Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Muscatatuck
l,{ ational Wi,ldlife R efug e
Date
)hartes M. WooleY
ActingRegionat
ut
,dG
Gomprehensive Gonservat¡on Plan Approval
Submitted by:
lr4* u,á,{* q/r t
Marc Webber
Refuge Manager
Concur:
Thorñas C. Worlhington
Acting Regional Chief,
homas 0. Melius
ildlife Befuge System
Matthew D. Sprenger
Befuge Supervisor, Area 2
Muscatatuck
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
Muscatatuck NWR / 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 .............................................................................................................................................................3
Refuge Vision ................................................................................................................................................................4
Purpose of the Plan .......................................................................................................................................................4
Legal Context ................................................................................................................................................................4
Chapter 2: The Planning Process ...............................................................................................................................5
Meetings and Involvement ..........................................................................................................................................5
Issues ...........................................................................................................................................................................5
Wilderness Review .......................................................................................................................................................6
Preparation of the CCP .................................................................................................................................................6
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 ............................................................................................15
Climate ........................................................................................................................................................................16
Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................................................16
Hydrology ....................................................................................................................................................................18
Refuge Habitats and Wildlife .....................................................................................................................................20
Wetlands ..............................................................................................................................................................20
Forests ...................................................................................................................................................................20
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
ii
Grasslands .............................................................................................................................................................22
Birds ......................................................................................................................................................................22
Mammals ..............................................................................................................................................................23
Amphibians and Reptiles ......................................................................................................................................23
Fish ........................................................................................................................................................................23
Invertebrates .........................................................................................................................................................24
Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................................................................24
State-listed/Candidate Species .......................................................................................................................24
Threatened/Endangered/Candidate Species (Fed Listed) ...............................................................................25
Threats to Resources ..................................................................................................................................................26
Invasive Species ....................................................................................................................................................26
Water Contamination ............................................................................................................................................26
Urban Development ..............................................................................................................................................27
Military Activity ....................................................................................................................................................27
Atmospheric Concerns ..........................................................................................................................................28
Climate Change Impacts .............................................................................................................................................28
Administrative Facilities .............................................................................................................................................31
Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation .............................................................................................................31
Visitation .....................................................................................................................................................................33
Current Management .................................................................................................................................................33
Habitat Management ............................................................................................................................................33
Wetland Management ....................................................................................................................................33
Moist Soil Units ..............................................................................................................................................33
Grasslands .......................................................................................................................................................35
Forests .............................................................................................................................................................35
Cropland ..........................................................................................................................................................36
Monitoring .............................................................................................................................................................36
Public Use ..............................................................................................................................................................36
Hunting ............................................................................................................................................................36
Fishing .............................................................................................................................................................39
Interpretation, Observation, and Photography .................................................................................................39
Environmental Education ................................................................................................................................41
Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation ................................................................................................................42
Predator, Pest, and Invasive Species Management ..............................................................................................42
Animal Species ...............................................................................................................................................42
Plant Species ...................................................................................................................................................43
Archaeological and Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................43
Law Enforcement ..................................................................................................................................................44
Existing Partnerships .............................................................................................................................................44
Other Management Areas ....................................................................................................................................45
Research Natural Area ....................................................................................................................................45
Restle Unit .......................................................................................................................................................45
