Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              Muscatatuck
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
i
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................................................1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................................1
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...............................................................................................................................................1
The National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................................................1
History and Establishment ...........................................................................................................................................................3
Refuge Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................4
Refuge Vision ...............................................................................................................................................................................4
Purpose of the Plan ......................................................................................................................................................................4
Legal Context ................................................................................................................................................................................5
Chapter 2: The Planning Process ..................................................................................................................................................6
Meetings and Involvement ..........................................................................................................................................................6
Issues ...........................................................................................................................................................................................6
Wilderness Review ......................................................................................................................................................................7
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management .....................................................................................................................8
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................................8
Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge ...............................................................................................................................8
Ecological Context ........................................................................................................................................................................8
Historic Vegetation ...............................................................................................................................................................8
Land Use/Cover ............................................................................................................................................................................9
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ..............................................................................................................................12
Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities ............................................................................................................12
Other Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Area .......................................................................................................12
Conservation Corridors .......................................................................................................................................................12
Socioeconomic Context ..............................................................................................................................................................14
Population and Demographics ...........................................................................................................................................14
Employment .......................................................................................................................................................................14
Income and Education .......................................................................................................................................................14
Demand and Supply for Wildlife-Dependent Recreation ...........................................................................................................14
Climate .......................................................................................................................................................................................15
Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................................................................16
Hydrology and Water Quality .....................................................................................................................................................18Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
ii
Refuge Habitats and Wildlife .....................................................................................................................................................20
Wetlands ...........................................................................................................................................................................20
Forests ................................................................................................................................................................................20
Grasslands ..........................................................................................................................................................................22
Birds ....................................................................................................................................................................................22
Mammals ............................................................................................................................................................................22
Amphibians and Reptiles ...................................................................................................................................................23
Fish .....................................................................................................................................................................................23
Invertebrates ......................................................................................................................................................................23
Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................................................................24
State-listed/Candidate Species .................................................................................................................................24
Threatened/Endangered/Candidate Species (Fed Listed) ..........................................................................................25
Threats to Resources ..................................................................................................................................................................26
Invasive Species .................................................................................................................................................................26
Exotic/Pest Species ....................................................................................................................................................26
Contaminants .....................................................................................................................................................................26
Administrative Facilities .............................................................................................................................................................27
Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation .............................................................................................................................28
Visitation ....................................................................................................................................................................................29
Current Management .................................................................................................................................................................29
Habitat Management .........................................................................................................................................................29
Wetland Management ...............................................................................................................................................29
Moist Soil Units .........................................................................................................................................................31
Grasslands ..................................................................................................................................................................31
Forests ........................................................................................................................................................................31
Cropland .....................................................................................................................................................................32
Monitoring ..........................................................................................................................................................................32
Public Use ...........................................................................................................................................................................32
Hunting .......................................................................................................................................................................32
Fishing ........................................................................................................................................................................35
Interpretation, Observation, and Photography ............................................................................................................36
Environmental Education ...........................................................................................................................................38
Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation ...........................................................................................................................38
Predator, Pest, and Invasive Species Management ...........................................................................................................38
Animal Species ..........................................................................................................................................................38
Plant Species ..............................................................................................................................................................39
Archaeological and Cultural Resources ..............................................................................................................................39
Law Enforcement ................................................................................................................................................................40
Existing Partnerships ..........................................................................................................................................................41
Other Management Areas ..................................................................................................................................................41
Research Natural Area ...............................................................................................................................................41
Restle Unit ..................................................................................................................................................................41
Farm Service Agency Conservation Easements ..........................................................................................................43Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iii
Current Staff and Budget ...................................................................................................................................................43
Staff ............................................................................................................................................................................43
Budget ........................................................................................................................................................................43
Chapter 4: Management Direction ..............................................................................................................................................44
Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................................44
Goal 1: Habitat ...................................................................................................................................................................44
Goal 2: Wildlife ..................................................................................................................................................................54
Goal 3: People ....................................................................................................................................................................58
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ..................................................................................................................................................65
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................65
New and Existing Projects ........................................................................................................................................................65
Staffing ......................................................................................................................................................................................65
Partnership Opportunities ..........................................................................................................................................................66
Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................................................................66
Monitoring and Evaluation .........................................................................................................................................................67
Plan Review and Revision ..........................................................................................................................................................67
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment ..................................................................................................................................69
Appendix B: Glossary ..................................................................................................................................................................139
Appendix C: Species Lists ..........................................................................................................................................................145
Appendix D: Regional Conservation Priority Species at Muscatatuck NWR ...................................................................179
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements ..................................................................................................................................185
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations ..............................................................................................................................193
Appendix G: Deferred Maintenance and Improvement Projects and New Projects .......................................................211
Appendix H: Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................................................217
Appendix I: List of Preparers .....................................................................................................................................................223Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iv
Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Location of Muscatatuck NWR ............................................................................................................................................2
Figure 2: Potential Natural Vegetation, Muscatatuck NWR ..............................................................................................................10
Figure 3: Land Use / Land Cover in the Vicinity of Muscatatuck NWR .............................................................................................11
Figure 4: Other Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Vicinity of Muscatatuck NWR ..............................................................13
Figure 5: Hydric Soils, Muscatatuck NWR ........................................................................................................................................17
Figure 6: Muscatatuck NWR and the Wabash River Basin Watershed ............................................................................................19
Figure 7: Current Land Cover, Muscatatuck NWR .............................................................................................................................21
Figure 8: Water Management Infrastructure, Muscatatuck NWR ....................................................................................................30
Figure 9: Public Use, Hunting, at Muscatatuck NWR ........................................................................................................................34
Figure 10: Visitor Services Facilities, Muscatatuck NWR .................................................................................................................37
Figure 11: FSA Easements Administrated by Muscatatuck NWR .....................................................................................................43
Figure 12: Future Land Cover, Muscatatuck NWR .............................................................................................................................46
Figure 13: Future Visitor Facilities, Muscatatuck NWR .....................................................................................................................61
Table 1: Maximum Adult Audiences Within 30, 60, and 90 miles of Muscatatuck NWR for Four Activities ..................................15
Table 2: Monitoring History, Muscatatuck NWR ...............................................................................................................................33
Table 3: Five-year Operating and Maintenance Budget ....................................................................................................................43
Table 4: Current and Proposed Staffing Under the CCP .....................................................................................................................66
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Introduction
The Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), established in 1966, manages 7,802 acres in Jackson, Jennings, and Monroe Counties of Indiana (Figure 1). The Refuge also administers nine conservation easements, totaling 130.5 acres in five Indiana counties. The Refuge consists of wetland, grassland and woodland communities. The Refuge provides habitat for many avian species including ducks, geese, non-game grassland and forest birds including many neo-tropical migrants, shorebirds, wading birds, birds of prey and Wild Turkey. A wide variety of reptiles and mammals including the copperbelly water snake, Kirtland’s snake, river otter, and white-tailed deer, many fish species and a broad range of terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates also inhabit the Refuge. Included among the diverse assortment of wildlife and plants found on the Refuge are several federally listed species, including the federally listed endangered Indiana bat, and many more state-listed species. Species lists found in Appendix C note any state and federal designations.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Muscatatuck NWR is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The Service is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. It oversees the enforcement of federal wildlife laws, management and protection of migratory bird populations, restoration of nationally significant fisheries, administration of the Endangered Species Act, and the restoration of wildlife habitat such as wetlands. The Service also manages the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The National Wildlife Refuge System
Refuge lands are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, which was founded in 1903 when President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican Island in Florida as a sanctuary for Brown Pelicans. Today, the System is a network of about 545 refuges and wetland management districts covering about 95 million acres of public lands and waters. Most of these lands (82 percent) are in Alaska, with approximately 16 million acres located in the lower 48 states and several island territories.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides habitat for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and insects. As a result of international treaties for migratory bird conservation and other legislation, such as the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, many refuges have been established to protect migratory waterfowl and their migratory flyways.
Refuges also play a crucial role in preserving endangered and threatened species. Among the most notable is Aransas NWR in Texas, which provides winter habitat for the highly endangered Whooping Crane. Likewise, the Florida Panther Refuge protects one of the nation’s most
Great Blue Heron. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceChapter 1: Introduction and Background
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
2
Figure 1: Location of Muscatatuck NWRChapter 1: Introduction and Background
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
3
endangered predators. Refuges also provide unique recreational and educational opportunities for people.
When human activities are compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation, refuges are places where people can enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation. Many refuges have visitor centers, wildlife trails, automobile tours, and environmental education programs. Nationwide, approximately 30 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2004.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established several important mandates aimed at making the management of national wildlife refuges more cohesive. The preparation of Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) is one of those mandates. The legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and purposes of the individual refuges are carried out. It also requires the Secretary to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System are to:
PConserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.
PDevelop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their ranges.
PConserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or underrepresented in existing protection efforts.
PProvide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation).
PFoster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
History and Establishment
In the early 1960s there was interest among the Indiana Department of Conservation, state-wide sportsmen and conservation organizations, and many businessmen and civic leaders in southern Indiana for a national wildlife refuge in the area known as Mutton Creek Bottoms. Their interest was prompted by the recollection of past waterfowl use of the area, the reduction of waterfowl habitat throughout the area by drainage, an anticipated economic stimulus from tourists and sportsmen, and possible educational benefits derived from nature trails and wildlife observations.
With the approval of the Governor and support by local elected representatives, the Service presented the proposal for the Muscatatuck NWR to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission on June 7, 1966. The Commission approved the acquisition of 7,922 acres to provide duck breeding and migration habitat. Lands for the Refuge were acquired under eminent domain. The Refuge was officially established by the acquisition of the first tracts on October 6, 1966. By April 24, 1973, acquisition was considered complete with 7,724 acres acquired; interest in a remaining in-holding had waned by 1979 because the asking price was too high. The 78-acre Restle Unit in Monroe County was acquired through a donation in 1991.
Muscatatuck NWR. Photo Credit: Jon KauffeldChapter 1: Introduction and Background
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
4
Refuge Purpose
The Refuge purpose “…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” derives from the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. When proposed as a refuge to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission in 1966, the area was identified as having good potential for waterfowl with expected increases in production and use during the spring and fall migrations. It was also noted that the Refuge would provide recreation facilities for the people of the vicinity.
The Refuge also manages nine conservation easement areas. The purpose of the easements, "... for conservation ... ”, derives from the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. The Service administers the easements as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Refuge Vision
The Refuge staff considered past vision statements and emerging issues and drafted the following vision statement as the desired future state of the Refuge:
As the land of winding waters, treasured for generations, Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge honors its heritage and connects visitors with the natural environment by conserving a rich mosaic of sustainable habitat for a diversity of wildlife and plants.
Purpose of the Plan
This CCP articulates the management direction for Muscatatuck NWR for the next 15 years. Through goals, objectives, and strategies, this CCP describes how the Refuge intends to fulfill its purpose and contribute to the overall mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Prior to the CCP, Refuge management was guided by a 1982 Master Plan, which is now dated, and other short-term plans of limited scope. There is a need for a broad, long-term look at management direction given changed conditions and scientific information, and over 40 years of on-the-ground experience by the Service managing the Refuge.
