Muscatatuck

l,{ ational Wi,ldlife R efug e

Date

)hartes M. WooleY

ActingRegionat ut

,dG

Gomprehensive Gonservat¡on Plan Approval

Submitted by:

lr4* u,á,{* q/r t

Marc Webber

Refuge Manager

Concur:

Thorñas C. Worlhington

Acting Regional Chief,

homas 0. Melius

ildlife Befuge System

Matthew D. Sprenger

Befuge Supervisor, Area 2

Muscatatuck 

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table of Contents

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

i

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

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

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

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

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

Refuge Purpose ..............................................................................................................................................................3

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

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

Legal Context .................................................................................................................................................................4

Chapter 2: The Planning Process ................................................................................................................................5

Meetings and Involvement ...........................................................................................................................................5

Issues ............................................................................................................................................................................5

Wilderness Review ........................................................................................................................................................6

Preparation of the CCP ..................................................................................................................................................6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Demand and Supply for Wildlife-Dependent Recreation ............................................................................................15

Climate .........................................................................................................................................................................16

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

Hydrology .....................................................................................................................................................................18

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

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

Forests ....................................................................................................................................................................20
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ii

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

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

Mammals ...............................................................................................................................................................23

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

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

Invertebrates ..........................................................................................................................................................24

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

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

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

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

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

Water Contamination .............................................................................................................................................26

Urban Development ...............................................................................................................................................27

Military Activity .....................................................................................................................................................27

Atmospheric Concerns ...........................................................................................................................................28

Climate Change Impacts ..............................................................................................................................................28

Administrative Facilities ..............................................................................................................................................31

Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation .............................................................................................................31

Visitation ......................................................................................................................................................................33

Current Management ..................................................................................................................................................33

Habitat Management .............................................................................................................................................33

Wetland Management .....................................................................................................................................33

Moist Soil Units ...............................................................................................................................................33

Grasslands ........................................................................................................................................................35

Forests ..............................................................................................................................................................35

Cropland ...........................................................................................................................................................36

Monitoring ..............................................................................................................................................................36

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

Hunting .............................................................................................................................................................36

Fishing ..............................................................................................................................................................39

Interpretation, Observation, and Photography .................................................................................................39

Environmental Education .................................................................................................................................41

Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation ................................................................................................................42

Predator, Pest, and Invasive Species Management ..............................................................................................42

Animal Species ................................................................................................................................................42

Plant Species ....................................................................................................................................................43

Archaeological and Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................43

Law Enforcement ...................................................................................................................................................44

Existing Partnerships ..............................................................................................................................................44

Other Management Areas .....................................................................................................................................45

Research Natural Area .....................................................................................................................................45

Restle Unit ........................................................................................................................................................45

Farm Service Agency Conservation Easements ...............................................................................................46

Current Staff and Budget .......................................................................................................................................47

Staff ..................................................................................................................................................................47

Budget ..............................................................................................................................................................47
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iii

Chapter 4: Management Direction ............................................................................................................................48

Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................................................................48

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ................................................................................................................................71

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................71

New and Existing Projects ..........................................................................................................................................71

Staffing .......................................................................................................................................................................71

Partnership Opportunities ............................................................................................................................................72

Step-Down Management Plans ..................................................................................................................................72

Monitoring and Evaluation ..........................................................................................................................................73

Plan Review and Revision ...........................................................................................................................................73

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact .......................................................................................................75

Appendix B: Glossary ..................................................................................................................................................79

Appendix C: Species Lists ..........................................................................................................................................85

Appendix D: Regional Conservation Priority Species at Muscatatuck NWR ................................................119

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements ................................................................................................................125

Appendix F: Appropriate Use Determinations ......................................................................................................133

Appendix G: Deferred Maintenance and Improvement Projects and New Projects ....................................143

Appendix H: Literature Cited ...................................................................................................................................149

Appendix I: List of Preparers ...................................................................................................................................155

Appendix J: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP .......................................................................................159
List of Figures and Tables

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iv

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 8: Water Management Infrastructure, Muscatatuck NWR .................................................................................34

Figure 9: Public Use, Hunting, at Muscatatuck NWR .....................................................................................................38

Figure 10: Visitor Services Facilities, Muscatatuck NWR ..............................................................................................40

Figure 11: The Restle Unit of Muscatatuck NWR ...........................................................................................................45

Figure 12: FSA Easements Administrated by Muscatatuck NWR ..................................................................................47

Figure 13: Future Land Cover, Muscatatuck NWR ..........................................................................................................50

Figure 14: Future Visitor Facilities, Muscatatuck NWR ..................................................................................................67

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

Table 2: Monitoring History, Muscatatuck NWR ............................................................................................................37

Table 3: Six-year Operating and Maintenance Budget ...................................................................................................47

Table 4: Water Management Units Under the CCP, Muscatatuck NWR .......................................................................54

Table 5: Additional Staffing as Indicated by the 2008 Refuge System Staffing Model ................................................72
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Introduction

The Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge 

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

Jackson, Jennings, and Monroe Counties of Indiana 

(Figure 1). The Refuge also administers nine 

conservation easements totaling 130.5 acres in five 

Indiana counties. The Refuge consists of wetland, 

grassland and woodland communities. The Refuge 

provides habitat for many avian species including 

ducks, geese, non-game grassland and forest birds 

including many neo-tropical migrants, shorebirds, 

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

variety of reptiles and mammals including the 

copperbelly water snake, Kirtland’s snake, river 

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

broad range of terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates 

also inhabit the Refuge. Included among the diverse 

assortment of wildlife and plants found on the 

Refuge are several federally listed species, 

including the federally listed endangered Indiana 

bat, and many more state-listed species. Species 

lists found in Appendix C note any state and federal 

designations.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

Muscatatuck NWR is administered by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The Service is 

the primary federal agency responsible for 

conserving, protecting, and enhancing the nation’s 

fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. It 

oversees the enforcement of federal wildlife laws, 

management and protection of migratory bird 

populations, restoration of nationally significant 

fisheries, administration of the Endangered Species 

Act, and the restoration of wildlife habitat such as 

wetlands. The Service also manages the National 

Wildlife Refuge System.

The National Wildlife Refuge System

Refuge lands are part of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, which was founded in 1903 when 

President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican 

Island in Florida as a sanctuary for Brown Pelicans. 

Today, the System is a network of about 550 refuges 

and 37 wetland management districts covering more 

than 96 million acres of public lands and waters. 

Most of these lands are in Alaska, with 

approximately 16 million acres located in the lower 

48 states and several island territories.

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

Service

 

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the 

world’s largest collection of lands specifically 

managed for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides 

habitat for more than 5,000 species of birds, 

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

a result of international treaties for migratory bird 

conservation and other legislation, such as the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, many 

refuges have been established to protect migratory 

waterfowl and their migratory flyways. 

Refuges also play a crucial role in preserving 

endangered and threatened species. Among the 

most notable is Aransas NWR in Texas, which 

provides winter habitat for the highly endangered 

Whooping Crane. Likewise, the Florida Panther 

Refuge protects one of the nation’s most 
Figure 1: Location of Muscatatuck NWR

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3

endangered predators. Refuges also provide unique 

recreational and educational opportunities for 

people.

When human activities are compatible with 

wildlife and habitat conservation, refuges are places 

where people can enjoy wildlife-dependent 

recreation such as hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, 

and environmental interpretation. Many refuges 

have visitor centers, wildlife trails, automobile 

tours, and environmental education programs. 

Nationwide, approximately 40 million people visit 

national wildlife refuges every year.

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 established several 

important mandates aimed at making the 

management of national wildlife refuges more 

cohesive. The preparation of Comprehensive 

Conservation Plans (CCPs) is one of those 

mandates. The legislation directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to ensure that the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and purposes of 

the individual refuges are carried out. It also 

requires the Secretary to maintain the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

are to:

 Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats, including species that are 

endangered or threatened with becoming 

endangered.

 Develop and maintain a network of habitats for 

migratory birds, anadromous and 

interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal 

populations that is strategically distributed and 

carefully managed to meet important life 

history needs of these species across their 

ranges.

 Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, 

wetlands of national or international 

significance, and landscapes and seascapes that 

are unique, rare, declining, or 

underrepresented in existing protection efforts.

 Provide and enhance opportunities to 

participate in compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

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

environmental education and interpretation).

 Foster understanding and instill appreciation of 

the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

History and Establishment

In the early 1960s there was interest among the 

Indiana Department of Conservation, state-wide 

sportsmen and conservation organizations, and 

many business and civic leaders in southern Indiana 

for a national wildlife refuge in the area known as 

Mutton Creek Bottoms. Their interest was 

prompted by the recollection of past waterfowl use 

of the area, the reduction of waterfowl habitat 

throughout the area because of wetland drainage, 

an anticipated economic stimulus from tourists and 

sportsmen, and possible educational benefits 

derived from nature trails and wildlife observations. 

Muscatatuck NWR. Photo Credit: Jon Kauffeld

With the approval of the Governor and support 

by local elected representatives, the Service 

presented the proposal for the Muscatatuck NWR 

to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission on 

June 7, 1966. The Commission approved the 

acquisition of 7,922 acres to provide duck breeding 

and migration habitat. Lands for the Refuge were 

acquired under eminent domain. The Refuge was 

officially established by the acquisition of the first 

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

acquisition was considered complete with 7,724 

acres acquired; interest in a remaining in-holding 

had waned by 1979 because the asking price was too 

high. The 78-acre Restle Unit in Monroe County 

was acquired through a donation in 1991.

Refuge Purpose

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

sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, 

for migratory birds” derives from the Migratory 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4

Bird Conservation Act. When proposed as a refuge 

to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission in 

1966, the area was identified as having good 

potential for waterfowl with expected increases in 

production and use during the spring and fall 

migrations. It was also noted that the Refuge would 

provide recreation facilities for the people of the 

vicinity.

The Refuge also manages nine conservation 

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

for conservation ... ”, derives from the Consolidated 

Farm and Rural Development Act. The Service 

administers the easements as part of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System.

Refuge Vision

The Refuge staff considered past vision 

statements and emerging issues and drafted the 

following vision statement as the desired future 

state of the Refuge:

As the land of winding waters, treasured for 

generations, Muscatatuck National Wildlife 

Refuge honors its heritage and connects visitors 

with the natural environment by conserving a 

rich mosaic of sustainable habitat for a diversity 

of wildlife and plants.

Purpose of the Plan

This CCP articulates the management direction 

for Muscatatuck NWR for the next 15 years. 

Through goals, objectives, and strategies, this CCP 

describes how the Refuge intends to fulfill its 

purpose and contribute to the overall mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Prior to the CCP, 

Refuge management was guided by a 1982 Master 

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

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

long-term look at management direction given 

changed conditions and scientific information, and 

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

Service managing the Refuge.

Several legislative mandates within the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

have guided the development of this plan. These 

mandates include:

 Wildlife has first priority in the management of 

refuges.

 Wildlife-dependent recreation activities, namely 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education and 

interpretation, are priority public uses of 

refuges. We will facilitate these activities when 

they do not interfere with our ability to fulfill 

the refuges’ purpose or the mission of the 

Refuge System.

 Other uses of the Refuge will only be allowed 

when determined appropriate and compatible 

with Refuge purposes and mission of the 

Refuge System.

The plan will guide the management of 

Muscatatuck NWR by:

 Providing a clear statement of direction for the 

future management.

 Making a strong connection between Refuge 

activities and conservation activities that occur 

in the surrounding area.

 Providing neighbors, visitors, and the general 

public with an understanding of the Service’s 

management actions.

 Ensuring Refuge actions and programs are 

consistent with the mandates of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System.

 Ensuring that Refuge management considers 

federal, state, and county plans.

 Establishing long-term continuity in Refuge 

management.

 Providing a basis for the development of budget 

requests on the Refuge’s operational, 

maintenance, and capital improvement needs.

Legal Context

In addition to the acquisition authorities of the 

Refuge, and the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, several federal laws, 

executive orders, and regulations govern its 

administration. Appendix E contains a partial list of 

the legal mandates that pertain to Refuge 

management and guided the preparation of this 

plan.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Meetings and Involvement 

The planning process for this CCP began in 

March 2007. Initially, members of the regional 

planning staff and Muscatatuck NWR staff 

identified a list of issues and concerns that were 

associated with the management of the Refuge. 

These preliminary issues and concerns were based 

on staff knowledge of the area and contacts with 

citizens in the community.

Refuge staff and Service planners then asked 

Refuge neighbors, organizations, local government 

units, and interested citizens to share their thoughts 

in an open house and through written comments. In 

May 2007, people were invited to an open house at 

the Refuge’s visitor center through local papers and 

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

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

Comments were received from approximately 35 

individuals during the comment period, which ended 

June 30, 2007. Following the public comment period, 

an additional meeting was held in the Fish and 

Wildlife Service Regional Office to review the public 

comments and identify concerns from subject 

specialists.

A Biological Program Review, which is an 

evaluation of the relevance and direction of the 

biological program through the collective inputs of 

professionals among the various fields of ecology 

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

June 20 and 21 of 2007. The Regional Refuge 

Biologist facilitated the event, which was attended 

by 17 individuals with various state, federal, and 

academic affiliations. Information was presented on 

the Refuge, the general ecology of the region, 

establishing legislation and policy directives, 

current issues facing the Refuge, prior program 

accomplishments, a report on the current biological 

inventory and monitoring program, and a draft 

vision for the future. The meeting was punctuated 

with field trips to specific sites to stimulate 

discussion and demonstrate issues of concern. The 

group discussed management alternatives and 

potential strategies, identified potential biological 

program priorities, discussed the draft goals and 

objectives for the various program components and 

other ideas for the future of the program.

The planning team also considered the 

recommendations of a Visitors Services Review that 

was conducted June 19-22, 2006. The review 

evaluated the services of the Refuge against the 

minimum visitor services requirements in policy. 

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

Service

Issues 

Issues play an important role in planning. Issues 

focus the planning effort on the most important 

topics and provide a base for considering alternative 

approaches to management and evaluating the 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

6

consequences of managing under these alternative 

approaches. The issues, concerns, and opportunities 

expressed during the first phase of planning have 

been organized under the following headings.

 Habitat and Wildlife

There is a need to prioritize wildlife species of 

management concern and their habitats and, 

within budget constraints and other limitations, 

manage according to those priorities. A strategic 

management direction is needed for wetlands, 

grasslands, forests, croplands, and the conversion 

of open lands to forests. Visitors see the current 

diversity of habitat as valuable, because it 

provides an opportunity to see a large number of 

bird and resident wildlife species.

 Visitor Services

Visitors and staff recognize a tremendous 

potential in wildlife-dependent recreation, a 

popular and valued use of the Refuge. There is a 

need to weigh the delivery of visitor services 

within the wildlife mission of the Refuge and seek 

creative means for expanding wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities, outreach, and education.

 Refuge Roads

The public recognizes the value of Refuge roads 

for access. There is a wide spectrum of opinion on 

how the roads should be maintained. Some like the 

roads as they are now; others would like to see 

improvements in the roads and associated 

facilities such as parking lots and wildlife 

overlooks.

 Recreational Issues

Some individuals would like to see recreational 

opportunities expand on the Refuge to include dog 

training, an archery range, and horseback riding. 

These activities typically do not occur on refuges 

and many are not wildlife-dependent in nature. 

The planning process presents an opportunity to 

evaluate the requests and reach a decision on their 

appropriateness and compatibility.

 External Impacts to the Refuge

Refuge habitats and waters are directly affected 

by land use on neighboring properties, 

surrounding area and upstream of the Refuge. 

Off-refuge factors such as water management, 

agricultural practices, transportation networks, 

industrial activities, and urban development 

influence many aspects of management at 

Muscatatuck NWR, including:

water quality and quantity on the Refuge;

sedimentation and contamination in streams, 

wetlands, and open waters; 

wildlife disturbance from human activity and 

noise; 

the severity of habitat fragmentation; 

the diversity and pervasiveness of invasive 

species. 

 Support

There is wide support for the Refuge and its 

management among visitors. They note the value 

of the Friends Group, volunteer, and intern 

programs.

Wilderness Review

As part of the CCP process, lands within 

Muscatatuck NWR were reviewed for wilderness 

suitability. No lands were considered suitable for 

Congressional designation as wilderness as defined 

by the Wilderness Act of 1964. Muscatatuck NWR 

does not contain 5,000 contiguous acres of roadless, 

natural lands. Nor does the Refuge possess any 

units of sufficient size to make their preservation 

practicable as wilderness. Refuge lands and waters 

have been substantially altered by humans, 

especially by agriculture, drain construction, and 

road-building. Extensive modification of natural 

habitats and manipulation of natural processes has 

occurred. Adopting a “hands-off ” approach to 

management at the Refuge would not facilitate the 

restoration of a pristine or pre-settlement condition, 

which is the goal of wilderness designation.

Preparation of the CCP

The CCP for Muscatatuck NWR was prepared 

by a team consisting of Refuge and Regional Office 

staff. The CCP was published in two phases and in 

accordance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA). The Environmental Assessment, published as Appendix A in the Draft CCP, presented 

four alternatives for future management and identified a preferred alternative. 

The Draft CCP/EA was released for public 

review and comment on April 6, 2009. A Draft CCP/

EA or a summary of the document was sent to more 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

7

than 1,000 individuals, organizations, and local, 

state, and federal agencies and elected officials. An 

open house was held on April 23, 2009, at the Muscatatuck NWR Visitor Center following release of the 

draft document. Twenty-five people attended the 

open house. We received a total of 40 comment letters and e-mails during the 33-day review period. 

Appendix K of the CCP summarizes these comments and our responses.

The preferred alternative was selected and has 

become the basis of the Final CCP, which will guide 

management over the next 15 years. It will guide 

the development of more detailed step-down management plans for specific resource areas and it will 

underpin the annual budgeting process through 

submissions to the Refuge Operating Needs System 

(RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS). Most importantly, the CCP 

lays out the general approach to managing habitat, 

wildlife, and people at Muscatatuck NWR that will 

direct day-to-day decision-making and actions.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

8

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and 

Management

Introduction

Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge

Muscatatuck NWR manages lands in Jackson, 

Jennings, and Monroe Counties in south-central 

Indiana. Management responsibilities also include a 

30-county Wildlife Management District, which 

involves management of U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA) Farm Service Agency 

Conservation Easements and team membership in 

the Wetland Reserve Program Wetland Evaluation 

Team with USDA – Natural Resource Conservation 

Service (NRCS) for the 22-county southeast 

Indiana area. Although formal management 

responsibility for the 30-county Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife private lands district was transferred by 

agreement to the Indiana State Private Lands 

Coordinator in 2004, Muscatatuck NWR still assists 

with past projects completed with Muscatatuck 

NWR partners, provides coordination and support 

in six counties, and makes referrals from other 

counties to the State Private Lands Coordinator.

Ecological Context

Historic Vegetation

Historically, the Refuge was a part of the 

expansive, contiguous deciduous hardwood forest 

that covered most of the central and southern part 

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

beech-maple as the dominant pre-settlement forest 

types. Prior to European settlement of the area, the 

Muscatatuck River Basin was an old lake basin. The 

forest community has been defined as “Bluegrass 

Till Plain Flatwoods” by the Indiana Invasive Plant 

Species Assessment Work Group (Jacquart et al. 

