Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan May 2012
Cover Photo: Clarence Cannon NWR. Photo by Refuge staff.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan
Habitat Management Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions; set forth goals, objectives and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the Fish and Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail habitat management activities which are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
The National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the world's premier system of public lands and waters set aside to conserve America's fish, wildlife and plants. Since the designation of the first wildlife refuge in 1903, the System has grown to encompass more than 150 million acres, 556 national wildlife refuges and other units of the Refuge System, plus 38 wetland management districts.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Executive Summary iii
Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 Scope and Rationale 2 1.2 Legal Mandates 2 1.3 Relation to Other Plans 3
Chapter 2. Background 2.1 Refuge Location and Description 10 2.2 Geographical Setting 18 2.3 Historical Perspective of Ecological Landscape 20 2.4 Current Natural and Anthropogenic Disturbances 24 2.5 Current Refuge Conditions and Resources 24
Chapter 3. Resources of Concern 3.1 Introduction 32 3.2 Potential Resources of Concern 32 3.3 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health 34 3.4 Priority Resources of Concern 38 3.5 Priority Habitat Types and Associated Focal Species 42 3.6 Conflicting Habitat Needs 48 3.7 Adaptive Management 48
Chapter 4. Habitat Goals and Objectives 4.1 Background 51 4.2 Habitat Goals and Objectives 53
Chapter 5. Management Strategies and Prescriptions 5.1 Development of Management Strategies and Prescriptions 64 5.2 Management Units 64 5.3 Management Strategies and Prescriptions by Habitat Objective 64
Literature Cited 77
Appendices Appendix A – Plan Development Team 84 Appendix B – Resources of Concern for Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR 85 Appendix C – Potential Habitat Management Prescriptions 104 Appendix D – Environmental Assessment 129 Appendix E – Desired Natural Communities 154 Appendix F – Desired Water Regimes 159 Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan i
Table of Contents
Appendix G – Cultural Resource Management 164
List of Maps
1-1 The Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes Joint Venture Region 5 2-1 Overview of Delair Division 11 2-2 Overview of Long Island Division 13 2-3 Overview of Fox Island Division 15 2-4 Overview of Clarence Cannon NWR 17 2-5 The Eastern Tallgrass Prairie and Big Rivers Landscape Conservation Cooperative 19 2-6 General Land Office Land Cover Types in the Illinois-Mississippi River Confluence Area Taken from Surveys Conducted in the Early 1800s 22
List of Figures 2-1 Cross-section of Habitat Types Typical in Mississippi & Illinois River Valleys 28
List of Tables 2-1 Classification Schemes and Conservation Rankings of Habitats Found within the Refuge 27 2-2 Top Two Exotic and Native Invasive Species at Each Refuge Division 29 3-1 Summary of Habitats that Represent Existing BIDEH for the Refuge 36 3-2 Focal Species for Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR 39 3-3 Focal Species for Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR and the Groups, Guilds or Other Species They Represent 40 3-4 Focal Species and Habitat Use in Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR 41 3-5 Focal Species, Associated Habitat Requirements, and Other Species Benefitting from Habitat Management at Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR 43 3-6 Priority Habitats and Their Potential Limiting Factors at Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR 47 4-1 Differences and Rationale between Mark Twain Complex CCP Objectives and Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR HMP Objectives 51 4-2 Bird Groups and Optimal Conditions for Migratory Stopover and Forage Enhancement within Moist-soil Units 54
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan ii
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Spanning 100 miles of the Mississippi River in Illinois and Missouri, Great River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and Clarence Cannon NWR protect a variety of floodplain and riverine wetland habitats. Each refuge is managed by staff stationed at the Clarence Cannon NWR headquarters in Annada, Missouri. These refuges are managed as one 15,000 acre complex referred to in this plan as “the refuge(s)”. Each refuge has similar legal mandates and purpose emphasizing their use as sanctuaries for migratory birds.
The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the refuge was completed in 2004 when the Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR were part of the Mark Twain NWR Complex, which includes river refuges from southeast Iowa to Cape Girardeau, Missouri. The Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is a step-down plan from the CCP. The HMP adds specific guidance for the implementation of habitat management strategies originally intended under the CCP (Habitat Management Practices 620 FW 1).
The refuge’s Resources of Concern (ROC) were identified by reviewing the focal species in the Mark Twain CCP, as well as those identified in local and regional conservation plans, and analyzing their relation to the biological integrity diversity and environmental health (BIDEH) of the refuge habitats. Based on this analysis, the refuge identified 23 focal species from the Mark Twain CCP plus pectoral sandpiper (Calidris melanotos). Focal species serve as indicators and representatives for other species and groups that may utilize similar habitat. As part of our ROC identification, we also evaluated our priority habitats for future management. Priorities were based on each habitat’s ability to support rare natural communities and support resources of conservation concern. Based on our review, riverine wetlands, bottomland woodlands and forests, and wet-mesic bottomland prairie/grasslands were identified as the Priority 1 habitats for the refuge.
The HMP builds upon the goals, objectives, and strategies identified in the Mark Twain CCP. As part of the step-down process, objectives and strategies were revised and updated based on current conditions and refuge management. In general, only minor changes to acreages and time frames were updated. Objectives that were either accomplished or no longer applicable to the refuge were documented and omitted from further discussion. In addition to updating existing strategies, new strategies were identified to guide refuge management in light of the original guidance provided in the CCP.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan iii
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 1. Introduction
Image. Sign outside Delair Division of Great River NWR. Photo courtesy of Dan Salas.
1.1 Scope and Rationale 1.2 Legal Mandates 1.3 Relation to Other Plans
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 1
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Scope and Rationale
Great River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and Clarence Cannon NWR are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). Throughout this Habitat Management Plan (HMP), reference to “the refuge(s)” refers to both Great River NWR with its three divisions and Clarence Cannon NWR. Reference to a specific refuge or division is noted in the HMP, where necessary. Both refuges are managed by the same staff, have similar overall purposes (see section 1.2) and are discussed together in the Mark Twain Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2004).
Refuge staff has developed a mission statement that helps guide their on-refuge management activities and decisions. The mission statement is as follows:
“To the best of our ability, restore function of refuge lands to conditions that existed prior to human disturbance.”
The refuge staff’s mission statement coincides with the mission of the NWRS which is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”
Meeting the wildlife conservation challenges of the 21st century and fulfilling the NWRS mission will require planning and partnerships. The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and the HMP for each refuge establish the groundwork for meeting these challenges. This HMP provides a vision and specific guidance on managing habitat for the resources of concern at the refuge. The contributions of the refuge to ecosystem and landscape scale wildlife and biodiversity conservation are described in the HMP. The HMP sets a direction for the next 15 years (2012- 2027), and is a vital part of the future of Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR.
The refuge is located on the Mississippi River along the Illinois and Missouri border. The refuge includes the three divisions of Great River NWR – Delair, Fox Island, Long Island, and Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuge - totaling approximately 15,000 acres. Spread over 100 miles of the Mississippi River, the refuge provides critical habitat for migratory birds that rest, feed, and winter along the Mississippi Flyway. More than 200 different species of birds funnel through this important river sanctuary on their fall migration.
1.2 Legal Mandates
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is the primary federal agency tasked with this responsibility. Specific responsibilities include enforcing federal wildlife laws, managing migratory bird populations, restoring nationally significant fisheries, administering the Endangered Species Act, and restoring wildlife habitat such as wetlands. The Service also manages the NWRS, the world's largest collection of lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife. The System is a network of more than 550 national wildlife refuges and other units plus 38 wetland management districts encompassing more than 150 million acres of public land and water.
Refuge Purpose Statements are primary to the management of each refuge within the System. The Purpose Statement is derived from the legislative authority used to acquire specific refuge lands and is, along with NWRS goals, the basis on which primary management activities are determined. Additionally, these statements are the foundation from which “allowed” uses of refuges are determined through a defined “compatibility process.”
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 2
Chapter 1. Introduction
Great River NWR was created under mandates from five legislative authorities. The stated purposes for the Great River NWR include: • “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds...”, 16 U.S.C. - 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) • “... shall be administered by [Secretary of the Interior] directly or in accordance with cooperative agreements .... and in accordance with such rules and regulations for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon, ...“, 16 U.S.C. - 664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act) • “... suitable for- (1) incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species ...”, 16 U.S.C. - 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act) • “.... the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions ...”, 16 U.S.C - 3901(b)100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986) • “.... conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans..." 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)
Clarence Cannon NWR was created under the legislative authority of two acts: • “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds...”, 16 U.S.C. - 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) • “... suitable for- (1) incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species ...”, 16 U.S.C. - 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act)
Other legislation that directs refuge management includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (1966) as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (1997)16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee. (Refuge Administration Act). This defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the Secretary to permit any use of a refuge provided such use is compatible with the major purposes for which the refuge was established.
In 1997, Congress passed the landmark National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, preparing the way for a renewed vision for the future of the refuge system where: • Wildlife comes first • Refuges are anchors for biodiversity and ecosystem-level conservation • Lands and waters of the System are biologically healthy • Refuge lands reflect national and international leadership in habitat management and wildlife conservation
Considered the "Organic Act” of the NWRS, the Refuge Improvement Act clearly defined a unifying mission for the Refuge System; established the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation); established a formal process for determining compatibility; established the responsibilities of the Secretary of Interior for managing and protecting the System; and required completion of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.
1.3 Relation to Other Plans
Important guidance for wildlife habitat management at the refuges has already been provided by several important refuge, regional, and national plans.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 3
Chapter 1. Introduction
Regional and National Plans
USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern List, 2008 The overall goal of the Birds of Conservation Concern List is to accurately identify the migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent the Service’s highest conservation priorities. The geographic scope of this endeavor is the United States in its entirety, including island "territories" in the Pacific and Caribbean. Bird species considered for inclusion on lists within the report include nongame birds, game birds without hunting seasons, and Endangered Species Act candidates, proposed endangered or threatened, and recently delisted species. The conservation priority lists were reviewed in conjunction with compilation and consideration of refuge-specific resources of concern.
The Nature Conservancy Central Tallgrass Prairie Ecoregion Assessment, 2008 The Central Tallgrass Prairie ecoregion encompasses 110,468 square miles in North America, extending from eastern Nebraska and northeastern Kansas east to northwestern Indiana. This ecoregion constitutes the heart of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem that once covered the eastern plains of North America. The Mississippi, Missouri and Illinois Rivers form the central network of the ecoregion’s freshwater ecosystem diversity. These streams and rivers were historically bordered by mosaics of wet prairies, oxbow lakes, marshes, and riparian forests and now are primarily surrounded by agricultural landscapes. The priority species identified and their associated conservation management recommendations were considered in development of this HMP.
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives, 2007 Several ongoing migratory bird conservation initiatives are relevant to this planning effort. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) is a partnership effort to restore waterfowl populations to historic levels; it was developed in 1986, with objectives and strategies evolving through NAWMP Updates (the latest produced in 1998). Refuges found within NAWMP Joint Ventures should strive to achieve waterfowl objectives outlined in the pertinent Joint Venture Implementation Plan. The refuge lies within the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture area (map 1-1).
Birds of Management Concern, 1995 This document revises the 1987 list of migratory nongame birds that are thought to be of management concern. These species are of concern because of (1) documented or apparent population declines, (2) small or restricted populations, or (3) dependence on restricted or vulnerable habitats. One hundred and twenty-two (122) species were determined to be of management concern at a National level. Since the refuge is an important stopover for migrating birds, part of this HMP’s focus is the conservation of these bird species of concern.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 4
Chapter 1. Introduction
Map 1-1. The Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes Joint Venture Region
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 5
Chapter 1. Introduction
Several nongame bird initiatives are in the planning stage, with implementation beginning in the near future. Partners In Flight (PIF) is developing Bird Conservation Plans, primarily for land birds, in numerous physiographic areas; these plans include priority species lists, associated habitats, and management strategies. The same elements will be by-products of ongoing planning efforts for shorebirds (U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan) and colonial water birds (North American Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan).
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP) and the North American Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan (NACWP) have identified priority species and conservation strategies, mostly focused around habitat that will address the needs of those groups of birds. The refuges lie primarily within Shorebird Planning Region 22 (Eastern Tallgrass Prairie).
The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is a continental endeavor to improve all habitats for all birds through a united effort of individual programs and agencies. The previously mentioned initiatives (PIF, NAWMP, USSCP, and NACWP) have joined together to work more efficiently and effectively to achieve their mission. This is to be accomplished through coordinated efforts at international, regional, state and local levels, and supported by sound science and effective management.
Missouri and Illinois Wildlife Action Plans Each state was instructed by Congress to create a wildlife action plan. These plans evaluate the vitality of wildlife populations and recommend actions to conserve the targeted species and their habitats. The strategy identifies 33 Conservation Opportunity Areas (COA) including areas along the Mississippi River similar to Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR. The HMP incorporates plans such as the Missouri and Illinois Wildlife Action Plans to prioritize conservation needs at a variety of scales including the state level.
Big Rivers Biological Network A network was formed to provide a forum to communicate and share biological information on a regular basis for refuge and private lands biologists, refuge managers, and regional resource staff from the Upper Mississippi River, Lower Missouri River, Lower Illinois River and Iowa River Ecoregions. Entities involved include the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, NWRS, and other members at large from different divisions of the Service (Division of Biological Resources, Ecological Services, Fisheries, Migratory Birds), United States Geological Survey, United States Army Corps of Engineers (St. Louis, Rock Island, Kansas City and St. Paul Districts), State departments of Conservation and Natural Resources (MO, IL, IA, WI and MN), non-government organizations (Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation, Turkey Unlimited, Quail Unlimited, and Pheasants Forever), Environmental Protection Agency, universities, and other state and federal partners such as Natural Resources Conservation Service Local Soil and Water Conservation Districts.
USFWS Migratory Bird Program Strategic Plan, 2004 The Migratory Bird Program Strategic Plan provides direction for the Services’ migratory bird management over the next decade (2004-2014). The plan contains a vision and recommendations for the refuge systems place in bird conservation. It defines strategies for the Service, including the refuge system, to actively support bird conservation through monitoring, conservation, consultation, and recreation. This HMP, to the extent it is practical, will utilize standard monitoring protocols, habitat assessment and management, and promote nature-based recreation and education to forward the vision of the Migratory Bird Program Strategic Plan.
USFWS Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Priorities, 2002 The priorities presented within this report identifies the 243 species considered to be in the greatest need of attention within the Midwest under the Service’s full span of authorities. The identified strategies will contribute to the conservation, protection, and recovery of migratory
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 6
Chapter 1. Introduction
birds, threatened and endangered species, and interjurisdictional fish, as well as the habitats on which they depend. The priority species identified and their associated conservation management recommendations were considered in development of this HMP.
Mississippi River Management Plans
Refuge staff works closely with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), other Federal and state agencies and other Service programs in developing or consulting on a variety of plans and initiatives. The following paragraphs describe some of the plans pertaining to the refuge.
Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee “A River That Works and A Working River – A Strategy for the Natural Resources of the Upper Mississippi River System,” was prepared by the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee (UMRCC 2000). Led by the five Upper Mississippi River System states, this process consolidated the input of state, federal and non-governmental organizations for a conceptual plan of action. The five main issues addressed are:
• Levee construction and the subsequent loss of over 50 percent of the historic floodplain. • Construction and operation of the locks and dams have converted most of the free- flowing River into a series of pools, or reservoirs. • The River has been channelized and maintained for navigation. • Changes in land use and land practices have degraded water quality and increased sediment and nutrient problems in the River and the Gulf of Mexico. • By connecting Lake Michigan to the Illinois River, we created a pathway for non-native species in both directions.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, Rivers Project Master Plan In July 2001, the St. Louis District, USACE completed the Rivers Project Master Plan for the management of the natural, cultural and recreation resources on federal lands and waters associated with Mississippi River Navigation Pools 24, 25, and 26 (including the lower 80 miles of the Illinois River). The refuge has management areas in both Pool 25 and 26.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, Operational Management Plans (OMP) The USACE “Environmental Stewardship Operations and Maintenance Policies” guidance (ER- 1130-2-540, 15 November, 1995) establishes policy for administration and management of natural resource activities at USACE civil works water resource projects. Forest management objectives on refuge lands are directed whenever possible to improve timber quality for wildlife habitat.
Refuge Plans
Mark Twain Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act requires all refuges to complete Comprehensive Conservation Plans by 2012. A CCP is an all-encompassing document that guides all biological and public use actions on the refuge for a 15-year period. The CCP for the refuge was completed in July 2004. This Habitat Management Plan is a step-down of the CCP. Habitat goals and objectives developed in the CCP have been incorporated into this Habitat Management Plan (reference chapter 4 of the Mark Twain CCP).
Refuge-Specific “Step-Down” Plans
In addition to these local, state, and regional plans, a number of other refuge program specific plans have provided guidance either in their draft or final format, including but not limited to:
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 7
Chapter 1. Introduction
Fire Management Plan A Fire Management Plan was updated in 2008 and approved in 2011 for Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR as mandated by Service policy for any refuge that has “vegetation capable of sustaining fire.” Prescribe fire programs needed to mimic natural processes and manage habitats have been incorporated into the Habitat Management Plan.
Prescribed Fire Plan A Prescribed Fire Plan lays out the management objectives for the prescribed fires, specific prescriptions to achieve the objectives, and contingency planning for managing the fire. This HMP includes prescribed fire as a strategy for achieving certain management objectives. A Prescribed Fire Plan is completed, as needed, for individual management units with each refuge. Once a plan is written, it is good for a period of five years.
Annual Habitat Work Plan Each refuge prepares an Annual Habitat Work Plan that includes review of the habitat management activities of the previous year, an evaluation of monitoring programs, and recommendations for habitat management strategies for the coming year. It is a tool to accomplish the goals and objectives of this Habitat Management Plan.
Inventory and Monitoring Plan An Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP) is a required refuge plan and is being developed in conjunction with the HMP. Management objectives and strategies developed in the HMP provide the framework for how refuge staff will measure progress towards achievement of goals. The IMP will be completed by the end of 2012.
Additional Plans Several other management plans of varying scope have been created for the refuges. A Hunt Plan was written in 1989 to address deer management and other hunting issues. In 1985, a Law Enforcement Plan was created. This plan is currently being revised. Other plans that have been completed include: a Cropland Plan – 1988, a Forest Plan – 1988, and a Fisheries recommendations plan – completed in 1986.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 8
Chapter 2. Background
Chapter 2. Background
Image. View of the Mississippi River from Clarence Cannon NWR. Photo courtesy of Dan Salas.
2.1 Refuge Location and Description 2.2 Geographical Setting 2.3 Historical Perspective of Ecological Landscape 2.4 Current Climate Influences 2.5 Current Natural and Anthropogenic Disturbances 2.6 Current Refuge Conditions and Resources
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 9
Chapter 2. Background
2.1 Refuge Location and Description
Spanning 100 miles of the Mississippi River in Illinois and Missouri, Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR are located in northeast Missouri and west-central Illinois. Refuge headquarters are at Clarence Cannon NWR near the small town of Annada, Missouri, in Pike County. Clarence Cannon NWR is only 40 miles from suburban St. Louis, Missouri.
The refuge provides critical habitat for migratory birds that rest, feed, and winter along the Mississippi Flyway. Open water pools, backwater sloughs, small impoundments, wetland management units, and a cooperative farming program provide resources that can be used by migrating species. The refuge also offers numerous recreational opportunities. Great River NWR is divided into three divisions: Delair, Fox Island, and Long Island Divisions. Clarence Cannon NWR is comprised of one contiguous area, divided by levees into several smaller management units. Both refuges total 15,000 acres.
Great River National Wildlife Refuge Delair Division (1,737 acres) The Delair Division is located approximately 15 miles north of the Clarence Cannon NWR at Pool 24. This division is in Pike County, IL though the closest town is Louisiana, MO. It lies completely within the 52 mile long Sny Agricultural Levee District, and is separated from the river by the mainline Sny Levee.
When originally acquired, the area was almost entirely cropland. Currently, 400 acres annually remain in a cooperative farming program to maintain early succession on units until restoration of native habitats can occur.
The remaining 1,275 acres are being managed as marshes, lakes, forests and grasslands. Semi- permanent and permanent water bodies make up 480 acres of Delair Division, providing feeding and resting areas for waterfowl and many other wetland bird species (Map 2-1). Water level management, mowing, and disking, are used to create diverse vegetative habitat within the wetland units. Some loss of bottomland timber has occurred due to the saturation of the soils from flooding, though timber within Delair Division was not as extensively damaged as other divisions.
Delair Division is closed to public entry at all times, as stipulated in the purchase agreements with the exception of refuge staff guided access for the specific purpose of environmental education and interpretation. In 1993, it became necessary to control the expanding deer population and a muzzle-loader deer hunt was initiated to assist with habitat management efforts. No waterfowl hunting opportunities exist on the division.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 10
Chapter 2. Background
Map 2-1. Overview of Delair Division
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 11
Chapter 2. Background
Great River National Wildlife Refuge Long Island Division (6,700 acres) Long Island Division was established in 1958 as one of the original Mark Twain NWR units. This division is located six miles north of Quincy, IL, in Pool 21. This 6,700 acre division is comprised of a complex of islands and floodplain. Major islands include Barnes, Shandrew, Flannigan, Long and LaGrange (map 2-2). Wildlife habitat consists of 4,700+ acres of bottomland forest, with lakes, sloughs, open channels, former agricultural fields and ponds making up the remaining acreage. While extensive tree mortality occurred due to flooding in 1993, this tract of mature bottomland forest is still the largest contiguous acreage of its type on the river between Rock Island and Cairo, IL. The size and diversity of trees makes this area unique along this portion of the upper Mississippi River.
The last 160 acres of cropland remaining on this division are being converted to forest, following a reduction in the agricultural program over the past decade. The agricultural fields in the Bear Creek unit (124 acres) were abandoned following the 1993 flood and are in the process of naturally regenerating back to a floodplain forest.
Sedimentation in chutes and channels has greatly reduced depths and limited boat travel. Much of the sedimentation is due to flow manipulation and closing structures needed for navigation. The quality of fishing within the complex has greatly declined due to sedimentation. A restoration project has enhanced deeper waters for fish habitat by partially dredging, then closing off one side chute to reduce sedimentation.
The Long Island Division is open to the public year round with many hunting and fishing opportunities. The USACE manages two access areas near the Long Island Division: Canton Chute Public Access Area, which includes a boat launch; and Bear Creek Public Use Area, equipped with a boat launch and primitive campground.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 12
Chapter 2. Background
Map 2-2. Overview of Long Island Division
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 13
Chapter 2. Background
Great River National Wildlife Refuge Fox Island Division (2,110 acres) The northernmost division of Great River NWR is the Fox Island Division, located near Alexandria, Missouri in Clark County. It is comprised of approximately 2,110 acres (map-2-3). The Fox River, which runs through southeastern Iowa and northeastern Missouri, bisects the division, and empties into the Mississippi River at the southern tip of the division. The Fox Island Division is prone to flooding from both the Mississippi and Fox Rivers. This unit is currently under development of the Fox Island Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Program (HREP) and includes planting mast-producing hardwoods on 215 acres using container grown stock, and 60 acres direct seeding. These tree plantings will take place within many of the former agricultural fields to reduce forest fragmentation. Other developments include enhancing wetlands in and around Logsdon Slough, Coin Pond, Slim Slough, and Old Lake by installation of two groundwater wells, improving channels and installing new water control structures.
Fox Island is closed to all hunting from October 16 through December 31. Deer hunting is allowed only during the Missouri state antlerless only season. No public use facilities exist at this time on this division, and because only 90 of the 2,110 acres are protected by a levee, passage to the division can be limited by river fluctuations.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 14
Chapter 2. Background
Map 2-3. Overview of Fox Island Division
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 15
Chapter 2. Background
Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuge (3,750 acres) Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuge is the most southern of the refuge lands. Located at Pool 25 one mile east of Annada, MO in Pike County, the refuge was established in 1964 as a stopover for migrating birds (map 2-4). Over 2,000 acres are managed for wetland plant production. Currently 400 – 600 acres are annually rotated within the cooperative farming program. This is used as a tool to set back succession in the wetland management units (moist- soil units) to maintain diversity. In addition, 450 acres of bottomland hardwood forest are still present at the refuge, though in reduced area, as 80% of the pin oaks and hickories died in the 1993 flood. Some natural regeneration is occurring.
Following the 1993 flood, an 800-foot spillway was cut into the Mississippi River levee on the southeast side of the refuge. The construction allows flood waters to enter the refuge more frequently. The spillway has provided increased connectivity to the river and temporary floodwater storage, which may help reduce downstream flooding on private lands.
Over 200 species of migratory birds, including bald eagles, waterfowl, shorebirds and songbirds are found at Clarence Cannon NWR. Many birds also nest on the refuge including the king rail (Rallus elegans) (a Missouri state endangered species) and bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Managed deer hunts are conducted annually at Clarence Cannon NWR. Fishing permitted at the refuge is limited to by boat on the Mississippi River along the eastern boundary of the refuge or in Bryant's Creek along the southern refuge boundary, unless during refuge special events. Portions of the refuge are seasonally closed to the public during the peak of waterfowl migration, typically late November to early December.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 16
Chapter 2. Background
Map 2-4. Overview of Clarence Cannon NWR
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 17
Chapter 2. Background
2.2 Geographical Setting
Bird Conservation Region (BCR) and Partners in Flight (PIF) Physiographic Area The regional planning efforts completed by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) and Partners in Flight created a series of regional conservation planning units across a national scale. NABCI efforts seek to unite all bird conservation efforts on a regional scale within Bird Conservation Regions. PIF planning focus is conservation of landbirds within biologically based regions identified as Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs). Bird Conservation Regions are generally larger in scale than PIF Physiographic Areas.
Mississippi Flyway The Mississippi flyway is one of four major migration routes on the continent and is best known for the spectacular numbers of ducks and geese that follow the river and ply the wetlands each spring and fall. This great flyway serves a vital corridor for many other kinds of birds as well. Each spring and fall, the Mississippi River valley serves as one of the most important bird migration corridors in North America. Millions of birds representing over 290 different species rely on the waters, wetlands, forests and grasslands along the Mississippi River for places to rest and feed during the fall and spring migration.
Mississippi River Watershed The Upper Mississippi River drains parts of six states and 189,000 square miles. Today, more than 80% of this watershed has been altered. Historically, water, nutrients and sediment reached the Upper Mississippi River through tributaries bordered by riparian forest and prairie or by forests, wetlands, and prairies that stored water during wet periods and slowly released it during dry ones. This resilient landscape buffered water flows, and delivered nutrients evenly during the year. With the installation of a lock and dam system and landscape-scale changes in the watershed, mostly from agriculture, these natural processes have been greatly altered. Water levels have been stabilized and sediment deposition in the floodplain has been reduced. Today, managers try and mimic the more natural processes of the historical flood regime by manipulating water levels to benefit waterbirds and the river as a whole.
Spring snow melt in the upper portions of the watershed results in seasonal flooding along the river. The size and extent of the spring flood each year depends on the amount of snowpack in the upper watershed at the time of spring thaw and the amount of rain during the spring season. Large scale precipitation events throughout the year can also have an impact on flooding within the areas adjacent to the Mississippi River.
Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) Context Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR are located within the Eastern Tallgrass Prairie and Big Rivers LCC (map 2-5). Landscape Conservation Cooperatives are part of a national initiative to provide scientific and technical support for conservation at "landscape" scales-the entire range of an identified priority species or groups of species. They support biological planning, conservation design, prioritizing and coordinating research, and designing species inventory and monitoring programs. Due to the recent organization and development of the Eastern Tallgrass Prairie and Big Rivers LCC, no conservation priorities or other management recommendations have been developed at the time of this report.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 18
Chapter 2. Background
Map 2-5. The Eastern Tallgrass Prairie and Big Rivers Landscape Conservation Cooperative
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 19
Chapter 2. Background
Regional Conservation Context Clarence Cannon NWR and The Delair Division of Great River NWR are surrounded by private hunt clubs, which provide some level of conservation. For instance, waterfowl hunt clubs flood corn fields in the fall to attract waterfowl, while deer hunt clubs manage forest and food plots for the health of the deer population. In either case, conservation efforts for these target species subsequently benefit non-target species, thus expanding conservation to a regional level. In contrast, however, private lands near the Long Island and Fox Island Divisions of Great River NWR are managed more for a single purpose, agriculture.
In addition to the private property surrounding the refuges, each division of Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR are in close proximity to other state and federal lands. Specifically, BK Leach Conservation Area (CA) managed by Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) is located within a mile of Clarence Cannon NWR; Ted Shanks CA (MDC) is near Delair Division; Quincy Bay managed by Illinois Department of Natural Resources is located downstream of Long Island Division. Rose Pond WLA (MDC) adjoins Fox Island Division. All of these properties are managed by state agencies to provide hunting opportunities for the general public. Land managed by the USACE can be found nearby each refuge.
On a larger scale, the refuge is located within broader focus areas. The refuge is part of the Missouri/Mississippi River Confluence, which is a Missouri Conservation Opportunity Area and a Region 3 Partners for Fish and Wildlife Priority Area. Clarence Cannon NWR is an important priority area in the Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes Joint Venture Region. The refuge is also recognized as an Audubon Important Bird Area and by The Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited as areas of concern.
2.3 Historical Perspective of Ecological Landscape
Geologic Development The present location of Mississippi River and the geomorphic land forms in the region reflect numerous channel changes and deposition/scouring events caused by fluvial dynamic sand glacial events in the Quaternary period (Willman 1973, Simons et al. 1975). During pre-glacial times about 1 million years before the present (BP), the Iowa River occupied the current Mississippi River floodplain from about Muscatine, Iowa to Grafton, Illinois, After the Kansas glaciations, which included a diversion of the Iowa River to the current Illinois River Valley, the Mississippi River reestablished its preglacial pattern in its original channel. The Mississippi River at Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR flows through the Central Lowland Province landform region.
The main events in the geologic history of the area, which account for the bedrock distribution, structural features, and the surficial materials of the uplands and alluvial valleys, were: (1) Sedimentary rock units, some 4,000 to 5,000 feet thick, were deposited over Precambrian extrusive and intrusive igneous rocks by alternate inundation and regression of semitropical or tropical seas. The marine phases were the most persistent. (2) During the Paleozoic Era, the area to the east of the Mississippi River began to subside. A spoon-shaped depression was formed which became the Illinois Basin. Thus, the rock which comes to the surface near the river is several thousand feet under the surface in Central Illinois. Also, during the Paleozoic Era, the Ozark dome began to rise and the Lincoln Fold was formed. (3) During the Pleistocene Epoch or Ice Age, about 1,000,000 years ago, great continental ice sheets moved into the mid-latitudes of the United States, and the Midwest was overrun by the Nebraskan, Kansan, Illinoian, and Wisconsinian glaciers. These glaciers deposited drift on the uplands and filled the alluvial valleys with outwash. (4) During the Holocene Stage (recent), the upland surface has been eroded and modern soils created. In the alluvial valleys, some of the valley fill has been scoured away and subsequent river changes and flooding have created the present day floodplain morphology and alluvial soils (http://www.mvs.usace.army.mil/pm/Riverplan/Four/4_06.html).
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 20
Chapter 2. Background
Pre-European Settlement Humans were present in the Lower Illinois River Valley, southeast of the refuge, as early as 10,000 years BC, based on archaeological findings in the area (e.g., Farnsworth 1976). Many Indian burial mounds occur throughout the confluence region and artifacts indicate several succeeding cultures used the area until the early 1800s (Kullen 1994, Titus et al. 1995, 1996, Balek et al. 2001).
With the decline of the Illinois people in the region in the 1700s, few native people actually lived in the area, although some evidence suggests larger numbers of people migrated into and out of the area for hunting and gathering of foods (Titus et al. 1995, 1996, Balek et al. 2001). Artifacts from small campsites suggest most Indian activity in the pre-European settlement period was hunting of local fish and wildlife and gathering of fruits, nuts, berries, and tubers.
Collectively, the floodplain near Clarence Cannon NWR stretch near current Pools 25 and 26 contained about 56% bottomland forest and 41% prairie, most of which appears to have been bottomland prairie (Yin and Nelson 1996, Nelson et al. 1998). General Land Office (GLO) surveyor notes suggest historic forests in this area were generally “open” in character and consequently, it seems possible that this area was a savanna (map 2-6).
Before water control structures determined river hydrology, water levels rose in late winter and spring, and most floodplain habitats gradually became inundated for at least some short periods and provided newly flooded foods and habitats used by migrant waterfowl, shorebirds, and neotropical migrant passerines (Bellrose et al. 1979, Havera 1999, Knutson et al. 1996).
Short duration flooding of bottomland prairie habitats similarly provided pre-breeding foods to many birds and some mammals and when flooded for longer duration provided nesting sites for species such as king, sora, and Virginia rails; marsh wrens; several species of sparrows; and massasauga rattlesnakes.
Water levels in floodplain habitats historically declined during summer and declining pools of water concentrated aquatic prey used by newly hatched wading birds, turtles, mustelids and otters, and some fish (Heitmeyer et al. 2005). Fish eventually moved out of these backwaters as they dried and the bottoms of bottomland lakes became exposed mudflats (Sparks 1995). These mudflats were excellent foraging sites for shorebirds, swallows, and raccoons and also facilitated germination of moist-soil herbaceous vegetation that covered bottomland lake margins. Drying of floodplains consolidated sediments and reduced turbidity of waters encouraged establishment of submersed aquatic plants in standing water and germination of emergent and herbaceous plants on mudflats. Seasonal drying also released and recycled nutrients from sediments that helped maintain the high productivity of these habitats (Heitmeyer and Westphall 2007).
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 21
Chapter 2. Background
Map 2-6. General Land Office Land Cover Types in the Illinois-Mississippi River Confluence Area Taken from Surveys Conducted in the Early 1800s. Data provided by U. S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Data Sciences Center, LaCrosse, Wisconsin.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 22
Chapter 2. Background
European Settlement Early European settlers in the refuge area were restricted to higher uplands and bluffs that did not flood. Because much of the refuge area was low elevation, overland travel and trade routes were restricted and European settlement was slow to occur. The Mississippi River was the major transportation route.
Much of the landscape in this stretch of the Mississippi was difficult to farm because of relatively steep upland hills, bluffs, and flood-prone bottomlands. Early clearing was restricted to small fields and pastures and GLO survey maps prepared from 1817 to 1832 do not show many cultural features of settlements, farm fields, roads, or other clearings. Later in the mid 1800s, the timber industry expanded markedly in the area and most of the upland forest became “cut-over” by the early 1900s (Nelson et al. 1994, Williams 1980). Some bottomland forest was also cut. GLO surveyor notes from 1842 noted “cut-off” timber in about 50% of the line descriptions that ended at the river bank. Wood was cut for boating and barrel staves, machinery parts, and construction and furniture lumber.
Conversion of native prairie and upland forests to agricultural production increased greatly in the late 1800s in the area. Maps of the region prepared in 1890 indicate that considerable parts of the higher elevations of bottomland and mesic prairie had been converted to grain production, especially wheat and corn. At this time, many stock and dairy farms were established. Floodplain forests also were exploited for some agricultural production at this time, but GLO maps from the 1840s do not indicate much change from earlier distribution, probably because these areas remained highly flood prone and were quickly re-vegetated when they were not regularly tilled.
20th Century Developments - Lock and Dam System Collectively, the hydrological changes in the Mississippi River from the late 1800s to the mid 1900s caused river levels to have higher, more stabilized, levels throughout the year, especially during summer and early fall. During high flow periods, water levels were raised 2-4 feet from historic levels; during low flow periods water levels increased on average by 8-9 feet. Also, short duration water-level fluctuations during the growing season increased following construction of the lock and dam system. Further, even in higher elevations of floodplains that were not completely inundated the soil moisture content became higher throughout much of the year.
The refuge is located between Lock and Dam 18 and 25. After completion of the locks, water levels immediately rose and permanently inundated low elevations of the floodplain. This caused extensive tree mortality in bottomland forests due to permanent and/or prolonged periods of standing, stagnant water (Green 1947, Yeager 1949). Remnant prairie area also was greatly reduced at this time; corresponding reciprocal increases occurred in open water, emergent and herbaceous marsh, and shrub/scrub Habitats (Nelson et al. 1994).
Changes in Wildlife The area along the refuge is important during the spring and fall migrations of birds. Traditionally, management has focused on providing habitat for waterfowl; however, there is a growing understanding of the importance of the refuge to shorebirds, wading, songbirds, and other non- game species. Providing habitat for migrating Canada geese was an early focus of the refuge. As Canada geese populations have increased dramatically over the last several decades, to the point of nuisance in some geographic locations, the importance of refuge management to the regional Canada goose population has decreased. Areas adjacent to the refuge provide as much and adequate habitat as the refuge can provide for Canada geese.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 23
Chapter 2. Background
2.4 Current Natural and Anthropogenic Disturbances
The Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR area has been inhabited by humans since the end of the last Ice Age thousands of years ago. More recently, the first European settlers reached the area in the mid to late 1700’s. As they settled, they brought large-scale agriculture to the region, which greatly affected the Mississippi River over time. Further, locks and dams were built in the River in the early 1900’s which directly impacted the river through changes in flooding and water flow.
