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

              Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
i
Abstract
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge
Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Type of Action: Administrative
Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Responsible Official: Robyn Thorson, Regional Director, Twin Cities
For Further Information:
Victoria Hirschboeck
Refuge Manager
Trempealeau NWR
W28488 Refuge Road
Trempealeau, WI, 54661
(608) 539-2311
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to adopt and implement a Com­prehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge was established by Executive Order in 1936 to provide a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife. The Refuge encompasses 6,226 acres in western Wisconsin. The CCP will guide the management and admin­istration of the Refuge for 15 years and help ensure that it meets the purposes for which established, and contributes to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Three alternatives for future management are described: A) no action or current direction, B) wildlife and habitat focus, and C) integrated public use, habi­tat, and wildlife focus. The preferred alternative is Alternative C. This Environ­mental Impact Statement considers the physical, biological, and socioeconomic effects that the three alternatives would have in terms of the issues and concerns identified during the planning process.Trempealeau
National Wildlife Refuge
Final Environmental Impact Statement and
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
iii
Reader’s Guide ..............................................................................................................................................xv
Summary ......................................................................................................................................................xvii
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues .........................................................................1
1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose and Need for Action .......................................................................................................................1
1.2.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................1
1.2.2 Need ....................................................................................................................................................3
1.3 Decision Framework ...................................................................................................................................5
1.4 Planning Background ..................................................................................................................................5
1.4.1 Legal and Policy Framework ................................................................................................................5
1.4.2 The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service .......................................................................................................5
1.4.3 The National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................6
1.4.4 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and Related Policies ............................6
1.4.4.1 Compatibility Policy .................................................................................................................7
1.4.4.2 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy .............................................7
1.4.4.3 Public Use Natural Area Policy .................................................................................................7
1.4.5 Refuge History and Purposes ..............................................................................................................7
1.4.6 Relationships to Other Agencies, Partners and Other Initiative Planning ..........................................8
1.4.6.1 Partnerships ..............................................................................................................................8
1.4.6.2 Other Conservation and Planning Initiatives ..........................................................................10
1.4.6.2.1 Federal Government ................................................................................................10
1.4.6.2.2 State of Wisconsin .................................................................................................12
1.4.6.2.3 Town of Trempealeau Land Use Plan .....................................................................13
1.4.6.2.4 Buffalo County .........................................................................................................13
1.4.6.2.5 Aghaming Park-City of Winona, Minnesota ...........................................................15
1.4.7 Refuge Vision and Goals ...................................................................................................................15
1.4.7.1 Refuge Vision ..........................................................................................................................15
1.4.7.2 Refuge Goals ..........................................................................................................................15
1.4.8 Planning Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................................16
1.4.8.1 Goal 1: Landscape ..................................................................................................................16
1.4.8.1.1 Land Acquisition ......................................................................................................16
1.4.8.1.2 Refuge Boundary ......................................................................................................16
1.4.8.1.3 Flood Protection .......................................................................................................16Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
iv
1.4.8.1.4 Natural Areas and Special Designations ................................................................16
1.4.8.1.5 Archeological Resources .........................................................................................17
1.4.8.2 Goal 2: Wildlife and Habitat Issues .......................................................................................17
1.4.8.2.1 Forest Management .................................................................................................17
1.4.8.2.2 Forest Bird Management .........................................................................................18
1.4.8.2.3 Wetland Management .............................................................................................18
1.4.8.2.4 Water Quality ...........................................................................................................18
1.4.8.2.5 Water Level Management .......................................................................................18
1.4.8.2.6 Waterbird Management ..........................................................................................20
1.4.8.2.7 Furbearer Management ...........................................................................................20
1.4.8.2.8 Emergency Response to Spills .................................................................................20
1.4.8.2.9 Grassland Management ..........................................................................................20
1.4.8.2.10 Invasive Plants and Animals ..................................................................................21
1.4.8.2.11 Monitoring Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Populations ..................................................21
1.4.8.2.12 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................21
1.4.8.2.13 Deer Herd Management ........................................................................................21
1.4.8.2.14 Deer Hunting ..........................................................................................................22
1.4.8.2.15 Wildlife Disease Management ..............................................................................22
1.4.8.3 Goal 3: Public Use Issues .......................................................................................................22
1.4.8.3.1 Wildlife Observation and Photography ....................................................................22
1.4.8.3.2 Interpretation ...........................................................................................................23
1.4.8.3.3 Environmental Education .........................................................................................23
1.4.8.3.4 Hunting .....................................................................................................................23
1.4.8.3.5 Fishing ......................................................................................................................24
1.4.8.3.6 Harvesting Fruit, Nuts, and Other Plant Parts .........................................................24
1.4.8.3.7 Horseback Riding .....................................................................................................24
1.4.8.3.8 Domestic Pets ..........................................................................................................25
1.4.8.3.9 Non-Refuge Sponsored Events ................................................................................25
1.4.8.3.10 Non-Refuge Sponsored Research ..........................................................................25
1.4.8.3.11 General Public Use Regulations ............................................................................25
1.4.8.4 Goal 4: Neighboring Landowner and Community Issues .......................................................25
1.4.8.4.1 Community Outreach ...............................................................................................25
1.4.8.4.2 Friends Groups .........................................................................................................25
1.4.8.4.3 Volunteers ................................................................................................................25
1.4.8.4.4 Partnerships .............................................................................................................25
1.4.8.4.5 Private Property Rights ............................................................................................26
1.4.8.4.6 Easement and Right-of-Way Management .............................................................26
1.4.8.5 Goal 5: Administration and Operations Issues .......................................................................26
1.4.8.5.1 Entrance Road Flooding ...........................................................................................26
1.4.8.5.2 Facilities ...................................................................................................................26
1.4.8.5.3 Staffing ....................................................................................................................26
1.4.8.5.4 Operations and Maintenance Need ........................................................................26
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action .......................................................................27
2.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................27
2.2 Development of Alternatives .....................................................................................................................27
2.3 Alternative Components Not Considered for Detailed Analysis ...............................................................28
2.4 Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis ..................................................................................29Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
v
2.4.1 Elements Common to All Alternatives ...............................................................................................29
2.4.2 Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction) ......................................................................................32
2.4.3 Alternative B: Wildlife and Habitat Focus ..........................................................................................45
2.4.4 Alternative C: Integrated Public Use and Wildlife and Habitat Focus (Preferred Alternative) .........62
Chapter 3: Affected Environment ...............................................................................................................93
3.1 Ecosystem Setting .....................................................................................................................................93
3.1.1 The Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem .................................................................93
3.2 Physical Environment ................................................................................................................................93
3.2.1 Climate ...............................................................................................................................................93
3.2.2 Hydrology ...........................................................................................................................................94
3.2.3 Geology and Soils ...............................................................................................................................98
3.2.4 Environmental Contaminants .............................................................................................................99
3.2.5 Water Quality ....................................................................................................................................99
3.3 Vegetation and Habitat Resources ............................................................................................................99
3.3.1 Habitats and Vegetation Types ..........................................................................................................99
3.4 Fisheries Habitats and Resources ............................................................................................................102
3.4.1 General ............................................................................................................................................102
3.4.2 Commercial Fishing ..........................................................................................................................102
3.4.3 Forage Fish .......................................................................................................................................102
3.4.4 Sport Fish .........................................................................................................................................103
3.4.5 Threatened and Endangered Fish .....................................................................................................103
3.4.6 Invasive and Exotic Fish and Molluscs .............................................................................................103
3.5 Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................................103
3.5.1 Waterfowl ........................................................................................................................................104
3.5.2 Waterbirds .......................................................................................................................................104
3.5.2.1 Pelicans and Cormorants .....................................................................................................104
3.5.2.2 Herons, Bitterns and Egrets ..................................................................................................105
3.5.2.3 Cranes and Rails ...................................................................................................................105
3.5.2.4 Gulls and Terns .....................................................................................................................105
3.5.3 Shorebirds ........................................................................................................................................105
3.5.4 Raptors .............................................................................................................................................106
3.5.5 Upland Game Birds ...........................................................................................................................106
3.5.6 Passerines (Songbirds) .....................................................................................................................106
3.5.7 Mammals .........................................................................................................................................106
3.5.8 Reptiles and Amphibians .................................................................................................................107
3.5.9 Invertebrates ...................................................................................................................................107
3.5.10 Invasive and Exotic Wildlife Species ............................................................................................107
3.5.11 Federally Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species ..............................................................108
3.5.12 State Listed Species ......................................................................................................................108
3.6 Special Uses ............................................................................................................................................108Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
vi
3.6.1 Scientific Research ..........................................................................................................................108