Several legislative mandates within the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 have guided the development of this plan. These mandates include:
PWildlife has first priority in the management of refuges.
PWildlife-dependent recreation activities, namely hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses of refuges. We will facilitate these activities when they do not interfere with our ability to fulfill the refuges’ purpose or the mission of the Refuge System.
POther uses of the Refuge will only be allowed when determined appropriate and compatible with Refuge purposes and mission of the Refuge System.
The plan will guide the management of Muscatatuck NWR by:
PProviding a clear statement of direction for the future management.
PMaking a strong connection between Refuge activities and conservation activities that occur in the surrounding area.
PProviding neighbors, visitors, and the general public with an understanding of the Service’s management actions.
PEnsuring Refuge actions and programs are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
PEnsuring that Refuge management considers federal, state, and county plans.
PEstablishing long-term continuity in Refuge management.
PProviding a basis for the development of budget requests on the Refuge’s operational, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
5
Legal Context
In addition to the acquisition authorities of the Refuge, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, several federal laws, executive orders, and regulations govern its administration. Appendix E contains a partial list of the legal mandates that pertain to Refuge management and guided the preparation of this plan.Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
6
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Meetings and Involvement
The planning process for this CCP began in March 2007. Initially, members of the regional planning staff and Muscatatuck NWR staff identified a list of issues and concerns that were associated with the management of the Refuge. These preliminary issues and concerns were based on staff knowledge of the area and contacts with citizens in the community.
Refuge staff and Service planners then asked Refuge neighbors, organizations, local government units, and interested citizens to share their thoughts in an open house and through written comments. In May 2007, people were invited to an open house at the Refuge’s visitor center through local papers and a project update sent to the Refuge’s mailing list of 1,067. Twenty-five people attended the open house. Comments were received from approximately 35 individuals during the comment period, which ended June 30, 2007. Following the public comment period, an additional meeting was held in the Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office to review the public comments and identify concerns from subject specialists.
A Biological Program Review, which is an evaluation of the relevance and direction of the biological program through the collective inputs of professionals among the various fields of ecology and wildlife sciences, began with a 2-day meeting on June 20 and 21 of 2007. The Regional Refuge Biologist facilitated the event, which was attended by 17 individuals with various state, federal, and academic affiliations. Information was presented on the Refuge, the general ecology of the region, establishing legislation and policy directives, current issues facing the Refuge, prior program accomplishments, a report on the current biological inventory and monitoring program, and a draft vision for the future. The meeting was punctuated with field trips to specific sites to stimulate discussion and demonstrate issues of concern. The group discussed management alternatives and potential strategies, identified potential biological program priorities, discussed the draft goals and objectives for the various program components and other ideas for the future of the program.
The planning team also considered the recommendations of a Visitors Services Review that was conducted June 19-22, 2006. The review evaluated the services of the Refuge against the minimum visitor services requirements in policy.
Issues
Issues play an important role in planning. Issues focus the planning effort on the most important topics and provide a base for considering alternative approaches to management and evaluating the
Muscatatuck NWR. Photo Credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceChapter 2: The Planning Process
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
7
consequences of managing under these alternative approaches. The issues, concerns, and opportunities expressed during the first phase of planning have been organized under the following headings.
PHabitat and Wildlife
There is a need to prioritize wildlife species of management concern and their habitats and, within budget constraints and other limitations, manage according to those priorities. A strategic management direction is needed for wetlands, grasslands, forests, croplands, and the conversion of open lands to forests. Visitors see the current diversity of habitat as valuable, because it provides an opportunity to see a large number of bird and resident wildlife species.
PVisitor Services
Visitors and staff recognize a tremendous potential in wildlife-dependent recreation, a popular and valued use of the Refuge. There is a need to weigh the delivery of visitor services within the wildlife mission of the Refuge and seek creative means for expanding wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, outreach, and education.
PRefuge Roads
The public recognizes the value of Refuge roads for access. There is a wide spectrum of opinion on how the roads should be maintained. Some like the roads as they are now; others would like to see improvements in the roads and associated facilities such as parking lots and wildlife overlooks.
PRecreational Issues
Some individuals would like to see recreational opportunities expand on the Refuge to include dog training, an archery range, and horseback riding. These activities typically do not occur on refuges and many are not wildlife-dependent in nature. The planning process presents an opportunity to evaluate the requests and reach a decision on their appropriateness and compatibility.
PThreats and Conflicts
The public and staff recognize the challenges increasing development around the perimeter of the Refuge will create for Refuge management and wildlife conservation in the area. There is also recognition of the need for aggressive management of invasive species.
PSupport
There is wide support for the Refuge and its management among visitors. They note the value of the Friends Group, volunteer, and intern programs.
Wilderness Review
As part of the CCP process, lands within Muscatatuck NWR were reviewed for wilderness suitability. No lands were considered suitable for Congressional designation as wilderness as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. Muscatatuck NWR does not contain 5,000 contiguous acres of roadless, natural lands. Nor does the Refuge possess any units of sufficient size to make their preservation practicable as wilderness. Refuge lands and waters have been substantially altered by humans, especially by agriculture, drain construction, and road-building. Extensive modification of natural habitats and manipulation of natural processes has occurred. Adopting a “hands-off” approach to management at the Refuge would not facilitate the restoration of a pristine or pre-settlement condition, which is the goal of wilderness designation.Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
8
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Introduction
Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge
Muscatatuck NWR manages lands in Jackson, Jennings, and Monroe Counties in south-central Indiana. Management responsibilities also include a 30-county Wildlife Management District, which involves management of U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Farm Service Agency Conservation Easements and team membership in the Wetland Reserve Program Wetland Evaluation Team with USDA – Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) for the 22-county southeast Indiana area. Although formal management responsibility for the 30-county Partners for Fish and Wildlife private lands district was transferred by agreement to the Indiana State Private Lands Coordinator in 2004, Muscatatuck NWR still assists with past projects completed with MNWR partners, provides coordination and support in six counties, and makes referrals from other counties to the State Private Lands Coordinator.
Ecological Context
Historic Vegetation
Historically, the Refuge was a part of the expansive, contiguous deciduous hardwood forest that covered most of the central and southern part of the state. Lindsey (1997) listed oak-hickory and beech-maple as the dominant pre-settlement forest types. The Muscatatuck River Basin prior to European settlement of the area was an old lake basin. The forest community has been defined as “Bluegrass till plain flatwoods” by the Indiana Invasive Plant Species Assessment Work Group (Jacquart et al. 2002) and “Southeastern Till Plain Beech-Maple Division” by IDNR Division of Nature Preserves (2005). This area is generally wet or moist most of the year.
Information gleaned from the General Land Office (GLO) survey notes from November 1806 is summarized in the following paragraphs. Names in bold are the names as found in the original survey notes and those within parentheses are current interpretations of the species represented (Homoya 2007).
In the Jennings County portion of the Refuge the area is mostly upland flats and moist slopes. The tree species mentioned the greatest number of times is beech (American beech;Fagus grandifolia). As with today, this species is characteristic of these communities. Three other species mentioned are sugar (sugar maple; Acer saccharum), W. ash (White ash; Fraxinus americana), and cherry (black cherry; Prunus serotina).
In the western portion of the Refuge (Jackson Co.) most of the same species listed above are mentioned; additional types occur, especially in the floodplains. The list includes: "Ash; (green ash; Fraxinus pennsylvanica), maple (red maple; Acer rubrum and/or silver maple; Acer
River otter. Photo credit: Dan KaiserChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
9
saccharinum), elm (American elm; Ulmus americana) in the bottoms, beech (American beech; Fagus grandifolia) and poplar (tulip tree; Liriodendron tulipifera) on the Highland." These notes were describing a survey line between sections 25 and 26 T. 6 N. R. 6 E. Also mentioned for the floodplain in this region was ironwood (probably blue beech; Carpinus caroliniana, and not hop hornbeam; Ostrya virginiana).
W. oak (white oak; Quercus alba) and/or swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) and/orswamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), and gum(sweet gum; Liquidambar styraciflua) were mentioned in a floodplain just north of the Vernon Fork Muscatatuck River along the section line between sections 35 and 36, T. 6 N. R. 6 E. White oak is not a normal component of wet floodplain forests in Indiana, but does occur in slightly elevated portions of floodplains, (Homoya 2007). There are no references to any open areas or grasslands. There are references to a few swamps in the floodplain; they were forested and probably only ephemerally wet.
In addition to written descriptions of historic vegetation conditions, soil information can be used to understand the vegetation capacity of a landscape. The soils in any given locality are a result of the parent rock material, organisms, climate, and relief. These factors and the resulting soils limit what overlying native vegetation can inhabit an area. Soil survey data collected over the past century by the USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service have included written descriptions of native vegetation, which can be tied to the soil unit and mapped. Figure 2 uses data from the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database to displays the potential natural vegetation found at Muscatatuck. The dominance of a mixed deciduous forest covertype is consistent with other accounts of the region’s native vegetation status.
The land of the future Refuge was cleared for farms in the mid 1800s as the state was settled by Europeans. When the Service purchased the land there were 116 private land ownerships, 4,100 acres being farmed, and most of the area had been altered from its original forest cover type. Since the Service has managed the land the cover has changed away from agriculture to managed wetlands and trees. Fire was likely a part of the forces shaping the forest prior to European settlement as indigenous populations used fire as a management tool in forested areas. Fire has been suppressed in the Muscatatuck NWR area for much of the last century, except for some areas of the Refuge that were treated with fire as a management tool in the 1990s.
Today the more common species in the bottomland hardwood forest are pin oak, swamp white oak, swamp chestnut oak, sweet gum, green ash, river birch, silver and red maple and shellbark hickory.
Land Use/Cover
The Refuge lies in a predominantly agricultural landscape. Farm land constitutes 63.5 percent of the land area in Jackson County and 59.1 percent in Jennings County (FedStats 2002). Within this predominantly agricultural landscape, the developed area of Seymour to the west of the Refuge is a notable exception. Forested lands and woodlots are scattered among the agricultural lands. Based on 2001 national land cover data developed by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, the area within a 6-mile distance of the Refuge is 61.8 percent agricultural, 10.8 percent developed, and 26.4 percent forested (U.S. Geological Survey 2001). (Figure 3) Female Wood Duck and brood. Photo Credit: Mark
Trabue
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
10
Figure 2: Potential Natural Vegetation, Muscatatuck NWRChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
11
Figure 3: Land Use / Land Cover in the Vicinity of Muscatatuck NWRChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
12
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
Several migratory bird conservation plans have been published over the last decade that can be used to help guide management decisions on refuges. Bird conservation planning efforts have evolved from a largely local, site-based orientation to a more regional, even inter-continental, landscape-oriented perspective. Several transnational migratory bird conservation initiatives have emerged to help guide the planning and implementation process. The regional plans relevant to Muscatatuck NWR are:
PThe Central Hardwoods Joint Venture Concept Plan
PUpper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
PThe Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan
PThe Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan
Each of the bird conservation initiatives has a process for designating priority species, modeled to a large extent on the Partners in Flight method of computing scores based on independent assessments of global relative abundance, breeding and wintering distribution, and vulnerability to threats, area importance, and population trends. These scores are often used by agencies in developing lists of priority bird species. The Service based its 2001 list of Non-game Birds of Conservation Concern primarily on the Partners in Flight shorebird and waterbird status assessment scores.
Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities
Every species is important; however the number of species in need of attention exceeds the resources of the Service. To focus effort effectively, Region 3 of the Fish and Wildlife Service compiled a list of Resource Conservation Priorities (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1999). The list includes:
PAll federally listed threatened and endangered species and proposed and candidate species that occur in the Region.
PMigratory bird species derived from Service wide and international conservation planning efforts.
PRare 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.
Appendix D lists 80 Regional Resource Conservation Priority species relevant to the Refuge.
Other Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Area
The State of Indiana, other federal agencies, and non-governmental conservation organizations own and manage lands and recreation access sites within a 50-mile radius of the Refuge (see Figure 4). The State areas include public access sites, fish and wildlife areas, recreation areas, forests, and nature preserves. The federal areas include Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge, Hoosier National Forest, and Department of Defense lands. Among non-governmental organizations, The Nature Conservancy is a major land owner and manager. Local governments also own and manage community parks in the area. Conservation easements and other partners also own and manage a significant amount of land in the surrounding area.
Conservation Corridors
Increasing urbanization and widespread land use changes are greatly affecting natural landscapes and healthy ecological systems by fragmenting and degrading habitats. Traditional approaches to land conservation are often opportunistic, piecemeal, site specific, and narrowly focused. However, increasing attention is being given to collaborative landscape conservation efforts that are proactive, strategic, comprehensive, and integrative. Regional analyses that consider larger geographic extents are helping to focus conservation efforts among a growing consortium of stakeholders and partners. Creating a series of ecological hubs and linkage corridors increases the connectivity, effectiveness, and resiliency of the biological systems that preserve biodiversity and essential ecological services. Efforts are underway in Midwest Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to create models that outline a basic conservation network throughout the Midwest. Recent emphasis on Strategic Habitat Conservation and the effects of global climate change have catalyzed these efforts in the Service. Using land cover (Figure 3) and the existing Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
13
Figure 4: Other Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Vicinity of Muscatatuck NWRChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
14
conservation estate (Figure 4), it is possible to visualize the beginnings of a land conservation network with Muscatatuck NWR, Big Oaks NWR, and other major State and Federal landholdings as major ecological hubs linked through private and public conservation efforts. The Refuge System is positioned well to play an integral role in the design and implementation of a regional conservation network.
Socioeconomic Context
Muscatatuck NWR is located in Jackson and Jennings Counties. These two counties are less racially and ethnically diverse than the State of Indiana as a whole. The population in the counties has a lower average income and a lower percentage of high school and college graduates than the state’s population as a whole (U.S. Census Bureau 2008).
Population and Demographics
The population estimate for the two counties was 70,664 in 2005. The population increased 12.2 percent during the 1990s while the State’s population increased 9.7 percent. Jennings County grew more at 16.5 percent, and Jackson County grew 9.6 percent. The two-county population was 98 percent white in 2005; the State population was 88.6 percent white. In Indiana, 6.4 percent of the people 5 years and older speak a language other than English at home; in Jackson County it is 4.3 percent; in Jennings County it is 2.5 percent. The population for Jackson County is projected to be 43,654 in 2025, a 3.4 percent increase from 2005; for Jennings County the projected population is 33,695 for 2025, an 18.5 percent increase from 2005. The largest community in Jackson County is Seymour with a 2005 population of 18,890. The largest community in Jennings County is North Vernon with a 2005 population of 6,433 (STATS Indiana, 2007).
Employment
In 2004 there were a total of 38,327 full- and part-time jobs in the two-county area. Manufacturing was the largest of the major economic sectors in both counties accounting for 25.8 percent of the jobs in Jackson County and 19.3 percent of the jobs in Jennings County. Retail trade, transportation, and warehousing were also notable sectors. Farm jobs made up 5 percent of employment (U.S. Census Bureau 2008).
Income and Education
Average per-capita income in the two counties was $25,885 in 2004; in Indiana it was $30,204. The median household income in 2003 for Jackson County was $41,502; for Jennings County $39,514; for Indiana and $43.323. In Jackson County, 11.5 percent of persons over 25 years of age hold a bachelor’s degree or higher; in Jennings County 8.4 percent; in Indiana 19.4 percent of persons over 25 years hold a bachelor’s degree or higher (U.S. Census Bureau 2008).
Demand and Supply for Wildlife-Dependent Recreation
In order to estimate the potential market for visitors to the Refuge, we looked at 2007 consumer behavior data within approximately 30, 60, and 90-mile drives of the Refuge. The data were organized by zip areas. We used the three driving distances because we thought this was an approximation of reasonable maximum drives to the Refuge for an outing by different groups. From experience we know, for example, that visitors come from the nearby local area to view wildlife in the evening. We also know that people seeking interesting varieties of bird species drive from Cincinnati, Ohio to visit the Refuge. The 30-mile area extended beyond the communities of Bedford, Columbus, Greensburg, Madison, North Vernon, Salem, Scottsburg, and Seymour. The 60-mile area extended from the southern portion of the Indianapolis metropolitan area to the northern portion of the Louisville metropolitan area. The 90-mile area included the Cincinnati metropolitan area.
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 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
15
made in the analysis, the data should be considered as relative indicators of potential, not actual participation.
We looked at potential participants in birdwatching, fishing, and hunting with shotgun. In order to estimate the general environmental orientation of the population, we also looked at the number of people who might contribute to an environmental organization.
The consumer behavior data apply to persons greater than 18 years old. Table 1 displays the consumer behavior numbers for each of the three distances to the Refuge. The projections represent the maximum audience that we might expect to make a trip to the Refuge for approximate drives of half-hour, hour, and one and a half hours. Actual visitors will be fewer because the estimate is a maximum, and we expect only a fraction of these people will travel to the Refuge.
We also considered the maximum number of students that might potentially participate in environmental education offered by the Refuge by looking at the school populations in Jackson and Jennings Counties. For Jackson County the school enrollment in preschool through grade 12 was 8,142 according to the 2000 census. For Jennings County the equivalent enrollment was 5,828. The projected school age (5-19) population for the two counties for 2025 is 14,843.
Additional perspective on wildlife-dependent recreation was gained from Indiana’s Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2000-2004. In a survey of the population, recreation planners found that in the planning regions that contain the Refuge approximately 58 percent of the respondents participated in fishing regularly in the last year. Fishing was exceeded in participation only by the walking/hiking/jogging category. The approximate percentages of respondents for other activities were: nature observation/photography (36 percent), hunting (33 percent), and trapping (6 percent) (Indiana Department of Natural Resources 2000). Within the nature observation/photography category respondents reported participation in wildlife viewing, gathering (mushroom, berry etc.), viewing fall foliage, nature photography, and bird watching.
The SCORP identified the counties and regions that contain the Refuge as meeting or exceeding the regional recreation land standard of 35 acres per thousand population. The Indiana state trails plan of July 2006 reported 76 miles of trails in Jackson County and 17 miles of trails in Jennings County. The Refuge trails are included in these totals.
Climate
The Refuge experiences a continental climate of warm, humid summers and moderately cold winters. The area receives moisture from the Gulf of Mexico as air masses move up the Mississippi and Ohio River Valleys. January is the coldest month with a mean normal temperature of 28 degrees Fahrenheit. July is the warmest month with a mean normal temperature of 74.5 degrees Fahrenheit.
Table 1: Maximum Adult Audiences Within 30, 60, and 90 Miles of Muscatatuck NWR for Four Activities
Approximate Driving Distance to Refuge
Total Population
Birdwatching
Fishing
Hunting With Shotgun
Contribute to Environmental Organization
30 miles
285,584
15,674
44,988
14,619
3,095
60 miles
1,743,239
82,886
235,698
67,640
15,589
90 miles
5,164,171
235,928
657,836
181,566
41,891
Muscatatuck NWR. Photo Credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
16
April 20 and October 12 are the frost and freeze dates for 32 degrees Fahrenheit with a 50 percent probability. The normal annual precipitation is about 46 total inches. Normal precipitation is distributed relatively evenly across the months of the year with a low normal of 2.84 inches in February and a high normal of 5.01 inches in May (Source: National Climatic Data Center).
Geology and Soils
The Refuge lies within the Scottsburg lowland physiographic division of Indiana. The lowland has resulted from the greater erosion of shales compared to the underlying limestones and siltstones of adjacent uplands. Thick glacial deposits that are older than Wisconsin glacial deposits cover the area with little variation in topography (Wayne 1956). More specifically, Muscatatuck NWR's geology includes the combination of underlying bedrock strata and the unconsolidated soils material deposited by glacial action.
The Refuge has upland and river valley areas, causing variations in depth of the unconsolidated soil material to bedrock. A well drilled in the northeast part of the Refuge encountered bedrock at a depth of 40 feet. The bedrock depths can vary quite widely depending on the amount of material deposited and subsequently removed by erosion. The glacial material is dominantly stratified sands and clays that have been blanketed with a mantle of wind blown silt (loess).
In the floodplain area, bedrock is typically less than 10 feet below the surface. (Marshall et al. 2007)
Hydric soils (Figure 5) cover 2,962 acres of the Refuge. Non-hydric soils cover the remaining 4,797 acres. Soils on the Refuge are grouped into five soil associations: Dubois-Peoga-Haubstadt, Stendal-Birds-Piopolis, Haymond-Wakeland-Wilbur, Bloomfield-Alvin, and a small amount of Ayrshire-Lyles (Marshall et al. 2007; Nagel et al. 1990; Nickell et al. 1976).
The Dubois-Peoga-Haubstadt association of soils are very deep, nearly level to strongly sloping, moderately well to poorly drained, medium textured soils that have formed in loess and the underlying stratified lacustrine sediments on terraces. The somewhat poorly drained Dubois soils are nearly level to gently sloping on narrow flats and upper side slopes. The moderately well drained Haubstadt soils are gently to strongly sloping on side slopes. Both Dubois and Haubstadt soils have very slowly permeable fragipans present in the soil profile. Peoga soils are nearly level, poorly drained, and are on broad flats. The moderately well-drained Otwell soils actually have a higher number of acres within the Refuge area, and are often intermixed with the Haubstadt soils. The minor soil in this association is the well-drained Negley soils on steep side slopes. Also included with this association is a small amount of Illinoian till soils in the very eastern boundary of the Refuge. These soils are the somewhat poorly drained Avonburg, moderately well-drained Nabb and Cincinnati, which all have fragipans. The soils of this association comprise approximately 4,172 acres, or about 54 percent of the Refuge area.
