·' ·:,-·---~-- .• :.-.·
·: ... ~ ,·._.· ~. ~ .,_
.. ·'
·; ... ___ ,._-,. :'. ·:. •.-. ' ~--~ . : .. . ,_; ..•. <.· .·. ~.' _~--.:.;· .:-., ~: ·~ ,.;· . .,:·:_,_-. -. ··/" :;;',: ..;.~j1p~( .. ;·. ·."···, ··. TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...... , .... , .... , ... , ...... 1
LOCATION AND STATUS ...... , ...... 1
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES...... 1
EXISTING NATURAL RESOURCES ...... 2
CLIMATE ...... , ...... 2
NATURAL REGION ...... 2
VEGETATION AND LAND USE ...... 3
Forest ...... 4
Grasslands...... 6
Natural Areas ...... 7
Wetlands...... 7 • AQUATIC RESOURCES ...... 8 Lakes and Ponds ...... 8
• Old Timbers Lake...... 9 II Krueger Lake...... 9 Ponds ..... , , ...... , 9
Streams...... 10 • 1993 Stream Survey...... 10 Otter Creek ... ,, ... ,, ...... ,, ...... , ...... , ... 12 II Little Otter Creek ..... :...... , ...... , . . . 12 Graham Creek ...... 13 Big Creek ...... 13 Little Graham Creek...... 13 Stream Fish Cooununities ...... 14 Index of Biological Integrity .... , ...... , ... ,, 15 Comparison with Previous Studies ...... 16 Aquatic Invertebrates .. ,., ...... , ..... ,, ...... ,, ...... 18
WILDLIFE RESOURCES ...... 19 •• Terrestrial Invertebrates ...... 19 II Amphibians and Reptiles ...... :...... 20 q Birds...... 22 1993 Survey of Breeding Birds ...... 22 Comparison with Previous Studies ...... 22 Additional Bird Cooununity Data ...... , ...... 23 II Great Blue Heron Rookery ...... 24 Avian Productivity and Survivorship Survey ...... 24
i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Mammals ...... 25
1993 - 1994 Bat Survey ...... 26 Vhite-tailed Deer ...... 27
FISH AND W'ILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT ...... 28
FRAMEW'ORK FOR HABITAT MANAGEMENT ...... 28
Landscape Ecology Approach to Habitat Management ...... 28
Neotropical Migrants and Other Forest-dwelling Birds ...... 29
Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 32
HABITAT MANAGEMENT...... 34
Forest Management ...... 35
General Guidelines for Forest Management ...... 38 Indiana Bat ...... 41 Cerulean Warbler...... 42
Grassland Management:...... 43
General Guidelines for Grassland Management ...... 45 Hens low's Sparrow ...... 46 Northern Harrier...... 48 Kirtland's Snake ...... 49
Natural Areas ...... 50
W'etland Management ...... :...... 50
Lake and Pond Management...... 50
Stream Management ...... 51
River Otter...... 52 Salamander Mussel...... 52
Pest Management ...... , ...... 53
RECREATION...... 54
HUNTING, TRAPPING AND FISHING ...... •...... 54
NON-CONSUMPTIVE WILDLIFE RECREATION ...... 54
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION...... 55
Tables ...... 57
Figures ...... 72
Literature Cited ...... 76 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table l. Tree species identified on JPG during forest inventories ...... 57
Table 2. Endangered, threatened, rare and watch list plants found on JPG during the 1993 inventory of special plants and natural areas. 59
Table 3. Fish species collected at JPG during June, 1993 stream survey. 60
Table 4. Results of fish collection and Index of Biological Integrity ratings for individual collection stations for June, 1993 stream survey on JPG...... 62
Table 5. Amphibians and reptiles of JPG ...... 65
Table 6. Breeding birds at JPG, observed spring/summer 1993 ...... 67
Table 7. JPG breeding birds listed by the State of Indiana and/or the - --~-...I'RS...-..~··' ~ ...... •. •.•. ····~· ·- --~ ...... "'. --·- •...... ·~· ...... 69
Table 8. Mammals which probably occur on JPG ...... 70
Figure 1. JPG vegetation classification based on LANDSAT Thematic Mapper Satellite Imagery...... 72
Figure 2. Location of restricted areas (shaded sections) within JPG ..... 73
Figure 3. National Wetlands Inventory map of JPG ...... 74
Figure 4. Location of major lakes, ponds, and streams on JPG. Fish collection stations for the 1993 stream survey are labelled. . . 75 ) . I JEFFERSON PROVING GROUND I FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION I LOCATION AND STATUS The Jefferson Proving Ground (JPG) consists of 55,264 acres (86.35 square miles) located in Jefferson, Ripley, and Jennings Counties in I southeastern Indiana. The area is 17.2 miles long and varies in width from approximately 6 miles at the northern boundary to 4 miles at the southern boundary. The perimeter is roughly bounded by County Road 400 West on the west side, County Road 500 North on the south side, Michigan Road on the east side, and County Road 160 South on the north side. Madison, with a population • of approximately 13,000, is the nearest city. The area immediately surrounding JPG is rural, primarily characterized as agricultural. However, I JPG is located within 90 miles of 3 large metropolitan areas: Cincinnati, Ohio; Indianapolis, Indiana; and Louisville, Kentucky. The entire perimeter, approximately 50 miles, is fenced to restrict access and provide for public I safety. JPG is slated for closure September 30, 1995. Active testing will be terminated September 30, 1994. The Department of the Army (DA) is currently I evaluating reuse options for the base in accordance with the Base Realignment and Closure Act. A caretaker will be contracted to maintain the buildings and I grounds until the final disposition of the base is decided. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The U.S. Army JPG and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) entered I into a Memorandum of Agreement in January, 1994, providing for the FWS to prepare this fish and wildlife management plan. This plan is a segment of the integrated natural resource plans, as directed by Army Regulation 420-74, I Natural Resources - Land, Forest and Wildlife Management. The FWS will use the Technical Manual: Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Management (TM 5- 633) for guidance in preparation of this plan. The purpose of the plan is to r provide guidelines which can be used to manage the fish and wildlife resources on the base.
Until ammunition testing on the base is terminated, natural resource management activities on JPG must be conducted within the confines of the national defense mission of the installation. After the base is closed, there may be potential to expand natural resource management activities which were not compatible with the military mission on the base in the past. However, safety concerns associated with unexploded ordnance and contaminants on the base will still mandate strict restrictions on access and activities on JPG. This plan will be sensitive to these safety concerns to the extent that the FWS is aware of the location and magnitude of these potential hazards. • 2 Specific Objectives of the plan are: • 1. Summarize information on physiographic and vegetative features that will affect fish and wildlife management. - 2. Compile and summarize available fish and wildlife survey data.
3. Identify and discuss management guidelines for State and Federal • threatened and endangered wildlife species which inhabit JPG. II 4. Provide habitat management guidelines to maintain or enhance fish and wildlife resources on JPG. Single-species management will be considered when applicable, but priorities will focus on maintaining or improving habitat quality for groups of vulnerable species. The guidelines will not only • provide for a diverse fish and wildlife community on JPG, but will also consider fish and wildlife habitat on JPG with reference to the local and regional landscape.
5. To facilitate the DA' s efforts to evaluate reuse opt; ions, habitat considered most critical to maintaining or enhancing fish and wildlife resources will be identified. • 6. Provide guidelines for hunting, fishing, trapping, and non-consumptive wildlife-associated recreation that will provide for these recreational uses • and also complement the other fish and wildlife management objectives for the base.
7. Identify opportunities for research and education activities related to • fish and wildlife resources on JPG. • EXISTING NATURAL RESOURCES M CLIMATE
JPG is located in a temperate climate zone and has wide temperature II ranges among seasons. In winter, the average temperature is 35 degrees F, and the average daily minimum temperature is 26 degrees F. In summer, the average temperature is 76 degrees F, and the average daily maximum temperature is 87 degrees F. Precipitation averages 42 inches annually; more than 50% falls - April through September. The average seasonal snowfall is about 13 inches. The average relative humidity is about 60%. These temperature and precipitation data were recorded in Madison, Indiana during the period 1951· 1976 (Nickell 1985). - NATURAL REGION There are 12 Natural Regions in Indiana, some of which are divided into \~ Sections or Subtypes (Homoya et al. 1985). JPG is confined to the Muscatatuck '-.. .._ Flats and Canyons Section of the Bluegrass Natural Region. This section is - made up of a broad, relatively flat west-sloping plain with steep-walled o·
3 • canyons entrenched by major streams. The plain is characterized by poorly drained, acidic Cobbsfork and Avonburg silt loam soils and a southern flatwoods natural community type. Wooded stream valleys with better drainage • are also present. Canyons, cliffs, and slopes of limestone are more floristically rich than flats and have a predominately mixed mesophytic forest I composition. Small non-forested areas of limestone gravel wash and limestone glade also occur. Medium-gradient streams with limestone beds are typical. For a more complete description of the physiography refer to Schneider (1966). I For more complete descriptions of the soils refer to the USDA Soil Surveys for Jefferson, Jennings, and Ripley Counties, Indiana.
VEGETATION AND LAND USE
JPG sits on the Illinoian Till Plain, a flat plain created thousands of years ago by the IllinQdan ice sheet (Hedge et al. 1993). The glaciated I terrain of the plain covers parts of several states. A small segment of the plain, in southeastern Indiana, southwestern Ohio, and a sliver of Kentucky, contains vegetation distinct from the Bluegrass to the south and the younger I glaciated land to the north (Braun 1950). JPG falls within this portion of the plain. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), Division of Nature Preserves, conducted an inventory of special plants and natural areas on JPG in 1993 and described JPG as" ... a regional treasure containing an ecosystem-sized cross section of a distinct vegetation association" (Hedge et al. 1993).
I The vast majority of the area, including what is now JPG, was originally forested. However, due to the primarily flat terrain, most of the forests were cleared and converted to agricultural use. The land that now comprises I JPG was acquired in 1940-1941 for the development of an Army ammunition testing site. While most of the land adjoining JPG remains in agricultural use, JPG has largely reverted to forest. Based on recent analysis of LANDSAT Thematic Mapper Satellite Imagery data, 54% of JPG was classified as forest I and an additional 34% was classified as wooded grasslands (Scott Pruitt, FWS Fish and Wildlife Biologist, pers. commun.; Fig. 1). The "unknown terrestrial" category includes areas that could not be classified based on the I satellite imagery interpretation. It should be noted that the vegetation classification provided in Figure 1 is based solely on interpretation of satellite imagery; no ground-truthing has been completed. In spite of these limitations, this classification provides a reasonable representation of the vegetative cover on the base .
Approximately 25,000 acres of JPG (45X of the land area) are designated as "Restricted Areas" (Fig. 2). Access to these areas is restricted due to safety concerns associated with unexploded ordnance. No recre~tional access • is allowed to restricted areas. In some situations, limited research or I management access may be allowed with a demolitions expert escort. The most hazardous areas are completely restricted and no access is allowed for any purpose. However, it should not be interpreted that the restricted I ·designation indicates that these areas are barren. In spite of the nature of the military mission which has been conducted on JPG, most of the restricted acreage is vegetated and to a casual observer looking at the area from the I road, there is scant immediate evidence of ordnance testing. I Jl
4 Ill Some testing programs require that all items of ordnance be recovered after impact. Impact fields used for these programs, approximately 1,000 J1 acres in total, are intensively managed. The need to recover small items of ordnance after impact requires that the fields be largely open with minimal vegetation. Some are bare earth. These sites include observation shelters with earth cover and shelters constructed of armor plate. These areas are 11 .. classed as "Developed/Urban on the vegetation map. Paved areas surrounding buildings and other developments on the base may also be classed as ''Developed/Urban ... .. Vegetation in other areas associated with ordnance testing are less intensely managed. Fire is commonly used to control vegetation, thus reducing vegetative fuel and the potential for fires associated with ordnance testing. ·-' Mowing has also been used to reduce vegetative fuel, although this practice has become relatively uncommon in recent years. Most of the area classified as wooded grassland or grass/forb on JPG (Fig. 1) is the result of prescribed II fire management. Wooded grasslands have a minimum of 10% canopy cover and may have as much as 60% canopy cover. The ~egree of canopy cover largely depends on the burning regime. .. There are approximately 27 miles of firebreaks maintained at JPG. Firebreaks are maintained by mowing and discing. Total area in firebreaks is approximately 135 acres. Buildings and paved areas occupy approximately 41 II acres. There are approximately 46 acres maintained as lawn and an additional 8 acres maintained as playgrounds or grass fields for recreation. Approximately 75 acres of roadside are mowed annually. There are 196 miles of road on the base; most are crushed rock. There are 34 miles of hard-surfaced road; most are located south of the firing line (labelled in Figure 2). The only hard-surfaced road north of the firing line is the East Perimeter Road.
JPG contains 7 known landfills, 1 dump (used for construction debris), at least 14 chemical disposal sites, and several potentially contaminated surface impoundments (Final Study- Cleanup and Reuse 1992). Many of these li sites have been investigated and no imminent health or environmental hazard has been identified. However, anyone planning fish and wildlife management activities (as well as any other land use alternatives) should be aware of II these potential hazards. JPG has an extensive karst system which has not yet been documented or IIJ surveyed. Members of the Indiana Karst Conservancy are currently surveying and mapping the cave system. As of June 1994, 6 caves had been mapped and I several more had been located, but researchers expect that many features have " not yet been identified. • FOREST
0 . / The first intensive forest inventory for JPG was completed in 1986 for ' the segment of the property north of K Road. An intensive inventory of the southern end of the property, the area that lies south of Firing Line Road to the southern boundary, was conducted in 1992. The east side was inventoried in 1993. Inventory of the west side was completed in 1994. The interior of the base has not been inventoried. Inventories of the north, south, and east f, 5
segments included 45 tree species (Table 1). For a complete description of forest composition and timber management practices, refer to the JPG Draft l Forest Management Plan.
The area north of K Road has the most diverse topography on the base. I The moderately rolling-to-steep slopes in the north have well to moderately well drained, deep glacial till soils. These areas support primarily white oak, red oak, hickories, beech, and tulip poplar. The northern compartments I also include poorly-drained flatwoods which typically contain sweetgum, red maple, tulip poplar, and pin oak.
The southern end of the base is made up of flat to gently-sloping, poorly-drained flatwoods. Primary species present are pin oak, red maple, tulip poplar, and sweetgum.
I The east side is primarily flat with poor drainage and supports tree species typical of these poorly-drained sites including sweetgum, red maple, tulip poplar, and pin oak. On upland slopes and ridgetops along drainages the I soils are well to moderately-well drained and support white oak, red oak, hickory, beech, tulip poplar, and black walnut. The eastern side of the base has a large amount of open acreage with small stands of timber. These open ,. areas have been maintained by burning. The purpose of the burning has been to reduce vegetation, and thus the potential for fire, in impact fields. Some burned areas are maintained as open grasslands; in other cases fire is allowed to extend into forested areas producing wooded grasslands. In these areas, l the tree canopy is maintained (in varying degrees) but the understory is reduced or eliminated. Fire damage to timber is evident in some of these I stands, particularly in the southern end of the compartment. The western side of the base is also dominated by poorly-drained flatwoods. This compartment contains primarily saplings, poletimber, and marginally-stocked sawtimber. The most common :tree species are sweetgum, red l maple, tulip poplar, and pin oak. Better-drained sites on upland slopes and ridgetops along creeks and streams support white oak, red oak, hickory, beech, tulip poplar, and black walnut. Fire damage is common, especially in the I northern part of the western compartment. '1-:\ A §.cr acre stand of white pine near Old Timbers Lodge is the only large coniferous stand on JPG. In relatively well-drained areas, Eastern red cedar r is prevalent in early successional stands. _ 1 fo- h,dw fYl 7. n :z:;IP\ o""""' Since 1941, 15,000 acres of forest have been ~·estsd on JPG~ primarily I north of K Road and in the perimeter on the southern end 0~~."~~ ,fi8~e (Final Study- Cleanup and Reuse Options 1992). Annual harvests~ ranged from 300,000 to 400,000 board feet. Timber harvest included sawtimber and high l quality white oak and black walnut veneer. Other products were hardwood pulpwood, firewood, and fence posts.
JPG's forest lands are widely recognized as a valuable resource. JPG I provides locally as well as regionally significant forested wildlife habitat. The area is particularly valuable given that it is the largest forested tract l in the region. As such, it provides forest-interior wildlife habitat which is I -
6
scarce in Indiana as well as the entire Midwest. Forest-interior habitat is associated with large blocks of forest land. The scattered tracts of forest intermixed with agricultural land (which make up the bulk of the remaining forest in the region) do not provide forest-interior habitat. There is emerging interest in fOrest·interior ecosystems because researchers are just beginning to understand the importance of these areas. Some species of wildlife require the unique features associated with large blocks of forest. How large a block is required depends on the wildlife species considered. • These species, sometimes referred to as forest·interior species, cannot thrive in small, scattered patches of forest. For many of these species, JPG's forests are the only suitable habitat over a large geographic area. •• JPG's forests also provide for an ongoing timber management program. Ill Edible wild plants, including Morel mushrooms (Morchella sp.), nuts, and berries, are produced. Recreational harvest of these plants is popular on JPG. The forest provides a sound barrier to buffer noise associated with Ill ordnance testing. For this reason, most of the perimeter is forested. Many of the highest quality natural communities on JPG are also associated with the forested areas of the base (Hedge et al. 1993). GRASSLANDS • Nine percent of the base, 4,869 acres, is classified as grassland (classified as grass/forb on Fig. 1). With the exception of a few limited • areas maintained by mowing, the grasslands are maintained by burning. Burning has resulted in the creation and maintenance of open grasslands, which are relatively free of woody vegetation. The largest grassland, the area associated with the airfield on the southwest corner of the base, is • approximately 400 acres in size. Non-agricultural grasslands of this size are lJ ~extremely rare in Indiana. The airfield was created when the base was acquired, but has not been used since the 1970's. Since that time, the area has been maintained as a grassland by mowing and burning. In recent years, the practice of mowing has largely been abandoned and the area is burned in II the late winter or early spring every other year. A list of plant species for this area is included in Pruitt et al. (In Prep.).
Smaller grasslands are associated with burning on impact fields. It is estimated that 10,000 to 15,000 acres per year are burned to maintain open - areas (Final Study- Cleanup and Reuse 1992). Some of these areas are maintained as grasslands while others are maintained as wooded grasslands (grasslands with scattered woody vegetation). Little is known about the - composition of these grasslands because most are in restricted areas. The creation of these open grasslands was necessitated by the military mission of Ill the base. However, secondary benefits have accrued. Grasslands, particularly the airport area, have significant value as wildlife habitat. Several grassland bird species, which will be discussed in the WILDLIFE RESOURCES section, are utilizing these areas. These burned areas also support floristically-unique natural communities, or natural areas (Hedge et al. - 1993). Ill As a group, grassland wildlife species have experienced even more severe -lh -~-·-- ---· -·- ···--~----~---···------·------7
habitat loss than forest wildlife species (Herkert 1994). Fifty-five grassland species in the U.S. are listed as Federally threatened or endangered, and 728 are candidates for listing (Samson and Knopf 1994). Once abundant, native prairie grassland habitat has declined precipitously. It is estimated that far less than 1% of the original tallgrass prairie remains within the northcentral U.S. (Roosa 1984, Handset al. 1989~). In presettlement Indiana, for example, there were almost 3 million hectares (ha) ~ of native tallgrass prairie, of which approximately 400 ha remain (Samson and , Knopf 1994). Initially, pasture and hayfields provided secondary grassland habitat for grassland wildlife species. However, the Midwest has experienced a shift from hay production and grazing to intensive rowcrop production. As a result, the amount of secondary grassland habitat has declined and disturbances in agriculturally-associated grasslands (primarily hayfields) has intensified. The grassland areas which remain, primarily agricultural grasslands, are relatively low quality from a wildlife habitat and natural community perspective.
It should be noted that the land, which is now JPG, did not support any native prairie. The grasslands at JPG are a product of the prescribed burning vegetation management which has been done to support the military mission on the base. Nonetheless, these grasslands provide regionally significant wildlife habitat for grassland species.
NATURAL AREAS l In 1993, the IDNR, Division of Nature Preserves, conducted an inventory of special plants and natural areas within JPG (Hedge et al. 1993). This inventory documented the presence of good quality natural communities on JPG. A natural community is defined as "a group of organisms that are interrelated to each other and their environment." Four community types were inventoried: Flatwoods, Upland Forest, Floodplain Forest, and Limestone Cliff. Twenty-nine species of State-listed plants were found during the survey (Table 2). The l highest quality natural communities exhibited the least amount of past disturbance. These areas typically had large tree canopies, good structure and composition, and lacked exotic species. Based on this survey, the highest quality natural areas on JPG were identified. The management recommendations for these areas will be included in the HABITAT MANAGEMENT section of this plan. Additional floristic surveys, concentrating in the flatwoods r communities, are scheduled for 1994. In addition to rare plants identified during the 1993 survey, running buffalo clover (Trifolium stoloniferum), a State and .federally endangered I plant (refer to the THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES section of this report for definitions of State and Federal Classifications), may occur on JPG. JPG appears to provide suitable habitat for this species and it has peen found southeast of JPG in Switzerland County. Although this species has not been found on JPG to date, it may be identified in future surveys. I llETLANDS While JPG's wetlands have not been the focus of any research, the value I I • 8 of these areas is widely recognized. Wetland values include fish and wildlife • habitat, reduced runoff, improved water quality, floodwater retention, sediment control, and natural beauty. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data indicate that there are 6,437 acres of wetlands on JPG (Fig. 3). The most • abundant wetland type·on the base is palustrine forested, which occupies 4,004 acres. Palustrine wetlands include vegetated wetlands traditionally called marshes or swamps. Forested wetlands are characterized by woody vegetation that is 6 m tall or taller (Cowardin et al. 1979). Minimal ground-truthing • has been conducted on NWI maps for JPG. ~Cc'\ f,oc ck\lr.c~t,cr. ") The location of wetlands is an important consideration in evaluating • reuse options for JPG. Wetlands are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 II prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Any activity that would involve placement of dredged or fill material in a wetland would require a permit from the COE. NWI maps indicate areas that are likely to contain wetlands, but these maps cannot be used to determine the regulatory status of wetlands. To determine the actual location and boundary of wetlands on a site, the COE requires the site be surveyed using procedures outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. It is likely that using these wetland • delineation procedures, additional areas on JPG not included on NWI maps would be classified as wetlands. • AQUATIC RESOURCES
JPG contains a diverse aquatic resource base. Water use on the base is entirely recreation oriented. Some fish inventory data is available for the • lakes, ponds, and streams. ;Little is known regarding aquatic invertebrates. ll The location of major water features on JPG is identified in Figure 4.
