Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents

i

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Refuge Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Refuge Vision for the Future ................................................................................................................. 4

1.4 Purpose and Need for the Plan ............................................................................................................. 5

1.5 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ....................................................................................................... 6

1.5.1 The National Wildlife Refuge System ........................................................................................ 6

1.6 Existing Partnerships ............................................................................................................................. 7

1.7 Legal and Policy Guidance .................................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2: The Planning Process ................................................................................................................. 9

2.1 Issues and Concerns ............................................................................................................................ 9

2.1.1 Wildlife Habitat and Resource Management ...........................................................................10

2.1.2 Land Management within the Watershed Impacts Refuge Water Quality and Quantity ........10

2.1.3 Snow Goose Management .......................................................................................................10

2.1.4 Refuge Expansion .....................................................................................................................10

2.1.5 Public Use .................................................................................................................................11

2.1.6 Public Service ............................................................................................................................11

Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment ...........................................................................................................12

3.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ...........................................................................................................12

3.1.1 The Lower Missouri River Ecosystem .......................................................................................12

3.1.2 Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ....................................................................................15

3.1.2.1 Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ......................................................................15

3.1.2.2 Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities .....................................15

3.1.2.3 Biological Needs Assessment .....................................................................................16

3.1.2.4 Arctic Goose Management Initiative .........................................................................17

3.1.3 Squaw Creek Wildlife Management District ...........................................................................17

3.1.4 Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities ..................................................................17

3.1.5 Other Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Area ............................................................18

3.2 Refuge Resources, Cultural Values and Uses .....................................................................................18

3.2.1 Climate .....................................................................................................................................18

3.2.2 Geology and Soils .....................................................................................................................20

3.2.2.1 Water and Hydrology ...................................................................................................20

3.2.3 Fish and Wildlife and Plant Resources .....................................................................................23

3.2.3.1 Vegetation ...................................................................................................................23

3.2.3.2 Birds .............................................................................................................................23

3.2.3.3 Mammals .....................................................................................................................24
ii

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

3.2.3.4 Amphibians and Reptiles .............................................................................................24

3.2.3.5 Fish ...............................................................................................................................25

3.2.3.6 Invertebrates ................................................................................................................25

3.2.3.7 Plants ...........................................................................................................................25

3.2.3.8 Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................................................25

3.2.3.9 Cooperative Farming ...................................................................................................26

3.2.3.10 Land Use ...................................................................................................................26

3.2.3.11 Threats to Resources ................................................................................................26

3.2.3.12 Administrative Facilities ............................................................................................27

3.2.4 Socioeconomic Setting .............................................................................................................27

3.2.4.1 Population ....................................................................................................................29

3.2.4.2 Employment .................................................................................................................29

3.2.4.3 Income and Education .................................................................................................29

3.2.5 Archeological and Cultural Values ...........................................................................................29

3.2.6 Public Use ..................................................................................................................................30

3.2.6.1 Potential Refuge Visitors ............................................................................................30

3.3 Current Management ..........................................................................................................................31

3.3.1 Habitat Management ................................................................................................................31

3.3.1.1 Wetland Management .................................................................................................31

3.3.1.2 Moist Soil Units ...........................................................................................................31

3.3.1.3 Grasslands ...................................................................................................................34

3.3.1.4 Forests ..........................................................................................................................34

3.3.1.5 Cropland .......................................................................................................................34

3.3.2 Fish and Wildlife Monitoring ....................................................................................................34

3.3.3 Public Use ..................................................................................................................................36

3.3.4 Species Management ...............................................................................................................37

3.3.4.1 Animal Species ............................................................................................................37

3.3.4.2 Plant Species ..............................................................................................................37

3.3.5 Archaeological and Cultural Resources ....................................................................................37

3.3.6 Special Management Areas .....................................................................................................37

3.3.6.1 Farm Services Administration Conservation Easements .............................................37

Chapter 4: Management Direction .............................................................................................................39

4.1 Planned Refuge Programs ...................................................................................................................39

4.1.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................39

4.1.2 Habitat .......................................................................................................................................39

4.1.3 Fish and Wildlife .......................................................................................................................39

4.1.4 Wildlife-dependent Recreation, Environmental Education and Interpretation ........................40

4.1.5 Avoidance of Impacts to Listed Species ...................................................................................40

4.1.6 Climate Change Impacts ...........................................................................................................40

4.2 Goals, Objectives and Strategies ........................................................................................................41

Chapter 5: Implementation and Monitoring ..............................................................................................68

5.1 Personnel Needs ..................................................................................................................................68

5.2 New and Existing Projects ...................................................................................................................70

5.3 Step-down Management Plans ...........................................................................................................70

5.4 Partnership Opportunities ....................................................................................................................70

5.5 Monitoring and Evaluation ..................................................................................................................71

5.6 Plan Amendment and Revision ............................................................................................................71
iii

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment ..................................................................................................73

Appendix B: Glossary ................................................................................................................................. 139

Appendix C: Species Lists ......................................................................................................................... 145

Appendix D: Draft Compatibility Determinations .................................................................................. 169

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements .................................................................................................185

Appendix F: Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Maintenance Management 

 System (MMS) .......................................................................................................................191

Appendix G: Mailing List ........................................................................................................................... 197

Appendix H: List of Preparers ................................................................................................................... 201

Appendix I: Wildlife Resource Conservation Priority Species for the 

 Lower Missouri River Ecosystem ....................................................................................... 205

Appendix J: References ............................................................................................................................. 211

Appendix K: Comparison of Alternatives by Objective and Strategy ................................................ 215

List of Figures and Tables

v

Figure 1: Location of Squaw Creek NWR ...........................................................................................................2

Figure 2: Squaw Creek Wildlife Management Area ..........................................................................................3

Figure 3: Squaw Creek NWR Relations to Watershed-based FWS-classified Ecosystems ............................13

Figure 4: Squaw Creek NWR Watershed and Surrounding Watershed .........................................................14

Figure 5: Bird Conservation Region ..................................................................................................................16

Figure 6: Other Conservation Areas in the Area of Squaw Creek NWR ..........................................................19

Figure 7: Landforms of Missouri .......................................................................................................................21

Figure 8: Soils of Squaw Creek NWR ...............................................................................................................22

Figure 9: Squaw Creek NWR Administrative Facilities, 2003 ..........................................................................28

Figure 10: Current Landcover (2003), Squaw Creek NWR ................................................................................32

Figure 11: Wet Habitat Management, Squaw Creek NWR .............................................................................33

Figure 12: Future Desired Land Cover, Squaw Creek NWR .............................................................................42

Figure 13: Existing and Authorized Refuge Boundary ......................................................................................50

Figure 14: Eastern Massassauga Rattlesnake Landcover, Squaw Creek NWR ...............................................56

Figure 15: Squaw Creek NWR Staffing Chart, 2003-2018 ..............................................................................69

Table 1: Step-down Management Plan Schedule ............................................................................................70

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

1.1 Introduction

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), is located in Holt County in northwest Missouri, 

approximately midway between Kansas City, Missouri and Omaha, Nebraska, 2.5 miles off 

Interstate Highway 29 (Figure 1). This 7,415-acre refuge includes approximately 6,700 acres of 

floodplain that is managed as wetland, grassland and riparian habitats that attract up to 250 Bald 

Eagles, 300,000 Snow Geese, and 100,000 ducks during fall and winter seasons. 

The Refuge also manages 34 easements obtained 

from the Farm Service Agency, previously 

known as the Farmers Home Administration, or 

FmHA. These easements lie in 10 of the 15 

counties that make up the Squaw Creek Wildlife 

Management District (Figure 2).

The Refuge gets its name from Squaw Creek, a 

major stream that drains the Loess Hills on the 

east and flows through the Missouri River 

floodplain lands of the Refuge via a man-made 

ditch, and then empties into the Missouri River 

approximately 8 miles south of the Refuge. Davis 

Creek, which has also been ditched, flows along 

the eastern Refuge boundary and joins Squaw 

Creek just after leaving the Refuge. The 

Refuge's west boundary is about 5 miles from the closest bank of the Missouri River. The Santa FeBurlington Northern railroad embankment runs along the west Refuge boundary. Its embankment 

provides some protection from Missouri River overflows.

Refuge lowlands were once a part of a large natural marsh in the Missouri River floodplain. 

Historically, this area was heavily used by waterfowl and other migratory birds during their spring 

and fall migrations. 

The almost 700 acres of Refuge upland include a segment of the 200-mile long band of hills known as 

the Loess Hills. The Loess Hills, formed by wind-deposited, silt-sized soil particles, are a geologic 

phenomenon unique to the Missouri River Valley. While loess deposits do exist elsewhere in North 

America and the world, only in the Missouri River Valley are the deposits deep enough to create 

such an extensive land form. The Loess Hills support rare remnants of native prairie and prairie 

associated wildlife. 

Frank Durbian
2

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Figure 1: Location of Squaw Creek NWR
3

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Figure 2: Squaw Creek Wildlife Management Area
4

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

The Refuge hosts 301 species of birds, 33 mammals, and 35 reptiles and amphibians. Missouri's 

largest wet prairie remnant (983 acres) is on the Refuge and it is home to Missouri's largest metapopulation of the Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake.

The quality of Squaw Creek Refuge wetland habitat is constantly influenced by the heavy silt loads 

from the 60,000-acre Loess Hills watershed being carried into the Refuge by five creeks that 

converge to become Squaw Creek and Davis Creek. 

1.2 Refuge Purpose

Signed into existence by President Franklin D. Roosevelt as the “Squaw Creek Migratory 

Waterfowl Refuge” on August 23, 1935, in Executive Order 7156, the Refuge's purpose was to “... 

effectuate further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.” The Executive Order 

further stated that lands are to be used “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and 

other wildlife.”

Throughout the 100-year existence of the National Wildlife Refuge System, its functional direction 

and purpose have evolved to reflect its ever increasing value as a collection of irreplaceable habitats 

representing the diverse natural heritage of America. In so doing, the purposes of individual 

refuges such as Squaw Creek have broadened from somewhat narrow definitions aimed at specific 

animal groups to include entire ecosystems and all of the wildlife and plants within them.

Squaw Creek NWR is also managed to preserve, restore, and manage wetland and upland habitats 

that represent the Lower Missouri River ecosystem for the benefit of a diverse complex of fauna 

and flora, with emphasis on threatened and endangered species; and, to provide opportunities for 

the public to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation, including environmental education and public 

outreach. 

1.3 Refuge Vision for the Future

The Refuge staff envision a future that includes:

■ Restoration and preservation of the wetland ecosystems of the Missouri River floodplain 

continues to be the major management thrust of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge.

■ Refuge wetlands, which include the largest remnant wet prairie in Missouri, continue to 

provide safe habitat for concentrations of waterfowl and other birds during the migration 

and nesting seasons.

■ The historic threat of wetland sedimentation has declined significantly as managers of the 

vast surrounding agriculture lands employ more conservative practices advocated by the 

Refuge staff and other agencies.

■ The Refuge habitat diversity emphasizes both wetland and grassland, interspersed with 

stands of mixed shrubs and woodlands, managed on a scale to minimize habitat 

fragmentation and to be attractive to indigenous species as well as neo-tropical and 

passerine birds.

■ Habitat diversity broadens each year as progress is made to convert former monotypic 

stands of reed canary grass, American lotus, and croplands to aquatic and upland species 

complexes that benefit both indigenous and migratory wildlife.

■ Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge continues to be a destination for people to enjoy 

wildlife-dependent recreation. Dynamic environmental education and interpretive 

displays and programs, presented in well designed facilities, help the public to understand 
5

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

and become supportive of the Refuge staff's efforts to conserve, preserve and manage 

wildlife resources and their habitats.

■ The Refuge serves as an outdoor laboratory for biological researchers whose study results 

aid in the management for species of special concern such as the Eastern Massassauga 

rattlesnake, Blandings turtle and the Least Bittern.

■ The multi-disciplined staff of biologists, technicians, and support personnel are a well 

trained team proficient in their functions of serving Refuge visitors, cooperators, and the 

general public, in their stewardship of the resources put in their charge, and in their 

maintenance of Refuge facilities and equipment. This team places high value on its 

connections with the community and relies heavily on stakeholder input. 

■ The Refuge budget, staff, and administrative facilities are adequate to implement the 

strategies required to achieve the goals and objectives set forth in this plan.

1.4 Purpose and Need for the Plan

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) identifies the role Squaw Creek NWR will play in 

supporting the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and provides primary management 

guidance for the Refuge. The plan articulates management goals for the next 15 years and defines 

objectives and strategies that will achieve those goals. Several legislative mandates within the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 have guided the development of this 

plan. These mandates include: 

■ Wildlife has first priority in the management of refuges.

■ Wildlife-dependent recreation activities of hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education and interpretation are the priority public uses of 

the Refuge System. These uses will be facilitated when they do not interfere with a 

refuge's purposes or the mission of the Refuge System.

■ Other uses of the Refuge will only be allowed when they are determined to be appropriate 

and compatible with the Refuge purposes and mission of the Refuge System. 

Following the recommendations in the CCP will enhance management of Squaw Creek NWR by:

■ Providing a clear statement of direction for future management of the Refuge.

■ Giving Refuge neighbors, visitors, and the general public an understanding of the 

Service's management actions on and around the Refuge.

■ Ensuring that the Refuge's management actions and programs are consistent with the 

mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

■ Ensuring that Refuge management is consistent with federal, state and county plans.

■ Establishing long-term Refuge management continuity.

■ Providing a basis for the development of budget requests for Refuge operations, 

maintenance, and capital improvement needs. 
6

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

1.5 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

”Working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish 

and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people.” Mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency 

responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and 

their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Specific responsibilities include 

enforcing federal wildlife laws, managing migratory bird populations, restoring nationally 

significant fisheries, administering the Endangered Species Act, and restoring wildlife habitat such 

as wetlands. A significant portion of the Service's mission is accomplished within the National 

Wildlife Refuge System.

1.5.1 The National Wildlife Refuge System

”To administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management and, where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and 

their habitats within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.” Mission of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System

Managing the National Wildlife Refuge System has evolved into a significant role for the Service. 

Founded in 1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt with the designation of Florida's Pelican Island 

as a refuge for herons and egrets, the National Wildlife Refuge System is the world's largest 

collection of lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife. The System is a network of more than 

500 national wildlife refuges encompassing more than 93 million acres of public land and water. The 

majority of these lands - 82 percent - is in Alaska, with approximately 16 million acres in the lower 

48 states and several island territories. Refuges provide habitat for more than 5,000 species of 

birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and insects. 

Like Pelican Island, many early national wildlife refuges were created for herons, egrets and other 

water birds. Others were set aside for large mammals such as elk and bison. Most refuges, however, 

have been created to conserve migratory birds. This is a result of the United States' responsibilities 

under international treaties for migratory bird conservation as well as other legislation, such as the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. 

National wildlife refuges also play a vital role in preserving endangered and threatened species. 

Among the refuges that are well known for providing habitat for endangered species are Aransas 

NWR in Texas, the winter home of the whooping crane; the Florida Panther Refuge, which protects 

one of the nation's most endangered mammals; and the Hawaiian Islands Refuge, home of the 

Laysan duck, Hawaiian monk seal, and many other unique species.

Refuges are great places for people, too. When it is compatible with their establishing purposes, 

refuges can be used for wildlife-dependent activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education and interpretation. Many refuges have visitor centers, 

nature trails, automobile tours, and environmental education programs. Nationwide, more than 35 

million people visited national wildlife refuges in 1999. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established many mandates aimed 

at making the management of national wildlife refuges more cohesive. The preparation of 
7

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

comprehensive conservation plans is one of those mandates. The legislation requires the Secretary 

of the Interior to ensure that the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and purposes of 

the individual refuges are carried out. It also requires the Secretary to maintain the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System.

The administration, management, and growth of the System are guided by the following goals:

■ To fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge purpose(s) and further the System mission.

■ To conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and 

plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.

■ To perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations.

■ To conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants.

■ To conserve and restore where appropriate representative ecosystems of the United 

States, including the ecological processes characteristic of those ecosystems.

■ To foster understanding and instill appreciation of native fish, wildlife, and plants, and 

their conservation, by providing the public with safe, high-quality, and compatible 

wildlife-dependent public use. Such use includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

1.6 Existing Partnerships

Working with others via intra- and interagency partnerships is important in accomplishing the 

mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service as well as assisting Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge 

in meeting its primary objective of providing a resting and feeding area for migratory birds and 

other wildlife. Partnerships with other federal and state agencies and with a diversity of other 

public and private organizations are increasingly important. Other agencies can provide invaluable 

assistance in research and maintenance. Private groups and non-profit organizations greatly 

enhance public involvement in the Refuge, building enthusiasm and support for its mission.

Besides the partnerships that the Fish and Wildlife Service holds on a national level, Squaw Creek 

NWR maintains informal partnerships with:

■ Friends of Squaw Creek

■ Missouri Department of Conservation

■ Missouri Department of Natural Resources

■ Missouri Department of Transportation

■ Missouri Highway Patrol

■ Missouri Land Improvement Contractors Association

■ Natural Resources and Conservation Service

■ Holt County Soil and Water Conservation District

■ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

■ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

■ Farm Service Agency

■ Mound City Chamber of Commerce

■ Burroughs Audubon Society

■ Midland Empire Audubon Society
8

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

■ Ducks Unlimited

■ Missouri Western State College

■ Northwest Missouri State University

■ Towson University-Maryland

■ Southern Illinois University

■ St. Joseph Convention and Visitor Bureau

■ St. Joseph Museum

■ Mid-Buchanan High School

■ U.S. Geological Survey

■ Kickapoo Tribe

■ Burlington Northern Railroad

■ Oregon Rural Fire Department

■ Rosendale Rural Fire Department

■ Eastern Gamagrass Company 

■ Mound City Kiwanis

■ Pony Express Boy Scout Council

■ St. Joseph Public School System

■ Holt County Public School System

■ Southwest Missouri State University

■ University of Missouri - Columbia

1.7 Legal and Policy Guidance

In addition to the legislation establishing the Refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, other federal laws, executive orders, and regulations govern the 

administration of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge. See Appendix E for a list of the guiding 

laws and orders.
9

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

The planning process for this CCP began with a 

“kick-off” meeting in July 1999. Initially, 

members of the CCP planning team and Refuge 

staff identified a list of issues and concerns that 

were associated with management of the Refuge. 

These preliminary issues and concerns were 

based on staff knowledge of the area and 

association with citizens in the community. The 

planning team, consisting of Refuge staff and 

Service planners, then invited Refuge neighbors, 

organizations, local government agencies and 

local staff of national and state government 

agencies, schools, and interested citizens to share 

their thoughts in a focus group meeting on 

August 18, 1999. Nineteen people attended the meeting. An open house was held on September 14, 

1999, and 12 attended. The planning team accepted oral and written comments at the open house. 

Five written comments were received.

In October 1999, the planning team met for an intensive three-day workshop to develop and 

consider four management alternatives that addressed the issues and concerns in different ways. 

The alternatives generally describe levels of management varying from near passive to more 

intensive. Once alternative levels of management were selected, methods for achieving that level 

were developed. 

Subsequent planning team meetings in November of 1999 and January of 2000 were held with 

Region 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials and biologists in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, to 

critique and revise these draft alternatives and associated goals and objectives. In February 2000, 

the planning team again met for two days at DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge to further refine 

goals, objectives, and strategies. The planning team met at Squaw Creek NWR in February 2003 to 

continue this process, resulting in this document.

2.1 Issues and Concerns 

The issues and concerns presented in this section evolved through discussions among Service staff 

both at the Refuge and in the Regional Office, discussions with representatives of the State of 

Missouri, and public involvement.

As might be expected, the public participants at the focus group meeting and the open house 

meetings offered both positive and negative views to the issues; i.e, some supported Refuge 

expansion or on-refuge hunting while others were opposed.

Frank Durbian
10

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

The planning team considered all expressed views, written and oral, in its development of 

alternative actions and the goals and objectives presented in Chapter 4. 

2.1.1 Wildlife Habitat and Resource Management

Extraordinary measures may be required to preserve the marsh environment that has historically 

attracted migratory waterfowl and other wildlife. Erosion from the steep slopes on the river side of 

the Loess Bluffs and intensive agriculture result in heavy silt loads in Squaw Creek and Davis 

Creek. The creeks deposit considerable amounts of silt in the managed marsh units of the Refuge, 

making them steadily more shallow. These marsh areas could eventually fill completely and 

disappear. Adequate renovation and conservation might require dredging, raising dike elevations, 

stream diversion, or other expensive landscape modifications. 

2.1.2 Land Management within the Watershed Impacts Refuge Water Quality 

and Quantity

Beyond Refuge boundaries, land management practices within the watershed influence the quality 

and quantity of water that flows into the Refuge. Unrestricted surface runoff in the watershed 

depletes top soil and soil moisture conditions. The deposition of top soil and agricultural chemicals in 

the Refuge marshes during flood stages has an adverse cumulative effect. While neither the Refuge 

nor the Fish and Wildlife Service has any interest or authority to interfere with private lands 

management, we have the responsibility to conserve the public resources placed in our care. The 

Service can provide advice to landowners as well as assist more directly through existing cost share 

programs available to landowners aimed at improved soil and moisture conservation.

2.1.3 Snow Goose Management

The mid-continent population of Snow Geese is 

experiencing “a perilous abundance.” The peril is 

their numbers: 900,000 in 1969 and 6 million in 

1998, exceed the capacity of their Arctic 

breeding/nesting habitat in the vicinity of 

Hudson Bay. Recovery of damaged Arctic 

tundra vegetation is extremely slow and tends to 

continue towards self destruction once the 

moisture and chemical balance is upset. High 

Snow Geese survival rates over the last 20 years 

and high quality wintering grounds has 

contributed to the over population. Action plans 

recently proposed by Canada wildlife experts, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and State and 

Provincial agencies focus on reducing the Snow 

Goose population, mainly through increased harvest. Concentrations of 300,000 to 400,000 Snow 

Geese at Squaw Creek NWR during the fall migration have become a site-seeing tradition that 

attracts thousands of Refuge visitors. The Snow Geese are also welcomed by waterfowl hunters in 

an area from Sioux City, Iowa to Kansas City, Missouri.

2.1.4 Refuge Expansion

Floodplain wetlands similar to those within Squaw Creek NWR have been preserved and managed 

as private and commercial waterfowl hunting clubs. High operations costs have caused some 

owners to consider selling their property to the Refuge. Some people feel that the Refuge marsh 

restoration and preservation problems associated with watershed management and runoff could be 

lessened if some of the adjacent agricultural land was added to the Refuge and converted to other 

Frank Durbian
11

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

uses. However, hydrological or biological data supporting this is incomplete or lacking. 

Approximately 400 acres of private land remain within the authorized Refuge boundaries.

2.1.5 Public Use

Public use at the Refuge has focused on non-consumptive uses and wildlife dependent recreation, 

but some people have suggested that the Refuge's public use program should be changed to allow 

other compatible uses that might include hunting waterfowl and deer. Currently there is a special 3-

day, muzzle loader deer hunt with a specific number of permits issued. Angling is allowed where the 

roads cross the creek ditches. Historically, environmental education has been emphasized at Squaw 

Creek NWR. 

2.1.6 Public Service

The staff at Squaw Creek NWR want to be good neighbors and contributors to the welfare of the 

community. As the Refuge strives to be of service to the public and the community, are there new or 

better ways it can be successful in its efforts? Public service activities now include environmental 

education programs for schools and special groups both on and off the Refuge, disaster assistance 

with staff and equipment, operations budgets that boost the local economy, annual payments to 

counties to offset losses of real property tax revenues, and cost share programs for environmental 

improvements on private lands. The Refuge attracts visitors to the area who patronize local 

businesses. The Refuge staff will continue to seek innovative ways to be of service to the public and 

the community.
12

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment

3.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

3.1.1 The Lower Missouri River Ecosystem

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has implemented an 

ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife conservation. The 

Service's goal with this approach is to integrate the 

expertise and resources of many Service divisions that 

will contribute to the effective conservation of natural 

biological diversity through perpetuation of dynamic, 

healthy ecosystems. There are eight ecosystems within 

Region 3 of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Squaw Creek NWR lies within the Lower Missouri River 

Ecosystem (Figure 3). The Refuge is located 5 miles northeast of the Missouri River and lies within 

the eastern border of the Missouri River floodplain. A portion of the Refuge in and around the 

headquarters site extends into the Loess Hills adjacent to the valley floor, but the main portion of 

the Refuge is on the broad plain that slopes gently to the Missouri River.

Most of the 7,415 acres comprising the Refuge are located along the eastern edge of the Missouri 

River floodplain in an historic wetland area. Habitat types include 1,000 acres of bottomland forest, 

291 acres of bottomland mesic prairie, 1,077 acres of wet prairie, 378 acres of Loess Hills forest, 221 

acres of Loess Hills prairie, 3,409 acres of managed wetland, and 176 acres of wetland. Developed 

land, which includes administrative areas, channelized ditches and roads, accounts for 251 acres on 

the Refuge.

The Refuge's 15 managed impoundments total approximately 3,400 acres. All are managed 

primarily for migrating waterfowl, but also provide benefits for numerous species of other wetlandassociated fauna. Water sources include gravity flow from diversion of Squaw and Davis creeks, a 

well on Mallard Marsh, and whatever rainfall is received.

Flows from the Missouri River have limited and indirect influences on the Refuge. This is 

particularly true during floods. As an example, during the 1993 flood, most of the damage the 

Refuge sustained was a result of runoff from the upstream watershed rather than the Missouri 

River. However, because the River was in flood stage, the Refuge was unable to discharge adequate 

amounts of water and runoff from the watershed backed up and flooded most the Refuge bottom 

land habitat.

Squaw Creek NWR is directly influenced by a 60,000-acre upstream watershed. The Refuge lies at 

the base of this highly erodible upland in the loess bluff hills with runoff coming primarily from 

Squaw and Davis creeks. Squaw Creek drains about 63 square miles (approximately 45,000 acres) 

Frank Durbian
13

Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment

above Highway 59 and crosses under Interstate Highway 29. At this point, the creek enters the 

floodplain and is confined between levees extending to the north boundary of the Refuge.

Davis Creek drains about 23 square miles (approximately 15,000 acres). The creek emerges from 

the hills at Mound City and directly enters the northeast corner of the Refuge after passing under 

Interstate Highway 29.

Three smaller creeks drain watersheds from the north and east that enter Squaw Creek NWR - 

Porter, Swope and Blair creeks. Though small, they add another 9 square miles of drainage and 

runoff to the Refuge, making the total upstream drainage area influencing the Refuge of 

approximately 95 square miles.

Because of its extreme topography, the total drainage area produces rapid runoff. Cultivation is 

practiced on lands within the basin where slopes permit. There was severe erosion on the disturbed 

agricultural areas in the years just after the Refuge was established, and runoff was heavily laden 

with silt. However, in recent years, soil conservation measures such as grassed waterways, terraces 

and water retention ponds have reduced silt loads and rapid rises in creek levels.

Since the 1993 Flood, Squaw Creek NWR has partnered with the Holt County Soil and Water 

Conservation District, the United States Geological Survey and the Natural Resource and 

Conservation Service by providing economic incentives to complete additional conservation 

Figure 3: Squaw Creek NWR Relations to Watershed-based FWS-classified Ecosystems
14

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Figure 4: Squaw Creek NWR Watershed and Surrounding Watershed
15

Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment

measures in the Davis and Squaw Creek watersheds. The Soil and Water Conservation Service was 

awarded a $950,000 Agricultural Non-point Pollution grant in 2001 to work with private landowners 

in the Squaw Creek drainage during a 5-year period to reduce quantity and increase the quality of 

agricultural runoff from their croplands.

3.1.2 Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

3.1.2.1 Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

There are several ongoing migratory bird conservation 

initiatives that refuges should participate in to the extent 

applicable and practical. The North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan (NAWMP) is a partnership effort to 

restore waterfowl populations to historic levels. It was 

developed in 1986, with objectives and strategies 

evolving through NAWMP Updates (the latest produced 

in 1998). Refuges found within NAWMP Joint Ventures 

should strive to achieve waterfowl objectives outlined in 

pertinent Joint Venture Implementation Plans (see http:/

/northamerican.fws.gov/NAWMP/nawmphp.htm). Squaw 

Creek NWR is covered by the Upper Mississippi River/

Great Lakes Region Joint Venture.

Several nongame bird initiatives have been developed in 

recent years. Partners In Flight (PIF) deals primarily 

with landbirds and has developed Bird Conservation 

Plans for numerous physiographic areas across the U.S. 

(see http://www.partnersinflight.org). These plans include priority species lists, associated habitats, 

and management strategies. Squaw Creek NWR should strive to implement the conservation 

strategies outlined in these plans to the extent possible. Squaw Creek NWR lies within PIF 

Physiographic Area No. 32, the Dissected Till Plains (Figure 5).

The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan) and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (see 

http://www.nacwcp.org) have regional components that identify priority species and conservation 

strategies, mostly focused around habitat, that will address the needs of these groups of birds. 

Squaw Creek NWR is included in the Upper Mississippi Valley / Great Lakes Regional Shorebird 

Conservation Plan. The refuge will soon be nominated for inclusion as a site in the Western 

Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network.

All migratory bird conservation programs will be integrated under the umbrella of the North 

American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). This is a continental effort to have all bird 

initiatives operate under common Bird Conservation Regions and to consider the conservation 

objectives of all birds together to optimize the effectiveness of management strategies (see http://

www.dodpif.org/nabci/index.htm). The goal of NABCI is to facilitate delivery of the full spectrum of 

bird conservation through regionally-based, biologically-driven, landscape-oriented partnerships. 

Squaw Creek NWR is located in Bird Conservation Region 22, the Eastern Tallgrass Prairie. As 

part of a national American Bird Conservancy program, Squaw Creek was designated an Important 

Bird Area.

3.1.2.2 Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities

The Resource Conservation Priorities list is a subset of all species that occur in the Region and was 

derived from an objective synthesis of information on their status. The list includes all federally 

listed threatened and endangered species and proposed and candidate species that occur in the 

Frank Durbian
16

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Region; migratory bird species derived from Service wide and international conservation planning 

efforts; and rare and declining terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals that represent an 

abbreviation of the Endangered Species program's preliminary draft “Species of Concern” list for 

the Region.

Although many species are not included in the priority list, this does not mean that we consider 

them unimportant. The list includes 60 species or populations for the Service's Lower Missouri 

River Ecosystem (see Appendix I, page 205). 

3.1.2.3 Biological Needs Assessment

The National Wildlife Refuge System Biological Needs Assessment (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 

1998) resulted from a self analysis of biology within the System. The Assessment addressed issues 

related to the biological aspect of Refuge management and proposed six goals for their resolution 

along with actions and strategies for achieving those goals. 

The goals are:

Goal 1: Address inadequate and inconsistent biological program staffing.

Goal 2: Focus biological program activities through goals and objectives.

Goal 3: Integrate evaluation and oversight into the biological program.

Goal 4: Increase the amount and accountability of funding for the biological program.

Goal 5: Provide for career and professional needs of biological program staff.

Goal 6: Meet information needs of the biological program.

Figure 5: Bird Conservation Region
17

Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment

The Biological Needs Assessment provides a benchmark in measuring progress toward meeting the 

biological mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

3.1.2.4 Arctic Goose Management Initiative

Lesser Snow Geese and Ross' Geese in the mid-continent region are causing widespread damage to 

Arctic habitats used by these geese and other wildlife. The Snow Goose population has been 

expanding at an average rate of about 5 percent per year. The major reason for this population 

growth has been improved winter survival and recruitment brought about by a virtually unlimited 

food supply due to the expansion and productivity of modern agriculture in the Midwest and the 

availability of sanctuaries and refuges. Snow Geese and Ross' Geese now exceed the carrying 

capacity of habitats on several breeding colony sites in northern Canada.

Over-grazing and grubbing of the tundra vegetation has been degrading and destroying the native 

plant community. The over-exploitation has lead to increases in soil salinity, which has impeded 

recovery of formerly dominant plant species and has caused the growth of less desirable plants.

 In 1997, the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group recommended that the mid-continent Snow 

Goose and Ross' Goose population be reduced by 50 percent, primarily through more liberal hunting 

regulations, unplugged shotguns, no limits, and electronic calls.

In February 1999, the Service implemented the above recommendations and published new 

regulations to authorize new methods of take (unplugged shotguns, electronic calls) during the 

regular season when other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons are closed. In addition, the Service 

created a conservation order, which allowed take of geese beyond March 10, removed bag limits, 

allowed new methods of take, and also allowed shooting hours to one-half hour after sunset.

3.1.3 Squaw Creek Wildlife Management District

The Squaw Creek Wildlife Management District is comprised of lands that were involved in Farm

Service Agency (formerly the Farmer and Home Administration) loan foreclosures in the 1970s and 

1980s. While these lands are privately owned, the owners have agreed to carry out habitat 

restoration and preservation practices prescribed in perpetual management agreements with the 

Service. These agreements also define the negotiated costs and labor responsibilities of each party.

 

The Squaw Creek Management District encompasses 15 

counties in northwest Missouri (Figure 2). Currently 34 

easements covering 1,553 acres are recorded on deed and 

three fee-title tracts totaling 911.5 acres are located in 10 

of the district counties.

The majority of District lands are associated with 

riparian corridors. Considerable acreage was previously 

cropland and, as such, Refuge management emphasis has 

been on establishing permanent cover on those acres. 

Fencing of riparian areas to exclude livestock has also 

been a priority.

3.1.4 Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) required the Service to identify its most 

important functions and to direct its limited fiscal resources toward those functions. A group 

worked from 1997 to 1999 to evaluate how best to identify the Service's most important functions in 

Region 3. The group recognized that the Service has a complex array of responsibilities specified by 

Frank Durbian
18

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

treaties, laws, executive orders and judicial opinions, and these responsibilities dwarf the agency's 

budget.

The group recognized that at least two approaches are possible in identifying conservation 

priorities - habitats and species. The group chose to focus on species because (1) species represent 

biological and genetic resources that cannot be replaced; (2) a focus on species conservation requires 

a concurrent focus on habitat; and (3) by focusing on species assemblages and identifying areas 

where ecological needs come together, the Service can select the few key places where limited 

efforts will have the greatest impact. Representatives of the migratory bird, endangered species, 

and fisheries programs in Region 3 identified the species that require the utmost attention given 

our current level of knowledge. Representatives prioritized the species based on biological status 

(endangered or threatened, for example), rare or declining levels, recreational or economic value, or 

“nuisance” level. The group pointed out that species not on the prioritized list are important too, but 

when faced with the needs of several species, the Service should emphasize the species on the 

priority list. Figure 6 identifies the states within Region 3. Appendix I lists the resource 

conservation priority species that occur at the Refuge.

We have considered the ecosystem context, the over arching conservation programs, state listed 

species, and the regional resource conservation priorities as we wrote this comprehensive 

conservation plan. 

3.1.5 Other Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Area

The Missouri Department of Conservation manages several conservation areas throughout Holt 

County. The 227-acre Jameson C. McCormack Conservation Area is located adjacent to the Refuge. 

Mostly forest, the conservation area also includes 30 acres of grassland, 25 acres of savanna and 38 

acres of cropland and old field. Hunting and primitive camping are permitted.

The Bob Brown Conservation Area (3,302 acres) is located within a few miles of the Refuge near 

Forest City. Hunting, fishing, camping, birding, canoeing and hiking are allowed, although some 

areas are closed to hiking during waterfowl season. The area is managed primarily to provide 

wetland habitat and it provides excellent opportunities for observing Bald Eagles, shorebirds and 

waterfowl.

Other areas in Holt County that are managed by the Missouri Department of Conservation include: 

H.F. Thurnau Conservation Area (366 acres); Little Tarkio Prairie Conservation Area (129 acres); 

Riverbreaks Conservation Area (2,307 acres); Monkey Mountain Conservation Area (787 acres); 

Nodaway Valley Conservation Area (3,813 acres); Maitalnd Access and Payne Landing Access.

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources manages the 435-acre Big Lake State Park 11 miles 

southwest of Mound City. The park offers camping, cabins, a swimming pool, and recreational 

activities include fishing and picnicking.

3.2 Refuge Resources, Cultural Values and Uses

3.2.1 Climate 

The Refuge is located in an area characterized by a continental climate, experiencing a wide range 

of temperatures throughout the seasons. The coldest average minimum temperature in St. Joseph, 

Missouri, about 30 miles from Squaw Creek NWR, is 15.9 degrees Fahrenheit and occurs in 

January. The highest average high temperature is 89.9 degrees F. and occurs in July.

The area in which the Refuge is located receives an average of 35.24 inches of precipitation annually.
19

Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment

Figure 6: Other Conservation Areas in the Area of Squaw Creek NWR
20

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

3.2.2 Geology and Soils

The formation and even the productivity of the land we know today is the work of many glaciers. 

Called the “Pleistocene Epoch,” glaciers that moved through northern Missouri 650,000 years ago 

gouged out river beds, deposited sheared off trees that decayed and eventually became the blowing 

dust that formed the Loess Hills, and so thoroughly mixed the earth that eroded soils were replaced 

with richer, more productive soil (Figure 7). Melting glaciers sent huge volumes of water down 

what is today the Missouri River, preventing vegetation from taking hold in cycles of flooding and 

freezing.

The Refuge is part of the Glaciated Plains area of Missouri, which was formed by the last glacier to 

enter the area about 200,000 years ago. The glaciers left the land relatively flat, but large boulders 

called “erratics” were deposited throughout northern Missouri. The size and weight of erratics - 

some are estimated at 384 tons - testify to the force behind the glaciers (Missouri Department of 

Conservation website).

Glaciers even changed the direction of water flow in Missouri (Nagel 2001). Ancient rivers and 

streams in northwest Missouri once drained east-west. These valleys were filled in by glacier till, 

and the Missouri River did not attain its present course until the Kansan and Nebraskan glaciers 

retreated.

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources Geological Survey places Holt County within the 

Dissected Till Plains of the state. The Refuge is located on soil that is mostly gumbo overlaid with 

rich silt (Figure 8). 

3.2.2.1 Water and Hydrology

Holt County is located in two Missouri groundwater production areas and aquifers: the western 

one-third of the county are within the Missouri and Mississippi River Alluvium; the eastern twothirds of the County are within the Glacial Drift and Alluvium (Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources).

Located in the relatively flat floodplain of the Missouri River, water resources include gravity flow 

from Squaw Creek, gravity flow from Davis Creek, a well and pump in Mallard Marsh and on the 

Rice Paddy moist-soil unit.

The quality of Squaw Creek Refuge wetland habitat is constantly influenced by the heavy silt loads 

from the 60,000-acre Loess Hills watershed being carried into the Refuge by five creeks that 

converge to become Squaw Creek and Davis Creek. Silt is a primary concern for the Refuge.

Background

“When Missouri was admitted to statehood in 1821, the northwestern part of the state 

was Indian territory. In 1836, William Clark of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, acting 

as agent for the Sac-and-Fox and Ioway Indian tribes, accepted $7,500 and 400 sections 

of land in Kansas in what was referred to as the Platte Purchase. Holt County was 

organized out of the Platte Purchase in 1841." (NRCS, 1997)

The above cited publication indicates that the first settlers arrived in Holt County in 1838. The Soil 

Survey also states that “...artificial drainage of the Missouri River flood plains began in 1872, and in 

1944 the Congressional Flood Act authorized the building of a system of levees along the river.” 

A 1934 report entitled “The Squaw Creek Bottoms” prepared by the Bureau of Biological Survey, 

which was later reorganized as the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and ultimately evolved 

into the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, notes that: “Apart from intermittent use for agriculture 
21

Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment

purposes (depending upon seasonal moisture conditions) of some of the higher lands, 40 to 160 acre 

parcels are being rented for waterfowl shooting purposes to individuals and clubs. Some of the 

latter own their shooting grounds.”

By the time the above report was prepared, Squaw Creek was recognized as the most important 

source of surface water into what is now the Refuge and it had already been modified into “...a 

straight, improved, channel bordered by dikes that confine, above the level of adjacent corn fields, 

flood waters.” Similar modifications are described on Davis Creek. 

Channelization of the Missouri River, wetland drainage, and conversion of land to extensive 

agricultural use reduced wildlife habitat to a remnant of its former size. Creation of the Refuge has 

protected a small portion of the floodplain from drainage and provided a haven for waterfowl, other 

migrant birds, and resident wildlife. The major thrust of management has been to restore wetland 

habitat by constructing a dam and several cross dikes resulting in a series of artificial 

impoundments.

The major thrust of management has been to restore wetland habitat by constructing a dam and 

several cross dikes resulting in a series of artificial impoundments.

Figure 7: Landforms of Missouri
22

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Figure 8: Soils of Squaw Creek NWR
23

Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment

3.2.3 Fish and Wildlife and Plant Resources

3.2.3.1 Vegetation

Plant diversity on Squaw Creek NWR reflects the dominance of wetlands and prairie. Plants found 

on the Refuge include:

In addition to these plants, there are numerous grasses, including big and little bluestems and hairy 

grama. 

The Refuge also features “Wildflower Gardens at Squaw Creek,” plantings around the Visitor 

Center of native tallgrass-prairie and woodland wildflowers, grasses, and other plants. Among 

these species are: 

The Refuge has 1,378 acres of forests; common trees include Eastern red cedar, Eastern 

cottonwood, black willow, and silver maple.

The principle Refuge habitats include agricultural fields, bottomland forest, bottomland mesic 

prairie, loess hill forest, loess hill prairie, managed wetlands, old fields, wet prairie, wetland and 

developed land (Figure 9). The acreages of these habitats can be found in the Environmental 

Assessment, Appendix A.

3.2.3.2 Birds

Waterfowl are a year-round presence on the Refuge, sometimes in awesome numbers. Squaw Creek 

NWR is a mecca for large concentrations of migratory birds during the spring and fall because of 

the diversity and interspersion of habitats as well as the Refuge's location between two major 

migratory bird corridors, the Central Flyway and the Mississippi Flyway.

Shallow, backwater wetlands such as those provided by Squaw Creek NWR offer critical habitat for 

dabbling ducks, geese, herons, egrets, bitterns and rails. Mallard, Gadwall, American Widgeon, 

Green-winged Teal, Blue-winged Teal, Northern Pintail and American Coot are the dominant 

smooth sumac coralberry false indigo

swamp milkweed blue wild indigo swamp buttercup

monkeyflower blue lobelia downy painted cup (Indian 

paint brush

prairie larkspur dotted blazing star soaptree yucca

hoary puccoon round-headed prairie ragwort

bush-clover goldenrods sunflowers

asters

Dutchman's breeches wild columbine prairie smoke 

blue-eyed grass showy evening primrose wild sweet-William (Phlox) 

Solomon's-seal mayapple Jack-in-the-pulpit

beardtongue butterflyweed lead plant

rose verbena spiderwort black-eyed Susan

coneflowers wild petunia queen-of-the-prairie 

shrubby St. John's -wort rattlesnake master white snakeroot
24

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

species seen on the Refuge during both spring and fall migration. In the spring, large numbers of 

Scaup and Ring-necked Ducks are common. 

Average peak populations of Lesser Snow Geese are 300,000 to 350,000.

During the fall migration, the Pectoral Sandpiper, Killdeer, Stilt Sandpiper, Lesser Yellowlegs and 

Least Sandpiper are among the shorebird species using the Refuge. In the spring, Greater 

Yellowlegs, White-rumped Sandpiper and Semipalmated Sandpiper pass through. 

Marsh birds and other water birds, including grebes, pelicans, cormorants, bitterns, herons, egrets, 

ibis, and rails, are typically counted during the shore bird surveys.

Raptors using the Refuge include the Bald Eagle (see Section 3.2.3.7, Threatened and Endangered 

Species) and a variety of hawks. In 2001, a local college professor counted 214 Broad-winged Hawks 

on a hawk count day.

Several bird species that are on the Missouri endangered species list are known to occur on the 

Refuge, including: Bald Eagle, American Bittern, Northern Harrier, Snowy Egret, Peregrine 

Falcon, Swainson's Warbler, Least Tern and Barn Owl.

Just a mile north of the Refuge, a Loess Hills bluff on the MoDOT right-of-way on Highway 159 

provides outstanding Bank Swallow nesting habitat. The Missouri Department of Transportation 

(MoDOT) recently set aside the area for that purpose. The department built a pull-off parking area 

with barriers and installed a wood split rail fence. The Service prepared an information sign 

interpreting bank swallow history and habits. The Refuge installed “do not disturb” signs intended 

to prevent harassment of the swallows. 

Other birds commonly found on the Refuge include the Red-winged Blackbird, Common Grackle, 

Tree Swallow, Barn Swallow, Great-blue Heron, Yellow-bellied Cuckoo, Red-headed Woodpecker, 

Red-bellied Woodpecker, Common Yellowthroat, Northern Cardinal, House Wren, Song Sparrow, 

European Starling, Yellow Warbler and Grey Catbird. 

3.2.3.3 Mammals

Approximately 33 mammals use the Refuge. Annual deer counts indicate that the Refuge has about 

three times as many deer as desired to maintain healthy browse and to avoid negative impacts to 

understory vegetation. Even though the Refuge has an annual muzzle loader antler-less deer hunt, 

which typically removes 100-140 deer from the area, the Refuge continues to harbor deer densities 

well above carrying capacity, suggesting that the Refuge is probably a concentration area for deer. 

Future efforts to expand the refuge hunting program are planned in an attempt to reduce the local 

deer population. 

A number of carnivorous mammals are seen on the Refuge, including grey fox, red fox, coyote, 

mink, raccoons, striped skunk and spotted skunk, bobcat, longtail weasels, badgers and river otters. 

Other mammals on the Refuge include rabbits and several species of bats, rodents and shrews.

3.2.3.4 Amphibians and Reptiles

Two species of salamander, four toad species and five species of frogs are found on the Refuge. The 

Refuge has participated in deformed frog surveys and the number of deformed frogs found on 

Squaw Creek NWR is well within the bounds of what is considered to be normal deformity rates. 

The Refuge has also conducted annual frog and toad calling surveys.
25

Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment

Five species of turtles, including the state listed 

endangered Blandings turtle, are found on the Refuge. 

Reptiles include two lizard species and 15 snakes, 

including the Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake, a species 

that is a candidate for federal listing as threatened or 

endangered and is a state-listed endangered species. 

3.2.3.5 Fish

Fish resources are limited. The lack of deep water and 

the fluctuation in water levels in the managed wetlands 

effectively limit the species found on the Refuge. Game 

species are not typically found on the Refuge. Fish such 

as carp, buffalo, gar, and a variety of others are present, 

and when water levels are sufficient and state law 

permits, snagging and fishing are permitted.

3.2.3.6 Invertebrates

Invertebrate diversity, while extensive, is little documented. The only insect on the Regional 

Conservation Priority list that falls within the Lower Missouri Ecosystem is the American burying 

beetle (Nicrophorus americanus). This species is not known to occur on the Refuge. It uses many 

types of habitat, with a slight preference for grasslands and open understory oak hickory forests. 

However, the beetles need carrion the size of a dove or a chipmunk to reproduce. Carrion 

availability may be the greatest factor determining where the species can survive. Its range 

includes Michigan and Ohio.

3.2.3.7 Plants

A full inventory and quantification of plant species has never been undertaken on the Refuge and 

presents opportunities for expanded work. The Refuge Biologist is currently inventorying plants 

and has created an herbarium for reference.

3.2.3.8 Threatened and Endangered Species

One federally-listed endangered bird and two threatened birds occur on the Refuge. Three statelisted threatened reptiles (Eastern massassauga rattlesnake, Western fox snake and Blandings 

turtle) are also found on the Refuge. The federally listed species include:

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): Bald Eagles have increased in abundance and distribution 

across the United States, including Missouri, and have been reclassified from endangered to 

threatened. They are commonly seen on the Refuge; in fact, 476 Bald Eagles were counted on 

December 27, 2001. Bald Eagles became endangered because of habitat loss, but especially because 

of DDT use following World War II. Today, the DDT threat is largely gone. Now the challenge is to 

prevent contamination and loss of sites that eagles depend on for nesting, feeding, migration, and 

wintering.

Piping Plover (Chadarius melodus) (Great Plains Population): Piping Plovers are rarely seen on 

Squaw Creek NWR. Piping Plovers nest in coastal areas, but they are also prairie birds, nesting 

across the Great Plains of the United States and Canada, but in perilously low numbers. The Great 

Plains population is listed as threatened. The loss of prairie wetland areas contributes to their 

decline. Like many shorebirds, Piping Plovers feed on immature and adult insects and other 

invertebrates at the water's edge. They winter primarily along beaches, sandflats, and algal flats on 

the Gulf of Mexico.

