Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
June 2010
Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
HOLLA BEND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Pope and Yell Counties, Arkansas
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
June 2010
Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 3
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 3
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 4
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 6
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 7
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 8
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 9
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 12
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 13
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 16
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 20
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 21
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 21
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 21
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 22
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 22
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 23
Water Quality and Quanity ................................................................................................ 23
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 24
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 24
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 26
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 27
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 27
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 31
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 31
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 31
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 35
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 37
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 37
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 38
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 39
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 41
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 41
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 42
ii Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................................................................................... 45
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 45
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 45
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 45
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 46
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 55
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 59
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 62
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 66
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................ 69
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 69
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 69
Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 69
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 70
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 73
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 74
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 77
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 78
Partnership/Volunteers Opportunities ........................................................................................ 83
Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 83
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 83
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 83
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................ 85
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ...................................................... 95
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................... 99
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................... 113
Summary of Public Scoping Comments ................................................................................... 113
Draft Plan Comments and Service Responses
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .............................................................. 123
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 133
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 155
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 159
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 161
Table of Contents iii
APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................... 179
Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ............................................................................... 179
APPENDIX K. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 161
APPENDIX L. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................. 161
iv Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................. 10
Figure 2. Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge Boundary and Location of
Migratory Bird Closure Zone ................................................................................................ 11
Figure 3. Location of Arkansas Valley (Level III Ecoregion 37) and Arkansas River Floodplain
(Level IV Ecoregion 37b) in Arkansas and Oklahoma ......................................................... 14
Figure 4. Proposed Future Staffing Requirements Organization Chart .............................................. 79
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Land cover patterns in the counties surrounding Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge ...... 15
Table 2. Agricultural land use in the counties surrounding Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge ..... 15
Table 3. Forest characteristics in the counties surrounding Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge ... 17
Table 4. Public lands within a 25-mile radius of Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge ...................... 18
Table 5. Distribution of land cover categories on Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge .................... 26
Table 6. Population distribution and growth in the counties surrounding Holla Bend
National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................................................... 28
Table 7. Population characteristics of the counties surrounding Holla Bend National
Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................................... 30
Table 8. Income and employment in the counties surrounding Holla Bend National
Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................................... 31
Table 9. Agricultural economy of the counties surrounding Holla Bend National
Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................................... 32
Table 10. Geographic trends in the percent of the population reported to participate in
various types of wildlife-dependent recreation. .................................................................. 33
Table 11. Summary of projects ........................................................................................................... 80
Table 12. Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans related to the
goals and objectives of this comprehensive conservation plan ......................................... 84
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
Executive Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) developed this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
to guide the management of Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Pope and Yell Counties,
Arkansas. The CCP outlines the refuge’s programs and corresponding resource needs for the next
15 years, as mandated by the National Wildlife System Improvement Act of 1997.
As part of the planning process, the Service conducted a biological review of the refuge’s wildlife and
habitat management program and a visitor services review of the refuge’s public use program. The
Service also held a public scoping and stakeholder meeting to solicit a wide range of public opinions
on the issues the CCP should address. The comments and feedback from this meeting, as well as
those from the biological and visitor services reviews, were considered and incorporated in the
preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft
CCP/EA). The Draft CCP/EA was completed and made available for public review and comment for
a period of 30 days, from January 8 to February 8, 2010.
The Service developed and analyzed four alternatives. Alternative A continues current management
strategies, with little or no change in budget or funding. Under this alternative, the Service would
protect, maintain, restore, and enhance 6,616 acres of refuge lands and 441 additional acres
included in a migratory bird closure area around the refuge, primarily focusing on the needs of
migratory waterfowl, with additional emphasis on the needs of resident wildlife, migratory non-game
birds, and threatened and endangered species. The Service would continue mandated activities for
protection of federally listed species. No refuge-led evaluation of resident wildlife populations would
be planned. Control of nuisance wildlife populations would be undertaken as necessary. Habitat
management efforts would be concentrated on moist soil management, waterfowl impoundments,
and crop production. The Service would continue to monitor acreage of invasive plants, and would
continue cooperative farming on 1,200 acres. The Service would maintain the current levels of
wildlife-dependent recreation activities (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental education and interpretation).
Alternative B reflects an increase in management of habitat and fish and wildlife populations. Under
this alternative, in addition to the activities described for Alternative A, the Service would develop
baseline inventories of refuge biota and habitat potential, including inventories for forest conditions,
aquatic biota, and suitable woodcock habitat. The Service would broaden the refuge’s focus on
migratory waterfowl to include objectives for forest-dwelling and early successional birds, shorebirds,
woodcock, colonial waterbirds, marsh birds, and wood ducks. In addition to continuing mandated
activities for protection of federally listed species, the refuge would develop a strategy to address
federally listed threatened and endangered species and state listed rare species. The refuge would
develop a database and monitor deer herd status, trends in wild turkey populations, and the presence
of waterbird rookeries. Data on nuisance wildlife would be collected and aggressive control
measures initiated. Wildlife-dependent recreation activities would be the same as for Alternative A.
Alternative C represents an increased focus on wildlife-dependent public uses, rather than the
increased emphasis on management of fish and wildlife populations and habitat described in
Alternative B. In addition to the activities described for Alternative A, under Alternative C, the Service
would increase wildlife-dependent recreation activities (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation).
2 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Alternative D reflects improving refuge operation by balancing enhanced habitat and fish and wildlife
population management and enhanced wildlife-dependent public use management. This adaptive
management alternative is basically concurrent implementation of selected enhancements from
Alternatives B and C, focusing on specific enhancements for which inherent linkages would result in
greater benefits to the refuge and surrounding area than simple addition of the benefits of each
enhancement implemented separately. For example, the baseline biological information developed under
Alternative B would be useful in identifying opportunities to improve visitor experiences, and the increased
volunteer support management developed under Alternative C would lead to increased efficiencies in
collecting data on biological resources and responses (e.g., nuisance and invasive species occurrence,
deer herd status, and evaluation of habitat management efforts) identified in Alternative B.
The Service selected Alternative D for implementation because it directs the development of
programs to best achieve the refuge’s purpose and goals; emphasizes a landscape approach to land
management; collects habitat and wildlife data; and ensures long-term achievement of refuge and
Service objectives. At the same time, its management actions provide balanced levels of compatible
public use opportunities consistent with existing laws, Service policies, and sound biological
principles. It provides the best mix of program elements to achieve the desired long-term conditions
within the anticipated funding and staffing levels, and positively addresses significant issues and
concerns expressed by the public.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was
prepared to guide management actions and direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife conservation
will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and
encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or
the purposes for which it was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. The Draft CCP/EA was
made available to state and federal government agencies, non-governmental organizations,
conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment. The comments from each
entity were considered in the development of this CCP, describing the Fish and Wildlife Service’s
preferred alternative.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the CCP is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge purpose;
attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to National Wildlife Refuge System
(Refuge System) mission; addresses key problems, issues and relevant mandates; and is consistent
with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the CCP is needed to:
 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System; and
 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved
with research and fish culture. The once-independent commission was renamed the Bureau of
Fisheries and placed under the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals
to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals so the name was changed to
the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
4 Holla Bend 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 Fish and Wildlife Service, working with others, is responsible for conserving, protecting, and
enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people
through Federal programs relating to migratory birds, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish and
marine mammals, and inland sport fisheries.
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 Refuge System. Actions were
initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public
involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and
recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved plans will serve as
the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement Act states that each
refuge shall be managed to:
 Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the Refuge System;
 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System; and
 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine
compatible public uses.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
The following are just a few examples of your 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 over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated
once-abundant herds. The drought conditions of the 1930s Dust Bowl severely depleted breeding
populations of ducks and geese. Refuges established during the Great Depression focused on
“waterfowl production areas” (i.e., protection of prairie wetlands in America’s heartland). The
emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes protection of wintering habitat in response
to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the Service had begun to focus on
establishing refuges for endangered species.
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, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife,
generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent
in seven 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 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
dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation
expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income.
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 comprehensive conservation plans be prepared in consultation
with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a
process to ensure an opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every
15 years) of the plans.
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 and other Service policies, guidelines, and planning documents.
6 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the Refuge System,
congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for
management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the
Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System
and management of the Holla Bend NWR are provided in Appendix C.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural
resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation
between Holla Bend NWR and other partners, such as the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture
(LMVJV), private landowners, etc.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened.
No refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use
that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or
detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All
programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the Improvement Act.
Those mandates are to:
 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses
are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. As priority public uses of the Refuge System they receive priority consideration over
other public uses in planning and management.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while
achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and
associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge
managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution to biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional
judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, refuge role within an
ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with others both inside
and outside the Service.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this 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 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
is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is
to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat.
Canada and the United States signed the plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of
waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of
federal, provincial/state and municipal governments, non-governmental organizations, private
companies, and many individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit
of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species and people. Plan projects are international in
scope, but implemented at regional levels. These projects contribute to the protection of habitat and
wildlife species across the North American landscape.
Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the
Ozark/Ouachitas physiographic area represents a scientifically based land bird conservation planning
effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native land birds, primarily non-game
land birds. Non-game land birds have been vastly under-represented in conservation efforts,
and many are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is voluntary and non-regulatory, and focuses
on relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be most effective, rather than
the frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort
throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird
species are restored and protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies,
organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country, and identifies conservation
goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach
programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face.
Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the
conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird
populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive
8 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
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 AGENCY
A provision of the Improvement Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure
timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other state fish and game agencies and tribal
governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas
and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the
overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species in the State of Arkansas.
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) is responsible for the control, management,
restoration, conservation, and regulation of birds, fish, game and wildlife resources of the state. The
mission of AGFC is “…to wisely manage all the fish and wildlife resources of Arkansas while
providing maximum enjoyment for the people.” AGFC oversees more than 280,000 acres of state-owned
Natural Areas and Wildlife Management Areas, and more than 100 natural and man-made
lakes. The agency manages habitat; stocks fish; develops management plans for important wildlife
species; and fosters good stewardship through a variety of education programs, information products,
and grants for conservation activities.
