Patoka River 

National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval 

Submitted by: 

William McCoy 

It-: ,:Jl dOoS 

ate 

Refuge Manager 

Concur: 

Rick Frietsche 

Acting Refuge Supervisor, Area 2 

Nita 

~rn.~ M. Fuller 

Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System 

&>. Z Cf· 2008 

Date 

Patoka River

National Wildlife Refuge & Management Area

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

i

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

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

Purpose and Need for Plan .........................................................................................................................................1

Establishment of the Refuge .......................................................................................................................................3

Refuge Purposes .........................................................................................................................................................4

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

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................................4

The National Wildlife Refuge System ........................................................................................................................4

Legal and Policy Guidance ..........................................................................................................................................6

Compatibility Policy .............................................................................................................................................6

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy ........................................................................7

Other Guidance ....................................................................................................................................................7

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

Volunteers and Friends Group .....................................................................................................................................8

Museums and Repositories ........................................................................................................................................8

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

Public Scoping .............................................................................................................................................................9

The Comments .....................................................................................................................................................9

Internal Scoping .................................................................................................................................................10

Preparation, Publishing, Finalization and Implementation of the CCP .....................................................................11

Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities .....................................................................................................11

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management ................................................................................................14

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................14

Wetland Loss in Indiana ...........................................................................................................................................14

The Ohio River Valley Ecosystem ..............................................................................................................................16

Other Units Administered .........................................................................................................................................20

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ....................................................................................................................20

North American Waterfowl Management Plan ................................................................................................20

Partners In Flight ................................................................................................................................................21

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan .....................................................................................................................21

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas ........................................................................................................22

North American Bird Conservation Initiative ....................................................................................................23

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities ..................................................................................................24

Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy ................................................................................................................24

Other Recreation and Conservation Lands in the Area ............................................................................................24

Sugar Ridge Fish & Wildlife Area ....................................................................................................................24

Glendale Fish & Wildlife Area ..........................................................................................................................24
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ii

Pike State Forest ...............................................................................................................................................24

Ferdinand State Forest .....................................................................................................................................26

Other Recreation and Conservation Lands ........................................................................................................26

Socioeconomic Setting .............................................................................................................................................26

Population ..........................................................................................................................................................26

Employment .......................................................................................................................................................26

Income and Education .......................................................................................................................................27

Potential Refuge Visitors ...................................................................................................................................27

Climate ......................................................................................................................................................................27

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

Observed Climate Trends ..................................................................................................................................29

Scenarios of Future Climate ..............................................................................................................................29

Midwest Key Issues ..........................................................................................................................................29

Reduction in Lake and River Levels ............................................................................................................29

Agricultural Shifts ......................................................................................................................................30

Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems ....................................................................................30

Air Quality .................................................................................................................................................................31

Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................................................32

Geology ..............................................................................................................................................................32

Minerals .............................................................................................................................................................32

Oil ...............................................................................................................................................................32

Gas ..............................................................................................................................................................32

Coal .............................................................................................................................................................33

Soils ..........................................................................................................................................................................33

Bottomland Soil Associations ...........................................................................................................................33

Upland Soil Associations ...................................................................................................................................34

Water and Hydrology ...............................................................................................................................................35

Refuge Resources .....................................................................................................................................................37

Plant Communities .............................................................................................................................................37

Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................................37

Open Water ................................................................................................................................................38

Uplands .......................................................................................................................................................38

Invasive Plant Species ................................................................................................................................38

Threatened and Endangered Plants ...........................................................................................................39

Fish and Wildlife Communities .........................................................................................................................39

Birds ............................................................................................................................................................39

Mammals ...........................................................................................................................................................41

Game Mammals .........................................................................................................................................41

Furbearers ...................................................................................................................................................42

Nongame mammals ...................................................................................................................................43

Amphibians and Reptiles ...........................................................................................................................43

Fish .....................................................................................................................................................................44

Invertebrates ......................................................................................................................................................45

Insects ........................................................................................................................................................45

Molluscs .....................................................................................................................................................45

Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................................................................46

Threatened and Endangered Flora ....................................................................................................................46

Threatened and Endangered Fauna ...................................................................................................................46

Whooping Crane (Grus Americana) ............................................................................................................46
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iii

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ......................................................................................................46

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum) (Interior Population) ..................................................................................48

Fat Pocketbook (Potamilus capax) ..............................................................................................................48

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist) .....................................................................................................................48

Copperbelly Water Snake (Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta) ....................................................................49

Threats to Resources ................................................................................................................................................49

Invasive Species ................................................................................................................................................49

Contaminants .....................................................................................................................................................52

Interstate 69 ..............................................................................................................................................................55

Administrative Facilities ...........................................................................................................................................56

Archeological and Cultural Values ............................................................................................................................56

Current Management ................................................................................................................................................57

Habitat Management ........................................................................................................................................57

Forested Wetlands (Bottomland Forest) ....................................................................................................57

Emergent Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................60

Lakes and Ponds .........................................................................................................................................60

Patoka River, Oxbows, and Patoka Tributaries ..........................................................................................60

Water Quality .............................................................................................................................................60

Moist Soil Units ..........................................................................................................................................60

Grasslands ..................................................................................................................................................60

Upland Forests ............................................................................................................................................60

Cropland .....................................................................................................................................................61

Upland Openings ........................................................................................................................................61

Invasive Plant Species ................................................................................................................................61

Interior Least Tern Nesting Habitat ...........................................................................................................61

Private Lands and Watershed Management .............................................................................................61

Farm Services Administration Conservation Easements ...........................................................................61

Land Acquisition ........................................................................................................................................62

Wildlife Management .......................................................................................................................................62

Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................................62

Migratory and Resident Birds ....................................................................................................................62

Native Resident Wildlife ............................................................................................................................62

Fish and Other Aquatic Species .................................................................................................................62

Interior Least Terns ....................................................................................................................................62

Pest Management ......................................................................................................................................62

Fish and Wildlife Monitoring .............................................................................................................................62

Visitor Services ..................................................................................................................................................63

Hunting .......................................................................................................................................................63

Fishing ........................................................................................................................................................63

Wildlife Observation and Photography ......................................................................................................65

Interpretation ..............................................................................................................................................65

Environmental Education ............................................................................................................................65

Friends and Volunteers ...............................................................................................................................65

Outreach .....................................................................................................................................................65

Archeological and Cultural Values ....................................................................................................................65

Special Management Areas .......................................................................................................................65

Wilderness Review ...................................................................................................................................................65
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iv

Chapter 4: Management Direction ............................................................................................................................66

Goals, Objectives and Strategies ..............................................................................................................................66

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ................................................................................................................................82

New and Existing Projects ........................................................................................................................................82

Construct Visitor Parking Lots ...........................................................................................................................82

Completion of Observation Deck .......................................................................................................................82

Reconnect Oxbows on Patoka River ..................................................................................................................82

Maintenance and Construction of Storage Facilities ........................................................................................82

Macrotopography Wetlands ..............................................................................................................................82

Future Staffing Requirements ...................................................................................................................................83

Partnership Opportunities .........................................................................................................................................83

Step-down Management Plans ................................................................................................................................84

Archeological and Cultural Values ............................................................................................................................84

Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................85

Plan Review and Revision .........................................................................................................................................85

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact .......................................................................................................87

Appendix B: Glossary ..................................................................................................................................................91

Appendix C: Species Lists ..........................................................................................................................................97

Appendix D: Resource Conservation Priorities, Ohio River Valley Ecosystem .............................................119

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

Appendix F: Mailing List ...........................................................................................................................................131

Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations ..........................................................................................................137

Appendix H: List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................................139

Appendix I: Literature Cited .....................................................................................................................................143

Appendix J: Priority Refuge Operational and Maintenance Needs .................................................................151

Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP .......................................................................................155
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

v

List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of Patoka River NWR & MA ................................................................................................................2

Figure 2: Patoka River NWR & MA Delineations ..............................................................................................................5

Figure 3: Acquisition Authority, Patoka River NWR & MA .............................................................................................15

Figure 4: Ohio River Valley Ecosystem ............................................................................................................................17

Figure 5: Bird Conservation Region in Which Patoka River NWR & MA is Located ......................................................23

Figure 6: Other Conservation Lands in the Area of Patoka River NWR & MA ...............................................................25

Figure 7: Hydrology at Patoka River NWR & MA ............................................................................................................36

Figure 8: Projected Route of Interstate 69 ......................................................................................................................56

Figure 9: Current Landcover (West), Patoka River NWR & MA ......................................................................................58

Figure 10: Current Landcover (East), Patoka River NWR & MA ......................................................................................59

Figure 11: Current Visitor Facilities, Patoka River NWR & MA ......................................................................................64

Figure 12: Long-term (100 Years) Landcover, Patoka River NWR & MA (East) ..............................................................67

Figure 13: Long-term (100 Years) Landcover, Patoka River NWR & MA (West) ............................................................68

Figure 14: Current and Future Concept of Patoka River Channel ....................................................................................69

Figure 15: Current Staffing Chart, Patoka River NWR ....................................................................................................83

Figure 16: Staffing Required to Fully Implement Plan ....................................................................................................83

List of Tables

Table 1: Status of Land Acquisition, Patoka River NWR & MA .....................................................................................16

Table 2: Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Vascular Plants in Gibson and Pike Counties, Indiana, as of 2005 ............47

Table 3: Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Fauna in Gibson and Pike Counties, Indiana, as of 2005 ...........................50

Table 4: Invasive Plants and Animals at Patoka NWR/MA ............................................................................................53

Table 5: Step-down Management Plan Schedule ..........................................................................................................84

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Introduction

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area (NWR & MA) is a work in progress. 

Established in 1994, approximately one-fourth of 

the total area approved for acquisition is presently 

part of the Refuge. Acquiring additional lands 

within the approved boundary is an ongoing effort. 

The Refuge is the 502nd refuge within the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and second refuge established in the State of Indiana.

The Patoka River had long been recognized for 

its wetland and wildlife values on a local, statewide 

and regional basis. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, 

the Service proposed establishing a national wildlife 

refuge/wildlife management area along the Patoka 

River in Pike and Gibson Counties of southwestern 

Indiana (see Figure 1). The portion of the river 

included in the proposal contains one of the few 

remaining expanses of bottomland hardwood forest 

wetlands in Indiana and the midwestern United 

States. 

The area provides some of the best Wood Duck 

production habitat in all of Indiana. In all there are 

more than 380 species of wildlife on the Refuge, 

including the federally-listed endangered Indiana 

bat.

The area’s natural resources face considerable 

challenges. Along the Patoka River, ditching, diking 

and channelization dating back to the early 1900s 

contributed to wetland losses. Water quality in the 

Patoka River drainage was diminshed by over 

20,000 acres of abandoned coal mine lands, oil well 

development activities, intensive agricultural operations, and community effluent. 

Purpose and Need for Plan

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) 

articulates the management direction for Patoka 

River NWR & MA for the next 15 years. Through 

the development of goals, objectives, and strategies, 

the CCP describes how the Refuge contributes to 

the overall mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. Several legislative mandates within the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 have guided the development of this plan. 

These mandates include:

# Wildlife has first priority in the management of 

refuges. 

# Wildlife-dependent recreation activities: namely 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education and 

interpretation are priority public uses of 

refuges. We will facilitate these activities when 

they do not interfere with our ability to fulfill 

the refuges’ purpose or the mission of the 

Refuge System.

Migrating Trumpeter Swans. Patoka River NWR & MA. 

Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2

Figure 1: Location of Patoka River NWR & MA
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3

# Other uses of the Refuge will only be allowed 

when determined appropriate and compatible 

with Refuge purposes and mission of the 

Refuge System.

The plan will guide the management of Patoka 

River NWR & MA by:

# Providing a clear statement of direction for the 

future management of the Refuge.

# Making a strong connection between Refuge 

activities and conservation activities that occur 

in the surrounding area.

# Providing Refuge neighbors, users, and the 

general public with an understanding of the 

Service’s land acquisition and management 

actions on and around the Refuge.

# Ensuring the Refuge actions and programs are 

consistent with the mandates of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System.

# Ensuring that Refuge management considers 

federal, state, and county plans.

# Ensuring that Refuge management considers 

the preservation of historic properties.

# Establishing long-term continuity in Refuge 

management.

# Providing a basis for the development of budget 

requests on the Refuge’s operational, 

maintenance, and capital improvement needs.

Establishment of the Refuge

In 1986, the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act 

(Act) was enacted by Congress to promote the conservation of America's wetlands by intensifying 

cooperative efforts among federal agencies, states, 

local governments, and private interests for conservation, management, and acquisition of wetlands.

The Department of the Interior developed a 

National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan as 

directed by Section 301 of the Act, and in the Midwest Region a Regional Wetlands Concept Plan 

(USFWS, 1990) was prepared to provide a framework for protecting priority wetlands in the eight 

states states that make up the Region: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and 

Wisconsin. The Regional Wetlands Concept Plan 

provided the focus for acquisition, restoration and 

renewal of valuable wetlands, emphasizing those 

areas where losses are highest.

The stretch of the Patoka River running through 

Pike and Gibson Counties in southern Indiana was 

identified as a focus area within the 1990 Regional 

Wetlands Concept Plan. The area is part of the middle Mississippi River and lower Ohio River drainage 

and is characterized by rich bottomland hardwood 

wetlands that historically provided prime breeding 

and wintering habitat for species such as Wood 

Ducks, Mallards and Bald Eagles.

Patoka River NWR & MA was established in 

1994. The authorized boundary (also known as the 

“acquisition boundary”) – which delineates where 

the Service can acquire property from willing sellers – encompasses 23,743 acres of wetlands, floodplain forest, and upland buffer along 30 miles of the 

Patoka River corridor. Management objectives are 

identical for the National Wildlife Refuge, authorized at 6,970 acres, and the Management Area 

(MA), authorized for the remaining 15,847 acres. 

The separate designations avoid legal conflicts with 

the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

(SMCRA) of 1977. 

SMCRA prohibits surface mining within national 

wildlife refuges. Legally, this was interpreted to 

apply to all lands within the authorized boundary of 

a national wildlife refuge regardless of ownership. 

Much of the land along the Patoka River corridor is 

privately owned and underlain by surface and/or 

underground minable coal reserves. Designating 

the entire area within the boundary as a National 

Wildlife Refuge would have prohibited surface mining and required compensating land owners for the 

value of this property right.

To find a solution to this dilemma, the U.S. Office 

of Surface Mining was contracted to complete a coal 

study to determine which lands within the acquisition boundary were underlain by potentially minMallard nest, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: 

USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4

able coal reserves. The areas with coal deposits 

were delineated and identified as a “selection area” 

for the acquisition of Wildlife Management Areas 

instead of being identified as an acquisition area for 

the National Wildlife Refuge. Figure 2 shows the 

distribution of these areas within the Refuge boundary. This naming convention was done to avert a 

conflict with the SMCRA and to avoid the unintentional taking of surface minable coal rights of private land owners. It has no implications for the 

management of these areas.

Refuge Purposes

Refuge purposes are specified or derived from 

the law, proclamation, Executive Order, agreement, 

public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or 

expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. 

Patoka River NWR & MA has the following refuge 

purposes:

"... the conservation of the wetlands of the 

Nation in order to maintain the public benefits 

they provide and to help fulfill international 

obligations contained in various migratory bird 

treaties and conventions ...Ó 16 U.S.C. 3901(b) 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986)

"... particular value in carrying out the national 

migratory bird management program. 16 

U.S.C. 667b (An Act Authorizing the Transfer of 

Certain Real Property for Wildlife)

“... (1) to protect, enhance, restore, and manage 

an appropriate distribution and diversity of wetland ecosystems and other habitats for migratory birds and other fish and wildlife in North 

America; (2) to maintain current or improved 

distributions of migratory bird populations; and 

(3) to sustain an abundance of waterfowl and 

other migratory birds consistent with the goals 

of the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan and the international obligations contained 

in the migratory bird treaties and conventions 

and other agreements with Canada, Mexico, 

and other countries.” 16 U.S.C. 4401-4413 

(North American Wetlands Conservation Act)

Refuge Vision

The Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and 

Management Area restores, protects and manages a diverse bottomland hardwood forest ecosystem and associated habitats for migratory 

birds, threatened and endangered species, and 

indigenous fish and wildlife, while striving to 

develop citizen understanding and support for 

the protection of natural resources by providing 

wildlife-related education and recreation opportunities. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is 

the primary federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the nation's fish and 

wildlife populations and their habitats. The Service 

administers the lands of the National Wildlife Refuge System, oversees the enforcement of federal 

wildlife laws, management and protection of migratory bird populations, restoration of nationally significant fisheries, administration of the Endangered 

Species Act, and the restoration of wildlife habitat 

such as wetlands. 

The National Wildlife Refuge 

System

Refuge lands are part of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, which was founded in 1903 when 

President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican 

Island in Florida as a sanctuary for brown pelicans. 

Today, the System is a network of more than 540 refuges covering more than 93 million acres of public 

lands and waters. Most of these lands (82 percent) 

are in Alaska, with approximately 16 million acres 

located in the lower 48 states and several island territories. The National Wildlife Refuge System is the 

world's largest collection of lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides habitat 

for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish, 

and insects. As a result of international treaties for 

migratory bird conservation as well as other legislation, such as the Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

of 1929, many refuges have been established to protect migratory waterfowl and their migratory flyways from their northern nesting grounds to 

southern wintering areas. Refuges also play a vital 

role in preserving endangered and threatened species. Among the most notable is Aransas National 

Wildlife Refuge in Texas, which provides winter 

habitat for the Whooping Crane. Likewise, the Florida Panther NWR protects one of the nation's most 
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5

Figure 2: Patoka River NWR & MA Delineations
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

6

endangered predators, and the Mississippi Sandhill 

Crane NWR an endangered, non-migratory species 

of the Sandhill Crane. 

Refuges also provide unique opportunities for 

people. When it is compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation, they are places where people can 

enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation such as hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation. 

Many refuges have visitor centers, wildlife trails, 

automobile tours, and environmental education programs. Nationwide, approximately 39.5 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2003. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established several important 

mandates aimed at making the management of 

national wildlife refuges more cohesive. The preparation of comprehensive conservation plans is one of 

those mandates. The legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and purposes of 

the individual refuges are carried out. It also 

requires the Secretary to maintain the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

are to:

# Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats, including species that are 

endangered or threatened with becoming 

endangered.

# Develop and maintain a network of habitats for 

migratory birds, anadromous and 

interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal 

populations that is strategically distributed and 

carefully managed to meet important life 

history needs of these species across their 

ranges. 

# Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, 

wetlands of national or international 

significance, and landscapes and seascapes that 

are unique, rare, declining, or 

underrepresented in existing protection efforts.

# Provide and enhance opportunities to 

participate in compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

o b se r v a t i o n a n d p h o t o g r a ph 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. 

Legal and Policy Guidance

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established several important 

mandates aimed at making the management of 

national wildlife refuges more cohesive. The preparation of CCPs is one of those mandates. The Act 

directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and purposes of the individual refuges are carried 

out. The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act requires the 

Secretary to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health and to identify the 

archeological and cultural values of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. The Act deals with compatibility of uses on refuges and directs the Secretary 

of Interior to issue regulations for compatibility 

determinations. The Act also directs that compatible 

wildlife-dependent uses should be facilitated. Since 

passage of the Act, the Service has adopted policies 

that implement direction of the Act. 

Compatibility Policy

Service policy says that no uses for which the 

Service has authority to regulate may be allowed on 

a unit of the Refuge System unless it is determined 

to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, in 

the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract 

from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System mission or the purposes of the national wildlife refuge. Managers must complete a written compatibility determination for each use, or collection of 

Snakey Point fishing pier, Patoka River NWR & MA. 

Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

7

like uses, that is signed by the manager and the 

Regional Chief of Refuges in the respective Service 

region. 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health Policy

The Service is directed in the Refuge Improvement Act to “ensure that the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge 

System are maintained for the benefit of present 

and future generations of Americans...” The biological integrity policy helps define and clarify this 

directive by providing guidance on what conditions 

constitute biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; guidelines for maintaining existing levels; guidelines for determining how and when 

it is appropriate to restore lost elements; and guidelines in dealing with external threats to biological 

integrity, diversity and health. 

Other Guidance

In addition to the Refuge’s establishing executive 

orders, authorizing legislation, and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 

several Federal laws, executive orders, and regulations govern administration of the Refuge. Appendix E contains a partial list of the legal mandates 

that guided the preparation of this plan and those 

that pertain to Refuge management activities.

Existing Partnerships

Working with others through intra- and interagency partnerships is essential to accomplishing 

the mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service as well 

as assisting Patoka River NWR & MA in achieving 

its purposes and vision. Partnerships with other federal and state agencies and with a diversity of public 

and private organizations are increasingly important. Other agencies can provide invaluable assistance in research and maintenance. Private groups 

and non-profit organizations greatly enhance public 

involvement in the Refuge, building enthusiasm and 

support for its mission.

Within the Ohio River Valley ecosystem in which 

Patoka River NWR is located, the Service partners 

with a number of other agencies and institutions, 

both governmental and non-governmental. These 

include:

# State conservation and natural resources 

agencies, including the Indiana Department of 

Natural Resources (Indiana Wildlife and 

Fisheries);

# Federal agencies, including the U.S. Forest 

Service, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, National Park Service, U.S. Geological 

Survey Biological Resources Division, and 

Natural Resources Conservation Service;

# Local governments;

# Institutions of higher learning;

# Local landowners and businesses

# Non-governmental conservation organizations

Besides the partnerships that the Fish and Wildlife Service holds on the national and regional (ecosystem) level, Patoka River NWR maintains formal 

and informal working partnerships with the following agencies, non-governmental conservation organizations, and businesses:

# Indiana Department of Natural Resources

# Division of Fish and Wildlife 

# Division of Mining and Reclamation

# Division of Oil and Gas

# Division of Nature Preserves

Foxglove beard-tongue, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo 

credit: USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

8

# Indiana Heritage Trust

# Indiana Department of Transportation

# USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS)

# Gibson County Coal

# Duke Energy (an electric utility operating the 

Gibson Generating Station) 

# Ducks Unlimited

# Evansville Chapter of the National Audubon 

Society

# Waterfowl U.S.A.

# Quail Unlimited

# National Wild Turkey Federation

# National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

# PRIDE – Refuge Friends 

# Izaak Walton League

# U.S. Army Corps of Engineers- Louisville

# U.S.Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation

Volunteers and Friends Group

The Refuge also relies on the selfless dedication 

of volunteers to extend the efforts of staff. Volunteers play an important role in the management and 

maintenance of the fish and wildlife resources on 

Patoka River Wildlife Refuge. In an era of flat or 

declining budgets, it is more important now than 

ever that volunteers step forward to help protect 

and preserve our natural resource heritage for 

present and future generations to enjoy. 

Patoka River NWR also has an informal Friends 

group that has helped implement projects like construction of the fishing pier and trail at Snakey 

Point and the South Fork Fishermans Trail.

Museums and Repositories

The Refuge has no reported museum property 

on- or off-site; no natural history specimens, no artwork, nor historic documents or photographs nor 

any other kind of historical material. The several 

cultural resources surveys conducted on the Refuge 

have produced no archeological collections.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

9

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Patoka River NWR’s CCP has been written with 

input and assistance from citizens, non-governmental conservation organizations (NGOs), and other 

government agencies. The participation of these 

stakeholders is vital and all of their ideas have been 

valuable in determining the future direction of the 

three refuges. Refuge and regional staff – indeed, 

the entire U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – are 

grateful to all of those who have contributed time, 

expertise and ideas throughout the comprehensive 

conservation planning process. We appreciated the 

enthusiasm and commitment expressed by many for 

the lands and living resources administered by 

Patoka River NWR.

Public Scoping

Work on the comprehensive conservation plan 

began with a public scoping meeting held on October 14, 2004 at the Indiana Department of Natural 

Resources’ Sugar Ridge Fish and Wildlife Area 

Office, south of Winslow, Indiana. More than 30 people attended the meeting to offer their ideas for the 

Refuge’s management.

People attending the meeting were offered a variety of ways to submit their comments. Refuge staff 

and regional planners were available to talk about 

issues, and staff used a computer to write a short 

summary of the conversation so that it would be 

recorded. Attendees could also use a survey form or 

index card to submit written comments. In addition, 

staff prepared questions about Refuge management 

to post throughout the room, and people attending 

the meeting were invited to use red or green stickers to indicate whether they supported a given idea 

or not.

Staff also invited people to record their experiences on Patoka River NWR on a timeline.

The Comments

There were a number of comments about land 

acquisition. Most were supportive of additional land 

acquisition with some noting frustration with the 

land appraisal process. Others mentioned that insufficient funds were hampering acquisition efforts. 

Two comments opposed additional funding for land 

acquisition.

Some comments expressed concern about management of lands presently owned by the Refuge 

citing the need for additional money and staff to 

carry out proper management. Trespassing from 

Refuge lands onto adjoining private lands was seen 

as a problem by some, and a number supported 

increased law enforcement presence.

Opinion on hunting was mixed, with some people 

supporting additional hunting opportunities. Others 

said that hunting should not be allowed on some 

Canada Geese, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit:

USFWS
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

10

portions of the Refuge; some were interested in limiting hunting to encourage wildlife and others were 

interested in preserving portions of the Refuge for 

wildlife observation even during hunting seasons. 

There was support and some opposition to establishing sanctuary areas where no hunting would occur.

A number of individual comments supported 

allowing a variety of uses including night fishing, 

harvesting nuts, berries, and mushrooms, and trapping.

There was strong support for a visitor center. 

Additional trails as well as user fees were supported 

by some and opposed by others. 

A number of people expressed concern about the 

potential construction of Interstate 69 and the effect 

it may have on the Refuge.

Another survey question asked whether there 

should be more trails on the Refuge. Most of the 

comments supported additional trails, with one person saying he or she supported more trails except 

where they might inhibit wildlife. One commenter 

said the Refuge does not need additional trails, and 

another said that the existing trails need greater 

visibility in the community. 

Concern about the effect the Interstate 69 

project might have on the Refuge was expressed in 

responses to a survey question asking what changes 

might help or challenge the Refuge. Two people 

expressed reservations about the project’s effect on 

the Refuge and a third person said that depending 

on how it’s done the highway project could have 

either a good or bad effect on the Refuge.

Problems facing the Refuge were described as 

funding for acquisition, funding in general, all-terrain vehicles, and visibility.

Nine people attending the meeting supported an 

entrance or user fee while two people indicated that 

they did not support a fee. 

Internal Scoping

On April 19, 2005 the Regional Office held an 

internal scoping meeting on the development of the 

Patoka River NWR Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan. People attending the meeting included the 

Deputy Regional Director, the Deputy Chief of Refuges, the Chief of Engineering, and staff from the 

Division of Conservation Planning, the Division of 

Migratory Birds, the Division of Ecological Services, the Division of Visitor Services, the Division of 

Realty, and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

Regional Office staff idenfitied several issues that 

should be addressed in the comprehensive conservation plan: 

# How will the Interstate 69 project affect the 

Refuge? The location of exits, a rest stop and 

a pull off all have positive and negative 

aspects for the Refuge.

# What is a reasonable acquisition goal for next 

15 years? 

# Land acqusition is difficult for the Service 

right now because of funding issues. 

# Is there potential for increasing the number 

of accesses to the Refuge? 

# Are there opportunities for moving the 

Refuge’s Headquarters to property owned by 

the Service or other government agency 

instead of continuing to lease space?

# More law enforcement presence is needed. Is 

there any potential for an agreement with the 

State Conservation Officers?

# The Refuge needs greater local visibility.

# Are there funding sources available that 

would help the Region get enough money to 

buy larger properties?

# There is potential for improving fishery 

habitat in a variety of ways, including 

connecting oxbows, increasing the hydrology 

of the oxbows, possibly cleaning out some of 

the oxbows that are filling in. The Refuge 

currently cannot afford these projects, but 

staff should develop a fisheries management 

plan in the event that the Service is able to 

acquire necessary tracts. 

Flooded river oxbow, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo 

credit: USFWS
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

11

# Increasing fishing opportunities is of 

considerable local interest.

# There are several endangered species in the 

area, including the copperbelly watersnake. 

The copperbelly watersnake conservation 

agreement area encompasses a large part of 

the Refuge area; nine coal companies signed 

this agreement; it kept the Service from 

listing the copperbelly watersnake if the 

areas in the conservation area are not mined.

Preparation, Publishing, 

Finalization and 

Implementation of the CCP

The Draft CCP and Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for Patoka River NWR & MA were prepared by a contractor with a great deal of input, 

review and support from Refuge staff and the Service’s Regional Office. The Draft CCP/EA was published in two phases and in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 

Draft EA (Appendix A of the Draft CCP) presented 

a range of alternatives for future management and 

identified the preferred alternative, which formed 

the basis of the Draft CCP. A 30-day public review 

period, which included a public meeting, followed 

release of the draft CCP. Verbal and written comments received by the Service have been incorporated where appropriate. 

The alternative that was ultimately selected has 

become the basis of the ensuing Final CCP. 

This document then, becomes the basis for guiding management on the Refuges and the management areas over the coming 15-year period. It will 

guide the development of more detailed step-down 

management plans for specific resource areas; it will 

underpin the annual budgeting process through 

project submittals to the Service Asset and Maintenance Management System (SAMMS). Most importantly, it lays out the general approach to managing 

habitat, wildlife, and people at Patoka River NWR 

and Wildlife Management Area that will direct dayto-day decision-making and actions.

The Draft CCP/EA was released for public 

review and comment on October 17, 2007. A Draft 

CCP/EA or a summary of the document was sent to 

more than 416 individuals, organizations, and local, 

state, and federal agencies and elected officials. An 

open house event was held on November 7, 2007, at 

the Sugar Ridge Fish and Wildlife Area headquarters following release of the draft document. We 

received a total of 18 comment letters and e-mails 

during the 45-day review period. Appendix K of the 

CCP summarizes these comments and our 

responses. Several of the comments resulted in 

changes in the CCP.

Summary of Issues, Concerns 

and Opportunities

Issue Statement 

The Service often cannot compete with other 

buyers for properties within the Refuge’s acquisition boundary due to lack of funds. This makes 

it difficult to grow the Refuge at a time when 

interest in and demand for public land is 

increasing.

Background: Since the Refuge was established in 

1994, the Service has acquired 6,162 out 23,743 acres 

within the acquisition boundary. The Land Protection Plan groups land parcels within the acquisition 

boundary into four priority classes:

# Bottomlands supporting natural habitat and 

parcels essential to the restoration of a 

woodland corridor along the length of the 

Patoka River within the Project boundary; 

# Bottomland farmland in the floodplain; 

# Upland forest and reclaimed land; and 

# Upland farmland and other lands, such as 

Channelized section, Patoka River, Patoka River NWR & abandoned mine lands. 

MA. Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

12

There are more willing sellers than funds available, and acquisition budgets are declining as land 

values around the Refuge rise. Economic growth 

and the potential construction of Interstate 69 are 

likely to continue to drive up land values. Many 

scoping respondents supported additional land 

acquisition. The Refuge continues to work with 

partners such as Ducks Unlimited to acquire property. 

Issue Statement

Local public support of the Refuge has been 

closely tied to hunting and fishing. There is 

demand to provide areas for other wildlifedependent uses and for wildlife sanctuary, 

which could reduce the amount of the Refuge 

open to hunting and fishing.

Background: All but 606 acres of the 6,162 acres 

of Refuge lands are open to hunting and fishing consistent with Indiana DNR regulations. Hunting is 

prohibited on about 5 acres surrounding a trail and 

boat launch, and within a single 113-acre block of 

reclaimed mine land. This block will be open to 

hunting when the lands meet reclamation criteria 

and the bond collected from the mining company is 

released. Hunting also is prohibited on the 488-acre 

Cane Ridge Wildlife Management area 24 miles 

west of the Refuge office. The number of other wildlife-dependent uses is growing and facilities constructed to support these uses are popular with 

visitors. During scoping, respondents suggested 

providing additional trails and other facilities as well 

as designating a portion of the Refuge as a waterfowl sanctuary free of hunting. Others opposed any 

reduction of lands open to hunting and fishing.

Issue Statement

There is demand for additional public use on the 

Refuge. Some of the uses are not wildlifedependent.

Background: Local residents grew accustomed to 

recreating on private lands because absentee landowners, usually coal companies, did little to enforce 

against trespass. Today, these landowners are leasing the land and more aggressively enforcing trespassing laws. With fewer places to recreate, use has 

shifted to Refuge lands. Also, economic prosperity 

within the region has drawn more people to the 

area. Some of these newcomers also recreate on 

Refuge lands. The Refuge is open to the priority 

wildlife-dependent uses noted in the 1997 Refuge 

Improvement Act (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation). Other uses 

have been authorized through a special use permit 

system at the discretion of the Refuge Manager. A 

number of scoping comments suggested that recreation opportunities on the Refuge could make it a 

tourist destination. Others requested specific uses 

of Refuge lands.

Issue Statement

Refuge habitats are at risk from a number of 

threats such as agricultural runoff, coal mining, 

potential construction of Interstate 69, illegal 

uses such as All-Terrain Vehicles (ATV’s), and 

development of lands not yet acquired.

Background: Most of these threats to land and 

resources in the area preceded establishment of the 

Refuge in the 1990s. They are long-term threats to 

the quality and quantity of terrestrial and aquatic 

wildlife habitat in the area. Water quality impairment from agricultural runoff and coal mining may 

have improved somewhat since the Refuge’s establishment. Construction of Interstate 69 has not yet 

occurred, but continues to loom ever closer. Land 

development – both residential and commercial, and 

to some extent industrial – has accelerated in recent 

years as the area’s amenities (accessible outdoors, 

semi-rural/small town lifestyle, low housing prices 

and cost of living) have attracted outsiders and 

returning native-born residents alike. 

Issue Statement 

The patchwork of public and private lands 

within the Refuge boundary can be confusing to 

visitors and may lead to conflicts with adjoining 

private land owners.

Community involvement, Patoka River NWR & MA. 

Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

13

Background: Approximately 75 percent of the 

lands within the Refuge’s acquisition boundary are 

not owned by the Service. The Refuge has a small 

scale map showing ownership, but Refuge boundaries are not posted and the patchwork of public and 

private lands within the acquisition boundary could 

easily confuse visitors. One scoping respondent 

expressed concern about trespass from neighboring 

Refuge lands.

Issue Statement

Demand for visitor services, facilities, information, and environmental education exceeds 

existing supply and/or the capacity of existing 

staff and budgets. 

Background: Refuge visitation continues to climb 

and is currently estimated at 21,221 visitors per 

year. Presently, the Refuge has maps and fact sheets 

available during business hours at the Refuge office. 

The staff and volunteers deliver off-Refuge environmental education programs several times per year, 

but there is additional demand that is not being met. 

A number of scoping respondents requested additional Refuge information, environmental education, 

or facilities.

Issue Statement

Some Visitor Services facilities do not meet U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service standards.

Background: As a relatively new Refuge with no 

park ranger or public use/visitor services specialist 

on site, Patoka River NWR has not yet developed 

facilities or visitor services on a par with many older 

refuges. During scoping, many participants called 

attention to a need for greater information about 

the Refuge and what it has to offer to be made available to the public via e-mail, the Internet, newsletters, signage, and so forth. Respondents expressed 

unawareness of the existence of trails for wildlife 

observation, for example. There is no visitor center 

on the Refuge to provide information, interpretation, and environmental education.

Issue Statement

Refuge ecosystems and the effects of management activities (including public use) are not 

well understood.

Background: Sustaining wildlife populations is 

central to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, but in many cases information is lacking regarding the success of management activities 

or the effect of public uses on Refuge wildlife. This 

hampers managers’ ability to adapt habitat management practices or modify public uses in ways that 

best sustain wildlife numbers. Presently, the Refuge 

monitors the Least Terns at Cane Ridge WMA, conducts seasonal waterfowl, shorebird and breeding 

songbird counts, bands Wood Ducks, and contributes to the Indiana DNR’s annual turkey call survey. 

Monitoring of uses as well as management activities 

is necessary to determine success or thresholds.

Issue Statement

Productivity (fishery) is declining in some 

oxbow lakes along the channelized portion of 

the Patoka River.

Background: In the 1920s area residents channelized a portion of the Patoka River in an attempt to 

drain nearly 100,000 acres of forested wetlands for 

farming. Known as Houchin’s Ditch and beginning 

at the town of Winslow, the project replaced 36 miles 

of natural, meandering river with about 17 miles of 

dredged, straight ditch. The dredged spoil deposited on both sides of the ditch cut off 19 miles of natural river meanders on the north and south sides of 

the new ditch main channel. Water exchange within 

these cut off oxbows is now limited to periods of high 

water. Heavy sediment loads during these periods 

result in increased deposition in the oxbows. Consequently, the oxbows are becoming shallower and 

hold water for a shorter duration. Although this process occurs in all natural riverine systems, new 

oxbows are continually being created as river meanders are severed from the main channel. In the case 

of Houchins’s Ditch, these oxbows are not being 

replaced and the associated wetland habitat is being 

lost. 

American lotus, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: 

USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

14

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and 

Management

Introduction

Established in 1994, the Patoka River National 

Wildlife Refuge and Management Area is located in 

Pike and Gibson counties in southwestern Indiana. 

It was created under authority of the Emergency 

Wetlands Resources Act in part to protect one of 

two remaining intact floodplain forest systems 

within Indiana. The river corridor project encompasses 30 miles of the Patoka River and 19 miles of 

oxbows with a total of 12,700 acres of existing wetlands. 

Presently, the acquisition boundary for the NWR 

& MA includes 23,743 acres. This differs from the 

22,083 acres included in the Record of Decision for 

the 1994 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

that established the Refuge & MA. There are two 

reasons for this difference. The first is that past 

methods of calculating acres (e.g. summing acres 

found in tax records or plat books) have given way 

to computerized Geographic Information Systems 

(GIS) that rely on standardized data which provide 

greater uniformity of acreage values. It is important 

to note that for legal transactions deed acres remain 

the legal standard, but habitat acreage figures 

throughout this document are based on GIS generated values. In the EIS the area within the acquisition boundary was stated at 22,083 acres. The same 

boundary is calculated to contain 22,817 acres using 

GIS protocols. The second reason for the acreage 

difference is that an additional 926 acres have been 

authorized for acquisition since the original boundary was established, bringing the total area authorized for acquisition to the present figure of 23,743 

acres. The Refuge also administers a 219-acre parcel transferred to the Service from the Farm Services Agency now known as White River Bottoms. 

Although managed by Refuge staff, and part of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System it is not included 

as part of the Patoka River NWR & MA and does 

not figure in the total acreage. See Figure 3 and 

Table 1. 

Most of the information in this chapter comes 

from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

prepared in conjunction with the establishment of 

the Patoka River National Wetlands Project 

(USFWS, 1994). The wetlands project led to the creation of Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and 

Management Area.

Wetland Loss in Indiana

The 20th century witnessed a dramatic decline in 

the acreage of America’s wetland habitat that is so 

critical to maintaining migratory bird and other 

Great Horned Owl nest, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo 

credit: USFWS
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

15

Figure 3: Acquisition Authority, Patoka River NWR & MA
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

16

wildlife populations. By the close of the century and 

the dawn of the new millennium, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service estimated that nationally, only 103 

million acres (less than half) remained of the estimated 221 million acres of wetlands that existed in 

the lower 48 states at the time of Euro-American 

settlement.

In the State of Indiana, long-term wetland loss 

has been even more dramatic. Of the estimated 5.5 

million acres of wetlands that existed in Indiana at 

the time of settlement, only 813,000 acres (15 percent) remained by the 1990s (Rolley, 1991), according to the most recent and complete analysis of the 

state’s wetland resources (Indiana WETlands, 

2004). Historically, about 85 percent of this wetland 

loss has been for agricultural purposes with the 

remainder attributable to urban and industrial 

development (IDNR, 1988). In the mid-1990s, the 

Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife and the 

USFWS estimated an annual loss of 5 percent of 

remaining wetlands. However, wildlife biologists 

and conservationists held hope that compliance with 

the "Swampbuster" provisions of the 1985 and 1990 

farm bills, alongside with increasing awareness by 

farmers of the importance of wetlands, could moderate future wetland losses due to agricultural conversion.

Of the wetlands remaining in Indiana, only a 

small percentage remains as they existed 200 years 

ago. Few of the state's natural wetlands now support 

their original complement of plants and animals. 

This biological diversity has been degraded as a 

result of impacts to water quality, alterations of 

water levels and upstream watersheds and other 

surface disturbances. The seriousness of this loss is 

best recognized by the fact that over 120 different 

plants that occur naturally in wetlands and over 60 

species of wetland-dependent animals are listed as 

either endangered, threatened or of special concern 

by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources 

(IDNR). Of all wetland types, the palustrine forested wetlands (bottomland hardwoods) have been 

identified in Indiana as the "state wetland priority 

type." This means priority for protection is based on 

the historical pattern of loss and alterations occurring in Indiana and the multiple values they have to 

fish, wildlife and plant resources (IDNR, 1988). 

The Ohio River Valley 

Ecosystem

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has adopted 

an ecosystem approach to conservation because we 

cannot look just at an individual animal, species, or 

fragment of land in isolation from all that surrounds 

it. The Service has recognized some 53 ecosystems 

in the conterminous 48 states. We recognize that we 

are not going to achieve conservation within the 

boundaries of a National Wildlife Refuge, or restore 

aquatic resources with a National Fish Hatchery, 

and that listing an endangered species is not going 

to conserve the system on which it depends. The 

ecosystem approach thus strives to be comprehensive. It is based on all of the biological resources 

within a watershed (the total land area from which 

water drains into a single stream, lake, or ocean) 

and it considers the economic health of communities 

within that watershed landscape. An ecosystem 

approach to fish and wildlife conservation means 

protecting or restoring the function, structure, and 

species composition of an ecosystem while providing 

for its sustainable socioeconomic use. 