The Stendal-Birds-Piopolis association of soils are very deep, nearly level, somewhat poorly to poorly drained, medium and moderately fine textured soils formed in fine-silty acid alluvium on floodplains. Within the Refuge area, Birds soil is the more dominant component of the association, with slightly more that 2,000 acres. Birds soils are poorly drained and are formed in non-acid silty alluvium over alluvium with a higher clay content, in slow backwater areas of floodplains. Stendal soils are somewhat poorly drained, are formed in silty acid alluvium and tend to occur on slightly elevated areas, which are called steps, of the floodplain. Piopolis soils are poorly and very poorly drained and are formed in clay alluvium on floodplains. There is currently no Piopolis mapped within the Refuge area. Minor soils in this association are the poorly drained Bonnie and moderately well-drained Steff soils. Bonnie soils are formed in silty acid alluvium and are found in similar positions as Birds soils. Steff soils are formed in silty acid alluvium and are found in positions similar to Stendal. These soils are found mainly in the watersheds of Mutton Creek Ditch, Storm Creek Ditch, and Sandy Branch. The soils of this association comprise approximately 2,367 acres, or about 30 percent of the Refuge area.
The Haymond-Wakeland-Wilbur association of soils are very deep, well to somewhat poorly drained, nearly level, formed in coarse-silty non-acid alluvium on floodplains. Within the Refuge area, Wakeland soils are the more dominant component of the association, with slightly over 400 acres. Wakeland soils are somewhat poorly drained and are formed in silty non-acid alluvium on floodplains. Haymond soils are well-drained and are formed in silty non-acid alluvium on floodplains. Minor soil in this association is the well-drained, Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
17
Figure 5: Hydric Soils, Muscatatuck NWRChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
18
coarse loamy Wirt soils on natural levees of the floodplain adjacent to streams. These soils are found mainly in the Vernon Fork of the Muscatatuck River watershed. The soils of this association comprise approximately 600 acres, or about 7 percent of the Refuge area.
The Bloomfield-Alvin association of soils are very deep, nearly level to strongly sloping somewhat excessively to well-drained, coarse textured soils formed in eolian (windblown) sand deposits (dunes) on uplands. Bloomfield soils are nearly level to strongly sloping somewhat excessively drained on ridges and narrow side slopes of dunes. Alvin soils are well-drained and are intermixed with the Bloomfield soils on similar landforms. Minor soils in this association are the Bobtown and Medora soils. Bobtown soils are moderately well-drained and formed in moderately coarse textured eolian (windblown) sand deposits. Medora soils are moderately well-drained and are formed in loess and the underlying sandy outwash material, and have a fragipan. These soils are located mainly in the northwestern corner of the Refuge and comprise approximately 200 acres, or 3 percent of the Refuge area.
The Ayrshire-Lyles association of soils is very deep, nearly level, somewhat poorly and very poorly drained, moderately coarse textured coarse textured soils, formed in eolian (windblown) sand deposits (dunes) on uplands. Ayrshire soils are somewhat poorly drained and are on flats of uplands. Lyles soils are poorly drained, have very dark colored surface layers and are in slight depressions of uplands. These soils comprise about 43 total acres and are located mainly in the northwestern corner of the Refuge area.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The Refuge lies within a flat, relatively well drained portion of the Wabash River Basin (Figure 6). Water flows away from the Refuge down the Vernon Fork of the Muscatatuck River, into the Muscatatuck River, the White River, and on to the Wabash River. Three small streams, Sandy Branch, Mutton Creek, and Storm Creek, flow through the Refuge and enter the Vernon Fork soon after leaving the Refuge. The subwatersheds of Upper- and Lower- Mutton Creek and Upper- and Lower-Storm Creek, which cover 30,100 acres above the Refuge, flow into the Refuge. Approximately 8,525 acres of the Mutton Creek-Sandy Branch subwatershed, which includes the eastern portion of Seymour, also flows into the Refuge. The annual floodplain of the Vernon Fork extends 2,000 to 3,500 feet into the Refuge along its southern border. Annual floods inundate approximately 2,700 acres of the Refuge.
Agriculture is the primary land use in the watershed. Run-off from crop fields, pastureland, and feedlots contributes to non-point source pollution. Erosion, nutrient and sediment loading, and contamination from application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers all introduce contaminants into the watershed and refuge system. Many of these substances, such as organo-chlorines and organo-phosphates, are known to be toxic to fish and wildlife via direct exposure, bioaccumulation, and bio-magnification (Cox 1991).
In addition to agriculture, the rapid urban development of the area surrounding the Refuge has had detrimental impacts on the watershed. As more land is cleared and paved, there are decreases in interception, increased throughfall, and changes in roughness coefficients and slope, all of which contribute to increases in flow rates, erosion, and amount of particles, sediment, and other substances reaching the Refuge (Tang et al. 2005). The Refuge is within a mile or less of three major highways, all of which cross at least one of the three primary tributaries that enter the Refuge. This creates sources of run-off containing salts, fuel, and other petroleum products. The construction of homes and businesses has put a strain on waste water treatment facilities and septic systems, which could result in nutrient and bacterial problems within the watershed. There is also potential for accidental spills to occur. The Refuge is bordered on two sides by major highways (U.S. 31, U.S. 50 and I-65) and
Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
19
Figure 6: Muscatatuck NWR and the Wabash River Basin WatershedChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
20
by a well-traveled county road (Jennings CR900W) on a third side. Two of the three roads adjacent to the Refuge are hard surface roads. In addition, the CSX Railroad runs approximately three-quarters of a mile north of the Refuge, crossing both Mutton and Storm Creek Ditches. Another railroad, the Madison Railroad, crosses the Vernon Fork upstream in North Vernon.
Refuge Habitats and Wildlife
Wetlands
Wetlands cover 69 percent of the Refuge and much of this land floods annually. (See Figure 7 for current Refuge land cover.)
The majority of wetland habitat is bottomland hardwood forest (4,142 acres), and managed water units that include moist soil units, brood marshes, greentree impoundments and Stanfield, Moss and Richart Lakes (1,264 acres), that were built 1979-1982 with Bicentennial Land Heritage Program (BHLP) funds. The Refuge also has over 70 other small ponds and wetland areas; these were constructed by former land owners to be stock ponds or ponds near residences and are utilized by migratory birds and wildlife. Several seeps exist on the Refuge, one of which is the Muscatatuck Seep Springs Research Natural Area. This wetland type is an acid seep spring that has only been documented in seven other locations in Indiana, one of which was destroyed, making it extremely rare in the state. Examples of wildlife that use these wetlands include Wood Ducks and Hooded Mergansers, which nest in the bottomland hardwoods, American Bald Eagle, copperbelly watersnake, river otter and many other species from all faunal assemblages.
Forests
Approximately 66 percent (5,302 acres) of the Refuge is covered by forests. Of this, about half of the Refuge, or approximately 77 percent of the forested area (4,076 acres), are classified as one of several types of bottomland hardwood forest. Bottomland hardwood forests are a type of cold-deciduous forest that are temporarily or seasonally flooded and occur on wet soils and in floodplains. American beech and a variety of maple and oak species dominate bottomland forests and ash, sweetgum, river birch and sycamore are also present. The remaining 22 percent of the forested area (1,226 acres) of the Refuge is classified as upland hardwood forest. Upland hardwood forest is also classified as a cold-deciduous forest type that primarily occurs in lowland or submontane habitats on soils that are unaffected by seasonal flooding. Varieties of oaks and maples dominate, and these forests can also include American beech and eastern red cedar along with other species (Sieracki et al. 2002).
Examples of trees commonly found on the Refuge include: pin oak, swamp white oak, swamp chestnut oak, sweet gum, green ash, river birch, silver and red maple, shellbark hickory, white oak, red oak, white ash, tuliptree, and American beech. Examples of wildlife that use the forests include white-tailed deer, eastern gray squirrel, eastern fox squirrel, southern flying squirrel, woodchuck, Indiana bat and forest birds such as:
PWood Duck
PHooded Merganser
PRed-shouldered Hawk
PRed-headed Woodpecker
PNorthern Flicker
PAcadian Flycatcher
PCerulean Warbler
PProthonotary Warbler
PWorm-eating Warbler
PAmerican Redstart
PLouisiana Waterthrush
Mini Marsh, Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
21
Figure 7: Current Land Cover, Muscatatuck NWRChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
22
PKentucky Warbler
PRusty Blackbird
PYellow-billed Cuckoo
PWood Thrush
Grasslands
Some areas of grasslands, such as road edges, dam spillways and dikes, are mowed for maintenance purposes and, secondarily, for wildlife viewing along the auto tour route. The majority of these fields contain non-indigenous species such as fescue, timothy and orchard grass, and clover and the remaining dominant grassland vegetation includes native broadleaves, bluegrass, bluegrass-fescue, alfalfa-brome, and panic grass. Fescue is the dominant species over much of the non-cultivated open area.
A wide variety of wildlife utilize the grasslands including an abundance of small mammals, especially various mice and vole species, eastern cottontail rabbit, and larger mammals such as white-tailed deer and coyote, several snake species including black king snake, black rat snake, eastern garter snake, many raptor species including Red-tailed Hawk, and Northern Harrier, and a plethora of grassland birds such as:
PSedge Wren
PGrasshopper Sparrow
PHenslow’s Sparrow
PSong Sparrow
PIndigo Bunting
PDickcissel
PRed-winged Blackbird
PEastern Meadowlark
PBobolink
Birds
More than 279 bird species have been reported on the Refuge and 120 of those are considered nesting species. A rich diversity of waterfowl, raptors, and songbirds are commonly observed on the Refuge. Wood Duck broods are common sightings in the spring and summer months. Waterfowl use days during the winter and spring migrations number in the hundred of thousands. A Bald Eagle nest has been active since 2002 and winter migrants are commonly seen. Muscatatuck NWR is also known for the spring and summer migration of songbirds, especially warblers, in May.
The Refuge was designated a Continentally Important Bird Area in June 1998. The designation was based on Christmas bird count data and the Refuge’s wintering numbers of Canada Geese from the James Bay population. The Refuge was a stopover site for the Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership (WCEP) ultra light led Whooping Cranes annually in the fall between 2001 and 2007. A complete list of bird species and a general guide to their seasonal occurrence and status on the Refuge can be found in Appendix C.