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum) (Interior Population): Listed as endangered, the Least Tern nests 

along large rivers of the Colorado, Red, Mississippi, and Missouri River systems. Least Terns are 

Frank Durbian
26

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

considered a rare bird on Squaw Creek NWR, however the species is a potential nester in the 

Missouri River area. It nests on sand and gravel bars and protected beach areas of large rivers and 

winters in coastal Central and South America. The species is endangered because human 

disturbance and alteration of river systems has rendered much of its nesting habitat unusable. 

Pesticides may reduce food available to the tern by reducing the numbers of small fish in their 

feeding areas.

3.2.3.9 Cooperative Farming

Three cooperative farmers currently (2001) have agreements to farm 473 acres on the Refuge. 

Currently 34 of those acres are in clover. Actual crops in 2001 included 171 acres of corn and 268 

acres of soybeans. One-third of the corn produced was left standing in the field for wildlife food and 

cover. 

3.2.3.10 Land Use

The area within the authorized boundary of Squaw Creek NWR includes 7,815 acres. The Refuge 

manages the Squaw Creek Wildlife Management Area, which consists of small parcels of land 

within a 15-county area. Agriculture is the predominant land use in the area immediately 

surrounding the Refuge.

The nearest community is Mound City, which has a population of 1,273 and is located approximately 

5 miles from Refuge headquarters. The community's population has remained relatively stable and 

at the time of this writing did not present urban development issues that seriously threatened 

Refuge resources. The nearest big city is St. Joseph, Missouri, which has a population of 71,711 in 

1995. Some development has occurred on the outskirts of the city, however St. Joseph is located 

approximately 30 miles from the Refuge and sprawl is not expected to affect Refuge resources.

3.2.3.11 Threats to Resources

Siltation: The Refuge is a sump-like area that lies between the Missouri River on the west and the 

Loess Bluffs on the east. The steep slopes on the river side of the bluffs, along with intensive 

agriculture, result in heavy silt loads in Squaw Creek and Davis Creek that pass through the 

Refuge on their way to the Missouri River. While these creeks are the primary water source for the 

Refuge, they also dump considerable amounts of silt in the managed marsh units of the Refuge, 

making them steadily more shallow. These marsh areas could eventually fill completely and 

disappear.

Invasive Plant Species: Squaw Creek NWR has numerous herbaceous pest problems. Some of the 

dominant pests include reed canaryrass, garlic mustard, johnsongrass, musk thistle and marijuana.

For the past several years, garlic mustard has been taking hold in floodplain forested areas of the 

Refuge. Johnsongrass has become more prevalent since the Missouri River flooded in 1993

Techniques for controlling invasive plants range from hand pulling Illinois garlic mustard to 

spraying dikes and roadsides with 2-4D. In native prairie areas and ditchbanks, Johnsongrass is 

sprayed with Rodeo to avoid damage to native warm season grasses. Garlon 3A is sprayed on black 

locust and honey locust invading native grass areas. This is the recommended chemical to use on 

Loess Hill prairie restoration efforts, as it effectively combats woody encroachment while not 

harming the native grasses. 

Once a cash crop and even part of the seed mix used in Missouri Department of Conservation food 

plots, marijuana remains a pervasive volunteer plant. In 1992, Refuge staff destroyed 250,000 

plants; in 2001, approximately 6,700 marijuana plants were hand cut.
27

Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment

Contaminants: Runoff of agricultural chemicals from farm fields into water is a well-known 

nonpoint source pollution of water from large geographic areas. Although agricultural runoff of 

fertilizers and pesticides has been documented in many areas and is suspected to affect the Refuge, 

the type and amount of pollution from Squaw Creek and Davis Creek have not been specifically 

documented.

3.2.3.12 Administrative Facilities

Refuge facilities include the headquarters building, which was expanded in 2003 with the addition of 

an auditorium for public presentations. A new vehicle storage building was completed in 2003. 

Existing facilities are depicted in Figure 10.

Despite the new construction, we face a serious shortage of garage space for vehicles and 

equipment and office space for Refuge employees. Building codes prohibit us from locating offices in 

the headquarters basement. Existing offices have been divided numerous times, and we simply do 

not have a place to house any staff beyond existing positions. We are currently using recreational 

trailers to house interns.

The Mallard Marsh pump was installed in 1991 as part of an extensive habitat restoration project. 

Four hundred acres of Mallard Marsh were restored after nearly filling in with siltation. The pump 

serves to flood the north unit during fall migration. In times of low water, Refuge neighbors 

sometimes experience a drop in water pressure when the pump is running. We turn the pump off 

when it becomes a problem for our neighbors. 

Gravel roads: The auto tour route is a 10-mile circuit road with a gravel surface as well as a 2-mile 

road that goes around Mallard Marsh, exiting on to Highway 118 in the northwest corner of the 

Refuge. Both roads require annual spot maintenance to keep the driving surface up to Service 

standards. However, there have not been any funds specifically designated for road maintenance. 

The last time the entire 12 miles of gravel road was resurfaced was in 1999, when TEA 21 

transportation funds were allocated. There are three bridges, on Squaw and Davis creeks and 

across the outlet at the south end of the Refuge. The Squaw Creek bridge is concrete and 

incorporates a water control structure. The Davis Creek and Eagle Pool outlet bridges are wooden 

structures that were built in the mid 1990s. All of the bridges are structurally sound and critical to 

the maintenance operations and the auto tour route.

Dikes and Levees: The Refuge maintains more than 14 miles (74,900 linear feet) of dikes and levees 

that parallel the ditches and surround all of the pool, marshes and moist soil units. All dike and levee 

surfaces must be mowed throughout the growing season to prevent brush invasion, to control 

noxious weeds and to provide safe access to Refuge vehicles for biological and habitat management 

purposes.

Ditches: The Refuge contains more than 11 miles (59,330 linear feet) of ditches that require 

occasional maintenance such as removal of silt deposition and bank erosion. Maintenance of the 

ditches is critical for effective and efficient water management.

3.2.4 Socioeconomic Setting

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge is located in Holt County, Missouri. The Refuge makes up 

approximately 2.5 percent of the County land area. Compared to the entire state, Holt County is 

more rural and less racially diverse. Its population is less dense and has a lower average income and 

education level. The County population is declining and the state population is increasing.
28

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Figure 9: Squaw Creek NWR Administrative Facilities, 2003
29

Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment

3.2.4.1 Population

The population of Holt County was 5,351 in 2000. The entire population of the County is classified as 

rural. In Missouri, 30.6 percent of the population is classified as rural. The county population 

declined 12.3 percent during the 1980s and 11.3 percent during the 1990s while the State's 

population increased. The County's population is projected to continue to decline to 4,974 in 2015. 

The number of children of school age is expected to decline and reflect the decline in population. In 

2000, persons age 5-17 years was 1,019; in 2015 the number is projected to be 785. In 2000, Holt 

County's population density was 11.6 persons per square mile; Missouri's was 81.2 persons per 

square mile. The County population was 98.5 percent white in 2000; the State population was 84.5 

percent white.

3.2.4.2 Employment

In 2000 there were a total of 2,752 full- and part-time jobs in the County. The industries that 

accounted for the largest proportion of jobs in 2000 were agriculture (22.20 percent), services (16.39 

percent), retail trade (15.30 percent), and government and government enterprise (14.83 percent). 

The industries of construction, manufacturing, transportation and public utilities, wholesale trade, 

and finance, insurance and real estate each contributed 5ñ1 percent of the jobs in the County.

From 1997 to 2001, the County unemployment rate averaged 3.68 percent. This compares to a state 

unemployment average of 4 percent for the same period.

3.2.4.3 Income and Education

Average per-capita income in Holt County was $15,876 in 2000; in Missouri it was $19,936. The 

median household income in the County was $29,461; in the State it was $37,934.

In Holt County, 35.6 percent of persons over 25 years of age have had some college or hold a college 

or advanced degree. The comparable figure in the State is 56.2 percent.

3.2.5 Archeological and Cultural Values

Northwest Missouri, where the Refuge and its management district are located, contains 

archeological evidence from the earliest suspected human presence in the Americas, the Early Man 

cultural period prior to 12,000 B.C.; and extending through the Paleo Indian, Archaic, Woodland, 

Mississippian, and Western cultures including the New Deal period. But just 12 sites, including the 

Refuge headquarters complex, have been identified on the Refuge and none on the management 

district lands. If the Derr tract is typical, many prehistoric and historic sites are likely located on 

uplands around the pools. As of April 2003, no properties on the National Register of Historic 

Places are located on Refuge and district lands.

Seven Indian tribes have been identified as possibly being associated with the Refuge and district 

lands and could have concerns about traditional cultural properties, sacred sites, areas of cultural 

activities, human remains, and items of cultural patrimony.

The Refuge has one museum collection at the University of Missouri. There is also a small natural 

history collection at the Refuge headquarters.

Cultural resources are important parts of the Nation's heritage. The Service is committed to 

protecting valuable evidence with each other and the landscape. Protection is accomplished in 

conjunction with the Service's mandate to conserve fish, wildlife, and plant resources.
30

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

3.2.6 Public Use 

The visitor center/headquarters at the Refuge 

has approximately 875 square feet of exhibit 

space. It is open to visitors Monday through 

Friday all year around and every day from midMarch to early May, and again from mid-October 

to early December. Exhibits include dioramas 

and mounted wildlife specimens. An addition to 

the visitor center includes an auditorium that 

seats 100 people. Outside the visitor center there 

is an overlook with interpretive signs and an 

information kiosk.

A major visitor attraction is the arrival of 

thousands of Snow Geese on their fall and spring 

migration routes. A 10-mile auto tour route, a hiking trail, interpretive panels, and two observation 

platforms facilitate the viewing of the flocks.

There are two hiking trails near the visitor center. The Mike Callow Memorial Trail (0.25 mile) is 

accessible to visitors with disabilities. The Loess Bluff Trail (0.25 mile) climbs from the visitor 

center to the top of the loess bluffs, providing a panoramic view of the Refuge.

In fiscal year 2001, Squaw Creek NWR's visitation totaled 134,245 visits with Visitor Contact 

Station visits totaling 41,683. A significant number of groups visit from local area Missouri school 

districts representing Holt County, St. Joseph City Schools, and Kansas City Metropolitan Schools. 

Out-of-state school districts from Kansas and Nebraska and two local college departments have also 

utilized Refuge resources. 

In fiscal year 2001, visitors participating in interpretation and nature observation totaled 177,742 

on-site visits. A total of 290 talks, tours, and demonstrations were conducted that year. Interpretive 

foot trail uses totaled 13,650 visits and the auto tour had 134,245 visits. The visitor trail uses of the 

observation platform, Eagle Pool tower, and Callow Memorial Trail totaled 32,512 visits in 2001. 

3.2.6.1 Potential Refuge Visitors

In order to estimate the potential market for visitors to the Refuge, we looked at 1998 consumer 

behavior data for an area within an approximate 60-mile radius. We used a 60-mile radius because 

this was an approximation of a reasonable drive to the Refuge for an outing. The area included the 

Missouri counties Atchison, Nodaway, Worth, Gentry, Holt, Andrew, De Kalb, Buchanan, Clinton, 

Platte; the Nebraska counties Otoe, Johnson, Nemaha, Pawnee, Richardson; the Kansas counties of 

Nemaha, Brown, Doniphan, Jackson, Atchison; and the Iowa counties Fremont, Page, Taylor.

The consumer behavior data that we used in the analysis is derived from Mediamark Research Inc. 

data. The company collects and analyzes data on consumer demographics, product and brand usage, 

and exposure to all forms of advertising media. The consumer behavior data were projected by 

Tetrad Computer Applications Inc. to new populations using Mosaic data. Mosaic is a methodology 

that classifies neighborhoods into segments based on their demographic and socioeconomic 

composition. The basic assumption in the analysis is that people in demographically similar 

neighborhoods will tend to have similar consumption, ownership, and lifestyle preferences. Because 

of the assumptions made in the analysis, the data should be considered as relative indicators of 

potential, not actual participation.

Frank Durbian
31

Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment

We looked at potential participants in birdwatching, photography, freshwater fishing, hunting, and 

hiking. In order to estimate the general environmental orientation of the population we also looked 

at the number of people who potentially might hold a membership in an environmental organization.

The consumer behavior data apply to persons greater than 18 years old. For the counties that we 

included in our analysis, the population of persons greater than 18 years old was 283,024. The 

estimated maximum participants in the 60-mile radius for each activity are: birdwatching (22,992), 

photography (31,399), hunting (24,921), freshwater fishing (42,953), and hiking (27,237). The number 

of persons who might hold a membership in an environmental organization is 6,697. The projections 

represent the core audience for repeated trips to the Refuge. On days with major attractions such 

as Eagle Days and when large numbers of birds are at the Refuge, visitors can be expected to travel 

longer distances.

3.3 Current Management

3.3.1 Habitat Management

Management of Refuge habitats involves a variety of techniques to control and enhance habitat 

conditions. Our primary objective is to provide waterfowl and other wildlife with diverse habitats to 

meet myriad resting, feeding and nesting needs. 

3.3.1.1 Wetland Management

Wetland habitats on Squaw Creek NWR include approximately 3,452 acres of managed wetlands, 

with 15 independently managed marshes in 10 designated pools (Figure 11). Pools include:

Refuge staff manipulate water levels in the wetlands to affect habitat structure and waterfowl use. 

The level of the Missouri River can affect the staff's ability to manipulate water levels in Refuge 

wetlands during flood stages on the river.

3.3.1.2 Moist Soil Units

In a normal year, the water level is lowered during the summer to establish moist-soil vegetation. 

After plants are established in the summer, the units are gradually reflooded in the fall to optimize 

use of the seed resources. During the spring the water level will gradually be lowered for use by 

migrating waterfowl, shorebirds and waders. The Refuge manages 15 independently managed 

lowlands in three designated moist soil units totaling 350 acres. They include:

Rice Paddies: This 60-acre area includes a group of eight small moist soil units separated by low 

level dikes that were built in the early 1960s. In 1991, the ditch and dike system was rehabilitated. 

Today the Rice Paddies are managed for to benefit shorebirds and dabbling ducks during the spring 

and fall migration.

Mallard Marsh North (400 acres Mallard Marsh South (190 acres)

Pintail Pool (200 acres) South Pintail Pool (25 acres)

North Pool (200 acres Snow Goose A: (71 acres)

Snow Goose B: (39 acres) Snow Goose C: (80 acres)

Snow Goose D: (40 acres) Snow Goose E: (50 acres)

Pelican Pool (600 acres) Long Slough (60 acres)

Cattail Pool (130 acres) Eagle Pool (900 acres)

Bluff Pool (200 acres)
32

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Figure 10: Current Landcover (2003), Squaw Creek NWR
33

Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment

Figure 11: Wet Habitat Management, Squaw Creek NWR
34

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Davis Creek: The Davis Creek moist soil units total approximately 250 acres in five units. They are 

located adjacent to the Rice Paddies on the west and Davis Creek on the east. Prior to development 

they were comprised of three crop fields, a damp savannah field of reed canarygrass and willow, and 

a lowland softwood forest. Construction of the Davis Creek water control structure in 1989 enabled 

the Refuge to convert the area from cropland to moist soil units.

Pelican MSU: This 40-acre unit was abandoned cropland and had reverted to reed canarygrass and 

brush. In 1991, an inlet water control structure was installed under the auto tour route to take 

water from Pelican Pool, the cross dike was rehabilitated and a new outlet water control was 

installed to release water into Davis Creek. This work permitted this 40-acre unit to be managed as 

a moist-soil unit.

3.3.1.3 Grasslands

Refuge grasslands, including bottomland mesic prairie, 

Loess Hills prairie, old fields and wet prairie, are used in 

the spring and fall by migrating grassland birds. A few 

ducks also nest in the grassland. The primary 

management concern related to grasslands is battling 

invasive species, shrubs and trees. Prescribed fire is the 

primary tool we use in maintaining grasslands. There are 

1,248 acres of grassland on the Refuge.

With the help of volunteers, Refuge staff are working to 

restore the Loess Hill Prairies. Restoration is manually 

intensive and involves cutting and piling brush on steep 

bluffs. In 2001, approximately 4 acres were cleared by 

volunteers and staff. 

3.3.1.4 Forests

Forests on the Refuge are used by deer, squirrels, raccoons, hawks, owls and a variety of birds. 

Heavy browsing by deer has affected forest land, particularly in terms of regeneration. We have 

conducted studies on the effects of browsing on sapling in an effort to improve the success rate of 

tree plantings. There are 1,378 acres of forest on the Refuge.

3.3.1.5 Cropland

The Refuge currently has 579 acres of cropland, but we are working with cooperative farmers to 

reduce that acreage. Three cooperative farmers currently have agreements to farm 473 acres on the 

refuge. Currently 34 of those acres are in clover. Actual crops in 2001 included 171 acres of corn and 

268 acres of soybeans. One-third of the corn produced was left standing in the field for wildlife food 

and cover. 

3.3.2 Fish and Wildlife Monitoring

Bald Eagles

Bald Eagle populations are monitored to determine total numbers using the Refuge as well as 

monthly use days and peak numbers. In 2001, the peak number of eagles (219) was up 7 percent 

from the 10-year average peak of 204 and total use days were 25 percent less than the 10-year 

average of 7,147.

Waterfowl

Waterfowl are monitored weekly in the spring and fall. The total number of waterfowl use days for 

Squaw Creek NWR in fiscal year 2001 was 8,352,088. 

Frank Durbian
35

Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment

Shorebirds

Spring and fall shorebird surveys are conducted by Refuge staff.

Marsh Birds and Other Water Birds

Marsh birds and other water birds, including grebes, pelicans, cormorants, bitterns, herons, egrets, 

ibis, and rails, are typically counted during the shore bird surveys. Although there is much variation 

and many missing species in these counts, due to the secretive nature of many of these birds, 

documentation of species occurrence is still considered important. 

Intensive searches for nesting marsh and water birds via airboat has been conducted since 1991 in 

all Refuge wetlands. The most common bird species nesting include the Pied-billed Grebe, Least 

Bittern and Common Moorhen while the American Coot is periodically found. The Refuge contains 

the largest known number of nests of these species documented in the State of Missouri.

Breeding Bird Mini-route

This survey, which follows Breeding Bird Atlas Mini-route protocol, has been conducted annually 

since 1989, with the exception of 1990 and 2000. To date 100 species have been identified on these 

routes. In 2001, 54 species were identified on the 2001 Breeding Bird Mini Route. 

Bottomland Forest Point Counts

Squaw Creek NWR harbors the largest wet prairie (approximately 600 acres) in Missouri and 

probably the Midwest. In an effort to begin documenting breeding bird use of this habitat type, 

preliminary point count surveys were undertaken in June 2001. This survey will be continued. 

White-tailed Deer

Annual deer counts, comprised mainly of spotlight surveys, have been conducted on Squaw Creek 

since 1988. Although no trends can readily be ascertained from past counts, due to limited sample 

size and variability of sample techniques, data from these counts does demonstrate that high deer 

densities exist on the refuge. In an effort to use current scientific methodology to obtain accurate 

deer densities and to standardize survey efforts the refuge began using spotlight distance sampling 

techniques in FY 2000. Results from FY 2000 indicated that distance sampling could be a useful 

method for determining deer density so this techniques was used again in FY 2001. 

Other Mammals

A muskrat house and beaver house census is completed annually. 

Christmas Bird Count

A Christmas Bird Count is completed annually.

Mid-winter Waterfowl Count

Squaw Creek NWR participates in the National Mid-Winter Waterfowl Survey.

Sedge Inventory

During the summer field season, several sedge inventories were conducted on the Refuge. Species 

located included three Missouri Species of Special Concern: tussocks sedge (Carex stricta), 

Sartwell's sedge (Carex sartwellii) - only three locations in the state, and wolf spike rush 

(Eleocharis wolfii). Also located is the largest known population of Missouri Sedge (Carex 

missouriensis) in the state.
36

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Amphibians

Squaw Creek has been conducting amphibian deformity surveys since 1997 and has completed frog 

and toad calling surveys since 2001. Collection of this data is important as it provides both a baseline 

for future amphibian monitoring on refuges and wetland management districts, and additional data 

for identifying the extent of the problem on a national basis. All of the data collected is submitted to 

the USGS North American Reporting Center for Amphibian Malformations. To date, 724 frogs 

representing four species have been captured and examined for deformities on Squaw Creek NWR. 

Species examined include plains leopard frog, bullfrog, cricket frog and western chorus frog. 

Deformity rates have ranged from 0 - 4.2 percent and appear to fall within the bounds of what are 

considered to be normal deformity rates of 1-3 percent.

Invertebrates

In a cooperative effort to begin documenting dragonfly and damselfly species occurrence on the 

Refuge and in northwestern Missouri, the Refuge biologist teamed up with an entomologist with 

the Missouri Department of Conservation to conduct odonate surveys on the Refuge. A total of 23 

species were identified during three survey periods in 2001, two in July and one in September.

3.3.3 Public Use

An estimated 130,000 people visit Squaw Creek NWR 

every year; Visitor Contact Station visits totaled 41,683 

visits in 2001. With the construction of a new auditorium 

completed in 2003, we are better positioned to inspire 

visitors to care about the Refuge, the National Wildlife 

Refuge System and conservation in the future.

Most people experience the Refuge by driving our 10-

mile auto tour route, which provides excellent 

opportunities for people to observe waterfowl and Bald 

Eagles. The Refuge also offers an observation platform 

at Davis Creek, an observation platform at the terminus 

of the Eagle Overlook hiking trail between Pelican Pool 

and Eagle Pool, the Loess Bluff hiking trail, which climbs 

a steep bluff to provide an outstanding view of the Refuge, and the Callow Memorial trail, which is 

accessible to visitors with disabilities, and terminates at the base of the loess bluffs.

Deer Hunting: The Refuge manages a firearm (muzzle-loading only) hunt for antlerless deer each 

year to reduce an over abundant population of white-tailed deer. Deer hunting procedures follow 

state laws and hunters who apply are randomly selected by the Missouri Department of 

Conservation. Refuge staff operate a check station where all hunters must enter and exit the 

Refuge and harvested deer are tagged and biological information is collected.

Fishing: Because of the varying water levels, the fishery resource is limited to rough fish. Fishing is 

permitted from the pool edges and stream banks in accordance to Missouri State fishing 

regulations. Snagging of non-game fish is also permitted at the Eagle Pool water control outlet 

structure during years when the pool levels exceed planned water elevations and excess water is 

released.

Wildlife Observation and Photography: Year-round, the Refuge provides a beautiful landscape and 

diverse wildlife viewing opportunities. In December, Eagle Days draws several thousand people to 

the Refuge to drive the auto-tour and attend an eagle show. Wildlife observation is enhanced by 

Refuge facilities including an auto tour route, hiking trails, observation decks, and scopes.

Frank Durbian
37

Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment

Environmental Education/Interpretation: Refuge staff offer interpretive programs, tours and 

demonstrations. Many groups visit from local Missouri school districts representing Holt County, 

St. Joseph City Schools, and Kansas City metropolitan schools. School districts from Kansas and 

Nebraska also use Refuge resources, and a number of college and university classes use the Refuge 

for field trips during the year. Interpretation is facilitated with an orientation video and information 

on signs in the field and in the visitor center.

3.3.4 Species Management

Integrated management of invasive or pest plants, animals and insects is a program on the Refuge 

in support of high quality habitats and human health. Our primary goals is to provide complex 

habitat structures to meet the nesting, feeding, and resting requirements of migratory birds and 

other wildlife.

We use a variety of techniques in the integrated management of invasive plants. These techniques 

include monitoring the invasive species, manual and mechanical manipulations, timing of activities, 

chemical and biological control techniques, and introduction of competing species.

3.3.4.1 Animal Species

High densities of species like white-tailed deer, beaver and raccoons can severely affect habitat 

quality or other species. We are seeking to maintain acceptable densities of these species. We 

continue to monitor deer herds and manage density through a public hunt. Beaver are trapped 

when a management problem is identified.

3.3.4.2 Plant Species 

Invasive or pest plants can affect many habitat types found at the Refuge. Reed canary grass and 

American lotus can invade wetlands; Illinois garlic mustard and marijuana can invade Loess Hill 

areas; black locust, honey locust, and johnsongrass can invade grasslands. To reduce encroachment 

by these species, we use several management techniques, such as hand pulling individual plants, 

mowing, burning, water level manipulation, plowing and chemical applications. The technique we 

select is influenced by management objectives, intensity of encroachment, best land use practices, 

cost, and timing of application.

3.3.5 Archaeological and Cultural Resources

Undertakings accomplished on the Refuge and the management district have the potential to 

impact cultural resources and are subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

and sometimes other laws.

Thus the Refuge Manager, during early planning, provides the Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer (RHPO) a description and location of all projects, activities, routine maintenance and 

operations that affect ground and structures, requests for permitted uses, and of alternatives being 

considered. The RHPO analyzes these undertakings for potential to affect historic properties and 

enters into consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and other parties as 

appropriate. The Refuge Manager notifies the public and local government officials to identify 

concerns about impacts by the undertaking. The notification is at least equal to, and preferably 

with, public notification accomplished for NEPA and compatibility.

3.3.6 Special Management Areas

3.3.6.1 Farm Services Administration Conservation Easements

Squaw Creek NWR is responsible for managing conservation easements within the Squaw Creek 

Wildlife Management District, a 15-county area in northwest Missouri. The Conservation 

easements were obtained through the procedures of the Farm Services Administration (FSA), 
38

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

formerly Farmers Home Administration, or FmHA. When the FSA acquires property through a 

default of loans, it is required to protect wetland and floodplain resources on the property prior to 

resale to the public. The authority and direction for the FSA actions comes from the consolidated 

Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981, 1985); Executive Order 11990 providing for the 

protection of wetlands; and Executive Order 11988 providing for the management of floodplain 

resources.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assists the FSA in identifying important wetland and floodplain 

resources on the property. Once those resources have been identified, FSA protects the areas 

through a perpetual conservation easement and assigns the management responsibility to the 

Service. The easement areas become part of the national Wildlife Refuge System.

Currently 34 easements covering 1,553 acres are recorded on deed and three fee-title tracts totaling 

911.5 acres are located in 10 of the district counties.
39

Chapter 4: Management Direction

Chapter 4: Management Direction

4.1 Planned Refuge Programs

4.1.1 Introduction

Managing a national wildlife refuge demands 

that we chart a long-term course that will ensure 

the health and persistence of wildlife and habitat 

species. There may be too many variables to plot 

a course into the future that is as precise as a 

road map, but we can at least note a few 

landmarks to steer by. Through this 

comprehensive conservation plan, which has 

been developed with the participation of the 

State of Missouri and other partners, and with 

participation by neighbors and other interested 

people, we have defined goals that will guide 

Squaw Creek NWR for the next 15 years. 

Section 4.2 details goals for the Refuge, the objectives we have identified for achieving those goals, 

and the strategies by which we mean to achieve our objectives. In this section, we provide a brief 

overview of our plans for Squaw Creek NWR.

4.1.2 Habitat

In considering the Refuge’s future, we are mindful that the Refuge was established to provide a 

resting, breeding and feeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife. We intend to 

accomplish this by providing a diversity of habitats, with particular emphasis on wetlands. We will 

maintain uplands that create diverse habitats. We will manage forest land to benefit migratory 

songbirds and to benefit threatened and endangered species, other migratory birds, and indigenous 

species. We will work with farm program cooperators to convert cropland to grassland or 

woodlands. By continuing our work with private landowners using existing programs, we will 

contribute to reducing erosion and sedimentation and improving the quality of surface runoff 

waters.

4.1.3 Fish and Wildlife

We will learn more about annual peak populations of wildlife using the Refuge so that we better 

understand species’ needs and the Refuge’s ability to meet those needs. We will maintain waterfowl 

use day levels at a minimum of 5 million, however we will assist in international efforts to reduce 

the mid-continent population of Lesser Snow Geese. This will include reducing cropland on the 

Refuge as well as offering a spring Snow Goose hunt. We will better manage deer populations to 

Frank Durbian
40

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

improve the quality of Refuge habitat. We will seek Refuge designation as a Western Hemispheric 

Shorebird Reserve Network, which would contribute to funding initiatives and gain international 

recognition of the Refuge and its work to conserve indigenous species. We will maintain bottomland 

cottonwood forest areas in an effort to support Bald Eagles during fall and winter migration 

periods. We will maintain habitat that is critical to the Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake and Least 

Bittern.

4.1.4 Wildlife-dependent Recreation, Environmental Education and 

Interpretation

Our programs will inspire people to care about Squaw Creek NWR, natural resources, and the 

environment. Toward that end, we will focus on improving the quality of the visit. To accomplish 

this, we will design and implement interactive programs that meet Service standards and bring 

existing facilities up to Service standards. We will improve our orientation maps and signage. We 

appreciate traditional Refuge visitors and want them to continue coming to Squaw Creek NWR, 

and we will reach out to diverse groups of people who are not traditional Refuge visitors.

Volunteers play a critical role at the Refuge, and we want 

to strengthen our relationships with volunteers (and 

through them, the community) by drawing more people 

to contribute their time and talent to the Refuge. We will 

work to strengthen our relationship with Friends of 

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge.

4.1.5 Avoidance of Impacts to Listed Species

To assure that listed species will not be adversely 

affected, proposed species are not jeopardized, or critical 

habitat is not adversely modified, we will observe the 

following guidelines as we implement the Squaw Creek 

NWR CCP.

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

No disturbance will take place during critical periods within protective zones as described in the 

1983 Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan, Appendix E, Management Guidelines for 

Breeding Areas.

Eastern Massassauga Rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus)

Although not currently listed, the Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake is a candidate for listing. As 

the CCP is implemented, the Refuge will seek opportunities for conservation of this species on and 

off the Refuge. We will use Johnson et al., 2000, The Eastern Massassauga Rattlesnake: A 

Handbook for Land Managers, USFWS, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota, and the results of current 

research efforts to guide our conservation efforts.

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

The Piping Plover is a rare visitor to the Refuge and is not observed annually. They are generally 

seen during the spring migration but do not nest on the Refuge. If any birds were to attempt to 

nest, the location would be secured and free from disturbance.

4.1.6 Climate Change Impacts

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies 

under its direction that have land management responsibilities to consider potential climate change 

impacts as part of long range planning endeavors.

Frank Durbian
41

Chapter 4: Management Direction

The increase of carbon within the earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface 

temperature commonly referred to as global warming. In relation to comprehensive conservation 

planning for national wildlife refuges, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related 

impact to be considered in planning. The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Carbon Sequestration 

Research and Development” (U.S. DOE, 1999) defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and 

secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.”

The land is a tremendous force in carbon sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts – grasslands, 

forests, wetlands, tundra, perpetual ice and desert – are effective both in preventing carbon 

emission and acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric carbon monoxide. The Department of 

Energy report’s conclusions noted that ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration 

and may reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere.

Preserving natural habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long range plan for national wildlife 

refuges. The actions proposed in this comprehensive conservation plan would conserve or restore 

land and water, and would thus enhance carbon sequestration. This in turn contributes positively to 

efforts to mitigate human-induced global climate changes.

4.2 Goals, Objectives and Strategies

The following goals for habitat, wildlife and people are general statements of what we want to 

accomplish in the next 15 years.

The objectives are specific statements of what will be accomplished to help achieve a goal. 

Objectives describe the who, what, when, where, and why of what is to be accomplished. Strategies 

listed under each objective specify the activities that will be pursued to realize an objective. The 

strategies may be refined or amended as specific tasks are completed or new research and 

information come to light.

Goal 1: Habitat

Manage a diversity of habitat to benefit threatened and endangered species, waterfowl, other 

migratory birds, and indigenous species in Lower Missouri River floodplain ecosystem and the 

Central Tallgrass Prairie ecosystem. Rationale: Squaw Creek NWR was established in 1935 to 

provide a resting, breeding and feeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife. A diversity 

of habitats will be maintained in optimum condition with particular emphasis on wetland 

enhancement to meet the primary Refuge purpose (Figure 12). The wetland diversity will include a 

mosaic of mudflats, shallow water, moist soil, flooded timber and deep water permanent marshes to 

support a large variety of marsh, water and shore birds with special emphasis on spring and fall 

habitat for migrating waterfowl. The upland will include the maintenance of native warm and cool 

season grasses, brushland, timber and croplands, to achieve a diverse mosaic of habitats rather than 

monotypic stands. These habitats will be managed to attract and support Federal and State listed 

endangered, threatened, and candidate species. Utilize existing programs to encourage private 

landowners to improve soil and water conservation management that will result in reduced soil 

erosion and sedimentation and improved quality of surface runoff waters.

1.1. Objective: Wetlands: Manage 3,452 acres of seasonally flooded impoundments that will be 

manipulated to provide open water, exposed shoreline and mudflats, and shallow 

wetlands traditionally preferred by migratory birds and other wetland- associated 

wildlife species.

Rationale: The Refuge is an important stopover during the spring and fall 

migration for marsh, water and shorebirds. Managed water impoundments on the 
42

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Figure 12: Future Desired Land Cover, Squaw Creek NWR
43

Chapter 4: Management Direction

Refuge help to offset the ever diminishing availability of wetland habitat along the 

Missouri River floodplain.

Strategies:

1. Manage water levels in Eagle Pool (900 acres) and Pelican Pool (600 acres) 

primarily for resting and roosting migrating waterfowl, by maintaining 

elevations at approximately 852.0 MSL during the fall and spring migratory 

periods. Start recharging pools no later than October 1 to achieve full pool level 

by November 15. Other species to benefit from this management action are 

Least Bittern, Pied-billed Grebe and Common Moorhen.

2. Provide for open water habitat in Eagle and Pelican pools by mechanical or 

chemical treatment or by burning to control American lotus, river bulrush, and 

cattail when vegetative surface area coverage exceeds 80 percent. Yearly 

vegetation monitoring will be conducted to assess status of problem vegetation.

3. Maintain a minimum of 15 percent of cattail stands; use summer drawdowns to 

encourage regrowth of cattail on Eagle and Pelican pools for nesting species 

such as Least Bittern, Yellow-headed Blackbird, and Marsh Wren.

4. Maintain minimum winter depths of 12 to18 inches in Eagle and Pelican pools 

for muskrat survival to assure open water areas (muskrat eat-out areas) will be 

available for roosting and resting waterfowl.

5. Drawdown water in 40 percent of the remaining wetland impoundments 

annually to encourage growth of shallow water and moist-soil plants to benefit 

waterfowl and provide mudflats and exposed shoreline to benefit shorebirds.

6. Allow water levels to fluctuate naturally in the remaining 60 percent of wetland 

impoundments for the benefit of species requiring standing water such as 

waterfowl broods, water birds, reptiles, amphibians, and muskrats.

7. On a 5-year cycle, mechanically or chemically treat or prescribe burn a minimum 

of 300 acres each year to maintain early successional stage, reduce undesirable 

plants, encourage preferred seed producing plants, create additional shoreline 

and mudflat habitat, and provide open water.

8. Davis Creek moist soil unit No. 1 (28 acres) and Cattail Triangle (14 acres) will 

be permanently managed as seasonal mudflat and open shallow water habitat 

specifically for spring and fall migrating shorebirds. This will be accomplished 

annually by early spring drawdown, summer mechanical manipulation, and late 

summer flooding.

9. Install water control outlet structures on Snow Goose Unit C into Squaw Creek 

to enhance water and habitat management capabilities.

10. Construct a bridge across the north end of Davis Creek to provide access to 

Bluff Pool for water management, wildlife surveys, and prescribed burning. The 

present access east of Davis Creek is through private land or along the top 

slopes of the creek which is not accessible during wet weather. (RONS Project 

No. 99018)

11. Repair the east dike of Mallard Marsh and Pintail Pool along Squaw Creek 

using material from the ditch. During high water regimes, silt-laden water 

continues to overtop the east dike in both pools in several locations, adversely 

affecting the long-term health of these marshes.
44

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

12. During the next 15 years, the 

inlet water control structures on 

Eagle Pool and Pelican Pool and 

outlet structures on Pelican Pool 

need to be replaced. In addition, 

the Eagle Pool radial gates, built 

in the late 1930’s, are 

deteriorating and need to be 

replaced. (MMS Project No. 

03012)

13. Upgrade the Davis Creek water 

control structure. The base needs 

to be raised 1 to 2 feet to prevent 

deposition of silt under the radial 

gate. (MMS Project No. 97180)

14. Remove excess silt from moist soil units and pools to improve the wetlands. Soil 

will be used to repair and to improve pool dikes and refuge roads.

15. Utilize the Geographic Information System (GIS) to track wetland management 

activities and habitat changes. (RONS Project No. 99011)

16. Add seasonal tractor operator to enhance and to improve management of 

wetland and moist soil program (.5 FTE). (RONS Project No. 99015)

17. Place dead trees in wetland areas to provide resting and sunning areas for 

turtles and water snakes.

18. Convert 42 acres of bottomland mesic prairie to a managed wetland by 2004. 

This area will be an extension of North Mallard Marsh and will be used to 

provide fill dirt for an MoDOT bridge replacement project on 118 Highway, 

immediately adjacent to the Refuge. The MoDOT will create the wetland, at no 

cost, and at the same time obtain fill dirt for the bridge replacement project in 

an area currently dominated by reed canary grass, an invasive species.

19. Conduct a study of the water supply to the Mallard Marsh pump as well as the 

hydrologic connection of the Loess Hills watershed to the Refuge to determine 

if acquisition and management of adjacent lands would increase the amount of 

available water and improve water management on the Refuge.

1.2. Objective: Wet Prairie: Conserve and enhance the largest remnant wet prairie in Missouri by 

preserving and maintaining the integrity of at least 1,077 acres of wet prairie 

through elimination of non-native species and restoration of associated natural 

functioning systems (e.g. hydrolic systems, fire, etc.).

Rationale: Squaw Creek’s wet prairie contains the largest meta population of the 

Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake in Missouri. This snake is a State-listed 

endangered species and is being considered as a federally listed species. Other 

species benefitting from a vigorous wet prairie are Sedge Wrens, rail species. and 

Short-eared Owls. In 1936 there were approximately 3,000 acres wet prairie on the 

Refuge. By 2003, 1,077 acres of wet prairie remained on the Refuge. 

Strategies:

1. Conduct small mammal, invertebrate, reptile, and nongame bird surveys to 

assess diversity and usage of wet prairie.

Frank Durbian
45

Chapter 4: Management Direction

2. Annually inventory and monitor wet prairie vegetation for species composition 

and successional changes to determine future management regimes.

3. Utilize a seasonal rotational prescribed burning program in the wet prairie to 

reduce exotic invasive species and woody encroachment and promote native 

grass and forb production.

4. Monitoring will be conducted to determine the effects of seasonal burning on 

wet prairie vegetative communities, invasive species, and Massassauga 

populations.

5. Efforts will be made to minimize any adverse effect of the prescribed burning 

program on the Massassauga population and other wetland species. This may be 

accomplished by burning smaller segments of the wet prairie during spring and 

summer months and mowing certain areas before burning. Section 7 

consultations will be conducted as necessary for prescribed burning on 

designated wet prairie units.

6. Maintain current disced fire breaks and initiate additional mowed (hayed) 

firebreaks to improve seasonal prescribed burning opportunities and prevent 

wildfires from consuming the entire wet prairie area, which would cause 

detrimental effects on the Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake and breeding bird 

populations.

7. Add a full-time prescribed fire specialist to implement and to advance the 

prescribed fire program. (RONS Project No. 02003)

8. Employ chemical applications to control invasive and exotic species such as 

honey locust and reed canarygrass.

9. Develop a rotational haying strategy to supplement enhanced grass stand vigor.

10. Assess pre- and post-treatment conditions to evaluate treatment success of 

prescribed burns, chemical applications and rotational haying.

11. Restore prairie cordgrass south of Pintail Pool, the northeast corner of Pintail 

Pool and the triangle area in the middle of Snow Goose Pool to suppress reed 

canarygrass stands.

1.3 Objective: Bottomland Mesic Prairie: Manage 508 acres of bottomland mesic prairie habitat to 

provide quality nesting cover for nongame migratory birds (dickcissels, 

grasshopper sparrows, field sparrows, and sedge wrens) as well as nesting and 

wintering cover for upland gamebird species, breeding waterfowl (mallards, blue 

wing teal, and shovelers), and other associated wildlife species, by maintaining, 

enhancing, and restoring grasslands to a mixture of warm and cool season native 

grasses. This habitat will be managed to maximize native vegetation abundance, 

minimize fragmentation and maximize the minimum patch size for area-dependant 

species.

Rationale: Bottomland mesic prairie is not commonly found off-Refuge due to 

habitat modifications.

Strategies:

1. Conduct small mammal, invertebrate, reptile and nongame bird surveys to 

assess diversity and usage of bottomland mesic prairie.

2. Utilize a seasonal rotational prescribed burning program in the bottomland 

prairie to reduce exotic invasive species and woody encroachment and promote 

native grass and forb production.
46

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

3. Monitoring will be conducted to determine the effects of seasonal burning on 

bottomland mesic prairie vegetative communities, wildlife species, and invasive 

species.

4. Maintain current fire breaks and initiate additional mowed (hayed) fire breaks 

where necessary to improve seasonal prescribed burning opportunities and 

prevent wildfires.

5. Add full-time prescribed fire specialist to implement and to advance the 

prescribed fire program. (RONS Project No. 02003)

6. Employ chemical applications to control invasive and exotic species such as 

honey locust and reed canarygrass.

7. Develop a rotational haying strategy to supplement enhanced grass stand vigor.

8. Assess pre- and post-treatment conditions to evaluate treatment success of 

chemical applications and rotational haying.

9. Convert 200 acres of agricultural cropland and 59 acres of old field to 259 acres 

of native bottomland mesic prairie by 2015.

10. Utilize basic farming practices in grasslands restoration to control invasive 

species and to prepare seedbed for effective native seed establishment.

11. Plant native forbs in existing grassland areas after prescribed burns and include 

forbs in future grassland restoration efforts.

1.4 Objective: Loess Hills Prairie: Manage 299 acres of Loess Hill prairie habitat to provide 

quality nesting cover for nongame migratory birds and other associated wildlife 

species by maintaining, enhancing and restoring grasslands to a mixture of warm 

and cool season native grasses. This habitat will be managed to maximize native 

vegetation abundance, minimize fragmentation and maximize minimum patch size 

for area-dependant species.

Rationale: The Refuge currently contains 221 acres of Loess Hill prairie habitat, 

which is a rare and unique ecotype. There is also the potential to convert 78 acres of 

agricultural land to Loess Hill prairie. Preservation and management of this ecotype is important as it is threatened by conversion to agriculture, urbanization and 

succession.

Strategies:

1. Continue loess bluff grassland bird monitoring programs, especially for Region 

3 Resource conservation Priority species.

2. Inventory loess bluff plant species to guide preservation and management of 

Missouri Species of Conservation Concern such as low milk vetch, hairy grama, 

downy painted cup, nine-anther dalea, skeleton plant and small soapweed yucca.

3. Conduct surveys for small mammals, reptile, amphibians and invertebrates.

4. Continue to restore native warm season grasses and forbs in the loess bluff hills. 

Hand-cut invading tree species and brush on the steep slopes. Utilize chemical 

applications on invading plant species such as roughleafed dogwood, honey 

locust, tree of heaven, and Illinois garlic mustard.

5. Convert 78 acres of agricultural land (Munkers Tract) to native loess hill prairie 

by 2006.
47

Chapter 4: Management Direction

6. Utilize a seasonal rotational prescribed burning program for all upland 

grassland areas to reduce exotic invasive species and woody encroachment, 

promote native grass and forb production leaving a minimum of 60 percent of 

grassland for nesting and winter cover each year.

7. Develop a haying/mowing strategy to supplement the prescribed burning plan 

for grassland maintenance.

8. Plant native forbs such as liatris, purple cone flowers, rattlesnake master, wild 

indigo, and lead plants in existing grassland areas after prescribed burns and 

include forbs in future grassland restoration efforts. When available, local 

ecotypes seeds (within 100 miles of the Refuge) will be used.

9. Maximize grassland blocks and minimize fragmentation and edge effect by 

removing fence/tree rows where appropriate.

10. Implement a vegetative monitoring program to evaluate the effects of all 

management options including prescribed burning, haying, mowing and 

chemical treatment on invasive species and native grass and forb communities. 

(RONS Project No. 02002)

11. Purchase bobcat-type skid loader with a tree shearer to remove invading locust 

or other exotic trees for the restoration and the preservation of the native 

prairie and unique loess bluff habitat. (RONS Project No. 00002)

12. Add full-time prescribed fire specialist to implement and to advance the 

prescribed fire program. (RONS Project No. 02003.)

1.5 Objective: Loess Hill Forest: Manage 378 acres of Loess Hills forest for the benefit of 

associated plant and wildlife species. 

Rationale: The Refuge contains 378 acres of Loess Hill forest habitat, which is a 

rare and unique ecotype. Preservation and management of this eco-type is 

important as it is threatened by conversion to agriculture, urbanization and 

succession to other habitat types.

Strategies:

1. Conduct plant, small mammal, invertebrate, reptile, and nongame bird surveys 

to assess diversity and usage of loess hill forest.

2. Conduct a forest inventory.

3. Map distribution of Illinois garlic mustard to aid evaluation of control efforts. 

(RONS Project No. 99007)

1.6 Objective: Bottomland Forest: Manage the 1,000 acres of bottomland forest to provide 

optimum nesting, resting, and feeding habitats during breeding and migrational 

periods for migratory waterfowl and songbirds and to benefit threatened and 

endangered species, and other indigenous species. This habitat will be managed to 

maximize native vegetation abundance, minimize fragmentation and maximize the 

minimum patch size for area-dependant species.

Rationale: A number of bottomland forest-dependent, migratory songbirds are rare 

and declining as a result of insufficient or fragmented habitat. Conservation and 

management of suitable habitat are principal strategies for attaining more abundant 

populations of these birds. Wood Ducks and Hooded Mergansers also utilize 

woodland habitat.
48

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Strategies:

1. Flood bottomlands within Davis Creek moist soil units 3, 4 and 5 during the 

spring and fall waterfowl migrations for use by Mallards, Wood Ducks and other 

waterfowl species.

2. Move wood duck nesting structures from open water areas and ditches to 

bottomland and upland woodland sites and annually maintain structures.

3. Complete a forest resources inventory to determine quality and quantity of 

woodlands. This will be accomplished utilizing federal as well as state expertise. 

The data will aid in determining management alternatives.

4. Study the causes for the loss of bottomland forests understory that is adversely 

affecting woodland birds and other wildlife. Investigate potential measures to 

restore the bottomland forest understory and tree regeneration. 

5. Map distribution of Illinois garlic mustard and reed canarygrass to aid 

evaluation of control efforts.

6. Utilize prescribed burning to reduce invasive exotic species and encourage 

growth of tree saplings to restore a woodland understory.

1.7. Objective: Croplands and Old Fields: Implement a long range plan to convert 279 acres of the 

579 existing cropland acres and 59 acres of existing old field to mesic bottomland 

prairie and Loess Hill prairie. The reduction will be accomplished by 2015 through 

attrition of current cooperators.

Rationale: While croplands contribute very little to the overall Refuge biological 

objectives for wildlife they do attract wildlife concentrations that enhance 

opportunities for wildlife observation and photography. Conversion of cropland to 

other uses is costly and requires several seasons to implement, thus limiting the 

number of acres that can be converted to an average 25 acres annually.

Strategies:

1. Monitor utilization of croplands by all wildlife species to assess habitat benefits/

costs of maintaining some Refuge acreage in croplands.

2. Continue annual cooperative farming agreements with local farmers to provide 

share-crop grain for wildlife.

3. Implement phased reductions and complete by 2015.

4. Implement a 3-year crop rotation that includes cool season grasses (clover) 

planted on fields during noncrop years.

5. Convert the 78 acres of croplands on the Munkres tract to Loess Hill prairie by 

2006, containing a mixture of warm season native grasses such as little bluestem 

and sideoats grama that are preferred by nongame birds (Grasshopper 

Sparrows, Field Sparrows, and Bob-o-links) and forbs such as liatris, purple 

cone flowers, rattlesnake master, wild indigo, and lead plants. Remove the fence 

adjacent to the headquarters grassland unit.

6. Convert the 200 acres of cropland and 59 acres of old field to bottomland mesic 

prairie by 2015, containing a mixture of warm season native grasses such as 

little bluestem and sideoats grama, which are preferred by nongame birds 

(Grasshopper Sparrows, Field Sparrows and Bobolinks) and native forbs.
49

Chapter 4: Management Direction

1.8. Objective: Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species: Control and reduce the presence of exotic, 

invasive, and nuisance species of plants and animals on the Refuge. Non-native 

species will not exceed 2003 density or distribution levels.

Rationale: Control of exotic plants is a long-term challenge. Methods used will 

depend on particular species, severity of impact and overall circumstances.

Strategies:

l. Develop a plot or grid system for assessing the magnitude of the problem using 

GIS technology and design a monitoring protocol incorporating means of 

measuring or estimating infestations. (RONS Project No. 99011)

2. Use appropriate integrated pest management techniques such as prescribed 

burning, herbicides, mechanical and biological control techniques.

