Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
September 2008
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
GRAND BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Jackson County, Mississippi and Mobile County, Alabama
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
September 2008
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Purpose and Need for the Plan ................................................................................................. 1
Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................................................... 1
National Wildlife Refuge System ............................................................................................... 2
Legal and Policy Context ........................................................................................................... 3
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Considerations ........... 3
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy ......................................... 4
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................. 4
Relationship to State Wildlife Agencies ................................................................................... 6
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 9
Refuge History and Purpose ................................................................................................... 12
Special Designations ............................................................................................................... 12
Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve ............................................................ 12
Grand Bay Bioreserve ....................................................................................................... 14
Coastal Reserves Program ............................................................................................... 14
Ecosystem Context .................................................................................................................. 14
Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem Plan .................................................................................. 16
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ......................................................................... 16
Ecological Threats and Problems ........................................................................................... 17
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation ....................................................................................... 17
Alterations to Hydrology .................................................................................................... 19
Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants and Animals ........................................................ 19
Hurricane Katrina .............................................................................................................. 20
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................. 20
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 20
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 21
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 21
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 22
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 22
Water Quality and Quantity ............................................................................................... 23
Biological Resources ............................................................................................................... 23
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 23
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 28
Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................... 32
Socioeconomic Environment .................................................................................................. 34
Refuge Administration and Management ............................................................................... 35
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 36
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 36
Personnel, Operations and Maintenance .......................................................................... 39
ii Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 41
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ...................................................................... 41
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ............................................................... 42
Fish and Wildlife Populations and Habitat Management .................................................. 43
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 43
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 44
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 44
Wilderness Review ................................................................................................................... 44
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 45
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 45
Vision ....................................................................................................................................... 45
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .......................................................................................... 46
Fish and Wildlife Populations and Habitat Management .................................................. 46
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 59
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 61
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 65
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 67
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 67
Proposed Projects.................................................................................................................... 67
Fish And Wildlife Populations and Habitat Management .................................................. 67
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 69
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 70
Funding and Personnel ........................................................................................................... 70
Partnership and Volunteer Opportunities .............................................................................. 74
Step-down Management Plans ............................................................................................... 74
Monitoring and Adaptive Management .................................................................................. 75
Plan Review and Revision ....................................................................................................... 75
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................. 77
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED ................................................................ 87
APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES .............................................................................. 91
APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 105
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments ............................................................................. 105
draft plan comments and service response ........................................................................ 106
APPENDIX V. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ...................................................................... 107
Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge Compatibility Determinations .................................. 107
APPENDIX VI. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 129
Table of Contents iii
APPENDIX VII. WILDERNESS REVIEW .......................................................................................... 133
APPENDIX VIII. REFUGE BIOTA ..................................................................................................... 135
APPENDIX IX. BUDGET REQUESTS .............................................................................................. 145
Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ............................................................................ 145
APPENDIX X. LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................................................. 147
APPEND XI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................... 149
Alternative A: Current Management (No Action) ............................................................. 149
Alternative B: Custodial or Passive Management ........................................................... 150
Alternative C: Optimize Wildlife and Habitat Management (Preferred Action) ................ 151
Alternative D: Optimize Visitor Services .......................................................................... 152
iv Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity map of Grand Bay NWR ......................................................................................... 10
Figure 2. Acquisition boundary of Grand Bay NWR ........................................................................... 11
Figure 3. Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve .............................................................. 13
Figure 4. Fish and Wildlife Service-designated ecosystems in the conterminous U.S.
The Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem is #29. .......................................................................... 15
Figure 5. Vegetation communities at Grand Bay NWR (based on National Wetlands Inventory) ...... 25
Figure 6. Current staffing chart, Grand Bay NWR .............................................................................. 73
Figure 7. Proposed staffing chart, Grand Bay NWR ........................................................................... 73
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Amphibians and reptiles at Grand Bay NWR ........................................................................ 30
Table 2. Summary of projects with their associated costs and staffing needs ................................... 71
Table 3. Additional personnel identified to implement the CCP for Grand Bay NWR ......................... 72
Table 4. Refuge step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives of the CCP ....... 74
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed this Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP) for Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Grand Bay NWR) to guide management actions and
direction over the next 15 years. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge
management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible
with, and does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for which it was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This CCP describes the
Service’s plan of action. The CCP was made available to state and federal government agencies,
conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment. Comments from each entity
were considered in the development of this CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the CCP is to develop a plan of action that best achieves the refuge purpose; attains
the vision and goals developed; contributes to the National Wildlife Refuge System mission;
addresses key problems, issues, and relevant mandates; and is consistent with sound principles of
fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the CCP is needed to:
��􇤠 Provide a clear statement of the refuge’s management direction;
􀁹􇤠 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the
Service’s management actions on and around the refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that the Service’s management actions, including land protection and
recreation/education programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife
Refuge System; and
􀁹􇤠 Provide a basis for development of the refuge’s budget requests for operations, maintenance,
and capital improvement needs.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved
with research and fish culture. The once-independent commission was renamed the Bureau of
Fisheries and placed in the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 with the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals
to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals, thus, the name was changed
to the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
2 Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of the
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956, and finally to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Service is responsible for conserving, enhancing, and protecting fish and wildlife and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of people through federal programs relating to wild birds,
endangered species, certain marine mammals, inland sport fisheries, and specific fishery and wildlife
research activities (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest collection of
lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million acres, is in Alaska.
The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United States territories. In
addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery
resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service enforces federal wildlife laws,
administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally
significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps foreign governments with their
conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of
dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, is:
“... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) established, for the
first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System
(Refuge System). Actions were initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation,
including an effort to complete CCPs for all refuges. These CCPs, which are completed with full
public involvement, help guide the management of refuges by establishing natural resources and
recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved CCPs will serve as
the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement Act states that each
refuge shall be managed to:
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Consider the needs of fish and wildlife first;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the requirement of developing a CCP 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 recreation 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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
The following describes a few examples of the Service’s national network of conservation lands. Pelican
Island National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting
birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established for
American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep (1936) after
overhunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated the once-abundant herds. The
drought conditions of the Dust Bowl during the 1930s severely depleted breeding populations of ducks and
geese. Refuges established during the Great Depression focused on waterfowl production areas, i.e.,
protection of prairie wetlands in America’s heartland. The emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also
includes protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973,
the Service began to focus on establishing refuges for endangered species.
Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in
their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local
communities. In 2001, 82 million people 16 years and older either fished, hunted, or observed
wildlife, generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, 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. The
15 refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois);
Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas);
Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna
Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River
(Louisiana), the same refuges that were identified for the 1995 study. 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, the surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in
recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland 2003).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002, volunteers
contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that CCPs be prepared in consultation with adjoining federal, state,
and private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a process to ensure an
opportunity for active public involvement in their preparation and revision (every 15 years).
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved CCP that will guide
management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge unit purposes. The CCP will be
consistent with sound resource management principles, practices, and legal mandates, including
Service compatibility standards, policies, guidelines, and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
LEGAL MANDATES, ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLICY GUIDELINES, AND OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the Refuge System,
congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for
4 Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
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.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural
resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation
between Grand Bay NWR and other partners, such as the Grand Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve; the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks; the Mississippi Department of
Marine Resources; Mississippi State University; the Alabama Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources; and private landowners.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No
refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that,
in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract
from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All programs
and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. These mandates
are as follows:
􀁹􇤠 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
􀁹􇤠 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
􀁹􇤠 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
􀁹􇤠 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. As
priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over other public uses in
planning and management.
BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY, DIVERSITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH POLICY
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of refuges are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans. This policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while achieving the
purposes of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. It provides for the consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on the refuges and their
associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge
managers are required to use sound professional judgment to determine the refuges’ contribution to
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound
professional judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, the refuge’s role
within an ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with others
both inside and outside the Service.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this CCP.
This CCP supports, among others, the Partners in Flight Plan; the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan; the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network; and the National Wetlands
Priority Conservation Plan.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative
Started in 1999, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is a coalition of government
agencies, private organizations, academic institutions, and private industry leaders in the United
States, Canada, and Mexico working to ensure the long-term health of North America's native bird
populations by fostering an integrated approach to bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats.
The four international and national bird initiatives include the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan, Partners in Flight, Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird
Conservation Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) is an international action plan to conserve
migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is to return waterfowl populations to their
1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitats. Canada and the United States signed the
plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly
continental effort. The plan is a partnership of federal, provincial, state, and municipal governments,
nongovernmental organizations, private companies, and many individuals, all working towards
achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species and
people. Plan projects are international in scope, but implemented at regional levels. These projects
contribute to the protection of habitat and wildlife species across the North American landscape.
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan
Managed as part of the Partners in Flight Plan, the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic area
represents a scientifically based land bird conservation planning effort that ensures long-term
maintenance of healthy populations of native land birds, primarily nongame land birds. Nongame
land birds have been vastly under-represented in conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting
significant declines. 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.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort throughout the United States to ensure
that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird species are restored and protected. The plan
was developed by a wide range of agencies, organizations, and shorebird experts for separate
regions of the country, and identifies conservation goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key
research needs, and proposed education and outreach programs to increase the awareness of
shorebirds and the threats they face.
6 Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan
The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan provides a framework for the conservation and
management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird populations include
destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive species, pollutants,
mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from abundant species.
Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas, marshes, forested
wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are federally listed,
including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping cranes, interior
least terns, and Gulf Coast populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan is the
standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCIES
A provision of the Improvement Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure
timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other state fish and game agencies and tribal
governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas
and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the
overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species in the states of Mississippi and Alabama.
In Mississippi, two state conservation agencies—the Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) and
the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP)—regularly partner with the Service in
mutual efforts to conserve the state’s habitats and wildlife populations.
