Comprehensive Conservation Plan Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge

              W R Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge USFWS
Robert Dailey - Refuge Mananger
P.O. Box 808
Jackson, AL 36545
Phone: (251) 246-3583
FAX: (251) 246-5414
E-mail: choctaw@fws.gov
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1 800/344 WILD
http://www.fws.gov
August 2006
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
W R
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
USFFWS Photto
Choctaw
National Wildlife Refuge
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
August, 2006
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
CHOCTAW NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Choctaw County, Alabama
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
August 2006
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................1
Introduction..................................................................................................................................1
Purpose and Need for the Plan ....................................................................................................1
Policies and Legal Mandates........................................................................................................2
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.............................................................................................2
National Wildlife Refuge System.........................................................................................2
Other Legal Mandates.........................................................................................................4
National and Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ...........................................................4
Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem Plan....................................................................................4
Partners in Flight .................................................................................................................5
North American Waterfowl Management Plan ....................................................................5
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and Wading Bird Plan ..................................................5
Partners In Amphibian and Reptile Conservation ...............................................................6
American Woodcock Management Plan .............................................................................6
Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem Context ........................................................................................7
Overview .............................................................................................................................7
Mobile Bay Basin ................................................................................................................7
Ecological Threats and Problems .......................................................................................8
Alterations to Hydrology ....................................................................................................10
Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems ........................................................................................11
Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants and Animals ........................................................11
Relationship to the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources...................12
II. REFUGE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................13
Introduction................................................................................................................................13
Refuge Purposes.......................................................................................................................14
Wintering Habitat for Waterfowl ........................................................................................16
Nongame Birds .................................................................................................................17
Replicating Historic Forest Conditions ..............................................................................19
Special Designations of the Refuge ...........................................................................................20
Resource Threats and Problems................................................................................................20
Refuge Environment...................................................................................................................21
Physical Resources...........................................................................................................21
Biological Resources.........................................................................................................24
Refuge Administration.......................................................................................................37
Education and Visitor Services .........................................................................................37
Cultural Resources............................................................................................................41
Socioeconomic Environment.............................................................................................43
Outdoor Recreation Economics ........................................................................................45
Tourism .............................................................................................................................45
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................47
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ...........................................................................47
ii Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
Issues and Concerns .................................................................................................................48
Wildlife and Habitat Management.....................................................................................48
Resource Protection .........................................................................................................49
Education and Visitor Services .........................................................................................49
Refuge Administration ......................................................................................................50
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION.........................................................................................................53
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................53
Vision ........................................................................................................................................53
Management Plan Summary......................................................................................................54
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..............................................................................................54
Goal A – Wildlife And Fish Populations ............................................................................54
Goal B – Habitats..............................................................................................................66
Goal C – Resource Protection ..........................................................................................70
Goal D – Education and Visitor Services ..........................................................................75
Goal E – Refuge Administration........................................................................................83
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION..............................................................................................................85
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................85
Project Summaries.....................................................................................................................85
Wildlife and Habitat Management.....................................................................................85
Resource Protection .........................................................................................................85
Education and Visitor Services .........................................................................................85
Refuge Administration ......................................................................................................86
Other RONS Projects........................................................................................................86
Staffing and Funding ..................................................................................................................87
Partnership Opportunities...........................................................................................................89
Step-down Management Plans ..................................................................................................89
Monitoring and Adaptive Management.......................................................................................89
Plan Review and Revision..........................................................................................................91
SECTION B. APPENDICES
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY...................................................................................................................93
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED .................................................................95
APPENDIX III. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS...........................................................................................99
APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ..........................................................................................103
APPENDIX V. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS.......................................................................105
APPENDIX VI. PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES AND SPECIES SUITES................................................127
APPENDIX VII. BIOTA ......................................................................................................................137
APPENDIX VIII. EXISTING AND POTENTIAL PARTNERS .............................................................145
APPENDIX IX. SECTION 7 EVALUATION .......................................................................................147
APPENDIX X. WILDERNESS REVIEW SUMMARY........................................................................151
APPENDIX XI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT................................................................153
Table of Contents iii
List of Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-designated ecosystems in the conterminous United States..8
Figure 2. Regional location map of Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge...............................................14
Figure 3. Boundary map of Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge ...........................................................15
Figure 4. Plant communities at Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge .....................................................28
Figure 5. Existing visitor use facilities at Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge.......................................38
Figure 6. Proposed visitor use facilities at Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge ....................................76
Figure 7. Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge current staffing chart......................................................88
Figure 8. Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge proposed staffing chart..................................................88
List of Tables
Table 1. Acres managed by current staffing, Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge................................13
Table 2. Land acquisition history, Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge .................................................16
Table 3. Location of the refuge ...........................................................................................................16
Table 4. Establishment date, legislation, and purposes for Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge ..........16
Table 5. Natural communities identified at Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge ...................................25
Table 6. Exotic plant species observed at the Choctaw Refuge in 2002–2003 .. Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Table 7. Percent of Choctaw County land base used for agricultural production ...............................43
Table 8. Choctaw County employment data .......................................................................................43
Table 9. Comparison of geographic and demographic statistics for Choctaw County, Alabama, and
the USA ...............................................................................................................................44
Table 10. Wildlife-oriented recreation by participants, 16 years old and older, across Alabama........44
Table 11. Estimated Choctaw County tourism and travel revenues and employment........................46
Table 12. Additional RONS projects at Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge.........................................86
Table 13. Additional staff identified to implement the comprehensive conservation plan for Choctaw
National Wildlife Refuge ......................................................................................................87
Table 14. Step-down management plans ............................................................................................90
Section A – Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed this Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP) to provide a foundation for the management and use of Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge,
headquartered in Jackson, Alabama. The plan is intended to serve as a working guide for the
refuge’s management programs and actions over the next 15 years.
The plan was developed in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and Wildlife Service
Manual. The actions described in this plan also meet the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Compliance with NEPA was met with public involvement throughout the
CCP process and the development of an environmental assessment. When fully implemented, this
plan will strive to achieve the vision and purposes of the refuge.
The plan’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which the refuge was established.
Fish and wildlife are the first priority in refuge management, and public use (wildlife-dependent
recreation) is allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, or does not detract from, the
refuge’s mission and purposes.
The plan has been prepared by a planning team composed of representatives from the refuge; a
natural resources planner from the Service’s Jackson, Mississippi, field office; staff from the Service��s
Daphne, Alabama, Ecological Services field station; the Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater
Fisheries; and the Mangi Environmental Group, a contractor. In developing this plan, the planning
team and refuge staff incorporated a number of suggestions and recommendations from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers; the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; other
federal, state, and local agencies; nongovernmental organizations; local citizens; the general public;
and other stakeholders. This public involvement and the planning process itself are described in
Chapter III, Plan Development.
The plan represents the Service’s preferred alternative (Alternative D) and is being put forward after
considering three other alternatives. Each of these alternatives is described in the environmental
assessment, which was prepared in conjunction with the draft comprehensive conservation plan. After
reviewing the public comments and management needs, it was the consensus of the planning team that
Alternative D would best meet the goals and objectives of Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of this comprehensive conservation plan is to identify the role that Choctaw National Wildlife
Refuge will play in support of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and to provide long-term
guidance to the refuge’s management programs and activities. The plan is needed to
• provide a clear statement of direction for management of the refuge;
• provide refuge neighbors, visitors, nongovernmental partners, and government officials with an
understanding of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s management actions on and around the refuge;
2 Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
• ensure that the Service’s management actions, including its land protection, recreational, and
educational programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997;
• ensure that the management of the refuge considers federal, state, and county plans; and
• provide a basis for development of the refuge’s budget requests for operational, maintenance,
and capital improvement needs.
A critical management consideration for the Service is to communicate with the public and include
public participation in its efforts to carry out the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Many
agencies, organizations, institutions, businesses, and private citizens have developed relationships
with the Service to advance the goals of the Refuge System.
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan supports the Partners-in-Flight Initiative; the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan; U.S. Shorebird and Wading Bird plans; the Central Gulf Coast
Ecosystem Plan; Partners for Amphibians and Reptiles; and the American Woodcock Management
Plan.
POLICIES AND LEGAL MANDATES
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service, working with others, is to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
The Service manages the 96-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, comprised of more than
540 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands, and other special management areas. It
also operates 66 national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field
stations. The agency 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 in excise taxes
on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The National Wildlife Refuge System manages more than 96 million acres on refuges throughout the
nation, including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. It is world’s largest network of lands specifically
managed for the benefit of fish and wildlife.
The mission of the System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997, is:
… to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and
future generations of Americans.
Section A – Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear
mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Act states that each
refuge shall be managed to:
• fulfill the individual purpose of each refuge;
• fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
• consider the needs of fish and wildlife first;
• fulfill the requirement of developing a comprehensive conservation plan for each unit of the
Refuge System, and fully involve the public in the preparation of these plans;
• maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
• recognize that wildlife-dependent recreational activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and
• retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses.
Following passage of the Act in 1997, the Service immediately began efforts to implement the
direction of the new legislation, including the preparation of comprehensive conservation plans for all
refuges. The development of these plans is ongoing nationally. Consistent with the Act, all
comprehensive conservation plans are being prepared in conjunction with public involvement, and
each refuge is required to complete its plan within a 15-year schedule.
Approximately 38 million people visited America’s national wildlife refuges in 2002 to observe wild
living things in their diverse natural habitats. As this visitation continues to grow, significant economic
benefits are being generated to local communities that surround the refuges. Economists have
reported that national wildlife refuge visitors contribute more than $400 million annually to the local
economies. In 2001, 82 million U.S. residents, aged 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed
wildlife, generating $108 billion in the process. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges in 14
states around the nation, visitation had grown 36 percent in 7 years. At the same time, the number of
jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to 120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring
more than $2.2 million into local economies. Other findings also validate the belief that communities
near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and transportation grew to $6.8
million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each federal dollar spent on the
Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation expenditures and $1.42
in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland 2003).
Volunteerism continues to be a major contributor to the successes of the Refuge System. In 2002,
thousands of volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million person-hours on refuges nationwide, a
service valued at more than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for the national wildlife refuges stresses the following principles:
• Wildlife comes first.
• Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital considerations in refuge management.
• Refuges must be healthy.
• Growth of refuges must be strategic.
• The National Wildlife Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with broad
participation from others.
4 Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
OTHER LEGAL MANDATES
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National
Wildlife Refuge System, congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international
treaties. Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative
guidelines established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Please refer to Appendix III for a complete list of the
relevant legal mandates.
By law, lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public uses unless specifically
opened. The Service must evaluate all programs and uses based on the mandates set forth in the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. These mandates are to:
• contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
• conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
• monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
• manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses, as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public (these uses include
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation); and
• ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Along with enhanced communication with the public, increased public agency participation has been
determined to be one of the most pressing needs of the Service. A number of partnerships have
been developed among public and private entities—agencies, organizations, institutions, and
businesses—to address environmental issues affecting the ecosystem, region, and nation.
Conservation initiatives that have been borne out of these relationships address declining trends in
the natural, physical, social, and economic environments with broad-scale planning and cooperation
between affected parties.
Restoring the functions and values of wetlands in the southeastern United States is a top priority.
The goal is to prioritize and manage wetlands to most effectively maintain and possibly restore the
biological diversity in the ecosystem. Some areas are prioritized as focus areas for reforestation.
