Muscatatuck

National Wildlife Refuge

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

i

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

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................1

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................................................................................................1

The National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................................................................1

History and Establishment ............................................................................................................................................................3

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

Refuge Vision ................................................................................................................................................................................4

Purpose of the Plan .......................................................................................................................................................................4

Legal Context .................................................................................................................................................................................5

Chapter 2: The Planning Process ...................................................................................................................................................6

Meetings and Involvement ...........................................................................................................................................................6

Issues ............................................................................................................................................................................................6

Wilderness Review .......................................................................................................................................................................7

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management .....................................................................................................................8

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................8

Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................................................8

Ecological Context .........................................................................................................................................................................8

Historic Vegetation ................................................................................................................................................................8

Land Use/Cover .............................................................................................................................................................................9

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ..............................................................................................................................12

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities ............................................................................................................12

Other Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Area .......................................................................................................12

Conservation Corridors ........................................................................................................................................................12

Socioeconomic Context ...............................................................................................................................................................14

Population and Demographics ............................................................................................................................................14

Employment ........................................................................................................................................................................14

Income and Education ........................................................................................................................................................14

Demand and Supply for Wildlife-Dependent Recreation ...........................................................................................................14

Climate ........................................................................................................................................................................................15

Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................................................................16

Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................................................................................18
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ii

Refuge Habitats and Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................................20

 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................................................................20

Forests .................................................................................................................................................................................20

Grasslands ...........................................................................................................................................................................22

Birds .....................................................................................................................................................................................22

Mammals .............................................................................................................................................................................22

Amphibians and Reptiles ....................................................................................................................................................23

Fish ......................................................................................................................................................................................23

Invertebrates .......................................................................................................................................................................23

Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................................................................................24

State-listed/Candidate Species ..................................................................................................................................24

Threatened/Endangered/Candidate Species (Fed Listed) ..........................................................................................25

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

Invasive Species ..................................................................................................................................................................26

Exotic/Pest Species .....................................................................................................................................................26

Contaminants ......................................................................................................................................................................26

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

Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation .............................................................................................................................28

Visitation .....................................................................................................................................................................................29

Current Management ..................................................................................................................................................................29

Habitat Management ..........................................................................................................................................................29

Wetland Management ................................................................................................................................................29

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

Grasslands ...................................................................................................................................................................31

Forests .........................................................................................................................................................................31

Cropland ......................................................................................................................................................................32

Monitoring ...........................................................................................................................................................................32

Public Use ............................................................................................................................................................................32

Hunting ........................................................................................................................................................................32

Fishing .........................................................................................................................................................................35

Interpretation, Observation, and Photography ............................................................................................................36

Environmental Education ............................................................................................................................................38

Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation ...........................................................................................................................38

Predator, Pest, and Invasive Species Management ...........................................................................................................38

Animal Species ...........................................................................................................................................................38

Plant Species ...............................................................................................................................................................39

Archaeological and Cultural Resources ..............................................................................................................................39

Law Enforcement .................................................................................................................................................................40

Existing Partnerships ...........................................................................................................................................................41

Other Management Areas ...................................................................................................................................................41

Research Natural Area ................................................................................................................................................41

Restle Unit ...................................................................................................................................................................41

Farm Service Agency Conservation Easements ..........................................................................................................43
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iii

Current Staff and Budget ....................................................................................................................................................43

Staff .............................................................................................................................................................................43

Budget .........................................................................................................................................................................43

Chapter 4: Management Direction ...............................................................................................................................................44

Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................................................................................44

Goal 1: Habitat ....................................................................................................................................................................44

Goal 2: Wildlife ...................................................................................................................................................................54

Goal 3: People .....................................................................................................................................................................58

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ...................................................................................................................................................65

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................65

New and Existing Projects .........................................................................................................................................................65

Staffing .......................................................................................................................................................................................65

Partnership Opportunities ...........................................................................................................................................................66

Step-Down Management Plans ..................................................................................................................................................66

Monitoring and Evaluation ..........................................................................................................................................................67

Plan Review and Revision ...........................................................................................................................................................67

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment ...................................................................................................................................69

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

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

Appendix D: Regional Conservation Priority Species at Muscatatuck NWR ...................................................................179

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

Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations ..............................................................................................................................193

Appendix G: Deferred Maintenance and Improvement Projects and New Projects .......................................................211

Appendix H: Literature Cited .......................................................................................................................................................217

Appendix I: List of Preparers ......................................................................................................................................................223
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iv

Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Location of Muscatatuck NWR .............................................................................................................................................2

Figure 2: Potential Natural Vegetation, Muscatatuck NWR ..............................................................................................................10

Figure 3: Land Use / Land Cover in the Vicinity of Muscatatuck NWR .............................................................................................11

Figure 4: Other Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Vicinity of Muscatatuck NWR ..............................................................13

Figure 5: Hydric Soils, Muscatatuck NWR .........................................................................................................................................17

Figure 6: Muscatatuck NWR and the Wabash River Basin Watershed ............................................................................................19

Figure 7: Current Land Cover, Muscatatuck NWR .............................................................................................................................21

Figure 8: Water Management Infrastructure, Muscatatuck NWR ....................................................................................................30

Figure 9: Public Use, Hunting, at Muscatatuck NWR ........................................................................................................................34

Figure 10: Visitor Services Facilities, Muscatatuck NWR .................................................................................................................37

Figure 11: FSA Easements Administrated by Muscatatuck NWR .....................................................................................................43

Figure 12: Future Land Cover, Muscatatuck NWR .............................................................................................................................46

Figure 13: Future Visitor Facilities, Muscatatuck NWR .....................................................................................................................61

Table 1: Maximum Adult Audiences Within 30, 60, and 90 miles of Muscatatuck NWR for Four Activities ..................................15

Table 2: Monitoring History, Muscatatuck NWR ...............................................................................................................................33

Table 3: Five-year Operating and Maintenance Budget ....................................................................................................................43

Table 4: Current and Proposed Staffing Under the CCP .....................................................................................................................66
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Introduction

The Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR), established in 1966, manages 7,802 acres in 

Jackson, Jennings, and Monroe Counties of Indiana 

(Figure 1). The Refuge also administers nine 

conservation easements, totaling 130.5 acres in five 

Indiana counties. The Refuge consists of wetland, 

grassland and woodland communities. The Refuge 

provides habitat for many avian species including 

ducks, geese, non-game grassland and forest birds 

including many neo-tropical migrants, shorebirds, 

wading birds, birds of prey and Wild Turkey. A wide 

variety of reptiles and mammals including the 

copperbelly water snake, Kirtland’s snake, river 

otter, and white-tailed deer, many fish species and a 

broad range of terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates 

also inhabit the Refuge. Included among the diverse 

assortment of wildlife and plants found on the 

Refuge are several federally listed species, 

including the federally listed endangered Indiana 

bat, and many more state-listed species. Species 

lists found in Appendix C note any state and federal 

designations.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

Muscatatuck NWR is administered by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The Service is 

the primary federal agency responsible for 

conserving, protecting, and enhancing the nation’s 

fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. It 

oversees the enforcement of federal wildlife laws, 

management and protection of migratory bird 

populations, restoration of nationally significant 

fisheries, administration of the Endangered Species 

Act, and the restoration of wildlife habitat such as 

wetlands. The Service also manages the National 

Wildlife Refuge System.

The National Wildlife Refuge System

Refuge lands are part of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, which was founded in 1903 when 

President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican 

Island in Florida as a sanctuary for Brown Pelicans. 

Today, the System is a network of about 545 refuges 

and wetland management districts covering about 

95 million acres of public lands and waters. Most of 

these lands (82 percent) are in Alaska, with 

approximately 16 million acres located in the lower 

48 states and several island territories. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the 

world’s largest collection of lands specifically 

managed for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides 

habitat for more than 5,000 species of birds, 

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

a result of international treaties for migratory bird 

conservation and other legislation, such as the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, many 

refuges have been established to protect migratory 

waterfowl and their migratory flyways. 

Refuges also play a crucial role in preserving 

endangered and threatened species. Among the 

most notable is Aransas NWR in Texas, which 

provides winter habitat for the highly endangered 

Whooping Crane. Likewise, the Florida Panther 

Refuge protects one of the nation’s most 

Great Blue Heron. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

2

Figure 1: Location of Muscatatuck NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

3

endangered predators. Refuges also provide unique 

recreational and educational opportunities for 

people.

When human activities are compatible with 

wildlife and habitat conservation, refuges are places 

where people can enjoy wildlife-dependent 

recreation such as hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, 

and environmental interpretation. Many refuges 

have visitor centers, wildlife trails, automobile 

tours, and environmental education programs. 

Nationwide, approximately 30 million people visited 

national wildlife refuges in 2004.

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 established several 

important mandates aimed at making the 

management of national wildlife refuges more 

cohesive. The preparation of Comprehensive 

Conservation Plans (CCPs) is one of those 

mandates. The legislation directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to ensure that the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and purposes of 

the individual refuges are carried out. It also 

requires the Secretary to maintain the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

are to:

P Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats, including species that are 

endangered or threatened with becoming 

endangered.

P Develop and maintain a network of habitats for 

migratory birds, anadromous and 

interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal 

populations that is strategically distributed and 

carefully managed to meet important life 

history needs of these species across their 

ranges.

P Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, 

wetlands of national or international 

significance, and landscapes and seascapes that 

are unique, rare, declining, or 

underrepresented in existing protection efforts.

P Provide and enhance opportunities to 

participate in compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

o bs e r va ti on a n d p h o t o g ra p h y, a n d 

environmental education and interpretation).

P Foster understanding and instill appreciation of 

the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

History and Establishment

In the early 1960s there was interest among the 

Indiana Department of Conservation, state-wide 

sportsmen and conservation organizations, and 

many businessmen and civic leaders in southern 

Indiana for a national wildlife refuge in the area 

known as Mutton Creek Bottoms. Their interest 

was prompted by the recollection of past waterfowl 

use of the area, the reduction of waterfowl habitat 

throughout the area by drainage, an anticipated 

economic stimulus from tourists and sportsmen, and 

possible educational benefits derived from nature 

trails and wildlife observations. 

With the approval of the Governor and support 

by local elected representatives, the Service 

presented the proposal for the Muscatatuck NWR 

to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission on 

June 7, 1966. The Commission approved the 

acquisition of 7,922 acres to provide duck breeding 

and migration habitat. Lands for the Refuge were 

acquired under eminent domain. The Refuge was 

officially established by the acquisition of the first 

tracts on October 6, 1966. By April 24, 1973, 

acquisition was considered complete with 7,724 

acres acquired; interest in a remaining in-holding 

had waned by 1979 because the asking price was too 

high. The 78-acre Restle Unit in Monroe County 

was acquired through a donation in 1991.

Muscatatuck NWR. Photo Credit: Jon Kauffeld
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

4

Refuge Purpose

The Refuge purpose “...for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, 

for migratory birds” derives from the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. When proposed as a refuge 

to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission in 

1966, the area was identified as having good 

potential for waterfowl with expected increases in 

production and use during the spring and fall 

migrations. It was also noted that the Refuge would 

provide recreation facilities for the people of the 

vicinity.

The Refuge also manages nine conservation 

easement areas. The purpose of the easements, "... 

for conservation ... ”, derives from the Consolidated 

Farm and Rural Development Act. The Service 

administers the easements as part of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System.

Refuge Vision

The Refuge staff considered past vision 

statements and emerging issues and drafted the 

following vision statement as the desired future 

state of the Refuge:

As the land of winding waters, treasured for 

generations, Muscatatuck National Wildlife 

Refuge honors its heritage and connects visitors 

with the natural environment by conserving a 

rich mosaic of sustainable habitat for a diversity 

of wildlife and plants.

Purpose of the Plan

This CCP articulates the management direction 

for Muscatatuck NWR for the next 15 years. 

Through goals, objectives, and strategies, this CCP 

describes how the Refuge intends to fulfill its 

purpose and contribute to the overall mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Prior to the CCP, 

Refuge management was guided by a 1982 Master 

Plan, which is now dated, and other short-term 

plans of limited scope. There is a need for a broad, 

long-term look at management direction given 

changed conditions and scientific information, and 

over 40 years of on-the-ground experience by the 

Service managing the Refuge.

Several legislative mandates within the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

have guided the development of this plan. These 

mandates include:

P Wildlife has first priority in the management of 

refuges.

P Wildlife-dependent recreation activities, namely 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education and 

interpretation are priority public uses of 

refuges. We will facilitate these activities when 

they do not interfere with our ability to fulfill 

the refuges’ purpose or the mission of the 

Refuge System.

P Other uses of the Refuge will only be allowed 

when determined appropriate and compatible 

with Refuge purposes and mission of the 

Refuge System.

The plan will guide the management of 

Muscatatuck NWR by:

P Providing a clear statement of direction for the 

future management.

P Making a strong connection between Refuge 

activities and conservation activities that occur 

in the surrounding area.

P Providing neighbors, visitors, and the general 

public with an understanding of the Service’s 

management actions.

P Ensuring Refuge actions and programs are 

consistent with the mandates of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System.

P Ensuring that Refuge management considers 

federal, state, and county plans.

P Establishing long-term continuity in Refuge 

management.

P Providing a basis for the development of budget 

requests on the Refuge’s operational, 

maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

5

Legal Context

In addition to the acquisition authorities of the 

Refuge, and the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, several federal laws, 

executive orders, and regulations govern its 

administration. Appendix E contains a partial list of 

the legal mandates that pertain to Refuge 

management and guided the preparation of this 

plan.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

6

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Meetings and Involvement 

The planning process for this CCP began in 

March 2007. Initially, members of the regional 

planning staff and Muscatatuck NWR staff 

identified a list of issues and concerns that were 

associated with the management of the Refuge. 

These preliminary issues and concerns were based 

on staff knowledge of the area and contacts with 

citizens in the community.

Refuge staff and Service planners then asked 

Refuge neighbors, organizations, local government 

units, and interested citizens to share their thoughts 

in an open house and through written comments. In 

May 2007, people were invited to an open house at 

the Refuge’s visitor center through local papers and 

a project update sent to the Refuge’s mailing list of 

1,067. Twenty-five people attended the open house. 

Comments were received from approximately 35 

individuals during the comment period, which ended 

June 30, 2007. Following the public comment period, 

an additional meeting was held in the Fish and 

Wildlife Service Regional Office to review the public 

comments and identify concerns from subject 

specialists.

A Biological Program Review, which is an 

evaluation of the relevance and direction of the 

biological program through the collective inputs of 

professionals among the various fields of ecology 

and wildlife sciences, began with a 2-day meeting on 

June 20 and 21 of 2007. The Regional Refuge 

Biologist facilitated the event, which was attended 

by 17 individuals with various state, federal, and 

academic affiliations. Information was presented on 

the Refuge, the general ecology of the region, 

establishing legislation and policy directives, 

current issues facing the Refuge, prior program 

accomplishments, a report on the current biological 

inventory and monitoring program, and a draft 

vision for the future. The meeting was punctuated 

with field trips to specific sites to stimulate 

discussion and demonstrate issues of concern. The 

group discussed management alternatives and 

potential strategies, identified potential biological 

program priorities, discussed the draft goals and 

objectives for the various program components and 

other ideas for the future of the program.

The planning team also considered the 

recommendations of a Visitors Services Review that 

was conducted June 19-22, 2006. The review 

evaluated the services of the Refuge against the 

minimum visitor services requirements in policy. 

Issues 

Issues play an important role in planning. Issues 

focus the planning effort on the most important 

topics and provide a base for considering alternative 

approaches to management and evaluating the 

Muscatatuck NWR. Photo Credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

7

consequences of managing under these alternative 

approaches. The issues, concerns, and opportunities 

expressed during the first phase of planning have 

been organized under the following headings.

P Habitat and Wildlife

There is a need to prioritize wildlife species of 

management concern and their habitats and, 

within budget constraints and other limitations, 

manage according to those priorities. A strategic 

management direction is needed for wetlands, 

grasslands, forests, croplands, and the conversion 

of open lands to forests. Visitors see the current 

diversity of habitat as valuable, because it 

provides an opportunity to see a large number of 

bird and resident wildlife species.

P Visitor Services

Visitors and staff recognize a tremendous 

potential in wildlife-dependent recreation, a 

popular and valued use of the Refuge. There is a 

need to weigh the delivery of visitor services 

within the wildlife mission of the Refuge and seek 

creative means for expanding wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities, outreach, and education.

P Refuge Roads

The public recognizes the value of Refuge roads 

for access. There is a wide spectrum of opinion on 

how the roads should be maintained. Some like the 

roads as they are now; others would like to see 

improvements in the roads and associated 

facilities such as parking lots and wildlife 

overlooks.

P Recreational Issues

Some individuals would like to see recreational 

opportunities expand on the Refuge to include dog 

training, an archery range, and horseback riding. 

These activities typically do not occur on refuges 

and many are not wildlife-dependent in nature. 

The planning process presents an opportunity to 

evaluate the requests and reach a decision on their 

appropriateness and compatibility.

P Threats and Conflicts

The public and staff recognize the challenges 

increasing development around the perimeter of 

the Refuge will create for Refuge management 

and wildlife conservation in the area. There is also 

recognition of the need for aggressive 

management of invasive species.

P Support

There is wide support for the Refuge and its 

management among visitors. They note the value 

of the Friends Group, volunteer, and intern 

programs.

Wilderness Review

As part of the CCP process, lands within 

Muscatatuck NWR were reviewed for wilderness 

suitability. No lands were considered suitable for 

Congressional designation as wilderness as defined 

by the Wilderness Act of 1964. Muscatatuck NWR 

does not contain 5,000 contiguous acres of roadless, 

natural lands. Nor does the Refuge possess any 

units of sufficient size to make their preservation 

practicable as wilderness. Refuge lands and waters 

have been substantially altered by humans, 

especially by agriculture, drain construction, and 

road-building. Extensive modification of natural 

habitats and manipulation of natural processes has 

occurred. Adopting a “hands-off ” approach to 

management at the Refuge would not facilitate the 

restoration of a pristine or pre-settlement condition, 

which is the goal of wilderness designation.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

8

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and 

Management

Introduction

Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge

Muscatatuck NWR manages lands in Jackson, 

Jennings, and Monroe Counties in south-central 

Indiana. Management responsibilities also include a 

30-county Wildlife Management District, which 

involves management of U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA) Farm Service Agency 

Conservation Easements and team membership in 

the Wetland Reserve Program Wetland Evaluation 

Team with USDA – Natural Resource Conservation 

Service (NRCS) for the 22-county southeast 

Indiana area. Although formal management 

responsibility for the 30-county Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife private lands district was transferred by 

agreement to the Indiana State Private Lands 

Coordinator in 2004, Muscatatuck NWR still assists 

with past projects completed with MNWR partners, 

provides coordination and support in six counties, 

and makes referrals from other counties to the 

State Private Lands Coordinator.

Ecological Context

Historic Vegetation

Historically, the Refuge was a part of the 

expansive, contiguous deciduous hardwood forest 

that covered most of the central and southern part 

of the state. Lindsey (1997) listed oak-hickory and 

beech-maple as the dominant pre-settlement forest 

types. The Muscatatuck River Basin prior to 

European settlement of the area was an old lake 

basin. The forest community has been defined as 

“Bluegrass till plain flatwoods” by the Indiana 

Invasive Plant Species Assessment Work Group 

(Jacquart et al. 2002) and “Southeastern Till Plain 

Beech-Maple Division” by IDNR Division of Nature 

Preserves (2005). This area is generally wet or 

moist most of the year. 

Information gleaned from the General Land 

Office (GLO) survey notes from November 1806 is 

summarized in the following paragraphs. Names in 

bold are the names as found in the original survey 

notes and those within parentheses are current 

interpretations of the species represented (Homoya 

2007).

In the Jennings County portion of the Refuge 

the area is mostly upland flats and moist slopes. 

The tree species mentioned the greatest 

number of times is beech (American beech;

Fagus grandifolia). As with today, this species 

is characteristic of these communities. Three 

other species mentioned are sugar (sugar 

maple; Acer saccharum), W. ash (White ash; 

Fraxinus americana), and cherry (black 

cherry; Prunus serotina). 

In the western portion of the Refuge (Jackson 

Co.) most of the same species listed above are 

mentioned; additional types occur, especially in 

the floodplains. The list includes: "Ash; (green 

ash; Fraxinus pennsylvanica), maple (red 

maple; Acer rubrum and/or silver maple; Acer 

River otter. Photo credit: Dan Kaiser
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

9

saccharinum), elm (American elm; Ulmus 

americana) in the bottoms, beech (American 

beech; Fagus grandifolia) and poplar (tulip 

tree; Liriodendron tulipifera) on the 

Highland." These notes were describing a 

survey line between sections 25 and 26 T. 6 N. 

R. 6 E. Also mentioned for the floodplain in this 

region was ironwood (probably blue beech; 

Carpinus caroliniana, and not hop hornbeam; 

Ostrya virginiana). 

W. oak (white oak; Quercus alba) and/or swamp 

chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) and/or

swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), and gum

(sweet gum; Liquidambar styraciflua) were 

mentioned in a floodplain just north of the 

Vernon Fork Muscatatuck River along the 

section line between sections 35 and 36, T. 6 N. 

R. 6 E. White oak is not a normal component of 

wet floodplain forests in Indiana, but does occur 

in slightly elevated portions of floodplains, 

(Homoya 2007). There are no references to any 

open areas or grasslands. There are references 

to a few swamps in the floodplain; they were 

forested and probably only ephemerally wet.

In addition to written descriptions of historic 

vegetation conditions, soil information can be used 

to understand the vegetation capacity of a 

landscape. The soils in any given locality are a 

result of the parent rock material, organisms, 

climate, and relief. These factors and the resulting 

soils limit what overlying native vegetation can 

inhabit an area. Soil survey data collected over the 

past century by the USDA’s Natural Resource 

Conservation Service have included written 

descriptions of native vegetation, which can be tied 

to the soil unit and mapped. Figure 2 uses data 

from the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) 

Database to displays the potential natural 

vegetation found at Muscatatuck. The dominance of 

a mixed deciduous forest covertype is consistent 

with other accounts of the region’s native vegetation 

status. 

The land of the future Refuge was cleared for 

farms in the mid 1800s as the state was settled by 

Europeans. When the Service purchased the land 

there were 116 private land ownerships, 4,100 acres 

being farmed, and most of the area had been altered 

from its original forest cover type. Since the Service 

has managed the land the cover has changed away 

from agriculture to managed wetlands and trees. 

Fire was likely a part of the forces shaping the 

forest prior to European settlement as indigenous 

populations used fire as a management tool in 

forested areas. Fire has been suppressed in the 

Muscatatuck NWR area for much of the last 

century, except for some areas of the Refuge that 

were treated with fire as a management tool in the 

1990s.

Today the more common species in the 

bottomland hardwood forest are pin oak, swamp 

white oak, swamp chestnut oak, sweet gum, green 

ash, river birch, silver and red maple and shellbark 

hickory.

Land Use/Cover

The Refuge lies in a predominantly agricultural 

landscape. Farm land constitutes 63.5 percent of the 

land area in Jackson County and 59.1 percent in 

Jennings County (FedStats 2002). Within this 

predominantly agricultural landscape, the 

developed area of Seymour to the west of the 

Refuge is a notable exception. Forested lands and 

woodlots are scattered among the agricultural 

lands. Based on 2001 national land cover data 

developed by the Multi-Resolution Land 

Characteristics Consortium, the area within a 6-mile 

distance of the Refuge is 61.8 percent agricultural, 

10.8 percent developed, and 26.4 percent forested 

Female Wood Duck and brood. Photo Credit: Mark (U.S. Geological Survey 2001). (Figure 3) 

Trabue
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

10

Figure 2: Potential Natural Vegetation, Muscatatuck NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

11

Figure 3: Land Use / Land Cover in the Vicinity of Muscatatuck NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

12

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

Several migratory bird conservation plans have 

been published over the last decade that can be used 

to help guide management decisions on refuges. 

Bird conservation planning efforts have evolved 

from a largely local, site-based orientation to a more 

regional, even inter-continental, landscape-oriented 

perspective. Several transnational migratory bird 

conservation initiatives have emerged to help guide 

the planning and implementation process. The 

regional plans relevant to Muscatatuck NWR are: 

P The Central Hardwoods Joint Venture Concept 

Plan

P Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes 

Region Joint Venture of the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan

P The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes 

Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan

P The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes 

Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan

Each of the bird conservation initiatives has a 

process for designating priority species, modeled to 

a large extent on the Partners in Flight method of 

computing scores based on independent 

assessments of global relative abundance, breeding 

and wintering distribution, and vulnerability to 

threats, area importance, and population trends. 

These scores are often used by agencies in 

developing lists of priority bird species. The Service 

based its 2001 list of Non-game Birds of 

Conservation Concern primarily on the Partners in 

Flight shorebird and waterbird status assessment 

scores. 

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Priorities

Every species is important; however the number 

of species in need of attention exceeds the resources 

of the Service. To focus effort effectively, Region 3 of 

the Fish and Wildlife Service compiled a list of 

Resource Conservation Priorities (U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service 1999). The list includes: 

P All federally listed threatened and endangered 

species and proposed and candidate species 

that occur in the Region.

P Migratory bird species derived from Service 

wide and international conservation planning 

efforts.

P Rare and declining terrestrial and aquatic 

plants and animals that represent an abbreviation of the Endangered Species program’s preliminary draft “Species of Concern” list for the 

Region. 

Appendix D lists 80 Regional Resource 

Conservation Priority species relevant to the 

Refuge. 

Other Conservation and Recreation 

Lands in the Area

The State of Indiana, other federal agencies, and 

non-governmental conservation organizations own 

and manage lands and recreation access sites within 

a 50-mile radius of the Refuge (see Figure 4). The 

State areas include public access sites, fish and 

wildlife areas, recreation areas, forests, and nature 

preserves. The federal areas include Big Oaks 

National Wildlife Refuge, Hoosier National Forest, 

and Department of Defense lands. Among nongovernmental organizations, The Nature 

Conservancy is a major land owner and manager. 

Local governments also own and manage 

community parks in the area. Conservation 

easements and other partners also own and manage 

a significant amount of land in the surrounding area. 

Conservation Corridors 

Increasing urbanization and widespread land use 

changes are greatly affecting natural landscapes 

and healthy ecological systems by fragmenting and 

degrading habitats. Traditional approaches to land 

conservation are often opportunistic, piecemeal, site 

specific, and narrowly focused. However, increasing 

attention is being given to collaborative landscape 

conservation efforts that are proactive, strategic, 

comprehensive, and integrative. Regional analyses 

that consider larger geographic extents are helping 

to focus conservation efforts among a growing 

consortium of stakeholders and partners. Creating a 

series of ecological hubs and linkage corridors 

increases the connectivity, effectiveness, and 

resiliency of the biological systems that preserve 

biodiversity and essential ecological services. 

Efforts are underway in Midwest Region of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service to create models that 

outline a basic conservation network throughout the 

Midwest. Recent emphasis on Strategic Habitat 

Conservation and the effects of global climate 

change have catalyzed these efforts in the Service. 

Using land cover (Figure 3) and the existing 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

13

Figure 4: Other Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Vicinity of Muscatatuck NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

14

conservation estate (Figure 4), it is possible to 

visualize the beginnings of a land conservation 

network with Muscatatuck NWR, Big Oaks NWR, 

and other major State and Federal landholdings as 

major ecological hubs linked through private and 

public conservation efforts. The Refuge System is 

positioned well to play an integral role in the design 

and implementation of a regional conservation 

network.

Socioeconomic Context

Muscatatuck NWR is located in Jackson and 

Jennings Counties. These two counties are less 

racially and ethnically diverse than the State of 

Indiana as a whole. The population in the counties 

has a lower average income and a lower percentage 

of high school and college graduates than the state’s 

population as a whole (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). 

Population and Demographics

The population estimate for the two counties was 

70,664 in 2005. The population increased 12.2 

percent during the 1990s while the State’s 

population increased 9.7 percent. Jennings County 

grew more at 16.5 percent, and Jackson County 

grew 9.6 percent. The two-county population was 98 

percent white in 2005; the State population was 88.6 

percent white. In Indiana, 6.4 percent of the people 

5 years and older speak a language other than 

English at home; in Jackson County it is 4.3 percent; 

in Jennings County it is 2.5 percent. The population 

for Jackson County is projected to be 43,654 in 2025, 

a 3.4 percent increase from 2005; for Jennings 

County the projected population is 33,695 for 2025, 

an 18.5 percent increase from 2005. The largest 

community in Jackson County is Seymour with a 

2005 population of 18,890. The largest community in 

Jennings County is North Vernon with a 2005 

population of 6,433 (STATS Indiana, 2007). 

Employment 

In 2004 there were a total of 38,327 full- and parttime jobs in the two-county area. Manufacturing 

was the largest of the major economic sectors in 

both counties accounting for 25.8 percent of the jobs 

in Jackson County and 19.3 percent of the jobs in 

Jennings County. Retail trade, transportation, and 

warehousing were also notable sectors. Farm jobs 

made up 5 percent of employment (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2008). 

Income and Education 

Average per-capita income in the two counties 

was $25,885 in 2004; in Indiana it was $30,204. The 

median household income in 2003 for Jackson 

County was $41,502; for Jennings County $39,514; 

for Indiana and $43.323. In Jackson County, 11.5 

percent of persons over 25 years of age hold a 

bachelor’s degree or higher; in Jennings County 8.4 

percent; in Indiana 19.4 percent of persons over 25 

years hold a bachelor’s degree or higher (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2008). 

Demand and Supply for 

Wildlife-Dependent 

Recreation

In order to estimate the potential market for 

visitors to the Refuge, we looked at 2007 consumer 

behavior data within approximately 30, 60, and 90-

mile drives of the Refuge. The data were organized 

by zip areas. We used the three driving distances 

because we thought this was an approximation of 

reasonable maximum drives to the Refuge for an 

outing by different groups. From experience we 

know, for example, that visitors come from the 

nearby local area to view wildlife in the evening. We 

also know that people seeking interesting varieties 

of bird species drive from Cincinnati, Ohio to visit 

the Refuge. The 30-mile area extended beyond the 

communities of Bedford, Columbus, Greensburg, 

Madison, North Vernon, Salem, Scottsburg, and 

Seymour. The 60-mile area extended from the 

southern portion of the Indianapolis metropolitan 

area to the northern portion of the Louisville 

metropolitan area. The 90-mile area included the 

Cincinnati metropolitan area. 

The consumer behavior data that we used in the 

analysis is derived from Mediamark Research Inc. 

data. The company collects and analyzes data on 

consumer demographics, product and brand usage, 

and exposure to all forms of advertising media. The 

consumer behavior data were projected by Tetrad 

Computer Applications Inc. to new populations 

using Mosaic data. Mosaic is a methodology that 

classifies neighborhoods into segments based on 

their demographic and socioeconomic composition. 

The basic assumption in the analysis is that people 

in demographically similar neighborhoods will tend 

to have similar consumption, ownership, and 

lifestyle preferences. Because of the assumptions 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

15

made in the analysis, the data should be considered 

as relative indicators of potential, not actual 

participation.

We looked at potential participants in 

birdwatching, fishing, and hunting with shotgun. In 

order to estimate the general environmental 

orientation of the population, we also looked at the 

number of people who might contribute to an 

environmental organization. 

The consumer behavior data apply to persons 

greater than 18 years old. Table 1 displays the 

consumer behavior numbers for each of the three 

distances to the Refuge. The projections represent 

the maximum audience that we might expect to 

make a trip to the Refuge for approximate drives of 

half-hour, hour, and one and a half hours. Actual 

visitors will be fewer because the estimate is a 

maximum, and we expect only a fraction of these 

people will travel to the Refuge.

We also considered the maximum number of 

students that might potentially participate in 

environmental education offered by the Refuge by 

looking at the school populations in Jackson and 

Jennings Counties. For Jackson County the school 

enrollment in preschool through grade 12 was 8,142 

according to the 2000 census. For Jennings County 

the equivalent enrollment was 5,828. The projected 

school age (5-19) population for the two counties for 

2025 is 14,843.

Additional perspective on wildlife-dependent 

recreation was gained from Indiana’s Statewide 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 

2000-2004. In a survey of the population, recreation 

planners found that in the planning regions that 

contain the Refuge approximately 58 percent of the 

respondents participated in fishing regularly in the 

last year. Fishing was exceeded in participation only 

by the walking/hiking/jogging category. The 

approximate percentages of respondents for other 

activities were: nature observation/photography (36 

percent), hunting (33 percent), and trapping (6 

percent) (Indiana Department of Natural Resources 

2000). Within the nature observation/photography 

category respondents reported participation in 

wildlife viewing, gathering (mushroom, berry etc.), 

viewing fall foliage, nature photography, and bird 

watching. 

The SCORP identified the counties and regions 

that contain the Refuge as meeting or exceeding the 

regional recreation land standard of 35 acres per 

thousand population. The Indiana state trails plan of 

July 2006 reported 76 miles of trails in Jackson 

County and 17 miles of trails in Jennings County. 

The Refuge trails are included in these totals.

Climate

The Refuge experiences a continental climate of 

warm, humid summers and moderately cold 

winters. The area receives moisture from the Gulf of 

Mexico as air masses move up the Mississippi and 

Ohio River Valleys. January is the coldest month 

with a mean normal temperature of 28 degrees 

Fahrenheit. July is the warmest month with a mean 

normal temperature of 74.5 degrees Fahrenheit. 

Table 1: Maximum Adult Audiences Within 30, 60, and 90 Miles of 

Muscatatuck NWR for Four Activities

Approximate 

Driving Distance 

to Refuge

Total 

Population

Birdwatching Fishing Hunting With 

Shotgun

Contribute to 

Environmental 

Organization

30 miles 285,584 15,674 44,988 14,619 3,095

60 miles 1,743,239 82,886 235,698 67,640 15,589

90 miles 5,164,171 235,928 657,836 181,566 41,891

Muscatatuck NWR. Photo Credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

16

April 20 and October 12 are the frost and freeze 

dates for 32 degrees Fahrenheit with a 50 percent 

probability. The normal annual precipitation is 

about 46 total inches. Normal precipitation is 

distributed relatively evenly across the months of 

the year with a low normal of 2.84 inches in 

February and a high normal of 5.01 inches in May 

(Source: National Climatic Data Center). 

Geology and Soils

The Refuge lies within the Scottsburg lowland 

physiographic division of Indiana. The lowland has 

resulted from the greater erosion of shales 

compared to the underlying limestones and 

siltstones of adjacent uplands. Thick glacial deposits 

that are older than Wisconsin glacial deposits cover 

the area with little variation in topography (Wayne 

1956). More specifically, Muscatatuck NWR's 

geology includes the combination of underlying 

bedrock strata and the unconsolidated soils material 

deposited by glacial action.

 The Refuge has upland and river valley areas, 

causing variations in depth of the unconsolidated 

soil material to bedrock. A well drilled in the 

northeast part of the Refuge encountered bedrock 

at a depth of 40 feet. The bedrock depths can vary 

quite widely depending on the amount of material 

deposited and subsequently removed by erosion. 

The glacial material is dominantly stratified sands 

and clays that have been blanketed with a mantle of 

wind blown silt (loess).

In the floodplain area, bedrock is typically less 

than 10 feet below the surface. (Marshall et al. 2007)

Hydric soils (Figure 5) cover 2,962 acres of the 

Refuge. Non-hydric soils cover the remaining 4,797 

acres. Soils on the Refuge are grouped into five soil 

associations: Dubois-Peoga-Haubstadt, StendalBirds-Piopolis, Haymond-Wakeland-Wilbur, 

Bloomfield-Alvin, and a small amount of AyrshireLyles (Marshall et al. 2007; Nagel et al. 1990; 

Nickell et al. 1976). 

The Dubois-Peoga-Haubstadt association of soils 

are very deep, nearly level to strongly sloping, 

moderately well to poorly drained, medium textured 

soils that have formed in loess and the underlying 

stratified lacustrine sediments on terraces. The 

somewhat poorly drained Dubois soils are nearly 

level to gently sloping on narrow flats and upper 

side slopes. The moderately well drained Haubstadt 

soils are gently to strongly sloping on side slopes. 

Both Dubois and Haubstadt soils have very slowly 

permeable fragipans present in the soil profile. 

Peoga soils are nearly level, poorly drained, and are 

on broad flats. The moderately well-drained Otwell 

soils actually have a higher number of acres within 

the Refuge area, and are often intermixed with the 

Haubstadt soils. The minor soil in this association is 

the well-drained Negley soils on steep side slopes. 

Also included with this association is a small amount 

of Illinoian till soils in the very eastern boundary of 

the Refuge. These soils are the somewhat poorly 

drained Avonburg, moderately well-drained Nabb 

and Cincinnati, which all have fragipans. The soils of 

this association comprise approximately 4,172 acres, 

or about 54 percent of the Refuge area.

The Stendal-Birds-Piopolis association of soils 

are very deep, nearly level, somewhat poorly to 

poorly drained, medium and moderately fine 

textured soils formed in fine-silty acid alluvium on 

floodplains. Within the Refuge area, Birds soil is the 

more dominant component of the association, with 

slightly more that 2,000 acres. Birds soils are poorly 

drained and are formed in non-acid silty alluvium 

over alluvium with a higher clay content, in slow 

backwater areas of floodplains. Stendal soils are 

somewhat poorly drained, are formed in silty acid 

alluvium and tend to occur on slightly elevated 

areas, which are called steps, of the floodplain. 

Piopolis soils are poorly and very poorly drained 

and are formed in clay alluvium on floodplains. 

There is currently no Piopolis mapped within the 

Refuge area. Minor soils in this association are the 

poorly drained Bonnie and moderately well-drained 

Steff soils. Bonnie soils are formed in silty acid 

alluvium and are found in similar positions as Birds 

soils. Steff soils are formed in silty acid alluvium and 

are found in positions similar to Stendal. These soils 

are found mainly in the watersheds of Mutton Creek 

Ditch, Storm Creek Ditch, and Sandy Branch. The 

soils of this association comprise approximately 

2,367 acres, or about 30 percent of the Refuge area.

The Haymond-Wakeland-Wilbur association of 

soils are very deep, well to somewhat poorly 

drained, nearly level, formed in coarse-silty nonacid alluvium on floodplains. Within the Refuge 

area, Wakeland soils are the more dominant 

component of the association, with slightly over 400 

acres. Wakeland soils are somewhat poorly drained 

and are formed in silty non-acid alluvium on 

floodplains. Haymond soils are well-drained and are 

formed in silty non-acid alluvium on floodplains. 

Minor soil in this association is the well-drained, 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

17

Figure 5: Hydric Soils, Muscatatuck NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

18

coarse loamy Wirt soils on natural levees of the 

floodplain adjacent to streams. These soils are found 

mainly in the Vernon Fork of the Muscatatuck River 

watershed. The soils of this association comprise 

approximately 600 acres, or about 7 percent of the 

Refuge area. 

The Bloomfield-Alvin association of soils are very 

deep, nearly level to strongly sloping somewhat 

excessively to well-drained, coarse textured soils 

formed in eolian (windblown) sand deposits (dunes) 

on uplands. Bloomfield soils are nearly level to 

strongly sloping somewhat excessively drained on 

ridges and narrow side slopes of dunes. Alvin soils 

are well-drained and are intermixed with the 

Bloomfield soils on similar landforms. Minor soils in 

this association are the Bobtown and Medora soils. 

Bobtown soils are moderately well-drained and 

formed in moderately coarse textured eolian 

(windblown) sand deposits. Medora soils are 

moderately well-drained and are formed in loess 

and the underlying sandy outwash material, and 

have a fragipan. These soils are located mainly in 

the northwestern corner of the Refuge and 

comprise approximately 200 acres, or 3 percent of 

the Refuge area.

The Ayrshire-Lyles association of soils is very 

deep, nearly level, somewhat poorly and very poorly 

drained, moderately coarse textured coarse 

textured soils, formed in eolian (windblown) sand 

deposits (dunes) on uplands. Ayrshire soils are 

somewhat poorly drained and are on flats of 

uplands. Lyles soils are poorly drained, have very 

dark colored surface layers and are in slight 

depressions of uplands. These soils comprise about 

43 total acres and are located mainly in the 

northwestern corner of the Refuge area.

Hydrology and Water Quality

The Refuge lies within a flat, relatively well 

drained portion of the Wabash River Basin 

(Figure 6). Water flows away from the Refuge down 

the Vernon Fork of the Muscatatuck River, into the 

Muscatatuck River, the White River, and on to the 

Wabash River. Three small streams, Sandy Branch, 

Mutton Creek, and Storm Creek, flow through the 

Refuge and enter the Vernon Fork soon after 

leaving the Refuge. The subwatersheds of Upperand Lower- Mutton Creek and Upper- and LowerStorm Creek, which cover 30,100 acres above the 

Refuge, flow into the Refuge. Approximately 8,525 

acres of the Mutton Creek-Sandy Branch 

subwatershed, which includes the eastern portion of 

Seymour, also flows into the Refuge. The annual 

floodplain of the Vernon Fork extends 2,000 to 3,500 

feet into the Refuge along its southern border. 

Annual floods inundate approximately 2,700 acres of 

the Refuge. 

Agriculture is the primary land use in the 

watershed. Run-off from crop fields, pastureland, 

and feedlots contributes to non-point source 

pollution. Erosion, nutrient and sediment loading, 

and contamination from application of pesticides, 

herbicides, and fertilizers all introduce 

contaminants into the watershed and refuge system. 

Many of these substances, such as organo-chlorines 

and organo-phosphates, are known to be toxic to 

fish and wildlife via direct exposure, 

bioaccumulation, and bio-magnification (Cox 1991).

In addition to agriculture, the rapid urban 

development of the area surrounding the Refuge 

has had detrimental impacts on the watershed. As 

more land is cleared and paved, there are decreases 

in interception, increased throughfall, and changes 

in roughness coefficients and slope, all of which 

contribute to increases in flow rates, erosion, and 

amount of particles, sediment, and other substances 

reaching the Refuge (Tang et al. 2005). The Refuge 

is within a mile or less of three major highways, all 

of which cross at least one of the three primary 

tributaries that enter the Refuge. This creates 

sources of run-off containing salts, fuel, and other 

petroleum products. The construction of homes and 

businesses has put a strain on waste water 

treatment facilities and septic systems, which could 

result in nutrient and bacterial problems within the 

watershed. There is also potential for accidental 

spills to occur. The Refuge is bordered on two sides 

by major highways (U.S. 31, U.S. 50 and I-65) and 

Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

19

Figure 6: Muscatatuck NWR and the Wabash River Basin Watershed
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

20

by a well-traveled county road (Jennings CR900W) 

on a third side. Two of the three roads adjacent to 

the Refuge are hard surface roads. In addition, the 

CSX Railroad runs approximately three-quarters of 

a mile north of the Refuge, crossing both Mutton 

and Storm Creek Ditches. Another railroad, the 

Madison Railroad, crosses the Vernon Fork 

upstream in North Vernon. 

Refuge Habitats and Wildlife

 Wetlands

Wetlands cover 69 percent of the Refuge and 

much of this land floods annually. (See Figure 7 for 

current Refuge land cover.) 

The majority of wetland habitat is bottomland 

hardwood forest (4,142 acres), and managed water 

units that include moist soil units, brood marshes, 

greentree impoundments and Stanfield, Moss and 

Richart Lakes (1,264 acres), that were built 1979-

1982 with Bicentennial Land Heritage Program 

(BHLP) funds. The Refuge also has over 70 other 

small ponds and wetland areas; these were 

constructed by former land owners to be stock 

ponds or ponds near residences and are utilized by 

migratory birds and wildlife. Several seeps exist on 

the Refuge, one of which is the Muscatatuck Seep 

Springs Research Natural Area. This wetland type 

is an acid seep spring that has only been 

documented in seven other locations in Indiana, one 

of which was destroyed, making it extremely rare in 

the state. Examples of wildlife that use these 

wetlands include Wood Ducks and Hooded 

Mergansers, which nest in the bottomland 

hardwoods, American Bald Eagle, copperbelly 

watersnake, river otter and many other species 

from all faunal assemblages. 

Forests

Approximately 66 percent (5,302 acres) of the 

Refuge is covered by forests. Of this, about half of 

the Refuge, or approximately 77 percent of the 

forested area (4,076 acres), are classified as one of 

several types of bottomland hardwood forest. 

Bottomland hardwood forests are a type of colddeciduous forest that are temporarily or seasonally 

flooded and occur on wet soils and in floodplains. 

American beech and a variety of maple and oak 

species dominate bottomland forests and ash, 

sweetgum, river birch and sycamore are also 

present. The remaining 22 percent of the forested 

area (1,226 acres) of the Refuge is classified as 

upland hardwood forest. Upland hardwood forest is 

also classified as a cold-deciduous forest type that 

primarily occurs in lowland or submontane habitats 

on soils that are unaffected by seasonal flooding. 

Varieties of oaks and maples dominate, and these 

forests can also include American beech and eastern 

red cedar along with other species (Sieracki et al. 

2002). 

Examples of trees commonly found on the 

Refuge include: pin oak, swamp white oak, swamp 

chestnut oak, sweet gum, green ash, river birch, 

silver and red maple, shellbark hickory, white oak, 

red oak, white ash, tuliptree, and American beech. 

Examples of wildlife that use the forests include 

white-tailed deer, eastern gray squirrel, eastern fox 

squirrel, southern flying squirrel, woodchuck, 

Indiana bat and forest birds such as:

P Wood Duck

P Hooded Merganser

P Red-shouldered Hawk

P Red-headed Woodpecker

P Northern Flicker

P Acadian Flycatcher

P Cerulean Warbler

P Prothonotary Warbler

P Worm-eating Warbler

P American Redstart

P Louisiana Waterthrush

Mini Marsh, Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: U.S. Fish 

& Wildlife Service
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

21

Figure 7: Current Land Cover, Muscatatuck NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

22

P Kentucky Warbler

P Rusty Blackbird

P Yellow-billed Cuckoo

P Wood Thrush

Grasslands

Some areas of grasslands, such as road edges, 

dam spillways and dikes, are mowed for 

maintenance purposes and, secondarily, for wildlife 

viewing along the auto tour route. The majority of 

these fields contain non-indigenous species such as 

fescue, timothy and orchard grass, and clover and 

the remaining dominant grassland vegetation 

includes native broadleaves, bluegrass, bluegrassfescue, alfalfa-brome, and panic grass. Fescue is the 

dominant species over much of the non-cultivated 

open area. 

A wide variety of wildlife utilize the grasslands 

including an abundance of small mammals, 

especially various mice and vole species, eastern 

cottontail rabbit, and larger mammals such as 

white-tailed deer and coyote, several snake species 

including black king snake, black rat snake, eastern 

garter snake, many raptor species including Redtailed Hawk, and Northern Harrier, and a plethora 

of grassland birds such as: 

P Sedge Wren

P Grasshopper Sparrow

P Henslow’s Sparrow

P Song Sparrow

P Indigo Bunting

P Dickcissel

P Red-winged Blackbird

P Eastern Meadowlark

P Bobolink 

Birds

More than 279 bird species have been reported 

on the Refuge and 120 of those are considered 

nesting species. A rich diversity of waterfowl, 

raptors, and songbirds are commonly observed on 

the Refuge. Wood Duck broods are common 

sightings in the spring and summer months. 

Waterfowl use days during the winter and spring 

migrations number in the hundred of thousands. A 

Bald Eagle nest has been active since 2002 and 

winter migrants are commonly seen. Muscatatuck 

NWR is also known for the spring and summer 

migration of songbirds, especially warblers, in May. 

The Refuge was designated a Continentally 

Important Bird Area in June 1998. The designation 

was based on Christmas bird count data and the 

Refuge’s wintering numbers of Canada Geese from 

the James Bay population. The Refuge was a 

stopover site for the Whooping Crane Eastern 

Partnership (WCEP) ultra light led Whooping 

Cranes annually in the fall between 2001 and 2007. 

A complete list of bird species and a general guide to 

their seasonal occurrence and status on the Refuge 

can be found in Appendix C. 

Mammals

Thirty-seven species of mammals are known to 

occur on the Refuge. The mammals include the 

federally listed endangered Indiana bat and Statelisted endangered evening bat, and the white-tailed 

deer, a species popular for hunting and wildlife 

viewing. Occurrence of the Indiana bat, including 

lactating females, on the Refuge was confirmed in 

1995 and reaffirmed in 2007 by telemetry studies 

that found that the Indiana bat is a summer resident 

on the Refuge (Whittaker 1995; Carter 2007), and it 

may be more abundant than was generally thought. 

These bats are also known to form maternity 

colonies on the Refuge; one maternity roost was 

studied and its coordinates recorded in 2007, 

(Carter 2007). Another notable mammal is the river 

otter, once extirpated from the State of Indiana. 

Reintroduction efforts for the state of Indiana were 

begun in January 1995 with 25 otters released at 

Muscatatuck NWR. This has resulted in numerous 

Yellow Warbler, Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: Mark 

Trabue
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

23

otters using the Refuge. Three confirmed otter 

litters were produced in 1996, and Refuge staff 

believe that they have produced litters annually 

ever since 1996. The reintroduction in Indiana has 

been successful and river otters are no longer 

considered endangered in the state (Johnson et al. 

2007). A complete list of mammal species that occur 

on the Refuge can be found in Appendix C. 

Amphibians and Reptiles

The wide diversity of habitats found on the 

Refuge makes it suitable for a broad range of 

amphibians and reptiles; 43 species of herpetofauna 

are known on the Refuge. They include the statelisted endangered four-toed salamander, 

copperbelly watersnake, and Kirtland’s snake, and 

the rough green snake, an Indiana Species of 

Special Concern. As of November 1996, under the 

provisions of the Copperbelly Watersnake 

Conservation Agreement and Strategy, scientific 

investigation began to better understand the life 

history patterns of the copperbelly watersnake. The 

Refuge has been a stronghold for the species, 

allowing for intimate study (Kingsbury 1997). While 

many in the scientific community have commented 

on the ecology of the species, few have detailed 

aspects of its life history (Conant et al. 1991). 

Telemetry work at the Refuge has proven valuable 

in clarifying the ecological requirements of this 

species and observational data collected since 1992 

and tracking/locating data collected in 1997 through 

2000 revealed this species’dependence on both the 

palustrine emergent habitat, as well as the 

floodplain forest habitat provided by the Refuge. 

Indiana University Professor Dr. Meretsky 

discovered the state-listed endangered four-toed 

salamander during her work with the seep spring 

study. The salamander is associated with mature 

forests with wetlands with mossy edges and the 

young spend several months in the water before 

they come out on land. Records from central and 

southern Indiana appear to be based upon very 

small isolated colonies, some of which may no longer 

exist, making the Refuge population a significant 

find. A complete list of the amphibians and reptiles 

that occur on the Refuge is provided in Appendix C. 

Fish

Fifty-nine species of fish were collected during a 

2007 survey of waterbodies within the Refuge 

including tributary streams outside the Refuge. A 

total of 54 species were collected from the Refuge 

and are included in a table in Appendix C. The most 

diverse families represented were the minnow and 

darter families, which each included 11 species on 

the Refuge. Fishing for largemouth bass, bluegill, 

redear sunfish, crappie, and channel catfish is 

popular with an estimated 15,000 fishing visits per 

year at the Refuge.

In addition to the sites surveyed on the Refuge, 

50 more sites were surveyed in the area 

surrounding the Refuge. New records for the 

Refuge included the finding of the eastern sand and 

harlequin darters in the Vernon Fork Muscatatuck 

River. In addition, the flier was collected from Moss 

Lake and Mutton Creek, while the redspotted 

sunfish was collected from Mutton Creek. These 

records probably represent the northern and 

eastern records for these species. 

Invertebrates

An intensive survey of aquatic 

macroinvertebrates was conducted concurrently 

with the fish survey during the spring of 2007. Fifty 

samples were collected from a variety of creeks, 

streams, and lake outlets. The results of this survey 

are still pending; however, five species of crayfish 

were collected including the paintedhand mudbug, 

Great Plains mudbug, northern crayfish, Sloan's 

crayfish, and rusty crayfish (Simon 2008). 

Thirty five dragonfly species have been recorded 

on the Refuge including the beaverpond baskettail, 

eastern pondhawk, and shadow darner. The Refuge 

is known as a good location to observe dragonflies in 

the area (Curry 2001). With accompanying 

photographs taken at Muscatatuck NWR, many of 

these dragonfly species are highlighted in the book 

Red-eared Sliders. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

24

Dragonflies of Indiana (Curry 2001). The 

beaverpond baskettail dragonfly occurs on the 

Refuge and is considered a rare species in the State 

of Indiana. Butterfly surveys have been conducted 

since 2002 by volunteers using a protocol 

established by the North American Butterfly 

Association, and 60 species have been identified to 

date including the cabbage white, an exotic species. 

A complete listing of dragonfly and butterfly species 

documented on the Refuge can be found in 

Appendix C. 

At least 24 species of mollusks have been 

documented as occurring on the Refuge (Harmon 

1996, Fisher 2007) A follow-up investigation of 

several of the mussel survey sites used by Harmon 

(1996) was conducted in 2007 (Fisher 2007). A total 

of eight sites were sampled in 2007 for live, fresh 

dead, and weathered dead shells. Harmon’s (1996) 

study documented 20 species present on the Refuge; 

the 2007 inquiry yielded three new species from the 

Vernon Fork that had never been documented on 

the Refuge, including elephantear, flutedshell, and 

deertoe. The little spectaclecase was found in both 

the 1996 and the 2007 surveys; however, only fresh 

dead specimens were encountered (Fisher 2007). 

This species is a species of special concern in 

Indiana and is listed as imperiled (S2) within the 

state. The Asiatic clam, a non-native invasive 

species, is markedly abundant on the Refuge, 

especially within the Ver non Fork of the 

Muscatatuck River. A complete listing of mollusk 

species documented on the Refuge can be found in 

Appendix C.

Threatened and Endangered Species

State-listed/Candidate Species

A total of 61 state-listed endangered and special 

concern species have been documented on the 

Refuge with five more suspected to occur on the 

property. Examples of these species include: 

P Indiana bat

P evening bat

P southern tubercled orchid

P climbing milkweed

P copperbelly water snake

P four-toed salamander

P Kirtland’s snake

P Kirtland’s Warbler

P Interior Least Tern

P Peregrine Falcon

P Bald Eagle

P Bewick’s Wren

P Yellow-crowned Night-Heron

P Black-crowned Night-Heron

P Virginia Rail

P Common Moorhen

P King Rail

P Least Bittern

P Loggerhead Shrike

P Osprey

P Short-eared Owl

P Trumpeter Swan

P Northern Harrier

P American Bittern

P Upland Sandpiper

P Least Tern

P Black Tern

P Barn Owl

P Short-eared Owl 

P Sedge Wren

Blue gill. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

25

P Golden-winged Warbler

P Marsh Wren

P Henslow’s Sparrow

P Cerulean Warbler

P Black-and-white Warbler

State species of special concern on the Refuge 

are: 

P least weasel

P little spectaclecase mussel

P Sharp-shinned Hawk

P Red-shouldered Hawk

P Great Egret

P Greater Yellowlegs

P Solitary Sandpiper

P Ruddy Turnstone

P Short-billed Dowitcher

P Wilson’s Palarope

P Chuck-will’s-widow

P Whip-poor-will

P Sandhill Crane

P Broad-winged Hawk

P Worm-eating Warbler

P Hooded Warbler

P rough green snake

Several other plant species are included on a 

state watch list. Those species are: American 

ginseng, bog bluegrass, Walter’s St. John's-wort, 

smooth white violet, club spur orchid (also called 

small green woodland orchid), Loesel’s twayblade 

and American lotus. 