The Mississippi Legislature created the MDMR (www.dmr.state.ms.us) in 1994 as a separate
governing agency to enhance, protect, and conserve the state’s marine interests. Under the authority
of the Commission on Marine Resources, the MDMR manages all marine life, public trust wetlands,
adjacent uplands and waterfront areas in Mississippi. It also provides for the balanced commercial,
recreational, educational, and economic uses of marine-related resources, consistent with
environmental concerns and social changes (MDMR n.d.a). The MDMR and the Commission on
Marine Resources play an important role in implementing and administering Mississippi Seafood
Laws, the Mississippi Coastal Wetlands Protection Act, the Public Trust Tidelands Act, the Boat and
Water Safety Act, the Derelict Vessel Act, the Non-point Source Pollution Act, the Magnuson Act, the
Wallop-Breaux Sportfish Restoration Act, and Marine Litter Act, as well as other state and federal
mandates (MDMR n.d.b). Among its various responsibilities, the MDMR operates Mississippi’s
Coastal Preserves Program.
The MDWFP (http://www.mdwfp.com) is charged with enforcement responsibilities for migratory birds
and endangered species, as well as managing the state’s natural resources. The total area owned or
managed by the State of Mississippi in support of wildlife, recreation, and fisheries is 828,408 acres,
including 42 wildlife management areas and 29 state parks encompassing 823,297 acres, and 21
lakes totaling 5,111 acres. The MDWFP directs the state’s wildlife conservation program and
provides public recreation opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program, on
several WMAs and parks located near the refuge. Overall, a combined total of nearly 100 wildlife
management areas and national wildlife refuge areas provide the foundation for the protection of
wildlife species throughout Mississippi, and contribute to the overall health and sustainability of the
state’s fish and wildlife (Southeastern Outdoors 2004).
The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) (www.dnr.state.al.us)
provides management and protection for the state's fish and wildlife resources through conservation
enforcement officers in each county statewide and through fisheries and wildlife biologists. The
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
ADCNR’s major goal is to promote stewardship and enjoyment of Alabama’s natural resources, both
for present and future generations. It is responsible for freshwater fish, wildlife, marine resources,
waterway safety, state lands, state parks, and other natural resources. The ADCNR manages 24
state parks, 23 fishing lakes, 3 fish hatcheries, 2 waterfowl refuges, 2 wildlife sanctuaries, 34 wildlife
management areas, and a mariculture center. It has responsibility for more than 645,000 acres of
trust lands set aside in Alabama for wildlife purposes.
ADCNR’s participation and contribution throughout the CCP process provided for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in the
states of Mississippi and Alabama. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is the
integration of common mission objectives where appropriate.
8 Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Grand Bay NWR is located in the coastal zone of Jackson County, Mississippi, and Mobile County,
Alabama, approximately 10 miles east of Pascagoula, Mississippi, and about 20 miles west of Mobile,
Alabama (Figures 1 and 2). It forms part of the Gulf Coast National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which
also includes Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR to the west and Bon Secour NWR to the east.
Habitats encompassed by the refuge include a riverine area on the west side containing a section of
the Escatawpa River and a tributary, Black Creek; an area of coastal savanna in the central part of
the refuge; and a large gopher tortoise colony at the northeast corner of the refuge.
Grand Bay NWR’s cypress-tupelo swamps provide ideal habitat for wood ducks, other migratory birds,
and many resident wildlife species, including white-tailed deer and wild turkey. The refuge’s salt flats, tidal
creeks, and brackish marshes are used extensively by wading birds, shorebirds, and waterfowl, including
the mottled duck, a species of concern in both Alabama and Mississippi. About 20 percent of the coastal
waterfowl in Alabama and Mississippi winter in this area, the most prevalent species being lesser scaup,
redhead, ring-necked duck, mallard, and American wigeon.
Other species that use the refuge’s estuarine habitats include bald eagles, peregrine falcons, clapper
rails, black rails, Gulf salt marsh water snakes, and Mississippi diamondback terrapins.
The fishery of the Escatawpa River system and its associated sloughs and lakes contain populations
of species such as largemouth bass, bream, crappie, and catfish. Public fishing is popular along the
river. More than 80 species of fish have been reported from the estuarine habitats of Grand Bay,
including species such as Atlantic croaker, spot, menhaden, spotted sea trout, flounder, red drum,
oysters, and several species of shrimp (USFWS 2005).
Grand Bay NWR provides a wide variety of habitats for migratory species. The northern portion of
the refuge is composed of palustrine forested habitat, with mixed hardwoods and slash/loblolly pine
as the most prevalent species types. This habitat supports a broad variety of neotropical migratory
birds, as well as several species of waterfowl.
Further south within the refuge, a palustrine emergent ecosystem becomes more common, with
increasing shrubs and bottomland hardwood stands. At the true coastal interface, the habitat
transitions into a broad floodplain swamp ecosystem. The southernmost portions open to marine
intertidal, estuarine subtidal, and estuarine intertidal emergents, and finally to palustrine
unconsolidated shore. This portion supports various species of sandpipers, terns, and kites.
Threatened and endangered species that are occur at or may visit this refuge include the threatened
gopher tortoise, the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, and the endangered brown pelican.
10 Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Vicinity map of Grand Bay NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Figure 2. Acquisition boundary of Grand Bay NWR
12 Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
Grand Bay NWR was established in 1992 with an acquisition boundary of 12,100 acres. The main
function of the refuge is to protect one of the largest expanses of Gulf Coast savanna remaining in a
relatively undisturbed state. In 1997, a 2,700-acre expansion was approved to bring under
management a section of the scenic Escatawpa River. In 2003, another expansion was approved to
include a string of nearshore barrier islands just to the south of the refuge (660 acres) and a 5-acre
tract on the north side of Independence Road, which forms part of the refuge’s northern boundary.
To date, the Service has acquired approximately 10,188 acres within the acquisition boundary. The
refuge was established under the authority of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, which
calls for:
“... the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they
provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties
and conventions ...” (16 USC 3901 (b), 100 Stat. 3583).
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
GRAND BAY NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE
The Mississippi portion of Grand Bay NWR is part of the 18,400-acre Grand Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve (NERR), which was designated in 1999 (Figure 3). This reserve contains a variety of
wetland habitats, both tidal and nontidal, such as pine savannas, salt marshes, salt pannes, bays and
bayous, as well as terrestrial habitats that are unique to the coastal zone such as maritime forests.
These habitats support many important species of fish and wildlife. Commercially and recreationally
important species of finfish and shellfish such as brown shrimp, speckled trout and oysters are
abundant. Sea turtles, bottlenose dolphin and, on occasion, manatees can be found in the deeper
waters of the reserve. Many species of carnivorous plants and orchids grow in the higher savanna
habitats (GNDNERR 2006).
The Grand Bay NERR is one of 27 designated areas within the National Estuarine Research Reserve
System, a network representing different biogeographic regions of the United States that are
protected for long-term research, water quality monitoring, education, and coastal stewardship.
Established by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, the National Estuarine
Research Reserve System is a partnership program between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and the coastal states. NOAA provides funding, national guidance and
technical assistance. Each reserve is managed on daily basis by a lead state agency or university,
with input from local partners (National Estuarine Research Reserve System 2006). The lead state
agency for the Grand Bay NERR is the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources.
Other major partners of the Grand Bay NERR include NOAA; the Mississippi Secretary of State's
Office; Mississippi State University; The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and
the University of Southern Mississippi. Additionally, a Citizens Advisory Committee has been
formed to assure that the concerns of local citizens are adequately addressed by the Grand Bay
NERR’s Management Board.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Figure 3. Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
14 Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
The Grand Bay NERR carries out a range of research, educational, and stewardship activities, in addition
to allowing for recreation. Its research program is conducted by the reserve's research staff and consists
of two major components: (1) the System-wide Monitoring Program (SWMP; pronounced “swamp”) and
(2) the Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRF). The objective of the SWMP is to track the short-term
variability and long-term trends of environmental conditions in coastal ecosystems throughout the
United States. The GRF program provides funding for graduate students to conduct targeted research
projects of local and national significance to coastal zone management.
The Grand Bay NERR’s education program is an integrated program of life-long learning designed to
educate a variety of audiences on the importance of wisely caring for estuarine and coastal resources. It
includes Coastal Training, Community Education, K-12 and Collegiate programs. The NERR staff passes
on information gathered by its scientists and other researchers to audiences through the use of hands-on
learning methods, both inside classrooms and out in the field. Whenever possible, the staff uses the
reserve’s many habitats as "living laboratories" so that audiences can experience the unique biological,
geological, historical, and cultural wonders on a first-hand basis.
The stewardship program at Grand Bay NERR includes monitoring, management, and restoration
activities. These activities are designed to demonstrate best management practices that other resource
professionals, local decision-makers, and the general public can apply in their own communities.
Recreation is permitted year-round on the Grand Bay NERR and includes hunting, fishing,
paddling and boating, oystering, birding, wildlife and plant observation, hiking, and nature
photography (Grand Bay NEER 2006).
Grand Bay NWR and Grand Bay NERR share office facilities and cooperate on many management
activities on the refuge and reserve.
GRAND BAY BIORESERVE
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has designated the Grand Bay Bioreserve in southeastern Mississippi
and southern Alabama. This is a spectacular landscape that includes an area of uplands, wetlands,
and nearshore coastal waters comprising more than 300 square miles. Within this area, TNC has
helped the State of Alabama establish the Forever Wild Grand Bay Nature Preserve (2,800 acres).
COASTAL RESERVES PROGRAM
The Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) administers the Coastal Preserves
Program, which seeks intergovernmental and private cooperation to manage selected high priority
sites along the coast. The Grand Bay Savanna is one of these sites.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
In approaching its mission to conserve wildlife and their habitats throughout the country, the Service
has found it useful to divide the country into 53 distinct ecosystems, drawn primarily along watershed
boundaries (Figure 4). Grand Bay NWR lies within, and is an active participant of, conservation
efforts within the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem, which spans portions of Mississippi, Alabama, and
Georgia. As such, the refuge collaborates in pursuing goals and objectives of the ecosystem as a
whole, in addition to working toward achieving goals specific to itself.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Figure 4. Fish and Wildlife Service-designated ecosystems in the conterminous U.S. The
Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem is #29.
Much of the Central Gulf Ecosystem is characterized by flat to rolling topography broken up by
numerous streams and river bottoms. Uplands are dominated by pine (longleaf and slash pines in
the south, originally) and shortleaf pine mixed with hardwoods in the north. These are fire-maintained
systems that give way to loblolly pine and hardwoods in damper areas and to
bottomland hardwood forest in 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 historical baselines. The refuge is located in
the southern portion of the ecosystem.