It is widely recognized, however, that most of the acreage of forested wetlands that have been
cleared and converted to other uses in the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem will not be reforested.
Some areas would have lower value for reforestation and so are targeted for intensive management
for nonforest-dependent species, such as waterfowl and shorebirds. Through combining efforts,
apportioning resources, and focusing available programs, the ecosystem’s biological diversity can be
improved. This CCP supports the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem Plan; the Partners-in-Flight
Initiative; North American Waterfowl Management Plan; U.S. Shorebird and Wading Bird plans;
Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation; and the American Woodcock Management Plan.
CENTRAL GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM PLAN
The restoration, recovery, and protection of pine habitats and associated plant and animal
communities are the goals for the Service’s Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem Plan, in which Choctaw
National Wildlife Refuge is located. Historically, the longleaf pine community was the predominant
Section A – Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
vegetative community of the southeastern coastal plain, with roughly 60 percent coverage in upland
areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003a). Choctaw Refuge, however, is situated in the valley and
floodplain of the Tombigbee River and is dominated by bottomland hardwoods.
The Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem Team developed a 5-year plan that addresses refuge
contributions. The management priorities for migratory birds, as identified for Choctaw National
Wildlife Refuge, are as follows:
• Maintain healthy bottomland hardwood forests (increase plant species diversity and vertical
layers of vegetation).
• Control populations of feral swine to protect other native wildlife and plant communities.
• Restore and protect critical functions of riverine and adjacent aquatic habitats with emphasis
on water quality, invasive plant control, and excessive sedimentation.
PARTNERS IN FLIGHT
Growing concern about declines in many land bird species not covered by existing conservation initiatives
led to the launching of Partners in Flight in 1990. Partners in Flight is an international cooperative effort of
government agencies, philanthropies, professional organizations, conservation groups, industry,
academics, and private individuals. Its initial focus was on neotropical migratory birds—species that
breed in North America and winter in Central and South America—but its emphasis has now expanded to
encompass most land birds and other species requiring terrestrial habitats. Partners in Flight has a
number of initiatives underway, including a North American Landbird Conservation Plan. This plan is
voluntary and nonregulatory, and focuses on relatively common species in areas where conservation
actions can be most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations.
Partners in Flight’s main premise is that the resources of public and private entities in the Americas, both
North and South, must be combined, coordinated, and increased if success in conserving hemispheric
bird populations is to be achieved (Partners in Flight n.d.).
NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan took flight in 1986 with the signing of an agreement
between Canada and the United States; Mexico later joined the program in 1988. The Plan provides
a policy framework for analyzing North American waterfowl issues. It also sets out a number of
objectives relating to waterfowl habitat and populations, with a focus on conserving and expanding
wetland areas (Environment Canada 2004).
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is based on the principle of joint ventures that
serve as a framework for the activities of the Plan’s private and regional member agencies. These
partners coordinate their efforts in pursuit of common objectives for waterfowl protection in each
region, province, or state.
U.S. SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN AND WADING BIRD PLAN
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and Wading Bird Plan are partnership efforts throughout
the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird and wading
bird species are restored and protected. The plans were developed by a wide range of
agencies, organizations, and experts for separate regions of the country. They identify
conservation goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed
education and outreach programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they
face (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service n.d.b).
6 Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge is an important location for breeding shorebirds and transient
species during both northbound and southbound migrations. In order to mitigate or reverse the
deleterious impacts from an array of development-related pressures, the refuge will contribute to the
following goals of the Shorebird and Wading Bird plans:
• Improve forest midstory and understory using appropriate forest harvest methods for tree
removal (also establish experimental harvest cuts to observe responses).
• Identify wood stork concentration areas and limit disturbance if nesting occurs. Assess
potentials for fish foraging ponds.
• Consider impoundments and sanctuary for waterbirds (e.g., herons and egrets) and
shorebirds.
• Identify swallow-tailed kite potential nest sites and monitor for use.
• Recognize need for tree snags for such species as the prothonotary warbler and great
crested flycatcher.
• Locate and map any rookeries and protect from disturbance.
• Participate in Christmas Bird Count and other bird census and survey opportunities.
• Establish point counts for surveying forest-breeding birds (will require additional staff).
• Initiate surveys of marsh birds on the refuge and their associated habitat use.
PARTNERS IN AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE CONSERVATION
The Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC) was founded in 1998 to address the
need for conservation of herpetofauna—amphibians and reptiles—and their habitats (Partners in
Amphibian and Reptile Conservation 2004). Its mission is to conserve amphibians, reptiles, and their
habitats as integral parts of the ecosystem and culture, through proactive and coordinated public and
private partnerships. PARC’s first organizational meeting was attended by more than 200 individuals
from over 170 organizations and agencies, including representatives from federal and state agencies;
conservation organizations; museums; nature centers; universities; research laboratories; the forest
products industry; the pet trade industry; and environmental consultants and contractors, including
participants from 33 states, the District of Columbia, Canada, and Mexico.
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge will contribute to the following goals of PARC:
• Complete a baseline study of the refuge’s amphibian and reptile populations.
• Maintain the quality of wetlands (water quality). Monitor water quality trends and/or obtain
Corps of Engineers or state data to track trends.
AMERICAN WOODCOCK MANAGEMENT PLAN
Woodcock trends in the United States have been declining annually for the last 15 years in spite of actions that
have been taken to ensure that hunting does not substantially promote declines, such as reduced bag limits
and limited season lengths. An American Woodcock Management Plan, initiated in the 1990s, points out the
need for improved breeding, migration, and wintering habitat to enhance population growth and survival
(McAuley and Clugston n.d.). Much of the decline is thought to be caused by land use changes and the
maturing of forest habitats that result in less early successional scrub/shrub habitats preferred by woodcock.
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge will contribute to the following listed goals of the American
Woodcock Management Plan:
• In a few open agriculture/old field areas, conduct nocturnal surveys to determine use.
• If appropriate (based on woodcock night use data), consider improvement of some upland
fields for roosting woodcock.
Section A – Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
• Create additional dense forest understory via appropriate forest harvest techniques
(e.g., small/moderate group selection openings). Also favor and maintain dense “cane”
areas on the refuge.
CENTRAL GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
OVERVIEW
Sustainable communities and species conservation and recovery require the joint efforts of private
landowners and local communities, as well as state and federal governments. This synergy of
federal, state, tribal, and private organizations working together will ensure that the Service not only
protects the more important areas, but also reduces redundancy of effort, allowing precious resources
to be directed where they are most needed.
In approaching its mission to conserve wildlife and their habitats throughout the country, the Fish and
Wildlife Service has found it useful to divide the entire United States into 53 distinct ecosystems, drawn
primarily along watershed boundaries (Figure 1). Choctaw Refuge lies within the Central Gulf Coast
Ecosystem (denoted as no. 29 in Figure 1). The refuge is an active participant in conservation efforts
within this ecosystem, which spans portions of the States of Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia.
Much of the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem is characterized by a flat to rolling topography broken up
by numerous streams and river bottoms. The uplands are dominated by pines; longleaf and slash in
the south, originally, and shortleaf mixed with hardwoods in the north. These are fire-maintained
systems that give way to loblolly pine and hardwoods in the damper areas, and to bottomland
hardwood forests in the extensive lowland drainages. Within its southernmost reaches, the
ecosystem encompasses estuaries and coastal waters and includes saline, brackish (mixed saline
and fresh) and fresh waters, as well as coastlines and adjacent lands. Coastal dunes, strands,
offshore barrier islands, and tidal marsh, in addition to the freshwater wetlands, pine woodlands, and
live oak forests, are all interrelated parts of the functioning whole. As such, they each figure as
crucial habitat for coastal fish and wildlife. Today, the ecological health of the Central Gulf Coast
Ecosystem is significantly degraded in comparison to its historical baselines. Choctaw Refuge is
located in the southern portion of the ecosystem.
MOBILE BAY BASIN
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge lies on the western edge of the Mobile Bay Basin watershed, one
of three watersheds that comprise the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem. Mobile Bay receives its
drainage from almost two-thirds of Alabama, plus portions of the States of Georgia, Mississippi, and
Tennessee. It encompasses 44,000 square miles and portions of 10 physiographic provinces,
making it the sixth largest drainage basin in the United States (Chadron State College and U.S.
Geological Survey n.d.). Defined by their soils, geology, topography, and other physical features,
each of the 10 physiographic provinces imparts a unique set of chemical and physical characteristics
to the waters that flow through them. As such, the Mobile River Basin provides a wide variety of
different habitats for many species of plants and animals, including the bottomland hardwoods and
backwater habitat of the Choctaw Refuge. Furthermore, the basin’s isolation by time and geologic
events (like the last continental Ice Age about 10,000 years ago) has resulted in a high number of
endemic species found nowhere else in the world.
8 Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-designated ecosystems in the conterminous United
States.
As a result of habitat loss and degradation, the Mobile Bay watershed is experiencing biotic
extinctions at a very high rate. Historically, the basin’s endemic fauna included 40 species of fishes,
33 species of mussels, and 110 species of aquatic snails, as well as a number of species of turtles,
aquatic insects, and crustaceans. Today, at least 16 endemic mussel and 38 endemic aquatic snail
species are presumed to be extinct, most within the past few decades. Not counting terrestrial
wildlife, the basin has 32 aquatic animal and plant species that are currently protected under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, including two species of turtles, ten species of fish, 17 species of
mussels, one snail species, and two species of plants. At least 62 other species are being reviewed
as candidates for possible future listing. These imperiled species represent all levels of the aquatic
food chain and include plants, insects, crustaceans, snails, mussels, fish, and turtles. A stable and
healthy ecosystem is defined as one where the chance of species extinction is low. Thus, the high
number of extinct and imperiled species from a variety of aquatic habitats throughout the basin—from
small mountain streams to large coastal plain rivers—is a clear indication of an ecosystem in trouble.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation
Over the past two centuries, as civilization has spread throughout the region, ever-increasing
needs for transportation, housing, water supply, electricity, food, and waste disposal have led to
dramatic alterations of the landscape. The greatest alteration has been from land clearing for
agriculture and flood control projects.
Section A – Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living, they have had a tremendous
negative impact on biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of the Central Gulf
Coast Ecosystem. National wildlife refuges in the Central Gulf Coast have come to serve as part of the
final safety net to support biological diversity—the greatest challenge, in fact, facing the Service.
For coastal habitats located along the Gulf, the underlying threats to biological diversity include:
• loss, alteration, and fragmentation of high-quality coastal habitat due to development;
• loss of natural shorelines as a result of development, hydrologic modifications, natural
erosion, bulkheading, shoreline armoring, and inadequate coastal engineering;
• lack of monitoring and regulation to protect fish and wildlife resources; and
• increased demand for beach access and use, resulting in increased disturbances to wildlife.
More generally, the threats to biodiversity across the variety of habitat types represented in this
ecosystem are posed by invasive species; overuse of resources; pollution; global climate change;
improper practices of fire suppression; and, most of all, habitat loss and fragmentation.
As a consequence of these threats, all manner of habitats in this ecosystem have seen their
acreages reduced. Forested wetlands, marshes, oyster reefs, and seagrass beds are disappearing
rapidly. Alabama has lost 25,000 acres of wetlands and bay bottoms in the Mobile-Tensas Delta
alone. Immense areas of bottomland hardwood forests have been reduced to forest fragments.
These range from a few large areas of more than 10,000 acres that have maintained many of the
original functions and values of bottomland hardwood forests, to very small tracts just a few acres in
size possessing limited functional value.