Conversely, the locks and dams retain higher water levels, with reduced fluctuations in level, during low flow periods to maintain the 9-foot navigation depth. The areas immediately above the locks and dams, including Clarence Cannon NWR, Delair, and Long Island Divisions, effectively have become “lakes” with relatively stabilized water levels during low flow periods and with fluctuating high flow flood events. Fox Island is located at Pool 20, Long Island at Pool 21, Delair at Pool 24, and Clarence Cannon NWR at Pool 25.
2.5 Current Refuge Conditions and Resources
Climate The climate surrounding Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR is characterized by seasonal variations of hot, humid summers and cold winters. The average summer temperature is approximately 75° F and the average winter temperature is 31° F. In general, July is the warmest month with an average high temperature of 89° F while January is the coldest month with lows averaging 21° F. Shallow waters in wetlands in the region typically are frozen from late November through the middle of March; the first hard frosts and temperatures below freezing usually occur in early to the middle of October. Growing seasons average about 200 days annually.
Total annual precipitation in the region is slightly over 37 inches (www.weatherbase.com). Precipitation generally is low in winter. The area annually receives an average of 19.8 inches of snow with January being the driest month (average of 2.0 inches of snow). May is typically the wettest month of the year and receives on average 3.9 inches of precipitation. Summer storms are relatively common and daily rain totals of >3 to 4 inches occur occasionally. Snow melt and increasing rain in early spring create local runoff into floodplain habitats. In addition to regular seasonal patterns of regional precipitation, the Mississippi River also has longer term patterns in annual precipitation and runoff that suggest peaks and lows that alternate on about a 20-year recurring interval.
Climate change is a concern that, depending on the accuracy of current assessments, could have major influences on the refuge. Like the rest of the world, much of the Midwest is already experiencing changes in temperature and precipitation. If these predictions are accurate, average temperatures and precipitation could continue to increase, resulting in longer growing seasons and increased flooding.
According to a 2009 report by the Union for Concerned Scientists (UCS) about climate change in Missouri, by the end of this century, the average summer temperature could be 14° F higher. Along with long-term temperature increases, the number and intensity of heat waves are also expected to increase (UCS 2009). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also projects that areas throughout North America will experience more severe and longer heat waves and increased impacts from air pollution. In their Summary Report for Policymakers, the IPCC warns with “very high confidence” that these extreme temperature events may lead to increasing impacts on forests through disturbances from pests, diseases, and extended periods of high risks of fire. It is important to note that “very high confidence” is defined as a 9 in 10 likelihood of occurrence (IPCC 2007). It is also suspected that increases in temperature and precipitation
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 24
Chapter 2. Background
could increase the rate at which invasive species can spread across the landscape. All of these risks could endanger the fidelity and quality of the many community types present at the refuge.
In addition to increased temperatures, precipitation is also expected to rise. In the region of the refuge, spring rainfall is expected to increase at least 30% by 2070. Portions of the Mississippi River basin could see an increase by as much as 40% over the same period (UCS 2009). Further, how and when precipitation falls could be altered. The intensity of the storm events that deliver precipitation is expected to increase: the Midwest could see up to a 50% increase in heavy rains. Also, the timing of the precipitation could change. According to the UCS report (2009), up to one-third more precipitation is expected during the fall, winter, and spring, while up to 15% less is expected in the summer. This change in timing could not only increase flooding, but also increase the possibility of droughts in the summer.
Increased flooding could prevent the preferred water management options most beneficial to plants and wildlife from occurring. If inadequate water is available during the growing season, wetland systems could be damaged or eliminated, again hurting plant and animal populations. Conversely, some floodplains in the area have been flooded for the duration of the entire growing season over the past 3 years (2008-2010) due to higher precipitation in the upper portions of the river basin. This severely limits the ability to manage moist-soil units (MSU) in a manner most beneficial to the greatest number of wildlife. This increased flooding has also resulted in increased tree mortality in riverfront forests. At the time of this writing, we continue to evaluate the annual trends in precipitation in order to determine if these trends are part of the long-term precipitation cycle or indicative of a changing climate. We will review updated projections for the region as they are made available in order to improve our understanding of its long-term implications for management.
Soils A variety of soil types are present across the refuge. Soils formed due to alluvial processes throughout the refuge lands. Repeated flooding throughout time greatly influenced their development and properties. Rich, organic soils dominate. Some of the soils present in the Delair Division include Beaucoup, Darwin, and Titus silty clay loam, and Coffeen, Haymond, and Petrolia silt loam, among others. The Long Island Division also contains some of the same soil types including Beaucoup and Titus silty clay loam, as well others such as Blake-Slacwater, Raveenwash, and Wakeland silt loams. Beaucoup soils are haplaquolls that formed under bottomland forest and marsh grass vegetation in seasonally saturated areas. Wakeland soils typically were formed under bottomland forest sites in floodplains and adjacent terraces. Darwin soils formed on natural levees under bottomland forest vegetation. All of these soils are classified as being either occasionally or frequently flooding (NRCS web soil survey). Most of these same soils are also present in the Fox Island Division and Clarence Cannon NWR.
Topography All three divisions of the Great River NWR and the Clarence Cannon NWR are primarily composed of bottomland habitats associated with the Mississippi River. The River has been carving out these backwater channels, sloughs, and lakes for millennia. Most of the refuge areas are relatively flat and are flooded for at least part of each year. Small elevation changes or microtopography can be observed as water ponds and recedes from the divisions. Many small islands dot each division, varying in size depending on the time of year. Floodplain wetlands, for the most part seasonally flooded, are interspersed with natural sloughs and scours connected to the river either directly or through streams. Conversely, areas of high ground are seldom, if ever, flooded. These drier habitats contain some of the most southern reaches of the northern prairie system.
Hydrology Annual and long-term hydrology of river, wetland, and floodplain habitats in Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR are influenced by local rainfall, runoff, and discharge of tributaries to the
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 25
Chapter 2. Background
Mississippi River. Because of the connectivity of upstream watersheds to the River, precipitation events throughout the Upper Midwest greatly influence seasonal and annual fluctuations in river levels. Water levels and seasonal discharge in the River have been significantly altered from historical conditions. The historic hydrograph of the Mississippi River at Winfield (Lock and Dam 25) indicates a strong seasonal pattern of increasing flow from January through April followed by gradually declining levels until September or early October.
In summary, the hydrology of floodplains in the refuge area historically was dynamic both seasonally and annually and was characterized by a strong seasonal pattern of higher river levels and flooding of bottomland lakes and habitats during spring and gradual drainage and drying in summer and early fall. This pattern was especially pronounced during regularly recurring “dry” periods and with more prolonged flooding during “wet” periods.
Water Quality Suspended sediment levels, and ultimately sedimentation rates (deposits of silts and sands/year) in the Mississippi River and its floodplain increased following clearing of uplands for agriculture, construction of drainage and levee districts, increased diversion of water into the river, and slower flows and impounded conditions following construction of locks and dams.
Coincident with altered water flows and sedimentation, the water quality of the river and floodplain wetlands and lakes also changed. Generally, high sediment loads in the River and in floodwaters caused high turbidity of water (Cahill and Steele 1986, Demissie et al. 1992). High turbidity and reduced water clarity reduced aquatic plant beds in floodplain wetlands and caused more open water conditions where winds were less dampened by vegetation. Prolonged flooding, high wind fetch, and wave action keep sediments suspended for longer periods and exacerbate turbidity levels in floodplain lakes, which deters establishment of vegetation and improved water clarity.
Current Natural Community Types The refuge supports a variety of riverine, forest, wetland, and grassland ecosystems. Many of the ecosystems (and the habitats they support) have been degraded, damaged, or destroyed as a result of the numerous impacts previously cited, most notably the installation of locks and dams up and down the Mississippi River. Despite these alterations, many of these impacted ecosystems have the potential to be restored through various management actions and specific projects. Other areas, including portions of the backwater wetlands and upland forests contain healthy and intact plant communities that will require a more protection-focused approach to management. Some ecosystems support plant communities or species of concern.
Natural Community Types Within the area of the refuge, several different habitat classification schemes have been used to describe the historic and current habitat and vegetation types (table 2-1). Each scheme varies in the amount of detail and the number of sub-habitats broken down within the major habitat groupings. This plan utilizes the Nelson’s “Terrestrial Natural Communities of Missouri” scheme in developing information in chapter 3. Habitat designations from the Mark Twain CCP are used in conjunction with the Nelson scheme in chapters 4 and 5 because the information relates back to goals, objectives, and strategies developed in the CCP. The Heitmeyer scheme is useful in understanding the river and floodplain processes that determine vegetation composition.
The National Wildlife Refuge System adopted the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) which was developed by The Nature Conservancy and the Natural Heritage Network as a standard for classifying plant communities. The classification contains hierarchical levels of community specificity. The narrowest level within the classification is the Association. Table 2-1 lists the NVCS Associations found within the various broad scale habitats of the refuge. Some communities were identified only down to the Alliance level, which is a broader category above Associations.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 26
Chapter 2. Background
Where possible, the global conservation status rankings have been indicated as referenced by NatureServe Explorer. Conservation status rankings indicate the degree of imperilment of a species of community on either a global, national, or state level. G1 rankings indicate a community that is most globally imperiled habitats, while G5 communities are considered globally stable. States also often rank these communities on a statewide scale. At this time, no state- specific conservation rankings for Illinois could be found. The community types comprising refuge habitats are identified in table 2-1, the extent and boundaries of these community types have currently not been mapped.
Table 2-1. Classification Schemes and Conservation Rankings of Habitats Found within the Refuge. Nelson (2005) Terrestrial Conservation Broad Habitat Mark Twain CCP Heitmeyer and National Vegetation Natural Communities of Ranking (Global- Types Habitats Westphall (2007) Classification Standard Missouri State) Mississippi River channel and islands Mississippi River channel and its Open Water Open Water Large Riverine GNR-SNR Backwater sloughs and river associated tributaries and backwaters side channels and chute Permanently flooded Midwest ephemeral pond G4/G5-S2 submergent Bulrush - cattail - bur-reed shallow Marsh riverine wetland G/G-S2 Semi-permanently marsh flooded emergent River bulrush seasonally flooded Bottomland "oxbow" lakes GNR-S2 Freshwater herbaceous alliance Wetlands Temporary and Marsh riverine wetland (Subtype Smartweed species seasonally Seasonally flooded annual plant species) aka moist- GNR-S2 flooded herbaceous alliance emergent soil unit
North-central interior wet meadow- Shrub swamp riverine wetland Scrub/Shrub Shrub/scrub GNR-S2 shrub aka shrub/scrub Eastern cottonwood temporarily Riverfront forest Riverfront forest GNR-S4 flooded forest alliance Wet floodplain forest Wetland bottomland forest G2/G3-S3 Bur oak (white oak, northern pin oak, black oak) woodland alliance Wet-mesic bottomland Floodplain Forests G2/G3-S1 woodland Floodplain forest Mesic bottomland forest G3-S2 Sugar maple - oak - bitternut hickory Mesic bottomland forest mesic bottomland forest Mesic bottomland woodland G3-SH
Prairie Cordgrass - Sedge species - Bluejoint - Winged Loosestrife - Bottomland prairie Wet bottomland prairie G3-S1 (Common Water-dropwort) Prairie/Grasslands Wet meadow Herbaceous Vegetation Big Bluestem - Switchgrass - Mesic prairie Sawtooth Sunflower Herbaceous Wet-mesic bottomland prairie G2/G3-S1 Vegetation
The plant communities and habitats present at the refuge are greatly influenced by the Mississippi River’s hydrology and the topography of the adjacent terrestrial landscape. Figure 2-1 illustrates how the refuge’s natural communities vary based on the morphology of the river and its surrounding upland areas.
In general, the refuge can be broken down into four major habitats briefly described below. The tables in chapter 3 provide a greater detail of the habitats.
Open Water Open water habitat consisting of the Mississippi River and the tributaries that flow into it across the refuge and surrounding landscape.
Freshwater Wetlands Low lying areas along the river and floodplain with fluctuating water levels where inundation occurs for a significant enough portion of the growing season that trees are prevented from becoming established. The wetlands are dominated by submerged, emergent, or shrub/scrub vegetation.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 27
Chapter 2. Background
Floodplain Forests Areas adjacent to the river where inundation length and frequency are short enough to allow for the establishment of trees. The amount of canopy openings and the position of the trees in relation to the floodplain elevation determine tree species composition.
Prairie/Grasslands Open, higher elevation areas (compared to freshwater wetlands) dominated by herbaceous plant species such as native warm season grasses and forbs. Historically, these areas were relatively treeless due to frequent fires or seasonal flooding.
Figure 2-1. Cross-section of Habitat Types Typical in Mississippi and Illinois River Valleys (from Sparks 1993).
Rare Plant Species and Exemplary Natural Communities Also, two natural community types have a global conservation ranking of G2/G3 (imperiled/vulnerable) or G3 (vulnerable). Sugar Maple-Oak-Bitternut Hickory Mesic Bottomland Forest is listed as G3 while the bur oak-swamp white oak mixed bottomland forest is ranked as G2/G3. Both of these types are widespread at the refuge due to the large amount of bottomland forest present adjacent to the River.
Current Wildlife The refuge is managed for migratory birds, endangered species, and migratory fish. The refuge provides an important link in the chain of resting, feeding, and wintering areas for migratory bird species using the Mississippi Flyway, as well as important habitat for many resident wildlife species. Each season, particularly spring migration, brings a new suite of birds. More than 5,000,000 ducks, 50,000 geese, and myriad neotropical migrants funnel through this important river corridor during their spring and fall migration. More specifics about wildlife at the refuge are addressed in the CCP.
Invasive Plants Historically, most habitat manipulations such as those on moist-soil units were based on successional stages of native plants and were prescribed to “set back” vegetative communities. Manipulations could be predicted with greater ease, and prescription plans could be developed
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 28
Chapter 2. Background
for a longer timeline into the future when invasive plant presence is known. Due to the unpredictability of ‘invasive species’ response to manipulations within management units, prescriptions are now based more on the invasive species density than the successional stage of native species.
Invasive species are typically exotic species – meaning not naturally occurring in a given region, or non-native. In general, an invasive species negatively alters a landscape by outcompeting native or other more conservative species. The invasive species can form a dense monoculture, reducing botanical diversity and limiting wildlife habitat. Native species can be considered to be invasive when their abundance results in similar negative effects as exotic species such as reduced diversity and limited wildlife habitat value.
Invasive species are more commonly exotic, for many reasons. One, exotic species often do not face the biological controls that it otherwise might in its native landscape. An example of a biological control is an insect that feeds on the plant. The insect might not be present in North America, allowing the exotic species to grow more vigorously and reproduce faster. The exotic species also might have a different life history than the native species it is competing against. An invasive shrub might leaf out earlier than native shrubs, allowing it to start growing earlier and giving it a competitive advantage over native species.
As mentioned earlier, invasive species can also be native. Invasive native species are typically the result of one or more disturbances to an ecosystem or habitat that exceed the natural variation in frequency and/or intensity. Pioneering native species that thrive on disturbance can often become invasive because of the unnaturally large amount of disturbance that occurs in a landscape. Invasive native species can be a nuisance because they can degrade important habitat attributes of either an earlier or later successional stage. Disturbance is common in river systems as flooding, a form of disturbance, frequently occurs.
Exotic and invasive species are a common management issue across the refuge; however, the species requiring management action varies between locations. Table 2-2 lists the top two exotic and native invasive species within each division or refuge. The list should not be considered to be all inclusive, nor should it be considered to be static. New invasive species, primarily exotic species, is a constant threat and should be monitored and adapted for during refuge management planning activities.
Table 2-2. Top Two Exotic and Native Invasive Species at Each Refuge Division. Refuge/Division Exotic Species Native (Nuisance) Species Reed canary grass Honey locust Delair Bush honeysuckle Grey dogwood Japanese stilt grass Willow spp Long Island Garlic mustard Cottonwood Reed canary grass Willow spp Fox Island Japanese stilt grass Cottonwood Reed canary grass Swamp smartweed Clarence Cannon Canada thistle River bulrush
Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) is an exotic and highly invasive grass distributed throughout the United States. This plant can reach 6 feet in height, and out-compete more beneficial wetland plants within the floodplain, quickly developing into a monoculture with very little proven wildlife benefit. The Flood of 1993 provided an avenue for wide disbursement of reed- canary grass seeds. As a result, the grass has invaded fields, forests and wetlands within the Upper Mississippi River floodplain. Within the past five years reed-canary grass has spread throughout the refuges.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 29
Chapter 2. Background
Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) is an exotic, perennial forbs that quickly establishes in disturbed habitats such as moist-soil units, wet meadows, and agricultural areas. It can reduce species diversity by out-competing other plants. Canada thistle primarily becomes established through windborne seeds and can quickly spread from both seeds and clonal reproduction (Wisconsin DNR 2011).
Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum) is an invasive annual grass that invades forested wetlands, river corridors, and areas with moist soil and low light conditions. It has the ability to spread through both seeds and nodal reproduction and can out-compete native vegetation (Wisconsin DNR 2011).
Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) is a biennial herb of the mustard family. It invades forested communities and edge habitats where it rapidly spreads and displaces native herbaceous species. The plant has no known enemies and, once established, is very difficult to control.
Bush honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.) is a perennial exotic shrub that invades forested areas. It has a competitive advantage to native species because it leafs out early in the spring and maintains its leaf cover well into the fall. It can form a thick understory that limits light and resources for forest undergrowth and regeneration (Missouri Department of Conservation 2010).
River bulrush (Scirpus fluviatilis) is a native wetland sedge. It can form dense colonies very rapidly within management units on the refuge which can choke out other vegetation important to waterfowl during migration. Management actions include soil manipulations which reduces stand density.
Swamp smartweed (Polygonum coccineum) is a common native plant on the refuge. It proliferates in a wide variety of conditions and be characterized as a native nuisance species. Swamp smartweed can spread by both seeds and through nodal reproduction. It can grow amount other plant species making herbicide control difficult.
Honey locust (Gleditisia triacantos L.) is a native tree species common to upland areas along drainages. It is a pioneering species that can quickly form dense stands through seed production and spreading roots. It can survive in a variety of habitat conditions and can quickly shade out other vegetation.
Grey dogwood (Cornus racemosa) is a native shrub species. Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) and willow (Salix spp.) are native tree species. All three species can become established in a variety of habitats on the refuge including wet meadows, prairies, and in moist-soil units. They can quickly spread through seed and vegetative reproduction which results dense stands that shades out other vegetation.
Research and Monitoring A variety of surveys relating to resource management have occurred at the refuges. An Integrated Waterbird Management and Monitoring (IWMM) study, marshbird surveys, frog surveys, deer surveys, and raccoon surveys have all been conducted recently. All of these studies help shape management at the refuge.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 30
Chapter 3. Resources of Concern
Chapter 3. Resources of Concern
Image. Pectoral sandpiper, a focal species for Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR. Photo courtesy of USFWS National Digital Library.
3.1 Introduction 3.2 Potential Resources of Concern 3.3 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health 3.4 Priority Resources of Concern 3.5 Priority Habitat Types and Associated Focal Species 3.6 Conflicting Habitat Needs 3.7 Adaptive Management
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 31
Chapter 3. Resources of Concern
3.1 Introduction
Resources of concern are the focal point of the Habitat Management Plan. The Habitat Management Plan policy (620 FW 1) defines “resources of concern” as
“All plant and/or animal species, species groups, or communities specifically identified in refuge purpose(s), System mission, or international, national, regional, state, or ecosystem conservation plans or acts. For example, waterfowl and shorebirds are a resource of concern on a refuge whose purpose is to protect "migrating waterfowl and shorebirds." Federal or State threatened and endangered species on that same refuge are also a resource of concern under terms of the respective endangered species acts.”
The USFWS is entrusted by Congress to conserve and protect migratory birds, federally listed threatened and endangered species, inter-jurisdictional fish, and certain marine mammals (trust species). Each refuge also has its own specified purpose(s) for which it was created, which guide its management goals and objectives. Within these purposes, refuges support other elements of biological diversity such as locally rare plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate species, natural communities, and the ecological processes that contribute to the biological integrity and environmental health at the refuge, ecosystem, and broader scales (USFWS 1999, 2003).
The first step of developing a habitat management strategy is to define a refuge’s resources of concern in light of the multiple mandates, policies, purposes, and regional/national plans applicable to the particular refuge. The resources of concern need to be identified and prioritized in order to best focus the management objectives of the refuge. The following details the resources considered in development of Great River and Clarence Cannon NWR’s resources of concern.
3.2 Potential Resources of Concern
There are many national, regional, state, and local plans and reports that have identified conservation concerns for areas in and around the refuge. The myriad of species and management recommendations provided in each plan was compiled into a list of potential resources of concern that cross referenced each plan and priority focus with a particular species noted of conservation significance. The complete list of potential resources of concern can be found in appendix B. The final resources of concern were developed based on the priority species of greatest significance that were most likely to be impacted by management, and existing and future habitat at the refuge.
Great River NWR was established in 1958. The first refuge division was Long Island. In 1965, the Delair Division was added. A large portion of the Fox Island Division was added to the Great River NWR in 1989 with the remaining portion being added following the flood of 1993. Clarence Cannon NWR was established in 1964.
Refuge Purpose The stated purposes for Great River NWR include: • “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds...”, 16 U.S.C. - 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) • “... shall be administered by [Secretary of the Interior] directly or in accordance with cooperative agreements .... and in accordance with such rules and regulations for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon, ...“, 16 U.S.C. - 664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 32
Chapter 3. Resources of Concern
• “... suitable for- (1) incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species ...”, 16 U.S.C. - 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act) • “.... the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions ...”, 16 U.S.C - 3901(b)100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986) • “... conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans..." 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)
The stated purposes for Clarence Cannon NWR include: • “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds...”, 16 U.S.C. - 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) • “... suitable for- (1) incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species ...”, 16 U.S.C. - 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act)
USFWS Trust Resources While the Refuge purpose is the foremost determinant of a particular refuge’s management, managing trust resources is also a priority of refuges. Trust resources include:
Migratory Birds A list of all species of migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703– 711) and subject to the regulations on migratory birds are contained in subchapter B of title 50 CFR §10.13. The Migratory Birds Program also maintains subsets of that list that provide priorities at the national, regional, and ecoregional (bird conservation region) scales. The primary sources of information that the refuge used to identify potential migratory birds species of concern included:
Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 22, PIF Physiographic Area 31 Continental and Regional Plans for landbirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, and marshbirds Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory Species Assessment Database USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern Status and Trend Information for refuge bird surveys and regional assessments
Interjurisdictional Fish Interjurisdictional fish populations are managed by two or more states, nations, or Native American tribal governments because of their geographic distribution or migratory patterns (710 FW 1.5H).” Examples include anadromous species of salmon and free-roaming species endemic to large river systems, such as paddlefish and sturgeon (Director’s Order No. 132, 6[c]). The primary sources of information that the refuge used to identify potential aquatic habitats and fish species of concern included:
USFWS Regional Fisheries Office List of Priority Fisheries National Fish Habitat Action Plan
Wetlands Wetlands provide habitat for approximately one-third of federally listed species and for migratory waterfowl. The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99–645 (100 Stat. 3582), approved November 10, 1986, authorizes the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water Conservation Fund. It requires the Secretary to establish a National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, which requires the states to include wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 33
Chapter 3. Resources of Concern
Threatened and Endangered Species The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544, December 28, 1973, as amended 1976- 1982, 1984 and 1988) states in Sec. 8A.(a) that:
“The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter in this section referred to as the “Secretary”) is designated as the Management Authority and the Scientific Authority for purposes of the Convention and the respective functions of each such Authority shall be carried out through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.”
The act also requires all Federal departments and agencies to conserve endangered species and threatened species and that they shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act.
To identify Federal threatened or endangered species of relevance to the refuge, we reviewed: Federal Threatened and Endangered Species List Recovery Plans for Federal-listed species in our region
3.3 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 states that, in administering the System, the Service shall “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained…” (601 FW 3; also known as the “Integrity Policy”). The Service (2003) defines these terms as follows:
Biological Diversity The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences between them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur. Biological Integrity Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, and community levels comparable with historic conditions, including the natural biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, and communities. Environmental Composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other Health abiotic features comparable with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the environment.
Where possible, refuge management restores or mimics natural ecosystem processes or functions that support fish and wildlife and thereby maintain biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health (BIDEH). Given the continually changing environmental conditions and landscape patterns of the past and present (e.g., rapid development, climate change, sea level rise), relying on natural processes is not always feasible, nor always the best management strategy, for conserving wildlife resources. Uncertainty about the future requires that the refuge manage within a natural range of variability rather than emulating an arbitrary point in time. Rather than trying to maintain stability, we will maintain mechanisms that allow species, their genetic strains, and the natural communities they rely upon to evolve with changing conditions.
Meretsky et al. (2006) stated that the Integrity Policy directs refuges to assess their importance across landscape scales and “forge solutions to problems arising outside refuge boundaries.” Regional land use problems include habitat fragmentation and lack of connectivity, high levels of contaminants, and incompatible development or recreational activities.
In order to manage the natural communities and the habitats they support within the natural range of variability, a review of maps, reports, and other resources was completed to assess historic, current, and future potential for the refuge. To assess the historical condition, site capability,
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 34
Chapter 3. Resources of Concern
current regional landscape conditions, and biological diversity and environmental health data pertinent to the refuge, the following resources were used:
Maps and associated data on site history and capabilities Maps of existing landscape conditions displaying watershed boundaries, habitat connectivity, as well as land use conditions and trends surrounding the refuge Maps of existing natural communities and invasive species distributions within the refuge Soil Survey of Clark and Pike counties in Missouri and Adams and Pike counties in Illinois Global/Regional trends in climate change and water quality Missouri and Illinois’s Natural Heritage Program information on rare, declining, threatened, or endangered species, as well as unique natural communities Missouri and Illinois’s Wildlife Action Plan Status and trend information for potential species of concern as documented in regional/state assessments and reports. Habitat classifications use designations developed by Nelson (2005). These classifications represent elements found in other classification schemes used within the area of the refuges (See section 2.5 and table 2-1) and provide a detailed description of the natural plant communities.
Based on a review of the existing and historical data listed above, a list of habitats that contain naturally occurring elements of BIDEH was developed in order to determine those habitats that contain the most ecological and biological integrity (see table 3-1).
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 35
Chapter 3. Resources of Concern
Table 3-1. Summary of Habitats that Represent Existing BIDEH for the Refuge.
Habitat Type (Plant Natural Processes communities that Habitat Populations and Habitat Attributes Focal Species Responsible for these Limiting Factors/Threats represent existing Classifications* conditions BIDEH)
Mesic bottomland Tall, closed canopy with a dense multi-layered, well-developed Bald Eagle, Yellow-billed Cuckoo forest understory; Dominate canopy trees are white oak, sugar maple.
Tall canopy that is 80-90% closed with variable openings and a Wood Duck, Cerulean Warbler, Seasonal flooding with Altered hydrology through Wet bottomland forest poorly developed understory; Dominate canopy trees are pin Bald Eagle, Red-shoulder hawk, surface waters present leeve construction, oak and cottonwood. Mallard during a portion of the drainage, and river growing season. Poor to moderately structure canopy with variable tree height channelization; water Bottomland Woodlands Wood Duck, Cerulean Warbler, Sediments and debris Riverfront forest and age classes; Dominate canopy trees are silver maple and quality degradation; and Forests Bald Eagle, Red-shoulder Hawk deposited during flood cottonwood. invasive species; events. Fire, insect excessive deer browsing of Well developed, two-layered structure with canopy trees and a outbreaks, disease and Mesic bottomland Cerulean Warbler, Bald Eagle, understory; change in fire well-developed ground cover of sedges, grasses, and forbs; wind throw affected tree woodland Red-shoulder Hawk regime. Dominate canopy trees are bur oak and swamp white oak. density.
Wet-mesic bottomland Medium to tall canopy with 30-100% cover; Dominate canopy Cerulean Warbler, Bald Eagle, woodland trees are bur oak and swamp white oak. Red-shoulder Hawk
Blue-winged Teal, Canvasback, Inundated wetland with fluctuating water levels characterized by Lesser Scaup, Pectoral Marsh riverine wetland vegetation adapted to saturated or flooded soil conditions such Sandpiper, Mallard, American as river bulrush, great bulrush, and giant bur-reed. Bittern, Wood Duck Frequent fires reducing Altered hydrology through Inundated wetland with fluctuating water levels less than 1 foot Blue-winged Teal, Canvasback, woody vegetation. leeve construction, Marsh riverine wetland deep characterized by early successional annual and perennial (Subtype smartweed, bur Lesser Scaup, Pectoral Flooding that varies in drainage, and river Riverine Wetland grasses, sedges, and forbs including smartweeds, beggar ticks, marigold ephemeral wetland Sandpiper, Mallard, American frequency, duration, and channelization; water and spotted touch-me-not. Plant community changes based on subtype) - moist-soil units Bittern, Wood Duck intensity. Insect herbivory quality degradation; limited successional stage. and large animal grazing fire regime
Shrub swamp riverine Scattered clumps or dense thickets in nearly continuous flooded Wood Duck, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, wetland - shrub/scrub community dominated by button bush and water smartweed. Mallard, Blue-winged Teal * Habitat classifications are based on descriptions using Nelson (2005) "The Terrestrial Natural Communities of Missouri"
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 36 Chapter 3. Resources of Concern
Table 3-1. continued.
Habitat Type (Plant Natural Processes communities that Habitat Populations and Habitat Attributes Focal Species Responsible for these Limiting Factors/Threats represent existing Classifications* conditions BIDEH)
Mix of native herbaceous plant species. Dominant plant Mallard, Grasshopper Sparrow, Wet-mesic bottomland communities: (Dense cover of grasses mixed with forbs and American Bittern, Blue-winged prairie sedges comprised of big bluestem, prairie cord grass, and Teal Altered hydrology through bluejoint grass) Seasonal flooding during leeve construction, the Spring and Fall; Wet-mesic Bottomland drainage, and river Frequent fires that reduce Prairie/Grassland channelization; water woody vegetation; beaver quality degradation; limited activity Mallard, Grasshopper Sparrow, fire regime Dense cover of perennial grasses, forbs and sedges comprised Wet bottomland prairie American Bittern, Blue-winged of prairie cord grass, blue joint grass, and water smartweed. Teal
Large open-water habitat subject to lock-dam operation. Available spawning, nursery, and foraging habitat available for Pallid Sturgeon, Paddlefish, Large River an assemblage of aquatic species including native fish and mussel species, Least Tern Channelization, dredging, water quality impairments mussel species Periodic flooding. Open due to watershed Riverine water with occasional management, Small open-water habitat draining surrounding watershed. mudflats. Available spawning, nursery, and foraging habitat avalable for an sedimentation, land use Pallid Sturgeon, Paddlefish, Tributary assemblage of aquatic species incuding native fish and mussel changes. mussel species, Least Tern species that require smaller flowing systems instead a large river habitat * Habitat classifications are based on descriptions using Nelson (2005) "The Terrestrial Natural Communities of Missouri"
Maps delineating (delineated by refuge staff using available spatial data layers and hands-on knowledge) desired natural communities, according to habitat types in table 3.1 or table 2.1, for each refuge division are available in appendix E. Maps should be used as a tool to guide management and monitoring purposes. These delineations should be re-evaluated within the lifetime of this document and may change as more information becomes available about a particular area or as management objectives are attained to move into the next phase of management.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 37 Chapter 3. Resources of Concern
3.4 Priority Resources of Concern
The Potential Resources of Concern table (appendix B) contains a large number of species with a broad array of habitat needs. Prioritizing those species and their habitats is necessary in order to determine where to focus refuge management strategies. This process must consider to which species and habitats Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR can make the greatest contribution in the context of the NWR System, their surrounding landscape, and state/regional/national priorities. To guide this process, the following concepts were considered:
Achieving refuge purposes and managing for trust resources as well as biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health can be addressed through the habitat requirements of "focal species" or species that may represent guilds that are highly associated with important attributes or conditions within habitat types. The use of focal species is particularly valuable in addressing Service trust resources such as migratory birds.
Indicator species can be used as a representative of biological integrity and environmental health (BIDEH). Indicator species presence, absence, abundance, or relative well-being in a given habitat niche serves as a marker of overall health of its required habitat type. For example, Cerulean warbler can serve as an indicator species for bottomland forest habitats at Great River NWR because it is a species that requires large tracts of mature forest with both vertical and horizontal heterogeneity.
Reference habitats and ecological communities can provide comparison data for habitat management where BIDEH parameters of refuge habitats have been degraded or severely impacted. Reference areas of marsh riverine wetland (both on and off refuge) that contain intact BIDEH parameters can be utilized to compare both the degree of impacts to degraded marsh areas, as well as provide a measure of management success.
Bird Conservation Region (BCR) plans are increasingly effective at ranking and prioritizing those migratory birds most in need of management of conservation focus. Although all species that make it to a ranked BCR priority list are in need of conservation attention, we selected focal species that ranked as High or Moderate in Continental Concern with a High to Moderate BCR Responsibility. See www.abcbirds.org/nabci.com for BCR rules used to rank birds.
Focal species identified in the Mark Twain NWR Complex CCP were given high priority because the role of the CCP is to set refuge goals and objectives. Although, it is important to put the Mark Twain NWR Complex CCP in perspective from the standpoint that it covered several different NWRs over a large spatial scale. The end result was a CCP that had focal species that were appropriate for a broad range of habitat conditions. Reviewing regional and state conservation plans and priorities confirmed their continued use as focal species.
Regional efforts such as the Mississippi River Flyway Council by the USFWS, state partners, and representatives from Canada to manage and conserve species that migrate over a large geographical extent and cross both state, federal, and provincial jurisdictional boundaries.
Observations and institutional knowledge of the refuge staff where used to determine the feasibility for the refuge to support management of a particular species. For example, through moist-soil unit management, Clarence Cannon NWR has the ability to provide important habitat for shorebirds. This refuge-level detail was missing from the CCP due to the larger spatial scale.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 38 Chapter 3. Resources of Concern
Habitat conditions on or around the refuge may limit its capability to support or manage for a potential species of concern. We evaluated the following site-specific factors. o Patch size requirements o Habitat connectivity o Incompatibility of surrounding land uses o Environmental conditions: soils, hydrology, disturbance patterns, contaminants, predation, invasive species o Specific life history needs
The likelihood that a potential species of concern would have a positive reaction to management strategies.
The ability to rely on natural processes to maintain habitat conditions within a natural range of variability suitable to the focal species.
The ability to use adaptive management (flexibility and responsiveness of the refuge and the habitats) in the face of changing environmental conditions (e.g., climate change).
Table 3-2 lists the Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR focal species. Focal species are representative of the habitat characteristics required for other species and monitoring for a focal species indirectly provides information on the quality or status of the habitat for those other species. Table 3-3 lists what group or guild of species each focal species represents. The species listed in the “Other Benefitting Species” is not an all inclusive list. The species listed were derived from reviewing the previously mentioned regional plans and ranking the highest rated (top 30) species of conservation concern.
Table 3-2. Focal Species for Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR.
Focal Species Wood Duck Least Tern Bald Eagle Paddlefish Red-shouldered Hawk Pallid Sturgeon Cerulean Warbler Higgin's Eye Yellow-billed Cuckoo Black Sandshell Grasshopper Sparrow Sheepnose Mallard Round Pigtoe American Bittern Monkeyface Pectoral Sandpiper Salamander Mussel Blue-winged Teal Pistolgrip Canvasback Rock Pocketbook Lesser Scaup Fat Pocketbook
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 39 Chapter 3. Resources of Concern
Table 3-3. Focal Species for Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR and the Groups, Guilds or Other Species They Represent.