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.
16 Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
CENTRAL GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM PLAN
The restoration, recovery, and protection of pine habitats and associated plant and animal
communities are the goals for the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem Plan. Historically, the longleaf pine
community was the predominant vegetative community of the southeastern coastal plain, with roughly
60 percent coverage in upland areas. Currently, most of the remaining longleaf pine and pine
savanna habitat is in private ownership. It is highly fragmented and degraded by logging, grazing,
intensive site preparation, and fire suppression (USFWS 2003a).
The regional ecosystem priorities for 2003 were extracted from the ecosystem team activity
guidances (TAGs), and those that involved the Central Gulf Ecosystem included:
􀁹􇤠 Waterfowl management and resident and neotropical migratory bird monitoring.
􀁹􇤠 Control of Invasive/exotic species.
􀁹􇤠 Outreach and environmental education.
􀁹􇤠 Significant decline in longleaf pine ecosystem.
􀁹􇤠 Fish passage.
􀁹􇤠 Fisheries program support.
Restoring the functions and values of wetlands in the Southeast Region is a top priority. The goal is
to prioritize and manage wetlands to most effectively maintain and possibly restore the ecosystem’s
biological diversity. 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.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
The State Wildlife Grants (SWG) program began in fiscal year 2002. Under this program, Congress
provided an historic opportunity for state fish and wildlife agencies and their partners to design and
implement a more comprehensive approach to the conservation of America’s wildlife. A requirement
of SWG was that each state complete a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) by
October 1, 2005. Development of the CWCS is intended to identify and focus management on
“species in greatest need of conservation.” Congress expects SWG funds to be used to manage and
conserve declining species and avoid their potential listing under the Endangered Species Act.
In Mississippi, the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks has prepared a CWCS that
identifies the state’s Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), classifies and ranks Mississippi
wildlife habitats, and identifies threats and conservation actions for species and their habitats
(MDWFP 2005). The major habitats identified are dry/mesic upland forests/woodlands; agriculture
fields, hay and pasture lands, old fields, prairies, cedar glades and pine plantations; mesic upland
forests; bottomland hardwood forests; riverfront forests/herblands/sandbars; wet pine savannas;
spring seeps; bogs; inland freshwater marshes; swamp forests; and lacustrine (lentic) communities.
Wet pine savannas are one of the major habitat types present at Grand Bay NWR. With regard to
this habitat, the Mississippi CWCS indicates that less than five percent of the original acreage of wet
pine savanna habitat remains in the Atlantic/Gulf Coastal Plain, making it one of the most
endangered ecosystems in the country. Decades of fire suppression coupled with the lack of
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
prescribed fire have had a dramatic negative impact on the size and distribution of wet pine
savannas. Fire suppression allowed pines and shrubs to invade and out-compete the native savanna
plants. Then, in the 1960s and 1970s, much of the remaining open savanna was converted to pine
plantation by planting and ditching (bedding), the latter of which disrupted the natural water regime.
Moreover, accelerating urbanization of Mississippi’s three coastal counties in recent decades caused
further losses of this habitat. The savannas of the Mississippi Sandhill Crane and Grand Bay NWRs
are considered the last remaining large patches of this species-rich community (MDWFP 2005).
In Alabama, the CWCS effort began when the Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries sponsored
the 2002 Nongame Conference that assembled scientists and stakeholders to compile the best available
information on Alabama's wildlife. This two-year effort resulted in a comprehensive four-volume
publication entitled Alabama Wildlife, and it serves as the foundation for the Alabama CWCS. The
Alabama CWCS was approved by the Service in November 2005 (Alabama Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources n.d.). This CWCS defines those wildlife species in greatest need of conservation
in Alabama and describes the actions necessary for their restoration. The Grand Bay Savanna is
recognized as a Priority Area for Conservation in the CWCS.
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.
Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living, they have had a
tremendous negative impact on the 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, underlying threats to biological diversity include:
􀁹􇤠 Loss, alteration, and fragmentation of high-quality coastal habitat due to development;
􀁹􇤠 Loss of natural shoreline 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 resource; and
􀁹􇤠 Increased demand for beach access and use, resulting in increased disturbance to wildlife.
More generally, 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. 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 forest, to very small tracts just a few acres in
size possessing limited functional value.
18 Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
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 Mississippi. 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 or sub-species have declined significantly, such as the red-cockaded woodpecker,
Bachman’s warbler, and Mississippi sandhill crane. These species therefore 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 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 (USFWS n.d.). Species once abundant in the
Central Gulf Coast include the endangered wood stork and the bald eagle. The most highly endangered
of all is the ivory-billed woodpecker, dependent on once-extensive old-growth swamp forests dominated
by ancient cypresses and thought by many to be extinct. Until credible, but still disputed, sightings
beginning in early 2004 of at least one individual at Cache River NWR in the Big Woods of eastern
Arkansas, the last confirmed sighting of an ivory-bill was 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;
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, remaining 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.
The MDWFP reports that the state’s biodiversity has diminished due to a variety of threats, including
habitat loss, proliferation of nonnative invasive species, disruption of ecological processes, and
ecosystem degradation (MDWFP n.d.a). According to the MDWFP, the threats to one of the most
important habitats at Grand Bay NWR—wet pine savannas—include:
􀁹􇤠 Altered fire regime
􀁹􇤠 Forestry conversion
􀁹􇤠 Groundwater withdrawal
􀁹􇤠 Incompatible forestry practices
􀁹􇤠 Industrial development
􀁹􇤠 Invasive species
􀁹􇤠 Recreation activities
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
􀁹􇤠 Urban/suburban development
􀁹􇤠 Road construction/management
Mississippi’s wet pine savannas are not associated with riverine floodplains, but are found on broad
coastal flats and sloping plains with more than 60 inches of rainfall annually. They remain saturated
for long periods during the growing season. The coastal region receives ample growing season
rainfall from frequent convective thunderstorms, which results in the surface horizon remaining
saturated for extended periods because of the slow permeability of the area’s subsoils. Stands of wet
savanna in good condition have a herbaceous ground cover that is exceptionally diverse. While
plentiful rainfall and sunlight create ideal growing conditions, a lack of soil nutrients prevents any one
species or suite of species from dominating. Of more than 200 understory plant species, two-thirds
are graminoids (grasses) and one-third consist of forbs and ferns. Prominent groups of herbs include
grasses, asters, sedges, pipeworts, pitcherplants, and lilies. Common grasses include beaksedge,
toothache grass, switchgrass, and three-awn. Forbs include rayless goldenrod, one flowered
honeycombhead, sunflowers, pitcherplants, meadowbeauties, sundews, and orchids (MDWFP 2005).
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 acreage of bottomland-forested wetlands and other habitat types, there
have been significant alterations in the region’s hydrology due to development, river channel
modification, 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 curtailment 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.
Southeastern states have the greatest numbers of imperiled and vulnerable freshwater fish species in
the country. 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
exacerbated. Restoration of the 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.
PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic
vegetation like alligator weed and willows. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding
20 Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
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
viability of aquatic systems. These invasive aquatic species 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 compete with native wildlife for limited resources and many, like feral hogs, have caused
extensive habitat damage and alterations.
HURRICANE KATRINA
After cutting across Florida and churning through the Gulf of Mexico, on August 29, 2005, Hurricane
Katrina made landfall on the Gulf Coast near Buras, Louisiana, as a Category 4 hurricane with
sustained winds of 145 mph and higher gusts. Katrina made her way up the eastern Louisiana
coastline with the eye wall passing just east of New Orleans. A few hours later, Katrina made landfall
for a third time near the Mississippi-Louisiana border with 125 mph Category 3 sustained winds.
However, because the storm was so large, extreme damaging eye wall winds and the strong
northeastern quadrant of the storm pushed record storm surges onshore and smashed the entire
Mississippi Gulf Coast, including towns such as Waveland, Bay St. Louis, Pass Christian, Long
Beach, Gulfport, Biloxi, Ocean Springs, Gautier, and Pascagoula. As Katrina moved inland
diagonally over Mississippi, high winds cut a swath of damage that affected almost the entire state.
At Grand Bay NWR, Katrina damaged the joint refuge-NERR office on Bayou Heron Road so badly that
it had to be vacated and replaced with temporary office trailers. High winds and the nearly 20-foot
storm surge engulfed the boat ramp and pier and significantly damaged the adjacent education pavilion.
Refuge roads (Goat Farm Road, Bayou Heron Road, and South Pollack Ferry Road) were also
inundated with storm surge and littered with debris. In addition, a house raised on stilts that provided
lodging for visiting researchers, interns, and short-term employees was damaged and had to be
condemned. With regard to habitat, the main impacts (trees down) and significant storm surge debris
have been assessed post-hurricane. However, the socioeconomic impacts to the local community from
the hurricane have been severe. The neighboring communities of Pecan and Orange Grove have
suffered major flood damage to their residences. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) and Jackson County are proceeding with purchasing numerous damaged homes in these
communities and assisting qualified participate with relocation outside of the floodplain.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
As a general rule, the State of Mississippi has hot, humid summers and relatively mild winters
(U.S. Almanac 2004), and Jackson County, where a majority of the refuge is located, is no
exception. Located on the Gulf of Mexico, the county has mild winters and long spring and
summer seasons. Freezing temperatures are rare and snowfall is even rarer. January’s average
temperature is 50 degrees Fahrenheit (F), while summers reach into the 90s (Jackson County
Economic Development Foundation 2003).
Weather records for nearby Pascagoula, Mississippi, indicate average maximum temperatures of
61 degrees F in January, the coldest month of the year, and average minimum temperatures of
42 degrees F for the same month (Southeast Regional Climate Center 2005). July and August
are the hottest months, with an average maximum temperature of 90 degrees F. Like most of
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Mississippi and the southeast, the area receives substantial rainfall, averaging more than 64
inches a year; of this, a mere one-tenth of an inch on average falls as snow. Summer is the
wettest season and July the wettest single month.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
Located in the Gulf Coastal plain close to the ocean, the refuge is characterized by flat topography
and a low elevation just a few feet above mean sea level. The Mississippi-Alabama-Florida
panhandle coasts result from a history of low-to-moderate sediment supply, with the primary sediment
sources being the Mobile, Pascagoula, Pearl and Mississippi rivers (Kindinger et al., 2004). Flat,
weakly dissected alluvial plains and active coastlines predominate in this region. Quaternary geology
and soils are typically Pliocene-Pleistocene sandy clay residuum.