State-listed species and their status are noted in 

Appendix C.

Threatened/Endangered/Candidate Species (Fed 

Listed)

Least Tern, Whooping Crane, Indiana bat, and 

copperbelly watersnake use the Refuge. Whooping 

Cranes from the “Operation Migration” project 

have used the Refuge as a stopover on their annual 

trip down to Florida. Free ranging/ direct release 

cranes are routinely seen within 20 miles of the 

Refuge and one was spotted on the Refuge in 2008. 

There is substantial documentation of the 

copperbelly watersnake's use of the Refuge. 

The copperbelly watersnake primarily inhabits 

shallow wetland systems consisting of sloughs, 

oxbows, river floodplains and buttonbush swamps, 

much of which have been lost or heavily fragmented 

(Pruitt and Szymanski 1997). In addition, the 

copperbelly watersnake is known to rely extensively 

on terrestrial habitat to traverse between spatially 

and temporally unpredictable wetland resources 

(Roe et al. 2003), offering an ideal system to 

investigate the role of terrestrial habitat on wetland 

connectivity. Presently, the copperbelly watersnake 

exists mainly as isolated, often small, populations 

separated by as much as 300 kilometers. Moreover, 

northern populations were listed as threatened by 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), and endangered by the states of Indiana, 

Michigan, and Ohio (Pruitt and Szymanski 1997). 

Genetic testing was done on the Muscatatuck NWR 

population in 2005 as part of a study that 

represented seven sampling sites located in Ohio/

Michigan, Indiana, and Kentucky. The Indiana 

regional sampling site was conducted in a disjunct 

population along the Muscatatuck River, in the 

Muscatatuck NWR in Jackson County, Indiana, and 

at a wetland 29 river kilometers south of MNWR in 

Washington, County, outside of Austin, Indiana 

(Austin). The two Indiana sites are as different from 

each other as they are from any of the other 

sampling sites, despite their geographic proximity. 

(Marshall et al. In Press) 

The federally-listed endangered Indiana bat was 

confirmed on the Refuge in 1995 and reaffirmed in 

2007 by telemetry studies that found that the 

Indiana bat is a summer breeding resident on the 

Refuge, (Whittaker 1995; Carter 2007). These bats 

are also known to form maternity colonies on the 

Refuge; one maternity roost was studied and its 

coordinates recorded in 2007 (Carter 2007). 

Several species that were previously considered 

candidate species occur at times on the Refuge. 

These include the Loggerhead Shrike and Cerulean 

Warbler, bog bluegrass, American ginseng, and the 

southern tubercled orchid. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

26

Threats to Resources

Invasive Species

Exotic/Pest Species

Invasive, exotic, and noxious weeds are common 

throughout most of the Refuge’s habitat types. 

Although research quality distribution and 

abundance estimates are lacking, it is evident to 

anyone passing through on Refuge roads that 

autumn olive, garlic mustard, reed canary grass, 

multiflora rose, crown vetch and many other species 

dominate certain portions of the landscape. 

Japanese stiltgrass, multiflora rose, tree-of-heaven, 

autumn olive and kudzu threaten the diversity and 

health of the bottomland and upland hardwoods 

while other species, such as reed canary grass, 

attempt to out-compete native vegetation along 

riparian corridors, in moist soil units and in other 

wetland types. Many of the invasive species 

encountered have the capability over time of 

producing solid monocultures that shade out native 

vegetation and reduce overall plant diversity and, 

consequently, overall animal diversity (Pimentel 

2005). 

Examples of invasives found on the Refuge 

include: 

P purple loosestrife

P autumn olive

P Canada thistle

P Johnson grass

P multiflora rose

P moneywort

P common carp

P Asian clams

P Japanese stiltgrass

P oriental bittersweet

P garlic mustard

P kudzu

P reed canary grass

P Asian ambrosia beetle

P Asian ladybugs

P European Starling

P Brown-headed Cowbird

P House Sparrow

P mosquito fish

P gypsy moth

There has only been one account of a gypsy moth 

(1995) and subsequent traps have not revealed any 

moths. It is not considered a major problem. 

Contaminants

Contaminant inputs may be entering the Refuge 

via the Vernon Fork of the Muscatatuck River 

(VFMR), and its tributaries. Additionally, 

contaminants are likely to be entering the Refuge 

from a wide variety of other sources such as: 

P atmospheric deposition

P crop and livestock runoff in Mutton and Storm 

Creeks

P Sandy Branch Creek

P septic system failures

P surface runoff from the City of Seymour and 

adjacent highways and roads

P NPDES discharge

P underground storage tanks

P rapid urban development

P accidental spills

P power substations and Crown Central Petroleum (refinery)

Kudzu. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

27

Agriculture is the primary land use in the 

watershed. Run-off from crop fields, pastureland, 

and feedlots contributes to non-point source 

pollution. Erosion, nutrient and sediment loading, 

and contamination from application of pesticides, 

herbicides, and fertilizers all introduce 

contaminants into the watershed and Refuge 

system. Many of these substances, such as organochlorines and organo-phophates, are known to be 

toxic to fish and wildlife via direct exposure, 

bioaccumulation, and bio-magnification (Cox 1991). 

In addition to agriculture, the rapid urban 

development of the area surrounding the Refuge 

has had detrimental impacts on the watershed. As 

more land is cleared and paved, there are increases 

in flow rates, erosion, and amount of particles, 

sediment, and other substances reaching the 

Refuge. The Refuge is within a mile or less of three 

major highways, all of which cross at least one of the 

three primary tributaries that enter the Refuge. 

This creates sources of run-off containing salts, fuel, 

and other petroleum products. In addition, the 

construction of homes and businesses has put a 

strain on waste water treatment facilities and septic 

systems that could result in nutrient and bacterial 

problems within the watershed. There is also 

potential for accidental spills to occur. The Refuge is 

bordered on two sides by major highways (U.S. 31, 

U.S. 50 and I-65) and by a well-traveled county road 

(Jennings CR900W) on a third side. Two of the three 

roads encompassing the Refuge are hard surface 

roads. In addition, the CSX Railroad runs 

approximately three-quarters of a mile north of the 

Refuge, crossing both Mutton and Storm Creek 

Ditches. Another railroad, the Madison Railroad, 

crosses the VFMR upstream in North Vernon. In 

1980, a derailed train spilled between 8,000 and 

10,000 gallons of chlorobenzene directly into Storm 

Creek Ditch (McWilliams-Munson 1996).

Atmospheric deposition of heavy metals is a 

concern worldwide and the Refuge falls under the 

same general fish advisory as most of the waters in 

the State of Indiana. This advisory establishes 

recommendations for fish consumption based on 

elevated mercury levels in the fish in Indiana 

(Indiana Department of Natural Resources 2008). 

The problems associated with heavy metal 

contamination may be compounded at Muscatatuck 

NWR due to the impoundment of water and 

trapping of sediment, collection, and concentration 

of runoff from a large watershed, and the wetting 

and drying cycles that contribute to the methylation 

of mercury.

Ozone exposures in Indiana are the highest in the 

nation’s north central region and are relatively high 

when compared with many states nationwide. The 

portion of Indiana that contains the Refuge, in 

particular, exhibits elevated ozone levels. The ozone 

exposure adversely affects trees and other plants. 

Ozone stress is expected to be less severe on oaks 

and maples because they are relatively tolerant of 

ozone. Nevertheless, given the current ozone 

exposures and evidence of foliar injury, the potential 

exists for reduced tree growth and reduced forest 

health on the Refuge. (Woodall et al. 2005) 

Administrative Facilities

The original portion of the Visitor Center (with 

restrooms) was constructed in the mid-1970s and 

featured a small office, lobby exhibit area, storage 

area, projection room, and auditorium/AV room 

separated by a breezeway from public restrooms. In 

1989 the office was converted to a bookstore. 

Approximately 10 feet was added to the back of the 

original building in the early 1990s to create a bird 

viewing room, expanded bookstore, and additional 

storage areas. In 2003 a new wing, the Conservation 

Learning Center, was constructed using private 

funding obtained by one of the Refuge’s Refuge 

Friend’s groups, the Muscatatuck Wildlife Society 

Foundation. The new Conservation Learning center 

featured a large auditorium, exhibit area, and 

storage room. Numerous exhibits are located in the 

new wing. The two wings are connected by a 

breezeway with large glass windows. The Refuge 

office is situated in a remodeled ranch-style house 

Muscatatuck NWR Visitor Center. Photo credit: U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

28

across from the Visitor Center. Workshops, garages, 

storage buildings, and additional offices are located 

in the west-central area off of County Road 400 

North.

The Muscatatuck Wildlife Society, our primary 

Friend’s Group, operates a bookstore in our Visitor 

Center that is staffed by volunteers every afternoon 

and many mornings, and the building is closed when 

not staffed. Volunteers greet visitors, answer 

questions, and provide literature and information on 

Refuge hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing 

opportunities. The Visitor Center has a paved, 16-

car parking lot in front of the building, and a paved 

33-car lot located across from the building off the 

loop road. A gravel overflow parking lot that can 

accommodate approximately 50 vehicles is located 

south of the Office and east of County Line Road, 

about 100 yards from the building.

Cultural Resources and 

Historic Preservation

The earliest generally accepted human culture in 

Indiana is known as the PaleoIndian, a small 

population of nomadic peoples who moved into the 

state about 14,000 years ago upon the retreat of the 

glaciers. Sites are rare, usually disturbed, and 

important. A PaleoIndian point has been found in 

Jackson County but none have been found on the 

Refuge.

The FWS has conducted several archeological 

investigations on the Refuge, which have identified 

numerous Archaic culture sites in the period 10,500 

to 3,000 years ago. During this period the people 

engaged in extensive trade of far distant exotic 

materials. They also adapted to major temperature 

and resulting environmental changes as the 

Pleistocene ended and the associated megafauna 

became extinct following the retreat of the glaciers. 

This was followed by the hot and dry altithermal, 

which ended during a climatic period much like the 

20th century. The primary subsistence pattern of 

the Archaic period was hunting and gathering of a 

large range of animal and plant resources: “The 

ecotone between the swamp and the adjacent 

uplands [in the Refuge area] would have provided a 

unique blend of ecological resources for 

exploitation.” (Myers 1979:11). Two cemetaries, the 

Berlemen and Myers cemetaries, are located on the 

Refuge.

Pottery, gardening, mounds (usually burial), and 

later the bow and arrow are indicative of the 

Woodland culture commencing about 3,000 years 

ago. Sites from this culture have been located on the 

Refuge. The Woodland culture was partially but not 

entirely displaced by the final prehistoric culture, 

the Mississippian, in the period 1,100 to 400 years 

ago. But by the time Western culture (EuroAmerican) arrived the area had been de-populated.

In the Refuge area neither the archeological nor 

the early documentary record provides any 

connection between prehistoric cultures and historic 

Indian tribes. The earliest written records indicate 

the Miami, Illinois, and Shawnee lived in the area, 

but the Iroquois from New York drove out those 

tribes in the early 1600s. Nevertheless, the Miami 

and Shawnee along with the Delaware were in 

Jackson and Jennings Counties until being 

displaced entirely by 1818. 

Between the 1830s and the 1870s farmers settled 

on what is now the Refuge. Originally subsistencebased hog and corn farmers, the early settlers 

relied heavily on the abundant wildlife and plant 

resources. Later a network of rural graveled roads 

led to the introduction of manufactured goods, 

which improved rural life during the early 20th 

century. But concurrently, erosion caused by 

extensive deforestation from expanding farms 

stripped away the topsoil and some farmers 

abandoned the land. To create additional fertile 

farmland, Mutton and Storm Creeks were ditched 

for drainage between 1880 and 1900. “By 1870 most 

of the present refuge area was utilized for farming 

Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

29

and this pattern of small farms continued essentially 

uninterrupted in the area until the creation of the 

Refuge in 1966.” (Myers 1979:23)

Cultural resources are all an important part of 

the Nation’s heritage. The Service is committed to 

protecting valuable evidence of human interactions 

with each other and the landscape. Protection is 

accomplished in conjunction with the Service’s 

mandate to protect fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources.

As of March 1, 2008, the National Register of 

Historic Places listed 11 historic properties in 

Jackson County and five in Jennings County. This 

small number is surely not representative of the 

number of potential historic properties in the 

counties. Two of the National Register properties 

are archaeological sites that are are located on the 

Refuge, the listings resulting from Service-funded 

research: sites 12-J-62 and 12-J-87. Also as of 

March 1, the Refuge inventory of identified known 

and potential cultural resources based on Servicesponsored archeological investigations and maps 

resulted in a list of 140 sites of which 94 are on the 

National Register, have been determined eligible, or 

are considered eligible until determined otherwise. 

Archeological surveys have covered just 1,920 acres 

of the Refuge so many more sites are likely to occur 

on the Refuge. Of special note of the known sites is 

the Carl Myers farm (including log cabin, log barn, 

and persimmon orchard remnant) which should be 

nominated to the National Register.

The Refuge has a small number of Native 

American artifacts on exhibit in the Visitors Center. 

These artifacts were found on the Refuge and are on 

loan from the Glenn Black Museum of Indiana 

University in Bloomington. The display has several 

artifacts including lithic points, tools, and a pot. The 

Refuge is included in the Region-wide scope of 

collections statement dated October 31, 1994.

Visitation

Muscatatuck NWR is open from sunrise to sunset 

365 days a year. There are two entrances to the 

Refuge and both have automatic gates that open at 

sunrise and close an hour after sunset. Special 

extended hours are set during hunting seasons. The 

Conservation Learning Center is also regularly 

used for meetings and presentations by groups that 

have a wildlife conservation or management 

purpose or program, including during evening hours 

by prior arrangement.

The Refuge annual visitation was estimated at 

approximately 174,000 in 2006. The number of 

visitors per year is obtained through estimates 

derived in large part from traffic counters at both 

entrances. Undetected malfunctions in the counters 

are believed to have led to reports of lower numbers 

of visitors in some recent years. 

The Visitor Center is located on a loop off County 

Line Road (across from the Office) and is usually 

by-passed by repeat visitors. A counter at the main 

point of entry indicated approximately 13,000 

visitors to the Visitor Center during the last year. 

We do not have an accurate breakdown of visitor 

numbers per activity but we believe the largest 

segment of our visitors come for wildlife observation 

including bird watching, followed by fishing, 

interpretation/education, and hunting. 

Current Management

Habitat Management

Wetland Management

Nineteen pools of water totaling 1,292 acres have 

water control structures (Figure 8). Annual water 

management plans have been followed since 1984 

and these plans give management strategies for 

each unit that include specific water levels needed to 

create and maintain various habitat or to make food 

Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

30

Figure 8: Water Management Infrastructure, Muscatatuck NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

31

available and attractive to wildlife, particularly for 

Wood Duck production. Water management 

techniques include removing water to expose 

mudflats for shorebird use; to allow seed 

germination of desirable moist soil plants, to allow 

natural or mechanical rejuvenation of a permanent 

marsh or moist soil unit; and to discourage use of an 

area by muskrats, and adding water and 

maintaining different depths to stimulate 

invertebrate production and to create and maintain 

brood habitat and waterfowl migratory feeding 

areas (Smith and Kadlec 1983). The primary goals 

of water management are to provide optimum 

conditions for food and cover for migrating birds, 

especially waterfowl, nesting and brood habitat for 

Wood Ducks and Hooded Mergansers, and habitat 

for other species that use wetland areas. 

Moist Soil Units

Muscatatuck NWR actively manages 296 acres of 

moist soil units through water and vegetation 

manipulation. Moist soil management on 

Muscatatuck NWR has been focused primarily on 

producing dense stands of perennial emergent 

vegetation on eight units to provide foraging and 

resting habitat for spring migrating waterfowl. 

Another objective on these eight units has been to 

provide brood habitat for resident Wood Ducks, 

Hooded Mergansers and Canada Geese. These 

objectives were achieved through water level 

manipulations timed to coincide with providing 

optimum habitat conditions for germinating 

smartweed while also maintaining pool levels 

throughout the summer months for the broods. 

Seasonal flooding of these units has generally been 

planned to occur from September through April. 

However, proper hydrological manipulation in these 

units has proven difficult to achieve due to excessive 

flooding and/or beaver activity combined with a lack 

of personnel. The remaining two units have been 

managed to provide sparse perennial emergent 

vegetation combined with drawdowns timed to 

coincide with southward migrating shorebird arrival 

to provide optimum mudflat habitat, a critical need 

for this avifaunal group (Smith and Kadlec 1983). 

Water manipulations are generally conducted so 

that flooding occurs between September and March, 

although these units have been subjected to the 

same limitations outlined above. 

Regular maintenance of moist soil units is a 

necessary phase in any management scheme due to 

the eventual invasion of these areas by more 

persistent or woody vegetation, i.e. buttonbush, 

willows, and Eastern cottonwood. The preferred 

means of maintaining a particular unit generally 

involves methods of mechanical disturbance, 

mowing or disking, to set back succession (Gray et 

al. 1999). Most units are scheduled to undergo 

treatment approximately once every 3 to 5 years. 

However, due to a shortage of staff and 

impediments to drawdown such as beaver activity 

and inclement weather, the achievement of many 

desired management activities as scheduled are 

often not realized. In a normal year, plans call for 

the maintenance of one to three of the moist soil 

units. During this process, drawdown may begin 

earlier than “normal” to facilitate entry into the 

units with the necessary equipment. Following 

vegetation manipulation the units are reflooded and 

enter back into the “normal” cycle of drawdown and 

floodup until another maintenance cycle is 

necessary. 

Grasslands

Currently, grassland management is extremely 

limited. Active management of grasslands in the 

past entailed mowing, burning, and haying; 

however, these activities have been abandoned 

largely due to lack of staff and funds, increasing 

costs of active management, and changes in 

objectives. The current objective for many 

grassland areas is to allow them to revert to 

hardwood forested areas to reduce forest 

fragmentation. Once that process begins, those 

areas are considered in the context of forest 

management. 

Control of invasive species is at the forefront of 

management goals at the Refuge, and exotic species 

found in grassland areas are addressed on a caseby-case basis. It is currently considered desirable to 

control invasives throughout all habitat types 

because of their threat to the biological integrity 

and diversity of every habitat as native species are 

out-competed for space and resources. Often these 

shifts in the floral community structure and 

composition are followed by shifts in the faunal 

community, which in some instances could be 

detrimental to rare or endangered species and 

greatly reduces overall diversity. 

Forests

Forest restoration is primarily accomplished 

through natural succession. Most fields are small 

and are surrounded by excellent seed sources for 

deciduous trees, although some tree planting of oaks 

(mast producing trees) has occurred and will 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

32

continue to occur and increase as funding permits. 

The U.S. Forest Service has seven permanent 

inventory points located on Muscatatuck NWR as 

part of its national Forest Inventory and Analysis 

(FIA) Program. The FIA is a national program of 

the USDA Forest Service that conducts and 

maintains comprehensive inventories of the forest 

resources in the United States (Forest Service 

2007). This provides forest/landscape level 

assessments.

Tree planting has occurred sporadically since the 

Refuge was established. From establishment in 1966 

to 2000, approximately 82 acres were planted in 

selected fields that had been retired from farming 

(Sieracki et al. 2002). The fields selected were 

chosen because of their location near existing 

forested tracts and to help repair forest 

fragmentation. Since 2000, an additional 30 acres 

were planted in 2004, 15 acres in 2007, and 19 acres 

in 2008. The Refuge plans to plant 28 acres in 2009. 

The Refuge requests planting plans from the local 

area IDNR Forester prior to undertaking any new 

planting projects. The plans include native species 

of a diversity of tree species (mostly oaks) at a rate 

of 500 trees per acre. Planting has been done by a 

consulting forester. The Refuge Friends Group, the 

Muscatatuck Wildlife Society, and the National Wild 

Turkey Federation have helped fund projects. 

Cropland

Food crops of corn and soybeans with wheat as a 

cover are planted annually on 267 acres of cropland 

under a cooperative farm agreement with a local 

farmer. The Refuge share of the crops is left in the 

field for wildlife. This maintains open habitat and 

adds diversity to a mostly forested Refuge (Donalty 

et al. 2003). Canada Geese, waterfowl, Sandhill 

Cranes, and resident species forage on the Refuge 

share of the crop. Wintering raptors prey upon 

small mammals feeding in these fields. It also 

creates good wildlife viewing along Refuge roads 

and the auto tour route.

Monitoring

A number of surveys, censuses, studies, and 

investigations are conducted on the Refuge that 

help to monitor the status of its wildlife and plant 

populations (see Table 2). Birds, mammals, 

herptofauna, and habitat are monitored on regular 

schedules. The surveys are conducted by Refuge 

staff, volunteers and in partnership with IDNR. 

Weekly waterfowl surveys, mid-winter waterfowl 

and Bald Eagle counts, and a few other surveys are 

often requested by the state on an annual basis and 

the survey data upon completion is sent to IDNR, 

which in turn summarizes and analyzes the 

information and provides the Refuge copies of such 

analyses. The purpose of monitoring is, in general, 

to determine the presence or absence and estimate 

the numbers of fish and wildlife present and to aid in 

making management decisions, and to respond to 

information requests from state agencies, the public 

and other partners. 

Public Use

The Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 established 

six priority uses of the Refuge System. These 

priority uses all depend on the presence of wildlife 

or expectation of the presence of wildlife, and are 

thus called wildlife-dependent uses. These uses are: 

P hunting

P fishing

P wildlife observation

P photography

P environmental education

P environmental interpretation

Muscatatuck NWR provides opportunities in all 

of the six priority uses of the Refuge System.

Hunting

Hunting is permitted for white-tailed deer, 

rabbit, squirrel, turkey, and quail in certain 

locations on the Refuge during most of the 

established State seasons. Hunting leaflets are 

updated annually and hunters are required to sign 

Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: Jon Kauffeld
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

33

the front of the leaflet and carry it with them while 

hunting. The Refuge also keeps the State of Indiana 

Hunting and Trapping Guide with all state rules and 

regulations in stock as a service to hunters. Deer 

and turkey hunting are allowed on a large portion of 

the Refuge during their respective seasons, while 

squirrel, rabbit, and quail hunting are only allowed 

in a small portion of the deer and turkey hunting 

area. No hunting is allowed in the Refuge closed 

area, in a large section in the northeast corner of the 

Refuge where the Visitor Center and most of the 

hiking trails are located, or within 100 yards of any 

building (Figure 9). 

Special deer hunts are held for archery and 

muzzleloading gun hunters during certain periods 

and approximately 3,000 hunters participate 

annually. The deer hunt drawings are done by the 

State. Bowhunters hunt in a different time period 

from the muzzleloading hunters. A late “open” 

archery season, open to all hunters with a valid state 

hunting license and available tag, is held on the 

Refuge after the muzzleloader season is over. Only 

handicapped hunters are permitted to use 

crossbows during Refuge deer hunts. The deer 

hunting area is the same as the turkey area – 

approximately three-quarters of the land area of the 

Refuge. 

The turkey hunt requires a special permit during 

the spring season and involves 10-15 hunters/day 

over approximately three-fourths of the land area of 

the Refuge. Special permit drawings are done by 

the State. Rabbit hunting is open to members of the 

public with a valid state hunting license and involves 

a small percentage of Refuge visitors. Rabbit and 

Table 2: Monitoring History, Muscatatuck NWR

Study/Survey Priority 

(10 high, 

1 low)

Scales FWS R3 

RCP

No. 

Runs

No. 

Routes

Water Level Monitoring, MSO Hydrology 10 Refuge 26+ 1

Invasive Species Mapping and Monitoring 10 Refuge, State, National N/A N/A

MSU Vegetation Cover Survey 9 Refuge 1 N/A

Water Quality Monitoring 8 Refuge, State 4 5

Waterfowl Brood Survey 8 Refuge 3 10 1

Species Lists 7 Refuge 3 N/A N/A

Tubercled Orchid Survey 7 Refuge, State 1 2

Migratory Waterfowl Surveys 6 Refuge, State, National 3 52 1

Fish Survey 6 Refuge, State 3 N/A N/A

FWS Eastern Greater Sandhill Crane Survey 5 Refuge, Region 3 1 1

Audubon Christmas Bird Count 4 Refuge, State, National 3 1 ?

Audubon Mayday Count 4 Refuge, State, National 3 1 ?

Bald Eagle Count 3 Refuge, State 1 1

NoAm Amphibian Monitoring Program 3 Refuge, State, National 3 1

Great Blue Heron Rookery Count 3 Refuge, State 1 1

Aquatic Invertebrate Survey 3 Refuge, State 3 N/A N/A

Abnormal Amphibian Monitoring 3 Refuge, Region, National N/A N/A

Butterfly Abundance and Diversity 2 Refuge 1 ?
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

34

Figure 9: Public Use, Hunting, at Muscatatuck NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

35

quail hunting are the only hunting and activities on 

the Refuge where dogs may be used and be offleash. Squirrel hunting is a new, small, but growing 

activity. The rabbit, quail, and squirrel hunting area 

covers the southeast quarter of the Refuge and is 

the area east of County Line Road and south of 

Barn Road. Very few visitors hunt quail here as the 

quail population is marginal and most of the hunting 

area is reverting to brush.

The Refuge remains open to non-hunting 

activities throughout the hunting season. Refuge 

visitors and hunters scouting for a future hunt day 

may enter hunting areas for any otherwise allowed 

purpose. All Refuge public use roads also remain 

open during all hunts as do all public fishing sites. 

Hunters park on the Refuge only in designated 

hunting areas to access all parts of the Refuge that 

are open to hunting. Additionally, many hunters 

park on adjacent public roads, including CR 900 W., 

Hwy. 31, and CR 500 N., outside the Refuge and 

walk in to their hunting areas, but most park along 

the Refuge roads. Refuge staff have little contact 

with hunters aside from answering questions prior 

to and during the hunt. Self-service deer 

registration boxes are located at each entrance gate 

where hunters are required to register their kill 

before taking it to a state authorized check station. 

Turkey hunters are asked to report the location of 

their takes, and succesful deer hunters are asked to 

fill out a harvest card. 

Fishing

Fishing is provided year-round at two large 

lakes, Stanfield and Richart, two small lakes, Linda 

and Sheryl, and at Display, Mallard, Sand Hill, and 

Persimmon Ponds. A fishing leaflet is available and 

is updated annually as needed. The Refuge also 

keeps the State of Indiana Fishing Guide with all 

state rules and regulations in stock as a service to 

anglers. Fishing structures and paved paths provide 

accessibility to handicapped anglers at three sites – 

Stanfield Lake and Lake Linda, which have 

accessible floating ramps and platforms, and Sand 

Hill Pond, which has a paved walkway. Stanfield 

Lake has a concrete boat ramp and non-motorized 

boats may be launched and used on this lake. 

Parking lots and single-panel kiosks with 

regulations and leaflets are located at each fishing 

area except for Richart Lake, Display Pond, Mallard 

Pond, and Lake Sheryl. Concrete outhouse facilities 

are located at the Stanfield Lake and Persimmon 

Pond parking lots for the convenience of all visitors. 

Regular bathroom facilities with running water are 

located at the Visitors Center. A map of all Refuge 

fishing areas is provided in the fishing leaflet. 

Fishing in the creeks and the seasonal drainages 

that enter and cross the Refuge is not allowed in an 

effort to provide relatively undisturbed habitat to 

Wood Ducks and their broods, which make 

extensive use of these habitats. Fishing is also not 

allowed in any of the Refuge’s constructed moist soil 

units or marshes. Fishing is permitted from the 

banks of the Muscatatuck River except from the 

shoreline in the waterfowl sanctuary closed area.

Refuge fishing areas are generally shallow. 

Aquatic weed growth makes bank fishing difficult in 

the warm months and some Refuge visitors use 

“float tubes” or “belly-boats” – inner-tube type 

aides for wading (or floating) across the water. 

Fishing is permitted by hook and line only, and 

generally state regulations apply. Sought-after fish 

species include largemouth bass, bluegill, crappie, 

and channel catfish.

Turkey hunting on Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

36

Interpretation, Observation, and Photography

Nine miles of roads are open for wildlife 

observation from autos, buses, motorcycles, or 

bicycles, plus an approximately 4-mile auto tour 

route with numbered posts and an interpretive 

leaflet. There are two observation structures, the 

Hackman Overlook on Richart Lake and the 

Endicott Observation Deck on the Auto Tour Route. 

The Hackman Overlook is located approximately 

one-half mile from the Richart Trail parking lot and 

overlooks Richart Lake. Recently, this structure has 

attracted vandals who have been marking it with 

graffiti and carvings, and the structure has been 

identified by staff as a maintenance problem. The 

Endicott Viewing Platform is an accessible raised 

wooden structure that overlooks both the North and 

South Endicott Marshes, has two fixed public use 

spotting scopes, and provides good opportunities to 

view marsh, wading, and waterbirds. (Figure 10) 

There are seven hiking trails of various lengths 

on the Refuge including the .4-mile (paved) 

Chestnut Ridge Interpretive Trail near the Visitor 

Center that features numbered posts with a leaflet. 

Most hiking trails are about a mile long except for 

the East and West River trails, in the floodplain of 

the Muscatatuck River, which between them provide 

a 7-mile route for wildlife observation and hunter 

access along the river.

A self-service audiovisual program that presents 

an overview of the Refuge is available at the 

Conser vation Lear ning Center. There are 

interpretive exhibits in both wings of the building 

and the Indiana Junior Duck Stamp Contest entries 

are on display in the CLC auditorium. New exhibits 

were recently built and installed in the old wing of 

the Visitor Center by a contractor and were opened 

to the public in the summer of 2008. A two-panel 

kiosk is located in the Visitor Center parking lot.

Large Refuge special events include a migratory 

bird festival in May, kids fishing event in June, and a 

friends’ group Refuge Week “Log Cabin Day” 

festival in October. The “Wings Over Muscatatuck” 

bird festival held on International Migratory Bird 

Day is the Refuge’s major annual event and attracts 

a growing audience of approximately 1,000 visitors 

when the weather is good. The Jackson County 

Visitor Bureau and the Muscatatuck Wildlife 

Society are major sponsors of this event, which 

features day-long guided birding tours of the 

Refuge, bird walks, bird banding demonstrations, 

bird and wildlife interpretive programs, live birds of 

prey/Bald Eagle programs, exhibits by conservation 

groups, vendors, and kids’ birding activities. 

The “Take a Kid Fishing” event at Muscatatuck 

NWR has been funded by the Muscatatuck Wildlife 

Society for many years. The 1-day event features 

special fishing for “kids and friends” in a pond 

normally closed to fishing, fishing and casting 

contests, fish art contests, loaner fishing poles, free 

bait, fishing lessons on request, and lots of door 

prizes. Trophys are awarded to event winners. 

Attendance varies between 400-600 people.

With the help of the Service’s National 

Conservation Training Center, Muscatatuck NWR 

staff operate two booths at the National FFA 

Convention in Indianapolis for 3 days each October. 

The focus of the outreach effort is on providing 

career and background information on the Fish and 

Wildlife Service and wildlife conservation issues. 

Between 40,000-50,000 young people and several 

thousand teachers attend the convention annually, 

and this event is considered the largest gathering of 

students anywhere in the United States.

The “Log Cabin Day” festival in October 

celebrates the end of National Wildlife Refuge Week 

and is a project of the Muscatatuck Wildlife Society. 

Visitors at Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

37

Figure 10: Visitor Services Facilities, Muscatatuck NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

38

The friends group provides a free ham and bean 

lunch at Myers Cabin during the event and there 

are old-time crafts, music, blacksmiths, a storyteller, 

horse-drawn wagon rides into the adjacent closed 

area (which is open that week), wildlife exhibits and 

information, and a volunteer set-up with a spotting 

scope on the Refuge Bald Eagle nest. “Wetland 

Day” programs have been held in mid-March for 

several years and feature guided waterfowl tours.

Wildlife photographers visit the Refuge on a 

regular basis but exact numbers are unknown. 

Annual wildlife photography contests are held in 

conjunction with bird festival and Refuge Week 

events and the Refuge hosts the monthly meetings 

of the Muscatatuck Photography Club.

Environmental Education

Many school groups visit the Refuge during the 

spring and fall, and primarily use the Refuge on 

their own. Unfortunately, with transportation 

funding cuts to public schools, numbers have been 

decreasing over the last few years. Refuge staff 

assist teachers prior to their visits whenever 

possible but do not usually work with students 

directly. Staff does work with Girl Scouts on badgework and “linking girls to the land” activities.

Four “Conservation Field Day” programs are 

held for third-graders from Jackson and Jennings 

Counties in May and October with about 300 

youngsters involved each day, and as such provides 

Refuge contact with most of the third-graders in 

each of these counties each year. The interagency 

effort features programs on wildlife, forestry, soils, 

wetlands, and recycling. Instructors usually include 

educators from the Indiana Department of Natural 

Resources, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, 

Purdue Extension, Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management, Solid Waste 

Management Districts and the Refuge. The 

programs feature hands-on activities for the 

youngsters and are well received by area teachers.

Muscatatuck NWR manages the Indiana Junior 

Duck Stamp art contest with over 450 entries each 

year. Refuge volunteers do much of the work in 

administering the program and the Muscatatuck 

Wildlife Society provides a substantial amount of 

the award funding. Other partners in the program 

include the Indiana Department of Natural 

Resources, Ducks Unlimited, and Bass Pro Shops. 

An awards ceremony is held at the Refuge during 

the May migratory bird festival. The original art of 

the Junior Duck Stamp Contest winners is kept on 

display in the Visitor Center Auditorium for one 

year before being returned to the students. 

A “Junior Birder” kids program is given during 

the summer months and is being expanded with 

volunteers. An “Invasive Species” patch program is 

available and has been used by scouts and other 

youth groups. Master Naturalist classes and 

teacher workshops are held on the Refuge 

periodically. Songbird, Prairie, and Wetland Trunks 

are available on loan from the Refuge as are other 

educational materials. Kids’ activities are an 

important part of the migratory bird festival held 

annually in May, and “skins and bones” are featured 

at the Refuge Week festival.

The “Refuge Rangers,” an elementary school 

group of about 30 students from Hayden School, has 

spent considerable time learning about the Refuge 

and helping with projects under the leadership of 

their teacher, a Refuge volunteer. This group has 

recently published a field guide to Muscatatuck 

NWR written by and for children, and with the 

assistance of the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation and the Muscatatuck Wildlife Society, 

this guide is being made available to all students 

who visit the Refuge as part of a school-based field 

trip. 

Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation

Collecting mushrooms, nuts, and berries is 

permitted along with collecting shed deer antlers. 

Large numbers of people collect mushroom species 

at the Refuge in the spring. 

Some jogging and bicycling occurs on the Refuge. 

Jennings County High School regularly brings their 

physical education and cross-country teams out for 

practice runs on Refuge trails.

Predator, Pest, and Invasive Species 

Management

Animal Species

Currently two mammalian aquatic nuisance 

species exist at the Refuge, the North American 

beaver and muskrat. Beaver create serious 

problems on the Refuge by constructing dams that 

impede water flow and cause flooding, which has 

proven to be detrimental to bottomland hardwood 

stands and has resulted in less than desirable 

conditions in moist soil units and green tree units. 

This also creates an enormous workload for Refuge 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

39

staff who spend countless hours removing mud and 

debris from water control structures and tearing 

out dams from waterways. These animals also 

damage stands of timber by girdling trees causing 

either mortality or stunting growth due to the loss 

of cambium tissue. 

Beaver and muskrat will both burrow into dike 

banks, reducing overall structural integrity. These 

burrows reduce functionality of the dikes in two 

ways, both of which are costly to repair. First, over 

time these burrows cave in, causing surface damage 

that may encumber travel of vehicles or equipment, 

thus slowing down or preventing maintenance 

efforts. Second, these burrows can either directly 

cause seepage or leaks in dikes or do so indirectly by 

creating open sites that erode, leading to leaks and 

seepage. Refuge staff have begun to address these 

issues by removing problematic animals. 

Three other species are targeted for control on 

the Refuge: feral dogs, feral cats, and Mute Swans. 

Feral dogs and cats are hand trapped or live trapped 

when evidence of their presence is detected. These 

animals are then turned over to a county animal 

control officer. Mute Swans are an invasive species 

targeted for control because their aggressive 

territorial behavior discourages use of wetlands by 

other waterfowl. 

Plant Species

Invasive plant species management requires a 

multi-faceted approach that involves inventory, 

control, and monitoring. Preliminary mapping 

surveys of invasive plant species began in 2003 and 

is an ongoing project. Japanese stiltgrass, kudzu, 

garlic mustard, Japanese knotweed, oriental 

bittersweet, tree-of-heaven, and purple loosestrife 

have all been mapped, at least partially, with only 

kudzu and the loosestrife believed to have been fully 

mapped. A final report from a Challenge Cost Share 

research grant was submitted in November of 2007 

and included information on many of these species 

and their distributions. 

Invasive plant control is a species-specific and 

site-specific endeavor, and a list of all control 

methods for every species occurring on the Refuge 

is beyond the scope of this plan. However, most of 

the control efforts at Muscatatuck NWR involve 

chemical application, usually a glyphosate based 

product, although this is not always the case. 

Chemical applications may be foliar, basal bark, or 

cut stump treatments and may be used in 

combination with mechanical treatments. 

Mechanical means are employed when such 

methods are feasible and judicious. These methods 

may include hand-pulling, cutting (with weedeaters, 

brush cutters, or mowers), and disking (Blossey 

2004). Fire, although not currently used on the 

Refuge, is also a viable option for the control of 

many species and may be considered for use in the 

future. Currently no biological control methods are 

in use at the Refuge, however, they could be used if 

the right opportunity presented itself. Recently, the 

Refuge has focused on attacking stiltgrass, loosestrife, knotweed, kudzu, garlic mustard, and tree-ofheaven as part of an early detection rapid response 

philosophy. Work has begun to create “weed free” 

areas starting with an area surrounding the Visitor 

Center. Creating an Integrated Pest Management 

Plan (IPM) is a high priority for the Refuge and will 

be essential in establishing long-term objectives, 

strategies, and priorities for invasive plant 

management. 

Treatments are often conducted by volunteers 

and interns or through partnerships with local 

groups and organizations. With a limited staff, these 

associations help the Refuge to accomplish an 

otherwise impossible task. Partnering and sharing 

resources is an integral part of the management of 

invasives at Muscatatuck NWR and will continue to 

be into the future. Currently, a multi-agency/

partner project is under way to establish a Southern 

Indiana Cooperative Weed Management Area 

(CWMA). The Refuge has taken a role in the project 

and expects to work closely with partners as 

establishment progresses. 

Archaeological and Cultural Resources

The Myers Cabin is a restored family log cabin at 

the south end of the Refuge that was built between 

1870-1890 by Louis Myers. The barn behind the 

cabin was built in 1900 and is an excellent example 

of “hand-pegged” construction. Carl Myers, a son of 

Louis, was in the plant nursery business and 

developed (or found) some seedless persimmon 

trees, which he sold commercially from his house 

adjacent to Myers Cabin. A small grove of the 

seedless persimmon trees still remains close to the 

cabin. The cabin was continuously occupied by the 

Myers family and the barn was in use until it was 

purchased by the Fish and Wildlife Service around 

1966. Both structures are in very good condition and 

have been restored and maintained by the 

Muscatatuck Wildlife Society. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

40

The Barkman Cemetery is located along County 

Line Road and was in use at the time of the Refuge 

establishment. A path to the cemetery is maintained 

for ease of access from a small parking Lot. There 

are more than 30 headstones, and many have been 

repaired by volunteers. The cemetery is maintained 

by Refuge and volunteer staff and is regularly 

visited by family members.

The Myers Cemetery is a small site located along 

the East River Hiking Trail, and has only about 

seven headstones. It is in the woods and does not 

require mowing. A marker for an unknown civil war 

soldier was apparently stolen from the cemetery in 

the early 1980s. 

The Refuge has two national register 

archaelogical sites, the Low Spur site and the Sand 

Hill site. The Sand Hill site and most of the Refuge 

area was scoured by collectors long-before the 

Refuge was purchased. Over 73 archaelogical sites 

have been documented on the Refuge by 

professional archaeologists. Recovered artifacts 

indicate the Refuge area was intensively occupied in 

the Archaic (10,000-1,000 B.C.) and Woodland (1,000 

B.C.-A.D. 1200) time periods with Late Archaic and 

Woodland components particularly well 

represented. Early Archaic sites were found on 

upland ridge and bluff tops and both Early and Late 

Archaic sites were found on ridge spurs and lowland 

terraces. Large multi-component sites were located 

on a variety of landforms. Many of the sites have 

been interpreted as short-term, temporary 

campsites, perhaps seasonal extractive camps (like 

hickory-nut processing) or sites occupied for part of 

the year. Fire-cracked rock, chert flakes, projectile 

points, and pieces of pottery were commonly 

excavated finds and are curated at the Glenn Black 

Museum at the University of Indiana in 

Bloomington, Indiana. 

Law Enforcement

Until 2003, the Muscatatuck NWR law 

enforcement staff consisted of one or more 

collateral duty officers assisted by State 

Conservation Officers and State Police when needed 

and as available. From 2003 to 2006 no station staff 

did law enforcement work and collateral duty 

officers from Big Oaks NWR worked our deer hunts 

on a limited basis. In 2006, a full-time Refuge 

Officer assigned to Big Oaks NWR was responsible 

for all of the law enforcement work at both Big Oaks 

NWR and Muscatatuck NWR. That individual left 

his position in 2007. The full-time law enforcement 

position at Big Oaks NWR was moved to 

Muscatatuck NWR in late 2007 and the Refuge has 

filled the position. This position will be a shared 

position between both refuges, and provide limited 

assistance to Patoka River NWR in southwestern 

Indiana. Law enforcement support is also provided 

by our Zone Officer, State Conservation Officers, 

and the State Police.

Historically, the Refuge had a reputation as a 

“trophy” deer hunting area and was known to local 

Conservation Officers as an active deer poaching 

area. In the past, while operating on a part-time 

basis as a collateral duty, Refuge officers focused on 

resource oriented violations: fishing in areas closed 

to fishing, deer poaching, marijuana growing, and 

ginseng collecting. More recent efforts undertaken 

by full-time officers have expanded to include a 

larger number of violations associated with public 

use including: after-hours trespass, illegal vehicle 

operation, no driver’s license, and illegal substance 

possession offenses, in addition to wildlife resource 

based violations. 

The Refuge receives excellent but limited 

support from State Conservation Officers from two 

counties. The Seymour State Police Post is within 4 

miles of Muscatatuck NWR and responds when 

called for serious problems. County Sheriff deputies 

are sometimes seen on the Refuge, and have been 

helpful, but we are at the edge of both counties. The 

State Police frequently have been called to let 

locked-in visitors out of the Refuge at night, and this 

is becoming a burden for the post and an issue that 

Myers Cabin, Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

41

requires attention. Law Enforcement personnel 

from Crab Orchard NWR and Cypress Creek NWR 

provide assistance by working on larger operations. 

Existing Partnerships

The Refuge has partnerships with local, state, 

and national organizations. These partnerships 

benefit the Refuge in many ways, including 

fostering good community relations and enhancing 

habitats and wildlife populations. Examples of 

partnerships include the following:

P The Refuge is a host agency for Experience 

Works (formerly Green Thumb) a senior work 

training program that supplies enrollees that 

work on the Refuge an average of 20 hours per 

week.

P A curatorial cooperative agreement between 

the Service and the Glenn A. Black Laboratory 

of Archaeology, University of Indiana, provides 

for the curation and storage of the 10 Refuge 

archeological collections containing a total of 

23,635 artifacts. Artifacts are owned by the Federal Government and can be recalled by the 

Regional Historic Preservation Officer for 

exhibits and other Refuge and Service purposes.

P Muscatatuck NWR has been fortunate to have 

many partners in the local area, including: 

N Muscatatuck Wildlife Society

N local Soil and Water Conservation Districts

N NRCS

N Purdue Extension

N local Ducks Unlimited Chapters

N local Wild Turkey Federation

N Indiana Department of Natural Resources

N local Resource Conservation and 

Development Councils

N area conservation and birding clubs

N sporting good stores

N scouting and civic groups

N local Visitor Bureaus

N U.S. Forest Service

N Hayden School Refuge Rangers

N local universities 

Other Management Areas

Research Natural Area

The Muscatatuck Seep Springs Research 

Natural Area (MSS-RNA) occupies a 97-acre 

portion of the Refuge (Figure 12 on page 46). It is 

one of only seven acid seep springs documented in 

Indiana. The cold, acidic groundwater yields a 

unique assemblage of plant species. Many of the 

plants that occur here are restricted to these exact 

environmental conditions. These conditions are 

extremely uncommon in the landscape, especially in 

southern Indiana. This community is also ranked G3 

(Globally Rare) in the Natural Heritage system, an 

international network of biological and conservation 

data base, coordinated by the Nature Conservancy. 

State-listed plant species found here are: American 

ginseng, club spur orchid, southern tubercled 

orchid, bog bluegrass, Walter’s St. Johnswort, and 

smooth white violet. Also found here are the statelisted endangered four-toed salamander and the 

state-listed endangered copperbelly watersnake. 

Restle Unit

The Restle Unit of Muscatatuck NWR is a 78-

acre parcel in Monroe County, northwest of 

Bloomington, Indiana, that was donated to the 

National Wildlife Refuge System in 1990. It has a 

30-acre emergent wetland that was repaired by a 

Maintenance Action Team in September 2005. The 

rest of the remaining acreage is bottomland 

hardwoods. It is a palustrine floodplain forest with 

swamp white oak, pin oak, swamp cottonwood, 

sycamore and silver maple. 

Historically the area was a part of a large 

forested area called the Central Hardwood Region. 

The GLO original survey notes of 1811 and 1815 

refer to forests comprised of beech, burr oak, maple, 

water oak, poplar, hickory, elm, and ash (Slusher 

and Welch 2001). The land was cleared for 

agriculture in the mid-1800s as the state was settled 

and tile drainage began in the late 1800s, and an 

extensive system of ditches was put in place in order 

to control the hydrology for farming. 

The Restle Unit lies within the outer margin of 

the floodplain on the north side of Bean Blossom 

Creek. Steep uplands with intermittent streams 

form a border north of the property. The Unit is 

relatively flat, has a low gradient, and is seasonally 

flooded. It is located in the south central part of the 

state, in a region known as the Mitchell Karst Plain 

Section of the Highland Rim Natural Region, as 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

42

classified by the Indiana Natural Heritage program. 

The major soil types are Zipp, silty clay loam that is 

frequently flooded, and Burnside silt loam, which is 

occasionally flooded (Thomas 1981). 

The Restle Unit provides habitat for a diversity 

of wildlife including Wood Ducks, Canada Geese, 

Hooded Mergansers, Mallards, and other 

waterfowl. At least 80 bird species have been 

identified using the unit including Bald Eagle, 

Osprey, Northern Harrier, Black-crowned NightHeron, Great Egret, and Great Blue Heron. Beaver, 

muskrats, white-tailed deer, eastern fox squirrel, 

raccoon, red fox, opossum, and eastern mole are 

mammals that have been seen. Some of the 

amphibians and reptiles seen in the Unit include 

cricket frog, green frog, spring peeper, southern 

leopard frog, painted turtle, snapping turtle, 

northern banded water snake, and ribbon snake. 

The federally-listed endangered Indiana bat has not 

been confirmed on the Unit, but it is suspected to be 

present because the habitat provided matches its 

requirements. No studies have been conducted to 

find them. An IDNR radio collared bobcat was 

tracked using the Restle Unit in June and July 2002.

The Restle Unit is surrounded by a complex of 

protected land called the Bean Blossom Bottoms 

that includes acreage owned by Sycamore Land 

Trust and Wetland Reserve Program land. A total of 

708 acres are protected. At least 109 bird species, 

including Prothonotary Warbler, Wood Thrush, 

Cerulean Warbler, Red-headed Woodpecker, 

American Woodcock, Willow Flycatcher, Prairie 

Warbler, Henslow’s Sparrow, Virginia Rail, and 

King Rail, all have been reported from the Bean 

Blossom Bottoms area and the area is recognized as 

an Indiana Important Bird Area (IBA) by the 

Audubon Society. These lands support a Bald Eagle 

nest, a Great Blue Heron rookery, the state-listed 

endangered Kirtland’s snake and northern crayfish 

frog (last confirmed in 1998). 

 The Unit is included in the Audubon designated 

Beanblossom Bottoms Important Bird Area (IBA). 

State-listed species seen are Bald Eagle, Northern 

Harrier, Barn Owl, Osprey, Black-crowned NightHeron, and Black Tern. State species of concern 

include Great Egret, Red-shouldered Hawk, and 

Sandhill Crane. Twenty-three bird species of 

Conservation Concern were listed on the IBA 

nomination form (Cole 2007). 

Invasive, exotic species and noxious weeds seen 

at the Unit include reed canary grass, Asian bush 

honeysuckle and European starling. Inventory work 

has not yet been done. 

 Management of the Unit as stated in the Restle 

donation document is “grantee shall perpetually 

manage the real estate as a wetland habitat for 

native wildlife and plant enhancement and 

protection.” Deed restrictions to the management of 

the property include the prohibition of timbering, 

burning, hunting, trapping, fishing, use of 

herbicides or insecticides, construction of buildings, 

general public access, and commercial sale of any 

resources. The restrictions have exceptions for the 

protection of wetlands, protection of native plant 

and animal habitat, and construction of observation 

blinds. 

Great Blue Heron. Photo credit: Mark Trabue
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

43

The 30-acre wetland area will be managed for 

migrant and nesting waterfowl and, when 

appropriate, mudflats may be exposed for shorebird 

use. The bottomland hardwood forest will continue 

to grow. 

The Restle Unit was donated with the restriction 

that “no general access of the public to the area 

shall be permitted.” An observation deck 

overlooking the unit with a parking area on Bottom 

Road was constructed in 1998 and is available for 

the public to use. 

Farm Service Agency Conservation Easements

The Refuge manages nine conservation easement 

areas totaling 130.5 acres located within the Wildlife 

Management District, a 30-county area in Indiana 

(Figure 11). On these FSA easements, the FWS is 

authorized to protect and manage important natural 

resource interests including wetlands, floodplains, 

riparian corridors, and endangered species habitat. 

Ownership of the easement land is retained by 

private individuals, but with restrictions related to 

conservation management. Service employees are 

responsible for habitat management and are 

granted access for maintenance, monitoring, 

enforcement, and other management activities. 

Most Farm Service Agency (FSA) conservation 

easements are visually checked for boundary signs, 

trespass, and various other infractions every 2 years. 

Current Staff and Budget

Staff

The Refuge’s staffing, as of September 2007, 

includes eight full-time equivalent positions: 

P Refuge Manager

P Wildlife Refuge Specialist

P Wildlife Biologist

P Maintenance Mechanic

P Tractor Operator (vacant)

P Park Ranger (law enforcement)

P Outdoor Recreation Planner

P Administrative Technician

Budget

A 6-year history of the operating and 

maintenance budget for the Refuge is shown in 

Table 3.

Figure 11: FSA Easements Administrated 

by Muscatatuck NWR

Table 3: Five-year Operating and Maintenance Budget

FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

$1,339,425 $805,000 $570,343 $682,920 $662,410 $546,139
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

44

Chapter 4: Management Direction

Goals and Objectives

This chapter presents the goals, objectives and 

strategies that will guide management and 

administration of the Refuge over the next 15 years. 

This management direction represents the plan for 

the Refuge and mirrors Alternative C in the 

Environmental Assessment that was prepared as 

part of the planning process (Appendix A). 

The Refuge has three goals:

P Goal 1: Habitat – A dynamic mosaic of 

vegetation that includes an expanse of upland 

and floodplain deciduous forest similar to that 

historically present along with lakes, marshes, 

and moist soil units.

P Goal 2: Wildlife – Support the maximum 

sustainable breeding and post-breeding 

populations of cavity-nesting waterfowl, 

neotropical migratory birds, Indiana bats, and a 

diversity of migratory, rare wetland, and 

resident species.

P Goal 3: People – Visitors understand and 

appreciate the natural environment and its 

processes through participation in high-quality, 

wildlife-dependent recreation and educational 

opportunities.

The goals are general statements of future 

desired conditions on the Refuge. The objectives 

under each goal are specific statements of what will 

be accomplished to help achieve the goal. 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. Some strategies are 

linked to the duties of an employee position, which 

indicates that the strategy will be accomplished with 

the help of a new staff position. When a time in 

number of years is noted in an objective or strategy, 

it refers to the number of years from approval of 

this CCP. If no time is given, the objective is to be 

accomplished within the 15 years of the life of the 

plan.

Goal 1: Habitat

Maintain a dynamic mosaic of vegetation that includes 

an expanse of upland and floodplain deciduous forest 

similar to that historically present along with lakes, 

marshes, and moist soil units.

Objective 1.1: Upland Hardwood Forest

Over the long-term (100-200 years), on areas 

dominated by upland flats and moist slopes, 

achieve a 1,522-acre mosaic of upland hardwood 

stands of different age and structural classes 

dominated by poplar, oak, hickory, white ash, 

black cherry, maple, and beech. Within 15 years 

convert 310 acres of farmland to restored upland 

hardwood and maintain the existing 1,212 acres 

of upland forest. Also within 15 years enhance 

150 acres of upland forest by removing invasive 

species and employing various improvement 

techniques to ensure proper understory 

development, regeneration, and age class and 

species compositions. 

Rationale: Land use practices, invasive plant 

introduction, and modifications to the hydrology of 

the landscape over the past century have drastically 

altered the vegetative communities on the Refuge 

Wood Duck drake. Photo credit: Mark Trabue
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

45

and led to increased fragmentation of the habitat. 

Studies have shown that forest fragmentation 

reduces nesting success of migratory birds because 

of increased nest predation and parasitism. Areasensitive forest bird species generally require large, 

contiguous blocks of forested habitat and are also 

negatively impacted when fragmentation results in 

smaller contiguous acreages (Robinson et al. 1995).