Elimination and fragmentation of coastal habitats have decimated wildlife species throughout the
Gulf Coast, and are recognized by the Service as serious threats to wildlife in Alabama. The
species most adversely affected by fragmentation are those that are area-sensitive or require
special habitat, such as protected, undisturbed beach dunes that offer secure breeding habitat
and a particular food source. Fragmentation affects migratory songbirds, sea turtles, beach mice,
and many other species, primarily through high rates of nesting failure and predation. While
more than 370 species of breeding migratory songbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and raptors are
found in this region, some of these species have declined significantly, such as the red-cockaded
woodpecker and Bachman’s warbler. These species need the benefits of large, managed forest
blocks to recover and sustain their existence.
As a result of habitat loss and degradation, the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem, particularly that
part coincident with the Mobile Bay watershed, is experiencing biotic extinctions at a rate
unparalleled elsewhere in the United States. Within the last century, nearly 50 percent of U.S.
biotic extinctions have occurred in the region (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service n.d.a). Species
once abundant in the Central Gulf Coast that have since become endangered or threatened
include the endangered wood stork and the threatened bald eagle (which has been proposed for
delisting). The most highly endangered of all is the ivory-billed woodpecker, which was once
dependent on extensive old-growth swamp forests dominated by ancient cypresses, and is
currently thought by many to be extinct. Until credible, but still disputed, sightings in early 2004
of at least one individual at Cache River National Wildlife Refuge in the Big Woods of eastern
Arkansas, the last confirmed sighting of an ivory-bill was back in the 1940s.
The avian species most adversely affected by fragmentation include those that are area-sensitive
(dependent on large continuous blocks of hardwood forest); those that depend on forest interiors;
10 Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
those that depend on special habitat requirements like mature forests or a particular food source; and
those that depend on good water quality. Species such as the prothonotary warbler, cerulean
warbler, and, in particular, Bachman’s warbler, have declined significantly, and will require the
benefits of large, managed forest blocks to recover and sustain their existence.
Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts as
biological oases surrounded by inhospitable agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed
most of the forested corridors along sloughs that formerly connected forest patches. The loss of
connectivity between the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of a large range of wildlife
between tracts, and reduces the functional value of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The
severed connections also result in a loss of gene flow needed to maintain genetic viability and
diversity within wildlife populations. Thus, the remaining wildlife populations are rendered even more
vulnerable to habitat modification and degradation. Particularly for wide-ranging species,
reestablishing travel corridors to allow movement is of critical importance.
ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY
The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of forested wetlands
and indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on
topography and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to
forested wetlands and waterfowl–habitat relationships.
In addition to the loss of vast acreages of bottomland-forested wetlands and other habitat types,
significant alterations have occurred in the region’s hydrology due to development; river channel
modifications; flood control levees; reservoirs; and deforestation, as well as degradation to aquatic
systems from excessive sedimentation and contaminants.
Large-scale, man-made hydrological alterations have changed the spatial and temporal patterns of
flooding throughout the entire watershed, in terms of both extent and duration of flooding, in
comparison with the natural hydrology regime. This curtailing of the flooding regime has had an
enormous impact on the forested wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent species.
In coastal estuaries, the saline stratification and location of the saltwater wedge can be impacted due
to atypical levels of freshwater influxes. Factors affecting the level of freshwater inflow include
erosion, sediment load changes, river runoff and pollution, dredging, and severe weather
disturbances. It is difficult to disentangle the individual contributions of and interaction between
human-induced factors and naturally occurring events; however, the overall impact on both
vegetation and animal habitats within the Mobile Bay Delta is detrimental.
The Mobile Bay Basin ranks among the top ten river basins in the world in diversity of freshwater
mussels, and third in the nation in variety of fishes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service n.d.a).
Furthermore, almost 40 percent of North America’s aquatic turtle species inhabit the drainages of the
Mobile Bay Basin. Seagrass beds serve as nurseries for many animal species including fish, shrimp,
and crabs. In fact, of the commercial fish and shellfish landed in Alabama, an estimated 90 percent
rely on grassy wetlands as critical habitat at some point in their life cycles. Thus, as a consequence
of the destruction of many established seagrass beds in the Mobile Bay estuary serving as oyster and
mussel habitat, more than $200 million in commercial and sport fishing revenue is estimated to have
been lost between 1954 and 1978 (Chadron State College and U.S. Geological Survey n.d.).
Besides natural factors such as drought, increased turbidity and other water quality problems,
invasive species and changes in water flow regimes from upstream dam construction are
fingered as primary contributing factors in this decline.
Section A – Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Dams, locks, levees, and other channel modifications have exacted a price by fragmenting the
aquatic habitats of species in the basin that depend on free-flowing rivers. The impounding of waters
at 28 major dams, coupled with other development-related alterations, has resulted in widespread
changes in flow, substrate, and water quality in river and stream habitats. The result has been the
reduction of ecological function throughout the Mobile Bay Basin, including on the Tombigbee River.
Southeastern states have the greatest numbers of imperiled and vulnerable freshwater fish species in
the country. Sixty-one species are at risk in Alabama alone, where channel modifications and
pollution have gradually eliminated large populations of native aquatic species, including fish,
mussels, snails, insects, and crustaceans. Barriers to movement prevent anadromous fish, including
striped bass, gulf sturgeon, and Alabama shad, from reaching spawning grounds and key habitat
areas. Many other aquatic species have similarly become isolated. Without avenues for migration,
impacts from land surface pollution runoff are heightened. Restoration of structure and functions of a
natural wetland is complicated by the fact that wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of hydrologic
regimes to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes.
SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
Over a century ago, floodwaters and storms recharged aquatic and terrestrial habitats and created rich,
dynamic systems that supported a diverse abundance of fish and wildlife species. Currently, however,
water quality is significantly impacted by agricultural and industrial runoff. Rivers and water bodies
throughout the ecosystem are filling in with silt. They are highly turbid, laden with pesticides, and support
a small fraction of the once abundant aquatic resources. Declines in fish, wildlife, and habitats have
prompted the Service to designate coastal habitats found in this ecosystem as areas of special concern.
Aquatic systems, including lakes, rivers, sloughs, and bayous, have been degraded as a result of
deforestation and hydrologic alteration. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an
accelerated accumulation of sediments and contaminants in all aquatic systems. Many water
bodies are now filled with sediments, greatly reducing their surface areas and depths.
Concurrently, the nonpoint source runoff of excess nutrients and contaminants is threatening the
area’s remaining aquatic resources.
Hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphological processes that created oxbow
lakes, sloughs, and river meander scars. The protection, conservation, and restoration of these
aquatic resources consequently take on an added importance in light of the alterations associated
with flood control and navigation.
PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic
plants, such as alligator weed and willows. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding
and reduced water depths resulting from excessive sedimentation have created conditions favorable
for the establishment and proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the
introduction of exotic (nonnative) vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening the
viability of aquatic systems. These invasive aquatic plants threaten the natural aquatic vegetation
important to aquatic systems, and choke waterways to a degree that often prevents recreational use.
Various species of nonnative wildlife and fish also flourish in this temperate climate. Animals like the
nutria and wild hog compete with native wildlife for limited resources, and have caused extensive
habitat damage and alterations.
12 Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
RELATIONSHIP TO THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent policy,
is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other federal
agencies, state fish and wildlife agencies, and tribal governments during the course of acquiring and
managing refuges. This cooperation is essential in providing for the protection and sustainability of
fish and wildlife throughout the United States. State wildlife management areas, state parks, and
national wildlife refuges together provide a sound foundation for the protection of species, and
contribute to the overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife in the State of Alabama.
The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) manages and protects the
state’s fish and wildlife resources through conservation enforcement officers in each county statewide and
through fisheries and wildlife biologists (Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
2004). The ADCNR manages 24 state parks, 23 fishing lakes, three fish hatcheries, two waterfowl
refuges, two wildlife sanctuaries, a mariculture center, and 34 wildlife management areas. The agency
has responsibility for more than 645,000 acres of trust lands set aside for wildlife purposes. Additionally,
the ADCNR provides and directs public recreation opportunities, including an extensive hunting and
fishing program on several wildlife management areas and parks located near the refuge.
The participation of the ADCNR’s Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries throughout this
comprehensive conservation planning process has been valuable. In July 2004, the Division’s
District V office in Spanish Fort, Alabama, provided both space and staff time for the development of
the refuge’s vision statement, goals, objectives, and management strategies. The Division continues
to work with the Service to foster ongoing opportunities for an open dialogue with the public, with the
goal of improving the ecological sustainability of fish and wildlife in Alabama. The Division has not
only participated in the refuge’s biological reviews, public scoping meeting, and workshops as part of
the planning process, it is also an active partner in the coordination and planning of annual hunting
and fishing programs, various wildlife and habitat surveys, and efforts to control invasive aquatic
species. A key part of the comprehensive planning process is the integration of common goals and
objectives between the Service and the Division, where appropriate.
Section A – Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
II. Refuge Description
INTRODUCTION
The approved acquisition boundary for Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge includes 4,218 acres of land
that was obtained as part of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Coffeeville Lock and Dam water
development project on the Tombigbee River. However, the Corps continues to retain fee simple title
to the property on which the refuge is located. In January 1964, under an agreement with the Corps,
the Department of the Interior acquired management rights in perpetuity and began managing in
accordance with the purposes of the refuge, which were to provide for the public benefit, wintering
habitat for migratory waterfowl, nesting and brood-rearing habitat for wood ducks, and protection for
alligators.
The refuge is located in Choctaw County in southwest Alabama, 80 miles north of Mobile on the west
bank of the Tombigbee River (Figures 2 and 3). The refuge boundary starts two river miles upstream
from the Coffeeville Lock and Dam.
The refuge is part of a territory that once belonged to the Choctaw Nation of Indians, which was
ceded by the treaties of Mount Dexter (1805) and Dancing Rabbit (1830). Little remains of this Indian
history, except for the names of several local streams. Okatuppa Creek, for example, comes from
Okakatapa, or “water dammed up,” a description still valid today.
Lakes, sloughs, and creeks comprise over 40 percent of the refuge. Only 151 acres consist of
openings or clearings, such as farm fields or most-soil units. The remainder, or 2,265 acres, is
composed of typical bottomland hardwoods associated with the Tombigbee River Basin. Overall,
refuge management includes moist-soil units, farming operations, forest improvements, and wetland
manipulations and protection. While various objectives fall within the mission of Choctaw National
Wildlife Refuge, the overriding thrust is to provide and maintain optimum habitat for wood duck
production, along with wintering areas for migratory ducks.
Because much of the refuge is under water and inaccessible for several months every year, the
refuge headquarters is located in Jackson, Alabama, a 45-minute drive to the south. The refuge has
four full-time employees, two based at the headquarters and two at the refuge itself (Table 1). The
refuge’s approved acquisition boundary has no private inholdings. There are no plans for an
expansion of the acquisition boundary at this time.
In September 2004, the refuge was hit hard by Hurricane Ivan, which caused extensive flooding and
downed many trees.