3. Involve volunteers, including members from Audubon Societies, Friends 

groups, students and Scouts in manual control efforts of Illinois garlic mustard.

4. Continue active monitoring to be able to detect invasions and to take 

appropriate control measures.

5. Utilize short-term farming to eliminate invasive species in grassland restoration 

efforts.

6. Continue monitoring of gypsy moth traps.

1.9 Objective: Land Acquisition: Working with willing sellers, acquire up to 400 acres in fee title of 

existing and restorable wetlands within the authorized Refuge boundaries (Figure 

13).

Rationale: Completion of the authorized boundaries will provide additional wildlife 

habitat and reduce total miles of boundaries to maintain.

Strategies:

1. Initiate action to identify willing sellers and to proceed with getting the 

acquisition proposal included in the Land Acquisition Priority System.

2. Prioritize acquisition of wetland and prairie habitat types.

Private Lands

Rationale: Excessive sedimentation and poor water quality is a major challenge to 

the maintenance and management of Refuge wetlands and moist soil units. To deal 

with these issues in the watershed, existing programs will be used to encourage 

private landowners to improve soil and water conservation management. Spillways 

and ditches will be maintained to prevent flood damage and siltation. We will 

continue to work with the Natural Resource and Conservation Service, Holt County 

Soil and Water Conservation District, the Geological Survey and local upstream 

private landowners in Squaw, Davis and Porter Creek watersheds to reduce soil 

erosion and to improve water quality, particularly as it affects the Refuge.

1.10 Objective: Watershed Improvement: Reduce sedimentation from soil erosion and improve 

water quality on Squaw Creek NWR from private lands in the 60,000-acre upstream 

watershed using conservation practices fostering improved soil and water uses. By 

2010, approximately 100 percent of the goals established in the Agricultural NonPoint Source Pollution (AgNPS) project in Squaw Creek will be accomplished, 
50

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Figure 13: Existing and Authorized Refuge Boundary
51

Chapter 4: Management Direction

including erosion practices, water quality, riparian conservation and nutrient 

management.

Rationale: Although Squaw Creek was established with the knowledge that 

sedimentation was a problem, its frequency of occurrence and magnitude were 

greater than expected. In order for the Refuge wetlands to survive in to the future, 

work has to be accomplished in the 60,000-acre upstream watershed to reduce flood 

events and to improve water quality.

Strategies:

1. Continue to work (through Partners for Fish and Wildlife cost sharing) with the 

Holt County Soil and Water Conservation District and Natural Resources and 

Conservation Service to improve water quality and to reduce peak flows 

entering Squaw Creek.

2. Continue to provide financial incentives to private landowners through the 

above partners to implement conservation measures within the Squaw and 

Davis Creek watershed.

3. Monitor water quality and quantity entering the Refuge in both Squaw and 

Davis Creeks in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey.

4. Look for opportunities to purchase land from willing sellers as it becomes 

available within the authorized Refuge boundaries. (See Strategy 1.10).

Refuge Wildlife Management District

Rationale: Refuge staff will continue to manage and conserve the 15-county Refuge 

Wildlife Management District to develop, improve, and maintain the wetland and 

riparian habitats within the management district to benefit a broad spectrum of 

both game and non-game migratory birds and other resident wildlife species and to 

maintain riparian corridors, wetlands and upland habitats for erosion control and 

wildlife values. These areas are not open to public use.

1.11 Objective: Wildlife Management District: Develop, improve, and maintain native riparian, 

wetland, and grassland habitats consistent with the existing dominant vegetative 

structure (non-agricultural crop), contributing to soil and water conservation within 

the Management District and also benefitting a broad spectrum of both game and 

non-game migratory birds and other resident wildlife species.

Rationale: A number of grassland-dependent, migratory songbirds are rare or 

declining as a result of insufficient or fragmented habitat. Conserving, restoring and 

managing suitable habitat is one of the principal strategies for attaining more 

abundant populations of these birds. Therefore habitat restoration and resource 

conservation will be aggressively pursued on the fee title and easement lands within 

the Refuge Wildlife Management District.

Strategies:

1. Actively manage all established native grasslands through a rotation of 

prescribed burning, mowing, haying, flash grazing or chemical treatments for 

control of invasive woody species and for maintaining quality grassland habitat.

2. Work with the easement owners to convert former cropland areas, with suitable 

soil types, to native warm and cool season grasses. This may require the use of 

short-term farming to eliminate invasive species and to prepare the seed bed for 

native grass seeding.
52

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

3. Monitor grasslands to formulate a yearly strategy of management activities to 

benefit Region 3 Conservation Priority Species.

4. Develop or restore all suitable wetland and riparian sites on easement 

properties.

5. Work with property owners to educate them of moist soil benefits and to 

accomplish management and maintenance requirements of the wetlands and 

riparian corridors on their easements.

6. Fence riparian areas as necessary to prevent damage from cattle.

7. Survey easement and fee title lands on the Kier, Shank, Christensen, Harris, 

Woody, Landes, Orndorff, Riley and Lager properties to delineate boundaries to 

protect the land from trespass and other unauthorized uses. (RONS Project No. 

99001)

8. Actively enforce U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulations on easement and fee 

title wetlands and riparian corridors.

9. Continue to participate in the private lands program (Partners) whenever 

possible. Assist the Natural Resource and Conservation Service in WRP 

evaluations.

4.2.2 Goal 2: Wildlife

Conserve species indigenous to the Refuge, the Lower Missouri River Ecosystem, and the Central Tallgrass Prairie 

Ecosystem with emphasis on those species identified in the Service’s Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities.

2.1 Objective: Regional Shorebird Designation: designation of Squaw Creek National Wildlife 

Refuge as a regional shorebird site of the Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve 

Network (WHSRN) by 2005.

Rationale: The WHSRN designation will support funding initiatives, obtains 

international recognition of the Refuge, emphasizing the value of conserving the 

indigenous species. The designation is a measure of success in meeting the habitat 

needs of shorebirds.

Strategies:

1. Conduct fall and spring migration season surveys to document shorebird use 

and abundance and to determine if the Refuge will qualify for the designation.

2. After data collection, complete 

nomination form with applicable data 

and forward to the Regional Director 

for approval and submission to 

WHSRN for designation.

2.2. Objective: Population Counts: Obtain annual peak 

population counts and use days for Bald 

Eagles, Snow Geese, other waterfowl, 

and other indicator species using 

procedures outlined in the Wildlife 

Inventory Plan.

Rationale: The population surveys will 

help staff document priority use habitats, 

Frank Durbian
53

Chapter 4: Management Direction

monitor for disease, provide information of interest to the public and other agencies, 

evaluate the success in habitat management to meet species needs, and to document 

presence or absence of less common species.

Strategies:

1. Utilize the most efficient, state-of-the-art technologies and survey methods 

available. (RONS Project 00008)

2. Maintain a high level of disease monitoring of waterfowl during the spring and 

fall migrations and readiness to deal with a major disease outbreak.

3. Monitor any encroachment by non-native wildlife and plant species to be able to 

effectively implement control measures.

4. Document the utilization of different habitats by indicator species to better 

predict effects of future natural and induced habitat changes on populations.

5. Monitor marsh and water bird nesting.

6. Continue inventory of Refuge reptiles, amphibians, fish and plants in order to 

document known species for determining long-term monitoring, habitat 

preservation and management.

7. Continue and increase grassland bird monitoring, especially for Region 3 

Resource Conservation Priority species, such as the Grasshopper Sparrow, 

Henslow’s Sparrow and Dickcissel.

8. Document the utilization of Wood Duck and Eastern Bluebird boxes.

2.3 Objective: Waterfowl Use Days: Maintain annual waterfowl use day levels of a minimum of 5 

million by providing adequate habitat as discussed under the habitat goal and based 

on a 5- year running average of waterfowl data, excluding Snow Geese.

Rationale: The Refuge provides valuable waterfowl migration habitat consistent 

with the Refuge purpose. Due to habitat loss throughout the flyway, it is important 

that Refuges maintain or increase their ability to support waterfowl.

Strategies:

1. Monitor arrivals and concentration build-ups in accordance with the Wildlife 

Inventory Plan, with the specific intent to witness and record annual peak 

numbers and date of occurrence of special interest species.

2. Monitor waterfowl activity during migration periods in order to evaluate the 

use of various habitat types.

3. Monitor waterfowl concentration for indication of disease and stress and be 

prepared to implement the Disease Plan.

4. When waterfowl concentration exceeds objective levels to the extent the 

welfare of the waterfowl is at risk, such as in the control of disease outbreaks, 

implement disturbance measures that result in concentration reductions.

5. Record population data in a consistent format that enables comparisons of 

actual populations and trends with stated objectives.

2.4 Objective: Reduction of Snow Geese: Actively assist international efforts to reduce the midcontinent population of Snow Geese by at least 5 percent each year until the Arctic 

Goose Working Group reduction goal has been achieved.
54

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Rationale: The Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group has determined that the 1998 

base population of 3 million should be reduced by 50 percent. Enhanced food 

supplies and winter survival have led to a mid-continent Snow Goose population 

increasing 5 percent annually in recent years. Their numbers now far exceed the 

carrying capacity of their summer breeding range in the Arctic tundra of northern 

Canada. Consequently, the birds are causing extensive, long-term damage to tundra 

vegetation and soils, taking a toll on the entire critical roosting area during the fall 

as well as spring migrations. Geese leave the Refuge in the morning and evening 

each day to feed on private agricultural fields, thereby allowing hunting 

opportunities in and around Northwest Missouri and Northeast Kansas. Squaw 

Creek NWR typically harbors an average peak population of 250,000 to 350,000 

snow geese. Short of draining the Refuge wetlands, which would negatively impact 

other species, there is little the Refuge can do to actively reduce Snow Goose use of 

the Refuge. Reduction of some habitats attractive to the geese and facilitating 

increased hunting opportunities will help reduce the population in a minor way. 

More than 130,000 visitors come to Squaw Creek, primarily in the fall, to view this 

spectacular wildlife phenomenon.

Strategies:

1. Within 1 year of completion of this CCP, Refuge staff will initiate a managed 

spring snow goose hunt.

2. Reduce cropland acreage from 579 acres to approximately 300 acres by 2015.

3. Discourage Snow Geese from utilizing Refuge croplands in the spring by 

disking stubble fields in late winter or early spring or by strategically 

manipulating Refuge shares on field edges.

4. Continue to provide open water night time roosting areas in Eagle and Pelican 

pools for Snow Geese. Snow Geese fly out in the morning and evening each day 

to feed off-Refuge. As a result, the Refuge acts as a magnet for birds in 

Northwest Missouri and Northeast Kansas yet provides hunting opportunities 

as birds leave the Refuge twice per day to feed.

5. Increase the effort to obtain Snow Goose neck collar readings during the spring 

and fall migrations to assist in determining the status and the movement of 

birds.

2.5 Objective: White-tailed Deer Management: Manage the size of the white-tailed deer herd on 

the Refuge through controlled hunts to reduce a Refuge white-tailed deer herd at a 

fall relative density of 20 to 25 deer per square mile.

Rationale: Hunting is one of the six compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses. Accurate density is difficult to determine because the population fluctuates 

both seasonally and annually. Current high deer densities negatively impact 

habitats, such as understory vegetation in the bottomland forests. This negatively 

impacts other species of interest.

Strategies:

l. Continue to monitor the size of the herd through annual spotlight surveys in 

cooperation with universities and other State and federal agencies.

2. Monitor for signs of habitat damage such as browse lines, vegetative conditions, 

and crop depredation on Refuge lands.
55

Chapter 4: Management Direction

3. Monitor health of herd using standard techniques at the Refuge check station in 

cooperation with universities and other State and federal agencies.

4. Continue muzzleloading firearm antlerless only deer hunts by issuing permits 

commensurate with the need to control population size while providing a high 

quality recreational experience.

5. Initiate a research study to determine the effects of browse damage by whitetailed deer on the woodland understory that could impact migratory birds and 

other wildlife and recommend potential restoration measures.

Species of Special Concern

Rationale: The Service’s Region 3 has identified Fish and Wildlife Resource 

Conservation Priorities, including species indigenous to the Refuge and the Lower 

Missouri River Ecosystem. These species and their habitats will be actively 

conserved, restored, and managed on Service lands managed by the Refuge staff.

2.6 Objective: Bald Eagle: Maintain the bottomland cottonwood forest areas and isolated mature 

cottonwood stands that provide roosting and nesting sites and that exist in 2003 and 

continue to provide habitat that maximizes Bald Eagle use days during fall and 

winter migration periods.

Rationale: Bald Eagle populations peak at 200-plus birds during fall and winter 

migration periods. At least one pair has attempted to nest on the Refuge since 1997; 

there was one successful nest in 1998 and again in 2001.

Strategies:

1. Manage riparian cottonwood forests to ensure sustained stands of mature roost 

and nest trees. Protect live trees from beaver damage with wire shields.

2. Develop designated regeneration sites that will allow flooding and other 

treatments to encourage seedling development.

3. Manage public access to assure that breeding and nesting habitat is 

undisturbed.

2.7 Objective: Eastern Massassauga Rattlesnake: Maintain existing wet prairie habitat of 1,077 

acres and increase bottomland mesic prairie by 217 acres (Figure 14). This will 

enhance the habitat used by the Eastern Massassauga rattlesnakes on Squaw Creek 

NWR (see objective 1.4 regarding increasing the habitat acreage). The population 

numbers and habitat use will be monitored to assess the response to the habitat 

manipulation.

Rationale: The Refuge supports one of only three remaining massassauga 

populations in Missouri, out of 13 historical populations in the state.

Strategies:

1. Continue to participate in studies and research projects.

2. Continue to monitor local population status and responses to habitat 

manipulation such as prescribed burns and water management.

3. Participate in cooperative studies to determine the current range of Eastern 

Massassauga rattlesnake to determine if acquisition of adjacent lands would 

benefit the species.
56

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

2.8 Objective: Least Bittern: By providing hemi-marsh cattail habitat suitable for nesting, the 

Refuge will benefit Least Bitterns, a species that is ranked as an “imperiled” 

species by the State of Missouri. The population distribution and numbers will be 

monitored through surveys and other research.

Rationale: Even though the Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation 

Priorities list does not include the Least Bittern in the Lower Missouri River 

ecosystem as a species of special concern, it is ranked as ‘imperiled’ by the State of 

Missouri. Studies on the Refuge indicate that more than 90 percent of Least Bittern 

nests are found in cattail stands, which are diminishing with the loss of wetland 

habitat. The Refuge includes one of the largest nesting sites for this species in the 

Midwest.

Strategies:

1. Maintain the presence of cattail stands. (See Objective 1.2).

2. Continue to monitor Least Bittern nesting activity.

2.9 Objective: Passerine Species: The Refuge will support and follow the recommendations listed 

in Region 3’s Resource Conservation Priorities for the rare and declining passerine 

Figure 14: Eastern Massassauga Rattlesnake Landcover, Squaw Creek NWR
57

Chapter 4: Management Direction

species identified in Appendix I. Management interest will focus upon species for 

which the Refuge is or was within their primary range.

Rationale: Many passerine species identified in the Region’s Resource 

Conservation Priorities have suffered population declines due to habitat loss.

Strategies:

1. Refuge staff will collect biological data when applicable from routine censuses 

and monitoring activities. (See the strategy under Objective 2.2.)

2. Habitat critical for the rare and declining species identified in Appendix I will 

be conserved and restored. (See Objective 1.4)

3. When possible, the Refuge staff will support partners in cooperative 

conservation actions to benefit passerine species.

4. The Refuge staff will encourage and support efforts to educate the public about 

rare and declining species.

2.10 Objective: State of Missouri species of concern, such as long-tailed weasels, spotted skunks, 

and Franklin’s ground squirrels, will be reported to Missouri Department of 

Conservation staff when observed on or near the Refuge.

Rationale: Reporting rare species sightings to Missouri Department of 

Conservation staff will assist that agency in tracking the distribution and 

abundance of these species.

Strategy:

1. Report any observation of these species, including the date and location of the 

observation, to the Department of Conservation.

4.2.3 Goal 3: People

Visitors, nearby residents and other stakeholders will enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation and education; appreciate the 

natural resources and ecological processes and cultural resources of Squaw Creek NWR; help achieve the objectives of 

the Refuge; and support the Service’s mission.

Rationale: The 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (page 

58 of that document) provides data that indicate 16 percent (160,000) of the 1 million people living 

within a 100-mile radius of the Refuge are potential non-consumptive visitors. Approximately 

130,000 people now visit the Refuge annually. Some of these visitors may only visit the Refuge once 

in a lifetime, while others are repeat or even frequent visitors. We want to provide dynamic 

programs, displays, interactive facilities, wildlife viewing, and printed materials that will encourage 

every visitor to share their experience with others and to make return visits. We also want visitors 

of all abilities to feel welcome and to enjoy a safe visit to an area that they recognize as a national 

wildlife refuge.

3.1 Objective: Interpretation: Design, fund and implement interpretive programs and facilities 

that meet Service standards and that will attract and accommodate up to 130,000 

visitors annually.

Rationale: Environmental interpretation raises public awareness of the reasons to 

conserve and manage natural resources.
58

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Strategies:

1. Develop clear Refuge interpretive themes related to key resource issues that 

will guide the creation of exhibits, signs, brochures and programs.

2. Advocate interpretive program funding in accordance with RONS Project No. 

00009.

3. Replace auto tour leaflet and trail leaflets with interpretive signs and sound 

posts that incorporate an interpretive them and that meet FWS sign standards. 

RONS Project No. 97003

4. Continue the development of interpretive aids for the Callow Memorial Trail.

5. Explore the possibility of extending the Loess Bluff Trail along the bluffs, 

making it a loop trail that connects to the Callow Memorial Trail. Install 

interpretive panels covering prairie and fire themes at the shelter at the peak of 

the Loess Bluff Trail.

6. Prepare new interpretive leaflets specifically for the following: mammals, 

reptiles and amphibians; the Loess Bluff Trail; and the history and work of the 

Civilian Conservation Corps on the Refuge in the 1930s.

7. Update all existing leaflets to current Service graphic standards. RONS Project 

No. 99016

8. Contract with an exhibit design and production firm to develop a concept plan 

for the visitor center/headquarters.

9. Remove the picnic tables and grills near the headquarters and create an 

accessible amphitheater in their place. Form a planning team to design the new 

facility.

10. Update the Refuge orientation video and add closed captioning.

3.2 Objective: Environmental Education: Offer environmental education programs, materials and 

facilities that meet Service standards and accommodate up to 6,000 students 

annually. Evaluate the effectiveness of the environmental education program by 

2013.

Rationale: Environmental education raises public awareness of the reasons to 

conserve and manage natural resources.

Strategies:

1. Contact schools to alert them to Refuge facilities, resources and educational 

opportunities by means of fliers, letters or personal contacts with individual 

teachers.

2. Conduct annual teacher workshops to demonstrate various environmental 

education activities teachers can use on the Refuge during the school year; 

sample lesson plans will be used to augment the workshop demonstrations.

3. Encourage teachers to recommend the Refuge environmental education 

program to their colleagues.

4. Develop accessible, Refuge-specific environmental education activities that are 

linked to local and state education standards. Solicit active involvement from 

local teachers. Develop a teacher’s manual for school visits consisting of a previsit planning guide and pre-visit and post-visit activities.
59

Chapter 4: Management Direction

5. Expand the visitor and office space in the headquarters building to enhance 

visitor services and accommodate additional staff. There is presently a small 

visitor contact station and inadequate office space Make the building universally 

accessible. RONS Project No. 00001

6. Expand the outdoor classroom facilities by adding a boardwalk with a learning 

station into a marsh area so school children can experience the importance of 

wetlands and wildlife habitats. The learning station will encourage participants 

to collect water samples and discover the dynamics of aquatic life. RONS 

Project No. 99017

7. Add a seasonal clerk to staff the visitor contact station desk during the peak 

public use periods (fall and spring migrations) to greet visitors and school 

groups and assist the Park Ranger in giving programs (0.3 FTE). RONS Project 

Nos. 00009 and 02001

8. Recruit and train volunteers to conduct activities and to give an introduction to 

school groups when they visit the Refuge.

3.3. Objective:Wildlife Observation and Photography: 

Maintain, improve, and develop to Service standards 

facilities and programs to encourage more interactive 

visitor participation resulting in a higher quality outdoor 

experience. This includes the existing 10-mile circular 

auto tour route, the 2-mile Mallard Marsh Road, the three 

walking trails and, by 2013, an extension of the Callow 

Memorial Trail to form a looped trail with the Loess Bluff 

Trail and a one-quarter-mile boardwalk to a marsh.

Rationale: Well maintained service facilities and high 

quality programs help create a positive visitor 

experience, increasing the likelihood that the Refuge’s 

conservation message will be appreciated and understood.

Strategies:

1. Upgrade the surface of the auto tour route by raising and resurfacing 

approximately 7,900 feet along Davis Creek, which continues to be overtopped 

by flood water from Davis Creek. MMS Project No. 96242

2. Black top the entrance road to the auto tour route from Highway 159 to the 

Davis Creek observation deck and develop interpretation at the observation 

deck. This will include parking for visitors with disabilities. MMS Project No. 

98151

3. Replace the deteriorated, inadequate public restroom with a modern, energyefficient facility. MMS Project No. 00219

4. Develop one or more accessible wildlife observation blinds to be used by an 

increasing number of photographers and by the general public.

5. Study, develop and construct an accessible boardwalk by 2015 that will permit 

visitors to experience the marsh by foot. (Same project as 3.2.6. above) RONS 

Project No. 99017

6. Replace the deteriorated black top surface in the headquarters entrance road, 

the visitor parking lot, staff parking lot and maintenance courtyard. MMS 

Project No. 98151

Frank Durbian
60

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

7. Maintain the auto tour route and public use signs so visitors can explore the 

Refuge safely and easily. MMS Project No. 01014 and RONS Project No. 97003

8. Maintain walking trails so that they are free of debris and litter and are safe for 

visitors.

9. Seal the blacktop surface of the Callow Memorial Trail and complete the 

extension of the gravel walk out to the grasslands as well as complete a looped 

trail from the Loess Bluff Trail to the Callow Trail by 2010.

10. Maintain the gravel and wood chip walking surface on the Loess Bluff Trail and 

provide a 6-foot-wide path for walking. Continue to ensure rock steps and 

railing are secure and steps clean of debris.

11. Maintain the walking surface of the Eagle Overlook Trail and regularly inspect 

the observation tower for wasp nests and loose steps. Install a kiosk at the trail 

entrance.

12. Provide a shorter alternate tour route loop within the existing Wild Goose 

interpretive loop. Change signs and all maps.

13. Create a two-way road between the beginning of the auto tour and the Eagle 

Pool hiking trail. Create an area for vehicles (including large vehicles) to turn 

around near the hiking trail. Create a parking lot with an accessible space at the 

trailhead. Install appropriate traffic signs and wayfinding signs and change the 

Refuge maps accordingly.

14. Create several pull-off areas on the tour route to allow passing and to allow 

short-term parking for viewing wildlife.

15. At overlooks, provide a high-quality photo of the optimum view (e.g., 

concentrations of geese, fall foliage) so that visitors with low vision can examine 

the view on a sign. With a good photo, all visitors will be able to see the optimum 

view even when conditions are not optimal (for instance, the weather is poor, it 

is outside of migration season, etc.). At the Loess Bluff trailhead, provide a 

quality photo of the view from the bluff top for use by visitors with mobility 

disabilities.

16. On a kiosk at each trailhead, provide a simple map of each trail and information 

about what visitors can expect to see on the trail at different times of the year. 

If the trail is long, or if there are loops and intersections (e.g., extended Bluff 

Trail), provide additional maps indicating “You Are Here,” direction to trailhead 

and distance to trailhead, as appropriate.

17. Improve the surface of the Eagle Pool hiking trail to FWS accessibility 

standards and add accessible benches.

3.4 Objective: Hunting and Fishing: Provide high-quality recreational hunting opportunities for 

up to 135 deer hunters per season. Continue to allow bank fishing at legal public 

access points throughout the Refuge.

Rationale: More than 135 deer hunters will increase hunter complaints/conflicts and 

likely increase hunter density to unsafe levels. Additional hunting opportunities will 

be provided by allowing the take of multiple deer by individual hunters according to 

the herd reduction needs. Incentives may also be offered, such as requiring hunters 

to take two antlerless deer before they can take one buck.
61

Chapter 4: Management Direction

Strategies:

1. Continue measuring the quality of the deer hunt through 1) informal interviews 

with hunters and/or responses to questionnaire developed to facilitate feedback, 

2) number of participating hunters, and 3) annual harvest rate.

2. Continue to manage the deer hunt to minimize conflicts with other uses and 

resources.

3. Continue to work with the Missouri Department of Conservation regarding 

deer hunting regulations and harvest quotas.

4. Continue to permit public fishing at legal public access points.

5. Inform the public when snagging of rough fish is permitted.

6. Provide at least one accessible deer hunting blind (visually screened from auto 

tour route) with signage and a parking space. Establish a reservation system so 

that the blind or blinds are available to disabled hunters if needed and available 

to all hunters if not needed by hunters with disabilities. Advise prospective 

hunters about the availability of an accessible blind through prehunt 

information materials. Plant a vegetation screen or remove the blind after the 

hunt season. The blind will be available during the regular hunting season.

7. Update the Refuge’s Fishing Plan.

3.5 Objective: Mushroom Gathering: Allow opportunities for mushroom gathering in selected 

areas.

Rationale: Mushroom gathering is minimal most years depending on the size of the 

crop. However, there is a demand for gathering mushrooms in the Refuge bluffs 

particularly during the spring turkey hunt that occurs on adjacent Missouri 

Department of Conservation lands. During this 40-day period, mushroom gatherers 

can pick mushrooms on the Refuge without the conflict of turkey hunting. In 

addition, the attraction of gathering mushrooms leads to public enjoyment of 

getting outside and into the woods.

Strategies:

1. Allow morel mushroom gathering in the loess bluffs from April 10 to May 20 

annually.

2. Patrol areas closed to mushroom picking during gathering season.

3.6 Objective: Public Information: By 2025, 60 percent of the people within 100 miles of the Refuge 

will be aware of the Refuge, its mission, its facilities and scheduled events. We will 

emphasize reaching diverse groups of people who are not part of the traditional 

Refuge audience.

Rationale: A public that is aware of the mission of Squaw Creek NWR and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System will more likely support management efforts of 

the Refuge and of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Strategies:

1. Implement additional means of publicizing the Refuge using various media, 

including electronic technologies and personal computers.
62

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

2. Ask visitors how they heard about the Refuge as a means of evaluating the 

success of publicity efforts.

3. Provide 24-hour telephone information to visitors with weekly updates of 

upcoming events and waterfowl numbers.

4. Create and keep current an accessible Refuge Internet website.

5. Maintain and update Refuge information at the Interstate 29 Highway rest 

stop. This rest stop is adjacent to the Refuge boundary and is only 1 mile from 

the Refuge exit.

6. Reinstitute the public service announcement slide show on the movie theaters 

in St. Joseph and expand to other theaters in the surrounding region.

7. Explore the possibility of utilizing highway billboards to increase visibility of 

Squaw Creek NWR and the Refuge System.

8. Continue to participate in the Oregon Fall Festival parade and expand to 

parades in other surrounding communities.

9. Maintain a current list of newspapers, radio and television station addresses and 

distribute a minimum of 35 Squaw Creek Digest news releases annually. 

Increase coverage to more news outlets.

10. Cultivate relationships with reporters, which can help interest them in covering 

the Refuge.

11. Report significant events to the Regional FWS public affairs staff promptly so 

they may become involved or provide follow-up information.

12. Report activities via the Accomplishment Report System so that information 

about events, activities and accomplishments can be disseminated to 

appropriate Congressional representatives.

13. Continue coordination with the St. Joseph Visitors and Convention Bureau in 

promoting Squaw Creek NWR.

14. Develop or obtain educational materials such as brochures and audio-visuals for 

dissemination to visitors.

15. Continue to participate in the local Boy Scouts of America Council to build 

interest in natural resource conservation ethics and careers.

16. Participate in “career day” programs in area schools and colleges to encourage a 

broad cross section of ethnic backgrounds to support and be involved in natural 

resource conservation.

17. Create a standard Refuge slide show that incorporates FWS, Refuge System 

and Refuge themes for use by staff and volunteers. Incorporate closed 

captioning.

18. Work with the Missouri DOT to improve the Bank Swallow wayside.

3.7 Objective: Volunteers: Increase the number of volunteer hours to 7,500 by 2013, with a 5 

percent annual increase thereafter, with volunteers serving both in the Visitor 

Contact Station and around the Refuge as interpretive and educational guides and 

in supervised habitat management projects.

Rationale: A dedicated corps of volunteers can significantly improve various 

Refuge programs as well as foster interaction with the surrounding community and 

provide an additional pillar of civic support and pride.
63

Chapter 4: Management Direction

Strategies:

1. Increase volunteer recruitment efforts through web sites, news releases, public 

service ads, movie screen promotions and outreach to civic and educational 

groups.

2. Be actively involved with and continue to encourage members of the Burroughs 

and Midland Empire Audubon societies, both of which have officially adopted 

Squaw Creek NWR, to increase their volunteer efforts.

3. Provide temporary housing, when available, for volunteers.

Objective 3.8: Friends of Squaw Creek NWR: Maintain and enhance a close working relationship 

with Friends of Squaw Creek NWR that helps foster common goals supporting the 

Refuge mission.

Rationale: Refuge Friends groups increase community understanding of Refuge 

resource management issues as well as providing significant support in dealing with 

issues.

Strategy:

1. Continue to support the Friends of Squaw Creek, which incorporated in 2000. 

Be actively involved by attending Board of Directors’ meetings and providing 

advice and assistance.

3.9 Objective: Governmental Agencies and Non-governmental Organizations: To increase 

awareness of and support for the Refuge, increase the level of active cooperation 

with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and governmental agencies on 

different aspects of on-Refuge and off-Refuge management and educational efforts, 

both in terms of the number of NGOs and the level of effort. The 2003 level of 

involvement with NGOs and governmental agencies (see Chapter 5, Partnerships) 

will be maintained, but additional efforts will be made to share Refuge information 

with these agencies and organizations during routine interactions with them.

Rationale: Partnerships will disseminate Refuge information and key messages 

more broadly and effectively than if the Refuge were to work alone.

Strategies:

1. Continue to work with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Holt 

County Soil and Water Conservation District and the U.S. Geological Survey to 

reduce sedimentation in the Refuge’s 60,000-acre upstream watershed (see 2.10. 

1.). RONS Project No. 97006

2. Continue to work with the Burroughs and Midland Empire Audubon societies.

3. Increase activity with the St. Joseph Visitor and Convention Bureau in 

promoting the Refuge and activities.

4. Increase activity and partnership with the Mound City Chamber of Commerce, 

Kiwanis and other local groups in the community.

5. Actively look for partnering opportunities with other regional conservation 

groups, service organizations and educational institutions.
64

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

3.10 Objective: Research: Actively encourage and provide technical assistance and logistical 

support to qualified researchers to support ongoing cooperative investigations of 

long-term management importance to the Refuge or that supports other compatible 

projects.

Rationale: By facilitating, encouraging and supporting research project on the 

Refuge, and by determining research needs on the Refuge, we can address 

management issues of long-term importance such as endangered species, 

sedimentation, water quality, biodiversity, and visitor satisfaction and appreciation 

of the Refuge.

Strategies:

1. Cooperate with the U. S. Geological Survey on its project to quantify stream 

flow and sediment entering the Refuge.

2. Solicit assistance from additional researchers and partners interested in the 

long-term viability of the Refuge wetlands (i.e. Ducks Unlimited, National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation).

3. Continue to work with the Missouri Western State College staff and students 

and encourage interest in white-tailed deer, grassland birds and other potential 

research projects.

4. Continue research on the Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake. Experimental 

summer prescribed burning on small acreages will be conducted, and the 

Refuge biologist will use a Global Positioning System to record Massassauga 

hibernacula and movements.

5. Promote other potential research opportunities in a number of other forums and 

media, including the Squaw Creek NWR website, conferences and 

presentations to college and university faculty/student meetings.

6. Provide temporary housing (when available) for researchers conducting 

projects on the Refuge.

3.11 Objective: Cultural Resources: Evaluate and preserve archeological and historic resources.

Rationale: The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 expands upon the 

Antiquities Act to protect all archeological sites more than 100 years old on Federal 

land, and to ensure that archeological investigations on Federal land are performed 

in the public interest by qualified persons.

Strategies:

l. Contract an archeological survey to identify and/or to preserve any potential 

Native American sites on new land acquisitions.

2. Determine status of buildings that are considered good examples of an early 

1900s farmstead on Munkre’s property. RONS Project No. 99002

3.12 Objective: Health and Safety: Ensure the health and safety of visitors, volunteers, and 

employees, and conserve the natural resources and physical property of the Refuge. 

Strive for zero accidents for visitors and no accidents resulting in loss of work for 

employees.
65

Chapter 4: Management Direction

Rationale: Refuge staff need a safe and healthy environment in which to perform 

their duties. Refuge visitors also need a safe environment to fully appreciate and 

enjoy their time at the Refuge.

Strategies:

1. Add one full-time law enforcement Refuge officer (1.0 FTE). RONS Project No. 

00006

2. Maintain credentials for a minimum of one collateral duty law enforcement 

Refuge officer.

3. Require either the full-time or collateral duty law enforcement Refuge officer to 

live in the present government housing.

4. Maintain adequate law enforcement presence on a daily basis to ensure that 

violations are deterred or successfully detected and the violator apprehended, 

charged and prosecuted.

5. Ensure that all officers are fully trained, equipped and prepared to perform 

preventative Refuge and management district law enforcement duties. Officers 

will receive in-service training on a regular basis. RONS Project No. 00007

6. Add a new electric gate at the main entrance and an emergency telephone for 

visitors to use if they are locked in after the gate closes. RONS Project No. 

03003

7. Complete a boundary survey on Munkre’s tract to determine property lines 

between four adjacent property landowners. The land was homesteaded in the 

mid-1850s and remained with the same family for the past 150 years. The 

assumed boundary line follows a deteriorated fence line. Well defined property 

lines will ensure that adjacent property rights are protected. (RONS Project 

No. 99002)

8. Provide routine maintenance and inspect annually all public use and Refuge 

facilities.

9. Promptly replace, upgrade or temporarily close any facility that, through 

damage or long-term wear and tear, compromises public safety.

10. Review and revise annually Maintenance Management System proposals to 

reflect current and future needs.

11. Administer and monitor required permits, licenses and inspections annually 

under the Federal Facility Compliance Act and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Policy.

12. Revise station safety plan and ensure that safety procedures, personal 

protective equipment and supplies are in place and kept current. Regularly 

update emergency information.

13. Conduct regular safety meetings covering a variety of pertinent topics.

14. Refresh staff in CPR (4 hours every 2 years) and first aid techniques and ensure 

employees receive all other required safety training and physical exams.

15. Continue to explore the provision of a safe, sanitary water supply by the rural 

water district or by an adjacent community.

Objective 3.13: Welcome and Orient Visitors: Provide visitors with a welcoming, comfortable 

experience through adequate guidance that does not detract from appreciating 

nature.
66

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Rationale: In order to have an enjoyable experience, visitors need clear wayfinding 

and visitor services information that is logically and conveniently located.

Strategies:

1. In brochures and at appropriate locations, provide enough information for 

visitors to evaluate whether they want to travel to a particular site.

2. Enhance the kiosks at the headquarters, the first observation deck and the 

Mallard Marsh entrance.

3. Revise and implement the station sign plan.

4. Indicate the location of restrooms on every Refuge map.

5. Install all information and wayfinding signs and sign mounts following FWS 

Sign Handbook format and standards.

6. Install wayfinding signs at intersections that indicate distance and directions to 

features of interest, the visitor center, local towns, etc. as appropriate to aid 

first-time visitors. Install site identification signs (e.g., “Eagle Pool Trail”) that 

can easily be read from within vehicles. Place a directional sign at the 

intersection between the U.S. 159 and the Headquarters indicating a right turn 

to reach Headquarters for arriving visitors.

7. Orient visitors with a “You Are Here” mark on all outdoor maps.

8. In brochures and on kiosks, inform visitors of what there is to see, when and 

where to see it, how to see it 9i.e., viewing tips similar to those of the Forest 

Service) at Headquarters and on the auto tour route.

9. At each kiosk, display a Fish & Wildlife Service shield and inform visitors of the 

Refuge regulations and hours, visitor center/office hours, the Refuge telephone 

number, and permitted and prohibited activities. Provide a map of the Refuge 

that indicates visitor facilities, closed areas, features of interest and accessible 

facilities.

10. With signs and/or brochures, inform visitors about the National Wildlife Refuge 

System and the role of Squaw Creek NWR at the auto tour route and at 

Headquarters.

11. Make the visitor center universally accessible, including access routes, displays, 

rest rooms, doors, signs, captions, the reception desk, the drinking fountain, 

videos, interactive exhibits, manager’s office, etc. Provide accessible parking 

spaces and an accessible route from the parking spaces to the building.

12. Include a statement in Refuge publications encouraging visitors to call and 

inform the Refuge before visiting if they have special needs due to disability.

13. At headquarters, provide orientation publications upon request in alternate 

formats for visitors with visual disabilities.

14. Upgrade all orientation to be accessible to visitors with visual disabilities 

following guidelines in the FWS Sign Handbook, the FWS Accessibility 

Guidelines or both.

15. Inform visitors at each hiking trailhead about the length of the trail and the 

difficulty for people with mobility disabilities (i.e. condition of trail, availability 

of benches and shade, maximum running slope, average cross slope, surface 

material).

16. Include office hours on the recorded message for the Refuge telephone.
67

Chapter 4: Management Direction

17. Identify and remove items that detract from the naturalness and aesthetic 

quality of the tour route experience. Remove excessive traffic signage, 

unnecessary gates, posts, reflective markers, etc. Remove or screen (with 

vegetation) stored items, stockpiles and equipment in view from auto tour route 

and from the Headquarters overlook.

18. On the auto tour route, create pedestrian places (landscaped and out of traffic) 

and parking at interpretive signs so that visitors can safely read the signs.

19. Create an attractive pedestrian-oriented place at the beginning of the auto tour 

that will encourage visitors to park and leave their vehicles to read information 

at a kiosk.

20. Clarify the information about when tour route gates may be closed before 

sunset or eliminate signs that conflict with the posted closing time.

21. At the beginning of the auto tour route, provide information about the 

approximate time required to drive the complete tour route. Note whether or 

not there are rest rooms on the route.

22. At the beginning of the auto tour route, provide information regarding the 

suitability of the route for large vehicles such as recreation vehicles and buses.

23. Develop an accessible Refuge web site that includes information similar to the 

items found on Refuge kiosks.
68

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Chapter 5: Implementation and Monitoring

5.1 Personnel Needs

Currently the staff of Squaw Creek National 

Wildlife Refuge consists of seven positions: 

refuge manager, refuge operations specialist, 

administrative technician, wildlife biologist, a 

park ranger, a maintenance mechanic, and tractor 

operator (Figure 15).

As the Refuge activities have expanded over 

recent years and Refuge visitation has increased, 

it has become difficult to efficiently run the 

Refuge to meet the demands of the resources as 

well as the public. To meet all of these needs, our 

plan is to fill the currently approved but vacant 

0.5 maintenance position and add a 0.5 seasonal 

clerical position (permanent seasonal or 

intermittent), add a full-time law enforcement 

officer, and add a full-time fire technician. The Refuge would continue to seek the assistance of 

interns to work in the headquarters greeting visitors.

A well-trained, highly motivated, professional staff with a mix of ages, genders, and race and 

adequate in numbers will aid in achieving the goals, objectives, and strategies of the CCP. 

Therefore, the Refuge must maintain a technically skilled and diverse work force that efficiently 

performs the tasks required to meet the goals of the Refuge.

To meet the staffing needs of the Refuge, ensuring a diverse, well trained, highly motivated, 

professional staff, Refuge management must: 

■ Maintain a full staff in accordance with the station's staffing plan.

■ Recruit in compliance with Service diversity directives.

■ Continue serving as official representatives on the Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities team and as the official contact with Missouri Western State College to 

facilitate diversity recruitment goals of the Service.

■ Provide training, development, and work responsibilities that promote job satisfaction 

and self development among Refuge employees and volunteers.

■ Provide all staff members opportunities for 40 hours of training annually; at least one such 

session will be at the Service's National Conservation Training Center.

■ Utilize special assignments or other means to broaden the experience of each employee.:

Frank Durbian
69

Chapter 5: Implementation and Monitoring

■ Assure that each employee prepares an Individual Development Plan and receives 

assistance and encouragement to carry it out.

To allow each employee and volunteer to adequately perform their work, the Refuge must provide 

adequate work space and sufficient equipment. To accomplish this the Refuge must:

■ Expand existing office space to accommodate the proposed staff of 10 employees requiring 

desk space. (RONS Project No. 00007)

■ Maintain an adequate inventory of tools of the trade, computers and accessories, office 

machinery, audiovisual equipment, etc. to enable each employee to perform proficiently 

and efficiently.

Figure 15: Squaw Creek NWR Staffing Chart, 2003-2018
70

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

5.2 New and Existing Projects

This CCP outlines an ambitious course of action for the future management of Squaw Creek 

National Wildlife Refuge. It will require staff and funding commitments to actively manage the 

wildlife habitats and improve public use facilities. The Refuge will continually need appropriate 

operational and maintenance funding to implement the objectives in this plan.

The following paragraphs describe the highest priority Refuge projects (Tier 1), as chosen by the 

Refuge staff. A full listing of unfunded Refuge projects and operational needs can be found in 

Appendix F.

■ Improve moist-soil/wetland vegetation (seasonal tractor operator)

■ Improve visitor services/outreach environmental education

■ Restore Loess Bluff/upland grasslands

■ Improve visitor services - interpretation and auto-tour route

■ Expand outdoor classroom facilities

■ Revise Refuge leaflets

■ Provide access east of Davis Creek

■ Law enforcement equipment

■ Improve visitor services operating and maintenance

5.3 Step-down Management Plans

Step-down management plans help meet the goals and objectives of the CCP. Some step-down 

plans are required by Service policy and others are used to specify strategies and implementation 

schedules beyond the detail of the CCP. The step-down plans identified in Table 1 will be reviewed 

and revised as necessary to achieve the objectives of the CCP.

5.4 Partnership Opportunities

Partnerships have become an essential element for the successful accomplishment of Squaw Creek 

National Wildlife Refuge goals, objectives and strategies. The objectives outlined in this CCP need 

the support and the partnerships of federal, state and local agencies, non-governmental 

organizations and individual citizens. This broad-based approach to managing refuge resources 

extends beyond social and political boundaries and requires a foundation of support from many 

organizations and people. Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge will continue to seek creative 

Table 1: Step-down Management Plan Schedule

Plan Completion Date

Safety Program 2004

Hazardous Materials Operations 2004

Law Enforcement 2005

Pest Management/Exotic Species 2005

Hunting 2006

Habitat Management Planning 2006

Inventory and Monitoring 2005
71

Chapter 5: Implementation and Monitoring

partnership opportunities to achieve its vision for the future. Partnerships will focus in particular 

on volunteers, Friends of Squaw Creek NWR, governmental and non-governmental organizations, 

and researchers working on the Refuge.

5.5 Monitoring and Evaluation

The direction set forth in this CCP plus specifically identified strategies and projects will be 

monitored throughout the life of this plan. Periodically, the Regional Office will assemble a station 

review team to visit Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge and evaluate current Refuge activities 

in light of this plan. The team will review all aspects of Refuge management, including direction, 

accomplishments and funding. The goals and objectives presented in this CCP will provide the 

baseline from which this field station will be evaluated.

5.6 Plan Amendment and Revision

The CCP for Squaw Creek NWR is meant to provide guidance to Refuge managers and staff over 

the next 15 years. However, the CCP is also a dynamic and flexible document and several of the 

strategies contained in the plan are subject to natural, uncontrollable events such as floods and 

droughts. Likewise, many of the strategies are dependent upon Service funding for staff and 

projects. Because of these factors, the recommendations in the CCP will be reviewed periodically 

and, if necessary, revised to meet new circumstances. If any revisions are major, the review and 

revision will include the public.

73

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

75

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 79

1.1 Purpose And Need For Action .......................................................................................................................................... 79

1.1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................. 79

1.1.2 Need for Action ..................................................................................................................................................... 81

1.2 Decision Framework ......................................................................................................................................................... 81

1.3 Background ....................................................................................................................................................................... 82

1.3.1 The United States Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................................................ 82

1.3.2 The National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................................. 82

1.3.3 Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge .............................................................................................................. 83

1.3.4 Squaw Creek NWR Vision Statement for Desired Future Condition ................................................................... 83

1.3.5 Refuge Goals ......................................................................................................................................................... 84

1.4 Scoping and Public Involvement ...................................................................................................................................... 85

1.4.1 Issues and Concerns ............................................................................................................................................. 85

1.5 Legal, Policy, And Administrative Guidelines .................................................................................................................. 87

1.5.1 Legal Mandates .................................................................................................................................................... 87

Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... 88

2.1 Rationale for Alternative Designs .................................................................................................................................... 88

2.2 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail ....................................................................................................... 88

2.3 Description of Alternatives .............................................................................................................................................. 89

2.3.1 Alternative A: Current Management Practices (No Action) ................................................................................. 89

2.3.2 Alternative B: Restore Historic Wet and Mesic Prairie ........................................................................................ 89

2.3.3 Alternative C: Enhance Public Use/Current Resource Management Level .......................................................... 94

2.3.4 Alternative D: Optimize Resource Management With Enhanced Public Use (Preferred Alternative) ................. 94

2.3.5 Alternative E: Intensive Wetland Management With Extreme Measures to Combat Sedimentation ................ 94

2.3.6 Elements Common to All Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 95

2.3.6.1 Fire .......................................................................................................................................................... 95

2.3.6.2 Listed Species and Other Species of Interest ........................................................................................ 99

2.3.6.3 Archaeological and Cultural Resource Values ....................................................................................... 99

Chapter 3: Affected Environment ..................................................................................................................................... 101

3.1 Description Of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................................. 101

3.2 Habitat Overview ............................................................................................................................................................. 101

3.2.1 Forested Resources .............................................................................................................................................. 101

3.2.2 Wetland Resources .............................................................................................................................................. 102

3.2.3 Grassland Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 102

3.2.4 Invasive Species ................................................................................................................................................... 102

3.2.5 Sedimentation and Water Quality ....................................................................................................................... 103

3.2.6 Geomorphology and Soils ..................................................................................................................................... 103

3.2.6.1 Geomorphology ....................................................................................................................................... 103

3.2.6.2 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................ 103

3.3 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................................................. 104

3.3.1 Migratory Bird Species ......................................................................................................................................... 104

3.3.2 Fish Species .......................................................................................................................................................... 104

3.3.3 Freshwater Mussels ............................................................................................................................................. 104

3.3.4 Mammals .............................................................................................................................................................. 104

3.3.5 Upland Game Birds ............................................................................................................................................... 104

3.3.6 Amphibians and Reptiles ...................................................................................................................................... 105

3.3.7 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................ 105

3.3.7.1 Mammals ............................................................................................................................................... 105

3.3.7.2 Birds ....................................................................................................................................................... 105

3.3.7.3 Reptiles .................................................................................................................................................. 105

3.3.7.4 Plants ..................................................................................................................................................... 106

3.4 Public Use ......................................................................................................................................................................... 106

3.5 Socioeconomics .............................................................................................................................................................. 107

3.6 Archeological and Cultural Values ................................................................................................................................... 107

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................................... 110

4.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 110

4.1.1 Environmental Justice .......................................................................................................................................... 110

4.1.2 Archaeological and Cultural Values ..................................................................................................................... 110
76

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

4.1.3 Climate Change Impacts .......................................................................................................................................111

4.1.4 Prescribed Fire as a Management Tool ................................................................................................................111

4.1.4.1 Social Implications ..................................................................................................................................111

4.1.4.2 Archaeological and Cultural Values .......................................................................................................112

4.1.4.3 Flora ........................................................................................................................................................112

4.1.4.4 Listed Species .........................................................................................................................................112

4.1.4.5 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................113

4.1.4.6 Escaped Fire ...........................................................................................................................................114

4.1.5 Trapping ...............................................................................................................................................................114

4.1.6 Snow Goose Management ..................................................................................................................................114

4.1.7 Squaw Creek Wildlife Management District .......................................................................................................114

4.2 Alternative A: Current Management Practices (No Action) ...........................................................................................115

4.2.1 Listed and Other Species of Interest ....................................................................................................................115

4.2.2 Wildlife and Habitat Resource Management .......................................................................................................115

4.2.3 Sedimentation and Water Quality ........................................................................................................................115

4.2.4 Public Use and Education ......................................................................................................................................115

4.3 Alternative B: Restore Historic Wet and Mesic Prairie ...................................................................................................118

4.3.1 Listed and Other Species of Interest ....................................................................................................................118

4.3.2 Wildlife and Habitat Resource Management .......................................................................................................118

4.3.3 Sedimentation and Water Quality ........................................................................................................................119

4.3.4 Public Use and Education ......................................................................................................................................119

4.4 Alternative C: Enhance Public Use/Current Resource Management Level .....................................................................120

4.4.1 Listed and Other Species of Interest ....................................................................................................................120

4.4.2 Wildlife and Habitat Resource Management .......................................................................................................120

4.4.3 Sedimentation and Water Quality ........................................................................................................................120

4.4.4 Public Use and Education ......................................................................................................................................120

4.5 Alternative D: Optimize Resource Management With Enhanced Public Use / Preferred Alternative ............................120

4.5.1 Listed and Other Species of Interest ....................................................................................................................120

4.5.2 Wildlife and Habitat Resource Management .......................................................................................................120

4.5.3 Sedimentation and Water Quality ........................................................................................................................121

4.5.4 Public Use and Education ......................................................................................................................................121

4.6 Alternative E: Intensive Wetland Management with Extreme Measures to Combat Sedimentation ............................121

4.6.1 Listed and Other Species of Interest ....................................................................................................................121

4.6.2 Wildlife and Habitat Resource Management .......................................................................................................121

4.6.3 Sedimentation and Water Quality ........................................................................................................................122

4.6.4 Public Use and Education ......................................................................................................................................122

4.7 Cumulative Impacts ..........................................................................................................................................................122

4.7.1 Listed Species and Other Species of Special Interest ..........................................................................................122

4.7.1.1 Impacts of Alternatives ...........................................................................................................................123

4.7.2 Wildlife and Habitat Resource Management .......................................................................................................123

4.7.2.1 Background .............................................................................................................................................124

4.7.2.2 Impacts of Alternatives ...........................................................................................................................124

4.7.3 Perilous Abundance of Snow Geese .....................................................................................................................126

4.7.3.1 Impacts of Alternatives ...........................................................................................................................126

4.7.4 Sedimentation and Water Quality .......................................................................................................................126

4.7.4.1 Impacts of Alternatives ...........................................................................................................................127

4.7.5 Public Use ..............................................................................................................................................................127

Chapter 5: List of Preparers ..............................................................................................................................................132

Chapter 6: List Of Agencies, Organizations, And Persons Contacted .......................................................................133

Chapter 7: Appendices .......................................................................................................................................................136

Figure 1: Map of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge .....................................................................................................80

Table 1: Comparison of Alternatives by Refuge Goals ..........................................................................................................90

Table 2: Landcover Acreages for Alternatives A, B, C, D and E ...........................................................................................116

Table 3: Weighted Average Species Occurrence for Selected Species Groups ...................................................................119

Table 4: Comparison of Impacts by Issue and Alternative ....................................................................................................129
77

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

DRAFT

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Department of the Interior

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN

FOR SQUAW CREEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Abstract: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to implement a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge in Missouri. This 

Environmental Assessment (EA) considers the biological, environmental, and socioeconomic effects 

that implementing the CCP (the preferred alternative is the proposed action) and four other 

alternatives would have on the issues and concerns identified during the planning process. The 

purpose of the proposed action is to establish the management direction for the Refuges for the 

next 15 years. This management action will be achieved by implementing a detailed set of goals, 

objectives, and strategies described in a CCP. 

