PfJ.~ - FWS

• BIG MUDDY NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE REFUGE

• Columbia, Missouri

• ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT

Fiscal Year 1998

• U.S. Department of the Interior

• Fish and Wildlife Service

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM

• REVIEW AND APPROVALS

• PfJ.~ ¥;$()/f/9 Refllie MaDag Dlte

• ~ ~ 'D\c\t;.

Date

• ~r!I~ z/zLvi Asst. Regional Director Date

• (Refuges & Wildlife)

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Table of Contents

Introduction Highligl;lts

Climate Data

Monitoring and Studies ........................................................................................................ ! 1 a. Surveys and Censuses .......................................................................................... 1 1 b. Studies and Investigations .................................................................................... 2

Habitat Restoration .............................................................................................................. 4 2a. Wetland Restoration .............................................................................................. 4 2b. Upland Restoration ................................................................................................ 4 2c. Deepwater/Riverine Restoration ........................................................................... 5

Habitat Management. ........................................................................................................... 6 3a. Water I..evel Management. ...................................................................................... 6 3b. Moist Soil Management. ...................................................................................... 6 3c. Graze/mowlhay ..................................................................................................... 6 3d. Farming ................................................................................................................ 6 3e. Forest Management. ............................................................................................. 6 3f. Fire Management. ................................................................................................. 6 3g. Pest Plant Control. ................................................................................................ 6

Fish and Wildlife Management ........................................................................................... 7 4a. Bird Banding ........................................................................................................ ? 4b. Disease Monitoring and Treatment.. ...................................................................... 7 4c. Reintroductions ..................................................................................................... 7 4d. Nest Structures ..................................................................................................... ? 4e. Pest, Predator, & Exotic Animal Control.. ............................................................ ?

Coordination activities .......................................................................................................... 8 5a. Interagency Coordination ...................................................................................... 8 5b. Tribal Coordination ............................................................................................... 8 5c. Private Land Activities (excluding restoration) ..................................................... 8 5d. Cooperative/Friends organizations ....................................................................... 9

Resource Protection ............................................................................................................. tO 6a. Law Enforcement ................................................................................................ 1 0 6b. Permits & Economic Use Management.. ............................................................ lO 6c. Contaminant Investigation ................................................................................... 1 0 6d. Contaminant Cleanup .......................................................................................... 11 6e. Water Rights Management. ................................................................................. 11

• 6f. Cultural Resource Management.. .......................................................................... 11 6g. Land Acquisition Support ................................................................................... 11

• Pu.blic Education and Recreation ...................................................................................... 13 7a. Provide Visitor Services ..................................................................................... 13 7b. Outreach ............................................................................................................. 14

• Planning and Administration ............................................................................................. IS Sa. Comprehensive Management Planning .............................................................. IS 8b. General Administration ...................................................................................... IS

• Appendix

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

INTRODUCTION

The Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) was established September 9, 1994, for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of Missouri River fish and wildlife resources. The establishment of the Refuge was contemplated as early as the 1970's, but it wasn't until the Flood of 1993, when emergency Federal funding became available to assist landowners impacted by the flood, that prompted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to move ahead with the proposal to establish the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge.

The Refuge is located along the Missouri River in the state of Missouri. It currently encompasses 7,178 acres on six separate units along a 220 reach of the Missouri River. It is intended to fill a public need to preserve and restore natural river floodplain, manage fish and wildlife habitats, and provide for compatible public use.

The majority of the Refuge is located in the river floodplain, which can vary in width from 2 to 10 miles. Low river benches, terraces, and the remains of former river channels are common. Record flooding in 1993 and 1995 produced dramatic scouring and extensive sand deposits. Other terrain is characterized by steeply sloping hillsides or bluffs that connect higher elevation uplands to the river's floodplain.

Historically, the Missouri River was subject to large seasonal variations in flows. These dynamic conditions resulted in a diversity of riverine and floodplain habitat, including sloughs, chutes, oxbow lakes, sandbars, deep pools, marshes, seasonally-flooded bottomland forests, and wet prairies.

Presently an extensive levee system isolates the river from its floodplain during seasonal flooding events, along with a dike and revetment system that attempts to constrain the river in its main channel. Through the years, as seasonal flooding was reduced, the floodplain forest was reduced from 76 percent of floodplain vegetation early in the 19th century to 13 percent by 1972, a loss of 63 percent. During this same time period, croplands increased from 18 to 83 percent, an increase of 65 percent.

The management goal of newly acquired floodplain lands is to restore habitats that have been lost or degraded as a result of modifications to the river. Key habitat components are floodplain forests, riverine wetlands of various types, and riverine aquatic habitat.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

lUGllllGHTS

• Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge was established on September 9, 1994 .

