Driftless Area

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table of Contents

i

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

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................... 1

Refuge Purpose and Management Background ..................................................................................................1

Refuge Vision Statement .....................................................................................................................................2

Purpose and Need for the Plan ............................................................................................................................2

Purpose .........................................................................................................................................................2

Need .............................................................................................................................................................4

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, Goals, and Principles ......................................................................5

Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System ............................................................................................5

Legal and Policy Framework ................................................................................................................................6

Compatibility Policy ......................................................................................................................................6

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy .................................................................7

Wilderness Review ..............................................................................................................................................7

Chapter 2: The Planning Process .................................................................................................................8

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................8

Meetings and Public Involvement .......................................................................................................................8

Issues Identified in Scoping ................................................................................................................................9

Review of the Draft EIS/CCP .............................................................................................................................10

Final EIS/CCP and Record of Decision ...............................................................................................................10

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management ..................................................................................11

Physical Environment .........................................................................................................................................11

Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem ...............................................................................11

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ..............................................................................................12

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities ............................................................12

Climate .......................................................................................................................................................14

Soil and Water ...........................................................................................................................................14

Fire .....................................................................................................................................................................15

Socioeconomic Environment .............................................................................................................................15

Refuge Resources ..............................................................................................................................................15

Habitat/Vegetation .....................................................................................................................................15

Algific Talus Slopes ............................................................................................................................16

Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................................17

Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................................................19

Threats to Resources .........................................................................................................................................20

Administrative Facilities ....................................................................................................................................20

Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................................20

Public Use .........................................................................................................................................................22

Current Refuge Management Activities ............................................................................................................22

Grassland Habitat .......................................................................................................................................32

Forest Habitat .............................................................................................................................................32

Streams ......................................................................................................................................................32
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ii

Endangered Species ................................................................................................................................... 33

Recreation .................................................................................................................................................. 33

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 34

Refuge Staff and Budget ................................................................................................................................... 34

Partnerships ....................................................................................................................................................... 34

Chapter 4: Management Direction ............................................................................................................. 35

Summary of Future Management Direction ...................................................................................................... 35

Habitat ........................................................................................................................................................ 35

Species Management ................................................................................................................................ 36

Visitor Services ......................................................................................................................................... 36

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 36

Goals, Objectives and Strategies ...................................................................................................................... 40

Habitat Goal ............................................................................................................................................... 40

Species Management ................................................................................................................................ 43

Visitor Services Goal .................................................................................................................................. 45

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ................................................................................................................. 47

Personnel and Office Needs .............................................................................................................................. 47

Funding Needs ................................................................................................................................................... 48

Step-down Management Plans ......................................................................................................................... 48

Partnership Opportunities ................................................................................................................................. 48

Volunteer Program ............................................................................................................................................. 49

Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................................................ 49

Plan Amendment and Revision ......................................................................................................................... 49

 Appendix A: Record of Decision .............................................................................................................. 51

 Appendix B: Glossary ................................................................................................................................. 57

 Appendix C: Species List ........................................................................................................................... 65

 Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations ............................................................................................ 75

 Appendix E: Compliance Requirements ................................................................................................. 77

 Appendix F: Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Maintenance 

Management System (MMS) ............................................................................................ 83

 Appendix G: List of Preparers ................................................................................................................... 87

 Appendix H: Mailing List for the EIS ....................................................................................................... 91

 Appendix I: References ............................................................................................................................ 99

 Appendix J: Land Protection Plan ......................................................................................................... 103
Driftless Area

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

List of Figures

iii

Figure 1: Location of Driftless Area NWR in Iowa ..........................................................................................................3

Figure 2: Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem ....................................................................................12

Figure 3: Watersheds Surrounding Driftless Area NWR ...............................................................................................13

Figure 4: Bird Conservation Regions, Region 3 of the USFWS ......................................................................................14

Figure 5: Algific Talus Slope Diagram ...........................................................................................................................16

Figure 6: Algific Talus Slopes and Target Species Occurrences in the Driftless Area .................................................18

Figure 7: Bankston Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR ..............................................................................................23

Figure 8: Cow Branch Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR .........................................................................................24

Figure 9: Fern Ridge Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR ............................................................................................25

Figure 10: Hickory Creek Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR .......................................................................................26

Figure 11: Howard Creek Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR ......................................................................................27

Figure 12: Kline Hunt Hollow Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR ...............................................................................28

Figure 13: Lytle Creek Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR ...........................................................................................29

Figure 14: Pine Creek Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR ............................................................................................30

Figure 15: Steeles Branch Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR ....................................................................................31

Figure 16: Future Desired Conditions, Fern Ridge Unit, Driftless Area NWR .................................................................37

Figure 17: Future Desired Condition, Howard Creek Unit, Driftless Area NWR .............................................................38

Figure 18: Future Desired Condition, Pine Creek Unit, Driftless Area NWR ...................................................................39

Figure 19: Future Staffing Needs, Driftless Area NWR ..................................................................................................47
Driftless Area

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

List of Tables

Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iv

Table 1: Driftless Area NWR Units in Iowa (2004) ...........................................................................................................32
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background

1

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, 

Planning Background

Introduction

This document is a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) for the 

Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge). It follows the basic and 

accepted format for a CCP and stems 

from an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) that was completed in 

2006. 

The Driftless Area NWR was 

established in 1989 under the authority 

of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

for the protection and recovery of the 

federally threatened Northern 

monkshood plant (Aconitum 

noveboracense) and endangered Iowa 

Pleistocene snail (Discus macclintocki). 

These species primarily occur on a rare 

and fragile habitat type termed algific 

talus slopes (cold air slopes). The habitat harbors species that require a cold environment, some of 

which date from the ice age. The habitat is described in more detail in Chapter 3. These are areas 

where cold underground air seeps onto slopes to provide a constant cold microenvironment.

The Refuge consists of nine scattered tracts or ‘units’ totaling 781 acres. The Refuge contains upland 

hardwood forests, grassland, stream and riparian habitats. 

Refuge Purpose and Management Background

The purpose of Driftless Area NWR is to conserve fish or wildlife that are listed as endangered or 

threatened species or plants (16 USC 1534 Endangered Species Act of 1973). The purpose and goals 

of the Refuge are directly tied to recovery plans which describe the conditions needed to recover the 

Northern monkshood and Iowa Pleistocene snail (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983, 1984). 

The Refuge currently consists of nine units in Allamakee, Clayton, Dubuque, and Jackson Counties 

in northeast Iowa (Figure 1). The Refuge encompasses 781 acres, with individual units ranging from 

6 to 209 acres (Table 1). The original authorized acquisition area for the Refuge was approximately 

700 acres in eight counties in Iowa, Illinois, and Wisconsin (Figure 1) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1986). The most recent acquisitions were through land exchanges in 2001 and 2002. The Refuge has 

reached its approved acquisition acreage.

Algific slope located on Driftless Area NWR. USFWS
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2

The purposes and goals of the Refuge are directly tied to original recovery plans which describe the 

steps needed to recover and conserve the Northern monkshood and Iowa Pleistocene snail (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1983, 1984). Because of the fragile nature of their habitat and the low 

number of populations for each of these species, the primary recovery goal for both species is 

protecting and conserving the majority of remaining populations and their habitat. The primary 

threats to the habitat are grazing, logging, sinkhole filling, erosion, pesticides, invasive species, and 

development. Therefore, acquisition also includes land surrounding the endangered species habitat 

to provide a buffer area from some of these threats.

A management prospectus was completed by the Refuge in 1990 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to 

guide Refuge management. At that time, the Refuge consisted of the Howard Creek (208 acres) and 

Steeles Branch (15 acres) units. The prospectus outlined the need for strict protection of the algific 

slopes including fencing and signing, a low public use profile, and no development of public use 

facilities. Buffer areas to protect sinkholes, and cleaning of debris from sinkholes were also 

mentioned. Management of habitat surrounding algific slopes was to be through natural succession 

or planting, depending on the site. Most habitat management has occurred on the Howard Creek 

unit. Two former agricultural fields (51 acres) at the Howard Creek unit were planted with cool 

season grasses after cooperative farming ended around 1992. Over the years, box elder trees 

invaded these fields. Box elder trees and other invasive species were controlled with cooperative 

farming beginning in 1999 and 51 acres have been recently planted to native prairie grasses and 

forbs. Restoration and management of invasive species at this site are ongoing. Management on the 

other units has consisted of signing, fencing, law enforcement, and maintaining good relationships 

with the Refuge neighbors. The Howard Creek and Fern Ridge units were opened for public use in 

1994. Northern monkshood population monitoring began in 1991 and Iowa Pleistocene snail 

population monitoring in 2001. Monitoring occurs on Refuge and sites owned by others.

Refuge Vision Statement

The vision for the Upper Mississippi River NWR Complex is: 

The Complex is beautiful, healthy, and supports abundant and diverse native fish, wildlife, 

and plants for the enjoyment and thoughtful use of current and future generations. This can 

be stepped down to apply to Driftless Area NWR as follows: The Refuge is beautiful, 

healthy, and supports and conserves native and rare wildlife and plants for current and 

future generations.

Purpose and Need for the Plan

Purpose

Comprehensive conservation plans are designed to guide the management and administration of 

national wildlife refuges for a 15 year period, help ensure that each refuge meets the purpose for 

which it was established, and contribute 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 wildlife and people.

A long-term management direction did not exist for Driftless Area NWR. Management was guided 

by endangered species recovery plans, general policies, and shorter-term plans. 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 several reasons why preparation of a CCP was needed. There are new threats to 
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background

3

Figure 1: Location of Driftless Area NWR in Iowa
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4

endangered species habitat, new laws and policies have been put in place, new scientific information 

is available, and levels of public use and interest have increased. 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 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. The EIS documents met those requirements and 

provided the necessary information and analysis to the decision-maker.

Finally, the planning process was an excellent way to 

inform and involve the general public, state and federal 

agencies, and non-government groups who have an 

interest, responsibility, or authority in the management 

or use of certain aspects of Driftless Area NWR.

Need

This CCP 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 needs. These three 

needs are summarized in the following paragraphs. 

More detail on issues related to these needs can be 

found in the next chapter.

Need 1: Contribute to the Refuge System Mission. 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System set 

forth in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 is:

“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within 

the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” 

Need 2: Help Fulfill the Refuge Purpose. The Refuge purpose is defined by the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973; that is: to conserve fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered or threatened 

species or plants (16 USC 1534 ESA). Achievement of the Refuge purpose will help reach 

endangered species recovery goals that will lead to delisting. 

The Refuge has reached its existing approved acquisition acreage. Since Refuge establishment, 

additional information indicates the need to expand the Refuge geographic area and acreage, as well 

as to address ecological issues related to protection of endangered species.

Need 3: Help Achieve Refuge Goals.

Goal 1. Habitat: Conserve endangered species habitat and contribute to migratory bird and other 

wildlife habitats within a larger landscape. Related needs are to: 

# permanently conserve additional endangered species habitat to achieve delisting of the 

target species.

# permanently conserve additional habitat for glacial relict species of concern to preclude 

listing

# manage invasive species

Golden saxifrage, Driftless Area NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background

5

# restore grassland and forest habitats

# assist others to manage off Refuge impacts to endangered species habitat

Goal 2. Species management: Manage and protect endangered species, other trust species, and 

species of management interest based on sound science through identification and understanding of 

algific slope communities and associated habitats. Related needs are to:

# ensure all algific slopes and endangered species locations are known

# inventory plants and animals associated with algific talus slopes

# update the recovery plans for Iowa Pleistocene snail and Northern monkshood

# determine the amount of buffer area needed to adequately protect algific slopes

# assess deer impacts to the Refuge and endangered species

Goal 3. Visitor Services: Visitors understand and appreciate the role of the Refuge in protecting 

endangered species. Related needs are to:

# provide wildlife-dependent recreation while protecting endangered species habitat

# provide environmental education

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, Goals, and Principles

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to work with others to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for conserving, 

protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people. Specific responsibilities include enforcing Federal wildlife laws, managing 

migratory bird populations, restoring nationally important fisheries, administering the Endangered 

Species Act, and restoring wildlife habitat such as wetlands. The Service also manages the National 

Wildlife Refuge System.

Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System

The Refuge System had its beginning in 1903 when President Theodore Roosevelt issued 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 purposes 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.
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

6

The National Wildlife Refuge System is a 

network of more than 540 refuges encompassing 

95 million acres of lands and waters, 41 wetland 

management districts that are responsible for 

2.4 million acres of Waterfowl Production areas, 

and 50 coordination areas covering 317,000 acres 

that are managed by State fish and wildlife 

agencies under cooperative agreements. Refuge 

System lands span the continent from Alaska’s 

Arctic tundra to the tropical forests in Florida 

and from the secluded atolls of Hawaii to the 

bogs of Maine.

National wildlife refuges are established for 

different purposes. Most refuges have been 

established for the conservation of migratory 

birds, while some have been established to provide habitat for endangered species. Others have been 

formed to protect and propagate large mammals such as bison, elk, and desert bighorn sheep. 

Refuge habitats consist of a great diversity of plants and animals.

Refuges also provide unique opportunities for people. When it is compatible with wildlife and habitat 

needs, refuges can be used for wildlife-dependent activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education and environmental interpretation. Many refuges 

have visitor centers, wildlife trails, automobile tours, and environmental education programs. 

Nationwide, an estimated 39.5 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2003. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established many mandates aimed 

at making the management of national wildlife refuges more consistent. The preparation of 

comprehensive conservation plans is one of those mandates. The legislation requires the Secretary 

of the Interior to ensure that the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and purposes of the 

individual refuges are carried out. It also requires the Secretary to maintain the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System.

Legal and Policy Framework

Driftless Area NWR is managed and administered as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

within a framework of organizational setting, laws, and policy. Key aspects of this framework are 

outlined below. A list of other laws and executive orders that have guided preparation of the CCP 

and EIS, and guide future implementation, are provided in Appendix E.

Driftless Area NWR is managed as part of the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish 

Refuge Complex. The complex is completing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each unit, 

including Upper Mississippi River NWFR, Trempealeau NWR, and Driftless Area NWR. Because 

of the different purpose, land base, and management needs of Driftless Area NWR, this CCP is 

separate but following much the same time line and process as the other CCPs. 

Compatibility Policy

No uses for which the Service has authority to regulate may be allowed on a unit of the 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. 

Northern Flicker. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need, Planning Background

7

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 

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.

Wilderness Review

As part of the CCP process, we reviewed the lands within the boundaries of Driftless Area NWR for 

wilderness suitability. No lands were found suitable for designation as Wilderness as defined in the 

Wilderness Act of 1964. The Refuge does not contain 5,000 contiguous roadless acres, nor does the 

Refuge have any units of sufficient size to make their preservation practicable as Wilderness. 
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

8

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Introduction

Planning for Driftless Area NWR began with 

preparation of an Environmental Impact 

Statement. Public involvement efforts followed 

Service policy for comprehensive conservation 

planning, and also adhered to National 

Environmental Policy Act requirements for 

environmental documentation. 

Originally, planning for Driftless Area NWR was 

included in planning for the Upper Mississippi 

River National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which 

in addition to Driftless Area NWR also includes 

Trempealeau NWR. It quickly became apparant 

that the Upper Mississippi River National 

Wildlife and Fish Refuge would be a significant planning project in its own right, and the two other 

refuges within the Complex would be better served by proceeding with comprehensive conservation 

planning and preparation of an EIS on their own. For that reason, the initial public scoping meeting 

held for Driftless Area NWR were held as part of the larger Upper Mississippi River NWR 

Complex planning project. 

Meetings and Public Involvement

Four public scoping meetings were held in August and September 2002 to obtain input on issues. The 

meetings were held in Dubuque, Elkader, and Lansing, Iowa, and Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, in 

combination with the Upper Mississippi River NWFR scoping meetings. Eighty-four citizens 

attended and 21 comments were received. One additional written comment was received after the 

meetings. An evening “Manager for a Day” workshop was held in Elkader, Iowa in Spring 2003 to 

obtain potential solutions to the issues. There were 15 participants at the workshop. Four mailings of 

a CCP newsletter have been sent to a mailing list of 2,800 people including individuals, landowners, 

organizations, media, and congressional staff. 

From public involvement activities, the Service learned about issues that concerned people about 

management of the Refuge. Refuge staff also identified issues. We organized the issues into four 

categories: Habitat Management, Visitor Services, Refuge Expansion, and Species Assessments. 

Alternatives were evaluated in the EIS on the basis of these issues.

Prothonotary Warbler. USFWS
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

9

Issues Identified in Scoping

Issue 1: Habitat Management

Because of the purpose of the Refuge, management of endangered species habitat is the top priority. 

Land acquired for the Refuge typically has been impacted by agricultural or logging activities. 

Habitats include hardwood forest, grassland and riparian areas. Refuge lands are small parcels, 

often fragmented from similar habitat in the area. Current management is to restore as much as 

practical to presettlement habitat types around algific slopes, although lack of funds and staff limit 

restoration efforts. Several external factors are influencing management efforts on the Refuge. 

Invasive species such as garlic mustard are impacting endangered species and other wildlife habitat. 

High local deer populations may also impact habitat. Erosion from farming adjacent to the Refuge 

can affect habitat on the Refuge. 

Potential solutions identified by the public were to develop 

management strategies for forests, including consideration of 

deer impacts, expand management of habitats surrounding 

endangered species habitat, and work to control invasive species.

Issue 2: Visitor Services

Public use has not been emphasized on Driftless Area NWR 

because of concern for the fragile endangered species habitat, 

and the small size and lack of access to some units. Two of nine 

units are currently open to public use. Potential solutions 

suggested by the public were to maintain current hunting policies 

but increase awareness of regulations at the site, consider trail 

development in less sensitive areas, provide on-site information 

and education at select algific slopes while restricting direct 

access and negative impacts, provide guided walks, and 

encourage volunteers.

