Comprehensive Conservation Plan Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex Bald Knob, Big Lake, Cache River, and Wapanocca National Wildlife Refuges

              CENTRAL ARKANSAS
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
October 2009
Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
CENTRAL ARKANSAS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX
Bald Knob, Big Lake, Cache River, and Wapanocca National Wildlife Refuges
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
October 2009
Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
Purpose and Need for Plan .......................................................................................................... 3
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 4
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 4
Legal Policy Context ..................................................................................................................... 4
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 ................................................ 4
National and International Conservation Priorities and Initiatives ................................................ 5
North American Waterfowl Management Plan .................................................................... 6
Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plan ........................................................................... 6
United States Shorebird Conservation Plan ........................................................................ 7
Fisheries Vision for the Future ............................................................................................ 7
American Woodcock Management Plan ............................................................................. 7
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan .................................................................... 7
Relationship to State Wildlife Agency ........................................................................................... 8
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 9
Bald Knob National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................... 9
Big Lake National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................................... 11
Cache River National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................................... 11
Wapanocca National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................ 12
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 12
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 13
Overview ........................................................................................................................... 13
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Priorities ................................................................... 13
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 15
The Big Woods of Arkansas .............................................................................................. 15
Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan ........................................................................................... 15
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 15
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 16
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 17
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 17
Water Quality and Quantity ............................................................................................... 22
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 23
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 23
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 39
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 41
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 42
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 42
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 53
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 55
ii Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 55
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................................................................................... 63
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 63
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 63
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 63
Bald Knob National wildlife refuge .............................................................................................. 64
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 64
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 79
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 87
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 92
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 103
Big Lake National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................................................ 107
Fish and Wildlife Population Management...................................................................... 107
Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 115
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 120
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 124
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 132
Cache River National Wildlife Refuge ...................................................................................... 136
Fish and Wildlife Population Management...................................................................... 136
Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 156
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 168
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 177
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 186
Wapanocca National Wildlife Refuge ....................................................................................... 190
Fish and Wildlife Population Management...................................................................... 190
Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 200
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 206
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 210
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 219
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................... 223
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 223
Proposed Projects .................................................................................................................... 223
Fish and Wildlife Population Management...................................................................... 223
Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 227
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 232
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 234
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 243
Funding and Personnel ............................................................................................................ 250
Step-Down Management Plans ................................................................................................ 253
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 255
Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................ 255
Table of Contents iii
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 257
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... 264
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ..................................................... 267
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS .............................. 271
APPENDIX D. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .............................................................. 283
APPENDIX E. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 333
APPENDIX F. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ................................... 455
APPENDIX G. REFUGE BIOTA ....................................................................................................... 477
APPENDIX H. BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN FOR BCR 26 OCCURRING
ON CENTRAL ARKANSAS NWR COMPLEX. ................................................................................. 497
APPENDIX I. BUDGET REQUESTS ................................................................................................ 499
REFUGE OPERATING NEEDS SYSTEM (RONS) ................................................................. 499
SERVICE ASSET MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SAMMS) ............................... 500
APPENDIX J. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 505
APPENDIX K. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, CONSULTATION, COORDINATION,
AND COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 507
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING IN THE PLANNING PROCESS ....................................... 507
SUMMARY OF DRAFT CCP/EA PUBLIC COMMENTS AND SERVICE RESPONSES ......... 509
APPENDIX L. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 513
PLANNING TEAM .................................................................................................................... 513
CONTRIBUTORS ..................................................................................................................... 514
APPENDIX M. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................ 517
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 517
ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................................... 517
Alternative A – Maintain Current Management (No Action Alternative) .......................... 517
Alternative B – Minimal Management Alternative ........................................................... 517
Alternative C – Enhanced Habitat Management and Public Use Programs (Preferred
Alternative) ...................................................................................................................... 518
SELECTION RATIONALE ........................................................................................................ 518
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................................................................................................. 518
POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...................................... 519
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 519
Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 520
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 520
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 520
iv Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
LAND OWNERSHIP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 520
COORDINATION ..................................................................................................................... 521
FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................... 521
SUPPORTING REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 522
DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY .................................................................................................... 523
Table of Contents v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Central Arkansas NWR Complex ...................................................................................... 10
Figure 2. Location of Central Arkansas NWR Complex in the LMRE ............................................... 14
Figure 3. Forest Types on Bald Knob NWR ...................................................................................... 24
Figure 4. Habitat Types on Big Lake NWR ....................................................................................... 26
Figure 5a. Forest Types on Cache River NWR (North) ...................................................................... 28
Figure 5b. Forest Types on Cache River NWR (South) ...................................................................... 29
Figure 6. Habitat Types on Wapanocca NWR .................................................................................. 30
Figure 7. Proposed Minimal Disturbance Zone for Waterfowl on Bald Knob NWR .......................... 97
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Hunting opportunities offered at Bald Knob NWR for the 2008-09 season ......................... 44
Table 2. Hunting opportunities offered at Big Lake NWR for the 2009-09 season ........................... 45
Table 3. Hunter participation and harvest data for Big Lake NWR’s 2008-09 season ...................... 46
Table 4. Hunting opportunities offered at Cache River NWR for the 2008-09 season...................... 48
Table 5. Hunting opportunities offered at Wapanocca NWR for the 2008-09 season ...................... 50
Table 6. Hunter participation and harvest information for Wapanocca
NWR’s 2007-08 season ....................................................................................................... 51
Table 7. Bald Knob NWR - Current migrating and wintering waterfowl foraging
habitat objectives ................................................................................................................. 65
Table 8. Carrying capacity of selected foraging habitats of dabbling ducks
wintering in the LMRJV1 ....................................................................................................... 66
Table 9. Big Lake NWR - Current migrating and wintering waterfowl foraging
habitat objectives ............................................................................................................... 109
Table 10. Cache River NWR - Current migrating and wintering waterfowl foraging
habitat objectives ............................................................................................................... 138
Table 11. Hypothesized forest area required to support viable populations of
500 breeding birds within the MAV .................................................................................... 143
Table 12. Wapanocca NWR - Current migrating and wintering waterfowl foraging
habitat objectives ............................................................................................................... 191
Table 13. Summary of Projects ......................................................................................................... 246
Table 14. Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex step-down
management plans ............................................................................................................ 254
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
Executive Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP) to guide the management of the Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex
(Complex). The Complex is comprised of Bald Knob, Big Lake, Cache River, and Wapanocca NWRs
that are located in Crittenden, Jackson, Mississippi, Monroe, Prairie, White, and Woodruff Counties of
east and central Arkansas. The CCP outlines programs and corresponding resource needs for the
next 15 years, as mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
Before the Service began planning, it conducted biological and public use reviews of the refuge’s
management programs and conducted public scoping meetings to solicit public opinion of the issues
the plan should address. The biological review teams were composed of biologists from federal and
state agencies and non-governmental organizations that have an interest in the refuge. The public
use review teams consisted of visitor services managers from selected refuges in the southeast.
These diverse teams presented the Service with refuge management recommendations regarding
habitat, wildlife, natural resources (e.g., water, timber, oil and gas), cultural resources, administration,
and visitor services. Additionally, the Complex staff held five public scoping meetings to solicit public
opinion of the issues that the plan should address.
A planning team comprised of Service personnel, state agency representatives, non-governmental
organizations, and others then developed an Environmental Assessment that analyzed a range of
alternatives for refuge management that the Service would reasonably undertake to achieve the
goals and fulfill the purposes of the refuges. Three possible alternatives (Alternatives A, B, and C)
emerged for consideration and were provided in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment. A 30-day public review and comment period was provided and five
public meetings were held to solicit public opinion of the proposed alternative. All input received from
the public during the planning process was carefully considered during the development of this CCP.
Under Alternative A, the “No Action” Alternative, management on the Complex would not change,
but would continue the current actions and direction on the Central Arkansas NWR Complex. The
Complex would continue to restore, protect, and manage bottomland hardwood forests, wetlands,
cropland units, moist-soil units, open water areas, grassland/scrub-shrub areas, and the Big Lake
Wilderness. Management activities would continue to focus on afforestation and reforestation,
restoration of wetlands, invasive plant and nuisance animal management, cooperative farming,
inventorying and monitoring, and priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental education and interpretation). The refuges would continue to
acquire land from willing sellers and expand but only within the approved acquisition boundaries.
Under Alternative B, the “Minimal Management” Alternative, the Complex would undertake minimal
wildlife, habitat, and infrastructure management. In this “let nature take its course” alternative, there
would be no more active reforestation efforts, no moist-soil impoundments and croplands, and no
more road, beaver dam, or invasive species management and maintenance programs. Natural
succession would be allowed to proceed unchecked, providing for development of early stage or
successional forest habitat on abandoned lands, and no silvicultural treatments in existing forest
stands would be conducted. All refuges would implement a custodial or passive stewardship
2 Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
approach to management and would monitor natural succession and wildlife populations over time.
Quality and quantity of habitats for wildlife would be expected to decline along with wildlife use of
these habitats. There would likely be reduced associated public use because roadways and facilities
would not be maintained and the quality of visitor services would diminish. There would be no
change in the acreage or amount of waterfowl sanctuaries. The refuges would acquire land from
willing sellers, but only within the approved acquisition boundaries.
By implementing Alternative C, the “Preferred” Alternative, the Complex would actively expand and
improve habitat management and public use programs. The refuges would intensify and enhance
forest, moist-soil, scrub-shrub, grassland, and aquatic management programs in order to increase
benefits for waterfowl, shorebirds, water birds, other migratory birds, and other species of native
wildlife. Hydrologic, wetland, and forest restoration projects would also be expanded. Invasive plant
and animal control projects would be increased. A full range of inventorying, monitoring, and
research programs would be developed and implemented to enable adaptive management. Habitat
conservation and restoration would continue and expand through land acquisition projects from
willing sellers, but boundary expansions would also be pursued. Environmental education and
interpretive programs would be improved as part of a comprehensive visitor services program.
Opportunities for hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation would be expanded, and law enforcement
coverage would be increased for more effective protection of resources and visitors. Additional staff
would be recruited, additional equipment would be acquired, and improved facilities would be
installed to enable implementation of these projects and programs.
The Service selected Alternative C, the “Preferred Alternative,” as the CCP for guiding the
management of the four refuges within the Complex for the next 15 years, because it directs the
development of programs to best achieve the vision of the Complex and each refuge’s purposes and
goals; emphasizes improvements to the capacity and capability of the refuges to better manage the
habitat and wildlife resources as well as expand visitor services and public use programs; collects
habitat and wildlife data; and ensures long-term achievement of refuge and Service objectives. At the
same time, these management actions provide balanced levels of compatible public use opportunities
consistent with existing laws, Service policies, and sound biological principles.