Historically, the Refuge was a part of the 

expansive, contiguous hardwood forest that covered 

most of the central and southern part of Indiana 

(Jackson 1997). Of the identified upland soils within 

the Refuge boundary, 1,212 acres are currently in 

upland forest. An additional 310 acres of potential 

upland forest have been identified that are currently 

in various cover types considered reconverting 

farmland. This acreage will be both allowed to 

naturally convert to upland hardwoods and planted 

to trees of species that were historically present. 

This will help reduce forest fragmentation and 

provide habitat for migratory birds, Wood Ducks 

and the Indiana bat. 

The Refuge has carried out reforestation 

activities in recent years to reduce fragmentation of 

forested habitats and retire former agricultural 

fields and pastures. The intent is to manage native 

forest land for structural and plant species diversity 

and ensure healthy soil and water resources. Closed 

canopy forests often result in poor regeneration of 

shade intolerant species, especially oak species, and 

often result in poor understory development. 

However, natural openings caused by death or wind 

throw of one or more trees, create open habitats 

that are quickly colonized by herbaceous plants, 

shrubs, and tree seedlings and these temporary 

openings are desirable because they provide 

diversity within the otherwise forested matrix, and 

are important habitat for wildlife (Collins and 

Battaglia 2002). To replicate these natural openings, 

openings 1 acre or less in size will be artificially 

created as part of forest management.

Invasive species such as autumn olive, Japanese 

honeysuckle, bush honeysuckle, multiflora rose, 

Japanese stiltgrass, and garlic mustard have 

invaded a large percentage of the Refuge’s forested 

habitats. These species outcompete and shade out 

native vegetation resulting in the development of 

monotypic stands of non-native vegetation, thus 

r e d uc i n g v e g e t a t i v e d i v e r s i t y, i n h i b i t i n g 

regeneration, and they also threaten rare and 

endangered plant populations (Pimentel et al. 2005). 

This objective represents the Refuge’s intent to 

more actively manage and restore upland forest 

habitat to benefit forest-dependent wildlife, 

especially certain species of migratory waterfowl, 

neotropical migratory birds, and mammals (e.g. 

Indiana bat, southern flying squirrel). 

Large contiguous blocks of native upland forests 

are expected to provide breeding and nesting 

habitat for the Wood Thrush, Chestnut-sided 

Wa r b l e r, Ye l l o w - bi l l e d C uc k o o , P i l e a t e d 

Woodpecker, and Cerulean Warbler, as well as 

habitat for the Indiana bat, waterfowl and other 

migratory birds, and upland game species.

 Strategies:

1. Conversion of 310 acres of former and current 

cropland to upland hardwood forest 

(Figure 12). This may include site preparation, 

planting a cover crop, planting tree seedlings, 

and weed control treatments. Some areas may 

be allowed to naturally revert to forested 

habitat through natural succession. 

2. Tree planting of white and red oaks, black 

cherry, persimmon, and black walnut taking 

soil types and native trees into consideration 

will occur on 160 acres. It is believed that hickory, beech, and maple trees will be restored 

through natural regeneration. Planting plans 

will be written in cooperation with the IDNR 

District Forester.

3. Complete a forest management (habitat management) step-down plan in 5 years.

4. Removal of invasive plant species within 

upland forested habitats through integrated 

pest management (IPM) strategies outlined in 

an approved IPM plan.

Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: Jon Kauffeld
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

46

Figure 12: Future Land Cover, Muscatatuck NWR
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

47

5. Decrease undesirable tree basal area through 

selective cutting to promote establishment and 

growth of more desirable native hardwoods. 

Silvicultural treatments may be conducted 

under contract by commercial timber harvesting firms.

6. Timber stand improvement to include thinning dense stands, and deadening cull trees 

that are competing with more valuable wildlife 

trees, and selective harvest on a small scale to 

allow for habitat diversity and opening of canopy to stimulate plant growth, regeneration 

and recruitment on forest floor. Apply appropriate silvicultural treatments to manage forest health, species composition, and age 

structure. Treatments may include non-commercial forest stand improvement treatments 

(girdling, cutting, and/or applying herbicide to 

individual stems), and commercial timber cutting (thinning, improvement cuttings, and 

regeneration cuttings). Thin young stands of 

trees (pre-commercial) using appropriate 

methods to reduce competition for resources 

and allow residual trees to develop into 

healthy advanced stands.

7. Artificially replicate the small openings in the 

forest (1 acre or less) that would have 

occurred naturally to provide the natural 

diversity of habitat that should be present 

within the forest matrix.

8. Fill the existing (vacant) tractor operator position and add a biological science technician to 

assist with reforestation efforts, eradication of 

non-native tree species, and timber stand 

improvement efforts.

Objective 1.2: Bottomland Hardwood Forest

Over the long-term (100-200 years) achieve 

approximately 4,788 acres in large blocks 

(greater than 500 acres) of mature bottomland 

forest (average dbh equals 12-30 inches) with a 

canopy cover of 60-80 percent consisting of mixed 

sycamore, oak, beech, green ash, sweetgum and 

maple. 

Within 15 years, restore hydrology in the area of 

the current greentree reservoirs, moist soil units 

8, 9, 10, and Moss Lake greentree area to allow 

flooding and ebbing with the natural changes in 

the river. Vary water levels in the shallow 

northeastern portion of Richart Lake, closely 

monitoring effects and habitat changes. The area 

of the current lower moist soil units, with the 

exception of M7, will have started reverting back 

to bottomland hardwood forests with an oak 

component. Sheet flow through these areas will 

be restored to allow more natural movement of 

runoff, dead timber areas within greentree 

reservoirs will be restored through the natural 

regeneration of oaks, if possible, and through 

seeding or planting, if necessary. 

Rationale: Historically the Refuge was a part of 

the expansive, contiguous hardwood forest that 

covered most of the central and southern part of 

Indiana (Jackson 1997). The Muscatatuck Flats and 

lowlands area is in the Bluegrass Natural Region of 

southeast Indiana. The bottomland is characterized 

by relatively level plain poorly drained flats. The 

Muscatatuck River floodplain is one of the most 

extensive areas of bottomland hardwood forest 

remaining in the Midwest. The floodplain forest 

along the Muscatatuck River is characterized by 

sweetgum, swamp white oak, and shellbark hickory 

(Sieracki et al. 2002). 

Increasing, the bottomland hardwood areas at 

Muscatatuck NWR along the Muscatatuck River 

and smaller streams will provide important 

breeding habitat for Wood Duck, Acadian 

Flycatcher, and Cerulean Warbler as well as 

summer habitat for the federally-listed endangered 

Indiana Bat and habitat for the state-listed 

endangered Copperbelly watersnake (Sallabanks et 

al. 2000; Kingsbury 1997). 

Land use practices, development of roads, beaver 

dams, and modifications to the hydrology of the 

Refuge have impeded drainage, causing seasonal 

flooding to persist for longer than had occurred 

historically. The prolonged flooding helped shift 

composition of bottomland hardwood forests 

towards tree species with greater water tolerances, 

and largely eliminated regeneration resulting in 

single-aged mature stands. In some areas semipermanent flooding resulted in complete tree 

mortality and shifts in habitat type from forested 

wetland to open water or marsh (Kozlowski 2002).

Planned modifications to the drainage system will 

allow for water management that more closely 

resembles historical conditions and the restoration 

of species associated with those conditions. This 

objective represents the Refuge’s intent to more 

actively manage bottomland forest habitat to benefit 

forest-dependent wildlife, especially certain species 

of migratory waterfowl, neotropical migratory 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

48

birds, resident cavity nesting species, and mammals 

(e.g. Indiana bat, southern flying squirrel). The 

Refuge’s intent is to actively manage the return of 

the forested landscape to conditions that allow 

passive hydrological management that resembles 

the historic hydrological regime to benefit and 

protect the wide array of plant and animal species 

that flourish in such environments. 

One measure of the biological integrity of 

bottomland hardwood forests is whether the timing 

and frequency of events such as flooding correspond 

to historical conditions. The 4,788-acre objective 

represents an increase of 782 acres over existing 

acreage; the additional amount comes from 

conversion of moist soil units and former agriculture 

and pasture lands (Figure 12 on page 46). 

Strategies for Green Tree Reservoirs (G1, G2, 

and Moss Lake acres): 

1. Discontinue prescription flooding of the Green 

Tree Reservoirs(GTR) and allow them to 

fluctuate naturally from the creeks and river 

influences and from precipitation and 

resulting runoff. The units will no longer be 

purposely flooded via management 

intervention.

2. Actively pursue draining excess water prior to 

the growing season to encourage regeneration 

and avoid killing trees. The stoplogs within the 

structure at Moss Lake will not be set higher 

than 540.0 at any time to protect the forested 

systems that are struggling to survive along 

the borders of the unit; it may be determined 

from bathymetry/forestry investigations that 

the maximum elevation for stoplogs should be 

539.5 or 539.0, and thus the maximum elevation may be further reduced.

3. A bathymetric investigation of Moss Lake will 

be completed by 2012 to determine the maximum stoplog elevation for the Moss Lake 

water control structure to prevent impounding 

water in the forested areas of Moss Lake.

4. Water control structure modifications will be 

made on the Moss Lake Water control structure by 2013 to increase the discharge capabilities of the structure. Screw gates or other 

comparable designs will be installed in several 

if not all of the six bays within the structure to 

increase discharge and reduce the buildup of 

sediment within the impoundment. Moss Lake 

GTR areas will no longer serve as a greentree 

reservoir but will function as a floodplain forest whose hydrology will attempt to mimic the 

natural influence of the Muscatatuck River as 

if there were no dikes and structures. 

5. Acquire the machinery necessary (i.e. small 

amphibious backhoe) to access and remove the 

beaver dams and other impediments to water 

flows on the creeks, at the various water control structures, and other areas where drainage is impeded. 

Strategies for Bottomland Hardwoods 

(includes Green Tree Reservoirs):

1. Allow natural regeneration of trees to occur 

when possible and augment natural processes 

with planting seeds or seedlings when 

necessar y. Manage timber to promote 

regeneration of mast producing tree species.

2. Conduct forest surveys or inventories every 5 

years to monitor changes in health, composition, and structure of bottomland forests 

3. Develop and implement short- and long-term 

forest management plans. 

4. Conduct forest management activities such as 

thinning dense stands or midstory and selective harvest on a small scale to allow for habitat diversity and opening of canopy to 

stimulate plant growth, regeneration and 

recruitment on forest floor.

5. Provide vernal pools where feasible. 

6. Conduct a study to learn more about the 

hydrology and geomorphology of the Refuge.

7. Remove portions of the dikes forming the 

greentree reservoirs and moist soil units 8, 9, 

and 10 after completing a hydrological study 

unless contradicted by the study.

8. Timber stand improvement to include thinning dense stands, selective harvest on a small 

scale and deadening cull trees that are competing with more valuable wildlife trees to 

allow for habitat diversity and opening of canopy to stimulate plant growth, regeneration 

and recruitment on forest floor. Apply appropriate silvicultural treatments to manage forest health, species composition, and age 

structure. Treatments may include non-commercial forest stand improvement treatments 

(girdling, cutting, and/or applying herbicide to 

individual stems), and commercial timber cut-
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

49

ting (thinning, improvement cuttings, and 

regeneration cuttings). Thin young stands of 

trees (pre-commercial) using appropriate 

methods to reduce competition for resources 

and allow residual trees to develop into 

healthy advanced stands.

9. Restore hydrology and micro/macrotopography based on current knowledge and future 

recommendations from hydrogeomorphological investigations. Attempt to replicate historic 

conditions that included hydrologic features 

such as depressions, oxbows, and swale topography. Also, to replicate permanent, semi permanent and seasonally flooded wetlands that 

were historically present in the Muscatatuck 

River Basin.

Objective 1.3: Grassland

Maintain 471 acres of open grassland to benefit 

wildlife viewing and to provide high-quality 

nesting and forage habitat for grassland bird 

species. These areas should be capable of 

providing high-quality breeding habitat for listed 

species (e.g., Henslow’s Sparrow), waterbirds 

(e.g. Great Blue Heron) and other migratory 

birds (e.g. , Bobolink, Dickcissel, Loggerhead 

Shrike, Grasshopper Sparrow and Sandhill 

Crane), and contributing to the native biological 

diversity of the Refuge.

Rationale: Pre-European settlement vegetation 

within the current boundaries of the Refuge was 

dominated by deciduous forest with little to no open 

grasslands occurring except small openings where 

natural events (i.e. wind throws, tornadoes, or 

beaver) created gaps in the forest (Jackson 1997). 

Small temporary and permanent forest openings 

are part of the historic vegetative condition of the 

Refuge. Furthermore, the diversity of birds present 

at the Refuge can be attributed to the diverse 

habitat types and many wildlife enthusiasts, 

observers, and bird watchers are drawn to the 

Refuge because of the diversity of species and 

habitats. The diversity provides Refuge visitors 

with quality wildlife-dependent recreation 

opportunities. Even though historically larger 

grasslands were not prominent on the Refuge, 

benefits to grassland bird species may still be 

derived from the retention and/or expansion of 

grassland habitat in strategic locations. Populations 

of many grassland bird species are declining, in part 

because of loss of habitat (Herkert 1994). These 

grasslands can serve as habitat for Grasshopper 

Sparrow, Henslow’s Sparrow, Eastern Meadowlark 

and Sandhill Crane. They will also provide habitat 

for Kirtland’s snake (Conant and Collins 1991). 

Strategies:

1. Protect, restore, or enhance the blocks of 

grassland habitat and ensure they are 

comprised of short, medium, and tall heightdensity patches containing diverse structure 

(e.g., bare soil, stiff-stemmed forbs, and sparse 

woody vegetation) with a 75 percent grass and 

25 percent forbs mix with a minimum of six 

grass species and a minimum of 30 herb 

species. The Refuge will focus on creating 

blocks of grassland habitat that are 

structurally open and free of major linear 

woody edges. In most cases, woody cover will 

represent less than 5 percent of the grasslands 

habitat. Maintain Refuge grasslands through 

periodic burning and/or mowing with some 

grasslands (25-50 percent of the total 

grassland landscape) remaining free from 

burning or mowing, between 3 and 6 years to 

provide habitat for Henslow ’s Sparrow, 

Northern Bobwhite Quail, Field Sparrow, and 

other species that prefer a well-developed duff 

layer and the presence of some shrubs. Some 

thicket areas and isolated trees will be allowed 

to persist to provide breeding habitat for 

Loggerhead Shrike, Bell’s Vireo, Yellowbreasted Chat, and other species in some of 

the grassland areas. 

Eastern Bluebird. Photo credit: Mark Trabue
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

50

2. Place grassland openings along the perimeter 

of the Refuge and along the wildlife auto tour 

route to minimize fragmentation, promote 

habitat diversity, and promote wildlife observation.

3. Periodically inventory grasslands to determine species composition and stem density 

and to detect invasive species.

4. Under the guidance of an integrated pest 

management plan, work toward removing and 

preventing the establishment of non-native 

invasive species within Refuge grasslands with 

special emphasis placed on autumn olive, multiflora rose, Johnson grass, and non-native 

thistles. 

Objective 1.4: Moist Soil Units

Maintain 175 acres of Units 1-7 under moist soil 

management to provide annual food crops and 

resting habitat for migratory waterbirds, Wood 

Duck habitat and mudflats for shorebirds. Also, 

maintain 233 acres including the McDonald and 

Endicott marshes, Moss Lake, and Sue Pond as 

emergent marsh to provide, feeding, resting, and 

nesting habitat for all waterbirds including 

secretive marsh birds, waterfowl, wading birds, 

and shorebirds. 

Rationale: Moist soil management is a 

widespread practice for producing a diverse mixture 

of native herbaceous plant foods and invertebrates. 

It partially mimics seasonal flooding that has long 

occurred in the Muscatatuck NWR lowlands, but 

moist soil units – areas impounded by dikes, and 

structures that permit precise control of water 

levels – allow managers to produce conditions 

favorable to growth of native plants such as millets 

and sedges (Haukos and Smith 1993). Seeds 

produced by these plants provide balanced nutrition 

for migrating waterfowl, and also provide food and 

habitat for other migratory birds and wildlife. The 

diverse mixture of native plants also creates 

conditions that produce abundant invertebrates, a 

high protein wildlife food source.

Emergent marshes are some of the most 

productive natural systems in the world (Waide et 

al. 1999). The productivity, however, is derived from 

the dynamic nature of hydrological events and the 

resulting vegetative responses (Haukos and Smith 

1993). Cyclical management of marsh units, 

including periodic full and partial drawdowns need 

to be incorporated into the water management 

regime. Changes in these systems could drastically 

increase use of the units and the Refuge by 

waterbirds, increase amphibian and 

macroinvertebrate production, and increase the 

overall plant diversity of the marshes and the 

Refuge.

Strategies for Moist Soil Units:

1. Disturb (through mowing, disking, fire, etc...) 

an average of one-third of moist soil unit 

acreage annually to set back succession.

2. Moist soil units will be maintained in early successional native plant communities for the production of annual seed crops.

3. Limit public access to moist soil units during 

peak duck use periods by closing the levees to 

hiking, bird watching, etc.

4. Maintain most moist soil units dry throughout 

much of the growing season (April through 

September) to produce food for migratory 

birds except where shallow irrigation will aid 

in beneficial moist soil plant production, or 

when managing a unit for a late summer/fall 

drawdown to benefit fall migrant shorebirds.

5. Maintain dikes and water control structures in 

good working order controlling muskrats and 

beaver to prevent excessive damage (i.e. honeycombing) and disruption of water management capability.

6. Provide additional fall-flooded, shallow-water 

habitat for shorebirds when feasible. 

Osprey. Photo credit Dan Kaiser
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

51

7. Begin draining some moist soil units in March 

when feasible to expose mudflats by April to 

benefit migrating shorebirds that can feed on 

invertebrates.

8. Manage water levels within moist soil units to 

provide optimum depths for dabbling ducks, 

shorebirds, and wading birds. 

9. Ensure that water management regimes 

between and within years incorporates variation in depth, duration, and in the timing of 

drawdown and reflooding. The seasonal and 

annual shifts in hydrologic condition set the 

stage for vegetation development within the 

various impoundments.

10. Remove trees, stumps, fallen logs, and other 

woody debris from Units M1-M6 via bulldozer 

or whatever means necessary, yet ensure that 

significant amounts of topsoil are not removed. 

This will facilitate proper management of 

these units especially during maintenance/disturbance operations and will help to prevent 

the establishment of willows and other undesirable woody vegetation within the units. 

11. Remove debris piles from previous rehabilitation work to allow disturbance throughout the 

units via disking or mowing and to prevent 

establishment and continued issues with the 

proliferation of willows within the units. 

12. Control exotic and invasive plant and animal 

species.

13. Conduct annual vegetation monitoring to 

gather data necessary to make management 

decisions and to evaluate and document management actions and corresponding responses. 

Strategies for Emergent Marsh Units:

1. Ensure proper water levels to promote the 

development of diverse complex vegetative 

structure within the units and to provide water 

depths suitable for waterbird use.

2. Increase the distribution and interspersion of 

cattail and other emergent vegetation.

3. Ensure that water management regimes 

between and within years incorporates variation in depth, duration, and in the timing of 

drawdown and reflooding. The seasonal and 

annual shifts in hydrologic condition set the 

stage for vegetation development within the 

various impoundments.

4. Conduct periodic drawdowns to consolidate 

sediment, increase plant germination, and 

reduce fish populations. 

5. Control exotic and invasive plant and animal 

species.

6. Within 2 years of CCP approval, identify and 

adopt marsh management strategies conducive to meeting emergent marsh objectives. 

7. Conduct periodic marsh monitoring using 

established rapid assessment protocols for 

wetlands including vegetative, amphibian, and 

macroinvertebrate indices of biotic integrity 

and secretive marsh bird surveys.

Objective 1.5: Invasive Plant Species

Inventory all Refuge lands for invasive plant 

species within 5 years of plan approval. Identify, 

monitor, control, and eliminate exotic and 

invasive species found on the Refuge and rapidly 

respond to new invasive species.

Rationale: Invasive species are detrimental to 

native plant and animal populations. Invasive 

species are considered to be one of the greatest 

threats to the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Autumn olive, garlic mustard, reed canary grass, 

Canada thistle, crown vetch and many other species 

dominate certain portions of the Refuge landscape. 

Japanese stiltgrass, multiflora rose, Japanese 

honeysuckle, tree-of-heaven, and kudzu threaten 

the diversity and health of the bottomland and 

upland hardwoods while other species, such as reed 

canary grass and purple loosestrife, compete with 

native vegetation along riparian corridors, in moist 

soil units, and in other wetland types. 

Many of the invasive species encountered have 

the capability over time of producing solid 

monocultures, shading out native vegetation and 

reducing overall plant diversity and consequently 

overall animal diversity (Blossey 2004). Many of the 

same natural disturbances, such as drought, flood 

and wildfire, that maintain productivity of natural 

systems also provide opportunities for invasive 

species to multiply and spread. 

Human activities and disturbances on the 

landscape also create conditions conducive to the 

spread of invasive species. It is very important that 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

52

the Refuge staff is able to inventory and monitor the 

spread of invasive species and take actions to 

minimize the distribution of a species or control its 

abundance on the landscape. 

We will probably never be able to eliminate these 

species from the landscape, but targeted chemical, 

mechanical, manual, and biological control or 

prescribed fire are methods that can reduce their 

impact on native species. Success will be based on 

factors that include reduction in the spread and 

shrinkage of infestations, complete eradication, or 

stabilization of infestations. The Refuge will employ 

a strategy of early detection, rapid assessment, and 

rapid response (ED/RA/RR). ED/RA/RR amplifies 

the probability that invasions will be managed 

effectively while populations are confined to a small 

area and eradication is feasible. Populations, once 

well established, are rarely completely eradicated; 

mitigation of their negative impacts is about all that 

is realistic (Blossey 2004). Furthermore, overall 

costs of ED/RA/RR are inevitably much lower than 

costs associated with long-term reduction and 

control of well established populations. 

Strategies:

1. Develop an integrated pest management plan 

(IPM).

2. Inventory and map distribution of invasive 

species. (Biological technician)

3. Identify treatment protocols for all known 

invasive plants inhabiting the Refuge and for 

the plants most likely to invade in the near 

future using IPM strategies. 

4. Prioritize species and locations for treatment. 

Use a diverse array of control tools and techniques individually or in combination, including but not limited to mowing, biological 

controls, herbicides, prescribed fire, and 

revegetation.

5. Evaluate all ground-disturbing management 

actions for their potential to facilitate the 

spread of invasive plants. Establish and implement a survey design that monitors invasive 

species and allows comparison of different 

management regimes. 

6. Develop an annual monitoring and mapping 

strategy for invasive species.

7. Implement early detection, rapid assessment, 

and rapid response strategies for ‘new’ invaders.

8. Increase training for staff members on invasive species identification.

9. Increase public awareness of the invasive species issues facing the Refuge and encourage 

public involvement through workshops, presentations, work days, special events, and 

other stewardship opportunities.

10. Cooperate with state and federal agencies, 

non-government organizations, and neighboring landowners to strategize, inventory, monitor, and treat invasive species on a larger 

landscape level scale. 

11. Fill the existing (vacant) full-time tractor 

operator position to assist with invasive species eradication. Also add one wildlife biologist 

to oversee and manage field efforts and two 

full-time biological science technicians to help 

with controlling invasives, forestry, and grassland management.

12. Develop and enhance relationships with universities, colleges, schools, and other organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, 

Wildlife Society, Audubon Society etc. and 

encourage participation in the fight against 

invasive species on the Refuge. 

Objective 1.6: Seep Springs Research Natural Area

Restore the hydrology for the Seep Springs 

Research Natural Area to a condition that 

approximates an undisturbed site.

Rationale: The Research Natural Area is one of 

only seven acid seep springs documented in Indiana. 

The cold, acidic groundwater yields a unique 

assemblage of plant species, and many of the plants 

that occur here are restricted to these exact 

environmental conditions. These conditions are 

extremely uncommon in the landscape, especially in 

southern Indiana. This community is also ranked as 

Globally Rare in the Natural Heritage system, a 

ranking system developed by The Nature 

Conservancy. 

State-listed plant species found here are: 

American ginseng, club spur orchid, southern 

tubercled orchid, bog bluegrass, Walter’s St. Johns 

wort, and smooth white violet. The state-listed 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

53

endangered four-toed salamander and the statelisted endangered copperbelly watersnake are 

found in the Area, also. 

A Refuge road to the south of the Area and 

beaver activity have raised the water level and 

altered the water flow within the Area. The changed 

conditions in the Area have caused an observable 

change in the vegetation with severe tree mortality 

and a shift in habitat type from a seasonally flooded 

forested wetland to more of a permanently flooded 

marsh. 

In order to preserve the special characteristics of 

the Area, it is necessary to better understand the 

current and historical conditions at the site and then 

formulate possible approaches to returning the site 

to a less disturbed condition. The key piece for 

understanding what is happening at the site is to 

understand how water flows into and out of the site 

and what historical hydrologic regime existed that 

allowed the development of the seep. Therefore, the 

first step in restoring and maintaining the Research 

Natural Area is conducting a hydrogeomorphological investigation. The site is also threatened by a 

number of invasive species including garlic mustard, 

moneywort, reed canary grass, and Japanese stiltgrass. Control of these invasive species will need to 

be addressed. 

Strategies:

1. Conduct a hydrogeomorphological investigation to determine historic water regimes and 

to determine realistic recommendations for 

restoring the hydrology.

2. Determine best management practices for 

restoring the forested habitat that has been 

degraded, ensuring proper species composition and preventing establishment or release 

of invasive species into the Area.

3. Reduce the influence of Mutton Creek on the 

Area during the growing season, MarchNovember.

4. Inventory, monitor, map, and control invasive 

species in and near the Area.

5. Develop a monitoring plan/protocol to monitor 

the overall health of the Area and to watch for 

changes in plant communities, sedimentation, 

and hydrology.

6. Form a working group of qualified professionals and stakeholders to collaboratively assist 

in the implementation of these strategies.

7. Determine if the Area should be protected 

from all public entry and if so sign the area 

and develop and make available informational 

material to educate the public. 

Objective 1.7: Restle Unit

Maintain 48 acres of bottomland forest and 

manage a 30-acre moist soil unit to support water 

bird feeding, resting, and breeding. 

Rationale: The Refuge must “perpetually 

manage the real estate as a wetland habitat for 

native wildlife and plant enhancement and 

protection.” To best fulfill its commitment, the 

Refuge will manage the constructed unit on the 

Restle Unit as a moist soil unit because this follows 

the establishing direction for the Refuge. The 

Refuge purpose “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, 

or for any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds” derives from the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act. 

The forest will be maintained, but not managed. 

Exhibit “A” included in the donation document of the 

Restle Unit states that “No timbering, burning, 

Red fox. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

54

hunting, trapping, or fishing shall be permitted, 

except that plant harvesting or controlled burning 

for the protection of the wetland or research into the 

protection of wetlands are permitted. 

Wildlife harvesting within the levee constructed 

by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1990 is also 

permitted for the protection of the wetland within 

the levee. The permitted activities specified in this 

paragraph are to be conducted only by personnel of 

the grantee or their designees for that specific 

purpose.” 

Strategies:

1. Develop a water management plan within 2 

years of plan approval to guide management of 

the impoundment.

2. Maintain dike and water control structure in 

good working order.

3. Use mechanical, chemical and biological controls to check the spread of invasive plant species.

4. Communicate with other state and federal 

resource agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations, to stay current on emerging 

threats and effective management and control 

techniques related to invasive species. 

Objective 1.8: Conservation Easements

Meet Service monitoring guidelines for FSA over 

next 15 years.

Rationale: The Refuge is responsible for 

managing FSA easements (formerly Farmers Home 

Administration easements, or FmHA) within a 30-

county Wildlife Management District. These 

easements were placed on the properties when 

landowners defaulted on their Farmers Home 

Administration loans. Properties were then resold 

to the original landowner at a discounted price due 

to the easement or sold to another individual. FSA 

easements are an agreement between the FSA and 

the FWS, authorizing the Service to protect 

important natural resource interests on easement 

properties such as wetlands, floodplains, riparian 

corridors, and endangered species habitat. 

Ownership of the easement land is retained by 

private individuals, but with certain restrictions on 

altering important natural resources on the 

easement lands. Service employees are granted 

access for management, maintenance, monitoring, 

and enforcement purposes. There is no public 

access to these easement properties unless 

explicitly stated in the individual easement 

document. 

Strategies: 

1. Bi-annually inspect each FSA easement and 

follow-up with landowner contact.

2. Send letters to new landowners informing 

them of existing easements on their property, 

along with the associated regulations

3. Follow protocols within the Service’s easement 

manual to handle all potential violations

Goal 2: Wildlife

Support the maximum sustainable breeding and postbreeding populations of cavity-nesting waterfowl, 

neotropical migratory birds, Indiana bats, and a diversity 

of migratory, rare wetland, and resident species.

Objective 2.1: Monitoring

Over the long-term, document the effect of 

reforestation and management on wildlife species 

diversity and abundance. Surveys will identify 

the presence/absence of species and abundance of 

select high priority species as well as surveying 

Bald Eagles at Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: Mark 

Trabue
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

55

key indicator species to monitor the overall 

health of the local environment and impacts due 

to management actions. 

Rationale: The Refuge purpose “...for use as an 

inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management 

purpose, for migratory birds” derives from the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Approximately 

280 species of birds have been documented as using 

the Refuge. Most of the birds that use the Refuge 

are migrants either passing through during spring 

and fall, or wintering on the Refuge. However, the 

Refuge also supports an abundance of breeding bird 

species with 121 species confirmed as breeding at 

the Refuge. Among these breeding species are 

Wood Duck, Canada Geese, Least Bittern, and Sora 

Rail, as well as many passerine species, and a colony 

of Great Blue Heron. Water and moist soil 

management efforts focus on providing suitable 

resting, nesting, and foraging habitat for all 

waterbirds, and monitoring populations can give 

indications of whether the Refuge is effective in its 

management actions. 

The Refuge is home to a diversity of reptile and 

amphibian species attributable to the abundance of 

wetlands and diversity of habitats. Many of these 

species are invaluable assets as a food supply to the 

myriad of species that prey on them. More than 40 

species have been documented, including frogs, 

toads, salamanders, skinks, turtles, and snakes. 

Among the snakes are the State-listed endangered 

Kirtland’s snake and copperbelly watersnake. 

Several other species of reptiles and amphibians 

that occur on Muscatatuck NWR are listed as 

endangered or threatened at the state level, 

including the four-toed salamander. Amphibians are 

especially sensitive to changes in their environment 

and their populations are declining worldwide 

(Houlahan et al. 2000; Wake 1991; Blaustein et al. 

1994). Monitoring the health of reptile and 

amphibian populations at Muscatatuck NWR may 

help detect other environmental problems such as 

contaminants or impacts due to global climate 

change. Baseline data on reptiles and amphibians 

that occur at the Refuge are incomplete, outdated, 

and possibly unreliable. 

With ample water year-round and the influence 

of the Vernon Fork, Storm, Mutton, and Sandy 

Creeks, a wide variety of fish species flourish at 

Muscatatuck NWR (Patrick and Palavage 1994). A 

total of 85 species have been documented on the 

Refuge. The most diverse are the minnow (22 

speces) and darter (13 species) families. Anglers fish 

for largemouth bass, bluegill, redear sunfish, black 

crappie, and catfish. The eastern sand darter and 

harlequin darter have been found in the Vernon 

Fork of the Muscatatuck River at the south end of 

the Refuge. In addition, a flier was collected from 

Moss Lake and Mutton Creek in 2007 and a 

redspotted sunfish was collected from Mutton 

Creek the same year; these are perhaps the furthest 

north and eastern records for these species. 

Monitoring fish assemblages can serve numerous 

purposes. Several species of fish can be surveyed as 

indicator species for water quality and 

environmental health i.e. darter spp (Patrick and 

Palavage 1994). Fishing pressure, if too great or too 

little can have serious implications to the health of a 

fisheries system and therefore periodic evaluation 

will allow for recommendations necessary for 

regulation of sport fishing. 

The Refuge supports several resident game 

species that attract visitors for hunting and wildlife 

observation. White-tailed deer and Wild Turkey are 

abundant in southern Indiana and on the Refuge. 

Food and cover are available in plentiful supply. The 

Northern Bob-white Quail and eastern cottontail 

rabbit populations are relatively small and will likely 

diminish with the reduction in Refuge grasslands 

and fragmentation of the forest (Twedt et al. 2007; 

Wild Turkey at Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: Mark Harper 2007). Squirrel populations are healthy and 

Trabue
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

56

these species will likely experience a positive effect 

from reforestation efforts (Fisher and Wilkinson 

2005). 

Deer monitoring on Muscatatuck NWR is 

lacking. Spotlight surveys, deer exclosures, and/or 

indicator plant surveys should be utilized and 

interpreted to determine population sizes and make 

management recommendations. Emigration and 

immigration can greatly alter population size and 

density and can be extremely variable from year to 

year. Food availability, mainly mast production, is 

largely responsible for these variations in deer 

demographics. Damage to surrounding landowners’ 

property can occur during years of poor mast 

production. Overpopulation of deer can lead to the 

damage of seedlings, especially oaks, which can 

impede regeneration success in the hardwood areas 

of the Refuge. Overgrazing can lead and contribute 

to changes in species composition, which in turn can 

result in negative effects on other plant and animal 

species (Rooney and Waller 2003). A firm 

understanding of population size and management 

decisions based on regular monitoring is necessary 

to prevent these negative effects, while sustaining a 

viable population.

Reforestation of the open, fallow, and retired 

farm fields and other grassy openings may result in 

significant changes in the faunal assemblages 

currently present at the Refuge. It is believed that 

closing in the forests and reducing fragmentation 

will result in increases to forest interior bird 

species. However, this will be to the detriment of 

grassland bird species. It is imperative that Refuge 

staff be able to monitor the bird response to such 

large scale changes to verify changes at the Refuge 

following reforestation. 

Strategies:

1. Develop a monitoring plan within 5 years and 

incorporate when possible the 

recommendations from the Biological Review 

and Inventory and Monitoring Review.

2. Conduct weekly waterfowl surveys to monitor 

use, production, and effectiveness/impacts of 

management actions; send this data to cooperating state partners.

3. Conduct secretive marsh bird surveys every 5 

years using an established protocol to monitor 

use and response to management actions.

4. Work with partners, the Biological Monitoring 

Team, and other professionals to develop a 

method to correlate vegetation surveys, water 

level monitoring, and waterbird response to 

enhance existing knowledge and provide data 

necessary for management.

5. Conduct pre- and post-bird monitoring in conjunction with habitat management efforts 

including conversions and restoration/regeneration efforts.

6. Conduct heron rookery surveys annually to 

monitor the health of the colony; send this 

data to cooperating state partners.

7. Annually monitor Bald Eagle nest production 

and conduct annual nest searches for this species.

8. Conduct shorebird surveys using the International Shorebird Survey Protocol to track 

occurrence, relative abundance, and response 

to management regimes. 

9. Conduct thorough baseline inventory of herpetofauna occurring on Refuge.

10. Establish surveying and monitoring for several herptile species as indicators to environmental health, water quality, as well as 

monitoring impacts of global climate change.

11. Conduct annual frog call surveys in accordance with the North American Amphibian 

Monitoring Program protocols; send this data 

to cooperating state partners. 

12. Conduct fisheries surveys every 5 years to 

monitor populations, environmental health, 

water quality, and to allow for recommendations necessary for regulation of sport fishing. 

13. Monitor deer populations to protect regenerating trees, prevent depredation issues on 

adjacent lands, ensure viable populations, and 

to generate data necessary for establishing 

annual hunting regulations. 

14. Partner with conservation and private organizations to assist with monitoring inventory 

and educational efforts.

15. Monitor Region 3 Regional Conservation Priority (RCP) species every 5 years through 

nationally recognized protocols and link 

results to regional and national databases.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

57

16. Ensuring high-quality scientifically based 

monitoring will require the addition of one 

wildlife biologist and two full-time biological 

science technicians. 

Objective 2.2: Federally Listed Threatened and 

Endangered Species

Protect federally listed species and their habitats. 

Rationale: Whooping Cranes, Indiana bats, and 

Least Terns use the Refuge. Least Terns and 

Whooping Cranes use the Refuge during migration. 

Indiana bats are resident species. The Refuge 

population of copperbelly watersnakes is not 

included in the federal listing, which addresses 

populations north of Indianapolis. However, ongoing 

research indicates that the Muscatatuck NWR 

population may be important because it is thriving 

while many populations are declining and may be 

attributable to various habitat components. A 

population of bog bluegrass is located in the seep 

spring area. This plant is apparently flourishing and 

well in that area. 

Strategies:

1. Maintain close coordination with the 

Ecological Services office on any habitat 

alteration that may affect Indiana bat habitat.

2. Facilitate continued research and monitoring 

of Indiana bats on the Refuge.

3. Facilitate continued research and monitoring 

of copperbelly watersnakes on the Refuge.

4. Facilitate inventory, mapping, monitoring, and 

research as necessary on federally-listed or 

candidate species that are found at the Refuge 

within the life of this plan. 

5. Consider federally-listed species when making 

management decisions and actions.

6. Protect, as necessary, areas and habitats 

known to benefit or support federally-listed 

species.

Objective 2.3: State T&E Species and Species of 

Concern

Consider known populations of state-listed 

species in management actions.

Rationale: Species on the state endangered list 

that occur on the Refuge include:

P Indiana bat

P southern rein orchid

P climbing hempvine

P copperbelly water snake

P four-toed salamander

P Kirtland’s snake

P eastern mud turtle

P Kirtland’s Warbler

P Peregrine Falcon

P Bald Eagle

P Yellow-crowned Night-Heron

P Black-crowned Night-Heron

P Virginia Rail

P Common Moorhen

P King Rail

P Least Bittern

P Loggerhead Shrike

P Osprey

P Trumpeter Swan

P Northern Harrier

Refuge sign. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

58

P American Bittern

P Upland Sandpiper

P Least Tern

P Black Tern

P Barn Owl

P Short-eared Owl

P Sedge Wren

P Golden-winged Warbler

P Cerulean Warbler

P Marsh Wren

P Henslow’s Sparrow

The following state species of special concern 

occurr on the Refuge: 

P least weasel

P little spectaclecase mussel

P rough green snake. 

P Sharp-shinned Hawk

P Red-shouldered Hawk

P Great Egret

P Sandhill Crane

P Broad-winged Hawk

P Black-and-white Warbler

P Worm-eating Warbler

P Hooded Warbler

P Greater Yellowlegs

P Solitary Sandpiper

P Ruddy Turnstone

P Short-billed Dowitcher

P Wilson’s Phalarope

P Chuck-will’s-widow

P Whip-poor-will

Several other plant species are included on a 

state watch list. Those species are: American 

ginseng, bog bluegrass, Walter's St. John's-wort, 

smooth white violet, and club spur orchid. The 

Refuge is within the range of several other statelisted species. Surveys need to be conducted to 

document the presence of these species on Refuge 

lands. A monitoring plan will be developed and 

surveys will be conducted to confirm species 

presence. State-listed threatened and endangered 

species will be considered in management actions on 

the Refuge.

Strategies:

1. Facilitate inventory, mapping, monitoring, and 

research as necessary of state-listed or 

candidate species that are found at the Refuge 

within the life of this plan.

2. Protect, as necessary, areas and habitats 

known to benefit or support state-listed species.

3. Consider state-listed species when making 

management decisions and actions.

Goal 3: People

Visitors understand and appreciate the Refuge and the

natural environment and its processes through 

participation in high-quality, wildlife-dependent, 

interpretive, recreational, and educational opportunities.

Introduction: “Quality,” as used in the following 

objectives, is defined by the criteria for developing 

and evaluating wildlife-dependent recreation 

programs in the Service Manual (605 FW 1). Quality 

incorporates elements of safety, minimal conflict, 

accessibility, resource stewardship, understanding, 

appreciation, and satisfaction. Quality also 

incorporates the reasonable opportunity to 

experience wildlife. The Improvement Act of 1997 

also directs refuges to promote opportunities for 

families to experience wildlife-dependent 

recreation, which will be considered in visitor 

services planning. 

Objective 3.1: Hunting

Refuge hunters will experience quality hunting 

opportunities for deer, Wild Turkey, squirrel, and 

rabbit. An opportunity to hunt quail will continue 

to be provided. 

Rationale: As one of the six priority wildlifedependent recreational uses identified in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997, hunting provides a traditional recreational 

activity on the Refuge with no definable adverse 

impacts to the biological integrity or habitat 

sustainability of Refuge resources. 

For safety, hunters will need to wear hunter 

orange on all hunts with the exception of turkey 

hunts. To minimize conflict with the purposes of the 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

59

Refuge there will be no waterfowl hunting and no 

hunting of any kind in the waterfowl sanctuary and 

the north east portion of the Refuge that is 

currently a no hunting area. Interpretive and 

informational programs delivered through 

brochures and special events will be developed to 

promote resource stewardship, understanding, and 

appreciation among hunters. Hunting times for 

squirrel, rabbit, and quail will be consistent with the 

State season. Archery deer hunting will extend, 

except for a break during the muzzleloader season, 

from after National Wildlife Refuge Week in 

October through the end of the State season. A 

muzzleloader hunt for deer will occur by special 

permit drawing during the State season. A hunt for 

turkey will occur by special permit drawing during 

the state spring season. To expand opportunities for 

youth and family participation, State youth hunts 

will be offered with the help of cooperators. 

Partners will also be solicited to help recruit underrepresented populations to participate in the 

hunting programs. (See Figure 9 on page 34.) 

Strategies: 

1. Develop a Visitor Services Step-down plan 

within 2 years.

2. Update Refuge-specific hunting regulations.

3. Recruit cooperators to assist with hunts by 

youth and under-represented populations.

Objective 3.2: Fishing

Refuge anglers will experience quality boat, 

shore and float-tube fishing on Stanfield Lake 

and quality bank, pier, or platform fishing 

opportunities on Stanfield and Richart Lakes, 

Lakes Sheryl and Linda, and Persimmon and the 

Sand Hill Ponds.

Rationale: As one of the six priority wildlifedependent recreational uses identified in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997, fishing provides a traditional recreational 

activity on the Refuge with no definable adverse 

impacts to the biological integrity or habitat 

sustainability of Refuge resources.

To better fulfill the quality criteria, modifications 

will be made to the current fishing program. To 

improve accessibility, electric trolling motors will be 

allowed on Stanfield Lake following several years of 

monitoring to develop a baseline understanding of 

fish populations and additional accessible fishing 

sites will be developed on Lake Sheryl and 

Persimmon Pond. Shoreline improvements 

(deepening) to existing fishing areas will be made in 

select areas to improve bank fishing. Interpretive 

and informational programs delivered through 

brochures, kiosks, and special events will be 

developed to promote resource stewardship, 

understanding, and appreciation. To improve the 

reasonable opportunity to experience wildlife, the 

take of fish will be more closely monitored and 

managed through regulation, which will insure 

sustainable, healthy populations. Spawning and 

nursery habitat will also be improved when feasible. 

To promote opportunities for children to fish, a pond 

will be designated as a “kids only” fishing pond with 

the possible restriction of catch and release.

To evaluate improvements in the fishing program 

and summarize progress, the Refuge will use the 

evaluation standards of RAPP (Refuge Annual 

Performance Plan). RAPP measures act as a 

general indicator or how successful management is 

in satisfying the criteria for quality of recreation use 

as described in the Service Manual. As the visitor 

services program of the Refuge matures and more 

details are specified in a visitor services plan, the 

Refuge will be able to move to more direct and 

specific measure of recreation quality. These direct 

measures will include a survey of visitors. 

Strategies: 

1. Develop a Visitor Services Step-down plan 

within 2 years.

2. Develop a fishery management plan in cooperation with the USFWS Carterville Fisheries 

Office.

Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

60

3. Update Refuge-specific regulations to permit 

electric motors on Stanfield Lake and designate a “kids only” fishing area.

4. Construct additional accessible fishing sites 

and modify existing sites.

5. Continue annual kids fishing event. 

6. Improve banks and shoreline to enhance fishing opportunities in select areas.

Objective 3.3: Wildlife Observation and 

Photography

Refuge visitors will experience quality wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities. 

Rationale: Wildlife observation and photography 

are both priority wildlife-dependent recreation 

activities listed in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997. These activities 

occur, for the most part, along or near Refuge roads 

and trails (Figure 13). To promote the safety and 

experience of participants, the west entrance to the 

Refuge will be closed. Closing the entrance will 

eliminate the use of Refuge roads as a short-cut for 

highway traffic and ensure that motorists using 

Refuge roads are there to visit the Refuge. The 

reduced traffic flow will contribute to a reduction in 

the conflicts between commuters and wildlife 

viewers. Bicycling is permitted on paved or gravel 

roads and would likely increase with less vehicle 

traffic and paving of the auto tour route. Trails will 

remain closed to bicycles to minimize conflict among 

visitors on narrow trail treads. To minimize 

maintenance work load and expense the East and 

West River Trails will not be maintained and allowed 

to revert back to forest. To improve accessibility and 

reduce dust, efforts will be made to obtain funding 

to pave with asphalt the auto tour route and improve 

the surface of trails. A wildlife observation structure 

will be built near the Shop area to facilitate viewing 

of wildlife using the open area. Species that are 

expected to be seen from the structure include deer, 

Wild Turkey, Sandhill Cranes occasionally, and 

Canada Geese. The Hackman Overlook structure 

will be evaluated in a visitor services step-down plan 

for potential modification or removal. The 

observation platform at the Restle Unit will be 

maintained and interpretation provided. Two annual 

photo contests and annual migratory bird day 

activities will be held to promote public 

understanding and increase appreciation of natural 

resources and the Refuge’s role in managing and 

conserving them.

Strategies: 

1. Develop a Visitor Services Step-down plan 

within 2 years.

2. Define and enter construction needs in the 

appropriate databases.

3. Survey visitors to determine the quality of 

their Refuge experience within 15 years.

4. Close West Entrance Road.

Objective 3.4: Interpretation and Environmental 

Education

Participants will experience quality interpretive 

and environmental education opportunities at or 

above the 2008 level.

Rationale: Interpretation and environmental 

education are both priority wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses listed in the National Wildlife 

Refuge system Improvement Act of 1997. 

Interpretation will be delivered through visitor 

center exhibits, programs, brochures, a website, and 

signs along the auto tour route, Chestnut Ridge 

Trail, trailhead and fishing area kiosks, and at the 

Myers Cabin. The Refuge will continue to host the 

annual Conservation Field Days for Jackson and 

Jennings County third-graders as part of the 

interpretive program. The Refuge will also continue 

to host the annual Indiana Junior Duck Stamp 

Program and contest. Interpretive activities will 

continue to be designed to promote resource 

stewardship, conservation, understanding, and 

appreciation of America’s natural resources and the 

Refuge’s role in managing those resources. 

Environmental education programs will be 

developed and administered to satisfy the Service’s 

description of environmental education as specified 

in current policy. Following the principle of allowing 

program participants to demonstrate learning 

through Refuge-specific stewardship tasks and 

projects that they can carry over into their 

everyday lives (605 FW 6.4.B), the Refuge will 

continue to work with Hayden School and others on 

Refuge activities. 

Strategies: 

1. Develop a Visitor Services Step-down plan 

within 2 years.

2. Continue interpretive programs and visitor 

center exhibits at 2008 level or higher.

3. Improve Refuge brochures and website.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

61

Figure 13: Future Visitor Facilities, Muscatatuck NWR
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

62

4. Continue activities with the Hayden School 

group and the Junior Birder program.

5. Continue the Conservation Field Day events.

6. Improve interpretive signs on the Auto Tour 

Route, Chestnut Ridge Interpretive Trail, 

trailheads, and fishing sites. 

7. Hire one full-time park ranger to organize and 

augment the interpretation and environmental 

education program, including oversight of the 

visitor services step-down plan, increasing 

Refuge programming, and ongoing coordination with local schools. (Position will also serve 

to enhance volunteer coordination.)

Objective 3.5: Volunteers

The 3-year moving average of annual hours 

contributed by volunteers will increase 

throughout the life of the plan. 

Rationale: The Refuge has received strong 

support from volunteers and interns. Opportunities 

for enhancing the wildlife and visitor services 

programs will likely always exceed the Refuge’s 

budget. Therefore, all Refuge activities will continue 

to benefit from volunteer participation, and certain 

activities will require volunteer participation to be 

successful. A coordinated and efficiently run 

volunteer program will be essential to achieving 

many Refuge goals. A continuously expanding 

program is desirable, but unforeseen circumstances 

may affect the level of participation in a particular 

year. Therefore, a 3-year moving average will be 

used to monitor the participation in the volunteer 

program, which will permit some variation from 

year to year but document long-term growth.

Strategies: 

1. Recruit new volunteers to assist with resource 

management and visitor services. 

2. Recognize and supervise volunteers as adjunct 

staff.

3. Continue to staff the Visitor Center with volunteers.

4. Add one full-time park ranger with split 

responsibilities between volunteer coordination, environmental education, and interpretation. 

Objective 3.6: Partnerships 

Increase and improve partnerships over the level 

of the 2007 program.

Rationale: Partnerships greatly expand the 

range of conservation activities. Muscatatuck NWR 

has been fortunate to have many partners in the 

local area including the Refuge friends group (the 

Muscatatuck Wildlife Society), the local Soil and 

Water Conservation Districts, NRCS, Purdue 

Extension, local Ducks Unlimited Chapters, the 

local Wild Turkey Federation, the Indiana 

Department of Natural Resources, local Resource 

Conservation and Development Councils, area 

Conservation and Birding Clubs, sporting good 

stores, scouting and civic groups, local Visitor 

Bureaus, the U.S. Forest Service, the Hayden 

School Refuge Rangers, local universities, and many 

others. 

Strategies: 

1. Maintain existing partnerships by committing 

staff time to work with partners on FWS 

priority conservation activities.

2. Contact at least one new potential partner 

each year.

Objective 3.7: Community Outreach 

Promote public understanding and appreciation 

of Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge to 

traditional and under-represented populations 

through off-site events, programs, newsletters 

and website at levels at least as great as 2008. 

Rationale: The Refuge values its visitors, 

neighbors, and the local community. The Refuge is 

an asset to the community and has received strong 

support in the past. Continued support is essential 

for the success of the Refuge. It is important that 

The Refuge Bookstore, Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

63

the Refuge continues efforts to build and maintain 

open communications with neighbors and the 

broader community to let them know the successes, 

challenges, and opportunities in conservation and 

wildlife-dependent recreation. In an ideal setting, 

the objective would be to achieve an appreciation of 

the value and need for fish and wildlife conservation 

among a larger percentage of the population living 

around the Refuge. The success in achieving the 

objective would be determined through a survey of 

the general population. However, for an objective to 

be useful it must be measurable in both a conceptual 

and practical sense. It is not practical to propose 

that the Refuge will conduct a survey of the general 

population anytime in the next few years, because 

the approvals and costs are beyond the likely 

resources of the Refuge. As an alternative, the 

objective reflects the assumption that providing 

neighbors and community members with written 

and oral information will lead to positive 

conservation attitudes and action. Public 

understanding of the purpose of Refuge lands, 

including appropriate and compatible uses, may 

lead to a reduction in illegal activities such as 

dumping, littering, and speeding on Refuge roads. 

Strategies: 

1. Upgrade the Refuge website with both basic 

and time-sensitive and newsworthy 

information about Muscatatuck NWR.

2. Maintain a Refuge mailing list and Refuge 

newsletter.

3. Review and update the station outreach plan.

Objective 3.8: Law Enforcement

People feel safe on Muscatatuck NWR and the 

resource is protected.

Rationale: The Refuge is responsible for 

protecting Refuge resources and providing a safe 

environment for employees and visitors. The 

Refuge's law enforcement program is a critical tool 

in protecting trust resources, habitat, public 

facilities, employees, and the visiting public. To 

provide this essential service, the Refuge will share 

regional resources and cooperate with other law 

enforcement authorities to meet its responsibilities. 

Strategies: 

1. Share regional law enforcement resources.

2. Partner with Indiana DNR Conservation Officers and other state and local law enforcement 

officers.

Objective 3.9: Cultural Resources

Over the life of the plan, avoid and protect 

against disturbance all known Refuge cultural, 

historic, or archeological sites.

Rationale: Cultural resources are an important 

facet of the country’s heritage. Muscatatuck NWR, 

like all national wildlife refuges and wetland 

management districts, remains committed to 

preserving archeological and historic sites against 

degradation, looting, and other adverse impacts. 

The guiding principle for management derives from 

the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as 

amended, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. and the 

Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 as 

amended, 16 U.S.C. 47011-mm, which establish legal 

mandates and protection against identifying sites 

for the public, etc. The Refuge must ensure 

archeological and cultural values are described, 

identified, and taken into consideration prior to 

implementing projects. It is also essential that new 

site discoveries are documented. In order to meet 

these responsibilities, the Refuge intends to 

maintain an open dialogue with the Regional 

Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) and to 

provide the RHPO with information about new 

archeological site discoveries. The Refuge will also 

cooperate with Federal, state, and local agencies, 

American Indian tribes, the Muscatatuck Wildlife 

Society, and the public in managing cultural 

resources on the Refuge. 

The Muscatatuck Wildlife Society was instrumental in 

preserving the Myers Barn. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

64

Strategies: 

1. Conduct site-specific surveys prior to ground 

disturbing projects and protect known 

archeological, cultural and historic sites.

2. Inform the Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer early in project planning to ensure 

compliance with Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act.

3. In the event of inadvertent discoveries of 

ancient human remains or artifacts, follow 

instructions and procedures indicated by the 

RHPO.

4. Ensure archeological and cultural values are 

described, identified, and taken into consideration prior to implementing undertakings.

5. Inspect the condition of known cultural 

resources on the Refuge and report to the 

RHPO changes in the conditions.

6. Integrate historic preservation with planning 

and management of other resources and activities.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

65

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Introduction

This chapter summarizes the actions, funding, 

coordination, and monitoring to implement the CCP. 

As noted in the inside cover of this document, this 

plan does not constitute a commitment for staffing 

increases or operational and maintenance increases. 

These decisions are at the discretion of Congress in 

overall appropriations, and in budget allocation 

decisions made at the Washington and Regional 

levels of the Service. 

New and Existing Projects 

This CCP outlines an ambitious course of action 

for the future management of Muscatatuck NWR. It 

will require considerable staff commitment as well 

as funding commitment to actively manage the 

wildlife habitats and add and improve public use 

facilities. The Refuge will continually need 

appropriate operational and maintenance funding to 

implement the objectives in this plan. A full listing 

of unfunded Refuge projects and operational needs 

can be found in Appendix G.

Staffing 

Implementing the vision set forth in this CCP will 

require changes in the organizational structure of 

the Refuge. Existing staff will direct their time and 

energy in new directions and new staff members 

will need to be added to assist in these efforts. 