There is scant information available on water quality of surface waters at JPG. There are no formal surface water-quality monitoring programs except II the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program at the sewage treatment plant and the Depleted Uranium Area monitoring program (Final Study - Cleanup and Reuse Options 1992). Due to the relatively extensive use of herbicides on impact fields and the potential for surface water contamination, stream sediment samples were collected from all major streams on JPG and • tested for herbicides. Traces of Bromacil (a soil sterilant) were found in II Vernon Fork of Otter Creek and Middle Fork. No other herbicides were detected in the sediments (Final Study- Cleanup and Reuse Options 1992). Other potential sources of contamination of surface water have been identified (Final Study- Cleanup and Reuse Options 1992). Reptiles and amphibians (hereafter collectively referred to as harps or herpetofauna), fish, aquatic • invertebrates, and other wildlife may prove to be valuable biological indicators to aid in the evaluation of potential contaminants. LAKES AND PONDS •II When JPG was acquired in 1941, there were several small ponds on the installation. Fisheries management began in 1951 with the initial survey of several of the small quarry ponds on the base (Glesne 1980A). Krueger Lake,
··------·------·--·-·------~- J
I 9 an 8,8 surface acre impoundment, was constructed in 1967 and Old Timbers Lake, a 165 surface acre impoundment, was constructed in 1973, These impoundments I significantly increased fishing opportunities on the base, Fishing has become a popular activity on the lakes and ponds on the base. Fishing access is limited to active or retired military personnel, civilian personnel working at JPG, and dependents and guests of these personnel. Total angler-days fishing averaged approximately 3,000 - 4,000 per year from 1980-1993 (G1esne 1980£; Ken Knouf, JPG Natural Resource Manager, pers. commun.). Fishery Management Program Project Reports summarize all fisheries survey and harvest data which are available for JPG (Harrison 1975; Glesne 1979, 1980£; Surprenant 1992, •• 1993).
I Old Timbers Lake
Old Timbers Lake, which covers 165 surface acres, is the largest impoundment on JPG. The lake was constructed in 1973 by volunteers from the JPG Rod and Gun Club. Maximum depth is 40 feet and it has a total of 8 miles of shoreline. Most of the lake's watershed is forested, with the exception of some agricultural land north of the base. Standing dead timber is abundant in I the northern portion of the lake.
The JPG 1988 Fishery Management Plan (Surprenant 1988) indicates that I the species managed for in Old Timbers Lake include largemouth bass, black crappie, channel catfish, redear sunfish, bluegill, and walleye. The JPG 1980 Fishery Management Plan (Glesne 1980e) includes the fish stocking records for I Old Timbers Lake from 1973-1979. Nine electrofishing surveys were conducted between 1979 and 1993 (Glesne 1980e; Surprenant 1992, 1993). Sunfish populations in the lake exhibit excellent size structure making them a preferred species by anglers. The primary management concern at Old Timbers I Lake expressed by Glesne (1980e) and Surprenant (1988) was that predator species exhibit slow growth and early mortality. Additional fisheries management data for Old Timbers Lake were provided by Glesne (1980e) and Surprenant (1988). • Krueger Lake I Krueger Lake, an 8.8 surface acre impoundment, was constructed in 1967 and renovated in 1977. The lake is shallow with a maximum depth of 8 feet and an average depth of 5 feet, Management records for the lake indicate that the I species managed for in Krueger Lake include largemouth bass, channel catfish, redear sunfish, and bluegill (Glesne 1979, Surprenant 1988). The JPG 1980 Fishery Management Plan (Glesne 1980e) includes the fish stocking records for I. Krueger Lake for 1978-1979. Six electrofishing surveys were conducted between 1979 and 1993 (Glesne 1980e; Surprenant 1992, 1993). Additional fisheries management data for Krueger Lake were provided by Glesne (1980i) and I Surprenant (1988). Ponds
I Gate 8 pond (3 surface acres, maximum depth 12 feet), Gate 3 pond (1 surface acre, maximum depth 15-20 feet) and Gate 19 pond (1 surface acre, maximum depth 15-20 feet) existed on JPG at the time the installation was I ---·-· ·--·-··------·------··-·------• 10 acquired and are presumed to be abandoned quarry sites (Glesne 1980E). Hydes • Pond (1 surface acre, maximum depth 10 feet, average depth 4 feet) was also on JPG at the time of acquisition. These ponds are managed primarily for smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, bluegill and channel catfish (Glesne l980E). • Productivity in these ponds is relatively low, primarily due to the small proportion of littoral area available. Fishing pressure is light, but the ponds maintain adequate sports fish populations (Glesne 1980E). • Hydes Pond was renovated in 1977 and restocked with channel catfish and largemouth bass. An electrofishing survey in 1980 indicated that the renovation was not successful in eliminating all fish. The species • composition was 38.5% golden shiners, 26% green sunfish, 19% largemouth bass, and 16.5% bluegill (Glesne 1980Q). All bass collected were under 12 inches. Productivity on Hydes Pond is greater than on the other ponds. Because of its shallow depth, rooted aquatic plants often cover large areas of the pond, which is periodically treated to control vegetation. Hydes Pond is vulnerable to oxygen depletion during severe winters. A winter fish kill was documented at Hydes Pond during 1977 when ice cover and heavy snows persisted through • most of the winter (Surprenant 1988) .. Gate 8 Pond was stocked with bluegill and smallmouth bass in 1968-1969. • The composition of an electrofishing survey in 1980 was 57% bluegill, 40% largemouth bass, and 3% green sunfish (Glesne 1980Q). All bluegill collected were at least 3 inches long and all bass were less than 12 inches. • Surveys of Gate 3 Pond, Gate 8 Pond, and Hydes Pond were conducted during the summer of 1994, but data are not yet available. Analysis of surface-water and sediment samples of Gate 19 Pond revealed contamination • (Rust Environment and Infrastructure 1994); fishing is no longer permitted in Gate 19 Pond. There are additional small ponds on the base, but these have not been systematically identified or mapped.
STREAMS
JPG contains segments of 3 major streams including Otter Creek, Graham Creek, and Big Creek. Together with several first and second-order streams, these comprise approximately 60 miles of perennial stream corridor (Fig.4). All streams are in the Muscatatuck River watershed.
The major source of water quality problems on JPG is sediment input and agricultural runoff from areas upstream of the base. There is also the potential for contaminants on the base to enter the stream system, but no major contaminant problems have been identified to date. An evaluation of contaminated areas south of the firing line (where most known contaminated sites are located) is detailed in Jefferson Proving Ground South of the Firing Line Draft Remedial Investigation April 1994 (Rust Environment and Infrastructure 1994).
1993 Stream Survey
A stream survey was conducted at JPG during June 1993 by the FWS with the main goals of evaluating the health and diversity of fish communities, I 11 assessing the physical quality of stream habitat, and investigating the possible presence of rare fish species (Pruitt et al., In Prep.). A summary I of the survey follows.
Due to the extensive stream network within JPG, habitat evaluation was I limited to those areas which were actually surveyed (i.e. the fish collection stations). The stream reaches sampled were mostly on the perimeter of the base, because of the difficulty of obtaining access to interior locations. I The collection stations are shown on the map in Figure 4. The station names are acronyms composed from the stream names. The stations on each stream are numbered from downstream (west perimeter) to upstream, at road crossings. Station numbers are not necessarily consecutive. Habitat evaluations were I entirely qualitative, based on visual observations, except for physical water quality measurements which were taken at all sampling stations. Physical variables measured were conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and water I temperature.
Stream quality was analyzed by applying an Index of Biotic Integrit~ (IBI). This index uses 12 metrics which are indicators of fish community health to derive an overall score for a collection site. Metrics fall into 3 • categories: species composition (6 metrics), trophic composition (3 metrics), and fish abundance and condition (3 metrics). Scores of 1 (low), 3, or 5 I (high) are assigned for each metric at a collection site, and a total score for the site is then calculated. Scores are rated as follows: 58-60- excellent, 48-52 - good, 40-44 - fair, 28-34 -poor, and <24- very poor. The I set of metrics we used was adapted from Angermeier and Karr (1986), Karr et al. (1986), and Gammon and Gammon (1990). Dr. Tom Simon of the U.S. EPA is. • Riparian forest along stream corridors on JPG is typica~ly adequate to very good for purposes of aquatic habitat and bank stability, and is extensive in many areas. Erosion is occurring in limited areas where the banks have • been disturbed by construction of roads and barriers, and banks in some other locations are migrating slowly, resulting in undercutting. Stable, forested II streambanks are critical for the health of stream ecosystems; rapid bank erosion and insufficient riparian forest result in heavy sediment load, loss • of habitat, and degradation of water quality (Gregory and Stokoe 1981, • • 12 McWilliams 1985). • Some of the streams at JPG have a fairly substancial silt load, resulting in a high degree of embeddedness in some pools and runs. • Presumably, the sour~e of the silt load is agricultural lands upstream from the base. Flushing undoubtedly occurs during flood flows, but water levels I apparently rise and fall fairly rapidly after such events. Fast-flowing riffles and rock shelf areas were relatively silt-free compared to some slower, deeper stream reaches. Evidence of chemical pollution were not I observed at the stream reaches inspected during the 1993 survey. Researchers did note a substantial increase in turbidity and pronounced changes in physical variables after heavy rains. In a previous study of the Muscatatuck River watershed, Zook (1972) found no problems with water quality except for localized areas near the larger communities. He recorded DO levels of 5.0-6.0 • mg/1 and pH's of 7.0-8.0 at all stations sampled. The 1993 survey suggests that all of the major streams and most of the • tributaries on JPG support healthy, diverse fish communities, although there is considerable variation in quality among streams. The larger streams are discussed individually. • Otter Creek Otter Creek is located in the northwest corner of JPG in the least • developed portion of the base. Perennial tributaries of Otter Creek on the base are Little Otter Creek and Falling Timber Branch. All of its direct I watershed and most of its tributary watersheds within the boundaries of JPG are forested. As a result, Otter Creek provides the most diverse and least degraded aquatic habitat of all streams on the base. Important habitat features which are common or abundant in Otter Creek are graveljrock riffles, boulders, deep pools, rock ledges, and stands of aquatic vegetation (chiefly • water willow, Justicia americana). The pool at Station OC-2 (referred to as Blue Hole) is at least 7-8 feet deep. Several other pools at sampling stations are 5-6 feet deep. The water was extremely clear during preliminary • inspections and first collections, but became very turbid after heavy.rains. Conductivities ranged from 295-325 umbos during the survey, water temperature ranged from 15.5 to 22.5 degrees C, and pH ranged from 6.8-7.2. DO was 6.0 mg/l (after heavy rains). Glesne (l980g) stated that Otter Creek at JPG is a third order stream with a mean channel width ranging from 36 feet at the north perimeter (upstream) to 61 feet downstream from its confluence with Little Otter Creek. Its mean gradient is ll feet per mile. He identified dominant substrate types as gravel and rubble, and noted that the riparian zone width was generally • more than 100 feet. Glesne (1980g) commented that undercut banks greatly enhanced the quality of pool habitat, which was the dominant habitat type at his 3 stations. • Little Otter Creek Little Otter Creek, the major tributary of Otter Creek on JPG, contains • abundant rock/riffle habitat, although it also contains a lot of bedrock and • I I' 13 is too shallow to contain much pool habitat. Glesne (1980h) stated that I Little Otter Creek is a first order stream with a mean channel width of 29 feet and a gradient of 26 feet per mile. Riffles comprised 76X of his sample area (approximately equivalent to LOF-1 in the 1993 survey). Pools were considered shallow and small with a primary substrate of bedrock. He also stated that banks were stable with abundant cover of woody vegetation. At the time of the 1993 survey, conductivi-ty was 230 umbos and water temperature was ' 18.0 degrees C. DO was 7.0 mg/1 and pH was 7.5. I Graham Creek The 2 sites surveyed on Graham Creek contain an abundance of good I rock/riffle habitat and small stands of aquatic vegetation at some locations. Graham Creek is generally smaller than Otter Creek, with less pool habitat, less instream structural habitat, and a higher silt load. Undercut rootwads I on the channel banks yielded an abundance of predators and other large fish, but most of this habitat type is above water during much of the year. Riparian forest is abundant at the 2 perimeter stations, but is narrow and restricted to banks or narrow floodplains along some interior reaches, where it is bordered by open areas associated with weapons testing and ordnance • recovery activities. As in Otter Creek, bank erosion is occurring at isolated sites affected by construction of roads and barriers or other disturbances. Conductivities ranged from 310 to 415 umhos during the 1993 survey, and pH was 7.0-7.2. DO at station GC-4 (4 days after heavy rains) was 4.0 mg/1. Water •I temperature was 15 degrees C at Station GC-1 and 22 degrees C at Station GC-4. Big Creek The predominant habitat type in Big Creek at the 1993 collection stations is shallow run with sand, silt, and/or gravel substrate. Structural • instream habitat is sparse. Good gravel riffles, small pools, and rock rubble are present at some locations. The silt load :is relatively high and the water was discolored (probably by a natural organic acid) on the west side of the base during the survey. As with Graham Creek, riparian forest is ample along some reaches (especially at the perimeters) and nearly absent at some interior reaches. At Station BC-3 (East Perimeter Road), Big Creek is small and shallow, but contains very good substrate in the form of rock and gravel. • Riparian habitat is also very good. Conductivities at the 3 stations surveyed ranged from 240 and 265 umhos (prior to heavy rain) to 400 umhos (after rain). Water temperature ranged from 15 and 19.3 degrees C (before rain) to 29 degrees C (after rain). DO at I Station BC-6 was 7.0 mg/1, and pH range was 7.2-7.6 . Little Graham Creek •• The habitat quality of Little Graham Creek at JPG changes markedly below the confluence of Horse and Poplar Branch (Station LGC-2). Upstream from that point the stream is small, shallow, and silty with moderate habitat quality. II Immediately upstream from the confluence, filamentous surface algae was abundant, possibly indicating a heavy nutrient load. At Station LGC-4 (East I Perimeter Road), substrate quality was generally poor due to silt load, I I 14 I although bank habitat quality ~as moderate. This was the only station at which darters were not collected. However, it was also the station where the I only specimen of spotted sucker was collected. This species is not rare, but is considered intolerant of poor water quality and ics range is believed to be decreasing. At and qelow the confluence of Horse and Poplar Branch, habitat I quality increases, especially with respect to size and diversity. There is a large pool at the confluence. Other habitat features at Stations LGC-2 and LGC-1 are gravel riffles, scattered rocks, woody debris, and small pools. I ~ater temperature in Little Graham Creek ranged from 14.2 degrees C (before heavy rain) to 28 degrees C (after rain). Conductivity ranged from 235 umhos (before) to 370 umhos (after). DO ranged from 5.5 (after) to 9.3 I mgjl (before), and pH ranged from 6.8 (after) to 8.2 (before). ~ith respect to physical water quality variables, a large difference was evident in all comparisons of measurements taken before and after heavy rain. I However, due to the sequence in which the sites were surveyed, this difference also reflected a comparison of downstream stations (prior to the rain) and upstream stations (after). It is likely that che large differences in I temperature, conductivity, and DO include components of both factors, but the rain and subsequent surface runoff are probably the major causes. I Stream Fish Communities The 1993 survey resulted in the collection of 6,703 fish from 41 species and 10 families (Table 3). Fish were collected by seining at all stations, I and with a barge electroshocker at stations with sufficient water depth. Four common species of minnows (creek chub, striped shiner, bluntnose minnow, central stoneroller) comprised 3,790 individuals (56.5~ of total). The most I abundant species was the bluntnose minnow (1,512 individuals, 22.6%). Approximately 200 of the bluntnose minnows collected were young-of-year. A few young-of-year of several other species were collected, with the next mosc I abundant being the white sucker (17 individuals). A total of 15 species were represented by 100 or more individuals. Thirteen species were represented by fewer chan 10 individuals. I Table 4 shows the number of individuals of each species that were caught at each station (location of fish collection stations is indicated on Fig. 4). Of the 4 most abundant minnow species, 2 were present at all 17 stations and I the other 2 were present at 16 stations. Seven species were found at 15 or more stations, 13 species were found at 10 or more stations, and 25 species were found at 5 or more stations. Six species were found at a single station. I Otter Creek was the most productive stream on the base, with a total of 39 species from 4 stations and an average of 522 individuals and 28 species per station. Graham Creek produced 24 species from 2 stations, with an I average of 565 individuals and 21.5 species per station, however, 818 (72.3%) of those were the 4 most common species. By comparison, these 4 species comprised only 44.6% of all individuals from Otter Creek. Big Creek produced I 24 species from 3 stations with an average of 319 individuals and 15.7 species per station. Little Graham Creek produced 20 species from 3 stations, with an average of 292 fish and 14 species per station. The Middle Fork Creek station I I • 15 • produced the most individuals (972), with 582 (59.9%) of those being the 4 most common species. That station was also the most productive for orangethroat darters (97) and johnny darters (134). The least productive stations were Marble Creek (31 fish, 8 species), LGC-4 on Little Graham Creek (70 fish, 11 species), Little Otter Creek (173 fish, 10 species), and BC-6 on Big Creek (257 fish, 10 species). Those 4 I stream sites were among the smallest surveyed. No endangered, threatened, or rare species were found, but several species were present (especially in Otter Creek) which are intolerant of poor habitat and water quality and are considered indicators of stream health. Included in this category are smallmouth bass, rock bass, some of the insectivorous minnows, some of the sucker species, brindled madtom, brook silverside, and most of the darter species. Certain species are considered to be indicators of poor water quality. • These species tend to outcompete other species under conditions of heavy siltation, high nutrient load, and/or chemical pollution. The most conspicuous of these, the common carp, was scarce at JPG; only 4 specimens were collected from 2 stations. Another indicator species of poor stream quality, the green sunfish, was abundant at JPG. Yith 247 individuals at 16 stations, this species was the tenth most abundant in the collections. In addition to tolerating man-made perturbations, the green sunfish is also one of the most tolerant native species of high temperatures, low oxygen levels, I and low stream flows resulting from normal climatic fluctuations. Green sunfish were most common in Graham Creek (average of 38 fish, 8.7% of all individuals at each station) and Big Creek (27 fish, 7% of all individuals). Otter Creek produced an average of 13 green sunfish (2.4% of all individuals) I. . at each station, while the relatively intolerant longear sunfish was ubiquitous, averaging 33 individuals per station. Of the 5 stations on Graham Creek and Big Creek, longear sunfish were abundant at 1 station, represented by 1 specimen at 1 station, and absent at the other 3 stations. I Index of Biological Integrity Table 4 shows the results of the IBI analysis for all stations. One station (OC-2) was rated as excellent, 3 as good/excellent, and 5 as good. Seven stations were rated as fair or poor/fair, and 1 station (MC-1) was rated as poor. Consistent with other qualitative and quantitative measures, Otter Creek received the highest ratings, with an average score of 55 per station (good/excellent). All stations on Otter Creek had scores of 52 or greater, I, indicating consistent stream quality throughout the surveyed stream reach. The 2 Graham Creek stations received ratings of 48 (good) and 44 (fair); I these moderate scores were due chiefly to an almost complete absence of Centrarchids (sunfish and black bass) from the collections. The 3 Big Creek stations produced an average score of 42.7, however, the results were very uneven, with the downstream site receiving a score of 50 (good) and the 2 I upstream sites scoring only 36 and 38 (poor/fair). I The only station to receive a rating of good/excellent other than Otter I • 16 I Creek was Falling Timber Branch, a small tributary of Otter Creek with a heavily-forested watershed. Little Otter Creek, a larger tributary which has been affected by construction of Old Timbers Lake and by partial deforestation of the watershed, received a score of 38. It should be noted that the • collection site on Little Otter Creek was just downstream from the most I heavily-impacted rea~h. as access was not available to the relatively undisturbed 2-mile reach between station LOF-1 and the confluence with Otter Creek. I Comparison with Previous Studies In his comprehensive statewide fish collections of the early 1940's, I Gerking (1945) surveyed 1 site each on Otter Creek, (Big) Graham Creek, and Little Graham Creek in the vicinity of JPG. The collection method used was se1n1ng. From his site descriptions, it appears that only the Little Graham Creek site may have actually been contiguous with l of the 1993 stations (LGC- 1, on the west perimeter). Gerking collected 17, 18, and 16 species, respectively, from the 3 streams. His collections contained 3 species not • found in the 1993 collections: white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), steelcolor shiner (Cyprinella whipplei), and blackstripe topminnow (Fundulus notatus). All 3 of these species are widespread, but typically not abundant in Indiana, • and all 3 may still be present at the base. With respect to individual streams, Gerking found 6 species each at Graham Creek and Little Graham Creek I and 1 species at Otter Creek that were collected during the 1993 study, but not at those particular streams. Of note were the presence of smallmouth bass in Graham and Little Graham Creeks (found only at all Otter Creek stations in I. the 1993 study), blackside darter in Little Graham Creek (3 specimens, all from 1 site in Otter Creek in the 1993 study), and mimic shiner from Graham Creek (2 specimens from 1 site in Otter Creek in the 1993 study). It is I. probable that these and other species were more widespread in all the streams during the time of Gerking's study, but have decreased due to the deteriorating aquatic habitat quality which most Indiana streams continue to experience. • Zook (1972) conducted a study of the Muscatatuck River watershed in 1971 for the IDNR. His stations near JPG included 1 site each on Otter Creek I (about 3 miles upstream from station OC-5, north of JPG), Graham Creek (about 2 miles downstream from station GC-1, west of JPG), and Little Graham Creek (adjacent to station LGC-1 at the west perimeter). He also surveyed 1 additional site each on Otter Creek and Graham Greek and 1 site on Big (Camp) Creek, all of which were considerably removed from JPG. The collection method used was rotenone. i Zook's species list for the subject streams included only 1 species not found in the 1993 study, the tadpole madtom (Noturus gyrinus); this species was taken at a site on Graham Greek far downstream from JPG. In general, his I collections showed a species composition and abundance very similar to the 1993 survey. His upstream Otter Greek station produced 21 species, but his downstream station (near the town of Vernon) produced 26 species with a much greater abundance of game fish. He collected smallmouth bass and spotted bass from Graham Greek and Little Graham Creek. The longear sunfish was one of his • most common species, averaging 93 individuals per station at the 3 stations : •• 17 • near JPG. The green sunfish was represented by 50 individuals from Little Graham creek, 14 from Otter Creek, and was absent from the Graham Creek Station. In his conclusions, he noted the high quality of Otter Creek and • Graham Creek . Glesne (1980h) conducted a fish and aquatic invertebrate survey on Otter Creek and Little Otter Creek, as part of a fishery management program at JPG. • He surveyed 3 stations on Otter Creek, which were approximately equivalent to stations OC-2, OC-3, and OC-5, and 1 station from Little Otter Creek which was near station LOF-1. The method used was a backpack electrofisher. He • collected 25 species from Otter Creek and 12 species from Little Otter Creek, all of which were also found in 1993 the collections except for the American 11 brook lamprey (Lampetra appendix) and the emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides). The former species was collected at 1 station on Otter Creek and described as rare. Emerald shiners were collected from 1 station on Otter Creek and described as common. Since emerald shiners were not found in the 1993 survey or in the other 2 stream surveys, it is likely that these • individuals were actually the similar silver shiner, which was not listed by Glesne, but was found in all the other surveys and was common in Otter Creek in the 1993 collections. He noted that predators (smallmouth bass, spotted • bass) were chiefly restricted to his downstream Otter Creek stations, corresponding to increased habitat diversity and productivity. Dr. Tom Simon of U.S. EPA conducted extensive fish collections • throughout the area surrounding JPG in 1992, in connection with EPA's Biocriteria Program (Simon 1991). Results from those surveys, which are not yet available, may provide additional information concerning fish populations • at JPG . Including all of the aforementioned collections, a total of 45 species • of fish have been collected from the streams .at or near JPG, with 1 additional species from Otter Creek several miles downst·ream. (Several other species. particularly