The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in
Arkansas. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common mission
objectives where appropriate.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Holla Bend NWR, established in 1957, is located about 6 miles southeast of the city of Dardanelle, in
Pope and Yell Counties in west central Arkansas (Figure 1). The refuge is situated on a meander in
the Arkansas River “Holla Bend” that was cut off when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
straightened the channel in 1954. The boundaries of the 6,616-acre refuge are roughly defined by
the main channel of the Arkansas River and the cutoff meander channel (Figure 2).
The principal focus of the refuge is on providing a wintering area for ducks and geese that use the
Arkansas River corridor as they migrate along the Mississippi and Central Flyways. The number of
waterfowl on the refuge in any given year varies depending on water levels and weather conditions
further along the flyways. However, it is not uncommon for the refuge to host up to 100,000 ducks
and geese at once during the winter months. Mallards are the most abundant, but at least 18 species
of ducks and four species of geese have been observed on the refuge.
More than 40,000 people visited the refuge in 2009. Almost half of these visitors came to the refuge
to watch wildlife, and the opportunity to view bald eagles is an important draw. The refuge also
provides opportunities for environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife photography. There
are opportunities for fishing and hunting as well, although these activities are limited to ensure that
they are compatible with refuge purposes.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
In the early 1900s, some 65 families farmed the bottomland soils of the Holla Bend area. From the
early 1920s through the Great Depression years, however, Arkansas farmers faced very difficult
economic conditions. The disastrous multi-state Flood of 1927 was especially devastating for the
farmers at Holla Bend because it destroyed the levee systems along the river and deposited a thick
layer of sand on the cropland. A major drought in 1930-31 was followed by additional floods in
subsequent years, and attempts to farm Holla Bend lands were largely abandoned by the mid-1930s.
Development of the Arkansas River for navigation and flood control was originally authorized under
the Rivers and Harbors Act in 1946. However, the immense sediment load carried by the river was a
major engineering obstacle because nearly continuous dredging would have been required to
maintain a navigable channel. After several years of study, the USACE implemented a plan to make
selected reaches of the channel narrower, deeper, and straighter so that the river would flow faster
and sediments would be flushed downstream rather than being deposited. In 1954, the USACE
excavated a new channel that cut through the neck of the Holla Bend meander. When the work was
completed, the USACE transferred the 4,068-acre Holla Bend cutoff site to the Service and Holla
Bend NWR was formally established in 1957. The refuge has acquired additional lands in the
intervening 50 years, and the fee title boundary presently includes 6,616 acres. The refuge also
manages 441 acres of a Migratory Bird Closure Zone outside the fee title boundary, for a total
managed area of 7,057 acres.
10 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Location of Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Figure 2. Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge Boundary and Location of Migratory Bird
Closure Zone
12 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
The purposes of Holla Bend NWR are identified in the legislation that authorized the acquisition
of lands:
 “… particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program.”
(Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act, 16 U.S.C. 667b);
 “… for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715d);
 “…for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and
wildlife resources…for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing
its activities and services.” [Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)]; and
 “…suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the
protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened
species…” (Refuge Recreation Act, 16 U.S.C. 460k – 460k-4).
These purposes provide the basis for developing and prioritizing management goals and
objectives within the Refuge System mission, and for determining which public uses are
compatible with the refuge purposes.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Migratory Bird Closure Zone
In 1958, under the authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, an area surrounding Holla Bend
NWR was designated as closed to the hunting or taking of migratory birds. The Migratory Bird
Closure Zone surrounded the original 4,068-acre area of the refuge and covered 2,732 acres along
the Arkansas River and the cutoff channel (Figure 2). The refuge manages 441 acres of the closure
zone that are outside the refuge fee title boundary.
Important Bird Area
The refuge is recognized by the National Audubon Society as an Important Bird Area (IBA) that
supports a federally listed species (the bald eagle [Haliaeetus leucocephalus], which was federally
listed as “Threatened” at the time that Holla Bend NWR was designated as an IBA; in July 2007, the
bald eagle population of the lower 48 states was ruled to be “recovered” and the species was
removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife), and an additional 23 species
considered to be “of conservation concern” at the state level. Audubon Arkansas also characterizes
the refuge as an “outstanding stopover site” for migrating landbirds.
Hog Thief Research Natural Area
A 100-acre tract of cottonwood-dominated bottomland forest in the northeast corner of the refuge is
formally designated as a Research Natural Area (RNA). The RNA serves as an experimental control
for tracking the effects of forest management activities elsewhere on the refuge, and also provides an
opportunity for researchers to document natural successional changes in this habitat as it matures.
There are no Biosphere Reserves, Wetlands of International Importance, National Wild and Scenic Rivers,
Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network sites, or Federal Wilderness Areas on the refuge.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
Ecosystem
In approaching its mission to conserve wildlife and their habitats throughout the country, the Service
has found it useful to divide the United States into 53 distinct ecosystems, drawn primarily along
watershed boundaries (Figure 3). Holla Bend NWR lies within the Arkansas/Red Rivers ecosystem
(#15). This ecosystem covers the 245,000-square-mile (mi2) watershed of the Arkansas River and
Red River basins and includes portions of eight states.
Ecoregion
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses a nested hierarchy to define ecoregions at
different levels of spatial and ecological resolution, with Level I ecoregions delineated on the broadest
geographic scale and Level IV ecoregions delineated on the most localized scale. The EPA
ecoregion classification of the Holla Bend NWR area is as follows:
 Level I ecoregion = Eastern Temperate Forests;
 Level II ecoregion = Ozark, Ouachita-Appalachian Forests;
 Level III ecoregion = Arkansas Valley (Ecoregion 37); and
 Level IV ecoregion = Arkansas River Floodplain (Ecoregion 37b).
The Arkansas Valley (Ecoregion 37) is one of 15 Level III ecoregions included in the Arkansas/Red
Rivers ecosystem. The Arkansas River Floodplain (Level IV Ecoregion 37b) covers 414 mi2 in
Arkansas and an additional 136 mi2 in Oklahoma (Figure 3). The potential natural vegetation is
southern floodplain forest, which includes bottomland hardwood forests of American sycamore,
sweetgum, willows, eastern cottonwood, green ash, pecan, hackberry, elm, and some oaks.
Remnants of bottomland hardwood forests tend to be restricted to areas that are frequently flooded or
poorly drained. Most of the land has been cleared and drained for use as pasture or cropland.
Important cultivated crops in this ecoregion include soybeans, corn, rice, wheat, sorghum, and alfalfa.
Local Land Cover and Land Use Patterns
Because Ecoregion 37b encompasses only a small portion of the four counties surrounding the
refuge, larger scale land cover patterns should also be considered in wildlife conservation planning.
As shown in Table 1, Pope and Yell Counties have similar land cover patterns, while Conway County
has a higher proportion of cropland and Perry County has a higher proportion of forested land.
Forage crops and soybeans dominate cropland usage in the counties surrounding the refuge (Table
2). Depending on rainfall, up to a third of the soybean acreage is irrigated.
The Arkansas River Valley region underwent a rapid expansion in the number of confined animal
operations during the 1990s (ADEQ 2004). According to the 2002 National Census of Agriculture,
Yell and Conway Counties ranked within the top 10 counties in the state in their inventories of broiler
chickens, while Pope and Conway Counties ranked within the top 10 in their inventories of hogs and
pigs (National Agricultural Statistics Service 2007).
14 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Location of Arkansas Valley (Level III Ecoregion 37) and Arkansas River Floodplain
(Level IV Ecoregion 37b) in Arkansas and Oklahoma
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Table 1. Land cover patterns in the counties surrounding Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Land Cover Type Pope County Yell County Conway
County Perry County
Cropland (%) 16 15 29 12
Pasture (%) 7 7 8 3
Forest (%) 68 72 55 82
Other (%) 9 6 8 3
Total area (mi2) 812 928 556 551
Sources: National Agricultural Statistics Service (2007); Fitzgerald and Pashley (2000)
Table 2. Agricultural land use in the counties surrounding Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Land Use Pope Co. Yell Co. Conway Co. Perry Co.
Distribution of
farmland uses
Cropland 49% 49% 59% 60%
Pasture 21% 24% 16% 15%
Woodland 23% 23% 20% 18%
Other 7% 3% 4% 7%
Cropland Area
Forage 38,284 ac 41,412 ac 40,977 ac 16,866 ac
Soybeans 7,834 ac 8,417 ac 20,771 ac 3,129 ac
Wheat 3,840 ac 2,516 ac 9,883 ac 750 ac
Corn ~ 3,405 ac 2,300 ac ~
Rice 555 ac 1,039 ac ~ 1,700 ac
Sorghum 432 ac ~ 1,708 ac ~
Livestock
Inventory
Poultry 6,400,000 8,500,000 7,000,000 2,500,000
Cattle and calves 40,000 36,000 35,000 14,000
Hogs and pigs 22,000 7,000 17,000 4,000
Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (2007)
16 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Bottomland hardwood forests are a small component of total forested land in the counties
surrounding the refuge. In general, upland forests north of the refuge tend to be oak-hickory in
composition, while those south of the refuge are more often oak-pine or pine. National forest lands
account for the largest percentage of the forested acreage in Pope and Yell Counties (Table 3). Most
of the forested acreage in Conway County is privately owned, while the largest portion of forested
land in Perry County is managed by the forest products industry. Most of the timber resources in Yell
County is in a relatively mature stage (i.e., sawtimber). Conway County is distinctive in terms of the
large portion of its timber in the seedling or sapling stage.
Other Public Lands
The contribution of Holla Bend NWR to wildlife resource conservation can be influenced by the
abundance and distribution of other protected areas in the surrounding ecosystem. Table 4 lists
other public lands within a 25-mile radius of the refuge. Several of these areas (particularly the
wildlife management areas) are notable for the variety of migratory waterfowl, wading birds, and
shorebirds they support. In addition, Audubon Arkansas has designated Dardanelle Reservoir as an
Important Bird Area in recognition of the variety of uncommon migratory bird species present.
There are nine other national wildlife refuges in the State of Arkansas (Bald Knob, Big Lake, Logan
Cave, Cache River, Felsenthal, Overflow, Pond Creek, Wapanocca, and White River), but none are in
the Arkansas Valley (i.e., Level III ecoregion 37). The only other national wildlife refuge that is the
same Level III ecoregion (i.e., Arkansas Valley) and Level IV ecoregion (i.e., Arkansas River
Floodplain) as Holla Bend NWR is Sequoyah NWR, which is in Oklahoma about 100 miles west of
Holla Bend NWR (Figure 3).