Patoka River NWR & MA is located within the 

Ohio River Valley Ecosystem (ORVE) as currently 

defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This 

ecosystem drains a total area of approximately 

141,000 square miles and includes portions of 10 

states. The Ohio River, which is the backbone of this 

ecosystem, is formed by the confluence of the 

Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers at Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania and flows 981 miles in a southwesterly 

direction to its confluence with the Mississippi River 

at Cairo, Illinois (ORVET, no date). 

Table 1: Status of Land Acquisition, Patoka River NWR & MA

Description Acres Cited 

in 1994 EIS

Current GIS Acres

Establishment acquisition boundary 22,083 22,817

Additional lands approved for acquisition -- 926 

Total acres authorized for acquisition -- 23,743

FSA Lands (White River Bottoms) -- 219
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

17

The Ohio River ecosystem bisects three regions 

of the Deciduous Forest Formation of eastern North 

America: the Mixed Mesophytic Forest Region 

(upper basin, roughly upstream of Portsmouth, 

Ohio), the Western Mesophytic Forest Region 

(lower basin from Portsmouth, Ohio, to Paducah, 

Kentucky), and the Mississippi Alluvial Plain Section of the Southeastern Evergreen Forest Region 

(lowermost portion of the basin from Paducah, Kentucky, to Cairo, Illinois (USFWS, 1999). (See 

Figure 4) 

The mixed mesophytic and western mesophytic 

forests have been classified broadly as a tulip poplar-oak region. The dense, mixed mesophytic forest 

contains a fair abundance of two indicator species, 

white basswood and yellow buckeye, in a total group 

of 15 to 20 dominant species. The western mesophytic forest is marked by a transition from extensive mixed mesophytic communities in the east to 

extensive oak and oak-hickory communities in the 

west. The western mesophytic forest is less dense, 

has few dominants, and usually lacks the two indicator species of the mixed mesophytic forest.

In the lower, downstream portion of the ecosystem, near Paducah, Kentucky, the Ohio River enters 

the northernmost extension of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain. In this alluvial region, three subdivisions 

of "bottomland forest" (i.e., palustrine forested wetland) are recognized: swamp forest, hardwood bottoms, and ridge bottoms. The swamp forest, 

consisting principally of cypress and tupelo gum, 

occupies land on which water stands throughout the 

year except during periods of extreme drought. The 

hardwood bottoms contain a large number of species, frequently flood, and generally remain covered 

with water through the late winter and spring. 

Ridge bottoms contain some of the tree species of 

hardwood bottoms, but have a larger number of 

oaks and hickories; occurring at slightly higher elevations than hardwood bottoms, these areas are covered by water only during floods (USFWS, 1999). 

Figure 4: Ohio River Valley Ecosystem 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

18

The rich flora and fauna of the ORVE reflect its 

diverse physiography and unique geologic past. 

Numerous Service trust resources occur in the ecosystem, including many federally listed endangered/ 

threatened plants, mussels, fishes, birds and mammals; waterfowl and other migratory water birds; 

and neotropical migratory land birds.

The unusually rich and diverse fauna found in the 

ecosystem is the product of a multitude of biotic and 

abiotic factors which have evolved over time. 

Throughout geologic time, changes in such factors 

as topography, climate, and geomorphology have 

formed, modified, and eliminated habitats and consequently have had a profound effect upon the distribution of the faunal assemblages in the 

ecosystem. Due to the ecosystem's central geographical location in the eastern United States, 

some species with northern affinities and others 

with southern affinities occur in the ecosystem in 

addition to those common to the central region of 

the country (USFWS, 1999).

Over the past few centuries of Euro-American 

settlement and industrialization, the Ohio River Valley ecosystem has been subjected to many environmental stresses which have diminished the bounty 

of its living resources. Much of the region's economic activity – agriculture, lumbering, mining, 

energy production, manufacturing, and recreation – 

is based on the watershed's natural resources. Sustaining most of these activities requires maintenance of a healthy ecosystem. Stress from human 

activities has adversely affected the ecological integrity of the ORVE, and there are indications that this 

stress is increasing.

Environmental alteration and degradation are 

continuing challenges to the maintenance of a productive and healthy ORVE. Resources of the area 

are threatened by land conversion, poor land-use 

practices, direct and indirect physical alteration of 

the area's rivers and streams, acid mine drainage 

and acid precipitation, destruction of wetland habitats, and both point- and nonpoint-source discharges of pollutants. Herbicides, insecticides, 

nutrients, and sediment are significant components 

of the agricultural runoff that adversely affect 

aquatic systems throughout the area. Acid precipitation from sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides from 

power plants and other airborne pollutants are having dramatic effects on aquatic and terrestrial communities, particularly at high elevations (USFWS, 

1999). 

Natural resources are further threatened by an 

expanding human population and its increased 

demand for renewable and nonrenewable resources. 

Contamination of both aquatic and terrestrial systems through acid mine drainage and the accidental 

release of toxic chemicals is a continuing threat. 

Operation and maintenance of the inland navigation 

system and the recent invasion of the non-native 

zebra mussel are having significant adverse impacts 

on native flora and fauna of the area's rivers and 

streams. Other non-native species are threatening 

native components of aquatic and terrestrial systems throughout the area. The expansion of urban 

and suburban areas within the ecosystem and the 

concurrent loss of forest, wetlands, agricultural 

lands, and other types of open space associated with 

this expansion have reduced the quantity and quality of natural habitats available to fish and wildlife.

The Service published a strategic plan on conserving the trust resources of the ORVE in 1999 

(USFWS, 1999). The plan set forth four goals:

1. Protect, restore and enhance habitats and 

essential processes necessary to maintain 

healthy native animal and plant populations.

2. Protect, restore and enhance diversity of 

native flora and fauna.

3. Promote and support compatible and sustainable uses of the ecosystem's resources and 

utilize existing laws, regulations, and influence to control incompatible and unsustainable uses of these resources.

4. Develop public awareness and support for 

ecosystem resource issues. 

Restoring habitat through partnerships Patoka River 

NWR & MA. Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

19

The strategic plan also identified seven resource 

priorities:

Resource Priority 1: In cooperation with partners, reverse the decline of native aquatic mollusks 

within the Ohio River Valley Ecosystem with 

emphasis on endangered, threatened and candidate 

species and species of concern. 

Resource Priority #2: In cooperation with partners, reverse the decline and achieve stable, viable 

populations of migratory landbirds and other bird 

species of concern.

Resource Priority 3: In cooperation with partners, reverse the decline of native fishes with 

emphasis on interjurisdictional listed and candidate 

species and species of concern.

Resource Priority 4: In cooperation with partners, protect and restore karst/cave habitat supporting listed and candidate species and species of 

concern.

Resource Priority 5: In cooperation with partners, protect and restore wetland, riverine and 

riparian habitat in the Ohio River watershed for the 

protection and enhancement of migratory waterbirds and other wetland dependant species of concern.

Resource Priority 6: In cooperation with partners, reduce the decline and promote the recovery 

of rare resources identified as listed/proposed 

threatened and endangered species, candidate species and species of concern not otherwise addressed 

in Resource Priorities 1- 5 (e.g. plants, reptiles, 

amphibians, etc.).

Resource Priority 7: In cooperation with partners, achieve the necessary level of protection for 

those high priority areas within the Ohio River Valley Ecosystem that would help meet the goals of the 

ORVE Team. In particular, emphasis will be placed 

on the objectives of Resource Priorities 1 through 6 

and Public Use Priority 1.

A number of action strategies accompanied these 

resource priorities in the strategic plan. In addition, 

the plan contained one public use priority:

Public Use Priority 1: In cooperation with partners, promote and support sustainable fish and wildlife-oriented recreational uses while maintaining the 

long-term health of the ecosystem and the Service's 

trust resources.

The Service's ORVE Team has several important 

roles. Primary among them is serving as an advocate at the field level for federal trust fish and wildlife resources within the Ohio River watershed. This 

includes reviewing the Team's resource priorities 

and charting a direction for the Team to ensure it 

addresses the highest priority resource needs. To 

facilitate accomplishment of the Team's on-theground efforts, the Team actively seeks funding, 

explores expansion of existing partnerships and 

establishment of new ones, and seeks ways to 

involve all interested stakeholders (USFWS, 1999).

The ORVE Team is comprised of representatives 

of each of the Service's field offices located within 

the Region 3 (Midwest), 4 (Southeast), and 5 (Northeast) portions of the Ohio River Valley watershed. 

In addition, representatives from the respective 

Service regional offices, as well as several state fish 

and wildlife agencies, participate as Team members. 

Typically, the Team meets three times per year at 

various locations within the ecosystem.

Snowy Egret. Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

20

The Team's seven Sub-groups are the primary 

mechanisms for conducting activities on the ground. 

The Sub-groups correspond to the Team's resource 

priorities, i.e., fish and wildlife and associated habitats, and its public use priority. They are, in no priority order: native aquatic mollusks; migratory land 

birds and other bird species of concern; native 

fishes; karst/cave habitat; wetland, riverine, and 

riparian habitat; declining and rare species; and fish 

and wildlife-oriented recreational use. In addition to 

the Sub-groups, the Team has established four 

Standing Committees to conduct activities that generally cut across all priority resources. The Standing Committees address GIS needs and activities, 

outreach, acid mine drainage and valley fills, and 

land protection (USFWS, 1999). 

Other Units Administered

The staff of Patoka River NWR & MA administers two units apart from the main body of the Refuge: Cane Ridge and White River Bottoms. Both 

units are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, but White River Bottoms is not officially 

included as part of the total acreage comprising the 

Patoka River Refuge & MA.

The 488-acre Cane Ridge Wildlife Management 

Area lies 24 miles west of the Refuge headquarters 

near the confluence of the White, Patoka, and 

Wabash Rivers, a traditional waterfowl migration 

and wintering area. Acquired by a coalition of conservation partners, the property became part of 

Patoka River NWR & MA in 1999. The area 

includes 193 acres of moist soil wetlands in four 

management units, 180 acres of reforested bottomland hardwoods, and a 59-acre deep water impoundment with nesting islands that provide habitat for 

the federally endangered Least Tern. Cane Ridge 

WMA is a Globally Important Bird Area.

The 219-acre White River Bottoms Wildlife Management Area lies 9 miles to the north of Oakland 

City. This WMA lies just to the northwest of Petersburg on the south side of the White River. Although 

not officially included as part of Patoka River NWR 

& MA, White River Bottoms became part of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System when control of 

the land was transferred to the Service in 1994 from 

the Farm Services Agency. It has been restored 

from agricultural fields by being planted to bottomland hardwood trees. 

Migratory Bird Conservation 

Initiatives

Over the last decade, bird conservation planning 

has become increasingly exciting as it has evolved 

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

regional, landscape-oriented perspective. Significant challenges include locating areas of high-quality habitat for the conservation of particular guilds 

and priority bird species, making sure no species 

are inadvertently left out of the regional planning 

process, avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort, 

and identifying unique landscape and habitat elements of particular tracts targeted for protection, 

management and restoration. Several migratory 

bird conservation initiatives have emerged to help 

guide the planning and implementation process. 

Collectively, they comprise a tremendous resource 

as Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area engages in comprehensive conservation planning and its translation into effective onthe-ground management.

North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan

Signed in 1986, the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan (NAWMP) outlines a broad 

framework for waterfowl management strategies 

and conservation efforts in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The goal of the NAWMP is to 

restore waterfowl populations to historic levels 

throughout the continent. The NAWMP is designed 

to reach its objectives through key joint venture 

areas, species joint ventures, and state implementation plans within these joint ventures. 

Patoka River NWR & MA is in the Upper Mississippi River-Great Lakes Joint Venture. The boundaries of this joint venture extend across Minnesota, 

Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and 

Michigan. They include important migration and 

staging areas that were converted to agriculture. 

The purpose of the Upper Mississippi River-Great 

Lakes Joint Venture is to increase populations of 

waterfowl and other wetland wildlife by protecting, 

restoring, creating, and enhancing wetlands and 

associated upland habitats. Joint venture partners 

include private landowners, the National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation, state agencies, and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Partners are endeavoring 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

21

to increase public awareness through information 

and education and are providing incentives to private landowners (Graziano and Cross, 1993).

The 1998 NAWMP Update established a habitat 

objective for the Upper Mississippi – Great Lakes 

Joint Venture of protecting 1,329,000 acres of waterfowl and wetland habitat and restoring or enhancing 

another 605,200 acres (NAWMP, 1998). 

A 2004 update to the NAWMP set a target of conserving 758,572 additional acres of waterfowl and 

wetland habitat in the Upper Mississippi – Great 

Lakes Joint Venture through a combination of 

securement, protection, restoration, enhancement, 

and management (NAWMP, 2004).

Partners In Flight

Formed in 1990, Partners in Flight (PIF) is concerned primarily with landbirds and has developed 

Bird Conservation Plans for numerous Physiographic Areas across the U. S. (see http://www.partnersinflight.org). These plans include priority 

species lists, associated habitats, and management 

strategies. Patoka River NWR lies within PIF 

Physiographic Area 14, the Interior Low Plateaus 

Area. 

The Interior Low Plateaus form a diverse landscape consisting of six distinct subregions that 

extends from north Alabama across central Tennessee and Kentucky into southern Illinois, Indiana, 

and Ohio. Its hilly topography sets it apart from the 

Coastal Plain to the south and Prairie Peninsula to 

the north. To the west, the Mississippi River valley 

separates the Interior Low Plateaus from the Ozark 

Highlands. Western mesophytic, oak-hickory, and 

beech-maple forests were historically the most 

abundant cover types. There were also tallgrass 

prairie elements in the north and northwest, oak 

savannahs in the Bluegrass and other northern sections, barrens and glades in central regions, and forested wetlands along major waterways (PIF, no 

date).

Habitat loss through conversion to agriculture 

and other uses and the fragmentation and reduced 

quality of what remains are the biggest conservation challenges in this area. Grasslands and savannahs have been converted to cool season pasture. 

Many glades and barrens have become urban areas, 

and others have been overtaken by woody vegetation due to fire suppression. Floodplain forests have 

largely been either inundated by reservoirs or converted to row crops. Conservation objectives vary 

by subregion, but in general, in order to perpetuate 

existing high priority species and to create an 

opportunity to re-establish two extirpated species 

(Greater Prairie-Chicken and Swallow-tailed Kite), 

the following actions should be implemented:

# Sustain existing forested acreage, with about 80 

percent in hardwoods and the remainder in 

short-rotation pine management;

# Manage about 400,000 ha of that hardwood 

forest in long rotation patches of about 4,000 ha 

each;

# Consolidate an additional 90,000 ha of forested 

wetland;

# Additionally, restore 40,000 ha of native warm 

season grass and oak savannah habitat; and

# Incorporate bird conservation into ongoing 

barren and glade conservation projects.

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan

Partners from state and federal agencies and 

NGOs from across the country combined their 

resources and expertise to develop a conservation 

strategy for migratory shorebirds and their habitats. The plan provides a scientific framework to 

determine species, sites, and habitats that most 

urgently need conservation action. Main goals of the 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, which was completed in 2000, are to ensure that adequate quantity 

and quality of shorebird habitat is maintained at the 

local level and to maintain or restore shorebird populations at the continental and hemispheric levels. 

Separate technical reports were developed for a 

conservation assessment, research needs, a comprehensive monitoring strategy, and education and outreach. These national assessments were used to step 

down goals and objectives into 11 regional conservaNesting Interior Least Tern. Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

22

tion plans. Although some outreach, education, 

research, monitoring, and habitat conservation programs are being implemented, accomplishment of 

conservation objectives for all shorebird species will 

require a coordinated effort among traditional and 

new partners. The U. S. Shorebird Conservation 

Plan Council serves as the steering committee for 

the U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and oversees 

the implementation of the regional, national, and 

international goals of the Plan. Meetings of the 

Council are held twice a year (USFWS, no date).

Under the Shorebird Conservation Plan, Patoka 

River NWR is located in the Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes Region (UMVGL), which is covered 

by a regional plan prepared in 2000 and updated in 

2006 (de Szalay et al., 2006). The UMVGL region is 

a diverse area that includes five Bird Conservation 

Regions and provides important habitat for shorebirds, especially migrants. Thirty-two shorebird 

species occur in the region, with 25 being common or 

abundant. Twenty-three species are of moderate or 

higher concern in the region. High-priority species 

include: greater yellowlegs, whimbrel, buff-breasted 

sandpiper, short-billed dowitcher, marbled godwit, 

Wilson's phalarope, upland sandpiper, American 

woodcock, and the Federally-listed piping plover; 

the latter five species breed in the region. 

Various habitats within the region, including natural and managed wetlands, river floodplains, lake 

shoreline, sand and gravel bars, reservoirs, and 

flooded agricultural fields, provide the shallow 

water and sparsely-vegetated conditions required 

by foraging shorebirds. However, like other interior 

areas, the UMVGL region experiences dynamic climatic conditions, making habitat conditions for 

shorebirds unpredictable. Moreover, loss of wetlands from urban development, river dredging and 

diking, and agriculture has reduced the amount of 

habitat in the region. A primary goal of this 

UMVGL regional shorebird plan is to ensure the 

availability of shorebird foraging and nesting sites 

over a range of climatic conditions by protecting, 

restoring, and managing a variety of habitat types 

throughout the UMVGL region. 

Waterbird Conservation for the 

Americas

Formerly known as the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Waterbird Conservation for 

the Americas (WCA) is an independent, international, broad-based, and voluntary partnership created to link the work of individuals and institutions 

having interest and responsibility for conservation 

of waterbirds and their habitats in the Americas 

(WCA, 2005a). WCA’s vision is that the distribution, 

diversity, and abundance of populations and habitats 

of breeding, migratory, and nonbreeding waterbirds 

are sustained or restored throughout the lands and 

waters of North America, Central America, and the 

Caribbean. The geographic extent of the WCA initiative includes North America, Central America, 

the islands and waters of the Caribbean, the Pacific 

Ocean including the U.S.-associated Pacific Islands, 

and the western Atlantic Ocean including Bermuda. 

The WCA includes the interests of 29 nations.

The term “waterbird” refers to bird species 

dependent on aquatic habitats to complete portions 

of their life cycles. It includes seabirds, coastal 

waterbirds, wading birds, and marsh birds. The 

WCA focuses these groups. Shorebirds and waterfowl, while indeed waterbirds, are the subject of 

their own initiatives (discussed above). 

Under WCA, planning regions were created to 

allow planning at a scale that is practical yet provides landscape-level perspective. Regional boundaries are based on a combination of both political 

and ecological considerations. Patoka River NWR is 

situated in the Upper Mississippi Valley/Great 

Lakes (UMVGL) Region, within a subregion known 

as Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 24, the Central 

Hardwoods. Like the NAWMP, WCA has also established joint ventures, and that of BCR 24 is called 

the Central Hardwoods Joint Venture (CHJV). 

The UMVGL Region provides a wide variety of 

waterbird nesting, roosting and foraging habitats, 

including marshes, ponds, creeks, streams, sloughs, 

lake shorelines, islands (especially in the Great 

Lakes), shoals, river floodplains (especially along 

the Mississippi, Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio Rivers), 

and reservoirs. Forty-six waterbird species regularly occur in the region during at least one portion 

of the year, including loons, grebes, pelicans, cormorants, herons, night-herons, egrets, bitterns, rails, 

moorhens, coots, cranes, gulls and terns, and 19 of 

these species are of high conservation, stewardship 

or management concern. In the context of the continental, the region is extremely important for many 

of these waterbird species. Though the UMVGL 

Region has experienced major declines in wetland 

habitat over the last 200 years, the northern portion 

of the UMVGL Region still contains large amounts 

of wetlands and the Great Lakes are a stronghold 

for island breeders (WCA, 2005b). 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

23

A Regional Plan for waterbird management and 

conservation is currently being prepared and 

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge figures in 

that plan, which described the Refuge as, “one of the 

most significant bottomland hardwood forests 

remaining in the Midwest.” 

North American Bird Conservation 

Initiative

In a continental effort, the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and Waterbird 

Conservation for the Americas planning efforts are 

being integrated under the umbrella of the North 

American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). 

The goal of NABCI is to facilitate the delivery of the 

full spectrum of bird conservation through regionally-based, biologically-driven, landscape-oriented 

partnerships (see http://www.dodpif.org/nabci/

index.htm). The NABCI strives to integrate the 

conservation objectives for all birds in order to optimize the effectiveness of management strategies. 

NABCI also uses BCRs as its planning units. BCRs 

are becoming increasingly common as the unit of 

choice for regional bird conservation efforts; as it 

does for the WCA initiative, Patoka River NWR lies 

within BCR 24, the Central Hardwoods for the purposes of the NABCI (see Figure 5). 

Each of the above four bird conservation initiatives has a process for designating conservation priority species, modeled to a large extent on the PIF 

method of calculating scores based on independent 

assessments of global relative abundance, breeding 

and wintering distribution, vulnerability to threats, 

area importance (at a particular scale, e.g. PA or 

BCR), and population trend. These scores are often 

used by agencies in developing lists of bird species 

of concern; e.g., the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

based its assessments for its 2001 list of nongame 

Birds of Conservation Concern primarily on the 

PIF, shorebird, and waterbird status assessment 

scores.

Figure 5: Bird Conservation Region in Which Patoka River NWR & MA is Located
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

24

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Priorities

Every species is important. But the number of 

species in need of attention exceeds the resources of 

the Service. To focus effort effectively, Region 3 of 

the Fish and Wildlife Service compiled a list of 

Resource Conservation Priorities. The list includes:

# all federally listed threatened and endangered 

species and proposed and candidate species that 

occur in the Region

# migratory bird species derived from Service 

wide and international conservation planning 

efforts

# rare and declining terrestrial and aquatic plants 

and animals that represent an abbreviation of 

the Endangered Species program’s preliminary 

draft “Species of Concern” list for the Region.

Appendix D includes 116 Resource Conservation 

Priority species within the Ohio River Valley Ecosystem and notes those known to occur on the Refuge.

Indiana Comprehensive 

Wildlife Strategy

The Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy 

completed in 2006 identifies conservation priorities 

within Indiana. Patoka River NWR & MA staff contributed to the plan and the Refuge provides habitat 

for more than 50 of the birds, mammals, reptiles, 

and amphibians listed in the Strategy as conservation priorities (see Appendix C: Species Lists).

Other Recreation and 

Conservation Lands in the 

Area

Sugar Ridge Fish & Wildlife Area 

Sugar Ridge Fish & Wildlife Area, owned and 

managed by the Indiana Department of Natural 

Resources (IDNR), is unique in that much of the 

land has been strip-mined for coal and since 

reclaimed. Sugar Ridge (Figure 6) is made up of six 

separate areas, totaling approximately 8,100 acres, 

interspersed with the USFWS’s Patoka River NWR 

holdings. The strip-mined land now features about 

100 pits and lakes, along with rows of overburden 

from the mining operation. The land that has not 

been mined is mostly rough and rolling. A large part 

of the land which is now Sugar Ridge Fish and Wildlife Area (Areas I, II and III) was once leased from 

Amax Coal Company. Leasing began in 1964 and 

continued until 1980 when most of the land was 

donated to the Division of Fish and Wildlife (IDNR, 

no date-a). 

Sugar Ridge is open to various forms of outdoor 

recreation by the public, including hunting (deer, 

squirrel, and wild turkey are common); fishing on 

145 acres in 24 major fishing pits for such sport fish 

as bluegill, redear, channel catfish, and largemouth 

bass; trapping (by drawing only); and wildlife 

watching on upland game habitat, wooded reclaimed 

mine areas and stripper pits which attract a wide 

variety of song birds, woodpeckers, hawks, and 

waterfowl. In addition, mushrooms, berries and 

nuts may be gathered. A written permit is required 

to remove plants, animals, rocks and fossils (IDNR, 

no date-a). 

Glendale Fish & Wildlife Area 

The Indiana DNR’s Glendale Fish & Wildlife 

Area maintains 8,060 acres of land and over 1,400 

acres of lakes and impoundments about 12 miles 

north of Patoka River NWR. These lands and 

waters provide quality hunting and fishing opportunities for the public, as well as wildlife watching and 

camping in designated areas. Wetland trapping is 

available by drawing only (IDNR, no date-b).

Acquisition began in 1956, and land purchases 

were made through the 1960s. Several minor purchases were made in the 1970s. The construction of 

the dam that formed Dogwood Lake began in 1963 

and was completed in 1965. The lake, with an average depth of eight feet, was renovated in 1978 and 

restocked with fish in 1979 (IDNR, no date-b). 

Pike State Forest 

 Pike State Forest, owned and operated by Indiana DNR’s Division of Forestry, sits astride the 

Patoka River adjacent to Patoka River NWR 

toward its eastern side. The State Forest (SF) consists of 3,889 acres which vary from hilly uplands to 

the low bottomlands of the river. Due to its diverse 

habitats, a wide variety of plant and animal life 

make their homes at Pike SF. Several recreational 

opportunities are available on the SF, including 

hunting, horseback riding, picnicking, bird watching 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

25

Figure 6: Other Conservation Lands in the Area of Patoka River NWR & MA
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

26

and hiking. Visitors can also camp for a fee, with 

sites available on a first come, first serve basis 

(IDNR, 2005a). 

Acquisition of the land that makes up Pike State 

Forest began in the 1930s, and continues through 

the present day. Most of the historic buildings on the 

property were constructed by the Works Progress 

Administration (WPA) during the Great Depression, 

using material cut from local timber stands.

Ferdinand State Forest 

Ferdinand State Forest is located about 20 miles 

southeast of Patoka River NWR. This State Forest 

consists of 7,700-acres with limited acquisition still 

occurring. In 1933, the 900 acres that became the 

SF were purchased by a local conservation club to 

build a lake and establish an area to hunt and fish. 

The club offered management of the project to the 

Indiana Department of Conservation the following 

year, marking the establishment of Ferdinand State 

Forest (IDNR, 2005b). In 1934, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) built a camp there, as well as 

roads, service buildings, and one of the most beautiful forest lakes in the state. Ferdinand SF has excellent deer and squirrel hunting and the surrounding 

area is rich in German heritage.

The state forest offers primitive camping, fishing, 

boating, swimming, picnicking, mountain biking, 

and hunting for whitetail deer, turkey, squirrel, fox 

and raccoon. 

Other Recreation and Conservation 

Lands

Within an hour or two’s drive from Patoka River 

NWR in southwestern Indiana are a number of 

other federal and state parks, forests, and fish and 

wildlife areas offering outdoor recreation and heritage tourism. These include New Harmony State 

Historic Site, Harmonie State Park (west of Patoka 

Refuge, along the Wabash River separating Indiana 

from Illinois), Hovey Lake Fish & Wildlife Area, 

Lincoln State Park, Jackson Recreation Area, Hoosier National Forest, and Patoka Lake, an 8,800-

acre flood control lake 60 miles upstream of the refuge and cooperatively managed by the Army Corps 

of Engineers and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 

Socioeconomic Setting

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area is located in Pike and Gibson Counties, Indiana, and is in close proximity to Daviess, 

Dubois, Knox, Spencer, and Warrick Counties. Compared to the State of Indiana as a whole this sevencounty area has a smaller population growth rate 

and is less racially and ethnically diverse. On average, the area’s population has a lower median 

income, and less high school and college education 

than the state’s population. 

Population

The total population of the seven counties was 

226,861 in the 2000 Census (USCB, 2006). The population increased 6.9 percent during the 1990s while 

the state’s population increased 9.7 percent. Warrick County grew the most at 16.6 percent, and 

Knox the least at minus 1.6 percent. The sevencounty population was 97.3 percent white in 2000; 

the State population was 87.5 percent white. In Indiana, 6.4 percent of the people 5 years and older 

speak a language other than English at home; in the 

seven-county area the figure is 4.6 percent.

Employment

In 2000 there were a total of 21,744 full- and parttime jobs in Pike and Gibson counties. Farm/forestry/fishing employment accounted for about five 

percent of the jobs across the area. The manufacturing and education/health/social services industries 

Grey wood/beaver flooding, Patoka River NWR & MA. 

Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

27

were and are the largest economic and employment 

sectors in these counties (USCB, 2000a; USCB, 

2000b). 

Income and Education

Average per-capita income in the seven-county 

area was $18,619 in 1999; in Indiana it was $20,397. 

The median household income in the seven-county 

area was $40,057 in 1999; in the state it was $41,567 

(USCB, 2006).

In the seven-county area, 14.8 percent of persons 

over 25 years of age hold a bachelor’s degree or 

higher. The comparable figure in the state is 19.4 

percent. This discrepancy is typical of the difference 

between largely rural areas like these seven counties and entire state populations which include large 

numbers of more urban residents who are professionals and have higher educational attainment on 

average (USCB, 2006). 

Potential Refuge Visitors

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

behavior data for an area within an approximate 60 

mile radius. The data were organized by zip code 

areas. We used a 60 mile radius because we thought 

this was an approximation of a reasonable drive to 

the Refuge for an outing. 

The consumer behavior data that we used in the 

analysis is derived from Mediamark Research Inc. 

data. The company collects and analyzes data on 

consumer demographics, product and brand usage, 

and exposure to all forms of advertising media. The 

consumer behavior data were projected by Tetrad 

Computer Applications Inc. to new populations 

using Mosaic data. Mosaic is a methodology that 

classifies neighborhoods into segments based on 

their demographic and socioeconomic composition. 

The basic assumption in the analysis is that people 

in demographically similar neighborhoods will tend 

to have similar consumption, ownership, and lifestyle preferences. Because of the assumptions made 

in the analysis, the data should be considered as relative indicators of potential, not actual participation.

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

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

at the number of people who potentially might hold 

a membership in an environmental organization.

The consumer behavior data apply to persons 

greater than 18 years old. For the area that we 

included in our analysis, out of a total population of 

1,233,654 the population of persons greater than 18 

years old was 925,980. The estimated maximum participants in the 60 mile radius for each activity are: 

birdwatching (72,351), photography (99,570), hunting (82,727), freshwater fishing (146,610), and hiking 

(86,325). The number of persons who might hold a 

membership in an environmental organization is 

estimated at about 19,941. The projections represent the core audience for repeated trips to the Refuge. On days with special events or major 

attractions such as when large numbers of birds are 

at the Refuge, visitors can be expected to travel 

longer distances. 

Climate

The Refuge lies in the path of moisture-bearing 

low pressure formations that move from the western Gulf region, northeastward over the Mississippi 

and Ohio Valleys to the Great Lakes and northern 

Atlantic Coast. Much of the area’s precipitation 

results from these storm systems, especially in the 

cooler part of the year. The average annual precipitation totals 44.2 inches. Of this total, about 23 

inches, or nearly 52 percent, falls during the growing season of April to September. The highest and 

lowest annual precipitation totals for the period of 

record are 64.8 inches in 1945 and 28.0 inches in 

1887, respectively. Maximum monthly precipitation 

is 15.1 inches while the minimum is 0.05 inches. The 

average seasonal snowfall is about 13.5 inches. On 

the average, 3 days out of the year have at least 1 

inch of snow on the ground (NOAA, 1991).

Winter scenery, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: 

USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

28

Convective thunderstorms developing in the maritime tropical air from the Gulf of Mexico and squall 

line activity seem to be the factors which combine to 

supply summer rainfall. Severe storms are rather 

infrequent, but high winds and hail often accompany 

these storms and can cause isolated property damage. The area is in “tornado alley,” with the potential 

for tornados highest in early spring and late fall. 

The tornado frequency is probably less than one 

every 10 years.

In winter the average temperature is 34 degrees 

Fahrenheit, with an average daily minimum of 25 

degrees. The lowest temperature on record (January 17, 1977) is minus 18 degrees. In summer the 

average temperature is 76 degrees, and the average 

daily maximum is 87 degrees. The highest recorded 

temperature (September 2, 1953) is 104 degrees 

(NOAA, 1991). Based on the average dates the first 

and last killing frosts, the area normally has 180 to 

190 frost free days per year (SCS, 1989). 

Prevailing wind direction is from the south-southwest. Strong and cold north to northwest winds 

occur from late autumn to early spring as large 

domes of arctic high pressure move into the Midwest. The strongest winds occur during a deep winter storm passage through the Lower Ohio Valley.

The average relative humidity is mid-afternoon is 

roughly 60 percent. Humidity is higher at night and 

the average at dawn is about 85 percent.

Climate Change

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an 

order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies, 

under its direction, that have land management 

responsibilities to consider potential climate change 

impacts as part of long range planning endeavors.

The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) within the 

earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual 

rise in surface temperature commonly referred to 

as global warming. In relation to comprehensive 

conservation planning for national wildlife refuges, 

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

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

defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and 

secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be 

emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.”

Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon 

sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts – 

grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, and desert – 

are effective both in preventing carbon emission and 

acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric 

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

to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent 

loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. 

Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the 

heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife 

refuges. The actions proposed in this CCP would 

conserve or restore land and habitat, and would 

thus retain existing carbon sequestration on the 

Refuge. This in turn contributes positively to efforts 

to mitigate human-induced global climate change.

One Service activity in particular – prescribed 

burning – releases CO2 directly to the atmosphere 

from the biomass consumed during combustion. 

However, there is actually no net loss of carbon, 

since new vegetation quickly germinates and 

sprouts to replace the burned-up biomass and 

sequesters or assimilates an approximately equal 

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

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

change in the amount of carbon sequestered at 

Patoka NWR from any of the proposed management alternatives.

Several impacts of climate change have been 

identified that may need to be considered and 

addressed in the future:

# Habitat available for cold water fish such as 

trout and salmon in lakes and streams could be 

reduced.

# Forests may change, with some species shifting 

their range northward or dying out, and other 

trees moving in to take their place.

# Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breeding 

habitat due to stronger and more frequent 

droughts.

# Changes in the timing of migration and nesting 

could put some birds out of sync with the life 

cycles of their prey species.

# Animal and insect Species historically found 

farther south may colonize new areas to the 

north as winter climatic conditions moderate

The managers and resource specialists on the 

Refuge need to be aware of the possibility of change 

due to global warming. When feasible, documenting 

long-term vegetation, species, and hydrologic 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

29

changes should become a part of research and monitoring programs on the Refuge. Adjustments in refuge management direction may be necessary over 

the course of time to adapt to a changing climate.

The following paragraphs are excerpts from the 

2000 report, Climate Change Impacts on the United 

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

Assessment Synthesis Team, an advisory committee 

chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act to help the US Global Change Research Program fulfill its mandate under the Global Change 

Research Act of 1990. These excerpts are from the 

section of the report focused upon the eight-state 

Midwest region.

Observed Climate Trends

Over the 20th century, the northern portion of the 

Midwest, including the upper Great Lakes, has 

warmed by almost 4oF (2oC), while the southern 

portion, along the Ohio River valley, has cooled by 

about 1oF (0.5oC). Annual precipitation has 

increased, with many of the changes quite substantial, including as much as 10 to 20% increases over 

the 20th century. Much of the precipitation has 

resulted from an increased rise in the number of 

days with heavy and very heavy precipitation 

events. There have been moderate to very large 

increases in the number of days with excessive moisture in the eastern portion of the basin.

Scenarios of Future Climate

During the 21st century, models project that temperatures will increase throughout the Midwest, 

and at a greater rate than has been observed in the 

20th century. Even over the northern portion of the 

region, where warming has been the largest, an 

accelerated warming trend is projected for the 21st 

century, with temperatures increasing by 5 to 10 

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

increase as much as 1 degree to 2 degrees Fahrenheit (0.5 to 1 degree Celsius) more than the maximum temperature. Precipitation is likely to continue 

its upward trend, at a slightly accelerated rate; 10 to 

30 percent increases are projected across much of 

the region. Despite the increases in precipitation, 

increases in temperature and other meteorological 

factors are likely to lead to a substantial increase in 

evaporation, causing a soil moisture deficit, reduction in lake and river levels, and more drought-like 

conditions in much of the region. In addition, 

increases in the proportion of precipitation coming 

from heavy and extreme precipitation are very 

likely. 

Midwest Key Issues

Reduction in Lake and River Levels

Water levels, supply, quality, and water-based 

transportation and recreation are all climate-sensitive issues affecting the region. Despite the projected increase in precipitation, increased 

evaporation due to higher summer air temperatures 

is likely to lead to reduced levels in the Great Lakes. 

Of 12 models used to assess this question, 11 suggest significant decreases in lake levels while one 

suggests a small increase. The total range of the 11 

models’ projections is less than a 1-foot increase to 

more than a 5-foot decrease. A 5-foot (1.5- meter) 

reduction would lead to a 20 to 40 percent reduction 

in outflow to the St. Lawrence Seaway. Lower lake 

levels cause reduced hydropower generation downstream, with reductions of up to 15 percent by 2050. 

An increase in demand for water across the region 

at the same time as net flows decrease is of particular concern. There is a possibility of increased 

national and international tension related to 

increased pressure for water diversions from the 

Lakes as demands for water increase. For smaller 

lakes and rivers, reduced flows are likely to cause 

water quality issues to become more acute. In addition, the projected increase in very heavy precipitation events will likely lead to increased flash 

flooding and worsen agricultural and other nonpoint source pollution as more frequent heavy rains 

wash pollutants into rivers and lakes. Lower water 

levels are likely to make water-based transportation 

more difficult with increases in the costs of navigation of 5 to 40 percent. Some of this increase will 

likely be offset as reduced ice cover extends the navigation season. Shoreline damage due to high lake 

levels is likely to decrease 40 to 80 percent due to 

reduced water levels. 

Adaptations: A reduction in lake and river levels 

would require adaptations such as re-engineering of 

ship docks and locks for transportation and recreation. If flows decrease while demand increases, 

international commissions focusing on Great Lakes 

water issues are likely to become even more important in the future. Improved forecasts and warnings 

of extreme precipitation events could help reduce 

some related impacts. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

30

Agricultural Shifts

Agriculture is of vital importance to this region, 

the nation, and the world. It has exhibited a capacity 

to adapt to moderate differences in growing season 

climate, and it is likely that agriculture would be 

able to continue to adapt. With an increase in the 

length of the growing season, double cropping, the 

practice of planting a second crop after the first is 

harvested, is likely to become more prevalent. The 

CO2 fertilization effect is likely to enhance plant 

growth and contribute to generally higher yields. 

The largest increases are projected to occur in the 

northern areas of the region, where crop yields are 

currently temperature limited. However, yields are 

not likely to increase in all parts of the region. For 

example, in the southern portions of Indiana and 

Illinois, corn yields are likely to decline, with 10-20 

percent decreases projected in some locations. Consumers are likely to pay lower prices due to generally increased yields, while most producers are 

likely to suffer reduced profits due to declining 

prices. Increased use of pesticides and herbicides 

are very likely to be required and to present new 

challenges. 

Adaptations: Plant breeding programs can use 

skilled climate predictions to aid in breeding new 

varieties for the new growing conditions. Farmers 

can then choose varieties that are better attuned to 

the expected climate. It is likely that plant breeders 

will need to use all the tools of plant breeding, 

including genetic engineering, in adapting to climate 

change. Changing planting and harvest dates and 

planting densities, and using integrated pest management, conservation tillage, and new farm technologies are additional options. There is also the 

potential for shifting or expanding the area where 

certain crops are grown if climate conditions 

become more favorable. Weather conditions during 

the growing season are the primary factor in yearto-year differences in corn and soybean yields. 

Droughts and floods result in large yield reductions; 

severe droughts, like the drought of 1988, cause 

yield reductions of over 30 percent. Reliable seasonal forecasts are likely to help farmers adjust 

their practices from year to year to respond to such 

events.

Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems

The Upper Midwest has a unique combination of 

soil and climate that allows for abundant coniferous 

tree growth. Higher temperatures and increased 

evaporation will likely reduce boreal forest acreage, 

and make current forestlands more susceptible to 

pests and diseases. It is likely that the southern 

transition zone of the boreal forest will be susceptible to expansion of temperate forests, which in turn 

will have to compete with other land use pressures. 

However, warmer weather (coupled with beneficial 

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

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

climate models indicate that higher air temperatures will cause greater evaporation and hence 

reduced soil moisture, a situation conducive to forest fires. As the 21st century progresses, there will 

be an increased likelihood of greater environmental 

stress on both deciduous and coniferous trees, making them susceptible to disease and pest infestation, 

likely resulting in increased tree mortality. 

As water temperatures in lakes increase, major 

changes in freshwater ecosystems will very likely 

occur, such as a shift from cold water fish species, 

such as trout, to warmer water species, such as bass 

and catfish. Warmer water is also likely to create an 

environment more susceptible to invasions by nonnative species. Runoff of excess nutrients (such as 

nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer) into lakes 

and rivers is likely to increase due to the increase in 

heavy precipitation events. This, coupled with 

warmer lake temperatures, is likely to stimulate the 

growth of algae, depleting the water of oxygen to 

the detriment of other living things. Declining lake 

levels are likely to cause large impacts to the current distribution of wetlands. There is some chance 

that some wetlands could gradually migrate, but in 

areas where their migration is limited by the topography, they would disappear. Changes in bird popuWood Duck pair, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: 

USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

31

lations and other native wildlife have already been 

linked to increasing temperatures and more 

changes are likely in the future. Wildlife populations 

are particularly susceptible to climate extremes due 

to the effects of drought on their food sources. 

Air Quality

The U. S. Environmental Protection agency has 

established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and welfare 

from the detrimental effects of air pollution. 

Acquired lands of the Refuge and MA are located in 

areas designated as Nonattainment for Fine Particulate Matter PM-2.5. These areas include Cane 

Ridge WMA in Montgomery Township, Gibson 

County and the White River Bottoms WMA in 

Washington Township, Pike County. Air pollution 

concentrations for fine particulate matter is above 

the NAAQS levels for this "criteria pollutant" regulated by the Clean Air Act. 