3.6.2 Utilities ...........................................................................................................................................109
3.7 Public Access, Education and Recreational Opportunities .....................................................................109
3.7.1 Public Access ..................................................................................................................................109
3.7.2 Recreation .......................................................................................................................................109
3.7.2.1 Wildlife Dependent Recreation ...........................................................................................109
3.7.2.2 Non-Wildlife Dependent Recreation ...................................................................................112
3.7.3 Environmental Education .................................................................................................................112
3.7.4 Resource Protection .........................................................................................................................113
3.8 Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation ..........................................................................................113
3.8.1 Native American Cultural History and Landscape ..........................................................................113
3.8.1.1 Prehistoric .............................................................................................................................113
3.8.1.2 Historic Native American Groups .........................................................................................114
3.8.2 Archaeological Resources ................................................................................................................114
3.8.3 Euro-American Cultural History .......................................................................................................114
3.9 Existing Facilities and Infrastructure .......................................................................................................115
3.10 Socioeconomics ....................................................................................................................................117
3.10.1 Socioeconomic Setting ..................................................................................................................117
3.10.1.1 Population and Demographics ............................................................................................118
3.10.1.1.1 Trempealeau County ............................................................................................118
3.10.1.1.2 Buffalo County .....................................................................................................118
3.10.1.2 Employment and Income ...................................................................................................119
3.10.1.2.1 Trempealeau County ............................................................................................119
3.10.1.2.2 Buffalo County .....................................................................................................119
3.10.1.3 Transportation Patterns ......................................................................................................119
3.10.2 Land Use .......................................................................................................................................119
3.10.2.1 General Land Use and Management .................................................................................119
3.10.2.1.1 Trempealeau County ............................................................................................120
3.10.2.1.2 Buffalo County .....................................................................................................120
3.10.2.2 Special Status Lands ..........................................................................................................120
3.10.2.2.1 Black Oak Island Natural Area .............................................................................120
3.10.2.2.2 Great River State Trail .........................................................................................121
3.10.3 Refuge Management Economics ...................................................................................................121
3.10.4 Area Recreation Sector ..................................................................................................................121
3.10.4.1 Trempealeau County ...........................................................................................................123
3.10.4.2 Buffalo County ...................................................................................................................123
3.10.5 Agricultural Sector .........................................................................................................................123
3.10.5.1 Trempealeau County ...........................................................................................................123
3.10.5.2 Buffalo County ....................................................................................................................123
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences ...............................................................................................124
4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................124
4.2 Effects Common to All Alternatives .........................................................................................................124Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
vii
4.2.1 Climate Change Impacts ...................................................................................................................124
4.2.1.1 Observed Climate Trends .....................................................................................................125
4.2.1.2 Scenarios of Future Climate .................................................................................................125
4.2.1.3 Key Issues in the Midwest ...................................................................................................126
4.2.1.3.1 Reduction in Lake and River Levels .......................................................................126
4.2.1.3.2 Agricultural Shifts ..................................................................................................126
4.2.1.3.3 Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems ...............................................127
4.2.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................127
4.2.3 Emergency Response to Contaminant Spills ....................................................................................127
4.2.4 Management of Wildlife Diseases ..................................................................................................127
4.2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ...............................................................................................128
4.2.6 Furbearer Trapping ...........................................................................................................................128
4.2.7 Adjacent Landowners .......................................................................................................................128
4.2.8 Land Use ..........................................................................................................................................129
4.2.9 Management of Easements and Right-of-Ways ..............................................................................129
4.2.10 Revenue Sharing .............................................................................................................................129
4.2.11 Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................................129
4.2.12 Cultural and Historical Preservation ...............................................................................................130
4.3 Effects of Alternatives on Physical Parameters/Concerns ......................................................................130
4.3.1 Ecosystem ........................................................................................................................................130
4.3.1.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................130
4.3.1.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................130
4.3.1.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat, and Public Use Focus ....................................130
4.3.2 Water Quality ..................................................................................................................................130
4.3.2.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................130
4.3.2.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................130
4.3.2.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat, and Public Use Focus ....................................130
4.3.3 Sedimentation .................................................................................................................................131
4.3.3.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................131
4.3.3.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................131
4.3.3.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat, and Public Use Focus ....................................131
4.3.4 Geomorphology ................................................................................................................................131
4.3.4.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................131
4.3.4.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................131
4.3.4.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat, and Public Use Focus ....................................131
4.3.5 Hydrology .........................................................................................................................................131
4.3.5.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................131
4.3.5.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................131
4.3.5.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat, and Public Use Focus ....................................131
4.3.6 Use of Prescribed Fire .......................................................................................................................132
4.3.6.1 Alternative A - No Action .....................................................................................................132
4.3.6.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................133Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
viii
4.3.6.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat, and Public Use Focus ....................................133
4.3.7 Flood Protection ...............................................................................................................................133
4.3.7.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................133
4.3.7.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................133
4.3.7.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus .....................................133
4.4 Effects of Alternatives on Biological Parameters/Concerns ....................................................................133
4.4.1 Threatened and Endangered Species ...............................................................................................133
4.4.1.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................133
4.4.1.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................133
4.4.1.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus .....................................134
4.4.2 Waterfowl ........................................................................................................................................134
4.4.2.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................134
4.4.2.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................134
4.4.2.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus .....................................134
4.4.3 Waterbirds .......................................................................................................................................134
4.4.3.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................134
4.4.3.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................134
4.4.3.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus .....................................134
4.4.4 Shorebirds ........................................................................................................................................134
4.4.4.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................134
4.4.4.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................135
4.4.4.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus .....................................135
4.4.5 Raptors/Owls ...................................................................................................................................135
4.4.5.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................135
4.4.5.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................135
4.4.5.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus .....................................135
4.4.6 Upland Game Birds ...........................................................................................................................135
4.4.6.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................135
4.4.6.2 Alternative B - Wildlife and Habitat Focus ..........................................................................135
4.4.6.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus .....................................135
4.4.7 Songbirds .........................................................................................................................................135
4.4.7.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................135
4.4.7.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................135
4.4.7.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus .....................................136
4.4.8 Fish ...................................................................................................................................................136
4.4.8.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................136
4.4.8.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................136
4.4.8.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus .....................................136
4.4.9 Freshwater Mussels .........................................................................................................................136
4.4.9.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................136
4.4.9.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................136
4.4.9.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus .....................................136Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
ix
4.4.10 Reptiles and Amphibians ................................................................................................................136
4.4.10.1 Alternative A – No Action ..................................................................................................136
4.4.10.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .......................................................................137
4.4.10.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ...................................137
4.4.11 Control of Invasive Species ............................................................................................................137
4.4.11.1 Alternative A – No Action ..................................................................................................137
4.4.11.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .......................................................................137
4.4.11.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ...................................137
4.4.12 Invertebrates ..................................................................................................................................137
4.4.12.1 Alternative A – No Action ..................................................................................................137
4.4.12.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .......................................................................137
4.4.12.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ...................................138
4.4.13 Mammals .......................................................................................................................................138
4.4.13.1 Alternative A – No Action ..................................................................................................138
4.4.13.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .......................................................................138
4.4.13.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ...................................138
4.4.14 Wetlands .......................................................................................................................................138
4.4.14.1 Alternative A – No Action ..................................................................................................138
4.4.14.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .......................................................................138
4.4.14.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ...................................138
4.4.15 Forests ...........................................................................................................................................138