2002) and “Southeastern Till Plain Beech-Maple 

Division” by IDNR Division of Nature Preserves 

(2005). This area is generally wet or moist most of 

the year. 

Information gleaned from the General Land 

Office (GLO) survey notes from November 1806 is 

summarized in the following paragraphs. Names in 

bold are the names as found in the original survey 

notes and those within parentheses are current 

interpretations of the species represented (Homoya 

2007).

River otter. Photo credit: Dan Kaiser

In the Jennings County portion of the Refuge 

the area is mostly upland flats and moist slopes. 

The tree species mentioned the greatest 

number of times is beech (American beech;

Fagus grandifolia). As with today, this species 

is characteristic of these communities. Three 

other species mentioned are sugar (sugar 

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

Fraxinus americana), and cherry (black 

cherry; Prunus serotina). 

In the western portion of the Refuge (Jackson 

Co.) most of the same species listed above are 

mentioned; additional types occur, especially in 

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

ash; Fraxinus pennsylvanica), maple (red 

maple; Acer rubrum and/or silver maple; Acer 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

9

saccharinum), elm (American elm; Ulmus 

americana) in the bottoms, beech (American 

beech; Fagus grandifolia) and poplar (tulip 

tree; Liriodendron tulipifera) on the 

Highland." These notes were describing a 

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

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

region was ironwood (probably blue beech; 

Carpinus caroliniana, and not hop hornbeam; 

Ostrya virginiana). 

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

chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) and/or

swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), and gum

(sweet gum; Liquidambar styraciflua) were 

mentioned in a floodplain just north of the 

Vernon Fork Muscatatuck River along the 

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

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

wet floodplain forests in Indiana, but does occur 

in slightly elevated portions of floodplains, 

(Homoya 2007). There are no references to any 

open areas or grasslands. There are references 

to a few swamps in the floodplain; they were 

forested and probably only ephemerally wet.

In addition to written descriptions of historic 

vegetation conditions, soil information can be used 

to understand the vegetation capacity of a 

landscape. The soils in any given locality are a 

result of the parent rock material, organisms, 

climate, and relief. These factors and the resulting 

soils limit what overlying native vegetation can 

inhabit an area. Soil survey data collected over the 

past century by the USDA’s Natural Resource 

Conservation Service have included written 

descriptions of native vegetation, which can be tied 

to the soil unit and mapped. Figure 2 uses data 

from the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) 

Database to display the potential natural vegetation 

found at Muscatatuck NWR. The dominance of a 

mixed deciduous forest covertype is consistent with 

other accounts of the region’s native vegetation 

status. 

The land of the future Refuge was cleared for 

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

Europeans. When the Service purchased the land 

there were 116 private land ownerships, 4,100 acres 

being farmed, and most of the area had been altered 

from its original forest cover type. Since the Service 

has managed the land the cover has changed away 

from agriculture to managed wetlands and trees. 

Fire was likely a part of the forces shaping the 

forest prior to European settlement as indigenous 

populations used fire as a management tool in 

forested areas. Fire has been suppressed in the 

Muscatatuck NWR area for much of the last 

century, except for some areas of the Refuge that 

were treated with fire as a management tool in the 

1990s.

Today the more common 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 (Figure 3). Forested 

lands and woodlots are scattered among the 

agricultural lands. Based on 2001 national land 

cover data developed by the Multi-Resolution Land 

Characteristics Consortium, the area within a 6-mile 

distance of the Refuge is 61.8 percent agricultural, 

10.8 percent developed, and 26.4 percent forested 

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

Trabue
Figure 2: Potential Natural Vegetation, Muscatatuck NWR

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

10
Figure 3: Land Use / Land Cover in the Vicinity of Muscatatuck NWR

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

11
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

12

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

Several migratory bird conservation plans have 

been published over the last decade that can be used 

to help guide management decisions on refuges. 

Bird conservation planning efforts have evolved 

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

regional, even inter-continental, landscape-oriented 

perspective. Several transnational migratory bird 

conservation initiatives have emerged to help guide 

the planning and implementation process. The 

regional plans relevant to Muscatatuck NWR are: 

 The Central Hardwoods Joint Venture Concept 

Plan

 Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes 

Region Joint Venture of the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan

 The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes 

Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan

 The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes 

Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan

Each of the bird conservation initiatives has a 

process for designating priority species, modeled to 

a large extent on the Partners in Flight method of 

computing scores based on independent 

assessments of global relative abundance, breeding 

and wintering distribution, and vulnerability to 

threats, area importance, and population trends. 

These scores are often used by agencies in 

developing lists of priority bird species. The Service 

based its 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: 

 All federally listed threatened and endangered 

species and proposed and candidate species 

that occur in the Region.

 Migratory bird species derived from Service 

wide and international conservation planning 

efforts.

 Rare and declining terrestrial and aquatic 

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

Region. 

Appendix D lists 72 Regional Resource 

Conservation Priority species relevant to the 

Refuge. 

Other Conservation and Recreation 

Lands in the Area

The state of Indiana, other federal agencies, and 

non-governmental conservation organizations own 

and manage lands and recreation access sites within 

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

state areas include public access sites, fish and 

wildlife areas, recreation areas, forests, and nature 

preserves. The federal areas include Big Oaks 

National Wildlife Refuge, Hoosier National Forest, 

and Department of Defense lands. Among 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 under way in Midwest Region of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to create models that 

outline a basic conservation network throughout the 

Midwest. Recent emphasis on Strategic Habitat 

Conservation and the effects of global climate 
Figure 4: Other Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Vicinity of Muscatatuck NWR

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

13
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

14

change have catalyzed these efforts in the Service. 

Using land cover (Figure 3 on page 11) and the 

existing conservation estate (Figure 4), it is possible 

to visualize the beginnings of a land conservation 

network with Muscatatuck NWR, Big Oaks NWR, 

and other major state and federal landholdings as 

major ecological hubs linked through private and 

public conservation efforts. The Refuge System is 

positioned well to play an integral role in the design 

and implementation of a regional conservation 

network.

White-tailed deer. Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

The growing emphasis on landscape-level issues 

has demanded a shift in the scale at which 

environmental problems are approached. To 

continue providing the ecological services that 

sustain wildlife and human populations alike, the 

Service is looking outside Refuge boundaries and 

engaging in conversations with other members of 

the conservation community. It is only through 

collaborative efforts and partnerships – both public 

and private – that issues of this magnitude and scale 

can be effectively addressed. 

Socioeconomic Context

Muscatatuck NWR is located in Jackson and 

Jennings Counties with a small satellite unit in 

Monroe County. Jackson and Jennings Counties are 

less racially and ethnically diverse than the state of 

Indiana as a whole. The population in the counties 

has a lower average income and a lower percentage 

of high school and college graduates than the state’s 

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

Population and Demographics

The population estimate for the two counties was 

70,664 in 2005. The population increased 12.2 

percent during the 1990s while the state’s 

population increased 9.7 percent. Jennings County 

grew more at 16.5 percent, and Jackson County 

grew 9.6 percent. The two-county population was 98 

percent white in 2005; the state population was 88.6 

percent white. In Indiana, 6.4 percent of the people 

5 years and older speak a language other than 

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

in Jennings County it is 2.5 percent. The population 

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

a 3.4 percent increase from 2005; for Jennings 

County the projected population is 33,695 for 2025, 

an 18.5 percent increase from 2005. The largest 

community in Jackson County is Seymour with a 

2005 population of 18,890. The largest community in 

Jennings County is North Vernon with a 2005 

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

Employment 

In 2004 there were a total of 38,327 full- and 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). 
Table 1: Maximum Adult Audiences Within 30, 60, and 90 Miles of 

Muscatatuck NWR for Four Activities

Approximate 

Driving Distance 

to Refuge

Total 

Population

Birdwatching Fishing Hunting With 

Shotgun

Contribute to 

Environmental 

Organization

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

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

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

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

15

Demand and Supply for 

Wildlife-Dependent 

Recreation 

In order to estimate the potential market for 

visitors to the Refuge, we looked at 2007 consumer 

behavior data within approximately 30, 60, and 90-

mile drives of the Refuge. The data were organized 

by zip areas. We used the three driving distances 

because we thought this was an approximation of 

reasonable maximum drives to the Refuge for an 

outing by different groups. From experience we 

know, for example, that visitors come from the 

nearby local area to view wildlife in the evening. We 

also know that people seeking interesting varieties 

of bird species drive from Cincinnati, Ohio to visit 

the Refuge. The 30-mile area extended beyond the 

communities of Bedford, Columbus, Greensburg, 

Madison, North Vernon, Salem, Scottsburg, and 

Seymour. The 60-mile area extended from the 

southern portion of the Indianapolis metropolitan 

area to the northern portion of the Louisville 

metropolitan area. The 90-mile area included the 

Cincinnati metropolitan area. 

The consumer behavior data that we used in the 

analysis is derived from Mediamark Research Inc. 

data. The company collects and analyzes data on 

consumer demographics, product and brand usage, 

and exposure to all forms of advertising media. The 

consumer behavior data were projected by Tetrad 

Computer Applications Inc. to new populations 

using Mosaic data. Mosaic is a methodology that 

classifies neighborhoods into segments based on 

their demographic and socioeconomic composition. 

The basic assumption in the analysis is that people 

in demographically similar neighborhoods will tend 

to have similar consumption, ownership, and 

lifestyle preferences. Because of the assumptions 

made in the analysis, the data should be considered 

as relative indicators of potential, not actual 

participation.

We looked at 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 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

16

activities were: nature observation/photography (36 

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

percent) (Indiana Department of Natural Resources 

2000). Within the nature observation/photography 

category respondents reported participation in 

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

viewing fall foliage, nature photography, and bird 

watching. 

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

Service

The SCORP identified the counties and regions 

that contain the Refuge as meeting or exceeding the 

regional recreation land standard of 35 acres per 

thousand population. The Indiana State Trails Plan 

(Indiana DNR 2006) reported 76 miles of trails in 

Jackson County and 17 miles of trails in Jennings 

County. The Refuge trails are included in these 

totals.

Climate

The Refuge experiences a continental climate of 

warm, humid summers and moderately cold 

winters. The area receives moisture from the Gulf of 

Mexico as air masses move up the Mississippi and 

Ohio River Valleys. January is the coldest month 

with a mean temperature of 28 degrees Fahrenheit. 

July is the warmest month with a mean temperature 

of 74.5 degrees Fahrenheit. April 20 and October 12 

are the frost and freeze dates for 32 degrees

Fahrenheit with a 50 percent probability. The 

average annual precipitation is about 46 total inches. 

Precipitation is distributed relatively evenly across 

the months of the year with a low average of 2.84 

inches in February and a high average of 5.01 inches 

in May (Source: National Climatic Data Center). 

Geology and Soils

The Refuge lies within the Scottsburg lowland 

physiographic division of Indiana. The lowland has 

resulted from a greater erosion of shales compared 

to the underlying limestones and siltstones of 

adjacent uplands. Thick glacial deposits that are 

older than Wisconsin glacial deposits cover the area 

with little variation in topography (Wayne 1956). 

More specifically, Muscatatuck NWR’s geology 

includes the combination of underlying bedrock 

strata and the unconsolidated soils material 

deposited by glacial action.

 The Refuge has upland and river valley areas, 

causing variations in depth of the unconsolidated 

soil material to bedrock. A well drilled in the 

northeast part of the Refuge encountered bedrock 

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

quite widely depending on the amount of material 

deposited and subsequently removed by erosion. 

The glacial material is dominantly stratified sands 

and clays that have been blanketed with a mantle of 

wind blown silt (loess).

In the floodplain area, bedrock is typically less 

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

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

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

acres. Soils on the Refuge are grouped into five soil 

associations: Dubois-Peoga-Haubstadt, 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 
Figure 5: Hydric Soils, Muscatatuck NWR

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

17
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

18

of Illinoian till soils in the very eastern boundary of 

the Refuge. These soils are the somewhat poorly 

drained Avonburg, moderately well-drained Nabb 

and Cincinnati, which all have fragipans. The soils of 

this association comprise approximately 4,172 acres, 

or about 54 percent of the Refuge area.

The Stendal-Birds-Piopolis association of soils 

are very deep, nearly level, somewhat poorly to 

poorly drained, medium and moderately fine 

textured soils formed in fine-silty acid alluvium on 

floodplains. Within the Refuge area, Birds soil is the 

more dominant component of the association, with 

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

drained and are formed in non-acid silty alluvium 

over alluvium with a higher clay content, in slow 

backwater areas of floodplains. Stendal soils are 

somewhat poorly drained, are formed in silty acid 

alluvium and tend to occur on slightly elevated 

areas, which are called steps, of the floodplain. 

Piopolis soils are poorly and very poorly drained 

and are formed in clay alluvium on floodplains. 

There is currently no Piopolis mapped within the 

Refuge area. Minor soils in this association are the 

poorly drained Bonnie and moderately well-drained 

Steff soils. Bonnie soils are formed in silty acid 

alluvium and are found in similar positions as Birds 

soils. Steff soils are formed in silty acid alluvium and 

are found in positions similar to Stendal. These soils 

are found mainly in the watersheds of Mutton Creek 

Ditch, Storm Creek Ditch, and Sandy Branch. The 

soils of this association comprise approximately 

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

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

Service

The Haymond-Wakeland-Wilbur association of 

soils are very deep, well to somewhat poorly 

drained, nearly level, formed in coarse-silty 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, 

coarse loamy Wirt soils on natural levees of the 

floodplain adjacent to streams. These soils are found 

mainly in the Vernon Fork of the Muscatatuck River 

watershed. The soils of this association comprise 

approximately 600 acres, or about 7 percent of the 

Refuge area. 

The Bloomfield-Alvin association of soils are very 

deep, nearly level to strongly sloping somewhat 

excessively to well-drained, coarse textured soils 

formed in eolian (windblown) sand deposits (dunes) 

on uplands. Bloomfield soils are nearly level to 

strongly sloping somewhat excessively drained on 

ridges and narrow side slopes of dunes. Alvin soils 

are well-drained and are intermixed with the 

Bloomfield soils on similar landforms. Minor soils in 

this association are the Bobtown and Medora soils. 

Bobtown soils are moderately well-drained and 

formed in moderately coarse textured eolian 

(windblown) sand deposits. Medora soils are 

moderately well-drained and are formed in loess 

and the underlying sandy outwash material, and 

have a fragipan. These soils are located mainly in 

the northwestern corner of the Refuge and 

comprise approximately 200 acres, or 3 percent of 

the Refuge area.

The Ayrshire-Lyles association of soils is very 

deep, nearly level, somewhat poorly and very poorly 

drained, moderately coarse textured coarse 

textured soils, formed in eolian (windblown) sand 

deposits (dunes) on uplands. Ayrshire soils are 

somewhat poorly drained and are on flats of 

uplands. Lyles soils are poorly drained, have very 

dark colored surface layers and are in slight 

depressions of uplands. These soils comprise about 

43 total acres and are located mainly in the 

northwestern corner of the Refuge area. 

Hydrology

The Refuge lies within a flat, relatively well 

drained portion of the Wabash River Basin 

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

the Vernon Fork of the Muscatatuck River, into the 

Muscatatuck River, the White River, and on to the 

Wabash River. Three small streams, Sandy Branch, 

Mutton Creek, and Storm Creek, flow through the 
Figure 6: Muscatatuck NWR and the Wabash River Basin Watershed

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

19
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

20

Refuge and enter the Vernon Fork soon after 

leaving the Refuge. The subwatersheds of 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. 

Refuge Habitats and Wildlife

Acreages used to describe Refuge habitat in this 

section include the Restle Unit.

 Wetlands

Wetlands cover roughly 70 percent of the Refuge 

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

for current Refuge land cover.) 

The majority of wetland habitat is bottomland 

hardwood forest (4,180 acres), and managed water 

units that include moist soil units, brood marshes, 

greentree impoundments, and Stanfield, Moss and 

Richart Lakes (approximately 1,260 acres), which 

were built 1979-1982 with Bicentennial Land 

Heritage Program (BHLP) funds. The Refuge also 

has more than 70 other small ponds and wetland 

areas included in the 1,260 acres referenced above; 

these were constructed by former land owners to be 

stock ponds or ponds near residences and are 

utilized by migratory birds and wildlife. Several 

seeps exist on the Refuge, one of which is the 

Muscatatuck Seep Springs Research Natural Area. 

This wetland type is an acid seep spring that has 

only been documented in seven other locations in 

Indiana, one of which was destroyed, making it 

extremely rare in the state. Examples of wildlife 

that use these wetlands include Wood Ducks and 

Hooded Mergansers, which nest in the bottomland 

hardwoods, American Bald Eagle, copperbelly 

watersnake, river otter and many other species 

from all faunal assemblages. 

Forests

Approximately 69 percent (about 5,400 acres) of 

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

of the Refuge, or approximately 78 percent of the 

forested area (about 4,180 acres), is classified as one 

of several types of bottomland hardwood forest. 

Bottomland hardwood forests are a type of 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 15 percent of the forested 

area (approximately 1,210 acres) of the Refuge is 

classified as upland hardwood forest. Upland 

hardwood forest is also classified as a colddeciduous forest type that primarily occurs in 

lowland or submontane habitats on soils that are 

unaffected by seasonal flooding. Varieties of oaks 

and maples dominate, and these forests can also 

include American beech and eastern red cedar along 

with other species (Sieracki et al. 2002). 

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

& Wildlife Service

Examples of trees commonly found on the 

Refuge include: 

 pin oak

 swamp white oak

 swamp chestnut oak

 sweet gum

 green ash

 river birch

 silver maple

 red maple

 shellbark hickory

 white oak

 red oak

 white ash

 tuliptree
Figure 7: Current Land Cover, Muscatatuck NWR

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

21
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

22

 American beech

Examples of wildlife that use the forests include 

white-tailed deer, eastern gray squirrel, eastern fox 

squirrel, southern flying squirrel, woodchuck, 

Indiana bat and forest birds such as:

 Wood Duck

 Hooded Merganser

 Red-shouldered Hawk

 Red-headed Woodpecker

 Northern Flicker

 Acadian Flycatcher

 Cerulean Warbler

 Prothonotary Warbler

 Worm-eating Warbler

 American Redstart

 Louisiana Waterthrush

 Kentucky Warbler

 Rusty Blackbird

 Yellow-billed Cuckoo

 Wood Thrush

Grasslands

Areas of grasslands totaling approximately 80 

acres, including road edges, dam spillways and 

dikes, are mowed for maintenance purposes and, 

secondarily, for wildlife viewing along the auto tour 

route. The majority of these fields contain nonindigenous species such as fescue, timothy and 

orchard grass, and clover and the remaining 

dominant grassland vegetation includes native 

broadleaves, bluegrass, bluegrass-fescue, alfalfabrome, 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: 

 Sedge Wren

 Grasshopper Sparrow

 Henslow’s Sparrow

 Song Sparrow

 Indigo Bunting

 Dickcissel

 Red-winged Blackbird

 Eastern Meadowlark

 Bobolink 

Yellow Warbler, Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: Mark 

Trabue

Birds

More than 279 bird species have been reported 

on the Refuge and 120 of those are considered 

nesting species. A rich diversity of waterfowl, 

raptors, and songbirds are commonly observed on 

the Refuge. Wood Duck broods are common 

sightings in the spring and summer months. 