• A 12:40 minute video titled "Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge" was produced in 1997.

•

•

The Missouri River forms a new chute. Lisbon Chute is a newly formed free-flowing chute or side channel that began developing, on the Lisbon Bottom Unit, after the Missouri River floods of 1993 and 1995. The Lisbon Chute is of interest to several federal and state agencies, as well as the public, because it's the frrst chute to be formed by the river in Missouri for many years .

The Refuge is working with the COB to restore large-river habitat and associated chutes and backwaters in the floodplain adjacent to the main channel at Overton Bottoms .

Pictur~ by J. Stor~y

Forested bottom lands of Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge .

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS- FY98

Since the Refuge extends approximately 220 river miles, two sites were strategically chosen to gather climatological data. The following tables show the climatological data for Marshall, Missouri in Saline County and Freedom, Missouri in Osage County.

Saline County - Marshall, Missouri

Temperature (Degree F) Precipitation (IN)

Month/ Average Average Average Total Departure Year Maximum Minimum From Normal

OCT/97 67.4 46.1 56.8 5.18 +1.61

NOV/97 47.8 32.8 40.3 2.08 -0.60

DEC/97 38.5 27.4 33.0 2.44 +0.58

JAN/98 39.6 25.5 32.6 1.72 +0.36

FEB/98 47.6 33.0 40.3 2.46 +1.18

MAR/98 46.0 31.3 38.7 6.13 +3.17

APR/98 62.7 42.6 52.7 4.51 +0.74

MAY/98 79.7 58.6 69.2 0.97 -3.70

JUN/98 81.9 62.3 72.1 9.87 +5.59

JUU98 85.9 68.1 77.0 4.49 +0.88

AUG/98 86.8 66.2 76.5 3.21 +0.08

SEP/98 82.9 61.5 72.2 6.27 +1.98

49.33 +11.87

The 49.33 inches of precipitation that fell at Marshall in FY98 is 11.87 inches above normal. This is compared to the 34.39 inches that fell in FY97 and 2.86 inches below normal.

Additional climatological data for Marshall includes a low temperature of -1 degrees on March 12, a high temperature of 98 degrees on July 22 and August 18, and a total of 2.3 inches of snowfall.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Osage County - Freedom, Missouri

Temperature (Degree F) Precipitation (IN)

Month/ Average Average Average Total Departure Year Maximum Minimum From Normal

OCT/97 67.3 43.7 55.5 3.08 -0.46

NOV/97 47.2 31.7 39.7 3.40 +0.38

DEC/97 39.4 26.9 33.2 2.00 -0.87

JAN/98 40.7 26.3 33.5 1.45 -0.08

FEB/98 47.6 31.6 39.6 3.33 +1.38

MAR/98 47.4 31.2 39.3 4.74 +1.46

APR/98 62.7 41.7 52.2 2.87 -0.82

MAY/98 77.6 56.6 67.1 2.16 -2.78

JUN/98 81.4 61.9 71.7 10.82 +6.82

JUU98 83.9 67.2 75.6 6.37 +3.28

AUG/98 84.5 64.6 74.6 2.59 -0.64

SEP/98 82.5 60.7 71.6 3.60 -0.28

46.41 +7.39

The 46.41 inches of precipitation that fell at Freedom in FY98 is 7.39 inches above normal. This is compared to 36.37 inches that fell in FY97 and 2.29 inches below normal.

Additional climatological data for Freedom includes a low temperature of -3 degrees on March 12, a high temperature of96 degrees on July 23 and September 6, and a total of 12.0 inches of snowfall.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

1 Monitoring and Studies

1 a. Surveys and Censuses

• The Columbia Fishery Resources Office (CFRO) initiated fishery surveys and monitoring work on Lisbon Chute in 1997. The Lisbon Chute is a newly formed freeflowing chute or side channel that began developing after the floods of 1993 and 1995. Twelve sampling stations were established in the chute and adjacent Missouri River from River Mile 219 to 213. Field surveys were conducted in July, August, and September with seine, benthic trawl, hoopnet, and drifted gill net gears. Depth, velocity, substrate, and some water quality parameters were also measured at sampling stations .

Out of the 91 fish species known to inhabit the lower Missouri River, a total of 1,222 fish comprising 36 species were collected in Lisbon Chute during the 1997 surveys. Federal listing candidate species sicklefin and sturgeon chub were collected as were species of concern, plains minnow and blue sucker. A 28 inch long pallid x shovelnose sturgeon hybrid weighing 2.75 pounds was also collected. Hybrid pallid sturgeon receive the same protection under the endangered species listing as their presumably pure stock relatives. Another relatively rare specimen was a nearly three foot long American eel.

