Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge

              DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
BOGUE CHITTO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
St. Tammany and Washington Parishes, Louisiana, and
Pearl River County, Mississippi
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
May 2011
Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 1
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 1
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 3
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 5
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 6
Relationship to State Wildlife Agency ........................................................................................... 7
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
Bogue Chitto Refuge History and Purpose ................................................................................... 9
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 12
Landscape Conservation Context .............................................................................................. 13
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 16
Ecological Threats and Problems ...............................................................................................18
Forest Loss and Fragmentation ........................................................................................ 18
Alterations To Hydrology ................................................................................................... 19
Climate Change ................................................................................................................19
Urbanization ...................................................................................................................... 21
Proliferation of Invasive Plants And Animals ..................................................................... 21
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 22
Current Climate ................................................................................................................. 22
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 22
Hydrology an d Water Quality ........................................................................................... 23
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 23
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 24
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 24
Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................26
Cultural and Historic Resources ................................................................................................. 29
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 30
St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana ........................................................................................ 30
Washington Parish ............................................................................................................ 32
Pearl River County, Mississippi ......................................................................................... 33
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 34
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 34
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 34
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 35
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 39
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 39
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 39
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 39
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 40
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 41
ii Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 45
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 45
Alternatives For Managing Bogue Chitto NWR .......................................................................... 45
Vision for Bogue Chitto NWR ..................................................................................................... 45
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies for Bogue Chitto NWR ......................................................... 46
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 46
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 58
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 62
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 67
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 73
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................ 77
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 77
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 77
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 77
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 80
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 81
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 83
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 84
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 85
Partnership/Volunteer Opportunities .......................................................................................... 86
Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 87
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 87
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 88
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 89
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 89
Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................... 89
Decision Framework................................................................................................................... 90
Planning Study Area .................................................................................................................. 90
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ......................................................................... 90
Compatibility ..................................................................................................................... 90
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 91
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 93
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................. 95
Formulation of Alternatives......................................................................................................... 95
Description of Alternatives - Bogue Chitto NWR ........................................................................ 95
Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue for Bogue Chitto NWR ............................................... 98
Alternative Considered But Eliminated From Further Analysis ................................................ 108
Minimize Public Use and Management ........................................................................... 108
Table of Contents iii
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....................................................................................... 109
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 109
Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 109
Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 109
Land Acquisition ..............................................................................................................110
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 110
Refuge Revenue-Sharing ................................................................................................ 111
Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 111
Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 111
Alternative A – No Action (Current Management) ........................................................... 111
Alternative B – Resource-Focused Management (Proposed Alternative) ....................... 112
Alternative C – User-Focused Management ................................................................... 112
Unavoidable effects and Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 119
Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ........................................... 119
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 120
Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 121
User-Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 121
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 121
Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 122
Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................... 122
Direct and Indirect Effects ........................................................................................................ 124
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 128
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .................................................................................... 131
Interdisciplinary Planning Team Members ...................................................................... 131
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 133
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ..................................................... 143
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS .............................. 151
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 165
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 165
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ...................................................................... 166
Habitat Management ....................................................................................................... 166
Resource Protection ........................................................................................................ 167
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 168
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS............................................................... 171
Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge Appropriate Use Determinations ................................. 171
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 183
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 205
iv Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 211
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 215
APPENDIX J. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 219
Table of Contents v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Bogue Chitto NWR .............................................................................................. 2
Figure 2. Bogue Chitto NWR’s current fee title lands and acquisition boundary ................................ 10
Figure 3. Protected lands within the Lower Pearl River Basin Watershed .......................................... 11
Figure 4. Bogue Chitto NWR landscape conservation context ........................................................... 15
Figure 5. Habitat on Bogue Chitto NWR ............................................................................................. 25
Figure 6. Upland and bottomland hardwood forest management on Bogue Chitto NWR................... 27
Figure 7. Occupied gopher tortoise habitat on Bogue Chitto NWR .................................................... 31
Figure 8. Current visitor services on Bogue Chitto NWR .................................................................... 36
Figure 9. Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex 2009 organizational chart .......................................... 37
Figure 10. Proposed Holmes Island wilderness study area, Bogue Chitto NWR................................ 68
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of projects ............................................................................................................. 85
Table 2. Bogue Chitto NWR step-down management plans .............................................................. 87
Table 3. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Bogue Chitto NWR ......................... 99
Table 4. Summary of environmental effects by alternative ............................................................... 114
vi Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
I. Background
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for
Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in St. Tammany and Washington Parishes, Louisiana,
and Pearl River County, Mississippi, (Figure 1) was prepared to guide management actions and
direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge management;
wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and
does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for which it was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This Draft CCP/EA
describes the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (hereinafter referred to as Service) proposed plan, as
well as other alternatives considered and their effects on the environment. The Draft CCP/EA will
be made available to state and federal government agencies, conservation partners, and the
general public for review and comment. Comments from each entity will be considered in the
development of the final CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the Draft CCP/EA is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge
purpose; attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to National Wildlife Refuge
System (Refuge System) mission; addresses key problems, issues, and relevant mandates; and is
consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the plan is needed to:
 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System; and
 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved
with research and fish culture. The once-independent commission was renamed the Bureau of
Fisheries and placed under the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also dates back to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals
to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals so the name was changed to
the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
2 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Location of Bogue Chitto NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of the
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, working with others, is responsible for conserving, protecting, and
enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people
through Federal programs relating to migratory birds, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish and
marine mammals, and inland sport fisheries (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering over
95 million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77
million acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and
several United States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small
wetlands, national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field
stations. The Service enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act,
manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and
restores wildlife habitat, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also
oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes
on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“...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.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Improvement Act) of 1997 established, for the
first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the Refuge System. Actions were
initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public
involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and
recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved plans will serve as
the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement Act states that each
refuge shall be managed to:
 Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the Refuge System;
4 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
and
 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine
compatible public uses.
The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island
NWR, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting birds in Florida,
such as the snowy egret (Egretta thula) and the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis). Western
refuges were established for American bison (Bison bison) (1906), elk (Cervus canadensis) (1912),
prong-horned antelope (Antilocapra americana) (1931), and desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis
nelsoni) (1936) after over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once-abundant
herds. The drought conditions of the 1930s Dust Bowl severely depleted breeding
populations of ducks and geese. Refuges established during the Great Depression focused on
waterfowl production areas (i.e., protection of prairie wetlands in America’s heartland). The emphasis
on waterfowl continues today but also includes protection of wintering habitat in response to a
dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the Service had begun to focus on establishing
refuges for endangered species.
National wildlife refuges connect visitors to their natural resource heritage and provide them with an
understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology to help them understand their role in the
environment. Wildlife-dependent recreation on refuges also generates economic benefits to local
communities. According to the report, Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local
Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation, approximately 34.8 million people visited national
wildlife refuges in fiscal year 2006, generating almost $1.7 billion in total economic activity and
creating almost 27,000 private sector jobs producing about $542.8 million in employment income
(Carver and Caudill 2007). Additionally, recreational spending on refuges generated nearly $185.3
million in tax revenue at the local, county, state, and federal levels (Carver and Caudill 2007). As the
number of visitors grows, significant economic benefits are realized by local communities. In 2006,
nearly 71 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife, spending $45.7
billion and generating $122.6 billion (Leonard 2008).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2005,
approximately 38,000 refuge volunteers donated more than 1.4 million hours. The value of their
service was more than $25 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that comprehensive conservation plans be prepared in consultation
with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a
process to ensure an opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every
15 years) of the plans.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved comprehensive
conservation plan that will guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge
unit purposes. The plan will be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices,
and legal mandates, including Service compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines,
and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the Refuge System,
congressional legislation, rresidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for
management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the
Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System and
management of the Bogue Chitto NWR are provided in Appendix C.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural
resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation between
Bogue Chitto NWR and other partners, such as the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries,
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and private landowners, etc.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No
refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that,
in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract
from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All programs
and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. Those mandates
are to:
 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses
are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. As priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over
other public uses in planning and management.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while
achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and
associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge
6 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution to biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional
judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, and knowledge of the refuge
role within an ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with
others both inside and outside the Service.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this Draft CCP/EA.
This Draft CCP/EA supports, among others, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative, the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the Western Hemisphere
Shorebird Reserve Network, the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the U.S.
Woodcock Plan.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations,
academic institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico working
to ensure the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by fostering an integrated
approach to bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The international and national bird
initiatives include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, Waterbird
Conservation for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan
is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is
to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat. Canada
and the United States signed the Plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of waterfowl. Mexico
joined in 1994 making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of federal, provincial/state
and municipal governments, non-governmental organizations, private companies, and many
individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other
wetland-associated species, and people. Plan projects are international in scope, but implemented at
regional levels. These projects contribute to the protection of habitat and wildlife species across the
North American landscape.
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the
West Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic area represents a scientifically based land bird conservation
planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native land birds,
primarily non-game land birds. Non-game land birds have been vastly under-represented in
conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is voluntary and non-regulatory,
and focuses on relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be
most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort
throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird
species are restored and protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies,
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country, and identifies conservation
goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach
programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face.
Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the
conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird
populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive
species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from
abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas,
marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are
federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks (Mycteria americana), Mississippi
sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis), whooping cranes (Grus americana), interior least terns (Sternula
antillarum) and gulf coast populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan is the
standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures.
U.S. Woodcock Plan. The U.S. Woodcock Plan was written by the Service in 1990 to “guide the
conservation of American woodcock (Scolopax minor) in the United States.” Although no step-down
plans have been written, the plan gives general guidance for habitat and population management at
the national level.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the Improvement Act and subsequent agency policy is that the Service shall ensure
timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other state fish and game agencies and tribal
governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas
and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species and contribute to the
overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species in the State of Louisiana.
