landowners,
state conservation agencies, and the general
public.
1.4.4.1. Compatibility Policy
No uses for which the Service has authority to
regulate may be allowed on a unit of the National
Wildlife Refuge System unless it is determined to be
compatible. A compatible use is a use that, in the
sound professional judgment of the Refuge Man-ager,
will not materially interfere with or detract
from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge
System mission or the purposes of the National
Wildlife Refuge. Managers must complete a written
compatibility determination for each use, or collec-tion
of like-uses, that is signed by the Manager and
the Regional Chief of Refuges in the respective Ser-vice
region. Draft compatibility determinations
applicable to uses described in this draft CCP and
EIS are included in Appendix I.
1.4.4.2. Biological Integrity, Diversity, and
Environmental Health Policy
The Service is directed in the Refuge Improve-ment
Act to “ensure that the biological integrity,
diversity, and environmental health of the NWRS
are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans...” The biological integrity
policy of 2001 helps define and clarify this directive
by providing guidance on what conditions constitute
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental
health; guidelines for maintaining existing levels;
guidelines for determining how and when it is
appropriate to restore lost elements; and guidelines
in dealing with external threats to biological integ-rity,
diversity and health.
1.4.4.3. Public Use Natural Area Policy
The Refuge currently has one Public Use Natural
Area, the Black Oak Island Public Use Natural
Area. (See Section 3.10.2.2.1 on page 120). The Ser-vice’s
Refuge Manual (USFWS 2004), Section 8 RM
11 provides guidance for management, administra-tion
and visitor use of Public Use Natural Areas and
lists the following objectives of the designations:
# Assure preservation of a variety of significant
natural areas for public use which, when
considered together, illustrate the diversity of
the NWRS natural environments.
# Preserve those environments that are
essentially unmodified by human activity for
future use.
1.4.5 Refuge History and Purposes
In the late 1800s a railroad was constructed along
the Mississippi River. Today it forms the Refuge’s
south boundary. In the early 1900s, a drainage dis-trict
was formed with the intent of draining the area
north of the railroad dike for farming. The district
dug a channel diverting the Trempealeau River and
Pine Creek into the Mississippi River about 3 miles
downstream of the Trempealeau River’s original
delta. Dredged material taken from the new channel
was placed on the south bank to create barrier dikes
to protect adjacent lands from flooding. Attempts to
drain and farm within the dikes were largely unsuc-cessful
and the drainage district eventually went
bankrupt. Following the completion of Lock and
Dam 6 at Trempealeau in the mid-1930s, water lev-
Dresser Farm, 1935
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
8
els throughout Pool 6 were raised several feet and
stabilized for navigation on the main river channel.
Wetlands protected by the railroad and barrier
dikes became part of a corporation known as Delta
Fish and Fur Farm (Delta FFF).
Trempealeau NWR was established in 1936 when
706.9 acres were set aside by Executive Order 7437
(Appendix E) (Figure 2). The original Refuge con-sisted
of an upland portion with open areas of
former hay, pasture, and cropland. For more than 40
years the Refuge remained small in spite of several
attempts to purchase more than 5,000 acres of the
surrounding Delta FFF. The Delta FFF yielded a
variety of incomes to its owners from farming, tim-ber
harvest, commercial fishing, furbearer trapping,
and turtle and bait fish harvest. In addition, a group
of local sportsmen leased the marshes for waterfowl
hunting. Under private ownership the area
remained relatively unchanged. Of significance was
the major flood in 1965 which breached dikes, inun-dated
Refuge buildings, and caused irreparable
damage to wetland plant communities.
In 1975, Dairyland Power Cooperative acquired
the Delta FFF. Dairyland wanted to construct a rail
loop for a coal off-loading facility near their power
generating plant at Alma, Wisconsin. The land they
would need was part of the Upper Mississippi River
NW&FR. As part of a land exchange Dairyland
divested 132 acres of the Delta FFF and sold an
additional 4,778 acres to the Service in 1979. This
addition, plus other recent acquisitions, has brought
Trempealeau NWR to its present 6,226 acres.