Focal Species Guild/Group Other Benefitting Species
Red-headed Woodpecker, Black-crowned Night Wood Duck Wooded Wetland Species Heron, Wood Thrush, Rusty Blackbird Bald Eagle,Red-shouldered Forest Species (upper canopy of wet Red-headed Woodpecker, Prothonotary Warbler, Hawk, and Cerulean Warbler bottomland forest) Indiana bat, Rusty Blackbird Bell's Vireo, Vlue-winged Warbler, American Edge & Forest Species (wet Yellow-billed Cuckoo Woodcock, Wood Thrush, Kenturcky Warbler, bottomland & shrub/scrub wetlands) Rusty Blackbird Short-eared Owl, Dickcissel, Upland Sandpiper, Grasshopper Sparrow Grassland Species Barn Owl, Buff-breasted Sandpiper, Northern Harrier, Henslow's Sparrow King Rail, Short-billed Dowitcher, Black-crowned Shallow Wetland Species Night Heron, Least Bittern, Short-eared Owl, Black Mallard and Blue-winged Teal (emergenty vegetation/open water Tern, Yellow Rail, Canada Goose, Common Tern, mosaic) Snowy Egret, Pied-billed Grebe, Northern Harrier
King Rail, Black-crowned Night Heron, Least American Bittern Marsh Birds (emergent vegetation) Bittern, Short-eared Owl, Yellow Rail, Barn Owl, Snowy Egret, Common Moorhen, Northern Harrier King Rail, Short-billed Dowitcher, Buff-breasted Pectoral Sandpiper Shorebirds Sandpiper, Wilson's Phalarope, Snowy Egret Black Tern, Canada Goose, Common Tern, Pied- Canvasback and Lesser Scaup Open Water Species billed Grebe Terns and Gulls (sandbar nesters Least Tern Piping Plover, Common Tern and open water) Channel Catfish, Flathead Catfish, Largemouth Bass, Black Crappie, Spotted Gar, Shovelnose Paddlefish and Pallid Sturgeon Large River Fish Sturgeon, Central Mudminnow, Crystal Darter, Iowa Darter, Flathead Chub, Sicklefin Chub, Sturgeon Chub Winged Mapleleaf, Scaleshell, Spectaclecase, Mussel species Large River Mussels Ebony Shell, Wartyback, Pimpleback
Table 3-4 shows how focal species are likely using the habitats of Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR. Several focal species use more than one habitat at one or more times of the year. It should also be noted that some species will occur at times in other habitats than listed in table 3-4.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 40 Chapter 3. Resources of Concern
Table 3-4. Focal Species and Habitat Use in Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR. Utilization By Habitat Species Species
Bald Eagle B,M,Y Cerulean Warbler B,M Mallard M Bottomland Woodlands and Forests Birds Red-shouldered Hawk B,M,Y Wood Duck B,M Yellow-billed Cuckoo B,M American Bittern B,M Blue-winged Teal B,M Wet-Mesic Bottomland Birds Grasshopper Sparrow Prairie/Grassland B,M Mallard B,M Pectoral Sandpiper M American Bittern B,M Blue-winged Teal B,M Canvasback M Lesser Scaup M Riverine Wetland Birds Mallard B,M Pectoral Sandpiper M Wood Duck B,M Yellow-billed Cuckoo B,M Bald Eagle M,W Canvasback M Birds Least Tern B,M Riverine Lesser Scaup M Paddlefish B,Y Fish Pallid Sturgeon B,Y Mussels Mussels Y
Utilization Codes: B - Breeding M - Migratory W - Wintering Y - Year Round
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 41 Chapter 3. Resources of Concern
3.5 Priority Habitat Types and Associated Focal Species
Refuge management most often focuses on restoring, managing, or maintaining habitats or certain habitat conditions to benefit a suite of focal species or a suite of plants and animals associated with a particular habitat. The priority habitats of the refuge were identified (table 3-5) based on information compiled (e.g., site capability, historic condition, current vegetation, conservation needs of wildlife associates). As part of that process, we identified any limiting factors that may affect the refuge’s ability to maintain those habitats.
Since all management activities cannot feasibly be undertaken at the same time, we have prioritized habitats (table 3-6) based on the following ranking factors:
Where management actions would provide the greatest conservation benefit to identified priority species, Current habitat conditions and the urgency of needs for active management, and Landscape level rankings for particular habitats
Although a habitat may be ranked as “Priority 2”, this should not be interpreted as meaning that the habitat type does not provide valuable habitat to a variety of species or contribute to the overall diversity, integrity, and health of the refuge. In some cases, habitats may not require active management by the refuge, or may represent an area where there is little management capability.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 42 Chapter 3. Resources of Concern
Table 3-5. Focal Species, Associated Habitat Requirements, and Other Species Benefitting from Habitat Management at Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR. Other Benefitting Focal Species Habitat Type Habitat - Vegetation Structure Species Breeds in large marshes with tall, mixed emergent vegetation and water depths is less than 10 cm (Gibbs and Melvin 1992,Fredrickson and Reid 1986, and Hanowski and Niemi 1986). American Bittern Occurs also in dense herbaceous cover, such as shrubby marshes and wet meadows (Brewer et al. 1991).
Prefers shorelines of wetlands with dense vegetation, structures such as rocks and limbs Blue-winged Teal protruding from the water, and areas of mudflats within rolling tallgrass prairie (Taylor 1978). King Rail, Short-billed Winters on shallow inland freshwater marshes. Dowitcher, Black- crowned Night Heron, Prefers large, permanent wetlands such as large rivers, lakes, open marshes, ponds, and Least Bittern, Short- Canvasback flooded fields with stable water levels, bordered by vegetation with little to no woody cover eared Owl, Black Tern, (Campbell et al. 1990, Havera 1998, McWilliams and Brauning 2000). Yellow Rail, Canada Goose, Common Tern, Utilizes larger semi permanent and permanent wetlands, lakes, and large impounded Snowy Egret, Pied-billed Lesser Scaup Grebe, Northern Harrier, Riverine Wetland portions of rivers (>3,000 ha) during spring and fall migration (Korschgen 1989) Barn Owl, Common Nests in a variety of upland habitats that provide adequate cover and are located close to Moorhen, Buff-breasted Mallard water (Drilling et al, 2002). Utilizes marshes, ponds, flooded basins, flooded alluvial plains, Sandpiper, Wilson's and flooded agricultural fields during migration periods(LaGrange and Dinsmore 1989). Phalarope, Wood Thrush, Rusty Prefers grassy terrain, along margins of ponds or pools (Oberholser 1974), recently flooded Blackbird, Bell's Vireo, Pectoral Sandpiper grasslands, including pastures and agricultural fields (Oring and Davis 1966, Amos 1991), or Blue-winged Warbler, temporarily drained lake beds (Robbins 1991) American Woodcock, and Kentucky Warbler Nests in quiet woodland waters, such as wooded swamps, flooded forest, green tree Wood Duck reservoirs, open water, marshes, and along streams. Winters in marshes, ponds, and streams (AOU 1983, Dugger and Fredrickson 1992).
Utilizes open woodland with clearings and low, dense, scrubby vegetation near water. Found Yellow-billed Cuckoo in willow (Salix spp.)–dogwood (Cornus spp.) shrub wetlands, and successional hardwood forest with dense stands of small trees (Nolan 1963, Eastman 1991).
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 43 Chapter 3. Resources of Concern
Table 3-5. continued. Other Benefitting Focal Species Habitat Type Habitat - Vegetation Structure Species Breeds in forested areas with relatively open canopies adjacent to large bodies of water. Bald Eagle Forested areas contain large, mature trees with habitat discontinuity or edge, or high levels of horizontal diversity (Gerrard et al. 1975, Anthony and Isaacs 1989, Wood et al. 1989).
Nests in large tracts of bottomland forests in larger, more mature trees. Canopy has both Cerulean Warbler Red-headed vertical and horizontal heterogeneity (Hamel 2000). Woodpecker, Black- Nests in a variety of upland habitats that provide adequate cover and are located close to crowned Night Heron, Wood Thrush, Rusty Mallard Bottomland water (Drilling et al, 2002). Utilizes marshes, ponds, flooded basins, flooded alluvial plains, Blackbird, Prothonotary woodlands and and flooded agricultural fields during migration periods(LaGrange and Dinsmore 1989). Warbler, Indiana bat, forests Prefers large, bottomland hardwood, riparian areas, and flooded deciduous swamps Red-shouldered Hawk consisting of mature to old-growth canopy trees with variable amounts of understory Bell's Vireo, Blue- (Kimmel and Frederickson 1981). winged Warbler, Nests in quiet woodland waters, such as wooded swamps, flooded forest, green tree American Woodcock, Wood Duck reservoirs, open water, marshes, and along streams. Winters in marshes, ponds, and and Kentucky Warbler streams (AOU 1983, Dugger and Fredrickson 1992). Utilizes open woodland with clearings and low, dense, scrubby vegetation near water. Found Yellow-billed Cuckoo in willow (Salix spp.)–dogwood (Cornus spp.) shrub wetlands, and successional hardwood forest with dense stands of small trees (Nolan 1963, Eastman 1991).
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 44 Chapter 3. Resources of Concern
Table 3-5. continued. Other Benefitting Focal Species Habitat Type Habitat - Vegetation Structure Species Breeds in large marshes with tall, mixed emergent vegetation and water depths is less than 10 cm (Gibbs and Melvin 1992,Fredrickson and Reid 1986, and Hanowski and Niemi 1986). American Bittern Occurs also in dense herbaceous cover, such as shrubby marshes and wet meadows (Brewer et al. 1991).
Prefers shorelines of wetlands with dense vegetation, structures such as rocks and limbs King Rail, Black-crowned Blue-winged Teal protruding from the water, and areas of mudflats within rolling tallgrass prairie (Taylor 1978). Night Heron, Least Bittern, Winters on shallow inland freshwater marshes. Short-eared Owl, Yellow Rail, Barn Owl, Snowy Egret, Common Moorhen, Wet-mesic Northern Harrier, Short- Grasshopper Sparrow bottomland Prefers moderately open grasslands and prairies with patchy bare ground (Wiens 1973) billed Dowitcher, Buff- prairie/grassland breasted Sandpiper, Wilson's Phalarope, Dickcissel, Upland Nests in a variety of upland habitats that provide adequate cover and are located close to Sandpiper, Black Tern, Mallard water (Drilling et al 2002). Utilizes marshes, ponds, flooded basins, flooded alluvial plains, Canada Goose, Common and flooded agricultural fields during migration periods(LaGrange and Dinsmore 1989). Tern, and Pied-billed Grebe
Prefers grassy terrain, along margins of ponds or pools (Oberholser 1974), recently flooded Pectoral Sandpiper grasslands, including pastures and agricultural fields (Oring and Davis 1966, Amos 1991), or temporarily drained lake beds (Robbins 1991)
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 45 Chapter 3. Resources of Concern
Table 3-5. continued. Other Benefitting Focal Species Habitat Type Habitat - Vegetation Structure Species
Breeds in forested areas with relatively open canopies adjacent to large bodies of water. Bald Eagle Forested areas contain large, mature trees with habitat discontinuity or edge, or high levels of horizontal diversity (Gerrard et al. 1975, Anthony and Isaacs 1989, Wood et al. 1989).
Prefers large, permanent wetlands such as large rivers, lakes, open marshes, ponds, and Canvasback flooded fields with stable water levels, bordered by vegetation with little to no woody cover (Campbell et al. 1990, Havera 1998, McWilliams and Brauning 2000). Piping Plover, Common Tern, Black Tern, Canada Goose, Pied- Nests on sparsely vegetated sandbars and dried mudflats (Smith and Renken, 1991) Least Tern billed Grebe, Channel Catfish, Flathead Catfish, Largemouth Utilizes larger semi permanent and permanent wetlands, lakes, and large impounded Bass, Black Crappie, Lesser Scaup portions of rivers (>3,000 ha) during spring and fall migration (Korschgen 1989) Spotted Gar, Shovelnose Sturgeon, Riverine Found in slow-flowing water in large rivers, river-margin lakes, channels, oxbows, Central Mudminnow, backwaters, impoundments with access to spawning areas. Spawns in fast shallow water Crystal Darter, Iowa Paddlefish over gravel bars (Stancill et al. 2002). Larvae may drift from reservoir to reservoir (Wallus Darter, Flathead Chub, 1986). Sicklefin Chub, Sturgeon Chub, Winged Found in large, turbid, free-flowing riverine habitat in strong current over firm gravel or sandy Mapleleaf, Scaleshell, Pallid Sturgeon substrate associated with main channels, sandbars and islands (USFWS 1989; Sheehan et Spectaclecase, Ebony al. 1998; Bramblett 1996). . Shell, Wartyback, and Mussels - Higgin's Eye, Black Pimpleback Sandshell, Sheepnose, Found in mud mixed with sand, gravel and cobbles in swift flowing current (Cummings, and Round Pigtoe, Monkeyface, Mayer, 1992; Parmalee and Gogan, 1998. Water depth varies with species. Salamander Mussel, and Pistolgrip
Mussels - Rock Pocketbook Found in mud and sand bottom pools in medium to large rivers in standing or slow flowing and Fat Pocketbook water (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998; Dennis, 1985).
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 46 Chapter 3. Resources of Concern
Table 3-6. Priority Habitats and Their Potential Limiting Factors at Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR.
Habitat Type Reasons for Priority Ranking Limiting Factors/Threats
Priority 1 Habitats
Important habitat for seven focal species and several other species of regional Altered hydrology; invasive species; Riverine Wetland conservation concern. Supports wetlands and original purpose of Refuge. encroachment of tree cover; sedimentation Represents S2 habitats.
Bottomland Woodlands and Important habitat for species labeled as priority species in BCR 22 including Altered hydrology; invasive species; Forests five focal species for the refuges. Represents S2 to S4 habitats sedimentation; limited jurisdictional authority
Wet-Mesic Bottomland Represents S1 habitats. There is not a lot of this habitat type within the larger Altered hydrology; invasive species; Prairie/Grasslands landscape of the Refuge. encroachment of tree cover; sedimentation
Priority 2 Habitats
Supports federally and state listed endangered species. Refuge management is limited due to regulatory authority of the Army Corps of Engineers over Degraded water quality; altered hydrology Riverine hydrology and channel operations. Provides opportunities for protection and and channel morphology; invasive species enhancement work with regional and watershed-based partnerships.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 47 Chapter 3. Resources of Concern
3.6 Conflicting Habitat Needs
Given the diversity of goals, purposes, mandates, and conservation priorities for the NWRS, it is not uncommon to have conflicting management priorities at a refuge. Balancing the types and proportion of habitats (and their management) requires special consideration and process for determining the best course of action. Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR contain habitat and management decisions that require such consideration.
Indiana bat require large trees with loose hanging bark to roost during the periods of April through September. Forest management by the USACE on Fox Island Division and Long Island Division that emphasizes timber production can have a negative impact on the amount of available roosting habitat by removing dead trees or snags. Refuge staff will continue to work proactively with USACE staff to implement a balanced forest management plan.
During a typical spring season, water levels inundate moist-soil units. Water levels are manipulated during the summer growing season to drawdown these areas to stimulate plant growth of species that produce a high yield of seeds that can be used as forage during the fall season for migrating waterfowl. Drawing these areas down reduces habitat for amphibians such as frogs and toads that are utilizing the open water areas to complete their lifecycle or are utilizing the available open water, wetland habitat. The reduction in open water habitat makes amphibians and other aquatic habitat-dependent species more vulnerable to predation. The reduction in open water habitat mimics the inundation and subsequent drying up of wetland habitat that was present before the river levees were constructed. Water level drawdowns are also necessary to manage vegetation so it provides high quality habitat for migrating waterfowl and other birds, which is in the refuge purposes.
Moist-soil units are a critical focus to Clarence Cannon NWR and Delair Division. Management efforts and focus are to continually reset plant community succession towards pioneering species that provide a seed crop that is beneficial to migrating waterfowl. Without active management, perennial species with less valuable seed production would become more prevalent. When perennial species are non-native, exotic species, management actions need to be taken. Some of the perennial species that become more prevalent are native species. A conflicting habitat need is the tradeoff between an early successional community that benefits waterfowl and a mid- successional community comprised of native species that have less value to waterfowl; however, benefit species that require more well-developed vegetation.
At Clarence Cannon NWR, there is a spillway between the refuge and the Mississippi River. The spillway allows the refuge limited connectivity to the river, which mimics the natural process of the river having access to an extensive floodplain. Another advantage of the spillway is that during a flood event, it takes pressure off of the overall levee. Without the spillway, more maintenance issues along the spillway would be anticipated. In years where there is a significant amount of flooding, the amount of water on management units of the refuge can limit the amount and type of habitat manipulations that can be done for migratory bird management. Refuge staff has been working to improve and develop new methods for manipulating habitat during wet years to increase the quality of habitat on the refuge.
3.7 Adaptive Management
The priority resources of concern and their respective habitat attributes were used to develop specific habitat objectives. Refuge habitat management objectives must be achievable. Many factors, such as the lack of resources, existing habitat conditions, species response to habitat manipulations, climatic changes, or invasive species, may reduce or eliminate the ability of the refuge to achieve objectives. Although these limiting factors were considered during the development of management objectives, conditions are likely to change over the next 15 years and beyond. The refuge will use adaptive management to respond to changing conditions that
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 48 Chapter 3. Resources of Concern
impair our ability to measure and achieve the habitat objectives. That will require the refuge to establish and maintain a monitoring program to ensure that changing conditions can be detected and responded to adequately and efficiently. The monitoring program will be developed in accordance with 701 FW 2 as a step down plan.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 49 Chapter 4. Habitat Goals and Objectives
Chapter 4. Habitat Goals and Objectives
Image. Floodplain forest at Clarence Cannon NWR. Photo courtesy of Dan Salas.
4.1 Background 4.2 Habitat Goals and Objectives
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 50 Chapter 4. Habitat Goals and Objectives
4.1 Background
Goals and objectives were developed for multiple refuges during the completion of the Mark Twain Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). The goals represent broad statements of the desired future conditions of the refuge (602 FW 1.6). The objectives are concise ideas that specify what needs to be achieved, how much needs to be achieved, when and where it needs to be achieved, and who is responsible for the work. Strategies, which are specific actions, tools, or techniques required to achieve objectives, will be discussed in chapter 5.
The goals and objectives presented below are based on refuge-specific information from the Mark Twain Complex CCP. As part of the CCP, they provide a framework for refuge management for the next 15 years, the lifetime of the plan. The Mark Twain Complex CCP was finalized in 2004 and was completed at a fairly large geographic scale. The Mark Twain Complex covered approximately 2,500 square miles including refuges as far north as Muscatine, Iowa and as far south as the confluence of the Mississippi River with the Ohio River. During the development of this HMP, refuge staff reviewed the existing goals and objectives to determine if they were still representative of existing refuge conditions and desire future management. After detailed review and discussion, staff determined that all the CCP goals were still relevant for refuge management. In some cases, objectives needed to be modified to more accurately reflect specific elements such as acreages or time period. Table 4-1 documents the differences and rationale between CCP and HMP objectives.
Table 4-1. Differences and Rationale between Mark Twain Complex CCP Objectives and Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR HMP Objectives. CCP Objective Change between Rationale CCP and HMP 3.A Reference to acreage Neither refuge is able to support the Provide two large areas and contiguous were development of a large (>150 acres) (>150 acres) of contiguous removed from block of contiguous native native grassland/wet management grassland/wet meadow complex. Future meadow complexes on objectives. management will attempt to refuge divisions by 2010 to restore/maintain grassland/wet meadow benefit migrating as well habitat. The juxtaposition of the as declining nesting habitats to other refuge habitats will be populations of grassland dependent on naturalizing refuge water birds. control. 3.E Removed from Agricultural fields are no longer Plant seed and browse management managed primarily for supplemental crops to provide a objectives and food. Refuge management utilizes dependable supplement to combined with farming practices to manage 550 to 850 natural food sources for Objective 3.F acres per year. The primary goal of waterfowl, and to provide farming activities are to directly control needed open-space invasive or nuisance species or resting areas. The amount maintain a unit in an early stage of and spacing of this refuge succession until refuge resources are resource along the river available for more focused work such as corridor is based on restoration. historic concentration areas (bird use days) while considering surrounding conditions off-refuge including hunting pressures that may reduce utilization of habitats outside refuge sanctuary
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 51 Chapter 4. Habitat Goals and Objectives
units. Approximately 591 acres will be planted annually Complex-wide. 3.F Increased acreage Agricultural fields are no longer Utilize agriculture as a from 320 to 450. managed for supplemental food. management tool, as Removed reference to necessary, to maintain using agricultural high-quality wildlife habitat crops as a in refuge wetlands by supplemental food periodically setting back source. succession or invasion of undesirable species. Approximately 320 acres will be planted annually. Where practical, manage this temporary land cover type in a manner that provides supplemental food value as a secondary benefit.
3.G Included for reference, Farming was discontinued in 2010. Area Use farming techniques to but not applicable to is undergoing re-forestation. maintain 675 acres of current management open fields until they can objectives. be converted to another planned habitat type, such as on newly acquired lands. Conversion will occur by 2012.
The USFWS requires habitat objectives be developed using the SMART criteria, specifically that objectives be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Result-oriented, and Time-fixed. Rationale is provided for each habitat objective in order to summarize the scientific information, expert opinion, and professional judgment used to formulate each objective.
Objectives below and strategies outlined in chapter 5 utilize the habitat scheme outlined in the Mark Twain CCP. Readers should utilize the crosswalk table 2-1 to convert general habitat types to BIDEH features outlined in chapter 3.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 52 Chapter 4. Habitat Goals and Objectives
4.2 Habitat Goals and Objectives
GOAL 1 – Wetlands and Aquatic Habitats Restore, enhance, and manage refuge wetland and aquatic areas to provide quality diverse habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, big river fish, and other wetland-dependent species.
Objective 1.A Provide a three year average (+/- 10%) of 2,835 acres seasonal/temporary, 291 acres semi- permanent, and 55 acres of permanently flooded wetland vegetation types in refuge wetland impoundments for waterfowl, shorebirds and other wetland-dependent wildlife species in areas with water level control capabilities.
Objective 1.B Protect, enhance, and maintain a three year average (+/- 10%) of 62 acres of isolated backwaters and ephemeral wetlands, providing seasonal and semi-permanently flooded wetland vegetation types in unleveed areas of the refuge with little water level control for the benefit of migratory birds and other wetland-dependent species.
Objective 1.C Protect, enhance, and maintain 2,093 acres of contiguous backwater and side channel habitat in unleveed areas of the refuge for migratory birds and fish. Increase bathymetric diversity and wetland plant growth in these areas as feasible by 2015 where little or no local water level control exists.
*Acreages may vary with future management actions in respect to other goals and objectives of this HMP (i.e. proposed HREP at Clarence Cannon NWR, completion of Fox Island Division, levee setback, berm removal, etc.). Maps delineating (delineated by refuge staff using available spatial data layers and hands-on knowledge) desired water regimes for each refuge division are available in appendix F. Maps should be used as a tool to guide management and monitoring purposes. These delineations should be re-evaluated within the lifetime of this document and may change as more information becomes available about a particular area or as management objectives are attained to move into the next phase of management.
Rationale This supports the goals and objectives of the Mark Twain Complex CCP. Providing a mix of habitat types helps to maintain a matrix of different wetland community types, which is critical to achieving high species diversity within the refuges. The three wetland communities comprising riverine wetland habitats provide critical habitat for several of the focal species within the refuge. The large riverine habitat with its associated backwaters, sloughs and open water habitats found both at Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR also provide critical habitat for many species found within the refuges.
Riverine Habitat–Marsh Riverine/Moist-Soil Units Seasonally flooded wetlands currently occur in Clarence Cannon NWR and Delair Division. Management of this class of vegetation is commonly referred to as moist-soil management. The area being managed is called a moist-soil unit (MSU). Water levels in these areas are manipulated to provide a combination of optimal forage and stopover habitat for a variety of migrating birds (table 4-2). Water levels are manipulated during periods of the growing season to deter the establishment of woody vegetation and encourage the establishment and re- establishment of annual wetland plant species. These habitats continuously provide a mid- successional wetland habitat comprised of areas of open mudflats, annual wetland vegetation interspersed with valuable perennial vegetation. This habitat naturally occurred along big river systems before the levees confined the channels (removing the source of disturbance) and the dams altered the hydrograph by preventing the seasonal low water levels. Even though it’s a plant community dominated by weedy or non-conservative plants it is a highly utilized wildlife
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 53 Chapter 4. Habitat Goals and Objectives
habitat that rarely occurs as extensive patches outside of managed areas. By emulating the natural disturbance process of a flood while increasing the frequency, important habitat is created for a variety of species to use during migration. Annual wetland plant species provide a high nutritional source for migrating waterfowl. Continual disturbance is needed to maintain these habitats, either through water level manipulations, disking, tilling, rolling, or through some combination. This habitat type provides food, cover, and nesting habitat for waterfowl, marsh birds, reptiles and amphibians, and small mammals. This is a high priority habitat for management on Clarence Cannon NWR and Delair Division because MSU management consumes the largest refuge staff management efforts, occupies approximately 56% (2100 acres) of Clarence Cannon NWR and 30% (515 acres) of Delair Division, and supports the management of five of the refuge’s focal species. Priority focal species, American bittern, blue-winged teal, mallard, pectoral sandpiper and wood duck have a high probability of occurrence in this habitat type.
Table 4-2. Bird Groups and Optimal Conditions for Migratory Stopover and Forage Enhancement Within Moist-soil Units. Water Time of Year * (Relative Vegetation Composition Bird Groups Depth to annual weather and Areal Coverage (inches) conditions) Mudflats containing <10% Saturated – Spring: April - May Shorebirds vegetative cover. 6.0 Fall: July – Sept.
<10% cover of shallow marsh and emergent aquatic species Spring: February - April Saturated – Waterfowl (including Carex, Polygonum, Fall: September - 24.0 and Peltandra) December
Open water containing <10% Spring: March - May Saturated – Wading Birds vegetative cover. Fall: August – September 12.0
Riverine Habitat – Shrub/Scrub Subtype Shrub/scrub riverine wetlands are found in all divisions of Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR. This habitat consists of thick clumps of shrubs in semi-permanent flooded wetlands.
Shrub/scrub habitat is typically found in depressions such as oxbows, sloughs, and along the margins of streams and river floodplains. Shrubs are present because tree species that can handle the same, extended periods of inundation are absent (Nelson, 2005). Of the priority species within the refuge identified in chapter 3, wood duck, mallard, and blue-wing teal have the high probability of utilizing this habitat type in the spring. American bittern have a high probability of utilizing the transitional edge habitat.
Riverine Habitat – Emergent and Aquatic Subtypes Semi-permanent/permanently flooded or marsh riverine wetlands are found in all divisions of Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR. This habitat consists of submerged aquatic beds, floating-leaved aquatics and semi-permanently flooded emergents.
Submersed aquatics will be found in a variety of semi-shallow, lake-like environments. Submersed aquatic beds include about 30 species of plants, including pondweeds, waterweeds, and wild celery. Most are found at depths less than 4 feet in areas that rarely dry out. Submersed communities invest little in structural tissue, and so thrive when supported by the water column. Most species are rooted, but others (e.g. coontail) can float freely. A few fish species feed on plants, but most eat the macroinvertebrates found on the plants. Waterfowl and wading birds feed on a variety of the plants, tubers, and the invertebrates they host, as do wading birds. Of the
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 54 Chapter 4. Habitat Goals and Objectives
priority species within the refuge identified in chapter 3, canvasback and lesser scaup have a high probability of this habitat type during the fall and spring migrations.
Floating-leaved aquatics are restricted to low current velocity environments, usually less than 3 feet deep. They tend to form beds in deeper water than is optimal for emergent vegetation, but shallower than submersed aquatics. Floating-leaved aquatics are rooted in the substrate. Their leaves extend to the surface on a single stem where they spread flat. Floating-leaved plants support relatively few invertebrates compared to submersed beds. The leaves provide feeding surfaces for insect-eating birds and many amphibians and refuge for fish and turtles. No priority focal species specifically utilize this habitat; however, as stated above, this habitat is important for fish, turtles, and amphibians.
The semi-permanently flooded emergent community is composed of a wide range of plants that grow in shallow water, e.g. bulrushes, cattails, and arrowheads. The community can form dense thickets at the margins of stable shorelines, but most can tolerate periods of exposure. Emergent vegetation can withstand flooded conditions and exposed-but-saturated conditions because plants that grow there have an erect growth form with enough structural tissue to remain upright even when water recedes. Many species are prolific seed producers important to dabbling ducks and other seed-eating birds. Wading birds and shorebirds feed on small fishes, crustaceans, and insects found in the vegetation. Amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals also use the seeds and macroinvertebrates associated with this group. Of the priority species within the refuge identified in chapter 3, wood duck, mallard, blue-winged teal, and American bittern have a high probability of occurrence in this habitat type.
Large Riverine Habitat Many of these large riverine habitats contain no vegetation. Lack of vegetation may be due to many factors such as current, depth, water quality, etc. In backwaters and side channels that are devoid of vegetation due to sedimentation, turbidity, altered flood regimes, and other effects of navigation and flood control, the refuge seeks to increase wetland vegetation growth. Other open water areas are naturally free of vegetation and provide a variety of substrates for fish and wildlife. Deep open water with low current velocity provides fish overwintering habitat. “Big River” fish such as paddlefish and sturgeon use side channels and main channel borders for feeding. Gravel bars with water flow provide habitat for native mussels and some spawning fish. Other fishes are associated with gradually sloping sand bars, turtles nest on sand bars, and many shorebirds, gulls and terns use these exposed areas. The endangered least tern is a sandbar nester. Of the priority species within the refuge, bald eagle, canvasback, lesser scaup, least tern, paddlefish, pallid sturgeon, and mussels have a high probability of occurrence in this habitat type.
GOAL 2 – Forest Habitat Conserve and enhance floodplain forest to meet the needs of migrating and nesting neotropical birds and other forest-dependent wildlife.
Objective 2.A Conserve and enhance floodplain forest block size and spatial distribution along the river corridor through management of existing 8,651 acres and restoration of an additional 676 acres by end of the lifetime of the HMP for the benefit of nesting neotropical birds, feeding and resting birds during migration, and other forest-dependent wildlife.
Objective 2.B Conserve and enhance structural (age and species) diversity on 1,680 acres of existing refuge floodplain forests and the re-forestation of 1,173 acres by end of the lifetime of the HMP for the benefit of neotropical migrants, raptors, bats, and cavity nesting birds. This estimate includes an additional 283 acres at Clarence Cannon comprised of an area connecting GTR 7 unit to GTR 9 unit and reforesting several abandoned agricultural fields in unmanaged portions of the refuge.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 55 Chapter 4. Habitat Goals and Objectives
*Acreages may vary with future management actions in respect to other goals and objectives of this HMP (i.e. proposed HREP at Clarence Cannon NWR, completion of Fox Island Division, levee setback, berm removal, etc.).
Rationale This supports the goals and objectives of the Mark Twain Complex CCP by addressing the three key components for maintaining high species diversity in the forested units in the refuge. Through these objectives the refuge seeks to restore and enhance the amount and diversity of bottomland woodlands and forests within the refuges to meet the needs of forest-dependent wildlife. Several different classifications of bottomland woodlands and forests, as indicated in table 3-1, are found throughout the refuges and provide a diversity of habitats for forest-dependant wildlife. These habitats all provide critical needs for the refuges’ wildlife. Hard mast (acorns and hickory nuts) produced by oaks and hickories provide an abundant food source for many animals. Soft mast, such as blackberries, new growth of forbs, buds, leaves and twigs provide another important food source (Nelson 2005).
Mesic Bottomland Forest Type Mesic bottomland forests are typically comprised of a tall tree canopy (90-140 feet) with a dense well-developed understory. These forests when found along large rivers are generally found on the more elevated terraces that are subject to less flooding. When flooding does occur it is usually during the fall, winter or early spring. The dominant canopy trees in this forest type are bur oak, sycamore, and slippery elm.(Nelson 2005).
Wet Bottomland Forest Type Wet bottomland forests consist of a tall canopy (90-110 feet) with variable openings and a poorly developed understory. Wet bottomland forests are usually associated with larger streams and rivers and typically develop around old oxbows, swales, and other backwaters. Moderate flooding (depths of 2-3 feet) typically occur seasonally every year. The soils in tend to be poorly drained and are saturated or wet often with persistent ponding for significant periods of the year. Due to the high tendency of ponding, trees in these forests must be adapted to withstand prolonged soil saturation. As a result the dominant trees in the wet bottomland forest type are typically pin oak and cottonwood (Nelson 2005).
Riverfront Forest Type Riverfront forests are comprised of trees of varying heights (40-110 feet) with a moderate to poorly structured canopy with an open to sparse understory. This community is found in overflow areas adjacent to floodplains where floodwater scours and deposits silt, sand, gravel, and organic debris. Flash-flooding is common in this forest type and can last from a few hours to several days. Because of the harsh natural processes that are common in this forest type the plant species found here must either be fast growing or able to withstand prolonged flooding, debris deposition and scouring. As a result of the process the dominant trees in the canopy are silver maple and cottonwood (Nelson 2005).
Wet-mesic Bottomland Woodland Type Wet-mesic bottomland woodland are generally comprised of medium to tall trees (60 to 90 feet), with an understory of widely scattered trees and shrubs, and a ground cover consisting of tall grasses, mixed grasses, sedges and forbs. This community is usually found in floodplains on terraces of rivers, old oxbows, backwaters, and in swales. Shallow flooding (less than 3 feet) is seasonal and can last for more than a month. Shallow backwater flooding along with fire is essential to maintaining this community type. The dominant trees in the wet-mesic bottomland forest are bur oak and swamp white oak (Nelson 2005).
Three components of improved bottomland woodlands and forests within the refuges (as identified in the Mark Twain CCP) are (1) reduced forest fragmentation (increased size of forest
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 56 Chapter 4. Habitat Goals and Objectives
blocks), (2) adequate spatial distribution of forest habitat throughout the length of the river corridor, and (3) increased diversity of habitat within those forest blocks.
Typically, the highest species diversity occurs at the edge of two habitats because the combination of habitat features creates a habitat complexity that is attractive to wildlife. However, there are many species that benefit from large tracts of one type of habitat. Those species whose occurrence or reproductive success is reduced in small habitat patches are referred to as “area- sensitive.” Many species of forest-dwelling birds, such as the priority species Cerulean Warbler, are area-sensitive, but there is no simple answer regarding how big forest blocks need to be to support long-term self-sustaining populations. Establishing large forest tracts will not guarantee the presence of area-sensitive species and, conversely, these species are sometimes found on smaller tracts. But, in general, management activities that enlarge the amount of contiguous habitat are beneficial and actions that reduce tract size also reduce the likelihood that area- sensitive species will be found or persist there. The type of habitat in the surrounding landscape has an influence as well. Typically, the more forest that exists in the surrounding area, the more likely a block will contain area-sensitive species. Isolation from other similar habitat significantly influences forest bird distribution and abundance in fragmented landscapes.
Block size may be less critical for migrating birds than the spatial distribution of habitat along the migration corridor. Smaller tracts that do not support breeding populations may provide valuable stopover habitat for in-transient migrant birds needing to replenish fat supplies. Floodplain forests within the refuges provide an important migratory pathway for neotropical forest-dwelling birds moving between breeding and wintering grounds. These migrating neotropical birds need stopover sites with adequate food to replenish fat reserves and protection from predators. As with breeding birds, plant species and structural diversity influence habitat suitability and can affect the rate at which migrants replenish their energy reserves.
A healthy floodplain forest is made up of a composite of multiple stands in varying successional stages and supports a full range of native wildlife species. To be suitable to many different species, a floodplain forest should have a diverse structure, including a variety of tree species, ages, canopy heights, and understory diversity and forest stand age diversity. Stand age diversity provides a variety of habitat types for wildlife and assures steady replacement of mature forest as trees become over-mature and die.
Disturbance plays a significant role in maintaining a diverse forest structure. Prior to the development of the lock and dam system and the creation of levees along the Mississippi River, the natural disturbance regime that maintained forest structure included periodic flooding, disease, and fire. The result was forest stands that were mosaics of different successional stages. Human-influenced changes to the landscape have altered the type, frequency, intensity, and duration of disturbances influencing floodplain forest habitats. A diverse forest structure can be maintained or promoted through the restoration of components to the natural disturbance regime or by emulating important processes of a natural disturbance where the disturbance can’t be restored due to physical, social, or economical limitations. More information about how disturbance or managing components of disturbance to maintain a healthy forest structure will be discussed in chapter 5.
Greater diversity of tree species and age within the forest provides habitat for a greater diversity of wildlife species. For example, woodpeckers create nest holes for secondary cavity nesters including prothonotary warbler, great crested flycatcher, chimney swift, tree swallow, and house wren. These cavity nesters need an abundant supply of dead trees and snags. Cerulean warblers nest in a variety of trees, but seem to prefer large oaks, elms, and sycamores. Oaks have been reported to be an integral component of cerulean warbler breeding habitat. They also prefer forests with a high canopy, moderate to high vertical structural diversity, and moderate to dense ground cover. Red-shouldered hawks also are forest interior breeders, preferring large blocks of mature riparian forest with a high closed canopy and low ground cover. Conversely, the yellow- billed cuckoo prefers open riparian woodlands with clearings and low dense scrubby vegetation.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 57 Chapter 4. Habitat Goals and Objectives
They are often found in early successional willow/cottonwood forests with dense stands of small trees. Of the priority species within the refuge, bald eagle, cerulean warbler, red-shouldered hawk, wood duck and yellow-billed cuckoo have a high probability of occurrence in these habitat types.
GOAL 3 – Other Terrestrial Habitats Protect, enhance, and restore other terrestrial habitats to benefit grassland birds, waterfowl, and neotropical migrants.
Objective 3.A Provide areas of native grassland/wet meadow complexes on refuge divisions to benefit migrating as well as declining nesting populations of grassland birds.
Rationale Objective 3.A in the Mark Twain CCP discussed creating two large blocks (<150 acres) of contiguous native grassland/wet meadow complex. Neither Great River NWR nor Clarence Cannon NWR has the potential to support that objective. Native grassland/wet meadow complex habitat is present on the refuges; however those habitats are intertwined into the other refuge habitats, which makes the contiguous portion of the objective the most difficult part to achieve. In general, the refuges can support more than 150 acres of native grassland/wet meadow complex as a whole rather than in two contiguous blocks. All acres of grassland/wet meadow complexes are rolled into Objective 3.C because of the feasibility for providing large contiguous blocks.
Objective 3.B Maintain a three year average (+/- 10%) of 259 acres of smaller patches of grassland habitat at Delair Division and Clarence Cannon NWR where grassland is established for levee maintenance, cultural resource protection, or environmental education. Utilize techniques such as mowing, prescribed burning, and/or spraying of undesirable vegetation as needed (typically on a 3- to 5-year cycle).