Southwest Indiana is in the Illinois Coal Basin 

and is blessed with rivers and large quantities of 

coal. These natural resources have resulted in the 

concentration of many coal-fired power plants. In 

fact, southwest Indiana has the highest concentration of coal-fired power plants per given area of anywhere on earth. As such, air pollution associated 

with these power plants is at a high level which 

explains why six of the seven counties in southwest 

Indiana are all or partially in Nonattainment for 

Fine Particulate Matter (PM- 2.5).

The “criteria pollutants” identified by the EPA as 

part of the Clean Air Act include carbon monoxide(CO), ozone(O3), nitrogen oxides(NOx), sulfur 

dioxide(SO2), lead(Pb) and particulate matter(PM). 

The Clean Air Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration(PSD) program sets strict standards to 

limit the amount of additional pollutants(SO2), nitogen dioxide(NO2) and total suspended particulate 

concentrations) that can be released into the air 

within designated Attainment Areas. Under this 

program, Attainment Areas are divided into three 

classes, each allowing different levels of additional 

pollutants. The Refuge and MA as well as most of 

Indiana, is currently a Class II Attainment Area. A 

Class II designation allows moderate additional 

deterioration of air quality unless the area comes 

under Nonattainment status. Nonattainment status 

means any new source or proposed modifications to 

existing sources of air pollutants must provide for 

offset reductions in existing pollution so that the air 

quality does not deteriorate even further. 

Primary pollutants affecting the area's air quality 

are fine particulate matter, SO2 and NO2, all of 

which are associated with coal-burning power 

plants. Nitrogen oxide is a major component of 

ozone smog and fine particulate matter. these pollutants are known to cause premature mortality and 

aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular disease, 

lung disease and asthma. Most vulnerable to these 

air pollutants are older adults, people with heart and 

lung disease, children and pregnant women. 

Of the many coal-fired power plants in southwest 

Indiana, several contribute more concentrated pollutants to the air shed of the Refuge and MA based 

on their closer proximity and location considering 

prevailing winds. To the west is Duke Energy's Gibson Generating Station (third largest in world based 

on 3,250 megawatts), to the north is Indianapolis 

Power and Light and the Frank E. Ratts Generating 

Station of Hoosier Energy Division and to the south 

is the Alcoa Generating Plant in Warrick County 

and the American Electric Power - Indiana Michigan Power Plant at Rockport.

These and other coal -fired plants are all making 

major investments in pollution control devices to 

reduce emissions. However, their emissions are still 

increasing due to an increase in the amount of coal 

being burned to produce more power and changes in 

the blends of coal being burned. Atmospheric concentrations of these EPA "criteria pollutants" can 

only improve with offset reductions of existing pollution sources. 

At the beginning of this 21st century, private 

industry is being spurred on to construct new ethanol refineries and biofuel power plants with offers of 

Federal subsidies, relaxation of air pollution standards for ethanol refineries and new regulations 

requiring energy production from renewable fuel 

sources. In recognition of the increasing demand for 

more electric power sources and the Federal mandate to increase the use of fuels made from renewable resources, the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management (IDEM) is preparing a 

new Air Monitoring Station Plan to increase the 

number of air monitoring stations across the State. 

The location of these new Air Monitoring Stations 

will better document existing air pollution Nonattainment locations and serve as a guide for locating 

new sources of pollution away from existing Nonattainment Areas.

Construction of the new-terrain I-69 Interstate 

highway crossing through the Refuge and MA will 

make this a high growth potential area. For the long 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

32

term protection and management of the biological 

resources of the Refuge and MA and enjoyment of 

these resources by the visiting public, a cooperative 

effort between the Service and IDEM is being made 

to establish an Air Monitoring Station on or near the 

refuge. This is the best way to allow for wise decision making related to permitting new-source industrial developments with inherent pollution outputs.

Geology and Soils 

This section of Chapter 3 draws heavily on the 

Patoka River National Wetlands Project EIS, pages 

75-88 (USFWS, 1994). 

Geology

The Refuge is located on the eastern shelf of the 

Illinois River Basin, a prominent regional downwarp (bowl) centered in southeastern Illinois. During the Paleozoic Era this basin underwent repeated 

cycles of subsidence and uplift with accompanying 

sedimentation and erosion. The cycles stopped in 

late Pennsylvanian time when the basin was uplifted 

and subjected to a final episode of degradation 

(IDGNR, 1898). The remaining thickness of Pennsylvanian rocks in the area is about 1,200 to 1,900 

feet. These rocks are composed of cyclical sequences 

of shale, siltstone and sandstone intermixed with 

thin, widespread beds of coal, clay, limestone and 

black shale. In general, these intermixed layers are 

dipping 1 to 2 degrees west towards the center of 

the basin. 

Within the Pennsylvanian-age rocks, five distinct 

formations are exposed within the Refuge & MA 

boundaries:

# Staunton Formation: Composed primarily of 

sandstone and sandy shale, this 75 to 100 feet 

thick layer is the oldest (deepest) formation and 

crops out near the eastern boundary of the 

Refuge & MA.

# Linton Formation: Above the Staunton is the 

80-feet thick Linton formation. Composed 

primarily of sandstone, and shale, this 

formation is found in the eastern and central 

areas of the Refuge & MA.

# Petersburg Formation: This formation lies 

above the Linton and crops out in the east and 

central portions of the Refuge & MA. 

Approximately 100 feet thick, the formation is a 

sequence of shale, limestone and sandstone.

# Dugger Formation: Above the Petersburg lies a 

70 to 100-feet thick sequence of sandstone, 

siltstone, limestone, shale, coal, and underclay 

comprising the Dugger formation. This 

formation occurs in the higher elevations of the 

western portion of the Refuge & MA.

# Shelburn Formation: Composed primarily of 

sandstone and shale, this formation caps the 

highest sites in the western part of the Refuge 

& MA.

In addition to these rock formations, most of the 

area is covered by a mantle of unconsolidated material. During the Pleistocene period, till, outwash and 

loess was deposited during successive cycles of continental glaciation, ending about 8,000 years ago 

with the withdrawal of the Wisconsinian glaciers 

from Indiana. These deposits range from only several feet to nearly 100 feet thick, with the deepest 

deposits occurring in the western portion of the Refuge & MA (IDNR, 1990). 

Minerals

Oil

Small oil production wells are common within and 

adjacent to the Refuge & MA with the majority on 

the western end near Oatsville. 

Gas

In the past , any natural gas produced incidental 

to oil production was vented or burned off at the 

wellhead. In the past two years, interest has been 

building in producing natural gas from a deeper 

geological seam known as the New Albany Shale. 

This is a complex unconventional reservoir with low 

volume but low decline production found at about 

4,000 feet deep in Gibson County. To date, only a few 

of these wells have been drilled in southwest IndiWintering waterfowl, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo 

credit: USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

33

ana. Coalbed methane gas (CBM) is also being 

explored as a possible new source of energy especially if coal production continues to decline because 

of the high sulfur content of most Illinois Basin 

coals. Methane gas is also being produced from old 

underground mine voids with one mine gas well in 

Gibson County. 

Coal

The Refuge & MA lies on the eastern edge of the 

Illinois Coal Basin and is in the heart of Indiana’s 

coal producing region. Most of the coal is of moderate to high sulfur content, which means the coal has 

to be cleaned and the sulfur scrubbed out of emissions when used in steam electric power plants. 

Although coal mining has been continuous in and 

near the Refuge & MA for nearly a century, substantial deposits of coal remain unmined. Recent 

coal industry statistics indicate that approximately 

3,670 million tons of recoverable coal (surface and 

underground minable) remain in Pike and Gibson 

counties (ICC, 1992). The Office of Surface Mining 

(OSM) estimated a total coal reserve base of 105 

million tons within the Refuge & MA alone, of which 

40.5 million tons are accessible by underground mining and 65.5 million tons accessible by surface mining methods. 

Over 20,000 acres of Pike County were surface 

mined for coal prior to the passage of the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA). Many of the remaining ungraded spoil 

ridges and final-cut lakes provide excellent wildlife 

habitat. Nevertheless, some old overburden spoil 

ridges and abandoned coal preparation sites contain 

low grade coal, shale and sandstone laced with natural pyrites. Rainfall leaches out high levels of acidforming substances such as sulfates and metals such 

as magnesium, iron, aluminum and manganese. As 

these metals dissolve in the acid water, the total acid 

salts reach toxic concentration levels. Toxic runoff 

from such areas impairs water quality in streams 

and lakes, devastating aquatic life. 

Today, all water from mining sites must pass 

through sediment ponds to improve water quality; 

mined areas are graded back to approximate original contours and covered with topsoil; pyritic bearing rock is buried deep in the mine pit out of contact 

with surface water flows and the site is revegetated 

according to approved reclamation plans. The array 

of problems long associated with the area's surface 

mining activities are not a result of today's mining 

methods, but rather from strip mining prior to 

SMCRA. Within the Refuge & MA boundaries there 

are approximately 150 acres of old strip mines. Most 

of the acid producing abandoned mine lands are 

located outside the Refuge but within the watershed. Most of these have been or are being 

reclaimed by Indiana Department of Natural 

Resources’ Abandoned Mine Land Program. 

Soils 

Lying in the valley’s floor and subject to periodic 

flooding, bottomland soil associations make up the 

majority of Refuge soils. Upland soil associations 

are located above the flood-zone on valley sideslopes and ridges.

Bottomland Soil Associations

Found on the floodplains of the Patoka River and 

its major tributaries, these soils were formed in the 

sand, silt and clay deposited during flood events. 

Soils within these associations are nearly level, 

deep, and poorly drained. Soils can also be classified 

based on hydric (wetness) characteristics, which in 

turn influence the type of plants that will grow 

there. Hydric soils are soils that are wet long 

enough to periodically produce anaerobic conditions. Hydric soils or soils with hydric inclusions 

comprise the majority of the soil types found in the 

bottomland. 

Nearly 75 percent (16,970 acres) of the Refuge & 

MA is composed of three such soil associations:

# Belknap-Bonnie-Wakeland Association: While 

it makes up only 13 percent of Pike County, this 

association represents 46 percent of the Refuge 

& MA. With adequate drainage, these soils are 

used mainly for cultivated crops. Some areas 

are used for hay and pasture while other areas 

Impacts of strip mining on adjacent lands, Patoka River 

NWR & MA. Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

34

are wooded. Flooding and wetness are the 

principle problems.

# Stendal-Bonnie-Birds Association: This soil 

association represents about 7 percent of 

Gibson County and 12 percent of the Refuge. 

The soils are used mainly as cropland, but 

flooding, wetness, and ponding are problems. 

They are well-suited for woodland, and used as 

such along stream channels and in undrained 

areas.

# Petrolia Association: Approximately 3 percent 

of Gibson County and 17 percent of the Refuge 

& MA is comprised of this soil association. 

Flooding and wetness can hinder crop 

production, but the soils are well-suited for 

woodland.

Upland Soil Associations

These associations are found on ridge tops and 

side slopes adjacent to the above floodplain soils. 

Having formed in loess, material weathered from 

sandstone, siltstone, shale, and regolith in surfacemined areas, these soils are generally formed on 

gently to severely sloping sites and are welldrained.

About 25 percent of the Refuge & MA is composed of five upland soil associations:

# Zanesville-Hosmer Association: This soil 

association represents nearly 17 percent of Pike 

County and seven percent of the Refuge & MA. 

These soils are fairly well suited for cultivated 

crops, woodland and recreational uses. Erosion 

is a hazard, and Hosmer soil’s fragipan restricts 

rooting depth and permeability. Wetness is a 

problem associated with perched water tables.

# Zanesville-Gilpin Association: Soils in this 

association make up 14 percent of Pike County 

and five percent of the Refuge & MA. The 

hazard of erosion, the slope, a fragipan in the 

Zanesville soils and the moderate depth to 

bedrock in the Gilpin soils make the association 

better suited to woodlands, hay and pasture 

than to cultivated crops.

# Hosmer Association: This soil association 

comprises 16 percent of Pike and Gibson 

counties and five percent of the Refuge & MA. 

These soils are used mainly for cultivated crops, 

hay, and pasture. Some areas are wooded. 

Erosion is the primary hazard. Hosmer’s 

fragipan restricts rooting depth and can create 

localized wetness due to perched water tables.

# Fairpoint-Bethesda Association: Soils in this 

association make up about 16 percent of Pike 

County and nearly four percent of the Refuge & 

MA. These soils are found in very steep areas 

where overburden was cast during surface 

mining, and in nearly level to strongly sloping 

areas where overburden was smoothed and 

shaped. This soil association is mainly suited for 

woodland, hay and pasture because of the slope, 

erosion hazard, low available water capacity and 

scattered rock fragments.

# Alford-Sylvan Association: This soil association 

accounts for approximately 19 percent of Pike 

and Gibson counties and roughly four percent of 

the Refuge & MA. These soils are well suited to 

woodland. The steeper areas of this association 

are used for hay and pasture while the flatter 

sites are generally suited to cropland. Slope and 

the hazard of erosion are the primary problems.

Although there are 73 recognized soil types 

within the 23,743-acre Refuge & MA, over 70 percent of the Refuge is comprised of soils from just six 

soil series. These include: 

# Belknap series (4,144 acres)

# Bonnie series (3,744 acres)

South Fork Patoka River, Patoka River NWR & MA. 

Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

35

# Petrolia series (3,230 acres)

# Hosmer series (1,835 acres)

# Zanesville series (1,441 acres)

# Steff series (1386 acres). 

The majority of these soil series represent soils 

that are either hydric or contain hydric inclusions, 

and are located in the Patoka River floodplain. Fifteen soil types are considered hydric and an additional 15 soil types contain pockets of hydric soil. 

Combined, these 30 soil types account for over 

15,000 acres, or 68 percent of the Refuge. Of the 

remaining 7,000-plus Refuge acres, approximately 

5,300 acres are prone to erosion and are classified 

highly erodible.

Water and Hydrology 

This section was reproduced or modified from the 

Patoka River National Wetlands Project EIS, pages 

88 to 101 (USFWS, 1994).

The drainage area of the Patoka River watershed 

includes 862 square miles in eight counties. At the 

upper eastern end of the watershed, the Patoka 

flows rapidly within a relatively narrow floodplain 

through deeply incised uplands, dropping at the rate 

of 12 feet per mile. Much of the uplands in this segment of the watershed are forested, with relatively 

small farms interspersed throughout. As the river 

enters the flat land created by Glacial Lake Patoka 

near Jasper, flow slows dramatically as the river’s 

gradient decreases to 1 foot per mile. The predominant land use in the uplands changes from forestland to farmland.

The Refuge is located within this slow, meandering stretch of river with its wide floodplain, numerous oxbows and low rolling uplands. A total of 30 

miles of river channel, 16 miles of natural meanders 

plus 14 miles on the western end that were channelized in the 1920s, are included in the Refuge & MA 

boundaries. In addition there are 19 miles of oxbow 

lakes and three miles of the South Fork, a major 

tributary entering the Patoka River just north of 

Oakland City (Figure 7). 

Two notable events influence the present water 

regime of the Patoka River. The first was an attempt 

to drain nearly 100,000 acres of forested wetlands 

for farming in the 1920s. Known as Houchin’s Ditch 

and beginning at the town of Winslow, the project 

replaced 36 miles of natural, meandering river with 

about 17 miles of dredged, straight ditch. The 

assumption was that by straightening and deepening the channel, high water would flush through the 

area more quickly and adjoining lands could be 

more easily drained. Although some subsequent 

drainage and clearing of adjacent forested wetlands 

occurred, overall the project was a failure because 

of the bowl-shaped topography of this section of the 

floodplain, the river’s low gradient, and the hydrologic relationship between the Patoka and Wabash 

Rivers. 

Nearly 19 miles of natural river meanders were 

cut off and isolated from the main channel. Water 

exchange within these man-made oxbows is now 

limited to periods of high water. Unfortunately, 

heavy sediment loads are carried during these periods and results in increased deposition in the 

oxbows. Consequently, these important ecological 

units are becoming shallower and hold water for a 

shorter duration. Although this process occurs in all 

natural riverine systems, new oxbows are continually being created as river meanders are severed 

from the main channel. In the case of Houchins’s 

Ditch, these oxbows are not being replaced and the 

associated wetland habitat is being lost. 

The second major event affecting the river’s flow 

regime was the Corps of Engineers’ construction in 

the late 1970s of Patoka Lake. Located approximately 63 miles above the Refuge, this 8,000-acre 

impoundment was designed to provide flood control 

as well as recreation and water supply. Since the 

lake was built, flow regulation by it has reduced 

flood stages in the lower segment of the river usually several times a year. 

During the initial start-up of Patoka Lake in 1979, 

the month of July received an all time high record 

one month rainfall. The lake behind the dam rose 

rapidly forcing summer releases of stored water. 

This resulted in flooding of much of the floodplain 

crop fields, particularly within the present Refuge 

and MA boundaries. Farmers blamed the new dam 

for creating the problem and demanded that something be done. Subsequently, in an effort to lessen 

the possibilities of summer flooding, a special federal appropriation of $1.3 million was provided to 

the Corps to remove all channel obstructions and 

most leaning trees on both sides of the river from 

the Patoka Lake Dam to the Wabash River, a length 

of 121 miles. This was completed in 1981. It reduced 

localized flooding immediately upstream of drift 

piles, but largely eliminated in-stream cover and the 

overhead tree canopy, negatively affecting the 

river’s fish and wildlife resources. The project also 
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Mana

gement Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

36Figure 7: Hydrology at Patoka River NWR & MA
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

37

increased the rate and extent of streambank erosion 

by removing many of the tree roots which had stabilized the river bank.

Agriculture (and associated land clearing, ditching and drain tiles), surface coal mining, and to a 

lesser extent urban development affect the Patoka 

River and its watershed. These activities contribute 

to rapid runoff of precipitation, increased soil erosion, and heavy sediment loads in streams. After 

any substantial rain event, the Patoka River and its 

tributaries are characterized by turbid, sedimentladen water.

Ditching, damming, and channelization efforts 

dating back to the early 1900s are largely responsible for the loss of wetlands throughout the area. Oil 

well developments, over 20,000 acres of abandoned 

coal mine lands, intensive agricultural and logging 

operations as well as runoff or discharges of industrial, community, and farming effluents degrade 

water quality within the watershed.

Refuge Resources

The sections under this heading draw heavily 

upon the Patoka River National Wetlands Project 

EIS (USFWS, 1994). 

Plant Communities

Wetlands

Within the Refuge & MA are 12,700 acres of forested wetlands, emergent wetlands, scrub-shrub 

wetlands, agriculturally modified wetlands, and 

open water habitat.

Forested Wetland

The majority (55 percent) of wetlands within the 

Refuge & MA fall in this category. Characterized by 

woody vegetation that is 20 feet or taller, forested 

wetlands are found within the floodplain of the 

Patoka River and its tributaries where the terrain is 

relatively flat and soils are poorly drained. Soils may 

remain saturated for most of the growing season on 

some sites and only a week or two during the growing season on other sites. Most areas of forested 

wetland experience some degree of annual flooding. 

Tree species composition often reflects the hydrology of the site. On the wettest areas, the mature forested wetland supports black willow, sweetgum and 

river birch. Areas frequently or seasonally flooded 

are dominated by silver maple, cottonwood, 

sycamore, pin oak, Shumard oak, swamp chestnut 

oak, overcup oak, swamp white oak, green ash, and 

red maple. On drier bottomland sites that are infrequently flooded for short durations, the dominant 

canopy trees include American beech, pecan, black 

walnut, American elm, and cherrybark and other 

oaks. For a more complete list of plants common to 

the Refuge’s bottomland forested wetlands see 

Appendix C.

Forested wetlands transformed by flooding as a 

result of beaver activity cover hundreds of acres 

within the Refuge. Depending on when they were 

created, these areas may contain stumps as well as 

dead and/or dying trees. They are typically covered 

by a growth of duckweed, with coontail and bladderwort under the surface. Buttonbush, whitegrass, 

common arrowhead, and knotweed commonly dominate the borders. 

Scrub-shrub Wetland

These freshwater, vegetated wetlands are dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall. 

Scrub-shrub wetlands may represent a successional 

stage leading to forested wetland, or they may be 

relatively self-maintaining, stable communities. 

They are more or less permanently inundated. Plant 

species found in shrub-shrub wetlands include true 

shrubs such as buttonbush, red-osier dogwood and 

swamp privet, as well as young trees, or trees and 

shrubs that are small or stunted because of environmental conditions. Some of these include pumpkin 

ash, red maple, and willows.

Within the Refuge, scrub-shrub wetlands are 

found exclusively around the fringes of beaver 

flooded areas and in many of the numerous river 

oxbows created either through natural river meandering or as a result of river channelization in the 

American lotus, Snakey Point Marsh, Patoka River 

NWR & MA. Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

38

1920s. A total of 1,053 acres (4.7 percent) of Refuge 

lands are scrub-shrub wetlands, which represents 

eight percent of the Refuge’s total wetland acreage.

Emergent Wetland

Emergent wetlands, commonly referred to as 

marshes and sloughs, are characterized by erect, 

rooted water plants that are present for most of the 

growing season in most years. These wetlands normally contain standing water, though at times they 

will dry up. Common perennial plants found in 

emergent wetlands include cattail, bulrushes, 

sedges, dock, and smartweeds. For a more complete 

list of plants found in this wetland type within the 

Refuge see Appendix C.

The Refuge contains about a thousand acres of 

emergent wetlands. This represents about 4.5 percent of the Refuge and 8 percent of the Refuge’s 

total wetland acreage.

Agriculturally Modified Wetland

Lands in this category, although disturbed annually by agricultural activities, still possess the 

hydrologic characteristics and hydric soils necessary to perform many of the natural functions of 

undisturbed wetlands. These functions include 

absorbing rain and flood waters and recharging 

local groundwater and aquifers. Because of their 

location in the floodplain, winter flooding makes 

waste grain as well as natural foods available to 

migrating and wintering waterfowl. The majority of 

waterfowl use within the Refuge is currently associated with these agricultural lands. Approximately 

22 percent of the Refuge wetlands fall into this category, and nearly all are located at the western end of 

the Refuge & MA.

Open Water

The 837 acres of Refuge in this category include 

upland lakes and ponds, oxbows associated with the 

Patoka River and the waters of the Patoka River 

and its various tributaries.

Uplands

The principal natural community found in the 

Refuge is classified upland forest. As with the bottomland forests, upland forest resources have been 

heavily utilized by the area’s timber industry. 

Mature upland forests are extremely limited in the 

Refuge; they occur at higher elevations where terrain is steeper and soils are well-drained. On southwest-facing slopes, these forests would typically 

contain both white and black oaks, hickory, and 

blackgum. On more mesic (wetter) sites, such as 

northeast aspects and valleys, the tree species composition would include red oaks, yellow poplar, 

beech, sugar maple, walnut, hickory, and cherry. 

Some pines are present in upland forest, but they 

are not indigenous to this part of Indiana. Although 

upland forest can be found in most areas of the Refuge, the majority is located in Pike County. This natural community type represents 15 percent of the 

total Refuge & MA. 

Invasive Plant Species

Some exotic (also known as non-native or alien) 

plants greatly alter the plant communities of natural 

areas while others more commonly affect already 

disturbed or agricultural areas. Left unchecked, 

noxious plant species can seriously degrade the productivity and wildlife value of invaded habitats. 

Fortunately, most of the Refuge & MA's wetlands 

are relatively free of noxious plants. Those in the 

area possessing the greatest potential for serious 

impacts include common reed grass, reed canary 

grass, and moneywort. The first two are a greater 

threat in open wetland sites, whereas moneywort 

can carpet large areas of floodplain forests (as well 

as open areas). Purple loosestrife was found in the 

Refuge in 2006 and eliminated. Both purple loosestrife and common reed grass have been observed 

to form monocultures, completely overrunning wetlands to the exclusion of almost all other plant species. Monitoring will be necessary to assure prompt 

action is taken to control these plants before they 

become a problem in the future.

On upland sites and agricultural communities, 

the most troublesome noxious plant is Johnson 

grass. Owing to its hardiness, growth and reproductive mechanisms, and its close relationship to 

domestic corn, this introduced species is widespread 

and difficult to control in both Pike and Gibson 

counties. As a result of seed dispersal during flood 

events, bottomland agricultural fields are particularly prone to infestation making it common to see 

this plant in those areas.

American Coot, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: 

USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

39

Other plants classified as noxious weeds in the 

area include Canadian thistle, bur cucumber and 

shatter cane. Although locally significant, these species do not represent as pervasive a problem as 

Johnson grass.

Threatened and Endangered Plants

The Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center is a 

continuously updated data management system 

which contains locations of all rare plant species in 

Indiana. Based on this information, which includes 

both historical collections and recent discoveries, 

the Indiana Division of Nature Preserves (IDNP) 

compiled a list of 55 potential rare plants which 

could occur within the Refuge & MA. IDNP personnel then conducted field investigations to confirm 

the presence of any of these rare plant species. In 

1991, 17 individual areas within the Refuge & MA 

were inventoried. A total of 20 state-listed plant species were verified during the survey (Homoya, et al., 

1992). No federally-listed threatened or endangered 

plants are known to occur within the Patoka River 

NWR/NWA.

Two of the 20 state-listed plant species are particularly noteworthy. The discovery of sickle pod (Cassis obtusifolia) represents the first documented 

occurrence of this species in the state. Also, three 

populations of buttonweed (Diodia virginiana) 

were found in the Project area. These finds represent the second, third and fourth occurrences of this 

species documented in Indiana. The vast majority of 

rare plants found during IDNP'S survey are associated with forested and emergent wetlands. 

Although a few species were found in disturbed habitat, most were growing in relatively stable wetland 

communities, and were scattered rather evenly 

throughout the inventoried area of the Patoka River 

floodplain. 

Fish and Wildlife Communities

Birds

The Patoka River and surrounding wetland and 

upland areas provide an array of habitat types 

which fulfill the necessary breeding, feeding, migration and wintering requirements for a variety of 

avian species. Scientific surveys, organized bird 

counts and casual observations have recorded over 

231 species of waterfowl, wading and shore birds, 

songbirds, game birds and others within the Refuge 

& MA.

Waterfowl

The Patoka River bottoms, particularly during 

periods of high water in late fall and early spring, is 

an important waterfowl migration stop-over in the 

eastern portion of the Mississippi flyway, and one of 

the more important sites in the state. Average fall/

winter duck populations in the Refuge & MA are 

conservatively estimated at 5,000-8,000 birds during 

years with good available water, i.e., sufficient rainfall to provide lowland flooding. Data available for 

waterfowl use during spring migration shows a minimum of 15,000 ducks, utilizing the area on their 

journey north. Most of this use occurs in the Oatsville, Wirth and Wheeling Bottoms, historically 

high-use areas, although birds are also found on the 

other numerous wetlands throughout the Refuge & 

MA. Cane Ridge Wildlife Management Area, west 

of the main body of the Refuge and along the 

Wabash River, seasonally attracts waterfowl populations estimated at 10,000 ducks and 8,000 Snow 

Geese annually. 

The Patoka River valley contains some of the best 

Wood Duck nesting and brood rearing habitat in the 

State. Beaver activity is largely responsible, 

although other factors such as rising water tables 

Drake Wood Duck. Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

40

and erosion-related sedimentation of area ditches 

also have contributed to the increase in wetlands. 

Although Wood Duck is the major species breeding 

on the Refuge & MA, adjacent lands, particularly 

strip-mined areas reclaimed since 1977, also support 

nesting by several other waterfowl species, including Mallards, Blue-wing Teal and Northern Shoveler. Local nesting by Giant Canada Geese has been 

documented since the early 1980s. Most nesting is 

found on reclaimed strip mine lands. 

Shorebirds and Wading Birds

The Patoka River NWR & MA provides an abundant source of food and high quality nesting and 

roosting sites for resident and migrating shorebirds 

and wading birds. Although approximately 40 species have been observed in the Refuge & MA, the 

majority are transitory, utilizing the emergent wetlands, shallow flood waters and temporary mudflats 

for resting and to obtain protein (in the form of 

invertebrates) essential for continued migration and 

successful reproduction. 

The Refuge & MA hosts numerous species of plovers, sandpipers, dowitchers, and rails, among others. One notable migrant is the Sandhill Crane. 

Each fall, thousands of cranes stage at the JasperPulaski Fish and Wildlife area in northern Indiana. 

Their journey to wintering grounds in Florida takes 

them over the Patoka River bottomlands. When 

habitat conditions are suitable, flocks of 50 to 100 

birds have been observed resting and feeding before 

continuing south. 

Several species of wading birds, notably the 

Great Blue Heron, Black-Crowned Night-Heron 

and Yellow-Crowned Night-Heron, are known to 

nest within the Refuge & MA. Several other species, 

including the American and Least Bitterns, GreenBacked Heron, Piping Plover, Killdeer, and Common Snipe have breeding ranges which encompass 

the Refuge & MA, and it is reasonable to assume 

that many or most of these species nest here. Wilson’s Phalarope and Black-necked Stilt are documented nesters at Cane Ridge Wildlife 

Management Area, located west of the main body of 

the Refuge along the Wabash River. 

Raptors

The Refuge area supports permanent or seasonal 

populations of at least 14 species of birds of prey. 

Open fields and emergent wetlands provide essential habitat for Northern Harriers, American 

Kestrels, Short-eared Owls, Barn Owls, and BroadWinged, Rough-Legged, and Red-Tailed Hawks. 

Forested wetlands and upland forests support Cooper's and Sharp-Shinned Hawks, Great Horned 

Owls, Barred Owls and Eastern Screech Owls. In 

addition, the state-listed Red-Shouldered Hawk 

currently nests within the Refuge & MA. The 

Patoka River area probably has the largest expanse 

of nesting habitat for this species remaining in the 

state.

The Osprey, a state-listed endangered species, as 

well as a species of management concern to the Service, has been observed utilizing Patoka River wetlands during migration. The Mississippi Kite, 

extremely rare in Indiana, has also been observed 

on the Refuge. 

Upland Game Birds

Resident populations of Bobwhite Quail, Ruffed 

Grouse and eastern Wild Turkey occur within 

Patoka River NWR & MA. Resident and migrant 

populations of Mourning Dove and American Woodcock also occur locally.

In general, quail require a diversity of habitats, 

including forests, brush, grass and cultivated lands. 

Successional zones between forest and field (edge or 

ecotone) is particularly important. 

Few quail inhabit the interior of large tracts of 

bottomland or upland forests. Quail populations in 

the area are considered fair, with annual recruitment determined generally by winter and spring 

weather and the availability of suitable nesting/

brood habitat.

Ruffed Grouse is a woodland species that generally prefers early stages of forest succession. Hardwood thickets characterized by dense stands of 

young saplings and vine tangles, old fields reverting 

to trees and young pine plantations are important 

habitat components. Historically, Ruffed Grouse 

populations in Indiana were declining in the early 

1960s and their distribution was restricted to a small 

area in the south-central part of the state. An 

intense trapping and transplanting effort by the 

Indiana DNR was undertaken to reverse this trend. 

As Indiana forests have matured, the amount of 

young forest preferred by Ruffed Grouse has 

declined, resulting in lower grouse numbers in 

recent years. 

Generally speaking, the Wild Turkey is a forest 

dweller, favoring mature mast-producing hardwoods (mainly oaks) with a mixture of understory 

plants like dogwood, sassafras, and greenbriar. Turkeys also make use of green plants (clover, wheat) 

and seeds (grasses, wheat, agricultural crops) found 

in pastures, crop fields, roadsides and disturbed or 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

41

abandoned areas. These more open areas provide 

the insects needed by poults for the protein necessary for rapid growth and development, and the forest/field interface is often preferred by nesting 

hens. The Refuge & MA contains these essential 

habitat components, and consequently the area supports a good turkey population. 

Although migratory, Mourning Doves are 

present on the Refuge year round. Winter birds are 

principally migrants from northern areas utilizing 

the area after the local breeding population has 

migrated south. Heaviest concentrations of Mourning Doves occur in late summer as breeding birds 

and young of the year stage in large flocks prior to 

moving south. Most local birds are gone by early 

November. Because of their adaptability and high 

reproductive capacity, Mourning Doves are the most 

abundant upland game bird in the area as well as in 

the state. Strictly ground-feeding seed eaters, doves 

find abundant foods at Patoka River NWR & MA. 

Principal foods include waste grain in winter wheat, 

corn, milo and silage fields, annual weeds (foxtail, 

spurge, crabgrass, ragweed) in abandoned or disturbed area, and both planted and volunteer vegetation in large areas of newly-reclaimed strip mining 

lands.

Although limited nesting is known to occur, 

American Woodcock primarily utilize the area during spring and fall migrations. During these seasons 

they occur in fairly dense coverts of regenerating 

woodlands in the early stages of succession. Because 

the woodcock relies almost exclusively on earthworms as a food source, favored sites are in rich, 

moist bottomlands or upland riparian areas. 

Although never abundant on the Refuge, large 

flights during migration, particularly in the fall, can 

result in temporarily high populations in small, isolated areas offering good habitat with plenty of 

worms.

Passerines (Perching Birds)

Detailed information on the abundance of some 

non-game bird species is not available, but it is 

known that well over 100 species of passerines and 

other species utilize the Refuge & MA at some time 

each year. Prior to settlement, the larger, unbroken 

tracts of bottomland forest were undoubtedly 

important habitat for many neotropical migrants, 

that is, species that summer and breed in North 

America and winter in Latin America. Neotropical 

migrants include most of our forest and grassland 

songbirds. Subsequent forest fragmentation, both in 

southern Indiana and nationally for agricultural 

expansion, roadways, urbanization, utility (pipeline 

and transmission line) corridors, and timber production has had serious impacts on many of these birds 

and population declines have been noted for many 

species. However, counts of singing male Cerulean 

Warblers noted while canoeing the Patoka River in 

the eastern third of the Refuge, showed some of the 

highest count totals recorded in Indiana. The large 

number of Prothonotary Warbler pairs recorded in 

the bottoms during a 1997-98 Breeding Bird 

Research Study by Hurley was significant enough 

to justify listing the Patoka River NWR as an 

Important Bird Area by the National Audubon Society.

At the time of the NWR/MA’s establishment in 

the early 1990s, forestland within the area, both 

upland and bottomland, had been reduced in extent 

and quality. Yet it still offered the best habitat in the 

area and has been utilized for nesting and migration 

by a variety of warblers, thrushes, vireos, woodpeckers, flycatchers and sparrows. The Refuge’s 

reforestation efforts over the past decade have been 

beneficial to shrub-scrub and forest-dwelling passerines. 

Mammals

Indiana is home to 54 species of mammals, of 

which 41 species occur on the Patoka River NWR & 

MA. These include an array of game, non-game and 

furbearing mammals. 

Game Mammals

The Refuge provides excellent habitat for Indiana's only big game species, the white-tailed deer. 

Interspersed bottomland forest, agricultural fields, 

idle/scrub lands, wetlands and upland forest proOpossum and young, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo 

credit: USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

42

vides the habitat diversity necessary for abundant 

food, protective cover, and reproductive activities. 

Population density estimates in the 1990s by the 

Indiana DNR indicate 33 deer per square mile of 

suitable habitat in Pike County and 22 deer per 

square mile of deer habitat in Gibson County. In 

terms of county-wide averages for all types of land 

and habitat types, Pike County supports 15 deer per 

square mile while Gibson County is estimated at six 

per square mile. With the exception of open water 

and some emergent wetlands, the Refuge & MA is 

considered to be suitable deer habitat, and supports 

approximately 25 to 30 deer per square mile. Deer 

are present in sufficient abundance to cause agricultural depredation in isolated locations. Because of 

the area’s deer abundance, deer hunting is an 

extremely popular activity for local and visiting 

sportsmen. 

Patoka River woodlands and adjacent uplands 

provide habitat for both fox and gray squirrels, the 

most sought after small game mammals in the state. 

Productive squirrel habitat contains adequate den 

trees for escape, protection and reproduction, and 

dependable food sources in all seasons. Squirrel 

reproduction and survival fluctuates with changing 

yields of heavy-seeded mast, particularly acorns. 

Other fruits and berries, floral parts, buds, bark, 

roots, fungi and animal matter provide foods when 

heavy mast is unavailable. A variety of hardwood 

tree species is essential to a balanced habitat, but 

the stocking of heavy-seeded species – oak, hickory, 

beech, walnut – determines carrying capacity. 

Much of the bottomland forest within the proposed Project area has been continually harvested 

for the heavy-seeded tree species, i.e., oak and hickory. Subsequently, these woodlands do not contain 

optimum stands of these important squirrel foods, 

and populations are considered fair. Upland forests, 

particularly those managed by the Indiana DNR, 

are characterized by more tree species diversity; 

their squirrel populations are generally considered 

good. 

The other major small game mammal within the 

Refuge & MA is the eastern cottontail rabbit. They 

require early successional vegetation, and rabbits 

are found in good numbers in and around abandoned fields, fence rows, pasture borders and 

reclaimed strip mine lands. As strict herbivores, the 

cottontail favors new growth grasses, succulent 

forbs and some agricultural grains. During severe 

winter weather, the bark of young woody growth 

can sustain rabbits for short periods.

Furbearers

Furbearers generally include those animals harvested by hunting or trapping primarily for the 

commercial value of their pelts. Because most of 

these animals are closely associated with wetland/

aquatic sites, Patoka River NWR & MA provides 

excellent habitat for furbearers such as muskrats, 

beaver, coyotes, foxes, and others. 

Marshes are the preferred habitats of muskrats, 

but the species also occurs along streams and 

ditches as well as in lakes and ponds. Areas such as 

Snakey Point provide excellent muskrat habitat. 

Although somewhat cyclical, muskrat populations in 

area marshes, ponds, oxbows, and the Patoka River 

itself are considered good. 

Beaver are thought to have been extirpated in 

Indiana by 1900. Natural range expansion by way of 

the extensive river systems and relocating some 

beavers to wild areas away from human habitations 

have resulted in a nearly state-wide distribution 

today. Within the Refuge & MA, nearly all suitable 

habitat is currently occupied by beaver. Beaver 

activity is responsible for the shallow water and 

standing dead timber in several large areas, most 

notably west of Line Road and north of Snakey 

Point. Beavers impound areas adjacent to water 

courses to provide access to food and other essential 

habitat needs; these areas are later abandoned 

when food supplies are depleted and the animals 

move to new territory. Although significant in shortterm impacts, these activities are a natural phenomenon in the Patoka's bottomland forests and 

increase the diversity of wetland types and the wildlife that utilize them. This cycle (bottomland timber 

beaver impoundment emergent marsh scrub-shrub 

wetland bottomland timber) has occurred historically in the Patoka bottoms. 

Unfortunately, the beaver’s habit of impounding 

waters frequently brings it in direct conflict with 

man. Beaver activity results in plugged road culverts and flooded roadways, water encroachment on 

railroad grades, reduced drainage and flooding of 

agricultural lands, and loss of timber resources. 

Beaver can be trapped and dams can be removed, 

but as long as suitable habitat is available these 

remedies are at best temporary because beaver will 

quickly re-colonize the site. Refuge management 

policy is to remove nuisance beavers whenever their 

works on the refuge are impacting private lands off 

the refuge. 

Coyotes and red and gray foxes are relatively 

common on the Refuge & MA. Over the last few 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

43

decades, the coyote population has gradually 

increased in areas of suitable habitat, primarily 

upland brushy, grassy and abandoned fields. Abandoned strip-mined lands as well as newly reclaimed 

areas provide ideal habitat for coyotes. Red foxes 

occur in similar habitat and it is believed that the 

coyote often displaces some red fox from these 

areas, thus depressing red fox populations. Gray 

foxes are found more commonly in bushy and 

wooded habitats both in uplands and bottomlands. 

Food habits of coyotes and foxes are similar and 

include primarily small rodents and occasional 

birds. When present in sufficient numbers coyotes 

are known to prey heavily on white-tailed deer 

fawns. Occasionally, coyotes impact livestock producers (sheep and pigs). 

Mink, otters, weasels, skunks, opossum, and raccoons are also relatively abundant in the area. Food 

habits range from the carnivorous behavior of 

minks, otters, and weasels to the omnivorous habits 

of raccoons, opossum, and skunks. Mink, otters, 

weasels and raccoon are closely associated with wetland habitats, streams and ponds; opossum and 

skunks are more often found in the uplands. 

Because they are all considered predators, they 

occasionally cause damage to domestic animals, i.e., 

prey on poultry and other tended animals. Otters 

were reintroduced into the Patoka River by the 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources over a 

period of several years in the late 1990s. This popular reintroduction effort has resulted in otters dispersing throughout the Patoka River Watershed 

and beyond.

Nongame mammals

Numerous small nongame mammals find suitable 

habitat on the Refuge & MA. Included in this group 

are shrews, moles, bats, chipmunks, mice and voles. 

Although there are little specific data regarding 

population sizes, the interspersion of woodlands, 

wetlands, abandoned fields, agricultural lands, 

creeks, ponds and river make it reasonable to 

assume that these species are faring well. Although 

rarely observed, and frequently underappreciated, 

nongame mammals are critically important as a food 

source for the larger, predatory mammals as well as 

most of the area's hawks and owls. 

Amphibians and Reptiles

The Patoka River valley is within the range of at 

least 60 species of herptiles, that is, snakes, turtles, 

lizards, skinks, salamanders, newts, sirens, toads 

and frogs (Conant, 1958). A diverse assortment of 

reptiles and amphibians occur on the Refuge and fill 

many important niches in the ecosystem’s natural 

food chain. Patoka’s herpefauna include the northern copperbelly water snake, a species of concern 

which has been found to inhabit the buttonbush 

swamps of the bottoms in large numbers, and 

spring’s tiny harbinger, the spring peeper, a small 

frog whose persistent, shrill mating call pierces 

March nights in an ancient rite of spring.