CFRO will continue to monitor and evaluate Missouri River fish species' use and abundance in Lisbon Chute and other created or restored aquatic habitats on Big Muddy NFWR Units. A complete analysis and report on 1997 survey findings is in preparation and should be available by 1998 .

Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

1 b. Studies and Investigations

•

•

•

•

2

The refuge participated in the amphibian monitoring effort on National Wildlife Refuges in Region 3. The purpose of this monitoring effort is to document baseline external abnormality rates of frogs and toads on Service managed lands in Region 3. Refuge personnel assisted the Columbia Environmental Research Center (CERC) in collecting and observing 14 7 Bull frogs, 16 Southern leopard frogs, 15 Fowler's toads, 4 Green frogs, 3 American toads, 2 Gray tree frogs, and 1 Cricket frog. Of the 188 frogs and toads surveyed only two abnormalities were found. A Bull frog had a slightly crooked mouth and a Fowler's toad had a foot missing. The data will be entered into the North American Reporting Center for Amphibian Malformations website, administered by the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota.

"Waterbird Use of a Floodnlain Wetland Comnlex at Lisbon Bottoms Unit of Big Muddy Fish and Wildlife Unit during the Snring Flood 1997"

Ellen Ehrhardt, CERC, studied waterbird use ofthe Lisbon Chute and eleven wetlands on the adjacent floodplain on the Lisbon Bottom Unit of the Refuge, from March 22 through May 11. Her results suggest that the chute, the seasonal wetlands, and the temporary wetlands are of primary importance to migrating waterbirds. The semi-permanent wetlands were important to resident, breeding wood ducks. Ducks, rails/coots, herons, and shorebirds occurred on all the wetland types but geese, terns, and pelicans were only found on the chute. Thus, the chute supported more groups of waterbirds than the wetland complex .

Three other studies are currently underway at the Lisbon Bottoms Unit of the refuge and should provide valuable information and data regarding river and floodplain management .

Study 1. "Waterbird resnonses to hydrologic and invertebrate dynamics of the Lisbon Bottoms Tract of the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, MO"

The objective of this study is to document the phenology of waterbird use of river corridor habitats in relation to hydrologic dynamics and in coordination with assessment of trends of availability of invertebrate biomass in shallow habitats during spring migration .


•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

3

This work begins construction of a model of the biological responses to hydrologic dynamics of floodplain habitats. A model of this type can be used to prioritize habitats for acquisition and protection. It may also provide insight valuable to decisions regarding river level management and tributary diversion or impoundment.

Study 2. "Benthic Invertebrate Responses to Hydrologic and Management Dynamics of the Missouri River: Lisbon Bottoms Tract of the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge"

Specific objectives include: 1) to quantify benthic invertebrate density and species richness in various habitats within the Lisbon Bottoms area; 2) relate benthic invertebrate parameters with hydrologic (frequency, timing, and duration of inundation), physical (resulting current velocity; depth; temperature; light; substrate size; and substrate composition); and biological (organic matter production and retention; predation) factors; 3) to relate benthic invertebrate parameters with fish and avian assembledges during critical biological periods, and 4) to transfer these findings to managers in the form of riverine/wetland management practices that result in optimum conditions for fish and wildlife.

This information will be directly applicable to design and maintenance of habitat restoration projects .

Study 3: "Fish Community Dynamics in Side Channel and Wetland Habitats of the Lower Missouri River Near Lisbon Bottoms. MO"

The objectives of this project are four-fold: 1) to determine the current fish community dynamics of side channel and wetland habitats of the Lower Missouri River; 2) to relate these observations to hydrologic conditions that control thermal, dissolved oxygen, and nutrient regimes; 3) to compare these findings to physiological and life history characteristics of wetland-dependant fishes; and 4) to develop management recommendations for using natural and managed wetlands for restoration of wetlanddependant fishes of the Lower Missouri River.

This study will assist the USFWS and the NRCS in further understanding of the ecological requirements of wetland-dependant fishes and is expected to have major management implications .


•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

2 Habitat Restoration

2a. Wetland Restoration

• The Refuge and the Corps of Engineers (COE) are currently working on a plan that would restore several hundred acres of wetlands on the Diana Bend and Overton Bottoms Units. A hydrologic study was completed in August, 1998 to investigate the feasibility of creating a new side-channel (chute) in the floodplain upstream of 1-70 known as the Overton Bottoms Project. The Overton Bottoms Project is part of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project. One of the objectives of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project is to, where feasible, restore largeriver habitat and associated chutes and backwaters in the floodplain adjacent to the main channel. The objective of this study is to investigate alternatives that may be implemented to maximize habitat while optimizing cost and minimizing environmental, social, and economic impacts.