Mammals
Thirty-seven species of mammals are known to occur on the Refuge. The mammals include the federally listed endangered Indiana bat and State-listed endangered evening bat, and the white-tailed deer, a species popular for hunting and wildlife viewing. Occurrence of the Indiana bat, including lactating females, on the Refuge was confirmed in 1995 and reaffirmed in 2007 by telemetry studies that found that the Indiana bat is a summer resident on the Refuge (Whittaker 1995; Carter 2007), and it may be more abundant than was generally thought. These bats are also known to form maternity colonies on the Refuge; one maternity roost was studied and its coordinates recorded in 2007, (Carter 2007). Another notable mammal is the river otter, once extirpated from the State of Indiana. Reintroduction efforts for the state of Indiana were begun in January 1995 with 25 otters released at Muscatatuck NWR. This has resulted in numerous
Yellow Warbler, Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: Mark TrabueChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
23
otters using the Refuge. Three confirmed otter litters were produced in 1996, and Refuge staff believe that they have produced litters annually ever since 1996. The reintroduction in Indiana has been successful and river otters are no longer considered endangered in the state (Johnson et al. 2007). A complete list of mammal species that occur on the Refuge can be found in Appendix C.
Amphibians and Reptiles
The wide diversity of habitats found on the Refuge makes it suitable for a broad range of amphibians and reptiles; 43 species of herpetofauna are known on the Refuge. They include the state-listed endangered four-toed salamander, copperbelly watersnake, and Kirtland’s snake, and the rough green snake, an Indiana Species of Special Concern. As of November 1996, under the provisions of the Copperbelly Watersnake Conservation Agreement and Strategy, scientific investigation began to better understand the life history patterns of the copperbelly watersnake. The Refuge has been a stronghold for the species, allowing for intimate study (Kingsbury 1997). While many in the scientific community have commented on the ecology of the species, few have detailed aspects of its life history (Conant et al. 1991). Telemetry work at the Refuge has proven valuable in clarifying the ecological requirements of this species and observational data collected since 1992 and tracking/locating data collected in 1997 through 2000 revealed this species’dependence on both the palustrine emergent habitat, as well as the floodplain forest habitat provided by the Refuge. Indiana University Professor Dr. Meretsky discovered the state-listed endangered four-toed salamander during her work with the seep spring study. The salamander is associated with mature forests with wetlands with mossy edges and the young spend several months in the water before they come out on land. Records from central and southern Indiana appear to be based upon very small isolated colonies, some of which may no longer exist, making the Refuge population a significant find. A complete list of the amphibians and reptiles that occur on the Refuge is provided in Appendix C.
Fish
Fifty-nine species of fish were collected during a 2007 survey of waterbodies within the Refuge including tributary streams outside the Refuge. A total of 54 species were collected from the Refuge and are included in a table in Appendix C. The most diverse families represented were the minnow and darter families, which each included 11 species on the Refuge. Fishing for largemouth bass, bluegill, redear sunfish, crappie, and channel catfish is popular with an estimated 15,000 fishing visits per year at the Refuge.
In addition to the sites surveyed on the Refuge, 50 more sites were surveyed in the area surrounding the Refuge. New records for the Refuge included the finding of the eastern sand and harlequin darters in the Vernon Fork Muscatatuck River. In addition, the flier was collected from Moss Lake and Mutton Creek, while the redspotted sunfish was collected from Mutton Creek. These records probably represent the northern and eastern records for these species.
Invertebrates
An intensive survey of aquatic macroinvertebrates was conducted concurrently with the fish survey during the spring of 2007. Fifty samples were collected from a variety of creeks, streams, and lake outlets. The results of this survey are still pending; however, five species of crayfish were collected including the paintedhand mudbug, Great Plains mudbug, northern crayfish, Sloan's crayfish, and rusty crayfish (Simon 2008).
Thirty five dragonfly species have been recorded on the Refuge including the beaverpond baskettail, eastern pondhawk, and shadow darner. The Refuge is known as a good location to observe dragonflies in the area (Curry 2001). With accompanying photographs taken at Muscatatuck NWR, many of these dragonfly species are highlighted in the book
Red-eared Sliders. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
24
Dragonflies of Indiana (Curry 2001). The beaverpond baskettail dragonfly occurs on the Refuge and is considered a rare species in the State of Indiana. Butterfly surveys have been conducted since 2002 by volunteers using a protocol established by the North American Butterfly Association, and 60 species have been identified to date including the cabbage white, an exotic species. A complete listing of dragonfly and butterfly species documented on the Refuge can be found in Appendix C.
At least 24 species of mollusks have been documented as occurring on the Refuge (Harmon 1996, Fisher 2007) A follow-up investigation of several of the mussel survey sites used by Harmon (1996) was conducted in 2007 (Fisher 2007). A total of eight sites were sampled in 2007 for live, fresh dead, and weathered dead shells. Harmon’s (1996) study documented 20 species present on the Refuge; the 2007 inquiry yielded three new species from the Vernon Fork that had never been documented on the Refuge, including elephantear, flutedshell, and deertoe. The little spectaclecase was found in both the 1996 and the 2007 surveys; however, only fresh dead specimens were encountered (Fisher 2007). This species is a species of special concern in Indiana and is listed as imperiled (S2) within the state. The Asiatic clam, a non-native invasive species, is markedly abundant on the Refuge, especially within the Vernon Fork of the Muscatatuck River. A complete listing of mollusk species documented on the Refuge can be found in Appendix C.
Threatened and Endangered Species
State-listed/Candidate Species
A total of 61 state-listed endangered and special concern species have been documented on the Refuge with five more suspected to occur on the property. Examples of these species include:
PIndiana bat
Pevening bat
Psouthern tubercled orchid
Pclimbing milkweed
Pcopperbelly water snake
Pfour-toed salamander
PKirtland’s snake
PKirtland’s Warbler
PInterior Least Tern
PPeregrine Falcon
PBald Eagle
PBewick’s Wren
PYellow-crowned Night-Heron
PBlack-crowned Night-Heron
PVirginia Rail
PCommon Moorhen
PKing Rail
PLeast Bittern
PLoggerhead Shrike
POsprey
PShort-eared Owl
PTrumpeter Swan
PNorthern Harrier
PAmerican Bittern
PUpland Sandpiper
PLeast Tern
PBlack Tern
PBarn Owl
PShort-eared Owl
PSedge Wren
Blue gill. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
25
PGolden-winged Warbler
PMarsh Wren
PHenslow’s Sparrow
PCerulean Warbler
PBlack-and-white Warbler
State species of special concern on the Refuge are:
Pleast weasel
Plittle spectaclecase mussel
PSharp-shinned Hawk
PRed-shouldered Hawk
PGreat Egret
PGreater Yellowlegs
PSolitary Sandpiper
PRuddy Turnstone
PShort-billed Dowitcher
PWilson’s Palarope
PChuck-will’s-widow
PWhip-poor-will
PSandhill Crane
PBroad-winged Hawk
PWorm-eating Warbler
PHooded Warbler
Prough green snake
Several other plant species are included on a state watch list. Those species are: American ginseng, bog bluegrass, Walter’s St. John's-wort, smooth white violet, club spur orchid (also called small green woodland orchid), Loesel’s twayblade and American lotus.
State-listed species and their status are noted in Appendix C.
Threatened/Endangered/Candidate Species (Fed Listed)
Least Tern, Whooping Crane, Indiana bat, and copperbelly watersnake use the Refuge. Whooping Cranes from the “Operation Migration” project have used the Refuge as a stopover on their annual trip down to Florida. Free ranging/ direct release cranes are routinely seen within 20 miles of the Refuge and one was spotted on the Refuge in 2008.
There is substantial documentation of the copperbelly watersnake's use of the Refuge.
The copperbelly watersnake primarily inhabits shallow wetland systems consisting of sloughs, oxbows, river floodplains and buttonbush swamps, much of which have been lost or heavily fragmented (Pruitt and Szymanski 1997). In addition, the copperbelly watersnake is known to rely extensively on terrestrial habitat to traverse between spatially and temporally unpredictable wetland resources (Roe et al. 2003), offering an ideal system to investigate the role of terrestrial habitat on wetland connectivity. Presently, the copperbelly watersnake exists mainly as isolated, often small, populations separated by as much as 300 kilometers. Moreover, northern populations were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and endangered by the states of Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio (Pruitt and Szymanski 1997). Genetic testing was done on the Muscatatuck NWR population in 2005 as part of a study that represented seven sampling sites located in Ohio/Michigan, Indiana, and Kentucky. The Indiana regional sampling site was conducted in a disjunct population along the Muscatatuck River, in the Muscatatuck NWR in Jackson County, Indiana, and at a wetland 29 river kilometers south of MNWR in Washington, County, outside of Austin, Indiana (Austin). The two Indiana sites are as different from each other as they are from any of the other sampling sites, despite their geographic proximity. (Marshall et al. In Press)
The federally-listed endangered Indiana bat was confirmed on the Refuge in 1995 and reaffirmed in 2007 by telemetry studies that found that the Indiana bat is a summer breeding resident on the Refuge, (Whittaker 1995; Carter 2007). These bats are also known to form maternity colonies on the Refuge; one maternity roost was studied and its coordinates recorded in 2007 (Carter 2007).
Several species that were previously considered candidate species occur at times on the Refuge. These include the Loggerhead Shrike and Cerulean Warbler, bog bluegrass, American ginseng, and the southern tubercled orchid. Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
26
Threats to Resources
Invasive Species
Exotic/Pest Species
Invasive, exotic, and noxious weeds are common throughout most of the Refuge’s habitat types. Although research quality distribution and abundance estimates are lacking, it is evident to anyone passing through on Refuge roads that autumn olive, garlic mustard, reed canary grass, multiflora rose, crown vetch and many other species dominate certain portions of the landscape. Japanese stiltgrass, multiflora rose, tree-of-heaven, autumn olive and kudzu threaten the diversity and health of the bottomland and upland hardwoods while other species, such as reed canary grass, attempt to out-compete native vegetation along riparian corridors, in moist soil units and in other wetland types. Many of the invasive species encountered have the capability over time of producing solid monocultures that shade out native vegetation and reduce overall plant diversity and, consequently, overall animal diversity (Pimentel 2005).
Examples of invasives found on the Refuge include:
Ppurple loosestrife
Pautumn olive
PCanada thistle
PJohnson grass
Pmultiflora rose
Pmoneywort
Pcommon carp
PAsian clams
PJapanese stiltgrass
Poriental bittersweet
Pgarlic mustard
Pkudzu
Preed canary grass
PAsian ambrosia beetle
PAsian ladybugs
PEuropean Starling
PBrown-headed Cowbird
PHouse Sparrow
Pmosquito fish
Pgypsy moth
There has only been one account of a gypsy moth (1995) and subsequent traps have not revealed any moths. It is not considered a major problem.
Contaminants
Contaminant inputs may be entering the Refuge via the Vernon Fork of the Muscatatuck River (VFMR), and its tributaries. Additionally, contaminants are likely to be entering the Refuge from a wide variety of other sources such as:
Patmospheric deposition
Pcrop and livestock runoff in Mutton and Storm Creeks
PSandy Branch Creek
Pseptic system failures
Psurface runoff from the City of Seymour and adjacent highways and roads
PNPDES discharge
Punderground storage tanks
Prapid urban development
Paccidental spills
Ppower substations and Crown Central Petro­leum (refinery)
Kudzu. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
27
Agriculture is the primary land use in the watershed. Run-off from crop fields, pastureland, and feedlots contributes to non-point source pollution. Erosion, nutrient and sediment loading, and contamination from application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers all introduce contaminants into the watershed and Refuge system. Many of these substances, such as organo-chlorines and organo-phophates, are known to be toxic to fish and wildlife via direct exposure, bioaccumulation, and bio-magnification (Cox 1991).