Table 1. Acres managed by current staffing, Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge
Headquarters
Refuges
Managed Acres Managed Refuge Staff
Located in Jackson,
Alabama Choctaw NWR 4,218 acres in refuge
Refuge Manager (GS–12)
Office Assistant (GS–7)
Equipment Operator (WG–9)
Equipment Operator (WG–9)
Total Refuge Staff 4
14 Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 2. Regional location map of Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
REFUGE PURPOSES
The refuge’s mission is to provide for the public benefit, wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl, nesting
and brood-rearing habitat for wood ducks, and protection for alligators. Special emphasis is placed on the
threatened and endangered species that use the refuge: the bald eagle (currently being considered for
delisting) and the wood stork. Table 4 lists the refuge’s establishing legislation and purposes.
Most public use activities center on fishing the refuge’s backwaters and creeks. Observing and
photographing birds and other wildlife are enjoyed throughout the year, particularly during the spring
and winter months. Hunting on the refuge includes archery hunts for deer and feral hogs, and gun
hunts for squirrels, rabbits, and raccoons.
Section A – Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Figure 3. Vicinity map of Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
16 Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
Table 2. Land acquisition history, Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
Year Choctaw NWR (acres)
1964 4218*
TOTAL 4218
*Property owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Source: NMRC 2004 Public Use Statement
Table 3. Location of the refuge
Refuge County Location
Choctaw
NWR
Choctaw 80 miles north of Mobile, on west bank of Tombigbee River
Table 4. Establishment date, legislation, and purposes for Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge Year
Established
Establishing
Legislation Refuge Purpose
Choctaw 1964
Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act
Transfer of Certain Real
Property for Wildlife
Conservation Purposes
Act of May 1948
“…for the conservation, maintenance, and
management of wildlife, resources thereof,
and its habitat thereon…”
“…carrying out the National Migratory Bird
Management Program…”
WINTERING HABITAT FOR WATERFOWL
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge is located in the outer reaches of the Mississippi Flyway, in which a
large portion of North America’s wintering waterfowl seek seasonal refuge from the harsher
conditions prevailing in the more northern habitats. The refuge provides important foraging and
resting (sanctuary) habitats within the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem for migratory ducks and geese,
particularly wood ducks. Approximately five to eight thousand ducks are typically surveyed as
monthly peaks on the refuge. While these numbers are not as high as the peaks on many other
waterfowl-focused refuges, they nonetheless represent a large number within Alabama.
Section A – Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
The refuge fits into the large-scale, collaborative planning and habitat management efforts of the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan, described previously in Chapter I. The plan involves
partnerships among federal, state, provincial, tribal, and local governments; businesses; conservation
organizations; and individual citizens. In addition to advancing waterfowl conservation, the plan’s
partnership conservation projects also make substantial contributions toward the conservation of
other wetland-associated species and migratory birds. At the end of 2003, plan partners had
invested more than $2.2 billion to protect, restore, and enhance more than eight million acres of
habitat across North America.
Waterfowl wintering areas have been determined as significantly contributing to the spring breeding
population objectives of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan by providing sufficient
habitat and food to ensure adequate winter survival. Of the different types of habitat required, the
availability of foraging habitat is typically the limiting factor for waterfowl populations.
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan has established rough objectives for food
production according to habitat type for the complex of habitats, which include harvested and
unharvested croplands, moist-soil areas, and flooded forestlands. Each of these habitats is required
to provide an important food source (e.g., native weed seeds, small grains, and invertebrates)
required by waterfowl wintering on the refuge. Agricultural grains high in carbohydrates (i.e., “hot
foods”) are needed by waterfowl to maintain body temperature during cold periods in winter. Acorns
and native weed seeds, such as the seeds of moist-soil plants, and invertebrates provide higher
levels of protein and other nutrients used by waterfowl to complete essential functions during the
winter period. These include molting and egg-laying, as well as retaining or recovering overall health
and fitness for the long migration to northern breeding grounds.
NONGAME BIRDS
Forest-dependent Birds
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge is located within the Partners in Flight Southeastern Coastal Plain
Bird Conservation Region (BCR #27) and potentially plays an important role in the welfare of birds in
the southeastern United States. Despite being highly fragmented, the region’s productive hardwood
forests figure importantly in providing migration and breeding habitat for forest-breeding birds, as well
as those that depend on forests for other activities, such as foraging or wintering.
Many interior forest-breeding birds, such as the cerulean warbler and swallow-tailed kite, are known
to require ample core forest areas to support their foraging and nesting needs. A core forest area is
defined as a contiguous block of interior forest that is 1.6 miles from all forest edges. Because the
refuge does not have sufficient interior forest acreage to support such a core forest area, and it
currently has no plans to expand beyond its current approved acquisition boundary, its role in
providing habitat for neotropical migratory birds dependent on large undisturbed forest blocks is
limited.
Research has shown that up to 20–30 percent of a study tract can be degraded by fragmentation
before neotropical migratory songbirds begin treating a contiguous tract as separate patches.
Managed early successional openings of between one and five acres that serve as habitat for
resident and migratory wildlife game species are not considered to impact the block nature of the
forest tract (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003b).
18 Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
Scrub/shrub-Dependent Birds
Scrub/shrub (or early successional) associated birds are another group of vulnerable avian species
within the southeast. Even more than for species needing mature core forest areas to flourish,
opportunities may exist to promote scrub/shrub species conservation through the establishment and
maintenance of scrub/shrub sites through the refuge, including at edges and in small blocks in forest
clearings and thinned areas.
Scrub/shrub species have been noted to withstand cowbird and depredation problems better within
smaller blocks of habitat (i.e., 50–100 acres; possibly as small as 25-acre patches) than mature forest
priority species, which often require thousands of contiguously forested acres. Sites selected for
long-term maintenance of scrub/shrub will require periodic disturbances.
One particular species of interest, the American woodcock, has shown significant long-term declines
in the eastern United States over the last 15 years. Much of this decline is thought to be a result of
land use changes and the maturing of forest habitats, resulting in less early successional scrub/shrub
habitats preferred by woodcock. The refuge has prioritized woodcock/quail management as an
explicit objective (along with other game species such as white-tailed deer and wild turkey), and can
perhaps make a modest contribution to the Service in meeting its objectives in the American and
regional woodcock management plans. The American Woodcock Management Plan, initiated in the
1990s, stresses the need for improved breeding, migration, and wintering habitat to enhance
population growth and survival.
Wintering habitat for woodcock most often includes moist bottomland hardwood forests with brush
and understory, especially when found in close association with agricultural fields and old field
succession. These sites are typically wet thickets with a high density of plant stems with the ground
open and having mostly leaf litter. Typical cover includes privet, cane, sweet gum sapling stands,
and briars that result from openings in the canopy.
Migrating Shorebirds
Peak shorebird migration is expected April to mid-May (but extends from mid-March to late May).
Southbound migration starts in early July, peaks from August through September, and ends by mid-
October. Throughout the Southeastern Coastal Plain, sufficient habitat for spring (northward)
shorebird migration was probably provided historically in most years with normal rainfall and
evaporation rates. However, this is no longer the case due to losses in recent decades. Disruption of
normal evaporation patterns over the last 50 years in the Central Gulf Coast, a lack of rainfall in this
highly modified hydrological environment, human development patterns, and altered levels of
freshwater inputs have led to a severe shortage of fall habitat for shorebirds.
Shorebird species known to use the refuge include the abundant killdeer, the spotted sandpiper, the
lesser yellowlegs, and the common snipe. The least sandpiper, a moderate priority species cited by the
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, may also use the refuge. Shorebirds have not been surveyed on the
refuge to date (U.S.Geological Survey n.d.; Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge n.d.a; Hunter et al. 2002).
Marshbirds
At the time of this plan development, marshbird use of Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge is poorly
known. Suitable habitat does not seem to exist on the refuge; what there is occupies the fringe areas
of backwater habitats and impoundments scattered throughout the refuge. Marshbird use likely
occurs during migration and winter by species such as rails and bitterns; a few species may breed in
Section A – Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
small numbers. The refuge’s moist-soil units and unmanaged herbaceous marsh dominated by
cattail, rushes, and other perennials constitute the primary habitats. Management for these species
coincides well with ongoing wetland restoration practices on the refuge, and to a lesser degree,
management practices targeting waterfowl. Included in this group are “secretive marshbirds” (e.g.,
rails, bitterns, grebes, moorhens, and coots) and raptors (e.g., northern harrier, short-eared owl, and
loggerhead shrike).
Habitat for Colonial Waterbirds/ Wading Birds
The refuge provides excellent habitat for post-breeding waterbirds, as evidenced by the number of
wood storks and other wading birds observed during the late summer and early fall at the Blue Field
Area. This area, as well as other shallow water impoundments scattered throughout the refuge,
provide critical foraging opportunities for long-legged wading birds, such as herons, egrets, and ibis,
during the late summer and fall. High-priority waterbirds include the little blue heron, tricolored heron,
and white ibis. Of moderate priority are the anhinga, snowy egret, and black-crowned night heron.
Local Interest waterbirds include the pied-billed grebe, great egret, yellow-crowned night heron, and
wood stork.
The primary management tools for the refuge are (1) protecting rookeries from disturbance and,
where possible, maintaining standing water under nest trees throughout the nesting season to
minimize nest predation by raccoons; (2) incorporating water level management for wading birds into
shallow water management for waterfowl and shorebirds; and (3) determining the feasibility of using
an existing small impoundment and/or establishing a new one to provide small fin fish. In the shallow
water provided for wading birds, they will be searching for foraging habitat rich in small fish and
crustaceans, a much different food source than is targeted in waterfowl and shorebird management.
REPLICATING HISTORIC FOREST CONDITIONS
A high percentage of the forestlands in the Central Gulf Coast Physiographic Plain has been
cleared and converted to other land uses, leaving only remnant, fragmented forested tracts.
Fish and wildlife resources have been similarly impacted, leaving remnant populations that must
be managed to meet refuge purposes and to achieve their maximum potential. Some of the
most unique forested habitats remaining in the region are forested ridges. Because of the
importance of the remaining bottomland hardwood forests to the wildlife resources on the refuge,
as well as conservation priorities set forth in various plans, forest resources should be managed
to mimic old-growth forests and increase vertical vegetative structure.
Several species of waterfowl heavily use flooded forested habitat in winter for resting and foraging
for acorns, other fruits, various seeds, and invertebrates. Mallards, teal, and wigeon all rely on
flooded forested habitat as one of the complexes of preferred habitats. Wood ducks seek these
areas almost exclusive of other habitats, and in fact, are year-round residents.
Unfortunately, flooding of all lands below 33.0 feet mean sea level (greater than 50 percent of
the refuge) can occur at anytime due to Corps of Engineers needs, and to barge or other water
level requirements associated with the Tennessee-Tombigbee Lock and Dam System.
Essentially, except for a few moist-soil impounded areas (fewer than 40 acres), the refuge is at
the mercy of flood and overflow waters, which carry silt loads that are deposited on the refuge.
Annual spring floods typically inundate 90 to 99 percent of the refuge. Positive actions taken to
improve waterfowl habitats are, for the most part, limited to maintenance and regeneration of
mast-producing hardwoods; improved water management capability on the few moist-soil areas;
20 Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
a wood duck nesting box program; some beaver pond management; establishment of sanctuary
areas at key periods; and cooperation and agreements with the state and Corps to help reduce
growing season flooding.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS OF THE REFUGE
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge has one specially designated area, the Tupelo Gum Research
Natural Area (SAF103). It was officially designated on October 29, 1976, and consists of 30 acres of
water tupelo and five acres of bald cypress. The area is to be protected from beaver damage. This
research natural area has never been subject to systematic study or monitoring.
