Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences · 4.2.1.3.1 Reduction in Lake and River Levels Water levels, supply, quality, and water-based transportation and recreation are all climate-sensi-tive

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge Final EIS/CCP124


4.1 IntroductionThis chapter evaluates the three alternatives on

the basis of environmental consequences (effects orimpacts) to the environment described in Chapter 3.This evaluation is conducted in three parts. First,there is a discussion of the effects common to allalternatives. Second, the effects of each alternativeare analyzed for each of more than 39 physical, bio-logical, and socioeconomic parameters or concerns.A table at the end of the chapter (Table 10 onpage 151) helps compare and contrast these effects.Lastly, the cumulative impacts of the alternativesare discussed.

As described in Chapter 2, three alternatives arebeing considered. Alternative A, No Action, wouldmaintain the current level of effort on fish and wild-life and habitat management. Public use programsand regulations would remain virtually unchanged.Alternative B, Wildlife and Habitat Focus, wouldincrease the level of effort on fish, wildlife, and habi-tat management. Some public use opportunitieswould remain the same and others reduced in favorof wildlife and habitat protection. Alternative C,Integrated Public Use, Wildlife and Habitat Focus,would increase the level of effort on fish, wildlife,and habitat management. It would take a more pro-active approach to public use management to ensurea diversity of opportunities for a broad spectrum ofusers, both for wildlife-dependent uses and tradi-tional and appropriate non-wildlife uses. AlternativeC is the preferred alternative.

4.2 Effects Common to All Alternatives

4.2.1 Climate Change ImpactsThe U.S. Department of the Interior issued an

order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies,under its direction, that have land managementresponsibilities to consider potential climate changeimpacts as part of long range planning endeavors.

The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) within theearth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradualrise in surface temperature commonly referred toas global warming. In relation to comprehensiveconservation planning for national wildlife refuges,carbon sequestration constitutes the primary cli-mate-related impact that refuges can affect in asmall way. The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Car-bon Sequestration Research and Development”defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and

Wood Duck. USFWS



secure storage of carbon that would otherwise beemitted to or remain in the atmosphere.”

Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbonsequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts –grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, and desert –are effective both in preventing carbon emission andacting as a biological “scrubber” of atmosphericCO2. The Department of Energy report’s conclu-sions noted that ecosystem protection is importantto carbon sequestration and may reduce or preventloss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial bio-sphere.

Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is theheart of any long-range plan for national wildliferefuges. The actions proposed in this CCP wouldconserve or restore land and habitat, and wouldthus retain existing carbon sequestration on theRefuge. This in turn contributes positively to effortsto mitigate human-induced global climate change.

One Service activity in particular – prescribedburning – releases CO2 directly to the atmospherefrom the biomass consumed during combustion.However, there is actually no net loss of carbon,since new vegetation quickly germinates andsprouts to replace the burned-up biomass andsequesters or assimilates an approximately equalamount of carbon as was lost to the air (Boutton etal. 2006). Overall, there should be little or no netchange in the amount of carbon sequestered atTrempealeau National Wildlife Refuge from any ofthe proposed management alternatives.

Several impacts of climate change have beenidentified that may need to be considered andaddressed in the future:

# Habitat available for cold water fish such as trout and salmon in lakes and streams could be reduced.

# Forests may change, with some species shifting their range northward or dying out, and other trees moving in to take their place.

# Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breeding habitat due to stronger and more frequent droughts.

# Changes in the timing of migration and nesting could put some birds out of sync with the life cycles of their prey species.

# Animal and insect Species historically found farther south may colonize new areas to the north as winter climatic conditions moderate

The managers and resource specialists on theRefuge need to be aware of the possibility of changedue to global warming. When feasible, documentinglong-term vegetation, species, and hydrologicchanges should become a part of research and moni-toring programs on the Refuge. Adjustments in ref-uge management direction may be necessary overthe course of time to adapt to a changing climate.

The following paragraphs are excerpts from the2000 report, Climate Change Impacts on the UnitedStates: The Potential Consequences of Climate Vari-ability and Change, produced by the NationalAssessment Synthesis Team, an advisory committeechartered under the Federal Advisory CommitteeAct to help the US Global Change Research Pro-gram fulfill its mandate under the Global ChangeResearch Act of 1990. These excerpts are from thesection of the report focused upon the eight-stateMidwest region.

4.2.1.1. Observed Climate TrendsOver the 20th century, the northern portion of the

Midwest, including the upper Great Lakes, haswarmed by almost 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degreesCelsius), while the southern portion, along the OhioRiver valley, has cooled by about 1 degree Fahren-heit (0.5 degree Celsius). Annual precipitation hasincreased, with many of the changes quite substan-tial, including as much as 10 to 20 percent increasesover the 20th century. Much of the precipitation hasresulted from an increased rise in the number ofdays with heavy and very heavy precipitationevents. There have been moderate to very largeincreases in the number of days with excessive mois-ture in the eastern portion of the basin.

4.2.1.2. Scenarios of Future ClimateDuring the 21st century, models project that tem-

peratures will increase throughout the Midwest,and at a greater rate than has been observed in the20th century. Even over the northern portion of theregion, where warming has been the largest, anaccelerated warming trend is projected for the 21stcentury, with temperatures increasing by 5 to 10degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 6 degrees Celsius). Theaverage minimum temperature is likely to increaseas much as 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit (0.5 to 1degree Celsius) more than the maximum tempera-ture. Precipitation is likely to continue its upwardtrend, at a slightly accelerated rate; 10 to 30 percentincreases are projected across much of the region.Despite the increases in precipitation, increases intemperature and other meteorological factors are



likely to lead to a substantial increase in evapora-tion, causing a soil moisture deficit, reduction in lakeand river levels, and more drought-like conditions inmuch of the region. In addition, increases in the pro-portion of precipitation coming from heavy andextreme precipitation are very likely.

4.2.1.3. Key Issues in the Midwest4.2.1.3.1 Reduction in Lake and River Levels

Water levels, supply, quality, and water-basedtransportation and recreation are all climate-sensi-tive issues affecting the region. Despite the pro-jected increase in prec ip itat ion, increasedevaporation due to higher summer air temperaturesis likely to lead to reduced levels in the Great Lakes.Of 12 models used to assess this question, 11 sug-gest significant decreases in lake levels while onesuggests a small increase. The total range of the 11models' projections is less than a one-foot increaseto more than a five-foot decrease. A five-foot (1.5-meter) reduction would lead to a 20 to 40 percentreduction in outflow to the St. Lawrence Seaway.Lower lake levels cause reduced hydropower gener-ation downstream, with reductions of up to 15 per-cent by 2050. An increase in demand for wateracross the region at the same time as net flowsdecrease is of particular concern. There is a possibil-ity of increased national and international tensionrelated to increased pressure for water diversionsfrom the Lakes as demands for water increase. Forsmaller lakes and rivers, reduced flows are likely tocause water quality issues to become more acute. In

addition, the projected increase in very heavy pre-cipitation events will likely lead to increased flashflooding and worsen agricultural and other non-point source pollution as more frequent heavy rainswash pollutants into rivers and lakes. Lower waterlevels are likely to make water-based transportationmore difficult with increases in the costs of naviga-tion of 5 to 40 percent. Some of this increase willlikely be offset as reduced ice cover extends the nav-igation season. Shoreline damage due to high lakelevels is likely to decrease 40 to 80 percent due toreduced water level

Adaptations: A reduction in lake and river levelswould require adaptations such as re-engineering ofship docks and locks for transportation and recre-ation. If flows decrease while demand increases,international commissions focusing on Great Lakeswater issues are likely to become even more impor-tant in the future. Improved forecasts and warningsof extreme precipitation events could help reducesome related impacts.

4.2.1.3.2 Agricultural ShiftsAgriculture is of vital importance to this region,

the nation, and the world. It has exhibited a capacityto adapt to moderate differences in growing seasonclimate, and it is likely that agriculture would beable to continue to adapt. With an increase in thelength of the growing season, double cropping, thepractice of planting a second crop after the first isharvested, is likely to become more prevalent. TheCO2 fertilization effect is likely to enhance plantgrowth and contribute to generally higher yields.The largest increases are projected to occur in thenorthern areas of the region, where crop yields arecurrently temperature limited. However, yields arenot likely to increase in all parts of the region. Forexample, in the southern portions of Indiana andIllinois, corn yields are likely to decline, with 10-20percent decreases projected in some locations. Con-sumers are likely to pay lower prices due to gener-ally increased yields, while most producers arelikely to suffer reduced profits due to decliningprices. Increased use of pesticides and herbicidesare very likely to be required and to present newchallenges.

Adaptations: Plant breeding programs can useskilled climate predictions to aid in breeding newvarieties for the new growing conditions. Farmerscan then choose varieties that are better attuned tothe expected climate. It is likely that plant breederswill need to use all the tools of plant breeding,including genetic engineering, in adapting to climate

Bird’s foot trefoil. USFWS



change. Changing planting and harvest dates andplanting densities, and using integrated pest man-agement, conservation tillage, and new farm tech-nologies are additional options. There is also thepotential for shifting or expanding the area wherecertain crops are grown if climate conditionsbecome more favorable. Weather conditions duringthe growing season are the primary factor in year-to-year differences in corn and soybean yields.Droughts and floods result in large yield reductions;severe droughts, like the drought of 1988, causeyield reductions of over 30 percent. Reliable sea-sonal forecasts are likely to help farmers adjusttheir practices from year to year to respond to suchevents.

4.2.1.3.3 Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems

The Upper Midwest has a unique combination ofsoil and climate that allows for abundant coniferoustree growth. Higher temperatures and increasedevaporation will likely reduce boreal forest acreage,and make current forestlands more susceptible topests and diseases. It is likely that the southerntransition zone of the boreal forest will be suscepti-ble to expansion of temperate forests, which in turnwill have to compete with other land use pressures.However, warmer weather (coupled with beneficialeffects of increased CO2), are likely to lead to anincrease in tree growth rates on marginal forest-lands that are currently temperature-limited. Mostclimate models indicate that higher air tempera-tures will cause greater evaporation and hencereduced soil moisture, a situation conducive to for-est fires. As the 21st century progresses, there willbe an increased likelihood of greater environmentalstress on both deciduous and coniferous trees, mak-ing them susceptible to disease and pest infestation,likely resulting in increased tree mortality.

As water temperatures in lakes increase, majorchanges in freshwater ecosystems will very likelyoccur, such as a shift from cold water fish species,such as trout, to warmer water species, such as bassand catfish. Warmer water is also likely to create anenvironment more susceptible to invasions by non-native species. Runoff of excess nutrients (such asnitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer) into lakesand rivers is likely to increase due to the increase inheavy precipitation events. This, coupled withwarmer lake temperatures, is likely to stimulate thegrowth of algae, depleting the water of oxygen tothe detriment of other living things. Declining lakelevels are likely to cause large impacts to the cur-

rent distribution of wetlands. There is some chancethat some wetlands could gradually migrate, but inareas where their migration is limited by the topog-raphy, they would disappear. Changes in bird popu-lations and other native wildlife have already beenlinked to increasing temperatures and morechanges are likely in the future. Wildlife populationsare particularly susceptible to climate extremes dueto the effects of drought on their food sources.

4.2.2 Air QualityPrescribed burning has short-term localized neg-

ative impacts to air quality that would be similar forall alternatives as similar numbers of acres areburned annually. The impacts are mitigated by smallburn unit size (150 acres is the largest unit) and dis-tance from population centers. No smoke manage-ment issues exist at present as long as smokemanagement parameters outlined in the Fire Man-agement Plan (USFWS in preparation in 2007) aremet.