In March of 2008 a national team of Refuge 

System professionals developed a staffing model to 

estimate the personnel required to effectively 

operate and manage the existing 589 field stations of 

the NWRS. Fifteen factors were used in the 

evaluation, covering the following topics: 

P total acres, acres actively managed, and number 

of easement contracts

P endangered and invasive species populations

P biological management and monitoring; threats 

and conflicts

P wilderness management

P visitor services: visitation, education programs, 

volunteers, Friends

P maintenance needs and existing assets 

The model attempts to project staffing levels in a 

systematic, qualitative manner. No model is perfect 

or the final word in estimating staffing needs, but 

this type of model is useful for supporting personnel 

actions and fosters consistent staffing decisionmaking. The 2008 model projected only the total 

maximum number of full-time equivalent (FTE) 

positions needed at each station, not the individual 

disciplines or specialties. Law enforcement positions 

were not included in the assessment. In order to 

implement the staffing model, the final report 

recommended that each Region adjust the final 

model numbers as necessary and identify the most 

appropriate position types for each station. 

Little Blue Heron. Photo credit: Mark Trabue
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

66

The 2008 staffing model results for Muscatatuck 

NWR included a total of 14 FTE positions, with a 

subsequent adjustment at the regional level to 11. 

With current staffing of six FTEs, the Refuge was 

asked to identify five additional positions and rank 

them from greatest to least priority (see Table 4 ). 

The additional personnel would expand and improve 

the quality of the field program, especially invasive 

species control, the forestry program, water 

resource management, and environmental 

education on the Refuge.

The staffing model illustrates full staffing at 

Muscatatuck NWR under optimum conditions. Due 

to the reality of financial constraints and operating 

budgets within the Service, it may not be possible to 

reach full staffing levels immediately. However, the 

amount and quality of management on a refuge 

heavily depends on the personnel resources 

available to implement the plan.

Partnership Opportunities

Partnerships are an essential element for the 

successful accomplishment of goals, objectives, and 

strategies at Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge. 

The objectives outlined in this CCP need the 

support and the partnerships of federal, state and 

local agencies, non-governmental organizations and 

individual citizens. Refuge staff will continue to seek 

creative partnership opportunities to achieve the 

vision of the Refuge.

We expect to continue to work with the following 

notable partners while developing new 

partnerships: 

P Muscatatuck Wildlife Society

P local Soil and Water Conservation Districts

P NRCS

P Purdue Extension

P local Ducks Unlimited chapters

P National Wild Turkey Federation

P Indiana Department of Natural Resources

P local Resource Conservation and Development 

Councils 

P area conservation and birding clubs

P sporting good stores

P Scouting and civic groups

P local Visitor Bureaus

P U.S. Forest Service

P Hayden School Refuge Rangers

P local universities

P The Nature Conservancy

P Sycamore Land Trust

Step-Down Management 

Plans

The CCP is a plan that provides general concepts 

and specific wildlife, habitat, and people related 

objectives. Step-down management plans provide 

greater detail to managers and employees who will 

carry out the strategies described in the CCP. The 

Refuge staff will revise or develop the following 

step-down plans: 

P Habitat Management Plan, including a forest 

component (5 years)

Table 4: Additional Staffing as Indicated by the 2008 Refuge System 

Staffing Model

PROPOSED NEW POSITIONS FTE RANK

Wildlife Biologist (Invasive Species Management) 1 1

Equipment Operator 1 2

Park Ranger (Interpretation/Volunteer Coordination) 1 3

Biological Science Technician (Invasive Species Management) 1 4

Biological Science Technician (Forestry & Invasive Species) 1 5
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

67

P Water Management Plan for Restle Unit (2 

years)

P Integrated Pest Management Plan (5 years)

P Visitor Services Plan (2 years)

P Fishery Management Plan (5 years) 

P Habitat and Wildlife Monitoring Plans (3 years)

Monitoring and Evaluation

The direction set forth in this CCP and 

specifically identified strategies and projects will be 

monitored throughout the life of this plan. On a 

periodic basis, the Regional Office will assemble a 

station review team whose purpose will be to visit 

the Refuge and evaluate current 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 for evaluation of 

this field station.

Plan Review and Revision

The CCP is meant to provide guidance to the 

Refuge manager and staff over the next 15 years. 

However, the CCP is also a dynamic and flexible 

document and several of the strategies contained in 

this plan are subject to uncontrollable events of 

nature. Likewise, many of the strategies are 

dependent upon Service funding for staff and 

projects. Because of all 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.

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

69

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Muscatatuck

National Wildlife Refuge

Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

71

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need .......................................................................................................................................................77

1.1 Background ...........................................................................................................................................................77

1.2 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................................77

1.3 Need for Action ....................................................................................................................................................77

1.4 Decision Framework .............................................................................................................................................77

1.5 Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ..................................................................................................79

1.6 Scoping of the Issues ...........................................................................................................................................79

1.6.1 Habitat and Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................79

1.6.2 Visitor Services ...........................................................................................................................................79

1.6.3 Refuge Roads ..............................................................................................................................................80

1.6.4 Recreational Issues .....................................................................................................................................80

1.6.5 Threats and Conflicts ..................................................................................................................................80

1.6.6 Support ........................................................................................................................................................80

Chapter 2: Description of the Alternatives .................................................................................................................................81

2.1 Formulation of Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................81

2.1.1 Elements Common to All Alternatives ........................................................................................................81

2.2 Alternative A: Current Management Direction (No Action) .................................................................................82

2.2.1 Habitat .........................................................................................................................................................82

2.2.2 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................................82

2.2.3 People ..........................................................................................................................................................82

2.3 Alternative B: Increased Restoration of Natural Processes; Maintain Focus on 

Priority General Public Uses ..............................................................................................................................85

2.3.1 Habitat .........................................................................................................................................................85

2.3.2 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................................87

2.3.3 People ..........................................................................................................................................................87

2.4 Alternative C: Balance Natural Processes and Constructed Units; Increased Focus on 

High Quality Priority General Public Uses (Preferred Alternative) ....................................................................90

2.4.1 Habitat .........................................................................................................................................................90

2.4.2 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................................92

2.4.3 People ..........................................................................................................................................................92

2.5 Alternative D: Intensified Management of Constructed Units; Expanded Priority General Public Uses .............95

2.5.1 Habitat .........................................................................................................................................................95

2.5.2 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................................97

2.5.3 People ..........................................................................................................................................................97
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

72

Chapter 3: Affected Environment ...............................................................................................................................................111

3.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................111

3.2 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ..........................................................................................................................111

3.3 Socioeconomic Setting .......................................................................................................................................111

3.4 Climate ................................................................................................................................................................113

3.5 Geology and Soils ...............................................................................................................................................113

3.6 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................................................113

3.7 Refuge Habitats and Wildlife .............................................................................................................................113

3.7.1 Wetlands ...................................................................................................................................................113

3.7.2 Forests .......................................................................................................................................................113

3.7.3 Grasslands .................................................................................................................................................115

3.7.4 Birds ...........................................................................................................................................................115

3.7.5 Mammals ..................................................................................................................................................116

3.7.6 Amphibians and Reptiles ..........................................................................................................................116

3.7.7 Fish ............................................................................................................................................................116

3.7.8 Invertebrates .............................................................................................................................................116

3.7.9 Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................................................................117

3.7.9.1 Threatened/Endangered/Candidate Species (Federally Listed) ..................................................................117

3.7.9.2 State-listed/Candidate Species ...................................................................................................................117

3.8 Threats to Resources ..........................................................................................................................................117

3.8.1 Invasive/Exotic/Pest Species ....................................................................................................................117

3.8.2 Contaminants ............................................................................................................................................117

3.9 Archeological and Cultural Values .....................................................................................................................118

3.10 Other Management Areas ................................................................................................................................119

3.10.1 Research Natural Area ............................................................................................................................119

3.10.2 Restle Unit ...............................................................................................................................................119

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................................................121

4.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives ...................................................................................................................121

4.1.1 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................................121

4.1.2 Environmental Justice ...............................................................................................................................121

4.1.3 Climate Change Impacts ...........................................................................................................................121

4.1.4 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................................122

4.1.5 Other Common Effects ..............................................................................................................................122

4.2 Management Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................122

4.2.1 Alternative A: Current Management Direction (No Action) .....................................................................122

4.2.2 Alternative B: Increased Restoration of Natural Processes; Maintain Focus on 

Priority General Public Uses ...................................................................................................................124

4.2.3 Alternative C: Balance Natural Processes and Constructed Units; Increased Focus on 

High Quality Priority General Public Uses (Preferred Alternative) .........................................................127

4.2.4 Alternative D: Intensified Management of Constructed Units; 

Expanded Priority General Public Uses ...................................................................................................130

4.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis ............................................................................................................................135

4.3.1 Hardwood Forests .....................................................................................................................................135
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

73

4.3.2 Hunting ......................................................................................................................................................135

4.3.2.1 Anticipated Impacts on Wildlife Species ...................................................................................................135

4.3.2.2 Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Programs ...................................................................................................137

Chapter 5: List of Preparers .........................................................................................................................................................138

Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Location of Muscatatuck NWR ........................................................................................................................78

Figure 2: Future Landcover Under Alternative A (Current Management), Muscatatuck NWR ......................................83

Figure 3: Visitor Services Facilities Under Alternative A, Muscatatuck NWR ...............................................................84

Figure 4: Landcover Under Alternative B, Increased Restoration, Muscatatuck NWR ..................................................86

Figure 5: Visitor Services Under Alternative B, Muscatatuck NWR ...............................................................................88

Figure 6: Landcover Under Alternative C Balance Natural and Constructed, Muscatatuck NWR .................................91

Figure 7: Visitor Services Facilities Under Alternative C, Muscatatuck NWR ...............................................................93

Figure 8: Landcover Under Alternative D, Intensified Management, Muscatatuck NWR .............................................96

Figure 9: Visitor Services Facilities Under Alternative D, Muscatatuck NWR ...............................................................98

Figure 10: Landcover in the Vicinicty of Muscatatuck NWR ........................................................................................112

Figure 11: Conservation Lands Surrounding Muscatatuck NWR ..................................................................................114

Table 1: Summary of Draft Management Alternatives for Muscatatuck NWR ..............................................................................101

Table 2: Summary of Impacts ...........................................................................................................................................................133

Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

75

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR the IMPLEMENTATION OF a COMPREHENSIVE 

CONSERVATION PLAN FOR MUSCATATUCK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Abstract: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to implement a Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) for the Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in south-central Indiana. This Draft 

Environmental Assessment (EA) considers the biological, environmental and socioeconomic effects that 

implementing the CCP (the preferred alternative is the proposed action) and three 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 Refuge for the next 15 years. The management action will be 

achieved by implementing a detailed set of goals, objectives, and strategies described in a CCP.

Responsible Agency and Official:

Thomas Melius, Regional Director 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Bishop Henry Whipple Building

1 Federal Drive

Ft. Snelling, MN 55111

Contacts for additional information about this project:

Marc Webber, Refuge Manager

Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

12985 East U.S. Highway 50

Seymour, Indiana 47274

Office Phone: (812)522-4352

Fax: (812)522-6826

Jared Bowman

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

NWRS/Conservation Planning

Bishop Henry Whipple Building

1 Federal Drive

Ft. Snelling, MN 55111

612/713-5469

Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

77

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

1.1 Background

The Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR), established in 1966, manages 7,802 acres in 

Jackson, Jennings, and Monroe Counties of Indiana 

(Figure 1). The Refuge also administers nine 

conservation easements, totaling 130.5 acres in five 

Indiana counties. The Refuge consists of wetland, 

grassland and woodland communities. The Refuge 

provides habitat for many avian species including 

ducks, geese, non-game grassland and forest birds 

including many neo-tropical migrants, shorebirds, 

wading birds, birds of prey and wild turkey. A wide 

variety of reptiles and mammals including the 

copperbelly water snake, Kirtland’s snake, the 

federally listed endangered Indiana bat, river otter, 

and white-tailed deer, many fish species and a broad 

range of terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates also 

inhabit the refuge. Included among the diverse 

assortment of wildlife found on the Refuge are 

several federally listed species and many more 

state-listed species.

1.2 Purpose

The purpose of the proposed action is to specify a 

management direction for Muscatatuck National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR) over the coming 15 years. 

The purpose of the Environmental Assessment is to 

select a management direction for the Refuge that 

best achieves the Refuge’s purposes, vision and 

goals; contributes to the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System; is consistent with 

principles of sound fish and wildlife management;

and addresses relevant mandates and major issues 

developed during scoping. The management 

direction will be described in detail through a set of 

goals, objectives, and strategies in a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP). 

1.3 Need for Action

The action is needed because adequate long-term 

management direction does not currently exist for 

the Refuge. Management is now guided by various 

general policies, short-term plans, and a 25-year old 

Master Plan, which does not reflect current 

conditions or recent scientific knowledge. The action 

is also needed to address current management 

issues and to satisfy the legislative mandates of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997, which requires the preparation of a CCP for 

all national wildlife refuges in the United States.

This EA presents four management alternatives 

for the future of Muscatatuck NWR. The preferred 

alternative will be selected based on its ability to 

meet identified goals. These goals may also be 

considered as the primary need for action. Goals for 

the Refuge were developed by the planning team 

and encompass all aspects of Refuge management, 

including wildlife, habitat, and people. Each of the 

management alternatives described in this EA will 

be able to, at least minimally, achieve the following 

Refuge goals.

Habitat: A dynamic mosaic of vegetation that 

includes an expanse of upland and floodplain 

deciduous forest similar to that historically present 

along with lakes, marshes, and moist soil units.

Wildlife: Support the maximum sustainable 

breeding and post-breeding populations of cavitynesting waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, 

Indiana bats, and a diversity of migratory, rare 

wetland, and resident species.

People: Visitors understand and appreciate the 

natural environment and its processes through 

participation in high quality, wildlife-dependent 

interpretation, recreational and educational 

opportunities. 

1.4 Decision Framework

The Regional Director for the Midwest Region 

(Region 3 of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service) will 

need to make two decisions based on this EA: (1) 

select an alternative for the Refuge, and (2) 

determine if the selected alternative is a major 

Federal action significantly affecting the quality of 

the human environment, thus requiring preparation 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

78

Figure 1: Location of Muscatatuck NWR
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

79

of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The 

planning team has recommended Alternative C 

(“Balance Natural Processes & Constructed Units; 

Increased Focus on High Quality Priority General 

Public Uses”) to the Regional Director. The Draft 

CCP was developed for implementation based on 

these recommendations.

1.5 Authority, Legal 

Compliance, and 

Compatibility

The National Wildlife Refuge System includes 

federal lands managed primarily to provide habitat 

for a diversity of fish, wildlife and plant species. 

National wildlife refuges are established under 

many different authorities and funding sources for a 

variety of purposes. Muscatatuck National Wildlife 

Refuge is a part of the Refuge System and the 

authority and purposes are derived from several 

federal statutes.

The Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

established a Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission to approve areas of land or water 

recommended by the Secretary of the Interior for 

acquisition as reservations for migratory birds. 

Consultation with state and local government is 

required prior to acquisition. The acquired lands are 

for use “as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other 

management purpose, for migratory birds.” 

The mandate for FmHA Easements and Fee title 

transfers “...for conservation purposes...” is codified 

in 7USC2002.

Appendix E of the Draft CCP contains a list of 

the key laws, orders and regulations that provide a 

framework for the proposed action.

1.6 Scoping of the Issues

The planning process for this CCP began in 

March 2007. Initially, members of the regional 

planning staff and Muscatatuck NWR staff 

identified a list of issues and concerns that were 

associated with the management of the Refuge. 

These preliminary issues and concerns were based 

on staff knowledge of the area and contacts with 

citizens in the community.

The official notice of the intent to develop a CCP 

for the Refuge was published in the Federal 

Register on May 16, 2007. Refuge staff and Service 

planners then asked Refuge neighbors, 

organizations, local government units, and 

interested citizens to share their thoughts in an 

open house and through written comments. In May 

2007, people were invited to an open house at the 

Refuge’s visitor center through local papers and a 

project update sent to the Refuge’s mailing list of 

1,132. Twenty-five people attended the open house. 

Comments were received from approximately 35 

individuals during the comment period, which ended 

June 30, 2007. Following the public comment period, 

an additional meeting was held in the Fish and 

Wildlife Service Regional Office to review the public 

comments and identify concerns from subject 

specialists.

A biological review of Refuge programs held 

June 20-21, 2007 helped clarify the habitat and 

wildlife issues. The biological review team included 

scientists from the U.S. Geological Sur vey, 

universities, and the State of Indiana, Regional 

Office representatives, Indiana state and U.S. 

Department of Agriculture managers, and Refuge 

staff. A visitor services review report of the Refuge 

dated August, 2006 helped clarify visitor services 

issues and provided potential actions to consider in 

formulating alternatives. The visitor services review 

team included regional and Refuge visitor services 

specialists and Refuge staff.

The following list of issues and concerns was 

compiled from internal Refuge scoping, public open 

house sessions and program reviews:

1.6.1 Habitat and Wildlife

There is a need to prioritize wildlife species of 

management concern and their habitats and, within 

budget constraints and other limitations, manage 

according to those priorities. A strategic 

management direction is needed for wetlands, 

grasslands, forests, croplands, and the conversion of 

open lands to forests. Visitors see the current 

diversity of habitat as valuable because it provides 

an opportunity to see a large number of bird and 

resident wildlife species.

1.6.2 Visitor Services

Visitors and staff recognize a tremendous 

potential in wildlife-dependent recreation, a popular 

and valued use of the Refuge. There is a need to 

weigh the delivery of visitor services within the 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

80

wildlife mission of the Refuge and seek creative 

means for expanding wildlife-dependent recreation 

opportunities, outreach, and education.

1.6.3 Refuge Roads

The public recognizes the value of Refuge roads 

for access. There is a wide spectrum of opinion on 

how the roads should be maintained. Some like the 

roads as they are now; others would like to see 

improvements in the roads and associated facilities 

such as parking lots and wildlife overlooks.

1.6.4 Recreational Issues

Some individuals would like to see recreational 

opportunities expand on the Refuge to include dog 

training, an archery range, and horseback riding. 

These activities typically do not occur on refuges 

and many are not wildlife-dependent in nature. The 

planning process presents an opportunity to 

evaluate the requests and reach a decision on their 

appropriateness and compatibility.

1.6.5 Threats and Conflicts

The public and staff recognize the challenges that 

increasing development around the perimeter of the 

Refuge will create for Refuge management and 

wildlife conservation in the area. There is also 

recognition of the need for aggressive management 

of invasive species.

1.6.6 Support

There is wide support for the Refuge and its 

management among visitors. They note the value of 

the Friends Group, volunteer, and intern programs.
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

81

Chapter 2: Description of the Alternatives

2.1 Formulation of 

Alternatives

The CCP planning team developed management 

alternatives for the Refuge based on the issues, 

concerns and opportunities raised during the CCP 

scoping process. The issues that are discussed came 

from individuals, local citizens and officials, 

cooperating agencies, conservation organizations 

and Refuge staff. Summaries of the four 

alternatives are provided in Table 1 on page 101. 

The management alternatives were developed to 

generally fit within the current Refuge budget. The 

alternatives were formulated under the assumption 

that a large budget increase for operations is 

unlikely during the life of the plan. The alternatives 

vary through the reallocation of existing fiscal and 

staff resources to emphasize different aspects of 

Refuge programs. The alternatives also consider 

the possibility of new private resources (volunteers, 

grant funds, etc.) and a modest Refuge program 

and/or staff funding increase over the next 15 years.

The concerns facing the planning team related to 

habitat and wildlife, visitor services, Refuge roads, 

recreational issues, threats and conflicts, and 

support of the Refuge. The team acknowledged that 

the Refuge benefits a broad diversity of wildlife and 

plants in addition to the migratory birds that are 

central to its purpose. The team also recognized the 

close ties of the community to the land and the 

Refuge, the emerging relationship to Sandhill 

Cranes, and the importance of the Refuge to the 

recreational experiences of visitors. 

 Despite its focus on waterfowl, throughout its 

existence the Refuge has been recognized as 

benefiting species other than waterfowl. During the 

CCP process the benefits have begun to be stated 

more explicitly, and the value of the Refuge in 

providing a diversity of habitat for a diversity of 

wildlife acknowledged. The team also recognized 

that some past investments in infrastructure have 

not been maintained and managed in an optimum 

manner. After years of experience at the Refuge and 

at other Refuges, the team acknowledged that the 

costs and challenges of effectively managing moist 

soil units and greentree reservoirs are greater than 

anticipated when the units were constructed.

The planning team evaluated the current 

management of the Refuge and thought about how 

management might change as a function of attention 

to other species, a re-evaluation of the constructed 

management units, and the variety of demands and 

rewards related to public use. The team’s evaluation 

of current management was that the Refuge, given 

its resources, can be better managed through a 

fresh evaluation of what has or has not worked in 

the past and what might be the focus of activities in 

the coming years given newer scientific knowledge. 

So, the team’s challenge was to craft alternatives to 

management that considered the possible 

reallocation of resources to include other outcomes 

and what might be gained with a modest increase in 

resources over the next 15 years.

The following sections describe the current 

management and three alternatives crafted by the 

planning team. Chapter 4 of this environmental 

assessment describes the consequences that would 

likely result from the actions in each alternative.

2.1.1 Elements Common to All 

Alternatives

Under all alternatives federally-listed threatened 

and endangered species would be protected and 

their populations monitored on Refuge lands.

Under all alternatives the Refuge would 

coordinate its objectives and activities with the 

Indiana DNR. The Refuge would consider known 

populations of state-listed species in management 

actions under every alternative. 

Under all alternatives visitors would feel safe and 

the Refuge’s resources would be protected through 

sharing regional law enforcement resources and 

partnering with Indiana DNR Conservation 

Officers and other enforcement authorities.
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

82

Under all alternatives the Refuge Manager 

would, during early planning, provide the Regional 

Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) a description 

and location of all undertakings (projects, activities, 

routine maintenance and operations that affect 

ground and structures, and requests for permitted 

uses); and of alternatives being considered. The 

RHPO would analyze these undertakings for their 

potential to affect historic properties and enter into 

consultation with the State Historic Preservation 

Officer and other parties as appropriate. The 

Refuge Manager would notify the public and local 

government officials to identify their concerns about 

potential impacts by the undertaking; this 

notification will be at least equal to the public 

notification accomplished for NEPA and 

compatibility.

2.2 Alternative A: Current 

Management Direction 

(No Action)

Under this alternative the activities of the Refuge 

would continue as in the past with current staffing 

and resources.

2.2.1 Habitat

With the goal of providing an expanse of upland 

and bottomland forest, management of existing 

forest would consist primarily of allowing natural 

processes to occur with little active manipulation. 

Conversion of former cropland to forest would occur 

through natural succession with a limited amount of 

tree planting. Under this alternative, 670 acres of 

former cropland would be allowed to succeed to 

forest. Bottomland forest in the two greentree 

reservoirs and Moss Lake would continue to be 

managed as they have been in the past. Greentree 

units would be managed empty, except for natural 

flooding, during the summer months to allow for 

tree growth and then flooded after leaf drop, usually 

in mid-November, to allow for resting and feeding 

areas for ducks in migration and then drawn down 

to empty in early March.

Open water, notably that in Stanfield and Richart 

lakes and larger ponds as depicted in Figure 2, 

would be maintained under this alternative. The 

lakes provide habitat for broods and migrant birds 

and serve as a water supply for other managed 

wetland units on the Refuge. The lakes (Stanfield, 

Richart, Sheryl, Linda) and ponds (Persimmon, 

Sand Hill, Mallard and Display) are also fishing 

areas for visitors.

The 383 acres of seasonally flooded 

impoundments that are managed as moist soil units 

would continue to be managed as they have been. 

Water levels would be manipulated to provide Wood 

Duck habitat and mudflats for shorebirds. 

Variations in water levels among units provide an 

increased area and time for feeding by waterfowl, 

marsh birds, and shorebirds. The variation also 

increases moist soil plant foods for fall migrants. 

About 575 acres of Moss Lake would continue to be 

seasonally flooded with benefits similar to the moist 

soil units on a portion of that acreage.

Habitat in an early successional stage that occurs 

on the Refuge where farmland is reverting to more 

natural conditions would continue to be allowed to 

succeed through natural processes. Some tree 

planting would occur in these areas to encourage a 

more rapid succession to forest with species native 

to the area.

The 250 acres of agricultural land that are 

currently in crop rotation would continue to be 

farmed under this alternative. Invasive plant 

species would be addressed by continuing to treat 

approximately 220 acres each year. There would be 

a continuing attempt to move water away from the 

Seep Springs Research Natural Area as time and 

resource were available. The Restle Unit would 

continue to be managed to maintain the 30 acre 

seasonally flooded impoundment and 48 acres of 

bottomland hardwood forest. Active management of 

the forest on the Restle Unit would not occur.

2.2.2 Wildlife

Wildlife related activities on the Refuge consist 

primarily of surveys and studies. Little direct 

management of wildlife occurs. Under this 

alternative the current surveys would continue and 

studies, principally initiated by others, would occur 

sporadically. Species surveyed would include cavitynesting waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, 

migratory waterbirds, fish and other aquatic 

species. 

2.2.3 People

The current wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities and services available to visitors 

(Figure 3) would continue under this alternative. 

Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

83

Figure 2: Future Land Cover Under Alternative A (Current Management), Muscatatuck NWR
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

84

Figure 3: Visitor Services Facilities Under Alternative A, Muscatatuck NWR
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

85

photography, interpretation, and environmental 

education activities would continue as in the past 

with incremental improvement in the programs. 

The Refuge would continue to be open from sunrise 

to sunset, and entry to the Refuge would remain 

free. The work of the Refuge would continue to be 

supported by The Muscatatuck Wildlife Society and 

volunteers. Nine miles of public roads and two 

public entrances would continue to provide access to 

the Refuge. Public access would only be limited in 

the 770 acres of closed areas associated with the 

waterfowl sanctuary area and the Refuge shop and 

quarters areas. Outreach activities would continue 

and include representation at off-site events, 

newsletters, and a website.

2.3 Alternative B: Increased 

Restoration of Natural 

Processes; Maintain 

Focus on Priority General 

Public Uses

Under this alternative the Refuge would increase 

the size of its forests and manage fewer acres of 

constructed wetlands and increasingly rely on 

natural processes to provide wildlife habitat 

(Figure 4). There would be increased attention to 

surveys, monitoring and habitat restoration, and a 

portion of the Refuge would be treated as more 

remote and primitive. A biological technician would 

be added to the staff to accomplish increased survey 

and monitoring activities, and 1 FTE Equipment 

Operator would be required to support habitat 

restoration efforts and control invasive plants.

2.3.1 Habitat

With the goal of providing an expanse of upland 

and bottomland forest, management of existing 

forest would consist of restoring forest to more 

closely resemble historic conditions and to allow 

succession to occur through natural processes. 

Active forest management could include timber 

stand improvement activities of thinning, site 

preparation for natural reproduction, removal of 

undesirable tree species and release cutting or 

killing of undesirable older, over topping trees. 

Active management could also include small and 

larger changes to the topography within the forest 

to re-establish ephemeral wetlands that would have 

occurred historically. Conversion of former cropland 

to forest would occur through natural succession 

with a limited amount of tree planting. Under this 

alternative 920 acres of former cropland would be 

allowed to succeed to forest. The two greentree 

reservoirs would be reconnected to the river and 

water allowed to flood and ebb with the river’s flow. 

Active forest management of timber stand 

improvement and topography changes could also be 

used in the bottomland forests. Moss Lake would be 

managed to recreate a more naturalistic and 

dynamic hydrological regime, which consists of 

seasonal and annual variation of water levels, 

structured within the framework of the cyclical 

climatic patterns. This process would restore the 

natural pulsing hydrology and introduce periodic 

drawdown to the management regimen. Such 

changes would increase productivity within the unit 

from increases in emergent plant and invertebrate 

production. Water would no longer be impounded in 

the surrounding forested areas, but would be 

influenced by more natural flood events. The depth, 

duration, and frequency of flooding of the forest 

perimeter would be greatly reduced. Currently, the 

Moss Lake impoundment is managed in a fairly 

static state with prescription flood and drawdown 

dates; flooding is fairly constant and extended and 

drawdown of the unit has not been pursued.

Open water, except for Stanfield and Richart 

Lakes, as depicted in Figure 4, would be allowed to 

gradually revert to forested wetlands under this 

alternative, although this may take a century to 

occur. Stanfield and Richart Lakes provide habitat 

for migrant birds, and to some degree broods, and 

serve as a water supply for other managed wetland 

units on the Refuge. The lakes are also fishing areas 

for visitors. By returning the smaller ponds to forest 

and forested wetlands, the area will more closely 

approximate what existed historically and will likely 

benefit the local herpetofuana. 

Moist soil units 7, 8, 9, and 10 would be allowed to 

succeed to bottomland forest after removal of dikes 

that created them. The intent would be to return 

these units to a more naturally functioning system 

and increase the variability of water levels 

compared to the controlled management of the past. 

These changes are expected to benefit Wood Ducks, 

Indiana bats, copperbelly watersnakes and 

neotropical migrants by creating more bottomland 

forest acreage. The 123 acres of Units 1-6 would 

continue to be managed as moist soil units. Water 

levels would be manipulated to provide annual food 

crops for migratory waterbirds, Wood Duck brood 

habitat and mudflats for shorebirds. Variations in 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

86

Figure 4: Land Cover Under Alternative B, Increased Restoration, Muscatatuck NWR
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

87

water levels among units would provide an 

increased area and time for feeding by waterfowl, 

marsh birds, and shorebirds. The variation also 

increases moist soil plant foods for fall migrants. 

Habitat in an early successional stage that occurs 

on the Refuge where farmland is reverting to more 

natural conditions would be more actively converted 

in this alternative compared to Alternative A. 

Activities that could be employed include timber 

stand improvement of thinning, site preparation for 

natural reproduction, removal of undesirable tree 

species and release cutting or killing of undesirable 

older over topping trees. Tree planting would be 

used to encourage a more rapid succession to forest 

with species native to the area. Natural succession 

would be allowed to occur on sites where desirable 

results could be obtained within a reasonable time.

There would be no farming on the Refuge under 

this alternative. The 250 acres of agricultural land 

that are currently in crop rotation would be 

converted to forested habitat that would have been 

present historically. Invasive plant species would be 

addressed more completely than in Alternative A. 

There would be a comprehensive inventory of all 

invasive plants within 5 years. The guiding principle 

for attacking new invasive plants would be early 

detection and rapid response protocol. There would 

be an attempt to maintain optimum hydrology for 

the Seep Springs Research Natural Area, which 

would require a detailed hydrological study. The 

Restle Unit would continue to be managed to 

maintain the 30-acre seasonally flooded 

impoundment and 48 acres of bottomland hardwood 

forest. Under this alternative a water management 

plan would be developed to support water bird 

feeding, resting, and breeding through cycles in 

moist soil management. Active management of the 

forest on the Restle Unit would not occur.

2.3.2 Wildlife

Wildlife surveys on the Refuge would be 

expanded from current levels under this alternative. 

More attention would be devoted to Indiana bats, 

cavity-nesting waterfowl, neo-tropical migratory 

birds, marsh birds, and shorebirds under this 

alternative with the intention of documenting the 

effect of reforestation and management over the 

long-term. Migratory waterbirds, fish, and other 

aquatic species would continue to be surveyed. 

Under this alternative there would be more direct 

management of wildlife than under Alternative A. 

An objective for deer management would be to 

maintain the population between 15 and 25 deer per 

square mile. The objective of this level would be to 

strike a balance between successful forest 

regeneration, which is depressed by high deer 

numbers, and quality hunting. Monitoring of the 

deer population and habitat would occur to 

determine if the population objective is being 

achieved and the desired habitat results obtained. 

Beaver and muskrat numbers would be monitored 

and controlled to facilitate water management 

under this alternative. And, the raccoon population 

would be monitored and controlled to facilitate 

greater Wood Duck production.

2.3.3 People

A portion of the current wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities and services available to 

visitors would continue or be expanded under this 

alternative (Figure 5). Another portion of wildlifedependent recreational opportunities would change 

as vehicle access to sections of the Refuge would be 

reduced. South of Stanfield Lake, public access 

would be limited to foot traffic and bicycles on 

service roads. Developed trails would only be 

maintained in areas accessible by vehicles. The 

intent of this change would be to offer an 

opportunity that is wilder and more natural, away 

from the sights and sounds of vehicles. The change 

in access would also reduce the disturbance to 

wildlife in the southern part of the Refuge. In 

addition, the disturbance to migrating waterfowl on 

Units 1-6 would be reduced by limiting public access 

during peak duck use periods. 

Under this alternative an entrance fee would be 

charged, which would be a change from the current 

condition. Admission would be gained through a 

daily fee, an annual pass, a current Duck Stamp, or 

the interagency “America the Beautiful – National 

Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass.” 

Collections from the entrance fee would help 

support the operations of the Refuge. The west 

entrance to the Refuge from U.S. Highway 31 would 

be closed. The Refuge would be open 1 hour before 

sunrise to 1 hour after sunset.

Under this alternative, the duration of early 

archery deer hunting would be expanded to run 

from the Saturday after National Wildlife Refuge 

Week in October to the end of the State early 

archery season in late November. The season would 

increase by approximately 3-4 weeks and could vary 

annually due to the scheduling of National Wildlife 

Refuge Week and the Indiana early archery season 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

88

Figure 5: Visitor Services Under Alternative B, Muscatatuck NWR
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

89

for deer. In addition, the special permit draw for 

early archery would be phased out to create an open 

hunt. This management transition would be gradual, 

and closely monitored by Refuge staff. Overlapping 

the deer hunting seasons, squirrel, rabbit, and quail 

hunting would continue to be permitted in the 

southeast portion of the Refuge and would follow 

their respective State seasons. This would provide 

squirrel, rabbit, and quail hunters with 

approximately 5 additional weeks of hunting 

opportunities. A muzzleloader hunt for deer would 

occur by special permit drawing during the State 

season. Late Archery hunting would begin at the 

end of the muzzleloader season, continue until the 

end of the State season, and be an open hunt with no 

special permit draw required. A hunt for turkey 

would occur by special permit drawing during the 

state spring season. There would be no waterfowl 

hunting, nor hunting of any kind in the waterfowl 

sanctuary, the northeast portion of the Refuge, 

within 100 yards of any structure, or the closed area 

around the Refuge maintenance buildings. Hunter 

orange would be required for all hunts except 

turkey.

Year-round fishing by state regulations would 

continue under this alternative on designated lakes 

and ponds, which include Stanfield and Richart 

Lakes, Lakes Sheryl and Linda, Persimmon, and 

Sand Hill Ponds. Non-motorized boat access would 

continue on Stanfield Lake. Additional accessible 

fishing sites at current fishing locations would be 

developed to supplement the existing three 

facilities, two of which would be unreachable due to 

road closures (Lake Linda and Sand Hill Pond, 

south). The quality of fishing areas would be 

improved through increased management effort.

Periodic fish surveys would be instituted; 

information from lake surveys would form the 

foundation of Refuge fisheries management activity. 

This would yield long-term information on fish 

population size and structure, reproductive success, 

species abundance, growth and movement, and 

habitat conditions. 

Where feasible, water management could be 

altered to create spawning and nursery habitat to 

provide refuge from predators, and to increase 

invertebrate and prey fish species abundance. 

Sedimentation has greatly reduced available 

spawning habitat in many Refuge lakes; spawning 

habitat improvement projects need to be 

undertaken. Nesting boxes for bass will be 

considered and should be modeled after a successful 

spawning habitat improvement project design. Logs 

may be submerged to increase crappie spawning 

habitat. Gravel may be used in some areas to create 

bluegill spawning habitat. 

The Refuge may institute experimental fishing 

regulations to promote selective harvest; such 

regulations would be based on scientific data 

derived from fisheries surveys. Bag limit reductions 

may be necessary in years following changes in 

regulation if significant fisheries are developed and 

public fishing pressure drastically increases. 

Many lakes at Muscatatuck NWR have a need for 

long-term solutions to reduce the influx of non-point 

source pollution such as sediment and other 

nutrients from runoff. 

The annual kids’ fishing event would continue.

Access for wildlife observation and photography 

would be altered under this alternative compared to 

Alternative A. The auto tour route would remain as 

would vehicle access to Stanfield Lake. South of 

Stanfield Lake, Refuge roads would be limited to 

Service vehicles with public access limited to foot 

traffic and bicycles on the roads. Trails south of 

Stanfield Lake would not be maintained and allowed 

to revert back to forest. The two annual photo 

contests and annual migratory bird day activities 

would continue. The observation platform at the 

Restle Unit would be maintained.

Interpretation under this alternative would 

continue the present programs of the Refuge. The 

Visitor Center exhibits would be maintained, 

interpretive programs would be delivered at the 

current level. Interpretive signs would be present 

on the auto tour route, Chestnut Ridge Trail, and 

Myers Cabin. Brochures and the Refuge’s website 

would continue to be improved and upgraded. The 

Refuge would continue to host the annual 

Conservation Field Days for Jackson and Jennings 

County third-graders.

The current activities with the special group at 

Hayden School would continue under this 

alternative and the annual internship programs 

would be sustained. The Refuge would continue to 

host the annual Indiana Junior Duck Stamp 

Program and contest. The environmental education 

program would be administered to satisfy the 

Service’s description of environmental education as 

described in 605 FW 6 and current policy.
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

90

The work of the Refuge would continue to be 

supported by The Muscatatuck Wildlife Society and 

volunteers under this alternative. In addition, the 

Refuge would seek to increase its partnerships with 

non-governmental organizations and expand its 

volunteer program as staff and resources permitted. 

Outreach activities would continue as in Alternative 

A and include representation at off-site events, 

programs, newsletters, and through a website.

2.4 Alternative C: Balance 

Natural Processes and 

Constructed Units; 

Increased Focus on High 

Quality Priority General 

Public Uses (Preferred 

Alternative)

Under this alternative the Refuge would increase 

the size of its forests and manage fewer acres of 

constructed wetlands and increasingly rely on 

natural processes to provide wildlife habitat. There 

would be increased attention to surveys, monitoring 

and habitat restoration. There would be increased 

attention to raising the quality of wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities. Two biological technicians 

would be added to the staff and one existing but 

vacant equipment operator position would be filled 

to accomplish increased survey and monitoring 

activities and increased habitat management 

demands under this alternative.

2.4.1 Habitat

With the goal of providing an expanse of upland 

and bottomland forest, management of existing 

forest would consist of restoring forest to more 

closely resemble historic conditions and to allow 

succession to occur through natural processes 

(Figure 6). Active forest management could include 

timber stand improvement activities of thinning, 

site preparation for natural reproduction, removal 

of undesirable tree species and release cutting or 

killing of undesirable older over topping trees. 

Active management could also include small and 

larger changes to the topography within the forest 

to re-establish ephemeral wetlands that would have 

occurred historically. Archaeological investigations 

would be conducted prior to any earth moving. 

Conversion of former cropland to forest would occur 

through natural succession and tree planting. Under 

this alternative 670 acres of former cropland would 

progress to forest through natural succession and 

tree planting. The two greentree reservoirs would 

be reconnected to the river and water allowed to 

flood and ebb with the river’s flow, and reforestation 

would also occur in these units. Active forest 

management of timber stand improvement and 

topography changes could also be used in the 

bottomland forests. Moss Lake would be managed 

to recreate a more naturalistic and dynamic 

hydrological regime, which consists of seasonal and 

annual variation of water levels, structured within 

the framework of the cyclical climatic patterns. This 

process would restore the natural pulsing hydrology 

and introduce periodic drawdown to the 

management regimen. Such changes would increase 

productivity within the unit from increases in 

emergent plant and invertebrate production. Water 

would no longer be impounded in the surrounding 

forested areas, but would be influenced by more 

natural flood events. The depth, duration, and 

frequency of flooding would be greatly reduced in 

the forested perimeter. Currently, the Moss Lake 

impoundment is managed in a fairly static state with 

prescription flood and drawdown dates; flooding is 

fairly constant and extended and drawdown of the 

unit has not been pursued. This management 

strategy is the same as that proposed under 

Alternative B. 

Open water would be allowed to revert to 

forested wetlands under this alternative, except for 

Stanfield Lake and existing fishing areas, as 

depicted in Figure 6. Management of Richart Lake 

would vary and the effects would be closely 

monitored. The deepwater section closest to the 

dike would be maintained, while the shallow 

northeastern portion of the lake would be adjusted 

by management to increase wetland or woodland 

habitat. Stanfield Lake, Richart Lake, Lake Sheryl, 

Lake Linda, Persimmon Pond, and Sand Hill Pond 

would remain fishing areas for visitors. Display and 

Mallard Ponds would be closed to fishing. Stanfield 

and Richart Lakes provide habitat for broods and 

migrant birds and serve as a water supply for other 

managed wetland units on the Refuge. By 

returning most of the ponds to forest and forested 

wetlands, the area will more closely approximate 

historical conditions. 

Moist soil units 8, 9, and 10 would be allowed to 

succeed to bottomland forest after removal of the 

dikes that created them. The intent would be to 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

91

Figure 6: Land Cover Under Alternative C, Balance Natural and Constructed, Muscatatuck NWR
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

92

return these units to a more naturally functioning 

system and increase the variability of water levels 

compared to the controlled management of the past. 

These changes are expected to benefit Wood Ducks, 

Indiana bats, copperbelly watersnakes and 

neotropical migrants by creating more bottomland 

forest acreage. Moist soil unit 7 would be more 

intensively monitored and managed to provide 

water level control and flow through. The 123 acres 

of Units 1-6 would continue to be managed as moist 

soil units. Water levels would be manipulated to 

provide annual food crops for migratory waterbirds, 

Wood Duck habitat and mudflats for shorebirds. 

Variations in water levels among units would 

provide an increased area and time for feeding by 

waterfowl, marsh birds, and shorebirds. The 

variation would also increase moist soil plant foods 

for fall migrants.

Habitat in an early successional stage that occurs 

on the Refuge where farmland is reverting to more 

natural conditions would be more actively converted 

in this alternative compared to Alternative A. 

Activities that could be employed include timber 

stand improvement of thinning, site preparation for 

natural reproduction, removal of undesirable tree 

species and release cutting or killing of undesirable 

older over topping trees. Tree planting would be 

used to encourage a more rapid succession to forest 

with species native to the area. Natural succession 

would be allowed to occur on sites where desirable 

results could be obtained within a reasonable time. 

The 108-acre Endicott area would be kept open as 

dry herbaceous habitat to benefit bird viewing. An 

area of 180 acres would also be kept open as dry 

herbaceous habitat to benefit Sandhill Cranes and 

other species. Open areas would be maintained by 

mowing, haying, or prescribed fire.

There would be no farming on the Refuge under 

this alternative. A portion of the 250 acres of 

agricultural land that are currently in crop rotation 

would be managed as part of the aforementioned 

180 acres that will be kept open and the remaining 

acreage would be converted to forested habitat that 

would have been present historically. Invasive plant 

species would be addressed more completely than in 

Alternative A. There would be a comprehensive 

inventory of all invasive plants within 5 years. The 

guiding principle for attacking new invasive plants 

would be early detection and rapid response 

protocol. There would be an attempt to maintain 

optimum hydrology for the Seep Springs Research 

Natural Area, which would require a detailed 

hydrological study. The Restle Unit would continue 

to be managed to maintain the 30-acre seasonally 

flooded impoundment and 48 acres of bottomland 

hardwood forest. Under this alternative a water 

management plan would be developed to support 

water bird feeding, resting, and breeding through 

cycles in moist soil management. Active 

management of the forest on the Restle Unit would 

not occur.

2.4.2 Wildlife

Wildlife surveys on the Refuge would be 

expanded from current levels under this alternative. 

More attention would be devoted to Indiana bats, 

cavity-nesting waterfowl, neo-tropical migratory 

birds, marsh birds, and shorebirds under this 

alternative with the intention of documenting the 

effect of reforestation and management over the 

long-term. Migratory waterbirds, fish, and other 

aquatic species would continue to be surveyed. 

Under this alternative there would be more direct 

management of wildlife than under Alternative A. 

An objective for deer management would be to 

maintain the population between 15 and 25 deer per 

square mile. The objective of this level would be to 

strike a balance between successful forest 

regeneration, which is depressed by high deer 

numbers, and quality hunting. Monitoring of the 

deer population and habitat would occur to 

determine if the population objective is being 

achieved and the desired habitat results obtained. 

Beaver and muskrat numbers would be monitored 

and controlled to facilitate water management 

under this alternative. The raccoon population 

would be monitored and controlled to facilitate 

greater Wood Duck production.

2.4.3 People

Wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities 

and services available to visitors would continue or 

be expanded and facilities improved under this 

alternative (Figure 7). The auto tour route would be 

paved, and the west entrance to the Refuge would 

be closed. Some trails (East and West River Trails) 

would not be maintained and allowed to revert to 

natural land cover. In addition, the disturbance to 

migrating waterfowl on moist soil units 1-6 would be 

reduced by limiting public access during peak duck 

use periods. The overall intent of the changes would 

be to prioritize visitor services and improve selected 

components to improve the quality of selected 

opportunities. The Refuge would be open 1 hour 

before sunrise to 1 hour after sunset. 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

93

Figure 7: Visitor Services Facilities Under Alternative C, Muscatatuck NWR
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

94

Under this alternative the duration of early 

archery deer hunting would be expanded to run 

from the Saturday after National Wildlife Refuge 

Week in October to the end of the State early 

archery season in late November. The season would 

increase by approximately 3-4 weeks and could vary 

annually due to the scheduling of National Wildlife 

Refuge Week and the Indiana early archery season 

for deer. In addition, the special permit draw for 

early archery would be phased out to create an open 

hunt. This management transition would be gradual, 

and closely monitored by refuge staff. Overlapping 

the deer hunting seasons, squirrel, rabbit, and quail 

hunting would continue to be permitted in the 

southeast portion of the Refuge and would follow 

their respective State seasons. This would provide 

squirrel, rabbit, and quail hunters with 

approximately 5 additional weeks of hunting 

opportunities. A muzzleloader hunt for deer would 

occur by special permit drawing during the State 

season. Late Archery hunting would begin at the 

end of the muzzleloader season, continue until the 

end of the State season, and be an open hunt with no 

special permit draw required. A hunt for turkey 

would occur by special permit drawing during the 

state spring season. There would be no waterfowl 

hunting, nor hunting of any kind in the waterfowl 

sanctuary, the northeast portion of the Refuge, 

within 100 yards of any structure, or the closed area 

around the refuge maintenance buildings. Hunter 

orange would be required for all hunts except 

turkey.

Year-round fishing by state regulations would 

continue under this alternative on designated lakes 

and ponds, which include Lakes Stanfield and 

Richart, Lakes Sheryl, Linda and Persimmon, and 

Sand Hill Ponds. A pond would be designated as a 

kids-only fishing pond with the restriction of catchand-release only. 

The annual kids’ fishing event would continue. 

Mallard and Display Ponds would be closed to 

fishing to eliminate the costs associated with dike 

maintenance and providing public access at these 

locations and to consolidate and reduce overall user 

impacts to Refuge wetlands. 

Gasoline motors would be prohibited from use or 

possession while on the water, but electric trolling 

motors would be allowed on Stanfield Lake. 

Additional accessible fishing sites at current 

fishing locations would be developed to supplement 

the existing three facilities. Improvements would be 

made to shoreline topography to augment fish 

habitat and fishing opportunities. The take of fish 

would be monitored and more closely managed 

through regulations to ensure a sustainable, healthy 

population. Periodic fish surveys would be 

instituted; information from lake surveys would 

form the foundation of Refuge fisheries 

management activity. This would yield long-term 

information on fish population size and structure, 

reproductive success, species abundance, growth 

and movement, and habitat conditions. Where 

feasible, water management could be altered to 

create spawning and nursery habitat to provide 

refuge from predators and to increase invertebrate 

and prey fish species abundance. Sedimentation has 

greatly reduced available spawning habitat in many 

Refuge lakes and reduced the quality of bank 

fishing; spawning habitat improvement projects 

need to be undertaken. Nesting boxes for bass 

would be considered and should be modeled after a 

successful spawning habitat improvement project 

design. Pine trees may be submerged to increase 

crappie spawning habitat. Gravel may be used in 

some areas to create bluegill spawning habitat. The 

Refuge may institute experimental fishing 

regulations to promote selective harvest; such 

regulations would be based on scientific data 

derived from fisheries surveys. Bag limit reductions 

may be necessary in years following changes in 

regulation if significant fisheries are developed and 

public fishing pressure drastically increases. Many 

lakes at Muscatatuck NWR have a need for longterm solutions to reduce the influx of non-point 

source pollution such as sediment and other 

nutrients from runoff. An educational program on 

the topic of fishing ethics would be established.

Access for wildlife observation and photography 

would be altered under this alternative compared to 

Alternative A. The auto tour route would be paved 

with asphalt to reduce dust on the route. 

Maintenance of existing gravel roads and parking 

lots would be improved. The west entrance to the 

Refuge would be closed. The East and West River 

Trails would not be maintained and allowed to 

revert back to forest. The surface of the remaining 

trails would be improved. Bicycling would be 

permitted only on paved or gravel roads. Trails 

would be closed to bicycles. A wildlife observation 

structure would be built near the shop area to 

facilitate viewing of wildlife using the open area. 

Species that would be expected to be seen from the 

structure include deer, Wild Turkey, Sandhill Crane, 

and varieties of Canada Geese. The Hackman 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

95

Overlook structure would be evaluated in a visitor 

services step-down plan for potential modification 

or removal. The two annual photo contests and 

annual migratory bird day activities would continue. 

The observation platform at the Restle Unit would 

be maintained.

Interpretation under this alternative would 

continue the present programs of the Refuge. The 

Visitor Center exhibits would be maintained, 

interpretive programs would be delivered at the 

current level. Interpretive signs would be present 

on the auto tour route, Chestnut Ridge Trail, and 

Myers Cabin. Brochures and the Refuge’s website 

would continue to be improved and upgraded. The 

Refuge would continue to host the annual 

Conservation Field Days for Jackson and Jennings 

County third-graders.

The current activities with the special group at 

Hayden School would continue under this 

alternative and the annual internship programs 

would be sustained. The Refuge would continue to 

host the annual Indiana Junior Duck Stamp 

Program and contest. The environmental education 

program would be administered to satisfy the 

Service’s description of environmental education as 

described in 605 FW 6 and current policy.

The work of the Refuge would continue to be 

supported by The Muscatatuck Wildlife Society and 

volunteers under this alternative. In addition, the 

Refuge would seek to increase its partnerships with 

non-governmental organizations and expand its 

volunteer program as staff and resource permitted. 

Outreach activities would continue as in Alternative 

A and include representation at off-site events, 

programs, newsletters, and through a website. 

There would be an expanded effort to appeal to 

under-represented populations through outreach. 

The intent of the outreach efforts would be to 

increase participation in Refuge activities, 

environmental stewardship, and volunteer 

participation.

2.5 Alternative D: Intensified 

Management of 

Constructed Units; 

Expanded Priority General 

Public Uses

Under this alternative the Refuge would increase 

the size of its forests and manage its constructed 

wetlands more intensively. There would be 

increased attention to surveys and monitoring. A 

biological technician, an equipment operator, and a 

park ranger (interpretation) would be added to the 

staff to accomplish increased survey and monitoring 

activities, the more intensive management of moist 

soil units, and expanded public use activities.

2.5.1 Habitat

With the goal of providing an expanse of upland 

and bottomland forest, management of existing 

forest would consist of restoring forest to more 

closely resemble historic conditions and to allow 

succession to occur through natural processes 

(Figure 8). Active forest management could include 

timber stand improvement activities of thinning, 

site preparation for natural reproduction, removal 

of undesirable tree species and release cutting or 

killing of undesirable older over topping trees. 

Active management could also include small and 

larger changes to the topography within the forest 

to re-establish ephemeral wetlands that would have 

occurred historically. Conversion of former cropland 

to forest would occur through natural succession 

with a limited amount of tree planting. Under this 

alternative, 853 acres of former cropland would be 

allowed to succeed to forest and would be assisted 

by tree planting. Water on the two greentree 

reservoirs and Moss Lake would be more effectively 

managed through control of muskrats and beaver, 

maintenance of dikes, and structure modifications. 

Reforestation would also occur in these units.

Open water as depicted in Figure 8 would be 

sustained with more active management of 

structures and increased maintenance under this 

alternative. The lakes provide habitat for broods 

and migrant birds and serve as a water supply for 

other managed wetland units on the Refuge. The 

lakes are also fishing areas for visitors. 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

96

Figure 8: Land Cover Under Alternative D, Intensified Management, Muscatatuck NWR
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

97

All moist soil units would be managed more 

intensively following accepted management 

guidelines for this type of unit. The intent would be 

to fully return these units to their designed 

functional capacity. Water levels would be 

manipulated to provide annual food crops for 

migratory waterbirds and may provide limited 

Wood Duck habitat and mudflats for shorebirds. 

Variations in water levels among units would 

provide an increased area and time for feeding by 

waterfowl, marsh birds, and shorebirds. The 

variation also increases moist soil plant foods for fall 

migrants. Vegetation in the units would be 

manipulated with occasional disking or other 

disturbance. The level of water in Moss Lake would 

be managed as a brood marsh and a green tree unit.

Habitat in an early successional stage that occurs 

on the Refuge where farmland is reverting to more 

natural conditions would be more actively converted 

in this alternative compared to Alternative A. 

Activities that could be employed include timber 

stand improvement of thinning, site preparation for 

natural reproduction, removal of undesirable tree 

species and release cutting or killing of undesirable 

older over topping trees. Tree planting would be 

used to encourage a more rapid succession to forest 

with species native to the area. Natural succession 

would be allowed to occur on sites where desirable 

results could be obtained within a reasonable time. 

The 108-acre Endicott area would be kept open to 

benefit bird viewing. An area of 180 acres would also 

be kept open to benefit Sandhill Crane and other 

species. Open areas would be maintained by 

mowing, haying, or prescribed fire. 

There would be approximately 350 acres of 

agricultural land in crop rotation on the Refuge 

under this alternative. The agricultural land would 

benefit wildlife viewing and provide Sandhill Crane 

habitat, and wildlife food. Invasive plant species 

would be addressed more completely than in 

Alternative A. There would be a comprehensive 

inventory of all invasive plants within 5 years. The 

guiding principle for attacking new invasive plants 

would be early detection and rapid response 

protocol. There would be an attempt to maintain 

optimum hydrology for the Seep Springs Research 

Natural Area, which would require a detailed 

hydrological study. The Restle Unit would continue 

to be managed to maintain the 30-acre seasonally 

flooded impoundment and 48 acres of bottomland 

hardwood forest. Under this alternative a water 

management plan would be developed to support 

water bird feeding, resting, and breeding through 

cycles in moist soil management. Active 

management of the forest on the Restle Unit would 

not occur.