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) is a state-partnering agency with the
Service, charged with managing state natural resources and approximately 1.4 million acres of
coastal marshes and wildlife management areas. LDWF coordinates the state wildlife conservation
program and provides public recreation opportunities on state wildlife management areas. The
state’s participation and contribution throughout this comprehensive conservation planning process
provides for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological health and diversity of
fish and wildlife. A vital part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is integrating
common mission objectives where appropriate.
The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) is a state-partnering agency
with the Service, charged with enforcement responsibilities for migratory birds and endangered
species, as well as with managing the state’s natural resources. The total area owned or managed
by MDWFP in support of the state’s wildlife, recreation, and fisheries is 828,408 acres. This includes
42 state wildlife management areas and 29 state parks encompassing 823,297 acres, and 21 lakes
totaling 5,111 acres (Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, n.d.).
The MDWFP directs the state’s wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation
opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program, on several wildlife management
areas and parks located near the refuge. MDWFP’s participation and contribution throughout the
refuge’s comprehensive conservation planning process has been invaluable. It continues to work
with the Service to provide ongoing opportunities for an open dialogue with the public to improve the
ecological sustainability of fish and wildlife in Mississippi. Not only has MDWFP participated in
biological reviews, public meetings, and field reviews as part of the planning process, it also is an
8 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
active partner in the coordination and planning of hunting programs and various wildlife and habitat
surveys. A key part of the comprehensive planning process is the integration of common objectives
between the Service and the Department, where appropriate.
In 2005, LDWF and MDWFP each published a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
(CWCS). The components or steps of both of the CWCS are:
1. Assess the distribution and abundance of wildlife species, including rare and declining
species that are indicative of the diversity and health of the state’s wildlife.
2. Describe the location and relative condition of key habitats and community types essential
to conservation of these species.
3. Identify problems that adversely affect these species and habitats as well as research and
survey efforts needed to address these problems.
4. Identify conservation actions needed to conserve these species and habitats, and priorities
for implementing these actions.
5. Develop plans for monitoring these species and habitats, monitoring the effectiveness of
conservation actions, and adapting conservation actions to respond to new information or
changing conditions.
6. Develop procedures to review the conservation strategy at intervals not to exceed 10 years.
7. Coordinate plan development and implementation with federal, state, and local
governments and other organizations that manage significant areas of the state or
administer wildlife conservation programs.
8. Encourage public participation in the development, revision, and implementation of the
conservation strategy.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
On June 30, 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed Public Law 96-288 authorizing the 40,000-acre
Bogue Chitto NWR in Washington and St. Tammany Parishes, Louisiana, and Pearl River County,
Mississippi. Since that time, the Service has been acquiring bottomland hardwood habitat in the
Pearl River Basin. On December 13, 1989, Congress authorized a boundary expansion for Bogue
Chitto NWR that included an additional 8,400 acres of bottomland hardwoods in St. Tammany Parish.
To date, 36,502 acres have been placed under refuge management (Figure 2). The refuge is still in
an acquisition phase.
Established in 1980, Bogue Chitto NWR is one of eight refuges managed as part of the Southeast
Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex). The refuge headquarters is located about 9
miles northeast of Slidell, Louisiana. The 36,502-acre refuge is bisected by the Pearl River with
portions of the refuge located in St. Tammany and Washington Parishes in Louisiana and Pearl River
County in Mississippi. On the Mississippi side of the river, the refuge is bounded by Old River Wildlife
Management Area (15,400 acres) to the north and by the State of Louisiana’s Pearl River Wildlife
Management Area (35,031) to the south, thereby forming an 87,000-acre block of protected forested
wetlands and adjacent uplands within the Pearl River Basin (Figure 3).
There are three road access points that travel through the refuge; one from Interstate 59 at the
Louisiana/Mississippi border, on Pine Grove Road across the Hobolochitto Creek drainage, and one
west of Mississippi Highway 43 near Dumas Wise Road. The roads provide access to a very limited
amount of the refuge. Access to most of the refuge is by boat. There are areas to walk across the
Pearl River Navigational Canal to get access to the refuge. These access points are at U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) constructed Locks 1, 2, and 3.
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), squirrel, turkey, waterfowl, and hog hunting, as well as
fishing, are offered to the public. The threatened and endangered species found on the refuge are
ringed map turtle (Graptemys oculifera), gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), inflated heelsplitter
mussel (Potamilus inflatus), and gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi). Access is primarily by
boat on the refuge's Louisiana side and road access is available on the refuge's Mississippi side. In
the summer of 2002, the new Holmes Bayou walking trail was unveiled on the Louisiana side of the
refuge. This 3/4-mile walking trail offers a unique journey into the interior of Bogue Chitto's majestic
habitat. The Pearl River turnaround area is being developed as a site for education and interpretation
as well as the site for the annual youth fishing rodeo.
BOGUE CHITTO REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
Bogue Chitto NWR is named for the Choctaw Indian “Big Stream.” Located just minutes from Slidell,
this pristine cypress swampland has been host to several major motion pictures and countless
ecotourists. To the north of the Bogue Chitto NWR is the State of Mississippi’s 15,400-acre Old River
Wildlife Management Area. To the south is the State of Louisiana’s 35,031-acre Pearl River Wildlife
Management Area.
10 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 2. Bogue Chitto NWR’s current fee title lands and acquisition boundary
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Figure 3. Protected lands within the Lower Pearl River Basin Watershed
12 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
The purpose(s) of a refuge, as established by Congress in authorizing legislation and in other public
documents, is critical to management of any refuge. This concept is strongly supported in the
Improvement Act, which states that “each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission of the System
as well as the specific purposes for which the refuge was established” and to “ensure that the mission
of the System…and the purpose of each refuge are carried out, except that if a conflict exists
between the original purposes of a refuge and the mission of the System, the conflict shall be
resolved in a manner that first protects the purpose of the refuge, and, to the extent practicable, that
also achieves the mission of the System” (October 9, 1997, 111 STAT. 1255). These lands approved
under 94 Stat. 604, dated June 28, 1980, state the purpose for which the refuge was established as:
“Administer all lands, waters, and interests therein, acquired under this act in accordance with
the provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, and to utilize such additional
statutory authority as may be available for the conservation and development of wildlife and
natural resources, the development of outdoor recreation opportunities, and interpretive
education as deemed appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act.”
The purposes statement is further defined to include:
 For 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);
 For the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and
wildlife resources ..." 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) "... for the benefit of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to
the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ..." 16 U.S.C.
742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956); and
 For 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).
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
The Pearl River/Bogue Chitto River system represents a relatively unaltered system with portions of
the river system listed as Scenic Rivers. However, USACE projects (Pearl River Canal and Walkiah
Bluff Projects) have resulted in the creation of several water control structures (e.g., locks, dams,
sills) that impact river flow regimes and block passage of gulf sturgeon, mussels, and other wildlife
species. Another potential upstream project, the Two-Lakes Project in Jackson, Mississippi,
proposes to create a 4,900-acre reservoir along the Pearl River to control flooding in the Jackson
area, which has the potential to influence downstream flows (increased flow and velocity during
periods of high water and reduced flow during low water periods) thereby impacting trust resources
and habitats on the refuge. As such, the refuge’s primary role is to identify and where possible
protect and restore the hydrologic system and aquatic species from man-induced impacts.
RS 56:1856, the State of Louisiana Scenic Rivers Act, ( Acts 1988, No. 947, §1, eff. July 27, 1988)
designated rivers on the refuge as part of the Louisiana Natural and Scenic Rivers System because of its
unique and diverse free-flowing river which should be preserved, protected, and enhanced for the present
and future benefit of Louisiana citizens, and for the purposes of preserving, protecting, developing,
reclaiming, and enhancing the wilderness qualities, scenic beauties, and ecological regime of its free-
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
flowing streams or segments thereof. The river’s designation is administered by LDWF for the purpose of
preserving aesthetic, scenic, recreational, fish, wildlife, ecological, archaeological, geological, botanical,
and other natural and physical features and resources found along these streams or segments thereof.
With this designation, no activities may be performed on these rivers where the state owns water bottoms
that have a potential for significant ecological degradation.
Those rivers on the refuge in this designation include:
Holmes Bayou
Bradley Slough
Wilson Slough
Natural Areas
The Tom Rhea Phillips Natural Area was established on November 13, 1987, to preserve the 268
acres which contain one of the most important wood duck roosts in southern Mississippi and
Louisiana. This area contains a sample of most of the forest cover types found on the refuge
including longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), live oak (Quercus virginiana), baldcypress (Taxodium
distichum), tupelo gum (Nyssa aquatica), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), and others. The area was
registered with the Nature Conservancy by the original owner Dr. Tom Rhea Phillips prior to refuge
acquisition. No forest management activities will be conducted in this area.
If any unique habitats or ecosystems are identified on the refuge, they will be considered for designation
or otherwise be protected. In order to meet criteria for a natural area, an area must have some unique or
otherwise valuable characteristic which will perpetuate itself. Consequently, old growth forests, while very
valuable to particular species of wildlife, are changing and will not maintain present conditions.
The refuge has previously designated a 3- to 5-chain (330 feet) buffer along all banks of primary and
secondary streams whereby when active forest management is only carried out, consideration is
made to minimize effects on these areas to benefit endangered species, environmental education,
safety, protection of stream banks from runoff, and to provide an aesthetically pleasing area.
Critical Habitat
The Service has designated critical habitat for the gulf sturgeon. Critical habitat is a term used
in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that refers to specific geographic areas that are essential
for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special
management or protection.
LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION CONTEXT
In mid-1990s, the Service took an ecosystem approach to conservation of natural resources and had
adopted watersheds as the basic unit for ecosystem management. To ensure that the Service is
“putting science in the right places,” the Directorate determined in April 2009 that the agency needed
a national, geographic framework for implementing landscape conservation. Just as migratory bird
flyways have provided an effective spatial frame of reference to build capacity and partnerships for
international, national, state, and local waterfowl conservation, this geographic framework will provide
a continental platform upon which the Service can work with partners to connect site-specific efforts
to larger biological goals and outcomes. In its meeting on August 4-6, 2009, the Directorate
approved a map of the geographic framework developed by a team of Service and U.S. Geological
Survey experts from across the country. The map defines geographic areas that provide a spatial
frame of reference for building and targeting science capacity that will support the Service and
14 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
partners in planning and designing conservation strategies at landscape scales. It also allows us to
more precisely explain to partners, Congress, and the American public why, where, and how we
target conservation resources and how our science-based efforts connect to a greater whole. Based
on the new national geographic framework, Bogue Chitto NWR is situated in the Gulf Coastal Plains and
Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GCPO LCC).
Bogue Chitto NWR is considered to be in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (LMRE), which includes
the alluvial plain of the Mississippi River downstream of its confluence with the Ohio River and the delta
plain and associated marshes and swamps created by the meanderings of the Mississippi River and its
tributaries (FWS 2002). Louisiana has twelve water quality management basins delineated on the basis
of natural drainage patterns of the state’s major river basins (Lester et al. 2005). Bogue Chitto NWR is
also part of the East Gulf Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Region and the Mississippi Flyway (Figure 4).
The LMRE includes the deltaic plain and associated marshes and swamps created by the
meanderings of the Mississippi River and its distributaries. Prior to agricultural development, almost
all of the Mississippi Delta was covered with flood plain forests. Today, only about 23 percent remains
in forest, and the remaining forest is highly fragmented. The flood plain forests are primarily oak-gum-
cypress cover type with co-dominant species of overcup (Quercus lyrata) willow, Nuttall oak
(Quercus texana), swamp chestnut (Quercus michauxii), and cherrybark oaks (Quercus pagoda), as
well as sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), water tupelo, water hickory (Carya aquatica), willow,
cottonwood (Populus deltoides), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), red
maple (Acer rubrum), box elder (Acer negundo), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Cotton, soybeans, and rice are the most widespread crops but winter
wheat, corn, sorghum, and sugar cane are also commonly cultivated.
This area serves as primary wintering habitat for mid-continent waterfowl populations, as well as
breeding and migration habitat for migratory songbirds. The expansive flood plain forests of the
past are now fragmented bottomland hardwood patches due to conversion from agriculture and
flood control projects.
The LMRE developed eight goals that this CCP will continue to consider and promote when
establishing refuge goals and objectives to ensure the refuge continues its contribution to
ecosystem conservation and integrity.
 Conserve, enhance, protect, and monitor migratory bird populations and their habitats in the
LMRE.
 Protect, restore, and manage the wetlands of the LMRE.
 Protect and/or restore imperiled habitats and viable populations of all endangered, threatened,
and candidate species and species of concern in the LMRE.
 Protect, restore, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources historically associated
with the wetlands and waters of the LMRE.
 Restore, manage, and protect national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries.
 Increase public awareness and support for LMRE resources and their management.
 Enforce natural resource laws.
 Protect, restore, and enhance water and air quality throughout the LMRE.
In the meantime, the expanding human population within this area is increasing demands on land and
water resources to accommodate agriculture, timber production, grazing, transportation, urban
expansion, and outdoor recreation pursuits such as bird watching, fishing, hiking, boating and hunting.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Figure 4. Bogue Chitto NWR landscape conservation context
16 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
Sustainable communities and species conservation and recovery require the joint efforts of private
landowners and local communities as well as state and federal governments. This synergy of federal,
state, tribal, and private organizations working together will ensure that the Service not only protects
the more important areas, but also reduces redundancy of effort, allowing precious resources to be
directed where they are most needed.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
There are eight national wildlife refuges in the Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex. These refuges
are:
Atchafalaya NWR
Bayou Sauvage NWR
Bayou Teche NWR
Big Branch March NWR
Bogue Chitto NWR
Breton NWR
Delta NWR, and
Mandalay NWR
The mission of these refuges and the Refuge System is 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. Comprehensive conservation plans are being prepared to provide each of
the refuge managers with a 15-year strategy and broad direction to conserve wildlife and their
habitats, to achieve refuge purposes, and to contribute toward the mission of the Refuge System. In
addition, the plans identify wildlife-dependent opportunities available to the public, including
opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental
education and interpretation. The Big Branch Marsh, Delta, Bayou Sauvage, Mandalay, Bayou
Teche, and Breton CCPs are complete and CCP's for the remaining two refuges are in various stages
of completion – all with a scheduled completion by 2012.
Conservation priorities for national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley focus on
threatened and endangered species, trust species, and species of local concern. The goals and
objectives in this Draft CCP/EA are stepped down from the following plans:
 Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan
 Black Bear Conservation Committee Restoration Plan
 American Woodcock Management Plan
 Gopher Tortoise Recovery Plan
 Fisheries Vision for the Future
 Louisiana and Mississippi Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies (Wildlife Action
Plans)
 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
Furthermore, the biological and visitor service reviews as well as a summary of all public comments
were stepped down to this Draft CCP/EA.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. The Louisiana black bear is a “listed” species considered
threatened in its range. Recovery plans are prepared by the Service to delineate reasonable actions
that are believed to aid in efforts to recover and/or protect listed species. The objective of the
Service’s recovery plan is the delisting of the Louisiana black bear. The criteria for achieving delisting
are: (1) at least two viable subpopulations, one each in the Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins; (2)
establishment of immigration and emigration corridors between the two subpopulations; and, (3)
protection of the habitat and interconnecting corridors that support each of the two viable
subpopulations used as justification for delisting. Bogue Chitto NWR may one day serve as an
important corridor link to support the Louisiana black bear.
Black Bear Conservation Committee Restoration Plan. This plan is used in conjunction with the
Service’s Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. The goal of this plan is to restore the Louisiana black
bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) to suitable habitat within its historical range. The priorities of this
plan are to put the resource first, to find common ground for building coalitions while avoiding
confrontations, to replace emotion with credible science, and to have a strong commitment to black
bear restoration and management.
American Woodcock Management Plan. Woodcock trends in the United States have been
declining annually for the last 15 years in spite of actions taken to ensure that hunting does not
substantially promote declines, such as reduced bag limits and limited season lengths. An American
Woodcock Management Plan initiated in the 1990s points out the need for improved breeding,
migration, and wintering habitat to enhance population growth and survival (USFWS 1990). Much of
the decline is thought to be a result of land use changes and the maturing of forest habitats resulting
in fewer early successional scrub/shrub habitats preferred by woodcock.
Gopher Tortoise Recovery Plan. The western population of the gopher tortoise is listed as
threatened. This population exists west of the Tombigbee and Mobile Rivers in Alabama, across south
Mississippi, and including extreme southeastern Louisiana. Threats include habitat alteration and illegal
taking. The two objectives of this plan are to prevent this species from extinction and delisting.
Fisheries Vision for the Future. In 2001, the Service worked with partners to refocus its Fisheries
Program and develop a vision. This vision of the Service and its Fisheries Program “is working with
partners to restore and maintain fish and other aquatic resources at self-sustaining levels and to
support Federal mitigation programs for the benefit of the American public.” To achieve the vision,
the Fisheries program works with its partners to:
 protect the health of aquatic habitats
 restore fish and other aquatic resources, and
 provide opportunities to enjoy the benefits of healthy aquatic resources.
Together, the group developed a series of goals, objectives, and implementation actions to focus on
key needs. Bogue Chitto NWR can contribute to the program’s recreational fishing goal to provide
quality opportunities for responsible fishing and other related recreational enjoyment of aquatic
resources on Service lands.
Louisiana and Mississippi Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Wildlife Action
Plan). These wildlife action plans will direct the overall efforts by the LDWF and MDWFP over the
next 10 years in assessing the status of and managing where appropriate, the varied habitats and
wildlife species. Conservation actions have been developed for each ecoregion in the states in order
to address threats to the habitats of these areas. The states will work with a variety of partners in
18 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
carrying out these recommended conservation actions. These states consider the Service an
important partner in this process, and natural resource conservation efforts at the Bogue Chitto NWR
to be an important part of actions taken in the Pearl River Basin.
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Bogue Chitto NWR is part of the Gulf Coastal Plains and
Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative (Figure 4). The Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks
Landscape Conservation Cooperative will facilitate conservation planning and design across this
highly diverse region in southeastern North America that extends for 180 million acres from the
mountain tops of the Ozark, Boston, and Ouachita ranges, to the pine savannas and prairies of the
West and East Coastal Plains, down into the swamps, bayous, and alluvial bottomlands of the mighty
Mississippi River and its tributaries, and along the beachfronts and shorelines of the northeast Gulf
Coast. With accelerating climate change threatening to impact wildlife and fisheries, a capability is
being developed to test, implement, and monitor conservation strategies responsive to this dynamic
landscape. These strategies are model-based and geographically defined, allowing us to effectively
apply our emerging climate knowledge to predict habitat and species changes and to target our
conservation action.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
In order to prepare a final CCP that will establish goals and objectives on how to manage this refuge
over the next 15 years, a number of planning steps were followed. One of those steps was an
internal review of known ecological threats and problems that may hinder the ability of refuge
personnel to fulfill the objectives of the refuge. That review developed the following list of concerns:
 Forest loss and fragmentation
 Altered hydrology
 Climate change
 Non-point source pollution
 Urbanization
 Proliferation of non-native invasive species
FOREST LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION
Vast areas of bottomland hardwood forests have been reduced to forest fragments, ranging in size
from very small tracts of limited functional value to a few large areas that have maintained many of
the original functions and values of forested wetlands. This process, which is known as forest
fragmentation, has reduced the size and connectivity of forest habitat patches and resulted in the
disruption of extensive forest habitats into smaller and smaller isolated patches.
