Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents
i
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Refuge Purpose ....................................................................................................................................4
1.3 Refuge Vision for the Future .................................................................................................................4
1.4 Purpose and Need for the Plan .............................................................................................................5
1.5 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .......................................................................................................6
1.5.1 The National Wildlife Refuge System ........................................................................................6
1.6 Existing Partnerships .............................................................................................................................7
1.7 Legal and Policy Guidance ....................................................................................................................8
Chapter 2: The Planning Process .................................................................................................................9
2.1 Issues and Concerns ............................................................................................................................9
2.1.1 Wildlife Habitat and Resource Management ...........................................................................10
2.1.2 Land Management within the Watershed Impacts Refuge Water Quality and Quantity ........10
2.1.3 Snow Goose Management .......................................................................................................10
2.1.4 Refuge Expansion .....................................................................................................................10
2.1.5 Public Use ................................................................................................................................11
2.1.6 Public Service ............................................................................................................................11
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment ...........................................................................................................12
3.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ...........................................................................................................12
3.1.1 The Lower Missouri River Ecosystem .......................................................................................12
3.1.2 Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ....................................................................................15
3.1.2.1 Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ......................................................................15
3.1.2.2 Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities .....................................15
3.1.2.3 Biological Needs Assessment .....................................................................................16
3.1.2.4 Arctic Goose Management Initiative .........................................................................17
3.1.3 Squaw Creek Wildlife Management District ...........................................................................17
3.1.4 Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities ..................................................................17
3.1.5 Other Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Area ............................................................18
3.2 Refuge Resources, Cultural Values and Uses .....................................................................................18
3.2.1 Climate ....................................................................................................................................18
3.2.2 Geology and Soils .....................................................................................................................20
3.2.2.1 Water and Hydrology ...................................................................................................20
3.2.3 Fish and Wildlife and Plant Resources .....................................................................................23
3.2.3.1 Vegetation ...................................................................................................................23
3.2.3.2 Birds .............................................................................................................................23
3.2.3.3 Mammals .....................................................................................................................24
ii
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
3.2.3.4 Amphibians and Reptiles .............................................................................................24
3.2.3.5 Fish ...............................................................................................................................25
3.2.3.6 Invertebrates ................................................................................................................25
3.2.3.7 Plants ...........................................................................................................................25
3.2.3.8 Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................................................25
3.2.3.9 Cooperative Farming ...................................................................................................26
3.2.3.10 Land Use ...................................................................................................................26
3.2.3.11 Threats to Resources ................................................................................................26
3.2.3.12 Administrative Facilities ............................................................................................27
3.2.4 Socioeconomic Setting .............................................................................................................27
3.2.4.1 Population ....................................................................................................................29
3.2.4.2 Employment .................................................................................................................29
3.2.4.3 Income and Education .................................................................................................29
3.2.5 Archeological and Cultural Values ...........................................................................................29
3.2.6 Public Use .................................................................................................................................30
3.2.6.1 Potential Refuge Visitors ............................................................................................30
3.3 Current Management ..........................................................................................................................31
3.3.1 Habitat Management ................................................................................................................31
3.3.1.1 Wetland Management .................................................................................................31
3.3.1.2 Moist Soil Units ...........................................................................................................31
3.3.1.3 Grasslands ...................................................................................................................34
3.3.1.4 Forests ..........................................................................................................................34
3.3.1.5 Cropland .......................................................................................................................34
3.3.2 Fish and Wildlife Monitoring ....................................................................................................34
3.3.3 Public Use .................................................................................................................................36
3.3.4 Species Management ...............................................................................................................37
3.3.4.1 Animal Species ............................................................................................................37
3.3.4.2 Plant Species ..............................................................................................................37
3.3.5 Archaeological and Cultural Resources ....................................................................................37
3.3.6 Special Management Areas .....................................................................................................37
3.3.6.1 Farm Services Administration Conservation Easements .............................................37
Chapter 4: Management Direction .............................................................................................................39
4.1 Planned Refuge Programs ...................................................................................................................39
4.1.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................39
4.1.2 Habitat ......................................................................................................................................39
4.1.3 Fish and Wildlife .......................................................................................................................39
4.1.4 Wildlife-dependent Recreation, Environmental Education and Interpretation ........................40
4.1.5 Avoidance of Impacts to Listed Species ...................................................................................40
4.1.6 Climate Change Impacts ...........................................................................................................40
4.2 Goals, Objectives and Strategies ........................................................................................................41
Chapter 5: Implementation and Monitoring ..............................................................................................68
5.1 Personnel Needs .................................................................................................................................68
5.2 New and Existing Projects ...................................................................................................................70
5.3 Step-down Management Plans ...........................................................................................................70
5.4 Partnership Opportunities ....................................................................................................................70
5.5 Monitoring and Evaluation ..................................................................................................................71
5.6 Plan Amendment and Revision ............................................................................................................71
iii
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment ..................................................................................................73
Appendix B: Glossary ................................................................................................................................139
Appendix C: Species Lists .........................................................................................................................145
Appendix D: Draft Compatibility Determinations .................................................................................. 169
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements ................................................................................................. 185
Appendix F: Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Maintenance Management
System (MMS) .......................................................................................................................191
Appendix G: Mailing List ...........................................................................................................................197
Appendix H: List of Preparers ...................................................................................................................201
Appendix I: Wildlife Resource Conservation Priority Species for the
Lower Missouri River Ecosystem .......................................................................................205
Appendix J: References .............................................................................................................................211
Appendix K: Comparison of Alternatives by Objective and Strategy ................................................215
List of Figures and Tables
v
Figure 1: Location of Squaw Creek NWR ...........................................................................................................2
Figure 2: Squaw Creek Wildlife Management Area ..........................................................................................3
Figure 3: Squaw Creek NWR Relations to Watershed-based FWS-classified Ecosystems ............................13
Figure 4: Squaw Creek NWR Watershed and Surrounding Watershed .........................................................14
Figure 5: Bird Conservation Region ..................................................................................................................16
Figure 6: Other Conservation Areas in the Area of Squaw Creek NWR ..........................................................19
Figure 7: Landforms of Missouri .......................................................................................................................21
Figure 8: Soils of Squaw Creek NWR ...............................................................................................................22
Figure 9: Squaw Creek NWR Administrative Facilities, 2003 ..........................................................................28
Figure 10: Current Landcover (2003), Squaw Creek NWR ................................................................................32
Figure 11: Wet Habitat Management, Squaw Creek NWR .............................................................................33
Figure 12: Future Desired Land Cover, Squaw Creek NWR .............................................................................42
Figure 13: Existing and Authorized Refuge Boundary ......................................................................................50
Figure 14: Eastern Massassauga Rattlesnake Landcover, Squaw Creek NWR ...............................................56
Figure 15: Squaw Creek NWR Staffing Chart, 2003-2018 ..............................................................................69
Table 1: Step-down Management Plan Schedule ............................................................................................70
1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
1.1 Introduction
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), is located in Holt County in northwest Missouri,
approximately midway between Kansas City, Missouri and Omaha, Nebraska, 2.5 miles off
Interstate Highway 29 (Figure 1). This 7,415-acre refuge includes approximately 6,700 acres of
floodplain that is managed as wetland, grassland and riparian habitats that attract up to 250 Bald
Eagles, 300,000 Snow Geese, and 100,000 ducks during fall and winter seasons.
The Refuge also manages 34 easements obtained
from the Farm Service Agency, previously
known as the Farmers Home Administration, or
FmHA. These easements lie in 10 of the 15
counties that make up the Squaw Creek Wildlife
Management District (Figure 2).
The Refuge gets its name from Squaw Creek, a
major stream that drains the Loess Hills on the
east and flows through the Missouri River
floodplain lands of the Refuge via a man-made
ditch, and then empties into the Missouri River
approximately 8 miles south of the Refuge. Davis
Creek, which has also been ditched, flows along
the eastern Refuge boundary and joins Squaw
Creek just after leaving the Refuge. The
Refuge's west boundary is about 5 miles from the closest bank of the Missouri River. The Santa Fe-
Burlington Northern railroad embankment runs along the west Refuge boundary. Its embankment
provides some protection from Missouri River overflows.
Refuge lowlands were once a part of a large natural marsh in the Missouri River floodplain.
Historically, this area was heavily used by waterfowl and other migratory birds during their spring
and fall migrations.
The almost 700 acres of Refuge upland include a segment of the 200-mile long band of hills known as
the Loess Hills. The Loess Hills, formed by wind-deposited, silt-sized soil particles, are a geologic
phenomenon unique to the Missouri River Valley. While loess deposits do exist elsewhere in North
America and the world, only in the Missouri River Valley are the deposits deep enough to create
such an extensive land form. The Loess Hills support rare remnants of native prairie and prairie
associated wildlife.
Frank Durbian
2
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
Figure 1: Location of Squaw Creek NWR
3
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Figure 2: Squaw Creek Wildlife Management Area
4
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
The Refuge hosts 301 species of birds, 33 mammals, and 35 reptiles and amphibians. Missouri's
largest wet prairie remnant (983 acres) is on the Refuge and it is home to Missouri's largest meta-population
of the Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake.
The quality of Squaw Creek Refuge wetland habitat is constantly influenced by the heavy silt loads
from the 60,000-acre Loess Hills watershed being carried into the Refuge by five creeks that
converge to become Squaw Creek and Davis Creek.
1.2 Refuge Purpose
Signed into existence by President Franklin D. Roosevelt as the “Squaw Creek Migratory
Waterfowl Refuge” on August 23, 1935, in Executive Order 7156, the Refuge's purpose was to “...
effectuate further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.” The Executive Order
further stated that lands are to be used “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and
other wildlife.”
Throughout the 100-year existence of the National Wildlife Refuge System, its functional direction
and purpose have evolved to reflect its ever increasing value as a collection of irreplaceable habitats
representing the diverse natural heritage of America. In so doing, the purposes of individual
refuges such as Squaw Creek have broadened from somewhat narrow definitions aimed at specific
animal groups to include entire ecosystems and all of the wildlife and plants within them.
Squaw Creek NWR is also managed to preserve, restore, and manage wetland and upland habitats
that represent the Lower Missouri River ecosystem for the benefit of a diverse complex of fauna
and flora, with emphasis on threatened and endangered species; and, to provide opportunities for
the public to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation, including environmental education and public
outreach.
1.3 Refuge Vision for the Future
The Refuge staff envision a future that includes:
■ Restoration and preservation of the wetland ecosystems of the Missouri River floodplain
continues to be the major management thrust of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge.
■ Refuge wetlands, which include the largest remnant wet prairie in Missouri, continue to
provide safe habitat for concentrations of waterfowl and other birds during the migration
and nesting seasons.
■ The historic threat of wetland sedimentation has declined significantly as managers of the
vast surrounding agriculture lands employ more conservative practices advocated by the
Refuge staff and other agencies.
■ The Refuge habitat diversity emphasizes both wetland and grassland, interspersed with
stands of mixed shrubs and woodlands, managed on a scale to minimize habitat
fragmentation and to be attractive to indigenous species as well as neo-tropical and
passerine birds.
■ Habitat diversity broadens each year as progress is made to convert former monotypic
stands of reed canary grass, American lotus, and croplands to aquatic and upland species
complexes that benefit both indigenous and migratory wildlife.
■ Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge continues to be a destination for people to enjoy
wildlife-dependent recreation. Dynamic environmental education and interpretive
displays and programs, presented in well designed facilities, help the public to understand
5
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
and become supportive of the Refuge staff's efforts to conserve, preserve and manage
wildlife resources and their habitats.
■ The Refuge serves as an outdoor laboratory for biological researchers whose study results
aid in the management for species of special concern such as the Eastern Massassauga
rattlesnake, Blandings turtle and the Least Bittern.
■ The multi-disciplined staff of biologists, technicians, and support personnel are a well
trained team proficient in their functions of serving Refuge visitors, cooperators, and the
general public, in their stewardship of the resources put in their charge, and in their
maintenance of Refuge facilities and equipment. This team places high value on its
connections with the community and relies heavily on stakeholder input.
■ The Refuge budget, staff, and administrative facilities are adequate to implement the
strategies required to achieve the goals and objectives set forth in this plan.
