Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              S C N W R Comprehensive Conservation Plan
S C
W R
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Mississippi Sandhill Crane
National Wildlife Refuge
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
USFWS Photto
Refuge Complex Manager - Lloyd Culp
Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR,
7200 Crane Lane, Gautier, MS, 39553
Phone: (228) 497-6322
e-mail: MississippiSandhillCrane@fws.gov
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1 800/344 WILD
http://www.fws.gov
September 2007
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for
management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies
needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and identify the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above
current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service
strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans
do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational
and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
Mississippi Sandhill Crane
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
September 2007
MISSISSIPPI SANDHILL CRANE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Jackson County, Mississippi
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
September 2007
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose of and Need for the Plan ................................................................................................ 2
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................................... 3
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 3
Legal Policy Context ..................................................................................................................... 4
National Conservation Plans and Initiatives ................................................................................. 5
Partners in Flight ................................................................................................................. 5
North American Waterfowl Management Plan .................................................................... 5
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and Wading Bird Plan .................................................. 6
American Woodcock Management Plan ............................................................................. 6
North American Bird Conservation Initiative ....................................................................... 6
Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation ............................................................... 6
Relationship to State Conservation Agencies .............................................................................. 7
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
Refuge History and Purposes ....................................................................................................... 9
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 12
Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem Context ...................................................................................... 12
Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem Plan ........................................................................................... 14
Ecological Threats and Problems ...............................................................................................14
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation ....................................................................................... 14
Alterations to Hydrology .................................................................................................... 16
Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants and Animals ........................................................ 17
Hurricane Katrina .............................................................................................................. 17
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 17
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 17
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 18
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 18
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 19
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 20
Water Quality and Quantity ............................................................................................... 20
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 20
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 20
Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................26
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 32
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 34
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 35
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 35
Education and Visitor Services ......................................................................................... 44
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 46
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................. 49
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 49
i i Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................... 50
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 50
Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 50
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 51
Public Use and Environmental Education ......................................................................... 51
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 52
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 53
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 53
Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 53
Goal A – Wildlife and Habitat Management ...................................................................... 54
Goal B – Resource Protection ........................................................................................... 71
Goal C – Public Use and Environmental Education .......................................................... 75
Goal D – Refuge Administration ........................................................................................ 81
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 83
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 83
Project Summaries ..................................................................................................................... 83
Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 83
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 85
Education and Visitor Services ......................................................................................... 86
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 86
Staffing and Funding .................................................................................................................. 87
Partnership Opportunities ........................................................................................................... 87
Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 89
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 90
Plan Review and Revision .......................................................................................................... 90
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................. 91
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED................................................................. 93
APPENDIX III. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................... 97
APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 101
APPENDIX V. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ...................................................................... 103
APPENDIX VI. REFUGE BIOTA ....................................................................................................... 115
APPENDIX VII. PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES AND SPECIES SUITES .............................................. 125
APPENDIX VIII. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................ 133
APPENDIX IX. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 135
APPENDIX X. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM ......................... 137
APPENDIX XI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................ 141
Table of Contents iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge. .......................................... 2
Figure 2. Vicinity map of Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge. .................................. 10
Figure 3. Fish and Wildlife Service designated ecosystems in the conterminous United States. ....... 13
The Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem is No. 29. ..................................................................... 13
Figure 4. Current land cover types and visitor facilities at Mississippi Sandhill Crane
National Wildlife Refuge units. ............................................................................................. 24
Figure 5. Population trend of Mississippi sandhill cranes on the refuge. ............................................ 27
Figure 6. Desired habitat conditions on Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge. ........... 67
Figure 7. Present and proposed public use facilities on Mississippi Sandhill Crane
National Wildlife Refuge. ..................................................................................................... 76
Figure 8. Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge current staffing chart. ......................... 88
Figure 9. Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge proposed staffing chart. ..................... 88
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Currently estimated habitat acreages by type. ...................................................................... 21
Table 2. Carnivorous plants on the refuge. ......................................................................................... 24
Table 3. Declining grassland (and associated habitat) bird species of conservation importance
found on Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge. ............................................. 28
Table 4. Possible herpetological species list for Mississippi Sandhill Crane National
Wildlife Refuge. ..................................................................................................................... 30
Table 5. Results of predator control, 2000-2001. ................................................................................ 40
Table 6. Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge personnel. ........................................... 47
Table 7. Additional personnel identified to implement the Comprehensive Conservation
Plan for Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge ................................................ 87
Table 8. Step-down management plans. ............................................................................................ 89
i v Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, the Service) has developed this Comprehensive
Conservation Plan to provide a foundation for the management and use of Mississippi Sandhill Crane
National Wildlife Refuge in Jackson County, Mississippi (Figure 1). The plan is intended to serve as a
working guide for the refuge’s management programs and actions over the next 15 years.
This plan was developed in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and Wildlife Service
Manual. The actions described in this plan also meet the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Compliance with NEPA was achieved through the involvement of the
public and the inclusion of a Draft Environmental Assessment. When fully implemented, this plan will
strive to achieve the vision and purposes of the refuge.
The plan’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which the refuge was established.
Fish and wildlife are the first priority in refuge management, and public use (e.g., wildlife-dependent
recreation) is allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, or does not detract from, the
refuge’s mission and purposes.
The plan was prepared by a planning team composed of representatives from the refuge, including
the refuge manager, wildlife biologist, and fire management officer; a natural resources planner from
the Service’s Jackson, Mississippi, field office; biologists representing the Mississippi Department of
Marine Resources and the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks; The Nature
Conservancy, a nongovernmental conservation organization that is a partner and manager of
adjacent lands; and the Mangi Environmental Group, a Service contractor. In developing this plan,
the planning team and refuge staff incorporated the input and contributions of other federal, state,
and local agencies; nongovernmental organizations; conservation groups; local citizens; the general
public; and other stakeholders. This public involvement and the planning process itself are described
in Chapter III, Plan Development.
The plan represents the Service’s preferred alternative and is being put forward after considering
three other alternatives, which were described in the draft environmental assessment. After
reviewing the public comments and management needs, the planning team developed these
alternatives in an attempt to determine how to best meet the goals and objectives of Mississippi
Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, is the Service’s
recommended course of action for the management of the refuge, and is embodied in this plan.
2 Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Location of Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge.
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan is to identify the role that Mississippi Sandhill
Crane National Wildlife Refuge will play in support of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge
System, and to provide long-term guidance to the refuge’s management programs and activities. The
plan is needed to
􀁹􇤠 provide a clear statement of direction for the future management of the refuge;
􀁹􇤠 provide neighbors, visitors, nongovernmental partners, and government officials with an
understanding of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s management actions on and around the
refuge;
􀁹􇤠 ensure that the Service’s management actions, including land protection and recreational and
educational programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997;
􀁹􇤠 ensure that the management of the refuge considers federal, state, and county plans; and
􀁹􇤠 provide a basis for development of the refuge’s budget requests for operational, maintenance,
and capital improvement needs.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
A critical management consideration for the Service is to communicate with the public and include
public participation in its efforts to carry out the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Many
agencies, organizations, institutions, businesses, and private citizens have developed relationships
with the Service to advance the goals of the Refuge System.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, working with others, is to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
The Service manages the 96 million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, comprised of more than
540 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands, and other special management areas. It
also operates 66 national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field
stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws; administers the Endangered Species Act;
manages migratory bird populations; restores nationally significant fisheries; conserves and restores
wildlife habitat such as wetlands; and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It
also oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes
on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.
The Service is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the
Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Although it shares some conservation
responsibilities with other federal, state, tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has specific
trustee responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, anadromous fish,
and certain marine mammals.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s largest network of lands specifically managed for
the benefit of fish and wildlife. The mission of the 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 established, for the first time, a clear
mission of wildlife conservation for the Refuge System. The Act states that each refuge shall be
managed to
􀁹􇤠 fulfill the individual purpose of each refuge;
􀁹􇤠 fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 consider the needs of fish and wildlife first;
􀁹􇤠 fulfill the requirement of developing a comprehensive conservation plan for each unit of the
Refuge System, and fully involve the public in the preparation of these plans;
􀁹􇤠 maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are
legitimate and priority public uses; and
􀁹􇤠 retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses.
4 Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
Following passage of the Act in 1997, the Service immediately began efforts to implement the
direction of the new legislation, including the preparation of comprehensive conservation plans for all
refuges. The development of these plans is ongoing nationally. Consistent with the Act, all plans are
being prepared in conjunction with public involvement, and each refuge is required to complete its
plan within a 15-year schedule.
Approximately 38 million people visited America’s national wildlife refuges in 2002, mostly to observe
wildlife in their natural habitats. As this visitation continues to grow, significant economic benefits are
being generated to local communities that surround the refuges. Economists have reported that
national wildlife refuge visitors contribute more than $400 million annually to the local economies. In
2001, 82 million U.S. residents aged 16 years and older fished, hunted, or observed wildlife,
generating a national total of $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges in 14 states
around the nation, 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 the economies of local communities. Other findings also validate the
belief that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and
transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each
federal dollar spent on the National Refuge System, the surrounding communities have benefited with
$4.43 in recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland 2003).
Volunteerism continues to be a major contributor to the successes of the Refuge System. In 2002,
thousands of volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million person-hours on refuges nationwide, a
service valued at more than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses the following principles:
􀁹􇤠 Wildlife comes first.
􀁹􇤠 Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital considerations in refuge management.
􀁹􇤠 Refuges must be healthy.
􀁹􇤠 Growth of refuges must be strategic.
􀁹􇤠 The National Wildlife Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with broad
participation from others.
LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National
Wildlife Refuge System, congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international
treaties. Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative
guidelines established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Please refer to Appendix III for a complete list of the
relevant legal mandates.
Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and
legally opened. The Service must evaluate all programs and uses based on the mandates set
forth in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. These mandates are to
􀁹􇤠 contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
􀁹􇤠 conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
􀁹􇤠 monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
􀁹􇤠 manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses, as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public (these uses include
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation); and
􀁹􇤠 ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
NATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan supports the Partners in Flight initiative; the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan; U.S. Shorebird and Wading Bird plans; American Woodcock
Management Plan; North American Bird Conservation initiative; and Partners in Amphibian and
Reptile Conservation.
