Record of Decision 

for 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Upper Mississippi River 

National Wildlife and Fish Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Division of Conservation Planning 

Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building 

Room 530 

1 Federal Drive 

Ft. Snelling, Minnesota 55111 
Record of Decision 

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge 

2

Introduction 

This Record of Decision (ROD) signifies the 

end of the planning process for the development 

of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) to 

guide the management and administration of the 

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and 

Fish Refuge (Refuge) for the next 15 years. 

This ROD documents the decision of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) based on 

information contained in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) released 

to the public on July 11, 2006. 

The Decision 

The Service has selected Alternative E, the 

preferred alternative, as described in the Final 

EIS, as the CCP for the Refuge, with one 

modification. 

The modification involves an area west of the 

Rieck’s Lake area of Pool 4 in the area between 

Highway 35 and the railroad tracks. A major 

portion of this area is currently a Waterfowl 

Hunting Closed Area (215 acres) and it will 

remain closed with no change to the existing 

boundary. However, this 215 acres will be 

designated a No Hunting Zone to avoid impacts 

to persons using the Buffalo River Access, 

access to the main river, and anglers desiring to 

fish in the area. This modification will be 

reflected in the maps and tables that will 

accompany the CCP when printed. 

Alternatives Considered 

Four alternatives and their consequences were 

developed for the Draft EIS and CCP released 

May 1, 2005 for a 120-day comment period. A 

fifth alternative, Alternative E, was developed 

based on extensive public input and comment 

and released as a Supplement to the Draft EIS on 

December 5, 2005 for a 90-day comment period. 

Several elements were common to all 

alternatives and included interagency 

coordination, agency access to restricted areas, 

National Environmental Policy Act compliance 

for projects, protection of threatened and 

endangered species and cultural resources, fire 

management, a continuation of general waterbased recreation, mosquito management in the 

event of a health emergency, fish and wildlife 

disease control, and the fostering of volunteers 

and friends groups. 

A brief summary of the alternatives 

considered follows. A longer summary and 

complete description is included in the Final 

EIS, Chapter 2. 

Alternative A. No Action or Current 

Direction 

Continue current level of effort on fish and 

wildlife and habitat management. Public use 

programs would remain virtually unchanged. 

Alternative B. Wildlife Focus 

Increase level of effort on fish and wildlife 

and habitat management. Some public use 

opportunities and programs would remain the 

same, others reduced in favor of wildlife and 

habitat protection. 

Alternative C. Public Use Focus 

Increase level of effort on public use 

opportunities and programs. Continue current 

level of effort on many fish and wildlife and 

habitat management activities, and decrease 

effort on others in favor of public use. 

Alternative D. Wildlife and Integrated 

Public Use Focus 

Increase level of effort on fish and wildlife 

and habitat management. Take a more proactive 

approach to public use management to ensure a 

diversity of opportunities for a broad spectrum 

of users, both for wildlife-dependent uses and 

traditional and appropriate non-wildlifedependent uses. 

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and 

Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Increase level of effort on fish and wildlife 

and habitat management. Take a proactive but 

balanced approach to public use management to 

ensure a diversity of opportunities for a broad 
Record of Decision 

 Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge 

3 

spectrum of users, both for wildlife-dependent 

uses and traditional and appropriate nonwildlife-dependent uses. 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

Based on a review of the environmental 

consequences of each alternative (Chapter 4, 

Final EIS), Alternative E is judged to be the 

environmentally preferable alternative. All 

alternatives have positive physical and 

biological environmental consequences since all 

contain similar emphasis on improving water 

quality and increasing habitat quantity and 

quality. However, Alternatives D and E also 

address a variety of social, economic, and 

cultural issues in balancing the needs of fish and 

wildlife and the needs of people on a refuge 

located on an important navigation and 

recreational corridor. Alternative E is most 

positive in terms of addressing these human 

environmental issues since it reflects input 

received during scores of public meetings and 

workshops, and through several thousand 

written comments.

Basis for Decision 

Alternative E meets identified needs.

Chapter 1 of the Final EIS identified three 

broad needs: a. contribute to the Refuge 

System mission, b. fulfill the purposes of the 

Refuge, and c. achieve Refuge goals for 

landscape conservation, environmental health, 

wildlife and habitat health, and recreation. 

Alternative E meets these needs through the 

most balanced and integrated approach 

compared to the other alternatives. 

 

Alternative E best reflects agency and 

public comment. 

Alternative E reflects substantive changes to 

earlier preferred alternatives, Alternative D and 

draft Alternative E. These changes were in 

response to agency review and comment, 30 

public meetings and workshops on the draft 

documents, and more than 3,000 written 

comments. Alternative E in the Final EIS is thus 

the alternative most responsive to agency and 

public comment and suggestion. 

Alternative E has long-term benefits to 

the natural and human environment. 

