Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge & Management Area Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Patoka River
National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval
Submitted by:
William
McCoy It-: ,:Jl dOoS
ate
Refuge Manager
Concur:
Rick
Frietsche
Acting Refuge Supervisor, Area 2
~rn.~ Nita M. Fuller Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System
&>. Z Cf· 2008 Date Patoka River
National Wildlife Refuge & Management Area
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
i
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ..................................................................................................................1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................1
Purpose and Need for Plan ........................................................................................................................................1
Establishment of the Refuge ......................................................................................................................................3
Refuge Purposes ........................................................................................................................................................4
Refuge Vision .............................................................................................................................................................4
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................................4
The National Wildlife Refuge System ........................................................................................................................4
Legal and Policy Guidance .........................................................................................................................................6
Compatibility Policy ............................................................................................................................................6
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy ........................................................................7
Other Guidance ...................................................................................................................................................7
Existing Partnerships ..................................................................................................................................................7
Volunteers and Friends Group ....................................................................................................................................8
Museums and Repositories .......................................................................................................................................8
Chapter 2: The Planning Process ...............................................................................................................................9
Public Scoping ............................................................................................................................................................9
The Comments ....................................................................................................................................................9
Internal Scoping ................................................................................................................................................10
Preparation, Publishing, Finalization and Implementation of the CCP .....................................................................11
Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities .....................................................................................................11
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management ................................................................................................14
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................14
Wetland Loss in Indiana ..........................................................................................................................................14
The Ohio River Valley Ecosystem ..............................................................................................................................16
Other Units Administered ........................................................................................................................................20
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ....................................................................................................................20
North American Waterfowl Management Plan ................................................................................................20
Partners In Flight ...............................................................................................................................................21
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan .....................................................................................................................21
Waterbird Conservation for the Americas ........................................................................................................22
North American Bird Conservation Initiative ....................................................................................................23
Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities ..................................................................................................24
Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy ................................................................................................................24
Other Recreation and Conservation Lands in the Area ............................................................................................24
Sugar Ridge Fish & Wildlife Area ....................................................................................................................24
Glendale Fish & Wildlife Area ..........................................................................................................................24Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
ii
Pike State Forest ..............................................................................................................................................24
Ferdinand State Forest ....................................................................................................................................26
Other Recreation and Conservation Lands ........................................................................................................26
Socioeconomic Setting ............................................................................................................................................26
Population .........................................................................................................................................................26
Employment ......................................................................................................................................................26
Income and Education ......................................................................................................................................27
Potential Refuge Visitors ..................................................................................................................................27
Climate .....................................................................................................................................................................27
Climate Change ........................................................................................................................................................28
Observed Climate Trends .................................................................................................................................29
Scenarios of Future Climate ..............................................................................................................................29
Midwest Key Issues .........................................................................................................................................29
Reduction in Lake and River Levels ............................................................................................................29
Agricultural Shifts .....................................................................................................................................30
Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems ....................................................................................30
Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................31
Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................................................32
Geology .............................................................................................................................................................32
Minerals ............................................................................................................................................................32
Oil ..............................................................................................................................................................32
Gas .............................................................................................................................................................32
Coal ............................................................................................................................................................33
Soils .........................................................................................................................................................................33
Bottomland Soil Associations ...........................................................................................................................33
Upland Soil Associations ..................................................................................................................................34
Water and Hydrology ..............................................................................................................................................35
Refuge Resources ....................................................................................................................................................37
Plant Communities ............................................................................................................................................37
Wetlands ...................................................................................................................................................37
Open Water ...............................................................................................................................................38
Uplands ......................................................................................................................................................38
Invasive Plant Species ...............................................................................................................................38
Threatened and Endangered Plants ...........................................................................................................39
Fish and Wildlife Communities .........................................................................................................................39
Birds ...........................................................................................................................................................39
Mammals ..........................................................................................................................................................41
Game Mammals ........................................................................................................................................41
Furbearers ..................................................................................................................................................42
Nongame mammals ..................................................................................................................................43
Amphibians and Reptiles ...........................................................................................................................43
Fish ....................................................................................................................................................................44
Invertebrates .....................................................................................................................................................45
Insects .......................................................................................................................................................45
Molluscs ....................................................................................................................................................45
Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................................................................46
Threatened and Endangered Flora ....................................................................................................................46
Threatened and Endangered Fauna ...................................................................................................................46
Whooping Crane (Grus Americana) ............................................................................................................46Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iii
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ......................................................................................................46
Least Tern (Sterna antillarum) (Interior Population) ..................................................................................48
Fat Pocketbook (Potamilus capax) ..............................................................................................................48
Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist) .....................................................................................................................48
Copperbelly Water Snake (Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta) ....................................................................49
Threats to Resources ...............................................................................................................................................49
Invasive Species ...............................................................................................................................................49
Contaminants ....................................................................................................................................................52
Interstate 69 .............................................................................................................................................................55
Administrative Facilities ..........................................................................................................................................56
Archeological and Cultural Values ............................................................................................................................56
Current Management ...............................................................................................................................................57
Habitat Management .......................................................................................................................................57
Forested Wetlands (Bottomland Forest) ....................................................................................................57
Emergent Wetlands ...................................................................................................................................60
Lakes and Ponds ........................................................................................................................................60
Patoka River, Oxbows, and Patoka Tributaries ..........................................................................................60
Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................60
Moist Soil Units .........................................................................................................................................60
Grasslands .................................................................................................................................................60
Upland Forests ...........................................................................................................................................60
Cropland ....................................................................................................................................................61
Upland Openings .......................................................................................................................................61
Invasive Plant Species ...............................................................................................................................61
Interior Least Tern Nesting Habitat ...........................................................................................................61
Private Lands and Watershed Management .............................................................................................61
Farm Services Administration Conservation Easements ...........................................................................61
Land Acquisition .......................................................................................................................................62
Wildlife Management ......................................................................................................................................62
Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................................62
Migratory and Resident Birds ....................................................................................................................62
Native Resident Wildlife ............................................................................................................................62
Fish and Other Aquatic Species .................................................................................................................62
Interior Least Terns ...................................................................................................................................62
Pest Management .....................................................................................................................................62
Fish and Wildlife Monitoring .............................................................................................................................62
Visitor Services .................................................................................................................................................63
Hunting ......................................................................................................................................................63
Fishing .......................................................................................................................................................63
Wildlife Observation and Photography ......................................................................................................65
Interpretation .............................................................................................................................................65
Environmental Education ............................................................................................................................65
Friends and Volunteers ...............................................................................................................................65
Outreach ....................................................................................................................................................65
Archeological and Cultural Values ....................................................................................................................65
Special Management Areas .......................................................................................................................65
Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................................................65Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iv
Chapter 4: Management Direction ............................................................................................................................66
Goals, Objectives and Strategies ..............................................................................................................................66
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ...............................................................................................................................82
New and Existing Projects .......................................................................................................................................82
Construct Visitor Parking Lots ...........................................................................................................................82
Completion of Observation Deck .......................................................................................................................82
Reconnect Oxbows on Patoka River ..................................................................................................................82
Maintenance and Construction of Storage Facilities ........................................................................................82
Macrotopography Wetlands ..............................................................................................................................82
Future Staffing Requirements ..................................................................................................................................83
Partnership Opportunities ........................................................................................................................................83
Step-down Management Plans ...............................................................................................................................84
Archeological and Cultural Values ............................................................................................................................84
Monitoring and Evaluation .......................................................................................................................................85
Plan Review and Revision ........................................................................................................................................85
Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact .......................................................................................................87
Appendix B: Glossary .................................................................................................................................................91
Appendix C: Species Lists .........................................................................................................................................97
Appendix D: Resource Conservation Priorities, Ohio River Valley Ecosystem .............................................119
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements ................................................................................................................125
Appendix F: Mailing List ..........................................................................................................................................131
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations ..........................................................................................................137
Appendix H: List of Preparers .................................................................................................................................139
Appendix I: Literature Cited ....................................................................................................................................143
Appendix J: Priority Refuge Operational and Maintenance Needs .................................................................151
Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP .......................................................................................155Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
v
List of Figures
Figure 1: Location of Patoka River NWR & MA ................................................................................................................2
Figure 2: Patoka River NWR & MA Delineations ..............................................................................................................5
Figure 3: Acquisition Authority, Patoka River NWR & MA .............................................................................................15
Figure 4: Ohio River Valley Ecosystem ............................................................................................................................17
Figure 5: Bird Conservation Region in Which Patoka River NWR & MA is Located ......................................................23
Figure 6: Other Conservation Lands in the Area of Patoka River NWR & MA ...............................................................25
Figure 7: Hydrology at Patoka River NWR & MA ............................................................................................................36
Figure 8: Projected Route of Interstate 69 ......................................................................................................................56
Figure 9: Current Landcover (West), Patoka River NWR & MA ......................................................................................58
Figure 10: Current Landcover (East), Patoka River NWR & MA ......................................................................................59
Figure 11: Current Visitor Facilities, Patoka River NWR & MA ......................................................................................64
Figure 12: Long-term (100 Years) Landcover, Patoka River NWR & MA (East) ..............................................................67
Figure 13: Long-term (100 Years) Landcover, Patoka River NWR & MA (West) ............................................................68
Figure 14: Current and Future Concept of Patoka River Channel ....................................................................................69
Figure 15: Current Staffing Chart, Patoka River NWR ....................................................................................................83
Figure 16: Staffing Required to Fully Implement Plan ....................................................................................................83
List of Tables
Table 1: Status of Land Acquisition, Patoka River NWR & MA .....................................................................................16
Table 2: Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Vascular Plants in Gibson and Pike Counties, Indiana, as of 2005 ............47
Table 3: Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Fauna in Gibson and Pike Counties, Indiana, as of 2005 ...........................50
Table 4: Invasive Plants and Animals at Patoka NWR/MA ............................................................................................53
Table 5: Step-down Management Plan Schedule ..........................................................................................................84
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Introduction
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Man­agement Area (NWR & MA) is a work in progress. Established in 1994, approximately one-fourth of the total area approved for acquisition is presently part of the Refuge. Acquiring additional lands within the approved boundary is an ongoing effort. The Refuge is the 502nd refuge within the National Wildlife Refuge System and second refuge estab­lished in the State of Indiana.