Responsible Agency and Official:

Robyn Thorson, Regional Director

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building

1 Federal Drive

Ft. Snelling, MN 55111

Contacts for additional information about this project:

Ron Bell, Refuge Manager

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

P.O. Box 158

Mound City, Missouri 64470

660/442-3187

Thomas Larson, Chief of Conservation Planning

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

NWRS/Conservation Planning

Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building

1 Federal Drive

Ft. Snelling, MN 55111

612/713-5430

79

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for the 

Proposed Action

1.1 Purpose And Need For Action

1.1.1 Purpose

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to prepare and implement a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) for Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). The Refuge is 

located in northwestern Missouri near Mound City and approximately 70 miles north of Kansas 

City, Missouri (Figure 1).

The purpose of the proposed action is to establish the management direction of the Refuge for the 

next 15 years. The action is needed because adequate, long-term management direction does not 

exist for the Refuge. Management is now guided by several general policies and short-term plans. 

Future management direction will be defined in a detailed set of goals, objectives, and strategies 

described in the CCP. Another purpose is to adopt the Fire Management Plan for the Refuge and 

make it available to the public again.

Refuge Purpose Statements are primary to the management of each refuge within the System. The 

Purpose Statement is derived from the legislative authority used to acquire specific refuge lands 

and is, along with Refuge System mission, the basis on which primary management activities are 

determined. Additionally, these statements are the foundation from which “allowed” uses of refuges 

are determined through a defined “compatibility process.” 

The Refuge was established on August 23, 1935, by Executive Order 7156 of President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt “in order to effectuate further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act” and 

the lands are to be used “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

This is the formal purpose of the Refuge.

Throughout the 100-year existence of the National Wildlife Refuge System, its functional direction 

and purpose has evolved to reflect its ever increasing value as a collection of irreplaceable habitats 

representing the diverse natural heritage of America. In so doing, the purposes of individual 

refuges such as Squaw Creek have broadened from somewhat narrow definitions aimed at specific 

animal groups to include entire ecosystems and all the wildlife species and plants within them.

Other aims of Squaw Creek NWR include preserving, restoring, and managing wetland and upland 

habitats that represent the Lower Missouri River ecosystem for the benefit of a diverse complex of 

fauna and flora, with emphasis on threatened and endangered species; and providing opportunities 

for the public to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation.
80

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Figure 1: Map of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge
81

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

This Environmental Assessment (EA) and the CCP are also needed to assess existing management 

issues, opportunities and alternatives, and then determine the best course for managing the natural 

resources of the Refuge. Further, this action will satisfy the legislative mandate of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, which requires the preparation of a CCP for all 

national wildlife refuges.

This EA was prepared using guidelines of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Act 

requires us to examine the effects of proposed actions on the natural and human environment. This 

EA describes five alternatives for future Refuge management, the environmental consequences of 

each alternative, and our preferred management direction. Each alternative has a reasonable mix of 

fish and wildlife habitat prescriptions and wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. Selection 

of the identified preferred alternative was based on its environmental consequences and ability to 

achieve the Refuge's purpose.

1.1.2 Need for Action

The following needs have been identified for Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge:

■ There is a need to specify the kinds of habitats that can be maintained for the next 15 

years. 

■ There is a need to address the siltation of Refuge marshes. 

■ There is a need to specify how the habitats of the Refuge should be managed to fulfill its 

purpose of providing for waterfowl and other migratory birds.

■ There is a need to specify how habitats should be managed for Eastern Massassauga 

rattlesnakes and Bald Eagles, two species of particular concern on the Refuge. 

■ There is a need to specify how the Refuge can contribute to the reduction of the 

continental population of Snow Geese and also a need to reduce the deer population on the 

Refuge. 

■ There is a need to specify how the mandate to facilitate wildlife-dependent recreation can 

be fulfilled. 

■ In addition, a plan is needed to satisfy the legislative mandates of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, which requires the Service to develop and 

implement a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for all national wildlife refuges.

1.2 Decision Framework

This EA is an important step in the Service's formal decision-making process. In compliance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act, the Regional Director of the Great Lakes/Big Rivers 

Region will consider the information presented in this document to select the alternatives.

The Regional Director will determine whether the preferred alternative is a major Federal action 

that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of Section 

102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. If it is determined not to be a major 

Federal action, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be issued. A FONSI means that 

the preferred alternative is selected and can be implemented in accordance with other laws and 

regulations. A Decision of Significant Impact would indicate the need to conduct more detailed 

environmental analysis in an Environmental Impact Statement.
82

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

1.3 Background

1.3.1 The United States Fish and Wildlife Service

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the primary Federal agency responsible 

for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the Nation's fish and wildlife resources and their habitats 

for the continuing benefit of the American people. Some responsibilities are shared with Federal, 

state, tribal, and local entities, but the Service has specific responsibilities for “trust species” – 

which include endangered species, migratory birds, interjurisdictional fish, and certain marine 

mammals – as well as management and conservation of lands and waters administered by the 

Service. 

The Service's mission is “Working with others to conserve, protect, enhance and, where appropriate 

restore fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 

people.”

The Service is guided by four principal mission goals:

Sustainability of fish and wildlife populations: Conserve, protect, restore and enhance fish, wildlife 

and plant populations entrusted to our care.

Habitat Conservation: A Network of Land and Waters: Cooperating with others, we will conserve 

an ecologically diverse network of lands and waters of various ownerships providing habitats for 

fish, wildlife and plant resources.

Public Use and Enjoyment: Provide opportunities to the public to enjoy, understand and 

participate in use and conservation of fish and wildlife resources.

Partnerships in Natural Resources: Support and strengthen partnerships with tribal, state and 

local governments and others in their efforts to conserve and enjoy fish, wildlife, plants and their 

habitats.

1.3.2 The National Wildlife Refuge System

The National Wildlife Refuge System (System) is an integral component of the Service with the 

mission of administering a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, 

and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within 

the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

The Service manages more than 535 national wildlife refuges covering more than 93 million acres 

that are specifically managed for fish and wildlife and their habitats. The majority of these lands, 

almost 83 percent of the land in the Refuge System is found in the 16 refuges in Alaska, with the 

remaining acres spread across the remaining 49 states and several territories. More than 88 percent 

of the acreage in the System was withdrawn from the Public Domain. The remainder has been 

acquired through purchase, transfer from other Federal agencies, as gifts, or through easement/

lease agreements.

The currently proposed goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System are to: 

■ Fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge purposes and further the System mission.

■ Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants 

that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.

■ Perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations.
83

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

■ Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants.

■ Conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems of the United 

States, including ecological processes characteristic of those ecosystems.

■ Foster understanding and instill appreciation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their 

conservation, by providing the public with safe, high-quality, and compatible wildlifedependent public use. Such use includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

1.3.3 Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge 

This 7,415-acre refuge includes approximately 6,700 acres of floodplain that is managed as wetland, 

grassland and riparian habitats that attract up to 476 Bald Eagles, 400,000 Snow Geese, and 160,000 

ducks during fall and winter seasons. 

The 500 acres of Refuge upland include a segment of the 200-mile long band of hills known as the 

Loess Hills. The Loess Hills, which were formed by wind-deposited, silt-sized soil particles, are a 

geologic phenomenon unique to the Missouri River Valley. While loess deposits do exist elsewhere 

in North America and the world, only in the Missouri River Valley are the deposits deep enough to 

create such an extensive land form. The Loess Hills support rare remnants of native prairie and 

prairie associated wildlife. 

The Refuge hosts 301 species of birds, 33 mammals, and 35 reptiles and amphibians. Missouri's 

largest wet prairie remnant is on the Refuge and it is home to Missouri's largest meta-population of 

the Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake. 

The quality of Squaw Creek NWR wetland habitat is affected by silt from the 60,000-acre Loess 

Hills watershed that is carried into the Refuge by five creeks that converge to become Squaw and 

Davis creeks.

1.3.4 Squaw Creek NWR Vision Statement for Desired Future Condition

For thousands of years, time in the Missouri River Basin has been measured by the migration of 

waterfowl. Each spring and fall, northwestern Missouri was inundated by a noisy confusion of ducks 

and geese. From northern Canada and the prairie pothole country, they flocked into the marshes 

and backwaters of wild Missouri. 

However, far reaching changes have transformed the valley in the past 150 years. Marshland 

drainage and deepening and straightening of the channel largely eliminated oxbow lakes and 

marshes and the natural, sandbar-studded Missouri River channel. 

In fulfilling its purpose “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife,” 

the vision for the future of Squaw Creek NWR includes the following: 

■ Restoration and preservation of the wetland ecosystems of the Missouri River floodplain 

as well as the habitats native to the adjacent Loess Hills will be the major management 

thrust of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge.

■ Refuge wetlands, which includes the largest remnant wet prairie in Missouri, continue to 

provide safe habitat for concentrations of waterfowl and other birds during the migration 

and nesting seasons.

■ The historic threat of wetland sedimentation has declined significantly as managers of the 

vast surrounding agricultural lands employ more conservative practices advocated by the 

Refuge staff and other agencies.
84

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

■ The Refuge habitat diversity emphasizes both wetland and grassland, interspersed with 

stands of mixed shrubs and woodlands, managed on a scale to minimize habitat 

fragmentation and to be attractive to indigenous species as well as neo-tropical and 

passerine birds.

■ Habitat diversity broadens each year as progress is made to convert former monotypic 

stands of reed canary grass, American lotus, and croplands to aquatic and upland species 

complexes that benefit both indigenous and migratory wildlife.

■ Squaw Creek NWR continues to be a destination for people to enjoy wildlife-dependent 

recreation. Dynamic and current environmental education and interpretive displays and 

programs, presented in well designed facilities, help the public to understand and become 

supportive of the Refuge staff's efforts to conserve, preserve and manage wildlife 

resources and their habitats.

■ The Refuge will provide wetland habitat that will support a large variety of marsh, water 

and shore birds with special emphasis during the spring and fall waterfowl migration. We 

will manage for increased use by listed and candidate federal and state endangered and 

threatened species, including the Bald Eagle. We will maintain white-tailed deer 

population levels consistent with available habitat yet provide ample viewing 

opportunities for the visiting public.

■ The Refuge serves as an outdoor laboratory for biological researchers whose study results 

aid in the management for species of special concern such as the eastern Massassauga 

rattle snake and the Least Bittern.

■ The multi-disciplined staff of biologists, technicians, and support personnel are a well 

trained team proficient in their functions of serving Refuge visitors, cooperators, and the 

general public; in their stewardship of the resources put in their charge, and in their 

maintenance of Refuge facilities and equipment. This team places high value on its 

connections with the community and relies heavily on stakeholder input. 

■ The Refuge budget, staff and administrative facilities are adequate to implement the 

strategies required to achieve the goals and objectives set forth in this plan.

1.3.5 Refuge Goals

Based on the purposes of the Refuge, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and 

ecosystem considerations, and the vision for the Refuge, the planning team established the 

following goals for what we want to accomplish in the next 15 years:

Goal 1 Habitat: Manage a diversity of habitat to benefit threatened and endangered species, 

waterfowl, other migratory birds, and indigenous species in Lower Missouri River floodplain 

ecosystem and the Central Tallgrass Prairie ecosystem. 

Goal 2 Wildlife: Conserve species indigenous to the Refuge, the Lower Missouri River Ecosystem, 

and the Central Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem with emphasis on those species identified in the 

Service's Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities.

Goal 3 People: Visitor services programs, facilities and outreach efforts will motivate nearby 

residents and other stakeholders to appreciate the natural resources and ecological processes and 

cultural resources of Squaw Creek NWR, will help achieve the objectives of the Refuge, and will 

support the Service's mission.
85

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

1.4 Scoping and Public Involvement

The planning process for this CCP began with a “kick-off” meeting in July 1999. Initially, members 

of the CCP planning team and Refuge staff identified a list of issues and concerns that were 

associated with management of the Refuge. These preliminary issues and concerns were based on 

staff knowledge of the area and association with citizens in the community. The planning team, 

consisting of Refuge staff and Service planners, then invited Refuge neighbors, organizations, local 

government agencies and local staff of national and state government agencies, schools, and 

interested citizens to share their thoughts in a focus group meeting on August 18, 1999. Nineteen 

people attended the meeting. An open house was held on September 14, 1999, and 12 attended. The 

planning team accepted oral and written comments at the open house. Five written comments were 

received.

In October 1999, the planning team met for an intensive three-day workshop to develop and 

consider four management alternatives that addressed the issues and concerns in different ways. 

The alternatives generally describe different emphases in habitat and public use management. Once 

alternative approaches to management were selected, methods for achieving that level were 

developed. 

Subsequent planning team meetings in November of 1999 and January of 2000 were held with 

Region 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials and biologists in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, to 

critique and revise these draft alternatives and associated goals and objectives. In February 2000, 

the planning team again met for two days at DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge to further refine 

goals, objectives, and strategies. The planning team met at Squaw Creek NWR in February 2003 to 

continue this process, resulting in this document.

1.4.1 Issues and Concerns

Issue 1. Wildlife Habitat and Resource Management

Extraordinary measures may be required to preserve the marsh environment that has historically 

attracted migratory waterfowl and other wildlife. Squaw Creek Refuge is a sump-like area that lies 

between the Missouri River on the west and the loess bluffs on the east. The steep slopes on the 

river side of the bluffs along with intensive agriculture result in heavy silt loads in Squaw Creek 

and Davis Creek that pass through the Refuge on their way to the Missouri River. While these 

creeks are the primary water source for the Refuge, they also dump considerable amounts of silt in 

the managed marsh units of the Refuge, making them steadily more shallow. These marsh areas 

could eventually fill completely and disappear. Deer numbers exceed the desired density of 20-25 

deer per square mile, negatively impacting habitats such as understory vegetation in the 

bottomland forests. This negatively impacts other species of interest.

Issue 2. Land Management within the Watershed Impacts Refuge Water Quality and Quantity

While neither the Refuge nor the Fish and Wildlife Service has any interest or authority to 

interfere with private lands management, they do have the responsibility to conserve the public 

resources placed in their care. The Refuge is at the bottom of a 60,000-acre watershed. Land 

management practices within the watershed influence quality and quantity of water that flows into 

the Refuge. Unrestricted surface runoff in the watershed depletes top soil and soil moisture 

conditions. The deposition of top soil and agricultural chemicals in the Refuge marshes during flood 

stages has an adverse cumulative effect. There are existing cost share programs available to 

landowners aimed at improved soil and moisture conservation.

Issue 3. Snow Goose Management

The mid-continent population of Snow Geese and Ross' Geese are in trouble because there are too 

many – what some refer to as “a perilous abundance.” The peril is their numbers. The estimate of 
86

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Snow and Ross' Geese in the central and eastern arctic increased from 1.1. million in 1973 to 5.8 

million in 1998. These geese now exceed the carrying capacity of habitats on several breeding 

colony sites in northern Canada. Overgrazing and grubbing by geese causes a removal of the 

vegetative mat that insulates underlying sediments. Exposure of sediments causes an increase in 

the rate of evaporation and greater concentration of inorganic salts from marine clays. Increased 

soil salinity eventually eliminates growth of the salt-marsh community and desertification ensues. 

Bare mudflats may become colonized by salt-tolerant plants, which are utilized by few, if any, 

wildlife species.

Recovery of damaged Arctic tundra vegetation is extremely slow and tends to continue towards 

self destruction once the moisture and chemical balance is upset. High Snow Geese survival rates 

over the last 20 years and high quality wintering grounds has contributed to the over population. 

Action plans developed by both the Canadian and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State and 

Provincial agencies focus on reducing the Snow Goose population. 

Concentrations of 300,000 to 400,000 Snow Geese at Squaw Creek NWR during the fall migration 

has become a sight-seeing tradition that attracts thousands of Refuge visitors. The Snow Geese are 

also welcomed by waterfowl hunters in an area from Sioux City, Iowa to Kansas City, Missouri. The 

large concentrations of geese on the Refuge provides significant hunting opportunity on adjacent 

public and private hunting areas. There is concern that opening the Refuge to more hunting would 

not only scare the geese out of the area, reducing overall hunting opportunity and the associated 

take of birds, but also restrict other public use such as the auto tour route and wildlife observation 

areas. Others felt some goose hunting on the Refuge would help address the mid-continent Snow 

Goose over-abundance.

Issue 4. Refuge Expansion

Floodplain wetlands similar to those within Squaw Creek NWR have been preserved and managed 

as private and commercial waterfowl hunting clubs. High operations costs have caused some 

owners to consider selling their property to the Refuge. Some of the Refuge marsh restoration and 

preservation problems associated with watershed management and runoff might be lessened if 

some of the adjacent agricultural land was added to the Refuge and converted to other uses. 

However, hydrological and biological data supporting this is incomplete or lacking.

Issue 5. Public Use

Public use at the Refuge has focused on nonconsumptive uses and wildlife dependent recreation, 

but some people have suggested that the Refuge's public use program should be changed to allow 

other compatible uses that might include hunting waterfowl and deer. Currently there is a special 

two-day muzzle loader deer hunt with a specific number of permits issued. Angling is allowed where 

the roads cross the creek ditches. Historically, environmental education has been emphasized at 

Squaw Creek NWR.

Issue 6. Public Service

The staff at Squaw Creek NWR want to be good neighbors and contributors to the welfare of the 

community. Public benefits now include environmental education programs for schools and special 

groups both on and off the Refuge, disaster assistance with staff and equipment, operations budgets 

that boost the local economy, annual payments to counties to offset losses of real property tax 

revenues, cost share programs for environmental improvements on private lands, and attraction of 

visitors who patronize local businesses. As the Refuge strives to be of service to the public and the 

community, are there new or better ways it can be successful in its efforts?
87

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

1.5 Legal, Policy, And Administrative Guidelines

1.5.1 Legal Mandates

Administration of refuges is guided by laws, Executive Orders, and Service policy. A list of 

pertinent statutes and policy guidance can be found in Appendix E of the draft CCP, “Compliance 

Requirements.”
88

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

This chapter describes five alternatives analyzed for the Squaw Creek NWR, including Alternative 

D, the proposed action. 

2.1 Rationale for Alternative Designs

Each alternative was formulated with the understanding that it must be capable of achieving all 

Refuge goals. Each alternative will achieve the goals, but to varying degrees. The focus of the 

alternatives is on the habitats, visitor use opportunities, or both. All alternatives consider the 

potential for the land to sustain specific habitats and visitor uses.

2.2 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail

Expansion of the Refuge was considered as a possible alternative. The primary purpose of an 

expansion would be to provide an additional tool to deal with the adverse affects of the silt and 

sediment that originate in the 95 square miles of watersheds that drain through the Refuge. The 

Refuge's ability to control water passing through the Refuge during high sediment load periods 

would conserve Refuge habitats from the negative impacts of sediment accumulation to some 

degree. But these measures would likely only delay the eventual total siltation of the wetland 

basins. To effectively deal with the problem, the sediment load entering the Refuge must be 

reduced significantly. We considered an expansion of the Refuge that would take place within a 

43,300-acre watershed. Within that area, we considered the possibility of acquiring easements from 

willing sellers only. The easements would allow Refuge staff to establish permanent grassland or 

woody cover in erodible areas or to permanently conserve areas of existing cover. The land would 

remain in private ownership with the requirement that the cover encompassed by the easement be 

preserved permanently. While it was unlikely that the entire easement acreage would ever be 

acquired, because the program would function on a willing seller basis only, we thought that it 

would be important that an adequately large area be available to increase the chance that there are 

willing sellers interested in participating. We estimated that 2,500 to 4,500 acres of easements could 

be obtained over the next 15 years.

In addition to the easements in the watershed, we considered acquiring full interests in certain 

lands adjacent to the Refuge as an alternative. To the west and north of the Refuge, up to 11,000 

acres could be acquired to provide additional wetland, grassland, and bottomland forest habitat 

restoration opportunities. We speculated that these lands would benefit Eastern Massassauga 

rattlesnakes and affect the hydrology of the area by increasing the recharge of ground water, which 

would help water management on the Refuge.

To the southeast, approximately 5,700 acres in the Loess Hills could be acquired to preserve those 

rare habitats and to complement existing Refuge habitat. We estimated that approximately 4,500 
89

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

acres could be acquired in these two areas within the next 15 years. Like the easements, lands 

would be acquired only from willing sellers.

We did not evaluate the possible expansion alternatives in detail because we felt that we did not 

have enough background data and that additional studies are needed before an expansion can be 

reasonably evaluated. In the comprehensive conservation plan, strategies address obtaining enough 

data to better evaluate potential expansion of the Refuge. There are still approximately 400 acres to 

be acquired within the currently authorized Refuge boundaries.

2.3 Description of Alternatives

The alternatives are compared and summarized by goal in Table 1. A more detailed comparison of 

alternatives by specific objectives and general strategies can be found in Appendix K of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Archaeological and cultural values would be protected as 

mandated by law under all alternatives.

2.3.1 Alternative A: Current Management Practices (No Action)

Under this alternative there would be no major change in Refuge goals, objectives, and strategies. 

Some strategies would be revised to incorporate improved techniques, which have been learned 

from current management practices. The current goals and objectives call for maintenance and 

modest enhancement of wetland habitat, upland habitat, fish and wildlife populations, public use, 

resource conservation, facilities, work force and administration. This alternative does not fully 

address long-term needs and issues such as constant sedimentation in the wetland management 

units, the mid-continent Snow Goose population problem, and land acquisition that would allow 

increased preservation and restoration of the Missouri River floodplain habitat.

Additional information describing this alternative can be found in Table 1.

2.3.2 Alternative B: Restore Historic Wet and Mesic Prairie

Squaw Creek NWR presently contains the largest remaining wet prairie remnant in public 

ownership in Missouri. Wet prairie is an important habitat for several State-listed threatened and 

endangered species, including the Massassauga rattlesnake. This alternative would attempt to 

expand the present wet prairie, restore the wet prairie vegetation and reintroduce fauna found 

prior to the mid-1840's in the Missouri River ecosystem. The restored area would be a showcase 

example of the historic conditions, particularly relevant on the 200th anniversary of the Lewis and 

Clark expedition, and would be of great interpretive value to visitors.

Some of the current management practices would be altered or eliminated. Prescribed burning 

frequencies and seasons would be changed to more accurately reflect natural burns. Active water 

level manipulations would be eliminated and the natural seasonal ebb and flow via watershed runoff 

would be encouraged. Farming and vegetative habitat management (mowing, haying, chemical 

spraying) would be eliminated to permit natural ecological successional changes to occur.

Additional information describing this alternative can be found in Table 1.
90

Squaw Creek NWR / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Table 1: Comparison of Alternatives by Refuge Goals Goal Alternative A: Current Management (No Action) Alternative B: Restore Historic Wet and Mesic Prairie Alternative C: Enhance Public Use with Current Resource Management Level Alternative D: Optimize Resource Management With Enhanced Public Use (Preferred Alternative) Alternative E: Intensive Wetland Management With Extreme Measures to Combat Sedimentation Goal 1: Habitat Manage a diversity of habitat to benefit threatened and endangered species, waterfowl, other migra- tory birds, and indigenous species in Lower Missouri River flood- plain ecosystem and the Central Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem 3,409 acres of managed wetlands. 176 acres of semi-natural wetlands. 1,227 acres of managed wetlands. Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A 3,452 acres of managed wetlands. Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A 1,077 acres of wet prairie. 3,259 acres of wet prairie. Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A 291 acres of bottomland mesic prairie 870 acres of bottomland mesic prairie. Same as Alternative A 508 acres of bottomland mesic prairie. 570 acres of bottomland mesic prairie. 221 acres of Loess Hill prai- rie. Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A 299 acres of Loess Hill prai- rie. Same as Alternative A 378 acres of Loess Hill for- est. Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

1,000 acres of bottomland forest.

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

579 acres of cropland, 59 acres of old field (no change from current management).

0 acres cropland. Same as Alternative A 300 acres of cropland, 0 

acres of old field.

Same as Alternative D

Control exotic, invasive and nuisance species.

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

400 acres within existing authorized boundaries.

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative a Same as Alternative A

Reduce watershed sediment entering the Refuge. Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative AManage Wildlife Management District lands to benefit soil and water conservation and associated wildlife.

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A
91

Goal 2: WildlifeConserve species indigenous to the Refuge, the Lower Missouri River floodplain ecosystem, and the Central Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem with emphasis on those species identified in the Service’s Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities.

Western Hemispheric Shore Bird Designation will be sought.

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Wildlife populations will be surveyed and monitored.

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

5 million waterfowl use days.

2 million waterfowl use days.

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A 5.3 million waterfowl use 

days.

Reduce Snow Goose numbers primarily be discouraging cropland use of the Refuge and by providing a roosting site that holds birds in the area for hunting around the Refuge.

Same as Alternative A, with the exception that cropland is eliminated completely under this alternative, thereby having a greater impact on Snow Geese.

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A, 

with the exception that there is a spring Snow Goose hunt and cropland is reduced.

Same as Alternative A, with the exception that there is a greater reduction in Snow Goose numbers.

Deer numbers will be regulated through a managed hunt.

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A, 

with one accessible deer blind added and permit system adjusted to allow more deer taken when necessary.

Same as Alternative A

Maintain Bald Eagle habitat. Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Table 1: Comparison of Alternatives by Refuge Goals (Continued)

Goal

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B: Restore 

Historic Wet and Mesic 

Prairie

Alternative C: Enhance 

Public Use with Current 

Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D: Optimize Resource Management 

With Enhanced Public 

Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E: Intensive 

Wetland Management 

With Extreme Measures 

to Combat 

Sedimentation
92

Squaw Creek NWR / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Monitor Eastern massas- sauga rattlesnake numbers and distribution and main- tain 1,077 acres wet prairie. Same as Alternative A, but increase wet prairie to 3,259 acres. Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A, but mesic prairie increased by 217 acres to 508 acres total. Same as Alternative A Least Bittern populations will be monitored and habi- tat will be maintained. Same as Alternative A, but 349 acres of hemi-marsh provided. Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Support conservation of priority passerine species. Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Report sightings of state species of concern to the MDOC. Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Goal 3: PeopleVisitors and nearby residents will appreciate the natural resources, ecological processes and cultural resources of Squaw Creek NWR and will support the Service’s mission.

Minor improvement in environmental interpretation materials and programs; accommodate 130,000 visitors annually.

Same as Alternative A Increased environmental 

interpretation efforts; trail extension; brochure revision; accommodate 175,000 visitors annually.

Same as Alternative C with the exception that the Refuge would accommodate 130,000 visitors annually.

Same as Alternative A

Environmental education programming at the 2004 level.

Same as Alternative A Enhanced environmental 

education efforts to accommodate 6,000 students annually, add boardwalk, teacher workshops.

Same as Alternative C Same as Alternative A

Wildlife observation and photography programs at 2004 level and existing facilities.

Same as Alternative A Extend trail, observation 

blind, add pull-offs on the Auto Tour route.

Same as Alternative C Same as Alternative A

Hunting and fishing: 135 deer hunters per year, bank fishing in select areas.

Same as Alternative A 135 deer hunters, spring 

goose hunt, accessible deer blind.

Same as Alternative C Same as Alternative A

Public information at 2004 level.

Same as Alternative A Expanded public information effort. Same as Alternative C Same as Alternative A

Table 1: Comparison of Alternatives by Refuge Goals (Continued)

Goal

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B: Restore 

Historic Wet and Mesic 

Prairie

Alternative C: Enhance 

Public Use with Current 

Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D: Optimize Resource Management 

With Enhanced Public 

Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E: Intensive 

Wetland Management 

With Extreme Measures 

to Combat 

Sedimentation
93

Maintain and enhance relations with Friends of Squaw Creek NWR.

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Involvement with government agencies and non-government organizations at 2004 level.

Same as Alternative A Additional efforts to work 

with government agencies and non-government organizations.

Same as Alternative C Same as Alternative A

Actively support and encourage research on the Refuge.

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Table 1: Comparison of Alternatives by Refuge Goals (Continued)

Goal

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B: Restore 

Historic Wet and Mesic 

Prairie

Alternative C: Enhance 

Public Use with Current 

Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D: Optimize Resource Management 

With Enhanced Public 

Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E: Intensive 

Wetland Management 

With Extreme Measures 

to Combat 

Sedimentation
94

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

2.3.3 Alternative C: Enhance Public Use/Current Resource Management Level 

Under this alternative, the six priority wildlife-dependent uses highlighted in the Refuge 

Improvement Act would be promoted and enhanced. These uses include hunting, fishing, 

environmental education and interpretation, and wildlife observation and photography. 

Environmental education efforts and outreach would be stepped up considerably. Additional 

facilities would be developed on the Refuge to accommodate increased public use.

Additional information describing this alternative can be found in Table 1.

2.3.4 Alternative D: Optimize Resource Management With Enhanced Public 

Use (Preferred Alternative)

This alternative seeks to maximize wildlife habitat and population management practices and 

opportunities without adversely impacting current levels of wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities. Compared to Alternative A, a greater effort would be made toward conserving, 

managing, and restoring habitats native to the Lower Missouri River ecosystem, both on Refuge 

lands and FSA easements within the management district and watershed. Management would 

include additional wetland, riparian, and native grass development and enhancement. Increased 

biological monitoring would evaluate wildlife responses to management efforts and track population 

trends of species of concern, including Massassauga rattlesnakes and grasslands birds. We would 

seek to quantify the need and benefit of various approaches to reducing sedimentation and 

improving water quality. Additional efforts would be made to accommodate all migratory bird 

species, such as fall migrating shorebirds. Snow Goose populations would be actively managed, 

which for the immediate future means participating in the mid-continent efforts of population 

reduction.

All wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities would continue as in Alternative A, but with a 

slight additional effort exerted to increase visitation or additional public use activities and 

improvement in the quality of services and facilities.

Additional information describing this alternative can be found in Table 1.

2.3.5 Alternative E: Intensive Wetland Management With Extreme Measures 

to Combat Sedimentation

This alternative would selectively emphasize the creation and maintenance of the widest possible 

variety of wetland habitats (e.g. lacustrine, palustrine, moist soil, green tree, riverine, bottomland 

hardwoods, wet meadows, exposed flats, and others) with the intention of attracting highly diverse 

populations of aquatic wildlife. Targeted wildlife species would include waterfowl (e.g. ducks, and 

geese), shorebirds and wading birds, aquatic animals and plants that are of high interest to the 

public (e.g., otters), and species that require additional conservation (e.g., rare, threatened or 

endangered species of aquatic plants and animals).

The Refuge would be maintained as a showcase of Lower Missouri River Ecosystem wetland 

habitats and aquatic wildlife diversity. The value of this alternative would include conservation/

preservation, public education, and scientific research. Outreach and education activities would 

focus on helping people understand the importance of wetlands. The alternative would include 

demonstration areas to teach the public how to create and maintain wetlands.

Under this alternative, visitor numbers and programs would be restricted to minimize conflicts 

with the wetlands management and aquatic biodiversity conservation goals.
95

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

Under this alternative, extreme measures may be necessary to maintain various habitat types. 

These measures might include dredging and constructing dikes and water control structures.

Additional information describing this alternative can be found in Tables 1 and Appendix K.

2.3.6 Elements Common to All Alternatives

2.3.6.1 Fire

Under each alternative we propose to adopt the Fire Management Plan for the Refuge, which was 

drafted in 2002 and is available at the Refuge Office for inspection.

2.3.6.1.1 Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire is a habitat management tool that is used on the Refuge regularly. Refuge staff 

annually burn areas of the Refuge to enhance habitat for upland game, waterfowl, and other species 

of interest. The periodic burning of grasslands and sedge meadows reduces encroaching vegetation 

such as willow. It also encourages the growth of desirable species such as cord grass.

All prescribed burns are carried out by highly trained and qualified personnel who perform the 

operation under very precise plans. The Refuge has an approved fire management plan that 

describes in detail how prescribed burning will be conducted on the Refuge. No burning takes place 

unless it meets the qualifications of the prescription for each burn unit. A prescription is a set of 

parameters that define the air temperature, fuel moisture, wind direction and velocity, soil 

moisture, relative humidity, and several other environmental factors under which a prescribed burn 

may be ignited. This insures that there is minimal chance the fire will escape the unit boundaries 

and that the fire will have the desired effect on the plant community. 

Prescribed burns will occasionally be conducted within or near Refuge development zones, 

sensitive resources, and boundaries to reduce the risk from wildfire. To the greatest extent 

possible, prescribed fires to reduce hazards will only be used when they complement resource 

management objectives.

Combustion of fuels during prescribed fire operations may temporarily impact air quality, but the 

impacts are mitigated by small burn unit size, the direction of winds the burns are conducted with, 

and the distance from population centers. All efforts will be taken to assure that smoke does not 

impact smoke sensitive areas such as roads and local residences.

Burn frequency will vary from every 3 to 5 years or longer on established grassland, savanna, and 

wet prairie units depending on management objectives, historic fire frequency, and funding. As part 

of the prescribed fire program, a literature search will be conducted to determine the effects of fire 

on various plant and animal species, and a monitoring program will be instituted to verify that 

objectives are being achieved.

Prescribed fires cannot and will not be ignited when the area is at an extreme fire danger level and/

or the National Preparedness level is V, without the approval of the Regional Fire Management 

Coordinator. In addition, the Refuge will not ignite prescribed fires without the applicable State 

concurrence when the county or the State has instituted a burning ban.

Drought can have an effect on fire severity and control. One or more drought indicators (PDI - KBI) 

will be used to determine the degree of drought. These indicators can be accessed on the web at 

http://www.boi.noaa.gov/fwxweb/ fwoutlook.htm
96

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Spot fires, slop-overs, and escapes can be an expected occurrence on any prescribed fire. They can 

be caused by any of a number of factors that can not always be accounted for in the planning 

process. A few minor occurrences of these events on a prescribed burn can usually be controlled by 

the burn crew. If so, they do not constitute a wildfire. The burn boss is responsible for evaluating 

the frequency and severity of these events and taking mitigating measures such as slowing down or 

stopping the burn operation, ordering additional holding forces from within Refuge staff, or taking 

measures to extinguish the prescribed burn. Should an escape exceed the ability of existing holding 

forces to control, and additional assistance becomes necessary in the form of State agency 

involvement, the event will be classified a wildfire and controlled accordingly. Once controlled by 

these forces, the prescribed burning operation will be stopped for the burning period. A fire 

number will be obtained to implement wildfire funding to cover the cost of control, a wildfire report 

will be generated and a Wildland Fire Situation Analysis will be prepared.

Prescribed burns can be conducted at any time of year depending on resource objectives and 

prescription. However, the normal prescribed fire season begins approximately April 1 and ends by 

May 31, due to early bird nesting. Fall burning may begin again August 15 and end October 31.

Precautions will be taken to protect threatened and endangered species during prescribed burning. 

Nesting trees for Bald Eagles will be protected and burning will not be conducted at a time or in a 

way to negatively impact any nesting eagles. If any of the known populations of Massassauga 

rattlesnake are in or near a burn unit, precautions will be taken to avoid the reptiles.

Existing firebreaks will be used. They may undergo minor improvements such as rotovation 

(vegetation disruption). General policy dictates that any new firebreaks or below surface 

improvements to existing firebreaks will be approved by the Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer.

The Refuge Biologists will be responsible for supervising the development of resource management 

objectives for individual units. The Refuge staff will provide assistance in the selection of the 

appropriate management tool needed to meet objectives. Prescribed fire is just one of a 

combination of tools available. If needed, the Zone Fire Management Officer (Zone FMO) will be 

consulted for assistance in developing a prescription that will achieve the desired results.

Burn plans (the Fire Management Plan) are written to document the treatment objectives, the 

prescription, and the plan of action for carrying out the burn. Burn plans are written by or under 

the guidance of a qualified burn boss. The burn plan follows the format in the Service's Fire 

Management Handbook or a format approved by the Regional Fire Management Coordinator and 

addresses all aspects as specified in the Service's Fire Management Handbook. Details regarding 

fire resources and procedures may be found in the Refuge Fire Plan. All burn plans are reviewed by 

the Refuge Manager, Zone FMO, and approved by the individual Refuge Managers prior to 

implementation.

2.3.6.1.2 Fire Prevention and Detection

Although fire may have historically played a role in the development of habitats on the Refuge, 

human ignited fires and natural ignitions burning without a prescription are likely to result in 

unwanted damage to cultural and/or natural resources. In order to prevent wildfire, an educational 

program will be utilized to reduce the threat of human caused fires. Ongoing monitoring will be 

conducted by Refuge staff, visitors, and cooperators to detect fire ignitions. Actions taken to 

implement this include:

■ Fire prevention will be discussed at safety meetings, prior to the fire season, and during 

periods of high fire danger. Periodic training of staff in regard to fire prevention will be 

conducted.
97

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

■ During periods of extreme fire danger, warnings will be posted at visitor information 

stations. 

■ Public contacts will be made via press releases and verbal contacts during periods of 

extreme fire danger.

■ A thorough investigation will be conducted of all fires suspected to have been illegally set. 

Upon completion of the investigation, appropriate action will be taken.

■ The Refuge relies on neighbors, visitors, cooperators, and staff to detect and report fires. 

In addition, the step-down plan provides for increased patrols by Refuge personnel during 

periods of very high and extreme fire danger.

■ All fires occurring within or adjacent to (within 2 miles) the individual Refuges will be 

reported to the respective Refuge headquarters. The person receiving the report will be 

responsible for implementing the Fire Dispatch Plan and assume duties of Fire 

Dispatcher until relieved or released.

■ For local fires, the Fire Dispatcher will stay on duty until: (1) all Refuge resources return; 

(2) relieved by another dispatcher; or (3) advised by IC that he/she can leave. The Fire 

Dispatcher will not be required to stay on duty if the fire occurs outside Refuge radio 

coverage but before leaving the dispatcher must notify the applicable State Dispatcher 

that a Dispatcher is not on duty at the Refuge.

■ The Fire Dispatcher will be responsible for coordinating the filling and delivery of any 

resource orders made by the Incident Commander (IC) for all operational and logistical 

needs, including engines, aircraft, tools, supplies, and meals. The IC will place all resource 

orders through the Dispatcher, and specify what is needed, when it is needed, and where 

it is needed. The Dispatcher will promptly determine if the resource orders can be filled or 

procured locally and notify the IC. If a resource order can not be filled locally, the 

Dispatcher will place the order with the Interagency Fire Dispatcher in. The Zone FMO 

for the Refuge will generally be able to assist with ordering resources from outside the 

area.

■ Requests for assistance by cooperators on fires not threatening an individual Refuge must 

be made to the Refuge Manager or designee. Only qualified and properly equipped 

resources meeting National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) standards will be 

dispatched off of the Refuge.

■ Firefighter and public safety always take precedence over property and resource 

protection during any fire management activity. Under moderate to severe fire danger 

index ratings, flaming fronts are capable of moving at fast speeds in all fuel models. In 

order to eliminate safety hazards to the public, all public access into the burn units will be 

closed the day of the burn. Fire crews will be briefed that should an individual who is not a 

member of the fire crew be observed in the prescribed burn unit, they will be immediately 

escorted out of the area. The fire crew will keep the fire scene clear of people except for 

Service firefighters and cooperating fire crews.

2.3.6.1.3 Fire Suppression 

Service policy requires the Refuge to utilize the Incident Command System (ICS) and firefighters 

meeting NWCG qualifications for fires occurring on Refuge property. All suppression efforts will be 

directed toward safeguarding life while protecting the Refuge's resources and property from harm. 

Mutual aid resources responding from Cooperating Agencies will not be required to meet NWCG 

standards, but must meet the standards of their Agency. Mutual aid resources will report to the 

Incident Commander (IC) in person or by radio and receive their duty assignment. Mutual aid 

forces will be first priority for release from the fire. If additional firefighters are needed, 

appropriate procedures will be used to acquire them.
98

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

All fires occurring on the Refuge and staffed with Service employees will be supervised by a 

qualified IC. The IC will be responsible for all management aspects of the fire. If a qualified IC is 

not available, one will be ordered through the appropriate area office dispatch center. All resources 

will report to the IC (either in person or by radio) prior to deploying to the fire and upon arrival to 

the fire. The IC will be responsible for: (1) providing a size-up of the fire to dispatch as soon as 

possible; (2) determine the resources needed for the fire; and (3) advising dispatch of resource needs 

on the fire. The IC will receive general suppression strategy from the Fire Management Plan, but 

appropriate tactics used to suppress the fire will be up to the IC to implement. Minimum impact 

suppression tactics (MIST) will be used whenever possible. 

Severity funding may be essential to provide adequate fire protection for the Refuge during periods 

of drought, as defined by the Palmer Drought Index or other appropriate drought indicators. 

Severity funds may be used to hire additional firefighters, extend firefighter seasons, or to provide 

additional resources. The Service Fire Management Handbook provides guidelines for use of 

severity funding.

The incident commander (IC) on a wildland fire or the prescribed fire burn boss on a prescribed 

burn will be responsible for the completion of a DI-1202 Fire Report as well as Crew Time Reports 

for all personnel assigned to an incident and return these reports to the Assistant Manager. The IC 

or burn boss should include a list of all expenses and/or items lost on the fire and a list of personnel 

assignments on the DI-1202. The Zone FMO will enter all data into the FMIS computer database 

within 10 days after the fire is declared out. The Zone FMO will also inform the timekeeper of all 

time and premium pay to be charged to the fire and ensure expended supplies are replaced. In 

addition, the following provisions will apply:

■ Utilize existing roads and trails, bodies of water, areas of sparse or non-continuous fuels as 

primary control lines, anchor points, escape routes, and safety zones. 

■ When appropriate, conduct backfiring operations from existing roads and natural barriers 

to halt the spread of fire.

■ Use burnouts to stabilize and strengthen the primary control lines.

■ Depending upon the situation, either direct or indirect attack methods may be employed. 

The use of backfire in combination with allowing the wildfire to burn to a road or natural 

firebreak would be least damaging to the environment. However direct attack by 

constructing control lines as close to the fire as possible may be the preferred method to 

establish quicker control.

■ Retardants may be used on upland areas.

■ Constructed fire line will be rehabilitated prior to departure from the fire or scheduled for 

rehabilitation by other non-fire personnel.

■ The Incident Commander will choose the appropriate suppression strategy and technique. 

As a guide: On low intensity fires (generally flame lengths less than 4 feet) the primary 

suppression strategy will be direct attack with hand crews and engines. If conditions 

occur that sustain higher intensity fires (those with flame lengths greater than 4 feet) 

then indirect strategies that utilize back fires or burning out from natural and humanmade fire barriers may be utilized. Those barriers should be selected to safely suppress 

the fire, minimize resource degradation and damage and be cost effective.

■ The use of earth-moving equipment for suppression activities (dozers, graders, plows) on 

the Refuge will not be permitted without the approval of the individual Refuge Manager 

or his/her designated representative in the event of their absence.

■ All areas in which wildfires occur on the Refuge or Refuge administered lands will be 

evaluated prior to the aerial or ground application of foams and/or retardants. Only 
99

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

approved chemical foams and retardants will be used (or not used) in sensitive areas such 

as those with riparian vegetation.

■ Hazard reduction prescribed fires may be used in fire adapted communities that have not 

had significant fire for more than twice the normal fire frequency for that community 

type.

■ Utilization of heavy equipment during high intensity fires will be allowed only with the 

approval of the individual Refuge managers of the Refuge.

■ Wild fire use for resource benefit will not be utilized.

■ Engines will remain on roads and trails to the fullest extent possible. 

■ Whenever it appears a fire will escape initial attack efforts, leave Service lands, or when 

fire complexity exceeds the capabilities of command or operations, the IC will take 

appropriate, proactive actions to ensure additional resources are ordered. The IC, 

through dispatch or other means, will notify the Refuge FMO of the situation. With Zone 

FMO assistance the Refuge Manager will complete a Wildland Fire Situation Analysis 

(WFSA) and Delegation of Authority.

■ The IC will be responsible for mop-up and rehabilitation actions and standards on Refuge 

fires. Refuge fires will be monitored until declared out.

■ Rehabilitation of suppression actions will take place prior to firefighters being released 

from the fire. Action to be taken include: 1) All trash will be removed; 2) Fire lines will be 

refilled and water bars added if needed; 3) Hazardous trees and snags cut and all stumps 

cut flush; and 4) Damage to improvements caused by suppression efforts will be repaired, 

and a rehabilitation plan completed if necessary. Service policy states that only damage to 

improvements caused by suppression efforts can be repaired with fire funds. Service 

funds cannot be used to repair damage caused by the fire itself (i.e. burnt fence lines). If 

re-seeding is necessary, it will be accomplished according to Service policy and 

regulations.

2.3.6.2 Listed Species and Other Species of Interest

Chapter 3 of this EA describes the current status of fish and wildlife in and near the Refuge. The 

discussion highlights one threatened species (Bald Eagle) found on the Refuge in addition to other 

species of interest described in Chapter 3. In all alternatives the present acreage of bottomland 

forest and mature cottonwood stands are maintained for Bald Eagles. The current acreage of wet 

prairie, which benefits eastern Massassauga rattlesnakes, is maintained in all alternatives, except 

Alternative B where the acreage increases. 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act outlines a mechanism for ensuring that actions taken by 

Federal agencies do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species. We are conducting a “Section 

7" review concurrent with the Review of the draft CCP.

2.3.6.3 Archaeological and Cultural Resource Values

As part of its larger conservation mandate and ethic, the Service through the Refuge Manager 

applies several historic preservation laws and regulations to ensure historic properties are 

identified and are protected to the extent possible within its established purposes and Refuge 

System mission.