1.4 Purpose and Need for the Plan
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) identifies the role Squaw Creek NWR will play in
supporting the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and provides primary management
guidance for the Refuge. The plan articulates management goals for the next 15 years and defines
objectives and strategies that will achieve those goals. Several legislative mandates within the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 have guided the development of this
plan. These mandates include:
■ Wildlife has first priority in the management of refuges.
■ Wildlife-dependent recreation activities of hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, environmental education and interpretation are the priority public uses of
the Refuge System. These uses will be facilitated when they do not interfere with a
refuge's purposes or the mission of the Refuge System.
■ Other uses of the Refuge will only be allowed when they are determined to be appropriate
and compatible with the Refuge purposes and mission of the Refuge System.
Following the recommendations in the CCP will enhance management of Squaw Creek NWR by:
■ Providing a clear statement of direction for future management of the Refuge.
■ Giving Refuge neighbors, visitors, and the general public an understanding of the
Service's management actions on and around the Refuge.
■ Ensuring that the Refuge's management actions and programs are consistent with the
mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
■ Ensuring that Refuge management is consistent with federal, state and county plans.
■ Establishing long-term Refuge management continuity.
■ Providing a basis for the development of budget requests for Refuge operations,
maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
6
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
1.5 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
”Working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish
and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people.” Mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency
responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and
their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Specific responsibilities include
enforcing federal wildlife laws, managing migratory bird populations, restoring nationally
significant fisheries, administering the Endangered Species Act, and restoring wildlife habitat such
as wetlands. A significant portion of the Service's mission is accomplished within the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
1.5.1 The National Wildlife Refuge System
”To administer a national network of lands and waters for
the conservation, management and, where appropriate,
restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and
their habitats within the United States for the benefit of
present and future generations of Americans.” Mission of
the National Wildlife Refuge System
Managing the National Wildlife Refuge System has evolved into a significant role for the Service.
Founded in 1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt with the designation of Florida's Pelican Island
as a refuge for herons and egrets, the National Wildlife Refuge System is the world's largest
collection of lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife. The System is a network of more than
500 national wildlife refuges encompassing more than 93 million acres of public land and water. The
majority of these lands - 82 percent - is in Alaska, with approximately 16 million acres in the lower
48 states and several island territories. Refuges provide habitat for more than 5,000 species of
birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and insects.
Like Pelican Island, many early national wildlife refuges were created for herons, egrets and other
water birds. Others were set aside for large mammals such as elk and bison. Most refuges, however,
have been created to conserve migratory birds. This is a result of the United States' responsibilities
under international treaties for migratory bird conservation as well as other legislation, such as the
Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929.
National wildlife refuges also play a vital role in preserving endangered and threatened species.
Among the refuges that are well known for providing habitat for endangered species are Aransas
NWR in Texas, the winter home of the whooping crane; the Florida Panther Refuge, which protects
one of the nation's most endangered mammals; and the Hawaiian Islands Refuge, home of the
Laysan duck, Hawaiian monk seal, and many other unique species.
Refuges are great places for people, too. When it is compatible with their establishing purposes,
refuges can be used for wildlife-dependent activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
photography, environmental education and interpretation. Many refuges have visitor centers,
nature trails, automobile tours, and environmental education programs. Nationwide, more than 35
million people visited national wildlife refuges in 1999.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established many mandates aimed
at making the management of national wildlife refuges more cohesive. The preparation of
7
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
comprehensive conservation plans is one of those mandates. The legislation requires the Secretary
of the Interior to ensure that the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and purposes of
the individual refuges are carried out. It also requires the Secretary to maintain the biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System.
The administration, management, and growth of the System are guided by the following goals:
■ To fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge purpose(s) and further the System mission.
■ To conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and
plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.
■ To perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations.
■ To conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants.
■ To conserve and restore where appropriate representative ecosystems of the United
States, including the ecological processes characteristic of those ecosystems.
■ To foster understanding and instill appreciation of native fish, wildlife, and plants, and
their conservation, by providing the public with safe, high-quality, and compatible
wildlife-dependent public use. Such use includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
1.6 Existing Partnerships
Working with others via intra- and interagency partnerships is important in accomplishing the
mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service as well as assisting Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge
in meeting its primary objective of providing a resting and feeding area for migratory birds and
other wildlife. Partnerships with other federal and state agencies and with a diversity of other
public and private organizations are increasingly important. Other agencies can provide invaluable
assistance in research and maintenance. Private groups and non-profit organizations greatly
enhance public involvement in the Refuge, building enthusiasm and support for its mission.
Besides the partnerships that the Fish and Wildlife Service holds on a national level, Squaw Creek
NWR maintains informal partnerships with:
■ Friends of Squaw Creek
■ Missouri Department of Conservation
■ Missouri Department of Natural Resources
■ Missouri Department of Transportation
■ Missouri Highway Patrol
■ Missouri Land Improvement Contractors Association
■ Natural Resources and Conservation Service
■ Holt County Soil and Water Conservation District
■ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
■ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
■ Farm Service Agency
■ Mound City Chamber of Commerce
■ Burroughs Audubon Society
■ Midland Empire Audubon Society
8
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
■ Ducks Unlimited
■ Missouri Western State College
■ Northwest Missouri State University
■ Towson University-Maryland
■ Southern Illinois University
■ St. Joseph Convention and Visitor Bureau
■ St. Joseph Museum
■ Mid-Buchanan High School
■ U.S. Geological Survey
■ Kickapoo Tribe
■ Burlington Northern Railroad
■ Oregon Rural Fire Department
■ Rosendale Rural Fire Department
■ Eastern Gamagrass Company
■ Mound City Kiwanis
■ Pony Express Boy Scout Council
■ St. Joseph Public School System
■ Holt County Public School System
■ Southwest Missouri State University
■ University of Missouri - Columbia
1.7 Legal and Policy Guidance
In addition to the legislation establishing the Refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, other federal laws, executive orders, and regulations govern the
administration of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge. See Appendix E for a list of the guiding
laws and orders.
9
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
The planning process for this CCP began with a
“kick-off” meeting in July 1999. Initially,
members of the CCP planning team and Refuge
staff identified a list of issues and concerns that
were associated with management of the Refuge.
These preliminary issues and concerns were
based on staff knowledge of the area and
association with citizens in the community. The
planning team, consisting of Refuge staff and
Service planners, then invited Refuge neighbors,
organizations, local government agencies and
local staff of national and state government
agencies, schools, and interested citizens to share
their thoughts in a focus group meeting on
August 18, 1999. Nineteen people attended the meeting. An open house was held on September 14,
1999, and 12 attended. The planning team accepted oral and written comments at the open house.
Five written comments were received.
In October 1999, the planning team met for an intensive three-day workshop to develop and
consider four management alternatives that addressed the issues and concerns in different ways.
The alternatives generally describe levels of management varying from near passive to more
intensive. Once alternative levels of management were selected, methods for achieving that level
were developed.
Subsequent planning team meetings in November of 1999 and January of 2000 were held with
Region 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials and biologists in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, to
critique and revise these draft alternatives and associated goals and objectives. In February 2000,
the planning team again met for two days at DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge to further refine
goals, objectives, and strategies. The planning team met at Squaw Creek NWR in February 2003 to
continue this process, resulting in this document.
2.1 Issues and Concerns
The issues and concerns presented in this section evolved through discussions among Service staff
both at the Refuge and in the Regional Office, discussions with representatives of the State of
Missouri, and public involvement.
As might be expected, the public participants at the focus group meeting and the open house
meetings offered both positive and negative views to the issues; i.e, some supported Refuge
expansion or on-refuge hunting while others were opposed.
Frank Durbian
10
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
The planning team considered all expressed views, written and oral, in its development of
alternative actions and the goals and objectives presented in Chapter 4.
2.1.1 Wildlife Habitat and Resource Management
Extraordinary measures may be required to preserve the marsh environment that has historically
attracted migratory waterfowl and other wildlife. Erosion from the steep slopes on the river side of
the Loess Bluffs and intensive agriculture result in heavy silt loads in Squaw Creek and Davis
Creek. The creeks deposit considerable amounts of silt in the managed marsh units of the Refuge,
making them steadily more shallow. These marsh areas could eventually fill completely and
disappear. Adequate renovation and conservation might require dredging, raising dike elevations,
stream diversion, or other expensive landscape modifications.
2.1.2 Land Management within the Watershed Impacts Refuge Water Quality
and Quantity
Beyond Refuge boundaries, land management practices within the watershed influence the quality
and quantity of water that flows into the Refuge. Unrestricted surface runoff in the watershed
depletes top soil and soil moisture conditions. The deposition of top soil and agricultural chemicals in
the Refuge marshes during flood stages has an adverse cumulative effect. While neither the Refuge
nor the Fish and Wildlife Service has any interest or authority to interfere with private lands
management, we have the responsibility to conserve the public resources placed in our care. The
Service can provide advice to landowners as well as assist more directly through existing cost share
programs available to landowners aimed at improved soil and moisture conservation.
2.1.3 Snow Goose Management
The mid-continent population of Snow Geese is
experiencing “a perilous abundance.” The peril is
their numbers: 900,000 in 1969 and 6 million in
1998, exceed the capacity of their Arctic
breeding/nesting habitat in the vicinity of
Hudson Bay. Recovery of damaged Arctic
tundra vegetation is extremely slow and tends to
continue towards self destruction once the
moisture and chemical balance is upset. High
Snow Geese survival rates over the last 20 years
and high quality wintering grounds has
contributed to the over population. Action plans
recently proposed by Canada wildlife experts,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and State and
Provincial agencies focus on reducing the Snow
Goose population, mainly through increased harvest. Concentrations of 300,000 to 400,000 Snow
Geese at Squaw Creek NWR during the fall migration have become a site-seeing tradition that
attracts thousands of Refuge visitors. The Snow Geese are also welcomed by waterfowl hunters in
an area from Sioux City, Iowa to Kansas City, Missouri.
2.1.4 Refuge Expansion
Floodplain wetlands similar to those within Squaw Creek NWR have been preserved and managed
as private and commercial waterfowl hunting clubs. High operations costs have caused some
owners to consider selling their property to the Refuge. Some people feel that the Refuge marsh
restoration and preservation problems associated with watershed management and runoff could be
lessened if some of the adjacent agricultural land was added to the Refuge and converted to other
Frank Durbian
11
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
uses. However, hydrological or biological data supporting this is incomplete or lacking.
Approximately 400 acres of private land remain within the authorized Refuge boundaries.
2.1.5 Public Use
Public use at the Refuge has focused on non-consumptive uses and wildlife dependent recreation,
but some people have suggested that the Refuge's public use program should be changed to allow
other compatible uses that might include hunting waterfowl and deer. Currently there is a special 3-
day, muzzle loader deer hunt with a specific number of permits issued. Angling is allowed where the
roads cross the creek ditches. Historically, environmental education has been emphasized at Squaw
Creek NWR.
2.1.6 Public Service
The staff at Squaw Creek NWR want to be good neighbors and contributors to the welfare of the
community. As the Refuge strives to be of service to the public and the community, are there new or
better ways it can be successful in its efforts? Public service activities now include environmental
education programs for schools and special groups both on and off the Refuge, disaster assistance
with staff and equipment, operations budgets that boost the local economy, annual payments to
counties to offset losses of real property tax revenues, and cost share programs for environmental
improvements on private lands. The Refuge attracts visitors to the area who patronize local
businesses. The Refuge staff will continue to seek innovative ways to be of service to the public and
the community.
12
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
3.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
3.1.1 The Lower Missouri River Ecosystem
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has implemented an
ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife conservation. The
Service's goal with this approach is to integrate the
expertise and resources of many Service divisions that
will contribute to the effective conservation of natural
biological diversity through perpetuation of dynamic,
healthy ecosystems. There are eight ecosystems within
Region 3 of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Squaw Creek NWR lies within the Lower Missouri River
Ecosystem (Figure 3). The Refuge is located 5 miles northeast of the Missouri River and lies within
the eastern border of the Missouri River floodplain. A portion of the Refuge in and around the
headquarters site extends into the Loess Hills adjacent to the valley floor, but the main portion of
the Refuge is on the broad plain that slopes gently to the Missouri River.