2.5.2 Wildlife

Wildlife surveys on the Refuge would be 

expanded from current levels under this alternative. 

More attention would be devoted to Indiana bats, 

cavity-nesting waterfowl, neo-tropical migratory 

birds, marsh birds, and shorebirds under this 

alternative with the intention of documenting the 

effect of reforestation and management over the 

long-term. Migratory waterbirds, fish, and other 

aquatic species would continue to be surveyed. 

Under this alternative there would be more direct 

management of wildlife than under Alternative A. 

An objective for deer management would be to 

maintain the population between 15 and 25 deer per 

square mile. The objective of this level would be to 

strike a balance between successful forest 

regeneration, which is depressed by high deer 

numbers, and quality hunting. Monitoring of the 

deer population and habitat would occur to 

determine if the population objective is being 

achieved and the desired habitat results obtained. 

Beaver and muskrat numbers would be monitored 

and controlled to facilitate water management 

under this alternative. And, the raccoon population 

would be monitored and controlled to facilitate 

greater Wood Duck production.

2.5.3 People

Wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities 

and services available to visitors would be expanded 

and facilities improved under this alternative 

(Figure 9). All Refuge roads would be paved and the 

two entrances to the Refuge would be maintained. 

All trails would be retained and their surfaces 

improved. The overall intent of the changes would 

be to maximize visitor services and their quality.

Under this alternative an entrance fee would be 

charged, which would be a change from the current 

condition. Admission would be gained through a 

daily fee, an annual pass, a current Duck Stamp, or 

the interagency “America the Beautiful – National 

Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass.” 

Collections from the entrance fee would help 

support the operations of the Refuge. The Refuge 

would be open 1 hour before sunrise to 1 hour after 

sunset. 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

98

Figure 9: Visitor Services Facilities Under Alternative D, Muscatatuck NWR
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

99

Under this alternative the duration of early 

archery deer hunting would be expanded to run 

from the Saturday after National Wildlife Refuge 

Week in October to the end of the State early 

archery season in late November. The season would 

increase by approximately 3-4 weeks and could vary 

annually due to the scheduling of National Wildlife 

Refuge Week and the Indiana early archery season 

for deer. In addition, the special permit draw for 

early archery would be phased out to create an open 

hunt. This management transition would be gradual, 

and closely monitored by Refuge staff. Overlapping 

the deer hunting seasons, squirrel, rabbit, and quail 

hunting would continue to be permitted in the 

southeast portion of the Refuge and would follow 

their respective State seasons. This would provide 

squirrel, rabbit, and quail hunters with 

approximately 5 additional weeks of hunting 

opportunities. A muzzleloader hunt for deer would 

occur by special permit drawing during the State 

season. Late Archery hunting would begin at the 

end of the muzzleloader season, continue until the 

end of the State season, and be an open hunt with no 

special permit draw required. A hunt for turkey 

would occur by special permit drawing during the 

state spring season. There would be no waterfowl 

hunting, nor hunting of any kind in the waterfowl 

sanctuary, the northeast portion of the Refuge, 

within 100 yards of any structure, or the closed area 

around the refuge maintenance buildings. Hunter 

orange would be required for all hunts except 

turkey.

Year-round fishing by State regulations would be 

permitted under this alternative on all available 

waters excluding the waterfowl sanctuary and 

seasonally flooded impoundments. 

Electric trolling motors would be allowed on 

Stanfield Lake and canoes would be allowed on all 

floatable water bodies, which would include the 

development of at least one new boat access. 

A pond would be designated as a kids-only fishing 

pond with the restriction of catch-and-release only. 

The annual kids’ fishing event would continue.

 Additional accessible fishing sites at current 

fishing locations would be developed to supplement 

the existing three facilities. The quality of fishing 

areas would be improved through increased 

management effort. 

Periodic fish surveys would be instituted; 

information from lake surveys would form the 

foundation of Refuge fisheries management activity. 

This will yield long-term information on fish 

population size and structure, reproductive success, 

species abundances, growth and movement, and 

habitat conditions. 

Where feasible, water management could be 

altered to create spawning and nursery habitat, to 

provide refuge from predators, and to increase 

invertebrate and prey fish species abundance.

 Sedimentation has greatly reduced available 

spawning habitat in many Refuge lakes and 

spawning habitat improvement projects need to be 

initiated. 

Nesting boxes for bass would be considered and 

should be modeled after a successful spawning 

habitat improvement project design. Pine trees may 

be submerged to increase crappie spawning habitat. 

Gravel may be used in some areas to create bluegill 

spawning habitat. 

The Refuge may institute experimental fishing 

regulations to promote selective harvest; such 

regulations would be based on scientific data 

derived from fisheries surveys. Bag limit reductions 

may be necessary in years following changes in 

regulation if significant fisheries are developed and 

public fishing pressure drastically increases. 

Many lakes at Muscatatuck NWR have a need for 

long-term solutions to reduce the influx of non-point 

source pollution such as sediment and other 

nutrients from runoff. 

Access for wildlife observation and photography 

would be altered under this alternative compared to 

Alternative A. 

The Refuge roads would be paved with asphalt to 

reduce dust. Maintenance of parking lots would be 

improved. The surface of the Refuge trails would be 

improved. Bicycling would be permitted only on 

paved roads. Trails would be closed to bicycles. 

A wildlife observation structure would be built 

near the shop area to facilitate viewing of wildlife 

using the open area. Species that would be expected 

to be seen from the structure include deer, Wild 

Turkey, Sandhill Crane, and varieties of Canada 

Geese. The Hackman Overlook structure would be 

evaluated in a visitor services step-down plan for 

potential modification or removal. 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

100

The two annual photo contests and annual 

migratory bird day activities would continue. The 

observation platform at the Restle Unit would be 

maintained.

Interpretation under this alternative would 

continue the present programs of the Refuge. The 

visitor center exhibits would be maintained, 

interpretive programs would be delivered at the 

current level. Interpretation would be present on 

the auto tour route, Chestnut Ridge Trail, and 

Myers Cabin. Brochures and the Refuge’s website 

would continue to be improved and upgraded. The 

Refuge would continue to host the annual 

Conservation Field Days for Jackson and Jennings 

County third-graders.

Current environmental education activities would 

continue under this alternative with the partnership 

with the special group at Hayden School and the 

annual internship programs sustained. The Refuge 

would continue to host the annual Indiana Junior 

Duck Stamp Program and contest. The 

environmental education program would be 

administered to satisfy the Service’s description of 

environmental education as described in 605 FW 6 

and current policy.

The work of the Refuge would continue to be 

supported by The Muscatatuck Wildlife Society and 

volunteers under this alternative. In addition, the 

Refuge would seek to increase its partnerships with 

non-governmental organizations and expand its 

volunteer program as staff and resources permitted. 

Outreach activities would continue as in Alternative 

A and include representation at off-site events, 

programs, newsletters, and through a website. 

There would be an expanded effort to appeal to 

under-represented populations through outreach. 

The intent of the outreach efforts would be to 

increase participation in Refuge activities, 

environmental stewardship, and volunteer 

participation.
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

101

Table 1: Summary of Draft Management Alternatives for Muscatatuck NWR

Topic Alternative A

Current Management 

Direction

(No Action)

Alternative B

Increased Restoration of 

Natural Processes; 

Maintain Focus on Priority 

General Public Uses

Alternative C

Balance Natural Processes 

& Constructed Units; 

Increased Focus on High 

Quality Priority General 

Public Uses

 (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative D

Intensified Management 

of Constructed Units; 

Expanded Priority General 

Public Uses

Goal 1: Habitat – Maintain a dynamic mosaic of vegetation that includes an expanse of upland and floodplain deciduous 

forest similar to that historically present along with lakes, marshes, and moist soil units.

Upland 

Hardwood Forest

Conversion of former 

cropland to forest 

through natural 

succession and limited 

tree planting. (670 acres)

Conversion of former and 

current cropland to forest 

through natural 

succession and limited 

tree planting. (920 acres) 

Active forest 

management that might 

include timber stand 

improvement, restoring 

hydrology and micro/

macrotopography

Same as Alt. B with 

acreage changed to 670 

acres. 

Conversion of most of 

former cropland into 

forest with 67 additional 

acres returning to 

agriculture. Active 

forest management that 

might include timber 

stand improvement, 

restoring hydrology 

and micro/

macrotopography.

Bottomland 

Hardwood Forest 

Natural 

Constructed

Water control on two 

greentree reservoirs and 

Moss Lake.

Convert greentree 

reservoirs to naturally 

flowing. Manage for more 

naturalistic hydrology to 

Moss Lake, (more 

variation in water level). 

Active forest 

management that might 

include timber stand 

improvement, restoring 

hydrology and micro/

macrotopography.

Same as Alt. B. More effective control 

of water on two 

greentree reservoirs 

and Moss Lake. 

Includes reforestation, 

control of muskrats and 

beavers.

Open Water Maintain current acreage 

as depicted in Figure 2.

Except for Stanfield and 

Richart Lakes, allow or 

assist open water areas to 

naturally revert to 

forested wetlands or 

other/same habitat 

adjacent to them.

Maintain Stanfield Lake 

and the deepwater 

portion of Richart Lake, 

and existing fishing areas, 

except for Mallard and 

Display Ponds, which will 

be closed to fishing. 

Water levels in some 

areas of Richart Lake 

may vary. Allow all other 

ponds to revert to 

forested wetlands. 

Maintain current 

acreage as depicted in 

Figure 8 with more 

active management of 

structures and higher 

maintenance.
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

102

Seasonally 

Flooded 

Constructed 

Impoundments

383 acres under moist soil 

management, which 

includes water and 

vegetation manipulation. 

576 acres in Moss Lake. 

Fewer acres under moist 

soil management through 

conversion of moist soil 

units 7, 8, 9, and 10 to 

bottomland forest 

through removal of dikes. 

Moist soil units 1-6 are 

managed. Also, 

McDonalds North and 

South, Sue, and Endicott 

North and South are 

managed as seasonally 

flooded impoundments. 

Reduce disturbance to 

migrants on northern 

seasonally flooded and 

managed units through 

limitation of public access 

during peak duck use 

periods.

Same as Alt. B, but retain 

moist soil unit 7, if 

possible, to keep dual 

function of control and 

flow through.

Manage all current 

moist soil units more 

intensively.

Reduce disturbance to 

migrants on northern 

seasonally flooded and 

managed units through 

limitation of public 

access during peak 

duck use periods.

Reconverting 

Farmland/ early 

successional 

habitat

Allow natural succession 

and planting trees for 

conversion to forests.

Active conversion 

through planting, timber 

stand improvement, and 

natural succession.

Same as Alt. B. 

Endicott area (108 acres), 

kept open to benefit bird 

viewing. Area in 180-acre 

wildlife viewing area also 

kept open to benefit 

cranes and other species. 

Same as Alt C plus 

return approx. 67 acres 

into crop rotation for 

wildlife viewing, crane 

habitat, and wildlife 

food. 

Agricultural 250 acres in rotation. No acres in agriculture. Same as Alt. B. Use 

mowing, haying, or 

prescribed fire to 

maintain open acres for 

wildlife viewing and crane 

habitat.

Approximately 350 

acres in rotation for 

crane habitat and 

wildlife viewing.

Invasive Plant 

Species

Approximately 220 acres 

treated per year. 

Comprehensive inventory 

of all invasive plants 

within 5 years of plan 

approval. Employ early 

detection and rapid 

response protocol for 

responding to new 

invasives. Development of 

an IPM or section of 

HMP. Requires additional 

annual funding and 

possibly a biological 

technician FTE.

Same as Alt. B Same as Alt. B

Table 1: Summary of Draft Management Alternatives for Muscatatuck NWR

Topic Alternative A

Current Management 

Direction

(No Action)

Alternative B

Increased Restoration of 

Natural Processes; 

Maintain Focus on Priority 

General Public Uses

Alternative C

Balance Natural Processes 

& Constructed Units; 

Increased Focus on High 

Quality Priority General 

Public Uses

 (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative D

Intensified Management 

of Constructed Units; 

Expanded Priority General 

Public Uses
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

103

Seep Springs 

Research 

Natural Area

No change in 

management, (some 

attempt to move water 

from area as time and 

resources permit)

Maintain optimum 

hydrology for the 

community. Requires 

detailed hydrological 

study.

Same as Alt. B Same as Alt. B

Restle Unit Maintain 30 acres of 

seasonally flooded 

impoundment and 48 

acres of bottomland 

hardwood forest. Closed 

to all public use

Alternative A plus: 

Develop water 

management plan to 

support water bird 

feeding, resting, and 

breeding through cycles 

in moist soil mgt. 

Same as Alt. B Same as Alt. B

Goal 2: Wildlife – Support the maximum sustainable breeding and post-breeding populations of cavity-nesting 

waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, Indiana bats, and a diversity of migratory, rare wetland, and resident species. 

Federally-listed 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species

Indiana bat

Intermittent surveys 

initiated by others.

Indiana bat: Conduct 

baseline survey and study 

of habitat use patterns. 

Follow with monitoring at 

regular intervals. 

Develop partnerships and 

seek grants to fund 

monitoring studies.

Same Alt. B Same Alt. B

Cavity-nesting 

waterfowl

Annual brood surveys to 

estimate production.

Cavity surveys were 

conducted in 1984-5 and 

2006.

Monitor number of 

cavities after 15 years of 

implementation of plan.

Conduct brood counts on 

managed units and Moss 

Lake every 3 years.

Monitor brood habitat 

every year.

Same Alt. B Same Alt. B

Neotropical 

migratory birds

May Day count annually 

for presence-absence 

data. These counts satisfy 

public interest.

May Day count annually 

for presence-absence 

data. These counts satisfy 

public interest.

Point counts every 5 

years to more 

systematically document 

the effect of reforestation.

Same Alt. B Same Alt. B

Table 1: Summary of Draft Management Alternatives for Muscatatuck NWR

Topic Alternative A

Current Management 

Direction

(No Action)

Alternative B

Increased Restoration of 

Natural Processes; 

Maintain Focus on Priority 

General Public Uses

Alternative C

Balance Natural Processes 

& Constructed Units; 

Increased Focus on High 

Quality Priority General 

Public Uses

 (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative D

Intensified Management 

of Constructed Units; 

Expanded Priority General 

Public Uses
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

104

Secretive marsh 

birds and 

shorebirds

Limited study in past. Marsh survey every 5 

years to determine 

presence-absence, and 

distribution of species, 

with observations 

integrated into Annual 

Water Management Plan.

Monitor shorebirds 

numbers and diversity 

spring through fall.

Same as Alt. B Same as Alt. B

Rare wetland 

species

Periodic surveys of rare 

wetland species 

(examples include 

copperbelly watersnake, 

Kirtland’s snake, fourtoed salamander, and 

state-listed plants 

including rare orchid) by 

cooperators and 

volunteers.

Same as Alt. A with effort 

to improve protocols

Same as Alt. A with effort 

to improve protocols

Same as Alt. A with 

effort to improve 

protocols

Migratory 

waterbirds

Weekly waterfowl count 

from Labor Day through 

March. Provide data to 

state.

Mid-winter waterfowl 

count to satisfy request of 

Service.

Conduct surveys for 

Great Blue Herons every 

5 years.

Conduct annual Sandhill 

Crane surveys as 

requested by partners.

Same as Alt. A Same as Alt. A Same as Alt. A

Native resident 

and other 

wildlife

Variety of studies being 

conducted

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A Same as Alt. A

Fish and other 

aquatic species

Periodic surveys to 

monitor diversity of 

species.

Same as Alt. A

Monitor diversity, 

distribution and rough 

abundance on a 10-year 

cycle.

Same as Alt. B Same as Alt. B

Table 1: Summary of Draft Management Alternatives for Muscatatuck NWR

Topic Alternative A

Current Management 

Direction

(No Action)

Alternative B

Increased Restoration of 

Natural Processes; 

Maintain Focus on Priority 

General Public Uses

Alternative C

Balance Natural Processes 

& Constructed Units; 

Increased Focus on High 

Quality Priority General 

Public Uses

 (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative D

Intensified Management 

of Constructed Units; 

Expanded Priority General 

Public Uses
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

105

Deer No objective specified. Maintain deer population 

between 15 and 25 per sq 

mi to balance between 

forest regeneration and 

quality hunting. Monitor 

deer population and 

habitat to determine if 

population level is 

achieved and not harmful 

to Refuge habitat.

Same as Alt. B Same as Alt. B

Beaver, muskrat, 

raccoon

No objectives specified. Control raccoon 

population as prescribed 

by monitoring to facilitate 

Wood Duck production.

Beaver and muskrat are 

monitored and controlled 

to facilitate water 

management.

Identify, monitor for and 

control any other species 

that is identified to be 

causing damage due to its 

high population level.

Same as Alt. B Same as Alt. B

Heavy metal 

contamination in 

fish

Surveys conducted in 

2006, results pending.

Fish will be used as 

indicator species. 

Conduct first survey 

within 5 years. Monitor at 

10-15 year intervals.

Same as Alt. B Same as Alt. B

Goal 3: People – Visitors understand and appreciate the natural environment and its processes through participation in 

high quality, wildlife dependent recreation and educational opportunities.

Hunting

(continued on 

next page)

Hunt rabbit, quail, 

squirrel, turkey, and deer

(Portions of the state 

season; portions of the 

Refuge). No waterfowl 

hunting allowed. No 

hunting of any kind in the 

Waterfowl Sanctuary.

Same as Alt. A., and: 

Expand hunt times for 

rabbit, quail, squirrel, and 

archery deer hunting. 

Hunting program will be 

monitored for biological 

and safety effects.

(continued next page)

Same as Alt B., and: Offer 

state youth hunts in 

conjunction with 

cooperators in addition to 

current program. Also 

with partners, recruit 

under-represented 

populations to participate 

in hunting programs.

Same as Alt. C.

Table 1: Summary of Draft Management Alternatives for Muscatatuck NWR

Topic Alternative A

Current Management 

Direction

(No Action)

Alternative B

Increased Restoration of 

Natural Processes; 

Maintain Focus on Priority 

General Public Uses

Alternative C

Balance Natural Processes 

& Constructed Units; 

Increased Focus on High 

Quality Priority General 

Public Uses

 (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative D

Intensified Management 

of Constructed Units; 

Expanded Priority General 

Public Uses
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

106

Hunting

(continued)

Early archery by State 

season starting after 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Week. Squirrel, rabbit, 

and quail hunts continue 

during deer hunts. Late 

Archery following closure 

of muzzleloader season 

for the remainder of the 

State season.

Muzzleloader by special 

permit drawing during 

State Season.

Hunter orange required 

for all hunts except 

turkey.

Reduce disturbance to 

migrants on northern 

seasonally flooded and 

managed units through 

limitation of public access 

during peak duck use 

periods.

Fishing Year round fishing by 

state regulations on 

designated lakes and 

ponds –Richart and 

Stanfield Lakes, Lakes 

Sheryl, Linda, and Sand 

Hill, and Persimmon, 

Mallard and Display 

Ponds. Boating allowed 

on one lake. No motors 

allowed. Float tubes 

allowed in all fishing 

areas. Three accessible 

fishing facilities. Kids’ 

fishing event once a year.

Same as Alt. A, except 

that Mallard and Display 

Ponds would be removed 

from the fishing program.

Additionally, create more 

accessible sites around 

current fishing locations.

Reduce disturbance to 

migrants on northern 

seasonally flooded and 

managed units through 

limitation of public access 

during peak duck use 

periods.

Improve quality of fishing 

areas.

Same as Alt. B, and: 

Designate a kid’s only 

fishing pond with catch 

and release only. Allow 

electric trolling motors on 

Stanfield Lake after 

several years of 

monitoring of fish 

populations to d evelop 

baseline population 

values, but no gasoline 

powered engines may be 

attached to boats. 

Develop regulations to 

manage take based on 

monitoring. (ex.: Slot 

limits, aggregate creel 

limits). Establish fishing 

ethics educational 

program.

Fish all available waters 

excluding waterfowl 

sanctuary, and 

seasonally flooded 

impoundment units. 

Allow electric trolling 

motors, but no gasolinepowered engines may 

be attached to boats, 

and permit canoes etc. 

on all other floatable 

water bodies – would 

include development of 

an additional boat 

access point.

Reduce disturbance to 

migrants on northern 

seasonally flooded and 

managed units through 

limitation of public 

access during peak 

duck use periods.

Table 1: Summary of Draft Management Alternatives for Muscatatuck NWR

Topic Alternative A

Current Management 

Direction

(No Action)

Alternative B

Increased Restoration of 

Natural Processes; 

Maintain Focus on Priority 

General Public Uses

Alternative C

Balance Natural Processes 

& Constructed Units; 

Increased Focus on High 

Quality Priority General 

Public Uses

 (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative D

Intensified Management 

of Constructed Units; 

Expanded Priority General 

Public Uses
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

107

Observation & 

Photography

Auto tour route (4 miles). 

Seven hiking trails. 

Observation deck at 

Endicott Marsh. 

Overlook structure on 

Richart Lake. Nine miles 

of roads. Two annual 

photo contests. Annual 

migratory bird days. 

Refuge week activities.

Maintain observation 

platform at Restle Unit 

with the rest of the unit 

closed to all public uses. 

Bicycling is permitted 

only on gravel/paved 

roads. Riding on hiking 

trails is prohibited.

Developed trails limited 

to area north of the 

intersection at Stanfield 

Lake. Vehicle access 

maintained to Stanfield 

Lake. 

South of Stanfield Lake 

Refuge roads limited to 

service vehicles. Public 

access limited to foot 

traffic and bicycles.

East and West River 

Trails not maintained and 

allowed to revert back to 

habitat.

Reduce disturbance to 

migrants on northern 

seasonally flooded and 

managed units through 

limitation of public access 

during peak duck use 

periods.

Maintain observation 

platform at Restle Unit 

with the rest of the unit 

closed to all public uses. 

Bicycling is permitted 

only on gravel/paved 

roads. Riding on hiking 

trails is prohibited.

East and West River 

Trails not maintained and 

allowed to revert back to 

habitat. Improve 

surfacing of all remaining 

trails. Blacktop auto tour 

route (contingent on 

funding). 

Build an observation 

structure to facilitate 

wildlife viewing near the 

shop area. Modify or 

remove Hackman 

Overlook structure.

Reduce disturbance to 

migrants on northern 

seasonally flooded and 

managed units through 

limitation of public access 

during peak duck use 

periods. Maintain 

observation platform at 

Restle Unit with the rest 

of the unit closed to all 

public uses. Bicycling is 

permitted only on gravel/

paved roads. Riding on 

hiking trails is prohibited. 

Same as Alt. C, and:

Retain East and West 

River Trails in program 

and blacktop all Refuge 

roads. 

Build an observation 

structure to facilitate 

wildlife viewing near 

the shop area.

Modify or remove 

Hackman Overlook 

structure.

 Reduce disturbance to 

migrants on northern 

seasonally flooded and 

managed units through 

limitation of public 

access during peak 

duck use periods.

Maintain observation 

platform at Restle Unit 

with the rest of the unit 

closed to all public uses. 

Bicycling is not allowed 

on trails.

Interpretation Provide 25 interpretive 

programs per year to 

schools and the public.

Interpretation on auto 

tour route and Chestnut 

Ridge Trail. Myers Cabin 

interpretation. 

Keep six brochures 

updated and stocked at 

visitor contact points..

Maintain an accurate 

website.

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A, and:

Improve quality of 

interpretation at all 

current facilities and 

throughout all media. 

Improve website to 

higher currency.

Same as Alt. C.

Table 1: Summary of Draft Management Alternatives for Muscatatuck NWR

Topic Alternative A

Current Management 

Direction

(No Action)

Alternative B

Increased Restoration of 

Natural Processes; 

Maintain Focus on Priority 

General Public Uses

Alternative C

Balance Natural Processes 

& Constructed Units; 

Increased Focus on High 

Quality Priority General 

Public Uses

 (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative D

Intensified Management 

of Constructed Units; 

Expanded Priority General 

Public Uses
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

108

Environmental 

Education

Partnership with special 

group at Hayden School 

and annual internship 

program. Host annual 

Indiana Junior Duck 

Stamp Program and 

contest.

Host annual 

Conservation Field Days 

for Jackson and Jennings 

County Schools’ thirdgraders.

Same as Alt. A and: 

Modify current program 

to satisfy the Service’s 

definition of 

environmental education.

Same as Alt. B Same as Alt. B and: 

Expand current 

program to additional 

school(s) (additional 

staff required).

Recreational fees None. Entrance fee collection 

with an iron ranger.

Admission with daily fee, 

an annual pass, a current 

Duck Stamp, or an 

interagency pass. Daily 

admission fee of $5. 

Restle Unit exempt.

None. Same as Alt. B.

Coop 

Association/

Friends 

One active Friends 

Group, The Muscatatuck 

Wildlife Society. 

Membership based. 400 

members.

Other partnerships 

include the National Wild 

Turkey Federation, 

Ducks Unlimited, and the 

Audubon Society.

Same as Alt. A and:

Expand partnerships to 

include other nongovernment 

organizations.

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt B.

Volunteer 

Program

Approximately 11,000 

hours contributed by 200 

volunteers.

Same as Alt. A and:

Continue support and 

expand programs as staff 

and resources permit

Same as Alt. B Same as Alt. A and:

Expand participation 

from additional groups 

and audiences. 

(additional staff 

required)

Law 

Enforcement

One shared position with 

Big Oaks and Patoka 

River NWRs. 

Cooperative support from 

state police, sheriff ’s 

departments, and IDNR. 

Additional support 

through zone resources.

Same as Alt. A Same as Alt. A Same as Alt. A with 

possible funded 

cooperation with 

Indiana DNR.

Table 1: Summary of Draft Management Alternatives for Muscatatuck NWR

Topic Alternative A

Current Management 

Direction

(No Action)

Alternative B

Increased Restoration of 

Natural Processes; 

Maintain Focus on Priority 

General Public Uses

Alternative C

Balance Natural Processes 

& Constructed Units; 

Increased Focus on High 

Quality Priority General 

Public Uses

 (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative D

Intensified Management 

of Constructed Units; 

Expanded Priority General 

Public Uses
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

109

Public Access / 

Roads

Open from sunrise to 

sunset. 

All acres open except 

closed areas. Nine miles 

of roads with two public 

entrances. 

Open 1 hour before 

sunrise to 1 hour after 

sunset.

Limit vehicle traffic to 

roads north of 

intersection. 

Close west entrance.

West Entrance may have 

to remain open, or be 

reopened to use during 

the Highway 50 widening 

project, which will begin 

sometime during the 

period covered by this 

CCP.

Same as Alt. A, plus: 

Open 1 hour before 

sunrise to 1 hour after 

sunset.

Close west entrance. 

Blacktop auto tour route. 

Improve maintenance of 

gravel roads and parking 

lots. 

West Entrance may have 

to remain open, or be 

reopened to use during 

the Highway 50 widening 

project, which will begin 

sometime during the 

period covered by this 

CCP.

Same as Alt. A, plus:

Open 1 hour before 

sunrise to 1 hour after 

sunset.

Blacktop Refuge roads. 

Close west entrance.

West Entrance may 

have to remain open, or 

be reopened to use 

during the Highway 50 

widening project, which 

will begin sometime 

during the period 

covered by this CCP.

Outreach Maintain a website.

Staff a booth at the 

annual FFA Career Fair. 

Refuge newsletter 

published three times a 

year. 

Staff provide a limited 

number of off-site 

programs to schools and 

organizations.

Same as Alt. A Same as Alt. A and:

Expand appeal to underrepresented populations. 

Improved website. 

(Purpose is increased 

participation and 

environmental 

stewardship—attendance 

and volunteers)

Same as Alt. C 

Cultural 

Resources 

Management

Meet Service Regulations Same as Alt. A Same as Alt. A Same as Alt. A

Implementation Requirements

Staffing No change. One additional biological 

science technician.

Fill existing vacant 

tractor operator position.

Two biological science 

technicians.

Fill existing vacant 

tractor operator position.

Additional biological 

technician.

Park ranger for 

interpretation.

Fill existing vacant 

tractor operator 

position.

Table 1: Summary of Draft Management Alternatives for Muscatatuck NWR

Topic Alternative A

Current Management 

Direction

(No Action)

Alternative B

Increased Restoration of 

Natural Processes; 

Maintain Focus on Priority 

General Public Uses

Alternative C

Balance Natural Processes 

& Constructed Units; 

Increased Focus on High 

Quality Priority General 

Public Uses

 (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative D

Intensified Management 

of Constructed Units; 

Expanded Priority General 

Public Uses
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

110

Facilities No change. Dikes removed from 

Moist Soil Units 7, 8, 9 

and 10.

Roads south of Stanfield 

Lake and east of the auto 

tour loop would be 

maintained for Service 

vehicle access only.

The west entrance to the 

Refuge would be closed.

Additional accessible 

fishing sites would be 

developed at ponds and 

lakes with public road 

access.

Dikes would be removed 

from Moist Soil Units 8, 9 

and 10.

The auto tour route would 

be paved. Existing gravel 

roads and parking lots 

would be improved.

The west entrance to the 

Refuge would be closed.

The East and West River 

Trails would not be 

maintained and would 

revert to natural land 

cover. The surface of the 

remaining trails would be 

improved.

A wildlife observation 

structure would be built 

near the Refuge shop 

area.

The Hackman Overlook 

structure would be 

evaluated for 

modification or removal.

Additional accessible 

fishing sites would be 

developed at current 

fishing locations to 

supplement the existing 

facilities.

Maintenance of water 

control structures 

would increase. 

All Refuge roads would 

be paved and parking 

lots improved.

Both Refuge entrances 

would be maintained.

All trails would be 

maintaind and trail 

surfaces improved.

A wildlife observation 

structure would be built 

near the shop area.

The Hackman Overlook 

structure would be 

evaluated for 

modification or 

removal.

Additional accessible 

fishing sites would be 

developed at current 

fishing locations to 

supplement the existing 

facilities.

Table 1: Summary of Draft Management Alternatives for Muscatatuck NWR

Topic Alternative A

Current Management 

Direction

(No Action)

Alternative B

Increased Restoration of 

Natural Processes; 

Maintain Focus on Priority 

General Public Uses

Alternative C

Balance Natural Processes 

& Constructed Units; 

Increased Focus on High 

Quality Priority General 

Public Uses

 (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative D

Intensified Management 

of Constructed Units; 

Expanded Priority General 

Public Uses
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

111

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

This chapter contains an overview of the affected 

environment of Muscatatuck NWR. More detail is 

contained in Chapter 3 of the CCP.

3.1 Introduction

The Muscatatuck NWR manages 7,802 acres in 

Jackson, Jennings, and Monroe Counties of Indiana. 

The Refuge also administers nine conservation 

easements, totaling 130.5 acres in five Indiana 

counties. 

3.2 Geographic/Ecosystem 

Setting

Historically, the Refuge was a part of the 

expansive, contiguous deciduous hardwood forest 

that covered most of the central and southern part 

of the state. Lindsey (1997) listed oak-hickory and 

beech-maple as the dominant pre-settlement forest 

types. Prior to European settlement of the area, the 

Muscatatuck River Basin was an old lake basin of 

deciduous forest. This area is generally wet or moist 

most of the year. 

The land of the future Refuge was cleared for 

farms in the mid 1800s as the state was settled by 

Europeans. When the Service purchased the land 

most of the area had been altered from its original 

forest cover type. Since the Service has managed 

the land, the cover has changed away from 

agriculture to managed wetlands and trees. Fire 

was likely a part of the forces shaping the forest 

prior to European settlement as indigenous 

populations used fire as a management tool in 

forested areas. Fire has been suppressed at in the 

Muscatatuck NWR area for much of the last 

century, except for some areas that were treated 

with fire as a management tool in the 1990s.

Today the more common species in the 

bottomland hardwood forest are pin oak, swamp 

white oak, swamp chestnut oak, sweet gum, green 

ash, river birch, silver and red maple and shellbark 

hickory.

The Refuge lies in a predominantly agricultural 

landscape. Farm land constitutes 63.5 percent of the 

land area in Jackson County and 59.1 percent in 

Jennings County (FedStats 2002). Within this 

predominantly agricultural landscape, the 

developed area of Seymour to the west of the 

Refuge is a notable exception. There are forested 

lands and woodlots scattered among the agricultural 

lands. Based on 2001 national land cover data 

developed by the Multi-Resolution Land 

Characteristics Consortium, the area within a 6-mile 

distance of the Refuge is 61.8 percent agricultural, 

10.8 percent developed, and 26.4 percent forested 

(U.S. Geological Survey 2001). (Figure 10) 

The Refuge contributes to the goals and 

objectives of various regional, national, and 

international conservation plans and initiatives, 

including the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan and Partners in Flight.

The State of Indiana, other federal agencies, and 

non-governmental conservation organizations own 

and manage lands and recreation access sites within 

a 50-mile radius of the Refuge (Figure 11). Local 

governments also own and manage community 

parks in the area. Conservation easements also 

apply to a significant amount of land in the 

surrounding area. 

3.3 Socioeconomic Setting

Muscatatuck NWR is located in Jackson and 

Jennings Counties. These two counties are less 

racially and ethnically diverse than the State of 

Indiana as a whole. The population in the counties 

has a lower average income and a lower percentage 

of high school and college graduates than the state’s 

population as a whole. The population estimate for 

the two counties was 70,664 in 2005. In 2004 

manufacturing was the largest of the major 

economic sectors in both counties accounting for 

25.8 percent of the jobs in Jackson County and 19.3 

percent of the jobs in Jennings County. Retail trade, 

transportation, and warehousing were also notable 

sectors (STATS Indiana 2007). 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

112

Figure 10: Land Cover in the Vicinicty of Muscatatuck NWR
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

113

Figure 11: Conservation Lands Surrounding Muscatatuck NWR
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

114

3.4 Climate

The Refuge experiences a continental climate of 

warm, humid summers and moderately cold 

winters. The area receives moisture from the Gulf of 

Mexico as air masses move up the Mississippi and 

Ohio River Valleys. January is the coldest month 

with a mean normal temperature of 28 degrees 

Fahrenheit. July is the warmest month with a mean 

normal temperature of 74.5 degrees Fahrenheit. 

The frost and freeze dates for a 32 degrees 

Fahrenheit with a 50 percent probability are April 

20 and October 12. The normal annual precipitation 

is about 46 total inches. Normal precipitation is 

distributed relatively evenly across the months of 

the year with a low normal of 2.84 inches in 

February and a high normal of 5.01 inches in May 

(Source: National Climatic Data Center).

3.5 Geology and Soils

The Refuge lies within the Scottsburg lowland 

physiographic division of Indiana. The lowland has 

resulted from the greater erosion of shales 

compared to the underlying limestones and 

siltstones of adjacent uplands. Thick glacial 

deposits, which are older than Wisconsin glacial 

deposits, cover the area with little variation in 

topography (Wayne 1956). More specifically, 

Muscatatuck NWR’s geology includes the 

combination of underlying bedrock strata and the 

unconsolidated soils material deposited by glacial 

action. The glacial material is dominantly stratified 

sands and clays that have been blanketed with a 

mantle of wind blown silt (loess). Hydric soils cover 

approximately 38 percent of the Refuge. 

3.6 Hydrology and Water 

Quality

The Refuge lies within a flat, relatively well 

drained portion of the Wabash River Basin. Water 

flows away from the Refuge down the Vernon Fork 

of the Muscatatuck River. Three small streams, 

Sandy Branch, Mutton Creek, and Storm Creek, 

flow through the Refuge and enter the Vernon Fork 

soon after leaving the Refuge. The subwatersheds 

of Upper- and Lower- Mutton Creek and Upperand Lower-Storm Creek, which cover 30,100 acres 

above the Refuge, flow into the Refuge. 

Approximately 8,525 acres of the Mutton CreekSandy Branch subwatershed, which includes the 

eastern portion of Seymour, also flows into the 

Refuge. The annual floodplain of the Vernon Fork 

extends 2,000 to 3,500 feet into the Refuge along its 

souther n border. Annual floods inundate 

approximately 2,700 acres of the Refuge. 

Agriculture is the primary land use in the 

watershed. Run-off from crop fields, pastureland, 

and feedlots contributes to non-point source 

pollution. In addition to agriculture, the rapid urban 

development of the area surrounding the Refuge 

has led to increases in flow rates, erosion, and 

amount of particles, sediment, and other substances 

reaching the Refuge.

3.7 Refuge Habitats and 

Wildlife

3.7.1 Wetlands

Wetlands cover 38 percent of the Refuge, and 

approximately 36 percent of that land floods 

annually.

The majority of wetland habitat is bottomland 

hardwood forest (4,142 acres) and managed water 

units that include moist soil units, brood marshes, 

greentree impoundments and Stanfield, Moss and 

Richart Lakes (1,264 acres). The Refuge also has 

over 70 other small ponds and wetland areas. These 

were constructed by former land owners to be stock 

ponds or ponds near residences and are utilized by 

migratory birds and wildlife. Several seeps exist on 

the Refuge. One, an acid seep spring designated as a 

research natural area, is extremely rare in Indiana 

having been documented in only seven other 

locations in the state. Wildlife that use the wetlands 

include Wood Ducks and Hooded Mergansers, 

which nest in the bottomland hardwoods, American 

Bald Eagle, copperbelly watersnake, river otter and 

many other species from all faunal assemblages. 

3.7.2 Forests

Approximately 66 percent (5,302 acres) of the 

Refuge is covered by forests. Approximately 77 

percent of the forested area (4,076 acres) is 

classified as a type of bottomland hardwood forest –

a cold-deciduous forest that is temporarily or 

seasonally flooded and occurs on wet soils and in 

floodplains. American beech and a variety of maple 

and oak species dominate bottomland forests. Ash, 

sweetgum, river birch and sycamore are also 

present. The remaining 22 percent of the forested 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

115

area (1,226 acres) is classified as upland hardwood 

forest – a cold-deciduous forest type that primarily 

occurs in lowland or submontane habitats on soils 

that are unaffected by seasonal flooding. Varieties of 

oaks and maples dominate, and these forests can 

also include American beech and eastern red cedar 

along with other species (Sieracki et al. 2002). 

Trees commonly found on the Refuge include: 

P pin oak

P swamp white oak

P swamp chestnut oak

P sweet gum

P green ash

P river birch

P silver and red maple

P shellbark hickory

P white oak

P red oak

P white ash

P tuliptree

P American beech

Mammals that use the forests include: 

P white-tailed deer

P eastern gray squirrel

P eastern fox squirrel

P southern flying squirrel

P groundhog

P Indiana Bat 

Forest bird species include: 

P Wood Duck

P Hooded Merganser

P Red-shouldered Hawk

P Red-headed Woodpecker

P Northern Flicker

P Acadian Flycatcher

P Cerulean Warbler

P Prothonotary Warbler

P Worm-eating Warbler

P American Redstart

P Louisiana Waterthrush

P Kentucky Warbler

P Rusty Blackbird

P Yellow-billed Cuckoo

P Wood Thrush

3.7.3 Grasslands

Some areas of grasslands are mowed for wildlife 

viewing along the auto tour route. The majority of 

these fields contain non-indigenous species such as 

fescue, timothy, orchard grass, and clover. The 

remaining dominant grassland vegetation includes 

native broadleaves, bluegrass, bluegrass-fescue, 

alfalfa-brome, and panic grass. Fescue is the 

dominant species over much of the non-cultivated 

open area. Wildlife that use the grasslands include 

various mice and vole species, eastern cottontail 

rabbit, white-tailed deer, coyote, black king snake, 

black rat snake, eastern garter snake, Red-tailed 

Hawk, Northern Harrier, Sedge Wren, Grasshopper 

Sparrow, Henslow’s Sparrow, Song Sparrow, Indigo 

Bunting, Dickcissel, Red-winged Blackbird, 

Eastern Meadowlark, and Bobolink.

3.7.4 Birds

More than 279 bird species have been reported 

on the Refuge and 120 of those are considered 

nesting species. A rich diversity of waterfowl, 

raptors, and songbirds is commonly observed on the 

Refuge. Wood Duck broods are common sightings in 

the spring and summer months. Waterfowl use days 

during the winter and spring migrations number in 

the thousands. A Bald Eagle nest has been active 

since 2002 and winter migrants are commonly seen. 

Muscatatuck NWR is also known for the spring and 

summer migration of songbirds especially warblers 

in May. The Refuge was designated a Continentally 

Important Bird Area in June 1998. The designation 

was based on Christmas bird count data and the 

Refuge’s wintering numbers of Canada Geese from 

the James Bay population. The Refuge was a 

stopover site for the Whooping Crane Eastern 

Partnership (WCEP) ultralight-led Whooping 

Cranes annually from the fall of 2001 through the 

fall of 2007. A complete list of bird species and a 

general guide to their seasonal occurrence and 

status on the Refuge can be found in Appendix C.
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

116

3.7.5 Mammals

Thirty-eight species of mammals are known to 

occur on the Refuge. The mammals include the 

federally-listed endangered Indiana bat, the Statelisted endangered Evening bat, and the white-tailed 

deer, a species popular for hunting and wildlife 

viewing. Occurrence of the Indiana bat, including 

lactating females, on the Refuge was confirmed in 

1995 and reaffirmed in 2007 by telemetry studies 

that found that the Indiana bat is a summer resident 

on the Refuge (Whittaker 1995; Carter 2007), and it 

may be more abundant than was generally thought. 

These bats are also known to form maternity 

colonies on the Refuge; one maternity roost was 

studied and its coordinates recorded in 2007, 

(Carter 2007). River otters, once extirpated from 

the State of Indiana, were reintroduced to the 

Refuge beginning in January 1995. The first otter 

litters were produced on the Refuge in 1996. The 

reintroduction in Indiana has been successful and 

river otters are no longer considered state-listed 

endangered (Johnson et al. 2007). A complete list of 

mammal species that occur on the Refuge can be 

found in Appendix C.

3.7.6 Amphibians and Reptiles

Forty-one species of amphibians and reptiles are 

known on the Refuge. They include the state-listed 

endangered four-toed salamander, copperbelly 

watersnake, Kirtland’s snake, and the rough green 

snake, an Indiana Species of Special Concern. As of 

November 1996, under the provisions of the 

Copperbelly Watersnake Conservation Agreement 

and Strategy, scientists began to better understand 

the life history patterns of the copperbelly 

watersnake. Telemetry work at the Refuge has 

proven valuable in clarifying the ecological 

requirements of this species and observational data 

collected since 1992 and tracking/locating data 

collected in 1997 through 2000 revealed the species’ 

dependence on both palustrine emergent and 

floodplain forest habitats. Indiana University 

Professor Dr. Meretsky discovered the state-listed 

endangered four-toed salamander during her work 

on the Refuge. The salamander is associated with 

mature forests containing wetlands with mossy 

edges. Records of the species from central and 

southern Indiana appear to be based upon very 

small isolated colonies, some of which may no longer 

exist. Thus, the Refuge population is a significant 

find. A complete list of the amphibians and reptiles 

that occur on the Refuge is provided in Appendix C.

3.7.7 Fish

Fifty-four species of fish were collected during a 

2007 survey on the Refuge. The species collected 

are presented in Appendix C. The most diverse 

families represented were the minnow and darter 

families that included 11 species each. Fishing for 

largemouth bass, bluegill, redear sunfish, crappie, 

and channel catfish is popular with an estimated 

15,000 fishing visits per year at the Refuge.

3.7.8 Invertebrates

An intensive survey of aquatic macroinvertebrates was conducted concurrently with the fish 

survey during the spring of 2007. Fifty samples 

were collected from a variety of creeks, streams, 

and lake outlets. The results of this survey are still 

pending; however, five species of crayfish were collected including the paintedhand mudbug, Great 

Plains mudbug, northern crayfish, Sloan's crayfish, 

and rusty crayfish (Simon et al. 2008). 

Thirty-five dragonfly species have been recorded 

on the Refuge, including the Beaverpond baskettail, 

eastern pondhawk, and shadow darner. The Refuge, 

where many photographs were taken to illustrate 

the book Dragonflies of Indiana, is known as a good 

location to observe dragonflies (Curry 2001). The 

beaverpond baskettail dragonfly is considered a 

rare species in the State of Indiana. Butterfly 

surveys have been conducted since 2002 by 

volunteers using a protocol established by the North 

American Butterfly Association, and 60 species have 

been identified to date including the cabbage white, 

an exotic species. A complete listing of dragonfly 

and butterfly species documented on the Refuge can 

be found in Appendix C.

At least 24 species of mollusks have been 

documented on the Refuge (Harmon 1996, Fisher 

2007). A total of eight sites were sampled in 2007 for 

live, fresh dead, and weathered dead shells. 

Harmon’s (1996) study documented 20 species 

present on the Refuge; the 2007 inquiry yielded 

three new species from the Ver non Fork –

elephantear, flutedshell, and deertoe. The little 

spectaclecase was found in both the 1996 and the 

2007 surveys. However, only fresh dead specimens 

were encountered in 2007. This species is a species 

of special concern in Indiana and is listed as 

imperiled (S2) within the state. The Asiatic clam, a 

non-native invasive species, is markedly abundant 

on the Refuge, especially within the Vernon Fork of 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

117

the Muscatatuck River. A complete listing of 

mollusk species documented on the Refuge can be 

found in Appendix C.

3.7.9 Threatened and Endangered 

Species

3.7.9.1 Threatened/Endangered/Candidate Species 

(Federally Listed)

Least Tern, Whooping Crane, Indiana bat, and 

copperbelly watersnake use the Refuge. Whooping 

Cranes from the “Operation Migration” project 

have used the Refuge as a stopover on their annual 

trip down to Florida, and free ranging or direct 

release birds are routinely seen within 20 miles of 

the Refuge. There is substantial documentation of 

the copperbelly watersnake’s use of the Refuge. 

The federally-listed Endangered Indiana bat was 

confirmed on the Refuge in 1995 and reaffirmed in 

2007. Surveys indicate that the Indiana bat roosts 

on the Refuge during the summer and that 

maternity colonies are present.

3.7.9.2 State-listed/Candidate Species

A total of 61 state-listed endangered and special 

concern species have been documented on the 

Refuge with five more suspected to occur on the 

property. State status, including state-listed or 

special concern, is noted in the species lists 

contained in Appendix C.

3.8 Threats to Resources

3.8.1 Invasive/Exotic/Pest Species

Invasive, exotic, and noxious weeds are common 

throughout most of the Refuge’s habitat types. 

Although research quality distribution and 

abundance estimates are lacking, it is evident to 

anyone traveling on Refuge roads that autumn olive, 

garlic mustard, reed canary grass, multiflora rose, 

crown vetch and many other species dominate 

certain portions of the landscape. Japanese 

stiltgrass, multiflora rose, autumn olive, tree-ofheaven, and kudzu threaten the diversity and health 

of the bottomland and upland hardwoods while 

other species, such as reed canary grass, compete 

with native vegetation in riparian corridors, moist 

soil units, and other wetland types. Many of the 

invasive species have the capability of producing 

solid monocultures shading out native vegetation, 

which reduces overall plant and animal diversity. 

Invasives, exotics, and pest species found on the 

Refuge are:

P purple loosestrife

P Autumn olive

P Canada thistle

P Johnson grass

P multiflora rose

P moneywort

P common carp

P Asian clams

P Japanese stiltgrass

P oriental bittersweet

P garlic mustard

P kudzu

P reed canary grass

P Asian ambrosia beetle

P Asian ladybugs

P European Starling

P Brown-headed Cowbirds

P House Sparrows

P mosquito fish

P gypsy moths 

There was an account of a gypsy moth in 1995, 

but subsequent traps have not revealed any moths. 

It is not considered a major problem. 

3.8.2 Contaminants

Contaminants may be entering the Refuge via 

the Vernon Fork of the Muscatatuck River (VFMR) 

and its tributaries. Contaminants are also likely to 

be entering the Refuge from a wide variety of other 

sources such as: 

P atmospheric deposition

P crop and livestock runoff

P septic system failures

P surface runoff from the city of Seymour and 

adjacent highways and roads

P discharge from National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) sites

P underground storage tanks

P accidental spills
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

118

P power substations

P Crown Central Petroleum (refinery) 

Agriculture is the primary land use in the 

watershed. Run-off from crop fields, pastureland, 

and feedlots contributes to non-point source 

pollution. Erosion, nutrient and sediment loading, 

and contamination from application of pesticides, 

herbicides, and fertilizers all introduce 

contaminants into the watershed and Refuge 

system. Many of these substances, such as organochlorines and organo-phophates, are known to be 

toxic to fish and wildlife via direct exposure, 

bioaccumulation, and bio-magnification. 

In addition to agriculture, the rapid urban 

development of the area surrounding the Refuge 

has had detrimental impacts on the watershed. As 

more land is cleared and paved, there are increases 

in flow rates, erosion, and amount of particles, 

sediment, and other substances reaching the 

Refuge. The Refuge is within a mile or less of three 

major highways, all of which cross at least one of the 

three primary tributaries that enter the Refuge. 

This creates sources of run-off containing salts, fuel, 

and other petroleum products. In addition, the 

construction of homes and businesses has put a 

strain on waste water treatment facilities and septic 

systems which could result in nutrient and bacterial 

problems within the watershed. There is also 

potential for accidental spills to occur. 

Atmospheric deposition of heavy metals is a 

concern worldwide and the Refuge falls under the 

same general fish advisory as most of the waters in 

the State of Indiana. This advisory establishes 

recommendations for fish consumption based on 

elevated mercury levels with the fish in Indiana. 

The problems associated with heavy metal 

contamination may be compounded at the Refuge 

due to the impoundment of water and trapping of 

sediment, collection, and concentration of runoff 

from a large watershed, and the wetting and drying 

cycles that contribute to the methylation of mercury. 

3.9 Archeological and 

Cultural Values

The Myers Cabin is a restored family log cabin at 

the south end of the Refuge that was built between 

1870-1890 by Louis Myers. The barn behind the 

cabin was built in 1900 and is an excellent example 

of “hand-pegged” construction. Carl Myers, a son of 

Louis, was in the plant nursery business and 

developed (or found) some seedless persimmon 

trees, which he sold commercially from his house 

adjacent to Myers Cabin. A small grove of the 

seedless persimmon trees still remain close to the 

cabin. The cabin was continuously occupied by the 

Myers family and the barn was in use until they 

were purchased by the Fish and Wildlife Service 

around 1966. Both structures are in very good 

condition and have been restored and maintained by 

the Muscatatuck Wildlife Society. 

The Barkman Cemetery is located along County 

Line Road and was in use at the time of the Refuge 

establishment. A path to the cemetery is maintained 

for ease of access from a small parking lot. There 

are more than 30 headstones, and many have been 

repaired by volunteers. The cemetery is maintained 

by Refuge and volunteer staff and is regularly 

visited by family members.

The Myers Cemetery is a small site located along 

the East River Hiking Trail, and has only about 

seven head-stones. It is in the woods and does not 

require mowing. A marker for an unknown civil war 

soldier was apparently stolen from the cemetery in 

the early 1980s.

The Refuge has two national register 

archaelogical sites, the Low Spur site and the Sand 

Hill site. The Sand Hill site and most of the Refuge 

area was scoured by collectors long before the 

Refuge was purchased. More than 73 archaelogical 

sites have been documented on the Refuge by 

professional archaeologists. Recovered artifacts 

indicate that the Refuge area was intensively 

occupied in the Archaic (10,000-1,000 B.C.) and 

Woodland (1,000 B.C.-A.D. 1200) time periods with 

Late Archaic and Woodland components 

particularly well represented. Early Archaic sites 

were found on upland ridge and bluff tops and both 

Early and Late Archaic sites were found on ridge 

spurs and lowland terraces. Large multi-component 

sites were located on a variety of landforms. Many 

of the sites have been interpreted as short-term 

temporary campsites, perhaps seasonal extractive 

camps (like hickory-nut processing) or sites 

occupied for part of the year. Fire-cracked rock, 

chert flakes, projectile points, and pieces of pottery 

were commonly excavated finds and are curated at 

the Glenn Black Museum in Bloomington.
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

119

3.10 Other Management Areas

3.10.1 Research Natural Area

The Muscatatuck Seep Springs Research 

Natural Area (MSS-RNA) occupies a 97-acre 

portion of the Refuge. It is one of only seven acid 

seep springs documented in Indiana. The cold, 

acidic groundwater yields a unique assemblage of 

plant species. Many of the plants that occur here are 

restricted to these exact environmental conditions. 

These conditions are extremely uncommon in the 

landscape, especially in southern Indiana. This 

community is also ranked G3 (Globally Rare) in the 

Natural Heritage system, an international network 

of biological and conservation data base, 

coordinated by the Nature Conservancy. Statelisted plant species found here are: American 

ginseng, club spur orchid, southern tubercled 

orchid, bog bluegrass, Walter’s St. Johnswort, 

smooth white violet. Also found here are the statelisted endangered four-toed salamander and the 

state-listed endangered copperbelly watersnake.

3.10.2 Restle Unit

The Restle Unit of Muscatatuck NWR is a 78-

acre parcel in Monroe County, northwest of 

Bloomington, Indiana, donated to the National 

Wildlife Refuge System in 1990. It has a 30-acre 

emergent wetland that was repaired by a 

Maintenance Action Team in September 2005. The 

rest of the remaining acreage is bottomland 

hardwoods. It is a palustrine floodplain forest with 

swamp white oak, pin oak, swamp cottonwood, 

sycamore and silver maple.

Historically the area was a part of a large 

forested area called the Central Hardwood Region. 

The GLO original survey notes of 1811 and 1815 

refer to forests comprised of beech, burr oak, maple, 

water oak, poplar, hickory, elm, and ash (Slusher 

and Welch 2001). The land was cleared for 

agriculture in the mid-1800s as the state was settled 

and tile drainage began in the late 1800s, and an 

extensive system of ditches was put in place in order 

to control the hydrology for farming. 

The Restle Unit lies within the outer margin of 

the floodplain on the north side of Bean Blossom 

Creek. Steep uplands with intermittent streams 

form a border north of the property. The unit is 

relatively flat and has a low gradient and is 

seasonally flooded. It is located in the south central 

part of the state, in a region known as the Mitchell 

Karst Plain Section of the Highland Rim Natural 

Region, as classified by the Indiana Natural 

Heritage program. The major soil types are Zipp, 

silty clay loam which is frequently flooded, and 

Burnside silt loam which is occasionally flooded.

The Restle Unit provides habitat for a diversity 

of wildlife including Wood Ducks, Canada Geese, 

Hooded Mergansers, Mallards, and other 

waterfowl. At least 80 bird species have been 

identified using the unit including Bald Eagle, 

Osprey, Northern Harrier, Black-crowned NightHeron, Great Egret, and Great Blue Herons. 

Mammals seen on the Refuge include beaver, 

muskrats, white-tailed deer, eastern fox squirrel, 

raccoon, red fox, opossum, and eastern mole are 

mammals that have been seen. 