PARTNERS IN FLIGHT
Growing concern about declines in many land bird species not covered by existing conservation
initiatives led to the launching of Partners in Flight in 1990. Partners in Flight is an international,
cooperative effort of government agencies, philanthropies, professional organizations, conservation
groups, industry, academia, and private individuals. Its initial focus was on neotropical migratory
birds—species that breed in North America and winter in Central and South America—but its
emphasis has now expanded to encompass most land birds and other species requiring terrestrial
habitats. Partners in Flight has a number of initiatives underway, including a North American
Landbird Conservation Plan. This plan is voluntary and nonregulatory, and focuses on relatively
common species in areas where conservation actions can be most effective, rather than the frequent
local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations. Partners in Flight’s main premise is that the
resources of public and private entities in the Americas, both North and South, must be combined,
coordinated, and increased if success in conserving hemispheric bird populations is to be achieved
(Partners in Flight n.d.).
Partners in Flight has formed bird conservation plans by bird conservation regions that set
conservation priorities and habitat and population objectives. Priority habitats found on Mississippi
Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge that are considered a priority in the East Gulf Coastal Plain
physiographic area include the longleaf and slash pine savannas formerly found throughout the lower
coastal plain, and the dry and wet prairies from southeastern Louisiana to the Florida panhandle.
Currently, less than three percent of the original savanna can be found in the southeast. The largest
remaining fragments of pine savanna (outside of Apalachicola National Forest in Florida) within the
East Gulf Coastal Plain are Garcon Point, Florida; Grand Bay, Alabama; and Mississippi Sandhill
Crane Refuge, Mississippi. High-priority bird species in East Gulf Coastal Plain pine habitat include
the Mississippi sandhill crane, Henslow’s sparrow, Bachman’s sparrow, American kestrel, brown-headed
nuthatch, prairie warbler, sedge wren, red-cockaded woodpecker, and northern bobwhite.
NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan began in 1986 with the signing of an agreement
between Canada and the United States; Mexico later joined the program in 1988. The Plan provides
a policy framework for analyzing North American waterfowl issues. It also sets out a number of
objectives relating to waterfowl habitat and populations, with a focus on conserving and expanding
wetland areas (Environment Canada 2004).
6 Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is based on the principle of joint ventures that
serve as a framework for the activities of its private and regional member agencies. These partners
coordinate their efforts in pursuit of common objectives for waterfowl protection in each region,
province, or state.
U.S. SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN AND WADING BIRD PLAN
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and Wading Bird Plan are partnership efforts throughout the
United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird and wading bird
species are restored and protected. Both plans were developed by a wide range of agencies,
organizations, and experts for separate regions of the country. They identify conservation goals,
critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach
programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face (USFWS n.d.a).
AMERICAN WOODCOCK MANAGEMENT PLAN
Woodcock trends in the United States have been declining annually for the last 15 years in spite of
actions that have been taken to ensure that hunting does not substantially promote declines, such as
reduced bag limits and limited season lengths. An American Woodcock Management Plan, initiated
in the 1990s, points out the need for improved breeding, migration, and wintering habitat to enhance
population growth and survival (McAuley and Clugston n.d.). Much of the decline is thought to be
caused by land use changes and the maturing of forest habitats that result in less early successional
scrub/shrub habitats preferred by woodcock.
Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge will contribute to the listed goals of the American
Woodcock Management Plan by continuing to plant 4–5 food plots that will benefit these birds.
NORTH AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
The North American Bird Conservation Initiative is a broad coalition of governmental,
nongovernmental, and academic organizations interested in coordinating efforts to conserve bird
populations and the landscapes upon which they depend. The Initiative evolved in 1998, out of
recognition among conservationists of the value of coordinating and integrating planning,
implementation, and evaluation efforts of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners
in Flight, the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the Wading Bird Plan. The goal is to cause the
combined effectiveness of these separate programs to exceed the total of their parts. The Mississippi
Sandhill Crane Refuge is included in the Southeast Coastal Bird Conservation Region.
PARTNERS IN AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE CONSERVATION
The Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC) was founded in 1998 to address the
need for conservation of herpetofauna—amphibians and reptiles—and their habitats (Partners in
Amphibian and Reptile Conservation 2004). Its mission is to conserve amphibians, reptiles, and their
habitats as integral parts of the ecosystem and culture through proactive and coordinated
public/private partnerships. The first organizational meeting of this group was attended by more than
200 individuals from over 170 organizations and agencies, including representatives from federal and
state agencies; conservation organizations; museums; nature centers; universities; research
laboratories; the forest products industry; the pet trade industry; and environmental consultants and
contractors, including participants from 33 states, the District of Columbia, Canada, and Mexico.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
The Mississippi Sandhill Crane refuge will contribute to the following goals of PARC:
􀁹􇤠 Complete a baseline study of refuge amphibian and reptile populations.
􀁹􇤠 Maintain quality of wetlands (e.g., water quality).
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE CONSERVATION AGENCIES
A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency
policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other
federal agencies, state fish and wildlife agencies, and tribal governments during the course of
acquiring and managing refuges. This cooperation is essential in providing the foundation for the
protection and sustainability of fish and wildlife throughout the United States. In Mississippi, two state
conservation agencies—the Department of Marine Resources and the Department of Wildlife,
Fisheries, and Parks—regularly partner with the Fish and Wildlife Service in efforts to conserve
habitats and wildlife populations in the state.
The Mississippi Legislature created the Department of Marine Resources in 1994 as a separate
governing agency to enhance, protect, and conserve the state’s marine interests. Under the authority
of the Commission on Marine Resources, the Department of Marine Resources manages all marine
life, public trust wetlands, adjacent uplands, and waterfront areas in Mississippi. It also provides for
the balanced commercial, recreational, educational, and economic uses of marine-related resources,
consistent with environmental concerns and social changes (Mississippi Department of Marine
Resources n.d.a). The Department of Marine Resources and the Commission on Marine Resources
play an important role in implementing and administering Mississippi seafood laws, the Mississippi
Coastal Wetlands Protection Act, the Public Trust Tidelands Act, the Boat and Water Safety Act, the
Derelict Vessel Act, the Non-Point Source Pollution Act, the Magnuson Act, the Wallop-Breaux
Sportfish Restoration Act, and Marine Litter Act, as well as other state and federal mandates
(Mississippi Department of Marine Resources n.d.b). In addition, the Department of Marine
Resources operates Mississippi’s Coastal Preserves Program.
The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) is charged with enforcement
responsibilities for migratory birds and endangered species, as well as managing the state’s natural
resources. The total area owned or managed by the MDWFP in support of wildlife, recreation, and
fisheries is 828,408 acres. This includes 42 wildlife management areas and 29 state parks
encompassing 823,297 acres, and 21 lakes totaling 5,111 acres. The MDWFP directs the state’s
wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation opportunities, including an extensive
hunting and fishing program, on several wildlife management areas and parks located near the refuge.
Overall, a combined total of nearly 100 wildlife management areas and national wildlife refuge areas
provide the foundation for the protection of wildlife species throughout Mississippi, and contribute to the
overall health and sustainability of fish and wildlife (Southeastern Outdoors 2004).
Each agency’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process has been invaluable.
They continue to work with the Service in providing ongoing opportunities for an open dialogue with
the public to improve the ecological sustainability of fish and wildlife in Mississippi. A key aspect of
the planning process is the integration of common objectives between the Service and both agencies,
where appropriate.
8 Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
The sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) is a long-necked, grayish-brown bird that stands about four feet
tall. It broadly resembles the great blue heron in size and shape but has a distinctive reddish crown
and vocalizations often described as “loud and clattering” (USFWS 1991). Most of North America’s
sandhill cranes are also noted for their long migrations. The Mississippi sandhill crane (G. c. pulla) is
an endangered, nonmigratory subspecies of the sandhill crane.
Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1975 in Jackson County in
southeastern Mississippi (Figure 2) for the protection and recovery of this critically endangered bird and
the restoration of its unique habitat, wet pine savanna (e.g., pitcher plant bogs). An estimated 95–97
percent of wet pine savanna habitat has been altered and the refuge plays a critical role as a
representative remnant of this ecosystem. The Mississippi Sandhill Crane Refuge consists of three
separate units totaling approximately 19,300 acres: the Gautier, Ocean Springs, and Fontainebleau units.
Each unit lies within the limited nesting range of the endangered Mississippi sandhill crane (GORP n.d.).
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSES
Resident sandhill cranes formed a continuous population in Georgia and Florida and discontinuous
populations along the Gulf Coastal Plain of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Mississippi
sandhill cranes originally occurred in small separate colonies along the Gulf Coast of Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Nesting sandhill cranes were so abundant in the marshes and wet
prairies of southwestern Louisiana that they were considered a serious pest (USFWS 1991). Now, in
contrast, nonmigratory sandhill cranes nest only in Mississippi and Florida.
The Mississippi sandhill crane was recognized as a separate subspecies in 1972, distinguished from the five
other subspecies of sandhill cranes by morphological, physiological, and genetic traits (Gee and Hereford
1995). For example, Mississippi birds mature earlier and begin egg production about six weeks later than
Florida sandhill cranes. They are consistently darker in color. Also, genetic studies have shown a level of
heterozygosity (i.e., a measure of genetic variation in a population) in the wild Mississippi population about
half that in other sandhill cranes. As in other small populations, Mississippi sandhill cranes appear to have
certain genetic weaknesses. In the captive population, for example, 17 percent of all birds die from
detectable heart murmurs; and when released to the wild, 36 percent with heart murmurs and 83 percent
without heart murmurs survive for one year after release (Gee and Hereford 1995).
Historically, the Mississippi sandhill crane was found in semi-open, wet savanna habitat that was
once prevalent in southern Jackson County. Savannas are meadows established on acidic water-logged
soil, unsuitable for most land uses. Sharing the habitat with grazing cattle and sheep, the
crane survived in the isolation provided by this unproductive land. By the mid-1950s, however, timber
companies purchased the savanna tracts and converted them into pine plantations. Agricultural and
industrial development, including World War II ship building, fire suppression on the pine plantations,
and other forestry practices destroyed much of the sandhill crane's habitat in Jackson County. The
Service added the Mississippi sandhill crane to the endangered species list in 1973 and established
the Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge in 1975. Also, the Service began captive
breeding at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in 1965 to protect the subspecies during habitat
restoration and to provide stock for reintroduction.