The Refuge Manager early in project planning for all undertakings, informs the RHPO (Regional 

Historic Preservation Officer) to initiate the Section 106 process. Concurrent with public 

notification and involvement for environmental compliance and compatibility determinations if 

applicable, or cultural resources only if no other issues are involved, the Refuge Manager informs 

and requests comments from the public and local officials through presentations, meetings, and 

media notices; results are provided to the RHPO.
100

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

When the Service and one or more other Federal agencies have Section 106 responsibilities, the 

Service initiates the procedures in 36 CFR Part 800 independently of other agencies unless a lead 

Federal agency has been determined.

Archeological investigations and collecting are performed only in the public interest by qualified 

archeologists or by persons recommended by the Governor working under an Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act permit issued by the Regional Director. The Refuge Manager has found 

this third-party use of Refuge land to be compatible. The requirements of ARPA apply to Service 

cultural resources contracts; the contract is the equivalent of a permit. The Refuge Manager issues 

special permits for archeological investigations. Refuge personnel take steps to prevent 

unauthorized collecting by the public, contractors, and Refuge personnel; violators are cited or 

other appropriate action taken. Violations are reported to the Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer.
101

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3.1 Description Of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

This chapter provides a brief introduction to the existing physical and social environment of Squaw 

Creek NWR, including the location, size and habitat of the Refuge, geomorphology, sedimentation 

and water quality, soils, habitat, wildlife, public use activities, the social environment and cultural 

resources that are known to exist on Refuge lands. Greater detail on the affected environment is 

provided in Chapter 3 of the draft comprehensive conservation plan.

The Refuge is a 7,415-acre area of wetlands, wet and mesic prairie, bottomland forest, and upland 

forest. It lies in the floodplain of the Missouri River and extends into the hillside prairie and 

woodlands of the Loess Hills of northwestern Missouri. 

3.2 Habitat Overview

Squaw Creek NWR is part of what once was a large natural marsh in the Missouri River floodplain 

and historically was heavily used by waterfowl and other migratory birds during their spring and 

fall migrations. Today, the Refuge supports a diverse array of upland and floodplain habitat. 

Habitats include islands, marshes, moist soil, open waters, bottomland forests, croplands, wet and 

mesic prairie, and upland forest that assist a variety of birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles and 

fish in their life cycles.

Throughout the area surrounding the Refuge, the most historically prevalent and now highly 

impacted habitat types are wet and mesic prairie, bottomland and upland forest, and aquatic 

vegetation.

Trees and other plants include Eastern red cedar, Eastern cottonwood, black willow, silver maple, 

smooth sumac, coralberry, false indigo, swamp milkweed, blue wild indigo, swamp buttercup, 

monkeyflower, blue lobelia, downy painted cup (Indian paintbrush), prairie larkspur, dotted blazing 

star, hoary puccoon, round-headed bush-clover, soaptree yucca, prairie ragwort, goldenrods, 

sunflowers, asters, and numerous grasses (including big and little bluestems, and hairy grama). 

3.2.1 Forested Resources 

The Refuge has approximately 1,000 acres of bottomland forest and 375 acres of loess hill forest. 

Common trees on the Refuge include Eastern red cedar, Eastern cottonwood, black willow, and 

silver maple.
102

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

3.2.2 Wetland Resources 

The Refuge is impounded by a dam. Water management within this main dam is a result of small 

dikes and levees that subdivide the wetlands into marshes and moist soil units. The 

compartmentalizing counters the effects of long term siltation within the upper end of the large 

marsh created in the early 1940's. In addition to the managed wetlands, there are about 175 acres of 

semi-natural wetlands on the Refuge.

The Refuge contains 15 independently managed marshes in 10 designated pools of approximately 

3,400 acres and 14 independently managed lowlands in three designated moist soil units of 

approximately 350 acres. Water levels are manipulated in each of the marshes and moist soil units 

to provide water depths and vegetative conditions attractive to spring and fall migrating waterfowl 

as well as to provide nesting habitat for waterfowl and a variety of marsh and water birds during 

the summer. The moist soil units are drawn down to encourage moist soil plant production and/or to 

prescribe burn and to permit mechanical vegetative control.

3.2.3 Grassland Resources

Grasslands on the Refuge consist of approximately 290 acres of bottomland mesic prairie, 220 acres 

of loess hill prairie, and 1,077 acres of wet prairie.

The diversity of plants on the Refuge includes such plants as smooth sumac, coralberry, false indigo, 

swamp milkweed, blue wild indigo, swamp buttercup, monkeyflower, blue lobelia, downy painted 

cup (Indian paintbrush), prairie larkspur, dotted blazing star, hoary puccoon, round-headed bushclover, soaptree yucca, prairie ragwort, goldenrods, sunflowers, asters, and numerous grasses 

(including big and little bluestems, and hairy grama). The Refuge also features “Wildflower 

Gardens at Squaw Creek,” plantings around the Visitor Center of native tallgrass-prairie and 

woodland wildflowers, grasses, and other plants. Among these species are Dutchman’s breeches, 

wild columbine, prairie smoke, blue-eyed grass, showy evening primrose, wild sweet-William 

(Phlox), Solomon’s-seal, mayapple, Jack-in-the-pulpit, beardtongue, butterflyweed, lead plant, rose 

verbena, spiderwort, black-eyed Susan, coneflowers, wild petunia, queen-of-the-prairie, shrubby St. 

John’s-wort, rattlesnake master, and white snakeroot.

3.2.4 Invasive Species

Non-native mammals, birds, insects, mollusks, fish and plants have been introduced to the Refuge 

during the past 100 years. Exotic, invasive or alien species cause vast ecological and economic 

damage, sometimes impacting human health. These species range across almost every ecosystem of 

the country. Invading species are usually very successful when introduced to a new environment 

because they have no natural enemies, and they can usually find a niche to exploit.

Many areas of the Squaw Creek NWR have noxious and exotic weeds that are controlled 

biologically, mechanically, physically or, when necessary, chemically. Missouri has State noxious 

weed laws that require public land managers to control specific weeds including marijuana 

(Cannabis sativa), musk thistle (Carduus nutans L.), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Johnson 

grass (Sorghum halepense), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum 

salicaria). 

The Service has made prevention and control of invasive plant and animal species a top priority. It 

is the policy of the Department of Interior, the Service and Region 3 that all reasonable steps should 

be taken to minimize or, when feasible, eliminate dependence on chemical pest control agents. 

Reduction of chemical usage on Service lands is unquestionably the best thing to do for the 

resources in our care.
103

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

3.2.5 Sedimentation and Water Quality 

Water resources for the Refuge include gravity flow from Squaw Creek, gravity flow from Davis 

Creek, and a well and pump on the Rice Paddy moist soil unit and in Mallard Marsh. Silt from the 

five creeks that converge to become Squaw Creek and Davis Creek is a primary concern for the 

Refuge. Chemicals from non-point agricultural sources are also a concern for their affect on Refuge 

wetlands.

3.2.6 Geomorphology and Soils

3.2.6.1 Geomorphology

The Refuge lies in a area that has been shaped by glaciers, water, and wind. The area has been 

studied and described by the Geological Survey and Resource Assessment Division of the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources.

During the last period of glaciation, called the Wisconsin glaciation, the exposed rocks of northern 

Missouri, eroded by earlier glacial advances, were scoured again by advancing ice sheets. The result 

of glacial scouring is a combination of pre-glacial and postglacial eroded surfaces.

Glacial till or drift, composed of sand, clay, silt, gravel, cobbles, and boulders, deposited on the 

surface and in valleys that were eroded earlier, can be quite thick, up to several hundred feet. These 

glaciated plains and glacial till are constantly being eroded by rainfall and dissected by runoff, 

gradually destroying the formerly nearly level topography. The drainage pattern consists of nearly 

parallel streams trending north-south toward the Missouri River, the major drainage stream.

In the glaciated area, particularly near the Missouri River, post-glacial winds carried large 

quantities of fine silt into the air, subsequently depositing it in the “river hills.” These deposits are a 

noticeable characteristic of the landscape along I-29 from Kansas City to Iowa. The silty material, 

deposited in wind-blown drifts (like sand dunes, but finer-grained), is called loess. Because of the 

way the silt particles were wind-deposited, the particles are “stacked” vertically, and when these 

deposits must be excavated, as in road-building, the road cuts are typically vertical, rather than 

sloped, to reduce erosion by storm water runoff. (Water Resources Report Number 61)

3.2.6.2 Soils

The soils of the Refuge fall into three major associations. The slope, depth, drainage, and other 

characteristics of the soils can differ within an association. The association gives a general idea of 

soil characteristics. More detailed soil descriptions are needed to evaluate the suitability of a site for 

specific projects such as building or road construction.

The west and central portion of the Refuge occupies the Luton-Wabash-Blencoe Association. This 

association is characterized as nearly level, poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained, clayey 

soils that formed in alluvium; on high flood plains along the Missouri River. The area of the Refuge 

between the previous association and the hills occupies the Motark-Dupo-Dockery Association, 

which is nearly level, moderately well drained and somewhat poorly drained, silty soils that formed 

in alluvium; on flood plains. The soils in this association are on flood plains along secondary streams 

that cross the Missouri River flood plain. The eastern portion of the Refuge occupies the TimulaMonona-Napier Association. This association is characterized as very gently sloping to steep, well 

drained, silty soils that formed in loess and slope alluvium; on uplands and foot slopes. The soils in 

this association are on very dissected, narrow, branching ridgetops, on steep gullied side slopes, and 

on the lower foot slopes adjacent to the Missouri River flood plain. (USDA, NRCS)
104

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

3.3 Wildlife

3.3.1 Migratory Bird Species

The Refuge bird list contains 268 species that have been recorded on the Refuge. Another 33 birds, 

listed under “Accidental” birds, have been reported but are not normally expected to be present.

Waterfowl are the most prominent and economically important group of migratory birds using the 

Refuge. Non-consumptive use of bird resources also is important on the Refuge. Birdwatching on 

the Refuge accounted for approximately 25 percent of public-use days in 2001.

3.3.2 Fish Species

 The Refuge lies within the floodplain of the Missouri River. Temporary wetlands do not typically 

hold enough water to support fisheries, and species found at Squaw Creek NWR come mostly from 

Davis Creek and Squaw Creek. There are at least 10 species of fish present on the Refuge. About 

three species are common or abundant in certain pools or reaches. Carp, gar and bullhead are the 

most common species. Although the Refuge still hosts most of the species that were present 

historically, the relative abundance and distribution of some species has changed dramatically in the 

last 100 years. Some of these changes are attributable to events such as the introduction of the 

common carp, reduction in overall wetland abundance, and sedimentation. 

Species found on the Refuge include: shortnose gar, common carp, smallmouth buffalo, largemouth 

buffalo, river carpsucker, channel catfish, black bullhead, largemouth bass, white crappie, and green 

sunfish.

3.3.3 Freshwater Mussels

Four species of freshwater mussels have been recorded on the Refuge: Yellow sandshell (Davis and 

Squaw creeks); Giant floater (Davis and Squaw creeks); Pondhorn (Davis and Squaw creeks); and 

Fingernail Clam, which are present in wetlands. Freshwater mussels are typically found buried in 

the substrate in beds containing several different species with similar habitat requirements. Most 

of these species require flowing water and coarse gravelly substrates, although some survive well 

in silty, lake-like conditions in backwaters. Water and sediment quality are important habitat 

criteria for mussels. 

3.3.4 Mammals

Squaw Creek NWR is home to many resident mammal species including white-tailed deer, red fox, 

grey fox, fox squirrels, grey squirrels, cotton-tail rabbits, bobcats, coyotes, raccoons, striped 

skunks, muskrats, badgers, river otter, opossum, mink and beavers. Small mammals present on the 

Refuge also include short-tailed shrew, least shrew, Eastern mole, woodchuck, Plains pocket 

gopher, Western harvest mouse, deer mouse, white-footed mouse, house mouse, meadow jumping 

mouse, long-tailed weasel, and hispid cotton rat. A total of 34 mammals have been observed on the 

Refuge since 1935 by Refuge personnel and visiting mammalogists. An additional 13 mammals have 

been documented as occurring in nearby counties.

Bats found on the Refuge include the little brown bat, big brown bat, and hoary bat.

3.3.5 Upland Game Birds

Four species of upland game birds - Bobwhite Quail, Ring-necked Pheasant, Wild Turkey and 

Mourning Dove - reside on Refuge lands.
105

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

3.3.6 Amphibians and Reptiles

Thirty-five species of amphibians and reptiles are known to use the Refuge. Species regularly seen 

are snapping turtles, painted turtles, box turtles, fox snakes, water snakes and various garter 

snakes. 

Species found on the Refuge include: tiger salamander, small-mouthed salamander, Plains 

spadefoot, Eastern American toad, Great Plains toad, Woodhouse's toad, Blanchard's cricket frog, 

Cope's grey treefrog, Western chorus frog, Plains leopard frog, bullfrog, Blanding's turtle (statelisted endangered species), ornate box turtle, red-eared slider, Eastern spiny softshell turtle, fivelined skink, six-lined racerunner, Eastern yellow-bellied racer, prairie ring-necked snake, black 

snake, Western fox snake, prairie kingsnake, red milk snake, diamond-backed water snake, 

northern water snake, bullsnake, Graham's crayfish snake, Texas brown snake, Western ribbon 

snake, Western Plains garter snake, red-sided garter snake, Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake.

3.3.7 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species

3.3.7.1 Mammals

No Federally listed endangered or threatened mammal species occur on the Refuge, however the 

Indiana bat has been recorded in adjoining counties.

3.3.7.2 Birds

Federally listed threatened and endangered species sighted in the recent past have included the 

Peregrine Falcon, Piping Plover, Least Tern and Bald Eagle. 

The interior Least Tern was federally listed as endangered in May 1985. The interior population of 

the Least Tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos) currently nests in the Mississippi and Rio Grande 

River basins from Montana south to Texas, and from eastern New Mexico and Colorado to Indiana 

and Louisiana. Loss of sandbar habitat due to dams, river channelization, and water level changes 

has caused a decline in interior Least Tern populations. Undisturbed sandbars are critical for 

successful Least Tern nesting. Predation, flooding and recreational activities on sandbars can cause 

nest disturbance and abandonment.

The Piping Plover (Chadarius melodus) (Great Plains Population) is rarely seen on Squaw Creek 

NWR. Piping Plovers nest in coastal areas, but they are also prairie birds, nesting across the Great 

Plains of the United States and Canada, but in perilously low numbers. The Great Plains population 

is listed as threatened. The loss of prairie wetland areas contributes to their decline. Like many 

shorebirds, Piping Plovers feed on immature and adult insects and other invertebrates at the 

water's edge. They winter primarily along beaches, sandflats, and algal flats on the Gulf of Mexico.

The formerly listed Peregrine Falcon uses the Refuge, as well. 

The Bald Eagle, a federally listed threatened species, nests in three sites on the Refuge. From midNovember into January, 250 to 400 Bald Eagles commonly gather at the Refuge, preying upon weak 

and dying waterfowl and roosting in the large cottonwood trees. This is one of the largest wintering 

eagle concentrations in the lower 48 states.

3.3.7.3 Reptiles

A number of Missouri state-listed endangered and threatened species are found on the Refuge, 

including the Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake, Blanding's turtle and Western fox snake. Squaw 

Creek NWR is most likely the home of the last viable breeding population of the Eastern 

Massassauga rattlesnake, which is also a candidate species for federal listing.
106

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Candidate species are plants and animals for which the Service has sufficient information on their 

biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), but for which development of a listing regulation is precluded by other higher 

priority listing activities.

The Candidate Conservation Program provides a means for conserving these species. Early 

conservation preserves management options, minimizes the cost of recovery, and reduces the 

potential for restrictive land use policies in the future. Effective candidate conservation may 

reverse the species' decline, ultimately eliminating the need for ESA protection.

Candidate species receive no statutory protection under the ESA. However, the Service 

encourages the formation of partnerships to conserve these species because they are by definition 

species that may warrant future protection under the ESA.

3.3.7.4 Plants

No Federally endangered or threatened plant species occur on the Refuge.

3.4 Public Use

The 1997 Refuge System Improvement Act gives priority to six wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses of national wildlife refuges when these uses are compatible with the purposes for which the 

refuge was established. These uses include hunting, fishing, wildlife photography, wildlife 

observation, environmental education and interpretation. 

The Refuge is open daily during daylight hours. There is no entrance fee. The Refuge headquarters/

visitor contact station is open on weekdays, except national holidays. Open-house weekends for 

public visitation are held during spring and autumn migration periods. Volunteers, who staff the 

visitor contact station, provide information and conduct sales of educational materials.

Visitor activities include birdwatching, photography, hiking, viewing interpretive exhibits in the 

visitor contact station, environmental education programs for teachers and student groups, and 

driving the 10-mile Wild Goose Interpretive Auto Tour Loop (but periods of rain can make Refuge 

roads impassable). Visitors fish on the Refuge. In the fall visitors pursue white-tailed deer as part of 

the Refuge's managed hunt. Camping is not permitted on the Refuge. Campground facilities are 

available at nearby Big Lake State Park.

A wheelchair-accessible observation tower overlooking the 900-acre Eagle Pool provides an 

excellent opportunity for wildlife watching and photography. Hiking opportunities include the 

wheelchair-accessible half-mile Mike Callow Memorial Trail from Refuge headquarters to the base 

of the Loess Bluff grasslands; the 0.5-mile Loess Bluff Interpretive Trail near headquarters; and 

the 1.5-mile Eagle Pool Trail between Eagle and Pelican pools. In early December, the Refuge and 

the Missouri Department of Conservation co-sponsor “Squaw Creek Eagle Days” the first full 

weekend in December. This weekend event features special educational programs, displays, and 

eagle-viewing opportunities.

The Refuge, located in a rural region, is within 30 miles of a St. Joseph, Missouri, and within 100 

miles of Kansas City, Missouri. The population of the two urban areas exceeds half a million people. 

With a new addition to the Refuge office and visitor center, the potential exists for the Refuge to 

play a greater role as an educational resource and wildlife observation destination.
107

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

3.5 Socioeconomics

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires agencies to disclose to decision 

makers and to the public what society gains or loses with projects that have the potential of altering 

the environment. In addition, Executive Order 12898 requires agencies within the Department of 

Interior to evaluate whether any notable impacts to minority and low-income populations and 

communities will occur with the proposed project action.

Based upon 2000 census data (or as indicated), Holt County can be characterized by the following 

statistics:

■ Population 5,268 (2001 data); a reduction of 1.6 percent from 2000 data

■ 99.1 percent are white with the balance other races

■ Median age 41.8

■ 26.2 percent 19 years old or younger

■ 24.2 percent 62 years old or older

■ 81.9 percent of persons over 25 years old are high school graduates

■ 11.7 percent of persons over 25 years old have a bachelors degree or higher

■ 23 minutes mean travel time to work for workers over 16 years old

■ Farmland (1997) 231,040 acres (78 percent of county area) 

■ Personal income per capita (1999) $15,876

■ Median household income (1999) $29,461

Agricultural land dominates Holt County, representing 78 percent of land. In 2002, 105,700 acres of 

soybeans and 94,900 acres of corn were planted in the county (Missouri Agricultural Statistics 

Service). Other prevalent land use includes grassland and deciduous upland mixed oak forest.

The Service produced “Banking on Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of 

National Wildlife Refuge Visitation.” This 1997 report, which was updated in 2002, is the first of a 

multi-phase study investigating the impact of national wildlife refuges on their local economies. It is 

a broad spectrum report that discusses the income and employment effects that recreational 

visitors to refuges have on the economies of local regions. In addition to the economic effects of 

refuge hunting and fishing programs in local communities, it measures the economic impact of ecotourism, the relatively recent phenomenon of large numbers of people traveling substantial 

distances to take part in non-consumptive uses of the natural environment. Eco-tourism is one way 

to derive economic benefits from the conservation of wildlife and habitat.

The study found that recreational visits to national wildlife refuges generate substantial economic 

activity. In fiscal year 2002, people visited refuges more than 35.5 million times for recreation and 

environmental education. Their spending generated $809.2 million of sales in regional economies. As 

this spending flowed through the economy, more than 19,000 people were employed and $315.2 

million in employment income was generated.

3.6 Archeological and Cultural Values

Holt County contains a site with possible evidence of the Early Man period (prior to 12,000 B.C.), 

the Grundel Mastodon site 25-HO-11. The earliest commonly accepted cultural period in Missouri is 

the Paleo Indian (and Dalton), 12,000-7,000 B.C.; no sites of this culture have been reported in Holt 

County but sites often are found along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers and could be deeply 
108

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

buried in the Refuge area; a private collector has a Dalton-type point reportedly from the Derr 

tract on the Refuge. For the Archaic culture, 7000-1000 B.C., sites have been reported in Holt 

County but not within the Refuge; but again, the private collector has material reportedly from the 

Derr tract. The Altithermal, a significantly warm period, peaked just prior to 2000 B.C., resulting in 

Archaic cultural changes. The Woodland culture, 1,000 B.C.-A.D. 900, is represented by numerous 

sites in Holt County and a few within the Refuge. People during this period developed pottery and 

the bow-and-arrow, buried their dead in mounds, and commenced gardening. No late prehistoric 

(e.g., Oneota) sites have been reported in Holt County.

In the early historic period the Sac and Fox tribes claimed territory that includes the Refuge. The 

Missouria and Oto tribes migrated into Missouri around 1673, but apparently did not stay long. By 

the early 19th century the Kansa tribe occupied the Refuge area. The Kickapoo and Delaware may 

have been in the Refuge area, too. The Refuge area is in the Royce Cession 151, a common hunting 

area for tribes created as a result of the Treaty of Prairie du Chien in 1830. But in 1833 the U.S. 

Government settled the Potawatomi in this area until it became state property in 1837. No Indian 

sites from this period have been reported in Holt County.

The cultural history of Service properties within the Squaw Creek Management District (e.g., 

Worth County), appears to be much the same as for the Refuge, except no sites have been identified 

on any of these properties.

The Refuge benefited from the 1930s New Deal federal employment efforts. A Civilian 

Conservation Corps (CCC) camp was located 5 miles north of the Refuge in Mound City. Corpsmen 

constructed a number of facilities, including the Loess Bluff hiking trail, using flagstone rock for the 

steps, a shelter at the top of the bluff trail, the south dam and water control structure, the flagstone 

rock wall around the present parking lot, an equipment building and a major portion of the auto tour 

route. In 1940 and 1941, men from the Works Progress Administration (WPA) constructed the rest 

of the building, including a horse barn, a chicken coop, shop, fur house, corn crib, headquarters 

building, garage, grain shed, dragline shed, and pump house. 

Cultural resources investigations have covered approximately 550 acres of the Refuge and 35 acres 

of management district land. These studies and other sources have identified 12 sites, including the 

headquarters complex, on the Refuge. Sites within the pools can be anticipated but would be deeply 

buried. Sites on the adjacent uplands, based on the survey of the Derr tract, are likely numerous 

and shallow.

No National Register properties are located on the Refuge or the management district. As of April 

1, 2003, four properties are listed in Holt County, none being indicative of what might be found on 

the Refuge. Andrew County contains three, Daviess County contains three, Gentry County 

contains three, Mercer County contains two, and Worth County contains one National Register 

property.

The following listed Indian tribes have been recognized by the Federal government or selfidentified by the tribe as having a potential concern for traditional cultural resources, sacred sites, 

and cultural hunting and gathering areas in the counties in which the Refuge and management 

district are located.

Andrew, Holt, and Worth counties:

■ Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska

■ Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma

■ Omaha Tribe of Nebraska

■ Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians
109

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

■ Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska

■ Sac & Fox Nation of Oklahoma

■ Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa

 

Daviess and Mercer counties:

■ Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska

■ Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma

Gentry County: None

Although Indian tribes are generally considered to have concerns about traditional cultural 

properties, other groups such as church congregations, civic groups, and county historical societies 

could identify similar concerns.

The Refuge archeological collections contain prehistoric artifacts currently not associated with any 

modern tribe. The collections contain no human remains and no recognized funerary objects, sacred 

objects or objects of cultural patrimony as defined in the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act. Although sites of historic period Indian occupation have not been identified on 

the Refuge, they could be located and could contain cultural items.

The Refuge has museum collections that are managed under a Region-wide Scope of Collection 

Statement (10-31-94). To date, one archeological investigation has produced 94 artifacts from 

Refuge lands; artifacts are stored at the University if Missouri, Columbia, under a cooperative 

agreement. Artifacts are owned by the Federal Government and can be recalled by the Service at 

any time. And the Refuge has an on-site collection of 83 zoological specimens.

Cultural resources are important parts of the Nation's heritage. The Service is committed to 

protecting valuable evidence of human interactions with each other and the landscape. Protection is 

accomplished in conjunction with the Service's mandate to conserve fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources.
110

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives

4.1.1 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President Bill Clinton on February 11, 

1994, to focus Federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and 

low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. 

The Order directed Federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in 

identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The Order 

is also intended to promote nondiscrimination in Federal programs substantially affecting human 

health and the environment, and to provide minority and low-income communities access to public 

information and participation in matters relating to human health or the environment.

None of the proposed management alternatives disproportionately place an adverse environmental, 

economic, social, or health impacts on minority or low-income populations.

4.1.2 Archaeological and Cultural Values

The activities that are most positive for cultural resources are those that reduce or eliminate 

activities on the Refuge. In general, recreation activities and invasive species control have little 

potential to affect cultural resources and are envisioned as having a neutral effect on cultural 

resources. However, non motorized use of trails may have a negative impact on cultural resources 

by increasing visitor traffic to sensitive cultural areas. Cultural resources are sensitive to ground 

disturbing activities. Activities that may have a negative impact on cultural resources include 

farming, dredging, and construction of new trails or facilities. Fire suppression activities can also 

damage archaeological sites if new roads and firelines are constructed while combating the fire.

 The impacts of the alternatives on cultural resources were evaluated with the assumption that 

significant, but as yet unidentified, cultural resources may occur on the Refuge. Under any 

alternative, site specific actions such as construction of facilities will be subject to additional 

environmental review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, which affords 

protection to significant cultural resources as prescribed by the National Historic Preservation Act 

and other applicable regulations and guidelines. Although avoidance is the preferred approach, 

mitigation of effect is an acceptable treatment and development activities may, therefore, result in a 

net loss of resources.
111

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

4.1.3 Climate Change Impacts

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies 

under its direction that have land management responsibilities to consider potential climate change 

impacts as part of long range planning endeavors. 

The increase of carbon within the earth's atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface 

temperature commonly referred to as global warming. In relation to comprehensive conservation 

planning for national wildlife refuges, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related 

impact to be considered in planning. The U.S. Department of Energy's “Carbon Sequestration 

Research and Development” (U.S. DOE, 1999) defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and 

secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.”

The land is a tremendous force in carbon sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts (grasslands, 

forests, wetlands, tundra, perpetual ice and desert) are effective both in preventing carbon emission 

and acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric carbon monoxide. The Department of Energy 

report's conclusions noted that ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration and may 

reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere.

Preserving natural habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long range plan for national wildlife 

refuges. The actions proposed under any of the alternatives would conserve or restore land and 

water, and would thus enhance carbon sequestration. This in turn contributes positively to efforts 

to mitigate human-induced global climate changes.

4.1.4 Prescribed Fire as a Management Tool

The Refuge's Fire Management Plan (FMP) provides additional detail beyond what is captured in 

this section and will be adopted through this EA.

4.1.4.1 Social Implications

Prescribed burns will have an effect on the local public. Public concern is noticed every time a fire is 

set. A prescribed burn will effect and benefit the local community in many ways. These benefits 

must be explained to the public at every opportunity. 

A prescribed burn on the Refuge will be a direct benefit to the public in creating recreational 

opportunities through increased wildlife populations for hunting and observation. If a wildfire is 

started on or near the Refuge, the areas that were previously prescribed burned and the firebreaks 

intended for prescribed burning will be of extreme benefit in controlling the fire.

The aspect of the fire that will solicit the most public concern will be the smoke. Smoke from a 

Refuge fire could impair visibility on roads and become a hazard. Actions to manage smoke include: 

use of road guards and 

 car, signing, altering ignition techniques and sequence, halting ignition, suppressing the fire, and 

use of local law enforcement as traffic control. Burning will be done only on days that the smoke will 

not be blown across the community or when the wind is sufficient as not to cause heavy 

concentrations. 

If Missouri institutes smoke regulations, the FMP will be amended to ensure consistency with those 

regulations. Combustion of fuels during prescribed fire operations may temporarily impact air 

quality, but the impacts are mitigated by small burn unit size, the direction of winds the burns are 

conducted with, and the distance from population centers. All efforts will be taken to assure that 

smoke does not impact smoke sensitive areas such as roads and local residences. In the event of 

wind direction changes, mitigative measures will be taken to assure the public safety and comfort. 
112

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Refuge staff will work with neighboring agencies and in consultation with State air quality 

personnel to address smoke issues that require additional mitigation.

The fire prescription portion of the Annual Prescribed Fire Plan for each unit proposed to be 

burned during the burning season will have specific mitigative measures to deal with unexpected 

smoke management problems. This will include identified problems that unforecasted wind changes 

may cause and measures to be employed to protect the public.

Public concern may arise with any kind of smoke from the Refuge. This concern can be relieved only 

by a concerted effort by Refuge personnel to carefully inform the local citizens about the prescribed 

burning program. Emphasis will be placed on the benefits to wildlife as well as the safety 

precautions in effect. Formal interpretive programs both on and off the Refuge, explaining the 

prescribed burning program, will be encouraged.

4.1.4.2 Archaeological and Cultural Values

There may be archaeological sites within prescribed burn units. When these units are burned, it is 

doubtful that the fire will have any adverse impact on the sites. The fire will be only a temporary 

disturbance to the vegetation in the area and in no way destroy or reduce the archeological value. 

All artifacts are buried well beneath the surface. No above ground evidence exists. No known sites 

will be impacted by prescribed burning operations.

4.1.4.3 Flora

The prescribed burning program will have a visible impact on vegetation and the land. Immediately 

after a fire much of the land will be blackened. There will be no grasses or ground forbs remaining 

and most of the higher brush such as oak sprouts and willow will be bare of leaves. Trees will be 

scorched up to 20 feet above the ground. This will be particularly noticeable on the light colored 

bark of aspen and birch. There may be large areas up to 1 acre in size interspersed throughout the 

burn that are untouched by the fire. This may be a result of wet ground conditions or a break in fuel 

continuity.

Within 3 days after the burn, the grasses and forbs will begin to grow. The enriched soil will 

promote rapid growth such that after 2 or 3 weeks the ground will be completely covered. The 

willow and oak will, in many cases, re-sprout. The bases of the trees as well as the burned slash and 

stumps will be partially or completely covered by the new growth. Some of the less fire resistant 

trees will show signs of wilting and may succumb within a month or two. Generally, after one season 

any sign of the prescribed burn will be difficult to detect without close examination. After 2 or 3 

years it will be virtually impossible to detect the presence of the fire.

Other more long lived signs will remain for an indefinite period of time. The firebreaks will not be 

allowed to grow over in order to realize their benefit during wildfires and future prescribed burns. 

Vehicle tracks through the burn are visible on the freshly burned ash and may be longer lived if the 

vehicle became stuck or created tire grooves in the ground. Travel across the burn area will be kept 

to a minimum. Vehicle travel may be necessary in some instances, such as lighting the fire lines or 

quickly getting water to an escape point. A fire plow will be used only in the event that a break-over 

does occur and cannot be controlled by any other method. The deep trench of the plow would leave 

a very long lived scar. This trench could be repaired by filling, which would eliminate it from view 

after 5 to 10 years.

4.1.4.4 Listed Species

The potential impacts of fire on listed species is likely to be positive, if there is any impact. Of the 

federally listed threatened and endangered species on or near the Refuge, three are birds (Bald 

Eagle, Piping Plover, and Interior Least Tern). Bald Eagles that roost, nest, and feed on the 

Refuge, if affected at all by burning, will only be so temporarily by smoke or human activity. 
113

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

Nesting trees will be protected and burning will not be conducted at a time or in a way to negatively 

impact any nesting eagles. 

The Interior Least Tern favors sandbar habitat for nesting. This generally is not habitat that will be 

burned. If a burn were to be conducted to clear vegetation on a sandbar to benefit the Terns, it 

would be done at a time of the year that would not conflict with the Tern use of the area. 

Squaw Creek NWR is within the historical range of the Massassauga rattlesnake. The Massassauga 

is a candidate species for listing. During a prescribed burn in 2001, Refuge staff discovered the 

snake in an area not previously believed to harbor the species. Eight snakes were killed in that 

burn, and since then we have continued snake research in an effort to avoid conducting spring burns 

in areas where there are snakes. While it is positive that the Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake 

appears to be thriving on the Refuge, populations expanding into new areas pose a problem for 

spring burns. The Refuge's prescribed burning program has been modified to account for any 

potential problems. Modifications include burning early in the spring, prior to the snakes emerging 

from their underground hibernation areas, as well as burning later in the fall after the snakes have 

gone back into hibernation.

We are conducting a Section 7 review concurrent with the review of the draft CCP. The Section 7 

review will examine the modified prescribed burning program.

Missouri is the southern edge of the Northern Great Plains population of Piping Plover. In this area, 

Plovers make their nests on beaches, sand bars, and dredged material islands of major river 

systems. The Northern Great Plains birds are federally listed as threatened, and with 

approximately 1,398 breeding pairs it is the largest population of Piping Plovers in the United 

States. Beaches, sandbars and islands are not typically locations where prescribed burns are 

conducted. If a burn were to be conducted in this kind of habitat, it would be scheduled so that 

conflict with the Plovers would be avoided.

4.1.4.5 Soils

The effect of fire on the soil depends largely on the fire intensity and duration. On areas with high 

fuel loads, a slow backing fire is usually required for containment and desirable results. The intense 

heats generated by this type of fire will have a greater effect on the soils than fast, cool head-fires 

used on farm fields and wildlife openings. The cool, moist soils of wetter areas in the burn units or 

areas with little fuel will be unaffected by the fire.

The severity of damage to the soil depends to a great degree on the thickness and composition of 

the organic mantle. In cases where only the top layer of the mantle is scorched or burned, no 

damage will result to the soil below. This is usually the case in forested areas.

In open areas such as dry grassland or wet meadow sites, the blackening of the relatively thin 

mantle will cause greater heat absorption and retention from the sun. This will encourage earlier 

germination during the spring growing season. Nutrient release occurs as a result of the normal 

decomposition process. Fire on the soil will greatly speed up the process. The rate and amount of 

nutrients released will be dependent on the fire duration and intensity as well as the amount of 

humus, duff and other organic materials present in the mantle. The increase, immediately after a 

burn, of calcium, potash, phosphoric acid and other minerals will give the residual and emergent 

vegetation a short-term boost. However, the rapid leaching through the sandy soils will cause rapid 

runoff of these nutrients and only short-term benefits. The increased nutrification of the soil by the 

emergent vegetation and increased nutrient release result in rapid regrowth of grasses and other 

succulent vegetation on the sites.
114

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

There is no evidence to show that the direct heating of the soil by the burning of material above it 

with a fire of low intensity has any significant adverse effect. Fire of this type has little total effect 

on the soils and, in most cases, would be beneficial.

4.1.4.6 Escaped Fire

With any prescribed fire there always exists the possibility of its escape into the surrounding area. 

This can be caused by one or more factors that may or may not be preventable. Inadequate 

firebreaks, too few personnel, unpredicted changes in weather conditions, peculiar fuel type, being 

in too big a hurry, and insufficient knowledge of fire behavior are a few factors which could cause 

loss of control. An escaped fire could turn into a very serious situation. The damage that could 

result would be much less severe on the Refuge than if it encroached on private land where 

buildings, equipment, and land improvements would be involved. Many of the prescribed burn areas 

are well within the Refuge and of minimal threat to private or other improved lands in the event of 

an escape. Extreme care, careful planning, and adherence to the unit prescription will be exercised 

when prescribed burning all units, particularly when burning areas that are near or adjacent to the 

Refuge boundary.

In the event that a prescribed fire does jump a firebreak and burn into unplanned areas, there is a 

high probability of rapid control with minimal adverse impact. The network of firebreaks and roads 

will greatly assist in rapid containment. In most cases all of the Refuge fire fighting equipment will 

be immediately available at the scene with all nearby water sources previously located. The 

applicable DNR fire suppression crews and local fire departments will always be notified of a 

prescribed burn. Thus, maximum numbers of experienced personnel and equipment are 

immediately available for wildfire suppression activities.

4.1.5 Trapping

Trapping is occasionally used as a management tool under permit or by Refuge staff. Removing 

beaver that are plugging water control structures or muskrats, beaver, or woodchucks that are 

damaging dikes by undermining them with tunnels are examples of management uses for trapping. 

The direct impact upon the animal trapped is fatal, but impacts on the overall population of the 

species in the area is negligible due to the small number of animals taken and the restricted areas 

trapped.

4.1.6 Snow Goose Management

All five alternatives propose to assist in international efforts to reduce the mid-continent population 

of Snow Geese by 5 percent each year. While this action would result in higher Snow Goose 

mortality in the short-term, this course is likely to improve the species as a whole. The midcontinent population is experiencing a “perilous abundance” and numbers are beyond the carrying 

capacity of the nesting grounds in Canada. Reducing the Snow Goose population is essential to the 

long-term health of the population. 

Reducing the population may result in less spectacular viewing opportunities for visitors at the 

Refuge. However, we believe that the need to prevent further nesting habitat loss overrides this 

concern.

4.1.7 Squaw Creek Wildlife Management District

All five alternatives would benefit migratory game birds and non-game birds as well as resident 

species by developing, improving and maintaining native riparian, wetland, and grassland habitats 

consistent with the existing dominant non-agricultural structure. Soil and water conservation 

would benefit by converting land to a natural state.
115

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

4.2 Alternative A: Current Management Practices (No 

Action) 

Under this alternative there would be no major change in Refuge goals, objectives, and strategies. 

4.2.1 Listed and Other Species of Interest

Under this alternative, Bald Eagles would benefit from the Refuge maintaining bottomland 

cottonwood forest areas and isolated mature cottonwood stands that provide nesting and roosting 

sites. The Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake would benefit somewhat because the Refuge would 

maintain existing wet prairie (1,077 acres) habitat. Piping Plovers and Least Terns, both of which 

use sandbars and beaches for nesting, would benefit less under this alternative because it does 

nothing to alleviate sedimentation, which is filling in these habitats. Some species would benefit if 

the Refuge is successful is gaining regional shorebird designation as more attention is given to 

shorebird species. While studies monitoring the Blanding's turtle would continue, habitat would 

continue to degrade as marshes filled with silt. 

4.2.2 Wildlife and Habitat Resource Management

Alternative A would not drastically change wildlife and resource habitat management (see Table 3). 

Wetland, wet prairie, grassland and bottomland forest habitat acreages would change only slightly 

as the Refuge continued its current management trend toward less cropland. Current efforts to 

restore Loess Hill habitat would continue. All habitats would benefit from continued efforts to 

control invasive, exotic and nuisance species. Less habitat would be restored than under 

alternatives B, D, and E because only minor land acquisition would occur. All Refuge habitats would 

benefit from the Refuge working with private landowners on watershed improvements to reduce 

sedimentation caused by soil erosion. Wet prairie would be maintained at its current acreage; three 

of the four other alternatives would increase the amount of wet prairie on the Refuge.

Continuing current management would benefit wildlife species using the Refuge. Efforts to reduce 

sedimentation, manage bottomland uplands for waterfowl, work with others to reduce the Snow 

Goose population, and reduce the size of the deer herd on the Refuge will all improve the carrying 

capacity of Refuge habitat. Grassland birds and upland game birds would benefit from current 

grassland management, but not as much as under alternatives D and E, which provide somewhat 

more habitat. 

4.2.3 Sedimentation and Water Quality

The Refuge would benefit from work with private landowners within the watershed to implement 

conservation practices that would reduce erosion and the resulting sedimentation.

4.2.4 Public Use and Education

Under Alternative A (as well as alternatives B and E), public use and education efforts would see 

modest improvement. Completion of the visitor center will likely attract some additional users and 

open some new opportunities to convey refuge messages. Interactive programs and facilities would 

be developed with a goal of accommodating 130,000 visitors a year. Refuge staff would maintain 

environmental education programs at 2003 levels, and wildlife observation facilities and programs 

would be improved to encourage greater participation and more interaction with visitors. 

Opportunities to hunt white-tailed deer would be increased as part of the effort to reduce the 

Refuge deer herd. Public use efforts would not seek to reach out to nontraditional Refuge users. 

Community awareness of the Refuge and Refuge goals might increase as greater focus is placed on 

involving volunteers and the Refuge's relationship with Friends of the Squaw Creek NWR. 
116

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Table 2: Landcover Acreages for Alternatives A, B, C, D and E 

Habitat Description Alternative A

Current 

Management (No 

Action)

Alternative B

Restore Historic 

Wet and Mesic 

Prairie

Alternative C

Enhance Public 

Use with Current 

Resource 

Management 

Level

Alternative D

Optimize 

Resource 

Management 

with Enhanced 

Public Use Level 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Alternative E

Intensive Wetland 

Management 

with Extreme 

Measures to 

Combat 

Sedimentation

Agricultural Field

Agricultural 

Field

579 0 579 300 300

Bottomland Forest

Alluvial Bottomland Hardwoods865 865 865 865 865

Semi-permanently Flooded 

Alluvial Bottomland Hardwoods

112 112 112 112 112

Tree Row 23 23 23 23 23

Subtotal 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

Bottomland Mesic Prairie

Bottomland 

Mesic Prairie

291 870 291 508 570

Developed Land

Administrative 

Area

99999

Channelized 

Drainage Ditch

135 135 135 135 135

Major Roads and 

Adjacent Rightof-ways

108 108 108 108 108

Subtotal 251 251 251 251 251

Loess Hill Forest

Loess Hill Mixed 

Hardwood 

Upland Forest

366 366 366 366 366

Mixed Lowland 

Hardwood Forest

88888

Tree Row 4 4 4 4 4

Subtotal 378 378 378 378 378

Loess Hill Prairie

Eastern Gamma 

Grass Seed Prairie

75 75 75 75 75

Loess Hill Prairie 147 147 147 268 147

Subtotal 221 221 221 299 221
117

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

Managed Wetland

Permanently 

Flooded Nonemergent Wetland

878 878 878 878 878

Seasonally 

Flooded Emergent Marsh

2,531 349 2,531 2,531 2,531

Subtotal 3,403 1,227 3,403 3,452 3,403

Old Field

Old Field 59 59 59 0 59

Wet Prairie

Wet Prairie 1,077 3,259 1,077 1,077 1,077

Wetland

Bulrush/Reed 

Canary Grass 

Wetland

148 148 148 148 148

Reed Canary 

Grass/Willow 

Wetland

24 24 24 24 24

Seasonally 

Flooded Emergent Marsh

55555

Subtotal 176 176 176 176 176

Table 2: Landcover Acreages for Alternatives A, B, C, D and E (Continued)

Habitat Description Alternative A

Current 

Management (No 

Action)

Alternative B

Restore Historic 

Wet and Mesic 

Prairie

Alternative C

Enhance Public 

Use with Current 

Resource 

Management 

Level

Alternative D

Optimize 

Resource 

Management 

with Enhanced 

Public Use Level 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Alternative E

Intensive Wetland 

Management 

with Extreme 

Measures to 

Combat 

Sedimentation
118

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

4.3 Alternative B: Restore Historic Wet and Mesic Prairie

4.3.1 Listed and Other Species of Interest

Same as Alternative A, except that an increase in wet prairie habitat from 1,077 acres to 3,259 acres 

would likely benefit Eastern Massassauga rattlesnakes on the Refuge. Under Alternative B, more 

emphasis would be placed on monitoring the snakes to determine how they respond to habitat 

manipulation.

4.3.2 Wildlife and Habitat Resource Management

Under this alternative, 579 acres of cropland would be converted to grasslands or wet prairie, 

potentially benefitting waterfowl and grassland bird species. While waterfowl would lose cropland 

forage, converting it to natural vegetation would improve nesting habitat and provide more natural 

foods. This alternative, with its elimination of cropland, would have the most drastic effect of any 

alternative on the redistribution and dispersion of the large flocks of Snow Geese. More wet prairie 

would be conserved under this alternative than Alternative B, which would result in more habitat 

suitable to the eastern Massassauga rattlesnake.

We used a modeling process developed by USGS scientists (Rohweder et al. 2002) to examine the 

relative effects of different alternatives on selected wildlife that use the Refuge. For each species of 

interest, habitat potential for each land cover type was given a rank of 0, 1, 2 or 3 (no, low, medium, 

and high potential, respectively). The acreage of each habitat times its value to that species or 

group of species was summed and divided by the entire refuge acreage (PSO=[(habitat potential 

Habitat A*acres of Habitat A)+(habitat potential Habitat B*acres of Habitat A)+...+(habitat 

potential Habitat Z*acres of Habitat Z)]/total refuge acreage). This resulted in a weighted average 

Potential Species Occurrence (PSO) score for each species or group of species for each alternative. 

For example, if the entire Refuge were high potential habitat for a given species, it would receive a 

PSO score of 3.0 (i.e. 3*total refuge acreage/total refuge acreage). If half of the Refuge were 

medium potential habitat for a given species, and half were low, it would receive a PSO score of 1.5. 

Habitat potential ranks were based on the integrated life cycle needs of each species as determined 

by FWS biologists. The land cover is based upon color infrared aerial photos taken in August, 2001 

and classified by the Refuge biologist. The cover type data were manipulated using Geographic 

Information System (GIS) to develop the land cover alternatives.

In order to assess the broad impacts of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 30 bird and one 

reptile species were chosen to represent several important habitat types found on the Refuge 

(Table 4). We selected the species because they are Region 3 conservation priority species (USFWS 

2002) that use the major habitat types on the Refuge. Potential Species Occurrence scores were 

calculated for Bald Eagle (threatened), Eastern Massassauga rattle snake, and six groups of species 

(six forest birds, six grassland birds, two secretive marsh birds, eight shorebirds, two wet prairie 

birds, and five species of waterfowl).

There was little difference under the various alternatives in Potential Species Occurrence scores for 

any one species or group of species except in Alternative B. Under that alternative, acreages were 

converted from cropland and wetland to prairie, with a slight increase in forest as well. That change 

in habitats benefits the Massassauga rattle snake, grassland birds, and forest birds. In response to 

this change in habitats under Alternative B, the PSO scores for the Bald Eagle, waterfowl, and 

secretive marsh birds declined.
119

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

Potential Species Occurrence scores are rough estimates of the effects of different alternatives and 

focus more on habitat quantity than quality. Factors not considered in this modeling process will 

also affect the value of a given habitat to wildlife. For example, the age a Refuge's habitats can 

affect their value to wildlife and will change as they continue to mature. would enhance these 

habitats for many wildlife species, but this is not reflected in the PSO scores.

4.3.3 Sedimentation and Water Quality

The Refuge would benefit from work with private landowners within the watershed to implement 

conservation practices that would reduce erosion and the resulting sedimentation. (Same as 

Alternative A.)

4.3.4 Public Use and Education

Under this alternative, we expect fewer visitors than in Alternative A. Because fewer Snow Geese 

would use the Refuge under this alternative, the Refuge would be less attractive as a destination 

for wildlife observation, especially to see large concentrations of birds. Environmental education 

and the other priority public uses would be the same as in Alternative A.

Table 3: Weighted Average Species Occurrence for Selected Species Groups

Species Group Number of 

Species

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Average

Alternative B 

Restore Historic 

Wetland Mesic 

Prairie

Alternative C

Enhance Public 

Use with 

Current 

Resource 

Management.

Alternative D

Optimize 

Resource 

Management. 

with Enhanced 

Public Use Level 

(Preferred Alt.)