Objective 3.C Provide a three year average (+/- 10%) of 685 acres of smaller wet meadow areas for marsh and grassland birds and spring foraging waterfowl using a combination of water level manipulation, mowing, disking, and burning. Water level manipulations may occur annually; other techniques are typically necessary on a 3- to 5-year cycle. Most sites border existing wetland or grassland units.
Objective 3.D Provide a three year average (+/- 10%) of 299 acres of shrub/scrub habitat for waterfowl broods and neotropical migrants through a combination of water level manipulation, mowing, disking, and burning. Water level manipulation may occur annually; other techniques typically are necessary on a 3- to 5-year cycle. Most shrub/scrub sites occur naturally at the interface between wetland and forest, but may need management action to hold back succession.
Objective 3.F Utilize agriculture as a management tool, as necessary, to maintain high-quality wildlife habitat in refuge wetlands by periodically setting back succession or invasion of undesirable species. Up to 850 acres will need to be planted annually as a management tool. **Note: Due to changes in farming practices from traditional to more conservation tillage, it is important that cooperative farming programs take in account that rotating management units through a farming cycle may be less effective at meeting habitat goals unless the program specifies how crops must be planted (no-till vs. soil tillage)
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 58 Chapter 4. Habitat Goals and Objectives
Objective 3.G Use farming techniques to maintain 675 acres of open fields at Fox island Division until they can be converted to another planned habitat type, such as on newly acquired lands. Conversion will occur by 2012. (Farming was discontinued in 2010. Area is undergoing re-forestation).
*Acreages may vary with future management actions in respect to other goals and objectives of this HMP (i.e. proposed HREP at Clarence Cannon NWR, completion of Fox Island Division, levee setback, berm removal, etc.).
Rationale Wet bottomland prairie, wet-mesic, and bottomland prairie exist in the zone between wetland and terrestrial habitats and could be considered under either category. Both are treated under the terrestrial objective for purposes of this HMP. Wet bottomland prairie and wet-mesic bottomland prairie are often managed in conjunction with adjacent upland grasslands using similar techniques. Shrub/scrub habitats typically border existing floodplain forest. Both are treated under the terrestrial objective for purposes of this HMP. In addition to wet bottomland prairie, wet-mesic bottomland prairie and shrub/scrub riverine wetlands, upland grasslands and land still in a form of agricultural use serve as critical habitats for a diversity of wildlife using the refuge.
Grasslands provide forage for herbivores, abundant seeds, and cover. The grasshopper sparrow is a species of concern within the refuges with a high likelihood of occurrence in grassland habitat. Many species of grassland birds have declined significantly in the past 30 years, probably due in large part to loss of habitat. Many grassland bird species are area-sensitive. Because area requirements of grasshopper sparrows have been shown to be relatively large in fragmented landscapes, management for these species should focus first upon tracts of larger grassland habitats. In less fragmented landscapes, where a high proportion of grassland exists in the matrix surrounding the patches, the same species may be less area-sensitive.
Grasslands are disturbance-adapted systems. In the absence of periodic disturbance, invasion of woody plants occurs, and fewer grassland bird species and individuals are supported. Fire is one of the most important types of disturbance for suppressing woody encroachment, decreasing litter cover, and improving grass and forb production, thereby maintaining bird species diversity. Some grassland bird species are reduced immediately following a burn, while others are increased. As a result of different habitat preferences, bird responses to various forms of grassland management are variable. For example, Henslow's sparrows seek dense, tall grass cover and a deep litter layer characteristic of relatively undisturbed prairies. Little habitat for Henslow's sparrows exists in landscapes dominated by cropfields, annually mowed hayfields, or heavily grazed pastures. In contrast, grasshopper sparrows seek grass cover of intermediate height with low to moderate litter depth interspersed with patches of bare ground For these reasons, management should strive for different stages of succession in grassland ecosystems throughout the refuge.
Wet bottomland prairies and wet-mesic bottomland prairies are most often found along protected backwater areas, at higher elevations than emergent marshes, in areas flooded for brief to moderate periods during the growing season. Characteristic plants include prairie cordgrass, panic grass, sedges, and marsh aster. The dense growth provides cover and nesting habitat for reptiles and amphibians, marsh birds, and small mammals. Habitats such as wet meadows are affected not only by conventional grassland management activities but also by water level manipulations. Too little water can cause conversion to forest. Too much water can alter the vegetation composition and result in lower habitat quality for upland grassland, wet bottomland prairie and wet-mesic bottomland prairie wildlife.
Shrub/scrub riverine wetlands are characterized by small, woody vegetation, primarily buttonbush and scattered willows that are less than 20 feet tall. Shrub/scrub riverine wetlands represent a successional stage in the transition of an emergent wetland to a forested wetland. Unless
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 59 Chapter 4. Habitat Goals and Objectives
sedimentation rates are very high, this community can be relatively stable. With high rates of sedimentation, these areas are likely to convert quickly to forest. Buttonbush can be an important waterfowl food source by providing nutlets and associated invertebrates and provides seclusion for pair bonding. The community attracts wading birds, marsh birds, upland game birds, song birds, beaver and muskrats. Management techniques that reduce sedimentation and willow encroachment along wetland edges can promote shrub/scrub habitat.
There are extensive agricultural areas surrounding refuge lands. Agriculture can be used as a rotational tool to set back natural succession in wetlands. Unmanaged wetlands can quickly convert to weeds, grassland, or forest depending on their elevation and the weather conditions during the growing season. Farming can be one of the tools used to maintain long-term productivity of wetland units. Agriculture within the refuges can also be used to maintain open conditions in units prior to conversion to another habitat type. If the areas are left idle, they can quickly grow up to thick stands of willow, cottonwood, and weeds.
The terrestrial habitats on the refuge can support a number of priority species. Of the priority species within the refuge, blue-winged teal (wet bottomland prairies and wet-mesic bottomland prairies and shrub/scrub), grasshopper sparrow (upland grasslands), mallards (wet bottomland prairies and wet-mesic bottomland prairies, shrub/scrub, and agriculture), and wood duck (wet bottomland prairies and wet-mesic bottomland prairies and shrub/scrub) have a high probability of occurrence in these vegetation types.
GOAL 4 – Sedimentation and Water Quality Identify and reduce the impacts of sedimentation and other water quality factors, such as contaminants, on fish and wildlife resources.
Objective 4.A Continue current and develop new partnerships with government agencies and private landowners to reduce the effects of erosion and contaminant runoff affecting fish and wildlife resources in the Upper Mississippi River watershed.
Objective 4.B Reduce sedimentation and improve overall water quality on the refuge throughout the lifetime of the HMP for the benefit of fish and wildlife populations.
Rationale Increased sedimentation and poor water quality are factors that can severely impair the critical habitats and the wildlife that use those habitats on the refuge. Reducing sedimentation and improving water quality is essential to ensuring good ecosystem health within the refuges.
GOAL 5 – Floodplain Management Enhance floodplain functions and, where practicable, mimic historical water level fluctuations in the river corridor.
Objective 5.A Conduct activities and promote partnerships and interagency coordination that encourage a balanced floodplain management program throughout the refuge and adjacent lands.
Objective 5.B Manage refuge lands for wildlife first, while considering UMR floodplain functions and contributing to improving those values.
Rationale The units of the refuge have varying amounts of water level control, flood control, and floodplain connectivity. Some units are completely open to the river and its flood pulses; others are partially protected by dikes with spillways. Clarence Cannon NWR and Delair Division are protected by
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 60 Chapter 4. Habitat Goals and Objectives
dikes of varying heights. Clarence Cannon NWR has a spillway that overtops during floods. The spillway provides periodic river connectivity during 1-year to 5-year flood events, but still provide protection from the artificial daily fluctuations caused by the lock and dam system. Other benefits of the dike/spillway system are reduced sediment input into the divisions, reduced likelihood of a dike breach during flood events, and the ability to manage wetland water levels during years of normal river flow. This spillway concept balances the need for floodwater storage with the need to provide high quality wildlife habitat through continued management programs on the refuge.
In order to meet its main purpose (migratory bird habitat), the refuge simulates natural water level fluctuations on units where some level of water control is possible. This managed flooding usually involves re-creating fall and spring wet periods and the summer dry cycle. Stop-log structures, gates, pumps, and gravity flow are used to control water levels. The dikes on these units keep out the unnatural water level changes caused by dam flow regulation.
The refuge will work with the state partners, USACE, other organizations, private landowners, private organizations, and the public to encourage a balanced floodplain management program on a system wide level beyond the immediate refuge boundary. Environmental pool management (EPM), for example, is an interagency partnership to modify dam operations for fish and wildlife benefits within entire navigation pools. Modification of water release schedules for navigation dams can benefit plants and animals over extensive reaches of the river and floodplain, beyond single moist-soil units or even individual refuges. The Service is working with the USACE and the states to promote improved water level management on a pool-wide scale. (See Environmental Pool Management in the Management Considerations Section)
USFWS policy recognizes that intensive habitat management is sometimes necessary in highly altered ecosystems. Under guidelines set out in a 2001 Service Manual chapter (601 FW 3: Biological Integrity), refuges will be managed to maintain biological integrity, natural biological diversity, and environmental health by restoring or replicating natural conditions. In highly modified ecosystem that mimic natural ecological processes, even when intensive actions and technological methods may be required. Within the UMR system, where natural flooding regimes have been eliminated as a result of altered hydrology, the refuge will continue to use water control structures, pumps, and delivery canals to re-create historic flooding cycles where feasible. The desired outcome of floodplain management for the refuge is not to create a static system, but to restore river function according to this concept of dynamic equilibrium.
GOAL 6 – Public Use and Education Provide wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities where appropriate, and improve the quality and safety of the recreational experience. Enhance environmental education and interpretive efforts consistent with the vision statement in this document by developing and improving refuge programs and facilities based on or allied with the issues in this document, and partnering with others to increase awareness of Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR, the Mississippi River, and the National Wildlife Refuge System.
GOAL 7 – Monitoring Develop and implement a wildlife, habitat, and public use monitoring program, integrated with interagency efforts along the river corridor, to evaluate the effectiveness of refuge management programs and to provide information for adaptive management strategies.
Objective 7.A. Monitor habitat communities within the refuge to evaluate the effects of current management actions and gather data to improve future management practices.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 61 Chapter 4. Habitat Goals and Objectives
Objective 7.B. Monitor wildlife use of refuge to verify a response to habitat management efforts, and to contribute to systematic scale evaluations on the Mississippi River with our partners.
Objective 7.D. Work with partners to monitor systemic fish, wildlife, and habitat resources of the UMR floodplain and gather data to assist with resource management decision-making.
Objective 7.E. Develop and implement an effective record-keeping and data analysis system, compatible with HNA, to facilitate adaptive management decision-making.
Rationale An Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP) will be developed by the end of 2012 for Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR. This plan will use the concepts of Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) and Adaptive Management (AM) to guide management decisions in the future. The IMP will be centralized around this document and inventory and monitoring (I&M) processes will be used to determine the effects of implemented management strategies delineated in this plan and the implications on vegetation, species composition, species diversity, etc. at multiple spatial scales. The IMP will guide the planning and evaluation portions of the SHC loop.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 62 Chapter 5. Management Strategies
Chapter 5. Management Strategies and Prescriptions
Image. View of a water control structure at Clarence Cannon NWR. Photo by Refuge Staff.
5.1 Development of Management Strategies and Prescriptions 5.2 Management Units 5.3 Management Strategies and Prescriptions by Habitat Objective
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 63 Chapter 5. Management Strategies
5.1 Development of Management Strategies and Prescriptions
This chapter outlines management strategies and prescriptions to address the habitat management goals and objectives outlined under chapter 4. Management strategies identify the tools and techniques (e.g. mowing, water-level manipulation, chemical application, etc.) utilized to achieve the habitat objectives. Prescriptions provide the details behind the specific means by which the strategies will be implemented (e.g. timing, frequency, duration, and location). A review of available literature related to potential strategies and prescriptions was completed. The identified treatments were selected in consultation with other refuge biologists, managers, and practitioners to ensure their effectiveness. Many environmental factors including wildlife populations, weather, seasonal variations, and habitat conditions affect the selected prescriptions and their ability to achieve objectives from year to year. As such, many of the details of prescriptions will be identified in Annual Habitat Work Plans. Prescriptions outlined herein are discussed on a conceptual level.
The natural world contains a myriad of extremely complex and dynamic systems. This is true at Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR, where an array of different habitats that support many plant, fish, and wildlife species in a relatively small area can be found. Despite the extensive planning efforts undertaken within this Habitat Management Plan, there will undoubtedly be additional need to address physical, ecological, social, political, and financial factors that influence biodiversity and its conservation.
The work outlined within this habitat management plan is intended to be feasible, yet extensive, given the available workload of refuge staff and community support. Addition of biological technicians and other staff may help in achieving these management objectives over the next several years. The management prescriptions outlined here represents a comprehensive effort to guide management over the next five years. However, it is impossible to predict the full suite of management strategies and prescriptions required over this period. Some additional strategies may need to be added, while others listed here may not be utilized.
5.2 Management Units
Management prescriptions are described at the division-level or in the case of Clarence Cannon NWR, at the refuge-level. Wherever possible, specific subdivisions within each refuge or division are called out in strategies to provide a greater level of detail. Habitat management units were developed by refuge staff and managers and may reflect historic management practices.
5.3 Management Strategies and Prescriptions by Habitat Objective
Objective 1.A Provide a three year average (+/- 10%) of 2,835 acres seasonal/temporary, 291 acres semi- permanent, and 55 acres of permanently flooded wetland vegetation types in refuge wetland impoundments for waterfowl, shorebirds and other wetland-dependent wildlife species in areas with water level control capabilities.
Management Strategies
Continue to: Provide and manage a variety of habitats for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, marsh birds, raptors, grassland birds, and forest birds, as well as complementing species. Continue and enhance management through moist-soil manipulations, water management, invasive species control, and other habitat management techniques.
o Manage the moist-soil units as a mixed successional plant community through the use of water level manipulation, mowing, disking, burning, farming, or other
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 64 Chapter 5. Management Strategies
techniques. Techniques used will vary depending on the timing of migratory stopovers, seasonal variations, or hydrologic influences by river stage and precipitation. The prescription will be adapted on an annual or seasonal basis for the site conditions.
o Control invasive species focused primarily on reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), river bulrush (Scirpus fluviatilis), spikerush (Eleocharis spp.), and swamp smartweed (Polygonum coccineum) through a combination of herbicide application, mowing, rolling, and disking treatments throughout the growing season. Refer to appendix C for more detailed information.
Within 5 years of HMP approval: On all refuge lands, evaluate what non-essential infrastructure could be removed to combine fragmented moist-soil management units into larger, more contiguous wetland units, thereby improving water level management, enhancing the natural topographic gradient, and mimicking the mosaic of habitats that occurred naturally.
Within the lifetime of the HMP: Reduce fragmentation of wetland habitats by removing non-essential infrastructure consisting of, but not limited to, berms separating individual management units and drainage ditches installed for purposes of post-agriculture wetland management. Removing berms will restore/enhance wet meadows, temporary wetlands, seasonal wetlands, and semi-permanent wetlands, as well as, grasslands, bottomland forests, and woodlands.
In Delair Division, manage portions of Cattail Marsh, primarily the west and southern portions consisting of higher elevated lands not historically connected to the backwater slough system, as a groundwater seep marsh. Management will consist of structure placement within the man-made drainage ditch system to allow water to flow through, thereby creating a saturated palustrine emergent wetland with a mosaic of other habitats between seeps. Habitat will feather into wet prairie and/or bottomland forest on higher elevations of the unit, and into permanently flooded habitats on the lower elevations of unit.
Management Consideration: Currently, there is a water control structure separating Cattail Marsh and the Swan Lakes that when boarded, impounds the seep water throughout Cattail Marsh and encourages management of the unit as a moist-soil impoundment. The natural elevation of this area would not have allowed this type of habitat to occur naturally. Historically, the slough area of Cattail Marsh may have been directly influenced by backwaters of the river. The surrounding areas consisted of a mosaic of habitats interspersed around an emergent seep marsh. By allowing the slough area in Cattail Marsh to connect with the Swan Lake system, the water regime will mimic historic hydrology. In addition, placement of water control structures within the drainage ditches south and west of the Cattail Marsh slough area will allow for conversion of the unit from moist-soil management, to a saturated palustrine emergent wetland (or riverine wetland), with a mosaic of other habitats between seeps.
At Clarence Cannon NWR, update pump-station capabilities. This includes installing a new pump, possibly on the up-river side of the refuge and replacing the existing pump on the south end of the refuge. Placement of supplemental ground wells throughout the refuge would be evaluated.
On Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR, explore the feasibility of restoring and enhancing historic scours and backwater sloughs, and associated riparian areas which have been filled.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 65 Chapter 5. Management Strategies
In both Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR, evaluate and pursue the removal or installation of water control structures on the refuges where the action results in increased habitat complexity.
Monitoring Components
By the end of 2012, develop an Inventory and Monitoring Program for Clarence Cannon and Great Rivers NWR. Implementation of monitoring program should begin in 2012. Techniques should be documented and shared with other Refuge managers within the Big Rivers Network. Implement vegetation monitoring protocol to evaluate effectiveness of management techniques to control invasive species, specifically reed canary grass. Implement vegetation monitoring protocols to evaluate effectiveness of management techniques on maintaining mixed successional habitat in moist soil units. Implement monitoring protocols to evaluate use by waterfowl, shorebirds, and marshbirds in response to management techniques in seasonal, semi-permanent, and permanently flooded wetlands.
Objective 1.B In areas of the refuge with little water level control, protect, enhance, and maintain a three year average (+/- 10%) of 62 acres of isolated backwaters and ephemeral wetlands, providing seasonal and semi-permanently flooded wetland vegetation types for the benefit of migratory birds and other wetland-dependent species.
Management Strategies and Prescriptions
Continue to: At Fox Island Division, enhance 21 acres of wetlands in and around Logsdon Slough, Coin Pond, Slim Slough, and Old Lake by installation of two groundwater wells, channel improvements and installation of new water control structures.
At Long Island Division, protect and monitor 41 acres of existing isolated backwaters and ephemeral wetlands.
Within the lifetime of HMP: Work with cooperating agencies to enhance natural function of refuge floodplain properties adjacent to the Mississippi River. Emphasis should be placed on restoring functions that are within the limitations of USFWS control or do not conflict with USACE’s jurisdictional authority or mission statement.
Implement a levee setback project at Clarence Cannon NWR to restore riverine wetland habitat such as backwaters and ephemeral wetlands.
Monitoring Components
Implement vegetation monitoring protocol to evaluate effectiveness of management techniques to control invasive species, specifically reed canary grass. Implement monitoring protocols to evaluate use by waterfowl, shorebirds, and marshbirds in response to management techniques in isolated backwaters and ephemeral wetlands, providing seasonal and semi-permanently flooded wetland vegetation types in unleveed areas of the refuge. Monitoring protocols should evaluate Fox Island Division and Clarence Cannon NWR HREP projects.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 66 Chapter 5. Management Strategies
Objective 1.C In unleveed areas of the refuge, protect, enhance, and maintain 2,093 acres of contiguous backwater and side channel habitat for migratory birds and fish. Where little or no local water level control exists, increase bathymetric diversity and wetland plant growth by 2015.
Management Strategies and Prescriptions
Continue to: Protect and maintain the existing habitat at Long Island and Fox Island Divisions, specifically LaGrange Chute, Smoot Chute (both in Long Island Division) and Fox River (Fox Island Division) by maintaining boundary identification and participating in river partnerships.
Protect and maintain the existing habitat of the Canton Chute in Long Island Division. Cooperate with USACE to monitor and enforce the proper mooring of private docks during the winter period.
Within 5 years of HMP approval: Conduct a feasibility study on constructing and establishing a new Mississippi River setback levee along Clarence Cannon NWR.
Pending feasibility study, acquire regulatory permits and funding for the completion of a new Mississippi River setback levee project at Clarence Cannon NWR.
Within the lifetime of the HMP: In Long Island Division, complete the approved HREP project of dredging the lower end of the mouth of O’Dell Chute and installing a closing structure to enhance deepwater habitat.
In Fox Island and Long Island Divisions, where feasible, explore and pursue mussel and fish nursery habitat enhancement for the benefit of threatened and endangered species and other focus species.
In Clarence Cannon NWR, construct a new Mississippi River setback levee, located west of the existing levee, and degrade the southeast corner and/or other selected portions of the existing river levee, pending a positive feasibility study..
Management Consideration: Lowering and/or removing portions of the levee would allow for the eastern portion of refuge lands (800-1000 acres) to be directly influenced by Mississippi River, thereby replicating hydrologic functions which occurred naturally prior to construction of the levee. Natural scours and sloughs, which have been filled and/or disconnected from the River, would be enhanced and reconnected to the natural water regime. The remainder of the area would be restored to bottomland woodlands and forests interspersed with a mosaic of wet-mesic bottomland and prairie grasslands, thereby reducing fragmentation which occurred when the land was cleared for agriculture.
Lowering the grade at portions of the existing levee’s southeast corner and/or other areas would allow for a more consistent connection with the River during a wider range of flood events. This would allow the river to backflow into the area which would minimize the negative impacts associated with a river connection such as sediment and contaminant deposition. The length of time during which receding high water levels form isolated pools behind the levee would be reduced, resulting in less stagnant water and higher oxygen levels. This would reduce tree mortality within hardwoods along the river and is a necessary management action to reduce floodplain forest fragmentation.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 67 Chapter 5. Management Strategies
Monitoring Components
Implement vegetation monitoring protocol to evaluate effectiveness of management techniques to control invasive species, specifically reed canary grass. Implement monitoring protocols to evaluate use by waterfowl, shorebirds, and marshbirds in response to management techniques in backwater and side channel habitat in unleveed areas of the refuge. Monitoring protocols should evaluate Fox Island Division and Clarence Cannon NWR HREP projects.
Objective 2.A Conserve and enhance floodplain forest block size and spatial distribution along the river corridor through management of existing 8,651 acres and restoration of an additional 676 acres, including 35 additional acres in the Cattail Marsh unit of Delair Division by end of the lifetime of the HMP for the benefit of nesting neotropical birds, feeding and resting birds during migration, and other forest-dependent wildlife.
Management Strategies and Prescriptions
Continue to: Protect and maintain existing forested areas in Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR. Utilize USACE forest management plans for Long Island and Fox Island Divisions.
On Long Island Division, preserve, enhance and restore the overall health of the river forest community with supplemental tree plantings, timber stand improvement (TSI) work, invasive species control, and other habitat manipulations. Work will be performed through cooperation with USACE, Rock Island District.
In Fox Island Division, per planned HREP, plant mast-producing hardwoods such as burr oak and swamp white oak on 215 acres using container grown stock, and 60 acres direct seeding. These tree plantings will take place within many of the former agricultural fields for the purpose of reducing forest fragmentation.
Within the lifetime of the HMP: In Clarence Cannon NWR, explore and pursue connecting corridors of habitat. This includes but is not limited to connecting forested and woodland habitats along historic hydrographic pathways. For example, plant trees from the Green Tree Reservoir (GTR) 7 on the north end of the refuge along the natural meander through the center of the refuge towards the south end of MSU 9 to function as a green tree reservoir and habitat corridor.
In Clarence Cannon NWR, restore forest habitat within the footprint of the degraded levee once proposed setback levee project occurs. Utilize tree species characteristic of floodplain forest including mast-producing tree species.
Monitoring Components
Continue to: Utilize USACE forest inventory for Fox Island and Long Island Divisions.
Within the lifetime of HMP: By the end of 2012, develop an Inventory and Monitoring Program for Clarence Cannon and Great River NWR. Implementation of monitoring program should begin in 2012. Techniques should be documented and shared with other Refuge managers within the Big Rivers Network.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 68 Chapter 5. Management Strategies
Model forest resources (block size, corridors, and juxtaposition) for Clarence Cannon and Great River NWR to evaluate Refuges contribution to the surrounding landscape. Inventory bird and bat use of forest resources at Clarence Cannon and Great River NWR.
Objective 2.B Conserve and enhance structural diversity on 1,680 acres of existing refuge floodplain forests and the re-forestation of 1,173 acres by end of the lifetime of the HMP for the benefit of neotropical migrants, raptors, bats, and cavity nesting birds. This estimate includes an additional 283 acres at Clarence Cannon comprised of an area connecting GTR 7 unit to MSU 9 and reforesting several abandoned agricultural fields in unmanaged portions of the refuge.
Management Strategies and Prescriptions
Continue to: Protect, maintain, and enhance the 1,680 acre block of mature hard mast trees in Long Island Division.
Leave large dead trees in place on all divisions for Indiana bats and cavity-nesting birds. Dead trees creating a safety hazard will be removed.
Within the lifetime of the HMP: In Clarence Cannon NWR and Delair Division, explore and pursue, if appropriate, restoration of mast producing hardwood native to the area.
Monitoring Components
Model forest resources (block size, corridors, and juxtaposition) for Clarence Cannon and Great River NWR to evaluate Refuges contribution to the surrounding landscape. Inventory bird and bat use of forest resources at Clarence Cannon and Great River NWR.
Objective 3.A Provide areas of native grassland/wet meadow complexes on refuge divisions to benefit migrating as well as declining nesting populations of grassland birds.
Management Strategies and Prescriptions
Continue to: Protect, maintain, and enhance the existing native grassland/wet meadow complex present on the refuge.
Within the lifetime of the HMP: In Clarence Cannon NWR and Delair Division, explore and pursue restoration of native grassland/wet meadow complex during management activities associated with other refuge habitats such a removal of berms between management units in Clarence Cannon NWR.
Monitoring Components
By the end of 2012, develop an Inventory and Monitoring Program for Clarence Cannon and Great River NWR. Implementation of monitoring program should begin in 2012. Techniques should be documented and shared with other Refuge managers within the Big Rivers Network. Implement vegetation monitoring protocol to evaluate effectiveness of management techniques to control invasive species, specifically reed canary grass. Inventory bird use of grassland resources at Clarence Cannon and Great River NWR.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 69 Chapter 5. Management Strategies
Objective 3.B Maintain a three year average (+/- 10%) of 259 acres of smaller patches of grassland habitat where grassland is established for levee maintenance, cultural resource protection, or environmental education. Utilize techniques such as mowing, prescribed burning, and/or spraying of undesirable vegetation as needed (typically on a 3- to 5-year cycle).
Management Strategies and Prescriptions
Continue to: Protect and maintain grassland habitat along the main perimeter levee and interior dikes of the Clarence Cannon NWR primarily through mowing and herbicide application.
Protect and maintain grassland habitat including Field 1 and the Swan Lake grassland for cultural resources protection in Great River NWR at Delair primarily through mowing and herbicide application to prevent the establishment of invasive or woody species.
Within the lifetime of the HMP: After Mississippi River setback levee project occurs in Clarence Cannon NWR, establish and maintain grassland habitat along new levee system.
Monitoring Components
Implement vegetation monitoring protocol to evaluate effectiveness of management techniques to control invasive species, specifically reed canary grass.
Objective 3.C Provide a three year average (+/- 10%) of 685 acres of smaller wet meadow areas for marsh and grassland birds and spring foraging waterfowl using a combination of water level manipulation, mowing, disking, and burning. Water level manipulations may occur annually; other techniques are typically necessary on a 3- to 5-year cycle. Most sites border existing wetland or grassland units.
Management Strategies and Prescriptions
Continue to: Manage small wet meadows sites in Clarence Cannon NWR and Delair Division to provide habitat for marsh and grassland birds and spring foraging waterfowl.
Within the lifetime of the HMP: In Clarence Cannon NWR and Delair Division, evaluate and establish, where appropriate, wet meadow (wet bottomland prairie) habitats. The habitat will be comprised of native vegetation, relatively free of invasive species, and provide important habitat for priority focal species such as the American bittern and mallard.
In both Clarence Cannon NWR and Delair Division, explore and pursue restoration of grasslands/wet meadows in natural locations on higher elevations. Once berms separating several management units have been degraded, the opportunity for grassland enhancement will be greater because the units will be less fragmented.
In Clarence Cannon NWR, convert west side of the current MSU-3 and MSU-5 to wet meadow habitat through degrading berm, native plantings, water level manipulation, burning, and invasive species control.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 70 Chapter 5. Management Strategies
Monitoring Components
Implement vegetation monitoring protocol to evaluate effectiveness of management techniques to control invasive species, specifically reed canary grass. Implement monitoring protocols to evaluate use by waterfowl, shorebirds, and marshbirds in response to management techniques in wet meadows. Model grassland resources (block size, corridors, and juxtaposition) for Clarence Cannon and Great River NWR to evaluate Refuges contribution to the surrounding landscape.
Objective 3.D Provide a three year average (+/- 10%) of 299 acres of shrub/scrub habitat for waterfowl broods and neotropical migrants through a combination of water level manipulation, mowing, disking, and burning. Water level manipulation may occur annually; other techniques typically are necessary on a 3- to 5-year cycle. Most shrub/scrub sites occur naturally at the interface between wetland and forest, but may need management action to hold back succession.
Management Strategies and Prescriptions
Continue to: Protect and maintain shrub/scrub habitat on Clarence Cannon NWR and Delair and Fox Island Divisions.
Within the lifetime of the HMP: Once reconnected with Mississippi River through levee setback and enhancement project, promote enhancement of shrub/scrub within former backwater areas on Clarence Cannon NWR.
Monitoring Components
Implement vegetation monitoring protocol to evaluate effectiveness of management techniques to control invasive species, specifically reed canary grass. Implement monitoring protocols to evaluate use by waterfowl, shorebirds, and marshbirds in response to management techniques in scrub/shrub. Model scrub/shrub resources (block size, corridors, and juxtaposition) for Clarence Cannon and Great River NWR to evaluate Refuges contribution to the surrounding landscape.
Objective 3.F Utilize agriculture as a management tool, as necessary, to maintain high-quality wildlife habitat in refuge wetlands by periodically setting back succession or invasion of undesirable species. Up to 850 acres will be planted annually.
Management Strategies and Prescriptions
Continue to: In Delair Division, continue to incorporate up to 400 acres annually in agricultural production. No significant reduction in farming will be implemented within this division until greater than a 50% decrease in invasive species (i.e. reed canary grass) coverage is observed within the non-agriculture lands of the division.
**Note: Some food value to wildlife will be provided as a secondary benefit. Currently 25% of the planted crops are kept standing after the harvest by request from the refuge staff. The standing portion qualifies as the rental payment by the farmer to the USFWS. The standing portion could also be considered to be a supplemental food source, which would provide partial support for
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 71 Chapter 5. Management Strategies
objective 3.E in the Mark Twain CCP, which has been removed from this HMP. In general, refuge staff does not intend to utilize agriculture to directly supplement the refuge forage base.
Within the lifetime of the HMP: Continue to utilize agricultural practices as a management tool within lands, up to 850 acres annually incorporated into farming program.
Monitoring Components
Implement vegetation monitoring protocol to evaluate effectiveness of management techniques to control invasive species, specifically reed canary grass.
Objective 3.G Use farming techniques to maintain 675 acres of open fields at Fox Island Division until they can be converted to another planned habitat type, such as on newly acquired lands. Conversion will occur by 2012. (Farming was discontinued in 2010. Area is undergoing re-forestation).
Objective 4.A Continue current and develop new partnerships with government agencies and private landowners to reduce the effects of erosion and contaminant runoff affecting fish and wildlife resources in the Upper Mississippi River watershed.
Management Strategies and Prescriptions
Continue to: Work in partnership with Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to encourage private landowners to adopt sustainable agricultural practices within the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) watershed through programs such as CRP.
Work in partnership with agencies and private landowners to encourage wetland restoration projects through programs such as Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW), Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), Emergency Wetland Reserve Program (EWRP), etc
Work in partnership with agencies and private landowners to encourage restoration of terrestrial habitat through programs such as CRP, Field Services Agency (FSA) easements, etc.
Continue coordination with NRCS to identify landowners within the refuge acquisition boundary who are willing to participate in a WRP easement if they can sell the residual value to a third party.
Work with partner agencies to promote Environmental Pool Management to consolidate flocculent bottom sediments and improve overall habitat quality.
Ensure that appropriate refuge personnel are trained to assist with interagency spill response efforts on the River.
Within the lifetime of the HMP: Promote practices by refuge staff to minimize erosion and reduce the risk of a contaminant spill.
Objective 4.B Reduce sedimentation and improve overall water quality on NWRS lands for the benefit of fish and wildlife populations.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 72 Chapter 5. Management Strategies
Management Strategies and Prescriptions
Continue to:
Analyze ditch runoff for contaminants at points that enter refuge divisions.
Partner with USACE and states to develop and construct habitat restoration projects to improve water quality through authorities such as Environmental Management Program (EMP).
Evaluate identified tracts within refuge expanded boundary proposal for each site’s potential to contribute to nutrient recycling and other water quality improvements.
Use integrated pest management techniques to address invasive species issues, where practical.
Ensure that an updated Spill Prevention, Control and countermeasure Plan is available for each refuge.
Within the lifetime of the HMP: For Long Island Division, dredge lower O’Dell Chute and construct closing structure at head of chute to reduce sediment loading and provide deep water fisheries habitat.
Monitoring Components
Within the lifetime of the HMP: Setup monitoring program for Long Island backwater and sloughs to evaluate sedimentation and potential impacts to habitat and connectivity.
For Clarence Cannon NWR, develop a program to monitor water quality and sedimentation during flooding resulting from the increased connectivity to the River due to the lowered spillway.
For Clarence Cannon NWR, conduct comprehensive contaminant survey of wetlands to identify potential water quality or sediment contaminant issues.
Objective 5.A Conduct activities and promote partnerships and interagency coordination that encourage a balanced floodplain management program throughout the refuge and adjacent lands.
Continue to: Promote adoption of Environmental Pool Management (EPM) in the pooled portions of the River to recreate natural wet and dry cycles. Work to acquire privately owned lands from willing sellers necessary to move pool control “hinge points,” or other actions to remove obstacles in order to facilitate this management approach.
Participate in interagency development of habitat improvement plans for pooled and unpooled River reaches in a manner that also contributes to other refuge goals, such as floodplain management and water quality.
Partner with USACE, states and non-governmental organizations to develop and construct habitat restoration projects to enhance habitat, water quality, and floodplain management through possible funding sources and authorities, such as three programs operated by the USACE: the EMP program, Section 1135 of the Water Resources
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 73 Chapter 5. Management Strategies
Development Act of 1986, or Avoid and Minimize program, and others such as Ducks Unlimited, Marsh, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, WRP, etc.
Work in partnership with NRCS to encourage private landowners to adopt sustainable agricultural practices within the UMR watershed through programs such as CRP or WRP on their most erodible ground, and to promote other conservation practices in basin uplands.
Participate in USACE dredged material management program to enhance system topographic and bathymetric diversity, and other floodplain functions.
Explore solutions to fish passage through USACE locks and lateral obstructions, such as levees, drain pipes and water control structures, to enhance migration and spawning opportunities for big river fish species.
Work on Area of Ecological Concern (AEC) system waters to reduce the impacts of sedimentation through the location of river training structures (wing dams, etc.) that direct flows in a manner that creates or maintains diversity in areas that would otherwise fill with fine silt or coarse bed-load material.
Encourage the USACE to utilize their full operation authorities to minimize artificial spikes in river levels throughout the year.
Acquire floodplain lands from willing sellers during the lifetime of the HMP that will contribute to restoring floodplain function and improve the habitat and water quality conditions within AEC and downstream areas.
Objective 5.B Manage refuge lands for wildlife first, while considering UMR floodplain functions and contributing to improving those values.
Continue to: Evaluate effects of refuge management activities on sedimentation, water quality, wetland vegetation, and fish passage. For example, monitor floodplain function factors of Clarence Cannon NWR spillway.
Evaluate identified tracts within refuge expanded boundary proposal for each site’s potential to contribute to nutrient recycling, River connectivity as well as potential habitat improvement.
Restore backwater and side channel habitat on refuge lands. Increase bathymetric diversity, including fish overwintering habitat.
Manage wetland impoundments to recreate natural wet/dry cycles where possible.
Continue to study River hydrology to evaluate the feasibility of improving connectivity at refuge units with some level of levee protection while monitoring high-quality wetland or other habitats. Use 1- to 10-year flood level spillways at locations such as Clarence Cannon NWR or some newly acquired areas.
Monitoring Components
By the end of 2012, develop an Inventory and Monitoring Program for Clarence Cannon and Great River NWR. Implementation of monitoring program should begin in 2012.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 74 Chapter 5. Management Strategies
Techniques should be documented and shared with other Refuge managers within the Big Rivers Network.
Objective 7.A Monitor habitat communities within the refuge to evaluate the effects of current management actions and gather data to improve future management practices.
Monitoring Components
By the end of 2012, develop an Inventory and Monitoring Program for Clarence Cannon and Great River NWR. Implementation of monitoring program should begin in 2012. Techniques should be documented and shared with other Refuge managers within the Big Rivers Network. Implement vegetation monitoring protocol to evaluate effectiveness of management techniques to control invasive species, specifically reed canary grass. Model resources of concern (block size, corridors, and juxtaposition) for Clarence Cannon and Great River NWR to evaluate Refuges contribution to the surrounding landscape.
Objective 7.B Monitor wildlife use of the refuge to verify a response to habitat management efforts, and to contribute to systematic scale evaluations on the Mississippi River with our partners.