Severe forest fragmentation has resulted in a significant decline in biological diversity and integrity.
Species endemic to the area that have become extinct, threatened, or endangered include the red
wolf (Canis lupus rufus), Florida panther (Puma concolor), ivory-billed woodpecker, Bachman’s
warbler (Vermivora bachmanii), and Louisiana black bear. Breeding bird surveys show continuing
declines in species and species population numbers. The avian species most adversely affected by
forest fragmentation include those that are area-sensitive (i.e., dependent on large continuous blocks
of hardwood forest); those that depend on forest interiors; those that have special habitat
requirements, such as mature forests or a particular food source; and those that require good water
quality. More than 70 species of breeding migratory birds are found in the region. Some of these
species, including Swainson’s warbler (Limnothlypis swainsoni), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria
citrea), swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) and cerulean
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
warbler (Dendroica cerulea), have declined significantly and need the benefits of large forested
blocks to recover and sustain their existence.
Due to fragmentation, the forest edge and the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) (i.e., a seed-eating
bird common in agricultural areas) are now closer to the natural nesting sites of many forest
interior nesting birds. The brown-headed cowbird is a parasitic nester that lays eggs in the nests of
other birds, rather than building a nest of its own. Nestling cowbirds often out-compete host species,
because the cowbirds are typically larger and more aggressive. This results in poor reproductive
success and declining populations of forest interior-nesting species. Fragmentation of bottomland
hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts surrounded by non-forested lands.
The loss of connectivity between the remaining forested areas hinders the movement of wildlife
between tracts, and reduces the functional values of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The lost
connections also result in a loss of gene flow. Restoring the connections to allow gene flow and
reestablish travel corridors is particularly important for some wide-ranging species, such as the
threatened Louisiana black bear. (USFWS 2008)
ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY
There have been significant alterations in the region’s hydrology due to flood control levees, urban
development, river channel modifications, and degradation of aquatic systems from excessive
erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants.
The ability of the river/floodplain ecosystem to transport and assimilate nutrients and chemicals has also
been impaired to the point that state and federal water quality standards are not met in many water
bodies. This is compounded by industrial and urban runoff and leaks from oil and gas pipelines. These
waste streams enter the refuge mainly through storm water and non-point source runoff.
The Pearl River floodplain has changed markedly over the last 100 years as civilization spread
throughout the area. From the 1950s to the 1990s, it has been estimated that 20 million acres of
bottomland hardwood forested wetlands have been lost. The greatest changes to the landscape
have been in the form of land clearing for agricultural, gravel pit mining, and flood control projects.
Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living in the area, they have had a
tremendous effect on biological diversity and integrity, and environmental health of the basin.
CLIMATE CHANGE
The culmination of recent findings on world climate has prompted the Service to include information
on climate changes and sea level rise as critical issues facing national wildlife refuges, especially
those located within coastal zones. According to the Environmental Defense Organization, on
February 2, 2007, the international group of experts tasked with evaluating climate science, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released its summary of the latest findings on
global warming. The report summarizes research conducted from about 2001 through the end of
2005 and concludes that "…numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed. These
include changes in…the intensity of tropical cyclones." The report also finds that in the North Atlantic
fiercer hurricanes are "correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures." Additionally,
John Huffman’s report, Estimates of Future Sea Level Rise, developed four different scenarios to
estimate sea level rise. These scenarios included a "conservative" scenario, which projects a sea
level rise of 56.2 cm (22 in) by 2100; a "high" scenario, which projects a rise of 345 cm (11.5 feet) by
2100, and two mid-range scenarios projecting rises of 144 cm (4.8 feet) and 216cm (7 feet). Huffman
predicts that the sea level rise at the end of this century is most likely to fall within the mid-range
scenarios (~5-7 feet). With the possibility of future habitat degradation due to world climate changes,
20 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
the Service is investigating modeling national wildlife refuges using SLAMM (Sea Level Rise Affects
Marshes Model) to predict how climate changes will affect different regions of the county, especially
coastal regions. At this time the Service is still working to assess probable long-term effects for each
refuge, and monitoring the situation is advised until additional information is available.
The IPCC has concluded that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal." Global climate change
poses risks not only to human health but also to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Abundance and
distribution of wildlife and fish will change, particularly affecting those species already "at risk."
Important economic resources such as agriculture, forestry, and water resources also can be affected.
Warmer temperatures, more severe droughts and floods, and sea level rise will have a wide range of
impacts. All these stresses, added to existing stresses on resources caused by other influences such
as population growth, land-use changes, and pollution, pose a significant challenge for fish and
wildlife conservation.
According to NOAA and NASA data, the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about
1.2 to 1.4ºF since 1900. The ten warmest years in the 20th century have all occurred within the past
15 years. Some climate models, based on emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide, predict that average surface temperatures could increase from 2.5 to
10.4oF by the end of the 21st century. The frequency of extremely hot summer days is expected to
increase, along with this general warming trend. Increases in atmospheric CO2 are attributed largely
to human activities, which have grown rapidly since the 1940s. The burning of fossil fuels adds 5.6
billion tons of carbon (and deforestation contributes another 0.4 to 2.5 billion tons of carbon) to the
atmosphere each year.
Global warming, resulting in melting of glaciers and ice sheets and the thermal expansion of ocean
water, will cause sea levels to rise. Globally, sea level has risen 4–10 inches during the past century.
NASA estimates that yearly, 50 billion tons of ice is melting from the Greenland ice sheet. NASA
aerial surveys show that more than 11 cubic miles of ice is disappearing from the ice sheet annually.
Considering that land less than 10 meters above sea level contains 2 percent of the world's land
surface but 10 percent of its population, major impacts will be felt by large numbers of people living
on the lower lying coastlands, particularly the Gulf Coast States. In Louisiana, coastal land
subsidence exacerbates the effects of sea level rise. At Grand Isle sea level already is rising by 41
inches per century, and is likely to rise another 55 inches by 2100. A 1- to 3-foot increase in sea level
over the next century would submerge about 70 percent of Louisiana's remaining salt marshes as
well as convert inland freshwater marshes to brackish or salt marshes. Louisiana currently is losing
coastal wetlands at a more rapid rate (~25 to 50 square miles a year) than any other coastal state or
region in the United States (EPA 1997). The IPCC lists New Orleans as North America's most
vulnerable city to the impacts of climate change.
In addition to the rising seas, the effects of climate change and global warming will be changes in
weather/rainfall patterns, decreases in snow and ice cover, rising sea levels, and stressed
ecosystems. For the southeastern United States and the Louisiana region this could mean extreme
precipitation events; greater likelihood of warmer/dryer summers and wetter/reduced winter cold; and,
alterations of ecosystems and habitats due to these changes in weather patterns. For Bogue Chitto
NWR, warmer conditions would favor increased densities of vegetation and wetter conditions would
favor trees and vegetation that are better adapted to these conditions such as bald cypress and water
tupelo in freshwater areas and salt marsh cover in brackish areas. If conditions become drier, the
current range and density of forests would be reduced and replaced by grasslands and the probability
of wildfires would increase.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
A recent study of the effects of climate change on eastern United States’ bird species concluded that
as many as 78 bird species could decrease by at least 25 percent while as many as 33 species could
increase in abundance by at least 25 percent due to climate and habitat changes (Matthews et al.
2004). In short, global warming could increase storm intensity, negatively change ecologically
important plant species, alter the spread of invasive species, increase drought-induced fires,
transition subtidal marshes and shift marshes inland, and further imperil already threatened and
endangered species.
URBANIZATION
Urban development (Bogue Chitto NWR is located north of New Orleans, a city with a present
population of over 250,000 with a metro area population of approximately one million people)
changes hydrology.
Bogue Chitto NWR is surrounded on all sides by encroaching urbanization. The towns of Sun and
Bush and the outskirts of the city of Bogalusa surround the refuge to the North, the community of
Henleyfield and the city of Picayune to the East, the town of Nicholson and the city of Pearl River to
the South and the towns of Talisheek and Hickory to the West.
Natural landscapes allow water to slowly and gradually filter into the ground. Rooftops, driveways,
roads, and other surfaces associated with urban development are nonporous, causing water to
accumulate above the surface and to run off in large volumes and at higher velocities, causing
flooding and erosion. Because of the variety of pollutants associated with urban runoff–oil and
grease from automobiles, nutrients and pesticides from lawns and gardens, sediment from
construction sites, bacteria from pets and improper sewage disposal, household debris, etc.–urban
development results in reduced water quality. Nearby factories provide impurities and other water
pollution that provides mercury in the refuge’s waters as well as other contaminants. However, the
largest problem is increased fluctuations of water flow because of dams to the north and pollution
form gravel pit mining all around the refuge.
Gravel pit mining is on the increase. With fewer sources available regionally, the pressure on
landowners surrounding the refuge to mine for gravel increased the potential for runoff to impact the
water turbidity on the refuge.
PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE PLANTS AND ANIMALS
The introduction of exotic or nonnative plants on the refuge has threatened the natural aquatic
vegetation important to aquatic systems, and has choked waterways to a degree that often prevents
recreational use. Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) is a tree that grows and spreads rapidly, is
difficult to kill, and tends to take over large areas by out-competing native plants. It was introduced
from Asia and is planted widely as an ornamental tree. Birds disperse the seeds, which have spread
within the refuge where it is a significant threat to woody species. This species has been especially
invasive around the natural ridge levee.
Non-native wildlife is an issue of which the refuge administration has struggled with for many years.
Animals such as nutria compete with native wildlife for limited resources and many, like feral hogs, have
caused extensive habitat damage and alterations. Presently, the refuge has a hunting plan that allows the
removal of nuisance hogs, thus reducing damage to habitat and food supplies of native wildlife.