Alternative E identifies objectives and 

strategies for completing land acquisition, 

habitat improvements, water quality 

improvements, invasive species control, fish and 

wildlife monitoring, forest management, and 

providing targeted resting and feeding areas for 

waterfowl and other wildlife. These measures 

will help ensure the biological health of the 

Refuge beyond the 15-year scope of the CCP. 

Alternative E also strikes a balance between the 

needs of fish and wildlife and needs of people 

for recreation through reasonable restrictions on 

a portion of the Refuge. This approach may 

prove more sustainable, both in terms of 

resource values and economic values, than the 

status quo, and help sustain the greatest diversity 

of opportunity for the greatest number of people. 

Alternative E is based on best available 

science.

Alternative E reflects a large body of scientific 

and management knowledge and experience on 

the river environment and the needs of the 

system to improve and thrive. It reflects 

numerous studies and reports from the U.S. 

Geological Survey, states, interagency teams, 

and Refuge-specific monitoring and studies. 

Changes in public use programs reflect 

numerous studies on wildlife and human 

interaction and disturbance, and the latest 

thinking in recreation management. 

Alternative E ensures compatibility of 

uses. 

The Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 

requires that all uses on a national wildlife 

refuge must be compatible with the purposes of 

the refuge and the mission of the Refuge 

System. Alternative E, with its various 

stipulations for certain uses, ensures that these 

uses remain compatible. 

Alternative E ensures abundant 

opportunity for all users.

All current recreational uses (e.g. hunting, 

fishing, observation and photography, 

interpretation and environmental education) and 

wildlife-dependent economic uses (e.g. 

commercial fishing, guiding, fishing
Record of Decision 

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge 

4

tournaments, and trapping) will continue and 

opportunities will remain abundant in terms of 

amount of land and water available and seasons 

of use. Adjustments in time, space and period of 

use will help ensure the highest quality 

experience for the greatest number of users, and 

ensure each use remains compatible. 

Alternative E will have a positive 

economic impact.

Recreation is the main economic driver on the 

Refuge and Alternative E will continue to have a 

positive economic impact since all current 

public use opportunities will continue, and are 

expected to grow, even though means, timing, 

and location of recreation will change in some 

areas to protect wildlife, habitat, and the 

recreation experience. In the long-term, 

providing for a greater diversity of recreational 

opportunities should strengthen local and 

regional economies. 

Alternative E will increase the capacity of 

the Refuge to meet its purposes and 

mission of the Refuge System. 

Alternative E identifies staffing needs tied to 

objectives and strategies to increase the capacity 

of the Refuge to meet its purpose and the Refuge 

System mission. Alternative E also addresses 

infrastructure needs for effective and efficient 

administration and management of the Refuge 

while serving the needs of the visiting public. 

Alternative E will enhance partnerships 

and coordination. 

Although differences of opinion will remain, 

Alternative E is the strongest alternative in terms 

of fostering cooperative conservation. Virtually 

every objective and associated strategy in 

Alternative E stresses a cooperative approach 

with the states, Corps of Engineers, and the 

public. 

Public Comments on Final EIS 

The Final EIS and CCP was released to the 

public on July 11, 2006. The Environmental 

Protection Agency published its notice of receipt 

on July 21, 2006 and established August 21, 

2006 as the end of the 30-day waiting period. 

During the waiting period, 50 written 

comments were received. These comments were 

from individuals (37), conservation 

organizations (8), agencies (1 – Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources), and elected 

officials (4 with 1 letter signed by 9 Wisconsin 

legislators). Most comments were generally 

opposed to Alternative E in some manner by 

raising specific issues or concerns, including 

concerns with the planning process or future 

implementation. Of the 15 comments stating a 

preference for an alternative, 11 preferred 

Alternative E and 4 preferred Alternative A. 

With one exception, the comments did not 

raise any issues not addressed in the Final EIS, 

and the comments did not result in changes to 

the analysis of environmental consequences or 

affect the Service’s response to similar 

comments in the Final EIS. 

The exception was a comment requesting 

retention of the Waterfowl Hunting Closed Area 

near Rieck’s Lake, Pool 4, due to its proximity 

to residences, school bus stop locations, and a 

marina. This comment provided new 

information and resulted in a change to 

Alternative E as reflected in the decision section. 

All written comments received during the 

waiting period were assigned a log number, 

summarized and recorded on a master electronic 

file, and then placed in a three-ring binder. 

These comments or the summary are available 

for review at the Refuge headquarters in 

Winona, Minnesota. 

Measures to Minimize 

Environmental Harm 

Public concerns, potential impacts, and 

measures and stipulations to mitigate impacts 

are addressed in various sections of the Final 

EIS. Alternative E contains many changes from 

other and/or earlier alternatives to address public 

concerns. A total of 17 major changes were 

made to Alternative E in the Final EIS to 

mitigate public and agency concerns. Examples 

include changes to Waterfowl Hunting Closed 

Area boundaries, changes in effective dates to