The geologic units comprising the surface of Mississippi’s coastal counties range in age from the late
Pliocene Epoch (3.4 million years ago) to the present (Schmid and Otvos 2005). The oldest exposed unit
in the area is the Citronelle Formation. This unit, which consists mostly of sand and silt, with some gravel,
was deposited in coalescing river floodplains on the broad coastal plain from southern Louisiana to
Florida. Following the Pliocene, coastal sediments during the Pleistocene Epoch (1.6 million to 10,000
years ago) were related to warm interglacial and cooler glacial periods. Sea level during the Sangamon
interglaciation rose as high as 20–25 feet above the present. The Pleistocene surface formations of this
period include the fluvial Prairie deposits that formed level floodplains and the ridge-forming Gulfport
coastal barrier formations. They are preceded and underlain by the muddy-sandy, fossil-rich Biloxi
Formation, deposited in nearshore Gulf, bay, and lagoonal settings. The Gulfport Formation formed a
wide belt of beach ridges representing a Sangamon-age Gulf shoreline; it includes fine- to medium-grained
sand and is often stained with humate, a dark brown to black organic-rich amorphous matter that
formed after deposition and impregnated the lower Gulfport sand intervals.
In the Holocene Epoch of the last ten thousand years the sea level has continued to rise from its very low
late-glacial stand about twenty thousand years ago. This rise gradually drowned coastal river valleys and
prevented coarse stream sediments from directly reaching the coast. Holocene sediments fill coastal
estuaries and have built up locally wide marshlands, rich in organic matter. These deposits consist mostly
of sandy fine-grained silts and clays with significant organic material (Schmid and Otvos 2005).
SOILS
Soils are Ultisols of wet areas that have clayey horizons frequently impervious to groundwater
percolation (Clewell and Raymond 1995). These soils tend to be strongly acidic and infertile. The
dominant soil types and series (with recent soil classification) on the refuge are the following:
􀁹􇤠 Loamy sands: Scranton, Klej, Plummer
􀁹􇤠 Very fine sandy loams: Lynchburg (Harleston)
􀁹􇤠 Loams: Rains (Atmore), Goldsboro (Harleston)
􀁹􇤠 Silt-loams: Bayboro (Hyde)
􀁹􇤠 Undefined series supporting swamps and tidal marshes: (Croatan)
Slightly elevated ridges on the refuge are characterized by nonhydric (non-saturated, well-oxygenated)
soils that support mesic pine savanna habitat. On the other hand, hydric soils—more
poorly drained than the mesic savannas, with long periods (days or weeks) of soil saturation, and
generally wet at surface—support wet pine savanna.
22 Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
HYDROLOGY
As mentioned under the Climate heading above, Grand Bay NWR is located in a region with
abundant annual rainfall, receiving more than 64 inches per year. Three groundwater hydrologic
sources for the savannas and flatwoods are found on the refuge:
1. Hydrology driven by an apparent water table, where water arises from below. This occurs on
the Plummer series of soils (loamy sands).
2. Hydrology driven by a perched water table, whereby water in saturated soil is lying above an
impermeable and unsaturated subsurface horizon. This occurs on the Atmore series of
soils (loams).
3. Hydrology driven by episodic rainfall events, causing temporary perching and ponding but
without the benefit of an impermeable subsoil. Nonetheless, flat topography and copious
precipitation combine to allow periods of saturation long enough for redoximorphic features to
develop (those associated with low oxygen levels), even though the soil is not considered as
being hydric. This occurs on the Harleston series of soils (very fine sandy loams)
(Teaford et al., 1995).
As noted earlier, the refuge encompasses a variety of habitats that reflect different hydrologic
conditions, ranging from the freshwater flows of the Escatawpa River to the brackish water and tidal
influence of Bayou Heron and Middle Bay. The Escatawpa River rises in southwest Alabama less
than one mile from the Alabama/Mississippi border in Washington County, Alabama. From there it
flows south into Mississippi through a watershed that is long and narrow, with a total length of about
100 miles and a width of approximately 15 miles. The river eventually empties into a series of water
bodies that form the mouth of Mississippi’s Pascagoula River. Although portions of the Escatawpa
River flow through somewhat remote locales, the watershed sits less than an hour’s drive from the
city of Mobile, and equally as close to Pascagoula, Mississippi (WKRG News 5, 2006).
A portion of the lower Escatawpa River has been affected by a combination of apparent saltwater
intrusion associated with channel deepening and marsh impoundment caused by a rail crossing over
the river and associated marshes. A needle rush (Juncus roemerianus) marsh was constructed here
about 10 years ago as mitigation for bridge and highway construction. Needle rush appears to be
replacing sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) in this area, which is oligohaline. Sawgrass is still present
in areas adjacent to the uplands and on islands along the river. Dead cypress trunks are scattered
about in the marsh near the center of the river (MDMR 1998a).
AIR QUALITY
Under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established primary air
quality standards to protect public health. EPA has also set secondary standards to protect public
welfare. Secondary standards relate to protecting ecosystems, including plants and animals, from harm,
as well as protecting against decreased visibility and damage to crops, vegetation, and buildings.
The EPA has developed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six principal air
pollutants (also called “criteria pollutants”). They are ground-level ozone (O3), particulate matter
(PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead (Pb). The
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) monitors all of these pollutants except lead.
(Because the past lead concentrations reported were so much lower than the air quality standard and
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
because lead is no longer used in automobile fuels, it was determined by the EPA and MDEQ that
lead no longer needed to be monitored in Mississippi.)
In general, Mississippi is meeting all of the NAAQS and has recently been designated in attainment
with the new 8-hour ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards. Mississippi is
one of only three states east of the Mississippi River (Florida and Vermont) that is meeting all of the
standards (MDEQ 2004).
Jackson County, in which the refuge is located, has two air quality monitoring stations, Vancleave
and Pascagoula. Data from 2004 from both of these two stations indicate that Jackson County is
also in attainment with all of the NAAQS.
While not quite as good as the air quality in Jackson County, Mobile County, Alabama’s air
quality is judged to be “good” about 70 percent of the time and “moderate” almost all the rest of
the time. Mobile County’s air quality is considered to be “unhealthful” only a very small fraction
of the time (Scorecard 2005).
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
Like most waterways in the United States, the Escatawpa River faces two major types of water
pollution: point source and nonpoint source pollution. Point sources may be traced to a particular
point of entry, such as a waste water pipe emptying into a stream from a factory or sewage treatment
plant discharge. State and federal agencies manage point source pollution using various permit
systems. Nonpoint source pollution is dispersed, and occurs mainly from urban and rural runoff,
whether from rain, car washing or the irrigation of crops or lawns; moving water picks up various
contaminants, including dog feces, oil, dirt, and asbestos (worn off from brake linings) from roadways,
agricultural chemicals (e.g. herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers) from farmland, and nutrients and toxic
materials from urban and suburban areas. This runoff finds its way into streams, rivers, lakes, bays
and estuaries, either directly or through storm drain collection systems. Nonpoint source pollution
seldom shows up overnight and often goes unnoticed for years; it reflects both land use patterns and
the use and disposal of the myriad chemicals produced by our industrialized society. These
characteristics make it all the more difficult to control and is currently the most significant source of
water pollution in our waterways (WKRG News 5, 2006).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Grand Bay NWR and the Escatawpa River drainage lie in the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic
area. When viewed at a broad scale, this is part of the Southeast Conifer Forest ecoregion, which is
a swath covering the coastal areas of the northern Gulf of Mexico from eastern Louisiana to coastal
Georgia. In coastal Mississippi, some of the distinct terrestrial communities are: pitcher plant bogs,
longleaf pine savannas, and bayhead swamps, all of which are found on the refuge. The ecoregions
present within this system are critical because of the variety of habitats they provide to many
migratory bird species (USFWS 2005).
Within the East Gulf Coastal Plain, Grand Bay NWR includes the following regions: the Southern Pine
Hills predominantly north of Interstate 10; the Gulf Coast Flatwoods just south of Interstate 10; and
the Marsh regions in the southern portions of Jackson County. Flatwoods are characterized by
various species of pine, including slash, loblolly, and longleaf. Commonly encountered hardwoods
and shrubs include Quercus nigra (water oak), Quercus virginiana (live oak), Magnolia spp.
24 Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
(magnolias and bay trees), Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle), Ilex spp. (hollies), and Cyrilla racemiflora
(titi). The flatwoods ecosystems provide important habitat for neotropical birds and wood ducks.
A gradient effect occurs from the flatwoods to the marsh. As this occurs, the coastal area widens into
floodplain swamps dominated by Taxodium distichum (southern bald cypress), Nysssa aquatica
(black gum), Carya spp. (hickories), and Acer rubrum, (red maple). These bottomland hardwood
swamps provide feeding and resting habitat for a variety of waterfowl, including mallards, green-winged
teal, and blue-winged teal, along with other species.
In the northernmost marshes, there are isolated pockets and fringes of freshwater marsh dominated
by freshwater herbaceous plant species such as Pontederia spp. (pickerel weed), Typha spp.
(cattail), and Sagittaria spp. (arrowhead). Further south, intermediate or brackish marshes exist
where tidal influence is constant. Saline marsh vegetation found along the coastal area includes
Juncus roemerianus (black needlerush), and Spartina spp. (cordgrasses). This area supports a
number of open water ducks, including canvasback, American wigeon, gadwalls, and shovelers.
Figure 5 depicts the major vegetation communities and habitats of Grand Bay NWR.
Pine Savannas
Pine savannas are open, nearly treeless fire-dependent plant communities dominated by a well-developed
ground cover, some low-growing shrubs with only scattered trees (Pinus palustris and
P. elliotii) trees with pond cypress (Taxodium) in wet areas. More specifically, ground cover is
95–100 percent, shrub cover is 0–20 percent (10 percent desired max), and overstory cover is
under 10 percent. Frequent surface fires that are carried principally by graminoids inhibit woody
plant growth and maintain the characteristic openness of the savannas. The fire return interval is
about 2–3 years on average.
