Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Trempealeau
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
i
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues ........................................................................................1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................1
Refuge History and Purpose .......................................................................................................................................1
Refuge Vision .............................................................................................................................................................4
Purpose and Need for the Plan ..................................................................................................................................4
Purpose ...............................................................................................................................................................4
Need ...................................................................................................................................................................5
The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................................7
The National Wildlife Refuge System .......................................................................................................................7
Legal and Policy Framework .....................................................................................................................................7
Compatibility Policy ...........................................................................................................................................7
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy ........................................................................7
Public Use Natural Area Policy ............................................................................................................................8
Chapter 2: Public Involvement and Decision Process ............................................................................................9
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................9
Issues Identified in Scoping .......................................................................................................................................9
Goal 1: Landscape ..........................................................................................................................................9
Goal 2: Wildlife and Habitat Issues ..............................................................................................................11
Goal 3: Public Use Issues ..............................................................................................................................16
Goal 4: Neighboring Landowner and Community Issues ..............................................................................18
Goal 5: Administration and Operations Issues .............................................................................................19
Review of the Draft EIS/CCP ....................................................................................................................................20
Final EIS/CCP and Record of Decision ......................................................................................................................20
Chapter 3: Affected Environment ..............................................................................................................................21
Ecosystem Setting ....................................................................................................................................................21
The Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem ................................................................................21
Physical Environment ...............................................................................................................................................21
Climate ..............................................................................................................................................................21
Hydrology ..........................................................................................................................................................22
Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................................................26
Environmental Contaminants ............................................................................................................................27
Water Quality ...................................................................................................................................................27
Vegetation and Habitat Resources ...........................................................................................................................27
Habitats and Vegetation Types .........................................................................................................................27
Fisheries Habitats and Resources .............................................................................................................................30
General .............................................................................................................................................................30Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
ii
Commercial Fishing ..........................................................................................................................................30
Forage Fish ........................................................................................................................................................30
Sport Fish ..........................................................................................................................................................31
Threatened and Endangered Fish ......................................................................................................................31
Invasive and Exotic Fish and Molluscs ..............................................................................................................31
Wildlife .....................................................................................................................................................................31
Waterfowl .........................................................................................................................................................31
Waterbirds ........................................................................................................................................................32
Pelicans and Cormorants ..............................................................................................................................32
Herons, Bitterns and Egrets ..........................................................................................................................33
Cranes and Rails ...........................................................................................................................................33
Gulls and Terns .............................................................................................................................................33
Shorebirds .........................................................................................................................................................33
Raptors ..............................................................................................................................................................33
Upland Game Birds ...........................................................................................................................................34
Passerines (Songbirds) .....................................................................................................................................34
Mammals ..........................................................................................................................................................34
Reptiles and Amphibians .................................................................................................................................35
Invertebrates ....................................................................................................................................................35
Invasive and Exotic Wildlife Species ...............................................................................................................35
Federally Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species .................................................................................35
State Listed Species ........................................................................................................................................36
Special Uses .............................................................................................................................................................36
Scientific Research ..........................................................................................................................................36
Utilities ............................................................................................................................................................36
Public Access, Education and Recreational Opportunities ......................................................................................37
Public Access ...................................................................................................................................................37
Recreation ........................................................................................................................................................37
Wildlife Dependent Recreation ....................................................................................................................37
Non-Wildlife Dependent Recreation ............................................................................................................40
Environmental Education .................................................................................................................................40
Resource Protection .........................................................................................................................................40
Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation ..........................................................................................................41
Native American Cultural History and Landscape ...........................................................................................41
Prehistoric .....................................................................................................................................................41
Historic Native American Groups .................................................................................................................42
Archaeological Resources ................................................................................................................................42
Euro-American Cultural History ........................................................................................................................42
Existing Facilities and Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................43
Socioeconomics ......................................................................................................................................................45
Socioeconomic Setting ....................................................................................................................................45
Population and Demographics ......................................................................................................................46
Employment and Income ..............................................................................................................................46
Transportation Patterns ................................................................................................................................47
Land Use ..........................................................................................................................................................47
General Land Use and Management ...........................................................................................................47
Special Status Lands ....................................................................................................................................48
Refuge Management Economics ......................................................................................................................48
Area Recreation Sector ....................................................................................................................................49
Trempealeau County ....................................................................................................................................49Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iii
Buffalo County .............................................................................................................................................51
Agricultural Sector ...........................................................................................................................................51
Trempealeau County ....................................................................................................................................51
Buffalo County ..............................................................................................................................................51
Chapter 4: Management Direction ............................................................................................................................52
Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................52
Goals, Objectives and Strategies ..............................................................................................................................53
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ...............................................................................................................................77
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................77
A Word About Priorities ...........................................................................................................................................77
Actions – Existing Funding and Staffing ...................................................................................................................78
Appendix A: Record of Decision ...............................................................................................................................89
Appendix B: Glossary .................................................................................................................................................97
Appendix C: Species Lists .......................................................................................................................................105
Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations ..........................................................................................................147
Appendix E: Applicable Laws and Executive Orders .........................................................................................151
Appendix F: Executive Order Establishing Trempealeau Migratory Waterfowl Refuge Wisconsin .........157
Appendix G: Distribution List ..................................................................................................................................161
Appendix H: Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................165Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iv
List of Tables
Table 1: Species With Special State Designation, Trempealeau NWR .....................................................................36
Table 2: Management Strategies for Invasive and Non-indigenous Plant Species ...................................................63
List of Figures
Figure 1: Location of Trempealeau NWR in Wisconsin .................................................................................................2
Figure 2: Trempealeau NWR Boundary ..........................................................................................................................3
Figure 3: Watershed of the Trempealeau and Buffalo Rivers .....................................................................................13
Figure 4: Trempealeau NWR and Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem ...........................................22
Figure 5: Portion of Trempealeau NWR Above the 100-Year Flood Elevation (1965) .................................................23
Figure 6: Existing Water Management, Trempealeau NWR .......................................................................................24
Figure 7: Landcover/Land Use Map, 1994, Trempealeau NWR ..................................................................................28
Figure 8: Current Public Use, Trempealeau NWR .......................................................................................................38
Figure 9: Facilities and Structures, Trempealeau NWR ...............................................................................................44
Figure 10: Adjacent Conservation Areas, Trempealeau NWR .......................................................................................50
Figure 11: Habitat and its Management Under the Comprehensive Conservation Plan ..............................................54
Figure 12: Visitor Services Under the Comprehensive Conservation Plan ....................................................................55
Figure 13: Visitor Services Close Up Under the Comprehensive Conservation Plan .....................................................56
Figure 14: Pre-European Settlement Vegetation, Trempealeau NWR ..........................................................................62
Figure 15: Staff Chart, Trempealeau NWR ....................................................................................................................88
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Introduction
This document is a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Trempealeau National Wildlife Ref­uge (NWR or Refuge). It follows the basic and accepted format for a CCP and stems from an Envi­ronmental Impact Statement (EIS) that was com­pleted in 2008.
Trempealeau NWR is located within the Missis­sippi 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 wild­life” (Appendix E). Trempealeau NWR is part of the Upper Mississippi River NWR Complex with head­quarters 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, provid­ing 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.
Refuge History and Purpose
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 dis­trict 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 unsuc­cessful and the drainage district eventually went bankrupt. Following the completion of Lock and Dam 6 at Trempealeau in the mid-1930s, water lev­els 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 on page 3). The original Ref­uge consisted of an upland portion with open areas
Northern Shoveler Hen / USFWSChapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
2
Figure 1: Location of Trempealeau NWR in WisconsinChapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
3
Figure 2: Trempealeau NWR BoundaryChapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
4
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, tim­ber 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, inun­dated 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 legis­lation established the purposes of the Refuge as listed in Need II on page 5. These purposes remain valid to this day and guide the planning manage­ment, administration, and use of the Refuge.
Refuge Vision
The vision for Trempealeau NWR is:
“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.”
Purpose and Need for the Plan
Purpose
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 Sys­tem (NWRS) (see Need I on page 5). The CCP helps describe a desired future condition of the Refuge, and provides both long-term and day-to-day guid­ance for management actions and decisions. It pro­vides both broad and specific policy on various issues, sets goals and measurable objectives, and outlines strategies for reaching these objectives. A CCP also helps communicate the Refuge’s manage­ment direction to other agencies and the public.
The NWRS Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 mandates that the Secretary of the Interior, and thus the Service, prepare CCPs for all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System by October 2012. In addition to this mandate, there are several rea­sons why preparation of a CCP is needed at this time.
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 infor­mation 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 affect­American
Coot, USFWSChapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
5
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.
The EIS documents met those requirements and provided the necessary information and analysis to the decision-maker.
Finally, the planning process was 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 Trempealeau NWR.
Need
This CCP 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 Refuge. The mission, purpose, and goals are considered needs. These needs are summarized in the following paragraphs. More detail on issues related to these needs can be found in Chapter 2.
Need I: Contribute to the Refuge System Mission
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge Sys­tem set forth in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”
Need 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 F)
“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 of 1962 (16 U.S.C 460k-460k-4), as amended
“...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.)
Need III: Help Achieve Refuge Goals
Goal 1: Landscape – We will strive to maintain and improve the scenic and wild character, and environ­mental health of the Refuge.
Related needs are to:
#Complete acquisition within the approved boundary with the addition of 12 acres under the Regional Director’s authority.
#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 manage­ment 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 roadway accidents.
#Reduce sediment, nutrients, and contaminants in waters upstream of the Refuge.
#Restore and enhance prairie and oak savanna habitat. Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
6
#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, qual­ity 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 Sys­tem.
Related needs are to:
#Improve opportunities for wildlife observation and photography.
#Improve opportunities for interpretation.
#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.Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
7
The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
The Refuge is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior. The Ser­vice is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving and enhancing the nation’s fish and wild­life populations and their habitats. Although the Service shares this responsibility with other federal, state, tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has specific trust responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, certain interjurisdictional fish and marine mammals, and the National Wildlife Refuge System. The mission of the Service is:
“Working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System
The Refuge System had its beginning in 1903 when President Theodore Roosevelt used an Execu­tive Order to set aside tiny Pelican Island in Florida as a refuge and breeding ground for birds. From that small beginning, the Refuge System has become the world’s largest collection of lands specif­ically set aside for wildlife conservation. The admin­istration, management, and growth of the Refuge System are guided by the following goals (USFWS 2004, Section 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 observation 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.