The Patoka River had long been recognized for its wetland and wildlife values on a local, statewide and regional basis. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Service proposed establishing a national wildlife refuge/wildlife management area along the Patoka River in Pike and Gibson Counties of southwestern Indiana (see Figure 1). The portion of the river included in the proposal contains one of the few remaining expanses of bottomland hardwood forest wetlands in Indiana and the midwestern United States.
The area provides some of the best Wood Duck production habitat in all of Indiana. In all there are more than 380 species of wildlife on the Refuge, including the federally-listed endangered Indiana bat.
The area’s natural resources face considerable challenges. Along the Patoka River, ditching, diking and channelization dating back to the early 1900s contributed to wetland losses. Water quality in the Patoka River drainage was diminshed by over 20,000 acres of abandoned coal mine lands, oil well development activities, intensive agricultural opera­tions, and community effluent.
Purpose and Need for Plan
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) articulates the management direction for Patoka River NWR & MA for the next 15 years. Through the development of goals, objectives, and strategies, the CCP describes how the Refuge contributes to the overall mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 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.
Migrating Trumpeter Swans. Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: USFWSChapter 1: Introduction and Background
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
2
Figure 1: Location of Patoka River NWR & MAChapter 1: Introduction and Background
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
3
#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 Patoka River NWR & MA by:
#Providing a clear statement of direction for the future management of the Refuge.
#Making a strong connection between Refuge activities and conservation activities that occur in the surrounding area.
#Providing Refuge neighbors, users, and the general public with an understanding of the Service’s land acquisition and management actions on and around the Refuge.
#Ensuring the 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.
#Ensuring that Refuge management considers the preservation of historic properties.
#Establishing long-term continuity in Refuge management.
#Providing a basis for the development of budget requests on the Refuge’s operational, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
Establishment of the Refuge
In 1986, the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (Act) was enacted by Congress to promote the con­servation of America's wetlands by intensifying cooperative efforts among federal agencies, states, local governments, and private interests for conser­vation, management, and acquisition of wetlands.
The Department of the Interior developed a National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan as directed by Section 301 of the Act, and in the Mid­west Region a Regional Wetlands Concept Plan (USFWS, 1990) was prepared to provide a frame­work for protecting priority wetlands in the eight states states that make up the Region: Illinois, Indi­ana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin. The Regional Wetlands Concept Plan provided the focus for acquisition, restoration and renewal of valuable wetlands, emphasizing those areas where losses are highest.
The stretch of the Patoka River running through Pike and Gibson Counties in southern Indiana was identified as a focus area within the 1990 Regional Wetlands Concept Plan. The area is part of the mid­dle Mississippi River and lower Ohio River drainage and is characterized by rich bottomland hardwood wetlands that historically provided prime breeding and wintering habitat for species such as Wood Ducks, Mallards and Bald Eagles.
Patoka River NWR & MA was established in 1994. The authorized boundary (also known as the “acquisition boundary”) – which delineates where the Service can acquire property from willing sell­ers – encompasses 23,743 acres of wetlands, flood­plain forest, and upland buffer along 30 miles of the Patoka River corridor. Management objectives are identical for the National Wildlife Refuge, autho­rized at 6,970 acres, and the Management Area (MA), authorized for the remaining 15,847 acres. The separate designations avoid legal conflicts with the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977.
SMCRA prohibits surface mining within national wildlife refuges. Legally, this was interpreted to apply to all lands within the authorized boundary of a national wildlife refuge regardless of ownership. Much of the land along the Patoka River corridor is privately owned and underlain by surface and/or underground minable coal reserves. Designating the entire area within the boundary as a National Wildlife Refuge would have prohibited surface min­ing and required compensating land owners for the value of this property right.
To find a solution to this dilemma, the U.S. Office of Surface Mining was contracted to complete a coal study to determine which lands within the acquisi­tion boundary were underlain by potentially min­Mallard
nest, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit:
USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
4
able coal reserves. The areas with coal deposits were delineated and identified as a “selection area” for the acquisition of Wildlife Management Areas instead of being identified as an acquisition area for the National Wildlife Refuge. Figure 2 shows the distribution of these areas within the Refuge bound­ary. This naming convention was done to avert a conflict with the SMCRA and to avoid the uninten­tional taking of surface minable coal rights of pri­vate land owners. It has no implications for the management of these areas.
Refuge Purposes
Refuge purposes are specified or derived from the law, proclamation, Executive Order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or adminis­trative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. Patoka River NWR & MA has the following refuge purposes:
"... the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions ...Ó 16 U.S.C. 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986)
"... particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program. 16 U.S.C. 667b (An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife)
“... (1) to protect, enhance, restore, and manage an appropriate distribution and diversity of wet­land ecosystems and other habitats for migra­tory birds and other fish and wildlife in North America; (2) to maintain current or improved distributions of migratory bird populations; and (3) to sustain an abundance of waterfowl and other migratory birds consistent with the goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the international obligations contained in the migratory bird treaties and conventions and other agreements with Canada, Mexico, and other countries.” 16 U.S.C. 4401-4413 (North American Wetlands Conservation Act)
Refuge Vision
The Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area restores, protects and man­ages a diverse bottomland hardwood forest eco­system and associated habitats for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and indigenous fish and wildlife, while striving to develop citizen understanding and support for the protection of natural resources by providing wildlife-related education and recreation oppor­tunities.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the primary federal agency responsible for conserv­ing, protecting, and enhancing the nation's fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. The Service administers the lands of the National Wildlife Ref­uge System, 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 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 more than 540 ref­uges covering more than 93 million acres of public lands and waters. Most of these lands (82 percent) are in Alaska, with approximately 16 million acres located in the lower 48 states and several island ter­ritories. The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world's largest collection of lands specifically man­aged for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides habitat for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish, and insects. As a result of international treaties for migratory bird conservation as well as other legisla­tion, such as the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, many refuges have been established to pro­tect migratory waterfowl and their migratory fly­ways from their northern nesting grounds to southern wintering areas. Refuges also play a vital role in preserving endangered and threatened spe­cies. Among the most notable is Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas, which provides winter habitat for the Whooping Crane. Likewise, the Flor­ida Panther NWR protects one of the nation's most Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
5
Figure 2: Patoka River NWR & MA DelineationsChapter 1: Introduction and Background
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
6
endangered predators, and the Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR an endangered, non-migratory species of the Sandhill Crane.
Refuges also provide unique opportunities for people. When it is compatible with wildlife and habi­tat conservation, they 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 39.5 million peo­ple visited national wildlife refuges in 2003.
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 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, fishing, wildlife observation 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.
Legal and Policy Guidance
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 CCPs is one of those mandates. The Act 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. The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act requires the Secretary to maintain the biological integrity, diver­sity, and environmental health and to identify the archeological and cultural values of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Act deals with compat­ibility of uses on refuges and directs the Secretary of Interior to issue regulations for compatibility determinations. The Act also directs that compatible wildlife-dependent uses should be facilitated. Since passage of the Act, the Service has adopted policies that implement direction of the Act.
Compatibility Policy
Service policy says that no uses for which the Service has authority to regulate may be allowed on a unit of the Refuge System unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge man­ager, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purposes of the national wild­life refuge. Managers must complete a written com­patibility determination for each use, or collection of
Snakey Point fishing pier, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: USFWSChapter 1: Introduction and Background
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
7
like uses, that is signed by the manager and the Regional Chief of Refuges in the respective Service region.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Service is directed in the Refuge Improve­ment Act to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans…” The biolog­ical integrity policy helps define and clarify this directive by providing guidance on what conditions constitute biological integrity, diversity, and envi­ronmental health; guidelines for maintaining exist­ing levels; guidelines for determining how and when it is appropriate to restore lost elements; and guide­lines in dealing with external threats to biological integrity, diversity and health.
Other Guidance
In addition to the Refuge’s establishing executive orders, authorizing legislation, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, several Federal laws, executive orders, and regula­tions govern administration of the Refuge. Appen­dix E contains a partial list of the legal mandates that guided the preparation of this plan and those that pertain to Refuge management activities.
Existing Partnerships
Working with others through intra- and inter­agency partnerships is essential to accomplishing the mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service as well as assisting Patoka River NWR & MA in achieving its purposes and vision. Partnerships with other fed­eral and state agencies and with a diversity of public and private organizations are increasingly impor­tant. Other agencies can provide invaluable assis­tance in research and maintenance. Private groups and non-profit organizations greatly enhance public involvement in the Refuge, building enthusiasm and support for its mission.