Most of the 7,415 acres comprising the Refuge are located along the eastern edge of the Missouri
River floodplain in an historic wetland area. Habitat types include 1,000 acres of bottomland forest,
291 acres of bottomland mesic prairie, 1,077 acres of wet prairie, 378 acres of Loess Hills forest, 221
acres of Loess Hills prairie, 3,409 acres of managed wetland, and 176 acres of wetland. Developed
land, which includes administrative areas, channelized ditches and roads, accounts for 251 acres on
the Refuge.
The Refuge's 15 managed impoundments total approximately 3,400 acres. All are managed
primarily for migrating waterfowl, but also provide benefits for numerous species of other wetland-associated
fauna. Water sources include gravity flow from diversion of Squaw and Davis creeks, a
well on Mallard Marsh, and whatever rainfall is received.
Flows from the Missouri River have limited and indirect influences on the Refuge. This is
particularly true during floods. As an example, during the 1993 flood, most of the damage the
Refuge sustained was a result of runoff from the upstream watershed rather than the Missouri
River. However, because the River was in flood stage, the Refuge was unable to discharge adequate
amounts of water and runoff from the watershed backed up and flooded most the Refuge bottom
land habitat.
Squaw Creek NWR is directly influenced by a 60,000-acre upstream watershed. The Refuge lies at
the base of this highly erodible upland in the loess bluff hills with runoff coming primarily from
Squaw and Davis creeks. Squaw Creek drains about 63 square miles (approximately 45,000 acres)
Frank Durbian
13
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
above Highway 59 and crosses under Interstate Highway 29. At this point, the creek enters the
floodplain and is confined between levees extending to the north boundary of the Refuge.
Davis Creek drains about 23 square miles (approximately 15,000 acres). The creek emerges from
the hills at Mound City and directly enters the northeast corner of the Refuge after passing under
Interstate Highway 29.
Three smaller creeks drain watersheds from the north and east that enter Squaw Creek NWR -
Porter, Swope and Blair creeks. Though small, they add another 9 square miles of drainage and
runoff to the Refuge, making the total upstream drainage area influencing the Refuge of
approximately 95 square miles.
Because of its extreme topography, the total drainage area produces rapid runoff. Cultivation is
practiced on lands within the basin where slopes permit. There was severe erosion on the disturbed
agricultural areas in the years just after the Refuge was established, and runoff was heavily laden
with silt. However, in recent years, soil conservation measures such as grassed waterways, terraces
and water retention ponds have reduced silt loads and rapid rises in creek levels.
Since the 1993 Flood, Squaw Creek NWR has partnered with the Holt County Soil and Water
Conservation District, the United States Geological Survey and the Natural Resource and
Conservation Service by providing economic incentives to complete additional conservation
Figure 3: Squaw Creek NWR Relations to Watershed-based FWS-classified Ecosystems
14
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
Figure 4: Squaw Creek NWR Watershed and Surrounding Watershed
15
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
measures in the Davis and Squaw Creek watersheds. The Soil and Water Conservation Service was
awarded a $950,000 Agricultural Non-point Pollution grant in 2001 to work with private landowners
in the Squaw Creek drainage during a 5-year period to reduce quantity and increase the quality of
agricultural runoff from their croplands.
3.1.2 Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
3.1.2.1 Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
There are several ongoing migratory bird conservation
initiatives that refuges should participate in to the extent
applicable and practical. The North American Waterfowl
Management Plan (NAWMP) is a partnership effort to
restore waterfowl populations to historic levels. It was
developed in 1986, with objectives and strategies
evolving through NAWMP Updates (the latest produced
in 1998). Refuges found within NAWMP Joint Ventures
should strive to achieve waterfowl objectives outlined in
pertinent Joint Venture Implementation Plans (see http:/
/northamerican.fws.gov/NAWMP/nawmphp.htm). Squaw
Creek NWR is covered by the Upper Mississippi River/
Great Lakes Region Joint Venture.
Several nongame bird initiatives have been developed in
recent years. Partners In Flight (PIF) deals primarily
with landbirds and has developed Bird Conservation
Plans for numerous physiographic areas across the U.S.
(see http://www.partnersinflight.org). These plans include priority species lists, associated habitats,
and management strategies. Squaw Creek NWR should strive to implement the conservation
strategies outlined in these plans to the extent possible. Squaw Creek NWR lies within PIF
Physiographic Area No. 32, the Dissected Till Plains (Figure 5).
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan) and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (see
http://www.nacwcp.org) have regional components that identify priority species and conservation
strategies, mostly focused around habitat, that will address the needs of these groups of birds.
Squaw Creek NWR is included in the Upper Mississippi Valley / Great Lakes Regional Shorebird
Conservation Plan. The refuge will soon be nominated for inclusion as a site in the Western
Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network.
All migratory bird conservation programs will be integrated under the umbrella of the North
American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). This is a continental effort to have all bird
initiatives operate under common Bird Conservation Regions and to consider the conservation
objectives of all birds together to optimize the effectiveness of management strategies (see http://
www.dodpif.org/nabci/index.htm). The goal of NABCI is to facilitate delivery of the full spectrum of
bird conservation through regionally-based, biologically-driven, landscape-oriented partnerships.
Squaw Creek NWR is located in Bird Conservation Region 22, the Eastern Tallgrass Prairie. As
part of a national American Bird Conservancy program, Squaw Creek was designated an Important
Bird Area.
3.1.2.2 Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities
The Resource Conservation Priorities list is a subset of all species that occur in the Region and was
derived from an objective synthesis of information on their status. The list includes all federally
listed threatened and endangered species and proposed and candidate species that occur in the
Frank Durbian
16
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
Region; migratory bird species derived from Service wide and international conservation planning
efforts; and rare and declining terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals that represent an
abbreviation of the Endangered Species program's preliminary draft “Species of Concern” list for
the Region.
Although many species are not included in the priority list, this does not mean that we consider
them unimportant. The list includes 60 species or populations for the Service's Lower Missouri
River Ecosystem (see Appendix I, page 205).
3.1.2.3 Biological Needs Assessment
The National Wildlife Refuge System Biological Needs Assessment (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
1998) resulted from a self analysis of biology within the System. The Assessment addressed issues
related to the biological aspect of Refuge management and proposed six goals for their resolution
along with actions and strategies for achieving those goals.
The goals are:
Goal 1: Address inadequate and inconsistent biological program staffing.
Goal 2: Focus biological program activities through goals and objectives.
Goal 3: Integrate evaluation and oversight into the biological program.
Goal 4: Increase the amount and accountability of funding for the biological program.
Goal 5: Provide for career and professional needs of biological program staff.
Goal 6: Meet information needs of the biological program.
Figure 5: Bird Conservation Region
17
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
The Biological Needs Assessment provides a benchmark in measuring progress toward meeting the
biological mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
3.1.2.4 Arctic Goose Management Initiative
Lesser Snow Geese and Ross' Geese in the mid-continent region are causing widespread damage to
Arctic habitats used by these geese and other wildlife. The Snow Goose population has been
expanding at an average rate of about 5 percent per year. The major reason for this population
growth has been improved winter survival and recruitment brought about by a virtually unlimited
food supply due to the expansion and productivity of modern agriculture in the Midwest and the
availability of sanctuaries and refuges. Snow Geese and Ross' Geese now exceed the carrying
capacity of habitats on several breeding colony sites in northern Canada.
Over-grazing and grubbing of the tundra vegetation has been degrading and destroying the native
plant community. The over-exploitation has lead to increases in soil salinity, which has impeded
recovery of formerly dominant plant species and has caused the growth of less desirable plants.
In 1997, the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group recommended that the mid-continent Snow
Goose and Ross' Goose population be reduced by 50 percent, primarily through more liberal hunting
regulations, unplugged shotguns, no limits, and electronic calls.
In February 1999, the Service implemented the above recommendations and published new
regulations to authorize new methods of take (unplugged shotguns, electronic calls) during the
regular season when other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons are closed. In addition, the Service
created a conservation order, which allowed take of geese beyond March 10, removed bag limits,
allowed new methods of take, and also allowed shooting hours to one-half hour after sunset.
3.1.3 Squaw Creek Wildlife Management District
The Squaw Creek Wildlife Management District is comprised of lands that were involved in Farm
Service Agency (formerly the Farmer and Home Administration) loan foreclosures in the 1970s and
1980s. While these lands are privately owned, the owners have agreed to carry out habitat
restoration and preservation practices prescribed in perpetual management agreements with the
Service. These agreements also define the negotiated costs and labor responsibilities of each party.
The Squaw Creek Management District encompasses 15
counties in northwest Missouri (Figure 2). Currently 34
easements covering 1,553 acres are recorded on deed and
three fee-title tracts totaling 911.5 acres are located in 10
of the district counties.
The majority of District lands are associated with
riparian corridors. Considerable acreage was previously
cropland and, as such, Refuge management emphasis has
been on establishing permanent cover on those acres.
Fencing of riparian areas to exclude livestock has also
been a priority.
3.1.4 Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) required the Service to identify its most
important functions and to direct its limited fiscal resources toward those functions. A group
worked from 1997 to 1999 to evaluate how best to identify the Service's most important functions in
Region 3. The group recognized that the Service has a complex array of responsibilities specified by
Frank Durbian
18
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
treaties, laws, executive orders and judicial opinions, and these responsibilities dwarf the agency's
budget.
The group recognized that at least two approaches are possible in identifying conservation
priorities - habitats and species. The group chose to focus on species because (1) species represent
biological and genetic resources that cannot be replaced; (2) a focus on species conservation requires
a concurrent focus on habitat; and (3) by focusing on species assemblages and identifying areas
where ecological needs come together, the Service can select the few key places where limited
efforts will have the greatest impact. Representatives of the migratory bird, endangered species,
and fisheries programs in Region 3 identified the species that require the utmost attention given
our current level of knowledge. Representatives prioritized the species based on biological status
(endangered or threatened, for example), rare or declining levels, recreational or economic value, or
“nuisance” level. The group pointed out that species not on the prioritized list are important too, but
when faced with the needs of several species, the Service should emphasize the species on the
priority list. Figure 6 identifies the states within Region 3. Appendix I lists the resource
conservation priority species that occur at the Refuge.
We have considered the ecosystem context, the over arching conservation programs, state listed
species, and the regional resource conservation priorities as we wrote this comprehensive
conservation plan.
3.1.5 Other Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Area
The Missouri Department of Conservation manages several conservation areas throughout Holt
County. The 227-acre Jameson C. McCormack Conservation Area is located adjacent to the Refuge.
Mostly forest, the conservation area also includes 30 acres of grassland, 25 acres of savanna and 38
acres of cropland and old field. Hunting and primitive camping are permitted.
The Bob Brown Conservation Area (3,302 acres) is located within a few miles of the Refuge near
Forest City. Hunting, fishing, camping, birding, canoeing and hiking are allowed, although some
areas are closed to hiking during waterfowl season. The area is managed primarily to provide
wetland habitat and it provides excellent opportunities for observing Bald Eagles, shorebirds and
waterfowl.
Other areas in Holt County that are managed by the Missouri Department of Conservation include:
H.F. Thurnau Conservation Area (366 acres); Little Tarkio Prairie Conservation Area (129 acres);
Riverbreaks Conservation Area (2,307 acres); Monkey Mountain Conservation Area (787 acres);
Nodaway Valley Conservation Area (3,813 acres); Maitalnd Access and Payne Landing Access.
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources manages the 435-acre Big Lake State Park 11 miles
southwest of Mound City. The park offers camping, cabins, a swimming pool, and recreational
activities include fishing and picnicking.
3.2 Refuge Resources, Cultural Values and Uses
3.2.1 Climate
The Refuge is located in an area characterized by a continental climate, experiencing a wide range
of temperatures throughout the seasons. The coldest average minimum temperature in St. Joseph,
Missouri, about 30 miles from Squaw Creek NWR, is 15.9 degrees Fahrenheit and occurs in
January. The highest average high temperature is 89.9 degrees F. and occurs in July.
