i

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

July 2006

Type of Action: Administrative

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Interior,

Fish and Wildlife Service

Responsible Official: Robyn Thorson, Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building

1 Federal Drive

Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056

Cooperating Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Mississippi Valley Division

For Information: Eric Nelson, Refuge Biologist

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge 

51 E. Fourth Street

Room 101

Winona, Minnesota 55987

Abstract

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to adopt and implement a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. The 

Refuge was established by Congress in 1924 to provide a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds, fish, other wildlife, and plants. The Refuge encompasses approximately 240,000 acres and 261 

river miles in four states. 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. Five alternatives for future management are 

described: A) no action or current direction, B) wildlife focus, C) public use focus, D) wildlife and 

integrated public use focus, and E) modified wildlife and public use focus. The preferred alternative 

is Alternative E. This Final Environmental Impact Statement considers the physical, biological, and 

socioeconomic effects that the five alternatives would have in terms of the issues and concerns 

identified during the planning process.

iii

Reader’s Guide

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge Final EIS and CCP

This is a large and daunting document! Below are some questions and answers to help you, whether 

your review is short and specific or long and comprehensive.

How is the document organized?

Like a book, the document is organized by chapters. Chapter 1 provides the purpose and need, 

background information, and details on nearly 40 issues addressed in the plan and EIS. Chapter 2 

describes the five alternatives considered, with each issue an objective. These alternatives are like 

five separate plans, arranged identical. Chapter 3 describes the physical, biological, and 

socioeconomic environment of the Refuge and contains the facts and figures related to the issues. 

Chapter 4 discusses the impacts or consequences of the four alternatives by a series of parameters. 

Other chapters provide detail on public involvement, preparers, and references. Appendices provide 

great detail in maps, tables, and supporting documents.

I just have time for an overview. What should I look at?

Start with the EIS Summary which briefly describes the Refuge, the issues, the alternatives, and 

the consequences of each. Tables 1 and 2 at the end of Chapter 2 provide a quick and easy guide to 

what is proposed in each alternative.

I’m just interested in a couple issues. How can I find them?

The Table of Contents is useful in finding a particular issue of interest. For example, if you are 

interested in waterfowl hunting, start with the discussion of the related issues in the wildlifedependent recreation section of Chapter 1, then you can find waterfowl hunting related objectives in 

Chapter 2, background on waterfowl and hunting in Chapter 3, and a section on impacts of 

alternatives on hunting in Chapter 4. Maps in Appendix P (bound separately or available on the web 

at http://midwest.fws.gov/planning/uppermiss) will show the areas affected by the alternative 

objectives. An index at the back of the EIS may also be useful in finding topics of interest.

Where do I find comments received and a response? Chapter 7 contains a comprehensive summary 

of written comments received and a response to those comments. Chapter 6 summarizes all the 

public meetings held during the planning process.

How do I keep from getting lost?

If you look at the Table of Contents, you’ll see a decimal numbering system used throughout. The 

first number is the chapter, the second number is subchapter, the third number a section, and so on. 

Notes on the bottom of each page (footers) also tell you where you are. In the alternatives, a 

reminder of which alternative you are looking at is in the upper margin of each page, and each 

objective is numbered the same regardless of alternative. So, if forest management is your issue of 

interest, its 3.9 in all five alternatives and in Table 1, the useful comparison matrix.

How much will it cost to implement the plan?

Appendix L is a plan of implementation and summarizes the actions to be taken and their estimated 

cost.

Upper Mississippi River

National Wildlife & Fish Refuge

Final Environmental Impact Statement and 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table of Contents

v

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background ..............................................1

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................................................................3

1.2.1 Purpose .........................................................................................................................................................3

1.2.2 Need .............................................................................................................................................................4

1.3 Decision Framework ...............................................................................................................................................6

1.4 Planning Background.............................................................................................................................................. 7

1.4.1 Legal and Policy Framework .........................................................................................................................7

1.4.1.1 The National Wildlife Refuge System .............................................................................................7

1.4.1.2 The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and Related Policy ....................7

1.4.1.3 Research Natural Area Policy ..........................................................................................................9

1.4.2 Brief Refuge History and Purposes ...............................................................................................................9

1.4.3 Relationship to Corps of Engineers and the States, and Other Conservation Initiatives ..........................10

1.4.3.1 Corps of Engineers......................................................................................................................... 10

1.4.3.2 The States...................................................................................................................................... 13

1.4.3.3 Other Conservation Initiatives .......................................................................................................14

1.4.4 Refuge Vision and Goals ............................................................................................................................17

1.4.4.1 Refuge Vision .................................................................................................................................17

1.4.4.2 Refuge Goals ..................................................................................................................................17

1.4.5 Planning Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ............................................................................................18

1.4.5.1 Landscape Issues ...........................................................................................................................18

1.4.5.2 Environmental Health Issues .........................................................................................................19

1.4.5.3 Wildlife and Habitat Issues ...........................................................................................................20

1.4.5.4 Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Issues ..........................................................................................23

1.4.5.5 Other Recreational Use Issues ......................................................................................................28

1.4.5.6 Administration and Operations Issues ..........................................................................................30

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action .......................................................................31

2.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................31

2.2 Development of Alternatives ...............................................................................................................................31

2.3 Alternative Components Not Considered for Detailed Analysis .........................................................................33

2.4 Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis ............................................................................................34

2.4.1 Elements Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................................34

2.4.2 Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction) ..............................................................................................36
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

vi

2.4.3 Alternative B: Wildlife Focus ......................................................................................................................54

2.4.4 Alternative C: Public Use Focus ..................................................................................................................80

2.4.5 Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus .........................................................................103

2.4.6 Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) .....................134

Chapter 3: Affected Environment ............................................................................................................. 213

3.1 Physical Environment .........................................................................................................................................213

3.1.1 Geomorphology – Effects of Water, Wind and Ice ..................................................................................214

3.1.2 Land Use Characteristics of the Upper Mississippi River Basin ..............................................................216

3.1.3 Locks and Dams and River Reaches .........................................................................................................216

3.1.4 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................................................219

3.1.5 Soils .......................................................................................................................................................... 220

3.1.6 Climate...................................................................................................................................................... 221

3.1.7 Contaminants ............................................................................................................................................222

3.1.7.1 Refuge and Vicinity on the Upper Mississippi River ................................................................... 222

3.1.7.2 Lost Mound Unit ...........................................................................................................................224

3.2 Fish, Wildlife and Habitat ..................................................................................................................................224

3.2.1 Navigation Pools and Habitat Change...................................................................................................... 224

3.2.2 Special Management Areas .....................................................................................................................228

3.2.2.1 Wilderness ...................................................................................................................................228

3.2.2.2 Special Designated Areas ............................................................................................................228

3.2.2.3 Conservation Easements ..............................................................................................................228

3.2.3 Notable State Management Areas ..........................................................................................................231

3.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................................................232

3.2.4.1 Bald Eagle ....................................................................................................................................232

3.2.4.2 Higgins Eye Pearlymussel ............................................................................................................232

3.2.5 Candidate Threatened and Endangered Species .....................................................................................233

3.2.5.1 Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake ...............................................................................................233

3.2.5.2 Sheepnose ....................................................................................................................................234

3.2.5.3 Spectaclecase ..............................................................................................................................234

3.2.6 Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities ................................................................................................235

3.2.7 Migratory Birds ......................................................................................................................................... 235

3.2.7.1 Waterfowl ....................................................................................................................................235

3.2.8 Other Migratory Birds ............................................................................................................................... 244

3.2.8.1 Songbirds .....................................................................................................................................244

3.2.8.2 Colonial Nesting Birds .................................................................................................................247

3.2.8.3 Secretive Marsh Birds ..................................................................................................................249

3.2.8.4 Raptors .........................................................................................................................................249

3.2.9 Fish ............................................................................................................................................................250

3.2.9.1 Sport Fish .....................................................................................................................................251

3.2.9.2 Other Fish .....................................................................................................................................252
vii

3.2.9.3 Fish Passage ................................................................................................................................252

3.2.10 Freshwater Mussels ...............................................................................................................................253

3.2.11 Reptiles and Amphibians ........................................................................................................................254

3.2.11.1 Turtles ........................................................................................................................................254

3.2.11.2 Frogs and Toads ........................................................................................................................ 255

3.2.12 Invasive Species .....................................................................................................................................255

3.2.12.1 Invasive Fish ...............................................................................................................................256

3.2.12.2 Invasive Plants ...........................................................................................................................256

3.2.12.3 Invasive Invertebrates ................................................................................................................258

3.2.13 Other Aquatic Invertebrates ...................................................................................................................259

3.2.14 Mammals ................................................................................................................................................260

3.2.15 Vegetation ..............................................................................................................................................265

3.2.15.1 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation .................................................................................................265

3.2.15.2 Emergent Aquatic Vegetation ....................................................................................................265

3.2.15.3 Floodplain Forest ........................................................................................................................266

3.2.15.4 Grasslands .................................................................................................................................267

3.2.16 Natural and Current Role of Fire ............................................................................................................267

3.2.16.1 Wild Fires and Prescribed Burns................................................................................................ 268

3.2.17 Environmental Management Program.....................................................................................................268

3.2.18 Water Level Management ......................................................................................................................275

3.3 General Public Use .............................................................................................................................................280

3.3.1 Hunting .....................................................................................................................................................280

3.3.2 Closed Areas............................................................................................................................................. 281

3.3.3 Fishing .......................................................................................................................................................281

3.3.4 Wildlife Observation and Photography ....................................................................................................285

3.3.5 Interpretation and Environmental Education ............................................................................................285

3.3.6 Recreational Boating, Camping, and Other Beach-Related Uses ............................................................286

3.3.7 Public Use Facilities ..................................................................................................................................287

3.3.8 Scenic Byways.......................................................................................................................................... 287

3.4 Socioeconomic ...................................................................................................................................................289

3.4.1 Population, Income, Employment and Demographics ..............................................................................289

3.4.2 Refuge Economics ....................................................................................................................................290

3.4.3 Commercial Use of Refuge .......................................................................................................................292

3.4.3.1 Hunting, Fishing and Other Guide Services .................................................................................292

3.4.3.2 Commercial Trapping ...................................................................................................................292

3.4.3.3 Fish Float Operators .....................................................................................................................292

3.4.3.4 Commercial Fishing ......................................................................................................................292

3.4.3.5 Clamming .....................................................................................................................................294

3.4.4 Administration and Facilities ...................................................................................................................294

3.5 Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation ...................................................................................................296
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

viii

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences............................................................................................... 299

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 299

4.2 Effects Common to All Alternatives................................................................................................................... 300

4.2.1 Environmental Justice .............................................................................................................................. 300

4.2.2 Cultural and Historical Preservation......................................................................................................... 300

4.2.3 Climate Change......................................................................................................................................... 301

4.2.4 Prescribed Fire .......................................................................................................................................... 301

4.2.4.1 Physical Fire Effects ..................................................................................................................... 301

4.2.4.2 Biological Fire Effects .................................................................................................................. 302

4.2.4.3 Socioeconomic Fire Effects.......................................................................................................... 302

4.2.5 Adjacent Land Owners.............................................................................................................................. 302

4.2.6 Marinas and Other Water Related Business............................................................................................ 303

4.2.7 Commercial Navigation ............................................................................................................................ 303

4.2.8 Commercial Forest Harvest....................................................................................................................... 303

4.2.9 Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................................................303

4.2.10 Furbearer Trapping.................................................................................................................................. 305

4.3 Effects of Alternatives on Physical Parameters/Concerns ................................................................................ 305

4.3.1 Water Quality............................................................................................................................................ 305

4.3.2 Sedimentation........................................................................................................................................... 306

4.3.3 Geomorphology......................................................................................................................................... 306

4.3.4 Hydrology and Water Level Management................................................................................................ 307

4.3.5 Landscape Considerations........................................................................................................................ 307

4.4 Effects of Alternatives on Biological Parameters/Concerns.............................................................................. 308

4.4.1 Threatened and Endangered Species....................................................................................................... 308

4.4.2 Waterfowl................................................................................................................................................. 309

4.4.3 Other Migratory Birds ............................................................................................................................... 310

4.4.4 Sport Fish .................................................................................................................................................. 311

4.4.5 Other Fish.................................................................................................................................................. 312

4.4.6 Freshwater Mussels ................................................................................................................................. 313

4.4.7 Reptiles and Amphibians.......................................................................................................................... 314

4.4.8 Invasive Species ....................................................................................................................................... 316

4.4.9 Invertebrates............................................................................................................................................. 316

4.4.10 Mammals ................................................................................................................................................ 317

4.4.11 Aquatic Vegetation/Wetlands................................................................................................................ 317

4.4.12 Floodplain Forest..................................................................................................................................... 318

4.4.13 Terrestrial Habitat/Grasslands ............................................................................................................... 319

4.5 Effects of Alternatives on Socioeconomic Parameters/Concerns ..................................................................... 320

4.5.1 Hunting...................................................................................................................................................... 320

4.5.2 Fishing....................................................................................................................................................... 324

4.5.3 Fishing Tournaments................................................................................................................................. 327

4.5.4 Commercial Fishing................................................................................................................................... 328
ix

4.5.5 Fishing Floats............................................................................................................................................ 329

4.5.6 Interpretation and Environmental Education............................................................................................ 330

4.5.7 Wildlife Observation and Photography .................................................................................................... 331

4.5.8 Recreational Boating, Camping and Other Beach-Related Uses ............................................................. 331

4.5.9 Commercial Guiding and Tours ................................................................................................................ 335

4.5.10 Refuge Access ........................................................................................................................................ 335

4.5.11 Control of Dogs and Other Domestic Animals ....................................................................................... 336

4.5.12 Property Taxes ........................................................................................................................................ 336

4.5.13 Refuge Administration and Operations.................................................................................................. 337

4.6 Cumulative Impacts............................................................................................................................................ 338

4.6.1 Cumulative Impacts – Physical Environment ........................................................................................... 338

4.6.2 Cumulative Impacts – Biological Environment......................................................................................... 338

4.6.3 Cumulative Impacts – Socioeconomic Environment ................................................................................ 339

4.7 Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources ..................................................................................341

4.8 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity .....................................................................................................341

4.9 Unavoidable Adverse Effects .............................................................................................................................342

Chapter 5: List of Preparers .......................................................................................................................345

Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination With the Public and Others............................................ 348

6.1 Scoping and Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................348

6.2 Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation ...................................................................................................351

6.3 List of Contacts ..................................................................................................................................................351

Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement

 (Alternative E) and Response ...............................................................................................358

7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................358

7.2 How Comments were Handled ..........................................................................................................................359

7.3 How Comments and Responses are Organized .................................................................................................359

7.4 Tribes, States, Corps of Engineers, and Environmental Protection Agency Comments and Response ............360

7.5 Elected Official Comments and Response .........................................................................................................373

7.6 Petitions Received and Response ......................................................................................................................380

7.6.1 First Comment Period Petitions .................................................................................................................380

7.6.2 Second Comment Period Petitions ...........................................................................................................382

7.7 Form Letter or Form E-mail Comments and Response ......................................................................................384

7.7.1 First Comment Period ................................................................................................................................384

7.7.2 Second Comment Period ..........................................................................................................................386

7.8 Public Comment by Topic or CCP Objective .......................................................................................................386

7.9 General Comments..............................................................................................................................................421
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

x

Chapter 8: References ................................................................................................................................ 497

Appendix A: Glossary .................................................................................................................................. 505

Appendix B: Initialisms and Acronyms ................................................................................................. 511

Appendix C: Legislation Establishing the Upper Mississippi River Refuge ..................................... 515

Appendix D: Applicable Laws and Executive Orders ........................................................................... 521

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations ............................................................................................. 529

Appendix F: Cooperative Agreement with Corps of Engineers ........................................................... 533

Appendix G: Land Acquisition Maps ........................................................................................................ 545

Appendix H: Project Features Tables ...................................................................................................... 561

Appendix I: Current Hunting Regulations ................................................................................................ 629

Appendix J: Public Use Regulations ........................................................................................................ 637

Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists ......................................................................................... 643

Appendix L: Plan Implementation ............................................................................................................. 699

Appendix M: Distribution List .................................................................................................................... 713

Appendix N: Example of Environmental Pool Plans ............................................................................. 717

Appendix O: Vegetation Classification System Reference and Sample ........................................... 723

Appendix P: Maps of Management Alternatives ................................................................................... 731

Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and 

Rationale for Alternative E ................................................................................................. 733

Appendix R: Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas: Background, 

Descriptions, and Rationale for Alternative E ................................................................ 771
Upper Mississippi River

National Wildlife & Fish Refuge

Final Environmental Impact Statement and 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

List of Figures

xi

Figure 1: Location of Upper Mississippi River NWFR ......................................................................................2

Figure 2: Watersheds of the Rivers and Streams that Impact Upper Mississippi River Refuge .................215

Figure 3: Upper Mississippi River Navigation System with Locks and Dams numbered; Navigation 

Pools Occur Above Each Lock (Source: Lubinski, 1999) .................................................................217

Figure 4: Typical Floodplain and Bluff Habitats of the Upper Mississippi River ..........................................218

Figure 5: Landcover Maps of Pool 8, 1890s and 1989; Upper Mississippi River Refuge .............................226

Figure 6: Island Loss in the Lower Half of the Upper Mississippi River Pools, 

Upper Mississipi River Refuge .......................................................................................................227

Figure 7: Annual Bald Eagle Production on Upper Mississippi River Refuge, 1986-2005 ...........................232

Figure 8: Peak Number of Mallards and Canvasback Ducks on Upper Mississippi River Refuge, 

Selected Years 1956 to 2005 .........................................................................................................237

Figure 9: Percent of the Eastern Population of Canvasbacks that Occurred on Upper Mississippi River 

Refuge During the Coordinated Canvasback Survey, 1974-2005 ..................................................238

Figure 10: Peak Number of Canada Geese and Tundra Swans on Upper Mississippi River Refuge, 

Selected Years 1956-2005 .............................................................................................................238

Figure 11: Average Dabbling Duck Use-days by Pool, 1997-2004, Upper Mississppi River Refuge .............239

Figure 12: Average Diving Duck Use-days by Pool, 1997-2004, Upper Mississippi River Refuge .................239

Figure 13: Average Tundra Swan and Canada Goose Use-days by Pool, 1997-2002, 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge .....................................................................................................240

Figure 14: Average Number of Duck-use-days per Acre of Closed Area, 2000-2003, 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge .....................................................................................................244

Figure 15: Average Number of Waterfowl (Ducks, Geese, and Swans) Use-days per Acre 

of Closed Area, 2000-2003, Upper Mississippi River Refuge .......................................................245

Figure 16: Puddle Duck Portion of the Average Number of Duck Use-days per Acre of 

Closed Area, 2000-2003, Upper Mississippi River Refuge ............................................................245

Figure 17: Average Number of Bird Species Observed and Number of Counts Conducted,

1994-99, Upper Mississippi River Refuge .....................................................................................246

Figure 18: Number of Colonies and Number of Nests of Great Blue Herons on the Upper Mississippi River Refuge, Selected Years 1960-2005. 248

Figure 19: Average Number of Zebra Mussels per Meter Square Collected During Fall Sampling 

Periods in Selected Areas of Pools 7, 8, 9, and 13, 1997-2005, 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge .....................................................................................................259

Figure 20: Average Number of Mayflies per Meter Square Collected During Fall Sampling 

Periods From Selected Areas on Pools 7, 8, 9 and 13, 1995-2003, 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge .....................................................................................................260
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

xii

Figure 21: Average Number of Fingernail Clams per Meter Square Collected During Fall 

Sampling Periods From Selected Areas on Pools 7, 8, 9 and 13, 1995-2005 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge .................................................................................................... 260

Figure 22: Number of Beaver Harvested, 1990-91 Through the 2004-2005 Seasons, 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge .................................................................................................... 261

Figure 23: Number of River Otter Harvested Between 1997-1998 and 2004-2005, 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge .................................................................................................... 262

Figure 24: Number of Muskrats Harvested, 1990-91 Through 2004-2005 Season, 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge .................................................................................................... 263

Figure 25: Number of Active Trappers, 1990-91 Through the 2004-2005 Season, 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge .................................................................................................... 263

Figure 26: Number of Raccoon Harvested, 1990-91 Through the 2004-2005 Season, 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge .................................................................................................... 264

Figure 27: Number of Mink Harvested, 1990-91 Through the 2004-2005 Season, 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge .................................................................................................... 264

Figure 28: Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program Habitat 

Rehabilitation and Enhancement Projects ..................................................................................... 270

Figure 29: Phase II Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project, Stoddard Islands, 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge, Aerial Photo Sequence 

(Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources) ............................................................................. 275

Figure 30: Seed Islands Constructed and “Growing” on Upper Mississippi River Refuge ............................ 276

Figure 31: Constructed Islands with Sacrificial Berms, Rock Groins, and Native Vegetation, 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge .................................................................................................... 277

Figure 32: Wildlife Loafing Structures Placed on Constructed Islands Upper Mississippi River Refuge ...... 278

Figure 33: Pool 8 Drawdown Sequence (Upper Mississippi River Refuge, La Crosse District) ..................... 280

Figure 34: National Scenic Byways Bordering the Upper Mississippi River Refuge ..................................... 288
Upper Mississippi River

National Wildlife & Fish Refuge

Final Environmental Impact Statement and 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

List of Tables

xiii

Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River Refuge ............................................173

Table 2: Summary of Project Features by Alternative ................................................................................................192

Table 3: Degree to Which Alternatives Meet Refuge Needs......................................................................................195

Table 4: Refuge Priority Locations and Actions that Contribute to Implementation of 

Environmental Pool Plans, 2006-2021, Upper Mississippi River NWFR ......................................................196

Table 5: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries* / Alternatives A through E, Upper Mississippi River Refuge ....................208

Table 6: Climate Data, Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, 

River Mile 764 to 503. ..................................................................................................................................222

Table 7: Special Designated Areas Within the Upper Mississippi River Refuge ......................................................229

Table 8: Conservation Easements Maintained by Upper Mississippi River Refuge ..................................................230

Table 9: Notable State Management Areas ...............................................................................................................231

Table 10: Estimated Waterfowl Food Plant Energy Production in Closed Areas on Pools 4-14 

Under Four Alternatives, Upper Mississippi River Refuge ...........................................................................243

Table 11:Partners in Flight, Physiographic Region 16 Priority Bird Species Found on 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge Including Seasonal Occurrence and Habitat Associations. .....................247

Table 12: Occurrence of Frogs and Toads on Upper Mississippi River Refuge, 1994 to 2004 ....................................255

Table 13: Invasive Plants and Their Control on the Upper Mississippi River Refuge ..................................................257

Table 14: Summary of Environmental Management Program Habitat Rehabilitation and 

Enhancement Projects On or Adjacent to the Upper Mississippi River Refuge 

(Adapted from USACE, 2004b) .....................................................................................................................271

Table 15: Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program Habitat 

Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project Techniques. (USACE, 2004b) ......................................................274

Table 16: Upper Mississippi River Pools on Refuge Most Suited for a Drawdown 

(Adapted from USACE, 2004c), Upper Mississippi River Refuge .................................................................279

Table 17: Estimated Annual Hunting Visits to the Upper Mississippi River Refuge 

(Fiscal Years 1999-2003 Refuge Management Information System Reports) .............................................281

Table 18: Comparison of Hunting Seasons 2003 - 2004 ............................................ on Upper Mississippi River Refuge 

For Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois .....................................................................................................282

Table 19: Estimated Annual Fishing Visits to the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife 

and Fish Refuge (Fiscal year 1999-2004 Refuge Management Information System reports.) .................... 283

Table 20: Summary of Upper Mississippi River Fishing Tournaments by State ..........................................................284

Table 21: Estimated Annual Wildlife Observation and Photography Visits to the 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Fiscal year 2002-2004 Refuge Management 

Information System reports) .........................................................................................................................285

Table 22: Upper Mississippi River Refuge Visitor Contact Stations ............................................................................287

Table 23: Employment Characteristics by Major Economic Sectors and Refuge District ............................................290

Table 24: Total Economic Impacts of Recreational Use: Upper Mississippi River Refuge, 2003 ................................291
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

xiv

Table 25: Comparison of Trapping Seasons, Upper Mississippi River Refuge ............................................................293

Table 26: Estimated Gross Revenue from Furbearers Harvested by 245 Trappers 

During the 2003-2004 Trapping Season, Upper Mississippi River Refuge ..................................................293

Table 27: Summary of Commercial Fishing, Upper Mississippi River Refuge ..............................................................294

Table 28: Annual Economic Effects of CCP Alternatives: Hunting ...............................................................................320

Table 29: Annual Economic Effects of CCP Alternatives: Fishing ................................................................................325

Table 30: Annual Economic Effects of CCP Alternatives: Wildlife Observation ..........................................................332

Table 31: Annual Economic Effects of CCP Alternatives: Recreational Boating, 

Camping and other Beach-related Uses .......................................................................................................332

Table 32: Summary of Annual Economic Effects of CCP Alternatives on Recreational Use ........................................340

Table 33: Summary of Alternative Impacts ..................................................................................................................343
 Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

xv

Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Introduction

A Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) 

is being prepared to guide the 

administration and management of the 

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife 

and Fish Refuge (Refuge) for the next 15 

years. The document integrates the 

components of a CCP, namely goals, 

objectives, and strategies; with the 

requirements of an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS), 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 (Service). 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.

The Refuge was established by act of Congress in 1924 for the purpose of providing a refuge and 

breeding ground for migratory birds, fish, other wildlife, and plants. The Refuge encompasses 

approximately 240,000 acres in four states in a more-or-less continuous stretch of 261 miles of 

Mississippi River floodplain from near Wabasha, Minnesota to near Rock Island, Illinois (Figure A). 

The seemingly endless panorama of river, backwaters, marshes, islands, and forest, framed by steep 

bluffs, makes the Refuge a national scenic treasure.

The Refuge is perhaps the most important corridor of fish and wildlife habitat in the central United 

States, an importance which has increased over time as habitat losses or degradation have occurred 

elsewhere. Fish and wildlife is varied and generally abundant with 306 bird, 119 fish, 51 mammal, 

and 42 mussel species recorded. Up to 40 percent of the continent’s waterfowl use the Mississippi 

Flyway during migration, and up to 50 percent of the world’s canvasback ducks and 20 percent of the 

eastern United States population of Tundra Swans stop on the Refuge during fall migration. There 

were 167 active Bald Eagle nests in 2005 and up to 2,700 eagles can be on the Refuge during spring 

migration. Approximately 5,000 heron and egret nests can be found in up to 15 colonies.

Egrets. Copyright by Sandra Lines
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

xvi

Figure A: Location of Upper Mississippi River Refuge
 Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

xvii

With an estimated 3.7 million annual visitors, the Refuge is the most heavily visited in the Refuge 

System. It has interface with 4 states, 70 communities, 2 Corps of Engineers districts, 11 locks and 

dams which help maintain water depths for commercial navigation, and is represented in Congress 

by 8 senators and 6 representatives. 

The Refuge has its headquarters in Winona, Minnesota, and district offices with managers and staff 

in Winona; La Crosse, Wisconsin; McGregor, Iowa; and Savanna, Illinois. There are currently 37 

full-time permanent employees and a base annual budget of $3.1 million.

Public Involvement and 

Decision Process

Internal scoping of issues began in March 2002 

followed by 10 public scoping meetings held in 

August and September of that year. Day-long 

public workshops on issues and potential 

solutions were held in four locations in January 

and March 2003, and there were three special 

public meetings on Waterfowl Hunting Closed 

Areas the same year. Four Interagency 

Planning Team meetings involving the Corps of 

Engineers, and Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and 

Illinois departments of natural resources were 

held in 2001 to 2004; follow-up meetings were 

held with the St. Paul and Rock Island Districts, Corps of Engineers, and the Minnesota and 

Wisconsin departments of natural resources. Briefings with various commissions, associations, and 

Congressional offices occurred throughout the process, along with periodic news releases to 52 

media outlets, and special CCP newsletters mailed to 2,600 citizens. 

The Draft EIS/CCP was released May 1, 2005 for a 120-day comment period. During the comment 

period the Refuge hosted 21 public information meetings and workshops attended by 2,900 people. 

The workshops resulted in 87 workgroup reports with comments or recommendations on major 

issues. The Refuge also received 2,516 written comments, including 5 petitions with more than 3,000 

signatures.

Due to high public interest, a new preferred alternative (Alternative E) was released as a 

Supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP on December 5, 2005 for a 60-day comment period that was 

extended to 90 days. The Refuge held nine public meetings during the comment period attended by 

888 people. A total of 714 written comments were received during this comment period.

Meetings or conference calls with the Interagency Planning Team, individual states, Congressional 

members and staff, and organizations were held throughout both comment periods, and there were 

numerous news releases issued and media interviews.

Following a 30-day waiting period, a decision is made on which alternative in the Final CCP/EIS will 

be implemented. The public or agencies may provide additional information or comment during this 

time, although no public meetings will be held. The decision is documented in a formal Record of 

Decision, signed by the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota. 

The Record of Decision will be announced in the media and made available on the planning website 

or by request.

Participants in a scoping meeting identify priority issues. 

USFWS
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

xviii

Refuge Vision and Goals

The Refuge Vision provides a simple statement 

of the desired, overall future condition of the 

Refuge. Goals provide the themes or framework 

for measurable objectives and strategies which 

are the heart of the CCP and the basic structure 

of the alternatives considered. 

Refuge Vision:

The Upper Mississippi River National 

Wildlife and Fish Refuge is beautiful, 

healthy, and supports abundant and 

diverse native fish, wildlife, and plants 

for the enjoyment and thoughtful use of 

current and future generations.

Refuge Goals:

Planning Issues, Concerns and Opportunities

Scoping and public involvement helped identify numerous issues facing the Refuge and formed the 

basis for crafting the Final EIS/CCP. These issues are summarized below by related Refuge goal.

Landscape We will strive to maintain and improve the scenic qualities 

and wild character of the Upper Mississippi River Refuge.

Environmental Health We will strive to improve the environmental health of the 

Refuge by working with others.

Wildlife and Habitat Our habitat management will support diverse and 

abundant native fish, wildlife, and plants.

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation We will manage programs and facilities to ensure 

abundant and sustainable hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, interpretation, and 

environmental education opportunities for a broad crosssection of the public.

Other Recreational Use We will provide opportunities for the public to use and 

enjoy the Refuge for traditional and appropriate nonwildlife-dependent recreation that is compatible with the 

purpose for which the Refuge was established and the 

mission of the Refuge System.

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.

Turtles basking in the sun. Copyright Sandra Lines
 Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

xix

Landscape Issues

Environmental Health Issues

Wildlife and Habitat Issues

Refuge Boundary Maintaining an accurate and clearly marked boundary is a critical 

basic need of resource protection.

Land Acquisition Approximately 30,000 acres within the approved Refuge boundary 

has yet to be acquired. These lands and waters will fill habitat gaps 

between existing Refuge lands and benefit fish, wildlife, plants, and 

public use. 

Bluffland Protection The 1987 Master Plan identified 13 bluff areas with notable wildlife 

values, namely peregrine falcon nesting potential. None have been 

acquired, either fee or easement, to date.

Natural Areas and Special 

Designations

Management plans are needed for the four federally-designated 

Research Natural Areas within the Refuge, and the Refuge should 

be nominated as a “Wetland of International Importance.”

Water Quality Water quality related concerns include sedimentation which is 

filling backwaters and nutrient loads from land use in the Refuge 

watershed. 

Water Level Management A substantial loss of islands and marsh habitat has occurred due to 

stable water management for navigation and erosive actions of wind 

and waves. Fish and wildlife use and productivity has declined.

Invasive Plants and Animals Invasive species like reed canary grass, Eurasian milfoil, zebra 

mussel, and various Asian carp pose a threat to native species and 

their habitat.

Environmental Pool Plans This 50-year habitat vision for each of the pools on the Refuge seeks to 

reverse the long-term trend of habitat loss or degradation. 

Implementing the plans presents a challenge from both a prioritysetting and funding perspective.

Guiding Principles for 

Habitat Projects

 Guiding principles for habitat projects on the Refuge are needed to 

ensure adherence to policy and to help conserve the natural and scenic 

qualities of the Refuge.

Monitoring Fish, Wildlife, 

and Plants 

Monitoring is a requirement of the Refuge Improvement Act, but 

meeting this requirement on the Refuge has been hampered by 

funding and staffing levels.

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.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

xx

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Issues

Furbearer Trapping The Refuge needs to update the 1988 Trapping Plan to reflect recent 

national policy and regulation changes governing compatibility of uses 

and economic uses.

Fishery and Mussel 

Management

The Refuge needs to play a larger role in fishery and mussel 

management in keeping with its mandated purposes, and because of 

the high intrinsic, recreational, and commercial value of these 

resources.

Commercial Fishing, 

Clamming and 

Turtle Harvest 

Refuge oversight of these uses needs to be brought in line with current 

policy and regulations through cooperative work with the states.

Turtle Management New and emerging information on the importance of the Refuge to a 

variety of turtle species calls for increased monitoring and research on 

turtle ecology and effects of certain public use.

Forest Management The 51,000 acres of floodplain forest on the Refuge is even aged, 

growing old, and in many cases, not regenerating itself. Proactive 

management is needed to safeguard this important resource.

Grassland Management The 5,700 acres of grassland on the Refuge, some of which is rare 

tallgrass prairie, needs to be monitored and actively managed to 

ensure its continued diversity and health.

General Hunting Hunting is an important priority public use on the Refuge and a vital 

part of the cultural, social, and economic fabric of adjacent 

communities. The Refuge Hunting Plan needs to be updated to reflect 

land acquisitions and new policies.

Waterfowl Hunting Closed 

Areas

Established in 1958, the current closed area system is no longer 

providing a desirable distribution of feeding and resting areas or an 

equitable distribution of hunting and wildlife observation 

opportunities due to habitat decline. With birds predominantly using 

only a few areas, there is a risk of serious impacts from an 

environmental accident or crash in aquatic food resources. 

Waterfowl Hunting 

Regulations

Due to continued high hunter numbers on the Refuge, there is a need 

to review current waterfowl hunting regulations to ensure continued 

hunt quality and fairness, and to minimize crippling loss.

Firing Line, Pool 7, Lake 

Onalaska

Crowding, hunter behavior, and crippling loss need to be addressed in 

this highly popular hunting area to help maintain a quality and 

equitable hunting experience.

Permanent Blinds and Decoy 

Sets on Savanna District

The use of permanent blinds for waterfowl hunting has led to 

increased debris. Blinds, along with leaving decoys in place, also lead 

to confrontations between hunters, private use of public land, and 

reduced hunting opportunities for many hunters. There is also an 

issue of consistency since permanent blinds and leaving decoys out 

overnight are not allowed on the other three districts of the Refuge.
 Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

xxi

Other Recreational Use Issues

Potter’s Marsh Managed 

Hunt

This hunt has entailed high administrative and management costs, 

problems with permanent blinds as noted above, and a drawing 

process that has evolved into private exclusive use for some parties. 

Changes are needed to maintain a quality and equitable hunting 

experience in this popular area.

Blanding Landing Managed 

Hunt

This hunt, inherited with the transfer to the Refuge of the former 

Savanna Army Depot, Savanna District, needs to be reviewed for 

consistency with other Refuge hunts and to address permanent blind 

issues noted above.

General Fishing Fishing is an important priority public use on the Refuge with over 

one million angler visits yearly. Attention to quality habitat and 

support facilities (boat ramps, other accesses, and fishing docks) is 

needed to maintain and improve this sport.

Fishing Tournaments Tournament fishing continues to grow and is posing conflicts with 

other anglers and small craft users on the Refuge, and can cause 

habitat damage and fish and wildlife disruption in shallow backwater 

areas. Oversight is needed to help coordinate timing and spacing of 

tournaments with the states.

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography

Public interest in these activities on the Refuge continues to grow, and 

there is a need for additional facilities that foster these priority public 

uses while limiting wildlife and habitat disturbance.

Interpretation and 

Environmental Education

Demand for these priority public uses of the Refuge needs to be 

addressed through facilities and staffing levels.

Commercial Fish Floats These private fishing platforms below locks and dams provide an 

important fishing option for visitors. However, administration of this 

commercial use has been expensive due to permit compliance issues. 

Also, new standards need to be developed to ensure adequate and safe 

operations.

Guiding Services Guiding businesses are increasing on the Refuge and oversight has 

been inconsistent. The potential for conflicts with the general public 

and among competing guides is growing. Some guides are operating 

without the proper Coast Guard licensing.

Beach Use and Maintenance Beach-related uses on the Refuge such as camping, social gatherings, 

recreational boating, picnicking, and swimming account for over one 

million visits and these uses continue to increase. There are concerns 

with Refuge regulation violations, human health and safety, officer 

safety in crowds, disturbance to other visitors, and wildlife and habitat 

disturbance. New policies and regulations are needed to ensure these 

popular uses remain compatible with the purposes of the Refuge.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

xxii

Administration and Operations Issues

Summary of Alternatives Considered

Five 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 under each alternative. 

Alternative E is the Service’s preferred alternative. 

Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction )

Continue current level of effort on fish and wildlife and habitat management. Public use programs 

would remain virtually unchanged.

Disturbance in Backwater 

Areas

Technology in the form of jet skis, air boats, bass boats, and shallow 

water motors have introduced more users, more noise, and more 

disturbance into backwater areas of the Refuge. Citizens have 

expressed concern over the declining opportunities to experience the 

quiet and solitude of these unique Refuge areas, while managers are 

concerned about the effects of disturbance on sensitive wildlife 

species.

Slow, No-Wake Zones On a few areas, boat traffic levels and size of boats is creating a safety 

hazard due to blind spots in boating routes, or causing erosion to 

island and shoreline habitat. Creating slow, no-wake zones on these 

areas needs to be explored.

Dog Use Policy The current regulation is causing confusion with the public and 

enforcement challenges for officers. The result is visitors letting dogs 

run free, posing a threat to other visitors and disturbance to wildlife. 

A clear policy on the use of dogs and other domestic animals is needed 

to protect visitors and the resource while taking into account the 

public’s interest in training and exercising their dogs.

General Public Use 

Regulations

The current public use regulations for the Refuge were updated in 

1999. A general update is needed to reflect changing use levels and 

patterns and to provide clear guidance to visitors and enforcement 

officers. 

General With approximately 240,000 acres over 261 miles and 3.7 million 

visitors, management and administration of the Refuge is a huge 

undertaking requiring staffing and funding for programs, facilities, 

and equipment. Current office and maintenance facilities are 

inadequate at most locations, both from an employee and public 

service standpoint. Public information efforts are inadequate to keep 

the public abreast of opportunities and issues. Public access to the 

Refuge needs to be increased where feasible to meet demand and 

distribute visitor opportunities.
 Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

xxiii

Alternative A Summary

Boundary issues would be addressed as time and funding 

for surveying allow. There would be a continuation of 

acquisition of lands at a modest rate within the approved 

boundary, or about 200 acres per year. No special effort 

would be undertaken to safeguard blufflands and 

manage Research Natural Areas. Guiding principles for 

habitat projects would not be established.

Existing programs and effort would address 

sedimentation and other water quality issues. Pool-scale 

drawdowns would continue at current, intermittent level. 

Control of invasive plant species would be modest, and 

control of invasive animals would be minimal, relying on 

the work of the states and other agencies. Environmental 

Pool Plans would be implemented on a strategic and 

opportunistic basis using the Environmental 

Management Program. Wildlife inventory and 

monitoring would remain unchanged with continued 

focus on waterfowl, colonial nesting birds, eagles, and aquatic invertebrate/vegetation sampling. 

Management of threatened and endangered species would focus on protection versus recovery. The 

furbearer trapping program would continue but be brought into compliance with policies by doing a 

new plan. There would continue to be limited emphasis on fishery and mussel management and 

commercial fishing oversight. Cooperation with the states and Corps of Engineers on turtle 

monitoring and research would continue, and a forest inventory on the Refuge would be completed in 

cooperation with the Corps of Engineers. Existing grassland habitat on the Refuge would be 

maintained and enhanced using fire and other tools.

Hunting and fishing opportunities would continue on a large percentage of the Refuge. The system 

of waterfowl hunting closed areas would remain the same except for minor boundary adjustments. 

Entry into closed areas for purposes other than hunting, trapping and camping would continue to be 

allowed, although the voluntary avoidance area on Lake Onalaska would remain in place. No action 

would be taken on the firing line issue north of the closed area in Lake Onalaska. No major changes 

would be made to current hunting regulations. Permanent blinds for waterfowl hunting and the 

Potter’s Marsh and Blanding Landing managed hunts in the Savanna District would continue, 

although administrative changes would be made to promote fairness and efficiency. No action would 

be taken on regulating fishing tournaments.

There would be no increase in facilities or programming for wildlife observation, photography, 

interpretation and environmental education, with a focus on maintaining the status quo. There would 

be a modest increase in Refuge access through improvement of existing boat ramps, pull offs, and 

overlooks. Commercial fish floats or piers would be governed by current permit procedures and 

stipulations. Guiding on the refuge would continue with little oversight. Beach-related public use 

(camping, swimming, picnicking, social gatherings) would continue with little change and beach 

planning and maintenance would continue at low levels. One electric motor area would remain 

(Mertes Slough, Pool 6), and no new slow, no-wake zones established. Current regulations on the use 

of dogs would remain in place. There would be no substantive changes made to current public use 

regulations.

There would be no new offices or shops constructed for Headquarters or the Districts, with the 

exception of a new shop for the Winona and Savanna districts since they are already scheduled. 

Staffing levels for the Refuge would remain the same as current, as would public outreach and 

awareness efforts. 

Monarch butterfly amidst duckweed. Copyright by S

Lines
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

xxiv

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 B Summary

Boundary issues would be aggressively 

addressed and the entire Refuge boundary 

would be surveyed. The rate of land acquisition 

within the approved boundary would increase to 

complete 58 percent of the total, an average of 

1,000 acres per year. All bluffland areas 

identified in the 1987 Master Plan would be 

protected by fee-title acquisition or easement, 

and there would be an increase in oversight and 

administration of Research Natural Areas. 

Guiding principles for habitat projects would be 

established. 

There would be an increase in efforts to achieve continuous improvement in the quality of water 

flowing through the Refuge, including decreasing sedimentation. Pool-scale drawdowns would be 

accomplished by working with the Corps of Engineers and the states. Control of invasive plant 

species would increase, and there would be increased emphasis on the control of invasive animals. 

Environmental Pool Plans would be implemented on a strategic and opportunistic basis using the 

Environmental Management Program or other programs and funding sources. Wildlife inventory 

and monitoring would increase and include more species groups beyond the current focus of 

waterfowl, colonial nesting birds, eagles, and aquatic invertebrates/vegetation. Management of 

threatened and endangered species would focus on helping recovery, not just protection. The 

furbearer trapping program would continue but be brought into compliance with policies by doing a 

new plan. The Refuge would become much more active in fishery and mussel management, and 

provide commercial fishing oversight. The knowledge of turtle ecology would be increased through 

research, and there would be continued cooperation with the states and Corps of Engineers on turtle 

conservation efforts. A forest inventory on the Refuge would be completed in cooperation with the 

Corps of Engineers, leading to completion of a forest management plan and more active forest 

management. The existing 5,700 acres of grassland habitat on the Refuge would be maintained and 

enhanced using fire and other tools.

Hunting and fishing opportunities would continue on a large percentage of the Refuge. The system 

of waterfowl hunting closed areas would increase substantially with 14 new areas. Entry into closed 

areas would be prohibited during the respective state duck season, although the voluntary avoidance 

area on Lake Onalaska would remain in place. The firing line issue north of the closed area in Lake 

Onalaska would be addressed by expanding the closed area northward. Current Refuge-wide 

hunting regulations would be changed to include a 25 shotshell limit during waterfowl season and to 

address open water hunting in portions of Pools 9 and 11. Permanent blinds for waterfowl hunting 

would be eliminated Refuge- wide, including those used in the Potter’s Marsh and Blanding Landing 

managed hunts in the Savanna District. The Potter’s Marsh managed hunt would continue with 

administrative changes to promote fairness and efficiency. The Blanding Landing managed hunt 

would be eliminated, but the area would remain open to hunting. General fishing would continue to 

be promoted, although the Refuge would begin oversight of fishing tournaments in cooperation with 

the states and other agencies. 

There would be no increase in facilities or programming for wildlife observation, photography, 

interpretation and environmental education. There would be a modest increase in Refuge access 

through improvement of existing boat ramps, pull offs, and overlooks, and a boat launch fee would be 

Egrets wading. Copyright by Sandra Lines
 Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

xxv

initiated at Refuge-operated boat ramps. Commercial fish floats or piers below locks and dams 6, 7, 

8, and 9 would be eliminated to reduce administrative and oversight costs. Commercial guiding on 

the Refuge would be prohibited. Areas open to beach-related public use (camping, swimming, 

picnicking, social gatherings) would be reduced under a “closed-until-open” policy, and beach 

planning and maintenance would not be allowed on Refuge lands. A total of 10 electric motor areas 

and 9 new slow, no-wake zones would be established. Current regulations on use of dogs would be 

changed to require that dogs and other domestic animals be leashed at all times except when used 

for hunting. General public use regulations would be reviewed annually and changed as needed.

Existing offices would be maintained, but new maintenance facilities or shops would be constructed 

at the Winona, McGregor, and Savanna districts, and eventually, at the Lost Mound Unit. Public 

information and awareness efforts would be decreased 50 percent to focus on wildlife-related work. 

Staffing levels for the Refuge would increase by 17.5 full-time equivalents with the priority being 

biologists, a forester, other specialists, and maintenance persons.

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 C Summary

Boundary issues would be addressed and the entire Refuge boundary would be surveyed. The rate of 

land acquisition within the approved boundary would increase to complete 58 percent of the total, an 

average of 1,000 acres per year, with priority given to tracts that also further public use access and 

opportunities. All bluffland areas identified in the 1987 Master Plan would be protected through feetitle acquisition or easement, and low-key oversight and administration of Research Natural Areas 

would continue. Guiding principles for habitat projects would be established, but they would not 

restrict any public use opportunities. 

There would be increased effort to achieve continuous improvement in the quality of water flowing 

through the Refuge, including decreasing sedimentation. Pool-scale drawdowns would continue at 

current, intermittent level. Control of invasive plant species would be modest, and control of invasive 

animals would be minimal, relying on the work of the states and other agencies. Environmental Pool 

Plans would be implemented on a strategic and opportunistic basis using the Environmental 

Management Program or other programs and funding sources. Wildlife inventory and monitoring 

would decrease by reducing the number of species groups surveyed. Management of threatened and 

endangered species would focus on protection versus recovery. The furbearer trapping program 

would continue but be brought into compliance with policies by doing a new plan. There would 

continue to be limited emphasis on fishery and mussel management and commercial fishing 

oversight. Cooperation with the states and Corps of Engineers on turtle monitoring and research 

would continue, and a forest inventory on the Refuge completed in cooperation with the Corps of 

Engineers. The existing 5,700 acres of grassland habitat on the Refuge would be maintained and 

enhanced using fire and other tools.

Hunting and fishing opportunities would continue on a large percentage of the Refuge. The system 

of waterfowl hunting closed areas would remain the same except for minor boundary adjustments. 

Entry into closed areas for purposes other than hunting, trapping and camping would continue to be 

allowed, and the voluntary avoidance area on Lake Onalaska would remain in place. The firing line 

issue north of the closed area in Lake Onalaska would be addressed by moving the north boundary 

southward. Current Refuge-wide waterfowl hunting regulations would be changed to include a 

hunting party spacing requirement of 100 yards. No action would be taken in regards to open water 

hunting in Pools 9 and 11. Permanent blinds for waterfowl hunting would be eliminated Refugewide, including those used in the Potter’s Marsh and Blanding Landing managed hunts in the 

Savanna District. The Potter’s Marsh managed hunt would continue, but administrative changes 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

xxvi

would be made to promote fairness and efficiency. The Blanding Landing managed hunt would be 

eliminated, but the area would remain open to hunting. General fishing would continue to be 

promoted, although the Refuge would begin oversight of fishing tournaments in cooperation with the 

states and other agencies. 

There would be a major increase in facilities or 

programming for wildlife observation, 

photography, interpretation and environmental 

education. There would be some increase in 

Refuge access through new facilities and 

improvement of existing boat ramps, pull offs, 

and overlooks. A boat launch fee would be 

initiated at Refuge-operated boat ramps. 

Commercial fish floats or piers below locks and 

dams 6, 7, 8, and 9 would be retained if standards 

met, and a new fish float proposed in the 

Savanna District. Commercial guiding on the 

Refuge would be allowed, but with consistent 

policy and permit procedures. Areas open to 

beach-related public use (camping, swimming, 

picnicking, social gatherings) would remain 

virtually unchanged, although regulations would 

be changed to safeguard users, a policy on beach maintenance would be implemented, and an annual 

Refuge Recreation Use Permit and fee would be initiated to improve recreation management. A 

total of 15 electric motor areas and 8 new slow, no-wake zones would be established. Current 

regulations on use of dogs would be changed to allow dogs to be exercised and trained under certain 

conditions. General public use regulations would be reviewed annually and changed as needed.

New offices and maintenance facilities would be constructed at the Winona, La Crosse, McGregor, 

and Savanna Districts (shop only at Savanna), and eventually the office and shop facilities at Lost 

Mound Unit would be remodeled or replaced. A major new visitor center would be constructed in 

either Winona or La Crosse. Public information and awareness efforts would be increased 50 

percent. Staffing levels for the Refuge would increase by 17.5 full-time equivalents with the priority 

being public use related positions.

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-wildlife-dependent uses.

Alternative D Summary

Boundary issues would be aggressively addressed and the entire Refuge boundary would be 

surveyed. The rate of land acquisition would increase within the approved boundary to complete 58 

percent of the total, an average of 1,000 acres per year. There would be more effort to protect 

through easements or fee-title acquisition all bluffland areas identified in the 1987 Master Plan, and 

an increase in oversight and administration of Research Natural Areas. The Refuge would be 

nominated as a “Wetland of International Importance” (Ramsar). Guiding principles for habitat 

projects would be established and stress an integrated approach. 

There would be an increase in effort to achieve continuous improvement in the quality of water 

flowing through the Refuge, including decreasing sedimentation. Pool-scale drawdowns would be 

accomplished by working with the Corps of Engineers and the states. The control of invasive plant 

species would increase, and there would be increased emphasis on the control of invasive animals. 

Fishing on the Refuge. Cindy Samples, USFWS
 Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

xxvii

Environmental Pool Plans would be implemented on a strategic and opportunistic basis using the 

Environmental Management Program or other programs and funding sources. Wildlife inventory 

and monitoring would increase and include more species groups beyond the current focus of 

waterfowl, colonial nesting birds, eagles, and aquatic invertebrates/vegetation. The management of 

threatened and endangered species would focus on helping recovery, not just protection. The 

furbearer trapping program would continue but be brought into compliance with policies by doing a 

new plan. The Refuge would become much more active in fishery and mussel management, and 

provide commercial fishing oversight. Knowledge of turtle ecology through research would increase, 

as would turtle conservation efforts in cooperation with the states and Corps of Engineers. A forest 

inventory on the Refuge would be completed in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, and a 

forest management plan prepared, leading to more active forest management. The 5,700 acres of 

grassland habitat on the Refuge would be maintained and enhanced using fire and other tools.

There would be a continuation of hunting and 

fishing opportunities on a large percentage of 

the Refuge. The system of waterfowl hunting 

closed areas would change with some eliminated, 

some reduced in size, and several new areas 

added for a total of 21 closed areas. Motorized 

watercraft and entry into closed areas for 

fishing, along with hunting, trapping, and 

camping would be prohibited during the 

respective state duck season, although the 

voluntary avoidance area on Lake Onalaska 

would remain in place. The firing line issue north 

of the closed area in Lake Onalaska would be 

addressed by initiating the Gibbs Lake Managed 

Hunting Program involving a limit to the 

number of hunters through drawing, assigning 

hunters to areas, and charging a fee. The current Refuge-wide hunting regulations would be 

changed to include a 25 shotshell limit during the waterfowl season and a 100-yard waterfowl 

hunting party spacing requirement, and a provision to address open water hunting in portions of 

Pools 9 and 11. Permanent blinds for waterfowl hunting would be eliminated Refuge-wide, including 

those used in the Potter’s Marsh and Blanding Landing managed hunts in the Savanna District. The 

Potter’s Marsh managed hunt would continue with administrative changes to promote fairness and 

efficiency. The Blanding Landing managed hunt would be eliminated, but the area would remain 

open to hunting. General fishing would continue to be promoted, although the Refuge would begin 

issuing permits for fishing tournaments in cooperation with the states and other agencies. 

There would be an increase in facilities and programming for wildlife observation, photography, 

interpretation and environmental education. There would be a modest increase in Refuge access 

through new facilities and improvement of existing boat ramps, pull offs, and overlooks. A boat 

launch fee would be initiated on Refuge-operated boat ramps. New standards for the commercial 

fish floats or piers below locks and dams 6, 7, 8, and 9 would be developed and implemented, with a 

phase out of floats which do not meet the standards. A consistent process for issuing permits for 

commercial guiding on the Refuge would be implemented. Areas open to beach-related public use 

(camping, swimming, picnicking, social gatherings) would be reduced to some degree under an 

“open-unless-closed” policy, new regulations would be implemented, and a beach maintenance policy 

established. Initiating a Refuge Recreation Use Permit and fee would be explored to defray costs of 

managing beach-related uses. A total of 16 electric motor areas and 9 new slow, no-wake zones would 

be established. Current regulations on the use of dogs would be changed to allow dogs to be 

exercised and trained under certain conditions. General public use regulations would be reviewed 

annually and changed as needed.

Duck hunting on the Upper Mississippi River Refuge. 

USFWS
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

xxviii

New offices and maintenance shops would be constructed at the Winona, La Crosse, and McGregor 

Districts, and at the Lost Mound Unit. The office would be expanded at the Savanna District and a 

new shop constructed. Public information and awareness efforts would be increased 50 percent. 

Staffing levels for the Refuge would increase by 19.5 full-time equivalents with a balance among 

biological, maintenance, visitor services, technical, and administrative staff.

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 spectrum of 

users, both for wildlife-dependent uses and traditional and appropriate non-wildlife-dependent uses.

Alternative E Summary

Boundary issues would be aggressively addressed and areas with greatest encroachment problems 

would be surveyed in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers. The rate of land acquisition would 

increase within the approved boundary to complete 58 percent of the total, an average of 1,000 acres 

per year. There would be more effort to protect through easements or fee-title acquisition all 

bluffland areas identified in the 1987 Master Plan, and an increase in oversight and administration of 

Research Natural Areas. The Refuge would be nominated as a Wetland of International Importance 

(Ramsar). Guiding principles for habitat projects would be established and would stress an 

integrated approach.

There would be an increase in effort to achieve 

continuous improvement in the quality of water 

flowing through the Refuge, including 

decreasing sedimentation. Pool-scale 

drawdowns would be accomplished by working 

with the Corps of Engineers and the states. The 

control of invasive plant species would increase, 

and there would be increased emphasis on the 

control of invasive animals. Environmental Pool 

Plans would be implemented on a strategic and 

opportunistic basis using the Environmental 

Management Program or other programs and 

funding sources. Wildlife inventory and 

monitoring would increase and include more 

species groups beyond the current focus of 

waterfowl, colonial nesting birds, eagles, 

sensitive marsh birds, frogs and toads, and aquatic invertebrates/vegetation. The management of 

threatened and endangered species, including state-listed species, would focus on helping population 

recovery, not just protection. The furbearer trapping program would continue but be brought into 

compliance with policies by writing a new plan. The Refuge would become much more active in 

fishery and mussel management, and provide more input to the states on commercial fishing. 

Knowledge of turtle ecology through research would increase, as would turtle conservation efforts in 

cooperation with the states and Corps of Engineers. A forest inventory on the Refuge would be 

completed in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, and a forest management plan prepared, 

leading to more active forest management. The 5,700 acres of grassland habitat on the Refuge would 

be maintained and enhanced using fire and other tools, and the Refuge would look at increasing 

grassland areas where appropriate due to its importance to grassland birds and other species. 

There would be a continuation of hunting and fishing opportunities on a large percentage of the 

Refuge. The system of waterfowl hunting closed areas would change with some eliminated, some 

reduced in size, and several new areas added for a total of 20 closed areas and three sanctuaries. The 

public would be asked to practice Voluntary Avoidance in all closed areas from October 15 to the end 

Mallard pair. Stan Bousson
 Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

xxix

of the respective state duck hunting season, and no motorized watercraft would be permitted in eight 

small closed areas during the same time period. The firing line issue north of the closed area in Lake 

Onalaska (Gibbs Lake area) would be addressed by completing a management plan in collaboration 

with waterfowl hunters and the State of Wisconsin. There would be no new shotshell possession limit 

or spacing requirement between parties for waterfowl hunters, and the 200-yard hunting party 

spacing for the Illinois side of the Refuge in Pools 12-14 would remain in place. There would be a 

provision for no open water waterfowl hunting in a portion of Pool 11, Grant County, Wisconsin, 

approximate river miles 586-592. In the Savanna District (Pools 12-14), permanent blinds for 

waterfowl hunting would be eliminated, including the Potter’s Marsh and Blanding Landing areas, 

and leaving decoy sets out overnight will not be allowed. The Potter’s Marsh managed hunt would 

continue with administrative changes to promote fairness and efficiency. The Blanding Landing 

managed hunt would be eliminated, but the area would remain open to hunting. General fishing 

would continue to be promoted, and the Refuge would provide some oversight on fishing 

tournaments in collaboration with the states and other agencies. 

There would be an increase in facilities and programming for wildlife observation, photography, 

interpretation and environmental education. There would be a modest increase in Refuge access 

through new facilities and improvement of existing boat ramps, pull offs, and overlooks. There would 

be no launch fee on Refuge-operated boat ramps. New standards for the commercial fish floats or 

piers below locks and dams 6, 7, 8, and 9 would be developed and implemented, and any floats phased 

out for noncompliance may be replaced based on a review of new proposals. A consistent process for 

issuing permits for commercial guiding on the Refuge would be implemented in cooperation with the 

states. Areas open to beach-related public use (camping, swimming, picnicking, social gatherings) 

would remain the same, although some new or modified regulations would be adopted. A beach 

management and maintenance policy would be established and the Refuge would work with the 

Corps of Engineers, states and the public to complete beach management plans for each river pool. 

The Refuge would explore a user fee to help defray costs of managing beach-related uses, although 

none is planned at this time. Any new fee proposals would be developed in coordination with other 

agencies and the public. A total of five Electric Motor Areas (1,852 acres) and eight Slow, No Wake 

Areas (9,720 acres) would be established, along with 14 new slow, no-wake zones. Current 

regulations on the use of dogs would be changed to allow dogs to be exercised under certain 

conditions. General public use regulations would be reviewed annually and changed as needed, and 

the Refuge would complete a step-down Law Enforcement Plan in coordination with the states and 

Corps of Engineers.

New offices and maintenance shops would be constructed at the Winona, La Crosse, and McGregor 

districts, and at the Lost Mound Unit. The office would be expanded at the Savanna District and a 

new shop constructed. Public information and awareness efforts would be increased 50 percent. 

Staffing levels for the Refuge would increase by 23.5 full-time equivalents over a 15-year period with 

a balance among biological, maintenance, visitor services, law enforcement, technical, and 

administrative staff.

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. Cultural and historical resource preservation 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 in nature 

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. The economic 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

xxx

activity of marinas, other water-related businesses, and commercial navigation would not be affected 

by any of the alternatives, although marinas and private campgrounds could see some inconvenience 

during periodic pool drawdowns proposed in all alternatives. Commercial tree harvest on the Refuge 

is expected to be modest, selective, and restrictive across all alternatives once a Forest Management 

Plan is completed. This harvest will have a minor and local positive economic impact, and a long-term 

forest health and wildlife impact. All alternatives continue furbearer trapping without change until a 

new Trapping Plan is completed. A separate environmental assessment will be done for this plan. 

Consequences, Alternative A: No Action (Current 

Direction)

This alternative will cause little change in water quality, sedimentation 

rates, geomorphology of the floodplain, or river hydrology since current 

modest programs will continue. There will likely be a continued long-term 

decline in the scenic and wild qualities of the Refuge due to little land 

acquisition within the approved boundary and loss of lands to 

development.

Biologically, Alternative A would have a neutral impact on threatened and 

endangered species, reptiles and amphibians, mammals, wetlands, and 

upland habitat. Sport fish populations would likely increase due to specific 

habitat projects and pool drawdowns. Waterfowl, other migratory birds, 

other fish, and mussels would likely continue their long-term trend 

downward in terms of species diversity, use of the Refuge, or overall 

population. The floodplain forest would continue to decline in diversity 

and structure. Invasive species will likely continue to expand under this 

alternative, negatively impacting both species and habitat. Disturbance to 

wildlife and habitat disruption or loss is likely to increase under this 

alternative since no new restrictions will be placed on public uses of the 

Refuge.

Socioeconomic impacts under Alternative A will be mixed. All current 

uses will continue with an estimated $89.9 million in economic output. 

Hunting, fishing, commercial fish floats, interpretation, environmental education, wildlife 

observation, and photography will continue, although opportunities for certain user groups will 

continue to be limited. Keeping current policies or regulations will be favored by many long-term 

visitors, while others may be disappointed that issues are not being addressed, with a resulting 

decline in the quality of the experience. Recreational boating, camping, and other beach-related uses 

will not be affected since no major time and space restrictions or regulations will be implemented. 

This is likely to be viewed positively by this user group and visits should continue to increase. 

Likewise, fishing tournaments and commercial guiding will not be subject to new Refuge oversight 

and sponsors/operators will benefit. However, the general public is likely to face continued 

frustration with disturbance from these activities. Staffing levels and facilities will continue to be 

inadequate and negatively impact wildlife and habitat monitoring, habitat improvements, 

interagency coordination, and personal contact, programs, and facilities for the public. 

Consequences, Alternative B: Wildlife Focus 

This alternative should result in improvements in water quality, sedimentation rates, floodplain 

geomorphology, and river hydrology due to increased effort on private lands in watersheds and an 

emphasis on habitat projects and pool drawdowns. There will likely be a long-term improvement in 

Copyright by Sandra Lines
 Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

xxxi

the scenic and wild qualities of the Refuge due to increased emphasis on finishing land acquisition 

within the approved boundary of the Refuge, management plans for Research Natural Areas, and 

increased effort on floodplain forest management.

Biologically, Alternative B would have a positive 

impact on threatened and endangered species, 

reptiles and amphibians, mammals, wetlands, 

and upland habitat. Sport fish populations would 

likely increase due to specific habitat projects 

and pool drawdowns. Waterfowl, other 

migratory birds, other fish, and mussels would 

improve in terms of use of the Refuge or overall 

population. The floodplain forest should improve 

in terms of sustainability, diversity of species, 

and structure. Invasive plant species would 

likely stabilize or decline under more aggressive 

management. Invasive animals may increase, 

decrease, or stabilize depending on the outcome 

of interagency initiatives, biological or 

technological solutions, and funding. 

Disturbance to wildlife and habitat disruption or loss is likely to decrease markedly under this 

alternative due to a more restrictive approach to managing public uses on the Refuge. 

Socioeconomic impacts under Alternative B will be the greatest of all alternatives considered. 

Although most current uses will continue, many will be subject to new regulations and restrictions, 

resulting in an estimated loss of $7.5 million, or 8 percent, in economic output due to decreased 

visitation. However, opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and photography will 

remain abundant, while interpretation and environmental education programs will likely decline. 

Time, space or other restrictions in some areas and for some uses will be viewed negatively by many 

long-term users, while others will welcome the diversity of opportunity provided. Commercial fish 

floats and guides will be severely impacted since these uses would be phased out. Camping and other 

beach-related recreational opportunities would decline as many areas would be closed to these uses 

to protect wildlife and habitat. Fishing tournaments would be subject to Refuge permitting 

requirements which could reduce the number of tournaments, improve the quality of tournaments, 

and reduce impacts to others using the Refuge for recreation. Staffing levels and facilities would be 

better suited to meet the demands for wildlife and habitat monitoring, habitat improvements, and 

interagency coordination, and eventually, improve personal contact and programs for the public. 

Consequences, Alternative C: Public Use Focus

This alternative should result in improvements in water quality, sedimentation rates, floodplain 

geomorphology, and river hydrology due to increased effort on private lands in watersheds. There 

will likely be a long-term improvement in the scenic and wild qualities of the Refuge due to increased 

emphasis on finishing land acquisition within the approved boundary of the Refuge and management 

plans for Research Natural Areas. However, this effect will be negated by no increased emphasis in 

forest management or pool drawdowns, and an overall emphasis on recreation benefits of projects 

versus fish and wildlife benefits. 

Biologically, impacts of this alternative are similar to Alternative A. However, disturbance to wildlife 

and habitat disruption or loss is likely to increase above levels in Alternative A due to a more liberal 

approach to regulations and policy.

Sandhill Cranes and chicks. Copyright by Sandra Lines
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

xxxii

Socioeconomic impacts under Alternative C will be 

mixed. All current uses will continue, and likely increase, 

resulting in an estimated gain of $5.6 million, or 6 

percent, in economic output. Opportunities for hunting 

and fishing will remain virtually unchanged, while 

opportunities for commercial fish floats, interpretation, 

environmental education, wildlife observation, and 

photography will increase through new facilities and 

programs. Changes in current policies or regulations (for 

example electric motor areas and elimination of 

permanent hunting blinds) will be opposed by many longterm area users, while others will welcome the increase 

in diversity of opportunity. Camping and other beachrelated uses will not be measurably affected, although 

boaters will be restricted in electric motor areas. Commercial guides will be impacted since Refuge 

permits will be required which could limit the number of qualified guides. This may be viewed 

positively by the general public who views guides as competition for public hunting and fishing. 

Fishing tournaments would be subject to Refuge permitting requirements which could reduce the 

number of tournaments, improve the quality of tournaments, and reduce impacts to others using the 

Refuge for recreation. Staffing levels and facilities would be better suited to meet the demands for 

public information and programs, but at some expense to wildlife and habitat monitoring, habitat 

improvements, and interagency coordination. 

Consequences, Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus 

Physical environment impacts of Alternative D would be similar to Alternative B. However, there 

would be more improvement in conserving the scenic and wild values of the Refuge through the 

implementation of guiding principles for habitat projects which include a principle for considering 

esthetics in project design. 

This alternative would have similar positive impacts to fish, wildlife, and habitat as in Alternative B. 

Disturbance to wildlife and habitat disruption or loss is also likely to decrease under this alternative 

due to a more balanced approach to fish and wildlife conservation and public use. 

Socioeconomic impacts under Alternative D will also be mixed. All current uses will continue, and 

likely show modest increases, resulting in an estimated gain of $3.5 million, or 4 percent, in economic 

output. Opportunities for hunting and fishing will remain abundant, but methods or seasonal 

restrictions in some areas will change long-standing expectations and practices. Opportunities for 

commercial fish floats will remain the same depending on operator compliance with new guidelines, 

while interpretation, environmental education, wildlife observation, and photography will increase 

through new facilities and programs. Change in current policies or regulations (for example electric 

motor areas and elimination of permanent hunting blinds) will be opposed by many long-term area 

users, while others will welcome the increase in diversity of opportunity. Camping and other beachrelated uses will continue, but restricted on certain areas important for wildlife. Impacts to 

recreational boating, commercial guiding, and fishing tournaments will be similar to impacts in 

Alternative C. 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.

Cindy Samples, USFWS
 Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement

xxxiii

Consequences, Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use 

Focus (Preferred Alternative)

Physical environment impacts of Alternative E would be similar to Alternatives B and D. 

The overall effects of Alternative E on threatened and 

endangered species, waterfowl production and use-days, 

other migratory birds, sport fish, other fish, mussels, 

reptiles and amphibians, invertebrates, mammals, 

aquatic vegetation, floodplain forest, and terrestrial 

habitat/grasslands is positive and virtually the same as 

Alternative D. Waterfowl may experience some increase 

in disturbance in Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas due 

to a change to voluntary avoidance and/or no motors 

entry restrictions versus closed to fishing as proposed in 

Alternative D. However, establishing a threshold of 

disturbance in Alternative E and taking more restrictive 

action as needed should minimize any increase in 

disturbance long-term. The Alternative E objective 

dealing with threatened and endangered species expands 

monitoring and management consideration to state-listed species which could have a positive impact 

on the conservation of additional rare or declining fish and wildlife species compared to Alternative 

D. Grasslands could increase under Alternative E, which would increase the benefits compared to 

Alternatives B and D. 

Socioeconomic impacts under Alternative E would also be mixed. All current uses will continue, and 

likely show modest increases, resulting in an estimated gain of $3.5 million, or 4 percent, in economic 

output. The overall effects of Alternative E on hunting, fishing, fishing tournaments, commercial 

fishing, fishing floats, interpretation and environmental education, wildlife observation and 

photography, recreational boating, camping and other beach-related uses; commercial guiding and 

tours; refuge access; control of dogs; property taxes; and refuge administration and operations 

should be similar to Alternative D or slightly more positive in impact for some of the parameters. 

However, changes in current policies or regulations (for example changes to Waterfowl Hunting 

Closed Areas, Electric Motor Areas, Slow, No Wake Areas, and elimination of permanent blinds) 

will be opposed by many long-term area users, while many others will welcome the increase in 

diversity of options and opportunities. 

In Alternative E, changes in Waterfowl Hunting Closed Area entry regulations and a marked 

reduction in Electric Motor Areas will eliminate most impacts to commercial fishing compared to 

Alternative D. Commercial fish float operations may still be impacted by new guidelines, but the 

planned replacement of any floats lost should negate any economic or public recreation impacts. 

Alternative E proposes four additional law enforcement officers in the staffing proposal compared to 

Alternative D, and this staff increase would have a corresponding minor positive impact on economic 

output due to salary and operations expenditures. Alternative E identifies a need for annual 

maintenance of existing and proposed habitat projects, and if funded, these expenditures would have 

a minor positive economic impact. 

Cindy Samples, USFWS
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

xxxiv

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts to the physical and biological 

environment should be positive in the action Alternatives 

B, C, D, and E compared to Alternative A, no action. The 

action alternatives increase land acquisition and improve 

water quality which can help to improve hypoxia in the 

Gulf of Mexico. Sediment reduction and habitat 

restoration projects will help reverse a trend to a moreor-less static geomorphology, with a resulting increase in 

habitat diversity and thus species diversity. Actions to 

maintain the integrity of the Refuge boundary and 

conserve the scenic beauty of the area may influence land 

use decisions adjacent to the Refuge. Biologically, Alternatives B, D, and E will positively affect a 

host of fish and wildlife species due to increased habitat restoration, increase in habitat quality, and 

more effective management through increased monitoring and research. This should help to 

stabilize or increase overall populations, especially those species which depend on the Refuge for 

part or all of their annual life cycle.

A variety of objectives in Alternatives B through E will have varying degrees of impact on 

recreational use of the Refuge. The alternatives and objectives will have cumulative impacts given 

that demand for nearly all recreation is expected to grow while the amount of Refuge space and 

natural resources is relatively finite. Alternatives D and E attempt to strike that reasonable balance 

between uncontrolled public use and reasonable restrictions that also safeguard fish and wildlife 

resources. If successful, the integrated approach in these alternatives may prove more sustainable 

and have positive, long-term social and economic impacts on the Refuge and beyond.

Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources

All alternatives identify various levels of investment in habitat, land acquisition, facilities, and 

staffing. About 78 percent of this investment, which is estimated at $227.8 million in Alternative E 

over the 15-year life of the CCP, is targeted to habitat restoration and land acquisition, which are 

generally considered irretrievable and irreversible costs. Funding for public use facilities, offices 

and visitor contact areas, and general operations and maintenance (including staff) accounts for 

about 20 percent of the total investment and is generally considered reversible to varying degrees.

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

Habitat protection and restoration actions across all alternatives entail short-term negative impacts 

to ensure long-term productivity of the Refuge. Impacts are generally site-specific and relatively 

short duration, and offset by increases in productivity of fish and wildlife on a larger scale, both on 

and off the Refuge. Changes in public use management across Alternative B through E will cause 

short-term disruption in current means, locations, and timing of various recreational uses. However, 

in the long-term, especially in the balanced approach in Alternatives D and E, these changes may 

help sustain the greatest diversity of opportunity for the greatest number of people.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Unavoidable impacts vary between alternatives, but include short-term disturbance during habitat 

and facility construction, changes in habitat types from management practices, and loss of local tax 

revenue from land acquisition. All alternatives will also have adverse impacts to a certain segment of 

the public opposed to changes in public use regulations and areas. All of the action alternatives 

include strategies that seek to minimize or mitigate adverse environmental and socioeconomic 

impacts, and this is especially true in Alternative E which was developed after substantial public 

input.

Cindy Samples, USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background

1

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, 

and Planning Background

1.1 Introduction

This document is an integrated Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and 

Fish Refuge (Refuge). It will follow the basic and 

accepted format for an EIS and each alternative 

presented will contain the core of a CCP, namely 

goals, objectives, and strategies. Since it is an 

integrated document designed to meet the 

requirements for both an EIS and a CCP, some 

sections in the EIS format 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.

The Refuge was established by an Act of Congress on June 7, 1924, as a refuge and breeding place 

for migratory birds, fish, other wildlife, and plants. The Refuge encompasses approximately 240,000 

acres of Mississippi River floodplain in a more-or-less continuous stretch of 261 river-miles from 

near Wabasha, Minnesota to near Rock Island, Illinois. See Appendix C for the legislation 

establishing the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge.

The location and surrounding area of the Refuge is shown in Figure 1.

The Refuge is an invaluable natural legacy in a complex geopolitical landscape:

# A national scenic treasure – river, backwaters, islands, and forest framed by 500-foot high 

bluffs;

# Interface with four states, 70 communities, and two Corps of Engineers districts;

# A series of 11 navigation locks and dams within overall boundary;

# Represented by eight U.S. Senators and six U.S. Representatives;

# National Scenic Byways on both sides;

# 3.7 million annual visits, the most of any national wildlife refuge;

# Diverse wildlife: 306 species of birds, 119 species of fish, 51 species of mammals, and 42 

species of mussels;

# Designated a Globally Important Bird Area;

Entrance sign at Upper Mississippi River Refuge.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2

Figure 1: Location of Upper Mississippi River NWFR
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background

3

# Up to 40 percent of the continent’s waterfowl use the river flyway during migration;

# Up to 50 percent of the world’s Canvasback ducks stop during fall migration;

# Up to 20 percent of the eastern United States population of Tundra Swans stop during fall 

migration;

# 167 active Bald Eagle nests in recent years;

# A peak of 2,700 Bald Eagles during spring migration;

# Approximately 5,000 heron and egret nests in up to 15 colonies.

The Refuge is a part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, which includes more than 540 refuges 

and more than 3,000 waterfowl production areas, a total of 95 million acres of lands set aside for 

wildlife habitat. The Refuge System is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Department of the Interior.

The Refuge is divided into four districts for management, administrative, and public service 

effectiveness and efficiency. The Refuge is also divided geographically by river pools that correspond 

with the navigation pools created by the series of locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi River. 

District offices are located in Winona, Minnesota (Pools 4-6), La Crosse, Wisconsin (Pools 7-8), 

McGregor, Iowa (Pools 9-11) and Savanna, Illinois (Pools 12-14). The Refuge currently has 37 

permanent employees and an annual base operations and maintenance budget of $3.1 million.

The Refuge has an overall Headquarters in Winona, Minnesota which provides administrative, 

biological, mapping, visitor services, planning, and policy support to the districts. District managers 

are supervised by the refuge manager located in Winona. Two other national wildlife refuges, 

Trempealeau and Driftless Area, are also part of the Refuge Complex and are coordinated by the 

refuge manager in Winona. Separate CCPs are also being prepared, or are completed, for 

Trempealeau NWR and Driftless NWR, although scoping was done concurrently with scoping for 

this CCP and EIS. 

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action

1.2.1 Purpose

The purpose of this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to adopt and implement a 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish 

Refuge. The Service is considering a range of alternatives of how best to manage the Refuge. A 

second purpose of the EIS is to present and adopt a Fire Management Plan for 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 Refuge System. The CCP 

helps describe a desired future condition of the refuge, and provides both long-term and day-to-day 

guidance for management actions and decisions. It provides both broad and specific policy on various 

issues, sets goals and measurable objectives, and outlines strategies for reaching those objectives. A 

CCP also helps communicate to other agencies and the public a management direction for a refuge 

to meet the needs of both wildlife and people.

The Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 mandates that the Secretary of the Interior, and thus the 

Service, prepare CCPs for all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System by October 2012. In 

addition to this mandate, there are other reasons why preparation of a CCP is needed at this time. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4

The last comprehensive plan (known as 

a Master Plan) was completed in 1987. 

Since then, the river 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 planning 

process is also an excellent way to 

inform and involve the general public, 

state and federal agencies, and nongovernment groups who have an 

interest, responsibility, or authority in 

the management or use of certain 

aspects of the Upper Mississippi River 

and the Refuge.

Finally, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires that federal agencies, and thus the 

Service, follow basic requirements for major actions significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment. These requirements are: 1) consider every significant aspect of the environmental 

impact of a proposed action; 2) involve the public in its decision-making process when considering 

environmental concerns; 3) use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to decision making; and 4) 

consider a reasonable range of alternatives. This EIS documents those requirements and provides 

the necessary information and analysis to the decision-maker or responsible official.

1.2.2 Need

The CCP that ultimately arises from this Draft CCP and EIS will help ensure that management and 

administration of the Refuge meets 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 

three needs are summarized below. More detail on issues related to these needs can be found in 

Section 1.4.5.

Need 1: Contribute to the 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 2: Help Fulfill the Purposes The 1924 Refuge act set forth the purposes of the Refuge, 

which remain valid to this day, and guide planning, 

management, administration, and use of the refuge:

“a. as a refuge and breeding place for migratory birds included 

in the terms of the convention between the United States and 

Great Britain for the protection of migratory birds, concluded 

August 16, 1916, and

Lesser Scaup

Copyright by Sandra Lines
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background

5

b. to such extent as the Secretary of Interior may by 

regulations prescribe, as a refuge and breeding place for other 

wild birds, game animals, fur-bearing animals, and for the 

conservation of wild flowers and aquatic plants, and

c. to such extent as the Secretary of Interior may by 

regulations prescribe as a refuge and breeding place for fish 

and other aquatic animal life.”

Need 3: Help Achieve Refuge Goals 1. Landscape. We will strive to maintain and improve the 

scenic qualities and wild character of the Upper Mississippi 

River Refuge.

Related needs are to: 

a. maintain the integrity of the refuge boundary

b. complete acquisition within approved boundary

c. protect blufflands for scenic qualities and migratory birds

d. ensure integrity of designated Research Natural Areas 

e. seek designation as a Wetland of International Importance.

2. Environmental Health. We will strive to improve the 

environmental health of the Refuge by working with others.

Related needs are to:

a. reduce sediment, nutrient, and contaminants in water

b. restore aquatic vegetation in navigation pools on the Refuge

c. understand and reduce invasive species

3. Wildlife and Habitat. Our habitat management will support 

diverse and abundant native fish, wildlife, and plants.

Related needs are to:

a. improve habitat on all pools within Refuge

b. provide guidance for habitat management projects

c. monitor status and trends of key fish and wildlife

d. protect and enhance federally listed threatened, endangered 

and candidate species

e. evaluate and update furbearer trapping program

f. improve fishery and mussel conservation efforts

g. improve management and oversight of commercial fishing

h. improve understanding and management of turtles

 i. evaluate and manage forest resources

j. maintain and enhance grassland habitat

4. Wildlife-Dependent Recreation. We will manage programs 

and facilities to ensure abundant and sustainable hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

interpretation, and environmental education opportunities for 

a broad cross-section of the public.

Related needs are to:

a. ensure diverse and abundant hunting and fishing 

opportunities
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

6

b. improve effectiveness of Closed Area system to meet the 

food and rest needs of waterfowl

c. ensure consistency and efficiency of hunting programs

d. reduce user conflicts and ensure equitable hunting 

opportunities for a broad cross-section of the public

e. reduce environmental and social impacts from competitive 

sporting activities

f. improve opportunities for wildlife observation and 

photography

g. improve opportunities for interpretation and environmental 

education

h. bring all commercial fish floats/piers into compliance with 

safety and administrative guidelines

i. improve management and oversight of growing number of 

commercial guide services

5. Other Recreational Use. We will provide opportunities for 

the public to use and enjoy the Refuge for traditional and 

appropriate non-wildlife-dependent recreation that is 

compatible with the purpose for which the Refuge was 

established and the mission of the Refuge System.

Related needs are to:

a. reduce environmental and social impacts from beach-related 

uses and develop beach maintenance policy

b. address fish and wildlife disturbance and user conflicts in 

backwater areas

c. reduce safety and erosion problems on some boating 

corridors

d. clarify domestic animal use regulations

e. update public use regulations for clarity and effectiveness 

6. 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:

a. provide adequate staff to meet resource and public 

challenges and opportunities

b. provide staff with adequate office and maintenance facilities

c. provide adequate information to the public on recreational 

opportunities and resource challenges 

d. improve access to the Refuge for public enjoyment

e. identify operational and maintenance shortfalls

1.3 Decision Framework

There is a 30-day waiting period before a decision is made on which alternative in the Final CCP/EIS 

will be implemented. The public or agencies may provide additional information or comment during 

this time, although no public meetings will be held. The decision is documented in a formal Record of 

Decision, signed by the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background

7

The Record of Decision is generally 8-10 pages in length and documents the decision, the 

alternatives considered, a summary and response to any comments received on the Final CCP/EIS, 

and a discussion of the factors considered in making the decision. The Record of Decision will be 

announced in the media and made available on the planning website or by request.

1.4 Planning Background

1.4.1 Legal and Policy Framework

The Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge 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.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Refuge is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the 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, wildlife, and plants and their habitats 

for the continuing benefit of the American people.”

1.4.1.1 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 (Director’s Order, January 18, 2001):

# To fulfill our statutory duty to achieve Refuge purpose(s) and further the System mission.

# To conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants 

that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.

# To perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations.

# To conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants.

# To conserve and restore where appropriate representative ecosystems of the United States, 

including the ecological processes characteristic of those ecosystems.

# To foster understanding and instill appreciation of native fish, wildlife, and plants, and 

conservation, by providing the public with safe, high-quality, and compatible wildlifedependent public use. Such use includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

1.4.1.2 The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and Related Policy

The Improvement Act of 1997 amended the National Wildlife Refuge System Administrative Act of 

1966 and became a true organic act for the System by providing a mission, policy direction, and 

management standards. Below is a summary of the key provisions of this landmark legislation, and 

subsequent policies to carry out the Act’s mandates. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

8

Established Broad National Policy for the Refuge System:

# Each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission and its purposes.

# 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 the states.

# Assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity and quality for refuges; acquire water 

rights as needed.

# Recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public 

uses of the System.

# Ensure that opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation are provided.

# Ensure that wildlife-dependent recreation receives enhanced consideration over other uses 

of the System.

# Provide increased opportunities for families to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation.

# Provide cooperation and collaboration of other federal agencies and states, and honor 

existing authorized or permitted uses by other federal agencies.

# Monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge.

Provide Compatibility of Uses 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.

# Planning should involve adjoining landowners, state conservation agencies, and the general 

public.

Compatibility Policy

No use for which the Service has authority to regulate may be allowed on a unit of 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 likeuses, that is signed by the manager and the Regional Chief of Refuges in the respective Service 

region. 

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 Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background

9

and future generations of Americans...” The biological integrity policy 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.

1.4.1.3 Research Natural Area Policy

The Refuge currently has four Research Natural Areas (Nelson-Trevino, 3,740 acres, Wisconsin, 

Winona District; Reno Bottoms, 1,980 acres, Minnesota, McGregor District; Twelve Mile Island, 900 

acres, Iowa, McGregor District; and Thomson-Fulton Sand Prairie, 321 acres, Illinois, Savanna 

District). The Service’s Refuge Manual, Section 8 RM 10, provides guidance for management, 

administration, and public use of Research Natural Areas, and lists the following objectives of the 

designations:

# To participate in the national effort to preserve adequate examples of all major ecosystem 

types or other outstanding physical or biological phenomena;

# To provide research and educational opportunities for scientists and others in the 

observation, study, and monitoring of the environment; and

# To contribute to the national effort to preserve a full range of genetic and behavioral 

diversity for native plants and animals, including endangered and threatened species.

1.4.2 Brief Refuge History and 

Purposes

The creation of the Refuge was largely the result 

of the Izaak Walton League, and in particular, 

the efforts of its founder and leader, Will Dilg. 

Dilg, an advertising executive in Chicago and an 

avid angler and lover of the outdoors, formed the 

Izaak Walton League in 1922. For nearly two 

decades, Dilg had spent much of the summer 

fishing and enjoying the Upper Mississippi 

River. In the summer of 1923, he learned of a 

plan to drain a large portion of the river 

backwaters and came up with an ambitious solution to the drainage scheme: turn the entire stretch 

of river into a federal refuge. Remarkably, one year later, due to Dilg’s determination, Congress 

passed the Upper Mississippi River Wild Life and Fish Refuge Act on June 7, 1924. The act 

authorized the acquisition of land for a refuge between Rock Island, Illinois and Wabasha, 

Minnesota. 

The Refuge name was changed administratively to the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife 

and Fish Refuge in 1983 by adding the word “National” and changing the two-word Wild Life to the 

accepted and widely-used single-word “Wildlife” (Regional Director Bulletin, February 28, 1983). 

The new name was affirmed legislatively by Congress in 1998 through amendment to the original act 

(Public Law 105-312, October 30, 1998).

The 1924 act set forth the purposes of the Refuge as follows: 

# “...as a refuge and breeding place for migratory birds included in the terms of the 

convention between the United States and Great Britain for the protection of migratory 

birds, concluded August 16, 1916, and

Waterfowl. Stan Bousson
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

10

# to such extent as the Secretary of Agriculture1 may by regulations prescribe, as a refuge 

and breeding place for other wild birds, game animals, fur-bearing animals, and for the 

conservation of wild flowers and aquatic plants, and

# to such extent as the Secretary of Commerce1

 may by regulations prescribe as a refuge and 

breeding place for fish and other aquatic animal life.”

The 1924 Act also had stipulations that would prove to have management implications to this day. 

First, the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois had to give their consent before land 

acquisition could occur. This consent was granted, with varying conditions, by all the states in 1925. 

Second, the act specifically prohibited any interference with the operations of the War Department 

in carrying out any project now or in the future for the improvement of the river for navigation. Both 

of these stipulations are discussed more fully in section 1.4.3. 

Land acquisition proceeded rapidly beginning in 1925 using funds appropriated by Congress, and 

from the withdrawal of public domain or federally-owned islands and other lands in the floodplain. 

Approximately 90,000 acres were acquired. In 1930, Congress authorized the 9-foot navigation 

project on the Upper Mississippi River, and the Bureau of Biological Survey (precursor to the Fish 

and Wildlife Service) soon suspended most acquisition. The Corps of Engineers acquired 

approximately 106,000 acres within the generally accepted boundary of the Refuge that was needed 

for the construction of a series of locks and dams and subsequent raising of water levels. 

Management jurisdiction over much of the Corps of Engineers-acquired land was transferred to the 

Service, with reservations, through a series of cooperative agreements in 1945, 1954, and 1963. The 

agreement was simplified and language updated in a 2001 amendment. The agreement is discussed 

more fully in section 1.4.3.1.

Spanning 80 years, the history of the Refuge is varied, storied, and complex, and shaped by 

organizational, political, and social influences. Surprisingly, there is no consolidated history of the 

Refuge and historic information remains a mostly disjointed collection of notes, memos, files, and 

reports. The most complete legal history is contained in a report done by law intern Michael 

Fairchild in 1982 titled “The Legal and Administrative History of the Upper Mississippi River Wild 

Life and Fish Refuge.” This report is available at Refuge headquarters in Winona.

Today, the Refuge encompasses nearly 240,000 acres of land and water as determined by Geographic 

Information System, or GIS, analysis. The Refuge remains perhaps the most important corridor of 

fish and wildlife habitat in the central United States, an importance which has increased over time as 

habitat losses or degradation have occurred elsewhere. 

1.4.3 Relationship to Corps of Engineers and the States, and Other 

Conservation Initiatives

1.4.3.1 Corps of Engineers

The Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, has played an active role in the physical and 

environmental changes on the Mississippi River, and thus the Refuge, for more than 100 years. In 

1871, Congress approved funding for the Corps of Engineers to improve the river for navigation, 

mainly through the removal of snags and occasional dredging. By 1878, the Corps of Engineers was 

maintaining a 4-foot deep navigation channel on the river and in 1910, Congress authorized a 6-foot 

navigation channel. The channel was maintained mainly by directing more river current to the main 

channel of the river through wing dams and backwater closing structures. Demand for greater river 

shipping capacity and reliability led to Congress in 1930 authorizing and funding a 9-foot navigation 

1.Changed to Secretary of the Interior pursuant to reorganization and transfer of functions in 1939 (16 USC 721-

731).
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background

11

channel, and eventually, a series of 29 locks and dams between St. Louis, Missouri and Minneapolis, 

Minnesota (11 are within the generally accepted boundary of the Refuge). With the Refuge already 

established, the 9-foot channel would forever link the fate of the Refuge with the Corps of 

Engineers. 

First, acquisition of land for the Refuge by the Bureau of Biological Survey (now the Service) was 

suspended since the Corps of Engineers had more funding and needed to move quickly to keep the 9-

foot project on track. The planned locks and dams would flood thousands of acres of floodplain that 

needed to be acquired. It also made sense to not have two federal agencies competing for the same 

land. The Corps of Engineers thus acquired approximately 106,000 acres within the generally 

accepted boundary of the Refuge. Some of the Corps of Engineers-acquired land was transferred to 

the Service via Executive Orders in 1935 and 1936. Locks and dams were completed on the stretch of 

the river designated for the Refuge between 1935 (Lock and Dam 4 and 5) and 1939 (Lock and Dam 

13).

However, it did not take long for conflicts to emerge since the Service and the Corps of Engineers 

acquired land under different authorities for markedly different purposes: fish and wildlife 

conservation versus commercial navigation. To help clarify agency roles and responsibilities, 

cooperative agreements were negotiated and signed in 1945, 1954, 1963, and 2001 (amended the 1963 

agreement), each time bringing more clarity to who managed what within the Refuge. An excellent 

and thorough history of the cooperative agreements is found in the CCP for Mark Twain National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Chapter 3, available on-line at http://midwest.fws.gov/planning/

marktwain/index.html.

In summary, the cooperative agreement, with some reservations, grants to the Service the rights to 

manage fish and wildlife and its habitat on those lands acquired by the Corps of Engineers. These 

lands are managed by the Service as a part of the Refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The Corps of Engineers retained the rights to manage as needed for the navigation project, forestry, 

and Corps of Engineers-managed recreation areas, and all other rights not specifically granted to 

the Service. A copy of the cooperative agreement can be found in Appendix F. As part of the planning 

process, the Refuge initiated efforts with the Corps of Engineers to amend the current agreement to 

clarify language on the responsibility and authority of each agency, especially in regard to 

recreational uses. These discussions will continue.

Other conflicts over the years between navigation, fish and wildlife conservation, and recreation 

influenced Refuge and Corps of Engineers cooperative working arrangements. In the 1950s and 

1960s, there was growing concern over the common practice of placing dredged material from 

navigation channel maintenance in the marshes and backwaters of the river. These concerns were 

heightened with talk of a 12-foot navigation channel in the mid-1960s; new studies on dredging 

impacts; and new national environmental laws such as the Water Resources Planning Act of 1962, 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. In 

1973, the State of Wisconsin sought a preliminary injunction against the Corps of Engineers to 

prevent the disposal of dredged material on Crosby Island and vicinity (Pool 8), and in 1974 filed 

another injunction for disposal at several other sites in Pools 4-8 and one further down-river. The 

State of Minnesota joined Wisconsin in the 1974 injunction. These legal actions were the impetus for 

more structured cooperation.

In 1974, the Corps of Engineers and the Service began work on a long-range management strategy 

for the Upper Mississippi River. A broad-based task force representing five states and several 

federal agencies was formed under the auspices of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission, 

and became the Great River Environmental Action Teams (GREAT). The Great River Study was 

authorized by Congress in 1976 and called upon the Corps of Engineers, in concert with other 

agencies and the states, to develop a management plan that looked at the needs of navigation, barge 

traffic, fish and wildlife, recreation, watershed management, and water quality. The resulting 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

12

GREAT studies not only provided a comprehensive look at all aspects of the Upper Mississippi 

River, but provided the institutional framework for the Service, Corps of Engineers, states and other 

agencies to work together to meet often divergent needs and mandates.

In 1978, Congress mandated that the Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission complete a 

comprehensive master plan for the Upper Mississippi River, which includes the Refuge. The plan 

was completed in 1982 and encompassed many of the recommendations developed in the GREAT 

studies for dredge material disposal, fish and wildlife conservation, and recreation management.

In 1983, the Service and the Corps of Engineers (St. Paul District), in cooperation with Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Iowa, completed a Land Use Allocation Plan for Refuge- and Corps of Engineersacquired lands in Pools 1-10 (Pools 4-10 affect the Refuge). The plan, through policy statements and 

detailed maps, provided a clear, practical, and balanced plan to guide future federal land use actions. 

In effect, the plan was a zoning plan for federal lands, allocating lands in the floodplain for wildlife 

management, navigation project operations, low-density recreation, intensive recreation, and 

natural areas. A similar plan for Pools 11-14 was completed with the Corps of Engineers (Rock 

Island District), in cooperation with Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois in 1986 as part of the Refuge 

Master Plan process completed in 1987. Both Land Use Allocation Plans remain important 

references for day-to-day operations and project planning for the Refuge and the Corps of 

Engineers, although updates are needed to reflect new acquisitions and changing resource needs.

In 1986, Congress authorized the Corps of Engineers to carry out an Environmental Management 

Program (EMP) as part of the Water Resource Development Act of the same year. The EMP is 

composed of two elements: 1) planning, construction and evaluation of fish and wildlife habitat 

rehabilitation and enhancement projects, or HREPs, and 2) long-term resource monitoring 

including analysis and applied research, known as LTRMP. To date, the EMP has completed 40 

habitat projects with many under construction or in various stages of design with a total affected 

area of 140,000 acres. Many of these projects are on the Refuge as well as the other Upper 

Mississippi River refuges of Trempealeau, Mark Twain Complex, and Illinois River Complex. The 

LTRMP element has provided critical information on the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and 

aquatic plants; GIS habitat analysis; and other useful scientific information used in refuge 

management and planning. 

In 2005, the Corps of Engineers released a Final Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System 

Navigation Feasibility Study after nearly 10 years of effort. The Service and the Refuge have been 

involved in review and comment of the study at virtually every stage. The study recommends a dualpurpose approach of improving both navigation efficiency and river ecosystem restoration, the latter 

at a scale that would be many times larger than the current EMP, and more comprehensive in terms 

of the floodplain affected and the scope of projects that could be undertaken. Although action by 

Congress is uncertain, the study may hold great promise in reversing decades of habitat decline on 

the Upper Mississippi River and the Refuge. 

Ongoing Refuge coordination with the Corps of Engineers and the states is accomplished at several 

levels. One of the long-standing coordination frameworks is the interagency teams organized by 

each of the three Corps of Engineers Districts on the Upper Mississippi River. These teams provide 

field-level coordination for dredging and other navigation operations, habitat project planning, pool 

habitat plans, monitoring efforts, recreation planning, water level management (pool drawdowns), 

forestry, and education and outreach programs. Teams include the River Resources Forum (St. Paul 

District, Pools 1-10), River Resources Coordination Team (Rock Island District, Pools 11-22), and the 

River Action Team (St. Louis District, Pools 24 to open river). The Refuge is active on the St. Paul 

and Rock Island district teams, and their various subteams and workgroups. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background

13

1.4.3.2 The States

The Refuge has always enjoyed a unique relationship with the four states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

Iowa, and Illinois. As noted earlier, the Act which created the Refuge in 1924 had a specific 

stipulation which said:

“No such area shall be acquired ... until the legislature of each State in which is situated any 

part of the areas to be acquired under this Act has consented to the acquisition of such part 

by the United States for the purposes of this Act ...” 

Consent from the state legislatures was granted in 1925, and each state had varying conditions for 

their consent. In Minnesota, the legislature granted consent March 19 without condition and ceded 

all state-owned overflow lands to the United States. The ceded lands provision was later rescinded in 

1943. 

Iowa gave their consent March 31 provided that acquisitions were first approved by various state 

conservation boards and officials. An additional condition by Iowa granted the United States 

exclusive jurisdiction over the lands acquired, a condition that would later be reduced in scope to just 

“jurisdiction” in 1943.

Wisconsin granted consent on May 19 with several conditions. First, their consent was conditioned 

on the other three states granting consent and that acquisition of tracts be approved by the 

Governor on the advice of the Conservation Commission. Secondly, the state and its agents reserved 

the rights of access for fish-related conservation work such as fish rescue in backwaters and 

operation of hatcheries. Third, Wisconsin retained title to, and custody and protection of, the fishery 

in the river and adjacent waters. And lastly, their approval was on the condition that:

 “the navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and the carrying places between the same, 

and the navigable lakes, sloughs and ponds within or adjoining such areas, shall remain common 

highways for navigation and portaging, and the use thereof, as well to the inhabitants of this 

state as to the citizens of the United States, shall not be denied.” 

See Chapter 7, “Public Comment on Draft EIS and Response” for more detailed discussion of this 

condition.

Illinois granted consent June 30 with the condition that the state retained concurrent jurisdiction 

over the areas acquired. 

Due to often overlapping and shared responsibilities and authorities for fish and wildlife resources 

between the states and the Refuge, cooperation and coordination have been standard practice since 

the Refuge was established. The Refuge generally adopts or defers to state regulations and license 

requirements for the use and enjoyment of fish and wildlife resources. Refuge law enforcement 

efforts are coordinated with respective state conservation officers. The states are also closely 

involved in the efforts outlined in the preceding Corps of Engineers section, and often provide the 

lead for interjurisdictional issues such as pool drawdowns. The Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 also 

solidified the role of the states in coordinating Refuge management plans and activities.

The states also manage some important and often magnificent wildlife management areas, parks, 

and forests adjacent to the Refuge, both in and outside the floodplain. Coordination of similar land 

management needs and programs is regular and ongoing since fish and wildlife, and at times the 

public, do not distinguish between administrative boundaries. Notable state resource lands are 

summarized in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

14

Structured coordination with the states is provided through the Upper Mississippi River Basin 

Association and the Upper Mississippi Conservation Committee. Both are key coordination and 

communication links with the states for conservation efforts on the Mississippi and the Refuge. 

The Basin Association was formed by a joint resolution of the Governors of Missouri, Illinois, 

Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois in 1981 to replace the former federally-authorized Upper Mississippi 

River Basin Commission. Several federal agencies, including the Service, are non-voting advisory 

members, but never-the-less, the Basin Association provides an important regional forum to discuss 

major policy and management issues that affect the Mississippi River and the Refuge. 

The Conservation Committee is also a state-sponsored organization with executive board delegates 

from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri. However, its membership since 

establishment in 1943 has grown to more than 200 resource managers from both state and federal 

agencies. The manager of the Refuge is a recognized, but non-voting, participant at board meetings, 

and the Service’s LaCrosse Fishery Resources Office provides a coordinator.

1.4.3.3 Other Conservation Initiatives

The Refuge’s location in the floodplain of the Mississippi River makes it an important component of 

a host of conservation initiatives, plans, and reports. Several of these efforts are outlined below and 

contain important guidance and direction for preparation of this Final CCP and EIS.

Ecosystem Approach

The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to conservation which stresses a landscape 

perspective and cooperation across Service programs and with the wide variety of partners and 

stakeholders. The Refuge is part of the Service’s Upper Mississippi River and Tallgrass Prairie 

Ecosystem and strives to contribute to these five team goals:

# Protect, restore, and enhance populations of native and trust species and their habitats.

# Restore natural ecosystem processes, including hydrology and sediment transport to 

maintain species and habitat diversity.

# Promote environmental awareness of the ecosystem and its needs with emphasis on 

sustainable land use management.

# Identify water quality problems affecting native biodiversity and habitat of trust species. 

# Reduce conflicts between fish and wildlife needs and other uses.

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

Blueprint for Migratory Birds (USFWS, 2004): The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible 

for the conservation and management of more than 800 species of migratory birds that occur in the 

country. In 2004, the Service released the Migratory Bird Program’s ten-year strategic plan 

entitled: “A Blueprint for the Future of Migratory Birds.” It calls for cooperation from all 

governments and partners to ensure the continued survival of migratory birds. The Blueprint 

identifies three priorities for the Migratory Bird Program: 1) address the loss and degradation of 

migratory bird habitat; 2) improve scientific information on bird populations; and 3) increase 

partnerships to achieve bird conservation. Refuge management activities stemming from the CCP 

will complement these priorities by addressing needs of some Birds of Management Concern listed 

in the Blueprint.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (USDOI and EC, 1986): This plan is a partnership 

effort to restore waterfowl populations to historic levels through habitat conservation. The plan 

outlines several geographic areas, called joint venture areas. The Refuge is a part of the Upper 

Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture. The goal of the joint venture is to increase 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background

15

populations of waterfowl and other wetland wildlife by protecting, restoring, and enhancing wetland 

and associated upland habitat. Objectives for the joint venture are 1.54 million breeding ducks and 

773 million use-days during migration.

Partners in Flight (Pashley et al. 2000): This initiative seeks to conserve songbirds by identifying 

priority species, important habitats, and management strategies. Conservation plans have been 

developed for different regions across the continent and the Refuge lies within the Upper Great 

Lakes Plain, also known as Physiographic Area 16.

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. (Manomet, 2001): This plan seeks to conserve shorebirds by 

identifying priority species and important breeding and migration areas, and outlining strategies. 

The Refuge is included in the Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes Regional Shorebird 

Conservation Plan.

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan: Volume One of this plan focuses on 165 species of 

seabirds and colonial nesting birds such as herons, egrets, and terns. Volume Two focuses on 44 

species of non-colonial marsh birds. The plan outlines species’ population status, habitat needs, and 

strategies for conservation. 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative (http://www.bsc-eoc.org/nabci.html): This initiative is 

a continental effort to bring all migratory bird conservation programs together to optimize 

conservation objectives and strategies. The goal is to facilitate the full spectrum of bird conservation 

through regionally-based, biologically-driven, landscape-oriented partnerships.

Globally Important Bird Area (American Bird Conservancy, 2004): The Refuge was designated a 

“Globally Important Bird Area” by the American Bird Conservancy in 1997 due to its national and 

international importance for migratory birds. The designation helps protect the Refuge through 

recognition and awareness. 

State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plans

All states are responsible for developing and implementing a comprehensive wildlife conservation 

plan/strategy as a condition of receiving federal funding through the Service-administered Wildlife 

Conservation and Restoration Program and State Wildlife Grant Program. To date, Illinois, 

Minnesota, and Wisconsin have completed such plans and Iowa is near completion. States developed 

these plans in cooperation with many agencies, organizations, and individuals. These plans address a 

full array of wildlife (including fish and many invertebrates) but must focus on wildlife “Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need.” The Refuge can play a role, through cooperative implementation of 

conservation actions and resource monitoring efforts, in fulfilling state goals to enhance key habitats 

(especially floodplain and grasslands) essential to conservation of target species. 

Regional Resource Priorities

In 2002, Region 3 of the Service assembled a list of 243 species in the greatest need of attention 

under the Service’s full span of authorities. The priorities are linked to key habitats, concerns, 

desired outcomes, obstacles, and broad strategies. The priorities help direct human and fiscal 

resources and are a useful reference and guide when preparing CCPs. 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program

Since 1987, the Service has worked beyond the boundaries of refuges with landowners and other 

partners to improve habitat on private land for fish and wildlife. The program is voluntary, relies 

heavily on a partnership approach, and leverages both ideas and funding from a variety of sources. 

Through the Partners program, the Service in Region 3 has restored or enhanced 24,780 wetland 

basins, nearly 189,000 acres of uplands, and nearly 200 miles of streams and riparian areas. Cost 

sharing agreements and technical assistance are an important part of the program. The Partners 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

16

program remains an effective tool in influencing land use off-refuge to improve water quality and 

quantity on-refuge, as well as meeting the landscape needs of fish and wildlife.

Interagency Reports and Assessments

Over the years, there have been scores of reports, studies, assessments, and action plans done by 

federal and state agencies, commissions, and workgroups, either singly or as cooperative efforts. 

Below is a summary of recent works which have been important guides for the preparation of this 

Draft CCP and EIS. Many are referenced in various sections of this document, and many other 

important works are listed in the references section, Chapter 8.

FINAL Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the 

UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study (USACE, 2004): This report and study provides a 

long-term plan for ensuring navigation efficiency and environmental sustainability on the Upper 

Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. Of particular interest to the Refuge is the $5.3 billion long-term 

ecosystem restoration plan to be accomplished by the Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the 

Service, the five states, and private non-profit groups to improve the natural resources of the river 

through projects for habitat creation, water level management, fish passage, and floodplain 

restoration.

Ecological Status and Trends of the Upper Mississippi River System 1998(USGS, 1999): This 

report of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program examines and summarizes data collected in 

the monitoring program since the late-1980s, provides historical observations, and other scientific 

findings. The report, along with unpublished updates since 1998, provides invaluable science in the 

areas of river geomorphology and floodplain habitats, watershed relations and changes, hydrology, 

water and sediment quality, submersed aquatic vegetation, floodplain forest, macroinvertebrates, 

freshwater mussels, fishes, and birds.

A River That Works and a Working River (UMRCC, 2000): Completed by the Upper Mississippi 

River Conservation Committee in 2000, the report presents a strategy for the natural resources of 

the Upper Mississippi River System. The report lists 9 objective areas and discusses tools and 

measures, or strategies, for achieving. The 9 objective areas are:

# Improve water quality

# Reduction in erosion, sediment and nutrient impacts

# Return of natural floodplain to enable more habitat diversity

# Seasonal flood pulse and periodic low flow conditions

# Restore backwater/main channel connectivity

# Management of sediment transport, deposition and side channels

# Manage dredging and channel maintenance

# Sever pathways for exotic species

# Provide opportunities for native fish passage at the dams

Habitat Needs Assessment (USACE, 2000): This assessment was prepared by the Corps of 

Engineers in 2000 under the Environmental Management Program in cooperation with the states 

and federal agencies involved in Upper Mississippi River management. The assessment provides a 

system-wide analysis of historical and existing habitat conditions, and desired future habitat 

conditions. It is an important guide to ongoing and future habitat restoration projects.

Environmental Pool Plans (River Resources Forum, 2004): Completed by the interagency Fish and 

Wildlife Workgroup for Pools 1-10 in 2004, and underway by the River Resources Coordinating Team 

for Pools 11-22, the Environmental Pool Plans provide a detailed desired future condition of each 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background

17

pool in a 50-year planning framework. These plans have been adopted as the desired future habitat 

conditions for the Refuge in the Draft CCP and EIS (see Appendix O for an example of 

Environmental Pool Plans) .

Upper Mississippi and Illinois River Floodplain Forests (UMRCC 2002): This report was issued in 

2002 by the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Wildlife Technical Section. It 

provides a historic context, current status and future outlook for the expansive floodplain forest of 

the Upper Mississippi River System, and recommended actions to sustain and improve the forest 

habitat on the river and the Refuge. 

Conservation Plan for Freshwater Mussels of the Upper Mississippi River System (UMRCC, 

2004b): This report was released in 2004 by the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, 

Mussel Ad Hoc Subcommittee. The plan outlines the history of harvest, biology, status, concerns, 

and numerous strategies for the conservation, including restoration, of the freshwater mussels in the 

Mississippi and other rivers. 

1.4.4 Refuge Vision and Goals

The vision for the Refuge provides a simple statement of the desired, overall future condition of the 

Refuge. From the vision flow more specific goals which in turn provide the framework to craft more 

detailed and measurable objectives which are the heart of the CCP. The vision and goals are also 

important in developing alternatives, and are important reference points for keeping objectives and 

strategies meaningful, focused, and attainable. 

1.4.4.1 Refuge Vision

The Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge is beautiful, healthy, and 

supports abundant and diverse native fish, wildlife, and plants for the enjoyment and 

thoughtful use of current and future generations.

1.4.4.2 Refuge Goals

Landscape We will strive to maintain and improve the scenic qualities and wild 

character of the Upper Mississippi River Refuge.

Environmental Health We will strive to improve the environmental health of the Refuge 

by working with others.

Wildlife and Habitat Our habitat management will support diverse and abundant native 

fish, wildlife, and plants.

Wildlife-Dependent Public Use We will manage public use programs and facilities to ensure 

abundant and sustainable hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, interpretation, and environmental education 

opportunities for a broad cross-section of the public.

Other Recreational Use We will provide opportunities for the public to use and enjoy the 

Refuge for traditional and appropriate non-wildlife-dependent 

recreation that is compatible with the purpose for which the 

Refuge was established and the mission of the Refuge System.

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.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

18

1.4.5 Planning Issues, Concerns and 

Opportunities

Issues, which are often synonymous with concerns and 

opportunities, were identified through the scoping and 

public involvement process described in Chapter 6. The 

issues below represent input from the public, other 

agencies and organizations, and Refuge managers and 

staff, as well as the mandates and guidance reflected in 

earlier sections of this chapter. This Final CCP and EIS 

is issue-driven, and as such, each issue is defined and 

discussed below. More details pertaining to each issue 

can be gleaned from Chapter 3, Affected Environment. 

The issues were critical in framing the objectives and 

strategies for the various alternatives, and form the basis 

for evaluating the environmental consequences of each 

alternative. Care has been taken to ensure these issues 

track through the document, recognizing that required 

formats and contents for CCPs and EISs do not always 

present a perfect crosswalk to and from issues.

Also, these issues do not represent every issue which faces the Refuge and the Upper Mississippi 

River as a whole, as issues had to be pared to a reasonable level in terms of planning horizon, 

implementation practicalities, and jurisdictional realities. However, they do represent a reasonable 

and comprehensive set of issues, which, when converted to measurable objectives in Chapter 2, 

Alternatives, create a meaningful plan of action to help meet the mission of the Refuge System and 

the purposes and goals of the Refuge. 

1.4.5.1 Landscape Issues

Refuge Boundary: In many areas of the Refuge, a visitor can locate the Refuge boundary by 

recognizing where the natural vegetation of the floodplain stops and human development begins. 

This presence of the Refuge in the floodplain has played a crucial role in protecting the natural and 

wild character of the river for 80 years. However, there is constant pressure to the integrity of the 

Refuge from development that encroaches upon Refuge land via tree cutting, dumping, construction, 

and mowing along the Refuge boundary. Maintaining an accurate and clearly marked Refuge 

boundary is a critical basic need of resource protection.

Land Acquisition: Acquisition of land remains a key conservation tool for the well being of fish and 

wildlife resources, for providing public use opportunities, and for maintaining the wild and scenic 

character of the Refuge and the Upper Mississippi River as a whole. It is also cost effective to 

acquire key lands before they are developed, both from a land-cost perspective and from the cost of 

dealing with negative impacts associated with development adjacent to a national wildlife refuge.

The 1987 Refuge Master Plan identified approximately 36,000 acres of additional lands to be 

acquired to meet various resource needs. Goal acres by state were: Minnesota – 6,770 acres; 

Wisconsin – 9,130 acres; Iowa – 7,000 acres; and Illinois – 13,100 acres. Many of these areas are gaps 

in floodplain habitat between what the Service originally acquired through 1934, and what the Corps 

of Engineers acquired for the navigation project. Approximately 6,800 acres have been acquired 

since 1987, or 19 percent of the Refuge Master Plan objective. In addition to Master Plan goals, the 

Service has previously approved acquisition of approximately 900 acres in the Halfway Creek area of 

the La Crosse District as part of a water quality and sediment control partnership. To date, about 

146 acres have been acquired in this area. A previous proposal to acquire approximately 5,800 acres 

White-tailed deer. Manley Dahl
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background

19

in the lower Root River floodplain, La Crosse District, is not being carried forward at this time, 

mainly because the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has been actively pursuing 

acquisition in this area. Collectively, there are approximately 25,000 acres remaining to be acquired 

within the approved boundary of the Refuge (see maps, Appendix G). 

In September 2003, the Service and the Department of the Army signed an agreement to add 9,404 

acres of the former Savanna Army Depot to the Refuge. An amendment to the agreement in August 

2004 added another 311 acres, for a total of 9,715 acres. Approximately 3,000 acres of this total was 

transferred outright with the September 2003 agreement, with the remaining 6,715 acres to be 

managed as part of the Refuge and transferred as clean-up is completed. This sizeable addition is 

known as the Lost Mound Unit of the Refuge. In October 2004 another 143 acres (Apple River 

Island) was added to the Lost Mound Unit by including it in the Cooperative Agreement between 

the Corps of Engineers and the Service, for a total of 9,858 acres.

There are also a few Refuge tracts intermingled with state wildlife management areas. It would 

benefit both the Refuge and the states to consolidate ownerships through land exchanges. Examples 

include tracts within the Whitman Dam Wildlife Management Area (Pool 5) and Van Loon Wildlife 

Management Area (Pool 7), Wisconsin. Consolidation would provide consistent management and 

regulations and reduce confusion by visitors to these areas. 

Bluffland Protection: The stunning bluffs which frame the 261-mile long Refuge are a key 

component of its scenic and wild character, and critical to the entire viewshed of the river valley. 

Most of the bluffs are in private ownership, while some are protected by state and local parks, 

forests, and wildlife management areas. The 1987 Master Plan identified 13 bluff land areas for 

acquisition, primarily to protect potential nesting sites for the peregrine falcon, an endangered 

species at that time. These areas contain bluffs, rock outcrops, dry “goat” prairies, and other 

relatively inaccessible features that contribute to the wild and scenic qualities of the river corridor, 

and harbor a stunning plant and wildlife diversity. However, bluff areas are increasingly being 

developed for private residences or other uses which threaten these values.

Natural Areas and Special Designations: The Refuge currently contains four federally-designated 

Research Natural Areas totaling 6,946 acres. Some of the biological values which led to the 

designation of these areas are threatened by habitat changes. Management plans are needed to 

ensure the future integrity of these areas and to increase public awareness and appreciation.

There is also an opportunity to add the Refuge to the list of Internationally Important Wetlands 

under provisions of the Ramsar Convention. The treaty resulting from the convention, ratified by 

the U.S., maintains a global registry in Switzerland of wetlands designated as internationally 

significant for migratory birds and other natural and cultural values. An attempt to get the Refuge 

designated fell short in the 1990s.

1.4.5.2 Environmental Health Issues

Water Quality: The Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 called upon the Secretary of the Interior to 

administer the Refuge System in a way that will “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the System are maintained for the benefit of present and future 

generations” and “assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity and quality to fulfill the 

mission of the System and the purposes of each Refuge.” Water quality is a key to the overall health 

of the food chain which drives and sustains the multitude of fish, wildlife, and plant species which 

rely on the Refuge for critical parts, or all, of their life cycle requirements. Although pollution from 

urban centers has been drastically reduced, and certain toxic chemicals such as DDT have been 

banned, several water quality concerns remain. These include sediment which is filling main pools, 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

20

channels and backwaters; toxic substances in both the water and sediment which pose direct and 

indirect threats to animals and humans; and nutrient loads from land use practices or inadequate 

waste treatment.

Water Level Management: Completion of the current 9-foot navigation project with its series of low 

head dams had a tremendous ecological impact on the Upper Mississippi River, and the Refuge. This 

system of locks and dams (11 on the Refuge) changed the previously free flowing river to a series of 

shallow reservoirs from St. Louis, Missouri to Minneapolis, Minnesota.

For several decades, the newly created “pools” supported a wealth of fish, wildlife, and aquatic 

habitats. However, typical of dammed river systems, the initial productivity of the pools diminished 

significantly over time. Although water level management of the pools changed some over the years, 

the defining purpose for water level management was, and is, to ensure navigation pool water depths 

for a defined commercial navigation channel. The result is a deeper, relatively stabilized water 

system, especially during the summer. Over time, stable water levels have adversely affected many 

of the biological resources of the river, and thus the Refuge. Among the principal results have been a 

reduction in seasonal mudflat/sandbar areas; loss of islands; and a significant decline in aquatic plant 

community abundance, diversity, and distribution. Fish and wildlife dependent on these plant 

communities have also declined and/or moved elsewhere. Recent efforts to reverse this resource 

decline through pool-wide summer drawdowns show great promise, but funding levels or sources 

remain a limiting factor for broader application.

Invasive Plants: Invasive plants continue to pose a major threat to native plant communities on the 

Refuge and beyond. Invasive plants displace native species and often have little or no food value for 

wildlife. The result is a decline in the carrying capacity of the Refuge for native fish, wildlife, and 

plants. Control of invasive plants on a predominantly floodplain environment is extremely 

challenging due to difficulty of access and the rapid dispersal of plants. In addition, control has been 

hampered by staff and funding limits for basic inventory, direct control, and research into speciesspecific biological controls.

Invasive Animals: Invasive animal species can often be a biological storm which wreaks havoc on 

native plants and animals in a matter of years. Zebra mussels swept through the Upper Mississippi 

River incredibly fast, decimating many native mussel beds. A variety of Asian carp are poised to 

make a similar assault and are perhaps of most concern since they may compete directly with a large 

number of native fish species through direct food competition. In some areas where Asian carp have 

taken hold they represent 98 percent of the animal biomass. Direct control of invasive animal species 

is difficult in a large riverine system due to the mobility of the animals and the rich nutrient base 

which provides abundant food.

1.4.5.3 Wildlife and Habitat Issues

Environmental Pool Plans: As noted earlier in Section 1.4.3.3, Environmental Pool Plans detail the 

desired future habitat conditions of each navigation pool of the Mississippi River. The challenge is to 

mesh the purposes and goals of the Refuge with these interagency plans, and to set priorities for the 

15-year planning framework in the CCP within the 50-year vision of the pool plans (see Appendix O 

for an example of Environmental Pool Plans) .

Guiding Principles for Habitat Projects: Virtually all habitat improvement projects undertaken 

on the Refuge are interagency in nature due to shared and overlapping jurisdictions, 

responsibilities, and interests. Guiding principles for projects on the Refuge are needed to provide 

consistency throughout the Refuge, help communicate to cooperating agencies and citizens our 

needs and standards for project design, and help ensure that Refuge System policy is reflected. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background

21

Monitoring Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Populations: One of the directives in the Refuge 

Improvement Act of 1997 was to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants on each 

national wildlife refuge. Although monitoring has been a part of managing the Refuge for decades, 

gaps remain in baseline population data for a large number of species. A Refuge Wildlife Inventory 

Plan was completed in 1993 but needs updating to reflect changes in habitat, the status of many 

species, and new policies and procedures for monitoring. In addition, management in a changing 

river environment must be adaptive in nature which requires ongoing monitoring and nimble 

investigative capability as issues arise and change. Meeting these needs have been hampered by 

biological staffing and funding levels.

Threatened and Endangered Species: There are currently two federally-listed threatened or 

endangered species (Bald Eagle and Higgins eye pearlymussel) and two candidate species 

(massasauga rattlesnake and sheepnose mussel) confirmed on the Refuge. One candidate species, 

the spectaclecase mussel, may occur on the Refuge but there are no recent records. Threatened and 

endangered species are issues due to their often precarious population status, and the need for 

special considerations and protection which influences Refuge use and management activities. 

Furbearer Trapping: Furbearer trapping on the Refuge has a long-standing tradition and has been 

a useful tool in maintaining balance between furbearers and habitat, and safeguarding Refuge 

infrastructure. The Refuge has regulated trapping within its boundaries since 1929. The existing 

trapping program is regulated by issuing Special Use Permits to state-licensed individuals who may 

use a maximum of 40 traps (all marked with Refuge tags) per day during the state season. The final 

day of trapping on the Refuge is no later than March 15. All trappers must submit a Fur Catch 

Report following the season. The 1988 Trapping Plan needs to be updated to reflect recent national 

policy and regulation changes governing compatibility of uses, commercial uses on Refuges, the 

latest furbearer population and Refuge habitat information, and new management needs.

Fishery and Mussel Management: The fishery and mussel resources of the Mississippi River are 

an important aspect of both federal and state management efforts due to their recreational and/or 

commercial value. Even prior to establishment of the Refuge in 1924, federal and state governments 

were actively involved in fish rescue operations in isolated backwaters, returning millions of fish to 

the main channel during low flow periods. Agencies were also involved in mussel propagation, and 

eventually regulations, due to a thriving button-making industry using mussel shells. Congressional 

hearings on the establishment of the Refuge included abundant testimony on the value of the area to 

fish, and especially the black or largemouth bass due to its sportfishing value. After Refuge 

establishment, the Refuge and states were still heavily involved in fish rescue operations. These 

efforts were curtailed after the locks and dams went into operation and higher water levels reduced 

the entrapment of fish in backwaters.

Changes in river ecology have had a dramatic impact on fishery and mussel resources. Many fish 

species dependent on a free-flowing river declined with the construction of navigation 

improvements, while others increased under stable pool conditions. Mussels have been impacted by 

pollution, harvest, sedimentation, loss of free-flowing habitat, reduction in species-specific host fish, 

and zebra mussels. Asian carp pose an increasing threat to both fish and mussels. Of the 35 mussel 

species in the Service’s Region 3 Conservation Priority list, 19 are found in the Upper Mississippi 

River ecosystem. Several species are listed as either federally listed threatened, are candidates for 

federal listing, or are on state threatened and endangered species lists.

Fish and other aquatic life conservation is one of the major purposes of the Refuge. It also accounts 

for one of the highest public use activities on the Refuge, with more than a million fishing visits per 

year. However, the Refuge has played a relatively minor role in fishery management, deferring to 

the states for most monitoring, management, and regulations. In 1981, the Service established a 

Fishery Resources Office in Winona, which was moved to La Crosse in 1995. Staff at this office are 

an important resource for addressing Refuge fishery questions and needs, as well as assisting other 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

22

Refuges, tribes, military bases, and the states. But the La Crosse Fishery Resources Office covers a 

large geographic area, and with multiple responsibilities, cannot limit its activities to the needs of the 

Refuge. The Genoa National Fish Hatchery, located along the Mississippi River and established in 

1932, also provides assistance to the Refuge primarily through limited stocking of panfish and work 

on threatened and endangered mussels. 

The Refuge should play a larger role in fishery and mussel management in keeping with its 

mandated purposes and the high intrinsic, recreational, and commercial values of the resource. A 

Fishery and Mussel Management Plan should be in place to help communicate to the states and 

public the Refuge and Service perspective on fishery and mussel management issues and needs, and 

to help set common goals, objectives, and means of collecting and sharing information. The plan 

would be programmatic in nature, as the states should rightly continue to be the main lead for 

fishery and mussel management and regulations. The Refuge is currently hampered by having no 

fishery biologist on staff for full time coordination of fishery and mussel monitoring and 

management efforts with other Service offices, the states, and the Corps of Engineers. A fishery 

biologist would help ensure that fishery and mussel considerations are integrated with Refuge 

habitat, biological, and public use decisions.

Commercial Fishing, Clamming, and Turtle Harvest: Commercial fishing on the Refuge is an 

important economic use for scores of people and communities along the river. Besides its economic 

value, commercial fishing has strong cultural and social ties for many. In 1998, 6.27 million pounds of 

fish of 17 species were reported caught. Carp, buffalo, drum, channel catfish, carpsucker, and 

redhorse and sucker make up the bulk of the catch by pound. Commercial fishing is a viable use of a 

renewable resource, and it can be an important tool in reducing populations of some invasive species. 

However, there can be some impact to non-target species such as paddlefish, sturgeon, and diving 

ducks, and disturbance to rafts of waterfowl in the fall from commercial fishing activities in closed 

areas.

Mussel harvest, or clamming, has enjoyed a colorful history on the Mississippi River, first with a 

thriving button industry from the late 1800s to the 1930s, and secondly, beginning in the 1950s, with 

harvest to provide mussel shell “seeds” for the Japanese cultured pearl industry. The states regulate 

the harvest of mussel and have been moving toward standardizing regulations and reporting. Mussel 

harvest can be a concern due to often incomplete population information, continued environmental 

stressors on mussels, threatened and endangered status for some species, and enforcement 

challenges. 

New information on turtle ecology and populations has raised questions about the effects of 

commercial harvest, for both the food and pet trade, on turtle populations. In 1998, the states 

reported a commercial catch of nearly 10,000 pounds of unspecified species on the Mississippi River.

The number of commercial operators harvesting fish, mussels, and turtles on the Refuge is not 

known since records kept by the states do not distinguish by pool number. However, in 1998 the total 

number of commercial fishermen on the Refuge was 576 and their total catch had an estimated value 

of nearly $8.5 million. 

The Refuge has provided little to no oversight of the commercial fish, mussel, and turtle harvest on 

the Refuge, deferring to the states’ expertise and experience. However, federal regulations state 

that “fishery resources of commercial importance on wildlife refuge areas may be taken under 

permit in accordance with federal and state law and regulations” as long as such economic use 

“contributes to the achievement of the national wildlife refuge purposes” and is determined to be 

compatible (50 CFR 31.13 and 29.1). Some Refuge oversight is thus required to ensure compliance 

with regulations and policy. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background

23

Turtle Management: The Refuge provides important and often critical habitat for a variety of 

turtle species, some of which are listed as threatened or endangered by the states. Recent surveys in 

the Weaver Bottoms area of Pool 5 revealed that the area harbors one of the largest and most diverse 

turtle assemblages in the U.S. (8 species). There are numerous potential negative and positive 

impacts from activities on the Refuge since turtles nest on sand areas that are also important for 

navigation channel maintenance and used heavily by recreationists. Marsh and backwater areas also 

provide important food and cover for young turtles. More rigorous monitoring and research is 

needed to understand turtle populations and ecology on the Refuge, and to guide a coordinated 

approach to population monitoring and harvest regulations. 

Forest Management: The Refuge includes approximately 51,000 acres of floodplain forests, one of 

the largest contiguous areas of floodplain forest in the Midwest. This habitat is critical to the river 

ecosystem, providing habitat for a variety of wildlife including songbirds, Wood Ducks, Bald Eagles, 

Red-shouldered Hawks, herons, egrets, and numerous mammals and amphibians. It also provides 

scenic beauty, a welcome place for recreation, protects soils, and improves water quality. 

The floodplain forest of the Refuge has undergone a series of changes since Refuge establishment. A 

more diverse forest gave way to a more monotypic forest dominated by silver maple. The current 

forest is even aged, growing old, and in many cases, not regenerating itself. In many areas, reed 

canary grass is replacing former forest areas by choking tree regeneration. If current trends 

continue, there could be a marked loss of forest within the Refuge and elsewhere in the river 

floodplain. A baseline forest inventory plan needs to be completed as a first step in developing a 

management plan, or prescription, for forest health. Despite the size and importance of the forest 

resource on the Refuge, there are currently no foresters on staff.

Grassland Management: Although mainly a river floodplain, the Refuge does contain 5,700 acres of 

scattered grassland habitat important to numerous species of grassland birds and other wildlife. 

Some of these grasslands are tallgrass native prairie, one of the rarest ecosystems in the United 

States. Active management is critical to safeguard and maintain these grassland areas. Management 

tools include prescribed or controlled fire to setback the natural succession of shrubs and trees, and 

the control of invasive species.

1.4.5.4 Wildlife-Dependent Recreation 

Issues

General Hunting: Hunting remains an 

important and popular form of wildlifedependent recreation on the Refuge. In 

2003, an estimated 285,000 visits were 

recorded for hunting, with waterfowl 

hunting accounting for 87 percent. 

Hunting is one of the priority public 

uses of the Refuge System, and remains 

a vital part of the cultural, social, and 

economic fabric of the communities 

along the Refuge. The Refuge Hunting 

Plan needs revision to reflect land 

acquisitions and new policies. 

In recent years, six administrative “No Hunting Zones” totaling 1,073 acres were established (5 on 

Pool 13 and 1 on Pool 7) for public safety, to reduce potential user group conflicts, and provide 

opportunities for wildlife observation. In addition, approximately 2,400 acres of the recently 

established Lost Mound Unit remains closed to all entry because of contaminant issues. These areas 

Waterfowl hunters. Copyright Sandra Lines 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

24

need to be reviewed in light of new acquisitions, and changes in public use facilities and use levels. 

There are several specific issues related to hunting outlined below.

Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas: Portions of the Refuge currently designated as closed areas are 

actually areas closed only to hunting, furbearer trapping and camping during the duck hunting 

season and to migratory bird hunting at all times. They are generally open for other uses, including 

recreational boating and sport and commercial fishing. The only exceptions are the Spring Lake 

Closed Area (Pool 13) which is a sanctuary and closed to all public entry October 1 to the end of the 

duck hunting season, and the Goose Island No Hunting Zone (Pool 8) which is closed to hunting at all 

times.

The core of the current Refuge closed area system was established in 1957-58 after nearly 10 years 

of coordination. The system began with 14 closed areas, including Trempealeau National Wildlife 

Refuge, and encompassed about 41,600 acres. Considering the dominant role of the Refuge in the 

Mississippi Flyway migration corridor, the closed area system was established to provide migrating 

waterfowl with a network of feeding and resting areas, and to disperse waterfowl hunting 

opportunities on the Refuge. These goals were initially met. 

After nearly 45 years, changes have occurred in the closed area system, including the amount and 

quality of habitat available, the number and species of waterfowl using the system, and the size and 

number of closed areas. Fewer islands and acres of plants are generally available to provide shelter, 

food, and cover. More diving ducks, tundra swans, and Canada Geese are now present, but fewer 

puddle ducks. For example, because of habitat decline, fewer mallards are using closed areas today 

compared to the early years of the closed area system. In addition, some waterfowl (e.g., 

Canvasbacks) are now concentrated in a few functioning closed areas rather than dispersed 

throughout the Refuge. Up to 50 percent of the continent’s canvasback duck population utilizes the 

Refuge, however, the vast majority of these birds are found only on Pools 7-9. An environmental 

accident or crash in submergent vegetation or other food sources in these pools could have serious 

impacts to the canvasback population.

The impact of human-caused disturbance to waterfowl concentrated in closed areas is also being 

reviewed. The public can motor through closed areas and fish in them during the fall migration, and 

new shallow water boating technology makes most areas accessible. As a result, not all closed areas 

are fully functional, that is, they are not providing food and rest for migrating waterfowl. Human 

disturbance disrupts feeding activities of waterfowl and potentially could reduce the quality of 

staging sites. To waterfowl, the energy cost of disturbance may be appreciable in terms of disruption 

of feeding, displacement from preferred habitat, and the added energy expended to avoid 

disturbance. One tool currently being used by the Refuge to address human-caused disturbance 

during fall migration is the Lake Onalaska Voluntary Waterfowl Avoidance Area (Pool 7). This 

program has been operational each year from October 15 through mid-November since 1986. 

Although the program has reduced disturbance, disturbance still occurs. It is also a costly and 

challenging program to administer in terms of buoy placement and maintenance, especially given 

the ice conditions that form late in the waterfowl season.

Besides providing sanctuary for waterfowl, the closed area system was also designed to provide 

better hunting opportunities to more people through the length of the Refuge. However, with habitat 

decline in many closed areas, birds are being concentrated in fewer and fewer areas, thus creating 

gaps in hunting opportunity. Hunters tend to congregate near concentrations of waterfowl. As a 

result, “firing lines” have developed along some sections of closed area boundaries. Firing lines have 

an increased incidence of waterfowl crippling loss. Also, firing lines create a climate of competition 

which fosters poor hunter behavior reducing the quality of the experience for many. 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background

25

The need for modifying the closed area system was recognized as early as 1978, when the Upper 

Mississippi River Conservation Committee issued proposed changes to several of the Refuge closed 

areas (in Pools 4, 5A,8, 9, 10, 13, and 14). However, some of these changes would not be appropriate 

under today’s habitat conditions.

Waterfowl Hunting Regulations: The Refuge provides outstanding public waterfowl hunting 

opportunities and is very popular with the public. Annual visits for waterfowl hunting are 

approximately 250,000. Competition for birds and hunting spots can lead to disruptive and unethical 

behavior among some hunters, affecting the quality of the hunt for many and having a direct impact 

on birds through crippling losses. There is a need to review current Refuge waterfowl hunting 

regulations to ensure continued hunt quality and fairness, and to minimize crippling loss. 

Firing Line, Pool 7, Lake Onalaska: Hunters tend to congregate near concentrations of waterfowl. 

Some sections of the closed area boundary, particularly those that bisect emergent marsh, are 

popular and can attract large concentrations of hunters who pass shoot as waterfowl leave closed 

areas. One such area is the so-called Barrel Blinds area just north of the Lake Onalaska Closed 

Area. 

Unfortunately, “skybusting,” or shooting at birds out of range, often results in increased crippling 

loss. For example, 63 of 141 (44.7 percent) hunting parties observed by law enforcement personnel 

during the 1991-93 seasons hunting along firing lines in Pool 7 skybusted at least once during the 

time they were observed. Skybusting was defined as shooting at waterfowl at distances of 50 yards 

or more. The number of shots required to retrieve one bird was 11. During the 1992 hunting season, 

these same observers working Pool 7 firing lines and other areas, found that hunters who did not 

skybust had a crippling loss rate of about 27 percent for the ducks or coots they downed. The 

crippling loss rate for ducks and coots downed through skybusting increased to nearly 57 percent.

Hunter behavior can also deteriorate in crowded, competitive situations. Behavior observed or 

reported along the Barrels Blinds area includes people claiming preferred sites by spending the 

night, handing-off sites to friends or co-workers after a party’s hunt is over, verbal confrontations, 

late arriving hunters disrupting those set-up, flaring birds before they can work decoy sets, failure 

to retrieve birds, and increased littering.

These behaviors are not in keeping with guidance in the Refuge Manual which helps set the standard 

for hunting on refuges: “Refuge hunting programs should be planned, supervised, conducted, and 

evaluated to promote positive hunting values and hunter ethics such as fair chase and 

sportsmanship. In general, hunting on refuges should be superior to that available on other public or 

private lands and should provide participants with reasonable harvest opportunities, uncrowded 

conditions, fewer conflicts between hunters, relatively undisturbed wildlife, and limited interference 

from or dependence on mechanized aspects of the sport. This may require zoning the hunt unit and 

limiting the number of participants.”

Permanent Blinds and Decoy Sets on Savanna District: Permanent hunting blinds are wooden 

(dimensional lumber) structures built by waterfowl hunters and placed along some areas of the 

Refuge for a dry, stable hunting platform. The blind does not have to be removed at the end of the 

hunt season, thus it is considered a permanent structure.

In some Mississippi River areas, permanent blinds have been part of the waterfowl hunting tradition 

for many decades. In other Mississippi River areas, permanent blinds have been eliminated due to 

management problems associated with the permanent structures. In 2000, the northern Districts 

(Pools 4-11) of the Refuge eliminated permanent blinds and now only allow blinds to be made out of 

natural vegetation. Presently, only the Savanna District still allows permanent blinds. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

26

The placement of wooden structures within the river eventually results in those materials being 

deposited in the river due to deterioration, floods, and ice or wind/wave action. These materials may 

become safety hazards for boaters.

Most permanent blinds sites are claimed year after year by the same group of individuals. This 

regulation promotes private exclusive use, which is inconsistent with Refuge objectives to allow 

equal opportunity for public recreation. 

Permanent blinds limit hunting opportunities due to: a) the 200 yard spacing requirement, even for 

boat blinds, regardless if the blind is empty; b) no shoreline jump-shooting allowed; and c) the best 

hunting sites are taken year after year.

Due to an increase in new hunters to the Savanna District, confrontations and incidents related to 

permanent blinds have increased. Incidents include verbal threats, physical confrontations, assaults, 

blind burnings, and guns being pointed in a threatening manner. 

Related to permanent blinds is the issue of leaving duck hunting decoys on Refuge waters in Pools 

12-14 (Savanna District). This is an exception to Refuge-wide regulations which state that decoys 

may not be in place one-half hour after the close of legal shooting hours and 1 hour before the start of 

legal shooting hours. Hunters who leave decoys out overnight, and in some instances multiple days 

or the entire season, are in effect practicing private, exclusive or proprietary use of public waters by 

tying up a hunting area. This has the effect of limiting places for the general public to hunt.

Potter’s Marsh Managed Hunt: Since 1980, the Savanna District has conducted a lottery drawing 

for waterfowl hunting blind sites on 1,923 acres of Potter’s Marsh in Pool 13. Applicants pay a $10 

non-refundable application fee, and successful applicants pay an additional $100 fee for one of the 49 

blind sites. Successful applicants construct blinds for the season using materials in the guidelines 

provided. Over 500 persons apply for a blind permit annually. In 2002, hunter bag checks showed 

that hunters using Potter’s Marsh blinds averaged 3.8 birds/day compared to 2.9 birds/day on other 

areas in Pool 13.

This hunt requires more than 400 hours of staff time, annually, to answer inquiries, accept 

applications, collect and process fees, conduct two drawings, inspect blinds for compliance, and post 

the area. The time spent on this hunt detracts from other resource projects and needs. In addition, 

90 percent of the hunters selected hunt less than 10 days, which is not a very high public use return 

for the effort involved.

The fees collected do not cover the total expenses incurred for administering and managing the hunt 

due to the amount of staff time required. Additionally, under new national policy implemented in 

2003, only 80 percent of fees are returned to the Refuge, compared to 100 percent returned in 

previous years.

The random drawing process has been manipulated to the point that it is no longer an equal 

opportunity program. Some hunting parties hunt from the same blind year after year and the 

program has evolved into private exclusive use of public lands and waters.

Blanding Landing Managed Hunt: Blanding Landing is an area within the former Savanna Army 

Depot that is now part of the Lost Mound Unit of the Refuge. The Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources conducts a managed hunt on the area with 15 hunting sites. This hunt, now on the Refuge, 

needs to be reviewed for consistency with other Refuge hunts and hunting issues associated with 

permanent blinds and administrative costs, as noted previously.
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background

27

General Fishing: Fishing is an important, traditional use of the Refuge enjoyed by nearly a million 

visitors each year and contributes substantially to many local economies. Fishing is also one of the 

priority wildlife-dependent uses of the Refuge System that is to be encouraged when compatible 

with Refuge purposes.

The Refuge has made great improvements in facilities that 

promote fishing including the rehabilitation of numerous boat 

ramps and parking areas, dock facilities, and accessible 

fishing piers. In 2003 alone, work was started on five fishing 

piers. Maintaining fish habitat and fishing opportunity 

remains an important issue for anglers, businesses, and the 

general public.

Fishing Tournaments: Fishing tournaments, particularly 

for bass and walleye, are growing recreational, commercial, 

and fund-raising events on the Refuge. To date, the Refuge 

has deferred to the states for management and permitting of 

these events and has provided little to no oversight or review. 

Exact numbers of fishing tournaments are unknown since each state or other authority often has 

different permit and reporting requirements, or, may not issue permits at all. 

There is growing concern about the impacts of fishing tournaments on other users of the Refuge. 

Large boats, high speeds, and the competition involved in tournaments disturb other anglers and 

small craft users, and can churn-up vegetation and sediment in backwaters, thus impacting fish and 

wildlife habitat. Increased wake action can accelerate shoreline erosion. There is some concern about 

the impacts of handling, holding, and later release of fish caught in tournaments, both on individual 

fish and overall populations.

Wildlife Observation and Photography: Wildlife observation and photography are becoming 

increasingly popular activities for visitors, and a source of economic growth for many communities. 

As two of the six priority public uses of the Refuge system, these uses are to be encouraged when 

compatible with the purposes of the Refuge. The Refuge provides outstanding wildlife viewing 

opportunities due to the abundance of eagles, swans, ducks, warblers, pelicans, herons and other 

birds people find unique and interesting. The National Scenic Byways which border the Refuge for 

hundreds of miles, and the relatively open access to lands and waters of the Refuge, make the 

Refuge one of the premier wildlife viewing and photography areas in the nation. The public and 

communities desire more opportunities for these uses, while managers must balance opportunities 

with the need to limit disturbance.

Interpretation and Environmental Education: Interpretation and environmental education are 

also priority public uses as outlined in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. Interpreting the 

resources and challenges of the Refuge to the general public and incorporating these topics into 

school curricula is a service welcomed by the general public, communities, and schools. The major 

issue facing the Refuge is how to meet the demand for these staff-intensive services, a demand which 

is expected to grow.

Commercial Fish Floats: Fish floats are private businesses which provide very popular fishing 

opportunities to the public for a fee. Operators pick up customers via boat and transport them to the 

fishing facility (float) below a lock and dam where fishing can be excellent. The Refuge currently 

allows four fish floats through an annual permit and annual fee of $100. At least one fishing float has 

been in operation since 1937. However, administration and enforcement of fish float operations 

greatly exceeds the permit fees collected. There is also a history of permit noncompliance with some 

operations which has increased the staff time needed to oversee the use. In 2003, three of the four 

fish float operations were not in compliance with one or more permit requirements. Other concerns 

Fishing on Upper Mississippi River Refuge. 

Cindy Samples, USFWS
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

28

include the condition and safety of the fish floats and compliance with policies and regulations 

governing for-profit concessions on a national wildlife refuge.

Guiding Services: Guiding businesses are on the rise and promise to become an increasingly 

common activity on the Refuge. Without proper oversight, this activity could lead to disturbance to 

sensitive areas and wildlife, and increase conflict with individuals or other guides as volume and 

frequency increases. In addition, some guides are not in compliance with regulations designed to 

safeguard clients, such as Coast Guard regulations governing licensing of persons transporting the 

public.

1.4.5.5 Other Recreational Use Issues

Beach Use and Maintenance: There is a long history of beach use on the Upper Mississippi River 

as the public took advantage of beach areas created by side-channel placement of dredged sand 

during navigation channel maintenance operations. The creation of new beaches and additions to 

existing beaches came to a virtual end following a lawsuit on dredge placement by the State of 

Wisconsin and the subsequent Great River Environmental Action Team (GREAT) reports and 

recommendations. 

There are basically three types of manmade or natural beach areas on the Refuge: 

# Remnant channel maintenance islands and shore areas formed by the side-casting of 

dredged sand material. These are used for a variety of day uses and the majority of 

camping. Some sites remain relatively open while others are nearly covered with woody 

vegetation. 

# Permanent dredged sand placement sites traditionally used by multiple boats for day and 

overnight mooring, camping, and other uses. These are often called “bathtubs” when in 

empty or part-empty state, and designated Project Operations (9-foot navigation project) in 

the Land Use Allocation Plan (LUAP).

# Natural sand bars and shorelines which are scattered throughout the Refuge, both along the 

main river channel and in and around backwater areas, and used predominantly for day use 

and overnight mooring. Seasonal water levels often determine the number and size of these 

natural sand shorelines and their attractiveness to users. 

The 1983 and 1987 Land Use Allocation Plans by the Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service identified existing beach areas as “low density recreation.” This designation was in 

deference to the GREAT report on recreation even though on many areas beach use is very high 

density. 

The 1987 Master Plan for the Refuge took a low-key, status quo approach to beach uses and 

maintenance. The objective in the Master Plan was to “provide non-wildlife traditional recreation – 

swimming, camping, picnicking, sunbathing,” and the level was described as “maintain at levels that 

can be accommodated at existing beaches and at low density recreation allocation areas established 

by LUAPs.” The Master Plan deferred to the beach plan process with the Corps of Engineers and 

others for exactly how the objective and level would be met. 

Over the years, beach planning through interagency teams (e.g. the Recreation Work Group of the 

River Resources Forum) has continued with starts and stops, and rehabilitation of some beaches 

completed in several pools. New beach issues have emerged. These include permanent dredged 

material placement sites, which when emptied, create high density use areas with concerns for 

human-caused water quality issues and visitor safety. In addition, new information on wildlife use of 

beach areas, especially turtles, has raised the issue of how to balance the needs of wildlife with 

recreation and channel maintenance activities.
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Planning Background

29

Non-wildlife-dependent recreation continues to increase on the Mississippi River and the Refuge. It 

is estimated that 1.3 million persons per year use the Refuge for camping, recreational boating, 

picnicking, swimming, social gatherings, and other uses not dependent on the presence of fish and 

wildlife. Proper regulation and control of these uses has been relatively absent for decades, leading 

to unlawful and unruly behavior, increased concern for public and Refuge Officer safety, and a 

general decline in the refuge experience for many users. Litter and human waste are increasing, and 

a lack of a clear intoxication standard has hampered law enforcement efforts, putting both 

individuals and others who share river traffic at risk. In addition, the Refuge does not receive 

specific funding for managing non-wildlife-dependent recreation, and there are no user fees to defer 

the costs of law enforcement, signing, planning, and access development and maintenance. 

More specific problems and issues related to current beach-related uses on the Refuge include:

# Refuge regulation violations can be high: dogs running loose, intoxication, illegal drugs, 

firearm use, fireworks, noise, human waste, littering, interference with other users, private 

structures, large parties, loud boats, and habitat destruction.

# Public use of beaches requires a very high law enforcement effort and takes away from 

resource-related enforcement. There is concern for officer safety in large crowds, especially 

when alcohol use is involved.

# Wildlife disturbance and displacement can be a problem in some areas, especially as uses 

move to backwater areas.

# High peaks of use, both seasonally and site-specific, contribute to the above problems.

# Current use may not match intended use (e.g. areas originally designed for family or small 

group use have become large, party areas, or, areas originally set aside for wildlife now 

receive heavy public use).

# Many beach uses on the Refuge are non-wildlife-dependent uses and not allowed on most 

national wildlife refuges. Thus, these uses are inconsistent with the norm in the Refuge 

System. (Note: The Refuge Manual of 1982 (8 RM 9) included a special policy statement 

which acknowledged unique cases of non-wildlife-dependent uses on refuges, and cited the 

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge as an example. The policy stated 

that Master Plans, or CCPs, should contain specifics on how these traditional non-wildlifedependent activities will be managed. The compatibility standard still applies, however).

Disturbance in Backwater Areas: When the Refuge was established in 1924, the Mississippi River 

floodplain was a braided maze of backwater channels and sloughs. Much of this unique habitat 

disappeared when the locks and dams went into operation. However, in the upper reaches of many 

pools, this unique bottomland habitat remains and offers fish, wildlife, and people a refuge from the 

sights and sounds of a modern and mechanized world. Many backwater areas are preferred breeding 

and nesting areas for species sensitive to certain human disturbance. Also, these more remote areas 

of the Refuge are an important component of the river experience to many.

Technology in the form of jet skis, bass boats, shallow water motors such as Go-DevilsTM, airboats, 

and hovercraft has made the shallow backwaters of the Refuge accessible to more and more people, 

and introduced more and more noise, wildlife disturbance, and user conflict. The declining 

opportunity to experience the quiet and solitude of the backwaters was cited by citizens during 

scoping meetings. 

Slow, No-Wake Zones: On a few areas of the Refuge, boat traffic levels and size of boats is leading to 

erosion of island and shoreline habitat. Some areas also present a safety hazard for boaters due to 

level of use and blind spots in the channel. The addition of slow, no-wake zones needs to be reviewed 

to protect visitors and the environment.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

30

Dog Use Policy: Unless specifically authorized, national wildlife refuges are closed to dogs, cats, 

livestock and other animals per federal regulations (50 CFR 26). Domestic animals can harass and 

kill wildlife, and at times become a direct threat to other persons engaged in recreation. Current 

regulations have been confusing since they prohibit unconfined domestic animals, but the term 

unconfined was never well-defined in the regulation, leading to various interpretations by the public 

and inconsistent enforcement by the Refuge. 

However, there is a strong tradition of people using the waters of the Refuge for working and 

exercising dogs, especially retrievers. The size, configuration of lands and waters, and relative 

remote nature of the Refuge lends itself to considering a reasonable approach to dog use. The public 

desires a new regulation that will ensure public safety and minimal disturbance to wildlife, while 

providing the option of working with dogs, especially hunting dogs, which are often an integral part 

of the traditions and enjoyment of hunting.

General Public Use Regulations: The current public use regulations were last reviewed and 

updated in 1999. Regulations need to be reviewed to address new laws and policy and to help correct 

problems or circumstances unique to the Refuge and not specifically or sufficiently covered in 

current regulations or the regulations governing the National Wildlife Refuge System (50 CFR, 

subchapter C part 26). Refuge law enforcement officers, and the public, need to understand clearly 

what is and is not allowed on the Refuge.

1.4.5.6 Administration and Operations Issues

Administration, Operations, and Public Awareness: With approximately 240,000 acres over 261 

miles and 3.7 million annual visits, managing and administering the refuge is a huge undertaking 

requiring staff and funding for programs, facilities, and equipment. Plans and planning need to 

articulate these needs and ensure they are represented in databases and other documents which are 

used in budget decision-making at the national and regional level. Current staffing levels are below 

essential staffing standards and reflect gaps between what should be done and what can be done.

There is a lack of adequate office, maintenance, and visitor contact facilities. Office facilities at the 

Headquarters of the Refuge, and on some of the Districts, are woefully inadequate to meet the needs 

of employees and the visiting public. The Headquarters and Winona District offices are located in a 

quaint but ancient building with unreliable heat, plumbing problems, inadequate parking, 

inadequate disabled access, and no public information or interpretive facilities. The McGregor 

District has a tiny office with unsafe access off a major highway, and limited onsite parking. Some 

staff offices, files, and a makeshift conference/meeting room at McGregor are in a surplus trailer 

adjacent to the existing building, and a small maintenance facility is crammed on the same lot. The 

La Crosse District has an excellent rented office/garage, but space is limited and it is located in a 

dense retail business area some distance from the Refuge. Savanna District has a new office but 

expansion is needed for environmental education. New maintenance shops are scheduled to be built 

at Winona and Savanna, but others are needed at McGregor and La Crosse. Eventually, an office and 

shop will need to be constructed at the Lost Mound Unit, Savanna District.

The future well-being of the Refuge is tied to the public’s awareness of its existence and significance. 

Many river visitors do not know they are on a national wildlife refuge, and the public as a whole is not 

aware of the ecological and social significance of the Refuge. As public lands and waters, the public 

desires information on opportunities their national wildlife refuge provides them, as well as the 

challenges to be addressed.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

31

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the 

Proposed Action

2.1 Introduction

The Service proposes to adopt and implement a CCP to 

guide the management and administration of the Refuge 

for the next 15 years. This Chapter presents and 

compares a range of reasonable alternatives for this 

proposed action, including a preferred alternative. It also 

includes information on the development of the 

alternatives, alternatives or components considered but 

dropped from further analysis, and elements or actions 

common to all alternatives. Table 1 on page 173, Table 2 

on page 192, and Table 3 on page 195 summarize, 

compare, and contrast each alternative.

2.2 Development of Alternatives

Initial alternatives were developed in spring 2003, after 

eight months of initial scoping and public involvement. 

These alternatives were no action, protection, 

conservation, and multiple-use. These draft alternatives, 

with general descriptions, were presented to the public 

through a newsletter in July 2003. After further internal 

review, the themes or titles of these alternatives were 

changed to provide clarity and reduce overlap. 

Four alternatives (A through D) were included in the Draft EIS/CCP released for public review May 

1, 2005 for a 120-day comment period ending August 31, 2005. The Refuge hosted 21 public meetings 

and workshops attended by 2,900 persons and received 2,438 written comments. Due to the high 

level of input and concern with some aspects of the preferred alternative, the Refuge announced in 

July 2005 its intent to issue a new preferred alternative after the comment period ended. The 

supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP was issued December 5, 2005 for a 60-day comment period which 

was extended to 90 days. The supplement was known as Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and 

Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) and brought to five the total number of 

alternatives.

The five alternatives are listed below and described in detail in Section 2.4.

Copyright by Sandra Lines
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

32

These alternatives represent broad, thematic approaches to management and administration of the 

Refuge, recognizing the latitude managers have in focusing human and fiscal resources within the 

framework of Refuge System laws and policy. 

The alternatives reflect direction in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, Service policy for 

administration and management of refuges, and a host of ongoing conservation initiatives affecting 

the Mississippi River. The alternatives were also developed to address a suite of issues, and indeed, 

are structured to track the issues, challenges, and opportunities presented in Chapter 1. As an 

integrated EIS and CCP, the details of the alternatives are described in terms of the main 

components of a CCP, namely measurable objectives and strategies to achieve those objectives. 

Most importantly, these alternatives are designed to help the Refuge contribute to the mission of the 

Refuge System; meet the purposes for which Congress established the Refuge in 1924; and help 

achieve the Refuge vision, goals, and related needs. The degree to which each alternative meets 

these needs (Table 3 on page 195), along with the environmental consequences of each alternative 

(Chapter 4), will provide the basis for a final decision and a CCP for the Refuge. 

A: No Action (Current Direction) Continue current level of effort on fish and 

wildlife and habitat management. Public use 

programs would remain virtually unchanged.

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.

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. 

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 wildlifedependent uses and traditional and 

appropriate non-wildlife-dependent uses.

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 spectrum of users, 

both for wildlife-dependent uses and 

traditional and appropriate non-wildlifedependent uses.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

33

2.3 Alternative Components Not Considered for Detailed 

Analysis

The wide range of issues, high public and agency interest, and complexities of the river environment 

provide fertile ground for a diversity of management approaches. During scoping, public 

involvement, and the development of the objectives which make up each alternative, many different 

ideas and solutions were presented, explored, and debated. The following alternative components 

were considered but not selected for further analysis in this Draft CCP and EIS for the reason(s) 

described.

Expansion of the Refuge: The approved Refuge boundary was expanded during the 1987 Master 

Plan process and subsequent expansion proposals for special resource areas at Halfway Creek near 

Onalaska, Wisconsin and the former Savanna Army Depot near Savanna, Illinois. Given the current 

rate of acquisition, the 15-year time frame of the CCP, and the approximately 30,000 acres yet to be 

acquired, an expansion of the Refuge was not included in the alternatives. 

Expand Research Natural Areas and Establish Wilderness: It is a requirement in Service policy to 

review a refuge for special designation during the planning process. No areas were deemed suitable 

for either additional Research Natural Areas (there are currently four) or Wilderness status due to 

habitat conditions, the overlapping navigation project, and current development and use. Thus, this 

alternative component was not analyzed further.

Establish Fish Sanctuaries on the Refuge: Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois have implemented seasonal 

closures and/or size limits below locks and dams 11, 12, and 13 to protect walleye and sauger from 

overharvest during vulnerable times of the year. This alternative component was considered, but 

since data on these areas is still being collected, impacts are yet uncertain, and not all states or 

fishery biologists agree on the need for or effectiveness of fish sanctuaries, this alternative was not 

explored further. However, it could be considered during future reviews of this plan.

Establish Turtle Sanctuaries on the Refuge: The importance of the Refuge to many species of 

turtles is beginning to be understood. Many beach areas on the Refuge are used extensively by 

turtles for nesting and used extensively by the public for recreation. Delineating sanctuary or no 

entry areas to protect turtle nests was explored. However, there is not enough information on turtle 

nesting ecology and human impacts at this time to establish turtle sanctuaries. The alternatives do, 

however, address the needs of turtles and do explore other alternatives for addressing human 

impacts. 

Prohibit Non-Wildlife-Dependent Recreation on the Refuge: This alternative component would ban 

public uses such as swimming, camping, waterskiing, and picnicking. It was not deemed realistic 

given the various jurisdictions and authorities, enforcement practicalities, and commercial and social 

considerations. However, more proactive management of these uses is proposed in some 

alternatives.

Limit Watercraft Types on the Refuge: During scoping and public involvement, concerns were 

expressed about airboats, jet skis and other modern watercraft disturbing wildlife and other Refuge 

user groups. Banning any type of watercraft on the entire Refuge was not deemed a reasonable 

alternative due to the mix of jurisdictions and authorities within the Refuge. The issue of 

disturbance from these types of craft is, however, addressed in other ways in the alternatives.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

34

2.4 Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis

2.4.1 Elements Common to All Alternatives

Interagency Coordination and Collaboration: The Refuge is situated in a complex geopolitical 

landscape involving four states and two Corps of Engineers Districts, each with varying missions, 

authorities, and constituencies. Interagency coordination was discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.4.3 

and is an important element common to all alternatives, and indeed, will be critical to carrying out 

the CCP which emerges from the Final EIS. Existing plans and agreements such as the Land Use 

Allocation Plan and Service-Corps of Engineers Cooperative Agreement will continue to serve as 

guides for day-to-day Refuge decisions and implementation of the CCP. Also critical will be the 

continued involvement of various established interagency forums, committees, and associations. 

Agency Access to Restricted Public Use Areas (Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, Slow, No Wake 

Areas, and Electric Motor Areas): Special area regulations are general public use regulations and 

not intended to apply to state, federal, and local agencies or offices engaged in bona fide fish and 

wildlife management, monitoring, and enforcement. However, it is hoped that all agencies use 

discretion and good judgment when working in areas or with equipment the general public is 

restricted from using. This is important from both a wildlife disturbance and public perception 

standpoint. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance: Since this EIS and CCP are 

programmatic in many issue areas, it may not contain the necessary detail on every future action 

outlined to adequately present and evaluate all physical, biological and socioeconomic impacts. For 

example, although the EIS and CCP alternatives may show the number and location of constructed 

features such as trails, overlooks, boat ramps, and offices, exact sites, size, design, and other features 

would be determined at a later date depending on funding and implementation schedules. Another 

example is the various sub or “step-down” plans required for various management actions such as 

forestry, biological monitoring, fishery and mussel resources, hunting, and trapping. Thus, before 

certain objectives or actions are implemented, a decision will be made in coordination with the 

Regional NEPA Coordinator on whether this EIS was adequate for each specific construction, 

planning, or other action, or whether separate step-down NEPA compliance (categorical exclusions 

or environmental assessments) is needed.

Threatened and Endangered Species Protection: Although different levels of monitoring for 

threatened and endangered species is proposed in the alternatives, protection of these species is 

common across all alternatives. The protection of federally-listed species is the law of the land 

through the Endangered Species Act of 1973. It is also Service policy to give priority consideration 

to the protection, enhancement, and recovery of these species on national wildlife refuges (7 RM 2). 

To ensure adequate protection, the Refuge is required to review all activities, programs, and projects 

occurring on lands and waters of the Refuge to determine if they may affect listed species. If the 

determination is “may affect,” the Refuge does a formal consultation with the responsible Ecological 

Services office of the Service.

Archeological and Cultural Resource Protection: Cultural resources on federal lands receive 

protection and consideration that would not normally apply to private or local and state government 

lands. This protection is through several federal cultural resources laws, executive orders, and 

regulations, as well as policies and procedures established by the Department of the Interior and the 

Service. The presence of cultural resources including historic properties cannot stop a federal 

undertaking since the several laws require only that adverse impacts on historic properties be 

considered before irrevocable damage occurs. However, the Refuge will seek to protect cultural 

resources whenever possible.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

35

During early planning of any projects, the Refuge will provide the Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer (RHPO) a description and location of all projects and activities that affect ground and 

structures, including project requests from third parties. Information will also include any 

alternatives being considered. The RHPO will analyze these undertakings for potential to affect 

historic properties and enter into consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and other 

parties as appropriate. The Refuge will also notify the public and local government officials to 

identify any cultural resource impact concerns. This notification is generally done in conjunction 

with the review required by the National Environmental Policy Act or Service regulations on 

compatibility of uses.

Fire Management: The suppression of wildfires and the use of prescribed or controlled fire are a 

long-standing part of resource protection, public safety, and habitat management on national wildlife 

refuges. In 2002, a comprehensive Fire Management Plan was approved for the Refuge and provides 

detailed guidance for the suppression or use of fire. The plan outlines wildfire response and 

prescribed fire objectives, strategies, responsibilities, equipment and staffing; burn units; 

implementation; monitoring; and evaluation. A section on the environmental consequences of 

prescribed fire is included in Chapter 4. The complete Fire Management Plan and Burn Unit Maps 

are available at the Winona Headquarters Office, or on-line at http://midwest.fws.gov/planning/

uppermiss/index.html.

Prescribed fire will be used every 3-5 years on approximately 5,700 acres of Refuge grassland. This 

area is divided into approximately 40 burn units, most of which range in size from 1 to 125 acres. 

These units are scattered throughout the Refuge and include islands and natural rises or terraces in 

the floodplain, and former agricultural fields in or adjacent to the floodplain. Units are generally 

isolated from private dwellings or other development and they are generally flat or gradually 

sloping. During a recent 10-year period, the yearly average was eight prescribed burns on a total of 

160 acres. Most burns occurred during the April-May time period. The annual average acreage 

burned is expected to increase due to the 2001 addition of the Lost Mound Unit, Savanna District, 

which includes approximately 4,000 acres of native prairie, a fire-dependent ecosystem. 

Each prescribed burn is governed by a specific prescribed burn plan which dictates the criteria or 

prescription for air temperature, fuel moisture, wind direction and velocity, soil moisture, relative 

humidity, and other environmental factors. Burns are not conducted unless these prescriptions are 

met, and possible impacts to archaeological resources or endangered species avoided or mitigated. 

Each plan also outlines required staffing and equipment including contingency actions for smoke 

management and escaped fire. Coordination with local and state fire management officials, as well as 

adjacent landowners, is done prior to conducting a burn. A strict chain-of-command and “burn-no 

burn” protocol is followed.

General Water-Based Recreation: Due to the Refuge’s overlap with varied jurisdictions, navigable 

waters, and a major commercial navigation project, existing uses related to water recreation will not 

be eliminated and their continuation is common to all alternatives. These water-based uses include, 

but are not limited to, powerboating, waterskiing, jetskiing or other personal watercraft use, sailing, 

swimming, picnicking, and social gatherings. However, these uses will continue to be subject to 

applicable Refuge, state, Corps of Engineers, and Coast Guard regulations, and may be restricted in 

terms of location and/or season in some elements of some of the alternatives presented.

Mosquito Management: Although not specifically raised as an issue during scoping and public 

involvement, the management of mosquito populations may emerge as a future concern given the 

increased incidence of mosquito-borne illnesses in parts of the Midwest. Due to the possible harmful 

effects, mosquito population control will only be allowed in cases of a documented health emergency 

by state departments of health or similar disease control agencies. Control efforts would be species 

and location specific, based on population sampling and identified population thresholds, and use the 

least intrusive means possible. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

36

Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)

Fish and Wildlife Disease Control: Periodically, the Refuge may experience threats to fish and 

wildlife from a variety of ongoing or sporadic outbreaks of diseases or ailments such as Chronic 

Wasting Disease in deer and avian botulism, trematode infestations, or avian cholera in waterfowl. 

Regardless of alternative, appropriate control efforts will be undertaken if warranted, feasible, and 

effective to limit the impacts on fish and wildlife populations. The Refuge will cooperate and 

coordinate with the states in these efforts. The Refuge has prepared a Chronic Wasting Disease 

monitoring and surveillance plan which details efforts with the states on this disease. 

Volunteers and Friends Groups: The Refuge currently has an active volunteer program involving 

dozens of citizens. These volunteers contribute over 8,000 hours annually, assisting with a full-range 

of administrative, biological monitoring, invasive species control, and visitor services tasks. The 

nurturing and use of volunteers will continue and is a vital component of many of the objectives 

outlined in the Draft CCP and EIS. The Refuge also has an active friends group called the Friends of 

the Upper Mississippi River Refuges (FUMRR). This citizen-based support group raises funds for 

needed projects, conducts special programs which support the goals of the Refuge and the mission of 

the Refuge System, and serves as an advocate for the Refuge at various levels of government. Like 

volunteers, FUMRR will play an important role in the strategies to achieve many of the objectives 

outlined in this document. 

2.4.2 Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)

Alternative A Summary

Boundary issues would be addressed as time and funding for surveying allow. There would be a 

continuation of acquisition of lands at a modest rate within the approved boundary, or about 200 

acres per year. No special effort would be undertaken to safeguard blufflands and manage Research 

Natural Areas. Guiding principles for habitat projects would not be established. 

Existing programs and effort would address sedimentation and other water quality issues. Poolscale drawdowns would continue at current, intermittent level. Control of invasive plant species 

would be modest, and control of invasive animals would be minimal, relying on the work of the states 

and other agencies. Environmental Pool Plans would be implemented on a strategic and 

opportunistic basis using the Environmental Management Program. Wildlife inventory and 

monitoring would remain unchanged with continued focus on waterfowl, colonial nesting birds, 

eagles, and aquatic invertebrate/vegetation sampling. Management of threatened and endangered 

species would focus on protection versus recovery. The furbearer trapping program would continue 

but be brought into compliance with policies by writing a new plan. There would continue to be 

limited emphasis on fishery and mussel management and commercial fishing oversight. Cooperation 

with the states and Corps of Engineers on turtle monitoring and research would continue, and a 

forest inventory on the Refuge would be completed in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers. 

Existing grassland habitat on the Refuge would be maintained and enhanced using fire and other 

tools.

Hunting and fishing opportunities would continue on a large percentage of the Refuge. The system 

of waterfowl hunting closed areas would remain the same except for minor boundary adjustments. 

Entry into closed areas for purposes other than hunting, trapping, and camping would continue to be 

allowed, although the voluntary avoidance area on Lake Onalaska would remain in place. No action 

would be taken on the firing line issue north of the closed area in Lake Onalaska. No major changes 

would be made to current hunting regulations. Permanent blinds for waterfowl hunting and the 

Potter’s Marsh and Blanding Landing managed hunts in the Savanna District would continue, 

although administrative changes would be made to promote fairness and efficiency. No action would 

be taken on regulating fishing tournaments.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

37

Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)

There would be no increase in facilities or programming for wildlife observation, photography, 

interpretation and environmental education, with a focus on maintaining the status quo. There would 

be a modest increase in Refuge access through improvement of existing boat ramps, pull offs, and 

overlooks. Commercial fish floats or piers would be governed by current permit procedures and 

stipulations. Guiding on the refuge would continue with little oversight. Beach-related public use 

(camping, swimming, picnicking, social gatherings) would continue with little change and beach 

planning and maintenance would continue at low levels. One electric motor area would remain 

(Mertes Slough, Pool 6), and no new slow, no-wake zones established. Current regulations on the use 

of dogs would remain in place. There would be no substantive changes made to current public use 

regulations.

There would be no new offices or shops constructed for Headquarters or the Districts, with the 

exception of a new shop for the Winona and Savanna districts since they are already scheduled. 

Staffing levels for the Refuge would remain the same, as would public outreach and awareness 

efforts.

Goal 1: Landscape. We will strive to maintain and improve the scenic qualities and wild character of the 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge.

Objective 1.1: Maintain the integrity of the Refuge boundary. Each year, request survey of 

problem boundary areas to curb encroachment issues. 

Rationale: Current funding and surveying capabilities limit a systematic 

surveying of the Refuge boundary. This objective would address problems on 

a case-by-case basis as they occur.

Strategies

# Conduct yearly surveillance of problem boundary areas which are 

normally those which border private lands. 

# Work with Corps of Engineers on those boundary issues affecting Corps 

of Engineers-acquired lands that are part of the Refuge.

Objective 1.2. Land Acquisition: By 2021, acquire from willing sellers 12 percent of the 

lands identified for acquisition in the 1987 Master Plan and subsequent 

approvals, as identified on the maps in Appendix G (approximately 200 acres/

year). 

Rationale: Land acquisition can be a cost effective tool to ensure protection 

of important fish and wildlife habitat and to close gaps between existing parts 

of the Refuge. On the Service’s Land Acquisition Priority System, the Refuge 

ranks 6th nationally due to its resource importance. This objective represents 

the current modest and opportunistic land acquisition program of about 200 

acres per year to achieve goals set in the 1987 Master Plan and other 

approved acquisition documents. 

Strategies

# Seek consistent Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations to 

meet the objective (approximately $300,000 per year at $1,500 per acre). 

# Explore land exchanges with the states to remove intermingled 

ownerships. Continue to work with the Department of the Army to 

transfer title of tracts as they are cleaned of contaminants at the Lost 

Mound Unit (former Savanna Army Depot).
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

38

Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)

Objective 1.3 Bluffland Protection: By 2021, acquire from willing sellers protective 

easements or fee-title interest in at least 1 of 13 bluffland areas within the 

approved boundary of the Refuge as identified in the 1987 Master Plan. (See 

maps, Appendix G.)

Rationale: There have been no acquisitions of bluffland areas since first 

identified in the 1987 Master Plan, so current efforts are minimal, as 

represented by this objective. Blufflands are an important part of 

maintaining the scenic quality of the Refuge landscape and harbor unique 

and diverse plants and animals. In recent years, peregrines have once again 

started nesting on the rock faces of some bluffs. Peregrines, at one time an 

endangered species, were the main rationale for including the 13 areas in the 

acquisition boundary. 

Strategies

# Seek consistent acquisition funding as noted in Objective 1.2. Work with 

the states, local governments, and various private land trusts to protect 

bluffland habitat and scenic values. 

# Work with local units of government to encourage zoning regulations 

which protect bluffland scenic qualities. 

# Educate the public on the values of blufflands for birds and unique plant 

communities.

Objective 1.4 Research Natural Areas and Special Designations: Conduct yearly visits to 

the Refuges’ four federally-designated Research Natural Areas and 

document condition, check boundary signing, and conduct ongoing wildlife 

surveys. No new Natural Areas would be established. (See maps, Appendix P 

and Table 7 on page 229.) 

Rationale: This objective represents the current level of management which 

is expected to continue under this alternative. No areas of the Refuge are 

deemed suitable for new Natural Area designation. Designating the Refuge a 

Wetland of International Importance would raise its stature in line with 

previously designated national wildlife refuges including Horicon National 

Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin and Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge in 

South Dakota. 

Strategies

# Ensure yearly visits remain a part of annual work plans in each Refuge 

District containing Research Natural Areas. 

Goal 2: Environmental Health. We will strive to improve the environmental health of the Refuge by 

working with others.

Objective 2.1: Water Quality: Working with others, seek a continuous improvement in the 

quality of water flowing through and into the Refuge in terms of parameters 

measured by the Long Term Monitoring Program of the Environmental 

Management Program (dissolved oxygen, major plant nutrients, suspended 

material, turbidity, sedimentation, and contaminants).

Rationale: The quality of water on the Refuge is one of the most important 

factors influencing fish, wildlife, and aquatic plant populations and health, 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

39

Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)

which in turn influence the opportunity for public use and enjoyment. Water 

quality is also beyond the Refuge’s ability to influence directly given the 

immense size of the Refuge’s watershed and current funding levels and 

staffing. This objective recognizes these limitations, but highlights the 

advocacy role the Refuge can play in supporting the myriad of agencies which 

together can influence water quality.

Strategies

# Continue conservation assistance agreements with Soil and Water 

Conservation Districts. 

# Use the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to restore and 

enhance wetland and riparian habitat off-refuge. 

# Consider water quality aspects in all habitat enhancement projects, 

especially habitat projects which reduce sediment in backwaters. 

# Link planning and projects for tributary watersheds to Pool Plan 

implementation. 

# Support cooperative water quality monitoring and improvement efforts 

through the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee and other 

groups and agencies.

Objective 2.2: Water Level Management: By 2021, complete drawdowns of all Refuge pools 

during the summer growing season in cooperation with the Corps of 

Engineers and the state.

Rationale: Lowering the water levels in impoundments during the growing 

season is a proven management practice to dramatically increase emergent 

vegetation. Improved vegetation results in more food and cover for a wide 

range of fish and wildlife species. Much of the emergent vegetation on the 

Refuge has been lost due to stable water regimes created for navigation, and 

this objective seeks to restore productive marsh habitat to thousands of 

acres. All pools would benefit from drawdowns. However, Pool 14 does not 

appear to be feasible in the 15-year horizon of this plan.

Strategies

# Continue to work in partnership with the interagency water level 

management taskforce to plan and facilitate drawdowns. 

# Inform and involve citizens through public meetings, workshops, and 

citizen advisory groups. 

# Seek all available funding sources to carry out needed recreational access 

dredging to lessen social and economic impacts during drawdowns 

(proposals in Corps of Engineers Navigation Study released in 2004 

includes funding for drawdowns).

Objective 2.3: Invasive Plants: Each year, conduct at least one biological control effort on 

purple loosestrife and/or leafy spurge on each District of the Refuge, and 

continue ongoing education and outreach efforts on the effects of invasive 

plants. 

Rationale: This objective represents the current program of invasive plant 

control by the Refuge due to the restraints of funding for invasive plant work. 

Biological control consists of release of insects which prey directly on purple 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

40

Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)

loosestrife or leafy spurge plants or disrupt part of their life cycle, and is a 

more long-term and cost efficient solution compared to herbicide spraying. 

Biological control methods are not yet readily available for other invasive 

plant species. Education and outreach is ongoing as a part of regular displays, 

programs, and media work. 

Strategies

# Continue to work with the Department of Agriculture, other agencies, 

the states, and other refuge field stations in securing insects and beetles 

for release in high-infestation areas.

# Take advantage of periodic invasive species grants, cost-sharing, or 

special funding opportunities offered through the Service or other 

agencies and foundations. 

# Continue to provide information and education to the public through the 

media, brochures, signage, and programs.

Objective 2.4: Invasive Animals: Continue ongoing information and education efforts on the 

issue of invasive animal species and their impact on the resources of the 

Refuge.

Rationale: This objective represents the current direction of the Refuge in 

regards to invasive animals and is difficult to measure and minimal at best. It 

represents basic limitations of resources, but perhaps just as important, the 

reality that invasive animal species do not lend themselves to direct control in 

a large river system and that addressing invasive animals is dependent on 

political and management actions beyond the boundary of the Refuge. 

Strategies

# Continue to support the efforts of other agencies and groups in the 

monitoring, research, and control of invasive animals. 

# Continue to provide information and education to the public through the 

media, brochures, signage, and programs

Goal 3: Wildlife and Habitat. Our habitat management will support diverse and abundant native fish, wildlife, 

and plants.

 Objective 3.1 Environmental Pool Plans: By 2021, implement at least 30 percent of the 

Refuge-priority Environmental Pool Plan actions and strategies in Pools 4-14 

as summarized in Table 4 on page 196 at the end of this Chapter (see 

Appendix N for examples of Environmental Pool Plan maps).

Rationale: Environmental Pool Plans represent a desired future habitat 

condition developed by an interagency team of resource professionals, 

including Refuge staff. The Pool Plans represent what is necessary to reverse 

the negative trends in habitat quality and quantity on the Upper Mississippi 

River. The Refuge represents a sizeable subset of the habitat vision 

presented in each Pool Plan. The Refuge also has different resource 

mandates and responsibilities than the Corps of Engineers and the states. 

Thus, the Refuge prioritized various actions to meet these needs as 

represented in Table 4 on page 196. The objective of 30 percent represents a 

reasonable rate of implementing priority actions given current funding levels 

(mainly through the Environmental Management Program, Corps of 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

41

Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)

Engineers) for habitat conservation work, and the 15-year horizon of this 

CCP versus the 50-year horizon of the Pool Plans. Some of the actions and 

strategies in the Table overlap with other objectives in this plan (e.g. forest 

management, land acquisition, watershed work, and water level drawdowns).

Strategies

# Continue to coordinate with the River Resources Forum’s Fish and 

Wildlife Workgroup, and the River Resources Coordinating Team’s Fish 

and Wildlife Interagency Committee, to implement pool plan priorities. 

# Continue to work for full and expanded funding of the Environmental 

Management Program through public and Congressional information 

and outreach. 

# Take advantage of any new funding sources that emerge, such as 

appropriations from Congress for implementing the Navigation Study 

ecosystem restoration recommendations.

Objective 3.2. Guiding Principles for Habitat Management Programs: Do not adopt any 

formal guiding principles for habitat management programs.

Rationale: Guiding principles for habitat restoration or enhancement 

projects would provide consistency between the four Districts of the Refuge 

and help communicate to cooperating agencies and the public standards from 

which we will design projects. Formal guiding principles do not now exist, so 

not adopting any represents no action. However, the Refuge would continue 

to rely on existing goals, objectives, and policies in seeking projects that 

benefit a diversity of fish and wildlife while taking into account public use 

needs and issues. 

Strategies 

# None warranted for this alternative.

Objective 3.3. Monitor and Invesigate Fish and Wildlife Populations and Their Habitats:

Continue yearly monitoring of aquatic invertebrates, submerged aquatic 

vegetation, waterfowl, colonial nesting birds, bitterns and rails, breeding 

songbirds, Bald Eagle nesting, and frogs and toads in accordance with the 

1993 Wildlife Inventory Plan.

Rationale: Monitoring is essential to understanding the status and trends of 

selected species groups and habitats. This in turn provides some indication of 

overall biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge, 

and is critical in planning habitat management and public use programs. This 

objective represents a modest or “sampler” inventory program, using 

standardized protocols, in line with current funding and staffing levels. It is 

also skewed toward migratory birds and their aquatic foods in keeping with 

the federal responsibilities for these species. The Refuge would continue to 

rely on monitoring done by others to help fill the gaps in status and trends 

information for fish, mussels, reptiles, forests and other land cover, and 

environmental factors such as water chemistry and sedimentation. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

42

Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)

Strategies

# Review and amend as needed the Wildlife Inventory Plan to ensure the 

latest protocols are being followed, but do not expand species or habitats 

being monitored. 

# Continue to work with the states, U.S. Geological Survey, and Corps of 

Engineers in the sharing of data on other species and habitats. 

# Continue to use volunteers for certain monitoring efforts such as the 

breeding bird survey point counts. 

# Complete a Habitat Management Plan which integrates species status 

and trends with the Environmental Pool Plans (Objective 3.1).

Objective 3.4. Threatened and Endangered Species Management: Continue ongoing 

protection of federally listed threatened, endangered and candidate species 

and conduct yearly survey of bald eagle nesting.

Rationale: As noted in an earlier section of this chapter, it is Service policy to 

give priority consideration to the protection, enhancement, and recovery of 

these species on national wildlife refuges. This objective represents the 

continuation of a minimum threatened and endangered species program, 

mainly through the protection of habitat and review and consultation of 

management actions in light of possible impacts to these species. The only 

species actively monitored by the Refuge are bald eagles due to public 

interest and their symbolic stature. 

Strategies

# Consider the needs of threatened, endangered and candidate species in 

all habitat and public use management decisions. 

# Continue to consult with the Service’s Ecological Services Offices on all 

actions which may affect listed species. 

# Continue monitoring bald eagle nesting populations and success. 

# Continue assistance to other offices and agencies with Higgins eye 

pearlymussel recovery efforts. 

Objective 3.5. Furbearer Trapping: Update the Refuge trapping plan by June 2007, 

continuing the existing trapping program until the update is completed.

Rationale: Furbearer trapping has a long history on the Refuge and can be 

an important management tool in reducing furbearer disease and habitat 

impacts, and in safeguarding certain Refuge infrastructure such as dikes, 

islands, and water control structures. The current trapping plan is dated by 

time (1988), new furbearer ecology and population information, and by new 

policies governing compatibility of uses and commercial uses on national 

wildlife refuges.

Strategies

# The Refuge wildlife biologists, in consultation with Refuge district 

managers and state furbearer biologists, will develop a revised trapping 

plan for approval by the Refuge manager. 

# Afford the public an opportunity for review and comment on the plan. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

43

Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)

# Complete a new compatibility determination for public review and 

comment. 

Objective 3.6. Fishery and Mussel Management: Continue to defer fishery and mussel 

management on the Refuge to the states and the Service’s Fishery Resource 

Office in La Crosse, Wisconsin. 

Rationale: This objective reflects the current and projected Refuge 

involvement in fishery and mussel management given current funding and 

staffing restraints.

Strategies

# Continue to gather information from state and other Service offices on 

the status of fish and mussels on the Refuge. 

# Rely on fisheries status and trends provided by the Long Term Resource 

Monitoring Program of the Environmental Management Program 

administered by the Corps of Engineers.

Objective 3.7. Commercial Fishing and Clamming: Continue to defer to state departments 

of natural resources to monitor, regulate, and permit commercial fishing and 

clamming.

Rationale: This objective reflects the current and projected Refuge 

involvement in commercial fishing and mussel harvest given current funding 

and staffing restraints.

Strategies

# Continue to gather information from the states and the Upper 

Mississippi River Conservation Committee on harvest levels. 

# Conduct license and permit compliance on an opportunistic basis during 

routine Refuge law enforcement efforts.

Objective 3.8. Turtle Management: Continue to cooperate with state departments of natural 

resources and the Corps of Engineers in monitoring turtle populations on 

certain Refuge areas, but continue to defer to the states on commercial 

harvest management of certain turtle species.

Rationale: This objective reflects the current and projected Refuge 

involvement in turtle management and harvest given current funding and 

staffing restraints. The Refuge has contributed funds and staff to monitoring 

and study efforts, but availability is unpredictable from year to year.

Strategies

# Work in partnership with the states and Corps of Engineers on 

monitoring and research efforts for turtles. 

# Seek funding for research into turtle ecology and population status 

through grants. 

# Increase public awareness of the importance of the Refuge and river to 

turtles. 

# Consider the needs of turtles in habitat and public use planning and 

projects.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

44

Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)

Objective 3.9. Forest Management: Complete by the end of 2008, in cooperation with the 

Corps of Engineers, a forest inventory of the Refuge.

Rationale: A baseline forest inventory of the approximately 51,000 acres of 

floodplain forest on the Refuge is the first step in addressing concerns for the 

long-term health of this important resource. The Corps of Engineers has 

been actively working on a forest inventory for several years on Corps of 

Engineers-acquired lands, and it makes fiscal and efficiency sense to partner 

with the Corps of Engineers on this objective.

Strategies

# As Refuge funding allows, continue to fund seasonal technicians to help 

with the Corps of Engineers’ inventory project on Service-acquired 

lands. 

# Continue to work with the Corps of Engineers and other partners on 

forest rejuvenation and research projects.

# Continue small scale reforestation, especially mast-producing 

hardwoods, on suitable Refuge lands.

Objective 3.10. Grassland Management: Maintain 5,700 acres of grassland habitat on the 

Refuge through the use of various management tools including prescribed 

fire, haying, grazing, and control of invasive plants.

Rationale: Many species of wildlife, particularly birds, are dependent on 

grassland habitat. In addition, some of these grasslands are remnant 

tallgrass native prairie, a diverse and rare ecosystem throughout the 

Midwest and home to rare or declining plant and animal species. Active 

management is needed to curb loss of grasslands to forest succession or 

invasive species, and to maintain species diversity and health.

Strategies

# Implement the Refuge’s Fire Management Plan. 

# Use haying, rotational grazing, and control of invasive plants as 

appropriate to maintain grasslands.

# Restore native prairie where feasible using a combination of rest, fire, 

farming, and reseeding as appropriate to the site.

#

Goal 4: Wildlife-Dependent Recreation. We will manage public use programs and facilities to ensure 

abundant and sustainable hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, interpretation, and 

environmental education opportunities for a broad cross-section of the public.