larger stream and river species, have been collected much further • downstream, from the larger rivers in the Muscatatuck drainage.) A comparison of the results of the 1993 study to those of previous studies must be qualitative, since collection sites and methods were not • consistent. It generally appears that there were no great differences in terms of fish community composition. With minor exceptions, previous species lists were similar to the 1993 survey and for the most part the same species dominated the collections in all studies. One noticeable difference is in the ratio of green sunfish (generally considered an indicator of poor stream I quality) to longear sunfish (an indicator of healthy stream communities). A similar comparison (proportion of all individuals as green sunfish) is one of the metrics used in the IBI evaluation. Longear sunfish was o~e of the most abundant species in Zook's 1971 collection (2,017 individuals). The green sunfish was as commonly found as the longear, but was represented by only 285 individuals (a ratio of about 7:1). In the 1993 collections, the green sunfish was much more common (16 stations, compared to 8 for the longear), and was also more abundant (247 individuals, compared to 195 for the longear). As previously mentioned, game fish such as smallmouth bass and spotted bass were more widespread in previous studies, whereas chey were collected only from I I 18 I Otter Creek during the 1993 study. These differences may reflect a change in water(habitat quality in some of the streams, and they may be partially a result of the difference in station locations and sampling methods (e.g. Zook J 1972 used rotenone, which usually results in a more complete recovery of many species than does el~ctrofishing or seining). J The most notable conclusion from this study is the superior habitat quality and fish community health of Otter Creek. As previously mentioned, Otter Creek has a much greater proportion of unaltered, forested watershed I than the other large streams on JPG. Additionally, Otter Creek has a substantial forested riparian buffer throughout most of its course upstream from JPG. The upstream portions of Graham Creek and Big Creek generally have a much narrower forested riparian zone (especially Big Creek), and in some places are directly bordered by agricultural fields. A more intensive • comparison of habicat, watershed, and fish communities on these streams would be of value. I Aquatic Invertebrates I Limited research has been conducted on aquatic invertebrates in JPG streams. Glesne (1980£) collected a total of 31 taxa of macroinvertebrates at 4 sample sites on Otter Creek and Little Otter Creek. Chiromids, mayflies, and caddisflies were collected in greatest abundance. He noted that diversity I and biomass of invertebrates collected generally corresponded with discharge. A greater diversity and biomass of invertebrates were collected at stations with higher discharge. For a complete list of invertebrates collected by station, refer to Glesne (1980£). • A mussel survey on the section of Otter Creek crossing JPG was conducted during June 1994 (Bob Anderson, IDNR Nongame Aquatics Biologist, pers. commun.). Species identified (live or recently dead specimens) during the • survey include: fat mucket (Lampsilis siliguoidea); pocketbook (Lampsilis cardium); salamander mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua); Wabash pigtoe (Fusconaia ~); little spectacle case (Villosa lienosa); and floater (Pyganodon • (Anodonta) grandis). Relic specimens of cylinder papershells (Anodontoides ferussacianus), rainbow creekshell (Villose iris), and white heelsplitter (Lasmigona complanata) were also found. • The salamander mussel is a Federal candidate species (category 2) and a I State of Indiana species of special concern. Nineteen live salamander mussels were found under l rock during the survey. Additional specimens were present, but not counted. The host for this species is the mudpuppy, which is also a species of special concern in Indiana. The only other known location of a significant population of Salamander mussels in Indiana is in the Vernon Fork • of the Muscatatuck River (Harmon 1992). The population on JPG likely is, or was, connected to the population on the Vernon Fork (B. Anderson, pers. commun.). This species is very susceptible to land uses which increase stream silt loads. • One specimen of the little spectacle case, also a species of special concern in Indiana, but more common than the salamander mussel, was also - located during the survey. The host fish for the little spectacle case is .. .. --·----·------·---···-··------~ --~----- ~·~--· ----- 19 unknown. The fact that 2 listed mussels were found during the 1-day survey indicates that further sampling on JPG is warranted. During the survey, the researcher noted that the upper section of Otter Creek, from the northern boundary to the confluence with Little Otter Creek, I appeared to be unstable, with failing banks and loose unconsolidated substrate (B. Anderson, pers. commun.). Few species of mussels can tolerate the conditions found in this stretch, and correspondingly few were located. I Downstream from the confluence of Little Otter Creek conditions improved, but extensive areas of bedrock limited habitat quality for mussels in some portions. Overall, mussel diversity in Otter Creek was what would be expected I of a quality headwater stream. Additional mussel surveys were conducted on portions of Graham, Little Graham, Big, and Middle Fork Creeks in September 1994. Survey results are not I yet available . WILDLIFE RESOURCES A comprehensive inventory of JPG's wildlife resources has never been • conducted. However, both wildlife professionals and wildlife enthusiasts generally consider the base to contain a diverse wildlife community. Limited II survey data are available for amphibians, reptiles, birds, and bats. The entire perimeter of JPG is surrounded by an 8-foot high fence. If I intact, this fence would effectively create closed populations of large vertebrates on JPG. ln reality, there are numerous openings in the fence, such as gaps at stream crossings, which make it possible for even deer, the largest vertebrate on the base, to cross the boundary. There is ample evidence that deer do cross the boundary on occasion (K. Knouf, pers. • comrnun.) . The base has a long history of wildlife-related recreation. Hunting has been allowed on the base since 1953, when the first deer hunt was held. Deer hunting has developed into an annual tradition for many deer hunt I participants. Hunting access to JPG is limited to active or retired military personnel, civilian personnel working at JPG, and dependents and guests of these personnel. For deer and turkey hunts, a limited number of public hunters are allowed access through a lottery system. Nonconsumptive wildlife recreation has become increasingly popular, although access is limited (K. Knouf, pers. commun.) . TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATES • One conspicuous terrestrial invertebrate on JPG is the upland crayfish. The crayfish on the base are probably Cambarus diogenes, although this has not been definitively determined (Dr. Daryl Karns, Hanover College, pers. • commun.). The poorly-drained soils prevalent on JPG are an ideal substrate I for these crayfish. Upland crayfish build elaborate underground tunnel systems, which are connected to above-ground mounds (referred to as chimneys). These chimneys are very prevalent on JPG. Karns (pers. commun.) is impressed I with the apparent abundance of these crayfish at JPG and suggests that they I I 20 I should be studied; the crayfish may possibly be useful as indicators of subsurface water quality. I Very limited data are available regarding insects on JPG. An entomology class from Hanover College (Hanover, Indiana) collected insects on the base as an instructional activity. Dr. Lynetta Binger, the instructor, compiled a I list which documented that 96 families of insects were collected. This list, which includes both aquatic and terrestrial insects, was not intended to represent a comprehensive survey. AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES • I From a biogeographic perspective, the herp communities of southeastern Indiana are more similar to those in the south and eastern United States, compared to those to the north (Karns, In Press). This region of Indiana is considered to be herpetologically rich. Karns (pers. commun.) has conducted I extensive herpetological surveys in southeastern Indiana and noted that JPG is the richest herpetological site he has found. I The herpetofauna of JPG have not been extensively studied. Karns (1986) conducted a herpetofaunal survey of Jefferson County, Indiana, in 1985-1986. Several sites on JPG were included in the study. Karns has also made annual visits to the JPG since 1985 with a herpetology class he teaches at Hanover I College. In 1993, Karns conducted additional herpetological surveys as part of an environmental assessment of the area south of the firing line on JPG (D. Karns, pers. commun.). In 1994, Karns initiated a herp population monitoring program at JPG. This program centers on several riparian corridors. Table 5 presents the species list for JPG resulting from Karn's surveys (with the • exception of the record for the mudpuppy, which was the result of a single I specimen caught on JPG during the 1993 Stream Survey). Karns surveyed 4 sites on JPG primarily using drift-fence sampling and hand-collecting (Karns 1986; Karns, In Press). Road cruising, searching roads for road kills and live herps crossing the road, was also employed. The 4 • sites included an old field, an early successional flatwood (wet site, but no permanent water), a mature flatwood (wet site, but no permanent water), and a mature forest adjacent to Graham Creek. The mature woods adjacent to Graham Creek supported the most diverse herp community of the sites surveyed on JPG. • Karns (In Press) attributed this result to the structural complexity of the mature forest site, the forest·moderated microclimate, and the adjacent water. Karns notes that this survey was conducted when the majority of herps were probably in their summer feeding ranges. A survey coinciding with active breeding movements in late winter/spring may provide a different picture of the herpetofauna of the area. • Amphibians dominated the herpetofauna at all forest sites on JPG. Wood frogs were the most widespread and abundant woodland anurans and redback salamanders were the most widespread forest salamander. Southeastern Indiana • is notably rich in species of the family Plethodontidae (lungless salamanders), of which the redback salamander is a member. The presence of individuals of the all-red "erythristic" color-morph at the Graham Creek site • is particularly noteworthy. This appears to be the only location in Indiana I I ll· 21 • where this color phase has been recorded. Eastern zigzag salamanders (Plethodon ~dorsalis) were absent on the JPG sites, but were a common woodland species at other sites in Jefferson County (Karns 1986). These 2 • species tend to have disjunct local distributions. Longtail salamanders I dominated the Graham Creek site. Reptiles were infrequently trapped at forest sites. Kirtland's snakes, a State of Indiana threatened species and Federal candidate (category 2), were found at the flatwood sites and at 1 grassland site on JPG. Kirtland's snakes are known to use upland crayfish burrows, which are abundant in the flatwoods, • for refuges, aestivation, and possibly overwintering. Ringneck snakes were also collected at forested sites. Midland banded watersnakes and queen snakes, both aquatic species, were collected in the creekbed at the Graham Creek site. Five-lined skinks were trapped at the Graham Creek site. Eastern box turtles were observed at all forest sites, but only 1 was trapped; the I trapping technique utilized was not conducive to catching turtles. The old field site was lower in species richness and diversity compared to the forested sites. The old field habitat was dominated by reptiles. Garter snakes, black rat snakes, and southern black racers were the most frequently encountered snakes. Eastern box turtles were common. In April-May, 1993, Karns (pers. commun.) sampled 5 stream sites on JPG, including sites on Harbert's, Middlefork, Big Graham (eastern and western sites), and Little Graham Creeks. Based on this sampling, Karns describes Middlefork Creek as a typical southern Indiana flatrock stream with a rich plethodontid salamander fauna. Compared to the other sites sampled, Little Graham Creek had less forest border and common woodland salamanders (redback, slimy, ravine, red-spotted) were absent. The 2 segments of Big Graham Creek surveyed had the highest species richness and abundance. Harbert's Creek was clearly depauperate compared to other sites sampled, in spite of the fact that the stream is bordered by woodland. Karns (pers. commun.) could offer no obvious explanation for the lack of herps in.the vicinity of Harbert's Creek and feels that the situation merits further evaluation. Due to techniques used in previous surveys, turtles and snakes were not well represented (D. Karns, pers. commun.). Additional turtle and snake surveys will be conducted during 1994 by the FWS. Karns (pers. commun.) notes that the Northern copperbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta), which is currently proposed to be listed as a Federally threatened species and is listed as a State of Indiana threatened species, may occur on JPG. Portions of the base provide suitable habitat for the species, and the lack of records probably results from the spotty distribution of the species as well as lack of collecting effort . Based on 9 years of experience working with herps on JPG, Karns (pers. commun.) offered several general impressions regarding the herpetofauna of the • base. He describes the forested riparian corridors as the prime feature of JPG with respect to the herpetofaunal community. Graham Creek is a particularly rich area. He notes that the eastern side of the base has been disturbed (more burning, mowing, clearing) to a greater extent than the western side and this is reflected in the herpetofauna. For example, there is • ------• 22 less diversity and abundance in the herp community of the east end of • Middlefork Creek compared to the west side. Karns also mentions unique habitat features on JPG resulting from the military mission on the base. Ruts I and pits are common in the firebreaks which have been maintained on the base. Due to the poorly-d~ained nature of the soils, the ruts and pits fill with water. Similarly, craters resulting from ordnance testing also fill with I water. These areas provide an abundance of amphibian breeding habitat. The absence of permanent water in some areas is probably ameliorated by the abundance of these ruts, pits, and craters. BIRDS • JPG supports a diverse avian community. A 1993 survey of breeding birds documented 103 species using the base during the breeding season. The large • expanse of hardwood forest north of K Road appears to be particularly important to many species of birds using the base. Regionally, there is a lack of unfragmented blocks of forest, which provides habitat for many species of birds. • 1993 Survey of Breeding Birds • Between May 29, 1993 and June 17, 1993, a survey of breeding birds was conducted on JPG (Pruitt et al., In Prep.). Eleven survey routes were I identified and birds along the routes were recorded if they were identified by sight or sound. Study sites were selected to maximize the potential for recording all breeding species at JPG. Three major habitat types used by the avian community, including wet flatwoods, dry-upland forest, and grass/shrubland, were identified and used as the basis for selecting survey • routes. No survey routes were located in swamp/marsh habitat, which is rare on JPG. A total of 103 species was observed during the breeding season (Table 6). Pruitt et a1. (In Prep.) summarized survey data for each site and • included lists of plant species at each of the survey sites. Note that this survey was designed to determine what species of birds breed at JPG. J Additional research will be needed to evaluate the size of the population or specific habitat use of any given species. Of the species recorded on JPG during the 1993 survey, 10 are listed by the State of Indiana or the FWS (Table 7). These include 8 State of Indiana • species of special concern, 2 State of Indiana threatened and endangered species, 5 FWS Region 3 species of concern, and 2 Federal candidate species. I Refer to the THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES section of this report for definitions of State and Federal Classifications Comparison with Previous Studies • A review of range maps and accounts of species distributions reveals I that nearly every species of land bird expected to nest at JPG was recorded there during the 1993 survey (Robbins et al. 1966, Peterson 1980, Terres 1980). The Indiana Breeding Bird Atlas (BBA) was completed in the JPG area from 1986-1990. It should be noted that the BBA sites which included JPG also II included areas off the base. Therefore, not all species located in the BBA I I -~~ -~ - ~ ------~---~--~--~------• 23 • records were necessarily found on JPG. The BBA identified 9 species in the JPG area which were not observed on JPG during the 1993 survey: ruffed grouse 11 (Bonasa umbellus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), purple martin (Progne subis), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), dickcissel (Spiza americana), vesper I sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), and savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis). JPG is on the edge of the documented breeding ranges of the northern harrier, willow flycatcher and savannah sparrow; it is not surprising they were not detected during the survey. (It should be noted that while the northern harrier was not detected during the survey, a pair was observed • during the 1994 breeding season in the grassland at the airport area. The pair's behavior suggested they were nesting although no nest was located (S. Pruitt, pers. commun.). The purple martin and barn swallow are probably present, but the 1993 survey did not include their preferred habitats. The ruffed grouse is present, probably in low numbers, but was not detected during the survey. Due to the vesper sparrow's similarity, in both sight and song, with the song sparrow, observer error may be responsible for its absence during the 1993 survey. Field work for the 1993 survey was not conducted during the great horned owl's peak hooting period. Survey timing coupled with secretive habits of the great horned owl could explain why it was not recorded. Finally, the diskcissel is known to be an erratic user of breeding areas, in that it may breed in an area 1 year and then be absent for several years. For a more detailed account of the BBA surveys, refer to Castrale and • Hopkins (unpubl. data). I Additional Bird Community Data During mid-April to mid-May, 1994, the FWS conducted a survey of migrating birds on JPG. The purpose of the survey was to determine which I species of migrating birds use JPG and to establish baseline data on the importance of JPG as a stopover site for birds during migration. The results of the survey are not yet available, but prel"iminary results indicate that I large numbers of migrating birds use JPG (S. Pruitt, pers. commun.). Although not observed during the survey, the American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius), and Kirtland's warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii) may use JPG during migration. All of these birds are Federally endangered species • and future surveys should be sensitive to the potential for these species to occur. Bald eagles have been observed on JPG during the winter. Since 1980-1981, the southwestern portion of JPG has been included in the annual Hanover-Madison Christmas count. The results are published I annually in the Indiana Audubon Quarterly and American Birds. The published reports do not segregate JPG observations from the rest of the count data. It is noteworthy that all Hanover-Madison Christmas count record; of long-eared owl, short-eared owl, savannah sparrow, and LeConte's sparrow were from JPG • (Webster 1993). Since 1981, the southwestern portion of JPG has also been included in I· the annual Jefferson County "Big May Day Count." Results are published annually in the Indiana Audubon Quarterly, but JPG data are not segregated I from the county data . • J 24 Dr. J. Dan Webster, Professor emeritus of Biology at Hanover College, compiled annual summer bird counts for Jefferson County from 1986-1992, and ' for Jennings and Ripley Counties in 1990. Reports of these counts were J published in Indiana Audubon Quarterly, but JPG data were not segregated. Dr. Webster is also condvcting an ongoing project to determine the population status of the red-shouldered hawk on JPG and several other sites in the area. I Parts of JPG provide good habitat for the Eastern bluebird. Two bluebird trails have been established on the base (K. Knouf, pers. commun.). Wild turkey have been hunted annually on the base every spring since 1982. Approximately 900 hunter days/year of recreation are provided. Between ' 1989 and 1994, harvest has been approximately 40-50 turkey per year. The I popularity of this program is obvious in that demand for turkey hunting permits far exceeds supply. Limited harvest of bobwhite quail and woodcock also occurs; harvest of these 2 species combined ranged from 223 to 577 birds J per year from 1990-1993. Great Blue Heron Rookery JPG supports one of the largest great blue heron nesting colonies • (referred to as a rookery) in the State of Indiana. The rookery is located on the banks of Graham Creek in the northeast portion of the property (Twp 7N, I Range lOE, SW 1/4 of Section 35). Beginning in 1983 the IDNR, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, began surveying great blue heron colonies in Indiana (Iverson 1985). In 1983, the JPG colony had 58 total nests and that J number has steadily grown in subsequent years (Castrale 1990). On April 21, 1993, the colony consisted of 217 nests, 185 of which were active (K. Knouf, pers. commun.) A detailed examination of the colonies' behavior and a I description of the roost trees were completed in 1987 (Arvin 1987). The steady growth of the colony is most likely due to the low level of human disturbance. I Avian Productivity and Survivorship Survey Since 1989, the Institute for Bird Populations has been coordinating the I Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) program. MAPS is a cooperative program among public and private agencies and individual bird banders in North America to operate a continent·wide network of constant I effort mist-netting and banding stations. The goal of the program is to provide annual indices and estimates of adult population size, post-fledging productivity, adult survivorship, and recruitment into the adult population for landbird species (DeSante and Burton 1994). Productivity and survivorship I data are not provided by any other existing avian monitoring program in North America and are needed to guide research and management efforts. The Institute for Bird Populations has received a contract through the Legacy I Program of the Department of Defense to establish 36 MAPS stations on selected military installations in the Midwest. Six of these stations were established on JPG during the spring of 1994. The current contract covers the operation I --~of these stations from 1994-1997. When available, the MAPS data will not only improve our knowledge of the continent-wide status of landbirds, but will also aid research and management efforts on JPG. I I •• • 25 No comprehensive survey of mammals has been conducted on J?G. Based on distributions presented by Mumford and Whitaker (1982), 41 species of mammals probably occur an the base (Table 8). These include 2 species listed by the State of Indiana or FWS. The Indiana bat, a species on both the Federal and State endangered species lists, is known to inhabit the base (Pruitt et al., • In Prep.). JPG is at the southern edge of the range of the least weasel (Burt and Grossenheider 1976), a State species of special concern. It has not been documented on the base, but suitable habitat for this species does occur. The • evening bat, a State endangered species, is extremely rare in Indiana and is nat included in Table 8. Although the historic range of this species includes IJ southeastern portion of Indiana (Mumford and Whitaker 1982), there is limited potential for this species to occur on JPG. The status of the evening bat is discussed in the section titled 1993 - 1994 Bat Survey. In addition to the mammals listed in Table 8, 4 additional species have • traditional ranges which do not include JPG, but which are reasonably close (Burt and Grossenheider 1976) and these species have been documented in surrounding counties (Mumford and Whitaker 1982). These include: bobcat • (Felis~). a State endangered species; eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana), a Federal candidate (category 2) and State threatened species; gray bat (Myotis grisescens), a Federally and State endangered species; and badger (Taxidea ~). a State threatened species. (Refer to the THREATENED • AND ENDANGERED SPECIES section of this report for definitions of State and Federal Classifications). Any future surveys of the mammals of JPG should be • sensitive to the potential for these species to occur on the base . A scent-post survey for bobcats was conducted in 1993 (Mohr and Ingold 1993) but failed to produce any evidence of bobcats an JPG. However, there • have been numerous unconfirmed reports of bobcats on the base (K. Knauf, pers . commun.). There was a confirmed bobcat rep0rt in Jefferson County, 2 miles south of Hanover in the Ohio River bluffs, in January 1982 (Scott Johnson, • IDNR Nongame Wildlife Biologist, pers. commun.) . To determine the distribution of the Eastern woodrat, 100 potential sites in Perry, Crawford, Harrison, Floyd, Clark, and Jefferson counties were • inspected for evidence of woodrats (Cudmore 1985). Twenty-four sites had evidence of woodrats. Active sites were restricted primarily to the limestone u bluffs along the Ohio River in Crawford and Harrison counties. In 1993, Madej and Johnson (1993) searched 27 new sites in Perry, Crawford, Harrison, Floyd, Clark, and Jefferson Counties for evidence of woodrats. Only 1 site in Harrison County had active woodrat sign. Their work supported the conclusion reached by Whitaker (1979) and Cudmore (1985) that the Eastern woodrat in • Indiana is currently restricted to parts of the southern boundaries of Harrison and Crawford counties. However, Madej and Johnson (1993) note there • is potential for additional populations of woodrats north of the Ohio River. Brack et al. (1984) located a maternity colony of gray bats in a flooded D quarry in Clark County. This is the only known maternity colony in Indiana. There are a few recent records of gray bats in Indiana bat hibernacula in ..