10 Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 2. Vicinity map of Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
The population decline of the Mississippi sandhill crane reflects the disappearance of the mesic
(drier) and hydric (wetter) pine savannas that once abounded in the region. Savannas are found on
coastal terraces, elevated ridges, and uplands. Fire frequency and intensity, along with soil type and
hydrology, regulate succession in the savanna. Without fire, woody forested communities tend to
replace the savanna. Before ditching to drain the lands, the flat topography of the terraces allowed
sheet flow of water across the terraces and supported extensive areas of open savanna. When the
refuge was first established, about 75 percent of the crane savannas had been eliminated by
residential or commercial development or converted to one of several different forest types. At
present, only five percent or less of the original savanna habitat that supported the cranes remains on
the Gulf Coastal Plain. For this reason, Mississippi sandhill cranes now occur only on the refuge
named for them, and on adjacent private lands in the vicinity of the refuge.
Both the Mississippi and the Florida sandhill crane were listed as rare on the 1968 list of Rare and
Endangered Fish and Wildlife in the United States. Then, after being described as a distinct
subspecies in 1972, the Mississippi sandhill crane was placed on the Endangered Species list on
June 4, 1973. The Service published an emergency critical habitat determination in September 1975,
consisting of approximately 100,000 acres (USFWS 2005). Approximately 26,000 acres were
included by the Service in the 1977 final rule designating critical habitat for the Mississippi sandhill
crane. In 1974, with a purchase of 1,709 acres, The Nature Conservancy (a nongovernmental
conservation organization) began acquiring lands in the vicinity for the preservation of the
endangered Mississippi sandhill crane.
Also in the 1970s, the proposed location for construction of an interchange on Interstate Highway 10
posed a threat to the crane and its habitat. The National Wildlife Federation and the Mississippi
Wildlife Federation filed suit in the Southern District Federal Court against the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and Mississippi Highway Department for violating
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act.
The National Wildlife Federation argued in court that as then proposed, I-10 would bisect the
Mississippi sandhill crane’s range and destroy or modify critical crane habitat, thereby jeopardizing its
continued existence. The court ruled that I-10 would not jeopardize the cranes, but the plaintiffs
appealed to the Circuit Court and the decision was reversed. Ultimately, the U.S. Department of the
Interior ruled that the Department of Transportation should purchase 1,960 acres adjacent to the
proposed interchange and the Gautier-Vancleave Road to protect crane habitat from commercial and
residential development. These lands were acquired and construction of the I-10 interchange
commenced (USFWS 1991).
The Mississippi Sandhill Crane Refuge was eventually established on November 25, 1975, with the
purchase of 1,749 acres of land from The Nature Conservancy. The refuge was established under
the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205), which calls for the federal
government:
“...to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and
threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of
such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be
appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth...
” (16 U.S.C. 1533, 87 Stat. 885).
12 Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
The Mississippi Sandhill Crane Refuge is the first national wildlife refuge in the country for which the
Endangered Species Act was used as its establishing legislation. Additional purposes of the refuge
are found in the Fish and Wildlife Act and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act:
“... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and
wildlife resources....” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)
“... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and
services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative
covenant, or condition of servitude....” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)
“... conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and
their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans...
” 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)
Congressional action in 1978 provided an appropriation of $4 million to the U.S. Department of
Transportation to acquire the lands in the interchange area, which would become part of the national
wildlife refuge. Staffing of the Mississippi Sandhill Crane Refuge began in January 1978. In 1997,
$9.7 million of Land and Water Conservation funds were also appropriated for land acquisition
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005).
The only formal objectives for the refuge were included in a one-page master plan published in 1981.
These objectives were:
􀁹􇤠 To provide protection and management for the endangered Mississippi sandhill crane, by
restoring, improving, and maintaining nesting, feeding, and roosting habitat within the refuge.
􀁹􇤠 To protect and conserve unique savanna habitat of south Mississippi.
􀁹􇤠 To provide opportunities for environmental education and interpretation and wildlife-dependent
recreation to refuge visitors.
The Mississippi Sandhill Crane Recovery Plan was originally written in 1976, and amended in 1979
and 1984; the current approved version is dated September 6, 1991. It states: “The recovery
objective is to maintain a genetically viable, stable, self-sustaining, free-living Mississippi sandhill
crane population.”
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
The refuge does not include any special designation sites such as Research Natural Areas.
CENTRAL GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
In approaching its mission to conserve wildlife and their habitats throughout the country, the Fish and
Wildlife Service has found it useful to divide the country into 53 distinct ecosystems, drawn primarily
along watershed boundaries (Figure 3). Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge lies
within, and is an active participant of conservation efforts within the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem,
which spans portions of Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. As such, the refuge collaborates in
pursuing goals and objectives of the ecosystem, as a whole, in addition to working toward achieving
goals specific to itself.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Much of the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem is characterized by flat to rolling topography broken up by
numerous streams and river bottoms. Uplands are dominated by pine (longleaf and slash pines in
the south, originally) and shortleaf pine mixed with hardwoods in the north. These are fire-maintained
systems that give way to loblolly pine and hardwoods in damper areas and to bottomland hardwood
forests in extensive lowland drainages. Within its southernmost reaches, the ecosystem
encompasses estuaries and coastal waters and includes saline, brackish (e.g., mixed saline and
fresh) and fresh waters, as well as coastlines and adjacent lands. Coastal dunes, strands, offshore
barrier islands, and tidal marsh, in addition to the freshwater wetlands, pine woodlands, and live oak
forests, are all interrelated parts of the functioning whole. As such, they each figure as crucial habitat
for coastal fish and wildlife. Today, the ecological health of the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem is
significantly degraded in comparison to historical baselines. The refuge is located in the southern
portion of the ecosystem.
Sustainable communities and species conservation and recovery require the joint efforts of private
landowners and local communities, as well as state and federal governments. This synergy of
federal, state, tribal, and private organizations working together will ensure that the Service not only
protects the more important areas, but also reduces redundancy of effort, allowing precious resources
to be directed where they are most needed.
Figure 3. Fish and Wildlife Service designated ecosystems in the conterminous United States.
The Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem is No. 29.
14 Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
CENTRAL GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM PLAN
The restoration, recovery, and protection of pine habitats and associated plant and animal
communities are the goals of the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem Plan. Historically, the longleaf pine
community was the predominant vegetative community of the southeastern coastal plain, with roughly
60 percent coverage in upland areas. Currently, most of the remaining longleaf pine and pine
savanna habitat is in private ownership. It is highly fragmented and degraded by logging, grazing,
intensive site preparation, and fire suppression (USFWS 2003a).
The regional ecosystem priorities for 2003 were extracted from the ecosystem team activity guidance,
and those that involved the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem included:
􀁹􇤠 Waterfowl management and resident and neotropical migratory bird monitoring;
􀁹􇤠 Control of invasive/exotic species;
􀁹􇤠 Outreach and environmental education;
􀁹􇤠 Significant decline in longleaf pine ecosystem;
���􇤠 Fish passage; and
􀁹􇤠 Fisheries program support.
Restoring the functions and values of wetlands in the Southeast Region is a top priority. The goal is
to prioritize and manage wetlands to most effectively maintain the ecosystem and possibly restore its
biological diversity. Some areas are prioritized as focus areas for reforestation.
It is widely recognized, however, that most of the acreage of forested wetlands that have been cleared
and converted to other uses in the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem will not be reforested. Some areas
would have lower value for reforestation and so are targeted for intensive management for nonforest-dependent
species, such as waterfowl and shorebirds. Through combining efforts, apportioning
resources, and focusing on available programs, the ecosystem’s biological diversity can be restored.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION
Over the past two centuries, as civilization has spread throughout the region, ever-increasing needs
for transportation, housing, water supply, electricity, food, and waste disposal have led to dramatic
alterations of the landscape. The greatest alterations have been from land clearing for agriculture
and flood control projects.
Although these changes have allowed people to settle down and earn a living, they have had tremendous
negative impacts on the biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of the Central
Gulf Coast Ecosystem. National wildlife refuges in this ecosystem have come to serve as part of the final
safety net to support biological diversity—the greatest challenge, in fact, facing the Service.
For coastal habitats located along the Gulf, underlying threats to biological diversity include:
􀁹􇤠 Loss, alteration, and fragmentation of high-quality coastal habitat due to development;
􀁹􇤠 Loss of natural shoreline as a result of development, hydrologic modifications, natural erosion,
bulkheading, shoreline armoring, and inadequate coastal engineering;
����􇤠 Lack of monitoring and regulation to protect fish and wildlife resources; and
􀁹􇤠 Increased demand for beach access and use, resulting in increased disturbance to wildlife.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
More generally, threats to biodiversity across the variety of habitat types represented in this
ecosystem are posed by invasive species; overuse of resources; pollution; global climate change;
improper practices of fire suppression; and, most of all, habitat loss and fragmentation.
As a consequence of these threats, all manner of habitats in this ecosystem have seen their
acreages reduced. Forested wetlands, marshes, oyster reefs, and seagrass beds are disappearing
rapidly. Immense areas of bottomland hardwood forests have been reduced to forest fragments.
These range from a few large areas of more than 10,000 acres that have maintained many of the
original functions and values of bottomland hardwood forests, to very small tracts just a few acres in
size and possessing limited functional value.
Elimination and fragmentation of coastal habitats have decimated wildlife species throughout the Gulf
Coast, and are recognized by the Service as serious threats to wildlife in Mississippi. The species
most adversely affected by fragmentation are those that are area-sensitive or require special habitat,
such as protected, undisturbed beach dunes that offer secure breeding habitat and a particular food
source. Fragmentation affects migratory songbirds, sea turtles, beach mice, and many other species,
primarily through high rates of nesting failure and predation. While more than 370 species of
breeding migratory songbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and raptors are found in this region, some of
these species or subspecies have declined significantly, such as the red-cockaded woodpecker,
Bachman’s warbler, and Mississippi sandhill crane. These species therefore need the benefits of
large, managed forest blocks to recover and sustain their existence.