The 1936 Executive Order and subsequent legis-lation
established the purposes of the Refuge as
listed in Section 1.2.2 on page 3. These purposes
remain valid to this day and guide the planning
management, administration, and use of the Refuge.
1.4.6 Relationships to Other Agencies,
Partners and Other Initiative Planning
1.4.6.1. Partnerships
Partnerships with other federal agencies includ-ing
state and local units of government and schools
and private organizations are important in Refuge
management. Wisconsin Waterfowl Association pro-vides
both funds and volunteer assistance in support
of an annual waterfowl hunt for persons with dis-abilities
on the Refuge. Ducks Unlimited has part-nered
with the Service on a major habitat project on
the Refuge and additional work is planned. Major
wetland habitat work was done on the Refuge in the
mid-1990s under the Environmental Management
Program (EMP) funded by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps). The Corps, Wisconsin DNR and
Minnesota DNR assist the Service with planning
and project implementation under EMP.
Partnerships with Wisconsin DNR staff at
nearby Perrot State Park include sharing of equip-ment
and cooperative management of the Great
River State Trail, which passes through Trempea-leau
NWR. The Wisconsin DNR Area Wildlife Man-ager
for Trempealeau and Buffalo counties provides
technical advice on Refuge hunting and trapping
programs and has provided assistance and oversight
on wetland restoration projects funded by the Ser-vice
on private lands. The Refuge has negotiated
cooperative agreements with Buffalo County Land
Conservation Department to accomplish stream
bank restoration and other habitat work in local
watersheds.
A partnership with the Mississippi Archaeology
Center aids in the management of Refuge collec-tions.
Under a cooperative agreement the Missis-sippi
Archaeology Center curates collections from 9
investigations and other sources. The Refuge has
6,906 artifacts at repositories. The artifacts are
owned by the Federal Government and can be
recalled by the Regional Historic Preservation
Officer for exhibits and other Refuge purposes.
1.4.6.2. Other Conservation and Planning Initiatives
1.4.6.2.1 Federal Government
Three federal agencies have jurisdictions over
land in the vicinity of the Refuge: the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the Federal Highway Administration. The Service’s
plans and policies are relevant to the Refuge since
the Service owns and manages Trempealeau NWR
and co-owns and manages the adjacent Upper Mis-
1965 Flood, Trempealeau NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP
9
Figure 2: Trempealeau NWR Boundary
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
10
sissippi River NW&FR. Planning by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers is relevant since the Corps
administers the Environmental Management Pro-gram,
manages the lock and dam navigation system
on the adjacent Mississippi River, and owns a por-tion
of lands within the UMRNWFR. The Federal
Highway Administration planning is relevant since
they designated and oversee the Great River Road
which passes within a mile of Trempealeau NWR.
Fish and Wildlife Service Plans, Policies and
Programs
Relevant plans involving the Service include the
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Master
Plan and accompanying Environmental Assessment
(EA) (USFWS 1982) and the 1987 Master Plan for
the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and
Fish Refuge with accompanying EA (USFWS 1987).
The Trempealeau NWR Master Plan was com-pleted
in 1983 following major expansion of the Ref-uge
with the acquisition of the former Delta FFF. It
provides a summary of Refuge resources, and a con-cept
plan for future development and use of the Ref-uge
with an accompanying public involvement
process. This document has served as the Refuge’s
principal management guidance for over two
decades and will be superceded by the CCP.
The Service is also involved in the development
and implementation of a number of conservation
plans for migratory bird species including the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan (North
American Waterfowl Management Plan 2004), Blue-print
for the Future of Migratory Birds (USFWS
2003), Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan
(Knutson 2001), U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan
(Brown, et al. 2000), and the North American
Waterbird Conservation Plan (Steering Committee
2001). These plans are discussed below with specific
references to Region 3 where applicable.
The Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes
Joint Venture is the local component of the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan. On a
National level, this plan focused on partnering
among agencies to secure, protect, restore, enhance
and manage wetlands and associated uplands in pri-ority
landscapes; to conduct research and monitor
specific waterfowl populations, and to provide envi-ronmental
education and conservation planning
with community involvement. Between 1986 and
1997, plan partners have invested over $1.5 billion
on projects in the United States. Specific habitat
objectives for the Upper Mississippi River and
Great Lakes Joint Venture include providing 9.1
million acres of wetlands and associated uplands in
waterfowl production counties and 533,000 acres in
waterfowl migration counties. Trempealeau NWR
would fall under the latter category.
The Blueprint for the Future of Migratory Birds
was drafted in July 2003 as a strategic plan to guide
the Service’s Migratory Bird Program. A number of
implementation strategies were developed under
the categories of Population Monitoring, Assess-ment
and Management, Habitat Conservation, Per-mits
and Regulations, and Consultation,
Cooperation, Communication and Recreation.
The Partners in Flight (PIF) program’s initial
focus was on neotropical migrants, species that
breed in North America but winter in Central and
South America, but the focus has spread to include
most landbirds. A series of Bird Conservation Plans
are being developed for the entire continental
United States. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s
Office of Migratory Bird Management serves as a
technical advisory body to the PIF Federal Commit-tee.
A component of the Bird Conservation Plan
(BCP) for the Upper Midwest is the Upper Great
Lakes Plain, a physiographic area which includes
the “Driftless” or unglaciated area in Southwest
Wisconsin which encompasses Trempealeau NWR
(Partners in Flight, 2004). This component of the
BCP designates Priority Bird Populations and Hab-itats
for the Upper Great Lakes Plain as follows:
Grasslands: Henslow’s Sparrow, Sedge Wren
and Bobolink
Shrub-scrub: Golden-winged Warbler
Deciduous forest/savannah: Cerulean Warbler,
Black-billed Cuckoo, Red-headed Woodpecker
All of the above are Region 3 Fish and Wildlife
Resource Conservation (USFWS) species. The
Partners in Flight perspective on conservation rec-ommendations
and needs for the Upper Great
Lakes Plain is noteworthy.
“There are many large urban centers in this area
whose growth and sprawl will continue to con-sume
land. The vast majority of the pre-settle-ment
forest and oak savannah grasslands already
have been converted to agriculture. The conver-sion
of cropland may have benefited some grass-land
birds, and forest birds still persist. Rates of
cowbird parasitism and nest predation in this
heavily fragmented region, however, are
extremely high and it is possible that only those
bird communities in the few remaining expanses
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
11
of contiguous habitat are self-sustaining. Forest
habitat needs to be retained or restored so that a
significant number of patches of sufficient size
and quality each support a healthy population of
cerulean warblers. It is assumed that each of
these patches will then support the full range of
forest birds. The total area of savannah habitat
also should be increased, although the need for
large blocks is not as apparent. These few areas
of grassland that still exist should be retained.”
(Knutson 2001)
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan was
developed to stabilize populations of declining
shorebird species and ensure that common species
remain so. This will be accomplished, in part,
through implementation of 11 regional conservation
plans that outline strategies to provide sufficient
high-quality shorebird habitat and to overcome
other shorebird limiting factors. This plan
addresses shorebird conservation in the Upper Mis-sissippi
Valley/Great Lakes (UMVGL) planning
region, which is a large, diverse area that provides
important habitat for a variety of shorebirds, espe-cially
migrants. The purpose of the plan is to con-serve
shorebirds in the UMVGL region through a
combination of habitat protection, restoration, and
management, population monitoring, research, and
education outreach.
The North American Waterbird Conservation
Plan is currently under development. It is a collabo-rative
effort by federal and state agencies, NGOs,
researchers, and other experts to formulate a plan
that provides an overarching framework for con-serving
and managing seabirds, and other aquatic
birds throughout North America. The goal of the
Plan is to ensure that the distribution, diversity and
abundance of populations, habitats, and other
important sites of seabirds and other waterbirds are
sustained or restored and maintained throughout
their ranges in North America.