The proposed Overton Chute has been designed as a 15-foot wide pilot channel with an inlet structure to be located at river mile 187.55 and an outlet structure at river mile 185.39. Both proposed inlet and outlet structures will cut through the existing right bank levee and river bank revetment. These structures will be armored with riprap to ensure their stability and to act as grade control structures. The proposed chute will also cut through an existing L-head dike next to the river and two buried pile dike revetments in the overbank. A total of seven rock hard points will be constructed along the chute's overall length as well as an approximately 1800-foot long windrow revetment at the downstream end of the proposed pilot channel. In addition, a low earthen berm will be constructed parallel to, and outside of the windrow revetment to reduce the frequency of chute overflows at this location upstream of the 1-70 bridge .

2b. Upland Restoration

No activity this year .

4 Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

2c. Deepwater/Riverine Restoration

•

5

A naturally occurring chute was formed by the Missouri River as the result of the 1993 and 1995 floods on the Lisbon Bottom Unit of the Refuge. The Lisbon Chute is approximately two miles long and up to two hundred feet wide and at higher river stages is taking about eighteen percent of the river's flow. The Lisbon Chute is of interest to several federal and state agencies, as well as the public, because it's the first such chute to be formed naturally by the river in Missouri for many years. Such changes to the river create a diversity of habitat that probably occurred on the river before channelization. Some concerns arise however, between the interest of the FWS and the COB. The COE plans some construction work to control flows through the chute and maintain integrity of the bank stabilization and navigation channel project in 1999. After numerous planning meetings with the COE, FRO, and MDC a design was agreed upon that calls for two flow and grade control structures, one at the upper end of the chute and one at the lower end. It is hoped that reduced velocities resulting from the construction work will be beneficial to the fish community, but there is great concern that increased hydraulic control will inhibit the dynamic processes which created the chute and may result in habitat loss through sedimentation. Hopefully, the solution agreed upon will prove beneficial to both the integrity of the bank stabilization and navigation channel project and wildlife resources .

Picture from CERC Photo File

A naturally occurring chute in Lisbon Bottoms of the Missouri River .


•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

3 Habitat Management

3a. Water Level Management

3b. Moist Soil Management

3c. Graze/mow/hay

3d. Fanning

3e. Forest Management

3f. Fire Management

3g. Pest Plant Control

• Missouri Department of Conservation notified the Refuge that they observed Purple loosestrife on approximately 30 acres of the Jameson Island Unit during an aerial survey. Refuge personnel conducted a ground search but could not find the area infested. If Purple loosestrife is found, Refuge personnel need to take the necessary measures to begin eradication .


•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

4 Fish and Wildlife Management • Because the refuge is in its early stages of development, there is nothing to report for

the following categories under Fish and Wildlife Management.

4a. Bird Banding

4b. Disease Monitoring and Treatment

4c. Reintroductions

4d. Nest Structures

4e. Pest, Predator and Exotic Animal Control


•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

5 Coordination Activities

5a. Interagency Coordination

•

•

•

The USGS's Biological Resources Division - Columbia Environmental Research Center (CERC) and the Refuge began a partnership to determine the most cost effective and successful restoration strategies for the Missouri River. Lands acquired by the Refuge present an opportunity to recover habitat for declining species. Understanding how to most successfully manage these lands within the framework of modem river uses is the goal of the partnership between CERC and the Refuge.

Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership (MoRAP) provided the Refuge with Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping for terrestrial and aquatic assessments. The role of MoRAP is to develop, analyze, and deliver high quality information using remote sensing technologies to meet natural resource management goals for state and federal agencies.

The Corps of Engineers, Missouri Department of Conservation, Natural Resource Conservation Service, National Wildlife Federation, Columbia Fishery Resource Office, and Big Muddy NFWR met periodically throughout the year to coordinate land acquisition and management strategies along the Missouri River.

5b. Tribal Coordination


5c. Private Land Activities (excluding restoration)



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

5d. Cooperative/Friends Organizations

•

•

9

The Columbia, Missouri Chapter of the National Audubon Society (NAS) adopted the Refuge in 1997. The partnership between the Refuge and NAS will benefit con ervation of the Service's trust species, fish and wildlife habitats and ecosystems with emphasis on public awareness and participation.

A Friends of Big Muddy organization became a reality in 1998. Troy Gordon of Harrisburg, Missouri, has shown interest in forming a friends group for the Refuge for some time. A friends group that will support the goals and activities of the Refuge will be a welcome addition .

Picture by J. Storey

Friends of Big Muddy help place signs for marking refuge boundary .


•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

6 Resource Protection

6a. Law Enforcement

• The Refuge currently has two collateral duty Refuge Law Enforcement Officers. Over 100 contacts were made in the field this year resulting in no violations. As the Refuge continues to grow in size and public use increases, law enforcement issues will become more significant .