RESOURCE THREATS AND PROBLEMS
Like every national wildlife refuge, Choctaw Refuge faces its share of resource-related challenges.
The following describes the more problematic of these threats and problems.
Lack of control over water level management. All habitats on the refuge, including aquatic,
terrestrial, and wetland habitats, are subject to operation of the Coffeeville Lock and Dam by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Lock and dam operation is governed principally by
navigational needs along the Tombigbee River, rather than by the needs of wildlife habitat or
wildlife-dependent recreation on the refuge. Thus, during much of the year (winter months
primarily), most of the refuge is flooded and water levels are too high both for forest
regeneration and access to refuge lands. High water levels also exacerbate the sedimentation
that is presently filling in many of the sloughs and backwaters on the refuge.
Invasive aquatic vegetation encroachment. Every year, emergent aquatic weeds—most of them
nonnatives—proliferate on the surface of the backwaters, creeks, and bayous within the refuge. This
infestation often renders these waters inaccessible to boats and anglers. It also affects dissolved
oxygen levels and aquatic habitat structure, and contributes to the filling in of these habitats.
Loss and degradation of aquatic habitats. This is related to the previous two items. The
backwaters, sloughs, and creeks that comprise much of the refuge are becoming shallower and
filling in over time, due to sedimentation and the proliferation of aquatic weeds.
Forest habitat management and succession. Understory and midstory conditions have gradually
been worsening for forest wildlife, both mammals and birds, as the closed-canopy forest
matures. The regeneration and recruitment of mast-producing oaks, in particular, are not
occurring sufficiently. In recent years, the refuge has not been able to implement forest
management techniques, such as tree harvests, thinning, or creation of openings, that would
reverse this undesirable trend.
Feral swine (hogs). A high population of feral hogs displaces native wildlife and damages the
forest floor, adversely affecting soils and habitat and hindering forest regeneration.
Inaccessibility of the refuge. The refuge itself is located about 45 minutes by car from its
headquarters in Jackson, Alabama. There is no professional staff regularly at the refuge, either
to mange and monitor resources and wildlife or to interact with visitors.
Section A – Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
REFUGE ENVIRONMENT
The 4,218-acre Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge is separated into three land masses by two
creeks. Okatuppa Creek divides the north end from the Middle Swamp, and Turkey Creek
separates the Middle Swamp from the south end.
Approximately 1,802 acres of the refuge are in lakes, sloughs, and creeks. Only 151 acres consist
of openings such as old fields, croplands, and moist-soil units. The remaining 2,265 acres are
composed of typical bottomland hardwoods associated with the Tombigbee River Basin. This
includes an approximately 35-acre tupelo gum natural area in the Middle Swamp region. Refuge
management includes moist-soil units, farming operations, forest improvements, and wetland
manipulations and protection. The flooding regime on the refuge is under the influence of
meteorological variations, the Army Corps of Engineers’ dam operations, refuge management, and
beavers, in that order, with an area of less than 40 acres equipped with water control devices.
The refuge has been focusing on providing wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl, and nesting and
brood-rearing habitat for wood ducks. The wood duck, as well as the hooded merganser, use the
artificial nesting boxes erected for them. Special emphasis has also been placed on three federally
threatened and endangered species—bald eagles, wood storks, and American alligators (formerly
endangered)—which use the refuge. Waterbirds are next in the hierarchy of management priorities.
The refuge also manages for compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation. Fishing is the most common
public use activity, and is pursued in the backwaters and creeks. Bird watching and other wildlife
observation and photography activities are enjoyed throughout the year, but particularly during the
spring and winter months. Hunting on the refuge includes archery hunting for deer and feral hogs,
and gun hunting for squirrels, rabbits, and raccoons. In the spring of 2002, a special two-day
muzzleloader hunt for feral hogs was implemented.
As with many other refuges in the southeast, the Service has no ownership interest in the subsurface rights
at Choctaw Refuge. However, management efforts extend to encouraging nominal communication from oil
and gas stakeholders in order to limit the impacts of their operations on the refuge.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Climate
Choctaw County, Alabama, has a humid, warm-temperate, continental climate typical of the
southeastern United States. The average yearly rainfall in nearby Silas, Alabama, is almost 60
inches, with rainfall reasonably well distributed throughout the year, although winter is the wettest
season. January is the wettest month at 6.8 inches and October the driest at 3.1 inches (City-data.
com n.d.). Tropical storms or hurricanes coming from the Gulf of Mexico may occasionally
bring several days of heavy rain. Thunderstorms, which usually bring the heaviest rains, are rarely
accompanied by hail and tornadoes. Drought conditions during the summer may increase the
danger of fire. The average annual snowfall is less than an inch.
January is usually the coldest month, with an average temperature of 47 degrees Fahrenheit. July is
normally the hottest, with temperatures averaging about 80 degrees. Winters are mild, with
temperatures seldom remaining below freezing for long. Summers are hot and humid with heat
indexes commonly reaching 110 to 115 degrees. The average growing season is 226 days, from
March 24 to November 6 (University of Alabama 2004). The statewide average temperature in July
2004 was 79.9 degrees Fahrenheit. This was -0.1 cooler than the 1895–2004 average. The
22 Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to the present) is 0.0 degrees Fahrenheit per decade
(National Climatic Data Center 2004).
Physiography, Geography, and Soils
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge is situated on the west bank of the Tombigbee River and lies
within the greater Mobile Bay Watershed. The refuge’s 4,218 acres are almost equally divided
between shallow impoundments of Okatuppa and Turkey creeks and somewhat higher lands
composed of wooded islands and seasonally flooded hardwood bottomlands. The terrain near the
refuge’s western boundary rises abruptly, with the habitat changing from river basin to wooded hills
and ridges, which are characteristic of the timber country of south Alabama.
Soils are typical for river bottomlands in Mississippi and Alabama. The alluvial soils in the
bottomlands of the Tombigbee River range from sandier, coarse-grained soils on natural levees
and ancient sandbars to silts and clays in the more poorly drained areas away from the river.
The majority of refuge land is of first bottom type—only a few feet above river level—although
some ridges rise approximately 50 feet above mean sea level in the Turkey Creek area. Due to
the location of waterfowl-oriented refuges in wetland areas, most of the soils within the refuge
are silts and clays, which have fine texture, low permeability and high shrink–swell potential.
The surface layer is often hard when dry, friable when moist, and plastic when wet, making
moisture content an important consideration when working the soil. Periodic river overflows
scour the soil layer and deposit sand and silt.
Hydrology
The Coffeeville Lock and Dam is located two river miles downriver from the refuge on the
Tombigbee River. Typically, the Tombigbee River is maintained at a height of around 32 feet above
mean sea level. Two creeks of significant size drain into the Tombigbee through the refuge:
Okatuppa Creek in the north and Turkey Creek in the south. Their extensive backwaters were
created as a result of the Coffeeville impoundment. The entire eastern boundary of the refuge,
nearly six miles long, is bordered by the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. This waterway was
opened to barge traffic in 1986. Because of its relatively flat profile, the refuge’s natural sloughs
and cypress lakes hold water through most of the year. Beaver populations only add to this by
damming up roughly 86 acres. Moist-soil units with functioning water control structures currently
occupy about 15 acres.
During spring and much of the winter, more than 90 percent of the refuge is typically under water.
Because of the predominantly low elevation of the majority of the refuge—several feet above river
level—the refuge’s flood regime is highly influenced by the needs of the nearby Coffeeville Lock and
Dam (administered by the Corps) and, in turn, barge traffic. In contrast to many other national
wildlife refuges managed by the Service, which face a dearth of flooding due to channelization, levee
construction, and other human-induced alterations of the historical hydrological regimes, the
Choctaw Refuge is subjected to possibly too much flooding, especially insofar as its timing. There
have been, and should continue to be, Memoranda of Understanding between the Service and the
Corps that enhance communication and cooperation on management issues that affect the refuge.
Water Quality
In 1993, water quality levels were established for five locations at the refuge recognized as prime
fisheries for anglers. All were tested for temperature, pH, turbidity, water hardness,
organic/inorganic pollutants, dissolved oxygen, Secchi disk, and alkalinity. The sampling confirmed
Section A – Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
that the water quality was good. This was further corroborated by fish sampling, in which the fish
showed good health and color.
A large amount of water quality data is available for the Tombigbee River downstream of Coffeeville
Lock and Dam. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, conducts
monthly water quality sampling downstream of the dam. The water quality parameters include
dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, pH, fecal coliform, nitrogen, phosphate, carbon, calcium,
chloride, manganese, dissolved solids, metals, and pesticides. Contaminants personnel at the
Service’s Ecological Services Field Office in Daphne, Alabama, as well as the U.S. Geological
Survey, may be helpful in analyzing the water quality data and looking for trends that may be
affecting the refuge’s fish and wildlife resources. Consideration of water quality data should be
integral in planning the future management of Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge.
As a result of land uses upstream in the watershed, particularly logging and road-building,
sedimentation, whether pesticide-laden or not, is a constant source of concern for the refuge. This is
particularly so for shallow sloughs and backwaters, which have filled in substantially over the last
four decades, losing area and depth, and becoming more susceptible to being choked off by
invasive aquatic weeds. Periodic flooding, which serves to flush and revitalize aquatic habitats, also
results in soil erosion, compounding the siltation problem. Impacted wetlands, lakes, and waterways
not only suffer diminished water quality, but also fill in, resulting in a loss of aquatic habitat.
As with many other refuges in the southeast, the Service has no ownership interest in the
subsurface rights at Choctaw Refuge. As a result, there is little to no control over oil and gas
operations. Given the number of pipelines in and around the refuge and barge traffic on the
river, there is always the risk of an oil or saltwater spill or seepage (naturally occurring
saltwater is pumped to the surface mixed with oil). A saltwater spill last occurred in 2001. The
refuge should continue working to prevent on-site barge-docking stations, rights-of-way for
fossil fuels, and oil/gas extraction projects with potential for spills or overflow. Disturbances
and alterations to the refuge from such operations, even when executed without calamity, are
not conducive to meeting the refuge’s goals and purposes.
Oil Wells and Pipelines
As mentioned earlier, the refuge does not own subsurface mineral rights, and therefore cannot
prohibit either the exploration for, or development of, hydrocarbons such as oil and natural gas.
However, refuge management can cooperate and negotiate with oil and gas companies to minimize
the impacts of their activities on habitat and wildlife.
Choctaw Refuge faces the risk of contaminant impacts from three primary sources related to oil
operations: producing wells and pipelines on the refuge; producing wells, storage facilities, and
pipelines adjacent to the refuge; and pollutants carried into the refuge from incidents occurring on the
Tombigbee River (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). Pipelines have the potential for the largest
spills, especially where they are above ground and at stream crossings. The refuge has developed
an Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan to direct the Service’s response in the event of
oil spills or other contaminant leaks that would affect the refuge. The potential for damage from spills
is greatest when the refuge is flooded. So far, no major incidents have occurred.
24 Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Alabama contains nearly 22 million acres of forestland: two-thirds of the state is covered by trees
(Auburn University n.d.). Four major forest types occur in the state: pine, pine–hardwood mixture,
bottomland hardwood, and upland hardwood. Bottomland hardwoods, the type that predominates at
Choctaw Refuge, represent 2.3 million acres or about 10 percent of the state’s forests. As mentioned
earlier, open water and marsh occupy some 40 percent of the refuge. Virtually the entire remainder,
except for those areas that are farmed or maintained as moist-soil units, is covered by different types of
bottomland forest that overlap in species composition and structure.