Farm Service Agency Conservation Easements ...............................................................................................46
Current Staff and Budget ......................................................................................................................................47
Staff .................................................................................................................................................................47
Budget .............................................................................................................................................................47
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iii
Chapter 4: Management Direction ............................................................................................................................48
Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................48
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ...............................................................................................................................71
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................71
New and Existing Projects .........................................................................................................................................71
Staffing ......................................................................................................................................................................71
Partnership Opportunities ...........................................................................................................................................72
Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................................................72
Monitoring and Evaluation .........................................................................................................................................73
Plan Review and Revision ..........................................................................................................................................73
Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact .......................................................................................................75
Appendix B: Glossary .................................................................................................................................................79
Appendix C: Species Lists .........................................................................................................................................85
Appendix D: Regional Conservation Priority Species at Muscatatuck NWR ................................................119
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements ................................................................................................................125
Appendix F: Appropriate Use Determinations ......................................................................................................133
Appendix G: Deferred Maintenance and Improvement Projects and New Projects ....................................143
Appendix H: Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................................149
Appendix I: List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................................155
Appendix J: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP .......................................................................................159
List of Figures and Tables
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iv
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 .................................................................................34
Figure 9: Public Use, Hunting, at Muscatatuck NWR .....................................................................................................38
Figure 10: Visitor Services Facilities, Muscatatuck NWR ..............................................................................................40
Figure 11: The Restle Unit of Muscatatuck NWR ...........................................................................................................45
Figure 12: FSA Easements Administrated by Muscatatuck NWR ..................................................................................47
Figure 13: Future Land Cover, Muscatatuck NWR ..........................................................................................................50
Figure 14: Future Visitor Facilities, Muscatatuck NWR ..................................................................................................67
Table 1: Maximum Adult Audiences Within 30, 60, and 90 Miles of Muscatatuck NWR for Four Activities ...............15
Table 2: Monitoring History, Muscatatuck NWR ............................................................................................................37
Table 3: Six-year Operating and Maintenance Budget ...................................................................................................47
Table 4: Water Management Units Under the CCP, Muscatatuck NWR .......................................................................54
Table 5: Additional Staffing as Indicated by the 2008 Refuge System Staffing Model ................................................72
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 550 refuges
and 37 wetland management districts covering more
than 96 million acres of public lands and waters.
Most of these lands are in Alaska, with
approximately 16 million acres located in the lower
48 states and several island territories.
Great Blue Heron. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service
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 mos t
Figure 1: Location of Muscatatuck NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
2
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 40 million people visit
national wildlife refuges every year.
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:
 Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants
and their habitats, including species that are
endangered or threatened with becoming
endangered.
 Develop 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.
 Conserve 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.
 Provide and enhance opportunities to
participate in compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation (hunting, f i s h ing, wildl i f e
obser vati on and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation).
 Foster 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 business 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 because of wetland drainage,
an anticipated economic stimulus from tourists and
sportsmen, and possible educational benefits
derived from nature trails and wildlife observations.
Muscatatuck NWR. Photo Credit: Jon Kauffeld
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.
Refuge Purpose
The Refuge purpose “…for use as an inviolate
sanctuary, or for any other management purpose,
for migratory birds” derives from the Migratory
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
4
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:
 Wildlife has first priority in the management of
refuges.
 Wildlife-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.
 Other 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:
 Providing a clear statement of direction for the
future management.
 Making a strong connection between Refuge
activities and conservation activities that occur
in the surrounding area.
 Providing neighbors, visitors, and the general
public with an understanding of the Service’s
management actions.
 Ensuring Refuge actions and programs are
consistent with the mandates of the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
 Ensuring that Refuge management considers
federal, state, and county plans.
 Establishing long-term continuity in Refuge
management.
 Providing a basis for the development of budget
requests on the Refuge’s operation a l ,
maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
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
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
5
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.
Muscatatuck NWR. Photo Credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service
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
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
6
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.
 Habitat 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.
 Visitor 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.
 Refuge 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.
 Recreational 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.
 External Impacts to the Refuge
Refuge habitats and waters are directly affected
by land use on neighboring propert i e s ,
surrounding area and upstream of the Refuge.
Off-refuge factors such as water management,
agricultural practices, transportation networks,
industrial activities, and urban development
influence many aspects of management at
Muscatatuck NWR, including:
water quality and quantity on the Refuge;
sedimentation and contamination in streams,
wetlands, and open waters;
wildlife disturbance from human activity and
noise;
 the severity of habitat fragmentation;
the diversity and pervasiveness of invasive
species.
 Support
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.
Preparation of the CCP
The CCP for Muscatatuck NWR was prepared
by a team consisting of Refuge and Regional Office
staff. The CCP was published in two phases and in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). The Environmental Assessment, pub-lished
as Appendix A in the Draft CCP, presented
four alternatives for future management and identi-fied
a preferred alternative.