Waterfowl use days during the winter and spring 

migrations number in the hundred of thousands. A 

Bald Eagle nest has been active since 2002 and 

winter migrants are commonly seen. Muscatatuck 

NWR is also known for the spring and summer 

migration of songbirds, especially warblers, in May. 

The Refuge was designated a Continentally 

Important Bird Area in June 1998. The designation 

was based on Christmas bird count data and the 

Refuge’s wintering numbers of Canada Geese from 

the James Bay population. Between 2001 and 2007, 

the Refuge was a stopover site for the Whooping 

Crane Eastern Partnership (WCEP) ultra-light-led 

Whooping Crane migration every fall. A complete 

list of bird species and a general guide to their 

seasonal occurrence and status on the Refuge can 

be found in Appendix C. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

23

Mammals

Thirty-seven species of mammals are known to 

occur on the Refuge. The mammals include the 

federally listed endangered Indiana bat and 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 (Whitaker 1995; Carter 2007), and it 

may be more abundant than was generally thought. 

These bats are also known to form maternity 

colonies on the Refuge; one maternity roost was 

studied and its coordinates recorded in 2007, 

(Carter 2007). 

Another notable mammal is the river otter, once 

extirpated from the state of Indiana. Reintroduction 

efforts for the state of Indiana were begun in 

January 1995 with 25 otters released at 

Muscatatuck NWR. This has resulted in numerous 

otters using the Refuge. Three confirmed otter 

litters were produced in 1996, and Refuge staff 

believe that they have produced litters annually 

ever since 1996. The reintroduction in Indiana has 

been successful and river otters are no longer 

considered endangered in the state (Johnson et al. 

2007). A complete list of mammal species that occur 

on the Refuge can be found in Appendix C. 

Amphibians and Reptiles

The wide diversity of habitats found on the Refuge makes it suitable for a broad range of amphibians and reptiles; 44 species of herpetofauna are 

known on the Refuge. They include three statelisted endangered species – the four-toed salamander, the copperbelly watersnake, and the 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. 

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

Service

Fish

Fish species were collected and inventoried 

during a 2007 survey of waterbodies within the 

Refuge including tributary streams outside the 

Refuge. A total of 54 species were collected from 

within the Refuge, and more than 75 fish species are 

known to occur on the Refuge (Appendix C). The 

most diverse families represented were the minnow 

and darter families, which each included 11 species 

on the Refuge. Fishing for largemouth bass, 

bluegill, redear sunfish, crappie, and channel catfish 

is popular and draws an estimated 15,000 fishing 

visits per year at the Refuge.

In addition to the sites surveyed on the Refuge, 

50 mo r e 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 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

24

River. In addition, the flier was collected from Moss 

Lake and Mutton Creek, while the redspotted 

sunfish was collected from Mutton Creek. These 

records probably represent the northern and 

eastern records for these species. 

Invertebrates

An intensive 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 three dragonfly species have been 

recorded on the Refuge including the beaverpond 

baskettail, eastern pondhawk, and shadow darner. 

The Refuge is known as a good location to observe 

dragonflies in the area (Curry 2001). With 

accompanying photographs taken at Muscatatuck 

NWR, many of these dragonfly species are 

highlighted in the book Dragonflies of Indiana

(Curry 2001). The beaverpond baskettail dragonfly 

occurs on the Refuge and is considered a rare 

species in the state of Indiana. Butterfly surveys 

have been conducted since 2002 by volunteers using 

a protocol established by the North American 

Butterfly Association, and 60 species have been 

identified to date including the cabbage white, an 

exotic species. A complete listing of dragonfly and 

butterfly species documented on the Refuge can be 

found in Appendix C. 

At least 24 species of mollusks have been 

documented as occurring on the Refuge (Harmon 

1996, Fisher 2007) A follow-up investigation of 

several of the mussel survey sites used by Harmon 

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

of eight sites were sampled in 2007 for live, fresh 

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

study documented 20 species present on the Refuge; 

the 2007 inquiry yielded three new species from the 

Vernon Fork that had never been documented on 

the Refuge, including elephantear, flutedshell, and 

deertoe. The little spectaclecase was found in both 

the 1996 and the 2007 surveys; however, only fresh 

dead specimens were encountered (Fisher 2007). 

This species is a species of special concern in 

Indiana and is listed as imperiled (S2) within the 

state. The Asiatic clam, a non-native invasive 

species, is markedly abundant on the Refuge, 

especially within the Ver non Fork of the 

Muscatatuck River. A complete listing of mollusk 

species documented on the Refuge can be found in 

Appendix C.

Blue gill. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Threatened and Endangered Species

State-listed/Candidate Species

A total of 61 state-listed endangered and special 

concern species have been documented on the 

Refuge with five more suspected to occur on the 

property. Examples of state-listed endangered 

species include: 

 Indiana bat

 evening bat

 southern tubercled orchid

 climbing milkweed

 copperbelly water snake

 four-toed salamander

 Kirtland’s snake

 Kirtland’s Warbler

 Interior Least Tern

 Peregrine Falcon

 Bald Eagle

 Bewick’s Wren

 Yellow-crowned Night-Heron

 Black-crowned Night-Heron

 Virginia Rail
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

25

 Common Moorhen

 King Rail

 Least Bittern

 Loggerhead Shrike

 Osprey

 Short-eared Owl

 Trumpeter Swan

 Northern Harrier

 American Bittern

 Upland Sandpiper

 Least Tern

 Black Tern

 Barn Owl

 Short-eared Owl 

 Sedge Wren

 Golden-winged Warbler

 Marsh Wren

 Henslow’s Sparrow

 Cerulean Warbler

 Black-and-white Warbler

State species of special concern on the Refuge 

include: 

 least weasel

 little spectaclecase mussel

 Sharp-shinned Hawk

 Red-shouldered Hawk

 Great Egret

 Greater Yellowlegs

 Solitary Sandpiper

 Ruddy Turnstone

 Short-billed Dowitcher

 Wilson’s Palarope

 Chuck-will’s-widow

 Whip-poor-will

 Sandhill Crane

 Broad-winged Hawk

 Worm-eating Warbler

 Hooded Warbler

 rough green snake

Several other plant species are included on a 

state watch list. Those species are: American 

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

smooth white violet, club spur orchid (also called 

small green woodland orchid), Loesel’s twayblade 

and American lotus. 

The Refuge species lists in Appendix C include 

each species’ state and federal status.

Threatened/Endangered/Candidate Species (Fed 

Listed)

Least Tern, Whooping Crane, Indiana bat, and 

copperbelly watersnake use the Refuge. 

Whooping Cranes from the “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 Service 

and endangered by the states of Indiana, Michigan, 

and Ohio (Pruitt and Szymanski 1997). Genetic 

testing was done on the Muscatatuck NWR 

population in 2005 as part of a study that 

represented seven sampling sites located in Ohio/

Michigan, Indiana, and Kentucky. The Indiana 

regional sampling site was conducted in a disjunct 

population along the Muscatatuck River, in the 

Muscatatuck NWR in Jackson County, Indiana, and 

at a wetland 29 river kilometers south of 

Muscatatuck NWR in Washington County, outside 

of Austin, Indiana. The two Indiana sites are as 

different from each other as they are from any of 

the other sampling sites, despite their geographic 

proximity. (Marshall et al. In Press) 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

26

The federally-listed endangered Indiana bat was 

confirmed on the Refuge in 1995 and reaffirmed in 

2007 by telemetry studies that found that the 

Indiana bat is a summer breeding resident on the 

Refuge (Whitaker 1995; Carter 2007). These bats 

are also known to form maternity colonies on the 

Refuge; one maternity roost was studied and its 

coordinates recorded in 2007 (Carter 2007). 

Kudzu. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Several species that were previously considered 

candidate species occur at times on the Refuge. 

These include the Loggerhead Shrike and Cerulean 

Warbler, bog bluegrass, American ginseng, and the 

southern tubercled orchid. 

Threats to Resources

Invasive Species

Invasive, exotic, and noxious weeds are common 

throughout most of the Refuge’s habitat types. 

Although research on quality, distribution, and 

abundance estimates are lacking, it is evident to 

anyone passing through on Refuge roads that 

autumn olive, garlic mustard, reed canary grass, 

multiflora rose, crown vetch and many other species 

dominate certain portions of the landscape. 

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

autumn olive and kudzu threaten the diversity and 

health of the bottomland and upland hardwoods 

while other species, such as reed canary grass, 

attempt to out-compete native vegetation along 

riparian corridors, in moist soil units and in other 

wetland types. Many of the invasive species 

encountered have the capability over time of 

producing solid monocultures that shade out native 

vegetation and reduce overall plant diversity and, 

consequently, overall animal diversity (Pimentel 

2005).

Examples of invasives found on the Refuge 

include: 

 purple loosestrife

 autumn olive

 Canada thistle

 Johnson grass

 multiflora rose

 moneywort

 common carp

 Asian clams

 Japanese stiltgrass

 oriental bittersweet

 garlic mustard

 kudzu

 reed canary grass

 Asian ambrosia beetle

 Asian ladybugs

 European Starling

 Brown-headed Cowbird

 House Sparrow

 mosquito fish

 gypsy moth

There has only been one account of a gypsy moth 

(1995) and subsequent traps have not revealed any 

moths. It is not considered a major problem. 

Water Contamination

Water contamination affecting the Refuge 

includes surface runoff and National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge 

from populated areas, crop and livestock runoff, 

septic system failures, accidental spills, as well as 

pollutants from power substations, petroleum 

refineries, and industrial parks in the area. 

Contaminants may be entering the Refuge via a 

number of surface and groundwater sources, 

including:

 Vernon Fork of the Muscatatuck River (VFMR) 

and its tributaries

 Mutton and Storm Creeks

 Sandy Branch Creek
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

27

 Numerous unnamed drainages that enter the 

system during flooding periods

 City of Seymour

 Adjacent highways, roads, and railroads including discharge from accidents

 Underground storage tanks

Agriculture is the primary land use in the 

watershed. Run-off from crop fields, pastureland, 

and feedlots contributes to non-point source 

pollution. Erosion, sedimentation, eutrophication, 

and contamination from application of pesticides, 

herbicides, and fertilizers all introduce 

contaminants into the watershed and Refuge 

system. Many of these substances, such as 

organochlorines and organo-phophates, are known 

to be toxic to fish and wildlife via direct exposure, 

bioaccumulation, and bio-magnification (Cox 1991). 

In addition to fluvial and riparian deposition, 

flooding occurs during high rainfall periods of the 

year in many areas of the Refuge. These flood 

waters carry debris, chemicals, and other 

contaminants to large otherwise terrestrial areas of 

the Refuge.

In addition to agriculture, rapid residential and 

transportation development in the areas 

surrounding the Refuge have had detrimental 

impacts on the watershed. As more land is cleared 

and paved, there are decreases in sediment 

interception, increased throughfall, and changes in 

roughness coefficients and slope, all of which 

contribute to increases in flow rates, erosion, and 

amount of particles, sediment, and other substances 

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

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

of which cross at least one of the three primary 

tributaries that enter the Refuge. This creates 

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

petroleum products. 

The construction of homes and businesses has 

put a strain on waste water treatment facilities and 

septic systems that could result in nutrient and 

bacterial problems within the watershed. There is 

also potential for accidental spills to occur. The 

Refuge is bordered on two sides by major highways 

(U.S. 31, U.S. 50 and I-65) and by a well-traveled 

county road (Jennings CR900W) on a third side. 

Two of the three roads encompassing the Refuge 

are hard surface roads. In addition, the CSX 

Railroad runs approximately three-quarters of a 

mile north of the Refuge, crossing both Mutton and 

Storm Creek ditches. Another railroad, the Madison 

Railroad, crosses the VFMR upstream in North 

Vernon. In 1980, a derailed train spilled between 

8,000 and 10,000 gallons of chlorobenzene directly 

into Storm Creek Ditch (McWilliams-Munson 1996). 

Atmospheric deposition of heavy metals is a 

concern worldwide and the Refuge falls under the 

same general fish advisory as most of the waters in 

the state of Indiana. This advisory establishes 

recommendations for fish consumption based on 

elevated mercury levels in the fish in Indiana 

(Indiana Department of Natural Resources 2008). 

The problems associated with heavy metal 

contamination may be compounded at Muscatatuck 

NWR due to the impoundment of water and 

trapping of sediment, collection, and concentration 

of runoff from a large watershed, and the wetting 

and drying cycles that contribute to the methylation 

of mercury.

Urban Development

The city of Seymour is located just west of the 

Refuge, with Interstate 65 between the two as 

depicted in Figure 3 on page 11. U.S. Highway 50 

passes across the northern boundary of the Refuge 

and continues west into downtown Seymour. 

Because of this crossroads, the development of 

businesses along the U.S. 50 corridor west of the 

Refuge has increased steadily, and the northern and 

western sides of the Refuge have seen an increase in 

residential development. 

According to the U.S. Census, the population and 

number of housing units in both Jackson and 

Jennings Counties increased between 2000 and 

2007. Both Jackson and Jennings Counties 

populations increased by just under 1,000 people, 

but the number of housing units in each increased 

by over 1,200 units in that same time period. These 

population and development increases bring 

additional concerns regarding impervious surfaces, 

increased traffic on roadways, additional water 

management needs, habitat loss and fragmentation, 

and increased visitation at the Refuge. 

Military Activity 

Areas adjacent to the Refuge have seen an 

increase in military activity in recent years. In 

addition to activity associated with Camp Atterbury 

and Jefferson Proving Grounds, in 2005 the 

Muscatatuck Urban Training Center (MUTC) was 

created in South Central Jennings County. The 

Indiana National Guard converted this 1,000-acre 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

28

site into an urban training center with 70 buildings 

and a mile of tunnels. Air traffic related to combat 

maneuvering and refueling, as well as training 

exercises and convoys, have increased the potential 

for wildlife disturbance and accidental discharges. 

Coyote. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service photo.

Atmospheric Concerns

In addition to the atmospheric deposition of 

heavy metals discussed in the water contamination 

section, ozone levels are a factor for the Refuge. 

Ozone exposures in Indiana are the highest in the 

nation’s north central region and are relatively high 

when compared with many states nationwide. The 

portion of Indiana that contains the Refuge, in 

particular, exhibits elevated ozone levels. The ozone 

exposure adversely affects trees and other plants. 

Ozone stress is expected to be less severe on some 

oaks and maples because they are relatively tolerant 

of ozone. Nevertheless, given the current ozone 

exposures and evidence of foliar injury, the potential 

exists for reduced tree growth and reduced forest 

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

Climate Change Impacts

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an 

order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies 

under its direction that have land management 

responsibilities to consider potential climate change 

impacts as part of long range planning endeavors.

The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) within the 

earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual 

rise in surface temperature commonly referred to 

as global warming. In relation to comprehensive 

conservation planning for national wildlife refuges, 

carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related impact that refuges can affect in a 

small way. The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Carbon Sequestration Research and Development” 

defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and 

secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be 

emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.”

Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon 

sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts – 

grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, and desert – 

are effective both in preventing carbon emission and 

acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric 

CO2. The Department of Energy report’s conclusions noted that ecosystem protection is important 

to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent 

loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. 

Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the 

heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife 

refuges and management areas. The actions proposed in this CCP would conserve or restore land 

and habitat, and would thus retain existing carbon 

sequestration on the WMA. This in turn contributes 

positively to efforts to mitigate human-induced 

global climate change.

One Service activity in particular – prescribed 

burning – releases CO2 directly to the atmosphere 

from the biomass consumed during combustion. 

However, there is actually no net loss of carbon, 

since new vegetation quickly germinates and 

sprouts to replace the burned-up biomass and 

sequesters or assimilates an approximately equal 

amount of carbon as was lost to the air (Boutton et 

al. 2006). Overall, there should be little or no net 

change in the amount of carbon sequestered at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA from any of the proposed management alternatives.

Several impacts of climate change have been 

identified that may need to be considered and 

addressed in the future:

 Habitat available for cold water fish such as 

trout and salmon in lakes and streams could 

be reduced.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

29

 Forests may change, with some species shifting their range northward or dying out, and 

other trees moving in to take their place.

 Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breeding habitat due to stronger and more frequent droughts.

 Changes in the timing of migration and nesting could put some birds out of sync with the 

life cycles of their prey species.

 Animal and insect species historically found 

farther south may colonize new areas to the 

north as winter climatic conditions moderate.

The managers and resource specialists responsible for the WMA need to be aware of the possibility 

of change due to global warming. When feasible, 

documenting long-term vegetation, species, and 

hydrologic changes should become a part of 

research and monitoring programs on the WMA. 

Adjustments in land management direction may be 

necessary over the course of time to adapt to a 

changing climate.

The following paragraphs are excerpts from the 

2000 report: Climate Change Impacts on the 

United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, produced by the 

National Assessment Synthesis Team, an advisory 

committee chartered under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act to help the US Global Change 

Research Program fulfill its mandate under the 

Global Change Research Act of 1990. These 

excerpts are from the section of the report focused 

upon the eight-state Midwest Region.

Observed Climate Trends

Over the 20th century, the northern portion of 

the Midwest, including the upper Great Lakes, 

has warmed by almost 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2 

degrees Celsius), while the southern portion, 

along the Ohio River valley, has cooled by about 

1 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degrees Celsius). 

Annual precipitation has increased, with many 

of the changes quite substantial, including as 

much as 10 to 20 percent increases over the 20th 

century. Much of the precipitation has resulted 

from an increased rise in the number of days 

with heavy and very heavy precipitation events. 

There have been moderate to very large 

increases in the number of days with excessive 

moisture in the eastern portion of the Great 

Lakes basin.

Scenarios of Future Climate

During the 21st century, models project that 

temperatures will increase throughout the Midwest, and at a greater rate than has been 

observed in the 20th century. Even over the 

northern portion of the region, where warming 

has been the largest, an accelerated warming 

trend is projected for the 21st century, with 

temperatures increasing by 5 to 10 degrees 

Fahrenheit (3 to 6 degrees Celsius). The average minimum temperature is likely to increase 

as much as 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit (0.5 to 1 

degree Celsius) more than the maximum temperature. Precipitation is likely to continue its 

upward trend, at a slightly accelerated rate; 10 

to 30 percent increases are projected across 

much of the region. Despite the increases in 

precipitation, increases in temperature and 

other meteorological factors are likely to lead to 

a substantial increase in evaporation, causing a 

soil moisture deficit, reduction in lake and river 

levels, and more drought-like conditions in 

much of the region. In addition, increases in the 

proportion of precipitation coming from heavy 

and extreme precipitation are very likely. 

Midwest Key Issues:

1. Reduction in Lake and River Levels

Water levels, supply, quality, and water-based 

transportation and recreation are all climatesensitive issues affecting the region. Despite the 

projected increase in precipitation, increased 

evaporation due to higher summer air temperatures is likely to lead to reduced levels in the 

Great Lakes. Of 12 models used to assess this 

question, 11 suggest significant decreases in 

lake levels while one suggests a small increase. 