• One significant issue that has come to our attention is the trespass of the public onto private property to access the Refuge. We hope to address and resolve this issue in the coming year.

• Another significant issue is the use of A TV's, especially on units of the Refuge that have not been posted. Once all of the boundaries are surveyed and the Refuge is posted this issue will need to be addressed.

6b. Permits and Economic Use Management

• Two special use permits were issued in FY98. The first was issued to the COE to place rock in Lisbon Bottoms Chute for two flow and grade control structures to reduce water velocities in the chute. The second was issued to USGS-WRD to install and maintain three monitoring wells and one staff gauge at Overton Bottoms and one monitoring well at Diana Bend. The monitoring wells and staff gauge are part of a ground water study being conducted by USGS.

6c. Contaminant Investigation



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

6d. Contaminant Cleanup


6e. Water Rights Management


6f. Cultural Resource Management


6h. Land Acquisition Support

•

•

•

II

Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge was established on September 9, 1994, " ... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources ... " [16 U.S.C. & 742f(a)(4)]. The creation of the Refuge is intended to preserve and restore natural river floodplain to allow management of fish and wildlife habitats and provide for compatible public use.

Three Environmental Assessments (EA) were completed from September 1994, through May 1996, identifying seven areas and 16,628 acres for acquisition. This first EA was completed in September 1994 and describes the Jameson Island and Lisbon Bottoms Units and an acquisition goal of 4,500 acres in Howard and Saline Counties. The second was completed in February 1995 and includes Cranberry Bend, Little Missouri Bend, Diana Bend, and St. Aubert Island and approximately 10,828 acres in Lafayette, Saline, Cooper, and Osage Counties. The third was finalized in May 1996 and identifies Jackass Bend and 1 ,300 acres for acquisition in Jackson, Ray, and Clay Counties.

A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed expansion of the Refuge is currently underway. The DEIS proposes to expand the Refuge from its currently approved 16,628 acres to a total of 60,000 acres. Biologists agree that restoring from 10 to 12 percent of the Missouri River floodplain from Kansas City to St. Louis would ensure long-term health of the river. The Service's preferred alternative of expanding the Refuge , along with efforts by other Federal, State, and local agencies, would help accomplish that goal. Expansion would be accomplished by acquiring from willing sellers an additional43,372 acres along the Missouri River floodplain from Kansas City, Missouri, to St. Louis, Missouri, and the lower 10 miles of major tributaries. The Service held a series of public open houses to explain the DEIS to interested groups and individuals and to gather public comment. The open houses were held November 13, 14, 17, 18, and 19, 1997 in Concordia, Kansas City,


•

•

• •

•

•

• •

•

• •

•

• 12

•

St. Charles, Columbia, and Washington, Missouri respectively. EIS Project Manager Judy McClendon has a team working on the DEIS and it should be completed for review and comments early in FY99. The DEIS will address potential impacts of the alternatives on hydrology, floodplain use, levee and drainage districts, natural resources, public use and river access, socio-economics, and cultural resources .

The following table shows the seven areas currently approved for acquisition and . d hr h s b 1998 acreage acquue t OUJ eptem er

Unit Acres Acquired Acres County

Jackass Bend 1,300 522 Ray, Clay & Jackson

Cranberry Bend 4,410 85 Saline & Lafayette

Little Missouri Bend 2,260 0 Saline

Jameson Island 2,300 1,870 Saline

Lisbon Bottom 2,200 2,013 Howard

Diana Bend 1,622 549 Cooper

St. Aubert Island 2,536 1,147 Osage

Total 16,628 6,186

An Interagency Agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was signed in April, 1998, for the purpose of operations, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of the northern portion of the Overton Bottoms Mitigation Site which includes 992 acres. The agreement is granted for a term of 25 years beginning March 1, 1998, and ending February 28, 2022. The additional 992 acres brings the total acres managed by the Refuge to 7, 178 acres .

In May, Refuge Revenue Sharing checks were delivered to Cooper, Howard, Jackson, Lafayette, Osage, and Saline Counties in Missouri. The amounts were $1416.00, $3940.00, $1042.00, $464.00, $2467.00, and $988.00 respectively for a total of $10,317.00 .


•

-w

t:J:j o'Q" a: c

~ ~ 0 ::s E. ::!1 "' :r § c.

~ §; ~ ~ 2' ~

• •

CLAY

Jackson

• • • • •

BIG MUDDY NATIONAL FISH AND WILDUFE REFUGE

CARROLL CHARITON

I

us 8J

RAY

•• • •

. )

.J ~54

/' ! l ___ , __

,ro ' , ........... ,. Linn 1 :s

~- -..=.-. __ .,

ui~. OSAGE

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

14

BIG MUDDY NFWR

JACKASS BEND UNIT


•

-VI

eo riQ.

s:: c

~ z ~. 0 :::l

a !1 Cll ::r

~ 0.