Amphibians and reptiles seen in the Unit include: 

Cricket frog, green frog, spring peeper, southern 

leopard frog, painted turtle, snapping turtle, 

northern banded water snake, and ribbon snake.

The federally-listed endangered Indiana bat has 

not been confirmed on the Unit, but is suspected to 

be present because the habitat provided matches its 

requirements; however no studies have occurred to 

find them. An IDNR radio collared bobcat was 

tracked using the Restle Unit in June and July 2002. 

The Restle Unit is surrounded by a complex of 

protected land called the Bean Blossom Bottoms 

that includes acreage owned by Sycamore Land 

Trust and Wetland Reserve Program land. A total of 

708 acres are protected. At least 109 bird species 

including Prothonotary Warbler, Wood Thrush, 

Cerulean Warbler, Red-headed Woodpecker, 

American Woodcock, Willow Flycatcher, Prairie 

Warbler, Henslow’s Sparrow, Virginia Rail, and 

King Rail all have been reported from the Bean 

Blossom Bottoms area and the area is recognized as 

an Indiana Important Bird Area (IBA) by the 

Audubon Society. These lands support a Bald Eagle 

nest, a Great Blue Heron rookery, the state-listed 

endangered Kirtland’s snake and northern crayfish 

frog (last confirmed in 1998).

The Unit is included in the Audubon-designated 

Beanblossom Bottoms Important Bird Area (IBA). 

State-listed species seen are Bald Eagle, Northern 

Harrier, Barn Owl, Osprey, Black-crowned NightHeron, and Black Tern. State species of concern 

include Great Egret, Red-shouldered Hawk, and 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

120

Sandhill Crane. Twenty three bird species of 

Conservation Concern were listed on the IBA 

nomination form (Cole 2007).

Invasive, exotic species and noxious weeds seen 

at the Unit include reed canary grass, Asian bush 

honeysuckle and European Starling. Inventory 

work has not yet been done.

 Management of the Unit as stated in the Restle 

donation document is “grantee shall perpetually 

manage the real estate as a wetland habitat for 

native wildlife and plant enhancement and 

protection.” There are some deed restrictions to the 

management of the property (Appendix E of the 

Draft CCP).

The 30-acre wetland area will be managed for 

migrant and nesting waterfowl and, when 

appropriate, mudflats may be exposed for shorebird 

use. The bottomland hardwood forest will continue 

to grow. 

The Restle Unit was donated with the restriction 

that “no general access of the public to the area 

shall be permitted.” An observation deck 

overlooking the Unit with a parking area on Bottom 

Road was constructed in 1998 and is available for 

the public to use. 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

121

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4.1 Effects Common to All 

Alternatives

Specific environmental and social impacts of 

implementing each alternative are examined in this 

chapter. A summary of the impacts of each 

alternative is provided in Table 2 on page 133. 

Several potential effects will be very similar under 

each alternative, and they are summarized in this 

section.

4.1.1 Air Quality

None of the management alternatives would have 

appreciable, long-term impacts on ambient air 

quality. Prescribed fire would not be used as a 

habitat management strategy under Alternatives A 

and B; however, it may be used under Alternatives 

C and D as an option to maintain the wildlife viewing 

areas and to control invasives, manage moist soil 

units forests, and grasslands. Tailpipe emissions 

from operation of Refuge equipment and from 

visitation to the Refuge by the motoring public are 

negligible in comparison with overall regional 

emissions.

4.1.2 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations” was 

signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994. 

Its purpose was to focus the attention of federal 

agencies 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 management alternatives would 

disproportionately place any adverse 

environmental, economic, social, or health impacts 

on minority and low income populations. Public use 

activities that would be offered under each of the 

alternative would be available to any visitor 

regardless of race, ethnicity or income level. The 

new, proposed entrance fee in Alternatives B and D 

would be small and would not be a prohibitive 

expense to any motorist visiting the Refuge.

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 dioxide (CO2) within the 

earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual 

rise in surface temperature commonly referred to 

as global warming. In relation to comprehensive 

conservation planning for national wildlife refuges, 

carbon sequestration constitutes the primary 

climate-related impact to be considered in planning. 

The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Carbon 

Sequestration Research and Development” defines 

carbon sequestration as “...the capture and secure 

storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted 

to or remain in the atmosphere.”

Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon 

sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts – 

grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, and desert – 

are effective both in preventing carbon emission and 

acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric 

CO2. The Department of Energy report’s 

conclusions noted that ecosystem protection is 

important to carbon sequestration and may reduce 

or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the 

terrestrial biosphere. 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

122

Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the 

heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife 

refuges. The actions proposed in this CCP would 

conserve or restore land and habitat, and would 

thus retain existing carbon sequestration on the 

Refuge. This in turn contributes positively to efforts 

to mitigate human-induced global climate change.

Overall, there will be a minimal postive net 

change in the amount of carbon sequestered on the 

Refuge from any of the proposed management 

alternatives. Further discussion of potential 

concerns and uncertainties related to climate 

change are included in the CCP.

4.1.4 Cultural Resources

The Service is responsible for managing 

archeological and historic sites found on national 

wildlife refuges. Undertakings accomplished on the 

Refuge have the potential to impact cultural 

resources. The consequences for cultural resources 

would be the same under each management 

alternative. Although the presence of cultural 

resources, including historic properties, cannot stop 

a Federal undertaking, the undertakings 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 a description 

and location of all projects, activities, routine 

maintenance and operations that affect ground and 

structures; requests for permitted uses; and 

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. And, the Refuge Manager 

asks the public and local government officials to 

identify concerns about impacts caused by the 

undertaking in a notification that is at least equal to, 

and preferably with, the public notification carried 

out for NEPA and compatibility.

4.1.5 Other Common Effects

None of the alternatives would have more than 

negligible or at most minor effects on soils, 

topography, noise levels, transportation, waste 

management, human health and safety, or visual 

resources.

4.2 Management Alternatives

4.2.1 Alternative A: Current 

Management Direction (No 

Action)

Under this alternative the activities of the Refuge 

would continue as in the past with current staffing 

and resources.

Under Alternative A, the conversion of former 

cropland to upland forest would continue through 

natural succession and limited tree planting to 

provide for forest nesting birds, neo-tropical 

migrants, and Indiana bats. It is expected that 

habitat benefits would continue to accrue for these 

species under Alternative A. And, the Refuge’s 

bottomland forest would be managed as in the past 

to benefit cavity nesting waterfowl. The projected 

increase in the block sizes of upland and bottomland 

forests would be beneficial to area sensitive species. 

The acreage of open water on the Refuge would 

be maintained as would the current benefits to 

broods and migrant birds.

The constructed impoundments, which are 

seasonally flooded, would be managed as in the past 

under this alternative. The manipulation of water 

levels and vegetation management would be less 

than the design potential of the units. The units 

would support fewer waterfowl and shorebirds than 

possible under optimum management.

Former farmland would be allowed to proceed 

through natural succession and early successional 

habitat would develop, which would benefit 

grassland and shrubland bird species such as:

P Blue-winged Warbler

P Golden-winged Warbler

P Yellow-breasted Chats

P American Woodcock

P Bob-white Quail

P Prairie Warbler

P Field Sparrow

P Henslow’s Sparrow

P Grasshopper Sparrow

P Dickcissel

P Bobolink
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

123

P Sedge Wren

P Black-billed Cuckoo

Many woodland nesting bird species utilize 

shrublands as post-fledging habitat. Upon maturity 

of these habitats, as shrubs are replaced by larger 

trees, a variety of forest dwelling species would 

begin to experience benefits. Species that might be 

expected to benefit include: white-tailed deer, 

eastern gray squirrel, eastern fox squirrel, southern 

flying squirrel, woodchuck, and Indiana bat.

Forest birds that might benefit include: 

P Wood Duck

P Hooded Merganser

P Red-shouldered Hawk

P Red-headed Woodpecker

P Northern Flicker

P Acadian Flycatcher

P Cerulean Warbler

P Prothonotary Warbler

P Worm-eating Warbler

P American Redstart

P Louisiana Waterthrush

P Kentucky Warbler

P Rusty Blackbird

P Yellow-billed Cuckoo

P Wood Thrush

A wide range of reptiles and amphibians could be 

expected to benefit from habitat conditions under 

Alternative A. The current acreage in farming 

rotation would continue and benefit wildlife viewing 

of many species including Wild Turkey, deer, raptors 

such as Rough-legged Hawks and Northern 

Harriers, Sandhill Cranes, geese and other 

waterfowl will be seen by the public. Limited 

herbicide application would likely continue to be 

necessary to ensure efficient crop production; 

removing land from agriculture greatly reduces the 

need for herbicide application which then is only 

necessary in the case of invasive plant control. The 

negative impacts to water quality, amphibians, 

invertebrates etc. would consequently be locally 

reduced if agricultural production ceased. However, 

maintaining agricultural lands allows for the 

retention of terrestrial edge habitats within the 

Refuge which is extremely valuable for many 

species. This habitat type will be limited if all 

agriculture acreages were allowed to revert to 

forested habitats and edge species would suffer the 

consequences.

The diversity of habitat on the Refuge is what 

makes this a top birding spot in the state. The 

Refuge is a “Continentally Important Bird Area.” 

Therefore, large scale or drastic changes in the way 

the Refuge is managed could have a negative impact 

on the diversity of habitat and consequently on the 

number of species of birds and their abundance. 

Small mammals associated with agriculture and 

grasslands are another suite of species that would 

likely suffer negative impacts as former cropland 

and grasslands are converted to forested habitats, 

however, small mammals native to bottomland 

forest habitat should increase in abundance. This 

alternative is the current management alternative.

 For a birder, seeing 100 or more species in a day 

is a goal that usually involves driving hundreds of 

miles by car to visit the varied habitats required to 

achieve this goal. The variety of habitat on the 

Refuge in this alternative has made the goal 

possible. The ability to visit forest, grassland, shrub/

scrub, marsh and other wetland habitats in a rather 

small area makes Muscatatuck NWR a remarkable 

place for bird watchers.

The treatment and control of invasive plant 

species using a variety of methods would have the 

beneficial result of slowing the spread of these 

species, which tend to supplant native flora and 

reduce habitat value for wildlife. Under Alternative 

A, there would be control on about 220 acres each 

year and limited monitoring of invasive species.

This alternative would support a number of 

species on the Region’s Regional Conservation 

Priority Species list. 

Under this alternative the wildlife-dependent 

opportunities available on the Refuge would 

continue at the present level. Volunteer and 

partnership participation would continue, as would 

the current level of contact with the community. The 

result would be that visitor numbers, visitor 

satisfaction, and public support of Refuge would 

continue at current levels.
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

124

4.2.2 Alternative B: Increased 

Restoration of Natural Processes; 

Maintain Focus on Priority 

General Public Uses

Under Alternative B, the restoration of historical 

land cover and processes would benefit forest 

nesting birds, neo-tropical migrants, and Indiana 

bats. It is expected that wildlife benefits would be 

greater than under Alternative A. The Refuge’s 

bottomland forest would be managed as in the past 

to benefit cavity nesting waterfowl. The projected 

increase in the block sizes of upland and bottomland 

forests would be beneficial to area sensitive species 

such as Cerulean Warbler and Wood Thrush. The 

acreage of open water on the Refuge would be 

decreased. Benefits to broods and migrant birds 

may be slightly reduced; however, benefits would 

accrue across a wide array of herpetofaunal 

assemblages, which in turn will benefit species that 

prey on these reptiles and amphibians. It can be 

expected that frog and salamander species would 

increase in abundance under this alternative as 

these areas revert and as the habitats become less 

suitable for the fish species that negatively impact 

their longevity and reproductive success. 

Fewer constructed impoundments, which are 

seasonally flooded, would be managed under this 

alternative compared to Alternative A. This would 

result in a small reduction in the acreage of available 

brood habitat. However, it is estimated that the 

Refuge already has underutilized brood habitat in 

the water units that would be retained and 

managed. A large reduction in the acreage of 

habitat available to migrant waterfowl, shorebirds, 

and wading birds is expected to transpire; however, 

these losses are expected to be offset by increases in 

the quality of habitat and native plant food 

production on the remaining impoundments. A 

broad range of reptiles and amphibians are 

expected to benefit as impoundments influenced by 

the Vernon Fork and Moss Lake flood waters tend 

to harbor an abundance of fish that negatively 

impact longevity and reproductive success of these 

species. Fish are not only detrimental to the 

herpetofauna but sizeable large mouth bass can also 

negatively impact Wood Duck duckling survival 

through predation losses. The increases in 

bottomland forested habitat will benefit breeding 

Wood Ducks and other cavity nesting species, 

migrant waterfowl, neotropical migrants, and 

several mammal species. Specifically, the following 

species would be expected to respond well to the 

changes under this alternative:

P white-tailed deer

P eastern gray squirrel

P eastern fox squirrel

P southern flying squirrel

P woodchuck

P Indiana bat

Forest birds expected to respond well to changes 

resulting from this alternative include:

P Red-shouldered Hawk

P Long-eared Owl

P Chuck-will’s-widow

P Whip-poor-will

P Red-headed Woodpecker

P Northern Flicker

P Acadian Flycatcher

P Cerulean Warbler

P Prothonotary Warbler

P Worm-eating Warbler

P Louisiana Waterthrush

P Kentucky Warbler

P Rusty Blackbird

P Yellow-billed Cuckoo

P Wood Thrush 

Former farmland would be actively converted to 

habitat in later stages of succession, which would 

benefit early successional species, including 

grassland and shrubland birds, for several decades 

before eventually giving way to benefits solely to 

forest species. Bird species that would benefit from 

converting former farmland, including many 

woodland nesting bird species that use shrublands 

as post-fledging habitat, include: 

P Blue-winged Warbler

P Golden-winged Warbler

P Yellow-breasted Chat

P American Woodcock

P Bob-white Quail

P Prairie Warbler
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

125

P Field Sparrow

P Henslow’s Sparrow

P Grasshopper Sparrow

P Dickcissel

P Bobolink

P Sedge Wren

P Black-billed Cuckoo

As these habitats mature and shrubs are 

replaced by larger trees, a variety of forest dwelling 

species will begin to experience benefits. 

Mammal species include:

P white-tailed deer

P Eastern gray squirrel

P Eastern fox squirrel

P Southern flying squirrel

P Indiana bat

Forest birds likely to benefit include:

P Wood Duck

P Hooded Merganser

P Red-shouldered Hawk

P Red-headed Woodpecker

P Northern Flicker

P Acadian Flycatcher

P Cerulean Warbler

P Prothonotary Warbler

P Worm-eating Warbler

P American Redstart

P Louisiana Waterthrush

P Kentucky Warbler

P Rusty Blackbird

P Yellow-billed Cuckoo

P Wood Thrush

 Species expected to benefit also include a wide 

range of reptiles and amphibians. 

The current acreage in farming rotation would be 

discontinued and converted to forested habitat 

following an extended period of grassland/

shrubland habitat. The species benefited will mirror 

those benefited by conversion of the former 

farmland to forested habitats. Drastic reductions in 

edge habitat will ensue under this alternative, 

eventually negatively impacting abundance and 

density of a wide range of edge species. However, 

species that are closely tied to agricultural lands are 

not expected to be severely impacted on a local or 

regional scale because of the abundance of 

agriculture in the surrounding landscape. Brownheaded Cowbirds would likely be negatively 

impacted, which would benefit forest and shrubland 

birds. Increases in small mammal populations and 

furbearer species could be expected in the shortterm with only long-term benefits procured for 

forest species such as white-tailed deer, eastern 

gray squirrel, eastern fox squirrel, southern flying 

squirrel, woodchuck, and the Indiana bat. Some 

reptiles and amphibian species can be expected to 

benefit as well. 

Agricultural practices create monotypic stands of 

vegetation and reduce overall productivity of many 

sites and are directly responsible for the mortality 

of many small mammal, reptile, amphibian, and bird 

species. Direct mortality from machinery, loss of 

habitat, nest destruction, and health problems 

associated with herbicides are expected to be 

reduced under this alternative and elimination of 

farming and the associated agricultural practices is 

presumed to have more positive benefits than 

negative.

Diversity of habitat at the Refuge level will be 

reduced, although this will not be true at the field 

level as increases in vegetative diversity should 

follow within crop fields where monocultures were 

promoted. Edge habitat will be reduced eventually, 

however, during the early stages of conversion of 

cropland to forest an abundance of early 

successional habitat will be produced leading to 

short-term increases in diversity of habitat. Such 

gains in diversity would be temporary and, as early 

successional habitat is replaced by maturing forest, 

diversity of habitat would be drastically reduced. 

The control of invasive plant species using a 

variety of methods would have the beneficial result 

of slowing the spread of these species. Under this 

alternative, good information would guide control 

efforts and invasive species would be more 

effectively controlled than under Alternative A.

This alternative would support a number of 

species on the Region’s Regional Conservation 

Priority Species (RCPS) list in the short-term. The 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

126

species expected to benefit during the early stages 

of forest development include:

P Northern Harrier

P American Woodcock

P Short-eared Owl

P Loggerhead Shrike

P Bell’s Vireo

P Blue-winged Warbler

P Golden-winged Warbler

P Prairie Warbler

P Field Sparrow

Support for many more species on the RCPS list 

would be long-term if not perpetual. These species 

include:

P copperbelly watersnake

P Indiana bat

P Wood Thrush

P Cerulean Warbler

P Prothonotary Warbler

P Worm-eating Warbler

P Louisiana Water Thrush

P Kentucky Warbler

P Canada Warbler

P Rusty Blackbird

P Wood Duck

P Long-eared Owl

P Chuck-will’s-widow

P Whip-poor-will

P Red-headed Woodpecker

P Northern Flicker

P Olive-sided Flycatcher

P Acadian Flycatcher

Four species on the RCPS list are expected to 

benefit in both the long and short terms: Blackbilled Cuckoo, Bewick’s Wren, and the Orchard 

Oriole. 

This alternative differs from Alternative A in a 

couple of ways. The reduction in openings within the 

forested landscapes is hypothesized to result in 

lower abundances of Brown-headed Cowbirds, 

which negatively influence the nest success of many 

of the aforementioned bird species. Also both the 

long-term and the short-term species previously 

mentioned are supported to a greater extent under 

this alternative owing to the conversion of a larger 

acreage than under Alternative A. 

The recreation fees collected under this 

alternative would help generate revenue needed to 

support visitor services. The new recreation fees 

would require an adjustment period until visitors 

become informed of the program.

 Under this alternative the wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities available on the Refuge 

would change. The miles of road open to the public 

would be reduced from 8.41 miles to 5.56 miles in 

Alternative B. Refuge entrances would be reduced 

from two to one. Length of maintained trails would 

be reduced from 9.93 miles to 3.79 miles.

Visitors seeking easy access to the Refuge would 

experience fewer opportunities. Visitors seeking an 

experience further from their vehicle and 

encountering fewer other visitors would have more 

opportunities under this alternative.

Successful deer hunters would have farther to 

travel on average to bring their deer to a vehicle. 

The average distance from the area open to deer 

hunting to an open road in Alternative A is 1,765 

feet and in Alternative B is 2,742 feet. The 

maximum distance in Alternative A is 1.16 miles and 

in Alternative B is 1.75 miles. There would be 

approximately 2 more weeks open to deer hunting 

under this alternative compared to Alternative A.

Persons with mobility challenges would have 

more fishing opportunities as more accessible sites 

are developed at existing fishing locations under 

this alternative. Some ponds would be more difficult 

to reach for fishing, which would offer the 

opportunity of fishing with fewer people present. 

The change in road and trail access would reduce 

fishing opportunities for visitors who did not want to 

walk or bicycle to the more remote ponds.

The type of opportunities for wildlife observation 

and photography would change under this 

alternative compared to Alternative A. Less 

diversity of habitat and fewer species would likely 

be seen by visitors due to the reduced miles of roads 

available. Visitors seeking observation and 

photography experiences characterized by the 

presence of fewer people, experiencing nature, and 

exploration would find more and higher quality 

opportunities under this alternative.
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

127

Interpretation and environmental education 

under this alternative would be expected to promote 

resource stewardship, conservation and public 

understanding of natural resources and increase 

public appreciation of America’s natural resources 

to the same degree as in Alternative A. 

Volunteer and partnership participation would 

increase slightly and the level of contact with the 

community would be maintained in this alternative . 

The result would be that visitor numbers, visitor 

satisfaction, and public support of the Refuge should 

increase slightly above current levels.

4.2.3 Alternative C: Balance Natural 

Processes and Constructed Units; 

Increased Focus on High Quality 

Priority General Public Uses 

(Preferred Alternative)

Under Alternative C the restoration of historical 

land cover and processes and the projected increase 

in the block sizes of upland and bottomland forests 

would be beneficial to area sensitive species such as: 

nesting birds, neo-tropical migrants, and Indiana 

bats. It is expected that wildlife benefits would be 

greater than under Alternative A. The Refuge’s 

bottomland forest would be managed as in the past 

to benefit tree nesting water birds that include 

Wood Ducks, Hooded Mergansers, Green Herons, 

and Yellow-crowned Night-herons.

The acreage of open water on the Refuge would 

be decreased. Benefits to Wood Ducks, and 

waterbirds may be slightly reduced in the areas. 

However, benefits would accrue across a wide array 

of herpetofaunal assemblages which in turn would 

benefit species that prey on these reptiles and 

amphibians. It can be expected that frog and 

salamander species would increase in abundance 

under this alternative as these areas revert and as 

the habitats become less suitable for the fish species 

that negatively impact their longevity and 

reproductive success. Bird species that are expected 

to benefit include: Yellow-crowned Night-Heron, 

Barred Owl, Solitary Sandpiper, Northern 

Waterthrush, and Louisiana Waterthrush. The 

benefits to these species would be greater than in 

Alternative A and equal to or slightly less than in 

Alternative B.

Fewer acres within constructed impoundments, 

which are seasonally flooded, would be managed 

under this alternative compared to Alternative A. 

This will result in a small reduction in the acreage of 

available brood habitat and the acreage of habitat 

available to migrant waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

wading birds. However, these losses are expected to 

be offset by increases in the quality of habitat and 

native plant food production on the remaining 

impoundments. A broad range of reptiles and 

amphibians are expected to benefit as 

impoundments influenced by the Vernon Fork and 

Moss Lake flood waters tend to harbor an 

abundance of fish that negatively impact longevity 

and reproductive success of these species. Fish are 

not only detrimental to the herpetofauna but 

sizeable large mouth bass can also negatively impact 

Wood Duck duckling survival through predation 

losses. The increases in bottomland forested habitat 

will benefit breeding Wood Ducks and other cavity 

nesting species, migrant waterfowl, neotropical 

migrants, and several mammal species. Specifically, 

the following mammal species are likely to benefit 

under this alternative:

P white-tailed deer

P Eastern gray squirrel

P Eastern fox squirrel

P southern flying squirrel

P Indiana bat

Forest birds that are likely to benefit include:

P Wood Duck

P Hooded Merganser

P Red-shouldered Hawk

P Red-headed Woodpecker

P Northern Flicker

P Acadian Flycatcher

P Cerulean Warbler

P Prothonotary Warbler

P Worm-eating Warbler

P American Redstart

P Louisiana Waterthrush

P Kentucky Warbler

P Rusty Blackbird

P Yellow-billed Cuckoo

P Wood Thrush
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

128

Former farmland would be actively converted to 

habitat in later stages of succession, which would 

benefit early successional species, including 

grassland and shrubland birds, for several decades 

before eventually giving way to benefits solely to 

forest species. Bird species such as Blue-winged 

Warbler, Golden-winged Warbler, Yellow-breasted 

Chat, American Woodcock, Bob-white Quail, Prairie 

Warbler, Field Sparrow, Henslow ’s Sparrow, 

Grasshopper Sparrow, Dickcissel, Bobolink, Sedge 

Wren and Black-billed Cuckoo would benefit as well 

as many woodland nesting bird species that use 

shrublands as post-fledging habitat. As these 

habitats mature and shrubs are replaced by larger 

trees, a variety of forest dwelling species would 

begin to experience benefits. Mammals expected to 

benefit from this management alternative include: 

White-tailed deer, eastern gray squirrel, eastern fox 

squirrel, southern flying squirrel, and Indiana bat. 

Forest birds that would benefit include:

P Wood Duck

P Hooded Merganser

P Red-shouldered Hawk

P Red-headed Woodpecker

P Northern Flicker

P Acadian Flycatcher

P Cerulean Warbler

P Prothonotary Warbler

P Worm-eating Warbler

P American Redstart

P Louisiana Waterthrush

P Kentucky Warbler

P Rusty Blackbird

P Yellow-billed Cuckoo

P Wood Thrush 

A wide range of reptile and amphibian species are 

also likely to benefit from this management 

direction. 

The current acreage in farming rotation would be 

discontinued and converted to forested habitat 

following an extended period of grassland/

shrubland habitat. The species benefited will mirror 

those benefited by conversion of the former 

farmland to forested habitats. Drastic reductions in 

edge habitat will ensue under this alternative, 

eventually negatively impacting abundance and 

density of a wide range of edge species. However, 

species that are closely tied to agricultural lands are 

not expected to be severely impacted on a local or 

regional scale because of the abundance of 

agriculture in the surrounding landscape. Brownheaded Cowbirds would likely be negatively 

impacted to the benefit of forest and shrubland 

birds. Increases in small mammal populations and 

furbearer species could be expected in the shortterm with only long-term benefits procured for 

forest species such as: white-tailed deer, eastern 

gray squirrel, eastern fox squirrel, southern flying 

squirrel, woodchuck, and Indiana bat. Some reptiles 

and amphibian species can be expected to benefit as 

well. 

Agricultural practices create monotypic stands of 

vegetation and reduce overall productivity of many 

sites and are directly responsible for the mortality 

of many small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and 

birds. Direct mortality from machinery, loss of 

habitat, nest destruction, and health problems 

associated with herbicides are expected to be 

reduced under this alternative and elimination of 

farming and the associated agricultural practices is 

presumed to have more positive benefits than 

negative.

Diversity of habitat at the Refuge level will be 

reduced, although this will not be true at the field 

level as increases in vegetative diversity should 

follow within crop fields where monocultures were 

promoted. Edge habitat will be reduced eventually, 

however, during the early stages of converting 

cropland to forest, an abundance of early 

successional habitat will be produced leading to 

short-term increases in diversity of habitat. Such 

gains in diversity will be temporary and, as early 

successional habitat is replaced by maturing forest, 

diversity of habitat will be drastically reduced. 

The control of invasive plant species using a 

variety of methods would have the beneficial result 

of slowing the spread of these species. Under this 

alternative, good information would guide control 

efforts and invasive species would be more 

effectively controlled than under Alternative A.

This alternative would support a number of 

species on the Region’s Regional Conservation 

Priority Species list and has identical benefits as 

Alternative B. The species expected to benefit 

during the early stages of forest development 

include: Northern Harrier, American Woodcock, 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

129

Short-eared Owl, Loggerhead Shrike, Bell’s Vireo, 

Blue-winged Warbler, Golden-winged Warbler, 

Prairie Warbler, and the Field Sparrow. 

Support for many more species on the RCPS list 

would be long-term if not perpetual. These species 

include:

P copperbelly watersnake

P Indiana bat

P Wood Thrush

P Cerulean Warbler

P Prothonotary Warbler

P Worm-eating Warbler

P Louisiana Water Thrush

P Kentucky Warbler

P Canada Warbler

P Rusty Blackbird

P Wood Duck

P Long-eared Owl, 

P Chuck-will’s-widow

P Whip-poor-will

P Red-headed Woodpecker

P Northern Flicker

P Olive-sided Flycatcher

P Acadian Flycatcher

Four species on the RCPS list are expected to 

benefit in both the long-term and short-term; these 

species include Black-billed Cuckoo, Bewick’s Wren, 

and the Orchard Oriole. This alternative differs 

from Alternative A in a couple of ways. The 

reduction in openings within the forested 

landscapes is hypothesized to result in lower 

abundances of Brown-headed Cowbirds, which 

negatively influence nest success of many of the 

aforementioned bird species. Also both the longterm and the short-term species previously 

mentioned are supported to a greater extent under 

this alternative owing to the conversion of a larger 

acreage than under Alternative A. 

Under this alternative the wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities available on the Refuge 

would change. Refuge entrances would be reduced 

from two to one. Some people would be inconvienced 

by the loss of one entrance and an existing shortcut 

to the highway. People living in houses along County 

Road 400 N (West Entrance) would benefit from 

decreased traffic. Length of maintained trails would 

be reduced from 9.93 miles to 4.62 miles.

Visitors seeking easy access to the Refuge would 

experience a more developed auto tour route. 

Visitors seeking an experience further from their 

vehicle and encountering fewer other visitors would 

have more opportunities under this alternative than 

under Alternative A, but less than Alternative B.

Successful deer hunters would have the same 

distance to travel on average to bring their deer to a 

vehicle as in Alternative A. There would be 

approximately 3 more weeks open to deer hunting 

under this alternative compared to Alternative A. 

There would be more opportunities for youth to 

hunt.

Persons with mobility challenges would have 

more fishing opportunities as more accessible sites 

are developed at current fishing locations under this 

alternative. Because electric motors would be 

allowed on Stanfield Lake, visitors would have 

easier access to all parts of the lake, which may 

expand opportunities for persons who find it 

difficult to row or paddle. A sustainable fishery and 

better management would result in a more 

consistent chance of success for anglers from year 

to year. Over the long-term, less resource impacts 

and a higher quality experience among fisherman is 

expected as a result of a fishing ethics educational 

program.

The setting for viewing and photographing 

wildlife from a vehicle would be improved under this 

alternative compared to Alternative A as a result of 

paving the auto tour route, which would reduce dust 

in the air. A diversity of habitat would be maintained 

and, therefore, a continued diversity of wildlife 

would be available for viewing in the long-term. 

Visitors seeking observation and photography 

experiences characterized by easy access would find 

higher quality opportunities under this alternative.

Interpretation and environmental education 

under this alternative would be expected to promote 

resource stewardship, conservation and public 

understanding of natural resources and increase 

public appreciation of America’s natural resources 

to the same degree as in Alternative A. Visitors 

would experience increased quality of interpretive 

and educational experiences as these programs are 

incrementally improved.
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

130

Volunteer and partnership participation would 

increase slightly and the level of contact with the 

community would be maintained in this alternative. 

The result would be that visitor numbers, visitor 

satisfaction, and public support of the Refuge would 

increase slightly above current levels.

4.2.4 Alternative D: Intensified 

Management of Constructed 

Units; Expanded Priority General 

Public Uses

Under Alternative D the restoration of historical 

land cover would benefit forest nesting birds, neotropical migrants, and Indiana bats. It is expected 

that wildlife benefits would be greater than under 

Alternative A. The Refuge’s bottomland forest 

would be managed as in the past to benefit cavity 

nesting waterfowl broods. The projected increase in 

the block sizes of upland and bottomland forests 

would be beneficial to area sensitive species such as 

Cerulean Warbler and Wood Thrush. 

The acreage of open water on the Refuge would 

be maintained. Benefits to broods and migrant birds 

would be the same as in Alternative A. Benefits 

would not accrue across a wide array of 

herpetofaunal assemblages which in turn will not 

benefit species that prey on reptiles and 

amphibians. It can be expected that frog and 

salamander species will not increase in abundance 

under this alternative as these areas are not 

reverted back to forest and as the habitats remain 

suitable for the fish species that negatively impact 

their longevity and reproductive success. Under this 

alternative, fish will receive the benefit of protection 

from habitat degradation as the ponds will be 

protected from reverting back to shallow forested 

wetlands. 

Intensive management of water impoundments, 

under this alternative, would benefit all three major 

waterbird guilds – migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, 

and wading birds – more than Alternative A. This 

will result in a small reduction in the acreage of 

available brood habitat as units are put back into 

moist soil production and consequently receive 

periodic vegetion and soil disturbances to set back 

succession. However, it is estimated that the Refuge 

already has a surplus of available brood habitat, so 

the loss is not expected to impact cavity nesting 

species overall. The acreage of suitable habitat 

available to migrant waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

wading birds is expected to increase. Native plant 

and seed production coupled with increased 

amphibian and invertebrate production will increase 

food supplies for a broad spectrum of wetland 

species from waterfowl to raccoons. Amphibians are 

expected to benefit as impoundments influenced by 

flood waters tend to harbor an abundance of fish, 

which negatively impact longevity and reproductive 

success of these species. Fish are not only 

detrimental to the herpetofauna but sizeable large 

mouth bass can also negatively impact Wood Duck 

duckling survival through predation losses. Several 

species of rails may benefit from increased 

management also.

Former farmland would be actively converted to 

habitat in later stages of succession, which would 

benefit early successional species, including 

grassland and shrubland birds, for several decades, 

eventually giving way to benefits solely to forest 

species. Bird species such as Blue-winged Warbler, 

Golden-winged Warbler, Yellow-breasted Chat, 

American Woodcock, Bob-white Quail, Prairie 

Warbler, Field Sparrow, Henslow’ Sparrow and 

Grasshopper Sparrow, Dickcissel, Bobolink, and 

Sedge Wren would benefit as well as many 

woodland nesting bird species that use shrublands 

as post-fledging habitat. When these habitat mature 

and shrubs are replaced by larger trees, a variety of 

forest dwelling species will begin to experience 

benefits. Species likely to benefit include: 

P White-tailed deer

P Eastern gray squirrel

P Eastern fox squirrel

P Southern Flying Squirrel

P Indiana bat

P Wood Duck

P Red-shouldered Hawk

P Red-headed Woodpecker

P Northern Flicker

P Acadian Flycatcher

P Cerulean Warbler

P Prothonotary Warbler

P Worm-eating Warbler

P American Redstart

P Louisiana Waterthrush

P Kentucky Warbler

P Rusty Blackbird
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

131

P Yellow-billed Cuckoo

P Wood Thrush 

A wide range of reptiles and amphibians would 

also be expected to benefit. 

The current acreage in farming rotation would be 

increased, which would provide more crane habitat 

and wildlife food which will benefit white-tailed deer, 

eastern Wild Turkey, Canada Goose, raptors such as 

Rough-winged Hawks and Northern Harriers, 

Sandhill Crane, Mallard, raccoon, opossum, and 

some squirrel and other small rodents, such as voles 

and mice. Brown-headed Cowbirds could be 

expected to benefit at the detriment of neotropical 

migrants, grassland and forested bird species. 

Retention of edge habitat will ensue under this 

alternative which will have positive impacts on 

abundance and density of a wide range of edge 

species. However, species that are closely tied to 

agricultural lands are not expected to be boosted on 

a local or regional scale because of the abundance of 

agriculture in the surrounding landscape and the 

relatively small acreage increases in this 

alternative. 

Controlling of invasive plant species using a 

variety of methods would slow the spread of these 

species. Under this alternative, good information 

would guide control efforts and invasive species 

would be more effectively controlled than under 

Alternative A.

This alternative would support a number of 

species on the Region’s Regional Conservation 

Priority Species list and differs from Alternative A 

in several respects. There would be less benefit to 

songbirds than there would be under other 

alternatives. Increases in agriculture would likely 

enable higher densities of brown-headed cowbirds 

to use the Refuge resulting in less benefit to 

neotropical, grassland, and forest bird species that 

are regional priority species. Also, the increases in 

farmed acreage would reduce the overall acreage 

converting to forested habitat compared to 

Alternative A consequently reducing benefits to the 

early successional species in the short term and 

forest species in the long term including Indiana bat 

and copperbelly watersnakes. The following species 

would still be expected to benefit from increases in 

forest acreage, but at reduced levels than in other 

alternatives. 

Habitat during the early stages of forest 

development would be suitable for:

P Northern Harrier

P American Woodcock

P Short-eared Owl

P Loggerhead Shrike

P Bell’s Vireo

P Blue-winged Warbler

P Golden-winged Warbler

P Prairie Warbler

P Field Sparrow

Support for many more species on the RCPS list 

would be long-term if not perpetual. These species 

include: 

P copperbelly watersnake

P Indiana bat

P Wood Thrush

P Cerulean Warbler

P Prothonotary Warbler

P Worm-eating Warbler

P Louisiana Water Thrush

P Kentucky Warbler

P Canada Warbler

P Rusty Blackbird

P Wood Duck

P Long-eared Owl

P Chuck-will’s-widow

P Whip-poor-will

P Red-headed Woodpecker

P Northern Flicker

P Olive-sided Flycatcher

P Acadian Flycatcher

Four species on the RCPS list are expected to 

benefit in both the long-term and short-term. These 

species include: Black-billed Cuckoo, Bewick’s 

Wren, and the Orchard Oriole. The reduction in 

openings within the forested landscapes is 

hypothesized to result in lower abundances of 

Brown-headed Cowbirds, which negatively 

influence nest success of many of the previously 

mentioned bird species. Some increases will occur 

owing to increased agriculture, as previously 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

132

mentioned. The following Regional conservation 

priority species all have the potential to be 

positively benefited under this alternative:

P American Bittern

P Least Bittern

P Black-crowned Night-Heron

P Trumpeter Swan

P Wood Duck

P American Black Duck

P Mallard

P Blue-winged Teal

P Northern Pintail

P Canvasback

P Lesser Scaup

P Bald Eagle

P Northern Harrier

P Yellow Rail

P King Rail

P Common Moorhen

P Whooping Crane

P Upland Sandpiper

P Short-billed Dowitcher

P Wilson’s Phalarope

The benefit will be greater for these species 

under this alternative than all other alternatives due 

to increased intensity of management within moist 

soil units, no reductions in moist soil unit acreages, 

increases in agriculture, and maintenance of all open 

water areas. 

The recreation fees collected under this 

alternative would help generate revenue needed to 

support visitor services. The new recreation fees 

would require an adjustment period until visitors 

became informed about the program.

Under this alternative, the wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities available on the Refuge 

would be maximized within the constraints of 

compatibility. Both Refuge entrances would be 

maintained. Length of maintained trails would 

remain at 9.93 miles.

Visitors seeking easy access to the Refuge would 

experience increased opportunities as all Refuge 

roads were paved and trails developed to a higher 

standard.

Successful deer hunters would have the same 

distance to travel on average to bring their deer to a 

vehicle as in Alternative A. There would be about 

three more weeks open to deer hunting under this 

alternative compared to Alternative A. There would 

be more opportunities for youth to hunt.

Persons with mobility challenges would have 

more fishing opportunities under this alternative as 

more accessible sites are developed at current 

fishing locations. Because electric motors would be 

allowed on Stanfield Lake, visitors would have 

easier access to all parts of the lake, which may 

expand opportunities for persons who find it 

difficult to row or paddle. More surface acres of 

water would offer increased fishing opportunities as 

a result of permitting non-powered craft on all 

floatable waters. A sustainable fishery and better 

management would result in a more consistent 

chance of success for anglers from year to year. 

Over the long-term, less resource impacts and a 

higher quality experience among anglers is 

expected as a result of a fishing ethics educational 

program.

Opportunities for viewing and photographing 

wildlife from a vehicle would be better compared to 

Alternative A because all roads would be paved 

under Alternative D, reducing the amount of dust in 

the air. A diversity of habitat would be maintained 

and, therefore, a continued diversity of wildlife 

would be available for viewing in the long-term. 

Visitors seeking observation and photography 

experiences characterized by easy access would find 

higher quality opportunities under this alternative.

Interpretation and environmental education 

under this alternative would be expected to promote 

resource stewardship, conservation and public 

understanding of natural resources and increase 

public appreciation of America’s natural resources 

to the same degree as in Alternative A. Visitors 

would experience increased quality of interpretive 

and educational experiences as these programs are 

incrementally improved. 

Volunteer and partnership participation would 

increase slightly and the level of contact with the 

community would be maintained in this alternative. 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

133

Table 2: Summary of Impacts 

Topic Alternative A

Current Management 

Direction

(No Action)

Alternative B

Increased Restoration of 

Natural Processes; 

Maintain Focus on Priority 

General Public Uses

Alternative C

Balance Natural Processes 

& Constructed Units; 

Increased Focus on High 

Quality Priority General 

Public Uses (Preferred Alt.)

Alternative D

Intensified Management of 

Constructed Units; 

Expanded Priority General 

Public Uses

Impacts Associated with Habitat Management

Waterfowl 

Productivity

Continue at present level. Remain stable Remain stable Increase

Grasslanddependent migratory 

birds 

Decrease steadily 

through time to lower 

level.

Decrease steadily, but 

more rapidly than Alt. A 

to lowest level among 

alternatives.

Decrease to lower, but 

sustained presence.

Decrease to lower, but 

sustained presence.

Forest dependent 

migratory birds

Steady increase through 

time.

Steady, but more rapid 

than in Alt. A, increase 

through time.

Steady, but more rapid 

than in Alt. A, increase 

through time.

Steady, but more rapid 

than in Alt. A, increase 

through time.

Other Migratory 

Birds

Continue at present level. Increase in shorebird 

use.

Increase in shorebird 

use.

Increase in fall migrant 

waterfowl use.

Same as Alt. C.

Reptiles and 

Amphibians

Remain stable, possible 

slow decline in acid seep 

area.

Possible wider 

fluctuations, but longterm stability.

Same as Alt B, plus:

Populations fluctuate as 

moist soil unit vegetation 

manipulated.

Populations fluctuate as 

moist soil unit vegetation 

manipulated.

Threatened and 

Endangered Species

Remain stable Remain stable Remain stable Remain stable

Impacts Associated with Wildlife

Biological 

Inventories and 

Monitoring

Continued lack of 

adequate data to 

accomplish adaptive 

management.

Increased long-term 

understanding 

concerning wildlife 

presence and success of 

management.

Same as Alt B Same as Alt B

Resident Wildlife Continue at present level. Deer population decrease 

to a stable lower number.

Same as Alt B Same as Alt B

Invasive Species Slow spread of invasive 

species.

Increased treatment as a 

result of more 

knowledge.

Same as Alt B Same as Alt B

Impacts Associated with Public Use

Road Access 8.412 miles of roads; two 

entrances

5.561 miles of gravel 

roads; one entrance

4.625 miles of asphalt 

paved roads, 3.787 miles 

of improved maintenance 

gravel roads: one 

entrance

8.412 miles of asphalt 

paved roads; two 

entrances
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

134

Trail Access 9.930 miles of trails with 

existing surfaces

3.785 miles of trails with 

existing surfaces

4.623 miles of trails with 

improved surfaces

9.930 miles of trail with 

improved surfaces

Entrance Fee None Modest increased cost to 

visitors.

Same as Alt. A Same as Alt. B

Hunting

(Season days based 

on 2007-2008)

75 percent (5,394) acres 

open to deer and Wild 

Turkey hunting. 

25 percent (1,896 acres) 

open to squirrel, rabbit, 

and quail hunting

Days for hunting:

deer – 43 

Wild Turkey – 18

squirrel – 169

rabbit – 98

quail – 67 

Same as Alt. A, plus: 

additional hunting days.

Days for hunting:

Deer – 64

Wild Turkey – 18

squirrel – 204

rabbit – 133

Bob-white Quail – 102

Same as Alt. B with 

increased opportunities 

for youth and underrepresented populations.

Same as Alt. C

Fishing 216 water surface acres 

open to fishing

197 water surface acres 

open to fishing

197 water surface acres 

open to fishing

216 water surface acres 

open to fishing

Observation and 

Interpretation

Continuation of present 

opportunities.

A large diversity of birds 

available for viewing, 

however, waterbirds are 

not concentrated. Area 

sensitive species may not 

be present or if present 

not in appreciable 

numbers.

Higher satisfaction 

among visitors seeking 

fewer people farther 

from motor vehicles. 

Decreased opportunities 

for visitors viewing 

wildlife from 

automobiles.

Reduction in edge 

habitat, grasslands, and 

shrubland will eventually 

lead to declines in 

diversity of birds 

available for viewing. 

Increased management 

of remaining moist soil 

units should increase use 

and concentrate 

waterbirds along the auto 

tour route for visitors. 

A broader array of 

opportunities available.

Reduction in edge 

habitat, grasslands, and 

shrubland will eventually 

lead to declines in 

diversity of birds 

available for viewing. 

Increased management 

of remaining moist soil 

units should increase use 

and concentrate 

waterbirds along the auto 

tour route for visitors. 

Higher satisfaction 

among visitors seeking to 

view wildlife from 

automobiles in a more 

developed setting.

A large diversity of birds 

available for viewing 

waterbirds are not 

concentrated but more 

intense moist soil 

management should 

result in more use.

Table 2: Summary of Impacts 

Topic Alternative A

Current Management 

Direction

(No Action)

Alternative B

Increased Restoration of 

Natural Processes; 

Maintain Focus on Priority 

General Public Uses

Alternative C

Balance Natural Processes 

& Constructed Units; 

Increased Focus on High 

Quality Priority General 

Public Uses (Preferred Alt.)

Alternative D

Intensified Management of 

Constructed Units; 

Expanded Priority General 

Public Uses
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

135

The result would be that visitor numbers, visitor 

satisfaction, and public support of the Refuge would 

increase slightly above current levels.

4.3 Cumulative Impacts 

Analysis

“Cumulative environmental impacts” refer to 

effects 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 nonfederal) 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 impact 

of each alternative is discussed in terms of 

hardwood forest and hunting.

All four alternatives would have similar and 

negligible to minor cumulative impacts on wildlife 

species and Refuge programs and facilities.

4.3.1 Hardwood Forests

Indiana’s forests were severely reduced in the 

19th and 20th centuries. Since 1950, Indiana’s forest 

land has increased, but with smaller forest parcels. 

The Refuge’s reforestation program would 

contribute to the cumulative increase in forest land 

for Indiana and minimally counter the trend toward 

smaller forest parcels (Woodall et al. 2005). 

All four alternatives would contribute to 

additional reforestation. Alternative B would 

reforest virtually the entire Refuge that is not open 

water or marsh. The other alternatives would also 

contribute additional forest area to this cover type.

4.3.2 Hunting

4.3.2.1 Anticipated Impacts on Wildlife Species 

Resident Big Game – White-tailed Deer

Deer hunting does not have regional population 

impacts due to the restricted home ranges of whitetailed deer. The Refuge provides excellent habitat 

for Indiana’s only big game species, the white-tailed 

deer. Bottomland forest, agricultural fields, idle/

scrub lands, wetlands and upland forest provides 

the habitat diversity necessary for abundant food, 

protective cover, and reproductive activities. 

Because of the area’s abundant deer population, 

deer hunting is a popular activity for local and 

visiting sportsmen. The continuing high numbers of 

deer is evidence that hunting on the Refuge and 

Education and 

Interpretation

Continuation of present 

benefits to Hayden 

School students and 

Junior Duck Stamp 

participants.

Same as Alt. A Same as Alt. A Benefits expanded to 

additional students in 

area schools.

Wildlife 

Disturbance

Remain stable Decrease Slight decrease Slight increase

Impacts Associated with Friends, Volunteers, and Outreach Activities

Community support 

for Refuge’s mission

Continuation of present 

support.

Short-term reduced 

support by some 

advocates until new base 

formed.

Increased support in the 

near and long term by 

community.

Increased support among 

visitors and community.

Table 2: Summary of Impacts 

Topic Alternative A

Current Management 

Direction

(No Action)

Alternative B

Increased Restoration of 

Natural Processes; 

Maintain Focus on Priority 

General Public Uses

Alternative C

Balance Natural Processes 

& Constructed Units; 

Increased Focus on High 

Quality Priority General 

Public Uses (Preferred Alt.)

Alternative D

Intensified Management of 

Constructed Units; 

Expanded Priority General 

Public Uses
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

136

neighboring lands has not had a cumulative negative 

impact on deer abundance and distribution. Given 

the absence of natural predators in southern 

Indiana, it is important to keep deer numbers in 

check by some means to avoid an exponential 

increase that would damage natural habitats, 

increase automobile accidents and safety risks to 

motorists, and damage vegetable and flower 

gardens, horticulture, and agricultural crops.

Resident Small Game

Small game hunted on the Refuge includes 

rabbits, squirrels, quail, and turkey. No new hunts 

for small game are proposed under any of the 

alternatives. Indiana DNR regulates small-game 

hunting, which is controlled from year to year as 

necessary to avoid any long-term population 

declines. 

Non-Game Wildlife

Non-game or non-hunted wildlife would include 

non-hunted migratory birds such as songbirds, 

wading birds, raptors, and woodpeckers; small 

mammals such as rodents, the opossum, small 

carnivores and bats; reptiles and amphibians such 

as snakes, skinks, turtles, lizards, salamanders, 

frogs and toads; and invertebrates such as 

butterflies, moths, other insects and spiders. Except 

for migratory birds and some species of migratory 

bats, butterflies and moths, these species have very 

limited home ranges and hunting could not affect 

their populations regionally. Therefore, only local 

effects will be discussed.

Disturbance to non-hunted migratory birds could 

have regional, local, and flyway effects. Regional 

and flyway effects would not be applicable to species 

that do not migrate such as most woodpeckers and 

some songbirds including cardinals, titmice, wrens, 

chickadees, etc. The cumulative effects of 

disturbance to non-hunted migratory birds under 

the proposed action are expected to be negligible for 

the following reasons. Hunting season would not 

coincide with the nesting season. Long-term future 

impacts that could occur if reproduction was 

reduced by hunting are not relevant for this reason. 

Disturbance to the daily wintering activities of 

birds, such as feeding and resting, might occur. 

Disturbances to birds by hunters would probably be 

commensurate with that caused by nonconsumptive users. The cumulative effects of 

disturbance to non-hunted migratory birds under 

the proposed action are expected to be negligible for 

the above reasons. 

With regard to other wildlife, disturbance would 

be unlikely for the following reasons. Small 

mammals, including bats, are less active during the 

fall and winter months when the primary hunting 

season occurs. Many of these species are also 

nocturnal. Both of these qualities make hunter 

interactions with small mammals very rare. 

Hibernation or torpor by cold-blood reptiles and 

amphibians also limits their activity during the 

hunting season when temperatures are low. Hunters 

would rarely encounter reptiles and amphibians 

during most of the hunting season. Encounters with 

reptiles and amphibians in the early fall are few and 

should not have cumulative negative effects on 

reptile and amphibian populations. Invertebrates 

are also not active during cold weather and would 

have few interactions with hunters during the 

hunting season. Refuge regulations further mitigate 

possible disturbance by hunters to non-hunted 

wildlife. Vehicles are restricted to roads and the 

harassment or taking of any wildlife other than the 

game species legal for the season is not permitted. 

Although ingestion of lead-shot by non-hunted 

wildlife could be a cumulative impact, it is not 

relevant to Muscatatuck NWR because the use of 

lead shot is only permitted in upland areas away 

from open water. 

 Some species of bats, butterflies and moths are 

migratory. Cumulative effects to these species at the 

“flyway” level should be negligible. These species 

are in torpor or have completely passed through 

Indiana by peak hunting season in NovemberJanuary. Some hunting occurs during September 

and October when these species are migrating; 

however, hunter interaction would be commensurate 

with that of non-consumptive users.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Federally listed threatened or endangered 

species occur at Muscatatuck NWR. The proposed 

action would likely have a positive long-term effect 

on the primary threatened and endangered species 

on the Refuge, the Indiana bat, by expanding 

forested acres in all alternatives. Whooping Cranes 

could also benefit in the future as free-ranging 

animals increase in number and re-inhabit their 

former range, using open space/grassland/cropland 

that will be on the Refuge. Hunters are unlikely to 

encounter threatened and endangered species. An 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

137

Intra-Service Section 7 evaluation under the 

Endangered Species Act will be completed as a part 

of the CCP process, which will evaluate hunting and 

all proposed actions of the CCP relative to 

threatened and endangered species.

4.3.2.2 Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Programs

 Refuge Programs

As public use levels on the Refuge grow over 

time, unanticipated conflicts between user groups 

may occur. The Refuge’s visitor use programs would 

be adjusted as needed to eliminate or minimize each 

problem and provide quality wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities. Experience on many 

National Wildlife Refuges has proven that time and 

space zoning (e.g., establishment of separate use 

areas, use periods, and restrictions on the number of 

users) is an effective tool in eliminating conflicts 

between user groups. Overall, the cumulative 

impact of hunting on other wildlife-dependent 

recreation would be negligible to minor. 

Refuge Facilities

The Service defines facilities as: “Real property 

that serves a particular function(s) such as 

buildings, roads, utilities, water control structures, 

raceways, etc.” Those facilities most used by 

hunters are roads, parking lots, and trails. 

Maintenance or improvement of existing facilities 

would cause minimal short-term impacts to localized 

soils and waters and may cause some wildlife 

disturbances and damage to vegetation. The facility 

maintenance and improvement activities described 

are periodically conducted to accommodate daily 

Refuge management operations and general public 

uses such as wildlife observation and photography. 

These activities would be conducted at times 

(seasonal and/or daily) to cause the least amount of 

disturbance to wildlife. Siltation barriers will be 

used to minimize soil erosion, and all disturbed sites 

will be restored to as natural a condition as possible. 

Overall, the cumulative impact of hunting on 

Muscatatuck NWR’s facilities would be negligible. 
Environmental Assessment

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

138

Chapter 5: List of Preparers

Refuge Staff

P Marc Webber, Refuge Manager

P Susan Knowles, Wildlife Refuge Specialist

P Donna Stanley, Outdoor Recreation Planner

P Dan Wood, Wildlife Biologist

Regional Office Staff

P Jared Bowman, Wildlife Biologist

P Gabriel DeAlessio, Biologist-GIS

P John Dobrovolny, Regional Historic 

Preservation Officer

P Jane Hodgins, Technical Writer/Editor

P John Schomaker, Refuge Planner (retired)
Appendix B: Glossary

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

139

Appendix B: Glossary

Appendix B: Glossary

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

141

Appendix B: Glossary

Aquatic Species

Includes all freshwater, anadromous and estuarine fishes, freshwater mollusks, freshwater crustaceans and freshwater amphibians.

Archaeological and Cultural Values

Any material remains of past human life or activity greater than 100 years old which are of 

archaeological interest as defined by Section 4(a) 

of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

and 43 CFR Part 7.3.

Biodiversity

The variety of life and its processes, including the 

variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur.

Candidate Species

Those species for which the Service has on file 

sufficient information on biological vulnerability 

and threats to propose them for listing.

Compatible Use

A wildlife-dependent recreational use or any 

other use of a refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the Director or designee, will 

not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the System or the 

purposes of the refuge (PL 105-57).

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Plan: A document, completed with public involvement, that describes the desired future condition 

and provides long-term (15 year planning horizon) guidance to accomplish the purposes of the 

Refuge System and the individual refuge units.

Conservation

The management of natural resources to prevent 

loss or waste. Management actions may include 

preservation, restoration and enhancement.

Conservation (Species)

The use of all methods and procedures which are 

necessary to bring any species to the point at 

which the measures provided are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but 

are not limited to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation. Conservation is the act 

of managing a resource to ensure its survival and 

availability.