Along with the Upper Mississippi River
NW&FR, Trempealeau NWR was designated an
Important Bird Area by the American Bird Conser-vancy.
This designation in 1997 was based on the
overall bird habitat values of both refuges specifi-cally
for the large numbers of Tundra Swans and
Canvasbacks that use the refuges during migration.
Environmental Management Program
The Environmental Program (EMP) was estab-lished
by Congress in 1986 coincident with the con-struction
of a second lock and dam on the
Mississippi River at East Alton, Illinois. Congress
recognized the need for addressing environmental
concerns in balance with the expansion of commer-cial
navigation on the “Mississippi River”. The 1999
Water Resources Development Act (Appendix D)
increased the annual funding authorized to $33 mil-lion
and established two main elements as continu-ing
authorities:
# Planning, construction, and evaluation of fish
and wildlife habitat rehabilitation and
enhancement projects (HREPs).
# Long term resource monitoring, computerized
data inventory and analysis, and applied
research (LTRMP).
EMP is a coordinated ecosystem restoration pro-gram
for the Upper Mississippi River system
administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice,
U.S. Geological Survey, the states of Minne-sota,
Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois, and non -
governmental organizations. To date, 26 projects
have been completed affecting more than 40,500
acres of habitat. A major HREP was completed on
Trempealeau NWR in 1999 with construction of sev-eral
miles of new dikes and four water control struc-tures
including one permanent and two seasonal
pumping stations at a cost of over $4 million.
Environmental Pool Planning
Environmental Pool Plans (EPPs) were devel-oped
through a cooperative effort among state and
federal agencies and the public to develop common
habitat goals and objectives for the Upper Missis-sippi
River. EPPs were intended to serve as a com-munication
tool and one of several guides for
sequencing habitat management projects in the St.
Paul District of the Corps of Engineers for Pools 1
through 10. Desired future habitat maps were devel-oped
for each pool, representing what river manag-
Tundra Swan. USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
12
ers and the public have identified as the habitat and
features necessary to reverse negative trends in
habitat quality and move toward a more sustainable
ecosystem (Fish and Wildlife Work Group, 2004).
U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Section 404
Permits
Projects proposed by the Refuge that may impact
wetlands are required to be reviewed by the Corps
of Engineers to determine whether or not a permit
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is
required. Projects subject to permit requirements
could involve dredging, filling or replacement of a
structure in wetlands in or adjacent to Trempealeau
NWR.
Great River Road
Recently, the Federal Highway Administration
designated that portion of the Great River Road in
Wisconsin as a National Scenic Byway based on its
cultural and scenic uniqueness. For most of its
length in Wisconsin the road follows the Mississippi
River and passes within a mile of the entrance to
Trempealeau NWR. The National Scenic Byway
designation will allow Buffalo and Trempealeau
counties and individual communities to compete for
funding for projects to help enhance and/or inter-pret
cultural, historic, natural, scenic and recre-ational
qualities along the route. Due to its
proximity, Trempealeau NWR will likely receive
additional visitation due to the further development
and expansion of public facilities along the Great
River Road.
1.4.6.2.2 State of Wisconsin
State law, in particular, governing the use of navi-gable
waters and removal or placement of fill within
wetlands is relevant to Refuge planning. This is dis-cussed
in the remainder of this section along with a
summary of planning efforts in process for the Wis-consin
Land Legacy Report (WIDNR 2004) and
Great River State Trail extension.
Chapter 30, Wisconsin State Statutes-Navigability
Under former private ownership, wetlands within
the Delta FFF were closed to public entry. This was
challenged in court on several occasions and the
matter was finally settled at the Wisconsin State
Supreme Court (WIDNR 2004). The court ruled
that because the wetlands of the Delta FFF were
completely surrounded by dikes and high grounds
with no means for a boat to access the property by
water, the wetlands within the Delta FFF were in
fact, private. The Service has done nothing to mod-ify
the railroad or barrier dikes to permit public
boat access from adjacent wetlands, and the agency
will continue to provide public boat access to Trem-pealeau
NWR waters from sites it designates within
the Refuge.