In addition to agriculture, the rapid urban development of the area surrounding the Refuge has had detrimental impacts on the watershed. As more land is cleared and paved, there are increases in flow rates, erosion, and amount of particles, sediment, and other substances reaching the Refuge. The Refuge is within a mile or less of three major highways, all of which cross at least one of the three primary tributaries that enter the Refuge. This creates sources of run-off containing salts, fuel, and other petroleum products. In addition, the construction of homes and businesses has put a strain on waste water treatment facilities and septic systems that could result in nutrient and bacterial problems within the watershed. There is also potential for accidental spills to occur. The Refuge is bordered on two sides by major highways (U.S. 31, U.S. 50 and I-65) and by a well-traveled county road (Jennings CR900W) on a third side. Two of the three roads encompassing the Refuge are hard surface roads. In addition, the CSX Railroad runs approximately three-quarters of a mile north of the Refuge, crossing both Mutton and Storm Creek Ditches. Another railroad, the Madison Railroad, crosses the VFMR upstream in North Vernon. In 1980, a derailed train spilled between 8,000 and 10,000 gallons of chlorobenzene directly into Storm Creek Ditch (McWilliams-Munson 1996).
Atmospheric deposition of heavy metals is a concern worldwide and the Refuge falls under the same general fish advisory as most of the waters in the State of Indiana. This advisory establishes recommendations for fish consumption based on elevated mercury levels in the fish in Indiana (Indiana Department of Natural Resources 2008). The problems associated with heavy metal contamination may be compounded at Muscatatuck NWR due to the impoundment of water and trapping of sediment, collection, and concentration of runoff from a large watershed, and the wetting and drying cycles that contribute to the methylation of mercury.
Ozone exposures in Indiana are the highest in the nation’s north central region and are relatively high when compared with many states nationwide. The portion of Indiana that contains the Refuge, in particular, exhibits elevated ozone levels. The ozone exposure adversely affects trees and other plants. Ozone stress is expected to be less severe on oaks and maples because they are relatively tolerant of ozone. Nevertheless, given the current ozone exposures and evidence of foliar injury, the potential exists for reduced tree growth and reduced forest health on the Refuge. (Woodall et al. 2005)
Administrative Facilities
The original portion of the Visitor Center (with restrooms) was constructed in the mid-1970s and featured a small office, lobby exhibit area, storage area, projection room, and auditorium/AV room separated by a breezeway from public restrooms. In 1989 the office was converted to a bookstore. Approximately 10 feet was added to the back of the original building in the early 1990s to create a bird viewing room, expanded bookstore, and additional storage areas. In 2003 a new wing, the Conservation Learning Center, was constructed using private funding obtained by one of the Refuge’s Refuge Friend’s groups, the Muscatatuck Wildlife Society Foundation. The new Conservation Learning center featured a large auditorium, exhibit area, and storage room. Numerous exhibits are located in the new wing. The two wings are connected by a breezeway with large glass windows. The Refuge office is situated in a remodeled ranch-style house
Muscatatuck NWR Visitor Center. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
28
across from the Visitor Center. Workshops, garages, storage buildings, and additional offices are located in the west-central area off of County Road 400 North.
The Muscatatuck Wildlife Society, our primary Friend’s Group, operates a bookstore in our Visitor Center that is staffed by volunteers every afternoon and many mornings, and the building is closed when not staffed. Volunteers greet visitors, answer questions, and provide literature and information on Refuge hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing opportunities. The Visitor Center has a paved, 16-car parking lot in front of the building, and a paved 33-car lot located across from the building off the loop road. A gravel overflow parking lot that can accommodate approximately 50 vehicles is located south of the Office and east of County Line Road, about 100 yards from the building.
Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation
The earliest generally accepted human culture in Indiana is known as the PaleoIndian, a small population of nomadic peoples who moved into the state about 14,000 years ago upon the retreat of the glaciers. Sites are rare, usually disturbed, and important. A PaleoIndian point has been found in Jackson County but none have been found on the Refuge.
The FWS has conducted several archeological investigations on the Refuge, which have identified numerous Archaic culture sites in the period 10,500 to 3,000 years ago. During this period the people engaged in extensive trade of far distant exotic materials. They also adapted to major temperature and resulting environmental changes as the Pleistocene ended and the associated megafauna became extinct following the retreat of the glaciers. This was followed by the hot and dry altithermal, which ended during a climatic period much like the 20th century. The primary subsistence pattern of the Archaic period was hunting and gathering of a large range of animal and plant resources: “The ecotone between the swamp and the adjacent uplands [in the Refuge area] would have provided a unique blend of ecological resources for exploitation.” (Myers 1979:11). Two cemetaries, the Berlemen and Myers cemetaries, are located on the Refuge.
Pottery, gardening, mounds (usually burial), and later the bow and arrow are indicative of the Woodland culture commencing about 3,000 years ago. Sites from this culture have been located on the Refuge. The Woodland culture was partially but not entirely displaced by the final prehistoric culture, the Mississippian, in the period 1,100 to 400 years ago. But by the time Western culture (Euro-American) arrived the area had been de-populated.
In the Refuge area neither the archeological nor the early documentary record provides any connection between prehistoric cultures and historic Indian tribes. The earliest written records indicate the Miami, Illinois, and Shawnee lived in the area, but the Iroquois from New York drove out those tribes in the early 1600s. Nevertheless, the Miami and Shawnee along with the Delaware were in Jackson and Jennings Counties until being displaced entirely by 1818.
Between the 1830s and the 1870s farmers settled on what is now the Refuge. Originally subsistence-based hog and corn farmers, the early settlers relied heavily on the abundant wildlife and plant resources. Later a network of rural graveled roads led to the introduction of manufactured goods, which improved rural life during the early 20th century. But concurrently, erosion caused by extensive deforestation from expanding farms stripped away the topsoil and some farmers abandoned the land. To create additional fertile farmland, Mutton and Storm Creeks were ditched for drainage between 1880 and 1900. “By 1870 most of the present refuge area was utilized for farming
Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
29
and this pattern of small farms continued essentially uninterrupted in the area until the creation of the Refuge in 1966.” (Myers 1979:23)
Cultural resources are all an important part of the Nation’s heritage. The Service is committed to protecting valuable evidence of human interactions with each other and the landscape. Protection is accomplished in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources.
As of March 1, 2008, the National Register of Historic Places listed 11 historic properties in Jackson County and five in Jennings County. This small number is surely not representative of the number of potential historic properties in the counties. Two of the National Register properties are archaeological sites that are are located on the Refuge, the listings resulting from Service-funded research: sites 12-J-62 and 12-J-87. Also as of March 1, the Refuge inventory of identified known and potential cultural resources based on Service-sponsored archeological investigations and maps resulted in a list of 140 sites of which 94 are on the National Register, have been determined eligible, or are considered eligible until determined otherwise. Archeological surveys have covered just 1,920 acres of the Refuge so many more sites are likely to occur on the Refuge. Of special note of the known sites is the Carl Myers farm (including log cabin, log barn, and persimmon orchard remnant) which should be nominated to the National Register.
The Refuge has a small number of Native American artifacts on exhibit in the Visitors Center. These artifacts were found on the Refuge and are on loan from the Glenn Black Museum of Indiana University in Bloomington. The display has several artifacts including lithic points, tools, and a pot. The Refuge is included in the Region-wide scope of collections statement dated October 31, 1994.
Visitation
Muscatatuck NWR is open from sunrise to sunset 365 days a year. There are two entrances to the Refuge and both have automatic gates that open at sunrise and close an hour after sunset. Special extended hours are set during hunting seasons. The Conservation Learning Center is also regularly used for meetings and presentations by groups that have a wildlife conservation or management purpose or program, including during evening hours by prior arrangement.
The Refuge annual visitation was estimated at approximately 174,000 in 2006. The number of visitors per year is obtained through estimates derived in large part from traffic counters at both entrances. Undetected malfunctions in the counters are believed to have led to reports of lower numbers of visitors in some recent years.
The Visitor Center is located on a loop off County Line Road (across from the Office) and is usually by-passed by repeat visitors. A counter at the main point of entry indicated approximately 13,000 visitors to the Visitor Center during the last year.
We do not have an accurate breakdown of visitor numbers per activity but we believe the largest segment of our visitors come for wildlife observation including bird watching, followed by fishing, interpretation/education, and hunting.
Current Management
Habitat Management
Wetland Management
Nineteen pools of water totaling 1,292 acres have water control structures (Figure 8). Annual water management plans have been followed since 1984 and these plans give management strategies for each unit that include specific water levels needed to create and maintain various habitat or to make food
Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
30
Figure 8: Water Management Infrastructure, Muscatatuck NWRChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
31
available and attractive to wildlife, particularly for Wood Duck production. Water management techniques include removing water to expose mudflats for shorebird use; to allow seed germination of desirable moist soil plants, to allow natural or mechanical rejuvenation of a permanent marsh or moist soil unit; and to discourage use of an area by muskrats, and adding water and maintaining different depths to stimulate invertebrate production and to create and maintain brood habitat and waterfowl migratory feeding areas (Smith and Kadlec 1983). The primary goals of water management are to provide optimum conditions for food and cover for migrating birds, especially waterfowl, nesting and brood habitat for Wood Ducks and Hooded Mergansers, and habitat for other species that use wetland areas.
Moist Soil Units
Muscatatuck NWR actively manages 296 acres of moist soil units through water and vegetation manipulation. Moist soil management on Muscatatuck NWR has been focused primarily on producing dense stands of perennial emergent vegetation on eight units to provide foraging and resting habitat for spring migrating waterfowl. Another objective on these eight units has been to provide brood habitat for resident Wood Ducks, Hooded Mergansers and Canada Geese. These objectives were achieved through water level manipulations timed to coincide with providing optimum habitat conditions for germinating smartweed while also maintaining pool levels throughout the summer months for the broods. Seasonal flooding of these units has generally been planned to occur from September through April. However, proper hydrological manipulation in these units has proven difficult to achieve due to excessive flooding and/or beaver activity combined with a lack of personnel. The remaining two units have been managed to provide sparse perennial emergent vegetation combined with drawdowns timed to coincide with southward migrating shorebird arrival to provide optimum mudflat habitat, a critical need for this avifaunal group (Smith and Kadlec 1983). Water manipulations are generally conducted so that flooding occurs between September and March, although these units have been subjected to the same limitations outlined above.