~ ~ co

~ ~

• • •

-

• • • • • •

BIG MUDDY NFWR

JACKASS BE UNIT

The colorod area• ropreaont areaa which have been acquir~ by tho Roru9e . Other willin9 ••ll•r• are pro•ont and otter:• havo been -d• on tho unit . In DAny c•••• acce•• will oithor: bo v;i.a tho IUver or by the perai1don or tbo landowner• .

Legend cquisition bounda.ry

Ownership '11\known County L.inP lAndownerT1

21

L.l.....1. Tri-coUJ\ty Leve. WllUUJ "Etypt levee

•

• •

-0'1

t:J:1 .... (IQ

:: t:::

8: '< z ~. 0 0 a ::n C'll 0"

§ 0..

~ §: ~ :::0 (II

2' ~

• • • • • • • •

BIG MUDDY NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE REFUGE I

·: 9 ...... , I

LEGEND

PrC Acquisitoa

eoun~u: I ---lll!!llll! II Ill! F&Jpt Levee

I II i1 II II Tri-<:ounty lAvw

~ State Ro.d

--®-- CoiUl~Road ________ _ ,.. __

MDCAc-. --- Sw.mp

•• & & ... Spoil Bank

Proposed Jackass Bend Addition

CLAY, JACKSON, AND RAY COUNI'IES, MISSOURI

cp

I

I .. I 26 :!i/11 T I 281 X1 I 1\T -

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

17

BIG MUDDY NFWR

CRANBERRY BEND UNIT


• E ..c:.f

"j· ,/! ...

• ~: ! .;C u I . .. . . .,!~.t • ., 0

0 • k • ~ 0 . = . . .. . .. • ... >- ..

~ i ... c: >

~ 0 ; .. H o IIC ... .,

~ s ... :~c:: ~ ~ 4H.C: • . .. .

@. .. :5 ~ ..... . .. . ~ ... "'$ ... .~: ('() 0 en t c:: ..

.. :1 J

~ )f . -e 0. ... C\J • 0

~ -e ..... ... =:5.!fi " 0:: tal 0 g ....

§ .... • e: .... ..

(.!) 8. ~ 0 •• ~ I. • H ·r=~~i ~

m u ' :a~t " z

•

•

•

•

•

• 18 Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge

•

•

..... \Q

tl:j c;q·

~ ~ z I» a. g E. :31 "' :T

§ 0.

~ 0: t:;:

~

~ ~

• • •

6

--- -@-,

~ I

71 I

•

I

~

32

• • • • •

BIG MUDDY NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE REFUGE PROPOSED CRANBERRY BEND ADDITION

LAFAYETIE AND SALINE COUNTIES, MISSOURI

--~- @ - - - - -,.~.4-li-------,

/ /

I

LEGEND

- Propoaed Acqlilition Boundary - - Cowlty Line = StaRolld

- - - - Co~ly Rolld .JL.JL.J1 l.evM

=- Perm~nent Water ~ Foreat within Floodplain

41

' 6 [@

tit~ , I J-

To Grand Pus

Co""ltd• : Souliem lolilaaul Alclllllrrnlrl anc. us Fllll ' Wldlt SeMel, "'-leo, lot() ~18$4

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

20

BIG MUDDY NFWR

LITTLE MISSOURI BEND UNIT


•

N

t::d aq· :: c 8: '< z I» ;:::. 0

[ ::n Vl :::r

[ ~ l::..l Q. t:;:

~

~ 2' ~

• • • • • • • • • •

BIG MUDDY NFWR

LITTLE MISSOURI BEND UNIT

There are no willing ll on t:his uni

T 52 N:-R.I9-18 W :':-.'-.. ~

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• 22

•

BIG MUDDY NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE REFUGE PROPOSED LITTLE MISSOURI BEND ADDITION

SALINE COUNTY, MISSOURI

Gilam

LEGEND

- Proposed Acq&alilion Bowlclaty - - - - County Road

= S1at.Roed

..&L..JLJI. t..we

._ Pennanent Wat.r

~ ForNt wilhln Flooq:llain

- Upland F~sl .......... Trail

Citylinits

16

I -- _..._[!g_ .. I \ .•. ·······

\

\ ' 21

+-LOCATION (T52N. R19W)

~··: Soi.Ciwn lilaowl ~OIIc:a US'fklt & W*lll S1M::a. Plldco, UO Olcamber1 ..