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Holla Bend NWR lies within the focus area of a variety of regional or ecosystem-based conservation
plans and cooperative initiatives.
Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan (Anderson 2006): This plan, developed by teams of wildlife
professionals representing both public agencies and private organizations, provides a comprehensive
strategy for determining priorities and effectively allocating funding for state wildlife grants.
The plan presents a list of “Species of Greatest Conservation Need” (SGCNs) and uses a standardized
protocol to assign a “Species Priority Score” to each SGCN. For each species on the list of SGCNs,
the plan summarizes information on habitat requirements, conservation problems and threats, data
gaps and research needs, monitoring strategies, and recommended conservation actions. State-wide
maps of reported occurrence and potential habitat are also provided for each SGCN.
Habitat management for SGCNs is approached on the basis of U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) Level III ecoregions. For each ecoregion, the plan lists the SGCNs likely to be
present, ranks the problems threatening the SGCNs, identifies the types of habitats that occur, and
makes general recommendations on appropriate conservation actions. To support more detailed
analyses, the plan also provides information on evaluating the status and quality of each of the
individual habitat types. Species lists for Holla Bend NWR include 57 birds and 4 mammals that are
designated as SGCNs in this plan.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Table 3. Forest characteristics in the counties surrounding Holla Bend National Wildlife
Refuge
Forest Characteristics Pope Co. Yell Co. Conway Co. Perry Co.
Total forested area (ac) 353,339 427,572 195,765 289,134
Forest
type
Planted pine (%) 3 11 0 13
Natural pine (%) 17 34 22 43
Oak-pine (%) 22 22 30 19
Oak-hickory (%) 56 17 30 19
Other (%) 2 16 19 6
Forest
ownership
National Forest (%) 52 44 3 32
Other Federal (%) 0 4 0 0
State (%) 2 4 11 2
Forest products industry (%) 0 15 7 49
Private, farm (%) 14 9 22 13
Private, non-farm (%) 32 24 57 4
Timber
stage
Sawtimber (%) 45 55 37 44
Poletimber (%) 46 33 22 34
Sapling or seedling (%) 10 12 41 21
Source: Fitzgerald and Pashley (2000)
18 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Table 4. Public lands within a 25-mile radius of Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Type Name Size Managing agency
State Wildlife
Management Areas
(WMAs)
Petit Jean River WMA 15,581 ac AGFC
Galla Creek WMA 3,293 ac AGFC
Ed Gordon/Point Remove WMA 8,730 ac AGFC
Dardanelle WMA 42,500 ac AGFC
Natural Areas
Dardanelle Rock 10 ac Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission
Goose Pond 392 ac Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission
Wilderness Areas Flatside Wilderness 9,507 ac USFS - Ouachita National Forest
National Forests
Ozark National Forest >1 million ac USFS
Ouachita National Forest >1 million ac USFS
State Parks
Mt. Nebo State Park 3,783 ac Arkansas Dept. of Parks and Tourism
Petit Jean State Park 2,658 ac Arkansas Dept. of Parks and Tourism
Lake Dardanelle State Park 34,000 ac Arkansas Dept. of Parks and Tourism
Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Big Piney Creek National Scenic River 45.2 mi USFS - Ozark National Forest
USACE lands Bona Dea Trails and Sanctuary 186 ac USACE - Little Rock District
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Arkansas/Red Rivers Ecosystem Plan (USFWS et al. 2000): This plan, developed by the Service with
input from state fish and wildlife agency partners, is intended to guide the Service as it sets priorities,
allocates resources, and conducts its activities and programs in the Arkansas/Red River Basins.
The plan presents strategies and action items for the following general objectives:
o Maintain and improve water quantity
o Maintain and improve water quality
o Conserve and restore focus species
o Conserve and restore focus habitats
o Increase public outreach efforts relative to service programs, and
o Improve outdoor recreational opportunities.
Southeast United States Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan (Hunter et al. 2006): The
southeast regional plan, which covers ten Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) and all or part of 21
states, is intended to provide a link between the continental waterbird plan (Kushlan et al. 2002)
and local conservation initiatives. The regional plan identifies priority species, establishes
population objectives, describes major threats to waterbirds, and outlines appropriate
conservation action levels for individual species.
The bird species list for Holla Bend NWR includes 27 species that are specifically addressed in this
plan. The categorization of these species by the action level given in the plan is as follows:
o Critical recovery – 1 species
o Immediate management – 1 species
o Management attention – 11 species
o Long-term planning and responsibility – 11 species
o Population control – 3 species
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for the Ozark/Ouachitas [Physiographic Area 19] (Fitzgerald
and Pashley 2000): This conservation plan addresses landbirds in the Ozark/Ouachita physiographic
area, which includes portions of Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Priority species are identified
based on six measures of conservation vulnerability, such as size of breeding range and population
trend. The plan establishes objectives for priority species populations and habitats to support those
populations, and recommends conservation actions to achieve the objectives. The bird species list
for Holla Bend NWR includes 29 of the 36 priority species addressed in this plan.
Partners in Flight Continental Priorities and Objectives Defined at the State and Bird Conservation
Region Levels: Arkansas (Rosenberg 2004): This document is a state-level synthesis of information
from the Partners in Flight (PIF) Continental Plan (Rich et al. 2004) and bird conservation plans
written for specific physiographic areas or Bird Conservation Regions that include parts of Arkansas.
It identifies the priority species and presents step-down population objectives applicable at the state
level. The bird species list for Holla Bend NWR includes 51 of the 61 species addressed in this plan.
Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment (Ouachita Ecoregional Assessment Team 2003): This
assessment addresses the Arkansas River Valley as a geologically distinct subsection of the
Ouachita Mountains. The document identifies the various terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic ecological
systems found in the area and describes the ecological stressors that threaten biodiversity in these
systems. The conservation planning approach involves identifying a portfolio of sites (conservation
areas) which, if protected, would collectively conserve the biodiversity of the assessment area. The
plan then develops strategies to address the ecological stressors that threaten the identified sites.
None of the currently selected conservation areas include Holla Bend NWR, however.
20 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
The Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative: A Report on the Status of the Northern Bobwhite and
a Plan for Recovery of the Species (Dimmick et al. 2002): This plan addresses the entire range of the
species but provides step-down population and habitat objectives for individual Bird Conservation
Regions, including BCR 25 (West Gulf Coastal Plain/Ouachita) in which Holla Bend NWR lies. The
objectives are further broken down to the state level within individual BCRs.
Strategic Management Plan for Non-Game Migratory Birds (Moore and Rowe undated):
This document provides a linkage between bird conservation planning on broad spatial scales (such
as PIF plans for multi-state physiographic regions, or the Southeastern Regional Plan for colonial
waterbirds), and the development of step-down goals and objectives that AGFC can use in strategic
management planning for Arkansas resources. The priority species identified in the broad scale
plans are used to represent suites of Arkansas bird species associated with specific types of habitats
(such as bottomland hardwood forests, or scrub/shrub and early successional habitats). The
population status and habitat requirements of the priority species are then used to develop general
habitat and population objectives, which, in turn, provide the basis for defining specific strategies to
achieve those objectives.
Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture: The Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture (LMVJV) is a
regionally based coalition of public and private organizations originally developed under the auspices
of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The LMVJV covers four Bird Conservation
Regions, including BCR 25 (West Gulf Coastal Plain/Ouachita) in which Holla Bend NWR lies. The
LMVJV has expanded its original focus to include landbirds, shorebirds, and waterbirds in addition to
waterfowl, and supports a variety of projects such as development of habitat suitability index models,
and a reforestation tracking system.
LMVJV partners have developed a variety of reports and tools that directly support regional
conservation planning efforts. Examples include:
 Restoration, Management, and Monitoring of Forest Resources in the Mississippi Alluvial
Valley: Recommendations for Enhancing Wildlife Habitat (Wilson et al. 2007);
 U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan: Lower Mississippi Valley/Western Gulf Coastal Plain
(Elliott and McKnight 2000);
 A Spatially Explicit Decision Support Model for Restoration of Forest Bird Habitat
(Twedt et al. 2006); and
 Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Evaluation Plan (Loesch et al. 1994).
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
Threats to biological diversity and ecosystem sustainability on Holla Bend NWR and the surrounding
Arkansas River Floodplain ecoregion are manifested over a range of geographic scales, from
declines in migratory bird populations on a continental scale, to alterations in hydrology on a regional
scale, or decreased habitat quality on a local scale.
Loss of bottomland hardwood forest
The American Bird Conservancy (2007) identified bottomland hardwood forest as one of the “top 20 most
threatened bird habitats in the U.S.” In Arkansas, a great deal of this habitat was lost in the late 1800s
and early 1900s as timber companies harvested extensive areas and farmers cleared and drained land
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
for cotton and (more recently) for soybeans. Much of the bottomland hardwood forest that remains is
secondary growth on small patches in a highly fragmented landscape. This may limit use by area-dependent
forest birds, and appears to increase the risk of nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds.
Changes in hydrology
When the new river channel at Holla Bend was excavated in 1954, the cutoff meander channel and
surrounding bottomland forests lost their connection to the dynamics of the Arkansas River except
during flood events. For aquatic habitat in the cutoff channel, this means that there is limited
recruitment of fish and other aquatic organisms, water quality is more likely to be degraded by oxygen
depletion and nutrient stimulation of excessive algal productivity, and habitat is destined to eventually
fill in with sediment. In the bottomland forests of the floodplain, there have been changes in seasonal
hydroperiod that affect which species are able to survive and which species will move in when older
trees die and open up gaps in the canopy.
Invasive plants
Lands that have been disturbed by removal of the native vegetation are vulnerable to impacts from
invasive plant species. Invasive species are those that grow and spread rapidly, allowing them to
displace other species, decrease biodiversity, and change habitat quality and food source availability
for wildlife. Johnsongrass—a common invasive plant in the southeast—was already abundant on the
abandoned farmland when Holla Bend NWR was established in 1957. Other invasive species now
present on the refuge include kudzu, cocklebur, and Bermuda grass. Invasive plants are difficult to
control and, once established, they may be almost impossible to eradicate completely.