Because the majority of these species require 

moist woodlands, ponds, streams, marshes, swamps 

or quiet backwaters, Patoka River NWR & MA provides excellent herptilian habitat. Many species of 

reptiles and amphibians are nocturnal or secretive 

in nature which makes it difficult to adequately 

determine population status. And although there 

are no current data on population levels, it is 

assumed that numbers are adequate to maintain 

existing herptile communities. However, it is reasonable to assume that, as has been noted with other 

aquatic organisms, populations of reptiles and 

amphibians have been negatively impacted by the 

long-term degradation of water quality in the 

Patoka River watershed. As the acid mine water 

drainage is eliminated in the watershed and refuge 

bottomland fields are purchased and restored to 

hardwood forests, water quality is constantly 

improving. The South Fork Patoka River is an outstanding example of watershed restoration efforts 

leading to the reestablishment of a stream fishery 

which now supports nesting Bald Eagles and public 

fishing opportunities where none existed for 50 

years prior to Refuge establishment. 

Five-lined skink, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: 

USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

44

Fish

Most of the Refuge’s fishery resources are associated with the Patoka River and its wetlands. Two 

fisheries surveys of the Patoka River and many of 

its tributaries in the late 1980s and early 1990s 

revealed that fish populations were surprisingly 

diverse and abundant, especially considering the 

environmental abuses this river has endured over 

the past 70 years (Stefanavage, 1993; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 1989). A total of 66 species of fish 

representing 15 families were found to inhabit these 

waters. Although not usually considered prime fish 

habitat, overall species diversity in the Patoka River 

in 1991 compared favorably with other southwest 

Indiana streams (Stefanavage, 1993). 

Considering the Patoka River’s low dissolved 

oxygen levels, muddy brown/green water, and limited in-stream structure (habitat), it is not surprising that common carp was found to be the most 

abundant species. Gizzard shad, an important food 

source for more desirable predatory fish, was the 

second most abundant. Third in number was smallmouth buffalo, an edible species frequently sought 

by anglers. It is interesting to note that the smallmouth buffalo population appears large enough to 

support commercial fishing. Of the more popular 

game fish, channel and flathead catfish probably 

provide the best sport fishing opportunities in this 

section of the river. Largemouth bass, bluegill and 

crappie, while present, do not have populations 

large enough, or do not grow at a sufficient rate, to 

offer substantial fishing opportunities.

As a result of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

channel clearing project in the early 1980s, and ongoing, similar activities by the Upper and Lower 

Conservancy Districts, fish habitat in terms of instream cover ranges from none to very little. Few 

log jams, brush piles and root-wads are found in the 

river within the proposed Project area. Consequently, species requiring in-stream cover (largemouth bass, bluegill, crappie) are limited by 

available habitat. Riffle/pool habitat is also scarce. 

In general, the stretch of river within the proposed 

Project is classified glide/run, and is characterized 

by a mud and silt bottom. Species diversity in the 

channelized portion of the river (downstream from 

Winslow) is lower than in the natural, meandering 

channel. Diversity at sampling sites averaged 14 

species in the channelized river while the natural 

river supported an average of 19 species. Fish of 

interest to commercial and sport fishermen (buffalo, 

drum, channel and flathead catfish and spotted 

bass) were more abundant in the unchannelized section. 

In addition to inadequate in-stream habitat, nonpoint source pollution, particularly acidic waters 

from abandoned coal mines and illegal releases of 

salt brine produced from oil wells, has been a limiting factor for the Patoka River fisheries. Decreases 

in fish numbers and species diversity immediately 

below Mill Creek and the South Fork Patoka River, 

both of which have carried high levels of acid mine 

waters, attest to the deleterious impacts associated 

with this pollutant. Fish kills associated with acid 

drainage were not uncommon in the South Fork at 

the time of the Refuge’s establishment. One of these 

occurred on September l, 1991, when heavy rain fell 

after two months of dry weather. Dead bluegill, 

bowfin, common carp, gar, and largemouth bass 

were observed. It appears that fish species from the 

Patoka River would recolonize the lower portion of 

the South Fork during drought periods. Then, as 

described above, fish populations in the South Fork 

would be wiped out when major storm events 

occurred which flushed acidic water into the stream 

from abandoned mine areas. This acid water flushout problem of the South Fork has been largely 

eliminated in the past 10 years due to the efforts of 

the Indiana Division of Reclamation’s Abandoned 

Mine Land Reclamation Program and local citizen 

efforts associated with the Appalachian Clean 

Stream Initiative of the U.S. Office of Surface Mining. Illegal releases of salt brine from oil wells while 

Patoka River, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: documented as being common practice in the 1960s, 

USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

45

1970’s and 1980’s has largely been eliminated thanks 

to enforcement efforts by the Indiana Division of Oil 

and Gas. 

One clear sign that water quality in the main 

stream Patoka River is improving as a result of 

improved enforcement actions and millions of dollars of reclamation efforts in the watershed are the 

increasing reports of paddlefish. (Polyodon 

spathula) since the late 1990s. Known to spawn in 

the Wabash River, part of the life cycle needs for 

these gill feeders includes rich feeding grounds 

found in flooded bottomland hardwoods. As the 

water quality of the Patoka River has improved, 

paddlefish have returned to this ancestral feeding 

area during spring floods to build up their body fats 

for successful egg production. Fishermen now 

report seeing paddlefish on a regular basis in the 

Patoka River and associated tributaries, oxbows and 

marshes. Recent contaminant surveys by Bloomington Ecological Services in the early 2000s also saw 

the return of harlequin darters which hadn’t been 

found in the Patoka River since the late 1800s. 

Invertebrates

The wetlands associated with the riparian ecosystem along the Patoka River support good invertebrate populations in their nutrient-rich waters. 

Nesting waterfowl, waterfowl broods and shorebirds are highly dependent on these protein-rich 

food sources for successful reproduction and 

healthy growth. Invertebrates associated with wetlands in the area include protozoa, crustaceans, mollusks, snails and insects. Contaminant studies to 

evaluate the impact of salt brines on freshwater 

shrimp and crayfish were conducted on the Patoka 

River between 2000-2002 by Tom Simon of the 

Bloomington Ecological Services Office. One result 

of this study was the discovery of a new species of 

burrower crayfish identified now as the paintedhand mudbug (Cambarus nov.sp.diogenes) named 

because of the red tips on its claws. It turns out that 

this new crayfish species is the most common species on the Patoka River NWR. 

Insects

By far the most obvious (and obnoxious) insects 

in the area are mosquitoes. Of the 51 species known 

to occur in Indiana, 30 could be expected to inhabit 

the southwestern portion of the state (Siverly, 1972). 

The majority of these species are considered pests 

whose biting activities often thwart otherwise 

enjoyable outdoor living and recreational activities, 

but do not pose any substantial human health risk. 

The most common nuisance mosquitoes found in 

local floodplains are Psorophora ciliata and Aedes 

vexans, the latter being perhaps the number one 

pest species in the area. These floodwater species 

are not significant vectors(carriers) of human diseases in southern Indiana. 

Molluscs

Historically, the Patoka River supported a rich 

diversity of freshwater mussels that were utilized by 

Native Americans and wildlife alike. One early survey documented 21 species occurring in the river 

with other historical records showing an additional 

12 species. Most of these mussels are relatively common in Indiana's larger creeks. The ring pink and 

hickory nut are big river species and probably lived 

near the confluence with the Wabash River. The ring 

pink is on the federal list of endangered species, but 

is believed to be extirpated from Indiana. The clubshell, and fat pocketbook, both federally endangered species, are reported in historical records. A 

more recent survey of the Patoka River found no 

live specimens of these species, but did turn up a 

weathered fat pocketbook shell, although not within 

the portion of the river flowing through the Refuge. 

A survey of freshwater mussels conducted in 

2000 along the entire length of the Patoka River and 

portions of its tributaries found 28 mussel species 

(Ecological Specialists, Inc. 2001). This is fewer than 

the 33 species reported in historic records. The segment of the Patoka River flowing through the Refuge contained 17 mussel species. No species were 

Pied-billed Grebe, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo 

credit: USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

46

found in the channelized portion of the river probably because the habitat in this stretch has been 

altered so as to render it unsuitable.

The diversity of freshwater mussels within the 

Patoka River has declined from historic levels, a 

trend that is similar for freshwater mussels across 

North America. Human activities during the past 90 

years have greatly reduced the river's capability to 

support the once large assortment of bottom-dwelling mollusks. River channelization, erosion-related 

sedimentation, pesticide and fertilizer runoff, pollutants from oil and coal extraction, improperly treated 

sewage, and toxic industrial discharges have combined to degrade bottom substrates, water quality, 

and the riverine ecosystem in general. The diversity 

and numbers of mussels present in a river serves as 

an excellent barometer of river water quality. The 

more species and the higher the number of mussels 

found indicate the higher the water quality and 

stream bottom health. Future mussel surveys will 

be used to compare back to the initial surveys conducted when the Patoka River NWR was established to verify improvements resulting from 

management practices. 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species

Threatened and Endangered Flora

The Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center is a 

continuously updated data management system 

which contains locations of all rare plant species in 

Indiana. Based on this information, which includes 

both historical collections and recent discoveries, 

the Indiana Division of Nature Preserves (IDNP) 

compiled a list of 55 potential rare plants that could 

occur within the proposed Wetlands Project. IDNP 

personnel then conducted field investigations to 

confirm the presence of any of these rare plant species. In 1991, 17 individual areas within the Project 

area were inventoried. A total of 20 state-listed 

plant species were verified during the survey 

(Homoya, et al., 1992). No federally-listed threatened or endangered plants are known to occur 

within the NWR/MA. The vast majority of rare 

plants found during IDNP’S survey are associated 

with forested and emergent wetlands. 

Two of the 20 state-listed plant species are particularly noteworthy. The discovery of sickle pod (Cassis obtusifolia) was the first documented occurrence 

of this species in the state. Also, three populations of 

buttonweed (Diodia virginiana) were found in what 

is now the Refuge & MA. These finds were the second, third and fourth occurrences of this species 

documented in Indiana.

More current data on endangered, threatened 

and rare plants in Gibson and Pike counties are 

available from the Indiana Department of Nature 

Preserves (IDNP) within Indiana DNR (IDNP, 

2005a; IDNP, 2005b). Table 2 shows those vascular 

plants listed by IDNP expected to occur in either 

Gibson or Pike counties, or both, as of 2005. 

(Table 2)

In addition to these species and subspecies/varieties of wild plants, IDNP lists four “high quality 

natural communities” found in Gibson and/or Pike 

counties, including Forest – floodplain wet-mesic, 

Forest – upland dry-mesic, Forest – upland mesic, 

and Wetland – swamp shrub. Each of these communities occurs on the Refuge & MA. 

Threatened and Endangered Fauna

Whooping Crane (Grus Americana)

In 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a reintroduction of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Whooping Cranes in the Eastern 

United States. The intent was to establish a migratory flock that would summer and breed in Wisconsin and winter in west-central Florida which was 

historical habitat. Since the migration route is a 

learned rather than an innate behavior, captivereared Whooping Cranes released in Wisconsin 

were led by ultralight aircraft to establish their historical flight path to suitable wintering areas in 

Florida. Five Whooping Crane yearlings were led 

over 1,200-miles in 2001, followed by 16 in 2002, 15 in 

2003, 17 in 2004, 21 in 2005 and 18 in 2006. The first 

record of these introduced Whooping Cranes visiting the Patoka River NWR was on November 17, 

2003, when a pair (2-02-F and 13-02-M) spent several days in the Patoka River bottoms near the 

Francisco Mine within the Refuge acquisition area. 

On March 27, 28 and 29, 2005, No. 2-01-F and No. 8-

02-M spent their time in corn field stubble at Patoka 

River NWR in Pike County near Line Road. Annual 

stop overs on the Refuge are expected to occur 

every spring and fall once a viable flock is established. 

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

An increase in abundance and distribution of the 

Bald Eagle across the United States led to its 

reclassification from endangered to threatened in 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

47

Table 2: Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Vascular Plants in Gibson and Pike Counties, Indiana, as 

of 2005 

Scientific Name Common Name Gibson 

County

Pike 

County

FED STATE GRANK SRANK

Acalypha deamii Mercury 3 SR G4? S2

Armoracia aquatica Lake Cress 3 SE G4? S1

Azolla caroliniana Carolina Mosquitofern 3 ST G5 S2

Calycocarpum lyonii Cup-seed 3 ST G5 S2

Carex socialis Social Sedge 3 SR G4 S2

Carex straminea Straw Sedge 3 ST G5 S2

Catalpa speciosa Northern Catalpa 3 SR G4? S2

Chelone obliqua var. 

speciosa 

Rose Turtlehead 3 3 WL G4T3 S3

Clematis pitcheri Pitcher Leatherflower 3 SR G4G5 S2

Crataegus grandis Grand Hawthorn 3 SE G3G5Q S1

Crataegus viridis Green Hawthorn 3 ST G5 S2

Cyperus pseudovegetus Green Flatsedge 3 3 SR G5 S2

Didiplis diandra Water-purslane 3 3 SE G5 S2

Diodia virginiana Buttonweed 3 3 WL G5 S2

Gleditsia aquatica Water-locust 3 SE G5 S1

Hibiscus moscheutos 

ssp. lasiocarpos 

Hairy-fruited 

Hibiscus

3 SE G5T4 S1

Hottonia inflata Featherfoil 3 ST G4 S2

Iresine rhizomatosa Eastern Bloodleaf 3 SR G5 S2

Itea virginica Virginia Willow 3 SE G4 S1

Juglans cinerea Butternut 3 WL G3G4 S3

Linum striatum Ridged Yellow Flax 3 WL G5 S3

Ludwigia decurrens Primrose Willow 3 3 WL G5 S2

Mikania scandens Climbing Hempweed 3 SE G5 S1

Orobanche ludoviciana Louisiana 

Broomrape 

3 SE G5 S2

Phacelia ranunculacea Blue Scorpion-weed 3 SE G4 S1

Platanthera flava var. 

flava 

Southern Rein 

Orchid 

3 SE G4T4?Q S1

Potamogeton pusillus Slender Pondweed 3 3 WL G5 S2

Rhexia mariana var. 

mariana 

Maryland Meadow 

Beauty 

3 ST G5T5 S1

Sagittaria australis Longbeak 

Arrowhead

3 SR G5 S2

Selaginella apoda Meadow Spike-moss 3 WL G5 S1

Senna obtusifolia Blunt-leaf Senna 3 SR G5 S2

Sparganium 

androcladum

Branching Bur-reed 3 ST G4G5 S2
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

48

1995. It also led to a 1999 proposal to remove the 

Bald Eagle from the endangered species list. The 

Bald Eagle was removed from the list of threatened 

and endangered species in July 2007. The species 

became endangered because of habitat loss and 

reproductive failure brought on by the accumulation 

of the pesticide DDT and other organochlorine 

insecticides. Today, the DDT threat is largely gone. 

Efforts focus on maintaining sites eagles depend on 

for nesting, feeding, migration, and wintering. On 

the Refuge, the Bald Eagle occurs as a winter 

migrant and a summer breeder. Absent as a nesting 

species for many years, a chick was produced in 

spring 2002. A pair of Bald Eagles began nesting 

near the Snakey Point Marsh adjacent to the South 

Fork Patoka River in 2001. Unsuccessful that first 

year, one eaglet was raised in 2002, one in 2003, two 

out of three in 2004, one killed by falling tree in 

2005, two lost from wind storm in 2006, and two 

fledged in 2007. 

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum) (Interior Population) 

The historic breeding range of the federally listed 

endangered Least Tern extended from Texas to 

Montana and from eastern Colorado and New Mexico to southern Indiana. It included large rivers of 

the Red, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Ohio, and 

Rio Grande River systems. It nests on sand and 

gravel bars and protected beach areas of large rivers, and winters in coastal Central and South America. The species is endangered because human 

disturbance and alteration of river systems have 

rendered much of its nesting habitat unusable. 

The 488-acre Cane Ridge Wildlife Management 

Area lies 24 miles west of the Refuge headquarters 

includes 193 acres of moist soil wetlands in four 

management units, 180 acres of reforested bottomland hardwoods, and a 59-acre deep water impoundment with nesting islands that provide habitat for 

the Least Tern. The terns have used the nesting 

islands for that purpose fledging 52 young in 2005 

and 42 young in 2006. 

Fat Pocketbook (Potamilus capax)

Designated as federally endangered in 1976, this 

mussel is found in slow flowing waters of large rivers with mud or sand bottoms. The primary contributors to its decline are activities related to 

navigation and flood control such as impounded 

waters or dredging. The fat pocketbook has been 

found in the Wabash and White Rivers in Indiana. 

Its specific occurrence and distribution within the 

Refuge/MA is unknown at this time. 

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist)

The Indiana bat was listed as federally endangered in 1967 under the Endangered Species Conservation Act, a precursor to the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973. Primarily the bats declined in 

number because of loss or disturbance of caves or 

other hibernacula. The bats hibernate communally 

Styrax americanus American Snowbell 3 3 WL G5 S3

Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress 3 ST G5 S2

Trachelospermum 

difforme

Climbing Dogbane 3 3 SR G4G5 S2

Vitis palmata Catbird Grape 3 3 SR G4 S2

Wisteria macrostachya Kentucky Wisteria 3 SR G5 S2

Sources: IDNP, 2005a and IDNP, 2005b

FED: LE = Endangered; LT = Threatened; C = candidate; PDL = proposed for delisting

STATE: SE = state endangered; ST = state threatened; SR = state rare; SSC = state species of special concern; SX = 

state extirpated; SG = state significant; WL = watch list

GRANK: Global Heritage Rank: G1 = critically imperiled globally; G2 = imperiled globally; G3 = rare or uncommon 

globally; G4 = widespread and abundant globally but with long term concerns; G5 = widespread and abundant globally; 

G? = unranked; GX = extinct; Q = uncertain rank; T = taxonomic subunit rank

SRANK: State Heritage Rank: S1 = critically imperiled in state; S2 = imperiled in state; S3 = rare or uncommon in state; 

G4 = widespread and abundant in state but with long term concern; SG = state significant; SH = historical in state; SX = 

state extirpated; B = breeding status; S? = unranked; SNR = unranked; SNA = nonbreeding status unranked

Table 2: Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Vascular Plants in Gibson and Pike Counties, Indiana, as 

of 2005 (Continued)

Scientific Name Common Name Gibson 

County

Pike 

County

FED STATE GRANK SRANK
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

49

in large numbers. Disruption or destruction of a single site can dramatically affect the population. It 

occurs in several locations across Indiana. A maternity colony containing more than 100 adults in a 

large dead tree was first documented on the Refuge 

in 2005. 

Copperbelly Water Snake (Nerodia erythrogaster 

neglecta) 

The copperbelly water snake was proposed for 

listing as a threatened species in 1993 because of 

habitat loss and fragmentation largely associated 

with coal mining. The listing was never finalized. 

Instead, the Service entered into conservation 

agreements with mining regulatory agencies and 

coal industry representatives in Indiana, Kentucky, 

and Illinois. The agreements greatly reduced existing threats to the species, especially those posed by 

mining operations, precluding the need to list the 

southern population of the snake under the Endangered Species Act. Research conducted on the 

Patoka River NWR in 1994, 1995 and 1996 showed 

the Refuge area contained a significant viable population of copperbelly water snakes in suitable habitat which centered around buttonbush swamps 

associated closely with beaver impoundments. A 

large area of the Refuge bottomlands were designated Core Conservation Habitat in the Copperbelly Conservation Agreement with coal companies. 

This designation placed those lands off limits to any 

future surface coal mining efforts to protect some 

the highest quality copperbelly habitat remaining in 

its national range. 

In addition to these federally listed species, a 

number of animal species are listed by the Indiana 

Department of Nature Preserves on their database 

of endangered, threatened and rare wildlife in the 

state (IDNP, 2005a; IDNP, 2005b). Table 3 shows 

those wild animal species and subspecies listed by 

IDNP expected to occur in either Gibson or Pike 

Counties, or both, as of 2005. 

Threats to Resources

There are two main kinds of threats to environmental quality and plant and animal communities at 

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area: invasive species and contaminants. 

These are now considered in turn. 

Invasive Species

Invasive species are plants or animals that are 

often (but not always) non-native or exotic to a given 

habitat. They are capable of spreading, sometimes 

quickly, to the detriment of native flora and fauna, 

which may be displaced, reduced in population, or 

even extirpated. In pursuing its mission to conserve 

America’s native biodiversity, the Service contributes to nationwide efforts to control the unchecked 

expansion of invasive plant and animal species. 

Some exotic (non-native) plants may substantially 

alter the plant communities of more natural, undisturbed areas while others more commonly affect 

disturbed or agricultural areas. Left unchecked, 

these invasive plant species can seriously degrade 

the productivity and natural value of invaded sites.

Most of the Refuge’s wetlands are relatively free 

of noxious plants. Those in the area possessing the 

greatest potential for serious impacts include common reed grass (Phragmites communis), reed 

canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and moneywort (Lysimachia nummularia). The first two are a 

greater threat in open wetland sites, whereas 

money wart can carpet large areas of floodplain forests (as well as open areas). A plant not yet noted, 

but certainly expanding its range toward the area, is 

purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). This species 

and common reed grass have been observed to completely overrun wetlands to the exclusion of almost 

all other plant species.

In uplands the most troublesome invasive is 

Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense). Due to its hardiness, growth and reproductive mechanisms, and 

its close relationship to domestic corn, this introduced species is widespread and difficult to control 

in both Pike and Gibson counties. As a result of seed 

Current coal mine reclamation, Patoka River NWR & 

MA. Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

50

Table 3: Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Fauna in Gibson and Pike Counties, Indiana, as of 2005

Scientific Name Common Name Gibson 

County

Pike 

County

FED STATE GRANK SRANK

Crustacean: Malacostraca

Orconectes indianensis Indiana Crayfish 3 SR G2G3 S2

Mollusk: Bivalvia (Mussels)

Cumberlandia 

monodonta 

Spectaclecase 3 C SX G2G3 SX

Cyprogenia stegaria Eastern Fanshell 

Pearlymussel

3 3 LE SE G1 S1

Epioblasma flexuosa Leafshell 3 SX GX SX

Epioblasma propinqua Tennessee 

Riffleshell 

3 SX GX SX

Epioblasma torulosa 

torulosa 

Tubercled Blossom 3 3 LE SE G2TX SH

Fusconaia subrotunda Longsolid 3 3 SE G3 S1

Lampsilis ovata Pocketbook 3 G5 S2

Lampsilis teres Yellow Sandshell 3 3 G5 S2

Ligumia recta Black Sandshell 3 G5 S2

Obovaria retusa Ring Pink 3 LE SX G1 SX

Obovaria subrotunda Round Hickorynut 3 3 SSC G4 S2

Plethobasus 

cooperianus 

Orangefoot 

Pimpleback 

3 LE SE G1 S1

Plethobasus cyphyus Sheepnose 3 C SE G3 S1

Pleurobema clava Clubshell 3 3 LE SE G2 S1

Pleurobema cordatum Ohio Pigtoe 3 3 SSC G3 S2

Pleurobema 

pyramidatum 

Pyramid Pigtoe 3 3 SE G2 S1

Potamilus capax Fat Pocketbook 3 3 LE SE G1 S1

Ptychobranchus 

fasciolaris 

Kidneyshell 3 SSC G4G5 S2

Quadrula cylindrica 

cylindrica 

Rabbitsfoot 3 3 SE G3T3 S1

Simpsonaias ambigua Salamander Mussel 3 SSC G3 S2

Insect: Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)

Homoeoneuria 

ammophila 

A Sand-filtering 

Mayfly

3 SE G4 S1

Pseudiron centralis A Mayfly 3 3 SE G5 S1

Insect: Lepidoptera (Butterflies & Moths)

Euphyes dukesi Scarce Swamp 

Skipper 

3 ST G3 S1S2

Fish

Ammocrypta clara Western Sand 

Darter 

3 SSC G3 S3

Ammocrypta pellucida Eastern Sand 

Darter 

3 G3 S2

Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker 3 3 G3 G4 S2

Etheostoma camurum Bluebreast Darter 3 G4 S1
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

51

Etheostoma histrio Harlequin Darter 3 3 G5 S1

Etheostoma squamiceps Spottail Darter 3 G4 G5 S1

Etheostoma tippecanoe Tippecanoe Darter 3 SSC G3G4 S1

Amphibian 

Rana areolata circulose Northern Crawfish 

Frog

3 SE G4T4 S2

Reptile

Kinosternon 

subrubrum 

Eastern Mud Turtle 3 SE G5 S2

Nerodia erythrogaster 

neglecta 

Copperbelly Water 

Snake 

3 3 PS:LT SE G5T2T3 S2

Opheodrys aestivus Rough Green Snake 3 SSC G5 S3

Pseudemys concinna 

hieroglyphica 

Hieroglyphic River 

Cooter 

3 SE G5T4 S1

Bird

Ammodramus 

henslowii 

Henslow's Sparrow 3 SE G4 S3B

Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron 3 3 G5 S4B

Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl 3 SE G5 S2

Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern 3 SE G4 S2B

Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered 

Hawk 

3 3 SSC G5 S3

Buteo platypterus Broad-winged Hawk 3 No Status SSC G5 S3B

Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier 3 3 SE G5 S2

Cistothorus platensis Sedge Wren 3 SE G5 S3B

Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon 3 No Status SE G4 S2B

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

Bald Eagle 3 Delisted 

2007

SE G5 S2

Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern 3 SE G5 S3B

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike 3 No Status SE G4 S3B

Nyctanassa violacea Yellow-crowned 

Night-heron

3 3 SE G5 S2B

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned 

Night-heron 

3 SE G5 

S1B

G5 S1B

Phalaropus tricolor Wilson's Phalarope 3 SX G5 SHB

Rallus elegans King Rail 3 3 SE G4 S1B

Sterna antillarum 

athalassos 

Interior Least Tern 3 LE SE G4T2Q S1B

Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's Wren 3 G5 S1B

Tyto alba Barn Owl 3 3 SE G5 S2

Mammal

Lutra canadensis Northern River 

Otter

3 3 G5 S2

Lynx rufus Bobcat 3 No Status G5 S1

Mustela nivalis Least Weasel 3 SSC G5 S2?

Table 3: Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Fauna in Gibson and Pike Counties, Indiana, as of 2005 

Scientific Name Common Name Gibson 

County

Pike 

County

FED STATE GRANK SRANK
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

52

dispersal during flood events, bottomland agricultural fields are particularly prone to infestation, 

making it common to see this plant in those areas.

Other plants classified as noxious weeds in the 

Refuge & MA include Canadian thistle, bur cucumber and shatter cane. Although locally significant, 

these species do not represent as pervasive a problem as Johnson grass.

Aquatic resources at Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge are also at risk from non-native invasive 

animals, such as zebra mussels, common carp, grass 

carp, bighead carp, and silver carp. Although most 

of these species have not been documented in the 

Patoka River, all have been documented in the Ohio 

and Wabash Rivers, many have been documented in 

other tributaries to the Wabash River in Indiana, 

and all have the potential to expand their range into 

the Patoka River. These nuisance aquatic animals 

may substantially alter habitats and food web 

dynamics that native aquatic communities are 

dependant upon for sustainability.

Common carp are established within waters of 

the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and are 

troublesome in rivers, streams, and wetlands due to 

their ability to alter aquatic habitats by uprooting 

vegetation, reducing water transparency, and reducing aquatic plant growth. Grass carp, which are 

established in the Ohio and Wabash Rivers, consume aquatic vegetation and also have the potential 

to alter aquatic habitats and their native communities. Bighead and silver carps are established in the 

Ohio and Wabash Rivers and are rapidly dispersing 

throughout many interior smaller order streams 

throughout the Midwest. It is likely that these fish 

will disperse into the Patoka River. Bighead and silver carp feed on plankton and have the potential to 

alter aquatic food webs. Zebra mussels primarily 

consume phytoplankton, but also filter other suspended materials from the water column and can 

substantially alter ecosystems that they invade. 

Zebra mussels have extirpated native unionid mussels after colonizing new waters.

Table 4 lists key invasive species at Patoka River 

NWR & MA. 

Contaminants

The principal contaminants present in the Patoka 

River area are those associated with surface coal 

mining and crude oil extraction. Present-day surface mining (post-1977 and SMCRA) is tightly regulated and closely monitored to assure water quality 

in downstream areas is not substantially impacted 

by mining refuse or erosion-related sediments. 

Although occasional accidental discharges of deleterious materials such as slurry from wash plants or 

equipment-related petroleum products adversely 

affect aquatic resources in portions of the watershed, for the most part current surface mining contributes little contamination to the Patoka River. 

Before SMCRA, however, coal mining, both 

underground and surface, produced coal refuse piles 

and slurry ponds containing waste material such as 

pyrite, shale and clay, which were separated from 

the usable coal during cleaning operations. In Pike 

County, at the time of the Refuge’s establishment in 

the early 1990s, there were at least 186 acres of 

refuse piles, 129 acres of slurry ponds, and 3,113 

acres of mined land with less than 75 percent vegeMyotis sodalis Indiana Bat or 

Social Myotis

3 3 LE SE G2 S1

Sylvilagus aquaticus Swamp Rabbit 3 SE G5 S1

Taxidea taxus American Badger 3 3 G5 S2

Sources: IDNP, 2005a and IDNP, 2005b

FED: LE = Endangered; LT = Threatened; C = candidate; PDL = proposed for delisting

STATE: SE = state endangered; ST = state threatened; SR = state rare; SSC = state species of special concern; SX = 

state extirpated; SG = state significant; WL = watch list

GRANK: Global Heritage Rank: G1 = critically imperiled globally; G2 = imperiled globally; G3 = rare or uncommon 

globally; G4 = widespread and abundant globally but with long term concerns; G5 = widespread and abundant globally; 

G? = unranked; GX = extinct; Q = uncertain rank; T = taxonomic subunit rank

SRANK: State Heritage Rank: S1 = critically imperiled in state; S2 = imperiled in state; S3 = rare or uncommon in state; 

G4 = widespread and abundant in state but with long term concern; SG = state significant; SH = historical in state; SX = 

state extirpated; B = breeding status; S? = unranked; SNR = unranked; SNA = nonbreeding status unranked

Table 3: Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Fauna in Gibson and Pike Counties, Indiana, as of 2005 

Scientific Name Common Name Gibson 

County

Pike 

County

FED STATE GRANK SRANK
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

53

Table 4: Invasive Plants and Animals at Patoka NWR/MA 

Species Name Summary

Common Carp Originating in Asia, common carp were introduced to North America in 1877, 

first in Maryland and subsequently throughout the United States. They spread 

rapidly and became naturalized in all waters into which they were introduced. 

They are adapted to relatively low-oxygen, polluted, turbid waters. Due to their 

habit of grubbing through bottom sediments for food and alteration of their 

environment, they destroy, uproot and disturb submerged vegetation, causing 

serious damage to native duck and fish populations.

Phragmities

or Common Reed Grass

Phragmites or common reed is a widely distributed, highly aggressive wetland 

plant whose origin is unclear, although both native and non-native genotypes or 

lineages have been documented. It can grow up to 6 meters high in dense stands 

and is long-lived. Phragmites is capable of reproduction by seeds, but primarily 

does so asexually by means of rhizomes. 

Johnson Grass Originally native to the Mediterranean, this tall, coarse grass with stout 

rhizomes now occurs in all warm-temperate regions of the world. Johnson grass 

invades riverbanks and disturbed sites crowding out native species and slowing 

succession. Rhizome cuttings commonly form new plants, making it very 

difficult to eradicate. It spreads rapidly and is not affected by many of the 

agricultural herbicides.

Moneywort or Creeping Jenny Originally from Europe, this attractive but weedy herb, a member of the 

Primrose family, has escaped from lawns and gardens and now occurs in many 

states in the East and West. Moneywort is reported from many counties in 

Indiana, where it can be found growing in a variety of different habitat types. 

Preferring moist, rich, shaded soils, it flourishes best and poses the biggest 

threat in wetter areas such as wet meadows, swamps, floodplain forests, stream 

banks, bottoms, ditches, roadsides and along the banks of small water bodies. 

Japanese Knotweed Introduced from Asia in the late 1800s as an ornamental and for erosion control, 

this weed can tolerate a variety of adverse conditions, including deep shade, high 

temperatures, high salinity and drought. Knotweed is commonly found near 

water sources, such as streams and rivers, in low-lying areas, waste places and 

utility rights-of-way and around old home sites. It spreads quickly to form dense 

thickets that exclude native vegetation and greatly alter natural ecosystems. 

Japanese knotweed poses a significant threat to riparian areas, where it can 

survive severe floods and rapidly colonize scoured shores and islands. Once 

established, populations are extremely persistent.

Reed Canary Grass This grass is native to lowland areas of the Midwest and has escaped from 

cultivation in other regions. Various strains of reed canary grass are found 

throughout the world except Antarctica and Greenland. It is a major threat to 

marshes and natural wetlands because its hardiness, aggressive nature, and 

rapid growth allow it to displace native wetland plant species. This species 

occurs in wetlands, including marshes, wet prairies, wet meadows, fens, stream 

banks, and swales. It has been planted widely for forage and for erosion control.

Autumn Olive This deciduous shrub is native to China and Japan and can range from 3 to 20 

feet in height. It is easily recognized by the silvery, dotted underside of the 

leaves. Small, yellowish flowers or red, juicy fruits are abundant and occur on 

clusters near the stems. Autumn olive invades old fields, woodland edges, and 

other disturbed areas. It can form a dense shrub layer which displaces native 

species and closes open areas. Since its introduction in 1830, it has been widely 

planted for wildlife habitat, mine reclamation, and shelterbelts.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

54

tation cover (haul roads, railroad grades, etc.) (Allen 

et al., 1978). Most of these areas were located off the 

refuge but contributing to runoff in the watershed. 

Surface mining also created pyrite-laced cast 

overburden ridges which act as unconsolidated aquifers easily transporting water through the spoils. 

Pyrite is the most common sulfide mineral, and its 

oxidation is one of the most acidic of all weathering 

actions. In the presence of oxygen and water, sulfuric acid is formed, and results in what is commonly 

called acid mine drainage (Kolankiewicz, 1982). This 

runoff water contains high concentrations of acid, 

calcium, magnesium, iron, aluminum, manganese, 

sulfate and coal fines, and contributes to the degradation of many of the area's streams and lakes. In 

some instances, such as Augusta Lake on Sugar 

Ridge Fish and Wildlife Area 4, acid concentrations 

are so high that most aquatic organisms, including 

fish, cannot survive. Although little of this land is 

within the Refuge, drainage from off-site adversely 

impacts aquatic resources in several tributaries to 

the Patoka River as well as the river itself. Mill 

Creek, Stone Coe Creek, Barren Creek and the 

South Fork Patoka River have carried heavy loads 

of acidic water into the Patoka, particularly following heavy rains. 

The Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation program, funded by a tax on current coal production, 

has been active in the watershed starting in the late 

1980’s remediating barren, acid-producing spoil and 

refuse sites. Initial efforts of this reclamation program focused on revegetating numerous barren 

sites, de-watering low-pH lakes and eliminating 

safety hazards including steep highwalls. Efforts to 

control acid mine drainage seeps and to minimize 

downstream flowage to mingle with higher quality 

fresh waters, increased as a result of theAppalalachian Clean Stream Initiative began in 1994. This 

special program made water quality improvement 

to enhance the general welfare of local communities 

an equal priority with safety considerations for the 

Abandoned Mine Land Program. Since then, much 

headway has been made in reducing the volume of 

acid mine drainage. Water quality studies completed 

by the Service in 1992 indicated that acidity levels in 

affected waterways were as high then as they were 

in a comprehensive study completed in 1968 (Corbett, 1969). Where there were few if any fish or 

invertebrates in the South Fork Patoka River in 

1992, there are now sufficient quantities to attract 

nesting Bald Eagles and sport fishermen. 

Oil production operations in the area have also 

affected water quality in the Patoka River and its 

tributaries. Inadequate storage tank containment, 

open pits of oil, and irresponsible spills or overflowages of crude oil from some of the 82 operating 

wells/storage tanks within or adjacent to the Refuge 

have contaminated surface waters and adversely 

impacted the area’s plant and wildlife resources in 

the past. While not a continuous phenomenon, spills 

of one sort or another have occurred regularly 

enough to be of concern. For example, during 1992, 

at least three spill events were documented to have 

Japanese Honeysuckle This species is native to eastern Asia and was first introduced into America in 

1806 at Long Island, NY. It is an evergreen to semi-evergreen vine that can be 

found either trailing or climbing to heights of over 80 feet. It has opposite, oval 

shaped leaves that are 1 to 2.5 inches long and showy, fragrant, tubular flowers 

that are whitish-pink to yellow in color. Japanese honeysuckle invades a variety 

of habitats, including forest floors and canopies, roadsides, wetlands, and 

disturbed areas. It can girdle small saplings by twining around them and can 

form dense mats in the canopies of trees, shading everything below. Japanese 

honeysuckle has been planted widely throughout the United States as an 

ornamental, for erosion control, and for wildlife habitat.

Bush Honeysuckle The four species of bush honeysuckle that cause most invasive problems (Amur, 

Morrow's, Tartarian, and Belle) are all referred to as “bush honeysuckle.” 

Native to Asia and western Europe, these shrubs were introduced to North 

America in the 1700s and 1800s and are frequently used for landscaping and to 

improve wildlife habitats; they have become naturalized in many areas of the 

Northeast and Midwest. The bush honeysuckles are tolerant of a variety of 

edaphic (soil) and environmental conditions. Typical habitats include disturbed 

successional communities, wetlands, prairie, woodland edges, and partially 

closed forests.

Table 4: Invasive Plants and Animals at Patoka NWR/MA (Continued)

Species Name Summary
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

55

directly impacted the South Fork Patoka River. The 

last spill involving approximately 4,000 gallons of 

crude oil resulted when a storage tank was struck 

by lightning. Inadequate earthen berms failed to 

contain the spill which flowed into the South Fork 

and had to be contained and removed with soaker 

booms and pumps. Abandoned orphan oil wells 

resulting from bankrupt or dead operators remain 

in place until the Indiana Division of Oil and Gas has 

funds to clean them up. Cooperative efforts and cost 

sharing between the refuge and the Division of Oil 

and Gas have resulted in the removal of at least 10 

abandoned oil wells within the refuge area. Presently, there are no abandoned oil wells within the 

refuge acquisition area. 

An additional, and perhaps more insidious, oil 

production-related pollutant is the salt water often 

discharged at oil wells. A 1969 study found that at 

some sites on the Patoka, chlorides from oil well 

brine waste was a greater threat to water quality 

than acid mine drainage (Corbett, 1969). Salt water 

not only impairs water quality, but also sterilizes 

upland spill areas to the point of eliminating plant 

life. Stricter regulations, improved enforcement 

efforts and the increased use of salt water injection 

wells have reduced the magnitude of this problem in 

the last decade. Occasional accidents, and, in some 

cases, deliberate discharges continue to pose the 

threat of contamination in the watershed.

Being located in a watershed with a substantial 

amount of agriculture, the Refuge & MA’s resources 

may be exposed to an assortment of agriculturerelated contaminants. Erosion of farmland soils as 

well as direct rainfall runoff can introduce fertilizers 

and a variety of pesticides, mainly organochlorine or 

organophosphate products, into the bottomland ecosystem. These substances may be toxic both 

through direct exposure as well as through bioaccumulation in the food chain with secondary effects on 

reproduction and behavior. In a 1989 Indiana 

Department of Environmental Management 

(IDEM) monitoring study, tissue analysis of fish 

from Patoka River confirmed the presence of 

numerous metals, including mercury, and several 

pesticides, most notably chlordane, nonachlor and 

dieldrin. Similar findings have been documented in 

other bottomland systems in this region of the country (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992). 

According to files maintained by the IDEM 

Office of Solid and Hazardous Waste, there are 41 

sites in Pike and Gibson counties that are identified 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response 

and Compensation Liability Inventory System 

(CERCLIS, 1991). Of the total sites, 10 are located 

within or close to Patoka River NWR & MA. Nine of 

these were placed on the CERCLIS list because 

Surface Impoundment Assessments (SIA) had been 

completed for these sites. These small surface 

impoundments were created and used to store and 

dispose of brine and oil well drilling wastes before 

this practice was banned. The conclusion of “no further remedial action planned” was made regarding 

these sites. The remaining site on the CERCLIS list 

is a railroad tie treatment plant located southwest of 

Winslow. The site was reviewed under authority of 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) by IDEM and EPA for past improper 

waste disposal in surface impoundments. Subsequent upgrading of the facility corrected those 

problems. 

Interstate 69

In 1999 the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) initiated an Environmental Impact 

Statement (USDOT and INDOT 2003) for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that considered a range of possible highway corridors to link 

Evansville and Indianapolis, including one that 

would cross an area within the Refuge acquisition 

boundary. In March 2004, after extensive public 

involvement and analysis, the FHWA issued a 

Record of Decision (USDOT 2004) that selected an 

alternative that included the Refuge crossing 

(Figure 8). 

After the Record of Decision (ROD) was issued, 

INDOT began secondary analyses for each of six 

sections of the highway corridor. These secondary 

Refuge entrance sign, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo 

credit: USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

56

analyses, which include additional public involvement, help determine the final alignment of the 350-

foot wide highway within the 2,000-foot wide 

approved corridor. The impacts of the highway 

crossing on Refuge resources will be considered in 

the secondary analysis. Each of the six secondary 

analyses will culminate with a Record of Decision by 

the FHWA. Once the ROD is issued for a section, 

final design, land acquisition, and construction can 

commence. The Refuge Manager continues to work 

closely with INDOT officials concerning the design 

and placement of the highway. Although the highway would cross an area within the Refuge acquisition boundary, none of the lands within the highway 

corridor are presently part of the Refuge and there 

are no plans to acquire lands within the highway 

corridor. 