4.4.15.1 Alternative A – No Action ..................................................................................................138
4.4.15.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .......................................................................138
4.4.15.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ...................................139
4.4.16 Grasslands .....................................................................................................................................139
4.4.16.1 Alternative A – No Action ..................................................................................................139
4.4.16.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .......................................................................139
4.4.16.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ..................................139
4.5 Effects of Alternatives on Socioeconomic Parameters/Concerns ...........................................................139
4.5.1 Hunting ............................................................................................................................................140
4.5.1.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................140
4.5.1.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus ........................................................................140
4.5.1.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus .....................................141
4.5.2 Fishing ..............................................................................................................................................141
4.5.2.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................141
4.5.2.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................141
4.5.2.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus .....................................141
4.5.3 Interpretation ...................................................................................................................................142
4.5.3.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................142
4.5.3.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................142
4.5.3.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus .....................................142
4.5.4 Environmental Education ..................................................................................................................142Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
x
4.5.4.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................142
4.5.4.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................142
4.5.4.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus .....................................142
4.5.5 Wildlife Observation and Photography ............................................................................................143
4.5.5.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................143
4.5.5.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................143
4.5.5.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus .....................................143
4.5.6 Other Uses .......................................................................................................................................144
4.5.6.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................144
4.5.6.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................144
4.5.6.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus .....................................144
4.5.7 Protection of Archeological Resources ............................................................................................144
4.5.7.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................144
4.5.7.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................144
4.5.7.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus .....................................144
4.5.8 Refuge Access .................................................................................................................................144
4.5.8.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................144
4.5.8.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................145
4.5.8.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus .....................................145
4.5.9 Community Outreach ........................................................................................................................145
4.5.9.1 Alternative A – No Action ....................................................................................................145
4.5.9.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .........................................................................145
4.5.9.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus .....................................145
4.5.10 Partnerships ...................................................................................................................................145
4.5.10.1 Alternative A – No Action ..................................................................................................145
4.5.10.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .......................................................................145
4.5.10.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ...................................145
4.5.11 Friends/Volunteers .........................................................................................................................145
4.5.11.1 Alternative A – No Action ..................................................................................................145
4.5.11.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .......................................................................145
4.5.11.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ...................................146
4.5.12 Regional Economics ........................................................................................................................146
4.5.12.1 Alternative A – No Action ..................................................................................................146
4.5.12.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .......................................................................146
4.5.12.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ...................................146
4.5.13 Refuge Administration and Operations ..........................................................................................146
4.5.13.1 Alternative A – No Action ..................................................................................................146
4.5.13.2 Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat Focus .......................................................................147
4.5.13.3 Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus ...................................147
4.6 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................................147
4.6.1 Cumulative Impacts – Physical Environment ...................................................................................147
4.6.2 Cumulative Impacts – Biological Impacts ........................................................................................147Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
xi
4.6.3 Cumulative Impacts – Socioeconomic Environment ........................................................................148
4.7 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ...........................................................................................149
4.8 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ..................................................................................................................150
Chapter 5: List of Preparers .......................................................................................................................161
5.1 List of Preparers ......................................................................................................................................161
Chapter 6: Compliance, Consultation, and Coordination with Others ..............................................164
6.1 Compliance ..............................................................................................................................................164
6.2 Consultation and Coordination with Others .............................................................................................164
6.2.1 Public Outreach ................................................................................................................................164
6.2.1.1 Public Meetings/Open Houses .............................................................................................164
6.2.1.2 Workshops ............................................................................................................................165
6.2.1.3 Congressional Outreach .......................................................................................................165
6.2.1.4 Planning Update Mailings ....................................................................................................165
6.2.1.5 Federal Register Notices ......................................................................................................166
6.2.2 Interest Groups and Other Agency Consultation/Coordination .......................................................166
6.3 Contacts ...................................................................................................................................................166
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS and Response .....................................................................168
7.1 Comments on the Planning Process .........................................................................................................168
7.2 Comments on Goal 1: Landscape .............................................................................................................169
7.3 Comments on Goal 2: Wildlife and Habitat .............................................................................................169
7.4 Comments on Goal 3: Public Use .............................................................................................................170
7.5 Comments on Goal 4: Neighboring Landowners and Communities ........................................................172
7.6 Comments on Goal 5: Administration and Operations ............................................................................173
7.7 Responses to Comments by the State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources .......................173
Chapter 8: List of References ....................................................................................................................196
Appendix A:Glossary ...............................................................................................................................199
Appendix B:Acronyms and Abbreviations ...........................................................................................207
Appendix C:Distribution List ..................................................................................................................211
Appendix D:Applicable Laws and Executive Orders .........................................................................215
Appendix E:Executive Order Establishing Trempealeau Migratory
Waterfowl Refuge Wisconsin ..........................................................................................221
Appendix F:Economic Analysis of Refuge Alternatives and Demographics ................................225
Appendix G:Species Lists .......................................................................................................................233
Appendix H:Plan Implementation ..........................................................................................................275
Appendix I:Compatibility Determinations ..........................................................................................289Trempealeau
National Wildlife Refuge
Final Environmental Impact Statement and
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
List of Tables
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
xii
Table 1:Management Strategies for Invasive and Non-indigenous Plant Species Under Alternative A .....38
Table 2:Management Strategies for Invasive and Non-indigenous Plant Species Under Alternative B .....55
Table 3:Management Strategies for Invasive and Non-indigenous Plant Species Under Alternative C .....72
Table 4:Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Trempealeau NWR ....................................................86
Table 5:Species With Special State Designation, Trempealeau NWR ......................................................108
Table 6:Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Hunting, Trempealeau NWR ..........140
Table 7:Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Fishing, Trempealeau NWR ............141
Table 8:Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Observation,
Trempealeau NWR .........................................................................................................................143
Table 9:Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Public Use, Trempealeau NWR ......149
Table 10:Summary of Environmental Consequences, Trempealeau NWR ...................................................151
Table 11:List of Preparers ..............................................................................................................................161Trempealeau
National Wildlife Refuge
Final Environmental Impact Statement and
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
List of Figures
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
xiii
Figure 1:Location of Trempealeau NWR in Wisconsin ....................................................................................2
Figure 2:Trempealeau NWR Boundary ............................................................................................................9
Figure 3: Great River State Trail, Winona Connector ....................................................................................14
Figure 4:Watershed of the Trempealeau and Buffalo Rivers ........................................................................19
Figure 5:Alternative A (Current Management), Habitat ................................................................................33
Figure 6:Alternative A (Current Management) Public Use ............................................................................34
Figure 7:Alternative B (Wildlife and Habitat Focus), Habitat ........................................................................46
Figure 8:Alternative B (Wildlife and Habitat Focus), Public Use ...................................................................47
Figure 9:Pre-European Settlement Vegetation, Trempealeau NWR .............................................................53
Figure 10: Alternative C (Integrated Public Use and Wildlife and Habitat Focus), Habitat ............................63
Figure 11:Alternative C (Integrated Public Use and Wildlife and Habitat Focus) Public Use .........................64
Figure 12:Alternative C (Integrated Public Use and Wildlife and Habitat Focus) Public Use Close Up ..........65
Figure 13:Trempealeau NWR and Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem ..............................94
Figure 14:Portion of Trempealeau NWR Above the 100-Year Flood Elevation (1965) ....................................95
Figure 15:Existing Water Management, Trempealeau NWR ..........................................................................96
Figure 16:Landcover/Land Use Map, 1994, Trempealeau NWR ...................................................................100
Figure 17: Current Public Use, Trempealeau NWR ........................................................................................110
Figure 18:Facilities and Structures, Trempealeau NWR ...............................................................................116
Figure 19:Adjacent Conservation Areas, Trempealeau NWR .......................................................................122Reader’s Guide
xv
Reader’s Guide
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will manage the Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in accordance with an approved Com­prehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). The CCP provides long range guidance on Refuge expan­sion and management through its vision, goals, objectives, and strategies. The CCP also pro­vides a basis for a long-term adaptive manage­ment process including implementation, monitoring progress, evaluating and adjusting, and revising plans accordingly. Additional step-down planning will be required prior to imple­mentation of certain programs and projects.
This document combines both a Final Environ­mental Impact Statement and Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Final EIS/CCP). Publishing of the document will be followed by a Record of Decision (ROD) that identifies the alternative selected as the CCP. We will then publish a stand-alone CCP made up of Chapter 1, the selected alternative from Chapter 2, all of Chap­ters 3, 5, 6, and 8, and selected appendices. The following chapter and appendix descriptions are provided to assist readers in locating and under­standing the various components of this com­bined document.
Chapter 1, Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues, includes the regional context, estab­lishment, and purposes of Trempealeau NWR; vision and goals for future management; and the purpose of and need for a comprehensive conservation plan. This chapter also provides background on major planning issues identified by Refuge staff; federal, state, and local agen­cies; and the general public.