Cultural Resources

Cultural Resources: “those parts of the physical 

environment – natural and built – that have cultural value to some kind of sociocultural group... 

[and] those non-material human social institutions....” (King, p.9). Cultural resources include 

historic sites, archeological sites and associated 

artifacts, sacred sites, traditional cultural properties, cultural items (human remains, funerary 

objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural 

patrimony) (McManamon, Francis P. DCA-NPS; 

letter 12-23-97 to Walla Walla District, COE), and 

buildings and structures.

Ecosystem

Dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and 

animal (including humans) communities and their 

associated non-living environment.

Ecosystem Approach

1) Protecting or restoring the natural function, 

structure, and species composition of an ecosystem, recognizing that all components are interrelated. 2) Management of natural resources using 

system-wide concepts to ensure that all plants 

and animals in ecosystems are maintained at viable levels in native habitats and that basic ecosystem processes are perpetuated indefinitely 

(Clark and Zaunbrecher 1987).

Endangered Species

A listed species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Enhance (habitats)

Improves habitat through alteration, treatment, 

or other land management of existing habitat to 

increase habitat value for one or more species without bringing the habitat to a fully restored or naturally occurring condition.

Forest Fragmentation

Fragmentation may occur when a forested landscape is subdivided into patches. Fragmentation 

may also occur when numerous openings for such 
Appendix B: Glossary

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

142

things as fields, roads, and powerlines interrupt a 

continuous forest canopy. The resulting landscape 

pattern alters habitat connectivity and edge characteristics, influencing a variety of species.

Interjurisdictional Fish

Populations of fish that are managed by two or 

more states or national or tribal governments 

because of the scope of their geographic distributions or migrations.

Invasive Species

An alien species whose introduction does or is 

likely to cause economic or environmental harm 

or harm to human health.

Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern

Those species of nongame birds that (a) are 

believed to have undergone significant population 

declines; (b) have small or restricted populations; 

or (c) are dependent upon restricted or vulnerable habitats.

Migratory Species

Species that move substantial distances to satisfy 

one or more biological needs, most often to reproduce or escape intolerable cyclic environmental 

conditions.

National Wildlife Refuge System

All lands and waters and interests therein administered by the Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife 

ranges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl 

production areas, and other areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife, including those that are threatened with extinction.

Protect (habitat)

Maintain current quality or prevent degradation 

to habitat. The act of ensuring that habitat quantity and quality do not change, most often as a 

result of human activities but sometimes in 

response to unwelcome natural processes or phenomena.

Recovery Plans (species)

Documents developed by the Service that outline 

tasks necessary to stabilize and recover listed 

species. Recovery plans include goals for measuring species progress towards recovery, estimated 

costs and time frames for the recovery process, 

and an identification of public and private partners that can contribute to implementation of the 

recovery plan.

Restore (habitat)

Returns the quantity and quality of habitat to 

some previous naturally occurring condition, 

most often some baseline considered suitable and 

sufficient to support self-sustaining populations 

of fish and wildlife.

Riparian Habitats

Those lands adjacent to streams or rivers that 

form a transition zone between aquatic and 

upland systems and are typically dominated by 

woody vegetation that is of a noticeably different 

growth form than adjacent vegetation. Riparian 

areas may or may not meet the definition of wetlands used by Cowardin et al. (1979).

Rotation

The period during which a single generation is 

allowed to grow.

Species of Concern

A species not on the federal list of threatened or 

endangered species, but a species for which the 

Service or one of its partners has concerns.

Stakeholders

State, tribal, and local government agencies, academic institutions, the scientific community, nongovernmental entities including environmental, 

agricultural, and conservation organizations, 

trade groups, commercial interests, and private 

landowners.

Threatened Species

A listed species which is likely to become an 

endangered species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range.

Undertaking

A project, activity, or program funded in whole or 

in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of 

a Federal agency, including those carried out by 

or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried 

out with Federal financial assistance; those 

requiring a Federal permit, license or approval...” 

(36 CFR 800.16(y); 12-12-2000), i.e., all Federal 

actions.
Appendix B: Glossary

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

143

Uplands

All lands not meeting the definition of wetlands, 

deepwater, or riverine.

Watershed

The area drained by a river or stream and its 

tributaries.

Wetlands

Lands transitional between terrestrial and 

aquatic systems where the water table is usually 

at or near the surface or the land is covered by 

shallow water (Cowardin et al., 1979. In layman's 

terms, this habitat category includes marshes, 

swamps and bogs.

Wildlife-dependent Recreational Use

A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation.

Appendix C: Species Lists

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

145

Appendix C: Species Lists

Bird Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR ................................................. 147

Butterflies That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR .................................................... 164

Dragonflies That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR .................................................. 166

Herpetofauna Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR ................................. 168

Mammal Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR ......................................... 171

Mussel Species Found on Muscatatuck NWR ................................................... 173

Fishes of Muscatatuck NWR ............................................................................... 175

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

147

Bird Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR 

Family Common Name Scientific Name Probable Abundance by Seaso

A: Abundant, should find on every trip

C: Common, should find on 75% of trips

U: Uncommon, present but in lesser number

R: Rare, infrequent or few identifications

H: Accidental, not expected at this location

O: Occasional

Sp S F W 

Loons Common Loon Gavia immer o r o oGrebes Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps c u c oGrebes Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus o oGrebes Red-Necked Grebe Podicepts grisegena rCormorants Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus c o c rHerons and Bitterns American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus o o Herons and Bitterns Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis o o o Herons and Bitterns Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis r rHerons and Bitterns Great Egret Ardea alba u u u Herons and Bitterns Snowy Egret Egretta thula r r rHerons and Bitterns Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias c c c uHerons and Bitterns Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea o o oHerons and Bitterns Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor r rHerons and Bitterns Green Heron Butorides virescens c c uHerons and Bitterns Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax u u u Herons and Bitterns Yellow-crowned Night Heron Nyctanassa violacea r r r Vultures
Draft Comprehensive Conserva

tion Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

148

Vultures Black Vulture Coragyps atratus o o o oVultures Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura c c c oSwans, Geese and Ducks Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons rSwans, Geese and Ducks Snow Goose Chen caerulescens rSwans, Geese and Ducks Canada Goose Branta canadensis a a a aSwans, Geese and Ducks Mute Swan Cygnus olor o o oSwans, Geese and Ducks Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus o o oSwans, Geese and Ducks Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator r Swans, Geese and Ducks Wood Duck Aix sponsa a a a cSwans, Geese and Ducks Gadwall Anas strepera c o c rSwans, Geese and Ducks American Wigeon Anas americana c c oSwans, Geese and Ducks American Black Duck Anas rubripes c r c uSwans, Geese and Ducks Mallard Anas platyrhynchos a c a aSwans, Geese and Ducks Blue-winged Teal Anas discors c u c oSwans, Geese and Ducks Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata c c oSwans, Geese and Ducks Northern Pintail Anas acuta u u rSwans, Geese and Ducks Green-winged Teal Anas carolinensis c u rSwans, Geese and Ducks Canvasback Aythya ferina o o rSwans, Geese and Ducks Redhead Aythya americana u u o

Bird Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Family Common Name Scientific Name Probable Abundance by Seaso

A: Abundant, should find on every trip

C: Common, should find on 75% of trips

U: Uncommon, present but in lesser number

R: Rare, infrequent or few identifications

H: Accidental, not expected at this location

O: Occasional

Sp S F W 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

149

Swans, Geese and Ducks Ring-necked Duck Aytha collaris a a uSwans, Geese and Ducks Greater Scaup Aythya marila o o rSwans, Geese and Ducks Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis c c uSwans, Geese and Ducks Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis r rSwans, Geese and Ducks Bufflehead Bucephala albeola u c uSwans, Geese and Ducks Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula u u oSwans, Geese and Ducks Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus u o c oSwans, Geese and Ducks Common Merganser Mergus merganser u o uSwans, Geese and Ducks Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator o oSwans, Geese and Ducks Ruddy Duck Ocyura jamaicensis u u oHawks and Eagles Osprey Pandion haliaetus u u Hawks and Eagles Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus o o o Hawks and Eagles Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus u r u c Hawks and Eagles Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus u o u u Hawks and Eagles Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii u u u uHawks and Eagles Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus c c c c Hawks and Eagles Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus o o Hawks and Eagles Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis c c c cHawks and Eagles Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus o o o

Bird Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Family Common Name Scientific Name Probable Abundance by Seaso

A: Abundant, should find on every trip

C: Common, should find on 75% of trips

U: Uncommon, present but in lesser number

R: Rare, infrequent or few identifications

H: Accidental, not expected at this location

O: Occasional

Sp S F W 
Draft Comprehensive Conserva

tion Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

150

Hawks and Eagles Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos r r rFalcons American Kestrel Falco sparverius c c c cFalcons Merlin Falco columbarius u u rFalcons Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus u u Upland Game Birds Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus r r r rUpland Game Birds Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus r r r rUpland Game Birds Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo c c c cUpland Game Birds Northern Bobwhite Quail Colinus virginianus c c c cRails and Coots Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis r rRails and Coots King Rail Rallus elegans o r r Rails and Coots Virginia Rail Rallus limicola u o u Rails and Coots Sora Porzana carolina u c uRails and Coots Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus o o o Rails and Coots American Coot Fulica americana a o a oCranes Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis u r u u Shorebirds Black-bellied Plover Pluvailis squatatola o o oShorebirds Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus o o uShorebirds Killdeer Charadrius vociferus c c c oShorebirds Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca c c c 

Bird Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Family Common Name Scientific Name Probable Abundance by Seaso

A: Abundant, should find on every trip

C: Common, should find on 75% of trips

U: Uncommon, present but in lesser number

R: Rare, infrequent or few identifications

H: Accidental, not expected at this location

O: Occasional

Sp S F W 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

151

Shorebirds Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes c c cShorebirds Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria c c c Shorebirds Willit Catoptrophorus 

semipalmatus

u

Shorebirds Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia u o uShorebirds Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda r r r Shorebirds Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres r r r Shorebirds Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla u u uShorebirds Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri o o oShorebirds Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla u o cShorebirds White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis o r rShorebirds Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii o r oShorebirds Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos c c cShorebirds Dunlin Calidris alpina c c cShorebirds Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus u u uShorebirds Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus u o o Shorebirds Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus r r rShorebirds Common Snipe Gallinago stenura c c c uShorebirds American Woodcock Scolopax minor c u u o

Bird Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Family Common Name Scientific Name Probable Abundance by Seaso

A: Abundant, should find on every trip

C: Common, should find on 75% of trips

U: Uncommon, present but in lesser number

R: Rare, infrequent or few identifications

H: Accidental, not expected at this location

O: Occasional

Sp S F W 
Draft Comprehensive Conserva

tion Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

152

Shorebirds Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor u u u Gulls and Terns Franklin's Gull Larus pipixcan r rGulls and Terns Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia r rGulls and Terns Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis o r o rGulls and Terns Herring Gull Larus argentatus r rGulls and Terns Caspian Tern Sterna caspia o oGulls and Terns Common Tern Sterna hirundo o oGulls and Terns Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri o oGulls and Terns Least Tern Sterna antillarum r r Gulls and Terns Black Tern Chlidonias niger r r Doves Rock Dove Columba livia u u u uDoves Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura a a a aCuckoos Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus o o uCuckoos Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus u c cOwls Barn Owl Tyto alba r r r r Owls Eastern Screech Owl Otus asio c c c cOwls Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus c c c cOwls Barred Owl Strix varia c c c cOwls Long-eared Owl Asio otus r r

Bird Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Family Common Name Scientific Name Probable Abundance by Seaso

A: Abundant, should find on every trip

C: Common, should find on 75% of trips

U: Uncommon, present but in lesser number

R: Rare, infrequent or few identifications

H: Accidental, not expected at this location

O: Occasional

Sp S F W 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

153

Owls Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus o o o Owls Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus r r rNighthawks and Nightjars Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor u a uNighthawks and Nightjars Chuck-will's-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis r r Nighthawks and Nightjars Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus r u r Swifts Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica c c cHummingbirds Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris c c cKingfishers Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon c c c uWoodpeckers Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus c c c cWoodpeckers Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus c c c cWoodpeckers Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius u u uWoodpeckers Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens c c c cWoodpeckers Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus c c c cWoodpeckers Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus c c c cWoodpeckers Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus c c c cFlycatchers Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi o oFlycatchers Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens c c cFlycatchers Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris u uFlycatchers Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens c c c

Bird Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Family Common Name Scientific Name Probable Abundance by Seaso

A: Abundant, should find on every trip

C: Common, should find on 75% of trips

U: Uncommon, present but in lesser number

R: Rare, infrequent or few identifications

H: Accidental, not expected at this location

O: Occasional

Sp S F W 
Draft Comprehensive Conserva

tion Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

154

Flycatchers Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii c c cFlycatchers Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus u r uFlycatchers Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe c c cFlycatchers Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus c c cFlycatchers Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus c c cShrikes Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus r r r r Shrikes Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor rVireos White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus c c cVireos Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii r rVireos Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons c c cVireos Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius u oVireos Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus c c cVireos Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus u uVireos Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus c c cJays, Magpies and Crows Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata a a a aJays, Magpies and Crows American Crow Corvus caurinus a a a aLarks Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris u u u uSwallows Purple Martin Progne subis c c cSwallows Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor a a a

Bird Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Family Common Name Scientific Name Probable Abundance by Seaso

A: Abundant, should find on every trip

C: Common, should find on 75% of trips

U: Uncommon, present but in lesser number

R: Rare, infrequent or few identifications

H: Accidental, not expected at this location

O: Occasional

Sp S F W 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

155

Swallows Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis u u uSwallows Bank Swallow Riparia riparia o o oSwallows Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota r r rSwallows Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica c c cChickadees and Titmice Carolina Chickadee Poecile carolinensis a a a aChickadees and Titmice Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor a a a aNuthatches Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis u u u uNuthatches White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis c c c cCreepers Brown Creeper Certhia americana u u uWrens Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus c c c cWrens Bewick's Wren Thryomanes bewickii r r rWrens House Wren Troglodytes aedon c c uWrens Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes u u uWrens Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis c c c Wrens Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris u r u Kinglets, Bluebirds, and Thrushes

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa c c u

Kinglets, Bluebirds, and Thrushes

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula c c u

Bird Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Family Common Name Scientific Name Probable Abundance by Seaso

A: Abundant, should find on every trip

C: Common, should find on 75% of trips

U: Uncommon, present but in lesser number

R: Rare, infrequent or few identifications

H: Accidental, not expected at this location

O: Occasional

Sp S F W 
Draft Comprehensive Conserva

tion Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

156

Kinglets, Bluebirds, and Thrushes

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea c c c

Kinglets, Bluebirds, and Thrushes

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis c c c c

Kinglets, Bluebirds, and Thrushes

Veery Catharus fuscescens u u

Kinglets, Bluebirds, and Thrushes

Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus u u

Kinglets, Bluebirds, and Thrushes

Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus c c

Kinglets, Bluebirds, and Thrushes

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus c c o

Kinglets, Bluebirds, and Thrushes

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina c c c

Kinglets, Bluebirds, and Thrushes

American Robin Turdus migratorius a a a a

Mimics Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis c c cMimics Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos c c c uMimics Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum c c c rStarlings European Starling Sturnus vulgaris a a a aPipits American Pipit Anthus rubescens o u o

Bird Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Family Common Name Scientific Name Probable Abundance by Seaso

A: Abundant, should find on every trip

C: Common, should find on 75% of trips

U: Uncommon, present but in lesser number

R: Rare, infrequent or few identifications

H: Accidental, not expected at this location

O: Occasional

Sp S F W 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

157

Waxwings Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum c c c cWarblers Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus c c cWarblers Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera r r Warblers Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina c cWarblers Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata r rWarblers Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla c cWarblers Northern Parula Parula americana u u uWarblers Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia c c cWarblers Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica c cWarblers Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia c cWarblers Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina u uWarblers Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens u uWarblers Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata c c uWarblers Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens c cWarblers Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca u uWarblers Yellow-throated Warbler Dendroica dominica c c uWarblers Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus u u uWarblers Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor c c uWarblers Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum c c

Bird Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Family Common Name Scientific Name Probable Abundance by Seaso

A: Abundant, should find on every trip

C: Common, should find on 75% of trips

U: Uncommon, present but in lesser number

R: Rare, infrequent or few identifications

H: Accidental, not expected at this location

O: Occasional

Sp S F W 
Draft Comprehensive Conserva

tion Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

158

Warblers Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea u cWarblers Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata c cWarblers Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea u u u Warblers Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia c c Warblers American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla c c cWarblers Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea c c cWarblers Worm-eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorus o o o Warblers Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus c c cWarblers Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis r rWarblers Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla u u uWarblers Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus c c cWarblers Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis o oWarblers Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia o oWarblers Common Yellowthroat Geothlypic trichas c c c rWarblers Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina o o o Warblers Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla o oWarblers Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis o oWarblers Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens c c cTanager Summer Tanager Piranga rubra u u u

Bird Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Family Common Name Scientific Name Probable Abundance by Seaso

A: Abundant, should find on every trip

C: Common, should find on 75% of trips

U: Uncommon, present but in lesser number

R: Rare, infrequent or few identifications

H: Accidental, not expected at this location

O: Occasional

Sp S F W 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

159

Tanager Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea c c cSparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus c c c c

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea c c c

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina c c c

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla c c c u

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus u o u o

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis c o c r

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum o o o

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii o o r 

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Le Conte's Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii r r

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni r r r

Bird Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Family Common Name Scientific Name Probable Abundance by Seaso

A: Abundant, should find on every trip

C: Common, should find on 75% of trips

U: Uncommon, present but in lesser number

R: Rare, infrequent or few identifications

H: Accidental, not expected at this location

O: Occasional

Sp S F W 
Draft Comprehensive Conserva

tion Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

160

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca c c c

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia c c c c

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii c c r

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana c c c

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis c c c

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys c c c

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis c c c

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus r

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis r

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis a a a a

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus c o c

Bird Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Family Common Name Scientific Name Probable Abundance by Seaso

A: Abundant, should find on every trip

C: Common, should find on 75% of trips

U: Uncommon, present but in lesser number

R: Rare, infrequent or few identifications

H: Accidental, not expected at this location

O: Occasional

Sp S F W 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

161

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea u u u

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea a a a

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Dickcissel Spiza americana r r r

Blackbirds and Orioles Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus o rBlackbirds and Orioles Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus a a a uBlackbirds and Orioles Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna a a a uBlackbirds and Orioles Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus u u uBlackbirds and Orioles Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus r rBlackbirds and Orioles Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula a a a uBlackbirds and Orioles Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater a a c uBlackbirds and Orioles Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius c c cBlackbirds and Orioles Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula c c cFinches Pruple Finch Carpodacus purpureus c c cFinches House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus c c c cFinches Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra rFinches White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera rFinches Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea r

Bird Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Family Common Name Scientific Name Probable Abundance by Seaso

A: Abundant, should find on every trip

C: Common, should find on 75% of trips

U: Uncommon, present but in lesser number

R: Rare, infrequent or few identifications

H: Accidental, not expected at this location

O: Occasional

Sp S F W 
Draft Comprehensive Conserva

tion Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

162

Finches Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus u u uFinches American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis c c c cFinches Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus r rOld World Sparrows House Sparrow Passer domesticus c c c cExtremely Rare or Accidental

Whooping Crane

Extremely Rare or Accidental

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis

Extremely Rare or Accidental

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis

Extremely Rare or Accidental

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus

Extremely Rare or Accidental

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera

Extremely Rare or Accidental

Ruddy Shelduck Tadorna ferruginea

Extremely Rare or Accidental

Fulvous Whistling Duck Dendrocygna bicolor

Extremely Rare or Accidental

White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca

Extremely Rare or Accidental

Black Scoter Melanitta nigra

Bird Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Family Common Name Scientific Name Probable Abundance by Seaso

A: Abundant, should find on every trip

C: Common, should find on 75% of trips

U: Uncommon, present but in lesser number

R: Rare, infrequent or few identifications

H: Accidental, not expected at this location

O: Occasional

Sp S F W 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

163

Extremely Rare or Accidental

Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata

Extremely Rare or Accidental

American Swallow-tailed Kite Elanoides forficatus

Extremely Rare or Accidental

Mississippi Kite Ictinia mississippiensis

Extremely Rare or Accidental

White Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis

Extremely Rare or Accidental

Ruff Philomachaus pugnax

Extremely Rare or Accidental

Brambling Fringilla montifringilla

Extremely Rare or Accidental

Fish Crow Corvus ossifragus

Extremely Rare or Accidental

Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius

Extremely Rare or Accidental

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus

Extremely Rare or Accidental

Harris Sparrow Zonotrichia querula

Bird Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Family Common Name Scientific Name Probable Abundance by Seaso

A: Abundant, should find on every trip

C: Common, should find on 75% of trips

U: Uncommon, present but in lesser number

R: Rare, infrequent or few identifications

H: Accidental, not expected at this location

O: Occasional

Sp S F W 
Appendix C: Species Lists

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

164

Butterflies That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR 

Family Common Name Scientific Name

Status

State Federal

Papilionidae Spicebush Swallowtail Papilio troilus Secure Secure

Papilionidae Pipevine Swallowtail Battus philenor Secure Secure

Papilionidae Zebra Swallowtail Eurytides marcellus Secure Secure

Papilionidae Black Swallowtail Papilio polyxenes asterius Secure Secure

Papilionidae EasternTiger Swallowtail Papilio glaucus Secure Secure

Pieridae Cabbage White Pieris protodice exotic NNA

Pieridae Checkered White Pieris rapae Apparently 

Secure

Apparently 

Secure

Pieridae Falcate Orange Tip Anthocharis midea Apparently 

Secure?

Apparently 

Secure/Secure

Pieridae Alfalfa Colias eurytheme Secure Secure

Pieridae Clouded Sulphur Colias philodice Secure Secure

Pieridae Cloudless Sulphur Phoebis sennae Secure Secure

Pieridae Orange Sulphur Colias eurytheme Secure Secure

Lycaenidae Spring Azure Celastrina ladon Secure Secure

Lycaenidae Eastern Tailed Blue Everes comyntas Secure Secure

Lycaenidae Bronze Copper Lycaena hyllus Apparently 

Secure

Secure

Lycaenidae Little Copper Lycaena phlaeas Not Ranked Secure

Lycaenidae Gray Hairstreak Strymon melinus Secure Vulnerable

Lycaenidae Banded Hairstreak Strymon falacer Not Ranked Secure

Lycaenidae Striped Hairstreak Strymon liparops Not Ranked Apparently 

Secure

Libytheidae American Snout Libytheana bachmannii Not Ranked Secure

Nymphalidae Great Spangled Fritillary Speyeria cybele Secure Secure

Nymphalidae Meadow Fritillary Boloria toddi ammiralis Secure Secure

Nymphalidae Variegated Fritillary Euptoieta claudia Apparently 

Secure

Apparently 

Secure

Nymphalidae Pearl Crescent Phyciodes tharos Secure Secure

Nymphalidae Silvery Checkerspot Chlosyne nycteis Apparently 

Secure

Apparently 

Secure

Nymphalidae Question Mark Polygonia progne Secure Secure

Nymphalidae Hop Merchant (Comma) Polygonia interrogationis Secure Secure

Nymphalidae Eastern Comma Polygonia comma Secure Secure

Nymphalidae Mourning Cloak Nymphalis antiopa Secure Secure
Appendix C: Species Lists

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

165

Nymphalidae Red Admiral Vanessa atalanta Secure Secure

Nymphalidae American Painted Lady Vanessa virginiensis Secure Secure

Nymphalidae Painted Lady Vanessa cardui Secure Secure

Nymphalidae Common Buckeye Junonia coenia Secure Secure

Nymphalidae Red-Spotted Purple Basilarchia arthemis 

astanax

Not Ranked Secure

Nymphalidae Viceroy Limenitis archippus Secure Secure

Nymphalidae Hackberry Emperor Asterocampa celtis Secure Secure

Nymphalidae Tawny Emperor Asterocampa clyton Secure Secure

Nymphalidae Monarch Danaus plexippus Secure Secure

Nymphalidae Common Wood Nymph Cercyonis pegala Secure Secure

Nymphalidae Little Wood Satyr Megisto cymela Secure Secure

Hesperiidae Silver-Spotted Skipper Epargyreus clarus Secure Secure

Hesperiidae Hobomok Skipper Poanes hobomok Secure Secure

Hesperiidae Ocola Skipper Panoquina ocola Not Ranked Secure

Hesperiidae Checkered Skipper Pyrgus communis Not Ranked Secure

Hesperiidae Least Skipper Ancyloxypha numitor Secure Secure

Hesperiidae Tawny-edged Skipper Polites themistocles Secure Secure

Hesperiidae Delaware Skipper Anatrytone logan Secure Secure

Hesperiidae Crossline Skipper Polites origenes Secure Secure

Hesperiidae Zabulon Skipper Poanes zabulon Secure Secure

Hesperiidae Fiery Skipper Hylephila phyleus Not Ranked Secure

Hesperiidae Peck's Skipper Polites peckius Secure Secure

Hesperiidae Dun Skipper Euphyes vestris Not Ranked Secure

Nymphalidae Northern Pealy Eye Enodia anthedon Imperiled Secure

Hesperiidae Dreamy Dusky Wing Erynnius icelus Secure Secure

Hesperiidae Sleepy Dusky Wing Erynnius brizo Apparently 

Secure

Secure

Hesperiidae Horace's Dusky Wing Erynnius horatius Secure Secure

Hesperiidae Wild Indigo Dusky Wing Erynnius baptisiae Apparently 

Secure

Secure

Hesperiidae Northern Broken-dash Wallengrenia egeremet Secure Secure

Hesperiidae Little Glassy Wing Pompeius verna Secure Secure

Hesperiidae Sachem Atalopedes campestris Not Ranked Secure

Butterflies That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Family Common Name Scientific Name

Status

State Federal
Appendix C: Species Lists

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

166

Dragonflies That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR

Common Name Scientific Name

Status

State Federal

Shadow Darner Aeshna umbrosa Apparently Secure Secure

Common Green Darner Anax junius Secure Secure

Springtime Darner Basiaeschna janata Vulnerable Secure

Fawn Darner Boyeria vinosa Secure Secure

Cyrano Darner Nasiaeschna pentacantha Vulnerable Secure

Unicorn Clubtail Arigomphus villosipes Vulnerable Secure

Gomphus lividus

Lancet Clubtail Gomphus exilis Apparently Secure Secure

Common Sanddragon Progomphus obscurus Vulnerable Secure

Stream Cruiser Didymops transversa Vulnerable Secure

Swift River Cruiser Macromia illinoiensis Apparently Secure Secure

Royal River Cruiser Macromia taeniolata Apparently Secure Secure

Epitheca canis

Beaverpond Baskettail Epitheca cynosura Apparently Secure Secure

Prince Baskettail Epitheca princeps Apparently Secure Secure

Mocha Emerald Somatochlora linearis Imperiled Secure

Calico Pennant Celithemis elisa Apparently Secure Secure

Halloween Pennant Celithemis eponina Apparently Secure Secure

Celithemis verna

Banded Pennant Celithemis fasciata Apparently Secure Secure

Eastern Pondhawk Erythemis simplicicollis Secure Secure

Spangled Skimmer Libellula cyanea Apparently Secure Secure

Blue Corporal Libellula deplanata Vulnerable Secure

Slaty Skimmer Libellula incesta Apparently Secure Secure

Widow Skimmer Libellula luctuosa Secure Secure

Common Whitetail Plathemis lydia Secure Secure

Twelve-spotted Skimmer Libellula pulchella Apparently Secure Secure

Great Blue Skimmer Libellula vibrans Vulnerable Secure

Blue Dasher Pachydiplax longipennis Secure Secure
Appendix C: Species Lists

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

167

Eastern Amberwing Perithemis tenera Secure Secure

Autumn Meadowhawk Sympetrum vicinum Apparently Secure Secure

Carolina Saddlebags Tramea carolina Vulnerable Secure

Black Saddlebags Tramea lacerata Secure Secure

Dragonflies That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR

Common Name Scientific Name

Status

State Federal
Appendix C: Species Lists

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

168

Herpetofauna Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR 

Family Common Name Scientific Name

Status Habitat in 

Muscatatuck 

State Federal Local NWR

Salamander Spotted 

Salamander

Ambystoma maculatum Apparently 

Secure

Secure Rare Hardwood Uplands

Salamander Marbled 

Salamander

Ambystoma opacum Apparently 

Secure

Secure Rare Hardwood Uplands

Salamander Jefferson 

Salamander

Ambystoma 

jeffersonianum

Apparently 

Secure

Apparently 

Secure

Abundant Hardwood Uplands

Salamander Smallmouth 

Salamander

Ambystoma texanum Apparently 

Secure

Secure Common Wet Lowlands

Salamander Northern Dusky 

Salamander

Desmognathus fuscus 

fuscus

Apparently 

Secure

Secure Uncommon Sandy Streambeds

Salamander Northern Slimy 

Salamander

Plethodon glutinosus Apparently 

Secure

Secure Common Hardwood Uplands

salamander Four-toed 

salamander

Hemidactylium 

scutatum

Imperiled Secure Rare Mature Forest with 

wetlands

Salamander Redback 

Salamander

Plethodon cinereus Apparently 

Secure

Secure Common Hardwood Uplands

Salamander Northern Zigzag 

Salamander

Plethodon dorsalis 

dorsalis

Apparently 

Secure

Secure Rare Mature Forest with 

wetlands

Salamander Red-spotted Newt Notophthalmus 

viridescens viridescens

Apparently 

Secure

Secure Common All Habitats

Toads American Toad Bufo americanus 

americanus

Secure Common Wet Lowlands and 

Hardwood Uplands

Toads Fowler's Toad Bufo woodhousii fowleri Apparently 

Secure

Secure Common Wet Lowlands and 

Hardwood Uplands

Frogs Blanchard's 

Cricket Frog

Acris crepitans 

blanchardi

Common Marsh Edges of 

Water

Frogs Western Chorus 

Frog

Pseudacris triseriata Vulnerable Secure Abundant All Habitats

Frogs Northern Spring 

Peeper

Pseudacris crucifer 

crucifer

Secure Abundant Any Water Source

Frogs Gray Treefrog Hyla versicolor Apparently 

Secure

Secure Abundant Hardwood Uplands

Frogs Crawfish Frog Rana areolata Not Ranked Apparently 

Secure

Restle Unit (Last 

Confirmed 1998)

Frogs Green Frog Rana clamitans 

melanota

Apparently 

Secure

Secure Abundant All Permanent Water 

Sources

Frogs Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana Apparently 

Secure

Secure Common All Permanent Water 

Sources
Appendix C: Species Lists

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

169

Frogs Southern Leopard 

Frog

Rana utricularia Apparently 

Secure

Secure Common All Habitats

Frogs Wood Frog Rana sylvatica Apparently 

Secure

Secure Common Hardwood Uplands

Turtles Common Snapping 

Turtle

Chelydra serpentina 

serpentina

Secure Common Any Water Source

Turtles Common Musk 

Turtle

Sternotherus odoratus Apparently 

Secure

Secure Common Warm Shallows of 

Water Source

Turtles Eastern Box 

Turtle

Terrapene carolina 

carolina

Apparently 

Secure

Secure Uncommon Hardwood Uplands

Turtles Common Map 

Turtle

Graptemys geographica Apparently 

Secure

Secure Uncommon Moist Soil Unit #10

Turtles Ouchita Map 

Turtle

Graptemys ouachitensis Not Ranked Secure Uncommon Muscatatuck River

Turtles Midland Painted 

Turtle

Chrysemys picta 

marginata

Apparently 

Secure

Secure Abundant Any Water Source

Turtles Red-Eared Slider Trachemys scripta 

elegans

Secure Common Sue Pond Series of 

Ponds

Turtles Spiny Softshell Apalone spinifera Apparently 

Secure

Secure Common Any Water Source

Lizard Five-Lined Skink Eumeces fasciatus Abundant Hardwood Uplands 

and Forest Edge

Snakes Eastern 

Gartersnake

Thamnophis sirtalis 

sirtalis

Not Ranked Abundant All Habitats

Snakes Eastern 

Ribbonsnake

Thamnophis sauritus 

sauritus

Apparently 

Secure

Secure Abundant All Moist Habitats

Snakes Northern 

Watersnake

Nerodia sipedon 

sipedon

Apparently 

Secure

Secure Abundant All Water Habitats

Snakes Northern 

Copperbelly 

Watersnake

Nerodia erythrogaster 

neglecta

Imperiled Vulnerable Very 

Common

Flooded Woodlands

Snakes Kirtland's Snake Clonophis kirtlandii Imperiled Imperiled Common Moist Forests and 

Edges

Snakes Midland 

Brownsnake

Storeria dekayi 

wrightorum

Apparently 

Secure

Secure Common Moist Forests and 

Edges

Snakes Blue/black Racer Coluber constrictor Not Ranked Secure Common All Habitats

Snakes Rough Greensnake Opheodrys aestivus Vulnerable Secure Common All Edge Habitats

Snakes Black Rat Snake Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta Apparently 

Secure

Secure Common Hardwood Uplands

Herpetofauna Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Family Common Name Scientific Name

Status Habitat in 

Muscatatuck 

State Federal Local NWR
Appendix C: Species Lists

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

170

Snakes Black Kingsnake Lampropeltis getula 

nigra

Secure Very 

Common

All Habitats

Snakes Midwest Worm 

Snake

Carphophis amoenus 

helenae

Apparently 

Secure

Secure Probably 

Common

Hardwood Uplands

Snakes Ring-necked snake Diadophis punctatus Not Ranked Secure

Snakes Eastern Hognosed SnakeHeterodon platirhinos Vulnerable Secure

Herpetofauna Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Family Common Name Scientific Name

Status Habitat in 

Muscatatuck 

State Federal Local NWR
Appendix C: Species Lists

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

171

Mammal Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR 

Family Common Name Scientific Name Source

Status

E – Endangered

T – Threatened

SC – Special Concern

State Federal

Pouched Mammals = 

Marsupialia

Opossum Didelphis marsupialis Recorded

Insect Eaters = Insectivora Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus Suspected

Insect Eaters = Insectivora Southeastern Shrew Sorex longirostris Suspected

Insect Eaters = Insectivora Least Shrew Cryptotis parva Recorded

Insect Eaters = Insectivora Shorttail Shrew Blarina brevicauda Recorded

Insect Eaters = Insectivora Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus Recorded

Bats = Chiroptera Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus Recorded SC

Bats = Chiroptera Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis Recorded SC

Bats = Chiroptera Indiana Myotis Myotis sodalis Recorded E E

Bats = Chiroptera Silver-Haired Bat Lasionycteris 

noctivagans

Suspected SC

Bats = Chiroptera Eastern Pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus Recorded SC

Bats = Chiroptera Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus Recorded

Bats = Chiroptera Red Bat Lasiurus borealis Recorded SC

Bats = Chiroptera Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Recorded SC

Bats = Chiroptera Evening Bat Nycticeius humeralis Recorded E

Flesh-eaters = Carnivora Racoon Procyon lotor Recorded

Flesh-eaters = Carnivora Least Weasel Mustela rixosa Recorded SC

Flesh-eaters = Carnivora Longtail Weasel Mustela frenata Recorded

Flesh-eaters = Carnivora Mink Mustela vison Recorded

Flesh-eaters = Carnivora River Otter Lutra canadensis Recorded SC

Flesh-eaters = Carnivora Badger Taxidea taxus Suspected SC

Flesh-eaters = Carnivora Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis Recorded

Flesh-eaters = Carnivora Coyote Canis latrans Recorded

Flesh-eaters = Carnivora Red Fox Vulpes fulva Recorded

Flesh-eaters = Carnivora Gray Fox Urocyon 

cinereoargenteus

Recorded

Flesh-eaters = Carnivora Bobcat Lynx rufus Recorded SC
Appendix C: Species Lists

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

172

Gnawing Mammals = 

Rodentia

Woodchuck Marmota monax Recorded

Gnawing Mammals = 

Rodentia

Southern Flying 

Squirrel

Glaucomys volans Recorded

Gnawing Mammals = 

Rodentia

Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus Recorded

Gnawing Mammals = 

Rodentia

Eastern Gray 

Squirrel

Sciurus carolinensis Recorded

Gnawing Mammals = 

Rodentia

Eastern Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger Recorded

Gnawing Mammals = 

Rodentia

Beaver Castor canadensis Recorded

Gnawing Mammals = 

Rodentia

Deer Mouse Peromyscus 

maniculatus

Recorded

Gnawing Mammals = 

Rodentia

White-Footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus Recorded

Gnawing Mammals = 

Rodentia

Southern Bog 

Lemming

Synaptomys cooperi Suspected

Gnawing Mammals = 

Rodentia

Meadow Vole Microtus 

pennsylvanicus

Recorded

Gnawing Mammals = 

Rodentia

Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster Recorded

Gnawing Mammals = 

Rodentia

Pine Vole Pitymys pinetorum Suspected

Gnawing Mammals = 

Rodentia

Muskrat Ondatra zibethica Recorded

Gnawing Mammals = 

Rodentia

Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus Recorded

Gnawing Mammals = 

Rodentia

House Mouse Mus musculus Recorded

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Recorded

Deer = Cervidae Whitetail Deer Odocoileus virginianus Recorded

Mammal Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Family Common Name Scientific Name Source

Status

E – Endangered

T – Threatened

SC – Special Concern

State Federal
Appendix C: Species Lists

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

173

Mussel Species Found on Muscatatuck NWR

Subfamily Common Name Scientific Name Status 

(State)

Status 

(Federal)

Asiatic Clam Corbicula fluminea SNA NNA

Anodontinae Cylindrical Papershell Anodontoides ferussacianus Vulnerable Secure

Anodontinae White Heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata Apparently 

Secure

Secure

Anodontinae Giant Floater Pyganodon grandis Apparently 

Secure

Secure

Anodontinae Flutedshell Lasmigona costata Apparently 

Secure

Secure

Anodontinae Paper Pondshell Utterbackia imbecillis Apparently 

Secure

Secure

Unioninae Threeridge Amblema plicata Apparently 

Secure

Secure

Unioninae Spike Elliptio dialata Vulnerable Secure

Unioninae Wabash Pigtoe Fusconaia flava Apparently 

Secure

Secure

Unioninae Elephantear Elliptio crassidens Apparently 

Secure

Secure

Unioninae Washboard Megalonaias nervosa Apparently 

Secure

Secure

Unioninae Pimpleback Quadrula pustulosa Apparently 

Secure

Secure

Unioninae Mapleleaf Quadrula quadrula Apparently 

Secure

Secure

Unioninae Pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa Apparently 

Secure

Apparently 

Secure/

Secure

Unioninae Pondhorn Uniomerus tetralasmus Possibly 

Extirpated

Secure

Lampsilinae Plain Pocketbook Lampsilis cardium Apparently 

Secure

Secure

Lampsilinae Fatmucket Lampsilis siliquoidea Apparently 

Secure

Secure

Lampsilinae Deertoe Truncilla truncata Vulnerable Secure

Lampsilinae Yellow Sandshell Lampsilis teres Imperiled Secure

Lampsilinae Fragile Papershell Leptodea fragilis Apparently 

Secure

Secure
Appendix C: Species Lists

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

174

Lampsilinae Pondmussel Ligumia subrostrata Critically 

Imperiled

Secure

Lampsilinae Pink Heelsplitter Potamilus alatus Apparently 

Secure

Secure

Lampsilinae Lilliput Toxolasma parvus Imperiled Secure

Lampsilinae Little Spectaclecase Villosa lienosa Imperiled Secure

Mussel Species Found on Muscatatuck NWR

Subfamily Common Name Scientific Name Status 

(State)

Status 

(Federal)
Appendix C: Species Lists

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

175

The Fishes of Muscatatuck NWR 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal State Family Exotic

bowfin Amia calva Secure Apparently Secure Amiidae

pirate perch Aphredoderus 

sayanus

Secure Apparently Secure Aphredoderidae

brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus Secure Apparently Secure Atherinopsidae

river carpsucker Carpiodes carpio Secure Apparently Secure Catostomidae

quillback Carpiodes cyprinus Secure Apparently Secure Catostomidae

highfin carpsucker*** Carpiodes velifer Apparently 

Secure

Apparently Secure Catostomidae

white sucker Catostomus 

commersonii

Secure Apparently Secure Catostomidae

creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus Secure Apparently Secure Catostomidae

northern hogsucker Hypentelium 

nigricans

Secure Apparently Secure Catostomidae

smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus Secure Apparently Secure Catostomidae

bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus Secure Apparently Secure Catostomidae

spotted sucker Minytrema melanops Secure Apparently Secure Catostomidae

silver redhorse Moxostoma 

anisurum

Secure Apparently Secure Catostomidae

river redhorse*** Moxostoma 

carinatum

Apparently 

Secure

Vulnerable Catostomidae

black redhorse Moxostoma 

duquesnei

Secure Apparently Secure Catostomidae

golden redhorse Moxostoma 

erythrurum

Secure Apparently Secure Catostomidae

shorthead redhorse Moxostoma 

macrolepidotum

Secure Apparently Secure Catostomidae

rock bass Ambloplites rupestris Secure Apparently Secure Centrarchidae

flier Centrarchus 

macropterus

Secure Apparently Secure Centrarchidae

green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus Secure Apparently Secure Centrarchidae

pumpkinseed sunfish Lepomis gibbosus Secure Apparently Secure Centrarchidae

warmouth Lepomis gulosus Secure Apparently Secure Centrarchidae

bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Secure Apparently Secure Centrarchidae

longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis Secure Apparently Secure Centrarchidae

redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus Secure Apparently Secure Centrarchidae

redspotted sunfish Lepomis miniatus Secure Vulnerable Centrarchidae

smallmouth bass Micropterus 

dolomieu

Secure Apparently Secure Centrarchidae
Appendix C: Species Lists

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

176

spotted bass Micropterus 

punctulatus

Secure Apparently Secure Centrarchidae

largemouth bass Micropterus 

salmoides

Secure Apparently Secure Centrarchidae

white crappie Pomoxis annularis Secure Apparently Secure Centrarchidae

black crappie Pomoxis 

nigromaculatus

Secure Apparently Secure Centrarchidae

gizzard shad Dorosoma 

cepedianum

Secure Apparently Secure Clupeidae

central stoneroller 

minnow

Campostoma 

anomalum

Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

goldfish*** Carassius auratus Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae Exotic

spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

steelcolor shiner Cyprinella whipplei Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

carp Cyprinus carpio SNA SNA Cyprinidae Exotic

silverjaw minnow Ericymba buccata Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

streamline chubb Erimystax dissimilis Apparently 

Secure

Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

Mississippi silvery 

minnow

Hybognathus 

nuchalis

Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

bigeye chub Hybopsis amblops Secure Imperiled Cyprinidae

common shinerb Luxilis cornutus Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

striped shiner Luxilus 

chrysocephalus

Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

redfin shiner Lythrurus umbratilis Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

silver chubb Macrhybopsis 

storeriana

Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

golden shiner Notemigonus 

crysoleucas

Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

bigeye shiner Notropis boops Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

silver shiner Notropis photogenis Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

rosyface shiner*** Notropis rubellus Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

sand shiner*** Notropis stramineus Apparently 

Secure

Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

mimic shinerb Notropis volucellus Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

suckermouth minnow Phenacobius 

mirabilis

Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

The Fishes of Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Federal State Family Exotic
Appendix C: Species Lists

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

177

fathead minnow*** Pimephales promelas Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

blacknose dace Rhinichthys 

atratulus

Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

creek chub Semotilus 

atromaculatus

Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

grass pickerelb Esox americanus 

vermiculatus

Secure ? Esocidae

northern pike Esox lucius Secure Apparently Secure Esocidae

muskellunge Esox masquinongy Secure Apparently Secure Esocidae

northern studfisha Fundulus catenatus Secure Imperiled Fundulidae

blackstripe topminnow Fundulus notatus Secure Apparently Secure Fundulidae

black bullhead Ameiurus melas Secure Apparently Secure Ictaluridae

yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis Secure Apparently Secure Ictaluridae

brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Secure Apparently Secure Ictaluridae

channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Secure Apparently Secure Ictaluridae

mountain madtom Noturus eleutherus Apparently 

Secure

Apparently Secure Ictaluridae

stonecatb Noturus flavus Secure Apparently Secure Ictaluridae

tadpole madtom Noturus gyrinus Secure Apparently Secure Ictaluridae

brindled madtom Noturus miurus Secure Vulnerable Ictaluridae

flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris Secure Apparently Secure Ictaluridae

longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus Secure Apparently Secure Lepisosteidae

shortnose gar*** Lepisosteus 

platostomus

Secure Apparently Secure Lepisosteidae

eastern sand darter Ammocrypta 

pellucida

Vulnerable Vulnerable Percidae

mud darter Etheostoma asprigene Apparently 

Secure

Apparently Secure Percidae

greenside darter Etheostoma 

blennioides

Secure Apparently Secure Percidae

rainbow darter Etheostoma 

caeruleum

Secure Apparently Secure Percidae

fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare Secure Apparently Secure Percidae

harlequin darter Etheostoma histrio Secure Vulnerable Percidae

johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum Secure Apparently Secure Percidae

orangethroat darter Etheostoma spectabile Secure Apparently Secure Percidae

yellow perch Perca flavescens Secure Apparently Secure Percidae

The Fishes of Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Federal State Family Exotic
Appendix C: Species Lists

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

178

logperch Percina caprodes 

semifasciata

Secure Apparently Secure Percidae

blackside darter Percina maculata Secure Apparently Secure Percidae

slenderhead darter Percina phoxocephala Secure Apparently Secure Percidae

dusky darter Percina sciera Secure Apparently Secure Percidae

chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon 

castaneus

Apparently 

Secure

Apparently Secure Petromyzontidae

American brook 

lamprey

Lampetra appendix Apparently 

Secure

Vulnerable Petromyzontidae

mosquitofish Gambusia affinis SNA SNA Poeciliidae Exotic

freshwater drum Aplodinotus 

grunniens

Secure Apparently Secure Sciaenidae

central mudminnow Umbra limi Secure Apparently Secure Umbridae

Total of 93 species

a

 Historic record believed to now be extirpated

b Historic record that may no longer persist in 

the system

***Species suspected but not verified

The Fishes of Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Federal State Family Exotic
Appendix D: Regional Conservation Priority Species at Muscatatuck NWR

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

179

Appendix D: Regional Conservation Priority 

Species at Muscatatuck NWR

Appendix D: Regional Conservation Priority Species at Muscatatuck NWR

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

181

Regional Conservation Priority Species at Muscatatuck NWR

Species or Group Scientific Name Habitat Concerns

Birdsa

American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) Palustrine, Grasslands Uncommon/declining

Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) Palustrine Uncommon/declining

Black-crowned NightHeron(Nycticorax nycticorax) Lacustrine, Palustrine, Riverine Rare/declining

Double Crested 

Cormorant

(Phalacrocorax auritus) Lacustrine, Riverine (large rivers, 

shorelines), Forests (islands)

“Nuisance” (management 

plan available)

Snow Goose (Chen caerulescens) Lacustrine, Palustrine Recreational/economic value, 

“Nuisance” (management 

plan in preparation)

Canada Goose – Resident (Branta canadensis) Lacustrine, Palustrine Recreation/nuisance

Canada Goose – Migrant 

Populations

(Branta canadensis) Lacustrine, Palustrine Recreation

Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) Lacustrine, Palustrine, Riverine Recreational/ economic value

Wood Duck (Aix sponsa) Palustrine, Riverine, Forests Recreation

American Black Duck (Anas rubripes) Lacustrine, Palustrine (shrub/scrub) Recreation/economic value

Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) Palustrine, Forests Recreation

Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors) Palustrine, Grasslands Recreational/economic

value

Northern Pintail (Anas acuta) Palustrine, Grasslands Recreational/economic value. 

Declining

Canvasback (Aythya valisineria) Lacustrine, Palustrine, Riverine Recreational/economic value

Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis) Lacustrine, Palustrine, Riverine (large 

rivers, shorelines)

Recreational/economic value, 

Declining

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus)

Lacustrine, Riverine, Forests Economic value

Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) Palustrine, Grasslands Uncommon/declining

Yellow Rail (Coturnicops 

noveboracensis)

Palustrine (wet meadow) Uncommon/declining

King Rail (Rallus elegans) Palustrine Rare/declining

Common Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) Palustrine Uncommon/declining

Whooping Crane – 

Eastern Population

(Grus americana) Palustrine Experimental population

Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) Grasslands Rare/declining
Appendix D: Regional Conservation Priority Species at Muscatatuck NWR

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

182

Stilt Sandpiper (Calidris himantopus) Lacustrine, Palustrine, Riverine Uncommon/declining

Short-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus) Lacustrine, Palustrine, Riverine Uncommon/declining

American Woodcock (Scolopax minor) Palustrine, Forests (early successional) Recreation, economic value. 

Declining

Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) Lacustrine, Palustrine Uncommon/declining

Common Tern - Great 

Lakes Population

(Sterna hirundo) Lacustrine Uncommon/declining (status 

assessment under way)

Forster’s Tern (Sterna forsteri) Lacustrine, Palustrine Uncommon/declining

Least Tern - Interior 

Population

(Sterna antillarum) Palustrine Endangered

Black Tern (Chlidonias niger) Lacustrine, Palustrine Uncommon/declining (status 

assessment completed and 

conservation needs 

identified)

Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus 

erythropthalmus)

Forests, Shrublands Uncommon/declining

Barn Owl (Tyto alba) Grasslands Rare/declining

Long-eared Owl (Asio otus) Forests Rare/declining (status 

unknown)

Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) Grasslands Rare/declining

Chuck-will’s-widow (Caprimulgus 

carolinensis)

Forests Rare/declining

Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus) Forests Uncommon/declining

Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus)

Forests Rare/declining

Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) Forests Fairly common/declining

Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) Forests (coniferous) Uncommon/declining

Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) Forests Uncommon/declining

Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Grasslands, Shrublands Rare/declining

Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii) Palustrine, Shrublands Uncommon/declining

Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii) Shrublands, Forests (early successional) Rare/declining

Sedge Wren (Cistothorus platensis) Palustrine (wet meadows) Uncommon/declining

Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) Forests Uncommon/declining

Blue-winged Warbler (Vermivora pinus) Shrublands, Forests (early successional) Uncommon/decling

Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) Shrublands, Forests (early successional) Uncommon/declining

Regional Conservation Priority Species at Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Species or Group Scientific Name Habitat Concerns
Appendix D: Regional Conservation Priority Species at Muscatatuck NWR

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

183

Prairie Warbler (Dendroica discolor) Shrublands, Forests (early successional) Uncommon/declining

Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea) Forests Uncommon/declining

Prothonotary Warbler (Protonotaria citrea) Forests (bottomland) Fairly Common/declining

Worm-eating Warbler (Helmitheros vermivorus) Forests Uncommon/declining

Louisiana Waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla) Riverine, Forests Uncommon/declining

Kentucky Warbler (Oporornis formosus) Forests Uncommon/declining

Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis) Forests (mixed) Uncommon/declining

Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla) Grasslands, Shrublands Fairly common/declining

Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus 

savannarum)

Grasslands Uncommon/declining

Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) Grasslands Rare/declining?

Le Conte’s Sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii) Palustrine (wet meadows), Grasslands Uncommon/declining

Nelson’s Sharp-tailed 

Sparrow

(Ammodramus nelsoni) Palustrine (marshes) Uncommon/declining

Dickcissel (Spiza americana) Palustrine Fairly common/declining

Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) Grasslands Fairly common/declining

Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) Grasslands Uncommon/declining

Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) Forests Uncommon/declining

Orchard Oriole (Icterus spurius) Forests (early successional), Palustrine Fairly common/declining?

Mammals

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist) Caves, Mines, Forests Endangered

Reptiles

Copperbelly water snake - 

Southern population

(Nerodia erythrogaster 

neglecta)

Palustrine (swamps), Forests (upland, 

bottomland)

Rare/declining

Fish

Eastern sand darter (Ammocrypta pellucida) Riverine (streams, main channels) Rare/declining

Mussels

Threeridge (Amblema plicata) Riverine (mud/sand/gravel in small to 

large rivers and impoundments)

Recreational/economic value

Washboard (Megalonaias nervosa) Riverine (mud/sand/gravel in medium to 

large rivers)

Recreational/economic value

Regional Conservation Priority Species at Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Species or Group Scientific Name Habitat Concerns
Appendix D: Regional Conservation Priority Species at Muscatatuck NWR

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

184

Pimpleback (Quadrula pustulosa 

pustulosa)

Riverine (mud/sand/gravel in medium to 

large river)

Recreational/economic value 

(commercial)

Pistolgrip (Tritogonia verrucosa)

Riverine (mud/sand/gravel in medium

to large rivers)

Rare/declining (range 

overlaps commercial 

harvested areas)

Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) Riverine “Nuisance”

Plants

N/A

a. In December 2008 the RCPS bird list was updated from the original January 2002 version.

Regional Conservation Priority Species at Muscatatuck NWR (Continued)

Species or Group Scientific Name Habitat Concerns
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

185

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

187

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 of 1906. 16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.

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, 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. 

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, 16 U.S.C. 715 et 

seq. 

Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 16 U.S.C. 661 et 

seq. (1934)

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 Stamp Act. Also known as 

the Duck Stamp Act, 16 U.S.C. 718 et seq. (1934) 

Requires every waterfowl hunter 16 years of age 

or older to carry a stamp and earmarks proceeds 

of the Duck Stamps to buy or lease waterfowl 

habitat. A 1958 amendment authorizes the acquisition of small wetland and pothole areas to be 

designated as ‘Waterfowl Production Areas,’ 

which may be acquired without the limitations 

and requirements of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act. Also 

known as the Historic Sites Act of 1935, 16 U.S.C. 

461 et seq.

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,16 U.S.C. 715s (1935)

 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, 16 U.S.C. 667b-667d 

(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 of 1950, 44 U.S.C. 31

Directs the preservation of evidence of the government's organization, functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic 

historical and other information.
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan /Muscatatuck NWR

188

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a et seq. 

Established a comprehensive national fish and 

wildlife policy and broadened the authority for 

acquisition and development of refuges.

Refuge Recreation Act, 16 U.S.C. 460k et seq. (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 of 1964, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.

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 of 1965, 16 

U.S.C. 460 et seq.

 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 of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee

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, 16 U.S.C. 470 et 

seq. (1966)

Establishes as policy that the Federal Government is to provide leadership in the preservation 

of the nation's prehistoric and historic resources. 

Section 106 requires Federal agencies to consider 

impacts their undertakings could have on historic 

properties; Section 110 requires Federal agencies 

to manage historic properties, e.g., to document 

historic properties prior to destruction or damage; Section 101 requires Federal agencies to 

consider Indian tribal values in historic preservation programs, and requires each Federal agency 

to establish a program leading to inventory of all 

historic properties on its land.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4151 et 

seq.

Requires federally owned, leased, or funded 

buildings and facilities to be accessible to persons 

with disabilities.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

Requires the disclosure of the environmental 

impacts of any major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment.

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. 4601 et 

seq. 

 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 of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq. 

Requires all Federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of endangered and 

threatened species.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.