As part of a concerted effort to minimize impacts 

to the fish and wildlife resources of the Refuge, the 

highway planners agreed to bridge the entire floodplain crossing of the Patoka River NWR & MA. The 

bridge, approximately one mile long, will be as high 

as 30 feet above the floodplain floor to allow safe 

wildlife passage and minimize construction and 

placement of fill in this wetland environment. This 

would greatly reduce the hydrologic impacts in the 

watershed by minimizing upstream flooding and, 

thereby, reducing the need for additional mitigation 

action.

Administrative Facilities

The Refuge utilizes GSA leased space in Oakland 

City for its headquarters. The office building was 

newly constructed in 1993. Renovation and expansion occurred in 2003 when the GSA lease was 

renewed. Currently the office has nine rooms 

(offices and storage) which encompass approximately 1,900 square feet. The Refuge will continue 

to pursue opportunities to acquire facilities and 

move out of leased space.

Through the same GSA lease, the Refuge has 

access to a 30-foot by 50-foot heated pole barn (1,500 

square feet) that is utilized for equipment storage 

and minor maintenance needs.

Through its land acquisition program, the Refuge 

owns another pole barn which measures approximately 50 feet by 100 feet (5,000 square feet), and is 

used to store supplies and equipment. 

Archeological and Cultural 

Values

Responding to the requirement that these plans 

include “the archaeological and cultural values of 

the planning unit,” the Service contracted for a cultural resources overview and management direction 

study. This short section of the CCP derives in part 

from this source as well as others.

The earliest generally accepted human culture in 

North America is termed PaleoIndian, commencing 

approximately 13,000 years ago in Indiana. Evidence of these people is relatively extensive in 

southern Indiana, and at least 16 PaleoIndian sites 

are reported in Gibson County. The Refuge, however, is outside the known geological concentrations 

of PaleoIndian sites.

The next cultural group is termed Archaic, and 

its origins dated to 10,000 years ago. The Archaic 

culture is quite evident in southern Indiana. The 

warm and dry period known as the Hypsithermal 

(or Altithermal) occurred during the Middle Archaic 

period when many sources of water disappeared. 

Archaic period sites occur on the Refuge.

Figure 8: Projected Route of Interstate 69
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

57

Pottery, constructed burial and other mounds, 

gardening, and eventually the bow and arrow are 

among the distinguishing characteristics of the 

Woodland period that commenced about 2,600 years 

ago. A variety of sites from the Woodland period are 

found and more are anticipated within the Refuge.

The Middle Mississippian culture commenced 

about 950 years ago and continued into the early 

historic people. Sites from this period are found 

within the Refuge boundaries and more, especially 

in buried contexts, can be anticipated in the Refuge 

area. 

The connection between prehistoric cultures and 

recognized Indian tribes in southwest Indiana has 

not been established. Treaties at Vincennes included 

the Shawnee, Potawatomi, Eel River, Kickapoo, 

Kaskaskia (later Peoria), Delaware, Piankashaw, 

Wea, and Miami; only the last four plus the Fox having an apparent connection to the Refuge area.

The French moved into southern Indiana, especially Vincennes, in the late 17th century. They were 

replaced by the British in 1763. In turn, British 

claims gave way to the United States whose possession was confirmed in 1794. The Refuge area was 

settled by farmers from the upland South (Appalachia) whose cultural patterns continue into the 21st 

century; also by Germans and Irish who came to 

build the Wabash and Erie Canal and stayed as 

farmers; and by southern and eastern Europeans 

and African-Americans.

Early transportation routes included the mid19th century Wabash and Erie Canal.

Following the Civil War, coal mining became the 

major industry in the area and continues into the 

21st century. At least 10 per cent of Pike County has 

been strip mined. 

Current Management

Habitat Management

Forested Wetlands (Bottomland Forest)

Wetland management at Patoka River NWR & 

MA consists primarily of restoring forested wetlands, that is bottomland forests (Figure 10 and 

Figure 9). In 2007, the total acreage of forested wetlands on the Refuge & MA was 8,647 acres, of which 

3,056 acres were owned by the Service. With the aim 

of maximizing species diversity within the restored 

wetland, we are trying to reintroduce the mast component of the forested wetland communities, planting seedlings at 500 per acre. Trees are planted with 

a mechanical planter, in rows, and the priority sites 

are those that will complement our objective to 

restore a forested border along the river. 

We are also engaged in restoration on prior converted wetland, areas that were in agricultural production when they are purchased. Typically we 

obtain a field that is planted right up to the edge of 

the River. We then plant seedlings a couple of hundred feet wide parallel to the River. The management of these, once planted, is passive. We just 

“walk away,” allow competition to encroach, and 

permit these sites to remain brushy and thick. It 

does not affect seedling survival, but the thick habitat benefits wildlife. Patoka River wetlands are 

flooded annually naturally. 

Under current management, over the long term 

(100-200 years), we would like to achieve approximately 12,000 to 13,000 acres of bottomland hardwood stands with a mosaic of age and structural 

classes distributed across a narrow elevation gradient. Lower elevations would be dominated by black 

willow, sweetgum, silver maple, and river birch. Pin 

oak, Shumard oak, swamp chestnut oak, swamp 

white oak, red maple, green ash, sycamore, and cottonwood would dominate mid-elevations, while 

upper elevations would be dominated by cherry 

bark oak, other oaks, hickory, and pecan. Over the 

coming 10-15 years, the Refuge will maintain existing bottomland forest area of 3,056 acres. We will 

Bald Eagle pair, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: 

USFWS
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Mana

gement Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

58Figure 9: Current Landcover (West), Patoka River NWR & MA
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

59

Figure 10: Current Landcover (East), Patoka River NWR & MA
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

60

also reforest to bottomland hardwoods future land 

acquisitions that have suitable soils and that are outside of areas managed as non-forested habitat.

Emergent Wetlands

In 2006, the total acreage of emergent wetlands 

on the Refuge & MA was 775 acres, of which 465 

acres were owned by the Service. Our current 

objective is to maintain presently owned emergent 

wetlands (465 acres) in a mixture of vegetation such 

as cattail, bulrush, sedges, spatterdock, water lily 

and smartweeds. We will allow the amount and species composition of emergent wetlands across the 

remainder of the Refuge (both currently owned and 

future acquisitions) to fluctuate through natural 

succession.

Lakes and Ponds

In 2006, the total acreage of lakes and ponds on 

the Refuge & MA was 885 acres, of which 345 acres 

were owned by the Service. Our objective over the 

medium term future is to maintain the number and 

total surface area of lakes and ponds at or above the 

current amount. 

Patoka River, Oxbows, and Patoka Tributaries

In 2006, the total acreage of the Patoka River, its 

oxbows and tributaries on the Refuge & MA was 534 

acres, of which 200 acres were owned by the Service. 

Water Quality

The Refuge’s current objective is to improve 

water quality within the Patoka River and its tributaries to move towards compliance with Indiana 

Department of Environmental Management standards. The long-term goal is removal of the streams 

from the list of impaired waters.

Moist Soil Units

In 2006, the total area of moist soil units on the 

Refuge & MA was 265 acres, all owned by the Service. 

The Refuge has restored nine small wetlands covering approximately 19 acres that were built 

between 2000 and 2006. Two were built with low 

earthen dikes with water control structures, providing the capability to manipulate water levels. These 

units are managed as moist soil, seasonal wetlands. 

One depends on flooding for a water source and the 

other is on a small drainage swale. Water is stored in 

shallow pools to encourage waterfowl, shorebird and 

marsh/waterbird use. Seven other wetlands are 

referred to as macrotopography wetlands which are 

shallow scrapes no deeper than two feet in floodplain cropfield locations dependent on annual flooding for water supply. Bottomland hardwood trees 

have been planted all around these wetlands. They 

are set up for passive management to resemble old 

river oxbows.

At Cane Ridge we have four moist soil units that 

total 193 acres. These are managed to achieve shallow fall flooding, and are slowly drained in the 

spring. They are intended to benefit waterfowl and 

shorebirds and are allowed to revegete and grow in 

the summer with moist soil plants. The four units 

can be managed independently with occassional 

needs of manipulating the vegetation to ensure the 

control of woody intrusion. The units are fed from 

the Least Tern unit and they are all gravity flow, so 

there are no costs associated with this low-intensity 

type of management. The Refuge maintains 6 miles 

of dikes at Cane Ridge.

At Dillin Bottoms, Ducks Unlimited designed and 

supervised construction of two moist soil units covering 62 acres. These units are designed to be 

flooded by reverse flow flap gates during high water 

or with a permanent station auger pump operated 

by a portable diesel engine and PTO shaft.

Over the medium term future, we intend to maintain existing moist soil areas (265 acres) and convert 

up to a total of 700 acres of bottomland farmland to 

moist soil management that provides a diversity of 

native herbaceous plant foods such as wild millet 

(Echinochloa spp.), panic grass (Panicum spp.), 

sedges (Cyperus spp. and Carex spp.), and beggarticks (Bidens spp.). 

Grasslands

In cooperation with Quail Unlimited we have 

planted 25 acres of warm season grasses on the Refuge using commercially available seeds. At the 

present time, maintainace is limited to mowing or 

mechanical disturbance. The seed mix is Indian 

grass, big blue, little blue, side oats, and switch 

grass. 

Upland Forests

In 2006, the total acreage of the upland forest on 

the Refuge & MA was 2,704 acres, of which 183 

acres were owned by the Service. We currently 

manage 40 acres of upland forest, which was 

reseeded cropland. The remainder of the uppland 

forest is not actively managed. Over the long term 

(100-200 years), we hope to achieve a mosaic of 

hardwood stands of different age and structural 

classes distributed on upland areas. These forests 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

61

would be dominated by white oaks, black oaks, hickory, and blackgum on drier sites, and by red oaks, 

yellow poplar, beech, sugar maple, walnut, hickory, 

and cherry on wetter sites. In the coming years, we 

intend to maintain upland forest on presently owned 

areas (183 acres) and for future acquisitions maintain existing upland forest and restore upland forest 

on non-forested upland sites with suitable soils.

Cropland

In 2006, the total acreage of bottomland farmland 

on the Refuge & MA was 4,507 acres, of which 1,059 

acres were owned by the Service. For the most part, 

land acquired as cropland is being maintained as 

cropland until we have the money and ability to convert them to moist soil units or bottomland forests. 

The continued farming is being done by the original 

farmer, or a tenant farmer, through an annual cooperative farming agreement. One-quarter of the crop 

is left standing in the field as our share. Frequently 

these fields are not planted at all due to flooding. In 

those cases, the farmer will plant a mix of wildlife 

friendly plants (millet, buckwheat, milo) for waterfowl on our fourth of the acreage. Over time, we 

intend to convert bottomland cropland areas into 

bottomland forest and moist soil units. 

Upland Openings

In 2006, the total acreage of upland openings on 

the Refuge & MA was 2,139 acres, of which 98 acres 

were owned by the Service. Over the coming 10-15 

years, our objective is to maintain existing owned 

upland openings and those existing upland openings 

on future acquisitions of reclaimed minelands. 

Invasive Plant Species

Our aim now and over the medium-term future 

(10-15 years) is to slow the spread of invasive plant 

species (of present interest are Japanese honeysuckle, reed canary grass, autumn olive, Johnson 

grass, and Japanese knotweed) through monitoring 

and control measures.

Interior Least Tern Nesting Habitat

The Refuge provides six acres of nesting habitat 

for Interior Least Terns at Cane Ridge Wildlife 

Management Area. This area is kept free of vegetation and is fenced to prevent predation by mammals.

Private Lands and Watershed Management

Patoka River staff work with surrounding private 

landowners on conservation projects that benefit us 

jointly. Over the coming 10-15 years, our aim is to 

increase wildlife habitat and reduce sedimentation 

on 150 acres of private lands within the Patoka 

River and surrounding watersheds.

Farm Services Administration Conservation 

Easements

The Farm Services Agency, formerly known as 

the Farm Services Administration, is an agency 

within the U. S. Department of Agriculture. FSA 

makes loans to farmers and ranchers temporarily 

unable to obtain credit from commercial lending 

institutions. FSA sometimes obtains title to real 

property when a borrower defaults on a loan 

secured by the property. FSA holds such properties 

in inventory until sale or other disposal. 

The Service is involved in the inventory disposal 

program because some FSA inventory properties 

contain or support significant fish and wildlife 

resources or have healthy restorable wetlands or 

other unique habitats. Some qualifying properties 

are transferred to the Service and become part of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. Others are 

sold, with restrictions known as conservation easements that protect wetlands or other habitats. In 

most cases, the Service is responsible for the management and administration of properties with conservation easements.

Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Refuge 

has managed habitat on six Farm Services Administration Conservation Easements in five different 

Indiana counties:

# 90 acres with 24.5 acres of riparian habitat in 

Vermillion County;

# 40 acres of forested wetland in Gibson County;

Wabash and Erie Canal (left), Patoka River NWR & MA. 

Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

62

# 35.8 acres of forested wetland and ripairan area 

in Vermillion County;

# 55 acres of riparian and forested wetlands in 

Sullivan County;

# 14 acres of riparian habitat in Fountain County;

# 365 acres with eight easements in Martin 

County.

Land Acquisition 

We continue to acquire lands from willing sellers 

within the acquisition boundary as a means of managing and conserving a diversity of habitats. 

Wildlife Management

Threatened and Endangered Species

At present, the only threatened and endangered 

species on the Refuge that is actively managed is 

the Interior Least Tern. As noted elsewhere, at the 

Cane Ridge Wildlife Management Area 24 miles 

west of the Refuge, the Service is providing a protected nesting area, where a bare sandy substrate 

on two 3-acre islands is maintained for nesting and 

fencing provides some protection from disturbance). 

While other T & E species like the Indiana bat occur 

at Patoka River NWR & MA, no active measures 

are underway at this time to conserve their populations. In the near term we intend to implement a 

monitoring program to track abundance, population 

trends, and/or habitat associations of listed species. 

Migratory and Resident Birds

Currently, there is active management of 62-

acres in Dillin Bottoms for migratory and resident 

birds at Patoka River NWR & MA and 193 acres of 

moist soil management units at Cane Ridge WMA. 

Over the next 5 years, we intend to implement a 

monitoring program to track abundance, population 

trends, and/or habitat associations of selected 

migratory and resident bird species or groups of 

species (e.g. waterfowl, migrating land birds, shorebirds, marsh birds).

Native Resident Wildlife

Currently, there is no active management of 

native resident wildlife at Patoka River NWR & 

MA. It is our intent to implement a monitoring program to track abundance, population trends, and/or 

habitat associations of selected native resident wildlife species in the coming years.

Fish and Other Aquatic Species

At present, Patoka River NWR & MA does not 

have an active fisheries management program. 

Management’s aim over the next decade and a half 

is to create or maintain diverse, self-sustaining fisheries in Refuge lakes, ponds, and streams.

Interior Least Terns

We actively manage a nesting population of Interior Least Terns at Cane Ridge Wildlife Management Area. Our objective is to support 100 nesting 

adult terns producing 75 fledglings annually.

Pest Management

On occasion it is necessary for us to remove beaver dams when their activities impact a neighbor’s 

property or structures. 

Fish and Wildlife Monitoring

Except for waterfowl, at present, Patoka River 

management conducts no standardized monitoring 

or surveying that results in weekly entries into a 

database. Instead, we make opportunistic observations. For waterfowl, there are weekly surveys at 

the Cane Ridge Area. When the Refuge grounds are 

flooded, we make a circuit to those areas that are 

accessible to conduct waterfowl counts. 

River otter were released on the Refuge in 1996. 

In the winter when there is snow, the Refuge wildlife biologist walks and drives transects on the Refuge looking for otter sign and thus gauge trends in 

their activity. Activity that is decreasing, constant, 

or increasing from one year to the next is a good 

indication of whether the area’s otter population is 

decreasing, stable, or increasing. 

South Fork birding trail, Patoka River NWR & MA. 

Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

63

Visitor Services

As a relatively new refuge with a small staff and 

an initial priority on land acquisition, habitat restoration, and environmental remediation (reduction of 

contaminants), Patoka River has had a smaller visitor services program than other more established 

national wildlife refuges. Nevertheless, each of the 

“Big Six” public uses emphasized in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 – 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation – those uses traditionally supported and 

encouraged on the National Wildlife Refuge System, occurs at Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area. 

Visitation has grown since the Refuge’s establishment in 1994, increasing to 21,221 visits in 2005. Visitor services have increased commensurately. There 

are multiple access points to the Refuge and with 

approximately 75 percent of the land within the Refuge acquisition boundary not yet acquired, Refuge 

lands are intermingled with private holdings. This 

intermingling requires clear signing and visitor 

information. Refuge management plans on placing 

new entrance signs and kiosks at existing boat 

ramps, Snakey Point, and along Highway 57 over 

the next 5 years.

There is not currently a visitor center on the Refuge and there are no plans for one in the foreseeable 

future. The Refuge headquarters on SR 64 (West 

Morton) in Oakland City is an administrative site 

that offers visitor information. 

Hunting

There were 8,873 hunting visits (waterfowl 4,093, 

other migratory birds 466, upland game 1,399, big 

game 2,915) in 2006. This use is likely to increase 

over the life of the CCP because of the impending 

closure of mine company lands and the loss of public 

hunting opportunities on lands elsewhere in the 

area. Hunting on the Refuge is in accordance with 

applicable State regulations. 

Migratory birds hunted at Patoka River NWR 

include ducks, geese, coots, Sora Rails, Common 

Snipes, Woodcocks, and Mourning Doves. Game 

birds sought by hunters on the Refuge include Quail 

and Wild Turkey. Small game at Patoka River NWR 

& MA includes cottontail rabbits, gray and fox 

squirrels. Furbearers pursued include red and gray 

fox, coyote, raccoon, and opossum. The only big 

game hunting on the Refuge is for white-tailed deer. 

 

Shotgun hunters using scattershot may possess 

and use only approved non-toxic shot. Use or possession of lead shot is prohibited while hunting all 

species except Wild Turkey on the Refuge. Firearms, archery equipment and crossbows meeting 

State requirements are permitted on the Refuge 

only during the designated hunting season. 

All motor vehicles must remain on maintained 

roads and be parked so as not to interfere with other 

traffic. Off-road vehicles are not permitted on Refuge lands. Hunters with disabilities must possess 

the required State permit; State regulations and 

access conditions apply. 

Dogs are allowed for hunting according to State 

regulations during designated seasons only. Dog 

training or running in the off-season is prohibited.

For waterfowl hunting, pits or permanent blinds 

may not be constructed on the Refuge. Only portable blinds or structures constructed of native plant 

materials are permitted and blinds must be 

removed or dismantled at the end of each day’s 

hunt. Decoys must also be removed at the end of 

each day’s hunt. Likewise, permanent turkey or 

deer stands may not be erected or used on the Refuge. Portable tree stands may be used for turkey or 

deer hunting following the same guidelines established for State-owned lands.

Fishing

There were 7,346 fishing visits to Patoka River 

NWR in 2006. The Refuge provides both bank and 

boat fishing opportunities on the Patoka River, its 

oxbows and tributaries, and at Snakey Point Marsh, 

in accordance with State seasons and regulations 

and the Refuge fishing plan. Access to some reaches 

of the river is limited. Refuge staff works cooperatively with the Indiana Department of Natural 

Resources on fisheries management.

Of the more popular game fish, channel and flathead catfish probably provide the best sport fishing 

opportunities in the section of the river running 

through the Refuge. Largemouth bass, bluegill and 

crappie, offer outstanding fishing opportunities at 

Snakey Point Marsh.

As a result of channel clearing along the Patoka 

River, fish habitat structure is poor; there is little instream cover, that is, few log jams, brush piles and 

root-wads. Thus, those species requiring in-stream 

cover (largemouth bass, bluegill, crappie) are limited by available habitat. Riffle/pool habitat is also 

scarce. Species diversity in the channelized portion 

of the river (downstream from Winslow) is lower 
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Mana

gement Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

64Figure 11: Current Visitor Facilities, Patoka River NWR & MA
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

65

than in the natural, meandering channel. Fish of 

interest to recreational anglers, including buffalo, 

drum, channel and flathead catfish and spotted bass, 

are more abundant in the unchannelized section of 

the Patoka River. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

There were 6,063 wildlife observation visits and 

106 photography visits in 2006. Photography and 

observation visits are projected to increase to 500 in 

2007 because of the new observation platform at 

Cane Ridge. The Refuge provides opportunities for 

wildlife observation and photography throughout, 

but Cane Ridge and Snakey Point in particular have 

facilities such as trails, docks or observation platforms that facilitate these two activities. The Refuge 

intends to enhance opportunities for observation 

and photography by building an observation platform at Cane Ridge and trails at Snakey Point and 

South Fork.

Interpretation

The Refuge Manager and Assistant Refuge Manager provide guided tours and programs upon 

request and maintain a monument on the McClure 

Tract. In the near term, they plan to provide interpretive elements in proposed kiosks and other 

selected sites as well as increase opportunities for 

interpreted trails, walks, and programs.

Environmental Education

The Refuge Manager and Assistant Refuge Manager provide environmental education upon request 

typically less than five times annually. In the near 

future, their intent is to develop capacity to provide 

Environmental Education materials and programs 

to teachers and others upon request.

Friends and Volunteers

Volunteers donated 403 hours of their time to the 

Refuge in 2006. Staff hopes to help convert this 

enthusiasm into a more formal Friends group in the 

coming years. 

Outreach

Refuge staff speaks to local civic and sportsmen’s 

groups upon request approximately 12-15 times per 

year. We also provide information and interviews for 

local news media and outdoors writers as well as distribute news releases 2-3 times annually. In the coming years, we will be exploring how to establish offsite facilities and opportunities.

Archeological and Cultural Values

Cultural resources are important parts of the 

nation’s heritage. The Service is committed to protecting valuable evidence of human interactions with 

each other and the landscape. Protection is accomplished in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to 

protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources. 

Cultural resources management in the USFWS 

is the responsibility of the Regional Director and is 

not delegated for the Section 106 process when historic properties could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing archeological permits, and for 

Indian tribal involvement. The Regional Historic 

Preservation Officer (RHPO) advises the Regional 

Director about procedures, compliance, and implementation of the several cultural resources laws. 

The Refuge Manager assists the RHPO by early 

and timely notification of the RHPO about USFWS 

undertakings, by protecting archeological sites and 

historic properties on USFWS managed and administered lands, by monitoring archeological investigations by contractors and permittees, and by 

reporting violations.

Special Management Areas

There are no designated Special Management 

Areas on the Refuge. 

Wilderness Review

As part of the CCP process, lands within the 

acquisition boundary of Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area were reviewed 

for wilderness suitability. No lands were considered 

suitable at this time for Congressional designation 

as wilderness as defined by the Wilderness Act of 

1964. Patoka River NMR/MA 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, 

river channelization, road-building, and coal mining. 

As a result of both extensive modification of natural 

habitats and ongoing manipulation of natural processes, adopting a “hands-off ” approach to management at the Refuge would not facilitate the 

restoration of a pristine or pre-settlement condition, 

which is the goal of wilderness designation.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

66

Chapter 4: Management Direction

Goals, Objectives and 

Strategies

The Environmental Assessment in Appendix A 

describes and analyzes three management alternatives for Patoka River NWR. The Service identifies 

one as its preferred alternative and it is described in 

the following chapter as the proposed future management direction that would guide activities on the 

Refuge for the next 15 years. In some cases the proposed future management direction describes initial 

steps of a long-term vision that may take 100 years 

or more to achieve.

Figure 14 and Figure 13 depict the long-term 

vision (100 years or more in the future) for habitat 

distribution within the Refuge & MA. It was derived 

using soils data to determine potential vegetation 

and by reviewing historical maps and photos. The 

bottomland forest shown to cover much of the Refuge would be a patchy mosaic with a variety of wetland habitats as well as open areas created by dead 

and dying trees. Over time, disturbances from wind, 

water, and wildlife would shift the amount and distribution of these habitats. Lands reclaimed after 

strip mining may eventually revert to forest or 

remain as grassy upland openings. A meandering 

Patoka River is also part of the long-term vision. 

Channel restoration that includes reconnecting 

oxbows would add many miles to the straightened 

portion of the river (Figure 14). The management 

direction that follows describes steps that move 

towards the long-term vision, but that are practical 

and attainable within the 15-year timeframe of this 

plan.

Goals, objectives, and strategies comprise the 

proposed future management direction. Goals are 

descriptive broad statements of desired future conditions that convey a purpose. There are three goals 

for Patoka River NWR. Goals are followed by objectives, specific statements that describe management 

intent. Objectives provide detail and are supported 

by rationale statements that describe background, 

history, assumptions, and technical details to help 

understand how the objective was formulated. 

Finally, beneath each objective there is a list of 

strategies – specific actions, tools, and techniques 

required to fulfill the objective. 

Goal 1: Habitat 

Manage a diversity of habitats to benefit threatened 

and endangered species, waterfowl, other migratory 

birds, and indigenous species in the Patoka River and 

associated watersheds.

Objective 1.1: Forested Wetlands (Bottomland 

Forest)

Total Acres: 8,647; 2007 Owned Acres: 3,056

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

approximately 12,000 to 13,000 acres of bottomland hardwood stands with a mosaic of age and 

structural classes distributed across a narrow 

elevation gradient with lower elevations domiPatoka River NWR & MA. Photo credit: USFWS
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

67

Figure 12: Long-term (100 Years) Landcover, Patoka River NWR & MA (East)
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Mana

gement Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

68Figure 13: Long-term (100 Years) Landcover, Patoka River NWR & MA (West)
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

69

nated by black willow, sweetgum, silver maple, 

and river birch, mid elevations dominated by pin 

oak, shumard oak, swamp chestnut oak, swamp 

white oak, red maple, green ash, sycamore, and 

cottonwood, and upper elevations dominated by 

cherry bark oak, other oaks, hickory, and pecan. 

Over the life of the plan, maintain existing bottomland forest (presently 3,056 acres) and reforest to bottomland hardwoods future land 

acquisitions that have suitable soils and that are 

outside of areas managed as non-forested habitat 

(see Objective 1.6 Bottomland Farmland and 

Objective 1.7 Moist Soil Units). 

Rationale: Bottomland forests are diverse wetlands with many hydrologic features including sheet 

or overland flow, meander scrolls or relic channels, 

vernal pools, habitat mounds, depressions, and 

ridge and swale topography (Wharton et al. 1982, 

Dunn and Roach 2001). Incorporating these features in wetland restoration creates a diverse wetland habitat providing areas with permanent water, 

semi-permanent water and seasonally flooded wetlands (Smith 2001). Bottomland forests are also 

characterized by a multi-tiered canopy and a shifting mosaic of age classes. Canopy gaps created by 

one or more fallen trees resulting from flooding, 

windstorms, beaver activity, or other disturbance 

make up 3-5 percent of bottomland forests (Heitmeyer et al. 2005). These openings in the forest canopy quickly succeed to scrub-shrub habitats and 

most eventually succeed to bottomland forest.

We identified 15,633 acres of bottomland soils – 

those on the Indiana list of hydric soils as well as 

other frequently flooded soils – within the Refuge 

boundary. Presently, 9,032 acres of these soils are 

covered by bottomland forest. The Natural 

Resources Conservation Service’s Official Soil 

Series Descriptions (Soil Survey Staff NRCS –

USDA undated) show hardwood forest as the natural vegetation suited for all but 166 acres of the 

remaining 6,601 acres of bottomland soils (Figure 12

and Figure 13). These potential bottomland forest 

sites are presently in various cover types with the 

majority in farmland (5,367 acres). Restoring the 

extent and species diversity of forested wetlands 

within the planning area is consistent with Refuge 

purposes, existing soils information, known presettlement vegetative cover (Parker and Ruffner 2004), 

and Service policy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2001). We derived the long-term goal of 12,000 to 

13,000 acres by subtracting acreages devoted to 

moist soil units, and other land uses from the total 

acres of bottomland soils suited for bottomland forest.

Strategies

1. Plant mast producing bottomland hardwood 

species on sites with suitable soils.

2. Conduct forest surveys or inventories every 5 

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

3. Complete a Habitat Management Plan with 

specific management recommendations to 

maintain bottomland forest species and age 

class diversity.

4. Restore micro and macro topographic features on selected bottomland farmland and 

Figure 14: Current and Future Concept of Patoka River Channel
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

70

reforest 60-80 percent of these sites with the 

balance (20-40 percent) remaining as scrubshrub wetlands. See Stratman (2000) and 

Dunn and Roach (2001) for additional information.

5. On suitable sites enhance or restore native 

canebrakes.

6. Add one full-time (1.0 FTE) forester/wildlife 

biologist.

7. Target reforestation to minimize fragmentation, create large contiguous blocks of forest, 

and increase connectivity to other forested 

areas.

Objective 1.2: Emergent Wetlands

Total Acres: 775; 2007 Owned Acres: 465

Over the next 15 years, maintain presently owned 

emergent wetlands at Snakey Point and Buck’s 

Marsh in a mixture of vegetation such as cattail, 

bulrush, sedges, spatterdock, water lily and 

smartweeds. Allow the amount and species composition of emergent wetlands across the remainder of the refuge (both currently owned and 

future acquisitions) to fluctuate through natural 

succession.

Rationale: Snakey Point and the adjoining Buck’s 

Marsh contain much of the 775 acres of emergent 

wetlands within the Refuge acquisition boundary. 

These sites are likely wetter than before the South 

Fork Patoka River was channelized in the 1920s. 

Sediments dredged from the stream bottom and 

piled along either side of the channel form levees 

that impede drainage creating a mixture of open 

water and emergent vegetation. Siltation and beaver activity also played a role in creating the present 

condition of these wetlands. Emergent wetlands 

attract a variety of wildlife. In addition to providing 

food and resting sites for resident and migrating 

waterfowl, numerous wading birds, song birds, furbearing mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and fish 

and other aquatic organisms use the marshes during various seasons of the year. 

Strategies

1. As part of a Habitat Management Plan, 

develop a management regime for emergent 

wetlands that maintains desired plant species 

and vegetation/open water interspersion.

2. Conduct a study to learn more about the 

hydrology and geomorphology of the Snakey 

Point/Buck’s Marsh complex in order to 

determine the feasibility of future water level 

manipulations that may be necessary to 

enhance/maintain habitat conditions.

Objective 1.3: Lakes and Ponds

Total Acres: 885; 2007 Owned Acres: 345

Over the next 15 years, maintain the number of 

lakes and ponds at or above the amount present 

in 2006 and increase their aquatic habitat diversity. 

Rationale: Natural and man-made lakes within 

the Refuge acquisition boundary provide habitat 

diversity, support aquatic species, and provide wildlife dependent recreation opportunities. 

Strategies

1. Place structure (tree tops, boulders, etc.) in 

lakes and ponds to increase aquatic habitat 

diversity.

Objective 1.4: Patoka River, Oxbows, and Patoka 

Tributaries

Total Acres: 534; 2007 Owned Acres: 200

Within 5 years of plan approval, collect information necessary to evaluate stream channel restoration options for the Patoka River and its 

tributaries that includes restoring channelized 

stream to meandering stream. 

Rationale:

In the 1920s there was an attempt to drain nearly 

100,000 acres of forested wetlands along the Patoka 

River to make it suitable for farming. Known as 

Houchin’s Ditch and beginning at the town of Winslow, the project replaced 36 miles of natural, meandering river with about 17 miles of dredged, straight 

ditch. Nearly 19 miles of natural river meanders 

Habitat restoration, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo 

credit: USFWS
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

71

were cut off and isolated from the main channel. 

Water exchange within these man-made oxbows is 

now limited to periods of high water, but heavy sediment loads carried during these periods results in 

increased deposition in the oxbows. Consequently, 

these important ecological units are becoming shallower and hold water for a shorter duration. 

Although this process occurs in all natural riverine 

systems, normally new oxbows are continually being 

created as river meanders are severed from the 

main channel. In the case of Houchins’s Ditch, these 

oxbows are not being replaced and the associated 

wetland habitat is being lost. We require more information about the morphology and hydrology of the 

Patoka River and its tributaries before undertaking 

channel restoration.

Strategies

1. Develop partnership with Corps of Engineers 

to complete evaluation of stream restoration.

Objective 1.5: Water Quality

Within 15 years of plan approval, improve water 

quality within the Patoka River and its tributaries to move towards compliance with Indiana 

Department of Environmental Management 

standards with the long-term goal of removal of 

the streams from the list of impaired waters.

Rationale: Presently, the Patoka River and its 

tributaries are listed as impaired waters by the 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM 2006b). Waters are considered 

impaired when they fail to meet one or more standards necessary to support one or more of the following uses: aquatic life support, fish consumption, 

drinking water supply, and recreational use. 

Improving water quality will help restore the biological integrity and environmental health of the 

Patoka River system and is consistent with current 

Service policy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001).

Strategies

1. Continue working on abandoned mine land 

reclamation in conjunction with the IDNR 

Division of Mining and Reclamation and 

Department of Interior Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation.

2. Work with local groups to monitor and identify opportunities to improve water quality 

within the Patoka River watershed.

3. Attend and support watershed planning activities to enhance water quality.

4. Cooperate with Upper and Lower Patoka 

River Conservancy Districts to maximize 

wildlife benefits associated with their activities.

5. Maintain relationships with Indiana DNR 

Division of Oil and Gas, Indiana Department 

of Environmental Management to ensure 

proper operation of oil and gas wells in the 

watershed.

Objective 1.6: Bottomland Farmland 

Total acres: 4,507; 2007 Owned acres: 1,059

Over the life of the plan, maintain up to 1,000 

acres of bottomland farmland in two to three contiguous blocks as stopover habitat for migratory 

waterbirds. Convert all other bottomland farmland, 

both currently owned and future acquisitions, to 

bottomland forest (including ridge/swale macrotopography wetlands) or moist soil management units.

Rationale: Service policy calls for maintaining or 

restoring refuge habitats to historic conditions if 

doing so is feasible and does not conflict with refuge 

purposes (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). 

Retaining up to 1,000 acres of bottomland farmland 

departs substantially from the bottomland forest 

indicated by historic conditions (Parker and Ruffner 

2004) and soils (Soil Survey Staff NRCS—USDA 

undated) of these sites, but it helps fulfill Refuge 

purposes by providing stopover habitat for migrant 

waterbirds that favor wetlands with short vegetation (Helmers 1992). This type of stopover habitat 

historically occurred as sandbars, mudflats, and 

oxbows along the floodplains and tributaries of the 

Mississippi and Ohio Rivers before they were extensively altered (de Szalay et al. 2000). Migrants 

shifted to flooded farmland in the absence of this 

habitat. Presently, spring flooding inundates botSnakey Point fishing pier, Patoka River NWR & MA. 

Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

72

tomland farmland along the Patoka River, providing 

stopover habitat for migrant shorebirds and some 

types of waterfowl. Such frequently flooded farmland is a focus of the Indiana Wetland Reserve Program (WRP). Nearly 49,000 acres are enrolled in 

the Indiana WRP with more than 25,000 acres 

occurring along the lower reaches of the Wabash 

and White Rivers, areas close to Patoka River NWR 

(USDA—NRCS website, G. Roach personal communication June 6, 2006). The majority of sites 

along the lower reaches of the Wabash and White 

River are being reforested, making them unsuitable 

for some migrant waterbirds. This trend is expected 

to continue. Given the loss of native habitat and the 

restoration of frequently flooded farmland to forest, 

it is consistent with Refuge purposes to retain one 

or more large open blocks of bottomland to provide 

habitat for open wetland dependent migratory species. Retarding succession on these sites through 

moist soil management, prescribed burning, or 

other mechanical or chemical means is not possible 

because of insufficient land ownership and/or it 

would exceed current and projected future funding 

and staffing levels. For the 15-year planning horizon 

of this CCP, farming is the most cost-effective means 

to prevent these sites from succeeding to forest and 

to maintain them as stopover foraging habitat.

Each spring thousands of waterfowl, shorebirds, 

and wading birds use flooded bottomland farmland 

within the Refuge as stopover habitat. Many of 

these migrant waterbirds prefer non-forested wetlands with short vegetation (Helmers 1992) and 

would not use these areas if they were forested. The 

birds prefer flooded bottomland farmland within the 

Refuge for several reasons. Surrounding privately 

owned farmland is not buffered by bottomland forest and agricultural practices on these sites do not 

leave residual vegetation as is done on Refuge 

owned farmland.

Strategies

1. Maintain cooperative agreements, which 

require cooperating farmers to annually leave 

a portion of crops as food for wildlife.

2. Where feasible, restore micro and macro 

topographic features on portions of bottomland farmland fields to increase the duration 

they provide wetland conditions. See Stratman (2000) and Dunn and Roach (2001) for 

additional information.

Objective 1.7: Moist Soil Units

500-700 acres

Within 15 years of plan approval, maintain existing moist soil areas (265 acres) and convert up to 

a total of 700 acres of bottomland farmland to 

moist soil management that provides a diversity 

of native herbaceous plant foods such as wild millet (Echinochloa spp.); panic grass (Panicum

spp.); sedges (Cyperus spp. and Carex spp.); and 

beggarticks (Bidens spp.).

Rationale: Moist soil management is a widespread practice for producing a diverse mixture of 

native herbaceous plant foods and invertebrates 

(Frederickson and Taylor 1982). It mimics seasonal 

flooding that has long occurred in the lowlands of 

the Patoka River corridor, but moist soil units –

areas impounded by levees, dikes, and structures 

that permit precise control of water levels – allow 

managers to consistently produce conditions favorable to growth of native plants. 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.

Strategies

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

an average of one third of Moist Soil Unit 

acreage annually to set back succession.

Bottomland forest hydrology, Patoka River NWR & MA. 

Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

73

2. Moist soil units will be maintained in early 

successional native plant communities for the 

production of annual seed crops. 

3. Flood Moist Soil Units in stages beginning in 

October or November, initially flooding onethird and progressively flooding more of each 

unit as waterfowl deplete the food supply 

until units are entirely inundated.

4. Begin draining in March to expose mudflats 

by April to benefit migrating shorebirds 

which can feed on invertebrates. 

5. Maintain pumps, dikes and water control 

structures in good working order.

6. Maintain units to demonstrate comparison 

practices for educational purposes.

Objective 1.8: Upland Forest

Total Acres: 2,704; 2007 Owned Acres: 183

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

mosaic of hardwood stands of different age and 

structural classes distributed on upland areas 

and dominated by white oaks, black oaks, hickory, 

and blackgum on drier sites, and by red oaks, yellow poplar, beech, sugar maple, walnut, hickory, 

and cherry on wetter sites. Over the life of the 

plan, maintain upland forest on presently owned 

acres (183) and for future acquisitions maintain 

existing upland forest and restore upland forest 

on non-forested upland sites with suitable soils.

Rationale: We identified 6,720 acres of upland 

soils within the Refuge boundary. Presently, 2,704 

acres of these soils are covered by upland forest. 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Official Soil Series Descriptions (Soil Survey Staff 

NRCS – USDA undated) shows hardwood forest as 

the potential natural vegetation suited for the 

remaining 4,016 acres of upland soils. These potential upland forest sites are presently in various cover 

types with the majority in farmland (3,213 acres). 

Restoring the extent and species diversity of upland 

forest within the planning area is consistent with 

Refuge purposes, existing soils information, known 

presettlement vegetative cover (Parker and Ruffner 

2004), and Service policy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2001).

There is additional support for maintaining or 

restoring upland sites within the Refuge to oakhickory forest. McNab and Avers (1994) identify 

oak-hickory forest as the potential natural vegetation for the uplands within the Central Till Plains 

Oak-Hickory Ecological Section where the Refuge 

is located. Parker and Ruffner (2004) and Fralish 

(1997) assert that human caused disturbance played 

a major role in the dominance of oak-hickory forest 

in this region for at least the past 400 years and 

likely much longer (Fralish 2004). Fire suppression 

within this landscape over the past century has 

shifted the forest composition away from oaks 

towards maple and beech (Ruffner and Groninger 

2004). Fralish (2004) argues that oak and hickory 

play a keystone role in the Central Hardwood Forest and are of major importance in maintaining 

biodiversity. Thompson and Dessecker (1997) also 

note the importance of oak and early successional 

communities within the Central Hardwood Forest.

Strategies

1. Conduct forest surveys or inventories every 5 

years to monitor changes in health, composition, and structure of forestlands.

2. Develop and implement 5-year forest management plan to promote regeneration of 

white and red oaks.

3. As indicated, conduct timber stand improvement, including selective harvest if necessary, 

to provide habitat diversity and stimulate 

regeneration and plant growth on the forest 

floor.

4. Plant tree species appropriate to upland sites 

with emphasis on mast producing species particularly oaks.

Objective 1.9: Upland Openings

Total Acres: 2,139; 2007 Owned Acres: 98

Over the life of the plan, maintain reclaimed 

minelands as early successional habitat (grasslands) and convert other upland openings to 

upland forest.

Rationale: Surface mining has and continues to 

occur on upland sites within the Refuge acquisition 

boundary. Since 1977 federal law requires coal operators to restore mined land to beneficial uses. Some 

reclamation sites were planted to grass and remain 

in this condition. Populations of many grassland bird 

species are declining in part because of loss of grassland habitat. These “mine grasslands” serve as surrogate habitat for some grassland birds including 

Grasshopper Sparrows, Henslow’s Sparrows, Eastern Meadowlarks, and Dickcissels, which are identified as conservation priorities for the Midwest 

Region of the Service (Bajema et al. 2001, DeVault 

et al. 2002). 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

74

Service policy calls for maintaining or restoring 

refuge habitats to historic conditions if doing so is 

feasible and does not conflict with refuge purposes 

(U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). Available 

information on historic vegetation indicates hardwood forests occurred on upland sites within and 

surrounding the Refuge (Parker and Ruffner 2004). 