Issue 3: Refuge Expansion

The Refuge has reached its approved acquisition acreage. Refuge 

expansion will facilitate recovery goals and allow delisting of 

target species according to their recovery plans. Refuge land 

acquisition is aimed at protecting the entire algific slope system (endangered species habitat), 

including upland sinkholes and buffer area around the slope. Many of the currently protected algific 

slopes do not have adequate protection of sinkholes nor provide buffer from adjacent agricultural or 

other uses. Conservation of additional snail and monkshood populations is also needed to preserve 

genetic diversity over their range, protect large populations, and protect the majority of the 

populations as required by the recovery plans. Therefore expansion in Wisconsin is needed. 

Expansion in Minnesota would also allow protection of threatened Leedy’s roseroot and species of 

concern. Protection of Service species of concern may preclude the need for future listing and would 

conserve a unique representative natural community and its biodiversity. 

Potential approaches raised by the public were: to investigate other alternatives in addition to 

acquisition (e.g. conservation easements), increase funding for land protection, connect parcels of 

land where possible and expand boundaries to roads, railroads, or more recognizable features.

Issue 4: Species Assessments

Algific slopes were first described and mapped in the 1980s (Frest 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987). 

Additional information about algific talus slopes and the species that inhabit them is needed. For 

example, locations of sinkholes and specific information on distances and function of the cold air flow 

have not been studied. There are nearly 400 algific slopes/maderate cliffs in the Driftless Area, but 

not all are occupied by currently listed species. Few in-depth species surveys were done and many of 

Northern monkshood, Driftless Area 

NWR. Terry Tracy
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

10

the known algific slope sites were only visited once. There may be rare, endemic, or unidentified 

species in this habitat. It is important to know what plants and animals depend on this habitat to 

prepare effective management strategies. Although original surveys to locate this habitat type were 

systematic and comprehensive, some sites likely remain undiscovered.

Review of the Draft EIS/CCP

The Draft EIS was released in May 2005 for a 60-day public review period. The review period 

extended from May 18 through July 22, 2005. During this review period, four public meetings were 

held in Decorah, Elkader, and Peosta, Iowa, and LaFarge, Wisconsin. Thirty-three people attended. 

Approximately 156 copies of the DEIS summary and 87 copies of the Draft EIS were mailed based 

on the distribution list and upon request. A letter inviting comment was also sent along with the 

summary to 81 landowners who adjoin Refuge lands or who have species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act occurring on their land. Each Draft EIS summary contained information 

on how to obtain a copy of the DEIS.

Comments at the public meetings were recorded on a flip chart and a comment sheet was provided to 

encourage and facilitate additional written comments. Twelve comment letters or emails were 

received during the public review period and are included in the Final EIS. We adapted many of the 

revisions that were suggested regarding Refuge management. Several comments related to slight 

editorial corrections, and these comments were incorporated into the document. 

Final EIS/CCP and Record of Decision

The Final EIS/CCP was distributed to local libraries and persons who requested the full document. 

The document was also posted on the Region’s planning website. A project update was sent to 

elected officials and others who requested information about the project. The update described the 

highlights of the final document and how to request a copy. A Notice of Availability of the Final EIS/

CCP was published in the Federal Register by the Environmental Protection Agency on February 

17, 2006.

No comments were received in the 30 days after the publication of the Federal Register notice.

The Regional Director signed a Record of Decision on April 18, 2006.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

11

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and 

Management

Physical Environment

The namesake of the Refuge, the Driftless Area, 

is a region characterized by a near absence of 

glacial deposits, or glacial drift, causing it to be 

named the ‘Driftless Area’ by early geologists. 

Its rugged, dissected terrain resulted from 

weathering and stream erosion of Paleozoic age 

limestone bedrock (Prior 1991). The karst 

topography with caves, coldwater springs and 

streams, hardwood forests, and the Upper 

Mississippi River valley set northeast Iowa 

apart from the rest of the state. Karst is a type 

of topography that is formed on limestone and 

other soluble rocks, primarily by dissolution 

from water. The Driftless Area also includes southeast Minnesota, southwest Wisconsin, and 

extreme northwest Illinois. Some portions of the Wisconsin Driftless Area are truly unglaciated. 

This area is one of the ecotypes identified in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Upper Mississippi 

River/Tallgrass Prairie ecosystem. Streams cutting into bedrock have created many cliffs and algific 

talus slopes which constitute habitat for a large number of plant species that are either unique to this 

area or well out of their normal ranges. 

The Refuge currently includes nine scattered tracts that amount to 781 acres (Table 1). Habitat 

types found on the Refuge include hardwood forests, grassland, streams, and riparian habitats. The 

Driftless Area is within the eastern broadleaf forest (continental) province identified by Bailey 

(1995). The Refuge lies within the Mississippi flyway.

Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has implemented an ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife 

conservation. Under this approach the Service’s goal is to contribute to the effective conservation of 

natural biological diversity through perpetuation of dynamic, healthy ecosystems by using an 

interdisciplinary, coordinated strategy to integrate the expertise and resources of all stakeholders. 

Driftless Area NWR lies within the Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem 

(Figure 2). The Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem is one of eight ecosystems that 

comprise the Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region (Region 3) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The 

Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem is a large and ecologically diverse area that 

encompasses land in the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. The 

Algific slope on a preserve of The Nature Conservancy.
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

12

Mississippi River bisects the Ecosystem east and west. Major rivers in the Ecosystem include the 

Minnesota, Chippewa, Black, Wisconsin, Iowa, Rock, Skunk, Des Moines, Illinois, and Kaskaskia 

(Figure 3). 

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other conservation plan priorities for migratory birds, such as 

Partners in Flight, are used to develop management guidelines for birds. The Refuge is within the 

Upper Great Lakes Plain physiographic area 16 as identified by the Partners in Flight Bird 

Conservation Plan (Knutson et al. 2001) and Bird Conservation Region 23 (Prairie Hardwoods 

Transition) identified by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (Figure 4). 

Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois are currently writing state wildlife conservation plans. 

Wisconsin has a Bird Conservation Plan, and Minnesota is working towards one. The Refuge will 

incorporate elements of these plans into management when possible.

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) required the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

to identify its most important functions and to direct its limited fiscal resources toward those 

functions. From 1997 to 1999 within Region 3, a group looked at how best to identify the most 

important functions of the Service within the region. The group recognized that the Service has a 

complex array of responsibilities specified by treaties, laws, executive orders, and judicial opinions 

that dwarf the agency’s budget. The group recognized that at least two approaches are possible in 

identifying conservation priorities – habitats and species. The group chose to focus on species 

because 1) species represent biological and genetic resources that cannot be replaced; 2) a focus on 

species conservation requires a concurrent focus on habitat; and 3) by focusing on species 

Figure 2: Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

13

Figure 3: Watersheds Surrounding Driftless Area NWR
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

14

assemblages and identifying areas where ecological needs come together the Service can select the 

few key places where limited efforts will have the greatest impact. Representatives of the migratory 

bird, endangered species, and fisheries programs in Region 3 identified the species that require the 

utmost attention given our current level of knowledge. Representatives prioritized the species based 

on biological status (endangered or threatened, for example), rare or declining levels, recreational or 

economic value, or “nuisance” level. The group pointed out that species not on the prioritized list are 

important too. But, when faced with the needs of several species, the Service should emphasize the 

species on the priority list. The Iowa Pleistocene snail, Northern monkshood, Leedy’s roseroot, and 

glacial relict snails are among the Regional Resource Conservation Priorities.

Climate

Climate conditions across the driftless region can vary greatly. Rainfall amounts are 32 to 34 inches 

annually with a growing season ranging from 135 to 155 days. In LaCrosse, Wisconsin, near the 

middle of the driftless area, the annual average temperature is 46.3 degrees Fahrenheit. The 

average minimum temperature is 36.6 degrees Fahrenheit and the average maximum temperature is 

56.2 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures can range from well below zero in winter to 100 degrees in 

summer. The average relative humidity is 76 percent.

Soil and Water

Soils vary because Refuge units are scattered over a large area. Most of the soils are forest derived. 

Some savanna and prairie soils occur, mainly on the Howard Creek unit. All of the units contain some 

rock outcroppings or cliffs, and rocky soils. Soils are generally erodible. Water sources are from 

springs and streams on, or adjacent to, the Refuge units. The primary contaminant sources are from 

nonpoint source runoff from adjacent agricultural fields that could contain excess nutrients and 

Figure 4: Bird Conservation Regions, Region 3 of the USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

15

pesticides. Runoff may contaminate sinkholes and groundwater in addition to surface water. Water 

quality on the Refuge has not been tested. A contaminant assessment of the Refuge has been 

completed by the Service’s Division of Ecological Services. 

Fire

Wildfires in northeast Iowa are primarily from human caused road ditch fires that escape. 

Prescribed fire is used regularly on the Refuge as a habitat management tool. Periodic burning of 

grasslands reduces encroaching woody vegetation such as box elder. Fire also encourages the 

growth of desirable species such as native, warm-season grasses and forbs. Prescribed fires on the 

Refuge have only occurred on the Howard Creek unit and range from 10 to 60 acres depending on 

the goal of the burn. Burning does not occur every year. Prescribed fire may be used on other units 

in the future.

Socioeconomic Environment

The economy of communities near the Refuge lands are primarily based on farming with some 

industry and tourism jobs. Crops are mainly corn and soybean with beef and dairy cattle operations 

occurring in the area. Some timber harvest also occurs. Most communities in the area are under 

10,000 people. The largest community is Dubuque, Iowa with a population of about 70,000.

Refuge Resources

Habitat/Vegetation

The Refuge contains upland hardwood forests, 

grassland, stream and riparian habitat (Figures 

6-14). The Refuge provides wildlife habitat 

similar to that in the remainder of the region 

where lands are not farmed. The driftless region 

is a transition zone between eastern hardwood 

forests and midwestern tall grass prairies. 

Vegetation classifications for northeast Iowa 

vary (Cahayla-Wynn and Glenn-Lewin 1978). 

Glenn-Lewin et al. (1984) describe it as a 

dynamic area where vegetation probably never 

has been in a climax state. Historic habitats 

range from tallgrass prairie and savanna to 

maple/basswood and oak/hickory forest and 

riparian areas (Kemperman 1983, Glenn-Lewin 

et al. 1984). The presettlement forest was 

primarily oak (Glenn-Lewin et al. 1984). Fire 

was a natural part of the Driftless Area 

ecosystem, maintaining prairie and savanna. 

Because of the karst geology, wetland habitats 

are not predominant except along streams and 

rivers. 

Currently, despite the terrain, row crop and 

livestock agriculture is common. Prairie and savanna areas were converted to row crop or pasture 

and few unaltered native vegetation remnants exist. Patches of forest were cleared for agriculture, 

but the more rugged areas still support hardwood forest. Logging, grazing, development, and fire 

Cold air vent on an algific talus slope with the rare plant 

golden saxifrage growing near it. USFWS
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

16

suppression have impacted the remaining fragmented forests (Hemesath and Norris 1998). All 

forests on Refuge units were selectively logged at some time in the past; most within the last 30 

years. Most Refuge forests were also subject to grazing. Invasive species occurring on the Refuge 

include garlic mustard, multiflora rose, leafy spurge, wild parsnip, Canada thistle, European 

buckthorn, and honeysuckle. 

Algific Talus Slopes

The habitat of the Iowa Pleistocene snail and Northern monkshood and other rare species is the 

algific talus slope. This habitat, usually north facing, occurs where air circulation over underground 

ice produces a constant stream of moist cool air through vents onto the adjacent hillsides (Figure 5). 

These cold air vents are typically covered with a loose talus layer and a thin plant and litter cover. 

Some of these species, like Leedy’s roseroot, occur on maderate cliffs. This is a similar habitat, 

where the overlying talus layer does not exist, generally because of removal by past erosive forces. 

Only the (now exposed) rock formation remains. Cool subsurface air flows out from the cliff face. 

Algific talus slopes and maderate cliffs vary in size from a few yards to one-half-mile in length. 

Sinkholes above the slope are important to the function of the habitat as a source of air and water 

flow and are included in Refuge protection when possible. Several sinkholes are usually associated 

with algific talus slopes and can be up to one-half mile away. Air flowing from surface vents ranges 

from 30 degrees F to 55 degrees F spring to fall (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). 

The vegetative community on algific talus slopes is different than the surrounding forest and 

typically contains ferns, mosses, liverworts, evergreen species such as Canada yew and balsam fir, 

birch, basswood, and sugar maple, and boreal disjunct herbs and ferns (Glenn-Lewin et al. 1984). 

The algific talus slopes also harbor state threatened and endangered plants and animals (Appendix 

Figure 5: Algific Talus Slope Diagram1

1.Courtesy of The Nature Conservancy
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

17

C) and in general support an entire community of rare or disjunct species. Algific talus slopes are 

ranked by NatureServe as a G2 community meaning that they are imperiled globally because of 

rarity. Service species of concern that occur on algific slopes include eight species of glacial relict 

snails: Vertigo meramecensis, V. brierensis, V. iowensis, V. hubrichti, V. occulta, Catinella gelida, 

Novisuccinea Sp A and Sp B. Some or all of these species are also listed by state law as threatened 

or endangered in Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota (Appendix C). Golden saxifrage 

(Chrysosplenium iowense) is a plant associated with algific slopes that is listed as threatened by 

Iowa and Minnesota and is included in the Service’s draft species of concern list.

Most of the original inventories of algific talus slopes were done by Frest (1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 

1987). There are nearly 400 known algific slopes/maderate cliffs in the Driftless Area (Figure 6). Not 

every site contains the above species. Some sites have never been thoroughly surveyed for these 

species, particularly for snails. Although original surveys to locate this habitat type were systematic 

and comprehensive, some sites likely remain undiscovered. 

Wildlife

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 migratory non-game birds of management concern that may 

occur on the Refuge are: 

# Northern harrier

# Red-shouldered Hawk

# Yellow-billed Cuckoo

# Red-headed Woodpecker

# Northern Flicker

# Sedge Wren

# Veery

# Wood Thrush

# Loggerhead Shrike

# Blue-winged Warbler

# Golden-winged Warbler

# Chestnut-sided Warbler

# Cerulean Warbler

# Dickcissel

# Field Sparrow

# Grasshopper Sparrow

# Bobolink

# Eastern Meadowlark. 

In addition to most of the above, Region 3 resource conservation priority bird species1

 that occur in 

northeast Iowa, and likely on the Refuge, are:

# Wood Duck

# Mallard

# Blue-winged Teal

# American Woodcock

# Black-billed Cuckoo

# Whip-poor-will

# Louisiana Waterthrush

# Kentucky Warbler 

1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

18

Figure 6: Algific Talus Slopes and Target Species Occurrences in the Driftless Area
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

19

Many other migratory birds occur on the Refuge, including:

# Mourning Dove

# American Robin

# Eastern Bluebird 

# Red-bellied Woodpecker

# Pileated Woodpecker

# Song Sparrow

# Common Yellowthroat

# Red-eyed Vireo

# Brown Thrasher

# Yellow Warbler

# Common Grackle

# Red-tailed Hawk 

The Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for the Upper Great Lakes Plain (Knutson et al. 

2001) identifies priority bird populations and habitats. Some of the following priority species do 

occur, or likely occur, on the Refuge2

: 

# Dickcissel

# Bobolink

# Red-headed Woodpecker

# Blue-winged Warbler

# Field Sparrow

# Black-billed Cuckoo

# Cerulean Warbler

# Acadian Flycatcher

# Kentucky Warbler

# Prothonotary Warbler 

Notable resident wildlife include white-tailed deer, Wild Turkeys, 

Ruffed Grouse, Ring-necked Pheasant, coyotes, numerous small 

mammals, and timber rattlesnakes. Predators may be important 

in the context of impacting breeding birds on the Refuge. Trout 

species occurrence on the Refuge is currently limited. Declines in 

timber rattlesnakes are of concern to some state agencies and 

they are listed as threatened by the State of Minnesota and are a 

Resource Conservation Priority species for the Service. Although 

they have not been seen on the Refuge, they likely occur and may 

occur on lands acquired in the future. 

Threatened and Endangered Species

Fossil records show that the Iowa Pleistocene snail existed 

400,000 years ago and was widespread in the Midwestern United 

States. It was thought to be extinct until discovered in Iowa in 

1928. It was listed as federally endangered in 1977. It is also listed by state law as endangered in 

Iowa and Illinois. The Iowa Pleistocene snail is a relict species that has survived on these small areas 

of suitable habitat and is currently known to exist at 36 locations in Iowa and one in Illinois. The snail 

has narrow temperature, moisture and food requirements found only on algific talus slopes (Frest 

1984). Adult shell diameter is 5-7 mm. Populations on each of the known sites vary from 500 to 10,000 

2. Hemesath and Norris 1998

Iowa Pleistocene snail. Bob Clearwater
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

20

individuals. Each snail colony is a separate population as migration between algific slopes is unlikely, 

though could occur with flood events or transport by other animals (Ross 1999). Other glacial relict 

snails also appear to be restricted to algific talus slope or maderate cliff habitat and presumably 

cannot withstand even moderate changes in their environment (Frest 1991).

Northern monkshood was listed as federally threatened in 1973. It is also state listed as threatened 

in Iowa, Wisconsin, and New York, and endangered in Ohio. It does not occur in any other states, and 

the majority of the known populations occur in Iowa. There are 83 known sites in Iowa, 18 in 

Wisconsin, two in New York, and one in Ohio. Population sizes range from a few individuals to 10,000 

plants. Most sites have a few hundred to 1,000 plants. Northern monkshood is a member of the 

buttercup family (Ranunculaceae) and grows on cool moist habitat including algific talus slopes and 

sandstone cliffs. Currently all monkshood sites on the Refuge are algific talus slopes. The plant 

requires specific temperature and moisture regimes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983). Its hood 

shaped flower is adapted for bumblebee pollination and is typically purple in color, but can vary from 

white to blue and purple. 

Leedy’s roseroot does not currently occur on the Refuge, but future additions to the Refuge may be 

for the purpose of protecting this species. Leedy’s roseroot was listed as threatened in 1992 and is a 

member of the stonecrop family (Crassulaceae). It grows on cool cliff habitats only in southeast 

Minnesota and New York. The four Minnesota populations each contain a few hundred plants. It 

has waxy, succulent leaves with small dark red to yellow flowers arranged in dense heads at the end 

of the stem. Male and female flowers occur on separate plants.