As a result of habitat loss and degradation, the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem is experiencing biotic
extinctions at a rate unparalleled elsewhere in the United States; within the last century, nearly 50
percent of United States’ biotic extinctions have occurred in the region (USFWS n.d.b). Species once
abundant in the ecosystem that have since become threatened or endangered include the threatened
bald eagle and the endangered wood stork. The bald eagle is being proposed for de-listing. The
most highly endangered of all is the ivory-billed woodpecker, dependent on once-extensive, old-growth
swamp forests dominated by ancient cypresses and thought by many to be extinct. Until
credible but still disputed sightings in early 2004 of at least one individual at Cache River National
Wildlife Refuge in the Big Woods of eastern Arkansas, the last confirmed sighting of an ivory-billed
woodpecker was in the 1940s.
The avian species most adversely affected by fragmentation include those that are area-sensitive
(i.e., dependent on large continuous blocks of hardwood forest); those that depend on forest interiors;
those that depend on special habitat requirements like mature forests or a particular food source; and
those that depend on good water quality. Species such as the prothonotary warbler, cerulean
warbler, and, in particular, Bachman’s warbler, have declined significantly, and will require the
benefits of large, managed forest blocks to recover and sustain their existence.
Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts as
biological oases surrounded by inhospitable agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed
most of the forested corridors along sloughs that formerly connected forest patches. The loss of
connectivity between the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of a large range of wildlife
between tracts, and reduces the functional value of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The
severed connections also result in a loss of gene flow needed to maintain genetic viability and
diversity within wildlife populations. Thus, remaining populations are rendered even more vulnerable
to habitat modification and degradation. Particularly for wide-ranging species, reestablishing travel
corridors to allow movement is of critical importance.
16 Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) reports that the state’s
biodiversity has diminished due to a variety of threats, including habitat loss; proliferation of nonnative
invasive species; disruption of ecological processes; and ecosystem degradation (Mississippi
Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks n.d.a). According to the MDWFP, threats to the most
important habitat at the Mississippi Sandhill Crane Refuge—wet pine savannas—include:
􀁹􇤠 Altered fire regime;
􀁹􇤠 Forestry conversion;
􀁹􇤠 Groundwater withdrawal;
􀁹􇤠 Incompatible forestry practices;
􀁹􇤠 Industrial development;
􀁹􇤠 Invasive species;
􀁹��� Recreation activities;
􀁹􇤠 Urban/suburban development; and
􀁹􇤠 Road construction/management.
Mississippi’s wet pine savannas are not associated with riverine floodplains, but are found on broad
coastal flats and sloping plains with more than 60 inches of rainfall annually. They remain saturated for
long periods during the growing season. The coastal region receives ample growing season rainfall
from frequent convective thunderstorms, which results in the surface horizon remaining saturated for
extended periods because of the slow permeability of the area’s subsoils. Stands of wet savanna in
good condition contain herbaceous ground cover that is exceptionally diverse. While plentiful rainfall
and sunlight create ideal growing conditions, a lack of soil nutrients prevents any one species or suite of
species from dominating. Of more than 200 under-story plant species, two-thirds are graminoids (i.e.,
grasses) and one-third consist of forbs and ferns. Prominent groups of herbs include grasses, asters,
sedges, pipeworts, pitcherplants and lilies. Common grasses include beaksedge, toothache grass,
switchgrass, and three-awn. Forbs include rayless goldenrod, one-flowered honeycombhead,
sunflowers, pitcherplants, meadowbeauties, sundews, and orchids (MDWFP 2005).
ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY
The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of forested wetlands
and indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on
topography and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to
forested wetlands and waterfowl-habitat relationships.
In addition to the loss of vast acreages of bottomland-forested wetlands and other habitat types,
significant alterations have occurred in the region’s hydrology due to development; river channel
modification; flood control levees; reservoirs; and deforestation, as well as degradation of aquatic
systems from excessive sedimentation and contaminants.
Large-scale, man-made hydrological alterations have changed the spatial and temporal patterns of
flooding throughout the entire watershed, in terms of both extent and duration of flooding, in
comparison with the natural hydrology regime. This curtailment of the flooding regime has had an
enormous impact on the forested wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent species.
In coastal estuaries, the saline stratification and location of the saltwater wedge can be impacted due to
atypical levels of freshwater influxes. Factors affecting the level of freshwater inflow include erosion,
sediment load changes, river runoff and pollution, dredging, and severe weather disturbances.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Southeastern states have the greatest numbers of imperiled and vulnerable freshwater fish species in
the country. Channel modifications and pollution have gradually eliminated large populations of
native aquatic species, including fish, mussels, snails, insects, and crustaceans. Barriers to
movement prevent anadromous fish, including striped bass, Gulf sturgeon, and Alabama shad, from
reaching spawning grounds and key habitat areas. Many other aquatic species have similarly
become isolated. Without avenues for migration, impacts from land surface pollution runoff are
exacerbated. Restoration of the structure and functions of a natural wetland is complicated by the
fact that wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of hydrologic regimes to maintain water, vegetation,
and animal complexes and processes.
PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic
vegetation like alligator weed and willows. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding
and reduced water depths, resulting from excessive sedimentation, have created conditions favorable
for the establishment and proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the
introduction of exotic (nonnative) vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening the
viability of aquatic systems. These invasive aquatic plants threaten the natural aquatic vegetation
important to aquatic systems, and choke waterways to a degree that often prevents recreational use.
Various species of nonnative wildlife and fish also flourish in this temperate climate. Animals such as
nutria compete with native wildlife for limited resources; and many, like feral hogs, have caused
extensive habitat damage and alterations.
HURRICANE KATRINA
After cutting across Florida and churning through the Gulf of Mexico, on August 29, 2005, Hurricane
Katrina made landfall on the Gulf Coast near Buras, Louisiana, as a Category 4 hurricane, with
sustained winds of 145 mph and higher gusts. Katrina made her way up the eastern Louisiana
coastline with the eye wall passing just east of New Orleans. A few hours later, Katrina made landfall
for a third time near the Mississippi-Louisiana border with 125 mph Category 3 sustained winds.
However, because the storm was so large, extreme damaging eye wall winds and the strong
northeastern quadrant of the storm pushed record storm surges onshore and smashed the entire
Mississippi Gulf Coast, including towns such as Waveland; Bay St. Louis; Pass Christian; Long
Beach; Gulfport; Biloxi; Ocean Springs; Gautier; and Pascagoula. As Katrina moved inland
diagonally over Mississippi, high winds cut a swath of damage that affected almost the entire state.
After the hurricane, two dead Mississippi sandhill cranes were found and a third crane is missing and
presumed dead; however, the cause or causes of these deaths have yet to be determined. The two
dead cranes were females that accounted for 40 percent of the crane fledging in 1997. Only minor
impacts on the habitat (e.g., downed trees) and facilities (e.g., field structure damage) at Mississippi
Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge have been assessed post-hurricane; however, the
socioeconomic impacts to the area have been severe.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
As a general rule, Mississippi has hot, humid summers and relatively mild winters (U.S. Almanac
2004), and Jackson County, where the refuge is located, is no exception. Located on the Gulf of
Mexico, the county has mild winters and long spring and summer seasons. Freezing temperatures
18 Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
are rare and snowfall is even rarer. January’s average temperature is 50 degrees, while summers
reach into the 90s (Jackson County Economic Development Foundation 2003).
Weather records for nearby Pascagoula, Mississippi, indicate average maximum temperatures of 61
degrees in January, the coldest month of the year, and average minimum temperatures of 42 degrees for
the same month (Southeast Regional Climate Center 2005). July and August are the hottest months, with
an average maximum temperature of 90 degrees. Like most of Mississippi and the southeast, the area
receives substantial rainfall, averaging more than 64 inches a year; of this a mere 0.1 inch on average
falls as snow. Summer is the wettest season and July the wettest single month. In 2002, the most recent
year for which there was an Annual Narrative report, 62 inches of rain fell on the refuge (USFWS 2003b).
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
Located in the Gulf Coastal Plain within five miles of the ocean, the refuge is characterized by flat
topography and a low elevation just a few feet above mean sea level. The Mississippi-Alabama-
Florida panhandle coasts result from a history of low-to-moderate sediment supply, with the primary
sediment sources being the Mobile, Pascagoula, Pearl, and Mississippi rivers (Kindinger et al.
2004). Flat, weakly dissected alluvial plains and active coastlines predominate in this region.
Quaternary geology and soils are typically Pliocene-Pleistocene sandy clay residuum (American
Bird Conservancy n.d.).
The geologic units comprising the surface of Mississippi’s coastal counties range in age from the late
Pliocene Epoch (3.4 million years ago) to the present (Schmid and Otvos 2005). The oldest exposed
unit in the area is the Citronelle Formation. This unit, which consists mostly of sand and silt, with
some gravel, was deposited in coalescing river floodplains on the broad coastal plain from southern
Louisiana to Florida. Following the Pliocene Epoch, coastal sediments during the Pleistocene Epoch
(1.6 million to 10,000 years ago) were related to warm interglacial and cooler glacial periods. Sea
level during the Sangamon interglaciation rose as high as 20–25 feet above the present. The
Pleistocene surface formations of this period include the fluvial prairie deposits that formed level
floodplains and the ridge-forming Gulfport coastal barrier formations. They are preceded and
underlain by the muddy-sandy, fossil-rich Biloxi Formation, deposited in nearshore Gulf, bay, and
lagoonal settings. The Gulfport Formation formed a wide belt of beach ridges representing a
Sangamon age Gulf shoreline; it includes fine- to medium-grained sand and is often stained with
humate, a dark brown to black organic-rich amorphous matter that formed after deposition and
impregnated the lower Gulfport sand intervals.
In the Holocene Epoch of the last ten thousand years, the sea level has continued to rise from its very low
late-glacial stand about twenty thousand years ago. This rise gradually drowned coastal river valleys and
prevented coarse stream sediments from directly reaching the coast. Holocene sediments fill coastal
estuaries and have built up locally wide marshlands, rich in organic matter. These deposits consist mostly
of sandy fine-grained silts and clays with significant organic material (Schmid and Otvos 2005).