Under this alternative, all lands under the management and direction of the Complex will be
protected, maintained, and enhanced to best achieve national, ecosystem, and refuge-specific goals
and objectives within anticipated funding and staffing levels. In addition, the action positively
addresses significant issues and concerns expressed by the public.
The overriding concern reflected in this CCP is that wildlife conservation assumes first priority
in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreational uses are allowed if they are compatible
with wildlife conservation. Wildlife-dependent recreation uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation) will be
emphasized and encouraged.
This CCP provides the best mix of program elements to achieve desired long-term conditions.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR) Complex (Complex), which includes the refuges of Bald Knob, Big Lake, Cache River, and
Wapanocca, was prepared to guide management actions and direction for the refuges over the next
15 years. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first priority in management of the refuges, while
wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and
does not detract from, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) or the
purposes for which the refuges were established.
A planning team comprised of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) personnel, state wildlife agency
representatives, non-governmental organizations, and others developed a range of alternatives for refuge
management that the Service could reasonably undertake to achieve the goals and fulfill the purposes for
each refuge in the Complex. These alternatives were presented in the Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) that described the proposed alternatives
that were considered and their effects on the environment. Each alternative consisted of different sets of
goals, objectives, and strategies for management of the refuges.
The Draft CCP/EA was made available to state and federal government agencies, conservation
partners, and the general public for review and comment from August 27, 2009, through
September 28, 2009. Comments from each entity were carefully considered in the development
of this CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PLAN
The purpose of the CCP is to ensure that each refuge contributes to the National Wildlife Refuge
System’s (Refuge System) mission to provide a 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.
Specifically, the CCP is needed to:
 provide a clear statement of management direction for the refuges;
 provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuges;
 ensure that Service management actions, including land protection, recreation, and education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System;
 ensure that refuge management is consistent with the purposes for which the refuges were
established;
4 Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
 ensure that refuge management is consistent with federal, state, and local plans and
contributes to the Service’s ecosystem management goals for the ecosystem in which the
refuges are located; and
 provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the
Nation’s fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The mission of the Service is “working with
others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing
benefit of the American people.”
Responsibilities are shared with other federal, state, tribal, and local entities; however, the Service has
specific responsibilities for endangered species, migratory birds, inter-jurisdictional fish, and certain
marine mammals, as well as for lands and waters administered by the Service for the management and
protection of these resources. It also operates national fish hatcheries, fishery resource offices, and
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, such as wetlands; and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts.
It also oversees the Federal Aid Program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars from excise taxes
on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of 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.”
The Service manages the 95-million-acre Refuge System, which encompasses over 545 national
wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands, and other special management areas. The majority of
these lands, 77 million acres, is in Alaska, with the remaining acres located among the other 49
states and several territories. Approximately 82 million acres in the Refuge System were reserved
from the public domain. The remainder was acquired through purchase, from other federal agencies,
as gifts, or through easement and lease agreements.
LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT
The mission and goals of the Refuge System, congressional legislation, presidential executive orders,
and international treaties guide administration of national wildlife refuges. Policies for management
options of refuges are defined in administrative guidelines established by the Secretary of the Interior
and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Refer to
Appendix C for a complete listing of relevant legal mandates.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997
An important milestone occurred in 1997, with the passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act (Improvement Act), which has been called the “Organic Act” of the Refuge System.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
The Improvement Act established, for the first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation
for the Refuge System.
The Improvement Act also recognized the outstanding recreational opportunities on refuges. The
Refuge System has long provided some of the Nation's best hunting and fishing, and our refuges
continue to support these deeply rooted American traditions. The law identified and established
compatible wildlife-dependent recreation (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental education and interpretation) as priority public uses of the Refuge
System. Among other things, this far-reaching law required comprehensive conservation planning for
each refuge, and set standards to assure that all uses of refuges are compatible with their purposes
and the Refuge System's wildlife conservation mission. It also required the Service to conserve the
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuges, and consider the conservation of
the ecosystems of the United States, while planning the growth of the Refuge System.
The Service’s planning process is premised on strong partnerships with state fish and wildlife
agencies. It provides an opportunity to use sound science in managing refuges, thereby assuring an
ecological perspective of how refuges fit into the greater surrounding landscapes. The planning
process also provides citizens with a meaningful role in shaping the future management of refuges
and recognizes the important role that refuges play in the lives of nearby communities.
The Improvement Act states that each refuge shall be managed to:
 fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
 fulfill the individual purpose(s) 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;
 maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
 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.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PRIORITIES AND INITIATIVES
Conservation priorities for national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley focus on
threatened and endangered species, trust species, and species of local concern. Goals and
objectives in this CCP are stepped-down from the following plans:
 North American Waterfowl Management Plan;
 Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan;
 North American Bird Conservation Initiative;
6 Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
 United States Shorebird Conservation Plan;
 Fisheries Vision for the Future;
 American Woodcock Management Plan.
NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), signed by the United States and
Canadian governments in 1986, undertook an intensive effort to protect and restore North America’s
waterfowl populations and their habitats. With its update in 1994, Mexico became a signatory to the
plan. Restoration of wetlands and associated ecosystems is the main premise of the plan in order to
restore waterfowl populations to levels observed in the 1970s.
Refuges within the Complex provide important foraging and resting habitats (e.g., sanctuaries) for
waterfowl and serve an integral role in a large, cooperative planning and habitat management effort.
PARTNERS IN FLIGHT BIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation led efforts in the 1990s to form the Partners in Flight program
that combines resources and knowledge to protect the natural diversity of our continent. Many partners
have made the program successful by participating in Working Groups to develop Regional Bird
Conservation Plans that set conservation priorities and habitat and population objectives.
The Complex’s refuges are located within Physiographic Area 5 and can contribute to the plan’s
actions for restoration projects to benefit migratory landbirds. Habitats found on the refuges and
those associated bird focal species that use them are:
 Bottomland hardwood forests – Ivory-billed Woodpecker, Swallow-tailed Kite, Swainson’s
Warbler, Cerulean Warbler, Prothonotary Warbler, and Northern Parula;
 Secondary growth – Painted Bunting and Bell’s Vireo;
 Moist-soils and croplands – shorebirds and waterfowl.
NORTH AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
This initiative is a broad coalition of governmental, non-governmental, and academic organizations
interested in coordinating efforts to conserve bird populations and the landscapes upon which they
depend. It evolved in 1998, when conservationists recognized the value of coordinating and
integrating planning, implementation, and evaluation efforts associated with the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
UNITED STATES SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The United States Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership involving organizations throughout
the United States committed to the conservation of shorebirds. Primary objectives of this plan are to:
 develop a scientifically sound monitoring system to provide practical information to
researchers and land managers;
 identify principles upon which management plans can integrate shorebird habitat conservation
with multiple species strategies;
 design a strategy for increasing public awareness and information concerning wetlands and
shorebirds.
The refuges within the Complex are included in the Lower Mississippi/Western Gulf Coast
Shorebird Region. The plan recommends that public lands provide as much fall shorebird habitat
as possible to meet the goal of 5,000 acres of fall habitat in Arkansas. In this plan, bird species
that should be considered a high priority for the refuges include: Piping Plover, American
Golden-plover, Marbled Godwit, Ruddy Turnstone, Red Knot, Sanderling, Buff-breasted
Sandpiper, American Woodcock, and Wilson’s Phalarope.
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.
AMERICAN WOODCOCK MANAGEMENT PLAN
The American Woodcock Management Plan sets management goals to restore woodcock population
to levels consistent with the demands of consumptive and non-consumptive users (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1990). Reliable annual population estimates, harvest estimates, and information on
recruitment and distribution are essential for comprehensive woodcock management, as well as
conserving and managing habitat. No step-down management plans have been written, but the plan
provides general guidance for habitat and population management at the national level.
NORTH 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,
8 Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
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, Mississippi Sandhill Cranes, Whooping Cranes, Interior Least Terns, and Gulf Coast
populations of Brown Pelicans (Hunter and Golder, In prep). A key objective of this plan is the
standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures.
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 federal agencies and state fish and
wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management
areas and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for protection of species, and contribute to
the overall health and diversity of fish and wildlife species in Arkansas.
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) is the state fish and wildlife agency partnering
with the Service. The AGFC plays an important role in keeping “The Natural State” true to its title.
The agency is responsible for the protection, conservation, and preservation of fish and wildlife in
Arkansas. This is done through habitat management, fish stocking, hunting and fishing regulations,
and a host of other programs conducive to helping Arkansas’ wildlife flourish. The AGFC manages
over 280,000 acres of state-owned natural areas and wildlife management areas.
The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process provides for open
dialogue with the Service and continued opportunity to improve the ecological health and diversity
of fish and wildlife in Arkansas. A vital part of the planning process is integrating common
mission objectives, where appropriate.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
The Central Arkansas NWR Complex is comprised of four refuges: Bald Knob, Big Lake, Cache
River and Wapanocca, in east and central Arkansas (Figure 1). The Complex is supervised by a
project leader and assisted by other staff located at the Cache River NWR. Additionally, each refuge
has specific staff stationed on site.
BALD KNOB NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Bald Knob NWR, located near the small town of Bald Knob in White County, Arkansas, was
established in 1993, to protect and provide feeding and resting areas for migrating waterfowl. The
Service’s Final Environmental Assessment and land protection plan for the refuge stated the purpose
for acquisition “is for preservation of winter habitat for lesser-snow geese, Canada geese, mallards,
pintail, blue-winged teal and wood ducks.” Annually, the refuge hosts the largest populations of
wintering pintail in the state and is a crucial staging area for pintail migrating to the coastal areas of
Louisiana and eastern Texas.
The refuge encompasses more than 15,000 acres of forested wetlands and croplands, located along the
Little Red River and adjacent to the AGFC Henry Gray/Hurricane Lake Wildlife Management Area
(WMA). Most of the refuge is flat or characterized by gentle ridges and swales. The refuge is an
important link in protecting wildlife and habitat. One unit of the refuge is situated 3 miles west of the
confluence of the Little Red River and the White River. These rivers are key water sources for the refuge.
Management activities on the refuge include cooperative farming to provide high energy foods (e.g.,
rice, milo, and millet for migratory birds), moist-soil development, installing and maintaining water
control structures, restoring bottomland hardwood forests, and providing compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation.
Bald Knob NWR’s official purposes are:
“…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) (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).
“…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purposes, for migratory birds.” 16
U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).
10 Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Figure 1. Central Arkansas NWR Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
BIG LAKE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Big Lake NWR, located near the town of Manila in Mississippi County, Arkansas, was established in
August 1915, by Executive Order of President Woodrow Wilson, to serve as a reserve and breeding
ground for native birds. It is one of the Nation’s oldest inland refuges and encompasses 11,038
acres. The New Madrid earthquakes of 1811 – 1812 changed the Big Lake area from a free-flowing
river system to its present lake/swamp environment. An extensive network of ditches in the Missouri
bootheel drains approximately 2,500 square miles of farmland directly through the refuge.