• . ---- .. ------• 26 Crawford County (S. Johnson, pers. commun.). The potential for gray bats to • occur on JPG is considered low (Dr. John 0. Whitaker, Jr., Indiana State I University, pers. commun.) but should not be overlooked. The badger is considered scarce throughout Indiana, particularly in the southern half of the State (Mumford and Whitaker 1982). However, the Indiana I Natural Heritage Program Database contains 2 records for badgers in Jefferson County since 1985. Mumford and Whitaker (1982) report badger records from Bartholomew and Dearborn counties. The poorly-drained soils prevalent on JPG are not favorable for badgers. • Mammals hunted or trapped on JPG include white-tailed deer, fox I squirrel, gray squirrel, raccoon, Eastern cottontail, coyote, red fox, and gray fox. With the exception of deer, hunting pressure for these species is low. I 1993 - 1994 Bat Survey During June of 1993, a bat survey was conducted on JPG (Pruitt et al., I In Prep.). Most species of bats use streams with wooded banks as travel corridors and foraging areas. Four wooded riparian corridor sites at JPG were mist-net surveyed for a total of 11 net-nights. Between June 21-June 29, I 1993, 25 individuals representing 7 species of bats were captured. Eastern pipistrelle was the most frequently captured bat, with 9 captured. Five Eastern red bats were captured. Four big brown bats were caught. Two each of little brown bat, Keen's bat, and Indiana bat were captured. A single hoary I bat was caught. Between June 8-August 3, 1994, 101 individuals representing 7 species of I bats were captured. Captures included: little brown bat - 28; Eastern red bat - 24; Eastern pipistrelle - 20; big brown bat - 16; Indiana bat - 7; Keen's bat - 3; and hoary bat - 3. Five wooded riparian corridor sites were surveyed for a total of 28 net-nights. The Indiana bat is listed as endangered by the I FWS and the State of Indiana. Management recommendations for Indiana bats will be discussed in the FOREST MANAGEMENT section of this plan. I The 7 species of bats caught represent all the species one would expect considering the scope of the survey. A review of the literature reveals that only 2 bats, the silver-haired bat and the evening bat, with ranges that I include the JPG area, were not collected during the 1993-1994 survey (Mumford and Whitaker 1982, Harvey 1992). The silver-haired bat is typically an uncommon spring and fall migrant and a rare winter resident in Indiana (Mumford and Whitaker 1982). Given that the JPG survey was conducted during I the summer, it would have been very unlikely to have captured silver-haired bats. It was also unlikely that evening bats would have been encountered because all of the maternity colony records for Indiana were in man-made I structures (Whitaker and Gummer 1993). There were very few suitable structures within the area of JPG where mist-netting was conducted. Evening bats have been found summering in trees, in cavities or beneath loose bark, in I other parts of their range. Evening bats are extremely rare in Indiana; only 1 known colony exits (Whitaker and Gummer 1993). Whitaker and Gummer (1993) I I 27 • report that there are records from 1954 of evening bats just east of JPG in Ripley county. However, their mist-netting efforts at this site in 1992 did • not yield any evening bats . Vhite-tailed Deer Undoubtedly, the most conspicuous mammal on JPG is the white-tailed • deer. JPG is known to support a large deer herd. The herd is very popular with wildlife enthusiasts, both hunters and wildlife watchers. JPG has a long deer hunting tradition. The hunt was instituted in 1953 and has been •Q conducted annually. During the late 1980's, there were several indicators that a decrease in the deer herd was desirable. The natural resource manager, forester, and other professionals on the base noted that deer were having adverse impacts on vegetation (K. Knouf, pers. commun.). Foresters on JPG abandoned attempts to plant trees for regeneration purposes, partially because deer were heavily • browsing and damaging planted trees. Even natural regeneration following timber harvest was being heavily browsed. Trees and shrubs planted for landscaping purposes were almost invariably killed unless protected from deer. • Data collected from harvested deer indicated that the physical condition of deer on JPG was not as good as the condition of deer in surrounding areas (Albright et al. 1989). This is not surprising given that deer in surrounding • areas have access to agricultural crops, which are high quality foods compared to the natural forage available to JPG deer. However, the relative scarcity of high quality forage coupled with the evidence of heavy browsing on woody • vegetation indicated a need to decrease the herd . The population estimates for JPG reflect that the deer population has been decreasing since 1988 (Mitchell 1994). Biologists have manipulated • harvest regulations to bring about this population reduction. The total JPG deer harvest has declined from 800 in 1988 to 523 in 1993 (Mitchell 1993, 1994). During the same period, the population estimate for the base declined from 67 deer/square mile to 26 deer/square mile, which approximates 2,300 deer • on the base. These population estimates probably exaggerate the actual magnitude of the change in deer herd size, but there is little doubt that herd size has decreased (Dr. Jim Mitchell, IDNR Wildlife Research Biologist, pers. • commun.). There is evidence that the population reduction has produced some desirable results. Deer browsing on woody vegetation has declined and deer 0 physical condition indices have improved (K. Knauf, pers. commun.) . There is a tremendous interest in deer hunting on JPG and the hunting program provides recreational use of this important renewable resource. Currently, deer hunting is providing 4,000 - 5,000 hunter days of recreation • per year on JPG. Demand for permits exceeds supply; in 1993 'only 26X of Indiana hunters who applied to hunt deer on JPG with a gun were drawn in the permit lottery. The deer hunting program also generates revenue that is used • for natural resource programs on the base. During 1993, deer hunting permits generated over $12,000 in revenue for the natural resource management program 0 on the base (K. Knouf, pers. commun.). In addition, hunters on the base are required to purchase state licenses, generating revenue for the IDNR . • Volunteers provide most of the personnel needed to administer the hunt; • • 28 volunteer effort was valued at almost $16,000 in 1993 (K. Knouf, pers. • commun.). I FISH AND WILDLIFE HABIT AT MANAGEMENT I FRAMEWORK FOR HABITAT MANAGEMENT The habitat management recommendations in this plan are designed to maintain or enhance the fish and wildlife resources on JPG. These • recommendations will not only provide for a diverse fish and wildlife community on JPG, but will also consider fish and wildlife habitat in a local I and regional context. Habitat management recommendations will focus on maintaining or improving habitat quality for groups of vulnerable species. Particular attention will be given to the forest-interior ecosystem. Forest I interior habitats and associated wildlife species are declining due to forest conversion and forest fragmentation in remaining forest lands. Forest interior birds provide an excellent example of the impacts of the loss of forest-interior habitats. • Threatened and endangered wildlife species are of primary concern with respect to habitat management. Specific habitat management guidelines will be I provided for those species which are listed as endangered or threatened by the State of Indiana or the Federal government. As in the past, natural resource management activities on JPG should I continue to be coordinated with the IDNR and FWS. LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY APPROACH TO HABITAT MANAGEMENT I Habitat fragmentation has become a topic of increasing concern for natural resource managers. Habitat fragmentation occurs when a large block of I a fairly homogenous vegetation type is broken up and converted to other land uses. Most frequently, the term is applied to forested habitat, but the term can also be applied to fragmentation of other habitat types such as grasslands. The classic example of fragmentation in the Midwest has been the I dissection of large blocks of forest and prairie for agriculture. As the amount of land converted to agriculture and other land uses increases, less and less habitat is available for most species of native wildlife. The I remaining patches of habitat become increasingly isolated. Timber harvest or creation of openings within remaining forest patches may further accentuate fragmentation. I Contemporary wildlife research demonstrates that some species of wildlife require large blocks of fairly homogenous habitat. These species may be referred to as area-sensitive. Area-sensitive species that require I forested habitat are referred to as forest-interior species. As large blocks of habitat are fragmented, populations of these species do poorly, or disappear entirely, from the remaining patches of habitat. Increasing I awareness of these negative impacts of fragmentation have led wildlife managers to re-evaluate many traditional habitat management practices. I I II 29 • Many species of wildlife are attracted to edge habitats, that is, areas where 2 or more different habitat types adjoin. Yildlife managers and researchers have long recognized that there is generally an increase in • wildlife numbers and diversity along boundaries between habitat types. This increase is referred to as the "edge effect. • One example of habitat management to maximize edge is the creation of patch clearcuts within a forest stand. A resource manager seeking to maximize edge would favor small • clearcuts scattered throughout a forest stand over 1 large clearcut. The creation of edge is synonymous with habitat fragmentation. Traditionally, creation of edge was considered an effective way to maximize the diversity and • numbers of wildlife in an area. Howevet, widespread application of this Q approach will actually lead to a loss of regional wildlife diversity. Yhen viewed on a large geographic scale, habitat management to maximize edge can lead to a decrease in wildlife species diversity because habitat fragmentation occurs. If each individual tract of land is managed to maximize edge, the numbers and diversity of wildlife species on the individual tracts • may be relatively high, but the wildlife community on all the tracts will tend to be composed of edge-tolerant wildlife species. The area-sensitive species that do not thrive near edges will be lost. Conversely, managing large blocks • of habitat for area-sensitive species will not result in the loss of edge species because on a landscape scale, edge is abundant. Managing for wildlife species diversity on an individual management unit without considering land • use patterns both within and beyond the individual management unit is not generally a good criteria for management. The resource manager should consider the landscape perspective when developing a management plan. • As discussed previously, JPG is primarily forested. The area surrounding JPG is primarily agricultural (cropland and pasture) and forest land exists primarily as scattered woodlots. Viewed on a regional basis, • there is an abundance of edge habitat, but a scarcity of large blocks of forested habitat. JPG is the largest relatively-continuous forest block in the southeastern portion of Indiana. The problem is not isolated in Indiana; throughout the entire Midwestern region of the United States, large blocks of • forest have been cleared and remaining forests are severely fragmented. JPG represents a unique opportunity, locally and regionally, to manage for the • needs of forest-interior wildlife species. Q NEOTROPICAL MIGRANTS AND OTHER FOREST-DWELLING BIRDS To date, much of the research that has been conducted on forest-interior wildlife species and the effects of forest fragmentation on these species has focused on birds. Recent analyses of regional bird population counts and other data indicate that many forest-dwelling bird species, a majority of • which are Neotropical migrant birds (NTMB), have experienced'widespread population declines in North America (Finch 1991). NTMB are species that breed in North America and winter in Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, • and South America. Analyses of data from the FYS Breeding Bird Survey (BBS}, a technique for tracking trends in breeding bird populations, showed that D populations of 75% of forest NTMB declined between 1978-1987 (Robbins et al. 1989~). Forest fragmentation on the breeding grounds and deforestation of • wintering habitats are considered primary factors contributing to the decline II • 30 of NTMB. • I Area-sensitivity of many species of forest NTMB, as well as some short distance migrants and resident landbirds, has been the focus of much research in recent years. Re~ident species are defined as those which remain within a relatively small geographic area throughout the year, with at most, small scale movements. Short-distance migrants winter south of their breeding • grounds, but north of the tropics. Why are these area-sensitive species so vulnerable to decline? Small forests may not provide the microhabitats required by some species; these microhabitat relationships are not well understood (Martin 1992). However, the inability of these birds to raise • young successfully in fragmented forests is increasingly apparent. As the proportion of edge habitat to forest-interior habitat increases, brood parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird and nest predation also increase (Gates • and Gysel 1978, Brittingham and Temple 1983, Wilcove 1985, Temple and Cary 1988, Faaborg et al. 1993, Herkert et al. 1993, Robinson et al. 1993). Brood parasitism and nest predation have been the topic of much recent research. • Nest parasitism is a term describing the nesting behavior of cowbirds. Cowbirds lay their eggs in the nests of other birds, which then incubate the eggs and raise the cowbird young. Cowbirds reduce nest success of the host • because they often remove an egg from the host nest before laying their own egg. The cowbird eggs hatch 1-3 days earlier than the eggs of the host. Cowbird young grow faster than the young of host species, which results in the • co~bird young getting the most parental care. Brown-headed cowbirds are more abundant in forest edges than in the forest interior. Many edge-tolerant breeding birds have developed adaptations to respond to nest parasitism by co~birds. co~bird • Some birds recognize and remove eggs from their nests, or they may abandon parasitized nests and renest. In contrast, forest-interior nesting birds have not developed behaviors to deal with cowbird parasitism. In addition, many edge-tolerant birds are short-distance migrants or permanent • residents and can nest several times. This may improve nesting success for these birds because cowbirds tend not to parasitize late-season nests. Many forest-interior birds are NTMB and can only nest once or twice a year because • of time constraints imposed by migration. Parasitism may result in failure of these birds to raise any young (Robinson 1992). • Many species of avian and mammalian nest predators are also more abundant along edges compared to the forest interior. In addition to being I more vulnerable to nest parasitism, forest-interior species also tend to be more vulnerable to predation than other birds. Forest-interior birds generally nest on or near the ground and have open-cup nests, which are more vulnerable to predators than nests above ground or in cavities. Also, because J forest-interior NTMBs can only produce l-2 broods per year, they have limited potential for renesting following predation compared to residents or short distance migrants. Brood parasitism and nest predation pose serious threats to populations • of forest-interior birds. The dynamics of brood parasitism and nest predation relative to forest-block size are complex. For example, research has revealed large regional differences in the size of a forest block required to minimize the impacts of co~bird parasitism and nest predators on breeding birds. This I I • 31 research will be discussed in more detail in the FOREST MANAGEMENT section of this plan. However, one can generalize that as forest fragmentation increases, rates of brood parasitism and nest predation also increase. In addition to higher rates of nest parasitism and predation in fragmented forests, rates of interspecific competition also increase (Faaborg et al. 1993). Small forest blocks tend to be dominated by resident "generalist" birds that are common in many habitats. These habitat generalists compete for food, nest sites, and other resources with habitat "specialists" (Blake 1983). Area-sensitive forest breeding birds also tend to have reduced pairing success (i.e. lower chance of attracting mates) in small forest blocks. Forest-interior birds are sometimes found nesting in small forest patches that are not optimal habitat. Robinson (1992) found several NTMB that are generally considered forest-interior species breeding in small (less than 70 ha) woodlots in Illinois. In the highly-fragmented landscape, there were no local alternatives for these birds but to nest in these small forest patches, which Gates and Gysel (1978) refer to as ecological traps. Forest interior bird populations that nest within small forest patches often have breeding productivity that does not exceed mortality. These populations are not self-sustaining. Without immigration from outside sources, these populations would no longer exist (Freemark et al. 1993). These immigration dependent populations are commonly called sink populations. Sink populations are dependent on source populations which have breeding productivity that exceeds mortality. Robinson (1992) concluded that the woodlots he studied in Illinois were population sinks for many NTMB, which experienced 80% nest predation rates and 76% nest paras1t1sm rates. He hypothesized that immigrants to this region of Illinois must be coming from source populations at least 200 km away. Because of the large block of relatively-unfragmented habitat available at JPG, it is probable that it supports source populations of some forest interior birds (Pruitt et al., In Prep.). The status of forest-interior bird populations on JPG should certainly be the focus of additional research. In addition to the availability of suitable breeding habitat, NTMB populations are probably also influenced by the availability of suitable stopover sites during migration. Because of the time and energy demands of migration, migrating birds may be particularly vulnerable to alteration or loss of stopover habitat along migration corridors (Finch 1991). Stopover ecology has not been extensively studied, but is emerging as an important .. aspect of NTMB biology. Moore and Simons (1992) hypothesized that forest fragmentation, which is known to affect the quality of breed.ing habitat, may also affect habitat use during migration. During May 1994, a survey of migrating birds was conducted at JPG. Initial results suggest that JPG may be .. an important stopover site for migrating birds (S. Pruitt, pers. commun.). Forest-interior birds are experiencing declines throughout their range. II Land-clearing for agriculture, urban development, and other land use has led .. to severe fragmentation of breeding grounds. In addition to loss of breeding II I 32 I habitat to land-clearing, land management on remaining habitat has not addressed the habitat needs of area-sensitive species. It is critical that I habitat management on the remaining available habitat for these species be incorporated into land management plans or local and regional extinctions of these species are li~ely to occur (Herkert et al. 1993). I Forest-breeding birds provide an excellent example of the potential for JPG to have a regionally significant impact on forest-interior species. In an evaluation of birds in Illinois, Herkert et al. (1993) classified 47 forest I bird species based on sensitivity to habitat fragmentation (high, moderate, low sensitivity). Highly sensitive species are those which nest in large blocks of continuous forested habitat and are rarely found nesting in small forest blocks. They classified 13 species of forest-breeding birds as highly I sensitive to forest fragmentation; 10 of these species have breeding ranges which include JPG. All 10 species were found on JPG during the 1993 survey of breeding birds, including: broad-winged hawk, pileated woodpecker, least I flycatcher, yellow-throated warbler, black-and-white warbler, worm-eating warbler, cerulean warbler, ovenbird, hooded warbler, and American redstart. All 15 species classified as moderateiy-sensitive to fragmentation by Herkert I et al. (1993) were also found breeding on JPG. Ten species of birds observed during the 1993 survey of breeding birds on JPG are listed as species of special concern, threatened, or endangered (or candidates for threatened/endangered status) by the FWS or the State of Indiana (Table 7). I All except the golden-winged warbler (generally associated with old field/shrub habitat) and Henslow's sparrow (a grassland species) are considered sensitive to forest fragmentation by Robinson (1991) or Herkert et I al. (1993). From the standpoint of forest-interior bird populations, JPG is a highly-significant resource in this region where the landscape is severely fragmented. Recommendations for forest habitat management in this plan will I emphasize forest-interior birds. Biologists are increasingly aware that declines of individual species are not isolated events, rather, declines reflect overall degradation of I biological communities (Hunter et al. 1993). Therefore, recommendations for focusing habitat management on JPG to benefit forest-interior species should be viewed not only as an attempt to benefit forest-interior species, but also I as an attempt to preserve the forest-interior ecosystem on JPG. The entire biological community associated with forest-interior habitats is vulnerable because of the loss of many forest-interior ecosystems. Focusing on the I ecosystem rather than on the needs of individual species is a biologically sound approach and also makes the most efficient use of financial and logistical resources. I THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Ecosystem management may not be adequate to address the needs of I threatened or endangered species. Resource managers need to specifically address the needs of these species. Ecosystem management complements, but does not replace, management for individual threatened and endangered species. I A discussion of habitat requirements and management recommendations for all \ State and Federal threatened and endangered species will be included in this plan. These recommendations are not meant to be comprehensive, but rather to I I 33 • serve as a starting point in considering management for these species . Consultation with State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies is not only strongly recommended, but also legally mandated, when considering any action • that could impact threatened or endangered species. The State of Indiana and ~S use some of the same terms to classify species status, but the definitions and legal status are not the same. Federal Classifications are as follow: Endangered species - any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range; Threatened species - any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range; Candidate species - species which are under review for endangered or threatened status. Candidate species are further classified as Category 1, 2, or 3. Listing of Category 1 species is anticipated, and the ~S encourages other Federal agencies to give consideration to these species in environmental planning. Category 2 indicates that listing as endangered or threatened may be appropriate, but • additional data are needed. Research on the vulnerability, taxonomy and threats to these species is encouraged. Category 3 species are not current • candidates for listing. The State of Indiana definition for endangered is: ''Any animal species II whose prospects for survival or recruitment within the state are in immediate jeopardy and are in danger of disappearing from the state. This includes all species classified as endangered by the Federal government which occur in Indiana. Plants known to occur currently on five or fewer sites in the state are considered endangered. 11 Threatened species are defined as: "Any animal • species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. This includes all species classified as threatened by the Federal government which occur in Indiana. Plants known to occur currently on from six to ten sites • are considered threatened." State species of special concern are: ''Any animal species about which some problems of :limited abundance or distribution in Indiana are known or suspected and should be closely monitored." State • extirpated species are: "Any animal species that has been absent from Indiana as a naturally occurring breeding population for more than 15 years." (Definitions from IDNR 1993). • Species are classified as Federally endangered or threatened pursuant to Q the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205 as amended). This act prohibits the "taking" of animals listed as endangered or threatened. Federally-listed plants are protected when Federal funding or permits are required. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires that each Federal I agency shall, in consultation with the ~s. insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the I destruction or adverse modification of its habitat. Vertebrates, mollusks, and crustaceans classified as endangered or threatened in Indiana are protected from "taking" pursuant to the Nongame and 0 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Indiana Code 14-2-8.5) and Fish and Wildlife Administrative Rules (310 lAC 3.1-2-7). Plants are protected by the Nature • Preserves Act (Indiana Code 14-4-5). I • 34 There are 6 State or Federally threatened or endangered animal species, • or species which are candidates for threatened/endangered status, known to inhabit JPG, including: salamander mussel, Federal candidate species (Category 2); Kirtland's snake, State of Indiana threatened; cerulean warbler, • Federal candidate SRecies (Category 2); Henslow's sparrow, State of Indiana threatened and Federal candidate species (Category 2); northern harrier, State I of Indiana endangered; and Indiana bat, State of Indiana and Federally endangered. The bald eagle, a State of Indiana and Federally endangered species, and the short-eared owl, State of Indiana endangered species, have been observed on the base during winter, but are not discussed in detail in this report because they do not currently breed on JPG. • Habitat requirements and management recommendations for threatened and I endangered species will be included in this plan. The Indiana bat and cerulean warbler will be discussed in the FOREST MANAGEMENT section. The Henslow's sparrow, northern harrier, and Kirtland's snake will be discussed in J the GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT section. The salamander mussel will be discussed in the STREAM MANAGEMENT section. Management recommendations for the river otter, Luera canadensis, an extirpated species in Indiana, will also be discussed. The IDNR has completed a feasibility study for the reintroduction of the river otter in Indiana (Johnson and Madej 1994). An experimental • release of otters is scheduled for the winter of 1994-1995. Recommendations will be discussed in the STREAM MANAGEMENT section because otters are I dependent on riparian and wetland habitats. There was a single observation of a golden-winged warbler, a State of I Indiana endangered species, during the 1993 survey of breeding birds on JPG. However, management recommendations for the golden-winged warbler will not be incorporated in this plan. JPG is south of the documented breeding range of I this species (Handset al. 19892). It is unlikely that this species is breeding on the base. Future surveys should be sensitive to the potential for this species to occur on JPG. However, habitat management for this species on JPG is not warranted at this time. I Note that in addition to State and Federally threatened/endangered species and Federal candidate species, there are a number of species on JPG I listed by the State of Indiana as species of special concern. These species are identified in the EXISTING NATURAL RESOURCES section of this plan. These species are limited in abundance or distribution in Indiana and, while they do not have the legal protection conferred on threatened or endangered species, I management should be very sensitive to the needs of these species. HABITAT MANAGEMENT I Without examining conditions on JPG, many people would reasonably assume that the ordnance testing conducted on JPG since 1941 would have generally led I to the degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. In reality, many of the fish and wildlife habitat resources on JPG developed, at least in part, due to the military mission. Most importantly, agricultural land was allowed to revert I to forest. In addition, JPG's history of vegetation management through burning has resulted in openings used by many species of wildlife and unique I I 35 • vegetative communities. No human access is allowed on large areas and access to remaining areas is limited, resulting in conditions conducive to those species of wildlife which are relatively intolerant of human disturbance . There is no doubt that this area is highly significant from a wildlife habitat standpoint. The fact that populations of area-sensitive forest breeding birds (e.g. cerulean warblers) and area-sensitive grassland-breeding • birds (e.g. Henslow's sparrow) both occupy JPG is in itself a statement regarding the tremendous potential of the area from a wildlife perspective. • As a reuse option, setting aside JPG to provide fish and wildlife Q habitat is ideal. Access to restricted areas is likely to remain restricted indefinitely. Using existing technologies, removal of unexploded ordnance from these areas would be too costly and too damaging environmentally to be feasible. Limited or no clean-up of unexploded ordnance is required to achieve optimal use of the land from the standpoint of fish and wildlife habitat. In this sense, these areas are uniquely suited as natural areas. • The value of these areas as natural areas and wildlife habitat is certainly not diminished, and in some cases is enhanced, by the fact that human access is restricted. Access for recreational purposes can be provided in non • restricted portions of the base. The public can enjoy tremendous benefits associated with the high quality fish and wildlife habitat and natural areas that JPG can provide with minimal safety concerns and minimal cost compared to • other uses . This plan will take a conservative approach to fish and wildlife habitat management. The limited research on fish and wildlife populations which has • been conducted on JPG provides insight into the tremendous potential of this area to provide regionally significant habitat. However, there remain many unknowns regarding fish and wildlife habitat and populations on the base. • Until we have a better understanding of the fish and wildlife community of JPG, management should be conservative so that we will not limit future management options. For example, we know that several threatened and endangered species occupy JPG. However, not much is known about the • populations or habitat used by these species on the base. Naturally, we want to proceed with extreme caution in altering any habitat that could affect these species until we have a better understanding of their status and habitat • needs on JPG. II FOREST MANAGEMENT As the largest block of relatively-contiguous forested land in southeastern Indiana, JPG represents a unique wildlife management opportunity. We recommend that forest habitat management on JPG focus on the needs of • forest-interior species. We have already discussed the impo~tance of forest interior habitat for many species of breeding birds at JPG. As research progresses, more will be known about the importance of the forest-interior ecosystem for other taxonomic groups. For example, Karns (In Prep.) documents the importance of forested habitat to the amphibian and reptile community on JPG. He points out that knowledge is limited regarding the impacts of forest fragmentation on the herpetofauna and regards this as an important question for future study. .. ··-·------J 36 I There is no question that clearing of forest land on JPG and conversion to other land use would result in habitat loss for forest-dwelling wildlife species. In addition to the direct loss of forested habitat, the clearing may I also result in degradation of habitat values in adjacent forested habitat because of the creation of edge adjacent to the forest. The magnitude of degradation and resulting impacts on fish and wildlife populations depends on I many factors. One important factor is whether the land use resulting from forest-clearing is permanent (agriculture or development) or if the stand will be allowed to regenerate, as is generally the case following timber harvest. I The size of the forest tract cleared and the juxtaposition of the cleared tract relative to other forested land are also important considerations. To address all possible combinations of these factors is impossible. However, we can address some general guidelines for evaluating how management of forest land on JPG will impact fish and wildlife habitat and resulting populations. • The size of a forest tract is a primary consideration in determining J wildlife habitat value. ~e have already discussed the concept of edge. Small forested tracts intermixed with grassland, agriculture, or other non-forested land will provide habitat for edge-tolerant wildlife species, but not for J forest-interior species. From a landscape perspective, this type of edge habitat is abundant compared to the availability of habitat for forest interior species. Robbins et al. (19892) conducted research on the habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the Mid-Atlantic states. Of 75 I nesting species of forest and forest-edge birds they encountered during their study, none were restricted to small blocks of forest. Most species of birds that nest in edge habitat or within small forest blocks are adaptable and J thrive in disturbed areas. In contrast, several species they studied, including the cerulean warbler and black-and-white warbler, were found only in large forest tracts. During the breeding season, these species appear to be I dependent on the forest-interior habitat provided within large blocks of forest. More than half of the forest interior species studied needed a minimum of 150 ha or larger block of forest to breed. As Robbins et al. (19892) point out" ... no number of small isolated tracts can take the place of J this basic requirement." Freemark and Collins (1992) also found that small forest patches (less than 10 ha) in eastern North America support few, if any, area-sensitive or forest-interior species. I As the size of a forest stand increases, the probability of encountering forest-interior bird species also increases. Herkert et al. (1993) presented a graph of the likelihood of encountering area-sensitive birds in Midwestern forests of various sizes. For example, in a 100 acre forest there is roughly • a 30% likelihood of encountering a cerulean warbler (a species which is highly sensitive to forest fragmentation) and in a 1,000 acre forest the likelihood I increases to approximately 70%. Even in forest blocks large enough to attract forest-interior birds, nest success may be low. As previously discussed, Robinson (1992) found several species of birds considered area-sensitive in I small (14-65 ha) woodlots, but these areas were population sinks. In these smaller tracts, nest predation and parasitism rates are likely higher than in larger blocks. Robbins et al. (19892) suggest that 3,000 ha may be the ' minimum forest-block size that might be expected to retain all species of the \ I forest-breeding avifauna in the Mid-Atlantic states. Because the Midwest region is more highly fragmented than their study area and has higher I I 111' 37 densities of brown-headed cowbirds, even larger areas may be required (Robinson et al. 1993). The magnitude of edge-induced nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds varies within and among regions, as least partially in response to landscape level differences in fragmentation and cowbird abundance (Robinson et al. 1993). In an extensively forested area of Wisconsin, Brittingham and Temple (1983) and Temple and Cary (1988) found that the rate of nest parasitism decreased from 65% within 99 m of edge to less than 18% at greater than 300 m from edge. In more fragmented forests in central Illinois and the Shawnee National Forest in southern Illinois, nest parasitism rates were very high regardless of the distance from edge (Robinson 1992, Robinson et al. 1993). u The relatively high cowbird populations and high levels of fragmentation in these areas apparently resulted in cowbirds saturating all forested habitat . In the less-fragmented Hoosier National Forest in south-central Indiana, Whitehead (unpublished data) found nest parasitism rates of approximately 15% during 1992 and 1993. Hoover (1992) found no evidence of edge effect relative • to cowbird parasitism in central Pennsylvania, where cowbird populations are generally low. • Robinson et al. (1993) suggest that the effects of cowbird parasitism on forest·breeding birds may be most severe in the Midwest. Approaches to reduce paras1t1sm should be a major issue when planning forest management strategies • to benefit forest-interior birds in this region. The level of cowbird parasitism on JPG has not been evaluated. However, it has been noted that cowbirds occur throughout the base and have been observed even in the most heavily-forested portions (S. Pruitt, pers. commun.). Certainly, forest • management activities on the base should be sensitive to the potential for cowbirds to impact forest-breeding birds. • A distinction needs to be made between "internal edges'' (e.g. clearcuts, wildlife openings) versus "external edges" te.g. agricultural fields). It is not clear how "internal edges" created by timber harvest affect forest • interior birds. The extent to which silvicultural practices result in increased cowbird parasitism and nest predation depends on the landscape context. However, both small permanent openings and temporary openings resulting from timber harvest have potentially detrimental effects. Thompson • et al. (1993) referred to research in Illinois and Missouri which documented d greater cowbird densities in selectively-cut stands than in uncut, mature forest. Brittingham and Temple (1983) found increased nest parasitism near edges of forest openings as small as 0.2 ha. Whitehead (unpublished data for 1992 and 1993), in an ongoing research project in the Hoosier National Forest, found parasitism rates were lowest in the forest interior, higher in exterior • edges, and highest in forests adjacent to young clearcuts. Nest predation rates may also increase in response to fragmentation resulting from timber harvest (Yahner and Scott 1988). • Although this discussion has centered on songbirds, other species are n also affected by forest fragmentation. For example, Robinson (1991) points out that "habitat fragmentation also negatively affects many raptors by reducing habitat patch size below the minimum critical area needed to provide • the resources necessary for breeding." Many endangered raptors appear to be • • 38 area-sensitive. In Illinois, many rare raptors are restricted to the few • remaining large prairie and forested preserves (Robinson 1991). Three species I of raptors found on JPG during the 1993 survey of breeding birds, sharp shinned hawk, red-shouldered hawk, and broad-winged hawk, are listed as species of special concern by the State of Indiana. The red-shouldered hawk is also a FWS Region 3 species of concern. Robinson (1991) considered all of these species, and Cooper's hawk which was also found on JPG, to be sensitive • to forest fragmentation. General Guidelines for Forest Management • These general guidelines for forest management, with emphasis on providing forest·interior habitat, incorporate recommendations made by numerous authors (Herkert et al. 1993, Keller et al. 1993, Niles 1993, Pashley and Barrow 1993, Robinson et al. 1993, Therres 1993, Thompson et al. 1993): 'I 1. Avoid any forest management activities that result in fragmentation of existing contiguous forest. This str~tegy is much more efficient than creating new forested areas. Forest tracts that are known to support area· I sensitive forest species should receive the highest priority for protection. We recommend further evaluation of the forest-interior habitat on JPG. Ideally, no timber harvest or clearing would occur on the base until that I evaluation is complete. The area north of K Road, approximately 10,000 acres, and the adjoining forested area is the largest forested block on JPG and is therefore the most important to preserve in managing for forest-interior species. We recommend that this area be rated as the highest priority for no I timber harvest or forest openings. 2. If any timber harvest is conducted, concentrate openings and timber harvest I adjacent to permanent openings rather than fragmenting existing forest blocks. 3. Attempt to reduce the level of forest fragmentation by promoting reforestation of forest openings and gaps between forest blocks. On JPG, I firebreaks through forested blocks should be allowed to revert to forest where feasible. If firebreaks are maintained, manage them for grasses and legumes which will provide suitable turkey brood habitat. Firebreaks should be as I narrow as possible. The road system should also be evaluated. Potentially some secondary roads will no longer be needed with the completion of the military mission on JPG and can be closed and reforested. Small patches of I grassland and wooded grassland within forested blocks should also be allowed to revert to forest (also discussed in the GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT section). In choosing which areas to allow to revert to forest, consideration should be given to connecting blocks of mature timber. I 4. Maintaining a well-developed woody and herbaceous understory will generally benefit forest-dwelling birds and most other forest wildlife. Overbrowsing by I white-tailed deer can destroy the understory vegetation. Continuation of the deer hunting program (discussed in the RECREATION section) will be necessary to control the deer population. Burning in wooded grasslands also reduces I understory vegetation. However, the use of fire management on JPG also has allowed for the development of unique vegetation communities and habitat for I I 39 some wildlife species. The tradeoffs associated with fire management will be discussed in more detail in the GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT section. • 5. Manage for forest units that approach a circle or square, as opposed to linear or irregularly-shaped management units. This will maximize the amount of forest-interior habitat . 6. Preserve existing riparian corridors and wooded ravines; these areas are •• known to be particularly valuable habitat for a wide range of plant and animal species. Riparian areas are vital for the endangered In~iana bat (discussed below). In addition, protection of these habitats is necessary to protect the quality of stream habitat for fish and aquatic invertebrates. In areas where riparian habitat has been destroyed, attempt to restore a wooded riparian corridor at least 100 m wide. The stand of trees, and surrounding habitat, supporting the great blue heron rookery on Graham Creek should be protected. Any plans for vegetative.manipulation which occurs in the vicinity of the • rookery should be evaluated for potential to disrupt the rookery . 7. Avoid construction (roads, right-of-ways, etc ... ) that reduces forest area or increases forest isolation. The creation of small ponds or clearings • within forested blocks increases edge and reduces overall forest acreage; such u projects would likely be detrimental to forest-interior species. 8. Reduce the area of mowed grass that provides cowbird feeding opportunities within JPG. In large forest blocks, do not mow roadsides or at least mow at a height of 6-9 inches or more to minimize suitability as cowbird feeding areas. Logging roads, firebreaks, or right-of-ways constructed on the base should be • as narrow as possible and should be revegetated to avoid creating additional feeding habitat for cowbirds. Pastures and feedlots in the area surrounding JPG are no doubt used extensively by cowbirds, making it all the more • imperative to reduce additional cowbird feeding opportunities within the base . • The level of timber harvest compatible with management for forest interior species on JPG is difficult to assess. Further evaluation of this question will be needed as decisions regarding the reuse of the base proceed. Until the disposition of the base is determined, a conservative approach is • recommended. Once a mature forest stand is harvested, it will take decades to replace habitat values. In some cases, habitat values may never be regained. Until a thorough evaluation of forested habitat, and forest wildlife species, • is completed for JPG, no timber harvest should be conducted . When an evaluation of forested habitat is completed, fish and wildlife • management objectives can be refined and the compatible level of timber harvest can be determined. Any level of timber harvest is potentially detrimental to forest-interior species. However, the choice of a silvicultural system will affect the degree of impacts. Low-volume, single • tree selection cuts may have the least impact on forest-interior species, as 0 this harvest system is the least likely to induce edge-related parasitism and predation (Herkert et al. 1993, Robinson et al. 1993). This system most • closely mimics treefall disturbances that occur naturally within a forest • I 40 I (Pashley and Barrow 1993). However, single-tree selection may not be practical if it does not create a sufficient gap to allow regeneration of I desired tree species. This system is most compatible with the regeneration of shade-tolerant tree species. Single-tree selection is also not practical if a large volume timber hprvest is desired. I Group selection generally involves harvesting timber in 1/4 - 1 acre cuts. As previously discussed, even these small openings have the potential to increase nest parasitism and predation. The cumulative impact of making I group selection cuts scattered throughout a forest block could potentially be devastating to forest-interior birds (Thompson et al. 1993). If a given volume of timber is to be removed from a stand, a single clear-cut would be I preferable to multiple, small openings. Not only would the clear-cut result in less edge, but would also require less logging road construction and overall stand disturbance. Clear-cuts should be located near existing permanent edges. Compact-shaped cuts (approaching a square or circular shape) I are preferred over elongated or irregular-shaped cuts. One reason sometimes cited for creating openings in the forest is to I allow for oak regeneration. Oak is a highly desirable timber species and also produces food for many species of wildlife. However, strategies for oak regeneration are currently the topic of much controversy and it is not clear I that openings will be successful in regenerating oak (Pashley and Barrow 1993). Numerous recent symposia (including Laursen and DeBoe 1991, Loftis and McGee 1993) have been devoted to oak management. I Management of forest for forest-interior habitat is sometimes considered to conflict with management for game (i.e. huntable) species of wildlife, which typically benefit from edge conditions. However, Therres (1993) points I out: "Since forest interior birds and forest game share a common need, for forest, objectives for managing both are achievable." Preservation of forested habitat will benefit all forest species. How the forest is managed will affect the relative densities of forest-dwelling species that use the I habitat. It should be reiterated that focusing forest management on JPG for forest-interior species will benefit this vulnerable suite of species, but will not result in the loss of any species currently using the base. I Densities of some edge-tolerant game species, such as deer, may decline over time if forest-interior habitat is emphasized. However, it is unlikely that declines in the density of any currently hunted species would be sufficient to I lead to appreciable changes in hunting regulations. In making wildlife habitat management decisions, it should be noted again that on a regional basis, these edge-tolerant species are generally abundant compared to forest interior species. I Much of the edge habitat on JPG is associated with the prescribed burn management which has been used to maintain grasslands. Wooded grasslands have I developed in previously burned areas no longer being maintained as grassland and in areas where fire was allowed to burn beyond the grassland into adjoining forest. There are tradeoffs involved in the management of I grasslands on JPG from a wildlife management perspective. Most grasslands on JPG will revert to forest if not burned. If wooded grasslands are not burned, the canopies will become more dense and a woody understory will develop. I I I 41 Allowing grasslands and wooded grasslands to revert to forest would increase forested wildlife habitat. Since some of these areas are currently surrounded •• by forested stands, this would also increase the size of forest blocks and increase availability of forest-interior habitat. However, grassland wildlife species would no longer use these areas. The Division of Nature Preserves I also identified burning as beneficial to the natural communities in some areas of JPG. In evaluating whether to maintain grasslands consider: which areas have the highest quality habitat for grassland species, which grasslands I support the highest quality natural areas, where will allowing grassland or wooded grassland to revert to forest have the most positive impact on forest interior habitat. II Indiana Bat The Indiana bat is listed as endangered both by the U.S. FWS and the State of Indiana. The Indiana bat occupies much of the eastern half of the •• United States. Large, hibernating populations are found in Indiana, Missouri, and Kentucky; however, populations and individual records have been reported from 22 other states. • The Indiana bat is known primarily from the caves in which it hibernates. About 85 percent of the entire known population winter in only 7 II hibernacula; half of the entire known population winters in only 2 hibernacula. Most Indiana bats migrate relatively short distances seasonally between winter hibernacula and summer roosts. Female Indiana bats emerge in late March or early April, followed by the males. Most populations leave their hibernacula by late April, but some males spend the summer in • hibernacula. Migration is stressful for the Indiana bat, particularly in the spring when their fat reserves and food supplies are low (Tuttle and Stevenson 1977). As a result, adult mortality may be the highest in late March and • April. Female Indiana bats give birth to a single young in June or early July. • During that time, they join together in nursery colonies beneath the loose bark of trees. Some of these summer nursery colonies can contain up to 100 bats. Scattered records suggest that male bats disperse throughout their entire range during the summer, but not much is known about their roosting • habitats. Nursery colonies occur in riparian habitat, adjacent floodplains, and nearby forested upland areas (Humphrey et al. 1977, Cope et al. 1978, 0 Gardner and Gardner 1980, Brack 1983, Clark et al. 1987, Gardner et al. 1990, Tyrell and Brack 1990); these colonies have shown a loyalty for particular reaches of streams (Kurta and Williams 1992). • Young Indiana bats are capable of flight within a month of birth. They spend the latter part of the summer foraging to accumulate fat reserves for the fall migration and hibernation. Optimum foraging habitat consists of streams lined on both sides with mature trees that overhang the water by more • than 3 meters. Streams without riparian vegetation do not appear to be D suitable (Cope et al. 1978). Bats forage at a height of 2 to 30 meters under riparian and floodplain trees; they feed primarily on moths and aquatic insects (Humphrey et al. 1977). About 60 to 90 bats can be found in a • kilometer of foraging habitat. Riparian habitat is occupied by Indiana bats • ---··---~----·-··- ---~------• 42 from mid-April to mid-September. • The Indiana bat has become endangered by natural and human actions. I Sometimes their winter hibernacula are flooded, ceilings of the hibernacula collapse, or cold temperatures kill the bats through hypothermia. A serious cause of decline has been human disturbance of wintering bats by cavers, .. researchers, or vandals. Another threat has been deforestation, which destroys summer nursery and roosting sites. Nine Indiana bats were captured on JPG during summer bat surveys in 1993 and 1994. Researchers attached radio transmitters to 3 of the bats and • subsequently located their roost sites. Based on this work, optimal summer habitat (foraging and roosting areas) management for Indiana bats on JPG would I be no timber harvest or timber stand improvement within one half mile of the main channels or tributaries of Otter, Little Otter, Graham, Little Graham, Big, and Middle Fork creeks. Protection of the riparian habitat on the main channels of Otter and Graham creeks is essential. More specific management guidelines will be provided by the FWS when analyses of survey and telemetry • data are completed. Additional research on the status and habitat use of Indiana bats on JPG is encouraged. Currently, there are no records of Indiana bat hibernacula in any of the caves on JPG, however, survey and mapping of the • caves are ongoing. Location of hibernating Indiana bats would be a significant finding and protection of hibernacula would be a high priority. I Cerulean Warbler I. Cerulean warblers breed over a wide area of eastern North America, but specific habitat needs result in localized and patchy distribution. The Ohio River Valley, including JPG, is the geographic center of the species' breeding range. The species winters in the Peruvian Andes in South America. The cerulean warbler is a Federal candidate species (category 2). In 1987, this species was designated as a Migratory Nongame Bird of Management Concern by the FWS due to negative BBS trends for this species and its dependence on restricted/vulnerable habitats. From 1966 to 1987, the cerulean warbler declined 3.4% per year, the most precipitous population decline of any North American warbler. The fact that the decline has been most severe in the center of the species' range is particularly alarming. (Unless otherwise cited, much of the information presented here on cerulean warblers is adapted from Handset al. 1989£). Cerulean warblers typically nest in mature deciduous forests. They appear to prefer floodplain sites, but have been observed in upland and lowland sites during the breeding season. The cerulean warbler is considered a forest-interior species, generally requiring large blocks of forest for breeding habitat. Generally, stands with the highest density of cerulean warblers have large, mature deciduous trees with a closed canopy. However, some researchers have found the species associated with small canopy openings within mature stands. Cerulean warblers begin arriving at Midwest breeding areas in mid-April to early May. Nest success and productivity data