SOILS
The area of the refuge is characterized by poorly drained, acidic, nutrient-poor soils with a perched
water table due to a subsurface clayey hard pan. The surface soils are generally sandy-to-loamy and
the subsurface soils are silty-to-clayey.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Refuge soils are Ultisols of wet areas that have clayey horizons frequently impervious to groundwater
percolation (Clewell and Raymond 1995). These soils tend to be strongly acidic and infertile. The
following soil types and series, with recent soil classification, predominate on the refuge:
􀁹􇤠 Loamy sands: Scranton, Klej, Plummer;
􀁹􇤠 Very fine sandy loams: Lynchburg (Harleston);
􀁹􇤠 Loams: Rains (Atmore), Goldsboro (Harleston);
􀁹􇤠 Silt-loams: Bayboro (Hyde); and
􀁹􇤠 Undefined series supporting swamps and tidal marshes: (Croatan).
HYDROLOGY
As mentioned in the Climate section, Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge is located in
a region with abundant annual rainfall, receiving more than 64 inches per year. There are three
groundwater hydrologic sources for the savannas and flatwoods found on the refuge:
1. Hydrology driven by an apparent water table, where water arises from below. This occurs on
the Plummer series of soils (e.g., loamy sands).
2. Hydrology driven by a perched water table, whereby water in saturated soil is lying above an
impermeable and unsaturated subsurface horizon. This occurs on the Atmore series of soils
(e.g., loams).
3. Hydrology driven by episodic rainfall events, causing temporary perching and ponding but
without the benefit of impermeable subsoil. Nonetheless, flat topography and copious
precipitation combine to allow periods of saturation long enough for redoximorphic features to
develop (i.e., those associated with low oxygen levels), even though the soil is not considered
as being hydric. This occurs on the Harleston series of soils, which are very fine sandy loams.
The refuge’s three main units include portions of several intertidal creeks or bayous, including Bluff
Creek, Bayou Castelle, and Davis Bayou, which range from fresh to slightly brackish in salinity.
Prior to American colonization, small shallow depressions may have been scattered throughout this
mostly open grass-dominated pine savanna system, providing valuable aquatic microhabitats for a
variety of taxa, including the cranes. Sandhill cranes tend to roost in shallow water, 3”–12” deep.
Water management involves maintaining or restoring hydrological regimes, increasing water for crane
nesting areas, and creating shallow water areas for nesting, roosting, and releases. There are five
water control structures along roads that were designed to back up water to increase acreage of
hydric drain edge for crane nesting and roosting. However, four of the five water control structures
are no longer working and need minor to major maintenance.
Fifteen shallow ponds totaling about 100 acres have been created on the refuge; all have been used
for roosting and 80 percent for nesting. These ponds may also furnish water to chicks for drinking. At
least 18 Grady or Citronelle ponds have been located on the refuge, which may have served as
important crane nesting sites in the past. Many have now become choked with woody understory
and are therefore unsuitable for crane use.
Disruptions in drainage patterns by roads, ditches, fire lines, and other human manipulation has
altered water flow and decreased water economy. Savannas have dried, and as a result, vegetation
20 Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
composition has changed to include more undesirable species. Several old, pre-refuge ditches may
be altering flow to key savannas. These have yet to be mapped and plugged.
AIR QUALITY
Under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established primary air
quality standards to protect public health. The EPA has also set secondary standards to protect public
welfare. Secondary standards relate to protecting ecosystems from harm, including plants and animals,
as well as protecting against decreased visibility and damage to crops, vegetation, and buildings.
The EPA has developed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six principal air pollutants—also
called “criteria pollutants.” They are ground-level ozone (O3); particulate matter (PM); nitrogen
dioxide (NO2); sulfur dioxide (SO2); carbon monoxide (CO); and lead (Pb). The Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) monitors all of these pollutants except lead. (Because
the past lead concentrations reported were so much lower than the air quality standard, and because
lead is no longer used in automobile fuels, it was determined by the EPA and MDEQ that lead no
longer needs to be monitored in Mississippi.)
In general, Mississippi is meeting all of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and has recently
been designated in attainment with the new 8-hour ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) standards. Mississippi is one of only three states east of the Mississippi River—the others
being Florida and Vermont—that is meeting all of the standards (MDEQ 2004a).
Jackson County, in which the refuge is located, has two air quality monitoring stations, one in
Vancleave and the other in Pascagoula. Data from 2004 from these two stations both indicate that
Jackson County is also in attainment with all of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality is responsible for monitoring and maintaining
water quality and controlling water pollution in the state (MDEQ 2004b). It manages its water
programs on a basin-wide scale, conducting regular assessments of water quality for the basin’s
streams, lakes, and estuaries. The refuge is situated in the Pascagoula River Basin (MDEQ 2001).
Bluff Creek in its entirety has received an Aquatic Life Water Quality Condition Rating of “fair” from
MDEQ on a scale that ranges from “very good,” through “good,” “fair,” and “poor” (MDEQ 2005).
There is no specific information on the particular status of water quality, or the causes of any
impairment that may exist, on the reach of Bluff Creek inside the refuge. The MDEQ lists the general
causes of water quality impairment on streams and lakes within the Pascagoula River Basin. Siltation
is the leading cause of impairment, occurring in 22 percent of impaired streams/lakes. Nutrients are
next, found in 20 percent of the cases, followed by pesticides (18 percent); pathogens (14 percent);
and organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen (12 percent). “Other” causes occur in 14 percent of the
impaired water bodies (MDEQ 2001).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
The refuge’s vegetation communities are a mosaic of pine savannas and pinelands interspersed with
wooded swamps and drainages, along with a small tract of estuarine marsh (Clewell and Raymond
1995). All terrestrial habitat types fall within the pine savanna plant communities of the southeastern
outer coastal plain that develop on broad-level flats between 5 and 20 feet above sea level and within
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
10 miles of the Gulf of Mexico (Teaford et al. 1995). These communities have also been called
“coastal prairies,” “pine barrens,” “wet prairies,” “pitcher plant bogs,” and “cypress flats.”
As described above, the area is characterized by high rainfall, flat topography, and poorly drained,
acidic, nutrient-poor soils with a perched water table due to a subsurface clayey hard pan. The
surface soils are generally sandy-to-loamy and subsurface soils are silty-to-clayey. All the terrestrial
plant communities have been shaped by frequent surface fires, due to a high fire-return interval, both
from planned and unplanned ignitions. Fire has suppressed the growth of woody vegetation and
stimulated the germination and even flowering of plant species, such as bunch-grasses.
Table 1 provides the refuge’s current estimates of habitat acreages by type. Figure 4 shows the
major habitats on the refuge.
Pine Savanna
Pine savannas are open, nearly treeless, fire-dependent plant communities dominated by a well-developed
ground cover and some low-growing shrubs with only scattered trees (Pinus palustris and
P. elliotii), including pond cypress (a small variety of the bald cypress, Taxodium distichum var.
nutans) in wet areas. Ground cover is 95–100 percent; shrub cover is 0–20 percent (10 percent
desired max); and overstory cover is less than 10 percent. Frequent surface fires, carried principally
by graminoid fuels, inhibit woody plants and maintain the characteristic openness of the savannas.
The fire return interval is about 2 years in the Gautier savannas, and 2–3 years elsewhere.
Table 1. Currently estimated habitat acreages by type.
Habitat Acres
Pine Savanna 5216
Pinelands (flatwoods and scrub) 11860
Hydric Drain 1354
Estuarine 581
Agricultural 860
Open Water 434
Other 310
The ground-level plant community is highly species-rich and consists of grasses (Aristida, Ctenium,
Muhlenbergia, Dicanthelium, Schiazachyrium), sedges (Dichromena, Rhynchospora, Scleria,
Fuirena), and rushes (Juncus spp.), interspersed with a highly diverse number of forbs, including
(Aletris, Aster, Balduina, Bigelowia, Calopogon, Carphephorus, Coreopsis, Eriocaulon, Eryngium,
Eupatorium, Helianthus, Hypoxis, Lachnanthes, Ludwigia, Lobelia, Lophiola, Phlox, Polygala, Rhexia,
Sabatia, Solidago, Tofieldia, Viola, Xyris, Zigadenus) and featuring several insectivorous plants, such
as pitcher plants (Sarracenia spp.), sundews (Drosera spp.), bladderworts (Utricularia spp.), and
butterworts (Pinguicula spp.). There are low-growing shrubs, including Gaylussacia, Hypericum, and
Vaccinium, as well as taller-growing species, such as Ilex, Cyrilla, Lyonia, Clethra, and Myrica, that
are kept low by regular fire.
22 Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 4. Current land cover types and visitor facilities at Mississippi Sandhill Crane National
Wildlife Refuge units.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
The original presettlement vegetation on what is now the refuge consisted mostly of pine savannas
(USFWS n.d.c). Ecological characteristics which contributed to those communities included high
rainfall, low flat topography, and clay soil with a hard subsurface pan leading to an infertile, acidic,
waterlogged soil. The high natural fire frequency kept the areas open, with grasses like wiregrass
providing much of the fuel. Fire suppression allowed pines and shrubs to invade and out-compete the
native savanna plants. In the 1960s and 1970s, much of the remaining open savanna was converted to
pine plantation by planting and ditching; the latter disrupted the natural water regime. Less than 5
percent of the original acreage of this habitat remains in the Atlantic/Gulf Coastal Plain, making it one of
the most endangered ecosystems in the country. The refuge savannas are considered the last
remaining large patches.
The savannas are large wet prairies with numerous species of low-growing grasses, sedges, and
herbaceous wildflowers, with occasional longleaf pines, pond cypresses, or low-growing shrubs. The
tree cover only ranges between 1 and 5 percent. The plant species diversity is large, one of the
highest in North America, particularly those of the groundcover species. Of special interest are the
orchids and many carnivorous plants. The wetter areas are also referred to by other names, such as
pitcher plant bogs. The difference between mesic and wet savannas is mainly a matter of wetness.
Mesic Pine Savannas are found on generally nonhydric soils on slightly elevated ridges and flats
with convex surfaces. There are a greater number of non-hydric indicators than in wet savannas.
Aristida dominates in the Gautier Unit mesic savannas but is not found on the Ocean Springs or
Fontainebleau Units.