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 out­lined below. A list of other laws and executive orders that have guided preparation of the CCP and EIS, and guide future implementation, are provided in Appendix E.
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 Man­ager, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purposes of the National Wildlife Refuge. Managers must complete a written compatibility determination for each use, or collec­tion of like-uses, that is signed by the Manager and the Regional Chief of Refuges in the respective Ser­vice region. Draft compatibility determinations applicable to uses described in this document were included in the Draft EIS/CCP and were available for public review. Compatibility determinations are available for review at Refuge Headquarters.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Service is directed in the Refuge Improve­ment Act to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the 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 Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
8
in dealing with external threats to biological integ­rity, diversity and health (66 CFRIO January 2004).
Public Use Natural Area Policy
The Refuge currently has one Public Use Natural Area, the Black Oak Island Public Use Natural Area. (See “Black Oak Island Natural Area” on page 48). The Service’s Refuge Manual (USFWS 2004), Section 8 RM 11 provides guidance for man­agement, administration 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.Chapter 2: Public Involvement and Decision Process
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
9
Chapter 2: Public Involvement and Decision Process
Introduction
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.
Issues Identified in Scoping
Issues, which are often synonymous with con­cerns and opportunities, were identified through the scoping and public involvement process. The issues below represent input from the public, other agen­cies and organizations, and Refuge managers and staff as well as the mandates and guidance.
Also, while these issues do not represent every challenge facing the Refuge, they do represent a reasonable and comprehensive set of issues. When converted to measurable objectives in Chapter 4, they create a meaningful plan of action to help meet the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes and goals of the Refuge.
Goal 1: Landscape
Land Acquisition
Acquisition of land remains a key conservation tool for the well being of fish and wildlife resources, for providing public use opportunities, and for main­taining the wild and scenic character of the Refuge. Only 340 acres within the acquisition boundary approved in the 1983 Refuge Master Plan remain to be acquired. An additional 12 acres outside of the current approved boundary would be added under the Regional Director’s authority. Most of these lands are adjacent to the Trempealeau River and include important examples of historic bottomland forests. Present land use includes hunting, fishing, and some farming. All of these lands are subject to frequent flooding. The entrance road to the Refuge is also subject to flooding where it crosses the Trem­pealeau River. Construction of a bridge at the cross­ing may alter flows on adjacent properties, and if so, purchase of flood easements would be required.
Tundra Swan. USFWSChapter 2: Public Involvement and Decision Process
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
10
Acquiring these lands would alleviate issues with the entrance road, and allow the Refuge to restore and protect bottomland forest and emergent marshes. Additionally, the Trempealeau River could move freely within its floodplain regardless of land use issues.
Refuge Boundary
Maintaining an accurate and clearly marked Ref­uge boundary is a critical basic need of resource protection. Brush cutting, dumping, mowing, illegal hunting and fishing, and vehicle trespass all occur along areas of the boundary, often intruding onto Refuge lands. The north boundary along highway 35 is viewed by thousands of travelers daily, but its sce­nic beauty is sometimes compromised by illegal activities. While a good portion of the Refuge boundary is clearly delineated by dikes, other sec­tions are less obvious and have missing, faded, or incorrectly placed signs. In addition, private land­owners have complained about Refuge visitors crossing the boundary and trespassing on their 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. The dike, owned and maintained by the railroad, has been breached and overtopped by the Mississippi River only once in the 1965 flood. During the near-record flood in 2001, floodwaters rose to the bottom of the rails put­ting severe pressure against the Mississippi River side of the dike. The BNSFR requested that the Service reduce the pressure by allowing floodwater to enter Trempealeau NWR through several water control structures. However, the amount of water that could be diverted into Refuge pools was insuffi­cient to offer protection for the railroad dike, but damage to Refuge infrastructure and habitats occurred. The Refuge has no official policy for deal­ing with water management issues during major flood events, making it vulnerable to impacts from “emergency” actions.
Natural Areas and Special Designations
In 1986, Black Oak Island (see Figure 8 on page 38) was designated a Public Use Natural Area as an example of undisturbed, mature, eastern deciduous forest. However, some of the biological characteris­tics on which the designation was based are threat­ened by invasive plants, especially European buckthorn. The site also contains important archeo­logical resources that are not inventoried and are subject to shoreline erosion and potential theft. A management plan is needed to ensure the future integrity of the area.
Refuge roads from the main entrance to the Marshland access are a designated part of the Great River State Trail. The popular bike trail traverses old railroad grades from La Crosse to Marshland, Wisconsin. Future plans are to continue the trail along the north boundary of the Refuge into Winona, Minnesota. Although more accurate counts are needed, an estimated 18,000 to 20,000 cyclists annually use the section of the trail that crosses the Refuge. However, little interpretation of the Refuge or its resources is available to this segment of the visiting public. In addition, cyclists are often con­fused due to lack of directional signing. Also, flood­ing at the main entrance road blocks the route for weeks each year, forcing cyclist to detour around the Refuge.
Archeological Resources
Federal laws, executive orders, and regulations, as well as policies and procedures of the Depart­ment of Interior and the Service protect cultural resources on federal lands. The Service has a responsibility to protect the many known and unknown cultural resources located on the Refuge. Trempealeau NWR has been described as one of the most important archeological sites in the Midwest. Human use of the area dates back 12,000 years. Dozens of sites and more than 6,000 artifacts have been cataloged from various locations. However, most surveys have been conducted in a few areas on the east side of the Refuge. The majority of the lands have not had even baseline surveys conducted and the locations and extent of archeological resources are unknown. Habitat management activ­ities that create any soil disturbance are delayed until archeological assessments can be completed. Additionally, protection of sites is difficult because of a lack of information about what resources are present. Trempealeau NWR has a history of looting and collectors are active in the area. While law enforcement efforts have been stepped-up over the years, problems persist. Opportunities to interpret the Refuge’s cultural resources must be integrated with the need to protect them. Chapter 2: Public Involvement and Decision Process
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
11
Goal 2: Wildlife and Habitat Issues
Forest Management
Forests are classified into either upland or bot­tomland on the Refuge. Over 85 percent of the upland forests are dominated by non-native tree species, planted decades ago in an attempt to pro­vide additional wildlife habitat. However, these plantings encroach on and fragment rarer prairie habitats, and prevent growth of native, mast-pro­ducing hardwoods. Over the past years, nearly all upland forests have been invaded by a dense under­story of European buckthorn, limiting growth of native hardwoods, shrubs, and wildflowers. Black locust trees, extremely invasive in sandy soils, are dominant in forest stands and would quickly take over most of the prairie areas if left uncontrolled. Efforts to control invasive or non-native forest plants are limited by current funding and staffing levels. In addition, clearing large areas of pine plantings would impact species which use the groves, such as owls. Some citizens have also voiced concern over removing pine plantations from the Refuge.
Bottomland forests lined most of the old river channels before impoundment. These forests, once abundant, were either cleared for farming or destroyed by prolonged flooding when Lock and Dam 6 went into operation. Much of the existing bottomland forest is degraded by reed canary grass or even-aged silver maple stands. Little of the bot­tomland forest is regenerating and large, old trees suitable for Bald Eagle nesting, Great Blue Heron rookeries, or Wood Duck nesting cavities are becom­ing less abundant. Some previously cleared and farmed fields could be restored by tree planting and aggressive weed control, but funding and staff would need to be redirected from other activities.
Some areas of the Refuge are littered with dead and downed trees, especially oaks that died of oak wilt. Down timber presents a fuel hazard and cre­ates difficulty in some burn units. Other standing, dead trees present safety hazards. There is a demand for firewood from local people and the Ref­uge allows some fire wood removal under special use permit. However, for safety, staff cut the trees down and move them to an area that is accessible with a pickup. Staff time limits the amount of wood that can be removed. Commercial harvest of black locust for fence posts and non-native pines from pine plan­tations is a viable management tool for restoring prairies. However, cutting trees and skidding them to a road for transport disturbs the soil and possible archeological artifacts. In the past, tree harvest activities have been restricted to times when the ground was frozen. Archeological surveys of the prairies and adjacent forests need to be completed so that habitat management can proceed. Also, potential stands for commercial harvest need to be identified in an updated forest management plan.
Forest Bird Management
The Mississippi River Valley is an important travel corridor for migrant songbirds. Little is known about the importance of protected stopover sites like Trempealeau NWR for migrating song­birds. How these birds are using the various habi­tats and the timing of different species groups moving through is a mystery. Likewise, manage­ment that alters habitats, like removal of invasive shrubs or conversion of forest to prairie, may have unintended impacts to some of these species. Some of these species may be slipping through the cracks simply because they are not being monitored or con­sidered when management decisions are made. Much could be learned from long-term studies that focus on migrant forest birds.
Wetland Management
Stable, deep water, and poor water clarity have led to a general declining trend in productivity in
A volunteer pulling buckthorn. Trempealeau NWRChapter 2: Public Involvement and Decision Process
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
12
impounded wetlands on the Refuge. Wind, waves and rough fish suspend bottom sediments, resulting in poor aquatic plant growth. Stands of emergent plants have declined dramatically over time. Inver­tebrate populations are especially poor, a conse­quence of poor plant growth. Invasive plants such as Eurasian milfoil and purple loosestrife are increas­ing. Cross dikes to break units into more manage­able sizes, better water control and rough fish management would benefit most wetland areas.
Water Quality
The Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 called upon the Secretary of the Interior to administer the Ref­uge System in a way that will “ensure that the bio­logical integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations” and “assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity and quality to fulfill the mission of the System and the purposes of each Refuge.” Water quality is a key to the overall health of the food chain that drives and sustains the multitude of fish, wildlife, and plant species that rely on the Refuge for critical parts, or all, of their life cycle requirements. Some areas of the Refuge, par­ticularly areas directly fed by the Trempealeau River, are impacted by high sediment loads trans­ported from upstream agricultural lands. Likewise, the habitats of the Mississippi River are degraded by sediments transported by the Trempealeau and Buffalo rivers (see Figure 3). The Service has pro­grams to help restore eroding streams on private lands in Trempealeau and Buffalo Counties. Repair­ing these streams at the top of the watershed is crit­ical to keeping sediments on the land rather than flowing into the Mississippi River. Staff and funding shortages preclude implementing a private lands program to fully address watershed concerns and potential benefits.