The Draft CCP/EA was released for public
review and comment on April 6, 2009. A Draft CCP/
EA or a summary of the document was sent to more
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
7
than 1,000 individuals, organizations, and local,
state, and federal agencies and elected officials. An
open house was held on April 23, 2009, at the Musca-tatuck
NWR Visitor Center following release of the
draft document. Twenty-five people attended the
open house. We received a total of 40 comment let-ters
and e-mails during the 33-day review period.
Appendix K of the CCP summarizes these com-ments
and our responses.
The preferred alternative was selected and has
become the basis of the Final CCP, which will guide
management over the next 15 years. It will guide
the development of more detailed step-down man-agement
plans for specific resource areas and it will
underpin the annual budgeting process through
submissions to the Refuge Operating Needs System
(RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Manage-ment
System (SAMMS). Most importantly, the CCP
lays out the general approach to managing habitat,
wildlife, and people at Muscatatuck NWR that will
direct day-to-day decision-making and actions.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 Muscatatuck
NWR 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. Prior to European settlement of the area, the
Muscatatuck River Basin 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).
River otter. Photo credit: Dan Kaiser
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
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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/or
swamp 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 display the potential natural vegetation
found at Muscatatuck NWR. 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 speci es 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 (Figure 3). 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
Female Wood Duck and brood. Photo Credit: Mark (U.S. Geological Survey 2001).
Trabue
Figure 2: Potential Natural Vegetation, Muscatatuck NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
10
Figure 3: Land Use / Land Cover in the Vicinity of Muscatatuck NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
11
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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:
 The Central Hardwoods Joint Venture Concept
Plan
 Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes
Region Joint Venture of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan
 The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes
Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan
 The 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 200 1 l i s t o f Non-game Birds o f
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:
 All federally listed threatened and endangered
species and proposed and candidate species
that occur in the Region.
 Migratory bird species derived from Service
wide and international conservation planning
efforts.
 Rare and declining terrestrial and aquatic
plants and animals that represent an abbrevia-tion
of the Endangered Species program’s pre-liminary
draft “Species of Concern” list for the
Region.
Appendix D l i s t s 72 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 under way 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
Figure 4: Other Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Vicinity of Muscatatuck NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
13
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
14
change have catalyzed these efforts in the Service.
Using land cover (Figure 3 on page 11) and the
existing 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.
White-tailed deer. Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
The growing emphasis on landscape-level issues
has demanded a shif t in the scale at which
environmental problems are approached. To
continue providing the ecological services that
sustain wildlife and human populations alike, the
Service is looking outside Refuge boundaries and
engaging in conversations with other members of
the conservation community. It is only through
collaborative efforts and partnerships – both public
and private – that issues of this magnitude and scale
can be effectively addressed.
Socioeconomic Context
Muscatatuck NWR is located in Jackson and
Jennings Counties with a small satellite unit in
Monroe County. Jackson and Jennings 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).
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
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
15
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
made in the analysis, the data should be considered
as relative indicators of potential, not actual
participation.
We looked at potent i a l 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
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
16
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.
Muscatatuck NWR. Photo Credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service
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
(Indiana DNR 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 temperature of 28 degrees Fahrenheit.
July is the warmest month with a mean temperature
of 74.5 degrees Fahrenheit. April 20 and October 12
are the frost and freeze dates for 32 degrees
Fahrenheit with a 50 percent probability. The
average annual precipitation is about 46 total inches.
Precipitation is distributed relatively evenly across
the months of the year with a low average of 2.84
inches in February and a high average 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 a 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
Figure 5: Hydric Soils, Muscatatuck NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
17
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
18
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.
Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service
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,
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
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
Figure 6: Muscatatuck NWR and the Wabash River Basin Watershed
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
19
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
20
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 Mut ton 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.
Refuge Habitats and Wildlife
Acreages used to describe Refuge habitat in this
section include the Restle Unit.
Wetlands
Wetlands cover roughly 70 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 (4,180 acres), and managed water
units that include moist soil units, brood marshes,
greentree impoundments, and Stanfield, Moss and
Richart Lakes (approximately 1,260 acres), which
were built 1979-1982 with Bicentennial Land
Heritage Program (BHLP) funds. The Refuge also
has more than 70 other small ponds and wetland
areas included in the 1,260 acres referenced above;
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 69 percent (about 5,400 acres) of
the Refuge is covered by forests. Of this, about half
of the Refuge, or approximately 78 percent of the
forested area (about 4,180 acres), is 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 15 percent of the forested
area (approximately 1,210 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).