4.2.3 Emergency Response to Contaminant Spills

Under all alternatives the capabilities of the staffto effectively respond to contaminant spills or otheremergencies that may jeopardize Refuge resourceswould be improved. Habitats would be better pro-tected because staff would have the training andability to respond more quickly and with the bestavailable equipment and expertise. With specifictraining, the amount of habitat impacted and theseverity of the impact could be reduced by quick andeffective response.

4.2.4 Management of Wildlife DiseasesOptions for mitigating the deleterious effects of

wildlife disease outbreaks to either people or ani-mals are often limited. However, under all alterna-tives the ability of the Refuge staff to respond wouldbe improved. Locations and types of expertise andequipment would be identified and staff would befamiliar with proper safety, sampling and contain-ment procedures. Communication channels betweenresponding agencies would be in place and avenuesfor keeping the public informed would be improved.



4.2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species

All alternatives considered in the EIS/CCP haveobjectives to improve habitat conditions for nativefish and wildlife including species listed as threat-ened or endangered under the Endangered SpeciesAct. The required Endangered Species Act consul-tation has been completed for nearly all habitatactivities proposed on the Refuge during the next 15years. Other projects or activities in the alternativesof the Final EIS/CCP during the next 15 years (newboat ramps, parking facilities, buildings or otherstructures), are not likely to adversely affect listedspecies. This opinion is based on construction ofsimilar projects in the past; to date, none of theseactivities have adversely affected federally listedspecies.

One candidate species recently occurred on or inthe vicinity of the Refuge. The eastern Massasaugarattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus)occurred recently (1970s) within the Refuge, andpotential habitat still exists. Alternatives B and Cinclude objectives with both targeted and non-tar-geted benefits for eastern Massasauga. First, theobjectives include restoring sedge meadow, bottom-land forest, and reducing the pervasiveness of exoticspecies throughout the Refuge. All of these actionscould have long-term benefits for eastern Massas-auga by providing or enhancing potential habitat.Second, the Refuge would investigate developing aplan to reintroduce eastern Massasauga. Althoughthe plan is in the conceptual phase, the commitmentwould be to:

# implement Massasauga-compatible management,

# restore or enhance habitat to support a viable population, and

# provide long-term protection for such habitat. Although Massasauga-compatible management

would be conducted, unavoidable impacts may occur.These impacts should be rare and minimal in extent,however, as the Refuge is committed to using thebest management practices developed specificallyfor eastern Massasauga.

For these reasons and given that the goals andobjectives in applicable portions of the EIS/CCPdirectly and indirectly benefit the continued sur-vival of eastern Massasauga, the implementation ofthe CCP which emerges is not likely to appreciablyreduce the survival and recovery of these species.

On the contrary, the expectation is for implementa-tion of a Final CCP to perpetuate viability of thesespecies within the Refuge.

Section 4.4.1 on page 133 contains additionalinformation, by alternative, on the potential impactsto the recently delisted Bald Eagle.

4.2.6 Furbearer TrappingUnder all alternatives, the currently approved

furbearer trapping program would continueunchanged until a new furbearer trapping plan iscompleted by October 2009. A description of the cur-r e n t p r og r a m c a n b e f ou n d i n C h a pt e r 3 ,Section 3.5.7 on page 106. Impacts from the currenttrapping program are summarized in the currentcompatibility determination available on the Ref-uge’s planning website or at the Refuge office. Untilthe new furbearer trapping plan is completed,future biological and economic impacts areunknown. A separate environmental assessment willbe done in conjunction with preparation of the newplan and all impacts explored. Public involvementwill be part of new plan preparation.

4.2.7 Adjacent LandownersLandowners adjacent to the Refuge may benefit

economically from owning property next to the Ref-uge. A recent report (Boyle et al. 2002) shows thatland and property values are typically higher forproperties next to a national wildlife refuge, whenholding other factors constant. For example, a four-bedroom, two bath house on a quarter-acre lotincreases in value as the distance from the refugedecreases. For the four refuges included in thereport, property values increased from $351 to$7,469 per mile as the distance of each property tothe refuge decreased. The report states on page 19:

“The significant premium people pay to purchaseproperties near refuges clearly indicates that[refuges] provide desirable environmental ameni-ties and permanent open space to local resi-dents.”

As property value increases, taxes would also beexpected to increase. While this may result inincreased revenue for the county, it also increasesthe tax burden for adjacent landowners. However,based on several townships included in the report,the annual tax increase of properties adjacent to ref-uges is fairly small, with annual tax increases aver-aging between $88 and $112 per home.



Since the alternatives would not radically changecurrent land and water management direction orpreclude any existing public use, it is anticipatedthat none of the alternatives would have a signifi-cant effect on property values in general or on thedesirability of owning or buying property adjacentto the Refuge.

4.2.8 Land UseNo significant changes to land use and manage-

ment would be expected to occur under any of thealternatives. The remaining 340 acres within theexisting approved acquisition boundary for the Ref-uge would be purchased as funds and willing sellersbecame available. Of the 340 acres, about 20 arepresently cropland that would be taken out of pro-duction. The rest of the proposed acquisition land isprimarily wetland or bottomland forest and wouldremain so. Stream bank and wetland restorations onprivate lands would increase under Alternatives Band C, but no land would be taken out of production.

4.2.9 Management of Easements and Right-of-Ways

Under all alternatives impacts to Refuge habitatsfrom management activities in easements and right-of-ways would be reduced. Better communicationand coordination would help all parties completeneeded work with less disturbance to habitats andwildlife.

4.2.10 Revenue SharingThese payments are made annually in Wisconsin

to compensate local townships and municipalities forloss of tax revenue on federal refuge lands withintheir jurisdiction. The amount paid for revenuesharing is derived from a formula based on three-quarters of 1 percent of the assessed value of theland or 25 percent of the sale of refuge products,whichever is greater. This formula determines theauthorized payment amounts. However, in recentyears, Congress has appropriated funds represent-ing varying amounts less than 100 percent.

With eventual acquisition of the remaining 340acres within the approved Refuge boundary, reve-nue sharing payments to Trempealeau Townshipwould increase by a modest amount. Assuming all340 acres were acquired next year and their averageassessed value was $1,500 per acre, the maximumadditional revenue sharing payment would be $3,825(340 x $1500 x .0075).

4.2.11 Environmental JusticeExecutive order 12898 “Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Popula-tions and Low-Income Populations” was signed byPresident Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focusfederal attention on the environmental and humanhealth conditions of minority and low-income popu-lations with the goal of achieving environmental pro-tection for all communities. The Order directedfederal agencies to develop environmental justicestrategies to aid in identifying and addressing dis-proportionately high and adverse human health orenvironmental effects of their programs, policies,and activities on minority and low-income popula-tions. The Order is also intended to promote nondis-crimination in federal programs substantiallyaffecting human health and the environment, and toprovide minority and low-income community’saccess to public information and participation inmatters relating to human health or the environ-ment.

Overall, none of the alternatives are expected todisproportionately place an adverse environmentaleconomic, social, or health effect on minority or low-income persons.

Mourning Dove. USFWS



4.2.12 Cultural and Historical Preservation

Activities outlined in each alternative have thepotential to impact cultural resources, either bydirect disturbance during construction of habitatprojects and facilities related to public use or admin-istration and operations, or indirectly by exposingartifacts during management actions such as waterdrawdown or prescribed burning. Although thepresence of cultural resources including historicproperties cannot stop a federal undertaking, theundertakings are subject to Section 106 of theNational Historic Preservation Act, and at times,other laws.

Thus, the Refuge will, during early planning ofactions, provide the Regional Historic PreservationOfficer a description and location of all projects,activities, routine maintenance and operations thataffect ground and structures, details on requests forallowable uses, and the range of alternatives beingconsidered. The regional officer will analyze theseundertakings for their potential to affect historicproperties and enter into consultation with the StateHistoric Preservation Officer and other parties asappropriate. The Refuge will notify the public andlocal government officials to identify concerns aboutimpacts by the undertakings. This notification willbe at least equal to, but preferably with, the publicnotification accomplished for NEPA compliance andcompatibility determinations.

4.3 Effects of Alternatives on Physical Parameters/Concerns

4.3.1 Ecosystem

4.3.1.1. Alternative A – No ActionUnder this alternative there would be no overall

change in the quality or functioning of ecologicalprocesses within the ecosystem.

4.3.1.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusThe addition of a private lands biologist would

allow more restoration projects within the headwa-ter tributaries of the Mississippi River. Sedimentsand nutrients entering the River system would bereduced by a small amount. Overall, the ecosystemwould benefit a small amount by reduced sedimentloads in a few small tributaries of the MississippiRiver.

4.3.1.3. Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat, and Public Use Focus

The addition of a private lands biologist wouldallow more restoration projects within the headwa-ter tributaries of the Mississippi River. Sedimentsand nutrients entering the River system would bereduced by a small amount. Public use staff wouldprovide more opportunities for the public to learnabout the functions of ecosystems and the impor-tance of ecosystem management. Overall, more res-toration projects and more public awareness ofecosystem issues would begin to improve the overallsystem.

4.3.2 Water Quality

4.3.2.1. Alternative A – No ActionSediments and agricultural contaminants would

continue to flow into the Refuge from the Trempea-leau River and its tributaries. Rough fish would beabundant, creating turbid water and limiting thegrowth of aquatic plants. The large, open poolswould continue to be impacted by wind and wavesthat suspend bottom sediments. Little water qualitymonitoring would occur, leading to a lack of informa-tion on which to base management decisions. Over-all, Refuge waters would continue to be turbid withpoor clarity and little light penetration, especially inthe large pools.

4.3.2.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusMore work restoring upstream tributaries on pri-

vate lands would reduce sediments in the Trempea-leau River and improve water quality on the Refuge.Routine drawdowns and commercial fishing wouldreduce rough fish populations and improve waterclarity. The pools would be broken into smaller unitsby dikes and islands, alleviating some of the impactsof wind and waves. Proposed wetland managementactions would improve growth of aquatic plants,helping to stabilize bottom sediments and filteringsuspended solids and some contaminants. Morewater quality monitoring would be conducted anddata could be used to improve management deci-sions. Overall, Refuge waters would have less sus-pended solids, better clarity and improved waterquality.


Same as Alternative B, but public use staff wouldinclude programs on water quality issues in inter-pretive and educational materials. A better under-



standing by individuals of how their activities mayimpact water quality would lay the ground work forlong-term improvements to water systems.

4.3.3 Sedimentation

4.3.3.1. Alternative A – No ActionErosion of lands in northern Trempealeau and

Buffalo Counties would continue to contribute sedi-ment to the tributaries that feed into the Trempea-leau and eventually the Mississippi River. A fewprojects each year through Partners for Wildlifewould restore short stretches of degraded streams,but the overall reduction in sediment flow would beminor.

4.3.3.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusThe Partners for Wildlife Program would be

more fully utilized to complete stream restorationprojects that would reduce sediments eroding fromupstream agricultural lands. This alternative wouldhave the greatest impact at reducing sedimentsflowing into the Trempealeau River and eventuallythe Refuge.


Same as Alternative B except more opportunitiesfor the public to learn about erosion and sedimenta-tion would help citizens understand their role inreducing downstream impacts to water quality.

4.3.4 Geomorphology

4.3.4.1. Alternative A – No ActionOverall geomorphology would continue to be

driven by flood events, off-Refuge land use prac-tices, and Refuge water management operations.Overall there would be little change to geomorphol-ogy from this alternative.