The area in which the Refuge is located receives an average of 35.24 inches of precipitation annually.
19
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
Figure 6: Other Conservation Areas in the Area of Squaw Creek NWR
20
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
3.2.2 Geology and Soils
The formation and even the productivity of the land we know today is the work of many glaciers.
Called the “Pleistocene Epoch,” glaciers that moved through northern Missouri 650,000 years ago
gouged out river beds, deposited sheared off trees that decayed and eventually became the blowing
dust that formed the Loess Hills, and so thoroughly mixed the earth that eroded soils were replaced
with richer, more productive soil (Figure 7). Melting glaciers sent huge volumes of water down
what is today the Missouri River, preventing vegetation from taking hold in cycles of flooding and
freezing.
The Refuge is part of the Glaciated Plains area of Missouri, which was formed by the last glacier to
enter the area about 200,000 years ago. The glaciers left the land relatively flat, but large boulders
called “erratics” were deposited throughout northern Missouri. The size and weight of erratics -
some are estimated at 384 tons - testify to the force behind the glaciers (Missouri Department of
Conservation website).
Glaciers even changed the direction of water flow in Missouri (Nagel 2001). Ancient rivers and
streams in northwest Missouri once drained east-west. These valleys were filled in by glacier till,
and the Missouri River did not attain its present course until the Kansan and Nebraskan glaciers
retreated.
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources Geological Survey places Holt County within the
Dissected Till Plains of the state. The Refuge is located on soil that is mostly gumbo overlaid with
rich silt (Figure 8).
3.2.2.1 Water and Hydrology
Holt County is located in two Missouri groundwater production areas and aquifers: the western
one-third of the county are within the Missouri and Mississippi River Alluvium; the eastern two-thirds
of the County are within the Glacial Drift and Alluvium (Missouri Department of Natural
Resources).
Located in the relatively flat floodplain of the Missouri River, water resources include gravity flow
from Squaw Creek, gravity flow from Davis Creek, a well and pump in Mallard Marsh and on the
Rice Paddy moist-soil unit.
The quality of Squaw Creek Refuge wetland habitat is constantly influenced by the heavy silt loads
from the 60,000-acre Loess Hills watershed being carried into the Refuge by five creeks that
converge to become Squaw Creek and Davis Creek. Silt is a primary concern for the Refuge.
Background
“When Missouri was admitted to statehood in 1821, the northwestern part of the state
was Indian territory. In 1836, William Clark of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, acting
as agent for the Sac-and-Fox and Ioway Indian tribes, accepted $7,500 and 400 sections
of land in Kansas in what was referred to as the Platte Purchase. Holt County was
organized out of the Platte Purchase in 1841." (NRCS, 1997)
The above cited publication indicates that the first settlers arrived in Holt County in 1838. The Soil
Survey also states that “...artificial drainage of the Missouri River flood plains began in 1872, and in
1944 the Congressional Flood Act authorized the building of a system of levees along the river.”
A 1934 report entitled “The Squaw Creek Bottoms” prepared by the Bureau of Biological Survey,
which was later reorganized as the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and ultimately evolved
into the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, notes that: “Apart from intermittent use for agriculture
21
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
purposes (depending upon seasonal moisture conditions) of some of the higher lands, 40 to 160 acre
parcels are being rented for waterfowl shooting purposes to individuals and clubs. Some of the
latter own their shooting grounds.”
By the time the above report was prepared, Squaw Creek was recognized as the most important
source of surface water into what is now the Refuge and it had already been modified into “...a
straight, improved, channel bordered by dikes that confine, above the level of adjacent corn fields,
flood waters.” Similar modifications are described on Davis Creek.
Channelization of the Missouri River, wetland drainage, and conversion of land to extensive
agricultural use reduced wildlife habitat to a remnant of its former size. Creation of the Refuge has
protected a small portion of the floodplain from drainage and provided a haven for waterfowl, other
migrant birds, and resident wildlife. The major thrust of management has been to restore wetland
habitat by constructing a dam and several cross dikes resulting in a series of artificial
impoundments.
The major thrust of management has been to restore wetland habitat by constructing a dam and
several cross dikes resulting in a series of artificial impoundments.
Figure 7: Landforms of Missouri
22
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
Figure 8: Soils of Squaw Creek NWR
23
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
3.2.3 Fish and Wildlife and Plant Resources
3.2.3.1 Vegetation
Plant diversity on Squaw Creek NWR reflects the dominance of wetlands and prairie. Plants found
on the Refuge include:
In addition to these plants, there are numerous grasses, including big and little bluestems and hairy
grama.
The Refuge also features “Wildflower Gardens at Squaw Creek,” plantings around the Visitor
Center of native tallgrass-prairie and woodland wildflowers, grasses, and other plants. Among
these species are:
The Refuge has 1,378 acres of forests; common trees include Eastern red cedar, Eastern
cottonwood, black willow, and silver maple.
The principle Refuge habitats include agricultural fields, bottomland forest, bottomland mesic
prairie, loess hill forest, loess hill prairie, managed wetlands, old fields, wet prairie, wetland and
developed land (Figure 9). The acreages of these habitats can be found in the Environmental
Assessment, Appendix A.
3.2.3.2 Birds
Waterfowl are a year-round presence on the Refuge, sometimes in awesome numbers. Squaw Creek
NWR is a mecca for large concentrations of migratory birds during the spring and fall because of
the diversity and interspersion of habitats as well as the Refuge's location between two major
migratory bird corridors, the Central Flyway and the Mississippi Flyway.
Shallow, backwater wetlands such as those provided by Squaw Creek NWR offer critical habitat for
dabbling ducks, geese, herons, egrets, bitterns and rails. Mallard, Gadwall, American Widgeon,
Green-winged Teal, Blue-winged Teal, Northern Pintail and American Coot are the dominant
smooth sumac coralberry false indigo
swamp milkweed blue wild indigo swamp buttercup
monkeyflower blue lobelia downy painted cup (Indian
paint brush
prairie larkspur dotted blazing star soaptree yucca
hoary puccoon round-headed prairie ragwort
bush-clover goldenrods sunflowers
asters
Dutchman's breeches wild columbine prairie smoke
blue-eyed grass showy evening primrose wild sweet-William (Phlox)
Solomon's-seal mayapple Jack-in-the-pulpit
beardtongue butterflyweed lead plant
rose verbena spiderwort black-eyed Susan
coneflowers wild petunia queen-of-the-prairie
shrubby St. John's -wort rattlesnake master white snakeroot
24
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
species seen on the Refuge during both spring and fall migration. In the spring, large numbers of
Scaup and Ring-necked Ducks are common.
Average peak populations of Lesser Snow Geese are 300,000 to 350,000.
During the fall migration, the Pectoral Sandpiper, Killdeer, Stilt Sandpiper, Lesser Yellowlegs and
Least Sandpiper are among the shorebird species using the Refuge. In the spring, Greater
Yellowlegs, White-rumped Sandpiper and Semipalmated Sandpiper pass through.
Marsh birds and other water birds, including grebes, pelicans, cormorants, bitterns, herons, egrets,
ibis, and rails, are typically counted during the shore bird surveys.
Raptors using the Refuge include the Bald Eagle (see Section 3.2.3.7, Threatened and Endangered
Species) and a variety of hawks. In 2001, a local college professor counted 214 Broad-winged Hawks
on a hawk count day.
Several bird species that are on the Missouri endangered species list are known to occur on the
Refuge, including: Bald Eagle, American Bittern, Northern Harrier, Snowy Egret, Peregrine
Falcon, Swainson's Warbler, Least Tern and Barn Owl.
Just a mile north of the Refuge, a Loess Hills bluff on the MoDOT right-of-way on Highway 159
provides outstanding Bank Swallow nesting habitat. The Missouri Department of Transportation
(MoDOT) recently set aside the area for that purpose. The department built a pull-off parking area
with barriers and installed a wood split rail fence. The Service prepared an information sign
interpreting bank swallow history and habits. The Refuge installed “do not disturb” signs intended
to prevent harassment of the swallows.
Other birds commonly found on the Refuge include the Red-winged Blackbird, Common Grackle,
Tree Swallow, Barn Swallow, Great-blue Heron, Yellow-bellied Cuckoo, Red-headed Woodpecker,
Red-bellied Woodpecker, Common Yellowthroat, Northern Cardinal, House Wren, Song Sparrow,
European Starling, Yellow Warbler and Grey Catbird.
3.2.3.3 Mammals
Approximately 33 mammals use the Refuge. Annual deer counts indicate that the Refuge has about
three times as many deer as desired to maintain healthy browse and to avoid negative impacts to
understory vegetation. Even though the Refuge has an annual muzzle loader antler-less deer hunt,
which typically removes 100-140 deer from the area, the Refuge continues to harbor deer densities
well above carrying capacity, suggesting that the Refuge is probably a concentration area for deer.
Future efforts to expand the refuge hunting program are planned in an attempt to reduce the local
deer population.
A number of carnivorous mammals are seen on the Refuge, including grey fox, red fox, coyote,
mink, raccoons, striped skunk and spotted skunk, bobcat, longtail weasels, badgers and river otters.
Other mammals on the Refuge include rabbits and several species of bats, rodents and shrews.
3.2.3.4 Amphibians and Reptiles
Two species of salamander, four toad species and five species of frogs are found on the Refuge. The
Refuge has participated in deformed frog surveys and the number of deformed frogs found on
Squaw Creek NWR is well within the bounds of what is considered to be normal deformity rates.
The Refuge has also conducted annual frog and toad calling surveys.
25
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
Five species of turtles, including the state listed
endangered Blandings turtle, are found on the Refuge.
Reptiles include two lizard species and 15 snakes,
including the Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake, a species
that is a candidate for federal listing as threatened or
endangered and is a state-listed endangered species.
3.2.3.5 Fish
Fish resources are limited. The lack of deep water and
the fluctuation in water levels in the managed wetlands
effectively limit the species found on the Refuge. Game
species are not typically found on the Refuge. Fish such
as carp, buffalo, gar, and a variety of others are present,
and when water levels are sufficient and state law
permits, snagging and fishing are permitted.
3.2.3.6 Invertebrates
Invertebrate diversity, while extensive, is little documented. The only insect on the Regional
Conservation Priority list that falls within the Lower Missouri Ecosystem is the American burying
beetle (Nicrophorus americanus). This species is not known to occur on the Refuge. It uses many
types of habitat, with a slight preference for grasslands and open understory oak hickory forests.
However, the beetles need carrion the size of a dove or a chipmunk to reproduce. Carrion
availability may be the greatest factor determining where the species can survive. Its range
includes Michigan and Ohio.
3.2.3.7 Plants
A full inventory and quantification of plant species has never been undertaken on the Refuge and
presents opportunities for expanded work. The Refuge Biologist is currently inventorying plants
and has created an herbarium for reference.
3.2.3.8 Threatened and Endangered Species
One federally-listed endangered bird and two threatened birds occur on the Refuge. Three state-listed
threatened reptiles (Eastern massassauga rattlesnake, Western fox snake and Blandings
turtle) are also found on the Refuge. The federally listed species include:
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): Bald Eagles have increased in abundance and distribution
across the United States, including Missouri, and have been reclassified from endangered to
threatened. They are commonly seen on the Refuge; in fact, 476 Bald Eagles were counted on
December 27, 2001. Bald Eagles became endangered because of habitat loss, but especially because
of DDT use following World War II. Today, the DDT threat is largely gone. Now the challenge is to
prevent contamination and loss of sites that eagles depend on for nesting, feeding, migration, and
wintering.
Piping Plover (Chadarius melodus) (Great Plains Population): Piping Plovers are rarely seen on
Squaw Creek NWR. Piping Plovers nest in coastal areas, but they are also prairie birds, nesting
across the Great Plains of the United States and Canada, but in perilously low numbers. The Great
Plains population is listed as threatened. The loss of prairie wetland areas contributes to their
decline. Like many shorebirds, Piping Plovers feed on immature and adult insects and other
invertebrates at the water's edge. They winter primarily along beaches, sandflats, and algal flats on
the Gulf of Mexico.