22 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CURRENT CLIMATE
Climate in this region is subtropical with mild winters and hot, humid summers. Temperatures
average 81.6 degrees F in summer and 54.0 degrees F in winter. Sporadic afternoon thunderstorms
occur almost daily in summer with rainfall averages 61.03 inches per year. The maximum 24-hour
rainfall for the area is 10.0 to10.5 inches, with a recurrence interval of 25 years. According to a
recent Weather Channel special report, the New Orleans area is the most vulnerable in the country
when it comes to hurricanes. With the gradual warming of Gulf of Mexico waters due to global
climate change, hurricanes and tropical storms from the Gulf are likely to be more severe and more
frequent. This leaves the New Orleans area, located just above sea level, extremely vulnerable.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
The surface of Louisiana is characterized by geologically young sedimentary sequences that were
deposited in or adjacent to rivers and deltas in a coastal-plain setting. These deposits indicate that a
major river system corresponding to the Mississippi has persisted at least since the Gulf of Mexico
began to form. Through time, fluvial, deltaic, and coastal deposits have advanced southward toward
the coastline and continue to fill the Gulf of Mexico. Most of Louisiana was formed by these
Mississippi River sediment deposits. As sea-level rose and fell over this low-lying region, the
Mississippi River carried vast sediment loads and sedimentary rocks from the core of the North
American continent and deposited them on the rim of the Gulf of Mexico. Organic matter from highly
productive marine waters was deeply buried under the sediments, and through various processes
has turned into petroleum. Massive salt deposits, formed by evaporation of sea water during pre-historic
dry periods, provide a stable confining layer for the underlying petroleum. Most surface
exposures consist of Quaternary (Pleistocene and Holocene) sediment, Figure 6. (Louisiana
Geological Survey 2008; Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality et al. 2007a; USFWS
2006a; and Boykin 1990)
Quaternary-Pleistocene
Approximately 20 to 25 percent of the state's surface is occupied by deposits associated with
Pleistocene (1.6 to 0.01 mya) terraces in the eastern and western parts of southern Louisiana. These
terraces also consist of sand, gravel, and mud, but underlie raised, flat surfaces with varying degrees
of tilt and dissection depending on their relative ages. These surfaces are remnants of preexisting
floodplains, and form trends along the major rivers in north Louisiana and coast-parallel belts in south
Louisiana.
Quaternary-Holocene
Holocene (10,000 years to present) alluvial sediments of the Mississippi, Red, Atchafalaya, and other
rivers and smaller tributaries, together with coastal marsh deposits, occupy about 55 percent of
Louisiana’s surface. The alluvial sediments consist of sandy and gravelly channel deposits mantled
by sandy to muddy natural levee deposits, with organic-rich muddy backwater deposits in between;
coastal marsh deposits are chiefly fine-grained clay, silt, and organic matter. The coastal region of
Louisiana has been formed over just the last 7,500 years.
The geological history of Bogue Chitto NWR dates to the Pleistocene Epoch when coarse, gravelly
terraces were fluvially deposited through upland river valleys now occupied by the Tchefuncte and
Pearl Rivers, north and east of the refuge. The depositional age of the Pleistocene sediments
underlying the refuge is from 35,000 to less than 25,000 years ago.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
HYDROLOGY AN D WATER QUALITY
The Pearl River flows through the States of Mississippi and Louisiana. It forms in Winston County,
Mississippi, from the confluence of Nanawaya and Tallahaga Creeks. It is 490 miles long. The
Yockanookany and Strong Rivers are tributaries. Northeast of Jackson, the Ross Barnett Reservoir
is formed by a dam.
West of Picayune, about 50 miles above the mouth, the river forks. The East Pearl River empties into
Lake Borgne where the dredged Pearl River Channel meets the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. The
discharge flows eastward past Grand Island through St. Joe Pass and into the Mississippi Sound.
The West Pearl River, on the other hand, flows into the Rigolets, and then into Lake Borgne. Both
discharges eventually reach the Gulf of Mexico.
The Pearl River serves as the 116-mile boundary between Mississippi and Louisiana, in its lower
reach near the Gulf of Mexico. The basin of the Pearl River contains 7 million acres and drains an
area of 8,760 square miles, draining all or parts of 23 counties in Mississippi and 3 parishes in
Louisiana (Figure 3). It is the third largest drainage basin in the State of Mississippi, meandering
approximately 421 miles through the central portion of Mississippi and a small part of southeastern
Louisiana. More than 2 trillion gallons of water pass along its banks each year.
The USACE has undertaken three significant navigation projects in the Pearl River Basin. In 1880,
Congress authorized a 5-foot navigation channel on the West Pearl River from Jackson to the Rigolets.
That project was discontinued in 1922. Beginning in 1910, a channel was dredged from the mouth of
the East Pearl River into Lake Borgne, a project which is maintained on an irregular basis. In 1935, the
West Pearl River Navigation Project was authorized. It provided for a navigation channel from
Bogalusa to the mouth of the West Pearl River. The project includes a canal with three locks. The
USACE placed the project in "caretaker" status in the 1970s, because of a decline in commercial traffic.
Maintenance dredging resumed in December 1988.
In the 1950s, underwater concrete sills were constructed to help maintain water levels in the
navigation channel. This has prevented gulf sturgeon and other migratory species from accessing
upstream areas. A rock ramp constructed in 2003 helps fish navigate over one of the sills, but
environmental groups propose further work to mitigate the effects of the navigation project.
AIR QUALITY
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 (as amended in 1990 and 1997), required the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to implement air quality standards to protect public health and welfare.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were set for six pollutants commonly found
throughout the United States: lead, ozone, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5).
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality operates National Ambient Monitoring Stations
(NAMS) and state and local ambient monitoring stations (SLAMS) to measure ambient concentrations
of these pollutants. Areas that meet NAAQS are designated “attainment areas,” while areas not
meeting the standards are termed “non-attainment” areas. While no pollutant monitoring data are
available for Bogue Chitto NWR, per se, air quality is monitored on a regular basis in the city of New
Orleans and vicinity. The monitoring results indicate that all of the New Orleans area qualifies as an
attainment area for all monitored pollutants, and that air quality has improved since 1990. Currently,
only the Baton Rouge area is in non-attainment of EPA’s 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
24 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
Following Hurricane Katrina, the National Resources Defense Council collected ambient air samples
in Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes in October and November 2005. Samples were analyzed for
both mold spores and heavy metals. The level of mold spores found in the flooded areas of New
Orleans was very high and posed a health threat to people with allergies, asthma, and other
respiratory disease. The most common types of mold detected were Cladosporium and
Aspergillus/Penicillium species. High concentrations of metals (e.g., lead, arsenic, and chromium) in
ambient air samples were also found. Thick clouds of dust from drying sediment deposited by the
flooding were observed during the sampling. In St. Tammany Parish, lead concentrations in ambient
air samples exceeded the EPA national standard of 1.5  g/m3. Arsenic and chromium
concentrations in ambient air samples collected in Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes were
significantly higher than EPA health-based screening levels. The concentrations of all three metals
were higher than previous monitoring data collected prior to Hurricane Katrina. It is unknown where
and for how long these moldy, dusty conditions persisted (or will persist) and to what extent residents
are (or will be) exposed to the mold and dust contamination during cleanup activities.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Bogue Chitto NWR is primarily composed of bottomland hardwood habitat interlaced by the Bogue
Chitto and Pearl River Systems (Figure 5). Numerous sloughs, bayous, and lakes are located on the
refuge. Water levels fluctuate by several feet from their low point in the summer to winter/spring flood
stage. More than 90 percent of the refuge can be flooded during seasonal high-river periods. The
mixed hardwood forest includes water oak, overcup oak, American elm, sweetgum, and swamp red
maple on higher elevations and bald cypress, tupelo gum, and swamp blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica
var. biflora) in the wettest areas. Mid-story throughout the hardwood forest includes ironwood,
arrowwood, Virginia willow (Itea virginica), and reproduction of the overstory species. Typical mid-story
plants along the sloughs and bayous are buttonbush, swamp privet, and water elm.
The abundance and quality of wildlife habitat within forests often depend upon the time, distribution,
intensity, and frequency of disturbance. Disturbances in the southeast often include tornadoes,
hurricanes, floods, fires, silvicultural treatments, and others. Due to the effects of Hurricane Katrina
on Bogue Chitto NWR, active forest management through silvicultural treatments, such as thinnings,
group selection, and patch cuts, may be limited in the short term (next 5-10 years). However, through
natural succession and the dynamics of bottomland hardwood forests, these stands will continue to
change and reach closed canopy conditions. Once this occurs, the majority of the refuge forests will
be in a uniform condition. The closed canopy conditions will result in generally poor horizontal
structure, thus limiting habitat diversity. Early successional habitat in these areas will also be limited.
Furthermore, the understory is typically deficient in forage and soft mast, as well as cover, which are
important elements for the threatened Louisiana black bear and numerous other mammals,
particularly white-tailed deer. Vertical structure for wildlife species that utilize the understory and
midstory layers, including many neotropical migratory bird species, is generally poor also in the
closed-canopy conditions. Therefore, sustaining periodic disturbances through silvicultural
treatments in the future will be essential in creating and maintaining favorable habitat conditions that
are beneficial to priority wildlife species on Bogue Chitto NWR. Forest management is the single
most important tool for the refuge to improve habitat quality for wildlife species.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Figure 5. Habitat on Bogue Chitto NWR
26 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
Current Forest Conditions – Upland Pine
Due to the effects of Hurricane Katrina on Bogue Chitto NWR, the pine forest managed for gopher
tortoise preferred habitat through silvicultural treatments such as thinnings, group selection, and
patch cuttings was advanced to create conditions of open treeless ridges and forested swales
(Figure 6). The area along Dumas Wise Road was recently (2002-2007) planted with longleaf pine
seedlings. The Louisiana uplands near Lock 3 were planted in the early 1990s with longleaf pine
but many overstory pine trees were also felled by Hurricane Katrina. The area has been and
continues to be prescribed burned on a 3-year rotation since the late 1980s.