The only federally threatened or endangered bird occurring on the Refuge is the Bald Eagle, 

recently proposed for delisting. There are no known eagle nests on the Refuge.

Threats to Resources

Algific slopes and the plant and wildlife species that depend on them are fragile. Once damaged, or 

destroyed, this kind of habitat cannot be restored. Currently, threats to these sites are cattle 

grazing, logging, quarrying, building or development, invasive species, sinkhole filling, erosion, 

human traffic, pesticides, and natural landslides. Without some form of protection, populations of 

these species could be lost in a single event. The Refuge is focusing land acquisition efforts on 

protecting a specific type of endangered species habitat, but these efforts will also include forest, 

grassland, cropland, and streams surrounding the endangered species to protect sinkholes and 

provide buffer areas. The surrounding vegetation can influence temperature on the algific slopes, a 

required component of the habitat for these species. 

Administrative Facilities

Driftless Area NWR shares Headquarter space with the McGregor District of Upper Mississippi 

River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge in McGregor, Iowa. In addition, the Refuge receives 

administrative support, law enforcement support and maintenance support from the McGregor 

District. Volunteers assist with some Refuge activities.

Cultural Resources

The uplands, floodplains, and tributaries of the driftless area offered a variety of resources to 

prehistoric populations. The area has a cultural history of 11,500 years with the Paleo-Indian 

peoples. 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; none of these points have been identified within 

the Refuge.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

21

People of the 6,000-year long Archaic 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 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. 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. 

Twenty-seven previously identified archaeological sites are located within one mile of the 17 units 

studied by Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group in 2002. These study units included current 

Refuge lands and areas of potential Refuge acquisitions. Twenty-two of these sites are prehistoric 

and one is a multi-component prehistoric and protohistoric site, one includes both prehistoric and 

historic components, and three are historic sites. The majority of prehistoric sites cannot be 

assigned to a specific period. 

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. 

# Delaware Nation of Oklahoma

# Flandreau Santee Sioux

# Forest County Potawatomi Community

# Hannahville Indian Community of Michigan (Potawatomi)

# Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin

# Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska

# Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma

# Osage Nation of Oklahoma

# Otoe-Missouria Tribe

# Peoria Indian Tribe of Oklahoma

# Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa

# Sisseton-Wahpeton (Sioux) Oyate

# Devils Lake Sioux Tribal Council

# Upper Sioux Community of Minnesota

# Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska

# Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma

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. 

A cultural resources overview and management study was prepared in 2002 as part of the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Refuge (Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group 2003). 

The document is available at the Refuge office, McGregor, Iowa. The report presents a cultural 
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

22

history beginning 11,500 years ago through prehistoric and historic periods, ending in the 20th 

century. Current Refuge lands as well as potential acquisition areas were evaluated for the presence 

of archeological sites. Two historic sites were located on the Refuge units. The location of reported 

prehistorical and historic archeological sites within one mile of the Refuge units, and analysis of 

geomorphological data indicates high potential for unrecorded sites on most Refuge units. 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 responses to a letter sent 

to over 100 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 projects associated with the Refuge. A comprehensive bibliography of 

cultural resources reports produced for studies performed within the vicinity of the Refuge is also 

included. Finally, a chapter on management of cultural resources under Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act is provided for use in Refuge management. 

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.

Public Use 

Public use is currently minimal since most units are closed to protect endangered species or because 

access is limited. On two Refuge units that are open, most visitation is during the hunting season. 

Most users are bow hunting for deer. There were 2,741 visitors in FY 2003. This figure includes 

visitors to the McGregor District Visitor Contact Station.

Current Refuge Management Activities

Landcover for each of the Refuge’s nine units is displayed in Table 1 on page 32 and the following 

figures:

# Bankston Unit (Figure 7)

# Cow Branch Unit (Figure 8)

# Fern Ridge Unit (Figure 9)

# Hickory Creek Unit (Figure 10) 

# Howard Creek Unit (Figure 11) 

# Kline Hunt Hollow Unit (Figure 12)

# Lytle Creek Unit (Figure 13)

# Pine Creek Unit (Figure 14)

# Steeles Branch Unit (Figure 15) 

The current management practice is to protect endangered species habitat, restore other habitats to 

presettlement vegetation when possible, control invasive species, and permit limited public use that 

is compatible with the purposes of the Refuge. Presentations and tours are given as requested and 

staff time allows. The Refuge office is co-located with the McGregor District of Upper Mississippi 

River NWFR. An equipment storage warehouse and information kiosk were constructed in 2004 on 

the Howard Creek unit of the Refuge. Boundary fences and dirt surfaced roads are the only other 

constructed developments on the Refuge. One full-time Refuge Operations Specialist is assigned to 

the Refuge and supervised by the District Manager, McGregor District, Upper Mississippi River 

NWFR. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

23

Figure 7: Bankston Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

24

Figure 8: Cow Branch Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

25

Figure 9: Fern Ridge Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

26

Figure 10: Hickory Creek Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

27

Figure 11: Howard Creek Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

28

Figure 12: Kline Hunt Hollow Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

29

Figure 13: Lytle Creek Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

30

Figure 14: Pine Creek Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

31

Figure 15: Steeles Branch Unit Landcover, Driftless Area NWR
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

32

Grassland Habitat

There are 175.6 acres of grassland on the Refuge. The majority of grassland habitat exists on the 

Howard Creek unit (109.93 acres) and the Fern Ridge Unit (42.22 acres) (Figure 11 and Figure 9). 

Remnant native prairie exists on the Howard Creek unit (approximately 6 acres). The remainder of 

the grassland on Howard Creek unit is either cool season grasses or has been recently planted to 

native prairie species. The grassland on the Fern Ridge unit was cleared of trees by the previous 

owner for agriculture and is currently vegetated by cool season exotic grasses. 

Prescribed burning has been used since 1996 to restore prairie remnants and control woody 

vegetation on the Howard Creek unit. Forty-eight acres of native prairie have been planted in 

former agricultural fields on the Howard Creek Unit. Cooperative farming has been used to prepare 

fields for planting. Currently, there are 81 acres in the cooperative farming program, primarily at 

the Pine Creek Unit. Invasive species control has taken place as staff time allows through the use of 

biological, mechanical and chemical control, mainly at the Howard Creek unit. 

Forest Habitat

There are 535.32 acres of forest habitat on the Refuge. The majority of Refuge forests have been 

impacted by past grazing and logging. No restoration of forest habitats has been completed; 

however, tree seeds were collected in 2003 and sent to a nursery to grow trees for planting on the 

Refuge. Forest inventory and management plans are needed.

Streams

Cow Branch, Fern Ridge, Howard Creek, Pine Creek, and Steeles Branch units contain coldwater or 

warmwater streams with associated riparian areas. Lytle Creek, Hickory Creek, and Kline Hunt 

Hollow units have streams adjacent to the boundary. Spring fed streams on Pine Creek and Cow 

Branch units flow into designated trout streams off of the Refuge. Hickory Creek is a designated 

trout stream stocked with brown and brook trout by the Iowa DNR. Dry Mill Creek on the Fern 

Ridge unit is a put and grow trout stream that flows into the Turkey River. Steeles Branch creek was 

formerly stocked by the Iowa DNR but is no longer. Springs on the Refuge feed most of these 

streams. The Pine Creek unit also has a small manmade pond about one acre in size. Bankston unit 

does not contain any streams. 

Table 1: Driftless Area NWR Units in Iowa (2004)

Unit Name Acres County Year 

Acquired

Species present

Bankston 57 Dubuque 1991 Iowa Pleistocene snail

Cow Branch 110 Clayton 1996 Iowa Pleistocene snail Northern 

monkshood

Fern Ridge 207 Clayton 1991 Iowa Pleistocene snail

Hickory Creek 17 Allamakee 2001 Northern monkshood

Howard Creek 209 Clayton 1989/1990 Iowa Pleistocene snail Northern 

monkshood

Kline Hunt Hollow 6 Clayton 1991 Northern monkshood

Lytle Creek 20 Jackson 1991 Northern monkshood

Pine Creek 140 Clayton 2002 Northern monkshood

Steeles Branch 15 Clayton 1990 Northern monkshood
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

33

Endangered Species

The primary goal of Refuge management for endangered species is preventing disturbance to their 

habitat. Endangered species habitat is closed to all public entry because the species and their habitat 

are fragile. Algific slopes are typically steep, with a loose talus rock layer on the surface. Seven of the 

nine Refuge units are closed to all public entry because there is inadequate buffer around the algific 

talus slopes to allow human activity and there is not sufficient public access. Entry to several units is 

via an easement granted across private land. The two largest units, Howard Creek and Fern Ridge, 

are open to hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation. These units lie adjacent to public roads from 

which there is public access. The algific talus slopes are posted as closed to public entry on these 

open units. All units are periodically inspected by Refuge staff and law enforcement officers.

Most of the Refuge units are fenced to keep cattle from entering Refuge lands and to delineate 

boundaries. Refuge personnel maintain regular contact with neighboring landowners. 

The invasive species, garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) has invaded some algific slopes. There is 

concern about its competition with Northern monkshood and other rare plants as well as possible 

effects on snail food sources. Garlic mustard is abundant on two slopes and has been hand removed 

from them during the last three years to begin control. Removal will likely be a continual effort until 

the seed bank is depleted. The forest surrounding these algific slopes also has abundant garlic 

mustard. 

The recovery plans for both species require population monitoring to determine population status. A 

monitoring plan for Northern monkshood was developed cooperatively with the Iowa Department of 

Natural Resources and TNC in 1991. This monitoring has been conducted on Refuge sites as well as 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources preserves, The Nature Conservancy preserves, and private 

lands since 1991. A protocol for Iowa Pleistocene snail monitoring was developed in 2001 (Henry et 

al. 2003) and has been carried out each year since. Monitoring for both species occurs on a subset of 

the total number of known sites.

Refuge staff maintain contact with private landowners who have endangered species on their land in 

order to educate them about the fragile area on their land and inquire about possible acquisition or 

other forms of permanent protection. Some sites have been fenced through the Service’s 

Endangered Species Landowner Incentive Program to prevent damage from cattle. The Nature 

Conservancy, Iowa DNR, and the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation have been partners in 

landowner contact and land acquisition. The Refuge recently acquired Hickory Creek and Pine 

Creek units through land trades involving Upper Mississippi River NWFR lands. But, acquisition is 

currently limited by available funds and the need for additional Service authorization for Refuge 

expansion.

Recreation

Currently, the Howard Creek and Fern Ridge units of the Refuge are open for deer and upland 

game hunting. Special regulations regarding hunting dates and weapons are in place. Specifically, 

deer hunting is allowed only with archery and muzzleloader. Hunting dates are restricted to 

November 1 to January 15. Upland game hunting is allowed with approved non toxic shot. Spring 

turkey hunting is prohibited. These two units are also open for wildlife observation and photography. 

Fern Ridge and Steeles Branch units are open for fishing. All algific slopes are posted closed areas 

with no public entry. There are no public use trails. Educational programs and tours are occasionally 

given as requested by local groups or photographers.

Volunteers have assisted with habitat restoration at the Howard Creek unit. The Nature 

Conservancy has provided a summer intern for several years to work at the Refuge. Interns have 

assisted with endangered species monitoring, landowner contacts, invasive species removal, and 

other Refuge and TNC activities.
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

34

Cultural Resources

Reviews for threats to cultural resources on Refuge units are currently completed and submitted to 

the Regional Historic Preservation Officer as management activities arise. Recent examples of 

management activities include stabilizing a stream bank, building a warehouse, and burying debris 

from tree clearing.

Refuge Staff and Budget

The annual Refuge operations budget for fiscal year 2004 was $92,285 which includes salary for one 

Refuge Operations Specialist (GS 9). The Refuge receives administrative, law enforcement, and 

maintenance support from the McGregor District of Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and 

Fish Refuge. Volunteers also assist with Refuge activities. 

Partnerships

Partners have been important players in Refuge activities over the years. The Nature Conservancy 

helped establish the Refuge and has worked extensively with the Refuge since then. TNC owns 

several preserves on which algific talus slopes occur and works to preserve the biodiversity of the 

Driftless Area. They have conducted algific slope inventory and research, contacted landowners, 

provided summer interns, and worked on acquisitions in a cooperative effort to protect the unique 

resources of the area. The Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation has also been a valuable partner in 

landowner contacts and land acquisition. Other agencies and individuals have assisted with prairie 

restoration at the Howard Creek unit. The Iowa DNR also owns preserves that protect algific talus 

slopes and federally listed species and has been an important partner in land protection and 

management. 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

35

Chapter 4: Management Direction

Summary of Future Management Direction

Permanent protection of habitat is the primary 

recovery goal for the Iowa Pleistocene snail and 

Northern monkshood as the habitat cannot be 

restored once lost and the species are difficult to 

reintroduce. As well as meeting recovery goals, 

protection of additional algific slopes or 

maderate cliffs would meet the Service’s goals of 

conserving biological integrity, diversity and 

environmental health. Refuge land protection 

will meet key recovery goals for these species 

and may prevent future listing of other land snail 

and plant species. 

Permanent conservation of algific talus slopes 

goes beyond protection of the slope itself from 

physical disturbance. New information and 

threats since the recovery plans were written increase the need for active management to meet 

multiple recovery goals for delisting. Some slopes are, or may be, impacted by invasive species 

(garlic mustard), high local deer populations, erosion runoff into sinkholes, and vegetative succession 

on adjacent habitat. This alternative takes a long-term ecological approach to endangered species 

conservation and meets multiple recovery goals that can lead to delisting of the Iowa Pleistocene 

snail during the life of the CCP. The Service also has the responsibility to manage Refuge lands in an 

ecologically sound manner for other wildlife species. The objectives in this CCP are aimed at taking 

care of existing Refuge habitats as well as adding lands for endangered species protection. 

The total approved acquisition area for the Refuge is 6,000 acres in 22 counties (four states) 

according to a revised Land Protection Plan (Appendix I). The LPP is the total Refuge acreage 

desired to complete the Refuge project and is a longer term plan than the CCP. Expansion into 

additional counties will allow potential acquisition and protection of large populations, populations 

across the species’ ranges, and protection of the majority of populations. The 2,275 acres listed in 

the objectives is the acreage we believe we can protect within the 15-year life of the CCP given 

anticipated levels of willing sellers, funding, and the need to accomplish other Refuge objectives. 

The acreage includes that needed to permanently protect algific slopes including sinkholes and 

buffer areas to protect from adjacent land uses. Protection may also be achieved in cooperation with 

other agencies.

Habitat

Inspection of Refuge units will increase to 8 hours/week and a law enforcement officer shared with 

the McGregor District of Upper Mississippi River NWFR. Invasive species control, particularly for 

garlic mustard, will increase. Iowa Pleistocene snail and Northern monkshood monitoring will 

continue. More study of algific slopes, such as determining the impacts of shade to aid with 

Cold air vent on Driftless Area NWR. USFWS
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

36

restoration decisions on adjacent habitat, will be completed. A biologist has been added to the staff. 

Conservation site plans for potential acquisition areas will be completed. Approximately 2,200 acres 

of endangered species habitat above the 2004 level will be conserved through acquisition or other 

means to meet delisting criteria of the Iowa Pleistocene snail and contribute to recovery goals for 

Northern monkshood and Leedy’s roseroot. Seventy-five acres above the 2004 level will be 

conserved to help preclude listing of glacial relict snail species of concern. Of course, acquisition 

levels are dependent on funding and willing sellers.

Forty acres of grassland will be restored at the Howard Creek Unit. Forty-one acres of forest will be 

reestablished at the Fern Ridge unit (Figure 16), 7 acres at the Howard Creek unit (Figure 17), and 

68 acres at the Pine Creek unit (Figure 18). A management plan will be developed for all other forest 

lands to describe how forests would provide habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. Habitat 

management plans will be prepared for newly acquired lands.

Species Management

Surveys for new algific talus slopes and associated species will be done. Species inventories of 

selected algific talus slopes would aid in understanding of these unique communities. Recovery plans 

for the Iowa Pleistocene snail and Northern monkshood will be updated. Study of the location and 

function of sinkholes will be initiated. An evaluation of deer populations and their impacts on the 

Refuge will be completed.

Visitor Services 

A wildlife observation trail will be added to the Howard Creek Unit. Office and Visitor Center space 

will continue to be shared with the McGregor District, although space is limited. A new 

professionally developed interpretive display, as well as increased environmental education will be 

completed. An interpretive park ranger will be shared with McGregor District. Threshold visitor use 

levels will be determined. A Visitor Services Plan will be completed.

Cultural Resources

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. 

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. 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

37

Figure 16: Future Desired Conditions, Fern Ridge Unit, Driftless Area NWR
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

38

Figure 17: Future Desired Condition, Howard Creek Unit, Driftless Area NWR
Chapter 4: Management Direction

39

Figure 18: Future Desired Condition, Pine Creek Unit, Driftless Area NWR
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

40

Goals, Objectives and Strategies

Habitat Goal

Goal: Conserve endangered species habitat and contribute migratory bird and other wildlife habitats within 

a larger landscape.

Objective 1: Increase management of physical and biological impacts to algific slopes by 

eliminating invasive species (on slopes), maintaining zero impacts from public use, 

and reducing off Refuge impacts on two units by 2015. 

Rationale: The Refuge purpose is to conserve endangered and threatened species. 

This objective is tied to the purpose of the Refuge and Iowa Pleistocene snail and 

Northern monkshood recovery plan goals for permanent protection of habitat. 