Mini Marsh, Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service
Examples of trees commonly found on the
Refuge include:
 pin oak
 swamp white oak
 swamp chestnut oak
 sweet gum
 green ash
 river birch
 silver maple
 red maple
 shellbark hickory
 white oak
 red oak
 white ash
 tuliptree
Figure 7: Current Land Cover, Muscatatuck NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
21
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
22
 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:
 Wood Duck
 Hooded Merganser
 Red-shouldered Hawk
 Red-headed Woodpecker
 Northern Flicker
 Acadian Flycatcher
 Cerulean Warbler
 Prothonotary Warbler
 Worm-eating Warbler
 American Redstart
 Louisiana Waterthrush
 Kentucky Warbler
 Rusty Blackbird
 Yellow-billed Cuckoo
 Wood Thrush
Grasslands
Areas of grasslands totaling approximately 80
acres, including 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:
 Sedge Wren
 Grasshopper Sparrow
 Henslow’s Sparrow
 Song Sparrow
 Indigo Bunting
 Dickcissel
 Red-winged Blackbird
 Eastern Meadowlark
 Bobolink
Yellow Warbler, Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: Mark
Trabue
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. Between 2001 and 2007,
the Refuge was a stopover site for the Whooping
Crane Eastern Partnership (WCEP) ultra-light-led
Whooping Crane migration every fall. 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.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
23
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 (Whitaker 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
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 Ref-uge
makes it suitable for a broad range of amphibi-ans
and reptiles; 44 species of herpetofauna are
known on the Refuge. They include three state-listed
endangered species – the four-toed salaman-der,
the copperbelly watersnake, and the Kirtland’s
snake – and the rough green snake, an Indiana Spe-cies
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.
Red-eared Sliders. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service
Fish
Fish species were collected and inventoried
during a 2007 survey of waterbodies within the
Refuge including tributary streams outside the
Refuge. A total of 54 species were collected from
within the Refuge, and more than 75 fish species are
known to occur on the Refuge (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 and draws an estimated 15,000 fishing
visits per year at the Refuge.
In addition to the sites surveyed on the Refuge,
50 more s ites were sur veyed 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
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
24
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 sur vey 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 three 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 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.
Blue gill. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
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 state-listed endangered
species include:
 Indiana bat
 evening bat
 southern tubercled orchid
 climbing milkweed
 copperbelly water snake
 four-toed salamander
 Kirtland’s snake
 Kirtland’s Warbler
 Interior Least Tern
 Peregrine Falcon
 Bald Eagle
 Bewick’s Wren
 Yellow-crowned Night-Heron
 Black-crowned Night-Heron
 Virginia Rail
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
25
 Common Moorhen
 King Rail
 Least Bittern
 Loggerhead Shrike
 Osprey
 Short-eared Owl
 Trumpeter Swan
 Northern Harrier
 American Bittern
 Upland Sandpiper
 Least Tern
 Black Tern
 Barn Owl
 Short-eared Owl
 Sedge Wren
 Golden-winged Warbler
 Marsh Wren
 Henslow’s Sparrow
 Cerulean Warbler
 Black-and-white Warbler
State species of special concern on the Refuge
include:
 least weasel
 little spectaclecase mussel
 Sharp-shinned Hawk
 Red-shouldered Hawk
 Great Egret
 Greater Yellowlegs
 Solitary Sandpiper
 Ruddy Turnstone
 Short-billed Dowitcher
 Wilson’s Palarope
 Chuck-will’s-widow
 Whip-poor-will
 Sandhill Crane
 Broad-winged Hawk
 Worm-eating Warbler
 Hooded Warbler
 rough 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.
The Refuge species lists in Appendix C include
each species’ state and federal status.
Threatened/Endangered/Candidate Species (Fed
Listed)
Least Tern, Whooping Crane, Indiana bat, and
copperbelly watersnake use the Refuge.
Whooping Cranes from the “Operat i on
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 Service
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 2 9 r iver kilometers south of
Muscatatuck NWR in Washington County, outside
of Austin, Indiana. 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)
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
26
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 (Whitaker 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).