Soil quality
On some areas of the refuge, the topsoil is blanketed by a thick layer of sand deposited during large
floods. These areas have a limited capacity to hold water or support desirable vegetation.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
The refuge is in the Subtropical Division of the Humid Temperate Domain and typically experiences
long, humid summers and short, mild winters. The annual mean temperature is 61 to 63 °F. The
mean temperature in January is 41 °F, and the mean temperature in July is 82 °F. The growing
season usually is about 220 days.
Annual precipitation averages about 46 inches over the long term, but varies considerably from year-to-
year. Seasonal variations in rainfall are relatively modest: the wettest month is usually May
(average 6 inches) and the driest months are August through October (average 3 inches each).
Mean annual runoff in the region is about 17 inches.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
The refuge lies within the Arkansas Valley Section of the Ouachita Physiographic Province, between
the Boston Mountains (to the north) and the Ouachita Mountains (to the south). The bedrock is
sandstone and shale of Pennsylvanian age, and surface materials are alluvial deposits of Holocene
age. There are coal and natural gas deposits in the counties surrounding the refuge, but there are no
resource extraction activities on the refuge.
22 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
The refuge is on a point bar deposited by the Arkansas River. The site has “ridge and swale”
topography, with elevations ranging from about 290 to 310 feet above mean sea level (msl).
SOILS
Most of the soils on the refuge are classified as either Bruno loamy fine sand or Roxana silt loam.
Bruno loamy fine sand occurs adjacent to the Arkansas River and along the old river channel.
These soils are excessively drained and have a very limited capacity to hold water in an
impounded area. They are considered only moderately suitable for cultivated crops, with
limitations imposed by droughts and occasional flooding. The native vegetation typical of these
soils includes cottonwood, willow, oaks, sycamore, hackberry, and pines. Bruno loamy fine sand
is considered to have poor wildlife potential.
Most of the cultivated cropland on the refuge is on Roxana silt loam, which occurs primarily in the
central portion of the refuge. These soils are very deep, well-drained, and moderately
permeable. Their capacity to hold water in an impounded area is somewhat limited, but the
limitations can be overcome by special planning, design, or installation techniques. These soils
are considered well suited for cultivated crops (including cotton, grain sorghum, soybeans, and
winter small grains) as well as for pasture and hay production. Native vegetation typical of these
soils includes pecan, cottonwood, and willow.
On some areas of the refuge, the topsoil is blanketed by a thick layer of sand deposited during large
floods. These areas are not delineated on county soil survey maps. The sand deposits have limited
capability to hold impounded water or support desirable vegetation.
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water
The Arkansas River originates in central Colorado and flows 1,460 miles before joining the
Mississippi River, making it the sixth longest river in the U.S. The watershed above the refuge covers
more than 153,000 mi2 and includes parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Texas, and Oklahoma.
The lower Arkansas River (from Catoosa, Oklahoma to the Mississippi River) is regulated as the
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System (MKARNS). MKARNS is operated by the USACE
and consists of a series of 18 mainstem locks and dams, as well as 11 storage reservoirs on
tributaries in eastern Oklahoma. A 3-mile section of the MKARNS, between Arkansas River
navigation miles 194 and 197, forms the northern boundary of the refuge. This section of the
Arkansas River is part of MKARNS Pool No. 9, which is also known as Winthrop Rockefeller Lake.
The refuge is about 8 miles downstream of Dardanelle Lock and Dam (MKARNS L&D No. 10), which
is operated by the USACE for navigation and hydropower generation. Dardanelle does not provide
flood control benefits, and the USACE retained a permanent flood easement on the land that became
Holla Bend NWR. The Arkansas River in the vicinity of the refuge has an extensive system of
instream dikes to direct flow away from the riverbanks, and revetments to prevent erosion of the
banks. The south side of the river in this vicinity also has three levee systems to constrain
floodwaters: Dardanelle Drainage District Levee to the west of the refuge, Carden Bottoms Drainage
District No. 2 to the east of the refuge, and Holla Bend Levee District No. 1 on the northwest corner of
the refuge. The levees lessen--but do not prevent--flooding on the refuge.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
During high flow periods, water from the Arkansas River overflows its banks into the cutoff
channel on the refuge. Flows in the MKARNS are largely determined by conditions in the
extensive watershed upstream of the confluence of the Arkansas and Verdigris Rivers, and by
water storage and release from the 11 tributary reservoirs in Oklahoma; as a consequence, local
rainfall is not a good predictor of the magnitude or duration of flooding on the refuge. Although
winter and spring floods may make it necessary to close parts of the refuge temporarily, this
periodic flooding is an essential feature of the refuge ecosystem.
The deposition of sediment from floodwaters has altered the upstream section of the cutoff channel
by creating three separate ponds (Long Lake, Lodge Lake, and Luther Lake) that are connected by
shallow willow sloughs. The remainder of the cutoff channel is hydraulically connected to the
Arkansas River through a water control structure near the downstream end. This water control
structure gives the refuge some degree of flexibility to either maintain water in the cutoff channel for
aquatic habitat, or to release water and increase the amount of mud flat habitat.
Groundwater
The Arkansas River alluvial aquifer consists of sand and gravel deposits underlain by poorly
permeable bedrock. Groundwater levels vary in response to river stage, but are usually within a few
feet of the surface.
AIR QUALITY
The refuge is within the Central Arkansas Air Quality Control Region (Region 16) as designated by
the USEPA. Air quality in this region meets or exceeds the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for each of the criteria pollutants (ozone, particulates, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon
monoxide, and lead).
WATER QUALITY AND QUANITY
Surface water
The Arkansas River is classified for primary and secondary contact recreation; domestic, industrial
and agricultural water supply; and support of a perennial fishery characteristic of the Arkansas Valley
ecoregion. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) maintains an ambient water
quality monitoring station on the Arkansas River near Dardanelle (monitoring site ARK0032).
According to the Arkansas 303(d) list of water quality-limited waterbodies, a 2.0-mile reach directly
downstream from Dardanelle Reservoir occasionally has dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations
below the 5.0 mg/L water quality standard during the summer due to low DO concentrations in
hydropower releases from the reservoir. In addition, a 9.4-mile section of the river does not support
the designated use for drinking water supply because total dissolved solids concentrations are
occasionally higher than the 500 mg/L water quality standard.
Flows in the Arkansas River at the refuge are highly variable. In 2006 for example (a year when local
rainfall was near the long-term average), the average daily discharge from Dardanelle L&D was
11,078 cubic feet per second (cfs), but the maximum daily discharge was more than 189,000 cfs and
there were 34 days with zero discharge.
The only perennial stream that flows onto the refuge is Mill Creek (the stream that is locally known as
“Mill Creek” is identified as “Harris Creek” on some maps and in ADEQ water quality reports), which
originates south of the town of Dardanelle and flows into the cutoff channel on the south side of the
24 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
refuge. This stream is classified for secondary contact recreation; domestic, industrial and
agricultural water supply; and support of a seasonal fishery characteristic of the Arkansas Valley
ecoregion. There are no flow data available, and ADEQ reports that water quality data are not
sufficient to determine whether the creek supports its designated uses.
Sediment deposited by receding floodwaters has divided the cutoff channel on the refuge into four
more or less distinct permanent water bodies: Long Lake, Lodge Lake, Luther Lake, and a 390-acre
open water area on the south and east sides of the refuge. There are no water quality data available
for these waterbodies. However, a fish kill on Lodge Lake in July 2006 was tentatively attributed to
low DO concentrations.
Groundwater
The yield of wells in the Arkansas River alluvial aquifer may be as high as 300 to 700 gallons per
minute. Groundwater quality is suitable for most uses, although hardness and high concentrations of
iron and nitrate may make it undesirable for some public supply and industrial uses. Groundwater
quality and quantity have not been issues for the three irrigation wells on the refuge.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
The distribution of generalized land cover categories on the refuge is given in Table 5 below. There
are no FGDC-compliant (Federal Geographic Data Committee 1997) vegetation maps or inventories
available for the refuge.
Mature bottomland hardwood forests
When the refuge was established in 1957, the abandoned farm land had grown up in scrub timber
and thick stands of Johnsongrass. Areas that were not re-cleared for agricultural use have now
grown into mature bottomland hardwood forests. These areas are primarily confined to the
periphery of the refuge.
A survey in 1994 reported that most forest compartments on the refuge were dominated by
cottonwood, and that individual cottonwood trees were in a state of decline due to age (USFWS
1994). At that time, other important contributors to basal area included ash, box elder, elm, eastern
red cedar, pecan, sycamore, and willow. In 1995, the refuge conducted a selective cutting on 975
acres with the intent of stimulating natural succession toward forest with greater diversity in both
composition and structure.
Forested lands on the refuge have not been inventoried since 1994, but qualitative descriptions are
available from several recent refuge documents. The Annual Narrative Report for 2006 describes the
forests as consisting of red cedar, box elder, Osage orange, elm, hackberry, sycamore, and
cottonwood trees interspersed with wild plum thickets (USFWS 2006). Tree cover on the areas
closest to water is almost exclusively willow, while pecan and water oak are usually restricted to
areas on ridges or adjacent to farm fields. A recent Biological Review report for the refuge indicates
that much of the forest overstory consists of older age classes of cottonwood, with some pecan trees
present on the higher ridges (Edwards 2007). The forest midstory is described as a mixture of
sugarberry, boxelder, and elm.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Reforested fields
Over the past 10 years, about 1,420 acres of cropland on the refuge have been removed from
agricultural use and replanted with hardwood tree seedlings. About a third of the acreage was
planted by the refuge in the late 1990s, using tree seedlings supplied by the National Tree Trust. The
remaining acreage was planted for carbon sequestration under a Memorandum of Agreement
between the Service and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, with Environmental Synergy, Inc.
as the corporate partner. The species planted include Nuttal oak, swamp chestnut oak, water oak,
cherrybark oak, pin oak, willow oak, blackgum, hackberry, wax myrtle, flowering dogwood, eastern
redbud, bald cypress, pecan, persimmon, sycamore, green ash, Shumard oak, and red maple.