4.3.4.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusUnder this alternative there would be moderate,

local changes in floodplain geomorphology asprojects involving island and dike construction andwater management facilities are completed.


Same as Alternative B.

4.3.5 Hydrology

4.3.5.1. Alternative A – No ActionUnder this alternative the hydrology of the river

systems and the Refuge would continue to functionas they currently do. Management practices wouldremain unchanged and overall there would be noimpact to hydrologic processes.

4.3.5.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusThe additional staffing and funding for water-

shed-scale technical assistance on private lands inthis alternative could lead to a gradual moderationin peak tributary flows during spring runoff andstorm events. Improved infrastructure would allowbetter water management in wetland units, andreductions in sediment loads in the TrempealeauRiver may change its flooding patterns.


Same as Alternative B except that more opportu-nities would be available for the public to learnabout and understand the importance of floodplainsto large river systems.

Trempealeau NWR. USFWS



4.3.6 Use of Prescribed Fire

4.3.6.1. Alternative A - No ActionAs noted in Chapter 2, a draft comprehensive

Fire Management Plan for the Refuge was awaitingapproval in 2007 and provides detailed guidance forthe suppression or use of fire. The plan outlineswildfire response and prescribed fire objectives,strategies, responsibilities, equipment and staffing,burn units, implementation, monitoring, and evalua-tion. The complete Fire Management Plan and BurnUnit Maps (USFWS, 2001) are available at the Ref-uge Office, or on-line at:

www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/Trempealeau.

Physical Fire Effects: Due to the relatively smallsize of the burn units on the Refuge and anticipatedintensity and frequency of the prescribed fires, theeffects on soil would be beneficial by hastening therecycling of nutrients and increasing soil fertility.There would also be no impacts to water quality dueto location and slope of the burn units. Air qualitywould only be affected negatively in the immediatevicinity of the prescribed burn, and only for a lim-ited time during the burn. This temporary impact toair quality would be mitigated by small burn unitsize, direction of winds, and distance of units frompopulation centers. All burns would be well withinair quality parameters. In the event of special airquality alerts by state or local agencies during aplanned burn, burning will be deferred until condi-tions improve. There is potential for archaeologicalartifacts to be present, but these are generallybelow the surface and would not be impacted sincefire would move relatively quickly through the area

and not generate high soil temperatures. Some arti-facts could be exposed temporarily by the removalof vegetation, and detection and removal by the pub-lic could increase. However, laws and regulationsthat should minimize such disturbance protect allartifacts on the Refuge. The maintenance of fire-breaks around certain burn units will create visualimpacts for an indefinite period of time, and a localreduction of optimum habitat. However, the fire-breaks are minor in terms of area compared to habi-tat in the burn unit, and a necessary trade-off toprovide overall habitat and wildlife benefits and tominimize fire escape.

Biological Fire Effects: None of the federallylisted threatened or endangered species found onthe Refuge are known to inhabit or frequent theburn units that would be treated with fire, so therewould be no effect. Burn units are also not in thevicinity of active Bald Eagle nests, so prescribedburns would pose no disturbance. Burning removesplant cover for 1-2 weeks and this would decreasethe amount of habitat available for food and coverfor a variety of grassland wildlife species. However,seasonal and long-term plant vigor and health wouldbe enhanced by prescribed burns, which in turnwould make the areas more productive for wildlife.In addition, since many of the burn units containnative tallgrass prairie, a fire-dependent plant com-munity, it is expected that periodic burning will helpensure the continued existence of this rare ecosys-tem.

Socioeconomic Fire Effects: The use of fire oftenevokes an emotional response in local residents whohave different experiences, fears, and values con-cerning wildland burning. This social impact can bemitigated to some degree by proactive information,education, and advance notification of a plannedburn through media contacts and one-on-one visitswith burn unit neighbors. Smoke from prescribedfires is also a concern since it can create a visibilityhazard on nearby roads. In addition, smoke canenter private dwellings and businesses dependingon wind direction. The fire management plan out-lines precautions and specific actions to take toavoid and reduce any impacts from smoke, and con-tingency plans to be implemented should wind con-ditions change during a burn. Prescribed burningcan have a benefit to the public by creatingenhanced wildlife observation, photography, andhunting opportunities through the resultingincrease in wildlife populations. Firebreaks put inplace for prescribed burning can also help stop anunplanned wildfire and thus provide a measure of

Prescribed burn at Trempealeau NWR. USFWS



protection to any adjacent private habitat or dwell-ings. In the event that a prescribed fire does jump afirebreak and burn into unplanned areas, there is ahigh probability of rapid control by staff on-the-ground and thus minimal adverse impact. In addi-tion, prescribed burn units on the Refuge averageless than 115 acres, have light fuel loads (.025 to 3tons per acre), and would be burned under low fuelmoisture conditions and specific wind and weatherconditions. These factors would help avoid and mini-mize fire escape.

4.3.6.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusSame as Alternative A except removal of pine

plantings and invasive shrubs would consolidateburn units making them easier to burn. Removal ofblack locust and downed timber would also improveburning capabilities.


Same as Alternative A but removal of invasiveshrubs, black locust, and downed timber wouldimprove burning capabilities.

4.3.7 Flood Protection

4.3.7.1. Alternative A – No ActionThe biological resources and infrastructure of the

Refuge would be in jeopardy without a predeter-mined policy on how to deal with extreme flood lev-els in the Mississippi River. Alternative A wouldcontinue to rely on case-by-case negotiations at thetime of the event to determine how to manage dam-age to dikes and other structures. Refuge habitatscould be damaged if necessity or political pressuresdetermined how to manage floodwaters. Also, thelessons learned in the 2001 flood could be lost asstaff and other partners change. Flood waters couldonce again be turned into the Refuge, destroyingvaluable habitats, but providing little protection torailroad dikes. This alternative would not providesafeguards needed to protect the Refuge from largeflood events.

4.3.7.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusTo the extent possible, habitats and infrastruc-

ture would be protected from loss due to floodevents on the Mississippi River. Policies would benegotiated and known by partners in advance offlooding. Other alternatives would be explored with-out considering turning water into the Refuge pools.Over the long-term, emergent vegetation wouldremain in place around dikes, islands, utility poles

and sensitive shorelines providing more consistentprotection from wave and ice damage.

4.3.7.3. Alternative C – Integrated Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use Focus

Same as Alternative B, but there would be morepublic understanding of the role of floodplains inlarge river systems and the need to preserve themto buffer flood damage.

4.4 Effects of Alternatives on Biological Parameters/Concerns

4.4.1 Threatened and Endangered Species

The Bald Eagle was removed from federal listingin 2007. However, eagles will still be monitored andtaken into consideration when planning manage-ment actions.

4.4.1.1. Alternative A – No ActionImpacts to Bald Eagles from management

actions would not change under this alternative.Forests would continue to be impacted by invasiveshrubs that often prevent regeneration of nativetrees preferred by eagles for nesting. Mature nest-ing trees would be limiting for Bald Eagles. Foodresources would remain adequate, especially withthe abundance of carp in the pools. Disturbance tonests from public use would continue to be evalu-ated on an as need basis, depending on where nestswere located and whether they were active. Overallimpacts to Bald Eagle from alternative A would notchange.

4.4.1.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusBald Eagles would benefit from removal of inva-

sive understory shrubs and regeneration of largenative trees. Restoration of bottomland forestswould provide additional nesting and roosting habi-tat as trees matured. Periodic removal of rough fishmay have short-term impacts, but in general fishare abundant in other Refuge pools and on the adja-cent Mississippi River. Eagle nests would be betterprotected from disturbance by a mandatory 100-footclosure around any active nests. Most nests are inremote, hard to reach places and disturbance is gen-



erally not an issue. Overall this alternative wouldprovide long-term habitat improvements for nestingand roosting Bald Eagles.



4.4.2 Waterfowl

4.4.2.1. Alternative A – No ActionHabitat conditions would continue to slowly

improve for waterfowl, especially if drawdowns arecompleted as scheduled. Aquatic plants and inverte-brates would be abundant in some pools and lackingin others. Nesting habitat would also be adequatefor over-water nesting species unless vegetationwere destroyed by a major flood on the MississippiRiver. Nesting cavities for species like Wood Duckswould continue to decline as forests mature with lit-tle recruitment of new trees. Fall migrants wouldexperience some disturbance from recreationalboating. Canoeing, kayaking or boats with electricmotors would be allowed in all pools during daylighthours. Generally boating use is light, with one ortwo boaters per week on the main pools. Overallimpacts from recreational boating would continue tobe minor.

4.4.2.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusAquatic insects and plant resources would be

enhanced with improved water management capa-bilities afforded by smaller pools and additionalwater control structures. Aquatic habitats would befurther improved with reductions in invasive plantsand animals, and improved water quality. Water-fowl, especially dabbling ducks and Canada Geese,would benefit from additional foraging habitat. Thepools would be closed to recreational boating in thefall so disturbance from boating would be eliminatedduring migration. However, since only one or twoboats per week currently enter the Refuge pools,the benefits of reduced disturbance would be minor.Nest sites for cavity nesting ducks would becomemore abundant with better forest managementpractices. Grassland nesting species would findlarger blocks of dense grass cover and would be lessprone to depredation. Overall, production, foraging,and resting habitat would improve and waterfowluse would increase.


Same as Alternative B except that pools wouldremain open to non-motorized, or electric motor rec-reational boating in the fall. Waterfowl migrating inthe fall would experience some disturbance. Overall,boating use would be light and displacement of birdswould be minor.

4.4.3 Waterbirds

4.4.3.1. Alternative A – No ActionIn general habitat conditions for most waterbirds

would be similar to what currently exists. Draw-downs in pools A and E would enhance foraging andnesting habitats for bitterns, rails, and Black Terns.Other pools would continue to have few aquaticplants or invertebrates and would provide poor for-aging or nesting habitats for most waterbirds. For-aging habitats for fish-eating birds like pelicans,cormorants, herons and egrets would be sufficientbecause of high carp populations. Overall, habitatconditions for most waterbirds would remainunchanged under this alternative.

4.4.3.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusBetter wetland management in all units, espe-

cially drawdowns, would increase abundance anddiversity of aquatic and emergent plants and inver-tebrates. Nesting for over-water nesting terns,grebes, and bitterns and rails would be significantlyenhanced. Foraging and hiding cover would beabundant for these secretive marsh species. Nestingsuccess would also be better safeguarded becausewater levels could be maintained so that nests wouldnot flood. Herons, egrets, pelicans, and other fish-eating birds would see initial decreases in large fishnumbers. Eventually, as overall vigor of the wet-lands increased, smaller, native fish would becomemore abundant and the food base for fish-eatingbirds would improve. Overall, nesting, foraging, andhiding habitat for waterbirds would improve signifi-cantly with this alternative.



4.4.4 Shorebirds

4.4.4.1. Alternative A – No ActionUnder this alternative, shorebirds would find few

shallow water or mudflat habitats during migration.



In general shorebird use would remain low due topoor foraging and lack of resting or staging habi-tats.

4.4.4.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusSmaller pools and more water control structures

would allow more flexibility in timing and frequencyof pool drawdowns. Shallow water and mudflat couldbe created early in the spring or fall to betteraccommodate migrating shorebirds. Aquatic inver-tebrates, a major food resource for shorebirdswould become more abundant as wetland habitatsbecome more productive.



4.4.5 Raptors/Owls

4.4.5.1. Alternative A – No ActionUnder this alternative, raptors or owls would not

be impacted by any changes to management actions.