Big Lake NWR also administers two Farm Service Agency tracts and one conservation easement.
The French Tract is located in Greene and Lawrence Counties and contains 108 acres. The French
easement is also located in Greene County and encompasses 18 acres. The Craighead tract is
located in Craighead County and contains 42 acres.
Management activities target water, waterfowl, wetland, forestry, wilderness stewardship, and
compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.
Big Lake NWR’s official purposes are:
“…as a refuge, reserve, and breeding ground for native birds” (Executive Order 2230,
dated August 2, 1915).
“…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purposes, for migratory birds.
” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).
To manage the Big Lake Wilderness as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System
according to the Wilderness Act of 1964, as compatible with the purposes for which
Big Lake NWR was established.
CACHE RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Cache River NWR, located in Jackson, Monroe, Prairie, and Woodruff Counties, in central Arkansas,
was established on June 16, 1986, with the purchase of 1,395 acres. Land acquisition has continued
on a willing-seller basis, and the refuge now includes more than 65,000 acres. The approved land
acquisition boundary of 185,574 acres is defined as lands within the 10-year floodplain of the lower
and middle Cache River Basin, including Bayou DeView.
The establishment of Cache River NWR exemplifies the Service’s commitment to conserve and
restore bottomland hardwood habitat in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV). The refuge
features some of the largest remaining tracts of bottomland hardwood forest within the MAV.
This unique complex of wetlands provides critical wintering habitat for waterfowl and other
migratory and resident wildlife species.
Management activities focus on water, waterfowl, wetland, cropland, and forestry programs, and
providing compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.
Cache River NWR’s official purposes are:
“…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) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986).
12 Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
“…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).
“…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purposes, for migratory birds.” 16
U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).
WAPANOCCA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Wapanocca NWR was established on January 24, 1961, with the leasing of 3,119 acres from the
Wapanocca Outing Club. On January 1, 1966, another 1,695 acres was added to the refuge.
Currently, the refuge totals 5,620 acres and is located 20 miles northwest of Memphis, Tennessee, in
Crittenden County, Arkansas.
The refuge also administers two Farm Service Agency fee title tracts in St. Francis County. The
Round Pond Unit contains 480 acres and the Pigmon Unit contains over 29 acres.
Wapanocca Lake is an oxbow lake formed when the Mississippi main channel changed its course.
Subsequent flooding has deposited 5 to 6 feet of silt, creating what is now a shallow lake system. The
refuge now remains as an island of wildlife habitat amidst a sea of agriculture. Habitat diversity includes
agricultural land, grassland, bottomland hardwood forest, and flooded cypress/willow swamp.
The refuge provides a wintering area for migratory waterfowl, a nesting habitat for resident wood
ducks, and as a link in the chain of refuges along the Mississippi River to accommodate the
southward migration of Canada geese.
Management activities include water, waterfowl, wetland, cropland, and forestry management, and
providing compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.
Wapanocca NWR’s official purpose is:
“…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purposes, for migratory birds.” 16
U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Bald Knob NWR has been named as an “Important Birding Area” by the Audubon Arkansas
Board of Directors.
Big Lake NWR contains about 5,000 acres of lands designated as a National Natural Landmark Area
in the mid-1970s. The tract includes seasonally flooded bottomlands, open water, and permanently
flooded swamplands. Pure stands of bald cypress, the only significant stands of virgin timber in the
area, dominate the overstory species. A mixture of white ash, tupelo, and some scattered oaks also
occur in the forested areas. A 2,144-acre tract within the National Natural Landmark Area was
designated as a Wilderness Area. The American Bird Conservancy also has listed the refuge as a
Globally Important Bird Area.
Cache River NWR was designated as a "Wetland of International Importance” in 1989, under the
auspices of the "Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl
Habitat," commonly referred to as the Ramsar Convention. The Convention criteria, under which
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
these lands qualified as the eighth U.S. Wetlands of International Importance, were: (1) Volume of
use by migratory and resident waterfowl, especially mallards; (2) outstanding example of a wetland
community characteristic of its bio-geographic region; (3) endangered species; (4) species diversity;
(5) research value; and (6) practicality of conservation and management (AGFC 1989).
The Cache River Natural Area, dedicated by the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC) in
1982, is a 937-acre area located within the AGFC Rex Hancock/Black Swamp Wildlife Management
Area, which is intermingled with tracts of the Cache River NWR. This Natural Area contains
outstanding examples of cypress-tupelo swamp and willow-oak forest. Cypress trees in this and
several other locations within the ecosystem are estimated to be in excess of 500-1,000 years old by
University of Arkansas dendrochronological research (e.g., Stahle et al. 1985).
Wapanocca NWR was named as a Continentally Important Bird Area by the American Bird
Conservancy because of its significant numbers of herons and waterfowl.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
OVERVIEW
The Service is increasing its efforts, within the ecosystem management context, to adopt
collaborative resource partnerships with private landowners and local communities, as well as state
and federal governments. The purpose is to reduce the declining trend of fish and wildlife
populations and biological diversity, to establish conservation priorities, to clarify goals, and to solve
common threats and problems associated with fish and wildlife resources. The synergy of unified
efforts of federal, state, tribal, and private organizations will ensure that the more important habitat
areas are protected and that redundancy and overlap in conservation efforts are avoided.
The refuges within the Complex are members and active participants of the Service’s Lower
Mississippi River Ecosystem Team (Figure 2). The Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (LMRE) is the
primary wintering habitat for mid-continent waterfowl populations, as well as breeding and migrating
habitat for songbirds returning from Central and South America, while providing high-quality habitat
for resident wildlife species.
Geographically, the refuges lie on the northwestern boundary of the LMRE. The refuges have
opportunities to contribute to many of the goals and objectives established for the protection and
management of the LMRE.
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ECOSYSTEM PRIORITIES
Goals identified by the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Team to which the refuges can contribute
include:
Goal 1. Conserve, enhance, protect, and monitor migratory bird populations and their habitats in the LMRE.
Goal 2. Protect, restore, and manage the wetlands of the LMRE.
Goal 3. Protect and/or restore imperiled habitats and viable populations of all threatened,
endangered, and candidate species and species of concern in the LMRE.
14 Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Figure 2. Location of Central Arkansas NWR Complex in the LMRE
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Goal 4. Protect, restore, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources historically
associated with the wetlands and waters of the LMRE.
Goal 5. Restore, manage, and protect national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries.
Goal 6. Increase public awareness and support for LMRE resources and their management.
Goal 7. Enforce natural resource laws.
Goal 8. Protect, restore, and enhance water and air quality throughout the LMRE.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
THE BIG WOODS OF ARKANSAS
The Nature Conservancy (Conservancy or TNC) and its partners, including the Service, have
protected more than 120,000 acres in the Big Woods of Arkansas, a 550,000-acre corridor of
floodplain forest along the Mississippi River. Some of the corridor includes Refuge System lands.
In 2004, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, thought to be extinct, was re-discovered within the corridor.
Major restoration and conservation priorities for the Big Woods have been identified. Efforts by
the Conservancy, the Service, the ANHC, the AGFC, and others continue to focus on these
ecologically important lands.
ARKANSAS WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN
Each state, including Arkansas, has developed a wildlife action plan to determine comprehensive
wildlife conservation strategies for flora and fauna within the state. The plan identified 18 categories
of threats to the wildlife of Arkansas, the condition of the state’s wildlife health, and determined
associated management actions needed to conserve wildlife and important habitat before they
become more rare and costly to protect. Many of these threats are also of concern to the Service,
such as hydrological alteration, habitat destruction, contaminants, predation and disease, and
resource depletion. The Service and the AGFC work cooperatively on many projects to combat the
effects of these threats.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
National wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley (LMV) serve as part of the last safety net to
support biological diversity, the greatest conservation challenge facing the Service. According to the
LMRE Team, the greatest threats to biological diversity within the LMV are:
 the loss of sustainable natural communities, including the loss of 20 million acres of
bottomland hardwood forests;
 the loss of connectivity between bottomland hardwood forest sites (e.g., forest fragmentation);
 the effects of agricultural and timber harvesting practices;
 the simplification of gene pools and the remaining wildlife habitats within the ecosystem;
 the effects of constructing navigation and water diversion projects; and
16 Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
 the cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource development activities.
Specific threats applicable to Complex include:
 altered hydrology, stream flows, and flooding regimes, and reduced water quality;
 colonization of invasive plant and animal species, which displace natural vegetation and
degrade those habitats on which native animal species depend;
�� loss of freshwater source for Wapanocca Lake;
 deposition of sediment, trash, and pollutants resulting from flood events in the Missouri
bootheel into Big Lake, and
 potential on-site impacts of off-site oil and gas development.
CLIMATE
The climate of central and eastern Arkansas can be characterized as mild and moderately humid.
The mean monthly minimum temperature at Stuttgart is 39.7ºF in January, and the mean monthly
maximum is 91.1ºF in July. Winters are relatively mild, but brief cold periods occur occasionally. The
region has a long growing season, ranging from approximately 200 days in the north to 220 days in
the south, and extended hot, humid periods are common during the summer, with maximum
temperatures often exceeding 100ºF during July and August.
The region receives abundant precipitation, ranging from 48 to 51 inches annually. Although rainfall is
considered to be well distributed throughout the year (the average number of days with measurable
precipitation is about 100 per year), there is a pronounced seasonal pattern. Almost one-third of the
annual rainfall occurs during March, April, and May, with the driest months being July through October.
The average annual evaporation is about 37 inches, with approximately 23 inches occurring from May
through September, which exceeds the average rainfall during this period by about 5 inches. The
average annual runoff throughout this region is 16 to 20 inches, most occurring from November through
April (Friewald 1985). These climatic characteristics are important in driving the hydrology of the
watershed, which is in turn the most critical component in shaping ecosystem functions and processes.
Geology and Topography
Geology and topography for the Cache River NWR is representative of all four refuges within the
Central Arkansas NWR Complex. Specific details regarding Bald Knob, Big Lake, and Wapanocca
NWRs can be requested from each refuge. The discussion below will give the reader a general
sense of the geology and topography for all the refuges within the Complex.