Objective 4.1. General Hunting: Maintain a minimum of 192,219 acres (80.0 percent) of land 

and water of the Refuge open to all hunting in accordance with respective 

state seasons, and make no changes to the current 8 administrative No 

Hunting Zones (3,555 acres). (See Table 2 and Table 7 in Appendix H and 

maps in Appendix P.)

Rationale: This objective represents the current areas open to hunting 

during all respective state seasons. In addition, Waterfowl Closed Areas reopen to some hunting after the duck season. Administrative No Hunting 

Zones are generally closed year-round to hunting for visitor safety or to 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

45

Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)

reduce user conflict. No change represents the no action or current direction 

of this alternative. Hunting is one of the priority uses of the Refuge System 

and is to be facilitated when compatible with the purposes of the Refuge and 

the mission of the Refuge System. 

Strategies

# Continue yearly review of Refuge Hunting Regulations to ensure clarity 

and to address any emerging issues or concerns, and give public 

opportunity to review and comment on any changes.

# Continue to publish the Refuge Hunting Regulations brochure to inform 

the public of hunting opportunities and Refuge-specific regulations. 

# Continue to improve the hunting experience by ongoing improvements to 

habitat and enforcement of regulations. 

# Review the 1989 Refuge Hunting Plan and modify as needed to comply 

with new regulations and policies. 

Objective 4.2. Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas: Continue current system of 14 Closed 

Areas (40,858 acres) and 1 Sanctuary Area (3,686 acres) and current 

regulations, but make boundary adjustments to clarify boundary or address 

operation and maintenance needs. (See Table 5 on page 208 and maps, 

Appendix P.)

Rationale: Closed Areas are designed to provide relatively undisturbed fall 

resting and feeding areas for the length of the Refuge, and to more evenly 

distribute waterfowl hunting opportunities. This objective represents the 

current direction of the Closed Area system. Minor boundary adjustments 

have been made to some areas over the years and are needed periodically to 

address physical changes in the environment (such as island erosion) and to 

reduce confusion or annual signing concerns. 

Strategies

# Improve habitat in Closed Areas by ongoing programs such as pool 

drawdowns, Environmental Management Program projects, and other 

agency initiatives and regulations.

# Continue Voluntary Avoidance Area program for the Lake Onalaska 

(Pool 7) closed area, and seek to expand to other Closed Areas where 

feasible. 

# Continue to monitor waterfowl use of closed areas through weekly aerial 

surveys in the fall. 

# As funding allows, monitor frequency and effect of disturbance by 

commercial, public, and agency entry into Closed Areas.

Objective 4.3 Waterfowl Hunting Regulation Changes: Make no major changes to current 

Refuge-specific regulations governing the means and methods of waterfowl 

hunting on the Refuge (see Appendix I for current regulations).

Rationale: This objective represents the current direction of waterfowl 

hunting regulations on the Refuge, recognizing that periodic minor changes 

are needed to clarify language, or to address an emerging issue or changes in 

state regulations. These minor changes are published in the Federal Register 

for public review and comment prior to implementation.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

46

Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)

Strategies

# Continue to publish and distribute the Refuge Hunting Regulations 

brochure. 

# Issue news releases to local media in the event any minor changes are to 

be published in the Federal Register since most of the interested public is 

not aware of, or has access to, the Federal Register.

Objective 4.4. Firing Line – Pool 7, Lake Onalaska: Make no changes in boundaries or 

methods of hunting that would affect the waterfowl hunting fire line that has 

developed at the north end of the Pool 7 Closed Area (“The Barrels”). (See 

map, Appendix P, La Crosse District.)

Rationale: This objective represents the no action alternative to address 

hunter behavior issues and crippling loses from long-range pass shooting at 

waterfowl.

Strategies

# Continue to educate the waterfowl hunting public about the issues and 

seek self-regulation of behavior. 

# Work with the La Crosse County Conservation Alliance and other 

conservation organizations in the education effort. 

# Increase law enforcement presence and contacts in the Barrels Area and 

more aggressively enforce violations.

Objective 4.5. Permanent Hunting Blinds on Savanna District: Continue allowing 

permanent waterfowl hunting blinds on the Savanna District. (See maps, 

Appendix P, Savanna District.)

Rationale: This objective represents taking no action on issues surrounding 

the use of permanent blinds at the Savanna District. These issues include 

unsafe and unsightly debris, private exclusive use of public lands, conflicts 

between users, reduction in overall hunting opportunity, and inconsistency 

with regulations on other districts of the Refuge.

Strategies

# Continue to educate the waterfowl hunting public about the issues and 

seek self-regulation of behavior. 

# Work with local and area waterfowl conservation organizations on the 

education effort. 

# Increase law enforcement presence and contacts to ensure compliance 

with regulations governing blind use. 

Objective 4.6. Potter’s Marsh Managed Hunt on Savanna District: Continue current 

Potter’s Marsh Managed Hunt with permanent blinds, but implement the 

following application and drawing changes: (See Table 17 in Appendix H and 

maps in Appendix P, Pool 13.)

1.) Accept applications and hold drawing for blind area on same day, 

generally on a Saturday in July. 

2.) Applicant must be present at drawing.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

47

Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)

3.) Applicant must have current Firearm Owners Identification if Illinois 

resident and current year license and state and federal duck stamps.

4.) Applicants must be 16 years of age by date of drawing.

5.) Applications accepted 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. with drawing at 2 p.m.

6.) Successful applicant receives blind site for entire season.

7.) Application fee $10 plus $100 fee for successful applicants. 

Rationale: Allowing the continued use of permanent blinds for this hunt 

represents the no action alternative. However, reducing staff time and 

administrative costs, while making the drawing process more equitable, 

makes good management sense and represents the current direction. 

Strategies

# Continue to educate the waterfowl hunting public about the issues and 

seek self-regulation of behavior in regard to permanent blind use with 

this hunt. 

# Work with local and area waterfowl conservation organizations on the 

education effort. 

# Increase law enforcement presence and contacts to ensure compliance 

with regulations governing the hunt.

# Ensure that information on administrative changes is provided to the 

public well in advance of changes. 

Objective 4.7. Blanding Landing Managed Hunt: Continue the current program and 

administrative procedures (drawing for permanent blinds) for the Blanding 

Landing Managed Hunt on the Lost Mound Unit, Savanna District. (See 

Table 17 in Appendix H and maps, Appendix P, Pool 12.)

Rationale: This hunt is managed by the Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources on the former Savanna Army Depot. This area has now been 

transferred to the Refuge as part of the Lost Mound Unit. This objective 

represents no action from the current managed hunt, namely use of 

permanent blinds and a yearly drawing for limited blind locations.

Strategies

# Continue to educate the waterfowl hunting public about the issues and 

seek self-regulation of behavior in regard to permanent blind use with 

this hunt. 

# Work with local and area waterfowl conservation organizations on the 

education effort. 

# Increase law enforcement presence and contacts to ensure compliance 

with regulations governing the hunt. 

# Ensure that information on the change of hunt administration from the 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources to the Refuge is made 

available to the public, along with any Refuge-specific regulations that 

apply. 

# Use news releases and other means to disseminate information.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

48

Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)

Objective 4.8 General Fishing: Provide and enhance year-round fishing on 140,545 acres of 

surface water within the Refuge, and an additional 2,736 acres in Waterfowl 

Closed Areas (Spring Lake, Pool 13) in spring, summer, and winter. (Note: 

Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois regulations maintain fish “refuges” below lock 

and dams 11,12, and 13, December 1 through March 15). Maintain 15 

accessible fishing piers or docks. (Table 7 and Table 14 in Appendix H and 

maps, Appendix P.)

Rationale: This objective represents the current areas available and open to 

fishing and the area currently closed to fishing from October 1 to the end of 

the duck hunting season to limit disturbance to waterfowl (Spring Lake, Pool 

13). Fishing is one of the priority uses of the Refuge System and is to be 

facilitated when compatible with the purposes of the Refuge and the mission 

of the Refuge System. Enhanced fishing opportunities are also a reflection of 

river and Refuge health. Maintaining the existing 14 accessible fishing piers 

assumes continued funding for staff and maintenance.

Strategies

# Enhance fishing opportunities on suitable areas of the Refuge through 

habitat, access, and facility improvements as outlined in other plan 

objectives. 

# Continue to promote fishing through Fishing Days and other outreach 

and educational programming. 

# Cooperate with the states in their ongoing fishery management 

programs. 

# Schedule yearly inspection and maintenance of fishing piers.

Objective 4.9. Fishing Tournaments: Continue current “hands-off ” approach to regulating 

fishing tournaments on the Refuge, deferring to the individual state’s permit 

procedures and regulations (and Corps of Engineers for Corps of Engineersmanaged landings used for tournaments).

Rationale: This objective represents the no action or current direction 

alternative on the issue of Refuge involvement in fishing tournament permits 

and oversight. 

Strategies

# None since there is no action under this alternative.

Objective 4.10. Wildlife Observation and Photography: Maintain the following existing 

facilities to foster wildlife observation and photography opportunities: 15 

observation decks and areas, 6 hiking trails, 4 canoe trails, 3 biking trails, and 

1 auto tour route. (See Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 15 and Table 19 in 

Appendix H and maps, Appendix P.)

Rationale: Wildlife observation and photography are two of the six priority 

public uses of the Refuge System and are to be facilitated when compatible. 

This objective represents the current direction of the wildlife observation and 

photography program on the Refuge and assumes continuing funding and 

staffing for operations and maintenance.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

49

Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)

Strategies

# Schedule annual inspection and maintenance of the facilities. 

# Ensure adequate signing and information in brochures, websites, and 

maps so the public is aware of the facilities. 

# Continue to promote the wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities of the Refuge through public education, outreach, special 

programs, and partnerships with the states, Corps of Engineers and 

private conservation groups. 

# Enhance observation and photography opportunities on suitable areas of 

the Refuge through habitat, access, and facility improvements as outlined 

in other plan objectives. 

Objective 4.11. Interpretation and Environmental Education: Maintain and update 59 

interpretive signs (see Table 16 in Appendix H, and maps in Appendix P for 

details). Continue to print and distribute Refuge General Brochure, and 

update websites quarterly. Continue to sponsor at least one major annual 

interpretive event on each Refuge District, and continue environmental 

education efforts at Districts with visitor services staff (Savanna and La 

Crosse). 

Rationale: Interpretation and environmental education are two of the six 

priority public uses of the Refuge System and are to be fostered if compatible 

with the Refuge purpose and Refuge System mission. Interpreting the 

resources and challenges of the Refuge to the general public and 

incorporating these topics into school curricula are important ways to 

influence the future well-being of the Refuge and the river. Only through 

understanding and appreciation will people be moved to personal and 

collective action to ensure a healthy Refuge for the future. Interpretation and 

environmental education are also key to changing attitudes and behavior 

which affect the Refuge through off-Refuge land use decisions and on-Refuge 

conduct and use.

This objective reflects the current interpretation and environmental 

education program on the Refuge, a level which is expected to continue. 

Environmental education is labor intensive since it is curriculum-based, so 

efforts are generally limited to those Districts with public use staff. 

Strategies

# Participate in national interpretive events such as National Wildlife 

Refuge Week or Migratory Bird Day for efficiency and effectiveness. 

# Schedule quarterly review of kiosks and interpretive signs and conduct 

maintenance and sign replacement as needed. 

# Cooperate with existing interpretive and environmental education 

programs offered by the states, Corps of Engineers, other agencies and 

private conservation groups, and continue to seek grants to fund events 

and programs.

Objective 4.12. Commercial Fish Floats: Continue to permit 4 commercial fish floats or 

floating piers below locks and dams and make no major changes to current 

fee schedule and permit stipulations. (See Table 12 in Appendix H and maps, 

Appendix P.)
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

50

Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)

Rationale: This objective represents the current and long-standing low-key 

management and administration of commercial fishing floats on the Refuge. 

Fishing floats remain very popular with a segment of the public which does 

not own boats or desires not to use boats below the locks and dams. The floats 

help provide fishing opportunities for young and old, able or less able, and 

facilitate one of the priority public uses of the Refuge System. The floats also 

provide economic benefit to the owners/operators and an economic stimulus 

for nearby businesses. 

Strategies

# Continue yearly coordination meeting with float owners and operators to 

address concerns and permit conditions. 

# Continue enforcement of permit stipulations and suspend permits of 

those operations not meeting the stipulations. 

# Inspect facilities for safety at least once yearly.

Objective 4.13. Guiding Services: Continue inconsistent, low-key approach to issuing permits 

for commercial hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation guiding.

Rationale: This objective represents the no action or current direction 

alternative for this use. 

Strategies

# Continue to defer to the states for any licensing or regulatory oversight. 

# Continue to ignore or apply haphazardly Refuge System regulations 

governing commercial uses on national wildlife refuges. 

Goal 5: Other Recreational Use. We will provide opportunities for the public to use and enjoy the Refuge 

for traditional and appropriate non-wildlife-dependent recreation that is compatible with the purpose for 

which the Refuge was established and the mission of the Refuge System.

Objective 5.1. Beach Use and Maintenance: Continue current open policy for beach-related 

uses such as camping, mooring, picnicking, and social gatherings in 

accordance with existing public use regulations (see Appendix J). Continue to 

use the following interim beach maintenance criteria when requests are made 

for beach maintenance:

1.) Only on beach areas classified as low-density recreation on Land Use 

Allocation Plans.

2.) Only on former or existing dredge material disposal sites.

3.) No maintenance on active dredge disposal sites (including sites recently 

emptied, known locally as “bathtubs”).

4.) No maintenance of beaches in Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas.

5.) Time maintenance work to lessen impacts to turtles and other wildlife.

Rationale: This objective represents the no action or current direction 

alternative that was set in the 1987 Master Plan. Interim beach maintenance 

criteria were developed in response to work in Pool 4 in cooperation with the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in 2003 using Wisconsin 

recreation boating fuel tax revenues. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

51

Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)

Strategies

# Continue to coordinate with the states and the Corps of Engineers 

through established interagency workgroups such as the Recreation 

Workgroup of the River Resources Forum.

# Complete beach inventory for all Districts and use information for 

interagency beach planning effort. 

# Continue to use the principles and components of the “Leave No Trace” 

program. 

# Continue to print and distribute Refuge Public Use Regulations, and 

continue law enforcement effort to address visitor behavior and physical 

impacts associated with beach-related uses. 

 Objective 5.2. Electric Motor Areas: Maintain the one current electric motor area of 222 

acres (Mertes Slough, Pool 6, Winona District). (See Table 13 in Appendix H, 

and maps, Appendix P.)

Rationale: The Mertes Slough electric motor area was established to protect 

from disturbance the northernmost heron rookery on the Refuge. Entry into 

the area by personal watercraft had become more common due to the 

proximity to Winona, Minnesota and other non-Refuge recreation sites. 

Strategies

# Continue to inform the public of this electric motor area by signing and 

providing information at the Mertes Slough boat landing.

# Continue to conduct periodic enforcement of the restriction. 

Objective 5.3. Slow, No-Wake Zones: Maintain the 2 existing Refuge-administered slow, nowake zones and assist local or other units of government in the enforcement 

of 44 other slow, no-wake zones. (See Table 18, Appendix H, and maps, 

Appendix P.)

Rationale: This objective represents the current number of slow, no-wake 

zones on the Refuge. The zones were established for safety at high congestion 

areas or in narrow, blind corner channels, or to lessen the amount of shoreline 

erosion from boat wakes. 

Strategies

# Continue to inform the public of the slow, no wake areas through seasonal 

buoy placement and signing as appropriate. 

# Continue to conduct periodic enforcement of the slow, no-wake 

restriction. 

# Continue to cooperate and coordinate with local units of government 

which establish most slow, no wake zones.

Objective 5.4. Dog Use Policy: Continue to use the current domestic animal regulation 

which says that “unconfined domestic animals are prohibited on the Refuge, 

except for controlled hunting and retrieving dogs during the hunting season.” 

The current prohibition of dog field trials or training of dogs would also 

remain in effect.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

52

Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)

Rationale: This alternative reflects no action in regards to the regulation 

governing the use of dogs and other domestic animals on the Refuge. Unless 

specifically authorized, national wildlife refuges are closed to dogs, cats, 

livestock and other animals per federal regulations. Domestic animals can 

harass and kill wildlife, and at times become a perceived or direct threat to 

other persons engaged in recreation. 

Strategies

# Refuge law enforcement officers will continue to use discretion in 

enforcing this regulation due to the ambiguity inherent in the meaning of 

the word “confined.” 

Objective 5.5. General Public Use Regulations: Make no changes to current general public 

use regulations governing entry and use of the Refuge, as outlined in 

Appendix J. 

Rationale: This objective represents the no action alternative. As a unit of 

the Refuge System, the current regulations governing entry, use, and 

prohibited acts of the Refuge are adopted from Title 50, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Parts 26-28. Over the years, Refuge-specific regulations have 

been adopted to reflect special circumstances or address unique problems. 

Strategies

# Continue to print and distribute the Public Use Regulations brochure. 

# Post pertinent regulations at boat landings and other public use areas, 

such as trail heads and beach areas. 

# Continue proactive law enforcement to inform and educate the public on 

Refuge regulations and to seek their compliance. 

# Annually review Refuge regulations and clarify language as needed.

Goal 6: 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.

Objective 6.1. Office, Shop and Visitor Contact Facilities: Maintain existing offices (6) and 

shops (5), and replace the Winona District and Savanna District shops by 

2006.

Rationale: This objective represents the no action or current direction for 

providing office space and maintenance facilities for Refuge Headquarters, 

the four District Offices, and the Lost Mound Unit. Three of the offices and 4 

of the shops are Service-owned, 2 are government-leased, and the Lost 

Mound office and shop is used by agreement with Department of the Army. 

The Headquarters and Winona District currently share the same building for 

offices, and share a shop. The Savanna, Lost Mound, McGregor, and La 

Crosse offices also have modest visitor reception areas with exhibits and 

other information. Replacement of the Winona and Savanna District shops is 

currently in the planning stage and they should be replaced by 2006, 

dependent on funding through the Service’s Maintenance Management 

System. The existing offices are needed due to the size and length of the 

Refuge and for effectiveness and efficiency of management, administration, 

and public service.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

53

Alternative A: No Action (Current Direction)

Strategies

# Continue to maintain Service-owned facilities using annual maintenance 

budget allocations.

# Continue work to complete exhibits at Savanna and La Crosse offices, 

and seek funding to replace exhibits at McGregor District and the Lost 

Mound Unit. 

# Ensure that office needs are reflected in Refuge System needs 

databases. 

Objective 6.2. Public Access Facilities: Maintain and modernize as needed, 25 public boat 

accesses on the Refuge. (See Table 1 in Appendix H, and maps, Appendix P.)

Rationale: This objective represents the current number of boat accesses on 

the Refuge that are maintained by Refuge staff. In addition to these accesses, 

there are 222 other public and private boat accesses that provide access to the 

Mississippi River or its tributaries, and thus the Refuge.

Strategies

# Continue routine upkeep of boat accesses by Refuge staff, temporary 

employees and Youth Conservation Corps members when available, and 

volunteers. 

# Continue to modernize accesses using Maintenance Management System 

funding or special funding which is provided periodically. 

# In cooperation with states and local governments, explore Transportation 

Enhancement Act projects and funding to upgrade Refuge accesses.

Objective 6.3. Operations and Maintenance Needs: Complete annual review of Refuge 

Operating Needs System (RONS), Maintenance Management System 

(MMS), and Service Assessment and Maintenance Management System 

(SAMMS) databases to ensure these reflect the funding needs for carrying 

out the current direction alternative.

Rationale: The RONS, MMS, and SAMMS databases are the chief 

mechanisms for documenting ongoing and special needs for operating and 

maintaining a national wildlife refuge. These databases are part of the 

information used in the formulation of budgets at the Washington and 

Regional levels, and for the allocation of funding to the field. It is important 

that the databases be updated periodically to reflect the needs of the Refuge.

Strategies

# None warranted.

Objective 6.4. Public Information and Awareness: Continue current annual average of 80 

media interviews, 125 news releases, and 25 special events (special programs, 

presentations, and displays at others’ events) to maintain current levels of 

public awareness of the Refuge, and its purpose, programs, and challenges. 

Maintain existing 66 information kiosks.

Rationale: Keeping the public aware of the Refuge and its purpose, 

programs, and challenges is a basic part of public lands stewardship. An 

informed public can not only take advantage of the recreation afforded by the 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

54

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

Refuge, but can play a role in influencing and shaping management direction 

and the challenges which face the Refuge. This objective reflects a relatively 

high level of continuous effort despite a limited number of visitor services 

staff.

Strategies

# Continue to make public information and awareness a part of all 

employees positions. 

# Continue to look for creative ways to leverage efforts and funding for 

public information. 

# Carry out related objectives dealing with trails, kiosks, leaflets, and 

interpretive signs. 

# Cooperate with the states and the Corps of Engineers on visitor surveys 

to gauge public awareness of the Refuge and Mississippi River resources. 

Objective 6.5. Staffing Needs: Maintain current permanent, full-time staffing of 37 people. 

(See Table 20 in Appendix H.)

Rationale: This objective reflects the no action or current direction 

alternative. Like all land management, refuge management is labor intensive 

and labor costs represent over 95 percent of the base operations funding 

received each year. Thus, staffing levels are tied to budget appropriations 

from Congress and budget allocations from the national and regional offices 

of the Service and could remain the same or go down under this alternative. 

Strategies

# Continue to evaluate current staffing patterns at the District and 

Headquarters level to ensure that personnel are assigned to the greatest 

resource and public service needs. 

# Maintain other sources of funding for staff who coordinate the 

Environmental Management Program and the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program. 

2.4.3 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 B Summary

Boundary issues would be aggressively addressed and the entire Refuge boundary would be 

surveyed. The rate of land acquisition within the approved boundary would increase to complete 58 

percent of the total, an average of 1,000 acres per year. All bluffland areas identified in the 1987 

Master Plan would be protected by fee-title acquisition or easement, and there would be an increase 

in oversight and administration of Research Natural Areas. Guiding principles for habitat projects 

would be established. 

There would be an increase in efforts to achieve continuous improvement in the quality of water 

flowing through the Refuge, including decreasing sedimentation. Pool-scale drawdowns would be 

accomplished by working with the Corps of Engineers and the states. Control of invasive plant 

species would increase, and there would be increased emphasis on the control of invasive animals. 

Environmental Pool Plans would be implemented on a strategic and opportunistic basis using the 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

55

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

Environmental Management Program or other programs and funding sources. Wildlife inventory 

and monitoring would increase and include more species groups beyond the current focus of 

waterfowl, colonial nesting birds, eagles, and aquatic invertebrates/vegetation. Management of 

threatened and endangered species would focus on helping recovery, not just protection. The 

furbearer trapping program would continue but be brought into compliance with policies by writing 

a new plan. The Refuge would become much more active in fishery and mussel management, and 

provide commercial fishing oversight. The knowledge of turtle ecology would be increased through 

research, and there would be continued cooperation with the states and Corps of Engineers on turtle 

conservation efforts. A forest inventory on the Refuge would be completed in cooperation with the 

Corps of Engineers, leading to completion of a forest management plan and more active forest 

management. The existing 5,700 acres of grassland habitat on the Refuge would be maintained and 

enhanced using fire and other tools.

Hunting and fishing opportunities would continue on a 

large percentage of the Refuge. The system of waterfowl 

hunting closed areas would increase substantially with 14 

new areas. Entry into closed areas would be prohibited 

during the respective state duck season, although the 

voluntary avoidance area on Lake Onalaska would 

remain in place. The firing line issue north of the closed 

area in Lake Onalaska would be addressed by expanding 

the closed area northward. Current Refuge-wide hunting 

regulations would be changed to include a 25 shotshell 

limit during the waterfowl season and to address open 

water hunting in portions of Pools 9 and 11. Permanent 

blinds for waterfowl hunting would be eliminated Refuge 

wide, including those used in the Potter’s Marsh and 

Blanding Landing managed hunts in the Savanna 

District. The Potter’s Marsh managed hunt would 

continue with administrative changes to promote fairness and efficiency. The Blanding Landing 

managed hunt would be eliminated, but the area would remain open to hunting. General fishing 

would continue to be promoted, although the Refuge would begin oversight of fishing tournaments in 

cooperation with the states and other agencies. 

There would be no increase in facilities or programming for wildlife observation, photography, 

interpretation and environmental education. There would be a modest increase in Refuge access 

through improvement of existing boat ramps, pull offs, and overlooks, and a boat launch fee would be 

initiated at Refuge-operated boat ramps. Commercial fish floats or piers below locks and dams 6, 7, 

8, and 9 would be eliminated to reduce administrative and oversight costs. Commercial guiding on 

the Refuge would be prohibited. Areas open to beach-related public use (camping, swimming, 

picnicking, social gatherings) would be reduced under a “closed-until-open” policy, and beach 

planning and maintenance would not be allowed on Refuge lands. A total of 10 electric motor areas 

and 9 new slow, no-wake zones would be established. Current regulations on use of dogs would be 

changed to require that dogs and other domestic animals be leashed at all times except when used 

for hunting. General public use regulations would be reviewed annually and changed as needed.

Existing offices would be maintained, but new maintenance facilities or shops would be constructed 

at the Winona, McGregor, and Savanna districts, and eventually, at the Lost Mound Unit. Public 

information and awareness efforts would be decreased 50 percent to focus on wildlife-related work. 

Staffing levels for the Refuge would increase by 17.5 full-time equivalents with the priority being 

biologists, a forester, other specialists, and maintenance persons.

Goal 1: Landscape: We will strive to maintain and improve the scenic qualities and wild character of the 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge.

Common Egret. Copyright Sanda Lines
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

56

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

Objective 1.1. Maintain the integrity of the Refuge boundary: In coordination with the 

Corps of Engineers, re-survey and post the entire Refuge boundary by 2021.

Rationale: Maintaining and enforcing a boundary is one of the basic and 

critical components of refuge management to ensure the integrity of an area 

over time. Without attention to this basic task, there is a tendency for 

adjacent development and use to creep and take over Refuge lands and 

waters. This encroachment includes tree cutting, dumping, construction, 

storing of equipment and materials, and mowing Refuge lands. In addition, 

there are a few boundaries between Refuge and Corps of Engineersmanaged lands that remain unclear, leading to mixed messages to the public 

using these lands via permits, leases, or out grants. The size, length, age, and 

floodplain setting of the Refuge, coupled with a mix of Corps of Engineersacquired and Service-acquired lands, creates boundary clarity problems that 

can only be addressed through modern re-surveying techniques. 

Strategies

# Enter into a joint Service/Corps of Engineers project to complete a 

cadastral survey of the Refuge boundary. 

# With the Corps of Engineers, complete a plan of action to prioritize and 

schedule the completion of the survey by 2020. Seek the funding 

necessary for the survey work. 

# Also with the Corps of Engineers, review, update, and publish a new 

Land Use Allocation Plan for lands within the Refuge (see Chapter 1, 

section 1.4.3.1 for discussion of this plan).

Objective 1.2. Land Acquisition: By 2021, acquire from willing sellers 58 percent of the 

lands identified for acquisition in the 1987 Master Plan and subsequent 

approvals, as identified on the maps in Appendix G (approximately 1,000 

acres/year). 

Rationale: Land acquisition is a critical component of fish and wildlife 

conservation since it permanently protects their basic need of habitat. On a 

narrow, linear refuge, land acquisition is a critical component of restoring the 

habitat connectivity needed for the health of many species. The Refuge 

currently ranks 6th nationally on the Service’s Land Acquisition Priority 

System due to its resource importance. Land acquisition can also be cost 

effective in the long-term due to inflation of land costs and the costs of 

acquiring undeveloped land versus developed land that also needs 

restoration. This objective represents an aggressive land acquisition program 

of about 1,000 acres per year to achieve goals set in the 1987 Master Plan and 

other approved acquisition documents. Lands and waters most important to 

fish and wildlife would be the highest priority acquisitions in keeping with the 

wildlife focus of this alternative. Lands with the highest fish and wildlife 

values were coded “A” in the 1987 Master Plan, and this ranking system 

remains a useful prioritization tool. 

Strategies

# Seek consistent Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations to 

meet the objective (approximately $1.5 million per year at $1,500 per 

acre). 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

57

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

# Explore land exchanges with the states to remove intermingled 

ownerships. 

# Continue to work with the Department of the Army to transfer title of 

tracts as they are cleaned of contaminants at the Lost Mound Unit 

(former Savanna Army Depot). 

Objective 1.3. Bluffland protection: By 2021, acquire from willing sellers protective 

easements or fee-title interest in all undeveloped bluffland areas within the 

approved boundary of the Refuge as identified in the 1987 Master Plan. (See 

maps, Appendix G.)

Rationale: There have been no acquisitions of bluffland areas since first 

identified in the 1987 Master Plan, and this objective represents a more 

aggressive approach to safeguarding the wildlife values of these areas. In 

recent years, peregrines have once again started nesting on the rock faces of 

some bluffs. Peregrines, at one time an endangered species, were the main 

rationale for including the 13 areas in the acquisition boundary. Blufflands 

are also an important part of maintaining the scenic quality of the Refuge 

landscape and harbor unique and diverse plants and animals. Since some 

areas identified have been developed for housing or other uses since 1987, the 

focus would be on the undeveloped areas. However, there may be an 

opportunity to protect remaining values of these developed areas through 

creative easements.

Strategies

# Seek consistent acquisition funding as noted in Objective 1.2 and favor 

easements over fee-title acquisition since it is more cost-effective for a 

wildlife focus approach. 

# Work with the state, local governments, and private land trusts to protect 

bluffland habitat and scenic values. 

# Work with local units of government to encourage zoning regulations 

which protect bluffland scenic qualities. 

# Help educate the public on the values of blufflands for birds and unique 

plant communities.

Objective 1.4 Research Natural Areas and Special Designations: By 2010, complete a 

management plan for each of the Refuge’s four federally-designated 

Research Natural Areas. No new Natural Areas would be established. (See 

maps, Appendix P and Table 7.) 

Rationale: The Refuge has done little in the way of monitoring or research of 

the existing Research Natural Areas. Although the main goal of the area 

designation is the preservation of unique floodplain forest areas, preservation 

is a form of management. No management plans have been written to guide 

monitoring and research of current habitat conditions and changes since the 

areas were designated in the 1970s. Completing a management plan for each 

area would identify monitoring protocols, any habitat management needed to 

retain original biological values or address threats, address any special public 

use considerations, and identify ways to foster public awareness and 

appreciation of these unique areas. No areas of the Refuge are deemed 

suitable for new Natural Area designation. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

58

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

Strategies

# District Managers will be responsible for completion of a management 

plan for natural areas in their District, using a consistent approach and 

format and in cooperation with the states and other federal agencies as 

appropriate (e.g., Nelson-Trevino).

# Seek cooperative research and monitoring opportunities with other 

agencies and colleges and universities.

# Ensure yearly reviews of Research Natural Area boundaries to ensure 

integrity of the areas. 

Goal 2: Environmental Health. We will strive to improve the environmental health of the Refuge by 

working with others.

Objective 2.1. Water Quality: Working with others and through a more aggressive Refuge 

program, seek a continuous improvement in the quality of water flowing 

through and into the Refuge in terms of parameters measured by the Long 

Term Monitoring Program of the Environmental Management Program 

(dissolved oxygen, major plant nutrients, suspended material, turbidity, 

sedimentation, and contaminants).

Rationale: The quality of water on the Refuge is one of the most important 

factors influencing fish, wildlife, and aquatic plant populations and health, 

which in turn influence the opportunity for public use and enjoyment. Water 

quality is also beyond the Refuge’s ability to influence alone given the 

immense size of the Refuge’s watershed and multiple-agency responsibilities. 

This objective recognizes these limitations, but charts a more aggressive role 

for the Refuge through the strategies below. The objective also highlights the 

advocacy role the Refuge can play in educating the public and supporting the 

myriad of agencies which together can influence water quality.

Strategies 

# Hire a Private Lands Biologist or Technician for each of the Refuge’s 

four Districts to restore and enhance wetland, upland, and riparian 

habitat on private lands in and along sub-watersheds feeding into the 

Refuge, and to broker the myriad of private land and conservation 

opportunities available through the Department of Agriculture and 

others. 

# Increase conservation assistance agreements with Soil and Water 

Conservation Districts and Resource Conservation and Development 

boards. 

# Cooperate with local government land use planning efforts to ensure that 

water quality impacts to the Refuge are considered. 

# Emphasize water quality aspects, especially sediment deposit in 

backwaters, in all habitat enhancement projects. 

# Link the planning and projects for tributary watersheds to Pool Plan 

implementation using the latest GIS-based mapping and modeling. 

Support cooperative water quality monitoring and improvement efforts 

through the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee and other 

groups and agencies. 

# Continue to stress the importance of water quality in public information 

and interpretive and education programs.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

59

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

Objective 2.2. Water Level Management: By 2021, complete drawdowns of all Refuge pools 

during the summer growing season in cooperation with the Corps of 

Engineers and the state.

Rationale: Lowering the water levels in impoundments during the growing 

season is a proven management practice to dramatically increase emergent 

vegetation. Improved vegetation results in more food and cover for a wide 

range of fish and wildlife species. Much of the emergent vegetation on the 

Refuge has been lost due to stable water regimes created for navigation, and 

this objective seeks to restore productive marsh habitat to thousands of 

acres. All pools would benefit from drawdowns. However, Pool 14 does not 

appear to be feasible in the 15-year horizon of this plan.

Strategies

# Continue to work in partnership with the interagency water level 

management taskforce to plan and facilitate drawdowns. 

# Inform and involve citizens through public meetings, workshops, and 

citizen advisory groups. 

# Seek all available funding sources to carry out needed recreational access 

dredging to lessen social and economic impacts during drawdowns 

(proposals in Corps of Engineers Navigation Study released in 2004 

includes funding for drawdowns). 

# Explore options for funding an Access Trust Fund to ensure adequate 

funding when needed to accomplish drawdowns. 

Objective 2.3. Invasive Plants: By 2008, complete an invasive plant inventory and by 2010, 

achieve a 10 percent reduction in acres affected by invasive plants such as 

purple loosestrife, reed canary grass, Eurasian milfoil, leafy spurge, crown 

vetch, Russian knapweed, knotweed, European buckthorn, garlic mustard, 

and Japanese bamboo. Emphasize the use of biological controls.

Rationale: Invasive plants continue to pose a major threat to native plant 

communities on the Refuge and beyond. Invasive plants displace native 

species and often have little or no food value for wildlife. The result is a 

decline in the carrying capacity of the Refuge for native fish, wildlife, and 

plants. This objective addresses this threat by first determining and mapping 

baseline information on invasive plants so that effective and efficient control 

can take place. Biological control includes release of insects which prey 

directly on purple loosestrife or leafy spurge plants or disrupt part of their 

life cycle, and is a more long-term and cost efficient solution compared to 

herbicide spraying. This objective is tempered by the realization that 

biological control methods are not yet readily available for a large number of 

invasive plant species.

Strategies

# Hire seasonal biological technicians to conduct an inventory and prepare 

baseline maps of invasive plant infestations. 

# Write an invasive plant control and management plan (integrated pest 

management plan) that identifies priority areas and methods of control. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

60

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

# Seek seasonal staff and funding to accelerate current control and applied 

research efforts through interagency partnerships, volunteer programs, 

and public education. 

# Continue to work with the Department of Agriculture, other agencies, 

the states, and other refuge field stations in securing insects and beetles 

for release in high-infestation areas. 

# Take advantage of periodic invasive grant, cost-sharing, or special 

funding opportunities offered through the Service or other agencies and 

foundations. 

# Conduct public information effort including media, brochures, signage, 

and programs to increase awareness of the invasives threat and what 

visitors can do to minimize the introduction or spread of invasives.

Objective 2.4. Invasive Animals: Increase efforts to control invasive animals through active 

partnerships with the states and other Service programs and federal 

agencies, and increase public awareness and prevention.

Rationale: Invasive animals such as zebra mussels and Asian carp species 

pose a current and looming threat to native fish and mussel species and have 

the potential to disrupt the aquatic ecosystem. This objective is not 

measurable, reflecting the reality that invasive animal species do not lend 

themselves to direct control in a large river system and that addressing 

invasive animals is dependent on political and management actions beyond 

the boundary of the Refuge. However, the objective does emphasize the 

importance of addressing invasive species and represents more active Refuge 

involvement. 

Strategies

# Implement other objectives and strategies in this plan which have an 

influence on invasive species work. For example, better habitat 

conditions promote healthy native fish populations which can compete 

with invasive species, while adding a fishery biologist to the staff would 

increase and improve coordination with other programs and agencies 

dealing with invasives. 

# Continue to work with other agencies in developing effective regulations, 

barriers, biological controls, or other means to reduce introduction and 

spread of invasives. 

# Explore new and creative ways to expand the harvest of invasive fish by 

commercial fishing, such as a bonus payment to enhance market price. 

# Conduct public information effort including media, brochures, signage, 

and programs to increase awareness of the invasives threat and what 

visitors can do to minimize the introduction or spread of invasives.

Goal 3: Wildlife and Habitat. Our habitat management will support diverse and abundant native fish, 

wildlife, and plants.

Objective 3.1. Environmental Pool Plans: By 2021, implement at least 30 percent of the 

Refuge-priority Environmental Pool Plan actions and strategies in Pools 4-14 

as summarized in Table 4 on page 196 at the end of this Chapter (see 

Appendix N for examples of Environmental Pool Plan maps).
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

61

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

Rationale: Environmental Pool Plans represent a desired future habitat 

condition developed by an interagency team of resource professionals, 

including Refuge staff. The Pool Plans represent what is necessary to reverse 

the negative trends in habitat quality and quantity on the Upper Mississippi 

River. Improved habitat is the key to healthy fish and wildlife populations, 

and thus, this objective represents an important part of the wildlife focus 

alternative. The Refuge represents a sizeable subset of the habitat vision 

presented in each Pool Plan. The Refuge also has different resource 

mandates and responsibilities than the Corps of Engineers and the states. 

Thus, the Refuge prioritized various actions to meet these needs as 

represented in Table 4. The objective of 30 percent represents a reasonable 

rate of implementing priority actions given current funding levels (mainly 

through the Environmental Management Program, Corps of Engineers) for 

habitat conservation work, and the 15 year horizon of this CCP versus the 50 

year horizon of the Pool Plans. Some of the actions and strategies in the Table 

overlap with other objectives in this plan (e.g. forest management, land 

acquisition, watershed work, and water level drawdowns).

Strategies

# Continue to coordinate with the River Resources Forum’s Fish and 

Wildlife Workgroup, and the River Resources Coordinating Team’s Fish 

and Wildlife Interagency Committee, to implement pool plan priorities. 

# Continue to work for full and expanded funding of the Environmental 

Management Program through public and Congressional information 

and outreach. 

# Take advantage of any new funding sources that emerge, such as 

appropriations from Congress for implementing the Navigation Study 

ecosystem restoration recommendations.

Objective 3.2. Guiding Principles for Habitat Management Programs: Upon approval of the 

CCP, adopt and use the following guiding principles when designing or 

providing input to design and construction of habitat enhancement projects: 

1.) Management practices will restore or mimic natural ecosystem processes 

or functions to promote a diversity of habitat and minimize operations 

and maintenance costs. 

2.) Maintenance and operation costs of projects will be weighed carefully 

since annual budgets for these items are not guaranteed. 

3.) Terrestrial habitat on constructed islands and other areas needs to best 

fit the natural processes occurring on the river, which in many cases will 

allow for natural succession to occur. 

4.) If project features in Refuge Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas serve to 

attract public use during the waterfowl season, spatial and temporal 

restrictions of uses may be required to reduce human disturbance of 

wildlife. 

Rationale: Guiding principles for habitat restoration or enhancement 

projects would provide consistency between the four Districts of the Refuge 

and help communicate to cooperating agencies and the public standards from 

which we will design projects. The principles will also help ensure compliance 

with Service policy on biological integrity and recognize the need to consider 

future operations and maintenance costs before doing projects. In addition, 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

62

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

the principles help ensure that projects complement, rather than compete 

with, other goals and objectives in this plan. 

Strategies

# Refuge staff will use these guidelines when proposing and designing 

habitat enhancement projects funded by the Service. They will also be 

used during coordination with the Corps of Engineers and the states in 

cooperative programs such as the Environmental Management Program 

or any new program authority that may arise from the Corps of 

Engineers’ Navigation Study.

Objective 3.3. Monitor and Investigate Fish and Wildlife Populations and Their Habitats:

By January 2008, amend the 1993 Wildlife Inventory Plan to include more 

species groups such as fish, reptiles, mussels, and plants, and increase the 

amount of applied research being done on the Refuge. 

Rationale: Monitoring is essential to understanding the status and trends of 

selected species groups and habitats. This in turn provides some indication of 

overall biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge, 

and is critical in planning habitat management and public use programs. This 

objective represents a more aggressive biological program on the Refuge in 

line with a true wildlife focus, and will help meet directives in the Refuge 

Improvement Act requiring monitoring the status of fish, wildlife, and plant 

species. Better biological information is also critical to making sound 

management decisions. The Refuge would continue to support and use 

monitoring done by the states, U.S. Geological Survey, the Corps of 

Engineers, and others to help fill the gaps in status and trends information 

for fish, mussels, reptiles, forests and other land cover, and environmental 

factors such as water chemistry and sedimentation. 

Strategies

# Engage other experts and partners to develop and implement the 

Wildlife Inventory Plan. 

# Establish a Refuge Research Team that designs short-term and longterm research projects to address management questions and concerns 

about wildlife populations and their habitat. 

# Continue to work with the states, U.S. Geological Survey, and Corps of 

Engineers in the sharing of data on other species and habitats. 

# Establish a schedule of formal coordination meetings with the U.S. 

Geological Survey to share biological monitoring methods and data.

# Ensure that each District has a biologist on staff and that Headquarters 

has a GIS biologist. 

# Seek more cooperation with colleges and universities to foster more 

graduate research projects. 

# Continue to use volunteers for certain monitoring efforts such as the 

breeding bird survey point counts. 

# Complete a Habitat Management Plan which integrates species status 

and trends with the Environmental Pool Plans (Objective 3.1).

Objective 3.4. Threatened and Endangered Species Management: By the end of 2008, begin 

monitoring of all federally listed threatened or endangered and candidate 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

63

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

species on the Refuge, and by 2010, have in place management plans for each 

species to help ensure their recovery. 

Rationale: As noted in an earlier section of this chapter, it is Service policy to 

give priority consideration to the protection, enhancement, and recovery of 

these species on national wildlife refuges. This objective represents a more 

aggressive approach to achieving this policy. Currently, the only species 

actively monitored by the Refuge are Bald Eagles, and efforts would be 

expanded to include the Higgins eye pearlymussel, eastern massasauga 

rattlesnake, and Sheepnose mussel. 

Strategies

# Consider the needs of threatened, endangered and candidate species in 

all habitat and public use management decisions. 

# Continue to consult with the Service’s Ecological Services Offices on all 

actions which may affect listed species. 

# In Wildlife Inventory Plan, address monitoring plan for all listed or 

candidate species, and other species of management concern to help 

preclude listing. 

# Continue monitoring bald eagle nesting populations and success. 

# In Habitat Management Plan, identify steps needed to ensure 

populations of listed or candidate species are sustained in support of 

delisting or to preclude listing in the future. Give priority to acquisition of 

lands within approved boundary that contain listed or candidate species.

# Continue assistance to other offices and agencies with Higgins eye 

pearlymussel recovery efforts.

Objective 3.5. Furbearer Trapping: Update the Refuge trapping plan by June 2007, 

continuing the existing trapping program until the update is completed.

Rationale: Furbearer trapping has a long history on the Refuge and can be 

an important management tool in reducing furbearer disease and habitat 

impacts, and in safeguarding certain Refuge infrastructure such as dikes, 

islands, and water control structures. The current trapping plan is dated by 

time (1988), new furbearer ecology and population information, and by new 

policies governing compatibility of uses and commercial uses on national 

wildlife refuges.

Strategies

# The Refuge wildlife biologists, in consultation with Refuge District 

managers and state furbearer biologists will develop a revised trapping 

plan for approval by the Refuge manager.

# Afford the public an opportunity for review and comment on the plan. 

# Complete a new compatibility determination for public review and 

comment. 

Objective 3.6. Fishery and Mussel Management: By the end of 2008, complete a Fishery 

and Mussel Management Plan for the Refuge which incorporates current 

monitoring and management by the states and other Service offices and 

agencies.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

64

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

Rationale: One of the purposes of the Refuge is to provide a “refuge and 

breeding place for fish and other aquatic animal life.” Fish and mussels also 

have high intrinsic, recreational, and commercial values. For decades, the 

Refuge has not taken an active role in fishery or mussel management, 

deferring to the states or others on this management responsibility. Although 

the states will still play the lead role in fisheries and mussel management, the 

Refuge should have in place a plan which communicates to the states and the 

public the Refuge and Service perspective on fishery and mussel 

management issues and needs, and to help set common goals, objectives, and 

means of collecting and sharing information. The plan would also help guide 

conservation efforts for rare or declining interjurisdictional species such as 

paddlefish and sturgeon and federally listed and candidate aquatic species, 

and address the Refuge’s role in commercial harvest of species and control of 

aquatic invasive species.

Strategies

# Add a fishery biologist to the Headquarters staff to coordinate fishery 

and mussel management on the Refuge. 

# Prepare plan in collaboration with the states, Service fishery offices, the 

Genoa National Fish Hatchery, and aquatic biologists of the U.S. 

Geological Survey. 

Objective 3.7. Commercial Fishing and Clamming: By the end of 2008, complete a Fishery 

and Mussel Management Plan, and by January 2009, begin issuing Refuge 

special use permits in addition to state-required permits for commercial 

fishing and clamming.

Rationale: The Refuge has provided little to no oversight of the commercial 

harvest of fish or mussels in the past. However, federal regulations governing 

the Refuge System state that “fishery resources of commercial importance 

on wildlife refuge areas may be taken under permit in accordance with 

federal and state law and regulations” (50 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

31.13). Other regulations govern all commercial uses on refuges. Besides this 

compliance issue, the Refuge can play an important advisory and 

coordination role with the four states which administer commercial fish and 

mussel harvest on the Refuge. 

Strategies

# In addition to the strategies in Objective 3.6, establish, with the states 

through the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, a method 

of sharing permittee and catch information for the Refuge. 

# Devise a Refuge permitting process that dovetails with state permits so 

that commercial users receive only one permit versus two. 

# Enter into cooperative agreements as needed to implement this one-stopshopping permit process. 

# Ensure that commercial harvest of fish and mussels meets objectives in 

Refuge plans, and explore ways that commercial harvest can help 

address invasive species issues (Objective 2.4).

Objective 3.8. Turtle Management: By spring, 2007, initiate a 3-5 year turtle ecology study 

on representative habitats of the entire Refuge. Continue to cooperate with 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

65

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

the states and the Corps of Engineers in monitoring turtle populations on 

certain Refuge areas.

Rationale: Recent surveys in the Weaver Bottoms area of Pool 5 indicate that 

this area of the Refuge is an important, and perhaps critical, area for 8 

species of turtles, some of which are listed by the states as threatened or 

endangered. Surveys on other Pools of the Refuge show that 11 species are 

present. There are numerous potential negative and positive impacts to 

turtles from public use and navigation channel maintenance activities on the 

Refuge. However, more rigorous monitoring and research is needed over a 

broad area to understand turtle populations and ecology to guide a 

coordinated approach to their conservation. A comprehensive study would 

provide this information.

Strategies

# In cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey, seek special funding and 

grants to fund the turtle ecology study. 

# Continue to coordinate with the Corps of Engineers and the states on 

ways to minimize turtle nesting disturbance on dredge material disposal 

sites located on the Refuge. 

# Through the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, devise a 

method of sharing more detailed commercial turtle harvest information 

for the Refuge. 

# Upon completion of the turtle ecology study, complete a turtle 

management strategy and incorporate recommendations in habitat, 

commercial use, and public use management activities. 

# Conduct public information effort including media, brochures, signage, 

and programs to increase awareness and appreciation of turtles and 

communicate what visitors can do to minimize impacts on beach areas 

used for nesting.

Objective 3.9. Forest Management: Complete by the end of 2008, in cooperation with the 

Corps of Engineers, a forest inventory of the Refuge, and by 2010, complete a 

Forest Management Plan for the Refuge.

Rationale: A baseline forest inventory of the approximately 51,000 acres of 

floodplain forest on the Refuge is the first step in addressing concerns for the 

long-term health of this important resource. The Corps of Engineers has 

been actively working on a forest inventory for several years on Corps of 

Engineers-acquired lands, and it makes fiscal and efficiency sense to partner 

with the Corps of Engineers on Service-acquired lands on this objective. A 

Forest Management Plan is needed to integrate forest and wildlife objectives, 

and to identify management prescriptions such as harvest, planting, fire, and 

invasives control. Collaboration with the Corps of Engineers is essential to 

meet the forest habitat needs of wildlife since the Corps of Engineers 

retained forest management authority on Corps of Engineers-acquired lands 

that are part of the Refuge. 

Strategies

# As Refuge funding allows, continue to fund seasonal technicians to help 

with the Corps of Engineers’ inventory project on Service-acquired 

lands. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

66

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

# Continue to work with the Corps of Engineers and other partners on 

forest rejuvenation and research projects.

# Continue small scale reforestation, especially mast-producing 

hardwoods, on suitable Refuge lands.

# Add a Refuge Forester to the Headquarters staff to oversee Forest 

Management Plan preparation and implementation, and to coordinate 

with the Corps of Engineers and the states on forest management issues 

and opportunities.

Objective 3.10. Grassland Management: Maintain 5,700 acres of grassland habitat on the 

Refuge through the use of various management tools including prescribed 

fire, haying, grazing, and control of invasive plants, and by 2008, address 

grassland conservation and enhancement in a step-down Habitat 

Management Plan. 

Rationale: Many species of wildlife, particularly birds, are dependent on 

grassland habitat. In addition, some of these grasslands are remnant 

tallgrass native prairie, a diverse and rare ecosystem throughout the 

Midwest and home to rare or declining plant and animal species. Active 

management is needed to curb loss of grasslands to forest succession or 

invasive species, and to maintain species diversity and health.

Strategies

# Implement the Refuge’s Fire Management Plan. 

# Use haying, rotational grazing, and control of invasive plants as 

appropriate to maintain grasslands. 

# Restore native prairie where feasible using a combination of rest, fire, 

farming, and reseeding as appropriate to the site. 

# Increase monitoring to measure effectiveness of treatments.

Goal 4: Wildlife-Dependent Recreation. We will manage programs and facilities to ensure abundant and 

sustainable hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, interpretation, and environmental 

education opportunities for a broad cross-section of the public.

Objective 4.1. General Hunting: Maintain a minimum of 165,524 acres (69 percent) of land 

and water of the Refuge open to all hunting in accordance with respective 

state seasons, and add two new administrative No Hunting Zones for a total 

of 3,813 acres. See related Objective 4.2 on Waterfowl Closed Areas (See 

tables, Appendix H and maps, Appendix N.)

Rationale: Maintaining a large percentage of the Refuge open to hunting is in 

keeping with guidance in the Refuge Improvement Act to facilitate wildlifedependent use when compatible. This objective also represents a wildlife 

emphasis by increasing the number of Waterfowl Closed Areas in the related 

Objective 4.2. These Closed Areas reopen to some hunting after the duck 

season, adding to the open acreage above. The two new No Hunting Zones 

are for safety reasons or to minimize conflict between user groups. One is at 

Sturgeon Slough, Pool 10 (66 acres), which contains a fairly new hiking trail 

off a major highway, and the other is at Crooked Slough proper, Pool 13 (192 

acres) to avoid conflicts and address safety concerns in a relatively narrow 

corridor popular with anglers. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

67

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

Strategies

# Continue yearly review of Refuge Hunting Regulations to ensure clarity 

and to address any emerging issues or concerns, and give the public an 

opportunity to review and comment on any changes. 

# Continue to publish the Refuge Hunting Regulations brochure to inform 

the public of hunting opportunities and Refuge-specific regulations. 

# Continue to improve the hunting experience by ongoing improvements to 

habitat and enforcement of regulations. 

# Review the 1989 Refuge Hunting Plan and modify as needed to comply 

with new regulations and policies. 

# Clearly sign areas closed to hunting and ensure public notification 

through news releases and other means well before the hunting seasons.

Objective 4.2. Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas: In fall 2006, implement the following 

changes to the current Waterfowl Closed Area system on the Refuge:

1.) Add 14 new Closed Areas to the current 15, for a total of 29 areas totaling 

60,396 acres, or 15,901 acres more than current area (see Table 2 on 

page 192 and Table 5 on page 208, Table 8 in Appendix H, and maps in 

Appendix P).

2.) All areas, except on Lake Onalaska, would become true Waterfowl 

Sanctuaries by prohibiting entry and use from October 1 to the end of the 

respective state regular duck season.

3.) The current Lake Onalaska Closed Area and associated Voluntary 

Waterfowl Avoidance Area would not be affected, although boundary 

adjustments would be made.

Rationale: This objective represents a wildlife focus alternative to best meet 

the waterfowl-specific goals of the following overall Closed Area system 

goals:

1.) Provide migrating waterfowl a more balanced and effective network of 

feeding and resting areas.

2.) Minimize disturbance to feeding and resting waterfowl in closed areas.

3.) Provide waterfowl hunters with more equitable hunting opportunities 

over the length of the Refuge.

4.) Reduce hunter competition and waterfowl crippling loss along some 

closed area boundaries. 

5.) Stabilize boundaries where island and/or shoreline loss or gain creates a 

fluctuating boundary.

This objective also helps address the issues surrounding Closed Areas as 

discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.4.5.4, and analyzed in Chapter 3, Section 

3.2.7 on page 235. The 14 new Closed Areas were chosen to fill gaps between 

existing Closed Areas, to meet the needs of both dabbler and diver ducks 

which have different spatial and foraging needs, and to provide areas with the 

best food potential. An analysis of the potential carrying capacity of existing 

and proposed alternative Closed Areas was completed in 2004 and shows that 

this alternative objective would provide a 45 percent increase in total energy 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

68

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

available to waterfowl in the Closed Area system (this report is available at 

Refuge headquarters or on the Refuge planning web site: http://

midwest.fws.gov/planning/uppermiss/index.html ). 

The Closed Area locations and configurations in this alternative also took into 

account the needs for public access and travel routes, commercial navigation, 

adjacent business and community needs and practicalities, likelihood of nearterm habitat improvements in existing Closed Areas, and the desire to 

continue to provide viable waterfowl hunting opportunities. No change was 

made in entry regulations for the Lake Onalaska closed area due to the 

unique circumstances presented by development on two sides of the area. By 

not changing, it also provides a useful control area to measure differences in 

effectiveness of a mandatory no entry provision versus voluntary compliance.

Strategies

# Improve habitat in all Closed Areas by ongoing programs such as pool 

drawdowns, Environmental Management Program projects, and other 

agency initiatives and regulations. 

# Continue to monitor waterfowl use of Closed Areas through weekly 

aerial surveys in the fall.

# Monitor the frequency and effect of disturbance by commercial, public, 

and agency entry into Closed Areas. 

# Conduct a comprehensive public information campaign to inform 

waterfowl hunters and the general public of impending changes. Use all 

methods available including personal contact, presentations at 

organizations, special meetings, leaflets, signing, news releases, 

websites, and media interviews.

# Post boundaries of new or modified closed areas well in advance of the 

waterfowl hunting season to help with public awareness. 

# Increase law enforcement presence to help ensure understanding and 

compliance with changes, relying on verbal and/or written warnings, at 

an officer’s discretion, the first year of implementation in 2006. 

Objective 4.3. Waterfowl Hunting Regulation Changes: In fall 2006, implement the 

following Refuge-specific waterfowl hunting regulation change (see Appendix 

I for current regulations):

1.) All hunters may possess no more than 25 shotshells during the respective 

state waterfowl season.

2.) Open-water hunting is prohibited on an area of Pool 9 near Ferryville and 

Cold Springs (river miles 652-658), and an area of Pool 11 (river miles 

586-591), both in Wisconsin.

Rationale: The shotshell limit is designed to curb the excessive out-of-range 

shooting or “skybusting” that occurs throughout the Refuge to varying 

degrees. Skybusting can have a marked effect on the number of birds 

crippled and unretrieved, and disrupts the hunting for those who favor 

working birds with decoy sets. A shell limit will decrease skybusting by 

providing an incentive (longer hunting experience) for making judicious 

shooting decisions. The shell limit is reasonable and above limits imposed at 

other heavily-used public hunting areas and national wildlife refuges.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

69

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

The prohibition of open-water hunting is to limit disturbance in areas of Pools 

9 and 11 that have become important feeding and loafing sites for hundreds of 

thousands of canvasback and lesser scaup ducks, two species of management 

concern due to relatively small or declining populations. In Pool 9, the Refuge 

prohibition is additional insurance for safeguarding waterfowl use of the area 

into the future since Wisconsin regulations currently prohibit open water 

hunting. In Pool 11, open water hunting is allowed through a special 

exemption to the Wisconsin regulations. In the 1980s, the area was an 

important staging and feeding area for diving ducks, primarily scaup, which 

fed on abundant fingernail clam. When the fingernail clams collapsed, 

waterfowl use virtually ceased. In recent years, wild celery has become 

established and the area is attracting large numbers of canvasback and other 

diving ducks. This area provides the only major staging and feeding area for 

divers between Pool 9 and Pool 13, a distance of 125 river miles. The open 

water prohibition would be pre-emptive since virtually no open water hunting 

(skull boats) is happening at this time, but is likely as habitat improves and 

birds increase. 

Strategies

# Conduct a comprehensive public information campaign to inform 

waterfowl hunters and the general public of impending changes. 

# Use all methods available including personal contact, presentations at 

organizations, special meetings, leaflets, signing, news releases, 

websites, and media interviews. 

# Increase law enforcement presence to help ensure understanding and 

compliance with changes, relying on verbal and/or written warnings, at 

an officer’s discretion, the first year of implementation in 2006.

# Maintain or improve habitat in Pools 9 and 11 through ongoing programs 

such as pool drawdowns, habitat enhancement projects, and other agency 

initiatives and regulations. 

# Continue to monitor waterfowl use of these areas through weekly aerial 

surveys in the fall. 

Objective 4.4. Firing Line – Pool 7, Lake Onalaska: In fall 2006, expand the Lake Onalaska 

Waterfowl Closed Area by approximately 530 acres by moving the north 

boundary northward (See Pool 7 Map, Alternative B, Appendix P). This 

expansion would close the so-called Barrel Blinds area to waterfowl hunting.

Rationale: This objective emphasizes a wildlife focus by closing an area 

notorious for skybusting, competition between hunters, and high crippling 

rates as noted in the issue discussion in Chapter 1, Section 1.4.5.4. This 

expansion represents a 7 percent increase in the existing Lake Onalaska 

Closed Area. Although there is some likelihood that this expansion would just 

move the firing line northward, difference in islands and emergent vegetation 

would tend to reduce firing line development.

Strategies

# Conduct a comprehensive public information campaign to inform 

waterfowl hunters and the general public of impending changes. 

# Use all methods available including personal contact, presentations at 

organizations, special meetings, leaflets, signing, news releases, 

websites, and media interviews. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

70

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

# Post and sign the new boundary well in advance of the hunting seasons. 

# Increase law enforcement presence to help ensure understanding and 

compliance with boundary change, relying on verbal and/or written 

warnings, at an officer’s discretion, the first year of implementation in 

2006.

Objective 4.5. Permanent Hunting Blinds on Savanna District: Eliminate the use of 

permanent hunting blinds within the Savanna District of the Refuge after the 

2006-07 waterfowl hunting season. (See Table 17 in Appendix H and maps in 

Appendix P, Savanna District.)

Rationale: Eliminating permanent blinds would provide consistency on the 

Refuge since they are not allowed on the other three Districts. In addition to 

consistency, eliminating the blinds would address a host of issues involving 

debris, private exclusive use of public waters, limiting hunting opportunities, 

and confrontations and other incidents. These issues were discussed more 

fully in Chapter 1, Section 1.4.5.4. This objective would also reduce the staff 

time spent on law enforcement, complaints, and clean-up which permanent 

blinds entail, time which could be directed toward more wildlife-related 

needs, and in line with the wildlife emphasis of this alternative. 

Strategies

# Conduct public information campaign to inform the public of the change 

and to give hunters who have become accustomed to the blinds a chance 

to adapt to alternative hunting methods or areas.

# Prepare and distribute a leaflet explaining the change and regulations for 

temporary blinds. 

# Begin phase-in of regulations by requiring hunters to comply with the 

following requirements the year before a respective pool is scheduled for 

permanent blind phase out:

1. Blinds must be marked with name and address of owner.

2. All blind material must be removed by the hunter within 30 days of the 

end of the waterfowl hunting season.

Objective 4.6. Potter’s Marsh Managed Hunt on Savanna District: After the 2006-07 season, 

eliminate the managed waterfowl hunt at Potter’s Marsh Managed Hunt, 

including the use of permanent blinds, and open the area to waterfowl 

hunting on a first-come, first-secured basis. (See Table 17 in Appendix H and 

maps in Appendix P, Pool 13.)

Rationale: This objective would reduce problems associated with permanent 

blinds as noted in Objective 4.5 (debris, private exclusive use, limiting 

hunting opportunities, and confrontations) and eliminate the substantial 

administrative costs associated with the drawings, permit administration, 

and oversight of the current program (see issue discussion, Chapter 1, 

Section 1.4.5.4). This objective reflects a wildlife emphasis since funding and 

staff currently devoted to this hunt could be focused on wildlife objectives 

throughout the Savanna District.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

71

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

Strategies

# Conduct public information campaign beginning at least one year prior to 

implementation to inform the public of the change and to give hunters 

who have become accustomed to the managed hunt a chance to adapt to 

alternative hunting methods or areas. 

Objective 4.7. Blanding Landing Managed Hunt: After the 2006-07 season, eliminate the 

managed waterfowl hunt at Blanding Landing, Lost Mound Unit, Savanna 

District (former Savanna Army Depot), including the use of permanent 

blinds, and open the area to waterfowl hunting on a first-come, first-secured 

basis. (See Table 17 in Appendix H and maps in Appendix P, Pool 12).

Rationale: Illinois Department of Natural Resources administers this hunt 

on behalf of the Savanna Army Depot, but with transfer of jurisdiction to the 

Service, hunting on this area is now the responsibility of the Refuge. Similar 

to the Potter’s Marsh Managed Hunt above, this objective would reduce 

problems associated with permanent blinds as noted in Objective 4.5 (debris, 

private exclusive use, limiting hunting opportunities, and confrontations) and 

eliminate the administrative costs associated with the drawings, permit 

administration, and oversight of the current program. This objective reflects 

a wildlife emphasis since funding and staff currently devoted to this hunt 

could be focused on wildlife objectives throughout the Savanna District, and 

especially the new Lost Mound Unit which has large start-up needs. 

Strategies

# Conduct public information campaign prior to implementation to inform 

the public of the change and give hunters accustomed to the managed 

hunt a chance to adapt to alternative hunting methods or areas.

#

Objective 4.8. General Fishing: Provide and enhance year-round fishing on 104,716 acres of 

surface water within the Refuge, and an additional 38,645 acres of Waterfowl 

Closed Areas open spring, summer, and winter. (Note: Iowa, Wisconsin, and 

Illinois regulations also maintain fish “refuges” below lock and dams 11, 12, 

and 13, December 1 through March 15). Maintain 15 accessible fishing piers 

or docks. (Table 8 and Table 14 in Appendix H and maps in Appendix P.)

Rationale: This objective represents the current areas available and open to 

fishing, tempered by the proposed no entry regulation for Closed Areas in 

this alternative (Objective 4.2) which would prohibit fishing and all other uses 

on 38,645 acres during the respective state duck hunting season. Fishing is 

one of the priority uses of the Refuge System and is to be facilitated when 

compatible with the purposes of the Refuge and the mission of the Refuge 

System. Enhanced fishing opportunities are also a reflection of river and 

Refuge health. No increase in fishing piers or docks is proposed in-line with 

the wildlife versus public use emphasis of this alternative.

Strategies

# Enhance fishing opportunities on suitable areas of the Refuge through 

habitat, access, and facility improvements as outlined in other plan 

objectives. 

# Continue to promote fishing through Fishing Days and other outreach 

and educational programming. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

72

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

# Cooperate with the states in their ongoing fishery management 

programs. Schedule yearly inspection and maintenance of fishing piers.

Objective 4.9. Fishing Tournaments: By January 2008, develop a plan for issuing Refuge 

Special Use Permits in addition to, or in conjunction with, state-issued 

permits for all fishing tournaments occurring on the Refuge.

Rationale: Fishing tournaments are a use, and at times a commercial use, of 

the Refuge and subject to regulations governing uses of national wildlife 

refuges. The Refuge has not provided any oversight to this use, deferring to 

the states’ regulatory and permitting processes. Refuge permitting would 

provide oversight to protect sensitive habitat and wildlife areas from the 

possible physical and disturbance impacts of fishing tournaments. Through 

permitting, the Refuge could also play a coordination role given the interstate 

nature of the Refuge and the river.

Strategies

# Meet with the states and Corps of Engineers to discuss the best 

strategies for implementing a Refuge permit process in concert with 

their permitting procedures. 

# Develop with the states and Corps of Engineers as appropriate, time, 

space, and capacity parameters on each Pool within the Refuge, and 

definitions for what constitutes a fishing tournament. 

# Develop outreach plan to involve and inform fishing tournament 

organizations or sponsors with changes in regulations and procedures.

Objective 4.10. Wildlife Observation and Photography: Maintain the following existing 

facilities to foster wildlife observation and photography opportunities: 15 

observation decks and areas, 8 hiking trails, 4 canoe trails, 3 biking trails, and 

1 auto tour route. (See Tables 3, 4, 5, 15 and 19 in Appendix H and maps in 

Appendix P.)

Rationale: Wildlife observation and photography are two of the six priority 

public uses of the Refuge System and are to be facilitated when compatible. 

This objective represents only an increase in the number of hiking trails (+2). 

This modest expansion of facilities reflects the wildlife emphasis of this 

alternative, directing staff to wildlife-related objectives versus public-use 

related objectives. 

Strategies

# Schedule annual inspection and maintenance of the facilities. 

# Ensure adequate signing and information in brochures, websites, and 

maps so the public is aware of the facilities. 

# Continue to promote the wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities of the Refuge through public education, outreach, special 

programs, and partnerships with the states, Corps of Engineers and 

private conservation groups. 

# Enhance observation and photography opportunities on suitable areas of 

the Refuge through habitat, access, and facility improvements as outlined 

in other plan objectives.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

73

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

Objective 4.11. Interpretation and Environmental Education: Maintain and update 59 

interpretive signs (see Table 16 in Appendix H and maps in Appendix P for 

details). Continue to print and distribute Refuge General Brochure, and 

update websites quarterly. Continue to sponsor at least one major annual 

interpretive event on each Refuge District, and continue environmental 

education efforts at Districts with public use staff (Savanna and La Crosse). 

Rationale: Interpretation and environmental education are two of the six 

priority public uses of the Refuge System and are to be fostered if compatible 

with the Refuge purpose and Refuge System mission. Interpreting the 

resources and challenges of the Refuge to the general public and 

incorporating these topics into school curricula are important ways to 

influence the future well-being of the Refuge and the river. Only through 

understanding and appreciation will people be moved to personal and 

collective action to ensure a healthy Refuge for the future. Interpretation and 

environmental education are also key to changing attitudes and behavior 

which affect the Refuge through off-Refuge land use decisions and on-Refuge 

conduct and use.

This objective reflects a continuation of a priority toward wildlife-related 

management activities versus public use activities and programs. Thus, this 

objective is identical to the objective in the no action or current direction 

alternative. Environmental education is labor intensive since it is curriculumbased, so efforts are generally limited to the Savanna and La Crosse Districts 

which have visitor services staff. 

Strategies

# Participate in national interpretive events such as National Wildlife 

Refuge Week or Migratory Bird Day for efficiency and effectiveness. 

# Schedule quarterly review of kiosks and interpretive signs and conduct 

maintenance and sign replacement as needed. 

# Cooperate with existing interpretive and environmental education 

programs offered by the states, Corps of Engineers, other agencies, and 

private conservation groups, and continue to seek grants to fund events 

and programs.

# Continue work to complete exhibits at Savanna and La Crosse offices, 

and seek funding to replace exhibits at McGregor District and Lost 

Mound Unit.

Objective 4.12. Commercial Fish Floats: By the end of 2008, eliminate the 4 existing 

commercial fish floats or fishing piers below Locks and Dams 6, 7, 8, and 9. 

(See Table 12 in Appendix H, and maps in Appendix P.)

Rationale: This objective would eliminate a substantial cost in terms of staff 

time needed to administer this commercial use, especially in light of 

continued permit compliance issues with a majority of the fish float 

operations. The staff time devoted to these commercial operations would be 

directed to wildlife management and thus represent the wildlife emphasis of 

this alternative. This objective would also solve several long standing 

management issues such as permit non-compliance, condition and safety 

issues with some operations, net economic loss to the government, and 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

74

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

noncompliance with regulations governing concessions on national wildlife 

refuges.

Strategies

# Notify fish float owners/operators of intent to eliminate use and give 

them 3 years to phase out operations. 

# Help owners and operators look at off-refuge options for providing this 

service, such as the use of commercial barges not moored to Refuge lands 

or not anchored in Refuge waters. 

# Provide the public with information on the fish float phase out to give 

them time to seek alternate areas or means for this type of fishing.

#

Objective 4.13. Guiding Services: Beginning in spring 2006, do not allow commercial guiding 

for fishing, hunting, wildlife observation or any other uses on the Refuge.

Rationale: As noted in the issues section of Chapter 1, guiding businesses are 

on the rise and promise to become an increasingly common activity on the 

Refuge. Without proper oversight, this activity could lead to disturbance to 

sensitive areas and wildlife, and increased conflict with the general public or 

other guides as volume and frequency increases. Providing proper 

administration and oversight of guiding in accordance with Service policy and 

regulations would be costly in terms of staff time and reduce resources 

available for higher priority fish, wildlife, and habitat objectives.

Strategies

# Work with the states to ensure that their guide licensing does not conflict 

with the Refuge prohibition. 

# Conduct public information effort through news releases and media 

contacts to implement the objective. 

# Provide proactive enforcement through Refuge law enforcement officers 

and information provided by others in the law enforcement community. 

Goal 5: Other Recreational Use. We will provide opportunities for the public to use and enjoy the Refuge 

for traditional and appropriate non-wildlife-dependent recreation that is compatible with the purpose for 

which the Refuge was established and the mission of the Refuge System.

Objective 5.1. Beach Use and Maintenance: Beginning in spring 2007, implement new 

“closed-unless-open” policies, and new regulations, outlined below relative to 

beach-related uses and beach maintenance.

A. Beach Use Policy. Refuge lands will generally be closed to the beachrelated, non-wildlife-dependent uses of camping, overnight mooring, and 

picnicking, swimming, and social gatherings. However, remnant and active 

dredged material placement sites, natural sand shorelines, and all other 

shoreline areas within the Refuge that are adjacent to the main channel of the 

river, including the backside of islands, points or other lands adjacent to the 

main channel, may be open to beach-related uses by District Managers 

through signing and other means. 

B. New regulations for camping and other beach-related uses. Current public 

use regulations as described in the Refuge Public Use Regulations brochure 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

75

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

(see Appendix J) will remain in effect, except by April 1, 2007, the following 

regulation changes will be implemented:

1.) Camping is defined as erecting a tent or shelter of natural or synthetic 

material, preparing a sleeping bag or other bedding material for use, 

parking of a motor vehicle or mooring or anchoring of a vessel, for the 

apparent purpose of overnight occupancy, or, occupying or leaving 

personal property, including boats or other craft, at a site anytime 

between the hours of 11 p.m. and 3 a.m. on any given day.

2.) All campers must have access to either a portable or approved, marine 

onboard toilet facility, or have in their possession a commercial human 

waste disposal kit for each person. All human solid waste and associated 

material, along with any personal property, refuse, trash, and litter, shall 

be removed immediately upon vacating a site.

3.) Entering or remaining on the Refuge when under the influence of alcohol 

will remain prohibited, but under the influence will be defined as a blood 

alcohol content of .08 percent blood alcohol content. In addition, develop a 

public intoxication regulation to give officers a tool to deal with unruly 

behavior.

4.) Beach Maintenance Policy. Beach maintenance (topdressing, reshaping, 

leveling, and vegetation clearing) will not be allowed on Refuge lands. 

Rationale: Non-wildlife-dependent recreation continues to increase on the 

Mississippi River and the Refuge. It is estimated that 1.3 million persons per 

year use the Refuge for camping, recreational boating, picnicking, swimming, 

social gatherings, and other uses not dependent on the presence of fish and 

wildlife. This objective, with its new policies and regulations, would address 

the many issues related to beach use described in the issue section of Chapter 

1. These issues included the high incidence of disturbing violations, wildlife 

displacement, litter and human waste, intoxication, unlawful and unruly 

behavior, and officer and public safety. However, it would also address the 

unique circumstances and traditions of beach-related uses at this Refuge and 

allow these uses to continue at locations and in a manner that would give 

maximum consideration to the fish and wildlife purpose of the Refuge and the 

wildlife focus of this alternative. Curtailing any beach maintenance would 

free staff planning and administrative time for wildlife-related work.

Strategies

# Continue to work with the states and the Corps of Engineers through 

existing interagency workgroups to identify which areas in each Pool 

would be open in accordance with the new policies and regulations. 

# Conduct public information and education campaign well before 

implementation of changes, to include news releases, general articles, 

fact sheets, and media interviews. 

# Use the components and principles of the Leave No Trace program in the 

campaign (plan ahead and prepare, travel and camp on durable surfaces, 

dispose of waste properly, leave what you find, minimize campfire 

impacts, respect wildlife, and be considerate of others). 

# Develop a brochure which clearly explains new policies and regulations 

and answers frequently asked questions. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

76

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

# Develop new signs for use on areas that would be open to beach-related 

uses to ensure public recognition and compliance. 

# Refuge officers will increase contacts with Refuge users once this plan is 

approved to explain pending regulation changes. 

# Verbal or written warnings will be used at officer discretion during the 

first year of implementation to ease the transition. 

Objective 5.2. Electric Motor Areas: Beginning spring, 2006, establish a total of 10 electric 

motor areas on the Refuge encompassing 15,900 acres. A 5 mph speed limit 

would also apply in these areas given anticipated future changes in 

technology. Camping would also be prohibited in these areas. (See Table 13 in 

Appendix H, and maps in Appendix P.)

Rationale: Technology in the form of jet skis, bass boats, shallow water 

motors such as Go-DevilsTM, airboats, and hovercraft has introduced more 

noise and user conflict to the backwater areas of the Refuge. This objective 

would help reduce disturbance to backwater fish nurseries and sensitive 

backwater wildlife such as raptors, colonial nesting birds, and furbearers in 

keeping with the wildlife focus of this alternative. It would also address the 

need to provide areas of quiet and solitude sought by many users of the 

Refuge. This objective only affects the means of navigation, and all current 

uses would be allowed (fishing, hunting, observation, etc.) in accordance with 

current regulations or those proposed elsewhere in this alternative. The 

15,900 acres represents about 7 percent of the Refuge.

Strategies

# Conduct a public information campaign to inform and educate the public 

about pending electric motor designations. 

# Clearly delineate electric motor areas on Refuge maps and by 

appropriate signing. 

Objective 5.3. Slow, No-Wake Zones: In 2006, add 9 new Refuge-administered slow, no-wake 

zones (brings total to 11) and assist local or other units of government in the 

enforcement of 44 other slow, no-wake zones within the Refuge. (See Table 18 

in Appendix H, and maps in Appendix P.)

Rationale: On a few areas of the Refuge, boat traffic levels and size of boats is 

leading to erosion of island and shoreline habitat which can impact fish and 

wildlife habitat directly, or indirectly through increasing sedimentation and 

water turbidity. On some of the areas identified, slower speeds would reduce 

safety hazards posed by heavy traffic and blind spots in narrow channels. 

Strategies

# Work with local authorities to designate and mark slow, no-wake zones. 

# Communicate the changes with the public well in advance of 

implementation using the media and other means, and clearly show slow, 

no-wake areas on maps available to the public.

Objective 5.4. Dog Use Policy: Beginning in April, 2006, implement the following new 

regulation governing dogs and other domestic animals on the Refuge: 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

77

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

“Dogs and other domestic animals are not allowed to run free and must be 

restrained by leash no greater than 6 feet in length, or other means, at all 

times. Hunting and retrieving dogs are exempt from these conditions while 

engaged in authorized hunting activities during the hunting season. No field 

trials or training is allowed on the Refuge”

Rationale: This objective is in line with the current Refuge System 

regulation which prohibits unconfined domestic animals on national wildlife 

refuges. The new definition clarifies the meaning of “confined” and 

safeguards wildlife from domestic animals in keeping with the wildlife focus 

of this alternative. The new regulation also protects other visitors from the 

real or perceived threat that dogs and other animals can pose, but recognizes 

their traditional use and conservation benefit in hunting. The prohibition of 

field trials and commercial training is a continuation of a long standing 

Refuge policy. 

Strategies

# Publish the new regulation in the Refuge public use regulation brochure, 

issue news releases, and conduct other outreach prior to implementation 

in 2006. 

# Except in certain cases, law enforcement officers will generally give 

verbal and/or written warnings for violations of the new regulation the 

first year, then issue violation notices at their discretion beginning in 

2007.

Objective 5.5. General Public Use Regulations: Beginning in 2006, conduct annual review 

and update of the general public use regulations governing entry and use of 

the Refuge (current regulations are found in Appendix J).

Rationale: Public entry and use regulations serve to protect fish, wildlife, 

plants, and habitat and thus reflect the wildlife focus of this alternative. The 

current regulations were last reviewed and amended in 1999. However, the 

resources and public use of the Refuge is dynamic, and a yearly review would 

ensure that regulations are needed, clear, and effective. In addition, new 

regulations may be required to safeguard resources or to address new or 

emerging problems recognized by managers and law enforcement officers. 

An annual review would provide a more systematic process than in the past.

Strategies

# Conduct review during Refuge law enforcement meetings. 

# Provide the public, states, and Corps of Engineers ample opportunity to 

review and comment on any new or substantially changed regulation. 

# Use national guidance and Federal Register process for codifying any 

changes and make them a part of the Code of Federal Regulations 

governing national wildlife refuges.

# Update, print, and distribute the Public Use Regulations brochure. 

# Post pertinent regulations at boat landings and other public use areas, 

such as trail heads and beach areas. 

# Continue proactive law enforcement to inform and educate the public on 

Refuge regulations and to seek their compliance.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

78

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

Goal 6: 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.

Objective 6.1. Office and Shop Facilities: Maintain existing offices (6) and shops (5), but 

replace the maintenance facilities at Winona, McGregor, and Savanna 

Districts by 2010.

Rationale: As the wildlife focus alternative, this objective de-emphasizes the 

need for office replacement and public orientation facilities, but favors 

replacement of needed maintenance facilities since they directly support field 

habitat work which benefits fish and wildlife. Maintenance facilities or shops 

are used for equipment maintenance used in habitat work, and for fabrication 

of materials (signing, gates, posts, water control structures, etc.) which 

protect habitat. The existing offices are needed due to the size and length of 

the Refuge and for effectiveness and efficiency of management, 

administration, and public service.

Strategies

# Ensure that Refuge shop needs are reflected in budget needs databases. 

# Continue to maintain Service-owned facilities using annual maintenance 

budget allocations. 

Objective 6.2. Public Access Facilities: Maintain and modernize as needed, 25 public boat 

accesses on the Refuge. (See Table 1 in Appendix H, and maps, Appendix P.)

Rationale: This objective represents the current number of boat accesses on 

the Refuge that are maintained by Refuge staff. Maintaining the current 

number reflects the wildlife focus of this alternative. In addition to these 

accesses, there are 222 other public and private boat accesses that provide 

access to the Mississippi River or its tributaries, and thus the Refuge.

Strategies

# Continue routine upkeep of boat accesses by Refuge staff, temporary 

employees and Youth Conservation Corps members when available, and 

volunteers. 

# Continue to modernize accesses using Maintenance Management System 

funding or special funding which is provided periodically, and by 

implementing a self-service launch fee at Refuge-operated boat ramps. 

# In cooperation with states and local governments, explore Transportation 

Enhancement Act projects and funding to upgrade Refuge accesses.

Objective 6.3. Operations and Maintenance Needs: Complete annual review of Refuge 

Operating Needs System (RONS), Maintenance Management System 

(MMS), and Service Assessment and Maintenance Management System 

(SAMMS) databases to ensure these reflect the funding needs for carrying 

out the wildlife focus alternative.

Rationale: The RONS, MMS, and SAMMS databases are the chief 

mechanisms for documenting ongoing and special needs for operating and 

maintaining a national wildlife refuge. These databases are part of the 

information used in the formulation of budgets at the Washington and 

Regional levels, and for the allocation of funding to the field. It is important 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

79

Alternative B: Wildlife Focus

that the databases be updated periodically to reflect the needs of the Refuge, 

and in particular the objectives and strategies elsewhere in this alternative.

Strategies

# None warranted.

Objective 6.4. Public Information and Awareness: By 2006, reduce by 50 percent the 

current annual average of 80 media interviews, 125 news releases, and 25 

special events (special programs, presentations, and displays at others’ 

events), and maintain the existing 66 information kiosks (see Table 16 in 

Appendix H).

Rationale: This objective reflects an emphasis on the science aspect of 

Refuge management by freeing staff time from public information and 

awareness. It also represents the realities of resource management triage in 

the face of limited visitor services specialists, and a focus on the core fish and 

wildlife mission and purpose of the Refuge. 

Strategies

# Be more strategic in selecting methods for public information and 

awareness, with focus on those efforts which reach the largest audience 

with the least amount of staff. 

# Continue to look for creative ways to leverage efforts and funding for 

public information. 

# Carry out related objectives dealing with trails, leaflets, and interpretive 

signs (see objectives 4.10 and 4.11). 

# Cooperate with the states and the Corps of Engineers on visitor surveys 

to gauge public awareness of the Refuge and Mississippi River resources.

Objective 6.5. Staffing Needs: By 2015, increase staffing from current permanent, full-time 

level of 37 people to 57 people (54.5 full-time equivalents or FTEs) with 

priorities being biologists, specialists, technicians, and maintenance 

personnel who do biology and habitat work (see Table 2 on page 192 and 

Table 20 in Appendix H). 

Rationale: This objective reflects a wildlife focus and the minimum 

operations and maintenance-funded staffing deemed necessary to meet the 

goals and objectives of this alternative. Like all land management, refuge 

management is labor intensive and labor costs represent over 95 percent of 

the base operations funding received each year. These staffing needs are 

documented in the strategies for various objectives in this alternative. 

Strategies

# Ensure that staffing needs are incorporated in budget needs databases. 

# Maintain other sources of funding for staff who coordinate the 

Environmental Management Program and the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program.

2.4.4 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.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

80

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

Alternative C Summary

Boundary issues would be addressed and the entire Refuge boundary would be surveyed. The rate 

of land acquisition within the approved boundary would increase to complete 58 percent of the total, 

an average of 1,000 acres per year, with priority given to tracts that also further public use access 

and opportunities. All bluffland areas identified in the 1987 Master Plan would be protected through 

fee-title acquisition or easement, and low-key oversight and administration of Research Natural 

Areas would continue. Guiding principles for habitat projects would be established, but they would 

not restrict any public use opportunities. 

There would be increased effort to achieve continuous improvement in the quality of water flowing 

through the Refuge, including decreasing sedimentation. Pool-scale drawdowns would continue at 

current, intermittent level. Control of invasive plant species would be modest, and control of invasive 

animals would be minimal, relying on the work of the states and other agencies. Environmental Pool 

Plans would be implemented on a strategic and opportunistic basis using the Environmental 

Management Program or other programs and funding sources. Wildlife inventory and monitoring 

would decrease by reducing the number of species groups surveyed. Management of threatened and 

endangered species would focus on protection versus recovery. The furbearer trapping program 

would continue but be brought into compliance with policies by writing a new plan. There would 

continue to be limited emphasis on fishery and mussel management and commercial fishing 

oversight. Cooperation with the states and Corps of Engineers on turtle monitoring and research 

would continue, and a forest inventory on the Refuge completed in cooperation with the Corps of 

Engineers. The existing 5,700 acres of grassland habitat on the Refuge would be maintained and 

enhanced using fire and other tools.

Hunting and fishing opportunities would continue on a 

large percentage of the Refuge. The system of waterfowl 

hunting closed areas would remain the same except for 

minor boundary adjustments. Entry into closed areas for 

purposes other than hunting, trapping, or camping would 

continue to be allowed, and the voluntary avoidance area 

on Lake Onalaska would remain in place. The firing line 

issue north of the closed area in Lake Onalaska would be 

addressed by moving the north boundary southward. 

Current waterfowl hunting regulations would be 

changed to include a hunting party spacing requirement 

of 100 yards. No action would be taken in regards to open 

water hunting in Pools 9 and 11. Permanent blinds for 

waterfowl hunting would be eliminated Refuge-wide, 

including those used in the Potter’s Marsh and Blanding 

Landing managed hunts in the Savanna District. The 

Potter’s Marsh managed hunt would continue, but 

administrative changes would be made to promote 

fairness and efficiency. The Blanding Landing managed hunt would be eliminated, but the area 

would remain open to hunting. General fishing would continue to be promoted, although the Refuge 

would begin oversight of fishing tournaments in cooperation with the states and other agencies. 

There would be a major increase in facilities or programming for wildlife observation, photography, 

interpretation and environmental education. There would be some increase in Refuge access 

through new facilities and improvement of existing boat ramps, pull offs, and overlooks. A boat 

launch fee would be initiated at Refuge-operated boat ramps. Commercial fish floats or piers below 

locks and dams 6, 7, 8, and 9 would be retained if standards met, and a new fish float proposed in the 

Savanna District. Commercial guiding on the Refuge would be allowed, but with consistent policy 

and permit procedures. Areas open to beach-related public use (camping, swimming, picnicking, 

Photographer on Upper Mississippi River Refuge. 

Photograph by Cindy Samples
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

81

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

social gatherings) would remain virtually unchanged, although regulations would be changed to 

safeguard users, a policy on beach maintenance would be implemented, and an annual Refuge 

Recreation Use Permit and fee would be initiated to improve recreation management. A total of 15 

electric motor areas and 8 new slow, no-wake zones would be established. Current regulations on use 

of dogs would be changed to allow dogs to be exercised and trained under certain conditions. General 

public use regulations would be reviewed annually and changed as needed.

New offices and maintenance facilities would be constructed at the Winona, La Crosse, McGregor, 

and Savanna Districts (shop only at Savanna), and eventually the office and shop facilities at Lost 

Mound Unit would be remodeled or replaced. A major new visitor center would be constructed in 

either Winona or La Crosse. Public information and awareness efforts would be increased 50 

percent. Staffing levels for the Refuge would increase by 17.5 full-time equivalents with the priority 

being public use related positions.

Goal 1: Landscape. We will strive to maintain and improve the scenic qualities and wild character of the 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge.

Objective 1.1. Maintain the integrity of the Refuge boundary. In coordination with the 

Corps of Engineers, re-survey and post the entire Refuge boundary by 2021.

Rationale: Maintaining and enforcing a boundary is one of the basic and 

critical components of refuge management to ensure the integrity of an area 

over time. Without attention to this basic task, there is a tendency for 

adjacent development and use to creep and take over Refuge lands and 

waters. This encroachment includes tree cutting, dumping, construction, 

storing of equipment and materials, and mowing Refuge lands. In addition, 

there are a few boundaries between Refuge and Corps of Engineersmanaged lands that remain unclear, leading to mixed messages to the public 

using these lands via permits, leases, or out grants. The size, length, age, and 

floodplain setting of the Refuge, coupled with a mix of Corps of Engineersacquired and Service-acquired lands, creates boundary clarity problems that 

can only be addressed through modern re-surveying techniques. 

Strategies

# Enter into a joint Service/Corps of Engineers project to complete a 

cadastral survey of the Refuge boundary. 

# With the Corps of Engineers, complete a survey plan of action to 

prioritize and schedule the completion of the survey by 2020. 

# Seek the funding necessary for the survey work. 

# Also with the Corps of Engineers, review, update, and publish a new 

Land Use Allocation Plan for lands within the Refuge (see Chapter 1, 

section 1.4.3.1 for discussion of this plan).

 Objective 1.2. Land Acquisition: By 2021, acquire from willing sellers 58 percent of the 

lands identified for acquisition in the 1987 Master Plan and subsequent 

approvals, as identified on the maps in Appendix G (approximately 1,000 

acres/year). 

Rationale: Land acquisition is a critical component of fish and wildlife 

conservation since it permanently protects their basic need of habitat. 

Habitat, in turn, provides the public various recreational opportunities. On a 

narrow, linear refuge, land acquisition is a critical component of restoring the 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

82

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

habitat connectivity needed for the health of many species. The Refuge 

currently ranks sixth nationally on the Service’s Land Acquisition Priority 

System due to its resource importance. Land acquisition can also be cost 

effective in the long-term due to inflation of land costs and the costs of 

acquiring undeveloped land versus developed land that also needs 

restoration. This objective represents an aggressive land acquisition program 

of about 1,000 acres per year to achieve goals set in the 1987 Master Plan and 

other approved acquisition documents. Lands and waters most important to 

wildlife-dependent recreation would be given higher priority than lands 

which only protect fish and wildlife, in keeping with the public use focus of 

this alternative. 

Strategies

# Seek consistent Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations to 

meet the objective (approximately $1.5 million per year at $1,500 per 

acre). 

# Explore land exchanges with the states to remove intermingled 

ownerships. 

# Continue to work with the Department of the Army to transfer title of 

tracts as they are cleaned of contaminants at the Lost Mound Unit 

(former Savanna Army Depot).

Objective 1.3. Bluffland protection: By 2021, acquire from willing sellers protective 

easements or fee-title interest in all undeveloped bluffland areas within the 

approved boundary of the Refuge as identified in the 1987 Master Plan. (See 

maps, Appendix G.)

Rationale: There have been no acquisitions of bluffland areas since first 

identified in the 1987 Master Plan, and this objective represents a more 

aggressive approach to safeguarding the wildlife and recreation values of 

these areas. In recent years, peregrines have once again started nesting on 

the rock faces of some bluffs. Peregrines, at one time an endangered species, 

were the main rationale for including the 13 areas in the acquisition boundary. 

Blufflands are also an important part of maintaining the scenic quality of the 

Refuge landscape, harbor unique and diverse plants and animals, and provide 

recreational opportunities that contrast and complement floodplain 

recreation. Since some areas identified have been developed for housing or 

other uses since 1987, the focus would be on the undeveloped areas. However, 

there may be an opportunity to protect remaining values of these developed 

areas through creative easements.

Strategies

# Seek consistent acquisition funding as noted in Objective 1.2 and favor 

fee-title acquisition over easements since public ownership would provide 

additional recreational opportunities in line with a public use focus. 

# Work with the state, local governments, and private land trusts to protect 

bluffland habitat and scenic values. 

# Work with local units of government to encourage zoning regulations 

which protect bluffland scenic qualities. 

# Help educate the public on the values of blufflands for birds and unique 

plant communities.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

83

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

Objective 1.4 Research Natural Areas and Special Designations: Conduct yearly visits to 

the Refuges’ four federally-designated Research Natural Areas and 

document condition, check boundary signing, and conduct ongoing wildlife 

surveys. Increase efforts to make the public aware of values and public use 

opportunities of Research Natural Areas. Establish no new Research 

Natural Areas. (See maps, Appendix P and Table 7 in Appendix H.)

Rationale: This objective represents the current level of management which 

is expected to continue under this alternative. However, there is an increase 

in public awareness efforts in concert with the public use focus of this 

alternative. No other areas of the Refuge are deemed suitable for Natural 

Area designation.

Strategies:

# Ensure yearly visits remain a part of annual work plans in each Refuge 

District containing Research Natural Areas. 

# Incorporate general and recreational opportunity information on 

Research Natural Areas in brochures, maps, and websites to increase 

public awareness. 

Goal 2: Environmental Health. We will strive to improve the environmental health of the Refuge by 

working with others.

Objective 2.1. Water Quality: Working with others, seek a continuous improvement in the 

quality of water flowing through and into the Refuge in terms of parameters 

measured by the Long Term Monitoring Program of the Environmental 

Management Program (dissolved oxygen, major plant nutrients, suspended 

material, turbidity, sedimentation, and contaminants).

Rationale: The quality of water on the Refuge is one of the most important 

factors influencing fish, wildlife, and aquatic plant populations and health, 

which in turn influence the opportunity for public use and enjoyment. Water 

quality is also beyond the Refuge’s ability to influence alone given the 

immense size of the Refuge’s watershed and multiple-agency responsibilities. 

This objective recognizes these limitations, but charts a more aggressive role 

for the Refuge through the strategies below. The objective also highlights the 

advocacy role the Refuge can play in educating the public and supporting the 

myriad of agencies which together can influence water quality.

Strategies

# Hire a Private Lands Biologist or Technician for each of the Refuge’s 

four Districts to restore and enhance wetland, upland, and riparian 

habitat on private lands in and along sub-watersheds feeding into the 

Refuge, and to broker the myriad of private land and conservation 

opportunities available through the Department of Agriculture and 

others. 

# Increase conservation assistance agreements with Soil and Water 

Conservation Districts and Resource Conservation and Development 

boards. 

# Cooperate with local government land use planning efforts to ensure that 

water quality impacts to the Refuge are considered. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

84

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

# Emphasize water quality aspects, especially sediment deposit in 

backwaters, in all habitat enhancement projects. 

# Give enhanced consideration to sediment projects which improve public 

access. 

# Link the planning and projects for tributary watersheds to 

Environmental Pool Plan implementation using the latest GIS-based 

mapping and modeling. 

# Support cooperative water quality monitoring and improvement efforts 

through the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee and other 

groups and agencies. 

# Continue to stress the importance of water quality in public information 

and interpretive and education programs.

Objective 2.2. Water Level Management: By 2021, complete drawdowns of all Refuge pools 

during the summer growing season in cooperation with the Corps of 

Engineers and the states.

Rationale: Lowering the water levels in impoundments during the growing 

season is a proven management practice to dramatically increase emergent 

vegetation. Improved vegetation will result in more food and cover for a wide 

range of fish and wildlife species, which in turn will provide increased 

opportunities for fish and wildlife-dependent recreation such as fishing, 

hunting, and observation. Much of the emergent vegetation on the Refuge 

has been lost due to stable water regimes created for navigation, and this 

objective seeks to restore productive marsh habitat to thousands of acres. All 

pools would benefit from drawdowns. However, Pool 14 does not appear to be 

feasible in the 15-year horizon of this plan. 

Strategies

# Continue to work in partnership with the interagency water level 

management taskforce to plan and facilitate drawdowns. Inform and 

involve citizens through public meetings, workshops, and citizen advisory 

groups. 

# Ensure public access during drawdowns is addressed. 

# Seek all available funding sources to carry out needed recreational access 

dredging to lessen social and economic impacts during drawdowns 

(proposals in Corps of Engineers Navigation Study released in 2004 

includes funding for drawdowns).

Objective 2.3. Invasive Plants: Each year, conduct at least one biological control effort on 

purple loosestrife and/or leafy spurge on each District of the Refuge, and 

continue ongoing education and outreach efforts on the effects of invasive 

plants. 

Rationale: This objective represents the current modest program of invasive 

plant control by the Refuge which would continue under an alternative which 

favors public use management and administration. Biological control consists 

of release of insects which prey directly on purple loosestrife or leafy spurge 

plants or disrupt part of their life cycle, and is a more long-term and cost 

efficient solution compared to herbicide spraying. Biological control methods 

are not yet readily available for other invasive plant species. Education and 

outreach is ongoing as a part of regular displays, programs, and media work. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

85

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

Strategies

# Continue to work with the Department of Agriculture, other agencies, 

the states, and other refuge field stations in securing insects and beetles 

for release in high-infestation areas. 

# Take advantage of periodic invasive grant, cost-sharing, or special 

funding opportunities offered through the Service or other agencies and 

foundations. 

# Continue to provide information and education to the public through the 

media, brochures, signage, and programs.

Objective 2.4. Invasive Animals: Continue ongoing information and education efforts on the 

issue of invasive animal species and their impact on the resources of the 

Refuge.

Rationale: Since the focus of this alternative is public use, this objective 

represents a continuation of the current direction of the Refuge in regard to 

invasive animals. It also represents basic limitations of resources, but 

perhaps just as important, the reality that invasive animal species do not lend 

themselves to direct control in a large river system and that addressing 

invasive animals is dependent on political and management actions beyond 

the boundary of the Refuge. 

Strategies

# Continue to support the efforts of other agencies and groups in the 

monitoring, research, and control of invasive animals. 

# Continue to provide information and education to the public through the 

media, brochures, signage, and programs.

Goal 3: Wildlife and Habitat. Our habitat management will support diverse and abundant native fish, 

wildlife, and plants.

Objective 3.1. Environmental Pool Plans: By 2021, implement at least 30 percent of the 

Refuge-priority Environmental Pool Plan actions and strategies in Pools 4-14 

as summarized in Table 4 on page 196 (see Appendix N for examples of 

Environmental Pool Plan maps).

Rationale: Environmental Pool Plans represent a desired future habitat 

condition developed by an interagency team of resource professionals, 

including Refuge staff. The Pool Plans represent what is necessary to reverse 

the negative trends in habitat quality and quantity on the Upper Mississippi 

River. Improved habitat is the key to healthy fish and wildlife populations, 

which in turn provide enhanced opportunity for wildlife-dependent 

recreation, the focus of this alternative. The Refuge represents a sizeable 

subset of the habitat vision presented in each Pool Plan. The Refuge also has 

different resource mandates and responsibilities than the Corps of Engineers 

and the states. Thus, the Refuge prioritized various actions to meet these 

needs as represented in Table 4. The objective of 30 percent represents a 

reasonable rate of implementing priority actions given current funding levels 

(mainly through the Environmental Management Program, Corps of 

Engineers) for habitat conservation work, and the 15 year horizon of this 

CCP versus the 50 year horizon of the Pool Plans. Some of the actions and 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

86

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

strategies in the Table overlap with other objectives in this plan (e.g. forest 

management, land acquisition, watershed work, and water level drawdowns).

Strategies

# Continue to coordinate with the River Resources Forum’s Fish and 

Wildlife Workgroup, and the River Resources Coordinating Team’s Fish 

and Wildlife Interagency Committee, to implement pool plan priorities. 

# Ensure that priorities take into account public use needs and 

opportunities. 

# Continue to work for full and expanded funding of the Environmental 

Management Program through public and Congressional information 

and outreach. 

# Take advantage of any new funding sources that emerge, such as 

appropriations from Congress for implementing the Navigation Study 

ecosystem restoration recommendations.

Objective 3.2. Guiding Principles for Habitat Management Programs: Upon approval of the 

CCP, adopt and use the following guiding principles when designing or 

providing input to design and construction of habitat enhancement projects:

1.) Management practices will restore or mimic natural ecosystem processes 

or functions to promote a diversity of habitat and minimize operations 

and maintenance costs. 

2.) Maintenance and operation costs of projects will be weighed carefully 

since annual budgets for these items are not guaranteed. 

3.) Terrestrial habitat on constructed islands and other areas needs to best 

fit the natural processes occurring on the river, which in many cases will 

allow for natural succession to occur. 

Rationale: Guiding principles for habitat restoration or enhancement 

projects would provide consistency between the four Districts of the Refuge 

and help communicate to cooperating agencies and the public standards from 

which we will design projects. The principles will also help ensure compliance 

with Service policy on biological integrity and recognize the need to consider 

future operations and maintenance costs before doing projects. In addition, 

the principles under this alternative provide no guidance or restrictions on 

public use or aesthetics, reflecting a public use focus.

Strategies 

# Refuge staff will use these guidelines when proposing and designing 

habitat enhancement projects funded by the Service. They will also be 

used during coordination with the Corps of Engineers and the states in 

cooperative programs such as the Environmental Management Program 

or any new program authority that may arise from the Corps of 

Engineers’ Navigation Study.

Objective 3.3. Monitor and Invesigate Fish and Wildlife Populations and Their Habitats: By 

January 2008, amend the 1993 Wildlife Inventory Plan to eliminate yearly 

monitoring of aquatic invertebrates, submerged aquatic vegetation, breeding 

songbirds, and frogs and toads, and focus only on waterfowl, colonial nesting 

birds, bitterns and rails, and bald eagle nesting.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

87

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

Rationale: Monitoring is essential to understanding the status and trends of 

selected species groups and habitats. This in turn provides some indication of 

overall biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge, 

and is critical in planning habitat management and public use programs. 

However, this objective represents a reduced inventory program in line with 

directing staff toward public use-related management activities. Monitoring 

would be skewed toward a select group of migratory birds in keeping with 

historic federal interest and responsibilities. The Refuge would continue to 

rely on monitoring done by others to help fill the gaps in status and trends 

information for breeding songbirds, fish, mussels, reptiles and amphibians, 

forests and other land cover, and environmental factors such as water 

chemistry and sedimentation. 

Strategies 

# Review and amend as needed the Wildlife Inventory Plan to ensure the 

latest protocols are being followed, but reduce the species being 

monitored. 

# Continue to work with the states, U.S. Geological Survey, and Corps of 

Engineers in the sharing of data on other species and habitats. 

# Continue to use volunteers for certain monitoring efforts such as the 

breeding bird survey point counts. 

# Complete a Habitat Management Plan which integrates species status 

and trends with the Environmental Pool Plans (Objective 3.1).

Objective 3.4. Threatened and Endangered Species Management: Continue ongoing 

protection of federally-listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species 

and conduct yearly survey of bald eagle nesting.

Rationale: As noted in an earlier section of this chapter, it is Service policy to 

give priority consideration to the protection, enhancement, and recovery of 

these species on national wildlife refuges. This objective represents the 

continuation of a minimum threatened and endangered species program, 

mainly through the protection of habitat and review and consultation of 

management actions in light of possible impacts to these species. The only 

species actively monitored by the Refuge are bald eagles due to public 

interest and their symbolic stature. This objective also reflects the public use 

versus wildlife focus of this alternative.

Strategies 

# Consider the needs of threatened, endangered, and candidate species in 

all habitat and public use management decisions. 

# Continue to consult with the Service’s Ecological Services Offices on all 

actions which may affect listed species. 

# Continue monitoring bald eagle nesting populations and success. 

# Continue assistance to other offices and agencies with Higgins eye 

pearlymussel recovery efforts.

Objective 3.5. Furbearer Trapping: Update the Refuge trapping plan by June 2007, 

continuing the existing trapping program until the update is completed.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

88

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

Rationale: Furbearer trapping has a long history on the Refuge and can be 

an important management tool in reducing furbearer disease and habitat 

impacts, and in safeguarding certain Refuge infrastructure such as dikes, 

islands, and water control structures. Trapping is also a valued recreational 

pursuit and supports the public use emphasis of this alternative. However, 

the current trapping plan is dated by time (1988), new furbearer ecology and 

population information, and by new policies governing compatibility of uses 

and commercial uses on national wildlife refuges.

Strategies 

# The Refuge wildlife biologists, in consultation with Refuge District 

managers and state furbearer biologists will develop a revised trapping 

plan for approval by the Refuge manager.

# Afford the public an opportunity for review and comment on the plan. 

# Complete a new compatibility determination for public review and 

comment.

Objective 3.6. Fishery and Mussel Management: Continue to defer fishery and mussel 

management on the Refuge to the states and the Service’s Fishery Resource 

Office in La Crosse, Wisconsin. 

Rationale: This objective reflects the current and projected Refuge 

involvement in fishery and mussel management given current funding and 

staffing levels and a focus on public use versus fish and wildlife.

Strategies 

# Continue to gather information from state and other Service offices on 

the status of fish and mussels on the Refuge. 

# Rely on fisheries status and trends provided by the Long Term Resource 

Monitoring Program of the Environmental Management Program 

administered by the Corps of Engineers.

Objective 3.7. Commercial Fishing and Clamming: Continue to defer to state departments 

of natural resources to monitor, regulate, and permit commercial fishing and 

clamming.

Rationale: This objective reflects the current and projected Refuge 

involvement in commercial fishing and mussel harvest given current funding 

and staffing restraints, and the focus of existing resources on public userelated objectives In keeping with the emphasis of this alternative.

Strategies 

# Continue to gather information from the states and the Upper 

Mississippi River Conservation Committee on harvest levels. 

# Conduct license and permit compliance on an opportunistic basis during 

routine Refuge law enforcement efforts.

Objective 3.8. Turtle Management: Continue to cooperate with state departments of natural 

resources and the Corps of Engineers in monitoring turtle populations on 

certain Refuge areas, but continue to defer to the states on commercial 

harvest management of certain turtle species.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

89

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

Rationale: Under a public use focus, current and projected Refuge 

involvement in turtle management and harvest reflected in this objective is 

expected to continue. The Refuge has contributed funds and staff to 

monitoring and study efforts, but availability is unpredictable from year to 

year.

Strategies 

# Work in partnership with the states and Corps of Engineers on 

monitoring and research efforts for turtles. 

# Seek funding for research into turtle ecology and population status 

through grants. 

# Increase public awareness of the importance of the Refuge and river to 

turtles. 

# Consider the needs of turtles in habitat and public use planning and 

projects.

Objective 3.9. Forest Management: Complete by the end of 2008, in cooperation with the 

Corps of Engineers, a forest inventory of the Refuge.

Rationale: A baseline forest inventory of the approximately 51,000 acres of 

floodplain forest on the Refuge is the first step in addressing concerns for the 

long-term health of this important resource. Long-term forest health is 

important to wildlife-dependent public use since it will support wildlife 

species important to hunting and wildlife observation. The Corps of 

Engineers has been actively working on a forest inventory for several years 

on Corps of Engineers-acquired lands, and it makes fiscal and efficiency 

sense to partner with the Corps of Engineers on this objective. 

Strategies 

# As Refuge funding allows, continue to fund seasonal technicians to help 

with the Corps of Engineers’ inventory project on Refuge-acquired 

lands. 

# Continue to work with the Corps of Engineers and other partners on 

forest rejuvenation and research projects.

# Continue small scale reforestation, especially mast-producing 

hardwoods, on suitable Refuge lands.

Objective 3.10. Grassland Management: Maintain 5,700 acres of grassland habitat on the 

Refuge through the use of various management tools including prescribed 

fire, haying, grazing, and control of invasive plants.

Rationale: Many species of wildlife, particularly birds, are dependent on 

grassland habitat, which in turn supports recreation such as hunting and 

wildlife observation. Some of these grasslands are remnant tallgrass native 

prairie, a diverse and rare ecosystem throughout the Midwest and home to 

rare or declining plant and animal species. Active management is needed to 

curb loss of grasslands to forest succession or invasive species, and to 

maintain species diversity and health.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

90

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

Strategies

# Implement the Refuge’s Fire Management Plan. 

# Use haying, rotational grazing, and control of invasive plants as 

appropriate to maintain grasslands.

# Restore native prairie where feasible using a combination of rest, fire, 

farming, and reseeding as appropriate to the site.

Goal 4: Wildlife-Dependent Recreation. We will manage programs and facilities to ensure abundant and 

sustainable hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, interpretation, and environmental 

education opportunities for a broad cross-section of the public.

Objective 4.1. General Hunting: Maintain a minimum of 189,647 acres (79 percent) of land 

and water of the Refuge open to all hunting in accordance with respective 

state seasons, and add 9 new administrative No Hunting Zones for a total of 

5,959 acres. See related Objective 4.2 on Waterfowl Closed Areas. (See 

Table 2 and Table 9 in Appendix H and maps in Appendix P.) 

Rationale: Maintaining a large percentage of the Refuge open to hunting is in 

keeping with the public use focus of this alternative and guidance in the 

Refuge Improvement Act to facilitate wildlife-dependent use when 

compatible. This objective also represents a public use emphasis by keeping 

the existing number of Waterfowl Closed Areas in the related Objective 4.2. 

These Closed Areas reopen to some hunting after the duck season, adding to 

the open acreage above. The one new No Hunting Zone is for safety reasons 

and to increase wildlife observation opportunities during hunting seasons. 

This area is at Sturgeon Slough, Pool 10 (66 acres), which contains a fairly 

new hiking trail off a major highway. 

Strategies 

# Continue yearly review of Refuge Hunting Regulations to ensure clarity 

and to address any emerging issues or concerns, and give the public an 

opportunity to review and comment on any changes. 

# Continue to publish the Refuge Hunting Regulations brochure to inform 

the public of hunting opportunities and Refuge-specific regulations. 

# Continue to improve the hunting experience by ongoing improvements to 

habitat and enforcement of regulations. 

# Review the 1989 Refuge Hunting Plan and modify as needed to comply 

with new regulations and policies. 

# Clearly sign areas closed to hunting and ensure public notification 

through news releases and other means well before the hunting seasons.

Objective 4.2. Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas: Continue current system of 14 Closed 

Areas and 1 Sanctuary Area, but in 2007, reduce the size of the Lake 

Onalaska Closed Area by about 245 acres. Closed Area and Sanctuary 

acreage would be 40,928 and 3,686 acres respectively. Make area adjustments 

to clarify boundary or address operation and maintenance needs. (See Table 6 

and Table 9 in Appendix H and maps in Appendix P.)

Rationale: Closed Areas are designed to provide relatively undisturbed fall 

resting and feeding areas for the length of the Refuge, and to more evenly 

distribute waterfowl hunting opportunities. This objective represents a 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

91

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

virtually unchanged Closed Area system, and keeps a large portion of the 

Refuge open to waterfowl hunting in line with the public use emphasis of this 

alternative. This alternative also reflects a reduction in the size of the Lake 

Onalaska Closed Area as described in Objective 4.4 below. Minor boundary 

adjustments have been made to some areas over the years and are needed 

periodically to address physical changes in the environment (such as island 

erosion) and to reduce confusion or yearly posting concerns. 

Strategies 

# Improve habitat in Closed Areas by ongoing programs such as pool 

drawdowns, Environmental Management Program projects, and other 

agency initiatives and regulations. 

# Continue Voluntary Avoidance Area program for the Lake Onalaska 

(Pool 7) closed area, and seek to expand to other Closed Areas where 

feasible. 

# Continue to monitor waterfowl use of closed areas through weekly aerial 

surveys in the fall. 

Objective 4.3. Waterfowl Hunting Regulation Changes. In fall 2006, implement the 

following Refuge-specific waterfowl hunting regulation changes: (See 

Appendix I for current regulations.)

1.) Waterfowl hunting parties shall maintain at least 100 yards spacing 

between each other. A party is defined as one or more persons hunting 

together from a boat or stationary location.

Rationale: This objective is designed to improve the waterfowl hunting 

experience by reducing the conflict and competition between hunting parties 

that can occur in favored areas of the Refuge. Refuge officers have observed, 

and received complaints about, crowding and its disruption to hunters 

favoring decoy hunting, and its contribution to skybusting and confrontations 

between hunters. The Refuge Manual (8 RM 5) encourages managers to 

space hunters appropriately to the situation. The 100 yard minimum is less 

than the standard 200 yards used on many public hunting areas, but is 

deemed appropriate for this Refuge. 

Strategies 

# Conduct a comprehensive public information effort to inform waterfowl 

hunters of impending changes. Use all methods available including 

personal contact, presentations at organizations, special meetings, 

leaflets, signing, news releases, websites, and media interviews. 

# Increase law enforcement presence to help ensure understanding and 

compliance with changes, relying on verbal and/or written warnings, at 

an officer’s discretion, the first year of implementation in 2006.

Objective 4.4. Firing Line – Pool 7, Lake Onalaska. In fall 2006, reduce the Lake Onalaska 

Waterfowl Closed Area by approximately 245 acres by moving the north 

boundary southward. (See Pool 7 Map, Alternative C, Appendix P.) 

Rationale: This objective emphasizes a public use focus by increasing the 

area open to hunting while eliminating an area notorious for skybusting, 

competition between hunters, and high crippling rates as noted in the issue 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

92

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

discussion in Chapter 1, Section 1.4.5.4. This reduction represents a 3 percent 

decrease in the existing Lake Onalaska Closed Area. Although there is some 

likelihood that this expansion would just move the firing line southward, 

difference in islands and open water along the new line should markedly 

reduce firing line development.

Strategies 

# Conduct a comprehensive public information campaign to inform 

waterfowl hunters and the general public of impending changes. Use all 

methods available including personal contact, presentations at 

organizations, special meetings, leaflets, signing, news releases, 

websites, and media interviews.

# Post and sign the new boundary well in advance of the hunting seasons.

# Increase law enforcement presence to help ensure understanding and 

compliance with boundary change, relying on verbal and/or written 

warnings, at an officer’s discretion, the first year of implementation in 

2006.

Objective 4.5. Permanent Hunting Blinds on Savanna District. Eliminate the use of 

permanent hunting blinds within the Savanna District of the Refuge after the 

2006-07 waterfowl hunting season. (See Table 17 in Appendix H and maps, 

Appendix P, Savanna District.)

Rationale: Eliminating permanent blinds would provide consistency on the 

Refuge since they are not allowed on the other three Districts. In addition to 

consistency, eliminating the blinds would address a host of issues involving 

debris, private exclusive use of public waters, limiting hunting opportunities, 

and confrontations and other incidents. These issues were discussed more 

fully in Chapter 1, Section 1.4.5.4. This objective would also reduce the staff 

time spent on law enforcement, complaints, and clean-up which permanent 

blinds entail, time which could be directed toward public use-related needs. 

This would also increase hunting opportunity for the broadest spectrum of 

hunters, and thus reflect the public use emphasis of this alternative. 

Strategies 

# Conduct public information campaign to inform the public of the change 

and to give hunters who have become accustomed to the blinds a chance 

to adapt to alternative hunting methods or areas.

# Prepare and distribute a leaflet explaining the change and regulations for 

temporary blinds. 

# Begin phase in of regulations by requiring hunters to comply with the 

following requirements the year before a respective pool is scheduled for 

permanent blind phase out:

1. Blinds must be marked with name and address of owner.

2. All blind material must be removed by the hunter within 30 days of the 

end of the waterfowl hunting season.

Objective 4.6. Potter’s Marsh Managed Hunt on Savanna District. After the 2006-07 season, 

eliminate the managed waterfowl hunt at Potter’s Marsh Managed Hunt, 

including the use of permanent blinds, and open the area to waterfowl 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

93

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

hunting on a first-come, first-secured basis. (See Table 17 in Appendix H and 

maps in Appendix P, Pool 13.)

Rationale: This objective would reduce problems associated with permanent 

blinds as noted in Objective 4.5 (debris, private exclusive use, limiting 

hunting opportunities, and confrontations) and eliminate the substantial 

administrative costs associated with the drawings, permit administration, 

and oversight of the current program (see issue discussion, Chapter 1, 

Section 1.4.5.4). This objective reflects a public use emphasis since it would 

open the Potter’s Marsh area to a broad spectrum of hunters. In addition, the 

funding and staff currently required for this hunt could be re-directed to 

public use objectives throughout the Savanna District.

Strategies 

# Conduct public information campaign beginning at least one year prior to 

implementation to inform the public of the change and to give hunters 

who have become accustomed to the managed hunt a chance to adapt to 

alternative hunting methods or areas.

Objective 4.7. Blanding Landing Managed Hunt. After the 2006-07 season, eliminate the 

managed waterfowl hunt at Blanding Landing, Lost Mound Unit, Savanna 

District (former Savanna Army Depot), including the use of permanent 

blinds, and open the area to waterfowl hunting on a first-come, first-secured 

basis. (See Table 17 Appendix H and maps in Appendix P, Pool 12.)

Rationale: Illinois Department of Natural Resources administers this hunt 

on behalf of the Savanna Army Depot, but with transfer of jurisdiction to the 

Service, hunting on this area is now the responsibility of the Refuge. Similar 

to the Potter’s Marsh Managed Hunt above, this objective would reduce 

problems associated with permanent blinds as noted in Objective 4.5 (debris, 

private exclusive use, limiting hunting opportunities, and confrontations) and 

eliminate the administrative costs associated with the drawings, permit 

administration, and oversight of the current program. This objective reflects 

a public use emphasis since funding and staff currently devoted to this hunt 

could be focused on public use objectives throughout the Savanna District, 

and especially the new Lost Mound Unit which has large start-up needs. 

Strategies 

# Conduct public information campaign prior to implementation to inform 

the public of the change and give hunters accustomed to the managed 

hunt a chance to adapt to alternative hunting methods or areas.

Objective 4.8. General Fishing. Provide and enhance year-round fishing on 140,545 acres of 

surface water within the Refuge, and an additional 2,736 acres in Waterfowl 

Closed Areas in spring, summer, and winter. (Note: Iowa, Wisconsin, and 

Illinois regulations maintain fish “refuges” below lock and dams 11,12, and 

13, December 1 through March 15). Add 5 new accessible fishing piers or 

docks for a total of 20. (See Table 9 and Table 14 in Appendix H and maps in 

Appendix P.)

Rationale: This objective represents the current areas available and open to 

fishing and the area currently closed to fishing from October 1 to the end of 

the duck hunting season to limit disturbance to waterfowl (Spring Lake, Pool 

13). Fishing is one of the priority uses of the Refuge System and is to be 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

94

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

facilitated when compatible with the purposes of the Refuge and the mission 

of the Refuge System. Enhanced fishing opportunities are also a reflection of 

the public use emphasis of this alternative. The adding of 5 accessible fishing 

piers is in keeping with this emphasis. 

Strategies 

# Enhance fishing opportunities on suitable areas of the Refuge through 

habitat, access, and facility improvements as outlined in other plan 

objectives. 

# Continue to promote fishing through Fishing Days and other outreach 

and educational programming. 

# Cooperate with the states in their ongoing fishery management 

programs. Schedule yearly inspection and maintenance of fishing piers.

Objective 4.9. Fishing Tournaments. Beginning in January 2007, begin review of all stateissued permits for all fishing tournaments occurring on the Refuge.

Rationale: Fishing tournaments are a use, and at times a commercial use, of 

the Refuge and subject to regulations governing uses of national wildlife 

refuges. The Refuge has not provided any oversight to this use, deferring to 

the states regulatory and permitting process. Refuge review would provide 

oversight to protect sensitive habitat and wildlife areas from the possible 

physical and disturbance impacts of fishing tournaments. Through permit 

review, the Refuge could also play a coordination role given the interstate 

nature of the Refuge and the river. Limiting Refuge involvement to permit 

review would be the least time consuming and a fairly large number of 

tournaments would continue in line with the public use emphasis of this 

alternative.

Strategies 

# Meet with the states to discuss the best strategies for implementing a 

permit review process.

# With the states and the Corps of Engineers, develop time, space, and 

capacity parameters on each Pool within the Refuge, and definitions for 

what constitutes a fishing tournament. 

# Develop outreach plan to involve and inform fishing tournament 

organizations or sponsors with any changes in regulations and/or 

procedures.

Objective 4.10. Wildlife Observation and Photography. Maintain the following existing and 

new facilities to foster wildlife observation and photography opportunities: 31 

observation decks and areas, 3 observation towers, 3 photography blinds, 21 

hiking trails, 26 canoe trails, 6 biking trails, and 3 auto tour routes. (See 

Tables 3, 4, 5, 15 and 19 in Appendix H and maps in Appendix P.)

Rationale: Wildlife observation and photography are two of the six priority 

public uses of the Refuge System and are to be facilitated when compatible. 

This objective represents a marked increase in the number of observation 

decks (+16), observation towers (+3), photography blinds (+3), hiking trails 

(+15), canoe trails (+22), biking trails (+3), and auto tour routes (+2). This 

expansion of facilities reflects the public use emphasis of this alternative, 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

95

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

directing staff and funding to public use-related objectives versus wildliferelated objectives. 

Strategies 

# Schedule annual inspection and maintenance of the facilities. 

# Ensure adequate signing and information in brochures, websites, and 

maps so the public is aware of the facilities. 

# Continue to promote the wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities of the Refuge through public education, outreach, special 

programs, and partnerships with the states, Corps of Engineers, and 

private conservation groups. 

# Enhance observation and photography opportunities on suitable areas of 

the Refuge through habitat, access, and facility improvements as outlined 

in other plan objectives. 

# Seek new funding and partnership opportunities, including volunteers, 

for construction and maintenance of facilities.

Objective 4.11. Interpretation and Environmental Education. By the end of 2010, increase 

the number of stand-alone interpretive signs to 102 (+43) (see Table 15 in 

Appendix H for details). Build new district offices with visitor contact 

facilities at McGregor, Winona, La Crosse, and the Lost Mound Unit, and 

construct a major visitor center and headquarters at either Winona or La 

Crosse. Continue to print and distribute Refuge General Brochure, and 

update websites quarterly. Continue to sponsor at least two major annual 

interpretive events on each Refuge District, and by January 2008 establish at 

least one major environmental education program at each District with 

visitor services staff. 

Rationale: Interpretation and environmental education are two of the six 

priority public uses of the Refuge System and are to be fostered if compatible 

with the Refuge purpose and Refuge System mission. Interpreting the 

resources and challenges of the Refuge to the general public and 

incorporating these topics into school curricula are important ways to 

influence the future well-being of the Refuge and the river. Only through 

understanding and appreciation will people be moved to personal and 

collective action to ensure a healthy Refuge for the future. Interpretation and 

environmental education are also key to changing attitudes and behavior 

which affect the Refuge through off-Refuge land use decisions and on-Refuge 

conduct and use.

This objective reflects a marked increase in interpretation and environmental 

education capability and programs and reflects the public use focus of this 

alternative. It also reflects basic needs for a Refuge that is the most heavily 

visited in the U.S., and would provide the visitor facilities necessary to inform 

and educate visitors and help them make the most of their Refuge visit. Since 

environmental education is curriculum-based and labor intensive, initial 

efforts will be limited to Districts with public use staff.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

96

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

Strategies 

# Hire visitor services specialists at McGregor and Winona Districts (top 

priority), and hire a visitor services specialist to be stationed at the 

National Mississippi River Museum in Dubuque, Iowa to help present 

Refuge-specific programs. 

# Continue work to complete exhibits at Savanna and La Crosse offices, 

and seek funding to replace exhibits at McGregor District and the Lost 

Mound Unit of the Savanna District.

# Participate in national interpretive events such as National Wildlife 

Refuge Week or Migratory Bird Day for efficiency and effectiveness. 

# Schedule quarterly review of interpretive signs and conduct maintenance 

and sign replacement as needed. 

# Cooperate with existing interpretive and environmental education 

programs offered by the states, Corps of Engineers, other agencies, and 

private conservation groups, and continue to seek grants to fund events 

and programs. 

# Continue to locate interpretive signs at public access and overlook points 

in cooperation with various agencies and units of government.

Objective 4.12. Commercial Fish Floats. By the end of 2006, develop new facility, operations, 

and concession fee standards for the 4 existing commercial fish floats or 

fishing piers below Locks and Dams 6, 7, 8, and 9, and solicit proposals for 

one new fish float, or other alternative, in the Savanna District. (See Table 12 

in Appendix H and maps in Appendix P.)

Rationale: This objective would continue to recognize the important role of 

fish floats in providing an alternative fishing experience for a diversity of 

Refuge visitors. However, new standards would address several long 

standing management issues such as permit non-compliance, condition and 

safety issues with some operations, net economic loss to the government, and 

noncompliance with regulations governing concessions on national wildlife 

refuges.

Strategies 

# Draft new standards well in advance of implementation and give fish float 

owners/operators a chance to review and comment. 

# Continue yearly coordination meeting with float owners and operators to 

address concerns and permit conditions. 

# Continue enforcement of permit stipulations and suspend permits of 

those operations not meeting the stipulations. 

# Inspect facilities for safety at least once yearly. 

# Ensure open and fair solicitation of proposals for a possible new float 

below Lock and Dam 12. If any floats are phased out due to noncompliance with permit stipulations, ensure adequate public notice so 

clients can seek alternate opportunities.

Objective 4.13 Guiding Services. In spring 2007, begin implementing a consistent process 

for issuing permits for persons conducting for-hire guided hunting, fishing, 

and wildlife observation activities on the Refuge. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

97

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

Rationale: As noted in the issues section of Chapter 1, guiding businesses are 

on the rise and promise to become an increasingly common activity on the 

Refuge. Without proper oversight, this activity could lead to disturbance to 

sensitive areas and wildlife, and increased conflict with the general public or 

other guides as volume and frequency increases. In addition, guiding and 

other commercial uses are prohibited on a national wildlife refuge unless 

specifically authorized via permit. The Refuge needs to bring this use into 

compliance with regulations and policy. Effectively managing this use would 

benefit the general public that uses the Refuge for hunting, fishing, and 

wildlife observation, and thus represents a public use focus. 

Strategies 

# Work with the states to ensure coordination and some degree of 

consistency with their guide licensing requirements and procedures. 

# Conduct public information effort through news releases and media 

contacts to implement the objective. 

# Provide proactive enforcement through Refuge law enforcement officers 

and information provided by others in the law enforcement community. 

Goal 5: Other Recreational Use. We will provide opportunities for the public to use and enjoy the Refuge 

for traditional and appropriate non-wildlife-dependent recreation that is compatible with the purpose for 

which the Refuge was established and the mission of the Refuge System.

Objective 5.1. Beach Use and Maintenance. Continue current “open” policy for beachrelated uses such as camping, mooring, picnicking, and social gatherings in 

accordance with existing public use regulations (see Appendix J), but 

beginning in spring 2007, implement policies and regulations outlined below 

relative to these uses and beach maintenance.

1.) Beach Use Policy. Refuge lands will generally be open to the beachrelated, non-wildlife-dependent uses of camping, overnight mooring, 

picnicking, swimming, and social gatherings. 

2.) New regulations for camping and other beach-related uses. Current 

public use regulations as described in the Refuge Public Use Regulations 

brochure (see Appendix J) will remain in effect, except by April 1, 2007, 

the following regulation changes will be implemented:

a) Camping is defined as erecting a tent or shelter of natural or 

synthetic material, preparing a sleeping bag or other bedding 

material for use, parking of a motor vehicle or mooring or anchoring 

of a vessel, for the apparent purpose of overnight occupancy, or, 

occupying or leaving personal property, including boats or other 

craft, at a site anytime between the hours of 11 p.m. and 3 a.m. on 

any given day.

b) All personal property, refuse, trash, and litter, including human solid 

waste and associated material, shall be removed immediately upon 

vacating a site.

c) Entering or remaining on the Refuge when under the influence of 

alcohol will remain prohibited, but under the influence will be defined 

as a blood alcohol content of .08 percent blood alcohol content. In 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

98

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

addition, develop a public intoxication regulation that gives officers a 

tool to deal with unruly behavior.

d) All motorized watercraft which land, park, or moor on Refugemanaged lands, or use the 25 Refuge-operated boat landings, 

between May 1 and September 1, must have affixed to the outside, 

right side of the watercraft a current year Refuge Recreation Use 

Permit sticker. Recreation use permits will cost a minimum of $15, 

will be valid for unlimited visits in the year issued, and be made 

available via the internet or in person, phone, or mail from any 

Refuge office or other designated locations.

3.) Beach Maintenance Policy. Beach maintenance (topdressing, reshaping, 

leveling, and vegetation clearing) will be allowed on all Refuge lands 

zoned as low-density recreation in the Service/Corps of Engineers Land 

Use Allocation Plans. 

Rationale: Non-wildlife-dependent recreation continues to increase on the 

Mississippi River and the Refuge. It is estimated that 1.3 million persons per 

year use the Refuge for camping, recreational boating, picnicking, swimming, 

social gatherings, and other uses not dependent on the presence of fish and 

wildlife. This objective, with its new policies and regulations, would help 

address some of the issues related to beach use described in the issue section 

of Chapter 1, most notably litter and human waste, intoxication, unlawful and 

unruly behavior, officer and public safety, and preemptive use of preferred 

camping or hunting sites. This objective fosters a high amount of recreation 

in keeping with the public use focus of this alternative, and is a reasonable 

alternative given that most use occurs adjacent to the main channel of the 

river, a corridor which harbors the least amount of wildlife during the peak 

visitor use season. Charging a recreation fee would provide funding for law 

enforcement, site maintenance and cleanup, and general beach maintenance 

to improve the quality of the experience for visitors. 

Strategies 

# Continue to work with the states and the Corps of Engineers through 

existing interagency workgroups to complete beach plans for each pool 

within the Refuge according to the policies and regulations above. 

# Conduct public information and education campaign well before 

implementation of regulation changes, to include news releases, general 

articles, fact sheets, and media interviews. Use the components and 

principles of the Leave No Trace program in the campaign (plan ahead 

and prepare, travel and camp on durable surfaces, dispose of waste 

properly, leave what you find, minimize campfire impacts, respect 

wildlife, and be considerate of others). 

# Develop a brochure which clearly explains new policies and regulations 

and answers frequently asked questions. 

# Plan, test, and refine a user-friendly method of recreational permit sales. 

Refuge officers will increase contacts with Refuge users once this plan is 

approved to explain pending regulation changes. Verbal or written 

warnings will be used at officer discretion during the first year of 

implementation to ease the transition.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

99

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

Objective 5.2. Electric Motor Areas. Beginning spring 2006, establish a total of 15 electric 

motor areas on the Refuge that are within a mile of public accesses, 

encompassing 13,239 acres. A 5 mph speed limit would also apply in these 

areas given anticipated future changes in technology. (See Table 13 in 

Appendix H, and map in Appendix P.)

Rationale: Technology in the form of jet skis, bass boats, shallow water 

motors such as Go-Devils, airboats, and hovercraft has introduced more noise 

and user conflict to the backwater areas of the Refuge. This objective would 

support the public use emphasis of this alternative by meeting the needs of 

visitors who desire areas of quiet and solitude, while helping to reduce 

disturbance to fish and wildlife in these areas. This objective only affects the 

means of navigation, and all current uses would be allowed (fishing, hunting, 

observation, etc.) in accordance with current regulations or those proposed 

elsewhere in this alternative. The 13,239 acres represents about 5 percent of 

the Refuge.

Strategies 

# Conduct a public information campaign to inform and educate the public 

about pending electric motor designations. 

# Clearly delineate electric motor areas on Refuge maps and by 

appropriate signing.

Objective 5.3. Slow, No-Wake Zones. In 2006, add 8 new Refuge-administered slow, no-wake 

zones (brings total to 10) and assist local or other units of government in the 

enforcement of 44 other slow, no-wake zones within the Refuge. (See Table 18 

in Appendix H, and maps in Appendix P.)

Rationale: On a few areas of the Refuge, boat traffic levels and size of boats is 

leading to erosion of island and shoreline habitat which can impact fish and 

wildlife habitat directly, or indirectly through increasing sedimentation and 

water turbidity. On some of the areas identified, slower speeds would reduce 

safety hazards posed by heavy traffic and blind spots in narrow channels. 

Strategies 

# Continue to inform the public of the slow, no wake areas through seasonal 

buoy placement and signing as appropriate. 

# Continue to conduct periodic enforcement of the slow, no-wake 

restriction. 

# Continue to cooperate and coordinate with local units of government 

which establish most slow, no wake zones.

Objective 5.4. Dog Use Policy. Beginning March 1, 2007, implement the following new 

regulation governing dogs on the Refuge: 

“No pets are allowed to disturb or endanger the wildlife resource or people 

while on the Refuge. All dogs and other pets while on the Refuge must be 

under the control of their owners at all times. No dogs will be allowed to 

roam. All dogs and pets must be physically restrained when on posted 

designated areas such as hiking trails and sensitive areas, and when in close 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

100

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

proximity of other people on recreational sandbars, except when engaged in 

authorized hunting activity. No field trials, or commercial or organized 

training.”

Rationale: This objective relaxes the current Refuge System regulation 

which prohibits unconfined domestic animals on national wildlife refuges. The 

new regulation provides stipulations for allowing dogs to be free and would 

allow owners to exercise and train their dogs in line with the public use 

emphasis alternative, while protecting Refuge wildlife. The new regulation 

also helps safeguard other visitors from the real or perceived threat that dogs 

and other animals can pose, but recognizes their traditional use and 

conservation benefit in hunting. The prohibition of field trials and commercial 

or organized dog training is a continuation of a long-standing Refuge policy. 

This regulation also does not affect the existing regulation that prohibits all 

other unconfined domestic animals on the Refuge.

Strategies 

# Publish the new regulation in the Refuge public use regulation brochure, 

issue news releases, and conduct other outreach prior to implementation 

in 2007. 

# Except in certain cases, law enforcement officers will generally give 

verbal and/or written warnings for violations of the new regulation the 

first year, then issue violation notices at their discretion beginning in 

2008.

Objective 5.5. General Public Use Regulations. Beginning in 2006, conduct annual review 

and update of the general public use regulations governing entry and use of 

the Refuge (current regulations are found in Appendix J).

Rationale: Public entry and use regulations not only protect wildlife, but 

enhance the quality of the visitor experience and thus reflect the public use 

focus of this alternative. The current regulations were last reviewed and 

amended in 1999. However, the resources and public use of the Refuge is 

dynamic, and a yearly review would ensure that regulations are needed, clear, 

and effective. In addition, new regulations may be required to safeguard 

resources or to address new or emerging problems recognized by managers 

and law enforcement officers. An annual review would provide a more 

systematic process than in the past.

Strategies 

# Conduct review during Refuge law enforcement meetings. 

# Provide the public, states, and Corps of Engineers ample opportunity to 

review and comment on any new or substantially changed regulation. 

# Use national guidance and Federal Register process for codifying any 

changes and make them part of the Code of Federal Regulations 

governing national wildlife refuges. 

# Update, print, and distribute the Public Use Regulations brochure. 

# Post pertinent regulations at boat landings and other public use areas, 

such as trail heads and beach areas. 

# Continue proactive law enforcement to inform and educate the public on 

Refuge regulations and to seek their compliance.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

101

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

Goal 6: 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.

Objective 6.1. Office and Shop Facilities. By 2010, construct new offices and maintenance 

shops at Winona, La Crosse, and McGregor Districts, and expand the office 

and construct a new maintenance shop at Savanna District. Each office would 

have expanded public orientation and interpretation and environmental 

education capability, but not a biological work area or lab. By 2020, build a 

new office and large visitor center for the Headquarters of the Refuge, and 

locate it either in Winona or La Crosse. Also by 2020, remodel or replace 

office and shop at the Lost Mound Unit.

Rationale: As the public use focus alternative, this objective emphasizes the 

need for office replacement and visitor contact facilities along with the 

maintenance capability to support recreation-related infrastructure. The 

expansion of the Savanna District office would be an additional meeting 

room/classroom for expanded interpretive programs and environmental 

education. A large visitor center associated with the Headquarters would 

provide a focal point for millions of Refuge visitors, and provide state-of-theart information, displays, and interpretive and education programs. 

Strategies 

# Ensure that Refuge office, maintenance, and visitor center needs are 

reflected in budget needs databases. 

# Work with the Refuge Friends Group to raise private funds for the 

Savanna expansion and the Headquarters visitor center. 

# Continue to maintain Service-owned facilities using annual maintenance 

budget allocations.

Objective 6.2. Public Access Facilities. By 2020, add 1 new boat landing (total of 26), 3 new 

walk-in accesses, and 3 new and 1 improved canoe landings. Improve 5 

parking areas on the Refuge to support public use. (See Table 1 in Appendix 

H, and maps in Appendix P.)

Rationale: This objective represents an increase in public access facilities in 

line with the public use emphasis of this alternative. Since the Refuge is 

mainly a floodplain Refuge bounded by major rail lines and highways, 

opportunities for increasing access points is limited. In addition to these 

accesses, there are 222 other public and private boat accesses that provide 

access to the Mississippi River or its tributaries, and thus the Refuge.

Strategies 

# Continue routine upkeep of boat accesses by Refuge staff, temporary 

employees and Youth Conservation Corps members when available, and 

volunteers. 

# Continue to modernize accesses using Maintenance Management System 

funding or special funding which is provided periodically, and by 

implementing a self-service boat launch fee at Refuge-operated boat 

ramps. 

# In cooperation with states and local governments, explore Transportation 

Enhancement Act projects and funding for new accesses and to upgrade 

current Refuge accesses.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

102

Alternative C: Public Use Focus

Objective 6.3. Operations and Maintenance Needs. Complete annual review of Refuge 

Operating Needs System (RONS), Maintenance Management System 

(MMS), and Service Assessment and Maintenance Management System 

(SAMMS) databases to ensure these reflect the funding needs for carrying 

out the public use focus alternative.

Rationale: The RONS, MMS, and SAMMS databases are the chief 

mechanisms for documenting ongoing and special needs for operating and 

maintaining a national wildlife refuge. These databases are part of the 

information used in the formulation of budgets at the Washington and 

Regional levels, and for the allocation of funding to the field. It is important 

that the databases be updated periodically to reflect the needs of the Refuge, 

and in particular the objectives and strategies elsewhere in this alternative.

Strategies 

# None warranted.

Objective 6.4. Public Information and Awareness. By 2007, increase by 50 percent the 

current annual average of 80 media interviews, 125 news releases, and 25 

special events (special programs, presentations, and displays at others’ 

events), and by 2020 increase information kiosks to 115 (+49) as shown in 

Table 16 of Appendix H and maps in Appendix P.

Rationale: This objective reflects an emphasis on providing the public more 

information, especially in regards to public use opportunities to reflect the 

focus of this alternative. 

Strategies 

# Hire visitor services specialists for those Districts without, namely 

Winona and McGregor Districts.

# Hire a public information specialist at Headquarters to increase 

attention on interviews, news releases, and special events. 

# Continue to look for creative ways to leverage efforts and funding for 

public information. 

# Carry out related objectives dealing with trails, leaflets, and interpretive 

signs (see objectives 4.10 and 4.11). 

# Cooperate with the states and the Corps of Engineers on visitor surveys 

to gauge public awareness of the Refuge and Mississippi River resources.

Objective 6.5. Staffing Needs. By 2015, increase staffing from current permanent, full-time 

level of 37 people to 57 people (54.5 full-time equivalents or FTEs) with 

priorities being public use, maintenance, receptionists, and public 

information personnel who most directly support public use work on the 

Refuge (see Table 2 on page 192 and Table 20 in Appendix H). 

Rationale: This objective reflects a public use focus and the minimum 

operations and maintenance-funded staffing deemed necessary to meet the 

goals and objectives of this alternative. Like all land management, refuge 

management is labor intensive and labor costs represent over 95 percent of 

the base operations funding received each year. These staffing needs are 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

103

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus 

documented in, or related to, the strategies for various objectives in this 

alternative. 

Strategies 

# Ensure that staffing needs are incorporated in budget needs databases. 

# Maintain other sources of funding for staff who coordinate the 

Environmental Management Program and the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program.

# Strengthen existing volunteer program and recruit new volunteers to 

assist with visitor services.

2.4.5 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-wildlife-dependent uses.

Alternative D Summary

Boundary issues would be aggressively addressed and the entire Refuge boundary would be 

surveyed. The rate of land acquisition would increase within the approved boundary to complete 58 

percent of the total, an average of 1,000 acres per year. There would be more effort to protect 

through easements or fee-title acquisition all bluffland areas identified in the 1987 Master Plan, and 

an increase in oversight and administration of Research Natural Areas. The Refuge would be 

nominated as a Wetland of International Importance (Ramsar). Guiding principles for habitat 

projects would be established and stress an integrated approach.

There would be an increase in effort to 

achieve continuous improvement in the 

quality of water flowing through the 

Refuge, including decreasing 

sedimentation. Pool-scale drawdowns 

would be accomplished by working with 

the Corps of Engineers and the states. 

The control of invasive plant species 

would increase, and there would be 

increased emphasis on the control of 

invasive animals. Environmental Pool 

Plans would be implemented on a strategic and opportunistic basis using the Environmental 

Management Program or other programs and funding sources. Wildlife inventory and monitoring 

would increase and include more species groups beyond the current focus of waterfowl, colonial 

nesting birds, eagles, and aquatic invertebrates/vegetation. The management of threatened and 

endangered species would focus on helping recovery, not just protection. The furbearer trapping 

program would continue but be brought into compliance with policies by writing a new plan. The 

Refuge would become much more active in fishery and mussel management, and provide commercial 

fishing oversight. Knowledge of turtle ecology through research would increase, as would turtle 

conservation efforts in cooperation with the states and Corps of Engineers. A forest inventory on the 

Refuge would be completed in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, and a forest management 

plan prepared, leading to more active forest management. The 5,700 acres of grassland habitat on 

the Refuge would be maintained and enhanced using fire and other tools. 

Northern Shoveler pair. Stan Bousson
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

104

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

There would be a continuation of hunting and fishing opportunities on a large percentage of the 

Refuge. The system of waterfowl hunting closed areas would change with some eliminated, some 

reduced in size, and several new areas added for a total of 21 closed areas. Motorized watercraft and 

entry into closed areas for fishing, along with hunting, trapping, and camping would be prohibited 

during the respective state duck season, although the voluntary avoidance area on Lake Onalaska 

would remain in place. The firing line issue north of the closed area in Lake Onalaska would be 

addressed by initiating the Gibbs Lake Managed Hunting Program involving a limit to the number 

of hunters through drawing, assigning hunters to areas, and charging a fee. The current Refugewide hunting regulations would be changed to include a 25 shotshell limit during the waterfowl 

season and a 100-yard waterfowl hunting party spacing requirement, and a provision to address 

open water hunting in portions of Pools 9 and 11. Permanent blinds for waterfowl hunting would be 

eliminated Refuge wide, including those used in the Potter’s Marsh and Blanding Landing managed 

hunts in the Savanna District. The Potter’s Marsh managed hunt would continue with administrative 

changes to promote fairness and efficiency. The Blanding Landing managed hunt would be 

eliminated, but the area would remain open to hunting. General fishing would continue to be 

promoted, although the Refuge would begin issuing permits for fishing tournaments in cooperation 

with the states and other agencies. 

There would be an increase in facilities and programming for wildlife observation, photography, 

interpretation and environmental education. There would be a modest increase in Refuge access 

through new facilities and improvement of existing boat ramps, pull offs, and overlooks. A boat 

launch fee would be initiated on Refuge-operated boat ramps. New standards for the commercial 

fish floats or piers below locks and dams 6, 7, 8, and 9 would be developed and implemented, with a 

phase out of floats which do not meet the standards. A consistent process for issuing permits for 

commercial guiding on the Refuge would be implemented. Areas open to beach-related public use 

(camping, swimming, picnicking, social gatherings) would be reduced to some degree under an 

“open-unless-closed” policy, new regulations would be implemented, and a beach maintenance policy 

established. Initiating a Refuge Recreation Use Permit and fee would be explored to defray costs of 

managing beach-related uses. A total of 16 electric motor areas and 9 new slow, no-wake zones would 

be established. Current regulations on the use of dogs would be changed to allow dogs to be 

exercised and trained under certain conditions. General public use regulations would be reviewed 

annually and changed as needed.

New offices and maintenance shops would be constructed at the Winona, La Crosse, and McGregor 

districts, and at the Lost Mound Unit. The office would be expanded at the Savanna District and a 

new shop constructed. Public information and awareness efforts would be increased 50 percent. 

Staffing levels for the Refuge would increase by 19.5 full-time equivalents with a balance among 

biological, maintenance, visitor services, technical, and administrative staff.

Goal 1: Landscape. We will strive to maintain and improve the scenic qualities and wild character of the 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge.

Objective 1.1. Maintain the integrity of the Refuge boundary. In coordination with the 

Corps of Engineers, re-survey and post the entire Refuge boundary by 2021.

Rationale: Maintaining and enforcing a boundary is one of the basic and 

critical components of refuge management to ensure the integrity of an area 

over time. Without attention to this basic task, there is a tendency for 

adjacent development and use to creep and take over Refuge lands and 

waters. This encroachment includes tree cutting, dumping, construction, 

storing of equipment and materials, and mowing Refuge lands. In addition, 

there are a few boundaries between Refuge and Corps of Engineersmanaged lands that remain unclear, leading to mixed messages to the public 

using these lands via permits, leases, or out grants. The size, length, age, and 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

105

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus 

floodplain setting of the Refuge, coupled with a mix of Corps of Engineersacquired and Service-acquired lands, creates boundary clarity problems that 

can only be addressed through modern re-surveying techniques. 

Strategies 

# Enter into a joint Service/Corps of Engineers project to complete a 

cadastral survey of the Refuge boundary. 

# With the Corps of Engineers, complete a survey plan of action to 

prioritize and schedule the completion of the survey by 2020. 

# Seek the funding necessary for the survey work. 

# Also with the Corps of Engineers, review, update, and publish a new 

Land Use Allocation Plan for lands within the Refuge (see Chapter 1, 

section 1.4.3.1 for discussion of this plan).

Objective 1.2. Land Acquisition. By 2021, acquire from willing sellers 58 percent of the 

lands identified for acquisition in the 1987 Master Plan and subsequent 

approvals, as identified on the maps in Appendix G (approximately 1,000 

acres/year). 

Rationale: Land acquisition is a critical component of fish and wildlife 

conservation since it permanently protects their basic need of habitat. It is 

also a cornerstone of promoting wildlife-dependent recreation by providing 

lands and waters open to all. On a narrow, linear refuge, land acquisition is a 

critical component of restoring the habitat connectivity needed for the health 

of many species. The Refuge currently ranks 6th nationally on the Service’s 

Land Acquisition Priority System due to its resource importance. Land 

acquisition can also be cost effective in the long-term due to inflation of land 

costs and the costs of acquiring undeveloped land versus developed land that 

also needs restoration. This objective represents an aggressive land 

acquisition program of about 1,000 acres per year to achieve goals set in the 

1987 Master Plan and other approved acquisition documents. Lands with the 

highest fish and wildlife values were coded “A” in the 1987 Master Plan, and 

this ranking system remains a useful prioritization tool. However, public use 

values would also be considered when setting priorities between available 

tracts in keeping with the balanced approach of this alternative.

Strategies 

# Seek consistent Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations to 

meet the objective (approximately $1.5 million per year at $1,500 per 

acre). 

# Explore land exchanges with the states to remove intermingled 

ownerships. 

# Continue to work with the Department of the Army to transfer title of 

tracts as they are cleaned of contaminants at the Lost Mound Unit 

(former Savanna Army Depot).

Objective 1.3. Bluffland protection. By 2021, acquire from willing sellers protective 

easements or fee-title interest in all undeveloped bluffland areas within the 

approved boundary of the Refuge as identified in the 1987 Master Plan. (See 

maps, Appendix G.)
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

106

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Rationale: There have been no acquisitions of bluffland areas since first 

identified in the 1987 Master Plan, and this objective represents a more 

aggressive approach to safeguarding the wildlife values of these areas. In 

recent years, peregrines have once again started nesting on the rock faces of 

some bluffs. Peregrines, at one time an endangered species, were the main 

rationale for including the 13 areas in the acquisition boundary. Blufflands 

are also an important part of maintaining the scenic quality of the Refuge 

landscape and harbor unique and diverse plants and animals. Since some 

areas identified have been developed for housing or other uses since 1987, the 

focus would be on the undeveloped areas. However, there may be an 

opportunity to protect remaining values of these developed areas through 

creative easements.

Strategies 

# Seek consistent acquisition funding as noted in Objective 1.2 and use a 

blend of easements and fee-title acquisition that best meets landowner’s 

desire and balances wildlife and public use objectives.

# Work with the state, local governments, and private land trusts to protect 

bluffland habitat and scenic values. 

# Work with local units of government to encourage zoning regulations 

which protect bluffland scenic qualities. 

# Educate the public on the values of blufflands for birds and unique plant 

communities.

Objective 1.4. Research Natural Areas and Special Designations. By 2010, complete a 

management plan for each of the Refuge’s four federally-designated 

Research Natural Areas. No new Natural Areas would be established. (See 

maps in Appendix P and Table 7 on page 229.) Also by 2008, facilitate 

preparation of a nomination package for designating the Refuge a “Wetland 

of International Importance” in accordance with the Ramsar Convention.

Rationale: The Refuge has done little in the way of monitoring or research of 

the existing Research Natural Areas. Although the main goal of the area 

designation is the preservation of unique floodplain forest areas, preservation 

is a form of management. No management plans have been written to guide 

monitoring and research of current habitat conditions and changes since the 

areas were designated in the 1970s. Completing a management plan for each 

area would identify monitoring protocols, any habitat management needed to 

retain original biological values or address threats, address any special public 

use considerations, and identify ways to foster public awareness and 

appreciation of these unique areas. No areas of the Refuge are deemed 

suitable for new Natural Area designation.

Designating the Refuge a Wetland of International Importance would raise 

its stature in line with previously designated national wildlife refuges 

including Horicon National Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin and Sand Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge in South Dakota. Designation would recognize the 

Refuge’s international importance to migratory birds, as well as its 

uniqueness in balancing a variety of commercial, cultural, and recreational 

values, values supported in the treaty stemming from the Ramsar 

Convention and reflected in this integrated alternative. Designation would 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

107

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus 

also foster the sharing of scientific information and elevate management 

attention when facing future needs and challenges.

Strategies 

# The District Managers will be responsible for completion of management 

plans for natural areas in their respective Districts, using a consistent 

approach and format, and in cooperation with the states and other 

federal agencies as appropriate (e.g. Nelson-Trevino). 

# Seek cooperative research and monitoring opportunities with other 

agencies and colleges and universities. 

# Ensure yearly review of Research Natural Area boundaries to ensure 

integrity of the areas.

# Work collaboratively with the Corps of Engineers, the states, nongovernment organizations, and the public in preparing a nomination 

package for Wetland of International Importance designation.

Goal 2: Environmental Health. We will strive to improve the environmental health of the Refuge by 

working with others.

Objective 2.1. Water Quality. Working with others and through a more aggressive Refuge 

program, seek a continuous improvement in the quality of water flowing 

through and into the Refuge in terms of parameters measured by the Long 

Term Monitoring Program of the Environmental Management Program 

(dissolved oxygen, major plant nutrients, suspended material, turbidity, 

sedimentation, and contaminants).

Rationale: The quality of water on the Refuge is one of the most important 

factors influencing fish, wildlife, and aquatic plant populations and health, 

which in turn influence the opportunity for public use and enjoyment. Water 

quality is also beyond the Refuge’s ability to influence alone given the 

immense size of the Refuge’s watershed and multiple-agency responsibilities. 

This objective recognizes these limitations, but charts a more aggressive role 

for the Refuge through the strategies below. The objective also highlights the 

advocacy role the Refuge can play in educating the public and supporting the 

myriad of agencies which together can influence water quality.

Strategies 

# Hire a Private Lands Biologist or Technician for each of the Refuge’s 

four Districts to restore and enhance wetland, upland, and riparian 

habitat on private lands in and along sub-watersheds feeding into the 

Refuge, and to broker the myriad of private land and conservation 

opportunities available through the Department of Agriculture and 

others. 

# Increase conservation assistance agreements with Soil and Water 

Conservation Districts and Resource Conservation and Development 

boards. 

# Cooperate with local government land use planning efforts to ensure that 

water quality impacts to the Refuge are considered. 

# Emphasize water quality aspects, especially sediment deposit in 

backwaters, in all habitat enhancement projects. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

108

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

# Link the planning and projects for tributary watersheds to Pool Plan 

implementation using the latest GIS-based mapping and modeling.

# Support cooperative water quality monitoring and improvement efforts 

through the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee and other 

groups and agencies. 

# Continue to stress the importance of water quality in public information 

and interpretion, and environmental education programs.

Objective 2.2. Water Level Management. By 2021, complete drawdowns of all Refuge pools 

during the summer growing season in coordination with the Corps of 

Engineers and states.

Rationale: Lowering the water levels in impoundments during the growing 

season is a proven management practice to dramatically increase emergent 

vegetation. Improved vegetation results in more food and cover for a wide 

range of fish and wildlife species, which in turn enhances opportunities for 

wildlife-dependent recreation. Much of the emergent vegetation on the 

Refuge has been lost due to stable water regimes created for navigation, and 

this objective seeks to restore productive marsh habitat to thousands of 

acres. All pools would benefit from drawdowns. However, Pool 14 does not 

appear to be feasible in the 15-year horizon of this plan. 

Strategies 

# Continue to work in partnership with the interagency water level 

management taskforce to plan, facilitate and prioritize drawdowns. 

# Inform and involve citizens through public meetings, workshops, and 

citizen advisory groups. 

# Seek all available funding sources to carry out needed recreational access 

dredging to lessen social and economic impacts during drawdowns 

(proposals in Corps of Engineers Navigation Study released in 2004 

includes funding for drawdowns). 

# Explore options for funding an Access Trust Fund to ensure adequate 

funding when needed to accomplish drawdowns.

Objective 2.3. Invasive Plants. By 2008, complete an invasive plant inventory and by 2010, 

achieve a 10 percent reduction in acres affected by invasive plants such as 

purple loosestrife, reed canary grass, Eurasian milfoil, leafy spurge, crown 

vetch, Russian knapweed, knotweed, European buckthorn, garlic mustard, 

and Japanese bamboo. Emphasize the use of biological controls.

Rationale: Invasive plants continue to pose a major threat to native plant 

communities on the Refuge and beyond. Invasive plants displace native 

species and often have little or no food value for wildlife. The result is a 

decline in the carrying capacity of the Refuge for native fish, wildlife, and 

plants, and a resulting decline in the quality of wildlife-dependent recreation. 

This objective addresses invasive plants by first determining and mapping 

baseline information so that effective and efficient control can take place. 

Biological control includes release of insects which prey directly on purple 

loosestrife or leafy spurge plants or disrupt part of their life cycle, and is a 

more long-term and cost efficient solution compared to herbicide spraying. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

109

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus 

This objective is tempered by the realization that biological control methods 

are not yet readily available for a large number of invasive plant species. 

Strategies 

# Hire seasonal biological technicians to conduct an inventory and prepare 

baseline maps of invasive plant infestations. 

# Write an invasive plant control and management plan (integrated pest 

management plan) that identifies priority areas and methods of control. 

# Seek seasonal staff and funding to accelerate current control and applied 

research efforts through interagency partnerships, volunteer programs, 

and public education. 

# Continue to work with the Department of Agriculture, other agencies, 

the states, and other refuge field stations in securing insects and beetles 

for release in high-infestation areas. 

# Take advantage of periodic invasive grant, cost-sharing, or special 

funding opportunities offered through the Service or other agencies and 

foundations. 

# Conduct public information effort including media, brochures, signage, 

and programs to increase awareness of the invasives threat and what 

visitors can do to minimize the introduction or spread of invasives.

Objective 2.4. Invasive Animals. Increase efforts to control invasive animals through active 

partnerships with the states and other Service programs and federal 

agencies, and increase public awareness and prevention.

Rationale: Invasive animals such as zebra mussels and Asian carp species 

pose a current and looming threat to native fish and mussel species and have 

the potential to disrupt the aquatic ecosystem. They can also have a direct 

link to the quality of fishing by displacing various game fish, or destroying 

important habitat for fish and wetland-dependent birds which people observe 

or hunt. This objective is not measurable, reflecting the reality that invasive 

animal species do not lend themselves to direct control in a large river system 

and that addressing invasive animals is dependent on political and 

management actions beyond the boundary of the Refuge. However, the 

objective does emphasize the importance of addressing invasive species and 

represents more active Refuge involvement. 

Strategies 

# Implement other objectives and strategies in this plan which have an 

influence on invasive species work. For example, better habitat 

conditions promote healthy native fish populations that can compete with 

invasive species, while adding a fishery biologist to the staff would 

increase and improve coordination with other programs and agencies 

dealing with invasives. 

# Continue to work with other agencies in developing effective regulations, 

barriers, biological controls, or other means to reduce introduction and 

spread of invasives. 

# Explore new and creative ways to expand the harvest of invasive fish by 

commercial fishing, such as a bonus payment to enhance market price. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

110

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

# Conduct public information effort including media, brochures, signage, 

and programs to increase awareness of the invasives threat and what 

visitors can do to minimize the introduction or spread of invasives.

Goal 3: Wildlife and Habitat. Our habitat management will support diverse and abundant native fish, 

wildlife, and plants.

Objective 3.1. Environmental Pool Plans. By 2021, implement at least 30 percent of the 

Refuge-priority Environmental Pool Plan actions and strategies in Pools 4-14 

as summarized in Table 4 on page 196 (see Appendix N for examples of 

Environmental Pool Plan maps).

Rationale: Environmental Pool Plans represent a desired future habitat 

condition developed by an interagency team of resource professionals, 

including Refuge staff. The Pool Plans represent what is necessary to reverse 

the negative trends in habitat quality and quantity on the Upper Mississippi 

River. Improved habitat is the key to healthy fish and wildlife populations, 

which in turn impact the quality of wildlife-dependent recreation. Thus, this 

objective represents an important part of the wildlife and integrated public 

use focus alternative. The Refuge represents a sizeable subset of the habitat 

vision presented in each Pool Plan. The Refuge also has different resource 

mandates and responsibilities than the Corps of Engineers and the states. 

Thus, the Refuge prioritized various actions to meet these needs as 

represented in Table 4 on page 196. The objective of 30 percent represents a 

reasonable rate of implementing priority actions given current funding levels 

(mainly through the Environmental Management Program, Corps of 

Engineers) for habitat conservation work, and the 15 year horizon of this 

CCP versus the 50 year horizon of the Pool Plans. Some of the actions and 

strategies in the Table overlap with other objectives in this plan (e.g. forest 

management, land acquisition, watershed work, and water level drawdowns).

Strategies 

# Continue to coordinate with the River Resources Forum’s Fish and 

Wildlife Workgroup, and the River Resources Coordinating Team’s Fish 

and Wildlife Interagency Committee, to implement pool plan priorities. 

# Continue to work for full and expanded funding of the Environmental 

Management Program through public and Congressional information 

and outreach. 

# Take advantage of any new funding sources that emerge, such as 

appropriations from Congress for implementing the Navigation Study 

ecosystem restoration recommendations.

Objective 3.2. Guiding Principles for Habitat Management Programs. Upon approval of the 

CCP, adopt and use the following guiding principles when designing or 

providing input to design and construction of habitat enhancement projects: 

1.) Management practices will restore or mimic natural ecosystem processes 

or functions to promote a diversity of habitat and minimize operations 

and maintenance costs. 

2.) Maintenance and operation costs of projects will be weighed carefully 

since annual budgets for these items are not guaranteed. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

111

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus 

3.) Terrestrial habitat on constructed islands and other areas needs to best 

fit the natural processes occurring on the river, which in many cases will 

allow for natural succession to occur. 

4.) If project features in Refuge Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas serve to 

attract public use during the waterfowl season, spatial and temporal 

restrictions of uses may be required to reduce human disturbance of 

wildlife. 

5.) The esthetics of projects, in the context of visual impacts to the 

landscape, should be considered in project design in support of Refuge 

Goal 1, Landscape.

Rationale: Guiding principles for habitat restoration or enhancement 

projects would provide consistency between the four Districts of the Refuge 

and help communicate to cooperating agencies and the public standards from 

which we will design projects. The principles will also help ensure compliance 

with Service policy on biological integrity and recognize the need to consider 

future operations and maintenance costs before doing projects. In addition, 

the principles help ensure that projects complement, rather than compete 

with, other goals and objectives in this plan. 

Strategies 

# Refuge staff will use these guidelines when proposing and designing 

habitat enhancement projects funded by the Service. They will also be 

used during coordination with the Corps of Engineers and the states in 

cooperative programs such as the Environmental Management Program 

or any new program authority that may arise from the Corps of 

Engineers’ Navigation Study.

Objective 3.3. Monitor and Investigate Fish and Wildlife Populations and Their Habitats.

By January 2008, amend the 1993 Wildlife Inventory Plan to include more 

species groups such as fish, reptiles, mussels, and plants, and increase the 

amount of applied research being done on the Refuge. 

Rationale: Monitoring is essential to understanding the status and trends of 

selected species groups and habitats. This in turn provides some indication of 

overall biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge, 

and is critical in planning habitat management and public use programs. This 

objective represents a more aggressive biological program on the Refuge and 

will help meet directives in the Refuge Improvement Act requiring 

monitoring the status of fish, wildlife, and plant species. Better biological 

information is also critical to making sound and integrated resource and 

public use management decisions. The Refuge would continue to support and 

use monitoring done by the states, U.S. Geological Survey, the Corps of 

Engineers, and others to help fill the gaps in status and trends information 

for fish, mussels, reptiles, forests and other land cover, and environmental 

factors such as water chemistry and sedimentation. 

Strategies 

# Engage other experts and partners to develop and implement the 

Wildlife Inventory Plan. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

112

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

# Establish a Refuge Research Team that designs short-term and longterm research projects to address management questions and concerns 

about wildlife populations and their habitat. 

# Continue to work with the states, U.S. Geological Survey, and Corps of 

Engineers in the sharing of data on other species and habitats. 

# Establish a schedule of formal coordination meetings with the U.S. 

Geological Survey to share biological monitoring methods and data. 

# Ensure that each District has a biologist on staff and that Headquarters 

has a GIS biologist. 

# Seek more cooperation with colleges and universities to foster more 

graduate research projects.

# Continue to use volunteers for certain monitoring efforts such as the 

breeding bird survey point counts. 

# Complete a Habitat Management Plan which integrates species status 

and trends with the Environmental Pool Plans (Objective 3.1).

Objective 3.4. Threatened and Endangered Species Management. By the end of 2008, begin 

monitoring of all federally listed threatened or endangered and candidate 

species on the Refuge, and by 2010, have in place management plans for each 

species to help ensure their recovery. 

Rationale: As noted in an earlier section of this chapter, it is Service policy to 

give priority consideration to the protection, enhancement, and recovery of 

these species on national wildlife refuges. This objective represents a more 

aggressive approach to achieving this policy, and also reflects the high public 

interest in threatened and endangered species. Currently, the only species 

actively monitored by the Refuge are bald eagles, and efforts would be 

expanded to include the Higgins eye pearlymussel, eastern massasauga 

rattlesnake, and Sheepnose mussel. 

Strategies 

# Consider the needs of threatened, endangered and candidate species in 

all habitat and public use management decisions. 

# Continue to consult with the Service’s Ecological Services Offices on all 

actions which may affect listed species. 

# In Wildlife Inventory Plan, address monitoring plan for all listed or 

candidate species, and other species of management concern to help 

preclude listing. 

# Continue monitoring Bald Eagle nesting populations and success. 

# In Habitat Management Plan, identify steps needed to ensure 

populations of listed or candidate species are sustained in support of 

delisting or to preclude listing in the future.

# Give priority to acquisition of lands within approved boundary that 

contain listed or candidate species. 

# Continue assistance to other offices and agencies with Higgins eye 

pearlymussel recovery efforts.

# Increase education and outreach specifically targeting threatened and 

endangered species found on the Refuge.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

113

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus 

Objective 3.5. Furbearer Trapping. Update the Refuge trapping plan by June 2007, 

continuing the existing trapping program until the update is completed.

Rationale: Furbearer trapping has a long history on the Refuge and can be 

an important management tool in reducing furbearer disease and habitat 

impacts, and in safeguarding certain Refuge infrastructure such as dikes, 

islands, and water control structures. The current trapping plan is dated by 

time (1988), new furbearer ecology and population information, and by new 

policies governing compatibility of uses and commercial uses on national 

wildlife refuges. 

Strategies 

# The Refuge wildlife biologists, in consultation with Refuge District 

managers and state furbearer biologists will develop a revised trapping 

plan for approval by the Refuge manager. 

# Afford the public an opportunity for review and comment on the plan.

# Complete a new compatibility determination for public review and 

comment.

Objective 3.6. Fishery and Mussel Management. By the end of 2008, complete a Fishery 

and Mussel Management Plan for the Refuge which incorporates current 

monitoring and management by the states and other Service offices and 

agencies.

Rationale: One of the purposes of the Refuge is to provide a “refuge and 

breeding place for fish and other aquatic animal life.” Fish and mussels also 

have high intrinsic, recreational, and commercial values. For decades, the 

Refuge has not taken an active role in fishery or mussel management, 

deferring to the states or others on this management responsibility. Although 

the states will still play the lead role in fisheries and mussel management, the 

Refuge should have in place a plan which communicates to the states and the 

public the Refuge and Service perspective on fishery and mussel 

management issues and needs, and to help set common goals, objectives, and 

means of collecting and sharing information. The plan would also help guide 

conservation efforts for rare or declining interjurisdictional species such as 

paddlefish and sturgeon and federally listed and candidate aquatic species, 

and address the Refuge’s role in commercial harvest of species and control of 

aquatic invasive species. Healthy fishery and mussel populations also benefit 

the public’s use and enjoyment of these resources.

Strategies 

# Add a fishery biologist to the Headquarters staff to coordinate fishery 

and mussel management on the Refuge. 

# Prepare plan in collaboration with the states, Service fishery offices, the 

Genoa National Fish Hatchery, and aquatic biologists of the U.S. 

Geological Survey.

Objective 3.7. Commercial Fishing and Clamming. By the end of 2008, complete a Fishery 

and Mussel Management Plan, and by January 2009, begin issuing Refuge 

special use permits in addition to state-required permits for commercial 

fishing and clamming.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

114

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Rationale: The Refuge has provided little to no oversight of the commercial 

harvest of fish or mussels in the past. However, federal regulations governing 

the Refuge System state that “fishery resources of commercial importance 

on wildlife refuge areas may be taken under permit in accordance with 

federal and state law and regulations” (50 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

31.13). Other regulations govern all commercial uses on refuges. Besides this 

compliance issue, the Refuge can play an important advisory and 

coordination role with the four states which administer commercial fish and 

mussel harvest on the Refuge. 

Strategies 

# In addition to the strategies in Objective 3.6, establish, with the states 

through the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, a method 

of sharing permittee and catch information for the Refuge. 

# Devise a Refuge permitting process that dovetails with state permits so 

that commercial users receive only one permit versus two. 

# Enter into cooperative agreements as needed to implement this one-stopshopping permit process.

# Ensure that commercial harvest of fish and mussels meets objectives in 

Refuge plans, and explore ways that commercial harvest can help 

address invasive species issues (Objective 2.4).

Objective 3.8. Turtle Management. By spring 2007, initiate a 3-5 year turtle ecology study 

on representative habitats of the entire Refuge. Continue to cooperate with 

the states and the Corps of Engineers in monitoring turtle populations on 

certain Refuge areas.

Rationale: Recent surveys in the Weaver Bottoms area of Pool 5 indicate that 

this area of the Refuge is an important, and perhaps critical, area for 8 

species of turtles, some of which are listed by the states as threatened or 

endangered. Surveys on other Pools of the Refuge show that 11 species are 

present. There are numerous potential negative and positive impacts to 

turtles from public use and navigation channel maintenance activities on the 

Refuge. However, more rigorous monitoring and research is needed over a 

broad area to understand turtle populations and ecology to guide a 

coordinated approach to their conservation, and to guide management 

decisions concerning public uses in or on important turtle habitats. A 

comprehensive study would provide this information. 

Strategies 

# In cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey, seek special funding and 

grants to fund the turtle ecology study. 

# Continue to coordinate with the Corps of Engineers and the states on 

ways to minimize turtle nesting disturbance on dredge material disposal 

sites located on the Refuge. 

# Through the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, devise a 

method of sharing more detailed commercial turtle harvest information 

for the Refuge. 

# Upon completion of the turtle ecology study, complete a turtle 

management strategy and incorporate recommendations in habitat, 

commercial use, and public use management activities. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

115

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus 

# Conduct public information effort including media, brochures, signage, 

and programs to increase awareness and appreciation of turtles and 

communicate what visitors can do to minimize impacts on beach areas 

used for nesting.

Objective 3.9. Forest Management. Complete by the end of 2008, in cooperation with the 

Corps of Engineers, a forest inventory of the Refuge, and by 2010, complete a 

Forest Management Plan for the Refuge.

Rationale: A baseline forest inventory of the approximately 51,000 acres of 

floodplain forest on the Refuge is the first step in addressing concerns for the 

long-term health of this important resource. The Corps of Engineers has 

been actively working on a forest inventory for several years on Corps of 

Engineers-acquired lands, and it makes fiscal and efficiency sense to partner 

with the Corps of Engineers on Service-acquired lands on this objective. A 

Forest Management Plan is needed to integrate forest and wildlife objectives, 

and to identify management prescriptions such as harvest, planting, fire, and 

invasives control. Collaboration with the Corps of Engineers is essential to 

meet the forest habitat needs of wildlife since the Corps of Engineers 

retained forest management authority on Corps of Engineers-acquired lands 

that are part of the Refuge. Healthy forests also benefit the diversity and 

quality of public uses on the Refuge. 

Strategies 

# As Refuge funding allows, continue to fund seasonal technicians to help 

with the Corps of Engineers’ inventory project on Service-acquired 

lands. 

# Continue to work with the Corps of Engineers and other partners on 

forest rejuvenation and research projects.

# Continue small scale reforestation, especially mast-producing 

hardwoods, on suitable Refuge lands.

# Add a Refuge Forester to the Headquarters staff to oversee Forest 

Management Plan preparation and implementation, and to coordinate 

with the Corps of Engineers and the states on forest management issues 

and opportunities.

Objective 3.10. Grassland Management. Maintain 5,700 acres of grassland habitat on the 

Refuge through the use of various management tools including prescribed 

fire, haying, grazing, and control of invasive plants, and by 2008, address 

grassland conservation and enhancement in a step-down Habitat 

Management Plan. 

Rationale: Many species of wildlife, particularly birds, are dependent on 

grassland habitat. In addition, some of these grasslands are remnant 

tallgrass native prairie, a diverse and rare ecosystem throughout the 

Midwest and home to rare or declining plant and animal species. Active 

management is needed to curb loss of grasslands to forest succession or 

invasive species, and to maintain species diversity and health. Healthy 

grasslands benefit a variety of public uses including wildlife observation, 

plant study, photography, and hunting.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

116

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Strategies 

# Implement the Refuge’s Fire Management Plan. 

# Use haying, rotational grazing, and control of invasive plants as 

appropriate to maintain grasslands. Restore aspects of native prairie 

where feasible using a combination of rest, fire, farming, and reseeding 

as appropriate to the site. 

# Increase monitoring to measure effectiveness of treatments.

Goal 4: Wildlife-Dependent Recreation. We will manage programs and facilities to ensure abundant and 

sustainable hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, interpretation, and environmental 

education opportunities for a broad cross-section of the public.

Objective 4.1. General Hunting. Maintain a minimum of 180,626 acres (75 percent) of land 

and water of the Refuge open to all hunting in accordance with respective 

state seasons, and add 6 new administrative No Hunting Zones for a total of 

5,404 acres. See related Objective 4.2 on Waterfowl Closed Areas. (See 

Table 2 and Table 10 in Appendix H and maps in Appendix P.)

Rationale: Maintaining a large percentage of the Refuge open to hunting is in 

keeping with guidance in the Refuge Improvement Act to facilitate wildlifedependent use when compatible. This objective also represents an integrated 

wildlife and public use emphasis by more strategic placement of Waterfowl 

Closed Areas in the related Objective 4.2, to both protect migrating 

waterfowl and offer a better distribution of waterfowl hunting opportunities. 

These Closed Areas reopen to some hunting after the duck season, adding to 

the open acreage above. The six new No Hunting Zones are for safety 

reasons or to minimize conflict between user groups. One is at Sturgeon 

Slough, Pool 10 (66 acres), which contains a fairly new hiking trail off a major 

highway, and the other is at Crooked Slough proper, Pool 13 (192 acres) to 

avoid conflicts and address safety concerns in a relatively narrow corridor 

popular with anglers. 

Strategies 

# Continue yearly review of Refuge Hunting Regulations to ensure clarity 

and to address any emerging issues or concerns, and give the public an 

opportunity to review and comment on any changes. 

# To minimize potential conflicts between user groups, no hunting should 

occur on the Refuge prior to September 1 of each year and all hunting 

should end March 15, except for spring Wild Turkey hunting. 

# Continue to publish the Refuge Hunting Regulations brochure to inform 

the public of hunting opportunities and Refuge-specific regulations. 

# Continue to improve the hunting experience by ongoing improvements to 

habitat and enforcement of regulations. 

# Review the 1989 Refuge Hunting Plan and modify as needed to comply 

with new regulations and policies. 

# Clearly sign areas closed to hunting and ensure public notification 

through news releases and other means well before the hunting seasons.

Objective 4.2. Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas. In fall 2006, implement the following 

changes to the current Waterfowl Closed Area system on the Refuge:
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

117

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus 

1.) Add five new Closed Areas and delete or modify some of the current 15, 

for a total of 21 areas totaling 43,704 acres, or 791 acres more than 

current area (see Table 10 and Table 11 in Appendix H, and maps in 

Appendix P).

2.) The following areas would be closed to all entry and use from October 1 

to the end of the respective state regular duck season:

a) Pool Slough Sanctuary (McGregor District, Pool 9, Iowa/Minnesota)

b) Guttenberg Ponds portion of the 12 Mile Slough Sanctuary 

(McGregor District, Pool 11, Iowa)

c) Spring Lake Sanctuary (Savanna District, Pool 13, Illinois)

3.) All other Waterfowl Closed Areas, except on Lake Onalaska, would be 

closed to all fishing, except bank fishing, and all motorized watercraft, 

from October 1 to the end of the respective state regular duck season.

4.) The current Lake Onalaska Closed Area and associated Voluntary 

Waterfowl Avoidance Area would not be affected, although boundary 

adjustments would be made.

Rationale: This objective represents a balanced approach between the needs 

of waterfowl and the public as reflected in the following overall Closed Area 

system goals:

1.) Provide migrating waterfowl a more balanced and effective network of 

feeding and resting areas.

2.) Minimize disturbance to feeding and resting waterfowl in closed areas.

3.) Provide waterfowl hunters with more equitable hunting opportunities 

over the length of the Refuge.

4.) Reduce hunter competition and waterfowl crippling loss along some 

closed area boundaries. 

5.) Stabilize boundaries where island and/or shoreline loss or gain creates a 

fluctuating boundary.

This objective also helps address the issues surrounding Closed Areas as 

discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.4.5.4 on page 23., and analyzed in Chapter 3, 

Section 3.2.7 on page 235. The five new Closed Areas were chosen to fill gaps 

between existing Closed Areas, to meet the needs of both dabbler and diver 

ducks which have different spatial and foraging needs, and to provide areas 

with the best food potential. An analysis of the potential carrying capacity of 

existing and proposed alternative Closed Areas was completed in 2004 and 

shows that this alternative objective would provide a 16 percent increase in 

total energy available to waterfowl in the Closed Area system (this report is 

available at Refuge headquarters or on the Refuge planning web site: http://

midwest.fws.gov/planning/uppermiss/index.html ). 

The Closed Area locations and configurations in this alternative also took into 

account the need for public access and travel routes, commercial navigation, 

adjacent business and community needs and practicalities, likelihood of nearterm habitat improvements in existing Closed Areas, and the desire to 

continue to provide viable waterfowl hunting opportunities. No change was 

made in entry regulations for the Lake Onalaska closed area to provide a 

useful control area to measure differences in effectiveness of mandatory no 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

118

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

fishing and no motorized watercraft versus voluntary compliance as 

presented in the current Lake Onalaska Voluntary Avoidance Area. The 

exception also recognizes the unique location of the Lake Onalaska closed 

area amidst heavy shoreline development and the resulting heavy watercraft 

use needs and patterns by adjacent property owners and nearby population 

centers.

Strategies 

# Improve habitat in all Closed Areas by ongoing programs such as pool 

drawdowns, Environmental Management Program projects, and other 

agency initiatives and regulations. 

# Continue to monitor waterfowl use of Closed Areas through weekly 

aerial surveys in the fall.

# Monitor the frequency and effect of disturbance by commercial, public, 

and agency entry into Closed Areas. 

# Conduct a comprehensive public information campaign to inform 

waterfowl hunters and the general public of impending changes. Use all 

methods available including personal contact, presentations at 

organizations, special meetings, leaflets, signing, news releases, 

websites, and media interviews.

# Post boundaries of new or modified closed areas well in advance of the 

waterfowl hunting season to help with public awareness. 

# Increase law enforcement presence to help ensure understanding and 

compliance with changes, relying on verbal and/or written warnings, at 

an officer’s discretion, the first year of implementation in 2006.

Objective 4.3 Waterfowl Hunting Regulation Changes. In fall 2006, implement the 

following Refuge-specific waterfowl hunting regulation changes: (See 

Appendix I for current regulations)

1.) All hunters may possess no more than 25 shotshells during the respective 

statewide waterfowl season.

2.) Waterfowl hunting parties shall maintain at least 100 yards spacing 

between each other. A party is defined as one or more persons hunting 

together from a boat or stationary location.

3.) Open-water hunting is prohibited on an area of Pool 9 near Ferryville and 

Cold Springs (river miles 652-658), and an area of Pool 11 (river miles 

586-591), both in Wisconsin.

Rationale: The shotshell limit is designed to curb the excessive out-of-range 

shooting or “skybusting” that occurs throughout the Refuge to varying 

degrees. Skybusting can have a marked effect on the number of birds 

crippled and unretrieved, and disrupts the hunting for those who favor 

working birds with decoy sets. A shell limit will decrease skybusting by 

providing an incentive (longer hunting experience) for making judicious 

shooting decisions. The shell limit is reasonable and above limits imposed at 

other heavily-used public hunting areas and national wildlife refuges. The 

hunting party spacing regulation is designed to improve the waterfowl 

hunting experience by reducing the conflict and competition between hunting 

parties that can occur in favored areas of the Refuge. Refuge officers have 

observed, and received complaints about, crowding and its disruption to 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

119

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus 

hunters favoring decoy hunting, and its contribution to skybusting and 

confrontations between hunters. The Refuge Manual (8 RM 5) encourages 

managers to space hunters appropriately to the situation. The 100 yard 

minimum is less than the standard 200 yards used on many public hunting 

areas, but is deemed appropriate for this Refuge. Collectively, these two 

regulations represent a balanced approach to the conservation of waterfowl 

through reducing crippling loss, and by improving the hunting experience 

through spacing of hunters.

The prohibition of open-water hunting is to limit disturbance in areas of Pools 

9 and 11 that have become important feeding and loafing sites for hundreds of 

thousands of canvasback and lesser scaup ducks, two species of management 

concern due to relatively small or declining populations. In Pool 9, the Refuge 

prohibition is additional insurance for safeguarding waterfowl use of the area 

into the future since Wisconsin regulations currently prohibit open water 

hunting. In Pool 11, open water hunting is allowed through a special 

exemption to the Wisconsin regulations. In the 1980s, the area was an 

important staging and feeding area for diving ducks, primarily scaup, which 

fed on abundant fingernail clam. When the fingernail clams collapsed, 

waterfowl use virtually ceased. In recent years, wild celery has become 

established and the area is attracting large numbers of canvasback and other 

diving ducks. This area provides the only major staging and feeding area for 

divers between Pool 9 and Pool 13, a distance of 125 river miles. The open 

water prohibition would be pre-emptive since virtually no open water hunting 

(skull boats) is happening at this time, but is likely as habitat improves and 

birds increase.

Strategies 

# Conduct a comprehensive public information campaign to inform 

waterfowl hunters and the general public of impending changes. Use all 

methods available including personal contact, presentations at 

organizations, special meetings, leaflets, signing, news releases, 

websites, and media interviews. 

# Increase law enforcement presence to help ensure understanding and 

compliance with changes, relying on verbal and/or written warnings, at 

an officer’s discretion, the first year of implementation in 2006.

# Maintain or improve habitat in Pools 9 and 11 through ongoing programs 

such as pool drawdowns, habitat enhancement projects, and other agency 

initiatives and regulations. 

# Continue to monitor waterfowl use of these areas through weekly aerial 

surveys in the fall.

Objective 4.4. Firing Line – Pool 7, Lake Onalaska. Implement a managed hunting program 

in a 230-acre area delineated at the north end of Lake Onalaska in 2006 to 

reduce and/or eliminate “skybusting” and associated crippling of waterfowl, 

competition between hunters for prime hunting sites, and other 

unsportsmanlike behavior in the Barrel Blinds area of Pool 7. This will be 

known as the Gibbs Lake Managed Hunting Program. (See map, Alternative 

D, Appendix P, La Crosse District)

Rationale: The Refuge’s Closed Area System was designed to disperse 

waterfowl hunting opportunity. Hunters tend to congregate near 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

120

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

concentrations of waterfowl. Some sections of the closed area boundary, 

particularly those that bisect emergent marsh, are popular and can attract 

large concentrations of hunters as they wait for waterfowl to leave closed 

areas. Pass shooting is the technique most often used along the Barrel Blinds 

firing line. Unfortunately, “skybusting,” or shooting at birds out of range, 

often results in increased crippling loss. For example, 63 of 141 (44.7 percent) 

hunting parties observed by law enforcement personnel during the 1991-93 

seasons hunting along firing lines in Pool 7 skybusted at least once during the 

time they were observed. Skybusting was defined as shooting at waterfowl at 

distances of 50 yards or more. The number of shots required to retrieve one 

bird was 11. During the 1992 hunting season, these same observers working 

Pool 7 firing lines and other areas, found that hunters who did not skybust 

had a crippling loss rate of about 27 percent for the ducks or coots they 

downed. The crippling loss rate for ducks and coots downed through 

skybusting increased to nearly 57 percent.

Hunter behavior can also deteriorate in crowded, competitive situations. 

Behavior observed or reported along the Barrel Blinds area includes people 

claiming preferred sites by spending the night, handing-off sites to friends or 

co-workers after a party’s hunt is over, verbal confrontations, late arriving 

hunters disrupting those set-up, flaring birds before they can work decoy 

sets, failure to retrieve birds, and increased littering.

Guidance in the Refuge Manual helps set the standard for hunting on 

refuges: “Refuge hunting programs should be planned, supervised, 

conducted, and evaluated to promote positive hunting values and hunter 

ethics such as fair chase and sportsmanship. In general, hunting on refuges 

should be superior to that available on other public or private lands and 

should provide participants with reasonable harvest opportunities, 

uncrowded conditions, fewer conflicts between hunters, relatively 

undisturbed wildlife, and limited interference from or dependence on 

mechanized aspects of the sport. This may require zoning the hunt unit and 

limiting the number of participants.”

The Refuge looked at several options for improving the hunting experience in 

this area. These options included limiting the number of hunters pool-wide, 

setting minimum distances between hunters, more education, limiting the 

number of shotshells, more intense enforcement, and modifying the closed 

area boundary. However, all had shortcomings in this particular area 

compared to a managed hunt program.

Strategies 

# Conduct a comprehensive public information campaign to inform 

waterfowl hunters and the general public of impending changes. Use all 

methods available including personal contact, presentations at 

organizations, special meetings, leaflets, signing, news releases, 

websites, and media interviews to ensure that hunters accustomed to 

hunting in this area have ample opportunity to find new hunting sites, if 

desired. Conversely, hunters who have not had a chance to hunt in this 

area will also learn about this new opportunity. 