Current Forest Conditions – Bottomland Hardwoods
In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina swept through coastal Louisiana and Mississippi significantly
affecting forests throughout the region. Bogue Chitto NWR suffered major damages from the storm.
The bottomland hardwood forests on the refuge were severely impacted. Approximately 60-70
percent of the overstory canopy trees were destroyed. Therefore, the composition and structure of
the forests have been significantly altered. However, the majority of the composition and structure
factors of the remaining forest is close to the range given in the desired forest conditions (LMVJV
2007), which include overstory canopy, midstory canopy, basal area, and tree stocking. For example,
the average basal area for the remaining forests on the refuge is approximately 40-50 square feet per
acre, and the desired stand structure for basal area is 60-70 square feet per acre. Although the
average basal area is outside the desired parameters presently, these conditions will change and the
forests will grow into these parameters within the next few years, as well as other parameter ranges.
Bogue Chitto NWR is composed primarily of bottomland hardwood habitat with a limited amount of
upland pine forests. Forest management is usually at the forefront of our management activities
(Figure 6). One way we achieve a vibrant habitat on Bogue Chitto NWR is through forest habitat
improvement. This involves thinning out of less desirable species by timber harvest or herbicides.
There is also some reforestation of longleaf pine and mixed hardwood species.
There is also an active prescribed burning program that takes place on Bogue Chitto NWR. One
reason we use prescribed fire is so that the vegetation can grow back fuller and greener and to get rid
of the any undesirable midstory. However, one of the main reasons we use prescribed fire on Bogue
Chitto is to provide foraging habitat for the threatened gopher tortoise. The gopher tortoise needs low
grassy ground cover to thrive, and prescribed burning accomplishes this. Prescribed burning also
provides new nutrient-rich grasses through succession.
WILDLIFE
The refuge is home to hundreds of bird species. The most abundant species are the neotropical
migratory birds. Some of the neotropical migratory birds found on the refuge include: prothonotary and
Swainson's warblers, flycatchers, yellow-billed cuckoos (Coccyzus americanus), and white-eyed vireos
(Vireo griseus). In smaller numbers found on the refuge are migratory game birds such as woodcock and
turkey, wading birds such as egrets and herons, waterfowl such as wood duck (Aix sponsa), and raptors
such as hawks and owls.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Figure 6. Upland and bottomland hardwood forest management on Bogue Chitto NWR
28 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
For Bogue Chitto NWR specifically, the overabundance of understory due to the after-effects of
Hurricane Katrina probably supports density of the priority species (Swainson’s Warbler,
Kentucky Warbler [Oporornis formosus], and Hooded Warbler [Wilsonia citrina]) well over the
suggested densities. However, the concern will be during the next 10 years as the massive
understory moves higher to become a massive midstory whereby densities of the priority species
would likely fall well below the values suggested without management action to break the
midstory up. The primary need will be to diversify structure in forests that exhibit closed canopied
conditions with little vertical and horizontal vegetative structure. At appropriate sites, emphasis
should be placed on promoting dense cane thickets.
Other priority avian species utilizing the refuge include the American woodcock (a winter migrant with
localized breeding confirmed in Louisiana) and the swallow-tailed kite (a high-priority, local breeder in
the Pearl River Basin). Preferred woodcock habitats include alluvial floodplain forests and wetlands
with well-developed sapling, shrub, vine, and cane understory mixed with open fields and young
forest stands on the uplands. Diurnally, woodcock probe for earthworms and other invertebrates in
the moist soils of floodplains and wetlands; while nocturnally using openings, old fields, and newly
established forest regeneration areas for courting and display. Regarding the latter, such habitats are
apparently available on the adjacent uplands on private lands (at least for the time being), and
primary focus on managing habitats for breeding songbirds in forested wetlands should also provide
excellent habitat conditions for American woodcock.
The swallow-tailed kite is a species of conservation concern whose population underwent a marked
decline in the past. The lower Pearl River Basin and the Bogue Chitto NWR, in particular, provide a
mostly non-fragmented, forested wetland landscape, ideal for swallow-tailed kite breeding activity in
the heart of their United States’ breeding range. Swallow-tailed kites are known to currently use the
refuge for nesting, roosting, pre-migration roosting, and pre-migration fattening (i.e., foraging). With
limited information about breeding habitat requirements, protecting where the kites are now is the
most prudent strategy, because the species exhibits strong site fidelity and nesting pairs will often
reuse the same territory over multiple years. Kites are also highly social raptors and logging a
nesting neighborhood may disrupt their social system when they are forced to relocate.
The riverine, slough, and upland mixed-pine and hardwood forests and floodplain forests of the
refuge are suitable for numerous species of reptiles and amphibians. Multiple species of snakes,
lizards, frogs, toads, salamanders, and turtles occupy the refuge. Commonly seen species include
the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), red-eared slider (Chrysemys scripta), water
moccasin (Agkistrodon piscivorus), eastern mud snake (Farancia abacura), five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala). No
herpetological surveys have been conducted to date on refuge lands.
The gopher tortoise is a long-lived, native burrowing species of open, fire-maintained longleaf pine
ecosystems. Historically, typical gopher tortoise habitat consisted of open, frequently burned longleaf
pine or longleaf pine/scrub oak upland sand flatwoods on moderately well drained to xeric soils. The
decline of the gopher tortoise has been linked to the decline of these open, fire-maintained and
longleaf pine forests. Other causes for decline have included habitat fragmentation, invasion of fire
ants (Solenopsis invicta), predation, and human-caused mortality resulting from roads and heavy
equipment associated with forest site preparation and timber harvest.
Bogue Chitto NWR is within the area occupied by the western population of gopher tortoise
(Figure 7). This population lies west of the Tombigbee and Mobile Rivers in Alabama, through
south Mississippi and including extreme southeastern Louisiana. This western population of
the tortoise is federally listed as threatened. The primary threats to the species on listing were
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
considered to be habitat alteration and conversion, and illegal take. More recently, the primary
threats continue to be considered habitat conversion, forest management practices, impact of
habitat fragmentation, fire ants, and predation.
On the pine uplands managed for the gopher tortoise (about 1,000 acres), efforts should continue to
thin and burn to promote a grassy-herbaceous ground cover. This should suffice to provide adequate
habitat conditions for priority open pine woodland associated species.
The ringed map turtle is a small map turtle (4 to 7 inches) which is endemic to the Pearl River system in
Louisiana and Mississippi. The ringed map turtle typically utilizes riverine habitat with a moderate
current and numerous basking logs, and requires sand and gravel bars for nesting. The species feeds
primarily on aquatic snails and other mollusks as well as aquatic insects. Basking logs open to many
hours of sunlight daily appear to be an important habitat component and basking is a characteristic
behavior of this species. Map turtles are habitual baskers and rely on basking sites and branches for
temperature regulation, feeding, and nocturnal resting sites. They appear to prefer basking sites which
are partially submerged in areas of deepest water and swiftest current. Good water quality, which is
necessary for production of snails and mollusks, is also important for turtle productivity.
The species was listed as federally threatened in 1988. At that time, evidence suggested that the
species was restricted to the main channels of the Pearl and Bogue Chitto Rivers of Mississippi and
Louisiana, and while abundant at some locales was almost extirpated from other river reaches. The
ringed map turtle has been threatened by habitat modification for flood control and navigation which
contribute to downstream river sedimentation, turbidity, and siltation affecting food resources and
removal of habitat components including logs and river bars. Commercial collecting for the pet trade
and water quality degradation are also threats to the ringed map turtle. Given the endemic status of
the turtle and the compounding threats, the impacts of any contributions of Bogue Chitto NWR to the
conservation and improvement of habitat for the ringed map turtle may be significant.
CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
The rich cultural and geographic history of the Louisiana bayou country can be traced along the route
taken by French-Canadian Pierre le Moyne, Sieur du Iberville, who in 1699 led an expedition to
explore the Mississippi River and secure the claim of the Louisiana Territory as a French colony. Le
Tour du Iberville was an official part of the Louisiana Tri-centennial Celebration, known as
"FrancoFete '99," a year-long commemoration of the 300th anniversary of the founding of Louisiana
by du Iberville. His route extended from Mobile, Alabama, across the Mississippi Gulf coast, up the
Mississippi River to the Houmas Native American Nation settlement at the confluence of the Red
River, and across the north shore of Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain. On March 28, 1999, the
Lacombe Heritage Center celebrated the 300th anniversary of the encampment of Iberville and four
Canadians on Goose Point near the mouth of Bayou Lacombe.
The Pearl River Basin, where Bogue Chitto NWR is located, contains a wealth of historical and
legendary tradition. Traces of civilizations dating back to 400 B.C. have been found in the southern
part of the river near Mulatto Bayou. While the lower Pearl River abounds with tales of river boat
pirates, legend proclaims the Great Spirit told the Choctaw Indians to make their home along the
banks of the upper portion of what they called “Rock River.”
30 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
European civilization came to this region in the 1600s with the Spanish and French explorers. The
French explorer D’Iberville renamed the river Pearl after he and his men discovered pearls at the
mouth of the river in 1698. The French recognized the Pearl as a potentially important transportation
route for settlers and in 1732 had the river explored and mapped. This helped open the entire basin
to European settlers. The original survey is still preserved today in the French Archives in Paris.
Early journals by explorers describe the immense terrain of this area, which was once covered with
vast aquatic prairies, huge cypress swamps, and panoramas of tall pine forests. After defeat in the
Civil War, and during Reconstruction, a coalition of civil and military occupying forces plundered the
area, including carpetbagger corporations that clear cut huge 1,500-year-old cypresses in the
Manchac Swamp and ancient long-needle yellow pine forests. The area was left with a legacy of
erosion, subsidence, and drainage problems.