The success of the reforestation plantings has not been quantitatively evaluated, but overall seedling
survival has been estimated as 60 to 70 percent. Areas with poor survival of oak seedlings have been
allowed to re-seed naturally with cottonwood, sycamore, box elder, wild plum, and eastern red cedar.
The reforested fields are in an early stage of succession and currently provide habitat that may be
more accurately characterized as scrub/shrub and grassland rather than forest. The refuge staff has
noted that grassland-dependent birds, such as field sparrows and northern bobwhite, appear to be
thriving on these lands.
Cropland
The refuge has 1,200 acres of cropland that are farmed under a cooperative agreement with a local
farmer. Generally, the farmer plants 75 percent of this acreage in cash grain crops and the remaining 25
percent (the refuge share) in crops for waterfowl and other wildlife. In addition to the 25 percent refuge
share, winter wheat is double-cropped behind the soybeans to provide green browse for wildlife.
In 2006, the primary cash grain crop was soybeans and the refuge share (which is left unharvested)
was primarily corn and milo. These unharvested grains provide a good source of the carbohydrates
needed by wintering waterfowl to maintain body temperature during cold periods.
Moist-soil units
Moist-soil units (MSUs) are small, seasonally flooded depressions scattered throughout the farm
fields. The plant community that develops naturally during the summer varies depending on soil
disturbance and the timing of water level drawdown, but typically includes panic grass, smartweeds,
sprangletop, millets, and a variety of sedges. The seeds of many of these plants are a valuable
source of protein and other nutrients for wintering waterfowl.
On 101 of the 226 acres of MSUs, irrigation wells and water control structures allow the refuge to
either flood or drain the units as needed. Water level management on the remaining 125 acres is
limited to controlling the drainage of flood waters and rainfall runoff.
There was no active management of vegetation on the MSUs from 2000 to 2005. In 2005, all of the
units were disked and most were replanted in millet or milo. If carried out on a 3-year rotating basis,
this vegetation management approach would promote the production of desirable food sources for
waterfowl while preventing succession to less desirable plant species.
26 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Aquatic habitats
Aquatic habitat on the refuge includes a 390-acre open-water area of the abandoned channel that is
heavily used by waterfowl as a resting area. Sediment deposition in the remainder of the abandoned
channel has created three small ponds that are interconnected by shallow willow sloughs.
Table 5. Distribution of land cover categories on Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Land cover type Acres Portion of refuge
lands
Mature bottomland hardwood forest 2,700 41%
Reforested fields 1,420 21%
Cropland 1,200 18%
Moist-soil units 226 3%
Permanent open water 750 11%
Other (trails, roads, etc.) 320 6%
WILDLIFE
Birds
More than 240 bird species have been observed on Holla Bend NWR (Appendix I). All but 6 of these
species are protected under the Migratory Bird Protection Act, and 179 are classified as Nearctic-neotropical
migratory birds. More than a third is identified as species of high conservation concern in
various national, regional, or state lists and plans.
The Arkansas River is a migration corridor for waterfowl that use the Mississippi and Central Flyways.
The abundance of waterfowl on the refuge varies greatly from year-to-year, depending on water levels
and weather conditions further up the flyways. The 24 species of waterfowl recorded on the refuge
include 18 species of ducks, 4 species of geese, and 2 swan species. The most commonly seen
waterfowl are mallards, blue-winged teal, American widgeon, gadwall, Canada geese, and snow geese.
The refuge is used by 20 species of waterbirds, including colonial waterbirds such as herons and egrets,
and solitary-nesting waterbirds (marshbirds) such as the pied-billed grebe and the American coot.
At least 33 species of shorebirds (e.g., sandpipers, gulls, and terns) have been reported to use the
refuge. Most are observed on sandbars in the Arkansas River, mudflats along the cutoff channel,
and occasionally at the edges of the larger moist-soil units.
At least 165 species of landbirds have been observed on the refuge, including a variety of owls, hawks,
woodpeckers, and songbirds as well as game birds such as Northern bobwhite and wild turkey.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Mammals
There are 27 species of mammals known to occur on the refuge, including beaver, black bear,
coyotes, bobcats, white-tailed deer, river otter, mink and the nine-banded armadillo. An additional 21
species may occur on the refuge, including 8 species of bats. Only 5 of the 48 mammal species that
potentially occur on the refuge are considered to have particular conservation significance at the state
or federal level (Appendix I).
Other wildlife
There are no comprehensive surveys of other wildlife on the refuge. Appendix I contains informal
lists of refuge biota that have been mentioned in various recent and historical refuge reports.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
There are several known archaeological sites along the reach of the Arkansas River now impounded
as Winthrop Rockefeller Lake. Most of the sites are described as surface scatter of lithic debris (i.e.,
waste resulting from the manufacture of stone tools), but there are also intact deposits from the
Archaic Period (8000 – 500 B.C.) and the Mississippian Period (A.D. 900 – 1500).
Holla Bend NWR has not been systematically investigated for the presence of archaeological sites
(Kanaski 2007). The only reported survey, which was restricted to selected portions of the refuge, did
not reveal the presence of any archaeological sites, although it specifically noted the occurrence of
sand deposits up to 6 meters in depth (Bennett and Caffey 1978). The natural processes that
gradually shift and rework river channels and their floodplains can either destroy archaeological sites
by erosion or preserve them by burying them in sediment deposits. Since geomorphologists
characterize the lands of Holla Bend NWR as a point bar surrounded by areas of accretion (sediment
deposition), the potential presence of archaeological sites on the refuge cannot be ruled out without
additional evaluation.
There are no architectural resources on the refuge that are listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Population distribution and growth
The four counties surrounding the refuge have a combined population of nearly 111,000, with Pope
County accounting for more than half of this total (Table 6). Population densities in Yell, Conway,
and Perry Counties are quite low relative to state and national averages. With the exception of
Conway County, population growth in the refuge-area counties between 1980 and 2000 was rapid
compared to the state-wide increase for the same period. Growth rates have slowed in more recent
years, however, and population increases for the period from 2000 to 2006 are comparable to, or less
than, state and national averages.
28 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Table 6. Population distribution and growth in the counties surrounding Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Population Distribution and Growth Pope Co. Yell Co. Conway Co. Perry Co.
Population (2006 estimate) 57,671 21,834 20,694 10,411
Population density (persons per square mile) 67 23 37 19
Metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area Russellville Russellville none Little Rock-
N. Little Rock
Population change from 1980 to 2000 up 39.8% up 24.2% up 4.3% up 40.5%
Population change from 2000 to 2006 up 5.9% up 3.3% up 1.8% up 2.0%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2007); discoverarkansas.net (2007)
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Population characteristics
The racial/ethnic makeup of the population in the counties surrounding the refuge is summarized in
Table 7. The counties surrounding the refuge have a higher proportion of their populations in the
“White, non-Hispanic” category than either the state or the nation as a whole. In comparison with the
three other refuge-area counties, Yell County is more like the national average in terms of the percent
of the population in the “Hispanic or Latino origin” category and the percent of households that speak
a language other than English in the home environment.
Age distribution in the four refuge-area counties is similar to the patterns on the state and national
levels. With the exception of Pope County, the average educational attainment level of adults in the
refuge-area counties is lower than state and national averages.
Income and employment
Median household incomes and per capita incomes in the counties surrounding the refuge and for
Arkansas as a whole were well below the national averages for the same years (Table 8). Poverty
rates were comparable to the Arkansas average, but higher than the national average.
Unemployment rates in each of the refuge-area counties declined between 2004 and 2006.
These counties are part of the 10-county West Central Arkansas Local Workforce Investment
Area. The “education and health services” industry is currently the largest source of employment
in the area. Total employment in the area is expected to grow by 19 percent between 2002 and
2012, with the highest projected growth in the “professional and business services” and the
“education and health services” industries.
Agricultural economy
The four counties surrounding the refuge have a combined total of nearly 600,000 acres of farmland
(Table 9). Yell and Perry Counties experienced substantial declines in farmland acreage over the
period from 1997 to 2002, while farmland acreage was relatively stable in Conway County and
increased slightly in Pope County. Presently, the portion of land in agricultural use ranges from a low
of 19 percent in Perry County to a high of 49 percent in Conway County. In each county, the vast
majority of the total market value of production is from livestock rather than crops. Based on the
value of sales, “poultry and eggs” is the top farm commodity in each of the counties.
Wildlife-dependent recreation
Although recent surveys vary on specifics, they generally agree that Arkansas and the Arkansas
region exceed the national average in terms of the percentage of the population that participate in
wildlife-dependent recreation such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing (Table 10).
In Arkansas, as well as in the nation as a whole, most wildlife watching is done near the place of
residence, and only about a third of wildlife watching is done more than a mile from home. In
Arkansas, about a third of wildlife watchers also participate in wildlife photography.
The Service estimated that expenditures for wildlife watching in Arkansas in 2001 added $244 million
to the state economy (USFWS 2003). Equipment purchases accounted for 33 percent of
expenditures, while trip-related expenditures accounted for only about 8 percent of the total.
30 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Table 7. Population characteristics of the counties surrounding Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Population Characteristics Pope Co. Yell Co. Conway Co. Perry Co.
Race/ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic 90.9% 78.7% 83.2% 95.2%
Hispanic or Latino origin 3.8% 17.2% 2.4% 1.3%
Black 3.0% 1.5% 12.5% 2.0%
Native American, Asian, or other 1.4% 2.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Language Language other than English spoken at home 3.6% 13.4% 2.9% 2.9%
Educational
level of adults
High school graduates 77.4% 64.1% 73.2% 73.8%
Bachelor's degree or higher 19.0% 10.9% 11.5% 11.1%
Age distribution
Median age, years 34.8 36.1 37.9 38.0
Population less than 5 years old 6.4% 7.5% 6.3% 5.5%
Population less than 18 years old 23.5% 25.1% 23.9% 23.2%
Population 65 years or older 13.0% 14.6% 15.6% 15.2%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2007); Arkansas Department of Economic Development (2007)
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Table 8. Income and employment in the counties surrounding Holla Bend National Wildlife
Refuge
Income and Employment Pope Co. Yell Co. Conway Co. Perry Co.