An understanding of the basic geology of Arkansas' Delta is important for understanding the
interrelationships of the soil and hydrologic components and processes of the ecosystem, which
provide the basis for the associated biotic communities. Paleozoic bedrock outcrops occur on the
western edge of the Delta, and declines to the southeast, where outcrops are overlain by more recent
alluvial and loessal strata deposited during alternating inundations and recessions of the Gulf of
Mexico. The bedrock below the Cache/Lower White Rivers’ system originated nearly 1,000 to over
4,000 feet below sea level. Various overlying strata of gravel and sand support several important and
productive aquifers, alternating with confining strata of silts and clays (ASWCC 1988).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
The surface strata of the Cache/Lower White Rivers’ basin are all Quaternary deposits of alluvium
and loess. Holocene alluvial deposits of the existing major rivers, abandoned meanders, and areas
near channels form the current "bottomland" areas. These are the lowest areas in the basin, and
most likely to be forested and retain other obvious wetland characteristics. Immediately upslope of
these most recent deposits are one or more terraces of Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Lands at this
and higher elevations are the ones which have largely been cleared for agricultural production. Older
deposits are exposed in only very limited circumstances in the basin. These include an area of dune
sand located in Woodruff County between the Cache River and Bayou DeView, and some isolated
pockets of exposed silt and sand along Bayou DeView north and east of Jonesboro.
The elevation at the north end of the basin at the Missouri state line is approximately 300' mean sea
level (MSL), compared to 125' MSL at the mouth of the White River. This drop in elevation across
185 air miles represents an average slope of only 0.018 percent (approximately 1 ft/1 mi) across the
entire basin. Although relatively flat, the topography of the basin can be somewhat complex, with
numerous current stream and river channels, old meanders, and oxbow lakes surrounded by one or
more terrace levels or bottoms.
The topography is usually one of three basic types: braided-stream terraces which display a
characteristic dendritic drainage pattern; meander belts which contain areas of past or present
channel migration with numerous parallel, crescent-shaped ridges and swales; and backswamps,
which are flat areas that remained peripheral to channel migration and slowly filled with layers of fine
sediments. Thus, in contrast to the apparent "flatness" of the landscape, the subtle complexity
resulting from past and ongoing geologic forces has a dramatic and pronounced effect on the
processes which drive this ecosystem and its functions. These processes in turn dictate the
complexity of associated biologic communities that evolved here.
SOILS
A casual examination of any of the county soil surveys for the basin provides further visual
reinforcement of the inherent complexity of the system. The majority of the soil types in the basin is
hydric. The spatial relationships of the various soil types and associations present further evidence of
their fluvial origin and influence. By and large, the soils of the basin are rich and fertile, and thus the
reason for draining and clearing of most of the original forests for agricultural production. Most of the
soils have a high clay content, which results in their capability to perch water at the surface, but this
also prevents most areas from contributing to significant groundwater recharge through infiltration.
These soil characteristics allow the cultivation of rice over a significant percentage of the lands in the
basin. Where water retention and flooding characteristics of individual soils are not suited to rice, the
dominant crops are soybeans, winter wheat, and milo, with minor acreages of corn and cotton
occurring on the highest, most well-drained sites. Physiochemical and physiographic characteristics
of soils (e.g., high clay content, susceptibility to erosion, water retention capabilities, and
compressibility), and their relationships to ongoing hydrologic processes necessitate careful
consideration during assessment of potential impacts of management and land use activities, if
restoration and conservation of ecosystem functions are to be successful.
HYDROLOGY
Bald Knob and Cache River NWRs
A basic appreciation of the hydrology of the Cache/Lower White Rivers’ ecosystem, and recognition
and acknowledgement of its importance as the driving force behind all other ecosystem processes
and functions is fundamental to addressing long-term conservation. Without this explicit recognition
18 Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
by all partners, effective long-term management of public lands within the basin is impossible, and
efforts toward meaningful, sustainable restoration of ecosystem functions cannot be effective or
adequately focused. Although a thorough understanding and comparison of the past and present
hydrologic function of the system would be desirable, available data are inadequate. However, the
basic concepts and generalizations which are known can contribute significantly to providing context
and direction to management of the public lands within the ecosystem, and to addressing the
influence of the surrounding agricultural landscape.
Pre-settlement Conditions – The Cache/Lower White Rivers’ ecosystem was a forested wetland
habitat complex whose composition, structure, and function were largely determined by the
frequency, duration, and depth of inundation. The Cache River drainage area is 1,037 mi² and that of
Bayou DeView is 421 mi². The abundant annual rainfall, flat topographic profile, and other hydrologic
influences resulted in flooding, which ranged from frequent, deep, and prolonged events adjacent to
the major drainages and in the lower portion of the system, to shallow and temporary events in the
topographically higher areas of the bottoms and in isolated, but often extensive depressions
throughout the terrace lands. The annual hydrologic cycle reflected seasonal rainfall patterns, with
lowest flows occurring in July through October, and flooding along the river bottoms typically
beginning in December or January and peaking in February and March on the Cache River and
Bayou DeView and in April and May on the lower White River (ASWCC 1988). The system contained
an abundance of stream channels, sloughs, oxbow lakes, and scrub-shrub swamps, which contained
water throughout the year in all but the driest years. Extremely dry periods, during which a significant
percentage of the smaller stream channels (on the order of Cache River and smaller) were exposed,
were infrequent but must have occurred every few hundred years as evidenced by (1) the current
distribution of bald cypress, which can survive but not germinate in inundated circumstances, and (2)
documentation through a 400+ year-flow reconstruction based on a dendrochronological study of old-growth
bald cypress trees on the Cache River (Cleaveland et al. 1988). The extreme dynamism of
the hydrology within the system, over both the short- and long-term, was one of its most important
pre-settlement characteristics.
There also was and is a significant degree of spatial variation in the hydrology within the ecosystem.
Relatively shallow depressions in the bottomlands and terraces are the first areas to be annually
influenced by inundation through a process termed "puddling," when they gradually fill during the onset of
fall rains in November. With continuing rainfall, these areas expand and interconnect, affecting larger and
larger acreages. These depressions would also have been among the last seasonally inundated
wetlands to dry during late spring with the end of the rainy period. With the continuation of fall rains, the
upper reaches of the streams' floodplains were largely affected by "headwater flooding," the relatively
rapid flooding of drainage areas due to heavy rainfalls during short periods of time. Heavy rains, in
conjunction with the natural constraints of small channels and broad, vegetated floodplains, can exceed
the short-term capacity of the system to carry away the rainfall. As this process proceeded with additional
winter and spring rains, gradually pushing major drainages like the White and Mississippi Rivers to
capacity, larger areas of flats and floodplains were inundated by "backwater flooding." This was caused
by water "backing" into higher areas as a result of flows greatly in excess of stream channel capacities
and/or impeded drainage in lower portions of the system. For example, high flows on the Mississippi
River greatly affect the hydrology of the lower half of the White River NWR by reducing the ability of the
White River to discharge into it; conversely, high flows of the White River may be relatively easily carried if
the Mississippi River is low. The same situation exists at the confluence of the Cache and White Rivers at
Clarendon, and at other tributary confluences on a smaller scale. Thus, there were complex hydrologic
interrelationships between the tributaries and primary rivers within the ecosystem, including the lower
White River and Arkansas and Mississippi Rivers.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Hydrologic Modifications – Unfortunately, these hydrologic patterns and relationships and their effects
on other functions of the Cache/Lower White Rivers’ basin have often been inadequately considered
as it has been incrementally but significantly altered since settlement. It is helpful to view the
hydrologic alteration of the Cache/Lower White Rivers within the perspective of historic flood control
and drainage policies of the MAV as a whole (Baxter and Sunderland 1985). During settlement in the
late 1800s and early 1900s, there were many uncoordinated, local flood control and drainage
projects. Although these early projects may have had a significant cumulative impact on the terrace
lands within the ecosystem, they had less effect on natural headwater and backwater flooding of the
major drainages. However, subsequent to the major Mississippi River flood of 1927, when much of
the Arkansas Delta was inundated, a comprehensive federal flood control program was initiated. This
resulted in the construction of the mainstem Mississippi River levees, and levee projects on major
tributaries such as the White River. These projects constricted the floodplains of the Mississippi River
and its tributaries such that lower flows now result in higher elevations of flooding than was the case
for pre-settlement hydrology. Additionally, headwater dams at Greers Ferry, Bull Shoals, and Norfork
were installed as part of the comprehensive federal response to the 1927 floods. Operation of these
dams have affected downstream peak flood flows and lowered summer/fall base flows.
One of the by-products of the subsequent era of major flood control projects was the extensive conversion
of bottomland hardwoods to agricultural production, much of it occurring in the Cache/Lower White Rivers’
basin during the 1940s through the mid-1970s. Land that was provided protection from flooding by these
major levee systems was quickly cleared and brought into agricultural production. Extensive conversion
of bottomland hardwood forests to agricultural lands has negatively impacted the hydrological regime of
the Cache/Lower White Rivers’ basin, as well as the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley as a whole. The
clearing of forest, increased the “flashiness” of streams due to accelerated run off, and exacerbated
siltation in streams and wetland systems due to increased sediment transport. The federal Flood Control
Acts of 1944 and 1965 promoted a policy of bottomland hardwood conversion, and the 1965 Act included
as a part of its justification the clearing of 4.9 million acres in the MAV (Baxter and Sunderland 1985),
much ultimately occurring in the Cache/Lower White River basin. With this federal policy in place, many
local drainage/flood control projects, now coordinated to some extent by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE or Corps), continued up the tributaries through the mid-1980s. Beginning in the early
1900s and continuing until the early 1930s, local drainage districts channelized the upper portion of the
Cache River basin, from Grubbs (river mile 128 of 203), at the north end of the Cache River NWR
acquisition boundary, to its headwaters. The lower seven miles of the Cache River were also channelized
in the early 1970s, but this project was stopped by legal action, and the overall hydrologic impacts of this
7-mile modification are unquantified.
The collective results of over a century of flood control activities has been (1) the draining and
clearing of the vast majority of the terrace lands and driest portions of the forested wetland habitats of
the entire system, especially within the Cache River/Bayou DeView basin where clearing to the
riverbanks has occurred in many areas; (2) constriction of the floodplain of the Lower White River with
levees, and the clearing of lands protected by those levees; and (3) the modification of the natural
hydrologic patterns (e.g., timing, frequency, and flow rates) throughout the ecosystem. It should be
noted that from the biological perspective, these alterations have occurred within a single generation
of trees, which constitutes a significant biological alteration. Approximately 85 percent of the basin
has been cleared of its hardwoods, and most of these lands were forested wetlands.
A relatively recent and continuing hydrologic modification is the increasing withdrawal of surface
water from essentially all available streams for agricultural irrigation. These withdrawals occur at the
farm level, are individually relatively small, but are cumulative in their effect throughout the basin.
There is no available estimate of current withdrawal rates, but they are known to be collectively
substantial. For example, portions of the Cache River, with a relatively low base flow, are frequently
20 Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
pumped dry for some periods during most summers. Similarly, the upper portion of Bayou DeView
usually has no base flow during some summer months, and agricultural pumping has exacerbated
this to the point that the stream has recorded no-flow conditions for 10 percent of the time over the
last 37 years and has been designated as a "critical surface water area" by the State of Arkansas
(ASWCC 1988). However, in contradiction to the previously described long-term effects of flood
control and regulation projects, the recent average streamflow of the White River at Clarendon has
decreased slightly, and this has been speculated to be the result of current withdrawals for irrigation.