Monitoring Components
By the end of 2012, develop an Inventory and Monitoring Program for Clarence Cannon and Great River NWR. Implementation of monitoring program should begin in 2012. Techniques should be documented and shared with other Refuge managers within the Big Rivers Network. Implement monitoring protocols to evaluate use by waterfowl, shorebirds, and marshbirds in response to management techniques in various wetland classifications types and upland habitats.
Objective 7.D Work with partners to monitor systemic fish, wildlife, and habitat resources of the UMR floodplain and gather data to assist with resource management decision-making.
Continue to: Identify and promote research projects designed to answer specific resource management questions or problems.
Promote continued monitoring of key fish, wildlife and habitat resources in the river corridor through programs such as LTRM, INHS aerial flights, USACE forest inventories, etc.
Work with partners to expand monitoring efforts on water quality and contaminants in the UMRS.
Work with partners to evaluate floodplain management, connectivity and sedimentation in the River corridor and on refuge divisions (Environmental Pool Management, effects of Clarence Cannon BWR spillway, etc.).
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 75 Chapter 5. Management Strategies
Work with partners to monitor status and trends of threatened and endangered species (decurrens false aster, pallid sturgeon, Indiana bat, etc.) and other species of concern within the River corridor.
Objective 7.E Develop and implement an effective record-keeping and data analysis system to facilitate adaptive management decision-making.
Continue to: Keep records of management actions and conditions (water level, prescribed fire history, etc.) for the refuge. Utilize GIS to catalog and organize data in polygons, where applicable.
Develop system of databases/graphs/tables to facilitate management and analysis of monitoring data.
Maintain updated GIS database for Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR.
Annually compare monitoring data with HMP strategies. Modify management actions as needed.
Promote interagency HNA process to point out deficiencies in UMR habitats that could identify gaps to address through land acquisition or partnership projects.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 76 Literature Cited
Literature Cited
American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. Check-list of North American birds, 6th edition. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.
Amos, E. J. R. 1991. A guide to the birds of Bermuda. E. J. R. Amos, Warwick, Bermuda.
Anthony, R. G. and F. B. Isaacs. 1989. Characteristics of bald eagle nest sites in Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:148-159.
Balek, C. L., K. P. McGowen and G. R. Walz. 2001. Phase I archaeological and geomorphological reconnaissance of the 37-acre Gilbert Lake Project at Two Rivers National Wildlife Refuge, Jersey County, Illinois. Contract Report No. 301811N028 prepared for U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN.
Bellrose, F. C., F. L. Paveglio, Jr. and D. W. Steffeck. 1979. Waterfowl populations and the changing environment of the Illinois River Valley. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 32: 1-54.
Bramblett, R. G. 1996. Habitats and movements of pallid and shovelnose sturgeon in the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers, Montana and North Dakota. unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman. 210 pp.
Brewer, R., G.A. McPeek, and R.J. Adams, Jr. 1991. The Atlas of breeding birds of Michigan. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan. xvii + 594 pp.
Cahill, R. A. and J. D. Steele. 1986. Inorganic composition and sedimentation rates of backwater lakes associated with the Illinois River. Illinois State Geological Survey Environmental Notes 115.
Campbell, R. W., N. K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J. M. Cooper, G. W. Kaiser, and M. C. E. McNall. 1990. The birds of British Columbia, Vol. 1: introduction and loons through waterfowl. R. Br. Columbia Mus. Victoria.
Cooper, Thomas R. (Plan Coordinator). 2008. King rail conservation plan, Version 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 121pp.
Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1992. Field guide to freshwater mussels of the Midwest. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 5, Illinois. 194 pp.
Demissie, M., L. Keefer and R. Xia. 1992. Erosion and sedimentation in the Illinois River Basin. ILENR/RE-WR-92/104.
Dennis, S.D. 1985. A recovery plan for the fat pocketbook pearly mussel Potamilus capax (Green 1832). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 22pp. de Szalay, F., Helmers, D., Humburg, D., Lewis, S.J., Pardo, B., and M. Shieldcastle. 2000. Upper Mississippi Valley/ Great Lakes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan, Version 1.0.
Drilling, Nancy, Rodger Titman and Frank Mckinney. 2002. Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology;
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 77 Literature Cited
Dugger, K. M., and L. H. Fredrickson. 1992. Life history and habitat needs of the wood duck. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13(1.6). 8 pp.
Eastman, J. 1991. Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Pages 234-245 in The atlas of breeding birds of Michigan. (Brewer, R., G. A. McPeek, and R. J. Adams, Jr., Eds.) Michigan State Univ. Press, East Lansing.
Farnsworth, K. B. 1976. An archaeological survey of the lower Illinois River shoreline (miles 1- 80). Northwestern University Archaeological Program, Kampsville, IL.
Fitzgerald, J. A., J. R. Herkert, and J. D. Brawn. February 2000. Partners in Flight (PIF) bird conservation plan for the prairie peninsula (Physiographic area 31), Version 1.0. American Bird Conservancy.
Fredrickson, L.H., F.A. Reid. 1986. Wetlands and riparian habitats: a nongame management overview. Pages 59-96 in J.B. Hale, L.B. Best, and R. L. Clawson, (eds.) Management of nongame wildlife in the Midwest: a developing art. Proc. Symp. 47th Midwest Fish and Wildl. Conf.
Gerrard, J. M., P. N. Gerrard, W. J. Maher, and D. W. A. Whitfield. 1975. Factors influencing nest site selection of bald eagles in northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Blue Jay 33:169- 176.
Gibbs, J. P., and S. M. Melvin. 1992. American bittern, Botaurus lentinginosus. Pages 51-69 in K. J. Schneider and D. M. Pence, editors. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 400 pp.
Green, W. E. 1947. Effect of water impoundment on tree mortality and growth. Journal of Forestry 45:118-120.
Hamel, P. B. 2000. Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulean). Number 511 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Hanowski, J. M., and G. J. Niemi. 1986. Habitat characteristics for bird species of special concern. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. Unpublished report.
Havera, S. P. 1998. Waterfowl of Illinois: status and management. Phoenix Publ. Urbana, IL.
——— 1999. Waterfowl of Illinois: status and management. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 21.
Heitmeyer, M. E. and L. H. Fredrickson. 2005. An evaluation of ecosystem restoration and management options for the Ouray National Wildlife Refuge, Utah. University of Missouri- Columbia, Gaylord Memorial Laboratory Special Publication No. 8. Puxico.
——— and K. Westphall. 2007. An evaluation of ecosystem restoration and management options for the Calhoun and Gilbert Lake Divisions of Two Rivers National Wildlife Refuge. University of Missouri-Columbia, Gaylord Memorial Laboratory Special Publication No. 13. Puxico, MO.
Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Illinois comprehensive wildlife conservation plan & strategy, version 1.0. Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Springfield, Illinois. [dnr.state.il.us/orc/wildliferesources/theplan/final/Illinois_final_report.pdf]
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 78 Literature Cited
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Summary for policymakers. In: climate change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Kimmel, V. L. and L. H. Fredrickson. 1981. Nesting ecology of the red-shouldered hawk Buteo- lineatus in southeastern Missouri USA. Transactions of the Missouri Academy of Science 15:21-28.
Knutson, M. G., J. P. Hoover and E. E. Klaas. 1996. The importance of floodplain forests in the conservation and management of neotropical migratory birds in the midwest. Pages 168- 188 in F. Thompson, III ed. Management of midwestern landscapes for the conservation of neotropical migratory birds. U. S. Forest Service General Technical Report NC-187.
Korschgen, C. E. 1989. Riverine and deepwater habitats for diving ducks. Pages 157-180 in Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. (Smith, L. M., R. L. Penderson, and R. M. Kaminski, Eds.) Texas Tech. Univ. Press, Lubbock.
Kullen, D. 1994. Phase I. Archaeological survey at selected areas in the Gilbert Lake Division of the Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge, Jersey County, Illinois. Report prepared for U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Allied Archeology, Aurora, IL.
Lagrange, T. G. and J. J. Dinsmore. 1989. Habitat use by mallards during spring migration through central Iowa. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:1076-1081.
McWilliams, G. M. and D. W. Brauning. 2000. Birds of Pennsylvania. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY.
Meretsky, V., R. Fischman, J. Karr, D. Ashe, J. Scott, R. Noss, & R. Schroeder. 2006. New directions in conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. BioScience. 56(2):135–143.
Missouri Department of Conservation. January 2010. Missouri species of conservation concern checklist. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri.
Missouri Department of Conservation, 2010. Bush honeysuckles. Accessed 2011. http://mdc.mo.gov/sites/default/files/resources/2010/08/9675_6621.pdf
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). National cooperative survey data for Pike County, Missouri. Web Soil Survey, Version 1.0. Accessed 2011. [Online version available at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/]
Nelson, J. C., A. Redmond and R. E. Sparks. 1994. Impacts of settlement on floodplain vegetation at the confluence of the Illinois and Mississippi rivers. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 87:117-134.
———, R. E. Sparks, L. DeHaan and L. Robinson. 1998. Presettlement and contemporary vegetation patterns along two navigational reaches of the Upper Mississippi River. Pages 51-60 in T. D. Sisk, ed. Perspectives on the land use history of North America: a context for understanding our changing environment. U. S. Geological Survey Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR - 1998-0003.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 79 Literature Cited
Nelson, P. W. 2005. Terrestrial natural communities of Missouri, revised edition. Missouri Natural Areas Committee. Published by Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, MO.
Nolan, Jr., V. 1963. Reproductive success of birds in a deciduous scrub habitat. Ecology 44:305- 313.
Oberholser, H. C. 1974. The bird life of Texas. Vol. 1. Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, TX. Oring, L. W. and W. M. Davis. 1966. Shorebird migration at Norman, Oklahoma: 1961-63. Wilson Bull. 78:166-174.
Parmalee, P. W., and A. E. Bogan. 1998. The freshwater mussels of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
Potter, B. A., R. J. Gates, G. J. Soulliere, R. P. Russell, D. A. Granfors, and D. N. Ewert. 2007. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Shorebird Habitat Conservation Strategy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 101pp.
Potter, B. A., G. J. Soulliere, D. N. Ewert, M. G. Knutson, W. E. Thogmartin, J. S. Castrale, and M. J. Roell. 2007. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Landbird Habitat Conservation Strategy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 124pp.
Review Draft - North American Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan, 24 October 2000.
Review Draft II - North America Waterbird Conservation Plan, Volume One: Seabirds and Colonial Waterbirds, 23 October 2001, Waterbird Conservation Plan Steering Committee, Washington DC www.nacwcp.org/.
Robbins, Jr., S. D. 1991. Wisconsin birdlife. Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Sheehan, R. J., R. C. Heidinger, K. L. Hurley, P. S. Wills, and M. A. Schmidt. 1998. Middle Mississippi River pallid sturgeon habitat use project. Annual progress report (year 3). Fisheries Research Laboratory and Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Simons, D. B., S. A. Schumm, M. A. Stevens, Y. H. Chen and P. F. Lagasse. 1975. Environmental inventory and assessment of navigation pools 24, 25, and 26. Upper Mississippi and Lower Illinois Rivers: a geomorphic study. Contract Report Y-75-3 for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District.
Smith, J. W. and R. B. Renken. 1991. Least Tern nesting habitat in the Mississippi River Valley adjacent to Missouri. J. Field Ornithol. 62:497-504.
Soulliere, G. J., B. A. Potter, D. J. Holm, D. A. Granfors, M. J. Monfils, S. J. Lewis, and W. E. Thogmartin. 2007. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Waterbird Habitat Conservation Strategy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 68pp.
Sparks, R.E. 1993. Making predictions that change future forecasts and alternative visions for the Illinois River. Holly Korab, ed. Proceedings of the Third Biennial Governor’s Conference on the Management of the Illinois River System. Peoria, IL.
Sparks, R. E. 1995. Need for ecosystem management of large rivers and their floodplains. Bioscience 45: 168-182.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 80 Literature Cited
Stancill, W., G. R. Jordan, and C. P. Paukert. 2002. Seasonal migration patterns and site fidelity of adult paddlefish in Lake Francis Case, Missouri River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:815-824.
Taylor, T. S. 1978. Spring foods of migrating blue-winged teals on seasonally flooded impoundments. Journal of Wildlife Management 42:900-903.
The Nature Conservancy. 2008. Central tallgrass prairie ecoregion assessment: Update on biodiversity. St. Louis, MO: The Nature Conservancy Missouri Field Office. 75pp. 19app. [Online version available at http://east.tnc.org/assessment/36/]
Titus, S., W. G. Howe, W. Neal and J. D. Anderson. 1995. A Phase I archaeological survey for historic properties within the Swan Lake Habitat Rehabilitation Enhancement Project (HREP), Environmental Management Program (EMP), Pool 26, Illinois River, Calhoun County, Illinois. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District Historic Properties Management Report No. 42.
———, W. Neal, J. Armstrong and G. Howe. 1996. Phase III data recovery at the Persimmon Site (11-C-152) Swan Lake Rehabilitation Enhancement Project (HREP), Environmental Management Program (EMP), Pool 26, Illinois River, Calhoun County, Illinois. Cultural Resources Management Report No. 268. American Resources Group, Ltd. Carbondale, IL.
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). July 2009. Confronting climate change in the U.S. Midwest - Missouri. UCS Publications. Cambridge, MA. [Online version available at http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/climate-change-missouri.pdf]
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. November 1996. ER 1130-2-540, Environmental Stewardship Operations and Maintenance Policies. St. Louis District. St. Louis, MO.
——— July 2001. Rivers project master plan. Section IV – Regional description and factors influencing development. St. Louis District. St. Louis, MO. http://www.mvs.usace.army.mil/pm/Riverplan/Four/4_06.html
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1990. Report of the Secretary of the Interior to the Congress of the United States on the Federal conservation of migratory nongame birds pursuant to Section 13 of Public Law 96-366, the "Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980," as amended. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 61 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the United States: the 1987 list. Office of Migratory Bird Management, Washington, D.C. 25 pp.
——— 30 August 1989. Proposed rule to determine the pallid sturgeon to be an endangered species. Federal Register 54:35901-35904.
——— 1995. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the United States: “The 1995 List”. Office of Migratory Management, Washington, D.C.
——— 1998. North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP): expanding the vision, 1998 update. [Online version available at http://library.fws.gov/bird_publications/nawmp_98update.pdf]
——— 1999. Fulfilling the promise: the national wildlife refuge system. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Arlington, Virginia.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 81 Literature Cited
——— 2003. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. USFWS Policy 601 FW3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Arlington, Virginia.
——— 2004. Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Arlington, Virginia. [Online version available at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/marktwain/ index.html]
——— 2007. Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft recovery plan: first revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 258 pp.
——— December 2008. Birds of conservation concern 2008. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/]
——— and Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS). 1986. North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) 1986.
Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee. 2000. A river that works and a working river: A strategy for the natural resources of the Upper Mississippi River system. Rock Island, IL. 40 pp.
USFWS Migratory Bird Program Strategic Plan, 2004
USFWS Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Priorities, 2002
Wallus, R. 1986. Paddlefish reproduction in the Cumberland and Tennessee river systems. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 115:424-428.
Weatherbase. 2011. www.weatherbase.com [Accessed 2011]
Wiens, J. A. 1973b. Pattern and process in grassland bird communities. Ecol. Monogr. 43:237- 270.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2011. Accessed 2011. http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/species.asp?filterBy=Terrestrial&filterVal=Y
Willman, H. B. 1973. Geology along the Illinois Waterway - a basis for environmental planning. Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 478. 48pp.
Williams, M. 1980. Products of the forest: mapping the census of 1840. Journal Forest History, January issue.
Wires, L.R., S. J. Lewis, G. J. Soulliere, S. W. Matteson, D. V. “Chip” Weseloh, R. P. Russell, and F. J. Cuthbert. 2010. Upper Mississippi Valley / Great Lakes Waterbird Conservation Plan. A plan associated with the Waterbird Conservation for the Americas Initiative. Final Report submitted to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN.
Wood, P. B., T. C. Edwards, and M. W. Collopy. 1989. Characteristics of Bald Eagle nesting habitat in Florida. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:441-449.
Yeager, L. E. 1949. Effect of permanent flooding in a river-bottom timber area. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 25:35-65.
Yin, Y. and J. Nelson. 1996. Modifications of the Upper Mississippi River and the effects on floodplain forests. Pages 29-40 in D. L. Galat and A. G. Frazier, eds. Overview of river-
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 82 Literature Cited
floodplain ecology in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Volume 3, J. A. Kelmelis Science for floodplain management into the 21st century. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 83 Appendix A
Appendix A.
Plan Development Team
Lead Author Mark Pranckus Ecological Resource Specialist Cardno JFNew
Contributing Authors Jason Wilson and Cooperators Project Leader Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR
Mick Hanan Wildlife Biologist Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR
Candace Chambers Wildlife Refuge Specialist Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR
Patricia Heglund Chief, Division of Biological Resources and Regional Refuge Biologist Region 3
Dan Salas Ecological Resource Specialist Cardno JFNew
Tony Troche Ecological Resource Specialist Cardno JFNew
Josh Brown Ecological Resource Specialist Cardno JFNew
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 84 Appendix B
Appendix B.
Resources of Concern for Great River NWR and Clarence Cannon NWR
UMR-GLR ShorebirdUMR-GLR Plan Waterfowl UMR-GLR Plan
Mark Twain Complex CCP
UMR-GLR LandbirdUMR-GLR Plan
USFWS Birds of Conserv. Prairie Ecoregion Assmt
Seasons/Abundance at Conservation Priorities
UMRS-GLR WaterbirdUMRS-GLR TNC Central Tallgrass
Audubon Watch List
Habitat Conservation
UMR-GLR WaterbirdUMR-GLR
Conservation Plan
Federal Trust Fish
MO SWAP Priority MO
IL SWAP Priority
Clarence USFWS Region 3
ABC GreenlistABC Cannon/Great River Federal T&E
Strategy
MO T&E MO Concern
Nesting
BCR 22BCR
IA T&E IL T&E
1 PIF 31
NWR List
Species 18
8
5 6
7
1
17
4
9
3
20
Spr Sum Fall Win 12
11
10 14
19
21
16
15
13
3
Waterbirds American White Pelican c u c X Little Blue Heron u c c E X SE M Snowy Egret r r Y E E X SE M Great Blue Heron u u Y X Great Egret c c c Y X X Cattle Egret o u o Y X Green Heron c c c Y X Yellow-crowned Night Heron c u u Y E X SE Black-crowned Night Heron c u u Y E X X SE X H X Least Bittern u u o Y E T X X ST H X American Bittern u u o Y X E E X X X H X Glossy Ibis (G) r X White-faced Ibis (G) r r X King Rail u u u Y E E E X SE X HH X HCC Virginia Rail c u u Y X M Sora c u u Y X H Yellow Rail (G) o Y X X X R HCC Common Moorhen o o o Y T X ST M X American Coot a u a u Y X Sandhill Crane r r r T X ST M Common Loon o o r X X
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 85 Appendix B
UMR-GLR Shorebird PlanUMR-GLR Waterfowl Plan UMR-GLR
Mark Mark Twain Complex CCP
UMR-GLR Landbird UMR-GLR Plan
USFWS Birds of Conserv. Prairie Ecoregion Assmt
Seasons/Abundance at Conservation Priorities
UMRS-GLR Waterbird UMRS-GLR CentralTNC Tallgrass
Audubon Watch List
Habitat Conservation
UMR-GLR Waterbird UMR-GLR
Conservation Plan
Federal Trust Fish
MO SWAP Priority MO
IL SWAP Priority
Clarence USFWS Region 3
ABC GreenlistABC Cannon/Great River Federal T&E
Strategy
MO T&E MO Concern
Nesting
BCR 22 BCR
IA IA T&E IL T&E
1 PIF 31
NWR List
Species 18
8
5 6
7
1
17
4
9
3
20
Spr Sum Fall Win 12
11
10 14
19
21
16
15
13
3
Waterfowl Pied-billed Grebe c c c u Y T X X X H Horned Grebe o r o o X X MA Eared Grebe r X Double-crested Cormorant o o o Y X Ruddy Duck c r o r X Tundra Swan r r X X Trumpeter Swan r o o X XN X Y Greater White-fronted Goose u u o X Snow Goose c c c X Ross's Goose r X Canada Goose a c a c Y X X Wood Duck a c a o Y X X X American Wigeon a a u X Gadwall c r c o X Green-winged Teal a u a r X Mallard a a a c Y X X X American Black Duck u u o X X X Y MA Northern Pintail a o a c X Blue-winged Teal a u a Y X X X Northern Shoveler a o a u X Canvasback c c o X X X X Redhead o r o u X Ring-necked Duck c c c X Greater Scaup o o o X Lesser Scaup c o c c X X X X Common Goldeneye c o o X Bufflehead u o u X Hooded Merganser c u c u Y X X Red-breasted Merganser u u r X Common Merganser u u u X
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 86 Appendix B
UMR-GLR Shorebird PlanUMR-GLR Waterfowl Plan UMR-GLR
Mark Mark Twain Complex CCP
UMR-GLR Landbird UMR-GLR Plan
USFWS Birds of Conserv. Prairie Ecoregion Assmt
Seasons/Abundance at Conservation Priorities
UMRS-GLR Waterbird UMRS-GLR CentralTNC Tallgrass
Audubon Watch List
Habitat Conservation
UMR-GLR Waterbird UMR-GLR
Conservation Plan
Federal Trust Fish
MO SWAP Priority MO
IL SWAP Priority
Clarence USFWS Region 3
ABC GreenlistABC Cannon/Great River Federal T&E
Strategy
MO T&E MO Concern
Nesting
BCR 22 BCR
IA IA T&E IL T&E
1 PIF 31
NWR List
Species 18
8
5 6
7
1
17
4
9
3
20
Spr Sum Fall Win 12
11
10 14
19
21
16
15
13
3
Landbirds Turkey Vulture c c c Y X Osprey u o u E X SE Mississippi Kite o o E X SE Bald Eagle (Th) c u c c Y T X E E T X X ST Northern Harrier c r c c E E E X X X Sharp-shinned Hawk u r u u X Cooper's Hawk u u u c Y X Northern Goshawk r o r X X Red-shouldered Hawk u u c u Y X E T X X X Broad-winged Hawk o o o X X Red-tailed Hawk c c c c Y X Rough-legged Hawk u u u X Golden Eagle r r r X American Kestrel c c c c Y X Merlin r r X Peregrine Falcon o r o E E E X X ST X Ring-necked Pheasant (P) r r r r Y X Wild Turkey c c c c Y X Northern Bobwhite c c c u Y X 2A X Rock Dove o o o o X Mourning Dove c c c c Y X Black-throated Blue Warbler r r X MC Black-billed Cuckoo o r o X X X X Yellow-billed Cuckoo c c c u Y X X 2A X Barn Owl (G) r r r Y E E E X SE X Eastern Screech Owl c c c c Y X Great Horned Owl c c c c Y X Barred Owl c c c c Y X Long-eared Owl r o T X X Short-eared Owl r o u E E X X SE Y MA ST Common Nighthawk u c c Y X X
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 87 Appendix B
UMR-GLR Shorebird UMR-GLR Plan Waterfowl PlanUMR-GLR
Mark Twain Complex CCP
UMR-GLR LandbirdUMR-GLR Plan
USFWS Birds of Conserv. Prairie Ecoregion Assmt
Seasons/Abundance at Conservation Priorities
UMRS-GLR WaterbirdUMRS-GLR TNC Central Tallgrass
Audubon Watch List
Habitat Conservation
UMR-GLR WaterbirdUMR-GLR
Conservation Plan
Federal Trust Fish
MO SWAP Priority MO
IL SWAP Priority
Clarence USFWS Region 3
ABC GreenlistABC Cannon/Great River Federal T&E
Strategy
MO T&E MO Concern
Nesting
BCR 22BCR
IA T&E IL T&E
1 PIF 31
NWR List
Species 18
8
5 6
7
1
17
4
9
3
20
Spr Sum Fall Win 12
11
10 14
19
21
16
15
13
3
Chuck-will's-widow o r X X X Whip-poor-will u o o Y X X X X X Chimney Swift c c c Y X 2A X X Ruby-throated Hummingbird c c o Y X Belted Kingfisher c c c o Y X Red-Headed Woodpecker c c c c Y X 1B X X X X Y MA ST Red-bellied Woodpecker c c c c Y X Yellow-bellied Sapsucker c u c r Y X Downy Woodpecker c c c c Y X Hairy Woodpecker u u u u Y X Northern Flicker c c c c Y X X X X Pileated Woodpecker c c c c Y X Olive-sided Flycatcher o r o X X X Y MA Eastern Wood Pewee c c c Y X 2A Yellow-bellied Flycatcher u o u X Acadian Flycatcher c c c Y X X X X Alder Flycatcher r o r X Willow Flycatcher o o o X X X Y MA ST Least Flycatcher u o u X Eastern Phoebe u u u Y X Great Crested Flycatcher c c c Y X 2A Eastern Kingbird c c c Y X Blue Jay c c c c Y X American Crow c c c c Y X Fish Crow o o o X Bell's Vireo o o r X 1B X X X R MA PT White-eyed Vireo u u u Y X Blue-headed Vireo u r u X Yellow-throated Vireo c c c Y X Philadelphia Vireo o r o X Red-eyed Vireo c u c Y X Warbling Vireo c c c Y X
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 88 Appendix B
UMR-GLR ShorebirdUMR-GLR Plan WaterfowlUMR-GLR Plan
Mark Twain Complex CCP
UMR-GLR LandbirdUMR-GLR Plan
USFWS Birds of Conserv. Prairie Ecoregion Assmt
Seasons/Abundance at Conservation Priorities
UMRS-GLR WaterbirdUMRS-GLR TNC Central Tallgrass
Audubon Watch List
Habitat Conservation
UMR-GLR WaterbirdUMR-GLR
Conservation Plan
Federal Trust Fish
MO SWAP PriorityMO
IL SWAP Priority
Clarence USFWS Region 3
ABC GreenlistABC Cannon/Great River Federal T&E
Strategy
MO T&E MO Concern
Nesting
BCR 22BCR
IA T&E IL T&E
1 PIF 31
NWR List
Species 18
8
5 6
7
1
17
4
9
3
20
Spr Sum Fall Win 12
11
10 14
19
21
16
15
13
3
Loggerhead Shrike o u u o Y T X X ST X Cedar Waxwing c u c u Y X Eastern Bluebird c c c u Y X Veery u o u X X Gray-cheeked Thrush u o u X Swainson's Thrush u o u X Hermit Thrush u u r X Wood Thrush o u o Y X X X X X Y MA American Robin a a a o Y X Gray Catbird c c c o Y X Northern Mockingbird u u o r Y X Brown Thrasher c c c o Y X X European Starling a a a a Y X Red-breasted Nuthatch o u o X White-breasted Nuthatch c c c c Y X Brown Creeper u o u u Y T X X Sedge Wren u c u Y X X X Marsh Wren u u u Y X X Carolina Wren c c c o Y X Winter Wren u u o X House Wren c c c Y X Blue-gray Gnatcatcher c c u Y X Tree Swallow c a a Y X Purple Martin c c c Y X Northern Rough-winged Swallow c c c u Y X Bank Swallow c c c Y X Barn Swallow c c c Y X Cliff Swallow c c c Y X Ruby-crowned Kinglet c c r X Golden-crowned Kinglet c c o X Black-capped Chickadee c c c c Y X Carolina Chickadee (T & G) u u u Y X
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 89 Appendix B
UMR-GLR Shorebird UMR-GLR Plan Waterfowl PlanUMR-GLR
Mark Twain Complex CCP
UMR-GLR LandbirdUMR-GLR Plan
USFWS Birds of Conserv. Prairie Ecoregion Assmt
Seasons/Abundance at Conservation Priorities
UMRS-GLR WaterbirdUMRS-GLR TNC Central Tallgrass
Audubon Watch List
Habitat Conservation
UMR-GLR WaterbirdUMR-GLR
Conservation Plan
Federal Trust Fish
MO SWAP Priority MO
IL SWAP Priority
Clarence USFWS Region 3
ABC GreenlistABC Cannon/Great River Federal T&E
Strategy
MO T&E MO Concern
Nesting
BCR 22BCR
IA T&E IL T&E
1 PIF 31
NWR List
Species 18
8
5 6
7
1
17
4
9
3
20
Spr Sum Fall Win 12
11
10 14
19
21
16
15
13
3
Tufted Titmouse c c c c Y X Horned Lark c c c c Y X House Sparrow a a a a Y X Eurasian Tree Sparrow (T) c c c c Y X American Pipit o o X House Finch c c c c Y X Pine Siskin o o o X American Goldfinch c c c c Y X Purple Finch u u u X Evening Grosbeak r r r X Blue-winged Warbler o r o X X X X X Y SRD ST Golden-winged Warbler o r o X X X R HCC PT Tennessee Warbler c o c X Orange-crowned Warbler u u X Nashville Warbler c o c u X Northern Parula u o o u Y X Yellow Warbler u u u Y X Chestnut-sided Warbler u o u X Magnolia Warbler u o u u X Cape May Warbler o o X X Black-throated Blue Warbler r r X X Yellow-rumped Warbler c c o X Black-throated Green Warbler u o u X Blackburnian Warbler o r o X Yellow-throated Warbler o o o Y X Pine Warbler o r X Palm Warbler c o c X Bay-breasted Warbler o r u X Y MA Blackpoll Warbler u u X Cerulean Warbler o r r Y X X 1B X ST X X R MA Black-and-white Warbler c u c X American Redstart c c c Y X
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 90 Appendix B
UMR-GLR Shorebird UMR-GLR Plan Waterfowl PlanUMR-GLR
Mark Twain Complex CCP
UMR-GLR LandbirdUMR-GLR Plan
USFWS Birds of Conserv. Prairie Ecoregion Assmt
Seasons/Abundance at Conservation Priorities
UMRS-GLR WaterbirdUMRS-GLR TNC Central Tallgrass
Audubon Watch List
Habitat Conservation
UMR-GLR WaterbirdUMR-GLR
Conservation Plan
Federal Trust Fish
MO SWAP Priority MO
IL SWAP Priority
Clarence USFWS Region 3
ABC GreenlistABC Cannon/Great River Federal T&E
Strategy
MO T&E MO Concern
Nesting
BCR 22BCR
IA T&E IL T&E
1 PIF 31
NWR List
Species 18
8
5 6
7
1
17
4
9
3
20
Spr Sum Fall Win 12
11
10 14
19
21
16
15
13
3
Prothonotary Warbler c c c Y X X X X X Y MA Worm-eating Warbler r r u X X X Y MA Ovenbird u o u X X Northern Waterthrush c o c X Louisiana Waterthrush u r u X X X Kentucky Warbler o r u u Y X X X X Y MA Connecticut Warbler (P) r r X X X Mourning Warbler o r r X Common Yellowthroat c c c c Y X Hooded Warbler r r r X Wilson's Warbler o u u X Canada Warbler o u u X X X Y MA Yellow-breasted Chat r u u u Y X X X Lapland Longspur o o o X Snow Bunting r o o X Fox Sparrow u u o X Song Sparrow c c c c Y X Lincoln's Sparrow o r o r X Swamp Sparrow c o c c Y X Harris' Sparrow c c o X Y MA ST White-crowned Sparrow c c o X White-throated Sparrow c c u X Dark-eyed Junco c c c X Savannah Sparrow u o u Y X X Grasshopper Sparrow o o o X X 2A X X X R ST American Tree Sparrow c c c X Chipping Sparrow c c c Y X Clay-colored Sparrow r r X Field Sparrow c c c o Y X 2A X X X Vesper Sparrow u u u X Lark Sparrow o u o X
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 91 Appendix B
UMR-GLR Shorebird UMR-GLR Plan Waterfowl PlanUMR-GLR
Mark Twain Complex CCP
UMR-GLR LandbirdUMR-GLR Plan
USFWS Birds of Conserv. Prairie Ecoregion Assmt
Seasons/Abundance at Conservation Priorities
UMRS-GLR WaterbirdUMRS-GLR TNC Central Tallgrass
Audubon Watch List
Habitat Conservation
UMR-GLR WaterbirdUMR-GLR
Conservation Plan
Federal Trust Fish
MO SWAP Priority MO
IL SWAP Priority
Clarence USFWS Region 3
ABC GreenlistABC Cannon/Great River Federal T&E
Strategy
MO T&E MO Concern
Nesting
BCR 22BCR
IA T&E IL T&E
1 PIF 31
NWR List
Species 18
8
5 6
7
1
17
4
9
3
20
Spr Sum Fall Win 12
11
10 14
19
21
16
15
13
3
Eastern Towhee u u u r Y X Summer Tanager u u u Y X Scarlet Tanager u u u Y X Dicksissel c c c Y X 1B X X X Y MA Rose-breasted Grosbeak u u c Y X Northern Cardinal c c c c Y X Indigo Bunting c c c Y X Baltimore Oriole c c c Y X Orchard Oriole u u o Y X X Yellow-headed Blackbird (P & G) r r r E X SE Red-winged Blackbird a a a c Y X Eastern Meadowlark c c c u Y X X X Western Meadowlark (P) c c c r X X Common Grackle a a a c Y X Great-tailed Grackle (G) r r X Rusty Blackbird u u r X X X X Y MA ST Brewer's Blackbird r r r X Brown-headed Cowbird c c c u Y X Bobolink u o o X X X
Shorebirds American Woodcock c c c Y X X HC X X Y MA Common Snipe u r u o Y MC Upland Sandpiper o r r E X X SE HC X X MA Greater Yellowlegs c c c X X HC X Lesser Yellowlegs c c c X LC MA Red Knot (T) o o X X MC Y SRD Solitary Sandpiper c c c X X MC MA Spotted Sandpiper c c c Y X LC Willet r r r X LC Short-billed Dowitcher u u u X X X HC X Y MA
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 92 Appendix B
UMR-GLR Shorebird UMR-GLR Plan Waterfowl PlanUMR-GLR
Mark Twain Complex CCP
UMR-GLR LandbirdUMR-GLR Plan
USFWS Birds of Conserv. Prairie Ecoregion Assmt
Seasons/Abundance at Conservation Priorities
UMRS-GLR WaterbirdUMRS-GLR TNC Central Tallgrass
Audubon Watch List
Habitat Conservation
UMR-GLR WaterbirdUMR-GLR
Conservation Plan
Federal Trust Fish
MO SWAP Priority MO
IL SWAP Priority
Clarence USFWS Region 3
ABC GreenlistABC Cannon/Great River Federal T&E
Strategy
MO T&E MO Concern
Nesting
BCR 22BCR
IA T&E IL T&E
1 PIF 31
NWR List
Species 18
8
5 6
7
1
17
4
9
3
20
Spr Sum Fall Win 12
11
10 14
19
21
16
15
13
3
Long-billed Dowitcher u u u X LC Sanderling (P) o o X MC MA Semipalmated Sandpiper c c c X MC MA Western Sandpiper r r r X MC MA Least Sandpiper c c c X MC White-rumped Sandpiper (T) o r X LC Baird's Sandpiper (P & G) o o o X LC Pectoral Sandpiper c c c X LC Dunlin u r u X MC MA Stilt Sandpiper r o o X X LC X MA Buff-breasted Sandpiper o o X X X HC X R SRD Wilson's Phalarope r r r E X SE HC X Y MA Red-necked Phalarope r r X MC American Avocet r r r X MA American Golden Plover u o X X MC Y MA Black-bellied Plover c o X MC Semipalmated Plover u u u X LC Killdeer c c c r Y X MC Piping Plover (En) r r T E E X SE R HCC PT Ring-billed Gull a u a c X Glaucous Gull r r X Thayer's Gull r r X Herring Gull c r c c X Bonaparte's Gull u u r X Franklin's Gull o o r X Black Tern c o u E X X SE X H X Caspian Tern u o u X Common Tern o r o E X X SE X HH Forster's Tern u o u E X SE M X Least Tern (En) r o E X E E E X SE HH X MA PT
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 93 Appendix B
UMR-GLR Shorebird UMR-GLR Plan Waterfowl PlanUMR-GLR
Mark Twain Complex CCP
UMR-GLR LandbirdUMR-GLR Plan
USFWS Birds of Conserv. Prairie Ecoregion Assmt
Seasons/Abundance at Conservation Priorities
UMRS-GLR WaterbirdUMRS-GLR TNC Central Tallgrass
Audubon Watch List
Habitat Conservation
UMR-GLR WaterbirdUMR-GLR
Conservation Plan
Federal Trust Fish
MO SWAP Priority MO
IL SWAP Priority
Clarence USFWS Region 3
ABC GreenlistABC Cannon/Great River Federal T&E
Strategy
MO T&E MO Concern
Nesting
BCR 22BCR
IA T&E IL T&E
1 PIF 31
NWR List
Species 18
8
5 6
7
1
17
4
9
3
20
Spr Sum Fall Win 12
11
10 14
19
21
16
15
13
3
Mammals Bat, Big Brown Bat, Gray E E E SE X PT Bat, Hoary Bat, Indiana E X E E E SE X PT Bat, Keen's Bat, Little Brown Bat, Red Bat, Silver-haired Pipistrel (bat), Eastern Badger X Bobcat E X Coyote Fox, Gray X Fox, Red Mink Otter, River T T X Raccoon Shrew, Least T Shrew, Masked Shrew, Short-tailed Skunk, Spotted E T Skunk, Striped Weasel, Least X Weasel, Long-tailed Weasel, Short-tailed Deer, White-tailed Opossum, Virginia Jackrabbit, White-tailed Rabbit, Eastern Cottontail Beaver Chipmunk, Eastern Gopher, Plains Pocket
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 94 Appendix B
UMR-GLR Shorebird UMR-GLR Plan Waterfowl PlanUMR-GLR
Mark Twain Complex CCP
UMR-GLR LandbirdUMR-GLR Plan
USFWS Birds of Conserv. Prairie Ecoregion Assmt
Seasons/Abundance at Conservation Priorities
UMRS-GLR WaterbirdUMRS-GLR TNC Central Tallgrass
Audubon Watch List
Habitat Conservation
UMR-GLR WaterbirdUMR-GLR
Conservation Plan
Federal Trust Fish
MO SWAP Priority MO
IL SWAP Priority
Clarence USFWS Region 3
ABC GreenlistABC Cannon/Great River Federal T&E
Strategy
MO T&E MO Concern
Nesting
BCR 22BCR
IA T&E IL T&E
1 PIF 31
NWR List
Species 18
8
5 6
7
1
17
4
9
3
20
Spr Sum Fall Win 12
11
10 14
19
21
16
15
13
3
Lemming, Southern Bog Mole, Eastern Mouse, Deer Mouse, House Mouse, Meadow Jumping Mouse, Western Harvest Mouse, White-footed Muskrat X Nutria Rat, Norway Squirrel, Eastern Fox Squirrel, Eastern Grey Squirrel, Franklin's Ground ST Squirrel, Southern Flying Squirrel, Thirteen-lined Gound Vole, Meadow Vole, Pine Vole, Prairie Woodchuck
Amphibians Amphiuma, Three-toed Bullfrog Frog, Green Frog, Illinois Chorus T ST PT Frog, Northern Blanchard's Cricket Frog, Northern Crawfish E Frog, Northern Leopard Frog, Pickerel X Frog, Plains Leopard Frog, Southern Leopard Frog, Western Chorus Frog, Wood X
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 95 Appendix B
UMR-GLR Shorebird UMR-GLR Plan Waterfowl PlanUMR-GLR
Mark Twain Complex CCP
UMR-GLR LandbirdUMR-GLR Plan
USFWS Birds of Conserv. Prairie Ecoregion Assmt
Seasons/Abundance at Conservation Priorities
UMRS-GLR WaterbirdUMRS-GLR TNC Central Tallgrass
Audubon Watch List
Habitat Conservation
UMR-GLR WaterbirdUMR-GLR
Conservation Plan
Federal Trust Fish
MO SWAP Priority MO
IL SWAP Priority
Clarence USFWS Region 3
ABC GreenlistABC Cannon/Great River Federal T&E
Strategy
MO T&E MO Concern
Nesting
BCR 22BCR
IA T&E IL T&E
1 PIF 31
NWR List
Species 18
8
5 6
7
1
17
4
9
3
20
Spr Sum Fall Win 12
11
10 14
19
21
16
15
13
3
Peeper, Spring Spadefoot, Eastern Spadefoot, Plains Toad, American Toad, Eastern Narrowmouth ST Toad, Fowler's Treefrog, Bird-voiced T ST Treefrog, Cope's Gray Treefrog, Gray Treefrog, Green Hellbender, Eastern E E SE Mudpuppy E X Newt, Central T Salamander, Blue-spotted E X Salamander, Cave Salamander, Eastern Tiger Salamander, Four-toed T ST Salamander, Jefferson T ST Salamander, Longtail Salamander, Marbled Salamander, Mole X Salamander, Ringed Salamander, Slimy Salamander, Smallmouth Salamander, Spotted Siren, Lesser
Reptiles Lizard, Fence Lizard, Slender Glass E X Racerunner, Six-lined Skink, Broadhead Skink, Coal
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 96 Appendix B