Water clarity during the growing season is essen­tial for the germination of aquatic plants. Wind and wave action often suspend the sediments in the large open pools, keeping the water muddy. In addi­tion, rough fish (carp and buffalo) are abundant in the slow moving, warm waters of the impound­ments. These fish grub for roots, disturbing aquatic plants and churning up sediments. Aquatic plants have virtually disappeared from hundreds of acres. In addition, the Refuge has a history of fish kills during the winter when dissolved oxygen becomes critically low.
Water Level Management
The Refuge was once a backwater of the Missis­sippi River, but was essentially isolated in the early 1900s by the construction of the Burlington North­ern Sante Fe Railroad dike and the diversion of the Trempealeau River. The hydrology was further altered in the 1930s by the construction of Lock and Dam 6 on the Mississippi River. The result is a deeper, relatively stabilized water system. Over time, stable water levels have adversely affected aquatic plant abundance, diversity and distribution. Fish and wildlife dependent on these plant commu­nities have also declined. Shorebirds are particu­larly dependent on mudflats and sandbars during migration, but these habitats have been mostly elim­inated by higher water levels. Recently, a series of dikes and pumps were installed that permit water level management on about 1,500 acres of the Ref­uge. The remaining 4,000 acres of wetland are essentially unmanageable, subject to the effects of wind, waves, and rough fish that keep the water too cloudy to be fully productive.
Waterbird Management
The Mississippi River is critical to the life history of many species of waterbirds including waterfowl, herons, rails, terns, pelicans, and egrets. Many of these species are sensitive to disturbance during the breeding season and require large marsh areas to nest. Others stage in large flocks in the fall, feeding to build up fuel reserves for migration. Trempealeau NWR plays an important role in providing relatively undisturbed resting and breeding space along Pool 6 of the Mississippi River. The Refuge is becoming increasingly important to migrating Tundra Swans as staging and feeding areas up river become silted in. However, some of the public would like to see more backwater marsh areas including the Refuge open to public hunting. In addition, non-motorized, electric motor-powered recreational boating is allowed during fall migration and sometimes dis­turbs large flocks of birds. Public use activities need to be reviewed in consideration of the larger role the Refuge plays as a part of the Mississippi River Fly­way.
Black Terns are a species of special interest because of declines in some parts of the country. Populations are expanding at the Refuge and habi­tat conditions are generally good at this time. How­ever, monitoring is difficult and the Refuge relies on volunteers to do it. While annual monitoring may not be warranted at this time, the wildlife inventory Chapter 2: Public Involvement and Decision Process
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
13
Figure 3: Watershed of the Trempealeau and Buffalo RiversChapter 2: Public Involvement and Decision Process
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
14
plan needs to be updated to include protocols that sufficiently monitor this species.
Wood Ducks and Hooded Mergansers were once more abundant on the Refuge and may be declining because of limited breeding habitat. These species need mature or over-mature trees near good brood habitats to successfully produce young. Mature for­ests are becoming less abundant on the Mississippi River as forests age and are replaced with invasive plants or silver maple. Many of the older forests on the Refuge are remnants from before the locks and dams were constructed and replacing them may not be possible with current hydrologic conditions.
Furbearer Management
Trapping was implemented on the Refuge in 1981 to help control damage to dikes and water control structures from muskrats and beavers. The area has a long tradition of furbearer harvest dating to the time when the land was owned by the Delta Fish and Fur Farm. The existing trapping program is regulated by issuing special use permits to individu­als who purchase trapping rights to specified units through an auction. The program is conducted within the framework of the Wisconsin State trap­ping regulations and according to special Refuge regulations. Occasionally, raccoons and skunks must be removed to safeguard ducks at banding sites. While the Trapping Plan is relatively current (1999) it needs review and updating to reflect recent national policy and regulation changes governing compatibility of commercial uses on Refuges, cur­rent furbearer population estimates, habitat changes, and new management needs.
Emergency Response to Spills
Mishaps with chemicals on adjacent lands could cause severe damage to Refuge resources, espe­cially sensitive wetlands. The Refuge is bounded on three sides by train tracks and a state highway. Train derailments or tanker accidents involving chemical spills could have catastrophic impacts to Refuge habitats and wildlife. Emergency response would require specialized equipment (airboats, heli­copters), trained personnel, and the coordination of many agencies. The Refuge needs to have a system for responding to spills and needs to ensure special­ized and ongoing training for staff.
Grassland Management
Historical records indicate that the upland areas of the Refuge were once dominated by prairie and oak savanna habitats. Much of the uplands were converted to agriculture before the Refuge pur­chased the property in 1936. Under Refuge manage­ment in the 1940s through the 1960s, various pine species, black locust, Siberian pea, and honeysuckle were planted to reduce soil erosion and provide wildlife habitat in tune with the management prac­tices of the time. In the 1970s, many of the oaks in the savanna were removed because of oak wilt dis­ease. Today, forests on some uplands consist mostly of non-native pine trees, black locust, and shrubs. Grasslands are fragmented into small units sur­rounded by forest edge that support populations of species that prey on or parasitize grassland and for­est birds. In addition, black locust saplings march across the prairies each year at an alarming rate. Control of invasive plants, especially black locust is limited by available staff, equipment, and restric­tions on chemical use. Only remnant prairies still exist outside of the Refuge and these are likely to disappear as more private land is developed.
Prescribed fire is an important component of maintaining grassland vigor and health, and has been used at Trempealeau NWR for many years. About 335 acres are burned on a rotational system under prescriptions described in a Fire Manage­ment Plan (USFWS, 2008).
Invasive Plants and Animals
Invasive plants continue to pose a major threat to native plant communities and the wildlife that depends on them. All habitats types on the Refuge have invasive plants of one variety or another. Bio­logical 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. In addition, control has been hampered by funding for basic inventory, direct control, and research into species-specific biological control.
Prescribed burning, Trempealeau NWR. USFWSChapter 2: Public Involvement and Decision Process
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
15
Years of impoundment and stable water condi­tions have contributed to a fishery dominated by carp and other non-desirable rough fish. Invasion by other species of Asian carp may be imminent. These species are destructive to aquatic vegetation and generally keep impounded pools turbid and unpro­ductive for plants or other wildlife. Removal of rough fish is difficult because water management facilities are insufficient to lower water levels enough to cause wide spread mortality. Some years, particularly with heavy snowfall, low dissolved oxy­gen levels do result in large fish kills. Local com­mercial fishermen have an interest in harvesting rough fish and in the past have been instrumental in rough fish control. However, commercial fishing is closely tied to market price and often the manage­ment needs of the Refuge and the economic needs of the fisherman do not coincide. The Fishery Manage­ment Plan (USFWS 1980) needs to be updated in consultation with fishery biologists from the La Crosse Fishery Resource Office.
Zebra mussels have not been found in Trempea­leau waters, but are common in the adjacent rivers. Trempealeau has little defense against these invad­ers once they become abundant in the river systems.
Monitoring Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Populations
One of the directives in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 was to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants on national wildlife refuges. Although monitoring has been a part of managing the Refuge for many years, gaps remain in baseline population data for many species. A Wildlife Inven­tory Plan was completed in 1987, but needs updat­ing to reflect changes in habitat, the status of many species, and new policies, procedures, and technolo­gies for monitoring. In addition, management in a changing environment must be adaptive, which requires ongoing monitoring and thoughtful investi­gation as issues arise and change. Meeting these needs has been hampered by biological staffing and funding levels.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Threatened or endangered species are issues due to their often precarious population status, and need for special management consideration or protection. The Bald Eagle was removed from the threatened list in 2007. However, they will continue to be moni­tored on the Refuge. One candidate species, the eastern Massasaugua rattlesnake, occurred as recently as the late 1970s, but is now found only at sites north and south of the Refuge. Suitable habitat may still be present for reintroduction. The State of Wisconsin lists 21 species of birds, one plant, two butterflies, and two turtles that occur on the Refuge as threatened, endangered or warranting special concern (see Table 1 on page 36).
Deer Herd Management
The landscape of southwestern Wisconsin sup­ports very abundant populations of white-tailed deer, in some areas exceeding 75 deer per square mile. Recently, chronic wasting disease has been detected within 70 miles of the Refuge, and efforts are under way by the State to reduce overabundant deer. Trempealeau NWR is bordered by agricultural lands along the length of its north boundary. Deer undoubtedly feed on these lands, then find shelter and safety from hunting pressure on the Refuge. The number of deer on the Refuge at any one time is unknown, and staff and funding shortfalls preclude intensive surveys. However, history has shown that when deer populations were estimated to be between 130-150 animals (1974), wintering popula­tions depleted food resources on the Refuge. A clear browse line was visible and understory shrubs were absent in many areas. The Refuge gained the repu­tation of being a good place to see deer and even today there is some public interest in increasing deer to “viewable” numbers.
Presently, deer numbers are low and browse sur­veys indicate that deer are not adversely impacting vegetation. However, some questions exist as to whether low deer numbers have allowed invasive shrubs to become prolific in the forest under story. Grazing pressure may be one method of controlling invasive shrubs. Deer herd surveys using the most current methods and technologies should be included in an updated wildlife inventory plan. Accu­rate population numbers are needed to determine appropriate harvest and browse levels.
Deer Hunting
Deer hunting is an important form of wildlife-dependent recreation and is also used to manage over-browsing or disease. Deer numbers are con­trolled using special gun and archery hunts. A set number of permits are available for the gun hunt and over-the-counter permits are available for late season archery. The hunt is an important manage­ment tool for managing deer numbers. However, without better deer population data, the staff has difficulty determining the appropriate level of har­vest. Historically, gun permits have been capped at 60, with 10 to 20 deer harvested each year. Recently, with the popularity of birding on the increase, con­flicts have arisen over the use of the Refuge by Chapter 2: Public Involvement and Decision Process
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
16
hunters and non-hunters at the same time. Both activities occur in the same areas and visitor safety is a concern. The gun hunt occurs over the Thanks­giving holiday (regulated by State law), the time when many visitors from outside the local area are coming to the Refuge to view wildlife. The Refuge hunt plan is out of date and should include options for addressing time and space concerns among vari­ous user groups.
Finally, because of the proximity of chronic wast­ing disease (CWD), close coordination with the State of Wisconsin and the creation of a CWD plan are warranted. Staff also need additional training and specialized equipment to deal with any out­breaks.