# Prepare a hunt-specific leaflet or fact sheet explaining the change and 

new regulations.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

121

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus 

# Post and sign the new hunt area boundary well in advance of the hunting 

seasons. 

# Increase law enforcement presence to help ensure understanding and to 

monitor and refine the hunt as needed.

# Implement the Gibbs Lake Managed Hunting Program per the following 

details:

1. Hunter selection through a pre-season drawing with each applicant 

limited to one opportunity through the drawing. Each applicant may 

apply for up to three dates with selection by order of preference. Only 

successful applicants will be notified. Hunting sites determined by a 

daily drawing. If successful applicants are not present on their 

scheduled day, remaining sites would be made available to stand-bys or 

walk-ins through a drawing.

2. All hunting would be done next to the assigned stake. Hunters can use 

temporary blinds per Refuge regulation.

3. The registered hunter can bring one guest for a total party size of two. 

A daily permit will be issued to each hunter.

4. Two Saturdays during the month of October will be designated as 

“family days” to provide better opportunities for young hunters, ages 

12-15, accompanied by a parent or guardian, to participate. The fee will 

be waived on “family days” for parents and young hunters, and the 

party size will be increased to three on these two dates for parties 

meeting the requirements. If sites are not filled by parents and young 

hunters, they will be filled by other hunters through a drawing. All 

area regulations apply on “family days.”

5. Each hunting party has use of a site for the full day. Sites would not be 

refilled if a party leaves.

6. Program-specific regulations include a shotshell possession limit of 25 

per hunter. A 100-yard retrieval zone would be implemented within the 

adjoining Lake Onalaska Closed Area to limit disturbance to 

waterfowl.

7. The managed hunt would be operational through the first 45 days of a 

60-day hunting season. Thereafter, sites would be available on a firstcome basis with all Gibbs Lake Managed Hunting Program regulations 

remaining in effect. No other hunting would be allowed in the Gibbs 

Lake Managed Hunting Area while the duck hunting season is 

underway.

8. The exact size, location, and configuration of the Gibbs Lake Managed 

Hunting Area and the number of hunting sites have not been 

determined. That will be done later in the field. However, an estimated 

size as depicted on planning maps is 230 acres (Appendix P). Based on 

Service hunting program guidelines, past use patterns, and other 

criteria, it appears that 12-15 hunting parties can be accommodated per 

day within the managed hunting area and meet program goals.

9. The cost to operate the Gibbs Lake Managed Hunting Program is 

estimated at nearly $25,000 for a 60-day duck hunting season. To pay 

for the program, participating hunters will be charged a fee. This fee 

ranges from $18-23 per hunter per day depending on program costs 

and the final number of hunting sites. As the program is refined, a final 

fee will be determined.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

122

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Objective 4.5. Permanent Hunting Blinds on Savanna District. Phase-out the use of 

permanent hunting blinds for waterfowl hunting within the Savanna District 

of the Refuge. Permanent blinds will no longer be allowed on the Refuge in 

Pool 12 after the 2006-07 season, Pool 13 after the 2007-08 season, and Pool 14 

after the 2008-09 season. (See Table 17 in Appendix H and maps in Appendix 

P, Savanna District.)

Rationale: Eliminating permanent blinds would provide consistency on the 

Refuge since they are not allowed on the other three Districts. In addition to 

consistency, eliminating the blinds would address a host of issues involving 

debris, private exclusive use of public waters, limiting hunting opportunities, 

and confrontations and other incidents. These issues were discussed more 

fully in Chapter 1, Section 1.4.5.4. This objective would also reduce the staff 

time spent on law enforcement, complaints, and clean-up, which permanent 

blinds entail, time which could be directed toward more wildlife-related 

needs, and in line with the wildlife aspect of this alternative. By using a 

phased approach, the objective takes into consideration the long-standing 

tradition of permanent blind hunting and gives hunters more time to 

transition to alternative hunting methods and areas. The elimination of 

permanent blinds also opens the Refuge to a broader cross-section of 

hunters, and will help reduce conflict that has arisen between hunting parties, 

and limits the private, exclusive use of public waters and lands.

Strategies 

# Conduct public information campaign to inform the public of the change 

and to give hunters who have become accustomed to the blinds a chance 

to adapt to alternative hunting methods or areas.

# Prepare and distribute a leaflet explaining the change and regulations for 

temporary blinds. 

# Begin phase in of regulations by requiring hunters to comply with the 

following requirements the year before a respective pool is scheduled for 

permanent-blind phase-out:

1. Blinds must be marked with name and address of owner.

2. All blind material must be removed by the hunter within 30 days of the 

end of the waterfowl hunting season.

 Objective 4.6. Potter’s Marsh Managed Hunt on Savanna District. Beginning with the 2006-

07 season, implement a variety of administrative and regulation changes to 

reduce costs and provide an equitable hunting experience. Permanent blinds 

would be eliminated after the 2007-08 season, but boat-blind sites provided 

and managed. (See Table 17 in Appendix H and maps in Appendix P, Pool 13.)

Rationale: This objective reflects an integrated approach by reducing costs 

and staff time that can be devoted to wildlife objectives, while retaining the 

essence of the waterfowl hunt which provides a desired experience for 

hunters. The changes would reduce problems associated with permanent 

blinds as noted in Objective 4.5 (debris, private exclusive use, limiting 

hunting opportunities, and confrontations) and reduce the administrative 

costs associated with the drawings, permit administration, and oversight of 

the current program (see issue discussion, Chapter 1, Section 1.4.5.4). 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

123

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus 

Strategies 

# Implement the following for the 2006 waterfowl hunting season:

1. Refuge will mark with numbered stakes 49 hunting areas (same 

number as current); blinds must be set up within 25 feet of stake.

2. Blind sites must be occupied one-half hour prior to shooting time or 

they will be open to the public first-come, first-served.

3. A 400-yard closed area restriction on west boundary of Potter’s Marsh 

will be maintained (491 acres) to prevent encroachment from other 

public hunting.

# Implement the following regulation changes for the 2008 season: 

1. Permanent blinds will not be allowed. Only boat blinds in accordance 

with Refuge temporary-blind regulations.

2. Refuge will continue to mark 49 hunting areas and boat blinds must be 

set up within 25 feet of stake.

# Implement the following application and drawing procedure changes for 

the 2006 season:

1. Accept applications and hold drawing for blind area on same day, 

generally on a Saturday in July coinciding with the northwest region of 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources managed hunt drawing .

2. Applicant must be present at drawing.

3. Applicant must have current Firearm Owners Identification if Illinois 

resident, and current year license and state and federal duck stamps.

4. Applicants must be 16 years of age by date of drawing.

5. Applications accepted 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. with drawing at 2 p.m.

6. Successful applicant receives boat-blind site for entire season.

7. Application fee $10, plus $100 fee for successful applicants.

# Conduct public information campaign beginning at least one year prior to 

implementation to inform the public of the change and to give hunters 

who have become accustomed to the former managed hunt a chance to 

adapt to alternative hunting methods or areas.

Objective 4.7. Blanding Landing Managed Hunt. After the 2006-07 season, eliminate the 

managed waterfowl hunt at Blanding Landing, Lost Mound Unit, Savanna 

District (former Savanna Army Depot), including the use of permanent 

blinds, and open the area to waterfowl hunting on a first-come, first-secured 

basis. (See Table 17 in Appendix H and maps in Appendix P, Pool 12)

Rationale: Illinois Department of Natural Resources administers this hunt 

on behalf of the Savanna Army Depot, but with transfer of jurisdiction to the 

Service, hunting on this area is now the responsibility of the Refuge. Similar 

to the Potter’s Marsh Managed Hunt above, this objective would reduce 

problems associated with permanent blinds as noted in Objective 4.5 (debris, 

private exclusive use, limiting hunting opportunities, and confrontations) and 

eliminate the administrative costs associated with the drawings, permit 

administration, and oversight of the current program. This objective reflects 

a wildlife emphasis since funding and staff currently devoted to this hunt 

could be focused on wildlife objectives throughout the Savanna District, and 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

124

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

especially the new Lost Mound Unit which has large start-up needs. This 

objective also reflects a public use emphasis by opening an area to a larger 

number of waterfowl hunters.

Strategies 

# Conduct public information campaign prior to implementation to inform 

the public of the change and give hunters accustomed to the managed 

hunt a chance to adapt to alternative hunting methods or areas.

Objective 4.8 General Fishing. Provide and enhance year-round fishing on 110,611 acres of 

surface water within the Refuge, and an additional 32,750 acres of Waterfowl 

Closed Areas open spring, summer, and winter. (Note: Iowa, Wisconsin, and 

Illinois regulations also maintain fish “refuges” below lock and dams 11, 12, 

and 13, December 1 through March 15). Add 3 new fishing piers or docks for a 

total of 18. (See Table 10 and Table 13 in Appendix H and maps in Appendix 

P.)

Rationale: This objective represents the current areas available and open to 

fishing, tempered by the proposed no entry regulation for Closed Areas in 

this alternative (Objective 4.2) which would prohibit fishing on 32,750 acres 

during the respective state duck hunting season. Fishing is one of the priority 

uses of the Refuge System and is to be facilitated when compatible with the 

purposes of the Refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. Enhanced 

fishing opportunities are also a reflection of river and Refuge health. The 

increase in fishing piers or docks is proposed in-line with the integrated 

public use emphasis of this alternative. These facilities offer fishing 

opportunities for those without boats.

Strategies 

# Enhance fishing opportunities on suitable areas of the Refuge through 

habitat, access, and facility improvements as outlined in other plan 

objectives. 

# Continue to promote fishing through Fishing Days and other outreach 

and educational programming. 

# Cooperate with the states in their ongoing fishery management 

programs. 

# Seek new funding and partnership opportunities to construct the new 

fishing piers. 

# Ensure yearly inspection and maintenance of all fishing piers to maintain 

quality and safety.

Objective 4.9. Fishing Tournaments. By January 2008, develop a plan for issuing Refuge 

Special Use Permits in addition to, or in conjunction with, state-issued 

permits for all fishing tournaments occurring on the Refuge.

Rationale: Fishing tournaments are a use, and at times a commercial use, of 

the Refuge and subject to regulations governing uses of national wildlife 

refuges. The Refuge has not provided any oversight to this use, deferring to 

the states’ regulatory and permitting processes. In an integrated approach, 

permitting would benefit both the resource and the public. Refuge permitting 

would provide oversight to protect sensitive habitat and wildlife areas from 

the possible physical and disturbance impacts of fishing tournaments, and 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

125

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus 

help reduce disturbance and conflict with general public fishing. Through 

permitting, the Refuge could also play a coordination role given the interstate 

nature of the Refuge and the river.

Strategies 

# Meet with the states and the Corps of Engineers to discuss the best 

strategies for implementing a Refuge permit process in concert with 

their permitting procedures. 

# Develop with the states and the Corps of Engineers as appropriate time, 

space, and capacity parameters on each Pool within the Refuge, and 

definitions for what constitutes a fishing tournament. 

# Develop outreach plan to involve and inform fishing tournament 

organizations or sponsors with changes in regulations and procedures.

Objective 4.10. Wildlife Observation and Photography. Maintain the following existing and 

new facilities to foster wildlife observation and photography opportunities: 26 

observation decks and areas, 3 observation tower, 3 photography blinds, 16 

hiking trails, 21 canoe trails, 5 biking trails, and 3 auto tour routes. (See 

Tables 3, 4, 5, 15 and 19 maps in Appendix P.)

Rationale: Wildlife observation and photography are two of the six priority 

public uses of the Refuge System and are to be facilitated when compatible. 

This objective represents a marked increase in the number of observation 

decks (+11), observation towers (+3), photography blinds (+3), hiking trails 

(+10), canoe trails (+17), biking trails (+2), and auto tour routes (+2). This 

expansion of facilities reflects a balanced and measured increase in facilities 

for wildlife observation and photography, while continuing to meet fish and 

wildlife protection and management responsibilities. 

Strategies 

# Schedule annual inspection and maintenance of the facilities. 

# Ensure adequate signing and information in brochures, websites, and 

maps so the public is aware of the facilities. 

# Continue to promote the wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities of the Refuge through public education, outreach, special 

programs, and partnerships with the states, Corps of Engineers and 

private conservation groups. 

# Enhance observation and photography opportunities on suitable areas of 

the Refuge through habitat, access, and facility improvements as outlined 

in other plan objectives.

# Seek new funding and partnership opportunities, including volunteers, 

for construction and maintenance of facilities. 

Objective 4.11. Interpretation and Environmental Education. By the end of 2010, increase 

the number of stand-alone interpretive signs to 102 (+43) (see Table 16 in 

Appendix H and maps in Appendix P for details) and build new district offices 

with visitor contact facilities at McGregor, Winona, La Crosse, and the Lost 

Mound Unit. Continue to print and distribute Refuge General Brochure, and 

update websites quarterly. Continue to sponsor at least two major annual 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

126

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

interpretive events on each Refuge District, and by January 2008 establish at 

least one major environmental education program at each District with 

visitor services staff. 

Rationale: Interpretation and environmental education are two of the six 

priority public uses of the Refuge System and are to be fostered if compatible 

with the Refuge purpose and Refuge System mission. Interpreting the 

resources and challenges of the Refuge to the general public and 

incorporatiang these topics into school curricula are important ways to 

influence the future well-being of the Refuge and the river. Only through 

understanding and appreciation will people be moved to personal and 

collective action to ensure a healthy Refuge for the future. Interpretation and 

environmental education are also key to changing attitudes and behavior 

which affect the Refuge through off-Refuge land use decisions and on-Refuge 

conduct and use.

This objective reflects a marked increase in interpretation and environmental 

education capability and programs and reflects the importance of these 

programs in an integrated resource management alternative. It also reflects 

basic needs for a Refuge that is the most heavily visited in the U.S., and 

would provide the visitor facilities necessary to inform and educate visitors 

and help them make the most of their Refuge visit. Since environmental 

education is curriculum-based and labor intensive, initial efforts will be 

limited to Districts with public use staff, but will increase across all Districts 

as staff are added. 

Strategies 

# Hire visitor services specialists at McGregor and Winona Districts (top 

priority), and hire a visitor services specialist to be stationed at the 

National Mississippi River Museum in Dubuque, Iowa to help present 

Refuge-specific programs. 

# Continue work to complete exhibits at Savanna and La Crosse offices, 

and seek funding to replace exhibits at McGregor District and the Lost 

Mound Unit of the Savanna District.

# Participate in national interpretive events such as National Wildlife 

Refuge Week or Migratory Bird Day for efficiency and effectiveness. 

# Schedule quarterly review of interpretive signs and conduct maintenance 

and sign replacement as needed. 

# Cooperate with existing interpretive and environmental education 

programs offered by the states, Corps of Engineers, other agencies and 

private conservation groups, and continue to seek grants to fund events 

and programs. 

# Continue to locate interpretive signs at public access and overlook points 

in cooperation with various agencies and units of government.

Objective 4.12. Commercial Fish Floats. By the end of 2006, develop new facility, operations, 

and concession fee standards for the 4 existing commercial fish floats or 

fishing piers below Locks and Dams 6, 7, 8, and 9. Phase out those operations 

which do not meet new standards, and do not replace. (See Table 12 in 

Appendix H and maps in Appendix P.)
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

127

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus 

Rationale: This objective would continue to recognize the important role of 

fish floats in providing an alternative fishing experience for a diversity of 

Refuge visitors. However, new standards would address several long 

standing management issues such as permit non-compliance, condition and 

safety issues with some operations, net economic loss to the government, and 

noncompliance with regulations governing concessions on national wildlife 

refuges. Phasing out operations not in compliance would reduce Refuge 

administrative and staff costs, resources that could be directed back to fishand-wildlife-related objectives.

Strategies 

# Draft new standards well in advance of implementation and give fish float 

owners/operators a chance to review and comment. 

# Continue yearly coordination meeting with float owners and operator to 

address concerns and permit conditions. 

# Continue enforcement of permit stipulations and suspend permits of 

those operations not meeting the stipulations. 

# Inspect facilities for safety at least once yearly. 

# If any floats are phased out due to non-compliance with permit 

stipulations, ensure adequate public notice so clients can seek alternate 

opportunities. 

# Although phased-out operations will not be replaced, explore other offrefuge alternatives, such as fishing barges, to provide similar fishing 

opportunities.

Objective 4.13 Guiding Services. In spring 2007, begin implementing a consistent process 

for issuing permits for persons conducting for-hire guided hunting, fishing, 

and wildlife observation activities on the Refuge. 

Rationale: As noted in the issues section of Chapter 1, guiding businesses are 

on the rise and promise to become an increasingly common activity on the 

Refuge. Without proper oversight, this activity could lead to disturbance to 

sensitive areas and wildlife, and increased conflict with the general public or 

other guides as volume and frequency increases. In addition, guiding and 

other commercial uses are prohibited on a national wildlife refuge unless 

specifically authorized via permit. The Refuge needs to bring this use into 

compliance with regulations and policy. Effectively managing this use would 

not only safeguard fish and wildlife resources, but also benefit the general 

public that uses the Refuge for hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation, and 

thus represents an integrated approach. 

Strategies 

# Work with the states to ensure coordination and some degree of 

consistency with their guide licensing requirements and procedures. 

# Conduct public information effort through news releases and media 

contacts to implement the objective. 

# Provide proactive enforcement through Refuge law enforcement officers 

and information provided by others in the law enforcement community. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

128

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Goal 5: Other Recreational Use. We will provide opportunities for the public to use and enjoy the Refuge 

for traditional and appropriate non-wildlife-dependent recreation that is compatible with the purpose for 

which the Refuge was established and the mission of the Refuge System.

Objective 5.1. Beach Use and Maintenance. Beginning in spring 2007, implement a new 

“open-unless-closed” policy for beach-related uses such as camping, mooring, 

picnicking, and social gatherings as outlined below. Other existing public use 

regulations (see Appendix J) will remain in effect.

1.) General Guidelines. Beach-related uses will be governed by the 

following over-arching guidelines:

a) protect human health and safety 

b) minimize dangerous situations for Refuge officers

c) minimize impacts to wildlife and the Refuge environment 

d) minimize conflicts with wildlife-dependent uses 

e) set policies and regulations that are reasonable and feasible to 

administer and enforce

f) minimize or offset current and future administrative, operating, and 

maintenance costs

g) make regulations easily understood by the general public

2.) Beach Use Policy. Remnant and active dredged material placement sites, 

natural sand shorelines, and all other shoreline areas within the Refuge 

will be open to public use and enjoyment in accordance with current and 

new Refuge Public Use Regulations, unless specifically restricted or 

closed by appropriate signing. Based on clearly articulated reasons 

approved by the Refuge Manager, District Managers may close or 

restrict use on certain beach and other shoreline areas to minimize or 

eliminate chronic problems or safeguard wildlife or habitat values. 

Examples of restrictions or closures include: 

a) Day Use Only Beaches. Open to allowed uses during daylight hours 

only in accordance with Refuge Public Use Regulations. 

b) No Alcohol Beaches. Open to day use and camping, but no alcoholic 

beverages allowed.

c) Wildlife Beaches. Closed to entry and use from April 1 to September 

15 to protect sensitive wildlife needs such as turtle nesting or 

migratory bird nesting, feeding and loafing. 

d) Sensitive Habitat Area. Closed to all entry and use from April 1 to 

September 15, or if warranted, closed year around.

3.) New regulations for camping and other beach-related uses. Current 

public use regulations as described in the Refuge Public Use Regulations 

brochure (see Appendix J) will remain in effect, except by April 1, 2007, 

the following regulation changes will be implemented:

a) Camping is limited to islands, peninsulas, or other lands that border 

the main river channel, including the backside of such areas, and in 

Electric Motor Areas. Camping is defined as erecting a tent or 

shelter of natural or synthetic material, preparing a sleeping bag or 

other bedding material for use, parking of a motor vehicle or mooring 

or anchoring of a vessel, for the apparent purpose of overnight 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

129

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus 

occupancy, or, occupying or leaving personal property, including 

boats or other craft, at a site anytime between the hours of 11 p.m. 

and 3 a.m. on any given day.

b) All campers must have access to either a portable or approved, 

marine onboard toilet facility, or have in their possession a 

commercial human waste disposal kit for each person. All human 

solid waste and associated material, along with any personal 

property, refuse, trash, and litter, shall be removed immediately upon 

vacating a site.

c) Entering or remaining on the Refuge when under the influence of 

alcohol will remain prohibited, but under the influence will be defined 

as a blood alcohol content of .08 percent blood alcohol content. In 

addition, develop a public intoxication regulation that gives officers a 

tool to deal with unruly behavior.

4.) Beach Maintenance Policy. Maintenance of beaches will only be allowed 

on remnant spoil islands or existing dredge material disposal sites 

adjacent to the main channel of the river that are designated “low density 

recreation” in current Land Use Allocation Plans, those not otherwise 

restricted or closed to use, and those not located in a Waterfowl Hunting 

Closed Area. Maintenance will be limited to the minimum reshaping, 

leveling, and vegetation clearing needed to ensure safe access and to 

facilitate the camping experience. Top dressing with sand will only be 

done under special circumstances. The scope and extent of all 

maintenance will be on a site-by-site basis as determined by the 

respective District Manager. 

Rationale: Non-wildlife-dependent recreation continues to increase on the 

Mississippi River and the Refuge. It is estimated that 1.3 million persons per 

year use the Refuge for camping, recreational boating, picnicking, swimming, 

social gatherings, and other uses not dependent on the presence of fish and 

wildlife. This objective, with its new policies and regulations, would help 

address some of the issues related to beach use described in the issue section 

of Chapter 1, most notably protection of sensitive wildlife and habitat, litter 

and human waste, intoxication, unlawful and unruly behavior, officer and 

public safety, and preemptive use of preferred camping or hunting sites. This 

objective represents a truly integrated wildlife and public use approach, 

using time, space, and reasonable regulations and policy to ensure that 

beach-related uses are compatible with the fish, wildlife, and plant 

conservation purposes of the Refuge. Most current visitors will notice little 

difference in opportunity for beach-related uses. However, the regulations 

should improve the quality of visitors’ experience by ensuring better control 

of disruptive behavior. This objective also looks to the future by ensuring that 

the growing numbers of campers remain in less sensitive areas of the Refuge. 

Strategies 

# Continue to work with the states and the Corps of Engineers through 

existing interagency workgroups to complete beach plans for each pool 

within the Refuge according to the policies and regulations above. 

# Conduct public information and education campaign well before 

implementation of regulation changes, to include news releases, general 

articles, fact sheets, and media interviews. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

130

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

# Use the components and principles of the Leave No Trace program in the 

campaign (plan ahead and prepare, travel and camp on durable surfaces, 

dispose of waste properly, leave what you find, minimize campfire 

impacts, respect wildlife, and be considerate of others). 

# Develop a brochure which clearly explains new policies and regulations 

and answers frequently asked questions. 

# Continue to explore a user fee system to off-set costs of beach-related 

recreation such as camping in line with new fee legislation passed by 

Congress in 2004. 

# Refuge officers will increase contacts with Refuge users once this plan is 

approved to explain pending regulation changes. Verbal or written 

warnings will be used at officer discretion during the first year of 

implementation to ease the transition.

Objective 5.2. Electric Motor Areas. Beginning spring, 2006, establish a total of 16 electric 

motor areas on the Refuge encompassing 14,498 acres. A 5 mph speed limit 

would also apply in these areas given anticipated future changes in 

technology. Primitive camping would be allowed in these areas. (See Table 13 

in Appendix H, and maps in Appendix P.)

Rationale: Technology in the form of jet skis, bass boats, shallow water 

motors such as Go-DevilsTM, airboats, and hovercraft has introduced more 

noise and user conflict to the backwater areas of the Refuge. This objective 

would help reduce disturbance to backwater fish nurseries and sensitive 

backwater wildlife such as raptors, colonial nesting birds, and furbearers in 

keeping with the wildlife mission of the Refuge. It would also address the 

need to provide areas of quiet and solitude sought by many users of the 

Refuge, and thus provide a balanced approach in line with the focus of this 

alternative. This objective only affects the means of navigation, and all 

current uses would be allowed (fishing, hunting, observation, etc.) in 

accordance with current regulations or those proposed elsewhere in this 

alternative. The 14,498 acres represents about 6 percent of the Refuge.

Strategies 

# Conduct a public information campaign to inform and educate the public 

about pending electric motor area designations. 

# Clearly delineate electric motor areas on Refuge maps and by 

appropriate signing.

Objective 5.3. Slow, No-Wake Zones. In 2006, add 10 new Refuge-administered slow, nowake zones (brings total to 12) and assist local or other units of government in 

the enforcement of 43 other slow, no-wake zones within the Refuge. (See 

Table 18 in Appendix H, and map in Appendix P.)

Rationale: On a few areas of the Refuge, boat traffic levels and size of boats is 

leading to erosion of island and shoreline habitat which can impact fish and 

wildlife habitat directly, or indirectly through increasing sedimentation and 

water turbidity. On some of the areas identified, slower speeds would reduce 

safety hazards posed by heavy traffic and blind spots in narrow channels. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

131

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus 

Strategies 

# Work with local authorities to designate and mark slow, no-wake zones.

# Communicate the changes with the public well in advance of 

implementation using the media and other means, and clearly show slow, 

no-wake areas on maps available to the public.

Objective 5.4. Dog Use Policy. Beginning March 1, 2007, implement the following new 

regulation governing dogs on the Refuge: 

“From March 1 to June 30, dogs are not allowed to run free and must be 

restrained by leash or other means. At other times, dogs are allowed to be 

free only under the following conditions: a) when at least 100 yards away from 

any designated Refuge public concentration area such as access roads, trail 

heads, trails, kiosks, rest areas, pull-offs, and boat landings, and, at least 100 

yards away from another person not accompanying the owner/handler, and b) 

when within sight and voice control of the owner/handler. Hunting and 

retrieving dogs are exempt from these conditions while engaged in 

authorized hunting activities during the hunting season. Field trials or 

commercial/professional training is prohibited.”

Rationale: This objective relaxes the current Refuge System regulation 

which prohibits unconfined domestic animals on national wildlife refuges. The 

new regulation provides stipulations for allowing dogs to be free and would 

allow owners to exercise and train their dogs, but protect wildlife during the 

sensitive nesting or young rearing season. The new regulation also helps 

safeguard other visitors from the real or perceived threat that dogs and other 

animals can pose, but recognizes their traditional use and conservation 

benefit in hunting. The prohibition of field trials and commercial or organized 

dog training is a continuation of a long-standing Refuge policy. This 

regulation also does not affect the existing regulation that prohibits all other 

unconfined domestic animals on the Refuge.

Strategies 

# Publish the new regulation in the Refuge public use regulation brochure, 

issue news releases, and conduct other outreach prior to implementation 

in 2007. 

# Except in certain cases, law enforcement officers will generally give 

verbal and/or written warnings for violations of the new regulation the 

first year, then issue violation notices at their discretion beginning in 

2008.

Objective 5.5. General Public Use Regulations. Beginning in 2006, conduct annual review 

and update of the general public use regulations governing entry and use of 

the Refuge (current regulations are found in Appendix J).

Rationale: Public entry and use regulations not only protect wildlife, but 

enhance the quality of the visitor experience and thus reflect the integrated 

focus of this alternative. The current regulations were last reviewed and 

amended in 1999. However, the resources and public use of the Refuge is 

dynamic, and a yearly review would ensure that regulations are needed, clear, 

and effective. In addition, new regulations may be required to safeguard 

resources or to address new or emerging problems recognized by managers 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

132

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

and law enforcement officers. An annual review would provide a more 

systematic process than in the past.

Strategies 

# Conduct review during Refuge law enforcement meetings. 

# Provide the public, states, and Corps of Engineers ample opportunity to 

review and comment on any new or substantially changed regulation. 

# Use national guidance and Federal Register process for codifying any 

changes and make part of the Code of Federal Regulations governing 

national wildlife refuges. 

# Update, print, and distribute the Public Use Regulations brochure. 

# Post pertinent regulations at boat landings and other public use areas, 

such as trail heads and beach areas. 

# Continue proactive law enforcement to inform and educate the public on 

Refuge regulations and to seek their compliance.

Goal 6: 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.

Objective 6.1. Office and Shop Facilities. By 2010, construct new offices and maintenance 

shops at Winona, La Crosse, and McGregor Districts, and expand the office 

and construct a new maintenance shop at Savanna District. Each office would 

feature a biological work area or lab, and modest public orientation, 

interpretation and environmental education capability. Refuge Headquarters 

would be integrated with either the Winona or La Crosse offices. By 2021, 

remodel or replace office and shop at the Lost Mound Unit.

Rationale: This objective emphasizes a balanced approach to replacing 

current office facilities, with a focus on both the resource and public use 

responsibilities of the Refuge. The expansion of the Savanna District office 

would be an additional meeting room/classroom for expanded interpretive 

programs and environmental education. 

Strategies 

# Ensure that Refuge office and maintenance needs are reflected in budget 

needs databases. 

# Work with the Refuge Friends Group to raise private funds for the 

Savanna expansion. 

# Continue to maintain Service-owned facilities using annual maintenance 

budget allocations.

Objective 6.2. Public Access Facilities. By 2021, add 1 new boat landing (total of 26), 3 new 

walk-in accesses, and 1 improved canoe landing. Improve 5 parking areas on 

the Refuge to support public use. (See Table 1 in Appendix H, and maps in 

Appendix P.)

Rationale: This objective represents a modest increase in public access 

facilities to help facilitate wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Since the 

Refuge is mainly a floodplain Refuge bounded by major rail lines and 

highways, opportunities for increasing access points is limited. In addition to 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

133

Alternative D: Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus 

these accesses, there are 222 other public and private boat accesses that 

provide access to the Mississippi River or its tributaries, and thus the Refuge.

Strategies 

# Continue routine upkeep of boat accesses by Refuge staff, temporary 

employees and Youth Conservation Corps members when available, and 

volunteers. 

# Continue to modernize accesses using Maintenance Management System 

funding or special funding which is provided periodically, and by 

implementing a self-service boat launch fee at Refuge-operated boat 

ramps. 

# In cooperation with states and local governments, explore Transportation 

Enhancement Act projects and funding for new accesses and to upgrade 

current Refuge accesses.

Objective 6.3. Operations and Maintenance Needs. Complete annual review of Refuge 

Operating Needs System (RONS), Maintenance Management System 

(MMS), and Service Assessment and Maintenance Management System 

(SAMMS) databases to ensure these reflect the balanced funding needs for 

carrying out the wildlife and integrated public use focus alternative.

Rationale: The RONS, MMS, and SAMMS databases are the chief 

mechanisms for documenting ongoing and special needs for operating and 

maintaining a national wildlife refuge. These databases are part of the 

information used in the formulation of budgets at the Washington and 

Regional levels, and for the allocation of funding to the field. It is important 

that the databases be updated periodically to reflect the needs of the Refuge, 

and in particular the objectives and strategies elsewhere in this alternative.

Strategies 

# None warranted.

Objective 6.4. Public Information and Awareness. By 2007, increase by 50 percent the 

current annual average of 80 media interviews, 125 news releases, and 25 

special events (special programs, presentations, and displays at others’ 

events), and by 2020 increase information kiosks to 115 (+49) as shown in 

Table 16 in Appendix H, and maps in Appendix P.

Rationale: This objective reflects an emphasis on providing the public more 

information on both resource-related and public use- related aspects of the 

Refuge in keeping with a balanced approach. 

Strategies 

# Hire visitor services specialists for those Districts without, namely 

Winona and McGregor Districts.

# Hire a public information specialist at Headquarters to increase 

attention on interviews, news releases, and special events. 

# Tap other specialists identified in this alternative (e.g. forester, fishery 

biologist) for information and outreach on resource programs of the 

Refuge. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

134

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative)

# Continue to look for creative ways to leverage efforts and funding for 

public information. 

# Carry out related objectives dealing with trails, leaflets, websites and 

interpretive signs (see objectives 4.10 and 4.11). 

# Cooperate with the states and the Corps of Engineers on visitor surveys 

to gauge public awareness of the Refuge and Mississippi River resources.

Objective 6.5. Staffing Needs. By 2015, increase staffing from current permanent, full-time 

level of 37 people to 59 people (56.5 full-time equivalents or FTEs) in a full 

range of disciplines which benefit both resource and public use objectives in 

this alternative. (See Table 2 at the end of this chapter and Table 20, 

Appendix H.)

Rationale: This objective reflects a balance approach to refuge management 

by providing operations and maintenance-funded staffing deemed necessary 

to meet the goals and objectives of this alternative. Like all land 

management, refuge management is labor intensive and labor costs 

represent over 95 percent of the base operations funding received each year. 

These staffing needs are documented in the strategies for various objectives 

in this alternative. 

Strategies 

# Ensure that staffing needs are incorporated in budget needs databases. 

# Maintain other sources of funding for staff who coordinate the 

Environmental Management Program and the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program.

# Strengthen existing volunteer program and recruit new volunteers to 

assist with resource management and visitor services.

2.4.6 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 spectrum of 

users, both for wildlife-dependent uses and traditional and appropriate non-wildlife-dependent uses.

Alternative E Summary

Boundary issues would be aggressively addressed and areas with greatest encroachment problems 

would be surveyed in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers. The rate of land acquisition would 

increase within the approved boundary to complete 58 percent of the total, an average of 1,000 acres 

per year. There would be more effort to protect through easements or fee-title acquisition all 

bluffland areas identified in the 1987 Master Plan, and an increase in oversight and administration of 

Research Natural Areas. The Refuge would be nominated as a Wetland of International Importance 

(Ramsar). Guiding principles for habitat projects would be established and would stress an 

integrated approach.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

135

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) 

There would be an increase in effort to achieve 

continuous improvement in the quality of water 

flowing through the Refuge, including 

decreasing sedimentation. Pool-scale drawdowns 

would be accomplished by working with the 

Corps of Engineers and the states. The control 

of invasive plant species would increase, and 

there would be increased emphasis on the 

control of invasive animals. Environmental Pool 

Plans would be implemented on a strategic and 

opportunistic basis using the Environmental 

Management Program or other programs and 

funding sources. Wildlife inventory and 

monitoring would increase and include more 

species groups beyond the current focus of 

waterfowl, colonial nesting birds, eagles, 

secretive marsh birds, frogs and toads, and aquatic invertebrates/vegetation. The management of 

threatened and endangered species, including state-listed species, would focus on helping population 

recovery, not just protection. The furbearer trapping program would continue but be brought into 

compliance with policies by writing a new plan. The Refuge would become much more active in 

fishery and mussel management, and provide more input to the states on commercial fishing. 

Knowledge of turtle ecology through research would increase, as would turtle conservation efforts in 

cooperation with the states and Corps of Engineers. A forest inventory on the Refuge would be 

completed in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, and a forest management plan prepared, 

leading to more active forest management. The 5,700 acres of grassland habitat on the Refuge would 

be maintained and enhanced using fire and other tools, and the Refuge would look at increasing 

grassland areas where appropriate due to its importance to grassland birds and other species. 

There would be a continuation of hunting and fishing opportunities on a large percentage of the 

Refuge. The system of waterfowl hunting closed areas would change with some eliminated, some 

reduced in size, and several new areas added for a total of 20 closed areas and three sanctuaries. The 

public would be asked to practice Voluntary Avoidance in all closed areas from October 15 to the end 

of the respective state duck hunting season, and no motorized watercraft would be permitted in 

eight small closed areas during the same time period. The firing line issue north of the closed area in 

Lake Onalaska (Gibbs Lake area) would be addressed by completing a management plan in 

collaboration with waterfowl hunters and the State of Wisconsin. There would be no new shotshell 

possession limit or spacing requirement between parties for waterfowl hunters, and the 200-yard 

hunting party spacing for the Illinois side of the Refuge in Pools 12-14 would remain in place. There 

would be a provision for no open water waterfowl hunting in a portion of Pool 11, Grant County, 

Wisconsin, approximate river miles 586-592. In the Savanna District (Pools 12-14), permanent blinds 

for waterfowl hunting would be eliminated, including the Potter’s Marsh and Blanding Landing 

areas, and leaving decoy sets out overnight will not be allowed. The Potter’s Marsh managed hunt 

would continue with administrative changes to promote fairness and efficiency. The Blanding 

Landing managed hunt would be eliminated, but the area would remain open to hunting. General 

fishing would continue to be promoted, and the Refuge would provide some oversight on fishing 

tournaments in collaboration with the states and other agencies. 

There would be an increase in facilities and programming for wildlife observation, photography, 

interpretation and environmental education. There would be a modest increase in Refuge access 

through new facilities and improvement of existing boat ramps, pull offs, and overlooks. There would 

be no launch fee on Refuge-operated boat ramps. New standards for the commercial fish floats or 

piers below locks and dams 6, 7, 8, and 9 would be developed and implemented, and any floats phased 

out for noncompliance may be replaced based on a review of new proposals. A consistent process for 

issuing permits for commercial guiding on the Refuge would be implemented in cooperation with the 

Mallard pair. Stan Bousson
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

136

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative)

states. Areas open to beach-related public use (camping, swimming, picnicking, social gatherings) 

would remain the same, although some new or modified regulations would be adopted. A beach 

management and maintenance policy would be established and the Refuge would work with the 

Corps of Engineers, states and the public to complete beach management plans for each river pool. 

The Refuge would explore a user fee to help defray costs of managing beach-related uses, although 

none is planned at this time. Any new fee proposals would be developed in coordination with other 

agencies and the public. A total of five Electric Motor Areas (1,852 acres) and eight Slow, No Wake 

Areas (9,720 acres) would be established, along with 11 new slow, no-wake zones. Current 

regulations on the use of dogs would be changed to allow dogs to be exercised under certain 

conditions. General public use regulations would be reviewed annually and changed as needed, and 

the Refuge would complete a step-down Law Enforcement Plan in coordination with the states and 

Corps of Engineers.

New offices and maintenance shops would be constructed at the Winona, La Crosse, and McGregor 

districts, and at the Lost Mound Unit. The office would be expanded at the Savanna District and a 

new shop constructed. Public information and awareness efforts would be increased 50 percent. 

Staffing levels for the Refuge would increase by 23.5 full-time equivalents over a 15-year period with 

a balance among biological, maintenance, visitor services, law enforcement, technical, and 

administrative staff.

Goal 1: Landscape. We will strive to maintain and improve the scenic qualities and wild character of the 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge.

Objective 1.1. Maintain the integrity of the Refuge boundary. In coordination and 

cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, identify, survey, and post all 

boundary lines where threat of encroachment is greatest by 2021.

Rationale: Maintaining and enforcing a boundary is one of the basic and 

critical components of Refuge management to ensure the integrity of an area 

over time. Without attention to this basic task, there is a tendency for 

adjacent development and use to creep and take over Refuge lands and 

waters. This encroachment includes tree cutting, dumping, construction, 

storing of equipment and materials, and mowing Refuge lands. In addition, 

there are a few boundaries between Refuge and Corps of Engineersmanaged lands that remain unclear, leading to mixed messages to the public 

using these lands via permits, leases, or out grants. The size, length, age, and 

floodplain setting of the Refuge, coupled with a mix of Corps of Engineersacquired and Service-acquired lands, creates boundary clarity problems that 

can only be addressed through modern re-surveying techniques. This 

objective also focuses on problem areas versus the entire boundary proposed 

in other alternatives to reflect the realities of survey time and costs.

Strategies

# Conduct an annual review of the posted Refuge boundary to detect and 

address any encroachment incidents, and coordinate enforcement with 

the Corps of Engineers and states as appropriate.

# In collaboration with the Corps of Engineers, identify and prioritize 

boundary areas most in need of clarification by surveying and reposting. 

# Seek joint Corps of Engineers and Service funding to complete needed 

surveys based on priorities. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

137

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) 

# In collaboration with the Corps of Engineers and the states, and with 

appropriate public involvement, review, update, and publish a new Land 

Use Allocation Plan for lands within the Refuge (see Chapter 1, section 

1.4.3.1 for discussion of this plan).

Objective 1.2. Land Acquisition. By 2021, acquire from willing sellers 58 percent of the 

lands identified for acquisition in the 1987 Master Plan and subsequent 

approvals, as identified on the maps in Appendix G (approximately 1,000 

acres/year). 

Rationale: Land acquisition is a critical component of fish and wildlife 

conservation since it permanently protects their basic need of habitat. It is 

also a cornerstone of promoting wildlife-dependent recreation by providing 

lands and waters open to all. On a narrow, linear refuge, land acquisition is a 

critical component of restoring habitat connectivity needed for the health of 

many species. The Refuge currently ranks sixth nationally on the Service’s 

Land Acquisition Priority System due to its resource importance. Land 

acquisition can also be cost effective in the long-term due to inflation of land 

costs and the costs of acquiring undeveloped land versus developed land that 

also needs restoration. This objective represents an aggressive land 

acquisition program of about 1,000 acres per year to achieve goals set in the 

1987 Master Plan and other approved acquisition documents. Lands with the 

highest fish and wildlife values were coded “A” in the 1987 Master Plan, and 

this ranking system remains a useful prioritization tool. However, public use 

values would also be considered when setting priorities between available 

tracts in keeping with the balanced approach of this alternative.

Strategies 

# Seek consistent Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations to 

meet the objective (approximately $1.5 million per year at $1,500 per 

acre). 

# Explore land exchanges with the states to remove intermingled 

ownerships. 

# Continue to work with the Department of the Army to transfer title of 

tracts as they are cleaned of contaminants at the Lost Mound Unit 

(former Savanna Army Depot).

Objective 1.3. Bluffland Protection. By 2021, acquire from willing sellers protective 

easements or fee-title interest in all undeveloped bluffland areas within the 

approved boundary of the Refuge as identified in the 1987 Master Plan. (See 

maps in Appendix G.)

Rationale: There have been no acquisitions of bluffland areas since first 

identified in the 1987 Master Plan, and this objective represents a more 

aggressive approach to safeguarding the wildlife values of these areas. In 

recent years, Peregrine falcons have once again started nesting on the rock 

faces of some bluffs. Peregrines, at one time an endangered species, were the 

main rationale for including the 13 areas in the acquisition boundary. 

Blufflands are also an important part of maintaining the scenic quality of the 

Refuge landscape and harbor unique and diverse plants and animals. Since 

some areas identified have been developed for housing or other uses since 

1987, the focus would be on the undeveloped areas. However, there may be an 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

138

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative)

opportunity to protect remaining values of these developed areas through 

creative easements. Fee or easement acquisition authority was granted by 

Regional Director approval of the 1987 Master Plan and is in addition to 

original acquisition authority in the 1924 act creating the Refuge and 

authorizing acquisition of lands subject to overflow.

Strategies 

# Seek consistent acquisition funding as noted in Objective 1.2 and use a 

blend of easements and fee-title acquisition that best meets landowner’s 

desire and balances wildlife and public use objectives.

# Work with the state, local governments, and private land trusts to protect 

bluffland habitat and scenic values. 

# Work with local units of government to encourage zoning regulations that 

protect bluffland scenic qualities. 

# Educate the public on the values of blufflands for birds and unique plant 

communities.

Objective 1.4. Research Natural Areas and Special Designations. By 2010, complete a 

management plan for each of the Refuge’s four federally-designated 

Research Natural Areas. No new Natural Areas would be established. (See 

maps in Appendix P and Table 7 on page 229) Also by 2008, facilitate 

preparation of a nomination package for designating the Refuge a “Wetland 

of International Importance” in accordance with the Ramsar Convention.

Rationale: The Refuge has done little in the way of monitoring or research on 

the existing Research Natural Areas. Although the main goal of the area 

designation is the preservation of unique floodplain forest areas, preservation 

may often entail some level of management. No management plans have been 

written to guide monitoring and research of current habitat conditions and 

changes since the areas were designated in the 1970s. Completing a 

management plan for each area would identify monitoring protocols, any 

habitat management needed to retain original biological values or address 

threats, address any special public use considerations, and identify ways to 

foster public awareness and appreciation of these unique areas. No areas of 

the Refuge are deemed suitable for new Natural Area designation.

Designating the Refuge a Wetland of International Importance would raise 

its stature in line with previously designated national wildlife refuges 

including Horicon National Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin and Sand Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge in South Dakota. Designation would recognize the 

Refuge’s international importance to migratory birds, as well as its 

uniqueness in balancing a variety of commercial, cultural, and recreational 

values, values supported in the 115-nation treaty stemming from the Ramsar 

Convention and reflected in this integrated alternative. Designation would 

also foster the sharing of scientific information and elevate management 

attention when facing future needs and challenges. Designation does not 

relinquish sovereignty or jurisdictions in any manner.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

139

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) 

Strategies 

# The District Managers will be responsible for completion of management 

plans for natural areas in their respective Districts, using a consistent 

approach and format, and in cooperation with the states and other 

federal agencies as appropriate (e.g. Nelson-Trevino). 

# Seek cooperative research and monitoring opportunities with other 

agencies and colleges and universities. 

# Ensure yearly review of Research Natural Area boundaries to ensure 

integrity of the areas.

# Work collaboratively with the Corps of Engineers, the states, nongovernment organizations, and the public in preparing a nomination 

package for Wetland of International Importance designation.

Goal 2: Environmental Health. We will strive to improve the environmental health of the Refuge by 

working with others.

Objective 2.1. Water Quality. Working with others and through a more aggressive Refuge 

program, seek a continuous improvement in the quality of water flowing 

through and into the Refuge in terms of parameters measured by the Long 

Term Resource Monitoring Program of the Environmental Management 

Program (dissolved oxygen, major plant nutrients, suspended material, 

turbidity, sedimentation, and contaminants).

Rationale: The quality of water on the Refuge is one of the most important 

factors influencing fish, wildlife, and aquatic plant populations and health, 

which in turn influence the opportunity for public use and enjoyment. Water 

quality is also beyond the Refuge’s ability to influence alone given the 

immense size of the Refuge’s watershed and multiple-agency responsibilities. 

This objective recognizes these limitations, but charts a more aggressive role 

for the Refuge through the strategies below. The objective also highlights the 

advocacy role the Refuge can play in educating the public and supporting the 

myriad of agencies which together can influence water quality.

Strategies 

# Hire a Private Lands Biologist or Technician for each of the Refuge’s 

four Districts to restore and enhance wetland, upland, and riparian 

habitat on private lands in and along sub-watersheds feeding into the 

Refuge, and to broker the myriad of private land and conservation 

opportunities available through the Department of Agriculture and 

others. 

# Take an active role in the Midwest Driftless Area Restoration Effort, 

part of the National Fish Habitat Initiative, which seeks to protect, 

restore, and enhance riparian and aquatic resources in the Driftless Area 

which adjoins much of the Refuge.

# Increase conservation assistance agreements with Soil and Water 

Conservation Districts and Resource Conservation and Development 

boards. 

# Begin a regular and recurring dialogue with U.S. Geological Survey 

scientists at the Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La 

Crosse, Wisconsin, to help devise and tune strategies specific to 

addressing sedimentation problems.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

140

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative)

# Cooperate with local government land use planning efforts to ensure that 

water quality impacts to the Refuge are considered. 

# Emphasize water quality aspects, especially sediment deposition in 

backwaters, in all habitat enhancement projects. 

# Link planning and projects for tributary watersheds to Environmental 

Pool Plan implementation using the latest GIS-based mapping and 

modeling.

# Support cooperative water quality monitoring and improvement efforts 

through the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee and other 

groups and agencies. 

# Continue to stress the importance of water quality in public information, 

interpretation, and environmental education programs.

Objective 2.2. Water Level Management. By 2021, in coordination with the Corps of 

Engineers and the states, complete as many pool-wide drawdowns as 

practicable based on ecological need, engineering feasibility, and available 

funding. 

Rationale: Lowering the water levels in impoundments during the growing 

season is a proven management practice to increase emergent vegetation. 

Improved vegetation results in more food and cover for a wide range of fish 

and wildlife species, which in turn enhances opportunities for wildlifedependent recreation. Much of the emergent vegetation on the Refuge has 

been lost due to stable water regimes created for navigation, and this 

objective seeks to restore productive marsh habitat to thousands of acres. 

Although drawdowns show great promise in enhancing aquatic vegetation in 

all pools, priorities and timing need to be tempered by ecological need, 

feasibility, and funding. 

Strategies 

# Continue to work in partnership with the Water Level Management Task 

Force to plan, facilitate, and prioritize drawdowns. 

# Inform and involve citizens through public meetings, workshops, and 

citizen advisory groups. 

# Seek all available funding sources to carry out needed recreational access 

dredging to lessen social and economic impacts during drawdowns 

(proposals in Corps of Engineers Navigation Study released in 2004 

includes funding for drawdowns). 

# Explore options for funding an Access Trust Fund to ensure adequate 

funding for additional public access (temporary or new landings, 

supplemental dredging, etc.) when needed to accomplish drawdowns.

Objective 2.3. Invasive Plants. Continue current control efforts and by 2008, complete an 

invasive plant inventory. By 2010, achieve a 10 percent reduction in acres 

affected by invasive plants such as purple loosestrife, reed canary grass, 

Eurasian milfoil, leafy spurge, crown vetch, Russian knapweed, knotweed, 

European buckthorn, garlic mustard, and Japanese bamboo. Emphasize the 

use of biological controls.

Rationale: Invasive plants continue to pose a major threat to native plant 

communities on the Refuge and beyond. Invasive plants displace native 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

141

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) 

species and often have little or no food value for wildlife. The result is a 

decline in the carrying capacity of the Refuge for native fish, wildlife, and 

plants, and a resulting decline in the quality of wildlife-dependent recreation. 

This objective addresses invasive plants by continuing current efforts while 

determining and mapping baseline information so that effective and efficient 

long-term control can take place. Biological control includes release of insects 

which prey directly on purple loosestrife or leafy spurge plants or disrupt 

part of their life cycle, and is a more long-term and cost efficient solution 

compared to herbicide spraying. This objective is tempered by the realization 

that biological control methods are not yet readily available for a large 

number of invasive plant species. 

Strategies 

# Hire seasonal biological technicians to conduct an inventory and prepare 

baseline maps of invasive plant infestations. 

# Write an invasive plant control and management plan (integrated pest 

management plan) that identifies priority areas and methods of control. 

# Seek seasonal staff and funding to accelerate current control and applied 

research efforts through interagency partnerships, volunteer programs, 

and public education. 

# Continue to work with the Department of Agriculture, other agencies, 

the states, and other refuge field stations in securing insects and beetles 

for release in high-infestation areas. 

# Continue coordination with the Corps of Engineers on efforts to control 

invasive forest plants through their operations and maintenance program 

and other potential authorities.

# Take advantage of periodic invasive grant, cost-sharing, or special 

funding opportunities offered through the Service or other agencies and 

foundations. 

# Conduct public information effort including media, brochures, signage, 

and programs to increase awareness of the invasives threat and what 

visitors can do to minimize the introduction or spread of invasives.

Objective 2.4. Invasive Animals. Increase efforts to control invasive animals through active 

partnerships with the states and other Service programs and federal 

agencies, and increase public awareness and prevention.

Rationale: Invasive animals such as zebra mussels and Asian carp species 

pose a current and looming threat to native fish and mussel species and have 

the potential to disrupt the aquatic ecosystem. They can also have a direct 

link to the quality of fishing by displacing various game fish, or destroying 

important habitat for fish and wetland-dependent birds which people observe 

or hunt. This objective is not measurable, reflecting the reality that invasive 

animal species do not lend themselves to direct control in a large river system 

and that addressing invasive animals is dependent on political and 

management actions beyond the boundary of the Refuge. However, the 

objective does emphasize the importance of addressing invasive species and 

represents more active Refuge involvement. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

142

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative)

Strategies 

# Use the visibility and public awareness of the Refuge as a platform or 

“bully pulpit” to inform the public, decision-makers, and elected 

representatives of the seriousness of the invasive animal threat to the 

ecology and economy of the Upper Mississippi River System.

# Continue to seek ways to help the states implement their Aquatic 

Nuisance Species plans and consider and incorporate these plans in 

Refuge invasives efforts.

# Whenever possible, assist with implementation of the Asian Carp 

Working Group’s Management and Control Plan for Asian Carps in the 

United States (prevent, contain and control, reduce, minimize impacts, 

increase public information, research, and effective national 

coordination). 

# Continue monitoring, sampling, research, and exploration of 

management options to address spring and fall waterbird mortality in 

Pools 7 and 8 resulting from ingestion of trematodes associated with the 

invasive faucet snail (Bithynia tentaculata).

# Implement other objectives and strategies in the CCP which have an 

influence on invasive species work. For example, better habitat 

conditions promote healthy native fish populations that can compete with 

invasive species, while adding a fishery biologist to the staff would 

increase and improve coordination with other programs and agencies 

dealing with invasives. 

# Continue to work with other agencies in developing effective regulations, 

barriers, biological controls, or other means to reduce introduction and 

spread of invasives. 

# Explore new and creative ways to expand the harvest of invasive fish by 

commercial fishing, such as a bonus payment to enhance market price.

# Conduct public information effort including media, brochures, signage, 

and programs to increase awareness of the invasives threat and what 

visitors can do to minimize the introduction or spread of invasives.

Goal 3: Wildlife and Habitat. Our habitat management will support diverse and abundant native fish, 

wildlife, and plants.

Objective 3.1. Environmental Pool Plans. By 2021, in cooperation with various agencies and 

states, implement at least 30 percent of the Refuge-priority Environmental 

Pool Plan actions and strategies in Pools 4-14 as summarized in Table 4 on 

page 196 (see Appendix N for examples of Environmental Pool Plan maps).

Rationale: Environmental Pool Plans represent a desired future habitat 

condition developed by an interagency team of resource professionals, 

including Refuge staff. The Pool Plans represent what is necessary to reverse 

the negative trends in habitat quality and quantity on the Upper Mississippi 

River. Improved habitat is the key to healthy fish and wildlife populations, 

which in turn impact the quality of wildlife-dependent recreation. Thus, this 

objective represents an important part of the wildlife and integrated public 

use focus alternative. The Refuge represents a sizeable subset of the habitat 

vision presented in each Pool Plan. The Refuge also has different resource 

mandates and responsibilities than the Corps of Engineers and the states. 

Thus, the Refuge prioritized various actions to meet these needs as 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

143

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) 

represented in Table 4 on page 196. The objective of 30 percent represents a 

reasonable rate of implementing priority actions given current funding levels 

(mainly through the Environmental Management Program, Corps of 

Engineers) for habitat conservation work, and the 15-year horizon of this 

CCP versus the 50-year horizon of the Pool Plans. Some of the actions and 

strategies in the table overlap with other objectives in this plan (e.g. forest 

management, land acquisition, watershed work, and water level drawdowns).

Strategies 

# Continue to coordinate with the River Resources Forum’s Fish and 

Wildlife Workgroup, and the River Resources Coordinating Team’s Fish 

and Wildlife Interagency Committee, to implement pool plan priorities. 

# Continue to work for full and expanded funding of the Environmental 

Management Program through public and Congressional information 

and outreach. 

# Continue to seek opportunities through the Corps of Engineers’ Channel 

Maintenance Program to implement certain aspects of pool plans.

# Take advantage of any new funding sources that emerge, such as the 

Corps of Engineers’ Navigation and Environmental Sustainability 

Program which could be authorized and funded by Congress.

# Complete a required Refuge Habitat Management Plan which integrates 

species status and trends with the Environmental Pool Plans (see related 

Objective 3.3).

Objective 3.2. Guiding Principles for Habitat Management Programs. Upon approval of the 

CCP, adopt and use the following guiding principles when designing or 

providing input to design and construction of habitat enhancement projects: 

1.) Management practices will restore or mimic natural ecosystem processes 

or functions to promote a diversity of habitat and minimize operations 

and maintenance costs. Mimicking natural processes in an altered 

environment often includes active management and/or structures such as 

drawdowns, moist soil management, prescribed fire, grazing, water 

control structures, dikes, etc.

2.) Maintenance and operation costs of projects will be weighed carefully 

since annual budgets for these items are not guaranteed. 

3.) Terrestrial habitat on constructed islands and other areas needs to best 

fit the natural processes occurring on the river, which in many cases will 

allow for natural succession to occur. 

4.) If project features in Refuge Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas serve to 

attract public use during the waterfowl season, spatial and temporal 

restrictions of uses may be required to reduce human disturbance of 

wildlife. 

5.) The esthetics of projects, in the context of visual impacts to the 

landscape, should be considered in project design in support of Refuge 

Goal 1, Landscape.

Rationale: Guiding principles for habitat restoration or enhancement 

projects would provide consistency between the four Districts of the Refuge 

and help communicate to cooperating agencies and the public standards from 

which we approach the design of projects. The principles will also help ensure 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

144

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative)

compliance with Service policy on biological integrity and recognize the need 

to consider future operations and maintenance costs before doing projects. In 

addition, the principles help ensure that projects complement, rather than 

compete with, other goals and objectives in this plan. 

Strategies 

# Refuge staff will use these guidelines when proposing and designing 

habitat enhancement projects funded by the Service. They will also be 

used during coordination with the Corps of Engineers and the states in 

cooperative programs such as the Environmental Management Program 

or any new program authority that may arise from the Corps of 

Engineers’ Navigation Study. In cooperative projects done on the 

Refuge, other agency guidelines will also be considered. 

Objective 3.3. Monitor and Investigate Fish and Wildlife Populations and Their Habitats.

By January 2008, amend the 1993 Wildlife Inventory Plan to include more 

species groups such as fish, reptiles, mussels, and plants, and increase the 

amount of applied research being done on the Refuge. 

Rationale: Monitoring is essential to understanding the status and trends of 

selected species groups and habitats. This in turn provides some indication of 

overall biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge, 

and is critical in planning habitat management and public use programs. This 

objective represents a more aggressive biological program on the Refuge and 

will help meet directives in the Refuge Improvement Act requiring 

monitoring the status of fish, wildlife, and plant species. Better biological 

information is also critical to making sound and integrated resource and 

public use management decisions. The Refuge would continue to support and 

use monitoring done by the states, U.S. Geological Survey, the Corps of 

Engineers, and others to help fill the gaps in status and trends information 

for fish, mussels, reptiles, forests and other land cover, and environmental 

factors such as water chemistry and sedimentation. 

Strategies 

# Engage other experts and partners to develop and implement the 

Wildlife Inventory Plan. 

# In developing the Wildlife Inventory Plan, consult each state’s 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan for areas of mutual need and 

opportunity in regard to monitoring and research.

# Establish a Refuge Research Team that designs short-term and longterm research projects to address management questions and concerns 

about wildlife populations and their habitat. 

# Continue to work with the states, U.S. Geological Survey, and Corps of 

Engineers in the sharing of data on other species and habitats. 

# Establish a schedule of formal coordination meetings with the U.S. 

Geological Survey to share biological monitoring methods and data. 

# Ensure that each District has a biologist on staff and that Headquarters 

has a GIS biologist. 

# Seek more cooperation with colleges and universities to foster more 

graduate research projects.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

145

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) 

# Continue to use volunteers for certain monitoring efforts such as point 

counts for breeding and migrating birds. 

Objective 3.4. Threatened and Endangered Species Management. By the end of 2008, begin 

monitoring of all federally listed threatened or endangered and candidate 

species on the Refuge, and by 2010, have in place management plans for each 

species to help ensure their recovery. Cooperate with the states in the 

monitoring and management of state-listed species.

Rationale: As noted in an earlier section of this chapter, it is Service policy to 

give priority consideration to the protection, enhancement, and recovery of 

these species on national wildlife refuges. This objective represents a more 

aggressive approach to achieving this policy, and also reflects the high public 

interest in threatened and endangered species. Currently, the only species 

actively monitored by the Refuge are Bald Eagles, and efforts would be 

expanded to include the Higgins eye pearlymussel, eastern massasauga 

rattlesnake, and sheepnose mussel. Strategies below also recognize the 

importance of considering state-listed species in monitoring and management 

activities.

Strategies 

# Consider the needs of federal and state-listed threatened, endangered 

and candidate species, as applicable, in all habitat and public use 

management decisions. 

# Continue to consult with the Service’s Ecological Services Offices on all 

actions which may affect listed species, and coordinate with the states on 

actions that may affect state-listed species. 

# In the Wildlife Inventory Plan, address a monitoring plan for all federally 

listed or candidate species, and consider state-listed species and “Species 

of Greatest Conservation Need” in state Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plans, to help detect serious problems early and to 

preclude listing. 

# Continue monitoring Bald Eagle nesting populations and success, and 

conduct periodic peak spring Bald Eagle migration counts. 

# In the Habitat Management Plan, identify steps needed to ensure 

populations of listed or candidate species are sustained in support of 

delisting or to preclude listing in the future.

# Give priority to acquisition of lands within the approved boundary that 

contain listed or candidate species. 

# Continue assistance to other offices and agencies with Higgins eye 

pearlymussel recovery efforts.

# Increase education and outreach specifically targeting threatened and 

endangered species found on the Refuge.

Objective 3.5. Furbearer Trapping. Update the Refuge trapping plan by June 2007, 

continuing the existing trapping program until the update is completed and 

ready for implementation.

Rationale: Furbearer trapping has a long history on the Refuge and can be 

an important management tool in reducing furbearer disease and habitat 

impacts, and in safeguarding certain Refuge infrastructure such as dikes, 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

146

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative)

islands, and water control structures. Trapping is also important from a 

recreational and cultural standpoint, providing hundreds of trappers 

thousands of hours of wildlife-related and outdoor-dependent enjoyment. 

Trappers also provide valuable information on habitat conditions and wildlife 

population and use trends due to their frequent, first-hand experiences and 

annual reporting. The current trapping plan is dated by time (1988), new 

furbearer ecology and population information, and by new policies governing 

compatibility of uses and commercial uses on national wildlife refuges. 

Strategies 

# Seek input from state furbearer biologists, current Refuge furbearer 

trappers, and trapping organizations to assess effectiveness and/or 

needed changes in trapping program administration and management.

# The Refuge wildlife biologists, in consultation with Refuge District 

managers, state furbearer biologists, and the Refuge Manager, will 

develop a draft trapping plan. 

# Afford the public an opportunity for review and comment on a draft plan 

and accompanying environmental assessment and compatibility 

determination.

# Following public review and revision, submit a final plan to the Regional 

Director of the Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota, for approval (required).

# Conduct appropriate information and education effort on any changes 

reflected in the plan.

Objective 3.6. Fishery and Mussel Management. By the end of 2008, complete a Fishery 

and Mussel Management Plan for the Refuge which incorporates current 

monitoring and management by the states, the Corps of Engineers, and other 

Service offices and agencies.

Rationale: One of the purposes of the Refuge is to provide a “refuge and 

breeding place for fish and other aquatic animal life.” Fish and mussels also 

have high intrinsic, recreational, and commercial values. For decades, the 

Refuge has not taken an active role in fishery or mussel management, 

deferring to the states or others on this management responsibility. Although 

the states will still play the lead role in fisheries and mussel management, the 

Refuge should have in place a plan which communicates to the states and the 

public the Refuge and Service perspective on fishery and mussel 

management issues and needs, and to help set common goals, objectives, and 

means of collecting and sharing information. The plan would also help guide 

conservation efforts for rare or declining interjurisdictional species such as 

paddlefish and sturgeon and federally listed and candidate aquatic species, 

and address the Refuge’s role in commercial harvest of species and control of 

aquatic invasive species. Healthy fishery and mussel populations also benefit 

the public’s use and enjoyment of these resources.

Strategies 

# Add a fishery biologist to the Headquarters staff to coordinate fishery 

and mussel management on the Refuge. 

# Take an active role in Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee 

fisheries technical section and mussel ad hoc committee.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

147

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) 

# Prepare plan in collaboration with the states, Service fishery offices, the 

Genoa National Fish Hatchery, and aquatic biologists of the U.S. 

Geological Survey.

Objective 3.7. Commercial Fishing and Clamming. By the end of 2008, complete a Fishery 

and Mussel Management Plan, and by January 2010, have a mechanism or 

agreements in place to ensure that Refuge System permit requirements are 

incorporated in state-issued permits. 

Rationale: The Refuge has provided little to no oversight of the commercial 

harvest of fish or mussels in the past since most fish and mussel management 

falls under the primary jurisdiction of the states. However, federal 

regulations governing the Refuge System state that “fishery resources of 

commercial importance on wildlife refuge areas may be taken under permit 

in accordance with federal and state law and regulations” (50 Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 31.13). Other regulations govern all commercial uses on 

refuges. Besides this compliance issue, the Refuge can play an important 

advisory and coordination role with the four states which administer 

commercial fish and mussel harvest on the Refuge. A Fishery and Mussel 

Management Plan is needed before any Refuge-specific stipulations for 

consideration and use in state permits could be crafted.

Strategies 

# In addition to the strategies in Objective 3.6, establish, with the states 

through the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, a method 

of sharing permittee and catch information for the Refuge. 

# Devise a Refuge permitting process that dovetails with state permits so 

that commercial users need only one permit or license versus two. 

# Enter into cooperative agreements as needed to implement this one-stopshopping permit process.

# Ensure that commercial harvest of fish and mussels meets objectives in 

Refuge plans, and explore ways that commercial harvest can help 

address invasive species issues (Objective 2.4).

# Ensure consistency with state regulations whenever possible. For 

instance, the Refuge would not issue permits for mussel or fish harvest in 

areas not opened by the states.

Objective 3.8. Turtle Management. By spring 2008, initiate a 3- to 5-year turtle ecology 

study on representative habitats of the entire Refuge. Continue to cooperate 

with the states, U.S. Geological Survey, and the Corps of Engineers in 

monitoring turtle populations on certain Refuge areas.

Rationale: Recent surveys in the Weaver Bottoms area of Pool 5 indicate that 

this area of the Refuge is an important, and perhaps critical, area for eight 

species of turtles, some of which are listed by the states as threatened or 

endangered. Surveys on other Pools of the Refuge show that 11 species are 

present. There are numerous potential negative and positive impacts to 

turtles from public use and navigation channel maintenance activities on the 

Refuge. However, more rigorous monitoring and research is needed over a 

broad area to understand turtle populations and ecology. This information 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

148

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative)

would then guide a coordinated approach to their conservation, and guide 

management decisions concerning public uses in or on important turtle 

habitats. 

Strategies 

# In cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey, seek special funding and 

grants to fund the turtle ecology study. 

# Continue to coordinate with the Corps of Engineers and the states on 

ways to minimize turtle nesting disturbance on dredge material 

placement sites located on the Refuge. 

# Through the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, devise a 

method of sharing more detailed commercial turtle harvest information 

for the Refuge. 

# Upon completion of the turtle ecology study, complete a turtle 

management strategy and incorporate recommendations in habitat, 

commercial use, and public use management activities. 

# Conduct public information effort including media, brochures, signage, 

and programs to increase awareness and appreciation of turtles and 

communicate what visitors can do to minimize impacts on beach areas 

used for nesting.

Objective 3.9. Forest Management. Complete by the end of 2008, in cooperation with the 

Corps of Engineers, a forest inventory of the Refuge, and by 2010, complete a 

Forest Management Plan for the Refuge.

Rationale: A baseline forest inventory of the approximately 51,000 acres of 

floodplain forest on the Refuge is the first step in addressing concerns for the 

long-term health of this important resource. The Corps of Engineers has 

been actively working on a forest inventory for several years on Corpsacquired lands, and it makes fiscal and efficiency sense to partner with the 

Corps of Engineers on Service-acquired lands on this objective. A Forest 

Management Plan is needed to integrate forest and wildlife objectives, and to 

identify management prescriptions such as harvest, planting, fire, and 

invasives control. Collaboration with the Corps of Engineers is essential to 

meet the forest habitat needs of wildlife since the Corps of Engineers 

retained forest management authority on Corps of Engineers-acquired lands 

that are part of the Refuge. Healthy forests also benefit the diversity and 

quality of public uses on the Refuge. 

Strategies 

# Support a balanced forest management approach that provides adequate 

habitat for cavity nesting species, and ensures retention of a closed 

canopy for forest birds of management concern such as Red-shouldered 

Hawks and Cerulean Warblers.

# As Refuge funding allows, continue to fund seasonal technicians to help 

with the Corps of Engineers’ inventory project on Service-acquired 

lands. Seek ways to leverage funds through partners or grants for longterm forestry technicians.

# Continue to work with the Corps of Engineers and other partners on 

forest rejuvenation and research projects.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

149

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) 

# Continue small scale reforestation, especially mast-producing 

hardwoods, on suitable Refuge lands.

# Add a Refuge Forester to the Headquarters staff to oversee Forest 

Management Plan preparation and implementation, and to coordinate 

with the Corps of Engineers and the states on forest management issues 

and opportunities.

Objective 3.10. Grassland Management. Maintain 5,700 acres of grassland habitat on the 

Refuge through the use of various management tools including prescribed 

fire, haying, grazing, and control of invasive plants. Address grassland 

conservation and enhancement in a step-down Habitat Management Plan. 

Rationale: Many species of wildlife, particularly birds, are dependent on 

grassland habitat. In addition, some of these grasslands are remnant 

tallgrass native prairie, a diverse and rare ecosystem throughout the 

Midwest and home to rare or declining plant and animal species. Some 

grasslands within or near the Refuge are a unique and declining type of 

prairie, called sand or xeric prairie, which developed on porous and dry sand 

terraces created adjacent to the Mississippi River thousands of years ago. 

Active management is needed to curb loss of grasslands to forest succession 

or invasive species, and to maintain species diversity and health. In some 

areas near the river, there are opportunities to restore sand prairie. Healthy 

grasslands benefit a variety of public uses including wildlife observation, 

plant study, photography, and hunting.

Strategies 

# When completing the Habitat Management Plan, look at feasibility of 

increasing grassland areas on the Refuge due to its importance to 

grassland nesting birds and other wildlife.

# Continue efforts with local units of government, other agencies, and 

private conservation groups to restore sand prairie on the Brice Prairie 

area (La Crosse County).

# Implement the Refuge’s Fire Management Plan. 

# Use haying, rotational grazing, and control of invasive plants as 

appropriate to maintain grasslands. Restore aspects of native prairie 

where feasible using a combination of rest, fire, farming, and reseeding 

as appropriate to the site. 

# Increase monitoring to measure effectiveness of treatments.

Goal 4: Wildlife-Dependent Recreation. We will manage programs and facilities to ensure abundant and 

sustainable hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, interpretation, and environmental 

education opportunities for a broad cross-section of the public.

Objective 4.1. General Hunting. Maintain a minimum of 187,205 acres (78 percent)2 of land 

and water of the Refuge open to all hunting in accordance with respective 

state seasons, and add 3 new administrative No Hunting Zones totaling 290 

acres. See related Objective 4.2 on Waterfowl Closed Areas. (See Table 2 in 

Appendix H and maps in Appendix P.)

Rationale: Maintaining a large percentage of the Refuge open to hunting is in 

keeping with guidance in the Refuge Improvement Act to facilitate wildlife-
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

150

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative)

dependent use when compatible. This objective also represents an integrated 

wildlife and public use emphasis by more strategic placement of Waterfowl 

Closed Areas in the related Objective 4.2, to both protect migrating 

waterfowl and offer a better distribution of waterfowl hunting opportunities. 

These Closed Areas reopen to some hunting after the duck season, adding to 

the open acreage above. The three new No Hunting Zones are for safety 

reasons or to minimize conflict between user groups. One is at Sturgeon 

Slough, Pool 10 (66 acres), which contains a fairly new hiking trail off a major 

highway, another is at Crooked Slough proper, Pool 13 (192 acres) to avoid 

conflicts and address safety concerns in a relatively narrow corridor popular 

with anglers, and the third is around the Goetz Island Trail, Pool 11 (32 acres) 

which connects to a trail in the City of Guttenberg, already a no hunting area 

by city ordinance. The decision to drop three proposed No Hunting Zones in 

this alternative was based on public and agency comment, evaluation of 

expected use patterns, prediction of low user-group conflict, or deletion of a 

proposed hiking trail. The No Hunting Zones in Alternative D dropped in this 

alternative were Dairyland Power Trail and Kain Switch Trail (Pool 9) and 

Turkey River Delta Trail (Pool 11). Total acreage of No Hunting Zone areas 

decreased from 5,404 acres in Alternative D to 3,845 acres in Alternative E. 

Also dropped in this alternative was the north expansion of the Goose Island 

No Hunting Zone or youth hunting area based on public comment. 

Strategies 

# Continue yearly review of Refuge Hunting Regulations to ensure clarity 

and to address any emerging issues or concerns, and give the public an 

opportunity to review and comment on any changes. 

# To minimize potential conflicts between user groups, no hunting should 

occur on the Refuge from March 16 to August 31 of each year, except for 

spring Wild Turkey hunting and, on the Illinois portion of Refuge, 

squirrel hunting. The Refuge will address this change in future updates 

to the Refuge Hunting Plan. 

# Work cooperatively with the Town of Shelby, La Crosse County, 

Wisconsin DNR, and the Corps of Engineers to facilitate deer hunting on 

Goose Island, Pool 8, to address a high deer population and related safety, 

disease, and habitat degradation concerns.

# Continue to publish the Refuge Hunting Regulations brochure to inform 

the public of hunting opportunities and Refuge-specific regulations. 

# Continue to improve the hunting experience by ongoing improvements to 

habitat and enforcement of regulations. 

# Review the 1989 Refuge Hunting Plan and modify as needed by January 

2007 to comply with new regulations and policies. 

2. This acreage and percent is designed as a benchmark to denote the importance of hunting on the Refuge due to 

long-standing tradition and in compliance with the intent of the Refuge Improvement Act and Service policy. 

Although technically correct, these numbers must be tempered by existing habitat conditions and varying 

state hunting laws which can make some areas being open a moot point. For example, open water areas may 

be “open” to hunting, but since some states preclude open water hunting of waterfowl, many areas may not 

provide opportunity. These opportunities are also subject to fluctuation due to increases or decreases in emergent vegetation which often defines “open water,” or, construction of islands as part of habitat projects which 

may “open” opportunities to hunt an area. However, the overall acreage helps express the long-term intent of 

the Refuge to ensure abundant hunting opportunities.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

151

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) 

# Clearly sign areas closed to hunting and ensure public notification 

through news releases and other means well before the hunting seasons. 

Do the same for hiking trails that remain open to hunting.

Objective 4.2. Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas. In fall 2007 (fall 2009 for Pool 4 changes), 

implement the following changes to the current Waterfowl Hunting Closed 

Area system on the Refuge: 

1.) Add eight new Closed Areas/Sanctuaries and delete or modify some of 

the current 15, for a total of 23 units totaling 43,764 acres, or 780 acres 

less than current area (see Table 5 on page 208 and Table 11 in Appendix 

H, maps in Appendix P, and Appendix Q, which gives background and 

change rationale for each closed area):

2.) The following areas would be closed to all entry and use from October 1 

to the end of the respective state regular duck season (sanctuary status, 

5,050 acres total):

a) Pool Slough Sanctuary (McGregor District, Pool 9, Iowa/Minnesota, 

1,112 acres)

b) Guttenberg Ponds portion of the 12 Mile Slough Closed Area 

(McGregor District, Pool 11, Iowa, 252 acres)

c) Spring Lake Sanctuary (Savanna District, Pool 13, Illinois, existing 

sanctuary, 3,686 acres)

3.) Use regulations or guidelines for Closed Areas would be as follows: The 

public will be asked to practice Voluntary Avoidance (limiting entry) on 

all closed areas October 15 to the end of the respective state duck hunting 

season. In addition, there will be a “no motor” restriction on small closed 

areas October 15 to the end of the regular state duck hunting season. 

Large closed areas are greater than 1,000 acres and small closed areas 

are ~1,000 acres or less. “No motors” means the use of motors on 

watercraft is not allowed, although possession of motors is allowed. 

Exceptions are:

a) The existing Lake Onalaska Closed Area. Pool 7, Wisconsin, and 

associated Voluntary Waterfowl Avoidance Area would not be 

affected, although boundary adjustments would be made to the 

Closed Area as shown on the map for Pool 7.

b) The existing Bertom/McCartney Closed Area, Pool 11, Wisconsin, 

retains current entry and use regulations (no change).

4.) Implement the following policy for more restrictive use regulations: The 

Refuge will monitor human disturbance in closed areas, and if 

disturbance exceeds a threshold, the Refuge will, in coordination with 

other agencies, move to implement more restrictive regulations such as 

no motors, no fishing or no entry on an individual closed area basis. 

Human disturbance monitoring and research on Pools 7 and 8 suggests a 

reasonable threshold of one major disturbance per day based on a 

season-long average. A major disturbance is defined as a human 

intrusion which displaces 1,000 waterfowl or 50 percent of the waterfowl 

present, whichever is less. The disturbance threshold would not include 

commercial fishing (handled through permitting process) or government 

entities engaged in monitoring, research, or law enforcement.

5.) Implement the following policy for approving fish habitat improvements 

in closed areas through EMP or other programs: Project proposals will 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

152

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative)

be evaluated on a case-by-case basis considering factors which influence 

human intrusion and waterfowl disturbance such as size of area, 

boundary configurations, visual barriers, species and numbers of 

waterfowl, public access points, public use patterns, and proximity to 

population centers and other recreation facilities. Evaluations will be 

conducted in collaboration with the states and Corps of Engineers.

Rationale: This objective represents a balanced approach between the needs 

of waterfowl and the public as reflected in the following overall Closed Area 

system goals:

1.) Provide migrating waterfowl a more balanced and effective network of 

feeding and resting areas.

2.) Minimize disturbance to feeding and resting waterfowl in closed areas.

3.) Provide waterfowl hunters with more equitable hunting opportunities 

over the length of the Refuge.

4.) Reduce hunter competition and waterfowl crippling loss along some 

closed area boundaries. 

5.) Stabilize boundaries, to the extent practicable, where island and/or 

shoreline loss or gain creates a fluctuating boundary.

This objective also helps address the issues surrounding Closed Areas as 

discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.4.5.4 on page 23, and analyzed in Chapter 3, 

Section 3.2.7 on page 235. The new Closed Areas were chosen to fill gaps 

between existing Closed Areas, to meet the needs of both dabbler and diver 

ducks which have different spatial and foraging needs, and to provide areas 

with the best food potential. An analysis of the potential carrying capacity of 

existing and proposed alternative Closed Areas was completed in 2004 and 

shows that Alternative D would provide a 16 percent increase in total energy 

available to waterfowl in the Closed Area system. Since Alternative E is a 

fine-tuning of Alternative D and core areas changed little, a similar increase 

in total energy available is expected. (The carrying capacity report is 

available at Refuge headquarters or on the Refuge planning web site: http://

midwest.fws.gov/planning/uppermiss). 

The Closed Area locations and configurations in this alternative also took into 

account the need for public access and travel routes, commercial navigation, 

adjacent business and community needs and practicalities, likelihood of nearterm habitat improvements in existing Closed Areas, and the desire to 

continue to provide viable waterfowl hunting opportunities. 

Entry and use regulation and guideline changes from Alternative D reflect 

consideration of public and agency comments received during the first 

comment period. Relatively large and small closed areas were treated 

differently since they generally cater to different waterfowl species groups 

(divers versus dabblers), differ in carrying capacity of birds, and reflect 

differences in effects of human entry due to size of area and the natural visual 

or noise barriers present. Human entry in a small closed area will often 

disturb nearly all the birds present, forcing them to other parts of the Refuge 

or beyond. Human entry in large closed areas may be variable, from little to 

no disturbance based on where birds are located, to moving some birds to 

other portions of the closed area, to moving virtually all birds present from 

the closed area. Moving the effective date from October 1 in Alternative D to 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

153

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) 

October 15 in Alternative E for entry and use regulations reflects public 

concern about the loss of fall fishing opportunities and survey data which 

shows that the major influx of waterfowl occurs after October 15 each year.

The new policy on setting a threshold of disturbance to guide future entry 

and use regulation decisions was based on state and public comments. 

However, given the food and rest needs of waterfowl on migration, it is 

recognized that no human disturbance is optimum. Thus, the disturbance rate 

of one major disturbance per day is not intended to represent a purely 

biologically-accepted threshold of disturbance, but a balance between the 

needs of waterfowl and the realities of a large open river system, various 

authorities, different user groups, abundant access points, and the level of 

surrounding development.

No change was made in entry regulations for the Lake Onalaska closed area 

to provide a benchmark for measuring long-term voluntary avoidance 

effectiveness and compliance as presented in the existing Lake Onalaska 

Voluntary Avoidance Area. The exception also recognizes the unique location 

of the Lake Onalaska closed area amidst heavy shoreline development and 

the resulting heavy watercraft use needs and patterns by adjacent property 

owners and nearby population centers. The Bertom/McCartney exception 

recognizes use patterns resulting from the existing boat landing in the heart 

of the area and existing fall fishing levels fostered by an earlier 

Environmental Management Program habitat project.

Changes to existing boundaries or new closed areas in Pool 4 (NelsonTrevino, Big Lake, Peterson Lake, and Rieck’s Lake/Buffalo River) will not 

take effect until the 2009 waterfowl hunting season. During public meetings 

and workshops, hunters raised questions about the level of waterfowl use in 

the existing Nelson-Trevino Closed Area. Since this area is heavily wooded, it 

is not feasible to get an accurate index of waterfowl use during fall aerial 

surveys. Thus, the Refuge will implement on-the-ground monitoring for 

three years to ascertain bird use numbers and patterns in the Nelson-Trevino 

and surrounding areas. Based on the results of this monitoring, the Refuge 

will have a better picture of waterfowl use dynamics in the Pool 4 area. The 

changes presented in this alternative will proceed in 2009 unless data dictates 

another course. The public will be kept informed of the monitoring and any 

resulting changes in management direction.

The new paired closed areas in Pool 10 (Wisconsin River Delta and Sturgeon 

Slough/McGregor Lake) were modified since the paired concept was deemed 

overly complicated based on input and discussion at public meetings on draft 

Alternative E. The new configuration has a standard, small closed area at 

Sturgeon Slough which protects bird use in the best habitat. The McGregor 

Lake portion was dropped from any closed area designation due to marginal 

waterfowl habitat and its importance to sport fishing. The Wisconsin River 

Delta was renamed a special hunt area to better reflect the nature of the lessrestrictive regulations being employed (closed to hunting and trapping, 

voluntary avoidance, November 1 to the end of the duck season only). 

Finally, the policy on evaluating proposed fish habitat improvements in closed 

areas recognizes the need to address unintended conflicts that may arise 

when trying to meet different objectives for fish and waterfowl in the same 

area. Fall fishing has been shown to be a major disturbance to waterfowl in 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

154

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative)

some closed areas. Certain fish habitat improvements which attract and hold 

fish can increase angler use and waterfowl disturbance, and on small closed 

areas especially, have the potential to negate any waterfowl migration 

benefits. Careful consideration of these dynamics is needed when planning 

habitat projects. 

Strategies 

# Continue to improve habitat in all Closed Areas by ongoing programs 

such as pool-wide drawdowns, Environmental Management Program 

projects, and other agency initiatives and regulations. 

# Continue to monitor waterfowl use of Closed Areas through weekly 

aerial surveys in the fall and adjust closed areas as needed in a more 

adaptive manner and with full agency and public involvement. 

# Monitor the frequency and effect of disturbance by the public in line with 

the disturbance threshold policy. 

# Meet with Wisconsin DNR and other states to develop criteria to be used 

in evaluating the compatibility of fish habitat improvements in Waterfowl 

Hunting Closed Areas located in Wisconsin.

# Conduct a comprehensive public information campaign to inform 

waterfowl hunters and the general public of impending changes. Use all 

methods available including personal contact, presentations at 

organizations, special meetings, leaflets, maps, signing, news releases, 

websites, and media interviews.

# Develop new signs for the differing regulations/guidelines for large and 

small closed areas and post boundaries of new or modified closed areas 

well in advance of the waterfowl hunting season to help with public 

awareness. 

# Increase law enforcement presence to help ensure understanding and 

compliance with changes, relying on verbal and/or written warnings, at 

an officer’s discretion, the first year of implementation in 2007.

Objective 4.3 Waterfowl Hunting Regulation Changes. In fall 2007, implement the 

following Refuge-specific waterfowl hunting regulation change: Open-water 

waterfowl hunting is prohibited in Pool 11, approximate river miles 586-592, 

Grant County, Wisconsin (see map, Appendix P) in accordance with general 

Wisconsin open-water hunting regulations/definitions. No change to other 

Refuge waterfowl hunting regulations, except for permanent blinds and 

decoys in the Savanna District, Objective 4.5 (See Appendix I for current 

Refuge regulations). A summary of Wisconsin’s open water regulation is:

No person may hunt waterfowl in open water from, or with the aid of, 

any blind including any boat, canoe, raft, contrivance, or similar device. 

Open water is defined as any water beyond a natural growth of 

vegetation rooted to the bottom and extending above the water surface 

of such height as to offer whole or partial concealment to the hunter. 

Dead stumps and dead trees in the water do not constitute a natural 

growth of vegetation. Hunting is permitted in any open water area 

provided the hunter is standing on the bottom without the aid of a 

blind. Blinds include, but are not limited to, any boat, canoe, raft, or 

similar device that provides any concealment for the hunter.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

155

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) 

Rationale: The prohibition of open-water hunting is to limit disturbance in an 

area of Pool 11 that has become an important feeding and loafing site for 

thousands of Canvasback and Lesser Scaup ducks, two species of 

management concern due to relatively small or declining populations. In Pool 

11, Grant County, open water hunting is allowed through a special exemption 

to the Wisconsin regulations. In the 1980s, the area was an important staging 

and feeding area for diving ducks, primarily Lesser Scaup, which fed on 

abundant fingernail clams. When the fingernail clam population collapsed, 

waterfowl use virtually ceased. In recent years, wild celery has become 

partially re-established and the area is attracting increased numbers of 

Canvasback and other diving ducks. This area provides the only major 

staging and feeding area for divers between Pool 9 and Pool 13, a distance of 

125 river miles. This objective represents a scaling-back of proposals in 

earlier alternatives based on public input, and to ensure the action targets the 

current area of need versus a broad, preemptive approach. However, an 

additional strategy below highlights the Refuge’s continued concern with 

periodic suggestions by individuals/groups to liberalize open-water hunting 

regulations.

The proposed shotshell possession limits and hunting party spacing 

requirement in Alternative D were dropped in Alternative E based on input 

from a majority of waterfowl hunters providing comment, issues with 

enforcement and compliance, and desire of Illinois waterfowlers to retain the 

200-yard spacing requirement in Pools 12-14. In lieu of specific regulation, the 

strategies below have been modified to reflect the continuing need for 

information and education to help reduce hunter crowding, skybusting 

(shooting at birds out of range) and resulting crippling loss, conflicts between 

parties, and litter in the form of spent shells.

Strategies

# Conduct a comprehensive public information campaign to inform 

waterfowl hunters and the general public of impending regulation 

change. Use all methods available including personal contact, 

presentations at organizations, special meetings, leaflets, signing, news 

releases, websites, and media interviews. 

# In cooperation with waterfowl hunters and conservation organizations, 

develop a hunter information and education campaign starting in fall 

2007 to help address the issues of crowding, conflicts, skybusting 

(shooting at birds out-of-range) and bird retrieval, and spent shell litter 

to maintain the quality and important traditions of waterfowl hunting on 

the Refuge.

# Maintain or improve habitat in Pool 11 through ongoing programs such 

as pool drawdowns, habitat enhancement projects, and other agency 

initiatives and regulations. 

# Continue to monitor waterfowl use of Pool 11 through weekly aerial 

surveys in the fall.

# Continue to work with the states to help ensure that state waterfowl 

regulations concerning open water hunting continue to safeguard 

important diver duck staging areas in Pool 9 and elsewhere, and add 

additional Refuge-specific open-water hunting regulations only if 

warranted.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

156

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative)

Objective 4.4. Firing Line – Pool 7, Lake Onalaska. By October 1, 2006, in cooperation with 

local waterfowlers and state managers and conservation officers, complete a 

step-down plan for the Gibbs Lake area of Pool 7 (see map, Appendix P). The 

plan should strive to address the following goals:

1.) Reduce competition and conflict in securing preferred hunting sites.

2.) Reduce pre-emptive use of choice hunting sites.

3.) Reduce crowding.

4.) Reduce skybusting (shooting at birds out-of-range) and resulting 

crippling or loss of downed birds.

5.) Improve the quality of the waterfowling experience.

6.) Be fair, simple, and efficient to administer and manage.

Rationale: A purpose of the Refuge’s Closed Area System is to disperse 

waterfowl hunting opportunities since hunters tend to congregate near 

concentrations of waterfowl. However, some sections of closed area 

boundaries, particularly those that bisect emergent marsh at the upriver end 

of the Lake Onalaska Closed Area (Gibb’s Lake), can attract large 

concentrations of hunters in firing lines as they wait for waterfowl to leave 

closed areas. Pass shooting is the technique most often used, particularly in 

the Barrel Blinds area of Gibb’s Lake. Unfortunately, “skybusting,” or 

shooting at birds out of range, is common and often results in increased 

crippling loss. For example, during the 1991-93 seasons, officers observed 

that 63 of 141 hunting parties (44.7 percent) along firing lines in Pool 7 

skybusted at least once during the time they were observed. Skybusting was 

defined as shooting at waterfowl at distances of 50 yards or more. The 

number of shots required to retrieve one bird was 11. During the 1992 

hunting season, these same observers working Pool 7 firing lines and other 

areas found that hunters who did not skybust had a crippling loss rate of 

about 27 percent for the ducks or coots they downed. The crippling loss rate 

for ducks and coots downed through skybusting increased to nearly 57 

percent.

Hunter behavior can also deteriorate in crowded, competitive situations. 

Behavior observed or reported along the Barrel Blinds area includes people 

claiming preferred sites (spending the night, leaving illuminated lights in 

unattended sites, handing-off sites to friends or co-workers after a party’s 

hunt is over), engaging in verbal confrontations, late arriving hunters 

disrupting those set-up, flaring birds before they can work decoy sets, failure 

to retrieve birds, and increased littering.

Guidance in the Refuge Manual helps set the standard for hunting on 

refuges: 

“Refuge hunting programs should be planned, supervised, conducted, 

and evaluated to promote positive hunting values and hunter ethics 

such as fair chase and sportsmanship. In general, hunting on refuges 

should be superior to that available on other public or private lands and 

should provide participants with reasonable harvest opportunities, 

uncrowded conditions, fewer conflicts between hunters, relatively 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

157

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) 

undisturbed wildlife, and limited interference from or dependence on 

mechanized aspects of the sport. This may require zoning the hunt unit 

and limiting the number of participants.”

The Refuge looked at several options for improving the hunting experience in 

the Gibbs Lake area. These options included limiting the number of hunters 

pool-wide, setting minimum distances between hunters, more education, 

limiting the number of shotshells, more intense enforcement, and modifying 

the closed area boundary. These options all had shortcomings in this 

particular area compared to a managed hunt program. However, based on 

concerns with Alternative D (managed hunt), it was deemed appropriate to 

re-engage waterfowl hunters in trying to address their concerns while at the 

same time meeting the Refuge’s goals for the Gibbs Lake area. 

Strategies 

# Assemble a diverse group of waterfowl hunters familiar with the Gibbs 

Lake Area, and Wisconsin DNR biologists/managers and conservation 

officers, to provide input to the Refuge for preparing a draft Gibbs Lake 

Waterfowl Hunting Management Plan that meets the goals above.

# Ensure opportunity for public review and comment on the draft 

management plan.

# Conduct a comprehensive public information and education effort to 

inform waterfowl hunters of any changes resulting from the planning 

effort. Use personal contact, presentations, special meetings, leaflets, 

signing, news releases, websites, and media interviews as applicable.

Objective 4.5. Permanent Hunting Blinds on Savanna District. Phase-out the use of 

permanent hunting blinds for waterfowl hunting and the practice of leaving 

decoy sets overnight within the Savanna District of the Refuge. Permanent 

blinds and leaving decoys out one-half hour after shooting hours will no 

longer be allowed on the Refuge in Pool 12 after the 2006-07 season, Pool 14 

after the 2007-08 season, and Pool 13 after the 2008-09 season. 

Rationale: Eliminating permanent blinds would provide consistency on the 

Refuge since they are not allowed on the other three Districts. In addition to 

consistency, eliminating the blinds would address a host of issues involving 

debris, private exclusive use of public waters, limiting hunting opportunities, 

and confrontations and other incidents. These issues were discussed more 

fully in Chapter 1, Section 1.4.5.4. This objective would also reduce the staff 

time spent on law enforcement, complaints, and clean-up that permanent 

blinds entail, time that could be directed toward more wildlife-related needs, 

and in line with the wildlife aspect of this alternative. By using a phased 

approach, the objective takes into consideration the long-standing tradition of 

permanent blind hunting and gives hunters more time to transition to 

alternative hunting methods and areas. The phase out schedule was modified 

in this alternative to give the greatest number of hunters more time to adjust, 

and takes into account staff workload by timing the phase out over three 

years. The elimination of permanent blinds also opens the Refuge to a 

broader cross-section of hunters, and will help reduce conflict that has arisen 

between hunting parties, and limits the private, exclusive use of public waters 

and lands.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

158

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative)

Related to permanent blinds is the issue of leaving duck hunting decoys on 

Refuge waters in Pools 12-14 (Savanna District). This is an exception to 

Refuge-wide regulations which state that decoys may not be in place 1⁄2 hour 

after the close of legal shooting hours and 1 hour before the start of legal 

shooting hours. Hunters who leave decoys out overnight, and in some 

instances multiple days or the entire season, are in effect practicing private, 

exclusive or proprietary use of public waters by tying-up a hunting area. Like 

permanent blinds, this has the effect of limiting places for the general public 

to hunt. Although including this change in the permanent blind objective was 

always the Refuge intent, it was inadvertently left out of previous 

alternatives. This change in decoy regulations for the Savanna District was 

discussed at public meetings, and written comments on the issue were 

received during the comment period. 

Strategies 

# Conduct a public information campaign to inform hunters of the changes, 

and to give hunters ample time to adjust to alternative hunting methods 

or areas.

# Prepare and distribute a leaflet explaining the new regulations governing 

temporary blinds and decoy use. 

# Begin phase in of permanent blind regulations by requiring hunters to 

comply with the following requirements the year before a respective pool 

is scheduled for permanent-blind phase-out:

1. Blinds must be marked with name, address, and telephone number of 

owner.

2. All blinds and blind material within 100 yards of blind site must be 

removed by the hunter within 30 days of the end of the waterfowl 

hunting season.

Objective 4.6. Potter’s Marsh Managed Hunt on Savanna District, Pool 13. Beginning with 

the 2006-07 season, implement a variety of administrative and regulation 

changes to reduce costs and provide an equitable hunting experience. 

Permanent blinds would be eliminated after the 2008-09 season (Pool 13 

schedule), but boat-blind sites provided and managed. 

Rationale: This objective reflects an integrated approach by reducing costs 

and staff time that can be devoted to wildlife objectives, while retaining the 

essence of the waterfowl hunt which provides a desired experience for 

hunters. The changes would reduce problems associated with permanent 

blinds as noted in Objective 4.5 (debris, private exclusive use, limiting 

hunting opportunities, and confrontations) and reduce the administrative 

costs associated with the drawings, permit administration, and oversight of 

the current program (see the issue discussion in Chapter 1, Section 1.4.5.4 on 

page 23). 

Strategies 

# Implement the following for the 2006 waterfowl hunting season:

1. The Refuge will mark with numbered stakes 49 hunting areas (same 

number as current); blinds must be set up within 25 feet of stake.

2. Blind sites must be occupied one-half hour prior to shooting time or 

they will be open to the public first-come, first-served.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

159

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) 

3. A 400-yard closed area restriction on the west boundary of Potter’s 

Marsh will be maintained (491 acres) to prevent encroachment from 

other public hunting.

# Implement the following regulation changes for the 2009 season: 

1. Permanent blinds will not be allowed. Only boat blinds in accordance 

with Refuge temporary-blind regulations.

2. The Refuge will continue to mark 49 hunting areas and boat blinds 

must be set up within 25 feet of stake.

# Implement the following application and drawing procedure changes for 

the 2006 season:

1. Accept applications and hold drawing for blind area on same day, 

generally on a Saturday in July coinciding with the northwest region 

of Illinois Department of Natural Resources managed hunt drawing .

2. Applicant must be present at drawing.

3. Applicant must have current Firearm Owners Identification if 

Illinois resident, and current year license and state and federal duck 

stamps.

4. Applicants must be 16 years of age by date of drawing.

5. Applications accepted 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. with drawing at 2 p.m.

6. The successful applicant receives boat-blind site for entire season.

7. Application fee $10, plus $100 fee for successful applicants.

# Conduct public information campaign to inform the public of the change 

and to give hunters who have become accustomed to the former managed 

hunt a chance to adapt to alternative hunting methods or areas.

Objective 4.7. Blanding Landing Managed Hunt, Pool 12. After the 2006-07 season, 

eliminate the managed waterfowl hunt at Blanding Landing, Lost Mound 

Unit, Savanna District (former Savanna Army Depot), including the use of 

permanent blinds, and open the area to waterfowl hunting on a first-come, 

first-secured basis. 

Rationale: The Illinois Department of Natural Resources administers this 

hunt on behalf of the Savanna Army Depot, but with transfer of jurisdiction 

to the Service, hunting on this area is now the responsibility of the Refuge. 

Similar to the Potter’s Marsh Managed Hunt above, this objective would 

reduce problems associated with permanent blinds as noted in Objective 4.5 

(debris, private exclusive use, limiting hunting opportunities, and 

confrontations) and eliminate the administrative costs associated with the 

drawings, permit administration, and oversight of the current program. This 

objective reflects a wildlife emphasis since funding and staff currently 

devoted to this hunt could be focused on wildlife objectives throughout the 

Savanna District, and especially the new Lost Mound Unit which has large 

start-up needs. This objective also reflects a public use emphasis by opening 

an area to a larger number of waterfowl hunters.

Strategies 

# Conduct a public information campaign prior to implementation to 

inform the public of the change and give hunters accustomed to the 

managed hunt a chance to adapt to alternative hunting methods or areas.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

160

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative)

Objective 4.8 General Fishing. Provide and enhance year-round fishing on the 

approximately 140,000 acres3 of surface water within the Refuge, and an 

additional 5,050 acres of waterfowl sanctuaries open spring, summer, and 

winter. (Note: Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois regulations also maintain fish 

“refuges” below lock and dams 11, 12, and 13, December 1 through March 

15). Add three new fishing piers or docks by 2021 for a total of 20 (See Table 

14 in Appendix H). 

Rationale: This objective represents the current areas available and open to 

fishing. Fishing is one of the priority uses of the Refuge System and is to be 

facilitated when compatible with the purposes of the Refuge and the mission 

of the Refuge System. Enhanced fishing opportunities are also a reflection of 

river and Refuge health. The increase in fishing piers or docks is proposed inline with the integrated public use emphasis of this alternative. These 

facilities offer fishing opportunities for persons without boats. In Alternative 

E, the location of two fishing piers was changed following public review, but 

the total number remains the same.

Strategies 

# Enhance fishing opportunities on suitable areas of the Refuge through 

habitat, access, and facility improvements as outlined in other plan 

objectives. 

# Continue to promote fishing through Fishing Days and other outreach 

and educational programming. 

# Cooperate with the states in their ongoing fishery management 

programs. 

# Seek new funding and partnership opportunities to construct the new 

fishing piers. 

# Ensure yearly inspection and maintenance of all fishing piers to maintain 

quality and safety.

Objective 4.9. Fishing Tournaments. By January, 2008, in collaboration with the states and 

the Corps of Engineers through the Upper Mississippi River Conservation 

Committee, develop a plan for dove-tailing Refuge permitting requirements 

with the respective state-issued permits for all fishing tournaments occurring 

on the Refuge.

Rationale: Fishing tournaments continue to grow in size and number on the 

Mississippi River and on the Refuge. Conflicts can at times occur between 

tournaments and between tournament participants and the general public 

due to location, timing, frequency, and size of tournaments. These conflicts 

can be heightened by differing state and Corps of Engineers policies and 

permit requirements and stipulations. Care must also be taken to safeguard 

sensitive habitats or fish and wildlife areas within the Refuge. Since fishing 

tournaments are a use of the Refuge, they are subject to regulations 

governing uses on national wildlife refuges. 

3. This acreage is designed as a benchmark to denote the importance of fishing on the Refuge due to long-standing tradition and in compliance with the intent of the Refuge Improvement Act and Service policy. Although 

technically correct, these numbers must be tempered by existing habitat conditions which can affect the quantity of water acres suitable for fishing in any given year. However, the overall acreage helps express the longterm intent of the Refuge to ensure abundant fishing opportunities.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

161

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) 

The Refuge has not provided any oversight to tournaments in the past, 

deferring to the individual states’, and at times Corps of Engineers’, 

regulatory and permitting processes. Although the states will retain their 

leadership role, the Refuge needs to meet its regulatory requirements for 

tournaments occurring on the Refuge. This can most efficiently be 

accomplished by dove-tailing any Refuge requirements in the state permit 

process and provide one-stop-shopping for tournament clients. Since 

tournaments often cross state lines regardless of the origin, the Refuge can 

also serve as a catalyst for an integrated and consistent approach to fishing 

tournament management on the river. 

Strategies 

# Use the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee as a forum to 

discuss with the states and the Corps of Engineers the best strategies for 

dove-tailing Refuge permit requirements with their permitting 

procedures. 

# Develop with the states and the Corps of Engineers time, space, and 

capacity parameters on each Pool within the Refuge, and definitions for 

what constitutes a fishing tournament. 

# Seek fishing tournament organization input in planning a permit 

allocation and application process, and ensure opportunity for public 

involvement and review. 

# Foster the use of a web-based tournament management system so all 

partners, tournament sponsors, and the public have access to scheduling 

information, tournament dates, and permit procedures. 

Objective 4.10. Wildlife Observation and Photography. Maintain the following existing and 

new facilities to foster wildlife observation and photography opportunities: 25 

observation decks and areas, 3 observation towers, 4 photography blinds, 14 

hiking trails, 19 canoe trails, 6 biking trails, and 3 auto tour routes. (See 

Tables in Appendix H and maps, Appendix P)

Rationale: Wildlife observation and photography are two of the six priority 

public uses of the Refuge System and are to be facilitated when compatible. 

This objective represents a marked increase in the number of existing 

observation decks/areas (plus 10), observation towers (plus 3), photography 

blinds (plus 4), hiking trails (plus 8), canoe trails (plus 15), biking trails (plus 

3), and auto tour routes (plus 2). This expansion of facilities reflects a 

balanced and measured increase in facilities for wildlife observation and 

photography, while continuing to meet fish and wildlife protection and 

management responsibilities. 

Strategies 

# Schedule annual inspection and maintenance of the facilities. 

# Ensure adequate signing and information in brochures, websites, and 

maps so the public is aware of the facilities. 

# Continue to promote the wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities of the Refuge through public education, outreach, special 

programs, and partnerships with the states, Corps of Engineers and 

private conservation groups. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

162

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative)

# Enhance observation and photography opportunities on suitable areas of 

the Refuge through habitat, access, and facility improvements as outlined 

in other plan objectives.

# Seek new funding and partnership opportunities, including volunteers, 

for construction and maintenance of facilities. 

Objective 4.11. Interpretation and Environmental Education. By the end of 2010, increase 

the number of stand-alone interpretive signs to 102 (plus 43) and by 2021 

build new district offices with visitor contact facilities at McGregor, Winona, 

La Crosse, and the Lost Mound Unit. Continue to print and distribute a 

Refuge General Brochure, and update websites quarterly. Continue to 

sponsor at least two major annual interpretive events on each Refuge 

District, and by January 2008 establish at least one major environmental 

education program at each District with visitor services staff. (See Table 16 in 

Appendix H and maps, Appendix P)

Rationale: Interpretation and environmental education are two of the six 

priority public uses of the Refuge System and are to be fostered if compatible 

with the Refuge purpose and Refuge System mission. Interpreting the 

resources and challenges of the Refuge to the general public and 

incorporating these topics into school curricula are important ways to 

influence the future well-being of the Refuge and the river. Only through 

understanding and appreciation will people be moved to personal and 

collective action to ensure a healthy Refuge for the future. Interpretation and 

environmental education are also key to changing attitudes and behavior 

which affect the Refuge through off-Refuge land use decisions and on-Refuge 

conduct and use.

This objective reflects a marked increase in interpretation and environmental 

education capability and programs and reflects the importance of these 

programs in an integrated resource management alternative. It also reflects 

basic needs for a Refuge that is the most heavily visited in the United States, 

and would provide facilities necessary to inform and educate visitors and help 

them make the most of their Refuge visit. Since environmental education is 

curriculum-based and labor intensive, initial efforts will be limited to 

Districts with public use staff, but will increase across all Districts if and 

when staff are added. 

Strategies 

# Hire visitor services specialists at McGregor and Winona Districts (top 

priority), and hire a visitor services specialist to be stationed at the 

National Mississippi River Museum in Dubuque, Iowa, to help present 

Refuge-specific programs. 

# Continue work to complete exhibits at Savanna and La Crosse offices, 

and seek funding to replace exhibits at McGregor District and the Lost 

Mound Unit of the Savanna District.

# Participate in national interpretive events such as National Wildlife 

Refuge Week or Migratory Bird Day for efficiency and effectiveness. 

# Conduct a quarterly condition review of interpretive signs and complete 

maintenance and sign replacement as needed. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

163

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) 

# Cooperate with existing interpretive and environmental education 

programs offered by the states, Corps of Engineers, other agencies and 

private conservation groups, and continue to seek grants to fund events 

and programs. 

# Continue to place interpretive signs at public access and overlook points 

in cooperation with various agencies and units of government.

Objective 4.12. Commercial Fish Floats. By the end of 2006, develop new facility, operations, 

and concession fee standards for the four existing commercial fish floats or 

fishing piers below Locks and Dams 6, 7, 8, and 9. Phase out those operations 

which do not meet new standards, solicit proposals for new floats, and base a 

decision on the adequacy and feasibility of the new proposals.

Rationale: This objective would continue to recognize the important role of 

fish floats in providing an alternative fishing experience for a diversity of 

Refuge visitors. However, new standards would address several long 

standing management issues such as permit non-compliance, condition and 

safety issues with some operations, net economic loss to the government, and 

noncompliance with regulations governing concessions on national wildlife 

refuges. Phasing out operations not in compliance would reduce Refuge 

administrative and staff costs, resources that could be directed back to fishand-wildlife-related objectives. Soliciting new proposals to replace any 

facilities phased out could lead to quality replacements to meet need and 

demand while reducing staff oversight.

Strategies 

# Seek input from current fish float owners, draft new standards well in 

advance of implementation, and give fish float owners/operators a chance 

to review and comment. 

# Continue yearly coordination meeting with float owners and operators to 

address concerns and permit conditions. 

# Continue enforcement of permit stipulations and suspend permits of 

those operations not meeting the stipulations. 

# Inspect facilities for safety at least once yearly. 

# If any floats are phased out due to non-compliance with permit 

stipulations, ensure adequate public notice so clients can seek alternate 

opportunities and ensure timely solicitations of new float proposals. 

Objective 4.13 Guiding Services. In collaboration with the states and the Corps of 

Engineers, implement in spring 2008, a consistent process for issuing permits 

for persons conducting for-hire guided hunting, fishing, and wildlife 

observation activities on the Refuge. 

Rationale: As noted in the issues section of Chapter 1, guiding businesses are 

on the rise and promise to become an increasingly common activity on the 

Refuge. Without proper oversight, this activity could lead to disturbance to 

sensitive areas and wildlife, and increased conflict with the general public or 

other guides as volume and frequency increases. In addition, guiding and 

other commercial uses are prohibited on a national wildlife refuge unless 

specifically authorized via permit. The Refuge needs to bring this use into 

compliance with regulations and policy. Effectively managing this use would 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

164

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative)

not only safeguard fish and wildlife resources, but also benefit the general 

public that uses the Refuge for hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation, and 

thus represents an integrated approach.

Strategies 

# Use the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee as a forum to 

discuss with the states and the Corps of Engineers the best strategies for 

dove-tailing Refuge permit requirements with their permitting 

procedures. 

# Develop with the states and the Corps of Engineers capacity parameters 

on each Pool(s) within the Refuge for various types of guiding operations. 

The parameters should aim to minimize competition or conflict with the 

general public engaged in hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation, 

minimize conflicts between guides, and ensure a viable economic 

opportunity for existing guiding businesses. 

# Conduct a public information effort through news releases and media 

contacts to implement the objective. 

# Provide proactive enforcement through Refuge and other agency law 

enforcement officers. 

Goal 5: Other Recreational Use. We will provide opportunities for the public to use and enjoy the Refuge 

for traditional and appropriate non-wildlife-dependent recreation that is compatible with the purpose for 

which the Refuge was established and the mission of the Refuge System.

Objective 5.1. Beach Use and Maintenance. Beginning in spring 2007, use the following 

general guidelines, regulations and policies to manage beach-related uses and 

beach maintenance. Other existing public use regulations pertaining to beach 

areas (see Appendix J ) will remain in effect.

1.) General Guidelines. Beach-related uses will be governed by the 

following over-arching guidelines:

a) protect human health and safety

b) minimize dangerous situations for Refuge law enforcement officers

c) minimize impacts to wildlife and the Refuge environment. 

d) minimize conflicts with wildlife-dependent users 

e) set policies and regulations that are reasonable and feasible to 

administer and enforce

f) minimize or offset current and future administrative, operating, and 

maintenance costs

g) make regulations easily understood by the general public

2.) Beach Use Policy. Remnant and active dredged material placement sites, 

natural sand shorelines, and all other shoreline areas within the Refuge 

will be open to public use and enjoyment in accordance with current and 

proposed (see item 3 below) Refuge Public Use Regulations. Based on 

clearly articulated reasons, the Refuge Manager may close or restrict use 

on certain beach and other shoreline areas to address chronic public use 

problems or safeguard wildlife or habitat values. Unless an emergency 

situation, these closures or restrictions will be coordinated with the 

states and Corps of Engineers through existing interagency workgroups 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

165

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) 

or through the pool-by-pool beach planning process, and the public will 

be given proper notice and an opportunity to comment.

3.) New Regulations for Camping and Other Beach-related Uses. Current 

public use regulations as described in the Refuge Public Use Regulations 

brochure (see Appendix J ) will remain in effect, except by April 1, 2007, 

the following regulation changes will be implemented:

a) Areas open to camping remain unchanged from existing policy and 

regulations. However, camping is defined as erecting a tent or 

shelter of natural or synthetic material, preparing a sleeping bag or 

other bedding material for use, parking of a motor vehicle or mooring 

or anchoring of a vessel, for the apparent purpose of overnight 

occupancy, or, occupying or leaving personal property, including 

boats or other craft, at a site anytime between the hours of 11 p.m. 

and 3 a.m. on any given day. 

b) Human solid waste and associated material must either be removed 

and properly disposed of off-refuge, or, be buried on site to a depth of 

6-8 inches and at least 50 feet from waters edge. The burying of all 

other refuse, trash, or litter is still prohibited. 

c) The use or possession of glass food and beverage containers while 

afoot on lands within the Refuge is prohibited (vehicles and 

watercraft are exempt).

d) No change to existing alcohol use regulations as published in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 27.81 and 32.2) for national 

wildlife refuges: “Entering or remaining in any national wildlife 

refuge when under the influence of alcohol, to a degree that may 

endanger oneself or other persons or property or unreasonably 

annoy persons in the vicinity, is prohibited” and “The use or 

possession of alcoholic beverages while hunting is prohibited.”

4.) Beach Management and Maintenance Policy. The Refuge will play an 

active role in completing beach management plans with the Corps of 

Engineers and the states for all pools within the Refuge, and supports 

active public involvement in the process. However, the Refuge will in 

general only concur with maintenance of beaches on remnant dredged 

material islands or existing dredged material placement sites adjacent to 

the main channel of the river that are designated “low density 

recreation” in current Land Use Allocation Plans, or those not otherwise 

closed to use. Maintenance should be limited to the minimum reshaping, 

leveling, and vegetation clearing needed to ensure safe access and to 

facilitate the camping experience. Top dressing with sand should only be 

done under special circumstances. The scope and extent of all 

maintenance will be on a site-by-site basis as determined by the 

respective District Manager in consultation with the Corps of Engineers 

and the respective state. The Refuge will continue to request the closure 

of openings to dredged material placement sites after emptying on 

Service-acquired lands and Corps-acquired lands due to concerns with 

crowding, large group behavior issues, steep slopes, and shoreline dropoffs. Enforcement of non-wildlife-related recreation in empty placement 

sites left open on Corps of Engineers-acquired lands will not be the 

responsibility of the Refuge.

Rationale: Non-wildlife-dependent recreation continues to increase on the 

Mississippi River and the Refuge. It is estimated that 1.3 million persons per 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

166

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative)

year use the Refuge for camping, recreational boating, picnicking, swimming, 

social gatherings, and other uses not dependent on the presence of fish and 

wildlife. This objective, with its new policies and regulations, would help 

address some of the issues related to beach use described in the issue section 

of Chapter 1, most notably protection of sensitive wildlife and habitat, human 

waste, intoxication, unlawful and unruly behavior, officer and public safety, 

and preemptive use of preferred camping or hunting sites. This objective 

represents an integrated wildlife and public use approach, using reasonable 

regulations and policy to ensure that beach-related uses are compatible with 

the fish, wildlife, and plant conservation purposes of the Refuge and to 

address public safety concerns. The existing alcohol use regulation was 

deemed adequate, with the main problem being public awareness of the full 

regulations versus a set blood alcohol limit. The glass container regulation 

was added in this alternative since it was suggested by the public at several 

workshops to address safety problems with broken glass on beach areas. The 

beach management and maintenance policy strengthens the Refuge 

commitment to completing beach management plans in collaboration with 

other agencies and the public, while communicating the Refuge’s preferred 

policy or framework for completing the plans. This policy also clarifies the 

Refuge’s position on the management of dredged material placement sites 

and addresses concerns of agency responsibility on areas actively used by the 

Corps of Engineers for navigation system management.

Strategies

# Continue to work with the states and the Corps of Engineers through 

existing interagency workgroups, to complete beach plans for each pool 

within the Refuge with due consideration of the policies and regulations 

above. Actively seek public input and comment for beach plan 

preparation.

# Conduct a public information and education campaign well before 

implementation of regulation changes, to include news releases, general 

articles, fact sheets, and media interviews. 

# Institute an active “Leave No Trace” program for beach users (plan 

ahead and prepare, travel and camp on durable surfaces, dispose of waste 

properly, leave what you find, minimize campfire impacts, respect 

wildlife, and be considerate of others).

# Explore a citizen “Adopt a Beach” program to help address beach 

maintenance and clean-up needs. 

# Develop a brochure that clearly explains new policies and regulations and 

answers frequently asked questions. 

# Refuge law enforcement officers will increase contacts with Refuge users 

once this plan is approved to explain pending regulation changes. Verbal 

or written warnings will be used at officer discretion during the first year 

of implementation to ease the transition.

# Continue to explore a user fee system to off-set costs of beach-related 

recreation such as camping in line with new fee legislation passed by 

Congress in 2004. Any fee proposal would be drafted only with full public, 

state, and Corps of Engineers involvement.

Objective 5.2. Electric Motor and Slow, No Wake Areas. Beginning in the spring of 2007, 

establish a total of five Electric Motor Areas on the Refuge encompassing 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

167

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) 

1,852 acres, and eight Slow, No Wake Areas encompassing 9,720 acres. The 

Black River Bottoms Slow, No Wake Area will not be implemented until 2008, 

and the Nelson-Trevino Slow, No Wake Area in 2009. (See Table 13 in 

Appendix H, maps in Appendix P, and Appendix R, which contains more 

detailed area descriptions and rationales.) These areas are defined as follows:

Electric Motor Areas. Areas closed year-round to all motorized vehicles 

and watercraft except watercraft powered by electric motors or nonmotorized means. The possession of other watercraft motors is not 

prohibited, only their use. For example, anglers could switch to an 

electric trolling motor when entering these areas.

Slow, No Wake Areas. From March 16 through October 31 in these areas, 

watercraft must travel at slow, no-wake speed and no airboats or 

hovercraft are allowed. Respective state definitions for what constitutes 

“slow, no wake” speed or operation will apply as appropriate. The airboat 

and hovercraft prohibition refers to operation. For example, they could 

be propelled by electric motors or other means at slow, no wake speed 

inside these areas during the dates specified.

Rationale: This objective will help reduce disturbance to backwater fish 

nurseries and sensitive backwater wildlife such as raptors, Black Terns and 

other colonial nesting birds, and furbearers in keeping with the wildlife 

mission of the Refuge. It will also address the need to provide areas of quiet 

and solitude sought by many users of the Refuge, and thus provide a balanced 

approach in line with the focus of this alternative. This balancing of needs and 

desire of user groups, and within user groups, is becoming more important as 

visitation grows, technology advances, and the use of such technology 

increases (for example jet skis, mud motors, airboats, and hovercraft). The 

seasonal prohibition of airboats and hovercraft in the Slow, No Wake Areas 

recognizes the innate and virtually unavoidable noise levels produced by 

these types of watercraft. The seasonal approach also allows the use of 

airboats and hovercraft during the trapping season and for about half of the 

waterfowl hunting season when it is 60 days or longer. Due to the size and 

scope of the Refuge, space and time restraints are deemed a fair approach to 

watercraft use on the Refuge in keeping with the overall goal of providing 

high quality and sustainable wildlife-dependent recreation and opportunities 

for other recreation. 

All Slow, No Wake Areas will take effect in 2007, except the Black River 

Bottoms Slow, No Wake Area (Pool 7) which takes effect in 2008, and the 

Nelson-Trevino Slow, No Wake Area (Pool 4) which takes effect in 2009. 

During the public comment period on the supplemental EIS, a group of 

citizens suggested an alternative Slow, No Wake Area in the Big Marsh/Mud 

Lake area of Pool 7 to replace the Black River Bottoms area. The proposal 

had several conditions which made it unsuitable. However, since the proposal 

has merit based on resource values, ease of access, and existing adjacent 

facilities, the implementation of the Black River Bottoms Slow, No Wake Area 

is being delayed one year to allow further exploration of the proposal. 

However, the Black River Bottoms Slow, No Wake Area will be implemented 

in 2008 unless further consultation with citizens and a decision by the Refuge 

Manager dictates another course. The implementation of the Nelson-Trevino 

Slow, No Wake Area is delayed to 2009 to reduce variables (frequency, type, 

and level of public use) during three years’ of waterfowl monitoring planned 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

168

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative)

for the area. The implementation is related to, and coincides with, Waterfowl 

Hunting Closed Area changes scheduled for 2009 in Pool 4 (see Objective 4.2, 

Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas). 

This objective only affects the means of navigation in these areas, and all 

current uses would be allowed (fishing, hunting, camping, wildlife 

observation, etc.) in accordance with current regulations or those proposed 

elsewhere in this alternative. This alternative also reflects the substantial 

public comment received about proposed electric motor areas and 

suggestions to use slow, no wake designations versus electric motor areas to 

meet concerns of wildlife disturbance and user conflict while not unduly 

restricting public access and use. Four areas originally proposed were 

dropped from any designation after further review and consideration of 

public comment.

Strategies 

# Conduct a public information campaign to inform and educate the public 

about pending area designations and implementation dates. Use news 

releases, media interviews, fact sheets, brochures, and websites in the 

information effort. 

# Clearly delineate Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas on 

Refuge maps and by appropriate signing.

Objective 5.3. Slow, No Wake Zones. In 2007, begin adding 11 new Refuge-administered 

slow, no wake zones (brings total to 13) and assist local or other units of 

government in the enforcement of 44 other slow, no wake zones within the 

Refuge. In Spring Lake and Crooked Slough-Lost Mound (Pool 13), 

implement in 2007 a speed and distance restriction similar to state 

regulations: “Watercraft operators must reduce the speed of their watercraft 

to less than 5 mph when within 100 feet of another watercraft that is 

anchored or underway at 5 mph or less.” (See Table 18 in Appendix H and 

maps, Appendix P)

Rationale: On a few areas of the Refuge, boat traffic levels and size of boats is 

leading to erosion of island and shoreline habitat, which can impact fish and 

wildlife habitat and archeological sites directly or indirectly through 

increasing sedimentation and water turbidity. On some of the areas identified, 

slower speeds would reduce safety hazards posed by heavy traffic and blind 

spots in narrow channels. Public comment on the proposed Spring Lake 

speed limit and Crooked Slough slow, no wake regulation in Alternative D led 

to a change in this objective. The speed and distance regulation will address 

concerns of safety and user-conflict without unduly restricting boating use 

when no other boats are present.

Strategies 

# Work with local authorities to designate and mark slow, no wake zones.

# Communicate the changes with the public well in advance of 

implementation using the media and other means, and clearly show slow, 

no wake zones on maps available to the public.

Objective 5.4. Dog Use Policy. Beginning March 1, 2007, implement the following new 

regulation governing dogs on the Refuge: 
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

169

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) 

“No dogs are allowed to disturb or endanger wildlife or people while on 

the Refuge. All dogs while on the Refuge must be under the control of 

their owners/handlers at all times or on a leash. No dogs are allowed to 

roam. All dogs must be on a leash when on hiking trails or other areas 

so posted. Working a dog in Refuge waters by tossing a retrieval 

dummy or other object for out-and-back exercise is allowed. However, 

the above conditions do apply. Dogs are exempt from these conditions 

while engaged in authorized hunting activities. Owners/handlers of 

dogs are also responsible for disposal of dog droppings on Refuge 

public use concentration areas such as trails, sandbars, and boat 

landings.” Field trials or commercial/professional dog training remain 

prohibited.

Rationale: This objective relaxes the current Refuge System regulation 

which prohibits unconfined domestic animals on national wildlife refuges. The 

new regulation provides stipulations for allowing dogs to be free and would 

allow owners to exercise their dogs, but protects wildlife from disturbance. 

The new regulation also helps safeguard other visitors from the real or 

perceived threat that dogs and other animals can pose, but recognizes their 

traditional use and conservation benefit in hunting. This regulation 

represents a change in wording, but not intent, from that proposed in the 

draft Alternative E, taking into account public comment and the need for 

clear, plain language. The prohibition of field trials and commercial or 

organized dog training is a continuation of a long-standing Refuge policy. This 

regulation also does not affect the existing regulation that prohibits all other 

unconfined domestic animals on the Refuge.

Strategies 

# Publish the new regulation in the Refuge public use regulation brochure, 

issue news releases, and conduct other outreach prior to implementation 

in 2007. 

# Except in certain cases, Refuge law enforcement officers will generally 

give verbal and/or written warnings for violations of the new regulation 

the first year, then issue violation notices at their discretion beginning in 

2008.

Objective 5.5. General Public Use Regulations. Beginning in 2007, conduct annual review 

and update of the general public use regulations governing entry and use of 

the Refuge (current regulations are found in Appendix J ).

Rationale: Public entry and use regulations not only protect wildlife, but 

enhance the quality of the visitor experience and thus reflect the integrated 

focus of this alternative. The current regulations were last reviewed and 

amended in 1999. However, the resources and public use of the Refuge are 

dynamic, and a yearly review would ensure that regulations are needed, clear, 

and effective. In addition, new regulations may be required to safeguard 

resources or to address new or emerging problems recognized by managers 

and law enforcement officers. An annual review would provide a more 

systematic process than in the past.

Strategies 

# Complete a law enforcement step-down plan for the Refuge in 

cooperation with the states and the Corps of Engineers.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

170

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative)

# Conduct review during Refuge law enforcement meetings. 

# Provide the public, states, and Corps of Engineers ample opportunity to 

review and comment on any new or substantially changed regulation. 

# Follow national guidance for any changes affecting hunting and fishing 

and make part of the Code of Federal Regulations governing national 

wildlife refuges. 

# Update, print, and distribute the Public Use Regulations brochure. 

# Post pertinent regulations at boat landings and other public use areas, 

such as trail heads and beach areas. 

# Continue proactive law enforcement to inform and educate the public on 

Refuge regulations and to seek their compliance.

Goal 6: 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.

Objective 6.1. Office and Shop Facilities. By 2010, construct new offices and maintenance 

shops at Winona, La Crosse, and McGregor Districts, and expand the office 

and construct a new maintenance shop at the Savanna District. Each office 

would feature a biological work area or lab, and modest public orientation, 

interpretation and environmental education capability. Refuge Headquarters 

would be integrated with either the Winona or La Crosse offices. By 2021, 

remodel or replace the office and shop at the Lost Mound Unit.

Rationale: This objective emphasizes a balanced approach to replacing 

current office facilities, with a focus on both the resource and public use 

responsibilities of the Refuge. The expansion of the Savanna District office 

would be an additional meeting room/classroom for expanded interpretive 

programs and environmental education. 

Strategies 

# Ensure that Refuge office and maintenance needs are reflected in budget 

needs databases. 

# Work with the Refuge Friends Group to raise private funds for the 

Savanna expansion. 

# Continue to maintain Service-owned facilities using annual maintenance 

budget allocations.

Objective 6.2. Public Access Facilities. By 2021, add one new boat landing (total of 26), four 

new walk-in accesses, and one improved canoe landing. Improve five parking 

areas on the Refuge to support public use. (See Table 1, Appendix H, and 

maps, Appendix P)

Rationale: This objective represents a modest increase in public access 

facilities to help facilitate wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Since the 

Refuge is mainly a floodplain Refuge bounded by major rail lines and 

highways, opportunities for increasing access points is limited. In addition to 

these accesses, there are 221 other public and private boat accesses that 

provide access to the Mississippi River or its tributaries, and thus the Refuge.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

171

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative) 

Strategies 

# Continue routine upkeep of boat accesses by Refuge staff, temporary 

employees and Youth Conservation Corps members when available, and 

volunteers. 

# Continue to modernize accesses using Maintenance Management System 

funding or special funding which is provided periodically. Seek design 

input from users of the accesses.

# In cooperation with states and local governments, explore Transportation 

Enhancement Act projects and funding for new accesses and to upgrade 

current Refuge accesses.

Objective 6.3. Operations and Maintenance Needs. Complete annual review of Refuge 

Operating Needs System (RONS), Maintenance Management System 

(MMS), and Service Assessment and Maintenance Management System 

(SAMMS) databases to ensure these reflect the balanced funding needs for 

carrying out this alternative. Continue to document operations and 

maintenance needs for habitat projects completed on the Refuge through the 

Environmental Management Program or any future Navigation and 

Environmental Sustainability Program administered through the Corps of 

Engineers.

Rationale: The RONS, MMS, and SAMMS databases are the chief 

mechanisms for documenting ongoing and special needs for operating and 

maintaining a national wildlife refuge. These databases are part of the 

information used in the formulation of budgets at the Washington and 

Regional levels, and for the allocation of funding to the field. It is important 

that the databases be updated periodically to reflect the needs of the Refuge, 

and in particular the objectives and strategies elsewhere in this alternative. 

Habitat projects completed through the Environmental Management 

Program also carry with them an operations and maintenance obligation. For 

existing projects, this cost amounted to actual Refuge costs of $139,000 in 

2003 and $98,600 in 2004. No additional funding is provided by Congress to 

cover these annual and increasing costs. Estimated annual operations and 

maintenance costs are expected to grow as projects age, and are projected to 

average $365,000 per year during the 15-year span of this plan. These costs 

could accelerate if Congress authorizes and funds the proposed Navigation 

and Environmental Sustainability Program as documented in the Corps of 

Engineers 2005 navigation feasibility study.

Strategies 

# Continue to work with partner organizations in disseminating 

information on operations and maintance needs. 

Objective 6.4. Public Information and Awareness. By 2008, increase by 50 percent the 

current annual average of 80 media interviews, 125 news releases, and 25 

special events (special programs, presentations, and displays at others’ 

events), and by 2021 increase information kiosks to 115, an increase of 49. 

(See Table 16 in Appendix H and maps in Appendix P)
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

172

Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus (Preferred Alternative)

Rationale: This objective reflects an emphasis on providing the public with 

more information on both resource-related and public use-related aspects of 

the Refuge in keeping with a balanced approach. The number of kiosks is 

high given the size and length of the Refuge, numerous access points, and 

adjacent National Scenic Byways. 

Strategies 

# Hire visitor services specialists for those Districts without, namely 

Winona and McGregor Districts.

# Hire a public information specialist at Headquarters to increase effort on 

interviews, news releases, and special events. 

# Tap other specialists identified in this alternative (e.g. forester, fishery 

biologist) for information and outreach on resource programs of the 

Refuge. 

# Continue to look for creative ways to leverage efforts and funding for 

public information. 

# Carry out related objectives dealing with trails, leaflets, websites and 

interpretive signs (see objectives 4.10 and 4.11). 

# Cooperate with the states and the Corps of Engineers on visitor surveys 

to gauge public awareness of the Refuge and Mississippi River resources.

Objective 6.5. Staffing Needs. By 2021, increase staffing from current permanent, full-time 

level of 37 people to 63 people (60.5 full-time equivalents or FTEs) in a full 

range of disciplines which benefit both resource and public use objectives in 

this alternative. 

Rationale: This objective reflects a balanced approach to Refuge 

management by providing operations and maintenance-funded staffing 

deemed necessary to meet the goals and objectives of this alternative. The 

increase in staff would bring the Refuge just above “minimum staffing levels” 

used for planning purposes in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Like all 

land management, refuge management is labor intensive and labor costs 

represent over 95 percent of the base operations funding received each year. 

These staffing needs are documented in the strategies for various objectives 

in this alternative. Based on public input concerning the need for additional 

law enforcement capability and presence, an additional four full-time law 

enforcement officers (one for each of the four Refuge districts) was added in 

this alternative. This increase in law enforcement capability is still far below 

levels recommended in various law enforcement assessments and deployment 

models for a refuge of this size and visitation level.

Strategies 

# Ensure that staffing needs are incorporated in budget needs databases. 

# Maintain other sources of funding for staff who coordinate the 

Environmental Management Program and the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program.

# Strengthen existing volunteer program and recruit new volunteers to 

assist with resource management and visitor services.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

173

Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River Refuge 

Alternatives Issue/

Objective 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative B. Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C. Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D.Wildlife a

Integrated Public Use 

Focus

Goal 1. Landscape. Improve scenic qualities and wild character of the Upper Mississippi River Refuge.1.1 Refuge Boundary

Survey problem areas, post boundary as time permits

In coordination with the Corps of Engineers, survey and post entire boundary by 2021. Boundary issues would be addressed in coordination with the Corps of Engineers, as appropriate. 

Same as B Same as B 

1.2 Acquisition within approved boundary

Acquire from willing sellers about 200 acres per year or 3,000 acres by 2020. Give highest priority to acquisition of lands and waters most important to fish and wildlife.

Acquire from willing sellers an average of 1,000 acres per year or 15,000 acres by 2021 (58% of goal). Give highest priority to acquisition of lands and waters most important to fish and wildlife.

Same as B except give highest priority to acquisition of lands and waters most important for public recreation values and opportunities. 

Same as B except give highest priority to acquisition of lands and waters most important to fish and wildlife, but consider public recreation values. 

1.3 Bluffland protection

Low-key current approach: support others and support opportunistic acquisition of some bluff areas in boundary

Acquire from willing sellers 13 bluffland areas within approved boundary (Winona District – 6, La Crosse District – 3, McGregor District – 4). Work with partners to leverage resources, and favor easements over fee-title acquisition.

Same as B, but favor feetitle acquisition over easements. 

Same as B, but consider a blend of easements and fetitle acquisition. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

174

1.4 Research Natural Areas and Special Designations

No change, continue low-key monitoring, administration, and public information. No new Natural Areas proposed and no Ramsar designation. 

More actively administer Natural Areas; complete management plan for each by 2010 with focus on plant and wildlife conservation. No new Natural Areas proposed and no Ramsar designation. 

Same as A except increase effort to make public aware of values and management of Natural Areas by incorporating information in brochures, maps, and websites. 

Same as B except increaseffort to make public awaof values and managemenNatural Areas by incorporating information brochures, maps, and websites. Also, nominate Refuge as Wetland of International Significance under Ramsar. 

Goal 2. Environmental Health. Improve environmental health of the refuge by working with others.2.1 Water Quality (chemistry and sediments)

Current program of seeking improvement in water quality and sediment problems through programs of other agencies, including EMP.

Proactive program to address water quality: - priv. lands biologists - watershed agreements - assessments - research/education- support UMRBA efforts to standardize water quality criteria Address sedimentation in backwaters through EMP and other programs, with emphasis on improving fish and wildlife habitat.

Same as B except put emphasis on improving access for recreation when addressing sediment reduction projects in backwaters.

Same as B except ensure that fish and wildlife objectives are met while integrating public use neesuch as access.

Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Alternatives Issue/

Objective 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative B. Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C. Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D.Wildlife a

Integrated Public Use 

Focus
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

175

2.2 Water level management

By 2021, complete drawdowns of Refuge pools. 

Same as A except seek establishment of Access Trust Fund so drawdowns can be accomplished as needed based on habitat conditions.

Same as A Same as B 

2.3 Invasive Plants Continue modest level of 

control as funding allows.

Complete invasive plant inventory by 2008; reduce acres affected by 10% by 2010.

Same as A Same as B 

2.4 Invasive Animals

Continue modest effort of information and education on invasives and their impact. 

Increase efforts to control invasive animals through active partnerships with the states and other federal agencies, and increase public awareness and prevention.

Same as A Same as B 

Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Alternatives Issue/

Objective 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative B. Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C. Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D.Wildlife a

Integrated Public Use 

Focus
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

176

Goal 3. Wildlife and Habitat. Support diverse and abundant native fish, wildlife, and plants.3.1 Environmental Pool Plans

Aggressive implementation of Pool Plans using all tools available, with 30% of the portion of the priority projects/tools within the approved refuge boundary completed by 2021. 

Same as A Same as A Same as A 

3.2 Guiding Principles for all habitat management programs

Do not adopt and implement guiding principles. 

Adopt and begin use of guiding principles when providing input to design and construction of projects. Principles will favor fish and wildlife over public use and aesthetic considerations

Adopt and begin use of guiding principles when providing input to design and construction of projects. Principles will favor public use of projects versus fish and wildlife needs or aesthetics.

Adopt and begin use of guiding principles when providing input to design and construction of projecPrinciples will integrate public use and aesthetic considerations with fish awildlife needs.

3.3 Monitoring fish and wildlife populations

Continue current monitoring efforts on some key species and habitat indicators, moderate applied research.

Increase monitoring efforts. Amend Wildlife Inventory plan to include more species and more emphasis on habitat monitoring and research. 

Decrease monitoring by focusing on waterfowl and a few other migratory bird species or groups.

Same as B 

3.4 Threatened and Endangered species management

Continue current monitoring of bald eagles, advisory involvement with other listed species. 

By 2008, begin monitoring all federally listed threatened or endangered and candidate species and prepare management plans to help recovery. 

Same as A Same as B 

Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Alternatives Issue/

Objective 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative B. Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C. Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D.Wildlife a

Integrated Public Use 

Focus
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

177

3.5 Furbearer trapping

Continue basic trapping program until refuge trapping plan, with public involvement, is updated by 2007. 

Same as A Same as A Same as A 

3.6 Fishery and Mussel Management

Continue current modest involvement in fishery and mussel management on the refuge, deferring to states and Service’s Fishery Resource Office

Increase refuge involvement in fishery management by: 1. Completing by 2008 a Fishery and Mussel Management Plan which incorporates current monitoring and management by the states and other Service offices. 2. Hire a fishery biologist to facilitate state/Service/refuge coordination

Same as A Same as B 

Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Alternatives Issue/

Objective 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative B. Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C. Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D.Wildlife a

Integrated Public Use 

Focus
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

178

3.7 Commercial fishing and clamming(see 3.8 for reference to turtle harvesting)

Continue to defer to the states to monitor, regulate, and permit commercial fishing and clamming.

Increase refuge involvement in commercial fishing and clamming by: 1) Completing a Fishery and Mussel Management Plan (see Objective 3.6) 2) Issuing refuge special use permits in addition to staterequired permits 3) Increase coordination with the states for commercial fishing activity to meet fishery objectives, especially in regards to invasive fish species (see Objectives 2.4 and 3.6)

Same as A Same as B 

3.8 Turtle Management

Continue current limited involvement with turtle management; continue to cooperate with Corps of Engineers and the states studies and turtle management issues.

Increase refuge involvement in turtle management by: 1) completing a 3-5 year turtle ecology study of representative habitats of the entire refuge, and 2) coordinating with other agencies on turtle management actions including monitoring, harvest, and limiting disturbance to nests. 

Same as A Same as B 

Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Alternatives Issue/

Objective 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative B. Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C. Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D.Wildlife a

Integrated Public Use 

Focus
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

179

3.9 Forest Management

Continue current limited involvement with forest management; continue to cooperate with Corps of Engineers’ forest inventory work.

Increase refuge involvement in forest management by: 1) Completing, with Corps of Engineers, a forest inventory for the entire refuge.2) Hire a refuge forester to complete a Forest Management Plan and lead an active forest management program.

Same as A Same as B 

3.10 Grassland Management

Maintain 5,700 acres of grassland through various management tools including prescribed fire, haying, and control of invasives.

Same as A except also complete a step-down Habitat Management Plan to address grassland conservation and enhancement. 

Same as A Same as B 

Goal 4. Wildlife-Dependent Recreation. Ensure abundant and sustainable opportunities for a broad cross-section of the public.4.1. General Hunting

Maintain a minimum of 192,219 acres (80%) of land and water open to all hunting. Make no changes to current 8 No Hunting Zones for a total of 3,555 acres. 

Maintain a minimum of 165,524 acres (69%) of land and water open to all hunting. Add 2 new No Hunting Zones for a total of 3,813 acres (10 zones total). 

Maintain a minimum of 189,647 acres (79%) of land and water open to all hunting. Add 9 new No Hunting Zones for a total of 5,959 acres (17 zones total).

Maintain a minimum of 180,626 acres (75%) of lanand water open to all hunting. Add 6 new No Hunting Zones for a total 5,404 acres (14 zones tota

Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Alternatives Issue/

Objective 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative B. Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C. Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D.Wildlife a

Integrated Public Use 

Focus
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

180

4.2 Waterfowl hunting closed areas and sanctuaries

Continue current system of 14 Closed Areas and one Sanctuary (no entry). No change in current entry or use regulations. Make only minor adjustments to some areas to clarify boundaries or address operation/maintenance needs. Total acres = 44,544 Closed Areas = 14 Sanctuaries = 1

In fall 2006: 1) Add 14 new Closed Areas to the current 15, for a total of 29 areas. 2) All areas, except on Lake Onalaska, would become true Waterfowl Sanctuaries by prohibiting entry and use from Oct. 1 to the end of the respective state duck season.3) Some boundary adjustments would be made to the Lake Onalaska Closed Area. The Voluntary Avoidance Area would continue. Total acres = 60,396 Closed Areas = 1 Sanctuaries = 28

Continue current system of 14 Closed Areas and one Sanctuary, but in 2007 reduce the Lake Onalaska Closed Area by 245 acres to address a firing line. No change in entry or use regulations from existing system.Make only minor adjustments to other areas to clarify boundaries or address operation/maintenance needs. Total acres = 44,614 Closed Areas = 14 Sanctuaries = 1

In fall 2006: 1) Add 5 new Closed Areaand delete or modify the current 15 for a total of 2 2) Add 2 new Waterfowl Sanctuaries (no entry) for total of 3: a. Pool Slough Sanctuary (McGregor District, Pool Iowa/Minnesota) b. Guttenberg Ponds portof the 12 Mile Sough Sanctuary (McGregor District, Pool 11, Iowa) c. Spring Lake Sanctuary (Savanna District, Pool 13Illinois-existing) 3) All Closed Areas, excepon Lake Onalaska, would closed to fishing, except bank fishing, and all motorized watercraft, froOct. 1 to the end of the respective state regular duck season. (continued next page)

Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Alternatives Issue/

Objective 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative B. Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C. Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D.Wildlife a

Integrated Public Use 

Focus
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

181

4.2 Waterfowl hunting closed areas and sanctuaries (continued)

4) Some boundary adjustments would be mato the Lake Onalaska ClosArea. The Voluntary Avoidance Area would continue. Total acres = 43,704 Closed Areas = 18 Sanctuaries = 3

4.3 Waterfowl hunting regulation changes

No major changes to current waterfowl hunting regulations.

In 2006, implement new refugewide regulation limiting each hunter on the refuge to 25 shotshells in possession while hunting during the waterfowl season. Establish regulations to prohibit open-water hunting on areas of Pools 9 and 11. 

In 2006, implement new refugewide regulation requiring a minimum of 100 yards spacing between waterfowl hunting parties. No shotshell restriction. No change in open-water hunting regulations in Pools 9 or 11.

In 2006, implement new refuge-wide regulations limiting each hunter on threfuge to 25 shotshells during waterfowl season aa minimum of 100 yards spacing between waterfowhunting parties. Establish regulations to prohibit opwater hunting on areas of Pools 9 and 11. 

Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Alternatives Issue/

Objective 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative B. Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C. Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D.Wildlife a

Integrated Public Use 

Focus
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

182

4.4 Firing Line -- Pool 7, Lake Onalaska, La Crosse District

Status quo, do not address the firing line issue beyond existing laws and regulations.

Move the north boundary of Lake Onalaska Closed Area northward to include 530 more acres and thus reduce the firing line. 

Move the north boundary of Lake Onalaska Closed Area southward to exclude 245 more acres and thus reduce the firing line. 

Establish a managed waterfowl hunting area on the north end of the Lake Onalaska Closed Area. Thhunt would establish posthunting sites and limit the number of hunters to thossites via random drawing and for-fee permits.

4.5 Permanent hunting blinds on Savanna District 

Continue current program. Eliminate the use of 

permanent hunting blinds after with the 2006-07 waterfowl hunting season. 

Same as B Phase-out the use of 

permanent hunting blinds beginning with Pool 12 aftthe 2006-07 season, Pool 1after the 2007-08 season, aPool 14 after the 2008-09 season. 

4.6 Potter’s Marsh Managed Hunt Savanna District 

Continue current program but make some administrative changes.

For 2006-07 hunting season, eliminate the managed hunt program, including use of permanent blinds, and open to all on first come, first secured basis. 

Same as B For 2006-07 hunting seaso

implement a variety of administrative changes. Permanent blinds would beliminated after the 2007-season, but boat blind siteprovided and managed.

Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Alternatives Issue/

Objective 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative B. Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C. Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D.Wildlife a

Integrated Public Use 

Focus
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

183

4.7 Blanding Landing Managed Hunt Program (Lost Mound Unit, Savanna District)

Continue current managed hunt as previously managed by the Illinois DNR: 15 permanent blind sites awarded by drawing.

After the 2006-07 season, eliminate the managed hunt program, including use of permanent blinds. Open to all on first come basis. 

Same as B Same as B 

4.8 Fishing Provide 140,545 acres of 

surface water open to yearround fishing. An additional 2,736 acres open except October 1 to the end of the state duck hunting season. Maintain 15 fishing piers/docks.

Provide 104,716 acres of surface water open to yearround fishing. An additional 38,645 acres open except October 1 to the end of the state duck hunting season. Maintain 15 fishing piers/docks.

Same as A, except add 5 new fishing piers/docks for a total of 20.

Provide 110,611 acres of surface water open to yearound fishing. An addition32,750 acres open except October 1 to the end of thstate duck hunting seasonAdd 3 new fishing piers/docks for total of 18.

4.9 Fishing Tournaments

Continue current “hands off ” approach to regulating fishing tournaments.

Issue refuge special use permits for tournaments in addition to state-required permit, to minimize impact to sensitive fish, wildlife, and habitat.

Review and comment on all tournament permits issued by the states to try and minimize conflicts with general public fishing, wildlife observation, and other uses.

Same as B 

Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Alternatives Issue/

Objective 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative B. Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C. Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D.Wildlife a

Integrated Public Use 

Focus
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

184

4.10 Wildlife Observation and Photography

Maintain the following existing facilities:15 observation areas 6 hiking trails 4 canoe trails 3 biking trails 1 auto tour route

Maintain the following existing or new facilities: 15 observation areas 8 hiking trails 4 canoe trails 3 biking trails 1 auto tour route

Maintain the following existing or new facilities: 31 observation areas 21 hiking trails 26 canoe trails 6 biking trails 3 auto tour routes 3 observation towers 3 photography blinds

Maintain the following existing or new facilities: 26 observation areas 16 hiking trails 21 canoe trails 5 biking trails 3 auto tour routes 3 observation towers 3 photography blinds

4.11 Interpretation and Environmental Education

Maintain 59 interpretive signs. Continue Refuge brochure and website. Sponsor 1 major annual interpretive event on each District. No change in current visitor services staffing.

Same as A, except long-term add visitor services staff to McGregor and Winona Districts (low priority compared to biological, technical and maintenance positions)

Maintain 102 existing and new interpretive signs. Build 3 new District Offices and new Lost Mound office, all with visitor contact facilities, and 1 major visitor center. Continue refuge brochure and website. Sponsor 2 major annual interpretive events and establish 1 environmental education program on each district. Add visitor services specialists to McGregor and Winona Districts, and one at the National Missisippi River Museum in Dubuque.

Same as C, except no majvisitor center.

Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Alternatives Issue/

Objective 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative B. Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C. Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D.Wildlife a

Integrated Public Use 

Focus
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

185

4.12 Fish Floats Continue to allow 4 existing 

fish floats under current annual permits, stipulations, and $100 annual fee. 

Phase out 4 existing fish floats and do not replace, letting private sector provide alternative offrefuge lands opportunities, such as commercial fishing barges not moored to refuge lands. 

Develop new standards for fish float facilities and operations, including new concession fees, and phase out floats that can not meet those standards. Seek replacement operations to replace those phased out. Solicit proposals for one new fish float, or other alternative, in the Savanna District.

Develop new standards fofish float facilities and operations, including new concession fees, and phasout floats that can not methose standards. Do not replace floats that are phased out, letting privatsector provide alternative off-refuge lands opportunities, such as commercial fishing bargenot moored to refuge land

4.13 Guiding services

Continue inconsistent, lowkey approach to issuing permits for hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation guiding.

Do not allow guiding for hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation on the refuge.

Provide policy and consistent process for issuing permits for hunting, fishing and wildlife observation guide services. Coordinate with the states for consistency with their permitting requirements. 

Same as C 

Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Alternatives Issue/

Objective 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative B. Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C. Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D.Wildlife a

Integrated Public Use 

Focus
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

186

Goal 5. Other Recreational Use. Provide opportunity for traditional and appropriate non-wildlife dependent use that is compatible with t5.1. Beach use and maintenance policy and regulations

 Open policy. No limits on areas open to camping, boat mooring, swimming, social gatherings, picnicking and other non-wildlifedependent uses, subject to current regulations. No new regulations and use current guidance for beach maintenance. 

Closed-unless-open policy. Limit camping, boat mooring, swimming, social gatherings, picnicking, and other non-wildlifedependent uses to islands and shoreline that border the main channel, including the backside of such islands or points, that are posted open for such uses. Implement new regulations dealing with camping, human waste, and alcohol use. No beach maintenance would be conducted.

Open policy. No limits on areas open to camping, boat mooring, swimming, social gatherings, picnicking and other non-wildlifedependent uses, subject to current regulations. Implement new regulations on camping, human waste, and alcohol use. Require that all persons using boats for beaching, mooring, or anchoring on refuge lands purchase a Recreation Use Permit. Beach maintenance would be allowed on most areas. Work with interagency teams to complete beach plans by pool. 

Open-unless-closed policyAll areas currently open tcamping, boat mooring, swimming, social gatherinpicnicking and other nonwildlife-dependent uses, would remain open, excep1) areas closed or restrictby signing to protect wildlife, habitat or the public, and 2) camping anovernight mooring limited islands and shoreline that border the main channel, including the backside of such islands or points. Implement new regulatiodealing with camping, human waste, and alcohol use. Articulate clear beacmaintenance policy, and work with interagency teams to complete beach plans by pool.

Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Alternatives Issue/

Objective 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative B. Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C. Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D.Wildlife a

Integrated Public Use 

Focus
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

187

5.1. Beach use and maintenance policy and regulations(continued)5.2. Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas

Current program with only 1 electric motor area of 222 acres (Mertes Slough, Winona District).

Designate 10 electric motor areas encompassing 15,900 acres. All current uses allowed, except camping. 

Designate 15 electric motor areas encompassing 13,239 acres. All current uses allowed, including camping.

Designate 16 new electric motor areas encompassin14,498 acres. All current uses allowed, and areas opto primitive camping. 

Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Alternatives Issue/

Objective 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative B. Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C. Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D.Wildlife a

Integrated Public Use 

Focus
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

188

5.3 Slow, No Wake Zones

Maintain 2 existing slow, no wake zones administered by the Refuge, and assist in enforcement of 44 others. 

Add 9 new slow, no wake zones, bringing total to 11 administered by the Refuge, and assist in enforcement of 44 others. 

Add 8 new slow, no wake zones, bringing total to 10 administered by the Refuge, and assist in enforcement of 44 others.

Add 9 new slow, no wake zones, bringing total to 11 administered by the Refuand assist in enforcement 44 others (slight location difference compared to B

5.4. Dog use policy Maintain current 

regulations: dogs and other animals must be confined, except dogs during hunting seasons. No field trials or commercial training will be permitted (current policy).

Adopt clearer regulation which defines confined: Dogs and other animals must be on 6 ft or less leash, or in closed kennel, at all times, except dogs during hunting seasons while engaged in hunting. No field trials or commercial training will be permitted (current policy).

Adopt regulation similar to one proposed by area conservation group: no wildlife or people disturbance, under control of owners at all times, and physically restrained at posted public use areas or when in proximity to people except while engaged in hunting. No field trials or commercial training will be permitted (current policy).

Adopt enforceable regulation which safeguarwildlife and visitors: From March 1 to June 30, dogs must be restrained by leaor other means. At all othtimes, dogs can be free if yards away from designatpublic use areas and/or othpersons, and if within sighand voice control of ownehandler. No field trials or commercial training will bpermitted (current policy

Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Alternatives Issue/

Objective 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative B. Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C. Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D.Wildlife a

Integrated Public Use 

Focus
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

189

5.5. General Public Use Regulations

Make no changes to public entry and use regulations for the Refuge.

Conduct annual review, and update as needed, general public use regulations governing public entry and use of the Refuge. 

Same as B Same as B 

Goal 6. Administration and Operation. Clarify boundary issues; seek adequate funding, staff, and facilities; improve public awareness of 6.1 Office and shop facilities 

Maintain existing offices (6) and shops (5), but replace the maintenance facilities at Winona and Savanna Districts by 2006.

Maintain existing offices (6) and shops (5), but replace the maintenance facilities at Winona, McGregor, and Savanna Districts by 2010.

By 2010, construct new offices and maintenance shops at Winona, La Crosse, and McGregor Districts, and expand the office and construct a new maintenance shop at Savanna District. Each office would have expanded visitor facilities but not a biological work area or lab. By 2020, build a new office and large visitor center for the Headquarters of the Refuge, and locate it either in Winona or La Crosse. Also by 2020, remodel or replace office and shop at the Lost Mound Unit.

By 2010, construct new offices and maintenance shops at Winona, La Crosand McGregor Districts, aexpand the office and construct a new maintenance shop at Savanna District. Each office would feature a biological work area or laand modest visitor facilitiRefuge Headquarters wobe integrated with either tWinona or La Crosse officBy 2020, remodel or replaoffice and shop at the LosMound Unit.

Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Alternatives Issue/

Objective 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative B. Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C. Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D.Wildlife a

Integrated Public Use 

Focus
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

190

6.2 Public access facilities

Maintain and modernize as needed, 25 existing public boat accesses. 

Same as A, except implement launch fee for Refuge-operated boat ramps.

Add 1 new boat access, 3 new walk-in accesses, 3 new and 1 improved canoe landings, and improve 5 parking areas. Implement launch fee for Refugeoperated boat ramps.

Add 1 new boat access, 3 new walk-in accesses, 1 improved canoe landing, aimprove 5 parking areas. Implement launch fee for Refuge-operated boat ramps. 

6.3. Operations and maintenance needs

Complete annual review of Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS), Maintenance Management System (MMS), and Service Assessment and Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) databases to ensure these reflect needs of current direction.

Same as A, but reflect needs of wildlife focus alternative.

Same as A, but reflect needs of public use focus alternative.

Same as A, but reflect balanced needs of wildlife and integrated public use focus alternative.

6.4. Public information and awareness

Continue current annual average of 80 media interviews, 125 news releases, and 25 special events (special programs, presentations, and displays at others’ events). Maintain existing 66 kiosks.

Decrease by 50 percent the current annual average of 80 media interviews, 125 news releases, and 25 special events (special programs, presentations, and displays at others’ events). Maintain existing 66 kiosks.

Increase by 50 percent the current annual average of 80 media interviews, 125 news releases, and 25 special events (special programs, presentations, and displays at others’ events). Add 49 kiosks.

Same as C, but also take advantage of technical anspecialist positions added this alternative to increasoutreach.

Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Alternatives Issue/

Objective 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative B. Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C. Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D.Wildlife a

Integrated Public Use 

Focus
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

191

6.5 Staffing needs No change in staffing level of 

37 people (37 FTEs)

By 2015, increase staffing from current 37 to 57 people (54.5 FTEs) to bring all Districts to minimum staffing level, add specialists to Headquarters, and increase staff at Lost Mound Unit. Priority would be positions which support biological and habitat programs. 

By 2015, increase staffing from current 37 to 57 people (54.5 FTEs) to bring all Districts to minimum staffing level, add specialists to Headquarters, and increase staff at Lost Mound Unit. Priority would be public use positions. 

By 2015, increase staffing from current 37 to 59 peo(56.5 FTEs) to bring all Districts to minimum staffing level, add specialito Headquarters, and increase staff at Lost MouUnit. Priority would be a blend of wildlife and publuse related positions. 

Table 1: Alternative Comparison by Issue/Objective, Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Alternatives Issue/

Objective 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative B. Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C. Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D.Wildlife a

Integrated Public Use 

Focus
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

192Table 2: Summary of Project Features by Alternative 

Feature Existing Features Total Proposed Features 

Alternative A:

No Action

Alternative B:

Wildlife Focus

Alt. C: Public

 Use Focus

Alt. D: Wildlife & 

Integrated Public Use 

Focus

Alt. E: Modified W

& Integrated Publ

Focus (Preferr

Alternative)

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acr

M

Waterfowl Closed Areas and/or Sanctuaries

15 44,544 29 60,396 15 44,614 21 43,704 23 43

No open water hunting areas 0 0 2 10,487 0 0 2 10,487 1 4,Managed / Special Hunts 2 2,434 0 0 0 0 2 2,403 3 ~3Administrative no hunting zones 8 3,555 10 3,813 17 5,959 14 5,404 11 3,Fish catch and release area 1 700 1 700 1 700 1 700 1 7Heron sanctuary 0 0 1 64 0 0 1 64 0 No-wake zones 46 NA 55 NA 54 NA 55 NA 57 NElectric motor areas 1 222 10 15,900 15 13,239 16 14,498 5 1,Slow, No Wake Areas 0 0 0 0 8 9,Research Natural Areas 4 6,946 4 6,946 4 6,946 4 6,946 4 6,

Trails

Canoe trails 4 32.1 4 32.1 26 167.9 21 126.9 19 12Hiking trails 6 20.5 8 24.8 21 50.7 16 40.9 14 3Auto tour routes 1 2.5 1 2.5 3 11.0 3 11.0 3 1Biking trails 3 10.0 3 10.0 6 17.0 5 14.1 6 2
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

193

Access Facilities

Fishing Piers 15 NA 15 NA 20 NA 18 NA 20 NCommercial fishing floats / piers

4 NA 0 NA 5 NA 4 NA 4 N

Boat access 25 NA 25 NA 26 NA 26 NA 26 NWalk-in access 0 NA 0 NA 3 NA 3 NA 4 NCanoe landing / launch 1 NA 1 NA 4** NA 2** NA 2** N

Parking lot improvements 0 NA 0 NA 5 NA 5 NA 5 N

Wildlife Observation Facilities

Observation decks/areas 15 NA 15 NA 31 NA 26 NA 25 NObservation towers 0 NA 0 NA 3 NA 3 NA 3Photo blinds 0 NA 0 NA 3 NA 3 NA 4 N

Signage

Kiosks 66 NA 66 NA 115 NA 115 NA 115 NInterpretive signs 59 NA 59 NA 102 NA 102 NA 102 NEntrance signs 25 NA 25 NA 30 NA 30 NA 30 NOfficial Notice Boards 30 NA 30 NA 49 NA 49 NA 49 N

Proposed Buildings

Build new maintenance facilities

2 NA 3 NA 5 NA 5 NA 5 N

Table 2: Summary of Project Features by Alternative (Continued)

Feature Existing Features Total Proposed Features 

Alternative A:

No Action

Alternative B:

Wildlife Focus

Alt. C: Public

 Use Focus

Alt. D: Wildlife & 

Integrated Public Use 

Focus

Alt. E: Modified W

& Integrated Publ

Focus (Preferr

Alternative)

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acr

M
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

194

Build new office facilities 0 NA 0 NA 3 NA 3 NA 3 NBuild major visitor center 0 NA 0 NA 1 NA 0 NA 0 N

Refuge Staffing 37.0 NA 54.5 NA 54.5 NA 56.5 NA 60.5 N

Table 2: Summary of Project Features by Alternative (Continued)

Feature Existing Features Total Proposed Features 

Alternative A:

No Action

Alternative B:

Wildlife Focus

Alt. C: Public

 Use Focus

Alt. D: Wildlife & 

Integrated Public Use 

Focus

Alt. E: Modified W

& Integrated Publ

Focus (Preferr

Alternative)

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acr

M
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

195

Table 3: Degree to Which Alternatives Meet Refuge Needs1

Alternative A No 

Action

Alternative B 

Wildlife Focus

Alternative C 

Public Use Focus

Alternative D 

Wildlife and 

Integrated Public 

Use Focus

Alternative E 

Modified 

Wildlife and 

Integrated Public 

Use Focus 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Need 1: Contribute to the Mission

Contribute to the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System

45355

Need 2: Help Fulfill the Refuge Purpose

Refuge and breeding place for 

migratory birds

35344

Refuge and breeding place for 

other wild birds, animals, plants

35355

Refuge and breeding place for 

fish and other aquatic animal life

35255

Need 3: Help Achieve Refuge Goals and Related Needs

Landscape conservation – 

boundary acquisition, bluffs, 

research areas

45355

Environmental health – water 

quality, drawdowns, invasives

35255

Wildlife and habitat – monitoring, 

management, threatened and 

endangered species, forests, 

grasslands, Environmental Pool 

Plans

35255

Wildlife-dependent recreation – 

hunting, fishing, observation, 

environmental education, 

interpretation

32544

Other recreational use – beach 

use, electric motor areas, slow-nowake, regulations

21544

Administration and operations – 

offices, staffing, outreach, access

14455

1. Scale for summarizing the degree to which the alternatives meet Refuge Needs: 

5= High contribution; 3=Neutral; 1=Low contribution.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

196Table 4: Refuge Priority Locations and Actions that Contribute to Implementation of Environmental Pool Plans, 2

Upper Mississippi River NWFR 

Environmental Pool Plan Actions Needed to Achieve Desired Future Habitat**

Pool Protect 

Islands

Construct Islands

Increase Depth, Dredge

Construct Mud/Sand Flats

Direct Water Flows

Fish Passage Construct 

Moist Soil Units

Pool Drawdowns Land Acquisition Maintain Existing 

Habitat

Reduce Invasive Species

Forest Managment

Pool 4 Stabilize 

Crats Island

Lower Big Lake

Big Lake Robinso 

Lake (mud flats)

Restoration of Distributary Channels of Zumbro 

L&D 4 Barton /

Lofgren Tract

Pool-wide Zumbro 

River bottoms 

Peterson Lake HREP

Barton / Lofgren Tract 

ChippRiver 

Stabilize Islands Lower Pool (WI) 

Peterson Lake

Robinson Lake

Rieck's Lake (mud flats) 

Block break in Catfish Slough 

 Rieck's Lake

Remaining 1987 Master Plan tracts within floodplain

Nelson/Trevino Research Natural Area

Indian Slough delta

NelsonTrevinbottom

Stabilize Island Robinson Lake

Robinson Lake

Peterson Lake

Monitor Pool-wide

Main channbarrieisland

Monitor Drury and Hershey Islands

Beef Slough Plan with 

new island construction

ComplForest Inventby 200
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

197

Pool 5 Protect 

Islands near Buffalo City

Lower Pool 5 Island cluster

Weaver bottoms

Spring Lake

Restoration of distributary channels of Zumbro River

L&D 5 Lizzy Paul's 

Pond

Pool-wide Buffer 

around Lizzy Paul's Pond

Finger Lakes HREP

Lost Island/Weaver

Main channbarrieislands

Monitor Sommerfeld Islands

Weaver bottoms / Lost Island

Spring Lake

Whitewater delta

Evaluate flowing channels off Zumbro River to Weaver bottoms

Lizzy Paul's Pond

Zumbro River delta

Island 42 HREP

Wabasha Prairie

Complforest invent

Lower Pool 5 Seed Islands

Lower Pool Weaver 

Islands 

Remaining 1987 Master Plan tracts within floodplain

Weaver Islands

Monitor Pool-wide

Krueger Slough area

Plan with new island construction

Spring Lake HREP

Table 4: Refuge Priority Locations and Actions that Contribute to Implementation of Environmental Pool Plans, 2Upper Mississippi River NWFR (Continued)

Environmental Pool Plan Actions Needed to Achieve Desired Future Habitat**

Pool Protect 

Islands

Construct Islands

Increase Depth, Dredge

Construct Mud/Sand Flats

Direct Water Flows

Fish Passage Construct 

Moist Soil Units

Pool Drawdowns Land Acquisition Maintain Existing 

Habitat

Reduce Invasive Species

Forest Managment
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

198

Pool 5A Protect 

Islands in Lower Pool

Polander Lake Seed Islands

Snyder Lake

Maintain mud flats Polander Islands

Evaluate side channel closures, wing dams and other structures

L&D 5A Pool-wide Remaining 

1987 Master Plan tracts within floodplain

Polander Phase 1 and 2 HREP

Twin Lakes Minne

City bottom

Monitor existing islands

Additional islands in Polander

Betsy Slough

Prairie Island Natural Area

Prairie Island Natural Area 

Main channbarrieislands

Twin Lakes Prairie 

Island Dike

Polander McNally 

Landing

Plan with new island construction

Monitor Pool-wide

Table 4: Refuge Priority Locations and Actions that Contribute to Implementation of Environmental Pool Plans, 2Upper Mississippi River NWFR (Continued)

Environmental Pool Plan Actions Needed to Achieve Desired Future Habitat**

Pool Protect 

Islands

Construct Islands

Increase Depth, Dredge

Construct Mud/Sand Flats

Direct Water Flows

Fish Passage Construct 

Moist Soil Units

Pool Drawdowns Land Acquisition Maintain Existing 

Habitat

Reduce Invasive Species

Forest Managment
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

199

Pool 6 Monitor 

existing islands

Lower Pool 6

Lower Pool (secondary and tertiary islands)

Pools A & E onTrempealeau NWR

Modification of training structures

L&D 6 Pool C2 

Trempealeau NWR

Pool-wide Remaining 

1987 master plan tracts within floodplain

Protect Refuge Islands

Pool 6 Islands 

RefugIsland

Pools A & B of Trempealeau NWR

Upper Pool (secondary and tertiary islands)

Modification of road and railroad embankments, levees

Pool A Trempealeau NWR 

Trempealeau NWR

Trempu NWR

Pools A & B Trempealeau NWR in conjunction with island construction

Monitor Pool-wide

Table 4: Refuge Priority Locations and Actions that Contribute to Implementation of Environmental Pool Plans, 2Upper Mississippi River NWFR (Continued)

Environmental Pool Plan Actions Needed to Achieve Desired Future Habitat**

Pool Protect 

Islands

Construct Islands

Increase Depth, Dredge

Construct Mud/Sand Flats

Direct Water Flows

Fish Passage Construct 

Moist Soil Units

Pool Drawdowns Land Acquisition Maintain Existing 

Habitat

Reduce Invasive Species

Forest Managment
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

200

Pool 7 Lake 

Onalaska

Lake Onalaska

Black River bottoms

Lake Onalaska

Black River bottoms

L&D 7 Lower 

Halfway Creek Marsh

Pool-wide Black 

River bottoms

Completed EMP and other habitat projects

Lake Onalaska

 Black River bottomdelta

Main channel islands

Lake Onalaska

Lake Onalaska

Halfway Creek Addition

Black River bottoms

Black River bottoms

Lake OnalasIsland

Upper Pool 7

L&D 7 Office site Halfway 

Creek Marsh

Halfway Creek Marsh

BarrieIsland comple

Remaining 1987 master plan tracts

Main channislands

Table 4: Refuge Priority Locations and Actions that Contribute to Implementation of Environmental Pool Plans, 2Upper Mississippi River NWFR (Continued)

Environmental Pool Plan Actions Needed to Achieve Desired Future Habitat**

Pool Protect 

Islands

Construct Islands

Increase Depth, Dredge

Construct Mud/Sand Flats

Direct Water Flows

Fish Passage Construct 

Moist Soil Units

Pool Drawdowns Land Acquisition Maintain Existing 

Habitat

Reduce Invasive Species

Forest Managment
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

201

Pool 8 East Island Phase III/ 

Pool 8 Islands 

Phase III, Pool 8 Islands 

Phase III/Pool 8 Islands 

Root River L&D 8 Root River 

bottoms

Continue monitoring the 2001-02 drawdowns

1987 Master Plan tracts

Completed EMP and other habitat projects

Lower Pool 8

Root Rdelta

Main channel islands

Shady Maple

Schnicks Bay

Shady Maple

L&D 7 Pool-wide Root River 

Addition

Lawrence Lake

Main channel islands

Goose Island

West Channel Island

Phase IV/Pool 8 Islands

Shady Maple

Phase IV/Pool 8 Islands

L&D 8 Blue Lake Shore Acres 

Road

Main channislands barrieislands

Running Slough

Running Slough

Shore Acres/Sheperds Marsh Area

Target Lake

Bluff Slough

Broken Arrow Slough

ContinueLower Pool 8 Channel Mgmt. Plan

Root River bottoms

Running Slough

Lawrence LakeWest ChannelBlack River

Table 4: Refuge Priority Locations and Actions that Contribute to Implementation of Environmental Pool Plans, 2Upper Mississippi River NWFR (Continued)

Environmental Pool Plan Actions Needed to Achieve Desired Future Habitat**

Pool Protect 

Islands

Construct Islands

Increase Depth, Dredge

Construct Mud/Sand Flats

Direct Water Flows

Fish Passage Construct 

Moist Soil Units

Pool Drawdowns Land Acquisition Maintain Existing 

Habitat

Reduce Invasive Species

Forest Managment
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

202

Pool 9 Harpers 

Slough

Harpers Slough

Harpers Slough

Harpers Slough

Breech berm of Upper Iowa River

L&D 9 Pool-wide 1987 Master 

Plan tracts

Conway Lake

Rush Creek delta

ConwaLake

Capoli Slough

Capoli Slough

Capoli Slough

Capoli Slough

L&D 8 Existing 

EMP Projects

Cold Springs

Upper River 

Lake Winneshiek

Conway / Phillipi

Conway / Phillipi

Lake Winneshiek

Reno bottoms

Crooked Creek (Reno)

Reno bottom

Willow Island

Lake Winneshiek

Lake Winneshiek

Goose Carcass Lake area

Reno Bottoms

WexfoCreek 

Boot Jack Island

Lower Harpers Slough

Lansing Big Lake area

Winneshiek Creek

Goose Carcass Lake area

Table 4: Refuge Priority Locations and Actions that Contribute to Implementation of Environmental Pool Plans, 2Upper Mississippi River NWFR (Continued)

Environmental Pool Plan Actions Needed to Achieve Desired Future Habitat**

Pool Protect 

Islands

Construct Islands

Increase Depth, Dredge

Construct Mud/Sand Flats

Direct Water Flows

Fish Passage Construct 

Moist Soil Units

Pool Drawdowns Land Acquisition Maintain Existing 

Habitat

Reduce Invasive Species

Forest Managment
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

203

Pool 10 McGregor 

Lk.

McGregor Lk.

McGregor Lk.

McGregor Lk.

Jay's Lake/ State Line Slough

L&D 10 Pool-wide 1987 Master 

Plan Tracts

Pool 10 Islands (lower pool)

Inventory pool

Pool-w

Pool 10 islands (lower pool)

Pool 10 islands (lower pool)

Pool 10 islands (lower pool)

Pool 10 islands (lower pool)

Existing EMP projects

East Channel Island (nav channel side)

Harpers Slough (upper pool complex)

Grimmel Lake

Jay's Lake / State Line SloughFrenchtown Lake

Table 4: Refuge Priority Locations and Actions that Contribute to Implementation of Environmental Pool Plans, 2Upper Mississippi River NWFR (Continued)

Environmental Pool Plan Actions Needed to Achieve Desired Future Habitat**

Pool Protect 

Islands

Construct Islands

Increase Depth, Dredge

Construct Mud/Sand Flats

Direct Water Flows

Fish Passage Construct 

Moist Soil Units

Pool Drawdowns Land Acquisition Maintain Existing 

Habitat

Reduce Invasive Species

Forest Managment
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

204

Pool 11 Patzner 

Island

Pool 11 Islandsincl. Sinnipee Creek Islands

Ball's Island Pool 11 

Islands (lower pool)

Hay Meadow Lake

L&D 10 spillway

Turkey River bottoms

Pool-wide Turkey 

River 

Hay Meadow Lake bottoms 

Inventory pool-wide

Turkey River 

Snyder Island

Snyder Island

Restore Big Pond system

1987 Master Plan tracts

Existing EMP projects

Pool-w

Coal Pit Slough

Jack Oak Island

Dago Slough

Jack Oak Island

SpringDead Lake Patzne

Island 

Below L&D 10

Little Maquoketa River delta

Table 4: Refuge Priority Locations and Actions that Contribute to Implementation of Environmental Pool Plans, 2Upper Mississippi River NWFR (Continued)

Environmental Pool Plan Actions Needed to Achieve Desired Future Habitat**

Pool Protect 

Islands

Construct Islands

Increase Depth, Dredge

Construct Mud/Sand Flats

Direct Water Flows

Fish Passage Construct 

Moist Soil Units

Pool Drawdowns Land Acquisition Maintain Existing 

Habitat

Reduce Invasive Species

Forest Managment
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

205

Pool 12 RM 572.2

Menominee Slough

Barrier islands in Lower Pool 12

Sunfish Lake, Fish Trap Lake, Stone Lake

Modify Dam 11 to introduce flows

Include in dam renov.

Pool-wide 1987 Master 

Plan tracts

EMP projects

Purple loose-strife, Reed canary grass, Cucumber vine, Multiflora rose, Garlic mustard

Nine MIsland

RM 559.8 No Name 

Lake, Kehough, Tippy

Kehough Slough

Mid-p

RM 576.8Island 228

Nine Mile Island

Fish Trap Lake

BellevSlough

Monitor existing islands along main channel

Wise Lake Sunfish 

Lake

Lower 12

Frentress Lake, East Dubuque complexWhite City / Stump Island

Table 4: Refuge Priority Locations and Actions that Contribute to Implementation of Environmental Pool Plans, 2Upper Mississippi River NWFR (Continued)

Environmental Pool Plan Actions Needed to Achieve Desired Future Habitat**

Pool Protect 

Islands

Construct Islands

Increase Depth, Dredge

Construct Mud/Sand Flats

Direct Water Flows

Fish Passage Construct 

Moist Soil Units

Pool Drawdowns Land Acquisition Maintain Existing 

Habitat

Reduce Invasive Species

Forest Managment
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

206

Pool 13 RM 548.6

Maq. River

Lower Pool 13 Islands

Spring Lake

Modify Dam 12 to increase flows / carry silt

Include in dam renov.

Pool-wide 1987 Master 

Plan tracts

EMP Projects

Purple loose-strife, Reed canary grass, Cucumber vine, Multiflora rose, Garlic mustard

Increaisland elevatwith dmaterbottomtrees omain channislands barrieislands

Elk River islands

Lower Pool and Gomer's Lake

RM 540.0 Kellers Island

Plan with dredge projects

Crooked Slough

Construct low berm to deflect flow from Elk River

RM 540.6 Millers 

Hollow

Monitor existing islands along main channel

Running SloughElk RiverPin Oak Lk.

Table 4: Refuge Priority Locations and Actions that Contribute to Implementation of Environmental Pool Plans, 2Upper Mississippi River NWFR (Continued)

Environmental Pool Plan Actions Needed to Achieve Desired Future Habitat**

Pool Protect 

Islands

Construct Islands

Increase Depth, Dredge

Construct Mud/Sand Flats

Direct Water Flows

Fish Passage Construct 

Moist Soil Units

Pool Drawdowns Land Acquisition Maintain Existing 

Habitat

Reduce Invasive Species

Forest Managment
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

207

Pool 14 Monitor 

existing islands along main channel

Beaver Island

Increase flows with modification of Dam 13 to Jacobs Slough

Include in dam renov.

1987 Master Plan Tracts

EMP Projects

Purple loose-strife, Reed canary grass, Cucumber vine, Multiflora rose, Garlic mustard

IncreaIsland elevatwith dmatertrees: MeredIslandSwan IslandSteamIslandWapsi bottom

Steamboat Island

Restore side channel and braided sloughs: Meredosia Island and Swan Island

Rock Creek Shricker's LakeWapsipinicon River bottoms

Total Actions

37 28 60 18 28 13 7 11 20 27 32 32 

* Locations are in priority order within each pool, top to bottom.**Environmental Pool Plans (Pools 2-11) were endorsed by the River Resources Forum, St. Paul District, US Army Corps of Engineers. PoFish and Wildlife Workgroup and reviewed by the public. Pool Plans for Pools 12-14 were endorsed by the River Resources Coordinating Te

Corps of Engineers and developed by the Team's Fish and Wildlife Interagency Committee.

Table 4: Refuge Priority Locations and Actions that Contribute to Implementation of Environmental Pool Plans, 2Upper Mississippi River NWFR (Continued)

Environmental Pool Plan Actions Needed to Achieve Desired Future Habitat**

Pool Protect 

Islands

Construct Islands

Increase Depth, Dredge

Construct Mud/Sand Flats

Direct Water Flows

Fish Passage Construct 

Moist Soil Units

Pool Drawdowns Land Acquisition Maintain Existing 

Habitat

Reduce Invasive Species

Forest Managment
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

208Table 5: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries* / Alternatives A through E, Upper Mississippi River Refuge

Pool Name State Alt.A No Action 

(Current Management)

Alt. B Wildlife Focus Alt. C Public Use Focus Alt. D Wildlife a

Integrated Public 

Focus

Acres Status Acres Status Acres Status Acres Sta

4 Nelson-Trevino WI 3,773 Closed 

Area

3,773 Sanctuary 3,773 Closed 

Area

None 

4 Big Lake-Buffalo 

Slough

WI None 3,249 Sanctuary None 3,249 Close

Area; fishinmotor

4 Peterson Lake MN-WI 3,111 Closed 

Area

None 3,111 Closed 

Area

None 

4 Rieck's Lake WI Part of 

Peterson Lake

496 Sanctuary Part of 

Peterson Lake

496 Close

Area; fishinmotor

5 Weaver Bottoms / 

Lost Island

MN-WI 3,139 Closed 

Area

3,780 Sanctuary 3,139 Closed 

Area

3,508 Close

Area; fishinmotor

5 Spring Lake WI None 243 Sanctuary None 243 Close

Area; fishinmotor
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

209

5A Fountain City 

Bay

WI None 24 Sanctuary None None 

5A Polander Lake MN-WI 1,589 Closed 

Area

1,910 Sanctuary 1,589 Closed 

Area

1,910 Close

Area; fishinmotor

6 Trempealeau 

NWR(functions as closed area; special regulations; 5,520 acres)

WI n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

7 Lake Onalaska WI 7,348 Closed 

Area

7,880 Closed 

Area

7,103 Closed 

Area

7,400 Close

Area

8 Goose Is. No 

Hunt Zone

WI 876 No Hunt 

Zone / Closed Area

1,210 Sanctuary 1,210 No Hunt 

Zone / Closed Area

1,210 Close

Area; fishinmotor

Table 5: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries* / Alternatives A through E, Upper Mississippi River Refuge

Pool Name State Alt.A No Action 

(Current Management)

Alt. B Wildlife Focus Alt. C Public Use Focus Alt. D Wildlife a

Integrated Public 

Focus

Acres Status Acres Status Acres Status Acres Sta
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

210

8 Wisconsin 

Islands

MN-WI 6,510 Closed 

Area

6,513 Sanctuary 6,483 Closed 

Area

6,483 Close

Area; fishinmotor

9 Pool Slough MN-IA 1,112 Closed 

Area

2,559 Sanctuary 1,112 Closed 

Area

1,112 Sanct

9 Harpers Slough IA-WI 5,209 Closed 

Area

5,209 Sanctuary 5,209 Closed 

Area

5,209 Close

Area; fishinmotor

10 Sturgeon Slough WI None None None None 10 McGregor Lake WI None None None None 10 WI River Delta WI None 1,545 Sanctuary None 1,545 Close

Area; fishinmotor

10 Bagley Bottoms WI None 627 Sanctuary None None 10 12-Mile Island IA 540 Closed 

Area

540 Sanctuary 540 Closed 

Area

540 Close

Area; fishinmotor

11 Guttenberg 

Ponds

IA None None None 502 Sanct

Table 5: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries* / Alternatives A through E, Upper Mississippi River Refuge

Pool Name State Alt.A No Action 

(Current Management)

Alt. B Wildlife Focus Alt. C Public Use Focus Alt. D Wildlife a

Integrated Public 

Focus

Acres Status Acres Status Acres Status Acres Sta
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

211

11 12-Mile Island IA 1,396 Closed 

Area

1,396 Sanctuary 1,396 Closed 

Area

894 Close

Area; fishinmotor

11 Hay Meadow 

Lake

WI None None None 841 Close

Area; fishinmotor

11 BertomMcCartney WI 2,415 Closed Area 2,385 Sanctuary 2,415 Closed Area None 

11 John Deere 

Marsh

IA None 512 Sanctuary None 512 Close

Area; fishinmotor

12 Nine-Mile Island IA None 567 Sanctuary None None 12 Kehough Slough IL None 343 Sanctuary None 343 Close

Area; fishinmotor

12 Wise Lake IL None 1,081 Sanctuary None None 12 Lower Pool 12 IL None 478 Sanctuary None None 13 Pleasant Creek IA 2,603 Closed 

Area

2,603 Sanctuary 2,603 Closed 

Area

2,067 Close

Area; fishinmotor

Table 5: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries* / Alternatives A through E, Upper Mississippi River Refuge

Pool Name State Alt.A No Action 

(Current Management)

Alt. B Wildlife Focus Alt. C Public Use Focus Alt. D Wildlife a

Integrated Public 

Focus

Acres Status Acres Status Acres Status Acres Sta
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

212

13 Brown's Lake IA None 2,362 Sanctuary None None 13 Spring Lake IL 3,686 Sanctuary 3,686 Sanctuary 3,686 Sanctuary 3,686 Sanct13 Elk River IA 1,237 Closed 

Area

1,237 Sanctuary 1,237 Closed 

Area

1,237 Close

Area; fishinmotor

13 Lower Pool 13 IA None 2,004 Sanctuary None None 14 Beaver Island IA None 717 Sanctuary None 717 Close

Area; fishinmotor

14 Wapsipinicon IA None 1,467 Sanctuary None None 

Total Acres 44,544 60,396 44,614 43,704 

Total UMR Refuge Units 15 29 15 21 

* Closed Area, Alternatives A and C = closed to all migratory bird hunting. Other hunting and trapping is only allowed beginning the day after the close of the state duck hunting season, until season closure or March 15, whichever comes first, except turkey hunting is allowed during state seasons.

* Sanctuary = No enregular state duck hu

 * Closed Area, Alternative D = closed to all migratory bird hunting. Other hunting and trapping is only allowed beginning the day 

after the close of the state duck hunting season, until season closure or March 15, whichever comes first, except turkey hunting is 

allowed during state seasons. No fishing and no motorized watercraft allowed October 1 to the end of the respective state regular 

duck hunting season.* Closed Area, Alternative E = closed to all migratory bird hunting. Other hunting and trapping is only allowed beginning the day 

after the close of the state duck hunting season, until season closure or March 15, whichever comes first, except turkey hunting is allowed during state seasons. The public will be asked to practice Voluntary Avoidance (VA), i.e. limiting entry, on all closed areas 

(“Large” and “Small”) October 15 to the end of the respective state duck hunting season and in addition there will be a “no motor” restriction on Small closed areas October 15 to the end of the regular state duck hunting season. Large closed areas are greater than 1,000 acres and small closed areas are ~1,000 acres or less. “No motors” means the use of motors on watercraft is not allowed.

Table 5: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries* / Alternatives A through E, Upper Mississippi River Refuge

Pool Name State Alt.A No Action 

(Current Management)

Alt. B Wildlife Focus Alt. C Public Use Focus Alt. D Wildlife a

Integrated Public 

Focus

Acres Status Acres Status Acres Status Acres Sta
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

213

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3.1 Physical Environment

The Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife 

and Fish Refuge (Refuge) encompasses one of 

the largest blocks of floodplain habitat in the 

lower 48 states. Bordered by steep wooded 

bluffs that rise 100 to 600 feet above the river 

valley, the Mississippi River corridor and Refuge 

offer scenic beauty, a wild character, and 

productive fish and wildlife habitat unmatched in 

mid-America. The Refuge covers 240,220 acres 

and extends 261 river miles from north to south 

at the confluence of the Chippewa River in 

Wisconsin to near Rock Island Illinois.

While extensive wetland habitat losses have 

occurred well beyond its boundaries in 

neighboring states, the Refuge has retained 

much of its biological integrity and is a 

stronghold of bottomland forests and wetlands 

vital to breeding and migrating fish and wildlife. 

Nonetheless, Refuge wetland habitat has 

degraded significantly over the past 40 years 

due to human influence and natural processes. 

The Refuge is one of several management entities on the Mississippi River. The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers operates the 9-foot navigation project within the Upper Mississippi River System (Public 

Law 99-662), and overlays the entire Refuge. The navigation project provides a continuous channel 

for barge traffic through a series of reservoirs created by 29 locks and dams on the Mississippi River 

and eight on the Illinois River. These reservoirs (pools) create and maintain most of the Refuge’s 

floodplain habitat. The Refuge occurs in Pools 4 through 14. 

In addition to Corps and Refuge ownership, the adjoining states of Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, and 

Wisconsin own wildlife management units within the floodplain. Many of the 70 counties, towns and 

other municipalities adjacent to the Refuge have property within the floodplain as well. With all 

these entities having divergent roles and interests in River management, Congress declared in the 

Upper Mississippi River Management Act of 1986 that the Upper Mississippi River is both a 

nationally significant ecosystem and nationally significant commercial navigation system.