Kudzu. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
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.
Threats to Resources
Invasive Species
Invasive, exotic, and noxious weeds are common
throughout most of the Refuge’s habitat types.
Although research on 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:
 purple loosestrife
 autumn olive
 Canada thistle
 Johnson grass
 multiflora rose
 moneywort
 common carp
 Asian clams
 Japanese stiltgrass
 oriental bittersweet
 garlic mustard
 kudzu
 reed canary grass
 Asian ambrosia beetle
 Asian ladybugs
 European Starling
 Brown-headed Cowbird
 House Sparrow
 mosquito fish
 gypsy 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.
Water Contamination
Water contamination affecting the Refuge
includes surface runoff and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge
from populated areas, crop and livestock runoff,
septic system failures, accidental spills, as well as
pollutants from power substations, petroleum
refineries, and industrial parks in the area.
Contaminants may be entering the Refuge via a
number of surface and groundwater sources,
including:
 Vernon Fork of the Muscatatuck River (VFMR)
and its tributaries
 Mutton and Storm Creeks
 Sandy Branch Creek
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
27
 Numerous unnamed drainages that enter the
system during flooding periods
 City of Seymour
 Adjacent highways, roads, and railroads includ-ing
discharge from accidents
 Underground storage tanks
Agriculture is the primary land use in the
watershed. Run-off from crop fields, pastureland,
and feedlots contributes to non-point source
pollution. Erosion, sedimentation, eutrophication,
and contamination from application of pesticides,
herbicides, and fertilizers all introduce
contaminants into the watershed and Refuge
system. Many of these substances, such as
organochlorines and organo-phophates, are known
to be toxic to fish and wildlife via direct exposure,
bioaccumulation, and bio-magnification (Cox 1991).
In addition to fluvial and riparian deposition,
flooding occurs during high rainfall periods of the
year in many areas of the Refuge. These flood
waters carry debris, chemicals, and other
contaminants to large otherwise terrestrial areas of
the Refuge.
In addition to agriculture, rapid residential and
transportation development in the areas
surrounding the Refuge have had detrimental
impacts on the watershed. As more land is cleared
and paved, there are decreases in sediment
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 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.
Urban Development
The city of Seymour is located just west of the
Refuge, with Interstate 65 between the two as
depicted in Figure 3 on page 11. U.S. Highway 50
passes across the northern boundary of the Refuge
and continues west into downtown Seymour.
Because of this crossroads, the development of
businesses along the U.S. 50 corridor west of the
Refuge has increased steadily, and the northern and
western sides of the Refuge have seen an increase in
residential development.
According to the U.S. Census, the population and
number of housing units in both Jackson and
Jennings Counties increased between 2000 and
2007. Both Jackson and Jennings Counties
populations increased by just under 1,000 people,
but the number of housing units in each increased
by over 1,200 units in that same time period. These
population and development increases bring
additional concerns regarding impervious surfaces,
increased traffic on roadways, additional water
management needs, habitat loss and fragmentation,
and increased visitation at the Refuge.
Military Activity
Areas adjacent to the Refuge have seen an
increase in military activity in recent years. In
addition to activity associated with Camp Atterbury
and Jefferson Proving Grounds, in 2005 the
Muscatatuck Urban Training Center (MUTC) was
created in South Central Jennings County. The
Indiana National Guard converted this 1,000-acre
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
28
site into an urban training center with 70 buildings
and a mile of tunnels. Air traffic related to combat
maneuvering and refueling, as well as training
exercises and convoys, have increased the potential
for wildlife disturbance and accidental discharges.
Coyote. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service photo.
Atmospheric Concerns
In addition to the atmospheric deposition of
heavy metals discussed in the water contamination
section, ozone levels are a factor for the Refuge.
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 some
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)
Climate Change Impacts
The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an
order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies
under its direction that have land management
responsibilities to consider potential climate change
impacts as part of long range planning endeavors.
The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) within the
earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual
rise in surface temperature commonly referred to
as global warming. In relation to comprehensive
conservation planning for national wildlife refuges,
carbon sequestration constitutes the primary cli-mate-
related impact that refuges can affect in a
small way. The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Car-bon
Sequestration Research and Development”
defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and
secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be
emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.”
Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon
sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts –
grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, and desert –
are effective both in preventing carbon emission and
acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric
CO2. The Department of Energy report’s conclu-sions
noted that ecosystem protection is important
to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent
loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial bio-sphere.
Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the
heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife
refuges and management areas. The actions pro-posed
in this CCP would conserve or restore land
and habitat, and would thus retain existing carbon
sequestration on the WMA. This in turn contributes
positively to efforts to mitigate human-induced
global climate change.
One Service activity in particular – prescribed
burning – releases CO2 directly to the atmosphere
from the biomass consumed during combustion.
However, there is actually no net loss of carbon,
since new vegetation quickly germinates and
sprouts to replace the burned-up biomass and
sequesters or assimilates an approximately equal
amount of carbon as was lost to the air (Boutton et
al. 2006). Overall, there should be little or no net
change in the amount of carbon sequestered at Kirt-land’s
Warbler WMA from any of the proposed man-agement
alternatives.
Several impacts of climate change have been
identified that may need to be considered and
addressed in the future:
 Habitat available for cold water fish such as
trout and salmon in lakes and streams could
be reduced.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
29
 Forests may change, with some species shift-ing
their range northward or dying out, and
other trees moving in to take their place.
 Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breed-ing
habitat due to stronger and more fre-quent
droughts.
 Changes in the timing of migration and nest-ing
could put some birds out of sync with the
life cycles of their prey species.
 Animal and insect species historically found
farther south may colonize new areas to the
north as winter climatic conditions moderate.
The managers and resource specialists responsi-ble
for the WMA need to be aware of the possibility
of change due to global warming. When feasible,
documenting long-term vegetation, species, and
hydrologic changes should become a part of
research and monitoring programs on the WMA.
Adjustments in land management direction may be
necessary over the course of time to adapt to a
changing climate.
The following paragraphs are excerpts from the
2000 report: Climate Change Impacts on the
United States: The Potential Consequences of Cli-mate
Variability and Change, produced by the
National Assessment Synthesis Team, an advisory
committee chartered under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act to help the US Global Change
Research Program fulfill its mandate under the
Global Change Research Act of 1990. These
excerpts are from the section of the report focused
upon the eight-state Midwest Region.
Observed Climate Trends
Over the 20th century, the northern portion of
the Midwest, including the upper Great Lakes,
has warmed by almost 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2
degrees Celsius), while the southern portion,
along the Ohio River valley, has cooled by about
1 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degrees Celsius).
Annual precipitation has increased, with many
of the changes quite substantial, including as
much as 10 to 20 percent increases over the 20th
century. Much of the precipitation has resulted
from an increased rise in the number of days
with heavy and very heavy precipitation events.
There have been moderate to very large
increases in the number of days with excessive
moisture in the eastern portion of the Great
Lakes basin.
Scenarios of Future Climate
During the 21st century, models project that
temperatures will increase throughout the Mid-west,
and at a greater rate than has been
observed in the 20th century. Even over the
northern portion of the region, where warming
has been the largest, an accelerated warming
trend is projected for the 21st century, with
temperatures increasing by 5 to 10 degrees
Fahrenheit (3 to 6 degrees Celsius). The aver-age
minimum temperature is likely to increase
as much as 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit (0.5 to 1
degree Celsius) more than the maximum tem-perature.
Precipitation is likely to continue its
upward trend, at a slightly accelerated rate; 10
to 30 percent increases are projected across
much of the region. Despite the increases in
precipitation, increases in temperature and
other meteorological factors are likely to lead to
a substantial increase in evaporation, causing a
soil moisture deficit, reduction in lake and river
levels, and more drought-like conditions in
much of the region. In addition, increases in the
proportion of precipitation coming from heavy
and extreme precipitation are very likely.
Midwest Key Issues:
1. Reduction in Lake and River Levels
Water levels, supply, quality, and water-based
transportation and recreation are all climate-sensitive
issues affecting the region. Despite the
projected increase in precipitation, increased
evaporation due to higher summer air tempera-tures
is likely to lead to reduced levels in the
Great Lakes. Of 12 models used to assess this
question, 11 suggest significant decreases in
lake levels while one suggests a small increase.