Wildlife Disease Management
A wide range of issues are currently in the public eye regarding wildlife disease and potential impacts to human populations. Wild animals play a role in the spread of west Nile virus, Lyme disease, menin­gitis, chronic wasting disease and avian influenza to name a few. The role wildlife plays in the transmis­sion of these diseases to humans is not always clear. Even more unclear are the long-term impacts of dis­eases on wildlife populations. Recently waterfowl mortality from ingestion of an introduced faucet snail is of grave concern to managers of the Upper Mississippi River NW&FR. The public desires information about how they may be impacted by these immerging diseases. In addition, staff needs to be trained in the most current and best manage­ment practices for handling not only diseased ani­mals, but also banding birds or participating in other hands-on wildlife management operations. A disease contingency plan needs to be developed in conjunction with other land management agencies.
The management of mosquito populations may emerge as a future concern given the increased inci­dence of mosquito-borne illnesses in parts of the Midwest. The Service has a national policy on mos­quito abatement on national wildlife refuges that allows control only in cases of documented human health emergencies. Mosquito control must be spe­cies specific, based on population sampling and iden­tified population thresholds, and use the least intrusive means possible (USFWS 2005).
Goal 3: Public Use Issues
Wildlife Observation and Photography
Wildlife observation and photography are very popular activities for visitors, and a source of eco­nomic growth for local communities. As priority public uses of the Refuge System, these uses are to be encouraged when compatible with the purposes of the Refuge. The Refuge provides outstanding wildlife viewing opportunities year round from many miles of trails and roads. The Great River Road and the Great River State Trail pass by the Refuge, making it highly visible and accessible to the public. However, access is generally restricted to able-bodied individuals. Some trails and observation points need to be improved to accommodate people with disabilities including those with hearing or vision impairments. While most of the Refuge habi­tats are easily accessible, emergent marsh presents a challenge. Access to an area of emergent marsh would provide opportunities to view wildlife in all representative habitat types. Also, winter is a unique opportunity to observe wildlife, but access to most of the refuge is limited by snowfall for 4 to 5 months each year. The public and communities desire more opportunities for wildlife observation, while managers must balance opportunities with the need to limit disturbance to wildlife and archeologi­cal resources, and ensure safety of visitors.
Wildlife photography opportunities are abundant along roads, trails and observation points without special facilities. In the past the staff has had little formal communication with area photography orga­nizations. The needs of this user group are not known and efforts to develop facilities or programs should be predicated on consultation and partnering with area photographers. The Refuge needs to update the visitor services plan to establish clear guidelines for these programs.
The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (HR 4818) passed Dec. 8, 2004, and became effective in 2006. It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to collect entrance fees, and requires that the funds be spent on visitor services and facilities. With one entrance point, the Refuge is situated to collect fees. While the legislation does not mandate fee collection is does encourage the agency to review potential sites. Service guidance will be forthcoming.
Interpretation
Many signs and kiosks currently in place are out­dated, not up to current Service standards, and do not interpret the mission of the Refuge System. Interpretive signs do not clearly communicate Ref­uge regulations to the public. There are no facilities for formal interpretive programming such as staff led talks or other special events. The visitor contact station has limited restroom facilities open only dur­ing business hours. A rented portable toilet must be Chapter 2: Public Involvement and Decision Process
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
17
used after hours, on weekends or for special events. Vehicle pull-outs and boat launches are in need of upgrading and maintenance. Funding is generally not available to purchase interpretive supplies like binoculars, field guides or media equipment. An overall visitor services plan is needed to establish detailed guidelines for interpretive programming.
Biking is a popular activity because the Refuge connects with the Great River State Trail. Thou­sands of bicyclists pass through every year. Gener­ally this activity is not disruptive and is a low impact way of observing plants and animals. The State has secured funding to extend the trail to Winona. The Refuge will become a stop along the trail, rather than an endpoint. This may change the way cyclists use the Refuge, with increased traffic and demand for more bike-friendly facilities. In addition, requests may arise for motorized use of the trail by ATVs or snowmobiles. The visitor services plan needs to address the needs of this user group and the potential for increased bike traffic.
Environmental Education
Trempealeau NWR is ideally situated to provide curriculum based programming. The demand for formal environmental education has been increasing and staff has few resources to accommodate the requests. Current programs are funded through partnerships and grants, but are difficult to con­tinue year after year. Wisconsin has inclement weather many months of the year and the Refuge has no all-weather group facilities for teaching. Additionally, there are no restroom facilities that can accommodate groups. Although the staff has worked with many area educators, more outreach and networking is needed to formally develop Ref­uge-specific programs tailored to state and national curriculum standards. Training for teachers and vol­unteers, as well as teaching materials that could be used at the schools, would expand opportunities for environmental education.
Hunting
Waterfowl hunting is one of the priority public uses of the Refuge System and remains a vital part of the cultural, social, and economic fabric of the communities around the Refuge. As habitats and wildlife decline and hunting pressure increases on surrounding lands, potential hunting opportunities within the Refuge become more valued. Within the context of a larger river system, the Refuge pro­vides important sanctuary for migratory birds. Nav­igation Pool 6 on the adjacent Mississippi River has no areas closed to hunting where birds may find respite. With the exception of a limited hunt for peo­ple with disabilities, the Refuge has been closed to waterfowl hunting. The public desires more hunting opportunities, particularly in high quality habitats like those found on the Refuge. However, managers must balance hunting opportunities with the need to limit disturbance to wildlife and accommodate other visitor interests such as wildlife observation or pho­tography.
Opportunities to hunt other species may be avail­able. Small game (rabbits and squirrels), upland game birds (grouse, pheasant, partridge, crow), migratory game birds (Snipe, Sora, Mourning Doves, Woodcock, Virginia Rail) Turkey, coyote, rac­coon and red fox have legal hunting seasons in Wis­consin and occur on the Refuge. Information on population size, habitat use and life requirements of most of these species is not known specifically for the Refuge. While hunting some of these animals may be feasible, there may be little management need to control these populations. More information needs to be collected, and some of these species may warrant an addition to the wildlife inventory plan. Likewise, if areas are to be open to new hunting pro­grams the hunt plan and visitor services plan should include detailed review of the program’s benefits.
Fishing
Over the years, the quality of the fishery has declined. Northern pike and yellow perch, popular sport fish, are no longer present in numbers that support recreational fishing. The sport fishery could be improved, however there may be conflicts with water drawdowns to promote growth of aquatic plants. Also, sediments have likely filled many over-wintering holes needed by sport fish. Rough fish (carp and buffalo) and bullheads dominate the fish­ery and are not popular sport fish. The demand for fishing in the Refuge pools is relatively low. There is one fishing platform in Pool A, but the area around the platform is relatively poor fish habitat. The plat­form does not meet accessibility guidelines. The Trempealeau River may be more popular for fish­ing, but access can be difficult because of the steep­ness of the bordering dike and downed trees. Bow fishing for carp is allowed in Wisconsin, but not on the Refuge. Bow fisherman want to access the Trempealeau River from the Refuge and a conflict arises over allowing people with projectile weapons on the Refuge. Policy has been inconsistent in the past. The staff needs to update the fishing plan and investigate potential options for improving fishing access along the Trempealeau River. Chapter 2: Public Involvement and Decision Process
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
18
Harvesting Fruit, Nuts, and Other Plant Parts
Some plants growing on the Refuge produce edi­ble products such as fruit and nuts. In the past the Refuge has allowed the harvest of berries, nuts, mushrooms, and asparagus for personal consump­tion. Harvest is typically light. Recently, requests have been received for other plants like wild rice, sage and cone flower. Some of these requests are for personal consumption, others are for ceremonial or medicinal purposes. Other requests have been made to collect native grass and wildflower seeds. The Refuge needs to develop a clear policy on what the harvest policy is and what levels of harvest can be sustained without jeopardizing habitats or wildlife.
Horseback Riding
As more and more hobby farms become estab­lished in the vicinity, interest in the use of the Ref­uge for horseback riding has increased. Horseback riding is considered a non-wildlife dependent activ­ity and is subject to more scrutiny than other wild­life-dependent uses. Conflicts with other Refuge visitors, the need for larger parking facilities for trailers, maintenance of trails, and introduction of invasive plants are potential drawbacks that need careful consideration.
Domestic Pets
Unless specifically authorized, national wildlife refuges are closed to dogs, cats, livestock, and other domestic animals per federal regulations (50 CFR 26). Domestic animals can harass and kill wildlife, and at times become a direct threat to people engaged in recreation. Dogs on a leash are permit­ted on the Refuge. Requests for opening areas to unleashed pets during the winter and for dog field trials necessitate careful consideration.
Non-Refuge Sponsored Events
Boy Scout jamborees, over night camping by school groups, weddings, family reunions, and fund­raising walks or runs by charities are examples of non-refuge sponsored events that are considered non-wildlife dependent activities. Requests for host­ing these events come in a few times each year. Each of these activities must be considered individually to determine if they are likely to impact Refuge resources and can be adapted to include some aspect of resource interpretation. Staff availability and scheduling are likely to limit these activities.
Non-Refuge Sponsored Research
Refuges are interesting places and have many resources that are worthy of investigation. Requests for research projects by universities, other agencies, or individuals need to be considered. At times research projects, although interesting, do not fur­ther the management objectives of the Refuge and sometimes are disturbing to habitats and wildlife. Staff time is required to permit and monitor these activities. Clear guidelines need to be developed as to what research is in the best interest of the Refuge and how much staff resources should be committed.
General Public Use Regulations
General public use regulations include things like hours of operation, vehicle restrictions, use of fires, parking and other administrative or safety rules. The current public use regulations were last reviewed and updated in 1992. Regulations need to be reviewed to address new laws and policy and to help correct problems not specifically covered in current regulations governing the National Wildlife Refuge System (50CFR, subchapter C part 26). Ref­uge Officers and the public need to clearly under­stand what is and is not allowed on the Refuge.
Goal 4: Neighboring Landowner and Community Issues
Community Outreach
There is a general lack of awareness of the goals of the Refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. Citizen support is critical to a successful resource management program. Rebuilding society’s connec­tion with its environment is an important component of long-term resource protection. Numerous oppor­tunities exist to build connections between the Ref­Northern
pike. USFWSChapter 2: Public Involvement and Decision Process
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
19
uge and the community. However, staff shortages and other priorities have limited efforts to work within the community. Refuge planning must include a strong component of community outreach and participation by Refuge staff.