are lacking because the species spends most of its time in the upper canopy. Parasitism by broWn-headed cowbirds is suspected to be a major cause of nest failure. Increased parasitism resulting from forest fragmentation is 43 suspecced co be a cause of cerulean warbler populacion declines, along wich I general loss of foresc-incerior habicat. Loss of bottomland hardwood forests, prime cerulean warbler habitat, has been particularly intense. The trend toward shorter rotation periods in foresc management is also detrimental because trees do not reach maturity. Cerulean warblers are also experiencing I habitat destruction on their wintering grounds. Several researchers have noted the importance of extensive tracts of I mature forest for breeding cerulean warblers {Robbins et al. 19892, Hamel 1992, Robbins et al. 1992). Hamel (1992) suggested that tracts managed co sustain viable populations of cerulean warblers should contain no less than 4,000 ha and provide habitat for 1,500 breeding pairs. Preferably, these cracts should be compact shapes to minimize edge. On JPG, the forested block • north of K Road provides the best immediate potential to manage for cerulean warblers (as well as other forest-interior species). This area is already primarily mature timber. We recommend that no harvest should occur within this area. Guidelines presented in General Guidelines for Forest Management • are compatible with management for che cerulean warbler. As previously discussed, the mosaic of forest, wooded grasslands, and grasslands south of K Road should be evaluated and additional areas to manage for forest-interior • habitat identified. Protection of riparian corridors is also considered an important aspect of management for cerulean warblers. Management recommendations will be refined as more information on this species becomes available. Hamel (1992) points outs: "Few specific, quantitative data exist on the vegetation parameters associated with cerulean warbler breeding and wintering habitats. Few quantitative data also exist on the population • structure, demography, productivity, and habitat utilization by the birds." I GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT The location, extent and quality of grasslands on JPG is poorly understood. The only map which identifies th~ grasslands is the vegetation map that was composed based on satellite imagery {Fig. 1). No ground-cruthing has been conducted on this map, so its accuracy is an unknown. An additional • problem with this map is that areas with tree canopy closure ranging from 10- I 60% were categorized as wooded grasslands. From a grassland-wildlife habitat perspective, there is a tremendous difference in the quality of habitat provided by this range of canopy closure. Even from casual observation, the differences are very obvious. Wooded grasslands at the low edge of the range look similar to open grasslands. Conversely, wooded grasslands near the high end of the range look more like forests than grassland. The amount of woody cover in grasslands has a tremendous impact on the community of grassland I species thac will use the area . Providing management recommendations for grasslands, including wooded grasslands, on JPG is also difficult given the lack of wildlife and plant inventory data on these areas. Grassland areas are concentrated in those • portions of the base where ordnance testing was most intense, precluding any systematic plant or animal surveys. We do know that che prescribed burn management that has been used in these grasslands has resulted in unique vegetative communicies and that these areas support some rare plant species I (Hedge et al. 1993). Addicional unique vegecacive communities may be ' I 44 identified in areas not previously surveyed due to restricted access. These burned areas also provide wildlife habitat. Grassland wildlife species, 'I including some relatively rare species, are known to utilize these grasslands. The interspersion of relatively open grassland patches throughout the primarily forested area improves habitat quality for some wildlife species, such as white- tailed deer, which benefit from "edge" conditions. I While these grasslands have no doubt been beneficial to some wildlife species, particularly grassland species, maintenance of these areas by I necessity reduces the potential area of forested habitat. Less than 5,000 acres of the base is classified as grassland; however, much of this acreage exists as small blocks scattered throughout the base. There is a matrix of I grassland, wooded grassland, and forest blocks throughout the base south of K Road. This patchwork of vegetation types results in fragmentation of both grassland and forested habitat. Small, scattered grasslands provide low quality habitat for grassland species. I As previously discussed, popula~ions of many grassland bird species have experienced significant declines. For example, based on FWS BBS data, the I grasshopper sparrow and Eastern meadowlark (both of which breed on JPG), declined 85% and 61%, respectively, between 1966-1991. Many factors are thought to have contributed to these declines. Herkert et al. (1993) cite I loss and degradation of grassland habitat, reproductive failure of grassland birds due to high rates of nest predation and nest parasitism, and shifts in agricultural practices (e.g. earlier and more frequent mowing of hay fields). I As with forested habitat, there has been an overall reduction in grassland habitat as well as fragmentation of remaining grasslands. Like forest-breeding birds, many grassland species are area-sensitive; these I species are more likely to nest in large grassland patches than in small ones. Based on his work in Illinois, Herkert (1994) identified 5 species of grassland birds as area-sensitive: grasshopper sparrow, Henslow's sparrow, I bobolink, savannah sparrow, and Eastern meadowlark. All of these species have experienced population declines. It is noteworthy that all of these species except the savannah sparrow (breeding range does not include JPG) were found on JPG during the 1993 survey of breeding birds. Among grassland birds, these I area-sensitive species are among those experiencing the greatest population declines in the Midwest and throughout their ranges (Herkert 1994). I Area-sensitive grassland species experience some of the same edge related demographic processes documented in area-sensitive forest-breeding birds. Rates of nest parasitism and nest predation are higher in small grassland patches compared to larger patches (Gates and Gysel 1978; Johnson I and Temple 1986, 1990). In addition to patch size, Burger et al. (1994) also documented chat nest predation also increased with proximity of a grassland to woody cover. I Determining the location, vegetative composition, and juxtaposition of JPG's grasslands is a necessary step in developing effective management I recommendations for grassland wildlife habitat. A grassland wildlife inventory is also needed. Most important is additional research on the Henslow's sparrow. The occurrence of this species was documented during the I I ll i 45 1993 survey of breeding birds on JPG, as well as in previous surveys. However, no census of this species has been conducted. Casual counts conducted during 1994 indicate high numbers of singing males (in excess of 100) during the breeding season. These males were concentrated in the airport area, but were found on other grasslands throughout the base as well (S. Pruitt, pers. commun.). These observations indicate that JPG may be significant to the recovery of the Henslow's sparrow locally and regionally . General Guidelines for Grassland Management • The following general management guidelines for grassland areas are primarily adapted from Herkert et al. (1993), with recommendations specific to JPG added. These guidelines will be useful in managing grasslands on JPG. However, surveys of grasslands and grassland wildlife should be a priority . Additional information is needed to make the more specific and effective recommendations. • 1. Avoid fragmentation of existing grasslands. Those areas known to support area-sensitive grassland species should have highest priority for protection. On JPG, several area-sensitive grassland birds are known to use the base's • largest grassland, in the vicinity of the airport. In prioritizing which grasslands to protect, larger grassland patches should generally be favored over smaller. • 2. Consider creating grasslands to connect or expand blocks of existing grassland habitat. Grassland blocks aimed at benefiting area-sensitive grassland birds should be at least 125 acres in area and preferably more than • 250 acres. Shapes which minimize linear edge, circles, or squares are preferred. Creating irregular or elongate-shaped grasslands should be avoided. From the perspective of nest predation and nest parasitism, wooded grasslands on JPG should not be viewed as quality habitat for grassland • p~oductive species. However, these areas are probably for edge-tolerant wildlife species. Potentially, some of the wooded grasslands on JPG may also be floristically unique. Maintaining some wooded grasslands is probably • desirable, but careful consideration should be given to the location of these areas relative to other habitats. State and Federal biologists should evaluate the matrix of grassland and wooded grassland patches. Opportunities • to connect existing blocks of grassland should be evaluated. Primary consideration should be given to resulting habitat quality for grassland wildlife species. 3. Ideally, grasslands should be at least 100 yards from forested areas I because woody vegetation attracts nest predators and nest parasites. Locating grassland habitat on the perimeter of JPG adjacent to agricultural fields surrounding the base would be acceptable. I 4. Conduct prescribed burns on grasslands managed for breeding bird habitat in early spring (March - early April) or late fall (October- November). Conduct burns on grasslands over 100 acres in size on a rotation of 20-30% of the II area, annually. This will maximize use of the area because some grassland birds prefer recently burned areas whereas others prefer unburned areas. On • smaller grasslands, a larger percentage of the area can be burned, but should • I 46 I not exceed 50-60% in any burn season. Attention should be given to providing both recently burned and unburned habitat. If grassland borders a forested tract, allow the prescribed fire to burn slowly through the adjacent forested I edge instead of installing a firebreak along the forested edge. This will result in a feathered edge which may have a lower nest predation rate than an abrupt edge between 'the grassland and forest. I 5. To minimize nest predation and nest parasitism, remove and control woody vegetation that exceeds normal grass height within grasslands. I 6. Consideration should be given to the potential for establishing pra~r~e vegetation on JPG. Prairie establishment could be conducted in existing grasslands or in adjoining areas. Although presettlement conditions on JPG I probably did not include prairie, parts of Indiana and surrounding states had abundant native prairie which has been largely eliminated. Opportunities to restore or establish any large parcels of prairie are limited. Establishing I prairie vegetation would result in a more diverse plant community made up of native plant species compared to current grassland conditions on JPG. These areas would also provide high quality habitat for grassland wildlife species if a large enough area were established. Individuals within the FWS and IDNR I experienced in prairie restoration could provide recommendations for prairie establishment on JPG. I Henslow's Sparrow Henslow's sparrows breed in southern Ontario and throughout the central J and northeastern U.S. The species' wintering range extends from eastern Texas I to southern Florida. Breeding populations of Henslow's sparrows have been monitored since 1966 through the BBS program of the FWS. The species declined by 2% annually in the northcentral U.S. between 1966 and 1987. (For purposes I I of this discussion, northcentral U.S. is defined as Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin). Recent analysis of BBS data suggests that the U.S. population of Henslow's sparrows has decreased by over 68X between 1966 and 1991. In 1987, this species was designated as a Migratory Nongame Bird of Management Concern by the FWS due to widespread - population decline and its need for restricted/vulnerable habitats. In I Indiana, the species is classified as threatened and it is also a Federal candidate species (category 2). The Indiana Nongame Birds Strategic Plan (IDNR 1991) identifies an increase in the population of Henslow's sparrows in Indiana as an objective for nongame bird management in the state. (Unless I otherwise cited, much of the information presented here on Henslow's sparrows was adapted from Handset al. 1989~). Henslow's sparrows typically nest in grasslands with dense, tall herbaceous vegetation and scattered woody vegetation. The species sometimes nests in unmowed hayfields. An accumulation of vegetative litter, standing dead vegetation, and medium-to-heavy stemmed forbs have been identified as critical habitat components in nesting territories. Size of the grassland is also an important factor; generally grasslands at least 20-30 ha in size are considered most suitable for Henslow's sparrow nesting habitat (Zimmerman 1988, Herkert 1994). An Illinois study found this species almost completely restricted to large grassland areas, occurring on only 1 grassland less than I 47 100 ha in size (Herkert 1994). Henslow's sparrows begin arriving at Midwest I breeding areas, from wintering areas in the southern U.S., in mid-April and commence nest-building in early May. Information on nesting success and causes of nest loss are scant. Henslow's sparrow breeding populations are sometimes described as erratic, with numbers fluctuating from year-to-year I (Herkert 1994) . The major factor contributing to population declines of the Henslow's I sparrow is probably habitat loss. Grassland habitat used by this species should be protected from conversion to agriculture or other development to prevent further population declines. To maintain habitat suitability for I] Henslow's sparrows, resource managers must maintain dense herbaceous vegetation with a few scattered trees and shrubs. Grassland management with prescribed burns is a suitable technique. Only a portion of the managed area should be burned each year to allow for the accumulation of litter and I standing dead vegetation, which are important habitat components. In Illinois, Henslow's sparrows avoided recently burned areas, and occurred at low densities even 2 years (13-16 months) after burning (Herkert 1994). I Zimmerman (1988) also documented avoidance of recently burned areas in Kansas. On grassland areas larger than 100 ha, 20-30% of the area should be burned (or mowed) each year on a rotational basis. This maintains suitable habitat for Henslow's sparrows as well as providing habitat for bird species that prefer I short-grass areas as well (Herkert 1994). Burning guidelines presented in General Guidelines for Grassland Management are compatible with management for I Henslow's sparrows. Although the status of Henslow's sparrows on JPG has not been documented, the species is apparently nesting in significant numbers (S. I Pruitt, pers. commun.). This is somewhat surprising in that the grassland management practices which have been utilized are not considered optimal for Henslow's sparrows. The grassland in the airport area, thought to be the prime area for Henslow's sparrows on the base, is burned every other year. In I Illinois, Herkert (1994) found that densities of Henslow's sparrows in grasslands in their second growing season following spring burns were much lower than densities in grasslands at least 3 growing seasons following I burning. The mosaic of grasslands on JPG may be one reason the area could support Henslow's sparrows in spite of the seemingly unfavorable burning regime. In any given year, some grassland patches may have provided suitable nesting habitat. Not enough is known regarding the distribution, size, and burning regime in JPG's grasslands to piece together an accurate picture of past habitat conditions for Henslow's sparrows. Possibly, there is potential for the population to increase significantly on JPG with changes in the I burning regime. JPG could provide a unique opportunity to research the impacts of a variety of prescribed burn management regimes on Henslow's sparrow populations. Research on Henslow's sparrows on JPG is strongly I encouraged. Hands et al. (1989~) identified Henslow's sparrow information and research needs that may be useful in formulating research objectives. IJ Human access to fields used by nesting Henslow's sparrows should be prohibited or regulated. Susceptibility of this species to human disturbance is not well-documented, but is potentially a limiting factor. Perhaps the I lack of human disturbance on grassland nesting areas on JPG has been a key I ------I 48 factor in the apparent success of this species on the base. The status of • Henslow's sparrows on the base should be closely monitored as access I restrictions are eased following closure of the base. It is likely that regulation of access to grasslands during the nesting season will be desirable. Northern Harrier • In 1987, the northern harrier was designated as a Migratory Nongame Bird I of Management Concern by the FWS and is listed as endangered by the State of Indiana. In North America, northern harriers breed throughout most of Canada and the U.S., excluding the southeast. The species winters throughout most of the U.S. and into the Greater Antilles and throughout Central America. Northern harriers breed in a wide range of open habitats, including prairies, • agriculturally-associated grasslands, and shallow-water marshes. Availability of appropriate habitat and prey are probably factors affecting nest site selection. Prey species are extremely variable during the breeding season. • Each mated male and female defend a territory that includes the area surrounding the nest. During winter,.northern harriers usually hunt alone over open grasslands, often pastures. Voles are the dominant prey species in the Midwest in winter. Fluctuations in harrier populations, probably in • response to fluctuations in prey populations, have been observed. Much of the information presented here on northern harriers was adapted from Hands et al. I (1989£). Northern harriers arrive on breeding grounds in the Midwest in March and I begin to build nests in late April to early May. Nests are built on the ground. Substrate moisture and vegetation surrounding the nests is variable. Predation may be the most important cause of nest failure. Renesting is apparently uncommon. • Habitat loss may be the most important factor causing northern harrier populations to decline. Harriers have been found nesting in a variety of J grassland habitats, but apparently prefer freshwater wetlands for breeding. Draining of wetlands for agriculture and other forms of development has been well-documented. ~etland drainage has been particularly extensive in the Midwest. Shallow marshes, the preferred breeding habitat of harriers, are the most susceptible to drainage. Historically, shooting was probably a • significant threat to harrier populations. Although shooting still occurs, I hawks have been legally protected from shooting since 1972 and mortality from shooting has probably declined. Contaminants also have had a role in the decline of northern harrier populations, but the long-term effects of contaminants on harrier populations are not well-documented. - JPG is near the southern edge of the breeding range of the northern harrier. However, S. Pruitt (pers. commun.) observed a pair of northern harriers exhibiting nesting behavior in the airport area grassland on JPG in 1994. This area should be monitored annually for nesting harriers. Serrentino (1992) noted potential biases to avoid in surveying harrier populations. Human disturbance near active harrier nests should be minimized. Other grassland and wetland areas on the base may also provide suitable nesting habitat, as well as wintering habitat, for this species. I I 49 Recommendations outlined in General Guidelines for Grassland Management are compatible with management for the northern harrier. In addition, wetlands I potentially suitable for nesting should be monitored and protected. Wetlands with low water levels (less than 6 inches deep) throughout the April-August I nesting season are considered most suitable. Kirtland's Snake Historically, Kirtland's snake ranged from southeastern Wisconsin, through northeastern and central Illinois, most of Indiana and Ohio, to • northcentral Kentucky, southern Michigan, western Pennsylvania, and northeastern Missouri. Populations of this species have declined dramatically throughout its range. Currently, the species is found only in disjunct populations in Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky. Kirtland's • snake is a Federal candidate species (category 2) and is listed as threatened I in Indiana. Kirtland's snake is considered basically a grassland species, but is found in a variety of open habitats. Most of the historic habitat of the species, including prairie fens, wet prairies, wet meadows, lakeplain wet I prairies, and associated open and wooded wetlands has been lost to agriculture. Half of the extant populations, identified during a 1985 rangewide survey, occurred in urban and suburban areas, frequently found under trash or debris in vacant lots (Wilsmann and Sellers 1988, most of the information presented here is adapted from this study). In all locations, Kirtland's snake was found in association with a pond, lake, stream, or • seasonally-flooded site during the 1985 survey. The species is frequently found associated with crayfish burrows, as it has been on JPG. Reproductive and population biology of this species remains largely unknown. Habitat loss is the primary reason for decline of Kirtland's snake. Native habitat was lost to agriculture and urban development, leaving only scattered remnant populations. Habitat loss is a continuing problem for this ' species. Soil and water contamination from urban and agricultural sources may also threaten remaining populations, although the extent of these impacts is unknown. Collecting of Kirtland's snake for the pet trade is a significant • threat, particularly in urban populations where the snakes are more easily I located and captured than in natural habitats. On JPG, Kirtland's snakes have been found in the wet flatwoods west of Tokyo Road and in the grasslands in the airport area on the base (D. Karns, pers. commun.). It is likely that Kirtland's snake inhabit other sites on the base as well, but the secretive, fossorial nature of this species makes it difficult to find in natural habitats. Given the precarious status of this I species, intensive surveys to document the status of Kirtland's snake in high quality natural habitat, including JPG, are warranted. The JPG population may be significant, and is relatively secure compared to populations in urban areas. Urban populations are often subject to intense collecting pressure and are very vulnerable to development. The protection of populations in natural • habitats is considered essential to the survival of this species. On JPG, any habitat manipulation or development in the wet flatwoods or grassland areas should be sensitive to the potential for Kirtland's snake to occur on the site. Wetland modifications also have the potential to negatively impact this I species. As a native of grassland habitats, Kirtland's snake is adapted to I I so I withstand controlled burns in its habitat. In fact, controlled burns may be crucial to maintenance of the habitat for this species on some sites. The prescribed burn guidelines presented in General Guidelines for Grassland Management are compatible with management for Kirtland's snake. • The potential for collection of Kirtland's snake on JPG should be I monitored as access restrictions are eased following closure of the base. Although this species is legally protected from collecting in Indiana, the potential for illegal collection should be not be overlooked. JPG may well I contain a significant population of this species and could present a target for illegal collection. I NATURAL AREAS Based on the 1993 inventory of special plants and natural areas on JPG (Hedge et al. 1993), the IDNR, Division of Nature Preserves, concluded: I "There is a tremendous amount of biological diversity present within the confines of JPG, as well as the prese~ce of good quality natural communities. Maintaining the communities and natural diversity of JPG will require I continued management and protection." They made 8 specific recommendations for management, summarized as follows: 1) consider a large portion of JPG as an ecosystem reserve; 2) designate the highest quality natural communities (natural areas), the best rare species sites, and selected clusters of these I smaller sites as Research Natural Areas, or State Nature Preserves; 3) control exotic species; 4) restrict timber harvest (in select areas); 5) control frequency and timing of mowing; 6) maintain natural hydrology; 7) use I prescribed fire; 8) conduct additional evaluations site by site as areas are cleaned up. All of these recommendations are compatible, and complementary, to fish and wildlife management recommendations made in this plan. The I results of additional natural area inventory work scheduled for 1994 should be reviewed and incorporated into fish and wildlife management planning. Division of Nature Preserves personnel should be consulted, along with State and Federal biologists from the IDNR, Division of Fish and Wildlife, and the I FWS, when evaluating areas for prescribed burning. WETLAND MANAGEMENT I As noted in the EXISTING NATURAL RESOURCES section of this plan, wetland protection regulations have important implications when evaluating reuse I options for JPG. Measures to maintain or enhance the quality of JPG's existing wetlands are encouraged. Wetlands are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Any activity that would impact a wetland may require a permit from the COE. I Indirect impacts from projects not directly impacting wetlands must also be considered. Special consideration should be given to threatened and endangered species on JPG that may be utilizing wetland areas. I LAKE AND POND MANAGEMENT I Protecting water quality should be the major concern in managing lakes and ponds at JPG. Maintaining vegetation on the shores of lakes and ponds I I 51 • will help to prevent erosion. On lakes, maintaining a corridor of riparian vegetation along inlet streams will also help to maintain water quality in the watershed. Vegetative buffers will also help to protect shallow water areas, • which support emergent and/or submergent vegetation. These shallow water areas are an extremely productive part of the lake environment. They provide I excellent spawning, nursery, and feeding areas for fish. Other species of wildlife, including amphibians, shore birds, and fish-eating birds and mammals, also tend to concentrate in these areas . There is potential for contaminants to enter the lakes and ponds on the • base. Sources of contamination include herbicides and other chemicals, landfills, surface disposal impoundments, and chemical disposal sites on the base. Contamination from agricultural chemicals or other sources off the base are also possible. To date, contamination of lakes and ponds has not been a major problem. Analysis of surface-water and sediment samples from Gate 19 Pond, which is located adjacent to Gate 19 Landfill, revealed contamination • (Rust Environment and Infrastructure 1994). ~e recommend that the DA continue to consult the FWS, Fisheries Assistance Office, in Carterville, Illinois for annual lake and pond management recommendations for JPG. STREAM MANAGEMENT The primary management approach for the streams at JPG should be protection of existing habitat, water quality, and watershed stability. Activities that should be avoided include stream channel modifications, • deforestation, and land uses which result in extensive erosion and runoff of sediments or other pollutants. • Stream habitat could be enhanced in many reaches by allowing the accumulation of woody organic debris, such as normally occurs in forested I stream corridors. Fallen trees, old logs, and smaller woody debris all provide habitat for fish (especially predatory gamefish) and substrate for invertebrates which serve as a food source for many species. ~ile it may not I be desirable to allow the buildup of major channel obstructions, it is possible to maintain woody habitat structure in configurations that have a low probability of obstructing stream flow (Institute of Environmental Sciences n 1982). Studies to determine the extent of sediment input from areas upstream of JPG would provide valuable information for making stream management decisions. I It may be advisable to install sediment traps at upstream points on Big Creek, Graham Creek, and/or Little Graham Creek. Corrective measures should be taken for existing points of erosion and sediment input on the base~ such as the I dirt roadway leading to Otter Creek at ~est Perimeter Road. As previously stated, in areas where riparian habitat has been destroyed, attempts should be made to restore a wooded riparian corridor at least 100 m wide. D The stream gates on the perimeter of JPG, especially the downstream gates on the west perimeter, are having an obvious detrimental impact on the I quality of stream habitat. The gates appear to be acting as partial dry dams I I ,., ,.