Within the Ohio River Valley ecosystem in which Patoka River NWR is located, the Service partners with a number of other agencies and institutions, both governmental and non-governmental. These include:
#State conservation and natural resources agencies, including the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (Indiana Wildlife and Fisheries);
#Federal agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division, and Natural Resources Conservation Service;
#Local governments;
#Institutions of higher learning;
#Local landowners and businesses
# Non-governmental conservation organizations
Besides the partnerships that the Fish and Wild­life Service holds on the national and regional (eco­system) level, Patoka River NWR maintains formal and informal working partnerships with the follow­ing agencies, non-governmental conservation orga­nizations, and businesses:
#Indiana Department of Natural Resources
#Division of Fish and Wildlife
#Division of Mining and Reclamation
#Division of Oil and Gas
#Division of Nature Preserves
Foxglove beard-tongue, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: USFWSChapter 1: Introduction and Background
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
8
#Indiana Heritage Trust
#Indiana Department of Transportation
#USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
#Gibson County Coal
# Duke Energy (an electric utility operating the Gibson Generating Station)
#Ducks Unlimited
#Evansville Chapter of the National Audubon Society
#Waterfowl U.S.A.
#Quail Unlimited
#National Wild Turkey Federation
#National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
#PRIDE – Refuge Friends
#Izaak Walton League
#U.S. Army Corps of Engineers- Louisville
#U.S.Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation
Volunteers and Friends Group
The Refuge also relies on the selfless dedication of volunteers to extend the efforts of staff. Volun­teers play an important role in the management and maintenance of the fish and wildlife resources on Patoka River Wildlife Refuge. In an era of flat or declining budgets, it is more important now than ever that volunteers step forward to help protect and preserve our natural resource heritage for present and future generations to enjoy.
Patoka River NWR also has an informal Friends group that has helped implement projects like con­struction of the fishing pier and trail at Snakey Point and the South Fork Fishermans Trail.
Museums and Repositories
The Refuge has no reported museum property on- or off-site; no natural history specimens, no art­work, nor historic documents or photographs nor any other kind of historical material. The several cultural resources surveys conducted on the Refuge have produced no archeological collections.Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
9
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Patoka River NWR’s CCP has been written with input and assistance from citizens, non-governmen­tal conservation organizations (NGOs), and other government agencies. The participation of these stakeholders is vital and all of their ideas have been valuable in determining the future direction of the three refuges. Refuge and regional staff – indeed, the entire U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – are grateful to all of those who have contributed time, expertise and ideas throughout the comprehensive conservation planning process. We appreciated the enthusiasm and commitment expressed by many for the lands and living resources administered by Patoka River NWR.
Public Scoping
Work on the comprehensive conservation plan began with a public scoping meeting held on Octo­ber 14, 2004 at the Indiana Department of Natural Resources’ Sugar Ridge Fish and Wildlife Area Office, south of Winslow, Indiana. More than 30 peo­ple attended the meeting to offer their ideas for the Refuge’s management.
People attending the meeting were offered a vari­ety of ways to submit their comments. Refuge staff and regional planners were available to talk about issues, and staff used a computer to write a short summary of the conversation so that it would be recorded. Attendees could also use a survey form or index card to submit written comments. In addition, staff prepared questions about Refuge management to post throughout the room, and people attending the meeting were invited to use red or green stick­ers to indicate whether they supported a given idea or not.
Staff also invited people to record their experi­ences on Patoka River NWR on a timeline.
The Comments
There were a number of comments about land acquisition. Most were supportive of additional land acquisition with some noting frustration with the land appraisal process. Others mentioned that insuf­ficient funds were hampering acquisition efforts. Two comments opposed additional funding for land acquisition.
Some comments expressed concern about man­agement of lands presently owned by the Refuge citing the need for additional money and staff to carry out proper management. Trespassing from Refuge lands onto adjoining private lands was seen as a problem by some, and a number supported increased law enforcement presence.
Opinion on hunting was mixed, with some people supporting additional hunting opportunities. Others said that hunting should not be allowed on some
Canada Geese, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit:USFWSChapter 2: The Planning Process
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
10
portions of the Refuge; some were interested in lim­iting hunting to encourage wildlife and others were interested in preserving portions of the Refuge for wildlife observation even during hunting seasons. There was support and some opposition to establish­ing sanctuary areas where no hunting would occur.
A number of individual comments supported allowing a variety of uses including night fishing, harvesting nuts, berries, and mushrooms, and trap­ping.
There was strong support for a visitor center. Additional trails as well as user fees were supported by some and opposed by others.
A number of people expressed concern about the potential construction of Interstate 69 and the effect it may have on the Refuge.
Another survey question asked whether there should be more trails on the Refuge. Most of the comments supported additional trails, with one per­son saying he or she supported more trails except where they might inhibit wildlife. One commenter said the Refuge does not need additional trails, and another said that the existing trails need greater visibility in the community.
Concern about the effect the Interstate 69 project might have on the Refuge was expressed in responses to a survey question asking what changes might help or challenge the Refuge. Two people expressed reservations about the project’s effect on the Refuge and a third person said that depending on how it’s done the highway project could have either a good or bad effect on the Refuge.
Problems facing the Refuge were described as funding for acquisition, funding in general, all-ter­rain vehicles, and visibility.
Nine people attending the meeting supported an entrance or user fee while two people indicated that they did not support a fee.
Internal Scoping
On April 19, 2005 the Regional Office held an internal scoping meeting on the development of the Patoka River NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan. People attending the meeting included the Deputy Regional Director, the Deputy Chief of Ref­uges, the Chief of Engineering, and staff from the Division of Conservation Planning, the Division of Migratory Birds, the Division of Ecological Ser­vices, the Division of Visitor Services, the Division of Realty, and the North American Waterfowl Manage­ment Plan.
Regional Office staff idenfitied several issues that should be addressed in the comprehensive conser­vation plan:
#How will the Interstate 69 project affect the Refuge? The location of exits, a rest stop and a pull off all have positive and negative aspects for the Refuge.
#What is a reasonable acquisition goal for next 15 years?
#Land acqusition is difficult for the Service right now because of funding issues.
#Is there potential for increasing the number of accesses to the Refuge?
#Are there opportunities for moving the Refuge’s Headquarters to property owned by the Service or other government agency instead of continuing to lease space?
#More law enforcement presence is needed. Is there any potential for an agreement with the State Conservation Officers?
#The Refuge needs greater local visibility.
#Are there funding sources available that would help the Region get enough money to buy larger properties?
#There is potential for improving fishery habitat in a variety of ways, including connecting oxbows, increasing the hydrology of the oxbows, possibly cleaning out some of the oxbows that are filling in. The Refuge currently cannot afford these projects, but staff should develop a fisheries management plan in the event that the Service is able to acquire necessary tracts.
Flooded river oxbow, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: USFWSChapter 2: The Planning Process
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
11
#Increasing fishing opportunities is of considerable local interest.
#There are several endangered species in the area, including the copperbelly watersnake. The copperbelly watersnake conservation agreement area encompasses a large part of the Refuge area; nine coal companies signed this agreement; it kept the Service from listing the copperbelly watersnake if the areas in the conservation area are not mined.
Preparation, Publishing, Finalization and Implementation of the CCP
The Draft CCP and Draft Environmental Assess­ment (EA) for Patoka River NWR & MA were pre­pared by a contractor with a great deal of input, review and support from Refuge staff and the Ser­vice’s Regional Office. The Draft CCP/EA was pub­lished in two phases and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Draft EA (Appendix A of the Draft CCP) presented a range of alternatives for future management and identified the preferred alternative, which formed the basis of the Draft CCP. A 30-day public review period, which included a public meeting, followed release of the draft CCP. Verbal and written com­ments received by the Service have been incorpo­rated where appropriate.
The alternative that was ultimately selected has become the basis of the ensuing Final CCP.
This document then, becomes the basis for guid­ing management on the Refuges and the manage­ment areas over the coming 15-year period. It will guide the development of more detailed step-down management plans for specific resource areas; it will underpin the annual budgeting process through project submittals to the Service Asset and Mainte­nance Management System (SAMMS). Most impor­tantly, it lays out the general approach to managing habitat, wildlife, and people at Patoka River NWR and Wildlife Management Area that will direct day-to-day decision-making and actions.
The Draft CCP/EA was released for public review and comment on October 17, 2007. A Draft CCP/EA or a summary of the document was sent to more than 416 individuals, organizations, and local, state, and federal agencies and elected officials. An open house event was held on November 7, 2007, at the Sugar Ridge Fish and Wildlife Area headquar­ters following release of the draft document. We received a total of 18 comment letters and e-mails during the 45-day review period. Appendix K of the CCP summarizes these comments and our responses. Several of the comments resulted in changes in the CCP.
Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities
Issue Statement
The Service often cannot compete with other buyers for properties within the Refuge’s acqui­sition boundary due to lack of funds. This makes it difficult to grow the Refuge at a time when interest in and demand for public land is increasing.