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.
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

189

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act 16 

U.S.C.469-469c

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological data in Federal construction projects.

Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 U.S.C. 1251

Requires consultation with the Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major wetland modifications.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977, 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

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, 42 U.S.C. 

1996, 1996a (1976)

Directs agencies to consult with native traditional 

religious leaders to determine appropriate policy 

changes necessary to protect and preserve American Indian religious cultural rights and practices.

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978, 16 

U.S.C. 742a 

 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 of 1979, 

16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.

Protects materials of archaeological interest from 

unauthorized removal or destruction and 

requires Federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources.

Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 97-98, 

7 U.S.C. 4201 (1981)

Minimizes the extent to which Federal programs 

contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible 

conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 16 

U.S.C. 3901 et seq.

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 of 1974, 7 U.S.C. 2801 et 

seq.

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, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq. (1990)

Requires Federal agencies and museums to 

inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 

12101 et seq.

Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and services.
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan /Muscatatuck NWR

190

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.

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 

of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd 

Considered the “Organic Act of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Defines the mission of 

the System, designates priority wildlife-dependent public uses, and calls for comprehensive refuge planning. Section 6 requires the Service to 

make a determination of compatibility of existing, 

new and changing uses of Refuge land; and Section 7 requires the Service to identify and 

describe the archaeological and cultural values of 

the refuge.

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and 

Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 

1998, 16 U.S.C. 742a 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, 16 U.S.C. 1241 et seq. 

(1968)

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, Pub. L. 106-554, §1(a)(3), Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 

2763, 2763A–125

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.

Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Section 6, requires the Service 

to make a determination of compatibility of existing, new and changing uses of Refuge land; and 

Section 7 requires the Service to identify and 

describe the archaeological and cultural values of 

the refuge.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 

Section 106, requires Federal agencies to consider impacts their undertakings could have on 

historic properties; Section 110 requires Federal 

agencies to manage historic properties, e.g., to 

document historic properties prior to destruction 

or damage; Section 101 requires Federal agencies 

consider Indian tribal values in historic preservation programs, and requires each Federal agency 

to establish a program leading to inventory of all 

historic properties on its land.

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 

1979 (ARPA) prohibits unauthorized disturbance 

of archeological resources on Federal and Indian 

land; and other matters. Section 10 requires 

establishing “a program to increase public awareness” of archeological resources. Section 14 

requires plans to survey lands and a schedule for 

surveying lands with “the most scientifically valuable archaeological resources.” This Act requires 

protection of all archeological sites more than 100 

years old (not just sites meeting the criteria for 

the National Register) on Federal land, and 
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

191

requires archeological investigations on Federal 

land be performed in the public interest by qualified persons.

The Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) imposes 

serious delays on a project when human remains 

or other cultural items are encountered in the 

absence of a plan.

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

(AIRFA) iterates the right of Native Americans 

to free exercise of traditional religions and use of 

sacred places.

EO 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996), directs 

Federal agencies to accommodate access to and 

ceremonial use, to avoid adverse effects and avoid 

blocking access, and to enter into early consultation.
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan /Muscatatuck NWR

192

Restle Unit Deed Restrictions

The property shall be known and posted as the 

Restle Wildlife Management Area.

Grantee shall perpetually manage the real estate 

as a wetland habitat for native wildlife and plant 

enhancement and protection.

In order to further wetland habitat development, 

the construction of dams, levees, spillways and 

associated water level and flow control devices shall 

be permitted, as well as plantings appropriate to 

their maintenance. Water level manipulation for 

wetland management purposes shall be permitted, 

even though some native plants and animals may be 

damaged by such management.

Control of woody vegetation is permitted.

No timbering, burning, hunting, trapping, or 

fishing shall be permitted, except that plant 

harvesting or controlled burning for the protection 

of the wetland or research into the protection of 

wetlands are permitted. Wildlife harvesting within 

the levee constructed by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service in 1990 is also permitted for the protection 

of the wetland within the levee. The permitted 

activities specified in this paragraph are to be 

conducted only by personnel of the grantee or their 

designees for that specific purpose.

No herbicides or insecticides shall be used on the 

real estate, except that if the native plant or animal 

habitat is threatened by the excessive growth of 

native species or the invasion or excessive growth of 

species alien to the area, herbicides or insecticides 

may be used for the limited purposes of controlling 

such populations. 

No construction of buildings shall be permitted 

except for observation blinds and wildlife study 

structures, nesting boxes, and other animal habitat 

improvement structures.

No general access of the public to the area shall 

be permitted. Barbara Restle, her children and 

their spouses, and her grandchildren will continue 

to have access to the property for wildlife 

observation purposes. Access to persons other than 

grantee's agents, officers, and employees shall be 

permitted by the grantee on y on written application 

for educational, research, or habitat development 

purposes deemed consistent with the goals of this 

grant.

No commercial sale of any resources from the 

property shall be permitted.

The Sassafras Chapter of the National Audubon 

Society shall be allowed to review management of 

the property on an annual basis. To this end, a 

representative of the Sassafras Audubon Society, as 

designated by the Sassafras Audubon Society Board 

of Directors must be allowed to enter the property 

at least once very three months. Prior to entering 

the project the Sassafras Audubon Society 

representative will notify the Fish and Wildlife 

Service at least one week in advance of the date of 

the inspection of the property.
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

193

Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Farming and Haying ...............................................................................195

Wild Food/Shed Antler Collecting.........................................................197

Hunting...................................................................................................199

Interpretation and Environmental Education.........................................201

Wildlife Observation and Photography..................................................203

Recreational Fishing ..............................................................................205

Research Projects by Third Parties ........................................................207

Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

195

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Farming and Haying 

Refuge Name: Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

The Refuge was established and land was 

acquired under authority of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 7.14-714r). The Refuge 

was officially established on October 6, 1966. 

Acquisition funds were derived from federal duck 

stamp sales.

Refuge Purpose:

The Refuge purpose “...for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, 

for migratory birds” derives from the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. 

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. (National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended (16U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 

Description of Use:

What is the use? Farming and Haying. Farming 

and haying are not priority public uses of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Where is the use conducted? Farming and haying 

occurs on existing farm fields confined to the west 

side of the Refuge. Farming acres comprise less 

than 5% of total Refuge acreage. 

When is the use conducted? Farming occurs in 

accordance with farming schedules and practices 

identified in the Station's Cropland Management 

Plan. Cropping takes place during the growing 

season, and associated field work takes place in the 

spring and fall. Haying is restricted until after July 

15.

How is the use conducted? Management of all 

farming activities is conducted by cooperative 

farmers. All cooperators' requirements are 

documented in cooperative agreements based on the 

Station's Cropland and Grassland Management 

Plans. Haying on Refuge properties will be 

conducted on an as needed basis in accordance with 

the Grassland Management Plan. Herbicide use will 

be approved by the Refuge Manager only as a last 

resort, and specific herbicides will be approved by 

the Regional IPM coordinator. 

Why is the use proposed? The Refuge uses 

farming as a low cost means to maintain open 

habitat and add diversity to a mostly forested 

refuge. Canada geese, waterfowl, sandhill cranes, 

wintering raptors and resident species forage on the 

Refuge share of the crop. The fields also create good 

wildlife viewing along Refuge roads and the auto 

tour route.

Availability of Resources: 

Current staffing levels/funding are available to 

manage this activity. This-use will not require 

significant increase in staff maintenance or 

expenditures. The Service will not have to provide 

special equipment. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Refuge croplands attract migratory waterfowl, 

help control noxious weeds, reduce depredation to 

neighboring farmlands and provide a high energy 

food source for migratory birds during extreme 

weather conditions. Re-sprouting grain, cover crops 

and Refuge haylands provide green browse and 

invertebrate sources for a variety of species 

requiring habitat in this early successional stage. 

While Refuge farming may have positive impacts to 

some wildlife species (Wintering waterfowl, cranes. 

some raptor species, and resident wildlife), resulting 

forest fragmentation may have negative impacts to 

declining species of forest-dependent migratory 

birds. Continued monitoring of these wildlife 

populations will help further define anticipated 

impacts of continuing this management practice. 

Using approved herbicides only as a last resort will 

minimize potential impacts to surface and 

groundwater resources. 
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

196

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is part of the 

Muscatatuck Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and environmental assessment. Public 

notification and review includes a notice of 

availability published in the Federal Register, 30-

day comment period, local media announcements, 

and a public meeting near the Refuge. Comments 

received and agency responses will be included in 

the final version of the Muscatatuck Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with the purposes of the 

Refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, farming and haying can only occur 

with the following stipulations:

P Cooperative fanning practices and crop rotations will take place in accordance with the 

Station's approved cropland management 

plan. These shall be clearly identified in 

signed cooperative agreements, and be closely 

monitored by the Refuge Manager. 

P Annual review of all farming and haying operations will take place to ensure compliance 

with all laws, regulations and policies. 

P No herbicide use will take place without the 

prior approval of the Refuge Manager/

Regional IPM coordinator. 

P Haying will not take place on Refuge haylands 

prior to Sept. 1 to avoid impacts to ground 

nesting birds. 

P Minimum tillage-techniques will be required 

to avoid impacts to water, soil, and any potential archeological resources. 

P Only existing farm fields on the west side of 

the Refuge will be farmed, previously abandoned or disturbed sites will not be farmed.

Justification:

Cooperative farming and haying will result in 

annual, short-term disturbances, but there will be 

long-term benefits to resident and migratory 

wildlife and increased appreciation of wildlife. 

Croplands provide a winter food resource for 

migrating waterfowl and reduce to some degree 

depredation impacts to surrounding farmlands. This 

also facilitates wildlife observation, one of the 

priority public uses, and will encourage increased 

appreciation of wildlife. 

Signature:

Refuge Manager 

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence:

Regional Chief 

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

197

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Wild Food/Shed Antler Collecting

Refuge Name: Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

The Refuge was established and land was 

acquired under authority of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 7.14-714r). The Refuge 

was officially established on October 6, 1966. 

Acquisition funds were derived from federal duck 

stamp sales.

Refuge Purpose:

The Refuge purpose “...for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, 

for migratory birds” derives from the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. 

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. (National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of1966, as 

amended (16U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 

Description of Use:

What is the use? Wild food and shed antler 

collecting Wild food and shed antler collecting are 

not priority public uses of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System.

Where is the use conducted? Wild food arid shed 

antler collecting will occur on approximately 90 

percent of the nearly 8,000 acre Refuge. Collecting 

will not be allowed on the remaining 10 percent 

which includes the waterfowl sanctuary area in the 

southwest portion of the Refuge that is closed to the 

public. 

When is the use conducted? In accordance with 

Refuge hours, 1 hour before sunrise to 1 hour after 

sunset, year-round.

How is the use conducted? Hand collection of 

natural food items including mushrooms, fruits and 

nuts, but not living roots or green plant material for 

personal consumption only will be allowed. No 

digging of root materials such as ginseng, yellow 

root, or blood root will be allowed. 

Why is the use being proposed? This use has 

historically been allowed on the Refuge and has 

become a custom of the local community. The 

Refuge is open to the public during the time periods 

that the use is allowed so no additional disturbance 

is created by allowing this use. Gathering allows the 

public to build a connection to the Refuge through 

personal outdoor experiences that engage the 

senses and foster an appreciation of the outdoors. 

The Refuge along with the nearby Hoosier National 

Forest, state fish and wildlife areas, and state forest 

are public lands located in the area that provide the 

public this type of use. Otherwise opportunities 

exist on private lands where access is limited for the 

public. 

 Availability of Resources: 

Existing funding levels are adequate to manage 

this activity. Public use facilities will be routinely 

maintained to meet the needs of the visiting public 

and will be used incidentally by that portion of the 

public involved in this activity. This use will not 

require significant increase in staff maintenance or 

expenditures. The Service will not have to provide 

special equipment.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Historically, public participation in the collection 

of wild foods and shed antlers has been low to 

moderate and is expected to remain so in the future. 

The amount and frequency of hand collecting of wild 

foods and shed antlers is not expected to result in 

significant wildlife disturbance, nor diminish wildlife 

food sources, or jeopardize wildlife survival. Shortterm disturbance to wildlife may occur during these 

activities, but will be insignificant. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is part of the 

Muscatatuck Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and environmental assessment. Public 
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

198

notification and review includes a notice of 

availability published in the Federal Register, 30-

day comment period, local media announcements, 

and a public meeting near the Refuge. Comments 

received and agency responses will be included in 

the final version of the Muscatatuck Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with the purposes of the 

Refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, wild food and shed antler collecting 

can only occur with the following stipulations: 

P Collection can occur only within the specified 

area of the Refuge. 

P Items collected are for personal use and cannot be sold.

P Digging of roots, and collection of living green 

plant material or food plant material is prohibited. 

P Tapping or damaging trees is prohibited. 

P No threatened or endangered species, or 

parts thereof may be harvested. 

P Annually review all collection activities and 

operations to ensure compliance with all laws, 

regulations and policies. 

P Use of motorized vehicles and bicycles is limited to public vehicle roads and parking areas. 

P Overnight use and fires are prohibited. 

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible as it 

will not materially interfere with or detract from 

Refuge purposes, provided the above stipulations 

are implemented. This use will not diminish the 

primary purposes of the refuge for migratory birds: 

This use will meet the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System by providing renewable 

resources for the benefit of the American public 

while conserving fish, wildlife and plant resources 

on these lands. 

Signature:

Refuge Manager 

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence:

Regional Chief 

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

199

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Hunting 

Refuge Name: Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

The Refuge was established and land was 

acquired under authority of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 7.14-714r). The Refuge 

was officially established on October 6, 1966. 

Acquisition funds were derived from federal duck 

stamp sales.

Refuge Purpose:

The Refuge purpose “...for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, 

for migratory birds” derives from the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. 

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. (National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of1966, as 

amended (16U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 

Description of Use:

What is the use? Hunting of rabbit, squirrel, 

quail, deer and turkey. The use is a priority public 

use.

Where is the use conducted? Deer and turkey 

hunting will occur on approximately 75 percent of 

the Refuge. Rabbit, quail and squirrel hunting will 

occur on approximately 20 percent of the Refuge 

located in the southeastern portion of the Refuge. 

When is the use conducted? Deer hunting will 

occur during the State archery seasons. (Hunting 

during the early archery will commence no sooner 

than the first Saturday following National Wildlife 

Refuge Week and late archery season will 

commence the day following the State muzzleloader 

season.) A special muzzleloader permit hunt will 

occur during the State muzzleloader season. Turkey 

hunting will occur during the State spring season. 

All hunting will occur within state-regulated 

hunting hours. 

How is the use conducted? State regulations will 

apply, except where Refuge regulations are more 

restrictive. A special permit will be issued to each 

hunter selected in a random drawing conducted by 

the State for the special muzzleloader deer hunt and 

the spring turkey hunt. Authorized weapons will 

include conventional shotgun, muzzleloader and bow 

and arrow for turkey. Authorized weapons for deer 

are bow, muzzleloader during the permit hunt and 

crossbow as approved for handicapped hunters. 

Only shotguns with non-toxic shot shells will be 

allowed for squirrel, rabbit and quail hunting. No 

check-in or check-out of deer hunters will be 

.required, however successful deer hunters are 

requested to fill out a harvet card when leaving the 

Refuge. Successful turkey hunters are required to 

check-out at the Refuge headquarters. No check-in, 

or out or reporting of harvest is required for 

squirrel, rabbit, or quail. 

Why is the use being proposed? Hunting is a 

priority general public use of the Refuge System 

that is also an important wildlife management tool. 

The Service recognizes hunting as a healthy, 

traditional outdoor pastime, deeply rooted in the 

American heritage (USFWS 2006). Hunting can 

instill a unique understanding and appreciation of 

wildlife, their behavior, and their habitat needs. 

Hunting programs can promote understanding and 

appreciation of natural resources and their 

management on lands and waters in the Refuge 

System. Public hunting opportunities are also 

available near the Refuge at Big Oaks National 

Wildlife Refuge, Hoosier National Forest, 

Atterbury and Crosley Fish and Wildlife Areas, the 

Jackson-Washington and Selmier State Forests, 

Brush Creek and Hardy Lake Reservoirs, Starve 

Hollow Recreation Area, and Brown County State 

Park (deer only).
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

200

Availability of Resources:

Existing funding levels are adequate to manage 

this activity. This use will require some increase in 

staff time and expenditures for sign maintenance 

and law enforcement. The Service will not have to 

provide special equipment. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

There will be no adverse impacts to threatened 

and endangered species resulting from this 

program. Hunting causes mortality and temporary 

disturbance to wildlife; however, harvesting wildlife 

populations to the carrying capacity of their 

habitats ensures the continued health and survival 

of Refuge wildlife populations. Disturbance to 

waterfowl will be minimal. Conflict with other public 

uses on the Refuge will be minimal. The Visitor 

Center, Office and most hiking trails are in an area 

closed to hunting. This tends to separate hunting 

activities from most other public uses. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is part of the 

Muscatatuck Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and environmental assessment. Public 

notification and review includes a notice of 

availability published in the Federal Register, 30-

day comment period, local media announcements, 

and a public meeting near the Refuge. Comments 

received and agency responses will be included in 

the final version of the Muscatatuck Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with the purposes of the 

Refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, hunting only occurs with the 

following stipulations: 

P State hunting regulations apply, except when 

Refuge regulations are more restrictive; for 

example permits are required for deer hunting during the muzzleloader season and for 

turkey hunting. 

P All shot used for rabbit, quail and squirrel 

hunting shall be non-toxic. 

P Hunting is allowed only within specified areas 

of the Refuge. 

P Dog running on the Refuge is limited to the 

use of them during rabbit and quail hunting; 

however, they must be under the control of 

the handler.

P Use of motorized vehicles and bicycles is limited to public vehicle roads and parking areas.

P Overnight use and fires are prohibited. 

P The Refuge Manager shall annually review all 

hunting activities and operations to ensure 

compliance with all laws, regulations and policies. 

Justification:

Hunting is priority public use of the NWRS and a 

vital management tool to protect Refuge habitat. 

This use will meet the mission of the NWRS by 

providing renewable resources for the benefit of the 

American public while conserving fish, wildlife and 

plant resources on these lands.

Signature:

Refuge Manager 

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence:

Regional Chief 

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date:

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006. WildlifeDependent Recreation: Hunting. 605 FW 2. 

National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of 

Interior.
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

201

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Interpretation and Environmental Education 

Refuge Name: Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

The Refuge was established and land was 

acquired under authority of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 7.14-714r). The Refuge 

was officially established on October 6, 1966. 

Acquisition funds were derived from federal duck 

stamp sales.

Refuge Purpose:

The Refuge purpose “...for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, 

for migratory birds” derives from the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. 

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. (National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of1966, as 

amended (16U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 

Description of Use:

What is the use? Interpretation and 

environmental education. These uses are a priority 

public uses. Formal programs include activities 

prepared, scheduled, and organized for school-aged 

children and organized groups by U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Staff and Volunteers. Informal 

programs include self-guided auto tour routes and 

nature trails, impromptu presentations and 

discussions of wildlife conservation issues the 

NWRS With interested citizens, casual visitors and 

unscheduled groups. This use also includes the 

development and maintenance of indoor 

interpretive areas/exhibits within the Refuge Visitor 

Center and Conser vation Learning Center. 

Educational programs also include activities 

conducted during International Migratory Bird Day 

weekend, National Fishing Week, National Public 

Lands Day, and National Wildlife Refuge Week. 

Where is the use conducted? Refuge Visitor 

Center, Conservation Learning Center and all areas 

of the Refuge, except those closed to public use, 

unless permitted by special use permit.

When is the use conducted? In accordance with 

Refuge hours, 1 hour before sunrise to 1 hour after 

sunset, year-round. 

How is the use conducted? Formally and 

informally for individuals and groups in conjunction 

with staff and volunteers.

Why is the use conducted? Interpretation and 

environmental education are priority general public 

uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 

programs promote understanding and appreciation 

of natural and cultural resources and their 

management on all lands and waters of the Refuge 

System. Interpretation and environmental 

education opportunities are also available nearby at 

the Hoosier National Forest, Star ve Hollow 

Recreation Area, and the Clifty Falls and Brown 

County State Parks.

Availability of Resources:

Current staffing and funding levels are adequate 

to conduct existing activities. A limited number of 

programs are provided to visiting groups by Refuge 

personnel and. volunteers.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

The overall impacts to the Refuge and its 

associated wildlife populations from this use will be 

minimal. There will be some disturbance to wildlife 

and vegetation, but at levels that will not likely 

materially interfere with or detract from Refuge 

purposes. School buses and personal vehicles will 

utilize developed roads and parking areas to access 

trails which are already in place. Large events may 

sometimes create temporary traffic problems which 

will be managed by Refuge staff.
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

202

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is part of the 

Muscatatuck Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and environmental assessment. Public 

notification and review includes a notice of 

availability published in the Federal Register, 30-

day comment period, local media announcements, 

and a public meeting near the Refuge. Comments 

received and agency responses will be included in 

the final version of the Muscatatuck Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with the purposes of the 

Refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, interpretation and environmental 

education can occur with the following stipulations:

P The Refuge is open to public access yearround, 1 hour before sunrise to 1 hour after 

sunset. 

P Any exception to normal Refuge regulations 

concerning special events must by approved 

by Refuge manager, and may require issuance 

of a special use permit. 

Justification:

This use has been determined to be compatible 

provided the above stipulations are implemented. 

The level of these uses is moderate and generally 

concentrated in the developed public-use areas 

(roads, parking lots visitor center/conservation 

learning center and trails). The associated 

disturbance to wildlife is temporary and minor. 

Interpretation and environmental education are 

priority public uses and helps fulfill the mission of 

the Refuge. 

Signature:

Refuge Manager 

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence:

Regional Chief 

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date:
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

203

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

(including the means of access such as automobile, 

hiking, biking, jogging/running, canoeing, boating, 

and the incidental use of picnicking). 

Refuge Name: Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

The Refuge was established and land was 

acquired under authority of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 7.14-714r). The Refuge 

was officially established on October 6, 1966. 

Acquisition funds were derived from federal duck 

stamp sales.

Refuge Purpose:

The Refuge purpose “...for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, 

for migratory birds” derives from the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. 

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. (National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of1966, as 

amended (16U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 

Description of Use:

What is the use? Wildlife Observation and 

Photography. 

Where is the use conducted? Wildlife observation 

and photography are allowed year-round, except in 

closed areas of the Refuge. 

When is the use conducted? In accordance with 

Refuge hours, 1 hour before sunrise to 1 hour after 

sunset, year-round. 

How is the use conducted? Allowable forms of 

access for these uses include automobile, hiking, 

biking, jogging and running, canoeing, and boating. 

Canoeing and boating are allowed year-round, but 

are limited to Stanfield Lake and Richart Lake as 

facilities permit. The only motorized watercraft 

permitted on the Refuge are boats powered by 

electric motors on Stanfield Lake. Picnicking occurs 

as an incidental use to wildlife observation and 

photography and picnic sites are available for 

visitors at the Refuge Visitor Center. 

Why is the use being proposed? Wildlife 

observation and photography are priority general 

public uses of the Refuge System. Wildlife 

observation and photography programs can 

promote understanding and appreciation of natural 

resources and their management on lands and 

waters in the Refuge System. There are also 

opportunities to observe and photograph wildlife 

nearby at Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge, 

Hoosier National Forest, Atterbury and Crosley 

Fish and Wildlife Areas, the Jackson-Washington 

and Selmier State Forests, Brush Creek and Hardy 

Lake Reservoirs, Starve Hollow Recreation Area, 

Brown County and Clifty Falls State Parks, and 

Muscatatuck County Park.

Availability of Resources:

Existing funding levels are adequate to manage 

this activity at present levels. The Refuge has 

developed parking areas, a wildlife auto tour route, 

boat ramp, observation deck, overlook structure, 

hiking trails, boardwalk, roads, and picnic tables 

that are used for wildlife observation/photography; 

however, maintenance of these facilities will require 

staff resources. The Refuge will maintain these 

facilities with the existing staff. Vehicle parking/boat 

launching facilities are needed at Richart Lake to 

support this activity. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Wildlife observation and photography as 

proposed will not materially interfere with. or 

detract from Refuge purposes. Access is typically by 

individuals or small groups and the impact to the 

land and water is minimal. Most hikers, joggers, and 

runners stay on hiking trails or roads and the 

damage to the habitat is minimal and temporary. 

Automobiles and bicycles are confined to public 

vehicle roads. There is some temporary disturbance 
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

204

to wildlife due to human activity on the land, but 

that is inherent in these activities and is generally 

not malicious or damaging. Any unreasonable 

harassment of wildlife would be grounds for the 

manager to close the area to these uses or restrict 

the uses to minimize harm. 

Public Review and Comment:

 This compatibility determination is part of the 

Muscatatuck Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and environmental assessment. Public 

notification and review includes a notice of 

availability published in the Federal Register, 30-

day comment period, local media announcements, 

and a public meeting near the Refuge. Comments 

received and agency responses will be included in 

the final version of the Muscatatuck Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with the purposes of the 

Refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, wildlife observation and 

photography can only occur with the following 

stipulations: 

P Motorized vehicles and bicycles will be limited 

to public vehicle roads, and parking lots.

P Overnight use and fires are prohibited. 

P Non-motorized boating is restricted to Stanfield Lake.

P No photo or viewing blinds may be left overnight.

P The activity can only take place during the 

Refuge’s regular hours of 1 hour before sunrise to 1 hour after sunset.

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible 

because wildlife viewing and photography will not 

materially interfere with or detract from Refuge 

purposes. The associated disturbance to' wildlife is 

temporary and minor. Wildlife observation and 

photography are priority public uses with the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and provide 

visitors with opportunities to enjoy and learn about 

our lands and wildlife. 

Signature:

Refuge Manager 

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence:

Regional Chief 

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date:
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

205

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Recreational Fishing 

Refuge Name: Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

The Refuge was established and land was 

acquired under authority of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 7.14-714r). The Refuge 

was officially established on October 6, 1966. 

Acquisition funds were derived from federal duck 

stamp sales.

Refuge Purpose:

The Refuge purpose “...for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, 

for migratory birds” derives from the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. 

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. (National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of1966, as 

amended (16U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 

Description of Use:

What is the use? Recreational Fishing. The use is 

a priority public use.

Where is the use conducted? Richart Lake. 

Stanfield Lake, Sand Hill Ponds, Persimmon Ponds. 

Lake Linda, Lake Sheryl, and the Muscatatuck 

River are open to bank fishing and wading yearround. All fishing is in accordance with State 

regulations. Boating is restricted to Stanfield Lake. 

The only motorized watercraft permitted on the 

Refuge are boats powered by electric motors on 

Stanfield Lake. A Refuge-sponsored “Take A Kid 

Fishing Day” will be offered once a year. Office 

Pond will be available for use this day, and only to 

children participating in the event.

When is the use conducted? In accordance with 

State regulations and Refuge hours of 1 hour before 

sunrise to 1 hour after sunset year-round.

How is the use conducted? In accordance with 

State regu1ations for fishing and boating. except the 

taking of frogs and turtles is prohibited. 

Why is the use being proposed? Fishing is a 

priority general public use of the Refuge System. 

The Service recognizes fishing as a traditional 

outdoor pastime, deeply rooted in the American 

heritage (USFWS 2006). Fishing programs promote 

understanding and appreciation of natural 

resources and their management on all lands and 

waters in the Refuge System. Public fishing 

opportunities are also available nearby at Big Oaks 

National Wildlife Refuge, Hoosier National Forest, 

Atterbury and Crosley Fish and Wildlife Areas, the 

Jackson-Washington and Selmier State Forests, 

Brush Creek and Hardy Lake Reservoirs, Starve 

Hollow Recreation Area, Brown County and Clifty 

Falls State Parks, Muscatatuck County Park, 

Cypress Lake, and the Muscatatuck and White 

Rivers. 

Availability of Resources:

Existing funding levels should be adequate to 

manage this activity.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

There is an abundant fisheries resource on the 

Refuge which is considered sufficient for both 

wildlife consumption and public recreational fishing. 

No significant wildlife disturbance will occur with 

this activity. Fishing areas are monitored for litter/

water pollution and violation of fishing regulations. 

Littering by fisherman is considered the most 

significant impact. Fish populations will be 

monitored by the Refuge in Stanfield Lake to 

facilitate management.

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination is part of the 

Muscatatuck Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and environmental assessment. Public 

notification and review includes a notice of 

availability published in the Federal Register, 30-
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

206

day comment period, local media announcements, 

and a public meeting near the Refuge. Comments 

received and agency responses will be included in 

the final version of the Muscatatuck Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with the purposes of the 

Refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, fishing ;and boating can only occur 

with the following stipulations:

P All State and Federal regulations shall apply. 

P The harvesting of frogs and turtles is prohibited. 

P Fishing allowed year-round in public fishing 

areas noted, 1 hour before sunrise to 1 hour 

after sunset. 

P Boats are allowed on Stanfield Lake only. 

Electric trolling motors are allowed, but gasoline-powered motors cannot be used or 

attached to boats. No use of gasoline-powered 

boat motors by the public is permitted on the 

property.

P All fishing is hook and line only. No trot lines, 

limb lines, float fishing, bow fishing, or spear 

fishing is allowed. 

P Littering shall be prohibited 

P Annually review all fishing and boating activities to ensure compliance with all laws, regulations, and policies. 

Justification: 

This use has been determined compatible as it 

will not materially interfere with or detract from 

Refuge purposes, provided the above stipulations 

are implemented. This use will provide an excellent 

recreational opportunity for visitors with minimal 

disturbance to wildlife. This use will not diminish 

the primary purposes of the Refuge for migratory 

birds. Fishing has been identified as a primary 

public use, helping to fulfill the mission of the 

NWRS by providing renewable resources for the 

benefit of the American public while conserving fish, 

wildlife and plant resources on these lands. 

Signature:

Refuge Manager 

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence:

Regional Chief 

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date:

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. WildlifeDependent Recreation: Fishing. 605 FW 3. National 

Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior.
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

207

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Research projects by third parties 

Refuge Name: Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

The Refuge was established and land was 

acquired under authority of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 7.14-714r). The Refuge 

was officially established on October 6, 1966. 

Acquisition funds were derived from federal duck 

stamp sales.

Refuge Purpose:

The Refuge purpose “...for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, 

for migratory birds” derives from the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. 

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. (National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of1966, as 

amended (16U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 

Description of Use:

What is the use? The Refuge allows research 

investigations on a variety of biological, physical, 

archeological, and social components to address 

Refuge management information needs or other 

issues not related to Refuge management. Studies 

are or may be conducted by federal, state, and 

private entities, including the U.S. Geological 

Survey, state departments of natural resources, 

state and private universities, and independent 

researchers and contractors. This is not a wildlifedependent use.

Examples of past biological research include: 

P copper-bellied water snakes

P Emerald ash borer

P Indiana bat

Where would the use be conducted? Sites for this 

use would depend on the particular study being 

conducted and could occur in a variety of habitat 

types. Access would be restricted by Special Use 

Permit to only the study sites needed to meet the 

objectives of the research.

When would the use be conducted? The timing of 

research activities would depend on the individual 

project, but currently most research occurs during 

the growing season. The entire Refuge is open for 

allowed research activities throughout the year in 

conjunction with the issuance of a Special Use 

Permit. The timing and number of visits by 

researchers may be restricted by Special Use 

Permit.

How would the use be conducted? Any research 

study sites, sampling locations, and transects can be 

temporarily marked by highly visible wooden or 

metal posts and must be removed when research 

ceases. Access to study sites is by foot, truck, allterrain vehicle, boat, airboat, canoe, and other 

watercraft. Vehicle use is allowed on Refuge roads, 

trails, and parking lots normally open to the public. 

Why is this use being proposed? Most research 

by third parties is done to address Refuge 

management information needs or to contribute to a 

larger knowledge base about resources of concern 

to the Refuge.

Availability of Resources:

Facilities and staff are currently available to 

provide access, maintain roads, parking lots, 

secondary access roads, as well as to issue Special 

Use Permits for research projects. Staff resources 

are deemed adequate to manage this use at 

anticipated use levels.

Access points, boats, vehicles, miscellaneous 

equipment, and limited logistical support are 

available on the Refuge. Housing is not available. 
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

208

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts:

Research activities may disturb fish and wildlife 

and their habitats. For example, the presence of 

researchers can cause waterfowl to flush from 

resting and feeding areas, cause disruption of birds 

and turtles on nests or breeding territories, or 

increase predation on nests and individual animals 

as predators follow human scent or trails. Efforts to 

capture animals can cause disturbance, injury, or 

death to groups of wildlife or to individuals. In 

addition, some projects require the collection of 

animals and plants for study. To wildlife, the energy 

cost of disturbance may be appreciable in terms of 

disruption of feeding, displacement from preferred 

habitat, and the added energy expended to avoid 

disturbance.

Sampling activities can cause compaction of soils 

and the trampling of vegetation, the establishment 

of temporary foot trails and boat trails through 

vegetation beds, disruption of bottom sediments, 

and minor tree damage when temporary 

observation platforms are built or when tree 

climbers access bird nests.

The removal of vegetation or sediments by core 

sampling methods can cause increased localized 

turbidity and disrupt non-target plants and animals. 

Installation of posts, equipment platforms, 

collection devices and other research equipment in 

open water may present a hazard if said items are 

not adequately marked and/or removed at 

appropriate times or upon completion of the project.

Long-term impacts:

Long-term effects should generally be beneficial 

by gaining information valuable to Refuge 

management. No long-term negative impacts are 

expected and the Refuge Manager can control the 

potential for long-term impacts through Special Use 

Permits.

Cumulative impacts:

Cumulative impacts would occur if multiple 

research projects were occurring on the same 

resources at the same time or the duration of the 

research is excessive. No cumulative impacts are 

expected and the Refuge Manager can control the 

potential for cumulative impacts through Special 

Use Permits. Managers retain the option to prohibit 

research on the Refuge which does not contribute to 

the purposes of the Refuge or the mission of the 

Refuge System, or causes undo resource 

disturbance or harm.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is part of the 

Muscatatuck Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and environmental assessment. Public 

notification and review includes a notice of 

availability published in the Federal Register, 30-

day comment period, local media announcements, 

and a public meeting near the Refuge. Comments 

received and agency responses will be included in 

the final version of the Muscatatuck Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

P Prior to conducting investigations, researchers will obtain Special Use Permits from the 

Refuge that make specific stipulations related 

to when, where, and how the research will be 

conducted. Managers retain the option to prohibit research on the Refuge which does not 

contribute to the purposes of the Refuge or 

the mission of the Refuge System, or causes 

undo resource disturbance or harm.

P Researchers must possess all applicable state 

and federal permits for the capture and possession of protected species, for conducting 

regulated activities in wetlands, and for other 

regulated activities.

P Archeological researchers must obtain an 

Archeological Resource Protection Act permit 

from the Regional Director prior to obtaining 

a special use permit from the Refuge Manager.

P Researchers will submit annual status reports 

and a final report concerning Refuge research 

to the Refuge Manager.

Justification: 

Research by third parties may play an integral 

role in Refuge management by providing 

information needed to manage the Refuge on a 

sound scientific basis. Investigations into the 
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

209

biological, physical, archeological, and social 

components of the Refuge provide a means to 

analyze management actions, impacts from internal 

and outside forces, and ongoing natural processes 

on the Refuge environment. 

Adverse impacts of research that cause localized 

vegetation trampling or disruption of wetland 

bottom sediments are often short-term and would 

be minimized through stipulations above. Any 

research equipment that remains in the field for the 

duration of the project would be clearly marked to 

avoid potential hazards presented to other Refuge 

users and/or Refuge staff.

Signature:

Refuge Manager 

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence:

Regional Chief 

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-Year Re-Evaluation Date: 

Appendix G: Deferred Maintenance and Improvement Projects and New Projects

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

211

Appendix G: Deferred Maintenance and 

Improvement Projects and New Projects

Appendix G: Deferred Maintenance and Improvement Projects and New Projects

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

213

Project 

Number

Deferred Maintenance & Improvement Projects Description Estimated 

Cost

Deferred Maintenance & Improvement 

2005230736 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Levee MSU 1 General Rehab Seasonally Flooded Const. 

Impoundments

$10,755 

2005230751 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Levee MSU 2 General Rehab Seasonally Flooded Const. 

Impoundments

$8,892 

2005230769 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Levee MSU 4 General Rehab Seasonally Flooded Const. 

Impoundments

$10,438 

2005230778 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Levee MSU 4 North General Rehab Seasonally Flooded Const. 

Impoundments

$27,369 

2005230786 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Levee MSU 5 General Rehab Seasonally Flooded Const. 

Impoundments

$21,592 

2005230953 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Levee Sheryl General Rehab Fishing $26,486 

2005230984 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Levee Endicott South General Rehab Seasonally Flooded Const. 

Impoundments

$47,616 

2005230987 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Levee Sand Hill Ponds General Rehab Fishing $13,122 

2005232382 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Levee Persimmon Ponds General Rehab Fishing $15,451 

2005232398 DM Child Repair Erosion on M-7 Masher Dike Seasonally Flooded Const. 

Impoundments

$52,000 

2005232414 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Levee Lake Linda General Rehab Fishing $58,511 

2005232420 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Road Service to Shop Area General 

Rehab

Observation & Photog. $33,621 

2005232429 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Levee Pfaffenburger Ms-6 General 

Rehab

Seasonally Flooded Const. 

Impoundments

$38,151 

2005232511 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Levee Sue Pond General Rehab Migratory Waterbirds $51,586 

2005241814 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck WCS Richart General Rehab Fishing $7,646 

2005241831 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck WCS M4 to Storm Creek General Rehab Seasonally Flooded Const. 

Impoundments

$8,583 

2005241839 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck WCS M5 to Storm Creek General Rehab Seasonally Flooded Const. 

Impoundments

$8,583 

2005241844 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck WCS M6 Outlet General Rehab Seasonally Flooded Const. 

Impoundments

$12,379 

2006402270 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck WCS Moss Lake General Rehab Seasonally Flooded Const. 

Impoundments

$16,359 

2006402682 DM Child Bridge Mutton Creek General Rehab Public Access Roads $20,000 

2006402685 DM Child Bridge StormCreek General Rehab Public Access Roads $20,000 
Appendix G: Deferred Maintenance and Improvement Projects and New Projects

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

214

2006402686 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Bridge Public M3 (Storm 500 N) Public Access Roads $8,105 

2006402687 DM Child Bridge M4 West Entrance Decking Replacement Public Access Roads $20,000 

2006403233 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Dam Low Hazard Richart Fishing $13,939 

2006403235 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Dam Low Hazard Stanfield Fishing $8,307 

2006403238 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Dam Low Hazard Moss Lake Seasonally Flooded Const. 

Impoundments

$19,385 

2006410096 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Observation Deck Endicott General 

Rehab

Observation & Photog. $8,997 

2006410097 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Pavillon Haackman Overlook General 

Rehab

Observation & Photog. $6,385

2006410098 R3 VFE 99 Muscatatuck Fishing Pier Lake Linda General 

Rehab

Fishing $5,851 

2007744088 R3 RRP Muscatatuck Preliminary Engineering (Rte 010) Public Access Roads $260,000 

2007744089 R3 RRP Muscatatuck County Line Road (Rte 010) Public Access Roads $304,103

2007744090 R3 RRP Muscatatuck 400N Road (Rte 011) Public Access Roads $230,894 

2007744091 R3 RRP Muscatatuck 500N Road (Rte 102) Public Access Roads $76,589 

2007744094 R3 RRP Muscatatuck Visitor Center FHWA Rte 901 Public Access Roads $5,346

2007744095 R3 RRP Muscatatuck Check Station Loop A FHWA Rte 904 Public Access Roads $10,499 

2007744101 R3 RRP Muscatatuck Visitor Center FHWA Rte 902 Public Access Roads $13,347 

2007744104 R3 RRP Muscatatuck Stanfield Lake Boat Ramp FHWA Rte 906 Fishing $5,621 

2007744105 R3 RRP Muscatatuck Myers Cabin South Roadside FHWA Rte 

910

Public Access Roads $1,544 

2007744107 R3 RRP Muscatatuck Road Public FHWA Rte 010 Hwy 50 to VC Public Access Roads $57,723 

2007744108 R3 RRP Muscatatuck Turkey Trail FHWA Rte 912 Public Access Roads $7,170 

2007744109 R3 RRP Muscatatuck Stanfield Lake Loop FHWA Rte 917 Public Access Roads $4,949 

2007744115 R3 RRP Muscatatuck Stanfield Lake Loop FHWA Rte 917 Public Access Roads $1,737 

2007744121 R3 RRP Muscatatuck Bird Trail FHWA Rte 921 Public Access Roads $3,443 

2008866101 R3 FY09 Trails Muscatatuck Richart Trail Observation & Photog. $10,000 

2008866107 R3 FY09 Trails Muscatatuck Bird Trail Observation & Photog. $15,000 

2008866110 R3 FY09 Trails Muscatatuck Turkey Trail Observation & Photog. $32,000 

2008867009 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Public Fishing Peir / Dock, Stanfield 

Lake

Fishing $7,527 

2008867341 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Dike - Wood Duck 320' General Rehab Seasonally Flooded Const. 

Impoundments

$7,759 

Project 

Number

Deferred Maintenance & Improvement Projects Description Estimated 

Cost
Appendix G: Deferred Maintenance and Improvement Projects and New Projects

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

215

2008867388 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Dike, MSU - 3 GENERAL Rehab Seasonally Flooded Const. 

Impoundments

$25,928 

2008867411 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Dike- S Wagner GENERAL Rehab Seasonally Flooded Const. 

Impoundments

$6,405 

2008867418 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Dike- W Wagner General Rehab Seasonally Flooded Const. 

Impoundments

$5,103 

2008867431 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Dike - Monroe County General Rehab Seasonally Flooded Const. 

Impoundments

$11,497 

2008867452 R3 DM 99 Muscatatuck Dike, McDonald South General Rehab Seasonally Flooded Const. 

Impoundments

$5,475 

2008867560 R3 RRP Muscatatuck Road Public Route 103 - 1225 E Public Access Roads $72,187 

2008867851 R3 RRP Muscatatuck Signs - Trail Public Hiking Observation & Photog., & 

Interpretation

$13,964 

$1,795,918

Project 

Number

Deferred Maintenance & Improvement Projects Description Estimated 

Cost
Appendix G: Deferred Maintenance and Improvement Projects and New Projects

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

216

Project 

Number

New and Construction Projects Description Estimated 

Cost

2007718327 Designs to Improve Moist Soil and Green Tree Habitat CIEG CHILD Bottomland Hardwood 

Forest

$80,000

2007718329 Improve Moist Soil and Green Tree Habitat CINCCHILD Bottomland Hardwood 

Forest

$900,000

2007741744 R3 VFE Child Muscatatuck Construct Visitor Center Pavilian Roof Interpretation $82,000

2007741749 R3 VFE Muscatatuck Install Restle Unit Interpretive Signs and 

Observation Deck Repair

Observation & Photog. $15,000

2007741750 R3 VFE Muscatatuck Hackman Overlook Structure Improvements Observation & Photog. $10,000

2007742988 R312 VFE CINC Muscatatuck Construct Kiosks at Four Locations Observation & 

Photog., & 

Interpretation

$40,000

2008863562 Construct 8-Person Fire Bunkhouse Support for all Goals $450,000

Tree Planting (Approx.) 670 Acres over the life of the CCP Upland & Bottlomland 

Hardwood Forests

$77,000

Timber Stand Improvement on (Approx.) 5,000 Acres over the life of 

the CCP, add one Biological Technician.

Upland & Bottlomland 

Hardwood Forests

$132,000

General Shoreline Improvements to Fishing Areas and Boat Launching 

Ramp

Fishing $100,000

Accessible Wildlife Viewing Platform/Deck at the "Shop Field"/Crane 

Viewing Area

Observation & 

Photog., & 

Interpretation

$100,000

Conduct a Hydrological Survey of the Seep Springs RNA Seep Springs RNA $70,500

Conduct Refuge-wide Invasive Plant Surveys Every 5 Years Invasive Plant Species $180,000

Close West Entrance (Cty. Rd. 400 N.), Move Gate, Add Turn-around 

Circles, (Rte.011)

Public Access Roads $150,000

Expand Environmental Education and Volunteer Staffing Visitor Services 

Staffing

$95,000

Hydrologic Study of Southern Moist Soil Units Hydrologic Study $80,000

Manage Invasive Plant Control Program and Expand Staffing Invasives Management $252,000

Expanded Wildlife Monitoring Wildlife Monitoring $181,000

Total $2,994,500
Appendix H: Literature Cited

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

217

Appendix H: Literature Cited

Appendix H: Literature Cited

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

219

Literature Cited

National Audubon Society. 2008. Important bird 

areas in the U.S. Available at: http://

www.audubon.org/bird/iba/

Blaustein, A. R., D. B. Wake, and W. P. Sousa. 1994. 

Amphibian declines: judging stability, persistence, and susceptibility of populations to 

local and global extinctions. Conservation 

Biology 8(1):60-71.

Blossey, B. 2004. Before, during and after: the need 

for long-term monitoring in invasive plant 

species management. Biological Invasions 

1(2):301-311

Carter, T. 2007. Unpublished data. Report to Muscatatuck NWR. 3pp. 

Collins, B. S. and L. L. Battaglia. 2002. Microenvironmental heterogeneity and Quercus 

michauxii regeneration in experimental 

gaps. Forest Ecology and Management 

155(1): 279-290.

Conant, J. R. and J. T. Collins. 1991. A Field Guide 

to Reptiles and Amphibians: Eastern and 

Central North America. Houghton Mifflin 

Company, Boston.

Cox, C. 1991. Pesticised and birds: from DDT to 

today’s poisons. Journal of Pesticide 

Reform11(4): 2-6.

Curry, J. R. 2001. Dragonflies of Indiana. Indiana 

Academy of Science, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Donalty, S., S. E. Henke, and C. L. Kerr. 2003. Use 

of winter food plots by nongame wildlife 

species. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(3):774-

778.

FedStats. United States Government. 2002. http://

www.fedstats.gov/.

Fisher, B.E. Unpublished correspondence to 

MNWR with results of a mussel survey 

conducted in 2007. Indiana Department of 

Natural Resources, Edinburgh IN. 9pp

Fisher, J. T. and L. Wilkinson. 2005. The response 

of mammals to forest fire and timber harvest in the North American boreal forest. 

Mammal Review 35(1):51-81.

Forest Service. 2007. Forest inventory and analysis 

strategic plan: a history of success a 

dynamic future. United States Department 

of Agriculture.

Gray, M. J., R. M. Kaminski, G. Weerakkody, B. D. 

Leopold, and K. C. Jensen. 1999. Aquatic 

invertebrate and plant responses following 

mechanical manipulations of moist-soil habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27(3): 770-

779.

Harmon J.L. 1996. Survey of the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished 

manuscript, Franklin IN. 8pp. 

Harper, C. A. 2007. Strategies for managing early 

succession habitat for wildlife. Weed Technology 21(4):932-937.

Haukos, D. A. and L. M. Smith. 1993. Moist-soil 

Management of Playa Lakes for migrating 

and wintering ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21(3):288-298.

Herkert, J. R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on Midwestern grassland bird communities. Ecological Applications 4(3):461-

471.

Homoya, M. 2007. Personal communication. Botanist/ecologist for Indiana Natural Heritage 

Program. Indiana Department of Natural 

Recourses.

Houlahan, J. E., C. S Findlay, B. R. Schmidt, A. H. 

Mayer, and S. L. Kuzmin. 2000. Quantitative evidence for global amphibian population declines. Nature 404(6779):752-755.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 2000. 

Indiana Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plan 

2000-2004: a new millennium, a new tradition. Indianapolis, Indiana.
Appendix H: Literature Cited

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

220

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 2005. 

Indiana comprehensive wildlife strategy 10/

01/05. Project Coordinator C. GremillionSmith. Indiana Department of Natural 

Resources, Indianapolis. 103pp, plus 

appendices.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division 

of Outdoor Recreation. 2006. Hoosiers on 

the Move: The Indiana State Trails, Greenways, and Bikeways Plan. Indianapolis, 

Indiana.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 2008. 

2008 Indiana fish consumption advisory. 

Accessed July 24, 2008. http://in.gov/isdh/

files/2008_FCA_Booklet.pdf

Jackson, M. T. editor. 1997. The Natural Heritage 

of Indiana. Indiana University Press, 

Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana.

Jacquart, E., M. Homoya, and L. Casebere. 2002. 

Natural communities of Indiana: 7/1/02 

working draft. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Nature Preserves, Indianapolis, IN.

Johnson, S.A., H.D. Walker, C.S. Hudson, T.R. 

Hewitt, and J.S. Thompson. 2007. Prospects 

for restoring river otters in Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 

116(1):71-83

Kingsbury, B. A. 1997. Habitat requirements of the 

copperbelly water snake, Nerodia erthrogaster neglecta. Indiana-Purdue University, Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Kozlowski, T. T. 2002. Physiological-ecological 

impacts of flooding on riparian forest ecosystems. Wetlands 22(3):550-561.

Lindsay, A. A. 1997. Walking in Wilderness. Pp 113-

123, in M. T. Jackson (ed.) The Natural Heritage of Indiana. Indiana University Press, 

Bloomington. 482pp.

Marshall, D.L., G.L. Helt, B.G. Nagel. 2007. Interim 

Soil Survey of Jennings County, Indiana. 

U.S Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service

Marshall, J. C., B. A. Kingsbury, and D. J. 

Minchella. In press. Microsatellite variation, population structure, and bottlenecks 

in the threatened copperbelly water snake. 

Conservation Genetics.

McWilliams-Munson, R. 1996. Contaminant Assessment Process Manual, Muscatatuck 

National Wildlife Refuge: Preliminary 

Report of Findings.

Nagel, B.G., R.C. Wingard, Jr., G.R. Struben. 1990. 

Soil Survey of Jackson County, Indiana. 

U.S Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration. Asheville, 

NC. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 Public Law 105-57

Nickell, A.K., W.D. Hosteter, S. H. Brownfield, A. 

Rivera, 1976. Soil Survey of Jennings 

County, Indiana. U.S Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Washington 

D.C.

Patrick, R. and D. M. Palavage. 1994. The value of 

species as indicators of water quality. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 145:55-92.

Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2005. 

Update on the environmental and economic 

cost associated with alien-invasive species 

in the United States. Ecological Economics 

52(3):273-288.

Pruitt, S. and J. Szymanski. 1997. Endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the northern 

population of the copperbelly water snake. 

Federal Register 62:4183-4193

Robinson, S. K., F. R. Thompson III, T. M. Donovan, 

D. R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995. 

Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 

267(5206):1987-1990
Appendix H: Literature Cited

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

221

Roe, J. H., B. A. Kingsbury, and N. R. Herbert. 

2003. Wetland and upland use patterns in 

semi-aquatic snakes: implications for wetland conservation. Wetlands 23(4): 1003-

1014

Rooney, T. P. and D. M. Waller. 2003. Direct and indirect effects of white-tailed deer in forest 

ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management 181(1):165-176.

Sallabanks, R., J. R. Walters, and J. A. Collazo. 

2000. Breeding bird abundance in bottomland hardwood forests: habitat, edge, and 

patch size effects. The Condor 102(4): 748-

758

Sieracki, J.L., T.E. Burk, and J.H. Schomaker. 2002. 

Muscatatuck NWR vegetation cover spatial 

database (2000). Staff Paper Series Number 

159, Department of Forest Resources. College of Natural Resources. U. of Minn., 

Minneapolis, MN. 62pp. 

Simon, T.P. 2008. Preliminary diagnosis of contaminant patterns in streams and rivers of the 

National Wildlife Refuges in Indiana. Project ID:1261-3N34. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Environmental Contaminants Program, Bloomington, Indiana. 970 pp.

Slusher, B.R. and D. Welch. 2001. Site conservation 

plan for Beanblossom Bottoms. Sycamore 

Land Trust, Bloomington. 25pp.

Smith, L. M. and J. A. Kadlec. 1983. Seed banks 

and their role during drawdown of a North 

American marsh. The Journal of Applies 

Ecology 20(2):673-684.

STATS Indiana. 2007. Indiana Business Research 

Center at Indiana University's Kelley 

School of Business, Bloomington, Indiana.

Tang, Z, B. A. Engel, B. C. Pijanowski, and K. J. 

Lim. 2005. Forecasting land use change 

and its environmental impact at a watershed scale. Journal of Environmental Management 76(1): 35-45

Thomas, J. A. 1981. Soil Survey of Monroe County, 

Indiana. U.S Department of Agriculture, 

Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Twedt, D. J., R. R. Wilson, and A. S. Keister. 2007. 

Spatial models of northern bobwhite populations for conservation planning. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 71(6):1808-1818.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, Census of Population and Housing, 

Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, 

State and County Housing Unit Estimates, 

County Business Patterns, Nonemployer 

Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of 

Business Owners, Building Permits, Consolidated Federal Funds Report. Accessed 

July 22, 2008. http://quickfacts.census.gov/

qfd/states/18/18079.html.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2004. Annual Report of 

Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1999. Fish & Wildlife 

Resource Conservation Priorities: Region 

3.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2001. National Land Cover 

Database Zone 60 Land Cover Layer 

Waide, R. B., M. R. Willig, C. F. Steiner, G. Mittelbach, L. Gough, S. I. Dodson, G. P. Juday, 

and R. Parmenter. 1999. The relationship 

between productivity and species richness. 

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 

30:257-300

Wake, D. B. 1991. Declining amphibian populations. Science 253(5022):860.

Wayne, W. J. 1956. Thickness of Drift and Bedrock 

Physiography of Indiana North of the Wisconsin Glacial Boundary. Report of Progress No. 7. Geological Survey, Indiana 

Department of Conservation, Bloomington, 

Indiana.

Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1995. Survey of bats at Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge, in Jackson 

and Jennings County, Indiana. Report to 

J.F. New & Associates. 21pp

Woodall, C., D. Johnson, J. Gallion, C. Perry, B. Butler, R. Piva, E. Jepsen, D. Nowak, and P. 

Marshall. 2005. Indiana’s forests 1999-2003 

(Part A). Resour. Bull. NC-253A. St. Paul, 
Appendix H: Literature Cited

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

222

MN: U.S. Department of Argriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 94 p.
Appendix I: List of Preparers

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

223

Appendix I: List of Preparers

Appendix I: List of Preparers

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

225

List of Preparers

Refuge Staff

# Marc Webber, Refuge Manager

# Susan Knowles, Wildlife Refuge Specialist

# Donna Stanley, Outdoor Recreation Planner

# Dan Wood, Wildlife Biologist

# Frank Polyak, Park Ranger

Regional Planning Staff

# Jared Bowman, Wildlife Biologist

# Gabriel DeAlessio, Wildlife Biologist/

Cartographer

# Jane Hodgins, Technical Writer/Editor

# John Schomaker, Refuge Planner (retired)