Several large-scale irrigation projects, including the Grand Prairie Area Demonstration Project, are
being aggressively pursued by the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, National Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), and Corps, with the White River being the primary source of irrigation.
Current Hydrologic Status – Even though the basic processes of puddling and headwater and
backwater flooding still operate within the basin, their collective contribution to hydrologic function has
been profoundly modified by both quantitative and qualitative alteration, and by the addition
processes such as irrigation withdrawals. Interestingly, the overall hydrologic effects on the system
can be described as being at both ends of the spectrum: drier in most areas, wetter in some. The
many local efforts directed at drainage associated with agricultural production and transportation
(e.g., road ditches) have significantly reduced the area affected by puddling and the amount of water
that could be held as a result of puddling. Areas that were cleared of forest and ditched now
contribute virtually none of their original hydrologic function to the system by immediately discharging
excess rainfall as runoff to the watercourses. When the acreage that has been influenced by flood
control projects intended to reduce the impacts of headwater flooding are added to these, then the
vast majority of the ecosystem is now affected. This area no longer holds temporary water as it did
historically, and now relatively rapidly discharges runoff to the rivers; thus, these areas, comprising
most of the higher elevations of the ecosystem, are drier than they were historically, being inundated
much less frequently and for much shorter durations.
However, as a direct result of the increased rate of drainage from most of the basin, the lower
elevations and those areas nearest the Cache River, Bayou DeView, and White River now receive all
this water more rapidly and in quantities more frequently exceeding the capacity of the system to
carry and discharge into the Mississippi River. Additionally, the discharge capacity of the White River
into the Mississippi River and Cache River into the White River is greatly reduced from historic
conditions due to the effects of the levee projects. Thus, the areas immediately adjoining the upper
and middle Cache River and Bayou DeView, subjected to unregulated flows, can be characterized as
being more frequently flooded at greater depths, but for shorter durations than in the natural
ecosystem. The stochastic dynamics of the natural system have in many ways been exaggerated by
the hydrologic modifications. On the other hand, the lowest portions of the Cache and Lower White
Rivers seem now to be subjected to more frequent flooding, at greater depths, for longer durations
than was the historic tendency.
Big Lake NWR
An extensive network of ditches in the Missouri bootheel drains approximately 2,500 square miles
directly through Big Lake NWR. The refuge is situated between Ditch 81 and its associated levee to
the west and Ditch 28 and its levee to the east.
A Water Management Plan for the refuge establishes operating procedures set forth by the Corps
(Memphis District). A 1989 agreement between the Corps and the Service addresses seasonal water
level management. Refuge personnel operate five water control structures located in Ditch 81 and Ditch
28 in accordance with guidelines set forth in a Standing Instructions Manual, dated December 1991.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
During flood periods the inflows are so heavily laden with silt that an accurate description of the water
would be "too thick to drink and too thin to plow." Sediment fallout has provided continual fill to the
bottomlands and swamp until there now exists a very shallow lake, averaging only 3 feet in depth.
Continued siltation has restricted any aquatic production, and hampered forest growth and
development. Under the Water Management Plan, the refuge has served primarily as a sump.
Approximately 15 miles of meandering stream channels run the length of the refuge, but past siltation
has made portions of these channels indistinguishable. These channels were once a part of the Little
River, but today only a small portion of the original river channel exists just south of the refuge.
Through mutual agreements with regional drainage districts, the Corps, the Service and local interest
groups, a plan to improve the situation was implemented to divert some of the silt-laden waters around
Big Lake and still provide for adequate inflow to maintain and hopefully improve the area's ecosystem.
Since the implementation of the new regime of water management, water quality has improved,
aquatic production has returned, waterfowl populations have become more stable, threatened and
endangered species have returned to the area, and recreational interests have increased. Additional
water management practices are being explored, which should enhance the refuge's contribution
toward the improvements even more.
Despite these improvements, the refuge is still frequently subjected to silt-laden flood waters due to
continued drainage projects occurring upstream in Missouri. The frequency of the floods coupled
with the silt and drift imported by floods are damaging to the refuge. Geologists from the University of
Arkansas took core samples from the bottom of Big Lake in May 1991. Preliminary data from
radiocarbon dating revealed that since 1938, more than 3 feet of silt have been deposited into Big
Lake. Such siltation rates have greatly accelerated the eutrophication of the Big Lake system.
As long as Big Lake is subjected to the floods from the vast Missouri bootheel agricultural lands, the
lake will continue to be filled with Missouri topsoil. Local fishermen complain of lower water levels
and aquatic vegetation (e.g., lotus) where none was present 20 years ago. The 2,500-square-mile
watershed from the Missouri bootheel provided adequate water supplies during the year. The water
was delivered to the head of Big Lake by way of four major drainage ditches. As long as incoming
flows were less than 238' msl, refuge personnel manipulated water control structures to create inflows
of good quality water into the refuge or to divert poor quality (e.g., muddy) water around the refuge
via the diversion canal. When water levels exceeded 238' msl, the refuge operated both the
Diversion and North-end structures in the open position to aid in the movement and storage of flood
waters as directed in a multi-agency water management agreement.
To provide water to the Hornersville Swamp Conservation Area (CA) and the Big Lake Wildlife
Management Area during waterfowl hunting seasons, the Diversion Channel and North-end
structures are operated in a manual mode. As directed in the water management plan, the following
elevations immediately upstream of the structure are to be maintained during the specified times:
 Maintain an elevation not to exceed 235.5 National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (plus or
minus 0.5) from September 15 through October 14.
 Maintain an elevation not to exceed 236.5 NGVD (plus or minus 0.5) from October 15 through
October 31.
 Maintain an elevation not to exceed 239.0 NGVD from November 1 through November 15.
22 Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
 Maintain an elevation not to exceed 236.5 NGVD (plus or minus 0.5) for the remainder of the
Arkansas and Missouri winter waterfowl hunting seasons.
When the area receives average fall and winter precipitation, the refuge structures can be operated to
easily provide these water levels that will in turn flood the Big Lake WMA to target water levels. The
Hornersville Swamp CA will have sufficient water for waterfowl hunting when the level is near
239’msl. As a general rule for every inch of rain that falls across the bootheel of Missouri, a foot rise
in water at the North-end can be expected within 24 hours. Under flood conditions that generally
follow several consecutive rain events, it can be impossible to maintain levels under 238’ msl even
with all Diversion and North-end gates fully open. During waterfowl hunting season in the
Hornersville Swamp CA and Big Lake WMA, flooding is usually welcomed as these conditions allow
boat access to more areas. With the Big Lake WMA’s levee degraded to 237.4’msl in several areas,
these high water events are an unwelcome site during the summer growing seasons.
Wapanocca NWR
Wapanocca Lake is an oxbow that was formed when the main channel of the Mississippi River
changed its course. Historically, Mississippi River flood events would periodically refresh Wapanocca
Lake, but this hydrologic regime was permanently eliminated by the construction of the Mississippi
River levee by the Corps, 2.5 miles east of the current refuge boundary. Currently, the only source of
water to the lake is from the small watershed between the refuge and the Mississippi River levee.
During extreme rain events, ephemeral streams and ditches within the watershed will carry water to
Ditch 8, which enters on the east side of the refuge, and can then be diverted into the east end of
Woody Pond and eventually into the east end of Wapanocca Lake. However, this process is
inadequate to provide a sufficient and timely water source to the lake. Opportunities to input water
from Ditch 12 on the North end of Wapanocca Lake are much more frequent, but due to findings of
heavy metals within Ditch 12, it is no longer allowed.
Seven drainage ditches (numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 13) flow through the refuge. An eighth, number
12, connects with Big Creek and the middle of this ditch is the north boundary of the refuge.
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
Historical data on water quality parameters for the refuges are largely absent. Water quality in pre-settlement
times, as in most areas, would be expected to have been good. Water throughout this
extensive wetland system, with little erosion except for bank erosion along rivers, would have been
anticipated to be relatively clear. In fact, some current long-time residents at the Cache River
describe it as being clear as recently as 50 years ago. However, it is apparent that the byproducts of
land clearing and subsequent agricultural production on most of the basin's surface area are now
driving water quality parameters. The U.S. Geological Survey (1984) cited potential pollution of
groundwater and accumulation of pesticides in bottom sediments as a major concern, although it
indicated that potential effects were not quantified in eastern Arkansas.
Due to recent (since approximately 1975) water quality monitoring programs of agencies such as
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Arkansas Department
of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), there is currently a relative abundance of data (approximately 13
monitoring stations) for the Cache/Lower White Rivers’ ecosystem. A USGS trends analysis (Petersen
1990) provides some summary information on some aspects of current water quality trends in the basin in
relation to other areas in eastern Arkansas. Typical values of total recoverable manganese and total 2,4-
D are higher in the Cache River than any other river group in the region; dieldrin concentrations are
highest here along with the St. Francis River; total phosphorus, biochemical oxygen demand, and fecal-
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
coliform bacteria values are generally higher than most other river groups; and, specific conductance, total
alkalinity, and total hardness values are lower than other groups except Bayou Meto. In general, these
factors are indicative of a wetland system significantly impacted by agriculture. A 2001 study by North
Carolina State University, “Chemical Contamination at National Wildlife Refuges in the Lower Mississippi
River Ecosystem,” identified some evidence of contaminant hazard associated with organochlorine
pesticides and current use pesticides.
Most of the water quality problems of the system are associated directly or indirectly with erosion of
sediment from agricultural lands into the streams. Many of the chemical constituents mentioned
above are bound to and carried by sediment particles. Turbidity values for Cache River/Bayou
DeView were accordingly higher than any other river group in eastern Arkansas (Petersen 1988).
Petersen (1988) documented annual suspended sediment discharges at the Patterson and Cotton
Plant stations to be 96,800 and 78,500 tons, respectively, in 1987; however, these discharges were
not normally distributed over time, with 22 percent of the annual sediment discharge occurring during
a 10-day flood event in mid-winter. A study on the Cache River at AGFC Rex Hancock/Black Swamp
WMA documented sedimentation accretion rates of up to 2.5 cm/year (Kleiss 1996). In this case,
approximately 30 miles of Cache River wetlands were responsible for decreasing the suspended
sediment load by an annual average (3 years of data) of 14 percent. However, although sediment
retention is a natural function of forested wetlands, this rate of removal of sediment is unnatural and
unsustainable over time if maintenance or restoration of wetland functions and values is desirable.