Background: Since the Refuge was established in 1994, the Service has acquired 6,162 out 23,743 acres within the acquisition boundary. The Land Protec­tion Plan groups land parcels within the acquisition boundary into four priority classes:
#Bottomlands supporting natural habitat and parcels essential to the restoration of a woodland corridor along the length of the Patoka River within the Project boundary;
#Bottomland farmland in the floodplain;
#Upland forest and reclaimed land; and
#Upland farmland and other lands, such as abandoned mine lands.
Channelized section, Patoka River, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: USFWSChapter 2: The Planning Process
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
12
There are more willing sellers than funds avail­able, and acquisition budgets are declining as land values around the Refuge rise. Economic growth and the potential construction of Interstate 69 are likely to continue to drive up land values. Many scoping respondents supported additional land acquisition. The Refuge continues to work with partners such as Ducks Unlimited to acquire prop­erty.
Issue Statement
Local public support of the Refuge has been closely tied to hunting and fishing. There is demand to provide areas for other wildlife-dependent uses and for wildlife sanctuary, which could reduce the amount of the Refuge open to hunting and fishing.
Background: All but 606 acres of the 6,162 acres of Refuge lands are open to hunting and fishing con­sistent with Indiana DNR regulations. Hunting is prohibited on about 5 acres surrounding a trail and boat launch, and within a single 113-acre block of reclaimed mine land. This block will be open to hunting when the lands meet reclamation criteria and the bond collected from the mining company is released. Hunting also is prohibited on the 488-acre Cane Ridge Wildlife Management area 24 miles west of the Refuge office. The number of other wild­life-dependent uses is growing and facilities con­structed to support these uses are popular with visitors. During scoping, respondents suggested providing additional trails and other facilities as well as designating a portion of the Refuge as a water­fowl sanctuary free of hunting. Others opposed any reduction of lands open to hunting and fishing.
Issue Statement
There is demand for additional public use on the Refuge. Some of the uses are not wildlife-dependent.
Background: Local residents grew accustomed to recreating on private lands because absentee land­owners, usually coal companies, did little to enforce against trespass. Today, these landowners are leas­ing the land and more aggressively enforcing tres­passing laws. With fewer places to recreate, use has shifted to Refuge lands. Also, economic prosperity within the region has drawn more people to the area. Some of these newcomers also recreate on Refuge lands. The Refuge is open to the priority wildlife-dependent uses noted in the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act (hunting, fishing, wildlife obser­vation, wildlife photography, environmental educa­tion, and environmental interpretation). Other uses have been authorized through a special use permit system at the discretion of the Refuge Manager. A number of scoping comments suggested that recre­ation opportunities on the Refuge could make it a tourist destination. Others requested specific uses of Refuge lands.
Issue Statement
Refuge habitats are at risk from a number of threats such as agricultural runoff, coal mining, potential construction of Interstate 69, illegal uses such as All-Terrain Vehicles (ATV’s), and development of lands not yet acquired.
Background: Most of these threats to land and resources in the area preceded establishment of the Refuge in the 1990s. They are long-term threats to the quality and quantity of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat in the area. Water quality impair­ment from agricultural runoff and coal mining may have improved somewhat since the Refuge’s estab­lishment. Construction of Interstate 69 has not yet occurred, but continues to loom ever closer. Land development – both residential and commercial, and to some extent industrial – has accelerated in recent years as the area’s amenities (accessible outdoors, semi-rural/small town lifestyle, low housing prices and cost of living) have attracted outsiders and returning native-born residents alike.
Issue Statement
The patchwork of public and private lands within the Refuge boundary can be confusing to visitors and may lead to conflicts with adjoining private land owners.
Community involvement, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: USFWSChapter 2: The Planning Process
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
13
Background: Approximately 75 percent of the lands within the Refuge’s acquisition boundary are not owned by the Service. The Refuge has a small scale map showing ownership, but Refuge bound­aries are not posted and the patchwork of public and private lands within the acquisition boundary could easily confuse visitors. One scoping respondent expressed concern about trespass from neighboring Refuge lands.
Issue Statement
Demand for visitor services, facilities, informa­tion, and environmental education exceeds existing supply and/or the capacity of existing staff and budgets.
Background: Refuge visitation continues to climb and is currently estimated at 21,221 visitors per year. Presently, the Refuge has maps and fact sheets available during business hours at the Refuge office. The staff and volunteers deliver off-Refuge environ­mental education programs several times per year, but there is additional demand that is not being met. A number of scoping respondents requested addi­tional Refuge information, environmental education, or facilities.
Issue Statement
Some Visitor Services facilities do not meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service standards.
Background: As a relatively new Refuge with no park ranger or public use/visitor services specialist on site, Patoka River NWR has not yet developed facilities or visitor services on a par with many older refuges. During scoping, many participants called attention to a need for greater information about the Refuge and what it has to offer to be made avail­able to the public via e-mail, the Internet, newslet­ters, signage, and so forth. Respondents expressed unawareness of the existence of trails for wildlife observation, for example. There is no visitor center on the Refuge to provide information, interpreta­tion, and environmental education.
Issue Statement
Refuge ecosystems and the effects of manage­ment activities (including public use) are not well understood.
Background: Sustaining wildlife populations is central to the mission of the National Wildlife Ref­uge System, but in many cases information is lack­ing regarding the success of management activities or the effect of public uses on Refuge wildlife. This hampers managers’ ability to adapt habitat manage­ment practices or modify public uses in ways that best sustain wildlife numbers. Presently, the Refuge monitors the Least Terns at Cane Ridge WMA, con­ducts seasonal waterfowl, shorebird and breeding songbird counts, bands Wood Ducks, and contrib­utes to the Indiana DNR’s annual turkey call survey. Monitoring of uses as well as management activities is necessary to determine success or thresholds.
Issue Statement
Productivity (fishery) is declining in some oxbow lakes along the channelized portion of the Patoka River.
Background: In the 1920s area residents channel­ized a portion of the Patoka River in an attempt to drain nearly 100,000 acres of forested wetlands for farming. Known as Houchin’s Ditch and beginning at the town of Winslow, the project replaced 36 miles of natural, meandering river with about 17 miles of dredged, straight ditch. The dredged spoil depos­ited on both sides of the ditch cut off 19 miles of nat­ural river meanders on the north and south sides of the new ditch main channel. Water exchange within these cut off oxbows is now limited to periods of high water. Heavy sediment loads during these periods result in increased deposition in the oxbows. Conse­quently, the oxbows are becoming shallower and hold water for a shorter duration. Although this pro­cess occurs in all natural riverine systems, new oxbows are continually being created as river mean­ders are severed from the main channel. In the case of Houchins’s Ditch, these oxbows are not being replaced and the associated wetland habitat is being lost.
American lotus, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: USFWSChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
14
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Introduction
Established in 1994, the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area is located in Pike and Gibson counties in southwestern Indiana. It was created under authority of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act in part to protect one of two remaining intact floodplain forest systems within Indiana. The river corridor project encom­passes 30 miles of the Patoka River and 19 miles of oxbows with a total of 12,700 acres of existing wet­lands.
Presently, the acquisition boundary for the NWR & MA includes 23,743 acres. This differs from the 22,083 acres included in the Record of Decision for the 1994 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that established the Refuge & MA. There are two reasons for this difference. The first is that past methods of calculating acres (e.g. summing acres found in tax records or plat books) have given way to computerized Geographic Information Systems (GIS) that rely on standardized data which provide greater uniformity of acreage values. It is important to note that for legal transactions deed acres remain the legal standard, but habitat acreage figures throughout this document are based on GIS gener­ated values. In the EIS the area within the acquisi­tion boundary was stated at 22,083 acres. The same boundary is calculated to contain 22,817 acres using GIS protocols. The second reason for the acreage difference is that an additional 926 acres have been authorized for acquisition since the original bound­ary was established, bringing the total area autho­rized for acquisition to the present figure of 23,743 acres. The Refuge also administers a 219-acre par­cel transferred to the Service from the Farm Ser­vices Agency now known as White River Bottoms. Although managed by Refuge staff, and part of the National Wildlife Refuge System it is not included as part of the Patoka River NWR & MA and does not figure in the total acreage. See Figure 3 and Table 1.
Most of the information in this chapter comes from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared in conjunction with the establishment of the Patoka River National Wetlands Project (USFWS, 1994). The wetlands project led to the cre­ation of Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area.
Wetland Loss in Indiana
The 20th century witnessed a dramatic decline in the acreage of America’s wetland habitat that is so critical to maintaining migratory bird and other
Great Horned Owl nest, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: USFWSChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
15
Figure 3: Acquisition Authority, Patoka River NWR & MAChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
16
wildlife populations. By the close of the century and the dawn of the new millennium, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that nationally, only 103 million acres (less than half) remained of the esti­mated 221 million acres of wetlands that existed in the lower 48 states at the time of Euro-American settlement.
In the State of Indiana, long-term wetland loss has been even more dramatic. Of the estimated 5.5 million acres of wetlands that existed in Indiana at the time of settlement, only 813,000 acres (15 per­cent) remained by the 1990s (Rolley, 1991), accord­ing to the most recent and complete analysis of the state’s wetland resources (Indiana WETlands, 2004). Historically, about 85 percent of this wetland loss has been for agricultural purposes with the remainder attributable to urban and industrial development (IDNR, 1988). In the mid-1990s, the Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife and the USFWS estimated an annual loss of 5 percent of remaining wetlands. However, wildlife biologists and conservationists held hope that compliance with the "Swampbuster" provisions of the 1985 and 1990 farm bills, alongside with increasing awareness by farmers of the importance of wetlands, could moder­ate future wetland losses due to agricultural conver­sion.