Over the past 40 or more years, scientists, managers and other writers have produced an extensive 

amount of literature addressing the physical, biological, and cultural resources and challenges of the 

Mississippi River and the Refuge (GREAT I and II, UMRBC Master Plan, Navigation Project EIS, 

White Pelicans. Copyright by Sandra Lines
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

214

Status and Trends Report, Refuge Master Plan and EIS, local studies, etc). This EIS will make brief 

summaries and references to these documents; refer to the literature sited in Chapter 8, References, 

for details.

3.1.1 Geomorphology – Effects of Water, 

Wind and Ice

The Refuge lies within the Mississippi River floodplain, 

an ancient river valley filled with alluvial material (mud, 

sand, and gravel) carried and deposited by surface water. 

The river and its tributaries traverse sedimentary rock 

formations (dolomite, sandstone, and shale) that 

accumulated under inland seas during the early Paleozoic 

Era about 400 to 600 million years ago (Fremling and 

Claflin, 1984). 

In more recent geologic times, the river valley has taken 

shape due to the presence (and absence) of glacial action. 

Global warming ended the last period of glaciation, about 

12,000 years ago, and melted glaciers created huge clearwater lakes. Glacial Lake Agassiz covered much of 

northern Minnesota, the Dakotas, and central Canada. 

Most of that lake emptied to the south via the River 

Warren through which water ran in torrents for about 

3000 years, trenching the Mississippi River valley by as 

much as 200 feet (Fremling and Claflin, 1984). Once the 

flow from glacial lakes subsided, the river lost much of its 

velocity and sediment transport capabilities. Sediment 

deposition ensued, and the valley partially refilled with 

sand and gravel. Several episodes of flushing and filling 

of the river valley have followed. Sand terraces that presently flank the river valley are remnants of 

ancestral floodplains not scoured during the most recent postglacial floods. 

Today, over 30,700 miles of streams course through the basin, merge, and eventually enter the Upper 

Mississippi River Basin (Figure 2). That number does not include many smaller streams not 

detected by large-scale mapping techniques (Gowda, 1999). The Refuge receives water from 530 of 

the estimated 1300 streams that occur within the Upper Mississippi River Basin. The illustration of 

sub-basins by stream order helps depict the relative size of drainage areas and channel lengths. The 

ordering system (Strahler, 1957) starts with the uppermost channels in a drainage network, they are 

the first-order streams downstream to their first confluence. A second-order stream is formed below 

the confluence of two first-order channels. Third-order streams are created when two second-order 

channels join, and so on. “Tributaries of the Mississippi have steeper gradients than the master 

stream and they now deliver sediments faster than the Mississippi can remove them; thus the valley 

floor is slowly agrading once more” (Fremling and Claflin, 1984). 

Much of the Refuge follows the Mississippi River as it flows through the carved Driftless Area, a 

non-glaciated “island” within a huge area of central North America shaped by a series of glaciers 

(Albert, 1995). This region has minimal amounts of glacial deposits known as “drift” and is therefore 

known as the Driftless Area. This landscape features a combination of steep, exposed bluffs and 

eroded ravines that bound the wide floodplain of the Upper Mississippi River, creating an 

unmatched wild and scenic character so prized by many viewers. The blufftops mark the edge of a 

plateau, extending many miles from the river, that is capped with loess soils that range in depth from 

Copyright by Sandra Lines
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

215

Figure 2: Watersheds of the Rivers and Streams that Impact Upper Mississippi River

Refuge
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

216

2 to 20 feet, the thinnest being along the valley walls. The Driftless Area includes parts of southwest 

Wisconsin, southeast Minnesota, northeast Iowa, and northwest Illinois. It also is called the 

Blufflands or Paleozoic Plateau.

3.1.2 Land Use Characteristics of the Upper Mississippi River Basin

The Upper Mississippi River Basin is a major sub-basin of the entire Mississippi River. It includes 

approximately 800 miles of river and covers 189,189 square miles, about 15 percent of the entire 

Mississippi River Basin. More than 60 percent of the land area in the Upper Mississippi River Basin 

is devoted to cropland or pasture. Between 1945 and 1985, the application rate of commercial 

fertilizers increased twenty-fold and contributed to nutrient enrichment of the river. The Upper 

Mississippi River Basin accounted for 31 percent of the total nitrogen delivered from the Mississippi 

River to the Gulf of Mexico between 1985 and 1988, despite being only 15 percent of the entire 

basin’s land area (Gowda, 1999).

Sediments, nutrients, and pesticides that erode from urban and agricultural lands enter the 

Mississippi River by many streams. “Because of modern urban and rural drainage networks (tiles, 

ditches, culverts, etc.), water reaches the rivers [of the basin] more quickly, with greater velocity, and 

at higher stages than in the past (Bellrose et al, 1983).” Nitrogen and herbicides arrive in pulses that 

coincide with snow melt, spring rains, and planting and growing seasons. Average soil loss in the 

Upper Mississippi River Basin is 4.4 tons per acre per year. In 1993, a very wet year, Iowa annual 

losses approached 20 tons per acre per year (Bhomilk, 1996). 

Agricultural practices of the recent past caused extensive erosion of sediments that reached the 

river and were transported downstream. However, some of these sediments remain in tributary 

channels and deltas, and thus “present a major problem because treatment to reduce soil erosion on 

land may not benefit the river until stored sediments are transported by high flows (Gowda, 1999)”.

Researcher Prasanna Gowda states, “we do know that basin-level factors (sedimentation, nutrient 

enrichment, pollution) have degraded environmental quality in the river floodplain and beyond. 

Previous and ongoing studies have identified land-use practices that create high rates of erosion and 

runoff. Land management agencies could use this information to implement increasingly costeffective measures to retain soil and contaminants in the uplands (Gowda, 1999).”

3.1.3 Locks and Dams and River Reaches

People began making structural changes to enhance navigation on the Mississippi River during the 

1830s when a 5-foot channel was blasted through the Des Moines Rapids (Theiling, 1999). Snags 

were pulled, wing dams installed, and channels dredged to 4, 4.5, and 6 feet deep between 1866 and 

1907. The current structure originated in 1930 when Congress authorized the 9-foot navigation 

channel project for the Upper Mississippi River System to be constructed, operated, and maintained 

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This navigation system, including 29 locks and dams on the 

Mississippi River and eight on the Illinois River, has brought the most significant change to the river 

ecosystem since European settlement (Figure 3). The Refuge occurs within Pools 4-14. 

The navigation dams were installed by the late 1930s and created a stairway of reservoirs 

(navigation pools) from Minneapolis, Minnesota, to St. Louis, Missouri, allowing boats and barges to 

pass obstacles and readily traverse this 400-foot elevation gradient and 670 mile stretch of the 

Mississippi River. The navigation pools permanently raised water levels and inundated thousands of 

acres of floodplain habitat (Figure 4). The newly created backwater wetlands and shallow lakes 

immediately supported an abundance of fish and wildlife adapted to this new water regime. Some 

existing plant and animal species did not survive the change, including some migratory fish and 

associated mussels. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

217

Figure 3: Upper Mississippi River Navigation System with Locks and Dams numbered;

Navigation Pools Occur Above Each Lock (Source: Lubinski, 1999)
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

218

Figure 4: Typical Floodplain and Bluff Habitats of the Upper Mississippi River1

1. Source: J.C. Nelson, Illinois Natural History Survey, Great Rivers Field Station, Alton, IL. In Theiling, 1999)
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

219

With time, floodplain productivity has declined because sediments from the uplands have filled 

backwaters, floods and river currents have eroded away plant beds and islands, and relatively 

stabilized water levels have eliminated natural processes of drying and flooding, key ingredients to 

maintaining highly productive wetlands.

In order to evaluate habitat needs, the Upper Mississippi River System is categorized into 12 

dominant geomorphic areas, or river reaches. The Refuge occurs in Reaches 2-5, or Pools 4-14 

(USACE, 2000). The first three reaches (2, 3, 4), Pools 4-13 of the Refuge, are characterized by many 

braided channels and a mix of open water, aquatic vegetation, floodplain forest, some agricultural 

and urban areas, numerous islands, and a narrow floodplain (about 1 to 3 miles) that terminates at 

steep bluffs. The fifth Reach (including Pool 14 of the Refuge) is dominated by agriculture, with 

occasional floodplain forest and wetland habitats. 

3.1.4 Hydrology and Water Quality

Hydrology and water quality play a vital role in maintaining the ecological integrity of the Refuge, a 

national treasure. A rich assemblage of species requires an appropriate mix of physical, chemical 

and biological features, such as water flow and depth, adequate but not excessive nutrients in the 

substrate, appropriate temperature, oxygen and light levels, food sources and escape cover.

Water quantity and quality within the Upper Mississippi River Basin and the floodplain go to the 

very heart of the conservation conundrum of the Refuge. Besides trying to deal with an increasing 

array of environmental degradation symptoms, it is important to trace the problems to their sources 

for long-term solutions. Monitoring on the river has demonstrated that some forms of pollution have 

actually declined since the federal Water Pollution Control Act was passed in 1972, mandating the 

secondary treatment of sewage effluents. 

However, the river and the Refuge are still being exposed to biotic risks and threats from a growing 

array of agricultural chemicals and their degradation products, excess nutrients from both point and 

non-point sources, dissolved heavy metals in water and sediment, and other toxic compounds or 

invasive organisms.

Water flow within the entire basin is influenced by agriculture, urban development and even the 

thousands of reservoirs installed throughout the basin. The Corps of Engineers has 76 reservoirs, 

holding 40 million-acre feet of water; this volume would take three months to flow past St. Louis at 

average discharges (Wlosinski 1999). An estimated 3,000 more reservoirs with unknown capacity 

also occur in the basin. 

Wetland drainage has affected 26 million acres in the Mississippi River Basin. An estimated 34 to 85 

percent of wetlands have been lost in Wisconsin and Minnesota and 85 to 95 percent in Iowa and 

Illinois (Dahl 1990). These losses are critical because wetlands help regulate hydrology (water 

movement to tributaries), they filter nutrients from the water, and sustain highly diverse plant and 

animal populations.

Flow on the mainstem of the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers has been altered by installation of 37 

dams, thousands of wing dams, and 8,000 miles of levees. Since 1933, the long-term average 

hydrologic pattern on the Upper Mississippi River System shows an approximate 11-year cycle of 

low and high flow, an apparent long-term increase in flow, and an increase in the frequency and 

amplitude of multiyear fluctuations in flow. Flood heights have increased and the number of days 

water elevations are above flood stage is increasing; present day floods on the Mississippi River at 

St. Louis tend to be 9 feet higher than historic floods at the same discharge (780,000 cfs). Major 

floods at St. Louis now occur once every six years (Wlosinski 1999). 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

220

The lock and dam system has permanently inundated lands previously rejuvenated through annual 

drying and “flood pulse” cycles. While initially the pools supported flourishing, productive wetlands, 

within a few decades the vast marshes became decadent as they filled with fine sediments, and 

turbidity from rough fish and wave action suppressed growth of aquatic plants. To compensate for 

degradation, attempts are now being made to simulate natural cycles of drought with periodic 

drawdowns and to assist island or channel creation with specially designed habitat projects in 

cooperation with the Corps of Engineers and the states.

Improved agriculture and development practices can significantly reduce the rates of sediment, 

nutrient and chemical contaminant delivery and deposition within the Refuge. This translates to 

better quality habitat for a wider array of species. Progress has been made, but much more can be 

done. The link between fish and wildlife health, water quality, and inputs from the basin or 

watershed is well documented. The Refuge has a role in promoting the use of cost-effective measures 

in the watersheds to enhance its fish and wildlife resources.

3.1.5 Soils

Much of the Upper Mississippi River Basin is covered by loess, a silty soil deposited by postglacial 

winds. These soils form a mantle over half the Upper Mississippi and Illinois sub-basins and serve as 

a major source of silt to the Upper Mississippi River System (Nielsen et al, 1984). Floodplain 

bedrock is covered by up to 150 feet (Pool 10) of alluvial soils (clay, silt, sand and gravel). Soils within 

the pools vary from silty clay to sand. Sand terraces, occurring at slightly higher elevations 

bordering the floodplain of the Mississippi and its larger tributaries, consist of glacial outwash 

deposited during periods of higher average flow. 

The soils of the Refuge floodplain from Pools 4 through 6 are alluvial in origin, and vary in texture 

from silty clay to sand. The composition of the soil at any particular location depends upon the 

manner in which it was deposited. These irregular strata are composed of clay, silt, sand and gravel. 

The sands and gravels border many sloughs, while heavy silt loams underlain by sand or gravel can 

be found on higher terrain between sloughs. Before impoundment and refuge creation, these 

elevated areas supported bottomland timber, or were cleared and managed for hay or pasture.

Soils of Pools 7 and 8 are derived from a wider variety of parent material, ranging from weathered 

bedrock to glacial till, alluvium and loess. The weathering of the predominant till has taken place 

under different vegetative influences, resulting in several soil types. Podzolic soils have formed 

under deciduous trees with grass cover. The bog soils are represented by muck and peat, formed by 

decomposition of sedges and grasses at the wet lower margins of sand terraces exposed by river 

meanders. Regisols consist of deep, soft mineral deposits. Alluvial soils consist of water-borne 

materials recently deposited on the floodplain. A loess cap of silty particles covers most of the parent 

material.

Pool 9 parent materials also include loess, alluvium and drift. Pockets and fans of glacial outwash 

were formed as ice melted at the end of the most recent glacial period, known as the Wisconsin 

epoch. The main soil associations are Fayette-Dubuque-Stonyland, or “FDS.” The FDS association 

is characterized by a high percentage of shallow limestone soils over steep slopes that are 

susceptible to erosion. Sediment subsequently delivered to Pool 9 by the Upper Iowa River causes 

extensive siltation in backwaters and channels. The primary soil type of islands and upland 

peninsulas in this area is Dorchester silt loam, which is a light-colored soil that lacks a B-horizon. It 

forms on relatively flat sites over black soils that are usually flooded annually after spring thaw or 

after heavy rains.

Some of the high terraces bordering Pool 10 have sandy loam soils developed under prairie or 

savanna vegetation. The bottomlands have diverse soils of alluvial origin that are composed of sand, 

silt and clay layers deposited by flood events. In areas of annual flooding, there is little soil 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

221

development, since humus is mostly removed or covered. Higher elevation terraces may have a thin 

layer of humus over sandy material. A grey layer of sticky, fine clay with blue-green mottling from 

reduced iron is present on bottomland soils, indicating poor internal drainage and anaerobic soil 

conditions. Soils information for navigation pools 4-10 was obtained from the Mississippi River 

Operational Management Plan (USACE, 1993). 

In the lower portion of the Refuge (pools 11-14), three major zones are identified for the river 

ecosystem in the current Operational Management Plan of the Corps of Engineers, Rock Island 

District: the streamside buffer zone, a higher elevation natural levee zone, and a lower elevation 

floodplain zone.

The buffer zone is an area close to the stream bank that is distinguished by floodplain edges and 

point bars. This zone is subjected to a rapidly aggrading alluvium, harsh stream velocities, and heavy 

debris accumulation. Common soil textures include coarse loams or sandy loams which have poor 

moisture holding capacity and high infiltration rates causing rapid drainage after flooding cessation. 

This zone has the most dynamic land/water interfaces.

Natural levee areas are associated in or near buffer zones. The elevation is often higher than the 

surrounding floodplain due to high silt aggradation. Soil textures are often fairly coarse loams and 

are moderately drained to well drained sites. Even though levees are relatively close to the stream, 

they flood less frequently and soils have high infiltration rates and are often dissected with drainage 

channels which facilitate rapid removal of flood waters.

The lower elevational flood plains consist of more poorly drained silty loams and silty clay loams best 

suited for moderately flood tolerant to very tolerant bottomland hardwoods. These flood plains are 

often inundated for longer periods due to their low elevation and high soil moisture holding capacity.

The Natural Resource Inventory System (NRIS), which provides basic soil information for soils on 

project lands between pools 11 and 14, can be found in Section 3.043 of the Army Corps of Engineers 

Mississippi River Operational Management Plan, Rock Island District, 1989 (http://

www.mvr.usace.army.mil/missriver/).

Soil association maps and descriptions for the Refuge are available for review at the Refuge 

Headquarters.

3.1.6 Climate

The climate of the Mississippi River Basin is subhumid 

continental with cold dry winters and warm moist 

summers. Average annual precipitation varies from 

about 22 inches in the western part of the basin to 34 

inches or more in the east. About 75 percent of the total 

annual precipitation falls between April and September. 

Basin-wide, the average monthly temperature ranges 

from about 11 degrees F in January to 74 degrees F in 

July. Most of the river within the refuge usually freezes 

solid each winter. Refer to Table 6 for Refuge climate 

data. 

The global warming trend documented nationally and 

globally in recent years has affected precipitation 

patterns in the Midwest, resulting in unusual flooding 

intensity and duration. Iced vegetation. Copyright Sandra Lines
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

222

As noted above, unusually high floods of long duration have occurred on the Upper Mississippi River 

over the past decade. Professor James Knox at the University of Wisconsin-Madison has found that 

“model results and instrument records both support the idea that global warming magnifies 

hydrologic variability and enhances the hydrologic cycle of the Upper Mississippi River basin (Knox, 

2002).” He continues, “analyses of sediment properties [in Wisconsin] indicate that large floods on 

the Upper Mississippi River have commonly accompanied the beginning of warm and dry climate 

episodes in the region, but long-term persistence of warming and drought eventually results in 

smaller floods of high short-term variability.

“Short-term occurrences of large floods were common about 4700, 2500-2200, 1800-1500, 1280, 1000-

750, and 550-400 calendar years B.P. [before present], all times that approximate rapid warming and 

drought in the upper Midwest identified by others. The recent high frequency of large floods on the 

Upper Mississippi River since the early 1990s may be a modern analogue because these floods have 

accompanied major hemispheric warming during the same period.”

The research by Knox and others indicates that climate is less stable and predictable than people 

previously thought, and this means that resilience must be a primary consideration in making 

management decisions. Resilience requires a largely preventive or precautionary approach that 

leaves an adequate margin for error. The floodplain marshes and forested islands or bluffs of the 

Upper Mississippi River corridor could have important future roles to play in excess nutrient 

processing and carbon sequestration, as a means of mitigating effects of climate change.

3.1.7 Contaminants

3.1.7.1 Refuge and Vicinity on the Upper Mississippi River

Land use practices, floods, other natural events, spills, and other human caused incidents within the 

watershed affect contaminant levels in river water and sediments. These, in turn affect quality and 

quantity of fish and wildlife habitat. Dissolved oxygen (DO) is crucial to fish and invertebrate 

survival and DO levels are good indicators of pollution (Soballe and Wiener, 1999). For example, for 

decades, untreated sewage entering the river in metropolitan Twin Cities depleted DO level in Pools 

2, 3, and 4 had an adverse impact on fish and invertebrates. Between 1978 and 1995, treatment plants 

were installed and storm water was separated from sewage lines; fish and wildlife has responded 

favorably. Current measurements by Long Term Resource Monitoring Program show that DO levels 

on 3 Pools of the Refuge (4, 8, and 13) are generally above 5 parts per million (the level considered 

marginal for aquatic biota). DO levels below that threshold usually occur in backwaters with low 

current velocities. This has direct bearing on distribution of backwater fish species.

Table 6: Climate Data, Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, River

Mile 764 to 503.

Location Average 

Maximum 

Summer Temp 

(Jun, July, Aug) 

(degrees 

Fahrenheit)

Average 

Minimum Winter 

Temp (Dec, Jan, 

Feb) (degrees 

Fahrenheit)

Average Annual 

Precipitation 

(inches)

Average Annual 

Snow Fall 

(inches)

La Crosse, 

Wisconsin (River 

Mile 700)

83.0 10.9 32.36 44.3

Moline, Illinois

(River Mile 485)

84.2 16.3 38.04 35.0
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

223

Agricultural fields, animal feedlots, and urban areas are principle sources for plant nutrients that 

enter the river (Soballe and Wiener, 1999). Excessive inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus can cause 

algal blooms, contribute to excessive plant growth and subsequent decomposition that depletes DO 

(limiting fish ant other aquatic life distribution and survival), and cause public health concerns. This 

same enrichment may contribute to degraded water quality (hypoxia) in the Gulf of Mexico. Plant 

decomposition in the sediment can also be a source of ammonia that adversely affects burrowing 

organisms such as fingernail clams and mayflies. 

The Upper Mississippi River transports moderate to high quantities of sediments that enter the 

river from row crop farming, mining, and urban development. Turbidity levels, a measure of 

suspended sediments, at the Maquoketa River (Pool 13) in Iowa are more than double all up-river 

inputs combined. This reflects a substantial increase in inputs from erodible agricultural lands. 

Sediments fill backwaters and reduce the diversity of water depths, thereby reducing biological 

diversity of the system. Sediments also reduce light penetration necessary for plant growth, as well 

as absorb and transport containments. 

In summary, water quality of the Upper Mississippi River has improved in recent decades in the 

area of gross sewage pollution, but the river still receives a wide array of agricultural, industrial, and 

urban contaminants. The risks and threats of certain herbicides, such as atrazine, on the aquatic 

biota are largely unknown. Excessive nutrients cause excessive plant growth, which upon 

decomposition, can impact benthic organisms such as fingernail clams. 

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have been linked to a contaminated Upper Mississippi River food 

web affecting fish, mink, and burrowing mayflies (Soballe and Wiener, 1999). For additional 

information see the book Contaminants in the Upper Mississippi River (Wiener, et. al., 1984).

Contaminant levels in great blue herons of the Upper Mississippi River have been studied since the 

mid-1970s (Custer et al, 1997). Levels of PCBs in great blue heron chicks were 29 times greater on 

the Upper Mississippi River below St. Paul, Minnesota than above St. Paul in the mid 1970s. In 1978 

great blue heron eggs had average PCB levels (14.1 μg/g = parts per million) that were possibly 

sufficient to induce adverse effects on embryos. In 1993, investigators collected great blue heron 

eggs from 10 colonies on the Upper Mississippi River (8 on the Refuge) to determine the effect of 

organochlorines, mercury, and selenium on heron nesting (Custer et al, 1997). The authors concluded 

that these contaminants do not seem to be a serious threat to nesting great blue herons on the Upper 

Mississippi River. Organochlorine concentrations (including DDE, the metabolite of the insecticide 

DDT or dichlordiephenyltrichloroethane) were generally low (mean DDE = 1.3 μg/g; PCB = 3.0 μg/

g; TCDD [dioxin] = 11.5 μg/g). Eggshell thickness was negatively correlated with DDE 

concentrations but eggshell averaged only 2.3 percent thinner than eggs collected during the years 

prior to the use of DDT. Mercury and selenium concentrations (mean = 0.8 and 3.1 μg/g, 

respectively) in eggs were within background levels. 

Mercury, a heavy metal, and PCBs are present in fish of the Mississippi River. Sources of mercury 

are both natural and man-made.; PCBs do not occur naturally. Both contaminants build up through 

the food chain and the highest levels occur in predatory fish (walleyes, bass, and northern pike), 

scavengers (catfish) and bottom feeders (carp). Fish consumption advisories are issued by the 

Health Departments of the four states overlapping the Refuge. Iowa had an active advisory against 

consumption of fish by children in 1998-1999. This advisory addressed elevated PCB levels in fish 

along an 11-mile stretch of the Mississippi River in Pool 14 near Davenport, Iowa; it is no longer 

active.

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois all have advisories directed primarily toward reducing intake of 

mercury and PCBs by pregnant women and children under the age of 15. In Illinois, channel catfish, 

less than 18 inches should be consumed at the rate no greater than one meal per week; catfish over 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

224

18 inches, at the rate of one meal per month. Illinois also has carp recommendations, but does not 

have advisories on walleye, bass, or northern pike taken from the Mississippi River.

Minnesota and Wisconsin have detailed advisories for consumption of fish taken from various pools 

of the Refuge. However, the extent of consumption and the number of species included on the lists 

vary between states along the same pool. In order to address PCB concerns in Wisconsin waters of 

the Mississippi River, buffalo (>15 inches), carp (> 15 inches), catfish (> 20 inches), walleye (>25 

inches) , and white bass (all sizes) taken in Pool 4 are limited to one meal per month for pregnant 

women and for children under 15. In Pools further down river (Pools 5-12) channel catfish, rather 

than all catfish are on the list, and buffalo, white bass and walleye are removed at various intervals 

along the Refuge pools. In the case of mercury, Wisconsin advisories indicate that pregnant women 

and children should consume only one meal of any sport fish per month, state-wide. The Wisconsin 

advisory brochure defines sport fish as “any fish you catch or are given, such as bass, walleye, 

northern, perch, or crappie. Sport fish are not fish you purchase in a store or restaurant.”

Minnesota advisories limit consumption of 10 to 14 species of fish for mercury and/or PCB concerns 

in Minnesota waters of Pools 4-9. In general, targeted fish less than 20 inches (except pan fish) are 

limited to one meal per week, larger fish are limited to one meal per month, again for pregnant 

women and children under 15 years of age. Species included on the Minnesota list include: crappie, 

flathead catfish, channel catfish, freshwater drum, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, northern 

pike, walleye, white bass, white sucker, bluegill sunfish, carp, sauger, smallmouth buffalo, and 

bigmouth buffalo. Snapping turtles are also on the list for Pool 4.

3.1.7.2 Lost Mound Unit

The Lost Mound Unit of the Refuge (formerly the Savanna Army Depot) was placed on the National 

Priorities List for Superfund cleanup in 1989. This addressed the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response Compensation and Liability Act requirements. Approximately $198 million may be 

budgeted during the next 20 years for contaminants removal. Presently 69 environmental sites may 

require cleanup. Some of these contaminants include solvent, petroleum, lead, cadmium, and 

mercury. TNT contamination has been confirmed to have reached the groundwater and has spread 

three-fourths of a mile westward toward the Mississippi River. It is reported that 70 percent of the 

Depot has the potential to contain some unexploded ordnance to include 155 mm and 75 mm 

howitzers, mortars, grenades, and small arms ammunition.

These environmental contamination, health, and safety issues will be considered in identifying areas 

for public access to Lost Mound Unit. The 9,715 acres of the Lost Mound unit are to be used for 

conservation purposes, therefore the degree of clean-up will not be as strict as if housing or industry 

were proposed for the site. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), Rock Island Ecological Services Office (FWS) and the 

Department of Army (DA) will ultimately determine when, and if, the contaminated sites are cleaned 

up to the extent that there are no environmental contamination, health, and safety concerns.

3.2 Fish, Wildlife and Habitat

3.2.1 Navigation Pools and Habitat Change

The area of river between two dams is called a “pool,” each numbered according to the dam that 

creates it. Pools are river-like in nature having various flow velocities extending laterally from the 

navigation channel to the backwaters. Upon impoundment, water levels were permanently raised 

and stabilized, profoundly changing the character of the river (Green, 1970). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

225

Turn-of-the-century (1890s) and modern (1989) land-cover maps of Pool 8 demonstrate the effect of 

impoundment on the river in the vicinity of the Refuge (Figure 5). Water levels were increased 

permanently in the lower half of the pools to create open water areas close to the dam and marshy 

areas near the middle of the pools. The upstream reaches scoured deeper but were largely 

unchanged in shape (Theiling, 1999).

Three prominent ecologic zones developed within each pool, particularly in the upper reaches of the 

Upper Mississippi River System. The lower, impounded zone occurs in roughly the lower half of the 

pools and generally contains the deepest water of the pool where open water and heavy silts cover 

former marshes and the lower terrestrial areas. This zone is interspersed with islands that once 

were high ground and ridges in the pre-lock and dam floodplain. The middle zones of the pools 

contain extensive backwater marshes and shallow lakes interspersed with tree stump fields where 

former forests, wet meadows and marshes occurred within the floodplain. These backwaters are, or 

were at one time, extremely productive. The upper pool zones extend downstream of dams, and 

retain a system of braided channels and forested islands that occurred prior to installation of the 

locks and dams. Many of the wet meadows that existed prior to inundation in the upper and middle 

zones are now forested due to succession and elimination of fire.

The pools are now almost 70 years old and are changing due to sediment accumulation, long-term 

inundation, and erosional processes that typically occur as shallow reservoirs age. Many of the 

productive marshes of mid-pool backwaters have lost their vegetative habitats and converted to open 

water, wind-swept, riverine lakes (Fremling et al, 1976). Sediment continues to fill and degrade 

aquatic habitats. Other backwaters have attained equilibrium with riverine conditions and maintain 

aquatic habitat. Erosional action of river currents, wind-driven waves, and boat-generated waves 

have reduced shorelines and eliminated thousands of islands in the mid-pool to lower impounded 

areas of the pools (Theiling, 1999) (Figure 6). In many backwaters, heavy wind and wave action has 

resuspended bottom sediments, resulting in the erosion of shallow areas and the filling of deeper 

ones. This geomorphic action has eliminated much of the “bathymetric diversity” (e.g., high spots, 

pockets and channels) that once punctuated the wetland bottoms, making the area so productive for 

fish and wildlife. In addition, resuspended sediment has increased turbidity levels in the water, thus 

reducing the amount of sunlight that penetrates the water and is available for aquatic plant growth.

Island loss in the lower one half of UMR pools has occurred since the locks and dams were installed 

in the mid 1930s, resulting in decreases in habitat for plants and animals. Islands eroded away due to 

current and wind- and boat-generated waves (Theiling, 1999). 

Since the mid 1980s, large-scale projects have been constructed to slow habitat loss in backwaters by 

combating geomorphic processes of sedimentation and erosion. These projects include installation of 

low levees to block sediment-laden water from entering the backwaters, dredging channels and 

pockets to provide bathymetric diversity, constructing islands to reduce wind fetch and direct flows, 

and protecting (armoring) existing islands from erosion. Experiments have also been done with poolscale (Pool 8) water level management, drawdowns, to replicate natural low-water conditions and 

thereby, promote growth of marsh vegetation.

Various river entities recognize there is a critical need to stop the accelerated loss of habitat and 

general decline of the river. In 1993, the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee first sent 

out a call for action in “Facing the Threat: An Ecosystem Management Strategy for the Upper 

Mississippi River (UMRCC, 1993).” The same committee repeated the sounds of urgency and 

warning in its recent publication, “A River that Works and a Working River” (UMRCC 2000): 

“If the UMRS is to continue to survive as a nationally and internationally significant ecological 

and economic resource we, who are its beneficiaries and stewards, will have to develop, very 

soon, more efficient and effective restoration and management strategies.”
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

226

Figure 5: Landcover Maps of Pool 8, 1890s and 1989; Upper Mississippi River Refuge
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

227

Figure 6: Island Loss in the Lower Half of the Upper Mississippi River Pools, Upper

Mississipi River Refuge
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

228

The publication identifies nine tools and measures to restore natural river processes, some of which 

include improving water quality, providing for seasonal low flow (drawdown) conditions, creating 

islands, severing pathways for exotic species and providing for fish passage. The actions proposed by 

this CCP match the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee tools for achieving 

restoration of the ecosystem.

In a more specific follow-up to the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee publication, the 

River Resources Forum, an interagency advisory group to the St. Paul District of the Corps of 

Engineers, has endorsed Environmental Pool Plans that include practices and plans to achieve 

desired future environmental conditions of Pools 1-10 (River Resources Forum, 2004). The Rock 

Island District counterpart to the River Resources Forum is the River Resource Action Team which 

has also endorsed Environmental Pool Plans for Pools 11-22. This CCP will promote the same 

strategies described in the Environmental Pool Plans documents to meet Refuge goals and 

objectives. Refer to Appendix N for examples of Environmental Pool Plan maps.

The Izaak Walton League of America recognizes an uncertain future for the Refuge in terms of 

development pressures, impacts of navigation, and ever-increasing recreational use (Izaak Walton 

League, 1999). 

In addressing concerns about the future health and sustainability of the Upper Mississippi River 

Basin, The Nature Conservancy has identified areas of greatest freshwater biodiversity in the basin. 

Its purpose is to “galvanize conservation and restoration action by all stakeholders at the critical 

places within the UMRB” (Weitzell, et al., 2003).

3.2.2 Special Management Areas

3.2.2.1 Wilderness

Lands within the existing Refuge boundary and proposed expansions have been evaluated for 

wilderness suitability as part of this planning process. No lands were found to be suitable for 

designation as wilderness, defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964 and subsequent amendments. 

Roadless areas within the larger bottomlands associated with major river deltas are too small and 

too frequently accessed or impacted by human activities to meet Wilderness designation criteria. 

However, some of these areas do satisfy the criteria for other categories of special management 

designation, such as Research Natural Areas, which recognize wild qualities and fragility of habitats 

by restricting the nature or intensity of activities that disturb wildlife or damage habitat.

3.2.2.2 Special Designated Areas

Within the refuge, there are currently four designated Research Natural Areas (RNA), one National 

Natural Landmark (NNA) that partially overlaps a Research Natural Area, and one statedesignated Scientific and Natural Area (SNA) (Table 7). These areas total 6,946 acres.

These areas assist in the preservation of examples of significant natural ecosystems for comparison 

with those that are more influenced by human activities. They provide educational and research 

areas where ecological observations and studies can be conducted with minimal disturbance, and 

natural processes can evolve without significant human intervention. Under certain circumstances, 

some manipulation of the environment through active management may be allowed to maintain 

special features. Hunting, fishing, bird watching, photography, wildlife observation, nature 

interpretation and environmental education may be allowed with adequate justification.

3.2.2.3 Conservation Easements

When the Farm Services Agency (FSA), formerly known as the Farmers Home Administration 

(FMHA), acquires property through default on loans, it is required to protect wetland and floodplain 

resources on the property prior to public resale. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assists the Farm 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

229

Services Agency in identifying important floodplain and wetland resources for protection with 

perpetual conservation easements. Management responsibility for the easement may be transferred 

to a state or federal agency for administration. The Refuge has held a number of such easements 

since the late 1980s, and may, in the future, hold more of these or other types of conservation 

easements which are becoming popular tools for maintenance of water quality and wildlife diversity 

through habitat protection.

The authority for the Farm Services Agency easements comes from the Consolidated Farm and 

Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981 and 1985, as amended); Executive Order 11990 providing for 

the protection of wetlands; and Executive Order 11988 providing for the management of floodplain 

resources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers the easements through the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. This Refuge maintains a total of 30 conservation easements totaling 

approximately 1,178 acres, located in 16 counties of three states, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa 

(Table 8). Widely dispersed easements have proven difficult to adequately manage with limited 

refuge private lands staff. Easements need regular inspection and management to prevent 

encroachment and resource degradation. 

Table 7: Special Designated Areas Within the Upper Mississippi River Refuge

Name of Area Category1 State Acres Habitat 

Type

Pool River

Mile(s)

Winona District

Nelson-Trevino 

Bottoms

RNA

SNA

NNA

Wisconsin 3,740 Silver Maple; 

American Elm

4 760-763

La Crosse District

Midway Railroad 

Prairie

SNA Wisconsin 5 Bluestem 

Grassland

7 706

McGregor District

Reno Bottoms RNA Minnesota 1,980 Silver Maple; 

American Elm

9 679-681

Twelve-Mile Island RNA Iowa 900 Silver Maple; 

American Elm

11 610-614

Savanna District

Thomson-Fulton Sand 

Prairie

RNA Illinois 321 Bluestem 

Grassland

13 525-527

Total Acreage 6,946

1.RNA = Research Natural Area; SNA = Scientific and Natural Area; NNA = National Natural Area.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

230

Table 8: Conservation Easements Maintained by Upper Mississippi River Refuge 

Name Habitat Acres Year State County

Winona District

Haney Riparian 38 1989 Minnesota Mower

Jeche Wetland 1 1989 Minnesota Fillmore

McCabe Riparian 36 1989 Minnesota Fillmore

Gardemann Riparian 35 1990 Minnesota Fillmore

Heggedahl Riparian 8 1990 Minnesota Dodge

Rediske Riparian 6 1990 Minnesota Fillmore

Yenter Riparian 51 1990 Minnesota Fillmore

La Crosse District

Engh Riparian 30 1988 Wisconsin Vernon

Nerison Riparian 18 1988 Wisconsin Vernon

Barton Riparian 16 1989 Wisconsin La Crosse

Straight Wetland 5 1995 Wisconsin Richland

Schminick Wetland 25 1999 Wisconsin Sauk

McGregor District

Riley Wetland 10 1989 Wisconsin Grant

Rosonke Wetland 157 1989 Iowa Chickasaw

Engle Wetland 87 1990 Iowa Floyd

Quade Wetland 47 1990 Iowa Bremer

Beine Wetland 20 1991 Iowa Bremer

Gott Wetland 18 1995 Iowa Bremer

Rossol Wetland 24 1995 Iowa Bremer

Kleve Wetland 29 2000 Iowa Clayton

Hartwig Wetland 20 2001 Iowa LaFayette

Savanna District

Reese Grassland 42 1990 Iowa Blackhawk

Atkinson Timber 107 1990 Iowa Delaware

Krogman Timber 66 1991 Iowa Delaware

Dickel Timber 108 1990 Iowa Iowa

Telandis Wetland 235 1992 Iowa Scott
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

231

3.2.3 Notable State Management Areas

The states manage some important and often magnificent wildlife management areas, parks, and 

forests adjacent to the Refuge, both in and outside the floodplain. Coordination of similar land 

management needs and programs is regular and ongoing since fish and wildlife, and at times the 

public, do not distinguish between administrative boundaries. Table 9 shows the notable state 

resource lands next to the Refuge. 

Table 9: Notable State Management Areas 

Location Area (acres)

Minnesota

Pool 4 Wildlife Management Area 146

McCarthy Lake Wildlife Management Area 2,873

Kellogg-Weaver Dunes Scientific and Natural Area 1,004

John A. Latsch State Park 1,654

Thorpe Wildlife Management Area 139

Great River Bluffs State Park 3,067

Total for Minnesota 8,883

Wisconsin

Tiffany Bottoms Wildlife Area 12,740

Whitman Dam Wildlife Area 2,173

Merrick State Park 320

Perrot State Park 1,270

Van Loon Wildlife Area 3,981

Rush Creek State Natural Area 2,265

Wyalusing State Park 2,628

Wyalusing Unit Lower Wisconsin State Riverway 690

Total For Wisconsin 26,067

Great River State Trail 24 miles

Iowa

Pool Slough Wildlife Management Area 555

Fish Farm Mounds Wildlife Management Area 576

Village Creek Area 52

Yellow River State Forest 8,503

Pike’s Peak State Park 970

Mines of Spain State Recreation Area 1,387

Bellevue State Park 770

Green Island Wildlife Management Area 3,722

Princeton Wildlife Management Area 1,208

Total for Iowa 17,743

Illinois

Palisades State Park 2,500

Total for Illinois 2,500
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

232

3.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

This section and Section 3.2.5 address two federally listed threatened and endangered species and 

three candidate threatened and endangered species that occur on or very near the Refuge. State 

listed threatened and endangered species are not described in this section but will be addressed in 

the CCP and appropriate step-down plans. The state listed species that occur on Refuge include: six 

mammals, 40 birds, 18 fish, seven reptiles, three amphibians, and 20 mussels (Appendix K).

3.2.4.1 Bald Eagle

The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was declared an endangered species in 1973 due to low 

populations that existed following a century of persecution and habitat loss and several decades of 

poisoning from hard core pesticides (DDT, dieldrin, endrin, etc.). The species began to recover after 

these pesticides were banned in 1972 and public awareness and management provided protection for 

the bird. It continues to recover and its full recovery is possible. The success story of Bald Eagle 

recovery is reflected in the number of active nests found on the Refuge since 1972 when one nest was 

present. In 1986, nine nests produced nine young, and by 1996, 62 active territories produced an 

estimated 91 fledged young (Figure 7). In 2005, 167 active territories produced and estimated 279 

young, 98 more eaglets than in 2004. This was the largest annual increase in production recorded on 

the Refuge. Total production estimates were based upon the average number of young (1.67 young 

per nest) on 106 nests with known outcomes. Bald Eagle nesting territories occur over the length of 

the Refuge and are most numerous within the McGregor District which has over 90 active nests. 

Annual Bald Eagle production on the Refuge has shown a 31-fold increase in the 19 years between 

1986 and 2005. 

3.2.4.2 Higgins Eye Pearlymussel

The Higgins eye pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsii) was listed as endangered in 1976 due to 

declines in abundance and distribution. Causes include commercial harvest, creation of 

impoundments in the 9-foot navigation system, channel maintenance dredging and disposal 

Figure 7: Annual Bald Eagle Production on Upper Mississippi River Refuge, 1986-2005
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

233

activities, changes in water quality from municipal, industrial, and agricultural activities, 

unavailability of appropriate fish hosts for mussel larval stages, disease (USFWS, 1983), and exotic 

species (especially zebra mussels).

The biological assessment of the navigation system (USACE, 2004a) indicates that L. higginsii

occurs most frequently in medium to large rivers with current velocities of 0.49 to 1.51 feet per 

second and in depths of 2 to 19.7 feet. It appears to prefer water with dissolved oxygen greater than 

5 parts per million and calcium carbonate levels greater than 50 parts per million. The species is 

significantly correlated with a firm, coarse sand substrate. L. higginsii is usually found in large, 

stable mussel beds with relatively high species and age diversity. 

Nearly all remaining habitat on the Upper Mississippi River for L. higginsii is within the 9-foot 

navigation project. Higgins eye pearlymussel recovery teams have identified Essential Habitat 

Areas that are believed to contain viable reproducing L. higginsii populations. These teams indicate 

that recovery of the species could not be accomplished without maintaining the Essential Habitat 

Area populations. Five of the 10 identified Essential Habitat Areas are within or near the Refuge 

(USACE, 2004a) as follows:

# Wisconsin (River Mile 0 - 0.2)

# Upper Mississippi River at Whiskey Rock, Ferryville, Wisconsin, Pool 9 (River Mile 655.8 -

658.4)

# Upper Mississippi River at Harpers Slough, Pool 10 (River Mile 639.0 - 641.4); Upper 

Mississippi River Main and East Channels at Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, and Marquette, 

Iowa, Pool 10 (River Mile 633.4 - 637)

# Upper Mississippi River at McMillan Island, Pool 10 (River Mile 616.4 - 619.1)

# the Upper Mississippi River at Cordova, Illinois, Pool 14 (River Mile 503.0 - 505.5) 

Recent Refuge activities involving Higgins eye pearlymussel include limited participation in 

recruitment projects, monitoring zebra mussels, reviewing permits for river projects, designing 

habitat projects, and environmental education. 

3.2.5 Candidate Threatened and Endangered Species

3.2.5.1 Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake

The Eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus) has declined throughout its 

range, an area that extends from New York and southern Ontario westward to Iowa and Missouri. 

The decline is from 33 percent in Michigan to 100 percent in Minnesota. The primary causes are 

habitat loss and persecution. Past anti-rattlesnake campaigns have reduced some populations 

beyond a recoverable threshold. Habitat (wet sedge meadow, emergent wetland, shrub-carr) has 

been lost to natural succession, conversion, changes in hydrology (prolonged saturation of soil), and 

fragmentation (USFWS, 2003).

Eastern massasaugas occur at only one known site (Nelson-Trevino Research Natural Area, Pool 4) 

within the Refuge, although potential habitat exists elsewhere within the system. The snake occurs 

within the Black River Bottoms (Pool 7) on private land, adjacent to the Refuge and within the 

approved acquisition boundary of the Refuge. Small populations of massasaugas are scattered along 

the length of the lower Wapsipincon River in Scott and Clinton Counties, Iowa (VanDeWalle and 

Christiansen, 2002). The most recent records of live specimens found in that area were near Long 

Grove and Calamus, 13 and 30 miles west of the Upper Mississippi River floodplain. Searches in 2001 

and 2002 found no live specimens in these counties. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

234

The Refuge is participating in developing and implementing Candidate Conservation Agreements 

for massasaugas at Nelson-Trevino, the Black River Bottoms, and adjacent private and state land in 

Wisconsin.

3.2.5.2 Sheepnose

This summary is from the sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus) status report (USFWS, 2002a). The 

sheepnose has been eliminated from two-thirds of the total number of streams from which it was 

historically known (26 streams versus 77, historically). It was uncommon in what are now Mississippi 

River Pools 13-23.

In the upper Mississippi River, the sheepnose is an example of a rare species becoming rarer. 

Despite the discovery of juvenile recruitment in Pool 7, the sheepnose population levels appear to be 

very small and of questionable long-term viability given the threats outlined below. Along with other 

mussels of the Upper Mississippi River, the sheepnose is seriously threatened by zebra mussels. 

Other threats include channel maintenance dredging and sedimentation from tributary systems. 

Sediment accumulations above lock and dams generally preclude the occurrence of sheepnose.

The majority of the remaining populations of the sheepnose are generally small and geographically 

isolated, which makes them much more susceptible to extirpation from single catastrophic events 

such as toxic chemical spills. Furthermore, this level of isolation makes natural repopulation 

impossible without human intervention. Isolation prohibits the natural interchange of genetic 

material between populations, which can lead to inbreeding depression.

Conservation activities that would benefit the species include funding programs, research and 

surveys, outreach, and habitat improvements and conservation. 

3.2.5.3 Spectaclecase

The spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) was declared a candidate species May 4, 2004 

(USFWS, 2002b). As reported in the Federal Register, the spectaclecase is apparently more of a 

habitat specialist than are most mussel species. Primarily a large-river species, it can occur on 

outside river bends below bluff lines. It often inhabits riverine microhabitats sheltered from the 

main force of current. It occurs in substrates from mud and sand to gravel, cobble, and boulders in 

relatively shallow riffles and shoals with slow to swift current.

The spectaclecase occurred historically in at least 45 streams in the Mississippi, Ohio, and Missouri 

Basins. Extant populations of the spectaclecase are known from 20 streams. Seven of those 

populations are represented by a single specimen each. Only three or four populations could be 

characterized as large or stable. Threats to the continued existence of the spectaclecase appear to 

include exotic species, especially zebra mussels; delivery and deposition of fine sediments; small 

population sizes; isolation of populations; livestock grazing; wastewater effluents; mine runoff; 

unstable and coldwater flows downstream of dams; gravel mining; and channel dredging. Although 

there are ongoing attempts to alleviate some of these threats at some locations, there appear to be no 

populations without significant threats and many threats are without obvious or readily available 

solutions. In addition, the fish host of the spectaclecase is unknown; thus, propagation to reestablish 

the species in restored habitats and to maintain nonreproducing populations and focused 

conservation of its fish host are not yet possible. Therefore, the threats to spectaclecase are 

considered to be of high magnitude. However, 10 populations are reproducing or supported via 

immigration from large populations, and three or four of these populations may be described as 

large.

The spectaclecase disappeared from the Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin area in the 1920s. A 1981 

survey failed to locate living spectaclecase in the Wisconsin portion of the upper Mississippi River 

(between Pool 3-11) using brail and SCUBA, but reported dead shells in Pool 11. The only live 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

235

specimens found recently on the Upper Mississippi River were in Pool 15 and further down river; 

none on the Refuge portion of the Upper Mississippi River, Pools 4-14. 

3.2.6 Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Region 3 list of Resource Conservation Priorities contains 243 

species of fish and wildlife, of which, 65 birds, three mammals, six fish, two reptiles, 26 invertebrates, 

and 13 plants occur on the Refuge (Appendix K). These species are considered to be in the greatest 

need of attention under the Service’s full span of authorities. The Resource Conservation Priorities 

identifies strategies that will contribute to the conservation, protection, and recovery of migratory 

birds, threatened and endangered species, and interjurisdictional fish, as well as the habitats on 

which they depend, thus assisting in fulfilling Service missions.

The fact that a species is not included on the Resource Conservation Priorities list does not mean it 

is unimportant; it means only that when faced with the choice of addressing the needs of several 

species, the Service should place emphasis on those identified as priority from a Regional 

perspective. Many species not listed will receive incidental benefits from Refuge management. The 

Resource Conservation Priorities list will assist in prioritizing workloads, focusing conservation 

actions, identifying research priorities and training needs, preparing of Refuge plans, and 

developing budgets. 

3.2.7 Migratory Birds

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for the 

conservation and management of more than 800 species 

of migratory birds that occur in the country. In 2004, the 

Service released the Migratory Bird Program’s ten-year 

strategic plan, “A Blueprint for the Future of Migratory 

Birds” (USFWS, 2004). It calls for cooperation from all 

governments and partners to ensure the continued 

survival of migratory birds. The Blueprint identifies 

three priorities for the Service’s Migratory Bird 

Program: 1) address the loss and degradation of 

migratory bird habitat, 2) improve scientific information 

on bird populations, and 3) increase partnerships to 

achieve bird conservation. Implementation of Refuge 

plans will compliment these priorities by addressing 

needs of some Birds of Management Concern listed in an 

appendix to the Blueprint.

3.2.7.1 Waterfowl

National Wildlife Refuges play a crucial role in providing 

breeding, migrational, and wintering ground habitat for 

waterfowl. Over the past 75 years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has strategically established 

many of its refuges to help meet widely held waterfowl conservation goals. Features common to 

refuges is the inclusion of closed areas, which provide waterfowl the opportunity to feed and rest 

without disturbance during migration and at wintering locations. Without disturbance, waterfowl 

are provided opportunity for molting, preening, pair bonding and fat storage, all of which help build 

healthier populations. Closed areas also help keep regional populations in and around refuges, 

providing hunting opportunity on adjacent public and private lands. The value of closed areas to 

waterfowl would decline if they were frequently moved around or rotated. 

Copyright by Sandra Lines
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

236

Refuge Waterfowl

The Refuge lies within the Mississippi Flyway, through which an estimated 40 percent of the 

continent’s waterfowl migrate. It is a critical migration corridor (Reid et al. 1989) for 10 species 

including Tundra Swans, Ring-necked Duck and Hooded Merganser. The other seven species are 

also on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Region 3 Resource Conservation Priority List and include: 

Lesser Snow Geese, Canada Geese, Wood Duck, Mallard, Blue-winged Teal, Canvasback, and Lesser 

Scaup. The corridor is also important for an additional eight species of waterfowl.

Waterfowl populations on the Refuge can fluctuate widely from year to year due to variations in 

flyway populations, water, and food conditions off-river, food availability in the backwaters, and 

weather (Korschgen et al. 1999). These factors, combined with survey variability over the years, are 

considered when analyzing waterfowl use data collected on the Refuge.

Biologists have conducted various types of ground counts and aerial waterfowl surveys of the Refuge 

since the 1920s. These surveys are not all-inclusive counts, but rather indices to the number of birds 

present on the Refuge. Changes in methods, observers, survey routes, and aircraft types preclude 

direct comparisons of one year or group of years to another. However, general trends and 

descriptions of changes in distribution of the birds can be made using the data. These variables need 

to be considered when interpreting data presented below.

The following discussion addresses four main groups of waterfowl: diving ducks, puddle ducks (also 

called dabbling ducks), geese, and swans. Common diving duck species on the Refuge are the 

Canvasback, Lesser Scaup, Common Goldeneye, Ring-necked Duck, Bufflehead, Ruddy Duck, and 

mergansers (Hooded, Common and Red-breasted). Diving ducks are recognized by their generally 

white, black, and gray colors. Their wings are relatively small compared to their body size, so divers 

must use rapid wing beats when they fly, and when launching into flight, most of this group patter 

along the water before becoming airborne. Divers have large feet, placed well back on the body and 

are not agile on land. They frequent large deep marshes, lakes, rivers, and coastal bays. They dive, 

sometimes to great depths, to feed on aquatic plants, fish, clams, and snails. Favorite diver foods on 

the Upper Mississippi River are wild celery, sago pondweed, fingernail clams, and snails. 

The most common puddle duck species on the Refuge are the Wood Duck, Mallard, Blue-winged 

Teal, Wigeon, Gadwall, Pintail, and Green-winged Teal. Puddle ducks often have brightly colored 

wing patches (speculum) and males are colorful throughout, while females are generally a 

camouflage brown. Puddle ducks are sure-footed, often seen feeding or roosting on land. They 

typically utilize freshwater, shallow marshes, rivers, and ponds where they feed by dabbling on the 

water surface or tipping, rather than diving. Puddlers feed on aquatic insects and plants, acorns, or 

grain. On the Upper Mississippi River, they frequent backwater marshes containing arrowhead, 

river bulrush, cattail, and other emergent and submergent vegetation. These plant communities are 

steadily declining on the Refuge.

In the early years of the Refuge (1924-1935), when no locks and dams were present, lesser and 

greater scaup were the most common migrants (Green 1970). They utilized riverine conditions of the 

main and secondary channels. In the pre-lock and dam era, most of the many sloughs and wetland 

pockets were dried out by the fall season and not suitable for migrating waterfowl. During spring, 

when the bottoms were flooded, there was a greater waterfowl use and diversity.

Installation of the locks and dams brought about instant change with stabilized water levels creating 

productive shallow marshes and aquatic areas. Increase in waterfowl use was “phenomenal”, with 

both diving ducks and puddle ducks migrating and staging on the Refuge. After flooding and until 

the 1960s, puddle ducks (such as Mallards) were more abundant than divers (such as Canvasbacks) 

in the fall (Figure 8). In 1956, the peak count of Mallards reached 190,000 birds while Canvasbacks 

reached only 10,000. By 1978, those numbers were almost reversed, with 195,000 Canvasbacks 

counted on Pools 7 and 8 only and 12,000 Mallards counted, Refuge-wide. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

237

Puddle ducks declined in response to losses of secure emergent habitat due to sedimentation, wind 

and wave action, and continuous flooding regimes. Divers responded to habitat changes on the river 

toward more open water conditions that support underwater plants. At the same time, crucial diving 

duck habitat was lost in adjacent states due to habitat degradation and drainage. 

During the 1980s, numbers of Canvasbacks declined to about 80,000 birds and mallard numbers 

increased to about 40,000. These declines reflected reductions in continental populations and losses 

in Refuge habitat. Since 1997, canvasback peak numbers on the Refuge have exceeded 250,000 birds 

each year, with a peak of 431,000 observed October 25, 1999. The Refuge generally supports 60 to 75 

percent (82 percent in 2005) of the Canvasbacks counted in the eastern U.S during annual 

Coordinated Canvasback surveys (Figure 9). 

Canada Goose and Tundra Swan numbers were much lower between 1924 to 1965 than they are 

today (Figure 10). Canada Goose peaks ranged from less than 1000 to about 7,500 during that period. 

Recent peaks range from 10,000 to 30,000 geese. The increase reflects higher populations of geese in 

the flyway and the availability of habitat on the river.

Tundra Swans did not begin to use the Mississippi River as a significant migration stop-over until 

the mid-1980s when peak numbers reached nearly 15,000 swans in 1984. Only about 100 were 

counted in the 1950s. Peak counts have exceeded 30,000 birds in recent years and it is estimated that 

20 percent of the Eastern continental population migrates through the Refuge each fall. The Refuge 

is an important rest stop for family groups of swans during migration. Aerial surveys and video 

surveys in 1998-99 revealed that “at one point in late November, Pools 4-9 could have been used by 

51.7 percent of all cygnets in the eastern population” of Tundra Swans (Thorson, 2002). 

The Refuge supports breeding waterfowl populations of Mallards, Wood Ducks, Hooded Mergansers 

and Canada Geese. Mallard duckling production on islands in Pools 7 and 8 has been monitored most 

years since 1981 by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Nelson and Andersen, 2003). 

Figure 8: Peak Number of Mallards and Canvasback Ducks on Upper Mississippi River

Refuge, Selected Years 1956 to 20051

1.Canvasback numbers for the years 1962-1975 are for Pools 7 and 8 only. Years 1978 and 1984

are for Pools 7, 8 and 9 only.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

238

Success rates range from 11 percent to 89 percent (average is 66 percent in Pool 7 and 52 percent in 

Pool 8). Nest success reflects the extent of predator-free conditions on islands. Annual production 

(duckling hatched) averages 785 on Pool 7 and 229 on Pool 8 islands. State biologists and managers 

are interested in promoting local mallard production on natural and man-made islands of the Refuge. 

Grassland nesting cover is difficult to maintain in floodplain habitat where natural processes are 

promoted. 

Waterfowl Management Challenges

Waterfowl management challenges on the Refuge center around the need to provide secure resting 

and feeding habitat for birds in migration, as well as distribute hunting opportunities throughout the 

Refuge. Optimal bird distribution is achieved by providing adequate food resources (carrying 

capacity) where birds will not be disturbed. Managers consider various factors that influence 

waterfowl distribution on the Refuge including the affects of hunting and other forms of human 

Figure 9: Percent of the Eastern Population of Canvasbacks that Occurred on Upper

Mississippi River Refuge During the Coordinated Canvasback Survey, 1974-

2005

Figure 10: Peak Number of Canada Geese and Tundra Swans on Upper Mississippi River

Refuge, Selected Years 1956-2005
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

239

disturbance on waterfowl, the amount of available food, the longitudinal distribution of food 

resources on the river, the distances ducks are known to fly from roosting to feeding sites, and other 

biological needs. 

 Current observations and survey data clearly show that ducks, swans and geese are not evenly 

distributed on the Refuge during fall migration (Figure 11, Figure 12, and Figure 13). This is 

validated with weekly aerial waterfowl survey data that are converted to use-day numbers. Such 

data help describe the carrying capacity of an area, i.e., how many birds can be supported with food 

and resting sites for how long. Use-days are the product of the average the number of birds counted 

between two counts multiplied by the number of days between those counts. For example, first count 

has 1,000 birds, second count eight days later has 2000 birds (1500 x 8 = 12,000 use-days). Between 

1997 and 2004, most of the annual use-days occurred in four of 12 Pools on the Refuge ( Pools 7, 8, 9, 

Figure 11: Average Dabbling Duck Use-days by Pool, 1997-2004, Upper Mississppi River

Refuge

Figure 12: Average Diving Duck Use-days by Pool, 1997-2004, Upper Mississippi River

Refuge
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

240

and 13). These pools total 91,143 acres, or 38 percent of the entire Refuge, but have over 80 percent 

of the total waterfowl use-days over the past 8 years. On average, 86 percent of the puddle duck usedays were in these four pools, as were 98 percent of the diving duck, 81 percent of the Canada Goose, 

and 87 percent of the Tundra Swan use-days .

This uneven distribution is attributed to the presence or absence of abundant food resources that 

occur in areas with reduced levels of human disturbance (closed areas). Optimal conditions occur 

best in Pools 7, 8, 9, and 13 and are nearly absent in other Pools. Management intends to achieve a 

more even distribution by enhancing habitat conditions and minimizing human disturbance factors 

for all waterfowl groups throughout the Refuge.

If habitat quality and levels of protection were similar in all Refuge pools, waterfowl distribution 

would continue to be somewhat uneven along the Refuge because of inherent differences in size, 

geomorphology, and hydrology among the pools. However, a more optimal distribution is possible if 

carrying capacity and habitat security are improved in pools up and downstream of Pools 7, 8, and 9.

It is widely understood that human disturbance of waterfowl on the breeding grounds can be 

detrimental to production of young birds. Human disturbance of migrating waterfowl can “have 

dramatic effects on the bird’s energy balance” (Korschgen et al., 1985) and influence survival and 

production of young in subsequent years. The better the quality of habitat, with no disturbance, the 

quicker birds replenish fat reserves during migration. 

Four major categories of human disturbance have varying impacts on waterfowl (Korschgen and 

Dahlgren, 1992). These factors, listed in order of decreasing disturbance, include “rapid over water 

movement with loud noise (power boats, airboats, low-flying airplanes, and helicopters), over water 

movement with little noise (sail boats, canoes, kayaks), little overwater movement or noise (wading 

or swimming), and shoreline activities (bank fishing, birdwatching, hiking, car traffic).” Raptors and 

mammals (Bald Eagles, raccoon) can also disturb waterfowl. 

The “closed area” system on the Refuge attempts to provide reduced disturbance to waterfowl 

within an established area via the following closed area regulations:

“closed to all migratory bird hunting; other hunting and trapping is only allowed beginning the 

day after the close of the state duck hunting season, until season closure or March 15, whichever 

comes first, except turkey hunting is allowed during state seasons.”

Figure 13: Average Tundra Swan and Canada Goose Use-days by Pool, 1997-2002, Upper

Mississippi River Refuge
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

241

Complete sanctuary conditions do not occur in Refuge closed areas with one exception, Spring Lake 

on Pool 13, because public entry is allowed for other purposes, including recreational boating, 

angling and commercial fishing. 

Upon establishment of the Refuge in 1924, the entire Refuge was closed to entry. Soon, in the 1930s, 

the Refuge was open to hunting except for 20 closed areas, totaling 34,150 acres (see Appendix Q). 

Closed areas were on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fee-title lands only and did not have easily 

recognizable boundaries, nor did they protect the best habitats for migrating waterfowl. Actually, 

these early closed areas were put in place for reasons of management convenience more so than 

meeting needs of migrating waterfowl. Eventually, modifications were made in 1957-58 to include 14 

units, covering 41,600 acres. At the time of establishment, these closed areas were all quite 

functional in harboring birds because they had adequate habitat and successfully reduced impacts of 

hunting and other disturbance factors. These closed areas continue to provide core elements of the 

existing system of 15 areas (14 closed areas and one sanctuary) that total 44,544 acres.

Over the years, boundary adjustments have been made which have reduced the size of many closed 

areas. An exception is the Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge which has increased from about 

700 acres in 1957 to nearly 6,226 acres today. One new closed area, the Pool Slough Closed Area, 

became operational on Pool 9 in 2003. About 1,100 acres of this 1,350-acre closed area are located on 

the Refuge. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources owns the remaining acres and has 

designated the site a waterfowl refuge and closed to all trespass from September 15 through 

December 25, then open to hunting and trapping. 

In the 45 year interval since 1957, changes have occurred within the closed area system so that not 

all closed areas are functioning as intended. Changes include habitat loss and associated amount of 

available food, waterfowl population changes, dominant species present, and extent and type of 

public use. This imbalance in closed area ecology has contributed to the uneven distribution of 

waterfowl on the Refuge as noted in the discussion above. For example, Canvasback use has greatly 

increased in some closed areas and “open” areas of Pools 7, 8 and 9, but declined precipitously in 

others due to habitat losses and possible disturbance factors. The extensive loss of shallow- and 

deep-water marshes of the Refuge, both within and outside closed areas has resulted in declines in 

puddle duck use of the Refuge. 

A key factor influencing waterfowl 

distribution and use of closed areas is 

carrying capacity, or the amount of 

available food for waterfowl, such as 

plant seeds and tubers and fingernail 

clams and mayflies. This carrying 

capacity component “is probably the 

most important variable for evaluating 

criteria for managing waterfowl closed 

areas” (Kenow, et al. 2003). The 

availability of plant food resources has 

been assessed for various aquatic, 

marsh, and wet meadow plant 

communities in Pools 7 and 8 (Kenow, et 

al. 2003). Kenow acquired seeds and 

tubers from 9 selected vegetation types 

within Pools 7 and 8 to generate 

production estimates for each type. 

These estimates were then extrapolated to the larger Upper Mississippi River landscape using a 

GIS application model. Plant food production is expressed in terms of gross energy value to 

Canvasback Ducks, USFWS
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

242

waterfowl. The investigators note that plant food productivity estimates are inherently variable. 

Consequently, production variance estimates are large and need be considered when using 

extrapolated production estimates.

Tuber production, primarily from arrowheads and wild celery, provided the most significant 

contribution to overall gross plant food energy available to waterfowl. Arrowheads are found 

primarily in deep marsh perennial vegetation types, while wild celery occurs in submerged 

vegetation types.

Slivinski (2004) conducted a GIS analysis (based on year 2000 photography) of the potential 

waterfowl carrying capacity for the entire Refuge, and for existing and proposed closed areas within 

the Refuge. Refuge-wide, total gross energy available in eight vegetative types was calculated to be 

66.2 billion kilocalories. If all that energy were present in just wild rice, it would equal 33.2 million 

pounds of wild rice; if it were all arrowhead tubers it would equal 45.6 million pounds of tubers. The 

actual usable (metabolizable) energy for seed and tuber resources are about one half to three fourths 

of the gross energy values, depending on the plant species. Variations in plant species, growing 

conditions, availability, human disturbance, and weather are important factors in determining the 

number of birds that might utilize this energy source on the Refuge.

A disproportionately high amount (63 percent) of this total energy source occurs in Pools 7, 8 and 9 

and is an important factor in accounting for the uneven distribution of waterfowl using the Refuge 

during the fall migration (refer to discussion above). This GIS investigation shows that the presence 

(or addition) of deep marsh perennial and submerged vegetation types, along with the shallow marsh 

perennial type, is crucial to the improvement of the carrying capacity for waterfowl in the Refuge’s 

closed area system.

Existing closed areas now encompass approximately 20 percent of the total energy present in eight 

vegetation types studied (Table 10). This analysis did not include forest cover types, to which future 

investigations should be directed. Results of total energy comparisons made of proposed closed area 

configurations under each alternative are presented in Objective 4.2 in Chapter 2. The entire report 

and appendices are posted on the Region 3 planning web site http://midwest.fws.gov/planning/

uppermiss/index.html. 

Table 10 shows estimates of waterfowl food plant production (gross energy) in closed areas on Pools 

4-14 of the Upper Mississippi River under four alternative closed area configurations. The table is an 

energetics summary comparing alternatives to the existing Refuge closed area (Slivinski, 2004). 

Since Alternative E was developed after Slivinski’s report, it is not included in the table. However, 

Alternative E values would be similar to Alternative D since the core areas changed little in 

Alternative E.

Waterfowl managers and biologists have identified the need for refuges to be placed along migration 

corridors at intervals that provide secure habitat in the form of “stepping stones” or “a string of 

pearls.” One factor used in selecting refuge or closed area locations along the corridor is the flight 

distance various waterfowl species will take in order to roost and/or find food free from disturbance. 

In general, puddle ducks fly shorter distances (Wood Ducks 1 mile; Black Ducks 4 miles; Mallards 4-

25 miles; and Pintails 12-30 miles), while Canvasbacks, a diver, will fly up to 24 miles. We have a 

double management challenge in this regard because some of the existing Refuge closed areas are 37 

to 46 miles apart, while others are 4-16 miles distant, but have minimal waterfowl use because food 

resources are inadequate and/or human disturbance factors are present. 

In 1978, and again in the early 1980s, river biologists and managers made three assessments of the 

existing closed area system in regards to its functionality in holding birds for feeding and resting, as 

well as providing hunting opportunities. The Wildlife Technical Committee of the Upper Mississippi 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

243

River Conservation Committee proposed changes in reports completed in 1978 and 1985. The 

committee recommended changes to closed areas in Pools 4, 5A, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 14, but none were 

implemented.

Further considerations were made to modify closed areas during early stages of preparing the 

Refuge’s 1987 Master Plan (USFWS, 1987). At that point, two new options were drafted to increase 

the number of acres of closed areas, but no closed area changes were included in the final Master 

Plan. Instead, the Plan recommended to delay any changes, pending completion of closed area 

studies about impacts of recreation on waterfowl concentrations and the effectiveness of voluntary 

waterfowl avoidance areas. 

A voluntary waterfowl avoidance area (VWAA) was established, in cooperation with state and local 

governments and conservation organizations, on Lake Onalaska in Pool 7 in 1986 to reduce boating 

disturbance to waterfowl within the existing closed area. Studies on boater compliance were 

conducted in 1993 and 1997 (Kenow et al., 2003a). Despite a 60 percent increase in boating traffic 

from 1986 to 1997, lake-wide disturbance rates were comparable to 1981 levels. Investigators 

reported that about one third of the observed intrusions in the VWAA were by anglers and 

commercial fisherman. The avoidance areas contributed to the value of Lake Onalaska as a 

waterfowl refuge and demonstrated an effective collaboration among government agencies and nongovernment organizations. Further studies of the Lake Onalaska VWAA in the fall of 2004 revealed 

similar trends in boating activity and disturbance rates (Kenow et al., 2005). 

In some areas, waterfowl hunters concentrate along sections of closed area boundaries. The quality 

of the hunting experience may be lessened in areas where this occurs as waterfowlers compete for 

prime locations. Other characteristics of these “firing line” conditions include crowding and 

excessive “skybusting”, which can result in an increase in the number of un-retrieved birds.

Table 10: Estimated Waterfowl Food Plant Energy Production in Closed Areas on Pools 4-14

Under Four Alternatives, Upper Mississippi River Refuge1

Selected Land 

Cover Types

Refuge Alternative A 

Closed Areas

Alternative B Closed 

Areas

Alternative C Closed 

Areas

Alternative D Closed 

Areas

Total 

Area 

(Acres)

Plant 

Food 

Energy 

(million 

Kcal)

Total 

Area 

(Acres)

Plant 

Food 

Energy 

(million 

Kcal)

Total 

Area 

(Acres)

Plant 

Food 

Energy 

(million 

Kcal)

Percent 

Change

from 

Alt. A

Total 

Area 

(Acres)

Plant 

Food 

Energy 

(million 

Kcal)

Percent 

Change

From 

Alt. A

Total 

Area 

(Acres)

Plant 

Food 

Energy 

(million 

Kcal)

Percent 

Change

From 

Alt. A

Deep Marsh 

Annual

482 300 280 174 280 170 0% 280 174 0% 240 150 -14% 

Deep Marsh 

Perennial

5,496 39,606 852 6,142 1,431 10,313 68 % 863 6,222 1% 1,119 8,064 31% 

Open Water 95,734 1,110 18,771 218 22,819 265 22% 18,823 218 0% 18,777 218 0% 

Rooted 

Floating 

Aquatic

19,091 4,051 3,957 840 5,743 1,219 45% 3,984 845 1% 4,428 940 12% 

Shallow 

Marsh 

Perennial

11,354 5,112 1,202 541 2,579 1,161 115% 1,192 537 -1% 1,534 691 28% 

Sub-merged 

Vegeta-tion

20,978 14,801 7,659 5,404 9,009 6,356 18% 7,649 5,396 0% 7,937 5,600 4% 

Wet Meadow 10,586 1,237 1,281 150 1,770 207 38% 1,292 151 1% 1,280 150 0% 

Other Cover 70,112 0 9.968 0 16,846 0 10,008 0 8,506 0

Total 234,327 66,127 43,970 13,625 60,476 19,694 45% 44,091 13,701 1% 43,821 15,811 16%

1. Acreage values were made at the time of the Slivinski study (2004); values shown in Table 5 are current and correct.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

244

On a continental scale, the Refuge is a key component of the Upper Mississippi River and Great 

Lakes Region Joint Venture of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The continental 

plan seeks to restore waterfowl populations to levels observed in the 1970s. The goal of the Joint 

Venture is to increase populations by habitat enhancement in the area, which includes Wisconsin, 

Michigan, and parts of Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana. Population objectives are set at 

1,542,000 breeding ducks and 773 million duck use-days during fall migration. The goals will 

contribute to the continental goals of 62 million breeding ducks and 100 million ducks in the fall 

flight.

Recent fall migration counts reveal a peak in 1998 of nearly 33 million use-days on surveyed areas of 

the Refuge; more recent years range between 12 and 16 million use days. Joint Venture goals for 

carrying capacities of fall migration habitat are 500 duck use-day per acre in states with midmigration habitat (in Illinois) and 200 duck use-days per acre in habitats within production focus 

areas (Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin). 

Refuge closed areas secured an average of 48 to 73 percent of the duck use-days for the period 2000-

03. The closed areas of Pools 7, 8, 9 and 13 exceeded the 200 duck use-day per acre goal for divers, 

but puddle duck goals were met only in the Goose Island closed area of Pool 8 (Figure 14, Figure 15, 

and Figure 16). Harpers Slough closed area of Pool 9 was the only closed area of the Refuge to 

exceed the 500 duck use-day per acre goal for waterfowl, in this case it was met for diving ducks. 

3.2.8 Other Migratory Birds

3.2.8.1 Songbirds

Songbirds include a wide array of landbirds such as hummingbirds and woodpeckers, as well as the 

large order of birds called passerines or “perching” birds. Passerines comprise more than half the 

world’s species of birds and all have a perching foot that includes three toes forward and one toe 

Figure 14: Average Number of Duck-use-days per Acre of Closed Area, 2000-2003, Upper

Mississippi River Refuge1

1.Abbreviations: PL=Peterson Lake, WE=Weaver Bottoms, PO=Polander Lake, TR=Trempealeau NWR, LO=Lake Onalaska, GI=Goose Island, WI=Wisconsin Islands, HS=Harpers Slough, TM=Twelve Mile Island, ML=McCartney Lake, PC=Pleasant Creek,

SL=Spring Lake, EL=Elk River. Data based on aerial surveys, except ground surveys at TR. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

245

backward. They range in size from wrens to ravens. Many passerines eat insects as well as fruit, and 

include flycatchers, shrikes, vireos, crows, jays, chickadees, nuthatches, tanagers, cardinals, 

sparrows, and finches. 

Prior to the 20th century, songbirds were abundant beyond our imaginations. However, in the last 75 

years scientists have documented declines in many songbird species (Terborgh, 1989; Finch, 1991), 

particularly the “neotropical migrants,” those that breed in North America and overwinter in the 

Figure 15: Average Number of Waterfowl (Ducks, Geese, and Swans) Use-days per Acre

of Closed Area, 2000-2003, Upper Mississippi River Refuge1

1.Abbreviations: PL=Peterson Lake, WE=Weaver Bottoms, PO=Polander Lake, TR=Trempealeau NWR, LO=Lake Onalaska, GI=Goose Island, WI=Wisconsin Islands, HS=Harpers Slough, TM=Twelve Mile Island, ML=McCartney Lake, PC=Pleasant Creek,

SL=Spring Lake, EL=Elk River. Data based on aerial surveys, except ground surveys at TR.

Figure 16: Puddle Duck Portion of the Average Number of Duck Use-days per Acre of

Closed Area, 2000-2003, Upper Mississippi River Refuge1

1.Abbreviations: PL=Peterson Lake, WE=Weaver Bottoms, PO=Polander Lake, TR=Trempealeau NWR, LO=Lake Onalaska, GI=Goose Island, WI=Wisconsin Islands, HS=Harpers Slough, TM=Twelve Mile Island, ML=McCartney Lake, PC=Pleasant Creek,

SL=Spring Lake, EL=Elk River. Data based on aerial surveys, except ground surveys at TR.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

246

neotropics of Mexico, Central and South America and the Caribbean. Habitat loss here and there is 

the main culprit. Nonetheless, the Refuge still provides a vital migration corridor for songbirds, 

many of which fly thousands of miles each year between Central and South America and the United 

States and Canada. We estimate that millions of birds migrate through the area each year. 

Volunteer “birders” and researchers have documented over 160 species of songbirds, including 32 

species of warblers, on the Refuge. “Point count” surveys (Ralph, et al., 1993) have detected a total of 

199 species of birds on the Refuge. During the period 1994-2003, observers conducted an average of 

323 counts per year. The surveys reveal an average of about 120 species during spring migration (the 

first two weeks of May are the Refuge’s peak spring migration dates), and about 80 species of 

summer nesting residents (Figure 17). Nesters include the American Robin, Downy Woodpecker, 

Great-crested Flycatcher, Prothonotary Warbler, Tree Swallow, Yellow-headed Blackbird, Belted 

Kingfisher, Northern Cardinal, Brown Creeper, and the rare Cerulean Warbler.

The Refuge is developing a cooperative project with U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest 

Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin to analyze the songbird point count data in 

terms of bird habitat associations and seasonal abundance. Population trend analysis is pending.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and various conservation organizations have identified several 

bird species of management concern that occur on the Refuge (see Appendix K for a complete bird 

list). Five of seven species singled out for priority work by Partners in Flight in its Bird 

Conservation Plan for Physiographic Region 16 (in which most of the Refuge occurs) are found on or 

adjacent to the Refuge (Knutson et al., 2001). Some use the Refuge only in migration, others nest 

there (Table 11). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Region 3 identified 26 songbirds as Regional Conservation 

Priority (RCP) species that occur on the Refuge (Appendix K, bird list). 

American Bird Conservancy (ABC), a not-for-profit organization, whose mission is to conserve wild 

birds and their habitats throughout the Americas, produces a “Green List” that contains all the 

highest priority birds for conservation in the continental United States and Canada (American Bird 

Conservancy, 2004). This list builds on the Partners in Flight assessments and expands the list to all 

taxa and divides it into three broad categories. The Highest Continental Concern birds suffer 

multiple problems and include federally listed threatened and endangered species. The only two 

species of this category on the Refuge are the Golden-winged Warbler, seen in migration, and the 

Figure 17: Average Number of Bird Species Observed and Number of Counts

Conducted,1994-99, Upper Mississippi River Refuge
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

247

Whooping Crane, recently observed in Refuge floodplain wetlands. The cranes are part of an 

experimental flock released at Necedah National Wildlife Refuge in central Wisconsin, over the past 

3 years. 

The second American Bird Conservancy category, Moderately Abundant Species with Declines or 

High Threats lists birds with relatively high numbers but are declining at an alarming rate. Of this 

group (see Appendix K, bird list), the Refuge harbors 32 species of waterbirds, shorebirds, 

woodpeckers, warblers, and blackbirds. 

The Blue-winged Warbler is the only bird that occurs on the Refuge that is included in American 

Bird Conservancy’s third category, Species with Restricted Distributions or Low Population Size, a 

group with populations stable and threats apparently limited, but are limited in number or range.

American Bird Conservancy also designates Important Bird Areas that are exceptionally important 

and essential for bird conservation (American Bird Conservancy, 2004). The goal of the Important 

Bird Areas program is not just to recognize the sites as important, but also to mobilize the resources 

needed to protect them. One-third of the areas are on national wildlife refuges.

American Bird Conservancy designated the Upper Mississippi River Refuge a Globally-Important 

Bird Area in 1997 because it had, at that time, over 70 breeding pairs of Bald Eagles, which was over 

1 percent of the United States breeding population; greater than 16,900 Tundra Swans, over 20 

percent of the eastern population; and greater than 136,000 Canvasbacks, also over 20 percent of the 

world’s population. Numbers of eagle pairs, swans and Canvasback have been significantly larger in 

the over the past 5 years. In addition, the Refuge had over 5,700 pairs of Great Blue Herons, 

concentrations of nesting neotropical migrants, and 78,500 hectares (200,000 acres) of wetlands. 

3.2.8.2 Colonial Nesting Birds

Colonial nesters on the Refuge include species that nest on floating mats of aquatic vegetation, such 

as the Black Tern, and tree-nesting species, including Great Blue Herons, Double-crested 

Cormorants, Great Egrets, and Green Herons. The later species nest in small trees and shrubs 

throughout the Refuge, but little is known of their nesting status.

The herons, egrets and cormorants utilize floodplain forest trees (usually silver maple, cottonwood, 

or swamp white oak) in colonies (rookeries) containing 15 to 1,000 nests. Colonies are often on 

Table 11: Partners in Flight, Physiographic Region 16 Priority Bird Species Found on Upper

Mississippi River Refuge Including Seasonal Occurrence and Habitat

Associations.

Species Habitat Association1

Bottomland Forest Emergent 

Wetland

Mixed 

Wetland - 

Upland

Prairie Upland Forest 

/ Bluff

Wet 

Meadow

Sedge Wren 1,2,3 2 1,2 1,2,3

Golden-wing Warbler 1, 1, 1, 2 1

Cerulean Warbler 1, 2, 3 1 1, 2

Black-billed Cuckoo 1, 2 2, 3 2 2 1, 2

Red-headed 

Woodpecker

1, 2, 3 1,2, 3 1,2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3

1. 1= spring migrant; 2= summer (potential nesters), 3= autumn migrant
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

248

islands and/or located in the upper third of the pools where forests are most extensive. Maintenance 

of the floodplain forest is crucial to sustaining these tree-nesting birds.

A few colonies have been active for 15 or more years. Many colonies are abandoned within a few 

years and new ones show up taking their places. Great Blue Herons will generally feed near their 

colony within the floodplain and do not venture near other colonies (Dr. C. Custer, USGS, La Crosse, 

Wisconsin, personal communication). There are between 12 and 16 Great Blue Heron colonies on the 

Refuge, supporting a total of about 5,000 nests (Figure 18). In the 1960s there were only about 2,000 

nests, but expanded to peak numbers of over 8,000 nest in 1989. The average number of nests 

between 1999 and 2005 was about 4,100. 

Double-crested Cormorants nest in single-species colonies or in colonies shared with Great Blue 

Herons and Great Egrets. The Refuge’s largest concentration of nesting Cormorants occurs on two 

adjacent islands in lower Pool 13 where more than 1,000 nests have been counted. These islands had 

only 16 Great Blue Heron nests present in 2003 and 2004. In the remainder of the Refuge, 

Cormorant nests comprise less than 20 percent of all nests in three or four colonies dominated by 

Great Blue Herons. Double-crested Cormorants migrate and stage along the Upper Mississippi 

River where up to 90,000 were observed in the 1940s. Recent counts reveal about 5,000 Cormorants 

staging on the Refuge in the fall. This species is on the Regional Resources Conservation Priority 

list.

Great Egrets occur in three to five colonies dominated by Great Blue Herons on the Refuge, with a 

total of 90 to 400 nests present over the past 3 years. Great Egrets were rarely seen on the Refuge 

prior to the 1950s.

Black Terns prefer shallow-water marsh and backwater lake habitat with sparse emergent 

vegetation that consists of water lily, burreed, or bulrush. Dense cattail stands are avoided. Breeding 

habitat is variable within backwaters and the birds do not necessarily nest in the same area each 

year but utilize available sparsely vegetated sites. Water level is an important factor, with high water 

delaying or ending breeding seasons, low water facilitating access to tern colonies by predators. 

Terns are often in areas generally inaccessible to boaters, except airboats. Custer et al. (1998) 

indicated that a proposed pool-wide drawdown in Pool 8 could have a detrimental affect on nesting 

birds but could also enhance wetland habitat for Black Terns. Faber (1992) surveyed Black Terns 

Figure 18: Number of Colonies and Number of Nests of Great Blue Herons on the Upper

Mississippi River Refuge, Selected Years 1960-2005.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

249

Pools 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and found variable nest success at 7 colonies, influenced by high water and 

possible mammalian predators, ranging from 0 to 67 percent hatching success. The Black Tern is on 

the Regional Resource Conservation Priority list. 

The American White Pelican is a relatively new, but common, visitor to the Refuge in spring, summer 

and fall. The bird does not nest on the Refuge. The closest nesting colonies are in western Minnesota 

(Marsh Lake) and east-central Wisconsin (Horicon National Wildlife Refuge). Large numbers (less 

than 100) of pelicans first showed up on the Refuge in the early 1980s, with sudden build-ups of more 

than 1,000 in the mid-1980s. This increase in numbers coincides with a continental increase following 

the ban on DDT and other pesticides in 1972. The pelican joined other species that are high on the 

food chain (Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, Great Blue Herons, and Double-crested Cormorants) in 

making a strong population recovery. 

Seasonal aerial and ground surveys since 1994 reveal 

that flocks ranging from 2 to 600 birds occur at many 

locations throughout the Refuge (and adjacent 

Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge) spring, summer 

and fall. Refuge-wide, total numbers in the summer have 

reached nearly 1,500 birds. Aerial survey fall counts peak 

in late September or early October and have ranged from 

442 birds in 1994 to 3,222 in 2001. Prior to 2000, pelicans 

had departed the Refuge by November 11; since then 

birds have remained until late November. 

While no nesting occurs on the Refuge it is anticipated 

that pelicans may nest there in the future. Breeders 

might originate from the western Minnesota colonies, 

therefore, Refuge staff have color-marked nearly 1,000 flightless young birds at Marsh Lake 

between 1999 and 2002. Four observations of these color-marked (pink, numbered patagial tags) 

pelicans have been made on the Refuge and Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge since then. 

The public has indicated a concern that pelicans (as well as Double-crested Cormorants) are 

consuming game fish or competing with game fish for food. Food habitat studies, which require the 

collection of birds for stomach analysis, have not been conducted. However, cursory fish sampling in 

Pools 5 and 7 in 1997 indicated that primarily gizzard shad and shiner minnows were present in areas 

where pelicans were actively feeding. A few individuals of game fish were also present.

3.2.8.3 Secretive Marsh Birds

Secretive marsh birds include bitterns and rails that utilize wet meadow and emergent wetland 

habitats, both of which are declining on the Refuge. Surveys (tape play-backs) conducted during the 

breeding season, 1994-1999, show that Virginia Rails comprise 70 percent of the secretive marsh 

birds detected, followed by Sora (20 percent), Least Bittern (7 percent), and American Bittern (2 

percent). More recent surveys show that Virginia Rails and Soras have about equal detectability, and 

the bitterns remain uncommon. The two bittern species are on the Regional Resource Conservation 

Priority list.

3.2.8.4 Raptors

Raptors are birds of prey that include vultures, hawks, and eagles. Several species nest on the 

Refuge and more migrate along the Mississippi River Corridor. The Refuge supports approximately 

160 nesting pairs of Bald Eagles (see Endangered Species section), 30 Red-shouldered Hawk pairs, 

and probably less than 10 Osprey nest sites.

Great Blue Heron. Copyright by Sandra Lines
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

250

Red-shouldered Hawk breeding populations in the midwestern states have declined since the 1960s. 

The floodplain of the Upper Mississippi River provides habitat for nesting Red-shouldered Hawks. 

Nest territories on the Upper Mississippi River floodplain typically are in blocks of mature timber 

greater than 500 acres in size (nests may be found on the edges of the blocks), include both floodplain 

and upland slope forest types within the tract, are within 200 yards of ponds or small streams, and 

are greater than 500 yards from the main channel (Stravers and McKay, 1994). These investigators 

recommended to restrict logging in nesting areas, avoid fragmentation of large forest tracts, allow 

some thinning of younger forest stands to assist in development of overhead canopy cover, and 

combat invasion of reed canary grass that might inhibit growth of cottonwood and silver maple. 

The fall raptor migration along the river corridor has been monitored along the bluffs adjacent to 

Pools 4, 5A, 8, 10 and 13. Migration data can be used to monitor raptor populations but surveys on 

the Upper Mississippi River are inadequate to reflect population trends in the Midwest. In the mid1990s, observers at Eagle Valley Nature Preserve, Glen Haven, Wisconsin, (on bluffs overlooking 

Lock & Dam 10), documented between 14,600 and 30,700 raptors, of 17 species, during standard 

observation periods (Mandernack, et al. 1997). Peak daily counts totaled over 1,000 individuals on 

three different occasions. Four species comprised 87 percent of the count in 1996: Bald Eagle, Broadwinged Hawk, Sharp-shinned Hawk and Red-tailed Hawk. The majority of the migration occurs 

from mid-September to mid-October. 

The Bald Eagle, Northern Goshawk, Red-shouldered Hawk, and Peregrine Falcon occur on the 

Refuge and are on the Regional Resource Conservation Priority list.

3.2.9 Fish

The Refuge supports at least 119 species of fish, including sport fish (a $250 million industry riverwide), commercial fish (a $5 million industry), forage fish (gizzard shad, minnows and other small 

fish on which predatory fish feed), ancient fish (paddlefish and sturgeon), and many other unique 

species that make the river’s fishery so diverse (Gutreuter and Theiling, 1999). Populations of at 

least 41 fish species are in such poor shape that they are listed as threatened or of concern by state 

or federal agencies along the Upper Mississippi River (see Appendix K). Loss of habitat, the 

navigation system, over-exploitation, and impacts of exotic species (see discussion below) are the 

main causes. Pools 4, 8 and 13 each support 55 to 80 species of fish, as determined from recent 

surveys. 

Unlike most Refuges, Congress established the Upper Mississippi River Refuge (1924) for both fish 

and wildlife, not just wildlife as in most cases. Specific concern was noticed over fish being stranded 

due to low water conditions (see discussion below), the lack of habitat for black bass (largemouth 

bass), and prospects of converting the floodplain to agriculture. During this period prior to locks and 

dams, the river was free flowing and fish migrated north and south. The most prevalent fish were 

species adapted to river flow, such as walleye, skip-jack herring, paddlefish, sturgeon, and catfish. 

Buffalo fish and catfish were primary commercial fish at the time.

Species that required ponded, slack-water habitats, such as bass, northern pike and sunfish were 

present but not as common. Unfortunately, the northerns and bass would get stranded when 

floodplain ponds dried up in the summer. In fact, a major function of the Refuge in the 1920s was to 

“rescue” these fish, sometimes netting hundreds of thousands of pounds, some shipped by train 

across the country, others released in area lakes and rivers. With construction of the locks and dams, 

flooding solved the stranding problem and since then backwater fish have become abundant. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

251

3.2.9.1 Sport Fish

Favorite sport fish on the Refuge include walleye, sauger, white bass, largemouth bass, smallmouth 

bass, channel catfish, northern pike, bluegill, and crappies. Fishing tournaments are ever-increasing 

and may put extra pressure on local fish populations. The following fish species accounts are largely 

based upon data supplied in the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee’s Fisheries 

Compendium, Third Edition (UMRCC, 2004a).

Walleye populations flourish in the Upper Mississippi River due to high quality habitat meeting life 

requirements. Recent creel surveys show they rank third in harvest behind white bass and sauger in 

Pool 4. A 15-inch length limit, implemented in 1990, has increased harvest weights by 50 percent on 

Pools 11 and 13, as well as catch rates. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee biologists 

concluded in the 2004 report that a continuous open season on walleye should continue on the Upper 

Mississippi River while agencies continue to monitor population trends. Similar conclusions were 

made concerning sauger populations on the Upper Mississippi River.

Summer creel surveys of white bass in Pools 11 and 13 from 1993 to 2000 showed the species ranked 

from third to seventh in the annual numerical harvest. On the Upper Mississippi River, creel limits 

are liberal, as over-harvest does not appear to be a problem. 

Prior to locks and dams, prime smallmouth bass fishing grounds were found between Wabasha and 

Minneapolis, Minnesota, and near Lansing, Iowa. Presently, smallmouth bass populations in Pools 1-

14 are increasing and are a significant component of the fishery. This species is prominent in bass 

tournaments. For example, Minnesota’s records of four tournaments held between 1996 and 2000, 

show that all the largest fish were smallies (20 to 21.5 inches long) and 66 to 85 percent of the bass 

caught were also smallmouths. The public is showing interest in managing this species separate from 

largemouth bass (UMRCC, 2004a).

Recent creel surveys show that largemouth bass ranked second to fifth in numeric harvest in 

backwater complexes of the Upper Mississippi River. This species is the number one preference of 

anglers fishing in backwater habitats. Catch and release has become a common practice; of 19,000 

largemouths caught by interviewed anglers, 87 percent were released. Largemouth bass are 

intensively managed by state agencies. In 1991, a 14-inch minimum limit was established. “Under 

present conditions, it appears that largemouth bass are not being over-harvested, except possibly 

during winter where bass are concentrated in over-wintering areas and are subject to high angling 

pressure. Harvest regulations between adjoining states should attempt to be uniform if possible” 

(UMRCC, 2004a). 

Bluegills are the number one harvested fish species of the Upper Mississippi River backwaters. Loss 

of suitable spawning and over-wintering backwaters due to sedimentation poses the most serious 

threat to bluegill survival. Overwinter survival is directly related to sufficient oxygen level and 

sufficient water depth to maintain ingress and egress under thick ice and snow cover. Preferred 

winter habitat for bluegill on the Upper Mississippi River contains depths in excess of 3 feet, 

temperatures above 34.7 degrees Fahrenheit, and no continuous flow (UMRCC, 2004a). Quality 

sized bluegill (> 7 inches) in Pool 5 and 5A backwaters experienced over 80 percent percent winter 

angling exploitation in 1997-98. Bluegills are very prolific and therefore have few harvest 

restrictions, although there is a 25 bag limit on the Minnesota-Wisconsin border waters. Minnesota 

has an experimental bag limit of 10 fish daily on the Minnesota side of Pools 5, 5A, and 8. The lack of 

uniform regulations between states has created recurrent controversy between anglers and 

biologists in areas where restrictive bag limits exist (UMRCC, 2004a). Bluegills are an important 

prey species for flathead catfish, largemouth bass, and bowfin. They are host to 14 species of mussels 

found in the Upper Mississippi River.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

252

Recent creel surveys of various pools of the Upper Mississippi River show that crappies ranked as 

one of the top two most harvested sport fish. Data from 1990-1997 reveal abundance is variable and 

no observable trend in population. No new changes in regulations of crappie harvest are 

recommended at this time (UMRCC, 2004a).

3.2.9.2 Other Fish

Paddlefish

The paddlefish is one of the ancient fish of the Upper Mississippi River and is distinguished from all 

other fish by its broad, flat bill-like snout. It may weigh up to 90 pounds. They spawn in flowing 

water. People consume paddlefish meat and roe (caviar). The worldwide protection of sturgeon 

species in 1998 is expected to have a dramatic impact on commercial paddlefish harvest by creating a 

greater demand for paddlefish caviar as a surrogate to sturgeon roe. It has declined throughout its 

range due to habitat loss and over-harvest. Its northern-most range on the Upper Mississippi River 

is in the Minnesota – Wisconsin border area. They migrate along the Upper Mississippi River and 

will move between pools, usually over dams in high water. They feed on plankton in both fast flowing 

main channel areas and in the backwaters. Competition from invasive species such as silver and big 

head carp, plankton eaters, is a potential serious threat to paddlefish if these species move up the 

Upper Mississippi River (UMRCC, 2004a). Paddlefish are a protected species in Minnesota and 

Wisconsin.

Sturgeon

Included in the list of “ancient species” three kinds of sturgeon inhabit the Upper Mississippi River: 

the lake, pallid and shovelnose. These species date back to 50 million years ago. The pallid sturgeon 

is endangered and occurs in waters well south of the Refuge. Lake and shovelnose are rare or 

uncommon in most Refuge waters, but the shovelnose can be an important commercial species in 

some areas.

The shovelnose feeds on aquatic insects and fish, and grows to about 24 inches. They spawn on 

gravel in fast flowing water. They are harvested for their meat and roe. Shovelnose populations are 

limited due to over-harvest, habitat degradation, and water pollution of the last century. Flow 

alteration and habitat fragmentation by dams has jeopardized the long term health of the species. 

However, present commercial harvest of sturgeon on the Upper Mississippi River does not appear to 

be affecting shovelnose. The shovelnose is the host to three species of mussels and is the only known 

host of the hickorynut mussel, which inhabits water of 3.9-5.9 feet deep over sand or gravel in good 

current. This coincides with shovelnose sturgeon habitat (UMRCC, 2004a). 

A framework for the management of paddlefish and sturgeon in the United States was developed 

under the auspices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Paddlefish and Sturgeon Steering 

Committee. Eleven management recommendations were made but little funding is available to 

address these issues. Sturgeon management on the Upper Mississippi River should focus on: 1) 

structural habitat features, 2) alterations of flow variability necessary to maintain and enhance 

natural and manmade habitat, 3) harvest restrictions, and 4) supplementation of population numbers 

through aquaculture (UMRCC, 2004a).

Invasive Fish

See Section 3.2.12.1 on page 256 for a discussion of invasive fish species.

3.2.9.3 Fish Passage

Fish that migrate in rivers are classified as potamodromous. There are at least 34 species of fish that 

migrate on the Upper Mississippi River, some of which include: paddlefish, sturgeon, gar, skipjack 

herring, suckers, redhorse, channel catfish, flathead catfish, northern pike, white bass, largemouth 

bass, smallmouth bass, walleye, sauger and freshwater drum. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

253

Locks and dams disrupt the ecological integrity of the river systems and have been implicated in the 

decline of numerous fish species (UMRCC, 2004a). These structures restrict upstream movement of 

fish, alter migration behavior, and impede access to foraging habitat and wintering areas. The Upper 

Mississippi River System dams create a head and current velocity that exceeds the swimming speed 

(about 1-4 feet per second.) of most fish known to migrate in the Upper Mississippi River. Current 

velocities are sufficiently low when the dam gates are out of the water during high discharge 

conditions to allow some fish to move upstream.

Fish passage can be enhanced with modifications to operation of the dam gates, locking fish through 

a dam similar to boat lockage, modifying water level management plans (to allow longer periods of 

open river conditions), and modifying the lock filling and emptying system. Structural alternatives 

include Denil fishways, fish elevators, and bypass channels. It is recommended that if fishways are 

selected they first be done on an experimental basis and selected on physical, biological, and 

economic factors, and in the interest of management partners (UMRCC, 2004a). 

3.2.10 Freshwater Mussels

There are 297 species of freshwater mussels in North America. About 50 species have been recorded 

on the mainstem of the Upper Mississippi River. A recently completed Conservation Plan for 

Freshwater Mussels of the Upper Mississippi River System (UMRCC, 2004b) says that “no other 

group of animals in North America is in such grave danger” of population declines and extinctions. 

In North America, it is estimated that 55 percent of the freshwater mussel species are in danger of 

extinction and only 25 percent are considered stable. Over-exploitation, water pollution and habitat 

alteration are responsible. 

Prior to the 1800s, an estimated 44 species occurred on the Refuge portion of the Upper Mississippi 

River. Since then, five species have been extirpated, and four are extremely rare (Appendix K, 

Freshwater Mussels) (Mike Davis, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, personal 

communication). The remaining 39 species that occur in the Refuge (Pools 4-14) vary in distribution 

from localized populations (e.g. mucket in Pool 11) to Refuge-wide occurrences (e.g. pink papershell 

and giant floater).

The main mussel beds found on the Refuge occur in main channel areas, secondary channels, and 

adjacent backwater habitats. The East Channel area at Prairie du Chien Wisconsin (Pool 10) is 

historically the premier mussel bed of the Refuge. It suffered near-catastrophic loses due to zebra 

mussel infestations in the late 1990s and early 2000s (see Invasive Species section). General locations 

of crucial mussel beds for Higgins eye pearlymussel are described above in the section on Candidate, 

Threatened and Endangered Species. Some of the historically important mussel beds of the Upper 

Mississippi River that occur on the Refuge are:

# Winters, Wisconsin – Pool 7

# Harpers Slough, Iowa – Pool 9

# Whiskey, Iowa – Pool 9

# East Channel, Wisconsin – Pool 10

# McMillian, Iowa – Pool 10

# Cassville, Wisconsin – Pool 11

# Bellevue, Iowa – Pool 13

# Cordova, Illinois (near Refuge) – Pool 14.

An unexplained massive mussel die-off occurred in 1983-1985 between La Crosse, Wisconsin, and 

Hannibal, Missouri. This unknown aspect of mussel ecology stimulated further agency cooperation 

and mussel research that continues today (Tucker and Theiling, 1999). 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

254

The endangered species, Higgins eye pearlymussel, and the candidate species, spectaclecase and 

sheepnose, occur within, or near the Refuge. See Section 3.2.4 and Section 3.2.5 for a full description 

of their status.

3.2.11 Reptiles and Amphibians

There are 22 species of reptiles and 13 species of amphibians that occur on the Refuge (Appendix K). 

See the section on Candidate, Threatened and Endangered Species for a discussion of massasauga 

rattlesnake on the Refuge. 

3.2.11.1 Turtles 

Our most current reptile information concerns the 11 species of turtles found on the Upper 

Mississippi River. Some turtle species prefer the river’s quiet backwater habitats (such as 

Blanding’s, painted, snapping and common map turtles) while others occupy more riverine or faster 

flowing waters (smooth and spiny softshells, and Ouachita and false map turtles). The Blanding’s 

turtle population is threatened in states bordering the Upper Mississippi River, but one of its largest 

populations in the world is located on the Minnesota side of Pool 5 and is found on Refuge, state and 

private lands. “Turtle crossing” caution signs are posted where Blanding’s must cross county roads 

during their annual trek from shallow wetlands to nesting sites in local sand dunes.

Good turtle habitat along the river proper includes sandy 

shorelines (nesting habitat) that border the main 

navigation channel and are close to backwater marshes 

(hatchling nurseries). Potential human conflicts occur 

when people camp and picnic, or where channel 

maintenance dredge material is piled for storage on 

sandy beaches used by nesting turtles. An added threat 

comes from egg-eating predators, particularly raccoons, 

which are extremely efficient in finding nests 

concentrated in areas where prime sand and moisture 

conditions prevail. 

Research and habitat modeling work is needed to 

determine baseline information on the distribution 

(current and historical), relative abundance, and 

reproductive success of turtles on the Refuge. Concerns 

about harvest rates and population levels of snapping 

turtles lead to radio-telemetry studies of snappers by 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in 1997-

2001 (Andersen, 2003). Investigators found survival rates 

to be high; average home ranges were between about 50 

and 108 acres in size; hibernation sites were in various 

habitats but mostly in backwaters and secondary 

channels in depths of 0.1 to 5.6 feet; woody structure is 

important in winter and summer habitat; snappers utilized runs and lodges of muskrat and beaver; 

and the turtles have strong homing abilities. Public educational materials will be produced, 

emphasizing the need to protect adult females and inform harvesters how to distinguish males and 

females. 

Investigations are also needed to determine human impacts of operation and maintenance of the 9-

foot navigation channel project and of recreational use of sandy islands and shorelines. Results of 

studies will be used in developing science-based turtle management on the Refuge. 

To avoid turtle mortality by cars and trucks, 

caution signs are posted along roads that are 

crossed by rare Blanding’s turtles near Kellogg, 

Minn., in June 2004. USFWS
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

255

The conservation of riverine turtles is a world-wide problem in which this group of turtles is subject 

to over-exploitation, habitat alteration, run-off and siltation, changes in predator populations, and 

alteration of river flows through dams, wing dam and channelization (Moll and Moll, 2000). These 

authors recommended conservation measures to include establishment of sanctuaries, protection of 

nest areas and hatcheries, public education, and captive breeding. 

3.2.11.2 Frogs and Toads 

Nine species of frogs and one toad occur on the Upper Mississippi River. Current Refuge knowledge 

of frog and toad distribution on the Refuge is based upon call surveys conducted by staff and 

volunteers. An extensive long term monitoring study is being conducted by Dr. Walt Sadinski of the 

Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center in La Crosse, Wisconsin, as part of the nation-wide 

Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI).

Standardized frog and toad surveys were initiated on the Refuge in 1994 due to concern about the 

apparent rarity, decline and/or population die-offs of certain species in the surrounding states. 

Populations of these amphibians serve as an index to environmental quality. Survey routes consist of 

10 wetland sites which are visited 3 times annually. Observers identify species present, based on 

their calls, and make simple estimates of abundance. The survey periods and corresponding 

minimum water temperatures (Wisconsin) are April 15-30, 50 degrees Fahrenheit; May 20-June 5, 60 

degrees Fahrenheit; and July 1-15, 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Eight routes are surveyed most years 

(Table 12).

The bull frog occurs in all Districts but has not been detected on survey routes in the Winona 

District. Detection rates of wood and pickerel frogs are lower than other species on the Refuge. In 

addition, Blanchard’s cricket frog has not been detected on survey routes but three individuals were 

heard by herpetologists visiting the Refuge near Winona, Minnesota, during the summer of 2004.

3.2.12 Invasive Species

Invasive and exotic species are the “greatest threat to ecosystem integrity within the refuge system” 

(USFWS, 2004a). The Refuge and Upper Mississippi River System are inundated with invasive fish, 

plants, and invertebrates. Invasive species are those that dominate an ecosystem at the expense of 

other species, causing population crashes and ecological changes. These species invade or increase 

within the ecosystem as the result of a disturbance or degradation of the natural system. A healthy 

native system usually will not experience the invasions. Many invasive species are not indigenous 

(native) to North America, but are imported intentionally or by accident from another continent. 

Newly arrived species often exhibit population explosions due to lack of competition or natural 

control. 

Table 12: Occurrence of Frogs and Toads on Upper Mississippi River Refuge, 1994 to 2004

District No. of 

Routes

No. of 

Survey 

Years

Number of Years Species Detected

Wood 

Frog

Chorus 

Frog

Spring 

Peeper

Leopard 

Frog

Pickerel 

Frog

Am. 

Toad

East 

Gray 

Tree

Copes 

Gray 

Tree

Cricket 

Frog

Green 

Frog

Bull 

Frog

Winona 1 7 1 3 6 2 2 6 6 5

La Crosse 3 11 7 11 11 11 6 11 11 4 3 11 1

McGregor 2 10 1 10 10 10 3 10 10 4 7 10 10

Savanna 2 11 10 10 10 1 9 11 11 11 11 11
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

256

Examples of invasive species threatening wildlife populations and habitat are varied. Native 

mussels, particularly the Higgins eye pearlymussel, are threatened by zebra mussels imported from 

Europe via ship’s ballast water (USACE, 2004a). Asian carp threaten native paddlefish via 

competition for plankton. These carp also can potentially eliminate vegetation beds, snail and mussel 

populations, and deplete the commercial fishing industry on the Upper Mississippi River System. 

3.2.12.1 Invasive Fish

An ever-increasing list of uninvited fish to the Upper Mississippi River is cause for alarm by anglers, 

commercial fishermen, ecologists, biologists, and others who also admire the river. Exotic fish 

originate from other parts of the world and these fish eat other fish, out-compete native fish for food, 

can wipe out vegetation beds, and even cause bodily harm to boaters.

The common carp, a native of Europe and Asia, was first found in the Upper Mississippi River in 

1883 and presently comprises most of the commercial harvest of fish in the Upper Mississippi River. 

It has increased in abundance in Pools 4, 8, 13, and 26 of the Upper Mississippi River from 1990-94 

(Gutrueter and Theiling 1999). As the common carp increased, the native buffalo fish, the ecological 

equivalent, has declined in the harvest by about 50 percent. 

Four species of asian carp (big head, black, silver, and grass) were imported to control weeds, snails, 

or plankton at fish farms. They escaped the farms and are moving from southern United States into 

the river basin (UMRCC, 2004a). They are large, voracious eaters that consume so much they could 

even affect aquatic life beyond just fish, including waterfowl, clams and mussels, and marshbirds. 

The bighead carp, a plankton eater in competition with paddlefish, buffalo fish and gizzard shad, and 

larval forms of native fish, can grow to 90 pounds. The silver carp, another planktivore grows up to 

110 pounds. When bothered by sounds of a boat motor, silver carp often jump 4-6 feet or more out of 

the water, literally landing in boats or crashing into people, causing bodily harm. 

Another invasive fish, the round goby, will likely be a species of concern in the near future. These 

small but voracious fish are already halfway down the Illinois River, having moved from Lake 

Michigan.

Control of these invasive fish is crucial to retention of the river’s ecological integrity. The Corps of 

Engineers has recently installed an electrical aquatic nuisance species dispersal barrier in the 

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent interbasin movement between the Great Lakes and the 

Upper Mississippi River. However, exotic species have passed the barrier and a second barrier 

further downstream will be installed in the spring of 2005 (UMRCC, 2004a). Findings of a recent 

feasibility study funded by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources noted “that an acoustic 

deterrent such as a Sound Projector Array based acoustic bubble curtain downstream of a lock 

location perhaps in conjunction with attractants (i.e. pheromones, plankton, lights, etc.), and an 

integrated management/harvest plan may provide the most feasible opportunity to limit or slow the 

upstream invasion of Asian Carp” (FishPro, 2004).

Control of these species and prevention of additional invasions will be addressed in Refuge stepdown plans for fish, wildlife, and habitat management. Control will only be achieved through 

cooperative efforts of all agencies and partners on the Upper Mississippi River System. A potential 

avenue of cooperation in control of invasive species is through the Mississippi River Basin Aquatic 

Nuisance Species Panel (UMRCC, 2004a). 

3.2.12.2 Invasive Plants

Of the 591 plant species known to occur within the Upper Mississippi River, 36 are not indigenous to 

North America (Appendix K, plant list). Approximately 15 of these non-native species and 

aggressive native species adversely affect Refuge native plants and habitat (Table 13). Native 

species, such as reed canary grass, can take on invasive qualities when natural processes like fire, 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

257

drought, and flooding are altered. Over the past five years, the Refuge has attempted to control 

several plant species using various techniques, including biological control, mowing, cutting, 

exchanges of ornamental plants, and the use of herbicides. 

It is estimated that purple loosestrife has invaded thousands of acres of the Refuge, replacing large 

blocks of native vegetation, decreasing species diversity, and affecting local wildlife populations by 

reducing available wetland habitat. Control efforts include the release of beetles (Galerucella sp. and 

Hylobius sp.) that consume only this plant. Success in controlling loosestrife via biological methods, 

and restoring native plants has been documented throughout the Refuge. Each Refuge District has 

raised beetles in nurseries and conducted beetle “releases” to control loosestrife over the past 

decade. Releases have ranged from 500 to 20,000 beetles per site. The herbicide glyphosate was used 

in the 1990s throughout the Refuge and was used in 2002 on a limited basis in the Savanna District.

Table 13: Invasive Plants and Their Control on the Upper Mississippi River Refuge 

Plant Name 

(Native or non-native)

Scientific name Control method Comments

Purple loosestrife

(non-native)

Lythrum salicaria Beetles (Galerucella and 

Hylobius)

pulling, herbicide 

(glyphosate)

Large-scale, Refuge-wide 

problem. Biological control is 

effective.

Eurasian milfoil

(non-native)

Myriophyllum spicatum Public education to prevent 

spread to other bodies of 

water

Wide-spread, but not 

considered a major threat to 

aquatic habitats

Spotted knapweed

(non-native)

Centaurea maculosa Mowing Increasing problem in Sand 

prairies

Garlic mustard

(non-native)

Alliaria petiolata Pulling Widespread in shady upland 

habitats

Reed canary grass

(native and non-native ecotypes)

Phalaris arundinacea Root Pruned Method 

(RPM) trees; mowing

Wide-spread problem; threat 

to forest regeneration

Crown vetch

(non-native)

Coronilla varia Widespread

Siberian or Chinese elm

(non-native)

Ulmus pumila Cutting; herbicide 

(Triclopyr)

Localized problem

Honey locust

(native)

Gleditsia tricanthos Cutting; herbicide 

(Triclopyr)

Localized problem

European (common) buckthorn

(non-native)

Rhamnus cathartica Cutting; herbicide Widespread

Leafy spurge

(non-native)

Euphorbia esula Biological control Localized problem

Black locust

(native, imported from Appalachia 

and the Ozarks)

Robinia pseudoacacia Cutting; herbicide Localized problem

Japanese Bamboo (Japanese 

knotweed)

Polygonum cuspdatum Pulling; grubbing roots; 

herbicides

Localized problem

Bush Honeysuckles

(non-native)

Lonicera tatarica and 

others

Pulling; herbicides Localized problem
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

258

No control efforts are under way to combat Eurasian milfoil, other than through public education 

efforts that encourage people to remove all vegetation from their boats and boat trailers upon 

exiting the water. This combats spread of the plant between water bodies. 

Reed canary grass ecotypes of both native and non-indigenous origins have invaded Refuge 

wetlands. It is virtually impossible to distinguish native from non-native plants. This species is 

preventing regeneration of native forest trees and other floodplain vegetation (UMRCC 2002). 

Mowing and the use of mats around planted trees controls competition and discourages voles that 

may girdle newly planted trees. Experimental control using soil scarifying techniques, followed by 

herbicide treatments, have been attempted in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at 

small timber harvest areas of the Refuge. The Refuge is supporting research to develop an effective 

means of stopping the spread of reed canary grass. 

Illinois garlic mustard invades woodland habitats, smothering most of the native herbaceous 

vegetation. It occurs on higher sites of the floodplain forest (e.g. Goose Island in Pool 8 and Potosi 

River delta of Pool 11) in Pools 8-14. Control efforts have included the use of herbicides and pulling 

operations. 

3.2.12.3 Invasive Invertebrates

The zebra mussel is a threat to native mussel populations. Based on North American studies, zebra 

mussels are believed to impact native mussels by interfering with siphoning, feeding, gamete 

release, reproductive displays, and respiration. This species presumably was brought to North 

America from Europe in ballast water of ocean-going vessels. In 1991 the zebra mussel was found 

first in the Upper Mississippi River and Refuge near La Crosse, Wisconsin (UMRCC 2004b). Since 

their appearance, zebra mussel populations have expanded exponentially, sometimes reaching 

population densities of 60,000 per square meter (on Pool 13). 

The native mussel community of Pool 10 at Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, (East and West Channels) 

was valuable and well known to biologists and commercial mussel fishermen. In particular, this area 

was considered to be the most valuable Essential Habitat Area for the federally endangered Higgins 

eye pearlymussel. In the late 1990s, the native mussel community at Prairie du Chien was 

devastated by zebra mussels. Zebra mussel densities in the East Channel rose dramatically from 2 

per square meter in 1993 to 56,507 per square meter in 1999. Consequently, density of native mussels 

in the East Channel fell from 59.2 per square meter in 1996 to 1.7 per square meter in 1999; no 

juvenile native mussels were found between 1999 and 2001.

Like the rest of the mussel community there, the abundance of Higgins eye pearlymussel in the East 

Channel drastically declined with the expanding zebra mussel population. Zebra mussel population 

assessments are an important component of the Higgins eye pearlymussel recovery plan.

Zebra mussels have appeared in bottom samples collected by the Refuge and states during the fall to 

assess available food sources for migrating waterfowl in Pools 2-13. These samples come from both 

open water and backwater habitats. Peak numbers of zebra mussels in Pools 7, 8, 9, and 13 appeared 

in 2000 (Figure 19). Maximum average densities ranged from 1,500 to 5,000 per meter square. 

Numbers declined throughout the Upper Mississippi River in 2001, probably due to warm water 

conditions and the stresses of flooding. Numbers have risen since 2004 and 2005. Zebra mussel 

numbers were sparse in Pools 4, 5, 5A, and 11 throughout the 1997-2005 period. 

The faucet snail or mud bithynia (Bithynia tentaculata) is an invasive snail first introduced to the 

Great Lakes in about 1870 from Europe (Scandinavia to Greece), possibly with packing material. 

This snail is an intermediate host for two intestinal trematodes (flukes), Sphaeridiotrema globulus
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

259

and Cyathocotyle buchiensis that cause mortality in waterfowl and coots. The incidence of 

trematode-infected faucet snails collected in bottom samples has reached over 50 percent in some 

parts of Lake Onalaska (Pool 7). 

Bird mortality caused by these trematodes was first detected in the spring of 2002 when one lesser 

scaup was found dead in upper Pool 8. In the fall of 2002, the trematodes killed an estimated 1,500 to 

1,900 diving ducks and Coots on Pool 7 and 8. In the same season, nearly 100 Coots and diving ducks 

were collected in open water between Ferryville and Lynxville, Wisconsin, on Pool 9. Spring and fall 

die-offs also occurred on Pools 7 and 8 in 2003, killing an estimated 8,000 waterbirds. Species affected 

include Lesser Scaup, Ring-necked Ducks, Canvasback, Bufflehead , and Coots. Raptors that 

scavenge these birds are not susceptible to the trematodes.

Researchers and managers are investigating potential actions to prevent major die-offs caused by 

the presence of this snail. Population monitoring and removal of bird carcasses is a continuing 

practice.

3.2.13 Other Aquatic Invertebrates

Aquatic invertebrates play an important role in fish and wildlife ecology on the Refuge and are a 

useful indicator of environmental quality. Fingernail clams and burrowing mayflies are often target 

organisms of studies and monitoring. They are important foods in the Upper Mississippi River 

System for diving ducks, sport fish and commercial fish. Declines in diving ducks using the Illinois 

River valley during the 1950s was attributed to the loss of the fingernail clam community (Sauer and 

Lubinski, 1999). Long-term monitoring on the Upper Mississippi River System shows that Pool 13 

backwaters have held the highest densities of mayflies and fingernail clams, possibly because Pool 13 

is outside the pollution gradient that extends downstream from Minneapolis, Minnesota, and that 

Pool 13 substrates are especially suitable for these critters. 

The Refuge and the states sample invertebrates in the fall to assess available food sources for 

migrating waterfowl in Pools 4-13. Our most complete data are for pools 7, 8, 9 and 13. Mayfly 

numbers are generally highest in pools 8, 9 and 13 (Figure 20). Off-refuge data from pools 2 and 3 

show even higher mayfly densities. Fingernail clam numbers are ususally greatest in Pool 9 

Figure 19: Average Number of Zebra Mussels per Meter Square Collected During Fall

Sampling Periods in Selected Areas of Pools 7, 8, 9, and 13, 1997-2005, Upper

Mississippi River Refuge
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

260

(Figure 21). Values for both fingernail clams and mayflies in pools 4, 5, 5A, 10, 11, and 12 are 

consistently much lower than the pools listed above. Differences in invertebrate densities between 

pools is often controlled by local conditions and not necessarily due to whole-river factors (Sauer and 

Lubinski, 1999). 

Refuge data indicate that when fingernail clam densities exceed about 200 clams per meter square, 

diving duck use-days on that pool can exceed 500,000 use-days or peak numbers over 80,000 birds. 

Data also indicate that fingernail clams were abundant in years when submerged aquatics were 

lacking during the early 1990s and were crucial to migrating diving ducks during those years. 

3.2.14 Mammals

The 51 species of mammals that occur on the Refuge play an important role in Upper Mississippi 

River System ecology and some are the object of furbearer management on the Refuge. Prior to 

Figure 20: Average Number of Mayflies per Meter Square Collected During Fall Sampling

Periods From Selected Areas on Pools 7, 8, 9 and 13, 1995-2003, Upper

Mississippi River Refuge

Figure 21: Average Number of Fingernail Clams per Meter Square Collected During Fall

Sampling Periods From Selected Areas on Pools 7, 8, 9 and 13, 1995-2005 Upper

Mississippi River Refuge1

1. High values for Pool 9 are: 1995 (5,985); 1996 (5,856); 1997 (3,790).
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

261

locks and dams, the high, semi-dry river bottoms held higher populations of skunk, badger, foxes, 

and rabbits than occur at present. The marsh conditions of today now support higher numbers of 

muskrat, mink, and especially raccoon than in the past. 

Furbearing mammals (beaver and river otter) were key elements in the development and 

exploitation of the Mississippi River Basin. Early explorers and trappers established settlements 

(Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, for example) to carry on the fur trade. Over-exploitation nearly 

extirpated beaver from the Upper Mississippi River by the mid-1800s. They made a comeback in the 

20th century with reintroductions (1927 and 1928), control of the harvest, and new habitat created by 

the lock and dams in the 1930s. Beaver lodges and cuttings are now a moderately common sight on 

the Refuge. About 2,100 beaver are harvested each year (1990-2003) (Figure 22) .

Beaver lodge surveys conducted in Pools 12-14 from 1993 to 2002 revealed an average of 41 lodges 

per year along established survey routes. Numbers ranged from a high of 62 in 1993 to a low of 20 in 

2002. 

River otter were also trapped extensively at the time of early European settlement. These predators 

probably maintained small populations in tributaries of the UMR. Today they are an uncommon 

sight, but occupy most areas of the Refuge, as evidenced by trapping records, local observations, and 

radio-tracking studies. 

Currently, Wisconsin is the only state that allows the take of river otter on the Refuge, one per 

season. Otter are taken incidentally on the Refuge in Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois for which State 

conservation officers may allow retention of the fur on a case by case basis. Since 1997, an average of 

28 otter have been trapped on the Refuge, ranging from 13 to 46 animals per season (Figure 23). 

Approximately 90 percent of the otter harvested on the Refuge are taken in Wisconsin. In the past 

eight years, the state-wide annual otter harvest in Wisconsin has been about 2,000 animals, except in 

1998-99 and 2003-04 when it was near 1,500 otter. 

The State of Minnesota is investigating home range characteristics, habitat selection and survival of 

river otters in southeast Minnesota and portions of the Refuge (T. Gorman, student at Mankato 

State University, personal communication). Data from this study will be used in decisions whether to 

have a trapping season on these animals in southeastern Minnesota. Preliminary reports indicate 

Figure 22: Number of Beaver Harvested, 1990-91 Through the 2004-2005 Seasons, Upper

Mississippi River Refuge1

1. Note that 1991-1992 data are not included in this figure.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

262

radio-tracked river otters established natal dens along fence rows and up to several miles away from 

streams. Investigators reported four of 24 radio-marked otters died of incidental take; one of 24 was 

a road-kill mortality. 

Prior to locks and dams, muskrats were wide-spread, but not abundant on the Upper Mississippi 

River System. At that time the shallow lakes and marshes often dried up each fall, forcing muskrats 

to dig bank dens, rather than build typical “rat houses”. Muskrats flourished after the 1930s when 

permanent shallow wetlands were created by installation of the locks and dams. High muskrat 

numbers coincided with those of puddle ducks, bitterns and rails, sunfish and bass in the hey-day of 

shallow wetland productivity witnessed in the 1935-65 period. Since then, the decline of cattail, 

burreed, arrowhead, and bulrush has resulted in reductions in muskrat populations, although “rats” 

still utilize muddy banks along the many side channels now coursing through the bottomlands. 

Trappers have harvested millions of muskrats from the Refuge since the 1940s. Between 1940 and 

1970, over 2.25 million rats were harvested (average of 83,000 per year) by an average of 750 Refugepermitted trappers per year. Recent annual harvest reports (1991-2004) show about 40,000 animals 

taken by 290 trappers per year (Figure 24 and Figure 25). Muskrats reproduce prolifically and 

changes in their populations generally reflect ebb and flow of habitat, rather than the extent of 

harvest. 

Recent population status and distribution data are available from studies, inventories, and fur catch 

reports submitted by trapping permittees. Muskrats were studied in the early 1980s in Pool 9 to 

determine density, survival and harvest rates (Clay and Clark, 1985). The authors reported that 

muskrat populations on Pool 9 “showed the characteristic resiliency for the species with great 

reproductive capability and consistent survival.” They also found that distribution and harvest was 

not uniform, which support the idea of management by zones to provide sustained harvest. 

Are muskrat harvests affected by water level fluctuations? Regression analyses said “no” in tests of 

water levels (at tailwaters and headwaters) in Refuge Pools 4 through 14 compared to muskrat 

harvest for the period 1990 and 1992 to 1996 (Wlosinski and Wlosinski, 1998). The authors concluded 

that water levels did not affect muskrat harvest on the Refuge, but noted that numerous other 

studies showed that muskrat populations are affected by water levels. Other factors affecting 

harvest include length of trapping season, fur prices, weather conditions, habitat changes, and 

trapping effort. The authors concluded that “although sometimes used as a surrogate for population 

Figure 23: Number of River Otter Harvested Between 1997-1998 and 2004-2005, Upper

Mississippi River Refuge 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

263

estimates, harvest may not be a good estimator for muskrat populations.” The same authors 

reported that the average number of muskrats trapped is positively correlated to differences in 

aquatic vegetation coverage estimates (1989 emergents and floating leaved aquatics).

In 1988, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources began making annual muskrat house 

counts at specific locations within Pools 4-11 (WDNR, 2004). Fewer houses have been found in the 

past four years compared to 1989-91. Counts are on the rise in the last 2 years, however. These data 

reflect variability observed in trapping data over the past 40 years. 

Figure 24: Number of Muskrats Harvested, 1990-91 Through 2004-2005 Season, Upper

Mississippi River Refuge1

1. Note that 1991-1992 data are not included in this figure.

Figure 25: Number of Active Trappers, 1990-91 Through the 2004-2005 Season, Upper

Mississippi River Refuge1

1. Note that 1991-92 data are not included in this figure.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

264

The recent (1990-2003), average annual raccoon harvest on the Refuge has averaged 1,793 animals, 

ranging from 800 to over 3,000 per year (Figure 26). Raccoon numbers have increased dramatically 

since the early 1990s in each of the four states in which the Refuge occurs. Scientists estimate that 

there are more raccoons in Illinois today that when the first European settlers arrived there.

The annual mink harvest averaged 310 animals, ranging from about 175 to 450 per year (Figure 27). 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois report that mink populations are stable in areas with adequate 

wetland resources. 

Figure 26: Number of Raccoon Harvested, 1990-91 Through the 2004-2005 Season, Upper

Mississippi River Refuge1

1. Note that 1991-92 data are not included.

Figure 27: Number of Mink Harvested, 1990-91 Through the 2004-2005 Season, Upper

Mississippi River Refuge1

1. Note that 1991-92 data are not included.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

265

3.2.15 Vegetation

A diversity of plant communities occurs on the Refuge, located in aquatic to upland bluff terrains. 

These communities have been classified for management and research purposes specific to the 

Mississippi River by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center 

(UMESC) (web site is www.umesc.usgs.gov) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Habitat Needs 

Assessment program (USACE, 2000). The Refuge uses these mapping sources on a daily basis for 

developing Geographic Information System management and habitat maps. 

On a national level, the Federal Geographic Data Committee has established the National Vegetation 

and Information Standard (NVCS) to produce uniform statistics in vegetation resources from data 

collected nation-wide. These three classification systems have three distinct descriptors of 

vegetation types which have been cross-referenced (“cross-walked’) by the Upper Midwest 

Environmental Sciences Center (Appendix O). An example of the NVCS maps for the Refuge (Pool 

8) appears in Appendix O as well. Land cover maps, based on UMESC interpretation and 

digitization of 2000 photography, for the entire Refuge are available at Refuge headquarters.

3.2.15.1 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

Submerged aquatic vegetation includes plants that grow below the surface of the water and are 

usually anchored to the bottom by their roots. Examples are wild celery, water milfoil, and sago 

pondweed (see the plant list in Appendix K). This group of plants generate dissolved oxygen, filter 

suspended material, stabilize bottom sediments, and cycle nutrients (Rogers and Theiling, 1999). 

Submerged aquatics provide crucial fish habitat, provide substrate for invertebrate growth, and are 

important foods for mammals and migratory birds. They are most often found in backwater areas of 

low water velocity, adequate light penetration and relatively stable water levels.

Prior to locks and dams most species that are now present occurred in localized wetland pockets and 

channel border areas, but their group was not a major component of the floodplain vegetation 

community (Green, 1970). Many aquatic areas dried up by the end of the summer growing season. At 

that time, floodplain forests dominated the river bottoms with hundreds of lakes and ponds scattered 

through the wooded areas. Wet meadows and hay fields were also present. After inundation, the 

stabilized water levels created shallow and deep water wetlands that supported an abundance of 

submerged plants. The response by wetland fish and wildlife was phenomenal in its diversity and 

abundance. In the 1940s, refuge biologist, Bill “Doc” Green noted that he could find “two dozen 

species of submergent plants in a matter of minutes anywhere in the better marshes and aquatic 

beds.” Backwater sport fish (bluegill, bass, and crappies) and diving ducks (Canvasbacks, Scaup, and 

Ring-necked Ducks) utilize submerged plants extensively. 

Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, river scientists and users noted declines in submerged (and 

emergent) vegetation cover throughout the Refuge. Factors included wind and wave action, poor 

light penetration due to highly turbid water conditions, sedimentation and filling of backwaters, 

major flooding events, and long term inundation with few drying periods.

Due to these factors, there is an uneven distribution of submerged plants through the length of the 

Refuge. Recovery of lost submerged plant beds has occurred naturally or through habitat 

rehabilitation projects in Pools 4, 5A, 7, 8, 9, and 13. More work is necessary in other Refuge pools to 

gain a more even distribution of aquatic plant growth and associated fish and wildlife use. 

3.2.15.2 Emergent Aquatic Vegetation

Emergent aquatic vegetation (emergents) are plants whose roots are anchored under water with 

much of the plant extending above the water surface. They include cattail, river bulrush, giant reed 

grass, burreed, arrowheads and wild rice. They are backwater plants adapted to low water velocities 

and shallow- to deep-water marsh conditions.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

266

Prior to the lock and dams, river bulrush was the most abundant marsh species and continues to be 

prominent today. Cattail was uncommon, as it is today on the floodplain. Burreed was common 

before inundation, became abundant soon after, but has since declined. The arrowheads were 

present before, but after became widespread and abundant, until suffering declines since the 1970s. 

The arrowheads (rigid and duck potato) are important waterfowl and muskrat foods. 

The lack of emergent vegetation on the Refuge is a key concern in management and restoration of 

puddle duck and tundra swan migration habitat. Studies of available kilocalories (bioenergetics) for 

waterfowl reveal that deep marsh perennial emergent vegetation (particularly arrowhead tubers), 

provides some of the highest valued resources on the Refuge (Kenow et al., 2003). 

3.2.15.3 Floodplain Forest

Floodplain forests are important to the biological integrity of the Upper Mississippi River System 

(UMRCC, 2002). They provide rich habitat for wildlife (and fish during high-water events), reduce 

soil erosion, improve water quality and provide a scenic and recreational landscape. Among 

vegetation communities of the Upper Mississippi River, the highest number of birds species 

observed during spring migration in 1995 and 1996 were found in floodplain forest habitat (Yin, 

1999).

Floodplain forests are declining in the Upper 

Mississippi River System and the Refuge due to 

agricultural and urban developments, changes in 

natural riverine flood pulses, the rising water 

table, and island loss due to wind and wave 

action. The forests that remain are changing in 

composition from a diversity of species, 

including mast producing trees, to a more 

monotypic forest dominated by silver maple and 

herbaceous openings. In some pools, many 

forest stands are even aged mature trees with 

little or no understory or seedling regeneration 

(UMRCC, 2002). 

River mangers and biologists have identified what an “ideal” floodplain forest would look like 

(UMRCC, 2002). Basically, it would contain a diversity of tree species to include existing silver maple 

and potential codominant species such as eastern cottonwood, elm, green ash and river birch. The 

forest would also contain mast producing species such as oak, pecan and hickory whose seeds are 

food sources for Wood Ducks, squirrels, deer and Blue Jays. Diversity would also be evident in size 

and age, with older mature woods available for nesting eagles and herons.

The driving forces of forest change or succession in the floodplain environment is ecological 

disturbance, such as flooding, tornados, severe winds, disease, pests, and occasional fire. The great 

flood of 1993 caused relatively minor tree mortality above Pool 13, but below that pool mortality 

escalated sharply. Mortality rates were positively correlated with flood duration and negatively 

correlated with the diameter of the trees (Yin et al., 1994).

Recommended forest management practices would replicate these natural processes (UMRCC, 

2002). These practices include: forest regeneration, shelterwood harvest methods, seed tree 

methods, group selection methods, tree planting, the use of herbicides, water level management, and 

potential modification of site elevation (increase) to promote growth. Invasive species (particularly 

reed canary grass) present problems in forest regeneration within the upper pools of the Refuge. 

Research and experimental cuts will need to be conducted to achieve successful regeneration in 

these areas.

Cardinal flower in the forest. Copyright by Sandra Lines
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

267

Reforestation projects may include increasing land elevations to avoid impacts of flooding. Those 

impacts may also be avoided by selecting appropriate tree species and locating tree plantings in 

areas less prone to flooding. Foresters have a tool to determine predicted flood potential throughout 

the pools in models available at the Upper Midwest Environmental Science Center’s web site 

(Wlosinski and Wlosinski, 2001). 

The Refuge is cooperating with Corps of Engineers foresters in completing a forest inventory of 

both the Corps-acquired land and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-acquired lands in the St. Paul and 

Rock Island Corps Districts. This is crucial to establishing objectives and meeting management 

goals in the Refuge’s future forest management plan.

3.2.15.4 Grasslands

Grassland and prairie habitats are generally uncommon in the floodplain, but there are several units 

that occur on islands or sand terraces adjacent to the floodplain. There are two prominent prairie 

systems within the Refuge adjoining Pool 13. One is the newly acquired Lost Mound Unit (the 

former U.S. Army Savanna Depot) that protects a seven-mile long sand dune along the river’s edge 

and contains approximately 4,000 acres of sand prairie and oak-ash savanna associations. There are 

488 buildings, left over from the Depot operations, scattered throughout the unit. The Refuge’s

Thomson Prairie protects similar habitat 25 miles down river of Lost Mound. These units contain 

some of the last remaining habitats of their kind in the state of Illinois. Habitat management of these 

areas includes burning, limited grazing, and mechanical, biological and chemical treatments. 

There are 39 other grassland units (ranging in 

size from 1.4 to 125 acres) distributed 

throughout the Refuge for which fire 

prescriptions have been developed. These 

units are managed primarily for migratory 

bird nesting cover, moist soil feeding sites, and 

to enhance biological diversity. Grassland 

habitats support state-listed plant and animal 

species of concern, such as crucial nesting 

habitat for the Blanding’s turtle. 

3.2.16 Natural and Current Role of 

Fire

The following discussion is from the Refuge 

Fire Plan, approved in 2002.

There is no recorded history of fire on the 

Refuge prior to its establishment in 1924. Our 

best estimate is that fire played a minor role 

within the river valley. That is not to say wildfires did not occur on lands now managed as part of the 

Refuge, as the river was certainly heavily used by Native Americans and fire surely occurred in the 

historic meadows and grasslands that were once part of the original river valley. However, since the 

placement of the locks and dams the areas that would have been influenced by fire are now mostly 

under water. 

As wildfires have been limited in scope on the Refuge there is little documentation as to their impact 

on the areas burned with regard to the vegetation, wildlife and/or soils.

Upper Mississippi River Refuge staff. USFWS
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

268

Prescribed fire has been mostly confined to the prairie areas of the Refuge for the purpose of 

restoring and/or maintaining the diverse native plant community. This is very important in areas 

which have remnant native prairie vegetation. To date fire has been used successfully to maintain the 

native plant species on these areas.

Fire has had no negative impact on threatened and/or endangered species on the Refuge.

3.2.16.1 Wild Fires and Prescribed Burns

Between 1989 and 2000, there were 29 reported wildfires on the Refuge. Of those, 23 were 10 acres 

or less in size and of these 14 burned 1 acre or less. Eighteen wildfires occurred in the March-May 

period and 4 in October. The remaining fires were scattered throughout the rest of the year with only 

January, August and September wildfire free. The main causes of wildfires were arson or escaped 

campfires. It should be noted that arson fires have accounted for all fires over 10 acres in size except 

for one escaped campfire which burned 60 acres. In looking at the past fire data most wildfires are 

contained almost immediately upon attack. 

A total of 80 prescribed burns were completed on the Refuge between 1991 and 2000, covering 1,592 

total acres. The Savanna District had the most active burning program due to the abundance of 

native prairie and grasslands; see District summary below.

Winona District 19 burns 170 acres

La Crosse District 10 burns 103 acres

McGregor District 10 burns 295 acres (1996-2000)

Savanna District 41 burns 1,100 acres

3.2.17 Environmental 

Management Program.

The Upper Mississippi River System 

Environmental Management Program 

(EMP) was created due to controversies 

surrounding the replacement of Lock 

and Dam No. 26 near Alton, Illinois. The 

debate began in the 1970s when 

environmental groups and area 

railroads opposed the proposed 

construction of two 1,200-foot locks at 

the site. In 1978, Congress authorized 

construction of a new dam with one 

1,200-foot lock and directed the Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission to study and make 

recommendations on further navigation capacity expansion and its ecological impacts. 

The Commission completed the study and recommendations in 1982 and presented its findings in the 

Comprehensive Master Plan for the Management of the Upper Mississippi River System. Some of 

the Master Plan recommendations included a second lock (600 feet) at Lock and Dam 26, a habitat 

rehabilitation and enhancement program, a long-term resource monitoring program, a computerized 

inventory and analysis system, recreation projects, and a study of the economic impacts of 

recreation. Section 1103 of the 1986 Water Resources Development Act (Public Law 99-662) declared 

that the Upper Mississippi River System is a “nationally significant ecosystem and a nationally 

significant navigation system.” In addition, the act authorized the second lock at Lock and Dam 26 

and several environmental initiatives on the Upper Mississippi River. The environmental initiatives 

became known as the Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program. The 

Spring Lake, Upper Mississippi River Refuge, USFWS
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

269

1990 Water Resources Development Act extended the original EMP authorization period for an 

additional 5 years, through fiscal year 2002. The 1999 Water Resources Development Act increased 

the annual authorization 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).

The EMP is a coordinated habitat restoration program for the Upper Mississippi River system 

administered by the Corps of Engineers in partnership with several federal, state, and nongovernmental agencies. Partners include the federal agencies of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

the state natural resource agencies of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri; and nongovernmental agencies. Through this coordinated, effective planning process based on sound 

science, a built-in evaluation process, and a strong partnership between the agencies, EMP has 

evolved into a premier river habitat restoration program.

Because the Refuge is located entirely within the Upper Mississippi River system, the Refuge is 

fully involved with planning, designing, constructing, evaluating, and operating and maintaining all 

EMP habitat rehabilitation and enhancement projects (HREPs) built on the Refuge. In addition, the 

Refuge is involved in the EMP Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP).

The mission of the EMP LTRMP is to provide decision makers with the information needed to 

maintain the Upper Mississippi River System as a viable multiple-use large river ecosystem. 

LTRMP works to develop a better understanding of the Upper Mississippi River ecosystem and its 

problems; monitor and evaluate long term resource changes and trends; develop alternatives to 

better manage the river system; and to manage, organize, and distribute scientific information about 

the river (USACE, 2004b). Three (3) pools within the Refuge are monitored closely by the LTRMP: 

4, 8, and 13. The Refuge and LTRMP exchange data and the Refuge has assisted with data 

collection.

The purpose of building HREPs on the Upper Mississippi River is to counteract the effects of an 

aging impounded river system by changing the river’s floodplain structure and hydrology. This can 

involve altering sediment transport and disposition, water levels, connectivity between the river and 

its floodplain, and constructing structures in the floodplain. 

This program has made it possible to improve tens of thousands of acres along the Upper Mississippi 

River system. Since the program began in 1987, 40 completed HREPs have affected over 72,000 

acres of habitat. In addition, 24 projects which could affect over 70,000 acres are in the construction, 

design, or planning phases (Figure 28). Directly on or adjacent to the Refuge itself, there are 27 

completed HREPs affecting over 43,000 acres of habitat, and the Refuge is solely responsible for 

operating and maintaining 25 of those projects (Table 14). The Refuge is currently involved in the 

planning, design and construction of 10 HREPs which will affect an additional 30,800 acres of 

habitat. When these 10 projects are completed, the 37 HREPs on or next to the Refuge will improve 

approximately 73,800 acres of habitat. Eventually, more projects will be added to the program 

through the selection process. 

Potential HREPs on the Refuge are identified, prioritized, and selected by a partnership which 

includes the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the four states of Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois. Once the projects are identified, the partners, along with the 

interested public, prioritize, select and plan each project. Considerations for prioritization, selection, 

and planning to meet overall program and individual project goals include ecological merits, 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

270

Environmental Pool Plans, sequencing, geographic distribution, and available funds. In addition, the 

partners use the Habitat Needs Assessment, developed under EMP, as a tool for project 

identification and planning.

Refuge and other Service personnel are completely involved with the entire HREP process 

including identifying, prioritizing, selecting, planning, designing, constructing, and evaluating all 

projects on the Refuge. The Refuge is also responsible for operating and maintaining all HREPs 

constructed on the Refuge. The Refuge employs an EMP Coordinator to oversee Refuge 

involvement in HREPs, to serve as a liaison between the Refuge and the other partners, and to 

ensure that projects are designed and built to serve their intended function with reasonable 

operation and maintenance costs. In addition, Refuge and other Fish and Wildlife Service personnel 

are involved with other interagency planning teams where EMP projects are identified, prioritized 

and selected such as the Fish and Wildlife Interagency Committee, Fish and Wildlife Work Group, 

River Resources Forum, River Resources Coordination Team, and the EMP Coordinating 

Committee.

Figure 28: Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program Habitat

Rehabilitation and Enhancement Projects1

1. Site Nos. 3 through 37 are on or adjacent to the Upper Mississippi River Refuge (USACE, 2004b). 

1

2

3

4

5 6

7 8

9

10 11

12

13 14

15

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24 25

26 27

28 29

30

32

31

34

35

36 37

38 39 40

42 43

44 45

46

47

48 49

53

52

55 50

56

57

58 59 60

64

62

63

61

65

67

68

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION

(formerly Environmental Management Program)

0 100 25 50

MILES

MINNESOTA

WISCONSIN

IOWA

ILLINOIS

MISSOURI

ST. PAUL

DUBUQUE

LA CROSSE

ROCK ISLAND

CHICAGO

DAVENPORT

PEORIA

KEOKUK

ST. LOUIS

CAIRO

ST. LOUIS

DISTRICT

ROCK ISLAND

DISTRICT

ST. PAUL

DISTRICT

ILLINOIS R.

RIVER

MISSI

MINN S OTA

E

R.

BLACK

KASKASKIA R.

N

ST. CRO XI

1

ST. ANTHONY FALLS

2 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 16

17

18

19

20

21 22

24

25 26

27

LA GRANGE

PEORIA

STARVED ROCK

MARSEILLES

DRESDEN ISL. BRANDON RD.

LOCKPORT

T.J. O’BRIEN

5A

UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR CONSTRUCTED

GENERAL DESIGN INITIATED

PLANNING PROCESS

LOCK & DAM SITES

STATUS AS OF: February 2006

HABITAT REHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

RICE LAKE, MN

LONG MEADOW LAKE, MN

PETERSON LAKE, MN

INDIAN SLOUGH, WI

FINGER LAKES, MN

ISLAND 42, MN

SPRING LAKE PENINSULA, WI

SPRING LAKE ISLANDS, WI

POLANDER LAKE, MN

SMALL SCALE DRAWDOWN, WI

TREMPEALEAU REFUGE, WI

LONG LAKE, WI

LAKE ONALASKA, WI

EAST CHANNEL, WI/MN

POOL 8 ISLANDS, WI

POOL SLOUGH, IA

BLACKHAWK PARK, WI

LANSING BIG LAKE, IA

CONWAY LAKE, IA

LAKE WINNESHIEK, WI

CAPOLI SLOUGH, WI

POOL 9 ISLAND, WI

COLD SPRINGS, WI

HARPERS SLOUGH, IA/WI

AMBROUGH SLOUGH, WI

BUSSEY LAKE, IA

GUTTENBERG PONDS, IA

MISS RIVER BANK STABILIZATION, IA/MN/WI

BERTOM-McCARTNEY LAKES, WI

POOL 11 ISLANDS, IA/WI

SMITH CREEK, IA

34. BROWN’S LAKE, IA

SITE

NO. PROJECT

POOL 12 OVERWINTERING, IA/IL

PLEASANT CREEK, IA

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

SPRING LAKE, IL

POTTERS MARSH, IL

PRINCETON REFUGE, IA

ANDALUSIA REFUGE, IL

BIG TIMBER, IA

LAKE ODESSA, IA

FOX ISLAND, MO

GARDNER DIVISION, IL

SITE

NO. PROJECT

43. COTTONWOOD ISLAND, MO

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

MONKEY CHUTE, MO

BAY ISLAND, MO

PEORIA LAKE, IL

BANNER MARSH, IL

RICE LAKE, IL

CHAUTAUQUA REFUGE, IL

CLARKSVILLE REFUGE, MO

TED SHANKS, MO

PHARRS ISLAND, MO

ANGLE BLACKBURN, MO

REDS LANDING, IL

NORTON WOODS, MO

STAG & KEETON ISLANDS, MO

SANDY CHUTE, IL

BATCHTOWN MGMT. AREA, IL

POOLS 25 & 26, MO

CUIVRE ISLAND, MO

DRESSER ISLAND, MO

STUMP LAKE, IL

SWAN LAKE, IL

CALHOUN POINT, IL

JEFFERSON BARRACKS, IL

FT. CHARTRES SC, IL

ESTABLISHMENT CHUTE SC, MO

STONE DIKE ALTERATIONS, MO/IL

69. SCHENIMANN CHUTE, MO

69

41

20

33

51

54

66

SS PI PI

BEARDSTOWN

OTTAWA

JOLIET

WABASHA

WINONA

PRAIRIE DU CHIEN

CLINTON

MUSCATINE

BURLINGTON

QUINCY

HANNIBAL

CAPE GIRARDEAU

LAKE

MICHIGAN

70. MCGREGOR LAKE, WI

70

1

2

3

4

5 6

7 8

9

10 11

12

13 14

15

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24 25

26 27

28 29

30

32

31

34

35

36 37

38 39 40

42 43

44 45

46

47

48 49

53

52

55 50

56

57

58 59 60

64

62

63

61

65

67

68

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION

(formerly Environmental Management Program)

0 100 25 50

MILES

MINNESOTA

WISCONSIN

IOWA

ILLINOIS

MISSOURI

ST. PAUL

DUBUQUE

LA CROSSE

ROCK ISLAND

CHICAGO

DAVENPORT

PEORIA

KEOKUK

ST. LOUIS

CAIRO

ST. LOUIS

DISTRICT

ROCK ISLAND

DISTRICT

ST. PAUL

DISTRICT

ILLINOIS R.

RIVER

MISSI

MINN S OTA

E

R.

BLACK

KASKASKIA R.

N

ST. CRO XI

1

ST. ANTHONY FALLS

2 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 16

17

18

19

20

21 22

24

25 26

27

LA GRANGE

PEORIA

STARVED ROCK

MARSEILLES

DRESDEN ISL. BRANDON RD.

LOCKPORT

T.J. O’BRIEN

5A

UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR CONSTRUCTED

GENERAL DESIGN INITIATED

PLANNING PROCESS

LOCK & DAM SITES

STATUS AS OF: February 2006

HABITAT REHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

RICE LAKE, MN

LONG MEADOW LAKE, MN

PETERSON LAKE, MN

INDIAN SLOUGH, WI

FINGER LAKES, MN

ISLAND 42, MN

SPRING LAKE PENINSULA, WI

SPRING LAKE ISLANDS, WI

POLANDER LAKE, MN

SMALL SCALE DRAWDOWN, WI

TREMPEALEAU REFUGE, WI

LONG LAKE, WI

LAKE ONALASKA, WI

EAST CHANNEL, WI/MN

POOL 8 ISLANDS, WI

POOL SLOUGH, IA

BLACKHAWK PARK, WI

LANSING BIG LAKE, IA

CONWAY LAKE, IA

LAKE WINNESHIEK, WI

CAPOLI SLOUGH, WI

POOL 9 ISLAND, WI

COLD SPRINGS, WI

HARPERS SLOUGH, IA/WI

AMBROUGH SLOUGH, WI

BUSSEY LAKE, IA

GUTTENBERG PONDS, IA

MISS RIVER BANK STABILIZATION, IA/MN/WI

BERTOM-McCARTNEY LAKES, WI

POOL 11 ISLANDS, IA/WI

SMITH CREEK, IA

34. BROWN’S LAKE, IA

SITE

NO. PROJECT

POOL 12 OVERWINTERING, IA/IL

PLEASANT CREEK, IA

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

SPRING LAKE, IL

POTTERS MARSH, IL

PRINCETON REFUGE, IA

ANDALUSIA REFUGE, IL

BIG TIMBER, IA

LAKE ODESSA, IA

FOX ISLAND, MO

GARDNER DIVISION, IL

SITE

NO. PROJECT

43. COTTONWOOD ISLAND, MO

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

MONKEY CHUTE, MO

BAY ISLAND, MO

PEORIA LAKE, IL

BANNER MARSH, IL

RICE LAKE, IL

CHAUTAUQUA REFUGE, IL

CLARKSVILLE REFUGE, MO

TED SHANKS, MO

PHARRS ISLAND, MO

ANGLE BLACKBURN, MO

REDS LANDING, IL

NORTON WOODS, MO

STAG & KEETON ISLANDS, MO

SANDY CHUTE, IL

BATCHTOWN MGMT. AREA, IL

POOLS 25 & 26, MO

CUIVRE ISLAND, MO

DRESSER ISLAND, MO

STUMP LAKE, IL

SWAN LAKE, IL

CALHOUN POINT, IL

JEFFERSON BARRACKS, IL

FT. CHARTRES SC, IL

ESTABLISHMENT CHUTE SC, MO

STONE DIKE ALTERATIONS, MO/IL

69. SCHENIMANN CHUTE, MO

69

41

20

33

51

54

66

SS PI PI

BEARDSTOWN

OTTAWA

JOLIET

WABASHA

WINONA

PRAIRIE DU CHIEN

CLINTON

MUSCATINE

BURLINGTON

QUINCY

HANNIBAL

CAPE GIRARDEAU

LAKE

MICHIGAN

70. MCGREGOR LAKE, WI

70
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

271

Table 14: Summary of Environmental Management Program Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Projects 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Adapted from USACE, 2004b) 

Environmental Management ProgramPool Project Name Cost Project

Status1

Year

Completed

Affected 

Acres

Project Features/Techniq

Back-water

Dredging

Water 

Level

Mgmt.

Island Bank

Stabilization

Side C

Resto

Bank Stabilization, Pools 6, 9 & 10

$1,697,000 F 1999 1,500 X

4 Indian Slough $988,000 F 1994 631 X X 

Peterson Lake $1,179,000 F 1996 500 X X X

5 Island 42 $262,000 F 1987 95 X X 

Finger Lakes $1,445,000 F 1994 113 Spring Lake Penninsula (Pool 5)

$448,000 F 1995 300 X X X X

Small Scale Drawdown $97,000 F 1997 52 X Spring Lake Islands (Pool 5)

$2,930,000 C N/A 500 X X X X 

5A Polander Lake $3,000,000 F 2002 1,000 X X X

6 Trempealeau2 $5,723,000 F 1999 5,620 X X

7 Lake Onalaska $2,064,000 F 1989 7,000 X X X 

Long Lake $1,037,000 F 2002 15 X 

8 Pool 8 Islands, Phase I $2,314,000 F 1993 1,000 X X X

East Channel $558,000 F 1997 19 XPool 8 Islands, Phase II $3,482,000 F 1999 500 X X X Pool 8 Islands, Phase III $15,120,000 D N/A 3,000 X X X X 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

272

9 Pool Slough3 $715,000 C N/A 52 X

Blackhawk Park4 $309,000 F 1990 282 X X Lansing Big Lake $2,089,000 F 1994 9,755 X X Conway Lake $2,460,000 P N/A 560 X X X X X Lake Winneshiek $4,560,000 P N/A 6,000 X X X X Capoli Slough $1,995,000 P N/A 600 X X X X Pool 9 Islands $1,266,000 F 1995 320 XCold Springs $463,000 F 1994 35 X Harpers Slough $9,000,000 P N/A 2,200 X X X X

10 Ambrough Slough4 $2,142,000 F 2004 2,500 X X X 

Bussey Lake $3,594,000 F 1995 213 X X X 

11 Guttenberg Ponds $327,000 F 1989 35 X X

Bertom McCartney Lakes

$2,244,000 F 1992 2,000 X X X X 

Pool 11 Islands $8,559,000 C N/A 10,342 X X X X 

12 Pool 12 Overwintering $2,500,000 P N/A 6,900 X 13 Pleasant Creek $1,404,000 F 2003 2,350 X

Brown’s Lake $1,993,000 F 1990 453 X Smith Creek $850,000 P N/A 650Spring Lake (Pool 13) $6,646,000 F 2002 3,300 XPotters Marsh $2,975,000 F 1995 2,305 X X 

Table 14: Summary of Environmental Management Program Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Projects 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Adapted from USACE, 2004b) (Continued)

Environmental Management ProgramPool Project Name Cost Project

Status1

Year

Completed

Affected 

Acres

Project Features/Techniq

Back-water

Dredging

Water 

Level

Mgmt.

Island Bank

Stabilization

Side C

Resto
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

273

To meet the habitat objectives of each project, several techniques are used, usually in combination: backwater dredging, wate

island creation, shoreline stabilization, secondary channel modification, and aeration (USACE, 2004b). Table 15 describes the 

techniques. 

14 Princeton Refuge3 $3,983,000 F 1999 1,129 X 

Completed (27 projects) $53,729,000 43,022Under Construction (3 projects)

 $12,204,000 10,894

Design (2 projects) $15,120,000 3,000Planning (6 projects) $21,365,000 16,910Totals (37 Projects) $102,418,000 73,826

1. Project status as of January 2004. F = Finished; C = Under Construction; D = Design; P = Planning and preliminary design.2. Project located on Trempealeau NWR adjacent to the Upper Mississippi River Refuge. Trempealeau NWR is responsible for operation and mai3. Project located adjacent to the Refuge. Iowa Department of Natural Resources is responsible for all or a portion of the operation and maintenan

4. Project located adjacent to the Refuge. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is responsible for all or a portion of the operation and main

Table 14: Summary of Environmental Management Program Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Projects 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Adapted from USACE, 2004b) (Continued)

Environmental Management ProgramPool Project Name Cost Project

Status1

Year

Completed

Affected 

Acres

Project Features/Techniq

Back-water

Dredging

Water 

Level

Mgmt.

Island Bank

Stabilization

Side C

Resto
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

274

The Pool 8 Phase II HREP is an example of a project which combined several techniques to 

dramatically improve the habitat in Stoddard Bay, near Stoddard, Wisconsin. This project 

incorporated backwater dredging, island construction, and bank stabilization techniques to improve 

500 acres of habitat (Figure 29). Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources monitoring of the area 

documented immediate vegetative response and among the highest abundance of bluegills in Pool 8 

after the project was completed (USACE, 2004b). Duck and swan use in the area also increased 

significantly from the early 1990s pre-project conditions. 

HREP design has evolved appreciably since the program began in 1986. As projects are completed 

and evaluated, design has improved and innovative new techniques have developed. Some examples: 

Table 15: Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program Habitat 

Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project Techniques. (USACE, 2004b)

Technique Objectives

Dredge backwaters Alter flow patterns and velocity

Improve floodplain structural diversity

Increase deep water fish habitat

Provide access for fish movement

Provide dredged material to support revegetation

Manage water levels using dikes and 

water control systems

Restore natural hydrologic cycles

Promote growth of aquatic plants as food for waterfowl

Reduce backwater sediment loads

Consolidate bottom sediments

Control rough fish

Build islands Decrease wind and wave action

Alter flow patterns and sediment transport

Improve aquatic plant growth

Improve floodplain structural diversity

Provide nesting and loafing habitat for waterfowl and turtles

Stabilize shorelines Prevent shoreline erosion

Maintain floodplain structural diversity

Create fish habitat

Reduce sediment loads to backwaters

Modify secondary channels Improve fish habitat and water quality by altering inflows

Stabilize eroding channel

Reduce sediment load to backwaters by reducing flow velocities

Maintain water temperature and provide rock substrate

Aerate Improve fish habitat and water quality by introducing water

Miscellaneous Experimental and Complementary Techniques: 

Large scale water level management Seed islands

Upland sediment control Isolated wetlands

Land acquisition Weirs

Riffle pools Rock sills

Potholes Sediment traps

Notched wing dams Mussel substrates

Anchor tree clumps Bottomland Forest Restoration

Vegetative plantings
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

275

# Island design has evolved from just being a wind and wave barrier to incorporating areas for 

specific habitat such as humps for turtles, mudflats for waterbirds, and dynamic shorelines 

for shorebirds. Islands are also designed with varied elevations above the average water 

level to provide additional vegetation habitat diversity.

# Island design has also evolved into providing more natural-looking layouts and features. 

Islands are now designed to replicate historical islands that have eroded away since the 

river was impounded. Use of rock for shoreline stability has decreased with the use of native 

vegetation such as willow plantings. Sacrificial berms with rock groins allow the river to 

shape and stabilize the islands which provides for a dynamic, more natural-looking shoreline 

(Figure 31).

# Seed islands are a new concept that developed as a direct result of the HREP program. 

Seed islands are designed for areas of flowing water where sediment transport is occurring. 

With the river’s natural process, the sediment will deposit on these obstructions and form 

low islands which will protect areas from wave action and provide additional habitat 

diversity within the floodplain (Figure 30). 

# HREPs now include designs for experimental features such as rock/log structures for 

offshore island protection which provide more diverse habitat than using only rock. Another 

experimental feature, wildlife loafing structures, consists of tree clumps extended into the 

river and anchored into island shorelines to provide loafing habitat for turtles and birds and 

to provide fish habitat (Figure 32) .

3.2.18 Water Level Management

The purpose of water level management is to partially re-create the natural river hydrology that 

occurred before the locks and dams were constructed (refer to Section 3.2.1 on page 224). The entire 

261-mile length of the Refuge is impounded by the locks and dams, from Pool 4 through Pool 14. 

Temporarily lowering water levels behind dams during the summer months can stimulate the 

growth of aquatic plant beds in the lower portion of the pools. This process is called a drawdown.

Figure 29: Phase II Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project, Stoddard Islands,

Upper Mississippi River Refuge, Aerial Photo Sequence (Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources)
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

276

Since the early 1990s the Service, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, state natural 

resource agencies, navigation industry, and the public have been working together to perform 

drawdowns at various pools throughout the Upper Mississippi River. Refuge and other U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service personnel are completely involved with water level management and belong to 

two field-level multi-agency committees which work to recommend water level management 

practices in their respective navigation pools:

# Pools 1-10: Water Level Management Task Force, subcommittee of the River Resources 

Forum.

# Pools 11-22: Water Level Management Subcommittee, subcommittee of the Fish and 

Wildlife Interagency Committee of the River Resources Coordinating Team. 

The Corps of Engineers operates the dams to provide a 9-foot channel for commercial navigation. 

(The dams do not provide flood control as many people believe.) Each dam has a specific operating 

plan and is regulated on the basis of discharge (i.e. flow) and maintaining certain water levels at its 

control point. During times of low flow, gates are lowered into the water backing up the river to 

maintain the 9-foot channel. As the flow increases, gates are raised allowing more water to pass 

through the dam while minimizing flooding on adjacent property. When the flow is great enough to 

provide a 9-foot channel without dams, gates are raised completely out of the water, resulting in the 

“open river” condition. 

Figure 30: Seed Islands Constructed and “Growing” on Upper Mississippi River Refuge
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

277

To perform a drawdown, water levels are temporarily reduced by half a foot to several feet behind 

specific dams during the summer months, mimicking natural water level fluctuations. The drawdown 

to the lower water level is performed gradually, usually over a two week period, in order to allow fish, 

mussels, and other wildlife to move and adjust to the water level rather than become stranded in an 

isolated area. The water level is held at the lowered level until the desired performance period is 

complete or discharges through the dam become too high or low to maintain the lowered level. Once 

the drawdown period is complete, the water level is gradually brought up to its normal level. 

There are many factors that limit the use of drawdowns in specific river stretches. These include the 

amount of acres which can be economically exposed, how much dredging is required to maintain 

commercial navigation and recreational access to the river, affects to industry barge staging areas, 

locations of water intake pipes for industry or municipalities, and exposure of archeological sites. 

Drawdowns can only be performed under specific discharge ranges developed for each dam. Some 

dams have very narrow drawdown discharge ranges which makes them poor candidates for 

drawdowns. Within the Refuge, the Corps of Engineers has determined that pools 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 

13 are best suited for drawdowns based on discharge conditions (USACE, 2004c) (Table 16). 

Timing of the drawdown period is also important. The main purpose of a drawdown is to stimulate 

aquatic vegetation growth; therefore most drawdowns begin in mid-June and end in August or 

September. However other concerns are considered in the timing such as disturbance to nesting 

birds, disruption of fish spawning, exposure of mussel populations, and stranding of fish. Many of 

these concerns are mitigated by the gradual lowering and raising of the water levels. 

To determine how successful a drawdown is, data such as land cover, vegetation surveys, and 

bathymetry is gathered prior to the drawdown. During a drawdown, the effects are carefully 

monitored; aerial photos are taken and vegetation surveys conducted to determine how much 

Figure 31: Constructed Islands with Sacrificial Berms, Rock Groins, and Native

Vegetation, Upper Mississippi River Refuge
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

278

influence the drawdown had. In addition, the effects are monitored for several years after selected 

drawdowns to see how long the effects last. This information will help river managers determine 

when the next drawdown of that pool should occur to maximize the effects for that river reach.

Drawdowns have been successfully performed in several areas of the Upper Mississippi River. The 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District has been performing annual drawdowns of Pools 

24, 25 and 26 (Melvin Price) since 1995 creating thousands of acres of critical vegetation in those 

pools. In the late 1990s, small, isolated drawdowns were performed successfully on the Refuge in 

Pools 5 and 9, demonstrating improved vegetation growth through a drawdown.

In Pool 8, large-scale drawdowns, 18-inches at the dam, were successfully performed in 2001 and 

2002. More than 1,950 acres of river bottom were exposed, growth of perennial emergent vegetation 

was robust (Figure 33), and arrowhead tuber production increased 16-fold in selected areas (RRF, 

2004a). 

In 2005, a 1.5-foot drawdown of Pool 5 was performed that exposed over 1,000 acres of mudflats and 

sand bars. Initial results indicate that 72 species of plants were detected in the drawdown area. The 

resource agencies are evaluating monitoring results for drawdown effects to plant response, 

Figure 32: Wildlife Loafing Structures Placed on Constructed Islands Upper Mississippi

River Refuge
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

279

waterbirds, mussels, recreation, transit time for commercial navigation, water quality, sediment 

movement and budget, and sediment nitrogen cycling (RRF, 2005). A second year Pool 5 drawdown, 

maximum of 1.5 feet, is planned for the summer of 2006.

Drawdowns of Pool 13 have been attempted three times but were discontinued due to low flows. 

Planning for Pool 13 continues and planning for drawdowns of Pools 6, 8, and 9 is under way.

Drawdowns have proven to be a cost effective way to restore habitat in large reaches of the river. 

The resulting increased vegetation provides valuable food and cover for fish, migrating waterfowl, 

Table 16: Upper Mississippi River Pools on Refuge Most Suited for a Drawdown

(Adapted from USACE, 2004c), Upper Mississippi River Refuge

Pool Drawdown1

Magnitude 

(ft)

Drawdown

Success 

Rate

Acres 

Exposed

Dredging 

Required (yd3

)

Dredging 

Cost

Cost 

per Acre

5 1 95% 1,100 135,811 $643,175 $585

2 81% 2,200 287,236 $1,365,093 $620

3 55% 4,000 448,088 $2,137,217 $534

4 38% 5,500 610,333 $2,935,132 $534

7 1 98% 1,206 0 $0 $0

2 74% 2,331 215,000 $1,280,000 $549

3 40% 3,385 475,000 $2,800,000 $827

8 1 74% 1,300 2,000 $88,000 $68

2 50% 3,090 120,253 $475,000 $154

3 33% 5,215 300,000 $1,185,000 $227

9 1 71% 4,751 0 $0 $0

2 57% 6,932 75,000 $375,000 $54

3 40% 9,497 165,000 $825,000 $87

11 1 91% 399 0 $0 $0

2 86% 883 49,368 $399,400 $452

3 86% 1,606 109,076 $762,441 $475

4 64% 2,744 162,800 $976,800 $356

13 1 86% 1,560 35,200 $316,800 $203

2 86% 2,822 131,032 $1,021,093 $362

3 68% 4,519 229,768 $1,581,487 $350

4 55% 6,821 325,600 $1,953,600 $286

1

 "Drawdown" refers to a reduction in the target operating level for the navigation pool, as 

measured at the dam.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

280

and other species along the river. In addition, the vegetation can absorb nutrients from upland runoff, helping reduce excess nitrogen and phosphorus input into the Mississippi River system. This 

could in turn contribute to the reduction of Gulf hypoxia.

3.3 General Public Use

3.3.1 Hunting

Hunting, one of the priority public uses of the Refuge System, has a deep history and tradition on 

the Refuge where several species of upland game, big game, and migratory waterfowl and birds are 

hunted. In fiscal year 2003, over 284,000 hunter visits were made to the Refuge, and approximately 

87 percent of those visits were for waterfowl hunting (Table 17). Between 1999 and 2003, waterfowl 

hunting accounted for 74 to 90 percent of the estimated hunter visits. Portions of the Refuge are 

open to hunting in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Four states overlap with the 

Refuge, each with their own hunting regulations and seasons (Table 18), requiring hunters to be 

aware of which state they are hunting in on the Refuge. . 

 Two managed hunts, Potter’s Marsh and Blanding Landing, are conducted on the Refuge (Appendix 

H). Since 1980, the Savanna District has conducted a lottery drawing for waterfowl hunting blind 

Figure 33: Pool 8 Drawdown Sequence (Upper Mississippi River Refuge, La Crosse

District)
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

281

sites on 1,923 acres of Potter’s Marsh in Pool 13. Applicants pay a $10 non-refundable application fee, 

and successful applicants pay an additional $100 fee for the 49 blind sites. Successful applicants 

construct blinds for the season according to guidelines provided. Over 500 persons apply for a blind 

permit annually. In 2002, hunter bag checks showed that hunters using Potter’s Marsh blinds 

averaged 3.8 birds/day compared to 2.9 birds/day on other areas in Pool 13. 

The other managed hunt for waterfowl hunting, Blanding Landing, is a 412-acre area within the 

former Savanna Army Depot that is now part of the Lost Mound Unit of the Refuge. The Illinois 

Department of Natural Resources conducts a managed hunt on the area. 

3.3.2 Closed Areas

The Refuge currently includes 14 closed areas and one sanctuary encompassing 44,544 acres. The 

closed areas do not prohibit entry, but are closed to hunting and furbearer trapping during the duck 

hunting season and to migratory bird hunting at all times. The sanctuary, the Spring Lake Closed 

Area (Pool 13), is closed to all public entry from October 1 to the end of the duck hunting season. (See 

maps, Appendix P, and Table 6 in Appendix H.) For background information on the closed areas, 

refer to Chapter 1, Section 1.4.5.4 on page 23, Wildlife-Dependent Public Use Issues, Waterfowl 

Hunting Closed Areas and Section 3.2.7.1 on page 235 in Chapter 3.

In recent years, eight administrative “No Hunting Zones” totaling nearly 3,555 acres were 

established (6 on Pool 13 and 1 on Pool 7) for public safety, to reduce potential user group conflicts, 

and provide opportunities for wildlife observation. This includes part of the former Savanna Army 

Depot that is now part of the Lost Mound Unit. Due to contamination, 2,467 acres of the Lost Mound 

Unit Crooked Slough Backwater are closed to entry. These “No Hunting Zones” are not intended to 

augment the Refuge’s waterfowl closed area system. (see maps, Appendix P, and Table 2 in Appendix 

H.) 

3.3.3 Fishing

Fishing, another priority public use of the Refuge System, remains an important, traditional use of 

the Refuge. In fiscal year 2004, over 1 million visitors fished either from boat, shore or on the ice 

(Table 19). Fishing occurs year-round, with the possible exception of spring ice break-up. The most 

popular fishing spots are below the dams, near wing dams and spillway notches, and in backwaters. 

The Refuge provides many facilities to promote fishing including 26 boat ramps and 15 fishing piers 

and platforms (maps, Appendix P, and Tables 1 and 14 in Appendix H).

Table 17: Estimated Annual Hunting Visits to the Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Fiscal

Years 1999-2003 Refuge Management Information System Reports)

Hunting Estimated Total Number of Hunter Visits per Fiscal Year

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Waterfowl 160,936 176,313 189,453 339,4301 248,640

Other Migratory 

Birds

1,645 3,386 4,000 4,591 4,899

Upland Game 19,414 11,872 10,542 10,046 10,084

Big Game 35,921 23,470 23,812 22,371 21,080

Total 217,916 215,041 227,807 376,438 284,703

1. This number is probably too high and reflects a reporting anomaly.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

282

Table 18: Comparison of Hunting Seasons 2003 - 2004 on Upper Mississippi River Refuge For 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois 

Event Dates Minnesota Wisconsin Iowa Illinois

Deer Hunting

Gun Season Start 22-Nov-03 22-Nov-03 6-Dec-03 13-Dec-03 21-Nov-03 4-Dec-03

End 30-Nov-03 30-Nov-03 10-Dec-03 21-Dec-03 23-Nov-03 7-Dec-03

# of 

Days

9 9 5934

Special 

Management 

Zones

Start 30-Oct-03 11-Dec-03

End 2-Nov-03 14-Dec-03

# of 

Days

 44 

Wild Turkey Hunting

Fall Season Start 15-Oct-03 22-Oct-03 11-Oct-03 13-Oct-03 25-Oct-03

End 19-Oct-03 26-Oct-03 9-Nov-03 5-Dec-03 2-Nov-03

# of 

Days

5 5 30 54 9 

Spring 

Season

Start 14-Apr-04 (Separated

into 8 5-

day

seasons)

14-Apr-04 (Separated

into 6 5-

day

seasons)

12-Apr-04 (Separated

into 4 

various

length 

seasons)

12-Apr-04 (Separated

into 5 

various

length 

seasons)

End 27-May-04 23-May-04 16-May-04 13-May-04

# of 

Days

44 40 35 32

Migratory Game Bird Hunting

Dove Start 1-Sep 1-Sep-03 N/A 1-Sep-03 1-Nov-03

End 30-Oct 30-Oct-03 14-Oct-03 16-Nov-03

# of 

Days

 60 60 44 16

Sora and 

Virginia 

Rails

Start 1-Sep-03 4-Oct-03 18-Oct-03 6-Sep-03 6-Sep-03

End 4-Nov-03 12-Oct-03 7-Dec-03 14-Nov-03 14-Nov-03

# of 

Days

65 9 51 70 70 

Common 

Snipe

Start 1-Sep-03 4-Oct-03 18-Oct-03 6-Sep-03 6-Sep-03

End 4-Nov-03 12-Oct-03 7-Dec-03 30-Nov-03 21-Dec-03

# of 

Days

65 9 51 86 107 

Woodcock Start 20-Sep-03 20-Sep-03 4-Oct-03 18-Oct-03

End 3-Nov-03 3-Nov-03 17-Nov-03 1-Dec-03

# of 

Days

45 45 45 45 

Waterfowl Hunting

Ducks Start 27-Sep-03 4-Oct-03 18-Oct-03 20-Sep-03 11-Oct-03 16-Oct-03

End 25-Nov-03 12-Oct-03 7-Dec-03 24-Sep-03 4-Dec-03 14-Dec-03

# of 

Days

60 9 51 5 55 60 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

283

According to a 2003 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Mississippi River boating survey, 

half of all boaters indicated that their primary activity on the Mississippi River was fishing. In 

addition, 70 percent of boaters using public accesses indicated that fishing was their primary activity. 

This survey also concluded that the most common boat type on the Mississippi River in Pools 4-9 

during the summer season is a fishing boat, followed by runabouts. A bass boat falls into the 

classification of a runabout because it has a windshield (MnDNR, 2004). 

Fishing tournaments, particularly for bass and walleye, occur on the Refuge and are permitted by 

the states. Exact numbers of fishing tournaments are unknown since each state or other authority 

often has different permit and reporting requirements, or may not issue permits at all. In Illinois, 

only fishing tournaments initiating from an Illinois Department of Natural Resources launch site are 

required to have a permit. In Minnesota, permits are issued for tournaments with 30 participants or 

more. Permitted tournaments are limited to two weekends each month per pool. In Iowa, permits 

are issued to tournaments with 20 or more boats or 50 or more people. In addition, Iowa requires 

Illinois tournaments to have an Iowa permit if anglers are fishing in Iowa waters. Wisconsin issues 

permits for tournaments meeting a minimum participation threshold. Tournaments initiating from 

boat landings operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District are required to 

have permits if they meet the minimum threshold of 15 boats. Table 20 summarizes fishing 

tournaments held on the Refuge.

CanvasbacksStart 11-Oct-03 18-Oct-03 18-Oct-03 16-Oct-03

End 9-Nov-03 16-Nov-03 16-Nov-03 14-Nov-03

# of 

Days

30 30 30 30 

Pintails Start 27-Sep-03 4-Oct-03 18-Oct-03 20-Sep-03 11-Oct-03 16-Oct-03

End 26-Oct-03 12-Oct-03 7-Nov-03 24-Sep-03 4-Nov-03 14-Nov-03

# of 

Days

30 9 21 5 25 30 

Canada 

Geese

Start 27-Sep-03 12-Dec-03 4-Oct-03 18-Oct-03 27-Sep-03 1-Sep-03 16-Oct-03

End 5-Dec-03 21-Dec-03 12-Oct-03 17-Dec-03 5-Dec-03 15-Sep-03 13-Jan-04

# of 

Days

70 10 9 61 70 15 90

Furbearer Hunting

Raccoon Start Continuous 18-Oct-03 1-Nov-03 5-Nov-03

End 31-Jan-04 31-Jan-04 10-Feb-04

# of 

Days

365 106 92 98 

Table 19: Estimated Annual Fishing Visits to the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife

and Fish Refuge (Fiscal year 1999-2004 Refuge Management Information System

reports.)

Estimated Total Number of Fishing Visits per Fiscal Year

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Total 824,983 1,150,477 1,057,978 1,141,173 943,916 1,303,130

Table 18: Comparison of Hunting Seasons 2003 - 2004 on Upper Mississippi River Refuge For 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois (Continued)

Event Dates Minnesota Wisconsin Iowa Illinois
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

284

There are few restrictions to lessen the biological impacts from tournaments. Some of the states are 

requiring catch and release in the same pool that the fish were caught, and in Iowa, during June, 

July and August immediate release of walleyes is required. 

3.3.4 Wildlife Observation and Photography

Two of the six priority public uses for the Refuge System are wildlife observation and photography. 

The Refuge provides outstanding wildlife viewing opportunities due to the abundance of eagles, 

swans, ducks, warblers, pelicans, herons and other birds. The National Scenic Byways that border 

the Refuge for hundreds of miles and the relatively open access to lands and waters of the Refuge, 

Table 20: Summary of Upper Mississippi River Fishing Tournaments by State 

Year Tournament Fish Species No. of 

Tournaments

No. of 

Boats

No. of 

Anglers 

(Estimated) All Walleye Bass Panfish Catfish

Minnesota (Pools 4-7)

1996 4 9 2 0 0 15 1,072 21,44

1997 2 13 4 0 0 19 1,125 2,250

1998 4 13 4 0 0 21 981 1,962

1999 4 12 6 0 0 22 1,116 2,232

2000 5 12 3 0 0 20 1,430 2,860

2001 4 12 6 1 0 23 1,366 2,732

2002 2 13 4 0 0 19 1,363 2,726

2003 5 15 6 0 0 26 1,992 3,984

Totals for Minnesota 165 10,445 20,890

Iowa (Pools 9-14)

1996 6 14 38 6 3 67 1,573 3,146

1997 10 19 37 4 70 2,583 5,167

1998 11 16 32 1 5 65 1,401 2,803

1999 8 10 44 3 65 1,433 2,867

2000 13 16 72 1 2 104 2,666 5,333

2001 15 22 104 2 143 2,682 5,364

2002 3 17 102 1 2 125 4,997 9,994

Totals for Iowa 639 17,335 34,674

Wisconsin (Pools 4-11)

2002 20 77 2 99 922 1,620

2003 12 24 36 686 810

Totals for Wisconsin 135 1,608 2,430

Illinois (Pool 13)

2003 14 14 155 330

Totals for Illinois 14 155 330
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

285

make the Refuge one of the premier wildlife viewing and photography areas in the nation. The 

Refuge provides many facilities to support wildlife observation and photography including 15 

observation decks, six hiking trails, three biking trails, four canoe trails, and one auto tour route 

(maps, Appendix P, and Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 15 and Table 19 in Appendix H). In fiscal year 

2003, the Refuge recorded 220,000 wildlife observation and photography visits, and in fiscal year 

2004, the visits increased to over 389,000 visits (Table 21)

3.3.5 Interpretation and Environmental Education

For the Refuge System, interpretation and environmental education are two of the six priority public 

uses. Interpretive signs are the primary method of interpretation used by the Refuge. They are 

relatively inexpensive and convey messages at the visitor’s convenience since they are available any 

time of the day or season. A total of 66 interpretive signs are used along the National Scenic Byways, 

bike trails, walking trails, overlooks and off-refuge sites overlooking the Refuge. In addition, 66 

kiosks, 25 entrance signs and 30 official notice boards provide information about the Refuge (see 

maps, Appendix P, and Table 16 in Appendix H).

The Refuge has three full-time visitor services specialists, along with staff, volunteers and interns 

who conduct on- and off-site educational programs. The La Crosse and Savanna Districts have 

meeting rooms where educational activities are conducted. Lacking any classroom facilities, the 

McGregor and Winona Districts conduct all environmental education activities out on the Refuge or 

at off-site facilities. 

Educational materials including books, posters, videos, equipment, and learning trunks are available 

for loan to area educators. In addition, Refuge staff, working with other agencies and organizations, 

coordinates special events including the Upper Mississippi River Festival, River Education Day, 

Birding Festivals, Eagle Days, and Refuge Week. 

A yearly average of 6,000 students and teachers participate in on- and off-site environmental 

education activities. The number of students participating in on-site environmental education 

decreased 39 percent from 2000 to 2003 while off-site instruction increased 45 percent over the same 

period. This trend toward off-site instruction can be attributed to the lack of indoor and outdoor 

Refuge classroom facilities that accommodate students during inclement weather, as well as the lack 

of funding for school field trips. The Refuge has requested funding from the Friends Group to help 

defray bus transportation to Refuge sponsored activities such as the Upper Mississippi River Fest.

Table 21: Estimated Annual Wildlife Observation and Photography Visits to the Upper

Mississippi River Refuge (Fiscal year 2002-2004 Refuge Management

Information System reports)

Estimated Total Number of Wildlife Observation and 

Photography Visits per Fiscal Year

2002 2003 2004

240,088 220,000 389,080
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

286

3.3.6 Recreational Boating, Camping, 

and Other Beach-Related Uses

Although they are not wildlife-dependent 

priority uses of the Refuge System, an estimated 

1.8 million visitors use the Refuge annually for 

recreational boating, camping, picnicking, 

swimming, social gatherings, and other beachrelated uses. There is a long history of beach use 

on the Upper Mississippi River as the public 

took advantage of beach areas created by 

placement of dredged sand during navigation 

channel maintenance operations. The public also takes advantage of natural sand shorelines and 

sand placement sites often called “bathtubs”. For additional discussion of beach use refer to Chapter 

1, section 1.4.5.5, Other Recreational Use Issues.

For 10 years, extensive data from aerial photo surveys has been collected to evaluate the extent of 

watercraft use along a 150-mile section of the main navigational channel during the Memorial Day to 

Labor Day summer season (Resource Studies Center, St. Mary’s University of Minnesota, 2001). 

This study section starts at the lower end of Lake Pepin (Pool 4, River Mile 764.5) and ends at 

Guttenberg, Iowa (Pool 10, River Mile 614.2). Study data indicate that the highest percent of boating 

use occurs on Pools 10, 4 and 8. The areas that have the highest percentage of beached boats in the 

study area include: 

# Pool 4: Wabasha Bridge to Teepeeota Point

# Pool 5: West Newton to Minneiska 

# Pool 5A: Bass Camp to Fountain City boat yard

# Pool 8: Mouth of Root River to Deadman Slough Daymark

# Pool 10: Wisconsin River confluence to Lock and Dam 10

Boating activity decreases where there are fewer beaches. In 2003, the Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources conducted a recreational boating study on the Mississippi River, Pools 4-9, from 

Memorial Day through Labor Day (MN DNR, 2004). This study involved direct interviews and the 

use of questionnaires. It revealed that there were 670,345 boater-occasions (number of people in a 

boat using the river). While previous aerial photo surveys were limited to the main navigation 

channel, the Minnesota study attempted to locate all boats, regardless of their location on the river. 

A comparison of the 2003 Minnesota study to previous aerial photo counts shows the photos measure 

approximately 60 percent of all boating use. Therefore, it was estimated that 60 percent of 

recreational boating takes place in the main navigation channel, and 40 percent takes place in side 

channels and backwater areas. The 2003 Minnesota study also noted several boating trip 

characteristics:

# The average boating party size is 2.9 people, most of whom are adults.

# Overnight boating trips account for 12 percent of all trips.

# Most boaters (87 percent) do not leave (lock out) the pool into which they launch.

# One-third of all trips (32 percent) involve beaching.

# Anglers spend most of their time in side channels and backwaters.

# Fishing is the primary activity for half of all boaters. 

The Refuge has designated four canoe trails and one electric motor area for recreational boaters 

engaged in “silent sport” activities such as kayaking and canoeing. In these areas, the public can at 

Fishing on the Upper Mississippi River Refuge.

Cindy Samples, USFWS
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

287

times experience the quiet and solitude of the Refuge backwaters (maps, Appendix P, and Table 5 

and Table 13 in Appendix H). Boats with motors are allowed in the canoe trail areas.

On several areas of the Refuge, boat traffic levels and size of boat wakes is leading to erosion of 

island and shoreline habitat. Some areas also present a safety hazard for boaters due to level of use 

and blind spots in the channel. To address these issues, there are 46 no-wake zones on the Refuge.

While not a wildlife-dependent use, camping is allowed on the Refuge. However, camping at any one 

site on the Refuge is restricted to no longer than 14 days during any 30-consecutive day period. In 

addition, tents, camping equipment, boats or other property cannot be left unattended at any site for 

over 24 hours. During waterfowl hunting seasons, camping is prohibited within Closed Areas, no 

hunting zones, or on any sites not clearly visible from the main navigation channel.

3.3.7 Public Use Facilities

The Refuge has four visitor contact stations, one each located at the La Crosse, McGregor and 

Savanna District Offices and one located at the Lost Mound Unit (Table 22). These contact stations 

feature small displays areas adjacent to the office area. The La Crosse and Savanna visitor contact 

stations also feature a sales area with natural history books and other products.

The Refuge maintains 26 boat landings with 700 parking spaces (maps Appendix P, Table 1 in 

Appendix H). The landings can accommodate flat bottom boats, v-bottom fishing boats, runabouts, 

powerboats, pontoon boats, canoes, and kayaks. An additional 221 non-U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service landings also provide access to the Refuge. There are numerous walk-in sites and roadside 

pull-off areas where access management and control is varied and inconsistent. Providing access to 

the Refuge is challenging given the rail and highway systems in place, and the physical restrictions 

of floodplain and terrain. 

3.3.8 Scenic Byways

The Refuge winds through beautiful bluff country in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois. The 

Great River Road National Scenic Byways border the Refuge on both sides (Figure 34), providing 

access to many of the Refuge’s visitor contact stations, boat ramps, trails, observation decks, kiosks, 

and interpretive signs. The Great River Road includes the following highways near the Refuge: 

# Minnesota: U.S. Highway 61

# Wisconsin: State Routes 35 and 133, County Road C, and U.S. Highway 61

# Iowa: State Route 26, Iowa 340, U.S. Highway 52

# Illinois: U.S. Highway 20, State Route 84

Table 22: Upper Mississippi River Refuge Visitor Contact Stations

District Exhibits Classroom Book 

Store

Year 

Opened

La Crosse Yes Yes Yes 1995

McGregor Yes No No 1986

Savanna Yes Yes Yes 2000

Savanna, Lost Mound Unit Yes No No 1999
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

288

Figure 34: National Scenic Byways Bordering the Upper Mississippi River Refuge
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

289

In addition to the Great River Road, the Lincoln Highway National Scenic Byway, US 30, intersects 

the Refuge at Fulton, Illinois. Refuge personnel work with state representatives of the scenic 

byways on projects that are beneficial to both the Refuge and the scenic byways.

3.4 Socioeconomic

The Upper Mississippi River Refuge comprises over 240,000 acres along the Mississippi River in the 

Upper Midwest. The Refuge covers 261 river miles beginning north of Wabasha, Minnesota, where 

the Chippewa River flows into the Mississippi River and ending just above Rock Island, Illinois. The 

Refuge has four management districts that encompass four states and 19 counties. 

This section summarizes Dr. James Caudill’s socio-economic information about the Refuge. For 

further documentation refer to his two reports, “Affected Environment: Socio-Economics” and “The 

Economic Effects of the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge Baseline and 

Effects of Alternatives.” Both documents can be found on the Refuge planning web site http://

midwest.fws.gov/planning/uppermiss/index.html .