Least Tern (Sterna antillarum) (Interior Population): Listed as endangered, the Least Tern nests
along large rivers of the Colorado, Red, Mississippi, and Missouri River systems. Least Terns are
Frank Durbian
26
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
considered a rare bird on Squaw Creek NWR, however the species is a potential nester in the
Missouri River area. It nests on sand and gravel bars and protected beach areas of large rivers and
winters in coastal Central and South America. The species is endangered because human
disturbance and alteration of river systems has rendered much of its nesting habitat unusable.
Pesticides may reduce food available to the tern by reducing the numbers of small fish in their
feeding areas.
3.2.3.9 Cooperative Farming
Three cooperative farmers currently (2001) have agreements to farm 473 acres on the Refuge.
Currently 34 of those acres are in clover. Actual crops in 2001 included 171 acres of corn and 268
acres of soybeans. One-third of the corn produced was left standing in the field for wildlife food and
cover.
3.2.3.10 Land Use
The area within the authorized boundary of Squaw Creek NWR includes 7,815 acres. The Refuge
manages the Squaw Creek Wildlife Management Area, which consists of small parcels of land
within a 15-county area. Agriculture is the predominant land use in the area immediately
surrounding the Refuge.
The nearest community is Mound City, which has a population of 1,273 and is located approximately
5 miles from Refuge headquarters. The community's population has remained relatively stable and
at the time of this writing did not present urban development issues that seriously threatened
Refuge resources. The nearest big city is St. Joseph, Missouri, which has a population of 71,711 in
1995. Some development has occurred on the outskirts of the city, however St. Joseph is located
approximately 30 miles from the Refuge and sprawl is not expected to affect Refuge resources.
3.2.3.11 Threats to Resources
Siltation: The Refuge is a sump-like area that lies between the Missouri River on the west and the
Loess Bluffs on the east. The steep slopes on the river side of the bluffs, along with intensive
agriculture, result in heavy silt loads in Squaw Creek and Davis Creek that pass through the
Refuge on their way to the Missouri River. While these creeks are the primary water source for the
Refuge, they also dump considerable amounts of silt in the managed marsh units of the Refuge,
making them steadily more shallow. These marsh areas could eventually fill completely and
disappear.
Invasive Plant Species: Squaw Creek NWR has numerous herbaceous pest problems. Some of the
dominant pests include reed canaryrass, garlic mustard, johnsongrass, musk thistle and marijuana.
For the past several years, garlic mustard has been taking hold in floodplain forested areas of the
Refuge. Johnsongrass has become more prevalent since the Missouri River flooded in 1993
Techniques for controlling invasive plants range from hand pulling Illinois garlic mustard to
spraying dikes and roadsides with 2-4D. In native prairie areas and ditchbanks, Johnsongrass is
sprayed with Rodeo to avoid damage to native warm season grasses. Garlon 3A is sprayed on black
locust and honey locust invading native grass areas. This is the recommended chemical to use on
Loess Hill prairie restoration efforts, as it effectively combats woody encroachment while not
harming the native grasses.
Once a cash crop and even part of the seed mix used in Missouri Department of Conservation food
plots, marijuana remains a pervasive volunteer plant. In 1992, Refuge staff destroyed 250,000
plants; in 2001, approximately 6,700 marijuana plants were hand cut.
27
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
Contaminants: Runoff of agricultural chemicals from farm fields into water is a well-known
nonpoint source pollution of water from large geographic areas. Although agricultural runoff of
fertilizers and pesticides has been documented in many areas and is suspected to affect the Refuge,
the type and amount of pollution from Squaw Creek and Davis Creek have not been specifically
documented.
3.2.3.12 Administrative Facilities
Refuge facilities include the headquarters building, which was expanded in 2003 with the addition of
an auditorium for public presentations. A new vehicle storage building was completed in 2003.
Existing facilities are depicted in Figure 10.
Despite the new construction, we face a serious shortage of garage space for vehicles and
equipment and office space for Refuge employees. Building codes prohibit us from locating offices in
the headquarters basement. Existing offices have been divided numerous times, and we simply do
not have a place to house any staff beyond existing positions. We are currently using recreational
trailers to house interns.
The Mallard Marsh pump was installed in 1991 as part of an extensive habitat restoration project.
Four hundred acres of Mallard Marsh were restored after nearly filling in with siltation. The pump
serves to flood the north unit during fall migration. In times of low water, Refuge neighbors
sometimes experience a drop in water pressure when the pump is running. We turn the pump off
when it becomes a problem for our neighbors.
Gravel roads: The auto tour route is a 10-mile circuit road with a gravel surface as well as a 2-mile
road that goes around Mallard Marsh, exiting on to Highway 118 in the northwest corner of the
Refuge. Both roads require annual spot maintenance to keep the driving surface up to Service
standards. However, there have not been any funds specifically designated for road maintenance.
The last time the entire 12 miles of gravel road was resurfaced was in 1999, when TEA 21
transportation funds were allocated. There are three bridges, on Squaw and Davis creeks and
across the outlet at the south end of the Refuge. The Squaw Creek bridge is concrete and
incorporates a water control structure. The Davis Creek and Eagle Pool outlet bridges are wooden
structures that were built in the mid 1990s. All of the bridges are structurally sound and critical to
the maintenance operations and the auto tour route.
Dikes and Levees: The Refuge maintains more than 14 miles (74,900 linear feet) of dikes and levees
that parallel the ditches and surround all of the pool, marshes and moist soil units. All dike and levee
surfaces must be mowed throughout the growing season to prevent brush invasion, to control
noxious weeds and to provide safe access to Refuge vehicles for biological and habitat management
purposes.
Ditches: The Refuge contains more than 11 miles (59,330 linear feet) of ditches that require
occasional maintenance such as removal of silt deposition and bank erosion. Maintenance of the
ditches is critical for effective and efficient water management.
3.2.4 Socioeconomic Setting
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge is located in Holt County, Missouri. The Refuge makes up
approximately 2.5 percent of the County land area. Compared to the entire state, Holt County is
more rural and less racially diverse. Its population is less dense and has a lower average income and
education level. The County population is declining and the state population is increasing.
28
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
Figure 9: Squaw Creek NWR Administrative Facilities, 2003
29
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
3.2.4.1 Population
The population of Holt County was 5,351 in 2000. The entire population of the County is classified as
rural. In Missouri, 30.6 percent of the population is classified as rural. The county population
declined 12.3 percent during the 1980s and 11.3 percent during the 1990s while the State's
population increased. The County's population is projected to continue to decline to 4,974 in 2015.
The number of children of school age is expected to decline and reflect the decline in population. In
2000, persons age 5-17 years was 1,019; in 2015 the number is projected to be 785. In 2000, Holt
County's population density was 11.6 persons per square mile; Missouri's was 81.2 persons per
square mile. The County population was 98.5 percent white in 2000; the State population was 84.5
percent white.
3.2.4.2 Employment
In 2000 there were a total of 2,752 full- and part-time jobs in the County. The industries that
accounted for the largest proportion of jobs in 2000 were agriculture (22.20 percent), services (16.39
percent), retail trade (15.30 percent), and government and government enterprise (14.83 percent).
The industries of construction, manufacturing, transportation and public utilities, wholesale trade,
and finance, insurance and real estate each contributed 5ñ1 percent of the jobs in the County.
From 1997 to 2001, the County unemployment rate averaged 3.68 percent. This compares to a state
unemployment average of 4 percent for the same period.
3.2.4.3 Income and Education
Average per-capita income in Holt County was $15,876 in 2000; in Missouri it was $19,936. The
median household income in the County was $29,461; in the State it was $37,934.
In Holt County, 35.6 percent of persons over 25 years of age have had some college or hold a college
or advanced degree. The comparable figure in the State is 56.2 percent.
3.2.5 Archeological and Cultural Values
Northwest Missouri, where the Refuge and its management district are located, contains
archeological evidence from the earliest suspected human presence in the Americas, the Early Man
cultural period prior to 12,000 B.C.; and extending through the Paleo Indian, Archaic, Woodland,
Mississippian, and Western cultures including the New Deal period. But just 12 sites, including the
Refuge headquarters complex, have been identified on the Refuge and none on the management
district lands. If the Derr tract is typical, many prehistoric and historic sites are likely located on
uplands around the pools. As of April 2003, no properties on the National Register of Historic
Places are located on Refuge and district lands.
Seven Indian tribes have been identified as possibly being associated with the Refuge and district
lands and could have concerns about traditional cultural properties, sacred sites, areas of cultural
activities, human remains, and items of cultural patrimony.
The Refuge has one museum collection at the University of Missouri. There is also a small natural
history collection at the Refuge headquarters.
Cultural resources are important parts of the Nation's heritage. The Service is committed to
protecting valuable evidence with each other and the landscape. Protection is accomplished in
conjunction with the Service's mandate to conserve fish, wildlife, and plant resources.
30
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
3.2.6 Public Use
The visitor center/headquarters at the Refuge
has approximately 875 square feet of exhibit
space. It is open to visitors Monday through
Friday all year around and every day from mid-
March to early May, and again from mid-October
to early December. Exhibits include dioramas
and mounted wildlife specimens. An addition to
the visitor center includes an auditorium that
seats 100 people. Outside the visitor center there
is an overlook with interpretive signs and an
information kiosk.
A major visitor attraction is the arrival of
thousands of Snow Geese on their fall and spring
migration routes. A 10-mile auto tour route, a hiking trail, interpretive panels, and two observation
platforms facilitate the viewing of the flocks.
There are two hiking trails near the visitor center. The Mike Callow Memorial Trail (0.25 mile) is
accessible to visitors with disabilities. The Loess Bluff Trail (0.25 mile) climbs from the visitor
center to the top of the loess bluffs, providing a panoramic view of the Refuge.
In fiscal year 2001, Squaw Creek NWR's visitation totaled 134,245 visits with Visitor Contact
Station visits totaling 41,683. A significant number of groups visit from local area Missouri school
districts representing Holt County, St. Joseph City Schools, and Kansas City Metropolitan Schools.
Out-of-state school districts from Kansas and Nebraska and two local college departments have also
utilized Refuge resources.
In fiscal year 2001, visitors participating in interpretation and nature observation totaled 177,742
on-site visits. A total of 290 talks, tours, and demonstrations were conducted that year. Interpretive
foot trail uses totaled 13,650 visits and the auto tour had 134,245 visits. The visitor trail uses of the
observation platform, Eagle Pool tower, and Callow Memorial Trail totaled 32,512 visits in 2001.
3.2.6.1 Potential Refuge Visitors
In order to estimate the potential market for visitors to the Refuge, we looked at 1998 consumer
behavior data for an area within an approximate 60-mile radius. We used a 60-mile radius because
this was an approximation of a reasonable drive to the Refuge for an outing. The area included the
Missouri counties Atchison, Nodaway, Worth, Gentry, Holt, Andrew, De Kalb, Buchanan, Clinton,
Platte; the Nebraska counties Otoe, Johnson, Nemaha, Pawnee, Richardson; the Kansas counties of
Nemaha, Brown, Doniphan, Jackson, Atchison; and the Iowa counties Fremont, Page, Taylor.
The consumer behavior data that we used in the analysis is derived from Mediamark Research Inc.
data. The company collects and analyzes data on consumer demographics, product and brand usage,
and exposure to all forms of advertising media. The consumer behavior data were projected by
Tetrad Computer Applications Inc. to new populations using Mosaic data. Mosaic is a methodology
that classifies neighborhoods into segments based on their demographic and socioeconomic
composition. The basic assumption in the analysis is that people in demographically similar
neighborhoods will tend to have similar consumption, ownership, and lifestyle preferences. Because
of the assumptions made in the analysis, the data should be considered as relative indicators of
potential, not actual participation.
Frank Durbian
31
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
We looked at potential participants in birdwatching, photography, freshwater fishing, hunting, and
hiking. In order to estimate the general environmental orientation of the population we also looked
at the number of people who potentially might hold a membership in an environmental organization.
