Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Squaw Creek
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment
United States Fish & Wildlife Service
www.fws.gov
Region 3 of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
http://midwest.fws.gov
Cover Photograph: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions; set
forth goals, objectives and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the
Fish and Wildlife Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning
levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are
primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not
constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or
funding for future land acquisition.
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of
lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the
fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of
present and future generations of Americans.
Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect,
and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
people.
Squaw Creek
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 ......................................................................................................................11
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 .....................................................................................................................25
3.2.3.4 Amphibians and Reptiles .............................................................................................25
3.2.3.5 Fish ...............................................................................................................................26
3.2.3.6 Invertebrates ................................................................................................................26
ii
Squaw Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
3.2.3.7 Plants ...........................................................................................................................26
3.2.3.8 Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................................................26
3.2.3.9 Cooperative Farming ...................................................................................................27
3.2.3.10 Land Use ...................................................................................................................27
3.2.3.11 Threats to Resources ................................................................................................27
3.2.3.12 Administrative Facilities ............................................................................................28
3.2.4 Socioeconomic Setting .............................................................................................................28
3.2.4.1 Population ....................................................................................................................28
3.2.4.2 Employment .................................................................................................................30
3.2.4.3 Income and Education .................................................................................................30
3.2.5 Archeological and Cultural Values ...........................................................................................30
3.2.6 Public Use .................................................................................................................................30
3.2.6.1 Potential Refuge Visitors ............................................................................................31
3.3 Current Management ..........................................................................................................................32
3.3.1 Habitat Management ................................................................................................................32
3.3.1.1 Wetland Management .................................................................................................32
3.3.1.2 Moist Soil Units ...........................................................................................................32
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 ...............................................................................................................36
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 .............................................................................................................38
4.1 Planned Refuge Programs ...................................................................................................................38
4.1.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................38
4.1.2 Habitat ......................................................................................................................................38
4.1.3 Fish and Wildlife .......................................................................................................................38
4.1.4 Wildlife-dependent Recreation, Environmental Education and Interpretation ........................39
4.1.5 Avoidance of Impacts to Listed Species ...................................................................................39
4.1.6 Climate Change Impacts ...........................................................................................................39
4.2 Goals, Objectives and Strategies ........................................................................................................40
Chapter 5: Implementation and Monitoring ..............................................................................................65
5.1 Personnel Needs .................................................................................................................................65
5.2 New and Existing Projects ...................................................................................................................66
5.3 Step-down Management Plans ...........................................................................................................67
5.4 Partnership Opportunities ....................................................................................................................67
5.5 Monitoring and Evaluation ..................................................................................................................67
5.6 Plan Amendment and Revision ............................................................................................................68
iii
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment ............................................................................................ 69
Appendix B: Glossary ........................................................................................................................... 135
Appendix C: Species Lists ................................................................................................................... 141
Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations ...................................................................................... 163
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements ........................................................................................... 167
Appendix F: Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Maintenance Management System
(MMS) .............................................................................................................................. 173
Appendix G: Mailing List ...................................................................................................................... 179
Appendix H: List of Preparers ............................................................................................................. 183
Appendix I: Wildlife Resource Conservation Priority Species for the
Lower Missouri River Ecosystem ................................................................................ 187
Appendix J: References ....................................................................................................................... 193
Appendix K: Comparison of Alternatives by Objective and Strategy .......................................... 197
Appendix L: Response to Comments on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment ......................................................................................... 223
Squaw Creek
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
List of Figures and Tables
iv
Squaw Creen NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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: Current Landcover (2003), Squaw Creek NWR ........................................................................... 24
Figure: 10: Squaw Creek NWR Administrative Facilities, 2003 ................................................................... 29
Figure: 11: Habitat Management, Squaw Creek NWR ................................................................................. 33
Figure: 12: Future Desired Land Cover, Squaw Creek NWR ......................................................................... 41
Figure: 13: Existing and Authorized Refuge Boundary .................................................................................. 48
Figure: 14: Eastern Massassauga Rattlesnake Landcover, Squaw Creek NWR .......................................... 54
Figure: 15: Squaw Creek NWR Staffing Chart, 2003-2018 .......................................................................... 66
Table: 1: Step-down Management Plan Schedule .................................................................................... 67
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 475 Bald Eagles, 300,000 Snow
Geese, and 200,000 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 11 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 NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 1: Location of Squaw Creek NWR
3
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Figure 2: Squaw Creek Wildlife Management Area
4
Squaw Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The Refuge hosts 310 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 and
become supportive of the Refuge staff's efforts to conserve, preserve and manage wildlife
resources and their habitats.
5
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
# 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, Blanding’s 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 NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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
comprehensive conservation plans is one of those mandates. The legislation requires the Secretary of
7
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
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
# Ducks Unlimited
8
Squaw Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
# 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
# Sac and Fox Tribe
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.
The draft CCP and EA were released for public review on June 28, 2004, with the comment period
closing on August 27, 2004. Eleven people attended a public open house on August 4, 2004. A total of
43 comments were received (see Appendix L) during the public review period.
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.
Frank Durbian
10
Squaw Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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.
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 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.
Frank Durbian
11
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
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 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 2-3-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 NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 Rice Paddy moist-soil unit, 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 (Figure 4). 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
Frank Durbian
13
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
45,000 acres) 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 measures
Figure 3: Squaw Creek NWR Relations to Watershed-based FWS-classified Ecosystems
14
Squaw Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 4: Squaw Creek NWR Watershed and Surrounding Watershed
15
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
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 Region;
migratory bird species derived from Service wide and international conservation planning efforts; and
Frank Durbian
16
Squaw Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 187).
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.
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.