3.4.1 Population, Income, Employment and Demographics

For the Refuge area (19 counties) as a whole, the 2001 census population was over 933,000 which 

represented a 2.8 percent increase from 1991. This increase lagged behind population increases for 

the four states and for the U.S. Total employment in 2001 was over 589,000 for the Refuge area, 

representing a 12.7 increase from 1991. This increase, as with population, lagged behind state and 

U.S. employment increases. Per capita income (total area income [county, state or U.S.] divided by 

area population, and adjusted for inflation to 2003 dollars) was $25,514 for the Refuge area counties, 

increasing by 16.9 percent from 1991. While greater than the U.S. per capita increase, state 

increases in per capita income were greater than the Refuge area counties, ranging from a 24.4 

percent increase for Minnesota to a 17.5 percent increase for Iowa. 

While most of the counties are rural in nature, two of the districts have a fairly low level of farmrelated employment. The Savanna District has only 4.2 percent of total employment in farming and 

the La Crosse District has only 6.0 percent of total employment in farming (Table 23). The other two 

districts, Winona and McGregor, show farm employment comprising 9.8 and 10.3 percent of total 

employment respectively. All four districts show a 10-year decline in farm-related employment, 

ranging from a 9.5 percent decline in the Savanna District to a 7.1 percent decline for both the 

Winona and McGregor Districts. 

Manufacturing, retail trade and services comprise the major employment sectors for all four 

districts. These three sectors comprise 59 percent of total employment for the Winona District, 61.5 

percent for the La Crosse District, 59.3 percent for the McGregor District and 62.9 percent for the 

Savanna District. The fastest growing sectors for the Winona District are manufacturing (23.2 

percent), services (21.4 percent) and retail trade (14.4 percent). In the La Crosse District, the fastest 

growing sectors include finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) (39.0 percent), services (34.0 

percent) and wholesale trade (28.4 percent). For McGregor District, services was the fastest growing 

sector (32.5 percent), with retail trade sector (16.9 percent) and manufacturing (15.1 percent) 

following. In the Savanna District, the service sector had the highest increase, 33.5 percent, followed 

by FIRE (11.1 percent ) and the retail trade sector (6.9 percent). 

Caudill’s “Affected Environment: Socio-Economics” (Caudill, 2004) report also details the 

demographics of the 19 counties in the Refuge area. The populations are more than 95 percent white. 

When compared to their respective states and the U.S. as a whole, the counties within the Refuge 

area have a:
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

290

# lower proportion of children under 5. 

# higher proportion of people over 65. 

# varying proportion of high school graduates from slightly lower to slightly higher.

# lower rate of college graduates.

# higher rate of home ownership.

# about the same rate of population below the poverty line.

3.4.2 Refuge Economics

Recreation visits to the Refuge and Refuge budget expenditures generate significant local and 

regional economic effects (Caudill, 2004a). In 2003, the Refuge accounted for over 3 million visitor 

days; boating, camping, and other beach-related uses accounted for 43 percent of total visitor days; 

fishing accounted for 38.3 percent; wildlife observation for 9.7 percent; migratory waterfowl hunting 

for 8 percent; big game hunting for 0.7 percent and small game hunting for 0.3 percent. These visits 

resulted in $73.5 million in retail expenditures in the nineteen-county area surrounding the Refuge. 

Total economic output associated with these expenditures amounted to $89.9 million (Table 24, 

Caudill, 2004a). 

Recreational use of the Refuge generated 1,173 jobs in the 19-county area with job income of $19.7 

million. Non-residents (living outside the 19-county area) spent $27.8 million in the local area 

resulting in $33.9 million in economic output and 431 jobs with labor income of $7.4 million. 

Recreational use of the Refuge generated over $9.6 million in federal, state and local taxes. The 

economic value of the recreational use of the Refuge is estimated to be between $46 million and $60 

million annually. 

Table 23: Employment Characteristics by Major Economic Sectors and Refuge District1

Sector Winona District La Crosse District McGregor District Savanna District

Percent 

change 

1990-2000

Sector as 

percent of 

total 

employment

2000

Percent 

change

1990-2000

Sector as 

percent of 

total 

employment

2000

Percent 

change 

1990-2000

Sector as 

percent of 

total 

employment

2000

Percent 

change

19902000

Sector as 

percent of 

total 

employment

2000

Farm - 7.1 9.8 - 9.0 6.0 - 7.1 10.3 - 9.5 4.2

Nonfarm 24.4 90.2 22.6 94.0 20.0 89.7 14.8 95.8

Manufacturing 23.2 23.2 8.3 16.9 1.5 15.1 2.0 15.8

Wholesale 4.5 4.5 28.4 5.4 31.0 4.4 6.9 4.9

Retail 14.4 14.4 17.6 16.9 21.1 16.9 9.8 17.6

FIRE 3.5 3.5 39.0 5.1 26.7 5.0 11.1 5.7

Services 21.4 21.4 34.0 27.7 32.5 27.3 33.5 29.5

Government 11.8 11.8 14.3 12.4 - 2.3 10.1 - 4.2 11.3

Other NA 21.3 NA 15.8 NA 21.4 NA 15.2

1.Source: Caudill, 2004
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

291

Refuge budget expenditures average over $5 million annually. These expenditures generate $8.3 

million in economic output, 93 jobs and over $1.7 million in job income. Over $731,000 in federal, state 

and local taxes are generated by Refuge budget expenditures.

Considering both Refuge visitor and budget expenditures, the Refuge generates over $19 million 

annually in expenditures and economic value, $98 million in economic output, 1,266 jobs with an 

income of $21.4 million and federal, state and local taxes of $10.4 million. Each dollar of Refuge 

budget expenditures generates $23.90 of economic effects and $2.08 of federal, state and local tax 

revenue. 

It is important to note that previous reports on the economic impacts of recreational use on the 

Upper Mississippi River System show a much higher impact than presented here. For example, the 

Corps of Engineers’ 1993 report on economic impacts of recreation on the Upper Mississippi River 

System (USACE, 1993a) estimated recreational expenditures at $387 million, and economic output 

and jobs supported in adjacent counties of $200 million and 3,000, respectively. The report concluded 

that overall U.S. economic output resulting from recreation on the system at $1.1 billion per year and 

supporting 12,600 jobs. 

The State of Wisconsin, using previous economic reports, estimated that the 19 counties adjacent to 

the Refuge accounted for 7.6 million visits, $255 million in economic output, and support for 4,580 

jobs.

These differences compared to Refuge figures reflected above and in Table 24 can be attributed to a 

number of factors. Earlier reports were not Refuge-specific and covered areas beyond the Refuge. 

Refuge visitation figures only reflect people actually within the Refuge doing recreation and do not 

account for visits to private marinas; state, county, and Corps of Engineers recreation areas; persons 

traveling along the scenic byways adjacent to the Refuge; or general “tourism” visits to the host of 

communities adjacent to the Refuge. Thus, how one defines a visitor to the Refuge has a huge impact 

on the actual number of visits used in economic models, and visits drive the models. Refuge 

information in this section was also only for travel-related expenditures, and only for in-state 

impacts. Regardless of the estimates, the economic impact from recreation on the Refuge, and the 

Upper Mississippi River as a whole, is critical to the socioeconomic fabric of the area.

Table 24: Total Economic Impacts of Recreational Use: Upper Mississippi River Refuge,

20031

Activity Expenditures Output Jobs Job Income

Wildlife 

Observation

$4,063,292 $4,968,614 68 $1,071,484

Small game 

hunting

$160,431 $196,291 3 $42,497

Big game hunting $501,106 $619,673 8 $142,627

Migratory bird 

hunting

$4,542,451 $5,609,297 76 $1,268,309

Fishing $29,576,333 $36,223,053 483 $8,119,297

Boating $34,673,216 $42,266,199 535 $9,044,582

Refuge Totals $73,516,829 $89,883,127 1,173 $19,688,796

1.Source: Caudill, 2004a)
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

292

3.4.3 Commercial Use of Refuge

Commercial use of the Refuge consists of hunting, wildlife observation and fishing guides, 

commercial trappers, recreational fish float operators and commercial fishing. Farming, grazing and 

timber harvesting have a minimal impact on the Refuge. Commercial navigation passes through the 

Refuge.

3.4.3.1 Hunting, Fishing and Other Guide Services

A number of guides operate on the Refuge, providing services for anglers, hunters and wildlife 

observers. In recent years, the Refuge has averaged about 15 guides operating on the Refuge per 

year. Specific information on the number of clients, party size and client expenditures for guide 

services is not available, but it is estimated that each guide is engaged for about 30 – 40 trips per 

year. Guides who obtain permits from the Refuge pay $100 annually. 

3.4.3.2 Commercial Trapping

Muskrat, beaver, raccoon, and mink are the primary furbearing species harvested on the Refuge. A 

relatively few number of red fox and otter are also trapped. Over 75 percent of the animals trapped 

are muskrats. The average age of trappers continues to increase as fewer young trappers replace 

the older trappers who either quit or pass away. Four states overlap the Refuge, each with their own 

trapping regulations and seasons (Table 25). This is a source of confusion for some trappers, who 

must be well aware of what state they are in when trapping on the Refuge. 

Trappers must have a Special Use Permit and pay an annual fee of $20.00 (since 2000) to trap on the 

Refuge. Annual revenue from trapping fees has averaged $4,740 since 2000. In the 2003-04 season , 

245 active trappers spent an average of 24.1 days each trapping on the Refuge; they harvested 

36,108 muskrats (Table 26). Based on an average price of $2.72 per pelt (based on a Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources survey, one local buyer, and two national auctions ), gross revenue 

for the muskrat harvest by these trappers amounted to $98,214 (Table 26). Gross revenue for beaver 

was $29,835, for otter it was $4,117. Pelt prices vary considerably between years, for example, 

muskrat prices have ranged from $6.50 per pelt in 1979, to $4.00 in 1987, $1.00 in 1990, and $2-2.50 in 

2004. Beaver sales at the North American Fur Auctions varied between $16 and $21 from 2000 to 

2004. For further details on the Refuge’s trapping program refer to section 3.2.1.4: Mammals. 

3.4.3.3 Fish Float Operators

Fish floats are private businesses which provide fishing opportunities to the public for a fee. 

Operators pick up customers via boat and transport them to the fishing facility (float) below a lock 

and dam. There are currently four fish float operators within Refuge boundaries. About 15,000 

anglers per year use the floats with the largest operator servicing about 6,000 anglers per year while 

the remaining operators average about 3,000 anglers each per year. For calendar year 2003 gross 

receipts ranged from $10,000 to $44,000 per float. Float operators are required to obtain an annual 

special use permit from the Refuge for a fee of $100. 

3.4.3.4 Commercial Fishing

Commercial fishermen usually harvest 17 species of fish, plus turtles, within the Refuge (Pools 4-14). 

During the period 1998 to 2001, annual commercial catch within Refuge pools (Table 27) averaged 6.6 

million pounds, with a gross value of $1.7 million (2003 dollars), based on ex vessel price per pound 

(the price paid to the commercial fisher dockside: i.e., before any processing or distribution). 

Commercial catch of turtles averaged 8,475 pound annually. 

People who fish commercially must obtain annual commercial fishing licenses issued by the four 

States. An individual commercial fisherman may require one or more licenses to cover the harvest of 

various fish species and/or utilize different types of nets and lines. Therefore, annual data described 

herein (except Spring Lake, see below) are attributed to the number of licenses, not the number of 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

293

commercial fishermen (Table 27). Between 1998 and 2001, an average of 527 commercial fishing 

licenses were issued to people who operate within Refuge pools. The annual gross revenue per 

commercial fishing license was $2,963.

The only location on the Refuge where commercial fishermen must have Refuge permits is on 

Spring Lake in Pool 13. During 1998-2003, an average of 13 fishermen were issued permits through 

the Savanna District office (Table 27). Total average annual harvest at Spring Lake was 55,335 

pounds of fish, yielding an average gross income of $642 per fisherman. This low dollar value is based 

on the lowest values fishermen are paid, based on whether fish are bought live, whole or processed. 

Table 25: Comparison of Trapping Seasons, Upper Mississippi River Refuge

Furbearer 

Trapping

Dates Minnesota Wisconsin Iowa Illinois

Muskrat Start 1-Nov-03 10-Nov-03 1-Nov-03 5-Nov-03

End 29-Feb-04 29-Feb-04 31-Jan-04 15-Jan-04

# of

Days

121 112 92 72

Otter Start Not Allowed 6-Dec-03 Continuously 

Closed

N/A

End N/A 7-Mar-04 N/A N/A

# of 

Days

0 93 0 0

Beaver Start 1-Nov-03 8-Dec-03 1-Nov-03 5-Nov-03

End 15-May-041 15-Mar-04 15-Apr-041 31-Mar-041

# of 

Days

197 99 167 148 

1. Refuge season closes March 16.

Table 26: Estimated Gross Revenue from Furbearers Harvested by 245 Trappers During the

2003-2004 Trapping Season, Upper Mississippi River Refuge

Species Fur Prices from Various Sources1 Average 

Price

(Dollars)

Trapperreported 

Harvest on 

Refuge

Gross 

Revenue 

Wisconsin (Dollars) Fur PricesFur 

Harvesters 

Auction, 

June 2004

(Dollars)

North 

American 

Fur 

Auctions, 

2004

(Dollars

Wiebke Fur 

Company, 

LaCross 

Wis., 

November 

2004

(Dollars)

Beaver 15 17 21 15 17 1,755 29,835

Raccoon 12 14 n/a 11 12 1,533 18,907

Otter 89 84 105 80 90 46 4,117

Muskrat 2.65 3 n/a 2.50 2.72 36,108 98,093

Red Fox 21 n/a 20 15 19 4 75

Mink 19 13 n/a 11 14 380 5,447

1.Fur prices rounded to the nearest dollar, except muskrat.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

294

3.4.3.5 Clamming

There is virtually no clamming industry on the Mississippi River at the present time. In the early 

1990s clamming was a million dollar industry. The market for clams was primarily in Japan where 

the shell “seeds” were used to implant oysters for pearl production. However, in the late 1990s the 

combination of large stockpiles of shells and a disastrous red tide in Japan that destroyed oyster 

beds depressed the market for clamming. Today the price is what drives this industry and with the 

introduction of a synthetic bead into pearl production, it is not likely the local commercial clamming 

industry will be revived. In addition, some States are restricting commercial clamming activities 

because of population declines due to competition of invasive species, habitat changes, and changes 

in host fish populations (refer to Section 3.2.10 on page 253).

As of the 2006-2007 season, all Wisconsin waters, including the Mississippi River, have been closed to 

commercial clamming. Wisconsin allows pearl hunting and personal clamming (up to 50 pounds per 

day) but it is illegal for anyone to sell or barter clams. Minnesota has also closed the clamming 

season on waters infested with zebra mussels to include the Mississippi River south of St. Anthony 

Falls (St. Paul, Minnesota). Iowa has closed the commercial clamming season in the Mississippi 

River along the Wisconsin/Iowa border, but not as yet on the Illinois border waters. Illinois allows 

commercial clamming on the Mississippi River but has one sanctuary in the Blanding Landing area 

of Pool 12.

3.4.4 Administration and Facilities

The Refuge is divided into four districts to optimize management, administrative, and public service 

effectiveness and efficiency. District offices are located in Winona, Minnesota (Pools 4-6), La Crosse, 

Wisconsin (Pools 7-8), McGregor, Iowa (Pools 9-11), and Savanna, Illinois (Pools 12-14). The Refuge 

currently has 37 permanent employees and an annual base operations and maintenance budget of 

$3.1 million.

Table 27: Summary of Commercial Fishing, Upper Mississippi River Refuge 

Year Species Pounds of Fish Value ($)1 Pounds of 

Turtles

Value 

($)1

No. of 

Fishermen

Pools 4-14

1998 17 6.25 million 1.50 million 8,900 4,100 599

1999 17 5.98 million 1.53 million 8,000 3,600 397

2000 17 5.61 million 1.49 million 9,000 4,700 537

2001 17 8.46 million 1.81 million 8,000 4,400 576

Spring Lake Pool 13

1998 3 35,595 5,339 N/A N/A 14

1999 3 63,557 10,169 N/A N/A 13

2000 3 73,544 11,031 N/A N/A 12

2001 3 38,322 5,365 N/A N/A 8

2002 3 63,463 9,519 N/A N/A 14

2003 3 57,532 8,629 N/A N/A 14

1.Minimum value ($) based on dead weight.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

295

The Refuge has its overall Headquarters in Winona, Minnesota, that provides administrative, 

biological, engineering, private lands, mapping, visitor services, planning, and policy support to the 

districts. District managers are supervised by the refuge manager located in Winona. Two other 

national wildlife refuges, Trempealeau NWR and Driftless Area NWR, are also part of the Refuge 

complex. Driftless Area NWR is under the supervision of the McGregor district manager. 

The Headquarters office is currently in the old historic Exchange Building in downtown Winona, a 

building shared with private enterprise. Customers to these businesses provide a considerable 

distraction in terms of traffic and non-refuge-related inquiries. The building has no physical 

connection to the Refuge. The building offers little to no Refuge or Fish and Wildlife Service identity 

and very limited visitor parking. There are inadequacies in the heating and cooling system, disabled 

access, and staff parking. The building space is currently rented for $70,000 per year. The current 

lease expires in 2006. Boats and other vehicles and equipment are stored in a garage a few blocks 

away. 

The Winona District is currently located on the second floor of the Exchange Building in downtown 

Winona, Minnesota as noted above for Headquarters. The same inadequacies affect the operation of 

Winona District. The District shop is one stall of an old garage attached to the Sign Shop several 

blocks away. Other storage includes an open pole barn built about 10 years ago. Both of these 

facilities are Fish and Wildlife Service-owned. With the pending replacement of the Sign Shop, 

Winona will lose their current shop and storage facilities. 

La Crosse District currently has a modern office and limited garage space that is rented through 

General Services Administration. The building is shared by Fisheries, Law Enforcement, and 

National Wetland Inventory staff. The building has a shared visitor contact component with exhibits, 

meeting rooms, and a cooperative sales area. The La Crosse District accounts for approximately 

$100,000 of the annual rental cost paid by the Service, and soon, the Region. The lease expired in 

December 2004 and was extended for 5 years, with an option to vacate in 3 years, or the end of 2007. 

The District also has a modest maintenance and storage facility built in the 1960s near La Crescent, 

Minnesota. This building is owned by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and needs to be replaced in a 

different location since it is in the floodplain. The current office, although modern and adequate, 

presents a high, re-occurring annual rental cost, is several miles from the Refuge, and is located in a 

highly developed retail business area of Onalaska. The office is difficult to find and not frequented by 

most people who use the Refuge.

The McGregor District office is currently Service-owned but on a small site with severe physical 

limitations due to tract size and a sheer bluff in the back and a major highway and rail line in front. 

Staff is crammed into tiny offices or divided areas/hallways, and an excess Federal Emergency 

Management Agency trailer is wedged between the office and the cliff. The office and trailer were 

cited in 2004 for several structural/location-related safety violations which are beyond the staff ’s 

control. The office turn from the highway is unsafe, and there is not enough space for parking. Staff 

park across the highway on private land, although this arrangement is dependent on the continued 

good will of the owner. Staged trains sometimes block access to personal vehicles. A small 

maintenance building is also on the site. Roof problems were repaired and the storage area 

expanded upward during a 2004 renovation, but the building is still judged inadequate from both a 

size and location standpoint. Three equipment storage buildings are located in Cassville, Lansing, 

and Genoa for logistical reasons given the size and length of the District. The Cassville and Genoa 

buildings were built in the 1960s and are reaching the end of their useful life. The Lansing building is 

newer and deemed adequate.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

296

The Savanna District has an office and visitor 

contact station (Ingersoll Learning Center) on 

the Refuge adjacent to wildlife viewing areas 

and hiking/biking trails. However, the 

environmental education and interpretation 

program is limited by inadequate facility size. An 

equipment storage building was recently 

constructed, but the District has a tiny, outdated 

maintenance building. 

The existing Lost Mound Unit office is an old 

Savanna Army Depot administrative building shared with the Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources. There is an area dedicated to locally prepared displays. Although part of the Savanna 

District, the Lost Mound Unit has its own identity and visitor-base from the Savanna Depot era, and 

promises to be a major attraction for visitors given its large size, location, unique wildlife and prairie, 

and history in the greater community. A new office and maintenance facility would enhance the 

Service’s image and the quality of service and programs to the public.

3.5 Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation

Archeological records show evidence of human use along the Mississippi River from the earliest 

generally accepted cultural period, the Paleo-Indian tradition that commenced about 12,000 years 

before present. Archeologists hypothesize that small family-groups of hunters-gatherers roamed 

widely in search of mega-fauna and other resources. The presence of these people is usually 

recognized through surface finds of their fluted spear points. Such Paleo age materials (e.g., Quad/

Chesrow points) are present within Pool 10 of the Refuge (Kolb and and Boszhardt, 2004).

Numerous sites from the following Archaic tradition have been found on the Refuge. People of this 

6,000-year long tradition adapted their subsistence practices to changing environmental, habitat, 

and resources based changes including the 2,000-year very warm and dry altithermal that ended 

about 5,000 years ago. Extensive trade routes brought in exotic materials. People buried their dead 

in natural knolls. Archaic tradition cultural practices gradually evolved into the subsequent 

Woodland tradition.

Commencing around 3,000 years ago was the Woodland tradition. Archeological sites are widespread 

in the Refuge and usually include pottery, arrowheads, and artificial mounds used for human burials 

and for other purposes. People exploited a wide range of habitats in an environment similar to that 

found in the early historic period. The people lived in larger, semi-permanent villages, practiced 

horticulture, and at some period participated in long distance trade. In some respects, Europeans 

coming into the Upper Mississippi River valley encountered people of the Woodland culture, some of 

whom may have been the ancestors of the Eastern Dakota Indians.

The Mississippian period started in the Saint Louis area about 1,000 years ago and moved up the 

Mississippi River. But few archeological sites of that period have been found in the Refuge area. A 

related cultural group known as the Oneota, which may have developed from the Late Woodland 

culture, is more evident in the archeological record. Late Oneota people probably were the ancestors 

of the Ioway, Oto, Missouria, and Winnebago Indian tribes.

The Upper Mississippi River was, of course, the major route of European-based exploration and 

subsequent Western culture population growth and development. Archeological sites associated with 

Ingersoll Learning Center, Savanna District. USFWS
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

297

exploration, military activities, the fur trade, lead and zinc mining, lumbering, steamboats, bridges, 

railroads, and conservation are known or expected along most of the river.

The following listed Indian tribes have been recognized by the federal government or self-identified 

by the tribe as having a potential concern for traditional cultural resources, sacred sites, and cultural 

hunting and gathering areas in the counties in which the Refuge is located.

# Bad River Band, Chippewa

# Boise Forte Band, Chippewa

# Fond du Lac Band, Chippewa

# Grand Portage Band, Chippewa

# Lac Courte Oreilles Band, Chippewa

# Lac du Flambeau, Chippewa

# Leech Lake Band, Chippewa

# Mille Lacs Band, Chippewa

# Red Cliff Band, Chippewa

# Red Lake Band, Chippewa

# Sandy Lake Band, Chippewa

# Sokaogon Chippewa

# Devils Lake (Spirit Lake) Sioux

# Flandreau Santee Sioux

# Lower Brule Sioux

# Lower Sioux Mdewakanton

# Prairie Island Sioux

# Santee Sioux

# Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux

# Sisseton-Whapeton Sioux

# Upper Sioux Community

# Iowa Tribe of Kansas

# Iowa tribe of Oklahoma

# Menominee Indian Tribe

# Miami Tribe

# Stockbridge-Munsee

# Peoria Indian Tribe

# Citizen Potawatomi

# Forest County Potawatomi

# Hannahville Indian Community, Potawatomi

# Prairie Band of Potawatomi

# Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri

# Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi

# Ho-Chunk Nation

# Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska

Although Indian tribes are generally understood to have concerns about traditional cultural 

properties, other organizations such as church congregations, civic groups, and county historical 

societies could have similar concerns.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

298

The Refuge archeological collections contain prehistoric artifacts currently not associated with any 

modern tribe. Furthermore, the collections contain human remains but no funerary objects, sacred 

objects or objects of cultural patrimony as defined in the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act. Although not all sites of historic period Indian occupation have been identified on 

the Refuge, they could be located and could contain cultural items.

The Refuge has museum collections that are managed under a Refuge Scope of Collection Statement 

dated October 31, 1994. To date, 108 archeological and geomorphological and history and research 

investigations have produced a calculated 129,339 artifacts from Refuge lands; artifacts are or will be 

stored at several repositories under terms of cooperative agreements. Artifacts are owned by the 

federal government and can be recalled by the Service at any time. Some historic items and historic 

documents are housed at the Refuge headquarters. From 1999 through 2001 the Refuge contracted 

to have the documents and photographs scanned into a data base.

A cultural resources overview and management study was prepared in 2003 as part of the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans for the Refuge and Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge 

(Gregory, et al., 2003). The document is available at Refuge Headquarters, Winona, Minnesota. The 

report presents a cultural history beginning 12,000 years ago through prehistoric and historic 

periods, ending in the 20th century. An inventory of cultural sites is not included in that document. 

However, a list is available upon request. Sites are recorded by fee-title and by cooperative 

agreement (with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Appendix F) lands. The list is too long to 

include in this document. The document has a chapter about consultation processes identified in the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended, and a chapter that summarizes the 

methodology of, and responses to, a questionnaire sent to over 200 tribal communities, historical 

societies, and research groups who have potential interest in resources on the Refuge. The report 

concludes that a variety of cultural resources must be considered during any field project associated 

with the Refuge. A comprehensive bibliography of cultural resources reports produced for Refuge 

studies is also included. Finally, a supplement to the report contains a manual for Native American 

Consultation documents that may be used or modified for Service purposes.

Cultural resources are an important part of the nation’s heritage. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

is committed to protecting valuable evidence of human interactions with each other and the 

landscape. Protection is accomplished in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

mandate to protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources. The Refuge is fully aware of cultural resource 

management challenges presented by physical changes brought on by erosion and acretion of 

sediments in riverine settings. Artifact looting is also a management concern.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

299

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4.1 Introduction

This chapter evaluates the five alternatives on the basis of environmental consequences (effects or 

impacts) to the environment described in Chapter 3. This evaluation is conducted in three parts. 

First, there is a discussion of the effects common to all alternatives. Second, the effects of each 

alternative are analyzed for each of 25 physical, biological, and socioeconomic parameters or 

concerns. A table at the end of the chapter (Table 33 on page 343) helps compare and contrast these 

effects. Lastly, the cumulative impacts, commitment of resources, short versus long-term 

productivity, and unavoidable adverse effects inherent in the alternatives are discussed. 

As described in Chapter 2, five alternatives are 

being considered: 

Alternative A, No Action, would maintain the 

current level of effort on fish and wildlife and 

habitat management. Public use programs and 

regulations would remain virtually unchanged. 

Alternative B, Wildlife Focus, would increase 

the level of effort on fish, wildlife, and habitat 

management. Some public use opportunities 

would remain the same and others reduced in 

favor of wildlife and habitat protection. 

Alternative C, Public Use Focus, would increase 

the level of effort on public use opportunities and 

programs. The current level of effort on many 

fish, wildlife, and habitat management activities 

would remain the same, but decrease on some 

activities in favor of public use. 

Alternative D, Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus, would increase the level of effort on fish, 

wildlife, and habitat management. It would take a more proactive approach to public use 

management to ensure a diversity of opportunities for a broad spectrum of users, both for wildlifedependent uses and traditional and appropriate non-wildlife uses. 

Alternative E, Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus, would increase the level of effort 

on fish, wildlife, and habitat management. It would take a proactive but balanced 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-wildlife-dependent uses. Alternative E 

is a result of substantial public and agency input on the other alternatives, and is the Service’s 

preferred alternative.

Prothonatary Warbler. USFWS
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

300

4.2 Effects Common to All Alternatives

4.2.1 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President Bill Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus 

federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income 

populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The Order 

directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and 

addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The Order is also 

intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health 

and the environment, and to provide minority and low-income communities access to public 

information and participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. 

Some of the alternative objectives presented in the Final EIS/CCP have the potential for both 

positive and negative impacts on minority or low-income segments of the population. The elimination 

of permanent waterfowl hunting blinds in Alternatives B thru E would be a positive impact since it 

would open more areas to all persons interested in waterfowl hunting without regard to their means 

or ability to construct permanent blinds. Establishing a managed hunt with fee in the Barrel Blinds 

area of Lake Onalaska in Pool 7 (Alternative D) could exclude low-income waterfowl hunters. 

However, this alternative also includes a “free Saturdays” provision to ensure that people of all 

income levels would have the opportunity to participate in the drawings. The $100 fee for the existing 

Potter’s March hunt could be limiting for low-income hunters across all Alternatives. However, the 

blinds or staked areas are available when not being used by the permit holder (90 percent of the 

hunters selected hunt less than 10 days per season), and there is ample no-fee hunting on adjacent 

areas of the Refuge. 

The elimination of commercial fishing floats in Alternative B could have an adverse impact to lowincome and minority persons who either regularly use the floats now or do not have the means for 

owning personal watercraft for fishing. These floats are retained under other alternatives, including 

the preferred alternative. Proposed boat launch fees at Service-administered boat ramps in 

Alternatives B thru D could create a burden for low-income users, but the fee is expected to be 

modest relative to the costs of boats and vehicles, and there are abundant free boat ramps provided 

by states and local units of government. Better oversight of fishing tournaments and commercial 

guiding services in Alternatives B thru E should benefit low-income anglers by keeping competition 

from higher-income anglers more in balance with the needs of the general public. Finally, the 

creation of electric motor areas in Alternatives B thru E will offer quality hunting, fishing, and 

wildlife observation alternatives and opportunities for those who may not have the means for 

motorized watercraft. 

Overall, none of the alternatives are expected to disproportionately place an adverse environmental, 

economic, social, or health effect on minority or low income persons, and in total, will likely have a 

positive effect.

4.2.2 Cultural and Historical Preservation

Activities outlined in each alternative have the potential to impact cultural resources, either by 

direct disturbance during construction of habitat projects and facilities related to public use or 

administration and operations, or indirectly by exposing cultural and historic artifacts during 

management actions such as water level drawdowns or prescribed burning. Although the presence 

of cultural resources including historic properties cannot stop a federal undertaking, the 

undertakings are subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and at times, 

other laws.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

301

Thus, the Refuge will, during early planning of actions, provide the Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer a description and location of all projects, activities, routine maintenance and operations that 

affect ground and structures, details on requests for allowable uses, and the range of alternatives 

being considered. The regional officer will analyze these undertakings for their potential to affect 

historic properties and enter into consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and other 

parties as appropriate. The Refuge will notify the public and local government officials to identify 

concerns about impacts by the undertaking. This notification will be at least equal to, but preferably 

with, the public notification accomplished for NEPA compliance and compatibility determinations.

4.2.3 Climate Change

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring its land management 

agencies to consider potential climate change impacts as part of long-range planning endeavors. 

The increase of carbon within the earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface 

temperature commonly referred to as global warming. In relation to comprehensive conservation 

planning for national wildlife refuges, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related 

impact to be considered in planning. The U.S. Department of Energy’s report “Carbon 

Sequestration Research and Development” (U.S. DOE, 1999) defines carbon sequestration as “...the 

capture and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the 

atmosphere.”

Terrestrial biomes of all sorts – grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, perpetual ice and desert – are 

effective both in preventing carbon emission and acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric 

carbon monoxide. The Department of Energy’s report conclusions note that ecosystem protection is 

important to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the 

terrestrial biosphere.

The actions proposed in all alternatives would preserve or restore land and water, and thus would 

help mitigate human-induced global climate change through increased vegetation coverage which in 

turn enhances the removal and storage of carbon. 

4.2.4 Prescribed Fire

As noted in Chapter 2, a comprehensive Fire 

Management Plan was approved for the Refuge 

in 2002 and provides detailed guidance for the 

suppression or use of fire. The plan outlines 

wildfire response and prescribed fire objectives, 

strategies, responsibilities, equipment and 

staffing, burn units, implementation, monitoring, 

and evaluation. The complete Fire Management 

Plan and Burn Unit Maps (USFWS, 2002c) are 

available at the Winona Headquarters Office, or 

on-line at http://midwest.fws.gov/planning/

uppermiss/index.html. 

4.2.4.1 Physical Fire Effects

Due to the relatively small size of the burn units on the Refuge and anticipated intensity and 

frequency of the prescribed fires, the effects on soil should be beneficial by hastening the recycling 

of nutrients and increasing soil fertility. There should also be no impacts to water quality due to 

location and slope of the burn units. Air quality should only be affected negatively in the immediate 

vicinity of the prescribed burn, and only for a limited time during the burn. This temporary impact 

to air quality will be mitigated by small burn unit size, direction of winds, and distance of units from 

population centers. It is expected that all burns will thus be well within air quality parameters. In 

Prescribed burn on Upper Mississippi River Refuge. Mary 

Stefanski
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

302

the event of special air quality alerts by state or local agencies during a planned burn, burning will 

be deferred until conditions improve. No known archaeological sites are located on any of the burn 

units, and thus no impacts are anticipated. There is potential for archaeological artifacts to be 

present, but these are generally below the surface and would not be impacted since fire will move 

relatively quickly through the area and not generate high soil temperatures. Some artifacts could be 

exposed temporarily by the removal of vegetation, and detection and removal by the public could 

increase. However, all artifacts on the Refuge are protected by laws and regulations which should 

minimize such disturbance. The maintenance of firebreaks around certain burn units will create 

visual impacts for an indefinite period of time, and a local reduction of optimum habitat. However, 

the firebreaks are minor in terms of area compared to habitat in the burn unit, and a necessary 

trade-off to provide overall habitat and wildlife benefits and to minimize fire escape. 

4.2.4.2 Biological Fire Effects

None of the federally listed threatened or endangered species found on the Refuge are known to 

inhabit or frequent the burn units that would be treated with fire, so there would be no effect. Burn 

units are also not in the vicinity of active Bald Eagle nests, so prescribed burns would pose no 

disturbance. Burning removes plant cover for 1-2 weeks and this would decrease the amount of 

habitat available for food and cover for a variety of grassland wildlife species. However, seasonal and 

long-term plant vigor and health would be enhanced by prescribed burns, which in turn will make 

the areas more productive for wildlife. In addition, since many of the burn units contain native 

tallgrass prairie, a fire-dependent plant community, it is expected that periodic burning will help 

ensure the continued existence of this rare ecosystem.

4.2.4.3 Socioeconomic Fire Effects

The use of fire often evokes an emotional response in local residents who have different experiences, 

fears, and values concerning wildland burning. This social impact can be mitigated to some degree 

by proactive information, education, and advance notification of a planned burn through media 

contacts and one-on-one visits with burn unit neighbors. Smoke from prescribed fires is also a 

concern since it can create a visibility hazard on nearby roads. In addition, smoke can enter private 

dwellings and businesses depending on wind direction. The fire management plan outlines 

precautions and specific actions to take to avoid and reduce any impacts from smoke, and 

contingency plans to be implemented should wind conditions change during a burn. Prescribed 

burning can have a benefit to the public by creating enhanced wildlife observation, photography, and 

hunting opportunities through the resulting increase in wildlife populations. Fire breaks put in place 

for prescribed burning can also help stop an unplanned wildfire and thus provide a measure of 

protection to any adjacent private habitat or dwellings. In the event that a prescribed fire does jump 

a firebreak and burn into unplanned areas, there is a high probability of rapid control by staff onthe-ground and thus minimal adverse impact. In addition, prescribed burn units on the Refuge 

average less than 125 acres, have light fuel loads (.025 to 3 tons per acre), and will be burned under 

low fuel moisture conditions and specific wind and weather conditions. These factors will help avoid 

and minimize fire escape.

4.2.5 Adjacent Land Owners

Land owners adjacent to the Refuge may benefit economically from owning property next to the 

Refuge. A recent report (Boyle et al. 2002) shows that land and property values are typically higher 

for properties next to a national wildlife refuge, when holding other factors constant. For example, a 

four-bedroom, two bath house on a one-quarter-acre lot increases in value as the distance from the 

Refuge decreases. For the four refuges included in the report, property values increased from $351 

to $7,469 per mile as the distance of each property to the Refuge decreased. The report states on 

page 19:
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

303

“The significant premium people pay to purchase properties near refuges clearly indicates that 

[refuges] provide desirable environmental amenities and permanent open space to local 

residents.”

As property value increases, taxes would also be expected to increase. While this may result in 

increased revenue for the county, it also increases the tax burden for adjacent land owners. However, 

based on several townships included in the report, the annual tax increase of properties adjacent to 

refuges is fairly small, with annual tax increases averaging between $88 and $112 per home. 

Since the alternatives would not radically change current land and water management direction or 

preclude any existing public use, it is anticipated that none of the alternatives would have a 

significant effect on property values in general or on the desirability of owning or buying property 

adjacent to the Refuge. 

4.2.6 Marinas and Other Water Related Business

Under all alternatives there are minimal economic effects to marinas and other water-related 

businesses since opportunities for water-related recreation are common to all alternatives. In 

addition, any pool drawdowns described in the alternatives would be designed, or offset by access 

dredging, to avoid or minimize impacts to private marinas and other businesses. Lower water levels 

may cause some inconvenience or require extra caution by boat operators, but they would not 

measurably disrupt marina use. Some alternatives would restrict means of access to some areas of 

the Refuge by large boats most frequently associated with marinas, but none of these proposed 

actions restrict access or use of the main river channel or associated deep channels or sloughs where 

most boating occurs. Habitat improvements and care of the scenic qualities of the Refuge will 

continue to make the Refuge a destination-of-choice for many boaters and provide a long-term 

benefit to marinas and other water-related recreation businesses adjacent to the Refuge.

4.2.7 Commercial Navigation

Under all alternatives there is no impact to commercial navigation. All proposed actions have been 

tempered by the requirement in establishment legislation that Refuge management not interfere 

with the navigation operations carried out by the Corps of Engineers. 

4.2.8 Commercial Forest Harvest

There is currently little commercial tree harvesting done on the Refuge. Under all action 

alternatives, a Forest Management Plan would be completed subsequent to the completion of a 

Forest Inventory. Although some increase in commercial harvest may occur, it is unknown what the 

level of harvest will be. However, given the floodplain nature of the Refuge and current forest 

species composition, harvest will likely be modest, selective, and restrictive in nature. It is 

anticipated that resulting economic impact would be minimal. The Forest Management Plan will 

outline methods and means of harvest to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any short- or long-term 

impacts from tree harvest operations. 

4.2.9 Threatened and Endangered Species

All alternatives in the Final EIS/CCP have objectives to improve habitat conditions for native fish 

and wildlife including species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. 

It is anticipated that nearly all habitat projects constructed on the Refuge during the next 15 years 

will be funded by other federal programs like the Environmental Management Program, operation 

and maintenance of the federal 9-Foot Channel Project, and potentially the Navigation And 

Environmental Sustainability Program. For activities implemented under these programs, the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for compliance with the Endangered Species Act. In 2004, 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evaluated potential impacts to the federally endangered Higgins 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

304

eye pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsii) and threatened Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

from a variety of habitat activities in their Biological Assessment for the Illinois Waterway System 

Navigation Feasibility Study (USACE, 2004a). The Service concurred with the Corps’ biological 

assessment findings that these habitat activities are not likely to adversely affect Bald Eagles 

(USFWS, 2004b). However, some habitat activities are likely to adversely affect Higgins eye 

pearlymussels (i.e. pool drawdowns, dredging, island restorations, etc.). Conservation measures and 

other mandatory conditions were provided to the Corps of Engineers to minimize take of Higgins 

eye from these activities. 

Consequently, the required Endangered Species Act consultation has been completed for nearly all 

habitat activities proposed on the Refuge during the next 15 years. Other projects or activities in the 

alternatives of the Final EIS/CCP during the next 15 years (new boat ramps, parking facilities, 

buildings or other structures), are not likely to adversely affect Bald Eagles or Higgins eye 

pearlymussels. This opinion is based on construction of similar projects in the past; to date, none of 

these activities have adversely affected federally listed species.

There are currently three candidate species that occur on the Refuge or in the vicinity of the Refuge. 

The Eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus) is known to occur at only two 

sites within the Refuge, although potential habitat exists elsewhere on the Refuge. All alternatives 

include objectives with both targeted and non-targeted benefits for eastern massasauga. First, the 

objectives include restoring sedge meadow, bottomland forest, and reducing the pervasiveness of 

exotic species throughout the Refuge. All of these actions could have long-term benefits for eastern 

massasauga by providing or enhancing potential habitat. Second, the Refuge is in the process of 

developing Candidate Conservation Agreements for eastern massasauga at the two known localities. 

Although both agreements are still in the development phase, the commitment is to: 

1. implement massasauga-compatible management, 

2. restore or enhance habitat to support a viable population, and 

3. provide long-term protection for such habitat. 

Although massasauga-compatible management will be conducted, unavoidable impacts may occur. 

These impacts should be rare and minimal in extent, however, as the Refuge is committed to using 

the best management practices developed specifically for eastern massasauga. 

The spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) and sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus) are also 

candidate species of freshwater mussels that historically occurred on the Upper Mississippi River 

within the states of Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. The Service and other federal and state 

partners are actively involved in native mussel conservation programs on the Upper Mississippi 

River through the interagency Mussel Coordination Team (MCT). Since 2000, activities of the MCT 

include propagation and reintroduction of federally endangered Higgins eye pearlymussels (MCT, 

2003). The team is now implementing conservation activities for the federally endangered winged 

mapleleaf. We anticipate that future activities will include the spectaclecase and sheepnose. For 

these reasons and given that the goals and objectives in applicable portions of the Final EIS/CCP 

directly and indirectly benefit the continued survival of eastern massasauga, spectaclecase and 

sheepnose, the implementation of the CCP which emerges is not likely to appreciably reduce the 

survival and recovery of these species. On the contrary, the expectation is for implementation of a 

Final CCP to perpetuate viability of these species within the Refuge.

Section 4.4.1 of this chapter contains additional information, by alternative, on the potential impacts 

to currently listed species, namely the Bald Eagle and Higgins eye pearlymussel.

4.2.10 Furbearer Trapping

Under all alternatives, the currently approved furbearer trapping program would continue 

unchanged until a new furbearer trapping plan is completed by June 2007. A description of the 

current program can be found in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.14 and Section 3.4.3. Impacts from the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

305

current trapping program are summarized in the current compatibility determination available on 

the Refuge’s planning website or at Refuge offices. Until the new furbearer trapping plan is 

completed, future biological and economic impacts are unknown. A separate environmental 

assessment will be done in conjunction with preparation of the new plan and all impacts explored. 

Public involvement will be part of new plan preparation.

4.3 Effects of Alternatives on Physical Parameters/

Concerns

4.3.1 Water Quality

Alternative A – No Action

This alternative is expected to have little positive or negative 

impact to overall water quality on the Refuge. Although Refuge 

staff efforts in tributary watersheds will be minimal, a continued 

improvement in nutrient loads is expected from actions taken in 

watersheds as a whole pursuant to various state and federal 

water quality regulations and agricultural conservation practices. 

Some habitat projects will increase water turbidity during 

construction, but this effect will be of relatively short duration 

and off set by long-term gains in local water quality associated 

with the project. Sediment sampling is undertaken prior to 

construction of habitat projects involving sediment disturbance to 

assess threats from contaminant release and appropriate 

measures are taken to avoid or minimize such release. 

Improvements in aquatic vegetation by ongoing habitat efforts 

such as pool drawdowns could help reduce nutrient loads and 

improve water quality downstream.

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

Same as A, except that water quality should be more positively 

affected by an increase emphasis in watershed conservation and 

restoration work. This would include private lands staffing to 

accelerate technical assistance to landowners and partners for 

watershed scale habitat assessment, mapping, modeling, and protection; and restoration through 

cooperative conservation partnerships. Support of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association’s 

efforts to develop more consistent standards for monitoring water quality will lead to better 

evaluation and improved project design and implementation in line with adaptive management 

practices. Improvements in water quality will positively effect plants and animals and improve a 

variety of public use opportunities related to these resources. 

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

Copyright Sandra Lines
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

306

4.3.2 Sedimentation

Alternative A – No Action

Under this alternative, sediment deposits in certain backwaters would be reduced through ongoing 

habitat projects like those done under the Environmental Management Program. The rate of 

sediment deposition would also be positively affected by some of these same projects where closing 

or deflection structures are used. On a larger scale, this alternative would not lead to any marked 

changes in watershed conditions and the amount of sediment entering the Refuge would remain the 

same. 

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

Same as A, except that sedimentation on a broader scale should be reduced over time by an increase 

emphasis in watershed conservation and restoration work. This would include private lands staffing 

to accelerate technical assistance to landowners and partners for watershed scale habitat 

assessment, mapping, modeling, protection, and restoration through cooperative conservation 

partnerships. 

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

4.3.3 Geomorphology

Alternative A – No Action

Under this alternative, there will be moderate, local changes in floodplain geomorphology as 

projects involving island construction, dredging for fishery habitat, and flow diversion are 

completed. However, overall geomorphology will continue to be driven by flood events, off-Refuge 

land use practices, and maintaining navigation capability through channel dredging and river 

impoundment. 

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

Same as alternative A, except that geomorphology on a broader scale could be influenced by an 

increased emphasis in watershed conservation and restoration work which could affect peak flow 

levels and amount of sediment deposition. 

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

307

4.3.4 Hydrology and Water Level Management

Alternative A – No Action

Under this alternative, there would be no overall change in the hydrology of the river through the 

Refuge. Water level management, or pool drawdowns, would continue at the current rate and 

eventually be accomplished on several pools.

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

The additional staffing and funding for watershed-scale technical assistance in this alternative could 

lead to a gradual moderation in peak tributary flows during spring runoff and storm events. Pool 

drawdowns could increase, especially if an Access Trust Fund is established to address supplemental 

dredging needs, and/or if drawdowns become part of the Corps of Engineers’ Operating Plans for 

pools and move from experimental to operational. 

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B, except that in regard to drawdowns, impacts would be the same as 

Alternative A.

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Similar to Alternative B, although the number of pool-wide drawdowns compared to other 

alternatives could be less given that Alternative E states that drawdowns would be based on 

ecological need and engineering feasibility. Thus, the impacts could be moderated compared to 

Alternative B.

4.3.5 Landscape Considerations

Alternative A – No Action

The scenic and wild qualities of the Refuge would remain virtually unchanged, although long-term, a 

decline is likely due to an inadequately surveyed and posted boundary, modest acquisition of 

floodplains and bluffland areas, decline in forest condition, and continued unregulated growth in 

public uses which can directly impact habitat. Some of this decline would be mitigated by ongoing 

habitat management. For example, prescribed fire enhances the diversity and structure of native 

prairie which also improves its scenic qualities. 

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

An increased rate of land acquisition of both floodplain habitats and identified bluffland areas would 

help protect the scenic and wild qualities of the Refuge. More proactive forest management would 

help ensure the long-term health of the floodplain forest which directly influences the landscape of 

the Refuge. Prescribed fire would enhance the diversity and structure of native prairie and improve 

its scenic qualities. A restriction on locations of certain public uses would help safeguard habitat and 

protect the wild nature of the Refuge backwaters. Management planning for Research Natural 

Areas would take into consideration landscape values. 

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative A, except the increased rate of land acquisition would help protect the scenic 

and wild qualities of the Refuge. This gain could, however, be negated to some degree by increases in 

public use.

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B, Wildlife Focus, except that guiding principles for habitat projects would 

include a principle on aesthetic considerations which would help protect the scenic and wild 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

308

character values of the Refuge landscape. This alternative would also help protect these values 

above the other alternatives if the Refuge is designated as a Wetland of International Importance 

(Ramsar Convention).

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative D.

4.4 Effects of Alternatives on Biological Parameters/

Concerns

4.4.1 Threatened and Endangered Species

Alternative A – No Action 

Acquisition of lands at current rates would 

protect additional lands and further the 

expansion of Bald Eagle nesting populations. 

Loss of mature trees and conversion of the 

floodplain forest to other habitat such as reed 

canary grass would limit nesting opportunities 

for Bald Eagles. Disturbance from motorboats 

and other recreation at Bald Eagle nesting, 

roosting, and fall foraging sites would continue 

unchecked with presently unknown 

consequences to overall productivity or Refuge 

use. Water quality concerns such as high 

nutrient loads may result in a poor quality 

fishery, limiting the food base for Bald Eagles. 

Conversely, limited control of invasive fish may 

improve foraging opportunities for eagles. Higgins eye pearlymussel would continue to be negatively 

impacted by the uncontrolled spread of zebra mussels, invasion of Asian carp, and continued rates of 

sedimentation. Drawdowns may leave Higgins eye pearlymussels stranded above the water line, and 

this possible impact would be mitigated by modifying the daily rate of water lowering and physically 

moving the mussels to deeper water. All potential impacts to threatened and endangered species 

from habitat projects or Environmental Pool Plan implementation will be evaluated and addressed 

through the section 7 consultation process.

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

Acquisition and private land partnerships would protect additional lands and further the expansion 

of Bald Eagle nesting populations. The fishery prey-base for eagles would be enhanced through 

improved water quality, decreased sedimentation, expanded emergent and aquatic vegetation, and 

improved backwater spawning and rearing habitats. Improved forestry management would 

encourage uneven-aged stands, regeneration of hardwoods, and longevity of large, mature trees. 

Better management of invasive species (e.g. reed canary grass and Asian carp) would help maintain 

forests and native fisheries. Natural Area management plans would include special emphasis for 

nesting and roosting Bald Eagle habitats. Expanded habitat monitoring would improve management 

decisions affecting Bald Eagles and Higgins eye pearlymussels. Disturbance to nesting eagles by 

motorboats would decrease in new electric motor areas, in closed areas during fall foraging, and on 

certain islands and shorelines under new beach use guidance that limits recreational activities. 

Survival of Higgins eye pearlymussels may improve as more attention is given the control of invasive 

animals. Drawdowns may leave Higgins eye pearlymussels stranded above the water line, and this 

possible impact would be mitigated by modifying the daily rate of water lowering and physically 

Bald Eagle. USFWS
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

309

moving the mussels to deeper water. All potential impacts to threatened and endangered species 

from habitat projects or Environmental Pool Plan implementation will be evaluated and addressed 

through the section 7 consultation process.

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative A, except that accelerated land acquisition would provide more potential 

nesting and roosting sites for Bald Eagles, and improvements to the fishery prey-base could result 

from better water quality and productivity through increased private lands efforts and pool 

drawdowns. However, increasing and unmanaged public recreation may limit the attractiveness of 

new and existing areas to nesting Bald Eagles depending on the type and timing of recreation. This 

potential negative impact could be offset by the increased public awareness of issues affecting 

threatened and endangered species through the additional interpretive and environmental education 

programs in this alternative. 

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B, except the additional interpretive and environmental education programs in 

this alternative could increase public awareness of issues affecting species and improve their overall 

conservation. 

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative D, although Alternative E includes reference to new State Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Plans and the plans’ species of greatest conservation need. Including these 

plans and species in Alternative E objectives and strategies could, in the long-term, help increase 

rare or declining populations and help preclude federal listing. 

4.4.2 Waterfowl

Alternative A –No Action

Waterfowl, especially dabbling ducks and 

Canada Geese, would benefit from additional 

wetland areas protected through a modest 

acquisition program. Pool drawdowns and other 

habitat projects would improve 

macroinvertebrate and aquatic plant food 

resources for waterfowl. Invasive plants and 

animals would continue to impact waterfowl 

habitats and food resources. Poor water quality 

and sedimentation would impact fingernail 

clams, a major food resource for Canvasback, 

Lesser Scaup, and other diving ducks. Closed 

areas would provide sub-optimum resting and feeding habitat due to lack of aquatic plants and 

macroinvertebrates, as well as disturbance from people in boats. Disturbance to ground nesting 

waterfowl would continue and perhaps affect nest success. Cavity nesting ducks, particularly Wood 

Ducks would find fewer nest trees as forests convert to other habitat such as reed canary dominated 

grasslands. Overall, waterfowl production and waterfowl numbers and use-days during migration 

would be expected to remain the same, or decline.

Alternative B –Wildlife Focus

Waterfowl, especially dabbling ducks and Canada Geese, would benefit from additional wetlands 

protected through acquisition and partnerships with private landowners. Macroinvertebrate and 

aquatic plant food resources would be enhanced with the increased use of drawdowns and other 

management actions in the Environmental Pool Plans. Aquatic habitats would be further improved 

with the reduction of invasive plants and animals. Migrating waterfowl would find more resting and 

feeding areas, including new areas with abundant food resources. Fingernail clams and other aquatic 

Copyright Sandra Lines
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

310

invertebrates which provide food for waterfowl may become more abundant with improvement in 

water quality and reduced sedimentation. Disturbance to resting and feeding birds would be 

reduced by no entry areas. Disturbance to ground nesting waterfowl would decrease by more 

control of beach-related and other public uses. Nest sites for cavity nesting ducks would become 

abundant with better forest management practices. The closed area on Lake Onalaska would be 

enhanced and less crippling would occur with the elimination of the firing line on the north end of the 

lake. Expanded habitat and wildlife monitoring would improve management decisions. Overall, 

waterfowl production and waterfowl numbers and use-days during migration are expected to 

increase.

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative A in terms of habitat effects on waterfowl. Additional wetlands for waterfowl 

would be protected through acquisition and easements. Drawdowns would improve aquatic plant and 

invertebrate resources. Invasive plants and animals would continue to degrade the river system 

impacting food and nesting resources for waterfowl. Cavity nesting ducks, particularly Wood Ducks, 

would find fewer nest trees as forests convert to reed canary dominated grasslands. Waterfowl 

would realize less benefit from habitat projects which also emphasize recreational fishing or boating 

access. Increased public education would help expose young people to the needs of wildlife, build a 

healthy outdoor ethic, and improve the overall attitude of the public towards wildlife conservation. 

However, waterfowl would suffer as funding would be diverted for recreation, interpretation, and 

environmental education rather than habitat management and monitoring. Food resources in many 

closed areas would continue to be limited and waterfowl would experience the same level of 

disturbance from boats. Additional disturbance to dabbling ducks would occur on Lake Onalaska by 

opening the north end of the closed area to hunting. Overall, waterfowl production and waterfowl 

numbers and use-days during migration are expected to decline.

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Waterfowl, especially dabbling ducks and Canada Geese, would benefit from additional wetlands 

protected through acquisition and partnerships with private landowners. Macroinvertebrate and 

aquatic plant food resources would be enhanced with the increased use of drawdowns, and 

improvements in water quality and sedimentation. Aquatic habitats would be further improved with 

the reduction of invasive plants and animals. Migrating waterfowl would find more closed areas in 

areas of abundant food resources. Disturbance to resting and feeding birds during migration would 

be reduced by no fishing or motorized travel in no entry areas. Nesting waterfowl would be more 

productive by limiting disturbance from dogs and people. Nest sites for cavity nesting ducks would 

become abundant with better forest management practices. Expanded habitat and wildlife 

monitoring would improve management decisions. Use of funds to encourage environmental 

education and interpretation would be balanced with the needs for habitat management and 

monitoring. Some habitat projects would be designed specifically to enhance waterfowl habitat, 

while most would include waterfowl benefits. Overall, waterfowl production and waterfowl numbers 

and use-days during migration are expected to increase.

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Similar to Alternative D, although disturbance to resting and feeding waterfowl in closed areas is 

expected to be higher in Alternative E due to a voluntary avoidance approach versus a regulation 

prohibiting fishing or motors in all areas. The size, configuration. and timing of closed areas are less 

restrictive under Alternative E, although areas with best food resources remain comparable to 

Alternative D. Despite these changes, overall waterfowl production and waterfowl numbers and usedays during migration are expected to increase in Alternative E compared to current conditions.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

311

4.4.3 Other Migratory Birds

Alternative A – No Action

Migratory birds would benefit from additional floodplain forest, wetland, and grassland areas 

protected through a modest acquisition program. Current trends in hydrology, plant succession, and 

invasive plants on the Refuge will result in significant changes in tree species composition, forest 

fragmentation, and the conversion of forests to grasslands over the next 50 to 75 years. Species like 

Great Blue Herons, Great Egrets and Cerulean Warblers that favor tall trees for roosting and 

nesting will decline. Both resident and long-distance migratory songbirds utilize closed canopy silver 

maple forest for nesting and migration. Silver maple will likely decline in coverage and vigor over 

time without management action, negatively impacting forest-dependent, large tract species such as 

Red-shouldered Hawk and Prothonotary Warbler. Fewer blufflands would be conserved for 

migrating songbirds and raptors. Improvement of emergent marsh habitat through habitat projects 

such as island construction and pool drawdowns would positively impact a variety of birds such as 

bitterns, rails, Black Terns and Pied-billed Grebes. Shorebird habitat would improve through similar 

habitat projects, creating increased shallow water and exposed mud areas used for foraging during 

migration. Overall, migratory bird production and use would stay the same or improve for some 

species, and gradually decline for others under this alternative.

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

Migratory birds would benefit from additional floodplain forest, wetland, and grassland areas 

protected through an accelerated land acquisition program. Some bluffland and lower tributary 

tracts, important for songbird and raptor migration and nesting, would be protected by fee-title or 

easement acquisition. Buffer land between development and key Refuge habitats would be acquired 

and reduce fragmentation. Habitat would be supplemented and connected through private 

landowner agreements, using Department of Agriculture program incentives. Better forestry 

practices would promote regeneration of hardwoods, mast producing trees, closed-canopy silver 

maple, and uneven age stands, resulting in more use by birds. Reduction of forest fragmentation and 

control of invasive plants would benefit forest interior bird species. More frequent use of drawdowns 

would improve emergent marshes for bitterns, rails, and other over-water nesting marsh birds. 

Shorebirds would benefit from shallow water and exposed mud flats during drawdowns. Electric 

motor areas would reduce disturbance to birds and likely increase productivity of marshbirds such 

as bitterns and rails, and colonial nesting birds such as herons and egrets. Better monitoring of 

habitat and birds would help mangers make more timely and effective habitat and public use 

management decisions. Overall, migratory bird production and use would stay the same or improve 

for a host of migratory bird species under this alternative.

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative A, except increases in interpretive and environmental educational programs 

would increase public awareness of migratory birds and result in more support for their 

conservation.

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B, except increases in interpretive and educational programs would increase 

public awareness of migratory birds and result in more support for their conservation. 

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative D.

4.4.4 Sport Fish

Alternative A – No Action

Refuge involvement in fishery management would remain limited under this alternative and have 

indirect sport fish impacts. Since there would be little fishery planning, no clear Refuge-specific 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

312

fishery objectives, and no increase in monitoring, opportunities for integrating fishery management 

with Refuge management would remain limited and opportunities lost for improving sport fish 

habitat. Any negative impacts from fishing tournaments or commercial fishing could continue 

without Refuge involvement and oversight. Coordination and sharing of expertise with the Service’s 

fisheries resource office and the states would also be limited and the impacts to sport fish unknown. 

Without private land and watershed work in the tributaries, silt, nitrates and other contaminants 

would continue to enter the river system at current rates and impact sport fish. Some habitat 

projects would be designed to help over-wintering habitat for centrarchid fish such as crappies, 

sunfish, and large-mouthed bass, and increase populations. In general, implementation of 

Environmental Pool Plans and habitat projects would improve water quality and habitat for most 

fish. However, future increases in exotic fish and plants may prove detrimental to some native sport 

fish. Overall, this alternative, on balance, would likely have a positive influence on sport fish on the 

Refuge due to continued habitat improvements through specific projects and pool drawdowns. 

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

Refuge involvement in fishery management 

would increase substantially under this 

alternative and have direct and indirect sport 

fish impacts. With a new fishery biologist, a 

fishery management plan, Refuge-specific 

fishery objectives, and an increase in 

monitoring, opportunities for integrating fishery 

and wildlife management with Refuge 

administration and operations would help 

increase sport fish populations. Any negative 

impacts from fishing tournaments or commercial 

fishing would be lessened by Refuge 

involvement and oversight. Coordination and 

sharing of expertise with the Service’s fisheries 

resource office and the states would increase 

substantially to the benefit of sport fish 

initiatives and management. Private lands work in the tributaries would help reduce silt, nitrates, 

and other contaminants and help sport fish health and productivity. Some habitat projects would be 

designed to help over-wintering habitat for centrarchid fish such as crappies, sunfish, and largemouthed bass, and could be done in all areas of the Refuge, including Waterfowl Hunting Closed 

Areas. In general, implementation of Environmental Pool Plans and habitat projects would improve 

water quality and habitat for most fish. Increased attention to invasive aquatic plants and animals 

could lead to improved sport fish carrying capacity on the Refuge. Overall, this alternative would 

have a positive influence on sport fish populations on the Refuge. 

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative A, except that private lands work in the watersheds could improve sport fish 

health and productivity by reducing the amount of sediment, nutrients, and contaminants entering 

the Refuge. 

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

Ice fishing program, Upper Mississippi River Refuge. 

USFWS
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

313

4.4.5 Other Fish

Alternative A – No Action

This alternative is unlikely to improve water quality or restore historic flows, and productivity of 

paddlefish and sturgeon will continue to be negatively impacted. Without private land and watershed 

work in the tributaries, silt, nitrates and other contaminants would continue to enter the river 

system to the detriment of fish. Limited coordination with the states and the Service’s fisheries 

resource office, little oversight of potentially damaging commercial and recreational fishing, and lack 

of a fishery management plan will limit attention on priority fish species which could negatively 

impact their long-term health and productivity. Environmental Pool Plan projects include concepts 

to improve fish passage through the locks and dams. Likewise, habitat projects could include 

provisions for deep water holes and travel lanes for paddlefish and sturgeon, features that would 

benefit all fish species. However, continued spread of invasive aquatic plants and animals could 

negate habitat gains, or as is the case with fish passage, limit the use of certain management tools. 

Overall, this alternative, on balance, would likely have a positive influence on some species of fish due 

to continued habitat improvements through specific fishery projects, and be neutral for other 

species. However, the populations of some species, such as paddlefish and sturgeon, would likely 

continue to decline.

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

Work on private lands in tributary watersheds may improve water quality and reduce siltation, 

enhancing spawning areas for paddlefish, sturgeon, and other fish. With a new fishery biologist, a 

fishery management plan, Refuge-specific fishery objectives, and an increase in monitoring, 

opportunities for integrating fishery management with Refuge administration and operations would 

increase and help improve fish populations. Coordination with the states and Service’s fisheries 

resource office would increase, leading to additional habitat projects which should benefit all fish 

species. Increased oversight of commercial fishing could help limit negative impacts to fish species of 

concern, and provide positive benefits by increased harvest of invasive fish species. Environmental 

Pool Plan projects include improved fish passage through the locks and dams which would benefit 

several species. Likewise, habitat projects could include provisions for deep water holes and travel 

lanes for paddlefish and sturgeon. Invasive plants and animals would continue to increase, but better 

monitoring and interagency cooperation may lead to more successful control efforts and reduced 

impacts to fish. Overall, this alternative would increase fish productivity, distribution, and health.

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative A, except that private lands work in the watersheds could improve overall fish 

health and productivity by reducing the amount of sediment, nutrients, and contaminants entering 

the Refuge. 

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

4.4.6 Freshwater Mussels

Alternative A – No Action

Poor water quality and continued rates of sedimentation would continue to diminish reproduction 

and growth rates of most mussels. Survival of juvenile mussels would continue to be compromised 

because of lack of oxygen and silt accumulation in the substrate. In general, the diversity of mussel 

species would decline and soft substrate adapted mussel species such as floaters, papershells, and 

heelsplitters would dominate. Invasive zebra mussels would continue to spread and cause mortality 

to native mussels. Impacts related to impoundment of the river and subsequent loss of habitat 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

314

heterogeneity could be improved by implementation of habitat projects and Environmental Pool 

Plans. Impacts of specific habitat projects to mussel beds would need to be evaluated on a case-bycase basis. Distribution and survival of juvenile mussels would be enhanced by improved fish 

passage through the locks and dams as proposed in the Environmental Pool Plans. However, the lack 

of a fishery and mussel management plan, and oversight of recreational and commercial fishing and 

clamming, would hamper efforts to improve mussel populations and their host fish species. Future 

increases in invasive black carp that forage on mussels, could have severe impacts. Sporadic 

drawdowns could be damaging to mussel beds if the water is lowered too quickly or too far. Overall, 

mussel populations and productivity are expected to stay the same or decline under this alternative.

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

Work on private land in the tributaries would benefit mussels by improving water quality and 

decreasing sediment entering the river. Less sediment in the river would provide a better diversity 

of bottom substrates to accommodate a more historic assemblage of species. A fishery management 

plan and oversight of commercial fishing and clamming would improve conditions for host fish and 

decrease mortality of mussels. Better monitoring and control of invasive plants and animals, 

especially zebra mussels, would improve survival of native mussels. Impacts related to impoundment 

of the river and subsequent loss of habitat heterogeneity could be improved by implementation of 

habitat projects and Environmental Pool Plans. Specific impacts of projects to individual mussel 

beds would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Distribution and survival of juvenile 

mussels would be enhanced by improved fish passage through the locks and dams as proposed in the 

Environmental Pool Plans. Increased use of drawdowns would in general improve river vigor and 

health, habitats, and food resources for mussels. However, drawdowns could negatively impact 

mussels if the water is lowered too quickly or too far. Public education about relatively unknown 

species like mussels would not be emphasized and support for conservation efforts may suffer. 

Overall, this alternative would have a positive effect on mussel productivity and health on the Refuge 

through the combination of improved water quality, specific habitat projects benefiting mussels, 

public use oversight, and increased attention on invasive aquatic species.

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative A, except that private lands work in the watersheds could improve overall 

mussel health and productivity by reducing the amount of sediment, nutrients, and contaminants 

entering the Refuge. Also, the emphasis on interpretation and environmental education would 

increase public awareness and support for mussel conservation.

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B except that an increased emphasis on interpretation and environmental 

education would increase public awareness and support for mussel conservation.

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative D.

4.4.7 Reptiles and Amphibians

Alternative A – No Action

A modest land acquisition program under this alternative would provide additional habitat 

safeguards for most reptiles and amphibians. Contaminants, high nutrient loads, and siltation would 

continue to stress aquatic reptiles and amphibians. A lack of knowledge about the distribution and 

life history of turtles, frogs, and snakes on the Refuge would continue to hamper sound decisions 

regarding impacts of human activities. Limited drawdowns may improve emergent and submergent 

habitats important for amphibians and turtles. However, improvements would likely be short-lived 

without increased attention to invasive aquatic plants, particularly Eurasion milfoil, which can choke 

important foraging and travel areas for turtles and frogs. Reed canary grass would continue to 

invade bottom land forests, creating a more open forest canopy. Massasauga rattlesnakes would 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

315

benefit from more openings, but only if openings have a strong sedge meadow component and 

nearby forests remain intact for over-wintering. Without intervention, bottom land forests would 

convert to reed canary grass openings and even age monocultures of silver maple negatively 

impacting reptile and amphibian breeding and over-wintering. Human disturbance could continue to 

impact turtle nesting on sandy islands and shorelines. Projects implemented through habitat 

projects and Environmental Pool Plans could be designed to provide nesting beaches, loafing sites, 

and calm backwaters for amphibians and turtles. Environmental Pool Plans also include concepts to 

improve connectivity between the main river channel and backwaters. Reptiles and amphibians 

would benefit from improvements in backwater habitats and ease of travel between them. Overall, 

this alternative, on balance, would likely have a positive influence on many species of reptiles and 

amphibians on the Refuge due to continued habitat improvements. However, some species’ 

populations would likely continue to decline due to lack of attention on forest habitat, invasives, and 

human-caused impacts. 

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

Land acquisition could provide better buffers between 

development and key habitats for reptiles and 

amphibians, especially turtles that need to travel from 

wet to dry land to nest. Water quality would improve as 

more work is done with private landowners along the 

tributaries to curb contaminants, nutrients, and 

sediment entering the river. Increased use of drawdowns 

would improve the health and vigor of emergent and 

submergent habitats to the benefit of loafing and 

foraging turtles and frogs. Invasive plants would be 

monitored and controlled, improving both aquatic and 

terrestrial habitats that reptiles and amphibians use for 

foraging and reproducing. Forest resources would be 

monitored and actively managed to the benefit of frogs, 

toads and turtles. Forest practices could include efforts 

to improve sedge meadow openings for massasauga rattlesnake habitat. Improved monitoring and 

research would facilitate more informed decisions regarding land use and impacts to turtles and 

frogs. The distribution and life history of turtles along the river would be investigated so that better 

decisions could be made with respect to dredging and other channel maintenance activities. Projects 

implemented through habitat projects and Environmental Pool Plans could be designed to provide 

nesting beaches, loafing sites, and calm backwaters for amphibians and turtles. Environmental Pool 

Plans also include concepts to improve connectivity between the main river channel and backwaters. 

Reptiles and amphibians would benefit from improvements in backwater habitats and ease of travel 

between them. Conflicts with human uses would be addressed. Some beaches could be closed to 

human use during key turtle nesting periods. Some backwaters would become electric motor areas, 

limiting disturbance to snakes, frogs, and turtles. Public education programs would be limited and 

support for conservation of more obscure species like frogs and turtles may suffer. Overall, reptile 

and amphibian populations and productivity would likely increase under this alternative.

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative A, except that private lands work in the watersheds could improve overall 

reptile and amphibian health and productivity by reducing the amount of sediment, nutrients, and 

contaminants entering the Refuge. In addition, an increased rate of land acquisition would safeguard 

important habitat, and a focus on public education would increase awareness of the conservation 

needs of reptiles and amphibians.

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B, except that a focus on public education would increase awareness of the 

conservation needs of reptiles and amphibians. 

Copyright Sandra Lines
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

316

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative D.

4.4.8 Invasive Species

Alternative A – No Action

Invasive plants and animals would continue to spread on the Refuge and have the negative effects 

described in previous sections. 

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

Under this alternative, managers would gain a better understanding of the location and extent of 

invasive plants and seek a 10 percent reduction in acreage infected. Cooperation with other agencies 

may begin to provide solutions for managing invasive animals such as Asian carp and zebra mussels. 

Public awareness of the impacts of invasive species and the public’s role in their spread may reduce 

new invasions and promote support and funding for control efforts.

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative A, except public awareness of the impacts of invasive species and the public’s 

role in their spread may reduce new invasions and promote support and funding for control efforts.

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

4.4.9 Invertebrates

Alternative A – No Action

Water quality is a critical component of maintaining 

healthy aquatic invertebrate populations. Little work 

would occur on private land in the tributaries, and 

contaminants, nutrients, and sediment would continue to 

enter the river to the detriment of aquatic insects. 

Aquatic insects would see some short-term benefits from 

drawdowns. Large hatches of invertebrates would occur 

as the soils warm and plant growth is stimulated. Longterm benefits would be limited unless drawdowns 

occurred on a more frequent rotation. Fingernail clams 

would not see much change in population size, due to 

poor water quality and clarity. Crayfish are important for 

many other species. The health of crayfish populations 

may decline without improvement in water quality and 

better management of bottomland forests. Diversity and abundance of terrestrial invertebrates 

would not change. Little monitoring of invertebrates would occur and managers would miss an 

important opportunity to gauge water quality and river health.

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

Work on private land within tributary watersheds would improve water quality and benefit aquatic 

insects. Drawdowns would promote plant growth and warm the surface of the mud stimulating 

hatching of aquatic insects, and this positive effect would likely continue for several reproductive 

cycles after a drawdown. Availability of detritus and decaying plants would provide abundant food 

and substrate resources for aquatic invertebrates. Fingernail clams would benefit from improved 

Copyright Sandra Lines
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

317

water quality and clarity. On the other hand, although the relationship is unclear, increased growth of 

submergent plants through drawdowns or other actions may suppress production of fingernail 

clams. Terrestrial insects would benefit from active grassland management, particularly burning 

which promotes reproduction by warming the soil and providing abundant plant growth. Crayfish 

provide resources for many other species in the system and they would benefit from better 

management of bottomland forests. Improved water quality and better connectivity of the main 

channel with backwaters would benefit all invertebrate species. Monitoring of invertebrates would 

provide an important indicator of water quality and river health.

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative A.

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

4.4.10 Mammals

Note: The impacts of the current trapping program on furbearers is discussed in the compatibility 

determination for trapping, found in Appendix E (website). See also Section 4.2.10 in this chapter.

Alternative A – No Action

All mammal species on the Refuge would benefit from the modest acquisition program in this 

alternative. Muskrats, beaver, mink, raccoon, and otter populations would likely increase due to 

improved beds of emergent vegetation from drawdowns and habitat projects in Environmental Pool 

Plans. Habitat projects would also increase resting, foraging, and denning areas for these and other 

mammals. Invasion of bottomland forests by reed canary grass, conversion of forests to 

monocultures of even-age silver maple, and loss of hardwoods would contribute to declining beaver 

populations, while mast-seeking species such as squirrels and deer would likely decline on the 

Refuge. 

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

All mammal species on the Refuge would benefit from the accelerated acquisition program in this 

alternative. In general, improved water quality, frequent drawdowns, and Environmental Pool Plan 

projects would improve habitats for most mammals, and especially furbearers. Increased monitoring 

would improve habitat project planning and management decisions on public uses involving 

mammals. Active management of grasslands and forests, including the control of invasive plants, 

would benefit all mammal populations. Overall, the increased attention to improving wetland, 

grassland, and forest habitat in this alternative would increase the productivity and health of most 

mammals. 

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative A. 

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

318

4.4.11 Aquatic Vegetation/Wetlands

Alternative A – No Action

A modest acquisition program would protect additional wetland acres which would in turn provide 

for their long-term protection while safeguarding aquatic plants. Little work would occur on private 

land in the tributary watersheds and limit improvements to water clarity which has a marked effect 

on aquatic plant germination, growth, and sustainability. Pool drawdowns would occur periodically 

with dramatic but localized improvement in aquatic vegetation. Drawdown frequency, however, 

would continue to be limited by funding. Habitat projects through the Environmental Management 

Program and other programs will continue to improve aquatic vegetation composition, density, and 

reproduction by altering currents and providing areas sheltered from wind and wave action. 

Invasive aquatic plants would continue to increase and displace and exclude native plants. Asian carp 

such as grass carp will likely invade new areas and may negatively impact aquatic vegetation and 

wetland quality through direct feeding on plants and rooting of plant beds and lowering of water 

clarity. Overall, this alternative is likely to result in localized improvement to aquatic vegetation and 

a modest increase in wetland habitat afforded permanent protection. 

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

Work on private land within tributary watersheds would reduce the amount of sediment and 

nutrients entering the Refuge and improve aquatic plant germination, growth, and sustainability. 

Wetland acres permanently protected would increase markedly under a more aggressive acquisition 

program. Pool drawdowns would occur periodically with dramatic but localized improvement in 

aquatic vegetation. Drawdown frequency could increase under this alternative and improve and 

sustain more acres of aquatic vegetation. Habitat projects through the Environmental Management 

Program and other programs will continue to improve aquatic vegetation composition, density, and 

reproduction by altering currents and providing areas sheltered from wind and wave action. 

Invasive plants would be monitored and control efforts increased. Invasive fish have a profound 

impact on aquatic plants because they pull up plants while foraging and cause excessive turbidity. 

Better fisheries planning and interagency coordination may help check the spread of invasive fish. 

However, these gains would be off set to some degree since little effort would be made to increase 

public information and education regarding the impacts and control of invasives. Aquatic vegetation 

could improve in existing backwaters with a decrease in motorized traffic due to electric motor only 

areas and better oversight of fishing tournaments. Additional and more effective waterfowl hunting 

closed areas would likely lead to better distributed waterfowl which could affect the amount of 

aquatic vegetation they consume in any one area. Overall, this alternative is likely to result in more 

widespread improvement to aquatic vegetation and a substantial increase in wetland habitat 

afforded permanent protection. 

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative A, except that an increase in public information and awareness could lead to 

changes in land use practices in tributary watersheds and reduced spread of invasive species, both of 

which could increase the positive effects to aquatic vegetation and wetland quality.

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B, except that an increase in public information and awareness could lead to 

changes in land use practices in tributary watersheds and reduce the spread of invasive species, both 

of which could increase the positive effects to aquatic vegetation and wetland quality. 

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative D.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

319

4.4.12 Floodplain Forest

Alternative A – No Action

Silver maple and ash will continue to dominate the floodplain forest because of poor regeneration of 

mast producing trees that are less tolerant of saturated soils, and the shading of pioneer species like 

cottonwood and willow. However, since even silver maple is not regenerating at self-sustaining rates, 

it is expected that openings in the forest cover will be invaded by herbaceous plants such as reed 

canary grass. The flood plain forest role as a contributor to carbon storage would be diminished as 

canopy densities decrease and conversions in vegetation type take place (UMRCC, 2002). Some 

increase in forest diversity and cover is expected from ongoing plantings on existing lands and on 

new habitat projects such as islands, as well as from the acquisition and forest management on 

acquired lands. In general, however, forest coverage, density, diversity, and structure are expected to 

continue to gradually decline under this alternative. 

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

Forest resources would be actively managed with the goal of maintaining a healthy, contiguous forest 

that spreads across wide stretches of the floodplain and contains sufficient diversity of tree species, 

sizes, and ages to provide a wide array of habitat structure and food (mast) resources. Completion of 

a forest inventory will enhance management planning and decisions. A Forest Management Plan will 

present goals and objectives for a proactive forest management program and lead to enhanced forest 

resources. Habitat projects and Environmental Pool Plan projects would restore and create islands 

that could eventually convert to mature forests. Invasive plant species would be monitored and 

actions would be taken to control the spread into forest openings. Overall, this alternative should 

result in a gradual increase in forest coverage, density, diversity, and structure.

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative A, although an increase in public awareness of forest-related issues could lead 

to improved support and funding for forest management.

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B, except like C, an increase in public awareness of forest-related issues could 

lead to improved support and funding for forest management.

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternatives B and D, although benefits could be accelerated if strategy to find funding for 

forestry technicians in this alternative is successful.

4.4.13 Terrestrial Habitat/Grasslands

Alternative A – No Action

Under this alternative, there would be a modest increase in upland habitat permanently protected 

through land acquisition. Existing grassland habitat would be maintained through fire management, 

haying, and other tools, although species diversity may decline without integrated habitat 

management planning.

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

There would be a substantial increase in upland habitat permanently protected through land 

acquisition. Grassland and other upland habitats could increase off-Refuge through more emphasis 

on private landowner assistance in tributary watersheds. Active management of grasslands and 

forests would occur through the preparation and implementation of a habitat management stepdown plan. Oak-savanna and prairie habitats would likely increase due to more active management. 

Invasive plants would be monitored and reduced, with positive impacts to the diversity, density, and 

reproduction of native plants. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

320

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative A.

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

4.5 Effects of Alternatives on Socioeconomic Parameters/

Concerns

For complete economic data excerpted in this section, refer to Senior Economist James Caudill’s 

November 2004 report entitled “The Economic Effects of the Upper Mississippi River National 

Wildlife and Fish Refuge: Baseline and Effects of Alternatives.” The report is available at Refuge 

headquarters in Winona, or, is available on-line at http://midwest.fws.gov/planning/uppermiss/

index.html. Since the Final EIS/CCP contains a new alternative (E), Dr. Caudill was asked to review 

his findings in the 2004 report. He concluded that “...Alternative E results in insignificant changes 

to the economic impacts estimated for the previous preferred alternative, D.” This conclusion 

tempers the analysis done for this section.

4.5.1 Hunting

Alternative A – No Action

This alternative would have little effect on current hunting opportunities on the Refuge. A minimum 

of 192,219 acres (80 percent) of land and water would remain available to all hunting. This acreage 

will increase as new lands are acquired as part of the existing modest land acquisition program. 

These new lands, and the improvement of habitat quality from ongoing habitat projects, will likely 

result in an increase in some game populations and positively affect the hunting experience for many. 

Since this alternative involves little to no change in regulations and hunting methods and practices, 

hunters would find little disruption to their expectations and routines. For some waterfowl hunters, 

however, this alternative will not alleviate their concerns such as lack of a more equitable 

distribution of waterfowl, the feeling of exclusion in managed hunts and in areas where permanent 

blinds are allowed, and intense competition with other hunters in some areas. This alternative would 

continue to have a substantial positive economic impact as reflected in Table 28. 

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

This alternative would have several effects on current hunting opportunities on the Refuge. A 

minimum of 165,524 acres (69 percent) of land and water would remain available to all hunting, a 

decrease of 26,646 acres from existing conditions. This decrease would result from new no hunting 

zones, retention of existing waterfowl hunting closed areas, new waterfowl hunting closed areas, and 

prohibition of open water waterfowl hunting on Pools 9 and 11. Although the areas open to hunting 

would decrease, the quality of hunting could increase, especially for waterfowl, since the Refuge 

would likely hold more birds in more areas for longer periods of time in the fall. The rate of land 

acquisition would increase under this alternative. Although some of this acquisition will occur in 

closed areas, it should still result in several thousand additional acres open to all forms of public 

hunting. In addition, improvement of habitat quality from ongoing habitat projects will likely result 

in an increase in some game populations and positively affect the hunting experience for many. 

This alternative also involves several regulatory changes including the elimination of the use of 

permanent blinds, no entry into waterfowl hunting closed areas, electric motor only areas, shotshell 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

321

limits during the waterfowl season, and elimination of managed hunts at Potter’s Marsh and 

Blanding Landing in the Savanna District. These changes are likely to disrupt long-standing hunter 

expectations and hunting methods and practices and cause short-term confusion and frustration as 

hunters adjust to new closed areas and regulations. On some pools and pool locations, this could lead 

to less opportunity for some and reduced hunter visits. These impacts will be mitigated to some 

degree by information and education and lead time for implementation. 

New regulations to prohibit open water hunting in portions of Pools 9 and 11 will have little impact to 

hunters since it is either prohibited by state regulation or not common practice. Some waterfowl 

hunters will view this alternative as helpful in alleviating their concerns about lack of a more 

equitable distribution of waterfowl, the feeling of exclusion in managed hunts and in areas where 

permanent blinds are allowed, and intense competition with other hunters in some areas. Electric 

motor only areas will allow a more primitive and less crowded hunting opportunity favored by some 

hunters. 

The changes in the Lake Onalaska closed area boundary and the shotshell limit should have a 

positive impact for waterfowl by reducing crippling losses caused by firing line behavior that induces 

hunters to shoot at birds out of range. Some of this crippling loss reduction is negated by birds which 

land in closed areas and thus cannot be retrieved. The shotshell limit should also improve the 

hunting experience for many since it serves as an incentive to allow birds to work decoy sets. 

Despite a reduction of area open to hunting, it is estimated that hunting visits overall will increase 10 

percent under this alternative due to long-term trends in hunter visits, expected improvements to 

the hunting experience, and a better distribution of waterfowl and thus hunting opportunity. This 

alternative is predicted to have a corresponding increase in positive economic impact as reflected in 

Table 28. 

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

This alternative would have several effects on current hunting opportunities on the Refuge. A 

minimum of 189,647 acres (79 percent) of land and water would remain available to all hunting, a 

decrease of 2,523 acres from existing conditions. This decrease would result from new no hunting 

Table 28: Annual Economic Effects of CCP Alternatives: Hunting

Change from Alternative A

Impacts Alternative 

A:No Action

Alternative 

B:Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative 

C:Public Use 

Focus

Alternative 

D:Wildlife and 

Integrated 

Public Use 

Focus

Alternative 

E:Modified 

Wildlife and 

Integrated 

Public Use 

Focus

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Visitors 263,623 +26,362 +39,544 +26,362 +26,362

Expenditures $5,203,988 +$520,399 +$780,598 +$520,399 +$520,399

Economic 

Output

$6,425,261 +$642,526 +$963,789 +$642,526 +$642,526

Jobs 87 +9 +13 +9 +9

Job Income $1,453,433 +$145,343 +$218,015 +$145,343 +$145,343

Federal and 

State Taxes

 $689,090 + $68,909 +$103,364 +$68,909 +$68,909
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

322

zones around new trails and other facilities for wildlife observation and other non-consumptive 

recreation. Since waterfowl hunting closed areas would not change substantially and entry still 

permitted, there would likely be little to no change in current waterfowl numbers and distribution. 

This status quo in closed areas will be favored by some waterfowl hunters, but will not alleviate the 

concerns of others over the unequal distribution of waterfowl on the Refuge. Like Alternative B, the 

rate of land acquisition would increase under this alternative, opening several thousand acres to all 

forms of public hunting. In addition, improvement of habitat quality from ongoing habitat projects 

will likely result in an increase in some game populations and positively affect the hunting 

experience for many. 

This alternative also involves several regulatory changes 

including the elimination of the use of permanent blinds, 

establishment of electric motor only areas, implementing 

party spacing limits for waterfowl hunting, and 

eliminating managed hunts at Potter’s Marsh and 

Blanding Landing in the Savanna District. These 

changes are likely to disrupt long-standing hunter 

expectations and hunting methods and practices and 

cause short-term confusion and frustration as hunters 

adjust to new regulations. This disruption will be 

mitigated to some degree by information and education 

and lead time for implementation. Some waterfowl 

hunters will view this alternative as helpful in alleviating 

their concerns such as the feeling of exclusion in 

managed hunts and in areas where permanent blinds are 

allowed, and intense competition with other hunters in 

some areas. Electric motor only areas will allow a more 

primitive and less crowded hunting opportunity favored 

by some hunters. 

The changes in the Lake Onalaska closed area boundary 

and party spacing limit should have a positive impact for 

waterfowl by reducing crippling losses caused by firing 

line behavior which induces hunters to shoot at birds out 

of range. However, reducing the size of this closed area 

could also increase the number of hunters and negate some crippling loss reductions. The spacing 

limit should also improve the hunting experience for many by reducing crowding.

Despite a minor reduction of area open to hunting, it is estimated that hunting visits will increase 15 

percent under this alternative due to overall long-term trends in hunter visits, no changes in 

waterfowl hunting closed areas, expected improvements to the hunting experience, and a better 

distribution of waterfowl and thus hunting opportunity. This alternative is predicted to have a 

corresponding increase in positive economic impact as reflected in Table 28. 

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

This alternative would have several effects on current hunting opportunities on the Refuge. A 

minimum of 180,626 acres (75 percent) of land and water would remain available to all hunting, a 

decrease of 12,951 acres from existing conditions. This decrease would result from changes in 

waterfowl hunting closed areas (modification, elimination, and new), new no hunting zones, and in 

particular, restrictions to open water waterfowl hunting in Pools 9 and 11. Although the areas open to 

hunting would decrease slightly, the quality of hunting could increase, especially for waterfowl, since 

the Refuge would likely hold more birds in more areas for longer periods of time in the fall. As with 

alternatives B and C, the rate of land acquisition would increase under this alternative, opening 

Copyright Sandra Lines
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

323

several thousand acres to all forms of public hunting. In addition, improvement of habitat quality 

from ongoing habitat projects will likely result in an increase in some game populations and 

positively affect the hunting experience for many. 

This alternative also involves several regulatory changes including the elimination of the use of 

permanent blinds, no fishing or motorized watercraft in waterfowl hunting closed areas, electric 

motor only areas, shotshell and hunting party spacing limits for waterfowl hunting, and changing 

procedures for managed hunts at Potter’s Marsh and Blanding Landing in the Savanna District. 

These changes are likely to disrupt long-standing hunter expectations and hunting methods and 

practices and cause short-term confusion and frustration as hunters adjust to new closed areas and 

regulations. As in other alternatives, these changes could lead to less opportunity and fewer hunter 

visits on some areas of some pools. These impacts will be mitigated to some degree by information 

and education and lead time for implementation, or, as the case with permanent blinds, a phase out 

over time. New regulations to prohibit open water hunting in portions of Pools 9 and 11 will have 

little impact to hunters since it is either prohibited by state regulation or not common practice. 

Some waterfowl hunters will view this alternative as helpful in alleviating their concerns such as lack 

of a more equitable distribution of waterfowl, the feeling of exclusion in managed hunts and in areas 

where permanent blinds are allowed, and intense competition with other hunters in some areas. 

Electric motor only areas will allow a more primitive and less crowded hunting opportunity favored 

by some hunters. 

The establishment of a managed hunt area (Gibb’s Lake) on the north end of the Lake Onalaska 

closed area (Barrel Blinds area) will cause a localized disruption to long-standing hunting practices 

and use in this area. Many hunters who routinely hunt this area will be displaced, although they will 

still have equal opportunity to hunt the area through the drawing process. On the other hand, the 

managed hunt will attract hunters who have avoided the area due to competition and 

unsportsmanlike behavior. Overall, the number of hunters using the Barrel Blinds area will likely 

decrease, while the quality of the hunting experience for participants will increase. The fee for the 

hunt will discourage some hunters from participating, either due to cost or principle, although this 

will be mitigated to some degree by offering free, family-day Saturdays, and opening the area on a 

first-come, first-secured basis after the first 45 days of the season. 

Throughout the Refuge, the shotshell limit should have a positive impact for waterfowl by reducing 

crippling losses caused by firing line behavior which induces hunters to shoot at birds out of range. 

Like all other alternatives, some of this crippling loss reduction is negated by birds which land in 

closed areas and thus cannot be retrieved. The shotshell and hunting party spacing limits should also 

improve the hunting experience for many since it serves as an incentive to allow birds to work decoy 

sets and reduces confrontations between hunters. It is estimated that hunting visits will increase 10 

percent under this alternative due to overall long-term trends in hunter visits, expected 

improvements to the hunting experience, and a better distribution of waterfowl and thus hunting 

opportunity. This alternative is predicted to have a corresponding increase in positive economic 

impact as reflected in Table 28 on page 320. 

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

This alternative would have several effects on current hunting opportunities on the Refuge. A 

minimum of 187,205 acres (78 percent) of land and water would remain available to all hunting, a 

decrease of 4,965 acres (2 percent) from existing conditions. This decrease would result from 

changes in waterfowl hunting closed areas and sanctuaries (modification, elimination, and new), new 

administrative no hunting zones, and most significantly, the elimination of open water waterfowl 

hunting on approximately 4,000 acres of Pool 11, Grant County, Wisconsin. However, part of the 

decrease is only seasonal, since the Wisconsin River Delta Special Hunt Area (1,406 acres) is open 

for approximately 30 days of the waterfowl season. 

As with alternatives B through D, the rate of land acquisition would increase under this alternative, 

opening several thousand acres to all forms of public hunting. For example, in 2005 an additional 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

324

2,000 acres was open to public hunting at the Lost Mound Unit, Savanna District, due to acquisition 

of the former Savanna Army Depot. 

Although under Alternative E the areas open to hunting would decrease slightly, the quality of 

hunting could increase, especially for waterfowl, since the Refuge would likely hold more birds in 

more areas for longer periods of time in the fall. In addition, improvement of habitat quality from 

ongoing habitat projects will likely result in an increase in some game populations and positively 

affect the hunting experience for many. 

This alternative also involves several regulatory changes including the elimination of the use of 

permanent blinds and the leaving of decoys in place overnight, voluntary avoidance in waterfowl 

hunting closed areas, no motors in closed areas under 1,000 acres in size, electric motor and slow, no 

wake areas, and changing procedures for managed hunts at Potter’s Marsh and Blanding Landing in 

the Savanna District. These changes are likely to disrupt long-standing hunter expectations and 

hunting methods and practices and cause short-term confusion and frustration as hunters adjust to 

new closed areas and regulations. As in other alternatives, these changes could lead to less 

opportunity and fewer hunter visits on some areas of some pools. These impacts will be mitigated to 

some degree by information and education and lead time for implementation, or, as is the case with 

permanent blinds, a phase out over time. Closed area changes in Pool 4 will not be implemented until 

the 2009 waterfowl hunting season, thus hunters will have ample time to adjust in this area. New 

regulations to prohibit open water hunting in a portion of Pools 11 will have little impact to hunters 

due to the relatively few who practice this method of hunting and since adjacent areas will remain 

open. 

Some waterfowl hunters will view this alternative as helpful in alleviating their concerns such as lack 

of a more equitable distribution of waterfowl, the feeling of exclusion in managed hunts and in areas 

where permanent blinds are allowed, and intense competition with other hunters in some areas. 

Electric motor areas will allow a more primitive and less crowded hunting opportunity favored by 

some hunters. Slow, no wake areas will limit speed and restrict airboats/hovercraft for a portion of 

the hunting season and improve the hunting experience for some, while others will find the 

restrictions limit opportunities enjoyed in the past. Since this alternative does not specify any plan 

for the Gibbs Lake Area of Pool 7 (Objective 4.4, Firing Line), impacts to hunter numbers and 

experience in that particular area is yet unknown. The area will, however, remain open to hunting.

Like Alternative D, it is estimated that hunting visits will increase 10 percent overall under this 

alternative due to overall long-term trends in hunter visits, expected improvements to the hunting 

experience, and a better distribution of waterfowl and thus hunting opportunity. This alternative is 

predicted to have a corresponding increase in positive economic impact as reflected in Table 28 on 

page 320. 

4.5.2 Fishing

Alternative A – No Action

This alternative would have little effect on current fishing opportunities on the Refuge. A minimum 

of 140,545 acres of water would remain available to year-round fishing and facilities and operations 

which support fishing (docks and piers, commercial fish floats, accesses) would remain the same. The 

improvement of habitat quality from ongoing habitat projects will likely result in an increase in some 

sport fish populations and positively affect the fishing experience for many. These gains could, 

however, be negated to some degree by continued sport fish stresses such as sedimentation and the 

effects of invasive species. Since this alternative involves little to no change in regulations that affect 

fishing, anglers would find little to no disruption to their expectations and routines. For some 

anglers, however, this alternative will not alleviate their concerns such as conflicts with recreational 

watercraft while fishing, and disruption from fishing tournament participants. This alternative 

would continue to have a substantial positive economic impact as reflected in Table 29. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

325

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

This alternative would have several effects on current fishing opportunities on the Refuge. A 

minimum of 104,716 acres of water would remain open to year-round fishing, a decrease of over 

35,000 acres from existing conditions. This decrease would be due to the fall no-entry regulation for 

waterfowl hunting closed areas in this alternative. However, overall fishing opportunities would 

remain abundant and fishing would be permitted in closed areas during the peak spring, summer, 

and winter period. In addition to this seasonal closure, the type of fishing experience for some 

anglers would be affected by the elimination of commercial fish floats and by establishing electric 

motor only areas. Electric motor areas would remain open to fishing and change the use patterns 

and densities in these areas. Some anglers would find this welcome, both from a noise and 

disturbance standpoint, while others may resent the change from long-standing modes of use. The 

possible implementation of a boat ramp fee on Refuge-operated landings would be an added cost to 

many boat anglers. The fee would be minor in terms of fishing expenses and would not likely 

discourage angling, especially given the number of non-Refuge boat ramps serving the river. 

However, some anglers could resent the added requirement and cost.

The improvement of habitat quality from ongoing habitat projects will likely result in an increase in 

some sport fish populations and positively affect the fishing experience for many. Increased efforts 

to improve water quality through work with private landowners in tributary watersheds, and more 

emphasis on control of aquatic invasive species, could also result in increases in sport fish 

populations and thus fishing success.

With restrictions to fishing in waterfowl closed areas, electric motor areas, and the elimination of 

commercial fish floats, combined with no increase in fishing-related facilities, fishing visits are 

predicted to decrease 5 percent under this alternative. This alternative is predicted to have a 

corresponding negative economic impact as reflected in Table 29.

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

This alternative would have several effects on current fishing opportunities on the Refuge. Like 

alternative A, a minimum of 140,545 acres of water would remain open to year-round fishing. The 

Table 29: Annual Economic Effects of CCP Alternatives: Fishing 

Change from Alternative A

Impacts Alternative 

A:No Action

Alternative B: 

Wildlife Focus 

Alternative C: 

Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D 

Wildlife and 

Integrated 

Public Use 

Focus

Alternative E 

Modified 

Wildlife and 

Integrated 

Public Use 

Focus 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Visitors 1,213,916 - 60,696 +121,392 +60,696 +60,696

Expenditures $29,576,333 - $1,478,817 +$2,957,633 +$1,478,817 +$1,478,817

Economic 

Output

$36,223,053 - $1,811,153 +$3,622,305 +$1,811,153 +$1,811,153

Jobs 483 - 24 +48 +24 +24

Job Income $8,119,297 - $405,965 +$811,930 +$405,965 +$405,965

Federal and 

State Taxes

 $3,884,811 - $194,241 +$388,481 +$194,241 +$194,241
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

326

type of fishing experience for some anglers would be affected by establishing electric motor only 

areas. Electric motor areas would remain open to fishing and change the use patterns and densities 

in these areas. Some anglers would find this welcome, both from a noise and disturbance standpoint, 

while others may resent the change from long-standing modes of use. Existing commercial floats 

would remain and proposals for a new float solicited, creating additional fishing opportunity for 

persons without boats or who prefer this type of fishing. A new fish float would have a positive, but 

local, economic effect. Five additional fishing docks or piers, an additional boat ramp, and other 

access points would provide or facilitate fishing opportunities. The implementation of a seasonal 

Refuge Recreation Use Permit system with fee and a boat launch fee at Refuge ramps would be an 

added cost to many boat anglers. The fee for the permit would be minor in terms of fishing expenses 

and would not likely discourage angling, especially given the number of non-Refuge boat ramps 

serving the river, or the number of anglers who would not need a Recreation Use Permit since they 

do not camp or otherwise use Refuge lands when fishing. However, some anglers could resent the 

added requirement and cost. 

The improvement of habitat quality from ongoing habitat projects will likely result in an increase in 

some sport fish populations and positively affect the fishing experience for many. Increased efforts 

to improve water quality through work with private landowners in tributary watersheds, and more 

emphasis on control of aquatic invasive species, could also result in increases in sport fish 

populations and thus fishing success.

Fishing visits are expected to increase 10 percent under this alternative based on long-term trends 

of angling visits, improvements in habitat and sport fish populations, and additional fishing-related 

facilities. This alternative is predicted to have a corresponding increase in positive economic impact 

as reflected in Table 29.

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

This alternative would have several effects on current fishing opportunities on the Refuge. A 

minimum of 110,611 acres of water would remain open to year-round fishing, a decrease of about 

30,000 acres. This decrease would be due to the fall no-fishing regulation for waterfowl hunting 

closed areas in this alternative. However, overall fishing opportunities would remain abundant and 

fishing would be permitted in closed areas during the peak spring, summer, and winter period. In 

addition to this seasonal closure, the type of fishing experience for some anglers would be affected by 

establishing electric motor only areas. Electric motor areas would remain open to fishing and change 

the use patterns and densities in these areas. Some anglers would find this welcome, both from a 

noise and disturbance standpoint, while others may resent the change from long-standing modes of 

use. Three additional fishing docks or piers, an additional boat ramp, and other access points would 

provide or facilitate fishing opportunities. The possible implementation of a boat ramp fee on 

Refuge-operated landings would be an added cost to many boat anglers. The fee would be minor in 

terms of fishing expenses and would not likely discourage angling, especially given the number of 

non-Refuge boat ramps serving the river. However, some anglers could resent the added 

requirement and cost.

The improvement of habitat quality from ongoing habitat projects will likely result in an increase in 

some sport fish populations and positively affect the fishing experience for many. Increased efforts 

to improve water quality through work with private landowners in tributary watersheds, and more 

emphasis on control of aquatic invasive species, could also result in increases in sport fish 

populations and thus fishing success.

Despite restrictions to fishing in waterfowl closed areas and motor limits in electric motor areas, 

fishing visits are expected to increase 5 percent under this alternative based on long-term trends in 

angling visits, improvements in fish habitat, and additional fishing-related facilities. This alternative 

is predicted to have a corresponding increase in positive economic impact as reflected in Table 29. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

327

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

This alternative would have several effects on current fishing opportunities on the Refuge. A 

minimum of approximately 140,000 acres of water would remain open to year-round fishing, a 

decrease of about 500 acres from existing conditions. This decrease would be due to changes in 

waterfowl sanctuaries where no entry is allowed during the respective state waterfowl hunting 

season. However, fall fishing in approximately 31,000 acres of waterfowl hunting closed area 

included in voluntary avoidance guidelines would be affected to varying degrees since this 

alternative calls for the public to voluntarily avoid these areas from October 15 to the end of the 

respective state waterfowl hunting season. 

Overall fishing opportunities would remain 

abundant and fishing would be welcome in closed 

areas during the peak spring, summer, early fall, 

and winter period. In addition to any seasonal 

restriction, the type of fishing experience for 

some anglers would be affected by establishing 

electric motor and slow, no wake areas. Electric 

motor areas and slow, no wake areas would 

remain open to fishing but likely change the use 

patterns and densities in these areas. Some 

anglers would find this welcome, both from a 

noise and disturbance standpoint, while others 

may resent the change from long-standing 

modes of use. Five additional fishing docks or 

piers, an additional boat ramp, and other access 

points would provide or facilitate fishing opportunities. Improvements to commercial fish float 

operations should improve the quality of the experience for fish float anglers.

The improvement of habitat quality from ongoing habitat projects will likely result in an increase in 

some sport fish populations and positively affect the fishing experience for many. Increased efforts 

to improve water quality through work with private landowners in tributary watersheds, and more 

emphasis on control of aquatic invasive species, could also result in increases in sport fish 

populations and thus fishing success.

Despite restrictions to fishing in waterfowl closed areas and motor limits in electric motor areas, 

fishing visits are expected to increase 5 percent under this alternative based on long-term trends in 

angling visits, improvements in fish habitat, and additional fishing-related facilities. This alternative 

is predicted to have a corresponding increase in positive economic impact as reflected in Table 29.

4.5.3 Fishing Tournaments

Alternative A – No Action

This alternative would have little direct effect on fishing tournaments since the Refuge would 

continue to defer to the states for all permitting. Some increase in tournaments would be expected 

from improvement to fish habitat through ongoing habitat projects. 

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

The size, number, and location of fishing tournaments would likely change under this alternative 

since the Refuge would issue special use permits in addition to the state-required permits. Impacts 

to sensitive habitat and fish and wildlife areas would be lessened, and conflicts between fishing 

tournaments and between general anglers could be reduced by time and space management of 

tournaments. Tournament sponsors and organizers would face another regulatory requirement, but 

the effects of this would be mitigated by a process that meshes the state and Refuge permit process 

and stipulations.

Largemouth Bass. USFWS
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

328

No specific economic analysis was done for fishing tournaments since the parameters for 

management have yet to be determined. However, tournaments were accounted for in the economic 

analysis of fishing as a whole and a modest decline in economic activity attributed to fishing 

tournaments is predicted since fewer tournaments are likely to occur. 

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

The impacts of this alternative are predicted to be similar to Alternative A. Although under this 

alternative the Refuge would review state-issued permits for tournaments on the Refuge, this 

review would likely modify only the timing and spacing of tournaments. The implementation of a 

Refuge Recreation Use Permit could affect some tournament anglers who also camp or otherwise 

use Refuge lands, but the added cost would be minor compared to expenditures for tournament 

fishing.

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

The size, number, and location of fishing tournaments could change under this alternative since the 

Refuge would work in collaboration with the states and Corps of Engineers in determining time, 

space, and capacity parameters for each pool on the Refuge. Establishing parameters could lessen 

negative impacts to sensitive habitat and fish and wildlife areas, and conflicts between fishing 

tournaments and between general anglers. Tournament sponsors and organizers would not face 

another regulatory requirement since any Refuge permit requirements would be dove-tailed with a 

respective state’s permit process.

No specific economic analysis was done for fishing tournaments since the parameters for 

management have yet to be determined. However, tournaments were accounted for in the economic 

analysis of fishing as a whole and since tournaments will continue, it is predicted that any time and 

space stipulations would have a negligible impact on current economic activity attributed to fishing 

tournaments. 

4.5.4 Commercial Fishing

Alternative A – No Action

This alternative would have little effect on current commercial fishing operations on the Refuge 

since management and oversight would continue to be done by the states. The improvement of 

habitat quality from ongoing habitat projects will likely result in an increase in some fish populations 

and positively affect the commercial fishing harvest. Since this alternative involves no change in 

regulations that affect commercial fishing, operators would find little to no disruption to their 

expectations and routines. The current number of commercial fishermen (527 based on 4-year 

average) and gross value of catch ($1.7 million) would remain the same, subject to the variability of 

fish populations and market. 

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

Under this alternative, an increase in fish habitat quality through increased habitat projects, and 

emphasis on invasive fish harvest could account for a 10 percent increase in catch. This would result 

in an estimated annual increase of $170,000 in total ex vessel value (the price paid to the commercial 

angler dockside) for commercial fishing in pools 4-14. This assumes no change in ex vessel prices and 

catch success rate. Commercial fishermen would find additional restrictions to where and when they 

could fish due to the no-entry in waterfowl hunting closed areas under this alternative. This could 

disrupt some operations and displace commercial fishing operators to other areas of the Refuge 

from October 1 to the end of the respective state regular duck season.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

329

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative A.

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B since the no ishing restriction for waterfowl hunting closed areas would affect 

commercial fishing.

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Under this alternative, like Alternatives B and D, an increase in fish habitat quality through 

increased habitat projects, and emphasis on invasive fish harvest could account for a 10 percent 

increase in catch. This would result in an estimated annual increase of $170,000 in total ex vessel 

value (the price paid to the commercial angler dockside) for commercial fishing in pools 4-14. This 

assumes no change in ex vessel prices and catch success rate. Unlike Alternatives B and D, 

commercial fishermen would find few additional restrictions to where and when they could fish since 

the no-entry and no fishing regulations in waterfowl hunting closed areas are not part of Alternative 

E. However, since voluntary avoidance guidelines will be in effect from October 15 to the end of the 

respective state waterfowl season, some commercial anglers could choose to avoid closed areas 

during this time which could have some effect on catch and thus revenue. The current number of 

commercial fishing licenses issued (527 based on 4-year average) would likely remain the same or 

gradually decline due to current commercial fishing trends that are not dependent on Refuge 

management actions. However, the current gross value of catch ($1.7 million) could possibly increase 

due to a Refuge emphasis on invasive fish harvest and emerging markets for these species. Also, 

since Alternative E calls for a dove-tailing of existing state licensing requirements with future 

Refuge permit requirements, commercial anglers should see little difference in time or money 

inherent in licensing or permitting.

4.5.5 Fishing Floats

Alternative A – No Action

This alternative would have no impact to commercial fish float operations since the current program 

would continue. Collective gross revenue from the existing four fish floats is estimated at $125,000 

per year. Since some fish float operations have experienced difficulty meeting current permit 

requirements, such as Coast Guard licensing for transporting the public, their period of operation 

has fluctuated and gross revenues can change from year to year. 

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

This alternative would eliminate all four floats currently operating on the Refuge. Eliminating the 

floats would create a direct economic hardship on existing owners/operators by the loss of 

approximately $125,000 in gross revenues, and have a negative local economic effect to food service, 

lodging, and fishing-related businesses near the floats. There could also be an emotional impact to 

owners and families from the closing of the floats, some of which have been family-operated 

businesses for decades. The effect of the economic losses would be minor compared to the overall 

positive economic impacts of fishing on the Refuge. Closing the fish floats could also reduce overall 

fishing visits to the Refuge, tempered somewhat by alternative fishing opportunities such as guide 

services, boat rental, dock, and shore fishing. Clients who have become accustomed to the fish float 

service would likely find this alternative disruptive and frustrating in the short-term as they 

adjusted to alternative fishing methods or areas. Boat anglers who fish in the vicinity of the floats 

may find their removal advantageous due to reduced competition for space and fish.

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative A, except that a new fish float in the Savanna District would provide a 

proportionate increase in this type of angling visit and positive economic impact. New standards and 

permits would have a modest economic impact to current operations due to required infrastructure 

improvements and a higher annual fee to help offset Refuge administrative costs.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

330

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative A, although a portion of the impacts of Alternative B could be realized if current 

fish floats failed to meet new standards and were phased out. Also, as in Alternative C, new 

standards and permits would have a modest economic impact to current operations due to required 

infrastructure improvements and a higher annual fee to help offset Refuge administrative costs.

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Like Alternative A, this alternative would have little impact to commercial fish float operations since 

they would continue. Collective gross revenue from the existing four fish floats is estimated at 

$125,000 per year. Since some fish float operations have experienced difficulty meeting current 

permit requirements, such as Coast Guard licensing for transporting the public, their period of 

operation has fluctuated and gross revenues can change from year to year. 

Also, as in Alternative C, new standards and permits would have a modest economic impact to 

current operations due to required infrastructure improvements and a modestly higher annual fee to 

help offset Refuge administrative costs. Some current float owners could decide not to invest in their 

structures to meet new standards and either close or be phased-out. However, since this alternative 

calls for soliciting new proposals for any float that closes, impacts to the public at affected floats 

should be short-term unless no suitable proposals are received.

4.5.6 Interpretation and Environmental Education

Alternative A – No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, the current trend of modest increases in interpretive and environmental 

education opportunities would likely continue. There would continue to be a disproportionate level of 

opportunity in those districts of the Refuge which have visitor services specialists and/or facilities, 

namely Savanna and La Crosse Districts. This alternative would not meet the demand for 

interpretation and environmental education as gauged by inquiries and growing tourism visits to the 

Refuge area. There is no analysis of economic impacts related to interpretation and education for 

this or other alternatives since these uses are not drivers for visitation and expenditures. 

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus Alternative

Under this alternative, there would be a continual decline in interpretive and environmental 

education opportunities as the emphasis of staff and programs is shifted to more wildlife-based 

work. Identified staff needs for interpretation and environmental education would be a lower 

priority and likely not filled for many years. Facilities related to interpretation and environmental 

education would remain the same as current. This and staffing priorities would increase the gap 

between public demand and Refuge capability, and visits for interpretation and environmental 

education would decline an estimated 25 percent. Decreased visitation would reduce some 

disturbance to wildlife and habitat, although this is expected to be negligible since existing facilities 

are not in or near sensitive areas. On the other hand, this alternative could have long-term 

consequences in terms of public and political support which could negatively impact projects and 

funding for improving the quality of fish and wildlife habitat. 

Alternative C – Public Use Focus Alternative

Interpretive and environmental education visits could increase by 65 percent with this alternative 

due to increases in staff assigned to interpretation and environmental education and an increase in 

related facilities such as signing, visitor contact areas in offices, and a major visitor center in the 

Winona/La Crosse area. Increased facilities and visitation would cause some displacement of habitat 

and increase some disturbance to wildlife, although this is expected to be minor given the size of the 

Refuge and by avoiding sensitive wildlife locations and habitat. This alternative could have longterm positive consequences in terms of public and political support which could positively impact 

projects and funding for improving the quality of fish and wildlife habitat.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

331

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Alternative

Interpretive and environmental education opportunities could increase by 50 percent with this 

alternative (no major visitor center), and impacts would be similar, but proportionately less than, 

Alternative C. 

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative D. 

4.5.7 Wildlife Observation and Photography

Alternative A – No Action

Under this alternative, the current trend of increases in wildlife observation and photography visits 

would likely continue despite no change in facilities or programs. Ongoing habitat improvements and 

land acquisition would increase the quality of opportunities for these uses. However, this alternative 

would not meet the demand for facilities related to observation and photography (trails, tour routes, 

overlooks, blinds, etc.) as gauged by inquiries, past visitation trends, and growing tourism visits to 

the Refuge area. This alternative would continue to have a substantial positive economic impact as 

shown in Table 30. 

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A, although an increased emphasis on habitat 

improvements and land acquisition should improve the quality of wildlife observation and 

photography in certain areas. However, existing facilities could degrade more quickly as staff is 

directed to more important fish and wildlife related work. Economic impacts would likely be the 

same as the No Action or Current Direction Alternative.

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Under this alternative, wildlife observation and 

photography visits are estimated to increase 20 

percent due to habitat improvements, 

accelerated land acquisition, and a marked 

increase in related facilities (trails, tour routes, 

overlooks, blinds, etc.). Additional staff would be 

focused on public use programs and facilities 

which could enhance the quality and quantity of 

observation and photography opportunities. 

Increased facilities and visitation would cause 

some displacement of habitat and increase some 

disturbance to wildlife, although this is expected 

to be minor given the size of the Refuge and by 

avoiding or minimizing intrusion into important 

wildlife locations and habitat. This alternative 

could have long-term positive consequences in terms of public and political support which could 

positively impact projects and funding for improving the quality of fish and wildlife habitat. This 

alternative is predicted to have a corresponding increase in positive economic impact as reflected in 

Table 30. 

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Under this alternative, the impacts would be similar to Alternative C due to similar habitat 

improvements, accelerated land acquisition, and similar additions to facilities related to observation 

and photography. See Table 30 showing economic impacts. 

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative D.

Accessible observation deck. Cindy Samples
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

332

4.5.8 Recreational Boating, Camping and Other Beach-Related Uses

Alternative A – No Action

Under this alternative, recreational boating, camping and other beach-related recreation would 

continue under current regulations and visits would continue to increase based on past use data and 

trends. These uses would continue to provide substantial economic impacts as displayed in Table 31. 

Overall, this alternative would have virtually no impact on the opportunities for recreational boating, 

camping, picnicking, swimming, and other beach-related uses. However, as visits continue to rise, the 

quality of the experience is likely to diminish due to crowding, unlawful and unruly visitor behavior, 

and litter and human waste. 

Table 30: Annual Economic Effects of CCP Alternatives: Wildlife Observation 

Change from Alternative A

Impacts Alternative A: No 

Action

Alternative B: 

Wildlife Focus

Alternative C: 

Public Use Focus

Alternative D: 

Wildlife and 

Integrated Public 

Use Focus

AlternativeE: 

Modified 

Wildlife and 

Integrated Public 

Use Focus

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Visitors 307,013 +0 +61,403 +61,403 +61,403

Expenditures $4,063,292 +0 +$812,658 +$812,658 +$812,658

Economic Output $4,968,614 +0 +$993,723 +$993,723 +$993,723

Jobs 68 +0 +14 +14 +14

Job Income $1,071,484 +0 +$214,297 +$214,297 +$214,297

Federal and State 

Taxes

 $522,657 +0 +$104,531 +$104,531 +$104,531

Table 31: Annual Economic Effects of CCP Alternatives: Recreational Boating, Camping and

other Beach-related Uses

Change from Alternative A

Impact Alternative A: No 

Action

Alternative B: 

Wildlife Focus

Alternative C: 

Public Use Focus

Alternative D: 

Wildlife and 

Integrated Public 

Use Focus

Alternative E: 

Modified 

Wildlife and 

Integrated Public 

Use Focus 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Visitors 1,362,851 - 203,065 +2,044 +2,044 +2,044

Expenditures $34,673,216 - $5,166,309 +$52,010 +$52,010 +$52,010

Economic Output $42,266,199 - $6,297,664 +$63,400 +$63,400 +$63,400

Jobs 535 - 80 +1 + 1 + 1

Job Income $9,044,582 - $1,347,643 +$213,567 +$213,567 +$213,567

Federal and State 

Taxes

 $4,558,847 - $679,268 +$6,838 +$6,838 +$6,838
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

333

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

Under this alternative, visits for recreational boating, camping and other beach-related uses could 

decline by an estimated 15 percent as managers follow a “closed-unless-open” policy on Refuge 

shoreline and beach areas. Visitors would find fewer areas open to camping under this alternative as 

managers more assertively protect wildlife and habitat values of shorelines, beaches, islands, and 

backwaters. Space restrictions, and to a lesser degree the lack of beach maintenance (shaping and 

sand replenishment) would force visitors into less area and perhaps lead to more crowding. New 

regulations dealing with human waste would help improve the camping and beach use experience. 

Also, tighter regulations on the use of alcohol would help lessen the amount of unlawful and unruly 

behavior and improve the recreation experience for many users. 

Recreation would be prohibited in waterfowl hunting closed areas and some visitors will find this 

change annoying and disruptive to long-standing boating routes or general fall boating, sailing, or 

canoeing and kayaking. However, this restriction would be in the fall when boating and other water 

and beach-related recreation is low. Visits for silent watercraft recreation (canoes and kayaks) would 

increase an estimated 10 percent with the creation of many electric motor only areas. Some users of 

power watercraft, on the other hand, will find these areas a nuisance and a reduction in area open to 

their traditional mode of sport and transportation. However, the electric motor only areas represent 

less than 15 percent of the surface water area of the Refuge so ample area would remain for the use 

of combustion engine-powered watercraft. 

More frequent pool drawdowns to improve habitat would have a periodic and seasonal (summer) 

impact on recreational boating access and travel corridors, although the main channel of the river 

would remain deep enough for unrestricted travel. Drawdowns would also expose additional sandbar 

and beach areas for recreational use. The addition of slow, no-wake zones would slow travel times on 

a few access corridors, but this should have no impact on overall recreational boating. 

Changes in areas open to certain uses and new regulations are likely to disrupt long-standing visitor 

expectations and practices and cause short-term confusion and frustration when visitors see area 

restrictions and new regulations. This disruption will be mitigated to some degree by information 

and education and lead time for implementation. Overall, this alternative will have a negative 

economic impact commensurate with the expected reduction in visitors engaged in recreational 

boating and beach-related recreation. This impact is summarized in Table 31. 

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Under this alternative, areas currently open to recreational boating, camping and other beachrelated recreation would remain unchanged and visits would continue to increase based on past use 

data and trends. New boat access points would facilitate visits to some areas of the Refuge. New 

regulations dealing with human waste would help improve the camping and beach use experience. 

Also, tighter regulations on the use of alcohol would help lessen the amount of unlawful and unruly 

behavior and improve the recreation experience for many users. The requirement of a for-fee 

Recreation Use Permit for visitors who camp, anchor, moor, or beach watercraft on Refuge lands 

would help improve maintenance of areas and public safety through increased law enforcement 

patrols. This would in turn improve the quality of the experience for many users. However, many 

visitors, accustomed to free use of the Refuge, may resent the user fee. The fee is not expected to 

alter recreational use or visits to an appreciable degree.

Visits for silent watercraft recreation (canoes and kayaks) would increase an estimated 15 percent 

with the creation of 15 electric motor only areas. These areas would also be open to primitive 

camping and appeal to a certain segment of the public seeking an alternative river backwater 

experience. Like Alternative B, some users of power watercraft, on the other hand, will find these 

areas a nuisance and a reduction in area open to their traditional mode of sport and transportation. 

However, the electric motor only areas in this alternative represent less than 10 percent of the 

surface water of the Refuge, so ample area would remain for the use of engine-powered watercraft. 

Impacts from pool drawdowns and slow, no wake zones would be similar to Alternative B.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

334

Like Alternative B, changes in areas open to certain uses and new regulations are likely to disrupt 

long-standing visitor expectations and practices and cause short-term confusion and frustration 

when visitors see area restrictions and new regulations. This disruption will be mitigated to some 

degree by information and education and lead time for implementation. This alternative would result 

in a modest increase in economic activity and impact as reflected in Table 31 (Caudill, 2004a). 

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Under this alternative, visits for recreational boating, camping and other beach-related uses would 

remain about the same even though managers may restrict use on certain beach areas under an 

“open-unless-closed” policy. The number of restricted or closed shorelines or islands is expected to 

be small, and given the size of the Refuge, visitors should continue to have ample open areas. Visitors 

would find fewer areas open to camping under this alternative as backwaters, except in electric 

motor only areas, would be closed to camping. However, this should have little impact since a vast 

majority of camping occurs adjacent to the main river channel. New boat access points would 

facilitate visits to some areas of the Refuge. New regulations dealing with human waste and a clear 

beach maintenance policy would help improve the camping and beach use experience. Also, tighter 

regulations on the use of alcohol would help lessen the amount of unlawful and unruly behavior and 

improve the recreation experience for many users. 

Visits for silent watercraft recreation (canoes and kayaks) would increase an estimated 15 percent 

with impacts similar to Alternative C. Impacts from pool drawdowns and slow, no wake zones would 

be similar to Alternatives C and B. 

Like Alternatives C and B, changes in areas open to certain uses and new regulations are likely to 

disrupt long-standing visitor expectations and practices and cause short-term confusion and 

frustration when visitors see area restrictions and new regulations. This disruption will be mitigated 

to some degree by information and education and lead time for implementation. This alternative 

would result in a modest increase in economic activity and impact as reflected in Table 31. 

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Under this alternative, visits for recreational boating, camping and other beach-related uses would 

remain about the same even though managers may restrict use on certain beach areas should bona 

fide wildlife needs or public safety dictate a restriction. The number of restricted or closed shorelines 

or islands is expected to be small, and given the size of the Refuge, visitors should continue to have 

ample open areas. New boat access points would facilitate visits to some areas of the Refuge. New 

regulations dealing with human waste, a ban on food and beverage glass containers, and a clear 

beach maintenance policy would help improve the camping and beach use experience. Also, better 

information and education on existing alcohol regulations would help lessen the amount of unlawful 

and unruly behavior and improve the recreation experience for many users. 

Visits for silent watercraft recreation (canoes and kayaks) would increase an estimated 15 percent 

with the creation of four new electric motor areas and eight slow, no wake areas. Some users of 

power watercraft, on the other hand, will find these areas a nuisance and a reduction in area open to 

their traditional mode of sport and transportation. However, the electric motor areas in this 

alternative represent less than 2 percent of the surface water of the Refuge, and the slow, no wake 

areas less than 7 percent, so ample area would remain for the unrestricted use of engine-powered 

watercraft. In addition, implementation of two slow, no wake areas is delayed for one to three years, 

which would provide additional time for the public to become accustomed to the changes. Impacts 

from pool drawdowns and slow, no wake zones would be similar to Alternative B.

Like Alternatives C through D, changes in areas open to certain uses and new regulations are likely 

to disrupt long-standing visitor expectations and practices and cause short-term confusion and 

frustration when visitors see area restrictions and new regulations. This disruption will be mitigated 

to some degree by information and education and lead time for implementation. This alternative 

would result in a modest increase in economic activity and impact similar to Alternatives C and D as 

reflected in Table 31.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

335

4.5.9 Commercial Guiding and Tours

Alternative A – No Action

Guiding activities would continue and likely increase above the current estimated 15 guides 

operating on the Refuge. Since accurate information on guiding is not available due to inconsistent 

administration by the Refuge, the number of clients and economic impact is unknown. There would 

continue to be some conflict with the general public in some areas as guides and clients compete for 

the same space and resource. 

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

Under this alternative guiding would be eliminated on the Refuge. This would result in significant 

economic loss for guides and could result in a small decline in the number of visitors to the Refuge. 

The extent of these impacts is unknown due to incomplete data on guide activities. Any conflicts 

between guides, clients, and the general public would be eliminated under this alternative.

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative A except that consistent Refuge policy and procedures for issuing permits, 

along with anticipated time and space restraints, would reduce conflicts with the general public and 

between guides. Some existing guides may not be able to meet permit requirements and lose the 

opportunity to guide on the Refuge. 

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative C. 

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative C.

4.5.10 Refuge Access

Alternative A – No Action

Under this alternative, access to the Refuge from Refuge-administered accesses would remain the 

same. Since there are 221 boat landings and various other canoe, walk-in, and informal accesses to 

the river in and around the Refuge, this alternative will have no impact on overall public access to the 

Refuge. 

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

Same as Alternative A except the implementation of a self-service boat launch fee at Refugeadministered boat landings would improve access maintenance. This fee could result in a modest 

decline in the use of Refuge boat landings.

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Under this alternative, seven new and one improved accesses would improve access to the Refuge in 

certain areas and foster a variety of wildlife-dependent public uses. A boat launch fee would have the 

same impacts as in Alternative B.

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as C except there would be two fewer canoe landing with a commensurate impact to access 

opportunity. 

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative C except one new walk-in access with commensurate impact to access 

opportunity and there would be no boat ramp fee for Refuge-administered ramps, so current and 

future use levels at these ramps should not change.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

336

4.5.11 Control of Dogs and Other Domestic Animals

Alternative A – No Action

Current, restrictive dog and other domestic animal regulations (must be confined except for dogs 

during hunting season) would continue to cause confusion and lack of compliance. The public would 

continue to allow dogs to run free on islands, beaches, and at public access points and owners would 

be at risk of citation at a Refuge Officer’s discretion. Disturbance to wildlife and other visitors would 

continue at levels related to the effort given to enforcement of the regulation. 

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

This alternative would clarify the domestic animal regulation. The regulation change would likely be 

viewed negatively by many dog owners who have become accustomed to using the Refuge for 

training or letting their animals run free. There will also be some short-term confusion with a new 

regulation, but this will be mitigated by information, education, and lead time for implementation. 

Disturbance to wildlife and other visitors would decline.

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Under this alternative, public acceptance may be greater due to a more liberal regulation which does 

not require dogs to be constrained, only controlled. This regulation change would likely be viewed 

positively by many dog owners, especially those who have become accustomed to using the Refuge 

for training or letting their animals run free. Disturbance to wildlife and the public would stay the 

same on most areas of the Refuge, but decrease at public access areas and trails. However, 

enforcement of the regulation would pose a difficulty for Refuge Officers due to different 

interpretations of control, proximity, and other terms, negating some of the decrease in disturbance.

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Under this alternative, public acceptance will be mixed. Some will view the new regulation as more 

restrictive than current practice, while others will view it as more liberal. Disturbance to wildlife and 

the public would decrease throughout the Refuge, but particularly at public accesses and other 

facilities. Seasonal restrictions on allowing dogs to be free will provide protection to wildlife during 

the critical nesting and/or rearing season. Enforcement of the regulation and understanding by the 

public would improve due to clear and specific regulation language. 

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative D, although changes in language of the regulation will improve public 

understanding and compliance. 

4.5.12 Property Taxes

For complete data excerpted in this section, refer to James Caudill’s report “Impact of Management 

Alternatives on Local Tax Revenue, Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge” 

dated April, 2004. The report is available at Refuge headquarters in Winona, or is available on-line at 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/uppermiss/index.html. 

Alternative A – No Action

Under this alternative the rate of land acquisition would remain the same. The Refuge would acquire 

around 200 acres a year, or 3,000 acres by 2020. Total revenue sharing payments made by the Service 

to the counties are estimated to increase from $90,000 in 2003 to $297,000 in 2020. The estimated 

annual tax revenue loss from acquired acres in 2020 is $68,000. This loss in tax revenue will be 

mitigated to varying degrees by rate of acquisition over a number of years, acquisition over a broad 

landscape encompassing several states and many counties, increases in other tax revenues from 

Refuge operations and recreation expenditures, and predicted increase in property values, and thus 

assessed values, adjacent to Refuge lands (see Section 4.2.5 of this chapter). 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

337

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

Under this alternative the rate of land acquisition would increase to 1,000 acres a year, or 15,000 

acres by 2020. Total revenue sharing payments are estimated to increase from $90,000 in 2003 to 

$320,000 in 2020. The estimated annual tax revenue loss from acquired acres in 2020 is $340,000. Like 

Alternative A, this loss in tax revenue will be mitigated to varying degrees by rate of acquisition over 

a number of years, acquisition over a broad landscape encompassing several states and many 

counties, increases in other tax revenues from Refuge operations and recreation expenditures, and 

predicted increase in property values, and thus assessed values, adjacent to Refuge lands (see 

Section 4.2.5 of this chapter). 

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B,

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B.

4.5.13 Refuge Administration and Operations

Alternative A – No Action

Under this alternative, the overall annual Refuge budget is expected to increase in accordance with 

inflation adjustments, but Refuge staffing levels would remain the same as current, or 37 full-time 

employees. With levels of public use and interest continuing to rise, meeting the information needs of 

the public will likely fall short of public expectation in terms of personal contact, programs, leaflets, 

and media work. Coordination with the various state and federals agencies and non-government 

organizations will continue at the current level, resulting in gaps in Refuge presence on such issues 

as forestry, fisheries, and biological monitoring.

Refuge offices and maintenance facilities would remain the same, and inadequate in terms of public 

accessibility, information, and programs, and in terms of employee productivity and recruitment. 

Some offices will continue to have unresolved structural safety issues, while inadequate maintenance 

and storage will continue to negatively affect efficiency of field operations and condition of heavy 

equipment and vehicles.

Annual salary and operations expenditures will continue to have a positive economic impact, with 

current economic output estimated at $8.3 million (see Caudill, 2004).

Alternative B – Wildlife Focus

Under this alternative, the overall annual Refuge budget would increase substantially, mainly due to 

increases in staffing to an eventual 54.5 full-time equivalents. This increase in staffing would 

dramatically increase biological monitoring, soundness of decisions, and direct habitat work. 

Personal service to the public and coordination with the various state and federals agencies and nongovernment organizations would increase markedly, especially in terms of habitat and biological 

programs which would be the priority under this alternative. 

Refuge offices would remain the same, with most inadequate in terms of public accessibility, 

information, and programs, and in terms of employee productivity and recruitment. Maintenance 

and storage facilities would be replaced, improving the efficiency of field operations and maintaining 

heavy equipment and vehicles in better condition.

Annual salary and operations expenditures will result in an increased positive economic impact 

commensurate with increases. Staff salary expenditures alone could increase approximately 40 

percent by the end of the planning period in 2015, resulting in a similar economic output increase.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

338

Alternative C – Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B, except that a priority on filling visitor services-related staff and the 

construction of new offices and a major new visitor center would dramatically increase public 

accessibility, information, and programs. 

Alternative D – Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B, except that construction of new offices (no major visitor center) would 

increase public accessibility, information, and programs, and improve employee productivity and 

recruitment. In addition, staffing would increase to an eventual 56.5 full-time equivalents.

Alternative E – Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative D, although staffing would increase to an eventual 60.5 full-time equivalents 

(four new law enforcement officers). This increased law enforcement capability would lead to 

improved public safety, increased compliance with Refuge regulations which should enhance the 

experience for the visiting public, and increased public contact which will positively affect public 

knowledge and appreciation for the Refuge. 

4.6 Cumulative Impacts

4.6.1 Cumulative Impacts – Physical Environment

Alternatives B, C, D, E, and to a lesser extent A, call for increased attention to habitat restoration 

and/or enhancement projects, floodplain and adjacent land acquisition, and improvement in water 

quality in terms of both chemistry and reduced sediment. Collectively and over time, these actions 

will improve the ability of the river environment to process nutrients and store carbon, and along 

with other basin-wide regulations and initiatives, contribute to the improvement of hypoxia in the 

Gulf of Mexico. Physical changes through projects will restore islands, deflect sediment from 

backwaters, and deepen sediment-filled channels, resulting in a more diverse and dynamic river 

geomorphology. These changes will help reverse a trend to more-or-less static geomorphology, a 

trend which started when the locks and dams went into operation in the 1930s. Work on the river 

within the Refuge also influences work on the river upstream and downstream of the Refuge, and 

thus can have a larger cumulative effect on the physical environment. 

Although rates and amounts of sediment entering the Refuge may be reduced over time, none of the 

alternatives will adequately address the movement of sediments to the mouth of the Mississippi. 

Thus, the actions in the alternatives will not cumulatively improve the continued deficit of sediment 

on the Mississippi River delta.

All alternatives, to slightly varying degrees, emphasize maintaining the integrity of the Refuge 

boundary and conserving the scenic beauty. Given the size and length of the Refuge, actions taken in 

the alternatives to ensure long-term forest health, acquire floodplain and bulfflands, and reduce 

encroachment, will serve as a model for land use planning and zoning adjacent to the Refuge. In 

addition, when actions on the Refuge are combined with actions of the states, non-profit 

organizations, and private landowners, there can be measurable progress in stemming the rate or 

type of development which detracts from the scenic beauty of the Upper Mississippi River Valley.

4.6.2 Cumulative Impacts – Biological Environment

Although the degree of habitat quantity and quality improvement is different under the alternatives, 

all should continue to improve fish and wildlife habitat, and thus populations. For some species or 

species-groups which have limited habitat options elsewhere (for example mussels and paddlefish), 

this improvement will be important to their overall populations and genetic diversity. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

339

For migratory birds, the Refuge may likely grow in importance due to its size and scope. Reduced 

habitat for migrating waterfowl in the Midwest, for example, has made the Refuge a critically 

important stop for large portions of the continent’s Canvasback and Tundra Swans. In this regard, 

alternatives A and C, with virtually unchanged Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, may not meet the 

future needs of these birds should feeding habitat in existing closed areas decline. It is unknown 

whether these birds would find adequate mid-migration habitat elsewhere, and alternatives A and C 

could have very negative cumulative impacts on these continental populations. On the other hand, 

alternatives B, D, and E create new and more attractive closed areas which would provide insurance 

for these birds in the event of feeding habitat collapses in any given pool.

Habitat improvements under the alternatives should also benefit rare and declining species, and 

species listed as threatened or endangered. Along with conservation actions for these species on 

other public and private lands, the Refuge actions across all alternatives, but especially B, D, and E, 

will have a positive cumulative impact. For example, the Refuge has 167 nesting pair of Bald Eagles, 

and provides winter habitat for a peak population of 1,000 eagles, with a trend that continues 

upward. Thus, the Refuge can positively contribute to the case for delisting the Bald Eagle. For 

some species, the Refuge may provide an important reservoir for population expansion on suitable 

habitat off-refuge that may become available in the future. On the other hand, maintaining habitat 

quality and quantity could prove important in expansion or recovery of species. An example would be 

the endangered Whooping Crane. Although population restoration efforts were started elsewhere, 

some birds are now using the Refuge and may in the future breed, thus adding to wild populations 

and eventual recovery.

Alternatives A and C provide no increase in the control of invasive plants and animals, and 

infestations are expected to continue to increase. This will not only affect habitat and other species 

on the Refuge, but could speed the spread of invasives to previously un-infested areas off-Refuge. On 

the other hand, Alternative B, D, and E stress more aggressive action which could help keep 

invasives in check beyond the Refuge.

Alternatives B, D, and E also have a strong, biological monitoring component, with increases in 

species and habitats surveyed, research, and coordination with others. This increased information 

will not only aid decision making that benefits fish and wildlife on the Refuge, but adds to the body of 

knowledge collected by other agencies which can affect resource decision-making over a broader 

landscape. 

4.6.3 Cumulative Impacts – Socioeconomic Environment

A variety of objectives in Alternatives B through E will have varying degrees of impact on 

recreational use of the Refuge. Earlier sections detailed specific impacts on individual uses such as 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and general recreation. Cumulatively, each alternative has a 

different economic impact since it affects the level of public use. Table 32 summarizes this cumulative 

impact by alternative. 

Each alternative takes a different approach to managing the variety of recreational uses that occur 

on the Refuge, ranging from status quo (Alternative A) to an integrated approach (Alternatives D 

and E which seeks to conserve wildlife and habitat while providing a diversity of recreational 

opportunities for a broad cross-section of visitors). These varying alternatives will have cumulative 

impacts given that demand for nearly all recreation is expected to grow while the amount of Refuge 

space and natural resources is relatively finite. 

In Alternative A, current uses would continue without much change. Eventually, the level and means 

of use would change the nature of the experience for many visitors, and many would choose to either 

forgo certain recreation due to crowding or behavior issues, or go elsewhere. Given that the Refuge 

provides opportunity for 3.7 million visitors, this shift could put additional strains on other public 

lands and have a negative local and regional economic effect, or diminish the Refuge’s contribution to 

the Refuge System mission of providing fish and wildlife for the benefit of the American people as a 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

340

whole. Alternative B might have the same effect by being perceived as too restrictive in terms of 

recreation, and Alternative C might have the same effect for reasons similar to Alternative A. 

Alternative D, and to an even greater extent Alternative E, attempt to strike that reasonable 

balance to ensure that the Refuge remains a destination of choice for both wildlife and people. If 

successful, this integrated approach may prove more sustainable and have positive, long-term 

natural resource, social, and economic impacts both on the Refuge and beyond.

Alternatives B through E also involve an approximate 50 percent increase in the Refuge’s base 

operations and maintenance budget over the next 15 years, plus additional maintenance and 

construction funding for new facilities. Although budgets are impossible to predict, this increase 

could impact operations funding at other refuges and wetland management districts in the Region if 

it came from existing allocations. This would result in delaying or forgoing habitat and facility 

improvements and other work at these stations, although the change would be small at any 

particular station. 

Working relationships with the states, Corps of Engineers and others should improve in terms of 

responsiveness to inquiries and speed of joint projects under Alternatives B, D, and E, and to a 

lesser extent under Alternative C. This improvement would be mainly the result of increased 

staffing in key areas such as biology, fisheries, forestry, and in Alternative E, law enforcement. Since 

the Mississippi River and the Refuge is multi-jurisdictional in many aspects, more effective 

coordination will have wide-ranging positive impacts on fish and wildlife and public use programs 

and opportunities. Many programs such as the Environmental Management Program and pool-wide 

drawdowns involve new approaches and techniques which have application elsewhere, and can have 

a positive cumulative effect on how agencies work with large river systems.

Overall coordination and communication with the general public should improve under Alternatives 

C, D, and E due to new staff positions dealing with public use and public information. Since some 

may oppose changes in one or more of the alternatives, or likewise support them, the cumulative 

impact on public perception of the Refuge and the Fish and Wildlife Service could be negative or 

positive. More emphasis on public education and information in Alternatives C, D, and E should 

foster more understanding and appreciation of resource issues and needs, and could lead to 

increased political support and funding which could positively affect fish and wildlife resources on 

the Refuge and the Mississippi River as a whole. Increased outreach of these alternatives could also 

positively impact land use decisions outside of the Refuge by local governments and private 

landowners, and thus lead to increased fish and wildlife populations over a broader area.

Table 32: Summary of Annual Economic Effects of CCP Alternatives on Recreational Use

Change from Alternative A

Impacts Alternative A: No 

Action

Alternative B: 

Wildlife Focus

Alternative C: 

Public Use Focus

Alternative D: 

Wildlife and 

Integrated Public 

Use Focus

Alternative E: 

ModifiedWildlife 

and Integrated 

Public Use Focus 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Visitors 3,168,483 - 237,399 +224,383 +150,505 +150,505

Expenditures $73,516,829 - $6,124,727 +$4,602,899 +$2,863,884 +$2,863,884

Economic Output $89,883,127 - $7,466,291 +$5,643,217 +$3,510,802 +$3,510,802

Jobs 1,173 - 95 +76 +48 +48

Job Income $19,688,796 - $1,608,265 +$1,457,809 +$979,172 +$979,172

Federal and State 

Taxes

$9,655,675 - $804,600 $603,214 $374,519 $374,519
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

341

4.7 Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources

Across all alternatives, habitat restoration and protection actions represent a sizeable investment 

estimated at $150 million over the 15-year life of the CCP. Since many of these actions involve the 

construction of features in the floodplain (islands, shoreline protection, dredging, fish passage 

structures, deflection of flows, etc.) it is improbable that these actions could or would be reversed 

once completed. Likewise, Service investment in the acquisition of land to complete the Refuge, 

estimated at $1.5 million per year in Alternatives B through E, is considered an irretrievable and 

irreversible commitment.

Alternatives B through E also call for different levels of investment in new office and maintenance 

shop facilities, totaling $13.5 million in Alternative E. Although not irreversible, this construction is 

considered a long-term investment given the 50-year life span associated with structures. This cost 

is off-set to some degree by current annual lease payments for offices at Winona and La Crosse, 

payments which would continue under the no action alternative. Similarly, the foot print of new 

buildings and associated parking and utilities would represent a corresponding loss of habitat during 

the useful life of the facilities. This loss of habitat is usually off-set by site development plans which 

enhance habitat on lands surrounding the buildings and facilities.

A variety of public use facilities are called for in varying numbers and locations in each alternative. 

These facilities include hiking trails, canoe trails, overlooks, and kiosks. Funding to construct these 

facilities would be irretrievable once spent. However, given the size and investment level for these 

facilities, the habitat displacement is not considered an irreversible or irretrievable use of resources 

since removal and site restoration is very feasible.

4.8 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

Habitat protection and restoration actions across all alternatives often entail short-term negative 

impacts to ensure long-term productivity of the Refuge. Construction of islands, dredging to 

increase water depths for fish, construction of flow deflection structures, and construction of dikes 

for moist soil units all entail intense disturbance to fish, wildlife, and plants, and increased water 

turbidity and disruption of public uses. However, these impacts are site-specific and relatively short 

duration, more than offset by increasing the long-term productivity of the sites and surrounding 

plant and animal communities. Given the altered nature of the floodplain within the Refuge due to 

locks and dams and other development, it is unlikely that the long-term productivity of the Refuge 

can be sustained in many areas without such short-term uses and impacts.

Many of the cyclic management actions in the alternatives, namely pool drawdowns, prescribed 

burning, invasive plant and animal control, and forest management, can have dramatic short-term 

impacts. These impacts include the direct mortality of some plants and animals, displacement of 

species, and cessation of certain types of public use. However, these short-term impacts are 

generally offset by near-term and long-term benefits of these practices, practices that often mimic 

the natural and thus sustainable processes necessary for long-term habitat health. Many of these 

long-term benefits were described in more detail earlier in this chapter under the applicable 

parameters or concerns.

As discussed earlier in Section 4.6.3 (cumulative impacts), the short-term disruption in current 

means, locations, and timing of public uses inherent in Alternatives B through E, should, in the longterm, help sustain the greatest diversity of opportunity for the greatest number of people. Also, 

diversity of opportunity for public use should provide the best long-term positive economic impact to 

local communities. This mirrors the widely accepted premise that maintaining diversity in natural 

systems helps ensure the long-term resiliency of these systems.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

342

4.9 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

As noted above, many of the habitat and facility construction projects in the alternatives have a 

certain level of unavoidable adverse effects, especially during the actual construction. These effects 

are mitigated to some degree by the use of practices and precautions that safeguard water quality, 

avoid sensitive or irreplaceable habitats, or time actions or include features to avoid or minimize 

impacts to fish and wildlife. Adverse effects are generally short-term and more than offset by the 

long-term gains in habitat quality and resulting fish, wildlife, and plant productivity. Some projects 

may have an adverse impact on cultural resources. The process for dealing with these impacts on a 

case-by-case basis is discussed in Section 4.2.2 (cultural and historical preservation).

Some existing habitat types on the Refuge will be adversely affected. For example, there will be a 

loss of open water habitat on portions of many of the navigation pools within the Refuge as new 

islands are constructed or remnant islands restored. Also, pool-wide drawdowns will increase 

emergent aquatic vegetation such as bulrush and cattail, converting many areas to marsh habitat 

versus open water. Forest habitat is also likely to undergo change in species composition and 

structure as the more-or-less even-aged monotypic silver maple forest is converted over time to a 

more diverse forest. Some forested areas may be converted to grassland, while some grassland areas 

may be converted to forest depending on the outcome of more site-specific planning. All of these 

unavoidable adverse effects will be relatively local in nature and more than offset by the long-term 

diversity and ecological health of the broader landscape. 

Land acquisition entails an unavoidable impact to local units of government due to the loss of tax 

revenue as lands transition from private to public ownership. This unavoidable effect, along with 

mitigation measures, is discussed more fully in Section 4.5.12 (property taxes). 

All alternatives, to varying degree, will have adverse impacts to a certain segment of the public that 

does not desire change to current public use programs and regulations, or that may have differing 

views on the course of action to be taken. Some visitors will see a loss of opportunity in terms of time 

and space restraints for certain uses such as boating, fishing, and hunting, or means of use restraints 

by limiting types of watercraft in certain areas. These impacts to individuals or groups are 

unavoidable given the diversity and number of publics, conflicts between and within user groups due 

to technology preferences, continued increase in use numbers, and relatively finite nature of land 

and waters available on the Refuge for public recreation. Alternative E, the preferred alternative, 

represents the most balanced alternative in terms of minimizing and mitigating these adverse 

impacts to citizens and reflects the substantial public involvement and input of the planning process.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

343

Table 33: Summary of Alternative Impacts 

Parameter1 Alternative A: 

No Action

Alternative B 

Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C: 

Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D: 

Wildlife and 

Integrated 

Public Use

Alternative E: 

Modified 

Wildlife and 

Integrated 

Public Use 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Physical

Water Quality 3 4 3 4 4

Sedimentation 3 4 4 4 4

Geomorphology 3 4 3 4 4

Hydrology and Water Level 

Management

34344

Landscape Considerations 2 4 3 5 5

Biological

Threatened and Endangered 

Species

34244

Waterfowl 2 4 2 4 4

Other Migratory Birds 2 4 2 4 4

Sport Fish 4 5 4 5 5

Other Fish 2 4 3 4 4

Freshwater Mussels 2 4 2 4 4

Reptiles and Amphibians 34244

Control of Invasive Species 1 4 1 4 4

Invertebrates 3 4 3 4 4

Mammals 3 4 3 4 4

Aquatic Vegetation/ Wetlands 3 4 3 4 4

Floodplain Forest 2 4 2 4 4

Terrestrial Habitat/ Grasslands 3 4 3 4 4

Socioeconomic

Hunting 3 3 4 4 4

Fishing 3 3 4 4 4

Fishing Tournaments 5 3 4 3 3

Commercial Fishing 4 2 4 2 4

Fishing Floats 3 1 4 3 4
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

344

Interpretation and 

Environmental Education

32544

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography

32544

Recreational Boating, Camping, 

and Other Beach-Related Uses

51444

Commercial Guiding and Tours 3 1 2 2 2

Refuge Access 3 3 4 4 4

Control of Dogs and Other 

Domestic Animals

32544

Property Taxes 3 2 2 2 2

Refuge Administration and 

Operations

14455

Cumulative

Cumulative Impacts 2 4 3 4 4

1. The scale for summarizing impacts by parameters is as folows: 1 = Most Negative; 3= Neutral or No Impact; and 5 = Most Positive.

Table 33: Summary of Alternative Impacts 

Parameter1 Alternative A: 

No Action

Alternative B 

Wildlife 

Focus

Alternative C: 

Public Use 

Focus

Alternative D: 

Wildlife and 

Integrated 

Public Use

Alternative E: 

Modified 

Wildlife and 

Integrated 

Public Use 

(Preferred 

Alternative)
Chapter 5: List of Preparers

345

Chapter 5: List of Preparers

Name Title/Contribution Degrees/Other Related Experience Years 

With 

FWS

Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Staff, Region 3

Donald Hultman Complex Manager. Writer, 

Direct Planning Effort, 

Public Meetings

M.A., Univ. of Minnesota, Mpls./ 

St. Paul, Env. Educ.; B.S., Univ. of 

Minnesota, Communications/Wildlife.

Other: Wyoming Game and Fish Dept., 

1 yr.

26

Eric Nelson Refuge Biologist.

Writer; Refuge Planner, 

Public Meetings

M.S. and B.S., Univ. Wisconsin, Stevens 

Point, Natural Resources, Wildlife. 

Other: Bureau of Land Management, 2 

yrs.

26

Cynthia Samples Refuge Ranger. 

Writer, Visitor Services

B.S., Western Illinois University, 

Macomb, Recreation and Park 

Administration. Other: Corps of 

Engineers, 20 yrs.

6

Arthur “Tex” 

Hawkins

Watershed Biologist.

Writer, Private Lands

B.S., Univ. of Minnesota, Mpls./ 

St. Paul, Wildlife; B.A. Mass 

Communications. Other: MN DNR, 6 

yrs.; AID/Peace Corps (Costa Rica), 5 

yrs.

29

Sharonne Baylor Environmental Engineer. 

Writer, Habitat Projects

B.S., Univ. of Wisconsin, Platteville, 

Civil Engineering. Other: Corps of 

Engineers – St. Paul District, 12 yrs.

3

Brian Stemper Biological Technician.

GIS Cartographer

B.S., South Dakota State Univ., Wildlife 

& Fisheries Mgmt. Other: Corps of 

Engineers, 2 yrs.

7

Victoria 

Hirschboeck

Refuge Biologist.

Writer, Biology

M.S., Univ. of Montana, Missoula, 

Wildlife Biology; B.S., Biology and 

B.F.A., Univ. of Michigan, 

Ann Arbor.

16
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

346

Ed Britton Savanna District 

Manager.

Develop Alternatives, 

Public Meetings 

B.S., Southern Illinois Univ., 

Carbondale, Zoology.

27

Robert Drieslein Winona District Manager. 

(Retired)

Develop Alternatives, 

Public Meetings

M.S., South Dakota State Univ., 

Brookings, Wildlife Mgmt. 

B.S., Univ. of IL, Ag. Science.

34

John Lindell McGregor District 

Manager. (Retired)

Develop Alternatives, 

Public Meetings

B.A., Zoology and M.A., Vertebrate 

Ecology, Univ. of South Dakota, 

Vermillion.

34

James Nissen La Crosse District 

Manager. 

Develop Alternatives, 

Public Meetings

B.S., Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, 

Wildlife Mgmt.

28

Victoria Drieslein Administrative Officer.

Budget, Coordination

NA 19

Nan Clausen Clerk. 

Data Collection,

Document Formatting

B.A., Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 

English. Other: Corporate Technical 

Communications, 26 yrs.

2

Lee Donahue Administrative 

Technician

Archives and mailing list 

maintenance; facilitator

U.S. Army Public Affairs, 15 years 1

Division of Conservation Planning, Region 3

Thomas Larson Chief of Conservation 

Planning.

CCP Review

M.S., University of Wisconsin, Madison 

Wildlife Ecology. Other: National Park 

Service; Peace Corps

28

John Schomaker Refuge Planning 

Specialist. 

CCP Coordination

Ph.D., Colorado State Univ., Fort 

Collins. Other: USDA Forest Service, 8 

yrs.

18

Jane Hodgins Technical Writer/Editor.

Newsletter, EIS

B.A., College of St. Thomas, 

St. Paul, Journalism. Other: Senior 

Editor, Editor and Reporter, 14 yrs.

7

Jane Lardy Nelson Editorial Assistant.

Mailings

NA 17

Gabriel DeAlessio GIS Specialist/Biologist.

Cartography

B.S., Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs, 

Natural Resource Engineering & 

Mgmt. Other: Contractor, DoD, 

2.5 yrs.

6
Chapter 5: List of Preparers

347

Ecological Services, Region 3

Jeffrey Gosse Regional Environmental 

Coordinator. 

NEPA Review

Ph.D. and M.S., Utah State Univ., 

Logan; B.S., Univ. of Wisconsin, 

Madison. Other: Texas Parks and 

Wildlife, 8 mo.; Private Consulting, 

6 yrs.

18

Thomas Magnuson Biologist.

CCP Assistance

M.BA., Lake Superior State Univ.; 

B.A., Biology, Bemidji State Univ. 

Other: U.S. Peace Corps (Tunisia),

2 yrs.

18

Visitor Services & Communications, Region 3

H. John Dobrovolny Regional Historic 

Preservation Officer.

Historian

B.A., History, Sacramento State 

College, Sacramento. Other: National 

Park Svc., 14 yrs.

25

Division of Economics, Arlington, Virginia

James Caudill Senior Economist.

Economic Assessments

Ph.D., Michigan State Univ., 

Agricultural Economics; 

M.A., Agricultural Economics, 

B.A., Geography, Dominguez Hills. 

Other: U.S. Forest Service, 4 yrs.

11
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

348

Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination 

With the Public and Others

6.1 Scoping and Public Involvement

Scoping and public involvement are vital components of federal planning and were given 

considerable attention during development of this EIS/CCP. The public received our official notice of 

intent to prepare an EIS/CCP via the Federal Register, dated May 30, 2002 (Vol. 76, No. 104, page 

37852). All public meeting dates and locations, with notes from workshops, are available at Refuge 

headquarters in Winona, Minnesota or on the planning website: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/

planning/uppermiss

All public meetings were video recorded by 

Refuge staff; recordings were transferred to 

Digital Video Discs (DVDs) that are stored at 

headquarters in Winona, Minnesota. Outreach 

Plans were compiled prior to an interagency 

coordination meeting in January 2004 and before 

public release of the Draft EIS/CCP in May 

2005. These plans identified immediate issues, 

facts, communication goals, key messages, 

interested parties, and actions to be taken by 

Service personnel. Updates to the second plan 

were made throughout the remainder of the 

planning process. 

Internal Scoping. Internal scoping was 

conducted between March and June 2002, within 

each of the four Refuge districts and the 

Regional Office, with over 350 concern statements recorded. Many of these concerns were repeated 

at each setting which helped focus on the most important issues. An in-house, 1-day workshop was 

conducted at a Refuge-wide meeting in January 2004. Refuge staff discussed issues and potential 

solutions for use in EIS/CCP preparation.

Public Scoping Meetings and Workshops. Ten public scoping meetings, professionally facilitated by 

Dr. Onnie Byers and Kathy Holzer of the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, 

Minnesota, were attended by 473 citizens during August and September 2002. Citizens expressed 

495 comments in response to the question, “What concerns you most about the future of the 

Refuge?” Approximately 35 additional written comments were received as a result of those 

meetings.

Draft EIS/CCP public meeting, Upper Missississippi River 

Refuge EIS/CCP. Cindy Samples, USFWS
Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination With the Public and Others 

349

Upon completion of these public meetings, Refuge staff compiled a series of 12 “Issue Fact Sheets” 

summarizing major habitat and recreational issues identified by the public. These one-page 

documents were used as reference materials for public workshops held in Prairie du Chien, 

Wisconsin; Savanna, Illinois; Winona, Minnesota; and Onalaska, Wisconsin between January and 

March 2003. Called “Manager for a Day” workshops, citizens were invited to offer potential solutions 

to the 12 issues referred to above and any other issue they wished to address. These workshops were 

again facilitated by Dr. Byers and yielded hundreds of ideas and potential solutions from 116 citizen 

participants.

In anticipation of public concerns about waterfowl hunting and areas closed to waterfowl hunting on 

the Refuge, we conducted two special “Closed Area Informational Meetings” with the public. The 

first was in Onalaska, Wisconsin in September 2003, and the second was in Savanna, Illinois in June 

2003. Staff made presentations on the history of closed areas, human disturbance issues, and the 

bioenergetic or food needs of waterfowl. Citizens provided pros and cons of management options in 

and around closed areas. Total attendance at these meetings was 93.

Public Meetings and Workshops to Review Draft EIS/CCP, Alternatives A-D.

The Draft EIS/CCP was released for public review May 1, 2005, for a 120-day comment period 

ending August 31, 2005 (see Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register: Vol. 70, No 81, 

page 22058). The Refuge hosted 21 public meetings and workshops attended by 2,900 people. Due 

to high public interest, we announced the intent to issue a new preferred alternative following the 

comment period to reflect input received. The workshops resulted in 87 workgroup reports with 

comments or recommendations on major issues. Each report was posted on the Refuge planning 

web site. The Refuge also received 2,516 written comments including comments from the four states 

involved, the Corps of Engineers, and 40 conservation or recreation-related organizations, and 5 

petitions with more than 3,000 signatures.

Public Meetings and Open Houses to Review Preferred Alternative E.

A new preferred alternative (Alternative E) was issued as a Supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP on 

December 5, 2005 (see Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 232, page 

72462). The initial comment period was for 60 days but was extended to 90 days ending on March 6, 

2006. Nine open houses / public forums were held in January 2006 to discuss provisions of 

Alternative E with the public. A total of 888 citizens attended these meetings. The Refuge received 

714 written comments on Alternative E from citizens, clubs, organizations, legislators and state and 

federal agencies.

State and Federal Interagency Meetings. Refuge managers and biologists have worked closely with 

the departments of natural resources for Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin and the Corps of 

Engineers (St. Paul and Rock Island Districts). Throughout the planning process, Refuge personnel 

have met with State representatives approximately 35 times, in person or via conference calls. An 

official CCP Interagency Planning Team consisting of State and Corps of Engineers representatives 

was first convened in December 2001, followed by scoping meetings in May 2002, March 2003, and 

January 2004. Most representatives also participated in a Wildlife and Habitat Management Review 

of the refuge in August and October 2002.

Between January and April 2004, Refuge staff conducted briefings for state department of natural 

resource personnel from the four States and managers of the Rock Island and St. Paul Districts, 

Corps of Engineers. These briefings involved discussions of issues and management alternatives for 

the Draft EIS/CCP. 

As planning progressed, the Refuge continued to meet with the Interagency Planning Team in 

person or via conference calls in May 2005, September 2005, February 2006, and May 2006. These 

meetings provided the agencies further opportunity to exchange ideas regarding proposed 

management alternatives.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

350

The Refuge provided briefings to the Corps of Engineers and each state department of natural 

resources after releases of the Draft EIS/CCP in May 2005 and the Supplement in December 2005. 

Briefings were scheduled after public meetings (see above) in order to integrate public comments 

into the discussion. These briefings often included PowerPoint presentations of major issues, 

followed by questions and answers and discussion.

Congressional Briefings and Meetings. In late January 2004 the Refuge conducted three briefings 

for Congressional and state legislative members and staff. Meetings were held in Savanna, Illinois, 

Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, and La Crosse, Wisconsin. Attendees included one state senator from 

Minnesota and staffers for three U.S. Representatives and three U.S. Senators. In August and 

November 2005, Refuge Manager Hultman provided a briefing to the Congressional River Advisory 

Board, sponsored by Congressman Kind (WI). Meetings were also held with Congressman Kind in 

March and April of 2006. Conference calls were conducted with Congressional Staff in October 2005 

and May 2006. In October 2005, two of Senator Coleman’s (MN-R) staff visited the Refuge to 

discuss the CCP. In March 2006, Refuge Manager Hultman attended a meeting convened by 

Congressman Kind to discuss Wisconsin navigability issues. Attendees included legal counsel for 

Department of the Interior, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and Wisconsin 

Department of Justice (Attorney General). 

Other Meetings: Between 2003 and 2006, briefings and presentations were given to the Upper 

Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, Mississippi 

River Citizens Commission, Wisconsin Parkway Commission, Minnesota Audubon Society, 

Mississippi River Air Boaters Association, the La Crosse County (Wisconsin) Conservation Alliance, 

Winona Civic Association, and several other river community organizations. Topics included the 

planning process and framework, issues being addressed, and avenues for public involvement and 

comment.

Newsletters, News Releases and Executive Summaries. Three “CCP Update” newsletters dated 

August 2002, December 2002, and July 2003, were sent to approximately 2,600 citizens, 

nongovernmental organizations, media, and legislators during the scoping process. They described 

who we are, the planning process, proposed completion schedules, potential issues to be addressed in 

the Draft EIS/CCP, draft Refuge vision and goals, and times and locations of upcoming public 

meetings. Four news releases were sent to approximately 52 media outlets (newspapers, radio, and 

TV) during this scoping process. They announced our intent to complete the CCP, meetings, 

workshops and invited citizen participation.

In May 2005 the Draft EIS/CCP was released for public review and comment. At the same time, an 

Executive Summary (27 pages) was mailed to over 3,100 individuals, organizations, elected officials, 

and members of the media. It provided information on the public involvement process, Refuge 

goals, planning issues, summaries of alternatives and environmental consequences, and tables of 

project features proposed in the Plan. Several news releases were issued at the same time to 

announce the release, comment deadlines, and upcoming pubic meetings.

In December 2005, an Executive Summary of the “Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement and Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated 

Public Use” was sent to a mailing list including 2,950 addresses. This document offered information 

similar to the previous summary, with the addition of foldout maps of each Refuge pool showing 

management direction under proposed, Alternative E. As with previous executive summaries, news 

releases were issued at the same time to announce the release, comment deadlines, and upcoming 

pubic meetings.

An update of the Final Environmental Impact Plan and Comprehensive Conservation Plan will be 

sent to approximately 4,900 addressees on the current EIS/CCP mailing list.
Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination With the Public and Others 

351

General. Details of public and agency meetings are available at Refuge headquarters in Winona, 

Minnesota and on our planning website. Throughout the planning period, 2002-2006, Refuge staff 

made numerous CCP presentations to a variety of media and audiences, including radio, television, 

and print media, civic organizations, conservation groups, and other organizations. 

Refuge staff provided briefings to the Service’s Regional Office (Region 3, Twin Cities MN) in May 

2003, November 2003, February 2005, September 2005, and March 2006. Similar briefings were 

provided to the Service Director and staff and high-ranking officials of the Department of the 

Interior, in Washington, D.C. in March 2005 and April 2006.

6.2 Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation

Notification of preparation of the CCP and EIS is to be sent to the federally-recognized tribes and to 

the several county historical societies. In addition, the following listed organizations should be 

notified:

# State Historic Preservation Officer for Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin

# Office of the State Archeologist for Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin

# Governor's Liaison for Indian Affairs in Iowa

# Indian Affairs Council for Minnesota

# Archaeological and historic preservation state-wide groups

# The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

# The FWS Historic Preservation Officer

The final CCP with EIS is to be sent to each State Historic Preservation Officer and to others who 

request it.

6.3 List of Contacts

The Refuge has contacted the following agencies, organizations, and citizens regarding the CCP.

Elected Federal Officials

U.S. Senators & Representatives (18)

U.S. Senator Richard Durbin (Illinois)

U.S. Senator Barack Obama (Illinois)

U.S. Senator Charles Grassley (Iowa)

U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (Iowa)

U.S. Senator Norm Coleman (Minnesota)

U.S. Senator Mark Dayton (Minnesota)

U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (Wisconsin)

U.S. Senator Herb Kohl (Wisconsin)

U.S. Representative Melissa Bean (Illinois)
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

352

U.S. Representative Lane Evans (Illinois)

U.S. Representative Dennis Hastert (Illinois)

U.S. Representative Donald Manzullo (Illinois)

U.S. Representative Tom Latham (Iowa)

U.S. Representative Jim Nussle (Iowa)

U.S. Representative Gil Gutknecht (Minnesota)

U.S. Representative Mark Kennedy (Minnesota)

U.S. Representative Mark Green (Wisconsin)

U.S. Representative Ron Kind (Wisconsin)

Elected State Officials (36)

State Senator Denny Jacobs (Illinois)

State Senator Todd Sieben (Illinois)

State Senator Mike Connolly (Iowa) 

State Senator E.T. Gaskill (Iowa)

State Senator Kitty Rehberg (Iowa)

State Senator Julie Hosch (Iowa)

State Senator Bryan Sievers (Iowa)

State Senator Roger Stewart (Iowa)

State Senator Mark Zieman (Iowa)

State Senator Bob Kierlin (Minnesota)

State Senator Steve Murphy (Minnesota)

State Senator Ron Brown (Wisconsin)

State Senator Dan Kapanke (Wisconsin)

State Senator Mark Meyer (Wisconsin)

State Senator Dale Schultz (Wisconsin)

State Representative Mike Boland (Illinois)

State Representative Jim Sacia (Illinois)

State Representative Patrick Verschoore (Illinois)

State Representative Polly Bukta (Iowa)

State Representative Chuck Gipp (Iowa )

State Representative Pam Jochum (Iowa )

State Representative Steven Lukan (Iowa )

State Representative Pat Murphy (Iowa)

State Representative Steven Olson (Iowa)

State Representative Bob Osterhaus (Iowa)
Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination With the Public and Others 

353

State Representative Roger Thomas (Iowa)

State Representative Gregory Davids (Minnesota)

State Representative Jerry Dempsey (Minnesota)

State Representative Gene Pelowski (Minnesota)

State Representative Steve Sviggum (Minnesota)

State Representative Barbara Gronemus (Wisconsin)

State Representative Mike Huebsch (Wisconsin)

State Representative DuWayne Johnsrud (Wisconsin)

State Representative Gabe Loeffelholz (Wisconsin)

State Representative Lee Nerison (Wisconsin)

State Representative Jennifer Shilling (Wisconsin)

Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager (Wisconsin)

Federal Agencies (8)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Coast Guard

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service

U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Department of Transportation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Forest Service

Native American Tribes (35)

Bad River Band, Chippewa

Boise Forte Band, Chippewa

Fond du Lac Band, Chippewa

Grand Portage Band, Chippewa

Lac Courte Oreilles Band, Chippewa

Lac du Flambeau, Chippewa

Leech Lake Band, Chippewa

Mille Lacs Band, Chippewa

Red Cliff Band, Chippewa

Red Lake Band, Chippewa

Sandy Lake Band, Chippewa

Sokaogon Chippewa
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

354

Devils Lake (Spirit Lake) Sioux

Flandreau Santee Sioux

Lower Brule Sioux

Lower Sioux Mdewakanton

Prairie Island Sioux

Santee Sioux

Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux

Sisseton-Whapeton Sioux

Upper Sioux Community

Iowa Tribe of Kansas

Iowa tribe of Oklahoma

Menominee Indian Tribe

Miami Tribe

Stockbridge-Munsee

Peoria Indian Tribe

Citizen Potawatomi

Forest County Potawatomi

Hannahville Indian Community, Potawatomi

Prairie Band of Potawatomi

Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri

Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi

Ho-Chunk Nation

Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska

State Agencies (16)

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Iowa Historical Society

Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Illinois Historic Preservation Division

Minnesota Department of Agriculture

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Minnesota Historical Society

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Minnesota Water & Soil Resource Board
Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination With the Public and Others 

355

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Wisconsin Division of Tourism

Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade

Wisconsin Historical Society

Cities (23)

Alma, Wisconsin

Brownsville, Minnesota

Cassville Village, Wisconsin

Dubuque, Iowa

Edgewood, Iowa

Elkader, Iowa

Fountain City, Wisconsin

Garnavillo, Iowa

Guttenberg, Iowa

Harper's Ferry, Iowa

Hokah, Minnesota

La Crescent, Minnesota

La Crosse, Wisconsin

Lansing, Iowa

McGregor, Iowa

Monona, Iowa

New Albin, Iowa

Onalaska, Wisconsin

Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin

Stoddard, Wisconsin

Trempealeau, Wisconsin

Waukon, Iowa

Winona, Minnesota

Counties (19)

Carroll, Illinois

Jackson, Illinois

JoDaviess, Illinois

Rock Island, Illinois 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

356

Whiteside, Illinois 

Allamakee, Iowa

Clayton, Iowa

Clinton, Iowa

Dubuque, Iowa

Scott, Iowa

Houston, Minnesota

Wabasha, Minnesota

Winona County, Minnesota

Buffalo, Wisconsin

Crawford, Wisconsin

Grant, Wisconsin

La Crosse, Wisconsin

Trempealeau, Wisconsin

Vernon, Wisconsin

Organizations (262)

American Kennel Club

American Rivers

Animal Protection Institute

Audubon Society

BASSMasters Federation

Blue Goose Alliance

Boy Scouts of America

Defenders of Wildlife

Izaak Walton League of America

National Rifle Association

Sierra Club

The Nature Conservancy

The Wilderness Society

Friends of the Upper Mississippi Refuges

Conservation Organizations and Clubs (96)

Businesses (45)

Schools/Univ. (26)

Libraries (58)

Other Organizations (54)
Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination With the Public and Others 

357

River Associations and Committees (13)

Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee 

Midwest Area River Coalition 2000

Mississippi River Basin Alliance

Mississippi River Citizen Commission 

Mississippi River Interstate Cooperative Research Association

Mississippi River Parkway Commission 

Mississippi River Regional Planning Commission 

Mississippi River Revival

River Resource Alliance 

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association

Upper Mississippi River Congressional Task Force

Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee 

Upper Mississippi Waterway Association

Media (119)

Newspaper (75)

Radio (28)

TV (16)

Citizens (3,907)

Illinois (526)

Iowa (665)

Minnesota (945)

Wisconsin (1,715)

Citizens of Other States (56)
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

358

Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP 

and the Supplement (Alternative E) and 

Response

7.1 Introduction

The Draft EIS/CCP for the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge (Refuge) 

generated tremendous public interest and input. Chapter 6 describes in detail the public meetings 

and workshops held during the planning process. In summary, the Refuge hosted 46 public meetings 

attended by approximately 4,500 people. A total of 3,230 written comments were received during the 

two comment periods and these comments are the focus of this chapter. Table 34 summarizes the 

comments received by source. 

Table 34: Source of Comments

Affiliation Number of Written Comments 

Draft CCP/EIS,

May 1 to Aug. 31, 2005, 120-

day comment period 

Number of Written 

Comments Supplement (E),

Dec. 5, 2005 to March 6, 2006, 

90-day comment period

Tribal Governments 1 --

Federal Agencies 4 2

State Agencies 6 5

Local/Other Agencies 10 4

Elected Officials (state/fed) 91

1. Eight Wisconsin State Legislators signed one comment letter in each comment period

31

Organizations 48 23

Businesses 18 11

General Public 2,420 666

Totals 2,516 714
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

359

7.2 How Comments were Handled

Public comments received during 11 public meetings of the first comment period and 9 public 

meetings of the second comment period were an important part of the planning process. All public 

meetings were video taped and later converted to digital video disc (DVD) to become part of the 

official record for the planning process. The DVDs are kept at the Refuge headquarters in Winona, 

Minnesota. Arrangements for viewing the DVDs can be made by calling the Refuge at (507) 452-

4232. 

Public comments received during the 10 public workshops of the first comment period were 

summarized in 87 separate workgroup reports. These workgroup reports were posted a few days 

after each workshop on the Refuge planning website and are still available for viewing (http://

www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/uppermiss).

Written comments received during the two comment periods came in a variety of forms including 

letters, comment forms distributed at meetings, e-mails, and faxes. Each comment received was 

assigned a log number, summarized and recorded on a master electronic file, and then placed in a 

three-ring binder. A standard acknowledgement letter or e-mail was sent to each person or group 

who submitted a comment. 

All written comments are available for public review at the Refuge headquarters in Winona, 

Minnesota. Arrangements for viewing can be made by calling the Refuge at (507) 452-4232. A copy of 

the written comments received from tribes, states, elected officials, other agencies, local units of 

government, and conservation or other organizations are included on the Refuge’s planning website 

at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/uppermiss.

7.3 How Comments and Responses are Organized

Comment categories and locations: 

Due to the volume of written comments received, most are not included in their entirety as noted 

below. Comments from both comment periods are combined unless otherwise noted. Simple edit 

suggestions were generally accepted and made in the Final EIS/CCP and are not referenced here or 

discussed.

Given the Refuge’s close working relationship and shared responsibility for natural resource 

management, the comments from Tribes; Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois departments of 

natural resources; Corps of Engineers; and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are treated 

individually. Each of these letters is summarized by issue or concern raised, followed by a Service 

Tribes, States, Corps of Engineers, 

Environmental Protection Agency

(7.4, page 360)

Elected officials (state/federal) (7.5, page 373)

Petitions (7.6, page 380)

Form letters/e-mails (7.7, page 384)

Comments by topic or plan objective (7.8, page 386)

General comments (7.9, page 421)
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

360

response. Comments from state and federal elected officials are also treated in this way due to the 

general heightened public interest in elected official comments. Scanned copies of letters from 

tribes, agencies, and elected officials are included at the end of this chapter, and page numbers for 

each are included in the respective comment/response. 

Since petitions and form letters represent a large number of individuals, they are also treated 

separately. The basic issues or concerns in each petition and form letter is quoted or summarized, 

followed by a response. 

Comments from individuals, organizations, businesses, and local/other units of government are 

combined and aligned with the 41 objective topics that comprise the heart of each alternative in 

Chapter 2. This objective framework helps the tracking of particular areas of interest, and eases 

reference back to the body of the EIS/CCP. For example, comments on Waterfowl Hunting Closed 

Areas are found under 4.2, the same objective number for the closed area objective across all 

alternatives. The number in parenthesis ( ) following each comment represents the number of people 

and/or organizations who provided a similar comment. For certain comments, a unit of government 

or organization submitting the comment may be cited if it helps put the comment in context.

Finally, comments which are general in nature and do not match a particular objective, including 

comments for or against a particular alternative, are summarized followed by a response, as 

appropriate. As above, the number in parenthesis ( ) following each comment represents the number 

of people and/or organizations who provided a similar comment. For certain comments, a unit of 

government or organization submitting the comment may be cited.

7.4 Tribes, States, Corps of Engineers, and Environmental 

Protection Agency Comments and Response

In most cases, the states, Corps of Engineers, and Environmental Protection Agency provided 

written comments on the May 1, 2005 Draft EIS/CCP and on the December 5, 2005 Supplement 

(Alternative E). Both comment letters are included and responded to in turn. Illinois did not submit 

comments on the Supplement. One tribe submitted comments during the first comment period, none 

for the second.

Service Response to Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, May 12, 2005 comments. (Letter Page 423)

1. The historical preservation of the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma is very important and the Iowa people 

have an historic presence in counties adjacent to the Refuge. They wish to be kept informed of 

any artifact discoveries.

Response: We appreciate the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma’s interest in the Refuge CCP and will 

keep them apprised of any cultural resource issues and discoveries. As noted in Chapters 2, 3, 

and 4 of the Final EIS/CCP, cultural resource management is an area of overriding importance 

and compliance that will be addressed on a project-by-project basis when actions outlined in 

the plan are implemented.

Service Response to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, August 31, 2005 comments. (Letter 

Page 424)

1. Alternative D provides the diversity of uses and experiences sought by the public. 

Response: Comment is noted.
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

361

2. Consider eliminating or restricting jet skis, airboats, hovercraft, and other motorized 

mechanisms that negatively impact fish and wildlife in critical habitats. 

Response: The Electric Motor Areas described in the alternatives limit all watercraft to electric 

motor or human power propulsion only. Slow, No Wake Areas in Alternative E do limit types 

of watercraft seasonally (airboats and hovercraft) due to their inherent noise generation. 

Alternative E was developed after extensive input on this topic at public meetings and in 

written comments.

3. Exemptions needed in Closed Areas and Electric Motor Areas for federal and state agencies 

doing research, monitoring, and law enforcement.

Response: Special area regulations are general public use regulations and were never intended 

to cover states or other agencies from continuing to carry out their responsibilities for fish and 

wildlife management and enforcement. We have added language to clarify this intent in 

Chapter 2, section 2.4.1 (Elements Common to All Alternatives). We continue to recognize, 

however, that public perceptions are important and good judgment is needed when working in 

areas or with equipment the general public is restricted from using.

4. Law enforcement concerns stemming from new regulations: inquiries, response, jurisdiction for 

enforcement, costs, etc. 

Response: We have added a strategy in Alternative E, Objective 5.5 (General Public Use 

Regulations) to prepare a step-down law enforcement plan in cooperation with the states and 

the Corps of Engineers. This plan will be started in 2006 and will address the issues and 

concerns raised. 

5. Supports reconfiguration of Waterfowl Hunting Closed Area locations, size, etc. 

Response: We appreciate the support for this important aspect of the CCP.

6. Delay the no fishing, no motor provision until later in October to accommodate fall fishing. 

Response: In Alternative E, we have delayed the effective date for voluntary avoidance or the no 

motor restriction in Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas to October 15 versus October 1 in other 

alternatives to address this concern. 

7. Consider Voluntary Avoidance Areas versus use or entry restrictions. 

Response: In Alternative E, the preferred alternative, we have incorporated the use of 

voluntary avoidance guidelines in all Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas versus more restrictive 

regulations of other alternatives. Alternative E also establishes a threshold of disturbance and 

the intent of the Refuge to move toward more restrictive regulations should the voluntary 

approach fail to limit disturbance to waterfowl using the areas for rest and feeding.

8. Extend period of no entry for motorized craft in closed areas to late December to benefit late 

migrants. 

Response: We do not concur with the need to extend guidelines or regulations for entry into 

Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas later into the winter season. Most waterfowl hunting ends 

before or by mid-December which removes a major disturbance and in effect provides waterfowl 

additional areas to rest and feed outside of closed areas. Also, the number of waterfowl using 

the refuge is highly variable at this time of year given the timing of yearly freeze-up.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

362

9. Support Electric Motor Areas, but disappointed that larger contiguous areas not selected. 

Response: Electric Motor Areas in Alternative D were based on trying to balance the variety of 

existing uses now occurring on the Refuge to avoid undue disruption to the public. Based on 

substantial public comment, further changes were made in Alternative E to address public 

concerns. We believe Alternative E provides areas to meet the needs of the greatest diversity of 

Refuge users throughout the length of the Refuge.

10. Concerns about the proposed boat launch fee at Refuge-administered ramps. 

Response: The fee proposal was dropped in Alternative E, the preferred alternative. 

Service Response to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, August 29, 2005 comments. (Letter 

Page 429)

1. Emphasized that Wisconsin reserves the right to provide free and open navigation to residents 

of the state and the right to regulate fishing in all waters of the state. 

Response: We recognized and quote the state’s 1925 approval language in Final EIS/CCP 

(Chapter 1) and concur to a point that does not interfere with federal trust responsibilities and 

meeting the purposes of the Refuge; however, proposals in Alternative E do not limit navigation 

or use, only the means of navigation and use on the connected waters (more in closed area 

comments). We concur with state’s lead in fish management and regulation and have edited 

objectives, strategies, and other text in the Final EIS/CCP to stress a cooperative approach. 

2. Believe the plan should be broadened to include the larger ecosystem, including fisheries and 

state-listed species and species of concern.

Response: We concur and have included the strongest fishery management emphasis in any 

Refuge plan to date. Virtually all recent EMP projects in Wisconsin have either focused on 

improving fish habitat or included a fish habitat component (Long Lake, Stoddard, Lake 

Onalaska, Ambrough Slough, Sunfish Lake, Mud Lake, and Spring Lake). The Service believes 

that waterfowl management and fishery management can be complementary with careful 

planning. Alternative E objectives and strategies dealing with monitoring and threatened and 

endangered species have been changed to include state-listed species and state species of 

concern, along with reference to recently completed state Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Plans.

3. Complete a Law Enforcement step-down plan to improve understanding, expectations, and 

cooperation of Refuge and state officers 

Response: Concur and have added in Alternative E, Objective 5.5 (General Public Use 

Regulations) a strategy for preparing a step-down LE plan in cooperation with the states and 

Corps of Engineers.

4. Support concept of Electric Motor Areas if the Refuge works with public to delineate the areas. 

Consider commercial fishing needs, seasons of closure, and boundary changes. 

Response: Although we do not concur with delaying decision and believe the public has had 

ample opportunity for input, we have made major changes in Alternative E reflecting both 

state and public comment. In short, we have dropped 11 of 15 proposed new Electric Motor 

Areas, 8 of which are proposed to become seasonal Slow, No Wake Areas (March 16-October 31). 
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

363

Commercial fishing should not be measurably affected by the proposals in Alternative E since 

Electric Motor and Slow, No Wake Areas are in backwater versus areas not often used for 

commercial fishing. 

5. Concern about amount of Closed Areas in Wisconsin; unfair loss of recreational opportunity, 

especially in Pools 4 and 10 (Big Lake and Wisconsin River Delta proposals). Need for deer 

management in Goose Island area a concern with Closed Area expansion/restrictions proposed. 

Response: We understand the concern with amount of closed areas in Wisconsin but try to be 

neutral to state lines when addressing resource issues. In truth, the best habitat on many parts 

of the upper Refuge is in Wisconsin. We share the concern with recreational impacts and are 

opening the Nelson-Trevino area in Pool 4 to balance the loss in the Big Lake area, and in 

Alternative E also open an additional 788 acres of existing closed area to hunting (Buffalo or 

Beef Slough). We have also modified the proposed Wisconsin River Delta closed area in 

Alternative E so that it is open to hunting and fishing through October 31, and dropped the 

north Goose Island special hunt area from any designation (remains open). We support and 

will continue to work with state and local officials to accommodate deer hunting in the existing 

Goose Island closed area. We share the habitat and public safety concerns from the expanded 

deer population in this area.

6. Closed areas must remain open to fishing during waterfowl season, and would like to help craft a 

phased approach using alternatives such as voluntary avoidance, slow-no-wake, electric motor 

with travel lanes, and no motor areas. 

Response: In Alternative E, the preferred alternative, we have made major changes to the 

closed area entry and use regulations proposed in Alternative D and have dropped the “no 

fishing, no motors” provision in favor of Voluntary Avoidance on all areas and no use of 

motors on small closed areas. These restrictions also have been moved forward to October 15 

versus October 1 to accommodate early fall fishing. 

We are also proposing in Alternative E a disturbance threshold policy to guide future entry 

and use restrictions. This policy is included in Objective 4.2, Waterfowl hunting closed areas 

and sanctuaries.

7. Concern with lack of support for doing fish habitat improvement projects in Waterfowl Hunting 

Closed Areas.

Response: Unintended conflicts often arise when trying to meet different objectives for fish and 

waterfowl in the same area. Fall fishing has been shown to be a major disturbance to waterfowl 

in some closed areas. Certain fish habitat improvements which attract and hold fish can 

increase angler use and waterfowl disturbance, and on small closed areas especially, have the 

potential to negate any waterfowl migration benefits. Careful consideration of these dynamics 

is needed when planning habitat projects.

Alternative E includes this issue in the closed area objective, and also proposes a new policy for 

project planning to deal with Refuge and state concerns with fish habitat projects. 

8. Address commercial fishing needs and research, monitoring, and law enforcement needs in 

Closed Areas and any Electric Motor Areas. 

Response: New regulations were always intended to be public use regulations, not regulations 

governing bona fide agency work. Language has been added to section 4.2.1 (Elements 

Common to All Alternatives) to articulate this intent. Commercial fishing in closed areas is 

covered under the voluntary avoidance guidelines, which does not preclude commercial 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

364

fishing. Commercial fishing intrusions into closed areas will not be counted as a disturbance 

under the disturbance threshold guidelines. We hope, however, that commercial anglers can 

adapt practices and time activities to lessen disturbance to staging waterfowl. We will continue 

to work with the state and commercial anglers in a cooperative manner to this end. Electric 

Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas should not have a major impact on commercial fishing 

due to their locations. 

9. We may not move forward with complementary state regulations for 25 shotshell limit, 100 yard 

spacing, beach use, camping, etc. 

Response: The proposed shotshell limit and hunting party spacing regulations have been 

dropped in Alternative E, the preferred alternative. State officers do not actively enforce 

Refuge-specific non-hunting/fishing recreational use regulations now, and we understand that 

matching state regulations may not always be possible. 

10. Use the beach planning process to consider any beach designations, and needed restrictions or 

regulations for beach use. 

Response: Concur with beach plan process, and have made several changes in Alternative E to 

proposed beach-related regulations in Alternative D, including areas open to camping, human 

waste, and alcohol use. The beach section of the plan was revised in Alternative E, but we 

realize there may still be differences of opinion regarding dredge material placement site 

management (bath tubs). Since the Refuge ends up with the responsibility for enforcement, we 

believe we should manage these sites in a way that safeguards the public and lessens 

enforcement workload.

11. Supports public suggestions for regulation banning glass containers on the Refuge. 

Response: Concur and have added a new regulation to Alternative E, the preferred alternative, 

Objective 5.1.

12. Economic recreational benefits cited in the Draft EIS seem very low compared to previous 

economic studies done on the Upper Mississippi River System.

Response: We do not disagree, but felt it wise to use Refuge visitation figures we enter in report 

to ensure consistency, and visits are what drive the economics. Our economist used the same 

economic models as previous Corps of Engineers studies, but since visits are counted 

differently and the Refuge is a subset of the river as a whole, the economic benefits are lower. 

However, in the Final EIS in Chapter 3, end of section 3.4.2, we discuss this difference and also 

present the higher economic gain figures.