The total range of the 11 models' projections is 

less than a 1-foot increase to more than a 5-foot 

decrease. A 5-foot (1.5- meter) reduction would 

lead to a 20 to 40 percent reduction in outflow to 

the St. Lawrence Seaway. Lower lake levels 

cause reduced hydropower generation downstream, with reductions of up to 15 percent by 

2050. An increase in demand for water across 

the region at the same time as net flows 

decrease is of particular concern. There is a possibility of increased national and international 

tension related to increased pressure for water 

diversions from the Lakes as demands for water 

increase. For smaller lakes and rivers, reduced 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

30

flows are likely to cause water quality issues to 

become more acute. In addition, the projected 

increase in very heavy precipitation events will 

likely lead to increased flash flooding and 

worsen agricultural and other non-point source 

pollution as more frequent heavy rains wash 

pollutants into rivers and lakes. Lower water 

levels are likely to make water-based transportation more difficult with increases in the costs 

of navigation of 5 to 40 percent. Some of this 

increase will likely be offset as reduced ice cover 

extends the navigation season. Shoreline damage due to high lake levels is likely to decrease 

40 to 80 percent due to reduced water levels. 

Adaptations: A reduction in lake and river levels would require adaptations such as re-engineering of ship docks and locks for 

transportation and recreation. If flows decrease 

while demand increases, international commissions focusing on Great Lakes water issues are 

likely to become even more important in the 

future. Improved forecasts and warnings of 

extreme precipitation events could help reduce 

some related impacts. 

2. Agricultural Shifts

Agriculture is of vital importance to this region, 

the nation, and the world. It has exhibited a 

capacity to adapt to moderate differences in 

growing season climate, and it is likely that 

agriculture would be able to continue to adapt. 

With an increase in the length of the growing 

season, double cropping, the practice of planting a second crop after the first is harvested, is 

likely to become more prevalent. The CO2 fertilization effect is likely to enhance plant growth 

and contribute to generally higher yields. The 

largest increases are projected to occur in the 

northern areas of the region, where crop yields 

are currently temperature limited. However, 

yields are not likely to increase in all parts of 

the region. For example, in the southern portions of Indiana and Illinois, corn yields are 

likely to decline, with 10-20 percent decreases 

projected in some locations. Consumers are 

likely to pay lower prices due to generally 

increased yields, while most producers are 

likely to suffer reduced profits due to declining 

prices. Increased use of pesticides and herbicides are very likely to be required and to present new challenges. 

Adaptations: Plant breeding programs can use 

skilled climate predictions to aid in breeding 

new varieties for the new growing conditions. 

Farmers can then choose varieties that are better attuned to the expected climate. It is likely 

that plant breeders will need to use all the tools 

of plant breeding, including genetic engineering, in adapting to climate change. Changing 

planting and harvest dates and planting densities, and using integrated pest management, 

conservation tillage, and new farm technologies 

are additional options. There is also the potential for shifting or expanding the area where 

certain crops are grown if climate conditions 

become more favorable. Weather conditions 

during the growing season are the primary factor in year-to-year differences in corn and soybean yields. Droughts and floods result in large 

yield reductions; severe droughts, like the 

drought of 1988, cause yield reductions of over 

30 percent. Reliable seasonal forecasts are 

likely to help farmers adjust their practices 

from year to year to respond to such events. 

3. Changes in Semi-natural and Natural 

Ecosystems

The Upper Midwest has a unique combination 

of soil and climate that allows for abundant 

coniferous tree growth. Higher temperatures 

and increased evaporation will likely reduce 

boreal forest acreage, and make current forestlands more susceptible to pests and diseases. It 

is likely that the southern transition zone of the 

boreal forest will be susceptible to expansion of 

temperate forests, which in turn will have to 

compete with other land use pressures. However, warmer weather (coupled with beneficial 

effects of increased CO2), are likely to lead to an 

increase in tree growth rates on marginal forestlands that are currently temperature-limited. Most climate models indicate that higher 

air temperatures will cause greater evaporation 

and hence reduced soil moisture, a situation 

conducive to forest fires. As the 21st century 

progresses, there will be an increased likelihood 

of greater environmental stress on both deciduous and coniferous trees, making them susceptible to disease and pest infestation, likely 

resulting in increased tree mortality. 

As water temperatures in lakes increase, major 

changes in freshwater ecosystems will very 

likely occur, such as a shift from cold water fish 

species, such as trout, to warmer water species, 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

31

such as bass and catfish. Warmer water is also 

likely to create an environment more susceptible to invasions by non-native species. Runoff of 

excess nutrients (such as nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer) into lakes and rivers is likely 

to increase due to the increase in heavy precipitation events. This, coupled with warmer lake 

temperatures, is likely to stimulate the growth 

of algae, depleting the water of oxygen to the 

detriment of other living things. Declining lake 

levels are likely to cause large impacts to the 

current distribution of wetlands. There is some 

chance that some wetlands could gradually 

migrate, but in areas where their migration is 

limited by the topography, they would disappear. Changes in bird populations and other 

native wildlife have already been linked to 

increasing temperatures and more changes are 

likely in the future. Wildlife populations are particularly susceptible to climate extremes due to 

the effects of drought on their food sources.

Administrative Facilities

The original portion of the Visitor Center (with 

restrooms) was constructed in the mid-1970s and 

featured a small office, lobby exhibit area, storage 

area, projection room, and auditorium/AV room 

separated by a breezeway from public restrooms. In 

1989 the office was converted to a bookstore. 

Approximately 10 feet was added to the back of the 

original building in the early 1990s to create a bird 

viewing room, expanded bookstore, and additional 

storage areas. In 2003 a new wing, the Conservation 

Learning Center, was constructed using private 

funding obtained by one of the Refuge Friends 

groups, 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 

across from the Visitor Center. Workshops, garages, 

storage buildings, and additional offices are located 

in the west-central area of the Refuge off of County 

Road 400 North.

The Muscatatuck Wildlife Society, our primary 

Friend’s Group, operates a bookstore in our Visitor 

Center that is staffed by volunteers every afternoon 

and many mornings, and the building is closed when 

not staffed. Volunteers greet visitors, answer 

questions, and provide literature and information on 

Refuge hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing 

opportunities. The Visitor Center has a paved, 16-

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

33-car lot located across from the building off the 

loop road. A gravel overflow parking lot that can 

accommodate approximately 50 vehicles is located 

about 100 yards south of the Office, east of County 

Line Road. 

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

Fish & Wildlife Service

Cultural Resources and 

Historic Preservation

The earliest generally accepted human culture in 

Indiana is known as the PaleoIndian, a small 

population of nomadic peoples who moved into the 

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

glaciers. Sites are rare, usually disturbed, and 

important. A PaleoIndian point has been found in 

Jackson County but none have been found on the 

Refuge. 

The Service has conducted several archeological 

investigations on the Refuge, which have identified 

numerous Archaic culture sites in the period 10,500 

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

engaged in extensive trade of far distant exotic 

materials. They also adapted to major temperature 

and resulting environmental changes as the 

Pleistocene ended and the associated megafauna 

became extinct following the retreat of the glaciers. 

This was followed by the hot and dry altithermal, 

which ended during a climatic period much like the 

20th century. The primary subsistence pattern of 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

32

the Archaic period was hunting and gathering of a 

large range of animal and plant resources: “The 

ecotone between the swamp and the adjacent 

uplands [in the Refuge area] would have provided a 

unique blend of ecological resources for 

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

Barkman and Myers cemeteries, are also located on 

the Refuge.

Pottery, gardening, mounds (usually burial), and 

later the bow and arrow are indicative of the 

Woodland culture commencing about 3,000 years 

ago. Sites from this culture have been located on the 

Refuge. The Woodland culture was partially but not 

entirely displaced by the final prehistoric culture, 

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

ago. But by the time Western culture (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 

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. 

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

Service

The Refuge has a small number of Native 

American artifacts on exhibit in the Visitors Center. 

These artifacts were found on the Refuge and are on 

loan from the Glenn Black Museum of Indiana 

University in Bloomington. The display has several 

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

Refuge is included in the Region-wide scope of 

collections statement dated October 31, 1994.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

33

Visitation

Muscatatuck NWR is open from sunrise to sunset 

365 days a year. There are two entrances to the 

Refuge and both have automatic gates that open at 

sunrise and close at sunset. Special extended hours 

are set during hunting seasons. The Conservation 

Learning Center is also regularly used for meetings 

and presentations by groups that have a wildlife 

conservation or management purpose or program, 

including evening hours by arrangement. 

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

Service

The Refuge annual visitation was estimated at 

approximately 174,000 in 2006. The number of 

visitors per year is obtained through estimates 

derived in large part from traffic counters at both 

entrances. Undetected malfunctions in the counters 

are believed to have led to reports of lower numbers 

of visitors in some recent years. 

The Visitor Center is located on a loop off County 

Line Road (across from the Office) and is usually 

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

point of entry indicated approximately 13,000 

visitors to the Visitor Center during the last year. 

We do not have an accurate breakdown of visitor 

numbers per activity but we believe the largest 

segment of our visitors come for wildlife observation 

including bird watching, followed by fishing, 

interpretation/education, and hunting. 

Current Management

Habitat Management

Acreages used to describe Refuge habitat in this 

section include the Restle Unit.

Wetland Management

A total of approximately 1,260 acres on the 

Refuge have water control structures, including 

moist soil units, greentree reservoirs, managed 

wetlands, and open water units (Figure 8). Annual 

water management plans have been followed since 

1984 and these plans give management strategies 

for each unit that include specific water levels 

needed to create and maintain various habitat or to 

make food available and attractive to wildlife, 

particularly for Wood Duck production. Water 

management techniques include:

 Removing water to expose mudflats for shorebird use.

 Allowing seed germination of desirable moist 

soil plants.

 Allowing natural or mechanical rejuvenation of 

a permanent marsh or moist soil unit.

 Discouraging use of an area by muskrats.

 Adding water and maintaining different depths 

to stimulate invertebrate production.

 Creating and maintaining brood habitat and 

waterfowl migratory feeding areas (Smith and 

Kadlec 1983). 

The primary goals of water management are to 

provide optimum conditions for food and cover for 

migrating birds, especially waterfowl, nesting and 

brood habitat for Wood Ducks and Hooded 

Mergansers, and habitat for other species that use 

wetland areas. 

Moist Soil Units

Muscatatuck NWR actively manages 296 acres in 

10 moist soil units through water and vegetation 

manipulation. Moist 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 
Figure 8: Water Management Infrastructure, Muscatatuck NWR

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

34
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

35

manipulations timed to coincide with providing 

optimum habitat conditions for germinating 

smartweed while also maintaining pool levels 

throughout the summer months for the broods. 

Seasonal flooding of these units has generally been 

planned to occur from September through April. 

However, proper hydrological manipulation in these 

units has proven difficult to achieve due to excessive 

flooding and/or beaver activity combined with a lack 

of personnel. The remaining two units have been 

managed to provide sparse perennial emergent 

vegetation combined with drawdowns timed to 

coincide with southward migrating shorebird arrival 

to provide optimum mudflat habitat, a critical need 

for this avifaunal group (Smith and Kadlec 1983). 

Water manipulations are generally conducted so 

that flooding occurs between September and March, 

although these units have been subjected to the 

same limitations outlined above. 

Regular maintenance of moist soil units is a 

necessary phase in any management scheme due to 

the eventual invasion of these areas by more 

persistent or woody vegetation, i.e. buttonbush, 

willows, and Eastern cottonwood. The preferred 

means of maintaining a particular unit generally 

involves methods of mechanical disturbance, 

mowing or disking, to set back succession (Gray et 

al. 1999). Most units are scheduled to undergo 

treatment approximately once every 3 to 5 years. 

However, due to a shortage of staff and 

impediments to drawdown such as beaver activity 

and inclement weather, the achievement of many 

desired management activities are not realized as 

scheduled. In a normal year, plans call for the 

maintenance of one to three of the moist soil units. 

During this process, drawdown may begin earlier 

than “normal” to facilitate entry into the units with 

the necessary equipment. Following vegetation 

manipulation the units are reflooded and enter back 

into the “normal” cycle of drawdown and floodup 

until another maintenance cycle is necessary. 

Grasslands

Grassland management is extremely limited, with 

only 80 acres currently in this kind of habitat. Active 

management of grasslands in the past entailed 

mowing, burning, and haying; however, these 

activities have been abandoned largely due to lack of 

staff and funds, increasing costs of active 

management, and changes in objectives. The 

current objective for many areas that were 

previously farmed (approximately 870 acres) is to 

allow them to revert to hardwood forest to reduce 

forest fragmentation. Once that process begins, 

those areas are considered in the context of forest 

management. 

Control of invasive species is at the forefront of 

management goals at the Refuge, and exotic species 

found in grassland areas are addressed on a 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 

reduce overall diversity. 

Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: Jon Kauffeld

Forests

With approximately 4,180 acres in bottomland 

hardwood forest (including 48 acres on the Restle 

Unit) and approximately 1,210 acres in upland 

hardwood forest, these areas comprise the dominant 

cover type on the Refuge. Forest restoration is 

primarily accomplished through natural succession. 

Currently, approximately 870 acres of Refuge land 

are in the process of reverting back to upland and 

bottomland forest from previous agricultural use. 

Most fields are small and are surrounded by 

excellent seed sources for deciduous trees, although 

some tree planting of oaks (mast producing trees) 

has occurred and will continue to occur and increase 

as funding permits. The U.S. Forest Service has 

seven permanent inventory points located on 

Muscatatuck NWR as part of its national Forest 

Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program. The FIA is 

a national program of the USDA Forest Service that 

conducts and maintains comprehensive inventories 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

36

of the forest resources in the United States (Forest 

Service 2007). This provides forest/landscape level 

assessments. 

Tree planting has occurred sporadically since the 

Refuge was established. From establishment in 1966 

to 2000, approximately 82 acres were planted in 

selected fields that had been retired from farming 

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

chosen because of their location near existing 

forested tracts and to help repair forest 

fragmentation. Since 2000, 30 additional acres were 

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

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

The Refuge requests planting plans from the local 

area IDNR Forester prior to undertaking any new 

planting projects. The plans include native species 

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

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

consulting forester. The Refuge Friends Group, the 

Muscatatuck Wildlife Society, and the National Wild 

Turkey Federation have helped fund projects. 

Cropland

Food crops of corn and soybeans with wheat as a 

cover are planted annually on 267 acres of cropland 

under a cooperative farm agreement with a local 

farmer. According to the 2007 vegetation map, the 

Refuge retains approximately 330 acres of land 

associated with agriculture. The Refuge’s share of 

the crops is left in the field for wildlife. This 

maintains open habitat and adds diversity to a 

mostly forested Refuge (Donalty et al. 2003). 

Canada Geese, waterfowl, Sandhill Cranes, and 

resident species forage on the Refuge’s share of the 

crop. Wintering raptors prey upon small mammals 

feeding in these fields. Farmed acres also create 

good wildlife viewing along Refuge roads and the 

auto tour route. 

Monitoring

A number of surveys, censuses, studies, and 

investigations are conducted on the Refuge that 

help to monitor the status of its wildlife and plant 

populations (see Table 2). Birds, mammals, 

herptofauna, and habitat are monitored on regular 

schedules. The surveys are conducted by Refuge 

staff, volunteers and in partnership with IDNR. 

Weekly waterfowl surveys, mid-winter waterfowl 

and Bald Eagle counts, and a few other surveys are 

requested by the state on an annual basis and the 

survey data upon completion is sent to IDNR. Staff 

with IDNR summarize and analyze the information 

and provide the Refuge copies of the analyses. The 

purpose of monitoring is, in general, to determine 

the presence or absence and estimate the numbers 

of fish and wildlife present and to aid in making 

management decisions, and to respond to 

information requests from state agencies, the public 

and other partners. 

Public Use

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 established six priority 

uses of the Refuge System. These priority uses all 

depend on the presence of wildlife or expectation of 

the presence of wildlife, and are thus called wildlifedependent uses. These uses are: 

 hunting

 fishing

 wildlife observation

 photography

 environmental education

 environmental interpretation

Muscatatuck NWR provides opportunities for all 

six priority uses of the Refuge System. 

Hunting

Hunting is permitted for white-tailed deer, 

rabbit, squirrel, turkey, and quail in certain 

locations on the Refuge during most of the 

established state seasons. Hunting leaflets are 

updated annually and hunters are required to sign 

the front of the leaflet and carry it with them while 

hunting. The Refuge also keeps the state of Indiana 

Hunting and Trapping Guide with all state rules and 

regulations in stock as a service to hunters. Deer 

and turkey hunting are allowed on a large portion of 

the Refuge during their respective seasons, while 

squirrel, rabbit, and quail hunting are only allowed 

in a small portion of the deer and turkey hunting 

area. No hunting is allowed in the Refuge closed 

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

Refuge where the Visitor Center and most of the 

hiking trails are located, or within 100 yards of any 

building (Figure 9 on page 38). 

Special deer hunts are held for archery and 

muzzleloading gun hunters during certain periods 

and approximately 3,000 hunters participate 

annually. The deer hunt drawings are done by the 

state. Bowhunters hunt in a different time period 

from the muzzleloading hunters. A late “open” 

archery season, open to all hunters with a valid state 
Table 2: Monitoring History, Muscatatuck NWR

Study/Survey Priority 

(10 high, 

1 low)

Scales FWS R3 

RCP

No. 

Runs

No. 

Routes

Water Level Monitoring, MSU Hydrology 10 Refuge 26+ 1

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

MSU Vegetation Cover Survey 9 Refuge 1 N/A

Water Quality Monitoring 8 Refuge, State 4 5

Waterfowl Brood Survey 8 Refuge  10 1

Species Lists 7 Refuge  N/A N/A

Tubercled Orchid Survey 7 Refuge, State 1 2

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

Fish Survey 6 Refuge, State  N/A N/A

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

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

Audubon May Day Count 4 Refuge, State, National  1 ?

Bald Eagle Count 3 Refuge, State 1 1

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

Great Blue Heron Rookery Count 3 Refuge, State 1 1

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

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

Butterfly Abundance and Diversity 2 Refuge 1 ?

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

37

hunting license and available tag, is held on the 

Refuge after the muzzleloader season is over. Only 

handicapped hunters are permitted to use 

crossbows during Refuge deer hunts. The deer 

hunting area is the same as the turkey area – 

approximately three-quarters of the land area of the 

Refuge. 

The turkey hunt requires a special permit during 

the spring season and involves 10-15 hunters per 

day over approximately three-fourths of the land 

area of the Refuge. Special permit drawings are 

done by the state. Rabbit hunting is open to 

members of the public with a valid state hunting 

license and involves a small percentage of Refuge 

visitors. Rabbit and quail hunting are the only 

hunting activities on the Refuge where dogs may be 

used and be off-leash. Squirrel hunting is a new, 

small, but growing activity. The rabbit, quail, and 

squirrel hunting area covers the southeast quarter 

of the Refuge and is the area east of County Line 

Road and south of Barn Road. Very few visitors 

hunt quail here as the quail population is marginal 

and most of the hunting area is reverting to brush.

The Refuge remains open to non-hunting 

activities throughout the hunting season. Refuge 

visitors and hunters scouting for a future hunt day 

may enter hunting areas for any otherwise allowed 

purpose. All Refuge public use roads also remain 

open during all hunts as do all public fishing sites. 