Algific talus slopes are fragile because of the steep slopes with a loose surface rock 

layer. All algific slopes would remain closed to all public entry. However, some 

management activity on algific slopes is needed to maintain their biological 

integrity. Invasive garlic mustard is competing with Northern monkshood. It has 

unknown effects on the Iowa Pleistocene snail, but we speculate garlic mustard 

could affect its specific food requirements. Removal of garlic mustard can be 

completed by carefully hand pulling it on some sites, but may take several years to 

control using this method because of the seed bank present. Vegetation adjacent to 

algific talus slopes can affect temperatures and other microclimate characteristics 

important to the species that inhabit them. Study of the impact of shade on algific 

talus slopes would help in determining what the best restoration options are 

adjacent to the slopes. Population monitoring of both species would continue at 2004 

levels on selected sites on and off Refuge. These management activities would be 

done under specific guidelines such as restricting the number of people, number of 

sites, avoiding more sensitive sites, using wildlife trails, and other restrictions to 

prevent damage to the habitat. 

Strategies: 

1. Maintain existing closed areas.

2. Ensure boundary signing and fencing on all units are adequate

3. Increase inspection of units, on average 8 hours per week, particularly during 

hunting seasons.

4. Share a law enforcement officer with the McGregor District of UMRNWFR.

5. Increase contact with landowners adjacent to the Refuge to prevent impacts 

from grazing, logging, invasive species, erosion, and sinkhole filling. 

Specifically, use USDA programs, Partners for Fish and Wildlife program or 

endangered species funding to reduce erosion impacts to the Fern Ridge and 

Cow Branch units.

6. Remove all garlic mustard from algific slopes on the Howard Creek and Lytle 

Creek units in ways that minimize disturbance. Expand garlic mustard control 

efforts in surrounding habitats on all units. 

7. Monitor Iowa Pleistocene snail and Northern monkshood populations (on 

Refuge and other public and private lands) at 2004 level of effort to measure 

population trends for recovery and as an indicator of habitat condition. 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

41

8. Monitor soil/vent temperatures on algific talus slopes with data loggers that 

collect daily temperature. 

9. Fund research to determine impacts of shade on algific talus slopes, 

particularly in regard to Northern monkshood. Complete study by 2010. This 

would aid in determining the best restoration alternative adjacent to algific 

slopes.

10. Add a wildlife biologist to the staff to help accomplish additional work.

Objective 2: Restore existing 40 acres of grassland on the Howard Creek Unit to a mixture of at 

least 25 species of local genotype grasses and forbs by 2009.

Rationale: Other wildlife habitats are present on the Refuge and should be 

managed for Service trust resources when possible. Native climax vegetation would 

likely do best on the land and require the least long term maintenance once 

established. The Howard Creek Unit contains remnant native prairies and much of 

the area was once prairie or savanna. Some planting of native prairie species has 

already taken place on this unit and this objective is aimed at completing grassland 

restoration for the Howard Creek Unit.

Strategies:

1. Use fire and other techniques to control invading woody vegetation on remnant 

and restored prairies.

2. Use biological, chemical, and mechanical controls to control invasive species on 

other habitats.

3. Develop partnerships with local groups to restore prairie and possibly create 

demonstration areas.

4. Plant a mixture of native grasses and forbs (local genotype).

Objective 3: Establish oak-hickory forests on all lands that were historically hardwood forest 

under pre-European settlement conditions by 2012.

Rationale: The majority of Driftless Area Refuge habitat is or was hardwood forest 

that has been impacted by past agricultural or logging uses. Some forests are 

degraded and some were completely cleared for farming. Habitat immediately 

adjacent to algific talus slopes may affect such factors as microclimate (i.e. shade 

helps maintain cool conditions) and encroachment of invasive species. Restoration 

of forests is important to maintaining endangered species habitat.

Although Refuge units are relatively small, they do provide habitat for Region 3 

Resource Conservation Priority species and migratory non-game birds of 

management concern. These species will be encouraged through habitat restoration 

planning. Fragmentation of habitats both within and around Refuge lands is a 

concern for migratory bird management because of the effects of predators and 

parasitic cowbirds. Restoration of native vegetation on the Refuge would reduce, 

but not eliminate, fragmentation within units and would provide closer connection 

to forest in the surrounding landscapes. Active restoration by planting trees would 

speed restoration and provide the species desired for wildlife habitat. 

Strategies:

1. Plant 116 acres of native forest on the Pine Creek (68 ac), Fern Ridge (41 ac), 

and Howard Creek units (7 ac) (Figure 16,Figure 17 and Figure 18). 
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

42

2. Develop partnerships with local groups to restore forests and evaluate 

feasibility of establishing reforestation demonstration areas.

3. Inventory exotic invasive species and develop plans for control on each unit.

4. Coordinate with states and partners to develop Habitat Management Plans for 

each Refuge unit and implement forest management plans for existing forests 

on the Fern Ridge and Bankston units during the life of the plan.

Objective 4: Permanently conserve 2,200 additional acres of endangered species habitat above 

the 2004 level to achieve this recovery goal for the Iowa Pleistocene snail and 

contribute to recovery goals for the Northern monkshood and Leedy’s roseroot by 

2020.

Rationale: This objective is tied to the purpose of the Refuge and species’ recovery 

plan goals for permanent protection of habitat. More habitat protection is needed 

to reach these recovery goals. Refuge land protection can lead to delisting of these 

species and may prevent future listing of other land snail and plant species. Refuge 

land protection will also conserve biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health according to Service policy. 

Overall Refuge expansion is 

proposed at 6,000 acres in 22 

counties (four states) under a 

revised Land Protection Plan 

(Appendix I). The LPP is the 

total Refuge acreage desired to 

complete the Refuge project 

and is a longer term plan than 

the CCP. Expansion into 

additional counties will allow 

potential acquisition of large 

populations, populations across 

the species’ ranges, and of the 

majority of their populations. 

Acquisition would not 

necessarily occur in every 

location, but where willing 

sellers exist for known species 

locations in any of these 

counties. Acquisition acreage includes algific slopes, associated sinkholes, and 

buffer areas needed to permanently protect them from adjacent land uses. The 

acreage listed in this alternative is what we believe is possible to protect in the next 

15 years given willing sellers, funding, and Refuge resources. Habitat protection 

may also be in cooperation with other agencies. 

Strategies:

1. Maintain contact with landowners to maintain integrity of sites and identify 

willing sellers. Use the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife program and 

assistance from partners such as TNC.

2. Acquire additional land adjacent to Refuge sites where the algific slopes or 

sinkholes are not under permanent protection.

3. Protect an additional 20 snail and monkshood sites.

Cold air vent and mosses on algific slope. USFWS
Chapter 4: Management Direction

43

4. Coordinate with the USFWS Twin Cities Ecological Services office and 

Minnesota DNR to identify and acquire any Leedy’s roseroot site that becomes 

available.

5. Seek consistent annual Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations to 

meet the objective.

6. Work with partners to protect sites through a variety of means such as funding 

provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Section 6), land trust conservation 

easements, U.S. Department of Agriculture programs, fund raising, and 

congressional appropriations.

7. Prioritize sites for protection and prepare site preservation plans in Geographic 

Information Systems format with state and partner input.

8. Protect sites through conservation easements and fee title acquisition.

Objective 5: Permanently conserve 75 additional acres of habitat above the 2004 level to help 

preclude listing of glacial relict species of concern by 2020.

Rationale: Some algific slopes are occupied by Service species of concern, but not 

by threatened and endangered species. This objective would begin to protect sites 

for these species to help preclude future listing as threatened or endangered.

Strategies: 

1. Protect three sites for other species of concern.

2. Maintain contact with landowners to maintain integrity of sites and identify 

willing sellers. Use assistance from partners such as TNC.

3. Protect sites through conservation easements and fee title acquisition.

Species Management

Goal: Manage and protect endangered species, other trust species, and species of management interest 

based on sound science through identification and understanding of algific slope communities and 

associated habitats.

Objective 1: Identify and evaluate new algific slopes in the Driftless Area for the presence of 

threatened and endangered species and species of concern within 3 years of plan 

approval.

Rationale: Initial surveys to locate algific talus slopes and associated species were 

done in the 1980s. Several new algific slopes were found in the last few years just by 

casual observation, indicating that more may be present than is currently known. A 

renewed comprehensive survey should be done to ensure that as many algific slopes 

as possible are known. This information may shed new light on species abundance 

or threats to endangered and rare species. Survey of potential habitat is a recovery 

goal.

Strategies: 

1. Review existing algific slope records to identify potential new survey locations. 

Actively search areas that may have been underrepresented in original 

surveys. Survey any new locations for Iowa Pleistocene snail and Northern 

monkshood.

2. Seek assistance from Partners to provide funding or people to accomplish 

objective.
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

44

Objective 2: Establish the size of upland buffers needed to provide permanent protection of 

algific talus slopes by 2009.

Rationale: Sinkholes are crucial to cold air flow on algific talus slopes. Their 

function, locations, and distance from slopes is not completely known. In addition, 

more information is needed on sinkhole locations and distance from algific talus 

slopes. This objective is also a recovery task for the Iowa Pleistocene snail and is 

essential to determining land protection areas and strategies.

1. Conduct winter surveys to locate sinkholes associated with algific slopes to aid 

in protection efforts. 

2. Initiate studies to determine the function and association of sinkholes and other 

features to cold air flow and hydrology.

3. Explore ways to study the potential impacts of climate change on algific talus 

slopes.

Objective 3: Gain a better understanding of plants and animals associated with algific talus 

slopes and similar habitats in the Driftless Area.

Rationale: Comprehensive surveys for plants and insects have never been done for 

algific talus slopes. There may be additional rare, endemic or new species. 

Inventory of wildlife on other Refuge habitats has not been completed. An 

inventory of Refuge plant and animal communities is needed to prepare effective 

management strategies. The Refuge Improvement Act also requires inventory and 

monitoring of fish, wildlife, and plants on all Refuges. Refuge partners are also 

interested in inventory of algific slopes.

Strategies: 

1. Work with experts to inventory snail, plant and insect species on six or more 

algific talus slopes within 8 years of plan approval.

2. Inventory birds on Refuge units to document habitat use and develop plans for 

management of conservation priority species on the Refuge.

Objective 4: By 2008, determine the appropriate deer density and population structure for 

Refuge units that will safeguard habitat. 

Rationale: Deer populations in northeast Iowa have been high for several years. 

There is concern that high deer densities, particularly on units where hunting is not 

allowed, could impact algific talus slopes as well as other habitats. The population 

level that causes negative impacts needs to be determined.

Strategies:

1. Use research or literature searches to determine the current and desired deer 

density on the Refuge.

2. Working with states, manage deer populations at a level and population 

structure that does not negatively impact algific slopes or associated habitats.

3. Use special permit hunts when damage to algific slopes or other habitats from 

deer is observed.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

45

Objective 5: Update the recovery plans for Iowa Pleistocene snail and Northern Monkshood 

within 5 years of CCP approval.

Rationale: The current recovery plans for these species are outdated and do not 

include all locations, specific recovery objectives, threats, or specific monitoring 

guidelines. Updated plans would provide for better planning and species protection 

and increase the likelihood of recovery.

Strategies: 

1. Work with Ecological Services and applicable states to update and rewrite draft 

recovery plans.

Visitor Services Goal

Goal: Visitors have an understanding and appreciation of the role of the Refuge in conserving endangered 

species.

Objective 1: Increase environmental education programs by 50 percent within 8 years of CCP 

approval and establish an upper level limit for visitation within 5 years of CCP 

approval.

Rationale: Promotion of the Refuge and wildlife-dependent recreation has 

historically been limited because of the sensitive nature of endangered species 

habitat and limited staff to manage public use. However, the public is now more 

aware of land owned by the Service and has expressed interest in increasing 

outreach and wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities. With targeted programs, 

visitors’ understanding of the Refuge’s purpose can be enhanced. Education about 

endangered species and the special resources of the Driftless Area may promote 

stewardship among landowners and therefore further protection of rare and 

endangered species. Education about snails and their habitat is a recovery task.

Only units with public access routes and sufficient acreage surrounding endangered 

species habitat would be open to the public. However, there is a level of use that 

could cause unacceptable changes in habitat and wildlife. To better achieve the 

endangered species purpose of the Refuge, the level below which impacts are 

negligible needs to be determined. The primary increased use would be off-site 

environmental education. 

Strategies: 

1. Maintain the Howard Creek and Fern Ridge units open to upland game and 

white-tailed deer hunting. Open the Pine Creek Unit to hunting under the same 

special regulations as the Howard Creek and Fern Ridge units.

2. Maintain the Steeles Branch and Fern Ridge units open to fishing. Open the 

Pine Creek Unit to fishing.

3. Maintain the Howard Creek and Fern Ridge units open to wildlife observation 

and photography. Open the Pine Creek Unit to wildlife observation and 

photography.

4. Maintain McGregor District Visitor Contact Station as a place of primary 

public contact.

5. Develop an information kiosk at the Fern Ridge Unit by 2007. 

6. Develop a wildlife observation trail at the Howard Creek Unit by 2008.
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

46

7. Develop an interpretive display at McGregor District Visitor Contact Station 

by 2007.

8. Present local school groups at least 10 environmental education programs per 

year, with an emphasis on endangered species.

9. Share an interpretive park ranger with the McGregor District.

10. Develop a Visitor Services Plan within 2 years of CCP approval. The Plan will 

describe basic visitor and resource protection, appropriate signing, 

informational brochures, Visitor Center displays, and other information needed 

for visitors to have an educational and enjoyable experience.

11. Permit compatible wildlife-dependent recreation on newly acquired lands.

12. Establish a reliable system for documenting and monitoring public use within 2 

years of CCP approval.

13. Establish the relationship between level of use and impacts to resources within 

5 years of plan approval and modify the Visitor Services Plan accordingly.

14. Develop a volunteer program and continue to work with the Friends of the 

Upper Mississippi River Refuges. 
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

47

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Personnel and Office Needs

One Refuge Operations Specialist is currently assigned to the Refuge and supervised by the 

McGregor District Manager. A wildlife biologist will be added to implement the many goals and 

objectives identified in this CCP. The Nature Conservancy of Iowa has funded a summer intern to 

work at the Refuge for the last 3 years and plans to continue this position as funds permit, to assist 

with endangered species monitoring and other tasks of interest to both the Service and TNC. 

McGregor District staff occasionally assists with maintenance, prescribed burning and habitat 

improvements on the Refuge. 

Refuge staff currently use a mobile home (obtained as excess property from the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency) located adjacent to the McGregor District office. It is not clear to visitors that 

the Driftless Area Refuge office is here and there is only a small display made by Refuge staff in the 

McGregor District Visitor Contact Station. The Refuge shares limited equipment storage space with 

McGregor District. A new office located with McGregor District or at a different location is needed 

to meet basic operational needs.

Figure 19: Future Staffing Needs, Driftless Area NWR
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

48

Funding Needs

Land values in northeast Iowa have increased in recent years, at least partly due to an interest in 

recreational land. The 2003 Iowa State Land Value Survey gives average values of farmland at 

$1,645 per acre in Allamakee County, $2,111 per acre in Clayton County, $1,904 per acre in 

Winneshiek County, and $2,722 per acre in Dubuque County. The Vernon County Land and Water 

Conservation Department in Wisconsin reports farmland values at about $2,000 per acre. Land 

values in Olmsted County, Minnnesota, in 2004 averaged $3,236 per acre and in Fillmore County 

$1,868 per acre as estimated by county assessors. These values do not distinguish between forested 

land and cropland. Forested land is often being sold for the same value as cropland because of the 

recreational interest. Therefore, an average value for northeast Iowa counties, where the majority of 

land acquisition would occur, would be $2,095 per acre. 

Acquiring 2,275 acres over the course of the 

CCP would cost approximately $4,766,125.

Step-down Management Plans

This CCP provides broad guidance for future 

management and land acquisition for Driftless 

Area National Wildlife Refuge. Before projects 

are implemented, additional detailed plans will 

need to be prepared. Several step-down 

management plans must be completed to better 

describe the planned work and to meet Service 

policy. The following plans will be completed 

during the life of the CCP:

# Habitat Management Plan

# Unit Management Plans

# Forest Management Plans

# Endangered Species Site Preservation Plans

# Visitor Services Plan

# Funding

Funding will come from a variety of internal and external sources. Refuge maintenance funds are 

currently used primarily for fencing needs and replacement of tools and equipment. Habitat 

restoration funds have come from challenge cost share grants or internal funds. All of these funding 

sources are in short supply. The full implementation of this plan will be dependent on increased 

traditional funding or new sources of funding as a result of partnerships or grants. In particular, 

partnerships for land acquisition and habitat restoration may be needed. The Nature Conservancy, 

Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, States, and universities are potential partners that have 

expressed interest in various actions identified in the plan. Volunteers will also be important in 

assisting Refuge staff with fulfilling the future vision of the Refuge.

Partnership Opportunities

Potential partnerships exist with The Nature Conservancy, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, 

States, universities, and other private conservation groups to accomplish the objectives outlined in 

the CCP. Partners have specifically expressed interest in assisting with habitat protection, 

landowner contacts, site preservation plans, habitat restoration, inventory, and study. 

Coyote, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

49

Volunteer Program

We will work with volunteers in carrying out the activities of this plan. Likely activities where 

volunteers can help us include tours, environmental education, habitat restoration, monitoring, and 

invasive species removal.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring is critical to the successful implementation of the plan. Every five years this plan will be 

revisited to document progress, reassess direction and determine if any modifications are necessary 

to meet changing conditions. Public involvement in evaluating progress and plan implementation will 

be encouraged. Increased public visitation and new facilities will be evaluated for compatibility with 

Refuge purposes.

Plan Amendment and Revision

The CCP is meant to provide guidance to the Refuge Manager and staff over the next 15 years. 

However, the CCP is also a dynamic and flexible document and several of the strategies contained in 

this plan are subject to natural, uncontrollable events such as floods, drought and tornados. 

Likewise, many of the strategies are dependent upon Service funding for staff and projects. Because 

of all these factors, the recommendations in the CCP will be reviewed periodically and, if necessary, 

revised to meet new circumstances. If any revisions are major, the review and revision will include 

the public.