Service Response to Iowa Department of Natural Resources, August 22, 2005 comments. (Letter Page 434)

(Note: due to the comprehensive nature of Iowa’s comments, responses were only made to items of 

concern or suggestions)

1. Ensure that public is not overly regulated and new regulations are needed and targeted to 

provide the expected results. 

Response: We have made several major changes in Alternative E, the preferred alternative, 

which has reduced many regulatory-type actions and to ensure the remaining new regulations 

are needed and targeted.

2. Iowa reminds the Service that management authority for fisheries and mussel resources in Iowa 

waters remains with the state.
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

365

Response: We do not disagree, but recognize that the Refuge shares some of this authority on a 

national wildlife refuge. However, language in several objectives dealing with fisheries, 

mussels, and recreational fishing has been augmented in Alternative E to recognize the state’s 

lead and primary role in managing these resources and related recreation.

3. Suggest no hunting March 15 – September 1 in no hunting zones (trails, facilities) versus closed 

to hunting. 

Response: We believe that some areas warrant a separation of hunting and other recreational 

uses based on location and circumstances and overriding concern for visitor safety. However, 

we have made several major changes in Alternative E by dropping some suggested no hunting 

areas around trails, or greatly reducing the acreage affected by closure. Alternative E depicts 

11 administrative no hunting zones covering 3,845 acres compared to the existing 8 zones 

covering 3,555 acres. 

4. Support Closed Area modifications/additions, with specific suggestions on boundaries for 

Guttenberg Ponds, Kenough Slough, and Pleasant Creek. 

Response: We concur with these modifications and have made adjustments in Alternative E, 

the preferred alternative.

5. Do not support 25 shotshell daily possession limit and minimum 100 yard spacing requirement 

for waterfowl hunters on the Refuge.

Response: These proposals have been dropped in Alternative E, the preferred alternative.

6. Concurs with phase out the use of permanent blinds on the Refuge for waterfowl hunting given 

the need for consistency on the Refuge and the various issues surrounding permanent blinds.

Response: The permanent blind issue is difficult given the number of hunters affected and the 

traditional ties to this method of waterfowl hunting. We appreciate Iowa’s support. 

7. Work with states on fishing tournaments to avoid duplication. 

Response: We concur and have modified language in Alternative E to strengthen coordination 

with the states and to ensure a simplified process.

8. Make every effort to keep recreational fish float operations. 

Response: We have made a change in Alternative E to solicit new fish float proposals for any 

existing floats that may be closed by owners or phased out due to non-compliance with permit 

stipulations. 

9. Recommend that the Service enforce the .08 blood alcohol level for drivers of motor vehicles but 

use existing intoxication laws for persons on beaches on the Refuge.

Response: We concur. Alternative E drops the .08 blood alcohol level for persons on the Refuge 

in favor of using the existing Refuge regulation that ties behavior to alcohol use. We will 

continue to enforce applicable state alcohol regulations for boat or other vehicle operators.

10. Electric Motor Areas: suggest making these no wake areas instead. 

Response: We have made major changes in Alternative E reflecting both state and public 

comment. In short, we have dropped 11 of 15 proposed new Electric Motor Areas, 8 of which are 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

366

proposed to become seasonal Slow, No Wake Areas (March 16-October 31). We continue to 

believe that there is a need for a few Electric Motor Areas to provide an alternative experience 

for hunters, anglers, trappers, and people who enjoy quiet wildlife observation.

11. The Service is cautioned that Iowa is the agency of authority for Slow, No Wake Zones.

Response: All alternatives have recognized the current process for establishment of no wake 

zones. We will work through local and state levels of government as appropriate for establishing 

the areas proposed.

12. Recommend that the Service make a canoe landing at each proposed canoe trail and offered 

suggestions for several.

Response: We do not disagree, although realities of railroad tracks and lands, private land, and 

slope of terrain often limit access points to the Refuge and the river. The specific suggestions 

will be considered during more detailed planning and implementation of the canoe trails and 

Refuge accesses.

Service Response to Illinois Department of Natural Resources, August 26, 2005 comments. (Letter Page 440)

1. Continue to allow the use of permanent waterfowl hunting blinds on the Savanna District. 

Response: We appreciate Illinois’ concern with the planned phase out of permanent blinds for 

waterfowl hunting on the Savanna District of the Refuge. This is a difficult issue due to the 

number of hunters involved and the strong traditions that have developed. However, we believe 

our concerns with private, exclusive or proprietary use of public lands and waters, continued 

problems with confrontations and debris, and inconsistency with the other three districts of the 

Refuge warrant a phase out of the blinds. We have made one change in Alternative E to help 

ease the transition. The pool-by-pool sequence of phase out will be Pool 12, 14, and 13. This will 

not only ease our administrative and enforcement burden, but give the greatest number of blind 

hunters (Pool 13, 250 blinds) more time to adjust to alternative hunting methods.

2. Continue the 200-yard spacing requirement between waterfowl hunting parties.

Response: We concur and Alternative E reflects no-change in 200-yeard spacing for Illinois 

portion of Refuge

3. Work collaboratively with the state on fishing tournament permitting. 

Response: We concur and have made modifications to Alternative E, Objective 4.9 to strengthen 

the collaborative approach to addressing fishing tournaments on the Refuge.

Service Response to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers September 6, 2005 comments. (Letter Page 441)

(Note: due to the comprehensive nature of the Corps of Engineers’ comments, responses were only 

made to major items of concern. A number of relatively minor editorial comments or corrections are 

not paraphrased but have been incorporated in the Final EIS/CCP)

1. Alternative D is best approach of alternatives presented; reasonable and balanced approach. 

Response: We appreciate the Corps cooperation and support during this planning effort as well 

as on the multitude of mutual activities on the Upper Mississippi River System.

2. Refuge needs Corps of Engineers’ concurrence to implement changes affecting Corps-acquired 

lands; believe concurrence can be obtained on most of the proposals in Alternative D. 
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

367

Response: It is our hope that concurrence will come through the Corps of Engineers comments 

in support of the Final EIS/CCP, or through the many step-down plans that will be prepared in 

collaboration with the Corps of Engineers (e.g. law enforcement, pool beach plans). We have 

added wording to many objectives and strategies in Alternative E to emphasize collaboration 

and cooperation, and inherent in these principles is concurrence.

3. Public use must be addressed in cooperative manner through existing forums. 

Response: We agree and have modified objectives and strategies in Alternative E to reflect this 

cooperative approach in the implementation of objectives dealing with public use. We have also 

added a separate section in Chapter 2, section 2.4.1 (Elements Common to All Alternatives) 

that addresses cooperation and coordination with the Corps of Engineers and the states. 

4. Some objectives are very optimistic (e.g. pool drawdowns, boundary survey). 

Response: We have modified the objectives considerably in Alternative E, the preferred 

alternative, to address these comments. Objective 1.1 (boundary integrity/surveying) was 

changed to focus on problem areas versus the entire boundary, and Objective 2.2 (water level 

management) was changed to reflect ecological need, engineering feasibility, and available 

funding that may influence completing pool drawdowns.

5. Provide prioritized implementation strategy in the plan due to fiscal concerns. 

Response: Appendix L (Implementation Plan) addresses a strategy for implementing various 

objectives. Since funding sources are varied and subject to year-to-year change, establishing a 

strict priority is not always practical or in-line with the way the Service receives funding. Also, 

many actions must receive simultaneous attention. However, we agree that prioritization, even 

by category of projects, is useful and does help communicate the work the Refuge believes is 

most important. Changes have been made in Appendix L to reflect this.

6. Address cultural resources earlier in the document; more emphasis. 

Response: We believe that cultural resources are addressed in the appropriate way in Chapters 

2, 3, and 4 of the Final EIS/CCP. Several edits have been made based on comments specific to 

cultural resources. Regardless of cultural resource placement in the Final EIS/ CCP, it remains 

one area of overriding importance, and compliance with laws and regulations will be 

addressed on a project-by-project basis when actions outlined in the plan are implemented.

7. Identify acquisition authority for bluffland acquisition 

Response: Authority for bluffland acquisition, either in fee or easement, stems from the Record 

of Decision signed by the Regional Director for the 1987 Refuge Master Plan. That plan 

identified the bluffland areas and they have carried forward to the Final EIS/CCP. This plan 

does not alter the approved refuge boundary established by that earlier authority. Many 

agencies need legislative authority for acquisition, but in the Service, that authority still rests 

with the agency, although major expansion now require Director’s approval and new National 

Environmental Policy Act compliance documentation. 

8. Use “placement site” and “material” versus “disposal site” and “spoil.” 

Response: Concur. We have made changes throughout the final document.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

368

9. Want to see their comments/suggestions reflected in Final EIS/CCP. 

Response: Concur and disposition of comments described in this chapter. 

10. Support Closed Area management as long as navigational servitude for main channel 

commercial and recreational boat traffic protected. Establish travel corridor on Pool 8 Closed 

Area (Limited Development Area). 

Response: We concur and existing and proposed Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas are designed 

to take main channel navigational servitude into account. In Alternative E, we have added a 

travel corridor in the Wisconsin Islands Closed Area (limited development area). Chapter 4, 

Section 4.2.7 (Environmental Consequences of the Draft and Final CCP/EIS) does state that 

“Under all alternatives there is no impact to commercial navigation. All proposed actions have 

been tempered by the requirement in establishment legislation that Refuge management not 

interfere with the navigation operations carried out by the Corps of Engineers.”

11. Support permanent blind phase out. 

Response: We appreciate the support for dealing with this difficult issue in Pools 12, 13, and 14 

of the refuge.

12. The Corps of Engineers requests to be part of fishing tournament management process. 

Response: Concur and have added language in Alternative E, Objective 4.9 that includes the 

Corps of Engineers in both the objective and the strategies for implementation.

13. Closing beaches on Corps-acquired land would require District Engineer approval; address 

problems through interagency partnership effort involving public.

Response: We have made several changes in Alternative E, Objective 5.1 to highlight a 

partnership approach in addressing beach-related policies and maintenance. Any closures for 

health and safety or bona fide wildlife issues would be coordinated with the Corps of Engineers, 

states, and the public. The only exception is if a true emergency, but this would likely be rare 

and not a permanent change without coordination and Corps of Engineers agreement on 

Corps-acquired areas. 

14. Dredged material placement overrides recreational considerations on placement sites; 

placement sites should not be referred to as recreational beaches; a fee for beach use may have 

liability consequences. 

Response: We concur and abide by the designations in the Land Use Allocation Plans and 

agree that placement sites are first and foremost Corps of Engineers project areas and not 

recreational beaches. However, there is no doubt that the public uses them for recreation. No 

recreational use fee is proposed in Alternative E, and if any fee is contemplated in the future, it 

would only be done in coordination with the Corps of Engineers, the states, and the public. 

15. Electric Motor Areas and No Wake Zones; establish collaboratively. 

Response: We do not disagree and the purpose of the interagency planning team and the 

extensive public involvement has helped shape the number, size, and location of proposed Slow, 

No Wake Areas and Electric Motor Areas. We recognize, however, that there will likely never be 

total agreement on either the concept or the locations, but input has been substantial as 

reflected in major changes made in Alternative E, the preferred alternative. Slow, No Wake 

Zones (linear areas) identified will be established through the normal local unit of government 

process that has been used in the past.
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

369

16. Drawdown objective overly optimistic, some not feasible, some not proven environmentally. 

Standard timeframe not workable. 

Response: Concur and have changed the language in Objective 2.2 to reflect the uncertain and 

dynamic nature of pool wide drawdowns, and the need to base decisions on ecological need and 

engineering feasibility.

17. Clarify Guiding Principles for Habitat Projects so as not to preclude active management 

strategies (e.g. moist soil units, control structures) 

Response: We have modified the strategies in Alternative E, Objective 3.2 to clarify that active 

management strategies are not precluded.

18. Restricting watercraft from entry in Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas would require 

concurrence from District Engineer. Implement through a partnership program with Corps of 

Engineers and states. 

Response: Alternative E, the preferred alternative, does not preclude entry in any Waterfowl 

Hunting Closed Area that straddles the main channel of the river. We have also included travel 

corridors where needed so the public can access the main channel. For Waterfowl Hunting 

Closed Areas, if compliance levels with voluntary avoidance require further restrictions, we 

will work with the Corps of Engineers and the states to affect that change. This intent has been 

articulated in Alternative E, Objective 4.2.

Service Response to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 30, 2005 comments. (Letter Page 460)

1. The Draft EIS is rated “LO” indicating a lack of objection and EPA did not identify the need for 

additional information or issues to be considered. It was suggested that an explanation be added 

on how the CCP will be integrated with the Corps of Engineers’ Navigation and Ecosystem 

Sustainability Program (NESP).

Response: We have added reference to NESP in Chapter 1, Section 1.4.3.3 in the Final EIS/

CCP. Reference to NESP is also made in several objective strategies dealing with habitat 

improvements, and is also discussed in Appendix L, the implementation plan for the CCP 

which emerges. We remain committed to a strong partnership with the Corps of Engineers, 

other agencies, and the states in dovetailing the provisions of the environmental side of NESP 

with the habitat restoration and enhancement projects identified in the Final EIS/CCP.

Service Response to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, January 20, 2006 comments. (Letter 

Page 462)

1. Encourage monitoring of Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas for disturbance and if necessary 

implement further restrictions.

Response: Concur and will be doing monitoring to gauge how well voluntary avoidance is 

working. Objective 4.2 in Alternative E discusses monitoring, the threshold established for 

disturbance, and actions to follow should further restrictions be necessary.

2. Concerned about enforcement impacts and the law enforcement step-down plan timetable and 

contents.

Response: We replied to Minnesota in separate letter in February outlining the process for 

state involvement, the timetable for completion (end of CY 06), and the topics and issues to be 

covered in the plan. This letter was also given to the Wisconsin DNR after receiving their 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

370

comments with a similar concern. A strategy calling for completion of the law enforcement 

step-down has been added to Alternative E, Objective 5.5.

Service Response to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, March 6, 2006 comments. (Letter 

Page 464)

1. Desire that all habitat improvement projects provide for the needs of the entire ecosystem, both 

fish and wildlife. They would like to meet and establish criteria for making decisions on project 

features. 

Response: We believe this comment refers to fish habitat improvements as part of habitat 

projects in Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas. In Alternative E, the preferred alternative, 

Objective 4.2 Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, fish habitat improvements in closed areas is 

addressed due to unintended conflicts that may arise when trying to meet fish and waterfowl 

objectives in the same area. Improved fish habitat can attract more anglers and increase 

disturbance, especially under a “voluntary avoidance” approach. However, the Refuge is most 

willing to sit down and discuss this issue more fully and explore setting criteria for consistent 

project decision-making. A strategy to this effect has been added to Alternative E, Objective 4.2.

2. The State reiterated the need for access to restricted areas (closed areas, slow no wake, electric 

motor areas) for survey, monitoring, and enforcement work.

Response: Special area regulations are general public use regulations and were never intended 

to cover states or other agencies from continuing to carry out their responsibilities for fish and 

wildlife management and enforcement. We have added a paragraph stating this intent in 

Chapter 2, Section 2.4.1 (Elements Common to All Alternatives) in the Final EIS/CCP. We 

continue to recognize, as does the state, that public perceptions are important and good 

judgment is needed when working in areas or with equipment the general public is restricted 

from using.

3. The state is concerned about subsequent state regulations matching proposed refuge 

regulations so that state officers can enforce. An example is the Waterfowl Hunting Closed Area 

boundaries. The state asks that we continue to work with them to ensure consistency.

Response: We recognize the difficulties that different rules or regulations would present, both 

for the citizens of Wisconsin and state conservation officers. Indeed, we prefer similar 

regulations so that state conservation officers can continue to assist in enforcing Refuge 

regulations related to hunting and other fish and wildlife-related recreation. We will continue 

to work with the state, but are prepared to implement needed regulatory changes regardless of 

the outcome of the state rule making process. To do otherwise would be abdicating our 

responsibilities to manage the Refuge in accordance with its establishing legislation, the 

Refuge Improvement Act, and Refuge System policies and regulations.

4. The State is concerned about the timing of the law enforcement step-down plan preparation and 

urges completion before new regulations or new refuge officers are added.

Response: We concur with the importance of the plan and have provided the state with a copy of 

the letter sent earlier to the Minnesota DNR that outlines the process for state involvement, the 

timetable for completion (end of CY 06), and the topics and issues to be covered in the plan. 

5. The State recommends the major disturbance threshold for waterfowl in closed areas be set at 

1,000 birds only and not “or 50 percent of the birds present,” and recommends an average of 20 

disturbances per week versus the one major disturbance per day based on a season-long average 

that is in Alternate E.
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

371

Response: We do not concur. The rationale section of Objective 4.2 articulates our basis for the 

thresholds, namely human disturbance monitoring and research done on the Refuge over 

several years. We believe these thresholds are reasonable and defensible for application in other 

closed areas. We have added additional science-based information on closed areas and 

disturbance in Appendix Q and believe it will prove a useful reference for current and future 

managers.

6. Recommend that fire be used as a management tool on islands.

Response: We do not disagree, and will continue to use fire on islands where it is appropriate 

and in keeping with basic ecological processes for a site. Several islands were burned in spring, 

2006. As stated in our guiding principles for habitat management (Objective 3.2), natural 

succession may be the best natural process on some islands given the realities of the physical 

environment and the needs of all species. This approach is also in-line with the Service’s policy 

on biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health, but does not preclude the use of fire 

where most appropriate and feasible.

7. Recommend that canoe trails be located within Slow, No Wake Areas whenever possible.

Response: Since canoe trails are linear and entail no other restriction for other user groups or 

subgroups, there was considerably more latitude in where to site them based on a variety of 

factors such as habitat type, proximity to landings and communities, and river and backwater 

flow patterns. Thus, there was no need to locate canoe trails within other “area” designations. 

Some canoe trails do, however, fall within or adjacent to Slow, No Wake Areas. 

Service Response to Iowa Department of Natural Resources, February 10, 2006 comments. (Letter Page 468)

1. Iowa affirmed its jurisdiction over fisheries, navigation, and licensing requirements, and was 

concerned about the Service’s permitting of fishing tournaments and commercial fishing, 

mussel, and turtle harvest. They agree with the terms “one-stop shopping” and “dovetail with” 

in Alternative E.

Response: We concur that Iowa retains jurisdiction over these areas, but acknowledge that the 

Service also shares jurisdiction and responsibilities on national wildlife refuges. Several 

objectives dealing with fisheries, mussels, and tournaments in Alternative E clearly recognize 

the states’ lead in fishery resources, and also outlines our intent to use agreements or other 

mechanisms to meet our regulatory mandates. We will not be stepping-out alone in those areas 

that have traditionally been managed by the states and will continue to stress a collaborative 

approach in carrying out our respective responsibilities.

2. Encourage the Service to develop step-down plans in timely manner in coordination with the 

states and with public involvement.

Response: Concur

3. The Service should include reference to the Comprehensive State Wildlife Plans, and the Refuge 

should be a major partner in implementing.

Response: Concur. The state wildlife plans were completed after the Draft EIS/CCP was 

assembled and released in May, 2005. The Final EIS/CCP has a section describing these 

important state wildlife plans in Chapter 1, Section 1.4.3.3, and reference to the plans has been 

added in appropriate objectives in Alternative E. We believe the state plans will add strength to 

the CCP, and vice versa.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

372

4. In regard to refuge access, Iowa would like to see improved access for multiple recreational 

uses, better parking areas for some proposed facilities like trails and canoe landings, and 

increased shore-line fishing access. They also believe all canoe landings should be available 

during ice-over conditions for access by ATVs to ice fishing areas.

Response: Detailed planning for any proposed public use facilities/accesses will consider and 

try to accommodate the need for parking. We agree that increased shoreline-angling access is 

important and have identified several areas. However, difficulty in securing railroad rights-ofway remains a limiting factor along the entire Refuge. We generally allow ATV and 

snowmobile access directly to the ice from Refuge parking and boat landings, and will examine 

some of the more primitive canoe landings which may present a conflict with current 

regulations.

5. In Objective 3.1, suggest adding a strategy for maintenance of habitat projects.

Response: Concur that this is important. In Alternative E, we did add this need in the 

Operations and Maintenance section, Objective 6.3. We have also added a line-item to the 

Implementation Plan (Appendix L) for maintenance of habitat projects.

6. Recommends that the Goetz Island No Hunting Zone (Pool 11) be removed.

Response: Due to its location adjacent to the City of Guttenberg, a no hunting zone in 

conjunction with the proposed Goetz Island Hiking Trail is warranted. However, we reduced 

this no hunting zone from 242 acres to 32 acres in Alternative E of the Final EIS/CCP. We 

believe this change will continue to address safety concerns while keeping most of the area open 

to hunting.

7. Suggests integrating future Environmental Management Program (EMP) projects with various 

public use objectives. For example, the proposed Turkey River Project could be a real showcase 

since tour route, trail, viewing platform, and shoreline fishing could also be done.

Response: We concur that public use objectives in the plan would dovetail nicely with many 

proposed EMP projects, and may be a cost-effective way to achieve both resource and public use 

objectives. This suggestion will be incorporated during detailed planning for all projects in 

coordination with the Corps of Engineers and the states.

8. Requests that the Electric Motor Area proposed for the Guttenberg Ponds Area in Pool 11 be 

deleted since access is normally limited anyway for motorboats due to obstructions.

Response: After a closer examination of the size of the area and inlet/outlet barriers to 

consistent access, we have deleted this 93-acre area (specifically Big Pond) from Alternative E, 

the preferred alternative, in the Final EIS/CCP.

Service Response to Corps of Engineers, March 7, 2006 comments. (Letter Page 471)

1. The Corps of Engineers believes the Service did an excellent job in addressing their previous 

comments on the Draft EIS/CCP and concur with Draft Alternative E with the understanding 

that interagency partnership activities will continue.

Response: We appreciate the Corps of Engineers’ concurrence, involvement in the planning 

process, and ongoing efforts to benefit both navigation and the environment on the Mississippi 

River and the Refuge. The Service will continue the partnership activities, and the 

collaborative approach has been strengthened in edits to the Final EIS/CCP.
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

373

2. The Corps of Engineers looks forward to participating with the Refuge on many of the stepdown implementation plans outlined in the CCP, ongoing Corps of Engineers/Service plans, and 

in coordinating cultural resource plans and needs.

Response: We also look forward to the continued partnership for step-down plans and other 

ongoing planning and implementation efforts.

Service Response to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1, 2006 comments. (Letter Page 473)

1. The Supplement to the Draft EIS is rated “LO” indicating a lack of objection and EPA did not 

identify the need for additional information or issues to be considered. It was again suggested 

that an explanation be added on how the CCP will be integrated with the Corps of Engineers’ 

Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP).

Response: As noted in an earlier response, we have added reference to NESP in Chapter 1, 

Section 1.4.3.3 in the Final EIS/CCP. Reference to NESP is also made in several objective 

strategies dealing with habitat improvements, and is also discussed in Appendix L, the 

implementation plan for the CCP which emerges. We remain committed to a strong 

partnership with the Corps of Engineers, other agencies, and the states in dovetailing the 

provisions of the environmental side of NESP with the habitat restoration and enhancement 

projects identified in the Final EIS/CCP.

7.5 Elected Official Comments and Response

Service Response to Congressman Green Comments of August 8, 2005 (Letter Page 475)

1. Constituents are against the proposed restrictions to recreation in the Draft EIS/CCP.

Response: During the 31 public information meetings and public workshops held during the 

120-comment period in 2005, we heard from thousands of citizens. Based on this input, we 

prepared a Supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP, Alternative E, to take into account citizen and 

agency concerns and suggestions. 

2. The Service should select Alternative A as its new preferred alternative.

Response: We do not believe that Alternative A (no action or current direction) adequately 

addresses the large number of issues and needs identified in Chapter 1 of the Draft and Final 

EIS/CCP, including compliance with the Refuge Improvement Act and Refuge System policies 

and regulations. However, Alternative E addresses many of the concerns and ideas expressed 

by citizens and agencies, and we believe represents a balanced approach to management of the 

Refuge. 

Service Response to Wisconsin Legislature (eight signatories) August 29, 2005 comments (Letter Page 477)

1. We oppose Alternative D because it usurps state authority on sovereign waters and 

unnecessarily eliminates recreational opportunities and economic activity.

Response: We have made many changes to Alternative D in response to comments by 

developing a new preferred alternative, Alternative E. We recognize and quote the state’s 1925 

Refuge approval language in the Draft and Final EIS/CCP (Chapter 1), but the Service 

continues to have responsibility and authority for federal trust species and in meeting the 

purposes of the Refuge. However, we have developed our plan to ensure that we do not “usurp” 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

374

any state authority. Proposals in Alternative E do not limit navigation or use, only the means 

of navigation and use in an effort to meet the needs of fish and wildlife and the needs of the 

public who enjoy recreation in a variety of ways. Also, no current recreational use is being 

eliminated, although there are restrictions on some areas at certain times of the year to meet 

the needs of wildlife and people. Our analysis of economic impacts in Chapter 4 of the Final 

EIS/CCP shows a continued gain in economic outputs under Alternatives C through E.

2. We have attached a memo from the Wisconsin Legislative Council which raises issues and 

concerns about Wisconsin sovereignty and jurisdiction over waters of the Refuge.

Response: We defer to comments from the Wisconsin Attorney General, and our response, later 

in this section. 

3. The title to fish resides with Wisconsin and Refuge tournament fishing regulations would be 

redundant.

Response: We concur with state’s lead in fish management and regulation and have edited 

objectives, strategies and other text in the Final EIS/CCP to clarify this point and stress a 

cooperative approach. We do believe, however, that the Refuge has shared responsibility and 

jurisdiction for fishing tournaments on the Refuge. Alternative E outlines an approach that 

would dove-tail with state regulations and avoid redundancy.

4. We believe increasing Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas will not improve fish and wildlife 

populations overall, and that shell possession limits, hunter spacing, and managed hunts are not 

wildlife conservation tools, just ways to manage people.

Response: We do not concur that closed area changes will not improve waterfowl well-being 

based on research and monitoring done on the Refuge and elsewhere. For the Final EIS/CCP 

we have updated waterfowl information in Chapter 3, and have also added Appendix Q which 

discusses in detail the science and rationale for closed area changes. The shell limit and hunter 

spacing proposals have been dropped in Alternative E, and we will continue to work with local 

waterfowlers and the state to address issues relating to the waterfowl hunting firing line (Gibbs 

Lake area) north of the Lake Onalaska Closed Area. A special hunt area in Pool 8 (Goose 

Island) has been deleted in Alternative E, the preferred alternative. 

Service Response to Senator Coleman March 9, 2006 Comment Letter (Page 484)

1. Concerned with loss of hunting access and opportunities for Minnesota hunters, especially with 

the changes proposed in Pool 4, Big Lake closed area proposal. The senator suggests providing 

replacement hunting opportunities of comparable quality. 

Response: Alternative E opens an additional 3,138 acres to hunting in Pool 4, although not all 

comparable. Included in these acres of additional hunting area is 638 acres in Buffalo Slough 

near Big Lake to help any hunters displaced. Also, implementation of these changes are 

delayed until 2009 in Alternative E to allow three-year monitoring of waterfowl use in NelsonTrevino and surrounding areas to ensure all information is fully considered before making the 

change. This will also ease the transition for hunters accustomed to hunting in the Big Lake 

area and allow them time to explore other alternative hunting areas. 

2. Does not favor restricting specific types of watercraft or propulsion type. 

Response: In response to public comment, many of the proposed Electric Motor Areas were 

dropped in Alternative E in favor of seasonal Slow, No Wake Areas. However, airboats and 

hovercraft present special problems due to inherent noise and limited ability to maintain slow, 
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

375

no wake speeds in many backwater situations. Restricting specific types of watercraft or 

vehicles like ATVs and snowmobiles is an accepted management tool to protect resources and to 

maintain or enhance visitors’ experiences. For example, Minnesota and Wisconsin prohibit 

airboats on virtually all state wildlife management areas.

Service Response to Congressman Kind March 13, 2006 Comment Letter (Page 485)

1. Strengthen efforts to reduce sedimentation, enhance habitat restoration, and combat invasives. 

Response: We share the concern on these issues. We believe the action alternatives address these 

issues in a realistic and measurable way by a more aggressive implementation of Pool 

Management Plans (a 50-year vision for habitat for each pool done collaboratively by the 

Service, Corps of Engineers, and states), by marked expansion of the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program in watersheds leading into the refuge, by calling for a 10% reduction in 

invasive plants by 2010, and by working with others on invasive animal issues. About 78% 

($170 million) of the projected funding needs for the life of the plan are devoted to habitat 

improvement and land acquisition, both of which directly improve the quality and quantity of 

fish and wildlife habitat. 

2. Preserve and build upon the strong partnerships that have been developed. 

Response: Virtually every objective in the Final EIS/CCP has partnerships and coordination 

as a strategy. A new “Friends of Pool 9” group has started due to the EIS/CCP public 

involvement process. We are prepared to continue working relationships with long-term 

partners and new partners, regardless of disagreements on certain parts of the CCP. However, 

doing the right thing for the refuge, resource, and the public as a whole may mean the loss of 

support by a few. Any loss of support is usually off-set by new partners who emerge.

3. Work with Wisconsin agencies in developing regulations and future management decisions. 

Response: We have strived to reach consensus with the State of Wisconsin through our 

counterpart, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and believe we have done so 

since overall, they support Alternative E. Coordination will continue on any outstanding 

issues and through future implementation. This also holds true for the Corps of Engineers, who 

have endorsed Alternative E. We will continue to work with state and local authorities and 

strive for harmony and acceptance, tempered by our responsibilities to manage the Refuge in 

accordance with its establishing legislation, the Refuge Improvement Act, and Refuge System 

policies and regulations. 

4. Maintain access for all users per the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. 

Response: We concur and we believe Alternative E provides and enhances all the priority 

public uses outlined in the Refuge Improvement Act while ensuring that they, and other uses, 

are compatible with the purpose of the Refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. We believe 

we are coordinating with state law with our proposed actions and will continue to do so. All 

users have access and ability to navigate, only the means of navigation is affected and often 

only seasonally. All priority public uses are allowed in Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No 

Wake Areas. 

5. Strongly encourages the Service to adopt voluntary compliance methods in place of mandatory 

Slow, No Wake Areas, Electric Motor Areas, and waterfowl closed areas in Wisconsin, and 

monitor the impact. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

376

Response: We gave this comment serious thought and consideration, and have adopted a 

voluntary compliance approach for all Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas in Alternative E. 

However, for Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas, we do not believe the approach is 

in the best interest of the resource or the public and have not included it in Alternative E of the 

Final EIS/CCP. There are several reasons for not taking the suggested action:

# Education, self-regulation, and law enforcement are all vital parts of the compliance 

equation. Education and self-regulation works for the majority of people. However, a 

voluntary approach removes enforcement and will eventually erode the level of compliance. 

A voluntary approach actually punishes the majority of law-abiding citizens by preventing 

us from taking action against the minority who choose to not abide by voluntary 

guidelines.

# There is little in the literature to confirm the soundness of this approach. Most voluntary 

compliance literature is in the context of voluntary compliance with existing regulations, 

not pure voluntary guidelines. 

# Perhaps the best example in the literature is our existing voluntary avoidance area within 

the Lake Onalaska Waterfowl Hunting Closed Area, Pool 7. It has been successful in 

keeping the level of intrusions steady over time, but intrusions still occur and disturb 

waterfowl during fall staging. In contrast, one of the objectives of slow, no wake and 

Electric Motor Areas is to limit disturbance to wildlife in the spring and early summer 

since this is the sensitive nesting and young-rearing period for many species. Disturbance 

at this time can directly impact recruitment by causing nest abandonment, nest flooding 

by boat wakes, physical trauma to young which are slower or flightless, and scattering of 

broods or family groups. On the human side, just one improper intrusion into these areas 

may ruin the experience for a visitor and dampen his or her desire for future use of the 

area. Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas also entail a very different set of circumstances. 

They are closed by regulation to hunting and trapping which limits use levels, and the 

voluntary avoidance provision is only in effect for a two to three month period that does not 

coincide with peak watercraft use. 

# We currently have one mandatory Electric Motor Area in Wisconsin and it is working 

well. Airboats are not allowed in virtually all State wildlife management areas (Minnesota 

and Wisconsin). Some states prohibit any gas-powered motors in management areas.

# A voluntary approach in Wisconsin would lead to inconsistent Refuge regulations and 

confusion with the public who often cross state lines on any given pool.

# Setting a threshold which would trigger a mandatory or regulatory approach is 

problematic. All options examined have serious drawbacks due to variability of sites in 

terms of size, resources, access, and public use levels and patterns; lack of science on 

appropriate thresholds; measurement and “violation” definition problems; reliability and 

consistency of violation reporting by the public; and the additional monitoring burden 

placed on the Service. 

Service Response to Congressman Green March 6, 2006 Comment Letter (Page 488)

1. Concerned with social and economic impact of Alternative E to communities. 

Response: Social and economic impacts have been reviewed and analyzed in Chapter 4, 

Environmental Consequences, of the Final EIS/CCP. We do not believe the plan would 

negatively impact visitation, the main driver of economics. The Division of Economics in 

Washington prepared our economic analysis using standard economic models and found a 

positive economic impact for Alternatives C through E. We believe that Alternative E, in its 

attempt to strike that reasonable balance of uses, will help ensure that the Refuge remains a 
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

377

destination of choice for both wildlife and people. This integrated approach may prove more 

sustainable and have positive, long-term natural resource, social, and economic impacts both 

on the Refuge and in surrounding communities.

2. Service should adopt Alternative A (no action or current direction). 

Response: We do not believe that Alternative A adequately addresses the large number of issues 

and needs identified in Chapter 1 of the Draft and Final EIS/CCP, including compliance with 

the Refuge Improvement Act and Refuge System policies and regulations. However, 

Alternative E addresses many of the concerns and ideas expressed by citizens and agencies, 

and we believe represents a balanced approach to management of the Refuge. 

Service Response to the Wisconsin Legislature (eight signatories) March 1, 2006 Comment Letter. 

(Page 489)

1. We are still generally opposed to Alternative E because it usurps state authority on sovereign 

waters and unnecessarily eliminates treasured wildlife and non-wildlife based recreational 

opportunities and economic activity.

Response: As noted in a previous comment and response, we recognize and quote the state’s 

1925 Refuge approval language in the Draft and Final EIS/CCP (Chapter 1), but the Service 

continues to have responsibility and authority for federal trust species and in meeting the 

purposes of the Refuge. However, we have developed our plan to ensure that we do not “usurp” 

any state authority. Proposals in Alternative E do not limit navigation or use, only the means 

of navigation and use in an effort to meet the needs of fish and wildlife and the needs of the 

public who enjoy recreation in a variety of ways. Also, no current recreational use is being 

eliminated, although there are restrictions on some areas at certain times of the year to meet 

the needs of wildlife and people. Our analysis of economic impacts in Chapter 4 of the Final 

EIS/CCP shows a continued gain in economic outputs under Alternatives C through E.

2. We have attached a January 13, 2006 memo from the Wisconsin Legislative Council which raises 

issues and concerns about Wisconsin sovereignty and jurisdiction over waters of the Refuge.

Response: We defer to comments from the Wisconsin Attorney General, and our response, later 

in this section. 

3. Nearly every constituent and group we have heard from is opposed to new restrictions and 

supportive of maintaining the current recreational opportunities.

Response: It is not unusual or unexpected to find opposition to change. We have made a 

concerted effort to keep citizens informed and to consider their comments and suggestions in 

crafting the Final EIS/CCP. Alternative E in the Final EIS/CCP contains 17 major changes in 

response to public and agency input during nine public meetings and through written 

comments received. Written comments on the Supplement to the EIS reflect a more balanced 

perspective than elected officials may receive, with 165 persons in favor of Alternative A (139 of 

these were in one petition) and 143 persons in favor of Alternative B, D or E. We continue to 

believe that Alternative E, the preferred alternative, is a balanced approach that meets the 

greatest needs of both wildlife and people on the Refuge.

4. Our constituents have not expressed a demand for non-motorized canoe areas and we are 

concerned about additional search and rescue efforts needed if gasoline motors are prohibited in 

certain areas. We are concerned about loss of access for activities like hunting and trapping and 

effects on disabled persons.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

378

Response: We heard from a number of people and organizations during scoping, public 

meetings, and through written comments who favored the establishment of Electric Motor 

Areas. In response to public comment, we made substantial changes to the number of Electric 

Motor Areas, going from 17 total areas in Alternative D to 5 total areas in Alternative E which 

equals less than 1% of the Refuge. Hunting, fishing, and trapping remain open in these areas, 

and we do not believe the number and size of areas presents an undue burden on disabled 

persons due to the abundant adjacent areas of the Refuge for other motorized craft. Also, the 

relatively small number and size of Electric Motor Areas should not increase incidents of lost 

or stranded persons requiring search and rescue efforts. 

5. The choice of closed areas remains controversial; we suggest a pool-by-pool approach over time.

Response: We recognize that changes to the system of closed areas in effect since 1958 causes 

concern to some hunters. Just as waterfowl management must take a holistic, landscape 

approach for effective conservation, we believe that a Refuge-wide approach to closed areas is in 

the best interest of both waterfowl and the hunting public. We have incorporated many changes 

from earlier alternatives in Alternative E, the preferred alternative, due to public input at 

public meetings and workshops. Since these meetings were attended by persons interested in 

one or two local pools, we believe that in effect we have developed the preferred closed area 

system with pool-by-pool input.

6. It is critical that the maximum amount of acres be open to deer hunting for recreation and 

minimizing disease and environmental impacts.

Response: We do not disagree, although it is necessary to limit all hunting in Waterfowl 

Hunting Closed Areas during the waterfowl season to meet objectives for these areas, and to 

establish small scattered no hunting zones to deal with public safety concerns. We are currently 

working with state and local officials for a deer hunt in the Goose Island area, Pool 8, 

Wisconsin to help reduce the deer herd. We remain committed to following Wisconsin DNR’s 

lead in deer management.

7. Concern about the economic impact that Alternative E will have, especially in regard to hunting, 

fishing, and trapping.

Response: As noted in an earlier comment and response, social and economic impacts have 

been reviewed and analyzed in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences of the Final EIS/CCP. 

We do not believe the plan would negatively impact visitation, the main driver of economics. 

The Division of Economics in Washington prepared our economic analysis using standard 

economic models and found a positive economic impact for Alternatives C through E. We 

believe that Alternative E, in its attempt to strike that reasonable balance of uses, will help 

ensure that the Refuge remains a destination of choice for both wildlife and people. This 

integrated approach may prove more sustainable and have positive, long-term natural 

resource, social, and economic impacts both on the Refuge and in surrounding communities.

8. Concern that proposed pet restrictions will eliminate people’s ability to swim their dogs.

Response: We have changed Objective 5.4, Dog Use Policy, in Alternative E in the Final EIS/

CCP to address this concern while still protecting wildlife and other persons on the Refuge. 

9. Concern that not enough emphasis is placed on invasive species management.

Response: We share the concern with the impacts that invasive species can have on habitat and 

native fish and wildlife populations. Alternatives D through E of the Final EIS/CCP calls for a 

10% reduction in invasive plants by 2010 which we believe is a realistic objective depending on 
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

379

funding levels. Controlling invasive animals represents an incredible basin-wide challenge 

beyond the confines and capabilities of the Refuge, and this is recognized in the rationale 

section of the invasives animal objective (2.4) in the plan. We will continue to work with the 

states and other agency partners in addressing invasive animals. 

10. Concern that there is not enough access to shoreline and disabled fishing; work with Corps of 

Engineers to improve access at locks and dams.

Response: We share the concern for shoreline and disabled fishing, although the realities of 

railroad tracks and lands, private land, and slope of terrain often limit access points to the 

Refuge and the river for shoreline fishing and especially disabled anglers. In Alternative E, we 

have called for the addition of five additional accessible fishing piers, four new walk-in 

accesses, and improvement to five parking areas which often provide additional shoreline 

fishing opportunities. In addition, Alternative E retains four fishing float concessions which 

provide fishing opportunities for those without boats or who are disabled. 

11. Concern with loss of public support and associated benefits by going forward with proposals.

Response: As noted in an earlier comment and response, virtually every objective in Final 

EIS/CCP has partnerships and coordination as a strategy. A new “Friends of Pool 9” group has 

started due to the CCP public involvement process. We are prepared to continue working 

relationships with long-term partners and new partners, regardless of disagreements on 

certain parts of the CCP. However, doing the right thing for the Refuge, resource, and the public 

as a whole may mean the loss of support by a few. Any loss of support is usually off-set by new 

partners who emerge.

Service Response to the Wisconsin Attorney General March, 6, 2006 Comment Letter (Page 493)

1. The plan adopted by the Fish and Wildlife Service must assiduously abide by the reservation of 

all rights by the State of Wisconsin and must not intrude into areas of regulation that were 

reserved for the State.

Response: Neither the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources nor the Wisconsin 

Attorney General’s comments on Alternative E have said that the Service has intruded or 

impinged on state authority. The Attorney General’s comments do not say that the Service has 

crossed a line that would constitute intrusion into state authority. We continue to recognize 

and respect the various state and Corps of Engineers authorities, tempered by the Service’s own 

authorities for carrying out its federal trust species responsibilities, and managing a national 

wildlife refuge in accordance with it’s legislative purpose, the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, 

and Refuge System regulations and policies.

2. Suggested that regulation of fishing, boating, hunting and other state regulated activities be 

done in the closest consultation with the state.

Response: We agree and have been in close consultation with the state since the beginning of the 

planning process. The states are all represented on the Interagency Planning Team, and we 

have had several meetings with the State of Wisconsin to discuss and find solutions to issues. 

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, in their comments on Alternative E, 

supported Alternative E with the understanding that we would continue to work on 

outstanding issues of concern (see Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources comments and 

response).
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

380

3. Any restrictions on navigation that may be imposed under Alternative E must be reasonable 

restrictions that are balanced with other public rights that are protected under the Public Trust 

Doctrine in the Wisconsin Constitution.

Response: Neither the Attorney General’s comments nor the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources have asserted or said that Alternative E would contravene Wisconsin’s Public Trust 

Doctrine. The Attorney General’s comments indicate that the Public Trust Doctrine embodies 

exactly the type of program we have been trying to develop. We are seeking to balance 

competing uses, acknowledging that no one public right is absolute. In the case of Slow, No 

Wake and Electric Motor Areas, they constitute less than 5 percent of the total Refuge and less 

than 8 percent of the water area of the Refuge. Slow, No Wake Areas are also seasonal, so there 

are no restrictions for four-and-a-half months of the year. These areas are also open to hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, and other currently allowed uses. We believe our proposal is in 

keeping with the Attorney General’s urging that “any such restrictions are reasonable and are 

not imposed to the exclusion of other key factors that affect the conservation of resources in the 

Refuge.”

4. The CCP has an undue focus on controlling human uses to the exclusion of dealing with resource 

conservation and protection such as pollution, sedimentation, invasive species, and habitat loss.

Response: As noted in an earlier comment and response, managing public use on a national 

wildlife refuge is an inseparable part of overall administration and resource management. The 

Refuge Improvement Act requires that CCPs address wildlife-dependent public use and visitor 

service facilities. As the most visited refuge in the Refuge System with an estimated 3.7 million 

annual visits, it is to be expected that public use-related issues would need addressing. 

However, we believe the plan does address resource issues in a realistic and measurable way by 

a more aggressive implementation of Pool Management Plans (a 50-year vision for habitat for 

each pool done collaboratively by the Service, Corps and states), by marked expansion of the 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program in watersheds leading into the Refuge, by calling for a 

10% reduction in invasive plants by 2010, and by working with others on invasive animal 

issues. About 78% ($170 million) of the projected funding needs for the life of the plan are 

devoted to habitat improvement and land acquisition, both of which directly improve the 

quality and quantity of fish and wildlife habitat. Chapter 2, Table 4, outlines more than 360 

habitat-related actions that are Refuge priorities and a part of all alternatives. 

7.6 Petitions Received and Response 

7.6.1 First Comment Period Petitions

Petition 1 – 180 signatures (Cordova, Illinois area citizens)

“In response to the proposed changes for the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and 

Fish Refuge, the undersigned people are requesting consideration for the families who use the 

river as a place of recreation. Most people are responsible in their use of watercraft in all areas 

of the river. Recreational boating is a source of income in the area as well as a means of having 

quality family time in a safe environment. We agree that migratory paths of various wildlife 

deserve consideration, but we believe that the national waterways belong to all the people. We 

ask that places such as Steamboat Slough remain available for recreational use.”
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

381

Response: We have made several changes in Alternative E, the preferred alternative, to address 

concerns regarding general recreation on the Refuge. All current types of recreation will 

continue, although there are time and place restrictions on a portion of the Refuge. In Pool 14, 

which includes Steamboat Slough, there is one seasonal Slow, No Wake Area in the backwaters 

north of Princeton State Wildlife Area. Due to its size and shallow-water, it should not 

measurably affect recreation in the Cordova/Princeton area, and the area remains open to 

fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, camping, and other uses. There is a canoe trail identified 

through Steamboat Slough, but this designation does not preclude other types of watercraft or 

any other current use. 

Petition 2 – 77 signatures (some Wisconsin citizens, most unknown)

“Don’t change anything, leave nature deal with the changes.” 

Response: We do not believe that no action or current direction would address the myriad of 

issues and needs identified in Chapter 1 of the Final EIS/CCP. However, as noted elsewhere in 

this comment and response chapter, many changes were made for the preferred alternative in 

response to public concerns.

Petition 3 – 12 signatures (Bellevue, Iowa area citizens)

“We the undersigned, believe the Mississippi River is a public waterway to be used BY THE 

PEOPLE. We believe the National Fish and Wildlife Service SHOULD NOT CONTROL this 

waterway by restricting boats with gas motors off the channel, require fees for boat ramps, or 

charge and/or close all beaches.”

Response: We believe that establishing Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas as 

identified in Alternative E, the preferred alternative, is a reasonable approach to meeting the 

needs of fish and wildlife on a national wildlife refuge, and for addressing the various needs 

and conflicts that come with high visitation rates. These areas encompass approximately 8 

percent of the water acres on the Refuge, with the remaining 92 percent unrestricted during 

peak visitation periods. The fee for use of Refuge-administered boat ramps was dropped in 

Alternative E. There is no proposal at this time for any recreation fee, and no proposal to close 

all beaches. Beach closures or restrictions will only be used to address chronic public use 

problems or safeguard wildlife or habitat values.

Petition 4 - 2,939 signatures (La Crosse, Wisconsin area citizens)

"The undersigned Citizens petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as follows: 

1. The FWS has recommended Alternative Plan D to the proposed Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. We are opposed to Alternative Plan D and recommend that it be 

denied. 

2. We favor Alternative Plan A (current plan now in force) to the FWS Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and recommend that Alternative Plan A be adopted with the 

opportunity for modifications, with public support on a pool by pool basis.”

Response: We do not believe that Alternative A (no action or current direction) adequately 

addresses the large number of issues and needs identified in Chapter 1 of the Draft and Final 

EIS/CCP, including compliance with the Refuge Improvement Act and Refuge System policies 

and regulations. However, Alternative E, the preferred alternative, addresses many of the 

concerns and ideas expressed by citizens and agencies, and we believe represents a balanced 

approach to management of the Refuge. We believe the extensive public involvement effort, with 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

382

31 public meetings and workshops in communities up and down the Refuge, resulted in 

extensive pool-by-pool analysis and comment by the public. Most of the more than 3,700 

persons attending the meetings provided input on the one or two pools they live near and use. 

Petition 5 - 74 signatures (Green Sanctuary Committee, Woodstock, Illinois)

“The Fish and Wildlife Service’s primary mission is to protect fish and wildlife and their habitats 

contained within the national wildlife refuge system. As such, activities must be prohibited that 

inflict significant damage to wildlife and their habitat and disrupt the natural state of quiet and 

equilibrium. 

Fish and wildlife do not thrive in noisy, polluted areas with jetskis churning the waters and 

degrading the shorelines. People (like us) who appreciate nature and visit the Refuge for 

solitude and revitalization also do not thrive under these conditions.

Therefore, we support the “enhanced alternative B” and its call for elimination of personal 

watercraft throughout the Upper Mississippi National Wildlife Refuge. In addition, we believe 

off-road vehicles such as ATVs as well as marine outboard two-stroke motors must be prohibited 

for the protection of the refuge. 

The “enhanced alternative B” was crafted by concerned citizens and best protects refuge 

resources such as air and water quality, wildlife and solitude. We deplore any degradation of the 

refuge. We urge FWS to adopt this alternative.”

Response: We do not believe that Alternative B is the preferred alternative for this particular 

refuge due to the mix of ownerships and jurisdictions, level and importance of recreation, and 

the size and length of the Refuge. We believe that Alternative E strikes a reasonable and 

sustainable balance between the needs of fish and wildlife and the needs of people in accordance 

with the Refuge Improvement Act and Refuge System policies and regulations. Off-road 

vehicles will continue to be prohibited except on navigable waters during ice-over conditions. 

We have addressed watercraft use conflicts by establishing 13 Electric Motor Areas and Slow, 

No Wake Areas, and strengthened the protection of migrating birds through changes to the 

system of Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas and Sanctuaries encompassing 43,764 acres.

7.6.2 Second Comment Period Petitions

Petition 1 - 25 signatures (La Crosse, Wisconsin area citizens) 

“Dear Mr. Hultman,

We are writing to ask you to reconsider the State of Wisconsin’s authority over navigation on the 

Upper Mississippi River and the consequences of your planning effort. 

We believe that your Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Upper Mississippi River 

Wildlife and Fish Refuge has unfortunately been put on the fast track for approval. We have 

attended several meetings with your agency and with other concerned river conservationists 

and various groups. 

We remain concerned that your effort to expand the authority of your agency and usurp the 

power of the State of Wisconsin regarding navigation is ongoing and has not been addressed. 
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

383

We believe that it is paramount that you withdraw from your plan any and all restrictions on 

navigation OR put on hold until those issues can be settled with the State of Wisconsin. 

As the days and weeks pass we draw dangerously close to your deadline of March 6, 2006. We 

remain concerned that once this plan is signed the only avenue open to us would be a costly 

lawsuit that will further divide this once supportive river community. We have long been 

supporters of the work your agency and other agencies. 

Our support for your work has eroded over the course of your planning process and successful 

river habitat programs like the Environmental Management Program and Navigation and 

Ecosystem Sustainability Program are in jeopardy of losing their public support. Please resolve 

these constitutional issues FIRST so we can all proceed with planning for this great river 

resource we all love.”

Response: As noted in earlier comments and responses, the Service believes that it has the 

authority for the actions described in Alternative E, the preferred alternative in the Final EIS/

CCP. Neither the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources nor the Wisconsin Attorney 

General’s comments on Alternative E have said that the Service has intruded or impinged on 

state authority. The Attorney General’s comments do not say that the Service has crossed a line 

that would constitute intrusion into state authority. We continue to recognize and respect the 

various state and Corps of Engineers authorities, tempered by the Service’s own authorities for 

carrying out its federal trust species responsibilities, and managing a national wildlife refuge 

in accordance with it’s legislative purpose, the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, and Refuge 

System regulations and policies.

Petition 2 - 139 signatures (Quad City Bass Club)

“We the undersigned respectfully ask that Alt A. become the final decision on the draft CCP and 

EIS for the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. The refuge has not 

shown sound biological data to support Alt E. and would waste federal tax dollars on signs, 

buildings and staff. They have admitted to not addressing sedimentation and habitat problems in 

the past. Deferred to the state to manage the fishery. They have chosen to take the easy task of 

restricting public access to the refuge and create controversy between refuge users. WE 

SUPPORT ALT. A NO CHANGE.”

Response: As noted in earlier comment and response, we do not believe that Alternative A (no 

action or current direction) adequately addresses the large number of issues and needs 

identified in Chapter 1 of the Draft and Final EIS/CCP, including compliance with the Refuge 

Improvement Act and Refuge System policies and regulations. However, Alternative E, the 

preferred alternative, addresses many of the concerns and ideas expressed by citizens and 

agencies, and we believe represents a balanced approach to management of the Refuge. 

Alternative E does address sedimentation and habitat issues in a meaningful and realistic 

way, and we have always recognized the state’s lead in fishery management, although we 

believe the Refuge plays a role. If tackling some of the public use issues and challenges is the 

easy path, this was certainly not reflected in the scores of public meetings attended by 

thousands of citizens.

Petition 3 - 131 signatures (Fountain City, Wisconsin area citizens) 

“To Don Hultman Refuge Manager, US Fish and Wildlife Service Upper Mississippi River 

Wildlife and Fish Refuge. RE: Your Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Upper 

Mississippi River Refuge, Alternative E. We oppose the proposed Slow No Wake Zone along 

Merrick State Park.”
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

384

Response: We believe this Slow, No Wake Zone, Pool 5a, is warranted based on concerns 

expressed by visitors using the adjacent Merrick State Park. However, this and all other Slow, 

No Wake Zones will go through the local unit of government approval process, as is normal and 

customary for designating Slow, No Wake Zones on the river. Thus, this area is a proposal by 

the Refuge, not a final decision.

7.7 Form Letter or Form E-mail Comments and Response 

7.7.1 First Comment Period

Form letter 1 (post cards) - 295 individuals (Sierra Club-Midwest)

Comment: Support protecting the Mississippi River for future generations of people, fish and 

wildlife. The final Conservation Plan must allow people and nature to co-exist. Support Alternative 

D to ensure adequate water quality and habitat for fish, wildlife and quality recreational 

opportunities for future generations.

Response: Comments are noted. Alternative E, the preferred alternative, is a modification of 

Alternative D. Many of the features or actions in Alternative D are also found in Alternative 

E. However, changes were made based on public input at public meetings and workshops, and 

in response to written comments. We believe that Alternative E continues to meet the spirit of 

these comments.

Form letter 2 – 20 individuals (based on alert from National Rifle Association) 

Comment: Limiting the number of shotshells for waterfowl hunting is unnecessary and would 

unfairly target youth and beginning hunters. Closure of areas to hunting should not be done unless 

biologically necessary. Electric Motor Areas would make hunter access to these areas very difficult, 

and concerned about permit-only hunts and fees. Some of the letters specifically preferred 

Alternative A.

Response: The daily possession limit of 25 shotshells for waterfowl hunting in Alternatives B 

and D was deleted in Alternative E, the preferred alternative. The modifications to the existing 

system of Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas as described in Alternative E is based on decades of 

surveys and recent energetics studies. Even with the changes, the percentage of the Refuge open 

to hunting in Alternative E is 78% compared to the current 80%, and the gap is actually 

narrower since some areas are only closed for part of the season. As noted in earlier responses, 

major changes were also made to the number of Electric Motor Areas, and Alternative E 

contains five areas totaling 1,852 acres versus 16 areas totaling 14,498 acres in Alternative D. 

Also, the proposed managed hunt in Pool 7 was dropped in favor of working with area 

waterfowlers and the state in addressing issues of crowding and firing line behavior. We do not 

believe that Alternative A (no action or current direction) adequately addresses the large 

number of issues and needs identified in Chapter 1 of the Draft and Final EIS/CCP, including 

compliance with the Refuge Improvement Act and Refuge System policies and regulations. 

Form letter 3 – 120 individuals (unknown “sponsor,” letters from throughout U.S.) 

Comment: Understand the need for flexibility in refuge management, but opposed to any 

restrictions regarding motorized watercraft, and specifically the Electric Motor Areas in Alternative 

D. As a taxpayer and boat owner who pays federal tax on the boat and fuel, any reduction in access is 

unacceptable. 
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

385

Response: In response to these and other comments, we have made many changes as reflected 

in Alternative E, the preferred alternative. When compared to the other alternatives, these 

changes include a major reduction of Electric Motor Areas in favor of seasonal Slow, No Wake 

Areas, dropping of a boat ramp fee, modifying beach-related use regulations, dropping shot 

shell limits and spacing for waterfowl hunters, and changing boundaries and entry regulations 

for Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas. The number of canoe trails was reduced by two trails in 

Alternative E compared to Alternative D. However, canoe trails remain open to all watercraft 

type (unless within an otherwise restricted-use area) so should not affect traditional and 

customary uses.

Form letter 4 – 1,850 (Blue Water Network based in San Francisco, California) 

Comment: The Service’s primary mission is to protect wildlife and its habitat and activities that 

damage wildlife and habitat and that disrupt traditional activities like hunting and fishing must be 

prohibited. Support an enhanced Alternative B for the Refuge, and believe that ATVs, two-stroke 

outboards, personal watercraft and snowmobiles should be prohibited. 

Response: As noted in earlier response, we do not believe that Alternative B is the preferred 

alternative for this particular refuge due to the mix of ownerships and jurisdictions, level and 

importance of recreation, and the size and length of the Refuge. We believe that Alternative E 

strikes a reasonable and sustainable balance between the needs of fish and wildlife and the 

needs of people in accordance with the Refuge Improvement Act and Refuge System policies 

and regulations. Off-road vehicles will continue to be prohibited except on navigable waters 

during ice-over conditions. We have addressed watercraft use conflicts by establishing 13 

Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas, and strengthened the protection of migrating 

birds through changes to the system of Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas and Sanctuaries 

encompassing 43,764 acres.

Form letter 5 – 20 individuals (Prairie du Chien,Wisconsin area citizens)

Comment: Strongly disagree with the contents of the Draft EIS/CCP and concerned about closing 

areas of the Refuge that have been used for generations. The river has been and should be a multipurpose resource for the benefit of fish, wildlife, and people. Changes which diminish hunting, 

fishing, boating, and camping will not gain consensus. Favor Alternative A, no action, and this will 

allow more time to enact a plan that will gain public support.

Response: By law, national wildlife refuges are to be managed first and foremost for fish and 

wildlife in accordance with their purposes. However, we concur that this Refuge can be 

managed effectively to benefit fish, wildlife, and people, and we believe the goals and objectives 

in Alternative E, the preferred alternative, strongly support this. Alternative E reflects many 

changes based on extensive public input at meetings, workshops, and through written 

comments. All types of traditional recreation currently enjoyed on the Refuge will continue, 

although there are reasonable time and place restrictions on a portion of the Refuge to meet the 

needs of wildlife and the needs of a large and diverse public. We believe this balanced approach 

is in the best long-term interest of the resource, area communities and economy, and the public 

at large. Alternative A, no action or current direction, does not meet the multitude of needs 

outlined in Chapter 1. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

386

7.7.2 Second Comment Period

Form Letter 1 – 193 individuals (permanent blind owners/users, Pools 12-14 area) 

Comment: Hunters, anglers and trappers pay the largest portion of funds for conservation and 

Alternative E has a negative effect on them. The plan spends most of its funds on creating canoe, 

hiking, and bike trails and does little for wildlife. Specifically, want to keep permanent blinds for the 

following reasons:

# Hunter safety – having hunters running around for place to hunt in dark is dangerous

# Habitat – permanent blinds provide nesting sites for waterfowl and habitat for other birds and 

fish

# Tradition – this is way we have always hunted in the Savanna District and there is no reason to 

change it. 

Response: We recognize that hunters and anglers have been and continue to be major financial 

supporters for conservation in this country. However, operation and maintenance funds for 

national wildlife refuges do not come from the sale of licenses or Duck Stamps, but from 

general tax revenues. The Refuge Improvement Act requires that each refuge facilitate 

compatible hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and 

environmental education. The facilities in the plan are designed to support these various 

wildlife-dependent uses. Fish and wildlife management remains a major component of all 

alternatives in the Final EIS/CCP. Habitat enhancement and land acquisition account for 78 

percent of the estimated cost of implementing Alternative E, the preferred alternative, over the 

next 15 years. 

As noted in an earlier response to Illinois Department of Natural Resources comments, 

phasing out permanent hunting blinds is a difficult issue due to the number of hunters 

involved and the strong traditions that have developed. However, we believe our concerns with 

private, exclusive or proprietary use of public lands and waters, continued problems with 

confrontations and debris, and inconsistency with the other three districts of the Refuge 

warrant a phase out of the blinds. We also acknowledge that permanent blinds do provide 

nesting sites for Canada Geese and Mallards, and micro-habitat for other fish and wildlife. 

However, we believe the concerns outweigh these benefits, and habitat for Canada Geese and 

Mallards remains abundant without the blinds. We have made one change in Alternative E to 

help ease the transition. The pool-by-pool sequence of phase out will be Pool 12, 14, and 13. This 

will not only ease our administrative and enforcement burden, but give the greatest number of 

blind hunters (Pool 13, 250 blinds) more time to adjust to alternative hunting methods.

7.8 Public Comment by Topic or CCP Objective 

(Note: number in parenthesis denotes number of similar comments received)

1.1 Refuge Boundary 

Comment: Support plan to identify, survey and post areas where encroachment most likely (9).

Response: Comments are noted.
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

387

1.2. Acquisition within Approved Boundary

Comment: Support land acquisition (16) and believe the ecological health and viability of the Refuge 

depend upon it (4).

Response: We concur with these comments and completing land acquisition within the 

authorized Refuge boundary is an important objective in Alternatives B through E.

Comment: Want money ear-marked for land acquisition to be used for fish stocking and eradication 

of choking weeds (3).

Response: Funding appropriated by Congress for land acquisition must be used for land 

acquisition. The funding source for land acquisition for the Refuge is the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, funding for which comes mainly from off-shore oil and gas leasing fees 

paid to the United States.

1.3 Bluffland Protection

Comment: Support efforts to aggressively acquire blufflands to protect upland habitat and terraces 

as an important corridor for migration of non-waterfowl. (19) 

Response: Concur as reflected in Alternatives B through E.

1.4 Research Natural Areas and Special Designations

Comment: Support management of Natural Areas and efforts to achieve special designations 

(RAMSAR Wetland of International Importance and Important Bird Area). Study degraded habitat 

in these areas to learn how to replicate them (9).

Response: Concur as reflected in Alternatives B, D, and E.

Comment: Create a Research Natural Area for oak savannas at the Lost Mound Unit, Savanna 

District (NW Illinois Prairie Enthusiasts).

Response: We concur with the ecological importance and significance of the oak savanna and 

prairie at the Lost Mound Unit, Savanna District of the Refuge. However, we do not believe that 

natural area designation is appropriate given the level of disturbance, and in some cases 

contamination, that has occurred at the Lost Mound Unit (former Savanna Army Depot). We 

are committed, however, to conserving and enhancing the oak savanna habitat at Lost Mound 

through prescribed burning, invasive plant removal, and other methods.

Comment: Natural areas need to be re-identified. For example, Goose Island (Pool 8) is designated 

as a natural area in the Land Use Allocation Plan, but is programmed to be converted to forest.

Response: The Goose Island area of the Refuge was never formally adopted as a federal 

Research Natural Area by the Service and there is no intent to pursue such designation. Thus, 

habitat management of the area will be guided by what is best for the resource in cooperation 

with the Corps of Engineers, Wisconsin, and local units of government which all have a role in 

the Goose Island area.

2.1 Water Quality (chemistry and sediments) 

Comment: A majority of individuals/organizations citing water quality as a concern (81) listed it as 

their top priority.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

388

Response: We concur that water quality is a critical aspect of the environmental health of the 

Refuge which is one reason it was treated as a separate objective in the Draft and Final EIS/

CCP. We also recognize in the text that water quality is an issue beyond the scope of the Refuge, 

but have identified strategies to address that we believe are realistic and can help address water 

quality impacts originating off-refuge.

Comment: Support efforts to standardize water quality criteria and address sedimentation and 

siltation especially in backwaters (71). 

Response: Concur and objectives and strategies in the Final EIS/CCP reflect this.

Comment: Private citizen concerned that islands the Service has helped build in Lake Onalaska are 

cutting off water flow and increasing sedimentation along shoreline.

Response: Like all habitat projects, we have worked with the Corps of Engineers, Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources, and local units of government and associations in 

designing island projects. The design work includes a look at flows and sediment transport, 

among other variables. This analysis does not indicate that islands constructed in Lake 

Onalaska are the cause for any substantial increase in sedimentation.

Comment: General concern that limiting speed and certain types of boats will not reduce 

sedimentation or improve water quality (5).

Response: We do not disagree, although motor type and how it is used can affect water quality 

and sediment in the immediate area of operation. However, our proposals for Slow, No Wake 

Areas, no wake zones, and Electric Motor Areas are not intended to address sedimentation and 

water quality issues. They are intended to address fish and wildlife disturbance, public safety, 

or conflicts within or between different user groups.

Comment: Concern that dumping raw sewage, nutrient loads, agricultural and storm water run-off 

are all affecting water quality (3).

Response: We concur that these actions can measurably affect water quality. However, most of 

these actions occur off-refuge and come under the jurisdiction of state or federal agencies who 

deal with water and nutrient discharges. We generally report potential violations of pollution 

control regulations to the appropriate state agency, and will continue to do so. The Final EIS/

CCP does include strategies to address water quality by working with landowners in 

watersheds (Objective 2.1).

Comment: The Refuge should focus on watershed agreements and impact of point and non-point 

water quality sources.

Response: We concur although have limited ability to address the myriad of watershed and 

basin wide land use issues that affect the quality of water entering the Refuge. We have 

identified in the plan strategies to address a watershed-based approach that we believe is 

realistic and can help address water quality impacts originating off-refuge.

2.2 Water Level Management

Comment: Support water level controls to mimic natural water level fluctuations to benefit habitat 

(25).

Response: Comments are noted and water level management remains an important feature in 

the Final EIS/CCP.
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

389

Comment: Concerned that the water level in Pools 9 and 10 is kept too high all year causing a lack of 

vegetation and thus habitat (3).

Response: This concern was also raised at public meetings and workshops in communities 

near Pools 9 and 10. Water level management of all pools remains under the control of the 

Corps of Engineers. We have brought this issue up with the Corps of Engineers and will 

continue to discuss it with them. 

2.3 and 2.4 Invasive Plants and Invasive Animals

Comment: Invasives should become top priority after water quality. Want greater partnership with 

state agencies to fight invasives (79).

Response: We concur that addressing invasive plants and animals is a high priority, thus the 

plan treats them as separate objectives. Controlling invasive species is a difficult challenge 

since they often originate off-refuge and control methods are either costly or have yet to be 

developed. Invasive animal species in particular do not lend themselves to direct control in a 

large river system and effective measures are often dependent on political and management 

actions beyond the boundary of the Refuge. However, we have strengthened strategies in these 

objectives in Alternative E (which include working with the states and others), and have also 

ranked invasive species control high in the Implementation Plan, Appendix L.

Comment: Want active controls to fight invasives like purple loosestrife. Recommend using 

volunteers to physically eradicate invasives on islands and help educate public (3).

Response: See response above. We concur with the use of volunteers and role of education and 

these are included in the strategies in the plan.

Comment: Want active coordination and improved public awareness campaign to control Asian carp 

and zebra mussel spread (5).

Response: See responses above.

3.1 Environmental Pool Plans

Comment: Develop diverse partnership providing a balanced approach to habitat and water quality 

restoration and management (2).

Response: We concur as reflected in the many strategies in the Final EIS/CCP which 

emphasize partnerships. We have also added a new section in Chapter 2, Section 2.4.2 

(Elements Common to All Alternatives), that emphasizes coordination and collaboration with 

the states and Corps of Engineers on all aspects of the plan.

Comment: Overall support pool drawdowns and recognize benefits (10).

Response: Concur, see comments and response under 2.2, Water Level Management.

3.2 Guiding Principles for All Habitat Management Programs

Comment: Adopt and use guiding principles (5) and employ management practices which restore/

mimic natural ecosystem processes promoting diverse habitat with minimum maintenance and cost 

(2).

Response: We concur and Alternative E in the Final EIS/CCP reflects these comments.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

390

3.3 Monitoring Fish and Wildlife Populations

Comment: Monitoring is a critical step to assess status and trends of wildlife populations. Increase 

efforts and coordinate with states and other agencies, providing periodic reports to public (18).

Response: Comments are noted and we believe the Final EIS/CCP affirms these comments.

Comment: Increase monitoring to include Red-shoulder hawks, warblers, Pileated Woodpeckers, 

neo-tropicals and migrant shore birds (2).

Response: Although we generally concur with this comment, the range of species monitored is 

often limited by staffing, funding, or number of qualified volunteers. The plan calls for 

updating the Refuge wildlife inventory plan, and it is at this time that the range of species that 

will monitored will be selected 

3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

Comment: Fully protect the habitats for threatened and endangered species, increase inventory, 

monitoring, and recovery. Encourage public education at every opportunity (4).

Response: We concur and Alternative E in the Final EIS/CCP reflects increased emphasis on 

threatened and endangered species.

Comment: Identify other federally listed species in adjoining areas (like Indiana bats) and 

coordinate monitoring activities.

Response: Since the Refuge CCP is specific to the Refuge, it would not be appropriate to stray to 

far afield with actions and initiatives, especially given the restraints of staffing and funding. 

We did examine records for Indiana bat occurrences and found these records show the bats are 

some distance from the Refuge. We will continue to provide assistance to our counterparts in 

the Service’s Ecological Services and Fisheries programs, as well as the states and nongovernmental organizations, for off-refuge threatenened and endangered species monitoring as 

appropriate. 

Comment: Protect federally-listed monkshood flower and Pleistocene snail.

Response: We concur. The Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge is managed as part of the 

Refuge Complex and its purpose is to protect these two species. A CCP for this refuge was 

recently completed and calls for a marked expansion of habitat protection for these species, 

with the eventual goal of having enough secure habitat, and secure populations, to de-list the 

species.

3.5 Furbearer Trapping

Comments: 

# Address liberal beaver trapping ruining habitat for duck marsh and rat houses. Want Minnesota 

to sanction otter trapping and dates to coincide for beaver/otters. (3)

# Wants muskrat season to end December 31 to allow population to recover from loss of habitat 

and prevent over-harvesting. 75% of rats taken in first 2 weeks especially in Pool 5A.

# 30-day season long enough to allow muskrat population to build back up (too low). (3)

# Want airboat use authorized during winter to retain safety when trapping. (3)
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

391

# Give each trapper 5-10 more tags specifically for dry land trapping to control predators 

(raccoon/possum).

# Increase trap tag allotment to pre-1970 issue of 40 tags and adjust trap hours to mirror states.

# Allow raccoons caught incidental to spring beaver trapping as legal game.

# Ban all hunting and trapping on Refuge (3)

# Leg hold and Conibear traps pose serious threats to non-target wildlife including T&E species. 

Mitigate hazard and seek incidental take permits as necessary.

# Anyone who makes profit out of activities on refuge should be required to have a Special Use 

Permit and be charged accordingly. (3)

# Fully analyze trapping programs or suspend trapping until program is fully analyzed, reviewed, 

and brought into compliance with Refuge policies. Plan relies heavily on state data not 

independently confirmed by the Service. Beaver and red fox populations are declining but 

trapping limits are unchanged. 

Response: All alternatives in the Final EIS/CCP call for an update of the Refuge Trapping 

Plan by June, 2007. There will be a separate environmental assessment completed as part of 

that planning process, as well as public involvement as outlined in Alternative E. Thus, it is 

premature to respond to most of the specific comments received on trapping. The comments 

above, along with new input, will be considered as a new trapping plan is prepared.

3.6 Fishery and Mussel Management

Comment: Largest and most widely used U.S. river refuge needs a full time fishery biologist (3).

Response: We concur and a fishery biologist position is included in the preferred alternative of 

the Final EIS/CCP.

Comment: The Refuge needs to take an active and advisory role in fishery and mussel management, 

especially in concert with the states through the technical section of the Upper Mississippi River 

Conservation Committee.

Response: We concur as reflected in the preferred alternative.

Comment: Would like 15-inch limit on walleye and saugers. Bag or creel limit should be lowered from 

6 to 4, and would like more restrictions on fish harvesting and selective walleye harvesting.

Response: We believe, as reflected in the Final EIS/CCP, that the states have the lead for 

management of sport and other fisheries, including regulations determining size and take 

limits. Thus, we generally defer to the states for any take regulations that are applied on the 

Refuge. 

Comment: Ensure stocking program supports/supplements fishery efforts since fishing directly 

impacts economic growth.

Response: The Refuge does not actively participate in any stocking programs since we believe 

this is a responsibility carried out at the discretion of the states based on their survey 

information and objectives. The Genoa National Fish Hatchery, Genoa, Wisconsin, does do 

some fish rearing and stocking in coordination with the states.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

392

3.7 Commercial Fishing and Clamming

Comment: The Refuge should issue permits for commercial fishing and clamming.

Response: We believe Alternative E in the Final EIS/CCP outlines a sensible approach for 

dove-tailing any Refuge permit requirements with the current permitting processes of the 

states who retain the lead for commercial fishing and mussel harvest.

Comment: Insure the Service coordinates with states to avoid jurisdictional issues on commercial 

use.

Response: Concur and this is reflected in the Final EIS/CCP.

Comment: Final decision on Waterfowl Hunting Closed Area entry regulations and electric motor 

only areas must take into account commercial fishing and biological monitoring. 

Response: We have made several changes in Alternative E that address concerns for both 

commercial fishing and entry by other agencies engaged in monitoring activities.

The large Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas also used by commercial anglers are now voluntary 

avoidance versus no fishing, no motors. Small Waterfowl Hunting Closed Area are voluntary 

avoidance and no motors, but these areas are generally not of interest to commercial anglers. 

We will continue to work with commercial anglers on ways to limit timing and methods of 

harvest in closed areas in the fall to minimize disturbance to resting and feeding waterfowl. 

Electric Motor Areas have been scaled back to just five areas and should not affect commercial 

fishing. Bona fide biological monitoring and other resource and law enforcement work is 

exempt from public use restrictions in certain areas. This was clarified in the Final EIS/CCP 

in Chapter 2, Section 2.4.1.

Comment: Closure of lower half of Pool 5 would make commercial fishing impossible.

Response: See response above. The Weaver Bottoms Closed Area in Pool 5 is a voluntary 

avoidance area from October 15 to the end of the state duck season in Alternative E, the 

preferred alternative. 

Comment: Commercial anglers need to have unrestricted access above Lock and Dam 9.

Response: See response above. The Harper’s Slough Closed Area above Lock and Dam 9 is a 

voluntary avoidance area from October 15 to the end of the state duck season in Alternative E, 

the preferred alternative.

Comment: The Refuge should ban all commercial fishing and clamming as an incompatible refuge 

use (2).

Response: Do not concur. Commercial fishing can be a valuable management tool in keeping 

fish populations in balance with habitat, especially in regard to introduced species such as 

common carp, and more recently, Asian carp. Clamming or mussel harvest is closely regulated 

by the states so that harvest does not harm populations or species. Wisconsin recently closed 

the mussel harvest based on population data. The Refuge will continue to work with the states 

in managing commercial fishing and clamming to ensure it remains a compatible use. 

Comment: Commercial anglers could be impacted by closures during duck season (2), and 

commercial fishing in Lansing, New Albin, and Harpers Ferry is a livelihood for many. 
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

393

Response: We do not disagree and made changes to Alternative E due to comments received 

from commercial anglers and the states. See other comments and responses in this section.

Comment: Create travel corridors for commercial anglers to check nets and lines during waterfowl 

season (2).

Response: Travel corridors for general access around the core of Waterfowl Hunting Closed 

Areas have been incorporated in various alternatives, including Alternative E, the preferred 

alternative. The need for travel corridors specifically for commercial anglers is no longer an 

issue since in Alternative E, entry into large closed areas is at the discretion of the operator 

under the voluntary avoidance guidelines adapted. However, this idea has merit to help limit 

disturbance to waterfowl and will be pursued in coordination with commercial anglers and the 

states.

3.8 Turtle Management

Comment: Support turtle ecology study and management of turtles (5).

Response: Comments are noted and reflect the direction in Alternatives B, D, and E in the 

Final EIS/CCP.

Comment: There is no proof that turtle harvest is beneficial to Refuge as required by Refuge 

System regulations dealing with commercial uses on refuges.

Response: We do not disagree, although there is also no proof that turtle harvest as prescribed 

by state regulations, which the Refuge adopts, are posing any harm to turtle populations. 

However, we recognize the need for better information and Alternatives B, D, and E call for 

both increased turtle monitoring to understand population dynamics and human impacts, and 

for a turtle management strategy which would address the question of whether harvest 

contributes to achieving Refuge purposes or Refuge System mission as required in 50 CFR 

29.1. This issue is also complicated by the mix of ownerships and jurisdictions on the river 

floodplain. As called for in the Final EIS/CCP, we will continue to work on this and other 

commercial uses of natural resources to ensure compliance with Refuge System policy and 

regulations.

Comment: The lack of information is not reason to dismiss the alternative component of fish and 

turtle sanctuaries.

Response: We do not concur. As noted in Chapter 2, Section 2.3, there is a lack of scientific 

information and no concurrence among resource managers and biologists that additional fish 

sanctuaries, or new turtle sanctuaries, are warranted. We believe that other actions in 

Alternative E of the Final EIS/CCP, namely Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas, 

provide additional protection and some measure of “sanctuary” for aquatic species during the 

critical breeding and young-rearing season. 

Comment: Research is required to provide scientific basis for turtle management decisions and 

restrictions.

Response: Concur, and this is reflected in Alternative B, D, and E of the Final EIS/CCP under 

Objective 3.8.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

394

3.9 Forest Management

Comments: 

# Refuge forest needs to be evaluated, inventoried, and managed to improve the type and make up 

of the forest (13). 

# Hire a forester who understands fire and flood driven ecosystems, and recognize the need for 

large patches and older forest with high canopy closure (3).

# Concerned about impact of dying silver maples and bird species loss as forest trees die, 

disappear, and are replaced by less desirable hardwoods. 

# Supports balanced forest management that provides adequate habitat for cavity-nesting game 

and non-game species. 

# Allow retention of 70% closed canopy for forest birds like Red-shouldered Hawks and warblers 

(2).

# Harvest some trees to promote healthy/diverse forest. Some could be taken down and replaced 

with wetland/upland plantings and allowed to re-forest naturally.

# Recommend using dredged material to add topographic diversity restoring elevations and soil 

moisture to support floodplain forest habitats.

Response: We concur with most of these comments and they are addressed in Alternative B, D, 

and E in the Final EIS/CCP. Specific comments and suggestions on forest composition and 

structure will be addressed in the Forest Management step-down plan to be completed by 2010. 

The first priority is to complete a forest inventory by 2008 which will form the basis of more 

detailed planning. In addition, the Corps of Engineers, which has responsibility for forest 

management on about half of the lands that are part of the Refuge, is actively working on a 

forest management strategy as part of the pre-planning for the Navigation and Environmental 

Sustainability Program. This strategy, and potential increase in funding, could accelerate 

forest management actions.

Comment: Concern about disturbing mature woodland forest near the proposed Kain Switch Hiking 

Trail, Pool 9, south of New Albin, Iowa.

Response: This hiking trail has been scaled-back considerably in Alternative E (2.9 miles 

versus 4.3 miles) and will run close to the road versus into the heart of this unique forest area. 

Also, the trail is meant to be natural or primitive in nature and designed and constructed in a 

way that causes little or no impact to the existing forest. 

 3.10 Grassland Management

Comment: Support grassland management, including restoration and protection of native prairie 

and savannas for diverse species which rely on grasslands and forest (8). 

Response: Concur and reflected in the Final EIS/CCP.

Comment: Add grass to dikes and establish grassland habitat for ground nesting birds on 

constructed islands.

Response: We agree that establishing grass on dikes, islands, and other areas may be the best 

management strategy depending on site. However, as stated in our guiding principles for 

habitat management (Objective 3.2), natural succession may be the best course on some areas 

given the realities of the physical environment and the needs of all species. This approach is 

also in-line with the Service’s policy on biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

395

health, but does not preclude the planting of grass on dikes and islands to benefit ground 

nesting birds where most appropriate, feasible, and sustainable.

4.1 General Hunting 

Comment: Wants to keep minimum of 80 percent of Refuge open to hunting and recommends 

adjusting current areas open to hunting that may provide better sanctuaries.

Response: In Alternative E we have made several adjustments to Waterfowl Hunting Closed 

Areas and No Hunting Zones, and added explanatory information about the acreage and 

percentage of the Refuge open to hunting. The percentage of the Refuge open to hunting is 

substantial compared to most national wildlife refuges, and the percentage of 78 percent in 

Alternative E is a minimum. The actual percentage is expected to rise as land acquisition is 

completed and these additions are opened to hunting.

Comment: Concerned about loss to overall hunting area (44).

Response: We have tried to minimize any reduction in areas open to hunting while still 

meeting the needs of waterfowl and other wildlife which depend on the Refuge for either all or a 

portion of their annual life cycle. Hunting remains a priority public use in keeping with the 

Refuge Improvement Act. We made several changes in Alternative E to address this comment 

and concern. The acres of Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas/Sanctuaries declined by 780 acres 

in Alternative E compared to current conditions or Alternative A. We reduced the areas 

affected by a restriction on open water hunting substantially from Alternative D to Alternative 

E, along with the acres in administrative no hunting zones. The phase-out of permanent 

hunting blinds and the exception for leaving decoys out overnight in Pools 12-14 in Alternative 

E should open up additional areas of the Refuge to the general public for hunting by drastically 

reducing instances of proprietary use.

Comment: Oppose all hunting on the Refuge (11).

Response: We understand some citizens concern with hunting on national wildlife refuges. 

However, hunting on refuges remains an important form of outdoor recreation for millions of 

citizens and a use which is to be facilitated when compatible with the purpose of the refuge and 

the mission of the Refuge System (Refuge Improvement Act). We have taken care in Alternative 

E, the preferred alternative, to ensure the right balance between the needs of wildlife and people 

in keeping with the Refuge Improvement Act and Service policy and regulation. 

Comment: Want airboat restrictions during hunting, either by area or seasonally (10).

Response: Alternative E in the Final EIS/CCP contains both Electric Motor Areas and Slow, 

No Wake Areas that would restrict speed, airboats, and hovercraft during all or some of the 

hunting season. We believe the changes made in Alternative E compared to other alternatives 

provide a reasonable accommodation for persons desiring a different hunting experience.

Comment: Wants continued deer hunting opportunities to continue in the Reno Bottoms area, Pool 9 

(2).

Response: Reno Bottoms remains open to deer hunting in Alternative E, the preferred 

alternative. Seasonal restrictions on speed, airboats, and hovercraft in a portion of Reno 

Bottoms designated a Slow, No Wake Area will cause some inconvenience to bow hunters, but 

the restrictions end October 31 before the general deer gun season opens.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

396

Comment: Against deer hunting changes in Sabula, Iowa area.

Response: In Alternative E, the preferred alternative, there are no changes to existing 

Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas or Sanctuaries that would affect current deer hunting 

opportunities in the Sabula area..

Comment: Concerned about loss of deer bow hunting opportunities from proposed changes to 

Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas and No Hunting Zones (5).

Response: We have made substantial changes to Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas and No 

Hunting Zones in Alternative E, the preferred alternative. The total acreage open and suitable 

for bow hunting changes little from current conditions, but we recognize that any change 

creates an inconvenience if an area formerly open is closed. 

Comment: Concerned about proposed closing of John Deere Marsh hunting area, Pool 11 (3).

Response: We have made several modifications to the John Deere Marsh Area in Alternative E, 

the preferred alternative. This alternative establishes a 107-acre walk-in hunting area while 

still maintaining a closed area on either side to meet the needs of waterfowl (dabbler ducks) in 

this stretch of Pool 11. We believe Alternative E addresses the concerns for loss of hunting 

opportunity in this area.

Comment: Address disabled hunting opportunities and access (3).

Response: Disabled access via walking or wheelchair remains a challenge given the terrain and 

obstacles such as railroad tracks and rights-of-way. However, we make every effort to design 

and construct accessible ramps and docks to help disabled persons getting into and out of 

watercraft used for duck hunting, the main type of hunting on the Refuge. It is Service policy to 

accommodate the needs of the disabled for recreational activities whenever possible, and we will 

continue to explore ways to do this in both facilities and programs.

Comment: Suggest not putting new wildlife viewing facilities in existing hunting areas since it 

creates conflicts (4).

Response: Most wildlife viewing platforms are generally on the edges of areas where hunting 

occurs, and thus there are generally no direct conflicts between viewers and hunters. Many of 

the existing or proposed wildlife observation decks (Alternative E) do overlook areas closed to 

hunting, mainly because waterfowl tend to congregate in these areas during fall migration. In 

all cases, we consider hunting when choosing locations for viewing facilities, realizing that 

many hunting areas also provide excellent spring migration viewing opportunities when 

hunting seasons are generally closed. 

4.2 Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas and Sanctuaries

Comment: Concerned about and generally opposed to changes of Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas 

in Pool 4 near Wabasha, Minnesota and Nelson, Wisconsin (Big Lake/Nelson-Trevino) hunting area 

(46).

Response: We have made several changes to the closed areas in Pool 4 in Alternative E, the 

preferred alternative, to try and accommodate hunter’s concerns. Alternative E opens an 

additional 3,098 acres to hunting in Pool 4, although not all comparable. However, we have also 

made a change in Alternative E that opens an additional 678 acres (Buffalo Slough) near the 

Big Lake area to help any hunters displaced. Also, implementation of these changes are 

delayed until 2009 in Alternative E to allow three-year monitoring of waterfowl use in Nelson-
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

397

Trevino and surrounding areas to ensure all information is fully considered before making the 

change. This will also ease the transition for hunters accustomed to hunting in the Big Lake 

area and allow them time to explore other alternative hunting areas. 

Comment: Boat access is severely limited in the Nelson-Trevino area compared to the Big Lake area, 

so the swap is not equal just because of access issues.

Response: We agree that access to these two areas is markedly different and will affect hunting 

access and thus the hunting experience. We have tried to mitigate these effects by changes in 

Alternative E as outlined in the previous comment and response. The new Big Lake Closed 

Area in Alternative E may also increase the quality of hunting in adjacent areas (e.g. 

downstream of Hwy. 25 causeway, Robinson Lake, and Buffalo Slough) since more waterfowl 

will stay in the area, possibly further off-setting the access issue. 

Comment: One person raised several specific issues and questions concerning the dynamics of 

waterfowl food and closed areas, the basis for setting a threshold of disturbance in Alternative E, 

and the overall effects of disturbance on waterfowl. 

Response: A detailed response to these issues is provided in Appendix Q (Waterfowl Hunting 

Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and Rationale for Alternative E), Attachment 

1.

Comment: Prefer voluntary avoidance areas to mandatory regulations which limit access to 

Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas (19).

Response: Alternative E, the preferred alternative, uses voluntary avoidance for all closed 

areas, a major change from other alternatives based on comments received from the public and 

some states. However, small closed areas (less than 1,000 acres) also have a no motor regulation 

from October 15 to the end of the respective state duck season since waterfowl in these smaller 

areas are more vulnerable to disturbance from watercraft. 

Comment: Only support current voluntary avoidance or restricted access areas (Lake Onalaska 

Voluntary Avoidance Area and Mertes Slough Electric Motor Area) (4).

Response: Comment is noted.

Comment: Recommend possible trial period on new closed or voluntary avoidance areas, then 

monitor to insure they are meeting biological goals (4).

Response: We do not support a trial period for closed areas since trial periods tend to alter 

human behavior given their known end point. However, we do support monitoring of closed 

areas and the new voluntary avoidance provisions in Alternative E. Monitoring is a part of the 

closed area objective in Alternative E, the preferred alternative. We also support overall 

monitoring of closed area effectiveness and making future changes on a more timely basis 

should the data suggest a change is needed (adaptive management).

Comment: Many oppose all new closed areas outlined in the various alternatives (27), while a few 

support some new closed areas (6).

Response: We understand that changes to the system of Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas of the 

Refuge are generally met with resistance since the changes affect long-standing patterns of 

public use. However, the issue and need for change is thoroughly documented in the Final EIS/

CCP, and in particular Appendix Q which was added as part of the Supplement to the Draft 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

398

EIS/CCP and is part of the final document. We believe that changes to a system that has 

remained virtually unchanged since 1958 are needed based on habitat conditions, monitoring 

data, disturbance studies, and energetics information.

Comment: Concerned about the proposed addition to, and the special hunt designation of, the Goose 

Island No Hunting Zone, Pool 8 (10).

Response: The Goose Island No Hunting Zone expansion to the north (235 acres) has been 

dropped in Alternative E in response to public comment. The area will remain open to hunting 

and no special hunting program is established in Alternative E. The expansion of the no 

hunting zone to the south remains in Alternative E since it is deemed important to make the 

existing area more effective as a rest area for waterfowl and to address firing line concerns.

Comment: Suggests rotating closed areas in conjunction with drawdowns allowing wildlife to thrive 

without shutting down anyone’s favorite hunting or fishing area for too long. 

Response: Waterfowl develop patterns of use over time, and changing closed areas on a frequent 

basis can diminish their effectiveness. Likewise, the public is generally not agreeable to 

frequent changes in areas open or closed to hunting or other uses since it disrupts patterns, 

opportunities, and year-to-year planning. 

Comment: Hunting areas should only be limited as a last resort based on biological data (4).

Response: We concur to a point and have tried to limit the number of acres closed to hunting to 

that which is needed biologically. However, it must always be kept in mind that one of the main 

purposes of the Refuge when established by Congress in 1924 was to serve as a “refuge and 

breeding place for migratory birds” and this at times must take precedent over recreational 

uses. 

Comment: Would rather have smaller bag limit than closing areas completely (2).

Response: Daily harvest and possession limits are an important part of overall waterfowl 

conservation, but they do not replace the need to provide food and rest for waterfowl during 

migration. The Refuge also does not set harvest limits. This is done nationally by the Service, 

flyway councils, and the states.

Comment: Most boaters don’t comply with regular boat regulations let alone voluntary regulations. 

Assuming voluntary avoidance will work over long-term is plain silly (3).

Response: We have established a threshold of disturbance in Alternative E in conjunction with 

voluntary avoidance and indicate that more restrictions will be pursued if the threshold is 

exceeded. We believe that voluntary avoidance, as suggested at several meetings and in written 

comments, may prove successful given our experience with the Lake Onalaska Voluntary 

Avoidance Area.

Comment: Open closed areas to low impact managed hunts, increase voluntary avoidance areas, and 

increase number of closed areas, but reduce their size to spread-out bird populations.

Response: Many of these suggestions are incorporated in Alternative E of the Final EIS/CCP. 

However, we do not see the merit in opening closed areas to low-impact managed hunts since it 

would still introduce disturbance to waterfowl and would add an administrative and 

management workload. 
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

399

Comment: Closed areas should be closed to all activities not just hunting.

Response: We do not disagree, but have opted with a voluntary avoidance approach in 

Alternative E, the preferred alternative, to limit entry and disturbance to waterfowl.

Comment: What about a probationary deer hunting period allowed in waterfowl closed areas after 

migration?

Response: Although peak migration can occur at different times during the hunting season 

depending on weather, birds continue to move through the Refuge until full ice-up. Even then, 

ice conditions can abate and birds will use these areas. Due to these variabilities from year-toyear and often week-to-week in the fall, opening the areas based on migration patterns would 

be difficult.

Comment: Concerned about watercraft use regulation changes in Reno Bottoms and its negative 

effect on waterfowl hunting (5).

Response: We understand these concerns, recognizing that other hunters see a restriction in 

boat speed and types of watercraft as a benefit to their hunting experience.. We have made 

several changes to the Reno Bottoms area in Alternative E of the Final EIS/CCP to help 

accommodate concerns. These changes include making the area a seasonal Slow, No Wake 

Area with no restrictions on speed or watercraft type after October 31, and deleting from any 

designation Pickerel Slough and land and water to the east of it (866 acres).

Comment: Concerned about closing Gerndt Lake (also called Garnet Lake locally) and Wisconsin 

River Delta in Pool 10 just south of Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin (4).

Response: We have made several changes for Alternative E of the Final EIS/CCP that we 

believe help address some of the concerns. The Wisconsin River Delta area is a Special Hunt 

Area in the preferred alternative, meaning it will be closed to all hunting and trapping from 

November 1 to the end of the state duck hunting season. This change will help alleviate 

concerns with the loss of duck hunting and fall fishing in this area since it will be open to all 

uses before November 1.

Comment: Closing open water hunting on Potosi Pool (Pool 9, Grant County, Wisconsin) is good 

especially if Canvasbacks are increasing there. 

Response: Comment is noted.

Comment: Don’t close Albin Lake to hunting there are already closed areas in Genoa, New Albin, 

and South Lansing.

Response: There are no changes to closed areas in this area of Pool 9 in Alternative E, the 

preferred alternative. 

Comment: Concerned about opening previously closed area near Pleasant Creek, Pool 13 south of 

Bellevue, Iowa (2).

Response: We examined this concern closely and talked to adjacent landowners concerned with 

the reduction in the closed area. We do not believe this change will negatively impact hunting 

on adjacent land. There is no strong biological reason for keeping this nearly 600 acres of 

seasonally dry bottomland in the Pleasant Creek Closed Area, and opening it is in line with 

goals to facilitate hunting on the Refuge. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

400

Comment: Concerned about closed areas near Ferryville and impact on economy (2).

Response: There are no changes proposed for this area in Alternative E, the preferred 

alternative. Alternatives B and D proposed “no open water hunting” in these areas, neither of 

these alternatives are preferred in the Final EIS/CCP.

Comment: Concerned about economic impact if hunting changes are made in Pool 13.

Response: No changes to current closed areas or sanctuaries in Pool 13 are identified in 

Alternative E, the preferred alternative. Permanent waterfowl hunting blinds are being phased 

out in Alternative E, but we do not believe this will measurably impact the level of hunting 

activity or have a negative economic impact. The opposite may occur as areas “reserved” by 

permanent blinds would now be open to all and provide more opportunity for more waterfowl 

hunters. 

4.3 Waterfowl Hunting Regulation Changes

Comment: There were specific comments on proposals in Alternative D to impose a 100-yard 

minimum spacing between waterfowl hunting parties ( 6 for, 1 against) and a 25 shotshell daily 

possession limit for waterfowl hunters (9 for, 11 against).

Response: Based on input at public meetings and workshops, these provisions were dropped in 

Alternative E, the preferred alternative in the Final EIS/CCP. The existing 200-yard spacing 

requirement in the Savanna District, Pools 12-14, Illinois side, remains in Alternative E since 

hunters in those areas overwhelming favored keeping this requirement.

Comment: Desire that open water waterfowl hunting continue where allowed by Wisconsin 

regulations (Grant County portion of Refuge) (5).

Response: We believe that a portion of Pool 11, Grant County, Wisconsin, provides a critical 

feeding and staging area for Canvasback and Lesser Scaup. We have made modifications in 

Alternative E to protect the area that is most important, which will still allow open water 

hunting in adjacent areas. A proposal in the draft of Alternative E released in December that 

would prohibit open water hunting in all Minnesota and Wisconsin waters within the Refuge 

was dropped. Current state law already prohibits this type of hunting, with the exception of 

Grant County, Wisconsin.

Comment: Favor banning duck hunting guides who preclude individual hunters from some areas, or 

support special use permit proposal, and support better enforcement (6). 

Response: We believe that hunting guides can provide a valuable service to some segments of 

the hunting community. However, we concur that better oversight, permitting, and subsequent 

law enforcement is needed, as reflected in Alternative E, the preferred alternative.

Comment: Ban mechanical decoys and/or limit number of decoys per hunter (4).

Response: We believe that these kinds of issues/suggestions are better handled on a national or 

state basis rather than with a Refuge-specific regulation. 

Comment: Ban the exception in Refuge regulations which allows waterfowl decoys to be left out 

overnight in Pools 12-14 (Savanna District) (3).

Response: We concur and have added this provision in Alternative E, Objective 4.5, in the Final 

EIS/CCP. 
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

401

Comment: Want mandatory course required before getting duck stamp to include duck 

identification, estimating distance, ethics and safety (4).

Response: We defer to the states for hunter education requirements, and believe that all of these 

topics are taught in hunter education and safety courses. We will, however, continue to stress 

these topics in our education and outreach efforts identified in the strategies for several 

hunting-related objectives in Alternative E, the preferred alternative.

4.4 Firing Line – Pool 7, Lake Onalaska (Gibbs Lake area) 

Comments: There were several concerns and suggestions received in comments on this objective. 

They are listed below, followed by a single response.

# Recognized that there is a problem that needs to be addressed (9)

# Concerned that any changes or a managed hunt will make things worse by concentrating 

hunters nearby within what is already a very limited hunting area (7)

# Adjust boundaries (either North or South) of Lake Onalaska hunting area to remedy firing line 

problems and review periodically to gauge success (3).

# Address firing line problem by placing stakes where hunters must hunt within a certain 

distance, and enforce (2).

# Solve Gibbs Lake problem by closing hunting at 12 noon each day, thus giving waterfowl more 

feeding and resting time. 

Response: There was considerable concern expressed at public meetings and workshops about 

proposals in Alternatives B through D in the Draft EIS/CCP. Since this is a relatively local 

issue and no clear consensus emerged from public input, Alternative E of the Final EIS/CCP 

calls for more public and state involvement to help draft a plan for this area. The comments 

and ideas above will be considered, along with additional input received, when drafting the 

plan. Also, the deadline for completing the plan was moved to October 1, 2006 versus July 1, 

2006 in the draft of Alternative E.

4.5 Permanent Hunting Blinds on Savanna District

Comments: There were more than 200 written comments received on the issue of permanent 

waterfowl hunting blinds in the Savanna District, Pools 12-14. Approximately 200 comments wanted 

to see the use of permanent blinds continue, and 193 of these comments came in form letters signed 

by current blind owners/users (see Section 7.7). There were 10 written comments favoring the 

elimination of permanent blinds. 

Response: As noted in our earlier response to Illinois DNR comments, we appreciate the 

concern with the planned phase out of permanent blinds for waterfowl hunting on the Savanna 

District of the Refuge. This is a difficult issue due to the number of hunters involved and the 

strong traditions that have developed. However, we believe our concerns with private, exclusive 

or proprietary use of public lands and waters, continued problems with confrontations and 

debris, and inconsistency with the other three districts of the Refuge warrant a phase out of the 

blinds. We have made one change in Alternative E in the Final EIS/CCP to help ease the 

transition. The pool-by-pool sequence of phase out will be Pool 12, 14, and 13. This will not only 

ease our administrative and enforcement burden, but give the greatest number of blind hunters 

(Pool 13, 250 blinds) more time to adjust to alternative hunting methods.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

402

4.6 Potter’s Marsh Managed Hunt, Savanna District

Comment: Would like to see changes in the management and administration of the Potter’s Marsh 

Managed Hunt (4).

Response: The preferred alternative, Alternative E, outlines several changes to improve and 

economize the administration and management of the Potter’s Marsh Managed Hunt while 

preserving a quality waterfowl hunting opportunity and experience.

Comment: Would like to see Potter’s Marsh area closed to fishing during the duck hunting season 

(2).

Response: Although we understand that conflicts between these two uses can at times occur, we 

do not believe the level of fishing during the prime duck hunting hours warrants a closure to 

fishing. 

4.7 Blanding’s Landing Managed Hunt Program 

Comment: Keep the permanent blinds in this area but eliminate the drawing and go to a first-come, 

first-secured system (3).

Response: Although we concur with opening the area on a first-come, first-secured basis, the 

use of permanent blinds still represents problems as noted in the Final EIS/CCP. Thus, 

Alternative E, the preferred alternative, opens the area but eliminates the use of permanent 

blinds per the schedule in Objective 4.5.

Comment: Opening-up Blanding’s Landing would be a good thing and provide more hunting 

opportunities.

Response: Comment is noted.

4.8 General Fishing

Comment: Restrictions on fishing would violate Wisconsin constitutional rights for open navigation 

and use of Wisconsin waters (10).

Response: As noted in earlier comments and responses to the state, we recognized and quote the 

state’s 1925 approval language in Final EIS/CCP (Chapter 1) and concur to a point that does 

not interfere with federal trust responsibilities and meeting the purposes of the Refuge. 

However, provisions in Alternatives B and D that would have limited entry or fishing in 

Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas were dropped in Alternative E, the preferred alternative, in 

favor of voluntary avoidance and/or no motor restrictions. None of the provisions in 

Alternative E preclude navigation or use, including fishing, only the means of navigation and 

use. 

Comment: Expand fishing access (including shoreline fishing) for physically limited, youngsters and 

non-boat owners (5).

Response: We share the concern for shoreline and disabled fishing, although the realities of 

railroad tracks and rights-of-way, private land, and slope of terrain often limit access points to 

the Refuge and the river for shoreline fishing and especially disabled anglers. In Alternative E, 

the preferred alternative in the Final EIS/CCP, we have called for the addition of five 

additional accessible fishing piers, three new walk-in accesses, and improvement to five 
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

403

parking areas which often provide additional shoreline fishing opportunities. In addition, 

Alternative E retains four fishing float concessions which provide fishing opportunities for 

those without boats and the disabled. 

Comment: Provide parking lots where fishing opportunities are expanded (3).

Response: We concur that parking is often an issue. Detailed planning for any proposed public 

use facilities/accesses will consider and try to accommodate the need for parking.

Comment: Support a fishing platform at Winneshiek Slough Landing.

Response: Comment is noted. Alternative E, the preferred alternative, includes an accessible 

fishing platform at this location. 

Comment: Eliminate state fishing license reciprocity (2).

Response: We acknowledge that people are for and against this provision which allows persons 

with one license to fish two states on the Mississippi River. By policy and practice we defer to 

the states for game and fish licensing requirements on the Refuge.

Comment: Address fishing opportunities that have been diminished by excessive sand, siltation and 

sedimentation (3).

Response: We share these concerns for the effect that sedimentation has on fish habitat and 

fishing opportunities. All alternatives in the Final EIS/CCP identify cooperative projects with 

the states and Corps of Engineers to address this issue. For example, there are 60 projects 

identified to increase water depth, 28 projects to divert flows to decrease sedimentation, and 13 

fish passage projects identified in the plan. 

Comment: Balance the needs of fall anglers with the needs of waterfowl and waterfowl hunters (5).

Response: In Alternative E, the preferred alternative, we have made changes to public entry 

guidelines to accommodate early fall fishing by moving the effective date to October 15 versus 

October 1 in other alternatives. 

Comment: Protect fish spawn areas from human disturbance in spring (2).

Response: We believe that the Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas in Alternative E, 

the preferred alternative, help address disturbance to many backwater fish spawning areas by 

slowing or limiting the type of watercraft in the spring.

Comment: Address conflicts between anglers and jet-ski, airboat, and hovercraft users (3).

Response: Similar to the comment and response above, we believe that the series of Electric 

Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas scattered throughout the Refuge in Alternative E will 

help address conflicts between and within user groups, including anglers. 

4.9 Fishing Tournaments

Comment: Refuge must coordinate and regulate fishing tournaments with the states and the Corps 

of Engineers (8).

Response: Concur and the objective and strategies in Alternative E affirm this. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

404

Comments: 

# Concern with loss of income, impact to communities if tournaments banned/reduced.

# Tournament anglers care deeply about the resource.

# Against another layer of permitting (3).

# Impacts to fish not proven; there is low mortality post release from tournaments.

# Concern about singling out tournament anglers to benefit other users (2).

# Negative portrayal of bass anglers is wrong.

# Concerned about closed area and sanctuary impact to tournaments.

# Concern that fishing tournaments are “out of hand” and create conflicts with other Refuge users 

(7).

# Concerned about noise and excessive speed (safety) during fishing tournaments (4).

# Tournaments tie up parking, boat ramps, and entire fishing areas for days. 

# Ban all fishing tournaments as crass commercial exploitation of public resource (4)

# Eliminate out of state fishing tournaments.

# Fishing tournaments should be managed from a fish stock perspective in conjunction with 

states.

# Wants bass fishing tournament participants to buy commercial fishing license (3).

# Concern about lost of income/economic impacts if bass tournaments are restricted or reduced.

# Limit bass anglers to only keeping 2 fish versus 6 fish. 

# Use Geographic Positioning System coordinates to guide tournament anglers from sensitive 

areas

# Don’t allow any fishing tournaments during fall waterfowl hunting.

Response: Alternative E, the preferred alternative in the Final EIS/CCP, calls for working with 

the states and the Corps of Engineers to develop a plan by 2008 to more effectively manage 

fishing tournaments on the Refuge, for the benefit of both tournament participants and the 

general public who share the Refuge. There is no proposal to eliminate fishing tournaments. 

The strategies in Objective 4.9 give more details on how this step-down planning would proceed 

and what would be entailed, including additional public involvement and review. Thus, it is 

premature to respond to most of the specific comments received on fishing tournaments. The 

comments summarized above, along with new input, will be considered as planning for 

tournament fishing management proceeds. 

4.10 Wildlife Observation and Photography

Observation Areas

Comment: Increased Refuge visitation demands more non-consumptive platforms (5).

Response: We concur and Alternative E, the preferred alternative, reflects this. Wildlife 

observation is also one of the priority public uses identified in the Refuge Improvement Act 

and is to be facilitated.
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

405

Comment: Great River Bird Trail designation has already spawned three annual bird festivals and 

continues to draw visitors to area. 

Response: Comment is noted.

Comment: Observation facilities are not needed. The flood retention basin in Dubuque, Heritage 

Pond, and several ponds near the highway in Guttenberg are excellent locations to view wildlife or 

take photographs. Even marinas are better than recommended observation tower locations.

Response: Comment is noted.

Comment: Don’t place observation decks or platforms where they will conflict with established 

traditional hunting areas (6).

Response: As noted in a previous comment and response, most wildlife viewing platforms are 

generally on the edges of areas where hunting occurs, and thus there are generally no direct 

conflicts between viewers and hunters. Many of the existing or proposed wildlife observation 

decks (Alternative E) overlook areas closed to hunting, mainly because waterfowl tends to 

congregate in these areas during fall migration. In all cases, we consider hunting when 

choosing locations for viewing facilities, realizing that many hunting areas also provide 

excellent spring migration viewing opportunities when hunting seasons are generally closed. 

Comment: Oppose observation tower near Goose Island due to limited parking and safety concerns, 

especially during summer (4). Can it be moved to Shady Maple area instead? Want handicapped 

access at Goose Island tower.

Response: The observation platform at Goose Island has been dropped in Alternative E, the 

preferred alternative.

Comment: Oppose spending money on observation decks when there are already many scenic bluffs 

or state park areas to view wildlife (3).

Response: Although we agree that these areas provide excellent viewing areas, many areas on 

the Refuge provide unique viewing opportunities due to the concentrations of waterfowl and 

other waterbirds. 

Comment: Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge already has many features to view wildlife, don’t 

spend money on something already available.

Response: The Upper Miss Refuge is 261 miles long and many residents and visitors are too far 

away to take advantage of Trempealeau’s opportunities. Also, there are viewing opportunities 

on this refuge due to unique habitat and large concentrations of some species that are not 

available at Trempealeau refuge. 

Comment: Adding new trails and towers doesn’t protect or restore habitat, only destroys it through 

filling wetlands and construction (5).

Response: Although these facilities do not directly protect or restore habitat, they do foster 

contact and connection with wildlife and wild places which leads to greater understanding and 

appreciation. This in the end can result in more support for overall conservation programs, 

including the protection and restoration of habitat. Our site selection, design, and construction 

of facilities always try to avoid or minimize any impacts to wetlands or other sensitive habitat.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

406

Comment: Would observation tower near Browns Marsh only be accessible via bike trail? We believe 

a one mile access route is too far for many to walk and suggest an alternative location in the 

Clearwater Resort area near Lake Onalaska.

Response: The state bike trail running along Brown Marsh receives many thousands of users 

each year and this overlook is designed to take advantage of this opportunity. Thus, we believe 

access to this particular overlook is appropriate. Other sites on Lake Onalaska were considered 

during development of the plan. 

Hiking Trails 

Comment: Support the additional hiking trails called for in the plan (24).

Response: Comments are noted.

Comment: Would like hiking trails and surrounding areas to be multiple-use (e.g. hunting and 

fishing), not exclusive-use (2).

Response: We generally concur that hiking trails can be open to a variety of uses, including 

hunting. However, we believe that some areas warrant a separation of hunting and other 

recreational uses based on location and circumstances and overriding concern for visitor 

safety. However, we have made several major changes in Alternative E, the preferred 

alternative, by dropping some suggested no hunting areas around trails.

Comment: Recommend more trails near flood plain forest at Rush Creek in Vernon County, Root 

River bottoms at Mill Stone Landing in Houston County, Wisconsin River Bottoms in Crawford 

County, and the bottoms east of Fish Farm Mounds along Highway 82 dike near Lansing. These 

areas have better parking and don’t require coordination with railroad. 

Response: We considered these suggested areas in developing Alternative E but believe they are 

not suitable at this time given terrain, periodic flooding concerns, feasibility given floodplain 

location, and other factors. There was also a concern of including too many trails given the 15-

year horizon of the plan. 

Comment: Oppose the Kain Switch trail (6), the John Deere Trail (1), and the trail near Barton’s (2).

Response: In response to these and other comments, several changes were made to hiking trails 

in Alternative E, the preferred alternative, including dropping some trails, making them 

shorter, or deleting associated no-hunting zones.

Canoe Trails 

Comment: Many written comments specifically expressed support for canoe trails (72).

Response: Comments are noted.

Comment: Canoe trail markers are an unnecessary cost and need maintenance after spring floods, 

and canoes can go anywhere they want now. Provide pool maps for canoeists, so other users don’t 

have to see more signs.

Response: For persons unfamiliar with backwater areas of the Refuge, the combination of maps 

and signs is an important service. We try to use the least amount of trail markers necessary, 

and place them above the normal high-water mark whenever possible to reduce maintenance. 
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

407

Comment: The boating report states that small boat/canoe use is declining but the Service is 

increasing canoe trails by 425 percent.

Response: The most recent boating study on Pools 4-9 in 2003 by the Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources cited a decline in fishing boats and a trend toward runabouts or larger 

“cruise” vessels. There was no trend indicated for non-motorized craft, although they did 

represent 2 percent of boats in the study. The use of a percentage for the increase of canoe trails 

is somewhat misleading. In Alternative E, the preferred alternative in the Final EIS/CCP, the 

number of canoe trails increases from the current 4 to 19. A total of 19 canoe trails on a waterbased refuge 261 miles in length does not seem excessive, especially since they involve little cost 

and maintenance other than trail markers. 

Comment: Want proposed canoe access at Conway Lake (Pool 9) to include parking area (2).

Response: Parking associated with this access in Alternative E will be explored during detailed 

site planning. We will be seeking cooperation from the railroad on this particular access, which 

could affect parking and other features. 

Comment: Canoe trails around Wyalusing State Park great example of activities that increase canoe 

use and appreciation of watershed resource.

Response: Comment noted; this is an existing canoe trail system.

Comment: Consider having a canoe launch at the mouth of Crooked Creek, Pool 13.

Response: A boat ramp is identified in Alternative E, the preferred alternative, at this location. 

This ramp would double as a canoe launch.

Comment: An alternative canoe trail could be made in Shingle Creek area of Black River Bottoms by 

removing downed timber below power lines near Lytles Landing.

Response: This idea has merit, but a canoe trail at this area was not included in Alternative E, 

the preferred alternative, due to other options in the area (existing Long Lake Canoe Trail).

Comment: Address speeding motor boats along Long Lake canoe trail. Canoe trails great concept, 

but if you don’t exclude motor use there what’s the point?

Response: Canoe trails were never intended to exclude other uses, including other types of 

watercraft, but to provide a canoeing option for people less familiar with the river, or who prefer 

a marked route or trail. We realize that conflicts may occur, but these are addressed through the 

Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas proposed in Alternative E of the Final EIS/

CCP.

Comment: Provide boat landings or launch areas at proposed canoe trails (3).

Response: We do not disagree, although realities of railroad tracks and lands, private land, and 

slope of terrain often limit access points to the Refuge and the river. We will continue to look for 

ways to enhance access during more detailed planning and implementation of the canoe trails.

Comment: Oppose exclusive use canoe trail in Ambrose area, is there a real or perceived need here 

(2)?

Response: All canoe trails, unless within an Electric Motor Area or Slow, No Wake Area, are 

open to all other types of watercraft and are not canoe-only areas.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

408

Comment: Opposed to Conway Lake canoe trail in Pool 9 north of Lansing, Iowa (3).

Response: Alternative C in the Draft EIS/CCP identified a 12-mile canoe trail that went 

through the Conway Lake area. However, this trail was dropped in Alternative D and 

Alternative E, the preferred alternative.

Comment: Opposes canoe trail on Pool 4 “where current is too strong;” has towed many canoeists 

back up river. 

Response: The Nelson Dike Canoe Trail is the only canoe trail in Alternative E, the preferred 

alternative. This trail is located in a predominantly backwater area some distance from the 

main channel of the river and currents are not expected to present a serious problem for 

canoeists or kayakers. 

Bike Trails

Comments:

# For bike trails (10)

# Against bike trails (4)

# Don’t close these areas to hunting and use exclusively for bikes

# Bike Trails disrupt wildlife, waste money and don’t reflect wild nature of Refuge (3)

# Concerned duck stamp money is being used for these trails

Response: Comments for and against bike trails are noted and are indicative of the divergent 

view points on certain public uses and facilities. Of the three new bike trails in Alternative E, 

the preferred alternative, the first is on an existing paved road currently closed to hunting, the 

second is in an existing closed or no hunting area, and no determination has been made in 

regards to hunting on the third. It remains our policy to keep trails open to hunting unless 

there is a bona fide safety or conflict concern due to location. Some existing trails through 

areas open to hunting include a buffer only so the surrounding area remains open. Like all 

public use, there is some disturbance to wildlife on bike trails, but this is considered minor 

given timing and levels of use, and the low noise associated with biking. Biking and bike trails 

continue to grow in popularity, and are an excellent way to view wildlife, one of the priority 

public uses of the Refuge System. No duck stamp funds are used for bike trails or any other 

public use facilities or programs since these funds must be used for land acquisition.

Auto Tour Routes

Comments: For auto tour routes (5) and against auto tour routes (5), especially if they impinge on 

hunting areas.

Response: Comments noted. Any auto tour routes should not impinge on areas currently open 

to hunting since they are located on existing roads. 

Comments: Recommend widening Red Oak Road to accommodate 2-lane traffic and promote as 

scenic byway (2). Against Red Oak Road as scenic byway since substantial number of ducks and 

geese use the adjacent shoreline as a resting area. The ducks and geese seem more affected by 

pedestrian than vehicular traffic.
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

409

Response: The proposed Red Oak Wildlife Drive/Bike Loop would be a cooperative venture with 

Allamakee County and the railroad since it is mostly off-Refuge and would follow existing 

roads. Any decisions on width of road or other amenities would be done during future detailed 

planning. Since this drive would follow existing roads, disturbance to waterfowl from vehicles 

is not expected to increase. Bike traffic could increase disturbance to waterfowl, but it is not 

expected to be substantial since birds are already conditioned to vehicle traffic.

Comment: An auto tour route already exists at Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge.

Response: The two new auto tour routes in Alternative E, the preferred alternative, are located 

adjacent to Pools 9 and 11 which are some distance from Trempealeau Refuge in Pool 6. Thus, 

they offer auto tour opportunities for persons who would not frequent Trempealeau Refuge. The 

other existing tour route is on the Lost Mound Unit, Pool 13 near the southern end of the 

Refuge.

Photography Blinds 

Comments: For photography blinds and expanded photo opportunities (34), and against 

photography blinds (3).

Response: Comments are noted.

4.11 Interpretation and Environmental Education

General

Comment: Necessary, but don’t divert funds from law enforcement or wildlife management.

Response: Funding for interpretation and environmental education is a separate line item in 

the Refuge System and Refuge budget. Funds for law enforcement and wildlife management 

are not diverted to these accounts, although it is recognized that staff on the Refuge wear many 

hats and often assist with all programs.

Comment: Would rather see money earmarked for this be used for habitat improvement.

Response: Interpretation and environmental education are two of the six priority uses that are 

to be facilitated on national wildlife refuges. Any funding received specifically for 

interpretation or environmental education are to be used to support those activities, so there is 

little to no latitude to earmark those funds for habitat improvement. However, habitat 

conservation and improvement remains a higher priority than these or other public uses.

Signs and Signage

Comments:

# Maintain signs (2)

# Signs detract from natural beauty (2)

# Better signs at landings and beaches quickly address litter and human waste policies (4)

# Use signs as reminders at landings outlining hunter ethics during hunting season (5)

# “Closed unless open” in regards to beach-related uses would mean fewer signs
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

410

# Need well designed signs reminding folks to “pack out” trash (leave no trace) campaign (3)

# Put sign designs on web first to get public opinion on effectiveness before going “final”

Response: We realize that signs and signing must be approached with care to balance the 

public’s need for information with the impact signs can have on the scenic qualities of an area. 

This Refuge provides a particular signing challenge due to its size and length, high visitation, 

high number of access points, and floodplain nature. Many of these comments are suggestions 

which will be considered when designing and placing signs in accordance with Fish and 

Wildlife Service standards.

Visitor Contact Facilities/Visitor Center

Comment: Support building new offices with visitor contact facilities (7) and insure they are well 

located.

Response: Comment is noted.

Comment: Central visitor center great way to promote public education and awareness, should be 

priority on construction list (2).

Response: Due to the construction and maintenance costs of a central visitor center, it was not 

carried from Alternative C to Alternative E, the preferred alternative. Also, we believe that 

modest visitor contact areas in conjunction with the four district offices will better meet the 

needs of the public on such a long refuge touching scores of communities, and be a more 

efficient use of limited construction dollars.

Interpretive Events

Comments: 

# Fund an interpretive trailer that could be moved and used at various locations up and down river 

throughout year

# All events should be geared to raise public awareness (3)

# Supports Mississippi Flyway Birding Festival, great economic boost and public education 

opportunity (2)

Response: Comments are noted, and the trailer is a great idea, but due to other higher priority 

needs for facilities that more directly support visitors to the Refuge, it was not included in 

Alternative E, the preferred alternative. 

Comment: If this is already the most visited Refuge in the country, do you need to keep promoting 

it?

Response: This is a fair question. We do not consider interpretive and environmental education 

programs as promotion, but a charge from Congress in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. 

There are, however, indirect benefits to increased public awareness of the Refuge. Citizens who 

know and understand the Refuge are more apt to care about it and the Mississippi River as a 

whole, which generally leads to fiscal and political support for improving habitat for fish and 

wildlife. 
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

411

Environmental Education

Comments:

# The more people understand natural resource management the more they will voluntarily 

support managing it (5)

# Solicit more volunteers and conservation clubs to provide education during fall migration

# Important endeavor but not at the expense of hiring needed biologists

Response: Comments noted and we concur.

Visitor Services Staffing

Comments:

# Proactively regulate visitor activities to reduce conflicts with resource objectives

# Important public outreach feature (5)

# Needs aren’t great enough to warrant increased staff levels 

Response: Comments are noted.

4.12 Fish Floats

Comments: Support the continuation of fish floats for an alternative fishing opportunity (15), and 

would like to see them eliminated because they are eyesores and restrict open water fishing (2).

Response: As noted in the rationale section in Alternative E, Objective 4.12, Chapter 2 of the 

Final EIS, we believe that the four existing fish floats provide a valuable alternative fishing 

experience for persons without boats and/or river experience, and for disabled persons. 

Strategies in the objective are designed to improve float appearance, function, and safety.

Comment: Want fish floats to be clean, regulated, and licensed.

Response: Concur, and this is reflected in Alternative E, the preferred alternative.

4.13 Guiding Services

Comments:

# Ban waterfowl hunting guides who attempt to restrict access to individual hunters

# Increase guiding services using non-motorized boats

# Guides monopolize entire areas reducing the opportunities for individual hunters (3).

# Limit to certain designated areas assigned by permit issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service

# Enforce guide requirement to have Coast Guard license and Refuge special use permit (5)

Response: These comments are noted and will be considered when writing guiding policy and 

when developing a consistent process for issuing permits as noted in Objective 4.13, Alternative 

E, the preferred alternative. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

412

5.1 Beach Use and Maintenance Policy and Regulations

Comments:

# Beaches offer important affordable recreational opportunities 

# Vital to local communities where users may not be able to afford other river uses

# If areas need to be closed, allow them to stay open for families to swim, camp, picnic during 

summer since backwater is safer for these activities due to lack of current.

# Backwater beaches without current are necessary for safety of beachcombers and swimmers

# Allow marinas to dredge sand and place on beaches or near marinas to create beaches

# Wants beach near Dubuque with walk-in or vehicle access

# Coordination with other agencies, education, and law enforcement best ways to handle “party” 

beaches (3)

# Beach use should be limited to designated sites that are most durable and support extensive 

human impact 

# For restrictions outlined in Alternatives C, B, or D (6)

# Against any restrictions to current use and regulations (11)

# For closing areas if biologically necessary (2)

# Mark areas that are of wildlife concern such as turtle breeding grounds

# Against closing or restricting use of beaches to benefit turtle breeding areas (2)

# Want camping and over night mooring allowed (11)

# Want restrictions to where camping and mooring would be allowed (1) 

# Human waste must be addressed for health reasons (16) 

# Recommend signs and informational campaigns on human waste policies (6), and recommend 

better monitoring and fines for non-compliance (2)

# How do you prevent people who “pack it out” from dumping in water when they leave a beach?

# Add portable toilets at boat landings (4)

# No large ugly toilets on beaches, high cost to maintain and idiots will vandalize

# Educate campers on “cat hole” human waste burial methods (3)

# Only 1% of overall waste problem is from human waste

# For the blood-level based (.08) alcohol consumption limitations (5), and against any new alcohol 

regulation (5)

# Create some alcohol free beaches (3)

# For some level of beach maintenance (11)

# Implement an “adopt a beach or boat landing program” to address problems (4)

# Initiate “leave no trace” education program to address litter and human waste (5)

# Ban glass on beaches (7)

# Close beaches for a week where litter is a problem 

Response: These comments are indicative of the large amount of public comment also received 

at the 21 public meetings and workshops held after release of the Draft EIS/CCP in May, 2005. 

Based on these comments, and in consideration of the above written comments, many changes 

were made in the supplement to the EIS, Alternative E, the preferred alternative. These 
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

413

changes include keeping current regulations defining where and when camping is allowed, 

dropping a new alcohol consumption regulation, modifying human waste regulations, and 

clarifying beach planning in cooperation with the states and Corps of Engineers. Some of the 

specific location or maintenance comments will be considered during the beach planning 

process. A ban on food and beverage glass containers was added in Alternative E, as well as a 

strategy for addressing beach clean-up and maintenance through an adopt-a-beach program. 

The policy for closing areas to protect wildlife resources and public health and safety was 

simplified and clarified. Adopting a “Leave No Trace” program was retained in Alternative E. 

Providing portable toilets at landings or on beach areas was not deemed a realistic option given 

the floodplain nature of the Refuge, cost, increased maintenance workload, and past experience 

with portable toilets. 

5.2 Electric Motor Areas (includes Slow, No Wake Areas, Alternative E)

Comments: Support Electric Motor Area designation (55) and against Electric Motor Area 

designation (180, includes 112 form letter comments). 

Response: Designating Electric Motor Areas generated considerable written comment as well 

as comments at all public meetings and workshops. Based on these comments, substantial 

changes were made for Alternative E, the preferred alternative. These changes included 

dropping four proposed areas completely, and converting eight Electric Motor Areas to 

seasonal Slow, No Wake Areas. Collectively, the remaining five Electric Motor Areas and eight 

Slow, No Wake Areas encompass 11,572 acres, or approximately 8 percent of the water area of 

the Refuge. 

Comment: Make all proposed Electric Motor Areas slow no wake instead (10).

Response: See comment and response above.

Comment: Phase out airboats, hovercraft, and jet skis entirely by 2010 or 2015 (2).

Response: We do not believe prohibiting certain types of watercraft throughout the entire 

Refuge is reasonable or warranted given the size of the Refuge, mix of jurisdictions and 

authorities in many areas, and the desires expressed at the public meetings and workshops. We 

believe that Alternative E, the preferred alternative, represents a reasonable approach to 

limiting disturbance from certain types of watercraft through the use of time and space 

constraints.

Comment: Technology now allows people to access areas they were never meant to, Electric Motor 

Areas and Slow, No Wake Zones are necessary to manage for biological reasons (5).

Response: Comment is noted and we concur as reflected in Alternative E.

Comment: Canoeists can do their thing now but if you convert areas to Electric Motor Areas it 

prevents others from using traditional hunting/fishing areas (2). 

Response: We made major changes in Alternative E, the preferred alternative to address the 

concerns of access for hunting and fishing. The number of Electric Motor Areas was reduced 

from 17 in Alternative D to 5 in Alternative E. Eight Electric Motor Areas were changed to 

seasonal Slow, No Wake Areas which should have minimal effect on hunting and fishing access 

since all motorized watercraft, except airboats and hovercraft, are allowed. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

414

Comment: Where is scientific data supporting need for electric motor only or slow no wake zones?

Response: The wildlife science literature contains scores of papers documenting the effect of 

watercraft and associated speed and noise on wildlife. An excellent overview of the literature on 

the effects of recreation on wildlife is maintained by the Montana Chapter of the Wildlife 

Society and can be accessed via their website at www.montanatws.org. Studies on waterfowl 

disturbance on the Refuge are also well-documented and it is generally accepted in the wildlife 

management profession that motorized watercraft speed and noise disturbs wildlife. Limiting 

motor size, type, and speed, or banning combustion motors completely, are commonly used 

management practices on national wildlife refuges and state wildlife management areas. 

However, the purpose of the Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas is to also limit 

disturbance to persons engaged in hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and other activities in 

these areas, and to enhance the quality of the experience. Citizens’ concerns for the loss of quiet 

and solitude on the Refuge, and concerns over conflicts between and within various user 

groups, was expressed at scoping meetings prior to drafting the EIS/CCP. We have also received 

concerns about certain watercraft from trappers in their annual reports. In the most recent 

recreational boating study on Pools 4 thru 9 (Minnesota DNR, 2004), respondents listed boat 

speed and wakes, personal watercraft, and careless operation by others as concerns. The study 

also showed that 56 percent of respondents were either neutral, mildly supportive, or strongly 

supportive of setting aside non-motorized areas on the Mississippi River.

Comments:

# Don’t restrict hunters to electric motors only in Black River Bottoms area, only makes access 

too difficult for hunters (8)

# Hunted Black River Bottoms for 14 years and have never seen an electric motor or canoeist 

there due to strong current, so why set aside this area?

# Strong current in Black River doesn’t allow you to go at no wake speed

# Trempealeau Refuge is only a few miles from proposed Black River Bottoms Electric Motor 

Area. Isn’t this duplication at additional expense and displacement of other user groups?

# Big Marsh/Mud Lake in Pool 7 is a good alternative to the Black River Bottoms area.

Response: In Alternative E, we have changed the designation of this area from an Electric 

Motor Area to a seasonal Slow, No Wake Area in response to comments and concerns. Boats 

with outboard motors or mud-type motors are permitted year-around which should lessen 

access and current concerns. We have also added language in Alternative E so that “slow, no 

wake” matches state regulations, which in Wisconsin, means a person can use a speed to 

maintain steerage. This provision should help address the concern of strong current. Although 

Trempealeau Refuge is approximately 15 miles distance and only allows boats powered by 

electric motors or hand, it does not contain the unique bottomland forest found on Upper Miss 

Refuge. The Black River Bottoms provides a unique experience to hunters, anglers, and wildlife 

observers and is closer to the major population center of La Crosse/Onalaska. We believe the 

Big Marsh/Mud Lake area in Pool 7 upstream of the Black River Bottoms may provide a good 

alternative. Thus, we have delayed implementation of the Black River Bottoms Slow, No Wake 

Area until 2008 to allow further exploration of the Big Marsh/Mud Lake proposal.

Comment: Opposes Electric Motor Area in Pool 8 between Blue and Lawrence lakes. Recommends 

reducing the size of the area around Blue Lake and shifting it south of Blue Lake, through Target 

Lake and end it at the area just north of Lawrence Lake. 

Response: In Alternative E, the preferred alternative, we have changed the designation of this 

area from Electric Motor Area to a Slow, No Wake Area. This designation will dramatically 

change the accessibility since boats with outboard and shallow-drive motors will be allowed, 
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

415

although airboats and hovercraft would be excluded. We also looked at various configurations 

suggested by the public, including the recommendation above. Based on this review, the 

boundary of this area remains virtually the same in Alternative E as the area presented in the 

supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP. We have added Appendix R to the Final EIS/CCP which 

gives more details on the resource and public use rationale for this and all other Electric Motor 

Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas.

Comment: Support the heron sanctuary designation on a part of the existing Mertes Slough Electric 

Motor Area, Pool 6 (6).

Response: We appreciate this comment, but have deleted the sanctuary designation in 

Alternative E, the preferred alternative. We felt that overlaying sanctuary status over an 

existing restricted area would be confusing, lead to additional signing and sign maintenance 

costs, and be of limited value since the level of disturbance is low under the electric motor only 

designation.

Comment: Consider smaller areas for Electric Motor Areas and make larger areas Slow No Wake 

(4).

Response: As noted in an earlier comment/response, we made substantial changes in 

Alternative E, the preferred alternative. These changes included dropping four proposed areas 

completely, and converting eight Electric Motor Areas to seasonal Slow, No Wake Areas. 

Collectively, the remaining five Electric Motor Areas and eight Slow, No Wake Areas 

encompass 11,572 acres, or approximately 8 percent of the water area of the Refuge. Electric 

Motor Areas are relatively small, averaging 370 acres and a total of 1,852 acres.

Comment: Consider seasonal Electric Motor Area restrictions versus year-around (9).

Response: We considered this and other comments about the season for Electric Motor Areas. 

However, we believe that setting aside these areas year-around also meets the needs of hunters, 

anglers, trappers, cross country skiers, and others who desire an area with more quiet and 

solitude. Wildlife also benefits by the reduced disturbance, regardless of the season.

Comment: Must have designated travel corridors through any Electric Motor Area or Slow, No 

Wake Area. 

Response: We avoided most main travel corridors such as tributaries and deep sloughs when 

laying out the boundaries of the areas. Providing either a motorized or any-speed travel 

corridor through these areas would negate many of the reasons for establishing them.

Comment: Does not believe “giving” canoeists and kayakers both spillways in Reno Bottoms area in 

Pool 9 is fair (there are two spillways in Dam 8 at very upper end of Pool 9 that are popular fishing 

areas for some visitors).

Response: A portion of the Reno Bottoms area is now a Slow, No Wake Area in the preferred 

alternative and is open to motorized watercraft, except airboats and hovercraft, as well as 

canoeists and kayakers. We also modified the boundary in Alternative E to exclude 866 acres 

from any designation, which allows unrestricted means of access to the east spillway via 

Pickerel Slough or other avenues.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

416

Comment: Concerned about safety in Electric Motor Areas due to sudden storms or bad weather (3).

Response: In emergency situations, we would expect the public to take whatever action is 

necessary for their health and safety, including “violating” any rule. There are also only five 

relatively small Electric Motor Areas designated in Alternative E, the preferred alternative.

Comment: Quiet non-motor zones should be provided for visitors and formal monitoring for future 

updates of the CCP. Expressly commend the Service for Electric Motor Areas since delicate 

backwaters are essential to health of fish and wildlife, and uphold these restrictions through 

interagency collaboration (2).

Response: Comments are noted and we believe are reflected in Alternative E, the preferred 

alternative.

Comment: Proposed Electric Motor Area for 9-Mile Island in Pool 12 should be Slow, No Wake Area 

instead.

Response: We concur and this designation change was made in Alternative E, the preferred 

alternative.

Comments: In regard to comments specifically mentioning area and seasonal restrictions on airboat 

and hovercraft use in the supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP (Draft Alternative E), 35 were for the 

restrictions and 7 were opposed. 

Response: Comments are noted. Written comments are one form of input and we realize that 

many persons who currently use airboats or hovercraft throughout the Refuge do not support 

the restrictions in Alternative E, the preferred alternative. However, we believe Alternative E 

represents a balanced approach to meet the needs of all user groups, as well as the needs of 

wildlife in these backwater areas.

5.3 Slow No Wake Zones

Comments:

# For additional Slow, No Wake Zones (10)

# Against additional Slow, No Wake Zones (11)

# Bass tournament anglers and 50% of boat owners already ignore Slow, No Wake Zones (3)

# Recommend a speed limit instead of slow, no wake

# If goal is to protect plants use a slow, no wake or channel marker to designate affected areas

# Slow, no wake creates a problem in shallow areas since boats can’t operate on plane (3)

Response: Comments are noted. Slow, No Wake Zones, designed to reduce boating speed along 

linear stretches, always reflect a mixture of support or disdain. Alternative E, the preferred 

alternative, identifies 11 additional Slow, No Wake Zones to address safety and human 

disturbance problems, or to address bank erosion. We believe this number is reasonable and 

addresses the most pressing problem areas. In Alternative E we have also adopted the 

respective state definition for “slow, no wake,” which in some states includes a speed limit. 

Adopting the respective state definition also reduces confusion and layering of regulations.
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

417

Comment: Would like Slow, No Wake Zone near northwest entry to Jack Oak Slough, Pool 11, near 

Eagles Roost Resort, Cassville, Wisconsin, for safety.

Response: This area was considered, but not included since it did not rank as a high priority 

area based on resource or safety concerns expressed by staff or the public. 

Comment: Make Crooked Slough, Pool 13, and all associated backwaters slow, no wake.

Response: In Alternative E, we have identified a speed and distance restriction for Crooked 

Slough in-line with Iowa regulations. This restriction requires boats to slow down to less than 

5 mph when approaching or passing other slow or stationary craft. We believe this will provide 

the needed safety regulation while not unduly restricting boat travel on this very long corridor. 

Comment: Reduce proposed Slow, No Wake Zone in Minnesota Slough, Pool 9, to 200 yards of the 

Fish Lake curve area.

Response: Concur, and this change was made for Alternative E, the preferred alternative.

Comment: Opposes Slow, No Wake Zone for the Fountain City area since it’s a main thoroughfare for 

boaters using campgrounds and two businesses (5).

Response: We believe this Slow, No Wake Zone is warranted based on concerns expressed by 

visitors using the adjacent Merrick State Park. However, this and all other Slow, No Wake 

Zones will go through the local unit of government approval process, as is normal and 

customary for designating Slow, No Wake Zones on the river. Thus, this area is a proposal by 

the Refuge, not a final decision.

5.4 Dog Use Policy

Comments:

# Dogs need to be under voice or leash control to prevent human or wildlife disturbances (17)

# Against all dog restrictions (3)

# Support continued hunting with dogs (7)

# Wants dog swimming allowed (5)

# Owners need to be responsible for picking up dog waste

Response: We have made changes to this objective in Alternative E, the preferred alternative, to 

simplify the new regulation language. We believe this new regulation protects wildlife and 

other visitors, while allowing the water training of retrievers and other dogs which was a 

concern in some areas, particularly in and around La Crosse, Wisconsin. We also added 

language addressing dog waste. 

5.5 General Public Use Regulations

Comment: No written comments on this objective were received from the public. See comments 

from the states earlier in this chapter in regard to a step-down law enforcement plan, which was 

added to the strategies in this objective in Alternative E of the Final EIS/CCP.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

418

6.1 Office and Shop Facilities

Comment: All money should go to improving fish and wildlife on Refuge, not building offices (13).

Response: Offices and shops are a basic need of any operation. As noted in Chapter 4, 

Environmental Consequences, many of the Refuge offices and shops are inadequate in terms of 

public accessibility, information, and programs, and continue to have unresolved structural 

safety issues. Inadequate maintenance and storage capacity also negatively effects efficiency of 

field operations and condition of heavy equipment and vehicles. Also, costs of new buildings are 

off-set to some degree since the current annual lease payments for offices at Winona and La 

Crosse would be eliminated.

Comment: Support building new office and shop facilities (5).

Response: Comments are noted.

6.2 Public Access Facilities

Comments: 

# Against all new fees (64)

# Approve boat launch fees if they are used for new landing facilities in same area (5) 

# Use money generated by fees to hire more law enforcement officers

# Require everyone using Refuge to have annual for-fee permit or Federal Duck Stamp and use 

money for habitat restoration or protection (7).

Response: The boat ramp fee in Alternatives B, C, and D was dropped in Alternative E, the 

preferred alternative. Also, a general, annual recreation fee was strongly opposed by the 

majority of people at public meetings and workshops. However, the concept of a fee, but not an 

actual proposal, remains in Alternative E, in-line with recent laws governing recreational user 

fees on federal public lands. If fees are charged, they are specifically earmarked for the refuge 

where collected to enhance visitor facilities and programs, not for habitat or other work. 

Federal Duck Stamps do allow “free” entrance to national wildlife refuges which charge 

entrance fees, but the proceeds go into the nationwide Duck Stamp land acquisition fund. No 

Duck Stamp funds are used for land acquisition at the Upper Miss Refuge since the funding 

source is the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Comment: Support new boat access proposal (7).

Response: Comments are noted.

Comment: Boat landings at Campion and St. Feriole are excellent examples of well thought-out, user 

friendly, and economically feasible boat landings.

Response: Comment is noted.

Comment: Boat landing at Big Slough near Lansing looks nice but not as practical as the old landing. 

Parking was reduced by 50% and curbs cause problems when maneuvering.

Response: We understand the concerns at this and other landings. These issues will be 

considered when rehabilitating or constructing new landings, and communicated to persons 

doing the design work. Also, we think it would be wise to get input from citizens using these 

areas before designs are finished and contracts awarded. 
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

419

Comment: Can you use money from boat gas tax for improved boat landings?

Response: No, any federal excise tax on fuel goes to accounts other than refuges.

Comment: Support walk-in accesses (4).

Response: Comments are noted.

Comment: New canoe trails need launch and landings established, otherwise tough to use (4).

Response: We do not disagree, although access development is often hampered by roads, 

railroads, and physical terrain. 

Comments: If a canoe access off Highway 26 (Pool 9, Iowa side) is a goal look at three existing 

parking areas between Conway Lake and Lansing, one is at extreme south end of Conway (3). 

Supports a canoe launch along existing road near Big Slough eliminating need for Conway Lake 

access. Not feasible to construct parking off Highway 26 down steep bank, across railroad tracks in 

floodplain.

Response: We will take these comments into consideration when doing more detailed planning 

for the Conway Lake canoe access, or other accesses along Highway 26. The railroad tracks and 

terrain present a considerable challenge along this and other stretches of the Refuge for any 

type of access.

Comment: Ensure access doesn’t require canoe portage across highways (2).

Response: Concur, and we will avoid this situation in any accesses developed. 

Comment: Supports signed and maintained portages on dikes between pools with steps or gravel 

path instead of trying to balance canoe going up and down steep rocks.

Response: We do not disagree, but the dikes or dams between pools are under the jurisdiction of 

the Corps of Engineers. It is unlikely that the Corps of Engineers would entertain any actual 

recreational development of the dams since their purpose is for water control and management.

Comment: Would like some canoe-only campgrounds. 

Response: Since Electric Motor Areas are open to camping, they do serve to a degree as canoeonly camping areas. Given the ease of access to remote areas of the Refuge with canoe, many 

other areas offer the opportunity to get away from heavily-used beach areas along the main 

channel. However, we acknowledge that secluded, sandy areas in the backwaters are limited.

Comment: Support additional parking areas (8).

Response: Comments are noted.

6.3 Operation and Maintenance Needs 

Comment: Concern for costs of maintaining infrastructure resulting from the Environmental 

Management Program.

Response: Concur and we have added more information on this need in Alternative E, the 

preferred alternative, and in the Appendix L, Implementation Plan, in the Final EIS/CCP. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

420

6.4 Public Information and Awareness

Comments:

# Need more information at public access points to garner public compliance (4)

# Focus on information campaigns and public information sites (5)

# Use marinas, boat landings, sporting good stores, and brochures for information programs 

# Kiosks very valuable where there are high number of visitors (2)

Response: We concur and believe the information and awareness efforts outlined in Alternative 

E of the Final EIS/CCP reflect these comments.

Comment: All the money earmarked for public information campaigns doesn’t promote wildlife 

habitat (2). Spend money on fish and wildlife programs instead due to budget constraints (3).

Response: We believe the public has a need for basic information about the Refuge, its fish and 

wildlife, and the rules for public use. This is a basic function of managing public lands. As 

noted in earlier responses, there are indirect and positive benefits to increased public 

awareness of the Refuge. Citizens who know and understand the Refuge are more apt to care 

about it and the Mississippi River as a whole, which generally leads to fiscal and political 

support for improving habitat for fish and wildlife. 

Comment: Recommend using newsletters to keep public apprised of changes and results of changes 

(5).

Response: Newsletters are costly from a production, printing, and mailing standpoint. We have 

learned through the process of producing the CCP that a website is a valuable tool, and will 

continue to use it, and the media, to provide information to the public on programs and actions 

of the CCP which emerges from the Final EIS.

Comment: Kiosks specifically needed at St. Feriole Slough, Villa Louis, and Campion landings near 

Prairie du Chien.

Response: These landings are managed by the City of Prairie du Chien and not within the 

Refuge. Although we place Refuge kiosks at many non-Refuge landings in cooperation with 

cities and towns, there are fiscal and maintenance constraints to placing at all of the 200-plus 

boat landings in Pools 4 through 14. However, we are currently partnering with the city to place 

kiosks at two of the landings. 

6.5 Staffing Needs

Comment: Hire more Law Enforcement Officers, they’re spread too thin (10).

Response: We concur, and added four additional full-time law enforcement officers to this 

objective in Alternative E, the preferred alternative. 

Comment: Support hiring forester (8).

Response: Comments are noted. 
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

421

7.9 General Comments and Response 

This section contains comments and responses to input that did not logically fit in the objectives or 

categories in Section 7.8.

During both comment periods, a large number of persons or organizations specifically stated their 

preference for an alternative being considered. A summary of this preference is in Table 35. If a 

comment did not mention a specific alternative, even if in favor or opposed to certain aspects of an 

alternative, it is not included in the table.

Petitions and form letters obviously impact these numbers, and it is difficult to weigh the qualitative 

aspects of a comment in a petition or form letter compared to a written original comment from an 

individual or organization. For example, during the second comment period, one petition accounted 

for 139 of the 165 comments specifically wanting Alternative A, while the 112 comments specifically 

wanting Alternative E were individually written. 

Also, comments for or against a particular alternative represent the opinions, perspectives, and 

values of those commenting. Without a random sampling of the general public, one cannot conclude 

that these numbers represent the views or desires of society as a whole, or of all people who use or 

benefit from the Refuge. 

Comment: Concerns with the new walk down access and bank fishing area off of Highway 35 just 

south of Stoddard, Wisconsin. These concerns include adequate parking, pedestrian safety, and 

funding (Wisconsin Division of Transportation Systems Development, Southwest Region).

Response: We share these concerns. The access and bank fishing to this popular fishing area 

created by an Environmental Management Program project is only identified in Alternative 

E. We realize that many questions concerning design, funding, and maintenance will need to 

be answered if this project moves forward. As with all projects adjacent to roads and highways, 

we will work collaboratively with the state and other agencies before proceeding. 

Comment: Alternative D, the preferred alternative, should be rejected because it bans appropriate 

and priority uses without justification. Concerned about compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (National Marine Manufacturers Association and Personal Watercraft 

Industry Association).

Table 35: Comments Stating an Alternative Preference1

1. Includes number of signatures on petitions, and number of individual form letters/e-mails discussed in Sections 7.6 and 7.7

Alternative Preferred First Comment Period (Draft EIS/

CCP)

Number of Written Comments/

Signatures 

Second Comment Period 

(Supplement or Alt. E)

Number of Written Comments/

Signatures 

Alternative A: No Action 3,086 165

Alternative B: Wildlife 1,840 9

Alternative C: Public Use 1 0

Alternative D: Integrated 387 22

Alternative E: Modified Integrated 0 112
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

422

Response: In response to public input, the Service issued a Supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP 

which presented a new alternative, Alternative E, as the preferred alternative. Major changes 

were made, especially in regards to Electric Motor Areas. Neither Alternative D nor 

Alternative E bans any priority use in these areas, only the means of use is affected. All areas, 

except Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, remain open to the priority public uses of hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental education. We 

believe the Final EIS/CCP contains extensive documentation of issues and justification for the 

actions presented, and complies with all requirements of the National Environmental Policy 

Act.

Comment: Alternative A should be designated the preferred alternative because it best 

accomplishes the Refuge’s goals, accommodates the broadest mix of uses, and ensures fair and 

environmentally sound boating management (National Marine Manufacturers Association and 

Personal Watercraft Industry Association).

Response: We do not believe that Alternative A, no action or current direction, meets the 

multitude of needs outlined in Chapter 1 of the Final EIS/CCP, nor ensures compliance with the 

Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 and various Service policies and regulations governing 

national wildlife refuges. However, Alternative E, the preferred alternative, reflects many 

changes based on extensive public input at meetings, workshops, and through written 

comments. All types of traditional recreation currently enjoyed on the Refuge will continue, 

including boating by any means on at least 90 percent of the water area of the Refuge. We 

believe the time and place restrictions on a portion of the Refuge meet the needs of wildlife and 

the needs of a large and diverse public. We believe this balanced approach is in the best longterm interest of the resource, area communities and economy, and the public at large. 
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

423

Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

424

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

425

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

426

Minnesota Department Natural Resources Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

427

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

428

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

429

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

430

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

431

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

432

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

433

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

434

Iowa Department of Natural Resources Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

435

Iowa Department of Natural Resources Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

436

Iowa Department of Natural Resources Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

437

Iowa Department of Natural Resources Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

438

Iowa Department of Natural Resources Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

439

Iowa Department of Natural Resources Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

440

Illinois Department of Natural Resources Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

441

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

442

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

443

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

444

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

445

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

446

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

447

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

448

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

449

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

450

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

451

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

452

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

453

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

454

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

455

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

456

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

457

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

458

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

459

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

460

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

461

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

462

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Comment on Supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

463

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Comment on Supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

464

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Comment on Supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

465

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Comment on Supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

466

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Comment on Supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

467

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Comment on Supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

468

Iowa Department of Natural Resources Comment on the Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

469

Iowa Department of Natural Resources Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

470

Iowa Department of Natural Resources Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

471

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

472

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

473

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Comment on Supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

474

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Comment on Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

475

Representative Mark Green Comment on the Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

476

Representative Mark Green Comment on the Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

477

Wisconsin Legislature Comment on the Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

478

Wisconsin Legislature Comment on the Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

479

Wisconsin Legislature Comment on the Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

480

Wisconsin Legislature Comment on the Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

481

Wisconsin Legislature Comment on the Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

482

Wisconsin Legislature Comment on the Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

483

Wisconsin Legislature Comment on the Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

484

Senator Norm Coleman Comment on the Supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

485

Representative Ron Kind Comment on Supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

486

Representative Ron Kind Comment on Supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

487

 

Representative Ron Kind Comment on Supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

488

Representative Mark Green Comment on Supplement to Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

489

Wisconsin Legislature Comment on the Supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

490

Wisconsin Legislature Comment on Supplement to Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

491

Wisconsin Legislature Comment on Supplement to Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

492

Wisconsin Legislature Comment on Supplement to Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

493

Wisconsin Attorney General Comment on Supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

494

Wisconsin Attorney General Comment on Supplement to Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 7: Public Comment on Draft EIS/CCP and the Supplement (Alternative E) and Response

495

Wisconsin Attorney General Comment on Supplement to Draft EIS/CCP
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

496

Wisconsin Attorney General Comment on Supplement to Draft EIS/CCP
Chapter 8: References

497

Chapter 8: References

Albert, Dennis A. 1995. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a 

working map and classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-178. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.

American Bird Conservancy. 2004. Internet address: www.abcbirds.org

Andersen, M. 2003. Ecology of the common snapping turtle on Pool 8 of the Upper Mississippi River, 

Progress Report. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, La Crosse WI. 7 pp.

Bellrose, F., S. Havera, F. Paveglio, Jr., and D. Steffeck. 1983. The fate of lakes in the Illinois River 

Valley. Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes 119, Illinois Natural History Survey, 

Champaign. 27 pp.

Bhomilk, N. 1996. Physical effects: A landscape changed. Pages 101-131 in S. Chagnon, editor. The 

great flood of 1993: Causes, consequences, and impacts. Westview Press, Inc. Boulder Colorado. 321 

pp.

Boyle, K., R. Paterson, J. Poor. 2002. The Effect of National Wildlife Refuge Proximity on Selling 

prices of Nearby Residential Properties. Staff Paper 507. Maine Agricultural and Forest 

Experiment Station. University of Maine. Orono Maine. 

Caudill, J. 2004. Affected Environment: Socio-Economics. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, 

VA. 19 pp.

Caudill, J. 2004a. The Economic Effects of the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish 

Refuge: Baseline and Effects of Alternatives. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA. 32 pp.

Caudill, J. 2004b. Impact of management alternatives on local tax revenue: Upper Mississippi River 

National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA. 5 pp.

Clay, R. and W. Clark. 1985. Demography of muskrats on the Upper Mississippi River. J. Wildlife. 

Manage. 49(4): 883-890.

Custer, T., R. Hines, M. Melancon, D. Hoffman, J. Wickliffe, J. Bickhan, J. Martin, and D. Henshel. 

1997. Contaminant concentrations and biomarker response in great blue heron eggs from 10 colonies 

on the Upper Mississippi River, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 16 (2): pp 260-271. 

Custer, T., C. Custer, W. Thomford, and P. Dummer. 1998. Black tern nesting in navigation pools 7 

and 8 on the Upper Mississippi River, 1998. US Geological Survey, La Crosse WI. 22 pp.

Dahl, T. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States, 1780s to 1980s. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. 21 pp.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

498

Faber, R. 1992. The black tern: effects of waterlevel fluctuations on hatching success and a census of 

nesting on Pools 5 and 7. US Fish and Wildlife Service grant agreement No. 14-16-0003-91-984. St. 

Mary’s College of MN, Winona MN 18 pp.

Finch, D. 1991. Population ecology, habitat requirements, and conservation of neotropical migratory 

birds. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-205. Fort Collins, CO; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 pp.

FISHPRO Consulting Engineers and Scientists. 2004. Feasibility study to limit the invasion of Asian 

carp into the Upper Mississippi River basin. Prepared for the Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources 

in cooperation with the Wisconsin DNR and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3. Springfield 

IL. 159 pp.

Fremling, C. and T. Claflin. 1984. Ecological history of the Upper Mississippi River. Pages 5-24 in J. 

G. Wiener, R.V. Anderson, and D. R. McConville, editors. Contaminants in the Upper Mississippi 

River. Butterworth Publishers, Stoneham, Massachusetts. 368 pp.

Fremling, C, D. Nielsen, D. McConville, and R. Vose. 1976. The Weaver Bottoms: a field model for 

the rehabilitation of backwater areas of the Upper Mississippi River by modification of standard 

channel maintenance practices. Submitted to US Army Corps of Engineers. Contact # DACW37-75-

C-0193.

Galatowitsch, S. and McAdams, T. 1994. Distribution and requirements of plants on the Upper 

Mississippi River: Literature review. Iowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Ames 

Iowa. 175 pp.

Gleason, H. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and 

Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden. 910 pp.

Gowda, P. 1999. Watershed relations and changes. In Ecological status and trends of the Upper 

Mississippi River System 1998: A report of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse Wisconsin. April 

1999. LTRMP 99-T001. 236 pp.

Green, W. 1970. Ecological changes on the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge since 

inception of the 9-foot channel. (Reprinted and Revised 1970). USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Report. 17 pp.

Gregory, M., J. Harvey, M. Lee, K. Rognsvoog. 2003. A cultural history summary and cultural 

resources management planning resource for the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and 

Fish Refuge and the Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge. Report of Investigations Number 506. 

Great Lakes Archaeological Research Center, Milwaukee, WI. 224 pp.

Gutreuter, S. and C. Theiling, 1999. Fishes. In Ecological status and trends of the Upper Mississippi 

River System 1998: A report of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse Wisconsin. April 1999. LTRMP 

99-T001. 236 pp.

Izaak Walton League. 1999 (approx). Refuge at the crossroads: the state of the Upper Mississippi 

River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, a special report from the Izaak Walton League of America. 

St. Paul MN. 13 pp. 
Chapter 8: References

499

Kenow, K., R. Hines, J. Lyon, and C. Korschgen. 2003. Determination of the abundance, 

distribution, nutritional value of plant foods used by migratory waterfowl on selected pools of the 

Upper Mississippi River. Final Report. Study: WE-96-00095-5. US Geological Survey, La Crosse 

WI. 36 pp.

Kenow, K., C. Korschgen, J. Nissen, A. Elfessi, and R. Steinbach. 2003a. A voluntary program to 

curtail boat disturbance to waterfowl during migration. Waterbirds 26(1): 77-87.

Kenow, K., J. Nissen, and S. Houdek. 2005. Boater compliance with the Lake Onalaska voluntary 

avoidance area in Fall of 2004. Report to Region 3, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. July 2005. 16 

pages.

King, T. 1998. Cultural resource laws & practice: An introductory guide. AltaMira Press. Walnut 

Creek, CA. 256 pages. 

Knutson, M., G. Butcher, J. Fitchgerald, and J. Shieldcastle. 2001. Partners in Flight Bird 

Conservation Plan for the Upper Great Lakes Plain (Physiographic Area 16). USGS Upper Midwest 

Environmental Sciences Center in cooperation with Partners in Flight. La Crosse WI. 59 pp.

Kolb, M. and R. Boszhardt. 2004. A Geomorphological Investigation and Overview of Navigation 

Pool 10, Upper Mississippi River. Reports of Investigations, No. 456. Mississippi Valley 

Archaeology Center, La Crosse, WI. Report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. 

Paul District.

Korschgen, C., L. George, and W. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a 

migration staging area. Wildlife. Soc. Bull. 13, 290-296.

Korschgen, C. and R. Dahlgren. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: causes, effects, and 

management. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.2.15. Waterfowl Management Handbook. US Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 7 pp.

Korschgen, C., Kirsch, E., and Kenow, K. 1999. Birds. In Ecological status and trends of the Upper 

Mississippi River System 1998: A report of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse Wisconsin. April 

1999. LTRMP 99-T001. 236 pp.

Knox, J. 2002. Sensitivity of large upper Mississippi river floods to climate change. Abstract of 

presentation at the Geological Society of America Conference.

Kushlan, J., M. Steinkamp, K. Parsons, J. Capp, M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. 

Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. 

Phillips, J. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Tapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird conservation for 

the Americas: the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1. Waterbird 

Conservation for the Americas, Washington, D. C., USA, 78 pp.

Lubinski, K. 1999. Floodplain river ecology and the concept of river ecological health. In Ecological 

status and trends of the Upper Mississippi River System 1998: A report of the Long Term Resource 

Monitoring Program. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La 

Crosse Wisconsin. April 1999. LTRMP 99-T001. 236 pp.

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. 2001. United States shorebird conservation plan, 2nd 

Edition.. Editors: S. Brown, C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill. Manomet Massachusetts. 63 pp.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

500

Mandernack, B., K. McKay, J.Dankert, B. Conklin, and U. Konig. 1997. Fall raptor migration count 

at Eagle Valley Nature Preserve in southwest Wisconsin. Report submitted to Kohler Trust 

Foundation, US Fish and Wildlife Service and Wisconsin Society for Ornithology. 41 pp.

McManamon, F. 1997. DCA-NPS; letter of December 23, 1997 to Walla Walla District, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2004, Recreation boating study of the Mississippi 

River, Pools 4 to 9, Summer 2003. Office of Management and Budget Services. St. Paul MN. 62 pp.

Mohlenbrock, R. 1983. Annotated bibliography of the aquatic macrophytes of the Upper Mississippi 

river covering the area from Cairo Illinois, to St. Paul, Minnesota. Ecological Services, US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Rock Island IL.

Moll, D. and E. Moll. 2000. Conservation of river turtles. In, M.W. Klemens (Ed.). Turtle 

Conservation. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington D. C. 344 pp.

Mussel Coordination Team. 2003. Saving the Higgins’ Eye Pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsii) from 

Extinction: 2002 Status Report on the Accomplishments of the Mussel Coordination Team. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities Field Office, Bloomington, Minnesota and U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, St. Paul District, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Nelson, J. and M. Andersen. 2003. Long-term monitoring of nesting waterfowl on Mississippi River 

islands: summary report, 2003 nesting season. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 

Mississippi – Lower St. Croix Team. La Crosse WI. 11 pp.

Nielsen, D., R. Rada, and M. Smart. 1984. Sediments of the Upper Mississippi River: Their sources, 

distribution, and characteristics. Pages 67-98 in J. Wiener, R. Anderson, and D. McConville, editors. 

Contaminants in the Upper Mississippi River. Butterworth Publishers, Stoneham, Massachusetts.

Pashley, D., C. Beardmore, J. Fitzgerald, R. Ford,, W. Hunter, M. Morrison, and K. Rosenberg. 

2000. Partners in flight: Conservation for the land birds of the United States. American Bird 

Conservancy, The Plains, VA 91 pp.

Peck, J. and M. Smart. 1986. An assessment of the aquatic and wetland vegetation of the Upper 

Mississippi River. Hydrobiologia 136: 57-76.

Ralph, C., G. Geupel, P. Pyle, T. Martin, and D. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of field methods for 

monitoring landbirds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-144. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture. 41 pp.

Reid, F., J. Kelley, Jr., T. Taylor and L. Frederickson. 1989. Upper Mississippi Valley Wetlands - 

refuges and moist soil impoundments. Pages 181-202 in R. Kaminski, R. Pederson and L. Smith, 

editors. Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. Texas 

Technical University Press, Lubbock.

Resource Studies Center. 2001 recreational boating study of the Lower St. Croix National Scenic 

Riverway and the Mississippi River from the Twin Cities to Lock and Dam 10 (excluding Lake 

Pepin). St. Mary’s University of Minnesota, Winona MN 10 pp., plus 74 pp. in three chapters. 

River Resources Forum. 2004. Environmental Pool Plans: Mississippi River, Pools 1-10. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, St. Paul Minnesota. 156 pp.
Chapter 8: References

501

River Resources Forum. 2005. Water level management update. Water level management task 

force. Volume 8, Issue 2, November. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District.

River Resources Forum. 2004a. Water level management update. Water level management task 

force. Volume 7, Issue 1, April.

Rogers, S. and C. Theiling. 1999. Submersed aquatic vegetation. In. Ecological status and trends of 

the Upper Mississippi River System 1998: A report of the Long Term Resource Monitoring 

Program. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse 

Wisconsin. April 1999. LTRMP 99-T001. 236 pp.

Sauer, J. and K. Lubinski. 1999. Macroinvertebrates. In. Ecological status and trends of the Upper 

Mississippi River System 1998: A report of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse Wisconsin. April 

1999. LTRMP 99-T001. 236 pp.

Slivinski, C. 2004. An assessment of potential waterfowl carrying capacity for existing and proposed 

alternative refuge closed areas from Pool 4-14 of the Upper Mississippi River. Report submitted to 

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. Winona MN. 30 pp.

Soballe, D. and J. Weiner. 1999. Water and sediment quality. In. Ecological status and trends of the 

Upper Mississippi River System 1998: A report of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. 

U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse Wisconsin. 

April 1999. LTRMP 99-T001. 236 pp.

Strahler, A. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. American Geophysical Union 

Transactions 38:913-920.

Stravers, J. and K. McKay. 1994. Surveys for red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) nesting within 

the Savanna District (Pools 12-14) of the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. 

Midwest Raptor Research Fund, Pella IA. 22 pp.

Swanson, S. and S. Sohmer. 1978. The vascular flora of Navigation Pool 8 of the Upper Mississippi 

River. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 85(2): 45-61.

Theiling, C. 1999. Important milestones in the human and ecological history of the Upper Mississippi 

River System. In. Ecological status and trends of the Upper Mississippi River System 1998: A 

report of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest 

Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse Wisconsin. April 1999. LTRMP 99-T001. 236 pp.

Terborgh, J. 1989. Where have all the birds gone? Princeton, NJ; Princeton Univ. Press. 224 pp.

Thorson, E. 2002. Fall stopover site ecology of tundra swans on the Upper Mississippi River. M.S. 

Thesis, Univ. of Minnesota, 134 pp.

Tucker, J. and C. Theiling. 1999. Freshwater Mussels. In. Ecological status and trends of the Upper 

Mississippi River System 1998: A report of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse Wisconsin. April 

1999. LTRMP 99-T001. 236 pp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1993. Mississippi River operational management plan. St. Paul 

District, St. Paul MN. 254 pp.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

502

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1993a. Economic Impacts of Recreation on the Upper Mississippi 

River System – Recreation Use and Activities Report and Recreation Expenditure Report. March, 

1993.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2000. Upper Mississippi River system habitat needs assessment. 

Summary Report. St. Louis District. St. Louis MO. 54 pp. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System 

Navigation Feasibility Study. Mississippi Valley Division, Vicksburg, MS. 652 pages.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004a. Biological Assessment of the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois 

Waterway System Navigation Study. Rock Island District, St. Louis District, and St. Paul District, 

April, 2004, 193 pages.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004b. Upper Mississippi River System Environmental 

Management Program Report to Congress. Rock Island District, St. Louis District, and St. Paul 

District, September, 2004, 65 pages.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004c. Interim Report for the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois 

Waterway System Navigation Study, water-level management opportunities for ecosystem 

restoration on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois waterway. Rock Island District, St. Louis 

District, and St. Paul District, July, 2004, 75 pages.

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon sequestration research and development. Office of Fossil 

Energy. Executive summary. 26 pp web site: www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/ sequestration/

publications/1999_rdreport/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Higgins’ Eye mussel recovery plan. Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. 98 

pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior and Environment Canada. 1986. North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan. 31 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge 

Environmental Impact Statement, Refuge Master Plan. Regional Director Fort Snelling, Twin 

Cities MN.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002a. Status assessment report for the sheepnose, Plethobasus 

cyphyus, occurring in the Mississippi River system (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions 3, 4, and 

5), Ohio River Valley Ecosystem Team, Mollusk Subgroup, Robert S. Butler, Leader, Asheville NC. 

79 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002b. Status Assessment Report for the spectaclecase, 

Cumberlandia monodonta, occurring in the Mississippi River system (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Regions 3, 4, 5, and 6). Ohio River Valley Ecosystem Team, Mollusk Subgroup, Robert S. 

Butler, Leader Asheville NC. 66 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002c. Fire Management Plan for Upper Mississippi River National 

Wildlife and Fish Refuge, Winona MN. 71 pp + Appendices. Also available on USFWS Region 3 

planning web site, http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/uppermiss/index.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Draft eastern massasauga rattlesnake Candidate Conservation 

Agreement with Assurances. Ecological Services Field Office, Green Bay, WI.
Chapter 8: References

503

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. A blueprint for the future of migratory birds; migratory bird 

program strategic plan 2004-2014. Washington, D.C. 21 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004a. Wildlife and habitat team white paper. Conservation in action, 

summit: a century of conservation challenges. National Conservation Training Center, 

Shepherdstown, WV. 20 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004b. Final biological opinion for the Upper Mississippi RiverIllinois Waterway System Navigation Feasibility Study. Rock Island Field Office, Rock Island, IL, 

Marion Suboffice, Marion IL, and Twin Cities Field Office, Bloomington, MN. 141 pages.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. Ecological status and trends of the Upper Mississippi River System 

1998: A report of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper 

Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse Wisconsin. April 1999. LTRMP 99-T001. 236 

pp.

Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee. 1993. Facing the Threat: An ecosystem 

management strategy for the Upper Mississippi River. A call for action from the UMRCC. Rock 

Island, Il. 16 pp.

Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee. 2000. A river that works and a working river. 

Rock Island, Il . 40 pp.

Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee. 2002. Upper Mississippi and Illinois River 

Floodplain Forests: desired future and recommended actions. Compiled by the UMRCC Wildlife 

Technical Section, R. Urich, G. Swanson, and E. Nelson, editors. Rock Island, Il. 35 pp. 

Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee. 2004a. Fisheries Compendium, Third Edition. 

Rock Island, Il. 265 pp.

Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee. 2004b. Conservation Plan for Freshwater 

Mussels of the Upper Mississippi River System. Prepared by the Mussel Ad Hoc Committee. Rock 

Island, Il. 28 pp.

VanDeWalle, T. and J. Christiansen. 2002. Survey of eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus 

catenatus catanatus) populations in Iowa. Prepared for Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources.

Weitzell, R., M. Khoury, P. Gagnon, B. Schreurs, D. Grossman, and J. Higgins. 2003. Conservation 

priorities for freshwater biodiversity in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Nature Serve and The 

Nature Conservancy. 90 pp.

Wiener, J., R. Anderson, and D. McConville, editors. 1984. Contaminants in the Upper Mississippi 

River: Proceedings of the 15th Annual Meeting of the Mississippi River Research Consortium. 

Butterworth Publishers, Boston, An Ann Arbor Science Book. 367 pp.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2004. Muskrat house counts, 1989-2004. In-house 

report. La Crosse WI. 

Wlosinski, J. and L. Wlosinski. 1998. Muskrat harvests, water levels, and aquatic vegetation on the 

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. Project status report, PSR 98-06, 

Upper Mississippi River Long Term Resource Monitoring Program, US Geological Survey, 

Onalaska WI. 2 pp.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

504

Wlosinski, J. 1999. Hydrology. In Ecological status and trends of the Upper Mississippi River 

System 1998: A report of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse Wisconsin. April 1999. LTRMP 99-T001. 

236 pp. 

Wlosinski, J. and L. Wlosinski. 2001. Predicting flood potential to assist reforestation for the Upper 

Mississippi River System. Project Status Report 2001-01. Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences 

Center, US Geological Survey, La Crosse WI. 2 pp. 

Yin, Y., J. Nelson, G. Swenson, H. Langrehr, and T. Blackburn. 1994. Tree mortality in the Upper 

Mississippi River floodplain following an extreme flood in 1993. Pages 39-60 in National Biological 

Service, Illinois Natural History Survey, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, and Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources. Long Term Resource Monitoring Program 1993 flood 

observations. National Biological Service, Environmental Management Technical Center, Onalaska 

WI, December 1994. LTRMP 94-SO11.

Yin, Y. 1999. Floodplain forests. In Ecological status and trends of the Upper Mississippi River 

System 1998: A report of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse Wisconsin. April 1999. LTRMP 99-T001. 

236 pp. 
Appendix A: Glossary

505

Appendix A: Glossary

Appendix A: Glossary

507

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms

Alternative A set of objectives and strategies needed to achieve refuge 

goals and the desired future condition.

Biological Diversity The variety of life forms and its processes, including the 

variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among 

them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they 

occur.

Closed Area Defined in Alternatives A, B, and C as: an area closed to all 

migratory bird hunting. Other hunting and trapping is only 

allowed beginning the day after the close of the state duck 

hunting season, until season closure or March 15, whichever 

comes first, except turkey hunting is allowed during state 

seasons. Defined in Alternative D the same as above except no 

fishing and no motorized watercraft are allowed October 1 to 

the end of the respective state regular duck hunting season.

Compatible Use A wildlife-dependent recreational use, or any other use on a 

refuge that will not materially interfere with or detract from 

the fulfillment of the mission of the Service or the purposes of 

the refuge.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan A document that describes the desired future conditions of the 

refuge, and specifies management actions to achieve refuge 

goals and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Cultural Resources: “Those parts of the physical environment -- natural and built -- 

that have cultural value to some kind of sociocultural group ... 

[and] those non-material human social institutions....”(King, 

1988) Cultural resources include historic sites, archeological 

sites and associated artifacts, sacred sites, traditional cultural 

properties, cultural items (human remains, funerary objects, 

sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony) 

(McManamon, 1997), and buildings and structures.

Drawdowns The process of temporarily lowering water levels of Pools 

during the summer months to stimulate the growth of aquatic 

plants in the lower to middle portions of the pools.

Ecosystem A dynamic and interrelated complex of plant and animal 

communities and their associated non-living environment.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

508

Ecosystem Management Management of an ecosystem that includes all ecological, 

social and economic components that make up the whole of the 

system.

Electric Motor Areas These areas are closed year round to all motorized vehicles 

and watercraft except watercraft powered by electric motors 

or non-motorized means. A 5 mile per hour speed limit applies 

to electric powered craft. 

Endangered Species Any species of plant or animal defined through the 

Endangered Species Act as being in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and 

published in the Federal Register.

Environmental Impact Statement A systematic analysis to determine if proposed actions would 

result in a significant effect on the quality of the environment.

Environmental Management 

Program This program is funded and administered by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers to construct habitat rehabilitation and 

enhancement projects and to conduct long-term resource 

monitoring of biological and physical features of the Upper 

Mississippi River System

Environmental Pool Plans These plans identify a desired future habitat condition within 

Pools 2-22 toward which agencies and other river interests can 

strive. They are endorsed by the River Resources Forum and 

River Resources Coordinating Committee, (U.S. Army Corp 

of Engineers, St. Paul and Rock Island District, respectively), 

whose members include public and private organizations, and 

whose charters are based on a balanced approach to river 

resource management.

Extirpation The local extinction of a species that is no longer found in a 

locality or country, but exists elsewhere in the world.

Fiscal Year Federal Government budget year beginning October 1 and 

ending September 31.

Goals Descriptive statements of desired future conditions.

Interjurisdictional Fish Fish that occur in waters under the jurisdiction of one or more 

states, for which there is an interstate fishery management 

plan or which migrates between the waters under the 

jurisdiction of two or more states.

Issue Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision. 

For example, a resource management problem, concern, a 

threat to natural resources, a conflict in uses, or in the 

presence of an undesirable resource condition.
Appendix A: Glossary

509

National Wildlife Refuge System All lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife 

ranges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl production 

areas, and other areas for the protection and conservation of 

fish, wildlife and plant resources.

Objectives Actions to be accomplished to achieve a desired outcome.

Open Water Hunting Open water means any water beyond a natural growth of 

vegetation that offers whole or partial concealment to the 

hunter. In Wisconsin, open water hunting is allowed by state 

regulations only in the Grant County portion of the Refuge, 

where hunters my use boats/blinds so long as they are securely 

anchored. Minnesota does not allow open water hunting on the 

Mississippi River. Iowa and Illinois permit open water hunting. 

A traditional hunting method uses low-profile scull, or lay-out 

boats in open water.

Pool The area of water impounded behind (upstream) a dam.

Preferred Alternative The Service’s selected alternative identified in the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Project Leader Refuge manager or District Manager.

Sanctuary This term applies to a Refuge area where no entry is allowed. 

In waterfowl sanctuaries, no entry is allowed between October 

1 and the end of the regular state duck hunting season.

Scoping A process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed 

by a comprehensive conservation plan and for identifying the 

significant issues. Involved in the scoping process are federal, 

state and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals.

Slow, No-wake Zones These zones require boats to travel no more than five (5) miles 

per hour to reduce the size of wakes to protect shorelines from 

eroding and/or to minimize safety hazards posed by heavy 

traffic and blind spots in narrow channels.

Species A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable 

characteristics, and that can interbreed and produce young. A 

category of biological classification.

Strategies A general approach or specific actions to achieve objectives.

Threatened Species Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered 

species throughout all of or a significant portion of their range 

within the foreseeable future. A plant or animal identified and 

defined in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act 

and published in the Federal Register.

Vegetation Plants in general, or the sum total of the plant life in an area.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

510

Vegetation Type A category of land based on potential or existing dominant 

plant species of a particular area.

Water Level Management Management that involves a temporary increase or decrease in 

water levels for the benefit of fish and wildlife habitat.

Watershed The entire land area that collects and drains water into a 

stream or stream system.

Wetland Areas such as lakes, marshes, and streams that are inundated 

by surface or ground water for a long enough period of time 

each year to support, and that do support under natural 

conditions, plants and animals that require saturated or 

seasonally saturated soils.

Wildlife-dependent 

Recreational Use A use on a refuge that involves hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, or 

interpretation, as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997.
Appendix B: Initialisms and Acronyms 

511

Appendix B: Initialisms and Acronyms 

Appendix B: Initialisms and Acronyms 

513

Appendix B: Initialisms and Acronyms 

ABC – American Bird Conservancy

ARMI – Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative

ARPA – Archeological Resource Protection Act

CAP – Contaminant Assessment Program

CCP – Comprehensive Conservation Plan

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations

COE – Corps of Engineers

CRP – Conservation Reserve Program

DNR – Department of Natural Resources

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement

EMP – Environmental Management Program

ESA – Endangered Species Act

FDS – Fayette-Dubuque-Stonyland

FSA – Farm Services Agency

FONSI – Finding Of No Significant Impact

FTE – Full Time Equivalent

FWCA – Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

FWS – US Fish and Wildlife Service

GIS – Geographic Information System

GP – General Plan (lands)

GREAT – Great River Environmental Action Team

HNA – Habitat Needs Assessment

HQ – Headquarters

HREP – Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project

IADNR – Iowa Department of Natural Resources

ILDNR – Illinois Department of Natural Resources

L/D – Lock and Dam

LE – Law Enforcement

LTRMP – Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

MDNR – Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

MMS – Maintenance Management System

MRCC – Mississippi River Citizens Committee

NAWMP – North American Waterfowl Management Plan

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service

NWR – National Wildlife Refuge

NWRS – National Wildlife Refuge System

PFW – Partners for Fish and Wildlife

PIF – Partners in Flight

RCP – Resource Conservation Priorities

RM – River Mile

RONS – Refuge Operating Needs System

ROS – Refuge Operations Specialist

RPM – Root–prune Method
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

514

SUP – Special Use Permit

UMR – Upper Mississippi River (mainstem river from the confluence with Ohio

River at Cairo, IL, to St. Paul, MN)

UMRB – Upper Mississippi River Basin

UMRCC – Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee

UMRS – Upper Mississippi River System (UMR and navigable tributaries,

including the Illinois River, but excluding the Missouri River)

USACE – US Army Corps of Engineers

USC – United States Code

USDA – United States Department of Agriculture

USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS – United States Geological Survey

VWAA – Voluntary Waterfowl Avoidance Area

WDNR – Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

WMA – Wildlife Management Area

μg/g – parts per million
Appendix C: Legislation Establishing the Upper Mississippi River Refuge

515

Appendix C: Legislation Establishing the 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge

Appendix C: Legislation Establishing the Upper Mississippi River Refuge

517
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

518
Appendix C: Legislation Establishing the Upper Mississippi River Refuge

519
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

520
Appendix D: Applicable Laws and Executive Orders

521

Appendix D: Applicable Laws and 

Executive Orders

Appendix D: Applicable Laws and Executive Orders

523

Appendix D: Applicable Laws and Executive Orders

Rivers and Harbor Act (1899) (33 U.S.C. 403): Section 10 of this Act requires the authorization by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers prior to any work in, on, over, or under a navigable water of the United 

States.

Antiquities Act (1906): Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on federal land and 

provides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken or collected without a permit.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the protection of migratory birds as a federal 

responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations including the closing of 

areas, federal or non-federal, to the hunting of migratory birds.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or 

gift of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934), as amended (1958): Requires that the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and State fish and wildlife agencies be consulted whenever water is to be impounded, 

diverted or modified under a federal permit or license. The Service and State agency recommend 

measures to prevent the loss of biological resources, or to mitigate or compensate for the damage. 

The project proponent must take biological resource values into account and adopt justifiable 

protection measures to obtain maximum overall project benefits. A 1958 amendment added 

provisions to recognize the vital contribution of wildlife resources to the Nation and to require equal 

consideration and coordination of wildlife conservation with other water resources development 

programs. It also authorized the Secretary of Interior to provide public fishing areas and accept 

donations of lands and funds.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934): Authorized the opening of part of a refuge to 

waterfowl hunting.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (1935) as amended: Declares it a national policy to preserve 

historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. Provides 

procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites.

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (1935) as amended: Requires revenue sharing provisions to all fee-title 

ownerships that are administered solely or primarily by the Secretary through the Service.

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act (1948): Provides that upon a 

determination by the Administrator of the General Services Administration, real property no longer 

needed by a federal agency can be transferred without reimbursement to the Secretary of Interior if 

the land has particular value for migratory birds, or to a State agency for other wildlife conservation 

purposes.

Federal Records Act (1950): Directs preservation of evidence of the government’s organization, 

functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic historical and other 

information.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

524

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy and 

broadened the authority for acquisition and development of refuges.

Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use of refuges for recreation when such uses are compatible 

with the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient funds are available to manage the uses.

Wilderness Act (1964) as amended: Directed the Secretary of Interior, within 10 years, to review every 

roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless island (regardless of size) within National 

Wildlife Refuge and National Park Systems and to recommend to the President the suitability of 

each such area or island for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, with final 

decisions made by Congress. The Secretary of Agriculture was directed to study and recommend 

suitable areas in the National Forest System.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965): Uses the receipts from the sale of surplus federal land, 

outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, and other sources for land acquisition under several 

authorities.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (1966): (16 USC 668dd-668ee) Provides for 

administration, management, and planning for National Wildlife Refuges. 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966) as amended: Establishes as policy that the federal 

government is to provide leadership in the preservation of the nation’s prehistoric and historic 

resources.

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities 

to be accessible to persons with disabilities.

National Environmental Policy Act (1969): Requires the disclosure of the environmental impacts of any 

major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Uniform Relocation and Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (1970) as amended:

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell their homes, businesses, or farms 

to the Service. The Act requires that any purchase offer be no less than the fair market value of the 

property.

Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all federal agencies to carry out programs for the 

conservation of endangered and threatened species.

Rehabilitation Act (1973): Requires programmatic accessibility in addition to physical accessibility for 

all facilities and programs funded by the federal government to ensure that anybody can participate 

in any program.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974): Directs the preservation of historic and 

archaeological data in federal construction projects.

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major 

wetland modifications.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (1977) as amended (Public Law 95- 87) (SMCRA): Regulates 

surface mining activities and reclamation of coal-mined lands. Further regulates the coal industry by 

designating certain areas as unsuitable for coal mining operations.
Appendix D: Applicable Laws and Executive Orders

525

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management (1977): Each federal agency shall provide leadership and 

take action to reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impact of floods on human safety, and 

preserve the natural and beneficial values served by the floodplains.

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (1977): Order directs federal agencies to (1) minimize 

destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and (2) preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial 

values of wetlands when a practical alternative exists.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978): Directs agencies to consult with native traditional 

religious leaders to determine appropriate policy changes necessary to protect and preserve Native 

American religious cultural rights and practices.

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act (1978): Improves the administration of fish and wildlife programs 

and amends several earlier laws including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the Secretary to 

accept gifts and bequests of real and personal property on behalf of the United States. It also 

authorizes the use of volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to carry out a volunteer 

program.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979) as amended: Protects materials of archaeological 

interest from unauthorized removal or destruction and requires federal managers to develop plans 

and schedules to locate archaeological resources.

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (16 USC 661-667e) as amended: Requires the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to monitor non-game bird species, identify species of management concern, and implement 

conservation measures to preclude the need for listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (1981) as amended: Minimizes the extent to which federal 

programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural 

uses.

Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (1961) , amended January 23, 2004: provides loans for soil 

and water conservation and protection, water treatment and many other agricultural related 

activities.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3, Regional Director Bulletin (1983): Changes spelling from wild life 

to “wildlife” in Refuge name.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986): Promotes the conservation of migratory waterfowl and 

offsets or prevents the serious loss of wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands and other essential 

habitats.

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires the use of integrated management systems to control or 

contain undesirable plant species, and an interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other 

federal and state agencies.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990): Requires federal agencies and museums 

to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate cultural items under their control or possession.

Americans With Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and 

services.

Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice for Minority Populations (1994): Establishes environmental 

justice as a federal government priority and directs all federal agencies to make environmental 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

526

justice part of their mission. Environmental justice calls for fair distribution of environmental 

hazards.

Executive Order 12962, Recreational Fisheries (1995): Federal agencies shall, to the extent permitted by 

law and where practicable, and in cooperation with States and Tribes, improve the quantity, function, 

sustainable productivity, and distribution of U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing 

opportunities.

Executive Order 12996 Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1996):

Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It also 

presents four principles to guide management of the System.

Executive Order 13006, Locating Federal Facilities On Historic Properties In Our Nation's Central Cities 

(1996): strengthen our Nation's cities by encouraging the location of federal facilities in our central 

cities.

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996): Directs federal land management agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, 

avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain 

the confidentiality of sacred sites.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (1997) PL 105-57: This Act amended portions of the 

Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. Defines the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the Secretary to permit any use of a refuge 

provided such use is compatible with the major purposes for which the refuge was established. The 

Refuge Improvement Act clearly defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; establishes the 

legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, or environmental education and interpretation); establishes a formal process for 

determining compatibility; established the responsibilities of the Secretary of Interior for managing 

and protecting the System; and requires a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each refuge by the 

year 2012. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act (1998): Public law 105-312 amends the first section and section 2 of the 

Upper Mississippi River Wild Life and Fish Refuge Act (16 U.S.C. 721,722) by striking ``Upper 

Mississippi River Wild Life and Fish Refuge'' each place it appears and inserting ``Upper 

Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge''.

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act (1998): Amends 

the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to promote volunteer programs and community partnerships for 

the benefit of national wildlife refuges, and for other purposes.

Executive Order 13112 Invasive Species (1999): directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of 

invasive species, control populations of such species, monitor invasive species populations, provide 

for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded, 

conduct research, promote public education on invasive species and the means to address them, and 

consult with the Invasive Species Council.

Secretarial Order 3226, Evaluating Climate Change Impacts in Management Planning, 2000: Directs each 

Department of Interior bureau to consider and analyze potential climate change impacts when 

undertaking long-range planning efforts or multi-year management plans.
Appendix D: Applicable Laws and Executive Orders

527

Director’s Order Number 132 (January 18, 2001): National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, Goals and 

Purposes. This reiterates the mission of the Refuge System and how it relates to the mission of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Order also provides guidance on the use of goals and purposes in the 

administration and management of the system.

Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, 2001: Instructs 

Federal agencies to conserve migratory birds by several means, including the incorporation of 

strategies and recommendation found in Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plans, the North 

American Waterfowl Plan, the North American Waterbird Plan, and the United States Shorebird 

Conservation Plan, into agency management plan and guidance documents.

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

529

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

531

Appendix E: Compatibility Determinations

In accordance with the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, no uses for which the Service has authority 

to regulate may be allowed on a unit of 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 were included in the Draft EIS/CCP to allow public review and 

comment. Compatibility determinations based on Alternative E, the preferred alternative in the 

Final EIS/CCP, are available on the planning website at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/

uppermiss. 

Final compatibility determinations will be signed following release of the Record of Decision and will 

be available for viewing at Refuge headquarters or Refuge District offices. Below is a list of 

compatibility determinations, list of future uses which will require a case-by-case compatibility 

determination, and a list of uses which are generally prohibited and therefore not subject to 

compatibility.