4.4.5.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusIn general, improved forest and grassland man-

agement would provide more food and nestingresources for raptors and owls. Control of invasiveshrubs would especially benefit species that captureprey from the forest floor. Cavity nesters would ben-efit from long-term management of uneven-agedstands. Removal of pine plantations would reduce

roosting and wintering cover, especially for owls, butappropriate habitat is available in other forest typeson the Refuge. Overall this alternative would benefitproduction and survival of raptors and owls.


Same as Alternative B, although some roostinghabitat would remain in pine plantations that wouldbe thinned versus entirely removed.

4.4.6 Upland Game Birds

4.4.6.1. Alternative A – No ActionUnder this alternative, turkeys, grouse and

pheasants would persist at current low levels. Man-agement actions would not impact upland gamebirds.

4.4.6.2. Alternative B - Wildlife and Habitat FocusRestoration of oak savanna and upland forest

would increase foraging and nesting habitats forturkeys, grouse, and pheasants. Larger, less frag-mented blocks of grassland cover would improvenesting success of grassland nesting species.Increased abundance and survival of mast produc-ing trees would provide a better food base, espe-cially during the winter months. Removal of invasiveshrubs and pine plantings may change habitat con-ditions for some species that roost or find thermalshelter in dense understory vegetation. Eventuallynative understory species would return and providesimilar conditions. In general, this alternative wouldhave positive impacts on reproduction and survivalof upland game species.



4.4.7 Songbirds

4.4.7.1. Alternative A – No ActionIn general, songbirds find rich and abundant

resources on the Refuge for foraging, breeding, andmigrating. Habitat conditions under this alternativewould not change and there would be little overallimpact to songbirds.

4.4.7.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusChanges to habitats proposed in this alternative

would have mixed impacts to songbirds dependingon the types of habitat each species uses. Many

Indigo Bunting. USFWS



songbirds utilize the thick understory of invasiveshrubs to find food, shelter, and nesting habitat.Removal of the shrub understory would have nega-tive impacts for these species until native plantsreturned. In some areas species assemblages mightchange to more forest interior or forest floor forag-ing species. An overall decrease in fragmentation ofhabitats, especially oak savanna and prairie, wouldimprove nesting success for grassland species. For-est interior species would likely experience less“edge-effect” depredation and parasitism as pineplanting and invasive black locust stands wereremoved. The diversity of habitats on the Refugewould continue to provide excellent habitat for adiverse assemblage of songbirds. Overall, this alter-native would benefit native songbirds.


Same as Alternative B, although grassland habi-tats would remain fragmented into smaller blocksand forest edge habitat would not be reduced.Grassland and forest interior nesting species wouldcontinue to experience high depredation or parasit-ism rates associated with edge habitats.

4.4.8 Fish

4.4.8.1. Alternative A – No ActionRefuge involvement in fishery management

would remain limited under this alternative sincethere would be little fishery planning, no clear Ref-uge-specific fishery objectives, and no increase inmonitoring. Opportunities for integrating fisherymanagement with Refuge management wouldremain limited and opportunities would be lost forimproving fish habitat. Without more private landand watershed work in the tributaries, silt, nitratesand other contaminants would continue to enter theriver system at current rates and impact fish.Future increases in exotic fish and plants may provedetrimental to some native fish. Overall, this alter-native would not improve conditions for fish on theRefuge.

4.4.8.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusRefuge involvement in fishery management

would increase under this alternative. A FisheryManagement Plan, Refuge-specific fishery objec-tives, and an increase in monitoring, opportunitiesfor integrating fishery and wildlife managementwith Refuge administration and operations wouldhelp increase fish populations. Coordination and

sharing of expertise with the Service’s fisheriesresource office would increase to the benefit of fishinitiatives and management. Private lands work inthe tributaries would help reduce silt, nitrates, andother contaminants improving fish health and pro-ductivity. In general, implementation of habitatprojects would improve water quality and habitatfor most fish. Increased attention to invasive aquaticplants and animals could lead to improved fish car-rying capacity on the Refuge. Removal of rough fishwould enhance habitats for native fish. Overall, thisalternative would have a positive influence on fishpopulations on the Refuge



4.4.9 Freshwater Mussels

4.4.9.1. Alternative A – No ActionUnder this alternative there would be no overall

change in habitat conditions for freshwater mussels.Freshwater mussels would continue to be limited tosoft substrate adapted species such as floaters,papershells and heelsplitters. Poor water qualityand sedimentation would limit reproduction andgrowth rate of mussels. Under Alternative A fresh-water mussels would occur in limited abundance andspecies diversity.

4.4.9.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusImproved water quality and reduced sedimenta-

tion would improve conditions for filter feeding mus-sels. However, species diversity would be limited tosof t substrate adapted species because theimpounded pools generally do not support enoughflow or have sand-gravel substrates. Better moni-toring may provide further insight into the needs ofmussels on the Refuge. Overall, improved waterquality would increase productivity of freshwatermussels, but in general species diversity wouldremain limited.



4.4.10 Reptiles and Amphibians

4.4.10.1. Alternative A – No ActionHigh nutrient loads and siltation would continue

to stress aquatic reptiles and amphibians. A lack of



knowledge about the distribution and life history ofturtles, frogs, and snakes on the Refuge would con-tinue to hamper sound decisions regarding impactsof human activities. Limited drawdowns mayimprove emergent and submerged habitats impor-tant for amphibians and turtles. However, improve-ments would likely be short-lived without increasedattention to invasive aquatic plants which can chokeimportant foraging and travel areas for turtles andfrogs. Under this alternative there would be nooverall change in habitat conditions for reptiles oramphibians.

4.4.10.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusWater quality would improve as more work is

done with private landowners along the tributariesto curb contaminants, nutrients, and sedimententering the river. Increased use of drawdownswould improve the health and vigor of emergent andsubmerged habitats to the benefit of loafing and for-aging turtles and frogs. Invasive plants would bemonitored and controlled, improving both aquaticand terrestrial habitats that reptiles and amphibi-ans use for foraging and reproducing. Forestresources would be monitored and actively managedto the benefit of frogs, toads and turtles. Forestpractices could include efforts to improve sedgemeadow openings for Massasauga rattlesnake habi-tat. Improved monitoring and research would facili-tate more informed decisions regarding land useand impacts to turtles and frogs. Public educationprograms would be limited and support for conser-vation of more obscure species like frogs and turtlesmay suffer. Overall, reptile and amphibian popula-tions and productivity would likely increase underthis alternative.


Same as Alternative B, except that a focus onpublic education would increase awareness of theconservation needs of reptiles and amphibians.

4.4.11 Control of Invasive Species

4.4.11.1. Alternative A – No ActionInvasive plants and animals would continue to

spread on the Refuge and have negative effects. Thecurrent modest level of removal would not outpacethe spread of invasives into new areas. Aquatic habi-tats would be severely degraded without rough fishcontrol. Monitoring of new species and outbreakswould not be sufficient to detect new invasions.

4.4.11.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusAggressive removal and control of new outbreaks

would slow the spread of invasive plants. Some habi-tats would begin to see a return of native species.Close monitoring and mapping would detect theabundance and distribution of existing invasives anddetect new outbreaks. Quick removal of new out-breaks would decrease costs associated with controlof large, ubiquitous stands of invasives. Better man-agement of rough fish would improve wetland habi-tats. Programs on private lands would begin to helparea landowners stop the spread of invasive plant ontheir properties.


Same as Alternative B, except public awarenessof the impacts of invasive species and the public’srole in their spread may reduce new invasions andpromote support and funding for control efforts.

4.4.12 Invertebrates

4.4.12.1. Alternative A – No ActionWater quality and plant abundance and diversity

are critical habitat components for most insects.Aquatic invertebrate populations would remainunchanged or slightly decline as wetland habitatsremain turbid with limited aquatic plant diversityand abundance. Upland insects would continue tothrive in the grasslands where diverse prairiegrasses and forbs occur. Periodic prescribed firewould continue to benefit terrestrial invertebratesin grasslands. Overall, this alternative would notchange invertebrate populations significantly.

4.4.12.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusImprovements in water quality and wetland man-

agement, especially drawdowns, would improve con-ditions for reproduction of aquatic insects. As the

Trempealeau NWR point. USFWS



abundance and diversity of aquatic plants improved,so would feeding and breeding habitats for insects.Crayfish, a keystone species that provides resourcesfor many other species, would benefit fromimproved management of bottomland forests. Ter-restrial insects would benefit from active grasslandmanagement, reduction of invasive plants and regu-lar prescribed burns. Overall this alternative wouldimprove the diversity and abundance of inverte-brates using Refuge habitats.



4.4.13 Mammals

4.4.13.1. Alternative A – No ActionThis alternative would have little effect on cur-

rent management of mammals. Trapping to protectdikes and structures would continue as in the past.Deer harvest would also continue as in the past, as atool for controlling over-browsing of vegetation. Nochanges in impacts to mammals would occur fromthis alternative.

4.4.13.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusHarvest management of mammals would be more

fine tuned based on population monitoring and har-vest returns. Populations of harvested mammalswould be maintained at more stable, healthy levelsthat limit damage to habitats and structures. Ingeneral improved habitats would benefit all lifestages for mammals using the Refuge.



4.4.14 Wetlands

4.4.14.1. Alternative A – No ActionAquatic plants and wetland habitats would

improve slightly under current management sce-narios in some pools. Other pools would continue tobe too turbid for the germination of aquatic plantsbecause of foraging rough fish, and disturbance ofbottom sediments by wind and waves. Aquaticplants, dikes and other infrastructure would be injeopardy during major flood events if water wasturned into the Refuge from the Mississippi River.Few private lands projects would not appreciablyalter the amount of sediment entering downstream

river systems. Overall, this alternative would haveslightly positive benefits for those pools with cur-rent water management capabilities. Other poolswould continue to decline in productivity.

4.4.14.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusWetland plants and wildlife would benefit from

improved infrastructure and better water manage-ment capabilities. A broader range of wetland habi-tat types would be provided at appropriate times tobenefit the lifecycles of migrating and breedingbirds. Water quality would improve and aquaticplants would flourish with removal of rough fish,reduced upstream sediment loads and less wind andwave action. More emphasis would be placed onrestoring tributaries upstream of the Refuge, fur-ther reducing sediment loads. A Habitat Manage-ment Plan and better monitoring would improve themanager ’s abilities to make timely and moreinformed management decisions. Flood protectionpolicies would better protect wetlands from cata-strophic loss during major flood events. This alter-native would improve water quality, plant andanimal diversity and abundance, and overall produc-tivity and vigor of wetland systems.


Same as Alternative B except that the publicwould appreciate and understand water quality andwetland habitats through enhanced opportunitiesfor interpretation and education.

4.4.15 Forests

4.4.15.1. Alternative A – No ActionBlack Locust, silver maple, and ash will continue

to dominate the bottomland forests because of poorregeneration of mast producing trees, and the shad-ing of pioneer species like cottonwood and willow.Any opening in the forest canopy would likely resultin the invasion of reed canary grass. Forest habitatswould improve slightly under this alternative withpurchase of an additional 340 acres, the modestremoval of invasive shrubs and restoration of bot-tomland forest at River Bottoms Road. In general,however, forest coverage, density, diversity, andstructure would continue to gradually decline underthis alternative.