Appendix A: Record of Decision

51

Appendix A: Record of Decision

Record of Decision

for

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Driftless Area 

National Wildlife Refuge

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of Conservation Planning

Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building

Room 530

1 Federal Drive

Ft. Snelling, Minnesota 55105
Record of Decision

Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge

Introduction

This Record of Decision (ROD) has been 

developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) in compliance with agency decision-making 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969, as amended. It documents the decision 

of the Service, based on the information contained in 

the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) 

and the entire administrative record. The Service 

has selected the preferred alternative (Alternative 

C) as described in the FEIS as the best alternative 

for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the 

Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). A 

notice of this decision will be published in the Federal 

Register and a news release will be sent to the media.

Purpose of Action

The purpose of this action is to specify and adopt a 

long-term management direction for the Driftless 

Area NWR that will achieve the Refuge purpose and 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Need for Action

A long-term management direction does not 

currently exist for Driftless Area NWR. 

Management is currently guided by endangered 

species recovery plans, general policies, and shorterterm plans. Since the Refuge was established, there 

are new threats to endangered species habitat, new 

laws and policies have been put in place, new 

scientific information is available, and levels of public 

use and interest have increased. In addition, 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. 

Key Issues

Through public scoping and with input from 

various agencies and publics, key issues and possible 

solutions were identified. The issues were 1) habitat 

management, 2) visitor services, 3) refuge expansion, 

and 4) species assessment. These issues were 

thoroughly examined in the Draft and Final EIS.

Alternatives Considered

Three alternatives and their consequences were 

described in detail in the Draft and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Under all 

alternatives recovery plans for the Iowa Pleistocene 

snail and the Northern monkshood would be 

updated, cultural resources would be protected, and 

the Refuge’s Fire Management Plan would guide 

prescribed fire and wildfire suppression.

Alternative A. No Action

Present management practices would continue 

under this Alternative. The No Action alternative is 

a status quo alternative where current conditions 

and trends continue. The alternative served as the 

baseline to compare and contrast with the other 

alternatives. Acquisition efforts would not occur 

under this alternative because there would be no 

approved expanded acquisition boundary.

Alternative B. Habitat Protection Emphasis

Under this alternative the primary focus of 

Refuge activities would be on the permanent 

protection of endangered species habitat through 

land acquisition and minimal physical disturbance of 

endangered species habitat. The expanded 

acquisition area for the Refuge would include a total 

of 6,000 acres in 22 counties in four states as 

described in a Land Protection Plan (Appendix J of 

the FEIS). The 3,400 acres specified in this 

alternative is the acreage that would be protected 

within the 15-year life of the CCP given anticipated 

levels of willing sellers, funding, and Refuge 

personnel. 

Alternative C. Habitat Protection, Increased 

Management, and Integrated Wildlifedependent Recreation (Preferred Alternative)

Under this alternative the focus would be on the 

permanent protection of endangered species habitat 

and additional algific slopes through land acquisition 

and active management of endangered species 

habitat. New information and threats increase the 

need for active management. Fewer acres acquired 

in this alternative would allow limited Refuge 

resources to address all impacts to the habitat. The 

total expanded acquisition area for the Refuge would 

include 6,000 acres in 22 counties in four states as 

described in a Land Protection Plan (Appendix J of 

the FEIS). The 2,275 acres specified in this 

alternative is a realistic acreage that would be 

protected within the 15-year life of the CCP given 


Appendix B: Glossary

57

Appendix B: Glossary

Appendix B: Glossary

59

Appendix B: Glossary

Algific Talus Slope: Cold producing rocky slope in which air circulation and 

groundwater infiltration produce more or less permanent 

underground ice whose incomplete melting produces a constant 

stream of moist cool air which filters through a thin plant and litter 

cover over an extensive rock talus.

Aquatic Species: Includes all freshwater, anadromous and estuarine fishes, 

freshwater mollusks, freshwater crustaceans and freshwater 

amphibians.

Archaeological and 

Cultural Values: Any material remains of past human life or activity greater than 

100 years old which are of archaeological interest as defined by 

Section 4(a) of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and 43 

CFR Part 7.3.

Biodiversity: The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the 

communities and ecosystems in which they occur.

Biologic Integrity Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, 

organism, and community levels comparable with historic 

conditions, including the natural biological processes that shape 

genomes, organisms and communities.

Candidate Species: Those species for which the Service has on file sufficient 

information on biological vulnerability and threats to propose them 

for listing.

Compatible Use: A wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge 

that, in the sound professional judgment of the Director or 

designee, will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the System or the purposes of the 

refuge (PL 105-57).

Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan: A document, completed with public involvement, that describes the 

desired future condition and provides long-term (15 year planning 

horizon) guidance to accomplish the purposes of the refuge system 

and the individual refuge units.

Conservation: The management of natural resources to prevent loss or waste. 

Management actions may include preservation, restoration and 

enhancement.

Conservation Agreements: Written agreements reached among two or more parties for the 

purpose of ensuring the survival and welfare of unlisted species of 

fish and wildlife and/or their habitats, or to achieve other specified 
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

60

conservation goals. Participants voluntarily commit to 

implementing specific actions that will remove or reduce the 

threats to these species.

Conservation (Species): The use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to 

bring any species to the point at which the measures provided are 

no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are 

not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources 

management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat 

acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation. Conservation is the act of managing a resource to 

ensure its survival and availability.

Cross-program: Communication and cooperation between multiple programs. The 

Service is organized into programs such as Refuges, Migratory 

Birds, Law Enforcement, Fisheries, International Affairs, 

Endangered Species, and Environmental Contaminants.

Cultural Resources: 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, p.9). 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, Francis P. DCA-NPS; letter 12-23-97 to Walla Walla 

District, COE), and buildings and structures.

Delisting: A process for removing a listed species from the lists of threatened 

and endangered species due to recovery. Delisting requires a 

formal rulemaking procedure, including publication in The Federal 

Register.

Direct Take: Under the authorities of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, direct 

take is to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; 

or attempt to pursue, hunt, shot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect.

Downlisting: Process for changing a species' status from endangered to 

threatened due to a reduction in threats and improved status of the 

species. Downlisting requires a formal rulemaking procedure, 

including publication in The Federal Register.

Ecosystem: Dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal (including 

humans) communities and their associated non-living environment.

Ecosystem Approach: 1) Protecting or restoring the natural function, structure, and 

species composition of an ecosystem, recognizing that all 

components are interrelated. 2) Management of natural resources 

using system-wide concepts to ensure that all plants and animals in 

ecosystems are maintained at viable levels in native habitats and 
Appendix B: Glossary

61

that basic ecosystem processes are perpetuated indefinitely (Clark 

and Zaunbrecher 1987).

Ecosystem Management 

Plans: Plans developed that identify natural resource needs, set resource 

goals and objectives, identify needed actions, determine budget 

needs and outline a process to monitor and evaluate the success of 

the actions.

Endangered Species: A listed species in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.

Endangered Species 

Consultations: Process whereby federal agencies consult with the Service on any 

prospective agency action when the agency has reason to believe 

that an endangered or threatened species may be effected by an 

action the agency is funding, permitting, or conducting.

Endangered Species 

Listing: The process of adding a species to the Endangered Species list, 

which includes publication in The Federal Register of a proposed 

rule to list the species, a public comment period allowing for one or 

more public hearings, and a final determination either to list the 

species or withdraw the proposal.

Enhance (habitats): Improves habitat through alteration, treatment, or other land 

management of existing habitat to increase habitat value for one or 

more species without bringing the habitat to a fully restored or 

naturally occurring condition.

Environmental Health: Composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air and other 

abiotic features comparable with historic conditions, including the 

natural abiotic processes that shape the environment.

Forest Fragmentation: Fragmentation may occur when a forested landscape is subdivided 

into patches. Fragmentation may also occur when numerous 

openings for such things as fields, roads, and powerlines interrupt 

a continuous forest canopy. The resulting landscape pattern alters 

habitat connectivity and edge characteristics, influencing a variety 

of species.

Geographic Information

System: GIS aids in the collection, analysis, output and distribution of 

spatial data and information.

Glacial Relict Species: A plant or animal known from fossil records to have existed during 

glacial events, or the Ice Age, that still exists today.

Invasive Species: An alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause 

economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.

Karst: A type of topography that is formed on limestone, gypsum, and 

other soluble rocks, primarily by dissolution. Karst landscapes are 
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

62

characterized by sinkholes, caves, and underground drainage. 

(American Geological Institute)

Maderate Cliff: An algific talus slope that has lost the talus layer from erosion to 

form a cliff face. The small cracks that feed cold air are then 

exposed on the surface of the cliff creating a cold moist habitat.

Migratory Nongame Birds of 

Management Concern: Those species of nongame birds that (a) are believed to have 

undergone significant population declines; (b) have small or 

restricted populations; or (c) are dependent upon restricted or 

vulnerable habitats.

Migratory Species: Species that move substantial distances to satisfy one or more 

biological needs, most often to reproduce or escape intolerable 

cyclic environmental conditions.

Multi-species 

Recovery Plan: A recovery plan developed for more than one listed species. Multispecies recovery plans are usually developed for groups of listed 

species that share similar habitat and/or face similar threats.

National Wildlife Refuge 

System: All lands and waters and interests therein administered by the 

Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife management 

areas, waterfowl production areas, and other areas for the 

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife, including those 

that are threatened with extinction.

National Outreach 

Strategy: Outreach is a two-way communication between the Service and the 

public to access understanding and impact of the Service's 

education programs. It establishes mutual understanding and 

promotes involvement with the goal of improving joint stewardship 

of America's fish and wildlife resources.

Partnership Agreements: See Conservation Agreements.

Population Monitoring: Assessments of the characteristics of populations to ascertain their 

status and establish trends related to their abundance, condition, 

distribution or other characteristics.

Prescribed Fire: Controlled fires set under specific conditions (prescription) to meet 

specific habitat objectives.

Protect (habitat): Maintain current quality or prevent degradation to habitat. The 

act of ensuring that habitat quantity and quality do not change, 

most often as a result of human activities but sometimes in 

response to unwelcome natural processes or phenomena.

Recovery Plans (species): Documents developed by the Service that outline tasks necessary 

to stabilize and recover listed species. Recovery plans include goals 

for measuring species progress towards recovery, estimated costs 

and time frames for the recovery process, and an identification of 
Appendix B: Glossary

63

public and private partners that can contribute to implementation 

of the recovery plan.

Reintroduction (of species): Listed species reintroduced into their former range when such an 

action is necessary for species recovery and is called for in an 

approved recovery plan. Species may be reintroduced with the full 

protection of their listed status or as an experimental population 

that allows for greater flexibility in how the reintroduced 

individuals are managed.

Restore (habitat): Returns the quantity and quality of habitat to some previous 

naturally occurring condition, most often some baseline considered 

suitable and sufficient to support self-sustaining populations of fish 

and wildlife.

Riparian Habitats: Those lands adjacent to streams or rivers that form a transition 

zone between aquatic and upland systems and are typically 

dominated by woody vegetation that is of a noticeably different 

growth form than adjacent vegetation. Riparian areas may or may 

not meet the definition of wetlands used by Cowardin et al (1979).

Sinkhole: A funnel-shaped depression in a karst area, commonly with a 

circular or oval pattern. Sinkhole drainage is subterranean and 

sinkhole size is usually measured in meters or tens of meters. 

Common sinkhole types include those formed by dissolution, 

where the land is dissolved downward into the funnel shape, and by 

collapse where the land falls into an underlying cave (American 

Geological Institute)

Species of Concern: A species not on the federal list of threatened or endangered 

species, but a species for which the Service or one of its partners 

has concerns.

Stakeholders: State, tribal, and local government agencies, academic institutions, 

the scientific community, non-governmental entities including 

environmental, agricultural, and conservation organizations, trade 

groups, commercial interests, and private landowners.

Threatened Species: A listed species which is likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 

of its range.

Undertaking: A project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the 

direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those 

carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out 

with Federal financial assistance; those requiring a Federal permit, 

license or approval...” (36 CFR 800.16(y); 12-12-2000), i.e., all 

Federal actions.

Uplands: All lands not meeting the definition of wetlands, deepwater, or 

riverine.

Visitors: The total number of visitors to the Refuge System and Fish 

Hatchery System as estimated by refuge managers in the annual 
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

64

Public Education and Recreation module of the Refuge 

Management Information System and by hatchery managers in.

Watershed: The area drained by a river or stream and its tributaries.

Wetlands: Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where 

the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is 

covered by shallow water (Cowardin et. al., 1979. In layman's 

terms, this habitat category includes marshes, swamps and bogs.

Wildlife-dependent 

recreational use: A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, or environmental education and interpretation.
Appendix C: Species List

65

Appendix C: Species List

Appendix C: Species List

67

Species List

Common and scientific names of plants and animals referenced in the text or found on the Refuge. 

State or federal threatened and endangered status is given. A complete species list for the Refuge 

has not been completed. Not all of the bird species in this list have been confirmed on Refuge lands, 

but do occur in the area. Some algific talus slope species do not have common names.

Bird List for Driftless Area NWR 

Common name Scientific name Status* Resource 

Conservation 

Priority (RCP) 

Species

Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens W T 9

American Robin Turdus migratorius

American Woodcock Scolopax minor 9

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus F T, I E, IL T 9

Black-and-White Warbler Mniotilta vana

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus 9

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors 9

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus 9

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 9

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 9

Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea W T

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

Dickcissel Spiza americana 9

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna 9

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla 9

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera 9
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

68

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum 9

Henslow’s Sparrow Ammodramms henslowii 9

Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus W T 9

Long-eared Owl Asio otus 9

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludoviscianus M T, IL T 9

Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla 9

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 9

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus 9

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus I E, IL E 9

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius 9

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus

Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus 9

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus 9

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis

Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus

Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis 9

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus 9

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 9

Veery Catharus fuscescens

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta 9

Bird List for Driftless Area NWR (Continued)

Common name Scientific name Status* Resource 

Conservation 

Priority (RCP) 

Species
Appendix C: Species List

69

* Threatened and endangered status: F=Federal, I=Iowa, IL=Illinois, M=Minnesota, O=Ohio, 

NY=New York, W=Wisconsin. T=threatened, E=endangered

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus 9

Wood Duck Aix sponsa 9

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina 9

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus

Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons

Bird List for Driftless Area NWR (Continued)

Common name Scientific name Status* Resource 

Conservation 

Priority (RCP) 

Species
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

70

Plant List for Driftless Area NWR 

Common name Scientific name Status*

Carex peckii

Adoxa Adoxa moschatellina W T, IL E

Alder buckthorn Rhamnus alnifolia IL E

Balsam fir Abies balsamea

Basswood Tilia americana

Big bluestem Andropogon gerardi

Bitternut hickory Carya cordiformis

Black cherry Prunus serotina

Black walnut Juglans nigra

Black-eyed susan Rudbeckia hirta

Box elder Acer negundo

Canada anemone Anemone canadensis

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense

Canada yew Taxus canadensis

Compass plant Silphium laciniatum

Fragile fern Cystopteris fragilis

Daisy fleabane Erigeron strigosus

Dwarf enchanter’s nightshade Circaea alpina IL E

Dwarf scouring rush Equisetum scirpoides IL E

Dwarf goldenrod Solidago sciaphila

Dwarf raspberry Rubus pubescens

Equisetum pratense Equisetum pratense IL T

European buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica

False gromwell Onosmodium occidental

False medic grass Schizachne purpurescens

Flowering spurge Euphorbia corollata

Forbes’ saxifrage Saxifraga forbesii

Frigid ambersnail Catinella gelida

Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata

Golden saxifrage Chrysosplenium iowense I T, M E

Hackberry Celtis occidentalis
Appendix C: Species List

71

Hairy puccoon Lithospermum croceum

Harebell Campanula rotundifolia

Hoary vervain Verbena stricata

Indian grass Sorghastrum nutans

Ironwood Ostrya virginiana

Kidney leaved violet Viola renifolia

Leadplant Amorpha canescens

Leaf-cup Polymnia canadensis

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula

Leatherwood Dirca palustris

Leedy’s roseroot Sedum integrifolium F T, M E

Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium

Limestone oak fern Gymnocarpium robertianum IL E

Louisiana waterthrush Seiurus motacilla

Mountain maple Acer spicatum

Mountain mint Pycnanthemum virginianum

Mouse-ear chickweed Cerastium arvense

Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora

Musclewood Carpinus caroliniana

Needle grass Stipa spartea

Northern lungwort Mertensia paniculata I E

Northern monkshood Aconitum noveboracense F T, I T, W T, O E, 

NY T

Occult vertigo Vertigo occulta I T

Pale lobelia Lobelia spicata

Paper birch Betula papyrifera

Prairie dropseed Sporobolus heterolepis

Prairie rose Rosa carolina

Prairie thimbleweed Anemone cylindrica

Prairie violet Viola pedatifida

Prickly ash Xanthoxylum americanum

Prickly rose Rosa acicularis I E, IL E

Plant List for Driftless Area NWR (Continued)

Common name Scientific name Status*
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

72

* Threatened and endangered status: F=Federal, I=Iowa, IL=Illinois, M=Minnesota, O=Ohio, 

NY=New York, W=Wisconsin. T=threatened, E=endangered

Purple prairie clover Petalostemum purpureum

Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides

Red oak Quercus rubra

Red-berried elder Sambucus racemosa

Rigid goldenrod Solidago rigida

Rose twisted stalk Streptopus rosius

Shagbark hickory Carya ovata

Showy lady’s slipper Cypripedium reginae I T, IL E

Side-oats grama Bouteloua curtipendula

Slippery elm Ulmus rubra

Stinging nettle Urtica dioica

Sugar maple Acer saccharum

Sullivantia Sullivantia sullivantii M T, IL T

Sumac Rhus typhina or R. glabra

Touch-me-not Impatiens pallida

Twinflower Linnaea borealis I T

Twinleaf Jeffersonia diphylla I T

Western yarrow Achillea millefolium

White prairie clover Petalostemum candidum

Wood Nettle Laportea canadensis

Woodrush Luzula acuminata

Plant List for Driftless Area NWR (Continued)

Common name Scientific name Status*
Appendix C: Species List

73

Snails, Mammals, Reptiles, and Turtles of Driftless Area NWR

Common name Scientific name Status*

Bluff vertigo snail Vertigo meramecensis S E, M T

Briarton pleistocene vertigo snail Vertigo brierensis S E

Minnesota pleistocene ambersnail Novisuccinea Sp A I E, M T

Iowa Pleistocene ambersnail Novisuccinea Sp B I E,M E

Iowa Pleistocene snail Discus macclintocki F E, I E, IL E

Iowa Pleistocene vertigo snail Vertigo iowensis I E

White-tail deer Odocoileus virginianus

Coyote Canis latrans

Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina

Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus M T, IL T

Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations

75

Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations

The following compatibility determinations have had public review. Copies of the signed documents 

are available for viewing at the Driftless Area NWR Headquarters:

# Cooperative farming for habitat restoration

# Interpretation and environmental education

# Recreational fishing

# Hunting of resident game

# Wildlife observation and photography (including the means of access such as hiking, 

snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, and canoeing)

# Research, monitoring, inventory by third parties

# Firewood and commercial tree cutting for habitat management purposes

# Pre-acquisition compatibility of wildlife-dependent uses

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

77

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

79

Appendix E / Compliance Requirements

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: 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 feetitle 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 the preservation of evidence of the government's organization, 

functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic historical and other 

information.