Hardwood forest is also listed as the potential natural vegetation for upland soils (those not classified 

as hydric or frequently flooded) within the Refuge 

(Soil Survey Staff NRCS – USDA undated). Surface 

mined lands may eventually revert to forest, but 

mining activity severely altered soil structure and 

properties allowing grasses to predominate. 

Although grasslands probably did not historically 

occur on surface mined areas within the Refuge the 

habitat is not out of place. Homoya (personal communication March 8, 2007) notes that historically 

grassland habitat did occur near the Refuge. This is 

further supported by the description of the Central 

Till Plains Oak-Hickory Ecological Section where 

the Refuge is located. It notes fire and other disturbance agents generally discouraged woody vegetation and encouraged grasslands on the flatter 

upland divides between forested drainages and 

opened the canopy in the ravines and on slopes 

(McNab and Avers 1994).

Strategies

1. Use prescribed burning, mechanical, or chemical methods to maintain upland openings.

2. Where feasible, place openings along perimeter of Refuge to minimize fragmentation and 

promote habitat diversity.

Objective 1.10: Invasive Plant Species

Within 5 years of plan approval assess the location and extent of invasive plant infestations and 

develop measurable annual targets to help eradicate or slow the spread of invasive plant species 

(of present interest are Japanese honeysuckle, 

reed canary grass, autumn olive, Johnson grass, 

and Japanese knotweed).

Rationale: Exotic or non-native plants are those 

that have been deliberately or inadvertently transported and transplanted by humans outside their 

native range, often found on another continent. 

Certain exotic plants become “invasive” if they survive and begin to spread on their own, in the 

absence of the population controls (e.g. diseases, 

parasites, environmental constraints, organisms 

that fed on them) that held their propagation in 

check in their native ranges. Invasive exotics are 

troublesome because they displace native vegetation on which native animal species depend.

Strategies

1. Complete a comprehensive inventory to 

assess the location and extent of invasive 

plant infestations. 

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

3. Communicate with other state and federal 

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

threats and effective management and control 

techniques related to invasive species.

Objective 1.11: Private Lands and Watershed 

Management

Over the life of the plan, increase wildlife habitat 

and reduce sedimentation on 150 acres of private 

lands within the Patoka River and surrounding 

watersheds.

Rationale: The Patoka River watershed extends 

beyond the boundaries of the Refuge. Land use and 

activities within the watershed affect the quality of 

Refuge habitats. Working with neighboring land 

owners to improve wildlife habitat and water quality 

complements conservation actions on the Refuge. 

The Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is devoted to providing technical and financial 

assistance to private landowners and Tribes who are 

willing to work with the Service and other partners 

on a voluntary basis to help meet the habitat needs 

of Federal Trust Species.

Habitat restoration – tree planting, Patoka River NWR &

MA. Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

75

Strategies

1. Distribute information concerning habitat 

development opportunities on private lands 

during Refuge presentations and via local 

media and other agency (USDA, Indiana 

DNR) publications and web sites.

2. Coordinate with interested landowners on a 

timely basis to assess habitat development or 

improvement opportunities and secure voluntary agreements for appropriate projects.

3. Provide technical resource assistance to other 

agencies, particularly NRCS, to maximize 

wildlife benefits associated with programmatic conservation programs such as the 

Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands 

Reserve Program and others. 

4. Conduct annual review of Farm Services 

Agency easements for compliance. Reviews 

may be completed through a variety of methods including contact with land owners, aerial 

photography reconnaissance, or on-site 

inspection.

Objective 1.12: Interior Least Tern Nesting Habitat

Over the life of the plan, continue to provide 6 

acres of nesting habitat for Interior Least Terns 

at Cane Ridge Wildlife Management Area capable of accommodating up to 100 nesting adult 

terns and producing 75 fledglings annually.

Rationale: The Interior Least Tern is federally 

listed as endangered. Cane Ridge Wildlife Management Area, a 488-acre satellite of Patoka River 

NWR, contains two islands created and maintained 

as nesting habitat for Least Terns. The site was created as part of a Habitat Conservation Agreement 

with Duke Energy to lure nesting terns away from 

sites at a neighboring power plant. The site now 

harbors the largest nesting colony of Interior Least 

Terns east of the Mississippi River.

Strategies

1. Annually inspect and repair, as necessary, 

predator fencing which encloses the two nesting islands.

2. Ensure adequate water depth surrounding 

the nesting islands to provide foraging habitat 

for the terns and to discourage mammalian 

predators.

3. Through mechanical and chemical means, 

ensure that the nesting substrate remains relatively free of vegetation and attractive to 

nesting terns.

4. Ensure the Refuge has all necessary permits 

to allow staff to utilize whatever methods necessary to minimize avian predation on the 

nesting tern colony. 

Objective 1.13: Land Acquisition

Within 5, 10 and 15 years of Plan approval, the 

Refuge will include 50 percent (11,000 acres), 70 

percent (15,400 acres) and 80 percent (17,600 

acres) respectively, of the lands within the acquisition boundary.

Rationale: Land acquisition is a critical component of fish and wildlife conservation since it permanently protects their basic need of habitat. On a 

narrow, linear refuge, land acquisition is a critical 

component of restoring the habitat connectivity 

needed for the health of many species. Land acquisition can also be cost-effective in the long-term due 

to inflation of land costs and the costs of acquiring 

undeveloped land versus developed land that also 

needs restoration. This objective represents an 

aggressive land acquisition program and averages 

1,080-acres per year from 2007-2011, 880-acres per 

Oxbows adjacent to the channelized river, Patoka River 

NWR & MA. Photo credit: USFWS 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

76

year from 2012-2016 and 450-acres per year from 

2017-2021 to achieve goals set in the 1994 Land Protection Plan and other approved acquisition documents. 

Strategies

1. Secure land by any legal means from cooperative landowners including donations, 

bequeaths, purchases and land trades.

2. Secure funding from any available source 

including donations, bequeaths, appropriations, grants and through collaborative efforts 

with partners to include cost-sharing programs such as the Wetland Reserve Program, 

carbon sequestration trade-offs and similar 

programs that may become available.

3. Provide accurate and up-to-date information 

on land acquisition opportunities to Citizen 

Committees, Friends Groups, other conservation-oriented non-government organizations, 

Joint Venture partners and elected officials to 

assist in their efforts to secure adequate land 

acquisition funding.

4. Maintain communication with land owners 

within and around the Refuge of the status of 

the Service’s land acquisition program.

5. Prioritize tracts for acquisition based on most 

critical wildlife needs and highest threat of 

loss due to other land development proposals.

6. Continue to be open to review of proposals by 

partners to protect other lands that may 

become available in the vicinity of the Refuge 

that provide critical habitat for threatened, 

endangered and other species of concern and 

consider all avenues of protecting that habitat 

including fee title purchase, conservation 

easements and cooperative agreements by 

the Service or other conservation entities.

Objective 1.14: Air Quality

Over the life of the plan, work to improve air 

quality within the Refuge to levels that meet or 

exceed Environmental Protection Agency standards.

Rationale: Maintaining air quality to protect Refuge resources is consistent with the Service policy 

on Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health. In recent years, the air quality within 

portions of Pike and Gibson counties as well as 

neighboring counties Warrick, Dubois, and 

Vanderburgh has failed to attain the national 

standard for particulate matter, one of six principal 

pollutants that have National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards set by the Environmental Protection 

Agency. Much of Gibson and Pike counties, where 

the Refuge is located, are outside this 

“nonattainment area” most likely because no air 

quality data are available. In addition to primary 

standards intended to protect public health, the 

Clean Air Act sets secondary standards to protect 

public welfare. These secondary standards include 

protection for animals and vegetation, two resources 

that play an important role in fulfilling Refuge 

purposes. In 2007 there was a proposal to site an 

industrial facility near the Refuge that would 

discharge additional effluent into the atmosphere. 

This generated concern among Refuge staff and the 

local public. In 2008 the Refuge working in 

conjunction with the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management placed an air quality 

monitoring station near the Refuge. 

Strategies

1. Continue to work with Indian Department of 

Environmental Management and local citizens groups (currently Pike/Gibson Citizens 

for a Quality Environment).

2. Support establishment of a permanent air 

monitoring station in the vicinity of the Refuge.

Migrating Mallards, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo

credit: USFWS
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

77

Goal 2: Wildlife

Perpetuate listed species, waterfowl, other migratory 

birds, and native fish and wildlife, within the Patoka 

River and associated watersheds while restoring and 

preserving the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge.

Objective 2.1: Threatened and Endangered 

Species

Within 5 years of plan approval, implement a 

monitoring program to track abundance, population trends, and/or habitat associations of listed 

species.

Rationale: To evaluate whether management 

actions are having the predicted consequences, we 

need to monitor actual outcomes, most often using a 

representative sample of sites to ensure that, on 

average, the effects of a particular type of treatment 

match expectations. Information gained through 

monitoring helps us learn and adapt, increasing our 

effectiveness in meeting conservation objectives. 

Established in 2005, the Service’s Biological Monitoring Team is developing a series of monitoring 

protocols to ensure uniform data collection and analysis. Refuge monitoring activities will be compliant 

with the goals of the Biological Monitoring Team 

shown below (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005).

# Refuges will evaluate achievement of their 

wildlife and habitat goals, and track the 

management and conservation of their natural 

resources over time and space through 

systematic collection, storage, and reporting of 

biological data that address specific 

management information needs. 

# Refuges will initiate management-focused 

research (Adaptive Management) and develop 

new tools and techniques to fill information 

gaps. Adaptive management research will be 

used to clarify the outcomes of specific 

management actions and guide future 

management programs.

# Refuges will contribute to regional, national, 

and continental conservation of trust resources 

as partners with other FWS Programs 

(Migratory Birds, Fisheries, Endangered 

Species, others) and the States, by collaborating 

with other agencies performing similar 

monitoring efforts to ensure that data can be 

easily exchanged for analyses at multiple 

landscape scales.

Strategies

1. Monitor Bald Eagle nest(s) to track nest success/productivity

2. Every 5 years cooperate/contract with university/Coop unit/ES endangered species specialist to determine status of Indiana bats on 

the Refuge.

3. Continue cooperative efforts with Indiana 

DNR, Duke Energy to monitor Interior 

Least Tern nesting colony (nesting success, 

production, predation)

4. Candidate species (Indiana crayfish, northern 

copperbelly watersnake) – survey, inventory, 

habitat evaluation.

5. Complete Inventory and Monitoring stepdown plan.

Objective 2.2: Migratory and Resident Birds

Within 5 years of plan approval, implement a 

monitoring program to track abundance, population trends, and/or habitat associations of 

selected migratory and resident bird species or 

groups of species (e.g. waterfowl, migrating land 

birds, shorebirds, marsh birds).

Rationale: See rationale for Objective 2-1 

Threatened and Endangered Species.

Strategies:

1. In cooperation with Indiana DNR, conduct 

weekly waterfowl surveys at Patoka River 

NWR, Cane Ridge WMA, and Gibson Generating Station.

2. Develop partnership with local birding organizations and other competent birders to conduct Christmas Bird Count, Breeding Bird 

Survey, colonial nesters survey, and shorebird 

surveys in conformance with appropriate protocols

3. Develop, as appropriate, surveys designed to 

measure the impacts of habitat management 

efforts on migratory bird populations and use 

(reforestation, water manipulation, early successional habitat management).

Objective 2.3: Native Resident Wildlife

Over the life of the plan, track abundance, population trends, and/or habitat associations of 

selected native resident wildlife species.

Rationale: The Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife 

Strategy identifies species of greatest conservation 

need within the state including many that are not 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

78

Federal Trust Species. The Refuge, which includes 

intermingled state lands (Pike State Forest and 

Sugar Ridge Fish and Wildlife Area) contains habitat for many of these species. Monitoring their status in cooperation with the Indiana Department of 

Natural Resources supports implementation of the 

Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy.

Strategies

1. Cooperate with IDNR to collect monitoring 

information on selected native resident wildlife.

Objective 2.4: Fish and Other Aquatic Species

Over the next 15 years, create or maintain 

diverse, self-sustaining fisheries in Refuge lakes, 

ponds, and streams. Within the Patoka River and 

its tributaries, improve the Index of Biotic Integrity for fish and other aquatic species communities with the long term goal of meeting or 

exceeding the Indiana Department of Environmental Management threshold for “fully supporting”.

Rationale: Presently, the Patoka River and its 

tributaries are listed as impaired waters by the 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM 2006b). Waters are considered 

impaired when they fail to meet one or more standards necessary to support one or more of the following uses: aquatic life support, fish consumption, 

drinking water supply, and recreational use. 

Improving water quality will help restore the biological integrity and environmental health (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2001) of the Patoka River system as measured through an increase in the Index 

of Biotic Integrity as monitored and reported by the 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM 2006a). The Index of Biotic Integrity 

is a composite indicator that incorporates multiple 

dimensions of living systems to quantify biological 

conditions in aquatic environments. Such indicators 

have been recommended for monitoring ecological 

conditions on Refuges (Meretsky et al. 2006).

Strategies

1. Periodically inventory and monitor fish and 

aquatic species in Refuge waters.

2. See strategies under Objective 1-5 Water 

Quality. 

Goal 3: People

Visitors, nearby residents and other stakeholders 

have the opportunity to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation, understand and appreciate the natural 

resources, ecological processes and cultural 

resources of the Refuge, thereby supporting the Service’s mission.

Objective 3.1: Welcoming and Orienting Visitors

Within 5 years of plan approval, improve directional signing, determine the feasibility of off-site 

welcoming and orientation facilities, and place 

new entrance signs and kiosks at existing boat 

ramps, Snakey Point, and along Highway 57.

Rationale: Welcoming and orienting Refuge visitors contributes to several of the criteria defining a 

quality wildlife dependent recreation program (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2006a). The number of visitors and amount of visitor services has increased to 

21,221 visits since the Refuge was established in 

1994. There are multiple access points to the Refuge 

and with approximately 75 percent of the land 

within the Refuge boundary not yet acquired, Refuge lands are intermingled with other holdings 

requiring clear signing and visitor information.

Strategies

1. Provide online Refuge information and map 

of boundaries.

2. Post boundaries on lands that abut the acquisition boundary of the Refuge and along 

selected sites that abut county roads.

3. Develop Visitor Facility enhancement 

projects to provide new entrance signs and 

kiosks at major access points.

Trumpeter Swans, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo 

credit: USFWS
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

79

4. Develop and maintain a general brochure and 

fact sheet.

Objective 3.2: Hunting

Over the life of the plan, provide hunting in line 

with State seasons and regulations except within 

designated sanctuary areas and according to the 

Refuge hunting and fishing plan. 

Rationale: Hunting programs help promote 

understanding and appreciation of natural 

resources and their management on all lands and 

waters in the Refuge System. Hunting is a priority 

general public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, and Service policy directs us to provide 

hunting opportunities when compatible (U. S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2006b).

Strategies

1. Enlist assistance from the Indiana DNR and 

volunteers to run any additional hunts.

2. Manage hunts to minimize conflicts with 

other uses and resources.

3. Assist as appropriate with hunter education, 

youth hunts, hunts for the disabled, and a 

women’s skill program.

4. As more land is acquired more sanctuary 

areas will be identified and posted closed to 

all hunting to provide a feeding and resting 

area for migratory birds. Maintaining waterfowl sanctuary areas free of all hunting serves 

waterfowl and hunters by keeping birds in the 

area thereby providing prolonged hunting 

opportunities in adjoining areas.

5. Maintain Cane Ridge as a sanctuary free of 

all hunting.

Objective 3.3: Fishing

Over the life of the plan, continue to provide fishing in line with State seasons and regulations 

according to the Refuge hunting and fishing plan. 

Continue to work cooperatively with the Indiana 

Department of Natural Resources on fisheries 

management. Within 5 years of plan approval, 

provide enhanced fishing access (more docks, 

ramps, etc...).

Rationale: Fishing programs help promote 

understanding and appreciation of natural 

resources and their management on all lands and 

waters in the Refuge System. Fishing is a priority 

general public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, and Service policy directs us to provide 

fishing opportunities when compatible (U. S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2006c).

Strategies

1. If successful in acquiring suitable lands, 

install a boat ramp near Oatsville in cooperation with the IDNR.

2. Provide additional accessible facilities such as 

trails, boat ramps, and fishing piers along 

fishable waters as lands are acquired within 

the Refuge.

3. Provide accessible bank fishing opportunities.

Objective 3.4: Wildlife Observation and 

Photography

Over the life of the plan, continue to provide 

opportunities for wildlife observation and photography at Cane Ridge and Snakey Point. Within 5 

years of plan approval, enhance observation and 

photography Refuge-wide as opportunities 

present themselves.

Rationale: Wildlife observation and photography 

programs can help promote understanding and 

appreciation of natural resources and their management on all lands and waters in the Refuge System. 

Wildlife observation and photography are priority 

general public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, and Service policy directs us to provide 

wildlife observation and photography opportunities 

when compatible (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2006d and 2006e).

Strategies

1. Provide additional accessible wildlife observation and photography facilities such as blinds, 

Plant identification workshop, Patoka River NWR & MA.

Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

80

observation platforms, trails, etc. at selected 

sites as lands are acquired within the Refuge.

2. Install spotting scope at Cane Ridge Wildlife 

Management Area observation platform.

3. Determine the feasibility of a canoe route 

along the Patoka River.

Objective 3.5: Interpretation

Over the life of the plan, continue to provide 

guided tours and programs upon request and 

maintain monument on McClure Tract. Within 5 

years of plan approval, provide interpretive elements in proposed kiosks and other selected sites 

and increase opportunities for interpreted trails, 

walks, and programs.

Rationale: Well-designed interpretive programs 

can be effective resource management tools that 

provide us an opportunity to influence visitor attitudes about natural resources, refuges, the Refuge 

System, and the Service and to influence visitor 

behavior when visiting units of the Refuge System. 

Interpretation is a priority general public use of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, and Service policy 

directs us to provide interpretation programs when 

compatible (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006g).

Strategies

1. Evaluate interest and feasibility of developing 

an interpretive canoe/boating route along the 

Patoka River.

2. Place orientation kiosks at one or more of the 

following locations: Pikeville boat ramp, Survant boat ramp and Snakey Point.

3. Place kiosk and interpretive signs at Cane 

Ridge Wildlife Management Area.

4. Place interpretive signs at all observation 

sites.

5. Consider providing a visitor contact area 

within or adjoining the Refuge office to offer 

interpretive materials.

Objective 3.6: Environmental/Conservation 

Education

Over the life of the plan, continue to provide environmental education upon request at the current 

level of less than 5 times per year. Within 3 years of 

plan approval, develop capacity to provide Environmental Education materials and programs to teachers and others upon request.

Rationale: Providing and promoting environmental education helps develop a citizenry that has the 

awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, motivation, 

and commitment to work cooperatively towards the 

conservation of our Nation’s environmental 

resources. Environmental education is a priority 

general public use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, and Service policy directs us to provide 

environmental education programs when compatible (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006f). 

Strategies

1. Offer teacher workshops to introduce educators to the Refuge, Refuge System and Service provided environmental education 

materials.

2. Provide opportunities for scouts and 4H students to complete conservation projects on 

the Refuge.

3. Maintain a supply or access to a source of 

environmental education materials for local 

teachers.

Objective 3.7: Friends and Volunteers

Within 5 years of plan approval, establish a 

Friends group.

Rationale: A Refuge Friends Group is a grassroots organization formed by citizens who have a 

shared vision of supporting their local National 

Wildlife Refuge. They join with Service personnel in 

a partnership that seeks to accomplish mutually 

defined goals. Establishing a Friends group helps 

build a constituency of support for the Refuge, provides people with opportunities to assist us in the 

accomplishment of our mission, enhances our performance through the creativity and innovations, 

labor, and expertise contributed by Friends members.

Strategies

1. Continue to work with Southwest Four Rivers 

Project Committee of the Upper Mississippi 

River Joint Venture.

2. Continue to maintain a working relationship 

with Evansville Audubon Society and the 

Izaak Walton League, Ducks Unlimited, 

Waterfowl USA, Quail Unlimited, and other 

organizations.

3. Continue to solicit support from the local community for special projects.

Objective 3.8: Outreach

Over the life of the plan, continue to speak to local 

civic and sportsmen’s groups upon request 

approximately 12-15 times per year. Also con-
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

81

tinue to provide information and interviews for 

local news media and outdoors writers as well as 

distribute news releases 2-3 times annually. 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, explore opportunities to establish off-site facilities and opportunities.

Rationale: The Service’s National Outreach 

Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997) 

defines outreach as two-way communication 

between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

public to establish mutual understanding, promote 

involvement, and influence attitudes and actions, 

with the goal of improving joint stewardship of our 

natural resources. Providing a clear consistent message about the role of the Refuge helps build support and understanding.

Strategies

1. Work with county tourism associations to help 

promote the Refuge.

2. Continue with active participation and communication throughout the watershed 

through media articles, meeting with elected 

officials, representatives or other organizations such as soil and water conservation districts to promote Refuge programs.

Canoeing the Patoka River, Patoka River NWR & MA. 

Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

82

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

New and Existing Projects

This CCP outlines an ambitious course of action 

for the future management of Patoka River NWR & 

MA. The ability to enhance wildlife habitats on the 

Refuge and to maintain existing and develop additional quality public use facilities will require a significant commitment of staff and funding from the 

Service. The Refuge will continually need appropriate operational and maintenance funding to implement the objectives in this plan.

The following provides a brief description of the 

highest priority Refuge projects, as chosen by the 

Refuge staff and listed in the Service Asset and 

Maintenance Management System (SAMMS). Completion of these projects is dependent on acquiring 

suitable lands. A full listing of unfunded Refuge 

projects and operational needs can be found in 

Appendix J.

Construct Visitor Parking Lots

As new lands are acquired, appropriate sites will 

be identified to construct small gravel parking lots 

to provide safe parking for wildlife dependent recreation activities.

Completion of Observation Deck

Completion of this project will include an accessible boardwalk from the parking lot to the existing 

observation deck, an interpretive kiosk and signs, 

and two ADA approved spotting scopes.

Reconnect Oxbows on Patoka River

In cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers we will select a small site along the channelized portion of the Patoka River cutoff oxbow will be 

reconnected to the main channel of the Patoka River 

as a demonstration project and to evaluate its effectiveness in restoring bottomland hydrology.

Maintenance and Construction of Storage 

Facilities

When an appropriate tract of land is purchased a 

permanent maintenance and storage facility will be 

constructed to support Refuge operations.

Macrotopography Wetlands

On bottomland farmland construct a series of 

ridge and swale wetland complexes with depressional basins within the floodplain ranging in size 

from one-tenth to 5 acres with depths from 0 to 24 

inches. These wetlands will be formed in a variety of 

shapes to provide landscape diversity. The ridges 

and mounds will be planted with bottomland hardwood trees. 

Anas platyrhynchos ova, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo 

credit: USFWS
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

83

Future Staffing Requirements

Implementing the visions set forth in this CCP 

will require additions to the organizational structure 

of Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge. Existing 

staff will direct their time and energy in somewhat 

new directions and one new staff member would be 

added to assist in these efforts. The first organizational chart shows the existing Refuge staff as of 

Fiscal Year 2007. A permanent full-time wildlife 

biologist or forester is needed to fully implement 

this plan. See Figure 16. 

Partnership Opportunities

Partnerships have become an essential element 

for the successful accomplishment of Patoka River 

NWR goals, objectives, and strategies. The objectives outlined in this CCP need the support and the 

partnerships of federal, state and local agencies, 

non-governmental organizations and individual citizens. This broad-based approach to managing fish 

and wildlife resources extends beyond social and 

political boundaries and requires a foundation of 

support from many. Patoka River NWR will continue to seek creative partnership opportunities to 

achieve its vision for the future.

Particularly notable partners of the Refuge 

include: 

Figure 15: Current Staffing Chart, Patoka River NWR

Figure 16: Staffing Required to Fully Implement Plan
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

84

# Ducks Unlimited

# Duke Energy

# Waterfowl USA

# National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

# Natural Resources Conservation Service

# Audubon Society

# Izaak Walton League

# Quail Unlimited

# McCormick Farms

# Conservation Fund

# Four Rivers RC&D

# Indiana Department of Natural Resources

# Division of Fish and Wildlife

# Division of Forestry

# Division of Oil and Gas

# Division of Mining and Reclamation

# Army Corps of Engineers

Step-down Management Plans

Step-down management plans help meet the 

goals and objectives of the CCP. Some step-down 

plans are required by Service policy and others are 

used to specify strategies and implementation 

schedules beyond the detail of the CCP. The following list and Table 5 show the step-down management plans we intend to prepare or revise to realize 

the intent of the CCP. 

# Safety

# Air Quality Management

# Hunting and Fishing

# Wildlife Observation and Photography

# Interpretation 

# Habitat Management

# Inventory and Monitoring

# Fire Management

Archeological and Cultural 

Values

As part of its larger conservation mandate and 

ethic, the Service through the Refuge Manager 

applies the several historic preservation laws and 

regulations to ensure historic properties are identified and are protected to the extent possible within 

its established purposes and Refuge System mission.

The Refuge Manager early in project planning 

for all undertakings, informs the RHPO (Regional 

Historic Preservation Officer) to initiate the Section 

106 process. Concurrent with public notification and 

involvement for environmental compliance and compatibility determinations if applicable, or cultural 

resources only if no other issues are involved, the 

Refuge Manager informs and requests comments 

from the public and local officials through presentations, meetings, and media notices; results are provided to the RHPO.

Archeological investigations and collecting are 

performed only in the public interest by qualified 

archeologists or by persons recommended by the 

Governor working under an Archaeological 

Table 5: Step-down Management Plan Schedule

Step-down Management Plan Completed or 

Updated

Anticipated 

Completion or 

Revision

Safety -- 2008

Air Quality Management -- 2008

Hunting and Fishing 1996 2010

Wildlife Observation and Photography -- 2012

Interpretation -- 2013

Habitat Management -- 2010

Inventory and Monitoring -- 2009

Fire Management 2002 -
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

85

Resources Protection Act permit issued by the 

Regional Director. Refuge personnel take steps to 

prevent unauthorized collecting by the public, contractors, and Refuge personnel.

The Refuge Manager will, with the assistance of 

the RHPO, develop a step-down plan for surveying 

lands to identify archeological resources and for 

developing a preservation program to meet the 

requirements of Section 14 of the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act and Section 110(a)(2) of 

the National Historic Preservation Act.

The Refuge Manager should have and implement 

a plan for inspecting the condition of known cultural 

resources on the Refuge and report to the RHPO 

changes in the conditions.

The Refuge Manager will initiate budget 

requests or otherwise obtain funding from the 1 

percent O&M program base provided for the Section 106 process compliance:

1. Inventory, evaluate, and protect all significant 

cultural resources located on lands controlled 

by the FWS, including historic properties of 

religious and cultural significance to Indian 

tribes. 

2. Identify and nominate to the National Register of Historic Places all historic properties 

including those of religious and cultural significance to Indian tribes.

3. Cooperate with Federal, state, and local agencies, Native American tribes, and the public in 

managing cultural resources on the Refuge.

4. Integrate historic preservation with planning 

and management of other resources and 

activities. Historic buildings are rehabilitated 

and adapted to reuse when feasible.

5. Recognize the rights of Native American to 

have access to certain religious sites and 

objects on Refuge lands within the limitations 

of the FWS mission.

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 Patoka 

River NWR and evaluate current Refuge activities 

in light of this plan. The team will review all aspects 

of Refuge management, including direction, accomplishments and funding. The goals and objectives 

presented in this CCP will provide the baseline from 

which this field station will be evaluated. 

Plan Review and Revision

The CCP for the Refuge is meant to provide guidance to the refuge manager and staff over the next 

15 years. However, the CCP is also a dynamic and 

flexible document and several of the strategies contained in this plan are subject to natural uncontrollable events such as windstorms and floods. 

Likewise, many of the strategies are dependent 

upon Service funding for staff and projects. Because 

of all these factors, the recommendations in the 

CCP will be reviewed periodically and, if necessary, 

revised to meet new circumstances. If any revisions 

are major, the review and revision will include the 

public.

Young white-tailed buck, Patoka River NWR & MA. Photo 

credit: USFWS

 Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

87

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact

 Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

89

FONSI here
Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

90

and here.
 Appendix B: Glossary

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

91

Appendix B: Glossary

 Appendix B: Glossary

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

93

Appendix B: Glossary

Aquatic Species

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

Archaeological and Cultural Values

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

archaeological interest as defined by Section 4(a) 

of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

and 43 CFR Part 7.3.

Biodiversity

The variety of life and its processes, including the 

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

Candidate Species

Those species for which the Service has on file 

sufficient information on biological vulnerability 

and threats to propose them for listing.

Compatible Use

A wildlife-dependent recreational use or any 

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

not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the System or the 

purposes of the refuge (PL 105-57).

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

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

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

refuge system and the individual refuge units.

Conservation

The management of natural resources to prevent 

loss or waste. Management actions may include 

preservation, restoration and enhancement.

Conservation (Species)

The use of all methods and procedures which are 

necessary to bring any species to the point at 

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

are not limited to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

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

of managing a resource to ensure its survival and 

availability.

Cultural Resources

Cultural Resources: “those parts of the physical 

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

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

historic sites, archeological sites and associated 

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

objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural 

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

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

buildings and structures.

Ecosystem

Dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and 

animal (including humans) communities and their 

associated non-living environment.

Ecosystem Approach

1) Protecting or restoring the natural function, 

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

system-wide concepts to ensure that all plants 

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

(Clark and Zaunbrecher 1987).

Endangered Species

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

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

94

Enhance (habitats)

Improves habitat through alteration, treatment, 

or other land management of existing habitat to 

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

Forest Fragmentation

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

may also occur when numerous openings for such 

things as fields, roads, and powerlines interrupt a 

continuous forest canopy. The resulting landscape 

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

Interjurisdictional Fish

Populations of fish that are managed by two or 

more states or national or tribal governments 

because of the scope of their geographic distributions or migrations.

Invasive Species

An alien species whose introduction does or is 

likely to cause economic or environmental harm 

or harm to human health.

Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern

Those species of nongame birds that (a) are 

believed to have undergone significant population 

declines; (b) have small or restricted populations; 

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

Migratory Species

Species that move substantial distances to satisfy 

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

conditions.

National Wildlife Refuge System

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

ranges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl 

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

Protect (habitat)

Maintain current quality or prevent degradation 

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

result of human activities but sometimes in 

response to unwelcome natural processes or phenomena.

Recovery Plans (species)

Documents developed by the Service that outline 

tasks necessary to stabilize and recover listed 

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

costs and time frames for the recovery process, 

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

recovery plan.

Restore (habitat)

Returns the quantity and quality of habitat to 

some previous naturally occurring condition, 

most often some baseline considered suitable and 

sufficient to support self-sustaining populations 

of fish and wildlife.

Riparian Habitats

Those lands adjacent to streams or rivers that 

form a transition zone between aquatic and 

upland systems and are typically dominated by 

woody vegetation that is of a noticeably different 

growth form than adjacent vegetation. Riparian 

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

Rotation

The period during which a single generation is 

allowed to grow.

Species of Concern

A species not on the federal list of threatened or 

endangered species, but a species for which the 

Service or one of its partners has concerns.

Stakeholders

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

agricultural, and conservation organizations, 

trade groups, commercial interests, and private 

landowners.

Threatened Species

A listed species which is likely to become an 

endangered species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range.
 Appendix B: Glossary

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

95

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

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

97

Appendix C: Species Lists

List of Bird Species / page 99

List of Mammal Species / page 106

List of Herptofauna Species / page 107

List of Fish Species / page 109

List of Fresh Water Mussel Species / page 112

List of Plant Species / page 113

 Appendix C: Species Lists

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

99

Appendix C: Species Lists 

Bird Species List, Patoka River NWR & MA 

Common Name Scientific Name Patoka 

River

Cane 

Ridge 

WMA

Noted in Indiana 

Comprehensive 

Wildlife Strategy as 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Common loon Gavia immer ✔

Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps ✔ ✔

Horned grebe Podiceps auritus ✔

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos ✔

Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus ✔ ✔

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus ✔ ✔ ✔

Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis ✔ ✔ ✔

Great blue heron Ardea herodias ✔ ✔

Snowy egret Egretta thula ✔ ✔

Great egret Casmerodius albus ✔ ✔ ✔

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea ✔ ✔

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis ✔ ✔

Green heron Butorides striatus ✔ ✔

Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax ✔ ✔ ✔

Yellow-crowned night-heron Nycticorax violaceus ✔ ✔

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi ✔

Wood stork Mycteria americana ✔

Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons ✔ ✔

Snow goose Chen caerulescens ✔ ✔

Canada goose Branta canadensis ✔ ✔

Tundra swan Cygnus columbianus ✔ ✔

Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator ✔ ✔

Mute swan Cygnus olor ✔

Wood duck Aix sponsa ✔ ✔

Gadwall Anas strepera ✔ ✔

American wigeon Anas americana ✔ ✔

American black duck Anas rubripes ✔ ✔

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos ✔ ✔

Blue-winged teal Anas discors ✔ ✔

Green-winged teal Anas crecca ✔ ✔

Northern shoveler Anas clypeata ✔ ✔

Northern pintail Anas acuta ✔ ✔

Canvasback Aythya valisineria ✔ ✔

Redhead Aythya americana ✔ ✔

Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris ✔ ✔

Lesser scaup Aythya affinis ✔ ✔

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola ✔ ✔
Appendix C: Species Lists

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

100

Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula ✔ ✔

Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus ✔ ✔

Common merganser Mergus merganser ✔

Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis ✔ ✔

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura ✔ ✔

Osprey Pandion haliaetus ✔ ✔ ✔

Mississippi kite Ictinia mississippiensis ✔ ✔

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos ✔

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus ✔ ✔ ✔

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus ✔ ✔ ✔

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus ✔ ✔ ✔

Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii ✔ ✔

Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus ✔ ✔ ✔

Broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus ✔ ✔

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis ✔ ✔

Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus ✔ ✔

American kestrel Falco sparverius ✔ ✔

Merlin Falco columbarius ✔ ✔

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus ✔ ✔

Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo ✔ ✔

Northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus ✔ ✔

King rail Rallus elegans ✔ ✔ ✔

Yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis ✔

Virginia rail Rallus limicola ✔ ✔ ✔

Sora Porzana carolina ✔ ✔

Purple gallinule Porphyrula martinica ✔

Common moorhen Gallinula chloropus ✔ ✔ ✔

American coot Fulica americana ✔ ✔

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis ✔ ✔ ✔

Whooping crane Grus americana ✔ ✔

Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola ✔ ✔

American golden plover Pluvialis dominica ✔ ✔

Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus ✔ ✔

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus ✔ ✔

Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus ✔ ✔

American avocet Recurvirostra americana ✔ ✔

Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca ✔ ✔

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes ✔ ✔

Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria ✔ ✔

Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia ✔ ✔

Bird Species List, Patoka River NWR & MA (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Patoka 

River

Cane 

Ridge 

WMA

Noted in Indiana 

Comprehensive 

Wildlife Strategy as 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 
 Appendix C: Species Lists

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

101

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus ✔

Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres ✔ ✔

Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla ✔ ✔

Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla ✔ ✔

Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos ✔ ✔

Buff-breasted sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis ✔

Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus ✔ ✔

Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus ✔ ✔

Stilt sandpiper Calidris himantopus ✔

Common snipe Gallinago gallinago ✔ ✔

American woodcock Scolopax minor ✔

Wilson's phalarope Phalaropus tricolor ✔ ✔

Bonaparte's gull Larus philadelphia ✔ ✔

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis ✔ ✔

Herring gull Larus argentatus ✔

Caspian tern Sterna caspia ✔

Common tern Sterna hirundo ✔ ✔

Forster's tern Sterna forsteri ✔ ✔

Least tern Sterna antillarum ✔ ✔

Black tern Chlidonias niger ✔ ✔ ✔

Rock dove Columba livia ✔ ✔

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura ✔ ✔

Black-billed cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus ✔ ✔

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus ✔ ✔

Barn owl Tyto alba ✔ ✔

Eastern screech-owl Otus asio ✔ ✔

Great-horned owl Bubo virginianus ✔ ✔

Barred owl Strix varia ✔ ✔

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus ✔ ✔ ✔

Common nighthawk Cordeiles minor ✔ ✔ ✔

Chuck-will's-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis ✔

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus ✔ ✔ ✔

Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica ✔ ✔

Ruby-throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris ✔ ✔

Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon ✔ ✔

Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus ✔ ✔

Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus ✔ ✔

Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius ✔ ✔

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens ✔ ✔

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus ✔ ✔

Bird Species List, Patoka River NWR & MA (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Patoka 

River

Cane 

Ridge 

WMA

Noted in Indiana 

Comprehensive 

Wildlife Strategy as 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 
Appendix C: Species Lists

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

102

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus ✔ ✔

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus ✔ ✔

Easter wood-pewee Contopus virens ✔ ✔

Yellow-bellied flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris ✔

Acadian flycatcher Empidonax virscens ✔ ✔

Alder flycatcher Empidomax alnorum ✔

Willow flycatcher Empidomax trailii ✔ ✔

Least flycatcher Empidomax minimus ✔

Easter phoebe Sayornis phoebe ✔ ✔

Great crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus ✔ ✔

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus ✔ ✔

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus ✔ ✔ ✔

White-eyed vireo Vireo griseus ✔ ✔

Bell's vireo Vireo bellii ✔ ✔

Yellow-throated vireo Vireo flavifrons ✔ ✔

Blue-headed vireo Vireo solitarius ✔

Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus ✔ ✔

Philadelphia vireo Vireo philadelphicus ✔

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus ✔ ✔

Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata ✔ ✔

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos ✔ ✔

Horned lark Eremophila alpestris ✔ ✔

Purple martin Progne subis ✔ ✔

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor ✔ ✔

Northern rough-winged 

swallow

Stelgidopteryx serripennis ✔ ✔

Bank swallow Riparia riparia ✔ ✔

Cliff swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota ✔ ✔

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica ✔ ✔

Carolina chickadee Parus carolinensis ✔ ✔

Tufted titmouse Parus bicolor ✔ ✔

Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis ✔

White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis ✔ ✔

Brown creeper Certhia americana ✔ ✔

Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris ✔ ✔

Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis ✔ ✔

Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus ✔ ✔

House wren Troglodytes aedon ✔ ✔

Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes ✔ ✔

Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa ✔ ✔

Bird Species List, Patoka River NWR & MA (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Patoka 

River

Cane 

Ridge 

WMA

Noted in Indiana 

Comprehensive 

Wildlife Strategy as 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 
 Appendix C: Species Lists

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

103

Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula ✔ ✔

Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea ✔ ✔

Northern wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe ✔

Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis ✔ ✔

Veery Catharus fuscescens ✔ ✔

Gray-cheeked thrush Catharus minimus ✔ ✔

Swainson's thrush Catharus ustulatus ✔ ✔

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus ✔ ✔

Wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina ✔ ✔

American robin Turdus migratorius ✔ ✔

Gray catbird Dumetella ccarolinensis ✔ ✔

Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos ✔ ✔

Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum ✔ ✔

European starling Sturnus vulgaris ✔ ✔

American pipit Anthus rubescens ✔ ✔

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum ✔ ✔

Blue-winged warbler Vermivora pinus ✔

Golden-winged warbler Vermivora chrysoptera ✔ ✔

Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrina ✔ ✔

Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla ✔

Northern parula Parula americana ✔

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia ✔ ✔

Chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica ✔

Magnolia warbler Dendroica magnolia ✔ ✔

Cape May warbler Dendroica tigrina ✔

Black-throated blue warbler Dendroica caerulescens ✔

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata ✔ ✔

Black-throated green warbler Dendroica virens ✔ ✔

Blackburnian warbler Dendroica fusca ✔

Yellow-throated warbler Dendroica dominica ✔ ✔

Pine warbler Dendroica pinus ✔

Prairie warbler Dendroica discolor ✔

Palm warbler Dendroica palmarum ✔ ✔

Bay-breasted warbler Dendroica castanea ✔

Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata ✔

Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerula ✔ ✔

Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia ✔ ✔ ✔

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla ✔ ✔

Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea ✔ ✔

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus ✔ ✔

Bird Species List, Patoka River NWR & MA (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Patoka 

River

Cane 

Ridge 

WMA

Noted in Indiana 

Comprehensive 

Wildlife Strategy as 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 
Appendix C: Species Lists

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

104

Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis ✔

Louisiana waterthrush Seiurus motacilla ✔

Kentucky warbler Oporornis formosus ✔

Connecticut warbler Oporornis agilis ✔

Mourning warbler Oporornis philadelphia ✔ ✔

Common yellowthroat Geothylpis trichas ✔ ✔

Hooded warbler Wilsonia citrina ✔ ✔

Wilson's warbler Wilsonia pusilla ✔ ✔

Canada warbler Wilsonia canadensis ✔

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens ✔ ✔

Summer tanager Piranga rubra ✔ ✔

Scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea ✔ ✔

Eastern towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus ✔ ✔

American tree sparrow Spizella arborea ✔ ✔

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina ✔ ✔

Field sparrow Spizella pusilla ✔ ✔

Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus ✔

Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis ✔ ✔

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum ✔ ✔

Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii ✔ ✔

Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca ✔

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia ✔ ✔

Lincoln's sparrow Melospiza lincolnii ✔ ✔

Swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana ✔ ✔

White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis ✔ ✔

White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys ✔ ✔

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis ✔ ✔

Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis ✔ ✔

Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus ✔ ✔

Blue grosbeak Guiraca caerulea ✔ ✔

Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea ✔ ✔

Dickcissel Spiza americana ✔ ✔

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus ✔ ✔

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus ✔ ✔

Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna ✔ ✔

Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus ✔ ✔

Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus ✔ ✔

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula ✔ ✔

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater ✔ ✔

Orchard oriole Icterus spurius ✔ ✔

Bird Species List, Patoka River NWR & MA (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Patoka 