4.4.15.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusForest resources would be actively managed with

the goal of maintaining a healthy forest that con-tains sufficient diversity of tree species, sizes, and



ages to provide a wide array of habitat structureand food (mast) resources. Nonnative pine plantingswould be removed and restored to native prairie oroak savanna, creating larger, less fragmented habi-tats for an array of prairie species. Invasive under-story shrubs would be aggressively controlled,improving recruitment of native hardwoods. Over-all, this alternative would result in an increase ofnative forest habitats with more diverse assem-blages of native understory plants.


Same as Alternative B except that prairies andoak savanna habitats would continue to be frag-mented by nonnative pine plantings. Overall, grass-land wildlife would benefit less from the fragmentedhabitat, but pine forest species would persist.

4.4.16 Grasslands

4.4.16.1. Alternative A – No ActionManagement of 335 acres of prairie and oak

savanna habitats would not change. Prairie unitswould be burned on a 3-year rotation to limitedencroachment of woody plants and encourage warmseason grasses. A continuous, focused effort wouldbe required to prevent black locust from encroach-ing on the prairies. Funding and staff to controlblack locust would be limited and some areas mayhave to be abandoned. Overall this alternative wouldresult in a gradual decrease in the acres of prairie asthe spread of black locust out-paced the ability ofthe staff to control it.

4.4.16.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusUnder this alternative 60 percent (250 more acres

than Alternative A) more prairie/oak savanna habi-tat would be created by removing pine plantings,non-native trees and invasive shrubs. Additionalstaff and funds would be directed towards blacklocust removal and biological control of leafy spurge.Larger, more contiguous prairie units wouldimprove burning capabilities. Edge habitat thatfavors nest predators and parasites, would bereduced, improving nesting success of both forestand grassland birds. Better monitoring of bothplants and wildlife would improve decision makingand habitat management. Overall, this alternativewould restore and maintain the most acres of grass-lands and have the greatest benefit for birds andother wildlife using grasslands.


About 30 percent more prairie/oak savanna wouldbe restored, 100 acres more than would be restoredunder Alternative A. Some grassland units wouldremain small and fragmented because pine plant-ings would be thinned rather than removed. Speciesfavoring the pine plantings such as owls would con-tinue to inhabit them. Edge habitat and associatedproblems with depredation and parasitism of nest-ing birds would continue unchanged. Better moni-toring of both plants and wildlife would improvedecision making and habitat management. Overall,this alternative would restore and maintain amedium amount of grasslands and have benefits forbirds and other wildlife using grasslands, while pre-serving habitat for pine forest species.

4.5 Effects of Alternatives on Socioeconomic Parameters/Concerns

For the complete economic data that is the sourcefor this section, refer to Erin Henderson’s 2004report entitled “The Economic Impacts of the Alter-natives for the Trempealeau NWR CCP/EIS.” Thereport is available at the Refuge office in Trempea-leau or is on-line at http://midwest.fws.gov/planning/tremp/index.html.

White-tailed deer. USFWS



4.5.1 Hunting

4.5.1.1. Alternative A – No ActionThis alternative would have little effect on water-

fowl hunting opportunities on the Refuge. A mini-mum of 500 acres of land and water would remainavailable to hunters with disabilities for a limitedhunt of approximately 8 days. Restoration of bot-tomland forests in the hunt area would benefit WoodDucks and may provide improved hunting opportu-nities. Since this alternative involves no change inregulations or hunting methods or practices, hunt-ers should find little disruption to their normalexpectations and routines. For some waterfowlhunters, however, this alternative will not alleviatetheir concerns such as the feeling of exclusion inmanaged hunts and intense competition with water-fowl hunters in other areas.

In Alternative A the managed hunt for whitetaildeer would likewise remain unchanged. Hunterswould have an equal opportunity to apply for a lim-ited number of permits based on the need to main-tain deer numbers at a level that sustains vegetationvigor and contributes to state management objec-tives for adjacent lands. Chronic wasting disease,which is present in eastern Wisconsin, would bemonitored closely and deer hunting objectives couldchange if the disease was found near the Refuge orif the State requested special harvest guidelines.

This alternative would continue to have a positiveeconomic impact to local economies as reflected inTable 6. Overall, this alternative would not changethe current quality or opportunity for hunting onthe Refuge.

4.5.1.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusHunting opportunities would be reduced because

waterfowl hunting would be eliminated from theRefuge in favor of providing undisturbed restinghabitat for Pool 6 of the Mississippi River. Hunterswith disabilities would be disproportionatelyaffected because few nearby areas are accessible tothem. Other hunters may perceive the closure as anattempt to limit their use and enjoyment of publiclands. Conversely, non-hunting visitors would haveimproved wildlife viewing opportunities.

The managed hunt for whitetail deer wouldremain unchanged, although better vegetation anddeer population monitoring would enable managersto fine tune harvest levels based on age and sexratios. Hunters would have an equal opportunity toapply for a limited number of permits based on theneed to maintain deer numbers at a level that sus-tains vegetation vigor and contributes to state man-agement objectives for adjacent lands. Chronicwasting disease, which is present in eastern Wiscon-sin, would be monitored closely and deer huntingobjectives could change if the disease was foundnear the Refuge or if the State requested specialharvest guidelines.

Alternative B would have a less positive economicimpact to local economies as reflected in Table 6.Overall, this alternative would reduce huntingopportunities on the Refuge but would enhancewildlife viewing opportunities and improve restinghabitat for migrating waterfowl.

Table 6: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Hunting, Trempealeau NWR

Category Alternative A Change from Alternative A

Alt. B Alt. C (Preferred

Alt.)

Activity Days 542 -160 235

Net Economic Value $24,759 -$7,309 $10,735

Total Expenditures $6,163 -$3,023 $4,291

Economic Output $7,787 -$4,021 $5,719

Employment 0.1 -0.1 0.1

Labor Income $2,159 -$1,075 $1,529

Tax Impact $928 -$462 $657




Under this alternative, waterfowl hunting oppor-tunities would be expanded for hunters with disabil-ities, youth, women and other first-time hunters.About 500 acres would be used to accommodate aspecial series of managed hunts that would begeared towards recruiting new hunters and provid-ing them with a high quality hunting experience.The sport of waterfowl hunting and the revenues itprovides toward preserving and protecting water-fowl habitats would benefit, as new people wereencouraged to participate. In general, the huntingregulations on national wildlife refuges hold partici-pants to a high standard of ethics and behavior. Thespecial managed hunts proposed in this alternativewould strive to instill sportsmanship and provide ahigh quality and rewarding hunt for new hunters.Additionally, small, managed hunts would help tolimit hunting pressure to a level that maintainedbird use of the area and thus quality hunting oppor-tunities.

The managed hunt for whitetail deer wouldremain unchanged, although better vegetation anddeer population monitoring would enable managersto fine tune harvest levels based on age and sexratios. Hunters would have an equal opportunity toapply for a limited number of permits based on theneed to maintain deer numbers at a level that sus-tains vegetation vigor and contributes to state man-agement objectives for adjacent lands. Chronicwasting disease, which is present in eastern Wiscon-sin, would be monitored closely and deer hunting

objectives could change if the disease was foundnear the Refuge or if the State requested specialharvest guidelines.

Alternative C would have the most positive eco-nomic impact to local economies as reflected inTable 6. Overall this alternative would provide morehunting opportunities and have long-term benefitsto the sport and associated conservation initiatives.

4.5.2 Fishing

4.5.2.1. Alternative A – No ActionThis alternative would have little effect on cur-

rent fishing opportunities on the Refuge. Fishingcontributes only slightly to the area economy asreflected in Table 7.

4.5.2.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusFishing opportunities would decrease in the fall

when pools would be closed to minimize disturbanceto migrating waterfowl. Some wetland managementtechniques may decrease the prevalence of roughfish and improve habitats for sport fish, therebyimproving fishing success. The economic outputfrom fishing under this alternative would be similarto Alternative A.


Fishing opportunities would be improved andenhanced with upgrading of existing facilities andthe installation of new fishing platforms. Some wet-land management techniques may decrease theprevalence of rough fish and improve habitats forsport fish, thereby improving fishing success. The

Table 7: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Fishing, Trempealeau NWR



Alt.)

Activity Days 336 -10 100

Net Economic Value $5,785 -$172 $1,722

Total Expenditures $2,364 -- $703

Economic Output $3,066 -- $937

Employment 0.0 -- 0.0

Labor Income $845 -- $250

Tax Impact $364 -- $108



economic output from fishing under this alternativewould be slightly more positive than Alternative Aas reflected in Table 7. Overall this alternativewould provide additional fishing opportunities onthe Refuge.

4.5.3 Interpretation

4.5.3.1. Alternative A – No ActionInterpretive and staff led programming would be

continued at the current level. Existing signs andbrochures would be used with few changes or addi-tions. The trend toward increased visitation wouldcontinue as tourism in the area is promoted. How-ever, opportunities for the public to enjoy andunderstand the Refuge would be limited to existingfacilities. Overall, the visitor experience would below quality and the perception of the Refuge as awell kept, professional and valuable institutionwould be diminished.

4.5.3.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusThe impacts discussed in Alternative A would

also apply to this alternative, but with the additionalimpacts of fewer staff led programming as staffwere directed to wildlife and habitat projects.


Interpretive facilities and materials would beupdated and improved. Additional signs, trails andstaff led programming would be developed. Thestaff would be better equipped to accommodateincreased visitation and the visitor would leave witha better understanding of Refuge resources and an

appreciation for the professionalism and value of theRefuge System. Overall this alternative would pro-vide interpretation in line with demand and currentvisitor service standards.

4.5.4 Environmental Education

4.5.4.1. Alternative A – No ActionUnder this alternative, the current trend of

increased requests for environmental education pro-grams would continue. However, limited staff, facili-ties, and funding resources would continue to limitthe number of students and teachers that the Ref-uge could accept. This alternative would not meetthe demand for environmental education as gaugedby past use and inquiries. Overall environmentaleducation programs would continue to be offered atthe current level of accommodation.

4.5.4.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusUnder this alternative, there would be a marked

decline in environmental education opportunities, asthe emphasis of staff and funding would be shiftedto more wildlife-based work. Facilities to accommo-date groups would not be constructed and existingfacilities would not accommodate traditional teach-ing methods. The gap between public demand andRefuge capability would continue to widen and stu-dents and teachers would be turned away. Thisalternative could have long-term consequences interms of public and political support that could neg-atively impact projects and funding for improvingthe quality of fish and wildlife habitat. Overall mini-mal environmental education programs would beconducted as staff and resources would be focusedon habitat management.


Staff and facilities would be increased to providemore environmental education programs. Specificcurriculum based programming would allow staff totrain teachers to deliver programs independently.Facilities would accommodate groups and allow staffto use new technologies to better deliver their mes-sage. Volunteers would be trained as docents andadditional teacher training programs would furtherexpand educational capabilities. The gap betweendemand for programming and Refuge capabilitieswould be decreased, with fewer students turnedaway. Increased facilities and visitation could causesome displacement or disturbance to habitats, butavoiding sensitive or high use areas would minimize

River Education Days at Trempealeau NWR. USFWS



this. This alternative could have long-term conse-quences in terms of public and political support thatcould positively impact projects and funding forimproving the quality of fish and wildfire habitat.Overall, this alternative would significantly improvethe Refuges ability to provide environmental educa-tion.

4.5.5 Wildlife Observation and Photography

4.5.5.1. Alternative A – No ActionOpportunities to view and photograph wildlife

would continue unchanged. New facilities would notbe added, but general improvements in habitatcould encourage more wildlife use and improveviewing opportunities. This alternative would gener-ally not meet the demands for facilities related toobservation and photography (trails, tour routes,blinds, overlooks) as gauged by inquiries, past visi-tation trends, and growing tourism interests. Thisalternative would continue to have positive eco-nomic impacts as shown in Table 8. Overall wildlifeobservation and photography opportunities wouldremain the same.