Figure 5: Bird Conservation Region
17
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
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 (see Figure 2 on page 3).
Currently 34 easements covering 1,553 acres are recorded
on deed and three fee-title tracts totaling 911.5 acres are
located in 11 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 treaties,
laws, executive orders and judicial opinions, and these responsibilities dwarf the agency's budget.
Frank Durbian
18
Squaw Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 (Figure 6). 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 NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 purposes
21
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
(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 NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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, prairie
cordgrass, Eastern grama grass, switchgrass, Indian grass, side oats garama, 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 cottonwood, black willow, and
silver maple, oak, hickory, green ash, honey locust, dogwood, and redbud.
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.
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 goldenrods prairie ragwort
bush-clover 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 NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 9: Current Landcover (2003), Squaw Creek NWR
25
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
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 Wigeon,
Northern Shoveler, Green-winged Teal, Blue-winged Teal, Northern Pintail and American Coot are
the dominant 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 259,000 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. A total of 38
species of shorebirds have been recorded on the Refuge.
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,
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-billed Cuckoo, Red-headed Woodpecker,
Red-bellied Woodpecker, Common Yellowthroat, Northern Cardinal, House Wren, Song Sparrow,
European Starling, Yellow Warbler and Gray Catbird.
3.2.3.3 Mammals
Approximately 33 species of 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 gray fox, red fox, coyote, mink,
raccoons, striped 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.
26
Squaw Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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. Dragon and damselfly surveys are conducted on the Refuge biannually.
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 during migration. Piping Plovers nest in coastal areas, but they are also prairie
birds, nesting across the Great Plains of the United States and Canada, and specifically to the north
on the Missouri River sandbars in western Iowa. They are nesting in perilously low numbers,
however, and 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.
Frank Durbian
27
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
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
considered a transient bird on Squaw Creek NWR, however the species does nest on the Missouri
River to the north on sandbars in western Iowa. 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 of the 579 total acres
of cropland 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
The Refuge has an Integrapted Pest Management program that uses current best management
practices. The Refuge will also partner with other interested parties such as local organizations,
colleges, government agencies, and corporations to find better methods of controlling invasive plants.
The Refuge will use a full host of chemical, biological and mechanical methods. Chemicals are used
within label restrictions or under a research program. Treatment methods arereveiwed annually for
sucess and cost effectiveness. The most practical, cost-effective management methods will be used.
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.
28
Squaw Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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. An additional pump is used for the Rice Paddy
moist-soil units.
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.
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
29
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
Figure 10: Squaw Creek NWR Administrative Facilities, 2003
30
Squaw Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 historic 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.
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.
31
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
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.
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: freshwater fishing
(42,953), photography (31,399), hiking (27,237), hunting (24,921), and bird watching (22,992). 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.
Frank Durbian
32
Squaw Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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.
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.
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)
33
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
Figure 11: Habitat Management, Squaw Creek NWR
34
Squaw Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 and reed canary grass invasion 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. The reduced cropland will benefit our goal of maintaining a diversity of habitats
on the Refuge, contribute to reducing the use of the Refuge by Snow Geese, provide additional
grassland bird habitat, and provide additional habitat for massasauga rattlesnake. 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.
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.
Frank Durbian
35
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
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 1,000 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.
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.
36
Squaw Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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.
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 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.
Frank Durbian
37
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
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 attempt to 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), 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 11 of the District counties.
38
Squaw Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 improve the
quality of Refuge habitat. We will seek Refuge designation as a Western Hemispheric Shorebird
Frank Durbian
39
Chapter 4: Management Direction
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 transient on 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.
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
George Scheil
40
Squaw Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 Refuge help
to offset the ever diminishing availability of wetland habitat along the Missouri River
floodplain.
41
Chapter 4: Management Direction
Figure 12: Future Desired Land Cover, Squaw Creek NWR
42
Squaw Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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)
Frank Durbian
43
Chapter 4: Management Direction
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.
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. 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.
14. Add seasonal tractor operator to enhance and to improve management of wetland
and moist soil program (.5 FTE). (RONS Project No. 99015)
15. Place dead trees in wetland areas to provide resting and sunning areas for turtles
and water snakes.
16. 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 healthy 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.
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
44
Squaw Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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.
8. Employ chemical applications to control invasive and exotic species such as honey
locust and reed canarygrass.
9. Assess pre- and post-treatment conditions to evaluate treatment success of
prescribed burns, chemical applications and rotational haying.
10. Restore prairie cordgrass south of Pintail Pool, the northeast corner of Pintail
Pool and the triangle area in the northeast corner of Snow Goose Pool, Unit A.
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.
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.
6. Employ chemical applications to control invasive and exotic species such as honey
locust and reed canarygrass.
7. Assess pre- and post-treatment conditions to evaluate treatment success of
chemical applications and rotational haying.
8. Convert 200 acres of agricultural cropland and 59 acres of old field to 259 acres of
native bottomland mesic prairie by 2015.
9. Utilize basic farming practices in grasslands restoration to control invasive
species and to prepare seedbed for effective native seed establishment.
45
Chapter 4: Management Direction
10. 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.
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. 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.
8. Maximize grassland blocks and minimize fragmentation and edge effect by
removing fence/tree rows where appropriate.
9. 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)
10. Add full-time prescribed fire specialist to implement and to advance the
prescribed fire program.
1.5 Objective: Loess Hill Forest: Manage 378 acres of Loess Hills forest for the benefit of associated
plant and wildlife species.
46
Squaw Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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.
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: Croplands attract wildlife concentrations that enhance opportunities for
wildlife observation and photography. However, natural habitats and food sources
47
Chapter 4: Management Direction
contribute more to overall Refuge biological objectives for wildlife. 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. Continue a 2-year crop rotation.
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