River

Cane 

Ridge 

WMA

Noted in Indiana 

Comprehensive 

Wildlife Strategy as 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 
 Appendix C: Species Lists

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

105

Baltimore oriole Icterus galbula ✔ ✔

Yellow-headed blackbird 4anthocephalus 

xanthocephalus

✔ ✔

Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus ✔ ✔

House finch Carpodacus mexicanus ✔ ✔

Pine siskin Carduelis pinus ✔

American goldfinch Carduelis tristis ✔ ✔

House sparrow Passer domesticus ✔ ✔

Bird Species List, Patoka River NWR & MA (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Patoka 

River

Cane 

Ridge 

WMA

Noted in Indiana 

Comprehensive 

Wildlife Strategy as 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 
Appendix C: Species Lists

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

106

Mammals Known or Expected to Occur in the Patoka River Area

Common Name Scientific Name Noted in Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife 

Strategy as Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Modified from July 1994 Patoka River National Wetlands FEIS, Appendix I

Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana

Southeastern shrew Sorest longirostris

Short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda

Least shrew Cryptotis parva

Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus

Star-nose mole Condylura cristata ✔

Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus ✔

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis ✔

Eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus ✔

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus

Red bat Lasiurus borealis ✔

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus ✔

Eastern cottontail rabbit Sylvilagus floridanus

Swamp rabbit Sylvilagus aquaticus ✔

Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus

Woodchuck Marmota monax

Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis

Fox squirrel Sciurus niger

Southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans

Beaver Castor canadensis

Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

White-footed mouse peromyscus leucopus

Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus

Prairie vole Microtus ochrogaster

Woodland vole Microtus pinetorum

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Southern bog lemming Synaptomys cooperi

Norway rat Rattus norvegicus

House mouse Mus musculus

Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius

Coyote Canis latrans

Red fox Vulpes vulpes

Gray fox Urocyon Cinereoargenteus

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata

Mink Mustela vison

River Otter Lutra canadensis ✔

Badger Taxidea taxus ✔

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis

Bobcat Felix rufus ✔

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus
 Appendix C: Species Lists

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

107

Herptofauna List, Patoka River NWR & MA 

Common Name Scientific Name Noted in Indiana Comprehensive 

Wildlife Strategy as Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Snakes

Midland water snake Nerodia sipedon pleuralis

Copperbelly water snake Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta ✔

Diamond-backed water snake Nerodia rhombifera

Midland brown snake Storeria dekayi wrightorum

Red-bellied snake Storeria occipitomaculata 

occipitomaculata

Eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis

Eastern ribbon snake Thamnophis sauritis sauritis

Western smooth earth snake Virginia valeriae elegans

Eastern hognose snake Heterodon platirhinos

Northern ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus edwardsi

Midwest worm snake Carphophis amoenus helenae

Southern black racer Coluber constrictor priapus

Rough green snake Opheodrys aestivus ✔

Black rat snake Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta

Black king snake Lampropeltis getula niger

Prairie king snake Lampropeltis calligaster calligaster

Red milk snake Lampropeltis triangulum syspila

Northern copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix mokasen

Western cottonmouth Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma ✔

Mud snake Farancia abaevra reinwardtii ✔

Turtles

Common snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina serpentina

Stinkpot Sternotherus odoratus

Eastern mud turtle Kinosternon subrubrum subrubrum ✔

Map turtle Graptemys geographica

Midland painted turtle Chrysemys picta marginata

Red-eared turtle Pseudemys scripta elegans

Eastern box turtle Terrapene carolina carolina

Smooth softshell turtle Apalone mutica mutica 

Eastern spiny softshell turtle Apalone spinifera spinifera

Lizards and Skinks

Northern fence lizard Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus

Ground skink Scincella lateralis 

Five-lined skink Eumeces fasciatus 
Appendix C: Species Lists

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

108

Broad-headed skink Eumeces laticeps 

Salamanders, Newts, and Sirens

Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus ✔

Western lesser siren Siren intermedia nettingi 

Central newt Notophthalmus viridescens 

louisianensis

Spotted salamander Ambystoma maculatum

Small-mouthed salamander Ambystoma texanum 

Marbled salamander Ambystoma opacum 

Eastern tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum

Red-backed salamander Plethodon cinereus cinereus

Zig-zag salamander Plethodon dorsalis dorsalis

Slimy salamander Plethodon glutinosus glutinosus

Southern two-lined salamander Eurycea bislineata bislineata

Eastern newt Notophthalmus viridescens 

viridescens

Longtail salamander Eurycea longicauda longicauda

Toads and Frogs

Eastern spadefoot Scaphiopus holbrooki holbrooki ✔

Fowler's toad Bufo fowleri

Northern spring peeper Hyla crucifer crucifer

Eastern gray tree frog Hyla versicolor 

Blanchard's cricket frog Acris crepitans blanchardi

Western chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata triseriata

Southern leopard frog Rana sphenocephala utricularia

Northern crayfish frog Rana areolata circulosa 

Green frog Rana clamitans melanota 

Wood frog Rana sylvatica

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana

Cope's gray treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis

Herptofauna List, Patoka River NWR & MA (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Noted in Indiana Comprehensive 

Wildlife Strategy as Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 
 Appendix C: Species Lists

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

109

Fish Species Occurring in the Patoka River and Its Tributaries 

Common Name Scientific Name Noted in Indiana Comprehensive 

Wildlife Strategy as Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus

Shortnose gar Lepisosteus platostomas

Longnose gar Lepisosteus ossus

Bowfin Amia calva

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula

Gizzard shad Dorsoma cepedianum

Threadfin shad Dorsoma petenense

Goldeye Hiodon alosoides

Weed shiner Notropis texanus

Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera

Steelcolor shiner Cyprinella whipplei

Ribbon shiner Lythrurus fumeus

River shiner Notropis blennius

Suckermouth minnow Phenocobius mirabilis

Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus

Redfin shiner Lythrurus umbratilis

Shoal chub Macrhybopsis hyostomus

Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas

Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus

Common carp Cyprinus carpio

Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides

Pallid shiner Hybopsis amnis ✔

Sand shiner Notropis stramineus

Channel shiner Notropis wickliffi

Pugnose minnow Opsopoeodus emiliae

Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax

Silverjaw minnow Ericymba buccatta

Striped shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus

Blacknose dace Rhinichthys obtusus

Fathead minow Pimphales promelas

Cypress minnow Hybognathus hayi

Mississippi silvery minnow Hybognathus nuchalis

Mimic shiner Notropis volucellus

Southern redbelly dace Phoxinus erythrogaster

Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops

Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum

Silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum

Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum

River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio

Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus
Appendix C: Species Lists

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

110

Highfin carpsucker Carpiodes velifer

Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus

Largemouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinella

Black buffalo Ictiobus niger

White sucker Catostomus commersonii

Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus

Lake chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta

Flathead catfish Pylodiotis olivaris

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus

Stonecat Noturus flavus

Tadpole madtom Noturus gyrinus

Brindled madtom Noturus miurus

Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis

Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus

Black bullhead Ameiurus melas

Grass pickeral Esox americanus

Northern pike Esox lucius

Central mudminnow Umbra limi

Pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus

Blackstripe topminnow Fundulus notatus

Starhead topminnow Fundulus dispar

Western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis

Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus

Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris

Flier Centrarchus macropterus

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus

Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis

Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus

Redspotted sunfish Lepomis miniatus

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu

Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides

White crappie Pomoxis annularis

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus

White bass Morone chrysops

Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis

Mud darter Etheostoma asprigene

Rainbow darter Etheostoma caeruleum

Fish Species Occurring in the Patoka River and Its Tributaries 

Common Name Scientific Name Noted in Indiana Comprehensive 

Wildlife Strategy as Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 
 Appendix C: Species Lists

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

111

Bluntnose darter Etheostoma chlorosoma

Harlequin darter Etheostoma histrio

Slough darter Etheostoma gracile

Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum

Orangethroat darter Etheostoma spectabile

Logperch Percina caprodes

Blackside darter percina maculata

Slenderhead darter Percina phoxocephala

Dusky darter Percina sciera

River darter Percina shumardi

Saddleback darter Percina vigil

Sauger Sander canadense

Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens

Banded sculpin Cottus carolinae

Silver carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix

Grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella

Bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis

Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus

Crustacean Species

Calico crayfish Orconectes immunis

Indiana crayfish Orconectes indianensis

Northern clearwater crayfish Orconectes propinquus

Northern cave crayfish Orconectes inermis inermis

White River crayfish Procambarus acutus

Painted-hand mudbug Cambarus polychromatus

Great Plains mudbug Cambarus (Lacunicambarus) 

species A

Karst crsyfish Cambarus laevis

Mississippi grass shrimp Palaemonetes kadiakensis

Cavespring crayfish Cambarus tenebrosus

Digger crayfish Fallicambarus fodiens

Reproduced from July 1994 Patoka River National Wetlands FEIS, 

Appendix I

Modified by Tom Simon (USFWS) & Dan Carnahan (Indiana DNR), 

April, 2007

Fish Species Occurring in the Patoka River and Its Tributaries 

Common Name Scientific Name Noted in Indiana Comprehensive 

Wildlife Strategy as Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 
Appendix C: Species Lists

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

112

Fresh Water Mussels Found on Patoka River MWR/MA

Common Name Scientific Name

Threeridge Amblema p. plicata

Flat Floater Anodonta suborbiculata

Rock Pocketbook Arcidens confragosus

Wabash Pigtoe Fusconaia flava

Fatmucket Lampsilis siliquoidea

Yellow Sandshell Lampsilis teres

White Heelsplitter Lasmigona c. complanata

Fragile Papershell Leptodea fragilis

Washboard Megalonaias nervosa

Pink Heelsplitter Potamilus alatus

Pink Papershell Potamilus ohiensis

Giant Floater Pyganodon grandis

Pimpleback Quadrula p. pustulosa

Mapleleaf Quadrula quadrula

Pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa

Deertoe Truncilla truncata

Pondhorn Uniomerus tetralasmus
 Appendix C: Species Lists

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

113

Plant List, Patoka River NWR & MA 

Common Name Scientific Name

American elm Ulmus americana

Black gum Nyssa sylvatica

Black haw Viburnum prunifolium

Black willow Salix nigra

Boneset Eupatorium serotinum

Box elder Acer negundo

Broadleaf uniola Chasmanthemum latifolium

Bugleweed Lycopus rubellus

Calico aster Aster lateriflorus

Cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalis

Catbird grape Vitis cinerea

Catchfly grass Leersia lenticularis

Cherrybark oak Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia

Clearweed Pilea pumila

Common persimmon Diospyros virginiana

Ditch stonecrop Penthorum sedoides

Dogbane Trachelospermum difforme

Eastern cottonwood Populus deltoides

False nettle Boehmeria cylindrica

Fleabane Pluchea camphorate

Frog fruit Phyla lanceolata

Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Greenbrier Smilax hispida

Groundnut Apios americana

Hackberry Celtis occidentalis

Kingnut hickory Carya laciniosa

Lizard's tail Saururus cernuus

Louisiana sedge Carex louisianica

Mad-dog skullcap Scutellaria lateriflora

Milkweed Asclepias perennis

Moneywort Lysimachia nummularia

Moonseed Menispermum canadensis

Nettle Laportea canadensis

Pecan Carya illinoensis

Pin oak Quercus palustris

Poison ivy Rhus radicans

Purple fringeless orchid Platanthera peramoena

Ragwort Senecio glabellus
Appendix C: Species Lists

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

114

Red maple Acer rubrum

River birch Betula nigra

Sedge Carex muskingumensis

Sedge Carex squarrosa

Sedge Carex intumescens

Sedge Carex tribuloides

Sedge Carex grayi

Sedge Carex lupulina

Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis

Shumard oak Quercus shumardii

Silver maple Acer saccharinum

Small white aster Aster vimineus

Smooth buttonweed Spermacoce glabra

Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii

Swamp white oak Quercus bicolor

Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua

Sycamore Platanus occidentalis

Trumpet creeper Campsis radicans

Virginia dayflower Commelina virginica

Water parsnip Sium suave

Winged monkey flower Mimulus alatus

Woodreed Cinna arundinacea

Emergent Wetland Communities--selected plant species

American snowbell Styrax americana

Barnyard grass Echinochloa crus-galli

Beggarticks Bidens discoidea

Beggarticks Bidens frondosa

Beggarticks Bidens tripartita

Blunt spikerush Eleocharis obtusa

Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 

Cattail Typha latifolia

Catchfly grass Leersia lenticularis

Clammy hedge hysop Gratiola neglecta

Clearweed Pilea pumila

Common bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris

Common arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia

Creeping eragrostis Eragrostis hypnoides

Plant List, Patoka River NWR & MA (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name
 Appendix C: Species Lists

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

115

Cyperus Cyperus ferruginescens

Cyperus Cyperus erythrorhizos

Dayflower Commelina diffusa

Ditch stonecrop Penthorum sedoides

Duckweed Lemna spp.

Fall panicum Panicum dichotomiflorum

False pimpernel Lindernia dubia

False nettle Boehmeria cylindrica

Featherfoil Hottonia inflata

Fleabane Pluchea camphorata

Frog fruit Phyla lanceolata

Grass-leaved arrowhead Sagittaria graminea

Greater duckweed Spirodela polyrhiza

Hornwort Ceratophyllum demersum

Humped bladderwort Utricularia gibba

India heliotrope Heliotropium indicum

Lizard's tail Saururus cernuus

Long beak arrowhead Sagittaria australis

Loosestrife Rotata ramosior

Mad-dog skullcap Scutellaria lateriflora

Mermaid weed Proserpinaca palustris

Mild water pepper Polygonum hydropiperoides

Nodding bur marigold Bidens cernua

Nodding smartweed Polygonum lapathifolium

Panicum Panicum agrosticoides

Paspalum Paspalum fluitans

Pink knotweed Polygonum pennsylvanicum

Pumpkin ash Fraxinus tomentosa

Rice cutgrass Leersia oryzoides

Scarlet ammannia Ammannia coccinea

Short beak arrowhead Sagittaria brevirostra

Small water plantain Alisma subcordatum

Smooth buttonweed Spermacoce glabra

Southern pond lily Nuphar advena

St. John's-wort Hypericum mutabile

Swamp cottonwood Populus heterophylla

Swamp loosestrife Decodon verticillatus

Swamp privet Forestiera acuminata

Plant List, Patoka River NWR & MA (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name
Appendix C: Species Lists

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

116

Swamp dock Rumex verticillatus

Virginia dayflower Commelina virginiana

Water starwort Callitriche heterophylla

Water-plantain Lophotocarpus calycinus

Water-purslane Didiplis diandra

Water-purslane Ludwigia palustris

Whitegrass Leersia virginica

Wolffia Wolffia spp.

Yellow water buttercup Ranunculus flabellaris

Yerba de tajo Eclipta alba

Upland Forest Community--selected plant species

American beech Fagus grandifolia

American elm Ulmus americana

Basswood Tilia americana

Bitternut hickory Carya cordiformis

Black cherry Prunus serotina 

Black oak Quercus velutina

Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia

Black gum Nyssa sylvatica

Black walnut Juglans nigra

Black ash Fraxinus nigra

Bladdernut Staphylea trifolia

Blue beech Carpinus caroliniana

Butternut Juglans cinerea

Catalpa Catalpa speciosa

Chestnut oak Quercus montana

Chinkapin oak Quercus muehlenbergii

Downy serviceberry Amelanchier arborea

Eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana

Flowering dogwood Cornus florida

Hackberry Celtis occidentalis

Hawthorne Crataegus spp.

Honey locust Gleditsia triacanthos

Ironwood Ostrya virginiana

Jack pine Pinus banksiana

Kentucky coffeetree Gymnocladus dioicus

Mockernut hickory Carya glabra

Plant List, Patoka River NWR & MA (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name
 Appendix C: Species Lists

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

117

Northern red oak Quercus rubra

Ohio buckeye Aesculus glabra

Osage-orange Maclura pomifera

Pawpaw Asimina triloba

Persimmon Diospyros virginiana

Pignut hickory Carya glabra

Post oak Quercus stellata

Red mulberry Morus rubra

Red maple Acer rubrum

Red pine Pinus resinosa

Redbud Cercis canadensis

Sassafras Sassafras albidum

Scarlet oak Quercus coccinea

Scotch pine Pinus sylvestris

Shagbark hickory Carya ovata

Shellbark hickory Carya laciniosa

Shingle oak Quercus imbricaria

Southern red oak Ouercus falcata

Spicebush Lindera benzoin

Staghorn sumac Rhus typhina

Sugar maple Acer saccharum

Sycamore Platanus occidentalis

White pine Pinus strobus

White oak Quercus alba

White ash Fraxinus americana

Witch-hazel Hamamelis virginiana

Yellow poplar Liriodendron tulipifera

Plant List, Patoka River NWR & MA (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

 Appendix D: Resource Conservation Priorities, Ohio River Valley Ecosystem

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

119

Appendix D: Resource Conservation Priorities, 

Ohio River Valley Ecosystem

 Appendix D: Resource Conservation Priorities, Ohio River Valley Ecosystem

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

121

Resource Conservation Priorities, Ohio River Valley Ecosystem1

Common Name Scientific Name Documented 

on Refuge

Noted in Indiana 

Comprehensive 

Wildlife Strategy as 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Amphibians

Hellbender Cryptobranchus allenganiensis

Arachnids

Pseudoscorpion (no common 

name)

Apochthonous hobbsi

Birds

Acadian flycatcher Empidonax virescens ✔

American woodcock Scolopax minor ✔

Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus ✔ ✔

Barn owl Tyto alba ✔ ✔

Bell's vireo Vireo bellii ✔

Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus ✔

Blue-winged warbler Vermivora pinus ✔

Buff-breasted sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis ✔

Canada goose - Giant population Branta canadensis ✔

Canada goose - Southern James 

Bay population

Branta canadensis ✔

Canada goose - resident giants Branta canadensis ✔

Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea ✔ ✔

Chuck-will's-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis ✔

Common moorhen Gallinula chloropus ✔ ✔

Dickcissel Spiza americana ✔

Field sparrow Spizella pusilla ✔

Golden-winged warbler Vermivora chrysoptera ✔ ✔

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum ✔

Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca ✔

Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii ✔ ✔

Kentucky warbler Oporornis formosus ✔

King rail Rallus elegans ✔ ✔

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus ✔

Long-eared owl Asio otus ✔

Louisiana waterthrush Seiurus motacilla ✔

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos ✔
Appendix D: Resource Conservation Priorities, Ohio River Valley Ecosystem

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

122

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus ✔

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus ✔ ✔

Orchard oriole Icterus spurius ✔

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinis anatum ✔ ✔

Prairie warbler Dendroica discolor ✔

Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea ✔

Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus ✔

Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus ✔ ✔

Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus ✔

Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus ✔

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus ✔ ✔

Stilt sandpiper Calidris himantopus ✔

Swainson's warbler Limnothylpis swainsonii

Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda ✔

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus ✔ ✔

Whooping crane - Eastern 

population

Grus americana ✔

Wood duck Aix sponsa ✔

Wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina ✔

Worm-eating warbler Helmitheros vermivorus ✔

Crustaceans

Crayfish (O. illinoisensis) Orconectes illinoisensis

Crayfish (O. inermis testii) Orconectes inermis testii ✔

Crayfish (O. kentuckiensis) Orconectes kentuckiensis

Crayfish (O. sloanii) Orconectes sloanii

Crayfish (O. stannardi) Orconectes stannardi

Indiana crayfish Orconectes indianensis ✔ ✔

Rusty crayfish Orconectes rusticus

Fish

Bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis ✔

Blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus

Eastern sand darter Ammocrypta pellucida

Grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella ✔

Lake sturgeon - Inland 

population

Acipenser fulvescens ✔

Logperch (P. evermanni) Percina evermanni

Logperch (P. manitou) Percina manitou

Resource Conservation Priorities, Ohio River Valley Ecosystem1 

Common Name Scientific Name Documented 

on Refuge

Noted in Indiana 

Comprehensive 

Wildlife Strategy as 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 
 Appendix D: Resource Conservation Priorities, Ohio River Valley Ecosystem

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

123

Longhead darter Percina macrocephala

Northern cavefish Amblyopsis spelaea ✔

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula ✔

Scioto madtom Noturus trautmani

Shovelnose sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus

Spotted darter Etheostoma maculatum ✔

Insects

Kramer's cave beetle Pseudanophthalums krameri

Ohio cave beetle Pseudanophthalums ohioensis

Wabash belted skimmer Macaromia wabashensis

Mammals

Gray bat Myotis grisescens ✔

Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis ✔ ✔

Mussels

Asiatic clam Corbicula fluminea

Black sandshell Ligumia recta

Clubshell Pleurobema clava ✔

Elktoe Alasmidonta marginata

Fanshell Cyprogenia stegaria ✔

Mapleleaf Quadrula quadrula ✔

Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra

Northern riffleshell Epioblasma rangiana ✔

Orange-foot pimpleback Plethobasus cooperianus ✔

Pimpleback Quadrula pustulosa ✔

Pink mucket pearlymussel Lampsilis abrupta ✔

Pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa ✔

Purple cat's paw pearlymussel Epioblasma obliquata 

obliquata

Rabbit's foot Quadrula cylindrica 

cylindrica

✔

Ring pink mussel (=golf stick) Obovaria retusa

Rock pocketbook Arcidens confragosus ✔

Rough pigtoe Pleurobema plenum ✔

Round pigtoe Pleurobema coccineum

Salamander mussel Simpsonaias ambigua ✔

Scaleshell mussel Leptodea leptodon

Resource Conservation Priorities, Ohio River Valley Ecosystem1 

Common Name Scientific Name Documented 

on Refuge

Noted in Indiana 

Comprehensive 

Wildlife Strategy as 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 
Appendix D: Resource Conservation Priorities, Ohio River Valley Ecosystem

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

124

Sheepnose Plethobasus cyphyus ✔

Slippershell Alasmidonta viridis

Snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra ✔

Spectaclecase Cumberlandi mondonta

Threeridge Amblema plicata ✔

Tubercled-blossom 

pearlymussel

Epioblasma torulosa torulosa ✔

Washboard Megalonaias nervosa ✔

White cat's paw pearlymussel Epioblasma obliquata ✔

White wartyback mussel Plethobasus cicatricosus ✔

Zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha

Plants

Earleaf foxglove Agalinus auriculata

Eastern prairie fringed orchid Platanthera leucophaea

Glade (Darlington's) spurge Eurphorbia purpurea

Hall's bulrush Schoenoplectus hallii

Northern wild monkshood Aconitum noveboracense

Running buffalo clover Trifollium stoloniferum

Short's bladderpod Lesquerella globosa

Small whorled pagonia Isotria medeoloides

Virnigia spirea Spiraea virginiana

Reptiles

Copperbelly watersnake - S 

pop.

Nerodia erythrogaster 

neglecta

✔ ✔

Eastern massasauga Sistrurus catenatus catenatus

Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus ✔

1. Source: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Fish & Wildlife Conservation Priorities, Region 3, January 

2002.

Resource Conservation Priorities, Ohio River Valley Ecosystem1 

Common Name Scientific Name Documented 

on Refuge

Noted in Indiana 

Comprehensive 

Wildlife Strategy as 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 
 Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

125

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

 Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / 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 (1906)

Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on Federal land and provides penalties for 

unauthorized removal of objects taken or collected without a permit.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)

Designates the protection of migratory birds as a 

Federal responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations including 

the closing of areas, Federal or non Federal, to 

the hunting of migratory birds.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929)

Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934), as amended

Requires that the Fish and Wildlife Service and 

State fish and wildlife agencies be consulted 

whenever water is to be impounded, diverted or 

modified under a Federal permit or license. The 

Service and State agency recommend measures 

to prevent the loss of biological resources, or to 

mitigate or compensate for the damage. The 

project proponent must take biological resource 

values into account and adopt justifiable protection measures to obtain maximum overall project 

benefits. A 1958 amendment added provisions to 

recognize the vital contribution of wildlife 

resources to the Nation and to require equal consideration and coordination of wildlife conservation with other water resources development 

programs. It also authorized the Secretary of 

Interior to provide public fishing areas and 

accept donations of lands and funds.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act 

(1934)

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 (1935), as 

amended

Declares it a national policy to preserve historic 

sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. Provides procedures 

for designation, acquisition, administration, and 

protection of such sites.

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (1935), as amended:

 Requires revenue sharing provisions to all feetitle ownerships that are administered solely or 

primarily by the Secretary through the Service.

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act (1948)

Provides that upon a determination by the 

Administrator of the General Services Administration, real property no longer needed by a Federal agency can be transferred without 

reimbursement to the Secretary of Interior if the 

land has particular value for migratory birds, or 

to a State agency for other wildlife conservation 

purposes.

Federal Records Act (1950)

Directs the preservation of evidence of the government's organization, functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic 

historical and other information.

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)

Established a comprehensive national fish and 

wildlife policy and broadened the authority for 

acquisition and development of refuges.
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

128

Refuge Recreation Act (1962)

Allows the use of refuges for recreation when 

such uses are compatible with the refuge's primary purposes and when sufficient funds are 

available to manage the uses.

Wilderness Act (1964), as amended

Directed the Secretary of Interior, within 10 

years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or 

more acres and every roadless island (regardless 

of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and 

National Park Systems and to recommend to the 

President the suitability of each such area or 

island for inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System, with final decisions made 

by Congress. The Secretary of Agriculture was 

directed to study and recommend suitable areas 

in the National Forest System.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965):

 Uses the receipts from the sale of surplus Federal land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, 

and other sources for land acquisition under several authorities.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

(1966), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (1997)16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee. (Refuge Administration Act)

Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and 

authorizes the Secretary to permit any use of a 

refuge provided such use is compatible with the 

major purposes for which the refuge was established. The Refuge Improvement Act clearly 

defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; 

establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of 

the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation); establishes a 

formal process for determining compatibility; 

established the responsibilities of the Secretary 

of Interior for managing and protecting the System; and requires a Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act 

amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act 

and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as amended:

Establishes as policy that the Federal Government is to provide leadership in the preservation 

of the nation's prehistoric and historic resources.

Architectural Barriers Act (1968)

Requires federally owned, leased, or funded 

buildings and facilities to be accessible to persons 

with disabilities.

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)

Requires the disclosure of the environmental 

impacts of any major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment.

Uniform Relocation and Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act (1970), as amended:

 Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of 

persons who sell their homes, businesses, or 

farms to the Service. The Act requires that any 

purchase offer be no less than the fair market 

value of the property.

Endangered Species Act (1973)

Requires all Federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of endangered and 

threatened species.

Rehabilitation Act (1973)

Requires programmatic accessibility in addition 

to physical accessibility for all facilities and programs funded by the Federal government to 

ensure that anybody can participate in any program.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974)

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological data in Federal construction projects.

Clean Water Act (1977)

Requires consultation with the Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major wetland modifications.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (1977) as 

amended (Public Law 95-87) (SMCRA)

Regulates surface mining activities and reclamation of coal-mined lands. Further regulates the 

coal industry by designating certain areas as 

unsuitable for coal mining operations.

Executive Order 11988 (1977)

Each Federal agency shall provide leadership 

and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss 

and minimize the impact of floods on human 

safety, and preserve the natural and beneficial 

values served by the floodplains.
 Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

129

Executive Order 11990

Executive Order 11990 directs Federal agencies 

to (1) minimize destruction, loss, or degradation 

of wetlands and (2) preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when a 

practical alternative exists.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of 

Federal Programs)

Directs the Service to send copies of the Environmental Assessment to State Planning Agencies 

for review.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)

Directs agencies to consult with native traditional 

religious leaders to determine appropriate policy 

changes necessary to protect and preserve 

Native American religious cultural rights and 

practices.

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act (1978)

 Improves the administration of fish and wildlife 

programs and amends several earlier laws including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and 

the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes 

the Secretary to accept gifts and bequests of real 

and personal property on behalf of the United 

States. It also authorizes the use of volunteers on 

Service projects and appropriations to carry out 

a volunteer program.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), as 

amended

Protects materials of archaeological interest from 

unauthorized removal or destruction and 

requires Federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources.

Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (1981), as 

amended

Minimizes the extent to which Federal programs 

contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible 

conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986)

Promotes the conservation of migratory waterfowl and offsets or prevents the serious loss of 

wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands and other 

essential habitats. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990)

Requires the use of integrated management systems to control or contain undesirable plant species, and an interdisciplinary approach with the 

cooperation of other Federal and State agencies.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (1990)

Requires Federal agencies and museums to 

inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession.

Americans With Disabilities Act (1992)

Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and services.

Executive Order 12898 (1994)

Establishes environmental justice as a Federal 

government priority and directs all Federal agencies to make environmental justice part of their 

mission. Environmental justice calls for fair distribution of environmental hazards.

Executive Order 12996 Management and General Public 

Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1996)

Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public 

uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It 

also presents four principles to guide management of the System.

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996)

Directs Federal land management agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of 

Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, 

maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

(1997)

Considered the “Organic Act of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Defines the mission of 

the System, designates priority wildlife-dependent public uses, and calls for comprehensive refuge planning.

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act (1998)

Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to promote volunteer programs and community partnerships for the benefit of national wildlife 

refuges, and for other purposes.
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

130

National Trails System Act

Assigns responsibility to the Secretary of Interior and thus the Service to protect the historic 

and recreational values of congressionally designated National Historic Trail sites. 

Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 

2001 (Public Law 106-554)

In December 2002, Congress required federal 

agencies to publish their own guidelines for 

ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, 

utility, and integrity of information that they disseminate to the public (44 U.S.C. 3502). The 

amended language is included in Section 515(a). 

The Office of Budget and Management (OMB) 

directed agencies to develop their own guidelines 

to address the requirements of the law. The 

Department of the Interior instructed bureaus to 

prepare separate guidelines on how they would 

apply the Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

has developed “Information Quality Guidelines” 

to address the law.

Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Section 6, requires the Service to 

make a determination of compatibility of existing, 

new and changing uses of Refuge land; and Section 

7 requires the Service to identify and describe the 

archaeological and cultural values of the refuge.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 

Section 106, requires Federal agencies to consider 

impacts their undertakings could have on historic 

properties; Section 110 requires Federal agencies to 

manage historic properties, e.g., to document historic properties prior to destruction or damage; Section 101 requires Federal agencies consider Indian 

tribal values in historic preservation programs, and 

requires each Federal agency to establish a program leading to inventory of all historic properties 

on its land.

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 

1979 (ARPA) prohibits unauthorized disturbance of 

archeological resources on Federal and Indian land; 

and other matters. Section 10 requires establishing 

“a program to increase public awareness” of archeological resources. Section 14 requires plans to survey lands and a schedule for surveying lands with 

“the most scientifically valuable archaeological 

resources.” This Act requires protection of all archeological sites more than 100 years old (not just sites 

meeting the criteria for the National Register) on 

Federal land, and 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 F: Mailing List

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

131

Appendix F: Mailing List

 Appendix F: Mailing List

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

133

Appendix G: Mailing List

United States Senate

# U.S. Senator Evan Bayh

# Senator Richard Lugar

United States House of Representatives

# U.S. Representative Baron P. Hill, Indiana 

Ninth Congressional District

# U.S. Representative Brad Ellsworth, Indiana 

Eighth Congressional

State Elected Officials

# Governor Mitch Daniels

# State Senator Lindel O. Hume

# State Representative Kreg Battles

# State Representative Dave Crooks

Federal Government

# Hoosier National Forest

# U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Louisville 

District

# U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological 

Services - Indiana

# USDA/Natural Resource Conservation 

Service

# U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Portland,OR

# U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service,Albuquerque,NM

# U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Atlanta,GA

# U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Hadley,MA

# U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Lakewood,CO

# U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chief, 

Conservation Planning",Anchorage,AK

# U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service,Shepherdstown,WV

# U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of 

Conservation Planning & Policy,Arlington,VA

State Government 

# Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Historic Preservation and 

Archaeology

# Indiana Secretary of Commerce, Indiana 

Economic Development Corporation

# Director, Indiana Department of Natural 

Resources

# Commissioner, Indiana Department of 

Transportation

# State Historic Preservation Officer

# Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 

Forestry

# The Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation

# Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 

Nature Preserves

# Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Fish and Wildlife

# Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Reclamation

# Indiana Department of Environmental 

Management, Southwest Regional Office

# Ferdinand State Forest

# Indiana 15 Regional Planning Commission

# Indiana Coal Council, Inc.

# Indiana State University

# Indiana University School of Law - 

Bloomington

# Sugar Ridge Fish and Wildlife

# The Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation

Tribes

# Delaware Tribe of Indians

# Miami Tribe

# Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri

# Sac & Fox Nation of the Mississippi in Iowa

# Sac & Fox Nation of Oklahoma

# Peoria Indian Tribe of Oklahoma

# Delaware Nation of Oklahoma

Local Government

# Executive Director, Dubois County Tourism 

Commission, Dubois County
Appendix F: Mailing List

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

134

# Executive Director, Pike County Chamber of 

Commerce

# Executive Director, Princeton Area Chamber 

of Commerce, Gibson County

# Executive Director, Warrick County Chamber 

of Commerce, Warrick County

# Executive Director, Evansville Convention & 

Tourism Bureau, Vanderburgh County 

# Executive Director, Gibson County Visitors & 

Tourism Bureau, Gibson County 

# Executive Director, Vincennes/Knox County 

Convention and Visitors, Knox County 

# Jasper Chamber of Commerce

# Gibson County Commissioners

# Gibson County Council

# Oakland City Mayor

# Pike County Commissioners

# Pike County Council

# Columbia Township Fire Department

# Francisco Volunteer Fire Department

# Gibson County Courthouse

# Gibson County Visitors & Tourism Bureau

# Hoosier Environmental Council

# Huntingburg Chamber of Commerce, Dubois 

County

# Jefferson Township Fire Department

# Lockhart Township Fire Department

# Petersburg Volunteer Fire Department

# Pike County Commissioners

# Union Community Volunteer Fire 

Department

Libraries

# Petersburg, Indiana

# Huntingburg, Indiana

# Princeton, Indiana

# Oakland City, Indiana

Business

# Alliance Coal, LLC

# Americal Real Estate Inc

# American Acres Inc.

# Bernardin-Lochmueller And Associates

# Brookston Resources Inc

# Broshears Realty

# C/O Locust Street Company Inc - Attn: 

William Muller

# Charity Farm

# Dan's Fence Company

# Duke Energy, Environmental Services

# Four Rivers Rc&D

# Gibson County Coal, LLC

# Gilbert J Rode & Sons Inc

# Heritage Realty LLC

# Hopper Resources Inc

# Jasper Engines & Transmissions

# JDH Contracting Inc

# Jerry Aigner Construction Inc

# Landmark Archaelogical & Environmental 

Services Inc

# Lechner's Inc

# McCormick Farms Inc

# Mesker Park Zoo & Botanic Garden

# Morgan Backhoe Service

# Multi Resource Management, Inc.

# Mulzer Crushed Stone Inc.

# Nature Preserves

# Old National Bank

# Owensville Montgomery TFP District

# Peabody Energy

# Quality Climate Control

# R&T Garage

# Ryan Kerns Excavating LLC

# Solar Sources, Inc

# Southern RR Company

# Tri State Equipment

# Triad Mining

# Triad Mining, Inc

# Velpen C&D Fill Site Inc

# Velpen Trucking & Disposal Company Inc

# Vincennes Sun-Commercial

# Wyatt Seed Company Inc.

Non-Government Organizations

# Audubon Society

# Audubon Society of the District of Columbia 

# Evansville Audubon Society

# Defenders of Wildlife 

# Ducks Unlimited
 Appendix F: Mailing List

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

135

# Humane Society of the United 

States,Washington,DC

# Indiana Division Of The Izaak Walton League 

Of America, Inc.

# Indiana Sportsman's Roundtable, Inc.

# National Trappers Association, Inc. 

# Indiana Wildlife Federation

# National Wildlife Refuge Association 

# National Wildlife Federation

# PEER Refuge Keeper,Aurora,NY

# Quail Unlimited

# Sierra Club - Midwest Office 

# Sycamore Land Trust

# SW Indiana 4 Rivers Project Committee – 

NAWMP

# The Conservation Fund 

# The Nature Conservancy

# Triple H Gun Club

# Waterfowl USA

# Wesselman Woods Nature Preserve

# White Oak Whitetails, Inc.

# Wildlife Land & Resource Management

# Institute for Policy Research

# Wilderness Watch 

# The Wilderness Society 

Media

# 14 WFIE TV

# Evansville Courier And Press

# Huntingburg Press

# Linton Daily Citizen

# Petersburg Press Dispatch

# Princeton Clarion

# South Gibson Star Times

# The Herald

# The Herald-Times

# The Indianapolis Star

# The Times

# WBDC Radio Station

# WEHT News 25 Tv

# WIKY Evansville Radio Station

# WITZ Radio Station

# WJPS - 93.5 Fm

# WRAY Radio Station

# WTVW Fox 7

# Washington Times-Herald

 Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

137

Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

 In accordance with the Refuge Improvement Act of 

1997, no uses for which the Service has authority to 

regulate may be allowed on a unit of Refuge System 

unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the 

purposes of the national wildlife refuge. Managers 

must complete a written compatibility determination for each use, or collection of like-uses, that is 

signed by the manager and the Regional Chief of 

Refuges in the respective Service region. 

Draft compatibility determinations applicable to 

uses described in the CCP were included in the 

Draft CCP and available for a 30-day review period. 

The signed compatibility determinations are available for review at Refuge Headquarters. Compatibility determinations were prepared and approved 

for:

# Environmental Education

# Farming

# Fishing

# Hunting

# Interpretation

# Research by Third Parties

# Wildlife Observation and Photography

 Appendix H: List of Preparers

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

139

Appendix H: List of Preparers

 Appendix H: List of Preparers

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

141

Appendix H: List of Preparers

Name Title/Contribution Degrees/Other Related Experience Years 

with 

FWS

Patoka River NWR & MA

Bill McCoy Refuge Manager.

Writer, Direct Planning Effort, 

Public Meetings

B.S., Pennsylvania State University, Graduate 

work botany and zoology, Southern Illinois 

University and St. Cloud State University.

37

Bob Dodd Refuge Wildlife Specialist. 

Writer, Direct Planning Effort, 

Public Meetings

B.S., Fisheries and Wildlife Biology, Iowa State 

University

37

Rosalie Mosley Administrative Technician. General Administrative Support-- 11

Regional Office

Jon Kauffeld Refuge Supervisor.

Direct Planning Effort, CCP 

Review

MS Wildlife management, Univ of Nevada, 

Reno, 1977

BS Natural Resource Management, Univ of 

Wisconsin, Madison, 1974

30

Conservation Planning

Thomas Larson Chief of Conservation Planning.

CCP Review

M.S., Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Other: National Park Service; 

Peace Corps

30

Dean Granholm Refuge Planning Specialist.

Lead Planner

B.S., Wildlife, University of Minnesota. Other: 

U.S. Forest Service 15 years

4

Gabriel DeAlessio GIS Specialist/Biologist.

Cartography

Spatial Analysis

B.S., Natural Resource Engineering & Mgmt, 

Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs. Other: Contractor 

DoD 2.5 years

7

Jane Hodgins Technical Writer/Editor.

Newsletter, Document editing

B.A., Journalism, College of St. Thomas, St. 

Paul. Other: Senior Editor, Editor and 

Reporter, 14 years.

8

Jane Lardy-Nelson Editorial Assistant.

Mailings, Administrative Support

-- 20

Migratory Birds

Robert Russell Wetland Bird Biologist.

Direct Planning Effort

CCP Review

M.A., Biogeography, University of Arizona. 

Other: National Park Service 1.5 years.

8

Visitor Services & Communications

Donna Stanek Chief of Visitor Services and 

Outreach.

Direct Planning Effort, CCP 

Review

B.S., Parks and Recreation Administration

M.S., Recreation and Resource Management

25

H. John Dobrovolny Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer.

Historian

B.A., History, Sacramento State College, Sacramento. Other: National Park Service 14 

years.

27
Appendix H: List of Preparers

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

142

Indiana Department of Natural Resources

Jeff Thompson District Wildlife Biologist Not Available N/A

Mangi Environmental Group

Leon Kolankiewicz Biologist/Environmental Planner

Direct Planning Effort, Writing

B.S., Wildlife Management, Virginia Tech, 

Blacksburg. M.S., Natural Resources Management & Environmental Planning, University of 

British Columbia, Vancouver. Other: 25 years 

as an a conservation professional including 

experience with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

University of Washington, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Peace Corps, Orange 

County (CA) Environmental Management 

Agency, Carrying Capacity Network.

N/A

Name Title/Contribution Degrees/Other Related Experience Years 

with 

FWS
 Appendix I: Literature Cited

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

143

Appendix I: Literature Cited

 Appendix I: Literature Cited

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

145

Appendix I: Literature Cited

Allen, J.H., T.C. Thomas, and R.R. Kelly. 1978. A 

Survey to Determine the Extent and Environmental Effects of Derelict Lands 

Resulting from the Surface Extraction of 

Coal, P.L. 62, Acts of 1976. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 

Bajema, R. A., T. L. DeVault, P. E. Scott, and S. L. 

Lima. 2001. Reclaimed coal mine grasslands and their significance for Henslow's 

Sparrows in the American Midwest. Auk. 

118:422–431.

Conant, R. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and 

Amphibians of the United States and Canada East of the 100th Meridian. Houghton 

Mifflin Co. 

Corbett, D.M. 1969. Acid Mine Drainage Problems 

of the Patoka River Watershed, Southwestern Indiana: Indiana University Water 

Resources Research Center Report of 

Investigations No. 4. 

de Szalay, F.A., D. Helmers, D. Humberg, S.J. 