The consumer behavior data apply to persons greater than 18 years old. For the counties that we
included in our analysis, the population of persons greater than 18 years old was 283,024. The
estimated maximum participants in the 60-mile radius for each activity are: birdwatching (22,992),
photography (31,399), hunting (24,921), freshwater fishing (42,953), and hiking (27,237). The number
of persons who might hold a membership in an environmental organization is 6,697. The projections
represent the core audience for repeated trips to the Refuge. On days with major attractions such
as Eagle Days and when large numbers of birds are at the Refuge, visitors can be expected to travel
longer distances.
3.3 Current Management
3.3.1 Habitat Management
Management of Refuge habitats involves a variety of techniques to control and enhance habitat
conditions. Our primary objective is to provide waterfowl and other wildlife with diverse habitats to
meet myriad resting, feeding and nesting needs.
3.3.1.1 Wetland Management
Wetland habitats on Squaw Creek NWR include approximately 3,452 acres of managed wetlands,
with 15 independently managed marshes in 10 designated pools (Figure 11). Pools include:
Refuge staff manipulate water levels in the wetlands to affect habitat structure and waterfowl use.
The level of the Missouri River can affect the staff's ability to manipulate water levels in Refuge
wetlands during flood stages on the river.
3.3.1.2 Moist Soil Units
In a normal year, the water level is lowered during the summer to establish moist-soil vegetation.
After plants are established in the summer, the units are gradually reflooded in the fall to optimize
use of the seed resources. During the spring the water level will gradually be lowered for use by
migrating waterfowl, shorebirds and waders. The Refuge manages 15 independently managed
lowlands in three designated moist soil units totaling 350 acres. They include:
Rice Paddies: This 60-acre area includes a group of eight small moist soil units separated by low
level dikes that were built in the early 1960s. In 1991, the ditch and dike system was rehabilitated.
Today the Rice Paddies are managed for to benefit shorebirds and dabbling ducks during the spring
and fall migration.
Mallard Marsh North (400 acres Mallard Marsh South (190 acres)
Pintail Pool (200 acres) South Pintail Pool (25 acres)
North Pool (200 acres Snow Goose A: (71 acres)
Snow Goose B: (39 acres) Snow Goose C: (80 acres)
Snow Goose D: (40 acres) Snow Goose E: (50 acres)
Pelican Pool (600 acres) Long Slough (60 acres)
Cattail Pool (130 acres) Eagle Pool (900 acres)
Bluff Pool (200 acres)
32
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
Figure 10: Current Landcover (2003), Squaw Creek NWR
33
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
Figure 11: Wet Habitat Management, Squaw Creek NWR
34
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
Davis Creek: The Davis Creek moist soil units total approximately 250 acres in five units. They are
located adjacent to the Rice Paddies on the west and Davis Creek on the east. Prior to development
they were comprised of three crop fields, a damp savannah field of reed canarygrass and willow, and
a lowland softwood forest. Construction of the Davis Creek water control structure in 1989 enabled
the Refuge to convert the area from cropland to moist soil units.
Pelican MSU: This 40-acre unit was abandoned cropland and had reverted to reed canarygrass and
brush. In 1991, an inlet water control structure was installed under the auto tour route to take
water from Pelican Pool, the cross dike was rehabilitated and a new outlet water control was
installed to release water into Davis Creek. This work permitted this 40-acre unit to be managed as
a moist-soil unit.
3.3.1.3 Grasslands
Refuge grasslands, including bottomland mesic prairie,
Loess Hills prairie, old fields and wet prairie, are used in
the spring and fall by migrating grassland birds. A few
ducks also nest in the grassland. The primary
management concern related to grasslands is battling
invasive species, shrubs and trees. Prescribed fire is the
primary tool we use in maintaining grasslands. There are
1,248 acres of grassland on the Refuge.
With the help of volunteers, Refuge staff are working to
restore the Loess Hill Prairies. Restoration is manually
intensive and involves cutting and piling brush on steep
bluffs. In 2001, approximately 4 acres were cleared by
volunteers and staff.
3.3.1.4 Forests
Forests on the Refuge are used by deer, squirrels, raccoons, hawks, owls and a variety of birds.
Heavy browsing by deer has affected forest land, particularly in terms of regeneration. We have
conducted studies on the effects of browsing on sapling in an effort to improve the success rate of
tree plantings. There are 1,378 acres of forest on the Refuge.
3.3.1.5 Cropland
The Refuge currently has 579 acres of cropland, but we are working with cooperative farmers to
reduce that acreage. Three cooperative farmers currently have agreements to farm 473 acres on the
refuge. Currently 34 of those acres are in clover. Actual crops in 2001 included 171 acres of corn and
268 acres of soybeans. One-third of the corn produced was left standing in the field for wildlife food
and cover.
3.3.2 Fish and Wildlife Monitoring
Bald Eagles
Bald Eagle populations are monitored to determine total numbers using the Refuge as well as
monthly use days and peak numbers. In 2001, the peak number of eagles (219) was up 7 percent
from the 10-year average peak of 204 and total use days were 25 percent less than the 10-year
average of 7,147.
Waterfowl
Waterfowl are monitored weekly in the spring and fall. The total number of waterfowl use days for
Squaw Creek NWR in fiscal year 2001 was 8,352,088.
Frank Durbian
35
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
Shorebirds
Spring and fall shorebird surveys are conducted by Refuge staff.
Marsh Birds and Other Water Birds
Marsh birds and other water birds, including grebes, pelicans, cormorants, bitterns, herons, egrets,
ibis, and rails, are typically counted during the shore bird surveys. Although there is much variation
and many missing species in these counts, due to the secretive nature of many of these birds,
documentation of species occurrence is still considered important.
Intensive searches for nesting marsh and water birds via airboat has been conducted since 1991 in
all Refuge wetlands. The most common bird species nesting include the Pied-billed Grebe, Least
Bittern and Common Moorhen while the American Coot is periodically found. The Refuge contains
the largest known number of nests of these species documented in the State of Missouri.
Breeding Bird Mini-route
This survey, which follows Breeding Bird Atlas Mini-route protocol, has been conducted annually
since 1989, with the exception of 1990 and 2000. To date 100 species have been identified on these
routes. In 2001, 54 species were identified on the 2001 Breeding Bird Mini Route.
Bottomland Forest Point Counts
Squaw Creek NWR harbors the largest wet prairie (approximately 600 acres) in Missouri and
probably the Midwest. In an effort to begin documenting breeding bird use of this habitat type,
preliminary point count surveys were undertaken in June 2001. This survey will be continued.
White-tailed Deer
Annual deer counts, comprised mainly of spotlight surveys, have been conducted on Squaw Creek
since 1988. Although no trends can readily be ascertained from past counts, due to limited sample
size and variability of sample techniques, data from these counts does demonstrate that high deer
densities exist on the refuge. In an effort to use current scientific methodology to obtain accurate
deer densities and to standardize survey efforts the refuge began using spotlight distance sampling
techniques in FY 2000. Results from FY 2000 indicated that distance sampling could be a useful
method for determining deer density so this techniques was used again in FY 2001.
Other Mammals
A muskrat house and beaver house census is completed annually.
Christmas Bird Count
A Christmas Bird Count is completed annually.
Mid-winter Waterfowl Count
Squaw Creek NWR participates in the National Mid-Winter Waterfowl Survey.
Sedge Inventory
During the summer field season, several sedge inventories were conducted on the Refuge. Species
located included three Missouri Species of Special Concern: tussocks sedge (Carex stricta),
Sartwell's sedge (Carex sartwellii) - only three locations in the state, and wolf spike rush
(Eleocharis wolfii). Also located is the largest known population of Missouri Sedge (Carex
missouriensis) in the state.
36
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
Amphibians
Squaw Creek has been conducting amphibian deformity surveys since 1997 and has completed frog
and toad calling surveys since 2001. Collection of this data is important as it provides both a baseline
for future amphibian monitoring on refuges and wetland management districts, and additional data
for identifying the extent of the problem on a national basis. All of the data collected is submitted to
the USGS North American Reporting Center for Amphibian Malformations. To date, 724 frogs
representing four species have been captured and examined for deformities on Squaw Creek NWR.
Species examined include plains leopard frog, bullfrog, cricket frog and western chorus frog.
Deformity rates have ranged from 0 - 4.2 percent and appear to fall within the bounds of what are
considered to be normal deformity rates of 1-3 percent.
Invertebrates
In a cooperative effort to begin documenting dragonfly and damselfly species occurrence on the
Refuge and in northwestern Missouri, the Refuge biologist teamed up with an entomologist with
the Missouri Department of Conservation to conduct odonate surveys on the Refuge. A total of 23
species were identified during three survey periods in 2001, two in July and one in September.
3.3.3 Public Use
An estimated 130,000 people visit Squaw Creek NWR
every year; Visitor Contact Station visits totaled 41,683
visits in 2001. With the construction of a new auditorium
completed in 2003, we are better positioned to inspire
visitors to care about the Refuge, the National Wildlife
Refuge System and conservation in the future.
Most people experience the Refuge by driving our 10-
mile auto tour route, which provides excellent
opportunities for people to observe waterfowl and Bald
Eagles. The Refuge also offers an observation platform
at Davis Creek, an observation platform at the terminus
of the Eagle Overlook hiking trail between Pelican Pool
and Eagle Pool, the Loess Bluff hiking trail, which climbs
a steep bluff to provide an outstanding view of the Refuge, and the Callow Memorial trail, which is
accessible to visitors with disabilities, and terminates at the base of the loess bluffs.
Deer Hunting: The Refuge manages a firearm (muzzle-loading only) hunt for antlerless deer each
year to reduce an over abundant population of white-tailed deer. Deer hunting procedures follow
state laws and hunters who apply are randomly selected by the Missouri Department of
Conservation. Refuge staff operate a check station where all hunters must enter and exit the
Refuge and harvested deer are tagged and biological information is collected.
Fishing: Because of the varying water levels, the fishery resource is limited to rough fish. Fishing is
permitted from the pool edges and stream banks in accordance to Missouri State fishing
regulations. Snagging of non-game fish is also permitted at the Eagle Pool water control outlet
structure during years when the pool levels exceed planned water elevations and excess water is
released.
Wildlife Observation and Photography: Year-round, the Refuge provides a beautiful landscape and
diverse wildlife viewing opportunities. In December, Eagle Days draws several thousand people to
the Refuge to drive the auto-tour and attend an eagle show. Wildlife observation is enhanced by
Refuge facilities including an auto tour route, hiking trails, observation decks, and scopes.
Frank Durbian
37
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
Environmental Education/Interpretation: Refuge staff offer interpretive programs, tours and
demonstrations. Many groups visit from local Missouri school districts representing Holt County,
St. Joseph City Schools, and Kansas City metropolitan schools. School districts from Kansas and
Nebraska also use Refuge resources, and a number of college and university classes use the Refuge
for field trips during the year. Interpretation is facilitated with an orientation video and information
on signs in the field and in the visitor center.
3.3.4 Species Management
Integrated management of invasive or pest plants, animals and insects is a program on the Refuge
in support of high quality habitats and human health. Our primary goals is to provide complex
habitat structures to meet the nesting, feeding, and resting requirements of migratory birds and
other wildlife.
We use a variety of techniques in the integrated management of invasive plants. These techniques
include monitoring the invasive species, manual and mechanical manipulations, timing of activities,
chemical and biological control techniques, and introduction of competing species.
3.3.4.1 Animal Species
High densities of species like white-tailed deer, beaver and raccoons can severely affect habitat
quality or other species. We are seeking to maintain acceptable densities of these species. We
continue to monitor deer herds and manage density through a public hunt. Beaver are trapped
when a management problem is identified.
3.3.4.2 Plant Species
Invasive or pest plants can affect many habitat types found at the Refuge. Reed canary grass and
American lotus can invade wetlands; Illinois garlic mustard and marijuana can invade Loess Hill
areas; black locust, honey locust, and johnsongrass can invade grasslands. To reduce encroachment
by these species, we use several management techniques, such as hand pulling individual plants,
mowing, burning, water level manipulation, plowing and chemical applications. The technique we
select is influenced by management objectives, intensity of encroachment, best land use practices,
cost, and timing of application.
3.3.5 Archaeological and Cultural Resources
Undertakings accomplished on the Refuge and the management district have the potential to
impact cultural resources and are subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and sometimes other laws.