Of the wetlands remaining in Indiana, only a small percentage remains as they existed 200 years ago. Few of the state's natural wetlands now support their original complement of plants and animals. This biological diversity has been degraded as a result of impacts to water quality, alterations of water levels and upstream watersheds and other surface disturbances. The seriousness of this loss is best recognized by the fact that over 120 different plants that occur naturally in wetlands and over 60 species of wetland-dependent animals are listed as either endangered, threatened or of special concern by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Of all wetland types, the palustrine for­ested wetlands (bottomland hardwoods) have been identified in Indiana as the "state wetland priority type." This means priority for protection is based on the historical pattern of loss and alterations occur­ring in Indiana and the multiple values they have to fish, wildlife and plant resources (IDNR, 1988).
The Ohio River Valley Ecosystem
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to conservation because we cannot look just at an individual animal, species, or fragment of land in isolation from all that surrounds it. The Service has recognized some 53 ecosystems in the conterminous 48 states. We recognize that we are not going to achieve conservation within the boundaries of a National Wildlife Refuge, or restore aquatic resources with a National Fish Hatchery, and that listing an endangered species is not going to conserve the system on which it depends. The ecosystem approach thus strives to be comprehen­sive. It is based on all of the biological resources within a watershed (the total land area from which water drains into a single stream, lake, or ocean) and it considers the economic health of communities within that watershed landscape. An ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife conservation means protecting or restoring the function, structure, and species composition of an ecosystem while providing for its sustainable socioeconomic use.
Patoka River NWR & MA is located within the Ohio River Valley Ecosystem (ORVE) as currently defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This ecosystem drains a total area of approximately 141,000 square miles and includes portions of 10 states. The Ohio River, which is the backbone of this ecosystem, is formed by the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and flows 981 miles in a southwesterly direction to its confluence with the Mississippi River at Cairo, Illinois (ORVET, no date).
Table 1: Status of Land Acquisition, Patoka River NWR & MA
Description
Acres Cited in 1994 EIS
Current GIS Acres
Establishment acquisition boundary
22,083
22,817
Additional lands approved for acquisition
--
926
Total acres authorized for acquisition
--
23,743
FSA Lands (White River Bottoms)
--
219Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
17
The Ohio River ecosystem bisects three regions of the Deciduous Forest Formation of eastern North America: the Mixed Mesophytic Forest Region (upper basin, roughly upstream of Portsmouth, Ohio), the Western Mesophytic Forest Region (lower basin from Portsmouth, Ohio, to Paducah, Kentucky), and the Mississippi Alluvial Plain Sec­tion of the Southeastern Evergreen Forest Region (lowermost portion of the basin from Paducah, Ken­tucky, to Cairo, Illinois (USFWS, 1999). (See Figure 4)
The mixed mesophytic and western mesophytic forests have been classified broadly as a tulip pop­lar-oak region. The dense, mixed mesophytic forest contains a fair abundance of two indicator species, white basswood and yellow buckeye, in a total group of 15 to 20 dominant species. The western meso­phytic forest is marked by a transition from exten­sive mixed mesophytic communities in the east to extensive oak and oak-hickory communities in the west. The western mesophytic forest is less dense, has few dominants, and usually lacks the two indica­tor species of the mixed mesophytic forest.
In the lower, downstream portion of the ecosys­tem, near Paducah, Kentucky, the Ohio River enters the northernmost extension of the Mississippi Allu­vial Plain. In this alluvial region, three subdivisions of "bottomland forest" (i.e., palustrine forested wet­land) are recognized: swamp forest, hardwood bot­toms, and ridge bottoms. The swamp forest, consisting principally of cypress and tupelo gum, occupies land on which water stands throughout the year except during periods of extreme drought. The hardwood bottoms contain a large number of spe­cies, frequently flood, and generally remain covered with water through the late winter and spring. Ridge bottoms contain some of the tree species of hardwood bottoms, but have a larger number of oaks and hickories; occurring at slightly higher ele­vations than hardwood bottoms, these areas are cov­ered by water only during floods (USFWS, 1999).
Figure 4: Ohio River Valley Ecosystem Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
18
The rich flora and fauna of the ORVE reflect its diverse physiography and unique geologic past. Numerous Service trust resources occur in the eco­system, including many federally listed endangered/ threatened plants, mussels, fishes, birds and mam­mals; waterfowl and other migratory water birds; and neotropical migratory land birds.
The unusually rich and diverse fauna found in the ecosystem is the product of a multitude of biotic and abiotic factors which have evolved over time. Throughout geologic time, changes in such factors as topography, climate, and geomorphology have formed, modified, and eliminated habitats and con­sequently have had a profound effect upon the dis­tribution of the faunal assemblages in the ecosystem. Due to the ecosystem's central geo­graphical location in the eastern United States, some species with northern affinities and others with southern affinities occur in the ecosystem in addition to those common to the central region of the country (USFWS, 1999).
Over the past few centuries of Euro-American settlement and industrialization, the Ohio River Val­ley ecosystem has been subjected to many environ­mental stresses which have diminished the bounty of its living resources. Much of the region's eco­nomic activity – agriculture, lumbering, mining, energy production, manufacturing, and recreation – is based on the watershed's natural resources. Sus­taining most of these activities requires mainte­nance of a healthy ecosystem. Stress from human activities has adversely affected the ecological integ­rity of the ORVE, and there are indications that this stress is increasing.
Environmental alteration and degradation are continuing challenges to the maintenance of a pro­ductive and healthy ORVE. Resources of the area are threatened by land conversion, poor land-use practices, direct and indirect physical alteration of the area's rivers and streams, acid mine drainage and acid precipitation, destruction of wetland habi­tats, and both point- and nonpoint-source dis­charges of pollutants. Herbicides, insecticides, nutrients, and sediment are significant components of the agricultural runoff that adversely affect aquatic systems throughout the area. Acid precipi­tation from sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides from power plants and other airborne pollutants are hav­ing dramatic effects on aquatic and terrestrial com­munities, particularly at high elevations (USFWS, 1999).
Natural resources are further threatened by an expanding human population and its increased demand for renewable and nonrenewable resources. Contamination of both aquatic and terrestrial sys­tems through acid mine drainage and the accidental release of toxic chemicals is a continuing threat. Operation and maintenance of the inland navigation system and the recent invasion of the non-native zebra mussel are having significant adverse impacts on native flora and fauna of the area's rivers and streams. Other non-native species are threatening native components of aquatic and terrestrial sys­tems throughout the area. The expansion of urban and suburban areas within the ecosystem and the concurrent loss of forest, wetlands, agricultural lands, and other types of open space associated with this expansion have reduced the quantity and qual­ity of natural habitats available to fish and wildlife.
The Service published a strategic plan on con­serving the trust resources of the ORVE in 1999 (USFWS, 1999). The plan set forth four goals:
1.Protect, restore and enhance habitats and essential processes necessary to maintain healthy native animal and plant populations.
2.Protect, restore and enhance diversity of native flora and fauna.
3.Promote and support compatible and sustain­able uses of the ecosystem's resources and utilize existing laws, regulations, and influ­ence to control incompatible and unsustain­able uses of these resources.
4.Develop public awareness and support for ecosystem resource issues.
Restoring habitat through partnerships Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: USFWSChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
19
The strategic plan also identified seven resource priorities:
Resource Priority 1: In cooperation with part­ners, reverse the decline of native aquatic mollusks within the Ohio River Valley Ecosystem with emphasis on endangered, threatened and candidate species and species of concern.
Resource Priority #2: In cooperation with part­ners, reverse the decline and achieve stable, viable populations of migratory landbirds and other bird species of concern.
Resource Priority 3: In cooperation with part­ners, reverse the decline of native fishes with emphasis on interjurisdictional listed and candidate species and species of concern.
Resource Priority 4: In cooperation with part­ners, protect and restore karst/cave habitat sup­porting listed and candidate species and species of concern.
Resource Priority 5: In cooperation with part­ners, protect and restore wetland, riverine and riparian habitat in the Ohio River watershed for the protection and enhancement of migratory water­birds and other wetland dependant species of con­cern.
Resource Priority 6: In cooperation with part­ners, reduce the decline and promote the recovery of rare resources identified as listed/proposed threatened and endangered species, candidate spe­cies and species of concern not otherwise addressed in Resource Priorities 1- 5 (e.g. plants, reptiles, amphibians, etc.).
Resource Priority 7: In cooperation with part­ners, achieve the necessary level of protection for those high priority areas within the Ohio River Val­ley Ecosystem that would help meet the goals of the ORVE Team. In particular, emphasis will be placed on the objectives of Resource Priorities 1 through 6 and Public Use Priority 1.
A number of action strategies accompanied these resource priorities in the strategic plan. In addition, the plan contained one public use priority:
Public Use Priority 1: In cooperation with part­ners, promote and support sustainable fish and wild­life-oriented recreational uses while maintaining the long-term health of the ecosystem and the Service's trust resources.