To protect and restore the natural resources, several parks, preserves, and wildlife refuges have
been established in St. Tammany Parish during the 1900s. The Bogue Chitto NWR, which includes
36,502 acres—much of it bottomland hardwoods—is located in Washington and St. Tammany
Parishes, Louisiana, and Pearl River County, Mississippi.
Before the river became a highway of commerce and transportation, it was a route into the wilderness. It
opened the way for settlers to move in and to cultivate the fertile bottomlands. With the onset of
agricultural and commercial development, the Pearl River served as a water highway to transport
tremendous harvests of virgin pine and hardwood timber. Steamboats were common sights as far up
river as Edinburg, Mississippi, bringing supplies to the settlers and returning with marketable cargo.
Steamboats and keelboats were limited to seasonal travel because of low water levels during the summer
months. The river was also narrow and crooked and contained innumerable snags and tree trunks.
These conditions and the development of railroads eventually brought an end to the steamboat era.
Today, the river is once again the scene of much activity. In 1964, the Pearl River Basin
Development District was created by the Mississippi State Legislature as a special fund agency that
would oversee the balanced growth of the water resource potentials of the river.
By 1999, St. Tammany was the fastest growing parish in Louisiana. Because much of the
development has been unplanned, local citizens have organized "Visions 2025" to develop a master
plan for the parish.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Bogue Chitto NWR is located in southeastern Louisiana in St. Tammany and Washington Parishes
and southwestern Mississippi in Pearl River County. The U.S. Census Bureau American Community
Survey estimates are used to produce the following facts and are based on data collected over a 3-
year time period. The estimates presented below represent the average characteristics of population
and housing between January 2005 and December 2007, and do not represent a single point in time.
General social, political, and economic information for each parish/county is provided below.
ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA
St. Tammany Parish had a total population of 223,000 - 114,000 (51 percent) females and 109,000
(49 percent) males from 2005-2007. The median age was 36.9 years. Twenty-six percent of the
population was under 18 years and 11 percent was 65 years and older. For people reporting one
race alone, 85 percent was white; 12 percent was black or African-American; less than 0.5 percent
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Figure 7. Occupied gopher tortoise habitat on Bogue Chitto NWR
32 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
One of the settlers was a French Canadian named Louis LeFleur who came to the Pearl River in 1792.
LeFleur established a trading post in an area that would later become Mississippi’s capital city, Jackson.
Mississippi was awarded statehood in 1817 and a search for a state capital ensued. LeFleur’s
Trading Post was the most attractive site because of its central location, nearness to the Natchez
Trace, and the availability of a navigable stream - the Pearl River.
was American Indian and Alaska Native; 1 percent was Asian; less than 0.5 percent was Native
Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and 1 percent was some other race. Two percent reported two
or more races. Three percent of the people in St. Tammany Parish were Hispanic. Eighty-two
percent of the people in St. Tammany Parish were white non-Hispanic. People of Hispanic origin
may be of any race. The median income of households in St. Tammany Parish was $58,653. Eighty-two
percent of the households received earnings and 18 percent received retirement income other
than Social Security. Twenty-seven percent of the households received Social Security. The
average income from Social Security was $14,704. These income sources are not mutually
exclusive; that is, some households received income from more than one source.
Families made up 74 percent of the households in St. Tammany Parish. This figure includes both
married-couple families (58 percent) and other families (16 percent). Non-family households
made up 26 percent of all households in St. Tammany Parish. Most of the nonfamily households
were people living alone, but some were composed of people living in households in which no
one was related to the householder.
Three percent of the people living in St. Tammany Parish from 2005-2007 were foreign born.
Ninety-seven percent were native, including 70 percent who were born in Louisiana. Among
people at least 5 years old living in St. Tammany Parish from 2005-2007, 6 percent spoke a
language other than English at home. Of those speaking a language other than English at home,
57 percent spoke Spanish and 43 percent spoke some other language; 31 percent reported that
they did not speak English "very well."
From 2005-2007, 87 percent of people 25 years and over had at least graduated from high school
and 30 percent had a bachelor's degree or higher. Thirteen percent were dropouts; they were not
enrolled in school and had not graduated from high school.
From 2005-2007, for the employed population 16 years and older, the leading industries in St.
Tammany Parish were educational services, health care, and social assistance, 21 percent; and retail
trade, 13 percent.
WASHINGTON PARISH
From 2005-2007, Washington Parish had a total population of 44,000 - 23,000 (51 percent) females
and 22,000 (49 percent) males. The median age was 36.2 years. Twenty-six percent of the
population was under 18 years and 14 percent was 65 years and older. For people reporting one
race alone, 67 percent was white; 32 percent was black or African-American; less than 0.5 percent
was American Indian and Alaska Native; less than 0.5 percent was Asian; less than 0.5 percent was
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and less than 0.5 percent was some other race. One
percent reported two or more races. One percent of the people in Washington Parish was Hispanic.
Sixty-six percent of the people in Washington Parish were white non-Hispanic. People of Hispanic
origin may be of any race. The median income of households in Washington Parish was $31,532.
Seventy-one percent of the households received earnings and 17 percent received retirement income
other than Social Security. Thirty-five percent of the households received Social Security. The
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
average income from Social Security was $12,289. These income sources are not mutually
exclusive; that is, some households received income from more than one source. Families made up
70 percent of the households in Washington Parish. This figure includes both married-couple families
(46 percent) and other families (24 percent). Non-family households made up 30 percent of all
households in Washington Parish. Most of the non-family households were people living alone, but
some were composed of people living in households in which no one was related to the householder.
From 2005-2007, 77 percent of people 25 years and over had at least graduated from high school
and 12 percent had a bachelor's degree or higher. Twenty-four percent were dropouts; they were not
enrolled in school and had not graduated from high school.
From 2005-2007, for the employed population 16 years and older, the leading industries in
Washington Parish were educational services, health care, and social assistance, 22 percent; and
construction, 13 percent.
PEARL RIVER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
From 2005-2007, Pearl River County had a total population of 55,000 - 28,000 (51 percent) females
and 27,000 (49 percent) males. The median age was 36.7 years. Twenty-five percent of the
population was under 18 years and 13 percent was 65 years and older.
For people reporting one race alone, 86 percent was white; 13 percent was black or African-
American; less than 0.5 percent was American Indian and Alaska Native; less than 0.5 percent was
Asian; less than 0.5 percent was Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander and 1 percent was some
other race. One percent reported two or more races. Two percent of the people in Pearl River
County were Hispanic. Eighty-four percent of the people in Pearl River County were white non-
Hispanic. People of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
The median income of households in Pearl River County was $35,817. Seventy-four percent of the
households received earnings and 21 percent received retirement income other than Social Security.
Thirty-five percent of the households received Social Security. The average income from Social
Security was $12,958. These income sources are not mutually exclusive; that is, some households
received income from more than one source.
Families made up 70 percent of the households in Pearl River County. This figure includes both
married-couple families (54 percent) and other families (16 percent). Non-family households made
up 30 percent of all households in Pearl River County. Most of the non-family households were
people living alone, but some were composed of people living in households in which no one was
related to the householder.
From 2005-2007, 78 percent of people 25 years and over had at least graduated from high school
and 15 percent had a bachelor's degree or higher. Twenty-two percent were dropouts; they were not
enrolled in school and had not graduated from high school.
From 2005-2007, for the employed population 16 years and older, the leading industries in Pearl
River County were construction, 17 percent, and educational services, health care, and social
assistance, 17 percent.
34 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
The refuge acquisition boundary is 48,240 acres. Certain critical inholdings are still needed to meet
habitat and public use objectives. These include foraging and sanctuary habitats for waterfowl and
bird conservation area forest objectives, as well as providing access to visitors, reducing off-refuge
impacts, and protecting unique habitats. Expansion will emphasize those tracts that have the
greatest potential to enhance ecological integrity.
Some of the habitats in most danger of being converted out of bottomland hardwoods are along the
east side of the refuge in Mississippi. Many of these lands are being converted into gravel pits or
other agricultural uses. In order to protect the integrity of these areas as well as protect the existing
refuge from runoff, these areas should be placed in conservation management. Pine lands and
pine/hardwood lands on the east side of the refuge are critical zones of influence on the refuge. They
provide a unique and lacking habitat that supports the refuge wildlife in times of high water. Those
areas are in danger of housing development and should also be placed in conservation management
either through acquisition or perpetual conservation easements.
VISITOR SERVICES
The Improvement Act and E.O. 12996 emphasize the importance of providing compatible wildlife-dependent
educational and recreational opportunities on national wildlife refuges. The refuge
provides all of the Service’s priority wildlife-dependent recreation to the public: hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
Public use on Bogue Chitto NWR consists of all the priority wildlife-dependent recreational
activities (Figure 8). A total of 39,323 recreational visitors came to the refuge in 2009. Of those,
16,990 were hunters, 16,000 were fisherman, 500 attended educational or interpretive programs,
and 33,200 observed wildlife.
There is a junior refuge management program which just began that takes place from late spring
through early fall. There is also an annual summer camp and youth fishing event on the refuge.
The fishing event is always the 1st or 2nd week in June, and it attracts about 300-400 kids and
adults for a day of fun and fishing.
Boating and fishing are allowed on most portions of the refuge along the Pearl River and other
areas, year-round in accordance with refuge and state regulations. Fishing at the refuge’s Pearl
River Turnaround site, which has three handicap accessible piers, is allowed all year except the
months of April, May, and June.
The refuge is open to hunting of deer, squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, turkey, waterfowl, woodcock, and
hog each fall in accordance with refuge and state regulations. The refuge will be closed to
camping and hunting (except waterfowl) when the water level at the Pearl River (Louisiana)
Gauge is at 15.5 feet or higher.