Friends Groups
Friends groups play a critical role in helping the public understand the importance of protecting and preserving refuges. They provide critical support by volunteering, raising funds, and educating the pub­lic. Trempealeau NWR has not had its own Friends group, but instead has been a part of the Bob Pohl Chapter of the Friends of the Upper Mississippi River Refuge based in Winona, Minnesota. Trem­pealeau NWR does not have a presence in the local community and needs to establish its own Friends group that will provide an independent citizen voice for the protection, conservation, and enhancement of Refuge resources.
Volunteers
Volunteers are a valuable asset providing thou­sands of hours of labor, completing tasks that other­wise would not be accomplished. Volunteers conduct biological surveys, lead interpretive programs, maintain equipment and facilities, and assist with special events. The Refuge has a core of dedicated volunteers who are committed to protecting the beauty of the Refuge. Staffing is unlikely to increase in the future and volunteers may be called upon to perform more of the surveys or maintenance tasks that go undone. Refuge staff must find ways to fos­ter a sense of pride and ownership in the volunteers, while continuing to recruit new people.
Partnerships
The Refuge administers the Partners for Wildlife Program for Trempealeau and Buffalo Counties. Opportunities for upper watershed improvement abound in the northern portions of these counties. These projects are immensely important to reduc­ing sediments flowing to the Mississippi River. Expertise is available to assist landowners with con­trol of invasive plants, and to restore and enhance wetlands and grasslands. Unfortunately, limited funding and staffing allow only a few of these projects to be completed each year. Projects are on a waiting list and landowners are continuing to request more assistance.
The Refuge shares its east boundary with Perrot State Park. The Refuge and the Park occasionally coordinate activities, but a stronger partnership would support both public facilities. Coordinating interpretive programming and recreational activi­ties would benefit visitors that use both areas. There may also be opportunities to share staff and equip­ment for habitat management projects.
Private Property Rights
Adjacent landowners have a variety of concerns about how their lands or their farming operations may be impacted by Refuge habitat, wildlife and recreation management. Crop damage by deer and waterfowl, flooding, trespass by hunters, and access across the Refuge to private land are issues that are frequently contentious.
Easement and Right-of-Way Management
Two major dikes that are owned by the railroads cross the Refuge. Several power lines cross or bor­der Refuge land, and State Highway 35/54 borders the Refuge on the north. All of these easements or right-of-ways present management challenges. Work crews and equipment need to cross Refuge lands for access to repair facilities, unknown num­bers of wildlife collisions and bird strikes occur, acci­dental contaminant spills are a threat, and the need for road or power line expansion is imminent. The Refuge needs to develop a management plan for easement and rights-of-way that is consistent with current policies and management recommendations.
Goal 5: Administration and Operations Issues
Entrance Road Flooding
The main Refuge entrance road, which is also part of the Great River State Trail, is a low-lying gravel road in the floodplain of the Trempealeau River. The entrance road floods frequently and is closed for 5-6 weeks each year, usually during the spring when songbird viewing is at its best. Ice-jams
Canada Goose banding program at Trempealeau NWR. USF-WSChapter 2: Public Involvement and Decision Process
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
20
close the road for months during some winters. An alternate, unimproved access for staff is available through the Marshland gate. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has requested that this access not be promoted to the public because of safety concerns with its location on a curve, adjacent to a train crossing. The Refuge needs to develop a year-round access road for staff and visitors.
Facilities
Office facilities are too small to meet the needs of full staffing and especially summer hires and volun­teers. Maintenance facilities that were constructed in 1936 are scheduled for replacement. Visitors need to have year-round access to restrooms, and there are no facilities to conduct formal interpretation or education programs.
Staffing
Current staffing levels are below essential staff­ing needs and reflect gaps between what should be done and what can be done. The Refuge is fortunate to have a cadre of talented and giving volunteers who fill in some of the gaps in staffing. However, long-term programs are difficult to manage with short-term volunteer resources. Adequate staffing becomes more critical as public demand for recre­ation programs, biological information, and resource protection increases.
Operations and Maintenance Need
Plans and planning need to articulate the needs for staff and funding to manage and administer pro­grams, 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 level.
Review of the Draft EIS/CCP
The Draft EIS/CCP was released for public review in June 2007 with a 60-day comment period. Summaries were mailed to 250 people, and full cop­ies were provided to 52 people, agencies, and non-government organizations. Paper copies were also distributed to eight libraries in the area surround­ing the Refuge.
The full EIS/CCP was posted on the Refuge’s planning website.
Twenty-six people participated in a public meet­ing hosted by the Refuge on June 28, 2007, in Trem­pealeau, Wisconsin. The purpose of the meeting was to give people an opportunity to comment in person on the Draft EIS/CCP. Comments were also accepted through the mail and via e-mail. Topics dis­cussed included:
#The history of Trempealeau NWR management and current land conditions.
#The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the purpose of Trempealeau NWR.
#The comprehensive conservation planning process and development of alternatives.
#Objectives and strategies of the preferred alternative, Alternative C .
In addition, on July 10, 2007, the Refuge hosted a workshop focused on the waterfowl hunting objec­tive (Objective 3.5) in the preferred alternative. Two people not associated with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service attended the workshop.
Final EIS/CCP and Record of Decision
Following the publication of the Final EIS/CCP in May 2008, the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota, deter­mined which alternative evaluated in the Final EIS would become the Final CCP. This decision has been recorded in a formal Record of Decision (Appendix A). Substantive comments from the public, agencies, and other groups that were received on the Draft EIS/CCP were included in the Final EIS, along with a Service response.
The Final EIS/CCP was distributed to local libraries and persons who requested the full docu­ment. The document was also posted on the Region’s planning website. A Notice of Availability of the Final EIS/CCP was published in the Federal Register by the Environmental Protection Agency on April 25, 2008.
One comment, which restated concerns that had been expressed in the Draft EIS comment period and had been responded to in the Final EIS, was received during the 30 days following publication of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register.
The Regional Director signed a Record of Deci­sion on June 17, 2008.Chapter 3: Affected Environment
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
21
Chapter 3: Affected Environment
Ecosystem Setting
The Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has adopted an approach to fish and wildlife conservation that is described as an ecosystem approach. This means that the Service is working to perpetuate dynamic, healthy ecosystems that ultimately will foster natu­ral biological diversity. The strategy behind this effort is interdisciplinary and integrates the exper­tise and resources of all stakeholders.
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge lies within the Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie (UMR/TGP) Ecosystem (Figure 4). This large, eco­logically diverse area encompasses land in the states of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wiscon­sin. The ecosystem is bisected into an east and west portion by the Mississippi River. Major rivers in this ecosystem include the Minnesota, Chippewa, Black, Wisconsin, Iowa, Rock, Skunk, Des Moines, Illinois, and Kaskaskia. The Refuge is located within two overlapping ecotypes within the ecosystem – these include the Driftless Area and the Oak Savanna and Forestland Area. The Driftless Area covers parts of Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois. Because it was not subject to glacial drift during the latter part of the Pleistocene epoch, the Driftless Area is char­acterized by highly dissected uplands with deeply cut valleys. Overlaying the Driftless Area in much of southern and western Wisconsin is a fire-dependent ecotype which once covered more than 30 million acres in the Region. Today, the oak savannas of the Midwest are considered by some to be the world’s most threatened communities. Conversion of oak savanna to agricultural lands, elimination of fire, invasion by exotic species, and human development have largely eliminated this ecotype from the UMR/TGP Ecosystem. Trempealeau NWR is blessed with remnants of prairie/oak savanna habitats with opportunities for management to extend their life into the future.
Physical Environment
Climate
The Upper Mississippi River Watershed, which includes the Refuge, is characterized by great tem­perature extremes. Lows occur in January and Feb­ruary with extremes of minus 30 degrees Fahrenheit or lower and highs in the 90s occurring in July and August. Extreme maximum tempera­tures of 108 degrees Fahrenheit have been recorded. Some moderation in temperature extremes within the Upper Mississippi River valley have been observed. This is apparent in the spring
Raccoon in a tree along Refuge Road, Trempealeau NWR. USFWSChapter 3: Affected Environment
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
22
when hardwood trees begin leafing out several days earlier than those on the plateaus flanking the val­ley.
Average annual precipitation is about 30 inches. About 80 percent occurs as rain from April through October with the remainder falling as snow from November to March. Winter moisture accumulates and can cause excessive runoff and flooding follow­ing the spring break-up.
Hydrology
With the closing of the culverts and bridges in the BNSFRR dike separating the Refuge from the main channel of the Mississippi River, and construc­tion of the barrier dikes to divert the Trempealeau River in 1911, Refuge wetlands were essentially iso­lated. Floodwaters entered the Delta FFF marshes during the damaging flood in 1965 when the BNS­FRR dike washed out. Floodwaters entered what is now the Refuge main pool. The upper limits of high water during the spring of 1965 define what is referred to as the “100-year flood” as depicted on Figure 5.
The BNSFRR dike protects Refuge wetlands from the impacts of barge traffic, oil spills, and other pollution that is occurring in the Mississippi River. Probably most significant is the much slower rate of siltation occurring in Trempealeau NWR wetlands. An abundance of wild rice and other sensi­tive species of aquatic plants on the Refuge that are becoming scarce in many river backwaters attests to the buffering influence of these dikes.
Construction of a series of locks and dams on the Mississippi River in the 1930s created a deeper, rel­atively stable water system, especially during the summer. Although flooding was not a serious prob­lem at Trempealeau NWR because of barrier dikes, the low water cycle, so important to aquatic plants dependent on mud flats and sandbars for their reproduction, was virtually eliminated. With stable and higher water levels, wind and wave action grad­ually eliminated aquatic plant beds, particularly in the lower Refuge pools.
Prior to 1994 water management in the 5,500-acre Refuge pools consisted mainly of discharging flows into the adjacent Trempealeau River through a four-bay, gravity structure located in the Lower Diversion Dike near Trempealeau Mountain (Figure 6 on page 24). Water management by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at Lock and Dam No. 6 downstream from the Refuge can have a sig­nificant effect on the ability to manage water levels. The Trempealeau River enters Pool 6 of the Missis­sippi River about 1 mile downstream from the
Figure 4: Trempealeau NWR and Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie EcosystemChapter 3: Affected Environment
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
23
Figure 5: Portion of Trempealeau NWR Above the 100-Year Flood Elevation (1965)Chapter 3: Affected Environment
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
24
Figure 6: Existing Water Management, Trempealeau NWRChapter 3: Affected Environment
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
25
Lower Diversion Dike. How the Corps manages water levels in Pool 6 determines the level of the Trempealeau River at this location. This determines the water head at the present discharge site and sets the upper limit on Pool A outflow.