 

Compatibility Determinations

Archeological investigations and surveys

Beach-related uses (swimming, sunbathing, picnicking, and other)

Boating with motor-driven watercraft, snowmobiling

Camping

Canoeing, kayaking, and sailing

Commercial fishing (including mussel and turtle harvest)

Dog exercising and training

Environmental education

Farming

Fishing, recreational

Fishing floats, commercial

Fishing tournaments

Fruits of the soil harvest

Grazing

Guided fishing

Guided hunting

Guided wildlife observation

Haying 

Hunting, migratory bird

Hunting, big game, upland game, furbearer

Interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography

Research

Sediment removal
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

532

Special events, non-Refuge sponsored

Temporary work outside of existing rights-of-way

Trapping of furbearers

Tree harvest

Case-by-case Compatibility Determinations

Commercial filming

Military exercises

New or expanded rights-of-way

Mosquito and other pest control (e.g. gypsy moth)

Predator control by others

Research by 3rd parties, not related to refuge management information needs

Generally Prohibited Uses – no compatibility determination required

Commercial boat moorage

Houseboat moorage

Business, commercial or industrial

Civilian aircraft landing

Tally ho fox hunting

Sand and gravel extraction

Off road vehicle use

Snowmobiling (Except on ice over navigable waters)

Horseback riding

Field trials

Mountain biking

Beekeeping

Wild rice harvest

Rock hounding
Appendix F: Cooperative Agreement with Corps of Engineers

533

Appendix F: Cooperative Agreement with 

Corps of Engineers

Appendix F: Cooperative Agreement with Corps of Engineers

535
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

536
Appendix F: Cooperative Agreement with Corps of Engineers

537
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

538
Appendix F: Cooperative Agreement with Corps of Engineers

539
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

540
Appendix F: Cooperative Agreement with Corps of Engineers

541
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

542
Appendix F: Cooperative Agreement with Corps of Engineers

543

Appendix G: Land Acquisition Maps

545

Appendix G: Land Acquisition Maps

Appendix G: Land Acquisition Maps

547

Appendix G: Land Acquisition Maps

The following maps show potential land protection or conservation areas by river navigation pools 

within the Refuge. Existing Refuge lands include lands acquired by the Service and lands acquired 

by the Corps of Engineers but managed as part of the Refuge through a cooperative agreement 

between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Corps of Engineers. Many of these acquired lands 

have been submerged since the 1930s when a series of constructed locks and dams raised water 

levels to improve navigation. Thus, the Refuge generally includes areas shown in green (lands) and 

areas shown in blue (water) on the maps.

These acquired lands, combined with lands within the Approved Expansion Boundary in the 1987 

Master Plan, the Halfway Creek Preliminary Project Proposal, and the Lost Mound Unit 

Memorandum of Agreement (former Savanna Army Depot), encompass the entire authorized 

Refuge. All numbered tracts on the maps are thus within the approved boundary of the Refuge.

All tracts are coded A, B, C, or D to denote their relative resource value. This classification system 

was developed in the 1987 Master Plan for the Refuge, and is still a useful comparison and 

prioritization tool. The classification system is included below.

RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION A: High value fish and wildlife habitat which is unique and 

irreplaceable on a national basis or in the ecoregion.

# Known or very probable federal endangered species habitat. Includes bald eagle and 

Peregrine Falcon nesting sites and Higgins’ eye pearly mussel beds.

# Essential habitat for state endangered species.

# Water bird nesting colonies and one-quarter-mile buffer area from the closest nesting tree; 

includes herons, egrets, cormorants, and terns. 

# Essential production habitat or concentration areas for Regional Resource Plan (RRP) 

National Species of Special Emphasis (NSSE) where the Upper Mississippi River plays a 

special role in supporting these species. Species include: Wood Duck, Mallard, Ring-necked 

Duck, Canvasback, Tundra Swan, Osprey, Peregrine Falcon, and Bald Eagle. 

# Tail water areas with high fisheries and raptor feeding values.

# Main channel border; side channels and river lakes/ponds with known crucial values for fish 

spawning, rearing, and wintering; and diverse mussel habitat.

RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION B: Valuable fish and wildlife habitat which is relatively scarce or 

becoming scarce on a national basis or in the ecoregion.

# Prime waterfowl habitat (criteria include but are not limited to dispersed habitats for RRP 

species such as Wood Duck, Mallard, Ring-necked Duck, and Canada Goose.)

# Primary habitat for remaining RRP NSSE species: Northern Pintail, American Black 

Duck, Redhead, Greater White-fronted Goose, Snow Goose, Trumpeter Swan, Greater 

Sandhill Crane, American Woodcock, Least Tern, Mourning Dove, and Golden Eagle.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

548

# Primary habitat for at least three of five major wildlife groups (fish, waterfowl, furbearers, 

raptors, water/shore birds) using the river.

# Areas which state threatened or endangered species are known to occur.

# Wing dams and other important fisheries habitat; includes most main channel border areas, 

side channels, river lakes/ponds, and sloughs.

RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION C: Medium value habitat, usually altered.

 

# Primary habitat for one or two of the five major wildlife groups (includes most of the main 

river channel, agricultural lands, revegetated spoil sites, and upland forest).

# Utility corridors (transmission lines, pipelines).

 

RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION D: Low value habitat, developed.

# Developed areas including roads, bridges, railroad tracks, residential areas, airports, 

commercial/industrial areas, barge fleeting and terminal sites, power plants, etc. These 

areas will be designated based on review and concurrence from the Upper Mississippi River 

Refuge District Managers and Service Ecological Services staff.

# Water areas with low fisheries value.

Note: 

# The scarcity and relative importance of some habitat types generally increase in 

downstream portions of the refuge. This factor was considered in the habitat classification 

exercise, and some units in the lower pools may have been placed in higher classification 

categories based on importance to the local ecological system rather than overall biological 

productivity. 

# Habitat evaluations are based on the current status of the resource. Proposals for 

enhancement, commitments for GREAT-designated disposal sites, and other projects 

planned for the future were not factors in the determination of resource classifications.

 
Appendix G: Land Acquisition Maps

549
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

550
Appendix G: Land Acquisition Maps

551
Upper Mississippi River NWR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

552
Appendix G: Land Acquisition Maps

553
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

554
Appendix G: Land Acquisition Maps

555
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

556
Appendix G: Land Acquisition Maps

557
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

558
Appendix G: Land Acquisition Maps

559
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

560
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

561

Appendix H: Project Features Tables

This appendix includes the following Project Features tables: 

# Table 1: Access Locations / page 563

# Table 2: Administrative No Hunting Zones / page 565

# Table 3: Auto Tour Routes / page 567

# Table 4: Biking Trails / page 568

# Table 5: Canoe Trails / page 569

# Table 6: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries, Alternatives A-E / page 570

# Table 7: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries, Alternative A / page 577

# Table 8: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries, Alternative B / page 579

# Table 9: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries, Alternative C / page 582

# Table 10: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries, Alternative D / page 584

# Table 11: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries, Alternative E / page 587

# Table 12: Commercial Fishing Floats / Piers / page 592

# Table 13: Electric Motor Areas (E) / Slow, No Wake Areas (S) / page 593

# Table 14: Fishing Piers and Platforms / page 595

# Table 15: Hiking Trails / page 596

# Table 16: Kiosks, Interpretive Signs, Entrance Signs, and Official Notice Boards / page 598

# Table 17: Managed/Special Hunts / page 614

# Table 18: No-Wake Zones / page 615

# Table 19: Observation Decks, Towers, and Photo Blinds / page 619

# Table 20: Refuge Staffing / page 622

# Table 21: Summary of Project Features by Alternatives / page 625

 

 

Appendix H: Project Features Tables

563

Table 1: Access Locations 

Existing 

FWS 

Landing

Existing 

Non-FWS 

Landings

Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt.. E River 

Mile

4 Beef Slough WI x x x x x 761.0

4 Pontoon Slough WI x x x x x 760.5

4 Indian Slough WI x x x x x 760.3

4 Buffalo River WI x x x x x 755.5

4 Peterson Lake MN x x x x x 754.0

4 Other Access Points 9

5 Halfmoon MN x x x x x 747.5

5 Halfmoon Canoe Access MN x x x x x 747.5

5 Weaver MN x x x x x 744.0

5 Other Access Points 10

5A Verchota MN x x x x x 730.5

5A McNally MN x x x x x 729.0

5A Other Access Points 9

6 Mertes Slough WI x x x x x 727.0

6 Other Access Points 13

6 Trout Creek (non-motorized) MN x 715.0

7 Round Lake WI x x x x x 713.3

7 Long Lake WI x x x x x 713.1

7 Other Access Points 21

8 Lower I-90 MN x x x x x 701.7

8 Lawrence Lake Walk-down MN x x x 692.0

8 Lawrence Lake, South Walk-down MN x 691.3

8 Stoddard Walk-in Overpass WI x x x 687.9

8 Stoddard Walk-down WI x x x 687.3

8 Other Access Points 35

9 Reno Canoe Launch (Improvement, coop 

with Corps of Engineers)

MN x x x 681.0

9 Visgers Landing MN x x x x x 675.8

9 New Albin IA x x x x x 673.2

9 Upper Iowa River Canoe Launch IA x 671.5

9 Conway Lake Canoe Launch IA x x x 666.0
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

564

9 Winneshiek Slough WI x x x x x 665.5

9 Big Slough WI x x x x x 663.4

9 Cold Springs WI x x x x x 653.5

9 Other Access Points 18

10 Ambrough Slough WI x x x x x 639.3

10 Wyalusing Park WI x x x x x 629.8

10 Bagley Bottoms WI x x x x x 624.8

10 Other Access Points 37

11 Bertom Lake WI x x x x x 601.7

11 Lynn Hollow WI x x x x x 596.7

11 Other Access Points 17

12 No FWS Access Points

12 Other Access Points 10

13 Lost Mound Boat Ramp IL x x x 552.0

13 Pleasant Creek Parking Lot & Access 

Road *

IA x x x 549.0

13 Esmay Slough* IA x x x x x 536.0

13 Frog Pond * IL x x x 535.4

13 Sloane Marsh Parking Lot* IL x x x 532.0

13 Michelson's Landing Parking* IL x x x 524.0

13 Michelson's Landing IL x x x x x 524.0

13 Other Access Points 17

14 No FWS Access Points

14 Other Access Points 26

Canoe Landing / Launch 1 1 0 4** 2** 2**

Total Walk-in 0 0 0334

Total Boat Ramp 25 221 25 26 26 26

Total Parking Lot Improvements 0 0 0555

*Parking lot improvements only.

**Includes proposed cooperative improvements to Reno Canoe Access (Corps of Engineers).

Table 1: Access Locations (Continued)

Existing 

FWS 

Landing

Existing 

Non-FWS 

Landings

Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt.. E River 

Mile
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

565

Table 2: Administrataive No Hunting Zones 

Pool Feature State Existing 

or 

Proposed

Alt. A 

Acres

Alt. B 

Acres 

Alt. C 

Acres

Alt. D 

Acres

Alt E

Acres

UpRiver 

Mile

DownRiver 

Mile

Comments

4-6 None No “Admin. No 

Hunting” zones on 

Pools 4-6

7 Upper 

Halfway 

Creek Marsh

WI E 141 141 141 141 141 708.0 707.5 No hunting for 

public safety/

wildlife observ.

8 Hunter's 

Point

WI E 82 82 82 82 82 691.2 690.4 No hunting for 

public safety.

9 Reno 

Bottoms 

Trail

MN P 263 681.4 680.4 No hunting for 

public safety/

wildlife observ.

9 Dairyland 

Trail

WI P 233 233 677.8 676.8 No hunting for 

public safety/

wildlife observ.

9 Kain Switch 

Trail

IA P 809 809 670.8 668.8 No hunting for 

public safety/

wildlife observ.

9 Blackhawk 

Trail

WI P 150 669.8 668.8 No hunting for 

public safety/

wildlife observ.

9 Rush Creek 

Delta Trail

WI P 193 661.0 659.8 No hunting for 

public safety/

wildlife observ.

10 Sturgeon 

Slough

WI P 66 66 66 66 635.2 634.8 No hunting/

trapping for public 

safety/wildlife

 observ.

11 Goetz Island 

Trail

IA P 242 242 32 614.4 613.2 No hunting for 

public safety/

wildlife observ.

11 Turkey River 

Delta Trail

IA P 307 307 607.9 606.8 No hunting for 

public safety/

wildlife observ.

11 John Deere 

Marsh Trail

IA P 141 586.3 585.8 No hunting for 

public safety/

wildlife observ.

13 Crooked 

Slough 

Backwater

IL E 2467 2467 2467 2467 2467 557.0 552.8 Was Sav. Army 

depot; 

contaminated; no 

entry

13 Crooked 

Slough 

Proper

IL P 192 192 192 557.0 552.8 No hunting to avoid 

potential user 

conflicts
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

566

13 Mesquaki 

Lake/Great 

River Trail

IL E 193 193 193 193 193 536.8 535.8 No hunting 3/1-9/30, 

and also no hunting 

year 'round within 

150 yds. of Great 

River Tr. for public 

safety and to 

eliminate potential 

conflicts w/ hunters/

bikers

13 Frog Pond IL E 64 64 64 64 64 535.8 535.3 No hunting for 

public safety/

wildlife observ.

13 Ingersoll 

Learning 

Center

IL E 41 41 41 41 41 533.0 532.5 No hunting for 

public safety/

wildlife observ.

13 Thomson 

Prairie/Great 

River Trail

IL E 76 76 76 76 76 527.5 525.0 No hunting for 

public safety/

wildlife observ.

13 Buffer - 

Potter's 

Marsh 

Managed 

Hunt Area

IL E 491 491 491 491 491 526.0 522.5 Extends 400 yds. W. 

of Potter's Marsh 

Managed Hunt Area 

to eliminate 

potential conflicts 

between duck blind 

hunters/other 

hunters

 Total Units 8 10 17 14 11

Acres 3,555 3,813 5,959 5,404 3,845

* Administrative No Hunting Zones are closed to hunting for reasons of public health and safety, and to reduce user group 

conflicts. They are not intended to augment the waterfowl closed area system on the Refuge.

Table 2: Administrataive No Hunting Zones (Continued)

Pool Feature State Existing 

or 

Proposed

Alt. A 

Acres

Alt. B 

Acres 

Alt. C 

Acres

Alt. D 

Acres

Alt E

Acres

UpRiver 

Mile

DownRiver 

Mile

Comments
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

567

Table 3: Auto Tour Routes

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E UpRiver 

Mile

Downriver 

Mile

Miles

of 

Trail

9 Red Oak 

Road*

IA x x x 653.0 649.0 7.0

11 Turkey River 

Delta**

IA x x x 607.5 607.0 1.5

13 Lost Mound IL x x x x x 549.0 546.5 2.5

Total Miles 2.5 2.5 11.0 11.0 11.0

Total Units 1 1 3 3 3

*Wildlife drive and bike trail in cooperation with County.

**Hiking and auto tour route
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

568

Table 4: Biking Trails

Pool Feature State Existing Proposed Up 

River 

Mile

Down 

River 

Mile

Miles 

of 

Trail

Comments

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

5A Prairie 

Island Bike/

Hike Lane

MN x 732.0 728.5 2.9 Bike and 

Hike Trail

6 Great River 

State Bike 

Trail

WI x n/a n/a n/a Access Point 

Only (River 

mile 725.6)

7 Great River 

Bike Trail / 

Black River / 

Halfway 

Creek

WI x x x x x 712.0 706.0 6.0 Bike Trail

8 Wagon 

Wheel

MN x x x 699.6 698.3 2.1 Bike Trail

9 Red Oak 

Road

IA x x x 653.0 649.0 7.0 Bike trail 

with wildlife 

drive; in 

cooperation 

with County

13 Spring Lake IL x x x 534.5 532.5 2.0 Proposed 

additions to 

hiking/

biking trail

13 Great River 

Bike Trail / 

Spring Lake

IL x x x x x 534.5 532.5 2.0 Bike Trail

13 Great River 

Bike Trail/

Thomson 

Prairie

IL x x x x x 527.0 525.0 2.0 Bike Trail

Total Miles 10.0 10.0 17.0 14.1 21.1

Total Units 3 3 6 5 6
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

569

Table 5: Canoe Trails

Pool Feature State Existing Proposed Up River 

Mile

Down 

River 

Mile

Miles 

of Trail Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt..E

4 Nelson Dike WI x x x 760.6 759.5 4.6

5 Finger Lakes MN x x x 752.2 751.3 4.7

5 Halfmoon Lake MN x x x 747.4 745.3 5.3

5A Straight Slough MN x x x x x 736.0 730.5 11.2

7 Long Lake WI x x x x x 713.0 711.0 4.4

8 Goose Island WI x x x x x 692.8 690.0 7.1

9 Reno Bottoms MN x x x 681.0 673.0 11.0

9 Upper Iowa River IA x 672.0 663.7 12.2

9 Big Slough IA x 670.9 668.7 6.0

10 Harper's Slough IA x 647.9 642.6 13.7

10 Ambrough Slough

Canoe Area; 1,853 

acres,

open to all boats

WI x x x 642.0 638.7 n/a

10 Wyalusing Park WI/IA x x x x x 631.0 627.0 9.4

10 Johnson Slough 

(Canoe and 

motorboat route)

IA x x x 629.9 625.1 9.7

11 Turkey River IA x 608.8 607.7 5.0

11 Mud Lake IA x x x 589.2 587.8 3.2

12 Hire's Lake IL x x 572.2 569.3 7.1

12 Ferry Landing IL x x x 567.0 564.4 5.5

12 Blanding Landing IL x x x 559.6 558.2 3.8

13 Brown's Lake IA x x 545.9 541.7 7.4

13 Miller's Hollow IL x x x 542.6 540.0 5.4

13 Keller's Island IA x x x 538.5 535.8 6.7

13 Gomer's Lake IA x x x 528.0 526.8 3.5

13 Potter's Marsh IL x x x 524.9 523.0 7.5

14 Cattail Slough IL x 517.7 516.0 4.1

14 Rock Creek IA x x x 508.0 506.8 4.1

14 Steamboat Slough 

(formerly named 

Cordova)

IA x x x 506.0 503.2 5.3

Total Miles 32.1 32.1 167.9 126.9 120.6

Total Units 4 4 26 21 19
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

570Table 6: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries*, Alternative A-E 

Pool Name State Alt. A

 Acres / Status

Existing Features

Alt. B 

Acres / Status

Alt. C 

Acres / Status

Alt. D 

Acres / Status

Alt. E

Acres / Status

4 NelsonTrevino WI 3,773 Closed Area 3,773 Sanctuary 3,773 Closed Area None 0 Closed Area; dro

in 2009

4 Big Lake WI None 3,249 Sanctuary None 3,249 Closed 

Area; no fishing, no motors

2,461 Closed ar

VA

4 Rieck's Lake/ 

Buffalo River

WI Part of Peterson 

Lake

496 Sanctuary Part of Peterson 

Lake

496 Closed 

Area; no fishing, no motors

608 Closed ar

no motorVA
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

571

4 Peterson 

Lake

MNWI 3,111 Closed Area None 3,111 Closed Area None 677 Closed ar

no motorVA

5 Weaver 

Bottoms / Lost Island

MNWI 3,139 Closed Area 3,780 Sanctuary 3,139 Closed Area 3,508 Closed Area; no 

fishing, no motors

3,508 Closed ar

VA

5 Spring Lake WI None 243 Sanctuary None 243 Closed 

Area; no fishing, no motors

243 Closed ar

no motorVA

5A Fountain 

City Bay

WI None 24 Sanctuary None None 24 Closed ar

no motorVA

Table 6: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries*, Alternative A-E (Continued)

Pool Name State Alt. A

 Acres / Status

Existing Features

Alt. B 

Acres / Status

Alt. C 

Acres / Status

Alt. D 

Acres / Status

Alt. E

Acres / Status
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

572

5A Polander 

Lake

MNWI 1,589 Closed Area 1,910 Sanctuary 1,589 Closed Area 1,910 Closed Area; no 

fishing, no motors

1,907 Closed ar

VA

6 Trempealeau 

NWR

WI n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

7 Lake 

Onalaska

WI 7,348 Closed 

Area

7,880 Closed 

Area

7,103 Closed 

Area

7,400 Closed 

Area

7,369 Tradition

closed ar

8 Goose Is. No 

Hunt Zone

WI 876 No Hunt 

Zone / Closed Area

1,210 Sanctuary 1,210 No Hunt 

Zone / Closed Area

1,210 Closed 

Area; no fishing, no motors

986 No hunt 

zone / closarea; no motors, V

8 Wisconsin 

Islands

MNWI 6,510 Closed Area 6,513 Sanctuary 6,483 Closed Area 6,483 Closed Area; no 

fishing, no motors

6,510 Closed ar

VA

Table 6: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries*, Alternative A-E (Continued)

Pool Name State Alt. A

 Acres / Status

Existing Features

Alt. B 

Acres / Status

Alt. C 

Acres / Status

Alt. D 

Acres / Status

Alt. E

Acres / Status
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

573

9 Pool Slough MNIA 1,112 Closed Area 2,559 Sanctuary 1,112 Closed Area 1,112 Sanctuary 1,112 Sanctuar9 Harpers 

Slough

IAWI 5,209 Closed Area 5,209 Sanctuary 5,209 Closed Area 5,209 Closed Area; no 

fishing, no motors

5,209 Closed ar

VA

10 Sturgeon 

Slough

WI none none none none 340 Closed ar

no motorVA

McGregor Lake

WI none none none none 0 n/a 

10 WI River 

Delta

WI None 1,545 Sanctuary None 1,545 Closed 

Area; no fishing, no motors

0 n/a 

10 Bagley 

Bottoms

WI None 627 Sanctuary None None none

10 12-Mile 

Island

IA 540 Closed 

Area

540 Sanctuary 540 Closed 

Area

540 Closed 

Area; no fishing, no motors

540 Closed ar

; no motoVA

Table 6: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries*, Alternative A-E (Continued)

Pool Name State Alt. A

 Acres / Status

Existing Features

Alt. B 

Acres / Status

Alt. C 

Acres / Status

Alt. D 

Acres / Status

Alt. E

Acres / Status
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

574

11 Guttenberg 

Ponds

IA None None None 502 Sanctuary 252 Sanctuar

11 12-Mile 

Island

IA 1,396 Closed 

Area

1,396 Sanctuary 1,396 Closed 

Area

894 Closed 

Area; no fishing, no motors

1,145 Closed ar

VA

11 Hay Meadow 

Lake

WI None None None 841 Closed 

Area; no fishing, no motors

none

11 BertomMcCartney WI 2,415 Closed Area 2,385 Sanctuary 2,415 Closed Area None 2,384 Tradition

closed ar

11 John Deere 

Marsh

IA None 512 Sanctuary None 512 Closed 

Area; no fishing, no motors

439 Closed ar

no motorVA

12 Nine-Mile 

Island

IA None 567 Sanctuary None None none

Table 6: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries*, Alternative A-E (Continued)

Pool Name State Alt. A

 Acres / Status

Existing Features

Alt. B 

Acres / Status

Alt. C 

Acres / Status

Alt. D 

Acres / Status

Alt. E

Acres / Status
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

575

12 Kehough 

Slough

IL None 343 Sanctuary None 343 Closed 

Area; no fishing, no motors

343 Closed ar

no motorVA

12 Wise Lake IL None 1,081 Sanctuary None None none12 Lower Pool 

12

IL None 478 Sanctuary None None none

13 Pleasant 

Creek

IA 2,603 Closed 

Area

2,603 Sanctuary 2,603 Closed 

Area

2,067 Closed 

Area; no fishing, no motors

2,067 Closed ar

VA

13 Brown's 

Lake

IA None 2,362 Sanctuary None None none

13 Spring Lake IL 3,686 Sanctuary 3,686 Sanctuary 3,686 Sanctuary 3,686 Sanctuary 3,686 Sanctuar

13 Elk River IA 1,237 Closed 

Area

1,237 Sanctuary 1,237 Closed 

Area

1,237 Closed 

Area; no fishing, no motors

1,237 Closed ar

VA

13 Lower Pool 

13

IA None 2,004 Sanctuary None None none

14 Beaver 

Island

IA None 717 Sanctuary None 717 Closed 

Area; no fishing, no motors

717 Closed ar

no motorVA

Table 6: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries*, Alternative A-E (Continued)

Pool Name State Alt. A

 Acres / Status

Existing Features

Alt. B 

Acres / Status

Alt. C 

Acres / Status

Alt. D 

Acres / Status

Alt. E

Acres / Status
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

576

14 Wapsipinicon IA None 1,467 Sanctuary None None None

Total Acres 44,544 60,396 44,614 43,704 43,764Total UMR Refuge Units

15 29 15 21 23

* Closed Area, Alternatives A and C = closed to all migratory bird hunting. Other 

hunting and trapping is only allowed beginning the day after the close of the state duck hunting season, until season closure or March 15, whichever comes first, except turkey hunting is allowed during state seasons.

* Sanctuary = No entry October 1 to thend of the regular state duck hunting season.

* Closed Area, Alternative D = closed to all migratory bird hunting. Other hunting and 

trapping is only allowed beginning the day after the close of the state duck hunting season, until season closure or March 15, whichever comes first, except turkey hunting is allowed during state seasons. No fishing and no motorized watercraft allowed 

October 1 to the end of the respective state regular duck hunting season.* Closed Area, Alternative E = closed to all migratory bird hunting. Other hunting and trapping is only allowed beginning the day after the close of the state duck hunting season, until season closure or March 15, whichever comes first, except turkey hunting is allowed during state seasons. Under Alternative E, the public will be asked to practice Voluntary Avoidance (VA) i.e. limiting entry, 

all closed areas (“Large” and “Small”) October 15 to the end of the respective state duck hunting season and in addition there will b

“no motor” restriction on Small closed areas October 15 to the end of the regular state duck hunting season. Large closed areas are greater than 1,000 acres and small closed areas are ~1,000 acres or less. “No motors” means the use of motors on watercraft is not 

allowed.

Table 6: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries*, Alternative A-E (Continued)

Pool Name State Alt. A

 Acres / Status

Existing Features

Alt. B 

Acres / Status

Alt. C 

Acres / Status

Alt. D 

Acres / Status

Alt. E

Acres / Status
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

577

Table 7: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries* / Alternative A (No Action) 

Pool Name State Alt. A

 Acres 

Status Distance 

Between 

Areas

(miles)

Up-River 

Mile

DownRiver Mile Comm

4 Nelson-Trevino WI 3,773 Closed Area 763.5 760.04 Peterson Lake MNWI 3,111 Closed Area 3.4 756.6 752.7 Includes Buffalo Sl

Lake

5 Weaver Bottoms/Lost Is. MNWI 3,139 Closed Area 7.1 745.6 741.7

5A Fountain City Bay** WI None 7.4 734.3 734.15A Polander Lake MNWI 1,589 Closed Area 2.3 731.8 728.4

6 Trempealeau NWR WI n/a n/a 4.2 724.2 718.0 Part of existing clo

 special regulations

7 Lake Onalaska WI 7,348 Closed Area 10.0 708.0 702.8 Includes Waterfow

Avoidance Area (3,

8 Goose Is. No Hunt Zone WI 876 No Hunt Zone 

/ Closed Area

11.6 691.2 689.8 No Hunting Zone; 

existing closed area 

8 Wisconsin Islands MNWI 6,510 Closed Area 2.2 687.6 680.1

9 Pool Slough MN-IA 1,112 Closed Area 4.9 675.2 673.09 Harpers Slough IA-WI 5,209 Closed Area 18.2 654.8 648.0

10 12-Mile Island IA 540 Closed Area 37.0 617.0 615.2 Pool 10 Portion of C11 12-Mile Island IA 1,396 Closed Area 0.1 615.2 611.5 Pool 11 Portion of C11 Bertom-McCartney WI 2,415 Closed Area 7.5 604.0 598.7
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

578

13 Pleasant Creek IA 2,603 Closed Area 46.0 552.7 548.513 Spring Lake IL 3,686 Sanctuary 11.7 536.8 531.9 Only Existing Sanc13 Elk River IA 1,237 Closed Area 0.1 532.6 528.1

Total Acres 44,544 Ave. 

Distance Between 

Areas

Total UMR Refuge Units 15 10.2* Closed Area, Alternative A = closed to all migratory bird hunting. Other hunting and trapping is only allowed beginning the day after the close of the regular state duck hunting season, until season closure or March 15, whichever comes first, except turkey hunting is allowed during state seasons.

* Sanctuary = No the end of the reguhunting season.

** Fountain City Bay Closed Area, Pool 5A, is new closed area proposed under Alternative A. It is 24 acres in size and adjacent to Merrick State Park, WI.

Table 7: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries* / Alternative A (No Action) (Continued)

Pool Name State Alt. A

 Acres 

Status Distance 

Between 

Areas

(miles)

Up-River 

Mile

DownRiver Mile Comm
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

579

Table 8: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries* / Alternative B (Wildlife Focus) 

Pool Name State Alt. B 

Acres / Status

Distance 

Between 

Areas

(miles)

Up-River 

Mile

DownRiver Mile Com

4 Nelson-Trevino WI 3,773 Sanctuary 763.5 760.04 Big Lake-Buffalo Slough WI 3,249 Sanctuary 0.6 759.4 754.6 Includes Travel Corri4 Rieck's Lake WI 496 Sanctuary 0.1 755.8 755.0 Includes Travel Corri5 Weaver Bottoms/Lost Is. MNWI 3,780 Sanctuary 9.4 745.6 741.7 Includes Travel Corri

5 Spring Lake WI 243 Sanctuary 0.1 741.8 740.7

5A Fountain City Bay WI 24 Sanctuary 6.4 734.3 734.15A Polander Lake MNWI 1,910 Sanctuary 8.9 731.8 728.4 Includes Travel Corri

6 Trempealeau NWR WI n/a n/a 4.2 724.2 718.0 Part of existing closed 

 special regulations; 5

7 Lake Onalaska WI 7,880 Closed Area 10.0 708.0 702.8 Includes Waterfowl V

 Avoidance Area (3,35

8 Goose Is. No Hunt Zone WI 1,210 Sanctuary 11.6 691.2 689.8 No Hunting Zone par

existing closed area

8 Wisconsin Islands MNWI 6,513 Sanctuary 2.2 687.6 680.1

9 Pool Slough MN-IA 2,559 Sanctuary 4.6 675.2 673.09 Harpers Slough IA-WI 5,209 Sanctuary 18.2 654.8 648.0

10 WI River Delta WI 1,545 Sanctuary 14.2 633.8 630.7 Includes Travel Corri
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

580

10 Bagley Bottoms WI 627 Sanctuary 4.0 626.7 624.610 12-Mile Island IA 540 Sanctuary 7.6 617.0 615.2 Pool 10 Portion of San11 12-Mile Island IA 1,396 Sanctuary 0.1 615.2 611.5 Pool 11 Portion of San

 includes travel corrid

11 Bertom-McCartney WI 2,385 Sanctuary 7.5 604.0 598.711 John Deere Marsh IA 512 Sanctuary 11.7 587.0 584.8 Includes Travel Corri12 Nine-Mile Island IA 567 Sanctuary 10.4 574.4 571.612 Kehough Slough IL 343 Sanctuary 2.6 569.0 567.112 Wise Lake IL 1,081 Sanctuary 3.2 563.9 560.912 Lower Pool 12 IL 478 Sanctuary 3.4 557.5 556.813 Pleasant Creek IA 2,603 Sanctuary 4.1 552.7 548.513 Brown's Lake IA 2,362 Sanctuary 2.3 546.2 541.713 Spring Lake IL 3,686 Sanctuary 4.9 536.8 531.9 Only Existing Sanctu13 Elk River IA 1,237 Sanctuary 0.1 532.6 528.113 Lower Pool 13 IA 2,004 Sanctuary 2.8 525.3 522.514 Beaver Island IA 717 Sanctuary 5.9 516.6 514.014 Wapsipinicon IA 1,467 Sanctuary 5.8 508.2 506.0

Table 8: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries* / Alternative B (Wildlife Focus) (Continued)

Pool Name State Alt. B 

Acres / Status

Distance 

Between 

Areas

(miles)

Up-River 

Mile

DownRiver Mile Com
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

581

Total Acres 60,396 Ave. 

Distance Between 

Areas

Total UMR Refuge Units 29 5.6* Closed Area, Alternative B = closed to all migratory bird hunting. Other hunting and trapping is 

only allowed beginning the day after the close of the regular state duck hunting season, until season closure 

or March 15, whichever comes first, except turkey hunting is allowed during state seasons.

* Sanctuary = No en

of the regular state 

Table 8: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries* / Alternative B (Wildlife Focus) (Continued)

Pool Name State Alt. B 

Acres / Status

Distance 

Between 

Areas

(miles)

Up-River 

Mile

DownRiver Mile Com
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

582Table 9: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries* / Alternative C (Public Use Focus) 

Pool Name State Alt. C 

Acres / Status

Distance 

Between 

Areas

(miles)

Up-River 

Mile

DownRiver Mile C

4 Nelson-Trevino WI 3,773 Closed Area 763.5 760.04 Peterson Lake MNWI 3,111 Closed Area 3.4 756.6 752.7 Includes Buffalo S5 Weaver Bottoms/Lost Is. MNWI 3,139 Closed Area 7.1 745.6 741.7

5A Fountain City Bay WI None 7.4 734.3 734.15A Polander Lake MNWI 1,589 Closed Area 2.3 731.8 728.4

6 Trempealeau NWR WI n/a n/a 4.2 724.2 718.0 Part of existing clo

 special regulation

7 Lake Onalaska WI 7,103 Closed Area 10.0 708.0 702.8 Includes Waterfow

Area (3,356 acres) 

8 Goose Is. No Hunt Zone WI 1,210 No Hunt Zone 

/ Closed Area

11.6 691.2 689.8 No Hunting Zone; 

existing closed are

8 Wisconsin Islands MNWI 6,483 Closed Area 2.2 687.6 680.19 Pool Slough MN-IA 1,112 Closed Area 4.9 675.2 673.09 Harpers Slough IA-WI 5,209 Closed Area 18.2 654.8 648.0

10 12-Mile Island IA 540 Closed Area 37.0 617.0 615.2 Pool 10 Portion of 11 12-Mile Island IA 1,396 Closed Area 0.1 615.2 611.5 Pool 11 Portion of 11 Bertom-McCartney WI 2,415 Closed Area 7.5 604.0 598.7
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

583

13 Pleasant Creek IA 2,603 Closed Area 46.0 552.7 548.513 Spring Lake IL 3,686 Sanctuary 11.7 536.8 531.9 Only Existing San13 Elk River IA 1,237 Closed Area 0.1 532.6 528.1

Total Acres 44,614 Ave. Distance 

Between 

Areas

Total UMR Refuge Units 15 10.2* Closed Area, Alternative C = closed to all migratory bird hunting. Other hunting and trapping is only allowed beginning the day after the close of the state duck hunting season, until season closure or March 15, whichever comes first, except turkey hunting is allowed during state seasons.

* Sanctuary = No of the regular stat

Table 9: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries* / Alternative C (Public Use Focus) (Continued)

Pool Name State Alt. C 

Acres / Status

Distance 

Between 

Areas

(miles)

Up-River 

Mile

DownRiver Mile C
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

584Table 10: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries* / Alternative D (Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus) 

Pool Name State Alt. D 

Acres / Status

Distance 

Between 

Areas

(miles)

Up-River 

Mile

DownRiver Mile Comm

4 Big Lake-Buffalo 

Slough

WI 3,249 Closed Area; 

no fishing, no motors

759.4 754.6 Includes Travel Cor

4 Rieck's Lake WI 496 Closed Area; 

no fishing, no motors

0.1 755.8 755.0 Includes Travel Cor

5 Weaver Bottoms/Lost 

Is.

MNWI 3,508 Closed Area; no fishing, no 

motors

9.4 745.6 741.7 Includes Travel Cor

5 Spring Lake WI 243 Closed Area; 

no fishing, no motors

0.1 741.8 740.7

5A Fountain City Bay WI 24 Closed Area; 

no fishing, no motors

6.4 734.3 734.1 Will be a closed area 

with WDNR does no

5A Polander Lake MNWI 1,910 Closed Area; no fishing, no 

motors

8.9 731.8 728.4 Includes Travel Cor

6 Trempealeau NWR WI n/a n/a 4.2 724.2 718.0 Part of existing close

 special regulations; 

7 Lake Onalaska WI 7,400 Traditional

 Closed Area

10.0 708.0 702.8 Includes Waterfowl 

Avoidance Area (3,3

8 Goose Is. No Hunt 

Zone

WI 1,210 No Hunt Zone / 

Closed Area; no fishing, no motors

11.6 691.2 689.8 No Hunting Zone; p

existing closed area 
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

585

8 Wisconsin Islands MNWI 6,483 Closed Area; no fishing, no 

motors

2.2 687.6 680.1

9 Pool Slough MN-IA 1,112 Sanctuary 4.9 675.2 673.0 Adjacent to state (IA9 Harpers Slough IA-WI 5,209 Closed Area; 

no fishing, no motors

18.2 654.8 648.0 Closed Area

10 WI River Delta WI 1,545 Closed Area; 

no fishing, no motors

14.2 633.8 630.7 Includes Travel Cor

10 12-Mile Island IA 540 Closed Area; 

no fishing, no motors

13.7 617.0 615.2 Pool 10 Portion

11 Guttenberg Ponds IA 502 Sanctuary 0.1 615.2 613.8 Within 12-Mile Islan11 12-Mile Island IA 894 Closed Area; 

no fishing, no motors

0.1 615.2 611.5 Pool 11 Portion, Incl

Corridors

11 Hay Meadow Lake WI 841 Closed Area; 

no fishing, no motors

7.5 604.0 601.8

11 John Deere Marsh IA 512 Closed Area; 

no fishing, no motors

14.8 587.0 584.8 Includes Travel Cor

Table 10: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries* / Alternative D (Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus) (Continued)

Pool Name State Alt. D 

Acres / Status

Distance 

Between 

Areas

(miles)

Up-River 

Mile

DownRiver Mile Comm
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

586

12 Kehough Slough IL 343 Closed Area; 

no fishing, no motors

15.8 569.0 567.1

13 Pleasant Creek IA 2,067 Closed Area; 

no fishing, no motors

14.4 552.7 548.5

13 Spring Lake IL 3,686 Sanctuary 11.7 536.8 531.9 Only Existing Sanct13 Elk River IA 1,237 Closed Area; 

no fishing, no motors

0.1 532.6 528.1

14 Beaver Island IA 717 Closed Area; 

no fishing, no motors

11.5 516.6 514.0

Total Acres 43,704 Ave. Distance 

Between 

Areas

Total UMR Refuge Units 21 7.8* Closed Area, Alternative D = closed to all migratory bird hunting. Other hunting and trapping is only allowed beginning the day after the close of the regular state duck hunting season, until season closure or 

March 15, whichever comes first, except turkey hunting is allowed during state seasons. No fishing and no 

motorized watercraft allowed October 1 to the end of the respective state regular duck hunting season.

* Sanctuary = No ethe end of the regulahunting season.

Table 10: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries* / Alternative D (Wildlife and Integrated Public Use Focus) (Continued)

Pool Name State Alt. D 

Acres / Status

Distance 

Between 

Areas

(miles)

Up-River 

Mile

DownRiver Mile Comm
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

587

Table 11: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries, Alternative E 

Pool Name State Alt. E 

Acres / Status

Distance 

Between 

Areas

(miles)

UpRiver 

Mile

DownRiver 

Mile

Comments

4 Nelson-Trevino WI 0 Closed Area

Drop in 2009

n/a 763.5 760.0 Remains in effect until the 2009 

waterfowl hunting season, then dropped.

4 Big Lake WI 2,461 Closed 

Area; VA

0.6 759.4 756.5 Drop Buffalo Slough portion 

proposed in Alt. E, Draft. Has travecorridor. Will not take effect until th2009 waterfowl hunting season. Voluntary Avoidance (VA)

4 Rieck's Lake / 

Buffalo River

WI 608 Closed 

Area; VA, no motors

0.7 755.8 755.0 This boundary configuration will no

take effect until the 2009 waterfowl hunting season; no motors, VA

4 Peterson Lake MN 677 Closed 

Area;no motors, VA

0.7 755.7 752.8 This boundary configuration will no

take effect until the 2009 waterfowl hunting season; has travel corridor;no motors, VA; Rieck's Lake and Buffalo Slough were part of this areunder Alt. A.

5 Weaver 

Bottoms/Lost Is.

MNWI 3,508 Closed Area;

VA

7.2 745.6 741.7 Drop boundary correction proposed 

in Alt. E Draft that added 185 acres on WI side; has travel corridor; VA

5 Spring Lake WI 243 Closed 

Area; no motors; VA

0.1 741.8 740.7 No motors; VA
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

588

5A Fountain City 

Bay

WI 24 Closed 

Area; no motors; VA

5.2 735.5 735.0 Site will be a closed area if land 

exchange with WDNR does not occur. Included in Alt. D, but inadvertently left out in Alt. E draftNo motors;VA

5A Polander Lake MNWI 1,907 Closed Area; 

VA

2.0 733.0 728.4 Has travel corridor;

VA

6 Trempealeau 

NWR

WI n/a n/a 4.2 724.2 718.0 Part of existing closed area system;

 special regulations; 5520 acres

7 Lake Onalaska WI 7,369 Traditional

 Closed Area

10.0 708.0 702.8 Adjust boundaries at Proudfoot 

Slough and “Old Channel” area. Haexisting VA of 3,356 acres. No changfrom current regulations.

8 Goose Island 

No Hunt Zone

WI 986 No Hunt 

Zone / Closed Area; no motors; VA

11.6 691.2 689.8 Part of existing closed area system; 

has 110 acre expansion; no motors and VA; drop special hunt area proposed in Alt. E Draft.

8 Wisconsin 

Islands

MNWI 6,510 Closed Area; 

VA

2.2 687.6 680.1 VA; adds slow, no wake zone in trave

corridor on Raft Channel

9 Pool Slough MNIA 1,112 Sanctuary 4.9 675.2 673.0 Designated sanctuary in Alt E Draf

and Final; is adjacent to state (IA) sanctuary

Table 11: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries, Alternative E (Continued)

Pool Name State Alt. E 

Acres / Status

Distance 

Between 

Areas

(miles)

UpRiver 

Mile

DownRiver 

Mile

Comments
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

589

9 Harpers Slough IAWI 5,209 Closed Area; 

VA

18.2 654.8 648.0 VA

10 Sturgeon 

Slough

WI 340 Closed 

Area;no motors; VA

11.4 636.6 634.8 This is the upper portion of 

McGregor Lake area (see below); no motors; VA

10 McGregor Lake WI 0 drop n/a 636.4 633.5 Dropped from Alt. E Final (852 

acres)

10 WI River Delta WI 0 see 

comments

n/a 633.8 630.7 Changed to special hunt area (1,376 

acres); see Appendix H, Table 17

10 12-Mile Island IA 540 Closed 

Area; no motors; VA

17.8 617.0 615.2 Pool 10 Portion;

no motors; VA

11 Guttenberg 

Ponds

IA 252 Sanctuary 0.1 615.2 613.8 Sanctuary located within 12-Mile 

Island Closed Area

11 12-Mile Island IA 1,145 Closed 

Area; VA

0.1 615.2 611.5 Pool 11 portion of closed area;

 adds Swift Slough travel corridor; VA

11 Bertom 

McCartney Lake

WI 2,384 Closed Area 7.5 604.0 598.7 Does not include Bertom Island, a n

entry area year round; no change from current regulations (no motor restriction or VA in this closed area)

Table 11: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries, Alternative E (Continued)

Pool Name State Alt. E 

Acres / Status

Distance 

Between 

Areas

(miles)

UpRiver 

Mile

DownRiver 

Mile

Comments
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

590

11 John Deere 

Marsh

IA 439 Closed 

Area; no motors; VA

11.7 587.0 584.8 Includes travel corridor; no motors, 

VA

12 Kehough 

Slough

IL 343 Closed 

Area; no motors; VA

15.8 569.0 567.1 no motors; VA

13 Pleasant Creek IA 2,067 Closed 

Area; VA

14.4 552.7 548.5 VA

13 Spring Lake IL 3,686 Sanctuary 11.7 536.8 531.9 Only existing sanctuary in Refuge; 

remains sanctuary

13 Elk River IA 1,237 Closed 

Area; VA

0.1 532.6 528.1 VA

14 Beaver Island IA 717 Closed 

Area; no motors; VA

11.5 516.6 514.0 No motors; VA

Total Acres 43,764 Ave. 

Distance 

Between 

Areas

Total UMR Refuge Units 23 7.4

Table 11: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries, Alternative E (Continued)

Pool Name State Alt. E 

Acres / Status

Distance 

Between 

Areas

(miles)

UpRiver 

Mile

DownRiver 

Mile

Comments
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

591

* Closed Area, Alternative E = closed to all migratory bird hunting. Other hunting and trapping is only allowed beginning the day after the close of the state duck hunting season, until season closure or March 15, whichever comes first, except turkey hunting is allowed during state seasons. Under Alternative E, the public will be asked to practice Voluntary Avoidance (VA) i.e. limiting entry, on all closed areas (“Large” and “Small”) October 15 to the end of the respective state duck hunting season and in addition there will be a “no motor” restriction on Small closed areas October 15 to the end of the regular state duck hunting season. Large closed areas are greater than 1,000 acres and small closed areas are ~1,000 acres or less. “No motors” means the use of motors on watercraft is not allowed.

* Sanctuary = No entry October 1 to the end of the regular state duck hunting season.

Table 11: Closed Areas and Sanctuaries, Alternative E (Continued)

Pool Name State Alt. E 

Acres / Status

Distance 

Between 

Areas

(miles)

UpRiver 

Mile

DownRiver 

Mile

Comments
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

592

Table 12: Commerical Fishing Floats / Piers

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E River 

Mile

7 Tremplo Fishing Float MN x x x x 714.0

8 Best Float by Dam Site Fishing 

Float

WI x x x x 702.5

9 Clements Fishing Float MN x x x x 679.0

10 Hubbard Fishing Float IA x x x x 647.9

12-14 Potential Fishing Float for Savanna 

District

x

Total Commercial Fishing Floats / 

Piers

4 0544
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

593

Table 13: Electric Motor Areas (E) / Slow, No Wake Areas* (S) 

Pool Feature State Existing Proposed Up-River 

Mile

DownRiver Mile D

to 

Alt. A 

Acres

Alt. B 

Acres

Alt. C 

Acres

Alt. D 

Acres

Alt E

Acres

4 Nelson-Trevino WI 2,626

E

2,626

E

2,626

S

762.5 760.0 

5 Finger Lakes MN 497

E

497

E

0 752.7 751.5 

5 Island 42 MN 459

E

459

E

749.8 747.6 

5A Snyder Lake MN 182

E

182

E

182

E

735.0 734.0 

5A Denzers Slough MN 83

E

83

E

83

S

733.0 732.0 

6 Mertes Slough WI 222

 E

222

 E

222

 E

222

 E

222

 E

727.0 726.0 

7 Black River Bottoms WI 1,146

E

1,146

E

1,146

E

1,165

S

711.0 708.8 

7 Browns Marsh WI 966

E

966

E

966

E

827

E

711.0 708.0 

8 Blue/Target Lake MN 1,849

E

1,849

E

1,849

E

1,834

S

699.0 696.0 

8 Root River MN 695

E

695

E

695

E

695

S

696.0 694.0 

9 Reno Bottoms MN 4,670

E

2,212

E

3,402

E

2,536

S

681.0 679.2 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

594

9 Big Slough/Winneshiek WI 4,541

E

665.5 660.0 

10 Sturgeon Slough/McGregor Lake WI 929

E

636.4 633.3 

10 Bagley Bottoms WI 789

E

789

E

789

E

0 626.5 623.5 

10 Hoosier Lake WI 162

E

624.8 624.0 

11 Guttenberg Ponds IA 93

E

93

E

93

E

0 614.8 614.0 

12 Nine Mile Island IA 567

E

567

E

454

S

574.4 571.6 

13 Kellers Island IA 595

E

595

E

0 540.0 537.2 

14 Beaver Island IA 717

E

516.3 513.6 

14 Princeton (formerly Rock Creek) IA 327

E

327

S

506.7 506.0 

Total Acres 222 15,900 13,239 14,498 11,572 *Alternative E: 5 Electric m

8 Slow, no wake areas cover 

Total Units 1 10 15 16 13

Table 13: Electric Motor Areas (E) / Slow, No Wake Areas* (S) (Continued)

Pool Feature State Existing Proposed Up-River 

Mile

DownRiver Mile D

to 

Alt. A 

Acres

Alt. B 

Acres

Alt. C 

Acres

Alt. D 

Acres

Alt E

Acres
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

595

Table 14: Fishing Piers and Platforms

Pool Feature State Existing Proposed River 

Mile

Agency

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

4 None

5 Halfmoon Landing MN x x x x x 747.5 FWS

5 Halfmoon Landing MN x x x x x 747.5 FWS

5 Halfmoon Landing MN x x x x x 747.5 FWS

5 Upper Spring Lake WI x x x 743.5 FWS

5A McNally Landing MN x x x x x 729.0 FWS

6 Mertes Slough WI x 726.0 FWS

6 Mertes Slough Point WI x 726.0 FWS

7 Long Lake WI x x x x x 713.0 FWS

8 Stoddard Boat 

Landing

WI x x x x x 702.5 FWS/ 

Partner

9 Visgers Landing MN x x x x x 675.2 FWS

9 New Albin Landing IA x x x x x 673.0 FWS

9 Winneshiek Slough 

Landing

WI x x x 665.5 FWS

9 Big Slough Landing WI x x x x x 663.5 FWS

9 Cold Springs WI x x x x x 653.2 FWS

10 Sturgeon Slough WI x x x 635.0 FWS

11 Goetz Island IA x 613.3 FWS

11 Turkey River IA x 608.0 FWS

12 None

13 Spring Lake IL x x x x x 534.0 FWS

13 Spring Lake IL x x x x x 534.0 FWS

13 Frog Pond IL x x x x x 535.5 FWS

13 Michelson's Landing IL x x x x x 524.0 FWS

13 Michelson's Landing IL x x x x x 524.0 FWS

14 None

Total Fishing Piers 15 15 20 18 20
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

596Table 15: Hiking Trails 

Pool Feature State Existing Proposed Up River 

Mile

Down 

River 

Mile

Mile

s of 

Trail

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

4 Tiffany-Nelson Bottoms WI x x x 762.8 762.6 1.6 Hi4 Barton-Lofgren Prairie MN x x x x 755.0 753.8 1.6 Hi5 Wabasha Prairie MN x x x x 752.0 750.8 2.7 Hi

5A Thorpe WMA MN x x 736.9 735.8 2.1 Hi

dr

5A Minnesota City Bottoms MN x x x 732.0 731.0 2.3 Hi

7 Lone Tree Access Road WI x x 713.0 712.1 0.7 Hi

dr

8 Goose Island WI x x x x x 691.5 691.0 0.8 Hi9 Reno Bottoms MN x 681.2 680.5 2.0 Hi9 Dairyland Power WI x x 677.7 678.8 1.8 Hi

dr

9 Kain's Switch IA x x x 670.8 669.0 2.9 Hi

shmi

9 Black Hawk Park WI x 669.5 668.8 1.8 In 

CoEn

9 Rush Creek Delta WI x 661.0 660.0 2.2 In 

rai

10 Sturgeon Slough WI x x x x x 635.2 634.8 0.8 Hi10 Wisconsin River Delta WI x 632.8 632.0 1.8 Hi
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

597

11 Goetz Island IA x x x 614.3 613.4 2.2 Hi11 Turkey River IA x x 608.0 607.0 1.5 Hi

au

11 Dago Slough WI x 604.0 603.1 2.0 Hi11 John Deere Marsh IA x x x 586.3 586.0 1.2 Hi13 Pleasant Creek IA x x x x x 551.0 549.0 4.7 Hi

bikRi

13 Spring Lake IL x x x x x 536.0 531.9 11.

0

HibikRi

13 Sloane Marsh IL x x x x x 533.0 532.5 1.3 Hi

bikRi

13 Potter's Marsh IL x x x x x 526.0 524.8 1.9 Hi

bikRi

Total Miles 20.5 24.8 50.7 40.9 36.5

Total Units 6 8 21 16 14

Table 15: Hiking Trails (Continued)

Pool Feature State Existing Proposed Up River 

Mile

Down 

River 

Mile

Mile

s of 

Trail

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

598Table 16: Kiosks, Interpretive Signs, Entrance Signs and Official Notice Boards 

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E River Mile Com

4 Beef Slough Landing WI x x x 760.4 Kiosk4 Pontoon Slough Landing WI x x x 760.3 Kiosk4 Indian Slough Landing WI x x x 760.2 Kiosk4 Wabasha Eagle Deck MN x x x x x 759.4 Interpretive Sign (e4 Wabasha Eagle Deck MN x x x x x 759.4 Interpretive Sign (e4 Wabasha Eagle Deck MN x x x x x 759.4 Interpretive Sign (e4 Wabasha Marina MN x x x 759.4 Kiosk4 Wilcox Landing MN x x x 756.0 Kiosk4 Rieck's Lake Observation Deck WI x x x x x 755.3 Interpretive sign4 Rieck's Lake Observation Deck WI x x x x x 755.3 Interpretive sign4 Rieck's Lake Observation Deck WI x x x x x 755.3 Interpretive sign4 Lofgren Prairie MN x x x 755.0 Kiosk4 Peterson Lake Landing MN x x x x x 754.0 Kiosk (1 panel)4 Peterson Lake Landing MN x x x x x 754.0 Official Notice Boar4 Alma Marina WI x x x 753.9 Kiosk4 Buena Vista WI x x x x x 753.0 Interpretive Sign5 MN DNR Carry-in Access MN x x x 752.5 Official Notice Boar5 Pioneer Landing MN x x x 752.3 Official Notice Boar5 Alma Landing WI x x x x x 751.9 Kiosk (1 panel)
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

599

5 Wabasha Prairie MN x x x 751.7 Kiosk5 Great River Harbor WI x x x 748.0 Kiosk5 Halfmoon Landing MN x x x x x 747.5 Kiosk (2 panel)5 Halfmoon Landing MN x x x x x 747.5 Official Notice Boar5 Lizzy Pauls Pond WI x x x 747.4 Kiosk5 Belvidere Slough Landing WI x x x 747.0 Kiosk5 Weaver Observation Deck MN x x x x x 744.0 Interpretive sign5 Weaver Landing MN x x x x x 744.0 Kiosk (1 panel)5 Weaver Landing MN x x x x x 744.0 Kiosk (3 panel)5 Weaver Landing MN x x x x x 744.0 Official Notice Boar5 Upper Spring Lake Landing WI x x x 743.5 Kiosk5 Lower Spring Lake Landing WI x x x 742.9 Kiosk5 Minneiska Landing MN x x x 741.9 Kiosk

5A Thorpe Hiking Trail MN x x x 736.0 Kiosk5A Merrick State Park South Landing WI x x x 735.5 Kiosk5A Hwy. 61 at Denzers MN x x x 732.0 Entrance Sign5A Lower Fountain City Landing WI x x x 732.0 Kiosk5A Verchota Landing MN x x x x x 730.5 Kiosk (2 panel)5A Verchota Landing MN x x x x x 730.5 Official Notice Boar

Table 16: Kiosks, Interpretive Signs, Entrance Signs and Official Notice Boards (Continued)

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E River Mile Com
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

600

5A McNally Landing MN x x x x x 729.0 Kiosk (2 panel)5A McNally Landing MN x x x x x 729.0 Official Notice Boar

6 Prairie Island Boat Ramp MN x x x 728.0 Kiosk6 Dick's Marine MN x x x 726.0 Kiosk6 Mertes Slough Landing WI x x x x x 726.0 Kiosk (2 panel)6 Mertes Slough Landing WI x x x x x 726.0 Official Notice Boar6 Hwy 61 MN x x x x x 716.6 Interpretive Sign7 Hwy 35 Black River Landing WI x x x N/A Kiosk (2 panel)7 Hwy 35 Black River Landing WI x x x N/A Official Notice Boar7 ACOE Parking Lot, L & D 6 WI x x x 714.3 Interpretive Sign7 Trempealeau Landing WI x x x 714.0 Kiosk7 Trempealeau Landing WI x x x 714.0 Official Notice Boar7 Round Lake Landing WI x x x x x 713.2 Entrance Sign7 Round Lake Landing WI x x x x x 713.2 Kiosk (2 panel)7 Round Lake Landing WI x x x x x 713.2 Official Notice Boar7 Long Lake Landing WI x x x x x 713.0 Entrance Sign7 Long Lake Landing WI x x x x x 713.0 Kiosk (2 panel)7 Long Lake Landing WI x x x x x 713.0 Official Notice Boar7 Lone Tree Observation Deck WI x x x 712.3 Kiosk

Table 16: Kiosks, Interpretive Signs, Entrance Signs and Official Notice Boards (Continued)

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E River Mile Com
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

601

7 Lone Tree Observation Deck WI x x x 712.3 Official Notice Boar7 Scenic Bluffs State Park MN x x x 711.8 Interpretive Sign7 Great River State Trail WI x x x 710.5 Interpretive Sign7 Lytle's Canoe Access WI x x x 709.5 Kiosk7 Lytle's Canoe Access WI x x x 709.5 Official Notice Boar7 Mathy Prairie WI x x x x x 709.1 Interpretive Sign7 Mathy Prairie WI x x x x x 709.1 Interpretive Sign7 The Tubes WI x x x 708.3 Official Notice Boar7 Upper Halfway Creek WI x x x x x 708.0 Entrance Sign (Gre7 Upper Halfway Creek WI x x x x x 708.0 Interpretive Sign7 Upper Halfway Creek WI x x x x x 708.0 Interpretive Sign7 Upper Halfway Creek WI x x x x x 708.0 Interpretive Sign7 Upper Brice Prairie Landing WI x x x x x 708.0 Kiosk (2 panel)7 Upper Brice Prairie Landing WI x x x x x 708.0 Official Notice Boar7 Upper Halfway Creek WI x x x x x 708.0 Official Notice Boar7 Dakota Ramp MN x x x 707.0 Official Notice Boar7 Midway Railroad Prairie SNA WI x x x x x 706.4 Entrance Sign7 Dakota Overlook MN x x x 706.4 Interpretive Sign7 Midway Railroad Prairie SNA WI x x x x x 706.4 Interpretive Sign 

Table 16: Kiosks, Interpretive Signs, Entrance Signs and Official Notice Boards (Continued)

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E River Mile Com
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

602

7 Mosey's Landing WI x x x x x 706.0 Kiosk (1 panel)7 Mosey's Landing WI x x x x x 706.0 Official Notice Boar7 Highway 35 Pull Off WI x x x 704.8 Interpretive Sign7 Nelson Park WI x x x x x 704.8 Interpretive Sign (D7 Nelson Park WI x x x x x 704.8 Interpretive Sign (D7 Nelson Park WI x x x x x 704.8 Interpretive Sign (P7 Nelson Park WI x x x x x 704.8 Kiosk (2 panel)7 Nelson Park WI x x x x x 704.8 Official Notice Boar7 Great River State Bike Trail WI x x x 704.3 Kiosk7 French Island Walk-in WI x x x 704.0 Interpretive Sign7 Fishermen's Road WI x x x x x 703.0 Official Notice Boar8 Upper Dike Landing WI x x x 702.6 kiosk (single panel)8 Lower Spillway Landing WI x x x 702.6 kiosk (single panel)8 Upper Dike Landing WI x x x 702.6 Official Notice Boar8 Lower Spillway Landing WI x x x 702.6 Official Notice Boar8 ACOE Parking Lot, L & D 7 MN x x x 702.5 Interpretive Sign8 Highway 35 Pull Off WI x x x x x 702.5 Interpretive Sign8 Proposed Eagle Viewing Area WI x x x 702.0 Interpretive Sign8 Apple Blossom Drive MN x x x x x 702.0 Interpretive Sign

Table 16: Kiosks, Interpretive Signs, Entrance Signs and Official Notice Boards (Continued)

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E River Mile Com
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

603

8 Upper I-90 (Boat Landing) MN x x x x x 702.0 Official Notice Boar8 Minnesota Rest Area MN x x x x x 701.9 Entrance Sign8 Minnesota Rest Area MN x x x x x 701.9 Interpretive Sign (e8 Minnesota Rest Area MN x x x x x 701.9 Interpretive Sign (e8 Minnesota Rest Area MN x x x x x 701.9 Interpretive Sign (e8 Minnesota Rest Area MN x x x x x 701.9 Kiosk (3 panel)8 I-90 MN x x x 701.8 Entrance Sign8 1st Parking Lot, I-90 (MN DOT) MN x x x 701.8 Interpretive Sign8 WI Rest Area WI x x x x x 701.8 Interpretive Sign8 WI Rest Area WI x x x 701.8 Kiosk (3 panel)8 Lower I-90 (Boat Landing) MN x x x x x 701.6 Entrance Sign8 Lower I-90 (Boat Landing) MN x x x x x 701.6 Kiosk (2 panel)8 Lower I-90 (Boat Landing) MN x x x x x 701.6 Kiosk (2 panel)8 Lower I-90 (Boat Landing) MN x x x x x 701.6 Official Notice Boar8 Logan Street Landing WI x x x 700.8 Kiosk8 Logan Street Landing WI x x x 700.8 Official Notice Boar8 Clinton Street Landing WI x x x 700.7 Kiosk8 Clinton Street Landing WI x x x 700.7 Official Notice Boar8 Clinton Street Landing West WI x x x 700.4 Kiosk

Table 16: Kiosks, Interpretive Signs, Entrance Signs and Official Notice Boards (Continued)

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E River Mile Com
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

604

8 Clinton Street Landing West WI x x x 700.4 Official Notice Boar8 Wagon Wheel MN x x x 699.6 Interpretive Sign8 La Crescent MN x x x 699.5 Interpretive Sign8 Hwy. 61 MN x x x 699.0 Entrance Sign8 Twilight Obs. Deck/Tower/Photo B. MN x x x 698.9 Interpretive Sign8 Allen's Boat Livery MN x x x 698.7 Official Notice Boar8 Sportsman's Landing MN x x x 698.6 Official Notice Boar8 Pettibone Park WI x x x 698.4 Interpretive Sign8 Grandad's Bluff WI x x x 697.8 Interpretive Sign8 Houska Park WI x x x 697.0 Kiosk8 La Crosse Municipal Harbor WI x x x 696.8 Kiosk8 La Crosse Municipal Harbor WI x x x 696.8 Official Notice Boar8 Green Island Landing WI x x x 696.0 Kiosk8 Green Island Landing WI x x x 696.0 Official Notice Boar8 Goose Island Upper North Boat 

Landing

WI x x x x x 692.6 Interpretive Sign

8 Goose Island Upper North Boat 

Landing

WI x x x x x 692.6 Official Notice Boar

8 Goose Island Middle Landing WI x x x x x 692.0 Interpretive Sign

Table 16: Kiosks, Interpretive Signs, Entrance Signs and Official Notice Boards (Continued)

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E River Mile Com
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

605

8 Goose Island Campground WI x x x 692.0 Kiosk8 Goose Island Middle Landing WI x x x x x 692.0 Official Notice Boar8 North Lawrence Lake Walk down MN x x x 691.9 Interpretive Sign8 South Lawrence Lake Walk down MN x x x 691.4 Interpretive Sign8 Goose Island Observation Area WI x x x 691.3 Interpretive Sign8 Goose Island Hiking Trail WI x x x x x 691.0 Interpretive Sign (D8 Goose Island Hiking Trail WI x x x x x 691.0 Interpretive Sign (P8 Goose Island Hiking Trail WI x x x x x 691.0 Interpretive Sign (s8 Goose Island Hiking Trail WI x x x x x 691.0 Kiosk (2 panel)8 Goose Island Hiking Trail WI x x x x x 691.0 Official Notice Boar8 Hwy 35, South of Goose Island WI x x x x x 690.5 Interpretive Sign8 Goose Island Hunter's Point WI x x x x x 690.5 Kiosk (2 panel)8 Goose Island Hunter's Point WI x x x x x 690.5 Official Notice Boar8 Goose Island WI x x x 690.0 Interpretive Sign8 Hwy 35, South of Goose Island WI x x x x x 690.0 Interpretive Sign8 Hwy. 35, Goose Island WI x x x 689.0 Interpretive Sign8 Hwy 35, south of Goose Island WI x x x x x 689.0 Interpretive Sign8 Wildcat Park MN x x x x x 688.4 Kiosk (2 panel)8 Wildcat Park MN x x x x x 688.4 Official Notice Boar

Table 16: Kiosks, Interpretive Signs, Entrance Signs and Official Notice Boards (Continued)

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E River Mile Com
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

606

8 ACOE Dock MN x x x 688.3 Interpretive Sign8 Lower Wildcat Landing MN x x x 688.3 Kiosk8 Lower Wildcat Landing MN x x x 688.3 Official Notice Boar8 Overpass - Hwy 35 over BNSF RR WI x x x 687.7 Interpretive Sign8 Walk down Access WI x x x 687.2 Interpretive Sign8 Stoddard Park Landing WI x x x x x 685.5 Kiosk (2 panel)8 Stoddard Park Landing WI x x x x x 685.5 Official Notice Boar8 Brownsville Swan Observation Deck MN x x x 685.3 Interpretive Sign8 Brownsville Swan Observation Deck MN x x x 685.3 Kiosk8 Coon Creek, Hwy 35 WI x x x 684.3 Interpretive Sign8 Hwy 35 eastside pullout WI x x x x x 684.1 Interpretive Sign8 Brownsville Overlook MN x x x x x 683.2 Interpretive Sign (d8 Brownsville Overlook MN x x x x x 683.2 Interpretive Sign (p8 Brownsville Overlook MN x x x x x 683.2 Interpretive Sign (s8 Brownsville Overlook MN x x x x x 683.2 Kiosk (1 panel)8 Old Settler's Park WI x x x 682.3 Interpretive Sign8 Reno Canoe Launch WI x x x 681.1 Kiosk8 Engh's Boat Livery WI x x x 679.8 Interpretive Sign8 Genoa Harbor WI x x x 679.7 Official Notice Boar

Table 16: Kiosks, Interpretive Signs, Entrance Signs and Official Notice Boards (Continued)

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E River Mile Com
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

607

8 ACOE parking lot, L & D 8 WI x s x 679.5 Interpretive Sign9 Dairyland Power WI x x x x x 677.9 Kiosk (2 panel)9 Millstone Landing MN x x x x x 676.8 Kiosk (2 panel)9 Visgers Landing MN x x x x x 675.5 Kiosk (2 panel)9 Visgers Landing MN x x x x x 675.5 Official Notice Boar9 Bad Ax Landing WI x x x x x 675.0 Kiosk (2 panel)9 New Albin Overlook MN x x x x x 674.0 Entrance Sign9 New Albin Overlook MN x x x x x 674.0 Interpretive Sign9 New Albin Overlook MN x x x x x 674.0 Kiosk (2 panel)9 Three State Point MN x x x x x 673.9 Interpretive Sign (3 9 New Albin Landing IA x x x x x 673.0 Entrance Sign9 New Albin Landing IA x x x x x 673.0 Kiosk (2 panel)9 New Albin Landing IA x x x x x 673.0 Official Notice Boar9 Blackhawk Park WI x x x x x 671.0 Kiosk (2 panel)9 Winneshiek Slough Landing WI x x x x x 665.5 Entrance Sign9 Winneshiek Slough Landing WI x x x x x 665.5 Kiosk (2 panel)9 Hwy. 82 WI x x x x x 664.5 Entrance Sign9 Big Slough Landing WI x x x x x 663.5 Kiosk (2 panel)9 Big Slough Landing WI x x x x x 663.5 Official Notice Boar

Table 16: Kiosks, Interpretive Signs, Entrance Signs and Official Notice Boards (Continued)

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E River Mile Com
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

608

9 Lansing Field Station WI x x x x x 663.0 Entrance Sign9 Mt. Hosmer-Lansing City Park IA x x x x x 663.0 Interpretive Sign9 Village Creek Landing IA x x x x x 662.0 Kiosk (2 panel)9 Ferryville Observation Deck WI x x x x x 659.0 Interpretive Sign9 Ferryville Observation Deck WI x x x x x 659.0 Interpretive Sign9 Ferryville Observation Deck WI x x x x x 659.0 Interpretive Sign9 Ferryville Landing WI x x x x x 659.0 Kiosk (2 panel)9 Cold Springs Landing WI x x x x x 653.5 Entrance Sign9 Cold Springs Landing WI x x x x x 653.5 Kiosk (2 panel)9 Cold Springs Landing WI x x x x x 653.5 Official Notice Boar

10 Gordons Bay Landing WI x x x x x 647.0 Kiosk (2 panel)10 Harpers Ferry Landing IA x x x x x 646.5 Kiosk (2 panel)10 Nobles Landing IA x x x x x 643.2 Kiosk (2 panel)10 Nobles Landing IA x x x x x 643.2 Official Notice Boar10 Ambrough Slough Landing WI x x x x x 639.4 Entrance Sign 10 Ambrough Slough Landing WI x x x x x 639.4 Kiosk (1 panel)10 Effigy Mounds NP IA x x x x x 638.0 Interpretive Sign10 North Water St. Landing WI x x x 635.8 Kiosk (2 panel)10 Sturgeon Slough WI x x x x x 634.9 Entrance Sign

Table 16: Kiosks, Interpretive Signs, Entrance Signs and Official Notice Boards (Continued)

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E River Mile Com
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

609

10 Sturgeon Slough WI x x x x x 634.8 Interpretive sign (p10 Marquette City Landing IA x x x x x 634.8 Kiosk (2 panel)10 Sturgeon Slough WI x x x x x 634.8 Kiosk (2 panel)10 McGregor District Office IA x x x x x 634.0 Entrance Sign10 McGregor District Office IA x x x x x 634.0 Interpretive sign (b10 McGregor District Office IA x x x x x 634.0 Kiosk (3 panel)10 Pikes Peak State Park IA x x x x x 633.5 Interpretive sign10 Wyalusing State Park Landing WI x x x x x 630.0 Kiosk (2 panel)10 Wyalusing State Park Landing WI x x x x x 630.0 Official Notice Boar10 Wyalusing Public Boat Landing WI x x x x x 627.8 Kiosk (2 panel)10 Sny Magill Landing IA x x x x x 627.0 Kiosk (2 panel)10 Bagley Bottoms Landing WI x x x x x 625.0 Entrance Sign10 Bagley Bottoms Landing WI x x x x x 625.0 Kiosk (1 panel)10 Bagley Bottoms Landing WI x x x x x 625.0 Official Notice Boar10 Jays Lake Landing WI x x x x x 622.0 Kiosk (2 panel)10 Bussey Lake IA x x x x x 616.7 Kiosk (2 panel)11 Guttenberg Landing IA x x x x x 614.5 Kiosk (2 panel)11 Goetz Island Trail Head IA x x x 614.0 Entrance Sign11 Nelson Dewey State park WI x x x x x 609.0 Interpretive Sign

Table 16: Kiosks, Interpretive Signs, Entrance Signs and Official Notice Boards (Continued)

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E River Mile Com
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

610

11 Turkey River Landing IA x x x x x 607.8 Entrance Sign11 Turkey River Landing IA x x x x x 607.7 Kiosk (2 panel)11 Turkey River Landing IA x x x x x 607.7 Official Notice Boar11 Cassville Field Station WI x x x x x 607.0 Entrance Sign11 Cassville Overlook WI x x x x x 607.0 Entrance Sign 11 Eagle Roost Resort WI x x x x x 607.0 Interpretive Sign11 Cassville Overlook WI x x x x x 607.0 Interpretive Sign (h11 Cassville Overlook WI x x x x x 607.0 Interpretive Sign (m11 Cassville Overlook WI x x x x x 607.0 Interpretive Signs 11 Cassville Public Access WI x x x x x 606.4 Kiosk (2 panel)11 Bertom Lake Landing WI x x x x x 601.7 Entrance Sign11 Bertom Lake Landing WI x x x x x 601.7 Kiosk11 Bertom Lake Landing WI x x x x x 601.7 Official Notice Boar11 Lynn Hollow Landing WI x x x x x 597.0 Entrance Sign11 Lynn Hollow Landing WI x x x x x 597.0 Kiosk (1 panel)11 Finley's Landing IA x x x 595.8 Kiosk11 Potosi Public Access WI x x x 592.5 Entrance Sign11 Potosi Public Access WI x x x 592.5 Kiosk11 Grant River Rec. Area WI x x x x x 591.0 Kiosk (2 panel)

Table 16: Kiosks, Interpretive Signs, Entrance Signs and Official Notice Boards (Continued)

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E River Mile Com
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

611

11 Mud Lake Recreation Area IA x x x x x 589.3 Kiosk (2 panel)11 John Deere Marsh IA x x x 585.8 Kiosk11 Sunfish Lake Landing IA x x x x x 583.3 Kiosk (2 panel)12 Hawthorne St. Boat Ramp IA x x x 582.0 Interpretive Sign12 Schmitt Harbor IA x x x 581.0 Interpretive Sign12 East Dubuque Public Ramp IL x x x 579.5 Interpretive Sign12 Midtown Marina IL x x x 579.0 Interpretive Sign12 Bent Prop Marina IL x x x 578.4 Interpretive Sign12 Massey Station IA x x x 573.8 Kiosk12 Ferry Landing IL x x x 566.6 Kiosk12 Spruce Creek IA x x x x x 559.5 Kiosk (1 panel)12 Blanding Landing IL x x x 558.7 Kiosk13 Bellevue Municipal Landing IA x x x 556.6 Kiosk13 Mill Creek IA x x x 555.5 Kiosk13 Pleasant Creek IA x x x 550.0 Kiosk13 Lost Mound Observation Deck IL x x x 548.3 Interpretive Sign13 Lost Mound Unit IL x x x x x 546.0 Entrance Sign13 Lost Mound Unit IL x x x x x 546.0 Kiosk (3 panel)13 Palisades State Park # 1 IL x x x x x 540.8 Interpretive Sign

Table 16: Kiosks, Interpretive Signs, Entrance Signs and Official Notice Boards (Continued)

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E River Mile Com
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

612

13 Miller's Hollow Landing IL x x x x x 540.2 Kiosk (2 panel)13 Palisades State Park # 2 IL x x x x x 540.0 Interpretive Sign13 Palisades State Park # 3 IL x x x 540.0 Interpretive Sign13 Palisades State Park # 4 IL x x x 540.0 Interpretive Sign13 Palisades Park # 5 IL x x x 540.0 Interpretive Sign13 Marquette Park IL x x x 537.5 Interpretive Sign13 Esmay Slough Landing IA x x x 536.0 Kiosk13 Frog Pond IL x x x x x 535.5 Kiosk (1 panel)13 Savanna District Maintenance IL x x x x x 535.0 Entrance Sign13 Spring Lake Tower IL x x x x x 535.0 Interpretive sign (d13 Spring Lake Observation Area IL x x x x x 535.0 Interpretive sign (d13 Spring Lake Tower IL x x x x x 535.0 Interpretive sign (p13 Spring Lake Observation Area IL x x x x x 535.0 Interpretive sign (p13 Ingersoll Wetlands Learning Center IL x x x x x 535.0 Kiosk (2 panel)13 Spring Lake IL x x x x x 535.0 Kiosk (3 panel)13 Sloane Marsh IL x x x x x 533.0 Interpretive sign (d13 Sloane Marsh IL x x x x x 533.0 Interpretive sign (p13 Sloane Marsh IL x x x x x 533.0 Kiosk (2 panel)13 Savanna District IL x x x x x 528.0 Entrance Sign

Table 16: Kiosks, Interpretive Signs, Entrance Signs and Official Notice Boards (Continued)

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E River Mile Com
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

613

13 Thomson Prairie IL x x x x x 527.0 Kiosk (3 panel)13 Potters Marsh Hunter's Park. Lot IL x x x x x 526.0 Kiosk (2 panel)13 Bulgers Hollow IA x x x 525.0 Kiosk13 Michelson's Landing IL x x x x x 524.0 Kiosk (1 panel)13 Eagle Point Park IA x x x 522.7 Kiosk14 Hwy 30 IL x x x x x 518.0 Entrance Sign14 Catfish Ramp IL x x x 517.6 Interpretive Sign14 5th St. Ramp IA x x x 517.0 Interpretive Sign14 Albany Municipal Boat Ramp IL x x x 514.0 Interpretive Sign14 Camanche Municipal Park Ramp IA x x x 511.0 Interpretive Sign14 Rock Creek Ramp IA x x x 508.0 Interpretive Sign14 Rock Creek Ramp IA x x x 508.0 Kiosk14 10th Street Ramp IL x x x 503.0 Interpretive Sign

Total Kiosks 66 66 115 115 115Total Interpretive Signs 59 59 102 102 102Total Entrance Signs 25 25 30 30 30Total Official Notice Boards 30 30 49 49 49

Table 16: Kiosks, Interpretive Signs, Entrance Signs and Official Notice Boards (Continued)

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E River Mile Com
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

614Table 17: Managed/Special Hunts 

Pool Feature State Existing Proposed Up-River 

Mile

DownRiver 

Mile

Alt. A 

Acres 

Alt. B 

Acres

Alt. C 

Acres

Alt. D 

Acres

Alt. E 

Acres

7 Gibb's Lake

Managed Hunt

WI 480 <200 708.6 707.2 B

st

8 Goose Island Youth 

Hunt

WI 692.0 691.5 Y

pA

10 Wisconsin River Delta 

Special Hunt Area

WI 1,406 633.8 630.7 C

trof anth

11 John Deere Marsh 

Special Hunt

IA 586.5 586.0 S

in F

12 Blanding Landing 

Managed Hunt

IL 511 557.7 556.8 A

mg

13 Potter's Marsh 

Managed Hunt

IL 1,923 1,923 1,923 526.0 522.7 A

b

Total Acres 2,434 0 0 2,403 ~3,530

Total Units 20023
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

615

Table 18: No-wake Zones 

Pool Feature State Existing Proposed River 

Mile

Agency

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

4 Wabasha MN x x x x x 760.34 Wilcox Landing MN x x x 756.5 FWS5 Belvidere Slough WI x x x x x 747.55 Halfmoon Landing MN x x x x x 747.5 FWS

5A Fountain City Bay WI x x x x 735.0 FWS5A Verchota Landing MN x x x 731.0 FWS5A McNally Landing MN x x x x 729.0 FWS

6 Winona MN x x x x x 725.57 Lytle's Landing WI x x x x x 710.07 Brice Prairie WI x x x x x 708.07 La Crosse Sailing Club WI x x x x x 705.08 Black River / French Island WI x x x x x 703.08 R & R Marine WI x x x x x 701.08 Al's Marina WI x x x x x 700.58 Clinton St. Landing WI x x x x x 700.48 French Island Yacht Club WI x x x x x 700.38 Taylor Island WI x x x x x 699.08 Bikini Yacht Club WI x x x x x 698.08 Houska Park WI x x x x x 697.0
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

616

8 Green Island Landing WI x x x x x 695.88 Chut's Landing WI x x x x x 695.38 Goose Island Campground WI x x x x x 692.08 Lawrence Lake Marina MN x x x x x 690.58 Raft Channel* MN x 687.5 FWS9 Fish Lake IA x x x 672.5 FWS9 Cold Springs WI x x x x 653.9 FWS

10 Ambrough Slough WI x x x x x 639.0 FWS10 McGregor IA x x x x x 634.510 Wyalusing Park WI x x x x 630.0 FWS10 Johnson Slough IA x x x x 628.0 FWS11 Mud Lake IA x 587.7 FWS11 Sunfish Lake WI x 583.3 FWS12 Hawthorne St. Boat Ramp IA x x x x x 582.012 Schmitt's Harbor IA x x x x x 581.012 East Dubuque IL x x x x x 579.512 Midtown Marine IL x x x x x 579.012 Bent Prop. Marina IL x x x x x 578.512 Frentress Lake Marina IL x x x x x 576.0

Table 18: No-wake Zones (Continued)

Pool Feature State Existing Proposed River 

Mile

Agency

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

617

12 Massey Station IA x x x x x 573.012 Menominee Slough IL x 571.0 FWS12 Ferry Landing IL x x x x x 567.012 Spruce Creek County Park IA x x x x x 559.513 Bellevue Municipal Landing IA x x x x x 556.813 Crooked Slough ** IL x 556.013 Millers Hollow Landing IL x x x x x 542.013 Marquette Park IL x x x x x 537.013 North Sabula Access IA x x x x x 535.813 South Sabula Lake IA x x x x x 534.513 Spring Lake Resort IL x x x x x 533.613 Spring Lake Zone ** IL x x x 533.013 Big Slough IL x x x x x 531.514 Fulton Harbor IL x x x x x 519.614 Ninth Avenue Ramp IA x x x x x 519.014 Clinton Marina IA x x x x x 518.814 Catfish Ramp IL x x x x x 517.614 Camanche Boat Harbor IA x x x x x 512.314 Camanche Municipal Ramp IA x x x x x 511.0

Table 18: No-wake Zones (Continued)

Pool Feature State Existing Proposed River 

Mile

Agency

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

618

14 Rock Creek Ramp IA x x x x x 508.014 Green Gables Boat Harbor IA x x x x x 495.014 Lock & Dam 14 IA x x x x x 493.8

Total 46 55 54 55 57

*Slow, no wake zone is within the Raft Channel travel corridor of the Wisconsin Islands Closed Area, in effect October 15 to the 

end of the duck season; Alt. E only.** Speed/distance regulation in effect; Alt. E only.

Table 18: No-wake Zones (Continued)

Pool Feature State Existing Proposed River 

Mile

Agency

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

619

Table 19: Observation Decks, Towers, and Photo Blinds 

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. 

B

Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E River 

Mile

4 Rieck's Lake Photo Blind WI x x x 755.74 Rieck's Lake Observation Deck

(Coop with Corps of Engineers)

WI x x x x x 755.3

5 Weaver Observation Deck MN x x x x x 744.05 Upper Spring Lake Observation Deck WI x x x 743.5

5A McNally Observation Tower MN x x x 728.5

7 Lone Tree Observation Deck WI x x x 712.07 Mathy Prairie/Wooden deck WI x x x x x 709.07 Brown's Marsh Observation Deck WI x x x 709.07 Upper Halfway Creek Observation Tower WI x x x 708.07 Upper Halfway Creek /Bike Trail / 

Observation Area

WI x x x x x 708.0

7 Upper Halfway Creek /County HWY Z/ Observation 

Deck

WI x x x x x 707.8

8 Wittenberg Marsh EE Facility /Observation Deck WI x x x 703.28 I-90 Eagle Observation Deck WI x x x 701.88 Wagon Wheel Observation Deck * MN x x 699.78 Blue Lake Observation Tower * MN x x 698.58 Twilight Observation Deck/Tower/Photo Blind MN x x x 699.0
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

620

8 Goose Island Observation Deck * WI x x 691.48 Goose Island Observation Deck /Hiking trail WI x x x x x 690.98 Brownsville Overlook/Deck MN x 685.48 Hwy 26 Overlook/Deck MN x x x x x 683.29 Reno Bottoms Observation Deck MN x x x 681.19 New Albin Observation Deck MN x x x x x 674.09 Ferryville Observation Deck

(Coop with Village of Ferryville)

WI x x x x x 659.0

9 Harper's Slough Observation Deck IA x x x 650.0

10 Sturgeon Slough Observation Deck WI x x x x x 634.710 WI River Delta Observation Deck WI x 632.911 Cassville Observation Deck

(Coop with Village of Cassville)

WI x x x x x 607.0

11 Dago Slough Observation Deck WI x 604.011 Potosi Observation Deck WI x x x 592.311 Potosi Photo Blind WI x x x 592.311 Mud Lake Observation Deck IA x 589.411 John Deere Outdoor Classroom /Photo Blind IA x x x 586.012 None Existing

Table 19: Observation Decks, Towers, and Photo Blinds (Continued)

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. 

B

Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E River 

Mile
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

621

13 Pleasant Creek Observation Deck IA x 551.013 Lost Mound Observation Deck IL x x x x x 549.013 Kellers Island Observation Deck IA x 536.913 Spring Lake Observation Deck IL x x x x x 535.013 Sloane Marsh Observation Deck IL x x x x x 532.513 L & D 13 Observation Deck

(Coop with Corps of Engineers)

IL x x x x x 522.7

14 Albany Municipal Boat Ramp /Observ. Deck IL x 514.0

Total Photo Blinds 0 03 3 4

Total Observation Decks / Areas 15 15 31 26 25

Total Observation Towers 0 03 3 3

* Drop in Alt. E Final

Table 19: Observation Decks, Towers, and Photo Blinds (Continued)

Existing Proposed

Pool Feature State Alt. A Alt. 

B

Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E River 

Mile
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

622Table 20: Refuge Staffing 

Number of Full-time Equivalents

Winona District La Crosse District McGregor District Savanna District 

Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed 

Staff Positions Alt. 

A

Alt. 

B

Alt. 

C

Alt. 

D

Alt. 

E

Alt. 

A

Alt. 

B

Alt. 

C

Alt.

D

Alt.

E

Alt. 

A

Alt. 

B

Alt. 

C

Alt.

D

Alt.

E

Alt. 

A

Alt. 

B

Alt. 

C

Alt.

D

A

Refuge DistrictsDistrict Manager

1 1111 1 1111 1 1111 1 111

Assistant Manager/ Refuge Operations Specialist

1 1111 1 1111 2 2222 1 111

Administrative Technician

1 1111 1 1111 1 1111 1 111

Law Enforcement Refuge Officer

1 1112 1 1112 1 1112 1 111

Visitor Services Specialist

0 1111 1 1111 0 1111 1 111

Wildlife Biologist

1 1111 1 1111 0 1111 0 111

Private Lands Biologist

0 1111 0 1111 0 1111 0 111

Biological Technician

1 1111 1 1111 1 1111 1 111

Maintenance 1 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

623

Receptionist / Permit Specialist (Part Time) 

0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0

Lost Mound Unit

0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 1 333

Sub-Total Positions / Each District1

7.0 10.5 10.5 10.5 11.5 7.0 10.5 10.5 10.5 11.5 7.0 10.5 10.5 10.5 11.5 9.0 13.5 13.5 13.5 1

1. There will be some latitude in the types of positions filled. For example, a District may need 2 biological technicians instead of the standard 1.Table 20: Refuge Staffing

Headquarters

Existing Proposed

Refuge Headquarters Alt. 

 A

Alt. B

Alt. C

Alt.D

Alt.E

Complex Manager 1 1 1 1 1Administrative Officer 1 1 1 1 1Environmental Engineer

1 1111

Table 20: Refuge Staffing (Continued)

Number of Full-time Equivalents

Winona District La Crosse District McGregor District Savanna District 

Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed 

Staff Positions Alt. 

A

Alt. 

B

Alt. 

C

Alt. 

D

Alt. 

E

Alt. 

A

Alt. 

B

Alt. 

C

Alt.

D

Alt.

E

Alt. 

A

Alt. 

B

Alt. 

C

Alt.

D

Alt.

E

Alt. 

A

Alt. 

B

Alt. 

C

Alt.

D

A
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

624

Visitor Services Specialist

1 1 2** 2** 2**

Watershed Biologist 1 1 1 1 1Wildlife Biologist 1 1 1 1 1Forester 0 1 0 1 1Fishery Biologist 0 1 0 1 1Geographic Information System (GIS) Specialist

1 1111

Public Information Specialist

0 0111

Receptionist (Part time) 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5Sub-TotalHeadquarters 7.0 9.5 9.5 11.5 11.5District Totals 30.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 49.0Refuge Wide Total Positions

37.0 54.5 54.5 56.5 60.5

** 1 person stationed at the National Mississippi River Museum, Dubuque, Iowa.

Table 20: Refuge Staffing

Headquarters

Existing Proposed

Refuge Headquarters Alt. 

 A

Alt. B

Alt. C

Alt.D

Alt.E
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

625

Table 21: Summary of Project Features by Alternative 

Existing Features Total Proposed Features

Alt A: No Action Alt. B: Wildlife 

Focus

Alt. C: Public Use 

Focus

Alt. D: Wildlife and 

Public Use Focus

Alt. E: Modified 

Wildlife and Publ

Use Focus

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres o

Miles

Waterfowl Closed Areas and/or Sanctuaries

15 44,544 29 60,396 15 44,614 21 43,704 23 43,76

No open water hunting areas

0 0 2 10,487 0 0 2 10,487 1 4,00

Managed / Special Hunts 2 2,434 0 0 0 0 2 2,403 3 ~3,53Administrative no hunting zones

8 3,555 10 3,813 17 5,959 14 5,404 11 3,84

Fish catch and release area

1 700 1 700 1 700 1 700 1 70

Heron sanctuary 0 0 1 64 0 0 1 64 0 No wake zones 46 NA 55 NA 54 NA 55 NA 57 NElectric motor areas 1 222 10 15,900 15 13,239 16 14,498 5 1,85Slow, no wake areas 0 0 0 0 8 9,72Research Natural Areas 4 6,946 4 6,946 4 6,946 4 6,946 4 6,94TrailsCanoe trails 4 32.1 4 32.1 26 167.9 21 126.9 19 120Hiking trails 6 20.5 8 24.8 21 50.7 16 40.9 14 36Auto tour routes 1 2.5 1 2.5 3 11.0 3 11.0 3 11
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

626

Biking trails 3 10.0 3 10.0 6 17.0 5 14.1 6 21Access FacilitiesFishing piers 15 NA 15 NA 20 NA 18 NA 20 NCommercial fishing floats / piers

4 NA 0 NA 5 NA 4 NA 4 N

Boat access 25 NA 25 NA 26 NA 26 NA 26 NWalk-in access 0 NA 0 NA 3 NA 3 NA 4 NCanoe landing / launch 1 NA 1 NA 4** NA 2** NA 2** NParking lot improvements 0 NA 0 NA 5 NA 5 NA 5 NWildlife Observation FacilitiesObservation decks/areas 15 NA 15 NA 31 NA 26 NA 25 NObservation towers 0 NA 0 NA 3 NA 3 NA 3 NPhoto blinds 0 NA 0 NA 3 NA 3 NA 4 NSignageKiosks 66 NA 66 NA 115 NA 115 NA 115 NInterpretive signs 59 NA 59 NA 102 NA 102 NA 102 NEntrance signs 25 NA 25 NA 30 NA 30 NA 30 N

Table 21: Summary of Project Features by Alternative (Continued)

Existing Features Total Proposed Features

Alt A: No Action Alt. B: Wildlife 

Focus

Alt. C: Public Use 

Focus

Alt. D: Wildlife and 

Public Use Focus

Alt. E: Modified 

Wildlife and Publ

Use Focus

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres o

Miles
Appendix H: Project Features Tables

627

Official Notice Boards 30 NA 30 NA 49 NA 49 NA 49 NProposed BuildingsBuild new maintenance facilities

2 NA 3 NA 5 NA 5 NA 5 N

Build new office facilities 0 NA 0 NA 3 NA 3 NA 3 NBuild major visitor center 0 NA 0 NA 1 NA 0 NA 0 NRefuge Staffing 37.0 NA 54.5 NA 54.5 NA 56.5 NA 60.5 N

Table 21: Summary of Project Features by Alternative (Continued)

Existing Features Total Proposed Features

Alt A: No Action Alt. B: Wildlife 

Focus

Alt. C: Public Use 

Focus

Alt. D: Wildlife and 

Public Use Focus

Alt. E: Modified 

Wildlife and Publ

Use Focus

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres or 

Miles

Units Acres o

Miles

Appendix I: Current Hunting Regulations

629

Appendix I: Current Hunting Regulations

Appendix I: Current Hunting Regulations

631
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

632
Appendix I: Current Hunting Regulations

633
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

634
Appendix I: Current Hunting Regulations

635

Appendix J: Public Use Regulations

637

Appendix J: Public Use Regulations

Appendix J: Public Use Regulations

639

Public Use Regulations

The refuge is home to fish and wildlife and you are the guest. Certain regulations are necessary to 

protect wildlife and to provide you with a safe and enjoyable experience.

Alcohol

Entering or remaining on the refuge when under the influence of alcohol is prohibited. Possession or 

use of alcoholic beverages by persons under 21 years of age is prohibited.

Boating

Boats may not be left unattended on the refuge for over 72 hours. Mooring within 200 feet of refuge 

boat landings, or in any areas posted with restrictive signs or buoys is prohibited. Boats left 

unattended or moored in violation may be impounded at the owner’s expense.

Campfires

Campfires are allowed using only dead wood on the ground, or materials brought onto the refuge 

such as charcoal or firewood. Building fires at, or in proximity to, any developed facilities, or at any 

areas posted with restrictive signs is prohibited. Developed facilities include, but are not limited to, 

structures, boat landings, access areas, parking lots, roads, trails, etc. Building, attending, 

maintaining, or using any fire without sufficient clearance from flammable materials adequate to 

prevent its escape is not allowed.

 Burying live fires or hot coals is prohibited. Burning, or attempting to burn, any nonflammable 

materials, or any materials that may produce toxic fumes or leave hazardous wastes is not allowed. 

These include, but are not limited to, metal cans, plastic containers, glass, fiberglass, treated wood 

products, wood containing nails or staples, wire, floatation materials, tires, other refuse, etc.

Camping

Camping on land or on boats at any one site on the refuge for a period longer than 14 days during 

any 30-consecutive-day period is prohibited. After 14 days, you must move all persons, property, 

equipment, and boats to a new site located at least one half (1/2) mile away from the previous site. 

Leaving tents, camping equipment, boats, or other property unattended at any site for over 24 hours 

is prohibited. Any property left unattended in violation may be impounded at the owner’s expense. If 

tables, fireplaces, or other facilities are erected, you must remove all traces before departure. 

Camping at, or in proximity to, any developed facilities, or at any areas posted with restrictive signs 

is prohibited. Developed facilities include, but are not limited to, structures, boat landings, access 

areas, parking lots, roads, trails, etc.

During waterfowl hunting seasons, camping is prohibited within areas posted Area Closed, No 

Hunting Zone, or on any sites not clearly visible from the main commercial navigation channel.

Collecting

All plants, animals, and objects of antiquity, such as arrowheads, are protected. Disturbing or 

collecting is prohibited, except by special use permit.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

640

Domestic Animals

Unconfined domestic animals are prohibited on the refuge, except for controlled hunting and 

retrieving dogs during the hunting season.

Firearms

Carrying, possessing, or discharging firearms or any other weapons on the refuge is prohibited, 

except by licensed hunters or trappers engaged in authorized activities during established seasons, 

in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations.

Fireworks

Possession or use of fireworks or explosives is not allowed on the refuge.

Fishing

Fishing is allowed in accordance with state and federal regulations. On Spring Lake Closed Area 

(Pool 13), fishing is prohibited from October 1 until the day after the close of the Illinois duck hunting 

season. On Mertes Slough (Pool 6), only hand-powered boats or boats with electric motors are 

allowed.

Group Events

A refuge permit is required to hold public meetings, assemblies, demonstrations, parties, organized 

group events, and other public gatherings, whether or not an entrance fee is charged.

Hunting and Trapping

Portions of the refuge are open to hunting and trapping in accordance with federal, state, and local 

regulations. Contact the refuge office for special regulations which apply. You may possess only 

approved nontoxic shot while in the field, except when hunting turkey and deer. You may use slugs 

and shot containing lead to hunt these species only. Use or possession of alcoholic beverages while 

hunting is prohibited.

Trappers must have a federal refuge trapping permit in addition to a state trapping license, and trap 

in accordance with state laws and refuge trapping permit conditions.

On areas posted No Hunting Zone, all hunting is prohibited. Trapping is only allowed beginning the 

day after the close of the state duck hunting season until season closure or March 15, whichever 

occurs first.

On areas posted Area Closed, hunting of migratory birds is prohibited. Other hunting and trapping 

is only allowed beginning the day after the close of the state duck hunting season until season closure 

or March 15, whichever occurs first, except spring turkey hunting is allowed during state seasons.

On areas open to hunting, hunting and trapping are prohibited from March 16 until the opening of 

state fall hunting seasons, except spring turkey hunting is allowed during state seasons.

Private Structures

Private structures of any kind are not allowed on the refuge without a special use permit, except for 

temporary duck blinds.

Sanitation

All public use sites must be kept clean during the period of use or occupancy. You must keep all 

refuse, trash, and litter contained in bags or other suitable containers, and not left scattered on the 

ground or in the water at any time. All public use sites must be left clean upon departure. You must 

remove all personal property, refuse, trash, and litter immediately upon vacating a site. Disposing of 

any materials on the refuge by burying or other methods is prohibited.
Appendix J: Public Use Regulations

641

Vegetation

Cutting, removing, or damaging any tree or other vegetation, standing or down, live or dead, is 

prohibited, without a written permit, except that willow may be used for trap stakes, commercial 

fishing gear, and hunting blinds on the refuge. Dead wood on the ground may be cut and used for 

campfires on the refuge.

Vehicles

All off-road vehicles are prohibited, including snowmobiles and wheeled or tracked all-terrain 

vehicles, on or across refuge lands at anytime, except on designated routes of travel, or on the ice 

over navigable waters accessed from boat landings.

Parking beyond vehicle control barriers, or on grass or other vegetation is prohibited. Vehicles may 

not obstruct or impede any road, trail, fire lane, boat ramp, access gate, or other facilities. Parking in 

a manner to create a safety hazard, or endanger any person, property, or environmental feature is 

prohibited. Vehicles left parked in violation may be impounded at the owner’s expense.

This is only a partial listing of Refuge public use regulations. Additional regulations are published in 

the Code of Federal Regulations Title 50, Subchapter C, The National Wildlife Refuge System.

Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

643

Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

# Amphibians page 645

# Birds pages 646-664

# Fish pages 665-671

# Mammals pages 672-673

# Freshwater Mussels pages 674-676

# Reptiles pages 677-678

# Plants pages 679-697

Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

645

Appendix K: Species Lists

Amphibians

Federally (T or E) 1Illinois (T or E) 1Iowa (T or E) 1Minnesota (T or E) 1Wisconsin (T or E) 1RCP 2

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)

Frogs and Toads

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana

Frog, Green Rana clamitans

Frog, Blanchard's Cricket Acris crepitans blanchardi EEE

Frog, Northern Leopard Rana pipiens

Frog, Pickerel Rana palustris

Frog, Western Chorus Pseudacris triseriata

Frog, Wood Rana sylvatica

Peeper, Spring Pseudacris crucifer

Toad, American Bufo americanus

Treefrog, Gray Hyla versicolor

Treefrog, Cope's Gray Hyla chrysoscelis

Salamanders

Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus T

Salamander, Blue-spotted Ambystoma laterale E

Salamander, Eastern Tiger Ambystoma tigrinum

1 E. (Endangered)

 T. (Threatened)

2

 RCP. (Resource Conservation Priority for Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3) 
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

646Birds

Federally (T or E) 1

Illinois (T or E) 1

Iowa (T or E) 1

Minnesota (T or E) 1

Wisconsin (T or E) 1

RCP 2

PIF Region 16 or 32 3

ABC Green List 4

Spring 5

Summer 5 

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)Avocets and StiltsAvocet, American Recurvirostra americana 2rrStilt, Black-necked Himantopus mexicanus Blackbirds and AlliesBlackbird, Brewer's Euphagus cyanocephalus uuBlackbird, Red-winged Agelaius phoeniceus aaBlackbird, Rusty Euphagus carolinus 2c Blackbird, Yellow-headed Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus uuBobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus uuCowbird, Brown-headed Molothrus ater aaGrackle, Common Quiscalus quiscula aaMeadowlark, Eastern Sturnella magna ccMeadowlark, Western Strunella neglecta rrOriole, Baltimore Icterus galbula ca Oriole, Orchard Icterus spurius uu Cardinals and AlliesBunting, Indigo Passerina cyanea ccBunting, Snow Plectrophenax nivalis Cardinal, Northern Cardinalis cardinalis aaDickcissel Spiza americana 2cc 
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

647

Grosbeak, Rose-breasted Pheucticus ludovicianus ccChickadees and TitmiceChickadee, Black-capped Parus atricapillus ccChickadee, Boreal Poecile hudsonicus Titmouse, Tufted Parus bicolor uuCormorantsCormorant, Double-crested Phalacrocorax auritus X ccCranesCrane, Sandhill Grus canadensis T uu

Crane, Whooping Grus americana E X1 

CreepersCreeper, Brown Certhia americana T cuCrows and JaysCrow, American Corvus brachyrhynchos aaJay, Blue Cyanocitta cristata aaJay, Gray Perisoreus canadensis Raven, Common Corvus corax CuckoosCuckoo, Black-billed Coccyzus erythropthalmus X 16 u c Cuckoo, Yellow-billed Coccyzus americanus ccBirds

Federally (T or E) 

1

Illinois (T or E) 

1

Iowa (T or E) 

1

Minnesota (T or E) 

1

Wisconsin (T or E) 

1

RCP 

2

PIF Region 16 or 32 

3

ABC Green List 

4

Spring 

5

Summer 5 

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

648

DovesDove, Mourning Zenaida macroura ccDove, Rock Columba livia ccDucks, Geese and SwansBufflehead Bucephala albeola 16 c Canvasback Aythya valisineria X 16 a r Duck, American Black Anas rubripes X 16 2 a r Duck, Long-tailed Clangula hyemalis r Merganser, Red-breasted Mergus serrator c Duck, Ring-necked Aythya collaris arDuck, Ruddy Oxyura jamaicensis crDuck, Wood Aix sponsa X acGadwall Anas strepera cuGoldeneye, Common Bucephala clangula a Goose, Canada Branta canadensis X acGoose, Greater White-fronted Anser albifrons rGoose, Snow Chen caerulescens X uMallard Anas platyrhynchos X acMerganser, Common Mergus merganser r Merganser, Hooded Lophodytes cucullatus 16 c c Birds

Federally (T or E) 1

Illinois (T or E) 1

Iowa (T or E) 1

Minnesota (T or E) 1

Wisconsin (T or E) 1

RCP 2

PIF Region 16 or 32 3

ABC Green List 4

Spring 5

Summer 5 

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

649

Pintail, Northern Anas acuta X crRedhead Aythya americana 16 c r Scaup, Greater Aythya marila 16 u Scaup, Lesser Aythya affinis X arScoter, Black Melanitta nigra 2 Scoter, Surf Melanitta perspicillata Scoter, White-winged Melanitta fusca r Shoveler, Northern Anas clypeata cuSwan, Mute Cygnus olor rrSwan, Trumpeter Cygnus buccinator TE r r Swan, Tundra Cygnus columbianus a Teal, Blue-winged Anas discors X acTeal, Cinnamon Anas cyanoptera Teal, Green-winged Anas crecca X crWigeon, American Anas americana auWigeon, Eurasian Anas penelope Emberizid Finches, Sparrows and AlliesJunco, Dark-eyed Junco hyemalis a Longspur, Lapland Calcarius lapponicus r Sparrow, American Tree Spizella arborea c Birds

Federally (T or E) 

1

Illinois (T or E) 

1

Iowa (T or E) 

1

Minnesota (T or E) 

1

Wisconsin (T or E) 

1

RCP 

2

PIF Region 16 or 32 

3

ABC Green List 

4

Spring 

5

Summer 5 

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

650

Sparrow, Chipping Spizella passerina acSparrow, Clay-colored Spizella pallida uSparrow, Field Spizella pusilla acSparrow, Fox Passerella iliaca cSparrow, Grasshopper Ammodramus savannarum ccSparrow, Harris' Zonotrichia querula 2u Sparrow, Henslow's Ammodramus henslowii ETET 1 r 

Sparrow, Lark Chondestes grammacus uu Sparrow, Le Conte's Ammodramus leconteii rrSparrow, Lincoln's Melospiza lincolnii uSparrow, Salt Marsh Sharp-tailed Ammodramus cauducutus 1 Sparrow, Savannah Passerculus sandwichensis uuSparrow, Song Melospiza melodia aa Sparrow, Swamp Melospiza georgiana ccSparrow, Vesper Pooecetes gramineus uuSparrow, White-crowned Zonotrichia leucophrys u Sparrow, White-throated Zonotrichia albicollis c Towhee, Eastern Pipilo erythrophtlalmus uu

FalconsFalcon, Prairie Falco mexicanus Birds

Federally (T or E) 1

Illinois (T or E) 1

Iowa (T or E) 1

Minnesota (T or E) 1

Wisconsin (T or E) 1

RCP 2

PIF Region 16 or 32 3

ABC Green List 4

Spring 5

Summer 5 

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

651

Falcon, Peregrine Falco peregrinus E E T E X 16 u u 

Kestrel, American Falco sparverius ccMerlin Falco columbarius u

FinchesCrossbill, Red Loxia curvirostra r Crossbill, White-winged Loxia leucoptera r Finch, House Carpodacus mexocanus ccFinch, Purple Carpodacus purpureus u Goldfinch, American Gcaruelis tristis aaGrosbeak, Black-headed Pheucticus melanocephalus Grosbeak, Blue Guiraca caerulea Grosbeak, Evening Coccothraustes verpertinus Grosbeak, Pine Pinicola enucleator Redpoll, Common Carduelis flammea u Redpoll, Hoary Carduelis hornemanni Siskin, Pine Carduelis pinus u GnatcatchersGnatcatcher, Blue-gray Plioptila caerulea ccGrebesGrebe, Eared Podiceps nigricollis Birds

Federally (T or E) 

1

Illinois (T or E) 

1

Iowa (T or E) 

1

Minnesota (T or E) 

1

Wisconsin (T or E) 

1

RCP 

2

PIF Region 16 or 32 

3

ABC Green List 

4

Spring 

5

Summer 5 

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

652

Grebe, Horned Podiceps auritus T 2u Grebe, Pied-billed Podilymbus podiceps T cc

Grebe, Red-necked Podiceps grisegena E rGrebe, Western Aechmophorus occidentalis

Gulls and TernsGull, Bonaparte's Larus philadelphia uGull, Franklin's Larus pipixcan uGull, Glaucous Larus hyperboreus rGull, Herring Larus argentatus cuGull, Iceland Larus glaucoides Gull, Lesser Black-back Larus fuscus Gull, Ring-billed Larus delawarensis cuJaeger, Pomarine Stercorarius pomarinus Jaeger, Parasitic Stercorarius parasiticus Kittewake, Black-Legged Rissa tridactyla Tern, Black Chlidonias niger E X 16 c c 

Tern, Caspian Sterna caspia E uuTern, Common Sterna hirundo E TEX u u Tern, Forster's Sterna forsteri E EX c u Tern, Least Sterna antillarum EE X 2 

Birds

Federally (T or E) 1

Illinois (T or E) 1

Iowa (T or E) 1

Minnesota (T or E) 1

Wisconsin (T or E) 1

RCP 2

PIF Region 16 or 32 3

ABC Green List 4

Spring 5

Summer 5 

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

653

Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii 2 Hawks, Kites and EaglesEagle, Bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus T T E X 16 c c Eagle, Golden Aquila chrysaetos r Goshawk, Northern Accipiter gentilis X 16 Harrier, Northern Circus cyaneus EE u u 

Hawk, Broad-winged Buteo platypterus cuHawk, Cooper's Accipiter cooperii uuHawk, Red-shouldered Buteo lineatus TE TX uuHawk, Red-tailed Buteo Jamaicensis ccHawk, Rough-legged Buteo lagopus u Hawk, Sharp-shinned Accipiter striatus cuHawk, Swainson's Buteo swainsoni E X 2 Osprey Panion haliaetus E T uu

Herons, Egrets, and BitternsBittern, American Botaurus lentiginosus E X uu

Bittern, Least Ixobrychus exilis T uuEgret, Cattle Bubulcus ibis urEgret, Great Casmerodius albus T acEgret, Snowy Egretta thula E E rr 

Birds

Federally (T or E) 

1

Illinois (T or E) 

1

Iowa (T or E) 

1

Minnesota (T or E) 

1

Wisconsin (T or E) 

1

RCP 

2

PIF Region 16 or 32 

3

ABC Green List 

4

Spring 

5

Summer 5 

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

654

Heron, Black-crowned Night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax E X uu

Heron, Great Blue Ardea herodias aaHeron, Green Butorides striatus ccHeron, Little Blue Egretta caerulea E 2u Heron, Tri-Colored Egretta tricolor 

Heron, Yellow-crowned Night-heron Nycticorax violaceus E T urHummingbirdsHummingbird, Ruby-throated Archilochus colubris ucIbisesIbis, Glossy Plegadis falcinellusIbis,White Eudocimus albus Ibis, White-faced Plegadis chihiKingfishersKingfisher, Belted Ceryle alcyon ccKingletsKinglet, Golden-crowned Regulas satrapa u Kinglet, Ruby-crowned Regulas calendula cLarksLark, Horned Eremophila alpestris rrBirds

Federally (T or E) 1

Illinois (T or E) 1

Iowa (T or E) 1

Minnesota (T or E) 1

Wisconsin (T or E) 1

RCP 2

PIF Region 16 or 32 3

ABC Green List 4

Spring 5

Summer 5 

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

655

LoonsLoon, Arctic Gavia arctica Loon, Common Gavia immer uLoon, Red-throated Gavia stellata Mockingbirds and ThrashersCatbird, Gray Dumetella carolinensis ccMockingbird, Northern Mimus polyglottos ruThrasher, Brown Toxostoma rufum ccNightjarsNighthawk, Common Chordeiles minor ccWhip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus X 16 u u NuthatchesNuthatch, Red-breasted Sitta canadensis u Nuthatch, White-breasted Sitta carolinensis ccOwlsOwl, Barred Strix varia ccOwl, Eastern Screech-owl Otus asio 16 u u Owl, Great Horned Bubo virginianus ccOwl, Long-eared Asio otus T X 16 u r Owl, Northern Hawk Surnia ulula Birds

Federally (T or E) 

1

Illinois (T or E) 

1

Iowa (T or E) 

1

Minnesota (T or E) 

1

Wisconsin (T or E) 

1

RCP 

2

PIF Region 16 or 32 

3

ABC Green List 

4

Spring 

5

Summer 5 

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

656

Owl, Northern Saw-whet Aegolius acadicus Owl, Short-eared Asio flammeus E E X 16 2 u 

Owl, Snowy Nyctea scandiaca r 

Old World SparrowsSparrow, House Passer domesticus aaPelicansPelican, American White Pelecanus erythrothynchos cuPheasants, Grouse, and QuailBobwhite, Northern Clinus virginianus 16 u u Grouse, Ruffed Bonasa umbellus ccPartridge, Gray Perdix perdix Pheasant, Ring-necked Phasianus colchicus uuTurkey, Wild Meleagris gallopavo uuPipitsPipit, American Anthus rubescens rPloversKilldeer Charadrius vociferus ccPlover, American Golden- Pluvialis dominica 2u Plover, Black-bellied Pluvialis squatarola uPlover, Semipalmated Gharadrius semipalmatus uuBirds

Federally (T or E) 1

Illinois (T or E) 1

Iowa (T or E) 1

Minnesota (T or E) 1

Wisconsin (T or E) 1

RCP 2

PIF Region 16 or 32 3

ABC Green List 4

Spring 5

Summer 5 

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

657

Rails and CootsCoot, American Fulica americana arMoorhen, Common Gallinula chloropus T X uu

Rail, King Rallus elegans EEE X 1 r r Rail, Virginia Rallus limicola ccSora Porzana carolina cc

Sandpipers and AlliesDowitcher, Long-billed Limnodromus scolopaceus u Dowitcher, Short-billed Limnodromus griseus X 2uuDunlin Calidris alpina 2uuCurlew, Long-billed Numenius Americanus 1 Godwit, Hudsonian Limosa haemastica X 2r Godwit, Marbled Limosa fedoa X 2r Knot, Red Calidris canutus 3 Phalarope, Red-necked Phalaropus lobatus rPhalarope, Wilson's Phalaropus tricolor E T X 16 2 u u 

Ruff Philomachus pugnax 

Sanderling Calidris alba 2uuSandpiper, Baird's Calidris bairdii uuSandpiper, Least Calidris minutilla ccBirds

Federally (T or E) 

1

Illinois (T or E) 

1

Iowa (T or E) 

1

Minnesota (T or E) 

1

Wisconsin (T or E) 

1

RCP 

2

PIF Region 16 or 32 

3

ABC Green List 

4

Spring 

5

Summer 5 

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

658

Sandpiper, Pectoral Calidris melanotos ccSandpiper, Semipalmated Calidris pusilla 2ccSandpiper, Solitary Tringa solitaria 2uuSandpiper, Spotted Actitis macularia ccSandpiper, Stilt Calidris himantopus X 2uuSandpiper, Upland Bartramia longicauda E X 16 2 r r 

Sandpiper, Western Calidris mauri 2r Sandpiper, White-rumped Calidris fuscicollis uuSnipe, Common Gallinago gallinago cuTurnstone, Ruddy Arenaria interpres urWillet Catoptophorus semipalatus rrWoodcock, American Scolopax minor X 16 2 u u Yellowlegs, Greater Tinga melanoleuca X uuYellowlegs, Lesser Tringa flavipes 2cc

ShrikesShrike, Loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus T T E X 32,16 r r 

Shrike, Northern Lanius excubitor u 

StarlingsStarling, European Strunus vulgaris aaBirds

Federally (T or E) 1

Illinois (T or E) 1

Iowa (T or E) 1

Minnesota (T or E) 1

Wisconsin (T or E) 1

RCP 2

PIF Region 16 or 32 3

ABC Green List 4

Spring 5

Summer 5 

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

659

SwallowsMartin, Purple Progne subis uuSwallow, Bank Riparia riparia cuSwallow, Barn Hirundo rustica ccSwallow, Cliff Hirundo pyrrhonota urSwallow, Northern Rough-winged Stelgidopteryx serripennis ccSwallow, Tree Tachycineta bicolor aaSwiftsSwift, Chimney Chaetura vauxi ccTanagersTanager, Scarlet Piranga olivacea cuTanager, Summer Piranga rubraTanager, Western Piranga ludovicianaThrushes and AlliesBluebird, Eastern Sialia sialis ccRobin, American Turdus migratorius aaThrush, Gray-cheeked Catharus minimus cThrush, Hermit Catharus guttatus uThrush, Swainson's Catharus ustulatus uThrush, Wood Hylocichla mustelina X 16 2 c u Birds

Federally (T or E) 1

Illinois (T or E) 1

Iowa (T or E) 1

Minnesota (T or E) 1

Wisconsin (T or E) 1

RCP 2

PIF Region 16 or 32 3

ABC Green List 4

Spring 5

Summer 5 

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

660

Veery Catharus fuscescens urTyrant FlycatchersFlycatcher, Acadian Empidonax virescens T r r Flycatcher, Alder Empdonax alnorum r Flycatcher, Great Crested Myiarchus crinitus caFlycatcher, Least Empidonax minimus ccFlycatcher, Olive-sided Contopus borealis X 2ruFlycatcher, Willow Empidonax traillii 2uuFlycatcher, Yellow-bellied Empidonax flaviventris rrKingbird, Eastern Tyrannus tyrannus ccKingbird, Western Tyrannus verticalisPewee, Eastern Wood- Contopus virens ccPhoebe, Eastern Sayornis phoebe cuVireosVireo, Bell's Vireo bellii T X 16 2 r r Vireo, Blue-headed Vireo solitarius uuVireo, Philadelphia Vireo philadelphicus uVireo, Red-eyed Vireo olivaceus aaVireo, Warbling Vireo gilvus aaVireo, White-eyed Vireo griseus rr Birds

Federally (T or E) 1

Illinois (T or E) 1

Iowa (T or E) 1

Minnesota (T or E) 1

Wisconsin (T or E) 1

RCP 2

PIF Region 16 or 32 3

ABC Green List 4

Spring 5

Summer 5 

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

661

Vireo, Yellow-throated Vireo flavifrons uu VulturesVulture, Turkey Cathartes aura ccWaxwingsWaxwing, Bohemian Bonbycilla garrulus Waxwing, Cedar Bonbycilla cedrorum ccWood WarblersChat, Yellow-breasted Icteria virens rr Ovenbird Seiurus aruocapillus cuParula, Northern Parula americana rRedstart, American Setophaga ruticilla aaWarbler, Bay-breasted Dendroica castanea 2r Warbler, Black-and-white Mniotilta varia cWarbler, Blackburnian Dendroica fusca cWarbler, Blackpoll Dendroica striata cWarbler, Black-throated Blue Dnedroica caeruulescens rWarbler, Black-throated Green Dendroica virens uWarbler, Blue-winged Vermivora pius x 16 3 u u Warbler, Canada Wilsonia canadensis 2r Warbler, Cape May Dendroica tigrina uBirds

Federally (T or E) 1

Illinois (T or E) 1

Iowa (T or E) 1

Minnesota (T or E) 1

Wisconsin (T or E) 1

RCP 2

PIF Region 16 or 32 3

ABC Green List 4

Spring 5

Summer 5 

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

662

Warbler, Cerulean Dendroica cerulea T 2uu Warbler, Chestnut-sided Dendroica pensylvanica cWarbler, Connecticut Oporornis agilis rWarbler, Golden-winged Vermivora chrysoptera 1uuWarbler, Hooded Wilsonia citrina T rr Warbler, Kentucky Oporornis formosus T 2rr Warbler, Magnolia Dendroica magnolia uWarbler, Mourning Oporornis philadelphia rrWarbler, Nashville Vermivora ruficapilla cWarbler, Orange-crowned Vermivora celata rWarbler, Palm Dendroica palmarum cWarbler, Pine Dendroica pinus rWarbler, Prothonotary Protonotaria citrea 2cc Warbler, Tennessee Vermivora peregrina cWarbler, Wilson's Wilsonia pusilla uWarbler, Worm-eating Helmitheros vermivorous E2 Warbler, Yellow Dendroica petechia aaWarbler, Yellow-rumped Dendroica coronata aWarbler, Yellow-throated Dendroica dominica rr Waterthrush, Louisiana Seiurus motacilla uuBirds

Federally (T or E) 1

Illinois (T or E) 1

Iowa (T or E) 1

Minnesota (T or E) 1

Wisconsin (T or E) 1

RCP 2

PIF Region 16 or 32 3

ABC Green List 4

Spring 5

Summer 5 

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

663

Waterthrush, Northern Seiurus noveboracensis cYellowthroat, Common Geothlypis trichas aaWoodpeckersFlicker, Northern Colaptes auratus ccSapsucker, Yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius ccWoodpecker, Downy Picoides pubescens ccWoodpecker, Hairy Picoides villosus ccWoodpecker, Pileated Dryocopus pileatus uuWoodpecker, Red-bellied Melaneres carolinus ccWoodpecker, Red-headed Melaneres erythrocephalus X 16 2 u u WrensWren, Bewick's Thryomanes bewickii E E X 16 r 

Wren, Carolina Thryothorus ludovicianus rrWren, House Troglodytes aedon aaWren, Marsh Cistothrous palustris ccWren, Sedge Cistothorus platensis X 16 u u Wren, Winter Troglodytes troglodytes uu

Birds

Federally (T or E) 

1

Illinois (T or E) 

1

Iowa (T or E) 

1

Minnesota (T or E) 

1

Wisconsin (T or E) 

1

RCP 

2

PIF Region 16 or 32 

3

ABC Green List 

4

Spring 

5

Summer 5 

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

664

1 E. (Endangered) 

 T. (Threatened) 

2 RCP. (Resource Conservation Priority for Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3)3 Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plan for Dissected Till Plains (Physiographic area 32) or Partners in Flight Plan for the Upper Gre

(Physiographic area 16)

4 American Bird Conservancy Green List 1, 2, or 3:

 1. Highest continental concern 2. Moderately abundant species with declines or high threats  3. Species with restricted distributions and low population size

5 a. abundant (seasonally numerous)

 c. Common (almost certain to be seen) u. Uncommon (present but seen only occasionally) r. Rare (seen at intervals of 2-5 yrs.)

Birds

Federally (T or E) 1

Illinois (T or E) 1

Iowa (T or E) 1

Minnesota (T or E) 1

Wisconsin (T or E) 1

RCP 2

PIF Region 16 or 32 3

ABC Green List 4

Spring 5

Summer 5 

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

665

Fish* 

Federally (T or E) 1Illinois (T or E) 1Iowa (T or E) 1Minnesota (T or E) 1Wisconsin (T or E) 1RCP 2Pool 4 3Pool 5 3Pool 5A 3Pool 6 3Pool 7 3Pool 8 3Pool 9 3Pool 10 3Pool 11 3Pool 12 3Pool 13 3Pool 14 3

Common Name Family (Scientific Name)

Temporate Bass Percichthyidae

Bass, White Morone chrysops ACCCCCCCCCCC

Bass, Yellow Morone mississippiensis H OORUUUUOU

Bass, Striped hybrid Morone saxatilis X XX

Bowfin Amiidae

Bowfin Amia calva CCCCCCCCCCCC

Catfish Ictaluridae

Bullhead, Black Ameiurus melas UOOOOUOOOOOO

Bullhead, Brown Ameiurus nebulosus ROOOOROUUHHH

Bullhead, Yellow Ameiurus natalis UOOOOUOOOOOO

Catfish, Blue Ictalurus furcatus H HH

Catfish, Channel Ictalurus punctatus CCCCCCCCCCCC

Catfish, Flathead Pylodictis olivaris OOOOOOOOOOOO

Madtom Freckled Noturus nocturnus E RH

Madtom, Tadpole Noturus gyrinus OOOOOOOOOO0 O

Stonecat Noturus flavus RO H RUUUUUU

Cod Gadidae

Burbot Lota lota T UO UUUUU R

Pirate Perch Aphredoderidae

Perch, Pirate Aphredoderus sayanus S

C

S

C

S

C

XXXXOR HHHH

Drums Scieaenidae

Drum, Freshwater Aplodinotus grunniens ACCCCCAAAAAA

Eels Anguillidae

Eel, American Arguilla rostrata S

C

OOOOO UUUUUUU

Gar Lepisosteidae

Gar, Longnose Lepisosteus osseus CCCCCCCCCCCC

Gar, Shortnose Lepisosteus platostomus CCCCOOCCCCCC

Gar, Spotted Lepisosteus oculatus R
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

666

Herring Clupeidae

Herring, Skipjack Alosa chrysochloris S

C

E RRRH HHHH RR

Shad, Gizzard Dorosoma cepedianum AAAAAAAAAAAA

Killifish Cyprinodontidae

Topminnow, 

Blackstripe

Fundulus notatus UUU R

Topminnow, Starhead Fundulus dispar E R

Lampreys Petromyzontidae

Lamprey, Chestnut Ichthyomyzon castaneus T UU HUUUUUUU

Lamprey, Silver Ichtyomyzon unicuspis OOOOHUOOOOOO

Lamprey, American 

Brook

Lampetra appendix T X

Minnows Cyprinidae

Carp, Bighead Hypophthalmichthys 

nobilis

R

Carp, Common Cyprinus carpio AAAAAAAAAAAA

Carp, Grass Ctenopharyngodon idella R R RRRUUU

Chub, Creek Semotilus atromaculatus XX XXXXXXX

Chub, Silver Macrhybopsis storeriana S

C

CCCCCCCCCCCC

Chub, Speckled Macrhybopsis aestivalis T OCCCCROCCCOC

Dace, Southern 

Redbelly 

Phoxinus erythrogaster XXXXXX

Dace, Blacknose Rhynichtys atratulus X X

Dace, Pearl Margariscus margarita X

Goldfish Carassius auratus XXX

Minnow, Bluntnose Pimephales notatus OOOOOROOOORO

Minnow, Brassy Hybognathus hankinsoni RRRRRRRR

Minnow, Bullhead Pimephales vigilax CAAAAACCCAAC

Minnow, Fathead Pimephales promelas RUUUUOUUUURU

Fish* 

Federally (T or E) 1Illinois (T or E) 1Iowa (T or E) 1Minnesota (T or E) 1Wisconsin (T or E) 1RCP 2Pool 4 3Pool 5 3Pool 5A 3Pool 6 3Pool 7 3Pool 8 3Pool 9 3Pool 10 3Pool 11 3Pool 12 3Pool 13 3Pool 14 3

Common Name Family (Scientific Name)
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

667

Minnow, Mississippi 

Silvery 

Hybognathus nuchalis RUUUUOUUUUUO

Minnow, Pugnose Opsopoeodus emiliae S

C

S

C

S

C

OOOOOCOOOOOR

Minnow, Suckermouth Phenacobius mirabilis XX HRHURRR

Shiner, Bigmouth Notropis dorsalis ROOOOROOOORR

Shiner, Channel Notropis wickliffi C C

Shiner, Common Luxilis cornutus XOOOORXXX XR

Shiner, Emerald Notropis atherinoides AAAAAAAAAAAA

Shiner, Ghost Notropis buchanani HHHHHHHHRHHH

Shiner, Golden Notemigonus crysoleucas UOOOOOOOOOOO

Shiner, Mimic Notropis volucellus CCOHHCUUU R

Shiner, Pallid Notropis amnis E RHH RRHRH RR

Shiner, Pugnose Notropis anogenus X X

Shiner, Red Cyprinella lutrensis R

Shiner, Redfin Lythrurus umbratillis O

Shiner, River Notropis blennius CAAAAAAAAAAA

Shiner, Rosyface Notropis rubellus XX HR

Shiner, Sand Notropis stramineus UOOOOOOOOOUC

Shiner, Silverband Notropis shumardi R X

Shiner, Spotfin Cyprinella spiloptera CCCCCCCCCCCC

Shiner, Spottail Notropis hudsonius CCCCCCCCCCCC

Shiner, Weed Notropis texanus EE UUUUOOUUUUR

Stoneroller, Central Campostoma anomalum X XXXXXXXX

Mooneye Hiodontidae

Goldeye Hiodon alosoides E RRRRRR UUURRR

Mooneye Hiodon tergisus CCCCCOOOUCOC

Mosquitofish Poeciliidae

Mosquitofish, Western Gambusia affinis R

Mudminnows Umbridae

Fish* 

Federally (T or E) 1Illinois (T or E) 1Iowa (T or E) 1Minnesota (T or E) 1Wisconsin (T or E) 1RCP 2Pool 4 3Pool 5 3Pool 5A 3Pool 6 3Pool 7 3Pool 8 3Pool 9 3Pool 10 3Pool 11 3Pool 12 3Pool 13 3Pool 14 3

Common Name Family (Scientific Name)
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

668

Mudminnow, Central Umbra limi X XRUUURRR

Paddlefish Polydontidae

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula T T XUUURRROOOOOO

Perch Percidae

Darter, Banded Etheostoma zonale XXX

Darter, Blackside Percina maculata XX HHHH

Darter, Bluntnose Etheostoma chlorosomum E S

C

E HH RRR

Darter, Fantail Etheostoma flabellare XX HHHXXX

Darter, Western Sand Ammocrypta clara T S

C

OOOOOOOOOOUU

Darter, Iowa Etheostoma exile E XXXRRHH

Darter, Johnny Etheostoma nigrum OUUUOOOOOOOO

Darter, Mud Etheostoma asprigene S

C

UURHUOOHHOOO

Darter, Rainbow Etheostoma caeruleum X X

Darter, River Percina shumardi OCCCUO UUUCCU

Darter, Slenderhead Percina phoxocephala UR RRUR HUUU

Darter, Crystal Ammocrypta asperella S

C

EXRRUH RRRR R

Logperch Percina caprodes CCCCCCCCCC

C

O O

Perch, Yellow Perca flavescens CCCCCCCCCCOO

Sauger Stizostedion canadense ACCCCCCCCCCC

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum XCCCCCCCCCCCC

Pike Esocidae

Muskellunge Esox masquinongy XXXHHHHHH

Pickerel, Grass Esox americanus 

vermiculatus

T XRXRRR

Pike, Northern Esox lucius CCCCCOCCCCCO

Smelt Osmeridae

Fish* 

Federally (T or E) 1Illinois (T or E) 1Iowa (T or E) 1Minnesota (T or E) 1Wisconsin (T or E) 1RCP 2Pool 4 3Pool 5 3Pool 5A 3Pool 6 3Pool 7 3Pool 8 3Pool 9 3Pool 10 3Pool 11 3Pool 12 3Pool 13 3Pool 14 3

Common Name Family (Scientific Name)
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

669

Smelt, Rainbow Osmerus mordax X

Silversides Atherinidae

Silverside, Brook Labidesthes sicculus UCCCCOCCCCCC

Sturgeon Acipenseridae

Sturgeon, Lake Acipenser fulvescens EES

C

S

C

XUURH HRRR RR

Sturgeon, Shovelnose Scaphirhynchus 

platorynchus

S

C

XOOOOOOOOOOOO

Sticklebacks Gasterosteidae

Stickleback, Brook Culaea inconstans X XRUUUXXX

Suckers Catostomidae

Buffalo, Bigmouth Ictiobus cyprinellus OCCCCCCCCCCC

Buffalo, Black Ictiobus niger T RHHHRRUUUUUU

Buffalo, Smallmouth Ictiobus bubalus OOOOOCCCCCCC

Carpsucker, Highfin Carpiodes velifer UOOOO UUUUOOO

Carpsucker, River Carpiodes carpio OCCCCOAAACCC

Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus CCCCCCCCCUUC

Redhorse, Black Moxostoma dequesneii X X

Redhorse, Golden Moxostoma erythrurum OUUUUOOUUUOO

Redhorse, Greater Moxostoma valenciennesi RH HRRR

Redhorse, River Moxostoma carinatum T T OOOOOOU HHHHH

Redhorse, Shorthead Moxostoma 

macrolepidotum

CCCCCCCCCCCC

Redhorse, Silver Moxostoma anisurum COOOOOO UUUUU

Sucker, Blue Cycleptus elongatus S

C

T UURRHUUUUUUU

Sucker, Longnose Catostromus catostromus X

Sucker, Northern hog Hypentelium nigricans URRRXR XXXRRX

Sucker, Spotted Minytrema melanops CCCCCOCCCOCO

Sucker, White Catostomus commersoni OCCCC UUUUUUU

Fish* 

Federally (T or E) 1Illinois (T or E) 1Iowa (T or E) 1Minnesota (T or E) 1Wisconsin (T or E) 1RCP 2Pool 4 3Pool 5 3Pool 5A 3Pool 6 3Pool 7 3Pool 8 3Pool 9 3Pool 10 3Pool 11 3Pool 12 3Pool 13 3Pool 14 3

Common Name Family (Scientific Name)
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

670

Sunfish Centrarchidae

Bass, Largemouth Micropterus salmoides CCCCCCCCCCCC

Bass, Rock Ambliplites rupestris CCCCCOCCCROU

Bass, Smallmouth Micropterus dolomieu COOOOOOOOOOO

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus AAAAAAAAAAAA

Crappie, Black Pomoxis nigromaculatus CCCCCCCCCCCC

Crappie, White Pomoxis annularis OCCCCOCCCCCC

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus OOOCCCCCCCCC

Sunfish, Green Lepomis cyanellus OOOOOO UUUOUO

Sunfish, Orangespotted

Lepomis humilis ROOOOOOOOOOO

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus UUOUOOOOOU

Trout-perch Salmonidae

Trout, Brook Salvelinus fontinalis XXX XXXX

Trout, Brown Salmo trutta Xx XXXX XX

Trout, Lake Salvelinus namaycush X XXX X

Trout, Rainbow Oncorhynchus mykiss XX XXXXX XX

Trout-perch Percopsidae

Trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus OOOOOUHOO H

* Species list and pool distribution adapted from Pitlo, John, Jr., et al. 1995. Distribution and Relative Abundance of Upper 

Mississippi River Fishes. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, IL. 

1 E. (Endangered); T. (Threatened)

 T. (Threatened) S.C. (Special Concern)

2 RCP. (Resource Conservation Priority for Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3) 

3

 X. Probably occurs only as a stray from a tributary or inland stocking.

 H. Records of occurrence are available, but no collections have been documented in the last 10 yrs.

 R. Considered to be rare. Some species in this category may be on the verge of extirpation.

Fish* 

Federally (T or E) 1Illinois (T or E) 1Iowa (T or E) 1Minnesota (T or E) 1Wisconsin (T or E) 1RCP 2Pool 4 3Pool 5 3Pool 5A 3Pool 6 3Pool 7 3Pool 8 3Pool 9 3Pool 10 3Pool 11 3Pool 12 3Pool 13 3Pool 14 3

Common Name Family (Scientific Name)
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

671

 U. Uncommon. Does not usually appear in sample collections; populations are small, but the species

 do not appear to be on the verge of extirpation.

 O. Occasionally collected. Not generally distributed, but local concentrations may occur. 

 C. Commonly taken in most sample collections. Can make up a large portion of some samples.

 A. Abundantly taken in all river surveys.

Fish* 

Federally (T or E) 1Illinois (T or E) 1Iowa (T or E) 1Minnesota (T or E) 1Wisconsin (T or E) 1RCP 2Pool 4 3Pool 5 3Pool 5A 3Pool 6 3Pool 7 3Pool 8 3Pool 9 3Pool 10 3Pool 11 3Pool 12 3Pool 13 3Pool 14 3

Common Name Family (Scientific Name)
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

672

Mammals

Federally (T or E)Illinois (T or E)Iowa (T or E)Minnesota (T or E)Wisconsin (T or E)RCP

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)

Bats

Bat, Big Brown Eptescius fuscus

Bat, Hoary Lasiurus cinerus

Bat, Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis

Bat, Little Brown Myotis lucifugus

Bat, Red Lasiurus borealis

Bat, Silver-haired Lasionycteris noctivagans

Pipistrel, Eastern Pipistrellus subflavus

Carnivores

Badger Taxida taxus

Bear, Black Ursus americanus

Bobcat Lynx rufus T

Coyote Canis latrans

Fox, Gray Urocyon cineroargenteus

Fox, Red Vulpes fulva

Mink Mustela vison

Otter, River Lutra canadensis T

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Skunk, Spotted Spilogale putorius E T

Skunk, Striped Mephitis mephitis

Weasel, Least Mustela nivalis

Weasel, Long-tailed Mustela frenata

Weasel, Short-tailed Mustela erminea

Hooved Animals

Deer, White-tailed Odocoileus virginianus

Insectivores

Mole, Eastern Scalopus aquaticus

Mole, Starnose Condylura cristata

Shrew, Least Cryptotis parva T

Shrew, Masked Sorex cinereus

Shrew, Short-tailed Blarina brevicauda
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

673

Marsupials

Opossum, Virginia Didelphis virginiana

Rabbits 

Rabbit, Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus

Rodents

Beaver Castor canadensis

Chipmunk, Eastern Tamias striatus

Gopher, Plains Pocket Geomys bursarius

Mouse, Plains Pocket Perognathus flavescens E

Lemming, Southern Bog Synaptomys cooperi T

Mouse, Deer Peromyscus maniculatus

Mouse, House Mus musculus

Mouse, Meadow Jumping Zapus hudsonius

Mouse, Western Harvest Reithrodontomy megalotis

Mouse, White-footed Peromyscus leucopus

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Rat, Norway Rattus norvegicus

Squirrel, Eastern Fox Sciurus niger

Squirrel, Eastern Gray Sciurus carolinensus

Squirrel, Franklin's Ground Spermophilis franklinii

Squirrel, Red Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

Squirrel, Southern Flying Glaucomys volans

Squirrel, Thirteen-lined Ground Spermophilus tridecemlineatus

Vole, Meadow Microtus pennsylvanicus

Vole, Woodland Microtus pinetorum

Vole, Prairie Microtus ochrogastor

Woodchuck Mormota monax

1

 E. (Endangered)

 T. (Threatened)

2

 RCP. (Resource Conservation Priority for Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3) 

Mammals

Federally (T or E)Illinois (T or E)Iowa (T or E)Minnesota (T or E)Wisconsin (T or E)RCP

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

674

Freshwater Mussels

Federally (T or E) 1Illinois (T or E) 1Iowa (T or E) 1Minnesota (T or E) 1Wisconsin (T or E) 1RCP 2Status on Refuge 3

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)

Dreissenidae

Zebra Mussel Dreissena polymorpha X

Corbiculidae

Asiatic Clam Corbicula fluminea X

Unionidae

Cumberlandinae

Spectaclecase Cumberlandia monodonta C E E T E X R: Pool 10

Ambleminae

Washboard Magalonaias nervosa SC T X R: Pool 10 & 

Below

Pistolgrip (Buckhorn) Tritogonia verrucosa ET T X

Mapleleaf Quadrula quadrula X

Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra T X

Wartyback Quadrula nodulata E R

Pimpleback Quadrula pustulosa X

Threeridge Amblema plicata X

Ebonyshell Fusconaia ebena T E E R: Pools 9, 10, 11

Wabash Pigtoe Fusconaia flava

Purple Wartyback Cyclonaias tuberculata T T E R: Pool 4

Sheepnose Plethobasus cyphyus CEEEEX

Round Pigtoe Pleurobema sintoxia E T SC X

Spike Elliptio dilatata T SC

Anodontinae

Paper Pondshell Utterbackia imbecillis

Flat Floater Anodonta suborbiculata SC X

Giant Floater Pyganodon grandis

Creeper (aka Squawfoot) Strophitus undulatus
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

675

Elktoe Alasmidonta marginata T SC X Pools 6 & 8

Rock Pocketbook Arcidens confragosus ETX

Salamander Mussel Simpsonaias ambigua C ET T X

White Heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata X

Fluted Shell Lasmigona costata T SC T R: Pool 10

Lampsilinae

Threehorn Wartyback Obliquaria reflexa

Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina T X Pool 11

Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata TTTEX

Hickorynut Obovaria olivaria SC

Deertoe Truncilla truncata

Fawnsfoot Truncilla donaciformis

Fragile Papershell Leptodea fragilis

Pink Papershell Potamilus ohiensis

Pink Heelsplitter Potamilus alatus X

Lilliput Toxolasma parvus

Black Sandshell Ligumia recta SC X

Yellow Sandshell Lampsilis teres 

anodontoides

EEEX

Slough Sandshell Lampsilis teres teres E E Pools 10, 11

Fat Mucket Lampsilis siliquoidea X

Higgins Eye Lampsilis higginsii E E E E E X R: Pools 7-14

Plain Pocketbook Lampsilis cardium

Sphaeriidae

Fingernail Clam Musculium transversum

Freshwater Mussels

Federally (T or E) 1Illinois (T or E) 1Iowa (T or E) 1Minnesota (T or E) 1Wisconsin (T or E) 1RCP 2Status on Refuge 3

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

676

1

 C. (Candidate) 

 E. (Endangered) 

 T. (Threatened)

 X. (Extirpated)

 SC. (Special Concern)

2 RCP. (Resource Conservation Priority for Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3)

3

 Status on Refuge: Species present in most pools, unless otherwise noted. 

 R. Rare, only isolated occurrences in Refuge area.

Freshwater Mussels

Federally (T or E) 1Illinois (T or E) 1Iowa (T or E) 1Minnesota (T or E) 1Wisconsin (T or E) 1RCP 2Status on Refuge 3

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

677

Reptiles

Federally (T or E) 1Illinois (T or E) 1Iowa (T or E) 1Minnesota (T or E) 1Wisconsin (T or E) 1RCP 2

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)

Lizards

Racerunner, Six-lined Cnemidophorus sexlineatus

Snakes

Bullsnake, Gopher Pituophis melanoleucus

Rattlesnake, Eastern Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus CEEEEX

Rattlesnake, Timber Crotalus horridus TTX

Snake, Blue Racer Coluber constrictor foxi

Snake, Brown Storeria dekayi

Snake, Eastern Garter Thamnophis sirtalis

Snake, Eastern Hognose Heterodon platirhinos

Snake, Fox Elaphe vulpina

Snake Graham's Crayfish Regina Grahamii

Snake, Kirtland's Water Snake Clonophis Kirtlandii) T

Snake, Milk Lampropeltis triangulum

Snake, Northern Red-bellied Storeria occipitomaculata

Snake, Northern Water Nerodia sipedon

Snake, Plains Garter Thamnophis radix

Snake, Prairie Lined Tropidoclonion lineatum

Snake, Rat Elaphe obsoleta

Snake, Ringneck Diadophis punctatus

Snake, Smooth Green Opheodrys vernalis

Snake, Western Hognose Heterodon nasicus T

Turtles

Turtle, Blanding's Emydoidea blandingii TTTT

Turtle, Common Musk Sternotherus odoratus

Turtle, False Map Graptemys pseudogeographica

Turtle, Common Map Graptemys geographica
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

678

Turtle, Ornate Box Terrapene ornata T E

Turtle, Painted Chysemys picta

Turtle, Smooth Softshell Apalone mutica

Turtle, Snapping Chelydra serpentina

Turtle, Spiny Softshell Apalone spinifera

Turtle, Ouachita Map Graptemys ouachitensis

Turtle, Wood Clemmys insculpta ETT

1

 E. (Endangered) 

 T. (Threatened) 

2

 RCP. (Resource Conservation Priority for Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3)

Reptiles

Federally (T or E) 1Illinois (T or E) 1Iowa (T or E) 1Minnesota (T or E) 1Wisconsin (T or E) 1RCP 2

Common Name Species (Scientific Name)
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

679

Plant Species Found on the Refuge

The following list is derived from Galatowitsch, S.M.; McAdams, T.V.; July, 1994; Distribution and 

Requirements of Plants on the Upper Mississippi River NWR: Literature Review. Iowa Cooperative 

Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Ames, Iowa.

The floristic list was compiled from published records for the Upper Mississippi River; e.g., 

Mohlenbrock (1983), Peck and Smart (1986), Swanson and Sohmer (1978). Nomenclature follows 

Gleason and Cronquist (1991). General geographic distribution was obtained from Gleason and 

Cronquist (1991).

Distribution

Ubiquitous: Range extending across all UMR pools.

Northern: Range not reaching to southern pools.

Southern: Range restricted to southern pools ofthe UMR.

* Denotes species not indigenous to North America.

** Denotes species added to the list in 2004 by the Refuge.

Key to Plant Guilds

Woody Plant Guilds Semi-aquatic and Terrestrial 

Herbaceous Guilds

FTPT Flood-tolerant Pioneering Trees SE Spring Ephemerals

FIPT Flood-intolerant Pioneering 

Trees

AWF Autumnal Woodland Forbs

SF Swamp Forest Trees WG Woodland Graminoids

SFT Softwood Floodplain Trees V Vines

BHT Bottomland Hardwood Trees MF Meadow Forbs

FTPS Flood-tolerant Pioneering Shrubs MG Meadow Graminoids

FTSS Flood-tolerant Stable Shrubs SAF Semi-aquatic Annual Forbs

WS Woodland shrubs SAG Semi-aquatic Annual 

Grasses

Aquatic Guilds TAF Terrestrial Annual Forbs

EP Emergent Perennials PP Parasitic Plants

EA Emergent Annuals

RSA Rooted Submersed Aquatics

USA Unrooted Submersed Aquatics

FP Floating Perennials

FA Floating Annuals
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

680

Plant Species Found on Upper Mississippi River Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name Family Distrib. Guild

Alder Alnus serrulata (Ait.) Willd. Betulaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Alder buckthorn Rhamnus frangula L.* Rhamnaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

American bindweed Convolvulus arvensis L.* Convolvulaceae Ubiquitous V

American bugleweed Lycopus americanus Muhl. Lamiaceae Ubiquitous MF

American elm Ulmus americana L. Ulmaceae Ubiquitous SFT

American fever-few Parthenium integrifolium L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

American germander Teucrium canadense L. Lamiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Aquatic liverwort Riccia fluitans Ricciaceae Ubiquitous FA

Arrow arum Peltandra virginica (L.) schott & 

Endl. 

Araceae Ubiquitous EP

Arrow-leaved violet Viola sagittata Ait. Violaceae Ubiquitous MF

Asiatic dayflower Commelina communis L. Commelinaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Awned cyperus Cyperus squarrosus L. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous SAG

Bald cypress Taxodium distichum (L.) Rich. Taxodiaceae Ubiquitous SF

Bald spikerush Eleocharis erythropoda Steud. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Barnyard grass Echinochloa crusgalli (L.) Beauv. Poaceae Ubiquitous SAG

Barnyard grass Echinochloa muricata (Beauv.) Fern. Poaceae Ubiquitous SAG

Basswood Tilia americana L. Tiliaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Bead grass Paspalum fluitans (Elliott) Kunth. Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Beaked sedge Carex rostrata Stokes. Cyperaceae Northern MG

Bebb's sedge Carex bebbii Olney Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Bellwort Uvularia grandiflora J.E. Smith Liliaceae Ubiquitous SE

Bicknell's sedge Carex bicknellii Britt. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Biennial gaura Gaura biennis D. Onagraceae Ubiquitous TAF

Big bluestem Andropogon gerardii Vitman Poaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Bigleaf pondweed Potamogeton amplifolius Tuckerm. Potamogetonaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Bitter cress Cardamine hirsuta L. Brassicaceae Ubiquitous MF

Bitter cress Cardamine pennsylvanica Muhl. Brassicaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Bitternut hickory Carya cordiformis (Wang.) K. Koch Juglandaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Bittersweet Solanum dulcamara L. Solanaceae Ubiquitous MF

Black Ash Fraxinus nigra Marsh. Oleaceae Northern SFT

Black bulrush Scirpus atrovirens Willd. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Black cherry Prunus serotina Ehrh. Rosaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Black locust Robinia pseudo-acacia L.* Fabaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Black mustard Brassica nigra L. Brassicaceae Ubiquitous TAF
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

681

Black nightshade Solanum nigrum L. Solanaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Black oak Quercus velutina Lam. Fagaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Black raspberry Rubus occidentalis L. Rosaceae Ubiquitous WS

Black walnut Juglans nigra L. Juglandaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Black willow Salix nigra Marsh. Salicaceae Ubiquitous FTPT

Blackberry lily Belamcanda chinensis (L.) DC.* Iridaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Black-eyed susan Rudbeckia hirta L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

Blackjack oak Quercus marilandica Muench. Fagaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Bladdernut Staphylea trifolia L. Staphyleaceae Ubiquitous WS

Bland sweet cicely Osmorhiza claytonii (Michx.) Apiaceae Ubiquitous SE

Blood polygala Polygala sanguinea L. Polygonaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Bloodroot Sanguinaria canadensls L. Papaveraceae Ubiquitous SE

Blue flag Iris virginica L. var. shrevei (Small) 

E. Anders.

Iridaceae Ubiquitous EP

Blue vervain Verbena hastata L. Verbenaceae Ubiquitous MF

Blue-joint Calamagrostis canadensis (Michx.) 

Nutt. 

Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Blunt broom sedge Carex tribuloides Wahl. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Bluntleaf bedstraw Galium obtusum bigel. Rubiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Blunt-lobed woodsia Woodsia obtusa (Spreng.) Torr. Polypodiaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Bog-hemp Boehmeria cylindrica (L.) Sw. Urticaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

Bottlebrush sedge Carex hystericina Muhl. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Bottomland aster Aster ontarionis Wieg. Asteraceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Box elder Acer negundo L. Aceraceae Ubiquitous FTPT

Brevior's sedge Carex brevior (Dew.) Mackens. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Bristly crowfoot Ranunculus pensylvanicus L. Ranunculaceae Ubiquitous SAF

Bristly greenbrier Smilax hispida Muhl. Smilacaceae Ubiquitous V

Broad-leaved arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia Willd. Alismataceae Ubiquitous EP

Brook cinquefoil Potentilla rivalis Nutt. Rosaceae Ubiquitous SAF

Brook sedge Cyperus bipartitus Torr. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous SAG

Bulbet-bladder fern Cystopteris bulbifera (L.)Bernh. Polypodiaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Tenore.* Asteraceae Ubiquitous TAF

Bur cucumber Sicyos angulatus L. Curcurbitaceae Ubiquitous V

Bur marigold Bidens laevis (L.) BSP. Asteraceae Ubiquitous SAF

Burhead Echinodorus Corddifolius (L.) Griseb. Alismataceae Ubiquitous EP

Plant Species Found on Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Distrib. Guild
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

682

Burhead Sparganium americanum Nutt. Sparganiaceae Ubiquitous EP

Burreed Sparganium chlorocarpum Rydb. Sparganiaceae Northern EP

Bushy knotweed Polygonum ramosissimum Michx. Polygonaceae Ubiquitous SAF

Butternut Juglans cinerea L. Juglandaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis L. Rubiaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Buttonbush dodder Cuscuta cephalanthi Engelm. Cuscutaceae Ubiquitous PP

Buttonweed Spermacoce glabra Michx. Rubiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Canada anemone Anemone canadensis L. Ranunculaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.* Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

Canada tick-trefoil Desmodium canadense (L.) DC. Fabaceae Ubiquitous MF

Canada wild rye Elymus canadensis L. Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Cannabis Cannabis sativa L. Cannabaceae Ubiquitous MF

Cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalis L. Campanulaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Carpetweed Mollugo verticillata L. Molluginaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Carrion flower Smilax herbacea L. Smilacaceae Ubiquitous V

Catchfly grass Leersia lenticularis Michx. Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Cattail sedge Carex typhina Michx. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Chickweed Cerastium vulgatum L. Caryophyllaceae Ubiquitous MF

Chinquapin oak Quercus prinoides Willd. Fagaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Choke-cherry Prunus virginiana L. Rosaceae Ubiquitous FIPT

Cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamonea L. Osmundaceae Ubiquitous MF

Cinnamon willow-herb Epilobium coloratum Biehler. Onagraceae Ubiquitous MF

Clammy ground cherry Physalis heterophylla Nees. Solanaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Clasping dogbane Apocynum sibiricum Jacq. Araliaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Clearweed Pilea pumila L. Gray. Urticaceae Ubiquitous TAG

Climbing milkweed Ampelamus albidus (Nutt.) Britton Asclepiadaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Cluster-leaftick trefoil Desmodium glutinosum (Muhl.) 

Wood. 

Fabaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Coarse cyperus Cyperus odoratus L. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous SAG

Common blackberrry Rubus allegheniensis Porter. Rosaceae Ubiquitous WS

Common bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris L. Lentibulariaceae Ubiquitous USA

Common buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica L.* Rhamnaceae Ubiquitous WS

Common burreed Sparganium eurycarpum Engelm. Sparganiaceae Ubiquitous EP

Common cattail Typha latifolia L. Typhaceae Ubiquitous EP

Common chickweed Stellaria media (L.) Cyrillo Caryophyllaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Plant Species Found on Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Distrib. Guild
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

683

Common cocklebur Xanthium strumarium L.* Asteraceae Ubiquitous TAF

Common dodder Cuscuta gronovii Willd. Cuscutaceae Ubiquitous PP

Common horsetail Equisetum arvense L. Equisataceae Ubiquitous MF

Common juniper Juniperus communis L. Cuppressaceae Ubiquitous WS

Common plantain Plantago major L.* Plantaginaceae Ubiquitous MF

Common poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans ssp. negundo 

(Greene) Gillis

Anacardiaceae Ubiquitous V

Common purslane Portulaca oleracea L. Portulaceae Ubiquitous MF

Common ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous TAF

Common reed Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. Poaceae Ubiquitous EP

Common ricciocarpus Ricciocarpus natans Ricciaceae Ubiquitous FA

Common skullcap Scutellaria galericulata L. Lamiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare L.* Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

Common water weed Elodea canadensis Michx Hydrophyllaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum L. Ceratophyllaceae Ubiquitous USA

Coontail Ceratophyllum echinatum Gray Ceratophyllaceae Ubiquitous USA

Cottonwood Populus deltoides Marsh. Salicaceae Ubiquitous FTPT

Cow-parsnip Heracleum lanatum Michx. Apiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Crab grass Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.* Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Creeping burhead Echinodorus berteroi (Sprengel) 

Fassett 

Alismataceae Ubiquitous SAF

Creeping dayflower Commelina diffusa Burman Commelinaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Creeping lovegrass Eragrostis hypnoides (Lam.) BSP. Poaceae Ubiquitous SAG

Crested sedge Carex cristatella Britt. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Crested wood fern Dryopteris cristata (L.) Gray Polypodiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Crown vetch Coronilla varia L. *,** Fabaceae 

Culver's root Veronicastrum virginicum (L.) Farw. Scrophulariaceae Ubiquitous MF

Curly dock Rumex crispus L.* Polygonaceae Ubiquitous MF

Curly-leaved pondweed Potamogeton crispus L.* Potamogetonaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Cursed crowfoot Ranunculus scleratus L. Ranunculaceae Ubiquitous SAF

Cutleaf coneflower Rudbeckia laciniata L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

Daisy fleabane Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. Asteraceae Ubiquitous TAF

Dandelion Taraxacum officinale Weber. Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

Deer-tongue grass Panicum clandestinum L. Poaceae Ubiquitous TAG

Devil's beggarticks Bidens frondosa L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous SAF

Diamond willow Salix eriocephala Michx. Salicaceae Ubiquitous FTPS

Plant Species Found on Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Distrib. Guild
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

684

Ditch-stonecrop Penthorum sedoides L. Saxifragaceae Ubiquitous MF

Dock Rumex salicifolius J.A. Weinm. Polygonaceae Ubiquitous MF

Dodder Cuscuta compacta A.L. Juss. Cuscutaceae Ubiquitous PP

Dodder Cuscuta cuspidata Engelm. Cuscutaceae Ubiquitous PP

Dotted hawthorne Crategus punctata Jacq. Rosaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Dotted water meal Wolffia punctata Griseb. Lemnaceae Ubiquitous FA

Downy phlox Phlox pilosa L. Polemoniaceae Ubiquitous MF

Drummond's aster Aster drummondii Lindl. Asteraceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Duckweed Lemna obscura (Austin) Daubs Lemnaceae Ubiquitous FA

Duckweed Lemna perpusilla Torr. Lemnaceae Ubiquitous FA

Duckweed Lemna trinervis (Austin) Small Lemnaceae Ubiquitous FA

Duckweed Lemna valdiviana Phil. Lemnaceae Ubiquitous FA

Dwarf bulrush Hemicarpha micrantha (Vahl) Pax Cyperaceae Ubiquitous SAG

Dwarf St. John's-wort Hypericum mutilum L. Clusiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Dwarfhackberry Celtis tenuifolia Nutt. Ulmaceae Ubiquitous WS

Dye bedstraw Galium tinctorium L. Rubiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Early meadow rue Thalictrum dioicum L. Ranunculaceae Ubiquitous SE

Early wild rose Rosa blanda Ait. Rosaceae Ubiquitous WS

Eastern serviceberry Amelanchier canadensis (L.) 

Medikus 

Rosaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Elderberry Sambucus canadensis L. Caprifoliaceae Ubiquitous WS

Elegant bedstraw Galium concinnum T. & G. Rubiaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Emory's sedge Carex emoryi Dew. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Enchanter's nightshade Circaea lutetiana L. Onagraceae Ubiquitous AWF

Eurasian milfoil Myriophyllum spicatum L. var. 

exalbescens (Fern.) Jepson* 

Haloragaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Eutrophic water nymph Najas minor All.* Najadaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Evening primrose Oenothera biennis L. Onagraceae Ubiquitous MF

Fall panic grass Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. Poaceae Ubiquitous TAG

False buckwheat Polygonum scandens L. Polygonaceae Ubiquitous MF

False dragonhead Physostegia virginiana (L.) Benth.* Lamiaceae Ubiquitous MF

False indigo Amorpha fruticosa L. Fabaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

False petunia Ruellia strepens L. Acanthaceae Ubiquitous AWF

False pimpernel Lindernia dubia (L.) Pennell. Scrophulariaceae Ubiquitous SAF

False starwort Boltonia asteroides (L.) L. Her. Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

Fancy wood fern Dryopteris intermedia (Muhl.) A. 

Gray 

Polypodiaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Plant Species Found on Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Distrib. Guild
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

685

Field mint Mentha arvensis L. Lamiaceae F Ubiquitous MF

Field thistle Cirsium discolor (Muhl.) Spreng. Asteraceae Ubiquitous TAF

Figwort Scrophularia marilandica L. Scrophulariaceae Ubiquitous MF

Fireweed Erechtites hieracifolia (L.) Raf. Asteraceae Ubiquitous TAF

Flat-stem pondweed Potamogeton zosteriformis Fern. Potamogetonaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Flatstem spikerush Eleocharis compressa Sullivant Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Fleabane Erigeron philadelphicus L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

Floating pondweed Potamogeton natans L. Potamogetonaceae Northern RSA

Floating primrose willow Ludwigia peploides (HBK) Raven Onagraceae Ubiquitous MF

Flowering dogwood Cornus florida L. Cornaceae Ubiquitous WS

Fog fruit Phyla lanceolata Michx. (Green) Verbenaceae Ubiquitous MF

Forest pea Lathyrus venosus Muhl. var. intonsus 

Butters and St. John 

Fabaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Forest phlox Phlox divaricata L. Polemoniaceae Ubiquitous SE

Fowl meadow grass Glyceria striata (Lam.) A. Hitchc. Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Fox sedge Carex vulpinoidea Michx. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Foxtail sedge Carex alopecoidea Tuckerm. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Frank's sedge Carex frankii Kunth Cyperaceae Ubiquitous WG

Fringed loosestrife Lysimachia ciliata L. Primulaceae Ubiquitous MF

Fringed quickweed Galinsoga quadriradiata Ruiz & 

Pavon 

Asteraceae Ubiquitous TAF

Fringeleaf ruellia Ruellia humilis Nutt. Acanthaceae Ubiquitous MF

Frog orchid Habenaria viridis (L.) Br. var. 

bracteata (Muhl.) A. Gray 

Orchidaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Frost grape Vitis vulpina L. Vitaceae Ubiquitous V

Garden asparagus Asparagus officinalis L.* Liliaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Garlic mustard*, ** Alliaria petiolata Brassicaceae

Giant chickweed Stellaria aquatica (L.) Scop. Caryophyllaceae Ubiquitous MF

Giant foxtail Setaria faberi Herrm. Poaceae Ubiquitous TAG

Golden alexander Zizia aurea (L.) W.Do J. Koch. Apiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Golden coreopsis Coreopsis tinctoria Nutt. Asteraceae Ubiquitous TAF

Golden dock Rumex maritimus L. Polygonaceae Ubiquitous SAF

Gooseberry Ribes hirtellum Michx. Saxifragaceae Ubiquitous WS

Goosefoot Chenopodium album L.* Chenopodiaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Grape fern Botrychium dissectum Sprengel var. 

obliquum Clute 

Ophioglossaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Plant Species Found on Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Distrib. Guild
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

686

Grape woodvine Parthenocissus vitacea (Knerr.) A. 

Hitchc. 

Vitaceae Ubiquitous V

Grass of parnassus Parnassia glauca Raf. Saxifragaceae Northern MF

Grass-leaved arrowhead Sagittaria graminea Michx. Alismataceae Ubiquitous EP

Grass-leaved golden aster Chrysopsis graminifolia (Michx.) 

Elliot var. latifolia Fern. 

Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

Grass-leaved water 

plantain 

Alisma gramineum Lej. Alismataceae Northern EP

Gray sedge Carex amphibola Steud. var. turgida 

Fern. 

Cyperaceae Ubiquitous WG

Graybark grape Vitis cinerea Engelm. Vitaceae Ubiquitous V

Gray-headed coneflower Ratibida pinnata (Vent.) Barnh. Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

Gray's sedge Carex grayi Carey. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous WG

Great lobelia Lobelia siphilitica L. Campanulaceae Ubiquitous MF

Great ragweed Ambrosia trifida L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous TAF

Great St. John's-wort Hypericum pyramidatum Ait. Clusiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Greater duckweed Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleiden Lemnaceae Ubiquitous FA

Green amaranth Amaranthus hybridus L. Amaranthaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh. Oleaceae Ubiquitous FTPT

Green dragon Arisaema dracontium (L.) Schott. Araceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Green foxtail Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. Poaceae Ubiquitous TAG

Green muhly Muhlenbergia racemosa (Michx.) 

BSP 

Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Ground ivy Glechoma hederacea L. Lamiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Ground nut Apios americana Medic. Fabaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Hackberry Celtis occidentalis L. Ulmaceae Ubiquitous SFT'

Hairy spurge Euphorbia vermiculata Raf. Euphorbiaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Hardstem bulrush Scirpus acutus Muhl. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous EP

Hart Wright's sedge Carex hyalinolepis Steud. Cyperaceae Southern MG

Hayden's sedge Carex haydenii Dew. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Hazelnut Corylus americana Walter. Betulaceae Ubiquitous WS

Hedge hyssop Gratiola neglecta Torr. Scrophulariaceae Ubiquitous SAF

Hedge nettle Stachys tenuifolia Willd. Lamiaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Hog peanut Amphicarpa bracteata (L.) Fern. Fabaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Honewort Cryptotaenia canadensis (L.) DC. Apiaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Honey locust Gleditsia triacanthos L. Caesalpiniaceae Ubiquitous SFT

Honeysuckle Lonicera x bella Zabel.* Caprifoliaceae Ubiquitous WS

Plant Species Found on Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Distrib. Guild
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

687

Honeysuckles, Bush Lonicera tartarica. and others* Caprifoliaceae Ubiquitous WS

Hop sedge Carex lupulina Willd. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Hops Humulus lupulus L. Cannabaceae Ubiquitous V

Horned pondweed Zannichellia palustris L. Zannichelliaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Horse-gentian Triosteum perfoliatum L. Caprifoliaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Horsenettle Solanum caroliniense L. Solanaceae Ubiquitous MF

Horseweed Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. Asteraceae Ubiquitous TAF

Illinois pondweed Potamogeton illinoensis Morong Potamogetonaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Indian grass Sorghastrum nutans (L.) Nash Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Indian hemp Apocynum cannabinum L. Araliaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Indian plantain Cacalia suaveolens L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

Interrupted fern Osmunda claytoniana L. Osmundaceae Ubiquitous MF

Joe-pye-weed Eupatorium maculatum L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

Joint rush Juncus nodosus L. Juncaceae Ubiquitous MG

Jumpseed Polygonum virginianum L. Polygonaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis L. Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Kentucky coffee tree Gymnocladus dioica (L.) K. Koch Fabaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Knotty-leaved rush Juncus acuminatus Michx. Juncaceae Ubiquitous MG

Lady's thumb Polygonum persicaria L. Polygonaceae Ubiquitous SAF

Lake sedge Carex lacustris Willd. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Lance-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia lanceolata Walt. Primulaceae Ubiquitous MF

Large purple agalinis Agalinis purpurea (L.) Penn. Scrophulariaceae Ubiquitous MF

Late boneset Eupatorium serotinum Michx. Asteraceae Ubiquitous AWF

Leafy pondweed Potamogeton foliosus Raf. Potamogetonaceae Ubiquitous RS

Leafy spurge*,** Euphorbia esula Euphorbiaceae

Lesser duckweed Lemna minor L. Lemnaceae Ubiquitous FA

Lizard's tail Saururus cernuus L. Saururaceae Ubiquitous SAF

Long-bracted tickseed Bidens polylepis S.F. Blake Asteraceae Ubiquitous SAF

Long-leaved ground 

cherry 

Physalis longifolia Nutt. Solanaceae Ubiquitous MF

Long-leaved pondweed Potamogeton nodosus Poir. Potamogetonaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Low cudweed Gnaphalium uliginosum L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous SAF

Low cyperus Cyperus diandrus Torr. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous SAG

Mad-dog skullcap Scutellaria lateriflora L. Lamiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Marsh cress Rorripa palustris (L.) Bess. Brassicaceae Ubiquitous SAF

Marsh elder Iva annua l. Asteraceae Ubiquitous TA

Plant Species Found on Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Distrib. Guild
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

688

Marsh fern Thelypteris palustris Schott. Polypodiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Marsh foxtail Alopecurus geniculatus L. Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Marsh marigold Caltha palustris L. Ranunculaceae Ubiquitous MF

Marsh pea Lathyrus palustris L. Fabaceae Ubiquitous MF

Marsh speedwell Veronica scutellata L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

Marsh spikerush Eleocharis palustris (L.) Roem. & 

Schultes 

Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

May apple Podophyllum peltatum L. Berberidaceae Ubiquitous SE

Meadow sedge Carex granularis Muhl. ex Willd. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Mermaid-weed Proserpinaca palustris L. Haloragaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Michigan lily Lilium michiganense Farw. Liliaceae Ubiquitous MF

Milfoil Myriophyllum heterophyllum Michx. Haloragaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Milfoil Myriophyllum pinnatum (Walt.) BSP. Haloragaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Mississippi arrowhead Sagittaria calycina Engelm. Alismataceae Ubiquitous EA

Mississippi Valley 

loosestrife 

Lysimachia hybrida Michx. Primulaceae Ubiquitous MF

Missouri gooseberry Ribes missouriense Nutt. Saxifragaceae Ubiquitous WS

Missouri ironweed Vernonia missurica Rat: Asteraceae Southern MF

Missouri violet Viola sororia Willd. Violaceae Ubiquitous MF

Mist flower Eupatorium coelestinum L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous AWF

Mockernut hickory Carya tomentosa Nutt. Juglandaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Moneywort Lysimachia nummularia L.* Primulaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Moonseed Menispermum canadense L. Menisperimaceae Ubiquitous V

Mosquito fern Azolla mexicana Presl Salviniaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Motherwort Leonurus cardiaca L.* Lamiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Motherwort Leonurus marrubiastrum L.* Lamiaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Mud plantain Heterantheria limosa (Sw,) Willd. Pontederiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Muskingum sedge Carex muskingumensis Schwein. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Nannyberry Viburnum lentago L. Caprifoliaceae Ubiquitous WS

Narrow-leaved cattail Typha angustifolia L. Typhaceae Ubiquitous EP

Necklace sedge Carex projecta Mack. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Needle spikerush Eleocharis acicularis (L.) Roem. & 

Schultes 

Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Nimbleweed Muhlenbergia schreberi J.F. Gemelin Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Nodding bulrush Scirpus pendulus Muhl. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Nodding smartweed Polygonum lapathifolium L. Polygonaceae Ubiquitous SAF

Nodding trillium Trillium cernuum L. Liliaceae Northern SE

Plant Species Found on Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Distrib. Guild
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

689

Northern arrowhead Sagittaria cuneata Sheldon Alismataceae Ubiquitous EP

Northern bugleweed Lycopus uniflorus Michx. Lamiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Northern catalpa Catalpa speciosa Warder* Bignoniaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Northern dewberry Rubus flagellaris L. Rosaceae Ubiquitous WS

Northern manna grass Glyceria borealis Nash. Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Northern St. John's-wort Hypericum boreale (Britt.) Bick. Clusiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Northern swamp 

dogwood

Cornus racemosa Lam. Cornaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Northern three-lobed 

bedstraw 

Galium trifidum L. Rubiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Northern water nymph Najas flexilis (Willd.) Rostk. & 

Schmidt 

Najadaceae Northern RSA

Northern water plantain Alisma triviale Pursh Alismataceae Ubiquitous EP

Nutsedge Cyperus esculentus L.* Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Old witch grass Panicum capillare L. Poaceae Ubiquitous TAG

Olney-three square Scirpus americanus Pers. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Ostrich fern Matteuccia struthiopteris (L.) Todaro Polypodiaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Pale dock Rumex altissimus Wood. Polygonaceae Ubiquitous MF

Pale dogwood Cornus amomum Mill. Cornaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Pale touch-me-not Impatiens pallida Nutt. Balsaminaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Pale-spike lobelia Lobelia spicata Lam. Campanulaceae Ubiquitous MF

Partridge pea Chamaecrista fasciculata Michx. Fabaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Path rush Juncus tenuis Willd. var. dudleyi 

(Wieg.) 

Juncaceae Ubiquitous MG

Peach-leaved willow Salix amygdaloides Anderss. Salicaceae Ubiquitous FTPT

Pecan Carya illinoensis (Wang.) K. Koch Juglandaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Persimmon Diospyros virginiana L. Ebenaceae Ubiquitous FIPT

Pickerelweed Pontederia cordata L. Pontederiaceae Ubiquitous EP

Pin oak Quercus palustris Muench. Fagaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Pinkweed Polygonum pensylvanicum L. Polygonaceae Ubiquitous SAF

Plains yellow primrose Calylophus serrulatus (Nutt.) Raven Onagraceae Ubiquitous MF

Pointed broom sedge Carex scoparia Schkuhr ex Willd. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Pokeweed Phytolacca americana L. Phtolaccaceae Ubiquitous MF

Possum haw Ilex decidua Walt. Aquilfoliaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Prairie blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium campestre E. Bickn. Iridaceae Ubiquitous MF

Prairie cord grass Spartina pectinata Link. Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Prairie fringed orchid Habenaria leucophaea mutt.) A. Gray Orchidaceae Ubiquitous MF

Plant Species Found on Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Distrib. Guild
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

690

Prairie milkweed Asclepias hirtella (Pennell) Woodson Asclepiadaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Prairie rose Rosa setigera Michx. Rosaceae Ubiquitous WS

Prairie three-awn Aristida oligantha Michx. Poaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Prairietick-trefoil Desmanthus illinoensis (Michx.) 

MacM. 

Mimosaceae Ubiquitous MF

Prickly ash Xanthoxylum americanum Mill. Rutaceae Ubiquitous WS

Prickly cucumber Echinocystis lobata (Michx.) T. & G. Curcurbitaceae Ubiquitous V

Prickly sida Sida spinosa L. Malvaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Purple fringed orchid Habenaria psycodes (L.) Sprengel. Orchidaceae Ubiquitous MF

Purple giant hyssop Agastache scrophulariaefolia (Willd.) 

Kuntze 

Lamiaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Purple joe-pye-weed Eupatorium purpureum L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria L.* Lythraceae Ubiquitous MF

Purple lovegrass Eragrostis spectabilis (Pursh) Seud. Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Purple milkweed Asclepias purpurascens L. Asclepiadaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Purple-stem beggarticks Bidens connata Muhl. Willd. Asteraceae Ubiquitous SAF

Purslane-speedwell Veronica peregrina L. Scrophulariaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Quillwort Isoetes melanpoda Gay and Dur. Isoetaceae Northern RSA

Rattlesnake fern Botrychium virginianum (L.) Sw. Ophioglossaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Raven's foot sedge Carex crus-corvi Shuttlew Kunze. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Red baneberry Actaea rubra (Aiton) Willd. Ranunculaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Red cedar Juniperus virginiana L. Cuppressaceae Ubiquitous FIPT

Red elm Ulmus rubra Muhl. Ulmaceae Ubiquitous SFT

Red grape Vitis palmata Vahl. Vitaceae Ubiquitous V

Red maple Acer rubrum L. Aceraceae Ubiquitous SFT

Red mulberry Morus rubra L. Moraceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Red oak Quercus rubra L. Fagaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Red raspberry Rubus strigosus Michx. Rosaceae Ubiquitous WS

Red sprangletop Leptochloa filiformis P. (Lam.) 

Beauv. 

Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Red top Agrostis gigantea Roth. Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Redbud Cercis canadensis L. Fabaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Red-head pondweed Potamogeton richardsonii (Benn.) 

Rydb. 

Potamogetonaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Red-osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera Michx. Cornaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Red-rooted sedge Cyperus erythrorhizos Muhl. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous SAG

Red-stemmed plantain Plantago rugelii Dene. Plantaginaceae Ubiquitous MF

Plant Species Found on Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Distrib. Guild
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

691

Red-top panicum Panicum rigidulum Bosc. Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea L.* Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Reed meadow grass Glyceria grandis S. Wats. Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Retrorse sedge Carex retrorsa Schwein. Cyperaceae Northern MG

Ribbon-flowered 

pondweed 

Potamogeton epihydrus Raf. Potamogetonaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Rice cutgrass Leersia oryzoides (L.) Sw. Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

River birch Betula nigra L. Betulaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

River bulrush Scirpus fluviatilis Torr. & Gray Cyperaceae Ubiquitous EP

Riverbank grape Vitis riparia Michx. Vitaceae Ubiquitous V

Robin's plantain Erigeron pulchellus Michx. Asteraceae Ubiquitous AWF

Rope dodder Cuscuta glomerata Choisy. Cuscutaceae Ubiquitous PP

Rose turtlehead Chelone obliqua L. Scrophulariaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Rough avens Geum laciniatum Murr. Rosaceae Ubiquitous MF

Rough fleabane Erigeron strigosus Muhl. Asteraceae Ubiquitous TAF

Rough-leaved dogwood Cornus drummondii Meyer Cornaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Roundfruit St. John's 

wort 

Hypericum sphaerocarpum Michx. Clusiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Round-leaved dogwood Cornus rugosa Lam. Cornaceae Ubiquitous WS

Round-leaved spurge Euphorbia serpens HBK. Euphorbiaceae Ubiquitous SAF

Royal fern Osmunda regalis L. Osmundaceae Ubiquitous MF

Sago pondweed Potamogeton pectinatus L. Potamogetonaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Sallow sedge Carex lurida Wahl. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Sand bur Cenchrus longispinus (Hack.) Fern. Poaceae Ubiquitous TAG

Sand Post Oak Quercus stellata Wang. Fagaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Sandbar lovegrass Eragrostis frankii C.A. Mey Poaceae Ubiquitous SAG

Sandbar willow Salix interior Rowlee Salicaceae Ubiquitous FTPS

Sandvine Ampelopsis cordata Michx. Asclepiadaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Sassafras Sassafras albidum (Nutt.) Nees. Lauraceae Ubiquitous WS

Satin grass Muhlenbergia frondosa (Poir.) 

Fernald 

Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Sawtooth sunflower Helianthus grosseserratus Martens Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

Scouring rush Equisetum hyemale L. var. affine 

(Engelm.) 

Equisataceae Ubiquitous MF

Sedge Carex brunnescens (Pers.) Poir. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Sedge Carex comosa f. boott. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Sedge Carex echinata Murray Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Plant Species Found on Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Distrib. Guild
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

692

Sedge Carex laeviconica Dewey. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Sedge Carex normalis Mackenz. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Sedge Carex rosea Schk. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous WG

Sedge Carex stipata Muhl. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Sedge Carex trichocarpa Muhl. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Seedbox Ludwigia alternifolia L. Onagraceae Ubiquitous MF

Self heal Prunella vulgaris L. Lamiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis L. Polypodiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Sessile-flowered cress Rorripa sessiliflora (Nutt.) Hitchc. Brassicaceae Ubiquitous SAF

Sessile-fruited arrowhead Sagittaria rigida Pursh Alismataceae Ubiquitous EP

Shagbark hickory Carya ovata (Mill.) K. Koch. Juglandaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Sharp-lobed lobelia Hepatica acutiloba DC. Ranunculaceae Ubiquitous SE

Sharp-winged monkey 

flower

Mimulus alatus Ait. Scrophulariaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Sheep sorrel Rumex acetosella L.* Polygonaceae Ubiquitous MF

Shellbark hickory Carya laciniosa (Michx.) Loud. Juglandaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Shepherd's purse Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic. Brassicaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Shingle oak Quercus imbricaria Michx. Fagaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Shooting star Dodecatheon meadia L. Primulaceae Ubiquitous MF

Short-beaked arrowhead Sagittaria brevirostra Mack. & Bush Alismataceae Ubiquitous EP

Short's sedge Carex shortinana Dew. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Showy lady's slipper Cypripedium reginae Walter Orchidaceae Ubiquitous MF

Showy milkweed Asclepias speciosa Torr. Asclepiadaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Shrubby St. John's-wort Hypericum prolificum L. Clusiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Shumard oak Quercus shumardii Buckl. Fagaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Siberian elm Ulmus pumila L.* Ulmaceae Ubiquitous SFT

Silver maple Acer saccharinum L. Aceraceae Ubiquitous FTPT

Skunk cabbage Symplocarpus foetidus (L.) Nutt. Araceae Northern SE

Slender bulrush Scirpus heterochaetus Chase Cyperaceae Ubiquitous EP

Slender pondweed Potamogeton pusillus L. Potamogetonaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Slender sedge Carex tenera Dewey Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Small lovegrass Eragrostis pectinacea (Michx.) Ness. Poaceae Ubiquitous SAG

Small-headed aster Aster racemosus Elliott. Asteraceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Smartweed-dodder Cuscuta polygonorum Engelm. Cuscutaceae Ubiquitous PP

Smooth rosemallow Hibiscus laevis All. Malvaceae Ubiquitous MF

Smooth scouring rush Equisetum laevigatum A.Br. Equisataceae Ubiquitous MF

Plant Species Found on Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Distrib. Guild
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

693

Snailseed pondweed Potamogeton diversifolius L. Potamogetonaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Sneezeweed Helenium autumnale L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

Soft fox sedge Carex conjuncta E. Boott. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous WG

Soft rush Juncus effusus L. Juncaceae Northern MG

Softstem bulrush Scirpus validus Vahl. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous EP

Southern agrimony Agrimonia parviflora Ait. Rosaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Southern water nymph Najas guadalupensis (Spreng.) 

Morong 

Najadaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Southern water plantain Alisma subcordatum Raf. Alismataceae Ubiquitous EP

Spanish needles Bidens bipinnata L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Spatter dock Nuphar advena Aiton Nymphaceae Ubiquitous FP

Spectacle-weed Triodanis perfoliata (L.) Nieuwl. Campanulaceae Ubiquitous MF

Spiderwort Tradescantia virginiana L. Commelinaceae Ubiquitous MF

Spikenard Aralia racemosa L. Araliaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Spikerush Eleocharis ovata (Roth) R. & S. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous SAG

Spiny pigweed Amaranthus spinosus L. Amaranthaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Spotted cowbane Cicuta maculata L. Apiaceae Ubiquitous EP

Spotted knapweed*,** Centaurea maculosa Asteraceae

Spotted pondweed Potamogeton pulcher Tuckerm. Potamogetonaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Spotted spurge Euphorbia maculata L. Euphorbiaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Spotted St. John's-wort Hypericum punctatum L. Clusiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Spotted touch-me -not Impatiens capensis Meerb. Balsaminaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Spreading chervil Chaerophyllum procumbens (L.) 

Crantz 

Apiaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Spring-cleavers Galium aparine L. Rubiaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Spurge Euphorbia humistrata (Engelm.) Euphorbiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Square-stemmed monkey 

flower

Mimulus ringens L. Scrophulariaceae Ubiquitous MF

Square-stemmed 

spikerush 

Eleocharis quadrangulata (Michx.) 

Roem. & Schultes 

Cyperaceae Ubiquitous EP

Squarrose sedge Carex squarrosa L. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous WG

Stalked water horehound Lycopus rubellus Moench Lamiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Star duckweed Lemna trisulca L. Lemnaceae Ubiquitous FA

Stickseed Hackelia virginiana (L.) Johnston. Boraginaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Stick-tight Bidens cernua L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Stinging nettle Urtica dioica L.* Urticaceae Ubiquitous MF

Straight-leaved pondweed Potamogeton strictifolius Benn. Potamogetonaceae Northern RSA

Plant Species Found on Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Distrib. Guild
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

694

Strawberry weed Potentilla norvegica L. Rosaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Straw-colored cyperus Cyperus strigosus L. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous SAG

Straw-stem beggarstick Bidens comosa (Gray) Wiegand. Asteraceae Ubiquitous TAF

Sugar maple Acer saccharum Marsh. Aceraceae Ubiquitous BHT

Sugarberry Celtis laevigata Willd. Ulmaceae Ubiquitous SFT

Sulfur cinquefoil Potentilla recta L.* Rosaceae Ubiquitous MF

Summer grape Vitis aestivalis var. argentinfolia Vitaceae Ubiquitous V

Swamp barnyard grass Echinochloa walteri (Pursh) Heller Poaceae Ubiquitous SAG

Swamp buttercup Ranunculus hispidus Michx. Ranunculaceae Ubiquitous MF

Swamp candles Lysimachia terrestris (L.) BSP. Primulaceae Ubiquitous MF

Swamp dock Rumex verticillatus L. Polygonaceae Ubiquitous MF

Swamp loosestrife Lysimachia thyrsiflora L. Primulaceae Ubiquitous MF

Swamp milkweed Asclepias incarnata L. Asclepiadaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Swamp privet Forestiera acuminata (Michx.) 

Poiret. 

Oleaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Swamp rosemallow Hibiscus muscheutos L. Malvaceae Ubiquitous MF

Swamp saxifrage Saxifraga pensylvanica L. Saxifragaceae Ubiquitous MF

Swamp white oak Quercus bicolor Willd. Fagaceae Ubiquitous BHT

Sweet flag Acorus calamus L. Araceae Ubiquitous EP

Sweet gum Liquidambar styraciflua L. Hamamelidaceae Southern BHT

Sweet ox-eye Heliopsis helianthoides (L.) Sweet. Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

Switchgrass Panicum virgatum L. Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Sycamore Platanus occidentalis L. Plantanaceae Ubiquitous SFT

Tall beggars tick Bidens vulgata Greene. Asteraceae Ubiquitous SAF

Tall bellflower Campanula americana L. Campanulaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Tall dropseed Sporobolus asper (Michx.) Kunth. Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Tall ironweed Vernonia gigantea (Walter) Trel. Asteraceae Southern MF

Tall meadow rue Thalictrum dasycarpum Fisch. and 

Lall. 

Ranunculaceae Ubiquitous MF

Tall white aster Aster lanceolatus Willd. Asteraceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Taper-leaf sedge Cyperus acuminatus Torr. & Hook Cyperaceae Ubiquitous SAG

Three-lobed coneflower Rudbeckia triloba L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous AWF

Three-seeded mercury Acalypha rhomboidea Raf. Euphorbiaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Three-way sedge Dulichium arundinaceum (L.) Britt. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Tomato Lycopersicon esculentum Miller Solanaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Toothcup Ammania coccinea Rottb. Lythraceae Ubiquitous SAF

Plant Species Found on Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Distrib. Guild
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

695

Toothed spurge Euphorbia dentata Michx. Euphorbiaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Torrey's rush Juncus torreyi Cov. Juncaceae Ubiquitous MG

Trumpet flower Campsis radicans (L.) Seem.* Bignoniaceae Ubiquitous V

Tuckerman's sedge Carex tuckermanii F. Boott. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Turnsole Heliotropium indicum L.* Boraginaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Tussock sedge Carex stricta Lam. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Two-leaved miterwort Mitella diphylla L. Saxifragaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Upright carrion flower Smilax ecirrhata (Engelm.) S. Wats. Smilacaceae Ubiquitous V

Velvetleaf Abutilon theophrasti Medikus.* Malvaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Vernal water starwort Callitriche verna L. Callitrichaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) 

Planch 

Vitaceae Ubiquitous V

Virginia water leaf Hydrophyllum virginianum L. Hydrophyllaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Virginiana wild rye Elymus virginicus L. Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Wahoo Euonymus atropurpureus Jacq. Celastraceae Ubiquitous WS

Water celery (Wild 

celery) 

Vallisneria americana Michx. Hydrophyllaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Water cress Rorripa nasturtium-aquaticum (L.) 

Hayek*

Brassicaceae Ubiquitous SAF

Water dock Rumex orbiculatus Gray Polygonaceae Ubiquitous MF

Water hemlock Cicuta bulbifera L. Apiaceae Ubiquitous EP

Water hemp Amaranthus rudis Sauer Amaranthaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Water hemp Amaranthus tuberculatus (Nutt.) 

Moq. 

Amaranthaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Water horehound Lycopus virginicus L. Lamiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Water horsetail Equisetum fluviatile L. Equisataceae Northern MF

Water lily Nymphaea adorata Aiton Nymphaceae Ubiquitous FP

Water lotus Nelumbo lutea (Willd.) Pers. Nelumbonaceae Ubiquitous FP

Water meal Wolffia columbiana Karst. Lemnaceae Ubiquitous FA

Water meal Wolffia papulifera Thompson Lemnaceae Ubiquitous FA

Water meal Wolffiella floridana (J.D. Smith) 

Thompson 

Lemnaceae Ubiquitous FA

Water parsnip Sium suave Walt. Apiaceae Ubiquitous EP

Water pepper Polygonum hydropiper L. Polygonaceae Ubiquitous SAF

Water primrose Ludwigia polycarpa Short & Peter Onagraceae Ubiquitous MF

Water smartweed Polygonum amphibium L. Polygonaceae Ubiquitous EP

Water smartweed Polygonum aviculare L. Polygonaceae Ubiquitous TAF

Plant Species Found on Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Distrib. Guild
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

696

Water smartweed Polygonum punctatum Ell. Polygonaceae Ubiquitous MF

Water speedwell Veronica anagallis-aquatics L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

Water stargrass Zosterella dubia (Jacq.) Small Pontederiaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Water starwort Callitriche heterophylla Pursh. Callitrichaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Water tupelo Nyssa aquatica (L.) Cornaceae Ubiquitous SF

Water weed Elodea nuttallii (Planch.) St. John Hydrophyllaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Waxy meadow rue Thalictrum revolutum DC. Ranunculaceae Ubiquitous MF

Wedge grass Sphenopholis obtusata (Michx.) 

scribn. 