Wet Pine Savannas are found generally on hydric soils, more poorly drained than the mesic
savannas, with long periods (i.e., days or weeks) of soil saturation; soils are generally wet at the
surface. They contain widely-spaced pond cypress (Taxodium distichum) and sometimes swamp
tupelo, slash pine, and other hydric trees. Sedges are generally much more abundant than grasses.
They experience surface fires with the same frequency as mesic savannas.
Carnivorous Plants abound in the refuge’s wet pine savanna community, home to 10 species of
carnivorous plants that fall into four main groups: sundews, butterworts, pitcher plants, and
bladderworts. Wet pine savanna soils are acidic in nature and have very low nutrient capacity. Thus,
the plants that grow in wet pine savannas are adapted for moist, high-acid, low-nutrient conditions.
Some plants of the savannas make up the lack of nutrients in the soil by capturing, killing, and
digesting animals—mostly insects.
The sundews and butterworts capture prey on small, sticky, glue-like pads on their leaves. Insects are
attracted to the sticky substance. Once they land on a leaf they are trapped by the glue. The leaf will
roll up around the insect to encase it, releasing chemicals to digest the insect and absorb its nutrients.
Pitcher plants have their own unique method of capturing insects. The pitcher is actually a modified leaf
that can hold water. Insects are attracted to nectar produced at the rim and on the inside of the pitcher.
As the insect crawls into the pitcher to get more nectar, it is trapped by downward-pointing hairs that do
not allow the insect to crawl back out. The insect falls down into the base of the pitcher, which is filled
with digestive enzymes. Bladderworts possess one of the most elaborate and specialized methods for
capturing prey. This plant has small bladders that have a trap door on one end. When the bladder is
empty, the door is closed. If an insect brushes against the small hairs on the door, it swings open and
water and insect rush into the bladder. The door closes, trapping the insect inside (USFWS n.d.d).
Table 2 lists the carnivorous plants that occur on Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge.
24 Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
Table 2. Carnivorous plants on the refuge.
Scientific Name Common Name
Drosera capillaris pink sundew
Drosera filiformis thread-leaf sundew
Drosera intermedia spoonleaf sundew
Drosera tracyi Tracy's sundew
Pinguicula lutea yellow butterwort
Sarracenia alata yellow trumpets pitcher plant
Sarracenia psittacina parrot pitcher plant
Utricularia juncea Southern bladderwort
Utricularia purpurea eastern purple bladderwort
Utricularia resupinata Bladderwort
Pine Flatwoods
Pine flatwoods are open park-like pine woodlands dominated by a low and species-rich ground cover of
grasses, forbs, and small shrubs. Clewell and Raymond (1995) assert that the term flatwoods has little
ecological significance, since the only difference between flatwoods and savannas is that once the
former is clear-cut, it becomes the latter de-facto. In other words, flatwoods are savannas with a higher
overstory cover. Thus, flatwoods and savannas are “merely different expressions of the same
ecosystem.” Be that as it may, the refuge still finds it useful to maintain flatwoods as a habitat category
in order to track habitat restoration efforts; a major management objective at the Mississippi Sandhill
Crane Refuge is to convert flatwoods to savannas.
Scattered longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) and clumps of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) are considered
conspicuous, but not abundant. Midstory hardwoods, such as bluejack oak, may occur as scattered
individuals on better-drained soils. Soils are well oxygenated relative to other communities. More
specifically, overstory cover is 50–75 percent; the mid-understory is 25–50 percent; and ground cover is
60–100 percent. Surface fires, with a return interval of about 2 years, maintain the open character.
Grasses are the principal fuel, along with pine straw. Surface fires inhibit the establishment of trees,
shrubs, and woody vines that would otherwise replace grasses and forbs. The difference between
mesic and wet flatwoods is mainly a matter of wetness.
Mesic Pine Flatwoods are found on nonhydric soils and have a greater number of mesic
herbaceous species than wet flatwoods. They are similar to wet pine savannas in physical aspects,
but have a greater abundance of woody plant cover and less herbaceous cover.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Mixed (pine-hardwood) Forest became established in small colonies in fire-protected areas on
better drained soils. Hardwood tree species include several oaks (Quercus spp.).
Wet Pine Flatwoods are found on wetter soils than mesic flatwoods and have a greater number of hydric
herbaceous species. Although similar to wet pine savannas in species composition and wetter sites, they
differ in having a greater number of pines and woody plants and fewer herbaceous species.
Pine Scrub habitats are former “flatwoods” or savannas or even-planted pine plantations that have
degraded and become overgrown with woody vegetation due to silviculture and/or fire suppression.
Brush, 1–3 meters or taller, has overtopped the herbaceous component and become dominant. The
woody vegetation growth increases at the expense of the decrease in herbaceous ground cover. The
shrub component includes inkberry (Ilex glabra), large gallberry (I. coriacea), and youpan (I. vomitoria), as
well as titi, fetterbrush, wax myrtle, blackberry (Rubus argutus), and sweet pepperbush. Overstory cover
is greater than 15 percent, mid-understory is greater than 15 percent, and ground cover is 0–20 percent.
Short scrub is characterized by a shrub layer less than two meters in height. Tall scrub has not
experienced recent fire and is characterized by a shrub midstory and understory.
Hydric Drains or Swamps
These are forested wetlands that occupy low-gradient drains through the savannas. Gradients are
slight and stream flow is diffuse. Soils are hydric and contain much organic matter. Vegetation is
dominated by mid- and over-story trees above a shrub layer and a sparse herbaceous ground layer
dominated by sedges and even peat moss mats. The overstory cover is 75–100 percent; the
mid/understory is 40–100 percent; and ground cover is 10–60 percent. Common trees include
cypress; sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana); swamp bay (Perseus palustris); titi (Cyrilla racemiflora,
Cliftonia monophylla); slash pine; swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora); red maple (Acer rubrum); sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua); and bottomland oaks. Important shrubs include several Ilex spp.; wax
myrtle (Myrica spp.); titi; fetterbush (Lyonia lucida); sweet pepperbrush (Clethra alnifolia); and poison
sumac (Toxicodendron vernix). Characteristic herbs include Carex spp., beakrushes (Rhynchospora
spp.), and ferns. Although surface fires are frequent, they are less destructive to hydric trees owing
to wetter site conditions.
Cypress-Tupelo Drains occupy broad, flat depressional areas lacking clearly defined drainage ways.
Fires are not uncommon. Pond cypress, swamp tupelo, red maple, and sweet bay are common trees
in the overstory. The midstory consists of hollies and overstory saplings. The ground cover consists
of sedges and ferns.
Forested Bayheads occupy flat topography upstream from cypress-tupelo drains with narrow (5–
10m), well-defined drainage ways. Fires are rarer here. The vegetation is like cypress-tupelo drains
but sweet bay is more abundant and the midstory is far denser and contains titi, swamp bay,
fetterbush, and large gallberry. There may be several grasses in the ground cover.
Estuarine or Tidal Marsh
Tidal marsh comprises much of the refuge’s Dees Tract in the intertidal zone in Bluff Creek and Bayou
Castelle. The water is fresh or slightly brackish. The most dominant tidal marsh species is sawgrass
(Cladium jamaicensis). Sawgrass and a few other species occupy perennially saturated soils that sustain
only hydrophilic (i.e., water-loving) trees like pond cypress. Nearer the coast, in Davis Bayou that is part
of the northwest edge of the Fontainebleau Unit, saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens) and black
needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) predominate in the more saline conditions.
26 Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
Agricultural Areas
Agricultural areas describe refuge food plots or crop units, pastures, and wastewater spray fields.
They have very few to no trees, scattered shrubs, and are dominated by graminoids, consisting of
agricultural crops, agricultural weeds, and some native species. Some agricultural areas that have
not been disturbed with fire or mechanical means have developed a greater shrub (Myrica) layer.
Open Water
Open water on the refuge is found in the Dees Tract in Bluff Creek, interstate borrow pits, and larger ponds.
WILDLIFE
Mississippi Sandhill Crane
As noted in Chapter I, the plight of the Mississippi sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pulla) led to the
creation of the refuge named after it (USFWS 2005). This nonmigratory species of sandhill crane is
both a state and federally listed endangered species. It is also listed as Critically Endangered
(C2b criteria) by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
The Mississippi sandhill crane is one of six subspecies of the sandhill crane. As a species, the
sandhill is the most numerous of the fifteen crane species in the world, and is distributed throughout
many parts of North America. The three migratory subspecies—lesser, greater, and Canadian—are
abundant, nesting across a vast swath of northern North America (Canada, Alaska, and northern
states like Minnesota) and far northeastern Siberia, and wintering in the southern United States and
Mexico. The three nonmigratory subspecies (Florida, Mississippi, and Cuban) are all small
populations with conservation status in the southeastern United States and Cuba (USFWS 2005).
At one time, there were scattered populations of the nonmigratory sandhill cranes all along the Gulf Coast
adapted to the coastal prairies from as far west as Louisiana and possibly eastern Texas east into
peninsular Florida, with the exception of the central Florida panhandle (Gee and Hereford 1995). By the
1960s, however, the only remaining population west of peninsular Florida and adjoining southern Georgia
was a small one in Jackson County, Mississippi. Earlier estimates of this population, considered part of
the Florida subspecies at the time, were only 50–100 birds.
With the imminent construction of Interstate10 in the area, Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Jake
Valentine was assigned to assess the potential impacts to the crane and he began the first intensive
study of this small population (Valentine and Noble 1970). He described the rare and declining plant
communities on which the crane depended, and, seeing the direct and indirect impacts of the
interstate, called for a refuge. The population was declared a separate subspecies in 1972 (Aldrich
1972) and was one of the first taxa placed on the endangered species list with the passage of the
Endangered Species Act in 1973. By the time of the establishment of the Mississippi Sandhill Crane
National Wildlife Refuge in 1975, just 30–35 cranes remained, including only five or six nesting pairs.
Beginning in 1965, “extra eggs” had been taken from Mississippi to begin a small captive population at
the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Laurel, Maryland. The captive flock was useful as a genetic
bank for certain behavioral and physiological research not feasible using the wild population, and as a
source for eventual restocking to augment the population. By 1981, a restocking program began using
captive-reared cranes released on the refuge in a gentle-release method developed for the refuge. The
release program has continued annually and is the longest and largest of its kind in the world. By
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
February 2004, there had been 379 captive-reared cranes transferred to the refuge and 362 were
released. These transfers and releases continue.