Alternative E

Intensive 

Wetland 

Management. 

with Extreme 

Measures to 

Combat 

Sedimentation

Forest Neotropical Migrants1 6 0.38 0.46 0.38 0.39 0.39

Forest Raptor2 1 1.36 0.77 1.36 1.36 1.36

Grassland Birds3 6 0.32 0.82 0.32 0.40 0.39

Secretive Marsh Birds4 2 1.49 0.79 1.49 1.50 1.50

Shorebirds5 8 1.07 0.52 1.07 1.07 1.07

Waterfowl6 5 1.47 0.67 1.47 1.48 1.48

Wet Prairie Birds7 2 0.47 0.51 0.47 0.48 0.49

Wet Prairie Reptile8 1 0.92 1.66 0.92 0.99 0.99

1.Black-billed Cuckoo; Whip-poor-Will; Redheaded Woodpecker; Northern Flicker; Wood Thrush; Orchard Oriole

2.Bald Eagle

3.Loggerhead Shrike; Field Sparrow; Grasshopper Sparrow; Dickcissel; Bobolink; Eastern Meadowlark

4.Black-crowned Night Heron; Common Moorhen

5.Piping Plover; Greater Yellowlegs; Hudsonian Godwit; Marbled Godwit; Stilt Sandpiper; Buff-breasted Sandpiper; Short-billed

Dowitcher; Wilson’s Phalarope

6.Snow Goose; Canada Goose (resident); Canada Goose (migrant)

7.Northern Harrier; Long-eared Owl

8.Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake
120

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

4.4 Alternative C: Enhance Public Use/Current Resource 

Management Level

4.4.1 Listed and Other Species of Interest

Under this alternative, Bald Eagles would benefit from the Refuge maintaining bottomland 

cottonwood forest areas and isolated mature cottonwood stands that provide nesting and roosting 

sites. The Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake would benefit somewhat because the Refuge would 

maintain existing wet prairie (1,077 acres) habitat. Piping Plovers and Least Terns, both of which 

use sandbars and beaches for nesting, would benefit less under this alternative because it does 

nothing to alleviate sedimentation, which is filling in these habitats. Some species would benefit if 

the Refuge is successful is gaining regional shorebird designation as more attention is given to 

shorebird species. While studies monitoring the Blanding's turtle would continue, habitat would 

continue to degrade as marshes filled with silt. (Same as Alternative A.)

4.4.2 Wildlife and Habitat Resource Management

Direct resource effects same as Alternative A. If budget and staff are shifted to maximize public 

use, the shifts could negatively effect habitat management, fish and wildlife populations, and 

resource conservation as funding and staff are decreased for these programs.

4.4.3 Sedimentation and Water Quality

The Refuge would benefit from work with private landowners within the watershed to implement 

conservation practices that would reduce erosion and the resulting sedimentation. (Same as 

Alternative A.)

4.4.4 Public Use and Education

More visitors would be attracted to and accommodated on the Refuge (up to 175,000 annually). The 

visitor experience would change from a feeling of seeing few other people to a more social 

experience. There would be an increased positive economic effect on the community. Increases in 

environmental education would lead to long term changes in adoption of environmental 

stewardship. More visitors would experience the benefits of wildlife-dependent recreation.

4.5 Alternative D: Optimize Resource Management With 

Enhanced Public Use / Preferred Alternative

4.5.1 Listed and Other Species of Interest

Under this alternative, Bald Eagles would benefit from the Refuge maintaining bottomland 

cottonwood forest areas and isolated mature cottonwood stands that provide nesting and roosting 

sites. The Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake would benefit slightly more than in Alternative A 

because the Refuge would increase bottomland mesic prairie by 217 acres. Some species would 

benefit if the Refuge is successful is gaining regional shorebird designation as more attention is 

given to shorebird species. Management is not likely to either benefit or harm the Indiana bat. Bat 

habitat and conservation measures would be unchanged.

4.5.2 Wildlife and Habitat Resource Management

This alternative shares many characteristics with Alternative A. Under this alternative, 279 acres 

of cropland would be converted to grasslands or prairie, potentially benefitting waterfowl and 
121

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

grassland bird species. While waterfowl would lose cropland forage, converting it to natural 

vegetation would improve nesting habitat and provide more natural foods. This alternative, with its 

reduction of cropland and a spring Snow Goose hunt, would effect the redistribution and dispersion 

of the large flocks of Snow Geese. A managed spring Snow Goose hunt will contribute to the Snow 

Goose reduction efforts. Deer numbers would be decreased with the reduction of cropland acreage 

as an attractant. With an increase in mesic prairie in this alternative, there would be an increase in 

the carrying capacity for grassland dependent species.

4.5.3 Sedimentation and Water Quality

Under this alternative we would seek to quantify the need and benefit of various approaches, 

including land acquisition, to reducing sedimentation and improving water quality. In the long term 

this may lead to new management proposals that would benefit the ecological health of the Refuge.

4.5.4 Public Use and Education

Under Alternative D, public use and education efforts would see modest improvement. Completion 

of the visitor center will likely attract some additional users and open some new opportunities to 

convey refuge messages. Interactive programs and facilities would be developed with a goal of 

accommodating 130,000 visitors a year. Refuge staff would maintain environmental education 

programs at 2003 levels, and wildlife observation facilities and programs would be improved to 

encourage greater participation and more interaction with visitors. Opportunities to hunt whitetailed deer would be increased as part of the effort to reduce the Refuge deer herd. Opportunities to 

hunt Snow Geese would be created with a spring Snow Goose hunt on the Refuge. Public use efforts 

would seek to reach out to nontraditional Refuge users. Community awareness of the Refuge and 

Refuge goals would increase as greater focus is placed on involving volunteers and the Refuge's 

relationship with Friends of the Squaw Creek NWR.

4.6 Alternative E: Intensive Wetland Management with 

Extreme Measures to Combat Sedimentation 

4.6.1 Listed and Other Species of Interest

Under this alternative, Bald Eagles would benefit from the Refuge maintaining bottomland 

cottonwood forest areas and isolated mature cottonwood stands that provide nesting and roosting 

sites. The Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake would benefit somewhat because the Refuge would 

maintain existing wet prairie (1,077 acres) habitat. Piping Plovers and Least Terns, both of which 

use sandbars and beaches for nesting, would benefit less under this alternative because it does 

nothing to alleviate sedimentation, which is filling in these habitats. Some species would benefit if 

the Refuge is successful is gaining regional shorebird designation as more attention is given to 

shorebird species. While studies monitoring the Blanding's turtle would continue, habitat would 

continue to degrade as marshes filled with silt. (This alternative is the same as Alternative A.)

4.6.2 Wildlife and Habitat Resource Management

Alternative E would not drastically change wildlife and resource habitat management (See Table 3). 

Wetland, wet prairie, grassland and bottomland forest habitat acreages would change only slightly 

as the Refuge continued its current management trend toward less cropland. Current efforts to 

restore Loess Hill habitat would continue. All habitats would benefit from continued efforts to 

control invasive, exotic and nuisance species. All Refuge habitats would benefit from the Refuge 

working with private landowners on watershed improvements to reduce sedimentation caused by 

soil erosion. 
122

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Under this alternative, 279 acres of cropland would be converted to grasslands or prairie, 

potentially benefitting waterfowl and grassland bird species. While waterfowl would lose cropland 

forage, converting it to natural vegetation would improve nesting habitat and provide more natural 

foods. This alternative, with its reduction of cropland, would effect the redistribution and dispersion 

of the large flocks of Snow Geese. Deer numbers would be decreased with the reduction of cropland 

acreage as an attractant. With an increase in mesic prairie in this alternative, there would be an 

increase in the carrying capacity for grassland dependent species. 

4.6.3 Sedimentation and Water Quality

Under this alternative we would seek to quantify the need and benefit of various approaches, 

including land acquisition, to reducing sedimentation and improving water quality. In the long term 

this may lead to new management proposals that would benefit the ecological health of the Refuge. 

(Same as Alternative D).

4.6.4 Public Use and Education

Under Alternative E, public use and education efforts would see modest improvement. Completion 

of the visitor center will likely attract some additional users and open some new opportunities to 

convey refuge messages. Interactive programs and facilities would be developed with a goal of 

accommodating 130,000 visitors a year. Refuge staff would maintain environmental education 

programs at 2003 levels, and wildlife observation facilities and programs would be improved to 

encourage greater participation and more interaction with visitors. Opportunities to hunt whitetailed deer would be increased as part of the effort to reduce the Refuge deer herd. Public use 

efforts would not seek to reach out to nontraditional Refuge users. Community awareness of the 

Refuge and Refuge goals might increase as greater focus is placed on involving volunteers and the 

Refuge's relationship with Friends of the Squaw Creek NWR. (Same as Alternative A).

4.7 Cumulative Impacts

“Cumulative impact” is the term that refers to impacts on the environment that result from the 

incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes 

such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively 

significant actions taking place over a period of time. In this section, the cumulative impacts of each 

of the three alternatives are discussed in terms of waterfowl, migratory birds, listed species, 

wetland and riparian habitat, and prairie restoration.

4.7.1 Listed Species and Other Species of Special Interest

■ Habitat loss and other factors across the range of certain wildlife species have caused 

declines in their populations to levels of special concern and classification. The Eastern 

Massassauga rattlesnake, Least Bittern, and Bald Eagle have special classifications and 

occur on the Refuge.

■ Massasaugas are historically known from 13 sites in eight counties in Missouri. Eight 

populations (comprising four counties) are extirpated and two others are likely 

extirpated. Of the remaining three populations one is secure and two are vulnerable. 

Threats to the Massassauga still exist. Those threats will cause its numbers and range to 

continue declining and, as a result of those threats, it may become extinct in the future. 

Habitat loss is one of the primary factors in the decline of the eastern Massassauga.

■ Least Bitterns are widespread, abundant, and secure globally, but are quite rare in parts 

of their range. They are classified as imperiled in Missouri because of rarity or because of 

factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. Least Bitterns were 
123

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

described as locally common in large permanent marshes in most parts of the state in the 

early 1900s. Squaw Creek, Swan Lake, Mingo and the Mark Twain National Wildlife 

Refuges and the Ted Shanks and Marais Temps Clair state conservation areas now harbor 

the largest known breeding populations in the state.

■ Bald Eagles were once very common throughout most of the United States. Their 

population numbers have been estimated at 300,000 to 500,000 birds in the early 1700s. 

Their population fell to “threatened” levels in the continental United States of less than 

10,000 nesting pairs by the 1950s, and to “endangered” levels of less than 500 pairs by the 

early 1960s. The Bald Eagle is making a gradual dramatic recovery. There are now over 

6,000 nesting eagle pairs and more than 20,000 individual birds in the lower 48 states. 

(American Eagle Foundation) The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is studying the removal of 

the Bald Eagle from the “threatened” species list.

4.7.1.1 Impacts of Alternatives

Alternatives A and C

Alternatives A and C would benefit the Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake by maintaining existing 

habitat (2003) and monitoring to assess habitat management impacts on snake populations. 

Alternatives A and C provide existing levels (2003) of habitat for the Least Bittern, an imperiled 

species in the State of Missouri. Both alternatives would benefit Bald Eagles by maintaining 

existing levels (2003) of bottomland cottonwood forest areas and isolated mature cottonwood stands

Alternatives B, D and E

Alternatives B, D and E increase wet prairie habitat by about 75 acres, providing a somewhat 

greater benefit to the species. Alternatives B, D and E provide slightly varied increases in acreages 

of Least Bittern habitat, resulting in somewhat greater long-term benefit for the species. 

Alternatives B and D would benefit Bald Eagles by maintaining existing levels (2003) of bottomland 

cottonwood forest areas and isolated mature cottonwood stands. However, in the long-term, 

Alternative E provides greater benefit to Bald Eagles by increasing acreages of habitat to support 

more wintering Bald Eagles. 

4.7.2 Wildlife and Habitat Resource Management

■ Prairies once occurred in every part of Missouri, including extensive prairies in the 

Ozarks and Bootheel.

■ Of the remaining 90,000 acres of native prairie in Missouri, about 68,000 acres are in 

private ownership. 

■ An estimated 22,000 acres of native prairie are owned by the Missouri Department of 

Conservation the Department of Natural Resources, The Nature Conservancy, the 

Missouri Prairie Foundation, the University of Missouri and the Ozark Regional Land 

Trust. These agencies and organizations maintain prairie through selective cutting of 

woody species, periodic haying, grazing and prescribed burning.

■ When Lewis and Clark embarked on their historic exploration of the west in 1803, the 

Missouri River was a diverse, 2,300-mile-long system of floodplain, braided channels, 

riparian lands, chutes, sloughs, islands, sandbars, and backwaters. The River constantly 

reshaped the channel and the floodplain, resulting in a complex natural system supporting 

an incredible diversity of fish, wildlife and plants.

■ Six major dams were built in the upper reaches of the Missouri River in the first half of 

the 20th century. These dams and other river projects transformed the Missouri River 

from a free-flowing river into a series of reservoirs and channelized waterways, 

effectively separating the river from its floodplain. By 1972, the river's length had been 

shortened by 46 miles and its surface area decreased from 121,739 acres to 71,151 acres.
124

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

■ Statewide, the loss of historic wetlands in Missouri has exceeded the national rate; 

approximately 87 percent of Missouri's original 4.5 million acres of wetlands have been 

lost.

■ Roughly 168,000 acres of natural channel and 354,000 acres of associated habitat have 

been lost on the lower 730 miles of river.

■ By 1972, floodplain forest that once made up 76 percent of floodplain vegetation comprised 

only 13 percent.

■ Habitat loss and other factors have caused declines in species populations to the level of 

concern that warrants special classification.

4.7.2.1 Background

Historic losses of habitat and current struggles with sedimentation and water quality make habitat 

conservation a vital interest at Squaw Creek NWR. The Refuge is fortunate to have two other 

agencies, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Missouri Department of Conservation, also 

taking active roles in acquiring and restoring habitat in Holt County.

The Department of Conservation has identified adding limited critical areas to existing 

conservation areas as one of the agency's 10-year goals. In Holt County, the Department manages 

eight conservation areas, one of which is located adjacent to the Refuge. 

In 2001, the Department of Conservation projected that willing landowners would restore 20,000 

acres of wetlands in the northwest region, with the goal of targeting wetlands that are most 

valuable to wildlife. In addition, an estimated 3,300 acres of wetlands and bottomland hardwoods 

are scheduled for restoration on public lands, according to the Department of Conservation (http://

www.conservation.state.mo.us/areas/areaplans/nwest). 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is also engaged in acquiring land in Holt County for habitat 

restoration purposes. The Missouri River Mitigation Project is designed to mitigate, or compensate, 

for fish and wildlife habitat losses that resulted from past channelization efforts on the Missouri 

River. The purpose of the project is to acquire, restore and preserve aquatic and terrestrial habitat 

on individual sites found along the project length. Under this project, existing natural areas would 

be improved and new areas created. Ultimately, the Project will develop approximately 166,750 

acres of land in separate locations along the River in Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas. In Holt 

County, four projects are under way: Corning (1,662 acres); Deroin Bend (1,082 acres); Rush Bottom 

Bend (811 acres) and Thurnau (1,349 acres). 

4.7.2.2 Impacts of Alternatives

Under all five alternatives, watershed improvements would be achieved through conservation on 

private lands within the 60,000-acre watershed. The Refuge, in partnership with others, would 

work with land owners to reduce sedimentation from soil erosion and improve water quality 

through improved management practices. 

Alternative A

Over time, wetland habitat could be expected to decline under Alternative A (No Action) and a 

corresponding decline in wildlife health and populations could be expected. Alternative A does not 

call for major changes in Refuge goals, objectives and strategies. Habitat would be conserved as it 

is today, which would not fully address long-term issues such as sedimentation in the wetland 

management units. There would be no further acquisition, thus expanded preservation and 

restoration of Missouri River floodplain habitat would not occur.

Under the No Action alternative, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Squaw Creek NWR would 

be failing to seize opportunities to contribute to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' achievements in 

the Missouri River Mitigation Project. In the same vein, the Refuge would not be capitalizing on the 
125

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

ongoing acquisition of conservation areas by the Department of Conservation. Habitat acquired by 

these agencies would likely be more fragmented if the Service were not in a position to buy tracts 

adjoining other public lands.

This alternative does not contribute to reversing the dramatic loss of habitat, including prairies and 

wetlands, that the State of Missouri has experienced. 

Alternative B

Restoring wet prairie habitat would be the focus of Alternative B (Historic Wet and Mesic Prairie), 

resulting in benefits for that particular habitat and somewhat diminished conditions for other 

habitats now fostered on the Refuge, such as floodplain forest and prairie. Discontinuation of 

burning, mowing and chemical spraying would diminish efforts to control invasive species. Species 

depending on wet prairie, such as the Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake, would benefit greatly 

while species that depend on other habitat types would see no benefit over current management. 

Wetland-dependent species would see a somewhat negative impact as the acres of managed wetland 

dropped from 3,409 to 1,227. In the short-term this alternative has a neutral impact on other 

waterfowl species; in the long-term, it does not enhance breeding and migration habitat needed to 

boost declining waterfowl populations.

Alternative C

Under Alternative C (Enhanced Public Use/Current Resource Management Level), land cover 

would remain essentially unchanged when compared to Alternative A (No Action). Because 

management focus and, with it funding, would be shifted to wildlife-dependent recreation, habitat 

and wildlife would likely experience negative impacts under this alternative. Habitat management, 

fish and wildlife monitoring, and resource conservation would have lesser priority than providing 

the six wildlife-dependent public uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. Staff availability for monitoring and inventorying 

projects would be decreased as visitor services programming increased. A spring Snow Goose hunt 

would be implemented to help control the continental population.

Habitat restoration by the Corps of Engineers as part of the Missouri River Mitigation Project 

would be less effective if the Service did not contribute to acquisition and restoration efforts. The 

effectiveness of conservation areas in reducing sedimentation and restoring habitat would be 

negatively impacted without similar efforts by the Refuge. Like Alternative A, this alternative 

does nothing to reverse trends in habitat loss in northwestern Missouri.

Alternative D

Of the five alternatives, the preferred alternative, Alternative D (Optimized Resource Management 

With Enhanced Public Use, Preferred Alternative), would generate the greatest benefits for 

wildlife and habitat by optimizing resource management and maintaining the current level of public 

use. A more concerted effort to conserve, manage and restore habitats that are native to the Lower 

Missouri River ecosystem would benefit wildlife species. A greater diversity of species would 

benefit from this alternative because it would include additional wetland, riparian, and native grass 

development and enhancement. Biological monitoring would increase, resulting in greater 

knowledge that could be used to better manage habitat. Greater monitoring of listed species would 

help staff manage more effectively for these species.

Under this alternative, the Refuge would aggressively study the needs and benefits of improving 

water quality coming onto the Refuge. The study may lead to a proposal for additional acquisition 

and restoration by governmental and non-governmental organizations. More land would be 

restored, potentially parcels located near one another, which would benefit all wildlife species using 

the Refuge. Restoring a larger land mass for habitat purposes would improve water quality by 

eliminating agricultural runoff over a greater area, and changing land use would contribute to 
126

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

reducing soil erosion and, ultimately, sedimentation. This alternative would, in the long-term, 

contribute to replacing some of the vast amounts of habitat that have been lost in northwestern 

Missouri.

Alternative E

Under Alternative E (Emphasize Wetland Management for the Benefit of Migratory Waterfowl, 

Shorebirds, Wading Birds, and Other Aquatic Life), aquatic wildlife would see the greatest benefit 

over the long-term. The widest possible variety of wetland habitats (lacustrine, palustrine, moist 

soil, green tree, riverine, bottomland hardwoods, wet meadows, exposed flats) would be created and 

maintained. Species that would benefit would include ducks and geese, shorebirds and wading 

birds, and aquatic species such as otters. This alternative would benefit the Blanding's turtle, a 

state-listed endangered species.

4.7.3 Perilous Abundance of Snow Geese

■ In 2001, 384,000 Snow Geese were counted on the Refuge in November. 

■ The Snow Goose population has been expanding at an average rate of about 5 percent per 

year. 

■ The major reason for this population growth has been improved winter survival and 

recruitment brought about by a virtually unlimited food supply due to the expansion and 

productivity of modern agriculture in the Midwest and the availability of sanctuaries and 

refuges.

■ Over-grazing and grubbing of the tundra vegetation has been degrading and destroying 

the native plant community. 

■ In 1997, the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group recommended that the mid-continent 

Snow Goose and Ross' Goose population be reduced by 50 percent, primarily through 

more liberal hunting regulations, unplugged shotguns, no limits, and electronic calls.

■ In February, 1999, the Service implemented the above recommendations and published 

new regulations to authorize new methods of take (unplugged shotguns, electronic calls) 

during the regular season when other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons are closed. In 

addition, the Service created a conservation order, which allowed take of geese beyond 

March 10, removed bag limits, allowed new methods of take, and also allowed shooting 

hours to 1/2 hour after sunset.

4.7.3.1 Impacts of Alternatives

Under all five alternatives, Squaw Creek NWR would assist in international efforts to reduce the 

mid-continent population of Snow Geese. Snow Goose populations would be actively managed, 

resulting in greater mortality in the short-term but greater long-term benefits to the health of the 

species. Cropland would be reduced in alternatives B, D and E, which would make these 

alternatives more effective for Snow Goose Reduction in the long-term because they would provide 

less wintering habitat. With its spring Snow Goose hunt, Alternative D provides an additional 

means of dealing with the Snow Goose issue.

4.7.4 Sedimentation and Water Quality

■ Squaw Creek NWR is filling in due to siltation.

■ Within the Lower Missouri River Ecosystem, nearly 95 percent of the basin's land mass is 

applied to agriculture. Nonpoint source pollution is a major contributor to the 

contamination in the river and its floodplain.

■ Erosion of farmland soils as well as direct rainfall runoff can introduce fertilizers and a 

variety of pesticides into the bottomland ecosystem.
127

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

■ The presence of heavy metals such as mercury, selenium, copper and cadmium in 

sediments and fauna of the Missouri River and its tributaries have been documented over 

the years.

■ Most of the 15,000 miles of streams in the Northwest Region of Missouri have suffered 

extensive channelization, unrestricted livestock access and sedimentation.

4.7.4.1 Impacts of Alternatives

All five alternatives would benefit the watershed and alleviate sedimentation by encouraging 

conservation practices and fostering improved soil and water uses. Under Alternative D, benefits 

would be somewhat greater because the Refuge would be actively studying additional means for 

improving water quality and reducing sedimentation.

The floodplain capacity to store flood water will increase under all alternatives. Increased flood 

storage capability means reduced flooding downstream and greater sediment retention and 

nutrient recycling. This in turn could reduce the sediment and nutrient load that eventually reaches 

the Gulf of Mexico. A reduction in nutrients reaching the Gulf could help moderate the hypoxia 

situation that results in depletion of oxygen and the subsequent death of many aquatic species in 

the broad area that is affected. 

While the individual contribution to sediment retention and nutrient recycling is small under any 

alternative compared to the total sediment and nutrient load reaching the Gulf, the cumulative 

impact of the Refuge with other federal, state and non-governmental organizations together can be 

significant. 

While significant efforts have been made by various states in the watershed and other agencies, 

including the Service, to restore wetlands and to restore habitats that reduce sediment runoff, 

much work still needs to be done. Over time, the Service's efforts working through the Squaw 

Creek Refuge and other national wildlife refuges and Waterfowl Production Areas, the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program, and through partnerships with the State, the Corps of Engineers, and 

other agencies, the cumulative impact of the various programs can provide measurable positive 

results in improving water quality within the Missouri River floodplain.

4.7.5 Public Use

■ Squaw Creek NWR receives an estimated 130,000 visitors annually. 

■ The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has identified six priority wildlife-dependent public uses: 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation.

■ Big Lake State Park, which is managed by the Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources, is a major feeding and resting area for birds and migratory waterfowl. The 

park offers lakeshore cabins and recreation.

■ Several conservation areas owned by the Missouri Department of Conservation in Holt 

County, including the Bob Brown Conservation Area (3,302 acres), provide wildlife 

habitat as well as public use opportunities such as hunting, bird watching, camping and 

hiking.

Alternatives A, B, D and E

Under Alternative A (No Action), Alternative B, Alternative D and Alternative E, the Refuge 

would design and fund programs with the goal of supporting 130,000 visitors annually. The goal for 

environmental education would be to provide services to accommodate visitors at the same level as 

occurred in 2003. All Big Six programs would be developed or improved to meet Service standards. 

Under Alternative D, hunting on the Refuge would be expanded with the addition of a spring Snow 
128

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Goose hunt. In the short-term, these programs would meet existing needs in the area surrounding 

the Refuge. In the long-term, maintaining current levels under alternatives A, B and E would 

result in the Refuge failing to reach non-traditional visitors. However, like Alternative C, 

Alternative D would see efforts to reach out to non-traditional users. Refuge staff would work to 

enhance working relationships with volunteers and the Friends of Squaw Creek NWR and to 

increase the number of volunteer hours in the Visitor Contact Station and around the Refuge as 

interpretive guides. The focus on expanding volunteer hours would improve the Refuge's ability to 

engage visitors in environmental education programs and enhance visitors' experience on the 

Refuge. Under Alternative D and Alternative C, Refuge visitor facilities would be enhanced to 

improve the visitor experience.

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, wildlife-dependent recreation would be optimized. The Refuge would design 

and fund interpretive programs and facilities with the goal of accommodating 175,000 visitors 

annually by 2008, and increasing visitation by 2 percent annually after that year. The Refuge would 

become a more visible part of the community and a major element in environmental education and 

wildlife-dependent recreation in the area. The higher visitation numbers would result in greater 

appreciation for conservation, a better understanding of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and 

greater support for Squaw Creek NWR. A more informed local population would result in greater 

support for conservation in general and greater focus on local conservation issues. The proximity of 

Missouri Department of Conservation areas would enhance access to wildlife-dependent recreation 

in the area.
129

Table 4: Comparison of Impacts by Issue and Alternative 

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Historic Wet & Mesic 

Prairie

Alternative C

Enhanced Public Use/

Current Resource 

Management Level

Alternative D

Optimized Resource 

Management With 

Enhanced Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E

Intensive Wetland 

Management with Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation

Issue No. 1: Wildlife and habitat resource management.: Extraordinary measures may be required to preserve the marsh environment that has historically attracted migratory waterfowl and other wildlife.

No change from current level of conservation.Carrying capacity remains unchanged by management.

Deer numbers will be decreased by removing the cropland as an attractant.Massassauga rattlesnakes would likely increase due to greater available habitat.Increase in carrying capacity of wet and mesic grasslands for dependent species, including associated threatened and endangered species.Significant decrease in carrying capacity for wetlanddependent species. Carrying capacity for woodland-dependent species unchanged.

No change from current level of conservation.Carrying capacity remains unchanged by management.

Greater reduction in Snow Geese numbers than Alternative A with reduced cropland and spring hunt.Deer numbers will be decreased by reducing the cropland acreage as an attractant.Massassauga rattlesnakes would likely increase due to greater available habitat.Increase in carrying capacity of wet and mesic grasslands for dependent species, including associated threatened and endangered species.Carrying capacity of woodland-dependent species decreased.

Greater reduction in Snow Goose numbers than Alternative A due to reduced cropland.Deer numbers will be decreased by reducing the cropland acreage as an attractant.Massassauga rattlesnakes would likely increase due to greater available habitat.Increase in carrying capacity of wet and mesic grasslands for dependent species, including associated threatened and endangered species.Slight decrease in carrying capacity for wetland-dependent species.

Issue No. 2: Land management within the watershed impacts Refuge water quality: Beyond Refuge boundaries, land management practices within the watershed influence the quality and quantity of water that flows into the Refuge.

No change. No change. No change. Study of needs and benefits 

would lead to long-term improvement in water quality.

No change.
130

Squaw Creek NWR / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Issue No. 3: Snow Geese Management: The mid- continent population of Snow Geese is experienc- ing a “perilous abun- dance.” Possible slight reduction in Snow Goose numbers. Greater reduction in Snow Goose numbers over Alter- native A due to elimination of cropland. Possible slight reduction in Snow Geese. Greater reduction in Snow Goose numbers over Alter- native A due to reduced cropland and hunting pro- gram. Greater reduction in Snow Geese numbers over Alter- native A due to reduction in cropland. Issue No. 4: Refuge Expansion: Some Refuge marsh restoration and preservation problems associated with water- shed management and runoff might be lessened 

if some adjacent agricultural land was added to the Refuge and converted to other uses.

No change in boundaries. Complete acquisition of 400 acres of inholdings.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Study of possible benefits 

may lead to proposal for increased land acquisition.

Same as Alternative A.

Issue No. 5: Public Use: Some people have suggested that the Refuge’s public use program should be changed to allow other compatible uses, specifically waterfowl hunting and deer hunting.

No change. Some increased expressed 

dissatisfaction with lost opportunities to see large concentration of waterfowl.

Increase in public use opportunities. Increase in public use oppor- tunities, but to a lesser 

degree than in Alternative C.

Same as Alternative A.

Table 4: Comparison of Impacts by Issue and Alternative (Continued)

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Historic Wet & Mesic 

Prairie

Alternative C

Enhanced Public Use/

Current Resource 

Management Level

Alternative D

Optimized Resource 

Management With 

Enhanced Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E

Intensive Wetland 

Management with Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
131

Issue No. 6: Public Service: Refuge staff want to be good neighbors and contributors to the welfare of the community.

No change. No change. Increase in Refuge visitors 

increasing use of local businesses.Increased environmental education opportunities and special events.

Greater increase in operating budgets and resulting input to the local economy than under Alternative b.Increased environmental education opportunities and special events but to a lesser degree than Alternative C.

No change.

Listed Species Bald Eagle and Eastern 

Massassauga rattlesnake continue with current habitat.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Bald Eagle continues with 

current habitat. Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake benefits from increased habitat.

Same as Alternative D.

Environmental Justice No disproportionate adverse 

effects on minority or lowincome populations.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

Table 4: Comparison of Impacts by Issue and Alternative (Continued)

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Historic Wet & Mesic 

Prairie

Alternative C

Enhanced Public Use/

Current Resource 

Management Level

Alternative D

Optimized Resource 

Management With 

Enhanced Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E

Intensive Wetland 

Management with Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
132

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Chapter 5: List of Preparers

Squaw Creek NWR Staff Contributors:

Ron Bell, Refuge Manager, Squaw Creek NWR

Frank Durbian, Wildlife Biologist, Squaw Creek NWR 

Charles Marshall, Park Ranger, Squaw Creen NWR 

Branch of Conservation Planning Staff (Lead in EA Preparation):

Tom Larson, Branch Chief, Branch of Conservation Planning

John Schomaker, Refuge Planning Specialist, Branch of Conservation Planning

Jim Salyer, Southern Missouri Ascertainment Office, Wildlife Biologist

H. John Dobrovolny, Regional Historic Preservation Officer, Region 3. Historian.

Jane Hodgins, Technical Writer/Editor, Branch of Conservation Planning

Jane Lardy Nelson, Editorial Assistant, Branch of Conservation Planning

Judy McClendon, formerly Wildlife Biologist, Southern Missouri Ascertainment Office, currently 

Wildlife Biologist/Planner, Southern Louisiana Refuges Refuge
133

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

Chapter 6: List Of Agencies, Organizations, 

And Persons Contacted

Elected Federal Officials

■ U.S. Senator Christopher Bond 

■ U.S. Senator Jim Talent

■ U.S. Representative Samuel Graves

■ U.S. Representative Roy Blunt

■ U.S. Representative JoAnn Emerson 

■ U.S. Representative Kenny Hulshof 

■ U.S. Representative Dick Gephardt 

■ U.S. Representative Todd Akin

Federal Agencies

■ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg Division, Rock Island and St. Louis Districts

■ U.S. Geological Survey, Long Term Monitoring Program; Jackson, Missouri; Alton, Illinois

■ U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service, Columbia, 

Missouri

■ Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL; Kansas City, Kansas

■ Columbia Environmental Research Center, Columbia, Missouri

■ Upper Midwest Science Center, LaCrosse, Wisconsin

■ U.S. Coast Guard, Keokuk, Iowa

■ Illinois River National Wildlife Refuge

■ Shawnee National Forest, Murphysboro, Illinois

■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Rock Island, Illinois

■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Historic Preservation Officer

Elected State Officials

■ Missouri Governor Bob Holden 

State Agencies

■ Missouri Department of Natural Resources

■ Missouri Department of Conservation
134

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

■ Missouri Department of Transportation

■ University of Missouri, Extension Services

■ State Historic Preservation Officer

■ Office of the State Archeologist

■ Indian Affairs Council

■ Archaeological and historic preservation state-wide groups

■ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

City/County/Local Governments

■ Holt County

■ Mound City

Public Libraries

■ Mound City

■ Oregon

Organizations

■ Sierra Club, Kaskaskia Group Conservation Chair, Columbia, IL

■ The Sierra Club, Washington, D.C.

■ Ducks Unlimited

■ Pheasants Forever

■ Wild Turkey Federation

■ The American Fisheries Society, Columbia, MO

■ The Missouri Prairie Foundation, Columbia, MO

■ The Wildlife Society, Missouri Chapter, MO Dept. of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri

■ Missouri Wildlife Society, Hannibal, Missouri

■ Missouri Conservation Foundation, Jefferson, Missouri

■ Missouri Chapter American Fisheries Society, Missouri Department of Conservation, 

Jefferson City, Missouri

■ The Conservation Federation of Missouri, Jefferson City, Missouri

■ The Missouri Audubon Council, Jefferson City, Missouri

■ The Missouri Bass Chapter Federation, Lake St. Louis, Missouri

■ Missouri State Chapter, Soil and Water Conservation Society, Springfield, Missouri

■ The Audubon Society of Missouri, St. Louis, Missouri

■ Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.

■ National Wildlife Foundation, Office of Federal and International Affairs, Washington, 

D.C.

■ American Rivers, Washington, D.C.

■ The Clean Water Fund, National Office, Washington, D.C.

■ Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C.

■ The National Waterways Conference, Inc., Washington, D.C.

■ The National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington, D.C.
135

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

■ The Natural Resources Council of America, Washington, D.C.

■ National Audubon Society, Washington, D.C.

■ Northeast Midwest Institute, Washington, D.C.

Individuals

■ Individuals who participated in open house sessions or who requested to be on the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan mailing list.
136

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Chapter 7: Appendices

Appendix 1: References

Bellrose, F.C. 1954. The value of waterfowl refuges in Illinois. Journal of Wildlife Management. 

18(2): 160-169.

Black, R., B. McKenney, A. O(Connor, E. Gray, and R. Unsworth. 1999. Economic profile of the 

Upper Mississippi River Region. Prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Division 

of Economics by Industrial Economics, Inc., Cambridge, MA. 84 pp. + Appendices.

Brown, M.D. 1988. Soil survey of Louisa County, Iowa. U.S. Dep. Agric. Soil Conserv. Serv., in 

cooperation with the Iowa Agric. and Home Econ. Exp. Stn., the Coop. Ext. Serv., Iowa State 

Univ., and the Dep. of Soil Conserv., State of Iowa. 255 pp.

Carlson, B.D., D.B. Propst, D.J. Stynes, and R.S. Jackson. 1995. Economic impact of recreation on 

the Upper Mississippi River System. Technical Report EL-95-16. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Clark County Soil and Water Conservation District. 1990. Soil resource inventory of Clark County, 

Missouri. Cooperating with U.S. Dep. Agric., Soil Conserv. Serv., Miss. Dep. Of Nat. Res., and Miss. 

Agric. Exp. Stn.123 pp.

Herman, R.J., C.C. Miles, L.A. Dungan, B.E.Currie, and P.W. Ice. 1979. Soil survey of Jackson 

County, Illinois. U.S. Dep. Agric. Soil Conserv. Serv. and Forest Serv., in cooperation with Ill. Agric. 

Exp. Stn. 192 pp.

Laughland, A. and J. Caudill. 1997. Banking on nature: The economic benefits to local communities 

of national wildlife refuge visitation. Division of Economics, United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Department of Interior. Washington, D.C.

Lilly, M.E. 1989. Soil survey of Calhoun County, Illinois. U.S. Dep. Agric., Soil Conserv. Serv., in 

cooperation with the Ill. Agric. Exp. Stn. 113 pp.

Love, C.L. 1997. Soil survey of Pike County, Missouri. U.S. Dep. Agric. Nat. Res. Conserv. Serv., in 

cooperation with the Miss. Agric. Exp. Stn. 155 pp.

Lubinski, K. and C. Theiling, eds. Ecological status and trends of the Upper Mississippi River 

System 1998: A report of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, LaCrosse, Wisconsin. April 1999. LTRMP 99-

T001. 236 pp.

Rusch, L., J. McKay, and K. Karstens. 1999. An archeological and historical records study for the 

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge in Illinois, Iowa and Missouri. Department of Interior, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3. Purchase Order No. 301818M602.
137

Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment

Schwegman, J. E. and R. W. Nyboer. 1985. The Taxonomic and Population Status of Boltonia 

Decurrens (Torr. and Gray) Wood. Castanea 50: 112-115.

Smith, M. and T. M. Keevin. 1998. Achene Morphology, Production, and Germination, and Potential 

for Water Dispersal in Boltonia Decurrens (Decurrent false aster), a Threatened Floodplain 

Species. Rhodora 100: 69-81. 

Smith, M. and T. Keevin, P. Mettler-McClure, and R. Barkau. 1998. Effect of the Flood of 1993 on 

Boltonia Decurrens, a Rare Floodplain Plant. Regul. Rivers: Res. Mgmt. 14: 191-202.

Theiling, C.H. 1996. An ecological overview of the Upper Mississippi River system: Implications for 

postflood recovery and ecosystem management, in Galat, D.L., and Frazier, A.G., eds., Overview of 

river-floodplain ecology in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, v. 3 of Kelmelis, J.A., ed., Science for 

floodplain management into the 21st century: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 

p. x-y.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Holt 

County, Missouri

17-22. Topics in Water Use: Northwest Missouri. Water Resources Report Number 61.

Whitney, S.D., K.D. Blodgett, and R.E. Sparks. 1996. A comprehensive evaluation of three mussel 

beds in Reach 15 of the Upper Mississippi River. Illinois Natural History Survey Aquatic Ecology 

Technical Report 1996(7), Havana. Reprinted by U.S. Geological Survey, Environmental 

Management Technical Center, Onalaska, Wisconsin, October 1997. LTRMP 97-R022. 15 pp. + 

Appendixes A - H.
138

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Appendix 2: Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in the Environmental Assessment

AgNPS - Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution

CCP - Comprehensive Conservation Plan

COE - Corps of Engineers

CRP - Conservation Reserve Program

DNR - Department of Natural Resources

EA - Environmental Assessment

EWRP - Emergency Wetland Reserve Program

FONSI - Finding Of No Significant Impact

FmHA - Farmer(s Home Administration (now FSA)

FSA - Farm Service Agency

GIS - Geographic Information System

IADNR - Iowa Department of Natural Resources

MODOC - Missouri Department of Conservation

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act

NRCS - Natural Resources Conservation Service

NWR - National Wildlife Refuge

PFW - Partners for Fish and Wildlife

RM - River Mile

ROS - Refuge Operations Specialist

USDA - United States Department of Agriculture

USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS - United States Geological Survey

WRP - Wetland Reserve Program
139

Appendix B: Glossary

Appendix B: Glossary

141

Appendix B: Glossary

Appendix B: Glossary

Alternative A set of objectives and strategies needed to achieve refuge goals and the 

desired future condition.

Biological Diversity The variety of life forms and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities and 

ecosystems in which they occur.

Compatible Use A wildlife-dependent recreational use, or any other use on a refuge that 

will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

mission of the Service or the purposes of the refuge.

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan A document that describes the desired future conditions of the refuge, and 

specifies management actions to achieve refuge goals and the mission of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Ecosystem A dynamic and interrelated complex of plant and animal communities and 

their associated non-living environment.

Ecosystem Approach A strategy or plan to protect and restore the natural function, structure, 

and species composition of an ecosystem, recognizing that all components 

are interrelated.

Ecosystem 

Management Management of an ecosystem that includes all ecological, social and 

economic components that make up the whole of the system.

Endangered Species Any species of plant or animal defined through the Endangered Species 

Act as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 

of its range, and published in the Federal Register.

Environmental 

Assessment A systematic analysis to determine if proposed actions would result in a 

significant effect on the quality of the environment.

Extirpation The local extinction of a species that is no longer found in a locality or 

country, but exists elsewhere in the world.

Goals Descriptive statements of desired future conditions.

Interjurisdictional

Fish Fish that occur in waters under the jurisdiction of one or more states, for 

which there is an interstate fishery management plan or which migrates 

between the waters under the jurisdiction of two or more states bordering 

on the Great Lakes.
142

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Issue Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision. For 

example, a resource management problem, concern, a threat to 

natural resources, a conflict in uses, or in the presence of an 

undesirable resource condition.

Meta-population A set of local populations connected by migratory individuals. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System All lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife 

management areas, waterfowl production areas, and other areas for 

the conservation of fish, wildlife and plant resources.

Objectives Actions to be accomplished to achieve a desired outcome.

Preferred Alternative The Service's selected alternative identified in the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Scoping A process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed by a 

comprehensive conservation plan and for identifying the significant 

issues. Involved in the scoping process are federal, state and local 

agencies; private organizations; and individuals.

Species A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable 

characteristics, and that can interbreed and produce young. A 

category of biological classification.

Strategies A general approach or specific actions to achieve objectives.

Wildlife-dependent 

Recreational Use A use of refuge that involves hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, or environmental education and interpretation, as 

identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997.

Threatened Species Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered species 

throughout all of or a significant portion of their range within the 

foreseeable future. A plant or animal identified and defined in 

accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act and published in 

the Federal Register.

Vegetation Plants in general, or the sum total of the plant life in an area.

Vegetation Type A category of land based on potential or existing dominant plan 

species of a particular area.

Watershed The entire land area that collects and drains water into a stream or 

stream system.

Wetland Areas such as lakes, marshes, and streams that are inundated by 

surface or ground water for a long enough period of time each year to 
143

Appendix B: Glossary

support, and that do support under natural conditions, plants and 

animals that require saturated or seasonally saturated soils.

Wildlife Diversity A measure of the number of wildlife species in an area and their 

relative abundance.

145

Appendix C: Species Lists

Appendix C: Species Lists

147

Appendix C: Species Lists

Mammals of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

+ one or more specimens actually observed

* possible occurrence (within range)

Marsupials:

Opossum (Did el phis marsupials+

Insectivores:

Shirttail Shrew (Ballerina abbreviated+

Least Shrew (Crepitates purvey+

Eastern Mole (Scallops aquatics+

Masked Shrew (Xerox sceneries*

Bats:

Little Brown Bat (Motes lucifugus)+

Red Bat (Lasiurus borealis)+

Silver-haired Bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans)*

Eastern Pipistrel (Pipistrellus subflavus)*

Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus)*

Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus)+

Evening Bat (Nycticeius humeralis)*

Rabbits:

Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus)+

Whitetailed Jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii)*

Rodents:

Woodchuck (Marmota monax)+

Franklin Ground Squirrel (Citellus franklinii)+

Eastern Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger)+

Plains Pocket Gopher (Geomys bursaruis)+

Beaver (Castor canadensis)+

Western Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis)+

Deer Mouse (Peromyscus maniculatur)+

White-footed Mouse (Peromyscus leucopus)+

Southern Bog Lemming (Synaptomys cooperi)+

Prairie Vole (Microtus ochrogaster)+

Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus)+

Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus)+

House Mouse (Mus musculus)+

Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hundsonius)+

Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel (Citellus tridecemlineatus)*

Southern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys volans)*

Plains Pocket Mouse (Perognathus flavescens)*

Plains Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys montanus)+

Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus)*

Pine Vole (Pitymys pinetorum)*
148

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Carnivores:

Coyote (Canis latruns)+

Red Fox (Vulpus fulva)+

Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus)+

Raccoon (Procyon lotor)+

Longtail Weasel (Mustela frenata)+

Mink (Mustela vison)+

Badger (Taxidea taxus)+

Spotted Skunk (Spilogale putoriuss)+

Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis)+

Bobcat (Lynx rufus)+

River Otter (Lutra canadensis)+

Hoofed Mammals:

Whitetailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)+

Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)*
149

Appendix C: Species Lists

Reptiles of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

+ one or more specimens actually observed

* possible occurrence (within range)

Turtles:

Blandings Turtle (Emydoidea blandingi)+

Smooth Soft-shelled Turtle (Trionyx m. mutica)+

Western Spiney Soft-shelled Turtle (Tripnyx spinifer hartwegi)+

Common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra s. serpentina)+

Red-eared slider (Pseudemys scripta elegans)+

Ornate Box Turtle (Terrapene o. ornata)*

Ouachita Map Turtle (Graptemys pseudogeographica ouachitensis)*

Western Painted Turtle +

Lizards:

Five-lined Skink (Eumeces fasciatus)+

Six-lined Racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus)+

Western Slender Glass Lizard (Ophisaurus a. attenuatus)*

Northern Prairie Skink (Eumeces s. septentrionalis)*

Great Plains Skink*

Snakes:

Graham's Water Snake (Natrix grahami)+

Diamond-backed Water Snake (Natrix r. rhambifera)+

Brown Snake (Storeria dekayi ssp.)+

Western Plains Garter Snake (Thamnophis radix hardeni)+

Western Ribbon Snake (Thamnophis sauritus proximus)+

Red-Sided Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis)+

Prairie Ringneck Snake (Diadophis punctatus arnyi)+

Eastern Yellow-bellied Racer (Coluber constrictor flaviventris)+

Black Rat Snake (Elapha o. obsoleta)+

Western Fox Snake (Elaphe v. vulpina)+

Bull Snake (Pituophis melanoleucus sayi)+

Prairie King Snake (Lampropeltis c. calligaster)+

Red Milk Snake (Lampropeltis triangulum syspila)+

Eastern Massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus)+

Western Worm Snake (Carphophis amoenus vermis)+

Northern Water Snake (Natrix s. sipedon)*

Northern Lined Snake (Tropidoclonion l. lineatum)*

Eastern Hognose Snake (Heterodon platyrhinos)*

Plains Hognose Snake (Heterdon n. nasicus)*

Western Smooth Green Snake (Opheodrys vernalis blanchardi)*

Speckled King Snake (Lampropeltis getulus holbrooki)*

Northern Copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix mokeson)*

Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus h. horridus)*
150

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Amphibians of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Salamanders:

Small-mouthed Salamander (Ambystoma texanum)+

Eastern Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma t. tigrinum)+

Toads:

Woodhouse's Toad+

American Toad (Bufo a. americanus)+

Rocky Mountain Toad (Bufo w. woodhousei)+

Great Plains Toad (Bufo cognatus)+

Great Plains Narrow-mouthed Toad (Microhyla o. olivacea)*

Plains Spakefoot+

Frogs:

Blanchard's Cricket Frog (Acris creptians blanchardi)+

Cope's Gray Treefrog (Hyla versicolor)+

Western Chorus Frog (Pseudacris t. triseriata)+

Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana)+

Plains Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens ssp.)+

+ one or more specimens actually observed

* possible occurrence (within range)
151

Appendix C: Species Lists

Bird Species

Birds of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Species

Common Name

(Scientific name)

nest

on

refuge

spring summer fall winter

a=abundant: common species that is numerous 

c=common: usually found in suitable habitat

u=uncommon: present but not certain to be seen

o=occasional: seen at intervals of 2 to 5 years

r=rare: seen less often than every 5 years

Common Loon (Gavia immer) r r

Pied-billed Grebe(Podilymbus podiceps)yes c u c r

Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus) uu

Eared Grebe (Podiceps nigricollis) uru

Western Grebe

(Aechmophorus occidentalis)

r r

American White Pelican

(Pelecanus erythrorhynchos)

auar

Double-crested Cormorant

(Phalacrocorax auritus)

crcr

American Bittern

(Botaurus lentiginosus)

yes o r u r

Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) yes u c r

Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) ccco

Great Egret (Ardea alba) uuu

Snowy Egret (Egretta thula) uru

Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis) uuu

Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea) ouo

Green Heron (Butorides virescens) yes u c o

Black-crowned Night-heron

(Nycticorax nycticorax)

yes o u o

Yellow-crowned Night-heron

(Nyctanassa violacea)

ooo

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi) orr

Tundra Swan (Cygnus columbianus) r rr
152

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Greater White-fronted Goose

(Anser albifrons)

u cr

Snow Goose (Chen caerulescens) aoau

Ross=s Goose (Chen rossii) u ur

Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) yes a u a c

Wood Duck (Aix sponsa) yes u c c r

Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) yes a c a a

American Black Duck (Anas rubripes) orou

Northern Pintail (Anas acuta) yes a r a o

Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca) crcu

Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors) yes c o c r

Cinnamon Teal (Anas cyanoptera) o r

Gadwall (Anas strepera) crco

American Wigeon (Anas americana) crco

Northern Shoveler (Anas clypeata) crcr

Canvasback (Aythya valisineria) u ur

Redhead (Aythya americana) oror

Ring-necked Duck (Aytha collaris) c ur

Greater Scaup (Aytha marila) r

Lesser Scaup (Aytha affinis) crcr

Common Goldeneye

(Bucephala clangula)

o ou

Buffehead (Bucephala albeola) u ur

White-winged Scoter (Melanitta 

fusca)

r

Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) uour

Hooded Merganser

(Lophodytes cucullatus)

yes u u u r

Birds of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Species

Common Name

(Scientific name)

nest

on

refuge

spring summer fall winter

a=abundant: common species that is numerous 

c=common: usually found in suitable habitat

u=uncommon: present but not certain to be seen

o=occasional: seen at intervals of 2 to 5 years

r=rare: seen less often than every 5 years
153

Appendix C: Species Lists

Common Merganser 

(Mergus merganser)

croc

Red-breasted Merganser

(Mergus serrator)

o or

Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) ucu

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) o o

Bald Eagle 

(Hailaeetus leucocephalus)

yes u c c c

Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) yes u o u u

Sharp-shinned Hawk 

(Accipiter striatus)

uruu

Cooper=s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) oroo

Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) r

Red-shouldered Hawk 

(Buteo lineatus)

rrrr

Broad-winged Hawk

(Buteo platypterus)

rrr

Swainson=s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) o o

Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) yes c u c c

Rough-legged Hawk (Buteo lagopus) o

Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) r r

American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) ooor

Merlin (Falco columbarius) r rr

Peregrine Falcon(Falco peregrinus) o or

Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus) r r

Ring-necked Pheasant

(Phasianus colchicus)

yes c c c c

Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) yes c c c c

Northern Bobwhite

(Colinus virginianus) yes

uuuu

Birds of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Species

Common Name

(Scientific name)

nest

on

refuge

spring summer fall winter

a=abundant: common species that is numerous 

c=common: usually found in suitable habitat

u=uncommon: present but not certain to be seen

o=occasional: seen at intervals of 2 to 5 years

r=rare: seen less often than every 5 years
154

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Yellow Rail

(Coturnicops noveboracensis)

r r

King Rail (Rallus elegans) yes o o o

Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola) yes u o u

Sora (Porzana carolina) coc

Common Moorhen

(Gallinula chloropus)

yes o o

American Coot (Fulica americana) yes a o a r

Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis) r r

Black-bellied Plover

(Pluvialis squatarola)

u u

American Golden-plover

(Pluvialis dominica)

u o

Snowy Plover

(Charadrius alexandrinus)

r

Semipalmated Plover

(Charadrius semipalmatus)

uou

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) rrr

Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) yes c c c o

American Avocet

(Recurvirostra americana)

uou

Greater Yellowlegs

(Tringa melanoleuca)

cuc

Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) aca

Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria) uuu

Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus)uro

Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia) yes c c c

Upland Sandpiper

(Bartramia longicauda)

yes o o o

Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) r

Birds of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Species

Common Name

(Scientific name)

nest

on

refuge

spring summer fall winter

a=abundant: common species that is numerous 

c=common: usually found in suitable habitat

u=uncommon: present but not certain to be seen

o=occasional: seen at intervals of 2 to 5 years

r=rare: seen less often than every 5 years
155

Appendix C: Species Lists

Long-billed Curlew

(Numenius americanus)

r r

Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemastica)uru

Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa) oor

Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres) uor

Red Knot (Calidris canutus) r r

Sanderling (Calidris alba) ooo

Semipalmated Sandpiper

(Calidris pusilla)

ccc

Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri) oor

Least Sandpiper (Calidris minutilla) ccc

White-rumped Sandpiper

(Calidris fuscicollis)

cuo

Baird=s Sandpiper (Calidris bairdii) uuo

Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris melanotos)cuc

Dunlin (Calidris alpina) uru

Stilt Sandpiper (Calidris himantopus) uuo

Buff-breasted Sandpiper

(Tryngites subruficollis)

roo

Ruff (Philomachus pugnax) r r

Short-billed Dowitcher

(Limnodromus griseus)

uuo

Long-billed Dowitcher

(Limnodromus scolopaceus)

coc

Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago) urur

American Woodcock (Scolopax minor) yes o o o

Wilson=s Phalarope

(Phalaropus tricolor)

uoo

Birds of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Species

Common Name

(Scientific name)

nest

on

refuge

spring summer fall winter

a=abundant: common species that is numerous 

c=common: usually found in suitable habitat

u=uncommon: present but not certain to be seen

o=occasional: seen at intervals of 2 to 5 years

r=rare: seen less often than every 5 years
156

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Red-necked Phalarope

(Phalaropus lobatus)

ooo

Franklin=s Gull (Larus pipixcan) cocr

Bonaparte=s Gull (Larus philadelphis) oror

Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) uour

Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) oror

Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia) oro

Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) o u

Forester=s Tern (Sterna forsteri) uou

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum) rrr

Black Tern (Chlidonias niger) cou

Rock Dove (Columba livia) yes o o o o

Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) yes c c c o

Black-billed Cuckoo

(Coccyzus erythropthalmus)

yes o o o

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

(Coccyzus americanus)

yes c c u

Barn Owl (Tyto alba) yes r r r r

Eastern Screech-owl (Otus asio) yes c c c c

Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) yes c c c c

Barred Owl (Strix varia) yes c c c c

Long-eared Owl (Asio otus) o ru

Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) orou

Northern Saw-whet Owl

(Aegolius acadicus)

yes r

Common Nighthawk(Chordeiles 

minor)

ouo

Chuck-will=s-widow

(Caprimulgus carolinensis)

yes o o

Birds of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Species

Common Name

(Scientific name)

nest

on

refuge

spring summer fall winter

a=abundant: common species that is numerous 

c=common: usually found in suitable habitat

u=uncommon: present but not certain to be seen

o=occasional: seen at intervals of 2 to 5 years

r=rare: seen less often than every 5 years
157

Appendix C: Species Lists

Whip-poor-will

(Caprimulgus vociferus)

yes u u u

Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica) yes c a u

Ruby-throated Hummingbird

(Archilochus colubris)

yes o u o

Belted Kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) yes u u u r

Red-headed Woodpecker

(Melanerpes erythrocephalus)

yes u u u u

Red-bellied Woodpecker

(Melanerpes carolinus)

yes c c c c

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

(Sphyrapicus varius)

o ou

Downy Woodpecker 

(Picoides pubescens)

yes c c c c

Hairy Woodpecker

 (Picoides villosus)

yes u u u u

Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) yes c c c u

Olive-sided Flycatcher

(Contopus cooperi)

oro

Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus 

virens)

yes u u o

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher

(Empidonax flaviventris)

r r

Acadian Flycatcher

(Empidonax virescens)

yes u u u

Alder Flycatcher

(Empidonax alnorum)

u u

Willow Flycatcher

(Empidonax traillii)

yes u u u

Least Flycatcher

(Empidonax minimus)

u u

Eastern Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe) yes u u u

Birds of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Species

Common Name

(Scientific name)

nest

on

refuge

spring summer fall winter

a=abundant: common species that is numerous 

c=common: usually found in suitable habitat

u=uncommon: present but not certain to be seen

o=occasional: seen at intervals of 2 to 5 years

r=rare: seen less often than every 5 years
158

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Great Crested Flycatcher

(Myiarchus crinitus)

yes u u u

Western Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis)oro

Eastern Kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus)yes c c c

Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris) yes u u u c

Purple Martin (Progne subis) yes c c c

Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) yes c u c

Northern Rough-winged Swallow

(Stelgidopteryx serripennis)

uuu

Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) yes a c a

Cliff Swallow

(Petrochelidon pyrrhonota)

caa

Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) yes c c a

Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata) yes c c c c

American Crow

(Corvus brachyrhynchos)

yes c c c c

Black-capped Chickadee

(Poecile atricapilla)

yes c c c c

Tufted Titmouse (Baecolophus 

bicolor)

yes c c c c

Red-breasted Nuthatch

(Sitta canadensis)

r rr

White-breasted Nuthatch

(Sitta carolinensis)

yes u u u u

Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) u uu

Carolina Wren

 (Thryothorus ludovicianus)

yes o o o o

Bewick=s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii) rrr

House Wren (Troglodytes aedon) yes c c u

Birds of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Species

Common Name

(Scientific name)

nest

on

refuge

spring summer fall winter

a=abundant: common species that is numerous 

c=common: usually found in suitable habitat

u=uncommon: present but not certain to be seen

o=occasional: seen at intervals of 2 to 5 years

r=rare: seen less often than every 5 years
159

Appendix C: Species Lists

Winter Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) o oo

Sedge Wren (Cistothorus platensis) yes u u u

Marsh Wren (Cistothorus palustris) yes u u u

Golden-crowned Kinglet

(Regulus satrapa)

u uu

Ruby-crowned Kinglet 

(Regulus calendula)

c cr

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher

(Polioptila caerulea)

yes u u o

Eastern Bluebird (Siala sialis) yes u u u r

Veery (Catharus fuscescens) r r

Gray-cheeked Thrush

 (Catharus minimus)

u u

Swainson=s Thrush (Catharus ustulatus)c c

Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus) o or

Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) yes u u o

American Robin (Turdus migratorius) yes c c c o

Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis)yes c c o

Northern Mockingbird

(Mimus polyglottos)

yes o o o r

Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum) yes c c u

American Pipit (Anthus rubescens) o o

Bohemian Waxwing 

(Bombycilla garrulus) 

r

Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla 

cedrorum)

yes u u u o

Northern Shrike (Lanius excubitor) r

Loggerhead Shrike

(Lanius ludovicianus)

uuuu

Birds of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Species

Common Name

(Scientific name)

nest

on

refuge

spring summer fall winter

a=abundant: common species that is numerous 

c=common: usually found in suitable habitat

u=uncommon: present but not certain to be seen

o=occasional: seen at intervals of 2 to 5 years

r=rare: seen less often than every 5 years
160

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) yes c c c a

White-eyed Vireo (Vireo griseus) crr

Bell=s Vireo (Vireo bellii) yes c c u

Blue-headed Vireo (Vireo solitarius) o o

Yellow-throated Vireo(Vireo flavifrons)yes u u u

Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus) yes c c u

Philadelphia Vireo(Vireo philadelphicus)o o

Red-eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceus) yes c c u

Golden-winged Warbler

(Vermivora chrysoptera)

o o

Tennessee Warbler

(Vermivora peregrina)

c c

Orange-crowned Warbler

(Vermivora celata)

u u

Nashville Warbler 

(Vermivora ruficapilla)

c c

Northern Parula (Parula americana) uou

Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) yes c c u

Chestnut-sided Warbler

(Dendroica pensylvanica)

u u

Magnolia Warbler

(Dendroica magnolia)

u u

Cape May Warbler (Dendroica tigrina)r

Yellow-rumped Warbler

(Dendroica coronata)

c c

Black-throated Green Warbler

(Dendroica virens)

u u

Blackburnian Warbler

(Dendroica fusca)

u u

Birds of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Species

Common Name

(Scientific name)

nest

on

refuge

spring summer fall winter

a=abundant: common species that is numerous 

c=common: usually found in suitable habitat

u=uncommon: present but not certain to be seen

o=occasional: seen at intervals of 2 to 5 years

r=rare: seen less often than every 5 years
161

Appendix C: Species Lists

Palm Warbler (Dendroica palmarum) o o

Day-breasted Warbler

(Dendroica castanea)

r

Blackpoll Warbler (Dendroica striata) u u

Black-and-white Warbler

(Mniotilta varia)

u u

American Redstart 

(Setophaga ruticilla)

yes c u u

Prothonotary Warbler

(Protonotaria citrea)

yes r r r

Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) yes u o u

Northern Waterthrush

(Seiurus noveboracensis)

r r

Louisiana Waterthrush

(Seiurus motacilla)

ooo

Kentucky Warbler

(Oporornis formosus)

yes u u

Mourning Warbler

(Oporornis philadelphia)

o o

Common Yellowthroat

 (Geothlypis trichas)

yes c c u r

Wilson=s Warbler (Wilsonia pusilla) u u

Canada Warbler 

(Wilsonia canadensis)

o o

Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens) yes u u

Summer Tanager (Piranga rubra) yes o u r

Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea) yes o o r

Northern Cardinal

 (Cardinalis cardinalis)

yes c c c c

Rose-breasted Grosbeak

(Pheucticus ludovicianus)

yes u u o

Blue Grosbeak (Guiraca caerulea) yes r r

Birds of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Species

Common Name

(Scientific name)

nest

on

refuge

spring summer fall winter

a=abundant: common species that is numerous 

c=common: usually found in suitable habitat

u=uncommon: present but not certain to be seen

o=occasional: seen at intervals of 2 to 5 years

r=rare: seen less often than every 5 years
162

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea) yes c c u

Dickcissel (Spiza americana) yes c c

Eastern Towhee

 (Pipilo erythrophthalmus)

yes c c c r

Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus) r oo

American Tree Sparrow 

(Spizella arborea)

c cc

Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerina)yes u u o

Clay-colored Sparrow (Spizella pallida)o o

Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla) yes c u c

Vesper Sparrow 

(Pooecetes gramineus)

yes c o c r

Lark Sparrow 

(Chondestes grammacus)

yes u u o

Savannah Sparrow

(Passerculus sandwichensis)

c cr

Grasshopper Sparrow

(Ammodramus savannarum)

yes o u o

Henslow=s Sparrow

(Ammodramus henslowii)

rrr

LeConte=s Sparrow

 (Ammodramus leconteii)

u ur

Nelson=s Sharp-tailed Sparrow

(Ammodramus nelsoni)

o o

Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca) u oo

Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) yes c c c u

Lincoln=s Sparrow 

(Melospiza lincolnii)

u ur

Swamp Sparrow 

(Melospiza georgiana)

yes c c u

Birds of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Species

Common Name

(Scientific name)

nest

on

refuge

spring summer fall winter

a=abundant: common species that is numerous 

c=common: usually found in suitable habitat

u=uncommon: present but not certain to be seen

o=occasional: seen at intervals of 2 to 5 years

r=rare: seen less often than every 5 years
163

Appendix C: Species Lists

White-throated Sparrow

(Zonotrichia albicollis)

c co

White-crowned Sparrow

(Zonotrichia leucophrys)

c co

Harris=s Sparrow 

(Zonotrichia querula)

u uu

Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis) c cc

Lapland Longspur

(Calcarius lapponicus)

r oo

Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) yes u r u

Red-winged Blackbird

(Agelaius phoeniceus)

yes a a a a

Eastern Meadowlark 

(Sturnella magna)

yes c u c o

Western Meadowlark

 (Sturnella neglecta)

ouoo

Yellow-headed Blackbird

(Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus)

yes c c c r

Rusty Blackbird 

(Euphagus carolinus)

u uo

Brewer=s Blackbird

(Euphagus cyanocephalus)

o or

Great-tailed Grackle

(Quiscalus mexicanus)

yes o r o r

Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) yes a c a c

Brown-headed Cowbird

(Molothrus ater)

yes a c a o

Orchard Oriole (Icterus spurius) yes c c o

Baltimore Oriole (Icterus galbula) yes c c u

Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus) o o

House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) yes o o o o

Red Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra) r

Birds of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Species

Common Name

(Scientific name)

nest

on

refuge

spring summer fall winter

a=abundant: common species that is numerous 

c=common: usually found in suitable habitat

u=uncommon: present but not certain to be seen

o=occasional: seen at intervals of 2 to 5 years

r=rare: seen less often than every 5 years
164

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

White-winged Crossbill

 (Loxia leucoptera)

r

Common Redpoll 

(Carduelis flammea)

r

Pine Siskin (Carduelis pinus) o oo

American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) yes c c c u

House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) yes a a a a

Birds of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Species

Common Name

(Scientific name)

nest

on

refuge

spring summer fall winter

a=abundant: common species that is numerous 

c=common: usually found in suitable habitat

u=uncommon: present but not certain to be seen

o=occasional: seen at intervals of 2 to 5 years

r=rare: seen less often than every 5 years
165

Appendix C: Species Lists

Plants of Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Herbarium Collection

 

Common Name Family Genus and Species

Wild Petunia Acanthianeae Ruellia pedunculata

Parsnip Apiaceae Pastinaca sativa

Indian Hemp Apocynaceae Apocynum sibiricum

Butterfly Weed Asclepiadaceae Asclepias tuberosa

Green Milkweed Asclepiadaceae Asclepias viridiflora

Fleabane Daisy Asteraceae Erigeron philadelphicus

Prairie Sunflower Asteraceae Helianthus laetiflorus

Skeleton Weed Asteraceae Lygodesmia juncea

Black-eyed Susan Asteraceae Rudbeckia hirta

Prairie Ragwort Asteraceae Senecio plattensis

Ironweed Asteraceae Vernonia fasciulata

Ironweed Asteraceae Vernonia missurica

Downy Painted Cup Bignoniaceae Castilleja sessiliflora

Jorrey Puccoon Boraginaceae Lithospermum canescens

Rough-leaved Dogwood Cornaceae Cornus drummondi

Sedge spp. Cyperaceae Cyperus odoratus

Comperssa Cyperaceae Eleocharis compressa

Rush Cyperaceae Eleocharis macroctachya

Rush Cyperaceae Eleocharis smallii

Wolfii Cyperaceae Eleocharis wolfi

River Bull Rush Cyperaceae Scripus flaviatilis

Horsetail Equisetaceae Equisetum laevigatum

Snow on the Mountain Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia marginata

Lead Plant Fabaceae Amorpha canescens

Crown Vetch Fabaceae Coronilla varia

Dalea Fabaceae Dalea enneandra

White Sweet Clover Fabaceae Melilotus albus

Yellow Sweet Clover Fabaceae Melilotus officinalis

Purple Prairie Clover Fabaceae Petalostemon purpureuim

Blue Flag Iris Iridaceae Iris virginica

Prairie Blue-eyed Grass Iridaceae Sisyrinchium campestre

Soft Stem Rush Juncaceae Juncus effusus

Path Rush Juncaceae Juncus tenuis

Wild Bergamot Lamiaceae Monarda fistulosa

Salvia Lamiaceae Salvia reflexa

Wood Sage Lamiaceae Teucium canadense

Orange Day Lily Liliaceae Hemerocallis fulva

Green Brier Liliaceae Smilax tamnoides

Rose Mallow Malvaceae Hibiscus lasiocarpos

Japanese Hops Moraceae Humulus japonicus

Wild 4 O=clock Nyctaginaceae Mirabilis nyctaginea

Green Ash Oleaceae Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Hoary Plantain Plantaginaceae Plantago vitginica

Western Wheat Grass Poaceae Agropyron smithii

Big Blue Stem Poaceae Andropogon gerardi

Side Oats Grama Poaceae Bouteloua curtipendula
166

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Rescue Grass Poaceae Bromus catharticus

Japanese Brome Poaceae Bromus japonicus

Downy Chess Poaceae Bromus tectorum

Barnyard Grass Poaceae Echinochloa crusgalli

Wild Rye Poaceae Elymus virginicus

Witch Grass Poaceae Panicum capillare

Schribner=s Panicum Poaceae Panicum oligasanthes

Blue Grass Poaceae Poa chapmaniana

Arrowhead Poaceae Sagittaria monteridensis

Bristly Foxtail Poaceae Setaria verticillata

Squirrel Tail Poaceae Sitanion longifolium

Purple Top Poaceae Tridens flavus

Prairie Larkspur Ranunculaceae Delphium virescens

Hustonia Rubiaceae Houstonia nigricans

Bastard Toad Flax Santalaceae Comandra richardsiana

Digitalis Scrophulariaceae Penstemon digitalis

Mullein Scrophulariaceae Verbascum thapsus

Ground Cherry Solanaceae Physalis longifolia

Horse Nettle Solanaceae Solanum carolinense

Buffalo Burr Solanaceae Solanum rostratum

Vervain Vervenaceae Verbena stricta

Sand Grape Vitaceae Vitis rupestris

Wildflower Gardens

Common Name Genus and Species

Beardtongue Penstemon digitalis

Blue-eyed Grass Sisyrinchium campestre

Butterfly Weed Asclepias tuberosa

Great Blue Lobelia Lobelia siphilitica

Lance-leaf Coreopsis Coreopsis lanceolata

Lead Plant Amorpha canescens

Little Bluestem Andropogon scoparius

New Jersey Tea Ceanothus americanus

Purple Coneflower Echinacea purpurea

Rattlesnake Master Eryngium yuccifolium

Rose Verbena Verbena canadensis

Showy Evening Primrose Oenothera speciosa

Shrubby St. John=s Wort Hypericum spathulatum

Whorled Milkweed Asclepias verticillata

Wild Petunia Ruellia humilis

Wild Sweet William Phlox divaricata

Blue Wild Indigo Baptisia australis

Cat=s Paw Antennaria plantaginifolia

Christmas Fern Polystichum acrostichoides

Culver=s Root Veronicastrum virginicum

Indian Grass Sorgastrum nutans

Pussy=s Toes Antennaria neglecta

Spiderwort Tradescantia ohiensis
167

Appendix C: Species Lists

Blue Star Amsonia illustric

Ostrich Fern Matteuccia struthiopteris

Wild Columbine Aquilegia canadensis

Fragile Fern Cystopteris fragilis

Dutchman=s Breeches Dicentra cucullaria

Jack-in-the-Pulpit Arisaema triphyllum

Lady Fern Athyrium filix-femina

May Apple Podophyllum peltatum

Sensitive Fern Onoclea sensibilis

Big Bluestem Andropogon gerardii

Black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta

Canada Milk Vetch Astraglus canadensis

Prairie Smoke Geum triflorum

Queen of the Prairie Filipendula rubra

Solomon=s Seal Polygonatum canaliculatum

White Snakeroot Eupatorium rugosum

Loess Bluffs

Big Blue Stem Andropogon gerardii

Hairy Grama Bouteloua hirsuta

Panicum Panicum oligosanthes

Fescue Festuca spp.

Downy Chess Bromus tectorum

Japanese Brome Bromus japonicus

Blue Grass Poa spp.

Green Pussy=s Toes Antennaria neglecta

Oblong-leaf Aster Aster oblongifolius

Silky Aster Aster sericeus

Ground Plum Astragalus crassicarpus

Low Milk Vetch Astragalus lotiflorus

False Boneset Brickllia eupatorioides

Downy Painted Cup Castilleja sessiliflora

Nine Anthered Prairie Clover Dalea enneandra

Purple Prairie Clover Dalea purpurea

Prairie Larkspur Delphinium virescens

Bluet Hedyotis nigricans

Prairie Sunflower Helianthus rigida

Lespedeza Lespedeza capitata

Dotted Blazing Star Liatris punctata var.

Orange Puccoon Lithospermum canescens

Yellow Puccoon Lithospermum incisum

Skeleton Weed Lygodesmia juncea

Prairie Ragwort Senecio plattensis

Stiff Goldenrod Solidago rigida

Goldenrod spp. Solidago spp.

Vervain Verbena stricta

Azure Aster Aster azureus

Lead Plant Amorpha canescens

Redroot Caenothus ovatus

Cedar Juniperus virginiana

Smooth Sumac Rhus glabra

Coral Berry Symphoricarpos orbiculatus
168

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Soapweed Yucca glauca var. glauca

Alfalfa Medicago sativa

Goat=s Beard Tragopogon dubius

Yellow Sweet clover Melilotus officinalis

Common Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia

Tall Green Milkweed Asclepias hirtella

Whorled Milkweed Asclepias verticillata

Side-oats Grama Bouteloua curtipendula

Rough False Foxglove Gerardia asper

Wild Bergamot Monarda fistulosa

Locoweed Oxytropis lambertii

Little Bluestem Schizachyrium scoparius

Prairie Blue-eyed Grass Sisyrinchium campestre

Indian Grass Sorghastrum nutans

Germander Teucrium canadense
169

Appendix D: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Appendix D: Draft Compatibility 

Determinations

171

Appendix D: Draft Compatibility Determinations

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Recreational Fishing

Refuge Name: Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: Executive Order No. 7156, August 23, 1935.

Refuge Purpose(s): “...as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” 16 

USC 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 

USC 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“...suitable for-(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection 

of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” 16 USC 

460k-1 “...the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be accomplished 

under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16 USC 460k-2 

(Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-460-k), as amended).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is 

to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

Description of Use:

What is the use? Recreational Fishing

Where is the use conducted? Fishing is permitted along the ditch banks, Squaw and Davis Creeks, 

at the Eagle Pool outlet and pool margins of the primary access roads.

When is the use conducted? Fishing is permitted during seasons set by the Missouri Department of 

Conservation.

How is the use conducted? Fish may be taken only by pole and line during the regular season. 

However, snagging of nongame fish is permitted at the Eagle Pool outlet from March 15 to May 15. 

There are access stairs at the control structure to accommodate this activity. Boats are not 

permitted.

Availability of Resources: Fishing has not been a major activity at Squaw Creek the past 20-30 

years. Based on a review of Refuge budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer and to manage recreational fishing at its current level. 

Approximately $1,000 of staff costs is required to administer this use. This includes law 

enforcement and maintenance around the control structure.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Bank fishing is permitted in ditches, Squaw and Davis Creeks, at 

the Eagle Pool outlet and pool margins along the major access roads. This represents the majority 

of fishable water on the Refuge. Fishing has never been a major activity at Squaw Creek NWR. 

The current fishing program appears to satisfy the local demand for nongame recreational fishing. 

There are no other conflicts with Refuge management and activities since boats are not permitted.
172

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is presented for public review and 

comment as part of the draft Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination:

____Use is Not Compatible

XX Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Squaw Creek NWR is open sunrise to sunset and 

only day-use activities are permitted. Recreational fishing is restricted to the main pool ditches and 

creeks adjacent to the auto tour route. Fishing is controlled by Missouri Department of 

Conservation regulations. The current fishing program will not be expanded but maintained at 

status quo.

Justification: A Fisheries Management Assessment was completed January 1987 and the 

recommendation by the fishery biologist was to continue to maintain the existing public fishing 

program and make no further attempts to manage the game fish population or enhance sport fishing 

opportunities on the Refuge. The removal of nongame fish helps improve the water quality. Fishing 

is a priority public use and those participating in this activity are exposed to the National Wildlife 

Refuge System and its mission.

Signature: ________________________________________________________________

Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: _____________________________________________________________

Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 
173

Appendix D: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Compatibility Determination

Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Refuge Name: Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: Executive Order No. 7156, August 23, 1935.

Refuge Purpose(s): “...as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” 16 

USC 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 

USC 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“...suitable for-(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection 

of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” 16 USC 

460k-1 “...the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be accomplished 

under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16 USC 460k-2 

(Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-460-k), as amended).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is 

to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

Description of Use:

What is it? Environmental education and interpretive presentations

Where is the use conducted? In a variety of locations on the refuge and at the refuge headquarters.

When is the use conducted? Throughout the year

How is the use conducted? Environmental education activities are provided by the refuge staff, 

volunteers, teachers or leaders of the visiting group. Interpretation is a self-guided format with 

additional information being provided by refuge staff, volunteers, exhibits, signs and brochures.

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of Refuge budget allocated for this activity, there is 

adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer the environmental education and 

interpretive programs. Approximately $25,000 of staff time is required to administer these uses. 

This includes supplies and use of equipment, teacher workshops, interpretive materials and off-site 

travel for training.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated impacts from these uses include minor damage to 

vegetation, littering, increased maintenance activity, and minor disturbances to wildlife. Careful 

management of time and space for this activity avoids any major conflicts with Squaw Creek’s 

primary purpose.

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is presented for public review and 

comment as part of the draft Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. 
174

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Determination:

_____Use is Not Compatible

 XX Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Environmental education and interpretation 

activities and facilities will be reviewed annually to ensure the quality of their contributions and the 

associated impacts are at acceptable levels.

Justification: Environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses listed in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. By providing for these uses on Squaw Creek 

NWR, the participant's knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology will be enhanced, 

which will lead to increased public awareness of how healthy wildlife populations and their habitats 

are a benefit to them and to future generations. Increased public awareness of their natural and 

cultural environments contributes to the efforts of the Service to achieve the refuge's purposes and 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Signature: ________________________________________________________________

Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: _____________________________________________________________

Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 
175

Appendix D: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Compatibility Determination

Use: Hunting White-tailed Deer

Refuge Name: Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: Executive Order No. 7156, August 23, 1935.

Refuge Purpose(s): “...as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” 16 

USC 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 

USC 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“...suitable for-(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection 

of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” 16 USC 

460k-1 “...the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be accomplished 

under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16 USC 460k-2 

(Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-460-k), as amended).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is 

to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

Description of Use:

What is the use? Hunting antlerless only white-tailed deer with muzzleloading firearms.

Where is the use conducted? On approximately 3,000 acres of the north end of the Refuge. This 

activity is permitted on approximately 41% of the refuge land.

When is the use conducted? The season(s) vary each year but generally during a mid-December to a 

mid-January time frame.

How is the use conducted? The muzzleloading firearm, antlerless only white-tailed deer hunt is 

conducted in accordance with an approved Hunting Plan and in compliance with State regulations. 

Applications for the hunt are accepted by the Missouri Department of Conservation during a 45 day 

period in the summer and 125 hunters are randomly drawn for each Saturday/Sunday hunt(s) and 

an additional 50 hunters are selected to hunt Sunday only. Refuge personnel perform law 

enforcement and operate the check station to gather hunter and biological data. All hunters are 

required to enter and exit the Refuge at the check station. For safety reasons, the hunt area is 

closed to the public during the hunting seasons. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the Refuge budget allocated for this activity, there 

is adequate funding to ensure compatibility, to administer the hunt and to collect biological and 

hunter information. Approximately $6,500 of staff costs is required to administer this use. This 

includes posting signs, law enforcement, news releases, running the check station and visitor 

control.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The estimated deer population during 2001 was approximately 650-

700 animals or more than 60 deer per square mile. The cropland and woodland habitat has been 

severely damaged by the over population of deer. A distinct browse line, which is a common 
176

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

indicator of too many deer, can be seen in the brush and woodland habitat. A reduction in the deer 

population will permit brush and other woody vegetation to recover and improve conditions for 

croplands.

A mid-December and/or mid-January hunt coincides with a period when most waterfowl and bald 

eagles have already migrated through the area and is during the time period when public visitation 

is at its lowest for the year. In addition, the open hunting area is in the woodlands and cropland 

habitat at the north end of the Refuge which is the farthest from the wetlands which is normally 

used by waterfowl and bald eagles.

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is presented for public review and 

comment as part of the draft Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination:

____Use is Not Compatible

 XX Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Hunting white-tailed deer is conducted in 

accordance with the provisions of the approved Refuge Hunting Plan and in compliance with State 

and Refuge-specific regulations. Only individuals selected in the random drawing are permitted to 

hunt once they have the secured the required hunting license and have the proper hunting gear/

weapons (blaze orange/muzzleloading firearms). All hunters are required to enter and exit through 

the check station and entrance gate.

Deer hunting quotas and seasons are tightly controlled and done in cooperation with the Missouri 

Department of Conservation and recommendations from the Refuge Biologist and State Deer 

Biologist. Seasons and quotas will be evaluated annually based on surveys and habitat conditions.

Justification: The reduction of the present deer herd is essential for the following reasons: (1) the 

deer population increased dramatically during the flood of 1983 when all habitat within the Missouri 

River bottomland was under water except the Refuge. They found abundant cropland and woody 

vegetation. Over browsing of woody vegetation occurred in the following years and many cropland 

acres on the Refuge were completely destroyed. (2) a large number of deer/vehicle accidents began 

to occur. (3) The most current deer surveys indicate a population of more than 60 deer per square 

mile, nearly 3 times the 15-20 deer per square mile of a normal, healthy population. (4) Prior to the 

first hunt in January 1988, there was severe damage to private croplands adjacent to the refuge. (5) 

Providing public hunting opportunities is a priority use of national wildlife refuges. An 

Environmental Assessment and Hunting Plan was written and approved in January 1987.

Signature: ________________________________________________________________

Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: _____________________________________________________________

Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 
177

Appendix D: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Compatibility Determination

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography

Refuge Name: Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: Executive Order No. 7156, August 23, 1935.

Refuge Purpose(s): “...as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” 16 

USC 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 

USC 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“...suitable for-(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection 

of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” 16 USC 

460k-1 “...the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be accomplished 

under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16 USC 460k-2 

(Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-460-k), as amended).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is 

to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

Description of Use:

What is it? Wildlife Observation and Photography

Where is the use conducted? Wildlife observation and photography opportunities are available at 

the Refuge headquarters complex, along the 10 mile circular auto tour and 2 mile Mallard Marsh 

road and along the 3 foot trails. Motorized vehicles and bicycles are confined to the designated auto 

tour routes and foot traffic confined to the 3 hiking trails. There is one designated picnic area to 

facilitate day-long participation in wildlife observation and photography.

When is the use conducted? The Refuge is open sunrise to sunset year-round except for the 2 to 4 

day white-tailed deer hunt and during adverse climatic conditions.

How is the use conducted? The auto tour routes and 3 hiking trails are self-guided. Staff-led 

interpretive programs are occasionally available seasonally.

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the Refuge budget allocated for this activity, there 

is adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer wildlife observation and photography 

activities. Approximately $20,000 of staff costs is required to administer this use. This includes law 

enforcement, maintenance of the auto tour routes and foot trails, signs, leaflets and administration.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Potential impacts from visitors engaged in wildlife observation, 

photography and associated uses include: damage to vegetation, littering, increased road and trail 

maintenance and disturbances to wildlife. Because visitor access is controlled, these activities do 

not detract from the primary purposes of Squaw Creek. All potential impacts are considered minor.
178

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is presented for public review and 

comment as part of the draft Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment.

Determination:

____Use is Not Compatible

 XX Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Public access for wildlife observation and 

photography and ancillary uses, will be in designated areas and with time restrictions to ensure 

minimal disturbance to wildlife. Wildlife observation and photography activities will be reviewed 

annually to ensure this compatibility determination still applies.

Justification: Wildlife observation and photography are priority uses listed in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act. By providing for these uses on Squaw Creek, visitors' 

knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife will be increased, which will lead to increased public 

stewardship of wildlife and their habitats at the refuge and in general. Increased public stewardship 

will support and complement the Service's actions in achieving Squaw Creek's purposes and the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Signature: ________________________________________________________________

Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: _____________________________________________________________

Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 
179

Appendix D: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Compatibility Determination

Use: Farming and Haying

Refuge Name: Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: Executive Order No. 7156, August 23, 1935

Refuge Purpose(s): “...as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Executive Order 7156, dated August 23, 1935.

“...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 

USC 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“...suitable for-(1)incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection 

of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” 16 USC 

460k-l “...the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be accomplished 

under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16 USC 460k-2 

(Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-460-k), as amended).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is 

to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

Description of Use:

What is the use? Farming and haying.

Where is the use conducted? Approximately 500 acres of croplands are planted in the north end of 

the refuge. This is approximately 6.8% of the total refuge acres. Approximately 300 acres of warm 

and cool season grasses, interspersed throughout the refuge, are hayed. This is approximately 4.1% 

of the total refuge acres.

When is the use conducted? The planting, growing and harvesting season is from mid-April through 

October. Haying is permitted from early July to early September, timed to protect bird nesting and 

to allow time for regrowth valuable as winter cover.

How is the use conducted? The farming is accomplished by cooperative farmers via annual 

cooperative agreements. It involves crop rotations consisting of corn, soybeans and clover. The 

cooperator gets two-thirds of the crop, while the refuge receives one-third, or an equivalent value in 

services. Haying is accomplished by annual Special Use Agreements to meet wildlife management 

needs, to assist in the conversion of cool season exotics to warm season native grasses and to aid 

prescribed burning activities. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of Refuge budget allocated for this activity, there is 

adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer and to manage the use of the farming 

and haying program at its current level. Approximately $1,500 of staff costs is required to 

administer this use. This includes meeting with each of the 3 cooperators annually to set up their 

agreements, checking field progress and compliance, determine areas to hay, typing up Special Use 

Permits and completing annual pesticide use reports.
180

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Farming provides habitat diversity in meeting the purposes for 

which Squaw Creek NWR was established. It provides supplemental food for migratory birds and 

resident wildlife and provides habitat diversity for a variety of wildlife species. It meets the goals 

established in the Cropland Management section of the approved Habitat Management Plan. 

Haying is an accepted method for removal of annual growth, sets back invading brush species and is 

considered compatible with the purpose for which Squaw Creek NWR was established and the 

mission of the Refuge System. It meets the goals established in the Grassland Management section 

of the approved Habitat Management Plan.

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is presented for public review and 

comment as part of the draft Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment.

Determination:

____Use is Not Compatible

 XX Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: All farming and haying is accomplished under the 

guidance of the Cropland and Grassland Management portions of the Habitat Management Plan. 

Farming cooperators are guided by annual farming agreements and haying cooperators are guided 

by Special Use Permits. The refuge uses biologically based crop rotations. No insecticides are used 

and only Service approved, biologically friendly herbicides are used and reported annually. Haying 

dates are regulated to avoid conflicts with nesting birds and to allow maximum late season growth 

for winter cover.

Justification: Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge is located within an intensively farmed 

agricultural community. Cooperative farming on the Refuge is consistent with practices within the 

community and is accomplished on land suitable for such management. Refuge croplands 

supplement natural food sources on the Refuge and enhance our ability provide wildlife viewing 

opportunities. Haying complements the refuge management efforts to develop and maintain flora 

and fauna diversity, to assist in the conversion of cool season grasses to warm season native grasses 

and forbs and to facilitate prescribe burning by creating firebreaks. 

Signature: ________________________________________________________________

Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: _____________________________________________________________

Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 
181

Appendix D: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Compatibility Determination

Use: Visitor Center Parking/Auto Tour Route Improvements

Refuge Name: Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: Executive Order No. 7156, August 23, 1935.

Refuge Purpose(s): “...as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” 16 

USC 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 

USC 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“...suitable for-(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection 

of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” 16 USC 

460k-1 “...the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be accomplished 

under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16 USC 460k-2 

(Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-460-k), as amended).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is 

to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

Description of Use:

What is it? The visitor center parking lot will be reconfigured to take better advantage of space and 

will provide additional handicapped spaces and a safer entrance/exit arrangement. The first 2,500 

lineal feet of the refuge auto tour route will get an asphalt covering and handicap parking added at 

the Davis Creek tower.

Where is the use conducted? At the refuge headquarters and refuge auto tour route entrance.

When is the use conducted? Throughout the year

How is the use conducted? Vehicle parking by visitors and driving of the auto tour route entrance 

road to the Davis Creek observation tower.

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of Refuge budget allocated for this activity, there is 

adequate funding to ensure compatibility.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Anticipated impacts from these uses include minor damage to 

vegetation, littering, increased maintenance activity, and minor disturbances to wildlife. There are 

no major conflicts with Squaw Creek’s primary purpose.

Public Review and Comment: The public has been informed of this proposed project through 

newspaper articles and television and the refuge has received strong support for this project.
182

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Determination:

____Use is Not Compatible

 XX Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The facilities will be maintained in a safe 

condition.

Justification: The current visitor parking lot at the headquarters and at the Davis Creek 

observation tower severely limits the number of parking spaces and is inadequate for physically 

challenged visitors. The reconfigured parking will provide additional parking spaces, additional 

handicapped spaces and a safer entrance/exit arrangement. The parking facilities supports the 

priority public uses listed in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act including 

environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation and photography. 

Signature: ________________________________________________________________

Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: _____________________________________________________________

Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 
183

Appendix D: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Compatibility Determination

Use: Mushroom Gathering

Refuge Name: Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: Executive Order No. 7156, August 23, 1935.

Refuge Purpose(s): “...as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” 16 

USC 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 

USC 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“...suitable for-(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection 

of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” 16 USC 

460k-1 “...the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be accomplished 

under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16 USC 460k-2 

(Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k-460-k), as amended).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is 

to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

Description of Use:

What is the use? Mushroom gathering (primarily morels)

Where is the use conducted? On approximately 700 acres within the bluffs east of State Highway 

159. This activity is permitted on only about 9.5% of the total refuge land.

When is the use conducted? Mushroom seasons vary from year to year depending on temperatures 

and moisture. Gathering is permitted from April 10 to May 20.

How is the use conducted? A refuge brochure shows the area open to mushroom gathering. In 

addition, signs are erected at key locations with mushroom gathering information and maps. Spot 

checks of mushroom pickers are made to assess the harvest success and compliance with refuge 

regulations.

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the Refuge budget allocated for this activity, there 

is adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer and to manage mushroom gathering. 

Approximately $1,000 of staff costs is required to administer this use. This includes law 

enforcement compliance checks, erecting signs and publishing news releases.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Mushroom gathering is limited to a 40 day period in the spring and 

is restricted to the bluff area. The mushroom gathering area is approximately 700 acres or 9.5% of 

the 7,350 acres of refuge habitat that is open to this activity. While there is some wildlife 

disturbance resulting from people being in the wooded areas, it is considered minor and not limiting 

toward the achievement of the Refuge Purpose or the National Wildlife Refuge System Mission.
184

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is presented for public review and 

comment as part of the draft Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination:

____Use is Not Compatible

 XX Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Mushroom gathering is restricted to a small area 

(approximately 700 acres) of bluff land east of State Highway 159 and to a short season. Brochures 

are available outlining this area and signs with regulations and maps are erected at key locations 

around the refuge. Refuge staff will monitor this activity for compliance and to ensure gathering is 

in modest amounts for personal consumption.

Justification: Mushroom gathering is minimal most years depending on the size of the crop. 

However, there is a demand for gathering mushrooms in the Refuge bluffs particularly during the 

spring turkey season which occurs on adjacent Missouri Department of Conservation lands. During 

this 40 day period, mushroom gatherers can pick mushrooms on the Refuge without the conflict of 

turkey hunting. In addition, the attraction of gathering mushrooms leads to public enjoyment of 

getting outside and into the woods. It is practical and applied environmental education.

Signature: ________________________________________________________________

Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: _____________________________________________________________

Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 
185

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

187

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Appendix E / Compliance Requirements

Rivers and Harbor Act (1899) (33 U.S.C. 403): Section 10 of this Act requires the authorization by 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to any work in, on, over, or under a navigable water of the 

United States.

Antiquities Act (1906): Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on Federal land and 

provides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken or collected without a permit.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the protection of migratory birds as a Federal 

responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations including the closing of 

areas, Federal or non Federal, to the hunting of migratory birds.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, 

rental, or gift of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934), as amended: Requires that the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and State fish and wildlife agencies be consulted whenever water is to be impounded, 

diverted or modified under a Federal permit or license. The Service and State agency recommend 

measures to prevent the loss of biological resources, or to mitigate or compensate for the damage. 

The project proponent must take biological resource values into account and adopt justifiable 

protection measures to obtain maximum overall project benefits. A 1958 amendment added 

provisions to recognize the vital contribution of wildlife resources to the Nation and to require 

equal consideration and coordination of wildlife conservation with other water resources 

development programs. It also authorized the Secretary of Interior to provide public fishing areas 

and accept donations of lands and funds.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934): Authorized the opening of part of a 

refuge to waterfowl hunting.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (1935), as amended: Declares it a national policy to 

preserve historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. 

Provides procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites.

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (1935), as amended: Requires revenue sharing provisions to all feetitle ownerships that are administered solely or primarily by the Secretary through the Service.

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act (1948): Provides that 

upon a determination by the Administrator of the General Services Administration, real property 

no longer needed by a Federal agency can be transferred without reimbursement to the Secretary 

of Interior if the land has particular value for migratory birds, or to a State agency for other wildlife 

conservation purposes.

Federal Records Act (1950): Directs the preservation of evidence of the government's organization, 

functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic historical and other 

information.

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy and 

broadened the authority for acquisition and development of refuges.
188

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use of refuges for recreation when such uses are 

compatible with the refuge's primary purposes and when sufficient funds are available to manage 

the uses.

Wilderness Act (1964), as amended: Directed the Secretary of Interior, within 10 years, to review 

every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless island (regardless of size) within 

National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Systems and to recommend to the President the 

suitability of each such area or island for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, 

with final decisions made by Congress. The Secretary of Agriculture was directed to study and 

recommend suitable areas in the National Forest System.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965): Uses the receipts from the sale of surplus Federal 

land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, and other sources for land acquisition under several 

authorities.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (1966), as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act (1997)16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee. (Refuge Administration Act): 

Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the Secretary to permit any use of a 

refuge provided such use is compatible with the major purposes for which the refuge was 

established. The Refuge Improvement Act clearly defines a unifying mission for the Refuge 

System; establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation); 

establishes a formal process for determining compatibility; established the responsibilities of the 

Secretary of Interior for managing and protecting the System; and requires a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended portions of the Refuge 

Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as amended: Establishes as policy that the Federal 

Government is to provide leadership in the preservation of the nation's prehistoric and historic 

resources.

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally owned, leased, or funded buildings and 

facilities to be accessible to persons with disabilities.

National Environmental Policy Act (1969): Requires the disclosure of the environmental impacts 

of any major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Uniform Relocation and Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (1970), as 

amended: Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell their homes, 

businesses, or farms to the Service. The Act requires that any purchase offer be no less than the fair 

market value of the property.

Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all Federal agencies to carry out programs for the 

conservation of endangered and threatened species.

Rehabilitation Act (1973): Requires programmatic accessibility in addition to physical accessibility 

for all facilities and programs funded by the Federal government to ensure that anybody can 

participate in any program.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974): Directs the preservation of historic and 

archaeological data in Federal construction projects.

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major 

wetland modifications.
189

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (1977) as amended (Public Law 95-87) (SMCRA): 

Regulates surface mining activities and reclamation of coal-mined lands. Further regulates the coal 

industry by designating certain areas as unsuitable for coal mining operations.

Executive Order 11988 (1977): Each Federal agency shall provide leadership and take action to 

reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impact of floods on human safety, and preserve the 

natural and beneficial values served by the floodplains.

Executive Order 11990: Executive Order 11990 directs Federal agencies to (1) minimize 

destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and (2) preserve and enhance the natural and 

beneficial values of wetlands when a practical alternative exists.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs): Directs the Service to 

send copies of the Environmental Assessment to State Planning Agencies for review.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978): Directs agencies to consult with native traditional 

religious leaders to determine appropriate policy changes necessary to protect and preserve Native 

American religious cultural rights and practices.

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act (1978): Improves the administration of fish and wildlife 

programs and amends several earlier laws including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the 

Secretary to accept gifts and bequests of real and personal property on behalf of the United States. 

It also authorizes the use of volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to carry out a 

volunteer program.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), as amended: Protects materials of archaeological 

interest from unauthorized removal or destruction and requires Federal managers to develop plans 

and schedules to locate archaeological resources.

Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (1981), as amended: Minimizes the extent to which 

Federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to 

nonagricultural uses.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986): Promotes the conservation of migratory waterfowl and 

offsets or prevents the serious loss of wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands and other essential 

habitats. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires the use of integrated management systems to control 

or contain undesirable plant species, and an interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other 

Federal and State agencies.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990): Requires Federal agencies and 

museums to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate cultural items under their control or 

possession.

Americans With Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and 

services.

Executive Order 12898 (1994): Establishes environmental justice as a Federal government priority 

and directs all Federal agencies to make environmental justice part of their mission. Environmental 

justice calls for fair distribution of environmental hazards.
190

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Executive Order 12996 Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (1996): Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public uses of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. It also presents four principles to guide management of the System.

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996): Directs Federal land management agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, 

avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, 

maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (1997): Considered the “Organic Act of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Defines the mission of the System, designates priority wildlifedependent public uses, and calls for comprehensive refuge planning.

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act 

(1998): Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to promote volunteer programs and community 

partnerships for the benefit of national wildlife refuges, and for other purposes.

National Trails System Act: Assigns responsibility to the Secretary of Interior and thus the 

Service to protect the historic and recreational values of congressionally designated National 

Historic Trail sites. 

Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001 (Public Law 106-554): In December 

2002, Congress required federal agencies to publish their own guidelines for ensuring and 

maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information that they disseminate to the 

public (44 U.S.C. 3502). The amended language is included in Section 515(a). The Office of Budget 

and Management (OMB) directed agencies to develop their own guidelines to address the 

requirements of the law. The Department of the Interior instructed bureaus to prepare separate 

guidelines on how they would apply the Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed 

“Information Quality Guidelines” to address the law.
191

Appendix F: Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Maintenance Management System (MMS) 

Appendix F: Refuge Operations Needs 

(RONS) and Maintenance Management 

System (MMS) 

193

Appendix F: Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Maintenance Management System (MMS) 

Refuge Operations Needs (RONS)

RONS 

Project 

No.

Strategy 

No. Project Description

First Year 

Need

Recurring 

Annual 

Need

99015 1.2.17/11.1.1 Improve moist soil/wetland vegetation (seasonal tractor operator)$59,000 $26,000

00001 7.2.5 Improve visitor services/outreach\Environmental 

Education

$92,000 $5,000

00002 1.4.10 Restore Loess Bluff/upland grasslands $32,000 $1,000

97003 7.1.2 Improve visitor services /interpretation auto tour 

route

$117,000 $5,000

99017 7.2.6/7.3.5 Expand Outdoor Classroom facilities $179,000 $2,000

99016 7.1.5 Revise Refuge leaflets $79,000

99018 1.2.10 Provide access - east of Davis Creek $204,000 $1,000

00007 10.1.5 Law enforcement equipment $80,000

00009 7.1.1/7.2.7/

11.1.1

Improve visitor services - O&M $113,000 $13,000

99002 10.1.6/10.4.1 Boundary/historic survey- Munkres $32,000

97008 1.5.3 Restore loess bluff native grasslands $25,000 $1,000

99001 5.1.8 Survey easement/fee title lands $43,000

97006 5.1.1/9.2.1 /

11.1.1

Restore private lands wetlands and improve watershed water quality.$118,000 $53,000

99007 1.5.4 Biology of Illinois garlic mustard $32,000

02002 Biology of Reed Canary Grass $32,000

00003 1.2.18/1.3.10 Improve burning program (marsh buggy). $100,000 $3,000

00006 10.1.1/11.1.1 Law enforcement staff $131,000 $66,000

99003 Improve wetlands and water level management. $34,000 $1,000

00008 Manage biological programs and provide biological 

monitoring.