The total range of the 11 models' projections is
less than a 1-foot increase to more than a 5-foot
decrease. A 5-foot (1.5- meter) reduction would
lead to a 20 to 40 percent reduction in outflow to
the St. Lawrence Seaway. Lower lake levels
cause reduced hydropower generation down-stream,
with reductions of up to 15 percent by
2050. An increase in demand for water across
the region at the same time as net flows
decrease is of particular concern. There is a pos-sibility
of increased national and international
tension related to increased pressure for water
diversions from the Lakes as demands for water
increase. For smaller lakes and rivers, reduced
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
30
flows are likely to cause water quality issues to
become more acute. In addition, the projected
increase in very heavy precipitation events will
likely lead to increased flash flooding and
worsen agricultural and other non-point source
pollution as more frequent heavy rains wash
pollutants into rivers and lakes. Lower water
levels are likely to make water-based transpor-tation
more difficult with increases in the costs
of navigation of 5 to 40 percent. Some of this
increase will likely be offset as reduced ice cover
extends the navigation season. Shoreline dam-age
due to high lake levels is likely to decrease
40 to 80 percent due to reduced water levels.
Adaptations: A reduction in lake and river lev-els
would require adaptations such as re-engi-neering
of ship docks and locks for
transportation and recreation. If flows decrease
while demand increases, international commis-sions
focusing on Great Lakes water issues are
likely to become even more important in the
future. Improved forecasts and warnings of
extreme precipitation events could help reduce
some related impacts.
2. Agricultural Shifts
Agriculture is of vital importance to this region,
the nation, and the world. It has exhibited a
capacity to adapt to moderate differences in
growing season climate, and it is likely that
agriculture would be able to continue to adapt.
With an increase in the length of the growing
season, double cropping, the practice of plant-ing
a second crop after the first is harvested, is
likely to become more prevalent. The CO2 fertil-ization
effect is likely to enhance plant growth
and contribute to generally higher yields. The
largest increases are projected to occur in the
northern areas of the region, where crop yields
are currently temperature limited. However,
yields are not likely to increase in all parts of
the region. For example, in the southern por-tions
of Indiana and Illinois, corn yields are
likely to decline, with 10-20 percent decreases
projected in some locations. Consumers are
likely to pay lower prices due to generally
increased yields, while most producers are
likely to suffer reduced profits due to declining
prices. Increased use of pesticides and herbi-cides
are very likely to be required and to pres-ent
new challenges.
Adaptations: Plant breeding programs can use
skilled climate predictions to aid in breeding
new varieties for the new growing conditions.
Farmers can then choose varieties that are bet-ter
attuned to the expected climate. It is likely
that plant breeders will need to use all the tools
of plant breeding, including genetic engineer-ing,
in adapting to climate change. Changing
planting and harvest dates and planting densi-ties,
and using integrated pest management,
conservation tillage, and new farm technologies
are additional options. There is also the poten-tial
for shifting or expanding the area where
certain crops are grown if climate conditions
become more favorable. Weather conditions
during the growing season are the primary fac-tor
in year-to-year differences in corn and soy-bean
yields. Droughts and floods result in large
yield reductions; severe droughts, like the
drought of 1988, cause yield reductions of over
30 percent. Reliable seasonal forecasts are
likely to help farmers adjust their practices
from year to year to respond to such events.
3. Changes in Semi-natural and Natural
Ecosystems
The Upper Midwest has a unique combination
of soil and climate that allows for abundant
coniferous tree growth. Higher temperatures
and increased evaporation will likely reduce
boreal forest acreage, and make current forest-lands
more susceptible to pests and diseases. It
is likely that the southern transition zone of the
boreal forest will be susceptible to expansion of
temperate forests, which in turn will have to
compete with other land use pressures. How-ever,
warmer weather (coupled with beneficial
effects of increased CO2), are likely to lead to an
increase in tree growth rates on marginal for-estlands
that are currently temperature-lim-ited.