\L•\( \JON) :;.< .,,.p,b 52 I during high flows, resulting in cbs/ruction of the natural flow and increased silt load upstream from the gates. t~odification or removal of these gates to I restore the natural flow of the streams would improve habitat quality. River Otter Lz.s ?Thr:· . ID (c_,~.>lu. IS (r.::J.I<.:. rc\C!.>£"' Wllo Oid T.rnucr; L:L\ Prior to reintroduction, river otters will be listed as endangered in I Indiana and will subsequently be legally protected. This would not preclude incidental take in traps legally set for other furbearers. Otters are particularly vulnerable to beaver sets. Rather than imposing special trapping I regulations to protect otters, the IDNR has chosen to encourage area trappers to voluntarily use traps and sets less likely to capture or kill otters and to minimize trap-related injuries. Educating trappers regarding safe and I efficient release techniques for captured otters is an important aspect of this strategy. Educating area anglers to allay fears that river otters will impact fishing opportunities is also considered essential. Numerous researchers have found that game fish are rarely a dominant food item and that I river otters may even benefit sport fisheries by their tendency to take less desirable and competing fish species. Cooperation with the IDNR to monitor released otters and to educate the public regarding otters is strongly I encouraged.· Any alteration of habitat in streams, riparian corridors, or associated wetlands on JPG may negatively impact the potential for otters to become established on the base. I Salamander Mussel The salamander mussel is found in medium-to-large streams and rivers in I Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Uisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin (Cummings and Mayer 1992). It is most frequently found under flat rocks in sandy substrate. It is a Federal candidate species (category 2) and a species of I special concern in Indiana. Its host is the mud puppy, a State of Indiana species of special concern, which is also most often found under flat rocks. The salamander mussel has no commercial value. I The presence of the salamander mussel in Otter Creek on JPG is particularly significant from a management standpoint because the species has I I II 53 • also been found in 2 other branches of the stream system, the Vernon Fork of the Muscatatuck River and Graham Greek (Harmon 1989, 1992). The presence of salamander mussels in these interconnected streams presents the potential for • managing a metapopulation of the species. This is highly desirable because the salamander mussel is very vulnerable to habitat alteration. With several populations in an interconnected system, the potential for any single habitat modification (siltation, contaminants, etc ... ) to extirpate the entire • population is reduced. If a single population is extirpated, there is potential for the population to recolonize with individuals from interconnected populations. As additional surveys for the salamander mussel • are conducted, the populations in this southeastern Indiana stream system, including JPG, may emerge as one of the most significant extant populations of IJ this species. Plans for protection of this population would not only include JPG, but also would require protection of stream habitat in the watershed upstream of the base (B. Anderson, pers. commun.). Recommendations for protection of the stream habitat and adjoining • riparian corridors on major streams and tributaries on JPG have already been discussed. The presence of the salamander mussel on JPG further emphasizes the need to protect these highly valuable and vulnerable habitats. Any • instream or riparian zone disruptions which increase siltation, move stream bed material, or alter flow would have a negative impact on the salamander mussel, as well as many other aquatic organisms. B. Anderson (pers. commun.) conducted the mussel survey on JPG and noted that the population of salamander mussels there would be very susceptible to land uses that increase silt loads I in the stream. Mussels are also highly sensitive to several metals, including copper and zinc, and acidic compounds (Havlik and Marking 1987) . PEST MANAGEMENT • The JPG Pest Management Plan (Mann 1994) describes the installation's pest management needs and administrative, safety, and environmental I requirements. Pests as defined by the plan include "weeds" and other unwanted vegetation, mosquitoes, crawling insects, spiders, mice and other vertebrate pests. It is noted that vertebrate pests have required minimal attention; I management is primarily limited to occasional control of mice in buildings. The approach to pest management has generally been conservative and compatible n with fish and wildlife management objectives. Unwanted vegetation on impact fields has generally been removed mechanically. Herbicides have been used to augment mechanical treatment when necessary. We assume that there will no longer be a need to control I vegetation on impact fields following base closure. If vegetation control is necessary, continued emphasis on mechanical treatment is encouraged. Widespread use of herbicides is discouraged. If continued use of herbicides I is necessary, the FWS should be consulted to discuss which herbicides to use and potential impacts of herbicide use. Herbicide use should be closely monitored to minimize the potential for groundwater contamination, chemical runoff, and other environmental impacts. I I Ill 54 • RECREATION HUNTING, TRAPPING AND FISHING • Hunting, trapping, and fishing programs on JPG should continue, and expand if feasible. These activities can be completely compatible with other natural resource management objectives. Safety is a primary concern in • allowing access to the base for these recreational activities. However, the safety record of the existing access program has been outstanding and demonstrates that safety concerns can be successfully addressed. Public • access should be expanded to the extent feasible. From a hunting standpoint, white-tailed deer are JPG's most intensely managed wildlife resource. Continuation of the JPG deer hunt is considered • essential because of the potential for overpopulation if deer are not harvested. Overpopulation would result in the destruction of understory vegetation and the degradation of habitat for deer as well as most other • species of wildlife. Furthermore, the deer hunting program provides recreational opportunities that use this renewable resource and generates revenue for natural resource programs on the base. JPG should continue the • development of an annual Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the IDNR for the management of white-tailed deer. This memorandum has resulted in a successful and high-quality deer hunting program on the base. We also recommend that JPG continues to develop an annual MOU with the IDNR for turkey • management. The turkey hunting program is extremely popular and provides an excellent turkey hunting experience. ·These hunting programs also provide a I source of income for communities surrounding JPG. The 1985 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation indicated that Indiana residents spend over $85 million annually on expenditures related to big game I (includes deer and turkey) hunting (U.S. FWS 1989). While trap.ping is permitted by current JPG regulations, there is limited I interest in trapping on the base (K. Knouf, pers. commun.). We recommend that regulations which allow trapping continue. Not only does trapping provide recreation, but also may prove to be a valuable wildlife management tool. Trappers using water sets on the base should be informed of the potential to I encounter river otters and should take appropriate precautions to protect otter, as previously discussed. I We recommend that the DA continue to consult the FWS, Fisheries Assistance Office, in Carterville, Illinois for annual fisheries management recommendations for JPG. Consideration should be given to expanding access to I allow public fishing, if feasible. NONCONSUMPTIVE WILDLIFE RECREATION I The interest in nonconsumptive wildlife-associated recreation (bird watching, nature photography, etc ... ) on JPG has increased in recent years. However, the level of these activities to date is no doubt minimal compared to I the potential for JPG to attract wildlife enthusiasts and provide them with a quality experience. The 1985 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and I I I I 55 Yildlife-Associated Recreation indicated that more than 3.5 million Hoosier I residents (16 years and older) participated in nonconsumptive wildlife recreation in 1985 (U.S. FWS 1989). During that year, more than $460 million was spent by Indiana residents pursuing these activities. Nationally, it is estimated that 37.5 million Americans travel to observe wildlife. It is I estimated that these nature watchers spend $18 billion annually (National Audubon Society 1994). Yithin Indiana, JPG would be a prime area for these nonconsumptive activities if access were available. This would provide recreation as well as a source of income for surrounding communities. • Providing access and information for bird watching would be one I alternative for providing nonconsumptive recreation on JPG. Given the diversity of birds using JPG, there is no doubt that the base could provide a high-quality bird watching experience. One of the 3 objectives of the Indiana Nongame Birds Strategic Plan is: "To provide for a 5% increase in nongame I bird-based recreation by 1995 (IDNR 1991)." JPG could make a significant contribution to birding opportunities in Indiana. As closure of the base proceeds and reuse options are evaluated, planning for access for birding as well as other wildlife-associated recreation should begin. Demand for all forms of nonconsumptive wildlife-associated recreation, such as birding, • wildlife viewing, and wildlife photography, are on the rise and are expected II to continue to rise far into the future . RESEARCH AND EDUCATION • In light of the necessary restrictions imposed by the military mission which has been conducted on JPG. the level of access and support for wildlife related research and education activities has been impressive. Many of these activities have been discussed in this plan. Fish and wildlife-related • research activities which have been conducted on JPG, and in some cases financially supported by the DA, include (bu~ are not limited to): • l. Bat survey. survey of breeding birds. migrating bird survey and stream survey conducted by the FWS (1993-1994). I 2. Fisheries management evaluations and recommendations by the FWS (ongoing, annually). 3. Inventory of special plants and natural areas conducted by IDNR, Division n of Nature Preserves (1993·1994). 4. Amphibian and reptile surveys conducted by D. Karns, Hanover College (1985- present) . 5. Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) program coordinated by the Institute for Bird Populations (current contract covers the operation • of these stations on JPG from 1994-1997) . 6. Indiana Breeding Bird Atlas (1986-1990). 7. Audubon Christmas Bird Counts (l980·present). • 8. Yinter bird population studies (1962-1963, 1973-1974). 9. Big May-Day Bird Counts (1981-present). 10. Summer bird counts (1986-1992). 11. Evaluation of the population status of the red-shouldered hawk on JPG I (ongoing). •------·- -·- ~- , ______,_ ·------·------I 56 I 12. Cave and karst inventory project (ongoing). 13. Numerous college student opportunities for independent-study research I projects (e.g. a 1987 evaluation of the heron rookery). The DA is encouraged to maintain access and support for ongoing activities, as well as accommodating additional research as needs are I identified. For example, Daryl Karns has expressed interest in establishing permanent amphibian and reptile monitoring sites on JPG. Herpetologists have demonstrated the need for establishing permanent sites to monitor amphibian I and reptile populations, many of which are declining. Hopefully, opportunities for research and education will expand as access restrictions become less stringent. JPG provides opportunities for research and education which are unparalleled elsewhere in Indiana, and in some cases the entire I Midwest region. Wildlife habitat throughout the Midwest has been fragmented and degraded I to the extent that it is sometimes difficult for natural resource managers to demonstrate the potential of this region from a wildlife perspective. JPG, which was once almost entirely cleared for agriculture, is a demonstration of I the potential of the land to recover much of its former natural values following conversion to other land uses. With the exception of species which have become extinct in the region, JPG supports most of the native fish and wildlife species which existed prior to European settlement. JPG provides a I unique opportunity to serve as an outdoor classroom. For example, JPG could be used to increase public awareness of forest-interior habitat and the status of NTMB and ocher forest-interior species, as well as overall natural resource I values. The protection of forest-interior ecosystems is emerging as a critical I objective of natural resource management, but programs designed to protect these ecosystems are in their infancy. The public, as well as academic institutions and government agencies, must take advantage of the all-to-rare opportunity to witness first-hand on JPG the long-term benefits of preserving I large blocks of forest and associated aquatic habitat. Only through such efforts will we be able to protect and enjoy many imperiled fish and wildlife species in future decades. I I I I I I I 57 I Table 1. Tree species identified on JPG during forest inventories. Common Name Scientific Name • Black Ash Fraxinus nigra Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvsnica • White Ash Frsxinus americana Basswood Tilia americana • Beech Fagus grandifolia 11 Bigtooth Aspen Populus grandident:at:a Black Gum Nyssa sylvat:ica Black Walnut Juglans nigra • Black Cherry Prunus serotina Box Elder Acer negundo Dogwood Cornus florida • Populus delt:oides Eastern Cottonwood Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana American Elm Ulmus americana Red Elm Ulmus rubra • Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Hemlock Tsuga canadensis • Mockernut Carya t:oment:osa Pignut Hickory Carya· glabra • Shagbark Hickory Carya ovaca Ironwood Ost:rya virginiana • Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia II Honey Locust Glendit:sia t:riancant:hos Red Maple Acer rubrum Sugar Maple Acer saccharum • Black Oak Quercus velut:ina • Bur Oak Quercus macroca.rpa Chestnut Oak Quercus prinus IIL1 Chinkapin Oak Quercus muehlenbergii Northern Pin Oak Quercus ellipsoidal is • Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra • •• 58 Ill Table 1 (continued). Tree species identified on JPG during forest inventories. • Common Name Scientific Name Ill Post Oak Quercus scallaca Scarlet Oak Quercus coccinea Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii • Swamp 'White Oak Quercus bicolor IJ White Oak Quercus alba Persimmon Diospyros virginiana Eastern White Pine Pinus scrobus Virginia Pine Pinus virginiana • River Birch Becula nigra Sassafras Sassafras albidum • Sweetgum Liquidambar scyraciflua Sycamore Placanus occidencalis • Willow Salix nigra • Tulip Poplar Liriodendron culipitera o_j ,. • '.) • n• • • • 59 Table 2. Endangered, threatened, rare and watch list plants found on JPG during the 1993 inventory of special plants and natural areas (Hedge et al. 1993) . • Status• Common Name Scientific Name • clustered foxglove Agalinis fasiculata E twining bartonia Bartonia paniculata E blunt-lobe grape-fern Bocrychium oneidense R • thicket sedge Carex abscondica WL Louisiana sedge Carex louisianica R • pretty sedge Carex woodii R IJ spotted wintergreen Chimaphila maculata WL black bugbane Cimicifuga racemosa WL elliptical rushfoil Croconopsis elliptica E • crinkleroot Dencaria diphylla R round-leaved boneset Eupatorium rotundifolium E • goldenseal Hydrastis canadensis WL ridged yellow flax Linum scriacum R running pine Lycopodium clavatum R tree clubmoss Lycopodium obscurum E • climbing fern Lygodium palmatum E small sundrops Oenothera perennis R • American ginseng Panax quinquefolium WL dwarf ginseng Panax tr ifol:ium R • green-fringed orchis Platanthera lacera WL purple fringeless orchis Platanthera peramoena WL Maryland meadow beauty Rhexia mariana var. mariana E • longbeak arrowhead n Sagittaria australis E lesser ladies'-tresses Spiranthes ovalis R little ladies'-tresses Spiranthes tuberosa R slick seed wild-bean Strophostyles leiosperma T • false hellebore Veratrum woodii WL smooth white violet Viola blanda R • netted chain-fern Woodwardia areolata E .. "State Status: E - Endangered; T - Threatened; R - Rare; WL - Watch List .. I 60 I Table 3. Fish species collected at Jefferson Proving Ground during June, 1993 stream survey (Pruitt et al., In Prep.). i Common Name Scientific Name II Caught I Gar family Lepisosteidae Longnose gar Lepisosceus osseus 2 I Bowfin family Am11dae Bowfin Amia calva 1 I Herring family Clupeidae Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 1 I Minnow family Cyprinidae Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum 434 I Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 60 Common carp Cyprinus carpio 4 I Striped shiner Luxilis chrysocephalus 1075 Redfin shiner Lythrurus umbratilus 265 I Bigeye chub Notropis amblops 25 Bigeye shiner N.boops 312 Silverjaw minnow N. buccacus 339 • Silver shiner N. photogenis 109 I Mimic shiner N. volucellus 2 Suckermouth minnow Phenacobius mirabilis 8 I Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus 1512 Creek chub Semotilus acromaculacus 778 I Hybrid minnows 3 Sucker family Catostomidae White sucker Cacostomus commersoni 103 I Northern hogsucker Hypencelium nigricans 86 Spotted sucker Hinycrema melanops 1 I Black redhorse Hoxostoma duquesni 30 Golden redhorse H. erychrurum 13 I Redhorse sp. golden + black (field ID) 93 I I I 61 I Table 3 (continued). Fish species collected at Jefferson Proving Ground during June, 1993 stream survey (Pruitt et al., In Prep.). I I Common Name Scientific Name il Caught Catfish family Ictaluridae II Black bullhead Ameiurus melss 5 Yellow bullhead A. nstalis 17 Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 1 • Brindled madtom Noturus miurus 3 Pike family Esocidae • Grass pickerel Esox americanus vermiculatus 4 II Silverside family Atherinidae Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus 11 11 Sunfish family Centrarchidae Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris 41 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 247 Bluegill L. macrochirus 24 Longear sunfish L. megalotis 195 • Smallmouth bass Hicropterus dolomieu 12 Spotted bass !1. puncc:ulatus 13 • Largemouth bass !1. salmoides 8 Hybrid sunfish Lepomis 8 • Perch family Percidae Greenside darter Etheostoma blennioides 38 Rainbow darter E. caeruleum 173 Fantail darter E. flabellsre 72 Johnny darter E. nigrum 313 • Orangethroat darter E. spectabile 255 Logperch Percina caprodes 5 • Blackside darter P. maculata 3 IJ Total 41 species 6703 • • ··~· •:s•• • • 1:: ••••••62. ~ Table 4. Results of fish collection and Index of Biological Integrity ratings for individual collection stations for June, 1993 stream survey on JPG (Pruitt et al., In Prep.). --- :1 SPEC! ES I COLLECTION STATION I B B B F G G H L L L L H H 0 0 0 0 c c c T c c c G G G 0 c F c c c c 1 3 6 B 1 4 c c c F 1 c 1 2 3 5 1 2 4 1 1 Longnose gar 1 1 Bowfin 1 Gizzard shad 1 Central 17 11 75 20 10 63 8 89 44 2 29 25 18 1 16 6 stoneroller Spotfin shiner 4 2 49 1 4 Common carp 3 1 Striped shiner 92 10 10 66 101 197 15 159 21 13 2 14 12 126 71 97 69 Redfin shiner 13 6 18 2 2 2 23 42 87 6 1 41 13 2 7 Bigeye chub 9 3 12 1 Bigeye shiner 96 15 4 1 2 14 2 21 20 58 23 56 Silverjaw minnow 6 4 12 3 37 15 44 6 15 87 9 25 63 13 Silver shiner 2 4 1 31 3 68 ' Mimic shiner 2 ' Suckermouth 1 3 4 minnow Bluntnose minnow 82 53 57 54 84 275 33 38 21 7 53 246 102 110 179 118 Creek chub 18 17 10 48 54 34 57 115 46 8 53 1 299 2 6 9 1 ll. ··~·· ···~········63 Table 4 (continued). Results of fish collection and Index of Biological Integrity ratings for individual collection stations for June, 1993 stream survey on JPG (Pruitt et al., In Prep.). SPECIES COLLECTION STATION B B B f' G G H L L L L M M 0 0 0 0 c c c T c c c G G G 0 c F c c c c 1 3 6 B l 4 c c c F 1 c 1 2 3 5 1 2 4 1 1 Hybrid minnow 1 1 White sucker 11 22 13 11 12 11 1 10 1 3 3 5 Northern 2 1 1 11 s 3 1 15 2 32 13 hogsucker Spotted sucker 1 Black redhorse 1 1 12 3 11 2 Golden redhorse 1 4 3 2 2 1 Redhorse sp. 1 20 2 27 15 17 12 .. Black bullhead 1 1 . 3 ··- Yellow bullhead l 2 3 4 3 2 2 Channel catfish 1 Brindled madtom 2 1 Grass pickerel 2 1 1 Brook silverside ' 1 1 9 I Rock bass 8 8 8 17 Green sunfish 44 29 6 3 39 37 12 1 2 15 4 2 8 11 6 28 Bluegill l 10 1 3 1 5 2 1 Longear sunfish 53 1 7 4 50 21 43 16 Sma11mouth bass 4 3 3 2 -· -L....-- ··1!··~····~··!1·· ••64 •• Table 4 (continued). Results of fish collection and Index of Biological Integrity ratings for individual collection stations for June, 1993 stream survey on JPG (Pruitt et al., In Prep.), SPECIES COLLECTION STATION B B B F G G H L L L L H H 0 0 0 0 c c c T c c c G G G 0 c F c c c c 1 3 6 B 1 4 c c c F 1 c 1 2 3 5 1 2 4 1 1 Spotted bass 1 1 2 1 5 3 Largemouth bass 1 1 2 2 2 Hybrid sunfish 3 1 3 1 Greenside darter 3 1 3 1 3 15 12 Rainbow darter 52 15 3 12 2 21 68 Fantail darter 8 3 3 12 7 1 2 5 4 8 2 1 16 Johnny darter 18 8 27 18 20 13 5 12 13 134 1 1 7 36 Orange throat 18 8 31 20 2 . 4 5 7 23 1 3 97 10 1 25 darter Logperch 2 3 Blackside darter 3 Total species 19 18 10 17 21 22 12 13 17 11 10 8 14 23 29 31 29 Total fish2 533 187 257 285 427 703 170 515 291 70 173 31 972 442 458 588 601 IBI score3 50 36 38 54 48 44 44 42 48 40 38 32 48 56 58 54 52 Notes: 1 All "redhorse sp." are golden or black redhorse. Some were incorrectly identified in the field 2 "Total fish" includes young-of-year, which were not factored in IBI 3 IBI ratings:58-60 - excellent, 48-52 -good, 40-44 - fair, 28-34 -poor, 12-22- very poor I( 65 Table 5. Amphibians and reptiles of Jefferson Proving Ground (Karns 1986; Karns, • pers. commun.). IJ Common Name Scientific Name Habitat• Statusb Salamanders • Barbour's Salamander W,RC ? Ambystoma barbouri • Spotted Salamander Ambystoma maculatuw w A Jefferson Salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum w A Red-spotted Newt Notopthalmus v. viridescens w s N. Dusky Salamander ·Desmogna thus f. fuscus RC A • M. Slimy Salamander Plethodon glutinosus w s • Redback Salamander Plethodon cinereus W,RC A Ravine Salamander Plethodon richmondi w u • S. Two-lined Salamander Eurycea cirrigera RC A Longtail Salamander Eurycea longicauda RC A • Cave Salamander Eurycea lucifuga RC s Mud puppy< Necturus maculosus Stream l,SC • Frogs E. American Toad Bufo a. americanus W,OF u Fowler's Toad Bufo woodhousii fowleri W,OF A • N. Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata A,SC Spring Peeper Pseudacris c. crucifer w A Cope's Gray Treefrog Hyla chrysocelis w A • Green Frog Rana clamitans melanota p A Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana p A • Southern Leopard Frog Rana utricularia W,OF A • Pickerel Frog Rana palustris w A • Wood Frog Rana sylvatica w A .. - --~------~ ~------• 66 Table 5 (continued). Amphibians and reptiles of Jefferson Proving Ground (Karns • 1986; Karns, pers. commun.) . • Common Name Scientific Name Habitat• Statusb Turtles • Common Snapping Turtle Chelydra s. serpentine p A • Eastern Box Turtle Terrapene c. carolina W,OF A E. Spiny Softshell Apalone s. spinifera P,RC I Lizards Five-lined Skink Eumeces fasciacus w A • Snakes • Midland Water Snake Nerodia sipedon pleuralis RC,P A Queen Snake Regina septemvittata RC s Kirtland's Snake Clonophis kirtlandii W,RC S,T E. Garter Snake Thamnophis s. sirtalis W,OF A • Southern Black Racer Coluber constrictor priapus W,OF A • Black Rat Snake Elaphe o. obsoleta W,OF A N. Ringneck Snake Diadophis punctatus adwardsii w A E. Hognose Snake Heterodon platirhinos W,OF u • Northern Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix mokasen w u IJ •w-woodland, may be associated with ponds, water in open fields during breeding season; RC-riparian corridor; OF-old field; P-pond bA-abundant; !-insufficient information; S-spotty distribution, may be abundant where found; U-uncommon; ?-identification uncertain; T-Indiana threatened • species; SC-Indiana species of special concern 'record resulted from capture of 1 specimen during the 1993 JPG Stream Survey • (Pruitt et al., In Prep.). II • • 67 •• Table 6. Breeding birds at Jefferson Proving Ground, observed spring/summec 1993. Species with * preceeding common name are neotropical migrants (Gauthreaux 1992). • Common Name Scientific NSIIJe • Canada goose Branca canadensis mallard Anas plstyrhynchos wood duck Aix sponsa turkey vulture Cathartes aura • sharp-shinned hawk Accipter striatus I Cooper's hawk Accipter cooperi red-shouldered hawk Buteo linestus • * broad-winged hawk (H) Buteo placypterus red- tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis American kestrel Falco sparverius wild turkey Heleagris gallopavo bobwhite Colinus virginianus great blue heron Ardea herodias green-backed heron Butorides virescens • killdeer Charadrius vociferus American woodcock Philohela minor mourning dove Zenaida mscroura c~..:.'\ ~~:-.(:. .. w • * yellow-billed cuckoo(M) Coccyzus americanus •- r ~ .. c ,. To ------·------.