Due to augmentation along with protection and management, the crane population has increased
from 30–35 to 110–120 (Figure 5). At the end of 2003, there were 110 known cranes. These
included 48 males, 52 females, and 10 of unknown sex. Eighty-three (75 percent) were 3 years or
older. With the recent releases, there are now 132 cranes on the refuge.
With habitat restoration along with restocking, crane use of the area that is now the refuge accounts
for over 80 percent of the crane locations since the 1980s. Much crane feeding activity actually takes
place on surrounding agricultural areas off the refuge. Use of the refuge for nesting has increased as
an additional 27 crane territories have been added to the twelve at the time of refuge establishment.
The number of nesting pairs has increased from 5 or 6 to 22 to 25. However, recruitment is very low,
averaging around 2 to 3 fledging annually and the population is still maintained by the release
program as annual mortality is about 15. Predation on chicks is a major factor limiting recovery (Seal
and Hereford 1993); predators of chicks are both mammalian and avian, including coyotes, foxes,
dogs, red-tailed hawks, and other carnivores.
Figure 5. Population trend of Mississippi sandhill cranes on the refuge.
Grassland Birds
Given the precipitous drop in fire-maintained savanna and grassland habitats in the southeastern coastal
plain, it is not surprising that several disturbance-dependent bird species are declining (Table 3). Most of
these species are benefiting from refuge management activities, such as frequent prescribed fire.
The Henslow’s sparrow may be one of the most vulnerable of this group (Hunter et al. 2001) due to its area
sensitivity and selection of frequently burned areas (Chandler and Woodrey 1995). A substantial proportion
of the wintering Henslow’s sparrows are found on recently burned refuge savannas (Thatcher 2003).
28 Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
Other nongrassland conservation priority birds using the refuge include chuck-will’s widow and swallow-tailed
kites; the latter are observed over the savannas in March. Dickcissel and bobolink, both on the
Watch List, are observed on the Weekly Wastewater Bird Survey using the Bermuda grass habitats.
Waterfowl
Waterfowl are not common in habitats of the savanna complex. Wood ducks, mottled ducks, and
now Canada geese are residents and nest on the refuge in shallow ponds and swamps. During high
water events, other species, like snow geese, have been observed in these areas. The refuge is now
partnering with the North American Waterfowl Management Plan’s Gulf Coast Joint Venture,
Mississippi Coast Initiative, to create more shallow-water areas for waterfowl habitat. At least eight
wood duck nest boxes were placed in created wastewater areas in compartment O-03, and two along
Bayou Castelle, in compartment G-07.
Table 3. Declining grassland (and associated habitat) bird species of conservation
importance found on Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge.
Species National Watch List
A
Partners in Flight
score Migratory Status B
Bachman’s sparrow EH 30 R
Henslow’s sparrow EH 25 W
American swallow-tailed kite EH 28 T
Brown-headed nuthatch MH 27 R
Southeastern American
kestrel MH 27 R
Prairie warbler M 25 B
Chuck-will’s widow M 24 B
Northern bobwhite 22 R
Red-headed woodpecker M 22 B
American woodcock MH 22 W
Sedge wren 22
Loggerhead shrike 21 R
Northern harrier 20 W
AEH=extremely high, M=moderately high, BR=resident, B=breeding, W=wintering, T=transient
There have been 28 species of waterfowl observed on the lagoons and constructed wetlands in the
Weekly Wastewater Bird Survey since 1993, mostly during the winter where peak numbers were up to
1,700 waterfowl. These species include American black duck, American wigeon, blue-winged teal,
bufflehead, Canada goose, canvasback, common goldeneye, common merganser, gadwall, greater
scaup, greater white-fronted goose, green-winged teal, hooded merganser, lesser scaup, mallard, mottled
duck, northern pintail, northern shoveler, old squaw, red-breasted merganser, redhead, ring-necked duck,
Ross’s goose, ruddy duck, snow goose, surf scoter, and wood duck. The most common are northern
shoveler, blue-winged teal, green-winged teal, ruddy duck, and lesser scaup (USFWS 2005).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Shorebirds
Shorebirds are not numerous in the savanna complex but several species are found in the refuge’s
shallow ponds, including both species of yellowlegs and six sandpiper species. Killdeer nest on the
refuge along the graveled roads. Common snipe occur year-round in the wetter savannas. American
woodcock are uncommon in the savannas. They have been observed exhibiting mating displays in
February, next to the kiosk along the entrance road (USFWS 2005).
Since 1993, 37 species of shorebirds have been observed along the lagoon edge, in the constructed
wetlands, and pastures in the Weekly Wastewater Bird Survey: American avocet, American golden
plover, Baird’s sandpiper, black skimmer, black tern, black-bellied plover, black-necked stilt,
Bonaparte’s gull, buff-bellied sandpiper, Caspian tern, common snipe, dunlin, Forster’s tern, greater
yellowlegs, herring gull, killdeer, laughing gull, least sandpiper, least tern, lesser golden plover, lesser
yellowlegs, long-billed dowitcher, pectoral sandpiper, ring-billed gull, ruddy turnstone, sanderling,
semipalmated plover, semipalmated sandpiper, short-billed dowitcher, solitary sandpiper, spotted
sandpiper, stilt sandpiper, upland sandpiper, western sandpiper, white-rumped sandpiper, willet, and
Wilson’s phalarope. Black-necked stilts, least sandpipers, and lesser yellowlegs are most numerous.
Numbers peak in late summer with up to 1,500 shorebirds reported. Stilts nest on the refuge. Buff-breasted
sandpipers are listed as moderately high on the Watch List.
Wading and Marsh Birds
More than 15 species of wading birds and marsh birds are found in the ponds and drain edges
associated with refuge savannas. Great blue herons and green herons nest on the refuge. Great
egrets and black-crowned night herons are also common.
Thirty-one species of marsh and wading birds have been observed in the lagoons and wetlands in the
Weekly Wastewater Bird Survey: American bittern, American coot, American white pelican, anhinga,
black rail, black-crowned night heron, cattle egret, common loon, common moorhen, double-crested
cormorant, eared grebe, glossy ibis, great blue heron, great egret, green heron, horned grebe, king rail,
least bittern, little blue heron, pied-billed grebe, purple gallinule, roseate spoonbill, sandhill crane, snowy
egret, sora, tri-colored heron, Virginia rail, white ibis, white-faced ibis, yellow rail, and yellow-crowned
night heron. American coots are by far the most numerous, followed by moorhens, cattle egrets, little
blue herons, and sora. Marshbird numbers have peaked at over 900 on the survey (USFWS 2005).
Raptors
Sixteen species of diurnal raptors and four owl species are believed to be using the savanna habitats.
Ospreys, red-shouldered hawks, red-tailed hawks, eastern screech owls, and great horned owls nest
on the refuge. Bald eagles have been observed in fall and winter around refuge ponds and shallow-water
areas. Golden eagles are rare winter visitors.
Seventeen species of raptors have been observed on the Weekly Wastewater Bird Survey: American
kestrel, bald eagle, black vulture, broad-winged hawk, Cooper’s hawk, merlin, Mississippi kite,
northern harrier, osprey, peregrine falcon, red-shouldered hawk, red-tailed hawk, rough-legged hawk,
sharp-shinned hawk, Swainson’s hawk, swallow-tailed kite, and turkey vulture. Red-tailed hawks,
American kestrels, and turkey vultures are the most common (USFWS 2005).
Other Birds
Wild turkey are not common but have been observed in food plots.
30 Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
Mammals
The following mammals have been observed on the refuge: Virginia opossum, nine-banded
armadillo, eastern cottontail, eastern gray squirrel, eastern fox squirrel, southern flying squirrel,
American beaver, nutria, mink, northern river otter, common raccoon, hispid cotton rat, and feral hog.
Several other rodents along with shrews and bats are expected to occur as well.
Anecdotal observations indicate a small but stable white-tailed deer population. Infrequent autopsies
of refuge deer by the Southeast Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study Group indicated that the animals
are healthy, but small, which is typical of deer in this part of the state. The wet pine savanna is not
expected to be high-quality habitat (USFWS 2005).
Amphibians and Reptiles
Amphibian management and conservation are of great concern due to apparent global amphibian
declines. Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation, as well as pollution, appear to be the primary
factors in the declines. This group of animals requires quality wetland habitat for its survival and
serves as an important indicator of environmental health.
The refuge’s various terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic habitats support an abundance and variety of
herpetological species. Table 4 lists the amphibians and reptiles known or likely to exist on the refuge.
The endangered Mississippi gopher frog is not found on the refuge but there are possibilities for
reintroduction in several seasonal ponds, such as Grady ponds and created shallow-water areas.
The only state record of the one-toed amphiuma is its occurrence on the refuge.
Table 4. Possible herpetological species list for Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife
Refuge.
Amphibians Reptiles-Turtles and
Crocodilians
Reptiles-Lizards and Snakes
Southern cricket frog American alligator# Eastern slender Glass Lizard#
Oak toad Graptemys unidentified # Eastern Glass lizard*
Southern toad* Common snapping turtle# Southern fence lizard#
Gulf coast toad* Alligator snapping turtle# Green anole#
Eastern narrowmouth toad* Eastern mud turtle# Southern coal skink#
Bird-voiced treefrog* River cooter# Five-lined skink#
Cope’s Gray treefrog# Mississippi redbelly turtle# Southeastern five-lined skink#
Green treefrog Gulf coast box turtle# Ground skink#
Pinewoods treefrog Three-toed box turtle# Six-lined racerunner#
Barking treefrog Red-eared slider# Northern scarlet snake#
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Amphibians Reptiles-Turtles and
Crocodilians
Reptiles-Lizards and Snakes
Squirrel treefrog Gopher tortoise Southern black racer#
Gray treefrog Corn snake#
Spring peeper* Gray rat snake#
Southern chorus frog* Rainbow snake
Crawfish frog Western mud snake#
Pickerel frog Eastern hognose snake#
Southern Leopard frog* Speckled kingsnake#
Bullfrog Scarlet kingsnake
Bronze frog Eastern coachwhip
Pig frog Green water snake#
One-toed amphiuma# Broad-banded water snake#
Two-toed amphiuma# Banded water snake#
Dwarf salamander# Rough green snake#
Eastern Lesser siren# Black pine snake*
Gulf crayfish snake#
Pinewoods snake*
Eastern ribbon snake#
Western earth snake#
Southern copperhead*
Western cottonmouth#
Eastern diamondback
rattlesnake*
Dusky pygmy rattlesnake*
Italics = Calling Frog survey. * Incidental. # TNC Fort Bayou tract survey. Rest: expected.