This point is supported by dendrogeomorphic analyses, which indicated that historic sedimentation
rates in the area may have been as low as 0.01 cm/yr, but that rates increased sharply from less than
0.13 cm/yr immediately prior to 1945 to a mean rate of 0.29 cm/yr from 1981-90 (Hupp and Morris
1990). This significant increase, 30-times greater than estimated natural rates, corresponded with
accelerated clearing of forested acreage for agriculture.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Bald Knob and Cache River NWRs are located within close proximity to one another and have similar
habitats. Major forest habitat types for Bald Knob and Cacher River NWRs are depicted in Figures 3
and 5 (a and b), respectively.
Bald Knob NWR
Habitat/land use types represented on Bald Knob NWR are as follows:
Cropland 4,393 acres
Reforestation 6,188 acres
Bottomland hardwood forest 3,969 acres
Sloughs, ditches and other water 232 acres
Administrative lands 184 acres
Old fields 56 acres
Bounded on the south and east by the Little Red River and characterized by Overflow Creek, which
winds through its middle, Bald Knob NWR contains a mixture of cypress-tupelo brakes, oxbow lakes,
bottomland hardwoods, recently reforested lands, moist-soil impoundments, and agricultural fields.
This variety of habitats supports a tremendous array of plants and animals, particularly migratory
birds, throughout the year.
24 Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Figure 3. Forest Types on Bald Knob NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
There are now over 16 miles of refuge boundary along the Little Red River. The Mingo Creek Unit lies 3
miles west of the confluence of the Little Red River and the White River. These rivers are key water sources
for the refuge, which depends on backwater flooding from the White River, which in turn causes the Little
Red River to flood. Precise water management is obtained by cooperative pumping and maintenance
agreements within the cooperative farming contract. All water utilized on the refuge is pumped from the
Little Red River and is subsequently delivered to individual fields by gravity flow or re-lift pumping.
The refuge was staffed with a manager in 1997 and an engineering equipment operator in 1998. At that
time, wildlife management focused on the primary purpose for refuge establishment, which is
“conservation of winter habitat for key groups of waterfowl.” Management actions involved cooperative
farming to provide high energy foods such as rice, milo, and millet for migratory birds via flooding of crops,
canal/levee maintenance, creating moist-soil units, repair/construction of water control structures,
restoration of bottomland hardwood forests, and initiating compatible public hunt programs.
The recommendation from the 1998 Biological Review to reforest several thousand acres on Bald
Knob NWR to provide a corridor that connects the Hurricane Wildlife Management Area and the
refuge to the Ozark foothills has been accomplished, and reforestation likely will continue on future
inholding purchases. Native oaks, cypress, sweetgum, pecan, and other hardwood species planted
in former agricultural fields will greatly enhance habitat diversity for wildlife. In addition, scrub-shrub
habitat has increased due to the amount of reforestation that has occurred over the past 10 years.
Although the extent of agricultural crops has been reduced from over 10,000 acres in 1995 to 4,393
acres currently, the production of cereal grains, such as rice and milo, continues to provide a critically
important food resource for wintering waterfowl. In addition, approximately 1,600 acres of moist-soil
impoundments provide seeds and invertebrates for waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and other
wetland-dependent wildlife species.
The most unique feature of Bald Knob NWR is the water control infrastructure system available to
precisely manage water quantity and depth. Nearly 80 miles of ditches and canals exist and are
necessary to effectively drain, irrigate, and flood agricultural and moist-soil habitats to create
important wildlife habitat.
Big Lake NWR
Habitat/land use types represented on Big Lake NWR (Figure 4) are as follows:
Cropland 42 acres
Moist-soil units 250 acres
Marsh 300 acres
Forest 2,159 acres
Open water 2,600 acres
Swamp 5,250 acres
Levees/dikes/administrative area 437 acres
In the northern Arkansas/Missouri Bootheel region, the Big Lake area is the last remnant of what had
been the vast Mississippi Delta forest. The fertile soils, which were once covered with bottomland
hardwoods, are now row-cropped to produce soybeans and cotton. The refuge persists as a forested
oasis in an agricultural desert, and this isolated area of natural beauty is cherished by citizens of
Arkansas. Except for the spoil levees and administrative areas, the rest of the refuge is classified as
wetlands. The land contour ranges from 223’ msl in the deepest channels near the south end to 240’
msl near the north end.
26 Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Figure 4. Habitat Types on Big Lake NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Cache River NWR
Habitat/land use types represented on Cache River NWR (Figures 5a and 5b) are as follows:
Cropland 3,106 acres
Moist-soil units 447 acres
Marsh 124 acres
Reforestation 15,524 acres
Bottomland hardwood forest 44,358 acres
Oxbow lakes, bayous, rivers 1,010 acres
Cache River NWR has utilized cooperative farming as one of several waterfowl management
tools to meet waterfowl habitat objectives since the refuge’s establishment in 1986. Rice, milo,
soybeans, Japanese millet, and occasionally corn are grown on a rotating basis on the Dixie and
Plunkett Farm Units. It should be noted that these two farm units are also used to meet refuge
objectives for moist-soil plant production, winter browse, and migrating shorebird habitat in
addition to row crop objectives for the refuge.
Despite the extensive and drastic drainage and channel alterations, the Cache River basin contains a
variety of wetland communities, including some of the most intact and least disturbed bottomland
hardwood forests in the Mississippi Valley region. These unique and valuable wetlands have been
designated by the Ramsar Convention as “Wetlands of International Importance.”
Forested land on Cache River NWR consists mostly of floodplain bottomland hardwoods,
dominated by species such as willow oak, Nuttall oak, overcup oak, sugarberry, sweetgum, sweet
pecan, bitter pecan, honey locust, persimmon, cypress, green ash, American elm, cedar elm,
black willow, and red maple. Baldcypress-water tupelo swamps also comprise a significant
portion of the lowest sites on the refuge.
During the last 15 or so years, more than 15,000 acres of agricultural and fallow fields have been
planted in hardwood seedlings in an effort to link fragmented forested tracts and to create larger
forest blocks for wildlife. Species planted include Nuttall oak, cherrybark oak, willow oak, water oak,
overcup oak, sweet pecan, bald cypress, and a host of native hardwoods. Additional wetland areas
on the refuge consist of approximately 447 acres of moist-soil units scattered throughout the farm
fields. Moist-soil plants vary depending on the timing of drawdowns and soil disturbance, but usually
consist of panic grass, smartweeds, sprangletop, millets, and a variety of sedges. An extensive
network of lakes, streams, and bayous on the refuge provide an abundance of habitat for fishes,
mussels, and other wetland-dependent species.
Wapanocca NWR
Habitat/land use types represented on Wapanocca NWR (Figure 6) are as follows:
Cropland 761 acres
Grassland 73 acres
Open water 612 acres
Swamp 1,760 acres
Moist-soil 288 acres
Reforestation 917 acres
Bottomland hardwood forest 1,502 acres
28 Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Figure 5a. Forest types on Cache River NWR (North)
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Figure 5b. Forest Types on Cache River NWR (South)
30 Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Figure 6. Habitat types on Wapanocca NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
There is little old growth timber found on the refuge because it was logged while in private ownership.
The invasive species Chinese privet and Japanese honeysuckle are common in the forested areas.
There are 32 small impoundments, with a total acreage of 288 acres with stoplog half-risers for water
control. These impoundments are managed as moist-soil habitats for waterfowl, shorebirds, wading
birds, and other native wildlife.
The Wapanocca Lake basin consists of 612 acres of open water and 1,200 acres of cypress/willow
swamp. A concrete structure with two stoplog bays to control water levels is located at the northwest
corner of the basin and empties into Big Creek. Woody Ponds is a 243-acre cypress swamp where water
levels also are controlled by a stoplog structure. The remaining 317 acres of cypress swamps receive
water from winter/spring flooding from ditch overflows and normally dry up during summer months.
WILDLIFE
Wildlife species that are known or expected to occur on the Central Arkansas NWR Complex are
listed in Appendix G. Birds of conservation concern for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Bird
Conservation Region 26) are listed by the refuge on which they occur in Appendix H. A brief
discussion of wildlife species follows by refuge.
Bald Knob NWR
Birds
The refuge is noted for large numbers of wintering waterfowl, which have at times exceeded 650,000
birds. Mallards are the most numerous species, with Northern Pintail, American Wigeons, Gadwalls,
Northern Shovelers, Green-winged and Blue-winged Teals, Scaup, Ring-necked Ducks, and Wood
Ducks being common. The native Wood Duck and Hooded Merganser nest throughout the refuge.
The refuge lies in the heart of the largest pintail wintering area in the state. As many as 250,000
pintail have been recorded wintering on the refuge. Peak waterfowl use normally occurs from
November-December.
The refuge actively manages water and associated mudflats on approximately 150 acres for
shorebirds. Shorebird use peaks around August 18, with approximately 5,000 birds. The most
common species are Pectoral Sandpipers, Killdeer, Lesser Yellowlegs, Semi-palmated Plovers, Least
Sandpipers, and Long-billed Dowitchers.
Marsh birds of primary concern in North America include King, Clapper, Virginia, Yellow, and Black
Rails; Soras; American and Least Bitterns; Pied-billed Grebe; Purple Gallinule; and Common
Moorhen. The refuge provides thousands of acres of suitable habitat for these migratory birds in any
given year. While no confirmed nests have been recorded of any rail species, refuge personnel did
observe a King Rail during June 2006. The American Bittern and Pied-billed Grebe are very common
during spring migration, while the Least Bittern has been less documented. The only sighting of a
Common Moorhen occurred during late spring 2007 by refuge personnel.
American, Common and Snowy Egrets; Great Blue and Little Blue Herons; and a host of other marsh
birds utilize the various wetlands on the refuge throughout the year. Apart from the Great Blue Heron,
which is a year-long resident, the other species usually arrive on the refuge around the middle of April.
During the fall, additional migratory waders, such as Tri-colored Herons, White-faced Ibis, Wood Ibis,
White Pelicans, and Roseate Spoonbills, are common. The refuge has an active rookery in a
32 Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
cypress/tupelo brake on the Mingo Creek Unit. This rookery contains approximately 600 nests with a
species composition of 65 percent Great Egrets, 32 percent Great Blue Herons, and 3 percent Anhingas.
Red-tailed Hawks, American Kestrels, and Northern Harriers are the most common raptors on the
refuge and are observed frequently throughout the year. Other raptors which utilize the refuge
include the Red-shouldered Hawk, and Screech, Barred, and Great Horned Owls. The Peregrine
Falcon is often observed hunting shorebirds in April and from July-August. Bald Eagles frequent the
refuge, particularly during the winter months as they follow the waterfowl migration. The refuge
recently documented over 60 Bald Eagles utilizing the refuge.
Mammals
The most common mammals on the refuge are the white-tailed deer, gray and fox squirrels, swamp
and cottontail rabbits, coyote, and armadillo. Furbearing species include the muskrat, beaver, mink,
bobcat, spotted and striped skunk, raccoon, otter, and long-tailed weasel. Small mammals present
are the eastern mole, short-tailed and least shrews, eastern chipmunk, various bats, cotton rat,
eastern wood rat, cotton mouse, and harvest mouse.