The lowest areas throughout the refuge contain cypress and buttonbush. Cypress is complemented,
or partially replaced, in a few low areas by swamp tupelo. Other woody species in permanent or
semipermanently flooded areas include swamp privet, water elm, black willow, and water locust.
The distribution of bottomland hardwood species across floodplains is primarily a function of the soil
moisture gradient in which a couple of feet can be determining. So, at slightly higher elevations
green ash and red maple flourish, along with cottonwood, honey locust, sycamore, overcup oak,
American elm, and Nuttall oak. Extensive flats support scattered deciduous holly (possum haw) in
the midstory, while hardwoods on still higher sites include willow oak, sweet gum, and water oak.
Prior to acquisition by the Corps of Engineers, trees larger than 16 inches in diameter were
harvested from what is now the refuge. This resulted in a release of the smaller trees, as evidenced
by the preponderance of trees on the refuge between 50 and 70 years old. A timber cruise in the
mid-1980s revealed signs of oak regeneration and other saplings.
The Service contracted with the Alabama Natural Heritage Program of The Nature Conservancy to conduct
a natural community and rare plant survey of the Choctaw Refuge, which was published in July 2003
(Schotz 2003). This survey identified 14 distinct natural plant associations or communities on the refuge,
which are listed in Table 5 and shown in Figure 4. Each of these 14 communities is briefly described.
Upland Mixed Forest
The refuge’s upland mixed forest is one of two communities that are mesic, that is, possessing soils
with a well-balanced or moderate supply of moisture. Upland mixed forests occur throughout
Alabama, but their composition varies across the state from a nearly subtropical forest in the south to
a cool temperate flora in the north. As well demonstrated at Choctaw Refuge, anthropogenic
(human-caused) disturbances have added to the natural disturbance regimes, thus further modifying
the area’s ecological processes. Combinations of species and natural communities that were not
present in the refuge landscape during the pre-settlement era are currently being formed. Two
upland forest communities are presently recognized on the refuge.
The first association, the upland mixed forest, is also called the Pinus taeda – Quercus falcata –
Quercus alba / Ostrya virginiana / Chasmanthium sessiliflorum Forest [Loblolly Pine – Southern Red
Oak – White Oak / Hop Hornbeam / Longleaf Spikegrass Forest]. This community occupies well-drained
sites throughout southern Alabama, typically occurring on upper to mid-slopes. At Choctaw
Refuge, its distribution is essentially confined to a small series of slopes within the southernmost
portion of the refuge. The canopy is often characterized by a prominence of loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda) and various hardwoods, most notably white oak (Quercus alba); southern red oak (Quercus
falcata); sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua); mockernut hickory (Carya alba); and in lesser
Section A – Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Table 5. Natural communities identified at Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
abundance, shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata); tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera); beech (Fagus
grandifolia); and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica). The subcanopy and shrub layers generally exhibit a
patchy distribution, with shrubs and low-growing trees attaining their greatest abundance on the
steepest slopes, where the effects of naturally occurring fire is minimal. Dense thickets of mountain
26 Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 4. Plant communities at Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
Section A – Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
laurel (Kalmia latifolia) and a panoply of other fire-intolerant species inhabit these areas. Where fire
becomes more pervasive upon the landscape, the understory is diminished in terms of spatial
coverage and species diversity.
Successional Pine – Oak Forest
The successional pine – oak forest is the other mesic community on the refuge. It is also called the
Pinus taeda – Quercus nigra Forest [Loblolly Pine – Water Oak Forest]. This community is co-dominated
by loblolly pine, water oak (Quercus nigra), and sweetgum, resulting from past disturbance
(such as agricultural or other land clearings) followed by forest succession. The understory is highly
variable, depending on age and history; and is characterized by a mature canopy of the above-mentioned
tree species and a relatively open understory of red maple (Acer rubrum), deciduous holly
(Ilex decidua), winged elm (Ulmus alata), water oak, and sweetgum. The herb layer is sparse, with
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron),
partridgeberry (Mitchella repens), and various sedges (Carex spp.) appearing most frequent.
Muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) are common
vines.
East Gulf Coast Coastal Plain Acidic Loam Beech – Magnolia Forest
This community is also known as the Fagus grandifolia – Magnolia grandiflora – Pinus glabra –
(Magnolia macrophylla) / (Illicium floridanum) / Hexastylis arifolia Forest. At the Choctaw Refuge, it is
mainly restricted to the natural levee that parallels the west side of the Tombigbee River. Elevated no
more than five feet above adjacent wetland areas, the vegetation marks a striking contrast in relation
to the hardwood-dominated associations of more hydric systems. Undoubtedly, the most pervasive
trademark of the levee forest assemblage is the presence of loblolly and spruce pines (Pinus taeda
and P. glabra, respectively). Other species, in decreasing order, are cherrybark oak (Quercus
pagoda); water oak; sweetgum; tuliptree; southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora); beech; and
pignut hickory (Carya glabra). The understory contains not only smaller specimens of the foregoing
canopy species, but also an assortment of low-growing trees and shrubs such as flowering dogwood
(Cornus florida); American hornbeam; two-wing silverbell (Halesia diptera); sassafras (Sassafras
albidum); American holly (Ilex opaca); youpon (I. vomitoria); deciduous holly (I. decidua); winged elm
(Ulmus alata); beautyberry (Callicarpa americana); and Elliott’s blueberry (Vaccinium elliottii). The
herbaceous component is generally sparse and of low diversity.
This hydric association and the several that follow are generally considered the bottomlands of
floodplain forests. Floodplain forests are found wherever streams or rivers flood at least occasionally
beyond their channels. In the southeastern United States, these forests are broadly classified into
three general categories: bottomland forests, floodplain forests, and deepwater alluvial swamps, each
being defined by the frequency and timing of annual flooding. Floodplain ecosystems are highly
variable in size, ranging from broad alluvial valleys several miles across to more narrow strips of
streambank vegetation. At Choctaw Refuge, four of these forest associations are recognized and
currently comprise a vast proportion of the refuge landscape.
As noted in Chapter I, southern floodplain forests have suffered some of the most rapid reductions in
size and changes in vegetative composition of nearly any other forest biome in the United States.
Therefore, they are of critical conservation concern. Many have been and continue to be converted
to farmlands and industrial parks; they are also being modified by urban and suburban expansion. Still other
bottomlands are managed for timber production or as recreational areas in ways that reduce their
value as natural wetland habitats.
28 Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
[An element is any exemplary or rare component of the natural environment, such as a species, natural
community, bird rookery, sinkhole, or other ecological feature. An Element Occurrence (EO) represents the
location of an element and is the environment which sustains a species’ population or an example of a natural
community. The Element Occurrence Record (EOR) is the computerized record that contains the biological and
locational information regarding a specific EO.]
Section A – Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Floodplain Forest
The floodplain forest is also known as the Liquidambar styraciflua – Quercus pagoda – Carya spp. /
Carpinus caroliniana / Carex spp. Forest [Sweetgum – Cherrybark Oak – Hickory species / American
Hornbeam / Sedge species Forest]. This association comprises a large proportion of the Choctaw
Refuge and is represented by a codominance of cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), willow oak (Q.
phellos), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and sweetgum in the canopy. More widely distributed,
but seldom absent from the canopy, is a suite of secondary species such as bitternut hickory (Carya
cordiformis), water oak, swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), American elm (Ulmus americana),
and sugarberry (Celtis laevigata). Of particular interest is the presence of shellbark hickory (Carya
laciniosa), pecan (C. illinoensis), and Nuttall’s oak (Quercus texana), the distribution of which in
Alabama is sparse and sporadic, with only occasional specimens having been observed at Choctaw.
This association’s understory is open and park-like, containing saplings of the foregoing canopy
associates, as well as a variety of small trees and shrubs such as American hornbeam, deciduous
holly, green haw (Crataegus viridis), red mulberry (Morus rubra), and dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor).
Bottomland Oak Forest
This hydric association is also called the Quercus texana – Quercus lyrata – Quercus phellos Forest.
This association typically occurs on shallow, narrowly defined depressions that are scattered throughout
the forested bottomlands along the Tombigbee River. A closed canopy forest, it is characterized by a
prominence of Nuttall’s oak, overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), and willow oak, with green ash and sugarberry
(Celtis laevigata) occurring less frequently and therefore of secondary importance. The shrub and herb
layers are relatively sparse, often characterized by a low diversity of plant life.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
At Choctaw Refuge, this association is confined to the low peninsular region at the junction of
Hackberry Lake and the Tombigbee River. This is a temporarily flooded forest association dominated
by green ash in the canopy. Other canopy associates include, in decreasing order of abundance,
silver maple (Acer saccharinum); box-elder (A. negundo); American elm (Ulmus americana);
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis); black willow (Salix nigra); and sugarberry (Celtis laevigata).
Resurrection fern (Pleopeltis polypodioides var. michauxiana) and Spanish moss (Tillandsia
usneoides) are epiphytic on the branches of some trees (i.e., growing on the branches of the trees
themselves and not in soil). Assorted vines are also in evidence.
Successional Field
Successional fields are a relatively short-lived association, the result of former land use practices in
which the forest was eliminated, and then permitted to reestablish itself. Fields are the initial phase in
the progression of vegetational succession following the cessation of regular land use or intervention
(e.g., plowing, discing, and harvesting). Over the course of time these sites will gradually transform
into a climax forest, probably the Liquidambar styraciflua – Quercus pagoda – Carya spp./Carpinus
caroliniana/ Carex spp. forest, a community that prevails throughout much of the surrounding area.
At Choctaw Refuge, this vegetation type includes oil well fields. It is represented by the earliest levels
of succession: herb-dominated fields occasionally accented by a series of low-growing trees and
shrubs. Vegetation is characterized by a prominence of weedy herbaceous species, such as bahia
grass (Paspalum notatum); vasey grass (P. urvillei); tall fescue (Festuca elatior); Brazilian vervain
(Verbena brasiliensis); dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium); and horseweed (Conyza canadensis).
30 Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
Roadsides are similar floristically and structurally to successional fields, but typically support a greater
plant diversity. In fact, roadsides are among the most interesting plant communities at Choctaw
Refuge, as they represent a conglomerate of floristic elements of diverse origins. The high
disturbance associated with roadsides also provides suitable habitat for a diverse array of native and
exotic weeds. Examples of common native roadside weeds include bitterweed (Helenium amarum);
blackberries (Rubus spp.); dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium); horseweed (Conyza canadensis);
and Venus looking-glass (Triodanus perfoliata var. biflora). Frequently found exotics include wild
carrot (Daucus carota); dead nettles (Lamium spp.); bahia grass (Paspalum notatum); Brazilian
vervain (Verbena brasiliensis); white clover (Trifolium repens); Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica); and beefsteak plant (Perilla frutescens).
Cypress Swamp
A predominance of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) distinguishes this association. The presence
of this species among the swamp lakes at the refuge is highly variable, with a range of canopy
coverage extending from near 100 percent in the majority of examples to less than 30 percent in
some deep-water occurrences. Water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), black willow (Salix nigra), buttonbush
(Cephalanthus occidentalis), red maple (Acer rubrum var. drummondii), and Virginia willow (Itea
virginica) occur as understory associates. The herbaceous component is represented by a rich
diversity of shallow water emergents, floating-leaved aquatics, and other wetland species, often
attaining the greatest development where canopy cover is sparse. The most open-canopied
examples contain large colonies of American lotus (Nelumbo lutea), which, along with bur-marigold
(Bidens laevis), commonly serves as the dominant herb. Adding a classical southern look are thick
curtains of Spanish moss.