•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

23

BIG MUDDY NFWR

JAMESON ISLAND UNIT

LISBON BOTTOM UNIT


•

~

to llO' ~ c:: §: '< z ~. 0 :::s a "T1 ..... (I> ::r § Q.

~ §; .... ~

~ ~

• •

The colored ··illing :~~ell

ccess will

• • • •

:SIG MUDDY NF'"w"R

LISBON BOTTOM UNIT

caen~ c:eaa which heve been ecqui:ed by the Re!u~c. Other sen~ an~ of!e:~ heYe been made on ~. unit. In DAny cas ''ie the River or by ' t:he pe=mi:o~don of adjacent: .landowner a.

ci () ILl z :J < (f)

• • • •

•

~

c; riQ.

~ c §: '< z I» t=t. 0 ::I

e. "Tl §: [ ~ g; ~

~ ? ~

• • • • • • • • • •

BIG MUDDY NFWR

JAMESON ISI..AND UNIT

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Proposed Jameson Island and Lisbon Bottoms Units

Saline and Howard Counties, Missouri Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge

13 @

24

11 12

LEGEND -N

MO

............... ..,FWS....._., ......... ...__OIIioo """- loll) "'- .....

26

,_ -lloundery

p--· Ta-n • Siaug/1 E!1 .......... s

Big Muddy National Fish and Wtldlife Refuge

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

27

BIG MUDDY NFWR

DIANA BEND UNIT


•

N 00

l:l::l o'O' E:::

~ '< z ~. 0 ::1 e!.. !l "' t:r

[ ~ ~ ~

~ 2' ~

• • •

~ " -: 33

• • • • • • •

BIG MUDDY NFWR

DIANA BEND UNIT

prc~ent. areas whieb have been Beq\1

present and often have been made on UI1JI un vie the River or by the pe~~sion of adjaeent lando

se!l

••

•

N \Q

t:x:l o'Q" ==: c Q. Q.

'<

~ 0

~ '1:1 ;;;· ::r

[ ~ §; ~

~ ~

• •

34

, ___ ie----.:"

3

LEGEND

•

I

I I

I I

- Propoled Acquisition BoundaJY = StateRoad

- -- - County Road ...ll-1U1 LtvN

~ Pennanent Water

For8SI within Floodplain

- Interstate

-++++ Railroad

' ' lib

I

I I

' I

2 I I \

• • • • • •

BIG MUDDY NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE REFUGE PROPOSED DIANA BEND ADDITION

1

•

Cllmplltclll : SNhtm Mlssotlf Asct1111Mltlt Office U.S. Fis/1 & Wlklle SeMel, Pul:k:Q, MO O.C.rrter t8U

' I I

COOPER COUNTY, MISSOURI

I

- I I I r:=-:={ I ,_6_~

,- __ ,,.

33

-1 ... 71----,

'

Ni

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

30

BIG MUDDY NFWR

ST. AUBERT'S ISLAND UNIT


•

Vol

t;rl o'Q'

~ c c. ~ ~ r:r. 0 ::I ~

:!1 Vl ::r

~ ~ s: g ('1)

~ 2' ~

• •

The colored area Hllng aollcra

CCCIII \!ill

• • • •

BIG MUDDY NFWR

ST. AUBERT'S ISLAND UNIT

:roprceent areao which have been p1eacnt ond offers 1\ovo b

LhU' be via the River or by the

cqui.red by tba fte!uge. Ot:her his unit. In mllny cases

tho landowncro.

• • • •

•

w N

t:l:j

riQ' 3: s:: c. ~ z Ill r::. 0 ::::0 ~

!l "" ::r § c. ~ =:.: c. t=: ~ :;d

~ ~

• • • • • •

BIG MUDDY NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE REFUGE PROPOSED ST. AUBERT ADDITION

OSAGE COUNTY, MISSOURI

16

-..-"" -..-""

Nt ....... -.....

-

• •

-LEGEND

- Propoaed Acquisldon Boundaly

- - Fish & Wildlife Service Ownership

_., - - - - County Rottd

= Stat. Rottd

..JL..II....II. Levee

~ Permanent Water == Forut within ~lain

- Upland Fo,.st -t+++ Rairoad

® Bridge .. ........ Trail

Electrio TIWlsmlssion Une ·•··Fl.~~';<(''.~ City Urnlls

~lldll : Saclhlm IIIIDIII~ 0111ce US Alii I Wldll Sorlk:e, Plldco, MO Dlclm111110114

• •

_... ..

......

. J

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

7 Public Education and Recreation

7a. Provide Visitor Services

• Currently, all acquired refuge lands are open to all compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, including Missouri State hunting and fishing seasons and regulations. An estimated 1,522 people visited the refuge this year. The majority (59%) either hunted or fished. Public use should grow as more of the refuge is posted and the public becomes more aware of public use opportunities on the Refuge .