Through the Environmental Management Pro­gram a series of dikes and pump stations was com­pleted in 1999. This system created three separate impoundments of 700, 225, and 600 acres within which water levels can be manipulated by gravity and/or pumping to enhance conditions for growth of desirable plants. However, the remaining 4,000 acres of water in Pool B are essentially unmanage­able. Water levels in this pool since 2001 have been above desirable levels but pumping and discharge to improve conditions are impractical due to its large area and depth. Subdividing this pool into smaller, more manageable units has been discussed.
The new water management system received its first “test” in 2000 when water level manipulation began. In Pool A water was drawn down by pumping to the maximum (3 feet) exposing about 15 to 20 per­cent of the bottom. Aquatic plant response on these areas, which had not been exposed for over 60 years, was excellent. By allowing a rise in water levels in the fall, important habitat for migrating waterfowl and marsh birds was provided. Experience gained during the 2000 drawdown showed that groundwa­ter seepage in Pool A is considerable and would probably preclude maintaining low water levels throughout the winter months. In 2004, the Pool A pump station was modified to permit removal of additional water to expose a greater area of pool bottom during a drawdown.
The ability to draw down Pool A allows the Ref­uge to create mudflats and vegetated shallow water areas that attract thousands of shorebirds and hun­dreds of Blue-winged Teal and Northern Shovelers during late spring migration. Through the summer, Sandhill Cranes, Canada Geese, and Mallards feed on the mudflats, and White Pelicans, Great Egrets, and Great Blue Herons loaf in the shallows and feed on schools of fish. During a drawdown, the pool is held as low as possible into the winter when ice con­ditions prevent pumping. Waterfowl and other birds take advantage of the plentiful food source during fall migration.
Flooding Pool C2 in the late winter attracts waterfowl when the remainder of the Refuge waters are still iced over. This provides limited ability for water level control because the water is released after three weeks to prevent swamp white oak trees in the southeast corner of the impoundment from being stressed.
Pool E is lowered about 6 inches in early June to allow wild rice to grow. The rice attracts waterfowl in the fall. Typically there is an abundant rice crop every other year.
Pool B is the largest pool and includes the wet­lands from Kieps Dike west to the Canadian National Railroad and the wetlands west of the rail­road outside of Oxbow Pool. This makes it difficult to manage and over the years the emergent marsh habitat and floating vegetation mats have declined in quantity due to high water levels.
As mentioned earlier, the BNSFRR dike forms an integral part of the barrier dike system which impounds water within Trempealeau NWR. This dike was breached and over-topped in 1965 and was repaired by the railroad. During the near-record flood in the spring of 2001, floodwaters rose to a level even with the bottom of the rails at several points but the dike held. Again, additional rock was added at several points. Railroad personnel were concerned about the large “head” of water against their dike and requested that the Service let water into Trempealeau NWR to equalize the pressure on the dike. In response, gates on the water control structure in Lower Diversion Dike near Trempea­leau Mountain were opened as well as gates on the Marshland Road inlet structure, allowing water from the Trempealeau River to enter the Refuge pools. Water elevations on the Trempealeau River were several feet lower than on the Mississippi River at points upstream where pressure on the dike was greatest. As a result, the quantity of water
Aerial view of Pool A looking south during the summer of 2002 drawdown. USFWSChapter 3: Affected Environment
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
26
which could be diverted into the Refuge pool was insufficient to offer protection for the railroad dike at the critical locations.
From the Refuge’s perspective, opening the gates on the Lower Diversion and Marshland Road struc­tures and allowing floodwaters to enter the Refuge caused serious damage to biological resources and infrastructure as follows:
1.High inflows damaged the electric weir and one lift gate on the water control structure with a repair cost of several thousand dollars.
2.Higher water levels in Refuge pools coupled with strong winds caused bank erosion on the Refuge side of the BNSFRR dike.
3.With damage to the electric weir, carp and other rough fish were allowed to enter Pool A. In the future, with big-headed and silver carp and other exotic species entering the Mississippi River, biological consequences from this action to aquatic systems in the Refuge pool could be severe.
4.Floodwaters uprooted or drowned out beds of emergent aquatic plants that had become established during the previous year’s drawdown in Pool A and those beds that were well established in the upper ends of Pool B between Pine Creek Dike and the Canadian National Railroad.
5.Interior Refuge roads and dikes suffered damage from high water. Kieps Island spillway was damaged from overtopping and needed extensive repairs.
In summary, this incident clearly demonstrated that the present water management infrastructure at Trempealeau NWR affords little opportunity for management actions that can reduce Mississippi River flood impacts on the BNSFRR dike. Letting flood waters into Pool A through the lower diversion structure will damage emergent vegetation thereby countering the beneficial effects of drawdowns, and may accentuate bank erosion on the railroad and interior dikes while offering virtually no additional protection to the BNSFRR dike.
If the BNSFRR placed a large, gated culvert or series of culverts through their dike upstream of the junction with the Canadian National Railroad (CNRR) dike, it might be possible to discharge enough water into the upper portion of Trempealeau NWR to save the dike during a disastrous flood event. Such a project could jeopardize the CNRR dike that bisects the Refuge pool and would undoubtedly cause considerable damage to Refuge habitats and infrastructure.
Water inflow into Refuge pools can occur through an inlet structure between the upper end of C2 Pool and the Trempealeau River backwaters and through a drainage ditch off the Buffalo Township Park. Other inflow comes from seepage through railroad and barrier dikes and from groundwater input. This latter source is probably considerable but has not been measured. A number of artesian wells drilled by the former owners of the Delta FFF are scat­tered throughout Refuge wetlands. The quantity of water inflow has not been measured but is believed to be relatively insignificant.
Flooding of the 0.2-mile township road that pro­vides the main access to the existing auto-tour route occurs for up to 6 weeks annually during spring break-up and at other times following heavy rains. During this time, the surface gravel is washed from the road into the wetland downstream. This mate­rial is slowly filling the wetland from years of flood­ing. As part of a feasibility study to look at alternatives for providing all-weather access to the Refuge, a hydraulic analysis of Trempealeau River flows was conducted. These data are available in Refuge files.
Geology and Soils
The Upper Mississippi River Valley was substan­tially influenced by the Pleistocene geologic age. During this period, heavy water flows caused sub­stantial erosion and cut the present deep valley. As
The main access road into Trempealeau NWR floods annually. USFWSChapter 3: Affected Environment
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
27
flows lessened, sediments composed of sand and gravel were deposited forming the basis for present Refuge soils.
Soils within the Refuge range from alluvial types in the wetlands to finely eroded sands on the steeper uplands. Varying levels of silt overlie sand and gravel sediments in the wetland bottoms. However, isolation of Refuge marshes from adjacent river floodwaters by the barrier dikes has reduced the degree of siltation compared to adjacent Mississippi backwater areas.
The 700-acre central upland portion is an area of rolling sand dunes formed from wind-blown mate­rial deposited in the valley during a former dry period.
Soils, to a great extent, influence the growth and type of vegetation which occur on a particular area. Soil also determines the suitability of a site for a particular use. Accordingly, soil characteristics as described in soil surveys from Buffalo and Trempea­leau Counties (USDA 1962, 1977) were mapped and used in conjunction with other data to determine the suitability of various locations for Refuge manage­ment and development.
Environmental Contaminants
In February 1991, sediment samples were col­lected from several locations in the main Refuge pool. These were borings taken from 0 to 19 feet for bulk chemical testing to determine suitability of sand for dike construction. Samples were analyzed for heavy metals, organochlorine pesticides and PCBs and were found to be relatively clean. Com­plete results of the analysis are listed in Appendix A of the January 1994 Corps of Engineers Definite Project Report for the Trempealeau NWR HREP (USACE 1994).
As mentioned earlier, Trempealeau NWR is bor­dered and bisected by active railroad grades. The BNSFRR in particular is a busy track with trains passing at 20 to 30 minute intervals during working hours. Railroads transport a variety of chemicals, fertilizers, and other materials, some of which would be harmful to fish and wildlife if a derailment occurred adjacent to the Refuge and contaminants entered the wetlands.
Water Quality
Outbreaks of blue-green algae have been noted in Refuge pools during summer months, turning the water a pea-green color. Studies during July 2002 by USGS researchers from the Upper Mississippi Environmental Sciences Center (UMESC) in La Crosse found that nitrogen concentrations in the Refuge pool were low relative to phosphorus. Low nitrogen levels can limit phytoplankton growth. Phytoplantkon such as blue-green algae that can fix atmospheric nitrogen, however, will have a competi­tive advantage over non-fixing species – hence the huge bloom noted.
Refuge pools are shallow and fertile and receive no inflow from adjacent rivers during the winter months. As a result, dissolved oxygen levels become quite low during most winters particularly when snowfall is above normal.
Vegetation and Habitat Resources
Habitats and Vegetation Types
Vegetative cover type, density, and height are all important factors used in planning and managing the Refuge. The 1994 GIS habitat coverage maps from USGS and ground fieldwork were used to code all the vegetative types on the Refuge. Figure 7illustrates these vegetative types.
Using this system, the Refuge’s vegetation types can be grouped into the following categories: 2,574 acres of marsh and aquatic vegetation; 1,446 acres of open water; 572 acres of wetland, shrub, and wet meadow; 227 acres of upland forest; 969 acres of bottomland forest; 408 acres of grassland; and 30 acres of developed land. The total Refuge area is 6,226 acres.