The ground-level plant community is highly species-rich and consists of grasses (Aristida, Ctenium,
Muhlenbergia, Dicanthelium, Schiazachyrium), sedges (Dichromena, Rhynchospora, Scleria,
Fuirena), and rushes (Juncus spp.), interspersed with a highly diverse number of forbs, including
Aletris, Aster, Balduina, Bigelowia, Calopogon, Carphephorus, Coreopsis, Eriocaulon, Eryngium,
Eupatorium, Helianthus, Hypoxis, Lachnanthes, Ludwigia, Lobelia, Lophiola, Phlox, Polygala, Rhexia,
Sabatia, Solidago, Tofieldia, Viola, Xyris, and Zigadenus. The ground level also features several
insectivorous plants such as pitcher plants (Sarracenia spp.), sundews (Drosera spp.), bladderworts
(Utricularia spp.), and butterworts (Pinguicula spp.). There are low-growing shrubs including
Gaylussacia, Hypericum, and Vaccinium as well as taller-growing species like Ilex, Cyrilla, Lyonia,
Clethra, Myrica that are kept low by regular fire.
Wet pine savannas are one of the most endangered ecosystems in North America; only 3–5 percent
of the original area remains. They also contain the highest ground cover species packing rates (i.e.,
species diversity) yet described. The differences between mesic and wet savannas are mainly a
matter of wetness.
Mesic Pine Savanna
Mesic pine savanna is found on generally nonhydric soils on slightly elevated ridges and flats with
convex surfaces. There is a greater number of nonhydric indicators than in wet savannas.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Figure 5. Vegetation communities at Grand Bay NWR (based on National Wetlands Inventory)
26 Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Wet Pine Savanna
Wet pine savanna is found generally on hydric soils, more poorly drained than the mesic savannas,
with long periods (days or weeks) of soil saturation; soils are generally wet at the surface. They
contain widely spaced pond cypresses (Taxodium distichum) and sometimes swamp tupelos, slash
pines, and other hydric trees. Sedges are generally much more abundant than grasses. They
experience surface fires with the same frequency as mesic savannas.
Pine Flatwoods
Pine flatwoods are open park-like pine woodlands dominated by a low and species-rich turf of
grasses, forbs, and small shrubs. Clewell and Raymond (1995) assert that the term “flatwoods” has
little ecological significance, since the only difference between flatwoods and savannas are that once
the former is clear-cut, it becomes the latter de-facto. In other words, flatwoods are savannas with a
higher overstory cover. Thus, flatwoods and savannas are “merely different expressions of the same
ecosystem.” This may be true, but refuge managers still find it useful to maintain flatwoods as a
habitat category in order to track habitat restoration efforts. It is a major management goal to convert
flatwoods to savannas through a combination of thinning and fire.
Scattered longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) and clumps of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) are
considered conspicuous but not abundant. Mid-story hardwoods such as bluejack oak may occur as
scattered individuals on better-drained soils. Soils are well oxygenated relative to other communities.
More specifically, overstory cover is 50–75 percent, mid-understory 25–50 percent, and ground cover
60–100 percent. Surface fires with a return interval of about two years maintain the open character.
Grasses are the principal fuel, along with pine straw. Surface fires inhibit the establishment of trees,
shrubs, and woody vines that would otherwise replace grasses and forbs. The differences between
mesic and wet flatwoods are mainly a matter of wetness.
Mesic Pine Flatwoods
Mesic pine flatwoods are found on nonhydric soils and have a greater number of mesic herbaceous
species than wet flatwoods. They are similar to wet pine savannas in physical aspects but have a
greater abundance of woody plants cover and less herbaceous cover.
Mixed (pine-hardwood) Forests
Mixed pine-hardwood forests became established in small colonies in fire-protected areas on better
drained soils. Hardwood tree species include several species of oaks (Quercus spp.).
Wet Pine Flatwoods
Wet pine flatwoods are found on wetter soils than mesic flatwoods and have a greater number of hydric
herbaceous species. Although similar to wet pine savannas in species composition and wetter sites,
they differ in having a greater number of pines and woody plants and fewer herbaceous species.
Pine Scrub
Pine scrub habitats are former “flatwoods” or savannas or even planted pine plantations that have
degraded and become overgrown with woody vegetation due to silviculture and/or fire suppression.
Clewell and Raymond (1995) labeled this hodgepodge “Pinelands and Brush.” Brush 1–3 meters or
taller has overtopped the herbaceous component and become dominant. The herbaceous ground
cover decreases at the expense of the increase in woody vegetation growth. The shrub component
includes the gallberry species inkberry (Ilex glabra), large gallberry (Ilex coriacea), and youpan (Ilex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
vomitoria), as well as titi, fetterbrush, wax myrtle, blackberry (Rubus argutus), and sweet pepperbush.
Overstory and mid-understory cover both exceed 15 percent and ground cover 0–20 percent.
Short Scrub
Short scrub is characterized by a shrub layer below two meters in height.
Tall Scrub
Tall scrub has not experienced recent fire and is characterized by a shrub midstory and understory.
Hydric Drains or Swamps
Hydric drains or swamps are forested wetlands that occupy low gradient drains through the
savannas. Gradients are slight and stream flow is diffuse. Soils are hydric and contain much organic
matter. Vegetation is dominated by midstory and overstory trees above a shrub layer and a sparse
herbaceous ground layer dominated by sedges and even peat moss mats. Overstory cover is 75–
100 percent, mid/understory 40–100 percent, and ground cover 10–60 percent. Common trees
include cypress (Taxodium spp), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), swamp bay (Perseus palustris), titi
(Cyrilla racemiflora, Cliftonia monophylla), slash pine, swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), red maple (Acer
rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and bottomland oaks. Important shrubs include several
Ilex spp., wax myrtle (Myrica spp.), titi, fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), sweet pepperbrush (Clethra
alnifolia) and poison sumac (Toxicodendron vernix) Characteristic herbs include Carex spp,
beakrushes (Rhynchospora spp.) and ferns. Although surface fires are frequent, they are less
destructive to hydric trees owing to wetter site conditions.
Cypress-Tupelo Drains
Cypress-tupelo drains occupy broad flat depressional areas lacking clearly defined drainage ways.
Fires are not uncommon. Pond cypress, swamp tupelo, red maple, and sweet bay are common trees
in the overstory. The midstory consists of hollies and overstory saplings. The ground cover consists
of sedges and ferns.
Forested Bayheads
Forested bayheads occupy flat topography upstream from cypress-tupelo drains with narrow
5–10m), well defined drainage ways. Fires are rarer here. The vegetation is like cypress-tupelo
drains but sweet bay is more abundant and the midstory is far denser and contains titi, swamp bay,
fetterbush, and large gallberry. There may be several grasses in the ground cover (USFWS 2005).
Estuarine or Tidal Marshes
Estuarine or tidal marshes comprise 40 percent of the refuge. The water is fresh or slightly brackish.
The most common tidal marsh species include sawgrass (Cladium jamaicensis) which dominates the
vegetation. Sawgrass and a few other species occupy perennially saturated soils that sustain only
hydrophilic trees like pond cypress (USFWS 2005).
Bald Cypress/Black Gum Swamp and Bog
Bald cypress/black gum swamp and bog are found in the mid-reaches of the Escatawpa River. This
area appears to be tidal. The swamp portion lies adjacent to the river, with generally bare substrate
between the trees. With distance from the river and a concomitant increase in elevation (10–15 cm),
the ground grades into a Sphagnum moss covered bog that includes pitcher plants (Sarracenia),
28 Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
sundews (Drosera), yellowed eyed grass (Xyris), and pipewort (Eriocaulon). This habitat type
appears to be typical of the broader ecosystem along this stretch of the river. Downstream, the
cypress swamp intermixes with sawgrass-dominated marsh habitat.
The Escatawpa River Swamp is composed of a mixture of cypress, sawgrass (Cladium) marsh, and
water-lily pond habitat. The cypress swamp grades gradually into the sawgrass, with scattered
cypress trees in the marsh. The marsh is dominated almost entirely of sawgrass (Cladium
jamaicense) (MDMR 1998a).
Invasive Plants
Invasive plants infest the refuge, particularly along roadsides and ditches where disturbances occur
most frequently. The most common invasive species are torpedo grass (Panicum repens), Japanese
climbing fern (Lygodium japonica), cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), and the Chinese tallow tree
(Triadica sebrifera). Cogongrass and the Chinese tallow tree are of the most immediate concern. Both
species are very aggressive with expanding populations. Steps are being taken to determine the extent
of infestation. The cogongrass is of particular concern because it reproduces both sexually and
asexually. It is also fire-tolerant and shows a favorable growth response when soil is disturbed. These
characteristics of cogongrass make it difficult to manage and control.
WILDLIFE
Waterfowl
The refuge represents an important wintering ground for migratory waterfowl. There have been 28
species of waterfowl observed using the refuge’s diverse habitats. These species include American
black duck, American wigeon, blue-winged teal, bufflehead, Canada goose, canvasback, common
goldeneye, common merganser, gadwall, greater scaup, greater white-fronted goose, green-winged
teal, hooded merganser, lesser scaup, mallard, mottled duck, northern pintail, northern shoveler, old
squaw, red-breasted merganser, redhead, ring-necked duck, Ross’s goose, ruddy duck, snow goose,
surf scoter, and wood duck.
The most common waterfowl species at Grand Bay NWR are northern shoveler, blue-winged teal,
green-winged teal, ruddy duck, and lesser scaup.
Wood ducks and mottled ducks are the only resident waterfowl at Grand Bay NWR. Wood ducks
nest in the bottomland hardwood/bay gum swamps found on the Escatawpa River system and in the
interior portions of the refuge. Mottled ducks nest in the tidal marshes on the southern most-areas of
the refuge (USFWS 2005).
Landbirds
Many species of songbirds are experiencing long-term declines as a result of widespread habitat
loss, particularly bottomland forests and riparian woodlands, as well as early successional habitats
such as grasslands and scrub habitats that exist on Grand Bay NWR. A large variety of neotropical
migratory songbirds are common in the refuge. Some common year-round residents include the
Carolina chickadee, tufted titmouse, northern mockingbird, and red-winged blackbird. Yellow-belled
sapsuckers, white-eyed vireo, hermit thrush, yellow-rumped warbler and white-throated sparrow are
some birds common in the winter.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Raptors
Sixteen species of diurnal raptors and four owl species are believed to be found using the refuge’s
savanna habitats. Ospreys, red-shouldered hawks, red-tailed hawks, eastern screech owls, and
great horned owls nest on the refuge. Bald and golden eagles have been observed in fall and winter
around refuge ponds and shallow water areas.