Chapter 2, Alternatives, describes three man­agement alternatives. Each alternative repre­sents a potential comprehensive conservation plan for Trempealeau NWR. Alternative A describes current management on the Refuge. Alternative C, the Preferred Alternative, is the proposed Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Trempealeau NWR. Alternative A represents baseline conditions for the comparisons made in Chapter 4.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment, describes the existing physical and biological environ­ment, public uses, cultural resources, and socio­economic conditions.
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences,describes the potential impacts of each of the three alternatives on the resources, programs, and conditions outlined in Chapter 3. This is perhaps the most important part of the Envi­ronmental Impact Statement component of this document.
Chapter 5, List of Preparers, contains the names, positions, education, and years of expe­rience of persons involved in the preparation of this Final EIS/CCP.
Chapter 6, Compliance, Consultation, and Coordination with Others, provides details on public involvement and interagency coordina­tion, along with a list of agencies, groups, and citizens contacted during the planning process.
Chapter 7, Public Comments, describes written comments received on the Draft EIS/CCP and our responses.
Chapter 8, List of References, This chapter pro­vides bibliographic citations and references used in this document.
Appendix A, Glossary of Terms, contains defi­nitions of terms used in this document.
Appendix B, Acronyms and Abbreviations, contains the meanings of these short-hand nota­tions used in this document.
Appendix C, Distribution List, contains the list of federal, Tribal, state, and local agencies; non­government organizations; academic institu­tions; and individuals who received planning Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
xvi
updates, summaries, and other mailings associ­ated with this planning effort.
Appendix D, Applicable Laws and Executive Orders, contains brief descriptions of some of the more pertinent laws and executive orders applicable to management of Trempealeau NWR.
Appendix E, Executive Order 7437, this is the executive order which established the Trempea­leau NWR.
Appendix F, Economic Analysis of Refuge Alternatives and Demographics, contains tables generated in preparation of this docu­ment.
Appendix G, Species Lists, lists plants and ani­mals that have been observed on Trempealeau NWR.
Appendix H, Plan Implementation, summa­rizes the actions to be taken for the Preferred Alternative.
Appendix I, Compatibility Determinations (CDs), describe uses, anticipated impacts, stipu­lations, and a determination of compatibility for all existing and proposed public uses on Trem­pealeau NWR.Trempealeau
National Wildlife Refuge
Final Environmental Impact Statement and
Commprehensive Conservation Plan
Summary
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
xvii
Introduction
A Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) is being prepared to guide the administration and management of Trempealeau National Wildlife Ref­uge (Refuge) for the next 15 years. This document integrates the components of a CCP, namely goals, objectives, and strategies; with the requirements of an Environmental Impact Statement, namely alter­natives and consequences.
Comprehensive conservation plans are required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improve­ment Act of 1997 to ensure that refuges are man­aged in accordance with their purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, which is part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The CCP describes a desired future condition of the Refuge, and provides both long-term and day-to-day guidance for management actions and decisions. The CCP provides broad and specific policy on vari­ous issues, sets goals and measurable objectives, and outlines strategies for reaching the objectives.
Preparation of an Environmental Impact State­ment (EIS) as part of the CCP planning process establishes scientific data on which to base a selec­tion of a management direction and provides an opportunity for residents, communities, state agen­cies and governments, and non-government organi­zations to express their ideas on Refuge management. The EIS process assures that the direction set forth in the CCP best achieves the Ref­uge’s purposes, vision and goals; contributes to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management; and addresses relevant mandates and major issues developed during scoping.
The Refuge System is the largest collection of lands and waters in the world set aside for the con­servation of wildlife, with over 540 units covering more than 95 million acres in the U.S. and its terri­tories. Trempealeau NWR was established by Exec­utive Order in 1936 as “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” The 6,226 acre Refuge is a backwater of the Mississippi River and is strategically located within an 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 native prairie and oak savanna, habitat types that are scarce in Wis­consin.
An estimated 70,000 visitors enjoy birding, hik­ing, biking, hunting, fishing, or photography at the Refuge. Over 2,000 young people learn about their environment each year through educational pro­grams. A dedicated force of volunteers contributes to the quality of the visitor experience, as well as successful habitat management.
Staff offices are located at the Refuge near the City of Trempealeau, Wisconsin. The Refuge is a unit of the Upper Mississippi National Wildlife and Fish Refuge Complex with headquarters in Winona,
Aerial view of Trempealeau NWR pools adjacent to the Upper Mississippi River. Photo by Robert Hurt.Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
xviii
Minnesota. There are currently four full-time per­manent employees and a base annual budget of $400K.
Public Involvement and Decision Process
Scoping of issues began in September of 2002 with a public meeting in Centerville, Wisconsin to identify issues. Key issues identified at the meeting and by Refuge staff, were summarized in 12 “fact sheets” that provided the basis for discussion groups at an all-day workshop in March of 2003. Workshop participants were “managers for a day” making tough decisions about how to balance often conflicting Refuge uses. A website was maintained with up-to-date news about the process. Follow-up meetings with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and briefings with various commissions, associations, and Congressional offices occurred throughout the process.
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.
Following the publication of the Final EIS/CCP, the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser­vice, Twin Cities, Minnesota, will make a decision on which alternative in the Final EIS will become the Final CCP. This decision will be recorded in a formal Record of Decision included in the final documents. Substantive comments from the public, agencies, and other groups that were received on the Draft EIS/CCP are included in the Final EIS, along with a Service response.
Refuge Vision and Goals
The Refuge vision provides a simple statement of the desired, overall future condition of the Refuge. Refuge goals are “stepped down” from the vision and provide a framework for more detailed, measur­able objectives which are the heart of the CCP.
White sage, Trempealeau NWR
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
xix
Refuge Vision:
“Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge is enjoyed and appreciated by the people of America as a beautiful, scenic place where a diversity of native plants and animals thrive in healthy prairies, forests, and wetlands.”
Refuge Goals
Landscape
We will strive to maintain and improve the scenic and wild character, and environmental health of the Refuge.
Wildlife and Habitat
Our habitat management will support diverse and abundant native fish, wildlife, and plants.
Public Use
We will manage public use programs and facilities to ensure sustainable, quality hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 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.
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.
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.
Planning Issues, Concerns and Opportunities
Scoping and public involvement helped identify numerous issues facing the Refuge and formed the basis for crafting the EIS/CCP. These issues are summarized below by related Refuge goal.
Landscape Issues
Land Acquisition
Only 340 acres within the acquisition boundary approved in the 1983 Refuge Master Plan have not been acquired. An additional 12 acres outside the current approved boundary would be added under the Regional Director’s authority. Acquiring these lands would alleviate issues with the entrance road flooding, and allow the Refuge to restore and pro­tect bottomland forest and emergent mash.
Refuge Boundary
Brush cutting, dumping, mowing, illegal hunting and fishing, and vehicle trespass all occur along areas of the boundary, often intruding onto Refuge lands. A clearly marked and maintained boundary would be a deterrent to encroachment and other illegal activities and would help to maintain positive relations with neighboring landowners.
Flood Protection
The Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad (BNSFR) dike separates the Refuge from the main channel of the Mississippi River. During the near-record flood in 2001, floodwaters put severe pres­sure against the river side of the dike. At the request of BNSFR the Service allowed floodwater to enter the Refuge. Severe damage occurred to Refuge habitats and infrastructure and offered insufficient protection for the railroad dike. The Refuge has no official policy for dealing with water management during flood events, making it vulnera­ble to impacts from emergency actions. Winter ice over a Refuge pool. USFWSTrempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
xx
Natural Areas and Special Designations
In 1986, Black Oak Island was designated a Pub­lic Use Natural Area as an example of undisturbed, mature, eastern deciduous forest. A management plan is needed to ensure the future integrity of the area.
The Great River State Bike Trail passes through the Refuge with an estimated 20,000 cyclists riding through each year. Improved signing and interpre­tive materials, and alleviating the spring flooding of the entrance road are issues that need to be resolved to improve the bike trail.
Archeological Resources
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a respon­sibility for the protection of the many known and unknown cultural resources located on Refuge lands. Trempealeau NWR has been described as one of the most important archeological sites in the Mid­west. Human use dates back 12,000 years. The majority of the Refuge has not had baseline surveys and the locations and extent of archeological resources are unknown. Protection of sites is diffi­cult and the Refuge has a long history of illegal col­lecting. Habitat management is often delayed pending site surveys. The Refuge does not have an Archeological Resource Protection Plan or an inven­tory plan.