Poaceae Ubiquitous SAG

Western ironweed Vernonia baldwini Torr. Asteraceae Southern MF

Western poison ivy Toxicodendron rydbergii (Small ex 

Rydb.) Greene

Anacardiaceae Ubiquitous V

White avens Geum canadense Jacq. Rosaceae Ubiquitous AWF

White baneberry Actaea alba (L.) Miller Ranunculaceae Ubiquitous AWF

White dog-tooth violet Erythronium albidum Nutt. Liliaceae Ubiquitous SE

White grass Leersia virginica Willd. Poaceae Ubiquitous WG

White morning glory Ipomoea lacunosa L. Convolvulaceae Ubiquitous TAF

White mulberry Morus alba L.* Moraceae Ubiquitous WS

White snake root Eupatorium rugosum Houttuyn. Asteraceae Ubiquitous AWF

White turtlehead Chelone glabra L. Scrophulariaceae Ubiquitous AWF

White vervain Verbena urticifolia L. Verbenaceae Ubiquitous MF

White water crowfoot Ranunculus longirostris Godr. Ranunculaceae Ubiquitous RSA

White water crowfoot Ranunculus subrigidus W. Drew Ranunculaceae Northern RSA

White wild indigo Baptisia lactea (Raf.) Thieret Fabaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Whorled milfoil Myriophyllum verticillatum L. Halogaraceae Northern RSA

Wild black currant Ribes americanum Mill. Saxifragaceae Ubiquitous WS

Wild garlic Allium canadense L. Liliaceae Ubiquitous MF

Wild geranium Geranium maculatum L. Geraniaceae Ubiquitous SE

Wild ginger Asarum canadense L. Aristolochiaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Wild honeysuckle Lonicera dioca L. Caprifoliaceae Ubiquitous WS

Wild leek Allium tricoccum Ait. Liliaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Wild lily of the valley Maianthemum canadense Desf Liliaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Wild oats Chasmanthium latifolium (Michx.) 

Yates. 

Poaceae Ubiquitous WG

Wild Plum Prunus americana Marsh. Rosaceae Ubiquitous FIPT

Wild pumpkin Cucurbita foetidissima HBK Curcurbitaceae Ubiquitous V

Plant Species Found on Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Distrib. Guild
Appendix K: Animal and Plant Species Lists

697

Wild rice Zizania palustris L. var. interior 

Fassett Poaceae Ubiquitous EA

Wild sasparilla Aralia nudicaulis L. Araliaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Wild strawberry Fragaria virginiana Duchn. Rosaceae Ubiquitous MF

Wild water pepper Polygonum hydropiperoides Michx. Polygonaceae Ubiquitous MF

Wild yellow lily Lilium canadense L. Liliaceae Ubiquitous MF

Willowleaf lettuce Lactuca saligna L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous TAF

Winged loosestrife Lythrum alatum Pursh. Lythraceae Ubiquitous MF

Winged-stem Verbesina alternifolia (L.) Britt. Asteraceae Ubiquitous AWF

Wire sedge Carex lasiocarpa Ehrh. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Wood anemone Anemone quinquefolia L. Ranunculaceae Ubiquitous FTSS

Wood betony Pedicularis canadensis L. Scrophulariaceae Ubiquitous MF

Wood nettle Laportea canadensis (L.) Wedd. Urticaceae Ubiquitous AWF

Wood reed grass Cinna arundinacea L. Poaceae Ubiquitous WG

Woodland lettuce Lactuca floridana (L.) Gaertner Asteraceae Ubiquitous AWF

Wood-sorrel Oxalis stricta L. Oxalaceae Ubiquitous MF

Woolly bulrush Scirpus cyperinus (L.) Kunth Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Woolly sedge Carex lanuginosa Michx. Cyperaceae Ubiquitous MG

Wooly panicum Panicum lanigunosum Ell. Poaceae Ubiquitous MG

Woundwort Stachys palustris L. Lamiaceae Ubiquitous MF

Wrinkled goldenrod Solidago rugosa Miller Asteraceae Ubiquitous MF

Yam Dioscorea villosa L. Dioscoreaeceae Ubiquitous V

Yellow foxtail Setaria glauca (L.) P. Beauv. Poaceae Ubiquitous TAG

Yellow star grass Hypoxis hirsuta (L.) Cov. Liliaceae Ubiquitous MF

Yellow water crowfoot Ranunculus flabellaris Raf. Ranunculaceae Ubiquitous RSA

Yellowtop Senecio glabellus Poir. Asteraceae Ubiquitous AWF

Yerba de tajo Eclipta prostrata L. Asteraceae Ubiquitous AWF

Plant Species Found on Upper Mississippi River Refuge (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Distrib. Guild

Appendix L: Plan Implementation

699

Appendix L: Plan Implementation

Appendix L: Plan Implementation

701

Appendix L: Plan Implementation

1. Introduction

This appendix summarizes the actions, funding, coordination, and monitoring to implement 

Alternative E, the preferred alternative, as presented in the Final EIS/CCP. Modifications, if any, 

will be made based on the Record of Decision of the Regional Director, Region 3, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. This appendix will be incorporated as a separate chapter in the Final CCP which 

emerges from the EIS. As noted in the inside cover to the Final EIS/CCP, these plans do not 

constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding 

for future land acquisition. These decisions are at the discretion of Congress in overall 

appropriations, and in budget allocation decisions made at the Washington and Regional levels of the 

Service.

2. A Word about Priorities

In the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, Congress established a three-tiered hierarchy, or three 

priorities, for refuge management. As a first priority, every refuge is to be managed to fulfill its 

purposes and the Refuge System mission, namely conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants. Secondly, 

refuges are to facilitate wildlife-dependent or “Big 6” public uses, namely hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and interpretation and environmental education. Of lowest priority is 

managing other uses and activities such as general recreation.

However, setting priorities in a linear or in-order fashion (e.g. implementing from top to bottom on a 

list of prioritized actions) is generally not realistic when dealing with the complexities and multiprogram nature of managing a national wildlife refuge. In practice, especially on this Refuge given 

its size, length, interface with multiple states and agencies, and visitation levels for both wildlifedependent and other recreation, a linear approach is not workable. Below are a few of the reasons 

why some actions identified in this Implementation Plan must be done simultaneously, or why some 

general recreation actions are done before other resource-related actions.

# Funding streams from Congress may not follow an established hierarchy. For example, 

there may be no appropriations for land acquisition or habitat restoration in a given year, 

but Congress may choose to fund visitor services enhancement packages.

# A high priority such as habitat restoration is costly on a major river and dependent on 

funding from other sources, such as the Environmental Management Program 

administered by the Corps of Engineers. Thus, habitat restoration may be the highest 

priority for the Refuge, but if the funding is lacking, it cannot be accomplished. 

# The states or Corps of Engineers may have year-to-year priorities which benefit visitors to 

the Refuge and meets a Refuge objective. An example would be state funding for recreation 

enhancement such as access development or beach maintenance which must be spent in a 

given year or lost. In this case it is an urgent need in a fiscal sense, although a lower priority 

resource-wise.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

702

# The public or other units of government may strongly urge actions which may not be high 

resource priorities, or staff may be confronted with health, safety, or societal needs which 

must be addressed. Examples include a right-of-way expansion for a utility or highway 

project, beach maintenance in a certain pool, boat landings and other accesses, and fish float 

administration.

# Many actions are integrated with other actions. For example, Waterfowl Hunting Closed 

Areas are designed first and foremost to offer waterfowl resting and feeding areas during 

the fall migration. These areas also impact hunting, the quality of hunting, and can impact 

the resource if a firing line develops along a closed area boundary and leads to increased 

crippling loss of waterfowl. It is also important to limit disturbance to waterfowl using the 

closed areas, which leads to guidelines or regulations for public entry during critical times. 

Thus, many actions must be done simultaneously to achieve multiple objectives. 

# Some actions must be sequenced. For example, Objective 3.7 calls for the Refuge to devise a 

system for dove-tailing Refuge commercial fishing permitting requirements with the 

existing states’ existing permit systems. Doing this before completing a Fishery and Mussel 

Management Plan (Objective 3.6) would be premature since the plan would set goals and 

objectives which would be addressed in permit stipulations.

Given the above, the actions listed below are in two categories: those that can be completed with 

existing funding and staffing, and those that will take additional resources. Target dates for 

completion give an indication of the priority and are useful for planning workloads in any given year. 

Many actions are ongoing as noted, and some of these may also be included in a step-down plan (see 

list, Section 6). If an action has the date of 2021, this means the action will be done no later than 

2021, the 15-year planning horizon for the CCP. It is hoped that many of these actions will be 

completed well ahead of that date. This list is not all inclusive and details in specific objectives, along 

with all the strategies, will be used as applicable in implementing the CCP.

3. Actions – Existing Funding and Staffing

The following actions are derived from objectives and strategies in the CCP and represent those 

actions that can be accomplished with existing resources. Some of these actions reflect current, 

ongoing efforts, but most require a new initiative and/or redirection of existing Refuge funding and 

staff effort. This list will help focus annual work planning and performance plan preparation during 

the 15-year life of the plan. Details of these actions are found in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS/CCP.

Goal 1: Landscape

1. Prepare and print a new Land Use Allocation Plan in cooperation with the Corps of 

Engineers (2021).

2. Continue modest land acquisition program (ongoing).

3. Explore land exchanges with the states (2021).

4. Continue work with the Department of the Army for land transfers at the Lost Mound 

Unit (Savanna Army Depot) (ongoing).

5. Complete a management plan for each Research Natural Area (2010).

6. Seek cooperative research/monitoring opportunities in Research Natural Areas 

(ongoing).

7. Conduct yearly boundary reviews of Research Natural Areas (ongoing).

8. Facilitate nomination package for Wetland of International Importance (2008).
Appendix L: Plan Implementation

703

Goal 2: Environmental Health

1. Increase assistance agreements with watershed partners (ongoing).

2. Continue interagency efforts on watershed partnerships and pool drawdowns (2021).

3. Increase emphasis on water quality through habitat projects, support of state and 

federal initiatives, public information efforts, and interpretive and environmental 

education programs (ongoing).

4. Increase cooperation and public education to address invasive species (ongoing).

Goal 3: Wildlife and Habitat

1. Implement Pool Plans to extent possible working with Corps of Engineers and states 

using funding sources such as the Environmental Management Program (2021).

2. Adopt and use guiding principles for habitat projects (2006).

3. Amend the Wildlife Inventory Plan (2008).

4. Establish a Refuge Research Team and conduct formal coordination meetings with U.S. 

Geological Survey (2008).

5. Complete an Invasive Plant Control and Management Plan (new, 2009)

6. Complete a Habitat Management Plan (2021).

7. Complete a management plan for each federally-listed threatened and endangered 

species on the Refuge (2010).

8. Update the Refuge Trapping Plan (2007).

9. Complete a Fishery and Mussel Management Plan, including aquatic invasive animals 

(2008).

10. Conduct public information and education effort about turtles on the Refuge (ongoing).

11. Continue to use fire for habitat management – implement the Refuge’s Fire 

Management Plan (ongoing).

12. Conduct more active grassland management; include in Habitat Management Plan 

(ongoing and 2021).

Goal 4: Wildlife-Dependent Public Use

1. Update the Refuge Hunting Plan (2007)

2. Establish new administrative No Hunting Zones to avoid user conflicts or address 

safety issues (2007).

3. Modify the Waterfowl Hunting Closed Area System and regulations; post all areas each 

year (2007, 2009 and ongoing).

4. Monitor waterfowl use and human disturbance in the Waterfowl Hunting Closed Area 

System (ongoing).

5. Implement waterfowl hunting regulation changes (2007).

6. Complete plan for Gibbs Lake Area, Lake Onalaska, Pool 7 (2006).

7. Phase-out use of permanent waterfowl hunting blinds in Savanna District (2007 to 

2009).

8. Modify the Potter’s Marsh managed hunt, Savanna District (2006).

9. Eliminate the Blanding Landing managed hunt, Savanna District (Lost Mound) (2007).

10. Conduct public information campaign (media, leaflets, meetings) and increase law 

enforcement presence for all hunting-and-fishing-related changes (ongoing).
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

704

11. In cooperation with states and Corps of Engineers, and others, develop plan for dovetailing Refuge permitting requirements for fishing tournaments (2008).

12. Write standards for commercial fish float facilities and operations (2006).

13. Implement consistent process for regulating commercial guiding operations (2008).

Goal 5: Other Recreational Use

1. Implement new policies and regulations related to camping and beach-related uses 

(2007).

2. Implement new beach maintenance policy and complete beach plans in cooperation with 

Corps of Engineers and the states (2006 and ongoing).

3. Explore user fee system to off-set maintenance and administrative costs of other 

recreational uses (ongoing).

4. Establish and post Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas (2007 for most, 2008 

for Black River Bottoms and 2009 for Nelson-Trevino).

5. Establish new No Wake Zones (2007 to 2021).

6. Implement new regulation dealing with dogs (2007).

7. Annually review and update as needed public use regulations (ongoing).

8. Conduct public information campaign (media, leaflets, meetings) and increase law 

enforcement presence for all general recreational use changes (2006 and ongoing).

Goal 6: Administration and Operations

1. Review and update databases for operations and maintenance needs (ongoing).

4. Actions – New Funding and Staff

The following actions are derived from objectives and strategies in the CCP and represent those 

actions that can be accomplished if new funding and/or staffing is allocated to the Refuge. The 

completion target for these actions is generally 2021 given the unknown nature of funding. Actions 

in Goals 1 through 3 are the highest priority since they directly support the protection and 

enhancement of fish and wildlife and their habitat. However, new staff in Goals 4 through 6 also 

directly support resource-related work. Details of these actions are identified in Chapter 2 of the 

Final EIS/CCP. 

Costs are estimates and will likely be higher or lower based on detailed project planning and timing 

of implementation. Staff costs reflect 2005 salary and benefit rates at grades normal for the positions 

described. These needs will be reflected in key Refuge System databases such as the Refuge 

Operating Needs System, Maintenance Management System, and Service Assessment and 

Maintenance Management System which provide information used in budget formulation and 

allocation. The Refuge will also seek other project funding such as cost share agreements with 

partners, agency grant programs, grants from non-profit groups, and cost-saving or reprogramming 

measures within existing budget allocations. Implementing Environmental Pool Plans (Goal 3, 

Action 1) could be partially accomplished through the Corps of Engineers-administered 

Environmental Management Program and the Navigation and Environmental Sustainability 

Program (NESP) if authorized and funded by Congress. 
Appendix L: Plan Implementation

705

Goal 1: Landscape

Action Short-term or 

project-specific 

costs 

(thousands)

Recurring 

cost per year 

(thousands)

1. Re-survey and post Refuge boundary where problems are 

greatest in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers

$50

2. Acquire an average of 1,000 acres per year within approved 

Refuge boundary (Land and Water Conservation Fund 

funding)

$1,500

Goal 2: Environmental Health

Action

Short-term or 

project-specific 

costs 

(thousands)

Recurring 

cost per year 

(thousands)

1. Hire private lands biologist or technician for each of the 

Refuge’s four districts to work in watersheds

$ 280

2. Establish Access Trust Fund for recreational access work to 

facilitate pool drawdowns

$3,000

3. Hire temporary, seasonal technicians to complete invasive 

plant inventory

$ 250

4. Write invasive plant control and management plan $ 25

5. Hire fishery biologist to coordinate invasive animal control and 

management 

$100

Goal 3: Wildlife and Habitat 

Action

Short-term or 

project-specific 

costs 

(thousands)

Recurring 

cost per year 

(thousands)

1. Implement at least 30 percent of Refuge-priority 

Environmental Pool Plan actions 

$150,000

2. Hire a biologist for Districts without (2) to coordinate wildlife 

and habitat monitoring and management

$200

3. Monitor all federally-listed threatened and endangered 

species, assist with state-listed species

$20
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

706

4. Hire permanent, part-time receptionist/permit specialist at 

each District to handle inquiries and permits related to both fish 

and wildlife and various commercial uses

$120

5. Develop cooperative agreements with states for sharing 

commercial fishing permittee and catch information (fishery 

biologist responsibility, costs already captured)

N/A

6. Initiate 3-5 year turtle ecology study; complete turtle 

management plan

$100

7. Complete, with Corps of Engineers, Forest Inventory of the 

Refuge

$75

8. Hire Refuge Forester; complete Forest Management Plan $100

9. Annual maintenance needs for constructed habitat projects 

through EMP or other sources 

$360

Goal 5: Other Recreational Use

Action

Short-term or 

project-specific 

costs (thousands)

Recurring 

cost per year 

(thousands)

1. Annual funding needs to support signing, posting, leaflets, 

Leave No Trace program, law enforcement, permit 

administration, and other aspects of managing recreation on the 

Refuge. 

$100

2. Hire 4 additional full-time law enforcement officers, one for 

each District, to enforce Refuge recreation and wildlife 

regulations

$100

(vehicles/

equip)

$300

Goal 6: Administration and Operations 

Short-term or 

project-specific 

costs 

(thousands)

Recurring 

cost per year 

(thousands)

1. Construct offices in support of overall Refuge administration, 

management, and public use (Winona, La Crosse, McGregor, 

Lost Mound Unit, and Headquarters) 

$10,000 $100

2. Construct maintenance shops and equipment storage 

buildings at all Districts and Lost Mound Unit 

$3,500

3. Hire 3 maintenance staff for stations either without or to 

increase District capability for habitat and facility work

$150

Goal 3: Wildlife and Habitat (Continued)
Appendix L: Plan Implementation

707

5. Funding Summary

Total funding needs for the 15-year life of the CCP equals the one-time or project-specific costs plus 

the recurring costs per year times 15 years, or a total of $227.8 million. Of this total, $177 million or 

78 percent is directly related to habitat restoration and maintenance and land acquisition.

6. Summary of Step-Down Plans Needed

Below is a list of step-down plans called for in the Final EIS/CCP or required by Service policy. The 

planned completion date is in parenthesis, as well as a notation as to whether the step-down plan is 

new or a revision of an existing plan. These Refuge-specific plans provide the details of 

implementing the respective program or initiative described in broad terms in the objectives and 

strategies, and in sections 3 and 4 above. These plans will be developed in consultation with other 

agencies, states, and partners. The public will be given ample opportunity for plan review and 

4. Construct new boat landing and other accesses and parking 

areas

$500

5. Hire public information specialist to improve communication 

with public and media on Refuge programs and services

$100

6. Hire part-time receptionist at Headquarters to handle public 

inquiries and assist with permit management

$40

7. Hire additional staff (3) for the new Lost Mound Unit (9,715 

acres) to support biological, public use, and maintenance needs

$200

New Funding Summary by Major Category to Fully Implement the CCP

Short-term or 

project-specific 

costs 

Recurring cost 

per year 

Land Acquisition within approved boundary $1.5 million

Environmental Pool Plan habitat restoration and 

enhancement projects in lieu of other funding such as EMP 

or pending Navigation/Ecosystem initiative $150.0 million

Access Trust Fund for pool drawdowns $ 3.0 million

Office and maintenance building construction $ 13.5 million $ .1 million

General operations and maintenance $ 1.9 million $ 2.36 million

 Total $168.4 million $ 3.96 million

Goal 6: Administration and Operations (Continued)

Short-term or 

project-specific 

costs 

(thousands)

Recurring 

cost per year 

(thousands)
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

708

comment. Environmental assessments or other documentation may also be needed to comply with 

National Environmental Policy Act or other requirements. 

# Land Use Allocation Plan (revise, 2021) 

# Research Natural Area Management Plan (new, 2010)

# Wildlife Inventory and Monitoring Plan (revise, 2008)

# Habitat Management Plan, including grasslands (new, 2021)

# Invasive Plant Control and Management Plan (new, 2009)

# Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species (new)

# Fishery and Mussel Management Plan, including invasive aquatic animals (new, 2008)

# Fire Management Plan (revise as needed)

# Forest Management Plan (new, 2010)

# Hunting Plan (revise, 2007)

# Fishing Plan (new, 2008)

# Visitor Services Plan (new, 2008)

# Trapping Plan (revise, 2007)

# Law Enforcement Plan (new, 2006)

# Plans or guidelines for:

Gibbs Lake Area, Pool 7 (new, 2006)

Commercial fish floats (new, 2006)

Fishing tournaments (new, 2008)

Beach management with Corps of Engineers and states (new/revised, 2006 and ongoing)

Guides and guiding (new, 2008)

7. Near-term Implementation (3 years)

CY 2006 Actions

# Complete and/or plan drawdowns and EMP projects

# Law Enforcement step-down plan

# Gibbs Lake Area Plan

# Begin drafting Trapping Plan

# Public and media outreach on recreation changes

# Publish new regulations for 2007 recreation changes

# Design new signs for closed areas, electric motor areas, slow, no wake areas, etc.

# Write and design new information leaflets

# Design new kiosk maps

# Outreach for Savanna District hunting changes

# Guidelines for fish float operations and maintenance

# Initiate beach planning on select pools with Corps of Engineers and state

CY 2007 Actions

# Complete and/or plan drawdowns and EMP projects

# Implement new guidelines and regulations dealing with closed areas, electric motor areas, 

slow, no wake areas, beach use, dogs, permanent blinds, etc.

# Begin process for establishing No Wake Zones with local units of government

# Revise Hunting Plan

# Complete Trapping Plan
Appendix L: Plan Implementation

709

CY 2008

# Complete and/or plan drawdowns and EMP projects

# Complete a Wetland of International Importance designation package (RAMSAR)

# Revise Wildlife Inventory Plan

# Establish Refuge Research Team

# Complete Fishery and Mussel Management Plan

# Complete Recreational Fishing Plan

# Complete fishing tournament guidelines

# Complete commercial guiding guidelines

8. Monitoring and Evaluation

Objectives and strategies implemented will be continually monitored and evaluated during the 15-

year life of the plan. The wildlife inventory and monitoring plan update will be critical since fish and 

wildlife are important barometers of habitat condition and health. Many of the objectives in the plan 

deal directly with better monitoring and evaluation, and in this regard, adequate staffing and 

continued partnerships with the Corps of Engineers, states, U.S. Geological Survey, and others will 

be important. Many actions inherent in the plan are new directions and monitoring will help 

understand the effects of the actions on habitat, fish and wildlife populations, and public use patterns 

and levels. There will also be a growing need to understand the impacts of recreation on fish, wildlife, 

and habitat as use levels increase and means of use change. In addition, the Mississippi River and its 

watershed will certainly change, and likely in ways unforeseen. Land use changes, invasive species, 

floods, disease outbreaks, and climate may alter expected outcomes, and monitoring will be critical 

to detecting and reacting to such change. 

9. Plan Review and Revision

As noted above, environmental change and unforeseen effects may call for changes in the plan. The 

Refuge will practice adaptive management, using monitoring, evaluation, and experimentation to 

learn and change aspects of the plan as needed. For example, a change in the size and distribution of 

Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas is proposed to achieve a better distribution of feeding and resting 

areas for fall migrants. Weekly aerial surveys in the fall will provide necessary waterfowl use data to 

gauge effectiveness of the changes, and along with impacts from human disturbance, form the basis 

for any needed boundary and regulation modifications.

Since the CCP will be a constant reference and guide for Refuge staff, internal review will be 

continuous. In addition, it is expected that the public and partners will offer continuous feedback. At 

least every 3 years, representatives of the Corps of Engineers, states, other agencies, and non-profit 

and citizen groups will be invited to meet and provide more formal input into what is working, what 

is not, and possible changes the Refuge should consider. Revisions will be undertaken as needed by 

amendments to the CCP. There will be an opportunity for public review and comment prior to 

making any substantive changes. A major plan review and re-write will occur after 15 years.

10. Partnerships

Refuge staff works closely with the departments of natural resources of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, 

and Illinois in designing and carrying out projects and programs. The Corps of Engineers is a 

critical partner due to its dominant role in navigation, water level management, forestry, and the 

planning and construction of environmental restoration projects. Much of the habitat restoration 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

710

and enhancement work is done through the Environmental Management Program administered by 

the Corps, and this work could accelerate should Congress approve and fund the Navigation and 

Environmental Sustainability Program (NESP).

The U. S. Geological Survey, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture, and 

state-level counterpart agencies all play a role in biological monitoring, research, environmental 

regulation, and policy making on the river, and thus the Refuge. Other U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

programs such as fisheries and ecological services also play a key role, both as leaders for certain 

projects and programs, and in support. The Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program will 

continue to play a critical role in working with private landowners to improve the watersheds of the 

Refuge.

Conservation organizations are active in policy issues and/or land acquisition affecting the Refuge 

and include Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, Izaak Walton League, and American Rivers. A host 

of local conservation and sporting organizations like the La Crosse County Conservation Alliance 

are active. Lastly, many citizen conservationists help the Refuge as volunteers and as members of 

the Friends of the Upper Mississippi River Refuges, a citizen support group.

The forum for bringing together such a diversity of partners, who often have different missions and 

agendas, is both formal and informal. Established associations, commissions, committees, and 

working groups bring people together; plans, planning, and public meetings allow input from 

everyone. Specific projects and events let citizens lend a helping hand. These partnerships will 

remain an important part of plan implementation, both in gaining and maintaining public and 

partner understanding and support, and through the joint funding of specific actions.
Appendix L: Plan Implementation

711

Figure 35: Staffing, Upper Mississippi River Refuge

Appendix M: Distribution List

713

Appendix M: Distribution List

Appendix M: Distribution List

715

Distribution List

The Draft EIS/CCP for Upper Mississippi River Refuge was distributed to a wide range of citizens, 

non-government organizations, elected officials, and state and federal agencies. A list of the people, 

agencies and organizations that received notice that the draft document is available is included in 

Chapter 6 of the EIS.

Selected elected representatives, federal, state and local agencies, organizations, and interested 

individuals have received a printed copy of this document.

Appendix N: Example of Environmental Pool Plans

717

Appendix N: Example of Environmental Pool 

Plans

Appendix N: Example of Environmental Pool Plans

719

 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

720
Appendix N: Example of Environmental Pool Plans

721

Appendix O: Vegetation Classification System Reference and Sample

723

Appendix O: Vegetation Classification 

System Reference and Sample

Appendix O: Vegetation Classification System Reference and Sample

725

Vegetation Classification System, Upper Mississippi River Refuge

Upper Mississippi River CODE

Upper Mississippi River Class

Upper Mississippi River Class Description

Hydrolocial Description

Habitat Needs Assessment CROSSWALK

National Vegetation and Information Standard (NVCS Code)

N

AG Agriculture All obviously cultivated fields. 

This category may include transitional fallow fields that show evidence of tilling.

Infrequently Flooded NonForest

Agriculture V.C.2.N.b. A

g

CN Conifers All natural or semi-natural 

evergreen communities. Typically Pine, but occasionally Cedar.

Infrequently Flooded Forest

Mesic Bottomland Hardwood Forest

I.A.8.N.b. R

tnf

DMA Deep Marsh 

Annual

Dominated by Wild Rice, but may include floating-leaf species, submergents, or deep marsh perennials.

Semipermanently Flooded NonForest

Semi-permanently Flooded Emergent Annual

V.A.5.N.l. S

tg

DMP Deep Marsh 

Perennial

Persistent emergents that prefer lots of water. Dominated by Arrowhead, Bur-reed, and Cattail and may include Pickerelweed, Giant Reed Grass, and Bulrush.

Semipermanently Flooded NonForest

Semi-permanently Flooded Emergent Perennial

V.A.5.N.l. S

tg

DMS Deep Marsh Shrub Shrubby vegetation >25%, 

dominated by Buttonbush and Water Willow, frequently growing in standing water. May include RFA, SV, and deep marsh perennials.

Semipermanently Flooded Shrubs

Scrub/Shrub III.B.2.N.f. S

c
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

726

DV Developed Areas that are predominantly 

artificial in nature such as cities/towns, large farmsteads, and industrial complexes.

Infrequently Flooded NonForest

Developed n/a D

A

FF Floodplain Forest Softwood forests growing on 

saturated soils near the main channel and in floodplain backwaters. These forest are predominantly Silver Maple, but also include Elm, Cottonwood, Black Willow, and River Birch.

Seasonally Flooded Forest

Wet Floodplain Forest

I.B.2.N.e. S

dc

GR Grassland Drier upland grass or grass/

forb fields. May include fallow fields, sand prairies, and shrubby vegetation < 25%.

Infrequently Flooded NonForest

Grassland V.A.5.N.a. T

g

LF Lowland Forest Lowland Forest - More 

common on southern reaches of the UMRS. These forests grow along the river banks on sites that are drier than FF sites. Typical species include many Hickories, Pecan, River Birch.

Temporarily Flooded Forest

Wet Floodplain Forest

I.B.2.N.d. T

dc

LV Levee All continuous dikes or 

embankments designed for flood protection. More common on southern reaches of the UMRS and typically covered with mixed grass and forbs.

Infrequently Flooded NonForest

Grassland V.A.5.N.a. T

g

Vegetation Classification System, Upper Mississippi River Refuge
Appendix O: Vegetation Classification System Reference and Sample

727

MUD Mud Exposed, non-vegetated 

mudflats. May occur near the main channel or in backwaters.

Seasonally Flooded NonForest

Sand/Mud VII.C.4.N.c. S

f

NPC No Photo 

Coverage

Gaps in photo coverage. May include areas obscured by clouds or shadows.

No Photo Coverage

No Photo Coverage

n/a N

OW Open Water All non-vegetated open 

bodies of water.

Permanently Flooded NonForest

Open Water n/a O

A

PC Populus 

Community

Predominantly Cottonwood (>50%) but may include willow and other floodplain forest species.

Seasonally Flooded Forest

Populus Community

I.B.2.N.e. S

dc

PN Plantation All commercially-grown 

evergreen plantations, large nurseries, and orchards. Typically will be Red or White Pine.

Infrequently Flooded Forest

Mesic Bottomland Hardwood Forest

I.A.8.C.a. P

PS Pasture All grass fields used for the 

production of livestock.

Infrequently Flooded NonForest

Grassland V.A.5.C.a. P

RD Roadside Grass/

Forbs

Grass/forb-covered right-ofways along side of roads, highways, and railroads.

Infrequently Flooded NonForest

Grassland n/a R

DC

RFA Rooted Floating 

Aquatics

Typically Lotus and Lily, but may include Water Shield and Water Primrose. Frequently grows with submergent vegetation when RFA density is < 90%.

Permanently Flooded NonForest

Floating-Leaved Aquatic Bed

V.C.2.N.a. P

thv

Vegetation Classification System, Upper Mississippi River Refuge
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

728

SB Sand Bar Exposed sand bars typically 

found in and near the main channel, and often associated with wing dams and islands.

Temporarily Flooded NonForest

Sand/Mud VII.C.2.N.c. T

f

SC Salix Community Predominantly Willow 

(>50%) but may include Cottonwood and other floodplain forest species.

Seasonally Flooded Forest

Salix Community I.B.2.N.e. S

dc

SD Sand Dunes/Spoil Sand spoil banks, beaches, 

and other sparsely-vegetated sandy areas.

Infrequently Flooded NonForest

Sand/Mud VII.C.1.N.a. D

h

SM Sedge Meadow Dominated by mixed Sedges 

but may include perennial emergents and moist soil grass/forbs.

Temporarily Flooded NonForest

Wet Meadow V.A.5.N.j. T

tg

SMA Shallow Marsh 

Annual

Typically Wild Millet and Beggarsticks and other annual species that favor mudflats and shallow basins.

Seasonally Flooded NonForest

Seasonally Flooded Emergent Annual

V.A.5.N.k. S

tg

SMP Shallow Marsh 

Perennial

The transition zone between deep marsh and wet meadow that is dominated by Bulrush, and to a lesser extent Cattail, Arrowhead, Bur-reed, Giant Reed Grass, Smartweed, and other moist soil species.

Seasonally Flooded NonForest

Seasonally Flooded Emergent Perennial

V.A.5.N.k. S

tg

SMS Shallow Marsh 

Shrub

Mixed shrubs >25%, but typically Sandbar Willow growing near the main channel and in backwaters along with mixed emergents, grasses, and forbs.

Seasonally Flooded Shrubs

Scrub/Shrub III.B.2.N.e. S

d

Vegetation Classification System, Upper Mississippi River Refuge
Appendix O: Vegetation Classification System Reference and Sample

729

SS Shrub/Scrub Shrubby vegetation > 25% 

on drier soils with a mixed grass/forb understory.

Infrequently Flooded Shrubs

Scrub/Shrub III.B.2.N.a. T

s

SV Submerged 

Aquatic Vegetation

All submersed aquatic vegetation.

Permanently Flooded NonForest

Submersed Aquatic Bed

V.C.2.N.a. P

thv

UF Upland Forest Forests growing at the edge 

or out of the UMRS floodplain. Species include Red/White Oak, Hickories, Elm, and other deciduous trees.

Infrequently Flooded Forest

Mesic Bottomland Hardwood Forest

I.B.2.N.a. L

cc

WM Wet Meadow Dominated by moist soil 

grasses such as Reed Canary Grass and Rice Cutgrass. Also includes Loosestrife, Smartweed, and small inclusions of other mixed emergents, grasses, and forbs.

Saturated Soil Non-Forest

Wet Meadow V.A.5.N.m. S

s

WMS Wet Meadow 

Shrub

Mixed shrubby vegetation > 25%, typically Alder, Elder, False Indigo, Dogwood and/or Willow with a sedge/grass/forb understory.

Temporarily Flooded Shrubs

Wet Floodplain Forest

I.B.2.N.f. S

cc

WS Wooded Swamp Most common in southern 

reaches of UMRS. Includes Bald Cypress, Water Tupelo, Sourgum, and Black Ash.

Semipermanently Flooded Forest

Wet Floodplain Forest

I.B.2.N.f. S

cc

Vegetation Classification System, Upper Mississippi River Refuge
Upper Mississippi River NW&FR Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

730
Appendix P: Maps of Management Alternatives

731

Appendix P: Maps of Management 

Alternatives

Due to the size and length of the Refuge, maps showing various features for each alternative present 

a challenge in formatting and printing as part of this document. Thus, all maps were assembled in a 

separate appendix in a large format. These map booklets are available for viewing at Refuge offices, 

at 58 public libraries in communities along the Refuge, and on the planning website at http://

www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/uppermiss. Compact discs or CDs with the entire Final EIS/CCP 

and maps are also available upon request by calling (507) 452-4232, or leaving a message at the tollfree number (888) 291-5719.

A series of smaller maps depicting the changes made to Alternative E, the preferred alternative in 

the Final EIS/CCP, are included in a special Planning Update mailed to more than 4,000 persons on 

the CCP mailing list. Copies of this update are also available on the website or by calling the 

numbers above. 

Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and Rationale for Alternative E

733

Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed 

Areas, History, Description, Background and 

Rationale for Alternative E

Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and Rationale for Alternative E

735

Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, 

Background and Rationale for Alternative E

(With descriptions of the Wisconsin River Delta Special Hunt Area (Pool 10) and the 

Lower Pool 11 No Open Water Hunting Area)

This appendix provides background information and rationale for modifications of the Refuge closed 

area system presented in Alternative E of the Environmental Impact Statement and 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Descriptions, backgrounds, and rationales for each closed area 

are included. Also included are descriptions of the Wisconsin River Delta Special Hunt Area (Pool 

10) and the Lower Pool 11 No Open Water Hunting Area. Additional information on closed areas is 

provided in Chapter 3 (section 3.2.7.1) of the EIS/CCP, with specific locations, objectives, and 

rationale provided in Objective 4.2 Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas in Alternative E of the EIS/

CCP. Location maps are presented in Appendix P. Attachment 1 of this appendix provides discussion 

on waterfowl disturbance thresholds and other waterfowl hunting closed area issues raised during 

the comment period for Alternative E, Supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP.

Background

National wildlife refuges play a crucial role in providing breeding, migrational, and wintering ground 

habitat for waterfowl. Over the past 75 years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has strategically 

established many of its refuges to help meet widely held waterfowl conservation goals.

A feature common to refuges is the inclusion of closed areas, which provide waterfowl the 

opportunity to feed and rest without disturbance during migration and at wintering locations. 

Without disturbance, waterfowl are provided opportunity for molting, preening, pair bonding and fat 

storage, all of which help build healthier populations. Closed areas also help keep regional 

populations in and around refuges, providing hunting opportunity on adjacent public and private 

lands. The value of closed areas to waterfowl declines if they are frequently altered or rotated. The 

purpose of the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge closed area system is to 

provide migrating waterfowl a network of relatively secure feeding and resting areas, and to 

disperse waterfowl hunting opportunities on the Refuge. Existing closed areas are defined as 

follows:

“Closed to all migratory bird hunting; other hunting and trapping is only allowed beginning the 

day after the close of the state duck hunting season, until season closure or March 15, whichever 

comes first, except turkey hunting is allowed during state seasons.”

Refuge closed areas are generally open for other uses, including recreational boating and sport and 

commercial fishing. The only exceptions are the Spring Lake closed area (Pool 13) which is a 

sanctuary and closed to all public entry October 1 to the end of the state duck hunting season, and 

the Goose Island No Hunting Zone (Pool 8) which is closed to hunting at all times. In addition, a 

portion of the Lake Onalaska (Pool 7) closed area has been designated a Voluntary Waterfowl 

Avoidance Area since 1986 where the public is asked to remain out of the area October 15 to midNovember to minimize disturbance of feeding and resting waterfowl.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

736

Closed Area Milestones

# 1924 – Refuge established by Congress

N Entire Refuge closed to waterfowl hunting until the early 1930s

# 1930s to 1956 – system of 20 closed areas, totaling 34,150 acres

N Some closed areas established out of convenience of Refuge ownership rather than on 

areas with best food sources (carrying capacity) or reduced disturbance; established only 

on Fish and Wildlife Service-acquired fee title lands

N Disturbance by boaters a problem;

N Maintenance of boundaries difficult, required constant brushing; 

N “Firing lines” developed

# 1957-58 – system of 14 closed areas, totaling 41,600 acres

N After 10 years in development, this is the core of the current system which now has 15 

units, covering 44,544 acres. Two units do not have standard closed area regulations:

3) Spring Lake in Pool 13 is a sanctuary from October 1 to the end of the duck hunting 

season.

4) Goose Island in Pool 8 is closed to all hunting year-round. Trempealeau National 

Wildlife Refuge, next to Pool 6, functions as a closed area with special regulations 

but is not included in this analysis. When first established, this system generally 

met goals of providing secure feeding and resting areas and dispersing hunting 

opportunities. Closed areas are located on Refuge-acquired and Corps of 

Engineers-acquired fee title lands.

# 1978 and 1985 – Wildlife Technical Section of the Upper Mississippi River Conservation 

Committee

N Section recognized that some closed areas were not functioning as intended and 

proposed changes to the closed area system but none were implemented.

# 1986 – establishment of the Lake Onalaska Voluntary Waterfowl Avoidance Area (Pool 7).

N Other than at Spring Lake and Goose Island (see above), this is the only tool currently 

being used by the Refuge to address human-caused disturbance during fall migration. 

This program, developed in cooperation with state agencies and local sportsman and 

conservation groups, asks the public (mostly boaters) to avoid entry into this area. It has 

been operational each year, from October 15 through mid-November, since 1986. Studies 

conducted in 1986-88, 1993, 1997, and 2004 revealed that the voluntary avoidance area 

was effective in maintaining constant levels of boater intrusions and disturbance of birds 

despite increased levels of boating activity throughout the Pool.

# 1987 – Refuge’s Master Plan

N During development of the Plan, changes to the closed area system were considered but 

none were included in the final, pending further study on human disturbance and 

effectiveness of the voluntary avoidance area.

# 2005 – release Draft EIS/ CCP in May

N Initial preferred alternative (D) proposes a closed area system of 21 units, covering 

43,704 acres. Areas would retain the standard closed area definition and add proposed 

regulations of no fishing and the use of no motors during the state duck hunting season.

# 2005 – release Supplement to the Draft EIS/CCP in December

N New preferred alternative (E) proposes a system of 22 units, covering 45,755 acres.

Areas retain standard closed area definition with proposed regulations of voluntary 
Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and Rationale for Alternative E

737

avoidance on all large closed areas October 15 to the end of the state duck hunting season 

and use of no motors and voluntary avoidance on small closed areas (~1000 acres or less) 

October 15 to the end of the state duck hunting season. A threshold for disturbance is 

also established under Alternative E.

# 2006 – release of EIS/CCP with final preferred Alternative E that includes a closed area 

system comprised of 23 units covering 43,764 acres. Same entry regulations and threshold 

as Supplement (see above).

Definitions

Waterfowl Hunting Closed Area, current definition:

“Closed to all migratory bird hunting; other hunting and trapping is only allowed beginning the 

day after the close of the state duck hunting season, until season closure or March 15, whichever 

comes first, except turkey hunting is allowed during state seasons.”

“Large” and “ Small” Closed Areas: Alternative E

Waterfowl hunting closed areas under Alternative E will continue to be defined with the current 

definition, see above.

In addition, closed areas will be classified (with exceptions) as either “Large” or “Small,” as 

described below:

Under Alternative E, the public will be asked to practice Voluntary Avoidance (limiting entry) on 

all closed areas (“Large” and “Small”) October 15 to the end of the respective state duck hunting 

season and in addition there will be a “no motor” restriction on “Small” closed areas October 15 

to the end of the regular state duck hunting season. “Large” closed areas are greater than 1,000 

acres and “Small” closed areas are ~1,000 acres or less. “No motors” means the use of motors on 

watercraft is not allowed, although possession of a motor is allowed in these areas. 

Disturbance Threshold: Alternative E

One major disturbance per day based on a season-long average. This is based on results of 

human disturbance monitoring and research on Pools 7 and 8, 1980 – 2004. A major disturbance 

is defined as a human intrusion which displaces 1,000 waterfowl or 50 percent of the waterfowl 

present, whichever is less. The disturbance threshold would not include commercial fishing 

(handled through permitting process) or government entities engaged in monitoring, research, 

or law enforcement.

Sanctuary: all alternatives

A waterfowl sanctuary is defined as follows: “No entry October 1 to the end of the regular state 

duck hunting season.”

Voluntary Waterfowl Avoidance Area or Voluntary Avoidance Area

Under Alternative E, closed areas will be posted to encourage boaters to practice Voluntary 

Avoidance (limited entry) October 15 to the end of the state duck hunting season to reduce 

disturbance of waterfowl. Moving the effective date from October 1 in Alternative D to October 

15 in Alternative E for these entry regulations reflects public concern about the loss of fall 

fishing and survey data which shows that the major influx of migrating waterfowl occurs after 

October 15 each year. The existing Voluntary Waterfowl Avoidance Area on Lake Onalaska in 

Pool 7 will continue as implemented, with effective dates of October 15 to mid-November.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

738

Closed Area System Goals

After nearly 50 years, changes from within and outside the closed area system have altered how 

waterfowl utilize the Refuge during migration. Changes include the amount and quality of 

habitat available, the number and species of waterfowl using the system, and the size and 

number of closed areas available. Refuge-wide, fewer islands and acres of vegetation are 

generally available to provide shelter, food, and cover. More diving ducks, Tundra Swans, and 

Canada Geese are now present, but fewer puddle ducks.

As a result of these changes, not all closed areas in the system are providing waterfowl with the 

habitat components required to meet their biological needs. Waterfowl are now concentrated in 

a few functioning closed areas rather than being dispersed throughout the system.

The overall Refuge closed area system goals and some strategies to achieve them are as follows:

1) Provide migrating waterfowl a more balanced and effective network of feeding and resting 

areas.

N Add closed areas in gaps between stepping stones of habitat.

N Align closed areas over existing preferred food sources.

N Construct islands to restore habitat, protect vegetation beds from currents, wind and 

wave action, and sedimentation, and provide thermal and visual barriers for waterfowl.

N Promote growth of aquatic vegetation using water level drawdowns.

2) Minimize disturbance to feeding and resting waterfowl in closed areas.

N Establish Voluntary Waterfowl Avoidance Areas.

N Restrict use of motors.

N Restrict fishing.

N Establish waterfowl sanctuaries (no entry).

3) Provide waterfowl hunters with more equitable hunting opportunities over the length of the 

Refuge.

N Add new closed areas to hold birds in new areas.

N Eliminate or reduce the size of existing closed areas to provide more area open to

N hunting.

N Establish hunter spacing limits (Illinois only).

N Eliminate use of permanent blinds.

4) Reduce hunter competition and waterfowl crippling loss along some closed area boundaries.

N Consider managed hunts (include hunting public in the development of these hunts).

N Adjust the closed area boundary

N Modify hunting regulations.

5) Stabilize boundaries where island and/or shoreline loss or gain creates a fluctuating 

boundary.

Background and rationale for each of the 20 closed areas and 3 sanctuaries included in Alternative

E for the Refuge closed area system address one or more facets of these goals. A description of each

closed area by Refuge District, Pools 4 through 14, is presented in the following pages.
Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and Rationale for Alternative E

739

Closed Area Descriptions

Winona District

Pool 4, Big Lake,Wisconsin, 2,461 acres

General Description

The Big Lake closed area encompasses 2,461 acres of Big Lake in a line roughly bordering the main 

channel to the west, shoreline to the east, Indian Slough to the north and Grand Encampment 

dredge material placement site to the south. This closed area is classified as “large” and will be 

designated a voluntary avoidance area October 15 to the end of the state duck hunting season. A 

travel corridor is included on the northeast corner to facilitate boat traffic from a resort and private 

docks to and from the main channel with minimal disturbance to migrating waterfowl. The closed 

area will not take effect before the start of the 2009 waterfowl hunting season. This delay will allow 

waterfowl hunters the opportunity to locate new hunting locations and allow the refuge to further 

study the availability of vegetation and other food sources in Big Lake and Nelson-Trevino and 

evaluate waterfowl use on Lake Pepin (Pool 4) and within Nelson-Trevino. 

The Big Lake closed area is located in the general area of an historic (1930s to mid 1950s) closed area 

that was dropped in 1957. The area will be closed to waterfowl hunting because of the availability of 

abundant waterfowl foods and open water habitat. Big Lake represents the only location this type of 

habitat is available for an approximate 50-mile stretch of river upstream of Lock and Dam 6 (Winona 

District). The only exception is the habitat found on Trempealeau NWR in Pool 6. The lack of 

protected high-quality waterfowl habitat has lead to a skewed distribution of migrating birds over 

the length of the Refuge. 

The closed area alignment within Pool 4, beginning no sooner than the opening of the waterfowl 

season in 2009, includes; Big Lake, Wisconsin (2,461 acres), Rieck’s Lake/Buffalo River, Wisconsin 

(608 acres), and Peterson Lake, Minnesota (677 acres) for a pool-wide total of 3,746 acres. Since 1957, 

the closed area acreage in Pool 4 has been 6,884 acres, the new alignment provides a net gain of 3,138 

acres open to hunting within the pool.

Background

Big Lake was a closed area from the mid-1930s through 1954 (named the Beef Slough closed area) 

totaling 1,319 acres. Evaluation of the area in 1954 determined that due to land ownership at the 

time, the eastern boundary was difficult to maintain as it traversed through deep, open water. The 

north and south boundaries were through marsh which resulted in the creation of firing lines and it 

was determined that elevated levels of boat traffic through the closed area were causing disturbance 

of the birds. Based on this evaluation, the closed area configuration was changed in 1957 which 

included Nelson-Trevino, Wisconsin (3,773 acres) and Peterson Lake (including Rieck's Lake and 

Buffalo River), Minnesota/Wisconsin (3,111 acres). In the following year, 1958, reports indicate that 

waterfowlers requested the Big Lake closed area be re-established as they witnessed a decline in 

waterfowl hunting success in Robinson Lake, Minnesota. However, no changes to the alignment 

were made.

The Big Lake area has seen a decline in aquatic vegetation and a loss of depth diversity caused by 

sedimentation from the Chippewa River. The bed-load from the Chippewa, primarily sand, not only 

influences backwater features and water quality, but also the main channel where it affects channel 

maintenance activities extending through Pool 7. In an attempt to reduce sand loading to Big Lake, 

two major inflows, Indian Slough and Catfish Slough, were modified. The Indian Slough closure 

incorporates features to improve fisheries habitat via tree drops and riffle-pool complexes. The 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

740

Indian Slough structure was not engineered to be a sand-trap but is instead a closure to reduce the 

flow of water, thus reducing the amount of sand entering Big Lake. 

Future habitat improvement activities proposed for Big Lake include island construction, 

maintaining/increasing water depths in approximately three percent of the aquatic area for fishery 

habitat, re-vegetation of historic dredged material placement sites to increase the area and diversity 

of forests and increasing emergent vegetation by approximately 14 percent. Other features will be 

considered to stabilize shorelines and reduce island dissection..

Rationale

The Big Lake closed area will substantially increase the amount of food available to migrating 

waterfowl in a relatively secure environment. Big Lake, one of the last, and the best, puddle duck 

and diving duck habitat areas on the Winona District (Pools 4-6), will play a vital role in achieving a 

more even distribution of waterfowl, primarily puddle ducks, but some divers as well, on the entire 

Refuge. Energetic studies (Slivinski, 2004) indicate an expected 104 percent increase in gross energy 

available to migrating and staging waterfowl by developing Big Lake as a closed area.

In conjunction with the closing of Big Lake, Nelson–Trevino, Wisconsin (3,773 acres), Buffalo (Beef) 

Slough, Wisconsin (788 acres), and portions of Peterson Lake closed area will be opened to hunting 

providing new opportunities for duck hunters as well as deer and small game hunters. These 

changes will not occur before the 2009 waterfowl hunting season.

Winona District

Pool 4, Rieck’s Lake/Buffalo River, Wisconsin, 608 acres

General Description

The Rieck’s Lake/Buffalo River closed area includes the existing boundary around Rieck’s Lake and 

a small section of water west of Hwy. 35 to the east bank of the railroad tracks and south to the main 

cut below the Rieck’s Lakeside Park. A travel corridor is included to allow access from the Buffalo 

River Landing to the main channel. At 608 acres, this area is classified as a “small” closed area (less 

than 1000 acres) and is closed to the use of motors and is a Voluntary Avoidance area from October 

15 to the end of the state duck hunting season. Under this designation, the use of motors will not be 

allowed and the public will be asked to voluntarily avoid entering the area during the stated time 

period to minimize disturbance to waterfowl. This new configuration will not take effect before the 

start of the 2009 waterfowl hunting season to coincide with implementation of the Big Lake closed 

area (see above).

Background

Rieck’s Lake is most widely known as the location for the Alma Tundra Swan Watch. This closed 

area is located north of Alma, Wisconsin and was traditionally renowned as a site that held 

concentrations of up-to 6,000 migrating tundra swans within close proximity of the road. An 

observation deck was built through the cooperation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers and City of Alma, and is staffed by volunteers during the fall migration period. 

The notoriety of Rieck’s Lake has grown with over 20,000 people from around the world annually 

visiting the observation deck for close-up views of swans.

The greatest threat to Rieck’s Lake is sedimentation from surrounding lands and the heavy growth 

of bur-reed which has overgrown the marsh eliminating open water. Waterfowl counts from 2004 

showed a peak of only 300 Tundra Swans and counts from 2005 showed only 65 swans utilizing the 
Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and Rationale for Alternative E

741

closed area. The Swan Watch organization, working with Buffalo County and a grant from the 

Federal Scenic Byways Program, contracted to have 35,000 cubic yards of sediment dredged during 

the early-fall of 2005. The material was removed in a mosaic pattern to create large open-water 

“fingers” that will provide attractive resting and feeding areas for swans and other waterfowl. First 

year results are inconclusive because a combination of late-arriving swans and a relatively early 

freeze-up of Rieck’s Lake pushed swans to larger, open water areas. It is anticipated that until 

changes can be made within the watershed of Rieck’s Lake, sedimentation will continue to pose a 

threat to the area.

Rationale

Rieck’s Lake is separated from Pool 4 by Highway 35 making it an easy boundary to maintain. It 

provides moderate waterfowl food resources for migrating waterfowl and offers educational benefits 

to the public by providing one of the few opportunities to see waterfowl close-up. It also provides 

economic benefit to the surrounding towns through the increased tourism brought by the Swan 

Watch.

Winona District

Pool 4, Peterson Lake, Minnesota, 677 acres

General Description

The Peterson Lake closed area includes a boundary change which reduces the size of the closed area 

from 3,111 acres in both Minnesota and Wisconsin to 677 acres in Minnesota only. It is classified as a 

“small” closed area (less than 1,000 acres) and is closed to the use of motors and is a Voluntary 

Avoidance area from October 15 to the end of the state duck hunting season. Under this designation, 

the use of motors will not be allowed and the public will be asked to voluntarily avoid entering the 

area during the stated time period to minimize disturbance to waterfowl. A travel corridor will be 

established from the Peterson Lake Landing to the main channel to facilitate motorboats during the 

hunting season. This new configuration will not take effect before the start of the 2009 waterfowl 

hunting season to coincide with implementation of the Big Lake closed area (see above).

Background

The existing configuration of the Peterson Lake closed area includes Peterson Lake, Minnesota, 

Buffalo (Beef) Slough, Wisconsin, Rieck’s Lake, Wisconsin and the main channel for a total of 3,111 

acres. This closed area configuration was developed in 1958 in response to the opening of Beef 

Slough (Big Lake) closed area to hunting. 

Over the years, Peterson Lake has suffered from significant erosion of the islands that bordered its 

eastern side resulting in a decrease in aquatic and terrestrial habitat diversity which has negatively 

affected the waterfowl use of the lake. In 1992, three culverts were placed through the Lock and 

Dam 4 embankment to move water to the Finger Lakes area of Pool 5. The culverts were installed in 

an effort to improve the fisheries of the Finger Lakes. In 1995, as part of the Peterson Lake Habitat 

Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project (HREP), many of the remaining islands were protected by 

rip-rap. At the same time, some of the islands were “replaced” using rock structures to reduce 

sedimentation and velocities in Peterson Lake.

 Proposed habitat improvement projects for Peterson Lake include island formation through both 

construction and sedimentation (seed islands). A 500 percent increase in emergent vegetation is 

proposed based on the cumulative effects of the proposed island construction. The U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers is proposing the addition of two islands in Peterson Lake along the Lock and Dam 4 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

742

embankment to protect the embankment from erosion through means other than rip-rap. These 

islands are tentatively scheduled to be completed during the summer of 2007.

Rationale

The Peterson Lake closed area had been proposed for removal in the initial release of Alternative E. 

However, comments received in writing and made at public meetings by waterfowl hunters 

suggested that Peterson Lake remain a closed area. In response to these comments, a smaller closed 

area that encompasses Peterson Lake was developed and will take effect in conjunction with the 

other closed area changes in Pool 4 (establishment no earlier than the waterfowl hunting season 

2009). It is anticipated that the potential for improved waterfowl habitat exists in Peterson Lake 

over the next 15 years if funds become available to implement the recommended island construction 

and enhancement projects. 

Winona District

Pool 5, Weaver Bottoms/Lost Island, Minnesota/Wisconsin, 3,508 acres

General Description

Weaver Bottoms (Minnesota)/Lost Island (Wisconsin) is an existing closed area that has minor 

boundary adjustments under the final Alternative E. The size has been increased by 369 acres to 

include the main channel travel corridor and a slight adjustment to the east boundary near river mile 

743 to include the area which is proposed for future channel maintenance island construction. The 

Draft Alternative E had included the channel maintenance islands constructed during 2005-2006 

within the closed area, however, public comment received indicated that this would pose a navigation 

burden to the people of Buffalo City, Wisconsin due to sedimentation dictating where they could 

access the main channel. The intention is to have any future channel maintenance islands 

constructed as part of this cluster be located within the closed area boundary. This closed area is 

classified as “large” (greater than 1000 acres) and has voluntary avoidance area designation from 

October 15 to the end of the state duck hunting season. The main channel is the only travel corridor 

located in the closed area. 

Background

Weaver Bottoms (Minnesota) was historically significant for migrating waterfowl and wintering fish. 

This was due to extensive beds of emergent and submersed vegetation and a series of main channel 

border islands that protected the area from inflows from the main channel. Weaver Bottoms has 

been negatively impacted by inflows from the main channel and the Whitewater River which delivers 

large amounts of sediment, impacting water quality. Since the late-1960s, the area had degraded to a 

large, windswept lake with minimal vegetation. However, 58 – 96 percent of annual waterfowl use on 

Pool 5 still occurs within Weaver Bottoms, most likely because of reduced disturbance inherent in 

closed areas.

Extensive studies concluded that to improve conditions in Weaver, a two-tiered approach was 

needed. First, side-channels needed modifications to restrict sediment and reduce velocities. Second, 

islands should be constructed to reduce wind fetch and the re-suspension of bottom sediments. 

Phase I was completed in 1987 when partial or complete closures were constructed across most of 

the secondary channels leading into Weaver Bottoms and two islands were constructed. Phase II, 

construction of additional islands and/or other measures, was not implemented pending results of 

monitoring the effects of Phase I. To date, monitoring has not shown significant improvements in 

aquatic vegetation from Phase I projects.
Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and Rationale for Alternative E

743

Pool 5 was the site of a pool-wide water-level drawdown in 2005. Preliminary monitoring found over 

1,000 acres of exposed sediment with good to excellent annual and perennial plant growth. Planning 

is under way to conduct a second drawdown during the summer of 2006 which would enhance the 

growth of perennial plants that were established during the 2005 drawdown. Aquatic vegetation in 

Weaver Bottoms has the potential to improve over the next several years due to the effects of the 

drawdowns.

The Lost Island (Wisconsin) portion of the closed area contains several forested islands and shallow 

backwater lakes. This section has a minor boundary adjustment along the east side near river mile 

743 to facilitate the inclusion of any future channel maintenance islands which are constructed. If 

funding becomes available, there is the potential for more channel maintenance islands to be 

constructed as part of this “island cluster.” 

Rationale

The Weaver Bottoms/Lost Island closed area is remaining intact due to the historic waterfowl use of 

the area and the potential for improved habitat (including both submersed and emergent plants) and 

increased waterfowl use in the future. Planned habitat improvement projects include island 

construction and additional water-level management through drawdowns. With improved habitat for 

both puddle ducks and diving ducks, Weaver Bottoms/ Lost Island will play a crucial role in 

achieving a more even distribution of waterfowl on the upper reaches of the Refuge.

Winona District

Pool 5, Spring Lake, Wisconsin, 243 acres

General Description

Spring Lake is a new closed area encompassing 243 acres is classified as “small” (less than 1,000 

acres) and is closed to the use of motors and is a Voluntary Avoidance area from October 15 to the 

end of the state duck hunting season. Under this designation, the use of motors will not be allowed 

and the public will be asked to voluntarily avoid entering the area during the stated time period to 

minimize disturbance to waterfowl. Because there is no public access directly affected by the closed 

area, a travel corridor is not included. The area contains a portion of the islands built through the 

Environmental Management Program (EMP) in 2004-2006. The southeastern boundary of the 

closed area terminates at the downstream toe of the Lock & Dam 5 dike.

Background

The Spring Lake area was once a diverse complex of islands and deepwater areas which contained 

abundant vegetation providing excellent fish and wildlife habitat. Today, the habitat has declined due 

to losses in bathymetric and topographic diversity from sedimentation and island loss. Spring Lake 

was the site of a 1995 EMP project designed to reduce flow and sedimentation by placing a rock sill 

on the north end of the lake.

A second EMP project which will be completed in late-May 2006, includes an extensive island 

complex designed to stabilize habitat conditions and improve sediment transport and distribution. 

The islands will also provide environmental conditions for establishment and continued growth of 

aquatic vegetation. These improvements are anticipated to increase the coverage of emergent 

vegetation by over 200 percent and maintain the coverage of submersed vegetation. While the fall 

2005 waterfowl surveys were inconclusive, waterfowl hunters and spring birdwatchers commented 

on the noticeable increase of birds using the area.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

744

Rationale

The Spring Lake closed area, though relatively small, has the potential to provide significant food 

resources for migrating waterfowl in future years. EMP projects and water level drawdowns should 

have a significant impact on the food resources available in the area. With improved habitat, mainly 

for puddle ducks, the Spring Lake closed area will play an important role in achieving a more even 

distribution of waterfowl on the entire Refuge. Energetic studies (Slivinski 2004) indicate that the 

Spring Lake closed area will increase the food availability to waterfowl by 69 million Kcals. This 

amount should be even higher with the habitat improvements brought on by water level drawdowns.

As a secondary benefit, the proximity of this closed area to a land source (Lock & Dam 5 dike) will 

provide a wildlife observation opportunity often difficult to provide on a large river system.

Pool 5 was the site of a pool-wide water-level drawdown in 2005. Preliminary monitoring found over 

1,000 acres of exposed sediment with good to excellent annual and perennial plant growth. Planning 

is under way to conduct a second drawdown during the summer of 2006 which would enhance the 

growth of perennial plants that were established during the 2005 drawdown. Spring Lake vegetation 

has the potential to improve considerably over the next several years following the construction of 

islands and the water-level drawdowns.

Winona District

Pool 5A, Fountain City Bay, Wisconsin, 24 acres

General Description

The Fountain City Bay closed area is a 24 acre parcel located at the southern-most tip of the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ Merrick State Park. The closed area is classified as 

“small” (less than 1,000 acres) and will be closed to motor use and be a voluntary avoidance area 

from October 15 to the end of the regular state duck hunting season. 

Background

The Fountain City Bay closed area was requested by Merrick State Park as a means to avoid 

confusion to waterfowl hunters who use the Fountain City Bay area. The State Park is closed to all 

waterfowl hunting, but due to the proximity and open water between the State Park and the Refuge 

property, it was confusing to users and difficult to maintain signage to clearly define the areas. 

Both agencies, Fish and Wildlife Service and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, will work 

together over the coming years to complete a land transfer that would give the State Park the 24-

acre parcel in exchange for a parcel of equal value elsewhere on the river, thus eliminating the closed 

area from the Refuge.

Rationale

The Fountain City Bay closed area is being instituted to alleviate hunter confusion caused by the 

proximity of Fish and Wildlife Service land to Merrick State Park. Open water and differing agency 

signs and regulations have created confusion for waterfowl hunters in this area. The creation of a 

closed area will provide consistency of regulation within the entire bay.
Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and Rationale for Alternative E

745

Winona District

Pool 5A, Polander Lake, Minnesota/Wisconsin, 1,907 acres

General Description

Polander Lake is an existing closed area which includes Polander Lake (Minnesota) and Betsy 

Slough (Wisconsin). A boundary change on the northwest edge increases the closed area 318 acres. 

This acreage includes Pap Slough (Minnesota) on the southern boundary and extends to the 

downstream bank of Honeymoon Slough (Minnesota) as the western boundary, the main channel 

forms the eastern boundary of the addition. Polander closed area, at 1,907 acres is classified as 

“large” and is a voluntary avoidance area from October 15 to the end of the state duck hunting 

season. Two travel corridors are included in the closed area, the main channel and a corridor which 

will connect boat traffic from the Minnesota City Boat Club to the main channel (just upstream of 

the Polander HREP project islands) with minimal disturbance to migrating waterfowl. 

Background

Habitat diversity and quality have been degraded within Pool 5A from island loss and sedimentation,

especially in the lower portions of the pool. Island dissection and erosion continue to occur and

contribute to declines in aquatic vegetation and floodplain forests. Sedimentation has most impacted

the Betsy Slough backwaters which have also experienced island erosion and island dissection. The

majority of sediment in the pool is transported from the Zumbro River in Pool 5 and the Chippewa

River in Pool 4.

Polander Lake has been impacted by erosion which has eliminated many of the islands. This has

caused the loss of terrestrial habitat and played a role in the loss of submersed and emergent aquatic

vegetation. The Polander Lake HREP (completed in 2002) protected the remaining islands, closed

an island breach in Pap Slough, re-vegetated a historic disposal site, and constructed three islands.

The desired future condition for Polander Lake includes a 40 percent increase in emergent 

vegetation and a 10 percent increase in submersed vegetation from 1989 conditions.

Rationale

The full potential of the Polander Lake project has yet to be realized although the area is showing 

good response by submersed aquatic vegetation. Slivinski’s report (2004) indicates that the inclusion 

of the additional 318 acres north of Polander Lake will increase available waterfowl food resources 

within the closed area by 44 percent (161 million Kcal), a substantial gain through a relatively small 

addition. With improved habitat, mainly for puddle ducks, and a few divers, the Polander Lake 

closed area should play an important role in achieving a more even distribution of waterfowl on the 

upper reaches of the Refuge.

La Crosse District

Pool 7, Lake Onalaska Closed Area, Wisconsin, 7,369 acres

General Description

No change is being made in entry regulations for this existing closed area. The existing Lake 

Onalaska Voluntary Waterfowl Avoidance Area remains in effect. Boundary adjustments are being 

made in three locations:
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

746

Adjust the line in Gibbs Chute where the boundary “splits” a small island vegetated predominately 

with reed canarygrass. The new boundary will be along the south shoreline of Gibbs Chute resulting 

in an estimated closed area reduction of 1.6-acres beginning in 2007.

Continue to make adjustments in the closed area boundary near Proudfoot Slough. When 

established in 1957, the closed area boundary in this location was defined as the east or left 

descending bank of the Mississippi River. Sand accretion, followed by rapid colonization by woody 

plants, continues to add to the barrier island complex in this area. This is the only site along the main 

channel portion of the closed area where this is occurring. Previous boundary adjustments occurred 

in 1999 (+5.7 acres added to the closed area) and 2001(+2.0 acres). Closed area addition in 2007 of 

about 14 acres.

Stabilize a section of the closed area boundary along the “old channel.” As island erosion has 

occurred, sign placement through an area dotted with small, scattered islands and emergent plant 

beds, has resulted in an uneven boundary. This uneven boundary allows hunters to setup “ahead” of 

other hunters. According to Refuge staff, a straight-line boundary was the norm in this area until the 

early 1980’s when the current practice was instituted. Boundary adjustment in 2007 will add less 

than 10 acres to the closed area. 

In 1986, the 3,356-acre Lake Onalaska Voluntary Waterfowl Avoidance Area (VWAA) was 

established within part of the Lake Onalaska Closed Area to reduce boating disturbance to 

migratory waterfowl. Monitoring boater compliance with the VWAA will continue.

Background

This closed area was established as a conventional closed area in 1957. Prior to 1957, the one closed 

area in Pool 7 was located near Hammond Chute and was known as the Hammond Chute Closed 

Area (1,660 acres). Known initially as the “La Crosse Closed Area,” a number of adjustments have 

been made to the boundary of the Lake Onalaska Closed Area since establishment, particularly 

along the northern boundary near Gibbs Lake and the Brice Prairie Barrier Islands. 

With the exception of the southeast corner, much of Lake Onalaska is part of the Lake Onalaska 

Closed Area. This major backwater includes open water, interior islands, barrier island complexes 

with associated marsh, and flowing channels that convey water from the main channel into the lake. 

The arrangement of habitat types supports large concentrations representing each of the four main 

groups of waterfowl: diving and puddle ducks, swans, and geese, along with a variety of other marsh, 

waterbirds, and raptors. Peak waterbird counts in recent years include 140,000 ducks, geese, swans, 

coots, and White Pelicans on October 23, 2002 and 145,000 on October 27, 2003. No other closed area 

within the Refuge’s existing Closed Area System likely provides as much habitat for all groups of 

waterfowl. Wildcelery is the dominant submersed aquatic plant in the lake and provides habitat for 

aquatic invertebrates and panfish, and food for migrating waterfowl. Lake Onalaska also supports 

one of the premier panfish fisheries on the Upper Mississippi River. 

Three crescent-shaped islands were constructed within the closed area in 1989-90 as part of the 

Lake Onalaska EMP project. Follow-up stabilization maintenance on these islands occurred in 1993 

and 1998. Habitat protection projects have also been completed within the closed area. In 1986, a 

section of shoreline near the midpoint of the lower Brice Prairie Barrier Island was stabilized with 

riprap. Additional work occurred in 1992 on the southeast tip of the lower barrier island when a rock 

mound, rock wedge, and terminal groin were constructed. Construction work on the latest project to 

protect sections of the lower Brice Prairie Barrier Island and the tip of the upper barrier island was

initiated in 2005 and completed in 2006. In 1988, riprap was placed along the shorelines of four small 

islands in the lake near Red Oak Ridge Island. “Old Cormorant” Island received shoreline 

protection in 1993 after a tiny remnant of the island remained. Both ends of Red Oak Ridge Island, 

the second largest island in the lake, were stabilized with riprap in 1995. Because of the importance 
Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and Rationale for Alternative E

747

of barrier islands in protecting vegetation beds, nearly 1,400’ of eroding shoreline on two barrier 

islands located next to the main channel in the southwest corner of the lake was stabilized in 1998. 

Other habitat protection projects have also been completed just outside the closed area boundary. 

Among the tools being considered for use in future habitat projects within or next to the closed area 

includes island construction and stabilization, backwater dredging, and water level management.

Commercial and sport anglers, hunters, sailors, and pleasure boaters are among the user groups 

recreating on Lake Onalaska in the fall. Boating disrupts feeding activities of diving ducks and other 

waterfowl on the lake and could reduce the quality of the closed area as a staging site (Korschgen et 

al. 1985). In response, the Lake Onalaska Voluntary Waterfowl Avoidance Area (VWAA) was 

established. When established, the VWAA included most of the high-quality wildcelery beds in the 

lake at the time. VWAA boundaries permit boating along principal corridors and allow access to all 

areas of the lake and the main channel of the river. Boaters are encouraged to avoid entering the 

VWAA, which is marked with buoys, from October 15 through mid-November. Boater compliance 

with the program was monitored in 1986-88, 1993, 1997, and 2004. In 2004, even with increased 

boater activity on Lake Onalaska, the proportion of lakeside boating events that resulted in 

disturbance to waterfowl was lower than in previous years. Many boaters also made an obvious 

effort to comply with the VWAA by boating around concentrations of waterfowl. During the 31 days 

the VWAA was monitored, 29 intrusions were noted that resulted in major disturbances (more than 

1,000 birds disturbed).

The La Crosse Municipal Airport is located adjacent to the closed area on French Island. Many 

waterbirds using the closed area are concentrated on the south end of the lake, or under the 

approach to Runway 13/31. An extension to Runway 13/31 is identified as a future need in the airport 

master plan, which would place aircraft directly over thousands of migratory birds each spring and 

fall.

One of the management problems with the former Hammond Chute Closed Area were firing lines. 

Firing lines can be crowded, resulting in competition and confrontations between hunters, and 

skybusting, which often leads to an increase in the number of crippled waterfowl. In 1954, 

boundaries for the new Lake Onalaska Closed Area, and other Refuge closed areas, were set with 

the goal of eliminating firing lines. In the 1954 report recommending the current Closed Area 

System, Refuge Biologist “Doc” Green, justifying the boundary of the Lake Onalaska Closed Area, 

cautioned, “....The only possible firing line will be along the slough which forms the north boundary, 

and since this does go through marsh, there should not be a well developed firing line even there.”

Unfortunately, a firing line did develop along a section of Gibbs Chute, which forms the northern 

boundary, and remains today. Preferred hunting sites along this firing line have colorful local names, 

e.g., Barrel Blinds, Golden Chair, Minnesota Point, and others. Within the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan, addressing this issue is found in Objective 4.4 Firing Line – Pool 7, Lake 

Onalaska.

Rationale

Under Alternative E, no change was made in entry regulations for the Lake Onalaska Closed Area 

to provide a benchmark for measuring long-term voluntary avoidance effectiveness and compliance 

as presented in the existing Lake Onalaska VWAA. This exception also recognizes the unique 

location of this closed area amidst heavy residential shoreline development, numerous boat 

launching facilities, proximity to nearby population centers, and a sailing club. This access translates 

into considerable boating traffic on Lake Onalaska during fall migration. Three adjustments are 

being made. Specific rationales include:
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

748

# Sign maintenance and public recognition will be simplified by moving the boundary to the 

south side of Gibbs Chute and eliminating the “split” boundary through the small island. 

This change will also increase hunting opportunity.

# Near Proudfoot Slough, the closed area boundary will continue to be the east or left 

descending bank of the Mississippi River. Recognizing the public desire for continued 

waterfowl hunting opportunity in this area, future boundary adjustments will be made with 

the goal of keeping the small embayment open to hunting. Any future adjustments are 

dependant on the rate of fill deposition and subsequent colonization by woody vegetation. 

Maintaining the closed area boundary near the developing shoreline is consistent with 

boundary management elsewhere along the main channel, reduces maintenance needs 

associated with establishing and maintaining a clear line through dense vegetation, and 

lessens safety concerns by eliminating a hunting/no hunting line in a limited visibility 

situation.

# The section of boundary bordering the “old channel,” is subject to annual change from 

erosion and/or change in aquatic vegetation beds. In effect, the boundary over time has been 

moving into what was always intended as closed area. This fluctuation in perceived left 

descending bank also leads to continual difficulty in annual posting, confusion and concern 

with hunters on where the boundary is from year to year, and ambiguity for Refuge and 

state enforcement personnel. This situation will be corrected by adjusting the line to provide 

a better defined boundary visible to waterfowl hunters and law enforcement personnel alike. 

Alternative E seeks to strike a balance between these various needs and the desires of 

waterfowlers. This adjustment will result in an enlargement of the closed area of less than 

10 acres. 

A fourth adjustment identified in Alternative D, moving the closed area boundary to include an 

entire island near the former Red Sails Resort on the east side of the lake, was removed from 

further consideration in response to public concerns about limiting available hunting areas. It was 

originally proposed due to the proximity of the area to residences and potential conflicts with anglers 

and other water users.

La Crosse District

Pool 8, Goose Island No Hunting Zone, Wisconsin, 986 acres

General Description

The Goose Island No Hunting Zone is an existing small closed area that will be expanded by about 

110 acres along the south boundary (total area of 986 acres after expansion). Although designated a 

no hunting zone due to proximity to Goose Island County Park, this area is part of the Refuge’s 

Closed Area System. The Goose Island No Hunting Zone is a small closed area (~1,000 acres or 

less). As a result, beginning in fall 2007, the use of motors on watercraft will not be allowed from 

October 15 to the end of the state duck hunting season to reduce human-caused disturbance to 

migratory birds. To further reduce disturbance, the public is also being asked to voluntarily refrain 

from entering the area from October 15 to the end of the state duck hunting season. Habitat consists 

of a backwater complex complete with a flowing slough, shallow lakes, a mix of submersed and 

emergent plants, and mini-deltas formed where breakouts occurred in the natural levee along 

Running Slough.

An additional expansion of 235 acres to the north, proposed in Alternative D, was dropped in 

Alternative E in favor of a special hunt area. Due to public concern and comment, the special hunt 

area has been dropped.
Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and Rationale for Alternative E

749

Background

The following background material concerning the origins of the current Goose Island No Hunting 

Zone was obtained from annual La Crosse District narrative reports, the 1954 Closed Area 

Recommendations Report, and the follow-up 1957 Closed Area System Evaluation. Although details 

are sketchy, the Goose Island No Hunting Zone evidently began in response to a need to buffer 

hunters from “live decoys” present because of a Mallard propagation project. In the early 1950s, the 

Badger State Sportsmen’s Club (BSSC) was permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

propagate and release Mallards at their facility on Goose Island. In 1955, the sanctuary around the 

“duck project” was expanded to legally described locations and posted accordingly. This increased 

the size of the sanctuary from 100 to about 650-700 acres. Due to the presence of Mallards serving as 

live decoys, the entire area was closed to hunting. As a result, the “duck project” served as a de facto 

closed area, but was not recognized as such in the pre-1954 Refuge Closed Area System. When the 

Refuge’s Closed Area System was being revised beginning in 1954, the BSSC began moving their 

Mallard breeding stock off the island due to enforcement problems. Views varied on how the “duck 

project” fit in to the revised Closed Area System. BSSC members wanted to continue releasing 

mallards, and began raising and releasing wood ducks, so their preferred option was to maintain the 

hunting ban. Refuge personnel thought the hunting prohibition could be abandoned provided the 

BSSC continue to remove their breeding stock of ducks, thus eliminating the live decoy problem. 

Otherwise, a sizeable area would have to be posted to prohibit hunting. In the end, the area 

remained closed to hunting and became part of the revised Refuge Closed Area System. In addition 

to Mallards and Wood Ducks, Canada Geese were later propagated and released at the site. The 

BSSC facilities were removed from Goose Island in 1983 ending more than 30 years of waterfowl 

propagation at the site.

In 1972, the size of the Goose Island Closed Area expanded and hunting on the island was prohibited. 

This action resulted in the new designation as the Goose Island No Hunting Zone. Expansion 

occurred when the area south of the entrance road was added to the no hunting zone. At the same 

time, a 82-acre parcel west of Hunters Point Road in Vernon County was also closed to hunting. 

Although closed to hunting, this area is not part of the Goose Island No Hunting Zone because it 

offers minimal waterfowl habitat and is separated by Hunters Point Road. When open to hunting, 

both areas were “trouble spots” because of their proximity to the adjacent Goose Island County Park 

and the BSSC’s propagation project. Rifles aimed carelessly were a source of danger to park 

visitors, park and Refuge signs were vandalized, and geese were destroyed at the propagation 

project. 

In recent years, the Goose Island No Hunting Zone has been one of the most heavily used puddle 

duck concentration areas on a per acre basis in the Refuge’s Closed Area System. The peak count of 

14,820 puddle ducks occurred on November 19, 2001 and included 12,820 mallards. Canada Geese 

and Tundra Swans also use the area. The “mini-deltas” (particularly the upper delta) and areas 

protected by emergent plants or woody vegetation provide thermal cover and are important habitat 

features. As the hunting season progresses and food in the no hunting zone becomes limiting, the 

birds generally use the area for protection during daylight hours and fly out at night to feed in areas 

subject to too much disturbance to be used by day. When this pattern is broken, usually by inclement 

weather, waterfowlers in Pool 8 benefit. 

The Shady Maple/Beiers Lake area, which is part of the no hunting zone, at one time supported 

overwintering habitat for panfish. Use of this site for overwintering fish has been diminished as a 

result of flow changes and sedimentation. The public has expressed an interest in restoring panfish 

habitat. Balancing habitat requirements for puddle ducks, geese, and swans, with those of panfish 

will require careful consideration. Increased human disturbance is also a concern.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

750

Rationale

The Goose Island No Hunting Zone is being expanded by 110 acres along the south boundary. This 

adjustment is being made to accomplish the following:

# Add additional puddle duck habitat to the no hunting zone. Tundra Swans and Canada Geese 

will also benefit.

# Eliminate the established firing line along the current south boundary. Hunting currently 

takes place from several islands located along this boundary. Moving the south boundary to 

the edge of the Running/Wigwam Slough channel reduces the opportunities to stand along 

the boundary and shoot.

# Eliminating the firing line should increase the effective size of the no hunting zone. 

Currently, the disturbance created by hunting pressure along the south boundary further 

reduces the area available to waterfowl to feed and rest.

# An expanded no hunting zone will also increase wildlife observation viewing opportunities 

available to the public from pullouts along Highway 35.

To reduce disturbance to waterfowl in this small no hunting zone (<1,000 acres), a no motor 

regulation will be in effect from October 15 to the end of the duck hunting season. The public is also 

being asked to voluntarily refrain from entering the no hunting zone during this same timeframe. 

Hikers using the Goose Island Interpretative Trail, located within the no hunting zone, will not be 

affected. A section of the Goose Island Canoe Trail is also located within the no hunting zone. A 

“voluntary closed period,” from October 1 to November 15, has been in effect since the canoe trail 

was established. The dates of this “voluntary closed period” will be adjusted to match the no motor 

and voluntary avoidance area dates. The trail brochure will also be rewritten to reflect the changes. 

Periodic monitoring will be conducted to determine how well voluntary avoidance is working.

The proposed 235-acre expansion of the no hunting zone to the north, proposed in Alternative D, was 

dropped in Alternative E due to public comment and concern about the loss of hunting opportunity, 

especially for youth, and the possible impacts of no hunting in an area with an already high deer 

population. In Alternative E, the Goose Island Special Hunt Area was proposed for the 235-acre 

area. The focus of the special hunt area was to provide young waterfowl hunters, age 16 or younger, 

with a dedicated site close to La Crosse. Deer hunting was also allowed during the state seasons. The 

public showed little support for the special hunt area and it has been dropped. 

La Crosse District

Pool 8, Wisconsin Islands Closed Area, Wisconsin and Minnesota, 6,510 acres

General Description

Wisconsin Islands Closed Area is an existing closed area located in the lower part of the pool. As 

islands in lower Pool 8 have disappeared, open water has become a more dominant feature in the 

closed area. Remnant and restored islands in the upper part of the closed area protect beds of 

submersed and emergent aquatic plants. In the recent past, submersed plants such as wildcelery 

have recolonized areas within the lower part of the area. Under this plan, the closed area boundaries 

will remain the same. The public is being asked to voluntarily avoid entering the Wisconsin Islands 

Closed Area beginning October 15 each year to the end of the state duck hunting season. Within the

closed area and voluntary avoidance area, a travel corridor is being implemented in a section of Raft 

Channel, from the upper closed area boundary to the five boathouses. To minimize disturbance to 

waterbirds adjacent to the travel corridor, the Raft Channel Slow No Wake Zone will be in effect 

each fall from October 15 to the end of the state duck hunting season.
Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and Rationale for Alternative E

751

Background

The Wisconsin Islands Closed Area was implemented in 1957 after lengthy study. When established, 

this closed area offered excellent habitat for both puddle and diving ducks. The lower end was widely 

used by diving ducks. Puddle ducks generally used the upper reach of the area, where the water was 

fairly shallow and filled with aquatic plants. Islands present at the time also provided thermal cover 

for the birds during stormy weather. In the 1950s, the dominant submersed aquatic plants were sago 

pondweed, American pondweed, and flatstem pondweed. Wildcelery, another important submersed 

plant, was common to locally abundant, especially at the mouths of cuts leading off the main channel. 

During the 1957 fall migration, the peak population of ducks recorded in this closed area was 44,620 

on a November 20 aerial survey. Nearly 1.85 million duck use days (1 duck per day = 1 use day) were 

recorded in the closed area from late September through early December 1957. Although no species 

breakdown was provided for either the peak population or use days in the closed area, for the La 

Crosse District (Pools 7 and 8) as a whole in 1957, mallards ranked first in number of use days 

followed in order by wigeon, scaup, Ring-necked Ducks, Pintails, and Blue-winged Teal. 

Since the 1950s, there has been an observed decline in fish and wildlife habitat conditions in lower 

Pool 8 and the Wisconsin Islands Closed Area due to the loss of islands and the shelter they provide 

plants, a decline in aquatic plants, and a decline in depth diversity. The loss of aquatic plant beds and 

aquatic invertebrates resulted in fewer ducks using the closed area. In 1997, for example, fewer than 

100,000 duck use days were recorded during fall migration! 

Beginning with the completion of Phase I/Pool 8 Islands EMP Project in 1992, habitat restoration 

efforts in the lower part of the pool and closed area are producing positive results. In 1995, the 

shorelines of several islands, both in and out of the closed area, were protected with riprap. Two 

“seed islands” were also constructed in the closed area. Phase II/Pool 8 Islands EMP Project, or the 

Stoddard Bay Project, was completed in 1999. As part of the project, an additional six “seed islands” 

were constructed within the closed area. Moreover, a drawdown of water levels in lower Pool 8 in 

2001 and 2002 was conducted to promote the growth and establishment of aquatic plants, 

particularly emergent plants such as arrowhead. Planning for the next large restoration project 

(Phase III/Pool 8 Islands EMP Project) is under way and when completed will have restored more 

than 100 acres of islands in the upper part of the closed area. One of the project goals is to restore 

puddle duck habitat in an area along Raft Channel. Additional habitat projects are also being 

considered. 

In response to improved habitat conditions, duck use in the Wisconsin Islands Closed Area increased 

dramatically beginning in fall 1998. Peak counts from aerial surveys included 112,300 Canvasbacks 

on November 23 and 22,025 scaup, 7,175 Common Goldeneyes, and 4,500 Buffleheads on December 

2. Nearly 4.5 million diving duck use days were recorded. Puddle duck numbers also rebounded in 

1998, but lagged far behind diving ducks. Large numbers of ducks, primarily diving ducks, continue 

to concentrate in the closed area. In fall 2005, the peak count of 109,785 occurred on November 8.

Diving ducks (primarily Canvasbacks, scaup, and Ring-necked Ducks) accounted for 101,115 of the 

total observed while 5,730 puddle ducks were counted, mostly Mallards and Gadwall. 

When the Wisconsin Islands Closed Area was established, the focus was on providing migration 

habitat and protection for ducks. Few geese and Tundra Swans used the Upper Mississippi River in 

the 1950s and those that stopped remained only a short time. For example, the peak combined 

population of Canada Geese and Snow/Blue Geese observed on Pools 7 and 8 was about 300 in 1957. 

That year the peak tundra swan count in the Wisconsin Islands Closed Area was 13. Today, peak 

Canada Goose counts are about 2,500 in the closed area, while Tundra Swans typically exceed 10,000. 

Snow/Blue Geese are rarely observed. 

In the 1950s, human use in the Wisconsin Islands Closed Area was a concern, just as it is today. One 

of the reasons for proposing this location as a closed area in the 1950s was to minimize human 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

752

disturbance to waterfowl. This area was of sufficient size to afford sanctuary to the birds. Further, in 

the 1950s, few small boats were expected to travel into the area except in calm weather. Now, larger 

boats and changing propulsion technology and availability (e.g., airboat, go-devil, beavertail, 

hovercraft, etc.) result in access in all kinds of weather. Monitoring human entry into the closed area 

was conducted in fall 2001. Ninety-one of 468 (19 percent) boating events documented during 132 

hours of observation intruded into the closed area.

Rationale:

No change was made in the size of the Wisconsin Islands Closed Area. In recent years the 

cumulative impact of habitat projects has resulted in an increase in the density and distribution of 

aquatic plants and invertebrates. Waterfowl are responding. Future habitat projects, beginning with 

Phase III/Pool 8 Islands EMP Project, are expected to restore additional acres of waterfowl habitat. 

The public is being encouraged to voluntarily avoid entering this closed area from October 15 each 

year to the end of the state duck hunting season to reduce disturbance to staging waterfowl. Periodic 

monitoring will be conducted to determine how well the voluntary avoidance is working. A travel 

corridor is being established in the upper end of the closed area in a section of Raft Channel to 

provide access to a commercial business and five boathouses that are located adjacent to or within 

this reach of the closed area. To minimize disturbance adjacent to the travel corridor, the Raft 

Channel Slow No Wake Zone is being established within the travel corridor and will be in effect each 

fall from October 15 to the end of the state duck hunting season. Buoys will be placed in Raft 

Channel to mark the boundaries.

The proposed 32-acre expansion of the closed area along Raft Channel in the upper corner of the 

closed area, identified in Alternative D, was dropped in response to public concerns about limiting 

available hunting areas. 

Mc Gregor District

Pool 9, Pool Slough, Minnesota-Iowa, 1,112 acres

General Description

Pool Slough closed area was established as a conventional closed area in September 2003. Proposed 

actions under Alternatives D and E change that designation to a sanctuary, no entry October 1 to the 

end of the state duck hunting season. The area includes the majority of the Winnebago Creek delta 

and portions of the former backwater channel of the Upper Iowa River known as Pool Slough and its 

associated delta. The area lies adjacent to the Pool Slough EMP project scheduled for completion in 

2007 on land owned and managed by the State of Iowa.

Background

Pool Slough is a flowing former backwater channel of the Upper Iowa River. The proposed Pool 

Slough sanctuary includes portions of this former channel and the deltas associated with this slough 

and the Winnebago Creek.

Rationale

This closed area is needed to provide a balanced and effective network of feeding and resting areas 

for waterfowl, particularly puddle ducks, the length of the Refuge. Energetic studies (Slivinski, 

2004) indicate that this closed area will secure an additional 429 million Kcals of estimated gross 

energy for waterfowl in the area.
Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and Rationale for Alternative E

753

The change to “Sanctuary” classification will help optimize the effectiveness of the new moist soil 

units to be constructed on the adjacent Iowa DNR lands and coincide with their management. The 

original closed area was established in support of the Pool Slough EMP project. When completed 

this EMP project and associated sanctuary will help shorten the large gap (25.3 miles) between the 

Wisconsin Islands Closed Area and Harpers Slough Closed Areas.

Closure to all public use during the proposed period coincides with the sanctuary status on adjacent 

lands managed by the State of Iowa to minimize disturbance during the duck season and support and 

optimize water bird use of the marsh management units. Reduced human caused disturbance within 

Pool Slough closed area would also enhance wildlife viewing opportunities along the Army Road east 

of New Albin, and perhaps from the overlook platform adjacent to Highway 26, north of New Albin.

Mc Gregor District

Pool 9, Harpers Slough, Iowa-Wisconsin, 5,209 acres

General Description

Harpers Slough is a large open water area in the lower part of the pool interspersed with emergent 

and submergent aquatic vegetation and small wooded islands. This existing closed area would be 

classified under Alternative E as a “large” closed area (greater than 1,000 acres) with a voluntary 

avoidance area designation from October 15 to the end of the state duck hunting season. Under this 

proposal the public will be asked to voluntarily avoid entering the area during the stated time period 

to minimize disturbance of waterfowl.

Background

The existing Harpers Slough Closed Area was established in 1957 and 1959. At that time it was 

predicted to hold high numbers of waterfowl and it has ever since. The abundance of aquatic 

vegetation and wooded islands that provide birds protection from strong winds has remained 

somewhat intact or is being restored through EMP projects.

Rationale

Harpers Slough is a critical feeding and resting area for waterfowl during the fall migration, often 

having more use than any closed area on the Refuge. It plays a critical role in minimizing 

disturbance to waterfowl utilizing both the closed area and the open water area in front of Sugar 

Creek. This area is one of the most important migratory rest stops on the Refuge for canvasback 

ducks and tundra swans. During peak migration periods up to one quarter of the world’s Canvasback 

population has been observed resting and feeding in this area. Large concentrations of puddle ducks 

and additional diving duck species are commonly recorded as well during both fall and spring 

migration periods. The current closed area boundaries have undergone only slight modification since 

1958. Pool 9 is the most productive (Kcal) pool on the Refuge (Slivinski, 2004).

Harpers Slough Closed area protects 14 percent of the pool’s estimated 16,810 million Kcal 

production for use by migrating waterfowl. The Harpers Slough EMP project is in the planning 

stages. This project will protect and enhance island habitat and aquatic plant communities, and 

improve fisheries habitat within the closed area.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

754

Mc Gregor District

Pool 10, Sturgeon Slough, Wisconsin, 340 acres 

General Description

Sturgeon Slough closed area encompasses 340 acres of backwater sloughs, channels, and forested 

islands in an area north of the Highway 18 bridge. Most waterfowl use is by wood ducks and 

mallards. Sturgeon Slough is classified as a “small” closed area (less than 1000 acres) and is closed to 

the use of motors and is a Voluntary Avoidance area from October 15 to the end of the state duck 

hunting season. Under this designation, the use of motors will not be allowed and the public will be 

asked to voluntarily avoid entering the area during the stated time period to minimize disturbance to 

waterfowl.

There is a hiking trail within the closed area that starts just north of the Highway 18 bridge. It then 

extends to the old road causeway and loops back. The trail is surrounded by a 66-acre no hunting 

zone established under Alternative E (first proposed in Alternative D) to prevent conflicts between 

hikers and hunters. This no hunting zone remains active throughout the entire hunting season under 

Alternative E.

Background

Prior to 1957, Pool 10 had two closed areas, one at McGregor Lake and one at Sny Magill. Both areas 

were designated on the basis of Refuge ownership alone and were not very desirable for waterfowl. 

These closed areas were dropped because of lack of aquatic vegetation and lack of waterfowl use. 

The Bagley Bottoms area, south of the Wisconsin River delta, was recommended as a new closed 

area but was never so designated. Since 1957, Pool 10 has had only one closed area (12-Mile Island, 

540 acres) in the lower part of the pool. It is contiguous with the 12-Mile Island closed area in Pool 11. 

However, it is 33 miles south of the Harper’s slough closed area in Pool 9. This distance creates a 

large gap in the network of stepping stones of habitat that provide resting and feeding areas for 

migrating waterfowl.

The first draft of Alternative E proposed to establish the McGregor Lake closed area (852 acres), 

located north and south of the Highway 18 bridge. This area was to be closed to waterfowl hunting 

from the beginning of the state duck season through October 31 and then open to hunting from 

November 1 through the remainder of the state duck season. McGregor Lake closed area was paired 

with the Wisconsin River Delta closed area, which was to open early season and close November 

1(see below), as a dual function area to provide a continually active closed area throughout the 

season within this portion of the pool.

Citizen concerns received during the public comment period indicated confusion with the “dual 

function” concept presented by the McGregor Lake/Wisconsin River Delta “flip-flop” proposal. In 

response, the final Alternative E establishes a standard “small” closed area north of the Highway 18 

bridge. This new area is called the Sturgeon Slough closed area. The portion of the McGregor Lake 

area south of the Highway 18 bridge is now dropped from any closed area designation, due to 

marginal waterfowl habitat and its importance to sport fishing, and remains open to public use under 

Alternative E. 

Sturgeon Slough closed area is primarily used by wood ducks. Although not heavily used by 

waterfowl at this time, it will provide the birds a relatively secure resting area during the duck 

hunting season .
Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and Rationale for Alternative E

755

The Wisconsin River Delta closed area proposed under the draft Alternative E is now a special hunt 

area (see below). 

Rationale

Sturgeon Slough closed area and the Wisconsin River Delta Special Hunt area are established in 

response to public concerns over the confusion of “dual function” closed areas and the retention of 

early season hunting in this section of Pool 10. This action will provide continuous closed area 

conditions during the duck hunting season within this portion of Pool 10 and shortens the long 

distance, 31 miles, between Harper’s Slough and 12-Mile Island closed areas. Sturgeon Slough is 

11.4 miles south of Harper’s Slough closed area. The Sturgeon Slough closed area will primarily 

serve for local birds, particularly wood ducks, and early migrants. 

Mc Gregor District

Pool 10, Wisconsin River Delta Special Hunt Area, Wisconsin, 1376 acres 

General Description

The Wisconsin River Delta special hunt area contains excellent waterfowl habitat that includes small 

backwater wetlands and areas of open water interspersed with sloughs and wooded islands. One 

larger lake, Gerndt Lake, contains the best waterfowl habitat and receives the most hunting activity. 

Both submersed and emergent vegetation are present.

The Wisconsin River Delta Special Hunt Area is closed to all hunting and trapping November 1 to 

the end of the State duck hunting season. It is designated a voluntary avoidance area during those 

same dates when the public is asked to voluntarily avoid entering the area minimize disturbance of 

waterfowl. This designation allows for early season hunting. The size of the Wisconsin River Delta 

closed area is reduced 169 acres from earlier proposals to keep boat access channels outside the 

closed area. 

Background

In the draft Alternative E, the Refuge proposed to create a new “large” closed area (greater than 

1,000 acres) just north of the confluence of the Wisconsin and Mississippi Rivers called the Wisconsin 

River Delta. This would have been a dual function closed area with the McGregor Lake closed area 

to the north. Comments received during the public comment period indicated some confusion with 

the “dual function” concept presented by the McGregor Lake/Wisconsin River Delta “flip-flop” 

proposal, therefore, the Wisconsin River Delta closed area has been modified as a special hunt area. 

See above for additional background presented for Sturgeon Slough.

The Wisconsin River Delta closed area was proposed in Alternative D to satisfy two critical 

waterfowl management needs of this portion of the Refuge: 

1) It would establish a mid-pool closed area in Pool 10, halving the existing distance (31 miles) 

between closed areas and 

2) It would provide good dabbling duck habitat in a closed area. Both purposes contribute to 

management goals of achieving a more optimal distribution of waterfowl throughout the 

Refuge.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

756

Rationale

Under Alternative E, the closed area configuration is changed to a special hunt area. As such, it 

continues to address management goals, but to a lesser degree. Changes were made in response to 

public input that acknowledged the need for closed areas but wanted continued early season hunting 

opportunities in the proposed Wisconsin River Delta area. There were several suggestions to 

establish a closed area in the McGregor Lake area rather than the delta. Thus, the establishment of 

the Sturgeon Slough closed area and the Wisconsin River Delta special hunt areas meet 

management objectives and public concerns. This configuration allows hunters to take advantage of 

opening weekend and early migrants while still filling a gap for relatively secure resting and feeding 

areas for the bulk of dabbling duck migrants later in the season. Allowing early hunting opportunity 

also alleviates any economic impacts from this new closed area. The Sturgeon Slough area serves as 

closed area for local birds, especially wood ducks, and other migrants. 

Wisconsin River Delta and Sturgeon Slough provide the best combination of spacing, food, and 

habitat in order to fill the 31-mile gap between stepping stones of secure migration habitat at 

Harpers Slough in Pool 9 and 12-Mile Island in lower Pool 10. The Delta also provides greater 

potential gross energy (plant foods) than other potential closed areas in Pool 10 (Slivinski, 2004). See 

further discussion of the topic in Chapter 2, Alternative E, Objective 4.2.

Mc Gregor District

Pool 10. 12-Mile Island, Iowa, 540 acres

General Description

Under Alternative E, this existing closed area is classified as a “small” closed area (less than 1,000 

acres) and therefore, is closed to the use of motors and designated a Voluntary Avoidance Area 

October 15 to the end of the regular state duck hunting season. Under this proposal the use of 

motors would not be allowed and the public will be asked to voluntarily avoid entering the area 

during the stated time period to minimize disturbance of waterfowl.

The area is bounded by the main channel on the west and another channel on the east. The area 

consists of forested narrow island chains that support and protect an extensive marsh complex with 

both emergent and submergent plant communities. Water depths throughout the area are shallow.

Background

This closed area was established as part of a larger (12 Mile Island, Pool 11) closed area in 1957. Fall 

waterfowl (diving ducks, puddle ducks, swans, and Canada Geese) use within the closed area is 

greater then any place within Pool 10. The area is bordered to the east by Ferry Slough which is the 

site of the most concentrated hunting pressure in Pool 10. Because of the open nature of the area, 

and the arrow head configuration of the landmasses, disturbances from boaters or other intrusions 

result in birds leaving the area. There is intense hunting pressure surrounding the area. In recent 

years thousands of mallards have used the closed area to stage each evening before feeding in the 

surrounding agricultural fields. Given the shallow nature of the area little fishing occurs within it.

Rationale

This existing closed area is needed to provide waterfowl a more balanced and effective network of 

feeding and resting areas. The “small” classification designation that includes voluntary avoidance 

and no motors designation after October 15, will prevent unnecessary disturbances to waterfowl in 
Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and Rationale for Alternative E

757

this small and narrow closed area. This closed area, like the Pool 11 component to the south will also 

provide an undisturbed loafing and staging location for birds utilizing the adjacent moist soil units.

Mc Gregor District

Pool 11, 12-Mile Island, Iowa, 1145 acres

General Description

Under Alternative E, this existing closed area is classified as a “large” closed area (greater than 

1,000 acres) and includes travel corridors (Skimmer Horn Slough and Ackerman’s Cut). The 12-Mile 

Island closed area is designated a voluntary avoidance area October 15 to the end of the state duck 

hunting season. Under this proposal the public is asked to voluntarily avoid entering the area during 

the stated time period to minimize disturbance of waterfowl. Habitat within 12-Mile Island is 

characterized by timber-lined back water sloughs and lakes, with some small emergent and 

submersed vegetation marshes.

Background

This closed area was established as part of a larger conventional closed area in 1957. The area 

receives its greatest waterfowl use late in the migration season and usually as a response to 

surrounding hunting pressure. The closed area also holds migrants on a daily basis that utilize the 

Guttenberg Ponds moist soil units bordering it to the north. Guttenberg Ponds is designated as a 

sanctuary within this closed area under Alternative E (see below). Little fishing occurs within the 

area except along the two proposed travel corridors.

Rationale

This existing closed area remains a closed area. It is needed to provide waterfowl a balanced and 

effective network of feeding and resting areas, and to continue to provide an undisturbed loafing and 

staging location for birds utilizing the adjacent moist soil units.

Mc Gregor District

Pool 11, Bertom McCartney, Wisconsin, 2,384 acres

General Description

Under Alternative E, the Bertom McCartney closed area retains its existing conventional closed 

area regulations with no changes. The current area includes islands and water from river mile 599 on 

the south, to river mile 603.5 on the north. The area’s best waterfowl habitat with both emergent and 

submersed aquatic vegetation is located in the northern portion (Hay Meadow Lake) of the closed 

area. The remaining area contains pockets of emergent vegetation, open water areas, and timber 

lined sloughs.

Background

This closed area was established as a conventional closed area in 1957. For the last 20 years the most 

southerly boundary of this closed area has moved south each season following any new sediment 

deposition on the island that forms its southerly boundary. The Refuge’s newly renovated Bertom 

McCartney Boat Landing is within the closed area. The closed area was also the site of the District’s 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

758

first EMP project, constructed in 1994, to rehabilitate backwater sloughs primarily for the benefit of 

winter fish. The area has traditionally had an excellent fishery and continues as a result of the EMP 

project.

Rationale

This existing closed area remains a conventional closed area. It is needed to provide migrating 

waterfowl a balanced and effective network of feeding and resting areas. Originally under 

Alternative D the southern portion of the closed area was proposed to be removed. This proposal, 

however, is now dropped in lieu of the food resources report (Slivinski, 2004) that indicated there 

would be a significant net loss in available food within the Pool with this action, (despite adding the 

John Deere Marsh Closed Area). Waterfowl use remains highest within the northern part of the 

closed area; however, the smaller pocket marshes in the remainder of the closed area receive 

considerable waterfowl use later in the fall. Diving ducks also utilize the open water portions of the 

area, especially during days when strong Northwest winds drive the birds from the open water 

stretches elsewhere in the Pool. The continued use of existing closed area regulations in this area is 

important to maintain because of the fisheries resources within its boundary and the presence of a 

Refuge boat landing within the area. Given the size and inaccessibility of the northern portion of the 

area, fishing pressure should not disturb birds. In addition, most of the waterfowl use occurring 

within the southern portion of the closed area occurs after the traditional bass fishing season has 

ended.

Mc Gregor District

Pool 11, Guttenberg Ponds, Iowa, 252 acres

General Description

Under Alternative E. Guttenberg Ponds is designated a waterfowl sanctuary (no entry October 1 to 

the end of the state duck hunting season). It is located within the existing 12-Mile Island closed area. 

The specific area includes the Guttenberg Ponds moist soil units and Big Pond located to the south 

and adjacent to the moist soil units. Water levels in the 50-acre moist soil units are managed 

seasonally for migrating water birds, primarily waterfowl in the fall. Typically thousands of 

waterfowl utilize the area each fall feeding on moist soil plants within the flooded units.

Background:

The entire proposed area was originally part of the Guttenberg National Fish Hatchery which was 

abandoned and turned over to the Refuge. The proposed sanctuary area is within a conventional 

closed area established in 1957. The moist soil units were constructed in 1994 during the Bussey 

Lake EMP project. Big Pond currently has water control structures on it; however, they have not 

been functional since the 1960s. Big Pond is well known for pan fishing but is not accessible except 

during periods of high water in the spring. Prior to this proposal the Refuge sought and received 

concurrence from Iowa DNR to establish a “No Entry Area” at this location.

Rationale

The proposed sanctuary is needed to minimize disturbance to feeding and resting waterfowl. The 

current berm structures surrounding the two ~25 acre moist soil units are insufficient to buffer 

waterfowl from individuals walking on the berms or in the area. Birds are flushed with each 

disturbance and forced to relocate in areas open to hunting or leave the area. The Big Pond area 

functions with the moist soil units to allow open water loafing and a staging area for migrants prior 

to their arrival within the units each day.
Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and Rationale for Alternative E

759

Mc Gregor District

Pool 11, John Deere Marsh, Iowa, 405 acres

General Description

Under Alternative E, John Deere Marsh closed area is established at the confluence of the Little 

Maquoketa and Mississippi Rivers. The south portion of the area contains a developing emergent 

plant community extending into the open water expanses of lower Pool 11. The northern portion of 

the closed area consists of a well established emergent community forming a rich wetland band 

along the shore line. Both areas contain significant submersed vegetation communities in some 

years, depending on river conditions. It is classified as a “small” closed area (less than 1,000 acres) 

and therefore, is closed to the use of motors and designated a Voluntary Avoidance Area October 15 

to the end of the regular state duck hunting season. Under this proposal the use of motors would not 

be allowed and the public will be asked to voluntarily avoid entering the area during the stated time 

period to minimize disturbance of waterfowl.

“Walk-in” hunting will be encouraged in an area between the two sections of this closed area.

Background

The south portion of this closed area has expanded from a few small spoil placement sites into an 

ever-expanding emergent marsh over the last 25 years. The forces driving this development are a 

result of sediment within the Little Maquoketa River watershed and are expected to continue. The 

northern wetland component within this closed area has remained fairly stable over the same time 

period. The deflective berms associated with the Mud Lake EMP project (completed 2006) just 

upriver from this location should provide additional benefits to this marsh as time passes. Because 

the area is close to Dubuque, Iowa it receives considerable hunting pressure, especially during 

opening weekend. However, the birds that utilize the area soon leave due to the fact that there are no 

protected areas to harbor them. The John Deere Marsh area is one of three wetland complexes 

(Sunfish Lake, Wisconsin. Mud Lake, Iowa.) within the open water area of lower Pool 11. Hunting is 

permitted in both of these other two locations.

Rationale

This new closed area is needed to shorten the 29.7-mile gap between Bertom McCartney Lake closed 

area to the north and the proposed Kehough Slough closed area to the south. In addition the other 

more heavily hunted locations in the lower portion of Pool 11 will benefit because birds will remain in 

the area, having a relatively secure location for waterfowl to feed, rest and meet other life 

requirements. This should provide hunters in the area a more quality hunt over the course of the 

season. The closed area proposed in Alternative D included all lands within the Refuge at John 

Deere Marsh. After receiving public comments about the lack of walk-in hunting areas in proximity 

to Dubuque, the proposal was altered. The new configuration allows hunting in the area bordered to 

the south by the John Deere intake channel, and to the north by the Little Maquoketa River on all 

lands within the Refuge east of the railroad. This adjustment allows the hunting public to use one of 

the few walk-in areas in lower Pool 11, and not jeopardize the functionality of the remaining closed 

area.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

760

Mc Gregor District

Pool 11, Lower Pool 11 No Open Water Hunting Area, Wisconsin, 4000 acres 

General Description

The Lower Pool 11 No Open Water Hunting Area is located as follows (see map, Appendix P): All 

waters within the state of Wisconsin on the Mississippi River from river mile 586.3 to river mile 592.1 

as described: North boundary (RM 592.1) is formed by a line between Specht’s Ferry located on the 

Iowa shoreline NE across the main channel to the Potosi Point jetty on the Wisconsin shoreline. 

East boundary is the Wisconsin shoreline. South boundary (RM 586.3) is formed by a line from the 

John Deere deflection dike on the Iowa shoreline east across the main channel to Fenley Bluff on the 

Wisconsin shoreline. West boundary formed by State boundary between Wisconsin and Iowa.

Under Alternative E, open-water waterfowl hunting is prohibited in the described area in 

accordance with general Wisconsin open-water hunting regulations/definitions summarized as 

follows:

No person may hunt waterfowl in open water from, or with the aid of, any blind including any 

boat, canoe, raft, contrivance, or similar device. Open water is defined as any water beyond a 

natural growth of vegetation rooted to the bottom and extending above the water surface of such 

height as to offer whole or partial concealment to the hunter. Dead stumps and dead trees in the 

water do not constitute a natural growth of vegetation. Hunting is permitted in any open water 

area provided the hunter is standing on the bottom without the aid of a blind. Blinds include, but 

are not limited to, any boat, canoe, raft, or similar device that provides any concealment for the 

hunter.

Background

Until the 1980s the area was an important staging and feeding area for diving ducks, primarily 

Scaup, which fed on fingernail clams and aquatic insects. During the 1980s, the fingernail clam 

population crashed, and waterfowl use of the area virtually ceased. In recent years, submersed 

vegetation, such as wild celery, has become established in portions of the area and once again 

Canvasback, scaup, and Ring Necks are using the area, for example, 47,000 Lesser Scaup and 5,000 

Canvasback in November 2004. Other than lower pool 9, this area receives the second highest diving 

duck use in the entire McGregor District. It also provides the only major staging and feeding area 

for divers between Pools 9 and 13, a distance of 125 river miles. 

Rationale

In the Grant County portion of Pool 11, open water hunting is allowed through a special exemption to 

the Wisconsin regulations. The prohibition of open-water hunting in the designated a portion of the 

Refuge limits disturbance of thousands of Canvasback and Lesser Scaup that migrate through the 

Refuge, two species of management concern due to relatively small or declining populations. This 

action represents a scaling-back of proposals in earlier alternatives based on public input, and to 

ensure the action targets the current area of need versus potential need triggered by any state open 

water regulation changes, which may, in fact, never materialize.
Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and Rationale for Alternative E

761

Savanna District

Pool 12, Kehough Slough, Illinois, 343 acres

General Description

Under Alternative E, Kehough Slough is classified as a “small” closed area (less than 1,000 acres) 

that will be closed to the use of motors and designated a voluntary avoidance area October 15 to the 

end of the state duck hunting season. Under this proposal the use of motors would not be allowed 

and the public will be asked to voluntarily avoid entering the area during the stated time period to 

minimize disturbance of waterfowl.

The area is characterized as a backwater lake that contains extensive emergent vegetation 

surrounded by floodplain forest. Water levels are dependent upon Mississippi River levels and 

average 6-18 inches deep. Kehough Slough is an isolated area with only one primary entry/exit 

channel, it is located in the middle of a chain of seven backwater lakes, and is protected from river 

currents, as well as wind and wave action.

Background

There are no historic closed areas in Pool 12. Kehough Slough is currently used by waterfowl 

hunters and fishermen, but minimal recreational boating or commercial fishing occurs in the area 

due to shallow water levels. There is an EMP project planned for Kehough Slough, with funding 

proposed for 2010. The EMP project includes the deepening of 6 backwater lakes for overwintering 

fish habitat. The EMP project will minimally impact the use of this area by waterfowl, but will 

encourage other recreational use, especially fishing.

Rationale

Pool 12 has no existing closed areas. Kehough Slough is located in about the middle of Pool 12 and 

will be important in the stepping stone concept of providing closed areas for waterfowl by decreasing 

the existing 46 mile gap between closed areas. It is 18 miles south of the proposed John Deere Marsh 

closed area in Pool 11 and 15 miles north of the existing Pleasant Creek closed area in Pool 13.

Although Kehough Slough is small is size, it contains a diversity of preferred waterfowl foods and 

habitat. Energetic studies by Slivinski (2004) show that other areas south of Kehough Slough (Wise 

Lake) would provide significantly more gross energy for waterfowl. However, Kenough Slough was 

selected because it is more centrally located within Pool 12 and the Wise Lake area, now with 

moderate levels of hunting pressure, is within 5 miles of the bottomland east of Crooked Slough on 

the Lost Mound unit in Pool 13, closed to human entry due to the presence of contaminants. In effect, 

this part of Lost Mound functions as a closed area, further meeting waterfowl management goals of 

the Refuge. Kehough Slough lake is isolated from other nearby lakes and will provide undisturbed 

resting and feeding areas. Due to its isolated location in a forested backwater area, a firing line 

situation should not develop. There are other backwater lakes located above and below Kehough 

Slough that will remain open to public access. Waterfowl hunting opportunities in these adjacent 

backwater lakes should improve due to an increase in waterfowl concentrations in Kehough Slough.

Savanna District

Pool 13, Pleasant Creek, Iowa, 2,067 acres

General Description

Pleasant Creek is an existing closed area and in Alternative E it is classified as “large” (greater than 

1,000 acres) closed area and thus designated a voluntary avoidance area October 15 to the end of the 

state duck hunting season. Under this proposal the public will be asked to voluntarily avoid entering 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

762

the area during the stated time period to minimize disturbance of waterfowl. The 536-acre reduction 

in size of the closed area proposed in Alternative D continues in Alternative E. The area is 

characterized by a wetland complex of five backwater lakes and a moist soil impoundment located 

adjacent to the lakes. The entire area is surrounded by floodplain forest. There is restricted boat 

access into this backwater complex due to shallow sloughs and a low levee surrounding the area.

Background

Pleasant Creek is an existing closed area that was established in 1957. It is a management unit in 

which all of the backwater lakes have water control structures and are surrounded by a 5-mile long 

perimeter levee with two concrete spillways. A 49-acre moist soil unit was completed in 2003 under 

an EMP project and provides water level management capabilities to promote emergent vegetation. 

The area receives significant waterfowl use by providing undisturbed resting and feeding areas.

Rationale

Pleasant Creek is a management unit that has been developed specifically to control water levels for 

the production of wetland plants, especially waterfowl foods. The extensive low levee system with 

water control structures and pump station provide capabilities for habitat management. In addition, 

the isolation of this backwater complex provides an undisturbed area for resting and feeding. Due to 

its isolation, firing lines have not developed. Pleasant Creek is a successfully functioning 

management unit that provides valuable habitat for waterfowl. It is important in the stepping stone 

concept of providing closed areas for waterfowl, with Kehough Slough located 15 miles to the north 

and Spring Lake located 12 miles to the south. Pleasant Creek has consistently attracted puddle 

ducks, making it one of the largest puddle duck concentration areas on the Refuge.

The reduction in acreage of the closed area is the result of eliminating a forested tract on the south 

boundary that contains small pothole areas, but has no sizeable water areas for waterfowl. This 

opens a significant area to upland game hunting without influencing the effectiveness of the closed 

area.

Savanna District

Pool 13, Spring Lake, Illinois, 3,686 acres

General Description

Under Alternative E, Spring Lake will continue to be a waterfowl Sanctuary, no entry October 1 to 

the end of the regular state duck hunting season. The lake is a large backwater complex that is 

divided into Upper Spring Lake and Lower Spring Lake. Upper Spring Lake includes about 600 

acres divided into three moist soil units that are intensively managed with water control structures 

and a primary pump station. Lower Spring Lake includes about 3,000 acres, water levels are 

dependent upon river stages, and the average water depth is about 12-18 inches with extensive 

emergent vegetation present; a 28-acre levied moist soil unit is within Lower Spring Lake that 

contains a water control structure and a pump station for water level manipulation. A 12-mile 

perimeter levee surrounds Spring Lake with boat access into Lower Spring Lake, but the cross dike 

prohibits boat access into Upper Spring Lake.

Background

Spring Lake is an existing waterfowl Sanctuary that was established in 1957. An EMP project was 

completed in 1998 that rehabilitated the extensive levee system, constructed four moist soil units, 

and replaced the deteriorated water control structures and pump station. Water levels in the moist 
Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and Rationale for Alternative E

763

soil units are intensively managed for emergent vegetation production primarily for the benefit of 

waterfowl. Spring Lake continues to provide excellent habitat and attracts large concentrations of 

waterfowl. A firing line is established on the southern boundary of Spring Lake, but has not been a 

significant problem.

Rationale

Spring Lake is a successfully functioning waterfowl sanctuary. The extensive levee system, with 

water control structures and pump stations, provide capabilities for intensive habitat management. 

The production of waterfowl foods has consistently attracted puddle ducks making it one of the 

largest fall puddle duck concentration areas on the Refuge. Average annual puddle duck use-days on 

Pool 13 (the bulk of which are at Spring Lake) for the period 1997-2002 reached 1.5 million use-days, 

about equal to total puddle duck use on Pools 7, 8, and 9 during the same period. Spring Lake is also 

an important in the stepping stone concept of closed areas with Pleasant Creek closed area located 

12 miles north and Elk River closed area located 1 mile southwest.

Savanna District

Pool 13, Elk River, Iowa, 1,237 acres

General Description

Elk River is an existing closed area and is classified as “large” (greater than 1,000 acres) closed area 

under Alternative E. It will be designated a voluntary avoidance area October 15 to the end of the 

state duck hunting season. Under this proposal the public will be asked to voluntarily avoid entering 

the area during the stated time period to minimize disturbance of waterfowl. This area contains 

extensive open water and sand bars with minimum submergent or emergent vegetation present. The 

area is primarily used by waterfowl as loafing habitat. Elk River is not a highly visited recreation 

area or a travel corridor due to shallow water levels.

Background

Elk River was established as a closed area in 1957. The area has no habitat management capabilities 

and water levels are dependent upon Mississippi River levels and range from 6-18 inches deep. Due 

to shallow water levels, the area is not a popular commercial fishing area or recreation area. The 

area has consistently attracted puddle ducks and Canada Geese over the years. Hunters tend to 

concentrate on the eastern boundary of Elk River, but this has not developed into a significant firing 

line problem.

Rationale

Elk River continues to attract concentrations of waterfowl, especially dabblers and Canada Geese. 

The area is important in the stepping stone concept of closed areas with Spring Lake located 1 mile 

north and Beaver Island located 12 miles south. Although there are no habitat management 

capabilities, the extensive open water and sand bars provide excellent undisturbed loafing habitat. 

The concentration of waterfowl in Elk River has benefited hunting in adjacent areas.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

764

Savanna District

Pool 14, Beaver Island, Iowa, 717 acres

General Description

Under Alternative E, Beaver Island is established as a new “small” closed area (less than 1,000 

acres) and therefore, will be closed to the use of motors and be designated a Voluntary Avoidance 

Area October 15 to the end of the regular state duck hunting season. Under this configuration the 

use of motors would not be allowed and the public will be asked to voluntarily avoid entering the area 

during the stated time period to minimize disturbance of waterfowl.

The area is characterized by a backwater lake containing emergent vegetation surrounded by 

floodplain forest. The area has no habitat management capabilities and water levels are dependent 

upon Mississippi River levels and range from 6-12 inches deep. Beaver Island is an isolated area with 

one primary entry/exit channel and is protected from Mississippi River currents and from wind and 

wave action.

Background

There are no closed areas in Pool 14. Beaver Island is currently used by waterfowl hunters and 

anglers, but minimal recreational boating or commercial fishing occurs in the area due to shallow 

water levels. At this time, no EMP projects have been funded for Beaver Island.

Rationale

Beaver Island is a new closed area to be established within Pool 14, which has no existing closed 

areas. It is located in about the middle of Pool 14 and will be important in the stepping stone concept 

of closed areas with Elk River located 12 miles to the north. There are no other Refuge closed areas 

in Pool 14 and Beaver Island will be the last downriver closed area on the Refuge.

Although Beaver Island is small is size, it contains a diversity of habitat, and is isolated to provide 

undisturbed resting and feeding areas. Due to its isolated location in a forested backwater area, a 

firing line situation should not develop. There are adjacent backwater areas located west of Beaver 

Island that will remain open to public access. Waterfowl hunting in these adjacent backwater lakes 

should improve due to an increase in waterfowl concentrations within the closed area.
Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and Rationale for Alternative E

765

Attachment 1, Appendix Q

Comments and Response on Waterfowl Disturbance Threshold and Related Waterfowl Hunting 

Closed Area Issues 

The following comments are paraphrased from written comments received via e-mail during the 

public comment period (December 5, 2005 to March 6, 2006) on Alternative E, Supplement to the 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Upper 

Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. The comments provided a useful basis for a 

more detailed discussion of the science behind some of the proposals in Alternative E.

Specifically, the comments were in response to the proposed human-caused disturbance threshold 

described in Objective 4.2 Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas contained in Alternative E: Modified 

Wildlife and Integrated Public Use (pages 20-22 of the full supplement). 

Refuge staff developed responses for each comment with important contributions and review by 

Kevin Kenow of the U.S. Geological Survey. Comments are numbered and in bold, followed by the 

collective refuge and USGS response.

1) Food is by far the most important factor that attracts and holds birds in an area. If adequate 

food is available, birds will tolerate moderate to heavy levels of disturbance.

Response: In a study of three migration areas along the Illinois River that afforded varying 

degrees of protection, Bellrose (1954, Jour. Wildl. Mgmt, 18:160-169) concluded that security was 

the factor governing the relative degree of use made of the areas by waterfowl. Jahn and Hunt 

(1964, Duck and Coot Ecology and Management in Wisconsin) suggested that even the best 

habitats will be lightly, if at all, used by migrant ducks if human disturbance is excessive. On the 

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, Green (1954, Closed Area 

Recommendations Report) wrote:

“Wildlife habitat conditions in the Goose Island and Crosby Slough Closed Areas (both 

were located west of Goose Island, Pool 8) are satisfactory, and when we could control boat 

travel they were widely used by birds. There is ample marsh and aquatic growth to 

accommodate the ducks, but heavy use by boaters and fishermen militate against use by 

waterfowl to the extent previously experienced. It is therefore felt that an exchange 

should be made in order to find a closed area where the birds will not be molested. We feel 

that Wisconsin Island will fulfill these needs.”

2) The threshold of one major disturbance per day based on a season-long average is not relevant 

to any sort of scientifically measurable impact for most waterfowl using the Upper Miss 

Refuge. In Alternative E, a major disturbance is defined as a human intrusion which displaces 

1,000 waterfowl or 50 percent of the waterfowl present in a closed area, whichever is less.

Response: As summarized in the full text of Alternative E, the new policy on setting a threshold 

of disturbance to guide future entry and use regulation decisions was based on state and public 

comments received during the first comment period. However, given the food and rest needs of 

waterfowl in migration, it is recognized that no human disturbance is optimum. Thus, the 

disturbance rate of one major human-caused disturbance per day is not intended to represent a 

purely biologically-accepted threshold of disturbance, but a balance between the needs of 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

766

waterfowl and the realities of a large open river system, various authorities, different user 

groups, abundant access points, and the level of surrounding development.

Waterfowl using the Upper Miss Refuge in fall include puddle ducks, diving ducks, geese, and 

Tundra Swans. According to Korschgen and Dahlgren (1992, Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.2.15), 

not all waterfowl are equally sensitive to disturbance. Among those most vulnerable include 

diving ducks, especially canvasbacks and lesser scaup. Also, large flocks of waterfowl are more 

susceptible than small flocks. 

We used results from the last three monitoring episodes for the Lake Onalaska Voluntary 

Waterfowl Avoidance Area (VWAA) in setting the threshold. Although the VWAA benefits many 

species of waterfowl, diving ducks, including canvasbacks, likely benefit the most. Each year, 

observations were conducted from 15 October through 14 November, or 31 days. Boats intruded 

into the VWAA in 1993 on 74 occasions and resulted in disturbance to waterfowl present in the 

VWAA in 44 instances (17 minor and 27 major disturbances). A minor disturbance is defined as 

<1000 birds and a major as >1,000 birds. In 1997, boats intruded into the VWAA on 53 occasions 

and disturbed waterfowl in 51 instances (22 minor and 29 major disturbances). In 2004, boats 

intruded into the VWAA on 71 occasions and resulted in disturbance to waterfowl present in the 

VWAA in 41 instances (12 minor and 29 major disturbances). These data represent conservative 

disturbance estimates as boating activity and disturbances to waterfowl were not monitored 

before sunrise or after sunset (Kenow et al. 2003, Waterbirds 26(1): 77-87 and Kenow et al. 2005, 

USGS Report to Region 3, USFWS).

Conversely, how many disturbances per day will negatively impact waterfowl? Havera et al. 

(1992, Wildl. Soc. Bull. 20:290-298) studied human disturbance and its effects on diving ducks in 

Keokuk Pool, Navigation Pool 19. During daylight hours, they found waterfowl were likely 

disturbed at all sites in their study area an average of 5.7 and 4.0 times/day in fall 1986 and fall 

1987, respectively. Their conclusion: this level of disturbance affects feeding and resting behavior 

and can influence the ability of the birds’ to accumulate the necessary energy and nutrient 

reserves. 

3) Waterfowl and other birds have a need to keep their flight muscles in top shape through 

exercise flights. Each and every bird needs to exercise during every 24-hour period. They 

cannot allow their flight muscles to atrophy since flying is their most precious attribute. 

This is an important drive that has not received much study, especially on fall migration 

areas.

Response: A review of the literature and discussions with other scientists yielded no published 

accounts that specifically addressed the need of waterfowl (or other birds) to maintain flight 

capabilities through daily exercise flights. There is evidence to suggest that capacity of flight 

muscle is primarily under hormonal control (Bishop et al. 1995, Am. J. Physiol. 269:R64-R72; 

Bishop et al. 1998, Physiol. Zool. 71:198-207); even under the extreme situations of initial 

development of flight muscles in juveniles and muscle recovery following extended flightless 

periods (i.e., molt). Muscle hypertrophy occurs prior to migration in both the pectoralis muscles 

and cardiac muscles of birds (Butler and Bishop 2000, pp. 391-435 in Sturkie’s Avian Physiology, 

5th ed.) and is largely independent of exercise (Bishop et al. 1998, op. cit.). Work conducted on 

flight muscle development in Barnacle Geese (Bishop et al. 1998, op. cit.) and flight muscle 

recovery in molting Eared Grebes (Gaunt et al. 1990, Auk 107:649-659) suggest flight muscle 

capacity does not seem to require prolonged or high-load exercise, but rather infrequent wingflapping may suffice. In the case of grebes, individuals engaged in wing-flapping for a total of 

only about 5 minutes per day (in 3-10 sec bursts).
Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and Rationale for Alternative E

767

According to one rather dated source, a perceived need or “drive” to fly is perhaps confused with 

“Zugunruhe,” a twice yearly cycle of nocturnal restlessness, which occurs in migratory birds 

during the migration season. It is tied to the neuro-endocrine system stimulated by day length 

(photoperiod) and cold (or warm) weather, and also coincides with increased fat deposition and 

enlargement of gonads of migrants in the spring (Welty, C. 1962. The life of birds. W.B. Saunders 

Co., Philadelphia. 546 pp.)

Regardless, at migration stopover sites, waterfowl likely fly many times during the day. In 

addition to responding to human-caused disturbances, waterfowl also fly back and forth to 

feeding sites, to escape predators, or move to more protected habitat in response to weather. 

4) Within the Upper Miss Refuge, most areas (open and closed) are no more than an hour’s flight 

away for most if not all waterfowl species. If birds face intolerable disturbance in one area they 

can easily find a better location after a brief flight.

Response: Waterfowl select sites based on many factors, among them are habitat structure, 

water depth, food availability, low risk of predation, thermal cover, and protection from human 

disturbance (Fredrickson and Reid, 1988, Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.2.1 and Jahn and Hunt, 

1964, op. cit.). The presence of an individual at a particular site suggests that the individual 

selected the site and it meets its particular needs at given point in time. It is unknown whether a 

‘better location’ is available that meets the needs of that individual, if intolerable disturbance 

moves the bird. The move becomes energetically costly to the bird both in terms of time loss 

from acquiring or conserving energy reserves and in terms of energy expended in flight to locate 

another area (flight is energetically costly at 12-15x basal metabolic rate). 

Fall survey data clearly show that ducks, swans, and geese are not evenly distributed on the 

Refuge. Between 1997-2002, most of the waterfowl use days occurred in Pools 7, 8, 9, and 13; a 

trend that continues today. Revising the Refuge’s Closed Area System in CCP is being proposed, 

in part, to provide the habitat necessary to better distribute waterfowl along the entire length of 

the Refuge. Along with providing habitat, addressing human disturbance concerns is part of that 

effort. 

A variety of strategies exists within and among waterfowl species to meet their needs and not all 

individuals or species require the same resources simultaneously (Frederickson and Reid, 1988, 

Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.1.1). As a result, providing a diverse habitat base in closed areas is 

critical to meeting the needs of many different species of waterfowl during the hunting season. 

Because of their habitat preferences, some species of puddle ducks (e.g., Mallards and Wood 

Ducks) may be better suited to find alternative locations outside of closed areas in off-Refuge 

locations. But are these alternative sites a ‘better location?’ 

For Canvasbacks and Tundra Swans, few migration areas exist in the Mississippi Flyway during 

fall migration that provides adequate resources to meet the birds’ needs. Further, it has been 

well documented by Korschgen (1989, pp. 157-180 in Habitat Management for Migrating and 

Wintering Waterfowl in North America) and Thorson (2002, Masters Thesis) just how important 

the Upper Mississippi River is to Canvasbacks and Tundra Swans during fall migration. Thorson 

identified Tundra Swan site preferences as part of his project. During the 1998 and 1999 fall 

migrations, Tundra Swans used sites with an abundance of aquatic vegetation in shallow water 

depths (<1.2 m) interspersed with small islands (<5 ha) within large open aquatic area, 

protected from human disturbance. The occurrence of this preferred situation is rather limited 

on the UMR. Similar work has also been done for Canvasbacks by Korschgen (1989, op. cit.). 

5) Single disturbances in all probability have no significant affect on birds and negative results 

will be difficult to scientifically demonstrate. Even multiple daily disturbances, especially 

within larger closed areas, are not likely to have any measurable affect.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

768

Response: It is generally accepted that disturbance can increase existence energy requirements 

and reduce feeding time (Fredrickson and Drobney 1979, in T. A. Bookhout, ed., Waterfowl and 

wetlands – an integrated review). Determining the energetic costs of a single disturbance to 

waterfowl activities in the field is difficult to document. However, we do know that there are real 

costs associated with disturbance that results in flight. Flight is the most expensive daily activity 

in terms of energetic costs (12-15x basal metabolic rate). Temperatures are also a factor, with 

colder weather requiring birds to conserve energy by flying less (Fredrickson and Reid, 1988, op. 

cit.). 

Fredrickson and Reid (1988, op. cit.) estimated that a duck with a body mass the size of a Mallard 

or Canvasback would require 3 days to replenish endogenous fat reserves feeding in good 

quality habitat after undergoing an 8-hour flight. With disturbance resulting in 2-hours of flight 

per day, that same Mallard or Canvasback would require an additional 2 days of feeding to 

replenish its reserves. In poor quality habitat, estimates are that it would require that Mallard or 

Canvasback 5 days to replenish fat reserves without disturbance, and 8 days if disturbances 

result in flight of 2 hours per day. Korschgen et al. (1985, Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:290-296) estimated 

that human–caused disturbance may have caused Canvasbacks staging on Lake Onalaska to fly 

1 hour/day. This extra flight caused Canvasbacks to consume an additional increment of food, 

perhaps as much as 75 kcal/day above their estimated 400 kcal for maintenance (Korschgen. 

unpubl. data). Kahl (1991, Wildl. Soc. Bull. 19:242-248) reported that the energetic cost to 

Canvasbacks by boating disturbances on Lake Poygan, Wisconsin averaged 14-42 kcal/day for 

flight plus incremental feeding activity to compensate for this flight. Temperatures are also a 

factor, with colder weather requiring birds to conserve energy by flying less (Fredrickson and 

Reid, op. cit.). 

The observed distribution and patterns of daily use on the UMR are likely the result of multiple 

daily disturbances and representative of a collective ‘measurable effect’. With multiple daily 

disturbances occurring in a given area, waterfowl respond by changing food habits, feeding only 

at night, losing weight, or deserting the area entirely. Repeated disturbances may even limit 

waterfowl use in a given area (Korschgen and Dahlgren, 1992, op. cit.). On Pools 7 and 8, we have 

documented that waterfowl respond to human disturbance by avoiding areas when disturbed 

during the day and returning to feed at night, usually beginning in November after food in the 

closed areas is exhausted. Less well-documented are the energy costs to individual birds 

engaged in this activity. 

6) Rather than using a season-long average of one major disturbance per day in any given closed 

area as the threshold, the main measure of too much disturbance should be determined by 

comparing bird numbers in any given year for that closed area with past use, the total number 

of birds using the Refuge, and the quality and distribution of food resources in that closed area. 

If waterfowl use of the closed area changes over time while habitat quality remains comparable, 

then disturbance may need to be reduced. 

Response: The metric you suggest we use to determine when disturbance may need to be 

reduced in a given closed area is complicated by a number of extrinsic variables that vary 

annually, and dictate how many birds eventually migrate down the Mississippi Flyway. Among 

them are continental waterfowl populations, number of birds using the flyway, chronology of the 

season, weather conditions, and habitat availability elsewhere. On the Upper Miss River, there is 

also annual variability in food availability and quantity in individual closed areas. These many 

variables make a direct comparison difficult.

The metric we propose to use, an average of one major human-caused disturbance per day 

through the fall season, requires us to continue monitoring each closed area. As noted earlier, we 

have multiple years of data available for the Lake Onalaska VWAA. In the La Crosse District, we 

also have baseline data for the Goose Island No Hunting Zone and the Wisconsin Islands Closed 

Area. In addition to recording details of each disturbance, we also record waterfowl numbers and 
Appendix Q: Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas, History, Description, Background and Rationale for Alternative E

769

note the location of waterfowl concentration areas. This information has been used, and will 

continue to be used, to measure how well individual closed areas are meeting expectations. 

7) Efforts to reduce disturbance within closed area using voluntary avoidance and education are 

endorsed.

Response: In Alternative E we are proposing a revised Refuge Closed Area System of 22 areas 

totaling 45,755 acres. Three of the units (Pool Slough, Pool 9; Guttenberg Ponds portion of the 12 

Mile Sanctuary; and Spring Lake Sanctuary, Pool 13) would be closed to all entry and use from 

October 1 to the end of the respective state duck hunting season.

The existing Lake Onalaska Closed Area (Pool 7) and associated Voluntary Waterfowl Avoidance 

Area would not be affected and current entry and use regulations for the existing Bertom/

McCartney Closed Area (Pool 11) would also remain the same. 

In each of the remaining 17 units, the public will be asked to practice voluntary avoidance from 

October 15 to the end of the regular state duck hunting season. In addition, in small closed areas 

(1,000 acres or less), there will be a “no motor” restriction beginning October 15 through the end 

of the regular duck hunting season. 

Awareness and education will be an important part of the campaign to minimize human 

disturbance in each of these areas, just as it has since the inception of the Lake Onalaska 

Voluntary Waterfowl Avoidance Area.

Periodic closed area monitoring will be conducted to determine how well the program is working. 

As noted in No. 2, if the disturbance exceeds the threshold level, the Refuge will, in coordination 

with other agencies, move to implement more restrictive regulations such as no motors, no 

fishing, or no entry on an individual closed area basis. 

8) Most large closed areas have multiple inaccessible areas that waterfowl can use to escape 

disturbance. 

Response: Each closed area is different and species reaction to human disturbance varies. As 

noted above in our response to No. 2, diving ducks are the most vulnerable to disturbance. On 

Lake Onalaska, we have documented that a single boat crossing the open water of the Lake 

Onalaska Closed Area/VWAA in late October can flush thousands of diving ducks off the lake. 

Depending on the duration of the disturbance, these birds may settle back on the water after a 

brief flight, climb high and remain in the air for some time, or completely leave the pool. Havera 

(1992, op. cit.) found similar responses by diving ducks to disturbance using Keokuk Pool during 

fall migration. When feeding birds are disturbed, they may be flushed from preferred habitat 

and relocate to less desirable habitat. The same birds must also replenish energy used to escape 

the disturbance.

Another example: In the Wisconsin Islands Closed Area, we have documented that two boats 

entering this closed area simultaneously down Raft Channel and through Benover Slough 

flushed nearly every duck, Tundra Swan, and Canada Goose using the upper section of the closed 

area. When flushed from this area, comparable habitat does not exist elsewhere in the closed 

area, especially on cold days with strong winds.

Given the small size of the Goose Island No Hunting Zone (876 acres), when waterfowl (puddle 

ducks, Tundra Swans, and Canada Geese) are flushed as a result of human disturbance, finding 

suitable escape sites within this protected area may be limited., 

Conversely, those puddle ducks, Tundra Swans, and Canada Geese concentrated in the 

embayments and protected marshes found along the barrier islands in the larger Lake Onalaska 

Closed Area have the best chance of finding suitable protected habitat to relocate to when 

disturbed. 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

770

9) September through November is the least stressful time of year for birds using the upper 

Midwest and Upper Mississippi River. They have two objectives: maintenance of adequate body 

condition and maintenance of their flight muscles so they can survive and continue their 

migration at a later date. Some fat reserves are added but not enough for the birds to become fat.

Response: Fat deposition is essential to meeting the energetic requirements associated with 

migration and survival (Fredrickson and Reid, 1988, op. cit.). This is just as true for juvenile 

Blue-winged Teal migrating down the Upper Mississippi River in September as it is for the 

juvenile Tundra Swans that use the Wisconsin Islands Closed Area in November. 

From J. Takekawa (1987, PhD dissertation): “In many waterfowl species, including 

canvasback, body weight is highest when individuals arrive on the wintering grounds and 

gradually decreases through the winter until resources improve immediately before spring 

migration. Canvasbacks which are heaviest upon arrival on wintering areas are most likely 

to survive through the winter and through the following year (Haramis et al. 1986). 

Canvasbacks may gain more than 170 g during fall staging (J. Serie, USFWS, unpubl. data). 

... Adult canvasbacks may increase their body weight by 10 percent, and immature ducks 

may add 15 percent of their body weight on Lake Onalaska. ...Thus, fall staging areas serve 

as crucial habitats where canvasbacks can develop energy reserves that may enhance 

survival through the next year.”

10) Birds do not feed continuously each day during the period September through November and 

need adequate exercise to maintain body/flight muscle tone. Loafing and resting are other daily 

activities. 

Response: Waterfowl spend an appreciable amount of time feeding. Canvasbacks spent 19 

percent of the time foraging (underwater) on Lake Onalaska (Takekawa, 1987, op. cit.). However, 

the true proportion of time foraging is higher than this when one accounts for the period 

between dives. Also, upper GI tract capacity and food passage rate limit food intake as 

canvasback require 3.2 hours to digest winter buds of wildcelery. In addition, most of the 

remaining time was spent in energy-conserving behaviors such as resting and sleeping

Requirements for exercise to maintain body/flight muscle tone are addressed in No. 3.
Appendix R: Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas: Background, Descriptions, and Rationale for Alternative E

771

Appendix R: Electric Motor Areas and Slow, 

No Wake Areas: Background, Descriptions, 

and Rationale for Alternative E

Appendix R: Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas: Background, Descriptions, and Rationale for Alternative E

773

Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas

This appendix provides background information, specific descriptions, and rationale for the 

establishment of Refuge Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas described in Alternative E 

of the Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Additional 

information on these areas is provided in Chapter 1 (section 1.4.5.5) of the EIS/CCP, with objectives 

and rationale provided in Objective 5.2 in Alternative E. 

Background

When the Refuge was established in 1924, the Mississippi River floodplain was a braided maze of 

backwater channels and sloughs. Much of this unique habitat disappeared when the locks and dams 

went into operation. However, in the upper reaches of many pools, this unique bottomland habitat 

remains and offers fish, wildlife, and people a refuge from the sights and sounds of a modern and 

mechanized world. Many backwater areas are preferred breeding and nesting areas for species 

sensitive to certain human disturbance. Also, these more remote areas of the Refuge are an 

important component of the river experience to many. Technology in the form of jet skis, bass boats, 

shallow water motors such as Go-DevilsTM, airboats, and hovercraft has made the shallow 

backwaters of the Refuge accessible to more and more people, and introduced more and more noise, 

wildlife disturbance, and user conflict. The declining opportunity to experience the quiet and solitude 

of the backwaters was cited by many citizens during scoping meetings.

The single existing electric motor area on the Refuge is located at Mertes Slough, near Winona MN 

in Pool 6. This area was established in 1990 with the primary purpose to minimize disturbance of the 

Mertes Slough (St. Mary’s) Great Blue Heron colony. The colony continues to be active today. Under 

Alternative E, the Refuge will establish a total of 5 Electric Motor Areas on the Refuge 

encompassing 1,852 acres, and 8 Slow, No Wake Areas encompassing 9,720 acres. These areas are 

defined as follows:

# Electric Motor Areas. Areas closed year-round to all motorized vehicles and watercraft 

except watercraft powered by electric motors or non-motorized means. The possession of 

other watercraft motors is not prohibited, only their use. For example, anglers could switch 

to an electric trolling motor when entering these areas.

# Slow, No Wake Areas. From March 16 through October 31 in these areas, watercraft must 

travel at slow, no-wake speed and no airboats or hovercraft are allowed. Respective state 

definitions for what constitutes “slow, no/wake” speed or operation will apply as appropriate.

Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas will help reduce disturbance to backwater fish 

nurseries and sensitive backwater wildlife such as raptors, Black Terns and other colonial nesting 

birds, and furbearers in keeping with the wildlife mission of the Refuge. It will also address the need 

to provide areas of quiet and solitude sought by many users of the Refuge, and thus provide a 

balanced approach in line with the focus of this alternative. This balancing of needs and desire of 

user groups, and within user groups, is becoming more important as visitation grows, technology 

advances, and the use of such technology increases (for example jet skis, mud motors, airboats, and 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

774

hovercraft). The seasonal prohibition of airboats and hovercraft in the Slow, No Wake Areas 

recognizes the innate and virtually unavoidable noise levels produced by these types of watercraft. 

The seasonal approach also allows the use of airboats and hovercraft during the trapping season and 

for about half of the waterfowl hunting season when it is 60 days or longer. Due to the size and scope 

of the Refuge, space and time restraints are deemed a fair approach to watercraft use on the Refuge 

in keeping with the overall goal of providing high quality and sustainable wildlife-dependent 

recreation and opportunities for other recreation.

Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Area designations only affect the means of navigation in 

these areas, and all current uses would be allowed (fishing, hunting, camping, wildlife observation, 

etc.) in accordance with current regulations or those included elsewhere in Alternative E. These 

reflect the substantial public comment received about electric motor areas and suggestions to use 

slow, no wake designations versus electric motor areas to meet concerns of wildlife disturbance and 

user conflict while not unduly restricting public access and use. Three areas originally proposed in 

Alternative D and one proposed in the draft of Alternative E were dropped from any designation 

after further review and consideration of public comment.

Descriptions and rationales, concerning natural resource values and public use values, for 

establishing electric motor areas and slow, no wake areas are provided in the following sections.

Electric Motor Areas

Pool 5 - Island 42 Electric Motor Area

Minnesota, RM 749.8 - 747.6, 459 acres, Winona District

Background

Island 42 was proposed as an electric motor area in Alternative D and remains as such in Alternative 

E.

Resource Rationale

The Island 42 Electric Motor Area is a complex of braided islands and shallow backwater sloughs 

that provides important habitat for puddle ducks, wading birds, beaver, and muskrat. An active Bald 

Eagle nest is present. Quiet motors and associated slow speeds of electric motors reduce disturbance 

of wildlife.

Public Use Rationale

The area can be accessed easily from Halfmoon Landing (about 1.5 miles) or the new Upper West 

Newton Chute Landing (0.1 miles). The area provides quiet hunting, fishing and boating away from 

the busy areas of the main channel and West Newton Chute.

Pool 5A - Snyder Lake Electric Motor Area

Minnesota, RM 735.0 - 734.0, 182 acres, Winona District

Background

Snyder Lake was proposed as an electric motor area in Alternative D and remains as

such in Alternative E.

Resource Rationale

From a natural resource standpoint, this area is typical of other marsh and backwater areas of the 

Refuge and provides habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife species that benefit from reduced 

disturbance afforded by an electric motor area.
Appendix R: Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas: Background, Descriptions, and Rationale for Alternative E

775

Public Use Rationale

The Snyder Lake Electric Motor Area includes a relatively small protected backwater that provides 

potential off-channel camping experiences for persons using the adjacent canoe trail established in 

2005. The area also provides quiet opportunities for duck hunting, trapping and ice fishing.

Pool 6 – Mertes Slough Electric Motor Area

Wisconsin, RM 727.0 - 726.0, 222 acres, Winona District

Background

The existing Mertes Slough Electric Motor Area continues as such in Alternative E. This is the only 

existing electric motor area on the Refuge. The area was purchased from St. Mary’s University of 

Minnesota in 1986 and the electric motor provision was established in 1990 under Refuge fishing 

regulations published in the Federal Register in 1990 (50 CFR Chapter 1, 33.53) that permitted 

fishing on the condition that “only hand powered boats or boats with electric motors are permitted 

on Mertes’ Slough in Buffalo County, Wisconsin.” A major purpose of this regulation was to minimize 

disturbance of the Mertes Slough (St. Mary’s) Great Blue Heron colony. The colony continues to be 

active today.

Resource Rationale

Mertes Slough Electric Motor Area was established in 1990 to minimize disturbance to the Mertes 

Slough (St. Mary's) rookery which remains active today. Quiet motors and associated slow speeds of 

electric motors already reduce disturbance of wildlife in this area.

Public Use Rationale

The area provides quiet opportunities for hunting, fishing, trapping, ice fishing, cross-country skiing 

and wildlife observation. There is a Refuge boat landing at Mertes Slough.

Pool 7 – Browns Marsh Electric Motor Area

Wisconsin, RM 708.0 - 711.0, 827 acres, La Crosse District

Background

The Brown’s Marsh Electric Motor Area was first proposed in Alternative D and covered 966 acres. 

Under Alternative E, the size is reduced to 829 acres to accommodate boat access by gas powered 

motors to private land.

Resource Rationale

A protected shallow backwater along the Black River, the Browns Marsh Electric Motor Area 

provides important habitat for puddle ducks, wading birds, beaver, and muskrat. One active Bald 

Eagle nest was found in 2005. Quiet motors and associated slow speeds of electric motors reduce 

disturbance to wildlife.

Public Use Rationale

This area is located within 0.1 mile to a small canoe access (Lytles) with nearby shallow water 

amenable to paddle or electric motor watercraft. Designating this isolated wetland as an electric 

motor area maintains the integrity of a canoeing/kayaking experience to those who value relatively 

secluded/quiet conditions for hunting, fishing, trapping, and wildlife observation.
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

776

Pool 10 – Hoosier Lake Electric Motor Area

Wisconsin, RM 624.8 – 624.0, 162 acres, McGregor District

Background

Under Alternative E, the Hoosier Lake Electric Motor Area replaces the Bagley Bottoms Electric 

Motor Area proposed in Alternative D. The Glass Lake sector (627 acres) was dropped from the 

Bagley Bottoms Electric Motor Area and only Hoosier Lake is retained. Glass Lake was excluded 

because it is extremely shallow and receives little use at this time.

Resource Rationale

The Hoosier Lake area is important habitat for puddle ducks, geese, beaver and muskrat. Habitat 

values of this area are adversely affected by disturbance due to changing watercraft propulsion 

technology and increased human activity, and direct habitat damage by watercraft. Quiet motors and 

associated slow speeds of electric motors reduce disturbance of wildlife.

Public Use Rationale

Hoosier Lake Electric Motor Area is close to a small boat landing with nearby shallow water 

amenable to paddle or electric motor watercraft. It provides an opportunity to use the Refuge by 

those who value relatively secluded/quiet conditions for hunting, fishing trapping and wildlife 

observation.

Slow, No Wake Areas

Pool 4 - Nelson-Trevino Slow, No Wake Area

Wisconsin, RM 762.5 - 760.0, 2,626 acres, Winona District

Background

This area was proposed as an Electric Motor Area in Alternative D and is designated a Slow No 

Wake Area in Alternative E to provide more balance between the needs and desires of user groups 

(see introduction background above). The Slow, No Wake Area status will not go into effect until 

March 16, 2009. Implementation is delayed to 2009 to reduce public use variables (frequency, type, 

and level of public use) during 3 years’ of waterfowl monitoring planned for the area prior to making 

any changes in Pool 4 Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas scheduled for 2009 (see Objective 4.2 and 

Appendix Q, Closed Area Descriptions, Winona District).

Resource Rationale

Nelson-Trevino is a designated Research Natural Area, one of four on the Refuge, where 

management objectives are to preserve examples of major ecosystem types, to provide research and 

educational opportunities for scientists, and to contribute to the national effort to preserve a full 

range of genetic and behavioral diversity for native plants and animals, including endangered and 

threatened species. Bald Eagles nest in the area and is home to the massasauga rattlesnake, a 

candidate species for the Endangered Species List. Slow speeds and restricting loud motorized 

access for much of the year, especially during the sensitive spring and summer seasons, will reduce 

disturbance of wildlife.
Appendix R: Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas: Background, Descriptions, and Rationale for Alternative E

777

Public Use Rationale

This large area offers unique possibilities for quiet activities such as canoeing, kayaking, wildlife 

observation, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing and quiet hunting and fishing. The area is currently 

a Refuge closed area (closed to hunting during the state duck season), but under Alternative E, will 

be an area open to duck hunting, thus providing duck hunters a quiet area for the first 30 days of the 

duck season which traditionally opens around October 1 (see definition of Slow, No Wake Area 

above). Deer and small game hunting and trapping will also be allowed during the state seasons in 

the Nelson –Trevino area after the closed area designation is removed in 2009.

Pool 5A – Denzers Slough Slow, No Wake Area

Minnesota, RM 733.0 - 732.0, 83 acres, Winona District

Background

This area was proposed as an Electric Motor Area in Alternative D and is designated a Slow No 

Wake Area in Alternative E to provide more balance between the needs and desires of user groups 

(see introduction background above).

Resource Rationale

Denzer’s Slough provides important habitat for puddle ducks, geese, beaver and muskrat. Slow 

speeds and restricting loud motorized access for much of the year, especially during the sensitive 

spring and summer seasons, reduce disturbance of wildlife. 

Public Use Rationale

Although camping will be rustic and limited, the area provides a place for canoeists to quietly explore 

and view wildlife. The area is along a new canoe trail and also provides quiet hunting and trapping 

opportunities.

Pool 7 – Black River Bottoms Slow, No Wake Area

Wisconsin, RM 708.8 - 711.0, 1,165 acres, La Crosse District

Background

This area was proposed as an Electric Motor Area in Alternative D and is designated a Slow No 

Wake Area in Alternative E to provide more balance between the needs and desire of user groups 

(see introduction background above). The Black River Bottoms Slow, No Wake Area will not be 

implemented until 2008. During the public comment period on the supplemental EIS, a group of 

citizens suggested an alternative Slow, No Wake Area in the Big Marsh/Mud Lake area of Pool 7 to 

replace the Black River Bottoms area. The proposal had several conditions which made it unsuitable. 

However, since the proposal has merit based on resource values, ease of access, and existing 

adjacent facilities, the implementation of the Black River Bottoms Slow, No Wake Area is being 

delayed one year to allow further exploration of the proposal. However, the Black River Bottoms 

Slow, No Wake Area will be implemented in 2008 unless further consultation with citizens and a 

decision by the Refuge Manager dictates another course.

Resource Rationale

The Black River Bottoms is important to a wide variety of wildlife using floodplain forest and a 

backwater channel/wetland community complex, including: ducks and geese, Sandhill Cranes, 

wading birds, nesting Bald Eagles, otter, beaver, muskrat, and deer. Four Bald Eagle nests are 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

778

located in this area; three were active in 2005. Bald Eagles, an Endangered Species, are listed as a 

Resource Conservation Priority for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Region 3. Slow speeds and 

restricted loud motorized access for much of the year, especially during the sensitive spring and 

summer seasons, reduce disturbance of wildlife.

Public Use Rationale

In the past, access into this area was limited. As a result, waterfowl found refuge in the numerous 

“potholes” within the area during the open hunting season. Waterfowl hunters willing to invest the 

time/effort required to access the area generally found birds and few other hunters. With recent 

advances in propulsion technology and availability (airboat, go-devil, beavertail), more people are 

finding this area accessible. With increased hunting pressure, daytime use of the area by waterfowl 

during fall migration appears to have changed. Now, fewer birds use the area by day except on those 

days when new migrants arrive or when new feeding sites become available due to a raise in water 

levels. Waterfowl have also adjusted by moving into the area at night to feed. Restricting loud 

motorized access for part of the season will provide a quality hunting experience to those willing to 

spend the time/effort to access the area. Further, this designation enhances the quality and 

opportunity for wildlife observation in this area through much of the annual cycle.

Pool 8 – Blue/Target Lake Slow, No Wake Area

Minnesota, RM 696.0 - 699.0, 1,834 acres, La Crosse District

Background

This area was proposed as an Electric Motor Area in Alternative D and is designated a Slow No 

Wake Area in Alternative E to provide more balance between the needs and desire of user groups 

(see introduction background above).

Resource Rationale

The main habitat components include emergent marsh, rooted floating aquatic plants such as water 

lilies, and wet meadow. This area provides excellent wetland habitat for migratory birds and 

furbearers. Three Bald Eagle nests are located in the area and one was active in 2005. One of the 

largest nesting colonies of Black Terns on the Upper Mississippi River is located on Blue Lake. 

Black Terns are listed as a Resource Conservation Priority for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 

Region 3. Puddle and diving ducks, geese, and swans use the area during migration. Wood Ducks, 

another species listed as a Resource Conservation Priority, use the area for brood rearing, molting, 

and as an evening roost site. Ruddy Duck ducklings, a rare summer occurrence on the Refuge, were 

observed on Blue Lake in August 2004. Ruddy Ducks typically nest near the water in emergent 

vegetation. In the recent past, concentrations of Hooded Mergansers have been observed using Blue 

Lake as an evening site in mid-June. Hooded Mergansers are listed in the Partners in Flight Bird 

Conservation Plan for Dissected Till Plains. American Bitterns, another species listed as a Resource 

Conservation Priority, have been observed in the recent past during migration. Least Bitterns, 

American Coots, Common Moorhens (Resource Conservation Priority), and Virginia and Sora Rails 

use the area during migration and for nesting. Yellow-crowned Night Herons and Black-crowned 

Night Herons (Resource Conservation Priorities) are also present. In the past, a Yellow-crowned 

Night Heron nesting colony was found in the area. Increased use of Blue/Target Lakes by Sandhill 

Cranes has been observed. Slow speeds and restricted loud motorized access for part of the season 

reduces disturbance of wildlife especially during the critical spring and summer season.

Public Use Rationale

In the past, access into this area was generally by smaller boats and skiffs moving at relatively slow 

speeds. Now, changing propulsion technology and availability (airboat, go-devil, beavertail, personal 
Appendix R: Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas: Background, Descriptions, and Rationale for Alternative E

779

watercraft) is increasing use of the area by such craft. Slow speeds and restricting loud motorized 

access for part of the season would reduce disturbance to the public. The area provides an 

opportunity to use the Refuge by those who value relatively secluded/quiet conditions for hunting, 

fishing, trapping, wildlife observation, and cross country skiing. Access is provided at a number of 

nearby locations.

Pool 8 – Root River Slow, No Wake Area

Minnesota, RM 694.0 - 696.0, 695 acres, La Crosse District

Background

This area was proposed as an Electric Motor Area in Alternative D and is designated a Slow No 

Wake Area in Alternative E to provide more balance between the needs and desires of user groups 

(see introduction background above).

Resource Rationale

The habitat in this area is bottomland forest and marsh bisected by numerous channels. The area 

provides excellent wetland habitat for waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, beaver, and muskrats. 

Wood Ducks have used the area as an evening roost site in the past. There are four eagle nests in the 

area; two were active in 2005. A heron rookery is no longer active. Slow speeds and restricting loud 

motorized access for much of the year, especially during the sensitive spring and summer seasons, 

reduce disturbance to wildlife.

Public Use Rationale

In the past, access into this area was generally by smaller boats moving at relatively slow speeds. 

Now, changing propulsion technology and availability (airboat, go-devil, beavertail, personal 

watercraft) is increasing use of the area by such craft. Safety and general use conflicts with power 

craft, especially high power craft, appear to be increasing within the wider channels within the area. 

The Slow, No Wake designation provides those who value relatively secluded and quiet conditions for 

hunting, fishing, trapping, and wildlife observation with an opportunity to use the Refuge through 

much of the year. The distance to the nearest boat landing is about 0.5-mile.

Pool 9 – Reno Bottoms Slow, No Wake Area

Minnesota, RM 679.2 - 681, 2,536 acres, McGregor District

Background

This area was proposed as an Electric Motor Area in Alternative D and is designated a Slow No 

Wake Area in Alternative E to provide more balance between the needs and desire of user groups 

(see introduction background above). The size of this area is now 866 acres less than originally 

proposed, after dropping the designation on Pickerel Slough and the land and water east of it to the 

main channel. This modification is in response to suggestions from some of the hunting and fishing 

public to address concerns about access to upper areas of Reno Bottoms, while still maintaining a 

reasonable size to the Slow, No Wake area.

Resource Rationale

Reno Bottoms is one of the largest remaining examples of what approximates pre-lock and dam 

habitat conditions within the Refuge. The area includes the northern portion of the Reno Bottoms 
Upper Mississippi River Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

780

Research Natural Area, one of four on the Refuge, where management objectives are to preserve 

examples of major ecosystem types, to provide research and educational opportunities for scientists, 

and to contribute to the national effort to preserve a full range of genetic and behavioral diversity for 

native plants and animals, including endangered and threatened species.

The area is important to a wide variety of wildlife using the upland forest, backwater channel/ 

wetland community complex; including: ducks, swans, Sandhill Cranes, nesting Bald Eagles, beaver, 

muskrat and deer. The habitat values of this relatively isolated area are adversely affected by 

disturbance due to changing watercraft propulsion technology and increased human activity, and 

direct habitat damage by watercraft. Slow speeds and restricting loud motorized access for much of 

the year, especially during the sensitive spring and summer seasons, reduce disturbance of wildlife.

Public Use Rationale

Reno Bottoms was suggested by some of the public as a motorless area during CCP scoping 

meetings. It is one of the largest remaining areas with reduced motor boat traffic because of reduced 

accessibility. Access to the area by hand carried small craft is easily available via Dam 8, and the area 

provides good conditions for paddle powered craft. Safety and general use conflicts with power craft, 

especially high speed power craft, are increasing within the few flowing channels within the area. 

The Slow, No Wake designation provides those who value relatively secluded and quiet conditions for 

hunting, fishing, trapping, and wildlife observation with an opportunity to use the Refuge through 

much of the year.

Pool 12 – Nine Mile Island Slow, No Wake Area

Iowa, RM 571.7 - 574.5, 454 acres, Savanna District

Background

This area was proposed as an Electric Motor Area in Alternative D and is designated a Slow No 

Wake Area in Alternative E to provide more balance between the needs and desire of user groups 

(see introduction background above). The size of the proposed Slow, No Wake area has been reduced 

from 567 acres to 454 acres to accommodate public concerns about use of beach areas on the upper 

end of the island complex.

Resource Rationale

From a natural resource standpoint, this area is typical of other marsh and backwater areas of the 

Refuge and provides habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife species that would benefit from reduced 

disturbance afforded by a slow, no wake area. Public Use Rationale: This area is a fairly shallow area 

where larger boats cannot access and is offset from main channel or main slough areas to avoid 

conflicts with other users. It is a destination point, located adjacent to, but not within a travel 

corridor. In addition, it is large enough in size to allow a quality experience. The Slow, No Wake 

designation provides those who value relatively secluded and quiet conditions for hunting, fishing, 

trapping, and wildlife observation with an opportunity to use the Refuge through much of the year.

Pool 14 – Princeton Slow, No Wake Area (formerly Rock Creek)

Iowa, RM 506.0 - 506.7, 327 acres, Savanna District

Background
Appendix R: Electric Motor Areas and Slow, No Wake Areas: Background, Descriptions, and Rationale for Alternative E

781

This area was proposed as an Electric Motor Area in Alternative D and is designated a Slow No 

Wake Area in Alternative E to provide more balance between the needs and desire of user groups 

(see introduction background above). The name was changed because the area is not directly 

associated Rock Creek; Princeton is a more appropriate designation.

Resource Rationale

From a natural resource standpoint, this area is typical of other marsh and backwater areas of the 

Refuge and provides habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife species that would benefit from reduced 

disturbance afforded by a slow, no wake area.

Public Use Rationale

This area is a fairly shallow area that larger boats cannot access and is offset from the main channel 

and major slough areas to avoid conflicts with other users. It is a destination point, located adjacent 

to, but not within a busy travel corridor. In addition, it is large enough in size to allow a quality 

experience. The Slow, No Wake designation provides those who value relatively secluded and quiet 

conditions for hunting, fishing, trapping, and wildlife observation with an opportunity to use the 

Refuge through much of the year.

783

Index

A

Acquisition

A

Acquisition

 xix, xx, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxviii, xxx, xxxi, xxxiv, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 23, 24, 33, 36,

37, 38, 41, 54, 56, 57, 61, 63, 80, 82, 83, 86, 103, 105, 106, 110, 112, 134, 137, 138, 143, 145,

173, 195, 196, 233, 274, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 315, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323,

331, 336, 337, 338, 341, 342, 367, 375, 380, 386, 387, 395, 408, 418, 523, 524, 525, 545, 701,

702, 707, 710

Amphibians

 xxx, xxxi, xxxiii, 23, 87, 232, 254, 255, 314, 315, 343, 645

Aquatic invertebrates

 xxiii, xxiv, xxvii, xxviii, 36, 41, 55, 87, 103, 135, 259, 309, 316, 746, 751

Archeological and cultural resources

 34, 168, 213, 277, 296, 297, 298, 351, 507

B

Beach use

 xxi, 28, 29, 50, 74, 75, 97, 98, 128, 129, 164, 165, 166, 186, 187, 195, 286, 308, 333, 334, 364,

368, 412, 708

Biological Integrity Policy

 8, 9

Birds

Colonial nesting birds

 xxiii, xxiv, xxvii, 15, 36, 41, 55, 76, 87, 103, 130, 135, 167, 247, 311

Raptors

 76, 130, 167, 240, 250, 259, 311, 547, 548, 746

Secretive marsh birds

 135, 249

Songbirds

 15, 23, 41, 87, 244, 245, 246, 311

Waterfowl

 xxiii, xxiv, xxvii, xxviii, xxix, xxx, xxxi, xxxiii, 3, 6, 14, 15, 22, 24, 36, 41, 45, 55, 67, 68, 69,

87, 91, 94, 103, 117, 118, 119, 121, 135, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 160, 167, 176, 235, 236, 237,

238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 256, 258, 259, 266, 274, 280, 309, 310, 339, 343, 364,

386, 401, 414, 525, 547, 735, 744, 745, 746, 747, 749, 750, 752, 753, 754, 755, 756, 757, 758,

759, 761, 762, 763, 764, 766, 767, 768, 769, 770, 776, 778, 779
Upper Mississippi River NWFR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

784

Bluffland protection

 xix, 19, 38, 57, 82, 106, 137, 173, 387

C

Climate

 221, 222, 301, 709

Closed Areas

 xvii, xx, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, xxix, xxxiii, 6, 22, 24, 25, 34, 36, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 55, 62, 67,

68, 69, 70, 71, 80, 90, 91, 92, 94, 104, 111, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 123, 124, 129, 135, 143, 149,

150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 157, 159, 168, 180, 181, 182, 186, 192, 235, 240, 241, 242, 243,

244, 245, 281, 308, 309, 310, 312, 318, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 333, 339,

349, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 368, 369, 370, 371, 374, 375, 376, 378, 382, 384, 385, 392,

393, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 404, 422, 507, 561, 577, 578, 579, 581, 582, 583, 584, 585,

586, 640, 702, 703, 708, 709, 735

Commercial fishing and clamming

 xx, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, 5, 22, 24, 36, 43, 55, 60, 64, 80, 88, 104, 110, 114, 147, 193, 241, 256,

292, 294, 313, 314, 392, 561, 592, 641

Commercial navigation

 xvii, xxx, 11, 20, 35, 68, 118, 152, 213, 276, 277, 279, 292, 303, 368, 639

Compatibility of Uses

 8, 21, 35, 42, 63, 88, 113, 146

Policy

 8

Compatibility of uses

 xx

Conservation easements

 228, 229, 230

Contaminants

 5, 23, 37, 38, 57, 58, 82, 83, 106, 107, 216, 220, 222, 223, 224, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316

Cumulative impacts

 xxxiv, 299, 338

D

Disease control

 35, 36

Dog use policy

 xxii, 30, 51, 77, 100, 131, 168, 378, 417

Drawdowns

 xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxviii, xxx, xxxi, 12, 13, 20, 36, 39, 41, 45, 54, 59, 61, 68, 69, 80, 84, 86,

91, 103, 108, 110, 118, 119, 140, 143, 154, 155, 195, 201, 220, 225, 228, 248, 271, 276, 277, 278,

279, 280, 300, 303, 304, 305, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 333, 334,

340, 341, 342, 367, 369, 389, 398, 507, 703, 705, 707, 708, 709, 738, 743, 744
785

E

Electric motor use

 xxiii, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxix, xxxii, xxxiii, 34, 37, 51, 55, 76, 81, 99, 104, 129, 130, 136, 166, 167,

168, 192, 195, 286, 300, 308, 311, 315, 318, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 333, 334, 361,

362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 368, 370, 372, 374, 375, 376, 378, 380, 381, 382, 384, 385, 388, 392,

393, 395, 397, 403, 407, 413, 414, 415, 416, 419, 422, 508, 561, 593, 640, 704, 708, 771

Environmental education

 xviii, xxi, xxiii, xxiv, xxvi, xxvii, xxix, xxx, xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii, 5, 6, 7, 17, 27, 30, 37, 44, 49, 55,

66, 73, 81, 90, 95, 96, 101, 104, 108, 116, 125, 126, 132, 135, 140, 149, 162, 163, 170, 195, 228,

233, 285, 296, 309, 310, 311, 314, 330, 344, 386, 409, 410, 422, 510, 526, 701, 703

Environmental Pool Plans

 xix, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, xxviii, 16, 17, 20, 36, 40, 42, 55, 61, 63, 80, 84, 85, 87, 103, 110, 112,

135, 140, 142, 143, 195, 196, 207, 228, 270, 308, 309, 312, 313, 314, 315, 317, 319, 389, 500,

508, 704, 705, 707, 717

F

Fire management

 3, 35, 44, 66, 90, 116, 149, 301, 302, 319, 703, 708

Fish

Other fish

 xxx, xxxi, xxxiii, 252, 256, 270, 313, 343, 370, 386, 391

Sport fish

 xxx, xxxi, xxxiii, 113, 130, 224, 250, 251, 252, 259, 265

Fish passage

 16, 196, 228, 253, 313, 314, 341, 403

Fish sanctuaries

 33, 393

Fishery and mussel management

 xx, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, xxviii, 21, 22, 36, 43, 55, 64, 80, 88, 104, 113, 135, 146, 147, 313, 391,

702, 703, 708, 709

Fishing

 xviii, xxi, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxviii, xxix, xxx, xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii, 5, 7, 9, 17, 21, 27,

36, 44, 48, 50, 55, 66, 71, 72, 74, 76, 80, 81, 84, 90, 94, 97, 99, 104, 109, 116, 117, 118, 124, 125,

127, 130, 135, 141, 149, 151, 153, 160, 163, 164, 168, 170, 195, 228, 240, 251, 281, 283, 361,

362, 363, 365, 372, 378, 379, 380, 381, 385, 398, 399, 402, 403, 406, 414, 415, 421, 422

Fish floats

 xxi, xxiii, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxx, xxxi, xxxii, 6, 27, 37, 49, 50, 55, 74, 81, 96, 104, 127, 292, 300,

343, 379, 403, 561, 592

Fishing tournaments

 xxi, xxiii, xxiv, xxvi, xxvii, xxx, xxxi, xxxii, 27, 36, 48, 55, 72, 81, 94, 104, 124, 125, 135, 160,

161, 251, 283, 284, 300, 311, 312, 318, 324, 327, 343, 365, 366, 368, 371, 374, 403, 404, 416,

704, 708, 709
Upper Mississippi River NWFR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

786

Forest management

 xx, xxiv, xxvii, xxviii, xxx, xxxi, 23, 41, 44, 55, 61, 65, 66, 86, 89, 104, 110, 115, 135, 148, 149,

266, 267, 303, 307, 310, 319, 341, 394, 706, 708

Furbearer trapping

 xx, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, xxviii, xxx, 5, 21, 24, 34, 36, 42, 55, 63, 64, 80, 88, 104, 113, 135, 145,

146, 153, 167, 240, 241, 261, 262, 263, 281, 292, 293, 305, 317, 376, 377, 378, 390, 391, 399,

507, 578, 581, 583, 586, 640, 703, 708, 735, 737, 755, 774, 775, 776, 777, 779, 780, 781

G

Geomorphology

 xxx, xxxi, 16, 214, 240, 306, 338, 343

Grassland management

 xx, 23, 44, 66, 90, 115, 149, 316, 394, 703

Guiding principles for habitat projects

 xix, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxviii, xxxii, 20, 36, 54, 80, 103, 135, 307, 369, 703

Guiding services

 xxi, xxxi, xxxii, 28, 50, 74, 97, 127, 163, 185, 292, 411

H

Hunting

 xviii, xx, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, xxviii, xxix, xxx, xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii, 5, 6, 7, 17, 23, 24, 25, 30,

34, 36, 44, 45, 48, 50, 51, 55, 66, 67, 72, 74, 76, 77, 80, 84, 89, 90, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 104, 116,

117, 120, 127, 129, 130, 131, 135, 149, 150, 151, 153, 156, 163, 164, 165, 168, 169, 170, 179,

180, 181, 185, 188, 195, 228, 235, 238, 240, 241, 242, 243, 280, 281, 282, 287, 290, 291, 292,

297, 300, 302, 320, 321, 322, 323, 336, 339, 342, 343, 363, 365, 372, 374, 377, 378, 379, 380,

385, 386, 391, 395, 396, 398, 399, 400, 404, 405, 406, 408, 409, 411, 413, 414, 417, 507, 509,

510, 523, 526, 561, 577, 578, 579, 581, 582, 583, 584, 586, 629, 639, 640, 641, 701, 702, 703,

708, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 779, 780, 781

Blanding Landing managed hunt program, Savanna District

 xxi, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxix, 26, 36, 47, 55, 71, 80, 81, 93, 104, 123, 135, 183, 281

Firing line, Lake Onalaska

 xx, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, xxix, 24, 25, 36, 46, 55, 69, 80, 92, 104, 119, 135, 156, 180, 182, 310,

321, 322, 323, 374, 384, 398, 401

Hunter spacing

 181, 374

Potter’s Marsh managed hunt, Savanna District

 xxi, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, xxix, 26, 36, 46, 55, 71, 80, 93, 104, 122, 123, 135, 158, 159, 182,

281, 402, 703

Waterfowl hunting closed areas and sanctuaries

 xvii, xx, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, xxxiii, 24, 34, 36, 45, 50, 55, 62, 67, 80, 91, 104, 111, 117, 129,

135, 143, 151, 154, 168, 180, 181, 281, 312, 318, 321, 322, 323, 324, 326, 328, 333, 360, 361,

363, 368, 369, 370, 374, 376, 378, 382, 384, 385, 392, 393, 395, 396, 397, 402, 422
787

Waterfowl hunting regulation changes

 45, 68, 91, 118, 154, 181, 400, 703

Hunter spacing

 xxv, xxvii, 80, 91, 104, 118, 119

Open water hunting in Pools 9 and 11

 xxiv, xxv, xxvii, 55, 69, 80, 104, 119, 192, 509

Permanent hunting blinds on Savanna District

 xxxii, 25, 46, 70, 92, 122, 157, 182, 386, 395, 401

Shotshell limit

 xxiv, xxvii, 55, 69, 104, 118, 181, 321, 323, 364

Hydrology

 xxx, xxxi, 14, 16, 219, 233, 240, 269, 275, 307, 310, 343

I

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

 xvii, 26, 47, 71, 93, 123, 159, 269, 281, 283, 296, 354, 366, 513

Interpretation

 xviii, xxi, xxiii, xxiv, xxvi, xxvii, xxix, xxx, xxxi, xxxii, 5, 6, 7, 17, 27, 30, 37, 44, 49, 55, 66, 73,

81, 90, 95, 96, 101, 104, 116, 125, 126, 132, 135, 140, 149, 162, 170, 184, 195, 228, 265, 285,

296, 310, 314, 330, 336, 344, 386, 409, 422, 510, 526, 701

Invasive animals

 xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxviii, xxxi, 20, 36, 40, 54, 60, 80, 85, 103, 109, 135, 141, 175, 308, 316,

379, 389

Invasive plants

 xix, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxxi, 20, 36, 39, 40, 44, 54, 59, 60, 66, 80, 85, 90, 103, 108, 109, 115,

116, 140, 149, 175, 256, 257, 309, 310, 311, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 339

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

 xvii, 241, 269, 273, 354, 364, 371, 513

L

Law enforcement

 xxix, xxxiii, 13, 25, 29, 30, 43, 46, 47, 51, 52, 68, 69, 70, 74, 77, 78, 89, 92, 97, 98, 100, 101, 118,

119, 120, 121, 122, 128, 131, 132, 136, 151, 154, 157, 164, 166, 169, 172, 189, 194, 295, 333,

338, 340, 361, 362, 363, 367, 369, 370, 376, 392, 400, 409, 412, 417, 418, 420, 513, 703, 704,

706, 708

Locks and dams

 xvii, xxi, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxix, 1, 3, 10, 11, 20, 21, 29, 33, 49, 50, 55, 74, 81, 96, 104, 127, 136,

163, 213, 216, 217, 225, 236, 250, 251, 253, 261, 262, 265, 267, 275, 313, 338, 341, 379

Lost Mound Unit

 xxv, xxvi, xxviii, xxix, 19, 23, 26, 30, 35, 37, 47, 52, 53, 55, 57, 71, 73, 81, 82, 93, 95, 96, 101,

104, 106, 123, 124, 126, 132, 136, 137, 159, 162, 170, 183, 189, 191, 224, 267, 281, 287, 296
Upper Mississippi River NWFR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

788

M

Mammals

 xv, xxx, xxxi, 1, 7, 23, 232, 235, 240, 249, 260, 261, 265, 317, 672

Marinas

 xxx, 291, 303, 405, 412, 420

McGregor District

 xxviii, xxix, 9, 30, 53, 73, 96, 101, 102, 104, 117, 126, 132, 134, 136, 151, 162, 170, 172, 173,

180, 189, 229, 230, 232, 268, 289, 290, 295, 760, 776, 779

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

 xvii, 19, 253, 256, 269, 283, 286, 354, 360, 369, 407, 513

Monitoring fish, wildlife, and plants

 xix, xx, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, xxviii, xxx, xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii, xxxiv, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23,

34, 35, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43, 55, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 80, 85, 87, 88, 89, 91, 103, 107,

111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 118, 119, 222, 233, 237, 250, 251, 255, 259, 268, 269, 301, 305, 308,

310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 337, 339, 361, 362, 363, 369, 370, 371, 374,

375, 390, 393, 396, 508, 702, 703, 705, 708, 709, 710

Mosquito management

 35

Mussels

 xv, xix, xx, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, xxviii, xxx, xxxi, 1, 5, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 34, 36, 41, 42, 43,

55, 60, 62, 63, 64, 87, 88, 104, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 135, 141, 145, 146, 147, 177, 178, 216,

232, 233, 234, 251, 252, 253, 254, 256, 258, 259, 277, 304, 308, 313, 314, 364, 389, 391, 392,

674, 702, 703, 708, 709

N

National Wildlife Refuge System

Goals of the Refuge System

 7

Mission statement

 4

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

 xv, xix, 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 19, 21, 27, 32, 62, 67, 90, 111, 116, 149, 370, 373, 375, 377, 379, 380, 381,

382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 395, 404, 410, 422, 510, 525, 526, 531, 701, 740

O

Office and shop facilities

 xvii, xxiii, xxv, xxvi, xxviii, 30, 34, 37, 52, 55, 78, 81, 95, 101, 104, 125, 132, 170, 189, 287, 294,

295, 418

Operations and maintenance needs

 xxii, 30, 48, 53, 78, 79, 86, 102, 103, 133, 134, 171, 172, 190, 294, 340, 372, 704
789

P

Partnerships

 14, 15, 18, 39, 43, 49, 59, 60, 73, 84, 89, 95, 108, 109, 124, 125, 140, 141, 160, 161, 175, 235,

269, 305, 306, 308, 309, 310, 368, 369, 372, 373, 375, 379, 389, 526, 703, 709, 710

Public information and awareness

 xxii, xxv, xxvi, xxviii, 53, 54, 55, 59, 60, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 76, 79, 81, 84, 92, 93, 94, 97, 98,

99, 102, 104, 108, 109, 110, 115, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 128, 130, 133, 136, 171, 190, 318,

420

Public use regulations

 xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxix, xxx, xxxi, xxxii, xxxiv, 6, 8, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29,

30, 33, 34, 35, 37, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 55, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 86,

90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 116, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128,

129, 130, 131, 132, 136, 164, 165, 169, 170, 189, 240, 252, 280, 287, 292, 361, 362, 363, 370,

417, 639

R

Refuge boundary

 xix, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxxiv, 5, 18, 33, 37, 54, 56, 80, 81, 103, 104, 105, 136, 173, 228, 338, 367,

386, 387, 705

Refuge funding

 xviii, xix, xxii, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, xxviii, xxxi, xxxiv, 6, 17, 20, 21, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39,

40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 48, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 71, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85,

86, 88, 89, 93, 95, 96, 98, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 114, 115, 124, 125, 126, 132,

133, 134, 137, 140, 141, 143, 148, 159, 160, 162, 170, 171, 172, 175, 189, 285, 307, 310, 318,

319, 330, 331, 340, 341, 367, 379, 380, 390, 394, 409, 418, 701, 702, 704, 705, 706, 707

Refuge goals

 xv, xviii, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 20, 32, 36, 62, 101, 111, 132, 195, 228, 350

Refuge vision

 xviii, xix, 6, 17, 32, 52, 78, 101, 132, 350

Reptiles

 xxx, xxxi, xxxiii, 41, 62, 87, 111, 144, 235, 254, 314, 315, 343, 677

Research Natural Areas and special designations

 xix, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxviii, xxxi, 5, 9, 19, 33, 36, 38, 54, 57, 80, 83, 103, 106, 138, 174,

192, 228, 307, 387, 702

S

Savanna District

 xx, xxi, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxviii, xxix, 9, 25, 26, 30, 35, 36, 37, 46, 47, 52, 55, 70, 71,

78, 80, 81, 92, 93, 96, 101, 104, 117, 122, 123, 124, 126, 132, 136, 151, 154, 157, 158, 159, 162,

170, 180, 182, 183, 185, 189, 229, 230, 257, 268, 281, 285, 287, 289, 290, 293, 296, 321, 322,

323, 329, 366, 386, 387, 400, 401, 402, 592, 703, 708, 761, 762, 763, 764, 780, 781

Scenic byways

 1, 27, 172, 285, 287, 288, 289, 408, 741
Upper Mississippi River NWFR Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

790

Slow, no wake zones

 34, 51, 99, 136, 166, 167, 168, 187, 188, 323, 324, 327, 333, 334, 361, 362, 363, 364, 366, 368,

371, 374, 375, 376, 380, 381, 382, 384, 385, 388, 393, 395, 399, 403, 407, 413, 414, 415, 416,

417, 704, 708

Slow, no-wake zones

 xxii, xxiii, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, 29, 37, 51, 55, 76, 81, 99, 104, 130, 192, 287, 561

Soils

 23, 214, 220, 221, 267, 318

Species of concern

 256, 267, 313, 362

Staffing needs

 30, 54, 79, 80, 103, 134, 172, 191, 420

State Management Areas

 231

T

Threatened and endangered species management

 xix, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, xxviii, xxx, xxxi, xxxiii, 5, 7, 9, 21, 22, 23, 34, 36, 42, 55, 63, 65, 80,

87, 103, 112, 113, 114, 135, 145, 147, 176, 195, 235, 246, 250, 254, 268, 303, 304

Turtle management

 xx, 23, 33, 43, 65, 89, 114, 115, 147, 148, 178, 254, 393, 706

U

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

 i, xvii, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxviii, xxix, 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 22, 28, 34, 35, 36,

37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 61, 62, 65, 66, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81,

82, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 94, 95, 96, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 110, 111, 114, 115, 125,

126, 130, 132, 134, 135, 136, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 152, 160,

161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 169, 171, 172, 173, 177, 178, 179, 185, 186, 189, 207, 213, 216, 219,

220, 221, 228, 256, 258, 265, 267, 269, 276, 277, 278, 284, 298, 303, 304, 307, 328, 340, 349,

350, 353, 359, 360, 361, 362, 366, 367, 368, 369, 372, 373, 375, 379, 383, 387, 388, 389, 394,

403, 404, 413, 419, 508, 523, 524, 547, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 706, 708, 709

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Mission statement

 7

V

Vegetation

 xxvii, 5, 16, 18, 24, 25, 27, 28, 36, 39, 41, 55, 59, 70, 75, 84, 87, 98, 103, 108, 129, 140, 219, 220,

225, 236, 241, 242, 247, 248, 256, 257, 258, 263, 265, 266, 267, 268, 275, 277, 278, 280, 301,

302, 305, 308, 317, 318, 342, 343, 389, 509, 641, 725, 738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 745, 748,

753, 754, 755, 757, 759, 760, 761, 762, 763, 764, 767
791

Volunteers and Friends Groups

 36, 42, 53, 63, 78, 87, 95, 101, 102, 103, 112, 125, 132, 133, 134, 145, 162, 170, 171, 172, 255,

285, 375, 389, 390, 411, 710, 740

W

Water quality

 xix, xxiii, xxx, xxxi, xxxiv, 11, 14, 16, 18, 19, 23, 28, 36, 38, 39, 58, 83, 84, 107, 108, 139, 140,

174, 195, 219, 220, 223, 228, 229, 233, 266, 274, 279, 301, 305, 308, 309, 310, 312, 313, 314,

315, 316, 317, 325, 326, 327, 338, 342, 343, 382, 384, 387, 388, 389, 739, 742

Wilderness

 33, 228, 524

Wildlife observation

 xviii, xx, xxi, xxiii, xxiv, xxvi, xxvii, xxix, xxx, xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii, 5, 6, 7, 17, 23, 27, 37, 44, 48,

49, 50, 55, 66, 72, 73, 74, 81, 89, 90, 95, 97, 104, 116, 125, 127, 135, 149, 161, 163, 164, 183,

184, 185, 193, 228, 281, 285, 290, 291, 292, 300, 302, 321, 331, 332, 339, 344, 366, 380, 381,

386, 396, 404, 405, 414, 422, 510, 526, 701, 744, 750, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 779, 780, 781

Wildlife photography

 xviii, 5, 17, 44, 66, 90, 116, 149, 510

Winona District

 9, 30, 51, 52, 96, 126, 162, 173, 184, 187, 229, 230, 255, 268, 285, 289, 290, 295, 739, 740, 741,

742, 743, 744, 745, 774, 775, 776, 777

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

 xvii, 50, 237, 254, 263, 269, 274, 292, 350, 355, 362, 370, 375, 379, 380, 383, 388