$32,000 $32,000

02001 Improve visitor services/enhance quality of office efficiency. $56,000 $23,000

99011 Geographic information/global positioning capability $108,000 $10,000

Total $1,698,000
194

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Deferred Maintenance and Equipment Needs (MMS)

MMS Refuge 

Rank

Strateg

y No.

Project Description Fund 

Type

Year Cost

86023 1 Replace deteriorated 2 stall garage DM 2003 $75,000

03003 2 Replace worn-out inadequate entrance 

gate

DM 2003 $14,000

95441 3 Replace deteriorated 3-stall garage DM 2999 $200,000

00218 4 Replace worn-out shop vehicle hoist DM 2003 $36,000

97180 5 Replace deteriorated Davis Creek radial 

gate structure

DM 2003 $55,000

02001 6 Replace deteriorated items in office 

building

DM 2999 $60,000

98172 7 Replace deteriorated water system and 

water plant

DM 2004 $33,000

00219 8 Replace non-accessible comfort station DM 2005 $112,000

98049 9 Rehab deficient Squaw Creek water control structureDM 2005 $33,000

01007 10 Replace deteriorated Squaw Creek roller 

gate

DM 2004 $326,000

01001 11 Replace wildlife observation tower DM 2004 $40,000

03012 12 Replace deteriorated Eagle Pool water 

control structure

DM 2999 $450,000

99103 13 Retrofit shop bldg. for energy reduction DM 2005 $250,000

93160 14 Replace worn-out well pump - Rice 

Paddy moist soil units

DM 2005 $27,000

02003 15 Restore deteriorated Squaw Creek ditch DM 2999 $450,000

02004 16 Restore deteriorated Davis Creek ditch DM 2999 $485,000

99343 17 Replace deteriorated equip. storage bldg. DM 2999 $40,000

Total Deferred Maintenance $2,686,000

95436 1 Replace worn-out GMC dump truck EQ 2003 $78,000

995442 2 Replace worn-out D-7 dozer EQ 2011 $228,000

99342 3 Replace worn-out road grader EQ 2010 $245,000

01020 4 Replace worn-out Ford 6600 tractor EQ 2999 $80,000

98192 5 Replace worn-out JD 350 dozer EQ 2004 $93,000

99341 6 Replace worn-out IHC dump truck EQ 2005 $88,000

99343 7 Replace worn-out JD backhoe EQ 2010 $67,000

95440 8 Replace worn-out JD 70hp tractor EQ 2011 $93,000

00216 9 Replace worn-out D-4 dozer EQ 2011 $129,000

01006 10 Replace worn-out tracked excavator EQ 2999 $220,000

01015 Replace worn-out JD 130hp tractor EQ 2999 $70,000

01018 12 Replace worn-out Case scoop loader EQ 2999 $130,000

01019 13 Replace worn-out Ford F450 EQ 2999 $38,000
195

Appendix F: Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Maintenance Management System (MMS) 

03007 14 Replace worn-out IH dump truck EQ 2999 $80,000

03002 15 Replace worn-out Komatsu scraper EQ 2999 $368,000

Total Heavy Equipment $2,007,000

00214 1 Replace worn-out 1995 GMC Suburban EQ 2003 $35,000

00080 2 Replace worn-out 1994 Chevy maint EQ 2003 $40,000

03011 3 Replace worn-out JD 210 ag disk EQ 2999 $23,000

03010 4 Replace worn-out IH tractor w/mower EQ 2999 $35,000

03001 5 Replace worn-out Totem-all trailer EQ 2999 $35,000

03009 6 Replace worn-out JD F525 riding mower EQ 2999 $10,000

03013 7 Replace worn-out Woods flexwing 

mower

EQ 2999 $9,000

03008 8 Replace worn-out JD F145H plow EQ 2999 $16,000

03006 9 Replace worn-out Rhino mower EQ 2999 $8,000

00217 10 Replace deteriorated Truax seed drill EQ 2999 $26,000

00213 11 Replace worn-out 1996 Dodge truck EQ 2999 $31,000

01013 12 Replace worn-out 1997 Ford truck EQ 2999 $35,000

01002 13 Replace worn-out bush hog harrow/disk EQ 2999 $18,000

01004 14 Replace worn-out Cascade slipon pumper EQ 2999 $12,000

01005 15 Replace worn-out Kewannee harrow/disk EQ 2999 $10,000

01007 16 Replace worn-out Honda 4x4 atv EQ 2999 $8,000

01008 17 Replace worn-out beavertail trailer EQ 2999 $20,000

01009 18 Replace worn-out extendavator EQ 2999 $10,000

01010 19 Replace worn-out Chevy 3500 crewcab EQ 2999 $37,000

91337 20 Replace worn-out boom ax mower EQ 2999 $73,000

01014 21 Replace deteriorated Gulfstream trailer EQ 2999 $25,000

01016 22 Replace worn-out Cascade pumper EQ 2999 $15,000

01017 23 Replace worn-out JD 1218 mower EQ 2999 $12,000

03004 24 Replace worn-out Polaris 6x6 atv EQ 2999 $12,000

03005 25 Replace worn-out Honda TRX 4x4 atv EQ 2999 $7,000

03014 26 Replace worn-out 2001 Dodge Caravan EQ 2999 $35,000

03015 27 Replace worn-out 2001 Dodge 318 EQ 2999 $35,000

03016 28 Replace worn-out 2001 Dodge 350 EQ 2999 $40,000

Total Small Equipment $652,000

00007

99044

11.3.1 Environmental Learning Center/ office 

expansion

CON 2999 $1,200,000

Total Construction $120,000

93159 Replace deteriorated bridge over Tarkio 

Creek

DM 2999 $58,000

Deferred Maintenance and Equipment Needs (MMS)

MMS Refuge 

Rank

Strateg

y No.

Project Description Fund 

Type

Year Cost
196

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

 

96242 7.3.1 Repair 7,900 LF of eroded auto tour 

route

DM 2999 $84,000

98151 7.3.2/

7.3.6

Repair deteriorated asphalt surface on 

entrance road

DM 2999 $90,000

01013 Replace deteriorated Squaw Creek 

bridge

DM 2999 $400,000

01014 Repair deteriorated gravel auto tour 

route 

DM 2999 $50,000

Total TEA 21 Refuge Roads $682,000

Deferred Maintenance and Equipment Needs (MMS)

MMS Refuge 

Rank

Strateg

y No.

Project Description Fund 

Type

Year Cost
197

Appendix G: Mailing List

Appendix G: Mailing List

199

Appendix G: Mailing List

Appendix G: Mailing List

Elected Federal Officials

■ U.S. Senator Christopher Bond 

■ U.S. Senator Jim Talent

■ U.S. Representative Samuel Graves

■ U.S. Representative Roy Blunt

■ U.S. Representative JoAnn Emerson 

■ U.S. Representative Kenny Hulshof 

■ U.S. Representative Dick Gephardt 

■ U.S. Representative Todd Akin

Federal Agencies

■ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg Division, Rock Island and St. Louis Districts

■ U.S. Geological Survey, Long Term Monitoring Program; Jackson, MO; Alton, IL

■ U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service, Columbia, MO

■ Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL; Kansas City, KS

■ Columbia Environmental Research Center, Columbia, MO

■ Upper Midwest Science Center, LaCrosse, WI

■ U.S. Coast Guard, Keokuk, IA

■ Illinois River National Wildlife Refuge

■ Shawnee National Forest, Murphysboro, IL

■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Rock Island, IL

■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Historian

Elected State Officials

■ Missouri Governor Bob Holden 

State Agencies

■ Missouri Department of Natural Resources

■ Missouri Department of Conservation

■ University of Missouri, Extension Services

■ State Historic Preservation Officer

■ Office of the State Archeologist

■ Indian Affairs Council

■ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

City/County Governments

■ Holt County

■ Mound City
200

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Public Libraries

■ Mound City

■ Oregon

Organizations

■ Sierra Club, Kaskaskia Group Conservation Chair, Columbia, IL

■ The Sierra Club, Washington, DC

■ Ducks Unlimited

■ Pheasants Forever

■ Wild Turkey Federation

■ The American Fisheries Society, Columbia, MO

■ The Missouri Prairie Foundation, Columbia, MO

■ The Wildlife Society, Missouri Chapter, MO Dept. of Conservation, Columbia, MO

■ Missouri Wildlife Society, Hannibal, MO

■ Missouri Conservation Foundation, Jefferson, MO

■ Missouri Chapter American Fisheries Society, Missouri Department of Conservation, 

Jefferson City, MO

■ The Conservation Federation of Missouri, Jefferson City, MO

■ The Missouri Audubon Council, Jefferson City, MO

■ The Missouri Bass Chapter Federation, Lake St. Louis, MO

■ Missouri State Chapter, Soil and Water Conservation Society, Springfield, MO

■ The Audubon Society of Missouri, St. Louis, MO

■ Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC

■ National Wildlife Foundation, Office of Federal and International Affairs, Washington, 

DC

■ American Rivers, Washington, DC

■ The Clean Water Fund, National Office, Washington, DC

■ Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC

■ The National Waterways Conference, Inc., Washington, DC

■ The National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington, DC

■ The Natural Resources Council of America, Washington, DC

■ National Audubon Society, Washington, DC

■ Northeast Midwest Institute, Washington, DC

Individuals

■ Individuals who participated in open house sessions or who requested to be on the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan mailing list.
201

Appendix H: List of Preparers

Appendix H: List of Preparers

203

Appendix H: List of Preparers

Appendix H: List of Preparers

Ronald L. Bell, Refuge Manager, Squaw Creek NWR

Frank Durbian, Wildlife Biologist, Squaw Creek NWR

Charles Marshall, Park Ranger, Squaw Creek NWR

Joanna Foster, Administrative Technician, Squaw Creek NWR

Thomas Larson, Chief, Conservation Planning

John Schomaker, Refuge Planning Specialist, Conservation Planning

Jim Salyer, Refuge Planner, Southern Missouri Branch of Conservation Planning

Gabriel DeAlessio, Biologist/GIS, Conservation Planning

Jane Hodgins, Technical Writer/Editor, Conservation Planning

Jane Lardy Nelson, Editorial Assistant, Conservation Planning

Judy McClendon, formerly with the Southern Missouri Branch of the Region 3 Conservation 

Planning 

205

Appendix I: Wildlife Resource Conservation Priority Species for the Lower Missouri River Ecosystem

Appendix I: Wildlife Resource Conservation 

Priority Species for the Lower Missouri River 

Ecosystem

207

Appendix I: Wildlife Resource Conservation Priority Species for the Lower Missouri River Ecosystem

Appendix I: Wildlife Resource Conservation Priority Species 

for the Lower Missouri River Ecosystem

Federal and state species of concern that are known to occur or have the potential to occur on 

Squaw Creek NWR (SCNWR) as identified in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 Fish and 

Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities (1999) and/or the Missouri Department of Conservation 

Species of Concern Checklist (2001). Both federal and state status are provided where applicable. 

State rank: S1 = critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity or because of some 

factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state, S2 = Imperiled in the state 

because of rarity or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from 

the state, S3 = Rare and uncommon in the state, S4 = Widespread, abundant, and apparently secure 

in the state, with many occurrences, but the species is of long-term concern, S? = State status is not 

known. Habitat types listed are only those that occur on SCNWR. Identified species may occur in 

other habitat types that are not found on SCNWR.

Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal Classification State Classification Habitat Type

MAMMALS

Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis Potential Endangered Endangered, S1 Forests

Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata Present S2 Forests

Least Weasel Mustela nivalis Potential S4 Grasslands

Plains Spotted 

Skunk

Spilogale putoris 

interrupta

Potential Endangered, S1 Grasslands

BIRDS

Pied-Billed Grebe Podilymbus podicepsPresent S2 Palustrine

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosusPresent Rare/Declining Endangered, S1 Palustrine, Grasslands

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Present Rare/Declining S2 Palustrine

Black-Crowned 

Night-Heron

Nycticorax nycticoraxPresent S2 Palustrine

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens Present Recreational/ Economic Value, NuisancePalustrine

Canada Goose - 

Giant Population

Branta canadensis Present Recreational/Economic 

Value

Palustrine

Canada Goose - 

Eastern Prairie 

Population

Branta canadensis Present Recreational/ economic 

value

Palustrine

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator Present Rare/Declining, Recreational/ Economic ValueS? Palustrine

Wood Duck Aix sponsa Present Recreational/ Economic ValuePalustrine, Riverine, Forests

Mallard Anas platyrhynchosPresent Recreational/ Economic ValuePalustrine, Grasslands, Forests

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalusPresent Threatened, Tribal 

Trust

Endangered, S2 Palustrine, Riverine, Forests

Red-shouldered 

Hawk

Buteo lineatus Present Rare/Declining S3 Forests

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 

anatum

Present Endangered, Recreational/ Economic ValueEndangered, S1 Palustrine, Riverine
208

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus Present S2 Palustrine

Piping Plover Charadrius melodusPresent Endangered Palustrine

Least Tern - Interior PopulationSterna antillarum Present Endangered Endangered, S1 Palustrine

Black Tern Chlidonias niger Present Rare/Declining S? Palustrine

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensisPresent Rare/ declining Palustrine, Grasslands

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustrisPresent S2 Palustrine, Grasslands

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina

Present Rare/Declining Forests

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianusPresent Rare/Declining S1, S2 Grasslands

Dickcissel Spiza americana Present Rare/Declining Grasslands

Grasshopper SparrowAmmodramus 

savannarum

Present Rare/Declining Grasslands

Bobolink Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus

Present Rare/ declining Grasslands

Eastern MeadowlarkStumella magna Present Rare/ declining Grasslands

Yellow-Headed 

Blackbird

Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus

Present S2 Palustrine

REPTILES

Eastern MassasaugaSistrurus catenatus catenatusPresent Rare/Declining (status 

assessment pending)

Endangered, S1 Palustrine, Forests, Grasslands

Western Fox Snake Elaphe vulpina 

vulpina

Present Endangered, S1 Palustrine, Forests, Grasslands

Blanding=s Turtle Emydoidea blandingiiPresent Endangered, S1 Palustrine, Riverine

PLANTS

Hairy Grama Bouteloua hirsuta Present S2 Grasslands

Buffalo Grass Buchloe dactyloides Present S1 Grasslands

Creeping Love 

Grass

Eragrostis reptans Potential S1 Grasslands

Bayonet Grass Bolboschoenus 

maritimus ssp. 

paludosus

Potential S1 Grasslands

Arigrostas Arigrostas reptans Potential S1 Grasslands

A Rush Eleocharis wolfii Present S2 Grasslands

Hall=s Bulrush Schoenoplectus halliiPotential Rare/Declining S1 Barren Lands

Pale Bulrush Scirpus pallidus Potential S2 Palustrine

A Sedge Carex stricta Present S2 Grasslands

A Sedge Carex abscondita Present S1 Grasslands

Lake-Bank Sedge Carex lacustris Potential S2 Grasslands

Sartwell=s Sedge Carex sartwellii Present S1 Grasslands

Missouri BladderpodLesquerella filiformisPotential Threatened Endangered, S3 Grasslands

Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal Classification State Classification Habitat Type
209

Appendix I: Wildlife Resource Conservation Priority Species for the Lower Missouri River Ecosystem

Mead=s Milkweed Asclepias meadii Potential Threatened Endangered, S2 Grasslands

Prairie Bush-clover Lespedeza leptostachyaPotential Threatened Grasslands

Western Prairie 

Fringed Orchid

Platanthera 

praeclara

Potential Threatened Endangered, S1 Palustrine

Downy Painted Cup Castilleja sessilifloraPresent S2 Grasslands

Nine-anther Dalea Dalea enneandra Present S2 Grasslands

Blazing Star Liatris punctata Present S3 Grasslands

Skeleton Plant Lygodesmia juncea Present S3 Grasslands

Small Soapweed 

Yucca

Yucca glauca Present S2 Grasslands

Low Milk Vetch Astragalus lotiflorusPresent S2 Grasslands

Thimbleweed Anemone cylindricaPotential S2 Grasslands

Silvery Psoralea Pediomelum argophyllumPotential S1 Grasslands

Great St.John=sWortHypericum pyramidatumPotential S1 Grasslands

INSECTS

Perlid Stonefly Attaneuris ruralis Potential S3 Palustrine

Regal Fritillary Speyeria idalia Potential S3 Palustrine

Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal Classification State Classification Habitat Type

211

Appendix J: References

Appendix J: References

213

Appendix J: References

Appendix J: References

Missouri Department of Conservation agency's website, May 2003, http://

www.conservation.state.mo.us/nathis/natcom/prairies/pubprairies/history.htm 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources / Geological Survey and Resource Assessment Division 

Fact Sheet No. 4)

Nagel, Tom, Missouri Conservationist Online, 2001, www.conservation.state.mo.us/conmag/2001/12/

30.htm)

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Holt 

County, Missouri; 1997.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries, 1934, “The Squaw Creek Bottoms.”

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon Sequestration Research and Development. Washington, 

D.C.

215

Appendix K: Comparison of Alternatives by Objective and Strategy

Appendix K: Comparison of Alternatives by 

Objective and Strategy

217

Appendix K: Comparison of Alternatives by Objective and Strategy

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative 

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation

Goal 1 Habitat: Manage a diversity of habitat to benefit threatened and endangered species, waterfowl, other migratory birds, and indigenous species in the Lower 

Missouri River floodplain ecosystem and the Central Tallgrass Prairie ecosystem.

1.1 Objective: Wetlands –Manage 3,409 acres of wetland (877.5 acres of semipermanent water and 2,531 acres of seasonally flooded impoundments) which will be manipulated to provide open water, exposed shoreline and mudflats, and shallow wetlands traditionally preferred by migratory birds and other wetland associated wildlife species. Strategies: Continue to manipulate 

water levels to maintain existing habitat structure and waterfowl use.

1.1 Objective: Wetlands –Manage 1,227 acres of wetlands and convert 2,181 managed wetlands to wet prairie.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

1.1 Objective: Wetlands –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

1.1 Objective: Wetlands –Same as Alternative A except will manage 3,452 acres of wetlands will be managed for the habitats cited.Strategies: Convert 42 acres of 

bottomland mesic prairie to managed wetland; Manage water levels for resting and roosting waterfowl; use mechanical or chemical treatment or burning to provide open water, reduce undesirable plants, and encourage preferred seed producing plants; maintain cattail stands; use GPS to track wetland management activities; add seasonal tractor operator.

1.1 Objective: Wetlands –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative D, 

with less opportunity for public access.
218

Squaw Creek NWR / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1.2 Objective: Wet Prairie – Conserve and enhance the largest remnant wet prairie in Missouri by preserving and maintaining the integrity of at least 1,077 acres of wet prairie through elimination of non-native species and restoration of associated natural functioning systems (e.g. hydraulic systems, fire, etc.). Strategies: Lower water level during summer to establish moist- soil vegetation; reflood units in the fall. 1.2 Objective: Wet Prairie – Same as Alternative A but at least 3,259 acres of wet prairie managed by 2018. Strategies: Same as Alternative A. 1.2 Objective: Wet Prairie – Same as Alternative A. Strategies: Same as Alternative A. 1.2 Objective: Wet Prairie – Same as Alternative A. Strategies: Conduct species sur- veys; inventory wet prairie vege- tation; reduce exotic invasives through prescribed burning; add a full-time prescribed fire specialist; employ chemical applications to control invasives; restore prairie cordgrass south of Pintail Pool. 1.2 Objective: Wet Prairie – Same as Alternative A. Strategies: Same as Alternative D. Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued) Alternative A: Current Management (No Action) Alternative B: Restore Historic Wet and Mesic Prairie Alternative C: Enhance Public Use With Current Resource Management Level Alternative D: Optimize Resource Management With Enhanced Public Use (Preferred Alternative) Alternative E: Intensive Wetland Management With Extreme Measures to Combat Sedimentation
219

Appendix K: Comparison of Alternatives by Objective and Strategy

1.3 Bottomland Mesic Prairie –Manage 291 acres of bottomland mesic prairie to provide quality nesting cover for nongame migratory birds as well as nesting and wintering cover for upland gamebird species, breeding waterfowl, and other associated wildlife species by maintaining, enhancing and restoring grasslands to a mixture of warm and cool season native grasses.Strategies: Continue the use of 

prescribed fire to combat invasive species; work with volunteers to restore Loess Hill prairies. 

1.3 Bottomland Mesic Prairie –Manage 870 acres of bottomland mesic prairie to provide quality nesting cover for nongame migratory birds as well as nesting and wintering cover for upland gamebird species, breeding waterfowl, and other associated wildlife species by maintaining, enhancing and restoring grasslands to a mixture of warm and cool season native grasses. Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

1.3 Bottomland Mesic Prairie –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

1.3 Bottomland Mesic Prairie –Manage 508 acres of bottomland mesic prairie habitat to provide quality nesting cover for nongame migratory birds as well as nesting and wintering cover for upland gamebird species, breeding waterfowl, and other associated wildlife species by maintaining, enhancing and restoring grasslands to a mixture of warm and cool season native grasses. This habitat will be managed to maximize native vegetation abundance, minimize fragmentation and maximize the minimum patch size for areadependent species.Strategies: Conduct species surveys and monitoring; use seasonal, 

rotational prescribed burning to combat invasives; add a full-time fire specialist position; use chemical applications to control invasives; convert 200 acres of agricultural cropland and 59 acres of old field to 259 acres of native bottomland mesic prairie; use basic farming techniques to prepare a seedbed; plant native forbs in existing grassland areas following prescribed burning.

1.3 Bottomland Mesic Prairie –Manage 570 acres of bottomland mesic prairie to provide quality nesting cover for nongame migratory birds as well as nesting and wintering cover for upland gamebird species, breeding waterfowl, and other associated wildlife species by maintaining, enhancing and restoring grasslands to a mixture of warm and cool season native grasses. Strategies: Same as Alternative C.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
220

Squaw Creek NWR / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1.4 Loess Hills Prairie – Manage 221 acres of Loess Hill prairie habitat to provide quality nesting cover for nongame migra- tory birds and other associated wildlife species by maintaining, enhancing and restoring grass- lands to a mixture of warm and cool season native grasses. This habitat will be managed to maxi- mize native vegetation abundance, minimize fragmentation and maxi- mize the minimum patch size for area-dependent species.

Strategies: Continue the use of 

prescribed fire to combat invasive species; work with volunteers to restore Loess Hill prairies. 

1.4 Loess Hills Prairie –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Conduct species surveys and monitoring; use seasonal 

prescribed burning, continue to restore native warm season grasses and forbs in the Loess Bluff hills, hand-cutting invading tree species and brush; convert 78 acres of agricultural land to native Loess Hill prairie; use seasonal rotational prescribed burning for upland areas; plant native forbs; maximize grassland blocks and minimize fragmentation and edge effect by removing fence/tree rows where appropriate.

1.4 Loess Hills Prairie –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

1.4 Loess Hills Prairie –Manage 299 acres of Loess Hills Prairie for the purposes described under Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative B 

with addition of full-time fire specialist.

1.4 Loess Hills Prairie –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

1.5 Loess Hill Forest – Manage 378 acres of Loess Hills forest for the benefit of associated plant and wildlife species.Strategies: Conduct studies on the 

effects of browsing.

1.5 Loess Hill Forest – Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

1.5 Loess Hill Forest – Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

1.5 Loess Hill Forest – Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Conduct species surveys; conduct forest inventory; 

map distribution of Illinois garlic mustard.

1.5 Loess Hill Forest – Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
221

Appendix K: Comparison of Alternatives by Objective and Strategy

1.6 Objective: Bottomland Forest –Manage the 1,000 acres of bottomland forest to provide optimum nesting, resting and feeding habitats during breeding and migrational periods for migratory waterfowl and songbirds and to benefit threatened and endangered species other migratory birds, and indigenous species.Strategies: Conduct studies on the 

effects of browsing.

1.6 Objective: Bottomland Forest –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

1.6 Objective: Bottomland Forest –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

1.6 Objective: Bottomland Forest –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Flood bottomlands 

within Davis Creek units during spring and fall migration; move wood duck nesting structures to bottomland and upland woodland sites; complete a forest resources inventory; study causes for the loss of bottomland forests understory; map distribution of Illinois garlic mustard; use prescribed burning to reduce invasive species.

1.6 Objective: Bottomland Forest –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative D.

1.7 Objective: Croplands and Old Fields –Maintain the 579 cropland acres and 59 old field acres existing in 2003.Strategies: Continue agreements 

with cooperative farmers to leave one-third of crop standing.

1.7 Objective: Croplands –Convert the 501 cropland acres existing in 2003 to bottomland mesic prairie and convert 78 acres of croplands to Loess Bluff prairie and 59 acres of old field to bottomland mesic prairie.Strategies: Monitor wildlife use of 

croplands; continue annual cooperative farming agreements; implement phased reductions in cropland; implement crop rotation.

1.7 Objective: Croplands –Same as Alternative AStrategies: Same as Alternative A.

1.7 Objective: Croplands –Implement a long range plan to convert 279 acres of the 579 cropland acres and 59 acres of existing old field to mesic bottomland prairie and Loess Hill prairie. The reduction will be accomplished by 2015 through attrition of current cooperators.Strategies: Same as Alternative B.

1.7 Objective: Croplands –Reduce the cropland acreage to 300 acres, with resulting increases in bottomland mesic prairie.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
222

Squaw Creek NWR / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1.8 Objective: Exotic, Invasive and Nuisance Species – Control and reduce the presence of exotic, invasive and nuisance spe- cies of plants and animals on the Refuge. Non-native species will not exceed 2003 density or distri- bution levels. Strategy: Continue existing burn plan. 1.8 Objective: Exotic, Invasive and Nuisance Species – Same as Alternative A. Strategies: Use GIS technology to assess problem of invasive exotic species; use appropriate inte- grated species management tech- niques; work with volunteers in manual control efforts of Illinois garlic mustard; continue active monitoring to detect invasive spe- cies; use short-term farming to deter invasive species; continue monitoring gypsy moths. 1.8 Objective: Exotic, Invasive and Nuisance Species – Same as Alternative A. Strategies: Same as Alternative A. 1.8 Objective: Exotic, Invasive and Nuisance Species – Same as Alternative A. Strategies: Same as Alternative B. 1.8 Objective: Exotic, Invasive and Nuisance Species – Same as Alternative A. Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

1.9 Land Acquisition –Working with willing sellers, acquire up to 400 acres in fee title of existing and restorable wetlands within the authorized Refuge boundaries.Strategies: Initate action to identify willing sellers and to proceed 

with getting the acquisition proposal included in the Land Acquisition Priority System; prioritize acquisition of wetland and prairie habitat types.

1.9 Land Acquisition –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

1.9 Land Acquisition –Same as Alternative A.Strategy: Same as Alternative A.

1.9 Land Acquisition –Same as Alternative A.Strategy: Same as Alternative A.

1.9 Land Acquisition –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
223

Squaw Creek NWR / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1.10 Objective: Watershed Improvement – Reduce sedimentation from soil erosion and improve water quality on Squaw Creek NWR from pri- vate lands in the 60,000-acre upstream watershed using conser- vation practices fostering improved soil and water uses. By 2010, approximately 100 percent of the goals established in the AgNPS project in Squaw Creek will be accomplished, including erosion practices, water quality, 

riparian conservation and nutrient management.Strategies: Continue work with 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife, the Holt County Soil and Water Conservation District, and the Natural Resources and Conservation Service to improve water quality and reduce peak flows entering Squaw Creek; continue to provide financial incentives to private landowners through the cited partners to implement conservation measures within the Squaw Creek and Davis Creek watershed; monitor water quality; look for opportunities to purchase land from willing sellers within authorized boundaries. 

1.10 Objective: Watershed Improvement –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

1.10 Objective: Watershed Improvement –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

1.10 Objective: Watershed Improvement –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

1.10 Objective: Watershed Improvement –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
224

Squaw Creek NWR / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1.11 Objective: Wildlife Manage- ment District – Develop, improve and maintain native riparian, wetland, and grassland habitats consistent with the existing dominant vegetative structure (non-agricultural crop) contributions to soil and water con- servation within the Management District and also benefitting a broad spectrum of both game and non-game migratory birds and other resident wildlife species. Strategies: Continue current surveys and monitoring. 1.11 Objective: Wildlife Manage- ment District – Same as Alternative A. Strategies: Same as Alternative A. 1.11 Objective: Wildlife Manage- ment District – Same as Alternative A. Strategies: Same as Alternative A. 1.11 Objective: Wildlife Manage- ment District – Same as Alternative A. Strategies: Actively manage established native grasslands using prescribed fire and chemical treatments for invasive species; work with easement owners to convert former croplands; develop or restore riparian and wetland sites on easement properties; mon- itor grassland to formulate an annual strategy; fence riparian areas to prevent damage from cat- tle; continue to participate in the 

private lands program when possible.

1.11 Objective: Wildlife Management District –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Goal 2 Wildlife: Conserve species indigenous to the Refuge, the Lower Missouri River Ecosystem, and the Central Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem with emphasis on those species identified in the Service Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities.2.1 Objective: Regional Shorebird Designation –Designation of Squaw Creek NWR as a regional shorebird site of the Wester Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) by 2005.Strategies: Strategies: Conduct fall and spring 

migration surveys to document shorebird use; complete a nomination form.

2.1 Objective: Regional Shorebird Designation –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.1 Objective: Regional Shorebird Designation –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.1 Objective: Regional Shorebird Designation –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.1 Objective: Regional Shorebird Designation –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
225

Appendix K: Comparison of Alternatives by Objective and Strategy

2.2 Objective: Population Counts –Obtain annual peak population counts and use-days for Bald Eagles, Snow Geese, and other waterfowl and other indicator species using procedures outlined in the Wildlife Inventory Plan.Strategies: Continue current population counts, including Bald 

Eagles, waterfowl, shorebirds, marsh birds, and deer counts.

2.2 Objective: Population Counts –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.2 Objective: Population Counts –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.2 Objective: Population Counts –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Use most efficient 

technology available; maintain a high level of disease monitoring during spring and fall migration; monitor encroachment by nonnative species; document use of different habitats by indicator species; monitor marsh and water bird nesting; continue inventory of plant and wildlife species to determine long-term monitoring needs.

2.2 Objective: Population Counts –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.3 Objective: Waterfowl Use Days –Maintain annual waterfowl use day levels of a minimum of 5 million by providing adequate habitat as discussed under the Habitat Goal and based on a 5-year running average of waterfowl data, excluding Snow Geese.Strategies: Monitor arrivals and 

concentration build-ups in accordance with the Wildlife Inventory Plan; monitor waterfowl activity and concentration during migration; enforce FWS regulations on fee title and easement wetlands.

2.3 Objective: Waterfowl Use Days –Waterfowl use days will decrease by approximately 60 percent to approximately 2 million use days, in response to a comparable decrease in wetland acres and a corresponding increase in wet prairie.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.3 Objective: Waterfowl Use Days –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.3 Objective: Waterfowl Use Days –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.3 Objective: Waterfowl Use Days –Waterfowl use days will increase by approximately 5 percent to approximately 5.3 million use days in response to a comparable increase in wetland acres and corresponding decrease in other habitats.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
226

Squaw Creek NWR / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2.4 Objective: Reduction of Snow Geese – Actively assist international efforts to reduce the mid-continent population of Snow Geese by at least 5 percent each year until the Arctic Goose Working Group reduction goal has been achieved. Strategies: Actively discourage Snow Geese from using Refuge croplands; continue to provide open water for roosting in an area that provides hunting opportuni- ties off-Refuge; increase the effort 

to obtain Snow Geese neck collar readings during spring and fall migrations.

2.4 Objective: Reduction of Snow Geese –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.4 Objective: Reduction of Snow Geese –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.4 Objective: Reduction of Snow Geese –Same as Alternative A, with addition of initiating a spring Snow Goose hunt within 1 year of completion of the CCP. Strategies: Offer spring Snow 

Goose hunt within 1 year of plan completion; reduce cropland from 579 acres to 300 acres by 2015; actively discourage Snow Geese from using Refuge croplands; continue to maintain open water in Eagle and Pelican pools; increase the effort to obtain Snow Geese neck collar readings during spring and fall migrations.

2.4 Objective: Reduction of Snow Geese –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.5 Objective: White-tailed Deer Management –Manage the size of the white-tailed deer herd on the Refuge through controlled hunts to reduce the Refuge white-tailed deer herd to a fall relative density of 20 to 25 deer per square mile. Strategies: Monitor herd size and 

health; monitor habitat for damage; continue antlerless only deer hunts; initiate a research project to determine the effects of browse damage.

2.5 Objective: White-tailed Deer Management –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.5 Objective: White-tailed Deer Management –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.5 Objective: White-tailed Deer Management –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.5 Objective: White-tailed Deer Management –Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
227

Appendix K: Comparison of Alternatives by Objective and Strategy

2.6 Objective: Bald Eagle –Maintain the bottomland cottonwood forest areas and isolated mature cottonwood stands that provide roosting and nesting sites and that exist in 2004 and continue to provide habitat that maximizes Bald Eagle use days during fall and winter migration periods.Strategies: Manage riparian cottonwood forests to ensure sustained stands of mature roost and 

nest trees; develop designated regeneration sites that will favor seedling development; manage public access to assure adequate habitat is provided.

2.6 Objective: Bald Eagle –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.6 Objective: Bald Eagle –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.6 Objective: Bald Eagle –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.6 Objective: Bald Eagle –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.7 Objective: Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake –Maintain existing wet prairie habitat of 1,077 acres existing in 2003 to maintain the habitat used by eastern Massassauga rattlesnakes on Squaw Creek NWR (see Object 1.2 regarding habitat acreage). The population numbers and habitat use will be monitored to assess the response to the habitat manipulation.Strategies: Continue to participate in research efforts; continue 

to monitor local population status; participate in cooperative studies.

2.7 Objective: Eastern Massasauga Rattesnake –Increase wet prairie habitat from 1,077 acres existing in 2003 to 3,259 acres by 2018 will enhance the habitat used by the eastern Massassauga rattlesnake on the Refuge (see objective 1.2 regarding habitat). The population numbers and habitat use will be monitored to assess the response to habitat manipulation.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.7 Objective: Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake –Same as Alternative A.Strategy: Same as Alternative A.

2.7 Objective: Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake –Maintain existing wet prairie habitat of 1,077 acres and increase bottomland mesic prairie by 217 acres for a total of 508 acres. Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.7 Objective: Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
228

Squaw Creek NWR / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2.8 Objective: Least Bittern – By providing hemimarsh cattail habitat suitable for nesting, the Refuge will benefit the Least Bit- tern, which is ranked as an “imper- iled” species by the State of Missouri. The population distribu- tion and numbers will be moni- tored. Strategies: Maintain the presence of cattail stands; continue to moni- tor nesting activity. 2.8 Objective: Least Bittern – Same as Alternative A but approx- imately 349 acres of hemi-marsh cattail habitat will be provided. Strategies: Same as Alternative A. 2.8 Objective: Least Bittern – Same as Alternative A. Strategies: Same as Alternative A. 2.8 Objective: Least Bittern – Same as Alternative A. Strategies: Same as Alternative A. 2.8 Objective: Least Bittern – Same as Alternative A. Strategies: Same as Alternative A. 2.9 Objective: Passerine Species –

The Refuge will support and follow the recommendations listed in Region 3’s Resource Conservation Priorities for the rare and declining passerine species identified in Appendix I within existing management resources. Management interest will focus upon species for which Squaw Creek NWR is or was within their primary range.Strategies: Collect data from routine monitoring; conserve and 

restore critical habitat; support partners’ conservation efforts; encourage and support education efforts.

2.9 Objective: Passerine Species –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.9 Objective: Passerine Species –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.9 Objective: Passerine Species –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.9 Objective: Passerine Species –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
229

Appendix K: Comparison of Alternatives by Objective and Strategy

2.10 Objective: State Species of Concern –State of Missouri species of concern, such as long-tailed weasels, spotted skunks, and Franklin’s ground squirrels, will be reported to Missouri Department of Conservation staff when observed on or near the Refuge.Strategies: Report observations of 

state-listed species, including date and location, to the Department of Conservation.

2.10 Objective: State Species of Concern –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.10 Objective: State Species of Concern –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.10 Objective: State Species of Concern –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

2.10 Objective: State Species of Concern –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
230

Squaw Creek NWR / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Goal 3 People: Visitors, nearby residents and other stakeholders will appreciate the natural resources and ecological processes and cultural resources of Squaw Creek NWR, will help achieve the objectives of the Refuge, and will support the Service’s mission. 3.1 Objective: Interpretation – Design, fund and implement inter- pretive programs and facilities that meet Service standards and that will attract and accommodate up to 130,000 visitors annually. Strategies: Continue to offer inter- pretive programs, tours and dem- onstrations as time and staffing allow. 3.1 Objective: Interpretation – Same as Alternative A. Strategies: Same as Alternative A. 3.1 Objective: Interpretation – Design, fund and implement inter- pretive programs and facilities that meet Service standards and that will attract and accommodate up to 175,000 visitors annually by 2013 with a subsequent annual increase of 2 percent throughout the life of this plan. Strategies: Develop clear Refuge themes related to key resource 

issues; replace the auto tour leaflet with signs and sound posts; develop interpretive aids for Callow Memorial Trail; explore potential for extending Loess Bluff Trail; prepare new interpretive leaflets for species groups and Refuge resources and history; update existing leaflets; initiate contract for concept plan for a visitor center; remove picnic tables and grill from headquarters and replace with amphitheater; update the orientation video.

3.1 Objective: Interpretation –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative C.

3.1 Objective: Interpretation –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
231

Appendix K: Comparison of Alternatives by Objective and Strategy

3.2 Objective: Environmental Education –Offer environmental education programs, materials and facilities that meet Service standards and accommodate visitation consistent with 2004 environmental education levels.Strategies: Continue to offer interpretive programs, tours and demonstrations at current level.

3.2 Objective: Environmental Education –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.2 Objective: Environmental Education –Offer environmental education programs, materials and facilities that meet Service standards and accommodate up to 6,000 students annually by 2013. Evaluate the effectiveness of the environmental education program by 2013.Strategies: Alert schools to Refuge 

resources; conduct an annual teacher workshop; develop accessible EE activities linked to local and state education standards; expand the visitor and office space in the headquarters building to enhance visitor services; expand the outdoor classroom facilities by adding a boardwalk with a learning station into a marsh area; add a seasonal clerk to staff the visitor contact station during peak public use periods; recruit and train volunteers to conduct activities.

3.2 Objective: Environmental Education –(Same as Alternative C)Strategies: Same as Alternative C.

3.2 Objective: Environmental Education –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
232

Squaw Creek NWR / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3.3 Objective: Wildlife Observation and Photography – Maintain, improve and develop to Service standards facilities and programs to encourage more inter- active visitor participation result- ing in a higher quality outdoor experience, including an existing 10-mile circular auto tour route, the 2-mile Mallard Marsh Road and three walking trails. Strategies: Continue to partici- pate in Eagle Days; maintain auto tour route. 3.3 Objective: Wildlife Observation and Photography – Same as Alternative A. Strategies: Same as Alternative A. 3.3 Objective: Wildlife Observation and Photography – Maintain, improve and develop to Service standards facilities and programs to encourage more inter- active visitor participation result- ing in a higher quality outdoor experience, including an existing 10-mile circular auto tour route, the 2-mile Mallard Marsh road and the three walking trails and, by 2013, an extension of the Callow Memorial Trail to form a looped trail with the Loess Bluff Trail and 

a one-quarter-mile boardwalk to a marsh.Strategies: Improve facilities, 

including upgrading the surface of the auto tour route and developing interpretation and an observation deck on the route, and replacing deteriorated restrooms; develop one or more accessible wildlife observation blinds for photographers and the general public; construct an accessible boardwalk into a marsh; maintain walking tours free of debris; create a two-way road between the start of the auto tour route and the Eagle Pool hiking trail; create pull-off areas on the auto tour route; post maps on kiosks. 

3.3 Objective: Wildlife Observation and Photography – Same as Alternative C.Strategies: Same as Alternative C.

3.3 Objective: Wildlife Observation and Photography – Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
233

Appendix K: Comparison of Alternatives by Objective and Strategy

3.4 Objective: Hunting and Fishing –Provide high quality recreational hunting opportunities for up to 135 deer hunters per season to help maintain healthy populations. Continue to allow bank fishing at various water control structures throughout the Refuge.Strategies: Continue muzzle-loading-only antlerless deer hunt; continue to allow fishing of limited 

fishery resource.

3.4 Objective: Hunting and Fishing –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.4 Objective: Hunting and Fishing –Same as Alternative A, with the addition of the spring goose hunt. Strategies: Continue monitoring 

the deer hunt; manage deer hunt to avoid conflicts with other uses and resources. Continue working with MDOC regarding deer hunt regulations. Continue to permit fishing at public access points. A managed spring Snow Goose hunt will be offered. Inform public when snagging of rough fish is permitted. Provide at least one accessible deer hunting blind with signage and parking space and develop reservation system. 

3.4 Objective: Hunting and Fishing –Same as Alternative C.Strategies: Same as Alternative C.

3.4 Objective: Hunting and Fishing –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.5 Objective: Mushroom Gathering –Allow opportunities for mushroom gathering in selected areas.Strategies: Allow morel mushroom 

gathering in the Loess Bluffs by special permit; patrol areas closed to mushroom picking during gathering season.

3.5 Objective: Mushroom Gathering –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.5 Objective: Mushroom Gathering –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.5 Objective: Mushroom Gathering –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.5 Objective: Mushroom Gathering –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
234

Squaw Creek NWR / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3.6 Objective: Public Information – Refuge programs will continue to serve the traditional Refuge users as of 2004. Strategies: Continue existing use of news releases to advertise events like Eagle Days and hunt- ing program. 3.6 Objective: Public Information – Same as Alternative A. Strategies: Same as Alternative A. 3.6 Objective: Public Information – By 2025, 60 percent of people within 100 miles of the Refuge will be aware of the Refuge, its mis- sion, its facilities and scheduled events. Emphasize reaching diverse groups of people who are not part of the traditional Refuge audience. Strategies: Expand means of pub- licizing Refuge events to include electronic technologies and the Internet; ask visitors how they heard about events; provide a 24-

hour telephone line with Refuge information; create and maintain an accessible website; maintain and update Refuge information at the I-29 rest stop; maintain current media list and distribute 35 news releases annually; continue coordination with St. Joseph Visitors and Convention Bureau; reinstate a public service slide show; explore use of highway billboards; develop informational brochures; participate in youth-oriented activities; work with Regional Office external affairs.

3.6 Objective: Public Information –Same as Alternative C.Strategies: Same as Alternative C.

3.6 Objective: Public Information –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
235

Appendix K: Comparison of Alternatives by Objective and Strategy

3.7 Objective: Volunteers –Maintain volunteer program at 2004 level.Strategies: Continue to recruit volunteers for help with hand cutting 

invasive species and greeting visitors during Eagle Days at 2003 level.

3.7 Objective: Volunteers –20 percent decrease in volunteer 

hours.Strategies:

3.7 Objective: Volunteers –Increase the number of volunteer hours to 7,500 by 2013, with a 5 percent annual increase, to serve 

both in the Visitor Contact Station and around the Refuge as interpretive and educational guides and in supervised habitat management projects.Strategies: Increase volunteer 

recruitment efforts through web sites, news releases, public service ads, and work with civic groups; be actively involved in local Audubon chapters.

3.7 Objective: Volunteers –Same as Alternative C.Strategies: Same as Alternative C.

3.7 Objective: Volunteers –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.8 Objective: Friends of Squaw Creek NWR –Maintain and enhance a close working relationship with Friends of Squaw Creek NWR that helps foster common goals supporting the Refuge mission.Strategies: Continue to support 

Friends of Squaw Creek NWR and be actively involved by attending board meetings and providing advice and assistance.

3.8 Objective: Friends of Squaw Creek NWR –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.8 Objective: Friends of Squaw Creek NWR –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.8 Objective: Friends of Squaw Creek NWR –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.8 Objective: Friends of Squaw Creek NWR –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
236

Squaw Creek NWR / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3.9 Objective: Government Agen- cies & Non-government Organiza- tions – The 2004 level of involvement with NGOs and government agencies (see Chapter 5, Partnerships) will be maintained. Strategies: Continue existing work with Natural Resources Conserva- tion Service, Holt County Soil and Water Conservation District, and the U.S. Geological Survey to reduce sedimentation in the Ref- uge’s watershed. 3.9 Objective: Government Agen- cies & Non-government Organiza- tions – Same as Alternative A. Strategies: Same as Alternative A. 3.9 Objective: Government Agen- cies & Non-government Organiza- tions – To increase awareness of and sup- port for the Refuge, increase level of active cooperation with non-gov- ernmental organizations and gov- ernmental agencies on different aspects of on-Refuge and off-Ref- uge management and educational efforts, both in terms of the num- ber of NGOs and the level of effort. The 2004 level of involvement with NGOs will be maintained, but additional efforts will be made to share 

Refuge information with these agencies and organizations during routine interactions with them.Strategies: Continue work with 

traditional NGOs; continue to work with local Audubon societies; increase activity with the St. Joseph Visitor and Convention Bureau in promoting the Refuge and its activities; increase work with the Mound City Chamber of Commerce and local groups; actively look for partnering opportunities with other regional conservation groups, service organizations and educational institutions.

3.9 Objective: Government Agencies & Non-government Organizations –Same as Alternative C. Strategies: Same as Alternative C.

3.9 Objective: Government Agencies & Non-government Organizations –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
237

Appendix K: Comparison of Alternatives by Objective and Strategy

3.10 Objective: Research Support –Actively encourage and provide technical assistance and logistical support to qualified researchers to support ongoing cooperative investigations of long-term management importance to the Refuge or that supports other compatible projects.Strategies: Cooperate with the 

U.S. Geological Survey on a project studying stream flow and sedimentation; solicit assistance from additional partners; continue work with Missouri Western State College staff; continue research on the Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake; promote potential research opportunities in other forums and media; provide temporary housing to researchers when it is available.

3.10 Objective: Research Support –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.10 Objective: Research Support –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.10 Objective: Research Support –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.10 Objective: Research Support –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.11 Objective: Cultural Resources –Evaluate and preserve archaeologic and historic resources.Strategies: contract a survey to 

identify Native American sites; determine the status of farmstead buildings.

3.11 Objective: Cultural Resources –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.11 Objective: Cultural Resources –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.11 Objective: Cultural Resources –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.11 Objective: Cultural Resources –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
238

Squaw Creek NWR / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3.12 Objective: Health and Safety – Ensure the health and safety of visitors, volunteers, and employ- ees and protect the natural resources and physical property of the Refuge. Strive for zero acci- dents for visitors and no accidents resulting in loss of work for employees. Strategies: Add a full-time law enforcement officer and maintain credentials for a minimum of one collateral duty law enforcement officer; ensure that officers are 

fully trained and equipped; add a new electric gate at the Refuge entrance; complete a boundary survey on Munkre’s tract; provide routine maintenance and an annual inspection of all Refuge facilities; replace or close facilities that compromise public safety; review permit, licenses and inspections annually; revise the station safety plan; conduct regular safety meetings; refresh staff in CPR and first aid techniques every 2 years; explore sanitary water services.

3.12 Objective: Health and Safety – Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.12 Objective: Health and Safety – Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.12 Objective: Health and Safety – Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.12 Objective: Health and Safety – Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation
239

Appendix K: Comparison of Alternatives by Objective and Strategy

3.13 Objective: Welcome and Orient Visitors –Provide visitors with welcoming, comfortable experience through adequate guidance that does not detract from appreciating nature.Strategies: Enhance brochures 

and kiosks to include information relevant to a Refuge visit; revise and implement the station sign plan; indicate restrooms on Refuge location maps; install information and wayfinding signs per FWS Sign Handbook; enhance information provided in wayfinding signs; include information on sites and when and where sites can viewed on kiosks and maps; make the visitor center universally accessible; upgrade all orientation to be accessible to visitors with visual disabilities; identify and remove items that detract from naturalness; build pedestrian spaces at start of and along auto tour route; expand information provided along auto tour route; develop an accessible web site for the Refuge.

3.13 Objective: Welcome and Orient Visitors –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.13 Objective: Welcome and Orient Visitors –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.13 Objective: Welcome and Orient Visitors –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

3.13 Objective: Welcome and Orient Visitors –Same as Alternative A.Strategies: Same as Alternative A.

Squaw Creek NWR Objectives and Strategies by Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Restore Historic Wet and 

Mesic Prairie

Alternative C:

Enhance Public Use With 

Current Resource Management 

Level

Alternative D:

Optimize Resource 

Management With Enhanced 

Public Use

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E:

Intensive Wetland 

Management With Extreme 

Measures to Combat 

Sedimentation