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy and 

broadened the authority for acquisition and development of refuges.
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

80

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), as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act (1997)16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee. (Refuge Administration Act): 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. This Act amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966.

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.
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

81

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.

Executive Order 11988 (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: Executive Order 11990 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.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs): Directs the Service to 

send copies of the Environmental Assessment to State Planning Agencies for review.

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.

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.

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 (1994): Establishes environmental justice as a Federal government priority 

and directs all Federal agencies to make environmental justice part of their mission. Environmental 

justice calls for fair distribution of environmental hazards.
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

82

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 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): Considered the “Organic Act of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Defines the mission of the System, designates priority wildlifedependent public uses, and calls for comprehensive refuge planning.

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.

National Trails System Act: Assigns responsibility to the Secretary of Interior and thus the Service 

to protect the historic and recreational values of congressionally designated National Historic Trail 

sites. 

Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001 (Public Law 106-554): In December 

2002, Congress required federal agencies to publish their own guidelines for ensuring and 

maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information that they disseminate to the 

public (44 U.S.C. 3502). The amended language is included in Section 515(a). The Office of Budget 

and Management (OMB) directed agencies to develop their own guidelines to address the 

requirements of the law. The Department of the Interior instructed bureaus to prepare separate 

guidelines on how they would apply the Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed 

“Information Quality Guidelines” to address the law.
Appendix F: Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Maintenance Management System (MMS) 

83

Appendix F: Refuge Operations Needs 

(RONS) and Maintenance Management 

System (MMS) 

Appendix F: Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Maintenance Management System (MMS) 

85

Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Maintenance 

Management System (MMS) 

Refuge Operations Needs (RONS)

RONS 

Project 

No.

Strategy No. Project Description First Year 

Need

Recurring 

Annual 

Need

01001 2.5.4.1, Obj. 1, 

Strategy 10. 

Also would 

assist with 

other 

objectives

 endangered species monitoring (biologist) 128,000 128,000

Total $128,000

Deferred Maintenance and Equipment Needs (MMS)

MMS Refuge 

Rank

Strategy 

No.

Project Description Fund 

Type

Year Cost

04001 1 2.5.4.1 

No. 2

Replace 60,000 linear feet of barbed wire 

fencing

DM 2004 34,000

04002 2 2.5.4.3 

No.7

Revised Visitor Center display DM 2004 52,000

04100 3 2.5.4.3

No. 6

Construct accessible hiking trails and wildlife 

interpretive facilities

SC 2004 313,000

01001 4 All Replace chevy cargo truck SE 2004 23,000

00468 1 All Replace McGregor District office/shop 

facility

Combined with McGregor District

LC 2004 2,297,000

Appendix G: List of Preparers

87

Appendix G: List of Preparers

Appendix G: List of Preparers

89

List of Preparers

Cathy Henry, Refuge Operations Specialist

Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge, McGregor, Iowa

Ms. Henry served as the primary author and coordinated with agencies and the public. She has 

worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 12 years. She has a Bachelor of Science degree in 

Animal Ecology and a Master of Science degree in Wildlife and Fisheries Science. 

John Lindell, District Manager

Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge, McGregor, Iowa

Mr. Lindell assisted with writing and editing and coordination with agencies and the public.

Mr. Lindell has 33 years of experience with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He has a Bachelor of 

Arts degree in zoology and a Master of Arts degree in Wildlife Biology. 

Eric Nelson, Wildlife Biologist

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, Winona, Minnesota

Mr. Nelson provided overall coordination of the Upper Mississippi River NWFR Complex CCP 

process, arranged and coordinated public meetings, mailings, and assisted with editing.

Don Hultman, Refuge Complex Manager

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge Complex, Winona, Minnesota

Mr. Hultman provided oversight on the CCP process and coordination with agencies and the public 

and assisted with editing

Gary Muehlenhardt, Wildlife Biologist/Refuge Planner

Regional Office, Region 3

Mr. Muehlenhardt assisted with formulation of alternatives and editing.

John Dobrovolny, Regional Historian

Regional Office, Region 3

Mr. Dobrovolny coordinated the Cultural Resources review for the Refuge.

John Schomaker, Refuge Planner

Regional Office, Region 3

Mr. Schomaker assisted with formulation of alternatives and editing.

Gabriel DeAllesio, Biologist/GIS Specialist

Regional Office, Region 3

Mr. DeAllesio prepared several maps for the comprehensive conservation plan.

Jane Hodgins, Technical Writer/Editor

Regional Office, Region 3

Ms. Hodgins served as primary editor.

Appendix H: Mailing List for the EIS

91

Appendix H: Mailing List for the EIS

Appendix H: Mailing List for the EIS

93

Mailing List for the Environmental Impact Statement

Elected Federal Officials

# U.S. Senator Richard Durbin (Illinois)

# U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald (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 Philip Crane (Illinois)

# 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 Ron Kind (Wisconsin)

Elected State Officials

# 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 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 )
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

94

# State Representative Steven Lukan (Iowa )

# State Representative Pat Murphy (Iowa)

# State Representative Steven Olson (Iowa)

# State Representative Bob Osterhaus (Iowa)

# 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 Jennifer Shilling (Wisconsin)

Federal Agencies

# 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

# 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
Appendix H: Mailing List for the EIS

95

# 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

# Iowa Department of Natural Resources

# IowaHistorical 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

# Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

# Wisconsin Division of Tourism

# Wisconsin Department of Transportation

# Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

Cities

# Alma, Wisconsin

# Brownsville, Minnesota

# Cassville Village, Wisconsin

# Dubuque, Iowa

# Edgewood, Iowa

# Elkader, Iowa

# Fountain City, Wisconsin

# Garnavillo, Iowa

# Guttenberg, Iowa

# Harper’s Ferry, Iowa
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

96

# 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

# Carroll, Illinois

# Jackson, Illinois

# JoDaviess, Illinois

# Rock Island, Illinois

# Whiteside, Illinois

# Allamakee, Iowa

# Clayton, Iowa

# Clinton, Iowa

# Dubuque, Iowa

# Houston, Minnesota

# Wabasha, Minnesota

# Winona County, Minnesota

# Buffalo, Wisconsin

# Crawford, Wisconsin

# Grant, Wisconsin

# La Crosse, Wisconsin

# Trempealeau, Wisconsin

# Vernon, Wisconsin

Organizations

# American Rivers

# Audubon Society

# Boy Scouts of America

# Izaak Walton League of America

# Sierra Club

# The Nature Conservancy

# The Wilderness Society

# Friends of the Upper Mississippi Refuges

# Sportsmen’s Clubs (96)

# Businesses (45)
Appendix H: Mailing List for the EIS

97

# Schools/Univ. (26)

# Libraries (34)

Other Organizations (54)

# 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

# Newspaper (74)

# Radio (20)

# TV (16)

Citizens 

# Illinois (274)

# Iowa (287)

# Minnesota (574)

# Wisconsin (928)

# Citizens in Other States (35)

Appendix I: References

99

Appendix I: References

Appendix I: References

101

References

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the Ecoregions of the United States. USDA Forest Service

Cahayla-Wynne, R. and D.C. Glenn-Lewin. 1978. The Forest Vegetation of the Driftless Area, 

Northeast Iowa. Am. Midl. Natural. 100(2):307-319.

Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group, Inc. 2002. Comprehensive conservation plan 

archaeological and historic resources, Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge in Allamakee, 

Clayton, Delaware, Dubuque, Fayette, and Jackson Counties, Iowa and Grant County, Wisconsin. 

WR-0110. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN

Frest, T.J. 1982. Project SE-1-4 Iowa Pleistocene snail final report. University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 

162pp.

Frest, T.J. 1983. Final report northern driftless area survey. University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. 17pp. 

Frest, T.J. 1985. Final report Iowa Pleistocene snail survey. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

37pp.

Frest, T.J. 1986. Final report Iowa Pleistocene snail survey. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

26pp.

Frest, T.J. 1987. Final report Iowa Pleistocene snail project. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

39pp.

Frest, T. J. 1991. Summary status reports on eight species of candidate land snails from the driftless 

area (paleozoic plateau), upper midwest. Seattle, WA

Glenn-Lewin, D.C., R.H. Laushman, and P.D. Whitson. 1984. The Vegetation of the Paleozoic 

Plateau, Northeastern Iowa. Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci. 91(1):22-27.

Hemesath, L.M. and W.R. Norris. 1998. Forest avifauna of northeast Iowa. Iowa Bird Life 68(2):29-

41.

Henry, C., W.R. Clark, M.J. Burns, C. Dettman. 2003. Population monitoring protocol for the Iowa 

Pleistocene snail (Discus macclintocki). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, McGregor, IA 31 pp+app.

Kemperman, J. 1983. Forests and Forestry pages 33-35 in Iowa Conservationist. Iowa Conservation 

Commission, Des Moines, IA

Knutson, M.G., G. Butcher, J. Fitzgerald, 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. LaCrosse, WI.

Ross, T.K. 1999. Phylogeography and conservation genetics of the Iowa Pleistocene snail. Molec. 

Ecol. 8:1363-1373.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge Management 

Prospectus. U.S. FWS, McGregor, IA 25pp.
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

102

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. National recovery plan for northern monkshood (Aconitum 

noveboracense). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN. 81pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. National recovery plan for Iowa Pleistocene snail (Discus 

macclintocki (Baker)). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN. 23pp + app. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. National driftless area land protection plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN. 20pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Sedum integrifolium spp. Leedyi (Leedy’s roseroot) Recovery 

Plan. Ft. Snelling, MN. 31pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities. 

Ft. Snelling, MN

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge Fire Management 

Plan. McGregor, IA 29 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. The economic impacts of the Driftless National Wildlife 

Refuge. 15pp.
Appendix J: Land Protection Plan

103

Appendix J: Land Protection Plan

Appendix J: Land Protection Plan

105

Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge 

Land Protection Plan 2005

I. Project Description 

Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established in 1989 under the authority of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 with the purchase of 139.3 acres in Clayton County, Iowa. The 

purpose of Driftless Area NWR is to conserve fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered or 

threatened species (16 USC 1534 Endangered Species Act of 1973). The Refuge was specifically 

intended to protect lands for the federally listed endangered Iowa Pleistocene snail and threatened 

Northern monkshood. Recovery plans for these two species describe permanent protection of 

remaining colonies as the primary recovery goal (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983, 1984). Refuge 

land acquisition would offer the permanent protection specified in the recovery plan. Tracts were 

purchased throughout the 1990s and two land exchanges were completed in 2001 and 2002 to bring 

the current Refuge acreage to 781. 

The namesake of the Refuge, the Driftless Area, encompasses portions of Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

Iowa, and Illinois (Figure 1). The high topographic relief of the area, the varying slope angles and 

aspects, the karst features resulting from dissolution of underlying carbonate rocks, and the close 

approach of the Wisconsinan glaciers to the area have acted together to produce a variety of 

microclimates. These, in turn, support a number of rare species that are dependent upon unusual 

combinations of temperature and moisture. 

Iowa Pleistocene snail

The Iowa Pleistocene snail (Discus macclintocki) was listed as endangered in 1977 because of the 

small number of populations, small total population, and its very restricted and fragile habitat type. 

It is also listed as endangered by the states of Iowa and Illinois. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

completed a recovery plan in 1984 written by Dr. Terry Frest. At that time the snail was known from 

18 small sites in Clayton and Dubuque Counties, Iowa and Jo Daviess County, Illinois. Fossil records 

indicate that the snail was once widely distributed in the Midwest during the Pleistocene era 

(approximately 300,000-500,000 YBP). It is therefore considered a glacial relict species and its 

habitat is restricted to cold algific talus slopes (Figure 2). Threats to the species and its habitat listed 

in the recovery plan are human disturbance, logging, grazing, road building, quarrying, sinkhole 

filling, pesticides, residential construction, and natural factors such as rock slides and stream 

undercutting or weather related factors. In recent years invasive species and increased development 

pressure have also been identified as threats to the Pleistocene snail. 

The main features of the recovery plan are to gain management control of algific talus slopes where 

the snail occurs and protect them from human disturbances. Restoration and monitoring are also 

stated as being important. The Iowa Pleistocene snail can be considered for reclassification from 

endangered to threatened if permanent protection of 16 of the existing colonies can be achieved and 

documentation of stable or increasing populations can be done. Delisting can be considered if 

stringent protection of at least 24 or more sufficiently dispersed viable breeding colonies is achieved. 

A viable population from a genetic standpoint would be a breeding population of 500; however, 

further study regarding this number is needed. Dr. Frest (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984) states 

that it is likely other sites remain to be found. Indeed, further surveys by Dr. Frest and others in the 
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

106

Figure 1: Driftless Area NWR Acquisition Boundaries
Appendix J: Land Protection Plan

107

1980s discovered a new total of 37 sites in Clayton, Clinton, Fayette, Delaware, Dubuque, Jackson 

counties in Iowa and JoDaviess County in Illinois. 

The basic premise of the recovery plan is to protect all of the sites with viable breeding colonies. 

Even though the number of sites has since increased, it still is not large and nearly all populations 

should be protected to achieve delisting. The recovery plan needs updating to include all known 

sites, new monitoring information, and to refine downlisting and delisting criteria. Although 22 snail 

sites currently have some protection, 12 of these need additional protection of algific slopes and/or 

sinkholes to be considered fully protected for delisting purposes. Some of the largest populations are 

not protected and the species needs protection across its range to preserve genetic differences and 

to protect against catastrophic events in one area. 

Northern monkshood

Northern monkshood (Aconitum noveboracense) was listed as threatened in 1978 because of its 

limited range and habitat preference. It is also listed as threatened by the states of Iowa, Wisconsin, 

and New York and as endangered by Ohio. A recovery plan was completed in 1983. It was one of the 

first plant species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Monkshood requires a cold soil 

environment associated with cliffs, talus slope, algific slope, or spring/headwater stream situations. 

Its habitat is typically in rugged areas and on fragile cliffs or slopes that cannot tolerate a great deal 

of disturbance. In 1983, there were 24 sites known in Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and New York. The 

authors acknowledged that Iowa had the greatest potential for discovery of new sites. There are now 

83 known sites in Iowa, 18 in Wisconsin, two in New York, and one in Ohio. Sites vary greatly in 

population size from just a few plants to thousands of plants. Threats are dams and reservoirs, road 

construction, power line maintenance, logging, quarrying, grazing, developments, scientific 

overcollecting, and natural events. On algific slope sites, disturbance or filling of the sinkholes is also 

Figure 2: Algific Talus Slopes Illustrated
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

108

a threat. More recently, invasive species, and in particular garlic mustard, have become a threat as 

well. There is also a greater amount of development pressure in the region than in the 1980s.

The primary goal of the recovery plan is to provide a basis for delisting by providing security for all 

known northern monkshood locations against damage or destruction of the existing habitats. This 

security could be in various forms of acquisition, easement, fencing and landowner awareness. 

Additional goals included searches for new sites, much of which was completed in the 1980s, and 

propagation research. 

This recovery plan also needs revision to include all of the known sites, more recent research, and 

more precise downlisting and delisting criteria. The viable population size for protection efforts 

needs to be determined. Currently there are 45 monkshood sites in some form of permanent 

protection. Some of these are small populations that may not be considered viable. Similar to snail 

sites, many of the protected sites need additional slope/cliff, sinkhole, or buffer area protection to be 

considered fully protected for delisting purposes. Monkshood also needs additional protection across 

its range to include sites in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Leedy’s roseroot

Leedy’s roseroot was listed as threatened in 1992 because of its low numbers, few and disjunct 

populations, and specialized cliffside habitat. It is also listed as threatened by the state of Minnesota. 

The recovery plan was approved in 1998. The plant is found in only specialized cliffside habitat. In 

Minnesota, it occurs on maderate cliffs, which are cooled by air exiting underground passages. There 

are only three populations in New York and four in Minnesota. One site in Minnesota is owned by the 

Department of Natural Resources. Besides its disjunct occurrences and low numbers, the major 

threats are on-site disturbances and groundwater contamination.

Leedy’s roseroot may be considered for delisting when all three privately owned Minnesota 

populations are protected by conservation easements or fee title acquisition by a public agency or 

private conservation organization, the contamination threat is removed from the fourth Minnesota 

population, and specific protection measures are taken for New York populations. Protected 

populations must be geographically distinct, self-sustaining, and have been protected for five 

consecutive years by measures that will remain effective following delisting. Additional tasks needed 

include locating new populations, determining the hydrologic relationship of cliffs with upland areas, 

securing funding for site protection, securing landowner involvement, implementing monitoring, 

providing public education, and maintaining a genetic bank.