Shorebirds
Shorebirds migrate through the Central Gulf Ecosystem (CGE) from the southernmost parts of South
America to the northernmost part of North America. They typically probe in soft mud (mudflats) and
shallow water for worms and small crustaceans. In the CGE these birds generally move through
during spring and fall, foraging as they migrate. They may only spend 10 days in the CGE. Few
shorebirds overwinter or nest in the summer in the CGE. Habitat is generally more limited during
their fall migration in the CGE than the spring. Shorebirds observed on the refuge during recent
surveys include killdeer, willets, least sandpipers, lesser yellowlegs, black-necked stilts, pectoral
sandpipers, solitary sandpipers, peeps, and common snipes.
Woodcocks are showing significant long-term declines in the eastern United States. Habitat loss,
including the loss of nocturnal wintering habitat is likely a factor. Since mature bottomland
hardwoods are lacking on the refuge, birds may use old fields as nighttime foraging habitat.
Wading and Marsh Birds
Many species of wading and marsh birds use the savanna and marsh habitats at Grand Bay. These
include species such as American bittern, American coot, American white pelican, anhinga, black rail,
black-crowned night heron, cattle egret, common loon, common moorhen, double-crested cormorant,
eared grebe, glossy ibis, great blue heron, great egret, green heron, horned grebe, king rail, least
bittern, little blue heron, pied-billed grebe, purple gallinule, snowy egret, sora, tri-colored heron,
Virginia rail, white ibis, white-faced ibis, yellow rail, and yellow-crowned night heron.
Grassland Birds
Given the precipitous drop in fire-maintained savanna and grassland habitats in the southeastern
coastal plain, it is not surprising that several species of disturbance-dependent birds are declining.
Most of these species are benefiting from current refuge management activities such as frequent
prescribed fire.
Declining grassland (and associated habitat) bird species found on Grand Bay NWR of conservation
importance are as follows: Bachman’s sparrow, Henslow’s sparrow, brown-headed nuthatch,
American swallow-tailed kite, southeastern American kestrel, prairie warbler, chuck-will’s widow,
northern bobwhite, red-headed woodpecker, American woodcock, sedge wren, loggerhead shrike
and the northern harrier.
The Henslow’s sparrow may be one of the most vulnerable species (Hunter et al., 2001) due to its
area sensitivity and selection of frequently burned areas (Chandler and Woodrey 1995). Henslow’s
sparrows favor recently burned refuge savannas (Thatcher 1994).
Other non-grassland conservation priority birds using the refuge include chuck-will’s widow and
swallow-tailed kites; the latter are observed over the savannas in March.
30 Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Mammals
Although no white-tailed deer population survey has been conducted to date, general observations
and available habitat indicate a stable population on the refuge (USFWS 2005).
Swamp and cottontail rabbits appear to be abundant. Fox and gray squirrels are limited due to the
lack of mature bottomland hardwood forests.
A number of fur-bearers, including nutria, raccoon, mink, opossum, coyote, bobcat, beaver, muskrat
and river otter are found on the refuge. Beaver, muskrat, river otter, nutria and mink are associated
with the more permanently inundated wetlands and bayous. The raccoon is well-adapted to all
existing habitats. Opossums, coyotes, and bobcats are mostly associated with the drier areas of the
refuge. At this time, there are not enough survey data available to provide population estimates for
these species.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Amphibian management and conservation are of great interest due to apparent global amphibian
declines. Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation appear to be the primary factors in the
declines. This group of animals requires quality wetland habitat for their survival and they also serve
as important indicators of environmental health. A number of species of reptiles and amphibians
occur on the refuge, including those listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Amphibians and reptiles at Grand Bay NWR
Amphibians Reptiles-Turtles and
Crocodilians Reptiles-Lizards and Snakes
Southern cricket frog American alligator# Eastern slender Glass Lizard#
Oak toad Graptemys unidentified # Eastern Glass lizard*
Southern toad* Common snapping turtle# Southern fence lizard#
Gulf Coast toad* Alligator snapping turtle# Green anole#
Eastern narrowmouth toad* Eastern mud turtle# Southern coal skink#
Bird-voiced treefrog* River cooter# Five-lined skink#
Cope’s Gray treefrog# Mississippi redbelly turtle# Southeastern five-lined skink#
Green treefrog Gulf Coast box turtle# Ground skink#
Pinewoods treefrog Three-toed box turtle# Six-lined racerunner#
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Amphibians Reptiles-Turtles and
Crocodilians Reptiles-Lizards and Snakes
Barking treefrog Red-eared slider# Northern scarlet snake#
Squirrel treefrog Southern black racer#
Gray treefrog Corn snake#
Spring peeper* Gray rat snake#
Southern chorus frog* Rainbow snake
Crawfish frog Western mud snake#
Pickerel frog Eastern hognose snake#
Southern Leopard frog* Speckled kingsnake#
Bullfrog Scarlet kingsnake
Bronze frog Eastern coachwhip
Pig frog Green water snake#
One-toed amphiuma# Broad-banded water snake#
Two-toed amphiuma# Banded water snake#
Dwarf salamander# Rough green snake#
Eastern Lesser siren# Black pine snake*
Gulf crayfish snake#
Pinewoods snake*
Eastern ribbon snake#
Western earth snake#
32 Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Amphibians Reptiles-Turtles and
Crocodilians Reptiles-Lizards and Snakes
Southern copperhead*
Western cottonmouth#
Eastern diamondback rattle
snake*
Dusky pygmy rattle snake*
Italics on survey, *incidental, #TNC survey, rest: expected
Threatened and Endangered Species
Gopher tortoises occur on the Alabama portions of the refuge. Alligators are common on the refuge.
Brown pelicans are found in southern estuarine areas of the refuge near the coast. Manatees, an
endangered species, are an occasional visitor to the refuge. The endangered red-cockaded
woodpecker is not found on the refuge (USFWS 2005).
Invasive Animals
The major invasive wildlife species on the refuge is the nutria (Myocastor coypus), a large, semi-aquatic
rodent originally introduced from South America in the 1930s for its fur. When the market for
nutria fur collapsed in the 1940s, thousands of the animals were released into the wild by ranchers
who could no longer afford to raise them. Also, entrepreneurs began selling them to control noxious
weeds. Even wildlife agencies became involved in their introduction and naturalization in the United
States, by introducing the species into new areas. Belatedly, it was learned that while nutria did
devour weeds and overabundant vegetation, they also destroyed aquatic vegetation, crops, and
wetland areas (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 2005; National Invasive Species
Information Center 2006).
Nutria are most common in the Gulf Coast states, but they also pose a problem in other southeastern
states and along the Atlantic seaboard. In addition to damaging vegetation and crops, nutria can
destroy the banks of ditches, lakes, and other water bodies. However, their worst potential impact is
the permanent damage they can cause to marshes and other wetlands by feeding on native
vegetation that binds the wetland soils together. The destruction of this vegetation may exacerbate
the ongoing loss of coastal marshes set into motion by rising sea levels (Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service 2005).
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources include historic properties as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), cultural items as defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA), archaeological resources as defined in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act
(ARPA), sacred sites as defined in Executive Order 13007, Protection and Accommodation of
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Access to "Indian Sacred Sites" to which access is provided under the American Indian Religious
Freedom Act (AIRFA), and collections. As defined by the NHPA, a historic property or historic
resource is any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible
for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including any artifacts, records, and
remains that are related to and located in such properties. The term also includes properties of
traditional religious and cultural importance (traditional cultural properties), which are eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP as a result of their association with the cultural practices or beliefs of an
American Indian tribe. Archaeological resources include any material of human life or activities that
is at least 100 years old, and that is of archaeological interest.
Between 25,000 and 30,000 Indians are believed to have inhabited the area now encompassed by the
State of Mississippi when the Spanish explorer Hernando De Soto first discovered the Mississippi River
in 1541. The principal tribes were the Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Natchez. Much later, in 1682, French
explorers descended the Mississippi, claiming the entire Mississippi Valley for France, including the
future State of Mississippi. French settlers first arrived in 1699, followed in 1716 by another near
present-day Natchez. African slaves were first brought to Mississippi in 1719 to work in rice and
tobacco fields. All French possessions east of the Mississippi River were ceded to the British in 1763,
and a few years later, after the Revolutionary War, to the United States. Spain retained control of the
area below the 31st parallel as West Florida until 1810 (U-S-History.com n.d.).
In 1817, Congress divided the Mississippi Territory into two parts: the Territory of Alabama to the east
and the State of Mississippi to the west. The state capital was located in various cities until Jackson
was selected permanently in 1822. Most of Mississippi’s Indian tribes were gradually forced off their
land and onto reservations in Indian Territory, now Oklahoma. The land they left was often ideally
suited for cotton farming, which had grown greatly since Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in
1793. Mississippi became one of the wealthiest states in the nation, with an agricultural economy
based on slavery and the export of cotton (U-S-History.com n.d.).
Southeastern coastal Mississippi had long been settled and used by humans, in good part because
of its mild winters and abundant fish and wildlife resources. Prior to European settlement, a number
of Indian tribes inhabited the area in the vicinity of the refuge. In the Mobile Bay-Delta Region, the
so-named Pensacola Culture flourished prior to European contact. This culture, which was marked
by elaborate ceramics, was practiced by two of many resident tribes of the area, the Mobile and the
Tahome. These tribes, along with the Choctaw and the Naniabas, were the tribes met by De Soto
between 1540 and 1541. Indigenous interests in the region were officially terminated with the ceding
of Choctaw lands in 1830, relegating them to “squatters” after centuries of at times productive, but
most often uneasy or explosive coexistence with Europeans and their descendants. Nearly all
indigenous people had disappeared from Alabama by the time of the Choctaw cession as a result of
disease, warfare, and migration.