Reptiles and Amphibians
A vast array of reptiles and amphibians utilize the numerous wetlands on the refuge. The most
common snakes include the broad-banded water snake and the cottonmouth. Diamondback and
yellow-bellied water snakes are also numerous. The unusual and interesting Grahm’s crayfish snake
has also been documented on the refuge.
The most common turtles include the red-eared slider and the spiney softshell. Alligator and common
snapping turtles are also present, but less often observed.
Leopard frogs and bullfrogs are frequently observed as are Fowler��s toads, green frogs, spring
peepers, and chorus frogs. The spotted salamander, three-toed amphiuma, and lesser sirens have
been documented on the refuge.
Fish
A large number of rough and game fish are present on the refuge. The most common species of
rough fish include buffalo, drum, carp, and bowfin, while largemouth bass, crappie, several species of
sunfish, and blue, channel, and flathead catfish are the more common game fish.
Threatened and Endangered Species
The Least Tern and the Piping Plover utilize the refuge during their spring and fall migration. These
birds are usually observed feeding in various mudflats during July-September. However, these
species have also been recorded during spring utilizing shallowly flooded fields. Additionally,
Peregrine Falcons frequent the refuge and are often observed pursuing waterfowl and shorebirds.
Invasive Species
Nutria recently moved into the area and are causing considerable damage to refuge levees and
roads from their burrowing activities. Armadillos also cause extensive damage to roads and
levees by their burrowing. Wild hogs were first documented on the refuge in Spring, 2008.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Habitat damage from their rooting activity is extremely high and they will out-compete other
resident wildlife for mast and other food resources.
Invasive plant and tree species include Japanese honeysuckle, Chinese privet, Chinaberry, and Mimosa.
Big Lake NWR
Birds
Bald Eagles are frequently documented on the refuge. They have nested on the refuge since 1993
and usually have one successful nest. Eastern Wild Turkeys are abundant on the refuge. Each year,
hundreds of thousands of waterfowl migrate to the refuge, arriving as early as September and
peaking between December and January. Canada and white-fronted goose numbers have increased
in recent years, reaching more than 15,000 during January and February. The Baker Island wheat
field attracts White-fronted, Snow, and Canada geese. Mallard, Gadwall, American Wigeon, Northern
Pintail, Green-winged Teal, Northern Shoveler, Canvasbacks, Redheads, and American Coot are
frequent visitors to the refuge. The refuge hosts an exceptional breeding population of Wood Ducks
and Hooded Mergansers.
Great Blue Herons and Great Egrets are common throughout the summer months on the moist-soil
unit. The unit also attracts Little Blue Herons, Green Herons, and Snowy Egrets. American Bitterns
are occasionally seen using the area. Cattle Egrets utilize the grazed portion of the Ditch 81 levee
adjacent to the West side of the refuge throughout the summer. Double Crested Cormorants
continue to use the refuge in increasing numbers. Several flocks of migrating American White
Pelicans use the refuge from late-February and March and again throughout the summer months of
June and July. The most common shorebird is the Killdeer. Sora Rails and Solitary Sandpipers use
exposed mud flats in the moist-soil unit. American Woodcock are often observed on the levee road.
Other species observed include various tern species such as Forster’s Terns and Spotted
Sandpipers. Red-tailed Hawks and Red-shouldered Hawks are often seen on the refuge. Also
abundant on the refuge are Great Horned Owls and Barred Owls. Other raptors include Screech Owl
and Cooper’s Hawk.
Mammals
Deer are abundant and the population estimate for the refuge and the adjacent state-managed
wildlife area is 300 – 500 animals. Excellent habitat and a lack of hunting pressure contribute to high
populations of raccoons. Fox squirrel populations remain high on the refuge.
Bobcats are frequently sighted numerous times along the Ditch 81 levee. Otters are thought to be
abundant as they are often observed crossing the levee road from Ditch 81 to the refuge.
Fish
A large number of rough and game fish are present on the refuge. The most common species of
rough fish include buffalo, drum, carp, gar, and bowfin, while largemouth bass, crappie, several
species of sunfish, and blue, channel, and flathead catfish are the more common game fish.
34 Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Threatened and Endangered Species
Bald Eagles (no longer listed as threatened) have nested successfully on the refuge since 1993. Fat
pocketbook mussels are found throughout the refuge and juveniles were restocked within refuge
waters in the early 2000s.
Invasive Species
Beaver and nutria numbers are on the rise at Big Lake NWR. These two species cause significant
damage to the refuge’s forest communities and system of roads, levees, and water control structures.
Feral hogs were released illegally onto the adjacent Big Lake WMA and have subsequently spread
onto the refuge in recent years and are being spotted more frequently by refuge users. Their foraging
activities are damaging the forest floor and the main levee side slopes north of Timm’s Point.
Cache River NWR
Birds
Waterfowl
The Cache River Basin is widely recognized for its importance as wintering habitat for waterfowl. It is
identified in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan as the most important wintering area for
Mallards in North America. During peak years, 400,000 to 500,000 Mallards have been estimated to
winter within the acquisition boundary of the refuge. While Mallards are the dominant species, Green-winged
Teal, Northern Pintail, and Gadwalls are also common. Waterfowl numbers usually start gradually
increasing from November to December, peak in January, and drop off significantly in February.
Wood Ducks and Hooded Mergansers are the primary species of waterfowl that breed on the Cache
River NWR. Both are cavity nesters adapted to bottomland hardwood ecosystems. The Hooded
Merganser is an uncommon breeding species in the region, and does not occur anywhere in large
concentrations. By virtue of the extent of its remaining bottomland hardwood and permanently
inundated wetlands, the Cache/Lower White Rivers’ ecosystem is the most important breeding area
for Wood Ducks in Arkansas; however, the secretive habits of the species have prevented the
development of valid survey methods or population/density estimates. The large amount of mature
forests and thus natural cavities, preclude the need for Wood Duck nest boxes.
Neotropical Migratory Birds and Resident Songbirds
Neotropical migratory bird species are experiencing long-term declines as a result of habitat loss
across their full range of breeding and migrating habitats in North America and their wintering habitats
in Central and South America. However, the proximate causes of the decline are not as clear, and
evaluation of the problem is complicated by their intercontinental range and by the fact that this group
of migratory species is composed of over 250 individual species within a number of different habitat
guilds. As a group, resident songbirds are not currently exhibiting the degree of recent population
decline documented for neotropical migratory species; however, it seems apparent that the 85
percent habitat loss in the ecosystem must have caused a commensurate decline in resident
songbird populations and distributions from a historic perspective. Migratory songbirds that
overwinter in the habitats of this ecosystem generally have not experienced population declines as
dramatic as those of the neotropical species.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Neotropical migratory birds that use Cache River NWR are listed in Appendix G.
Marsh Birds
Secretive marsh birds include all species that primarily inhabit marshes (non-forested wetlands).
Primary species of concern in North America include the King Rail, Clapper Rail, Virginia Rail, Sora,
Black Rail, Yellow Rail, American Bittern, Least Bittern, Pied-billed Grebe, Purple Gallinule, and
Common Moorhen. The American Bittern has been identified as a Bird of Conservation Concern by
the Service due to the lack of basic population information. In Arkansas, population information on
secretive marsh birds, such as status and distribution, is limited. Michael Budd and Dr. David
Krementz from the USGS Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at the University of
Arkansas have completed preliminary secretive marsh bird surveys in the Delta region of eastern
Arkansas. Soras and American Bitterns were recorded at sites on, or near, the refuge in 2006. Both
of these species were observed during spring 2007 on Cache River NWR in a Wetlands Reserve
Program (WRP) impoundment and in a wetland located in a recently reforested area.
Wading Birds
Wading birds, such as Great Blue Heron, Great Egret, Snowy Egret, and Green Heron, are abundant
in waterfowl impoundments, canals, bayous, oxbow lakes, and marshes throughout the year on the
Cache River NWR. No known wading bird rookeries occur on the refuge.
Shorebirds
Shorebirds migrate through the LMV from the southern-most parts of South America to the
northern-most parts of North America. They typically probe in soft mud (e.g., mudflats) and
shallow water for worms and small invertebrates. In the LMV these birds generally move through
during spring and fall, foraging as they migrate. They may only spend 10 days in the LMV, with
very few overwintering or nesting in the LMV.
Quality shorebird habitat is also limited during the summer and early fall on Cache River NWR, since a
majority of potential shallow water sites are in some form of cropland, moist-soil vegetation, or
regeneration. The shallow water impoundments on newly acquired WRP sites, such as the Howell Tract,
hold the most potential for shorebird use and management because of their diversity of water depths and
mud bottom. Some shorebirds that occur on the refuge are Killdeers, Willets, Least Sandpipers, Lesser
Yellowlegs, Black-necked Stilts, Solitary Sandpipers, Peeps, and Common Snipes.
American Woodcock
American Woodcock are migratory game birds that occur throughout the forested portions of the
eastern United States. Woodcock populations in this region have declined 19 percent from 1968 to
1990. Population declines are thought to be the result of land use changes associated with land
conversion and the maturing of forest habitats.
Cache River NWR contains a substantial amount of habitat that appears to be suitable for woodcock.
Because woodcock hunting is not a traditional pursuit in Arkansas, there is almost no information
available about the species for the state. Nevertheless, one would suspect that Arkansas' lowlands
must be important migratory habitat given the large population which migrates to and is known to
overwinter in Louisiana. The abundance of migrating woodcock on the refuge has not been
quantified to date, but birds have been observed during pilot surveys.
36 Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Eastern Wild Turkeys
The primary resident game bird in the ecosystem, and one of special public interest, is the Eastern
Wild Turkey. Being primarily associated with the mature hardwood forests of this region, turkeys
once were distributed throughout the ecosystem. However, they are now generally restricted to
larger blocks of forests, partly because those are most likely to contain a variety of habitats occurring
at least to some extent on high ground. Turkeys utilize large blocks of open forest, young
afforestation tracts, and open fields. The primary limitation to turkey populations in the more northern
areas of the ecosystem, where the habitat becomes increasingly constricted along the watercourse, is
the relative absence of forested lands above the 1- or 2-year floodplain.
Bald Eagles
During the winter, Bald Eagles are commonly sighted on the refuge, usually over open areas or
bodies of water, while searching for prey. Eagles are found near large concentrations of waterfowl
during the winter months on the refuge. Over the past 5 years, two pairs of Bald Eagles have nested
near Rainbow Lake and near Opossum Creek. Both nests were constructed in the tops of cypress
trees and each of these nesting pairs annually produced fledged eaglets.