Regular maintenance of moist soil units is a necessary phase in any management scheme due to the eventual invasion of these areas by more persistent or woody vegetation, i.e. buttonbush, willows, and Eastern cottonwood. The preferred means of maintaining a particular unit generally involves methods of mechanical disturbance, mowing or disking, to set back succession (Gray et al. 1999). Most units are scheduled to undergo treatment approximately once every 3 to 5 years. However, due to a shortage of staff and impediments to drawdown such as beaver activity and inclement weather, the achievement of many desired management activities as scheduled are often not realized. In a normal year, plans call for the maintenance of one to three of the moist soil units. During this process, drawdown may begin earlier than “normal” to facilitate entry into the units with the necessary equipment. Following vegetation manipulation the units are reflooded and enter back into the “normal” cycle of drawdown and floodup until another maintenance cycle is necessary.
Grasslands
Currently, grassland management is extremely limited. Active management of grasslands in the past entailed mowing, burning, and haying; however, these activities have been abandoned largely due to lack of staff and funds, increasing costs of active management, and changes in objectives. The current objective for many grassland areas is to allow them to revert to hardwood forested areas to reduce forest fragmentation. Once that process begins, those areas are considered in the context of forest management.
Control of invasive species is at the forefront of management goals at the Refuge, and exotic species found in grassland areas are addressed on a case-by-case basis. It is currently considered desirable to control invasives throughout all habitat types because of their threat to the biological integrity and diversity of every habitat as native species are out-competed for space and resources. Often these shifts in the floral community structure and composition are followed by shifts in the faunal community, which in some instances could be detrimental to rare or endangered species and greatly reduces overall diversity.
Forests
Forest restoration is primarily accomplished through natural succession. Most fields are small and are surrounded by excellent seed sources for deciduous trees, although some tree planting of oaks (mast producing trees) has occurred and will Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
32
continue to occur and increase as funding permits. The U.S. Forest Service has seven permanent inventory points located on Muscatatuck NWR as part of its national Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program. The FIA is a national program of the USDA Forest Service that conducts and maintains comprehensive inventories of the forest resources in the United States (Forest Service 2007). This provides forest/landscape level assessments.
Tree planting has occurred sporadically since the Refuge was established. From establishment in 1966 to 2000, approximately 82 acres were planted in selected fields that had been retired from farming (Sieracki et al. 2002). The fields selected were chosen because of their location near existing forested tracts and to help repair forest fragmentation. Since 2000, an additional 30 acres were planted in 2004, 15 acres in 2007, and 19 acres in 2008. The Refuge plans to plant 28 acres in 2009. The Refuge requests planting plans from the local area IDNR Forester prior to undertaking any new planting projects. The plans include native species of a diversity of tree species (mostly oaks) at a rate of 500 trees per acre. Planting has been done by a consulting forester. The Refuge Friends Group, the Muscatatuck Wildlife Society, and the National Wild Turkey Federation have helped fund projects.
Cropland
Food crops of corn and soybeans with wheat as a cover are planted annually on 267 acres of cropland under a cooperative farm agreement with a local farmer. The Refuge share of the crops is left in the field for wildlife. This maintains open habitat and adds diversity to a mostly forested Refuge (Donalty et al. 2003). Canada Geese, waterfowl, Sandhill Cranes, and resident species forage on the Refuge share of the crop. Wintering raptors prey upon small mammals feeding in these fields. It also creates good wildlife viewing along Refuge roads and the auto tour route.
Monitoring
A number of surveys, censuses, studies, and investigations are conducted on the Refuge that help to monitor the status of its wildlife and plant populations (see Table 2). Birds, mammals, herptofauna, and habitat are monitored on regular schedules. The surveys are conducted by Refuge staff, volunteers and in partnership with IDNR. Weekly waterfowl surveys, mid-winter waterfowl and Bald Eagle counts, and a few other surveys are often requested by the state on an annual basis and the survey data upon completion is sent to IDNR, which in turn summarizes and analyzes the information and provides the Refuge copies of such analyses. The purpose of monitoring is, in general, to determine the presence or absence and estimate the numbers of fish and wildlife present and to aid in making management decisions, and to respond to information requests from state agencies, the public and other partners.
Public Use
The Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 established six priority uses of the Refuge System. These priority uses all depend on the presence of wildlife or expectation of the presence of wildlife, and are thus called wildlife-dependent uses. These uses are:
Phunting
Pfishing
Pwildlife observation
Pphotography
Penvironmental education
Penvironmental interpretation
Muscatatuck NWR provides opportunities in all of the six priority uses of the Refuge System.
Hunting
Hunting is permitted for white-tailed deer, rabbit, squirrel, turkey, and quail in certain locations on the Refuge during most of the established State seasons. Hunting leaflets are updated annually and hunters are required to sign
Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: Jon KauffeldChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
33
the front of the leaflet and carry it with them while hunting. The Refuge also keeps the State of Indiana Hunting and Trapping Guide with all state rules and regulations in stock as a service to hunters. Deer and turkey hunting are allowed on a large portion of the Refuge during their respective seasons, while squirrel, rabbit, and quail hunting are only allowed in a small portion of the deer and turkey hunting area. No hunting is allowed in the Refuge closed area, in a large section in the northeast corner of the Refuge where the Visitor Center and most of the hiking trails are located, or within 100 yards of any building (Figure 9).
Special deer hunts are held for archery and muzzleloading gun hunters during certain periods and approximately 3,000 hunters participate annually. The deer hunt drawings are done by the State. Bowhunters hunt in a different time period from the muzzleloading hunters. A late “open” archery season, open to all hunters with a valid state hunting license and available tag, is held on the Refuge after the muzzleloader season is over. Only handicapped hunters are permitted to use crossbows during Refuge deer hunts. The deer hunting area is the same as the turkey area – approximately three-quarters of the land area of the Refuge.
The turkey hunt requires a special permit during the spring season and involves 10-15 hunters/day over approximately three-fourths of the land area of the Refuge. Special permit drawings are done by the State. Rabbit hunting is open to members of the public with a valid state hunting license and involves a small percentage of Refuge visitors. Rabbit and
Table 2: Monitoring History, Muscatatuck NWR
Study/Survey
Priority (10 high, 1 low)
Scales
FWS R3 RCP
No. Runs
No. Routes
Water Level Monitoring, MSO Hydrology
10
Refuge
26+
1
Invasive Species Mapping and Monitoring
10
Refuge, State, National
N/A
N/A
MSU Vegetation Cover Survey
9
Refuge
1
N/A
Water Quality Monitoring
8
Refuge, State
4
5
Waterfowl Brood Survey
8
Refuge
􀀳􃌱
10
1
Species Lists
7
Refuge
􀀳􃍎
N/A
N/A
Tubercled Orchid Survey
7
Refuge, State
1
2
Migratory Waterfowl Surveys
6
Refuge, State, National
􀀳􃌵
52
1
Fish Survey
6
Refuge, State
􀀳􃍎
N/A
N/A
FWS Eastern Greater Sandhill Crane Survey
5
Refuge, Region
􀀳􃌱
1
1
Audubon Christmas Bird Count
4
Refuge, State, National
􀀳􃌱
1
?
Audubon Mayday Count
4
Refuge, State, National
􀀳􃌱
1
?
Bald Eagle Count
3
Refuge, State
1
1
NoAm Amphibian Monitoring Program
3
Refuge, State, National
3
1
Great Blue Heron Rookery Count
3
Refuge, State
1
1
Aquatic Invertebrate Survey
3
Refuge, State
􀀳􃍎
N/A
N/A
Abnormal Amphibian Monitoring
3
Refuge, Region, National
N/A
N/A
Butterfly Abundance and Diversity
2
Refuge
1
?Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
34
Figure 9: Public Use, Hunting, at Muscatatuck NWRChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
35
quail hunting are the only hunting and activities on the Refuge where dogs may be used and be off-leash. Squirrel hunting is a new, small, but growing activity. The rabbit, quail, and squirrel hunting area covers the southeast quarter of the Refuge and is the area east of County Line Road and south of Barn Road. Very few visitors hunt quail here as the quail population is marginal and most of the hunting area is reverting to brush.
The Refuge remains open to non-hunting activities throughout the hunting season. Refuge visitors and hunters scouting for a future hunt day may enter hunting areas for any otherwise allowed purpose. All Refuge public use roads also remain open during all hunts as do all public fishing sites.
Hunters park on the Refuge only in designated hunting areas to access all parts of the Refuge that are open to hunting. Additionally, many hunters park on adjacent public roads, including CR 900 W., Hwy. 31, and CR 500 N., outside the Refuge and walk in to their hunting areas, but most park along the Refuge roads. Refuge staff have little contact with hunters aside from answering questions prior to and during the hunt. Self-service deer registration boxes are located at each entrance gate where hunters are required to register their kill before taking it to a state authorized check station. Turkey hunters are asked to report the location of their takes, and succesful deer hunters are asked to fill out a harvest card.
Fishing
Fishing is provided year-round at two large lakes, Stanfield and Richart, two small lakes, Linda and Sheryl, and at Display, Mallard, Sand Hill, and Persimmon Ponds. A fishing leaflet is available and is updated annually as needed. The Refuge also keeps the State of Indiana Fishing Guide with all state rules and regulations in stock as a service to anglers. Fishing structures and paved paths provide accessibility to handicapped anglers at three sites – Stanfield Lake and Lake Linda, which have accessible floating ramps and platforms, and Sand Hill Pond, which has a paved walkway. Stanfield Lake has a concrete boat ramp and non-motorized boats may be launched and used on this lake. Parking lots and single-panel kiosks with regulations and leaflets are located at each fishing area except for Richart Lake, Display Pond, Mallard Pond, and Lake Sheryl. Concrete outhouse facilities are located at the Stanfield Lake and Persimmon Pond parking lots for the convenience of all visitors. Regular bathroom facilities with running water are located at the Visitors Center. A map of all Refuge fishing areas is provided in the fishing leaflet.
Fishing in the creeks and the seasonal drainages that enter and cross the Refuge is not allowed in an effort to provide relatively undisturbed habitat to Wood Ducks and their broods, which make extensive use of these habitats. Fishing is also not allowed in any of the Refuge’s constructed moist soil units or marshes. Fishing is permitted from the banks of the Muscatatuck River except from the shoreline in the waterfowl sanctuary closed area.
Refuge fishing areas are generally shallow. Aquatic weed growth makes bank fishing difficult in the warm months and some Refuge visitors use “float tubes” or “belly-boats” – inner-tube type aides for wading (or floating) across the water. Fishing is permitted by hook and line only, and generally state regulations apply. Sought-after fish species include largemouth bass, bluegill, crappie, and channel catfish.
Turkey hunting on Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
36
Interpretation, Observation, and Photography
Nine miles of roads are open for wildlife observation from autos, buses, motorcycles, or bicycles, plus an approximately 4-mile auto tour route with numbered posts and an interpretive leaflet. There are two observation structures, the Hackman Overlook on Richart Lake and the Endicott Observation Deck on the Auto Tour Route. The Hackman Overlook is located approximately one-half mile from the Richart Trail parking lot and overlooks Richart Lake. Recently, this structure has attracted vandals who have been marking it with graffiti and carvings, and the structure has been identified by staff as a maintenance problem. The Endicott Viewing Platform is an accessible raised wooden structure that overlooks both the North and South Endicott Marshes, has two fixed public use spotting scopes, and provides good opportunities to view marsh, wading, and waterbirds. (Figure 10)
There are seven hiking trails of various lengths on the Refuge including the .4-mile (paved) Chestnut Ridge Interpretive Trail near the Visitor Center that features numbered posts with a leaflet. Most hiking trails are about a mile long except for the East and West River trails, in the floodplain of the Muscatatuck River, which between them provide a 7-mile route for wildlife observation and hunter access along the river.