The Service's ORVE Team has several important roles. Primary among them is serving as an advo­cate at the field level for federal trust fish and wild­life resources within the Ohio River watershed. This includes reviewing the Team's resource priorities and charting a direction for the Team to ensure it addresses the highest priority resource needs. To facilitate accomplishment of the Team's on-the-ground efforts, the Team actively seeks funding, explores expansion of existing partnerships and establishment of new ones, and seeks ways to involve all interested stakeholders (USFWS, 1999).
The ORVE Team is comprised of representatives of each of the Service's field offices located within the Region 3 (Midwest), 4 (Southeast), and 5 (North­east) portions of the Ohio River Valley watershed. In addition, representatives from the respective Service regional offices, as well as several state fish and wildlife agencies, participate as Team members. Typically, the Team meets three times per year at various locations within the ecosystem.
Snowy Egret. Photo credit: USFWSChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
20
The Team's seven Sub-groups are the primary mechanisms for conducting activities on the ground. The Sub-groups correspond to the Team's resource priorities, i.e., fish and wildlife and associated habi­tats, and its public use priority. They are, in no pri­ority order: native aquatic mollusks; migratory land birds and other bird species of concern; native fishes; karst/cave habitat; wetland, riverine, and riparian habitat; declining and rare species; and fish and wildlife-oriented recreational use. In addition to the Sub-groups, the Team has established four Standing Committees to conduct activities that gen­erally cut across all priority resources. The Stand­ing Committees address GIS needs and activities, outreach, acid mine drainage and valley fills, and land protection (USFWS, 1999).
Other Units Administered
The staff of Patoka River NWR & MA adminis­ters two units apart from the main body of the Ref­uge: Cane Ridge and White River Bottoms. Both units are part of the National Wildlife Refuge Sys­tem, but White River Bottoms is not officially included as part of the total acreage comprising the Patoka River Refuge & MA.
The 488-acre Cane Ridge Wildlife Management Area lies 24 miles west of the Refuge headquarters near the confluence of the White, Patoka, and Wabash Rivers, a traditional waterfowl migration and wintering area. Acquired by a coalition of con­servation partners, the property became part of Patoka River NWR & MA in 1999. The area includes 193 acres of moist soil wetlands in four management units, 180 acres of reforested bottom­land hardwoods, and a 59-acre deep water impound­ment with nesting islands that provide habitat for the federally endangered Least Tern. Cane Ridge WMA is a Globally Important Bird Area.
The 219-acre White River Bottoms Wildlife Man­agement Area lies 9 miles to the north of Oakland City. This WMA lies just to the northwest of Peters­burg on the south side of the White River. Although not officially included as part of Patoka River NWR & MA, White River Bottoms became part of the National Wildlife Refuge System when control of the land was transferred to the Service in 1994 from the Farm Services Agency. It has been restored from agricultural fields by being planted to bottom­land hardwood trees.
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
Over the last decade, bird conservation planning has become increasingly exciting as it has evolved from a largely local, site-based focus to a more regional, landscape-oriented perspective. Signifi­cant challenges include locating areas of high-qual­ity habitat for the conservation of particular guilds and priority bird species, making sure no species are inadvertently left out of the regional planning process, avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort, and identifying unique landscape and habitat ele­ments of particular tracts targeted for protection, management and restoration. Several migratory bird conservation initiatives have emerged to help guide the planning and implementation process. Collectively, they comprise a tremendous resource as Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Man­agement Area engages in comprehensive conserva­tion planning and its translation into effective on-the-ground management.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
Signed in 1986, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) outlines a broad framework for waterfowl management strategies and conservation efforts in the United States, Can­ada, and Mexico. The goal of the NAWMP is to restore waterfowl populations to historic levels throughout the continent. The NAWMP is designed to reach its objectives through key joint venture areas, species joint ventures, and state implementa­tion plans within these joint ventures.
Patoka River NWR & MA is in the Upper Missis­sippi River-Great Lakes Joint Venture. The bound­aries of this joint venture extend across Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. They include important migration and staging areas that were converted to agriculture. The purpose of the Upper Mississippi River-Great Lakes Joint Venture is to increase populations of waterfowl and other wetland wildlife by protecting, restoring, creating, and enhancing wetlands and associated upland habitats. Joint venture partners include private landowners, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, state agencies, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Partners are endeavoring Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
21
to increase public awareness through information and education and are providing incentives to pri­vate landowners (Graziano and Cross, 1993).
The 1998 NAWMP Update established a habitat objective for the Upper Mississippi – Great Lakes Joint Venture of protecting 1,329,000 acres of water­fowl and wetland habitat and restoring or enhancing another 605,200 acres (NAWMP, 1998).
A 2004 update to the NAWMP set a target of con­serving 758,572 additional acres of waterfowl and wetland habitat in the Upper Mississippi – Great Lakes Joint Venture through a combination of securement, protection, restoration, enhancement, and management (NAWMP, 2004).
Partners In Flight
Formed in 1990, Partners in Flight (PIF) is con­cerned primarily with landbirds and has developed Bird Conservation Plans for numerous Physio­graphic Areas across the U. S. (see http://www.part­nersinflight.org). These plans include priority species lists, associated habitats, and management strategies. Patoka River NWR lies within PIF Physiographic Area 14, the Interior Low Plateaus Area.
The Interior Low Plateaus form a diverse land­scape consisting of six distinct subregions that extends from north Alabama across central Tennes­see and Kentucky into southern Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Its hilly topography sets it apart from the Coastal Plain to the south and Prairie Peninsula to the north. To the west, the Mississippi River valley separates the Interior Low Plateaus from the Ozark Highlands. Western mesophytic, oak-hickory, and beech-maple forests were historically the most abundant cover types. There were also tallgrass prairie elements in the north and northwest, oak savannahs in the Bluegrass and other northern sec­tions, barrens and glades in central regions, and for­ested wetlands along major waterways (PIF, no date).
Habitat loss through conversion to agriculture and other uses and the fragmentation and reduced quality of what remains are the biggest conserva­tion challenges in this area. Grasslands and savan­nahs have been converted to cool season pasture. Many glades and barrens have become urban areas, and others have been overtaken by woody vegeta­tion due to fire suppression. Floodplain forests have largely been either inundated by reservoirs or con­verted to row crops. Conservation objectives vary by subregion, but in general, in order to perpetuate existing high priority species and to create an opportunity to re-establish two extirpated species (Greater Prairie-Chicken and Swallow-tailed Kite), the following actions should be implemented:
#Sustain existing forested acreage, with about 80 percent in hardwoods and the remainder in short-rotation pine management;
#Manage about 400,000 ha of that hardwood forest in long rotation patches of about 4,000 ha each;
#Consolidate an additional 90,000 ha of forested wetland;
#Additionally, restore 40,000 ha of native warm season grass and oak savannah habitat; and
#Incorporate bird conservation into ongoing barren and glade conservation projects.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan
Partners from state and federal agencies and NGOs from across the country combined their resources and expertise to develop a conservation strategy for migratory shorebirds and their habi­tats. The plan provides a scientific framework to determine species, sites, and habitats that most urgently need conservation action. Main goals of the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, which was com­pleted in 2000, are to ensure that adequate quantity and quality of shorebird habitat is maintained at the local level and to maintain or restore shorebird pop­ulations at the continental and hemispheric levels. Separate technical reports were developed for a conservation assessment, research needs, a compre­hensive monitoring strategy, and education and out­reach. These national assessments were used to step down goals and objectives into 11 regional conserva­Nesting
Interior Least Tern. Photo credit: USFWSChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
22
tion plans. Although some outreach, education, research, monitoring, and habitat conservation pro­grams are being implemented, accomplishment of conservation objectives for all shorebird species will require a coordinated effort among traditional and new partners. The U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan Council serves as the steering committee for the U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and oversees the implementation of the regional, national, and international goals of the Plan. Meetings of the Council are held twice a year (USFWS, no date).
Under the Shorebird Conservation Plan, Patoka River NWR is located in the Upper Mississippi Val­ley/Great Lakes Region (UMVGL), which is covered by a regional plan prepared in 2000 and updated in 2006 (de Szalay et al., 2006). The UMVGL region is a diverse area that includes five Bird Conservation Regions and provides important habitat for shore­birds, especially migrants. Thirty-two shorebird species occur in the region, with 25 being common or abundant. Twenty-three species are of moderate or higher concern in the region. High-priority species include: greater yellowlegs, whimbrel, buff-breasted sandpiper, short-billed dowitcher, marbled godwit, Wilson's phalarope, upland sandpiper, American woodcock, and the Federally-listed piping plover; the latter five species breed in the region.
Various habitats within the region, including nat­ural and managed wetlands, river floodplains, lake shoreline, sand and gravel bars, reservoirs, and flooded agricultural fields, provide the shallow water and sparsely-vegetated conditions required by foraging shorebirds. However, like other interior areas, the UMVGL region experiences dynamic cli­matic conditions, making habitat conditions for shorebirds unpredictable. Moreover, loss of wet­lands from urban development, river dredging and diking, and agriculture has reduced the amount of habitat in the region. A primary goal of this UMVGL regional shorebird plan is to ensure the availability of shorebird foraging and nesting sites over a range of climatic conditions by protecting, restoring, and managing a variety of habitat types throughout the UMVGL region.