Glacial relict snails

Eight glacial relict snail species and one plant species, all of which are associated with algific talus 

slope or cliff habitats, are on the Service’s draft species of concern list. A status assessment for taxa 

under consideration for listing is currently being completed for them by Region 3. These species are 

the snails Vertigo brierensis, V. hubrichti hubrichti, V. hubrichti variabilis, V. iowaensis, V. 

meramecensis, Catinella gelida, Novisuccinea n. sp. minnesota a, Novisuccinea n. sp minnesota b, 

and the plant golden saxifrage (Chrysosplenium iowense). These species sometimes occur with the 

previously described threatened and endangered species, but also occur on sites without them. They 

occur in Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin and some, or all, are listed as threatened or endangered by 

each of these states. Since they occur on the same fragile habitat with similar threats, permanent 

protection measures are also important to their continued existence.

Background

The original land protection plan (LPP, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986) outlined the purposes, 

objectives, protection alternatives, and proposed action for the Refuge. The LPP outlined protection 

of approximately 25 sites containing approximately 700 acres in eight counties (Figure 1). The 

project at that time was expected to bring approximately 70 percent of the known Northern 

monkshood population and 75 percent of the known Iowa Pleistocene snail population under direct 
Appendix J: Land Protection Plan

109

USFWS protection. This was to be accomplished by purchasing the 18 largest monkshood and nine 

largest snail sites. Appropriations in 1989 and 1996 have been used to purchase (fee title) 781 acres, 

which protects 11 monkshood sites and eight snail sites. Nine of these monkshood sites are among 

the largest 18 sites and only one snail site is among the nine largest sites. Eight of these other 

largest sites are at least partially protected by other agencies or organizations.

In 1993, a preliminary project proposal (PPP) was approved by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to develop a detailed plan to acquire up to an additional 6,220 acres in 25 counties in Illinois, 

Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (Figure 1) to protect enough monkshood and Iowa Pleistocene snail 

sites for recovery goals and to protect other rare species associated with algific talus slopes and 

similar rare habitats. The PPP also added acquisition areas for the plant, Leedy’s roseroot (Sedum 

integrifolium ssp leedyi), which was listed as threatened in 1992 and grows on similar habitat in 

southeast Minnesota. Its primary recovery goal is also permanent protection (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1998). The PPP also targeted protection of the plants golden saxifrage (Chrysosplenium 

iowense) and sullivantia (Sullivantia sullivantia), and eight species of glacial relict land snails that 

are associated with algific talus slopes and similar habitats throughout the Driftless Area (Frest 

1991). At that time these were all Category 2 candidate species for federal listing1. Some of these 

species occur only in the Driftless Area, or the majority of their populations occur in the Driftless 

Area. Known locations were based on surveys done in the 1980s (Frest 1982-1987) (Figure 3).

Since that time, sullivantia was found to occur more commonly on cliff habitats in Wisconsin and 

Iowa. It is now state-listed in Illinois and Minnesota and is not a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

species of concern. Some of the counties proposed in the 1993 PPP were included only for protection 

of sullivantia and are not considered areas for potential acquisition in this expansion proposal 

(Figure 1). Mitchell County in Iowa contains only two sites, both of which which are already 

protected in a county park. Therefore, this county was removed from the expansion proposal. 

Crawford County, Wisconsin was added to the expansion proposal because of its potential to contain 

habitat for endangered species and species of concern.

Thus, the number of counties where acquisition could occur is now 22. This includes the eight 

counties in the original acquisition area for the Refuge. The species previously described are 

included in a preliminary draft species of concern list for Region 3. None are candidate species at 

this time. 

The Refuge did not pursue further study for the 1993 PPP until the Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan process began in 2002. The CCP planning effort was the logical time to examine all 

management and land protection issues related to the Refuge. The preferred alternative identified 

in the environmental impact statement that accompanies the CCP proposes the acquisition of 

approximately 6,000 acres to permanently protect and preserve a sufficient portion of the Northern 

monkshood and Iowa Pleistocene snail populations so that both species can be delisted. Since any 

acquisition would be on a willing seller basis and would be dependent upon funding availability, it is 

reasonable to expect that approximately 2,275 acres would be acquired over the next 15 years. The 

goal would be to acquire the entire 6,000 acres within at least 25 years. The expanded boundary 

allows the potential protection of any of these species’ populations across their range. Protection 

across the geographic range of these species is important to preserve genetic diversity, sites with 

larger populations, potential reintroduction sites, and sites that may contain other rare species. 

Acquisition within this expanded boundary would not occur at every species location, but would allow 

protection of the majority of sites with viable populations to ultimately reach delisting goals and 

prevent listing of species of concern. 

1. The Service discontinued the use of a list of “category 2 candidates” in 1996. None of these species are currently 

candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act. 
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

110

Figure 3: Target Species Occurrences, Driftless NWR
Appendix J: Land Protection Plan

111

Refuge land acquisition is aimed at protecting the entire algific slope system at each site, including 

upland sinkholes and buffer area around the slope. Many of the currently protected algific slopes on 

the Refuge do not have adequate protection of sinkholes, nor to they provide buffer from adjacent 

agricultural or other uses. 

Habitats on acquired lands will be restored to pre-European settlement vegetation when possible. 

Lands will be opened to compatible wildlife-dependent recreation only when there is sufficient buffer 

area around endangered species habitat, sufficient public access, and the ability to conduct law 

enforcement on a regular basis.

II. Threats to and Status of the Resource

Land acquisition is focused on protecting a specific type of endangered species habitat, but also 

includes forest, grassland, cropland, and streams surrounding the endangered species to protect 

sinkholes and provide buffer areas. The surrounding vegetation can influence temperature on the 

algific slopes, a required component of the habitat for these species. The algific talus slopes are 

fragile and cannot be restored once damaged or destroyed. The threats to these sites are cattle 

grazing, logging, quarrying, building or development, invasive species, sinkhole filling, erosion, 

human traffic, pesticides, and natural landslides. Without some form of protection, populations of 

these species could be lost in a single event. 

III. Proposed Action and Objective

The primary purpose of this project is to permanently protect and preserve a sufficient portion of 

the Northern monkshood and Iowa Pleistocene snail populations so that both species can be delisted. 

With relatively little additional protection, recovery goals for permanent protection of habitat could 

be met for the Iowa Pleistocene snail to result in delisting.

A secondary purpose of this project is to permanently protect and preserve populations of other 

species of federal concern, specifically golden saxifrage and glacial relict snail species. Potential 

reintroduction sites for listed species would also be preserved. The project would also conserve 

biological integrity and diversity or a unique habitat type, a goal of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 

The Service proposes to acquire approximately 6,000 acres that includes approximately 200 

ownerships (Figures 4-9, pages 13-18, and Table 1 on page 123). While 6,000 acres would become the 

long-term acquisition goal for Driftless Area NWR, the Refuge’s comprehensive conservation plan 

sets an acquisition target of approximately 2,275 acres to be achieved over the next 15 years. This 

2,275-acre CCP target is based on estimates of potential available funds for land acquisition over the 

15-year life of the CCP, and on a realistic estimate of the availability of willing sellers from the pool of 

identified priority tracts. Acreages of individual tracts have been determined for sites containing the 

three federally listed species. However, sites that contain only species of concern need further study 

to delineate tract boundaries (Figures 4-9). Acreage estimates are given for these study sites 

(Table 1), but exact boundaries have not yet been determined. We estimate that the cost of acquiring 

all land proposed would be from $6 million to $12 million. The primary funding for acquisition would 

be from money appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Since acquisition would 

only be from willing sellers, it is likely that if this acquisition were to occur, it would be over a period 

of 10-25 years. Because CCPs detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above 

current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program 

prioritization purposes, the CCP and this Land Protection Plan do not constitute a commitment for 

funding for future land acquisition.
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

112

Any acquired lands would become part of the Refuge. Operations costs will ultimately depend upon 

the amount of land purchased in fee and easement and habitat restoration requirements. 

IV. Protection Alternatives

This section outlines and evaluates two strategic alternatives for the conservation of approximately 

6,000 acres of scattered tracts in the counties shown in Figure 1. The two protection alternatives 

discussed in this section are included in the alternatives considered in the Driftless Area NWR 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Protection Alternative A 

is incorporated into Alternative A of the EIS. Protection Alternative B is incorporated into 

Alternatives B and C of the EIS.

Alternative A (No Action):

Under this alternative, the Service would not seek any additional realty interests in land and water. 

The Refuge would continue to contact landowners to assist them with conserving endangered 

species on their land. For example, the Refuge may help them fund fencing to exclude cattle through 

endangered species recovery funding, the Service’s Partners for Wildlife Program, or through state 

programs. The Refuge would assist partners in securing funding and conserving sites through a 

variety of means such as Endangered Species Act Section 6 grants to states, conservation easements 

held by land trust groups like The Nature Conservancy or Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, or 

U.S. Department of Agriculture programs.

Alternative B (Preferred):

The Service would facilitate the protection of approximately 150 acres per year from willing sellers 

using outreach and technical assistance, conservation easements and fee-title purchase of land (and/

or donations from private parties) or a combination of all methods, depending on site, circumstances, 

and landowner interests. The estimate of 150 acres per year is based on historical funding levels in 

the Service’s Region 3, which includes Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Any acquisition of 

lands would be from willing sellers only, regardless of the type of interest. The Service would acquire 

the land interests necessary to reach recovery and delisting goals for the Iowa Pleistocene snail, 

Northern monkshood, and Leedy’s roseroot. 

Areas acquired in fee-title through donation or purchase would be owned by the Service and 

managed as part of the Driftless Area NWR. Tracts in which an easement is negotiated would 

remain in private ownership. Administration, management, and monitoring of the fee title tracts and 

easements would be done by the staff at Driftless Area NWR. This alternative would be carried out 

on a tract-by-tract basis as land and funding become available.

If acquired, the lands would contribute to the recovery goals for the respective threatened and 

endangered species and to the goals of the CCP by providing permanent protection to the habitat 

and species colonies, and by restoring habitat surrounding endangered species. 

V. Alternative Preservation Tools

Alternative preservation tools proposed for the boundary modification area are fee acquisition, 

conservation easements, wildlife management agreements, and private lands extension agreements. 

Wildlife management agreements and private land extension agreements could be used to preserve 

the land and endangered species until permanent protection can be gained. Permanent protection is 

needed to ensure the survival of the species and to reach recovery goals for delisting. Other 

acquisition methods that could be utilized by the Service include donations, partial donations, or 

transfers.
Appendix J: Land Protection Plan

113

Wildlife Management Agreements

These agreements are negotiated between the Refuge Manager and a landowner that specify a 

particular management action the landowner will do, or not do, with his or her property. For 

example, an agreement may be for excluding cattle from endangered species habitat. More 

comprehensive agreements are possible for such things as upland restoration or public access. These 

agreements are strictly voluntary on the part of the landowner and are voided if the property is sold.

As long as a landowner abides by the terms of the agreement, this protection can be effective in 

meeting certain preservation objectives. Unfortunately, because these agreements are voluntary 

and temporary, there is no long-term assurance the terms will continue to be met.

Direct Service costs for this alternative are generally low, but can add up to near fee or easement 

costs if the agreement is for several years. Staff time and administrative costs are relatively high 

since agreements must be monitored yearly and renegotiated when land ownership changes.

Leases

Under a lease agreement, the Service would negotiate with a landowner to receive use of the land or 

for maintenance of the land in a given condition. Generally, the landowner would receive an annual 

lease payment. For example, the Service could lease 40 acres of grassland habitat to protect 

sinkholes, part of the algific slope system. The landowner would be paid to maintain the area as 

grassland and not use it for row crops.

The cost effectiveness of leases would vary depending on the length and payment terms of the lease. 

In many cases, the cost of a lease rapidly approaches the cost of outright purchase in a few years. 

Also, leases do not offer the long-term protection of habitat, and are more complex for the Service to 

administer than fee or easement because of the monitoring, coordination, and administration 

requirements.

Conservation Easements

With a conservation easement, the Service in effect purchases a specific interest from a private 

landowner. For example, the Service may purchase a wetland easement that protects a wetland from 

draining, filling, and burning. The landowner gives up the right to drain, fill, and burn, but no other 

land rights. The wetland may still be cropped, or hayed, as natural conditions allow.

Typically, in a conservation easement, a landowner would agree to refrain from commercial, 

industrial, or residential development or other major alteration of habitat. The landowner would 

continue to use the land as before the easement and retain rights such as hunting and control of 

trespass, for instance.

Easements are voluntary and purchased only from willing sellers. Payments for conservation 

easements are generally based on a percentage of the appraised value of the land and vary according 

to the use restrictions imposed. Easements are most often perpetual and compensation is a one-time, 

up-front payment.

Easements can be useful when existing land use of a tract is partially compatible with the refuge 

purposes, and when the landowner desires to use the land for some compatible purpose. Examples of 

land uses that are normally restricted under terms of a conservation easement include:

# Development rights – agricultural, commercial and residential.

# Alteration of natural topography.

# Uses negatively affecting the maintenance of plant and wildlife communities.

# Excessive public access and use; and

# Alteration of natural water level.
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

114

Depending on the type of easement, this option may be cost effective in meeting certain Refuge 

management purposes. Some easements, however, may cost the Service more than 75 percent of fee 

value and cost efficiency is compromised. If the easement is not perpetual, long-term resource 

protection is not guaranteed.

Easements are more difficult to manage than fee title transactions because of the monitoring, 

coordination, and administrative requirements. If a landowner fails to honor the easement contract, 

the Service must take steps to re-establish the terms of the contract. Changes in land ownership on 

which an easement exists are frequently a source of difficulty and expense to the Service.

In the short run, easements have more impact on the tax base of local municipalities than 

cooperative management agreements and leases, but less impact than fee-title acquisition. In the 

long run, Service acquisition of interest in lands may be beneficial to the tax base of local 

municipalities because of increased desirability of land and increased recreational opportunities.

Fee-Title Acquisition

Fee-title acquisition of land assures permanent protection of resources. All rights of ownership are 

transferred to the Service in fee title acquisition. Land is purchased only from willing sellers with 

offers based on fair market value appraisals. Some fee title acquisitions are accomplished through 

donation or exchange. Although initially the most costly for the Service, in the long run, lands 

acquired in fee-title are easier to manage and plan for because the Service has complete control. 

Staff time is saved by not having to renegotiate terms for less-than-fee title arrangements.

In the short run, fee-title acquisition will have the greatest impact on the tax base of local 

municipalities of any alternative preservation tools. The impact from reduced tax revenues to local 

government in offset by revenue sharing payments from the Service. In the long-term, Service 

acquisition of interest in lands may be beneficial to the tax base of local municipalities because of 

increased desirability of land and increased recreational opportunities.

VI. Coordination

The Service has approved recovery plans for the three federally listed species discussed in this plan. 

These recovery plans were reviewed by cooperating and affected State and Federal agencies. These 

three recovery plans recommend habitat protection, including acquisition as priority recovery tasks 

or actions.

In addition to being federally listed, the Iowa Pleistocene snail is listed as endangered by the State 

of Iowa and the monkshood is listed as threatened by Iowa and Wisconsin. Leedy’s roseroot is listed 

as threatened by Minnesota. Some protection and/or acquisition efforts are being carried out by all 

three states with Wisconsin owning part or all of three sites (harboring less than 500 monkshood 

plants), Iowa owning 14 of approximately 100 monkshood or snail sites within the state, and the 

Illinois Department of Conservation having a nonbinding conservation agreement on its only site. 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) previously had an active acquisition program in Iowa and 

Wisconsin. TNC owns several preserves in Iowa for these species. The Refuge currently has close 

coordination with TNC and that is expected to continue. The Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation has 

also assisted the Refuge with protection of endangered species habitat and expects to continue when 

possible. All four states have expressed support for Refuge land acquisition during CCP 

coordination and expressed support for the original LPP.

Because of the fragile nature of algific slope sites, precise locations will not be publicly disclosed. 

Many landowners have been contacted recently by Refuge staff and were contacted in the past by 

TNC. All landowners with listed species on their land have been told about the species and have been 

informed of the Service’s interest in buying the land. Not all adjacent landowners who own sinkholes 

or buffer areas have been contacted. The majority of landowners contacted are impressed with the 

importance of their sites and understand the need to protect them.
Appendix J: Land Protection Plan

115

VII. Sociocultural Impacts

Restoration, preservation, and management of additional lands by the Service will have little 

negative effect on the current lifestyles of individuals and communities in and around the Refuge. 

Lands acquired will be small, scattered tracts from 10 to 200 acres. Landowners who choose to sell 

their land to the Service will be most affected. Where acquired lands contain home sites, owners who 

relocate will be reimbursed for moving expenses. Renters also receive certain relocation benefits, 

including assistance in finding suitable alternate housing that is affordable. In accordance with the 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Public Law 91-646), 

displaced persons are provided relocation payment assistance for the costs of relocation in addition 

to advisory services. Under certain conditions, some homeowners may be able to reserve a “life 

estate” on their homes, meaning they could remain in their homes for the rest of their lives after 

selling to the Service. This type of reservation does, however, reduce the amount paid for their 

homes. Other landowners who negotiate easements or other less-than-fee transactions may have to 

change certain land management practices to comply with conditions of the easement.

All land transactions will be purely voluntary in keeping with Service policy to purchase lands or 

rights only from willing sellers. The property rights of landowners who choose not to sell their land 

will not be directly affected by purchases around them since they will retain all right of land 

ownership. The Service will always take into account the interests of adjacent landowners when 

managing acquired land.

Lands in which the Service acquires a fee interest will be open to compatible Refuge public uses 

when sufficient buffer around the endangered species locations is present, and when there is 

sufficient public access. Endangered species habitat will always be closed to all public entry. Public 

use of the Refuge probably will not increase markedly over current levels. Tracts will be fenced 

when necessary to exclude neighboring livestock.

VIII. Summary of Proposed Action

The priority of acquisition of parcels will be determined by recovery goals, refuge purposes, goals 

and objectives in the CCP, the species present and the population size, the importance of the location 

in conserving genetic diversity, and proximity to existing Refuge tracts. 

The following is a ranked list of priorities for protecting lands with these threatened and endangered 

species. This list will help assure that the limited resources available to the Service are used 

efficiently and effectively.

High Priority Land:

# Lands adjacent to existing Refuge tracts that would add needed buffer, protect sinkholes or 

provide better access for management.