Lewis, B. Pardo, M. Shieldcastle. 2000. 

Upper Mississippi Valley / Great Lakes 

Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

Technical report prepared for the U.S. 

Shorebird Conservation Plan, Manomet, 

Massachusetts. Available URL: http://

www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/RegionalShorebird/downloads/UMVGL5.doc

DeVault, T. L., P. E. Scott, R. A. Bajema, and S. L. 

Lima. 2002. Breeding bird communities of 

reclaimed coal mine grasslands in the 

American Midwest. J. Field Ornithol. 

73:268–275.

Dunn, R.; Roach, G. 2001. Wetland Restoration 

Techniques in Indiana Utilizing Macrotopography Measures. ASABE Paper No. 

012060. American Society of Agricultural 

and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, Mich. 

Available URL (abstract only): http://

asae.frymulti.com/

abstract.asp?aid=7378&t=2

Egan-Bruhy, Kathryn C. Comprehensive Conservation Plan Archaeological and Historic 

Resources, Patoka River National Wildlife 

Refuge and Management Area in Pike and 

Gibson Counties, Indiana. 2003: CCRG, 

Jackson, Michigan.

Ecological Specialists, Inc. 2001. Unionid mussel 

survey of the Patoka River, Indiana. 

Preapred for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge, Oakland City, IN. 22pp. and 

appendices.

Fralish J. S. 1997. Community succession, diversity, 

and disturbance in the Central Hardwood 

Forest, Chapter 11. In: M. W. Schwartz 

(ed.). Conservation in highly fragmented 

landscapes. Chapman and Hall, New York, 

New York. 436 p.

Fralish, James S. 2004. The Keystone Role of Oak 

and Hickory in the Central Hardwood 

Forest Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-73. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. pp. 

78-87.

Fredrickson, L.H., and T.S. Taylor. 1982. Management of seasonally flooded impoundments 

for wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Resource Publication 148, 29 pp.

Graziano, Angela V. and Diana H. Cross. 1993. 

13.2.2. The North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan: A New Approach to 

Conservation. Waterfowl Management 

Handbook – Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 

13.2.2. (revised). 

Heitmeyer M. E., Cooper R. J., Dickson J. G., 

Leopold B. D. 2005. Ecological 

relationships of warmblooded vertebrates 

in bottomland hardwood ecosystems. Pages 

281–306 in L. H. Fredrickson, S. L. King, R. 

M. Kaminski, editors Ecology and 

management of bottomland hardwood 

ecosystems: the state of our understanding. 
Appendix I: Literature Cited

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

146

University of Missouri-Columbia, Gaylord 

Memorial Laboratory, Special Publication 

No. 10, Puxico, Missouri, USA.

Helmers D.L. 1992. Shorebird management manual. 

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve 

Network, Manomet, Mass. 58 p.

Homoya, M.A., D.B. Abrell, J.R. Aldrich and T.W. 

Post. 1995. Natural Regions of Indiana. 

Indiana Academy of Science. Vol. 94:245-

268. 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). 2006a. Indiana Integrated 

Water Monitoring and Assessment Report 

2006. Office of Water Quality Watershed 

Branch.

Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) website. 2006b.

http://www.in.gov/idem/programs/water/

303d/index.html [Accessed November 14, 

2006]

Indiana Department of Geology and Natural 

Resources. 1898. Twenty-third Annual 

Report.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. No 

date-a. Sugar Ridge Fish & Wildlife Area. 

Accessed at: http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/publications/sugar.htm on the World 

Wide Web on 2-20-06. 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. No 

date-b. Glendale Fish & Wildlife Area. 

Accessed at: http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/publications/glendale.htm on the 

World Wide Web on 2-20-06. 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 1988. 

Wetlands – Indiana’s Endangered Natural 

Resource. Appendix to Indiana Outdoor 

Recreation 1989: An Assessment and Policy Plan. Indianapolis, Indiana. 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 1990. 

Hydrogeology of Gibson County, Indiana. 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 2005a. 

Division of Forestry. Pike State Forest. 

Accessed on the World Wide Web on 2-20-06 

at: http://www.in.gov/dnr/forestry/

index.html?http://www.in.gov/dnr/forestry/

stateforests/pike.htm&2

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 2005b. 

Division of Forestry. Ferdinand State Forest. Accessed on the World Wide Web on 2-

20-06 at: http://www.in.gov/dnr/forestry/

index.html?http://www.in.gov/dnr/forestry/

stateforests/ferdind.htm&2

Indiana Division of Nature Preserves. 2005a. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 

List of Endangered, Threatened, and Rare 

Species by County: Gibson County. 11-22-

05. Accessed 12-13-06 on the World Wide 

Web at: http://www.in.gov/dnr/naturepr/

species/gibson.pdf . 

Indiana Division of Nature Preserves. 2005b. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 

List of Endangered, Threatened, and Rare 

Species by County: Pike County. 11-22-05. 

Accessed 12-13-06 on the World Wide Web 

at: http://www.in.gov/dnr/naturepr/species/

pike.pdf . 

Indiana WETlands. 2004. Data and Information. 

Accessed online on 14 February 2006 at: 

http://www.in.gov/wetlands/data/

index.html.

King, Thomas F. Cultural Resource Laws & Practice. 1998: AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, 

California.

Kolankiewicz, Leon. 1982. Alaskan Coal Development: An Assessment of Potential Water 

Quality Impacts. Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation, Water Quality Management Planning Program.

McNab, W. H. and P. E. Avers. 1994. Ecological Subregions of the United States: Section 

Descriptions. Administrative Publication 

WO-WSA-5. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 267 pp.

Meretsky, V.J., R.L. Fischman, J.R. Karr, D.M. 

Ashe, J.M. Scott, R.F. Noss, and R.L. 

Schroeder. 2006. New Directions in Conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. BioScience: Vol. 56, No. 2 pp. 135–143.

Munson, C.A (editor). 1980. Archeological Salvage 

Excavations at Patoka Lake, Indiana. Glenn 

A. Black Laboratory of Archeology, Indiana 

University. 
 Appendix I: Literature Cited

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

147

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

1998. North American Waterfowl Management Plan: Expanding the Vision – 1998 

Update. Accessed online 2-18-06 at: http://

www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/NAWMP/images/

NAWMP1998.pdf . 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

2004. North American Waterfowl Management Plan: 2004 Strategic Guidance. 

Accessed 2-18-06 on the World Wide Web 

at: http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/

NAWMP/images/NAWMP2004.pdf .

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

1991. Local Climatological Data, Annual 

Summary with Comparative Data. Evansville, Indiana. 

Ohio River Valley Ecosystem Team, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. No date. Accessed online 

on 14 February 2006 at: http://

www.fws.gov/orve/ . 

Parker, George R.; Ruffner, Charles 

M. 2004. Current and historical forest conditions and disturbance regimes in the Hoosier-Shawnee ecological assessment 

area Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-244. St. Paul, 

MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 267 p. Available URL: http://

ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc244/

gtr_nc244_ch3.pdf

Partners in Flight. No date. Interior Low Plateaus. 

Accessed online 2-19-06 at: http://

www.blm.gov/wildlife/pl_14sum.htm . 

Rolley, R.E. 1991. Indiana’s Wetland Inventory,

Wildlife Management and Research Note 

No. 532. Indiana Department of Natural 

Resources. 

Ruffner C. M., J. W. Groninger. 2004. Oak ecosystem 

restoration and maintenance in southern 

Illinois, p. 177–181. In: M. A. Spetich (ed.). 

Upland Oak Ecology Symposium, History, 

Current Conditions and Sustainability. 

U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical 

Report SRS-73, Asheville, North Carolina. 

311 p.

Sieber, E. and C.A. Munson. 1992. Looking at History: Indiana’s Hoosier National Forest 

Region, 1600 to 1950. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Silverly, R.E. 1972. Mosquitoes of Indiana. Public 

Health Entomology Laboratory. Ball Stat 

University, Muncie, Indiana. 

Smith, R.M. 2001. Wetland Hydrology Restoration 

Techniques Utilized in the Northeast 

Arkansas Delta. ASABE Paper No. 012063. 

American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, Mich. Available URL (abstract only): http://

asae.frymulti.com/

abstract.asp?aid=6265&t=2

Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 1989. Soil Survey of Gibson 

County, Indiana.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions 

[Online WWW]. Available URL: "http://

soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/

index.html". [Accessed August 16, 2005]

Stefanavage, Thomas. 1993. Fisheries Survey of the 

Patoka River in Gibson and Pike Counties. 

1991 Fish Management Report. Indiana 

Department of Natural Resources, Indianapolis. 

Stratman, D. 2000. Using micro and macrotopopgraphy in wetland restoration. Indiana Biology Technical Note 1. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Thompson, Frank R. III; Dessecker, Daniel 

R. 1997. Management of early-successional communities in central hardwood forests: with special emphasis on the ecology 

and management of oaks, ruffed grouse, 

and forest songbirds. General Technical 

Report NC-195. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central 

Forest Experiment Station.

U. S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000: Summary 

File 3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics, Pike County, Indiana. Accessed 

2-21-06 online at: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-

qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3&-

ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-

_lang=en&-_sse=on&-

geo_id=05000US18125 . 
Appendix I: Literature Cited

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

148

U. S. Census Bureau. 2006. State and County QuickFacts: Indiana. Accessed on 2-21-06 at: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/

18000.html .

USDA—Natural Resources Conservation Service 

website http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/wrp/states/in.html [accessed May 22, 

2006].

U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2006. National Register of Historic 

Places – Index by State and County: Indiana and Gibson and Pike counties. 

Accessed 12/19/06 on the World Wide Web 

at: http://www.nr.nps.gov/iwisapi/

explorer.dll?IWS_SCHEMA=NRIS1&IW

S_LOGIN=1&IWS_REPORT=100000066.

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. 2004. Tier 1 Record of 

Decision Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana FEIS.

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and Indiana Department of Transporation. 2003. Tier 1 Final 

Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation. Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana FEIS.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No date. Overview 

of the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan 

and Council. Accessed online 2-19-06 at 

http://shorebirdplan.fws.gov/USShorebird/

overview.htm . 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Preacquisition Contaminant Survey for the Patoka 

River National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished agency report. Ecological Services, 

Bloomington, Indiana. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Regional Wetlands Concept Plan. Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Patoka River 

National Wetlands Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement. July. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. National Outreach Strategy: a Master Plan for Communicating in the U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Washington D.C., USA. Available 

URL: http://library.fws.gov/Pubs/

outreach_strategy.pdf

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Strategic Plan 

for Conservation of Fish and Wildlife Service Trust Resources in the Ohio River Valley Ecosystem. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Regions 5, 4, and 3. December 1999 

(Second Revision). Accessed online on 14 

Feb. 2006 at: http://www.fws.gov/orve/

stratplan.html . 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health. 601 FW 3. National Wildlife Refuge 

System, Department of Interior. Available 

URL: http://policy.fws.gov/601fw3.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. National Wildlife Refuge System Strategic Plan for Biological Monitoring and Adaptive 

Management: Fiscal Years 2006-2010. Biological Monitoring Team Regions 3 and 5.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006a. General 

Guidelines for Wildlife-Dependent Recreation. 605 FW 1. National Wildlife Refuge 

System, Department of Interior. Available 

URL: http://www.fws.gov/policy/

605fw1.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006b. WildlifeDependent Recreation: Hunting. 605 FW 2. 

National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available URL: http://

www.fws.gov/policy/605fw2.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006c. WildlifeDependent Recreation: Fishing. 605 FW 3. 

National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available URL: http://

www.fws.gov/policy/605fw3.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006d. WildlifeDependent Recreation: Wildlife Observation. 605 FW 4. National Wildlife Refuge 

System, Department of Interior. Available 

URL: http://www.fws.gov/policy/

605fw4.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006e. WildlifeDependent Recreation: Wildlife Photography. 605 FW 5. National Wildlife Refuge 

System, Department of Interior. Available 

URL: http://www.fws.gov/policy/

605fw5.html
 Appendix I: Literature Cited

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

149

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006f. WildlifeDependent Recreation: Environmental 

Education. 605 FW 6. National Wildlife 

Refuge System, Department of Interior. 

Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/policy/

605fw6.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006g. WildlifeDependent Recreation: Interpretation. 605 

FW 7. National Wildlife Refuge System, 

Department of Interior. Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw7.html

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. 2005a. 

Home Page. Accessed 2-19-06 on the World 

Wide Web at: http://www.waterbirdconservation.org/ .

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. 2005b. 

Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes. 

Accessed 2-19-06 on the World Wide Web 

at: http://www.fws.gov/birds/waterbirds/

UMVGL/ .

Wharton, C. H., W.M. Kitchens, E.C. Pendleton, and 

T.W. Sipe. 1982. The ecology of bottomland 

hardwood swamps of the Southeast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, 

Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-81/37. 133 pp. 

Available URL: http://training.fws.gov/

library/FWS-OBS/81_37.pdf

 Appendix J: Priority Refuge Operational and Maintenance Needs

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

151

Appendix J: Priority Refuge Operational and 

Maintenance Needs

 Appendix J: Priority Refuge Operational and Maintenance Needs

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

153

Appendix J: Priority Refuge Operational and Maintenance Needs

Project Description Estimated Cost

Patoka River Completion of Observation Deck 40,000

Patoka River Construct Maintenance & Storage Facilities 783,000

Patoka River Construct Wood Duck banding Station. 43,000

Patoka River Construct Snakey Point Public Use Facility. 208,000

Patoka River Construct Public use facilities. 204,000

Patoka River Construct Refuge Office, Visitor Contact Stations 1,566,000

Construct Macrotopography wetlands - Oatsville Bottoms To Be Determined

Reconnect Oxbows on Patoka River 720,000

Patoka River Construct Public Use Canoe and Boat Facilities. 105,000

Patoka Parking and Access Road General Rehab 8,879

Patoka Road Service Access Fromme Tract 213a General Rehab To Be Determined

Patoka Parking Public FHWA Rte___ Buck General Rehab 3,474

Patoka Parking Public FHWA Rte 901 McClure General Rehab 5,478

Patoka Trail Native Bird Trail General Rehab 6,931

Patoka Boat Launch Survant Landing General Rehab 1,595

Patoka Building Storage Equipment Repair 35,000

Patoka Parking Public Snakey Point General Rehab 2,212

Patoka NWR West Graulich Road Bridge removal 12,000

Patoka Parking Public FHWA Rte 902 Survant General Rehab 31,640

Patoka Levee Graulich Impoundment General Rehab 86,936

Patoka Ditch Graulich West General Rehab To Be Determined

Patoka Ditch Graulich East General Rehab To Be Determined

 Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

155

Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft 

CCP

 Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

157

Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Wildlife

Comment: If the primary benefit of the Refuge is for 

migrating waterfowl, is 1,000 acres of crops enough to 

attract them?

Response: The Refuge was established under the 

authority of the Emergency Wetlands Resources 

Act and derives its purpose from that law and others. The Refuge purposes are stated on page 4 of 

the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

include conservation of wetlands, and providing for 

migratory birds and other fish and wildlife. This 

broader purpose requires a greater diversity of habitats to meet that purpose. Migrating waterfowl and 

other water birds are attracted to crop fields, but 

moist soil habitat and a mosaic of forested and nonforested wetlands (as described on page 70 of the 

Draft CCP) are also valuable habitats, providing 

food, water and resting areas.

Condemnation Concerns

Comment: An individual voiced opposition to the use of 

condemnation, also called eminent domain, to acquire land 

for the Refuge.

Response: The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has 

no plans to acquire land through condemnation. All 

land acquisition that has occurred for Patoka River 

NWR & MA has been from willing sellers and all 

that is proposed in the future would be from willing 

sellers.

If it seems like land acquisition is a major focus of 

the Patoka River NWR & MA, it’s because the Refuge is still young. Approximately one-quarter of the 

total area approved for acquisition is currently part 

of the Refuge, and because the Service buys from 

willing sellers, the land it has acquired includes 

numerous, unconnected tracts. To fulfill the purposes the Refuge was established for, which include 

wetland conservation and providing habitat for 

waterfowl, other migratory birds, endangered species and resident wildlife, a refuge needs a contiguous land base. As the Refuge gradually acquires 

land, the emphasis will shift from acquisition to various management and restoration projects. 

Opposed to Land Acquisition

Comment: The Refuge should not acquire additional lands 

because there is already sufficient acreage and public 

ownership adversely affects neighboring private land owners.

Response: The size and location of the refuge in 

southwestern Indiana was determined after long 

and thoughtful consideration by many people in the 

natural resource management field. After eight 

years of planning and public debate, the refuge 

boundary was finally established and approved in 

1994. It has always been acknowledged that the refuge acquisition program would take decades based 

on buying land from willing sellers. As the population grows, more and more land will be developed 

for housing, industry, agriculture and transportation. Once completed, the refuge will come to be recognized as a wildlife oasis providing assurance of at 

least a representative sample of our natural heritage for future generations to enjoy and learn from.

The Refuge purposes are stated on page 4 of the 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

include conservation of wetlands, providing for 

migratory birds and other fish and wildlife. All other 

uses that occur on the Refuge must be evaluated for 

compatibility—that is the use must either help fulfill 

the Refuge purposes or, at a minimum, not detract 

from the purposes.

As far as maintenance and upkeep, the refuge has 

been actively involved with many partners in providing new facilities and habitat restoration. The 

refuge has planted 422,000 hardwood trees on 843 

acres of acquired lands and has constructed 347 

acres of manageable wetlands on the refuge through 

2007. Three new boat ramps are available to the 

public near Pikeville, Survant and Snakey Point 

Marsh. A public fishing pier and walking trail is 

available at Snakey Point. Numerous parking areas 

have been provided for visitor use. We recognize 

that the public may get frustrated at the checkerboard ownership patterns of the refuge but that is to 

be expected with a willing seller only acquisition 

program.
Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

158

The Refuge has the same obligations as any other 

landowner and the same rights as any other landowner. Being adjacent to or surrounded by Refuge 

land does not impede a landowners’ rights, access, 

or use of property. 

Land Acquisition Support

Comment: Some individuals expressed support for continued emphasis on land acquisition, calling it the “critical 

piece of the puzzle” in the CCP. Others noted that there are 

a number of willing sellers within the approved acquisition 

area and that the Refuge suffers from a lack of funding to 

pursue those properties.

Response: Building a refuge takes time and we 

truly appreciate all support for Patoka River NWR 

& MA. We are especially grateful to the individuals 

who have partnered with the refuge to help secure 

funding grants and to those who are making the 

Refuge possible by selling their land to the Service.

Annual appropriations for land acquisition on 

National Wildlife Refuges are made by the U.S. 

Congress from the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund (LWCF). This fund receives revenue when the 

U.S. Government leases offshore oil development 

rights and collects annual royalty payments from oil 

production. There is stiff competition for these 

funds as there are many other refuges across the 

United States that are also growing in size and 

faced with severe threats of development on those 

lands approved for inclusion in those refuges. 

Friends and supporters of refuges expressing their 

concerns for growth of their local refuge really do 

make a difference.

While some may feel that Patoka River NWR 

(5,946 acres) has grown too slowly especially when 

compared to similar refuges established in the same 

time period such as Canaan Valley NWR (15,901 

acres) in West Virginia or Cypress Creek NWR 

(15,395 acres) in southern Illinois, there are some 

bright spots. The lack of funding support has 

resulted in formation of partnerships with many 

individuals, non-profit organizations, industry and 

state agencies. For example, with the help of partners, the refuge has competed for and received four 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

grants since 1995. These grants have provided 

$1,144,500 for land acquisition plus $294,000 for habitat restoration. 

There has always been a long list of many willing 

sellers. The list is growing shorter as private interests and corporations continue to take advantage of 

the lack of regular funding from the LWCF and buy 

land for personal use and development from frustrated willing sellers. Too be sure, the vision for 

which Patoka River NWR was established is facing 

a long and tedious journey which only increased 

public support can hope to remedy.

Support of the Refuge

Comment: Many people wrote to express support for the 

work of Refuge staff and management of the land to benefit wildlife and wildlife habitat. Others wrote to support 

Alternative 3, the preferred alternative.

Response: Refuge staff and Regional Office planners appreciate your support. Many people contributed to the Comprehensive Conservation Plan by 

asking good questions at public meetings, reviewing 

the draft CCP and offering comments on the plan. 

We appreciate the time you have been willing to 

dedicate to the planning process and we appreciate 

your thoughts on the plan. The Patoka River NWR 

and MA is a unique place and we are looking forward to implementing the plan over the next 15 

years.

Timber Management

Comment: Timber Harvest should be used as a management tool to maintain age class diversity within forested 

portions of the Refuge.

Response: Strategy 3 under Objective 1.1 Forested Wetlands of the selected alternative calls for 

completion of a Habitat Management Plan with specific management recommendations to maintain 

bottomland forest species and age class diversity. 

The Habitat Management Plan is more site specific 

than the CCP and will consider various management options including timber harvesting.

Anyone familiar with the history of land use practices in the Patoka River bottoms recognizes that 

the timber resource has been high-graded for over a 

century with more valuable timber species being 

continuously cut and removed from the forest stand. 

With the past emphasis on clearing and draining to 

make more land available for agriculture, little 

effort was ever expended to manage the composition 

of the forest. Whatever grew back, grew back on its 

own. This meant that mast producing trees includ-
 Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

159

ing many species of oaks, hickories and pecans were 

repeatedly cut out until the seed source for natural 

regeneration became limited. Lighter seeded species such as silver maple, cottonwood and green ash 

came to dominate the forest composition.

As the refuge acquires more of the bottomland 

acreage, a Habitat Management Plan will be prepared to address future timber management with a 

goal of increasing species diversity. This would 

likely be done by interplanting numerous species of 

oaks and other mast producing species in the understory and then conducting timber sales for selective 

cutting of soft hardwoods mentioned above. This 

would provide daylight to jumpstart the previously 

planted oak seedlings and better enable them to 

compete for a place in the new forest stand.

Present refuge reforestation efforts have focused 

on restoring a diversity of timber species on bottomland cropland areas with a history of flooding and 

crop loss. One of the goals identified in the Concept 

Refuge Management Plan that was part of the 

approved Environmental Impact Statement in 1994, 

was to reestablish a continuous forested corridor 

along all 30 miles of the Patoka River channel within 

the refuge boundary. Most of the 843 acres planted 

to date have been in the river bottoms.

Sanctuary: Move It Around

Comment: Some people believe that sanctuary areas like 

the Cane Ridge Wildlife Management Area exclude public 

hunting and benefit adjoining private land owners. They 

say that sanctuary areas should be located in close proximity to areas where public hunting is allowed and be rotated 

to different locations periodically.

Response: Sanctuary areas – locations where 

wildlife, especially migratory waterfowl, are not 

hunted – are known to benefit both wildlife and 

hunters. The strategy under Objective 3.2 Hunting

of the selected alternative calls for establishing 

sanctuary areas as more land is acquired. It is likely 

that these areas would be rotated to different locations periodically. The 488-acre Cane Ridge Wildlife 

Management Unit is closed to hunting. The original 

intent of the Cane Ridge property was to provide an 

area where waterfowl could feed and rest without 

disturbance from hunting. There are no other sanctuaries on public lands in the vicinity and although 

adjoining landowners do benefit from its proximity 

the ducks found at Cane Ridge are known to spend 

time at other hunted areas including Oatsville Bottoms of the Patoka River NWR. Also, the Indiana 

Department of Natural Resources recently purchased 840 acres adjacent to Cane Ridge WMA. 

This property known as Tern Bar Slough Wildlife 

Diversity Area is scheduled to have managed waterfowl hunting beginning in 2010. 

Sanctuary: The Refuge Should Protect 

Wildlife From Hunting and Fishing

Comment: Some people said that refuges are “useless” if 

wildlife is “harassed” by anglers and hunters, and asked 

that Patoka River NWR establish “ plenty of sanctuary” for 

wildlife.

Response: The National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 established six priority wildlifedependent public uses on refuges. These six uses 

are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental interpretation and 

environmental education. Refuges are required to 

evaluate the potential for these six public uses and, 

if they are not appropriate on the refuge, give good 

reason why they are not appropriate. For example, 

on Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge in northern 

Minnesota, moose hunting has been deemed not 

compatible in response to a declining moose population. Some permits will be issued if moose rebound 

sufficiently, but otherwise moose hunting will not be 

allowed.

If providing habitat achieves what the Service 

wants to achieve, namely healthy and abundant populations of diverse wildlife species, hunting and fishing will not have harmful effects on the population 

as a whole. In fact, hunting and fishing contribute to 

improving the overall health of a species and habitat 

by maintaining sustainable populations of wildlife. 

For example, when there are too many deer for habitat to support, deer will overbrowse the understory 

vegetation and eliminate most of the tree seedlings 

and broadleaf plants. This affects forest regeneration and has long-term negative consequences on 

habitat and other species of wildlife. Wildlife also 

becomes more susceptible to disease when the number of animals exceeds the natural food supply. A 

healthy population of animals is dependent on a 

healthy habitat which means the food supply is adequate for all.

Disturbance of wildlife is a topic we consider 

before permitting activities on the Refuge. Compatibility determinations that include anticipated 

impacts of each public use were included in Appen-
Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

160

dix F of the Draft CCP and Environmental Assessment. Also, the selected alternative includes a 

strategy under Objective 3.2 Hunting that calls for 

additional sanctuary areas as more land is acquired.

Economic Concerns

Comment: One individual wondered whether it was cost 

effective to plant trees in areas prone to beaver caused 

flooding.

Response: Prolonged flooding whether caused by 

beavers or other sources is one of the challenges to 

restoring bottomland forest. In some cases planted 

trees are lost to flooding, despite this, planting is the 

most effective means of restoring tree species 

reduced or eliminated from bottomland forests by 

previous land use practices. Restoring native habitat is part of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

mission and is supported by other Service policies. 

Beavers are native to forested wetlands like those 

along the Patoka River and beaver-caused disturbance is part of the bottomland forest system. 

Nearly every location along the Patoka River is 

potentially subject to beaver activity as well as prolonged flooding caused by other factors within the 

Patoka River watershed. Restoring such sites sometimes results in additional costs if replanting is 

deemed necessary rather than relying on natural 

succession of vegetative communities following beaver or other flooding disturbances

Support for Alternative 3

Comment: The Refuge received several comments supporting Alternative 3 of the Draft Environmental Assessment.

Response: We appreciate support for the preferred alternative, and we appreciate all of the time 

and thought that people devoted to the CCP. 

Hunting Support

Comment: Hunting is a safe activity that should always be 

emphasized and expressed at every opportunity when the 

subject of hunting comes up in the future.

Response: Hunting is one of the six priority wildlife-dependent public uses identified in the National 

Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. Refuges 

evaluate whether wildlife populations are sufficient 

to support hunting and whether there is enough 

space for hunters to have a positive and safe experience. Presently, all but 606 acres of the more than 

6,000 acres of Refuge lands are open to hunting consistent with Indiana DNR regulations.

Public Use

Comment: We heard from individuals who are interested 

in more public access to the Refuge and the Patoka River, 

individuals who are concerned that the sound of traffic and 

conflicts with other Refuge uses are diminishing visits for 

birders and hikers, and an individual who would like to see 

a step-down plan for ATV use on the Refuge.

Response: Public access at Patoka River NWR & 

MA is limited by how much land the Refuge has 

acquired and the location of that land. In some 

cases, public access isn’t feasible because the land 

owned by the Refuge is surrounded by private land. 

In other cases, a tract might be too small to accommodate visitors pursuing different interests. We 

want visitors to have as much access to the Refuge 

as possible without compromising wildlife needs, 

and we want those visits to be satisfying. We expect 

public access and the overall visitor experience to 

improve as the Refuge grows.

The Service is developing regulations to govern 

Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) use on national wildlife refuges. No new ORV use is authorized until the regulations are complete and Service policy is revised. 

Off-Road Vehicles including All-Terrain Vehicles are 

prohibited on the Refuge and there are no plans to 

change this. Any use permitted on a National Wildlife Refuge must pass two separate tests. The first 

test is to determine if the use is appropriate and the 

second is to determine if the use is compatible with 

the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

The terms “appropriate” and “compatible” and the 

associated processes are defined in Service policies. 

Public Use Regulations

Comment: One individual suggested decreasing the intensity of hunting to provide wildlife relief from hunting pressure and that any such change should be done with public 

involvement.

Response: Strategy 4 under Objective 3.2 Hunting 

of the selected alternative calls for identifying sanctuary areas – places where hunting is prohibited –

once more land is acquired. This would be done as 

part of developing a Hunting and Fishing Plan for 

the Refuge and would include public review. 
 Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

161

Comment: One individual suggested implementing a no 

hunting safety zone where Refuge and private lands border.

Response: Hunting is permitted on specified Refuge lands in accordance with State laws and regulations. Any current or future State regulations 

governing hunting and firearms are enforced by 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources Conservation Officers.

Comment: One individual opposed the use of Off Road 

Vehicles on Refuge lands.

Response: Off-Road Vehicles including All-Terrain Vehicles are prohibited on the Refuge and there 

are no plans to change this.

Suggested Edits

Comment: One individual suggested modifying the section 

on Potential Refuge Visitors to highlight air quality as an 

important factor affecting Refuge visitation.

Response: We made no change to the section on 

Potential Refuge Visitors. We feel the section entitled Air Quality adequately covers the subject.

Comment: One individual suggested that not all partners 

were listed in the section entitled Existing Partnerships.

Response: We reviewed the list and feel it reflects 

the range of existing partners. We expect our list of 

partners to grow over the 15 year period covered by 

the CCP.

Comment: One individual commented that Ruffed Grouse 

populations are at low levels because of a lack of young 

forest habitat.

Response: We added a sentence to the section 

entitled Fish and Wildlife Communities to note this 

change.

Comment: One individual commented that local place 

names used in the text do not appear on the maps.

Response: We agree and have added a number of 

place names to Figure 11 Current Visitor Facilities.

Comment: One individual commented that Appendix B 

should be modified to show Snowy Egret as occurring at 

Patoka River NWR as well as Cane Ridge WMA.

Response: We made the change to Appendix B.

Comment: One individual felt the amount of waterfowl 

noted in the section entitled Fish and Wildlife Communities 

(5,000 to 8,000) is too low and should be increased to 

15,000 to 20,000.

Response: We reviewed the section and believe it 

is accurate as stated. The numbers in question are 

referencing average fall/winter waterfowl numbers 

not peak numbers.

Comment: One individual noted that the scientific name of 

broadleaf uniola had changed.

Response: We made the correction to Appendix C.

Comment: One individual noted that the AB Brown power 

plant was not listed in the section on Air Quality.

Response: The paragraph in question lists several 

power plants as examples (one in each direction 

from the Refuge), but it is not intended to be a comprehensive list.

Comment: One individual commented that under the section entitled Socioeconomic Setting that Gibson county 

should be described as one of the fastest growing counties 

in Indiana. 

Response: We reviewed the section, and although 

some of the Census figures may be dated, it is generally accurate. The local area has grown in population and economic activity, but much of that growth 

occurred in adjoining counties.

Contaminants/Air and Water Quality/

Refuge Threats

Comment: One commenter suggested the Refuge should 

monitor local air quality and work to maintain air quality 

standards.

Response: We added an objective statement and 

strategies regarding Air Quality to the CCP and 

revised the Environmental Assessment to account 

for this change. Air quality was not identified as a 

planning issue during the initial scoping phase of the 

process and was not included in the Draft CCP/EA. 

It became an issue in the later stages of the planning process largely because of a proposal to site an 

industrial facility on lands near the Refuge. Service 

policy directs Refuge Managers to maintain and 

where feasible restore the environmental health of 

the Refuge, this includes air quality. As documented 

in the CCP and EA the Refuge continues to work 
Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

162

with the Indiana Department of Environmental 

Management to develop air quality monitoring near 

the Refuge.

Comment: One commenter suggested the Refuge should 

monitor proposals for nearby industrial, commercial and 

residential facilities and communicate concerns regarding 

any actions that may disturb any of the sites identified 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response and 

Compensation Liability Inventory System (CERCLIS) or other 

contaminant sites. The commenter also suggested that the 

Refuge identify evacuation distances for local industrial sitings to better understand the potential hazards posed by 

these sites, and communicate any concerns to the Indiana 

Department of Environmental Management.

Response: We have and continue to monitor off 

site development proposals as we become aware of 

them. We work in conjunction with the Service’s 

Environmental Contaminants Program which is 

dedicated to identifying sources of environmental 

contamination, assessing impacts of contaminants to 

fish and wildlife resources, and helping to restore 

contaminated habitats. If there is potential for any 

proposed development to affect Refuge resources 

we communicate our concerns to the appropriate 

authority or regulating body. 

There are a number of methods the Service 

employs to identify and deal with contaminants. 

First, contaminant surveys are mandatory prior to 

the acquisition of any Refuge lands. A preacquisition survey was conducted in 1989 for the Refuge. 

Second, the Environmental Contaminants Program 

also conducts the Contaminants Assessment Process (CAP). This is a standardized and comprehensive approach used to assess potential threats posed 

by environmental contaminants to National Wildlife 

Refuges as well as other Service lands. The CAP 

process involves reviewing information available on 

the ecological and physical characteristics of the 

Service land and surrounding area relative to possible contaminant issues.

This review requires the primary investigator to 

compile and interpret information acquired from 

various sources. To facilitate the investigation, the 

Service's Division of Environmental Contaminants 

and the U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resource 

Division's Biomonitoring of Environmental Status 

and Trends (BEST) Program jointly developed a 

data management system. The system retrieves and 

organizes information from contaminants-related, 

on-line databases maintained by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). In addition, the CAP 

requires that the Primary Investigator acquire data 

from other sources including interviews with refuge 

managers, biologists and various experts as well as 

scientific literature. Potential point and nonpoint 

contaminant sources and types are inventoried and 

pathways that these contaminants may follow to 

reach the area of concern are identified. Then, areas 

of potential contamination are identified and the 

contaminant issues described. The information summarized through the CAP can provide the basis by 

which land managers select options to reduce contaminant impacts on the species and lands under 

their stewardship. The CAP also identifies Servicemanaged areas located downstream or down-gradient from highways, railways, or navigation channels 

that may be vulnerable to hazardous substance 

spills. Such areas may then be targeted for baseline 

data collection which could support future on-Refuge investigations, natural resource damage assessments, or field work.

Finally, if a contaminant problem is suspected, 

the Environmental Contaminants Program can conduct further studies to help identify the cause as 

well as potential solutions. A number of such studies 

conducted on and around the Refuge have helped 

guide past contaminant remediation efforts related 

to abandoned oil wells and acid mine drainage.

Comment: One commenter noted that pollution problems 

associated with farming, mining, and sewage have 

improved through the efforts of Refuge staff.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We 

believe our efforts in conjunction with our partners 

have reduced pollutants within the Patoka River 

watershed.

Comment: One individual supported banning Off Road 

Vehicles, mining, power plant development and the construction of Interstate 69 within 10 miles of the Refuge to 

protect sensitive habitat.

Response: The Refuge has no authority to ban 

activities, including Off Road Vehicles (ORVs), mining, power plant development, and construction of 

Interstate 69 on lands not under Refuge ownership. 

Presently, Off Road Vehicles are prohibited on 

Patoka River NWR lands and there are no plans to 

change this. In March 2004, after extensive public 

involvement and analysis, the Federal Highway 

Administration issued a Record of Decision that 

selected an alternative that will cross within the 
 Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge/Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

163

Refuge acquisition boundary, but not on lands 

owned by the Refuge. The Refuge participated in 

the process and obtained a number of mitigating 

measures to protect Refuge resources. These items 

are noted in Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan under the heading Interstate 69.

Comment: One commenter recommended the Refuge 

request the Environmental Protection Agency exercise its 

oversight authority and give considerable attention to environmental and economic effects with respect to permits 

that come before the Indiana Department of Environmental 

Management. 

Response: We continue to work with the Indiana 

Department of Environmental Management and the 

Environmental Protection Agency to identify and 

mitigate potential threats to Refuge resources. This 

includes providing relevant data to be used in the 

permitting process.

Comment: One commenter recommended the Refuge 

study the hydrology of the surrounding watershed to determine ground and surface water relationships and use the 

results to determine if existing State water quality standards are sufficient to achieve Refuge objectives.

Response: Most of the water quality issues within 

the Patoka River watershed are a result of crude oil 

extraction and surface coal mining that occurred 

prior to the 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Past clean up efforts have succeeded in 

part because they were preceded by studies to 

gather sufficient information. Existing water quality regulations have helped in clean up efforts to 

date and we have no reason to believe they would 

not be adequate to achieve the desired on-Refuge 

conditions included in the selected alternative. 

Environmental Education

Comment: Two readers voiced support for more environmental education on the Refuge. One reader specified environmental education for local children who are currently 

going to Evansville to experience bottomland hardwood 

forests, and another reader suggested that environmental 

education programs would result in people having more 

commitment to land stewardship and not littering when 

they visit. 

Response: We believe that environmental education is essential to teaching children about this country’s magnificent natural resources and making 

people more aware of good land stewardship. We 

are pleased to see support for the Refuge playing a 

role in local environmental education. As a young 

Refuge with a small staff, our ability to offer environmental education programs is limited right now. 

As the Refuge acquires land, staff, and basic outdoor learning facilities, we will be in a better position to support environmental education efforts by 

local educators. 

Refuge Funding/Staffing

Comment: Some people said that the CCP is too optimistic 

about future funding for land acquisition and staffing.

Response: The CCP is a 15-year plan, and we 

believe that our objectives and strategies are 

achievable in that timeframe. In terms of positions, 

the Refuge would gain one full-time position (a wildlife biologist or a forester) over the next 15 years. To 

date we have acquired one-fourth of the approved 

acquisition area; our objective is to acquire 50 percent within 5 years, 70 percent within 10 years, and 

80 percent within 15 years. Achieving that objective 

depends on the availability of funding and willing 

sellers, and we recognize that both are hard to predict. 

Patoka River Oxbow Restoration

Comment: Restoring the Patoka River would have adverse 

effects on flood control, local economies, and private property.

Response: Objective 1.4 Patoka River, Oxbows, 

and Patoka Tributaries of the selected alternative 

calls for collecting information necessary to evaluate stream channel restoration options for the 

Patoka River. Based on the results of this evaluation, it may result in an additional proposal for river 

channel restoration. Public involvement and review 

along with an analysis of potential impacts would 

accompany any such proposal. 

Support for Alternative 1: Current 

Management Direction (No Action)

Comment: Some individuals commented that they support 

Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative in the Draft Environmental Assessment.

Response: We appreciate support for the Refuge’s 

work to improve bottomland hardwood forest and 

other habitats. We identified Alternative 3: Inten-
Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

164

sive Habitat Management and Active Visitor Services, as the preferred alternative because we think 

it is a better route for continuing to improve habitat 

and contribute to healthy populations of resident 

and migratory wildlife. 

Visitor Center

Comment: The plan should include provisions to construct 

a Visitor Center for the Refuge or at least an expansion of 

the existing space to provide interpretive and outreach 

materials.

Response: We added a strategy to Objective 3.5 

Interpretation to provide for development of a visitor contact area as necessary and feasible. We did 

discuss the possibility of a Visitor Center for the 

Refuge during the planning process, but did not 

develop a proposal. This should have been noted in 

the Environmental Assessment but was not. We 

added this information to the section of the Environmental Assessment entitled Alternatives Considered But Not Developed. Visitor Centers represent 

substantial capital investments and require subsequent monies for maintenance and upkeep. The Service considers a number of factors before 

proceeding with any new facilities. Presently, the 

patchwork ownership pattern and visitation levels 

do not support the addition of a Visitor Center at 

Patoka River NWR. The primary focus of the CCP 

over the next 15 years is on acquiring additional 

lands which is likely to attract additional visitors.

Trespassing

Comment: An individual commented that he or she has 

signed the boundaries of his or her property and since then 

has not experienced problems with Refuge visitors trespassing.

Response: Refuge staff are always very pleased 

when visitors are not causing conflicts with neighbors, and we applaud the writer for taking the initiative to post the boundaries. We also know that the 

Refuge has a responsibility to do what it can to help 

visitors navigate the Refuge without trespassing on 

private property, and the CCP calls for greater 

emphasis on posting the boundaries.

Public Notification

Comment: One commenter indicated that although they 

were affected by the plan, they were not directly contacted 

for comment.

Response: We apologize for this oversight. Our 

intent was to notify all those interested or affected 

by the CCP planning effort, but unfortunately we 

did not make direct contact with everyone. The 

draft CCP/EA, a summary, and/or a compact disc 

was sent to 416 members of the public; organizations; local, State, and Federal agencies; elected officials; and public libraries. The draft CCP/EA was 

also available online at the Region 3 Conservation 

Planning website. The comment period began on 

October 17, 2007 and lasted 45 days. During the 

comment period we held an open house meeting that 

was publicized through the local media.

Paper Waste

Comment: One writer protested the “paper wasted” and 

the printing costs associated with providing people with a 

copy of the Draft CCP.

Response: Although the Refuge and the entire 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service would very much like 

to reduce both paper use and printing costs, we have 

an obligation to make Refuge planning as open as 

possible. That means providing updates on the planning process and, ultimately, a draft CCP for people 

to review. We distribute draft CCPs in three ways: 

we print copies and mail them to individuals who 

have indicated an interest in receiving one as well as 

to local libraries; we mail the CCP in electronic format on a compact disk; and we post the CCP on the 

Division of Comprehensive Conservation Planning 

website. 

Planning staff regularly discuss ways we might 

reduce printing costs and our use of paper, and we 

expect that in the future we will rely less on printed 

copies and more on making documents available 

electronically and on the Web. In the time being, we 

believe that computer use is not convenient enough 

or widespread enough among all demographic 

groups for us to quit printing paper copies of CCPs.