Waterbird Conservation for the Americas
Formerly known as the North American Water­bird Conservation Plan, Waterbird Conservation for the Americas (WCA) is an independent, interna­tional, broad-based, and voluntary partnership cre­ated to link the work of individuals and institutions having interest and responsibility for conservation of waterbirds and their habitats in the Americas (WCA, 2005a). WCA’s vision is that the distribution, diversity, and abundance of populations and habitats of breeding, migratory, and nonbreeding waterbirds are sustained or restored throughout the lands and waters of North America, Central America, and the Caribbean. The geographic extent of the WCA ini­tiative includes North America, Central America, the islands and waters of the Caribbean, the Pacific Ocean including the U.S.-associated Pacific Islands, and the western Atlantic Ocean including Bermuda. The WCA includes the interests of 29 nations.
The term “waterbird” refers to bird species dependent on aquatic habitats to complete portions of their life cycles. It includes seabirds, coastal waterbirds, wading birds, and marsh birds. The WCA focuses these groups. Shorebirds and water­fowl, while indeed waterbirds, are the subject of their own initiatives (discussed above).
Under WCA, planning regions were created to allow planning at a scale that is practical yet pro­vides landscape-level perspective. Regional bound­aries are based on a combination of both political and ecological considerations. Patoka River NWR is situated in the Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes (UMVGL) Region, within a subregion known as Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 24, the Central Hardwoods. Like the NAWMP, WCA has also estab­lished joint ventures, and that of BCR 24 is called the Central Hardwoods Joint Venture (CHJV).
The UMVGL Region provides a wide variety of waterbird nesting, roosting and foraging habitats, including marshes, ponds, creeks, streams, sloughs, lake shorelines, islands (especially in the Great Lakes), shoals, river floodplains (especially along the Mississippi, Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio Rivers), and reservoirs. Forty-six waterbird species regu­larly occur in the region during at least one portion of the year, including loons, grebes, pelicans, cormo­rants, herons, night-herons, egrets, bitterns, rails, moorhens, coots, cranes, gulls and terns, and 19 of these species are of high conservation, stewardship or management concern. In the context of the conti­nental, the region is extremely important for many of these waterbird species. Though the UMVGL Region has experienced major declines in wetland habitat over the last 200 years, the northern portion of the UMVGL Region still contains large amounts of wetlands and the Great Lakes are a stronghold for island breeders (WCA, 2005b). Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
23
A Regional Plan for waterbird management and conservation is currently being prepared and Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge figures in that plan, which described the Refuge as, “one of the most significant bottomland hardwood forests remaining in the Midwest.”
North American Bird Conservation Initiative
In a continental effort, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and Waterbird Conservation for the Americas planning efforts are being integrated under the umbrella of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). The goal of NABCI is to facilitate the delivery of the full spectrum of bird conservation through region­ally-based, biologically-driven, landscape-oriented partnerships (see http://www.dodpif.org/nabci/index.htm). The NABCI strives to integrate the conservation objectives for all birds in order to opti­mize the effectiveness of management strategies. NABCI also uses BCRs as its planning units. BCRs are becoming increasingly common as the unit of choice for regional bird conservation efforts; as it does for the WCA initiative, Patoka River NWR lies within BCR 24, the Central Hardwoods for the pur­poses of the NABCI (see Figure 5).
Each of the above four bird conservation initia­tives has a process for designating conservation pri­ority species, modeled to a large extent on the PIF method of calculating scores based on independent assessments of global relative abundance, breeding and wintering distribution, vulnerability to threats, area importance (at a particular scale, e.g. PA or BCR), and population trend. These scores are often used by agencies in developing lists of bird species of concern; e.g., the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service based its assessments for its 2001 list of nongame Birds of Conservation Concern primarily on the PIF, shorebird, and waterbird status assessment scores.
Figure 5: Bird Conservation Region in Which Patoka River NWR & MA is LocatedChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
24
Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities
Every species is important. But 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. 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 abbreviation of the Endangered Species program’s preliminary draft “Species of Concern” list for the Region.
Appendix D includes 116 Resource Conservation Priority species within the Ohio River Valley Eco­system and notes those known to occur on the Ref­uge.
Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy
The Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy completed in 2006 identifies conservation priorities within Indiana. Patoka River NWR & MA staff con­tributed to the plan and the Refuge provides habitat for more than 50 of the birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians listed in the Strategy as conserva­tion priorities (see Appendix C: Species Lists).
Other Recreation and Conservation Lands in the Area
Sugar Ridge Fish & Wildlife Area
Sugar Ridge Fish & Wildlife Area, owned and managed by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), is unique in that much of the land has been strip-mined for coal and since reclaimed. Sugar Ridge (Figure 6) is made up of six separate areas, totaling approximately 8,100 acres, interspersed with the USFWS’s Patoka River NWR holdings. The strip-mined land now features about 100 pits and lakes, along with rows of overburden from the mining operation. The land that has not been mined is mostly rough and rolling. A large part of the land which is now Sugar Ridge Fish and Wild­life Area (Areas I, II and III) was once leased from Amax Coal Company. Leasing began in 1964 and continued until 1980 when most of the land was donated to the Division of Fish and Wildlife (IDNR, no date-a).
Sugar Ridge is open to various forms of outdoor recreation by the public, including hunting (deer, squirrel, and wild turkey are common); fishing on 145 acres in 24 major fishing pits for such sport fish as bluegill, redear, channel catfish, and largemouth bass; trapping (by drawing only); and wildlife watching on upland game habitat, wooded reclaimed mine areas and stripper pits which attract a wide variety of song birds, woodpeckers, hawks, and waterfowl. In addition, mushrooms, berries and nuts may be gathered. A written permit is required to remove plants, animals, rocks and fossils (IDNR, no date-a).
Glendale Fish & Wildlife Area
The Indiana DNR’s Glendale Fish & Wildlife Area maintains 8,060 acres of land and over 1,400 acres of lakes and impoundments about 12 miles north of Patoka River NWR. These lands and waters provide quality hunting and fishing opportu­nities for the public, as well as wildlife watching and camping in designated areas. Wetland trapping is available by drawing only (IDNR, no date-b).
Acquisition began in 1956, and land purchases were made through the 1960s. Several minor pur­chases were made in the 1970s. The construction of the dam that formed Dogwood Lake began in 1963 and was completed in 1965. The lake, with an aver­age depth of eight feet, was renovated in 1978 and restocked with fish in 1979 (IDNR, no date-b).
Pike State Forest
Pike State Forest, owned and operated by Indi­ana DNR’s Division of Forestry, sits astride the Patoka River adjacent to Patoka River NWR toward its eastern side. The State Forest (SF) con­sists of 3,889 acres which vary from hilly uplands to the low bottomlands of the river. Due to its diverse habitats, a wide variety of plant and animal life make their homes at Pike SF. Several recreational opportunities are available on the SF, including hunting, horseback riding, picnicking, bird watching Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
25
Figure 6: Other Conservation Lands in the Area of Patoka River NWR & MAChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
26
and hiking. Visitors can also camp for a fee, with sites available on a first come, first serve basis (IDNR, 2005a).
Acquisition of the land that makes up Pike State Forest began in the 1930s, and continues through the present day. Most of the historic buildings on the property were constructed by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the Great Depression, using material cut from local timber stands.
Ferdinand State Forest
Ferdinand State Forest is located about 20 miles southeast of Patoka River NWR. This State Forest consists of 7,700-acres with limited acquisition still occurring. In 1933, the 900 acres that became the SF were purchased by a local conservation club to build a lake and establish an area to hunt and fish. The club offered management of the project to the Indiana Department of Conservation the following year, marking the establishment of Ferdinand State Forest (IDNR, 2005b). In 1934, the Civilian Conser­vation Corps (CCC) built a camp there, as well as roads, service buildings, and one of the most beauti­ful forest lakes in the state. Ferdinand SF has excel­lent deer and squirrel hunting and the surrounding area is rich in German heritage.
The state forest offers primitive camping, fishing, boating, swimming, picnicking, mountain biking, and hunting for whitetail deer, turkey, squirrel, fox and raccoon.
Other Recreation and Conservation Lands
Within an hour or two’s drive from Patoka River NWR in southwestern Indiana are a number of other federal and state parks, forests, and fish and wildlife areas offering outdoor recreation and heri­tage tourism. These include New Harmony State Historic Site, Harmonie State Park (west of Patoka Refuge, along the Wabash River separating Indiana from Illinois), Hovey Lake Fish & Wildlife Area, Lincoln State Park, Jackson Recreation Area, Hoo­sier National Forest, and Patoka Lake, an 8,800-acre flood control lake 60 miles upstream of the ref­uge and cooperatively managed by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Indiana Department of Natu­ral Resources.
Socioeconomic Setting
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Man­agement Area is located in Pike and Gibson Coun­ties, Indiana, and is in close proximity to Daviess, Dubois, Knox, Spencer, and Warrick Counties. Com­pared to the State of Indiana as a whole this seven-county area has a smaller population growth rate and is less racially and ethnically diverse. On aver­age, the area’s population has a lower median income, and less high school and college education than the state’s population.