• Several areas have been identified as potential sites for parking areas, interpretive exhibits, and possible trailheads. These sites will be constructed as funds become available .

• The task of posting refuge boundaries began in July 1997. Posting refuge boundaries is quite time consuming since surveys were not conducted and usual boundary indicators such as fences are nonexistent in the river floodplain .

J. Storey posts refuge boundary .


•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

7b. Outreach

•

•

A 12:40 minute video titled "Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge" was developed and produced in 1997. The video, produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and featuring Refuge Manager J.C. Bryant and Jim Milligan of CFRO, gives a short history of the Missouri River, the potential of the Refuge, and why we need to restore some of the river's natural resources .

The Service has kept the public informed about proposed actions with a newsletter series, Big Muddy Update, published on an intermittent basis. The mailing list now totals more than 1,000 names of elected officials, interested individuals and groups, landowners, government agencies, drainage and levee district officials, and conservation organizations .

• News releases were periodically released throughout the year to inform the public of land acquisition and the Environmental Impact Statement process. The refuge £sued 5 news releases during the year .


Reporters from KMOS (PBS affiliate), Warrensburg, MO, interview J.C. Bryant.


•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

8 Planning and Administration

8a. Comprehensive Management Planning

• An interim Comprehensive Management Plan has been added as an appendix to the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge's Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This plan is intended to provide management guidance to refuge staff for approximately five years, until the final Comprehensive Management Plan is completed. It includes a general discussion of the biological needs relative to Federal trust resource responsibilities along the Missouri River from Kansas City to St. Louis, Missouri and the management actions required to meet those biological needs .

8b. General Administration

F d. 1998 un mg-

Realty/Flood 8451 $160,000

Refuge Operations 1261 $ 14,500

Research - USGS 1261 $60,000

Boat Storage Building 1261 $ 27,000

Replace Vehicle & Maintenance Backlog 1262 $ 32,900

COE - Overton Bottoms Management 1971 $ 4,990

Total $299,390


•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• Per onnel J.C. Bryant transferred from the Mingo Job Corps Center to become Big Muddy NFWR's frrst refuge manager in May 1994. J.C. then retired after 31 years with the Service on September 3, 1998. Due to Jon's transfer, J.C. was called back into service in February of 1999 and served as acting Refuge Manager until the arrival of the new Refuge Manager .


J .C. Bryant's retirement party honoring 31 years of service .

• Office Assistant Gloria Miller came on board November 15, 1995. Gloria previously worked for the NRCS in Cheyenne, WY. In September, the paper work was filled out to promote Gloria from PPT to PFT, effective the beginning of FY99 .

• Student Trainee (Biology) Michael Freeman began his FWS career in May 1997.

•

36

Mike attended Lincoln University in Jefferson City, Missouri where he graduated in December, 1997. In January, Mike decided not to pursue a career with the FWS and resigned .

Jon Storey came on board June 9, 1997 to fill the Refuge Operations Specialist position. Jon transferred from Anahuac NWR where he was Refuge Operations Specialist for the past four years. Jon also transferred from the Big Muddy in February of 1999 to the Regional Office in Denver, CO .

Big Muddy NFWR staff, (from left) J.C. Bryant, Jon Storey, Gloria Miller .

Big Muddy National Fi h and Wildlife Refuge

•

•

• • •

• •

• •

• •

•

•

• 37

•

1997 Staff b mem ers o fB" M dd NFWR Ig u ty

Name Position Grade Status EOD

J.C. Bryant Refuge Manager GS-0485-13 PFf 05/94

Jon Storey Refuge Ops. Spec. GS-0485-11 PFf 06/97

Gloria Miller Office Assistant GS-0303-05 PPT 11195

Michael Freeman Student Trainee GS-0499-04 PFf 05/97

Eguipment and Facilities The USGS Columbia Environmental Research Center in Columbia, Missouri has been kind enough to provide office space for the Refuge. In June 1997, the office was moved from the Environmental Technology Center to an office trailer. The move provided much needed office and storage space. The Center also provides outside storage space for refuge vehicles, A TV's, and boat.

A vehicle/equipment storage building is currently be planned and engineered to be built at CERC for the Refuge and FRO. The building should be completed in FY99 and will provide much needed storage space and will keep vehicles and equipment from premature weathering .

Safety ROS Storey served as station safety officer during the year. Paul Heine, Safety Officer for CERC, provided the Refuge staff with periodic safety meetings throughout the year .

On June 19, 1997 S.T. Freeman injured his left bicep pulling a trawl for a fish sample. He was placed on light duty until his doctor released him to return to work without restrictions on August 18, 1997 .


Documents

PfJ.~ - FWS