Thus the Refuge Manager, during early planning, provides the Regional Historic Preservation
Officer (RHPO) a description and location of all projects, activities, routine maintenance and
operations that affect ground and structures, requests for permitted uses, and of alternatives being
considered. The RHPO analyzes these undertakings for potential to affect historic properties and
enters into consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and other parties as
appropriate. The Refuge Manager notifies the public and local government officials to identify
concerns about impacts by the undertaking. The notification is at least equal to, and preferably
with, public notification accomplished for NEPA and compatibility.
3.3.6 Special Management Areas
3.3.6.1 Farm Services Administration Conservation Easements
Squaw Creek NWR is responsible for managing conservation easements within the Squaw Creek
Wildlife Management District, a 15-county area in northwest Missouri. The Conservation
easements were obtained through the procedures of the Farm Services Administration (FSA),
38
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
formerly Farmers Home Administration, or FmHA. When the FSA acquires property through a
default of loans, it is required to protect wetland and floodplain resources on the property prior to
resale to the public. The authority and direction for the FSA actions comes from the consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981, 1985); Executive Order 11990 providing for the
protection of wetlands; and Executive Order 11988 providing for the management of floodplain
resources.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assists the FSA in identifying important wetland and floodplain
resources on the property. Once those resources have been identified, FSA protects the areas
through a perpetual conservation easement and assigns the management responsibility to the
Service. The easement areas become part of the national Wildlife Refuge System.
Currently 34 easements covering 1,553 acres are recorded on deed and three fee-title tracts totaling
911.5 acres are located in 10 of the district counties.
39
Chapter 4: Management Direction
Chapter 4: Management Direction
4.1 Planned Refuge Programs
4.1.1 Introduction
Managing a national wildlife refuge demands
that we chart a long-term course that will ensure
the health and persistence of wildlife and habitat
species. There may be too many variables to plot
a course into the future that is as precise as a
road map, but we can at least note a few
landmarks to steer by. Through this
comprehensive conservation plan, which has
been developed with the participation of the
State of Missouri and other partners, and with
participation by neighbors and other interested
people, we have defined goals that will guide
Squaw Creek NWR for the next 15 years.
Section 4.2 details goals for the Refuge, the objectives we have identified for achieving those goals,
and the strategies by which we mean to achieve our objectives. In this section, we provide a brief
overview of our plans for Squaw Creek NWR.
4.1.2 Habitat
In considering the Refuge’s future, we are mindful that the Refuge was established to provide a
resting, breeding and feeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife. We intend to
accomplish this by providing a diversity of habitats, with particular emphasis on wetlands. We will
maintain uplands that create diverse habitats. We will manage forest land to benefit migratory
songbirds and to benefit threatened and endangered species, other migratory birds, and indigenous
species. We will work with farm program cooperators to convert cropland to grassland or
woodlands. By continuing our work with private landowners using existing programs, we will
contribute to reducing erosion and sedimentation and improving the quality of surface runoff
waters.
4.1.3 Fish and Wildlife
We will learn more about annual peak populations of wildlife using the Refuge so that we better
understand species’ needs and the Refuge’s ability to meet those needs. We will maintain waterfowl
use day levels at a minimum of 5 million, however we will assist in international efforts to reduce
the mid-continent population of Lesser Snow Geese. This will include reducing cropland on the
Refuge as well as offering a spring Snow Goose hunt. We will better manage deer populations to
Frank Durbian
40
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
improve the quality of Refuge habitat. We will seek Refuge designation as a Western Hemispheric
Shorebird Reserve Network, which would contribute to funding initiatives and gain international
recognition of the Refuge and its work to conserve indigenous species. We will maintain bottomland
cottonwood forest areas in an effort to support Bald Eagles during fall and winter migration
periods. We will maintain habitat that is critical to the Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake and Least
Bittern.
4.1.4 Wildlife-dependent Recreation, Environmental Education and
Interpretation
Our programs will inspire people to care about Squaw Creek NWR, natural resources, and the
environment. Toward that end, we will focus on improving the quality of the visit. To accomplish
this, we will design and implement interactive programs that meet Service standards and bring
existing facilities up to Service standards. We will improve our orientation maps and signage. We
appreciate traditional Refuge visitors and want them to continue coming to Squaw Creek NWR,
and we will reach out to diverse groups of people who are not traditional Refuge visitors.
Volunteers play a critical role at the Refuge, and we want
to strengthen our relationships with volunteers (and
through them, the community) by drawing more people
to contribute their time and talent to the Refuge. We will
work to strengthen our relationship with Friends of
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge.
4.1.5 Avoidance of Impacts to Listed Species
To assure that listed species will not be adversely
affected, proposed species are not jeopardized, or critical
habitat is not adversely modified, we will observe the
following guidelines as we implement the Squaw Creek
NWR CCP.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
No disturbance will take place during critical periods within protective zones as described in the
1983 Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan, Appendix E, Management Guidelines for
Breeding Areas.
Eastern Massassauga Rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus)
Although not currently listed, the Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake is a candidate for listing. As
the CCP is implemented, the Refuge will seek opportunities for conservation of this species on and
off the Refuge. We will use Johnson et al., 2000, The Eastern Massassauga Rattlesnake: A
Handbook for Land Managers, USFWS, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota, and the results of current
research efforts to guide our conservation efforts.
Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)
The Piping Plover is a rare visitor to the Refuge and is not observed annually. They are generally
seen during the spring migration but do not nest on the Refuge. If any birds were to attempt to
nest, the location would be secured and free from disturbance.
4.1.6 Climate Change Impacts
The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies
under its direction that have land management responsibilities to consider potential climate change
impacts as part of long range planning endeavors.
Frank Durbian
41
Chapter 4: Management Direction
The increase of carbon within the earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface
temperature commonly referred to as global warming. In relation to comprehensive conservation
planning for national wildlife refuges, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related
impact to be considered in planning. The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Carbon Sequestration
Research and Development” (U.S. DOE, 1999) defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and
secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.”
The land is a tremendous force in carbon sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts – grasslands,
forests, wetlands, tundra, perpetual ice and desert – are effective both in preventing carbon
emission and acting as a biological “scrubber�� of atmospheric carbon monoxide. The Department of
Energy report’s conclusions noted that ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration
and may reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere.
Preserving natural habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long range plan for national wildlife
refuges. The actions proposed in this comprehensive conservation plan would conserve or restore
land and water, and would thus enhance carbon sequestration. This in turn contributes positively to
efforts to mitigate human-induced global climate changes.
4.2 Goals, Objectives and Strategies
The following goals for habitat, wildlife and people are general statements of what we want to
accomplish in the next 15 years.
The objectives are specific statements of what will be accomplished to help achieve a goal.
Objectives describe the who, what, when, where, and why of what is to be accomplished. Strategies
listed under each objective specify the activities that will be pursued to realize an objective. The
strategies may be refined or amended as specific tasks are completed or new research and
information come to light.
Goal 1: Habitat
Manage a diversity of habitat to benefit threatened and endangered species, waterfowl, other
migratory birds, and indigenous species in Lower Missouri River floodplain ecosystem and the
Central Tallgrass Prairie ecosystem. Rationale: Squaw Creek NWR was established in 1935 to
provide a resting, breeding and feeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife. A diversity
of habitats will be maintained in optimum condition with particular emphasis on wetland
enhancement to meet the primary Refuge purpose (Figure 12). The wetland diversity will include a
mosaic of mudflats, shallow water, moist soil, flooded timber and deep water permanent marshes to
support a large variety of marsh, water and shore birds with special emphasis on spring and fall
habitat for migrating waterfowl. The upland will include the maintenance of native warm and cool
season grasses, brushland, timber and croplands, to achieve a diverse mosaic of habitats rather than
monotypic stands. These habitats will be managed to attract and support Federal and State listed
endangered, threatened, and candidate species. Utilize existing programs to encourage private
landowners to improve soil and water conservation management that will result in reduced soil
erosion and sedimentation and improved quality of surface runoff waters.
1.1. Objective: Wetlands: Manage 3,452 acres of seasonally flooded impoundments that will be
manipulated to provide open water, exposed shoreline and mudflats, and shallow
wetlands traditionally preferred by migratory birds and other wetland- associated
wildlife species.
Rationale: The Refuge is an important stopover during the spring and fall
migration for marsh, water and shorebirds. Managed water impoundments on the
42
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
Figure 12: Future Desired Land Cover, Squaw Creek NWR
43
Chapter 4: Management Direction
Refuge help to offset the ever diminishing availability of wetland habitat along the
Missouri River floodplain.
Strategies:
1. Manage water levels in Eagle Pool (900 acres) and Pelican Pool (600 acres)
primarily for resting and roosting migrating waterfowl, by maintaining
elevations at approximately 852.0 MSL during the fall and spring migratory
periods. Start recharging pools no later than October 1 to achieve full pool level
by November 15. Other species to benefit from this management action are
Least Bittern, Pied-billed Grebe and Common Moorhen.
2. Provide for open water habitat in Eagle and Pelican pools by mechanical or
chemical treatment or by burning to control American lotus, river bulrush, and
cattail when vegetative surface area coverage exceeds 80 percent. Yearly
vegetation monitoring will be conducted to assess status of problem vegetation.
3. Maintain a minimum of 15 percent of cattail stands; use summer drawdowns to
encourage regrowth of cattail on Eagle and Pelican pools for nesting species
such as Least Bittern, Yellow-headed Blackbird, and Marsh Wren.
4. Maintain minimum winter depths of 12 to18 inches in Eagle and Pelican pools
for muskrat survival to assure open water areas (muskrat eat-out areas) will be
available for roosting and resting waterfowl.
5. Drawdown water in 40 percent of the remaining wetland impoundments
annually to encourage growth of shallow water and moist-soil plants to benefit
waterfowl and provide mudflats and exposed shoreline to benefit shorebirds.
6. Allow water levels to fluctuate naturally in the remaining 60 percent of wetland
impoundments for the benefit of species requiring standing water such as
waterfowl broods, water birds, reptiles, amphibians, and muskrats.
7. On a 5-year cycle, mechanically or chemically treat or prescribe burn a minimum
of 300 acres each year to maintain early successional stage, reduce undesirable
plants, encourage preferred seed producing plants, create additional shoreline
and mudflat habitat, and provide open water.
8. Davis Creek moist soil unit No. 1 (28 acres) and Cattail Triangle (14 acres) will
be permanently managed as seasonal mudflat and open shallow water habitat
specifically for spring and fall migrating shorebirds. This will be accomplished
annually by early spring drawdown, summer mechanical manipulation, and late
summer flooding.
9. Install water control outlet structures on Snow Goose Unit C into Squaw Creek
to enhance water and habitat management capabilities.
10. Construct a bridge across the north end of Davis Creek to provide access to
Bluff Pool for water management, wildlife surveys, and prescribed burning. The
present access east of Davis Creek is through private land or along the top
slopes of the creek which is not accessible during wet weather. (RONS Project
No. 99018)
11. Repair the east dike of Mallard Marsh and Pintail Pool along Squaw Creek
using material from the ditch. During high water regimes, silt-laden water
continues to overtop the east dike in both pools in several locations, adversely
affecting the long-term health of these marshes.
44
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
12. During the next 15 years, the
inlet water control structures on
Eagle Pool and Pelican Pool and
outlet structures on Pelican Pool
need to be replaced. In addition,
the Eagle Pool radial gates, built
in the late 1930’s, are
deteriorating and need to be
replaced. (MMS Project No.
03012)
13. Upgrade the Davis Creek water
control structure. The base needs
to be raised 1 to 2 feet to prevent
deposition of silt under the radial
gate. (MMS Project No. 97180)
14. Remove excess silt from moist soil units and pools to improve the wetlands. Soil
will be used to repair and to improve pool dikes and refuge roads.
15. Utilize the Geographic Information System (GIS) to track wetland management
activities and habitat changes. (RONS Project No. 99011)
16. Add seasonal tractor operator to enhance and to improve management of
wetland and moist soil program (.5 FTE). (RONS Project No. 99015)
17. Place dead trees in wetland areas to provide resting and sunning areas for
turtles and water snakes.