Hunters park on the Refuge only in designated 

hunting areas to access all parts of the Refuge that 

are open to hunting. Additionally, many hunters 

park on adjacent public roads, including CR 900 W., 
Figure 9: Public Use, Hunting, at Muscatatuck NWR

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

38
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

39

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 successful deer hunters are asked 

to fill out a harvest card. 

Turkey hunting on Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

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.

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). 
Figure 10: Visitor Services Facilities, Muscatatuck NWR

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

40
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

41

There are seven hiking trails of various lengths 

on the Refuge including the 0.4-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. Trophies 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 Future 

Farmers of America (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. 

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

Wildlife Service

The “Log Cabin Day” festival in October 

celebrates the end of National Wildlife Refuge Week 

and is a project of the Muscatatuck Wildlife Society. 

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 for 

self-directed activities. Unfortunately, with 

transportation funding cuts to public schools, 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

42

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 work with Girl Scouts 

on badge-work and “linking girls to the land” 

activities.

Four “Conservation Field Day” programs are 

held for third-graders from Jackson and Jennings 

Counties in May and October with about 300 

youngsters involved each day, and as such provides 

Refuge contact with most of the third-graders in 

each of these counties each year. The interagency 

effort features programs on wildlife, forestry, soils, 

wetlands, and recycling. Instructors usually include 

educators from the Indiana Department of Natural 

Resources, local 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 administered 

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 

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. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

43

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. 

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

Fish & Wildlife Service

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 

are 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 biological and mechanical control 

methods are in use at the Refuge. Recently, the 

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

approach. 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. 

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 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

44

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 

archaeological 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 archaeological 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 found 

during excavations 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 during 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 position was 

vacated in 2007. The full-time law enforcement 

position at Big Oaks NWR was tranferred to 

Muscatatuck NWR in late 2007 and the Refuge has 

filled the position. This position continues to be a 

shared position between both Refuges, and also 

provides 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, driving without a 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. The State Police frequently have been called 

to let locked-in visitors out of the Refuge at night. 

This is a burden for the post and an issue that 

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:

 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.

 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 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

45

Regional Historic Preservation Officer for 

exhibits and other Refuge and Service purposes.

 Muscatatuck NWR has been fortunate to have 

many partners in the local area, including: 

 Muscatatuck Wildlife Society

 local Soil and Water Conservation Districts

 Natural Resource Conservation Service

 Purdue Extension

 local Ducks Unlimited Chapters

 local Wild Turkey Federation

 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

 U.S. Forest Service

 Hayden School Refuge Rangers

 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 13 on page 50). 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 database of biological and 

conservation sites 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 state-listed endangered four-toed 

salamander and the state-listed endangered 

copperbelly watersnake. 

Figure 11: The Restle Unit of 

Muscatatuck NWR

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 (see 

Figure 11). 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. 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 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

46

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 

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 on the Unit. 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 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 include the Bald Eagle, 

Northern Harrier, Barn Owl, Osprey, Blackcrowned Night-Heron, and Black Tern. State 

species of concern include the Great Egret, Redshouldered Hawk, and Sandhill Crane. Twentythree 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. Thorough 

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. 

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 without active management. 

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 12). On these Farm Service Agency (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 FSA conservation easements are visually 

checked for boundary signs, trespass, and various 

other infractions every 2 years. 
Figure 12: FSA Easements Administrated 

by Muscatatuck NWR

Table 3: Six-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 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

47

Current Staff and Budget

Staff

The Refuge’s staffing, as of September 2007, 

includes eight full-time equivalent positions: 

 Refuge Manager

 Wildlife Refuge Specialist

 Wildlife Biologist

 Maintenance Mechanic

 Tractor Operator (vacant)

 Park Ranger (law enforcement)

 Outdoor Recreation Planner

 Administrative Technician

Budget

A 6-year history of the operating and 

maintenance budget for the Refuge is shown in 

Table 3.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

48

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 of the 

Draft CCP). 

The Refuge has three goals:

 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.

 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.

 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.

Wood Duck drake. Photo credit: Mark Trabue

Objective 1.1: Upland Hardwood Forest

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

dominated by upland flats and moist slopes, 

achieve an approximately 1,520-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, restore approximately 

310 additional acres of reconverting farmland to 

upland hardwood and maintain the existing 

approximately 1,210 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 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

49

altered the vegetative communities on the Refuge 

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, approximately 1,210 acres are 

currently in upland forest. An additional 310 acres 

(approximately) 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 threatening 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.

Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: Jon Kauffeld

 Strategies:

1. Conversion of approximately 310 acres of 

former cropland to upland hardwood forest 

(Figure 13). 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.
Figure 13: Future Land Cover, Muscatatuck NWR

Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

50
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

51

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 mature 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 4,790 acres in large blocks 

(greater than 500 acres) of mature bottomland 

forest (12-30 inch average dbh) with a canopy 

cover of 60-80 percent consisting of mixed 

sycamore, oak, beech, green ash, sweetgum and 

maple. In addition to maintaining the 

approximately 4,135 acres of bottomland 

hardwoods, 650 additional acres will come from:

 Reconverting farmland (approximately 500 

acres).

 Current farmland (approximately 15 acres).

 Water management units 8, 9 and 10.

 Inundated portions of the Seep Springs RNA 

and Mutton Creek (approximately 135 acres). 

(The Restle Unit is considered separately in 

Objective 1.7.)

Within 15 years, restore natural 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. Stop maintaining Mallard 

and Display Ponds and allow them to revert to 

bottomland hardwood forest. 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 to live 

stands 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 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

52

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 

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. 

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. 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 without 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 in 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 within 5 years of 

CCP completion as a component of habitat 

management planning efforts. 

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.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

53

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 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.

Eastern Bluebird. Photo credit: Mark Trabue

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 approximately 470 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. In 

addition to 80 acres of existing grassland areas, 

approximately 310 acres of currently agricultural 

land and approximately 85 acres of formerly 

cropped but now reconverting lands will be 

managed for grassland habitat.

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 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

54

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. 

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. 

Table 4: Water Management Units Under the 

CCP, Muscatatuck NWR

Water Management Unit Approximate Acres

Moist Soil Units

Moist Soil 1 22

Moist Soil 2 20

Moist Soil 3 17

Moist Soil 4 37

Moist Soil 5 13

Moist Soil 6 14

Moist Soil 7 52

Total 175

 Emergent Marsh Areas

McDonald Marsh North 14.5

McDonald Marsh South 13

Endicott Marsh North 6

Endicott Marsh South 11.5

Moss Lake (min - max) 180 - 576

Sue Pond 13

Total 238 - 634

Objective 1.4: Moist Soil Units and Emergent 

Marsh Units

Maintain 175 acres in 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 an additional 238-634 acres (depending 

on Moss Lake water levels) of emergent marsh in 

McDonald and Endicott Marshes, Moss Lake, 

and Sue Pond to provide feeding, resting, and 

nesting habitat for all waterbirds including 

secretive marsh birds, waterfowl, wading birds, 

and shorebirds. (See Table 4) (The Restle Unit is 

considered separately in Objective 1.7.)

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 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

55

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 the 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. 

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 other means, yet ensure that topsoil is 

retained. 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. 

Osprey. Photo credit: Dan Kaiser

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 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

56

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 

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. 

Though unlikely that invasives will be completely 

eradicated from the landscape, targeted chemical, 

mechanical, manual, and biological controls or 

prescribed fire can reduce their impact on native 

species. Success will be based on reducing the 

spread and size 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 a reasonable expectation (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 

(IPM) plan.

2. Inventory and map the distribution of invasive 

species.

3. Using IPM strategies, identify treatment protocols for all known invasive plants inhabiting 

the Refuge and for the plants most likely to 

invade in the near future. 

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.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

57

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 and vegetative community 

of the Seep Springs Research Natural Area to a 

condition that approximates an undisturbed seep 

springs site.

Rationale: The Seep Springs 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 

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

found in the Seep Springs Research Natural Area.

Refuge staff and partners have recognized that 

the condition of the Seep Springs vegetative 

community is in poor condition, needs immediate 

attention, and that changes to several current 

management practices are required. The following 

issues have been identified as problems that have 

caused poor drainage conditions to exist, the 

persistence of high water levels, and the 

degradation of the Seep Springs vegetative 

community over the several decades: 

 County road 400 S, immediately to the south of 

the Seep Springs, was raised in the early 1980s 

and a drainage culvert under this road was 

removed.

 Beaver populations and activity have increased 

in the area and contributed to consistently 

higher water levels in Mutton Creek and 

throughout the Refuge

 Log jams have accumulated in the Mutton 

Creek system, contributing to poor drainage. 

Jams are difficult to remove because of limited 

access for equipment

 Moss Lake has been maintained at a level of 541 

msl - a level where water begins to have an 

impact on the Seep Springs and increases the 

time required for drainage during periods of 

heavy inflow and flooding. 

All of these factors and others have contributed 

to higher water levels and altered the flow regimes 

in the area. The changed conditions in the area have 

led to an observable change in the vegetation, 

severe tree mortality, and a shift in the habitat type 

from a seasonally flooded forested wetland to a 

permanently flooded marsh.

In order to preserve and restore the special 

characteristics of the Seep Springs Area, it is 

necessary to better understand the current and 

historical conditions at the site and then formulate 

approaches to returning the site to a less disturbed 

condition. The key to maintaining the health of the 

Seep Springs community is to understand how 

water flows into and out of the site, and the nature 

of the historical hydrologic regime that led to the 

development of the seep. This information can be 

most effectively obtained through a 

hydrogeomorphological study, and management 

solutions devised. However, some immediate steps 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

58

are needed to improve the drainage of the area and 

reduce long-term retention of water on the 

community. 

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.

All of these issues will have to be addressed to 

facilitate the recovery of the Research Natural 

Area. Even with implementation of the proposed 

strategies, continued degradation and tree 

mortality at the site is likely for a period of several 

years to a decade as the full impacts of extended 

flooding are realized. Funding is a limiting factor in 

the rate of response to these problems, as several 

issues that must be addressed will require 

additional maintenance dollars. 

Red fox. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Immediate Strategies

1. Reduce the impact of Moss Lake and Mutton 

Creek on the Seep Springs Area during the 

growing season, March-November, by 

reducing water levels and increasing discharge 

rates of the Moss Lake water control structure 

(WCS) during high flow periods. Two of the six 

bays in the Moss Lake WCS will be modified 

immediately, with modification of additional 

bays as necessary to allow the Refuge the 

ability to mimic a natural short duration 

pulsing flood regime. 

2. Construct access routes for equipment and 

personnel along Mutton Creek between 

County 500 North and Moss Lake to facilitate 

access for beaver dam, log jam, and sediment 

removal, to allow for population control of nuisance species, and to allow for consistent monitoring. 

3. Control the beaver population on the Refuge 

and reduce the number of creek obstructions.

4. Restore the full drainage capability of Moist 

Soil Unit 6 (M6) through removal of silt from 

channels and borrow ditches.

5. Remove the berm and beaver dams that 

restrict discharge flows along the primary 

drain for the Seep Springs area into Mutton 

Creek – the southeastern drainage ditch north 

of County Road 400 North, and southeast of 

the Seep Springs.

6. Install a backflow preventer on the M6 outflow 

culvert to reduce flooding and maintain a 

lower water table. 

7. Install water level gauges to allow water level 

monitoring of the RNA. 

Long-term Strategies:

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

in the implementation of these strategies and 

to make recommendations on water levels, 

management practices, and modification of 

existing or construction of new water control, 

drainage, and moist soil unit infrastructure 

(particularly M6 and its outlet structure) 

needed to provide the best possible conditions 

for the Seep Springs community. 

9. Conduct a hydrogeomorphologic investigation 

to determine historic water regimes and to 

determine realistic recommendations for 

restoring the hydrology and, in particular, to 

reduce the influence of Mutton Creek on the 

Seep Springs during the growing season, 

March-November.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

59

10. 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 Seep Springs.

11. Inventory, monitor, map, and control invasive 

species in and near the Seep Springs.

12. Develop a monitoring plan/protocol to monitor 

the overall health of the Seep Springs and to 

watch for changes in plant communities, sedimentation, and hydrology.

13. Determine if the Seep Springs 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. 

The donation document for the Restle Unit states:

“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.” 

The donation document also states: 

“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. 

Bald Eagles at Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: Mark 

Trabue

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 or to another individual at 

a discounted price due to the easement. 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. 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

60

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.

Objective 1.9: Landscape Conservation

In collaboration with internal and external 

partners, identify priority areas and begin 

implementing strategies for watershed 

improvement and regional land conservation 

within three years of CCP approval. 

Rationale: The scale at which environmental 

problems, and their solutions, are addressed has 

begun to evolve from traditionally site-specific or 

locality-based approaches to a broader, more 

regional approach. It is not possible for a national 

wildlife refuge to work only within refuge 

boundaries and expect to meet its ideals for the 

long-term conservation and protection of wildlife, 

habitats, and ecological services. 

The trend toward this landscape-level 

p e rspe ctive has been catalyzed by new 

environmental research, expanded computing and 

technological capabilities, changing communication 

forums, and an increased understanding of 

landscape-level environmental issues and 

constraints. In addition, a number of initiatives 

within the Fish and Wildlife Service have resulted in 

the agency beginning to shift its emphasis toward a 

broader and more integrated approach to 

conservation, including the adoption of Strategic 

Habitat Conservation (SHC) and increased focus on 

global climate change. 

As a part of the conservation landscape, Refuge 

lands and Service personnel will play an active role 

in efforts directed at understanding and mitigating 

these new environmental challenges. Furthermore, 

it is only by working with partners – both public and 

private – that threats such as habitat loss, 

fragmentation and degradation, water quality and 

quantity concerns, interrupted or altered natural 

processes, global climate change, biotechnology, 

declines in native biodiversity, growing numbers of 

invasive species, and other such issues can be 

addressed. 

Strategies:

1. Gather and review existing literature and data 

relevant to landscape and watershed 

conservation in the region.

2. Meet with partners and stakeholders to discuss the range of issues and interests in landscape conservation and watershed planning.

3. Involve the public in Service planning related 

to landscape conservation and watershed planning.

4. Coordinate across Service divisions to leverage expertise, programs, and services for 

landscape conservation and watershed planning initiatives.

5. Conduct a science-based landscape assessment that incorporates the interests of partner agencies, organizations, stakeholders, and 

the public in its analyses.

6. Identify target areas for conservation efforts, 

including land acquisition, conservation easements, work on private lands, and other tools 

available for land conservation and watershed 

improvement.

7. Share results with partners and stakeholders.

8. Work with partners, stakeholders, and willing 

private landowners to protect, enhance, or 

restore conservation targets identified by the 

analysis. 

9. Seek additional funding for landscape conservation and watershed improvement efforts.

10. Participate in local discussions, meetings, and 

projects related to landscape-level issues.

11. Raise local awareness of the Service’s role in 

landscape conservation and watershed 

improvement.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

61

12. Work with partners and stakeholders to 

increase the collective awareness of landscape 

and watershed conservation issues, opportunities, and benefits through environmental education, outreach, and technical assistance.

13. Encourage local communities to use the science-based assessments in their planning. 

Wild Turkey at Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: Mark 

Trabue

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 

key indicator species to monitor the overall 

health of the local environment and impacts of 

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 

Branch 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 species) 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 occurrences are 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

62

perhaps the furthest north and east for these 

species on record. 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; 

Harper 2007). Squirrel populations are healthy and 

these species will likely experience a positive effect 

from forest 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 a thorough baseline inventory of herpetofauna occurring on Refuge.

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

monitoring the 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. 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

63

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.

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 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. 

Refuge sign. Photo credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

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:

 Indiana bat

 southern rein orchid

 climbing hempvine

 copperbelly water snake

 four-toed salamander

 Kirtland’s snake

 eastern mud turtle

 Kirtland’s Warbler
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

64

 Peregrine Falcon

 Bald Eagle

 Yellow-crowned Night-Heron

 Black-crowned Night-Heron

 Virginia Rail

 Common Moorhen

 King Rail

 Least Bittern

 Loggerhead Shrike

 Osprey

 Trumpeter Swan

 Northern Harrier

 American Bittern

 Upland Sandpiper

 Least Tern

 Black Tern

 Barn Owl

 Short-eared Owl

 Sedge Wren

 Golden-winged Warbler

 Cerulean Warbler

 Marsh Wren

 Henslow’s Sparrow

The following state species of special concern 

occur on the Refuge: 

 least weasel

 little spectaclecase mussel

 rough green snake. 

 Sharp-shinned Hawk

 Red-shouldered Hawk

 Great Egret

 Sandhill Crane

 Broad-winged Hawk

 Black-and-white Warbler

 Worm-eating Warbler

 Hooded Warbler

 Greater Yellowlegs

 Solitary Sandpiper

 Ruddy Turnstone

 Short-billed Dowitcher

 Wilson’s Phalarope

 Chuck-will’s-widow

 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. 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

65

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. 

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

Service

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 

Refuge there will be no waterfowl hunting and no 

hunting of any kind in the waterfowl sanctuary or 

the northeast portion of the Refuge (currently a nohunting 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 under-represented 

populations to participate in the hunting programs. 

(See Figure 9 on page 38.) 

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 after 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.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

66

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 of 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 measures 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 Service’s Carterville Fisheries 

Office.

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.

7. Withdraw Mallard and Display Ponds from 

the fishing program and allow these areas to 

revert to bottomland hardwood forest.

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 14). 

To promote safety and improve the experience of 

visitors, 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 people viewing wildlife. 

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 will be allowed to revert back to 

forest. To improve accessibility and reduce dust, 

efforts will be made to obtain funding to 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, and Canada Geese. The Hackman Overlook 

structure will be evaluated in a visitor services stepdown 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. Within 15 years, survey visitors to determine 

the quality of their Refuge experience.

4. Close West Entrance Road.

5. Extend Refuge hours to 1 hour before sunrise 

and 1 hour after sunset.

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 
Figure 14: Future Visitor Facilities, Muscatatuck NWR

Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

67
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

68

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.

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.

The Refuge Bookstore, Muscatatuck NWR. Photo credit: 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

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. 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

69

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, USDA’s Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, 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 Service 

priority conservation activities.

2. Identify, establish regular communication, and 

coordinate local efforts with partners involved 

in landscape conservation, watershed planning, and other off-Refuge conservation 

issues.

3. 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 the 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 

continues efforts to build and maintain open 

communication 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 basic, timesensitive, 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.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

70

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

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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

71

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 national 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 to add/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: 

 total acres, acres actively managed, and number 

of easement contracts

 endangered and invasive species populations

 biological management and monitoring, threats 

and conflicts

 wilderness management

 visitor services: visitation, education programs, 

volunteers, Friends

 maintenance needs and existing assets 

Little Blue Heron. Photo credit: Mark Trabue

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. 
Table 5: 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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

72

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. 