4.5.5.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusUnder this alternative, opportunities to view and

photograph wildlife would be reduced as areas wereclosed to limit disturbance to migrating waterfowl.New facilities would not be added, but generalimprovements in habitat would encourage morewildlife use and improve viewing opportunities. Thisalternative would generally not meet the demands

for facilities related to observation and photography(trails, tour routes, blinds, overlooks) as gauged byinquiries, past visitation trends, and growing tour-ism interests. Existing facilities would degrademore quickly as staff were directed to higher prior-ity fish and wildlife related projects. This alterna-tive would continue to have positive economicimpacts as shown in Table 8. Overall opportunitiesto view and photograph wildlife would decline.


Opportunities to view and photograph wildlifewould increase under this alternative due to habitatimprovements and an increase in related facilities.Additional staff would be focused on public use pro-grams and facilities that could enhance the qualityand quantity of observation and photography visits.Increased facilities and visitation would cause somedisplacement of habitat and increase disturbance towildlife, although avoiding important habitats andwildlife use areas would minimize this. This alterna-tive could have long-term positive consequences interms of public and political support that could posi-tively impacts projects or funding for improvingquality of fish and wildlife habitat. This alternativeis predicted to have a corresponding increase in pos-itive economic impact as reflected in Table 8. Over-all, opportunities to view an photograph wildlifewould increase.

Table 8: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Observation, Trempealeau NWR



Alt.)

Activity Days 64,857 -1,500 4,520

Net Economic Value $589,064 -$13,624 $41,053

Total Expenditures $179,743 -$5,336 $15,955

Economic Output $239,702 -$7,124 $21,275

Employment 3.7 -0.1 0.3

Labor Income $64,070 -$1,904 $5,687

Tax Impact $27,539 -$818 $2,444



4.5.6 Other Uses

4.5.6.1. Alternative A – No ActionMost other uses such as berry and mushroom

picking, biking, cross-country skiing, and hikingwould continue unchanged.

4.5.6.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusFewer and poorer quality biking opportunities

would occur because certain dikes would be closedseasonally to reduce disturbance to wildlife. Thebike trail would remain as is with no improvementsor extensions. Hiking and skiing trails would not beimproved or extended and other access restrictionsmay reduce opportunities for mushroom and berrypicking. Overall, most other uses would continue,but the ease of access and the quality of the experi-ence would be reduced as staff and resourcesbecame more focused on biological monitoring andhabitat improvements.


Opportunities and quality of biking and otheractivities would improve with additional facilitiesand extension of the bike, skiing, and hiking trails.Opportunities for berry and mushroom pickingwould remain unchanged. Overall, visitors wouldhave more and better opportunities to enjoy theRefuge in ways that are compatible with the needsof wildlife.

4.5.7 Protection of Archeological Resources

4.5.7.1. Alternative A – No ActionArtifacts would continue to be compromised by

soil disturbance, wave action, and illegal collection.The location, extent and identity of artifacts wouldremain unknown. Law enforcement coverage wouldremain inadequate to protect resources. Public clo-sures to protect certain sites would continue indefi-nitely. Overall archeological resources wouldcontinue to be lost, and restrictions to public accessand habitat management activities would impedeattainment of other Refuge goals.

4.5.7.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusSame as Alternative A.


An Archeological Resource Protection Planwould guide management actions and define neededphysical or administrative protection to knownresources. Goals for future survey work would beidentified and funding could be sought to investigatepriority sites. Protection techniques would bedefined for individual sites that would have the leastimpact on habitats, visitor services, or managementactions. Law enforcement coverage would beincreased and the problems of illegal collectionwould be addressed. Public use staff would be avail-able to design and implement programs to help thepublic become more aware of the historical signifi-cance and value of the archeological resources onthe Refuge. Overall, archeological resources wouldbe better identified, protected and valued.

4.5.8 Refuge Access

4.5.8.1. Alternative A – No ActionPublic access to the Refuge would continue to be

limited during spring due to flooding of the mainaccess road. Visitors would be prevented from wit-nessing much of the spring songbird migration, oneof the most opportune wildlife viewing events on theRefuge. Certain sites with archeological significancewould remain closed to protect them from vandal-

Canada Geese on frozen Refuge pools at Trempealeau NWR. USFWS



ism. Overall, Refuge access would be limited duringthe times of the year when some of the best wildlifeviewing occurs.

4.5.8.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusSame as Alternative A, with the additional

restrictions of limited public access on dikes andpools during the fall migration. Fall migrants wouldbe better protected from disturbance, but the publicwould have a more difficult time enjoying viewingopportunities. Public access would be the mostrestricted by this alternative.


Access to the Refuge would be dramaticallyimproved with the construction of a bridge toreplace the section of entrance road that floods eachspring. Visitors would have year-round access tomost portions of the Refuge. Specific closures toprotect archeological sites would be minimized withthe development of an Archeological Resource Pro-tection Plan. Overall, public access would be signifi-cantly improved.

4.5.9 Community Outreach

4.5.9.1. Alternative A – No ActionCommunity awareness, participation, and sup-

port for Refuge events and issues would continue tobe minimal as staff make limited effort to reach outto citizen groups or community leaders.

4.5.9.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusSame as Alternative A, with staff focused on wild-

life monitoring and habitat management rather thancommunity outreach.


Additional public use staff would become involvedin community organizations and events to showcasethe Refuge and the Refuge System. The Refugewould have an identity, and become known andappreciated as an asset to the local area. Citizenswould value the Refuge and realize the benefits oftheir natural resources.

4.5.10 Partnerships

4.5.10.1. Alternative A – No ActionWork on private lands through the Partners for

Wildlife program would continue at the current

level, with a few small projects accomplished eachyear. Some improvements to tributaries in thewatershed above the Refuge would be realized, butthe rate of degradation would far out pace the rateof improvements. Partnerships with other agencies,universities, communities, and private organizationswould continue at the current low level on an as-need basis. The Refuge would not fully realize thebenefits of shared expertise, labor, equipment orfinances.

4.5.10.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusThe addition of a staff position dedicated to resto-

ration work on private land would significantlyincrease partnership building capabilities and facili-tate work to reduce erosion in the upper watershedof the Mississippi River. More work would beaccomplished to reduce invasive plants on privateland by expanding the Refuge’s biological controlprogram. Additional staff would facilitate bettercommunication and coordination with universities,state and local agencies, and other non-profitgroups. More partnership building would improvepublic recognition and support for the Refuge Sys-tem, and for habitat and wildlife management pro-grams.



4.5.11 Friends/Volunteers

4.5.11.1. Alternative A – No ActionNo changes would be made to the current way

the Friends and Volunteer groups are managed. TheRefuge would continue to have a consistent and ded-icated group of volunteers accomplishing a varietyof biological, maintenance and public use tasks. TheFriends of Upper Mississippi River Refuge wouldcontinue to represent Trempealeau NWR, as well astheir own interests.

4.5.11.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusThe volunteer program would be improved and

more attention would be paid to encouraging andrecognizing the significant contributions of the vol-unteers to the Refuge. The volunteer programwould flourish with volunteers sufficiently trainedand supported with the tools they need to effectivelyaccomplish their jobs with a sense of ownership andidentity. Under Alternative B the volunteer pro-gram would emphasize tasks oriented to biologicalmonitoring and habitat.



The Refuge would establish its own “Friends ofTrempealeau Refuge” that would build support forissues specific to Trempealeau NWR. The Refuge’srelationship with the community would be strength-ened.


Same as Alternative B except the volunteers pro-gram would emphasize public use, maintenance,administrative, and biological programs.

4.5.12 Regional EconomicsFor the complete economic data, the basis for this

section, refer to Erin Henderson’s 2004 report enti-tled “The Economic Impacts of the Alternatives forthe Trempealeau NWR CCP/EIS.” The report isavailable at the Refuge office in Trempealeau or ison-line at:

www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/Trempeaulea.html.

4.5.12.1. Alternative A – No ActionMost Refuge funding comes from the federal gov-

ernment and other sources external to the localeconomy. The Refuge’s payroll and other expendi-tures comprise net revenue for the local economyand have a direct effect on the regional economy.Every federally supported job at the Refuge resultsin local expenditures and indirectly supports addi-tional employment in the region. Under the NoAction Alternative, the Refuge’s annual base budgetand staffing are expected to remain comparable torecent funding and staffing levels. In 2006, the Ref-uge base budget supported four full-time employ-ees. Assuming little change in base budget, theRefuge would indirectly support at least 11.6regional jobs and therefore continue to have positiveeffects on the regional economy (Appendix F).

4.5.12.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusSame as Alternative A except that staffing would

increase to 7.5 full-time employees, indirectly sup-porting 13.2 jobs in the area. The Refuge base bud-get would increase over 100 percent to $685,000.00to support the new positions. The positive effect onthe regional economy would be significant, espe-cially in the sectors of environmental management


Same as Alternative A except that the staff wouldincrease to 6.5 full-time employees and indirectly

support 12.8 regional jobs. The positive effect on theregional economy would be significant, especially inthe sectors of environmental management, educa-tion, and tourism.

4.5.13 Refuge Administration and Operations

4.5.13.1. Alternative A – No ActionUnder this alternative, the overall Refuge budget

is expected to increase in accordance with inflationadjustments, but Refuge staffing levels wouldremain the same as current, or four full-timeemployees. With levels of public use and interestcontinuing to rise, meeting the information needs ofthe public will likely fall short of public expectationin terms of personal contact, programs, leaflets, andother media work. Coordination with various agen-cies and partners will continue at current levels,resulting in gaps in Refuge presence on communityand resource issues.

The Refuge office and visitor facility wouldremain the same, but the 70-year-old shop facilitywould be replaced to address safety issues. Visitorfacilities would remain inadequate to meet increas-ing demands of environmental education, especiallyfor group programming.

Annual salary and operations expenditures wouldcontinue to have a positive economic impact, withcurrent economic output estimated at $310,000.00(Henderson, 2004).

Trempealeau NWR volunteer assisting with education program.USFWS



4.5.13.2. Alternative B – Wildlife and Habitat FocusUnder this alternative, the overall annual Refuge

budget would increase substantially, mainly due toincreases in staffing to an eventual 7.5 full-timeequivalents. This increase in staffing would dramati-cally increase biological monitoring, soundness ofdecisions, and direct habitat work. Personal serviceto the public and coordination with other agenciesand partners would increase, especially in terms ofhabitat and biological programs that would be thepriority under this alternative.

The Refuge office and visitor facility wouldremain the same, but the 70-year-old shop facilitywould be replaced to address safety issues. Visitorfacilities would remain inadequate to meet increas-ing demands of environmental education, especiallyfor group programming.

Annual salary and operations expenditures wouldresult in a positive economic impact commensuratewith increases. Staff salary expenditures alonecould increase by 90 percent by the end of the plan-ning period in 2022, resulting in a similar economicincrease.


Under this alternative, the overall annual Refugebudget would increase substantially, mainly due toincreases in staffing to an eventual 6.5 full-timeequivalents. This increase in staffing would dramati-cally increase biological monitoring, soundness ofdecisions, and direct habitat work. Personal serviceto the public and coordination with other agenciesand partners would increase, especially in terms ofhabitat and biological programs and public use andeducation that would be a priority under this alter-native.