Another local tribe, the Biloxi, is known from its earliest historical location on the lower reaches of the
Pascagoula River. Individuals belonging to the tribe were met by Iberville on his first expedition to
Louisiana in 1699, and in June of the same year his brother Bienville visited them. In 1700 Iberville
found their town abandoned and does not mention encountering the people themselves, though they
may have been sharing the Pascagoula village at which he made a short stop. A few years later, the
Biloxi were said to have abandoned their village and settled on a small bayou near New Orleans. By
1722 they had returned a considerable distance toward their old home and were established on the
former terrain of the Acolapissa Indians on the Pearl River (Access Genealogy 2005).
Later in the eighteenth century, the Biloxi moved to Louisiana and settled not far from Marksville.
They soon moved farther up Red River and still later to Bayou Boeuf. Early in the nineteenth century
34 Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
they sold their lands, and, while part of them remained on the river, a large number migrated to Texas
and settled on Biloxi Bayou, in Angelina County. All eventually left, either to return to Louisiana or to
settle in Oklahoma. A few Biloxi are still living in Rapides Parish, LA., and there are said to be some
in the Choctaw Nation, but the tribe is now virtually extinct. Their name survives in the coastal town
of Biloxi. The Siouan origin of the Biloxi language, unusual in this area, was established in 1886 by
Dr. Gatschet of the Bureau of American Ethnology, and a considerable record of it was obtained by
James O. Dorsey of the same institution in 1892–93.
Yet another small tribe that inhabited the general area in the vicinity of the refuge was the
Pascagoula, who lived along the river that still bears its name. They were closely associated with the
Biloxi Indians, and are believed to have eventually been absorbed by the Biloxi and/or the Choctaw
(Access Genealogy 2005). A colorful legend has it that members of the Pascagoula nation linked
hands and walked into the Pascagoula River, drowning rather than be taken captive by hostile Indian
tribes; their mournful death chant earned the Pascagoula the nickname “Singing River” (MDWFP
n.d.b). Today the name Singing River graces schools, credit unions, hospitals, and even yacht clubs
and kennels in the area, commemorating the legend.
Many aboriginal earth and shell middens are located in the vicinity of Grand Bay NWR. The majority
are multi-component earth and shell accumulations, products of hundreds of years of use as
seasonal encampments and food processing sites. They are found principally along the remnant
river levees of the historical Escatawpa River channel, now known as the Bayou Cumbest, Crooked
Bayou, and Heron Bayou systems (MDMR 1998b).
By the late 1990s, at least six archaeological or cultural resource surveys had been conducted in
the Grand Bay area, though most of these surveys did not contribute new knowledge about the
region’s past (MDMR 1998b). To date, the refuge has not been systematically surveyed for
cultural and archaeological resources, but the presence of additional prehistoric and/or historic
resources would be expected.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Grand Bay NWR is located mostly within Jackson County, Mississippi, a coastal county in the
extreme southeastern corner of the state, bordering Alabama. A portion of the refuge lies in Mobile
County, Alabama; the city of Mobile itself lies 20 miles to the east. A rapidly developing string of
coastal towns and small cities (at least until Hurricane Katrina struck in August 2005) are just to the
west of the refuge, including Gulfport, Biloxi, Ocean Springs, Gautier, and Pascagoula.
Jackson County is three times more densely populated than the state (181 persons per square mile
vs. 61 persons per square mile) and growing faster. In 2003, the county’s estimated population was
133,928, about five percent of Mississippi’s population of 2,881,281 (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). The
county population grew by 1.9 percent from 2000 to 2003, compared to Mississippi’s 1.3 percent
growth in the same three years. From 1990 to 2000, Jackson County grew 14 percent compared to
Mississippi’s 10.5 percent in the same decade.
In terms of race and ethnicity, whites and blacks dominate both the county and the state populations.
Jackson County is 75 percent white and 21 percent black (96 percent white and black combined)
while Mississippi is 61 percent white and 36 percent black (97 percent white and black combined).
Other minorities make up much smaller percentages of the county and state populations: Asians 1.6
percent of the county and 0.7 percent of the state; American Indians 0.3 percent county and 0.4
percent state; and Latinos or Hispanics 2.1 percent of the county and 1.4 percent of the state (all
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
figures from 2000 Census). Foreign-born persons accounted for 2.7 percent of the county population
in 2000 and a language other than English was spoken in five percent of homes that same year.
Educational attainment in the county is similar to that of the state: 81 percent of the county population
25 years and older holds a high school diploma and 17 percent a Bachelor’s degree, compared to 73
percent and 17 percent, respectively, for the state (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). The median
household income in 1999 was $39,118 for the county and $31,330 for the state, while 13 percent of
the county population and 20 percent of the state population lived below the poverty line.
Over the last decade, residential and commercial development has been proceeding rapidly in the
coastal portion of Jackson County, Mississippi, converting forest plantations and farm fields into
developed lots with houses, businesses, and institutions. Open space and habitat are becoming
more and more fragmented. This development is expected to continue over the foreseeable future, in
part because of the desirability of living in a coastal county with beach and ocean access. However,
recent recommendations by the Pentagon, if acted upon by the Base Realignment and Closure
Commission (BRAC), could temporarily reverse this trend. BRAC is charged with streamlining U.S.
military bases and operations around the country. The Pentagon has recommended the closure of
the Pascagoula Naval Station with a loss of 844 military personnel, 112 civilian workers, and 7
contractors. In addition, the 81st Medical Group at Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi (in neighboring
Harrison County) is recommended for restructuring, with an associated reduction of 181 military, 31
civilian, and 190 contractor positions (Anon. 2005a). These recommendations were scheduled for
delivery to the President in September 2005, and to be sent to Congress shortly thereafter. The
Pentagon would then have six years to close, relocate, or downsize bases on the final list.
There is growing awareness of the economic potential of ecotourism on the part of governments
and business interests in the area (Anon. 2005b). Jackson County conducted the Pascagoula
River Ecotourism Study in 2002–2003. The Gautier Economic Development Council formed an
Ecotourism Planning Committee which published an “Ecotourism Master Plan” in 2004 (Gautier
Economic Development Council 2004). This plan acknowledges Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR
as one of the premier local nature destinations that can attract tourists to the area for outdoor
activities. Other local attractions are Shepard State Park (MDWFP), Pascagoula River Marsh
(MDMR), Indian Point Campground and Recreational Vehicle Resort (privately owned), and Alf
Dantzler Wildlife Preserve (MDMR). The plan also presented a marketing strategy.
In late August 2005, Category 3 Hurricane Katrina slammed into Jackson County and coastal
Mississippi, wreaking catastrophic destruction on human life and property. As of December 11,
2005, the confirmed death toll in Jackson County, alone, stood at 12, at 230 for Mississippi as a
whole, and at least 1,383 altogether (most of which were in Louisiana). Hurricane Katrina was
the most costly natural disaster in U.S. history. Its economic impact extends not just to the
destruction of homes, businesses, and infrastructure, but to widespread and long-lasting adverse
impacts on unemployment, oil production, the Mississippi gambling industry, agriculture and
forestry, fisheries and aquaculture, tax revenues, and bankruptcies (Congressional Budget Office
2005). Reconstruction and recovery will take years or decades.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
As a relatively new refuge with only one full-time staff person (the refuge manager), active management
of wildlife and habitats as well as visitor services has been somewhat constrained to date. Refuge
management cooperates extensively with the Grand Bay NERR staff in a number of ways.
36 Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
A major focus for Grand Bay NWR management has been acquiring lands from willing sellers within
the authorized acquisition boundary. The refuge was established in 1992 with an original acquisition
boundary of 12,100 acres. In 1997, a 2,700-acre expansion was approved to bring under
management a section of the scenic Escatawpa River. In 2003, a 665-acre expansion was approved
to conserve valuable nearshore barrier islands habitat and enable the Service to acquire a small tract
with a metal storage building, which could be utilized as a refuge maintenance facility. This brought
the total acreage within the acquisition boundary to 15,465 acres. To date, the Service has acquired
a total of 10,188 acres (66 percent of the lands available) within this boundary.
There is no active waterfowl or other migratory bird management at present. Observations of
threatened and endangered species on the refuge are documented; however, no active efforts to
inventory or survey other wildlife are being made.
Wet pine savanna, one of the key habitats present at Grand Bay NWR, is actively managed. The
refuge maintains approximately 1,000 acres of wet pine savanna, primarily through an active
prescribed fire program using fire management staff stationed at the nearby Mississippi Sandhill
Crane NWR. Prescribed fire is utilized both to manage habitat and to reduce hazardous fuels.
The refuge aims to set prescribed fires on a 2–3 year rotation. All wildfires are actively
suppressed. The average fire size at Grand Bay NWR is 79 acres, compared to 59 acres at
Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR; 20 percent of the Grand Bay NWR fires reach 100 acres or
more, compared to 13 percent at Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR (USFWS 2005).
Some effort is being made to contain the spread of invasive plants on the refuge. In partnership with
the Grand Bay NERR, the staff annually controls 20–30 acres of cogongrass and Chinese tallow.
The refuge also cooperates with NERR to protect Grand Bay’s most significant known cultural
resource—the shell middens mentioned earlier. Law enforcement functions are accomplished with
the assistance of one law enforcement officer shared with Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR and Bon
Secour NWR, the other refuges in the complex.
VISITOR SERVICES
The refuge receives about 700 visitors annually. Wildlife observation and photography, hunting
(waterfowl, mourning doves, white-tailed deer, and feral hogs), and boating in tidal marshes are the
managed recreational uses of Grand Bay NWR. The refuge boundary is marked with boundary
signs, although many are fading and need to be replaced. No directional signs are posted off of
Interstate 10 leading to the refuge, but signs are planned after the opening of new visitor facilities. No
directional signs are posted on any of the trails. All refuge roads open to the public are either paved
or gravel. Bayou Heron Road and Pecan Road together are about 3 miles in length. Jackson County
maintains the 3-mile entrance road into the existing headquarters area, which has a gravel parking
area that can accommodate 10–15 vehicles. The refuge office is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and is
shared with the Grand Bay NERR staff (USFWS 2004).
At present, Grand Bay NWR provides visitor services without the guidance of a Visitor Services Plan.