Mammals
White-tailed Deer
The refuge consists of a mixture of farm fields, afforestation, moist-soil impoundments, and
bottomland hardwood forests that create a mosaic of different habitats that provide for excellent cover
and forage for white-tailed deer and other wildlife. Deer appear to be abundant based on general
observations and harvest data. Deer herd health checks conducted by the Southeastern Cooperative
Wildlife Disease Study (SCWDS) in 2007 indicate that deer on the south part of the refuge were in
good physical condition and the herd was thought to be below carrying capacity. However, deer
collected by SCWDS in the central part of the refuge showed signs of a higher population size close
to carrying capacity, and SCWDS recommended reducing the population to a more healthy level.
Furbearers
A number of furbearers, including raccoon, mink, muskrat, opossum, coyote, bobcat, beaver, river
otter, red fox, gray fox, and striped skunk, are thought to be common on the refuge. Beaver, muskrat,
river otter, and mink are associated with the more permanently inundated wetlands and bayous. The
raccoon is well-adapted to all existing habitats, and the opossum, coyote, foxes, and bobcat are more
associated with drier forest and afforestation sites. Little or no formal data are available to provide
population estimates for these species; however, general observations indicate that beaver and
raccoon numbers have increased in recent years. These two species are of concern because of their
high potential to negatively impact habitat and other wildlife species.
Small Game Species
Gray and fox squirrels are both abundant and distributed throughout the refuge where suitable, mast-producing
forested habitat is available. Although they share habitats to some degree, gray squirrels are
most common in deep woods, whereas fox squirrels prefer small woodlots and the edges of larger
forested tracts. Their high potential recruitment rate (controlled largely by levels of available hard mast),
high natural mortality rates, and other population processes would lead to the expectation that no
significant long-term changes in their population densities within available habitat have occurred.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Cottontail rabbits and swamp rabbits are relatively common throughout the refuge; their numbers are
largely controlled by the extent of available habitat. The rabbit population is usually higher in and
around afforestation sites.
Black Bears
Black bears were once common in the Cache/Lower White Rivers’ system before large blocks of
forest were cleared for farming and other purposes. By the early 1900s, black bears had been
virtually eliminated from the state except for a very small population, which survived in the most
remote portion of the Lower White River. As a result of protection afforded by the refuges and state
hunting regulations, black bear numbers increased significantly on the lower portion of White River
NWR and surrounding forested area. Black bears are sighted on or near the Cache River NWR
several times a year. Sightings are probably males passing though or juvenile males searching for a
territory. Female bears, which determine population expansion in an area, are not thought to occur
on the refuge with the possible exception of the large forested Biscoe tract on the southern end of the
refuge. Bear hair-snare surveys were conducted in the Biscoe area by refuge personnel in
cooperation with the AGFC during the summers of 2007 and 2008, to determine bear abundance and
sex. No visits by bears were recorded. All bear sightings reported to the refuge office over the last 5
to 10 years have been maintained in a database.
Reptiles and Amphibians
The refuge’s moist, forested bottomland hardwood habitat, bayous, oxbows, and impoundments are
conducive for an abundant and diverse reptile and amphibian community. Numerous species of
salamanders, frogs, and toads are present along with different species of turtles, snakes, lizards,
and skinks (Appendix G). A detailed species list and associated habitat is lacking. A survey
conducted in 2006 by the refuge biologist to detect amphibian abnormalities indicated that
amphibians on the refuge were healthy.
Fish
Bottomland hardwood wetlands provide spawning and nursery habitat to many species of fish. Hydrology
(primarily extent, duration, and periodicity of flooding) is one of the primary factors regulating utilization
and reproductive success of fishes in wetlands. A total of 36 species of larval fish and 51 adult species
was collected in a 1994 fisheries study in the flooded bottomland forest in the Cache River (Appendix G).
Fisheries appear to be thriving in the Cache and White Rivers, Bayou DeView, and other bayous and
numerous oxbows throughout the refuge. Among the fish found in refuge waters are various species of
crappie, bream, catfish, bass, buffalo, carp, alligator gar, and paddlefish.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Ivory-billed Woodpecker
The Ivory-billed Woodpecker (IBWO) was once an inhabitant of forested habitats throughout the
southeastern United States and Cuba. Although there are little specific population data available, it is
likely that European settlement and the clearing of the forests caused the species to decline in the
latter half of the 19th century. By the mid-20th century the IBWO was reduced to a very small
population. The most famous study of these birds was conducted by Arthur Allen and James Tanner
at the Tensas River in Louisiana in the late 1930s. The last widely accepted sightings were made in
the Tensas area by Don Eckleberry in 1944. Since that time, there have been numerous
38 Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
unconfirmed sightings throughout the historic range of the species. Many of these sightings seemed
highly credible but lacked hard evidence.
In February of 2004, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology biologists became aware of reports of credible
sightings of the IBWO in a portion of Bayou DeView, which is located on Cache River NWR.
Subsequently, Cornell biologists and their partners documented the presence of at least one IBWO
(Fitzpatrick et al. 2005) in that area.
A small stretch of the Bayou DeView was thought at one time to be providing some or all of the life
cycle requirements for the individual(s) sighted on the refuge. Sixteen sightings of the IBWO were
documented deep within the cypress-tupelo swamp of Bayou DeView in 2006.
Researchers from Cornell, with assistance from personnel from TNC, Arkansas Audubon, AGFC, and the
Service, along with numerous volunteers, have been faithfully searching the Big Woods of Arkansas,
including Cache River NWR, for the last several years. There have been many reported sightings,
interesting audio, and other supporting data, but no additional video or still pictures have been recorded.
A helicopter search conducted in February 2008 failed to produce any sightings of IBWO.
The refuge has been supporting the IBWO search team when and where possible. Cache River
NWR’s forester and wildlife biologist have been conducting IBWO Habitat Inventory and Assessment
of the forest on the refuge to determine potential habitat.
Other threatened or endangered species that have not been found on the Cache River NWR but
potentially could occur are fat pocketbook mussels, Least Terns, American alligator (listed due to
similarity of appearance), and Piping Plovers.
Wapanocca NWR
Birds
There are 262 bird species known to visit the refuge. A large Great Blue Heron/Great Egret rookery
(400+ nests) is located in the cypress trees north of the lake. Anhingas and Yellow-crowned Night
Herons have also been known to nest in the rookery. A resident pair of Bald Eagles nests on the refuge
yearly. Least Terns forage during the summer months over the lake. Snow Geese, once seldom seen in
the area, now number up to 10,000 in the winter, attracted by the increased conversion of row crops to
rice fields. During extremely cold temperatures in the winter, when most of the water bodies outside of
the refuge are frozen, up to 100,000 ducks will flock to the lake. The majority of these birds consists of
Mallards, but a great diversity of other ducks can be found as well. Large numbers of Shoveler, Northern
Pintail, and American Wigeon can be found, as well as many diving ducks such as Ring-necked Ducks
and Scaup. Wood Duck nest boxes (50) are maintained yearly to enhance production of Wood Ducks.
Hooded Mergansers and mallards also nest on the refuge. White Pelicans have been seen on the
refuge, as well as Great Blue Herons and Great Egrets.
Mammals
Beaver are common and have become problematic with their damming of the drainage ditches,
causing subsequent flooding onto private adjacent lands. Raccoons also occur in abundance. A
large white-tailed deer population occurs and is estimated to be over 200 animals in the winter.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
Reptiles and Amphibians
Three venomous snakes are found on the refuge and include cottonmouth water moccasin,
copperhead, and timber rattlesnake. An array of frogs and toads occurs on the refuge.
Fish
Historically, fishing on Wapanocca Lake was excellent as the lake was known as the premier bluegill
and crappie fishery in the area. Good populations of catfish and bass were also found. Due to
unstable water levels since the rehabilitation of Wapanocca Lake in 2004, fish populations have not
come close to approaching historic levels. Currently, Carp, Grinnell, and Gar make up the majority of
the fish population, with very few crappie and catfish being found. As water levels become more
stable through restoration efforts, a more consistent fishery is expected
Threatened and Endangered Species
No threatened and endangered species are known to exist on Wapanocca NWR.
Invasive Species
Nutria were first discovered on the refuge in 1993. Nutria increase during mild winters and damage to
cypress seedlings and levees are commonly observed.
Armadillo have moved into the refuge and it is suspected they have tunneled into levees and dikes,
causing eventual failure.
Wild (feral) hogs are occasionally seen on the refuge, but populations have not yet become a
problem.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Bald Knob NWR
To date, no cultural resources surveys or inventories have been conducted at Bald Knob NWR.
There are however, numerous sites along the Little Red River and Overflow Creek that native Indians
temporarily used. The Arkansas Archaeological Society documented several sites decades ago before
establishment of the refuge. Prior to the establishment of the refuge in 1993, artifact hunters dug pots and
surface-collected items such as arrowheads, bird points, and flint in agricultural fields scattered
throughout the area. Most of the fields containing these sites have been removed from crop production
and planted to bottomland hardwoods, which serves to protect the cultural resources that remain.
Currently, there are 18 historic properties recorded on the refuge. The majority of these are pre-
Columbian archaeological sites, although several are 19th century farm or house sites. The now
abandoned “Soybean House” is a square brick house built in 1925, and located in the northeast
corner of the refuge. The Soybean House was documented during a county-wide architectural
survey in 1986, but a period of significance was not identified. None of the archaeological sites have
been subjected to systematic scientific testing or evaluation for inclusion on the National Register of
Historic Places. However, the archaeological sites continue to be favorite targets for local artifact
collectors and looters.
40 Central Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Big Lake NWR
The refuge has one major archaeological site located at the north end just south of the water control
structures called the Zebree site. The site was excavated prior to the completion of the Ditch 81 project,
and the artifacts recovered were catalogued by the Arkansas Archeological Survey. The Service is
currently working with the Quapaw tribe to repatriate the remains at or near the Zebree site.
Cache River NWR
The Arkansas Archaeological Survey, under contract with the Corps, studied the Cache River and
Bayou DeView in 1974. Field work associated with this project, which concentrated on the lower
reaches of both drainages, identified 61 archaeological sites within approximately 1 mile on both
sides of the Cache River and Bayou DeView channels. All discovery sites contained evidence of
prehistoric Indian occupation, with the possible exception of one. The earliest evidence of man in the
study area is from the Paleo-Indian period, circa 10,000 B.C. The majority of these prehistoric sites
were located on natural levees, low-lying terraces, and low sandy knolls. In addition to elevation, the
major factor determining the location and utilization of sites appeared to be soils. A strong correlation
was observed between site location and areas of sandy soil with high natural fertility. These soils are
all of the Bosket fine sandy loam, Dubbs fine sandy loam, and Dundee fine sandy loam types. In
contrast, no sites were associated with the areas of sandy well-drained soils which have low natural
fertility (Beulah-Bruno association).
There are several cemeteries dating to the late 1800s known to occur on the refuge. The remnants
of railroad spurs that facilitated the first logging of