Median household income (2004) $34,109 $30,076 $32,865 $33,094
Per capita income (1999) $15,918 $15,383 $16,056 $16,216
Poverty rate (2004) 15.8% 15.1% 16.1% 14.4%
Unemployment rate (2004) 5.3% 5.0% 5.7% 5.6%
Unemployment rate (2006) 4.8% 4.6% 5.1% 5.0%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2007); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007)
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
The approved acquisition boundary of the refuge encompasses 8,319 acres. To date, the Service
has acquired fee title on 6,610 acres. The remaining 1,703 acres in private ownership are distributed
in numerous small tracts around the perimeter of the refuge. Current land uses on these tracts range
from cropland, pasture, and mixed woodlots to standing water and lakes. Acquisition of these tracts
would increase the amount of habitat that can be managed specifically to meet the purposes for
which the refuge was established.
VISITOR SERVICES
The refuge had 41,764 visitors in 2006. Nearly half of the visitors indicated that the purpose of their
visit was to observe wildlife.
The entrance to the refuge is a paved road with an automatic gate that opens at sunup and closes at
sundown. The entrance road passes a fee booth and leads to a paved parking lot at the refuge
office. The office is open from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The refuge is open
year-round, although some refuge roads may be closed temporarily due to flooding.
Visitor facilities on the refuge include two designated hiking trails, a 10-mile self-guided auto tour
route, three boat launch ramps with gravel parking areas, a small pavilion with tables and
benches, handicap-accessible restrooms, and a section of the refuge office that provides nature
displays and information brochures.
32 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Table 9. Agricultural economy of the counties surrounding Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Agricultural Characteristics Pope Co. Yell Co. Conway Co. Perry Co.
Total farmland (ac) 168,592 181,155 173,497 67,728
Portion of county in farmland 32% 31% 49% 19%
Change in farmland acreage, 1997 to 2002 up 4% down 7% up 2% down 12%
Average farm size (ac) 161 219 223 178
Annual net income, per farm $28,068 $38,796 $34,802 $26,639
Portion of market value of production from crops 3% 3% 7% 14%
Portion of market value of production from
livestock 97% 97% 93% 86%
Top farm commodity group, by value of sales poultry & eggs poultry & eggs poultry & eggs poultry & eggs
Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (2007)
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Table 10. Geographic trends in the percent of the population reported to participate in various types of wildlife-dependent
recreation.
Arkansas Arkansas regionA Nationwide
Wildlife-oriented recreation (all types) 52% ~ 39%
Hunting 15% - 27% 9% - 13% 6% - 11%
Fishing 23% - 40% 19% 18%
Wildlife observation (all species) 39% 25% - 39% 30% - 31%
Bird watching 3% - 24% 31% 22% - 27%
Variation of values within geographic areas may reflect the time period of the survey, diference in the population targeted by the surey, or
difference te wording of survey questions.
A 'Arkansas region' defined as West South Central Census Division 7 (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas); the
region within a 1-day drive of Arkansas; or USFS Region 8 (13 southeastern states); depending on source.
Sources: AGFC (2005); Outdoor Industry Foundation (2006); Responsive Management (2006); USFS (1999); USFS (2006); USFS
et al. (2000); USFWS (2001); and USFWS (2002).
34 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Hunting
The refuge is closed to all migratory bird hunting. The sanctuary provided by the refuge is particularly
important in light of the popularity of hunting among Arkansas residents.
The refuge offers an archery/crossbow season for white-tailed deer from October 1 to December 10.
With the exception of a small tract adjacent to the Levee Trail, the entire refuge is open for deer
hunting. Turkeys, rabbits, squirrels, coyotes, beavers, raccoons and bobcats may also be taken
incidental to deer hunting. The refuge sold 338 permits for archery deer hunting in 2006.
After the close of the archery hunt, a 1-day quota-limited gun hunt for deer is offered for youth ages
12 - 15. Take is limited to one buck or one doe. Fourteen youths participated in this hunt in 2006.
The refuge allows raccoon hunting every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night during the month of
February. Hunters are required to use dogs, and only rim-fire rifles no larger than .22 caliber are allowed.
In the spring, the refuge provides opportunities for turkey hunting, including a 2-day quota-limited gun
hunt for youths under the age of 16, and a 2-day quota-limited gun hunt for adults, followed by an
archery/crossbow season.
Fishing
Sport fishing is permitted in all refuge waters from March 1 to October 31 each year. The refuge is
closed to fishing during the winter months to limit the disturbance of wintering waterfowl, although
bank fishing is permitted on Long Lake from November 1 to February 28.
The Fishing Plan currently in use on the refuge was prepared in 1984. At that time, the refuge
received about 6,500 fishing visits per year. Based on random creel checks, the estimated annual
sportfish harvest was 13,000 pounds, with crappie accounting for more than half of the biomass
harvested. Fishing for largemouth bass, catfish, and sunfish are also popular during the summer.
Receding floodwaters from the Arkansas River often trap fish in the cutoff river channel. In past
years, the refuge sometimes issued special use permits, which allowed the harvest of commercial
species such as buffalo, gar, and freshwater drum (gaspergou) trapped in the cutoff channel. The
1984 Fishing Plan estimated the annual harvest of commercial species at 4,300 pounds, although
harvests of 20,000 pounds or more have been reported in some years.
Wildlife observation and photography
The refuge provides visitors with an incredible opportunity to see bald eagles, hawks, and waterfowl.
Most of the non-consumptive recreational visitors come to the refuge to see birds. Audubon groups
from across the state routinely visit the refuge.
A 10-mile, one-way loop wildlife drive provides visitors with the opportunity to see a variety of wildlife
including waterfowl, eagles, hawks, migratory songbirds, and shorebirds as well as deer and other
mammals. There are pull-offs along the drive with interpretive panels about the various habitats and wildlife.
The refuge has an observation tower that overlooks the cutoff channel. The existing tower is not
handicap accessible, but the refuge has received funding to replace it and the new tower will be ADA-
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
compliant. The refuge recently partnered with Ducks Unlimited to create a wetland near the observation
tower that enhances the opportunity to view wildlife. There are also 13 hunting blinds on the refuge that
are available outside the deer season for visitors to use as observation/photography blinds.
The Levee Trail and the Cottonwood Trail provide visitors with the opportunity to hike through a
variety of habitats and observe wildlife along the trail.
Environmental education and interpretation
Holla Bend NWR does not have a Visitor Services Park Ranger position. Visitor services functions
and responsibilities, including environmental education, are provided by the refuge manager and
other staff when work load permit. The refuge has accommodated up to five groups per year, usually
from schools in the Dardanelle and Russellville areas. A local wildlife rehabilitator has also come to
the refuge to help with environmental education groups. Special requests for interpretive tours or
programs are also accommodated as staff schedules permit.
The visitor contact area of the refuge office has attractive mounts of many of the waterfowl and
raptors that are routinely seen on the refuge, as well as stunning wildlife photographs taken by
volunteers and displayed on the walls and in an album. Skulls, shed snake skins, and white-tailed
deer antlers are displayed on shelves. A brochure rack holds handouts on general information about
the refuge, public use regulations, brochures on the birds and mammals that occur on the refuge, and
other materials published by the Service about the Refuge System and related topics.
A 6-panel kiosk adjacent to the office parking lot has a panel featuring the refuge, a panel covering
other national wildlife refuges and Service fish hatcheries in Arkansas, and four other interpretive
panels relating to the refuge wildlife resources. There are interpretive panels along the wildlife drive
that feature: Wildlife You May See, Dead Tree Cavities, Life along the Arkansas River (a large panel
interpreting the history of the area and the refuge), Birds of Prey, Eagle Migration, Waterfowl, Wading
Birds, Shorebirds, Wetlands, National Wildlife Refuge System, Waterfowl Migration, Bottomland
Hardwoods, Bottomland Hardwood Restoration, Farming for Wildlife, and Songbirds.
PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE
The annual budget of the refuge varies but averaged $425,000 for fiscal years 2001 through 2006.
The refuge has 5 full-time staff positions, including: Refuge Manager (GS-11), Project Leader (GS-
12), Office Assistant (GS-6), Heavy Equipment Operator (WG-10), and Heavy Equipment Mechanic
(WG-10). The refuge is scheduled to lose two of these staff positions by FY09.
In 2006, the refuge made revenue sharing payments of $7,278 to Pope County and $1,390 to Yell County.
36 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
III. Plan Development
SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
The planning team responsible for preparing the Draft CCP/EA was established in May 2007. It
includes natural resource management professionals representing Holla Bend NWR, Service
staff, and AGFC (Appendix K). The Service had previously established a biological review team
with representatives from the same agencies, plus the USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service, that conducted an on-site evaluation in October 2006 and completed a Biological Review
Report in June 2007 (Edwards 2007), and had established a visitor services review team that
presented recommendations to the refuge staff and prepared a Visitor Services Review Report in
March 2007 (USFWS 2007).
Public input to the development of the Draft CCP/EA was obtained, in part, through a public scoping
meeting held in Dardanelle, Arkansas, on August 14, 2007, that was attended by 42 stakeholders.
Written comments were received from 20 stakeholders. Comments received during the public
scoping process are listed in Appendix D – Public Involvement.
In identifying key issues to be addressed during the planning process, the planning team
considered recommendations from the Biological Review and Visitor Services Review Reports,
comments received through the public scoping meeting, and input from open planning team
meetings, comment packets, and personal contacts of planning team members. In addition, the
team considered opportunities for coordination with other relevant conservation plans (Chapter II
– Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives); applicable legal mandates (Appendix C); the
purposes of Holla Bend NWR as well as the mission, goals, and policies of the Refuge System as
a whole; and evaluations and documentation required by Service procedures for refuge planning
(Appendix E – Appropriate Use Determinations, Appendix F – Compatibility Determinations, and
Appendix H – Wilderness Review).
The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish and
wildlife protection, habitat restoration, public use, and management of threatened and
endangered species. All public and advisory team comments were considered; however, some
issues important to the public fall outside the scope of this planning process. The team
considered all issues that were raised during the planning process. This CCP attempts to
balance competing views on important issues.
The issues, concerns, and opportunities the team judged to be most significant fall into the five
categories listed below. Summaries of issues identified in the planning process follow this list.