# Iowa Pleistocene snail sites with large populations or outlying populations (i.e. Illinois) that 

may be important for genetic reasons.

# Any of the three Leedy’s roseroot populations in Minnesota.

# Monkshood sites with large populations.

# Sites with more than one threatened and endangered species and species of concern.

# Sites with an immediate threat.

Medium Priority Land:

# Iowa Pleistocene snail sites with small populations

# Northern monkshood sites with small populations

# Sites that only contain species of concern, but large populations
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

116

Low Priority Land

# Northern monkshood sites with fewer than 100 plants

# Iowa Pleistocene snail sites where snails have not been located in the last 10 years.

# Sites that only contain species of concern.

# Sites that have been significantly disturbed or degraded.

Currently, Refuge staff talk to landowners at least on an annual basis and sometimes more 

frequently to ensure that sites are being protected. Refuge staff also inquire about landowners’ 

interest in selling land. Future acquisition would be dependent on the availability of funds.

References

Frest, T.J. 1982. Project SE-1-4 Iowa Pleistocene snail final report. University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 

162pp.

Frest, T.J. 1983. Final report northern driftless area survey. University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. 17pp. 

Frest, T.J. 1985. Final report Iowa Pleistocene snail survey. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

37pp.

Frest, T.J. 1986. Final report Iowa Pleistocene snail survey. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

26pp.

Frest, T.J. 1987. Final report Iowa Pleistocene snail project. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

39pp.

Frest, T. J. 1991. Summary status reports on eight species of candidate land snails from the driftless 

area (paleozoic plateau), upper Midwest. Seattle, WA

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. National recovery plan for northern monkshood (Aconitum 

noveboracense). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN. 81pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. National recovery plan for Iowa Pleistocene snail (Discus 

macclintocki (Baker)). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN. 23pp + app. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. National driftless area land protection plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN. 20pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Sedum integrifolium spp. Leedyi (Leedy’s roseroot) Recovery 

Plan. Ft. Snelling, MN. 31pp.

 
Appendix J: Land Protection Plan

117

Figure 4: Driftless Area NWR LPP Map Locator
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

118

Figure 5: Area A, Driftless Area NWR Land Protection Plan
Appendix J: Land Protection Plan

119

Figure 6: Area B, Driftless Area NWR Land Protection Plan
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

120

Figure 7: Area C, Driftless Area NWR Land Protection Plan
Appendix J: Land Protection Plan

121

Figure 8: Area D, Driftless Area NWR Land Protection Plan
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

122

Figure 9: Area E, Driftless Area NWR Land Protection Plan
Appendix J: Land Protection Plan

123

Table 1: Driftless Area NWR Boundary Expansion Tracts (All tracts are currently in private 

ownership and possible acquisition would be easement or fee title.) 

Tract/Site 

Number

Site/Tract County, State Tract Acreage (Site 

Est. Acres)

Priority Species of Concern

1 Tract Allamakee, IA 61.5 High Monkshood, Glacial 

Relict Snail

2 Tract Allamakee, IA 98.4 High Monkshood, Glacial 

Relict Snail 

3 Tract Allamakee, IA 121.5 High Monkshood, Golden 

Saxifrage

4 Tract Allamakee, IA 146.0 High Monkshood

5 Tract Allamakee, IA 81.3 High Monkshood

6 Tract Allamakee, IA 99.5 Medium Monkshood

7 Tract Allamakee, IA 43.7 Medium Monkshood

115 Site Allamakee, IA 25 Medium

116 Site Allamakee, IA 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

117 Site Allamakee, IA 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

118 Site Allamakee, IA 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

119 Site Allamakee, IA 10 Low Glacial Relict Snail

120 Site Allamakee, IA 15 Low Glacial Relict Snail

121 Site Allamakee, IA 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

122 Site Allamakee, IA 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

123 Site Allamakee, IA 25 Low Glacial Relict Snail

124 Site Allamakee, IA 25 Low Glacial Relict Snail

198 Site Allamakee, IA 20 Low Golden Saxifrage

8 Tract Clayton, IA 21.6 High Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail

9 Tract Clayton, IA 13.1 High Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail, Glacial Relict 

Snail

22 Tract Clayton, IA 52.6 High Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail, Glacial Relict 

Snail

23 Tract Clayton, IA 6.8 High Monkshood, Iowa 

Pleistocene Snail, 

Glacial Relict Snail, 

Golden Saxifrage

24 Tract Clayton, IA 57.2 High Monkshood

25 Tract Clayton, IA 14.9 High Monkshood
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

124

26 Tract Clayton, IA 3.3 High Monkshood, Glacial 

Relict Snail

27 Tract Clayton, IA 5.0 High Monkshood, Glacial 

Relict Snail

28 Tract Clayton, IA 89.8 High Monkshood

29 Tract Clayton, IA 38.3 High Monkshood, Golden 

Saxifrage

30 Tract Clayton, IA 60.2 High Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail, Glacial Relict 

Snail

31 Tract Clayton, IA 42.6 High Monkshood, Glacial 

Relict Snail, Golden 

Saxifrage

32 Tract Clayton, IA 1.1 High Monkshood, Glacial 

Relict Snail, Golden 

Saxifrage

33 Tract Clayton, IA 4.8 High Monkshood, Iowa 

Pleistocene Snail

34 Tract Clayton, IA 22.5 High Monkshood

35 Tract Clayton, IA 14.4 High Monkshood

36 Tract Clayton, IA 59.5 High Monkshood

37 Tract Clayton, IA 47.0 High Monkshood

38 Tract Clayton, IA 31.4 High Monkshood

39 Tract Clayton, IA 15.9 High Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail

40 Tract Clayton, IA 39.7 High Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail

41 Tract Clayton, IA 8.0 High Monkshood

42 Tract Clayton, IA 5.8 Medium Monkshood

43 Tract Clayton, IA 16.5 Medium Monkshood

44 Tract Clayton, IA 31.5 Medium Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail

45 Tract Clayton, IA 3.5 Medium Monkshood

46 Tract Clayton, IA 366.9 Medium Monkshood, Iowa 

Pleistocene Snail, 

Glacial Relict Snail, 

Golden Saxifrage

Table 1: Driftless Area NWR Boundary Expansion Tracts (All tracts are currently in private 

ownership and possible acquisition would be easement or fee title.) (Continued)

Tract/Site 

Number

Site/Tract County, State Tract Acreage (Site 

Est. Acres)

Priority Species of Concern
Appendix J: Land Protection Plan

125

47 Tract Clayton, IA 28.7 Medium Monkshood, Iowa 

Pleistocene Snail, 

Glacial Relict Snail, 

Golden Saxifrage

48 Tract Clayton, IA 1.3 Medium Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail

49 Tract Clayton, IA 1.5 Medium Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail

50 Tract Clayton, IA 19.9 Medium Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail, Glacial Relict 

Snail

51 Tract Clayton, IA 12.4 Medium Monkshood

52 Tract Clayton, IA 28.3 Medium Monkshood, Glacial 

Relict Snail

53 Tract Clayton, IA 7.8 Medium Monkshood

54 Tract Clayton, IA 56.3 Medium Monkshood

55 Tract Clayton, IA 26.7 Medium Monkshood

56 Tract Clayton, IA 25.4 Medium Monkshood, Golden 

Saxifrage

57 Tract Clayton, IA 11.0 Medium Monkshood

58 Tract Clayton, IA 36.5 Medium Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail

59 Tract Clayton, IA 7.1 Medium Monkshood

60 Tract Clayton, IA 10.5 Medium Monkshood

125 Site Clayton, IA 20 Medium Glacial Relict Snail

126 Site Clayton, IA 30 Medium Glacial Relict Snail

61 Tract Clayton, IA 13.1 Low Monkshood

62 Tract Clayton, IA 63.9 Low Monkshood, Iowa 

Pleistocene Snail, 

Golden Saxifrage

63 Tract Clayton, IA 25.7 Low Monkshood, Iowa 

Pleistocene Snail, 

Glacial Relict Snail, 

Golden Saxifrage

64 Tract Clayton, IA 6.5 Low Monkshood, Golden 

Saxifrage

65 Tract Clayton, IA 6.9 Low Monkshood, Glacial 

Relict Snail, Golden 

Saxifrage

Table 1: Driftless Area NWR Boundary Expansion Tracts (All tracts are currently in private 

ownership and possible acquisition would be easement or fee title.) (Continued)

Tract/Site 

Number

Site/Tract County, State Tract Acreage (Site 

Est. Acres)

Priority Species of Concern
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

126

66 Tract Clayton, IA 14.2 Low Monkshood

127 Site Clayton, IA 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

128 Site Clayton, IA 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

129 Site Clayton, IA 30 Low Glacial Relict Snail

130 Site Clayton, IA 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

131 Site Clayton, IA 15 Low Glacial Relict Snail

132 Site Clayton, IA 15 Low Glacial Relict Snail

67 Tract Clinton, IA 11.6 High Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail

68 Tract Delaware, IA 30.5 High Monkshood

69 Tract Delaware, IA 14.0 Low Monkshood, Iowa 

Pleistocene Snail, 

Glacial Relict Snail, 

Golden Saxifrage

70 Tract Delaware, IA 14.2 Low Monkshood, Golden 

Saxifrage

133 Site Delaware, IA 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

71 Tract Dubuque, IA 24.0 High Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail, Glacial Relict 

Snail, Golden 

Saxifrage

72 Tract Dubuque, IA 46.2 High Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail

73 Tract Dubuque, IA 37.5 High Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail

74 Tract Dubuque, IA 39.6 High Monkshood, Iowa 

Pleistocene Snail, 

75 Tract Dubuque, IA 34.3 High Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail, Glacial Relict 

Snail, Golden 

Saxifrage

76 Tract Dubuque, IA 37.1 Medium Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail, Glacial Relict 

Snail, Golden 

Saxifrage

77 Tract Dubuque, IA 15.4 Medium Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail

78 Tract Dubuque, IA 13.7 Medium Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail, Glacial Relict 

Snail

Table 1: Driftless Area NWR Boundary Expansion Tracts (All tracts are currently in private 

ownership and possible acquisition would be easement or fee title.) (Continued)

Tract/Site 

Number

Site/Tract County, State Tract Acreage (Site 

Est. Acres)

Priority Species of Concern
Appendix J: Land Protection Plan

127

79 Tract Dubuque, IA 35.5 Medium Monkshood, Iowa 

Pleistocene Snail

80 Tract Dubuque, IA 9.9 Medium Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail

199 Site Dubuque, IA 50 Low Golden Saxifrage

200 Site Dubuque, IA 30 Low Glacial Relict Snail

81 Tract Fayette, IA 15.2 High Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail, Glacial Relict 

Snail, Golden 

Saxifrage

82 Tract Fayette, IA 121.1 High Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail, Glacial Relict 

Snail, Golden 

Saxifrage

83 Tract Fayette, IA 17.7 High Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail, Golden 

Saxifrage

84 Tract Fayette, IA 26.8 Medium Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail, Golden 

Saxifrage

134 Site Fayette, IA 40 Low Glacial Relict Snail, 

Golden Saxifrage

103 Tract Fillmore, MN 88.7 High Leedy Roseroot, 

Glacial Relict Snail

104 Tract Fillmore, MN 114.8 High Leedy Roseroot, 

Glacial Relict Snail

173 Site Fillmore, MN 25 Low Golden Saxifrage

174 Site Fillmore, MN 15 Low Glacial Relict Snail

175 Site Fillmore, MN 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

176 Site Fillmore, MN 10 Low Golden Saxifrage

177 Site Fillmore, MN 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

178 Site Fillmore, MN 25 Low Glacial Relict Snail

179 Site Fillmore, MN 25 Low Glacial Relict Snail

180 Site Fillmore, MN 15 Low Golden Saxifrage

181 Site Fillmore, MN 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

182 Site Fillmore, MN 20 Low Golden Saxifrage

183 Site Fillmore, MN 15 Low Glacial Relict Snail

Table 1: Driftless Area NWR Boundary Expansion Tracts (All tracts are currently in private 

ownership and possible acquisition would be easement or fee title.) (Continued)

Tract/Site 

Number

Site/Tract County, State Tract Acreage (Site 

Est. Acres)

Priority Species of Concern
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

128

184 Site Fillmore, MN 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

185 Site Fillmore, MN 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

186 Site Fillmore, MN 25 Low Glacial Relict Snail

187 Site Fillmore, MN 15 Low Glacial Relict Snail

188 Site Fillmore, MN 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

189 Site Fillmore, MN 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

190 Site Fillmore, MN 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

191 Site Fillmore, MN 15 Low Glacial Relict Snail

192 Site Fillmore, MN 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

106 Tract Grant, WI 27.4 High Monkshood, Glacial 

Relict Snail

107 Tract Grant, WI 157.4 High Monkshood, Glacial 

Relict Snail

108 Tract Grant, WI 22.2 High Monkshood, Glacial 

Relict Snail

135 Site Howard, IA 50 Low Golden Saxifrage

85 Tract Jackson, IA 19.8 High Monkshood

86 Tract Jackson, IA 16.2 High Monkshood

87 Tract Jackson, IA 94.0 High Monkshood

88 Tract Jackson, IA 10.6 High Monkshood

89 Tract Jackson, IA 15.1 High Monkshood

90 Tract Jackson, IA 18.2 Medium Monkshood, Golden 

Saxifrage

91 Tract Jackson, IA 50.3 Medium Monkshood

92 Tract Jackson, IA 31.2 Medium Monkshood

93 Tract Jackson, IA 12.4 Medium Monkshood 

94 Tract Jackson, IA 35.4 Medium Monkshood

95 Tract Jackson, IA 19.2 Medium Monkshood

96 Tract Jackson, IA 34.7 Low Monkshood

97 Tract Jackson, IA 31.0 Low Monkshood, Iowa 

Pleistocene Snail, 

Glacial Relict Snail, 

Golden Saxifrage

98 Tract Jackson, IA 15.5 Low Monkshood

Table 1: Driftless Area NWR Boundary Expansion Tracts (All tracts are currently in private 

ownership and possible acquisition would be easement or fee title.) (Continued)

Tract/Site 

Number

Site/Tract County, State Tract Acreage (Site 

Est. Acres)

Priority Species of Concern
Appendix J: Land Protection Plan

129

99 Tract Jackson, IA 8.2 Low Monkshood

100 Tract Jackson, IA 13.5 Low Monkshood

102 Tract Jo Daviess, IL 13.8 High Iowa Pleistocene 

Snail

101 Tract Jones, IA 58.5 High Monkshood

136 Site Jones, IA 10 Low Glacial Relict Snail

137 Site Jones, IA 10 Low Glacial Relict Snail

109 Tract Monroe, WI 13.7 Low Monkshood

105 Tract Olmsted, MN 52.1 High Leedy Roseroot, 

Glacial Relict Snail

193 Site Olmsted, MN 30 Low Glacial Relict Snail

194 Site Olmsted, MN 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

195 Site Olmsted, MN 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

110 Tract Sauk, WI 52.2 High Monkshood

114 Tract Vernon, WI 133.4 High Monkshood

196 Site Wabasha, MN 15 Low Glacial Relict Snail

138 Site Winneshiek, IA 30 Medium Glacial Relict Snail

139 Site Winneshiek, IA 25 Medium Glacial Relict Snail

140 Site Winneshiek, IA 40 Medium Glacial Relict Snail, 

Golden Saxifrage

141 Site Winneshiek, IA 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

142 Site Winneshiek, IA 25 Low Glacial Relict Snail

143 Site Winneshiek, IA 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

144 Site Winneshiek, IA 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

145 Site Winneshiek, IA 10 Low Glacial Relict Snail

146 Site Winneshiek, IA 30 Low Glacial Relict Snail

147 Site Winneshiek, IA 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

148 Site Winneshiek, IA 35 Low Glacial Relict Snail

149 Site Winneshiek, IA 10 Low Glacial Relict Snail

150 Site Winneshiek, IA 25 Low Glacial Relict Snail

151 Site Winneshiek, IA 25 Low Glacial Relict Snail

152 Site Winneshiek, IA 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

Table 1: Driftless Area NWR Boundary Expansion Tracts (All tracts are currently in private 

ownership and possible acquisition would be easement or fee title.) (Continued)

Tract/Site 

Number

Site/Tract County, State Tract Acreage (Site 

Est. Acres)

Priority Species of Concern
Driftless Area NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

130

153 Site Winneshiek, IA 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

154 Site Winneshiek, IA 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

155 Site Winneshiek, IA 25 Low Glacial Relict Snail

156 Site Winneshiek, IA 25 Low Glacial Relict Snail

157 Site Winneshiek, IA 25 Low Golden Saxifrage

158 Site Winneshiek, IA 35 Low Glacial Relict Snail

159 Site Winneshiek, IA 25 Low Glacial Relict Snail, 

Golden Saxifrage

160 Site Winneshiek, IA 25 Low Golden Saxifrage

161 Site Winneshiek, IA 20 Low Golden Saxifrage

162 Site Winneshiek, IA 25 Low Golden Saxifrage

163 Site Winneshiek, IA 25 Low Glacial Relict Snail

164 Site Winneshiek, IA 25 Low Glacial Relict Snail

165 Site Winneshiek, IA 25 Low Glacial Relict Snail

166 Site Winneshiek, IA 25 Low Glacial Relict Snail

167 Site Winneshiek, IA 35 Low Glacial Relict Snail

168 Site Winneshiek, IA 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

169 Site Winneshiek, IA 20 Low Glacial Relict Snail

170 Site Winneshiek, IA 25 Low Glacial Relict Snail

171 Site Winneshiek, IA 30 Low Glacial Relict Snail

172 Site Winneshiek, IA 15 Low Glacial Relict Snail

197 Site Winona, MN 10 Low Glacial Relict Snail

Table 1: Driftless Area NWR Boundary Expansion Tracts (All tracts are currently in private 

ownership and possible acquisition would be easement or fee title.) (Continued)

Tract/Site 

Number

Site/Tract County, State Tract Acreage (Site 

Est. Acres)

Priority Species of Concern