Cypress – Gum Swamp
This is also called the Bald Cypress – Water Tupelo – Red Maple/Virginia Willow Forest. It is similar
to the foregoing association, but is easily distinguished by the co-dominance of water tupelo or black
gum and bald cypress in the canopy. The subcanopy and shrub layers are sparse to moderate,
containing a low diversity of species. Red maple, black willow, buttonbush, and Virginia willow are
also scattered throughout the understory. An impressive array of herbs inhabits the shallow water
and mucky soils of the encompassing shoreline.
Southern Buttonbush Pond
Widespread throughout the southeastern United States, this shrubland assemblage typically occurs
in oxbow lakes, backwater sloughs, beaver ponds, and shallow depressions associated with
bottomlands and floodplains. At Choctaw Refuge, this association is inundated most of the year,
emerging only during occasions of prolonged drought. The dominant plant is buttonbush, often to the
exclusion of other woody species. Black willow (Salix nigra) may also be present, but usually
accounts for less than five percent of the total canopy cover. Principal herb species include the
spotted water pepper (Polygonum punctatum); bur-marigold (Bidens laevis); lizard’s-tail (Saururus
cernuus); maidencane (Panicum hemitomum); halberd-leaved rose-mallow (Hibiscus militaris); broad-leaved
arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia); Cuban sedge (Scirpus cubensis); and various duckweeds
(Lemna spp.)
Plannertree Floodplain Swamp Forest
At the Choctaw Refuge, this community is represented by two small circular-shaped occurrences on
the south side of Okatuppa Creek. Both examples are dominated by nearly monospecific stands of
Section A – Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
planertree (Planera aquatica) with scattered specimens of green ash, sweetgum, and buttonbush.
Herbs are relatively sparse and of low diversity, with lizard’s-tail serving as the principal species.
Black Willow Swamp
This community is composed of young or frequently disturbed thickets of black willow that inhabit the
shallow water of the backwaters of the Tombigbee River. Occurrences are moderately vegetated in
the understory with an assortment of shrubs, vines, and herbs. Typical species include buttonbush;
eardrop-vine (Brunnichia ovata); sugarcane plumegrass (Saccharum giganteum); broad-leaved
arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia); helberd-leaved rose-mallow (Hibiscus militaris); water pepper
(Polygonum hydropiperoides); wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus); sallow sedge (Carex lurida); and
southern wild rice (Zizaniopsis milliacea).
Southern Wild Rice Slough Marsh
This widely distributed association occurs at Choctaw Refuge along the margins of backwater
sloughs. Characterized by a prominence of southern wild rice, this vegetation type is nearly
monospecific, containing only a small number of affiliated herbs, including broad-leaved arrowhead,
catchfly grass (Leersia lenticularis), beakrush (Rhynchospora corniculata), and water pepper.
Alligator-weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), an invasive species from South America, has also
invaded some areas.
American Lotus Aquatic Wetland
This association is primarily restricted to the backwaters of the Tombigbee River, specifically
Hackberry Lake. Stands are essentially monospecific, often covering large areas. Other floating-leaved
aquatics are also present, such as yellow pond lily (Nuphur lutea ssp. advena), duckweed,
mosquito fern (Azolla caroliniana), and the exotic water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and hydrilla
(Hydrilla verticillata). Emergent species include pickerel-weed (Pontederia cordata), broad-leaved
arrowhead, and water pepper.
Agricultural Fields and other Areas
The agricultural fields on the refuge are cultivated with corn, clover, milo, millet, and sunflowers. Crop
acreage is designated only to meet wildlife objectives. Open areas not being farmed support a lush
abundance of dewberries, cockleburs, Johnson grass, smartweeds, sedges, and fall panicum. In
addition, the abandoned well sites from oil and gas exploration and extraction on the refuge have either
been restored to bottomland hardwoods or maintained as open field areas planted in winter grasses.
Forest Resources Management
Approximately 2,265 acres of the refuge’s 4,218 acres are forested. Prior to the purchase of the
lands by the Corps of Engineers, the former owners were allowed to remove timber.
The refuge has a Forest Management Plan dating from 1986, but it is yet to be fully implemented. A
one percent forest management cruise was conducted for the first time in January 986 as the plan
was under development. The cruise showed that mid-aged red oak species with a basal area of
approximately 35 square feet per acre were fairly evenly distributed over the refuge. Sweetgum, with
a basal area of approximately 20 square feet per acre, was the second most common species with
diameters ranging from 4 to 24 inches. Ironwood (American hornbeam) was common in most areas,
and almost nothing was growing on the shaded forest floor.
32 Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
The Forest Management Plan identified wildlife and tree species to be favored by management. A
number of species of ducks can use the refuge’s forested areas for food, including the wood duck;
mallard; wigeon; black duck; gadwall; pintail; green-winged and blue-winged teal; shoveler; and
hooded and red-breasted mergansers. The most important group of trees for waterfowl food
production is the red oaks, including water oak, willow oak, cherrybark oak, and Nuttall’s oak; while
shumard oak and laurel oak are found occasionally.
Even though small oak seedlings were found, they soon died from lack of sunlight. From the first harvest
in 1987 to the last forest improvement in 1992, the plans involved marking leave trees; leaving
approximately 50 square feet per acre, and removing all other items down to zero inch diameter.
Approximately 90 percent of the trees that were marked to remain are oaks, depending on the area.
Other tree species that were left include sweetgum, cypress, American beech, hickory, blackgum, green
ash, elm, and red mulberry. This treatment kept most of the mast-producers in place, as well as the
existing den trees, and removed most of the sweetgums and ironwoods causing the shade.
In recent years, the refuge’s forest management has included observing the effects of the forest
improvements for wildlife done in previous years and planting tree seedlings. Inspections of the areas
that received treatments to provide sunlight to the forest floor continue to show that they have bountiful
herbaceous plants, sweetgum seedlings, and lots of briars and vines which are providing browse, cover,
and nesting areas. However, the oak seedlings, which were to have been generated from natural acorn
reproduction, do not appear to survive in abundance beyond the second or third year. At this time, refuge
management believes that because shade is not a limiting factor in these areas, the likely culprit is late
spring floods, which appear to be taking a toll on oak survival and recruitment.
Choctaw Refuge also has a Fire Management Plan, which was approved in 2001 (Choctaw National
Wildlife Refuge 2001). In the four-decade history of the refuge, no unwanted wildland fire (formerly called
“wildfire”) has ever been recorded. A single prescribed fire was conducted in the early 1980s, but the
results were unsatisfactory and this management technique has not been used since.
Moist-soil Management
Moist-soil management refers to the management of land to provide moist-soil conditions during the
growing season to promote the natural production of beneficial plants. Seeds produced by these
plants often attract and concentrate waterfowl and other wetland wildlife species. The decomposing
vegetative parts of moist-soil plants also provide substrate for invertebrates, which are critical food for
many wetland wildlife and fish.
Choctaw Refuge has four small moist-soil impoundments on the north end, which total 15 acres.
Generally speaking, not discing the units results in better natural crops of moist-soil vegetation in
these nutrient-rich soils. When water conditions are right, the variety of plants includes smartweed
(Polygonum sp.); panic grass (Panicum sp.); pigweed (Amaranths sp.); sedges (Carex sp.); foxtails
(Setaria sp.); common millet (Echinochloa sp.); spikerush (Eleochoris sp.); and sprangletop
(Leptochloa sp.).
When the above vegetation does not emerge naturally, for utilization by ducks, the units are then
disced. Usually, early discing promotes the dominance of alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides)
and primrose (Ludwigia sp.), both exotics.
Section A – Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Croplands
Limited force-account farming (i.e., farming conducted by refuge employees) is conducted on about
40 acres at the refuge to provide supplemental food for wildlife and waterfowl. Three objectives are
identified in the refuge’s Cropland Management Plan, approved in 1994:
1. To supplement naturally occurring food supplies in support of wildlife populations at levels set in
refuge, flyway, regional, or national objectives;
2. To prevent encroachment and establishment of undesirable vegetation and to aid the
establishment of more permanent natural cover; and
3. To prevent depredations of private croplands.
Crops include millet, Japanese millet, sorghum, buckwheat, rye, rye grass, wheat, and clover
(Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge 2002a). There is some use of fertilizers and herbicides.
Fauna
Mammals
Mammals occurring on the refuge represent many of the species extant in the Central Gulf Coast
region as a whole. Large mammals include the abundant white-tailed deer and feral hogs. It is
imperative that the exploding population of feral hogs be checked, as this invasive nonnative
competes directly with native species for resources. Swine also depredate the nests of ground-nesting
birds, many species of reptiles and amphibians, and young birds and mammals. In addition,
they cause considerable damage to dikes, roads, and other refuge structures.
Medium-sized mammals include the bobcat, opossum, armadillo, cottontail and swamp rabbit,
beaver, nutria, grey squirrel, coyote, and raccoon. The nutria was introduced from South America
and is a noteworthy invasive species. Beavers, a native species, have a tremendous potential
impact on bottomland hardwoods. They interfere with water control activities by plugging culverts,
ditches, and water control structures. Problems associated with the impounding of water by beaver
represent a major threat to the hardwoods within the refuge.
The armadillo extended its range into this part of Alabama some time during the latter half of the 20th
century. Its impact here has not been investigated. Coyotes are also a recent arrival, with first
sightings recorded in the 1980s. Their presence is thought to be responsible, among other things,
for the scarcity or absence of foxes. Nutria, like feral swine, tend to upset the balance among the
native aquatic mammals, competing with them for food and space while simultaneously destroying
habitat. Raccoons are abundant and prone to overpopulation.
Small mammals have not been surveyed on the refuge, but potentially include shrews, bats, chipmunks,
squirrels, new world rats and mice, voles, old world rats and mice, weasels, rabbits, and mink.
Birds
Established primarily as a wintering area for migrating birds, especially waterfowl, the refuge winters
a variety of ducks, including mallard, wigeon, teal, shoveler, and ringneck. The wood duck is a year-round
resident, raising its young in the many nesting boxes placed throughout the refuge. The
nesting boxes are similarly used by hooded mergansers. Upland game birds at Choctaw Refuge
include eastern wild turkey and bobwhite quail.
34 Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
The abundance of shallow water and vegetation provides excellent habitat for marsh and wading
birds. Herons, egrets, belted kingfisher, white ibis, purple gallinule, and anhinga are seen in large
numbers during spring and summer. Endangered wood storks congregate during summer on the
Blue Fields, which are flooded by the staff and stocked with bluegill.
Laughing gulls and Caspian terns are sometimes observed flying along the Tombigbee River. Other
shorebirds and allied species attracted to moist-soil areas next to the farm unit are the lesser
yellowleg, spotted sandpiper, and common snipe, along with the killdeer and the rarely spotted
American white pelican.
Scattered throughout the refuge is habitat for neotropical migratory birds, of which there are more
than 100 species documented on the refuge. The woods echo with the sound of their activities as
they stop to rest and feed on the bottomlands.
The most abundant raptor on the refuge is probably the red-shouldered hawk, but Mississippi and
swallow-tailed kites are also commonly sighted as they search the fields for prey. The threatened
American bald eagle can be seen on the refuge in winter and also in spring, when it nests. Bald
eagles tend to arrive and leave with the wintering waterfowl.