Using a 2008 baseline staffing of 6 FTE positions 

the Refuge was asked to identify five additional 

positions and rank them from greatest to least 

priority (see Table 5 ). 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 results illustrate 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 NWR. 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 work with the following notable 

partners while continuing to develop new 

partnerships: 

 Muscatatuck Wildlife Society

 local Soil and Water Conservation Districts

 local city governments

 Environmental Protection Agency

 Natural Resource Conservation Service

 Purdue Extension

 local Ducks Unlimited chapters

 National Wild Turkey Federation

 Indiana Department of Natural Resources

 Indiana Department of Environmental 

Management

 local Resource Conservation and Development 

Councils 

 area conservation and birding clubs

 sporting good stores

 Scouting and civic groups

 local Visitor Bureaus

 U.S. Forest Service

 Hayden School Refuge Rangers

 local universities

 The Nature Conservancy

 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: 
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

73

 Habitat Management Plan, including a forest 

component (5 years)

 Water Management Plan for Restle Unit (2 

years)

 Integrated Pest Management Plan (5 years)

 Visitor Services Plan (2 years)

 Fishery Management Plan (5 years) 

 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

While comprehensive conservation plans are 

designed to provide guidance for Refuge 

management over a 15-year period, they are also 

dynamic and flexible documents that are reviewed 

regularly and modified when plan review or other 

Refuge monitoring and evaluation determines that 

it is necessary. 

Service policy calls for an annual review of these 

plans and revision when significant new information 

or events necessitate change in order to achieve 

refuge purposes, vision, and goals. The policy calls 

for revision, “...when significant new information 

becomes available, ecological conditions change, 

major refuge expansion occurs, or when we identify 

the need to do so during plan review” [602 FW 3].

Plan revisions follow the same procedures and 

processes used to develop the original CCP. As with 

a standard CCP planning effort, revisions must 

follow NEPA requirements and include 

opportunities for public review and comment. Minor 

plan revisions that meet the criteria for a categorical 

exclusion in an EAS may be made in accordance 

with 550 FW 3.3C.

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

75

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact

Finding of No Significant Impact

Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

for the Muscatatuck National V/ildlife Refuge, Indiana

An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to identify management strategies to meet

the conservation goals of Muscatatuck National V/ildlife Refuge (NWR). The EA examined the

environmental consequences that each management alternative could have on the quality of the

physical, biological, and human environment, as required by the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969 (NEPA). The EA evaluated four altematives for the future management of

Muscatatuck NWR.

The alternative selected for implementation on the refuge is Alternative C. This preferred

altemative directs management towards more historic landscape conditions by expanding forest

habitats and decreasing management of constructed wetland units. Former farmland is either

transitioned to forest or to open areas in order to increase refuge habitat diversity. This

alternative relies on a combination of active management and natural processes to provide quality

wildlife habitat for over 80 species of Regional Conservation Priority, including 3 species listed

as Federally threatened or endangered. Biological surveys and monitoring activities, invasive

species management, and wildlife-dependant recreation opportunities - particularly hunting and

fishing, would all increase under the preferred alternative.

For reasons presented above and below, and based on an evaluation of the information contained

in the Environmental Assessment, we have determined that the action of adopting Alternative C

as the management altemative for Muscatatuck NWR is not a major Federal action which would

significantly affect the quality of the human environment, within the meaning of Sectionl02

(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Additional Reasons:

o Future management actions will have a neutral or positive impact on the local economy.

o This action will not have an adverse impact on threatened or endangered species.

Supporting References:

o EnvironmentalAssessment

Appendix B: Glossary

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

79

Appendix B: Glossary

Appendix B: Glossary

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

81

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 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

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 protective methods and procedures 

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 are defined as “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).
Appendix B: Glossary

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

82

Endangered Species

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

Forest Fragmentation

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

may also occur when numerous openings for such 

things as fields, roads, and power lines interrupt 

a continuous forest canopy. The resulting landscape pattern alters habitat connectivity and 

edge characteristics, influencing a variety of species.

Habitat Enhancement

Improving 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.

Habitat Protection

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.

Habitat Restoration

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.

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.

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.

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.
Appendix B: Glossary

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

83

Stakeholders

A person, group, organization, or system that 

affects or can be affected by an organization’s 

activities. Typical stakeholders in U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service activities include state, tribal, 

and local government agencies, academic institutions, the scientific community, non-governmental 

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.

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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

85

Appendix C: Species Lists

Bird Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR ................................................... 87

Butterflies That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR .................................................... 104

Dragonflies That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR .................................................. 106

Herpetofauna Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR ................................. 108

Mammal Species That Occur on Muscatatuck NWR ......................................... 111

Mussel Species Found on Muscatatuck NWR ................................................... 113

Fishes of Muscatatuck NWR ............................................................................... 115

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

87

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 Black Vulture Coragyps atratus o o o o
88

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Vultures 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 oSwans, Geese and Ducks Ring-necked Duck Aytha collaris a a 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 
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

89

Swans, 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 oHawks and Eagles Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos 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 
90

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Falcons 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 h h h hUpland 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 Shorebirds Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 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 
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

91

Shorebirds 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 oShorebirds Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor 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 
92

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

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 rOwls Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus 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 
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

93

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 cFlycatchers Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii 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 
94

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Flycatchers 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 aSwallows Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis 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 
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

95

Swallows 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

Kinglets, Bluebirds, and Thrushes

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea 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 
96

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

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 oWaxwings Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum c c c cWarblers Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus 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 
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

97

Warblers 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 cWarblers Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea u cWarblers Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata 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 
98

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Warblers 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 uTanager Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea 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 
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

99

Sparrows, 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

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca 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 
100

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

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

Sparrows, Buntings, and Grosbeaks

Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea 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 
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

101

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 rFinches Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus 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 
102

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Finches 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 Grus americana

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 
Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

103

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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

104

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 SNA 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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

105

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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

106

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

Ashy Clubtail Gomphus lividus Apparently Secure Secure

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

Beaverpond Baskettail Epitheca canis Critically Imperiled Secure

Common 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

Double-ringed Pennant Celithemis verna Critically Imperiled Secure

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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

107

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 (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

Status

State Federal
Appendix C: Species Lists

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

108

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

Not Rankd 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

Not Ranked Not Ranked Common Marsh Edges of 

Water

Frogs Western Chorus 

Frog

Pseudacris triseriata Vulnerable Secure Abundant All Habitats

Frogs Northern Spring 

Peeper

Pseudacris crucifer 

crucifer

Not Ranked Secure Abundant Any Water Source

Frogs Gray Treefrog Hyla versicolor Apparently 

Secure

Secure Abundant Hardwood Uplands

Frogs Crawfish Frog Rana areolata Imperiled Apparently 

Secure

Not 

Ranked

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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

109

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

Not Ranked 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

Vulnerable 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

Not Ranked Secure Common Sue Pond Series of 

Ponds

Turtles Spiny Softshell Apalone spinifera Apparently 

Secure

Secure Common Any Water Source

Lizard Broad-headed 

Skink

Eumeces laticeps Apparently 

Secure

Secure Not 

Ranked

Forest and Forest 

Wetlands

Lizard Five-Lined Skink Eumeces fasciatus Not Ranked Not Ranked Abundant Hardwood Uplands 

and Forest Edge

Snakes Eastern 

Gartersnake

Thamnophis sirtalis 

sirtalis

Not Ranked 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

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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

110

Snakes Black Rat Snake Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta Apparently 

Secure

Secure Common Hardwood Uplands

Snakes Black Kingsnake Lampropeltis getula 

nigra

Not Ranked 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 Not 

Ranked

Most Forests and 

Edges

Snakes Eastern Hognosed SnakeHeterodon platirhinos Vulnerable Secure Not 

Ranked

Dry, Sandy 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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

111

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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

112

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

Woodland Vole Microtus 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

Gnawing Mammals = 

Rodentia

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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

113

Mussel Species Found on Muscatatuck NWR 

Subfamily Common Name Scientific Name Status 

(State)

Status 

(Federal)

Corbiculidae 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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

114

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 (Continued)

Subfamily Common Name Scientific Name Status 

(State)

Status 

(Federal)
Appendix C: Species Lists

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

115

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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

116

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 NNA SNA Cyprinidae Exotic

spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

steelcolor shiner Cyprinella whipplei Secure Apparently Secure Cyprinidae

carp Cyprinus carpio NNA 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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

117

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 pickerel Esox americanus 

vermiculatus

Secure Apparently 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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

118

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 NNA SNA Poeciliidae Exotic

freshwater drum Aplodinotus 

grunniens

Secure Apparently Secure Sciaenidae

central mudminnow Umbra limi Secure Apparently Secure Umbridae

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

119

Appendix D: Regional Conservation Priority 

Species at Muscatatuck NWR

Appendix D: Regional Conservation Priority Species at Muscatatuck NWR

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Muscatatuck NWR

121

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

122

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

123

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

124

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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

125

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

127

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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

128

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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

129

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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

130

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.

The Act also directs the administration of the 

Refuge System to ensure the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the System. According to the U.S. FWS Service Manual 

(601 FW3) this refers to the maintenance of existing elements, and where appropriate the restoration of lost or severely degraded elements. 

Integrity pertains to biotic composition, structure, and function at genetic, organismal, and 

community levels. Diversity includes protection 

of the broad variety of living organisms, genetic 

distinctions, and community compositions. Environmental health recognizes the importance of 

both biotic and abiotic features and processes in 

the System. The standard of measure for each of 

these terms is defined using historic conditions, 

or conditions and processes present prior to substantial anthropogenic changes, as indicated by 

the best available science and sound professional 

judgment.

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 
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

131

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 

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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

132

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 only 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 every 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: Appropriate Use Determinations

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

133

Appendix F: Appropriate Use Determinations

Appendix F: Appropriate Use Determinations

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

135

Appropriate Refuge Uses 

The Service’s Appropriate Use Policy describes 

the initial decision process a refuge manager follows 

when first considering whether or not to allow a 

proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must 

first find a use to be appropriate before undertaking 

a compatibility review of the use and outlining the 

stipulations of the use. 

This policy clarifies and expands on the 

compatibility policy (603 FW 2.10D(1)), which 

describes when refuge managers should deny a 

proposed use without determining compatibility. If 

we find a proposed use is not appropriate, we will 

not allow the use and will not prepare a 

compatibility determination. By screening out 

proposed uses not appropriate to the refuge, the 

refuge manager avoids unnecessary compatibility 

reviews. By following the process for finding the 

appropriateness of a use, we strengthen and fulfill 

the Refuge System mission. Although a refuge use 

may be both appropriate and compatible, the refuge 

manager retains the authority to not allow the use 

or modify the use.

Background for this policy as it applies to 

Muscatatuck NWR is found in the following 

statutory authorities:

 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 

This law provides the authority for establishing policies and regulations governing refuge 

uses, including the authority to prohibit certain harmful activities. The Administration 

Act does not authorize any particular use, but 

rather authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allow uses only when they are compatible. The Improvement Act provides the 

Refuge System mission and includes specific 

directives and a clear hierarchy of public uses 

on the Refuge System.

 Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, (16 U.S.C. 

460k). This law authorizes the Secretary of 

the Interior to allow public recreation in areas 

of the Refuge System when the use is an 

“appropriate incidental or secondary use.” 

This policy does NOT apply to:

 Situations where reserved rights or legal 

mandates provide we must allow certain uses.

 Refuge Management Activities. Refuge management activities conducted by the Refuge 

System or a Refuge System-authorized agent 

are designed to conserve fish, wildlife, and 

plants and their habitats. These activities are 

used to fulfill a refuge purpose(s) or the Refuge System mission, and are based on the 

best available science and sound professional 

judgment. 

Uses that have been administratively determined 

to be appropriate are: 

 Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses. As 

defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement 

Act), the six wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, and environmental education and interpretation) are determined to be 

appropriate. However, the refuge manager 

must still determine if these uses are compatible. 

 Take of fish and wildlife under state regulations. States have regulations concerning take 

of wildlife that includes hunting, fishing, and 

trapping. We consider take of wildlife under 

such regulations appropriate. However, the 

refuge manager must determine if the activity 

is compatible before allowing it on a refuge. 

Refuge uses must meet at least one of the 

following four conditions to be deemed appropriate:

 It is a wildlife-dependent recreational use of a 

refuge as identified in the Improvement Act.

 It contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals 

or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after the Improvement 

Act was signed into law. 

 The use involves the take of fish and wildlife 

under state regulations.

 The refuge manager has evaluated the use following the guidelines in this policy and found 

that it is appropriate. The criteria used by the 
Appendix F: Appropriate Use Determinations

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

136

manager to evaluate appropriateness can be 

found on each of the appropriate use forms 

included in this appendix. Also included 

under this condition are ‘specialized uses,’ or 

uses that require specific authorization from 

the Refuge System, often in the form of a special use permit, letter of authorization, or 

other permit document. These uses do not 

include uses already granted by a prior existing right. We make appropriateness findings 

for specialized uses on a case-by-case basis. 
Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Farming and Haying

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use ("no" to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe ("no" to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be

found appropriate. If the answer is "no" to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use.

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must

justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor's concurrence.

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Refuge Manager:

Iffound to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence ifthe use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Iffound to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal,

and local)? x

(c) Is tlie use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and

Service policies? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan

or other document? x

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the

use has been proposed? X

(s) Is the use manaseable within available budeet and staffl X

(h) Willthis be manageable in the future within existing resources? x

(i) Does the use contribute to the public's understanding and appreciation of the

refuge's natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge's

natural or cultural resources?

X

O Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D.

for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?

x

Appropriate

M'",

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Qlrt lcq

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Wild Food / Shed Antler Collecting

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1991 .

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use ("no" to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe ("no" to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be

found appropriate. If the answer is "no" to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use.

tf indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must

justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor's concurrence.

Based on an ovelall assessl.nent of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate Appropriate X

Refirge Manager: Date:

lffound to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence ifthe use is a new use.

lf an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurence.

Ä.n!j Refuge Supervisor: Date:

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x

(b) Does tlre use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal,

and local)? X

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Deparlment and

Service policies? X

(d) ls the use consistent with pLrblic safetv? X

(e) Is the use cor.rsistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan

or other document? X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first tirne the

use has been proposecl? x

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staffl X

(h) W¡ll this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

Does the use contribute to the public's understanding and appreciation of the

refnge's natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge's

natural or cultural resources?

(i)

X

0) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D.

for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?

X

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

q lt lo1

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Research Projects by Third Parties

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9,1997.

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use ("no" to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it funher as we cannot

control the use, Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe ('ono" to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be

found appropriate. If the answer is "no" to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use.

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must

justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor's concurrence.

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not A.ppropiate

'fu/o J,//"-

Appropriate X

Refuge Manager: Date:

Iffound to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence ifthe use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

A*À'".o Refiree Suoervisor: J

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal,

and local)? x

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and

Service policies? x

(d) Is the r¡se consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan

or other document? x

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the

use has been proposed? X

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staffl x

(li) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x

Does the usç contribute to the public's understanding and appreciation of the

refuge's natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge's

natural or cultural resources?

(i)

x

Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section L6D.

for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?

0)

x

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Date: 4/tt/A

Appendix G: Deferred Maintenance and Improvement Projects and New Projects

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

143

Appendix G: Deferred Maintenance and 

Improvement Projects and New Projects

Appendix G: Deferred Maintenance and Improvement Projects and New Projects

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

145

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 M-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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

146

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

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

147

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 

Total $1,795,918

Project 

Number

Deferred Maintenance & Improvement Projects Description Estimated 

Cost
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 CINC CHILD 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.) 970 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 G: Deferred Maintenance and Improvement Projects and New Projects

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

148
Appendix H: Literature Cited

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

149

Appendix H: Literature Cited

Appendix H: Literature Cited

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

151

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.
Appendix H: Literature Cited

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

152

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 2000. 

Indiana Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plan 

2000-2004: a new millennium, a new tradition. Indianapolis, Indiana.

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.

Lindsey, 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
Appendix H: Literature Cited

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

153

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

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 Prog-
Appendix H: Literature Cited

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

154

ress 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, 

MN: U.S. Department of Argriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 94 p.
Appendix I: List of Preparers

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

155

Appendix I: List of Preparers

Appendix I: List of Preparers

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

157

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, Refuge Planner

 Gabriel DeAlessio, Wildlife Biologist/

Cartographer

 Jane Hodgins, Technical Writer/Editor

 John Schomaker, Refuge Planner (retired)

Appendix J: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

159

Appendix J: Response to Comments on the Draft 

CCP

Appendix J: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

161

Response to Comments

Initial drafts of Muscatatuck National Wildlife 

Refuge’s CCP and EA were released to 

stakeholders and the public on April 6, 2009. After 

33 days of public comment, including an open house 

held at the Refuge visitor center on April 23, 2009, 

40 written comment submissions were made 

containing more than 150 individual comments. 

Most comments were received from members of the 

general public, but comments were also submitted 

by representatives of the Indiana Department of 

Natural Resources, the Sierra Club’s Winding 

Waters Group, The Nature Conservancy, Earlham 

College, and Groundsmith Consulting. 

The comments were well distributed across all 

subject areas, including wildlife, habitat, water 

resources, hunting, fishing, education, other public 

uses, facilities and infrastructure, and planning. In 

general, the public expressed an appreciation for 

the excellent outdoor recreation and wildlife viewing 

opportunities at the Refuge, and wants to see these 

opportunities balanced with the preservation of 

quality habitat and healthy wildlife populations.

Comments both supported and opposed a 

number of management actions proposed in the 

environmental assessment’s range of alternatives, 

including closure of the west entrance, paving the 

auto tour route, charging an entrance fee, restoring 

man-made wetland areas to native forest, allowing 

boats and electric trolling motors on fishing lakes, 

and decreasing farming acreage. Additionally, there 

seemed to be universal approval for extending 

Refuge hours, protecting the unique Acid Seep 

Springs Research Natural Area, increasing 

outreach and education to children, and more 

aggressively controlling invasive species.

Each comment was carefully considered and, 

where appropriate, changes were made to the CCP 

in response to the thoughts and concerns expressed. 

The full range of comment submissions is 

represented in the sections below, but similar or 

duplicate comments were grouped or eliminated to 

reduce redundancy. Comments are grouped by 

subject, and a response has been provided to each 

by Refuge staff.

The Refuge thanks all of the individuals who 

submitted comments and feedback during this CCP 

process.

Wildlife

Comment 1: Non-game Wildlife

There should be a greater emphasis on managing 

for non-game wildlife, such as upland ponds for 

amphibians.

Response: Non-game wildlife comprises a 

substantial part of the biodiversity of 

Muscatatuck NWR. Refuge staff and visiting 

scientists working under special use permits 

conduct extensive monitoring of herpetofauna 

(reptiles and amphibians) and insect fauna 

annually. Most management actions convey direct 

benefits to non-game fauna including moist soil 

and forest management practices. 

For example, the Refuge is well known for its’ 

thriving population of the state-listed endangered 

copperbelly watersnake, which preys primarily 

on amphibians. The Refuge has more than 80 

ponds and marshes with many of the former 

associated with house and farm sites that were 

built by private land owners before the Refuge 

was acquired, and they support a wide diversity 

and abundance of amphibians. Additionally, more 

than 60 percent of the Refuge is classified as 

wetland, much of which is bottomland hardwood 

forest that is excellent amphibian habitat. 