Wildlife and Habitat Issues
Forest Management
More than 85 percent of the forests are domi­nated by non-native trees and shrubs. Efforts to control invasive understory plants are limited by current staff and funding. Commercial harvest of pines and black locust, and firewood cutting are dif­ficult because of pending archeological surveys. The Forest Management Plan is outdated.
Wetland Management
Stable, deep water and poor water clarity have led to a general declining trend in productivity in impounded wetlands on the Refuge. Wind, waves, and rough fish create poor conditions for aquatic plant growth by suspending bottom sediments. Invasive aquatic plants are increasing. Smaller management units, rough fish removal, and water control are needed to improve wetland productivity. Some areas, particularly those fed by the Trempea­leau River are impacted by high sediment loads from upstream agricultural lands. Repairing these streams at the top of the watershed is critical to keeping sediments on the land rather than flowing into the Refuge and the Mississippi River. Full implementation of the Partners for Wildlife Pro­gram is needed to address watershed concerns.
Grassland Management
Historically, much of the upland areas of the Ref­uge were dominated by prairies and oak savanna. Non-native pines, black locust, and other invasive shrubs threaten to take over prairie habitats on the Refuge. Control of invasive plants is an ongoing, labor intensive and costly management tool. Success is often limited. Prescribed fire is an essential com­ponent of grasslands and is used under prescrip­tions described in the Fire Management Plan, which was being prepared in 2007.
Invasive Plants and Animals
Invasive plants continue to pose a major threat to native plant communities and the wildlife that depend on them. All habitat types on the Refuge have invasive plants of some 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.
Years of impoundment and stable water have led to a fishery dominated by carp and other non- desir­able rough fish. Invasion by Asian carp may be imminent. The Fishery Management Plan needs to be updated to aggressively manage non-native fish.
Monitoring Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Populations
Although monitoring has been a part of managing the Refuge for many years, gaps remain in baseline population data for many species. A Wildlife 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 and investigation as issues arise and change.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Increased attention is needed on listed species due to their often precarious population status and the need for special management consideration and protection.Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
xxi
Deer Management
Deer hunting is used to reduce vegetation browse impacts and to maintain populations in-line with State goals for adjoining lands. Accurate deer num­bers are needed to determine the appropriate har­vest in consideration of browse impacts.
Wildlife Disease Management
A wide range of issues are currently in the public eye regarding wildlife disease and potential impacts to human populations. A Disease Contingency Plan needs to be developed to identify available resources and procedures for responding to disease outbreaks in wildlife.
Public Use Issues
Wildlife Observation and Photography
The public desires more opportunities for wildlife observation and photography. There is a need to provide enhanced opportunities during all seasons and to improve facilities for people with disabilities. The Service needs to evaluate the pros and cons of an entrance fee program that may provide addi­tional funds for visitor services.
Environmental Education
The demand for formal environmental education has been increasing and staff has few resources to accommodate requests. The Refuge would benefit from all-weather group teaching and restroom facil­ities.
Hunting
Waterfowl hunting is a priority public use and is a vital part of the cultural, social, and economic fabric of communities around the Refuge. The public desires more hunting opportunities, particularly in high quality habitats like those found on the Refuge. However, managers must balance hunting opportu­nities with the need to limit disturbance to wildlife and accommodate other visitor interests. The Ref­uge needs a Hunt Plan and a Visitor Services Plan that includes a detailed evaluation of the benefits of opening new areas to hunting.
Fishing
As habitats for fish improve demand for fishing may increase. Attention to support facilities (boat ramps, fishing platforms) is needed to improve access and quality of the fishing experience.
Harvesting Fruit, Nuts, and Other Plant Parts
Some plants growing on the Refuge produce edi­ble parts such as fruit and nuts. In the past, harvest of some fruits and nuts was allowed, but new requests for medicinal plants, seeds, and wild rice have increased. There is a need to clarify the policy on harvest of plant part and what levels can be sus­tained without jeopardizing habitats or wildlife.
Horseback Riding
As more hobby farms become established in the vicinity, interest in the use of the Refuge for horse­back riding has increased. The potential for conflicts with other visitors and damage to Refuge habitats necessitates careful consideration and review of Service policy.
Domestic Pets
Dogs on a leash are permitted on the Refuge. Requests for opening areas to unleashed pets dur­ing the winter, and for dog field trials necessitates a review of current regulations and careful consider­ation of the need to protect visitors and wildlife while taking into account the public’s interest in training and exercising dogs.
Waterfowl hunters with disabilities. USFWSTrempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
xxii
Non-Refuge Sponsored Events
Scout jamborees, overnight camping by school groups, weddings, family reunions, and fund raising walks or runs by charities are examples of non-Ref­uge sponsored events that are considered non-wild­life dependent activities. Each of these activities must be considered individually to determine if they are compatible with the purposes of the Refuge and if they are likely to impact resources.
Non-Refuge Sponsored Research
At times, research projects, although interesting, do not further the management objectives of the Refuge. Clear guidelines need to be developed as to what research is compatible with the Refuge pur­poses and is in the best interest of staff and funding resources.
General Public Use Regulations
The current public use regulations (hours of operation, vehicle access, fires, camping, etc.) were updated in 1992. A general update is needed to reflect changing public use patterns and to provide clear guidance to visitors and law enforcement offic­ers.
Neighboring Landowner and Community Issues
Community Outreach
Numerous opportunities exist to build connec­tions between the Refuge and the community. Ref­uge planning must include a strong component of community outreach and participation.
Friends Group
Friends groups play a critical role in helping the public understand the importance of protecting and preserving refuges. The Refuge needs a Friends group that will provide an independent citizen voice for the protection, conservation, and enhancement of resources.
Volunteers
The Refuge has a core of dedicated volunteers who are committed to protecting the beauty and health of the Refuge. Volunteers perform many of the surveys and maintenance tasks that the staff can not. The Refuge needs to find ways to foster a sense of pride and ownership in the volunteers, while continuing to recruit new help.
Partnerships
The Refuge administers the Partners for Wildlife Program for two Wisconsin counties. Opportunities for watershed improvements and reductions in sedi­mentation abound. Funding and staff levels allow completion of only a few of these projects each year. Also, the Refuge could benefit from more coordina­tion with Perrot State Park.
Private Property Rights
A variety of issues cross property lines and affect neighboring landowners. Likewise, farming opera­tion and private hunting clubs may impact Refuge lands. There is a need to communicate more effi­ciently and frequently with Refuge neighbors.
Easement and Right-of Way Management
Work crews and equipment need to cross Refuge lands to access infrastructure on easements on the Refuge. The Refuge needs to develop a manage­ment plan for easements and right-of-ways that is consistent with current policies and management recommendations.
Administration and Operations Issues
Entrance Road Flooding
The main entrance road to the Refuge floods sea­sonally and is impassable for part of the year. The Refuge needs to develop a year-round access road for staff and visitors.
Girl Scouts learn about the land. USFWSTrempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
xxiii
Facilities
Current office, maintenance, and public use facili­ties are inadequate to support many Refuge pro­grams. Facilities need to be replaced and/or enlarged to accommodate current operations.
Staffing
Staffing levels are below essential staffing needs and reflect gaps between what should be done and what can be done. As public demand for educational programs, biological information, and resource pro­tection increases adequate staffing becomes more critical.
Operations and Maintenance Needs
Plans and planning should articulate the need for staff and funding to manage and administer 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 levels.
Summary of Alternatives Considered
Three reasonable alternatives were developed to address the variety of issues and opportunities fac­ing the Refuge now and during the 15-year horizon of the CCP. These alternatives are summarized below in terms of the actions that would be under­taken in each alternative. Alternative C is the Ser­vice’s preferred alternative. However, the final decision can be any of the alternatives, and may reflect a modification of certain elements of any alternative based on consideration of public com­ment.
Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)
This alternative assumes no change from past management programs and is considered the base from which to compare the other two alternatives.
Boundary issues would be addressed as time and funding allow. The remaining 340 acres within the approved acquisition boundary and 12 acres outside the boundary would be purchased as opportunities arose.
Habitat management would continue to remain a priority. Invasive plant control in prairie, forest, and wetlands would continue at its present level. The Refuge would maintain its present 335 acres of prai­rie and savanna using prescribed fire. Biological control of leafy spurge and purple loosestrife, and mechanical and chemical control of black locust, Siberian pea and exotic elm species would limit the spread of these invasive species. In upland forests, the Refuge would restore native species composition to both the understory and overstory by removing black locust, buckthorn, exotic elms, Siberian pea and honeysuckle.