1. Broader focus for migratory bird management
2. Need for better information on refuge resources (especially with respect to protection of
threatened, endangered, or rare species)
3. Control of nuisance wildlife and invasive plants
4. Broader range of habitat management practices and use of adaptive resource management
strategies
5. Improved visitor services
38 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
Broader Focus for Migratory Bird Management
Support of a national migratory bird management program, especially the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, is a principal purpose for which the refuge was originally established (see
Chapter I, “National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives”). The refuge has
traditionally focused on the needs of migratory waterfowl. Stakeholders requested that the refuge
expand its focus to include other migratory birds, especially shorebirds and birds that require
grassland or early successional (e.g., scrub/shrub) habitats.
Protection of Threatened, Endangered, or Rare Species
One management objective of Holla Bend NWR is to provide habitats for federally listed threatened
or endangered species. There are, or may be, opportunities for Holla Bend NWR habitat
management for the following federally listed species:
 The interior population of the least tern (Sterna antillarum athalossos) is federally listed as
“Endangered” within all or portions of 18 states. The least tern nests on sparsely
vegetated sand or gravel islands in wide river channels, including sites along the Arkansas
River near the refuge.
 Bald eagles (Haliaetus leucocephalus) are known to occur in the refuge area; an active
nesting site was found on the northeast corner of the refuge in 2005. This species was
formally de-listed by the Service in July 2007 as a result of the widespread recovery of
bald eagle populations in recent years; however, the refuge continues to monitor and
protect the nesting site.
 The American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus), which is federally listed as
“Endangered,” has been reported from several Arkansas counties directly west of Holla
Bend NWR. Although this species has not been reported on the refuge, no
comprehensive survey has been performed.
 American alligators (Alligator mississipiensis) were introduced on Holla Bend NWR in
1979 to help control beaver populations. Most of the introduced alligators have probably
migrated from the refuge to warmer locations, but some individuals may still be present on
the refuge. This species is federally listed as “Threatened due to similarity of appearance
to other listed crocodilians.”
The Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission periodically publishes lists of plant and animal species
that, while not federally protected under the Endangered Species Act, are considered rare in
Arkansas and are classified as “Species of Special Concern” (ANHC 2008). The bird fauna of Holla
Bend NWR includes 50 Species of Special Concern: 23 of these species are categorized as
“Imperiled” or “Critically Imperiled” in the state.
Coordination With Other Conservation Plans
Coordination of the Holla Bend NWR CCP with existing national, regional, and state conservation plans
provides an opportunity to leverage resources and enhance results. The planning process for the refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
benefits from the technical information and broad perspective on priorities in these larger scale or
‘‘landscape-based” conservation plans. In turn, the other conservation initiatives benefit from refuge
activities that contribute to achieving the population or habitat objectives specified in their plans.
Status and Trends of Resident Wildlife Populations
There is a general lack of information on the status of white-tailed deer herds, trends in wild turkey
populations, and the presence of waterbird rookeries on the refuge. The status of deer herds is an
issue of particular importance to hunters.
Control of Nuisance Wildlife Populations
Populations of some resident wildlife species may reach nuisance levels that negatively affect other
refuge resources. Beaver and raccoon populations are of particular concern, as beavers may
damage bottomland hardwood forest habitat and raccoons may reduce the reproductive success of
forest-breeding and grassland-nesting birds.
There also is concern about the potential impacts of an apparent increase in the numbers of resident
coyotes and bobcats on a broad range of refuge fauna.
Fisheries Management
One suggestion received during the planning process was that the refuge should consider issuing
special use permits to commercial fishermen to remove rough fish trapped in the cutoff channel by
receding floodwaters.
HABITAT MANAGEMENT
Increase Diversity of Managed Habitats
Habitat management on the refuge currently focuses primarily on croplands, moist-soil habitats, and
waterfowl impoundments. Expanding this focus to include establishing and maintaining other habitats
such as grassland, scrub/shrub, shallow water/mudflats, grassy openings in forests, buffer strips of
native warm season grasses, and open water areas with emergent vegetation is a priority habitat
management issue to be addressed in this plan.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Bottomland hardwood forest was the native vegetative cover along this section of the Arkansas River.
That habitat now is relatively rare and the remaining habitat is highly fragmented. As part of a carbon
sequestration effort, an attempt to restore bottomland hardwood forest habitat by planting more than
1,400 acres of cropland and fallow fields on the refuge with hardwood seedlings has had limited
success. There is substantial public opposition to additional reforestation activities. In light of that
opposition, the refuge might explore trading some of the carbon sequestration acreage with other
refuges, or removing tree plantings not covered under the carbon sequestration contract.
Most of the “reforested” area on the refuge currently is scrub/shrub habitat. These areas are
potential habitat for a variety of migratory bird species that have a high priority in various
conservation plans. Maintaining these areas in a scrub/shrub habitat condition over the long term
40 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
would require active management, such as periodic disturbance to set back succession. In
addition, active management of mature bottomland hardwood forests could enhance habitat
quality for resident wildlife and forest-breeding birds.
Foraging Habitat for Resident Wildlife
Increasing the portion of cropland available for foraging would benefit resident wildlife, particularly
white-tailed deer.
Control of Invasive Plants
Control of invasive plant species that occur on the refuge (e.g., Johnsongrass, Bermuda grass, and
kudzu) is necessary to limit their negative impacts on native plants and habitat quality. In addition, refuge
activities that disturb native vegetation should be planned and managed to preclude expansion of these
species or colonization by other invasive species such as Chinese tallow and trifoliate orange.
To some stakeholders, the presence of other non-native plant species on the refuge, including
sawtooth oak and non-native pines, is an ecological integrity issue.
Cropland Management
The 1,200 acres of cropland on the refuge are managed under a cooperative agreement with a local
farmer whereby a portion of the grain crop is left unharvested to provide foraging habitat for wintering
waterfowl. There is a risk of losing this foraging habitat if farming conditions become unprofitable for
the cooperating farmer. Soybeans are the principal cash crop on the harvested acreage, while the
unharvested “refuge share” is primarily corn and milo. Altering the proportions of the current crops or
planting alternative crops might help maintain the profitability of cooperative farming while improving
the carrying capacity of waterfowl foraging habitat.
Management of Moist-Soil Habitats
The following management activities could help the refuge meet objectives for moist-soil habitat units:
 Develop complete water management capability, with priority on installing wells to provide
water for the underbank units.
 Use periodic disturbance such as disking to set back succession and maintain production of
annual grasses and sedges with the greatest food value for waterfowl.
Plans for managing moist-soil habitat should take into consideration the potential for negative impacts
on invertebrate biomass and aestivating Strecker’s chorus frogs.
Enhancement of Aquatic Habitat
The Service considers backwater habitat (e.g., cutoff channel on the refuge) to be of particular ecological
value in river systems where the natural hydrology has been modified for navigation or flood control. The
present quality of this habitat on the refuge could be enhanced by managing flow and water level
fluctuations. There is a potential to enhance aquatic habitat through coordination with activities being
planned and implemented by the USACE under the Arkansas River Navigation Project.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
RESOURCE PROTECTION
Land Acquisition
Acquisition of privately owned lands within the current refuge acquisition boundary would enhance
important refuge functions such as providing sanctuary for wintering waterfowl. Stakeholders
expressed support for pursuing opportunities to purchase from willing sellers or make exchanges for
priority tracts.
VISITOR SERVICES
Fishing
The quality of the recreational fishery on the refuge could be enhanced by active management, in
cooperation with the USACE, of water level and flow conditions, water quality, and fish community
composition.
There also is an opportunity to improve fishing access by building an ADA-compliant fishing pier at
the Long Lake bank fishing area.
Hunting
There is a need to determine the maximum number of archery hunters refuge resources can
support. The refuge also should evaluate the feasibility of adding a dove season to provide
another hunting opportunity.
Several stakeholders requested the refuge to consider changing policies on use of deer stands and
hunting dogs, and the balance between archery and gun hunting opportunities.
Wildlife Observation and Photography
The principal opportunities identified to improve wildlife observation and photography are developing
a bird observation trail on a loop between the refuge office and the scrub/shrub and wooded area
north of the office, and improving the Lodge Lake Trail and the short loop to the Levee Trail. There
also may be opportunities to improve wildlife viewing by selectively managing vegetation in some
areas adjacent to refuge roads.
Environmental Education and Interpretation
The refuge has no park ranger (Visitor Services) position, and therefore environmental education and
interpretation activities are limited by the workloads of existing staff. However, even with this
constraint the refuge could improve environmental education opportunities by developing a teacher
activity kit and a set of self-guided activity lessons for teachers, and by partnering with Arkansas
Technical University to involve their students in developing environmental education opportunities.
To the extent possible, the refuge should seek opportunities for involvement with environmental
educators from nearby state parks and USACE recreation areas, and should identify community-based
outreach activities to enhance communication with off-site audiences.
If sufficient staffing becomes available, it would be beneficial to develop an environmental education
center on the refuge, in partnership with stakeholders.
42 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Visitor Facilities
Participants in the public scoping process requested that the refuge make the following changes:
 Establish an area for archery target practice
 Make the pavilion and picnic tables available for public use
 Decrease the width of vegetation maintenance on the Levee Trail
The refuge should improve the accessibility of parking lots, boat launch sites, and observation sites
for handicapped visitors.
There also are opportunities for improvement in how the refuge provides information to visitors,
including changes in the number, location, or content of directional and information signs, information
kiosks, brochures, and the refuge website.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
Funding and Staffing
Current staffing levels place substantial constraints on environmental education and interpretation
activities and law enforcement capability.
Adaptive Management of Refuge Resources
The refuge should use adaptive management to enhance efficiency and improve results of habitat
management activities on the refuge. Adaptive management involves assessing baseline conditions
and establishing objectives for biological response, followed by a continuing effort to document
management activities and their results, and modification of management activities as necessary to
achieve the desired biological response. Adaptive management of refuge resources will require
additional staff and funding for documentation of management activities and systematic collection and
evaluation of response data.
Baseline Inventories of Refuge Biota
There is a need for comprehensive baseline inventories of the flora and fauna on the refuge to
support an ecosystem-based adaptive management strategy. These inventories would document
levels of biodiversity and identify functional components and keystone species of the various refuge
ecosystems. A secondary benefit would be documentation of the presence or absence of species of
particular conservation concern. Inventories of reptiles and amphibians, marsh birds, bats, mussels,
and invasive plant species would be of particular value.