UMR-GLR Shorebird UMR-GLR Plan Waterfowl PlanUMR-GLR
Mark Twain Complex CCP
UMR-GLR LandbirdUMR-GLR Plan
USFWS Birds of Conserv. Prairie Ecoregion Assmt
Seasons/Abundance at Conservation Priorities
UMRS-GLR WaterbirdUMRS-GLR TNC Central Tallgrass
Audubon Watch List
Habitat Conservation
UMR-GLR WaterbirdUMR-GLR
Conservation Plan
Federal Trust Fish
MO SWAP Priority MO
IL SWAP Priority
Clarence USFWS Region 3
ABC GreenlistABC Cannon/Great River Federal T&E
Strategy
MO T&E MO Concern
Nesting
BCR 22BCR
IA T&E IL T&E
1 PIF 31
NWR List
Species 18
8
5 6
7
1
17
4
9
3
20
Spr Sum Fall Win 12
11
10 14
19
21
16
15
13
3
Skink, Five-lined Skink, Ground Skink, Prairie Bullsnake Coachwhip, Eastern E SE Copperhead E Cottonmouth Kingsnake, Prairie Kingsnake, Speckled E Massasauga C E E E SE X Racer, Blue Rattlesnake, Timber T ST X Snake, Black rat Snake, Broad-banded Water E SE Snake, Brown Snake, Diamondback Water T Snake, Eastern Gater Snake, Eastern Hognose Snake, Eastern Ribbon E ST Snake, Flathead T ST Snake, Fox E Snake, Graham's Crayfish Snake, Great Plains Rat T SE Snake, Green Water E T ST Snake, Kirtland's T ST PT Snake, Lined ST Snake, Milk Snake, Mud X Snake, Northern Red-bellied Snake, Northern Water Snake, Plains Garter Snake, Plains Hognose
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 97 Appendix B
UMR-GLR Shorebird UMR-GLR Plan Waterfowl PlanUMR-GLR
Mark Twain Complex CCP
UMR-GLR LandbirdUMR-GLR Plan
USFWS Birds of Conserv. Prairie Ecoregion Assmt
Seasons/Abundance at Conservation Priorities
UMRS-GLR WaterbirdUMRS-GLR TNC Central Tallgrass
Audubon Watch List
Habitat Conservation
UMR-GLR WaterbirdUMR-GLR
Conservation Plan
Federal Trust Fish
MO SWAP Priority MO
IL SWAP Priority
Clarence USFWS Region 3
ABC GreenlistABC Cannon/Great River Federal T&E
Strategy
MO T&E MO Concern
Nesting
BCR 22BCR
IA T&E IL T&E
1 PIF 31
NWR List
Species 18
8
5 6
7
1
17
4
9
3
20
Spr Sum Fall Win 12
11
10 14
19
21
16
15
13
3
Snake, Ringneck Snake, Rough Green Snake, Smooth Earth Snake, Western Ribbon Snake, Western Smooth Green T Snake, Western Worm T Snake, Yellowbelly Water E Cooter, River E SE Stinkpot T Turtle, Alligator Snapping E SE Turtle, Blanding's E T ST Turtle, Chicken E Turtle, Eastern Box Turtle, False Map Turtle, Map Turtle, Mississippi Mud Turtle, Ornate Box T Turtle, Painted Turtle, Smooth Softshell X Turtle, Snapping X Turtle, Spiny Softshell Turtle, Wood E Turtle, Yellow (Illinois) Mud E E E SE Slider, Red-eared
Fish Bass, Striped Bass, White Bass, Yellow Bowfin Bullhead, Black Bullhead, Brown X Bullhead, Yellow
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 98 Appendix B
UMR-GLR Shorebird UMR-GLR Plan Waterfowl PlanUMR-GLR
Mark Twain Complex CCP
UMR-GLR LandbirdUMR-GLR Plan
USFWS Birds of Conserv. Prairie Ecoregion Assmt
Seasons/Abundance at Conservation Priorities
UMRS-GLR WaterbirdUMRS-GLR TNC Central Tallgrass
Audubon Watch List
Habitat Conservation
UMR-GLR WaterbirdUMR-GLR
Conservation Plan
Federal Trust Fish
MO SWAP Priority MO
IL SWAP Priority
Clarence USFWS Region 3
ABC GreenlistABC Cannon/Great River Federal T&E
Strategy
MO T&E MO Concern
Nesting
BCR 22BCR
IA T&E IL T&E
1 PIF 31
NWR List
Species 18
8
5 6
7
1
17
4
9
3
20
Spr Sum Fall Win 12
11
10 14
19
21
16
15
13
3
Catfish, Blue Catfish, Channel Catfish, Flathead Madtom, Freckled E Madtom, Tadpole Stonecat Burbot T Perch, Pirate Drum, Freshwater Eel, American X PT Gar, Longnose Gar, Shortnose Gar, Spotted Herring, Skipjack PT Shad, Gizzard Shad, Threadfin Topminnow, Blackstripe Topminnow, Starhead ST Lamprey, Chestnut T PT Lamprey, Silver X Carp, Bighead Carp, Common Carp, Grass Chub, Creek Chub, Flathead E X PT Chub, Sicklefin E SE PT Chub, Silver PT Chub, Speckled Chub, Sturgeon E SE Dace, Southern Redbelly X PT Goldfish Minnow, Bluntnose X Minnow, Bullhead
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 99 Appendix B
UMR-GLR Shorebird UMR-GLR Plan Waterfowl PlanUMR-GLR
Mark Twain Complex CCP
UMR-GLR LandbirdUMR-GLR Plan
USFWS Birds of Conserv. Prairie Ecoregion Assmt
Seasons/Abundance at Conservation Priorities
UMRS-GLR WaterbirdUMRS-GLR TNC Central Tallgrass
Audubon Watch List
Habitat Conservation
UMR-GLR WaterbirdUMR-GLR
Conservation Plan
Federal Trust Fish
MO SWAP Priority MO
IL SWAP Priority
Clarence USFWS Region 3
ABC GreenlistABC Cannon/Great River Federal T&E
Strategy
MO T&E MO Concern
Nesting
BCR 22BCR
IA T&E IL T&E
1 PIF 31
NWR List
Species 18
8
5 6
7
1
17
4
9
3
20
Spr Sum Fall Win 12
11
10 14
19
21
16
15
13
3
Minnow, Fathead Minnow, Mississippi Silvery Minnow, Plains X PT Minnow, Pugnose Minnow, Suckermouth Minnow, Western Silvery X PT Shiner, Emerald Shiner, Ghost X Shiner, Golden Shiner, Mimic Shiner, Pallid SE Shiner, Red Shiner, River PT Shiner, Sand Shiner, Silverband X Shiner, Spotfin Shiner, Spottail Shiner, Weed E E X Goldeye Mooneye Mosquitofish, Western Mudminnow, Central E X Paddlefish X X X PT Darter, Bluntnose E Darter, Crystal E X X Darter, Iowa E ST Darter, Johnny Darter, Mud Darter, River Darter, Slenderhead Darter, Western Sand T Logperch Perch, Yellow X
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 100 Appendix B
UMR-GLR Shorebird UMR-GLR Plan Waterfowl PlanUMR-GLR
Mark Twain Complex CCP
UMR-GLR LandbirdUMR-GLR Plan
USFWS Birds of Conserv. Prairie Ecoregion Assmt
Seasons/Abundance at Conservation Priorities
UMRS-GLR WaterbirdUMRS-GLR TNC Central Tallgrass
Audubon Watch List
Habitat Conservation
UMR-GLR WaterbirdUMR-GLR
Conservation Plan
Federal Trust Fish
MO SWAP Priority MO
IL SWAP Priority
Clarence USFWS Region 3
ABC GreenlistABC Cannon/Great River Federal T&E
Strategy
MO T&E MO Concern
Nesting
BCR 22BCR
IA T&E IL T&E
1 PIF 31
NWR List
Species 18
8
5 6
7
1
17
4
9
3
20
Spr Sum Fall Win 12
11
10 14
19
21
16
15
13
3
Sauger X Walleye X Muskellunge Pickeral, Grass T Pike, Northern X Silverside, Brook Silverside, Inland Sturgeon, Lake E E E SE X PT Sturgeon, Pallid E X E E E X SE X PT Sturgeon, Shovelnose X PT Stickelback, Brook Buffalo, Bigmouth Buffalo, Black Buffalo, Smallmouth Carpsucker, Highfin X PT Carpsucker, River Quillback Redhorse, Golden Redhorse, Shorthead Redhorse, Silver T Sucker, Blue X X Sucker, Spotted Sucker, White Bass, Largemouth Bass, Rock Bass, Smallmouth X Bluegill Crappie, Black Crappie, White Pumpkinseed Sunfish, Green Sunfish, Orangespotted
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 101 Appendix B
UMR-GLR Shorebird UMR-GLR Plan Waterfowl PlanUMR-GLR
Mark Twain Complex CCP
UMR-GLR LandbirdUMR-GLR Plan
USFWS Birds of Conserv. Prairie Ecoregion Assmt
Seasons/Abundance at Conservation Priorities
UMRS-GLR WaterbirdUMRS-GLR TNC Central Tallgrass
Audubon Watch List
Habitat Conservation
UMR-GLR WaterbirdUMR-GLR
Conservation Plan
Federal Trust Fish
MO SWAP Priority MO
IL SWAP Priority
Clarence USFWS Region 3
ABC GreenlistABC Cannon/Great River Federal T&E
Strategy
MO T&E MO Concern
Nesting
BCR 22BCR
IA T&E IL T&E
1 PIF 31
NWR List
Species 18
8
5 6
7
1
17
4
9
3
20
Spr Sum Fall Win 12
11
10 14
19
21
16
15
13
3
Warmouth Trout-perch X
Mussels Spectaclecase C SE X Elktoe X Slippershell ST X Threeridge X PT Rock pocketbook X X X Snuffbox E SE X Higgins' eye pearlymussel E X E SE X Scaleshell mussel E E X Black sandshell X ST X PT Washboard X Sheepnose C X E SE X Round pigtoe X X Fat pocketbook E X E SE X Monkeyface X X X Pimpleback X PT Mapleleaf E E X Salamander mussel X SE X Pistolgrip X X PT
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 102 Appendix B
Sources 1U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Great River NWR Birds Checklist. a - abundant; c- common; u - uncommon; o - occassional; r - rare; nc - not confirmed on refuge, but potential habitat; p - present (from surveys) but seasonal abundance unknown
2U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed December 2010. Endangered Species Program website. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html. E - Endangered; T - Threatened; R - Rare 3U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Mark Twain Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan Priority List. pp. 7-8. 4Missouri Department of Conservation. January 2011. Missouri Species and Communities of Conservation Concern Checklist. Available at: http://mdc.mo.gov/sites/default/files/resources/2010/04/2011_species_of_concern_11-29-2010.pdf 5Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Accessed December 2010. Current list of endangered, threatened, and special concern species. Available at: http://www.iowadnr.gov/other/threatened.html 6Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board. August 20, 2010. Checklist of endangered and threatened animals and plants of Illinois. Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Available at: http://dnr.state.il.us/ESPB/2010%20Checklist%20FINAL%20for%20webpage%20082010.pdf 7UMRGLR JV. 2007. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Implementation Plan (compiled by G. J. Soulliere and B. A. Potter). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, USA. 8Fitzgerald, J.A., Herkert, J.R., and Brawn, J.D. 2000. Bird Conservation Plan for The Prairie Peninsula (Physiographic Area 31). Version 1.0. Partners in Flight. 9U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version available at
10U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Department of Interior. P.Herman (Personal Communication) Jan 4, 2011
11Missouri Department of Conservation. August 18, 2005. Missouri Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/FederalAid/documents/03MOWAP06Dmjs.pdf 11Missouri Department of Conservation. August 18, 2005. Missouri Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/FederalAid/documents/03MOWAP06Dmjs.pdf 12Illinois Department of Natural Resources. July 2005. Illinois Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Version 1. Available at: http://dnr.state.il.us/ORC/WildlifeResources/theplan/final/ 13UMRGLR JV. 2000. Upper Mississippi Valley/ Great Lakes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan Version 1.0. (prepared by de Salazay et al.) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, USA. 14Wires, L.R., S. J. Lewis, G. J. Soulliere, S. W. Matteson, D. V. “Chip” Weseloh, R. P. Russell, and F. J. Cuthbert. 2010. Upper Mississippi Valley / Great Lakes Waterbird Conservation Plan. A plan associated with the Waterbird Conservation for the Americas Initiative. Final Report submitted to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN.
15Soulliere, G. J., B. A. Potter, J. M. Coluccy, R. C. Gatti., C. L. Roy, D. R. Luukkonen, P. W. Brown, and M. W. Eichholz. 2007. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, USA. 16Potter, B. A., G. J. Soulliere, D. N. Ewert, M. G. Knutson, W. E. Thogmartin, J. S. Castrale, and M. J. Roell. 2007. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Landbird Habitat Conservation Strategy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 124pp. 17Soulliere, G. J., B. A. Potter, D. J. Holm, D. A. Granfors, M. J. Monfils, S. J. Lewis, and W. E. Thogmartin. 2007. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Waterbird Habitat Conservation Strategy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 68pp. 18U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. January 2002. Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities. Version 2. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/News/documents/priority.pdf 19Audubon. 2005. Audubon WatchList 2002-2006. Available at: http://www.audubon2.org/watchlist/AudubonWatchList2002.pdf 20American Bird Conservancy. 2007 United States WatchList of Birds of Conservation Concern. Available at: http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/science/watchlist/WatchList.pdf 21The Nature Conservancy (2008) Central Tallgrass Prairie Ecoregion Assessment: Update on Biodiversity. St. Louis, MO: The Nature Conservancy Missouri Field Office. 75 pages + 19 appendices.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 103 Appendix C
Appendix C.
Potential Habitat Management Prescriptions
This section identifies potential management tools or strategies that are available to land managers to achieve desired habitat objectives. These strategies were identified through successful refuge application, literature review and in consultation with other land managers.
Invasive Species Management
Controlling and managing invasive species is a strategy for maintaining the biological integrity and diversity of all habitats. The Fulfilling the Promise National Invasive Species Management Strategy Team developed a national strategy for management of invasive species for the National Wildlife Refuge System in 2002. The strategy recommends the following priority order of action for invasive species management:
1. Prevent invasion of potential invaders. 2. Eradicate new and/or small infestations. 3. Control and/or contain large established infestations.
Potential management strategies for preventing invasive species, prioritizing control efforts for established invasive species, and controlling invasive species are described in detail below. Prior to the initiation of invasive species control efforts, the refuge manager must understand the biology of the species to be controlled. A number of resources are available on the internet to assist refuge managers with invasive species management. This is a partial list of helpful websites.
National Invasive Species Information Center: http://invasivespeciesinfo.gov/index.shtml National Biological Information Infrastructure Invasive Species Information Node: http://invasivespecies.nbii.gov/ The Global Invasive Species Initiative: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/control.html USGS Invasive Species Program: http://biology.usgs.gov/invasive/ Invasive Plant Atlas of New England (IPANE): http://nbii- nin.ciesin.columbia.edu/ipane/ Weeds Gone Wild: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/index.htm
Refuge managers should conduct appropriate and applicable pest detection, environmental surveillance, and monitoring before, during, and after any management activity to determine whether pest management goals are achieved and whether the activity caused any significant unanticipated effects. The lowest risk, most targeted approach for managing invasive species should always be utilized (Department of Interior 2007).
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 104 Appendix C
Work with Partners
Working with partners is the most effective way to manage invasive species on a refuge. Control efforts on the refuge will have little long-term impact if the surrounding lands and waters are infested with invasive species.
Incorporate Invasive Species Prevention in All Facilities and Construction Projects
Minimize ground disturbance and restore disturbed areas. Require mulch, sand, gravel, dirt, and other construction materials to be certified as free of noxious weed seeds. Avoid stockpiles of weed-infested materials.
To prevent the spread of invasive species along transportation corridors, maintain invasive species-free zones along trails, around parking lots and boat launches, and at other related facilities. Inspect these areas often and control new infestations immediately. Minimize the number and size of roads on the refuge.
Remove all mud, dirt, and plant parts from all equipment between projects or when equipment is moved from one location to another.
Incorporate Invasive Species Prevention in Impoundment Design and Management
Minimize infrastructure development in managed wetland units to reduce unnecessary dikes, waterways, and access roads. These often are sources of infestation and pathways of spread.
Plant a native cool season grass mix that will establish quickly to stabilize banks and dikes and to prevent the establishment of invasive species. Make sure that water manipulation activities, such as flooding and drawdowns, minimize the germination and spread of invasive plant seeds and encourage the growth of native species. Flooding can also be used to stunt the growth of some invasive species as described below under water level management.
Early Detection and Rapid Response
Where prevention is not possible, early detection and rapid response is the next best strategy. Success will depend, in part, on participation by all refuge staff, contractors, volunteers, and visitors in efforts to report and respond to invasions. The refuge manager must have access to up-to-date reliable scientific and management information on species that are likely to invade. For some species, an active monitoring protocol may be established to facilitate early detection. When small infestations are spotted, they should be eradicated as soon as possible. The site must then be monitored for several years to ensure the control was effective.
Prioritizing Invasive Species Control Efforts
The first step in prioritizing invasive species control efforts is to determine the abundance and distribution of invasive species on the refuge or management unit. However, control efforts should not be delayed to collect statistically rigorous survey
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 105 Appendix C
data. Baseline data regarding the location of many invasives on the refuge already may be available via observations of staff, volunteers, contractors, and refuge visitors. These observations should be documented and mapped. If a more formalized mapping procedure is desired the North American Weed Management Association (http://www.nawma.org) has information on mapping procedures.
There are a number of ranking tools to assist land managers with the daunting task of prioritizing their invasive plant control efforts. The Fulfilling the Promise National Invasive Species Management Strategy Team recommends using the following order of priority to determine appropriate actions:
1. Smallest scale of infestation 2. Poses greatest threat to land management objectives 3. Greatest ease of control.
When limited resources prevent the treatment of entire populations, the following order of priority is recommended:
1. Treat the smallest infestations (satellite populations). 2. Treat infestations on pathways of spread. 3. Treat the perimeter and advancing front of large infestations.
The following ranking systems are available for prioritizing invasive plant species control:
Morse, L.E., J.M. Randall, N. Benton, R. Hiebert, and S. Lu. 2004. An Invasive Species Assessment Protocol: Evaluating Non-Native Plants for Their Impact on Biodiversity. Version 1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Website: http://www.natureserve.org/getData/plantData.jsp R. D. Hiebert and J. Stubbendieck, Handbook for Ranking Exotic Plants for Management and Control (Natural Resources Report NPS/NRMWRO/NRR- 93/08), U.S. National Park Service, Midwest Regional Office, Omaha, Nebraska, 1993. APRS Implementation Team. 2000. Alien plants ranking system version 5.1. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. (Version 30SEP2002). Website: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/aprs
Restore Altered Habitats and Reintroduce Native Plants
Restoration is critically important because the conditions responsible for the initial invasion will expose the site to a resurgence of the invasive species, as well as a secondary invasion of one or more different species. Furthermore, restoration of a disturbed area before the initial invasion may preclude the need for further control efforts. The goal is to conserve and promote natural processes that will inherently suppress potential pest populations (Department of the Interior 2007).
If funding or personnel are not available to restore highly disturbed areas in a timely manner, consider planting a cover crop for several years to stabilize the site prior to reintroducing native plants. This will prevent more invasive seeds from entering the environment until the site can be restored. Native plants can then be established by
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 106 Appendix C
direct seeding or planting with less competition from invasives in the seed bank. When practical, local genotypes of native species should be used.
Biological Control
Biological control is the use of animals or disease organisms that feed upon or parasitize the invasive species target. Usually, the control agent is imported from the invasive species’ home country, and artificially high numbers of the control agent are fostered and maintained. There are also “conservation” or “augmentation” biological control methods where populations of biological agents already in the environment (usually native) are maintained or enhanced to target an invasive species. The advantages of this method are that it avoids the use of chemicals and can provide relatively inexpensive and permanent control over large areas. Appropriate control agents do not exist for all invasive species. Petitions must be submitted to, and approved by, the USDA Technical Advisory Group on weed biological control before any proposed biological control agent can be released in the United States.
Manual and Mechanical Control
Mechanical removal of invasive organisms can be effective against some herbaceous plants, shrubs and saplings, and aquatic organisms. This is particularly effective for plants that are annuals or have a taproot. Care should be taken to minimize soil disturbance to prevent creating conditions ideal for weed seed germination. Repeated cutting over a growing period is needed for effective control of many invasive plant species. Care should be taken to properly remove and dispose of any plant parts that can re-sprout. Treatments should be timed to prevent seed set and re-sprouting. The following methods are available: hand-pulling, pulling with hand tools (weed wrench, etc.), mowing, brush-hogging, weed-eating, stabbing (cutting roots while leaving in place), girdling (removing cambium layer), mulching, tilling, smothering (black plastic or other), and flooding.
Mowing can be used to reduce plant height and deplete energy reserves of invasive and robust plants. Repeated mowing within a growing season is often necessary to successfully control invasive plants. This can be logistically difficult in a habitat that is managed for various resources of concern. However, mowing can be effective when combined with other strategies, such as chemical treatment, spring flooding, and disking. Timing of mowing should be scheduled to maximize above ground energy reserves and to prevent seed dispersal (late summer). Mowing may also increase plant diversity by creating space (light) for other species to germinate
Disking and tilling (turning over of top soil and cutting turned soil) is often used in combination with mowing to set back succession and promote both seed germination and invertebrate populations. Disking and tilling breaks up organic root matter, encouraging decomposition, and increasing invertebrate populations. At the same time, it breaks up dense root matter, killing perennial plant and encouraging germinations of annual seed producing plants.
The advantages of mechanical treatment are low cost for equipment and supplies and minimal damage to neighboring plants and the environment. The disadvantages are higher costs for labor and inability to control large areas. For many invasive species, mechanical treatments alone are not effective, especially for mature plants or well-
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 107 Appendix C
established plants. Mechanical treatments are most effective when combined with herbicide treatments (e.g. girdle and herbicide treatment).
Water Level Management in Impoundments
Water level management is also used to control invasive and promote desirable plants. The use of flooding in the impoundment, through all or part of a growing season, particularly after mowing or chemical application, inhibits vegetative growth of robust vegetation. Subsequent drawdown will allow for germination of moist-soil plants preferred by waterfowl. Timing and speed of drawdown affects species diversity, density, and seed production. Slow drawdown (4-8 weeks) early in the season creates greater species diversity, while fast drawdown (a few to less than 2 weeks) results in lush extensive stands of similar vegetation. Late in the season, however, slow drawdown promotes greater diversity and density, whereas fast drawdown promotes undesirable plant composition (Lane and Jensen 1999). Flooding also promotes robust perennial control by muskrats.
Winter drawdowns are also possible, but should be avoided as they have detrimental effects on species over-wintering in the impoundments such as invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, and muskrats.
Herbicides
Invasive and robust plants in impoundments can be managed using herbicides approved for use in wetlands. The most commonly used chemical for controlling invasive and robust vegetation in impoundment is glyphosate (Rodeo). Methods of application include spot-treatment using back pack or ATV mounted sprayer, or aerial application. Spot-treated is more targeted (avoiding neighboring plants), but can be very labor intensive when treating large areas. Aerial application is less labor-intense, but is not as target-specific, and requires extensive planning to execute. Herbicides are applied during various times of the growing season depending on plant species and overall goal. For long term control, herbicide application is typically combined with other methods, such as mowing, burning, and flooding.
There are a wide variety of chemicals that are toxic to plant and animal species. They may work in different ways and be very target specific, or affect a wide range of species. Herbicides may be “pre-emergent,” that is, applied prior to germination to prevent germination or kill the seedling, or “post-emergent” and may have various modes of action (auxin mimic, amino acid inhibitor, mitosis inhibitor, photosynthesis inhibitor, lipid biosynthesis inhibitor). Products may come in granular, pelleted, dust or liquid forms. Liquid herbicides are commonly diluted to an appropriate formula and mixed with other chemicals that facilitate mixing, application, or efficacy. Common application methods include foliar spray, basal bark, hack and squirt, injection, and cut stump. The timing of applications is critical to achieve good control, as the growth stage at which an organism will be most effectively controlled varies with different species.
The advantages are that the right chemicals, applied correctly, can produce desired results over a large area for a reasonable cost. The disadvantages are that the chemicals may affect non-target species at the site (including the applicator) and/or contaminate surface or groundwater. Proper planning includes using the most target- specific, least hazardous (humans and the environment), and most effective chemical for
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 108 Appendix C
the job. Additionally, one should research minimum effective dosage, as the chemical labels often give higher than necessary concentrations. Herbicides often are most effective when used in combination with mechanical methods described above.
Attention to protective gear, licensing requirements and other regulations is essential. In the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, all pesticide and other chemical applications (including adjuvants designed to enhance effectiveness) are covered by Service and departmental regulations, and a Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) is required for all pesticide applications.
Prescribed Fire
Fire can either suppress or encourage any given plant species, so great care must be taken to understand the ecosystem and the life histories of the native and invasive plants before using this tool. This tool is most successful when it is used to mimic natural fire regimes. Proper timing of prescribed burns is essential for controlling target invasive species. The most effective fires for invasive plant control occur just prior to flower or seed set, or at the young sapling/seedling stage. Invasive plants are well adapted to disturbance, often surviving fire and rapidly spreading through a disturbed landscape. Studies in northeastern successional habitats have generally shown that fire alone will not remove invasive shrubs. Additional herbicide and/or cutting treatments are necessary (Patterson 2003).
This tool requires a good deal of pre-planning (including permitting) and requires a trained crew available on short notice during the burn window. Spot burning using a propane torch can be a good method to control small infestations of invasive plants. It can be advantageous where it is too wet or where there is too little fuel to carry a prescribed fire.
There are several principles that should be considered when employing prescribed fire to control woody plants:
1. Plant mortality is strongly tied to death of “growth points” (i.e. meristems/buds), which are more sensitive to heat damage when actively growing, and when tissue moisture is high (Miller 2000). Therefore, applying fire during spring, when target plants are mobilizing water/nutrients and breaking dormancy of leaf/flower buds, or during fall cold-acclimation periods, is more likely to kill growth points than prescribed fire during dormant periods.
2. Concentrations of metabolic compounds, i.e. sugars, salts, lignins, vary seasonally, and have been shown to relate to seasonal effects on shrubs. Consequently, timing of treatments may be more important than the type (cutting versus burning) in controlling invasive plants. To reduce biomass, fires should be applied during periods of low below-ground carbohydrate storage (i.e. immediately after spring flushing and growth) and should be followed with a second growing season treatment (such as mowing, herbicide, or more prescribed fire) before total non-structural carbohydrate (TNC) levels are replenished. Repeated burning (several consecutive years) during the low point of a plant’s TNC cycle can amplify the negative effects of the treatment (Richburg and Patterson 2003, 2004).
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 109 Appendix C
Deer Control
Invasive plant problems often are exacerbated by white-tailed deer over browsing native species, and when deer numbers rise above the carrying capacity, biodiversity declines (NY State Department of Environmental Conservation 2007). Public hunting should be used to reduce the deer population wherever necessary and logistically feasible. Hunting must be regulated (e.g., hunting methods, timing of seasons, hunting pressure) and harvests monitored to prevent negative impact to long-term survival of deer populations. Deer control must be conducted in combination with other invasive plant control measures as deer control alone will not be effective if the invasive plants are already established.
Potential Prescriptions for Nuisance Plants on Great River and Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges
River bulrush (Scirpus fluviatilis): River bulrush is native but can form dense colonies very rapidly within management units which can choke out other vegetation. Soil manipulations may thin dense stands. To achieve best results soils must be finely worked and allowed to dry thoroughly. Chemical applications in the fall, timed within a window of 10-15 days prior to frost, when plants are pulling recourses into dormancy causing better absorption of chemical, seem to produce the best results (Figure 1).
Figure 1: River bulrush stand treated with glyphosate in September 2010. Picture taken in July 2011.
Another method, depending on management goals, is to rough disc through stands followed by shallow flooding in the fall. Rough disking (one pass by heavy cut disk), followed by shallow (approximately 4 inches) late summer flooding, promotes good invertebrate response for early migrants. Holding shallow water on the exposed bulbs
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 110 Appendix C
throughout winter and allow to freeze will kill most plants. Raising water levels in the late winter/early spring to prevent spikerush (Eleocharis spp.) establishment and then performing drawdowns as scheduled produces favorable results.
Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea): Reed canarygrass is the most serious of nuisance plants on the refuges at the time of this plan. It quickly forms dense monoculture stands which can be resistant despite various management prescriptions. As with bulrush some success can be had with chemical application, preferably timed prior to frost in the fall. The greatest challenge with reed canarygrass on the refuges is that it dominates areas that are difficult to access and perform treatments, such as wooded areas and borders of semi-permanent marshes that remain too saturated for equipment access. In units that can be accessed with equipment, this plant can be dealt with much more efficiently. Since this plant favors many of the conditions that are created during traditional moist-soil management techniques, prescriptions must be altered within units where this plant exists or could establish.
Being a cool season grass, reed canarygrass is one of the earliest of the plants found within management units to germinate or come out of dormancy. Care must be taken not to create conditions for this plant to excel. Potential problem areas are units which were disked prior to fall flooding or farmed the previous year where no other vegetation has been established. These units should be scheduled for a late spring/ early-mid-summer drawdown to allow desirable vegetation to establish.
A technique that has been effective on the refuge within established stands is to manipulate the soil while flooded in early spring with a tractor and roller. Pulling a field roller over flooded stands of canary grass works the soil in a manner that breaks up the rhizomes of the plant. In an optimum water depth, saturated soil to 6 inches, three passes with the roller equipment is generally sufficient to achieve desired soil disturbance results; however, necessary effort may vary with vegetation density, soil composition, and desired results. Once treated, the unit needs to remain flooded until a late drawdown to prevent germination of new undesirable plants.
Swamp smartweed (Polygonum coccineum): Swamp smartweed is a common native plant on the refuges that proliferates in a wide variety of conditions; therefore, characterizing it as a native nuisance. Although this plant can form dense stands very rapidly, it can be controlled on a year-by-year basis. Mowing after drawdown to release grasses and sedges or applying a broadleaf herbicide such as 2-4-D is an effective common practice within units with a heavy water smartweed component. Wet-soil manipulation with the field roller followed by drawdown may achieve desired results on dense stands that are established prior to spring drawdown (Figure 2), As with applications in Reed canarygrass, 3 passes is recommended with water levels ranging from saturated soil to 6 inches,
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 111 Appendix C
Figure 2: Unit 6 on Clarence Cannon NWR in 2010 after dense stand of Water smartweed was rolled and then drained resulted in heavy stand of millet (Echinochloa spp.)
Spikerush (Eleocharis spp.): Probably the most common native nuisance plant on the refuges is spikerush. It quickly establishes on the saturated edges of units and forms extremely dense mats that choke out all other vegetation. Chemical application after drawdown in the growing season will kill this plant, but the dense mat will remain and continue to prevent other vegetation from growing. Rolling prior to drawdown will set it back, but the dense mats may require more passes than other vegetation to penetrate and be effective. Some colonies of this plant are so dense that even heavy cutting disks have trouble penetrating. The most effective way to control spikerush is with a moldboard plow. This piece of equipment will penetrate and turn over the soil, exposing the roots. Once plowed, it is best to disk heavily until soil is extremely dry and worked into a powder. This will ensure the area has been sufficiently set back.
Impoundment Management
Water Level Manipulation
Water level management (drawdown and flooding) is a strategy used to mimic the dynamic water regime of some natural wetlands, and is typically timed to benefit shorebirds, wading birds, and/or waterfowl. During a draw down, mudflats and shallow waters areas are created to provide foraging habitat for shorebirds, while at the same time concentrating food for wading birds. Some waterfowl (e.g., teal) will also take advantage of the concentrated and more accessible food resources. Eventually, the soils in these mudflat areas begin to oxidize and warm up. This in turn causes moist-soil vegetation to germinate. If the water is removed early in the growing season, moist-soil
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 112 Appendix C
vegetation will out-compete most perennial emergent vegetation, which requires warmer soil temperatures for germination. When water is removed later in the growing season, perennial emergent vegetation usually dominates. This is often an undesirable outcome of a drawdown and is usually avoided. As moist-soil annual vegetation grows, shallow (not to exceed 1/3 plant height) flooding can be used to irrigate growing vegetation, create shallow water foraging habitat for waterfowl or discourage growth of perennial or invasive plants. Water levels are usually returned to the desired management level prior to fall migration, or the following spring migration if water is not available in the fall. Generally, slow (over several weeks) drawdowns will provide a greater diversity of moist- soil plants than faster (over a few days) drawdowns (Frederickson and Taylor 1982).
Alternatively, drawdowns may occur in fall to provide foraging habitat for fall migrating shorebirds and some waterfowl. Winter drawdowns are also possible, but should be avoided as they have detrimental effects on species over-wintering in the impoundments such as invertebrates, reptiles and amphibians and muskrats.
Water may also be held in an impoundment over the growing season, or several growing seasons, to provide breeding habitat for waterfowl and marsh birds. This is usually done in areas where a healthy perennial emergent component exists in the wetland. Over time, water stress and/or muskrat activity will often reduce the amount of emergent vegetation until it is no longer a significant component of the impoundment. At this point the impoundment has little value to breeding waterfowl and marsh birds and another drawdown should be considered.