-~~~~------68 Table 6 (continued). Breeding birds at Jefferson Proving Ground, observed • spring/summer 1993. Species with * preceeding common name are neotropical migrants (Gauthreaux 1992) . • Common Name Scientific Name • robin Turdus migratorius * wood thrush ( M) Hyloclchla mustelina Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis • *blue-gray gnatcatcher(h) Polioptila caerulea cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum starling Sturnus vulgaris * white-eyed vireo Vireo griseus • * red-eyed vireo l M l Vireo olivaceus * warbling vireo Vireo gilvus * yellow- throated vireo (H) Vireo flavifrons * black-and-white warbler C:.H) Hniotilta varia * prothonotary warbler Protonotaria cicrea * Swainson's warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii * Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrina • Vermivora chrysoptera * golden-winged warbler * blue-winged warbler Vermlvora pinus * worm-eating warbler (I~) Helmitheros vermivorus • * yellow warbler Dendroica petechia * Northern parula ( 1-1) Parula americana * cerulean warbler (H) Dendrocia cerulea * yellow-throated warbler (M) Dendroica dominies * prairie warbler Dendroica discolor * magnolia warbler Dendroica magnolia * ovenbird LH) Seiurus aurocapillus • * Louisiana waterthrush ( 1'1) Seiurus motacilla * common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas * yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens • * Kentucky warbler(H) Oporornis formosus *hooded warbler tH) Wilsonia citrina '11"'-P ckp<>tv.l.nt * American redstart (H) Setophaga reticilla • house sparrow Passer domesticus * bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus • common grackle (L.) Quiscalus quiscula 1!1 brown-headed cowbird (1...) Holothrus ater * orchard oriole Icterus spurius *Northern oriole(<..) Icterus galbula * summer tanager ( i'"l) Piranga rubra * scarlet tanager ( M) Piranga olivacea • cardinal(/...) Cardinalis cardinalis * blue grosbeak Guiraca caerulea * indigo bunting (L) Passerina cyanea house finch Carpodacus mexicanus • American goldfinch Spinus tristis rufous-sided towhee (L) Pipilo erythrophthalmus * chipping sparrow Spizella passerina • field sparrow Spizella pusilla * grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii • song sparrow Helospiza melodia • 69 • Table 7. JPG breeding birds listed by the State of Indiana and/or the ~S . • Species Status Indiana Indiana Region 3, Federal species of threatened FWS, Candidate special and species threatened/ • concern endangered of concern endangered • sharp-shinned hawk - * red-shouldered hawk ~ * * • broad-winged hawk v- * black-and-white warbler _- * • golden-winged warbler - * * worm- eating warbler c- * • cerulean warbler ~ * * * hooded warbler ·/ * Henslow's sparrow ,/ *: * * • northern harrier• <..-/ * * • "not detected during the 1993 survey but a pair was observed on JPG during the 1994 breeding season • source: U.S. FWS 1987,1991,1993; IDNR 1993 . • • • II 70 Table 8. Mammals which probably occur on JPG (based on discribucions • presented by Mumford and Whicaker 1982) . • Common Name Scientific Name Order MARSUPIALIA (Marsupials) • Virginia Opposum Didelphis virginiana Order INSECTIVORA (Insectivores) • Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus II Southeastern Shrew Sorex longiroseris Short-cailed Shrew Blarina brevicauda Lease Shrew Crypcotis parva • Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus Order CHIROPTERA (Bats) Litcle Brown Myocis Hyocis lucifugus • Keen's Myotis Hyocis keenil Indiana Myotis Hyocis sodalls • Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noccivagans Eastern Pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus • Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus Red Bat Laslurus borealis • Hoary Bat Laslurus cinereus • Order LAGOMORPHA (Rabbits): Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Order RODENTIA (Gnawing Mammals) Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus • Woodchuck Harmoca monax I) Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus • Southern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys volans Beaver Castor canadensis • Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus II Meadow Vole Hicrotus pennsylvanicus • Prarie Vole Hicrotus ochrogaster • 71 Table 8 (continued). Mammals which probably occur on JPG (based on distributions presented by Mumford and Whitaker 1982) . • Common Name Scientific Name Woodland Vole Hicrotus pinetorum Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Southern Bog Lemming Synaptomys cooperi • Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus House Mouse Hus musculus • Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius Order CARNIVORA (Carnivores) Coyote Canis latrans • Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus • Raccoon Procyon lotor Least Weasel Hustela nivalis b Long-tailed Weasel Hustela frenata Mink 11ustela vison Striped skunk Hephitis mephitis • 1(,..,;,-r ott•..- Order ARTIODACTYLA (Even-toed Hoofed Mammals) • White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus • Federally and State of Indiana endangered species • b Indiana species of special concern • • • • • • • 72 •• Figure 1. JPG vegetation classification based on LANDSAT Imagery. • • • • COVER lYPES • Forest • Wooded Grassland • • Agrlcunural RCN\1 Crop_ D GraSS/Forb fiJ DevelOped/Urban • II Open Waler D Unknown Terreslrlal • '' •! • /V 73 • Figure 2. Location of restricted areas (shaded sections) within JPG • •; • • • ~ • • li!l • • • •.. • • II • • ·- ··~ ~-·~------74 •• Figure 3. National Wetland Inventory Map of JPG . • • • • WETLAND TYPES • Pelutlrlne Faont.d • Ptlutlrlne Scrub/Shrub • • At..rlne • Peluttrine Uncon•olld.,.d Bo"om • Lutntrtne • 0 Pelustrtne f'mergenr 11 0 Upl1nd • • • I II • • I I -~----- I 75 I Figure 4. Location of major lakes, ponds, and streams on JPG. I -~ I Old nmbers lllko DC- • DC- I l.Jttle Onor Crook '- I ------ I Gale 8 Pond I I C·6 Hyde"s Pond------t / • _) I MC·I I I MFC·1 Krueger lake • Gale 19 Pond I I I I I • 76 I LITERATURE CITED Albrigh", C.A., L.B. Pruitt, and R.E. Rolley. 1989. 1989 deer hunt recommendations for Jefferson Proving Ground in Military area and -: wildlife refuge deer hunt recommendations, Indiana statewide wildlife research: 1988-89 progress and final reports. Pittman-Robertson Proj. li No. W-26-R-20, 13-B-6. Angermeier, P.L., and J.R. Karr. 1986. Applying an index of biotic integrity based on stream fish communities: considerations in sampling and II interpretation. North Amer. J. Fish Manage. 6(3):418-429. Angermeier, P.L., R.J. Neves, and J.R. Karr. 1986. Nongame perspectives in aquatic resource management. Pages 43-57 in Hale J.B., L.B. Best, and 11I R.L. Clawson. Management of nongame wildlife in the Midwest: a developing art. Proc. of a symp. at the 47th Midwest Fish and Wildl. I Conf. Arvin, S.M.B. 1987. The herons of Jefferson Proving Ground. Unpubl. rep . available at Jefferson Proving Ground, Madison, Ind. Blake, J.G. 1983. Trophic structure of bird communities in forest patches in • eastcentral Illinois. Wilson Bull. 95:416-430. 11 Brack, V., Jr. 1983. The nonhibernating ecology of bats in Indiana with emphasis on the endangered Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Ph.D. Thesis, II Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, Ind. 280pp. Brack, V., Jr., R.E. Mumford, and V.R. Holmes. 1984. The gray bat (Myotis grisescens) in Indiana. Am. Midl. Nat. 111:205. Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. The Blakiston • Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 596pp . Brittingham, M.G., and S.A. Temple. 1983. Have cowbirds caused forest • songbirds to decline? BioScience. 33:31-35 . Burger, L.D., L.W. Burger, and J. Faaborg. 1994. Effects of prairie fragmentation on predaion on artificial nests. J. Wildl. Manage . • 52(2):249-254. Burt, W.H., and R.P. Grossenheider. 1976. A field guide to the mammals. • Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Mass. 289pp . Castrale, J.S. 1990. Survey of Great blue heron nesting colonies in Indiana. • Wildl. and Res. Notes, Ind. Dep. Nat. Res., Indianapolis, Ind. il Clark, B.L., J.B. Bowles, and B.S. Clark. 1987. Summer habitat of the endangered Indiana bat in Iowa. Amer. Midland Nat. 118:32-39. II Cope, J.B., A.R. Richter, and D.A. Searley. 1978. A survey of bats in Big Blue Lake project area in Indiana. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Joseph II Moore Museum, Earlham College, Richmond, Ind. 5lpp. II I 77 Cowardin, L.M., V. Career, F. C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification I of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Prepared for U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish and Wildl. Serv., Office of Biol. Serv., Washington, D.C. l3lpp. I Cudmore, W.W. 1985. The present distribution and status of the eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana) in Indiana. Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci. 94:621- I 627. Cummings, K.S., and C.A. Mayer. 1992. Field guide to fresh water mussels of the Midwest. Manual 5. Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv. 194pp. I DeSante, D.F., and K.M. Burton. 1994. Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) program on military installations in ehe Midwest. I Work plan for 1994. Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, Calif. 7pp. I Faaborg, J., M. Brittingham, T. Donovan, and J. Blake. 1993. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone: a perspective for managers. Pages 331-338 in D. Finch and P. Stangle, eds. Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. Rdcky Mt. For. Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, I Colo., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Final Study - Cleanup and Reuse. 1992. Cleanup and reuse options U.S. Army I Jefferson Proving Ground. Unpubl. rep. available at Jefferson Proving Ground. I Finch, D.M. 1991. Population ecology, habitat requiremenes, and conservation of neotropical migratory birds. Rocky Me. For. Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-205. 26pp. I Freemark, K., and B. Collins. 1992. Landscape ecology of birds breeding in temperate forest fragments. Pages 443-454 in J.M. Hagan, III and D.W. Johnston, eds. Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant I landbirds. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. Freemark, K.E., J.R. Probst, J.F. Dunning, and S.J. Hejl. 1993. Adding a landscape ecology perspective to conservation and management planning. I Pages 346-352 in D. Finch and P. Stangle, eds. Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. Rocky Mt. For. Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. • Gammon, C.W., and J.R. Gammon. 1990. Fish communities and habitat of the Eel River in relation to agriculture. Report to Ind. Dep. Environ. Manage., I Indianapolis, Ind. Gardner, J.E., and T.L. Gardner. 1980. Determination of presence and habitat I suitability for the Indiana bat (Myotis soda1is) and gray bat (~ grisescens) for portions of the lower 6.6 miles of McGee Creek. Unpub1. rep. prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, McGee District Drainage and Levee District, St. Louis District, Corps of Engineers. I Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner, and J.E. Hofmann. 1990. Progress report: 1989 11 II ,., 78 and 1990 investigations of Myotis sodalis (Indiana bat) distribution, ': habitat use, and status in Illinois. Unpubl. rep., Ill. Natural History Survey, Section of Faunistic Surveys and Insect Identification. l9pp. Gates, J.E., and L.W. Gysel. 1978. Avian nest dispersion and fledging - success in field-forest ecotones. Ecology 59:871-883. Gauthereaux, S.A. 1992. Preliminary lists of migrants for Partners in Flight ' neotropical migratory bird conservation program. Page 30 iD Partners in - Flight newsletter 2(1). Gerking, S.D. 1945. Distribution of the fishes of Indiana. Investigations I ~ - of Indiana lakes and streams, Vol. III:l-137. Indiana Dep. Conserv. and ~' Indiana Univ. Dep. Zool. Glesne, R.S. 1979. 1979 annual project report, fishery management program, ., Jefferson Proving Ground. Unpubl. rep. prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildl. r Serv. 12pp . ' ~:.· Glesne, R.S. 1980~. Fishery management plan: U.S. Army, Jefferson Proving :1 Ground. Unpubl. rep. prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Central •I States Fishery Station, Princeton, Ind. llpp. Ill Glesne, R.S. 1980£. 1980 annual project report, fishery management program, I Jefferson Proving Ground. Unpubl. rep. prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. 2lpp. Gregory, J.D., and J.L. Stokoe. 1981. Streambank management. Pages 276-281 - in L.A. Krumholz, ed. Proc. Amer. Fish. Soc. Warmwater Streams Symp. Hamel, P.B. 1992. Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea). Pages 385-400 in II Schneider, K.J., and D.M. Pence, eds. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish and Wildl. .. Serv., Newton Corner, Mass. Hands, H.M., R.D. Drobney, and M.R. Ryan. 1989~. Status of the Henslow's sparrow in the northcentral United States. Mo. Coop. Fish and Wildl. Research Unit, Univ. of Mo. 12pp . • Hands, H.M., R.D. Drobney, and M.R. Ryan. 1989£. Status of the golden-winged warbler in the northcentral United States. Mo. Coop. Fish and Wildl. • Research Unit, Univ. of Mo. 12pp . Hands, H.M., R.D. Drobney, and M.R. Ryan. 1989g. Status of the cerulean warbler in the northcentral United States. Mo. Coop. Fish and Wildl. • Research Unit, Univ. of Mo. llpp. Hands, H.M., R.D. Drobney, and M.R. Ryan. 1989£. Status of the northern harrier in the northcentral United States. Mo. Coop. Fish and Wildl. II Research Unit, Univ. of Mo. 18pp. Harmon, J.L. 1989. Freshwater bivalve mollusks (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of II Graham Creek; a small southeastern Indiana stream. Malacology Data - 79 - Network 2(5/6)113-121. ' Harmon, J.L. 1992. Survey of the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of - the Vernon Fork of the Muscatatuck River with emphasis on the impact area I of proposed structure 42, a water supply reservoir. Final rep. prepared for the Ind. Dep. Nat. Resour., Div. Fish and Wildl. 44pp. Harrison, J.S. 1975. 1975 trip report, fishery management program, Jefferson ~ Proving Ground. Unpubl. rep. prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. 2pp. I Harvey, M.J. 1992. Bats of the Eastern United States. Arkansas Game & Fish Comm. 46 pp. Havlick, M.E., and L.L. Marking. 1987. Effect of contaminants on naiad mollusks (Unionidae): a review. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Resour. - Publ. 164:1-20. I Hedge, C.L., M.S. Homoya, R.L. Hedge, and C. Baker. 1993. An inventory of special plants and natural areas :within the U.S. Army Jefferson Proving Ground, in southeastern Indiana. Ind. Dep. Nat. Resour., Div. Nat. Preserves, Indianapolis, Ind. 56pp. • Helfrich, L.A., D.L. Weigmann, R.J. Neves, and P.T. Bromley. 1985. I Landowner's guide to managing streams in the eastern United States. Va. Coop. Ext. Serv. Publ. 420-141. I, Herkert, J.R., R.E. Szafoni, V.M. Kleen, and J.E. Schwegman. 1993. Habitat establishment, enhancement and management for forest and grassland birds in Illinois. Div. of Nat. Heritage, Ill. Dep. of Cons., Springfield, Ill. 20 pp. Herkert, J.R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on midwestern - grassland bird communities. Ecol. Appl. 4:461-471. I Homoya, M.A., .D.B. Abrell, J.R. Aldrich, and T.W. Post. 1985. The natural regions of Indiana. Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci. 94:245-268. I Hoover, J.P. 1992. Factors influencing wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) nesting success in a fragmented forest. M.S. Thesis, The Pa. State. Univ., Univ. Park, Pa. 147pp. -~ Humphrey, S.R., A.R. Richter, and J.B. Cope. 1977. Summer habitat and ecology of the endangered Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. J. Mammal. ~ 58:334-346. Hunter, W.C., M.F. Carter, D.N. Pashley, and K. Barker. 1993. The Partners in Flight species prioritization scheme. Pages 109-119 in D. Finch and I P. Stangle, eds. Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. Rocky Mt. For. Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. ' Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 1991. Nongame birds strategic plan. - Indianapolis, Ind. llpp. --~ I ,. 80 Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 1993. Indiana's rare plants and animals. Indianapolis, Ind. 26pp. Ill' Institute of Environmental Sciences. 1982. A guide to the George Palmiter river restoration techniques. U.S. Army Corps of Eng. Inst. for Water Resour., Contrib. Rep. 82-CRl. Fort Belvoir, Va. l Iverson, C. 1985. Status of the great blue heron in Indiana. Ind. Dep. Nat. Resour., Nongame and Endangered Wildl. Program, Indianapolis, Ind. Johnson, R.G., and S.A. Temple. 1986. Assessing habitat quality for birds nesting in fragmented tallgrass prairies. Pages 245-250 in J.A. Verner, ' M.L. Morrison, and C.J. Ralph, eds. Wildlife 2000. Univ. of Wis. Press, Madison, Wis. Johnson, R.G., and S.A. Temple. 1990. Nest predation and brood parasitism of tallgrass prairie birds. J. Wildl. Manage. 54:106-111. Johnson, S.A., and R.F. Madej. 1994. Reintroduction of the river otter in Indiana: feasibility study. Ind. Dep. Nat. Resour., Div. of Fish and Wildl., Indianapolis, Ind. 30pp. Karns, D.R. 1986. The amphibians and reptiles of Jefferson County: Analysis of a herpetological community in southeastern Indiana. Submitted to the Ind. Dep. Nat. Resour., Div. of Fish and Wildl., Nongame and Endangered Wildl. Program. 33pp . Karns, D.R. In Press. The herptofauna of Jefferson County: Analysis of an • amphibian and reptile community in southeastern Indiana . Ind. Acad. Sci. Karr, J.R., K.F. Fausch, P. Angermeier, P. Yant, and I. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its • rationale. Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv. Spec. :Publ. 5, Champaign, Ill . Karr, J.R., L.A. Toth, and G.D. Garman. 1983. Habitat preservation for • Midwest stream fishes, principles and guidelines. EPA Publ. 600/S3-83- 006. Keller, C.M.E., C.S. Robbins, and J.S. Hatfield. 1993. Avian communities in • riparian forests of different widths in Maryland and Deleware. Wetlands 13(2):137-144. • Kurta, A. and K. Williams. 1992. Roosting habitat, microclimate, and behavior of the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis ·sodalis) in Southern Michigan. Unpubl. rep. submitted to the Nongame Program, Mich. Dep. of Nat. Res., 24pp. Laursen, S.B. and J.F. DeBoe, eds. 1991. The oak resource in the upper midwest: implications for management. Univ. of Minn., Minn. Extention Serv. Publ. No. NR-BU-5663-S. Loftis, D. and C.E. McGee, eds. 1993. Oak regeneration: serious problems, practical recommendations. Symposium Proc; 1992 September 8-10; I 81 Knoxville, Tenn .. Presented by the Center for Oak Studies. Gen. Tech. I Rep. SE-84, Asheville, N.C.: U.S. Dep. Agric., Forest Service, Southeastern For. Exp. Stn. 319pp. I Madej, R.F., and S.A. Johnson. 1993. Allegheny woodrat monitoring program- 1993: An assessment of the distribution of the Allegheny woodrat in Indiana: Searth for new localities. Ind. Dep. Nat. Resour., Div. Fish I and Wildl., Indianapolis, Ind. 14pp. Mann, G.P. 1994. U.S. Army Jefferson Proving Ground Pest Management Plan. Unpubl. rep. available at Jefferson Proving Ground. l3pp. I Martin, T.E. 1992. Breeding productivity considerations: what are the appropriate habitat features for management? Pages 455-473 in J.M. I Hagan, III and D.W. Johnston, eds. Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. I McWilliams, K.M. 1985. Soil survey of Ripley County and part of Jennings County Indiana. U.S. Dep. Agric. in coop. with Purdue Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. and Ind. Dep. Nat. Resour. :125pp. I Mitchell, J. 1993. 1993 deer hunt recommendations for Jefferson Proving Ground in Military area and wildlife refuge deer hunt recommendations, Indiana statewide wildlife research: 1992-93 progress and final reports. I Pittman-Robertson Proj. No. W-26-R-25, 13-B-6. Mitchell, J. 1994. 1994 deer hunt recommendations for Jefferson Proving Ground in Military area and wildlife refuge deer hunt recommendations, I Indiana statewide wildlife research: 1994-95 progress and final reports. Pittman-Robertson Proj. No. W-26-R-25, 13-B-6. I Mohr, C.M., and J.B. Ingold. 1993. A bobcat (Felis rufus) survey at Jefferson Proving Ground and an exploration of detection methods. Unpubl. rep. I Moore, F.R., and T.R. Simons. 1992. Habitat suitability and the stopover ecology of neotropical landbird migrants. Pages 345-355 in J.M. Hagan, III and D.W. Johnston, eds. Ecology and conservation of neotropical I migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. Mumford, R.E. and J.O. Whitaker, Jr. 1982. Mammals of Indiana. Indiana I Univ. Press, Bloomington, Ind. 537pp. National Audubon Society. 1994. Communing with nature for good business. I_, Audubon Leader: July 1994. Great Lakes Regional Office, Columbus, Ohio. 8pp. Nickell, A.K. 1985. Soil survey of Jefferson County Indiana. U.S. Dep. I Agric. in coop. with Purdue Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. and Ind. Dep. Nat. Resour. 169pp. ~•·' Niles, L.J. 1993. Protection of neotropical migrants as a major focus of wildlife management. Pages 392-395 in D. Finch and P. Stangle, eds. I , .•· . I I 82 I Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. Rocky Mt. For. Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. I Pashley, D.N., and W.C. Barrow. 1993. Effects of land use practices on neotropical migrant birds in bottomland hardwood forests. Pages 315-320 in D. Finch and P. Stangle, eds. Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. Rocky Mt. For. Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo., Gen. I Tech. Rep. RM-229. Peterson, R.T. 1980. A field guide to the birds of Eastern and Central North I America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Pruitt, S.E., M.S. Litwin, E.S. McCloskey, and L.B. Pruitt. In Prep. Surveys I of fish and wildlife populations on Jefferson Proving Ground. Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. A guide to field I identification: birds of North America. Golden Press, N.Y. Robbins, C.S., D.K. Dawson, and B.A. Dowell. 1989Q. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the Middle Atlantic states. I Wildl. Monogr. 103. 34pp. Robbins, C.S., J.R. Sauer, R. Greenberg, and S. Droege. 1989~. Population declines in North American birds that migrate to the Neotropics. Proc. - of the Natl. Acad. Sci. 86:7658-7662. Robbins, C.S., J.W. Fitzpatrick, and P.B. Hamel. 1992. A warbler in trouble: I (Dendroica cerulea). Pages 549-562 in J.M. Hagan, III and D.W. Johnston, eds. Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. I Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. Robinson, S.K. 1991. Effects of habitat fragmentation on midwestern raptors. Pages 195-201 in Midwest raptor managment symposium and workshop. Robinson, S.K. 1992. Population dynamics of breeding birds in a fragmented Illinois landscape. Pages 408-418 in J.M. Hagan, III and D.W. Johnston, eds. Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. Robinson, S.K., J.A. Grzybowski, S.I. Rothstein, M.G. Brittingham, L.J. Petit, and F.R. Thompson. 1993. Management implications of cowbird parasitism on neotropical migrant songbirds. Pages 93-102 in D. Finch and P. Stangle, eds. Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. Rocky Mt. For. Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Roosa, D. 1984. The prairie: its formation, demise, and rebirth. Ia. Conserv. 43(9):15. Rust Environment and Infrastructure. 1994. Jefferson Proving Ground south of the firing line final draft remedial investigation. Prepared for the U.S. Army Environmental Center. Sampson, F., and F. Knopf. 1994. Prairie conservation in North America. 83 BioScience 44(6):418-421. Schneider, A.F. 1966. Physiography. Reprinted from the Ind. Sesquicentennial Vol. Natural Features of Indiana. Ind. Acad. of Sci., State Library, Indianapolis, Ind. 56pp. Serrentino, P. 1992. Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus). Pages 89-117 in Schneider, K.J., and D.M. Pence, eds. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish and Wildl. Serv., Newton Corner, Mass. Simon, T.P. 1991. Development of index of biotic integrity expectations for the ecoregions of Indiana. U.S. EPA, Chicago, Ill. Surprenant, C.J. 1988. Fishery managemen~ plan: U.S. Army, Jefferson Proving Ground. Unpubl. rep. prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. , Fisheries Assistance Office, Carterville, Ill. 7pp. · Surprenant, C.J. 1992. 1991 and 1992 annual project reports, fishery management program, Jefferson Proving Ground. Unpubl. rep. prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Fisheries Assistance Office, Carterville, Ill. llpp. Surprenant, C.J. 1993. 1993 annual project report, fishery management program, Jefferson Proving Ground. Unpubl. rep. prepared by U.S. Fish and Wild!. Serv., Fisheries Assistance Office, Carterville, Ill. 2pp. Temple, S.A., and J.R. Cary. 1988. Modeling dynamics of habitat-interior bird populations in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Biology 2:340- 347. Terres, J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Kno'ff, N.Y. 1109pp. : Therres, G.D. 1993. plntegrating management of forest interior migratory birds with game in the northeast. Pages. 402-407 in D. Finch and P. Stangle, eds. Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. Rocky Mt. For. Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Thompson, F.R., S.J. Lewis, J. Green, and D. Ewert. 1993. Status of neotropical migrant landbirds in the Midwest: identifying species of management concern. Pages 145-158 in D. Finch and P. Stangle, eds. Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. Rocky Mt. For. Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Tuttle, M.D. and D.E. Stevenson. 1977. Variation in the cave environment and its biological implications. Pages 108-121 in R. Zuber et al., eds. Proc. National Cave Management Symposium. Speleobooks Adobe Press, Albuquerque, N.M. Tyrell, K. and V. Brack, Jr. 1990. A survey for endangered bats along Texas Gas Transmission Corporation's 14-mile line for incremental service to Indiana Gas Corporation. Unpubl. rep. to Texas Gas Transmission 84 Corporation, Owensboro, Ky. 4lpp. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the United States: the 1987 list. Office of Migratory Bird Manage., U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Washington, D.C. lOpp. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. 1985 national survey of fishing, hunting and wildlife-associated recreation -- Indiana. U.S. Government Printing Office. 8lpp. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; animal candidate review for listing as endangered or threatened species, proposed rule. Federal Register 56(225):55804-58836. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. 50 CFR 17. 11 & 17 • 12. U.S. Government Printing Office. 40pp. !"'"- Webster, J.D. 1993. Studies on birds and mammals on Jefferson Proving Ground. Unpubl. rep. 4pp. Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1979. Studies of the eastern woodrat, Neotoma f1oridana, in the Hoosier National Forest, southern Indiana. Unpubl. rep., Hoosier National Forest, Bedford, Ind. 19pp. Whitaker, J.O., Jr., and S.L. Gummer .. 1993. The status of the evening bat, Nycticeius humeralis, in Indiana. Proc. of the Ind. Acad. of Sci. 102:283-291. Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology 66:1211-1214. Wilsmann, L.A., and M.A. Sellers, Jr. 1988. Clonophis kirtlandii rangewide survey. Unpubl. rep. submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Office of Endangered Species, Twin Cities, Minn. 43pp. Yahner, R.H., and D.P. Scott. 1988. Effects of forest fragmentation on depredation of artificial nests. J. Wildl. Manage. 52(1):158-161. Zimmerman, J.L. 1988. Breeding season habitat selection by the Henslow's sparrow (Amrnodramus henslowii) in Kansas. Wilson Bull. 100:17-24. Zook, W.J. 1972. Muscatatuck River watershed fisheries investigations report, 1971. Ind. Dep. Nat. Resour. ·----···-----