Commercial fishing would continue to be used to manage carp and other rough fish in Pool A. A per­mitted deer hunt would continue for both the 9-day gun season and the late archery season in order to manage deer numbers. Trapping for raccoon, musk­rat, beaver, mink, and opossum would continue.
Public use opportunities would remain at present levels. Limited school programs and programs for scouts and other organized groups would be con­ducted by staff. Limited waterfowl hunting opportu­nities would be available for hunters with disabilities. Bank fishing would continue along any shoreline, as well as boat fishing from hand-powered or electric motor powered craft. Hiking would con­tinue on all roads and trails
The staff would remain at its current level of a permanent full-time refuge manager, park ranger, maintenance mechanic, and administrative techni­cian. Volunteers would be used in a variety of pro­grams including biological, public use, clerical, and maintenance. The Refuge would maintain its
Bird identification program. USFWSTrempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
xxiv
present entrance road, which is open to all traffic except for an average of 6 weeks each year when the road is flooded.
The Refuge office would remain as is, but the 70- year-old shop would be replaced.
Alternative B: Wildlife and Habitat Focus
This alternative favors minimal disturbance to wildlife from public use and increased level of effort on fish and wildlife habitat management.
Boundary issues would be addressed with annual inspections, new surveying and installation of an automatic gate at the main entrance. The remaining 340 acres within the approved acquisition boundary and 12 acres outside the current boundary would be purchased as opportunities arose.
Habitat management would be a high priority. Invasive species control in the forested habitats would allow restoration of prairie and oak savanna. Pine plantations would be eliminated. Prescribed fire and mowing would be used to manage the resulting 11 prairie units totaling 585 acres.
Researchers would be actively sought to conduct research to determine effects of management strat­egies. Monitoring of grasslands, aquatic vegetation, and extent of invasive plant species would be con­ducted.
Additional dikes and water control structures would be placed within existing impoundments. The C2 impoundment would be divided into three sepa­rate units to allow for moist soil management. Three other impoundments would be carved out of Pool B to create manageable units as well as additional emergent habitat. Islands would be built in Pools A and B. Water level management in Pools A and E would continue on their present course. Rough fish would be intensively managed in all pools using commercial fishing and water level management.
The managed deer hunt would continue, but har­vest levels would be regulated based on deer popula­tion and vegetation monitoring. Furbearer trapping would continue with harvest levels based on popula­tion estimates and habitat monitoring. No waterfowl hunting would be allowed. Public use opportunities would be reduced. Environmental education pro­grams would be limited to those that explain Refuge regulations. To reduce disturbance to migrating birds, all pools would be closed to water craft during fall migration (from September 15 through Novem­ber 15).
The staff would include the addition of a perma­nent full-time biologist and a private lands biologist and a seasonal biological technician and tractor operator. The Refuge would maintain its present entrance road, which is open to all traffic except for an average of 6 weeks each year when the road is flooded. The Refuge office would remain as is, but the 70-year-old shop would be replaced.
Alternative C: Integrated Public Use and Wildlife and Habitat Focus (Preferred Alternative)
This alternative focuses on returning upland areas to pre-European settlement habitats, increas­ing flexibility in wetland management within impoundments, and increasing public use opportuni­ties.
Boundary issues would be addressed with annual inspections, new surveying and installation of an automatic gate at the main entrance. The remaining 340 acres within the approved acquisition boundary and 12 acres outside the current boundary would be purchased as opportunities arose.
Prairie and oak savanna restoration would be a high priority. Increased efforts to control invasive species would be made using biological, mechanical, and chemical methods. Prescribed fire and mowing would be used to manage 11 prairie units totaling 435 acres. Half of the trees in the pine plantations would be removed through selective thinning.
Additional dikes and water control structures would be placed within existing impoundments. The C2 impoundment would be divided into three sepa­rate units to allow for moist soil management. The remaining three impoundments (Pools C1, D, and F) would reduce the size of Pool B to a manageable unit as well as create additional emergent habitat. Islands would be built in Pools A and B. Water level management in Pools A and E would continue on their present course. Rough fish, particularly carp, would be managed in specified pools using commer­cial fishing and water level management.
Researchers would be actively sought to conduct studies that would determine effects of manage­ment strategies. Grasslands, aquatic vegetation, and the extent of invasive plant species would be moni­tored. Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
xxv
The deer hunt would continue as in the past, except harvest levels would be based on population and habitat monitoring. Furbearer trapping would continue and the number of beaver and muskrat taken would be determined based on annual moni­toring of harvest and of dike damage and interfer­ence with water control structures.
Public use opportunities would be expanded. Environmental education programs would be pro­moted at local schools and to community groups and the general public. A multi-purpose room would be added to the office/visitor contact station to accom­modate larger groups and provide a place for orien­tation. Waterfowl hunting opportunities would be expanded by opening the area west of the Canadian National Railroad dike to a limited hunt. Ski trails would be maintained when conditions permit. Options to alleviate flooding of the entrance road to provide year-round access to the Refuge would be explored.
Use of volunteers would be expanded in all pro­grams. A Trempealeau NWR Friends Group would be started. Outreach would be expanded to provide opportunities for awareness and understanding of Refuge management and the National Wildlife Ref­uge System. Traveling exhibits that bring the Ref­uge to the people would be developed.
The staff would include the addition of three sea­sonal positions, including a biological technician, a tractor operator, and a park ranger. Law enforce­ment duties would be covered by a new position shared with Winona District. A private lands biolo­gist would also be shared with Winona District.
Summary of Environmental Consequences
Consequences Common to All Alternatives
Under all alternatives, there would be no dispro­portionate adverse effect on minority or low-income populations. No significant changes are expected to climate, soils or environmental contaminants. Cul­tural and historical resource protection would be addressed in accordance with current laws, regula­tions, and policies. Prescribed fire would be used under all alternatives to maintain health and vigor of grassland habitat. Any negative effects would be short-term and mitigated by long-term habitat improvements and higher grassland species popula­tions. Landowners adjacent to the Refuge would not see a significant effect on the use or value of their property since none of the alternatives radically change land management direction. Bottomland hardwood forests would increase in acreage under all alternatives. Furbearer populations would not be impacted and trapping would continue for all alter­natives. All alternatives call for implementing a new flood policy that would protect refuge infrastructure and habitats from damaging flood waters.
Consequences, Alternative A: No Action
This alternative would cause little change in water quality, suspended sediments or nutrient loading. The quality of wetland habitats would con­tinue to decline as carp and invasive aquatic plants continue to increase. Invasive plants would continue to spread over prairies, oak savannas, and upland forests.
Biologically, Alternative A would have a neutral impact on threatened and endangered species, rep­tiles and amphibians, and mammals. Wildlife use would continue at existing levels, although in gen­eral understory and grassland species would find poor quality habitat invaded by exotic species.
Tree Swallow. USFWSTrempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
xxvi
Socioeconomic impacts under Alternative A would be minimal. All current uses would continue with an estimated economic output of $250,000. Hunting fishing, interpretation, environmental edu­cation, wildlife observation, and photography would continue at current levels. The annual economic impact to regional and local economies would remain at current levels.
Consequences, Alternative B: Fish and Wildlife Focus
Under this alternative, reduction of carp and con­struction of new dikes, islands and water control structures would result in improved water quality, a reduction in suspended sediments, and improved conditions for germination of wetland plants.
Biologically, the manipulations in water levels would improve wetland plant vigor and habitat for a wide range of wetland-dependent fish and wildlife. Alternative B would have a positive impact on threatened and endangered species, waterbirds, landbirds, reptiles and amphibians, and mammals. Upland habitats would benefit from more aggres­sive control of invasive species. Prairie and oak savanna habitats would expand. Diversity and abun­dance of native wildlife would increase.
Public use and recreation would be limited as resources are diverted to improving habitats for wildlife. Community involvement would decrease due to lack of public outreach, and less money would flow to local economies from wildlife-dependent rec­reation. An estimated $11,000, or a 4 percent loss, of economic output would occur due to loss of visita­tion. Staffing levels would be better suited to meet demands for wildlife and habitat monitoring.