Woodcock trends in the United States have been declining annually for the last 15 years, only in part
due to hunting. The American Woodcock Management Plan initiated in the 1990s, to which the
refuge is a contributor, points out the need for improved breeding, migration, and wintering habitat to
enhance population growth and survival. Much of the woodcock’s decline is thought to be caused by
land use changes and the maturing of forest habitats, resulting in less early successional
scrub/shrub habitats preferred by the species. The formation of such habitat, fortunately, is
incidental (in the short run) to reforestation, old field succession, and other management actions
undertaken to benefit priority forest interior-nesting land birds (e.g., Swainson’s warbler, cerulean
warbler) and other wildlife on the refuge.
Reptiles
No reptile survey has been conducted on the refuge. However, the refuge’s various habitats and
favorable conditions should support abundant reptile populations and species diversity. The most
prominent reptile on the refuge is the American alligator, listed as endangered in 1967, but whose
numbers have rebounded dramatically throughout the southeast in recent decades. As a result of
this recovery, the alligator was delisted in 1987 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). Now the
species is listed as “threatened by similarity of appearance” to the American crocodile. Providing
habitat and a sanctuary for alligators was an early justification for Choctaw Refuge.
In support of the Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC), refuge surveys for
reptiles—primarily turtles, lizards, and snakes—are anticipated to be conducted by 2005.
Amphibians
To date the refuge has not conducted any surveys for frogs and amphibians. In support of PARC, a
basic amphibian survey, calling frog surveys, and searches for toad and salamander breeding sites
are anticipated to be conducted by 2005. These surveys will establish baseline information for
amphibians at the refuge and will be useful for future comparisons. The North American Amphibian
Monitoring Program, developed by the U.S. Geological Survey to monitor amphibians, should be
consulted for guidance.
Section A – Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Fish
The Tombigbee River is prone to severe seasonal flooding, which typically inundates nearly the
entire refuge. Most of the refuge’s waters are contiguous with the Tombigbee River and therefore
constitute a large, open system. This dramatically affects fish communities and preempts extensive
fishery management, including stocking.
The best fisheries on the refuge include species popular with anglers, like crappie, bream,
largemouth bass, catfish, and redear sunfish. Sunfish are also favored by wading birds like the
wood stork, which sometimes uses the scenic Hackberry Lake as a rookery. An electrofishing
survey conducted on Hackberry Lake in 1993 additionally revealed bluegill, chain pickerel, gizzard
shad, quillback, spotted sucker, and spotted gar. Another electrofishing survey on Judy Slough
detected spotted sucker, blacktail redhorse, freshwater drum, striped mullet, and bowfin, in addition
to the species uncovered in Hackberry Lake. Near the lake substrate and in other aquatic areas of
the refuge that seldom receive a flushing flow from the Tombigbee River, fish can freely migrate out
into the river during flood periods, if low dissolved oxygen becomes a limiting factor.
Exotic and Invasive Species
Invasive, exotic (nonnative) species have caused irreparable damage to natural communities
throughout the Southeast. Japanese climbing-fern (Lygodium japonicum), mimosa (Albizia
julibrissin), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), and
alligator-weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) are five invasive plants that have become well
established in several locations on the refuge (Schotz 2003). These species are capable of
colonizing large areas, generally in full sunlight, throughout warmer regions of the world. Japanese
honeysuckle was first introduced during Colonial times to the Americas at Long Island, New York.
Since then, the popularity of this species in gardens has enabled it to spread quickly throughout much
of the eastern United States, displacing desirable native vegetation.
Also firmly established in waterways of the refuge is water hyacinth, a species first introduced from
South America in 1884. Since then, this floating herb has become widely naturalized in the
southeast, often forming monotypes across large areas. The widespread dispersal of the above-mentioned
and other exotic species have been primarily attributed to highway maintenance and
construction, horticultural purposes, and the enhancement of wildlife habitat. The illegal and careless
disposal of yard trash has also aided the spread of these and other exotic species. Although these
taxa were not commonly observed within high-quality natural areas, they should be considered a
threat to the ecological integrity of natural communities at Choctaw Refuge. Table 6 lists some of the
exotic plants observed on the refuge, based on a 2002–2003 survey conducted by The Nature
Conservancy’s Alabama Natural Heritage Program.
Monitoring and treatment of existing infestations, and preventing the encroachment of new
populations, remain an important component of land management throughout the refuge. Education
of land managers about problems associated with exotic pests, coupled with the use of native
species for improving wildlife habitat, may be beneficial in this effort. If nonnative cultivars must be
used, then invasive species should be avoided. Many invasive exotic plants are sold in nurseries,
despite their known destructive impacts on native vegetation.
In addition, four species of aquatic pest plants infest refuge waters: the American lotus, hydrilla, water
hyacinth, and alligator weed. Total eradication of these species is neither feasible nor desirable, but
partial control can be achieved and is desirable.
36 Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
Table 6. Exotic plant species observed at the Choctaw Refuge in 2002–2003
American lotus (a native species) provides excellent wood duck brood habitat with the right
combination of cover and open water. The objective is to maintain approximately 75 percent cover
and 25 percent open water where possible. Presently, this plant covers 85–90 percent of the surface
area of many of the wetland sites by late summer.
Hydrilla, a submersed perennial herb that originated in the Indian subcontinent, infests much of the
southeastern states and California. Once established, this aggressive invader disrupts the aquatic
ecosystem in many ways. Spreading across shallower zones and forming thick mats in surface
waters, it blocks sunlight penetration to native plants below and effectively displaces beneficial native
vegetation. Among other impacts, infestations of hydrilla commonly obstruct boating and fishing in
lakes and rivers (U.S. Geological Survey 2003), two effects observed at Choctaw Refuge.
The water hyacinth is a native of South America, but is now naturalized in much of the southern
United States (Aquaplant 2004). It is an aggressive invader and can form thick mats on the surface
of infected waters. If these mats cover the entire surface of a water body, they can cause oxygen
depletion and fish kills. While water hyacinth has no direct food value for wildlife, submerged portions
of all aquatic plants provide habitats for many micro and macro invertebrates. These aquatic
invertebrates, in turn, are ingested by fish and other wildlife species (e.g., amphibians, reptiles, and
ducks). After the aquatic plants die, their decomposition by bacteria and fungi provides food (called
detritus) for many aquatic invertebrates. Nevertheless, from an overall perspective, the water
hyacinth is an aggressive pest that needs to be controlled on the refuge, as it is elsewhere.
Alligator weed, introduced from South America, has become a serious pest in southern North
America (Mississippi State University Extension Service 2004). It currently appears to be the ultimate
culprit to control on the refuge. This emergent plant exists on almost all the water bodies, as well as
Section A – Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
the farm units and moist-soil areas. It grows as a free-floating mat of interwoven plants in six feet of
water or sprouts from root stock on high ground.
The refuge staff works in close cooperation with the Corps of Engineers and Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources to control the pest plants in the Coffeeville Reservoir through
both chemical and biological means. Successful operations provide additional open water and allow
for increased recreational use of the lakes (e.g., fishing and bird watching), as well as creating
additional wood duck brood-rearing habitat. Biological control of alligator weed has been attempted
for many years at the refuge by stocking alligator flea beetles, when they were available from the
Corps of Engineers’ Aquatic Plant Control Operations Support Center in Jacksonville, Florida.
Wildlife Inventory
The refuge has a Wildlife Inventory Plan that describes inventory procedures for alligator number
counts; wood duck summer population and production surveys; population counts of ducks and
coots; population and production surveys of water birds; and population size estimates of mourning
doves, upland game birds, white-tailed deer, and songbirds. Staffing and budgetary constraints have
impeded the full implementation of this plan.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge has a total staff of four, including a Refuge Manager (GS–12),
Office Assistant (GS–7), and two equipment operators (WG–9). The refuge’s annual budget is about
$256,000. The refuge headquarters is located in Jackson, Alabama, about a 45-minute drive to the
south. Within the refuge is a maintenance office, workshop, and storage yard. The refuge does not
have a visitor center; the headquarters office in Jackson serves as a visitor contact station.
EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES
All six priority public use activities cited in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 are available on the refuge. These are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,
interpretive tours, and environmental education. Despite the fact that much of the refuge is accessible
only by boat, public use activities enjoy high participation. Of the three sections of the refuge, only the
northernmost is accessible by land vehicle. The existing visitor use facilities are shown on Figure 5.
Fishing
Choctaw Refuge has a Fishery Management Plan, approved in 1982. Its goal is “to provide and maintain
a productive sport fishery within Service guidelines for public use.” In pursuing this goal, the refuge
partners closely with the Corps and the Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. Gill net
surveys and electroshocking surveys have been conducted over the years to inventory the refuge’s
fish populations. Much of the effort at controlling noxious aquatic plants is aimed at helping the fishery,
both by conserving fish habitat and populations and by maintaining access for boaters and anglers to
waterways that would otherwise be clogged by dense mats of impenetrable vegetation.
Choctaw Refuge offers many good recreational fishing opportunities. Fishing is by far the most
popular public use activity on the refuge. A boat ramp is provided on Okatuppa Creek. The refuge
supports some commercial fishing, as well—for carp, buffalo, shad, and catfish—through permit, two
of which were issued in 2003. A universally accessible fishing pier was constructed adjacent to
some high-quality fish habitat in Judy Slough, a backwater area off Okatuppa Creek.
38 Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5. Existing visitor use facilities at Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
Section A – Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
Approximately 21,000 people fish on the refuge annually. A two-lane boat launching area located
across from the Womack Hill Work Center receives heavy use. The gravel parking area can
accommodate up to 20 vehicles and trailer rigs, with overflow parking taking place in a grassy area
along the road. Off-refuge boat launching sites include Bobby’s Fish Camp and the Corps of
Engineers’ Service Park, both of which charge a $3 launch fee; and Lenoir Landing, another Corps
facility that does not charge a fee. There is no charge to launch at the refuge’s boat ramp (Choctaw
National Wildlife Refuge 2004).
Bank fishing is also popular on the refuge. The areas receiving the most use include the mouth of
Okatuppa and Turkey creeks, and Judy Slough. A fishing pier at Judy Slough receives heavy use.
However, the pier is sometimes blocked by prolific aquatic weeds and debris from high water. Litter
is an ongoing major problem at each of these areas, as well as other sites within the refuge.
A fishing and boating brochure is available at the refuge headquarters in Jackson, the Womack Hill
Work Center kiosk, and Bobby’s Fish Camp. The brochure lists special fishing regulations, including
information on closed areas, boat launch sites, safety hazards, and accessibility, as well as a fishing
calendar. There is also a map detailing these areas.
Hunting
Hunting on the refuge is guided by a Hunting Management Plan, which was approved in 1982 and
amended in 1984. The refuge is open to hunting for deer (only by bow and arrow and hand-thrown
spear); feral hogs (only by bow and arrow and hand-thrown spear); and rabbits, squirrels, and raccoons
(all three by archery, shotguns, and small caliber rifles). Incidental species may be taken during fall hunts
with the legal weapon used for the particular hunt. Incidental species include raccoon, opossum, nutria,
coyotes, and feral hogs. Approximately 900 hunters participated in these hunts during the 2003���2004
season. The deer and feral hog hunts draw the largest number of hunters.
Permits are required for hunting on the refuge. While the majority of hunters come from Alabama,
states such as Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana are also