Vegetation Management
Plants that occur in an impoundment can be either desirable or undesirable based on their value to wildlife. Generally, plants that provide cover, energy, or nutritional value for objective wildlife are desirable. Plants that quickly develop monocultures and impede foraging by wildlife are undesirable. Whether a plant is desirable or not also depends on why the impoundment is being managed. For example, cattail is undesirable to shorebirds and waterfowl because it forms dense monotypic stands, and reduces foraging habitat (mudflats and moist-soil vegetation) of shorebirds and waterfowl. In contrast, it provides cover and breeding habitat for marsh birds, and therefore is desirable if managing for those species. The challenge of impoundment management is balancing the needs of various wildlife guilds. In addition to the water level manipulation techniques listed in the previous paragraphs, below are available strategies for promoting desirable vegetation and controlling undesirable or invasive plants.
Herbicide
The most commonly used herbicide for controlling robust vegetation in impoundments is glyphosate. Methods of application include spot-treatment using backpack or ATV mounted sprayer, or aerial application. Spot-treatment is more targeted (avoiding neighboring plants), but can be very labor intensive when treating large areas. Aerial application is less labor-intensive, but is not as target-specific, and requires extensive planning to execute. Herbicides are applied during various times of the year depending on plant species and management goal. Note: If using a non-selective herbicide such as glyphosate over an entire unit to thin out established stands of undesired vegetation early in the growing season, it may be best
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 113 Appendix C
to apply prior to drawdown of the unit, so not to kill desirable vegetation that geminates from the drawdown. It is recommended to use a boom-less type spray rig during pre-drawdown applications of chemicals as standard boom sprayers may clog due to the wet/muddy conditions. Boomless sprayers also allow for application of chemicals near woody vegetation (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Boom-less spray rigs allow for closer application near woody species and also allow less wind drift than standard boom sprayers.
Seeding/Planting
Most impoundments contain abundant stock of moist-soil plant seeds native to a locality, therefore making seeding and planting unnecessary (Frederickson and Taylor 1982). These seeds may remain viable in the soil for many years, and germinate under suitable environmental conditions (Lane and Jensen 1999). In extreme circumstances, past human activities (such as extensive herbicide use, prolonged flooding, and promoting monotypic plants for many years) may have altered site conditions such that the soil seed bank is inadequate or nonexistent (Weller 1990). In these situations, the seed bank may need to be augmented through planting of seeds, rhizomes, or seedlings to ensure growth of desirable plants. Only native species should be used for seeding and planting. Whenever possible, seeds and other plant material should be obtained from a local reference site, either through direct seed harvest or transplant, or from a nursery that procured their stock locally.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 114 Appendix C
Beaver Control
Because beavers are part of the natural landscape, and can be beneficial in terms of creating wetland habitats, harvest of nuisance beavers will only be conducted when negative impacts are determined to be excessive. Beavers interfere with impoundment management by damaging or clogging water control structures and altering water levels on surrounding lands so impoundments either cannot be filled or cannot be drained. Whenever possible, water control structures and drainage pipes should be fitted with guards to prevent beavers from clogging the pipes or damaging the structures. Trapping is the most effective method of removing problem beavers and may be conducted either during fur season or by nuisance trappers during other times of the year.
Impoundment Improvement through Depression Creation
Impoundments are created when an ecological system has been altered and the hydrology has been modified and cannot be restored by other means due to surrounding land uses. Impoundments are managed to mimic natural hydro periods or to provide the best possible habitat for high-priority wildlife species. Impoundments that do not provide high quality habitat should be modified to achieve the refuge’s highest priority habitat goals and objectives.
Annual and perennial wetland vegetation establishment within impoundments is dependent on site elevation relative to hydrology (inundation or saturation levels). In impoundments with little or no change in bathymetric elevation, enhancing the gradient of elevation changes may be a suitable technique for habitat enhancement. Due to the degree of habitat degradation and the lack of wildlife use, it is beneficial to create depressions to restore these areas to high-quality wetland habitat. Depressions will create a mix of emergent marsh and open water habitat that will improve biological diversity and productivity.
Depressions should be created by physically removing material. Other methods that leave the material onsite create temporary openings that fill in as the displaced sediment slumps back in and undesired vegetation re-invades. Material should be removed to create open water areas and channels in an irregular/natural pattern. Regular shapes (squares, circles, rectangles, triangles, etc.) are inherently desired by humans but wildlife perceives things differently and put different value on other characteristics that provide a better quality habitat. The irregular/natural pattern visually attracts wildlife and creates more edge/interspersion between open water and emergent vegetation. The finished bottom of all excavations should be 6 to 12 inches lower than the managed water level of the rest of the impoundment. A meandering channel should connect the newly created depressions to the rest of the impoundment, thus permitting water flow and water level management by the same structures used to control water levels in the surrounding impoundment. Slopes as flat as 10:1 are preferable if possible.
Construction should be planned for the summer following a spring drawdown when earth moving equipment is least likely to sink in the unconsolidated substrate.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 115 Appendix C
Muskrat Population Management
Muskrats are efficient at reducing the cover of robust perennial vegetation. The impoundment should be held high for at least one year, and muskrat trapping in the impoundment interior should be prohibited when the cover of robust perennial vegetation needs to be decreased. However, if perennial vegetative cover is lower than desired, muskrat control should be conducted. Muskrat trapping also should be employed when muskrat numbers are high enough to damage impoundment dikes or water control structures.
Soil Manipulations
Some research indicates that soil disturbances (disking or tilling) can promote invasive plants by cutting rhizomes into numerous segments that may eventually grow into adult plants (Frederickson and Taylor 1982). To avoid promoting expansion of invasive species such as Phragmites, disking should only be implemented where there are existing dense stands of invasives, or where invasive species monitoring and control can ensure that these species do not expand their area of coverage (Lane and Jenson 1999).
Disking can also be used to provide habitat for shorebirds. As described above under water level manipulation, slow spring drawdowns not only promote the growth of moist- soil vegetation but also create mudflats and shallow water areas for spring migrating shorebirds. Disking during summer will break up organic root matter, which encourages decomposition, and therefore increases invertebrate populations. After disking, the impoundment can be flooded slightly (approximately 3 inches) to provide mudflats and shallow water for fall-migrating shorebirds.
During wet years, the window of opportunity for performing soil manipulations within drained units may be short. There are times when desired results may be achieved by performing wet-soil manipulations within units prior to drawdown. This type of manipulation consists of pulling a field roller throughout shallow flooded units until the desired soil conditions are achieved. This method can be used in depths of water ranging from saturated soil to greater than 12 inches, but shallower water (saturated soil to 6 inches) usually gives the most favorable results (Figure 4). Wet-soil manipulations not only allow more flexibility to managers performing field work, but also lower the overall cost per acre for management by reducing tractor time in the field and mid-summer pumping costs.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 116 Appendix C
Figure 4: Performing soil manipulations prior to drawdown in the spring can save both time and money.
Figure 5: Unit 5 on Clarence Cannon NWR in 2011. Portions of unit on right side of picture were not treated and remained a dominant stand of spikerush (Eleocharis spp.) and cutgrass (Leersia spp.). The portion of the unit on the left side was rolled prior to drawdown and resulted in much more desirable vegetation.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 117 Appendix C
Prescribed Burning
Prescribed burning in impoundments has been used to control undesirable vegetation and may promote growth of desirable plants (Baldassarre and Bolen 1994). Burning can kill perennial plants and reduce excessive litter accumulation, allowing moist-soil vegetation to germinate. However, successful control of species such as cattail requires root burns, which rarely occur since rhizomes are usually covered by a layer of soil, mud and/or water. Prescribed fire will often remove accumulated leaf litter and dead standing material, giving seeds of other species an opportunity to germinate. Removing litter may also increase shoot germination of undesirable plants by increasing light availability to the ground.
Seeding/Planting
Most impoundments contain abundant stock of moist-soil plant seeds native to a locality, therefore making seeding and planting unnecessary (Frederickson and Taylor 1982). These seeds may remain viable in the soil for many years, and germinate under suitable environmental conditions (Lane and Jensen 1999). In extreme circumstances, past human activities (such as extensive herbicide use, prolonged flooding, and promoting monotypic plants for many years) may have altered site conditions such that the soil seed bank is inadequate or nonexistent (Weller 1990). In these situations, the seed bank may need to be augmented through planting of seeds, rhizomes, or seedlings to ensure growth of desirable plants. Only native species should be used for seeding and planting. Whenever possible, seeds and other plant material should be obtained from a local reference site, either through direct seed harvest or transplant, or from a nursery that procured their stock locally.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 118 Appendix C
Greentree Reservoir Management
Greentree reservoirs (GTRs) are impounded tracts of bottomland hardwood forests usually created to emulate historically flooded forest habitats and provide habitat for migrating and wintering waterfowl. Typically, GTRs are flooded earlier, longer, and at depths greater than would normally occur under natural flooding from fall or winter rainfall. These modifications in hydrology cause changes in the diverse flora and fauna that are adapted to normal seasonal and long-term fluctuating water regimes and a number of problems are associated with GTR management. Generally after ten years, waterfowl use, acorn production, and plant diversity decline. Regeneration of mast producing over-story species is inhibited by typical GTR management. If possible, existing GTRs should be managed by the natural hydrology of the area rather than by artificially raising water levels.
If the refuge manager chooses to hold water in GTRs, (s)he must monitor water levels closely to prevent undesirable changes in species composition and retardation of tree growth and vigor. Fall flooding should not commence until trees are dormant. Drawdowns must be initiated early enough to ensure complete water removal by the time trees break dormancy. Thorough drainage is essential as only a few inches of water during the growing season can cause permanent tree damage. Even dormant season flooding should not occur annually as this regime may cause decreased tree growth, regeneration, and plant diversity (Baldassarre and Bolen 1994, Frederickson and Batema, Mitchell and Newling 1986).
Similar to other types of forest stands, timber management may be necessary to improve habitat quality. See “Forest Management” below.
Forest Management
Silvicultural Prescriptions
Active management generally is not necessary to maintain forest communities. However, if a forested tract is degraded and not meeting habitat objectives, then a silvicultural prescription may be needed. A silvicultural prescription is a detailed set of written instructions for the treatment of a forested property and should be developed prior to the treatment of forested tracts other than invasive species treatments (http://www.sref.info/courses/mtf2/mtf2-2-1.pdf). A forester should be consulted to develop a prescription based on the site conditions and habitat objectives identified in the Habitat Management Plan.
Forest Establishment/Reforestation
Patch size and distribution on the landscape are important considerations in planning and managing habitats. Forest restoration should only occur on parcels within large forested blocks (at least 500 acres, if possible) to reduce fragmentation of the landscape and because many forest-dependent species are area sensitive. Forest restoration also is appropriate along rivers as riparian forest corridors are often more diverse than adjacent upland areas despite occupying a small area. These areas should be chosen based on their juxtaposition to currently existing forested tracts. Riparian corridors that connect existing forested tracts should be prioritized for reforestation.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 119 Appendix C
In former agricultural fields, forests may be established by allowing the area to succeed naturally, by seeding herbaceous, shrub, and tree species, by planting shrub and tree seedlings or saplings, or by a combination of these methods. Shade-tolerant herbaceous species may need to be seeded or planted after a canopy is established as they may not survive full sun conditions. The plants in the surrounding landscape should be surveyed to determine the seed stock. If desirable species are in the surrounding landscape and the invasive species load is low, then natural succession should be allowed to proceed. Invasive or other undesirable species can be selected out with herbicides. It may be desirable to plant only those species that are not already present in the surrounding landscape.
If the area is surrounded by invasive species, then allowing natural succession without seeding or planting natives likely will not be successful. Planting seeds of native species is less expensive than planting seedlings or saplings, but it will take longer for these to become established. A combination of seeding and planting may be the best strategy to “flood” the site with natives to out-compete surrounding invasive species. The seedlings and saplings will produce seed and provide shade more quickly, and the planted seeds will provide competition for invasive seeds already present in the soil. The site must be monitored, and invasive species must be controlled before they become well- established. The invasive species in the surrounding landscape also should be controlled as resources permit.
Whenever nursery shrubs and trees are planted, they should be protected from deer and other herbivores. Selection of species and ecotypes is a critical step in seeding and restoration. Using local seed and plant materials is important in restoration as plants have wide genetic diversity across geographic space.
Shrubland Management
Nearly all upland shrublands need to be periodically disturbed to maintain their shrubland character. Shrublands left undisturbed will eventually succeed to young forests and will no longer provide habitat for shrubland dependent wildlife. The number of years between disturbances depends on how quickly a particular shrubland matures and also at what stage the shrubland is being managed. Managing several different shrubland units will allow a refuge to disturb a few units every year or every few years and still provide all shrubland stages from very young to very mature.
The seasonal timing of disturbance can alter the vegetative character of the shrubland. Re-sprouting of both trees and shrubs will be greater if cut after the growing season (Sepik et al. 1981). Cutting encroaching trees during the growing season will often result in better control of trees the following year whereas cutting during the dormant season will often stimulate more robust tree re-sprouting the following year. If managing during the growing season, care should be taken to time the disturbance after most bird species have fledged.
Listed below are several techniques available for the management of shrubland vegetation.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 120 Appendix C
Mechanized Equipment
Several pieces of equipment are available for use in cutting shrubs and small trees (see bullets below). All of these tools can be used with varying degrees of effectiveness, depending on what is being cut. Special consideration needs to be given to ground disturbance when using heavy equipment. Soils may be compacted and rutted which could cause a change in the vegetation component of the area. Disturbed soils are also more likely to promote germination of invasive species, an undesirable outcome of any shrubland management program.
Examples of shrub and tree cutting equipment:
o Drum mowers for removal of small trees o Hydro-Axe – this piece of equipment consists of an articulated tractor with a mower mounted on the front. It is generally able to cut trees up to approximately 6-8” dbh. Woody material is reduced to fine chips, often finer than those resulting from a roller mower. o Roller Chopper Mower – used to knock down and chop up shrubs and trees. This Technique can cause significant disturbance to the soil and should probably be reserved for situations where the area is going to be seeded after treatment. o Mowing and brush hogging – mowing is an appropriate treatment for grass, forbs and small shrubs and saplings. Vegetation >4 inches often needs a higher powered machine. o Girdling – Girdling can be appropriate to kill single trees to create snags and open up the canopy. It can also cause stump sprouting. o Chainsaw – Saw work can be appropriate to remove single trees or groups of trees to open up the canopy. Stump sprouting may occur.
Chemical Treatment
Chemical treatment in shrublands usually involves the selective spraying of individual or small groups of trees or undesirable shrubs (e.g., invasive species or post mature plants) to maintain the shrub component of the vegetation and prevent trees from shading out the shrubs. This technique can be very labor intensive over a large area if there is a significant tree component to the shrubland. If trees are sprayed on a regular basis (e.g., every few years) then it can be a relatively easy process, assuming the shrubland acreage is small. Over time, shrub density is likely to increase which in turn decreases encroachment of trees. In the best of situations, this scenario will result in a climax shrub community (Niering and Goodwin 1974). This technique could be very useful when managing for mature shrublands, such as providing foraging areas for migrating and wintering songbirds.
Prescribed Fire
Prescribed fire is very difficult to use effectively in as a shrubland maintenance tool in itself. This region is generally too moist and the shrubs too sparse to produce a good burn. However, prescribed fire can be used in conjunction with another management technique, such as after mowing, to help return nutrients to the soil and stimulate regrowth of treated shrubs.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 121 Appendix C
Invasive Species Control
Any disturbance to a shrubland has the potential to stimulate the germination or continued growth of invasive species. Care should be taken to reduce this potential by disturbing the soil as little as possible. Additionally, within one or two years after disturbing a shrubland the area should be surveyed for the presence of invasive species and where possible these plants should be treated with one or more of the strategies described in the invasive species control section earlier in this document.
Shrubland Establishment
Patch size and distribution on the landscape are important considerations in planning and managing habitats. Small patches of habitat (<25 acres) or habitat patches with a lot of edge (e.g., powerline rights-of-way) may be suitable for shrubland establishment as shrubland-dependent species tend to be less area-sensitive than grassland and forest species.
In former agricultural fields, shrublands may be established by allowing the area to succeed naturally, by seeding herbaceous and shrub species, by planting shrub seedlings or saplings, or by a combination of these methods. The plants in the surrounding landscape should be surveyed to determine the seed stock. If desirable shrubs are in the surrounding landscape, the invasive species load is low, and there is not an immediate need for shrubland habitat, then natural succession should be allowed to proceed. Invasive or other undesirable species can be selected out with herbicides. It may be desirable to plant only those species that are not already present in the surrounding landscape.
If the area is surrounded by invasives, then allowing natural succession without seeding or planting natives likely will not be successful. Planting seeds of native species is less expensive than planting seedlings or saplings, but it will take longer for these to become established. A combination of seeding and planting may be the best strategy to “flood” the site with natives to out-compete surrounding invasives. The seedlings and saplings will produce seed and provide shade more quickly, and the planted seeds will provide competition for invasive seeds already present in the soil. The site must be monitored, and invasive species must be controlled before they become well-established. The invasives in the surrounding landscape also should be controlled as resources permit.
Whenever nursery shrubs are planted, they should be protected from deer and other herbivores. Selection of species and ecotypes is a critical step in seeding and restoration. Using local seed and plant materials is important in restoration as plants have wide genetic diversity across geographic space.
Grassland Management
Refuge grasslands consist of both cool season and warm season grasses. Cool season grasses start growing in spring as soon as the snow melts and the days start to warm up. They grow best in spring and fall and tend to stop growing during the hot dry days of summer. They are usually relatively short and do not grow as dense as many warm season grasses. Conversely, warm season grasses do not start growing until late spring and grow best during the hot dry summer months. They generally grow taller and denser than cool season grasses.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 122 Appendix C
Currently, most cool season grasses are exotic species brought over from Europe as forage for livestock. Most warm season grasses are native to the U.S. prairies and some varieties are native to the Northeast as well. Exotic cool season and native warm season grasses are readily available from seed companies across the country. Some seed companies are beginning to propagate native cool season grasses making them more available for planting, but still at a relatively high price.
Many species of grassland birds require relatively large blocks of habitat for nesting areas. Some species, such as upland sandpiper and Henslow’s sparrow are not likely to be found in grassland patches of less than 75 acres. Other species patch size requirements are smaller, but grasslands of less than 25 acres generally do not meet the requirements for most grassland nesting birds and may be better suited to a different habitat type (e.g., shrubland) (Mitchell et al. 2000).
The refuge should consider providing a variety of different grassland stages within close proximity to one another. Short sparse grasslands with little litter accumulation benefit a different group of grassland birds than do tall growing grasslands with a large litter layer. Managing adjacent grassland units in different stages will help to provide multiple grassland types in the same general area. This effect can also be achieved by managing smaller sections of larger contiguous grassland fields in different stages.
As grasslands succeed into shrublands and then forestlands the amount of available habitat for grassland nesting species declines. Without periodic treatment most refuge grasslands quickly revert to brush and forests. Listed below are several management techniques designed to maintain grasslands on refuges.
Mowing/Haying
Mowing and haying (collectively, cutting) are very effective at controlling broad leaf forbs and woody species, provided it occurs during the growing season of these plants. Cutting should be delayed until after the nesting season of most grassland birds (usually mid-July) but should be done as soon as possible after this date to allow for maximum stress on invading forbs and shrubs. Depending on the amount of forbs and shrub invasion, some grassland fields may require repeated cutting during any one season. Cutting should be done often enough to keep the grassland in the intended state. This may require annual haying to provide habitat for species that prefer short sparse grasslands such as grasshopper sparrow, or mowing every third year (or more) for species that prefer tall rank grasslands such as Henslow’s sparrow. Mowing tends to accumulate thatch whereas haying removes this thatch and keeps the grassland in a more open condition. Occasionally it is possible to selectively mow small sections of forbs and tree encroachment within larger grassland fields, thus saving the refuge resources and reducing disturbance to the grassland as a whole.
Cooperative haying can be used in lieu of refuge staff mowing the grasslands, thus saving the refuge significant resources while still accomplishing mission related goals. The hay crop has value to the farmer as forage for his livestock or as a cash crop. Haying is generally restricted to fields already dominated by grass species, as forbs and shrubs are unsuitable as a hay crop. Refuge staff should work closely with the farmer to ensure haying is conducted to refuge specifications (e.g., after grassland bird nesting season) and also to guard against introduction of invasive plant species.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 123 Appendix C
Prescribed Fire
If used properly, fire can be a useful tool for maintaining grasslands. Generally, prescribed fire is suitable for controlling woody species and to lesser extents broad leaf forbs in warm season grasslands. Cool season grasslands are difficult to maintain with prescribed fire. To achieve effective control of woody species, fire must be applied late enough in the growing season to allow these species to leaf out, but early enough to ensure that sprouting warm season grasses are not damaged. Due to the early season growth habits of cool season grasses, they are often too green to allow a fire during the time when woody plants have leafed out.
Most prescribed fires will result in only a top-killing of woody plants. Therefore, resprouting is likely to occur later in the season. This top-killing is usually sufficient to maintain the woody species as only a small portion of the vegetative community provided fire is applied on a regular schedule (e.g., once every four years). Broad leaf forbs are often less susceptible to damage from fire and may not be controlled at all. It may be necessary to use other management techniques (mowing, herbicide) to effectively control broad leaf forbs within a grassland unit.
Fire removes thatch from a grassland unit. This result is often desirable, but can also be detrimental to species that prefer a thatch component for nesting (e.g., Henslow’s sparrow) (Zimmerman 1988). The conversion of thatch into nutrients by fire results in an immediate return of nutrients to the soil, stimulating the growth of new plants during the growing season immediately following the fire.
Herbicides
Woody plants or broadleaf forbs can be sprayed with herbicide during the growing season to control their spread within the grassland. Herbicides can either be specific to a certain type of plant (e.g., dicamba for broad leaf plants) or general (e.g., glyphosate). Herbicides can also be sprayed on individual plants, such as from a backpack sprayer, or broadcast across the grassland, such as from a boom sprayer. The species being controlled and the amount of invasion into the grassland will determine which herbicide is used and how it is applied.
The sensitive nature of many refuge habitats and species dictate that herbicides are used with extreme care. It is illegal to use an herbicide in a manner inconsistent with the label, but refuges should strive to be even more restrictive with their use. Non-chemical management techniques should be considered before deciding to use herbicides. Unfortunately, chemical control is often the only effective control technique available for certain plants, particularly many invasive species. Refuges should select the most benign chemical available to effectively do the job and apply it at the minimum necessary rate.
Barrier Removal
As mentioned earlier, patch size is very important in determining the suitability of grasslands as nesting habitat. As a general rule, the bigger a grassland is the more attractive it is to grassland nesting birds (Sample and Mossman 1997). Often a few or several smaller grassland units are located in close proximity to one another with only
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 124 Appendix C
small shrub or tree hedgerows separating them. When faced with this situation, refuges should decide if it is better to let the small unproductive grasslands revert to shrublands, or remove the hedgerows to create larger more productive grasslands. Additionally, even if a grassland patch is already large enough to meet breeding grassland bird requirements, it may be possible to further improve the habitat by removing a barrier between this grassland and an adjacent grassland unit.
Shrub dominated hedgerows can be removed by mowing with a brush hog, Hydro-ax, or similar equipment. Tree dominated hedgerows will often need to be cut with a chainsaw or a tree felling piece of heavy equipment (e.g., Hydro-ax with a feller buncher attachment). Cutting can be done by refuge staff or contracted out. To save money, trees within hedgerows can be offered to the public as part of a timber or firewood cutting program.
Disking
Fall and winter disking can be used to decrease warm season grass cover and increase forbs cover in established warm season grasslands (Gruchy and Harper 2006). This technique should not be used if there are invasive plants in or surrounding the grassland as the soil disturbance likely will provide ideal conditions for invasives.
Grassland Establishment
As stated above, patch size and distribution on the landscape are important considerations in planning and managing habitats. Grasslands should not be established in fields that are 25 acres or less as most grassland-dependent species are area sensitive. Field shape also is important; edge should be minimized so round or square fields are preferable to linear fields. Grasslands may be established in former agricultural fields, old fields, or large thickets, but habitat conversion is generally not recommended for forested areas.
Seeding and planting desirable plants can be used to enhance existing grasslands, in restoration of degraded grasslands, or in conversion of croplands. Selection of species and ecotypes is a critical step in seeding and restoration. While many species are commercially available for grassland restoration, few are native to the Northeast. Using local seed and plant materials is important in restoration as plants have wide genetic diversity across geographic space.
Initial seedbed preparation to decrease the weed seed bank is critical to successful grassland establishment. Former agricultural fields are ideal sites for grassland establishment if weed problems are already under control. The field should only need to be disked or sprayed with herbicide in spring prior to seeding as soon as the soil is dry enough.
In fallow fields, a controlled burn the summer or fall prior to seeding decreases surface weed seeds and litter. By the following March or April, spring disking or tilling will reduce the number of winter-growing weeds which set seed. The area should be left fallow during summer and tilled or sprayed with herbicide (glyphosate or pre-emergent herbicide), as necessary, to eliminate late-germinating weeds. One advantage of this spring-summer fallow technique is that deep soil moisture is conserved for the following fall planting. Finally, seedbed preparation may require smoothing with a land plane or
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 125 Appendix C
scraper and roller if soil clods are large. Rolling with a ring roller provides compaction that will maintain good soil moisture following the first rains.
Broadcast seeding followed by shallow harrowing and cultipacking is very effective, especially on well-prepared soil. A small flexible tine harrow can be pulled by a standard ATV to easily and rapidly harrow soil to cover the broadcast seed. In small or inaccessible areas, four pronged cultivator rakes can be used to agitate the soil and cover the seed. The preferred method of seeding warm season grasses is with a no-till drill. When using a drill in recently tilled seedbeds, it is best to culti-pack the tilled soil after seeding.
Because warm season grasses are slow to germinate and have less seedling vigor than cool season grasses, weed/sod control — both before and after planting — is much more critical than when establishing cool season grasses. For establishing warm season grasses, weed control throughout the growing season is just as critical as it is before planting. It usually takes at least two growing seasons to establish a warm season grass stand which makes weed control during the first growing season critical. Because warm season grasses are not shade tolerant, weed canopies will reduce seedling vigor. Moisture competition from weeds and cool season grasses may also further reduce seedling vigor (NRCS-USDA 2006).
To establish warm season grasses, weeds are usually controlled by mowing at a set height where only the leaf tips of the warm season grass seedlings are cut, and the growing point is not damaged. This will reduce the shading competition but not hurt the emerging seedlings. Mowing weeds before flowering will prevent seed production. Mowing 2-3 times may be necessary during the establishment year; however, if clipped too frequently, weeds may “stool out” (grow out instead of up) (NRCS-USDA 2006).
References Anonymous, Montana Weed Mapping Handbook: Montana Noxious Weed Survey and Mapping System (Version 2.0), undated.
Baldassarre, G. A. and E. G. Bolen. 1994. Waterfowl Ecology and Management. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Department of the Interior. 2007. Departmental Manual; Environmental Quality Programs; Part 517: Pesticides: Chapter 1: Integrated Pest Management Policy. Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Washington D.C.
Frederickson, L. H. and D. L. Batema. Greentree Reservoir Management Handbook. Gaylord Memorial Laboratory, The School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri- Columbia, Puxico, MO.
Fredrickson, L. H. and T. S. Taylor. 1982. Management of seasonally flooded impoundments for wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication.
Fulfilling the Promise National Invasive Species Management Strategy Team. 2002. The National strategy for management of invasive species. National Wildlife Refuge System.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 126 Appendix C
Gruchy, J. P. and C. A. Harper. 2006. When is the best time to disk native warm-season grasses for wildlife? In Proceedings of the Fifth Eastern Native Grass Symposium (Matt Sanderson ed.) Omnipress, Madison, WI.
Lane, J. J. and K. C. Jensen. 1999. Moist-soil impoundments for wetland wildlife. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical Report EL-99-11.
Lowry, D. J. 1990. Restoration and creation of palustrine wetlands associated with riverine systems of the glaciated northeast. In Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of Science (J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds.). Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Mitchell, L. R., C.R. Smith, and R. A. Malecki. 2000. Ecology of Grassland Breeding Birds in the Northeastern United States-A Literature Review with Recommendations for Management. US Geological Survey, New York Cooperative Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University.
Mitchell, W. A. and C. J. Newling. 1986. Greentree Reservoirs: Section 5.5.3, US Army corps of Engineers Wildlife Resources Management Manual. Department of the Army, Vicksburg, MS.
Niering, W.A. and R. H. Goodwin. 1974. Creation of Relatively stable shrublands with herbicides: arresting “succession” on rights-of-way and pastureland. Ecology 55:784- 795.
Norment, C. J. 2002. On grassland bird conservation in the Northeast. Auk 119:271– 279.
NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2007. New York hunting and trapping 2007-08 official regulations guide. NY State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
Rothbart, P. and S. Capel. 2006. Maintaining and Restoring Grasslands. In Managing grasslands, shrublands, and young forest habitats for wildlife. A guide for the northeast (J. D. Ohler, D. F. Covell, S. Capel, and B. Long, eds.). The Northeast Upland Habitat Technical Committee. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
Sample, D. W. and M. J. Mossman. 1997. Managing habitat for grassland birds: a guide for Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Publication No. SS-925-97.
Sepik, G. F., R. B. Owen, and M. W. Coulter. 1981. A Landowner's Guide to Woodcock Management in the Northeast. Misc. Report No. 253. University of Maine, Orono, ME.
USDA-NRCS. 1999. Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Practice Standard: Pothole. New York.
USDA-NRCS. 2006. Natural Resources Conservation Service Wetland Restoration – 774 Pothole. New York.
USDA-NRCS. 2006. Warm Season Grasses in Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 127 Appendix C
Weller, M. W. 1990. Waterfowl management techniques for wetland enhancement, restoration and creation useful in mitigation procedures. In Wetland creation and restoration: The status of the science. (J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula, eds.). Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Williams, R. K. Construction, maintenance, and water control structures of tidal impoundments. In Waterfowl Habitat Restoration Enhancement and Management in the Atlantic Flyway (W. R. Whitman, T. Strange, L. Widjeskog, R. Whittemore, P. Kehoe, and L. Roberts eds.). Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE.
Zimmerman, J. L. 1988. Breeding season habitat selection by the Henslow’s sparrow in Kansas. Wilson Bull. 100(1):17-24
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 128 Appendix D
Appendix D.
Environmental Assessment
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 129
Appendix D
Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form Region 3
Originating Person: Jason Wilson, Refuge Manager Date Submitted: October 5, 2011
Telephone Number: 573/847-2333
I. Service Program and Geographic Area or Station Name: Clarence Cannon and Great River National Wildlife Refuges
II. Location: Refuge Divisions in Clark and Pike Counties, Missouri, and Adams and Pike Counties, Illinois.
III. Species/Critical Habitat: Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), Decurrent false aster (Boltonia deccurens)
IV. Project Description:): The proposed action consists of adoption and implementation of the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Clarence Cannon and Great River National Wildlife Refuges.
V. Determination of Effects: Threatened or endangered species occurring or possibly occurring within the Refuge lands will not be negatively impacted, and will generally benefit under HMP implementation. Dead trees and snags removed as safety hazards will first be checked for bat (and bird) occupancy before removal. Should signs indicate bats are or were present, we will contact our Rock Island Field Office for further consultation. Decurrent false aster will be looked for prior to work being conducted in its potential habitat. The refuge will avoid impacting decurrent false aster if found, and will work to improve its status on the Refuge.
VI. Determination of Effects (continued): (B) Determination: Determine the anticipated effects of the proposed project on species and critical habitats listed in item III. Check all applicable boxes and list the species associated with each determination. Response requested
“No Effect” This determination is appropriate when the proposed project will not _____ Concurrence directly or indirectly affect (neither negatively nor beneficially) individuals of (optional) listed/proposed/candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat of such species. List species applicable to this determination (or attach a list):
“May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely Affect species/critical habitat” __x___ Concurrence This determination is appropriate when the proposed project is not likely to adversely impact individuals of listed species or designated critical habitat of such species. List species applicable to this determination (or attach a list):
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 132
Appendix D
Reviewing Ecological Services Office Evaluation (check all that apply):
A. Concurrence _____ Nonconcurrence _____ Explanation for nonconcurrence:
B. Formal consultation required _____ List species or critical habitat unit
C. Conference required _____ List species or critical habitat unit
D. Informal conference required _____ List species or critical habitat unit
10/13/11
Signature [Reviewing ES Office Supervisor] Date
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 134
Appendix D
Name of Reviewing ES Office
S:\R3DOCS\NEPA\Forms\Sect77-02.wpd\4 June 2012 JSzymanski\19 June 2002
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 135
Appendix D
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Habitat Management Plan
Great River and Clarence Cannon
National Wildlife Refuges
Pike County, Missouri Pike County, Illinois Adams County, Illinois Clark County, Missouri
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
August 2011
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 136
Appendix D
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Purpose and Need ...... 138 1.1 Purpose ...... 138 1.2 Need ...... 139 1.3 Decisions that Need to be Made...... 139 1.4 Background ...... 140
2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ...... 140 2.1 Alternatives not Considered for Detailed Analysis...... 140 2.2 Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis ...... 140 2.2.1 Alternative A (Proposed Action) ...... 140 2.2.2 Alternative B (No Action) ...... 140 2.3 Summary of Alternative Actions Table ...... 141
3. Affected Environment ...... 144 3.1 Physical Characteristics ...... 145 3.2 Biological Environment ...... 145 3.2.1 Habitat/vegetation ...... 145 3.2.2 Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species ...... 146 3.3 Land Use ...... 147 3.4 Cultural/Paleontological Resources ...... 147 3.5 Local Socio-economic Conditions ...... 147
4. Environmental Consequences ...... 147 4.1 Alternative A (Proposed Action)...... 148 4.1.1 Listed and Other Species of Interest ...... 148 4.1.2 Habitat Management ...... 148 4.1.3 Sedimentation and Water Quality ...... 149 4.1.4 Floodplain Management ...... 149 4.1.5 Public Use and Education ...... 149 4.1.6 Monitoring ...... 150 4.2 Alternative B (No Action) ...... 150 4.3 Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative (Table) ...... 150
5. List of Preparers of the HMP ...... 152
6. Consultation and Coordination with the Public and Others ...... 152
7. Public Comment on Draft EA/EIS and Response ...... 153
8. References Cited in the EA ...... 153
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 137
Appendix D
1. Purpose and Need
1.1 Purpose The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is proposing to prepare and implement a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the Great River and Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs). The HMP is a step-down plan from the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) completed in 2004 to provide specific guidance for the implementation of habitat management strategies originally intended under the CCP (Habitat Management Practices 620 FW 1).
The Great River and Clarence Cannon NWRs span over 100 miles of the Mississippi River with approximately 15,000 acres of floodplain and riverine wetland habitat in Illinois and Missouri. These refuges were established under certain legal mandates and purposes to provide sanctuary for migratory birds. The specific mandates for these refuges are defined as follows:
Great River NWR was created under mandates from five legislative authorities. The stated purposes for the Great River NWR include: • “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds...”, 16 U.S.C. - 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) • “... shall be administered by [Secretary of the Interior] directly or in accordance with cooperative agreements .... and in accordance with such rules and regulations for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon, ...“, 16 U.S.C. - 664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act) • “... suitable for- (1) incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species ...”, 16 U.S.C. - 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act) • “.... the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions ...”, 16 U.S.C - 3901(b)100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986) • “.... conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans..." 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)
Clarence Cannon NWR was created under the legislative authority of two acts: • “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds...”, 16 U.S.C. - 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) • “... suitable for- (1) incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species ...”, 16 U.S.C. - 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act)
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 138
Appendix D
Specific authority for habitat management planning on units of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is derived from the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Refuge Administration Act) amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). Section 4(a) (3) of the Refuge Improvement Act states, “With respect to the System [NWRS], it is the policy of the United States that – (A) each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission of the System, as well as the specific purposes for which that refuge was established…” The Refuge Improvement Act established the following mission for the NWRS, “To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” This HMP serves to further detail the management goals and objectives on the refuge and support the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
As part of the planning process, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance and public involvement during the development of a HMP is required. Because this HMP merely provides more specificity for management strategies previously described and evaluated in the Environmental Assessment (EA) developed for the CCP, no further NEPA documentation is required, as noted in the Environmental Action Statement (EAS) appended to this plan (Appendix 1).
1.2 Need Meeting the wildlife conservation challenges of the 21st century and fulfilling the NWRS mission and vision requires planning and partnerships. The CCP and the HMP for each refuge are essential to the System’s ability to meet these challenges. The contributions of the refuge to ecosystem and landscape scale wildlife and biodiversity conservation are incorporated in the HMP. The HMP sets a direction for the next 15 years (2012-2027) and is a vital part of the future of Great River and Clarence Cannon NWRs.
The need for this EA is a result of minor changes in the goals and objectives from the 2004 CCP. Essentially the HMP follows the overall plan presented in the CCP, but deviates slightly in the configuration of habitat acreages. In the end, the HMP provides fundamentally the same vision of the CCP while providing specific guidance on managing habitat for the resources of concern on the refuge.