A self-service audiovisual program that presents an overview of the Refuge is available at the Conservation Learning Center. There are interpretive exhibits in both wings of the building and the Indiana Junior Duck Stamp Contest entries are on display in the CLC auditorium. New exhibits were recently built and installed in the old wing of the Visitor Center by a contractor and were opened to the public in the summer of 2008. A two-panel kiosk is located in the Visitor Center parking lot.
Large Refuge special events include a migratory bird festival in May, kids fishing event in June, and a friends’ group Refuge Week “Log Cabin Day” festival in October. The “Wings Over Muscatatuck” bird festival held on International Migratory Bird Day is the Refuge’s major annual event and attracts a growing audience of approximately 1,000 visitors when the weather is good. The Jackson County Visitor Bureau and the Muscatatuck Wildlife Society are major sponsors of this event, which features day-long guided birding tours of the Refuge, bird walks, bird banding demonstrations, bird and wildlife interpretive programs, live birds of prey/Bald Eagle programs, exhibits by conservation groups, vendors, and kids’ birding activities.
The “Take a Kid Fishing” event at Muscatatuck NWR has been funded by the Muscatatuck Wildlife Society for many years. The 1-day event features special fishing for “kids and friends” in a pond normally closed to fishing, fishing and casting contests, fish art contests, loaner fishing poles, free bait, fishing lessons on request, and lots of door prizes. Trophys are awarded to event winners. Attendance varies between 400-600 people.
With the help of the Service’s National Conservation Training Center, Muscatatuck NWR staff operate two booths at the National FFA Convention in Indianapolis for 3 days each October. The focus of the outreach effort is on providing career and background information on the Fish and Wildlife Service and wildlife conservation issues. Between 40,000-50,000 young people and several thousand teachers attend the convention annually, and this event is considered the largest gathering of students anywhere in the United States.
The “Log Cabin Day” festival in October celebrates the end of National Wildlife Refuge Week and is a project of the Muscatatuck Wildlife Society.
Visitors at Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
37
Figure 10: Visitor Services Facilities, Muscatatuck NWRChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
38
The friends group provides a free ham and bean lunch at Myers Cabin during the event and there are old-time crafts, music, blacksmiths, a storyteller, horse-drawn wagon rides into the adjacent closed area (which is open that week), wildlife exhibits and information, and a volunteer set-up with a spotting scope on the Refuge Bald Eagle nest. “Wetland Day” programs have been held in mid-March for several years and feature guided waterfowl tours.
Wildlife photographers visit the Refuge on a regular basis but exact numbers are unknown. Annual wildlife photography contests are held in conjunction with bird festival and Refuge Week events and the Refuge hosts the monthly meetings of the Muscatatuck Photography Club.
Environmental Education
Many school groups visit the Refuge during the spring and fall, and primarily use the Refuge on their own. Unfortunately, with transportation funding cuts to public schools, numbers have been decreasing over the last few years. Refuge staff assist teachers prior to their visits whenever possible but do not usually work with students directly. Staff does work with Girl Scouts on badge-work and “linking girls to the land” activities.
Four “Conservation Field Day” programs are held for third-graders from Jackson and Jennings Counties in May and October with about 300 youngsters involved each day, and as such provides Refuge contact with most of the third-graders in each of these counties each year. The interagency effort features programs on wildlife, forestry, soils, wetlands, and recycling. Instructors usually include educators from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Purdue Extension, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Solid Waste Management Districts and the Refuge. The programs feature hands-on activities for the youngsters and are well received by area teachers.
Muscatatuck NWR manages the Indiana Junior Duck Stamp art contest with over 450 entries each year. Refuge volunteers do much of the work in administering the program and the Muscatatuck Wildlife Society provides a substantial amount of the award funding. Other partners in the program include the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Ducks Unlimited, and Bass Pro Shops. An awards ceremony is held at the Refuge during the May migratory bird festival. The original art of the Junior Duck Stamp Contest winners is kept on display in the Visitor Center Auditorium for one year before being returned to the students.
A “Junior Birder” kids program is given during the summer months and is being expanded with volunteers. An “Invasive Species” patch program is available and has been used by scouts and other youth groups. Master Naturalist classes and teacher workshops are held on the Refuge periodically. Songbird, Prairie, and Wetland Trunks are available on loan from the Refuge as are other educational materials. Kids’ activities are an important part of the migratory bird festival held annually in May, and “skins and bones” are featured at the Refuge Week festival.
The “Refuge Rangers,” an elementary school group of about 30 students from Hayden School, has spent considerable time learning about the Refuge and helping with projects under the leadership of their teacher, a Refuge volunteer. This group has recently published a field guide to Muscatatuck NWR written by and for children, and with the assistance of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the Muscatatuck Wildlife Society, this guide is being made available to all students who visit the Refuge as part of a school-based field trip.
Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation
Collecting mushrooms, nuts, and berries is permitted along with collecting shed deer antlers. Large numbers of people collect mushroom species at the Refuge in the spring.
Some jogging and bicycling occurs on the Refuge. Jennings County High School regularly brings their physical education and cross-country teams out for practice runs on Refuge trails.
Predator, Pest, and Invasive Species Management
Animal Species
Currently two mammalian aquatic nuisance species exist at the Refuge, the North American beaver and muskrat. Beaver create serious problems on the Refuge by constructing dams that impede water flow and cause flooding, which has proven to be detrimental to bottomland hardwood stands and has resulted in less than desirable conditions in moist soil units and green tree units. This also creates an enormous workload for Refuge Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
39
staff who spend countless hours removing mud and debris from water control structures and tearing out dams from waterways. These animals also damage stands of timber by girdling trees causing either mortality or stunting growth due to the loss of cambium tissue.
Beaver and muskrat will both burrow into dike banks, reducing overall structural integrity. These burrows reduce functionality of the dikes in two ways, both of which are costly to repair. First, over time these burrows cave in, causing surface damage that may encumber travel of vehicles or equipment, thus slowing down or preventing maintenance efforts. Second, these burrows can either directly cause seepage or leaks in dikes or do so indirectly by creating open sites that erode, leading to leaks and seepage. Refuge staff have begun to address these issues by removing problematic animals.
Three other species are targeted for control on the Refuge: feral dogs, feral cats, and Mute Swans. Feral dogs and cats are hand trapped or live trapped when evidence of their presence is detected. These animals are then turned over to a county animal control officer. Mute Swans are an invasive species targeted for control because their aggressive territorial behavior discourages use of wetlands by other waterfowl.
Plant Species
Invasive plant species management requires a multi-faceted approach that involves inventory, control, and monitoring. Preliminary mapping surveys of invasive plant species began in 2003 and is an ongoing project. Japanese stiltgrass, kudzu, garlic mustard, Japanese knotweed, oriental bittersweet, tree-of-heaven, and purple loosestrife have all been mapped, at least partially, with only kudzu and the loosestrife believed to have been fully mapped. A final report from a Challenge Cost Share research grant was submitted in November of 2007 and included information on many of these species and their distributions.
Invasive plant control is a species-specific and site-specific endeavor, and a list of all control methods for every species occurring on the Refuge is beyond the scope of this plan. However, most of the control efforts at Muscatatuck NWR involve chemical application, usually a glyphosate based product, although this is not always the case. Chemical applications may be foliar, basal bark, or cut stump treatments and may be used in combination with mechanical treatments. Mechanical means are employed when such methods are feasible and judicious. These methods may include hand-pulling, cutting (with weedeaters, brush cutters, or mowers), and disking (Blossey 2004). Fire, although not currently used on the Refuge, is also a viable option for the control of many species and may be considered for use in the future. Currently no biological control methods are in use at the Refuge, however, they could be used if the right opportunity presented itself. Recently, the Refuge has focused on attacking stiltgrass, loose-strife, knotweed, kudzu, garlic mustard, and tree-of-heaven as part of an early detection rapid response philosophy. Work has begun to create “weed free” areas starting with an area surrounding the Visitor Center. Creating an Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM) is a high priority for the Refuge and will be essential in establishing long-term objectives, strategies, and priorities for invasive plant management.
Treatments are often conducted by volunteers and interns or through partnerships with local groups and organizations. With a limited staff, these associations help the Refuge to accomplish an otherwise impossible task. Partnering and sharing resources is an integral part of the management of invasives at Muscatatuck NWR and will continue to be into the future. Currently, a multi-agency/partner project is under way to establish a Southern Indiana Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA). The Refuge has taken a role in the project and expects to work closely with partners as establishment progresses.
Archaeological and Cultural Resources
The Myers Cabin is a restored family log cabin at the south end of the Refuge that was built between 1870-1890 by Louis Myers. The barn behind the cabin was built in 1900 and is an excellent example of “hand-pegged” construction. Carl Myers, a son of Louis, was in the plant nursery business and developed (or found) some seedless persimmon trees, which he sold commercially from his house adjacent to Myers Cabin. A small grove of the seedless persimmon trees still remains close to the cabin. The cabin was continuously occupied by the Myers family and the barn was in use until it was purchased by the Fish and Wildlife Service around 1966. Both structures are in very good condition and have been restored and maintained by the Muscatatuck Wildlife Society. Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR
40
The Barkman Cemetery is located along County Line Road and was in use at the time of the Refuge establishment. A path to the cemetery is maintained for ease of access from a small parking Lot. There are more than 30 headstones, and many have been repaired by volunteers. The cemetery is maintained by Refuge and volunteer staff and is regularly visited by family members.
The Myers Cemetery is a small site located along the East River Hiking Trail, and has only about seven headstones. It is in the woods and does not require mowing. A marker for an unknown civil war soldier was apparently stolen from the cemetery in the early 1980s.
The Refuge has two national register archaelogical sites, the Low Spur site and the Sand Hill site. The Sand Hill site and most of the Refuge area was scoured by collectors long-before the Refuge was purchased. Over 73 archaelogical sites have been documented on the Refuge by professional archaeologists. Recovered artifacts indicate the Refuge area was intensively occupied in the Archaic (10,000-1,000 B.C.) and Woodland (1,000 B.C.-A.D. 1200) time periods with Late Archaic and Woodland components particularly well represented. Early Archaic sites were found on upland ridge and bluff tops and both Early and Late Archaic sites were found on ridge spurs and lowland terraces. Large multi-component sites were located on a variety of landforms. Many of the sites have been interpreted as short-term, temporary campsites, perhaps seasonal extractive camps (like hickory-nut processing) or sites