The CCP will promote expansion of the 

bottomland hardwood forest and improved 

management of moist soil units, which should 

increase the abundance of amphibians, non-game 

birds, bats, and some other mammal species.
Appendix J: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

162

Comment 2: Invasive Plants

Invasive plants are a real problem on the Refuge 

and controlling them should be a priority in the 

CCP.

Response: Muscatatuck NWR staff, along with 

staff at our Regional Office, recognize the grave 

threat posed by invasive plants at the Refuge and 

throughout the region and country. One of our 

high priority staffing needs identified in this CCP 

and in agency staffing reviews is the addition of 

an invasive species biologist along with biological 

science technicians to conduct invasive plant 

removal work, and filling a vacant equipment 

operator position. 

We have also identified the need to thoroughly 

map the presence and distribution of all invasive 

species on the Refuge so that we can prioritize 

our control activities on those invasive plants that 

pose the greatest threat to the Refuge. 

Ever y summer, using our best available 

information, Refuge staff have been locating and 

controlling Japanese stiltgrass, a recent invader 

that threatens forest communities. We also 

monitor for and control high-risk invasive plants 

such as purple loosestrife, kudzu, oriental 

bittersweet, and others as outbreaks are 

discovered. We depend on auxiliary staff such as 

STEP student employees and interns to do the 

majority of our on-the-ground invasives 

fieldwork, and a percentage of the money spent 

on the station’s biology program goes into 

controlling invasive species. See “Objective 1.5: 

Invasive Plant Species” on page 56 of the CCP 

for additional information on proposed 

management of invasive plant species.

Comment 3: Controlling Invasive Plants – Fire

Fire is not an effective way to control invasive 

plants, mechanical or chemical treatments are 

more effective.

Response: The Refuge has not used fire to 

control invasive plants, and has not used fire as a 

part of prescribed management since 2000. We 

use both established chemical and mechanical 

treatments on invasive plants with good success 

at Muscatatuck NWR. 

If reinstated, prescribed fire would be used for 

general improvement of the condition of forests, 

grasslands, and moist soil units. Although there 

are no current plans to use fire for invasive plant 

control, the Refuge maintains this treatment as 

an adaptive management option if identified by 

the scientific literature as the most effective 

strategy to eradicate a species of invasive plant. 

Comment 4: Feral Hogs

Feral hogs are now found in areas adjacent to the 

Refuge and should be added to the invasive or 

nuisance animal lists. 

Response: To date, no evidence of feral hogs has 

been found on the Refuge. However, the range of 

feral hogs in Indiana is expanding, and 

Muscatatuck NWR staff are on the look-out for 

signs and reports from visitors of sightings. 

Comment 5: Beavers, Mink, Muskrats, Otters

The Refuge should allow trappers to remove the 

problematic beavers and mink.

Don’t remove too many beavers, muskrats, and 

otters.

Response: Most predators on beaver, mink, river 

otter, and muskrat are either extirpated from 

Indiana or occur in such low numbers as to have 

little effect on the populations of these species. As 

a result, beaver and muskrat are not only 

abundant throughout Indiana and on the Refuge, 

but these two animals damage Refuge 

infrastructure and disrupt habitat management 

activities. 

Beaver build dams that flood sensitive habitats, 

killing trees and rare plants, and disrupt water 

management that is timed to produce the 

maximum amount of food for migrating 

waterfowl. Muskrat burrow into dikes and dams 

causing damage and the risk of failure of the 

structures. Populations of both species need to be 

reduced for the benefit of most other species that 

use the Refuge. To this end, control of beavers 

under a permit from the Indiana DNR began in 

the fall of 2008, and control of muskrat will begin 

in late 2009 or 2010.

River otters were reintroduced into Indiana in 

1995, and the Refuge was one of the 

reintroductions sites. Since then, their population 

has increased throughout the state, and they 

were removed from the state’s endangered 

species list in 2005. River otters are not causing 

any known damage at Muscatatuck NWR, and no 

specific management activities are currently 

planned. They may be reducing numbers of sport 
Appendix J: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

163

fish to the detriment of recreational fishing, but 

this effect may benefit local amphibian 

populations. 

Mink numbers on the Refuge are unknown. They 

are an active predator and an integral part of the 

Refuge ecosystem, and no specific monitoring or 

control activities are planned. 

Comment 6: Deer Control

You should have a 10-foot fence to keep deer inside 

the Refuge.

Response: Deer at Muscatatuck NWR are part 

of the larger population of the area, and 

immigration and emigration helps keep the herd 

healthy from a genetic and disease resistance 

perspective. An active and expanding hunt 

program in partnership with Indiana DNR 

provides population management and valuable 

recreational and harvest opportunities for 

participants. A fence would be extremely costly 

to build and maintain, would negatively impact a 

number of other species, and likely be ineffective 

due to failures and vandalism.

Habitat

Comment 7: Forest Management

Don’t passively allow areas to revert back to forest, 

but actively manage the transition by planting with 

desired trees and using timber stand improvement 

practices to increase value and decrease invasives. 

Response: Refuge staff recognizes the 

desirability of returning former farm fields to 

upland and bottomland hardwood forest 

supporting the maximum diversity of plant and 

animal life as quickly as possible. To this end, 

Refuge management has secured funding for 

planting trees. 

From 1966-2000, approximately 82 acres were 

planted. Since 2000, an additional 30 acres were 

planted in 2004, 15 acres in 2007, 19 acres in 2008, 

and 28 acres in 2009. Over the course of the CCP, 

970 acres of former farmland will revert to forest 

through a combination of natural succession and 

tree planting. Tree planting is relatively 

expensive, and acquiring the necessary funding 

for planting 970 acres in 15 years will require 

extensive staff efforts and collaboration with 

other conservation partners.

Timber stand improvement practices were 

recommended to Refuge staff during the 

Biological Review of Muscatatuck NWR 

Management in 2007. Forest management is 

proposed in the CCP as a part of the Habitat 

Management Plan, and pending the availability of 

funding, will be completed within 5 years of 

completing this CCP. This plan will provide a 

prescription for active forest management that is 

expected to call for application of timber stand 

improvement where needed. 

Comment 8: Converting Wetlands to Forest

No wetland areas should be allowed to revert back 

to forest. This is not a national forest, and too few 

wetlands remain on the landscape.

Increased forest cover does not meet the 

establishment purpose of the Refuge – promoting 

waterfowl, deep woods habitat requires 20,000 acres 

of forest, and continuous forest cover reduces edge 

habitat needed by birds.

Response: Muscatatuck NWR presents 

numerous competing priorities for habitat 

management. The CCP eliminates some moist 

soil units in order to return areas of the Refuge to 

habitats resembling pre-settlement conditions 

and benefit specific species, but other moist soil 

units will be retained for waterfowl, migratory 

birds, and other species. 

Prior to settlement and land clearing for 

agriculture by Europeans, southern Indiana and 

the location of the Refuge was a combination of 

bottomland and upland hardwood forests 

dominated by beech-maple communities with 

significant oak-hickory community elements also 

present. There were relatively few standing 

bodies of water such as lakes and ponds, and most 

open water existed as ephemeral marshes and 

wetland created by seasonal rains and floods, and 

the damming of creeks and streams by beaver. 

The moist soil units proposed for conversion to 

forest are very difficult to maintain and keep in 

prime condition due to their location in the 

floodplain of the Vernon Fork of the Muscatatuck 

River. The forest expansions planned may serve 

the deep forest requirements of species such as 

the Cerulean Warbler, but will primarily benefit 

the endangered Indiana bat that breeds on the 

Refuge and cavity nesting waterfowl such as 

Wood Ducks and Hooded Mergansers.
Appendix J: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

164

Muscatatuck NWR’s constructed moist soil units 

provide the opportunity to create feeding areas 

for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, brood 

rearing areas for resident breeding waterfowl 

such as Wood Ducks and resident geese, and 

habitat for herpetofauna (reptiles and 

amphibians). However, increases in bottomland 

hardwood forests, which are also classified as 

wetland habitats, will also serve herpetofauna, 

provide a return to a more natural cycle of 

flooding and drainage to the Refuge’s waterfowl 

sanctuary area, and ultimately provide more 

trees for cavity nesting species such as Wood 

Ducks, a species of waterfowl the Refuge is 

directed to support by the Refuge purposes. 

Furthermore, conversion of moist soil units 8-10 

to bottomland forest, while taking away some 

impounded wetlands, will convert most of the 

existing wetland area into a more diverse mosaic 

of wetland habitats that will have sloughs, 

channels, and ephemeral ponds. These new 

wetlands will either be actively restored or 

allowed to form naturally from habitat succession 

to the benefit of native herpetofauna and other 

wildlife and native plants. 

Finally, the loss of brood rearing habitat for 

cavity nesting species is considered to be 

insignificant, as a large reservoir of brood rearing 

habitat will persist within the Moss Lake summer 

pool footprint, estimated to be more than 

adequate for the anticipated demand. 

Comment 9: Cooperative Farming

Farming provides a valuable food source for 

wildlife, discourages the spread of invasives, and it 

should be continued at the Refuge. 

I would like to see areas in the southeast section of 

the Refuge planted to crops.

Actively convert some cropland into forest, but 

plant additional acreage to crops.

There should be more cropland on the Refuge, and 

in large enough patches to attract good farmers.

I am concerned about the loss of farmland and feel 

the Refuge should continue this use. It could be 

used to generate revenue for Refuge maintenance 

and operations.

Response: Reducing cropland acreage is not 

unique to Muscatatuck NWR. The Service has 

been reducing its use of cropland as a 

management strategy on national wildlife refuges 

for several years. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Biological Integrity, Diversity and 

Environmental Health Policy developed in 

response to the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 calls for refuges to 

restore their lands to natural conditions and 

historic vegetative communities. 

Muscatatuck NWR has been gradually reducing 

the number of acres in its Cooperative Farming 

program since shortly after establishment in 

1966. The primary reasons for this reduction are 

to reduce fragmentation of forest habitats and to 

restore more acreage to natural habitats. The 

remaining acres in the Cooperative Farming 

program are slated to be restored to diverse 

native grassland areas to promote species 

diversity and continue to provide the wildlife 

viewing opportunities they currently support. 

Conversion of these acres out of farming will only 

take place when proper restoration activities can 

be planned and implemented so as to protect 

these acres from being overrun by invasive 

species.

The Service portion (25 percent) of the annual 

Cooperative Farming harvest is left on the 

Refuge for wildlife consumption. However, the 

use of this resource by migratory waterfowl is 

low, and most of the harvest is eaten by resident 

species such as deer, turkey, and resident geese, 

none of which require food supplementation. In 

the case of deer and resident geese, supporting 

higher populations of these animals can be 

detrimental to habitat restoration efforts 

elsewhere on the Refuge, and to neighboring 

private property.

The southeast section of the Refuge is converting 

through natural succession to a mixture of upland 

and bottomland hardwood forest to provide for 

larger continuous blocks of forest habitats. 

Additional farming acres in this location would 

only create more fragmentation of habitat, 

smaller continuous blocks of forest, and 

decreased vegetative diversity on the Refuge.

The Service portion of yields from Cooperative 

Farming is left in the fields for wildlife use. If the 

Refuge share of crops is harvested, it is only 

available for later retrieval from commercial 

elevators and storage facilities for use as food for 

wildlife on a national wildlife refuge. If crops 

grown on refuges are sold, proceeds go into the 
Appendix J: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

165

Service’s general fund and are not directly 

available to the Refuge where the harvest 

originated. 

Water Resources

Comment 10: Creek Water Levels 

Keep the water levels in Storm and Mutton Creeks 

low so upstream landowners don’t get inundated.

Response: Refuge staff recognize the problems 

caused by flooding in the low lying areas of 

Jackson and Jennings Counties. 

Mutton and Storm Creeks were ditched and 

straightened in the 19th century, and pass 

through the Refuge en route to the Vernon Fork 

of the Muscatatuck River. Drainage can be 

slowed by many factors including log jams, 

beaver dams, siltation, and discharge through the 

Moss Lake water control structure. The 

construction of the latter was completed after an 

extensive Environmental Impact Statement that 

included calculations associated with the 

watershed and land use in the area. Also, land use 

in the area has continued to change dramatically 

since Refuge establishment with urban 

development resulting in more frequent flooding, 

increases in flood duration, and greater pressures 

on drainage systems.

In response to high water levels in Refuge 

creeks, we are taking the following steps: 

 Refuge staff began controlling the beaver 

population in the fall of 2008. 

 Refuge staff are regularly patrolling both 

Storm and Mutton Creeks to map the locations of dams and log jams and record water 

level staging caused by these obstructions. 

 Dams and log jams are regularly broken with 

hand tools, and Refuge staff are investigating 

the potential for more effective solutions 

using construction equipment such as backhoes and excavators. 

 Two of the six bays in the Moss Lake Water 

Control Structure (MLWCS) will be converted from top draining stop-log type dams 

to bottom draining screw-gate type control 

structures in the summer of 2009. The bottom 

draining structures will allow for faster drainage of water, removal of more of the silt load, 

and easier, more responsive water level 

manipulation. If the results obtained from 

these changes in the MLWCS result in positive outcomes and more screw-gates would 

further improve conditions, additional stop log 

bays will be replaced with screw-gate structures in 2010-12.

Additionally, past management caused the winter 

pool level in Moss Lake to be 3 feet higher (543.0 

msl) than the summer pool level (540.0 msl) by 

adding stop logs in the water control structure 

each October. In the fall of 2007, the Refuge 

changed its management approach and no longer 

actively impounds water above 540 msl, resulting 

in levels in Mutton and Storm Creeks that are 

generally 3 feet lower than previous conditions – 

barring additional restrictions in flow due to 

beaver dams and log jams.

Comment 11: Seep Springs RNA

Restore the natural hydrology of the acid seep 

springs area and the adjacent floodplain forest by 

replacing the culvert on the south end of the area 

and by eliminating a portion of the M6 pond.

Response: Comments from our state partners 

and the public on the Seep Springs Research 

Natural Area have prompted us to revise the 

objective in the CCP.

Extensive efforts are under way and are 

described in this CCP to restore the natural 

hydrology of the Seep Springs RNA through a 

diagnosis of the problems and an evaluation of 

the impacts of potential corrective measures. 

“Objective 1.6: Seep Springs Research Natural 

Area” on page 57 and strategies for management 

of the RNA have been updated from the draft 

version of this document to provide more detailed 

information on the problems associated with the 

hydrology in this area, and the short- and longterm responses planned by Refuge staff to 

restore the area to historic conditions.

Hunting

Comment 12: Refuge Hunting Program

Not only should there be no expansion of hunting 

as called for in the preferred alternative, but this 

place should be a ‘Refuge’ for wildlife where no 

hunting at all is allowed. 

Duck hunting should not be allowed.
Appendix J: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

166

Close hunting in the area extending from just south 

of the west entrance road to Stanfield Lake.

Response: Hunting is one of the six priority 

public uses on national wildlife refuges as 

identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. The other five priority 

public uses are: fishing, interpretation, 

environmental education, wildlife observation 

and photography. 

Refuges are required to permit hunting when it is 

compatible with the purposes for which the 

Refuge was established, and not otherwise in 

conflict with requirements of applicable laws and 

regulations such as the Endangered Species Act, 

or refuge management plans. 

Waterfowl hunting is not allowed at Muscatatuck 

NWR because of the Refuge’s relatively small 

size, the fact that most bodies of water on the 

Refuge are managed to produce food for 

migrating waterfowl, and because of the 

disruption hunting would cause to migrant 

waterbirds that use the Refuge.

The area from just south of the west entrance 

road to Stanfield Lake includes areas open to 

hunting species in the Refuge’s hunt program. 

Much of the western portion of this area is part of 

the waterfowl sanctuary area and is closed to all 

public uses except during National Wildlife 

Refuge Week, when day-hiking is allowed. 

East of the waterfowl sanctuary, hunting occurs 

in the area south of Stanfield Lake and east of 

County Line Road for rabbit, quail, squirrel, 

turkey, and deer. Hunting also takes place in the 

area between County Line Road and the 

waterfowl sanctuary for deer and turkey, which is 

considered by hunters to be one of the better 

hunting areas on the Refuge. The East and West 

River Trails occur in this area, and under the 

CCP will not be maintained but rather will be 

allowed to revert back to natural habitat 

conditions. Otherwise, all Refuge trails occur in 

the northeast portion of the Refuge in a nohunting area so that other visitors are able to 

avoid hunting areas during hunting seasons. 

Please refer to “Public Use, Hunting, at 

Muscatatuck NWR” on page 38 of the CCP for 

further clarification of hunting areas on the 

Refuge.

Comment 13: Population Monitoring

Monitor rabbit, quail, squirrel, turkey, and deer 

before and after the hunting season.

Response: Rabbit, quail, squirrel, turkey and 

deer are resident wildlife species that are 

abundant and widespread in Indiana and are not 

state or federally listed threatened or 

endangered species. Refuge staffing levels do not 

permit direct monitoring of these species because 

of the higher priority work needed to manage 

listed species, control invasive species, and 

manage and restore habitat. 

The Refuge generally follows the Indiana DNR’s 

management actions by allowing hunting of these 

species during state seasons within state limits. 

Where exceptions occur, they are generally more 

restrictive and call for shorter hunting periods on 

limited sections of the Refuge to limit conflicts 

with other Refuge management activities or 

public uses, and also provide sanctuary for these 

animals. Deer and turkey hunts are managed in 

consultation with the Indiana DNR, and the 

permit draws are conducted by the DNR for the 

Refuge. Hunter reports and interviews are used 

to determine the effect and quality of the hunts. 

The number of hunters participating in rabbit, 

quail, and squirrel hunts is unknown because no 

permit system or check-in is required for these 

hunts. All evidence suggests that hunter numbers 

for these animals are low, and their impacts on 

respective populations negligible.

Comment 14: Hunter Orange

There is no need for hunter orange during the 

turkey, archery, or squirrel seasons.

Response: The Refuge hunting programs follows 

Indiana DNR regulations to the extent that they 

meet Refuge needs, and exceeds the regulations 

as necessary to promote safe use of the Refuge 

by the hunting and non-hunting user groups. 

Hunter orange will be required for all Refuge 

hunts except the turkey hunt. 

Hunter orange clothing and accessories do not 

disturb most game species or negatively affect 

hunts. Muscatatuck NWR is a multiple-use 

facility with the non-hunting public allowed onto 

the property and within hunting areas during 

hunts. Hunter orange greatly improves the 

visibility of hunters to both non-hunters and 
Appendix J: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

167

hunters alike. This step is being taken to improve 

overall safety and reduce conflicts during Refuge 

hunts.

Fishing

Comment 15: Fishing Lakes

Fishing should not be allowed at Mallard and 

Display Ponds.

Response: We agree. Mallard and Display Ponds 

will be removed from the Refuge fishing 

program. Under the CCP they will be allowed to 

revert to bottomland hardwood forest. Because of 

this, their small dams will not be repaired if they 

fail following implementation of the CCP.

Comment 16: Seasonal Fishing

Fishing disrupts birds during the late fall, winter, 

and early spring. It should only be allowed between 

May and October.

Response: Muscatatuck NWR hosts mostly 

shallow water use by dabbling ducks and courting 

Wood Ducks and Wood Ducks with their broods. 