Marsh and aquatic vegetation occupies about 41 percent of the Refuge. The primary emergent species are cattail, burreed, sedges, bulrush, arrow­head, and phragmites. Wild rice, a particularly important fall food plant for migratory birds, is abundant, particularly in the western half of the Refuge. During some years this plant may occupy several hundred acres of the Refuge. Floating-leaf and submergent aquatics including American lotus, pickerelweed, water lily, pondweeds, waterweed, coontail, and water milfoil are present in varying levels of abundance. First noted in the mid-1980s, the invasive purple loosestrife has spread through­out the Refuge and now occurs in some stands that are several acres in size. Other invasive aquatic plants present include Eurasian milfoil and curly-leafed pondweed.Chapter 3: Affected Environment
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
28
Figure 7: Landcover/Land Use Map, 1994, Trempealeau NWRChapter 3: Affected Environment
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
29
Wetland shrub and wet meadow types comprise about 9 percent of the Refuge. Principal species within the wetland shrub type are willow, red-osier dogwood, and buttonbush. The wet meadow type includes various sedges and the invasive reed canary grass. There are indications that willow may be spreading and occupying areas formerly occu­pied by emergent and wet meadow species.
Upland forest covers about 4 percent and is dom­inated by red and black oaks, black locust, green ash, and black cherry with a few scattered pine plantations. Nearly 190 acres of this upland forest are dominated by non-native tree species in their overstory. The red and white pine found on the Ref­uge are not indigenous to this particular area of Wisconsin. Scotch pine and red cedar are not native to this area. All of these species were planted decades ago in an attempt to provide additional hab­itat niches. However, these plantings fragment prai­rie habitats that are becoming extremely rare in the region due to development and agriculture.
Recently, nearly all upland forests have been invaded by European buckthorn which in many areas forms a dense, monotypic understory shading out native hardwood tree and shrub seedlings and wildflowers. An extensive effort to remove buck­thorn, honeysuckle, Siberian pea and exotic elms was made in fall 2003 and winter 2003/2004 (see adjacent photographs). This was done in conjunction with an environmental education effort using over 500 students and a few staff to clear most of the understory invasives and all of the mature exotics in the overstory within a 4.5-acre area. This level of effort likely could not be maintained at the current level of staffing.
The bottomland hardwood forest covers about 16 percent of the Refuge and is dominated by silver maple, river birch, swamp white oak, cottonwood, willow, and ash.
Prior to impoundment, much of the old river channels on the western portion of the Refuge were bordered with bottomland hardwoods. Some areas were cleared for farming and then later maintained by the Refuge as grasslands in order to create edge habitat. Now that the importance of bottomland hardwoods (and other habitats) in unfragmented condition is known, and the difficulty of maintaining these fields using fire is realized, the Refuge has recently begun to restore these areas to bottomland hardwoods. Some restoration has already occurred with planting of seedlings and direct seeding of vari­ous trees including swamp white oak, hackberry, and green ash. This restoration may make these areas more attractive to such species as the Red-shouldered Hawk and Cerulean Warbler.
Grassland areas make up about 7 percent of the Refuge. Past management efforts have encouraged re-establishment of native grasses such as big and little bluestem, switchgrass, Indian grass, side-oats grama, Junegrass, and green needlegrass. In the last two decades, the importance of prairie wildflow­ers has been recognized including species such as purple prairie clover, lupine, prairie larkspur, goat­srue, spiderwort, leadplant, and yellow puccoon. Non-native, cool season grasses such as quackgrass, smooth bromegrass and bluegrass occur throughout the grasslands. Leafy spurge began invading grass­lands on Trempealeau NWR in the mid 1980s and is now present throughout upland prairie habitats. This plant thrives from its persistent underground
Oak stand with a dense understory of European buckthorn and honeysuckle. USFWS
The same area after removal of invasive woody shrubs. USFWSChapter 3: Affected Environment
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
30
root system, defying mowing and burning. Releases of flea beetles that attack and feed on leafy spurge plants began in the early 1990s and show promise for future control.
Prescribed burning has been an important part of prairie management on Trempealeau NWR. About 335 acres within 17 grassland units are burned on a rotational system during the spring months under prescriptions described in a Fire Management Plan (USFWS, 2008).
Black locust, a native of the southeastern U.S. was brought to the Refuge in the late 1930s and 1940s to control erosion and provide wildlife cover. The species did well in sandy soil areas and became very invasive due to its aggressive, spreading root system. The Refuge has been “battling” black locust using mechanical and chemical means for many years with varying levels of success. At present, black locust stands of varying age occupy about 30 percent of the upland area of the Refuge.
Developed land accounts for less than 1 percent of the Refuge area and includes the headquarters area, maintenance and storage facilities, roads, parking areas, and water control structures.
Fisheries Habitats and Resources
General
Based on limited population sampling conducted in 1979, 1981, 1984, and 1994, the fishery resource of the Refuge can best be described as mixed, but dominated by non-game fish. Carp, buffalo, and bullheads are the most abundant species and may comprise as much as 85 percent of the standing crop by weight. These species are the most resistant to the partial and often severe winter-kills that occur regularly. Northern pike and yellow perch are the most abundant game species found in Refuge pools. Using a diversity of sampling techniques in 1994, a total of 23 species of fish were recorded (Appendix C).
Commercial Fishing
Commercial harvest of carp and buffalo on the Refuge has occurred sporadically over the past 25 years. During the period from 1982 to 1986, more than 700,000 pounds of fish were taken. Attempts to utilize commercial harvest to control rough fish pop­ulations to improve aquatic plant growth and sur­vival have met with limited success. Unstable pricing and market conditions have often reduced incentives for harvest at times when rough fish pop­ulations are high and resource impacts most severe. However, with completion of the interior dikes and pump stations in 1999, commercial salvage for carp in Pool A prior to a drawdown year can significantly reduce the population. This improves conditions for growth of both emergent and submersed aquatic vegetation by reducing the amount of carp foraging in the sediment. It also allows a quicker drawdown to occur because fewer fish are present to reduce the flow of water to the pumping station by blocking the intake culvert. Pumps can then run continuously.
Forage Fish
Little is known about this component of the fish population in Refuge pools. However, its importance to many fish-eating birds that frequent the Refuge is substantial. White Pelicans and Double-crested Cormorants, for example, arrive in April and are present until late October in numbers often exceed­ing 500 birds of each species. Hundreds of Ring-billed Gulls and Bald Eagles roost and feed on the Refuge during both spring and fall migrations. Great Blue Herons and Great Egrets from a rook­ery 1 mile west of the Refuge number more than 500 nesting pairs and use the Refuge as a major feeding area during breeding season. In short, Trempealeau NWR pools provide an enormous food source for many hundreds of fish-eating birds for 8 to 9 months of the year. This food base is comprised of young-of-the-year carp and buffalo, gizzard shad, and an undetermined number of other species.
Refuge staff planting Swamp white oak trees on a former cropfield. October 2003. USFWSChapter 3: Affected Environment
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
31
Sport Fish
Trempealeau NWR supports a meager sport fish­ery with bullheads comprising the majority of the catch by bank fishermen. Limited numbers of northern pike are taken with a few large fish (over 10 pounds) usually reported each year. Other game fish including bass, bluegill, crappie and yellow perch are present. Their numbers tend to fluctuate depending on severity of the most recent win­terkills.
Threatened and Endangered Fish
No federally listed species are known to occur within the Refuge. However, state listed species including the American eel (special concern) and the river and greater redhorse, both threatened, are known to occur in the Trempealeau River. There are also records of the pirate perch collected on the former Delta FFF in 1947 although the species has not been encountered recently.
Invasive and Exotic Fish and Molluscs
Several non-native species have been introduced into Wisconsin waters either accidentally or, in some cases, on purpose. Some have become “invasive” in that they overwhelm native species and take over a body of water. Aquatic invasive species threaten the diversity and productivity of the Mississippi River System and Trempealeau NWR.
Common carp have been present in the Refuge pool system for many years. Their numbers have somewhat stabilized and tend to fluctuate depend­ing on the severity of winterkills. Two other species of carp are cause for serious concern, however. Big­head carp and silver carp were first brought to the U.S. in the 1970s by Arkansas fish farmers to con­sume algae in fish production ponds. They escaped and began to appear in the southern Mississippi River in the 1980s and now occur in large numbers below Lock and Dam 19 in Iowa. A bighead was caught in Pool 4 (Lake Pepin) about 25 miles upstream from Trempealeau NWR in the fall of 2003. Both species are large-bodied filter feeders that compete directly with native mussels and other fish for food. There is great concern about their potential effect on fish communities if they become established in Wisconsin waters. Both bighead and silver carp are known to jump out of the water in response to boat motors. Continued maintenance and operation of the electric barrier in the Lower Diversion Dike water control structure is essential to ensure that exotic fishes like the silver and big­head carp do not enter Trempealeau NWR from the Trempealeau River when the gates are open and water is being discharged.
Zebra mussels, native to Eastern Europe and Western Asia, are now found in the entire Wisconsin portion of the Mississippi River. These hardy and prolific mollusks, which can clog water-intakes and decimate native mussel populations, as yet have not been found in Trempealeau NWR pools.
Wildlife
Trempealeau NWR habitats provide potential resting and feeding areas for migratory and resi­dent wildlife. Wooded river bluffs are used by song­birds while many species of raptors take advantage of updrafts created by the valley slopes for their migrations. The diverse mix of wetland, forest, and prairie habitats within and adjacent to Trempealeau NWR support a great variety of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians as described in the follow­ing sections.
Refuge wildlife monitoring is an important prior­ity with results used to support adaptive manage­ment techniques that can be used to benefit a variety of wildlife species. Various techniques are used as specified in the stations current Wildlife Inventory Plan (USFWS 1987).
Waterfowl
Waterfowl usually begin arriving in mid-March as ice break-up occurs in Refuge pools. Migrants, which include Goldeneyes and Common and Hooded Mergansers, show up earlier on adjacent Missis­sippi River backwaters where river currents and water level fluctuations cause ice-out to occur before Trempealeau NWR. Essentially all diving and dab­Red
fox. USFWSChapter 3: Affected Environment
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
32
bling ducks common to the Mississippi Flyway can be seen at Trempealeau NWR during the spring migration. Canada Geese are a common spring migrant – Snow Geese are rarely seen. Tundra Swans move through by the thousands in mid to late March on their way to sub-arctic nesting grounds. Flocks numbering into the hundreds can be seen on the Refuge for brief periods in the spring. Blue-winged Teal are usually the last waterfowl species to arrive.