The Refuge office would be enlarged to accommo-date new staff and the 70-year-old shop facilitywould be replaced to address safety issues. Visitorfacilities would be improved to meet increasingdemands of environmental education, especially forgroup programming. Construction of new facilitieswould increase public accessibility, information, andprograms, and improve employee productivity andrecruitment.

Annual salary and operations expenditures wouldresult in a positive economic impact commensuratewith increases. Staff salary expenditures alone

could increase by 90 percent by the end of the plan-ning period in 2022, resulting in a similar economicincrease.

4.6 Cumulative Impacts

4.6.1 Cumulative Impacts – Physical Environment

Alternatives B and C, and to a lesser extentAlternative A, call for increased attention to habitatrestoration and/or enhancement projects, floodplainand adjacent land acquisition, and improvement inwater quality in terms of both chemistry andreduced sediment. Collectively and over time, theseactions will improve the ability of the wetland sys-tem to process nutrients and store carbon and alongwith other basin-wide regulations and initiatives,contribute to improvements in hypoxia in the Gulf ofMexico and overall climate change. Physicalchanges through projects will restore tributariesand improve water management capabilities in Ref-uge pools, resulting in a more diverse and dynamicsystem.

Although the rates and amounts of sedimententering the Refuge and eventually the MississippiRiver may be reduced over time, none of the alter-natives will adequately address the movement ofsediments to the mouth of the Mississippi River.Thus, the actions in the alternatives will not cumula-tively improve the continued deficit of sediment onthe Mississippi River delta.

To slightly varying degrees, all alternativesemphasize maintaining the integrity of the Refugeboundary and conserving the scenic beauty. Actionstaken to ensure long-term forest health, acquirebottomland forest, and preserve and enhance rareprairies will serve as a model for land use planningand zoning adjacent to the Refuge. In addition,when actions on the Refuge are combined with theactions of the State, non-profit organizations, andprivate landowners, there can be measurableprogress in stemming the rate or type of develop-ments which detract from the scenic beauty of theUpper Mississippi River Valley.

4.6.2 Cumulative Impacts – Biological Impacts

Although the degree of habitat quantity and qual-ity is different under the alternatives, all should con-



tinue to improve fish and wildlife habitat, and thuspopulations. For migratory birds, the Refuge willlikely grow in importance as other habitats becomescarcer. Reduced habitat for migrating waterfowl inthe Midwest, for example, has made the Upper Mis-sissippi River an important stopover for large por-tions of the continent, Canvasback and TundraSwans. In this regard Alternative B provides thelargest area of undisturbed habitat and may bestmeet the needs of large numbers of migrating birdsthereby having the most positive cumulative impacton continental populations.

Habitat improvements under the alternativesshould also benefit rare and declining species andspecies listed as threatened or endangered. Alongwith conservation actions for these species on otherpublic and private lands, the Refuge actions acrossall alternatives, but especially Alternatives B and C,will have a positive cumulative impact. For somespecies, the Refuge may provide a source for popu-lations expanding onto adjacent lands or, conversely,may provide habitat for expanding populationssearching for new habitats to exploit. An examplewould be the endangered Whooping Crane.Although population restoration efforts werestarted elsewhere, some birds are now using nearbyareas and may in the future breed on the Refuge,thus adding to wild populations and eventual recov-ery.

The area surrounding the Refuge is principallyagricultural lands. Before European settlement(pre-1850s), these lands were prairie and oaksavanna habitat. Now they are gradually beingdeveloped into residential areas. Within 50 years, itis likely that aside from existing goat prairies and afew private lands, the Refuge will have the onlyremaining expanse of prairie in the area. Efforts torestore prairie and oak savanna habitat on the Ref-uge will help to secure this habitat type in the localarea. Alternative B would make the greatest stridesin this effort by restoring 150 acres in 15 years, andAlternative A would have the least impact by restor-ing about 15 acres. In the preferred Alternative C,100 acres would be restored with the intent ofrestoring the remaining 90 acres of non-native for-est within the following 30 years.

In all alternatives, 55 acres of bottomland hard-wood forest would be restored. These habitats are indecline in the Mississippi River backwaters, and thisrestoration would recover a small amount of thatlost habitat.

Although Alternatives B and C provide anincrease in the monitoring and control of invasiveplants and animals, infestations are expected to con-tinue to increase and expand to new areas.

Alternatives B and C also have a strong biologicalmonitoring component, with increases in speciesand habitats surveyed, and research and coordina-tion with others. This increased information wouldnot only aid decision making that benefits fish andwildlife on the Refuge, but add to the body of knowl-edge collected by other agencies which can affectresource decision-making over a broader landscape.

4.6.3 Cumulative Impacts – Socioeconomic Environment

A variety of objectives in Alternatives B and Cwill have varying degrees of impact on recreationaluse of the Refuge. Earlier sections detailed specificimpacts on individual uses such as hunting, fishing,wildlife observation, and photography. Cumula-tively, each alternative has a different economicimpact since it affects the level of public use. Table 9summarizes this cumulative impact by alternative.

Each alternative takes a different approach tomanaging the variety of recreational uses that occuron the Refuge, ranging from status quo (AlternativeA) to an integrated approach (Alternatives C) thatseeks to conserve wildlife and habitat while provid-ing a diversity of recreational opportunities for visi-tors . These var y ing a l ter nat ives wi l l havecumulative impacts given that demand for nearly allrecreation is expected to grow while the amount ofRefuge space and natural resources is relativelyfinite.

In Alternative A, current uses would continuewithout much change. Alternative B might be per-ceived as too restrictive in terms of recreation andtoo liberal in emphasizing wildlife monitoring andhabitat improvement. Alternative C attempts tostrike a reasonable balance to ensure that the Ref-uge remains a destination of choice for both wildlifeand people. If successful, this integrated approachmay prove more sustainable and have positive, long-term natural resource, social, and economic impactsboth on the Refuge and beyond.

Alternatives B and C also involve an approximate250 percent increase in the Refuge’s base operationsand maintenance budget over the next 15 years,plus additional maintenance and construction fund-ing for new facilities. Although budgets are impossi-



ble to predict, this increase could impact operationsfunding at other refuges and wetland managementdistricts in the Region if it came from existing allo-cations. This would result in delaying or forgoinghabitat and facility improvements and other work atthese stations, although the change would be smallat any particular station.

Working relationships with the State of Wiscon-sin, area colleges and universities, private landown-ers and others should improve in ter ms ofresponsiveness to inquiries and speed of jointprojects under Alternatives B and C. This improve-ment would be mainly the result of increased staff-ing in key areas such as biology, public use, and lawenforcement.

Overall coordination and communication with thegeneral public should improve under Alternative Cdue to new staff positions dealing with public useand public information. Since some may opposechanges in one or more of the alternatives, or like-wise support them, the cumulative impact on publicperception of the Refuge and the Fish and WildlifeService could be negative or positive. More empha-sis on public education and information in Alterna-tive C should foster more understanding andappreciation of resource issues and needs, and couldlead to increased political support and fundingwhich could positively affect fish and wildliferesources on the Refuge and the Mississippi Riveras a whole. Increased outreach of these alternativescould also positively impact land use decisions out-side of the Refuge by local governments and privatelandowners, and thus lead to increased fish andwildlife populations over a broader area.

4.7 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

Habitat protection and restoration actions acrossall alternatives often entail short-term negativeimpacts to ensure long-term productivity of the Ref-uge. Construction of islands and dikes entail intensedisturbance to fish, wildlife, and plants, andincreased water turbidity and disruption of publicuses. However, these impacts are site-specific andrelatively short duration, more than offset byincreasing the long-term productivity of the sitesand surrounding plant and animal communities.Given the altered nature of the floodplain within theRefuge due to locks and dams and other develop-ment, it is unlikely that the long-term productivityof the Refuge can be sustained in many areas with-out such short-term uses and impacts.

Many of the cyclic management actions in thealternatives, namely pool drawdowns, prescribedburning, invasive plant and animal control, and for-est management, can have dramatic short-termimpacts. These impacts include the direct mortalityof some plants and animals, displacement of species,and cessation of certain types of public use. How-ever, these short-term impacts are generally offsetby near-term and long-term benefits of these prac-tices, practices that often mimic the natural andthus sustainable processes necessary for long-termhabitat health. Many of these long-term benefitswere described in more detail earlier in this chapterunder the applicable parameters or concerns.

As discussed in Section 4.6.3 (cumulativeimpacts), the short-term disruption in current

Table 9: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Public Use, Trempealeau NWR


Alt. B Alt. C (Preferred Alt.)

Activity Days 65,735 -1,670 +4,855

Net Economic Value $619,607 -$21,105 +$53,509

Total Expenditures $188,269 -$8,429 +20,949

Economic Output $250,555 $-11,243 +$27,931

Employment 3.8 -0.2 +0.4

Labor Income $67,074 -$3,005 +$7,466

Tax Impact $28,831 -$1,291 +$3,209



means, locations, and timing of public uses inherentin Alternatives B and C, should, in the long-term,help sustain the greatest diversity of opportunityfor the greatest number of people. Also, diversity ofopportunity for public use should provide the bestlong-term positive economic impact to local commu-nities. This mirrors the widely accepted premisethat maintaining diversity in natural systems helpsensure the long-term resiliency of these systems.

4.8 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

As noted previously, many of the habitat andfacility construction projects in the alternativeshave a certain level of unavoidable adverse effects,especially during the actual construction. Theseeffects are mitigated to some degree by the use ofpractices and precautions that safeguard waterquality, avoid sensitive or irreplaceable habitats, ortime actions or include features to avoid or minimizeimpacts to fish and wildlife. Adverse effects are gen-erally short-term and more than offset by the long-term gains in habitat quality and resulting fish,wildlife, and plant productivity. Some projects mayhave an adverse impact on cultural resources. The

process for dealing with these impacts on a case-by-case basis is discussed in Section 4.2.12 (cultural andhistorical preservation).

Some existing habitat types on the Refuge will beadversely affected. For example, there will be a lossof open water habitat on portions of the pools withinthe Refuge as new islands are constructed. Also,drawdowns will increase emergent aquatic vegeta-tion such as bulrush and cattail, converting manyareas to marsh habitat versus open water. Foresthabitat is also likely to undergo change in speciescomposition and structure as invasive understoryplants are. Some forested areas may be converted tograssland, while some grassland areas may be con-verted to forest depending on the outcome of moresite-specific planning. All of these unavoidableadverse effects will be relatively local in nature andmore than offset by the long-term diversity and eco-logical health of the broader landscape.

Land acquisition entails an unavoidable impact tolocal units of government due to the loss of tax reve-nue as lands transition from private to public owner-ship. This unavoidable effect, along with mitigationmeasures, is discussed more fully in Section 4.2.10(revenue sharing).

All alternatives, to varying degree, will haveadverse impacts to a certain segment of the publicthat does not desire change to current public useprograms and regulations, or that may have differ-ing views on the course of action to be taken. Somevisitors will see a loss of opportunity in terms oftime and space restraints for certain uses such asboating, fishing, and hunting, or means of userestraints by limiting types of watercraft in certainareas. These impacts to individuals or groups areunavoidable given the diversity and number of pub-lics, inherent conflicts between and within usergroups, continued increase in use numbers, and rel-atively finite nature of land and waters available onthe Refuge for public recreation. Alternative C, thepreferred alternative, represents the most balancedalternative in terms of minimizing and mitigatingthese adverse impacts to citizens and reflects publicinvolvement and input of the planning process.