Consequences, Alternative C: Integrated Public Use and Wildlife Habitat Focus (Preferred)
Under this alternative, reduction of carp and con­struction of new dikes, islands and water control structures would result in improved water quality, a reduction in suspended sediments, and improved conditions for germination of wetland plants.
In general, habitat quality for wildlife would improve under this alternative. While invasive spe­cies would not be totally eliminated, their spread would be controlled and some upland habitats would be restored to historic conditions. Wildlife diversity and abundance would increase. Alternative C would have a positive impact on waterbirds, landbirds, rep­tiles and amphibians, and mammals.
Opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation would improve with additional area open to water­fowl hunting. More resources and staff would be devoted to environmental education and interpreta­tion. Local communities would benefit as more peo­ple visited the refuge. Economic output would increase by $28,000 or 11 percent as more opportu­nities became available for wildlife-dependent recre­ation. Staffing levels and facilities would be better suited to meet the needs of an overall program bal­anced between fish and wildlife monitoring, habitat management, and public use.Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
1
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
1.1 Introduction
This document is an integrated Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge). It follows the basic and accepted format for an EIS and each alternative presented contains the core of a CCP, namely goals, objectives, and strategies. Since it is an integrated document designed to meet the requirements for both an EIS and a CCP, some sec­tions in the EIS were expanded (notably Chapter 1, Planning Background) to meet this dual function. In addition, various referenced appendices relate to either the EIS, CCP, or both, as applicable.
Trempealeau NWR is located within the 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.
1.2 Purpose and Need for Action
1.2.1 Purpose
The purpose of this EIS is to adopt and imple­ment a CCP for Trempealeau NWR. The Service is considering a range of alternatives of how best to manage the Refuge.
Comprehensive Conservation Plans are designed to guide the management and administration of National Wildlife Refuges for a period of 15 years and help ensure that each refuge meets the purpose for which it was established and contributes to the overall mission of the National Wildlife Refuge Sys­tem (NWRS) (see Section 1.4.3 on page 6). The CCP helps describe a desired future condition of the Ref­uge, and provides both long-term and day-to-day
Northern Shoveler Hen / USFWSChapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
2
Figure 1: Location of Trempealeau NWR in WisconsinChapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
3
guidance for management actions and decisions. It provides both broad and specific policy on various issues, sets goals and measurable objectives, and outlines strategies for reaching these objectives. A CCP also helps communicate the Refuge’s manage­ment direction to other agencies and the public.
The NWRS Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (see Section 1.4.4 on page 6) 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 affect­ing the quality of the human environment. These requirements are:
#Consider every significant aspect of the envi­ronmental impact of a proposed action.
#Involve the public in its decision-making pro­cess when considering environmental concerns.
#Use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to decision making.
#Consider a reasonable range of alternatives.
This EIS documents those requirements and pro­vides the necessary information and analysis to the decision-maker.
Finally, the planning process is an excellent way to inform and involve the general public, state and federal agencies, and non-government groups that have an interest, responsibility, or authority in the management or use of certain aspects of the Trem­pealeau NWR.
1.2.2 Need
The CCP that ultimately arises from this EIS/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 the needs or benchmarks for defining reasonable alternatives presented in Chapter 2 and, along with an evalua­tion of consequences in Chapter 4, will form the basis for a decision. These needs are summarized below. More detail on issues related to these needs can be found in Section 1.4.8 on page 16, Planning Issues, Concerns and Opportunities.
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
American Coot, USFWSChapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
4
Refuge were made. Purposes for Trempealeau NWR are as follows:
“ ...a Refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife”
Executive Order 7437, dated August 21, 1936. (Appendix E)
“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 (Appendix D)
“...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources.”
16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)(Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956.) (Appendix D)
Need III: Help Achieve Refuge Goals
Goal 1: Landscape – We will strive to maintain and improve the scenic and wild character, and 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.
#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
Black-eyed Susan. USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
5
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.
1.3 Decision Framework
The Service’s Regional Director in Minneapolis, Minnesota, is the responsible official for approving the Final EIS in a Record of Decision. The Record of Decision will identify the selected alternative which will become the Final CCP. The selected alter­native will be one of the alternatives in this Final EIS, although the final decision may reflect modifi­cation of certain elements of the alternatives based on public review and comment. The Final EIS also contains individual substantive comments or a sum­mary of like-comments, received from the public, agencies, and other interested parties, along with a Service response (see Chapter 7).
1.4 Planning Background
1.4.1 Legal and Policy Framework
Trempealeau NWR is managed and administered as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System within a framework of organizational setting, laws, and policy. Key aspects of this framework are 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 D.
1.4.2 The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
The Refuge is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior. The 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.”Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
6
1.4.3 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.
1.4.4 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and Related Policies
The Improvement Act of 1997 amended the National Wildlife Refuge System Administrative Act of 1966 and became a true organic act for the System by providing a mission, policy direction, and management standards. A summary of the key pro­visions of this landmark legislation and subsequent policies to carry out the Act’s mandates follows:
Established Broad National Policy for the Refuge System:
#Each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mis­sion and its purpose.
#Compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate use.
#Compatible wildlife-dependent uses are the pri­ority public uses of the System.
#Compatible wildlife-dependent uses should be facilitated, subject to necessary restrictions.
Directed the Secretary of the Interior to:
#Provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants within the System.
#Ensure biological integrity, diversity, and envi­ronmental health of the System for the benefit of present and future generations.
#Plan and direct the continued growth of the System to meet the mission.
#Carry out the mission of the System and pur­poses of each refuge; if conflict between, pur­poses takes priority.
#Ensure coordination with adjacent landowners and states.
#Assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity and quality for refuges; acquire water rights as needed.
#Recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recre­ational uses as the priority general public uses of the System.
#Ensure that opportunities for compatible wild­life-dependent recreation are provided.
Bird Festival celebration of the Refuge’s 70th birthday. USFWSChapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
7
#Ensure that wildlife-dependent recreation receives enhanced consideration over other uses of the System.
#Provide increased opportunities for families to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation.
#Provide cooperation and collaboration of other federal agencies and states, and honor existing authorized or permitted uses by other federal agencies.
#Monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge.
Provide Compatibility of Use Standards and Pro­cedures:
#New or existing uses should not be permitted, renewed, or expanded unless compatible with the mission of the System or the purpose(s) of the refuge, and consistent with public safety.
#Wildlife-dependent uses may be authorized when compatible and not inconsistent with pub­lic safety.
#The Secretary shall issue regulations for com­patibility determinations.
Planning:
#Each unit of the Refuge System shall have a Comprehensive Conservation Plan completed by 2012.
#Plans must identify and describe the archaeo­logical and cultural values found on the refuge.
#Planning should involve adjoining landowners, state conservation agencies, and the general public.
1.4.4.1. Compatibility Policy
No uses for which the Service has authority to regulate may be allowed on a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional judgment of the Refuge 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.
1.4.4.2. Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Service is directed in the Refuge Improve­ment Act to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the NWRS are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans...” The biological integrity policy of 2001 helps define and clarify this directive by providing guidance on what conditions constitute biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; guidelines for maintaining existing levels; guidelines for determining how and when it is appropriate to restore lost elements; and guidelines in dealing with external threats to biological integ­rity, diversity and health (66 CFRIO January 2004).
1.4.4.3. Public Use Natural Area Policy
The Refuge currently has one Public Use Natural Area, the Black Oak Island Public Use Natural Area. (See Section 3.10.2.2.1 on page 120). The 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.
1.4.5 Refuge History and Purposes
In the late 1800s a railroad was constructed along the Mississippi River. Today it forms the Refuge’s south boundary. In the early 1900s, a drainage 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 Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
8
dikes became part of a corporation known as Delta Fish and Fur Farm (Delta FFF).
Trempealeau NWR was established in 1936 when 706.9 acres were set aside by Executive Order 7437 (Appendix E) (Figure 2). The original Refuge con­sisted of an upland portion with open areas of former hay, pasture, and cropland. For more than 40 years the Refuge remained small in spite of several attempts to purchase more than 5,000 acres of the surrounding Delta FFF. The Delta FFF yielded a variety of incomes to its owners from farming, 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 Section 1.2.2 on page 3. These purposes remain valid to this day and guide the planning management, administration, and use of the Refuge.