Most climate models indicate that higher
air temperatures will cause greater evaporation
and hence reduced soil moisture, a situation
conducive to forest fires. As the 21st century
progresses, there will be an increased likelihood
of greater environmental stress on both decidu-ous
and coniferous trees, making them suscepti-ble
to disease and pest infestation, likely
resulting in increased tree mortality.
As water temperatures in lakes increase, major
changes in freshwater ecosystems will very
likely occur, such as a shift from cold water fish
species, such as trout, to warmer water species,
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
31
such as bass and catfish. Warmer water is also
likely to create an environment more suscepti-ble
to invasions by non-native species. Runoff of
excess nutrients (such as nitrogen and phospho-rus
from fertilizer) into lakes and rivers is likely
to increase due to the increase in heavy precipi-tation
events. This, coupled with warmer lake
temperatures, is likely to stimulate the growth
of algae, depleting the water of oxygen to the
detriment of other living things. Declining lake
levels are likely to cause large impacts to the
current distribution of wetlands. There is some
chance that some wetlands could gradually
migrate, but in areas where their migration is
limited by the topography, they would disap-pear.
Changes in bird populations and other
native wildlife have already been linked to
increasing temperatures and more changes are
likely in the future. Wildlife populations are par-ticularly
susceptible to climate extremes due to
the effects of drought on their food sources.
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 Friends
groups, t he Muscatatuck Wi ldl i f e 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
across from the Visitor Center. Workshops, garages,
storage buildings, and additional offices are located
in the west-central area of the Refuge 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
about 100 yards south of the Office, east of County
Line Road.
Muscatatuck NWR Visitor Center. Photo credit: U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service
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 Service 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
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
32
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 cemeteries, the
Barkman and Myers cemeteries, are also 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
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.
Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service
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.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
33
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 at 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 evening hours by arrangement.
Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service
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
Acreages used to describe Refuge habitat in this
section include the Restle Unit.
Wetland Management
A total of approximately 1,260 acres on the
Refuge have water control structures, including
moist soil units, greentree reservoirs, managed
wetlands, and open water units (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 available and attractive to wildlife,
particularly for Wood Duck production. Water
management techniques include:
 Removing water to expose mudflats for shore-bird
use.
 Allowing seed germination of desirable moist
soil plants.
 Allowing natural or mechanical rejuvenation of
a permanent marsh or moist soil unit.
 Discouraging use of an area by muskrats.
 Adding water and maintaining different depths
to stimulate invertebrate production.
��� Creating and maintaining 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 in
10 moist soil units through water and vegetation
manipulation. Moist soi l 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
Figure 8: Water Management Infrastructure, Muscatatuck NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
34
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
35
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 are not realized as
scheduled. 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
Grassland management is extremely limited, with
only 80 acres currently in this kind of habitat. 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 areas that were
previously farmed (approximately 870 acres) is to
allow them to revert to hardwood forest 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
reduce overall diversity.
Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: Jon Kauffeld
Forests
With approximately 4,180 acres in bottomland
hardwood forest (including 48 acres on the Restle
Unit) and approximately 1,210 acres in upland
hardwood forest, these areas comprise the dominant
cover type on the Refuge. Forest restoration is
primarily accomplished through natural succession.
Currently, approximately 870 acres of Refuge land
are in the process of reverting back to upland and
bottomland forest from previous agricultural use.
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 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
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
36
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, 30 additional 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. According to the 2007 vegetation map, the
Refuge retains approximately 330 acres of land
associated with agriculture. The Refuge’s 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’s share of the
crop. Wintering raptors prey upon small mammals
feeding in these fields. Farmed acres also create
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
requested by the state on an annual basis and the
survey data upon completion is sent to IDNR. Staff
with IDNR summarize and analyze the information
and provide the Refuge copies of the 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 National Wildlife Refuge System
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:
 hunting
 fishing
 wildlife observation
 photography
 environmental education
 environmental interpretation
Muscatatuck NWR provides opportunities for all
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
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 on page 38).
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
Table 2: Monitoring History, Muscatatuck NWR
Study/Survey Priority
(10 high,
1 low)
Scales FWS R3
RCP
No.
Runs
No.
Routes
Water Level Monitoring, MSU 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 May Day 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
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
37
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 per
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 quail hunting are the only
hunting 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 adjace