Canada Geese, Mallards, Blue-winged Teal, and Wood Ducks are the principal nesting waterfowl. All four are listed as Resource Conservation Priority (RCP) species based on their recreational and eco­nomic value (Appendix C). Families of Canada Geese are conspicuous during summer months when flightless molting adults and their young congregate in Refuge marshes. An annual roundup in July co-ordinated by Wisconsin DNR usually results in over 100 goslings and flightless adults being banded on the Refuge. Wood Ducks are the most abundant nesting duck on Trempealeau NWR and adjacent Mississippi River backwaters using cavities in bot­tomland hardwood forest stands for nesting.
Fall migration begins in late August coinciding with the ripening of wild rice in stands on the upper pools. During bumper years, this plant may occupy hundreds of acres in the western half of Trempea­leau NWR providing a tremendous food source uti­lized by Wood Ducks, Mallards, Sora and Virginia Rails, Coots, and thousands of Black Birds. Flocks of Blue-winged Teal are apparent at this time pre­paring for their early fall departure.
Trempealeau NWR is important as a fall water­fowl feeding and resting area for the complex of wetlands occurring in the general area. Neither adjacent Pool 6 within the Upper Mississippi River NW&FR nor state-managed wetlands in Trempea­leau Bay include any areas closed to waterfowl hunt­ing. By maintaining only limited waterfowl hunting for disabled persons and restricting human entry and modes of access during fall migration, adequate sanctuary has been provided on Trempealeau NWR to protect and hold large numbers of waterfowl. This has improved waterfowl hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities on surrounding areas over the years.
Diving ducks including Ring-necked Ducks and Canvasback ducks are attracted to Trempealeau NWR pools during the fall migration. More than two-thirds of the mid-continent population of Can­vasbacks are believed to pass through the “Upper Miss” and Trempealeau NWR during fall migration.
In recent years it has been estimated that more than 30,000 Tundra Swans move through the Upper Mississippi River Valley during fall migration, stag­ing on closed areas within the Upper Mississippi River NW&FR and on Trempealeau NWR. These birds begin to arrive in late October and may stay for a month or more. Peak numbers in excess of 1,000 on the Refuge have been recorded. Thousands of visitors enjoy watching these spectacular birds as they brighten our lives for a few brief weeks in the fall (and spring).
Canada Geese and Mallards are usually the last waterfowl to depart. During years when snow comes late and birds can feed in harvested crop fields nearby, hundreds of geese and thousands of Mal­lards can be seen roosting on pool ice well into December.
Waterbirds
Pelicans and Cormorants
White Pelicans began appearing on Trempealeau NWR and vicinity in the mid-1980s. Since then num­bers have increased with peaks of up to 1,000 birds recorded. Flocks are assumed to consist of non-breeding adults and sub-adults since nesting occurred for the first time in 2007 on the Mississippi River navigation Pool 9. These birds find ample for­age fish for their diet as flocks of pelicans can usu­ally be seen on the Refuge from ice-out to freeze-up.
Formerly listed as endangered in Wisconsin, Double-crested Cormorant numbers have rebounded dramatically in the Upper Midwest. Until 1985, a small nesting population was main­tained on man-made structures located west of
Refuge and Wisconsin DNR staff and volunteers round up flightless geese for banding on the Refuge. July 2002. USFWSChapter 3: Affected Environment
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
33
Delta Point. This effort was discontinued as Cormo­rant numbers increased and it became obvious that major recruitment was occurring elsewhere. The large flocks that now stage on the Refuge and adja­cent Mississippi River backwaters in late summer and fall are causing consternation among anglers regarding their potential impacts on gamefish num­bers. As with pelicans, main food sources within Trempealeau NWR are likely young carp, buffalo, and gizzard shad.
Herons, Bitterns and Egrets
Serious declines in numbers of nesting Great Blue Herons and Great Egrets have occurred on the adjacent Upper Mississippi River in recent years. For example, of four known rookeries active in 1987 on Pools 4, 5, and 6 of the Winona District, only the Mertes Slough rookery in Pool 6 remains viable. This colony located only 1 mile upstream of Trem­pealeau NWR contained an estimated 600 Great Blue Heron and 100 Great Egret nests in the year 2000. Vegetation losses and general decline in forag­ing habitat are believed to be at least partly respon­sible for the demise of these rookeries.
Studies demonstrate that many nesting Great Blue Herons and Great Egrets that were followed by aircraft traveled from the Mertes Slough rook­ery to Trempealeau NWR for feeding (Custer, 1999). It is likely that Trempealeau NWR marshes play a critical role in the survival of this rookery. Other heron species found on the Refuge include the Green Heron, Black-crowned Night Heron, and Least Bittern. Sightings/records of the American Bittern on or near the Refuge are extremely rare.
Cranes and Rails
Sandhill Crane numbers have increased in recent years with six to 10 nesting pairs on the Refuge. Flocks of up to 30 birds on and near the Refuge are common.
Sora and Virginia Rails become apparent when wild rice begins to mature. Many birds can be heard calling from stands of wild rice and other emergent vegetation in the western two-thirds of the Refuge from late August into early October. Both species nest on Trempealeau NWR.
Gulls and Terns
Flocks of Ring-billed Gulls winging their way up through the Mississippi River Valley are a sure sign that spring and flocks of waterfowl are not far behind. These birds move through by the thousands, but do not nest.
Trempealeau NWR provides one of the largest nesting populations of Black Terns on the Upper Mississippi River. These birds build their nests on floating vegetation. Nesting pairs peaked in the mid- to late-90s between 60 and 100 pairs. The popu­lation bottomed out at 15 pairs during the high water year of 2001. Since then numbers recovered and stabilized at about 30 nesting pairs. Clearly, more stable water levels within Trempealeau NWR provide more secure nesting conditions for Black Terns than adjacent Mississippi River backwaters where water level fluctuations are more severe. Black Terns are a Regional Resource Conservation Priority Species and are listed as a species of Spe­cial Concern in Wisconsin. (Appendix C).
Shorebirds
Shorebird habitat is generally scarce on Trem­pealeau NWR except during years when draw­downs are conducted on Pool A, exposing mudflats for shorebird foraging. Shorebirds took advantage of the Pool A drawdown in 2000 which coincided with their northward migration in the spring. Twenty-three species of shorebirds used the Refuge during this time. Greater and Lesser Yellowlegs were the first to arrive in mid to late April. Dunlins came in the hundreds from early to late May peaking at about a thousand. Unusual species included a Red Knot, Hudsonian and Marbled Godwits, American Avocets, and Ruddy Turnstones. Though the fall migration was less spectacular, a few hundred shorebirds made use of low water levels in the pool.
The American Woodcock is a common migrant and a nesting species on Trempealeau NWR.
Raptors
Bald Eagle (see Section on page 35) and Osprey, which is listed as threatened in Wisconsin, nest on the Refuge. A pair of Ospreys have nested most
American White Pelicans. © Sandra LinesChapter 3: Affected Environment
Trempealeau NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
34
years on a platform on top of a transmission line support structure along the Canadian National Rail­road dike. This nest was first discovered in 1975 and at that time was the only known nest in the area. Since then at least three other nests have appeared within 5 miles west of the Refuge. A pole and nest­ing platform placed near Kiep’s Island has received limited use by Ospreys. Nesting occurred in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2007 but only two young were fledged in 2000 and 2007.
There are previous nesting records for the Red-shouldered Hawk on Trempealeau NWR but sight­ings of this species have been few in recent years. Red-shouldered Hawks seem to prefer large tracts of mature bottomland forest within the Mississippi River floodplain for nesting. This kind of habitat is present but limited on Trempealeau NWR.
The Peregrine Falcon, a state-listed endangered species in Wisconsin, has nested on bluff outcrops within 2 miles of the Refuge and on man-made structures in towns and cities nearby. The species is observed occasionally at Trempealeau NWR and has been seen taking waterfowl.
Upland Game Birds
Wild Turkeys were reintroduced into southwest­ern Wisconsin in the mid-1980s. Since then Wild Turkey sightings have become more frequent and at present a population of 20-25 birds on the Refuge is estimated. Although few in number, the birds are often conspicuous providing visitors with many wild­life observation opportunities. Spring and fall tur­key hunting seasons are offered in Wisconsin but the Refuge is closed to Wild Turkey hunting.
Ruffed Grouse are an uncommon resident of for­est edges and shrub habitats on Trempealeau NWR.
Passerines (Songbirds)
The most recent bird list for Trempealeau NWR includes 266 recorded species of which 143 are pas­serines. This great diversity of species is a response to the variety of habitats on and near the Refuge. Riverine wetlands with a mix of emergent marshes, shrub swamps and bottomland forest combined with upland forest and “goat prairies” on the valley slopes attract many species during spring and fall migrations. The period from late April to mid-May in particular is a high point for visitors who come to Trempealeau NWR to watch the spring warbler migration. During the summer few warblers nest here, but many other passerines do. The woodlands support a number of woodpecker species, Vireos, Black-capped Chickadees, White-breasted Nuthatches, House Wrens and other songbirds nesting there. The prairie is home to Eastern Mead­owlarks, Grasshopper Sparrows, Dickcissels, Field Sparrows, and Orchard Orioles. In the wetlands there are Sedge Wrens, Red-winged Blackbirds, and Yellow-headed Blackbirds. Yellow-headed Blackbirds were observed frequently prior to the 1990s before the cattail beds were destroyed in Pool B. Very few were found on the Refuge until spring 2003 when they began nesting in cattails that became established after the Pool A drawdown in 2000.
A series of point count surveys were made on Trempealeau NWR from spring to fall in various habitats. A total of 76 species were recorded, of which 60 were passerines (Appendix C).
Mammals
A resident white-tail deer herd estimated at between 50 and 75 animals occurs on the Refuge and provides both wildlife viewing and hunting opportu­nity for the public. Since the early 1980s managed hunts including some "antlerless only" seasons have reduced the herd to a level which is currently at or below carrying capacity of Refuge habitats. Many people would like to see more deer on the Refuge, but higher deer numbers could cause negative impacts on hardwood forest reproduction through over-browsing.
Beaver and muskrats are the most conspicuous of the furbearers. Beaver lodges with food piles and cuttings, and the presence of the animals them­selves, provide enjoyment for many visitors. When colonies are situated near roads, culverts, and dikes, however, they can cause serious problems. Selected harvest of problem beaver by permittee trapping has been conducted in the past and is recommended where necessary. Harvest of muskrats through per­mittee trapping is allowed with an annual harvest of 1,000 to 1,500 animals. Trapping of muskrats reduces the number of these animals, which burrow into dikes and cause st