The new Holmes Bayou trail is a self-guided interpretive tour deep into the interior of Bogue Chitto
NWR, but not far away from some surrounding cities.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Wildlife observation and photography are allowed throughout the refuge. Most of the refuge is
accessible only by boat. The Holmes Bayou trail and Pearl River Turnaround are two vehicular
accessible sites on the Louisiana side of the refuge that offers a great opportunity for wildlife
observation and photography. There are also a few vehicular accessible sites on the Mississippi side
of Bogue Chitto.
PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE
Refuge administration refers to the operation and maintenance of refuge programs and facilities,
including construction. Five permanent staff positions are assigned to Bogue Chitto NWR. The
positions include: refuge manager, wildlife biologist, engineering equipment operator, park ranger
(non-law enforcement), and forester. These same five positions are also responsible for
management of Big Branch Marsh and Atchafalaya NWRs, and must assist with activities on all eight
refuges with Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex. The Complex staff consists of 26 permanent full-time
employees (Figure 9). The refuge also benefits from the help of interns and volunteers.
The Complex has a good base of equipment and facilities to support the management of all eight
refuges. The staff is responsible for the maintenance and operation of over $3 million in assets
including buildings, roads, parking lots, boardwalks, foot trails, and a fleet of heavy equipment, light
trucks, boats, and miscellaneous small equipment.
Coordination/Cooperative Programs
The refuge staff coordinates and cooperates extensively with state agencies, tribes, landowners, the
public, conservation groups, oil and gas companies, and local agencies and organizations. Bogue
Chitto NWR is a component of several important regional or ecosystem planning and management
efforts, and works with all levels of government and non-governmental organizations and private
citizens to accomplish goals and objectives specific to those efforts.
36 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 8. Current visitor services on Bogue Chitto NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Figure 9. Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex 2009 organizational chart
38 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
III. Plan Development
SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish and
wildlife protection, habitat restoration, recreation, and management of threatened and endangered
species. Additionally, the planning team considered federal and state mandates, as well as
applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also directed the process of obtaining
public input through public scoping meetings and personal comments. All public and advisory team
comments were considered; however, some issues important to the public fall outside the scope of
the decisions to be made within this planning process. The team has considered all issues that arose
through this planning process, and has developed a plan that attempts to balance the competing
opinions regarding important issues. The team identified those issues that, in the team’s best
professional judgment, are most significant to the refuge. A summary of the significant issues for
Bogue Chitto NWR follows.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
 Need baseline data on fish and wildlife populations
 Trapping – beaver
 Migratory bird management – migratory songbirds, waterfowl, minimal shorebird habitat
 Resident species management – deer, turkey
 Invasive and exotic species control; examples include tallowtrees, cogon grass, and feral hogs
Public Comments:
 Need baseline data on fish and wildlife populations
 Turkeys gone
 Possible problems with dredging due to endangered mussel
 Haven’t seen any bob-white quail in 9 years; afraid population is declining - used to see them
on refuge
 Fox will kill off quail
 Hog population is too high and competing with wildlife
 Concerned that bull frogs and wood duck populations have decreased in the area
HABITAT MANAGEMENT
Public Comments:
 Can’t cut vegetation which makes it impossible to move through
 Vegetation is very thick
 Allow hunters to cut briars and small vegetation to make the refuge accessible
 Make an effort to inventory, monitor, protect, and enhance habitat for refuge species,
particularly with regards to non-native species
 Conduct controlled burn in order to reduce vegetation loads from Hurricane Katrina and
increase access to Bogue Chitto NWR, especially along the Pearl River near Walkiah Bluff
40 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
 Believes the direct hit from a catastrophic hurricane and damage to Bogue Chitto NWR should
justify more aggressive habitat management including: (1) Conduct frequent controlled burns,
but not during turkey nesting season; (2) relax restrictions on cutting vegetation - let hunters
cut trails but only briars and no trees; and (3) bring in heavy equipment to push briars and
dead trees into large piles and burn them and then plant fast growing trees of all kinds.
RESOURCE PROTECTION
 Global warming concerns.
 Garbage dumping – (household and construction debris).
Public Comments:
 Move Bogue Chitto NWR closing water level to 16.5 feet at the Pearl River gauge in order to
bring in line with the closure level on the adjacent Pearl River WMA.
 Utilize new imagery data to evaluate area flooded on Bogue Chitto NWR at 15.5 and 16.5 feet
elevations.
 The Service needs to clear power line rights-of-ways
 The river is stalling on refuge and staying, slows river.
 Concerned with illegal dumping and river pollution.
 Litter caused by inconsiderate refuge users needs to be addressed.
 Would like to see the National Park Service, FWS, and Forest Service purchase every piece
of property possible.
 Boundary signs need to be improved. Storm knocked down a lot of signs.
 The problem would be if you were hunting on state land and person is actually hunting on
federal land.
 It would be nice to see statistics on what is taken on the refuge annually.
 Pearl River is not a state scenic river. Since it is not, the Pearl River needs to be dredged,
clearing out river and adding the dredge to marsh land.
 Is there going to be another reservoir and what would that do to the river flow on the refuge.
Ensure involvement in process due to potential effects on the refuge. Work with partners to
ensure river around area is not drained or knocked out.
 When river is low the only access is to walk the slough.
 The Nature Conservancy – Pearl River project manager, looking at sediment loads, two lakes
reservoir project is in the works, really important to stay in tune.
 Dredging may actually not improve area and in the long term will not start filling in again. Not
long-term solution.
 Dredging may make river able to navigate.
 Increase law enforcement presence on refuge. It seems to be absent.
 Concerned about shots heard and boating with spotlights at night.
 Weir at Walkiah Bluff is dangerous. Work with Corps to make it safer.
 The CCP should evaluate all wilderness lands that were previously proposed for wilderness
designation so that the public may understand the conservation status of those lands. The
CCP should also identify future management actions.
 The CCP must also address management actions for both potential and designated
wilderness lands
 The presence of the federally listed threatened gulf sturgeon and a highly diverse mussel
population in the waters of Bogue Chitto NWR make water quality in the refuge a special
consideration. The Wilderness Society urges refuge management to carefully review ongoing
sand and gravel mining operations.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
 Evaluate any other mineral extraction operations occurring in and around Bogue Chitto NWR
which could have deleterious effects on refuge inhabitants.
 The CCP should outline the challenges and management requirements associated with all
inholdings.
 The CCP should examine acquisition possibilities. In anticipation of changes to the landscape
due to outside development, global warming and other factors present new management
challenges. The response to these challenges may in some instances require refuge
expansion or boundary changes. Timely acquisition can enhance management capability to
ease new wildlife population pressures deriving from a warmer, drier climate and resulting
habitat perturbations.
 The Service is also required to identify any and all foreseeable land acquisition and expansion
plans for the refuge and assess the potential for future impacts to fish, wildlife, and their
habitats and wilderness within the refuge. Short-term and cumulative threats to the refuge
from potential development must be prohibited.
 We request that the Service assess the implications of climate change in all of the alternatives
developed for the CCP. The Service should be proactive in developing management
alternatives that account for climate change in management strategies and objectives.
 Bogue Chitto NWR stands in a unique position due to its relationship with The Conservation
Fund’s Go Zero™ program. Carbon sequestration projects can be used both to reforest
current refuge land and acquire and reforest additional lands near the refuge. While this is an
opportunity that the refuge should take advantage of, it would also be wise to do some
planning. Deciding which lands should be reforested, taking an active approach in
determining the species composition, and setting guidelines for how the land will be managed
in accordance with the Refuge System’s “wildlife first” mandate can help to ensure that the
refuge truly benefits from the voluntary carbon market.
 The staff should take special note of how carbon sequestration projects will uniquely affect the
refuge. Reforestation from carbon sequestration projects has great potential to mitigate
climate change and help wildlife adapt to changing global temperatures.
VISITOR SERVICES
 Friends group-improve growth and membership, very supportive.
 Visitor and staff access.
 Maximize opportunities.
 ATV use only for mobility impaired.
 Fishing access and opportunities limited – river blockage makes opportunities difficult.
 Hunting – keeping program.
 Access for all uses limited on refuge.
Public Scoping Comments:
 Camp at Red Bluff – Prior to storm (Hurricane Katrina), access was possible at river stage 13-
14 feet. Currently, when river gets up, access to Big Creek is cut off. They would like to have
access to the refuge and Big Creek. Cut out the bayou coming to Big Creek. Clear out feeder
bayou.
 Install check station where campers must obtain a permit and have designated numbered
camping areas to control littering problems.
 Littering and accessibility to refuge are the most important issues facing the refuge.
 Clearing will help with flood control.
 Hurricane Katrina caused the inability to access boat areas.
42 Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
 Since Katrina, access is a struggle, oaks are gone, and gum trees are gone. Completely
changed causing no access.
 Hog and deer populations are growing because of access and hunting seasons closed due to
the river being too high.
 Like idea of making up hunting days.
 Hogs are depredating acorns that deer could eat. Would like to have hog hunting with dogs
when seasons close in order to control hog populations.
 Open hog season entire summer.
 Hunt hogs with whatever weapon applicable to the season open.
 Would like one week of hog hunting with guns in February.
 Steel shot requirement is hampering take of squirrels or other small game. Crippling is a
problem. Would like to see lead shot for hunting small game.
 Deer management – Do away with doe days during the rifle season. Reduce take of does.
Concerned that there are not enough does on Louisiana side.
 Muzzle loader season should start in January to better coincide with rut. Bucks only. No
does.
 Could the public participate in cutting some trails or in the bayous?
 Would like to see more hunt days. Access is a problem since the storm, so would like to see
more time allowed to hunt deer.
 Horseback riding is a good way to see wildlife up close. Would like to see horseback riding
allowed on the refuge. Old logging trails make good horse trails. Don’t need to make
additional trails since old trails work well.
 Mississippi side of refuge had less hunt