Regarding Chapter 30 wetland impacts within
Trempealeau NWR, it is questionable whether per-mits
are required due to the “non-navigable” status
of Refuge waters. However, in the past the Refuge
has applied for, and received permits under Chapter
30 for projects including dike construction and reha-bilitation,
culvert replacement, rip-rapping, and so
on. It would seem to be in the public’s best interest
for the State of Wisconsin to review and authorize
work of this type.
Wisconsin Land Legacy Report
In February 2003, the National Resources Board
approved the Wisconsin Land Legacy Report
(WIDNR 2004) and directed the Wisconsin Depart-ment
of Natural Resources (WDNR) to develop a
plan describing how the report could be most effec-tively
used to protect and maintain natural
resources identified. An implementation strategy,
currently in draft, will look at protecting lands
through acquisition, conservation easements, coop-erative
agreements with landowners, and other
techniques both by WDNR and other agencies and
non-governmental organizations such as the Nature
Conservancy, Bluffland Alliance, Pheasants Forever
and others. The Land Legacy Report identified
open space lands between Trempealeau NWR and
Perrot State Park as being very important for con-servation
and recreation purposes. Future consider-ation
will be given to pursuing protection of natural
resources and open space character of these lands.
(Thompson, personal communication 2004).
Wild Bergamot
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
13
Great River State Trail (GRST) Extension
In April 2004, the Wisconsin Department of Nat-ural
Resources submitted a grant proposal to the
Wisconsin Department of Transportation request-ing
$971,696 in funds to construct an extension to
the GRST from Marshland, adjacent to the Trem-pealeau
NWR, to the City of Winona’s Aghaming
Park. This would be accomplished by building a ded-icated
bicycle/pedestrian trail on State Highway 35/
54 right-of-way, separated from the motor vehicle
travelway, for approximately 3.9 miles (Miss. Riv.
Reg. Plan Commission 2000). The trail, following the
former Chicago & Northwestern Railway, would
depart from the highway and cross over the Burl-ington-
Northern Santa Fe Railroad grade via bicy-cle-
pedestrian-snowmobile bridge to be constructed.
The route would then connect up with “old” High-way
54 and continue on to Aghaming Park. The City
of Winona has rehabilitated the former “wagon
bridge” and will assume construction and mainte-nance
responsibilities for the trail within Aghaming
Park, and across the Minnesota Highway 43 bridge
spanning the Mississippi River into the mainland of
Winona. (See Figure 4)
The connector will provide a safe and segregated
commuting facility for bicycle and pedestrian traffic
passing in both directions across the Minnesota/
Wisconsin borders. Proponents of the project
believe it will enhance direct access to a variety of
parks including the Town of Buffalo’s Bluff Siding
Park, two National Wildlife Refuges, a major state
wildlife area, the City of Winona’s Aghaming Park,
and will provide a link to the Minnesota DNR Bluff-lands
Trail System.
1.4.6.2.3 Town of Trempealeau Land Use Plan
The Trempealeau County Planning and Zoning
Department, under the direction of the Trempea-leau
County Zoning Committee, is working with
individual towns within Trempealeau County to
develop a land use plan that will ultimately guide
future development of the towns in Trempealeau
County. Details on this plan are included in
Section 3.10.2.1.1 on page 120.
1.4.6.2.4 Buffalo County
Land and Water Resource Management Plan
Buffalo County’s Land Conservation Committee,
Land Conservation Department, and Land and
Water Resource developed a “Land and Water Inte-grated
Management Plan” in 2000 to meet the
requirements of Act 27, Chapter 92 of the Wisconsin
Statutes (Buffalo County 2000). Goals described in
detail include: Agricultural Waste Manure Manage-ment
for Water Quality; Reduction of Sediment
Delivery to Water Systems; Preservation of Wet-lands;
Protection of Groundwater Sources, Wood-land
Management and Farmland Preservation. At
the core of this plan are the goals that describe the
ways the Count