1.4.6 Relationships to Other Agencies, Partners and Other Initiative Planning
1.4.6.1. Partnerships
Partnerships with other federal agencies includ­ing state and local units of government and schools and private organizations are important in Refuge management. Wisconsin Waterfowl Association pro­vides both funds and volunteer assistance in support of an annual waterfowl hunt for persons with dis­abilities on the Refuge. Ducks Unlimited has part­nered with the Service on a major habitat project on the Refuge and additional work is planned. Major wetland habitat work was done on the Refuge in the mid-1990s under the Environmental Management Program (EMP) funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Corps, Wisconsin DNR and Minnesota DNR assist the Service with planning and project implementation under EMP.
Partnerships with Wisconsin DNR staff at nearby Perrot State Park include sharing of equip­ment and cooperative management of the Great River State Trail, which passes through Trempea­leau NWR. The Wisconsin DNR Area Wildlife Man­ager for Trempealeau and Buffalo counties provides technical advice on Refuge hunting and trapping programs and has provided assistance and oversight on wetland restoration projects funded by the Ser­vice on private lands. The Refuge has negotiated cooperative agreements with Buffalo County Land Conservation Department to accomplish stream bank restoration and other habitat work in local watersheds.
Dresser Farm, 1935. USFWS
1965 Flood, Trempealeau NWR. USFWSChapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge / Final EIS/CCP
9
Figure 2: Trempealeau NWR BoundaryChapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
10
A partnership with the Mississippi Archaeology Center aids in the management of Refuge collec­tions. Under a cooperative agreement the Missis­sippi Archaeology Center curates collections from 9 investigations and other sources. The Refuge has 6,906 artifacts at repositories. The artifacts are owned by the Federal Government and can be recalled by the Regional Historic Preservation Officer for exhibits and other Refuge purposes.
1.4.6.2. Other Conservation and Planning Initiatives
1.4.6.2.1 Federal Government
Three federal agencies have jurisdictions over land in the vicinity of the Refuge: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Highway Administration. The Service’s plans and policies are relevant to the Refuge since the Service owns and manages Trempealeau NWR and co-owns and manages the adjacent Upper Mis­sissippi River NW&FR. Planning by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is relevant since the Corps administers the Environmental Management Pro­gram, manages the lock and dam navigation system on the adjacent Mississippi River, and owns a por­tion of lands within the UMRNWFR. The Federal Highway Administration planning is relevant since they designated and oversee the Great River Road which passes within a mile of Trempealeau NWR.
Fish and Wildlife Service Plans, Policies and Programs
Relevant plans involving the Service include the Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Master Plan and accompanying Environmental Assessment (EA) (USFWS 1982) and the 1987 Master Plan for the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge with accompanying EA (USFWS 1987). The Trempealeau NWR Master Plan was com­pleted in 1983 following major expansion of the Ref­uge with the acquisition of the former Delta FFF. It provides a summary of Refuge resources, and a con­cept plan for future development and use of the Ref­uge with an accompanying public involvement process. This document has served as the Refuge’s principal management guidance for over two decades and will be superceded by the CCP.
The Service is also involved in the development and implementation of a number of conservation plans for migratory bird species including the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2004), Blue­print for the Future of Migratory Birds (USFWS 2003), Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan(Knutson 2001), U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan(Brown, et al. 2000), and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (Steering Committee 2001). These plans are discussed below with specific references to Region 3 where applicable.
The Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture is the local component of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. On a National level, this plan focused on partnering among agencies to secure, protect, restore, enhance and manage wetlands and associated uplands in pri­ority landscapes; to conduct research and monitor specific waterfowl populations, and to provide envi­ronmental education and conservation planning with community involvement. Between 1986 and 1997, plan partners have invested over $1.5 billion on projects in the United States. Specific habitat objectives for the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture include providing 9.1 million acres of wetlands and associated uplands in waterfowl production counties and 533,000 acres in waterfowl migration counties. Trempealeau NWR would fall under the latter category.
The Blueprint for the Future of Migratory Birdswas drafted in July 2003 as a strategic plan to guide the Service’s Migratory Bird Program. A number of implementation strategies were developed under the categories of Population Monitoring, Assess­ment and Management, Habitat Conservation, Per­mits and Regulations, and Consultation, Cooperation, Communication and Recreation.
The Partners in Flight (PIF) Conservation Plan’s initial focus was on neotropical migrants, spe­cies that breed in North America but winter in Cen­tral and South America, but the focus has spread to include most landbirds. A series of Bird Conserva­tion Plans are being developed for the entire conti­nental United States. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Office of Migratory Bird Management serves as a technical advisory body to the PIF Fed­eral Committee. A component of the Bird Conserva­tion Plan (BCP) for the Upper Midwest is the Upper Great Lakes Plain, a physiographic area which includes the “Driftless” or unglaciated area in Southwest Wisconsin which encompasses Trempea­leau NWR (Partners in Flight, 2004). This compo­nent of the BCP designates Priority Bird Populations and Habitats for the Upper Great Lakes Plain as follows:
Grasslands: Henslow’s Sparrow, Sedge Wren and BobolinkChapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
11
Shrub-scrub: Golden-winged Warbler
Deciduous forest/savannah: Cerulean Warbler, Black-billed Cuckoo, Red-headed Woodpecker
All of the above are Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation (USFWS) species. The Partners in Flight perspective on conservation rec­ommendations and needs for the Upper Great Lakes Plain is noteworthy.
“There are many large urban centers in this area whose growth and sprawl will continue to con­sume land. The vast majority of the pre-settle­ment forest and oak savannah grasslands already have been converted to agriculture. The conver­sion of cropland may have benefited some grass­land birds, and forest birds still persist. Rates of cowbird parasitism and nest predation in this heavily fragmented region, however, are extremely high and it is possible that only those bird communities in the few remaining expanses of contiguous habitat are self-sustaining. Forest habitat needs to be retained or restored so that a significant number of patches of sufficient size and quality each support a healthy population of cerulean warblers. It is assumed that each of these patches will then support the full range of forest birds. The total area of savannah habitat also should be increased, although the need for large blocks is not as apparent. These few areas of grassland that still exist should be retained.” (Knutson 2001)
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan was developed to stabilize populations of declining shorebird species and ensure that common species remain so. This will be accomplished, in part, through implementation of 11 regional conservation plans that outline strategies to provide sufficient high-quality shorebird habitat and to overcome other shorebird limiting factors. This plan addresses shorebird conservation in the Upper Mis­sissippi Valley/Great Lakes (UMVGL) planning region, which is a large, diverse area that provides important habitat for a variety of shorebirds, espe­cially migrants. The purpose of the plan is to con­serve shorebirds in the UMVGL region through a combination of habitat protection, restoration, and management, population monitoring, research, and education outreach.
The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan is currently under development. It is a collabo­rative effort by federal and state agencies, NGOs, researchers, and other experts to formulate a plan that provides an overarching framework for con­serving and managing seabirds, and other aquatic birds throughout North America. The goal of the Plan is to ensure that the distribution, diversity and abundance of populations, habitats, and other important sites of seabirds and other waterbirds are sustained or restored and maintained throughout their ranges in North America.
Along with the Upper Mississippi River NW&FR, Trempealeau NWR was designated an Important Bird Area by the American Bird Conser­vancy. This designation in 1997 was based on the overall bird habitat values of both refuges specifi­cally for the large numbers of Tundra Swans and Canvasbacks that use the refuges during migration.
Environmental Management Program
The Environmental Management Program (EMP) was established by Congress in 1986 coinci­dent with the construction of a second lock and dam on the Mississippi River at East Alton, Illinois. Con­gress recognized the need for addressing environ­mental concerns in balance with the expansion of commercial navigation on the “Mississippi River”. The 1999 Water Resources Development Act (Appendix D) increased the annual funding autho­rized to $33 million and established two main ele­ments as continuing authorities:
#Planning, construction, and evaluation of fish and wildlife habitat rehabilitation and enhance­ment projects (HREPs).
#Long term resource monitoring, computerized data inventory and analysis, and applied research (LTRMP).
EMP is a coordinated ecosystem restoration pro­gram for the Upper Mississippi River system administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Tundra Swan. USFWSChapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Issues
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP
12
in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser­vice, U.S. Geological Survey, the states of Minne­sota, Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois, and non -governmental organizations. To date, 26 projects have been completed affecting more than 40,500 acres of habitat. A major