1.3 Decisions that Need to be Made The Service’s Regional Director will select one of the alternatives analyzed in detail and will determine, based on the facts and recommendations contained herein, whether this Environmental Assessment (EA) is adequate to support a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) decision or whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will need to be prepared.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 139
Appendix D
1.4 Background The development of the CCP in 2004 provided a great resource to guide and direct the management of the Great River and Clarence Cannon NWRs. Over the span of seven years many changes have occurred. The CCP continues to be the backbone of the HMP, however with the changes in personnel new and innovative strategies and ideas surfaced which caused the refuge staff to step back and reassess the overall goals and objectives outlined in the CCP. This HMP serves to detail the changes and the thought process in making the changes.
2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
2.1 Alternatives not Considered for Detailed Analysis The discontinuation of management under the current 2004 CCP or the proposed 2011 HMP is an alternative not considered for detailed analysis. Such an action would defy the directives set in the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 and therefore is not an alternative needing further consideration.
2.2 Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis 2.2.1 Alternative A (Proposed Action) The proposed action considered in this EA is the implementation of the 2011 HMP. The HMP is preferred because it furthers the goals and objectives outlined in the CCP by implementing new ideas and strategies which will guide future management of the refuge.
The most notable changes planned for the HMP include the following: Reduce infrastructure at Clarence Cannon NWR by combining managed wetland areas (moist soil units). Explore and potentially construct a new Mississippi river levee and degrade portions of the existing river levee at Clarence Cannon NWR to reconnect bottomland hardwood forest, remnant backwater sloughs, grassland/wet meadow fields and other habitats to the Mississippi river. Change management strategies in the Cattail Marsh unit at the Delair Division of the Great River NWR to historic wet meadow conditions. Restoration of grassland/wet meadow habitats will be non- specific to patch size. Limit agricultural use for habitat management purposes only. Planting crops for the purpose of providing supplemental wildlife food will be eliminated.
Detailed discussion of these changes is provided in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences of this EA.
2.2.2 Alternative B (No Action) The no action alternative proposed for this EA would involve management consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the 2004 CCP. Continuance with the current CCP would limit management’s ability to further restore the functions of these refuge lands to conditions that existed prior to human disturbance.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 140
Appendix D
2.3 Summary of Alternative Actions Table Alternative A – Implementation of the HMP Alternative B – No Action / No Change from 2004 CCP* GOAL 1** Objective 1.A Objective 1.A Wetlands and Provide an average of 2,470 acres seasonal, Provide a 6-year average of 1,436 acres Aquatic Habitats 655 acres semi-permanent, and 55 acres of seasonal, 712 acres semi-permanent, and 151 Restore, enhance, permanently flooded wetland vegetation types acres of permanently flooded wetland and manage refuge in refuge wetland impoundments for waterfowl, vegetation types in refuge wetland wetland and shorebirds and other wetland-dependent impoundments for waterfowl, shorebirds and aquatic areas to wildlife species. other wetland-dependent wildlife species. provide quality diverse habitat for Objective 1.B waterfowl, Objective 1.B Protect, enhance, and maintain a 6-year shorebirds, big river Protect, enhance, and maintain an average of average of 62 acres of isolated backwaters fish, and other 62 acres of isolated backwaters and and ephemeral wetlands, providing seasonal wetland-dependent ephemeral wetlands, providing seasonal and and semi-permanently flooded wetland species. semi-permanently flooded wetland vegetation vegetation types in unleveed areas of the types in unleveed areas of the refuge with little Refuge with little water level control for the water level control for the benefit of migratory benefit of migratory birds and other wetland - birds and other wetland-dependent species. dependent species.
Objective 1.C Objective 1.C Protect, enhance, and maintain 2,093 acres of Protect, enhance, and maintain 2,090 acres of contiguous backwater and side channel contiguous backwater and side channel habitat in unleveed areas of the refuge for habitat in unleveed areas of the refuge for migratory birds and fish. Increase bathymetric migratory birds and fish. Increase bathymetric diversity and wetland plant growth in these diversity and wetland plant growth in these areas as feasible by 2015 where little or no areas as feasible by 2015 where little or no local water level control exists. local water level control exists.
GOAL 2 Objective 2.A Objective 2.A Forest Habitat Conserve and enhance floodplain forest block Conserve and enhance floodplain forest block Conserve and size and spatial distribution along the river size and spatial distribution along the river enhance floodplain corridor through management of existing corridor through management of existing 8,646 forest to meet the 8,651 acres and restoration of an additional acres and restoration of an additional 641 needs of migrating 676 acres, including 35 additional acres in the acres by 2011 for the benefit of nesting and nesting Cattail Marsh unit of Delair Division by end of neotropical birds, feeding and resting birds neotropical birds the lifetime of the HMP for the benefit of during migration, and other forest-dependent and other forest- nesting neotropical birds, feeding and resting wildlife. dependent wildlife. birds during migration, and other forest- dependent wildlife.
Objective 2.B Objective 2.B Conserve and enhance structural (age and Conserve and enhance structural (age and species) diversity on 1,680 acres of existing species) diversity on 1,680 acres of refuge refuge floodplain forests and the re-forestation floodplain forests by 2015 for the benefit of of 1,173 acres by end of the lifetime of the neotropical migrants, raptors, bats, and cavity HMP for the benefit of neotropical migrants, nesting birds. raptors, bats, and cavity nesting birds. This estimate includes an additional 283 acres at Clarence Cannon comprised of an area connecting GTR 7 unit to GTR 9 unit and reforesting several abandoned agricultural fields in unmanaged portions of the refuge.
GOAL 3 – Other Objective 3.A Objective 3.A Terrestrial Habitats Provide areas native grassland/wet meadow Provide three large areas (>150 acres) of Protect, enhance, complexes on refuge divisions to benefit contiguous native grassland/wet meadow and restore other migrating as well as declining nesting complexes on refuge divisions by 2010 to terrestrial habitats to populations of grassland birds. benefit migrating as well as declining nesting
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 141
Appendix D
benefit grassland populations of grassland birds. birds, waterfowl, and neotropical Objective 3.B Objective 3.B migrants. Maintain 259 acres of smaller patches of Maintain 259 acres of smaller patches of grassland habitat where established for levee grassland habitat where established for levee maintenance, cultural resource protection, or maintenance, cultural resource protection, or environmental education using techniques environmental education using techniques such as mowing, prescribed burning, and/or such as mowing, prescribed burning, and/or spraying of undesirable vegetation as needed spraying of undesirable vegetation as needed (typically on a 3- to 5-year cycle). (typically on a 3- to 5-year cycle).
Objective 3.C Objective 3.C Provide an average of 685 acres of smaller Provide a 6-year average of 212 acres of wet meadow areas for marsh and grassland smaller wet meadow areas for marsh and birds and spring foraging waterfowl using a grassland birds and spring foraging waterfowl combination of water level manipulation, using a combination of water level mowing, disking, and burning. Water level manipulation, mowing, disking, and burning. manipulations may occur annually; other Water level manipulations may occur annually; techniques are typically necessary on a 3- to other techniques are typically necessary on a 5-year cycle. Most sites border existing 3- to 5-year cycle. Most sites border existing wetland or grassland units. wetland or grassland units.
Objective 3.D Objective 3.D Provide an average of 299 acres of Provide a 6-year average of 299 acres of shrub/scrub habitat for waterfowl broods and scrub/shrub habitat for waterfowl broods and neotropical migrants through a combination of neotropical migrants through a combination of water level manipulation, mowing, disking, and water level manipulation, mowing, disking, and burning. Water level manipulation may occur burning. Water level manipulation may occur annually; other techniques typically are annually; other techniques typically are necessary on a 3- to 5-year cycle. Most necessary on a 3- to 5-year cycle. Most shrub/scrub sites occur naturally at the scrub/shrub sites occur naturally at the interface between wetland and forest, but may interface between wetland and forest, but may need management action to hold back need management action to hold back succession. succession.
Objective 3.E Objective 3.E This objective was removed from the Plant seed and browse crops to provide a management objectives in the HMP and dependable supplement to natural food combined with Objective 3.F. sources for waterfowl, and to provide needed open-space resting areas. The amount and spacing of this refuge resource along the river corridor is based on historic concentration areas (bird use days) while considering surrounding conditions off-refuge including hunting pressures that may reduce utilization of habitats outside refuge sanctuary units. Approximately 1,000 acres will be planted annually Complex-wide.
Objective 3.F Objective 3.F Utilize agriculture as a management tool, as Utilize agriculture as a management tool, as necessary, to maintain high-quality wildlife necessary, to maintain high quality wildlife habitat in refuge wetlands by periodically habitat in refuge wetlands by periodically setting back succession or invasion of setting back succession or invasion of undesirable species. Up to 850 acres will be undesirable species. Approximately 320 acres planted annually. will be planted annually. Where practical, manage this temporary land cover type in a manner that provides supplemental food value as a secondary benefit. Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 142
Appendix D
Objective 3.G Objective 3.G Use farming techniques to maintain 675 acres Use farming techniques to maintain 675 acres of open fields until they can be converted to of open fields until they can be converted to another planned habitat type, such as on another planned habitat type, such as on newly acquired lands. Conversion will occur by newly acquired lands. Conversion will occur by 2012. (Farming was discontinued in 2010. 2012. Area is undergoing re-forestation) GOAL 4 – Objective 4.A Objective 4.A Sedimentation and No change in the refuge specific objectives Continue current and develop new Water Quality outlined in the CCP. partnerships with government agencies and Identify and reduce private landowners to reduce the effects of the impacts of erosion and contaminant runoff affecting fish sedimentation and and wildlife resources in the Upper Mississippi other water quality River watershed. factors, such as contaminants, on fish and wildlife Objective 4.B Objective 4.B resources. Reduce sedimentation and improve overall Reduce sedimentation and improve overall water quality on NWRS lands for the benefit of water quality on Refuge System lands by 2010 fish and wildlife populations. for the benefit of fish and wildlife populations. GOAL 5 – No change in the refuge specific objectives Objective 5.A Floodplain outlined in the CCP. Conduct activities and promote partnerships Management and interagency coordination that encourage a Enhance floodplain balanced floodplain management program functions and, where throughout the AEC. practicable, mimic historical water level fluctuations in the Objective 5.B river corridor. Manage refuge lands for wildlife first, while considering UMR floodplain functions and contributing to improving those values. GOAL 6 – Public No change in the refuge specific objectives Objective 6.A Use and Education outlined in the CCP. Enhance visitor experiences involving wildlife Provide wildlife- observation and photography. This will be dependent accomplished in part by constructing recreation observation platforms, trails, and auto tour opportunities where routes where appropriate. All facilities will be appropriate, and ADA-compliant and where necessary, “flood improve the quality friendly”. Two platforms will be constructed by and safety of the 2005 and two trails by 2008. recreational experience. Objective 6.B Enhance Enhance the education and interpretive environmental program on Complex refuges by providing education and visitors key river resource messages through interpretive efforts contact stations, kiosks, interpretive panels, consistent with the educational programs and special events. The vision statement in visitors experience will focus on the messages this document by of: changes in the floodplain, wildlife developing and management choices in this changed setting, improving refuge and the public's opportunity to be involved in programs and river issues and the Refuge Complex facilities based on or responses. allied with the issues in this document, Objective 6.C and partnering with Enhance outreach through off-refuge activities others to increase by conducting education and interpretive awareness of Great programs for schools, youth, civic and River NWR and conservation groups to increase Clarence Cannon understanding and appreciation of wildlife and NWR, the wildlife habitat on the river corridor. Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 143
Appendix D
Mississippi River, and the National Objective 6.D Wildlife Refuge Increase fishing opportunity by improving System. access at five Divisions by 2010.
Objective 6.E Improve the quality, as measured through visitor satisfaction surveys, and safety of the hunting program and increase opportunity, where appropriate, in accordance with sound biological management objectives by 2008.
Objective 6.F Increase protection of refuge visitors, natural resources, and facilities through enhanced law enforcement, boundary marking, and sign programs. Refuge facility vandalism and habitat damage will be reduced by 75 percent by 2010. GOAL 7 – No change in the refuge specific objectives Objective 7.A Monitoring outlined in the CCP. Monitor habitat communities within the Refuge Develop and Complex to evaluate the effects of current implement a wildlife, management actions and gather data to habitat, and public improve future management practices. use monitoring program, integrated Objective 7.B with interagency Monitor wildlife use of refuge to verify a efforts along the response to habitat management efforts, and river corridor, to to contribute to systematic scale evaluations evaluate the on the Mississippi River with our partners. effectiveness of refuge management Objective 7.C programs and to Monitor public use and environmental provide information education programs to ensure compatibility for adaptive with wildlife purposes, visitor management satisfaction/safety and outreach effectiveness. strategies. Objective 7.D Work with partners to monitor systemic fish, wildlife, and habitat resources of the UMR floodplain and gather data to assist with resource management decision-making.
Objective 7.E Develop and implement an effective record- keeping and data analysis system, compatible with HNA, to facilitate adaptive management decision-making. *CCP objective acreages are changed to reflect only Great River and Clarence Cannon NWRs numbers. All other former Mark Twain Complex refuge acreages are excluded. **Acreages could change with the completion of the existing Fox Island Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Project (HREP) and the proposed Clarence Cannon HREP, providing it were to be approved by the Army Corps of Engineers.
3. Affected Environment This chapter provides a brief overview of the existing physical and social environment of Great River and Clarence Cannon NWRs. Greater detail of the effected environment can be found in Chapter 2 of the HMP and Chapter 3 of the Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 144
Appendix D
3.1 Physical Characteristics The Headquarters for Great River and Clarence Cannon NWRs is located at Clarence Cannon NWR near the small town of Annada, Missouri, 40 miles north of St. Louis. Great River National Wildlife Refuge consists of three divisions, Delair Division, Long Island Division, and Fox Island Division, totaling 10,547 acres. Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuge consists of 3,750 acres.
3.2 Biological Environment 3.2.1 Habitat/vegetation The Refuges span 100 miles of the Mississippi River and supports a great diversity of riverine and floodplain habitat. This habitat includes backwater sloughs, islands, open water pools, moist-soil units, bottomland forests and semi-permanent marshes. Details of the habitats available on the individual divisions of Great River and Clarence Cannon NWRs are as follows:
Great River National Wildlife Refuge – Delair Division (1,737 acres) The Delair Division is located approximately 15 miles north of the Clarence Cannon NWR in Pool 24. This division is located in Pike County, IL though the closest town is Louisiana, MO. It lies completely within the 52 mile long Sny Agricultural Levee District and is separated from the river by the mainline Sny Levee.
When originally acquired the area was almost entirely cropland. Currently 400 acres annually remain in a cooperative farming program to maintain early succession on units until restoration of native habitats can occur.
The remaining 1,275 acres are being managed as marshes, lakes, forests and grasslands. Semi-permanent and permanent water bodies make up 480 acres of Delair Division providing feeding and resting areas for waterfowl and many other wetland bird species. Water level management, mowing, and disking are used to create diverse vegetative habitat within the wetland units. Some loss of bottomland timber has occurred due to the saturation of the soils from flooding, though timber within Delair Division was not as extensively damaged as other divisions.
Great River National Wildlife Refuge – Long Island Division (6,700 acres) Long Island Division was established in 1958 as one of the original Mark Twain NWR units. This division is located six miles north of Quincy, IL in Pool 21. This 6,700 acre division is comprised of a complex of islands and floodplain. Major islands include Barnes, Shandrew, Flannigan, Long and LaGrange. Wildlife habitat consists of 4,700+ acres of bottomland forest with lakes, sloughs, open channels, former agricultural fields and ponds making up the remaining acreage. While extensive tree mortality occurred as a result of the flood of 1993, this tract of mature bottomland forest is still the largest contiguous acreage of its type on the river between Rock Island and Cairo, IL. The size and diversity of trees makes this area unique along this portion of the upper Mississippi River.
The last 160 acres of cropland remaining on this division are being converted to forest following a reduction in the agricultural program over the past decade. The agricultural fields in the Bear Creek unit (124 acres) were abandoned following the 1993 flood and are in the process of naturally regenerating back to a floodplain forest.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 145
Appendix D
Sedimentation in chutes and channels has greatly reduced depths and limited boat travel. Much of the sedimentation is due to flow manipulation and closing structures needed for navigation. The quality of fishing within the complex has greatly declined due to sedimentation. A restoration project has enhanced deeper waters for fish habitat by partially dredging, then closing off one side chute to reduce sedimentation.
Great River National Wildlife Refuge – Fox Island Division (2,110 acres) The northernmost division of Great River NWR is the Fox Island Division located near Alexandria, MO in Clark County. It is comprised of approximately 2,110 acres. The Fox River, which runs through southeastern Iowa and northeastern Missouri, bisects the division and empties into the Mississippi River at the southern tip of the division. The Fox Island Division is prone to flooding from both the Mississippi and Fox Rivers. This unit is currently under development of the Fox Island Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Program (HREP) and includes planting mast-producing hardwoods on 215 acres using container grown stock and 60 acres direct seeding. These tree plantings will take place within many of the former agricultural fields to reduce forest fragmentation. Other developments include enhancing wetlands in and around Logsdon Slough, Coin Pond, Slim Slough, and Old Lake by installation of two groundwater wells, improving channels and installing new water control structures.
Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuge (3,750 acres) Clarence Cannon NWR is the most southern of the Refuge lands. Located in Pool 25, the refuge lies one mile east of Annada, MO in Pike County and was established in 1964 as a stopover for migrating birds. Over 2,000 acres are managed for wetland plant production. Currently 400 – 600 acres are annually rotated within the cooperative farming program. This is used as a tool to set back succession in the wetland management units (moist-soil units) to maintain diversity. In addition 450 acres of bottomland hardwood forest are still present at the Refuge, though in reduced area as 80% of the pin oaks and hickories died in the 1993 flood. Some natural regeneration is occurring.
Following the 1993 flood an 800-foot spillway was cut into the Mississippi River levee on the southeast side of the refuge which allows flood waters to enter the refuge more frequently. The spillway has provided increased connectivity to the river and temporary floodwater storage, which may help reduce downstream flooding on private lands.
3.2.2 Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species A detailed list of the resources of concern can be found in Appendix B of the HMP. It provides a comprehensive list of over 550 species of birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, fish and mussels and their rankings at the local, regional and landscape levels.
The following table provides a list of focal species identified for the refuge. These species are representative of the habitat characteristics required for other species. Monitoring for a focal species indirectly provides information on the quality or status of the habitat for those other species. The species’ listed were derived from reviewing the previously mentioned regional plans and ranking the highest rated (top 30) species of conservation concern. Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 146
Appendix D
Focal Species Wood Duck Least Tern Bald Eagle Paddlefish Red-shouldered Hawk Pallid Sturgeon Cerulean Warbler Higgin's Eye Yellow-billed Cuckoo Black Sandshell Grasshopper Sparrow Sheepnose Mallard Round Pigtoe American Bittern Monkeyface Pectoral Sandpiper Salamander Mussel Blue-winged Teal Pistolgrip Canvasback Rock Pocketbook Lesser Scaup Fat Pocketbook
3.3 Land Use No change in the land use is proposed. The area will continue to be managed as a refuge for migratory and breeding birds. Existing regulations will apply allowing the public the ability to partake in hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, photography, environmental education and interpretation activities.
3.4 Cultural/Paleontological Resources The proposed new Mississippi river levee construction at the Clarence Cannon NWR will be the only project to directly impact known cultural resources on the refuge. This activity would involve the placement of a roughly 15 foot tall levee with an approximate 100 foot base for an estimated distance of 2.3 miles. The impacts to the cultural resources will be positive as the earthen material for the levee will be gathered from areas without cultural resources and the placement of the large levee will provide greater protection of these resources from flood events.
3.5 Local Socio-economic Conditions No change in the local socio-economic conditions outlined in the EA for the 2004 CCP is expected, therefore no further discussion on the matter is provided.
4. Environmental Consequences This section analyzes and discusses the potential impacts of the two alternatives carried forward for further discussion in Section II.
The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act firmly established that wildlife conservation takes priority on National Wildlife Refuges. It established a framework for ensuring refuge uses are compatible with the mission of “conservation, management, and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats”. The Ecological Integrity Provision of the Act further requires refuges to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of the System are maintained”. Subsequent Integrity Policy established that, in accordance with Refuge Purpose, the highest measure of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health can be achieved through restoration and management of historic landscape cover. The legislated purposes of establishing Great River and Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges directs the Service to: “conserve, enhance, and restore the native aquatic and terrestrial community characteristics of the Mississippi River floodplain, and to conserve, enhance, and restore habitat to maintain and assist in the recovery of animals and plants
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 147
Appendix D
that are listed as threatened or endangered species. Only the Preferred Alterative (Proposed Action to adopt HMP) comprehensively treats mandates included in the legislative establishment of the refuge and the NWRS Improvement Act that management for wildlife comes first.
4.1 Alternative A (Proposed Action) 4.1.1 Listed and Other Species of Interest No change in listed species presence or habitat availability outlined in the EA for the 2004 CCP is expected. Diversity of habitats provided from change may benefit more species of concern without reducing habitats available for currently provided for species of concern, therefore no further discussion on the matter is provided.
4.1.2 Habitat Management Reduce Infrastructure – Combine Moist Soil Units Reduce fragmentation of wetland habitats throughout refuge lands by removing non-essential infrastructure consisting of, but not limited to, berms separating individual management units and drainage ditches previously installed for purposes of post-agriculture wetland management. Removing berms will restore/enhance wet meadows, temporary wetlands, seasonal wetlands, and semi-permanent wetlands, as well as, grasslands, bottomland forests, and woodlands. See HMP for further details.
Construct New Mississippi River Levee In Clarence Cannon NWR, construct new Mississippi River setback levee, located west of existing levee, and degrade southeast corner and/or other selected portions of existing river levee. This will allow for eastern portion of refuge lands (800-1000 acres) to be directly influenced by Mississippi River replicating function which occurred naturally prior to construction of the levee. Within portions of the refuge re-exposed to the River, natural scours and sloughs, which have been filled and/or disconnected from the River, will be enhanced and reconnected to the natural water regime. The remainder of area will be restored to bottomland woodlands and forests interspersed with a mosaic of wet- mesic bottomland and prairie grasslands, reducing fragmentation created when land was cleared for agriculture. Lowering the grade at portions of the existing levee’s southeast corner and/or other areas will allow for a more consistent connection with the River during a wider range of flood events. The length of time during which receding high water levels form isolated pools behind the levee will be reduced, resulting in less stagnant water and higher oxygen levels. This will reduce tree mortality within hardwoods along the river and is a necessary management action to reduce floodplain forest fragmentation. See HMP for further details.
Change in management of Cattail Marsh Currently, there is a water control structure separating Cattail Marsh and the Swan Lakes that when boarded, impounds the seep water throughout Cattail Marsh and encourages management of the unit as a moist-soil impoundment. The natural elevation of this area would not have allowed this type of habitat to occur naturally. Historically, the slough area of Cattail Marsh was connected to the Swan Lakes and directly influenced by backwaters of the river. The surrounding areas consisted of mosaic of habitats interspersed around a dominant emergent seep marsh. By allowing the slough area in Cattail Marsh to re- connect with the Swan Lake system, the water regime will mimic this Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 148
Appendix D
historic hydrology. In addition, placement of water control structures within the drainage ditches south and west of the Cattail Marsh slough area will allow for conversion of the unit from moist-soil management, to a saturated palustrine emergent wetland (or riverine wetland), with a mosaic of other habitats in between seeps. See HMP for further details.
Two large grassland patches (>150 acres) Neither refuge is able to support the development of a large (>150 acres) block of contiguous native grassland/wet meadow complex. Future management will attempt to restore/maintain grassland/wet meadow habitat in the transition zone from seasonal wetlands to uplands. The juxtaposition of the habitats will be a mosaic dependent of naturalizing refuge water control rather than large continual tracts. Moist soil plants in seasonal wetlands can act as a surrogate for grassland/wet meadow complex habitats dependent upon water levels creating large patches. See HMP for further details.
Agricultural food plots Agriculture extensively covers the landscape surrounding the refuge and these lands sufficiently offer a supplemental food source for wildlife. The refuge strives to offer habitats that are limited in the surrounding landscapes within the context of pre-settlement land cover; therefore, agricultural fields are no longer managed primarily for supplemental food. Refuge management utilizes farming practices to manage 550 to 850 acres per year. The primary goal of farming activities are to directly control invasive or nuisance species or maintain a unit in an early stage of succession until refuge resources are available for more focused work such as restoration. See HMP for further details.
4.1.3 Sedimentation and Water Quality Sedimentation and water quality will not be negatively affected by implementation of the HMP. Water quality can only improve through reducing the habitat management discussed in section 4.1.2. Change in management for management unit size, Cattail Marsh, and grassland/wet meadow complexes is not expected to change sedimentation or water quality from the 2004 CCP. Implementation of the set-back levee is proposed to backfill; therefore, is not expected to change sedimentation rates into the refuge and is expected to improve overall water quality of the area of concern. Reducing agriculture will provide less runoff and soil loss from the 2004 CCP.
4.1.4 Floodplain Management Deviation from 2004 CCP in the HMP will more closely replicate historic floodplain processes. Hydrologic influences that are not comprehensively treated in 2004 CCP will create a mosaic of habitats that cannot occur without larger management units, directly influenced river level fluctuations through re-exposure, replication of historic water regimes and flow through proper water management, and providing a diversity of natural vegetation and food sources.
4.1.5 Public Use and Education No change in the public use and education outlined in the EA for the 2004 CCP is expected, therefore no further discussion on the matter is provided.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 149
Appendix D
4.1.6 Monitoring Monitoring will not deviate from 2004 CCP. Development of a step-down plan with specific protocols and locations, as planned in 2004 CCP, is currently being developed to monitor and assess management efforts described in the HMP.
4.2 Alternative B (No Action) Since the no action alternative maintains management consistent with the goals and objectives of the 2004 CCP, detailed information on the Environmental Consequences can be viewed in Section 4.2 of the EA (page 366-370, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment).
4.3 Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative (Table) Complex Alternative A – Implementation of Alternative B – No Action / No Environmental the HMP Change from 2004 CCP* Issues 1. Listed Species and Other Species of Interest Preservation/perpetuat Provides the same benefits as defined Fish benefit from increased ion of threatened and in the CCP. connectivity endangered species with river; expanded boundaries and other species protect and restore greatest amount of interest to the of habitat, benefitting Service. listed species and species of interest 2. Habitat: Wetland and Aquatic Restoration of Provides the same benefits as defined Increase of vegetation in managed connected backwaters in the CCP. wetlands due to ability to mimic and side channels. natural hydrologic cycle more closely. Enhancement of Increase in high quality side channels managed wetlands. and connected backwaters due to land acquisition and restoration possibilities. Enhance Fishery Provides the same benefits as defined Increase due to increased wetland resources in the CCP. diversity, river connectivity, water control capability, and more habitat due to boundary expansion Assure availability of Provides the same benefits as defined Increased migratory bird habitat habitat for migratory in the CCP. availability birds while providing and habitat and species abundance for overall healthy due to more natural hydrologic cycle wildlife populations, permitting achieving habitat and reestablishment of the natural species abundance diversity of habitats combined with increased habitat available due to boundary expansion Trapping: occasionally No change No Change used as a management tool under permit or by refuge staff 3. Habitat: Forest Forest management Provides the same benefits as defined Increased species diversity and age Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 150
Appendix D
and restoration in the CCP. structure Assure availability of Provides the same benefits as defined Notable Increase in forested habitat for migratory in the CCP. migratory birds, providing for bird habitat due to improved ability to healthy wildlife achieve reforestation with a diverse populations, achieving tree species and age structure and habitat and species due to expanded are available for abundance restoration 4. Habitat: Other Terrestrial Habitats Management of Provides the same benefits as defined Reduced cropland on existing and agricultural in the CCP. newly acquired lands; some acreage Lands will be maintained to set back succession in managed wetlands, to provide supplemental waterfowl food and in preparation for conversion to other habitat types Manage grasslands Provides the same benefits as defined Increased grasslands as prairies in the CCP. restored on higher elevations and select areas of wet meadow restored 5. Sedimentation and Water Quality Reduce siltation and Provides the same benefits as defined Increased sediment accumulation on sedimentation and in the CCP. areas newly opened to the river; Improve water quality areas with greater protection would receive less sediment; working with partners in the watershed could reduce sediments and pollution slightly; slight increase in overall floodplain water quality and nutrient settling and recycling capabilities due to refuge lands being more connected to the river 6. Floodplain Management Water level Provides the same benefits as defined Increased floodplain connectivity but management in the CCP. less control of water levels on some managed areas; slight reduction in downstream flooding; preservation of floodplain functions in some expansion areas 7. Public Use & Education Recreational Provides the same benefits as defined Increase. Additional access for opportunities (other in the CCP. consumptive than hunting and & non-consumptive uses on new fishing?) or (non- lands, trails and facilities. consumptive?) Wildlife disturbance Provides the same benefits as defined Slight increase. New lands, trails and from recreational in the CCP. facilities will increase visitation and users stretch law enforcement resources. Hunting and fishing, Provides the same benefits as defined Increase for all activities. Up to opportunities in the CCP. 27,659 acres added to the Complex and increased diversity of habitats. Balances between Provides the same benefits as defined Improved. More riparian acres within competing uses and in the CCP. the refuge would ease some users of the river congestion of uses.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 151
Appendix D
8. Monitoring Refuge ability to Improved with the presence of a Improved (only if staffing and funding monitor fish, wildlife Wildlife Biologist at the station. are increased). Baseline evaluations and habitat quality. will be required for new lands. * Information was taken directly from the EA in the 2004 CCP
5. List of Preparers of the HMP Great River and Clarence Cannon NWRs contributors: Jason Wilson, Refuge Manager Mick Hanan, Wildlife Biologist Candace Chambers, Wildlife Refuge Specialist
Two Rivers NWR contributors: Brian Loges, Inventory and Monitoring Zone Biologist Ken Dalrymple, Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3 contributors Patricia Heglund, Chief, Division of Biological Resources and Regional Refuge Biologist
JF New contributors: Mark Pranckus, Ecological Resource Specialist Dan Salas, Ecologist Tony Troche, Ecological Resource Specialist Josh Brown, Ecological Resource Specialist
6. Consultation and Coordination with the Public and Others Federal Agencies U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis and Rock Island Districts
State Agencies Missouri Department of Conservation
Public Libraries Elsberry Public Library, 502 Broadway, Elsberry, MO 63343 Louisiana Public Library, 121 N. Third St., Louisiana, MO 63353 Bowling Green Public Library, 201 W. Locust St., Bowling Green, MO 63334 Pittsfield Public Library, 205 N. Memorial St., Pittsfield, IL 62363 Hannibal Public Library, 200 S. Fifth St., Hannibal, MO 63401 Quincy Public Library, 526 Jersey St., Quincy, IL 62301 LaGrange Public Library, 114 N. Main St., LaGrange, MO 63448 Canton Public Library, 403 Lewis St., Canton, MO 63435 Keokuk Public Library, 210 N. Fifth St., Keokuk, IA 52632
Post Offices Elsberry Post Office, 110 N. Third St., Elsberry, MO 63343 Clarksville Post Office, 309 S. First St., Clarksville, MO 63336 Louisiana Post Office, 522 Georgia St., Louisiana, MO 63353 Bowling Green Post Office, 17 W. Church St., Bowling Green, MO 63334 Pittsfield Post Office, 129 S. Madison St., Pittsfield, IL 62363 Hannibal Post Office, 801 Broadway, Hannibal, MO 63401 Quincy Post Office, 200 N. Eighth St., STE 1, Quincy, IL 62301 Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 152
Appendix D
Ursa Post Office, 107 N. Warsaw St., Ursa, IL 62376 LaGrange Post Office, 202 N. Main St., LaGrange, MO 63448 Canton Post Office, 500 Lewis St., Canton, MO 63435 Alexandria Post Office, 303 Market St., Alexandria, MO 63430 Keokuk Post Office, 214 S. Second St., Keokuk, IA 52632
Individuals Leigh Fredrickson Mickey Heitmeyer
7. Public Comment on Draft EA/EIS and Response No public comment was received.
8. References Cited in the EA U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Great River and Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges, Habitat Conservation Plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge, Habitat Management Plan.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 153
Appendix E
Appendix E.
Desired Natural Communities
Maps delineating (delineated by refuge staff using available spatial data layers and hands-on knowledge) desired natural communities, according to habitat types in table 3.1 or table 2.1. Maps should be used as a tool to guide management and monitoring purposes. These delineations should be re-evaluated within the lifetime of this document and may change as more information becomes available about a particular area or as management objectives are attained to move into the next phase of management. These delineations can be refined over time as more information is gathered through habitat monitoring and improved spatial data layers to assist with categorization of the area.
Communities are based on those depicted in table 2-1. Communities described are developed from Terrestrial Natural Communities of Missouri (Nelson 2005). Forest communities were difficult to determine where one community stopped and the next began at the scale of these maps; therefore, the broader habitat type floodplain forest is used to describe tree communities for the purpose of these maps. It is important to recognize that the smaller forest habitat types occur as a mosaic within this broad habitat type – floodplain forest. In some cases wet bottomland prairie and wet-mesic bottomland prairie were also difficult to differentiate between and in this case Wet/Wet-mesic bottomland prairie was used to delineate the area. In these maps scrub/shrub (upland) and shrub swamp (wetland) were used to differentiate between upland and wetland scrub/shrub. Developed areas were added to show parking lots, roads, and buildings.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 154
Appendix E
Clarence Cannon NWR Desired Natural Communities ®
Legend
Developed Floodplain Forest Large Riverine Marsh Riverine Marsh Riverine/MSU Scrub/Shrub Shrub Swamp Wet Bottomland Prairie Wet-Mesic Bottomland Prairie 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 155
Appendix E
Great River NWR Delair Division Desired Natural Communities
® Legend
Developed Floodplain Forest Large Riverine Marsh Riverine Marsh Riverine/MSU Scrub/Shrub Shrub Swamp Wet/Wet Mesic Bottomland Prairie
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 Miles
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 156
Appendix E
Great River NWR Long Island Division Desired Natural Communities
Legend
Developed Floodplain Forest Large Riverine Marsh Riverine Marsh Riverine/MSU Scrub/Shrub Shrub Swamp Wet Bottomland Prairie Wet-Mesic Bottomland Prairie
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 Miles ®
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 157
Appendix E
Great River NWR Fox Island Division Desired Natural Communities
Legend
Developed Floodplain Forest Large Riverine Marsh Riverine Marsh Riverine/MSU Scrub/Shrub Shrub Swamp Wet Bottomland Prairie Wet-Mesic Bottomland Prairie
0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 Miles ®
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 158
Appendix F
Appendix F.
Desired Water Regimes
Maps delineating (delineated by refuge staff using available spatial data layers and hands-on knowledge) desired water regimes necessary to strive to achieve Goal 1 and other management at the refuge. Maps should be used as a tool to guide management and monitoring purposes. These delineations should be re-evaluated within the lifetime of this document and may change as more information becomes available about a particular area or as management objectives are attained to move into the next phase of management. These delineations can be refined over time as more information is gathered through habitat monitoring and improved spatial data layers to assist with categorization of the area.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 159
Appendix F
Clarence Cannon NWR Desired Water Regimes ®
Legend
NA Permanent Semi Perm Seas/Temp Wet Meadow 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 160
Appendix F
Great River NWR Delair Division Desired Water Regimes
®
Legend
NA Permanent Semi Perm Seas/Temp Wet Meadow
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 Miles
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 161
Appendix F
Great River NWR Long Island Division Desired Water Regimes
Legend
NA Permanent Semi Perm Seas/Temp Wet Meadow
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 Miles ®
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 162
Appendix F
Great River NWR Fox Island Division Desired Water Regimes
Legend
NA Permanent Semi Perm Seas/Temp Wet Meadow
0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 Miles ®
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 163
Appendix G
Appendix G.
Cultural Resource Management
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 164
Appendix G
Cultural Resource Management
Cultural resources (archaeological sites, historic structures, and Native American traditional cultural properties) are important parts of the nation’s heritage. The Service strives to preserve evidence of these human occupations which can provide valuable information regarding not only human interactions with each other, but also with the natural environment. Protection of cultural resources is accomplished in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources.
The Service is charged with the responsibility, under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), of identifying historic properties (cultural resources that are potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places) that may be affected by our actions. The Service is also required to coordinate these actions with the State Historic Preservation Office, Native American tribal governments, local governments, and other interested parties. Cultural resource management in the Service is the responsibility of the regional director and is not delegated for the Section 106 process when historic properties could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing archaeological permits, and for Indian tribal involvement.
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) Section 14 requires plans to survey lands and a schedule for surveying lands with “the most scientifically valuable archaeological resources.” This Act also affords protection to all archeological and historic sites more than 100 years old (not just sites meeting the criteria for the National Register) on Federal land, and requires archeological investigations on Federal land be performed in the public interest by qualified persons.
The Regional Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) advises the regional director about procedures, compliance, and implementation of these and other cultural resource laws. The actual determinations relating to cultural resources are to be made by the RHPO for undertakings on Service fee title lands and for undertakings funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of the Service, including those carried out by or on behalf of the Service; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit, license, or approval.
The responsibility of the refuge manager is to identify undertakings that could affect cultural resources and coordinate the subsequent review process as early as possible with the RHPO and state, Tribal, and local officials. Also, the refuge manager assists the RHPO by protecting archeological sites and historic properties on Service managed and administered lands, by monitoring archaeological investigations by contractors and permittees, and by reporting ARPA violations.
Great River & Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan 165