The CCP planning process also identified a need to map baseline distributions of:
 Climbing milkweed (Sarcostemma cynanchoides Decne. subsp. cynanchoides);
 Native cane;
 Strecker’s chorus frog; and
 Breeding habitat for Bell’s vireo and painted bunting.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
Volunteer Programs and Partnerships
There is an opportunity to improve volunteer support for the refuge by developing a list of volunteer
opportunities and job descriptions, and then recruiting volunteers willing to work at the refuge on a regular
basis. Among other tasks, trained volunteers with appropriate technical expertise could conduct or assist
in wildlife surveys, habitat management projects, and rehabilitation of injured wildlife.
Development of a “Friends of the Refuge” group could make implementation of many of the
recommendations of the CCP easier to achieve.
Cooperative Opportunities
There are opportunities to continue, expand, or initiate participation with other organizations in
cooperative conservation activities on the refuge. These include:
 Continue cooperation on Christmas Bird Count (Audubon Society);
 Cooperative evaluation of aquatic enhancement activities through the Arkansas River
Navigation Project (USACE);
 Continue annual dove surveys/breeding bird surveys (Pope County, USGS);
 Cooperative aquatic habitat evaluation (AGFC);
 Cooperative deer herd evaluation (Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study or
AGFC);
 Maintain or initiate collaborations of creel surveys and wildlife population surveys (Arkansas
Technical University and AGFC).
Wilderness Review
Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation
planning process. The results of the wilderness review are included in Appendix H.
44 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
IV. Management Direction
INTRODUCTION
The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats considering the needs of all resources in decision-making.
But first and foremost, fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge management.
A requirement of the Improvement Act is for the Service to maintain the ecological health, diversity,
and integrity of refuges. Public uses are allowed if they are appropriate and compatible with wildlife
and habitat conservation. The Service has identified six priority wildlife-dependent public uses.
These uses are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental
education and interpretation.
Described below is the proposed CCP for managing the refuge over the next 15 years. This
proposed management direction contains the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used to
achieve the refuge vision.
Four alternatives for managing the refuge were considered: Alternative A–Continue Current Management
(No Action); Alternative B–Enhanced Management of Habitat and Fish and Wildlife Populations;
Alternative C–Enhanced Management for Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses; and Alternative D–Balanced
Enhancement of Management for Habitat and Wildlife Populations and Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses.
Each of these alternatives is described in the Alternatives section of the Environmental Assessment. The
Service chose Alternative D as the proposed management direction.
Implementing the proposed alternative will improve refuge operation by balancing enhanced habitat and
fish and wildlife population management and enhanced wildlife-dependent public use management. This
adaptive management alternative consists of implementation of selected enhancements from Alternatives
B and C, focusing on specific enhancements for which inherent linkages will result in greater benefits to
the refuge and surrounding area than the benefits of each enhancement implemented separately. For
example, the baseline biological information developed under Alternative B will be useful in identifying
opportunities to improve visitor experiences, and the increased volunteer support management developed
under Alternative C will lead to increased efficiencies in collecting data on biological resources and
responses (e.g., nuisance and invasive species occurrence, deer herd status, and evaluation of habitat
management efforts) identified in Alternative B.
VISION
Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge will continue to provide habitat for migrating and wintering
waterfowl and other migratory birds through management of agricultural, scrub/shrub and grassland,
bottomland hardwood, moist-soil, and aquatic habitats. Management of these habitats will enhance
protection of threatened, endangered, resident, and migratory species, and increase wildlife diversity.
Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge will manage fish and wildlife resources to meet local, state, and
national goals while promoting compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities.
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES
The goals, objectives, and strategies presented are the Service’s response to the issues, concerns,
and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff and partners, and the public, and are
presented in hierarchical format. Chapter V, Plan Implementation, identifies the projects associated
with the various strategies.
46 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
These goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates of the
Improvement Act, the mission of the Refuge System, and the purposes and vision of Holla Bend NWR.
The Service intends to accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies within the next 15 years.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
Goal 1. Fish and Wildlife Population Management. Protect, maintain, enhance, and restore
healthy and viable populations of migratory birds, resident wildlife, fish, and native plants in a manner
that supports national and international treaties, plans, and initiatives.
Discussion: Holla Bend NWR is home to a large variety of resident fish and wildlife species, including
both federal- and state-listed threatened and endangered species. In addition, a wide diversity of
habitats provide feeding, resting, and loafing habitat for many species of migratory birds, more
specifically wintering waterfowl.
Objective 1.1 Migratory Waterfowl - Within 5 years of the date of this CCP, provide conservation
management to meet population goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP)
as stepped down through the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture (LMVJV) step-down objectives.
Discussion: Concern over waterfowl population declines in the 1980s resulted in the establishment of
the NAWMP, which focused the attention of federal, state, and private conservation groups on critical
wintering and breeding areas. The LMVJV, which encompasses Holla Bend NWR, was selected as
one of the wintering habitat focus areas.
Strategies:
 Participate in LMVJV semi-annual meetings and conference calls.
 Update the Holla Bend NWR wildlife and habitat management step-down plans.
 Review the LMVJV plan and implement goals and objectives into Holla Bend step-down
plans.
 Analyze habitat conditions and waterfowl use to determine if preferred habitat
conditions exist throughout the winter period.
 Review population objectives and compare with actual waterfowl use data annually.
 Complete an annual assessment on available forage amounts for both grain crops and
moist-soil vegetation.
 Continue efforts to improve water management capabilities.
 Maintain a GIS database of all wood duck box locations.
 Maintain a GIS database of all water control structures.
 Establish water level gauges in moist-soil lands.
 Establish regular frequency for waterfowl surveys within staff constraints.
 Develop a plan to create a waterfowl sanctuary area where human disturbance to
waterfowl would be minimal during the critical wintering period (November 15 – March 1)
Objective 1.2 Migratory Birds–Closure Zone and Sanctuary - Within 5 years of the date of this
CCP, maintain the existing Migratory Bird Closure Zone to ensure that the refuge remains as an area
free from disturbance to wintering waterfowl.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47
Discussion: High waterfowl harvest rates and hunting activity in Arkansas make sanctuary an
important function of Arkansas refuges. Sanctuary or refuge is critical for waterfowl to conserve
energy to survive the winter period and conduct activities preparatory to perform other life
functions, particularly reproduction.
Strategies:
 Maintain and update closure zone signage with boundary survey and placement of
concrete markers.
 Continue to partner with USACE and private landowners to maintain signage on areas
outside Holla Bend NWR.
Objective 1.3 Migratory Waterfowl–Surveying and Banding - Over the 15-year life of this CCP,
continue efforts to document waterfowl use of the various habitats on Holla Bend NWR.
Discussion: Regional banding quotas, which are stepped down to individual states and stations to
distribute banding throughout the range of the wood duck, have been established to determine
harvest and survival. Efforts should be made to meet any quota assigned to the refuge. Further,
general observations indicate that the number of migratory Canada geese that winter on Holla Bend
NWR has declined significantly during the last 5 or 6 years. Official goose survey data for the refuge
in recent years has been incomplete.
Strategies:
 Conduct ground-based refuge-wide waterfowl surveys bi-weekly from October-March,
and record species numbers by major units within the refuge and total numbers.
 Participate in the official mid-winder waterfowl survey, working with the state to report
data in accepted formats.
 Work with the state to obtain assistance with aerial surveys and provide species numbers.
 When conducting ground counting/inventories in addition to or in lieu of aerial surveys,
describe the procedures and repeat using the same procedures for each count.
 Monitor wood duck nest boxes regularly before, during, and after the breeding seasons.
 Meet wood duck banding quotas during the July 1 – September 30 preseason banding
period, thereby contributing to the achievement of state, regional and national flyway goals.
Objective 1.4 Habitat - Within 5 years of the date of this CCP, provide adequate moist-soil and
agriculture habitats to meet the objective of approximately 1.28 million duck energy days (DEDs)
of wintering waterfowl foraging habitat annually and the goose foraging habitat objective of about
360,000 use-days.
Discussion: Habitat objectives are based on food production and acres by habitat type for the
complex of habitats including harvested and unharvested cropland and moist-soil areas. Each of
these habitats is required to provide an important part of the food resources (i.e., native weed seeds,
small grains, and invertebrates) required by wintering waterfowl.
Strategies:
 Provide approximately 150 acres of flooded moist-soil habitat.
 Conduct vegetative surveys annually in managed impoundments to assess waterfowl
food production and vegetative treatment recommendations.
48 Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
 Maintain and improve farming productivity via crop rotation, soil analysis, etc.
 Provide a minimum 25 percent total farm acreage in unharvested grain crop for
winter feed.
 Improve water supply and control in de-watering moist-soil units.
Objective 1.5 Nesting and Resident Waterfowl - Within 5 years of the date of this CCP, provide
nesting and brood-rearing habitat for wood ducks to support objectives of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan at Holla Bend NWR.
Discussion: Early in the 20th century, nesting cavities for wood ducks became scarce. Many land
managers began placing wood duck nest boxes in the appropriate habitat.
Strategies:
 Provide nesting, brood-rearing, and feeding areas for wood ducks in key areas of the refuge.
 Before the breeding season, inventory wood duck boxes for proper predator guards
and nesting material, and repair as necessary.
 Conduct at least one wood duck nest box check after the breeding season to ensure
the box and predator guards are in good condition and to refresh nesting material.
 Do not harvest older trees that may form natural cavities.
 Follow the publication entitled “Increasing Wood Duck Productivity: Guidelines for
Management and Banding-USFWS Refuge Lands (Southeast Region)” (Division of
Migratory Birds 2003) for nest box programs.
 Maintain a GIS database of all wood duck box locations.
Objective 1.6 Migrating Geese - Within 2 years of the date of this CCP, provide corn, milo, and
wheat browse to meet the needs of migrating geese.
Discussion: Geese require a high-energy food source such as corn or milo, but will also feed on
green plants such as winter wheat. Corn must be located in the middle of relatively large (about
20 acres or larger) open fields because geese are wary of predators that may be lurking in cover.
Winter wheat is planted by either the Holla Bend NWR staff or cooperative farmers in areas that
need to be supplemented.
Strategies:
 Provide at least 300 ac