Fishing at Muscatatuck NWR occurs only on 

some of our relatively deep lakes and ponds, and 

along the north bank of the Vernon Fork of the 

Muscatatuck River. These deeper water habitats 

are not preferred or routinely used by these 

species. The disruption to waterfowl use by 

fishing is minimal, and fishing of these areas has 

been determined to be compatible with Refuge 

purposes, and is therefore allowed. 

Additionally, fishing is one of the six priority 

public uses on national wildlife refuges as 

identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. The other five priority 

public uses are: hunting, interpretation, 

environmental education, wildlife observation 

and photography.

Comment 17: Stocking

All fishing ponds and lakes should be stocked 

annually.

Response: The stocking of fish solely for the 

purpose of enhancing recreational fisheries is not 

allowed under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s Biological Integrity Policy, which was 

developed as a result of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Stocking is a management practice used on 

refuges only to rebuild populations of native and 

rare fish species that are depleted.

Comment 18: Motor Use

The use of electric motors for fishing should be 

allowed as soon as possible.

No motors of any kind should be allowed on fishing 

lakes, they aren’t big enough. 

The use of trolling motors could ruin the fisheries 

on Stanfield Lake.

Response: Historically, boating has only been 

allowed on Stanfield Lake using oars and paddles 

for propulsion, and no motors. However, this 

makes boating difficult or impossible for persons 

physically unable to paddle or row a boat. The 

management decision to allow the use of electric 

trolling motors is intended to make boat fishing 

accessible to a wider range of Refuge visitors. 

However, gasoline powered motors attached to 

boats will still be prohibited. 

Because Stanfield Lake is a relatively small lake 

(125 acres), monitoring of fish populations to 

determine baseline population levels will be 

conducted before allowing the use of electric 

trolling motors, and will continue thereafter in an 

effort to assess the impact of electric trolling 

motor use on the fish population and on the 

quality of the fishing opportunity. Should the use 

of motors lead to a decline in fish abundance or 

changes in community assemblages, Refuge staff 

will adapt management to include a limited 

number of boat launches per day, implement slot 

limits or aggregate creel limits, or use implement 

other management actions to protect Refuge fish 

populations. 

Comment 19: Lakes with Boat Use

Lakes in addition to Stanfield should be opened to

boat use, including Richart and Linda.

Allow canoes and kayaks on other fishing lakes.

Response: In the interest of maintaining highquality recreational fishing, small boats including 

canoes and kayaks are not allowed on the small 

lakes (Linda and Sheryl) and ponds (Persimmon 

and Sand Hill) that are in the Refuge Fishing 

Program. Float tubes and waders are currently 

allowed and will continue to be allowed on these 
Appendix J: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

168

bodies of water under the CCP. Richart Lake 

does not have a launching facility. Extensive use 

by canoe and kayaks would lead to bank and 

shoreline erosion and damage the few launch 

areas available near Refuge roads, and is 

therefore not allowed. 

Float tubes and waders are currently allowed on 

Richart Lake and will continue to be allowed 

there under the CCP. 

Comment 20: Boat Length Restrictions

Review watercraft boat restrictions.

Response: The Refuge does not currently 

restrict watercraft size or allow motors of any 

kind. Under the CCP, electric trolling motors will 

be allowed on Stanfield Lake. A small concrete 

launching ramp is available to facilitate launching 

of small, shallow draft boats. Large or deep draft 

boats are not recommended due to the small size 

of the ramp and shallowness of waters adjacent to 

the ramp, and gasoline powered motors cannot be 

used or attached to boats launched at Stanfield 

Lake.

Comment 21: Stanfield Lake Boat Dock Channel

The dock channel on Stanfield Lake should be 

extended, and the area around it deepened and 

regularly cleaned of vegetation and moss.

Response: Stanfield Lake does not have a boat 

dock but rather a concrete boat launching ramp. 

Silt that accumulates on the ramp is periodically 

removed to facilitate boat launching and recovery. 

Stanfield Lake is a relatively shallow constructed 

lake, and there is no boating channel into the lake 

from the ramp. Small, shallow draft boats are 

recommended, and the Refuge does not plan to 

dredge a channel to permit access to larger boats 

than those that have historically used the lake 

despite the new allowance of electric trolling 

motors. However, due to overall siltation in the 

lake, the area in front of the ramp may also 

become shallower. Refuge staff will monitor the 

depth near the ramp to determine conditions and 

post advisories. Removal of sediment may be 

considered if the facility becomes unusable in the 

future. All water bodies at the Refuge become 

heavily covered with algae seasonally, and it is not 

possible to control this growth with available 

resources or within the limits of policy regarding 

the application of chemicals. Although 

inconvenient, algae and aquatic weed growth 

does not prohibit boat access to the lake. 

Outreach and Education

Comment 22: Youth Education

I strongly encourage the Refuge to increase their 

programming for children.

I support working with additional schools for 

environmental education.

Response: Refuge staff strongly support this 

recommendation. At present the Refuge supports 

environmental education through a number of onand off-site programs every year, the largest of 

which is the on-site annual “Conservation Field 

Days Programs” that provides environmental 

education opportunities to third grade students 

in Jackson and Jennings Counties. Current 

staffing levels do not support additional growth in 

our environmental education or outreach 

programs. Refuge staff have made the addition of 

an Environmental Educator position a priority in 

regional and national Service staffing plans and 

exercises. 

Comment 23: Website

Provide additional web updates and bird viewing 

updates. 

Response: We are working on improving our 

website by adding local events and information of 

interest. Development of our improved site will 

begin in 2009.

Other Public Use

Comment 24: Entrance Fees

The public should not have to pay entrance fees to 

use the Refuge. Use collection boxes instead.

An entrance fee is a good idea. You should also offer 

annual passes and honor NPS passes.

Instate an entrance fee between April and October, 

with fee exceptions for days with Refuge programs 

and for members of the Muscatatuck Wildlife 

Society. 
Appendix J: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

169

Don’t add an entrance fee, this tactic did not work 

in the past. 

Response: Several times during development of 

the Draft CCP, Refuge and Regional Office staff 

discussed the possibility of charging an entrance 

fee to provide funding for Refuge operations. An 

entrance fee was proposed in two of the four 

alternatives evaluated in the Environmental 

Assessment, however neither of those 

alternatives were selected as the preferred 

alternative. The CCP does not propose an 

entrance fee.

An entrance fee was charged in 1988 and 1989 

with collections being made with the use of an 

“iron ranger” or collection box system. Recently, 

Regional policy regarding the amount of 

operational funding provided to each refuge 

changed, resulting in an increase to each station. 

As a result of this increase, staff determined that 

the benefits of additional funding raised through 

a fee program would not outweigh the negative 

impact on visitors and support from the 

neighboring community. 

Comment 25: Refuge Hours

I strongly support extended Refuge hours for 

additional wildlife viewing and photography. 

Sunrise and sunset are the best times of the day for 

these activities.

Response: Under the CCP, Refuge hours will be 

extended to one hour before sunrise to one hour 

after sunset daily. This action will not only 

provide improved wildlife viewing and 

photography opportunities, but will increase the 

time available for hunting and fishing on the 

Refuge.

Comment 26: Law Enforcement

More patrolling needs to occur after normal 

business hours.

Response: We agree. Criminal activity on public 

land, which ranges from poaching to producing 

illicit drugs, often occurs after hours. It is also 

important that law enforcement occurs during 

peak hours, however, which makes scheduling a 

challenge.

Refuge law enforcement staff are shared between 

all three of the national wildlife refuges located in 

the state of Indiana, further reducing the time 

available for patrols on any one refuge, including 

Muscatatuck NWR. 

Refuge Officers and managers recognize the 

unique scheduling needs for law enforcement and 

do everything possible, including partnering and 

coordinating with Indiana DNR Conservation 

Officers, to promote the presence of law 

enforcement during prime public use time as well 

as during off-peak hours. 

Comment 27: Sanctuary Area Access

The sanctuary area of the Refuge should be opened 

to the public for wildlife viewing during the nonnesting periods of the year, or on some periodic 

basis. 

Response: Water fowl sanctuary is very 

important to fulfilling the purpose of the Refuge 

“...as an inviolate sanctuary...for migrating birds” 

and it requires significant limitations on public 

access.

Currently, the waterfowl sanctuary area is open 

to walk-in traffic one week a year during National 

Wildlife Refuge Week, and for vehicle tours 

during certain special events. The CCP retains 

this limited access.

Approximately 70 percent of all waterfowl use at 

the Refuge in 2008 occurred in the waterfowl 

sanctuary, and we believe that it is imperative 

that we protect this area from disturbance during 

the migration period that runs from late October 

through April. Additionally, other waterbird 

species such as Great Blue Herons, King Rails, 

and shorebirds utilize this area during the 

breeding season, as do Wood Ducks and Hooded 

Mergansers for brood rearing and feeding 

habitat. 

Comment 28: Seasonal Wildlife Viewing Access

Please do not limit visitor access during peak 

migration periods, these are the best time of the 

year to view wildlife.

Response: Above all else, the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act states that 

wildlife comes first on national wildlife refuges 

(Fish and Wildlife Service Manual 602 FW 1). In 
Appendix J: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

170

keeping with this direction, the Refuge will limit 

access to some areas to reduce disturbance of 

migratory birds and other wildlife.

The Refuge’s “upper” moist soil units (M1-6), as 

well as McDonald Marsh North and Sue Pond, 

are being rehabilitated and managed to provide 

more food for waterfowl than in the past. 

Waterfowl use of these units will be reduced if 

foot traffic is permitted along all sides of the 

levees that border the units. The Refuge plans to 

seasonally close these levees to foot traffic to 

attract waterfowl to the area and reduce 

disturbance of these birds during migration, 

when it’s important that they consume as much 

food as possible and conserve their energy.

Reducing foot traffic will not eliminate the 

opportunity to view waterfowl and other wildlife 

during these times of the year. People can still use 

Refuge public roads that border these units, 

including the auto tour route. More food and less 

disturbance may result in increased use of 

Refuge by birds, which may in turn lead to better 

wildlife viewing opportunities overall. 

Comment 29: Water Drip for Bird Viewing

Water drips are a great way to increase bird 

activity, and additional drips should be placed near 

the visitor center.

Response: Refuge staff will look into the 

possibility of implementing this recommendation 

with the application of hose lines and solar 

powered pumps.

Facilities and Infrastructure

Comment 30: West Entrance

The west entrance should be closed to reduce traffic 

cutting through the Refuge and reduce associated 

dust. 

I do not support the closure of the west entrance. It 

is necessary in emergencies, when primary roads 

are closed, and allows quick access to/from the 

Refuge maintenance shop.

Response: Refuge and Regional Office staff have 

been concerned about traffic cutting through the 

Refuge between Highways 50 and 31 for many 

years. The Service wants to encourage quality 

visits by individuals who have the Refuge as a 

destination, encourage driving within speed 

limits to reduce dust and noise that disturb 

wildlife and other visitors, and discourage 

passage through the Refuge when Refuge roads 

are used only to reach another destination. We 

believe that closing the west entrance will achieve 

these results.

In addition, the closure may discourage heavy 

vehicle traffic, which contributes to higher annual 

road maintenance costs. Finally, all Refuge 

informational facilities – kiosks, the visitor center, 

and offices – are located just inside the gates 

along the entrance off of Highway 50. Promoting 

the use of this entrance enhances the Refuge’s 

ability to provide visitors with orientation 

materials, advisories, and information on 

activities, events, road conditions, and other 

Refuge-related information. 

Refuge staff recognize that closing the West 

Entrance Road will inconvenience some visitors. 

We think that benefits resulting from reduced 

pass-through use will significantly increase the 

quality of Refuge visits and reduce disturbance to 

wildlife. 

We understand and appreciate the concern about 

emergency access. A gate will be installed at the 

West Entrance Road that could be opened during 

emergencies or under other special conditions.

Comment 31: Paving Refuge Roads

In addition to the prohibitive cost, paving Refuge 

roads will encourage people to drive faster and 

create additional hazards for other visitors, will 

create unnatural barriers for wildlife, and will 

increase vehicle/animal collisions.

The Refuge roads should be paved to keep down the 

dust for both people and wildlife, and reduce 

maintenance.

The roads on the Refuge need more maintenance.

Closing any Refuge roads is a bad idea because it 

could limit access to the elderly and disabled.

Response: Refuge staff recognize that paving 

Refuge roads would be costly and have both 

positive and negative implications and effects. 

Refuge staff do not believe paving the roads will 

create a barrier to wildlife movement or increase 

the risk of wildlife being killed by cars. Paved 

surfaces may effectively reduce the number of 

animals struck on the road because drivers will 
Appendix J: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

171

be able to come to a controlled stop faster on 

pavement than on gravel. Refuge staff members 

are unaware of any reports indicating that 

narrow paved roads are any more of a barrier to 

wildlife movement than gravel roads. 

While paved roads have the potential to increase 

the occurrence of speeding, closing the Refuge 

west entrance and eliminating through traffic 

should counteract this trend. Furthermore, law 

enforcement patrols will be adjusted to address 

any increase in speeding. Speed limiting features 

such as speed humps may be included in paved 

road design to further reduce speed on straight 

stretches, or in areas where people or wildlife 

congregate. 

Gravel roads, while less expensive to install and 

maintain overall, have higher annual costs in both 

materials and labor. Refuge road sections are 

periodically overtopped by flood waters that 

sweep away gravel and generally damage the 

road bed, necessitating frequent repairs. Gravel 

must be replaced annually due to flooding events 

and a general degeneration of conditions from 

vehicle use. Dust is a significant problem in the 

summer and fall. It reduces the quality of visitor 

experiences and makes hiking and biking along 

Refuge roads undesirable. Vehicle traffic on 

gravel roads is also louder than on pavement, 

increasing wildlife disturbance and decreasing 

visitor enjoyment of the Refuge.

Muscatatuck NWR has only one maintenance 

staff member to handle all maintenance tasks. A 

second equipment operator position is authorized 

but has not been filled due to budget shortfalls. 

Filling this position is listed as the top staffing 

priority for the Refuge when funding becomes 

available.

No Refuge roads are proposed for closure in the 

CCP, only the west entrance.

Comment 32: Road Drainage

Maintain water drainage on and adjacent to 

Refuge roads.

Response: Efforts are made to keep roads and 

their drainage ditches open, safe, and in as good a 

condition as resources permit. 

Maintaining drainage ditches and roads is 

challenging at Muscatatuck NWR. Many reaches 

of Refuge roads are in floodplain areas and are 

regularly overtopped and eroded during heavy 

rain and flooding. Drainage ditches routinely fill 

with road gravel and eroded sediment, and are 

damaged by fast moving drainage during rain 

and flooding events. Trees and limbs that fall 

during high winds associated with storms clog 

drainages and redirect water flow onto roads, 

causing further damage.

Keeping up with these demands will require 

additional maintenance personnel including a 

second equipment operator and, when the budget 

allows, filling that position will be a high priority. 

Comment 33: East and West River Trails

I use the East and West River Trails regularly and 

would be disappointed if they were let go.

Provide more parking for the River Trails. 

Response: We understand that some visitors will 

be disappointed, but the Refuge does not have 

the resources to maintain the river trails. The 

East and West River Trails are located in the 

southern part of the Refuge near the Vernon 

Fork of the Muscatatuck River and are 3 and 4 

miles long, respectively. Objective 3.3 in the CCP 

calls for discontinuing maintenance of the trails 

and allowing them to revert back to natural 

habitat conditions. 

This change will eventually add approximately 

8.5 acres of bottomland forest habitat to the 

Refuge. The area of the River Trails will still be 

open to public use, but will become more 

primitive as the vegetation grows back. Unlike 

parks, national wildlife refuges do not usually 

have extensive trail networks but rather allow 

public uses across the landscape and provide a 

small number of trails to accommodate users who 

do not wish to walk through undeveloped areas. 

Because they are in the floodplain of the river, the 

East and West River Trails are periodically 

inundated with water and impacted by debris 

from flooding. Refuge staff do not have the time 

to properly clear and mow these trails, and 

current mowing and clearing has been taken on 

by the Refuge Friends Group, the Muscatatuck 

Wildlife Society, through a contract with a private 

vendor. Conditions have deteriorated in recent 

years and more maintenance is required in the 

form of mowing, log removal and grading.
Appendix J: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Muscatatuck NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

172

Comment 34: Renaming Trails

One of the trails in the area of the old Hunt family 

farm should be re-named to honor the family.

Response: The process to rename the Richart 

trail to the Hunt-Richart Trail in honor of the 

Hunt family and their long history on the site of 

the Richart Trail is under way.

Comment 35: Overlooks

Modify or rebuild the structure if necessary, but 

don’t remove Hackman Overlook because it 

memorializes a family from the area.

Remove the Richart Lake gazebo and the North 

Endicott handicapped viewing platform.

Remove the Hackman overlook because it attracts 

vandals, or remove everything except the floor and 

handrails.

I like the addition of a Sandhill Crane overlook 

area.

Response: Overlooks provide improved viewing 

access and draw the public to areas with good 

wildlife viewing opportunities. Objective 3.3 of the 

CCP describes plans to maintain the Endicott 

Overlook, build a new overlook near the 

Maintenance Shop where migrating cranes often 

congregate and deer and turkey are commonly seen, 

and modify or remove the Hackman Overlook off 

the Richart Trail on the shore of Richart Lake. 

The Hackman Overlook was built with funds 

donated by the Hackman family, and every effort 

will be made to retain it in a modified state. 

However, it requires repair and modification to 

discourage vandalism and to reduce safety risks to 

visitors because of its isolated location. Refuge staff 

are investigating the feasibility of removing the 

roof, windows, and sidewalls to leave an open 

platform with railings. Without cover from rain or 

sun, people will be less inclined to loiter and 

vandalize the facility, but it will still provide a good 

view out over the lake for wildlife observation and 

photography.

Comment 36: Mowing

There should be more mowing around the main 

entrance, the entry road, the visitor center, and the 

parking lots.

Response: Mowing is a big undertaking at 

Muscatatuck NWR, and is only part of the 

Refuge’s maintenance responsibilities. Yet, it is 

vital to public safety and access, and is sometimes 

necessary for wildlife management activities. 

When the budget allows, it is our intention to 

increase our maintenance staff in order to 

address all maintenance needs, including 

mowing.

Refuge Planning

Comment 37: Planning Frequency

Plans should be re-visited more frequently than 

every 15 years.

Response: We agree. Chapter 5 of the CCP 

states that the plan will be reviewed periodically. 

Service policy is more specific. It directs us to 

review the CCP at least once annually to decide if 

revisions are necessary (FWS 602 FW 3).

The same policy goes on to direct refuges to:

“Revise the CCP when significant new information becomes available, ecological conditions 

change, major refuge expansion occurs, or when 

we identify the need to do so during plan review. 

This should occur every 15 years or sooner, if 

necessary.”

In addition to the CCP, Refuge staff prepare a 

number of topic-specific management plans and 

step-down plans on a regular basis. Step-down 

management plans take general or broad goals 

and objectives and flesh out the fine details, such 

as strategies, tactics, and other direct 

management actions.

Six step-down plans focused on habitat, water 

management, pest management, visitor services, 

fishery management, and habitat and wildlife 

monitoring are scheduled to be completed within 

the next 5 years. See Chapter 5 of the CCP for 

details.