Brown bat. USFWS



Table 10: Summary of Environmental Consequences, Trempealeau NWR

Parameter Alt. ANo Action(Current

Management)

Alt. BWildlife and Habitat

Focus

Alt. CIntegrated Wildlife and

Public Use (Preferred Alternative)

Physical

Ecosystem 0No change

+Sediment and contaminant inputs reduced in headwaters of Tremp. and Buffalo Rivers.

++ Sediment and contaminant inputs reduced in headwaters of Tremp. and Buffalo Rivers. More opportunities provided for public education on ecosystem issues

Climate Change + Increases in protection and restoration of bottomland forests, grasslands and emergent marsh would increase carbon sequestration.

+ Same as A

+ Same as A

Water Quality –Sediments and contaminants continue to flow into Refuge from headwaters of Tremp. River; rough fish, wind and waves continue to impact clarity and suspension of solids; littlemonitoring;

+ Sediments and contaminants reduced in watershed; rough fish control and construction of dikes and islands improves clarity and suspension of solids; monitoring improved.

++ Sediments and contaminants reduced in watershed; rough fish control and construction of dikes and islands improves clarity and suspension of solids; monitoring improved;more opportunities provided for public education on water quality issues

Air Quality 0 No change

0 No change

0 No change

Sedimentation – Sediments flow would increase from unabated erosion in headwaters of Tremp.and Buffalo Rivers

+ Private lands projects would reduce sediment loads in watershed

++ Private lands projects would reduce sediment loads in watershed; more opportunities provided for public education on sediment issues



Geomorphology 0 Overall geomorphology would continue to be driven by flood events and off-Refuge land use practices

+ Moderate, local changes in floodplain geomorphology with construction of dikes and islands; watershed restoration could reduce peak river flows and sediment deposition.

+ Same as B

Hydrology 0 No change

+ Watershed restoration could reduce peak river flows; improved infrastructure would allow better water management in wetland units; reductions in sediment loads in Tremp. River may change flooding patterns on adjacent lands.

++ Watershed restoration could reduce peak river flows; improved infrastructure would allow better water management in wetland units; reductions in sediment loads in Tremp. River may change flooding patterns on adjacent lands; opportunities to inform public about floodplain issues would be improved.

Use of Prescribed Fire 0 No change

++ Removal of pine plantations and invasive shrubs would reduce fragmentation of burn units; removal of black locust and downed timber would improve burn capabilities

+ Removal of invasive shrubs from understory and removal of downed timber would improve burn capabilities.

Flood Protection – Flood events would have the potential to severely damage habitat and infrastructure

+ To the extent possible, habitats and infrastructure would be protected from loss due to flood events; policies would be clear and known by partners in advance of flooding.

++To the extent possible, habitats and infrastructure would be protected from loss due to flood events; policies would be clear and known by partners in advance of flooding;opportunities to educate the public about the importance and functions of floodplains would be improved.

Table 10: Summary of Environmental Consequences, Trempealeau NWR (Continued)


Management)


Focus





Emergency Response to Contaminant Spills

+ Spill response training and capabilities would be improved.

+ Same as A

+ Same as A

Biological

Threatened and Endangered Species

0No change

+Bottomland forest would be improved for Bald Eagle nesting; nests protected from human disturbance; management and monitoring plans would consider state listed species; reintroduction of Massassagua would be considered

+ Same as B

Waterfowl + Periodic drawdowns would improve forage base and nesting habitat for waterfowl.

++ Periodic drawdowns would improve forage base and nesting habitat for waterfowl; wetland management would increase amount and quality of habitat; public access restrictions would reduce disturbance.

+ Same as B

Waterbirds 0 No change

+ Waterbirds would benefit from improved wetland health, increased food base, and more secure nesting habitats; water management would help reduce flooding of nest sites.

+ Same as B

Shorebirds 0 No change

+ Periodic drawdowns would provide additional foraging habitats for migrating shorebirds; improved wetland health would increase food base.

+ Same as B



Management)


Focus





Raptors/Owls 0 No change

+ In general improved forest and grassland habitats would provide more food and nesting resources for raptors and owls.Removal of pine planting would decrease roosting habitat for owls.

+ Same as B

Upland Game Birds 0 No change

+ Restoration of oak savanna and upland forests would improve food base and nesting opportunities for these species.

+ Same as B

Songbirds 0 No change

++Removal of invasive shrub understory, restoration of bottomland forest, removal of pine plantings, and an overall decrease in fragmentation and edge habitats would improvehabitats for songbirds

+ Forest habitats would be improved for songbirds by reducing invasive shrubs, restoring prairies and bottomland forests.Prairie units would be more fragmented and smaller than in alternative B and grassland songbird and edge species would be impacted.

Fish 0 No change

+ Removal of rough fish, improved water quality, and wetland health would improve habitats for fish.

+ Same as B

Freshwater Mussels 0 No change

+ Improved water quality and rough fish management would improve mussel habitats.

+ Same a B



Management)


Focus





Reptiles and Amphibians 0 No change

+ Reducing water levels periodically would improve wetland habitats for reptiles and amphibians; Restoration of bottomland forests would provide better habitats.

+ Same as B

Control of Invasive Species – Modest level of removal would not outpace spread into new areas; aquatic habitats would be severely degraded without rough fish control; monitoring of new species and outbreaks would not be sufficient to prevent invasion.

+ More aggressive removal and control would outpace new invasions and begin to restore some habitats;better management of rough fish would improve wetland habitat quality; programs on private lands would raise awareness and slow spread of invasives; better monitoring would slow spread of new species and new infestations.

++ Same as B with improved public understanding of the vectors that promote invasion and the public’s role in preventing the spread of invasives.

Invertebrates 0 No change

+ Wetland management, especially drawdowns would improve conditions for reproduction of aquatic insects. Upland insects would benefit from restored prairies with a more abundant forb component.

+ Same as B



Management)


Focus





Mammals 0 No change

+ Better management of harvest would help maintain healthy, stable populations at levels that would limit damage to habitats. In general improved habitats would benefit all life stages for mammals.

+ Same as B

Wetlands + Aquatic plants and wetland habitats would improve slightly under current drawdowns and other management actions; wetland habitats would not be protected from severe flood events; invasive plants would continue to impact wetlands.

++ Improved infrastructure, drawdowns, and better monitoring and aggressive control of invasive plants would improve wetland habitats.Water quality would improve with removal of rough fish, reduced sediment loads, less wind and wave action and more consistent monitoring.

++ Same as B and, the public would appreciate and understand water quality and wetland habitats through better interpretation and education.

Forests + Forest habitats would improve slightly with modest removal of invasive shrubs and restoration of bottomland forests

++ Aggressive removal of invasive shrubs would restore the most acres of forests; bottomland restoration would continue, but with more emphasis on uneven age trees and a mix of native species;all pineplantings would be returned to prairie or oak savanna

++ Same as B although pine plantings would continue to fragment prairie units.

Grasslands – Prairie lost to encroaching black locust as staff and funding are insufficient to treat existing acres.

++ Maximum acres of oak savanna and prairie would be restored; grassland units would be larger and less fragmented with removal of pines.

+ Fewer acres restored and grassland units would be smaller and more fragmented by pine plantings than in alternative B; public would be more aware of the uniqueness and benefits of prairie habitats.



Management)


Focus





Management of Wildlife Diseases + Staff ability to respond to outbreaks in an efficient and safe way would be improved; coordination with the public and other partners would be improved

+ Same as A

+Same as A

Socio-economic

Hunting 0 No change

– Fewer waterfowl hunting opportunities; no change in deer hunting.

+ Increased opportunities for waterfowl hunting; no change in deer hunting.

Fishing 0 No change

– Fishing opportunities would decline in the fall because of pool closures to protect migratingwaterfowl

+ Improve existing and provide new facilities; increase interpretive and educational programs on fishing.

Furbearer Trapping 0 No change

0 No change

0 No change

Interpretation 0 No change

– Fewer staff led programs; existing facilities maintained, but no new ones added

+ More opportunities for the public to enjoy and understand wildlife and habitats through increased staff and interpretive facilities and materials.

Environmental Education 0 No change

– Minimal environmental education programs would be conducted; staff and resources would be focused on habitat management

+More educational opportunities would be provided through and expanded EE program; an outdoor learning shelter would be constructed and teacher and volunteer led curriculums developed;



Management)


Focus





Wildlife Observation and Photography

0 No change

– Access would be limited on dikes and pools during peak migration resulting in fewer opportunities to view or photograph wildlife.

+ New hiking trail, cross-country ski trails, and other new facilities would provide additional and improved viewing and photography programs

Other Uses 0 No change

– Fewer and poorer quality biking opportunities; trail and facilities not improved or extended; access restrictions during migration may reduce opportunities for berry and mushroom harvest.

+ Opportunities and quality of biking experience would be improved with additional facilities and extension of the bike trial; opportunities for harvest of berries and mushrooms would not change.

Protection of Archeological Resources

– Artifacts would continue to be compromised by soil disturbance, wave action and illegal collection

– Same as A

+A protection plan would guide management actions, define needed physical protection, and address illegal collecting; the public would be more aware of the historical significance and value of archeological resources

Refuge Access – Public access would continue to be limited by flooding of the entrance road;

– – Public access would continue to be limited by flooding of the entrance road and restrictions to dikes and pools during migration.

+ Public would have year-round access with the construction of a new entrance road bridge.

Land Use 0 No change

0 No change

0 No change



Management)


Focus





Adjacent Landowners + Staff would improve communication and problem solving with neighboring land owners

+ Same as A

++ Staff would improve communication and problem solving with neighboring land owners; landowners would be invited to at least one annual event on the Refuge geared towards their interests.

Community Outreach 0 No change

0 No change

+Staff would become more involved in community organizations and events, showcasing the Refuge and the Refuge System and helping citizens realize the benefits of preservingnatural resources

Partnerships 0 No change

+ Additional staff would work on developing partnerships with private land owners; better communication and coordination with universities, State and local agencies, and other special interest groups would improve public support and opportunities for habitat management

+ Same as B

Friends/Volunteers 0 No change

+ Volunteer program would be improved; new friends group would focus on supporting Tremp. NWR needs.

+ Same as B



Management)


Focus





Management of Easements/Right of Ways

+ Better communication and coordination would help all parties complete needed work with less habitat impacts.

+ Same as A

+ Same as A

Regional Economics 0 No change

+ More staff and habitat management projects would contribute to economic growth of the area; eco-tourism would increase contributing to local and regional economies.

++ Increased staff, construction and habitat management projects would improve regional economics; large increases in public use and eco-tourism would boost local and regional economies.

Revenue Sharing + Small increase if additional properties are added to Refuge

+ Small increase if additional properties are added to Refuge

+ Small increase if additional properties are added to Refuge

Refuge Administration and Operations

0 No change

+ Refuge budget would increase due to increased staffing; existing facilities would remain inadequate in terms of staff productivity and public use.

++ Refuge budget would increase due to increased staffing; improved facilities would increase staff productivity and accommodate needs of visiting public

Environmental Justice 0 No change

0 No change

0 No change

Cumulative Impacts + Habitat quality would continue to slowly improve; public use would continue without much change

++ Habitat quantity and quality would improve over time and fish and wildlife populations would benefit; public use would continue, but some restrictions would change the timing and amount of visitation.

++ Habitat quantity and quality would improve over time and fish and wildlife populations would benefit; compatible public use would increase and the quality of the experience would improve.



Management)


Focus



Documents

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences · 4.2.1.3.1 Reduction in Lake and River Levels Water levels, supply, quality, and water-based transportation and recreation are all climate-sensi-tive