18. Convert 42 acres of bottomland mesic prairie to a managed wetland by 2004.
This area will be an extension of North Mallard Marsh and will be used to
provide fill dirt for an MoDOT bridge replacement project on 118 Highway,
immediately adjacent to the Refuge. The MoDOT will create the wetland, at no
cost, and at the same time obtain fill dirt for the bridge replacement project in
an area currently dominated by reed canary grass, an invasive species.
19. Conduct a study of the water supply to the Mallard Marsh pump as well as the
hydrologic connection of the Loess Hills watershed to the Refuge to determine
if acquisition and management of adjacent lands would increase the amount of
available water and improve water management on the Refuge.
1.2. Objective: Wet Prairie: Conserve and enhance the largest remnant wet prairie in Missouri by
preserving and maintaining the integrity of at least 1,077 acres of wet prairie
through elimination of non-native species and restoration of associated natural
functioning systems (e.g. hydrolic systems, fire, etc.).
Rationale: Squaw Creek’s wet prairie contains the largest meta population of the
Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake in Missouri. This snake is a State-listed
endangered species and is being considered as a federally listed species. Other
species benefitting from a vigorous wet prairie are Sedge Wrens, rail species. and
Short-eared Owls. In 1936 there were approximately 3,000 acres wet prairie on the
Refuge. By 2003, 1,077 acres of wet prairie remained on the Refuge.
Strategies:
1. Conduct small mammal, invertebrate, reptile, and nongame bird surveys to
assess diversity and usage of wet prairie.
Frank Durbian
45
Chapter 4: Management Direction
2. Annually inventory and monitor wet prairie vegetation for species composition
and successional changes to determine future management regimes.
3. Utilize a seasonal rotational prescribed burning program in the wet prairie to
reduce exotic invasive species and woody encroachment and promote native
grass and forb production.
4. Monitoring will be conducted to determine the effects of seasonal burning on
wet prairie vegetative communities, invasive species, and Massassauga
populations.
5. Efforts will be made to minimize any adverse effect of the prescribed burning
program on the Massassauga population and other wetland species. This may be
accomplished by burning smaller segments of the wet prairie during spring and
summer months and mowing certain areas before burning. Section 7
consultations will be conducted as necessary for prescribed burning on
designated wet prairie units.
6. Maintain current disced fire breaks and initiate additional mowed (hayed)
firebreaks to improve seasonal prescribed burning opportunities and prevent
wildfires from consuming the entire wet prairie area, which would cause
detrimental effects on the Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake and breeding bird
populations.
7. Add a full-time prescribed fire specialist to implement and to advance the
prescribed fire program. (RONS Project No. 02003)
8. Employ chemical applications to control invasive and exotic species such as
honey locust and reed canarygrass.
9. Develop a rotational haying strategy to supplement enhanced grass stand vigor.
10. Assess pre- and post-treatment conditions to evaluate treatment success of
prescribed burns, chemical applications and rotational haying.
11. Restore prairie cordgrass south of Pintail Pool, the northeast corner of Pintail
Pool and the triangle area in the middle of Snow Goose Pool to suppress reed
canarygrass stands.
1.3 Objective: Bottomland Mesic Prairie: Manage 508 acres of bottomland mesic prairie habitat to
provide quality nesting cover for nongame migratory birds (dickcissels,
grasshopper sparrows, field sparrows, and sedge wrens) as well as nesting and
wintering cover for upland gamebird species, breeding waterfowl (mallards, blue
wing teal, and shovelers), and other associated wildlife species, by maintaining,
enhancing, and restoring grasslands to a mixture of warm and cool season native
grasses. This habitat will be managed to maximize native vegetation abundance,
minimize fragmentation and maximize the minimum patch size for area-dependant
species.
Rationale: Bottomland mesic prairie is not commonly found off-Refuge due to
habitat modifications.
Strategies:
1. Conduct small mammal, invertebrate, reptile and nongame bird surveys to
assess diversity and usage of bottomland mesic prairie.
2. Utilize a seasonal rotational prescribed burning program in the bottomland
prairie to reduce exotic invasive species and woody encroachment and promote
native grass and forb production.
46
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
3. Monitoring will be conducted to determine the effects of seasonal burning on
bottomland mesic prairie vegetative communities, wildlife species, and invasive
species.
4. Maintain current fire breaks and initiate additional mowed (hayed) fire breaks
where necessary to improve seasonal prescribed burning opportunities and
prevent wildfires.
5. Add full-time prescribed fire specialist to implement and to advance the
prescribed fire program. (RONS Project No. 02003)
6. Employ chemical applications to control invasive and exotic species such as
honey locust and reed canarygrass.
7. Develop a rotational haying strategy to supplement enhanced grass stand vigor.
8. Assess pre- and post-treatment conditions to evaluate treatment success of
chemical applications and rotational haying.
9. Convert 200 acres of agricultural cropland and 59 acres of old field to 259 acres
of native bottomland mesic prairie by 2015.
10. Utilize basic farming practices in grasslands restoration to control invasive
species and to prepare seedbed for effective native seed establishment.
11. Plant native forbs in existing grassland areas after prescribed burns and include
forbs in future grassland restoration efforts.
1.4 Objective: Loess Hills Prairie: Manage 299 acres of Loess Hill prairie habitat to provide
quality nesting cover for nongame migratory birds and other associated wildlife
species by maintaining, enhancing and restoring grasslands to a mixture of warm
and cool season native grasses. This habitat will be managed to maximize native
vegetation abundance, minimize fragmentation and maximize minimum patch size
for area-dependant species.
Rationale: The Refuge currently contains 221 acres of Loess Hill prairie habitat,
which is a rare and unique ecotype. There is also the potential to convert 78 acres of
agricultural land to Loess Hill prairie. Preservation and management of this eco-type
is important as it is threatened by conversion to agriculture, urbanization and
succession.
Strategies:
1. Continue loess bluff grassland bird monitoring programs, especially for Region
3 Resource conservation Priority species.
2. Inventory loess bluff plant species to guide preservation and management of
Missouri Species of Conservation Concern such as low milk vetch, hairy grama,
downy painted cup, nine-anther dalea, skeleton plant and small soapweed yucca.
3. Conduct surveys for small mammals, reptile, amphibians and invertebrates.
4. Continue to restore native warm season grasses and forbs in the loess bluff hills.
Hand-cut invading tree species and brush on the steep slopes. Utilize chemical
applications on invading plant species such as roughleafed dogwood, honey
locust, tree of heaven, and Illinois garlic mustard.
5. Convert 78 acres of agricultural land (Munkers Tract) to native loess hill prairie
by 2006.
47
Chapter 4: Management Direction
6. Utilize a seasonal rotational prescribed burning program for all upland
grassland areas to reduce exotic invasive species and woody encroachment,
promote native grass and forb production leaving a minimum of 60 percent of
grassland for nesting and winter cover each year.
7. Develop a haying/mowing strategy to supplement the prescribed burning plan
for grassland maintenance.
8. Plant native forbs such as liatris, purple cone flowers, rattlesnake master, wild
indigo, and lead plants in existing grassland areas after prescribed burns and
include forbs in future grassland restoration efforts. When available, local
ecotypes seeds (within 100 miles of the Refuge) will be used.
9. Maximize grassland blocks and minimize fragmentation and edge effect by
removing fence/tree rows where appropriate.
10. Implement a vegetative monitoring program to evaluate the effects of all
management options including prescribed burning, haying, mowing and
chemical treatment on invasive species and native grass and forb communities.
(RONS Project No. 02002)
11. Purchase bobcat-type skid loader with a tree shearer to remove invading locust
or other exotic trees for the restoration and the preservation of the native
prairie and unique loess bluff habitat. (RONS Project No. 00002)
12. Add full-time prescribed fire specialist to implement and to advance the
prescribed fire program. (RONS Project No. 02003.)
1.5 Objective: Loess Hill Forest: Manage 378 acres of Loess Hills forest for the benefit of
associated plant and wildlife species.
Rationale: The Refuge contains 378 acres of Loess Hill forest habitat, which is a
rare and unique ecotype. Preservation and management of this eco-type is
important as it is threatened by conversion to agriculture, urbanization and
succession to other habitat types.
Strategies:
1. Conduct plant, small mammal, invertebrate, reptile, and nongame bird surveys
to assess diversity and usage of loess hill forest.
2. Conduct a forest inventory.
3. Map distribution of Illinois garlic mustard to aid evaluation of control efforts.
(RONS Project No. 99007)
1.6 Objective: Bottomland Forest: Manage the 1,000 acres of bottomland forest to provide
optimum nesting, resting, and feeding habitats during breeding and migrational
periods for migratory waterfowl and songbirds and to benefit threatened and
endangered species, and other indigenous species. This habitat will be managed to
maximize native vegetation abundance, minimize fragmentation and maximize the
minimum patch size for area-dependant species.
Rationale: A number of bottomland forest-dependent, migratory songbirds are rare
and declining as a result of insufficient or fragmented habitat. Conservation and
management of suitable habitat are principal strategies for attaining more abundant
populations of these birds. Wood Ducks and Hooded Mergansers also utilize
woodland habitat.
48
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP
Strategies:
1. Flood bottomlands within Davis Creek moist soil units 3, 4 and 5 during the
spring and fall waterfowl migrations for use by Mallards, Wood Ducks and other
waterfowl species.
2. Move wood duck nesting structures from open water areas and ditches to
bottomland and upland woodland sites and annually maintain structures.
3. Complete a forest resources inventory to determine quality and quantity of
woodlands. This will be accomplished utilizing federal as well as state expertise.
The data will aid in determining management alternatives.
4. Study the causes for the loss of bottomland forests understory that is adversely
affecting woodland birds and other wildlife. Investigate potential measures to
restore the bottomland forest understory and tree regeneration.
5. Map distribution of Illinois garlic mustard and reed canarygrass to aid
evaluation of control efforts.
6. Utilize prescribed burning to reduce invasive exotic species and encourage
growth of tree saplings to restore a woodland understory.
1.7. Objective: Croplands and Old Fields: Implement a long range plan to convert 279 acres of the
579 existing cropland acres and 59 acres of existing old field to mesic bottomland
prairie and Loess Hill prairie. The reduction will be accomplished by 2015 through
attrition of current cooperators.
Rationale: While croplands contribute very little to the overall Refuge biological
objectives for wildlife they do attract wildlife concentrations that enhance
opportunities for wildlife observation and photography. Conversion of cropland to
other uses is costly and requires several seasons to implement, thus limiting the
number of acres that can be converted to an average 25 acres annually.
Strategies:
1. Monitor utilization of croplands by all wildlife species to assess habitat benefits/
costs of maintaining some Refuge acreage in croplands.
2. Continue annual cooperative farming agreements with local farmers to provide
share-crop grain for wildlife.
3. Implement phased reductions and complete by 2015.
4. Implement a 3-year crop rotation that includes cool season grasses (clover)
planted on fields during noncrop years.
5. Convert the 78 acres of croplands on the Munkres tract to Loess Hill prairie by
2006, containing a mixture of warm season native grasses such as little bluestem
and sideoats grama that are preferred by nongame birds (Grasshopper
Sparrows, Field Sparrows, and Bob-o-links) and forbs such as liatris, purple
cone flowers, rattlesnake master, wild indigo, and lead plants. Remove the fence
adjacent to the headquarters grassland unit.
6. Convert the 200 acres of cropland and 59 acres of old field to bottomland mesic
prairie by 2015, containing a mixture of warm season native grasses such as
little bluestem and sideoats grama, which are preferred by nongame birds
(Grasshopper Sparrows, Field Sparrows and Bobolinks) and native forbs.
49
Chapter 4: Management Direction
1.8. Objective: Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species: Control and reduce the presence of exotic,
invasive, and nuisance species of plants and animals on the Refuge. Non-native
species will not exceed 2003 density or distribution levels.
Rationale: Control of exotic plants is a long-term challenge. Methods used will
depend on particular species, severity of impact and overall circumstances.
Strategies:
l. Develop a plot or grid system for assessing the magnitude of the problem using
GIS technology and design a monitoring protocol incorporating means of
measur