Population
The total population of the seven counties was 226,861 in the 2000 Census (USCB, 2006). The popu­lation increased 6.9 percent during the 1990s while the state’s population increased 9.7 percent. War­rick County grew the most at 16.6 percent, and Knox the least at minus 1.6 percent. The seven-county population was 97.3 percent white in 2000; the State population was 87.5 percent white. In Indi­ana, 6.4 percent of the people 5 years and older speak a language other than English at home; in the seven-county area the figure is 4.6 percent.
Employment
In 2000 there were a total of 21,744 full- and part-time jobs in Pike and Gibson counties. Farm/for­estry/fishing employment accounted for about five percent of the jobs across the area. The manufactur­ing and education/health/social services industries
Grey wood/beaver flooding, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: USFWSChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
27
were and are the largest economic and employment sectors in these counties (USCB, 2000a; USCB, 2000b).
Income and Education
Average per-capita income in the seven-county area was $18,619 in 1999; in Indiana it was $20,397. The median household income in the seven-county area was $40,057 in 1999; in the state it was $41,567 (USCB, 2006).
In the seven-county area, 14.8 percent of persons over 25 years of age hold a bachelor’s degree or higher. The comparable figure in the state is 19.4 percent. This discrepancy is typical of the difference between largely rural areas like these seven coun­ties and entire state populations which include large numbers of more urban residents who are profes­sionals and have higher educational attainment on average (USCB, 2006).
Potential Refuge Visitors
In order to estimate the potential market for visi­tors to the Refuge, we looked at 1998 consumer behavior data for an area within an approximate 60 mile radius. The data were organized by zip code areas. We used a 60 mile radius because we thought this was an approximation of a reasonable drive to the Refuge for an outing.
The consumer behavior data that we used in the analysis is derived from Mediamark Research Inc. data. The company collects and analyzes data on consumer demographics, product and brand usage, and exposure to all forms of advertising media. The consumer behavior data were projected by Tetrad Computer Applications Inc. to new populations using Mosaic data. Mosaic is a methodology that classifies neighborhoods into segments based on their demographic and socioeconomic composition. The basic assumption in the analysis is that people in demographically similar neighborhoods will tend to have similar consumption, ownership, and life­style preferences. Because of the assumptions made in the analysis, the data should be considered as rel­ative indicators of potential, not actual participation.
We looked at potential participants in birdwatch­ing, photography, freshwater fishing, hunting, and hiking. In order to estimate the general environ­mental orientation of the population we also looked at the number of people who potentially might hold a membership in an environmental organization.
The consumer behavior data apply to persons greater than 18 years old. For the area that we included in our analysis, out of a total population of 1,233,654 the population of persons greater than 18 years old was 925,980. The estimated maximum par­ticipants in the 60 mile radius for each activity are: birdwatching (72,351), photography (99,570), hunt­ing (82,727), freshwater fishing (146,610), and hiking (86,325). The number of persons who might hold a membership in an environmental organization is estimated at about 19,941. The projections repre­sent the core audience for repeated trips to the Ref­uge. On days with special events or major attractions such as when large numbers of birds are at the Refuge, visitors can be expected to travel longer distances.
Climate
The Refuge lies in the path of moisture-bearing low pressure formations that move from the west­ern Gulf region, northeastward over the Mississippi and Ohio Valleys to the Great Lakes and northern Atlantic Coast. Much of the area’s precipitation results from these storm systems, especially in the cooler part of the year. The average annual precipi­tation totals 44.2 inches. Of this total, about 23 inches, or nearly 52 percent, falls during the grow­ing season of April to September. The highest and lowest annual precipitation totals for the period of record are 64.8 inches in 1945 and 28.0 inches in 1887, respectively. Maximum monthly precipitation is 15.1 inches while the minimum is 0.05 inches. The average seasonal snowfall is about 13.5 inches. On the average, 3 days out of the year have at least 1 inch of snow on the ground (NOAA, 1991).
Winter scenery, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: USFWSChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
28
Convective thunderstorms developing in the mar­itime tropical air from the Gulf of Mexico and squall line activity seem to be the factors which combine to supply summer rainfall. Severe storms are rather infrequent, but high winds and hail often accompany these storms and can cause isolated property dam­age. The area is in “tornado alley,” with the potential for tornados highest in early spring and late fall. The tornado frequency is probably less than one every 10 years.
In winter the average temperature is 34 degrees Fahrenheit, with an average daily minimum of 25 degrees. The lowest temperature on record (Janu­ary 17, 1977) is minus 18 degrees. In summer the average temperature is 76 degrees, and the average daily maximum is 87 degrees. The highest recorded temperature (September 2, 1953) is 104 degrees (NOAA, 1991). Based on the average dates the first and last killing frosts, the area normally has 180 to 190 frost free days per year (SCS, 1989).
Prevailing wind direction is from the south-south­west. Strong and cold north to northwest winds occur from late autumn to early spring as large domes of arctic high pressure move into the Mid­west. The strongest winds occur during a deep win­ter storm passage through the Lower Ohio Valley.
The average relative humidity is mid-afternoon is roughly 60 percent. Humidity is higher at night and the average at dawn is about 85 percent.
Climate Change
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 cli­mate-related impact that refuges can affect in a small way. The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Car­bon 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 conclu­sions noted that ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial bio­sphere.
Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife refuges. The actions proposed in this CCP would conserve or restore land and habitat, and would thus retain existing carbon sequestration on the Refuge. 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 Patoka NWR from any of the proposed manage­ment 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.
#Forests may change, with some species shifting their range northward or dying out, and other trees moving in to take their place.
#Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breeding habitat due to stronger and more frequent droughts.
#Changes in the timing of migration and nesting could put some birds out of sync with the life cycles of their prey species.
#Animal and insect Species historically found farther south may colonize new areas to the north as winter climatic conditions moderate
The managers and resource specialists on the Refuge need to be aware of the possibility of change due to global warming. When feasible, documenting long-term vegetation, species, and hydrologic Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
29
changes should become a part of research and moni­toring programs on the Refuge. Adjustments in ref­uge 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 Climate 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 4ºF (2ºC), while the southern portion, along the Ohio River valley, has cooled by about 1ºF (0.5ºC). Annual precipitation has increased, with many of the changes quite substan­tial, including as much as 10 to 20% 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 basin.
Scenarios of Future Climate
During the 21st century, models project that tem­peratures will increase throughout the Midwest, 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 degrees to 6 degrees Cel­sius). The average minimum temperature is likely to increase as much as 1 degree to 2 degrees Fahren­heit (0.5 to 1 degree Celsius) more than the maxi­mum temperature. 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
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 temperatures 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 down­stream, 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 possibility 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 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 transportation 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 damage 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 levels would require adaptations such as re-engineering of ship docks and locks for transportation and recre­ation. If flows decrease while demand increases, international commissions 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. Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
30
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 planting a second crop after the first is harvested, is likely to become more prevalent. The CO2 fertilization 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 portions 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 herbicides are very likely to be required and to present 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 better attuned to the expected climate. It is likely that plant breeders will need to use all the tools of plant breeding, including genetic engineering, in adapting to climate change. Changing planting and harvest dates and planting densities, and using integrated pest man­agement, conservation tillage, and new farm tech­nologies are additional options. There is also the potential 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 factor in year-to-year differences in corn and soybean yields. Droughts and floods result in large yield reductions; severe droughts, like the drought of 1988, 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.
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 forestlands 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. However, warmer weather (coupled with beneficial effects of increased CO2),are likely to lead to an increase in tree growth rates on marginal forest­lands that are currently temperature-limited. 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 deciduous and coniferous trees, mak­ing them susceptible 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, such as bass and catfish. Warmer water is also likely to create an environment more susceptible to invasions by non-native species. Runoff of excess nutrients (such as nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer) into lakes and rivers is likely to increase due to the increase in heavy precipitation 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 disappear. Changes in bird popu­Wood
Duck pair, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: USFWSChapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
31
lations and other native wildlife have already been linked to increasing temperatures and more changes are likely in the future. Wildlife populations are particularly susceptible to climate extremes due to the effects of drought on their food sources.
Air Quality
The U. S. Environmental Protection agency has established National Ambient Air Quality Stan­dards (NAAQS) to protect public health and welfare from the detrimental effects of air pollution. Acquired lands of the Refuge and MA are located in areas designated as Nonattainment for Fine Partic­ulate Matter PM-2.5. These areas include Cane Ridge WMA in Montgomery Township, Gibson County and the White River Bottoms WMA in Washington Township, Pike County. Air pollution concentrations for fine particulate matter is above the NAAQS levels for this "criteria pollutant" regu­lated by the Clean Air Act.
Southwest Indiana is in the Illinois Coal Basin and is blessed with rivers and large quantities of coal. These natural resources have resulted in the concentration of many coal-fired power plants. In fact, southwest Indiana has the highest concentra­tion of coal-fired power plants per given area of any­where on earth. As such, air pollution associated with these power plants is at a high level which explains why six of the seven counties in southwest Indiana are all or partially in Nonattainment for Fine Particulate Matter (PM- 2.5).
The “criteria pollutants” identified by the EPA as part of the Clean Air Act include carbon monox­ide(CO), ozone(O3), nitrogen oxides(NOx), sulfur dioxide(SO2), lead(Pb) and particulate matter(PM). The Clean Air Act's Prevention of Significant Dete­rioration(PSD) program sets strict standards to limit the amount of additional pollutants(SO2), nito­