This plan will be developed as a step-down management plan to the CCP. The refuge lacks full-time
staff dedicated to managing visitor services, volunteers, and outreach services. Until this expertise is
provided on the refuge, staff will have to provide these services as a collateral duty.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
In partnership with Grand Bay NERR, the refuge is in the process of developing a new joint research,
office, and education facility/visitor center to provide benefits to refuge visitors. This center will be
located near the existing office complex alongside Bayou Heron Road. Building plans had already
been prepared when Hurricane Katrina struck in August 2005, resulting in a delay because the plans
had to be revised to raise the proposed building by several additional feet to provide greater security
and safety in the event of future hurricanes and flooding.
Hunting
A hunt plan was approved for Grand Bay NWR in 1999 and the hunting program actually began in
2001. The refuge currently offers hunting for white-tailed deer, feral hogs, squirrel, geese, ducks,
coots, and mourning doves on designated areas, subject to state regulations and conditions outlined
in the refuge’s Hunting Regulations brochure. These hunts are non-quota and require a signed
refuge hunt regulations brochure and permit, which is available at the Grand Bay NWR office.
This is currently a small hunting program. Commercial guides are not allowed. Law
enforcement on the refuge has been minimal; the Gulf Coast NWR Complex (three refuges)
shares a single law enforcement officer. The MDMR enforces marine laws and regulations in
the coastal navigable waters of the refuge. There are no hunter check stations on the refuge.
Hunters are currently allowed access to the Oak Grove birding trail, which may create potential
user conflicts and safety issues with nonconsumptive trail users. The following hunting
programs are available at Grand Bay NWR:
Waterfowl Season. The refuge is open to waterfowl hunting in Alabama and Mississippi in
designated areas and in accordance with each state’s season. Hunting is allowed from sunrise to
noon on Saturday, Sunday, Wednesday, and Thursday; the refuge is closed to waterfowl hunting
on Monday, Tuesday, and Friday. All decoys must be retrieved by 1 p.m. and no permanent
blinds are allowed. Federally approved nontoxic shot is required for all waterfowl hunts. Dogs
are allowed to retrieve downed birds.
Big Game Season. The refuge is open to deer hunting with bow and arrow only during the state
hunting seasons for both Alabama and Mississippi. No crossbows are permitted and no
permanent stands are allowed. Also, hunting with the aid of bait, dogs, or poisonous arrows is
prohibited, as are organized deer drives.
Small Game Season. The refuge is open for squirrel hunting in Alabama and Mississippi in
accordance with each state���s season. Shotguns using number two or smaller shot size are allowed
and all shells must be federally approved nontoxic shot. The use of .22-caliber rimfire is allowed for
squirrel hunting only. The use of dogs is prohibited (USFWS 2004).
Fishing
The refuge provides diverse habitats of salt marshes, bayous, grass beds, etc., for the region’s
important commercial and recreational species of fish. These habitats serve as nursery areas as well
as breeding and feeding grounds for shrimp, red drum, speckled trout, blue crab, oysters, and crabs,
among other marine and aquatic organisms.
Excellent fishing opportunities are available on off-refuge lands and along the coastline, but it is
unclear from reading the refuge brochures and the web site, what opportunities exist and what
agencies are involved. A public boat launch facility and bank fishing area is located at the end of
Bayou Heron Road (USFWS 2004). A universally accessible fishing pier that is compliant with the
38 Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is adjacent to the boat launch, along with a resurfaced ADA-compliant
gravel parking area. The Service is cooperating with the MDMR to provide additional
safety and enforcement of fishing opportunities within the waters of Grand Bay NWR.
Wildlife Observation and Photography
Grand Bay NWR provides limited opportunities for wildlife observation. Birding is one of the most
popular forms of wildlife observation on the refuge, with viewing opportunities changing seasonally.
Viewing opportunities include wintering flocks of wading birds and waterfowl in the bayou and bay,
songbirds in the trees and shrubs, and harriers and hawks hunting over the savanna. Visitors may
also see other common wildlife such as white-tailed deer, raccoon, snakes, and frogs.
The refuge is working closely with the Grand Bay NERR to provide opportunities for wildlife
observation. There is currently an educational pavilion at the Bayou Heron boat launch that loosely
provides some wildlife observation and photography opportunities. The refuge also has the ½-mile
Oak Grove birding trail that provides some wildlife observation and photography opportunities. A
kiosk has been developed but not yet placed at the trailhead.
Currently, the Escatawpa Trail is being developed in partnership with the Mississippi Interstate
Welcome Center and a contractor to build the trail. A two-mile part boardwalk and part gravel trail is
under development at the Mississippi Interstate Welcome Center. Plans are underway to make this a
universally accessible trail and provide several benches for resting and wildlife viewing opportunities.
There are also plans to provide and construct parking areas near the trailhead. Once completed and
open to the public, the trail will provide wildlife observation and photography opportunities, particularly
at the Escatawpa River overlook. The Mississippi Department of Transportation is also constructing a
picnic pavilion near the trail entrance on land adjacent to the refuge. The trail surface will include an
ADA-compliant porous pavement and gravel boardwalk. Seven benches will be strategically placed
to increase wildlife observation opportunities for the visiting public.
The Grand Bay NERR has created a visitor’s field journal with mammal, bird, amphibian, butterfly,
reptile, and plant checklists for use by visitors to the Grand Bay NERR and the Grand Bay NWR.
Visitors with boats can use the Bayou Heron boat launch and pursue wildlife observation
opportunities in Gautier Bayou, Bayou Heron, and Grand Bay. Currently, there is no fee to use
the boat launch.
A “Bio Blitz” event was held in 2004 in partnership with the Grand Bay NERR. Researchers and
educators worked with over 100 volunteers and the general public viewing and inventorying wildlife.
Boat rides, canoe and kayak tours, sunrise birding cruises, night time owl banding and calling, and
birding were some of the main events.
The Grand Bay NERR is currently providing specialized group on-demand boat tours leaving from the
Bayou Heron boat launch. These tours promote education, wildlife observation and photography on
Grand Bay NWR and Grand Bay NERR. Currently, the refuge has no auto tour routes.
Environmental Education
The refuge has an environmental education program that is managed by the MDMR and the Grand
Bay NERR. The refuge manager provides offsite environmental education presentations to schools,
garden clubs, and organizations, as well as pre- and post-field trip briefings and participation in
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
National Wildlife Refuge Week. A primary goal of the Grand Bay NERR is to implement education
and resource management components.
About six million dollars were recently appropriated to provide facilities to support the Grand Bay
NERR. As noted above, an architectural firm was retained to design and build the new office and
visitor center, including a small exhibit area and library.
The refuge staff’s outreach endeavors include distribution of a general brochure. The refuge website
provides some information regarding refuge facts and management, vicinity maps, and directions.
Offsite participation in National Wildlife Refuge Week is the main event in which the refuge staff
participates. Grand Bay NERR mentions the partnership with Grand Bay NWR in its publications,
provides a link to the refuge’s website, and works extensively with the public, providing tours and
participating in special events such as festivals.
In terms of the local community, the refuge rarely communicates information relating to the purpose of
the refuge and its management activities, education, and research. The refuge does not publish
information relating to refuge habitats and management in local papers.
Interpretation
The Grand Bay NWR staff relies on the Grand Bay NERR staff to provide interpretation for the refuge.
The refuge manager participates in National Wildlife Refuge Week annually in October.
PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
At present, Grand Bay NWR has a staff of two: the refuge manager and one law enforcement officer
shared with two other refuges in the Gulf Coast NWR Complex.
As stated earlier in this CCP, the Grand Bay NERR partially overlays the refuge. This overlay and its
management are addressed in a memorandum of understanding with the Service. The Grand Bay NERR
staff is an important partner and full-time contributor to providing environmental education for the refuge.
The NERR’s core staff includes the reserve manager and education, research, and stewardship
coordinators. Refuge and NERR staff currently share temporary post-Katrina office space and will also
share the new headquarters, office, and visitor center building that is slated for construction in 2007.
The refuge has a newly acquired maintenance building and storage yard north of Interstate 10 on a
recently purchased tract. This site also serves as the office of the Law Enforcement Officer.
The Gulf Coast NWR Complex is headquartered at Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR 20 miles to the
west. The Complex project leader and biologist provide expertise and assistance in Grand Bay NWR
management. The fire staff is also located at Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR, and assists Grand
Bay NWR with wildfire suppression and prescribed burns.
40 Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
III. Plan Development
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS
In accordance with Service guidelines and NEPA recommendations, public involvement has been a
crucial factor throughout the development of the CCP for Grand Bay NWR. This CCP has been
written with input and assistance from interested citizens, conservation organizations, and employees
of local and state agencies. The participation of these stakeholders and their ideas has been of great
value in setting the management direction for Grand Bay NWR. The Service as a whole, and the
refuge staff, in particular, are very grateful to each one who has contributed time, expertise, and ideas
to the planning process. The staff remains impressed by the passion and commitment of so many
individuals for the lands and waters administered by the refuge.
Scoping is the gathering of input from a variety of internal and external sources on the identification of
key issues, concerns and opportunities that are likely to be associated with the conservation and
management of the refuge. Sources of internal scoping include the refuge staff and other Service
biologists and professionals. External scoping sources include concerned private citizens; research
and educational institutions; members of conservation, sportsmen, and civic groups; refuge
neighbors; citizens of the local community; and state, tribal, and local agencies. These various
interests are referred to collectively as “stakeholders,” that is, those individuals and groups that have
a stake in how the refuge is managed. In developing this CCP for Grand Bay NWR, the planning
team conducted both internal and external scoping.
The first step in developing the CCP was a biological review that took place during the week of
February 23–27, 2004. The biological review team included 17 Service biologists, managers,
foresters, and non-Service managers and biologists. The team members came from a variety of
agencies in addition to the Service, including Mississippi State University; the Grand Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve; Mississippi Department of Marine Resources; Mississippi Department
of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks; Museum of Natural Science; and the Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources.
The biological review involved onsite evaluations to assist the refuge in meeting its purpose and
determining the role(s) the refuge could play regarding its wildlife needs and objectives at various
geographical scales (local, ecosystem, regional, and national). The approach was to take a holistic
look at achieving refuge and landscape-level conservation needs, while still giving priority to
accomplishing the refuge’s originally established purpose. The team presented its recommendations
in a Biological Review Report (USFWS 2005). In keeping with the planning process, these
recommendations were made in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for t