32 Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
Fisheries
Little is known about the fish populations in the refuge’s relatively limited aquatic habitats: Bluff
Creek, ponds, and wastewater wetlands. A few collections have been made for contaminant studies.
Savanna Invertebrates
Much remains to be learned about the invertebrates of the savanna system. Given their preference
for open areas and the relative scarcity of these habitats, one might expect that several butterflies
and moths are dependent on the savannas. In a recent visit to the refuge, endangered species
expert and dragonfly enthusiast Michael Bean commented that the savannas, with their interspersed
ephemeral ponded areas, are excellent habitat for the Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies).
Invertebrates, particularly orthopterans (e.g., grasshoppers, crickets, and katydids) and some
coleopterans (e.g., beetles), are usually an important part of the sandhill crane diet. This is especially
true during nesting season, as a large amount of protein is necessary for growth of crane chicks.
These taxa may indeed be a factor limiting recruitment. As more data on the Mississippi sandhill
crane diet become available, it will be appropriate to manage some areas to produce more of these
invertebrates (USFWS 2005).
Threatened and Endangered Species
In addition to the Mississippi sandhill crane, two other listed species are known to occur on the
refuge. Gopher tortoises were observed on a few high sites with sandier soils, including the
Headquarters area (G-07); North Brown’s Trail (G-05); South Halter Lane (G-13); and the East
Cottonmouth Crop Unit (O-13). Alligators were observed at Martin’s Pond, Glendale Blue Hole, and
in Bayou Castelle. The federally listed endangered red-cockaded woodpecker is not found on the
refuge at the present time.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources include historic properties as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act,
cultural items as defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act,
archaeological resources as defined in the Archeological Resources Protection Act, sacred sites as
defined in Executive Order 13007, Protection and Accommodation of Access To "Indian Sacred
Sites" to which access is provided under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and
collections. As defined by the National Historic Preservation Act, a historic property or historic
resource is any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible
for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places, including any artifacts, records, and remains
that are related to and located on such properties. The term also includes properties of traditional
religious and cultural importance (i.e., traditional cultural properties), which are eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places as a result of their association with the cultural practices
or beliefs of an American Indian tribe. Archaeological resources include any material of human life
or activities that is at least 100 years old, and that is of archaeological interest.
Between 25,000 and 30,000 Indians are believed to have inhabited the area now encompassed by the
State of Mississippi when the Spanish explorer Hernando De Soto first discovered the Mississippi River
in 1541. The principal tribes were the Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Natchez. Much later, in 1682, French
explorers descended the Mississippi, claiming the entire Mississippi Valley for France, including the
future State of Mississippi. French settlers first arrived in 1699, followed in 1716 by another near
present-day Natchez. African slaves were first brought to Mississippi in 1719 to work in rice and
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
tobacco fields. All French possessions east of the Mississippi River were ceded to the British in 1763,
and a few years later, after the Revolutionary War, to the United States. Spain retained control of the
area below the 31st parallel as West Florida until 1810 (u-s-history.com n.d.).
In 1817, Congress divided the Mississippi Territory into two parts: the Territory of Alabama to the
east and the State of Mississippi to the west. The state capital was located in various cities until
Jackson was selected permanently in 1822. Most of Mississippi’s Indian tribes were gradually forced
off their land and onto reservations in Indian Territory, now Oklahoma. The land they left was often
ideally suited for cotton farming, which had grown greatly since Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton
gin in 1793. Mississippi became one of the wealthiest states in the nation, with an agricultural
economy based on slavery and the export of cotton (u-s-history.com n.d.).
Southeastern coastal Mississippi had long been settled and used by humans, in good part because
of its mild winters and abundant fish and wildlife resources. Prior to European settlement, a number
of Indian tribes inhabited the area in the vicinity of the refuge. In the Mobile Bay-Delta Region, the
so-named Pensacola Culture flourished prior to European contact. This culture, which was marked
by elaborate ceramics, was practiced by two of many resident tribes of the area, the Mobile and the
Tahome. These tribes, along with the Choctaw and the Naniabas, were the tribes met by DeSoto
between 1540 and 1541. Indigenous interests in the region were officially terminated with the ceding
of Choctaw lands in 1830, relegating them to “squatters” after centuries of at times productive, but
most often uneasy or explosive coexistence with Europeans and their descendants.
Another local tribe, the Biloxi, is known from their earliest historical location on the lower reaches of
the Pascagoula River. Individuals belonging to the tribe were met by Iberville on his first expedition to
Louisiana in 1699, and in June of the same year his brother Bienville visited them. In 1700 Iberville
found their town abandoned and does not mention encountering the people themselves, though they
may have been sharing the Pascagoula village at which he made a short stop. A few years later, the
Biloxi were said to have abandoned their village and settled on a small bayou near New Orleans. By
1722 they had returned a considerable distance toward their old home and were established on the
former terrain of the Acolapissa Indians on the Pearl River (Access Genealogy 2005).
Later in the eighteenth century, the Biloxi moved to Louisiana and settled not far from Marksville.
They soon moved farther up Red River and still later to Bayou Boeuf. Early in the nineteenth century
they sold their lands, and, while part of them remained on the river, a large number migrated to Texas
and settled on Biloxi Bayou, in Angelina County. All eventually left, either to return to Louisiana or to
settle in Oklahoma. A few Biloxi are still living in Rapides Parish, Louisiana, and there are said to be
some in the Choctaw Nation, but the tribe is now virtually extinct. Their name survives in the coastal
town of Biloxi. The Siouan origin of the Biloxi language, unusual in this area, was established in
1886, by Dr. Gatschet of the Bureau of American Ethnology, and a considerable record of it was
obtained by James O. Dorsey of the same institution in 1892-93.
Yet another small tribe that inhabited the general area in the vicinity of the refuge was the Pascagoula,
who lived along the river that still bears its name. The tribe was closely associated with the Biloxi
Indians, and is believed to have eventually been absorbed by the Biloxi and/or the Choctaw (Access
Genealogy 2005). A colorful legend has it that members of the Pascagoula nation linked hands and
walked into the Pascagoula River, drowning rather than be taken captive by hostile Indian tribes; their
mournful death chant earned the Pascagoula the nickname “Singing River” (Mississippi Department of
Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks n.d.b). Today, the name Singing River graces schools, credit unions,
hospitals, and even yacht clubs and kennels in the area, commemorating the legend.
34 Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
To date, the refuge has not been systematically surveyed for cultural and archaeological resources,
but the presence of both prehistoric and historic resources would be expected.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge is in Jackson County, a coastal county in the
extreme southeastern corner of the state, bordering Alabama. The city of Mobile, Alabama, lies 40
miles to the east, and a rapidly developing string of coastal towns and small cities are just to the
south of the refuge, including Gulfport, Biloxi, Ocean Springs, Gautier, and Pascagoula.
Jackson County is three times more densely populated than the state (181 persons per square mile
vs. 61 persons per square mile) and is growing faster. In 2003, the county’s estimated population
was 133,928, about 5 percent of Mississippi’s population of 2,881,281 (U.S. Census Bureau 2005).
The county population grew by 1.9 percent from 2000 to 2003, compared to Mississippi’s 1.3 percent
growth in the same three years. From 1990 to 2000, Jackson County grew 14 percent compared to
Mississippi’s 10.5 percent in the same decade.
In terms of race and ethnicity, whites and blacks dominate both the county and state populations.
Jackson County is 75 percent Caucasian and 21 percent African American, while Mississippi is 61
percent Caucasian and 36 percent African American. Other minorities make up much smaller
percentages of the county and state populations: Asians 1.6 percent of the county and 0.7 percent of
the state; American Indians 0.3 percent county and 0.4 percent state; and Latinos or Hispanics 2.1
percent of the county and 1.4 percent of the state (all figures from 2000 Census). Foreign-born
persons accounted for 2.7 percent of the county population in 2000 and a language other than
English was spoken in 5 percent of homes that same year.
Educational attainment in the county is similar to that of the state: 81 percent of the county population
25 years and older have obtained a high school diploma and 17 percent a Bachelor’s degree,
compared to 73 percent and 17 percent, respectively, for the state (U.S. Census Bureau 2005).
Median household income in 1999 was $39,118 for the county and $31,330 for the state, while 13
percent of the county population and 20 percent of the state population lived below the poverty level.
Over the last decade, residential and commercial development has proceeded rapidly in the vicinity of
the refuge, converting forest plantations and farm fields into developed lots with houses, businesses,
and institutions. Open space and habitat are becoming more and more fragmented. This development
is expected to continue over the foreseeable future, in part because of the desirability of living in a
coastal county with beach and ocean access. However, recent recommendations by the Pentagon, if
acted upon by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, could temporarily reverse this trend.
This commission is charged with streamlining U.S. military bases and operations around the country.
The Pentagon has recommended the closure of the Pascagoula Naval Station, which would result in a
loss of 844 military personnel, 112 civilian workers, and 7 contractors. In addition, the 81st Medical
Group at Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi (in neighboring Harrison County) is recommended for
restructuring, with an associated reduction of 181 military, 31 civilian and 190 contractor positions
(Anon. 2005a). These recommendations were scheduled for delivery to the President in September
2005, and to be sent to Congress shortly thereafter. The Pentagon would then have 6 years to close,
relocate, or downsize bases on the final list.
There is growing awareness of the economic potential of ecotourism on the part of government and
business interests in the area (Anon. 2005b). Jackson County conducted the Pascagoula River
Ecotourism Study in 2002-2003. The Gautier Economic Development Council formed an Ecotourism
Planning Committee, which published an “Ecotourism Master Plan” in 2004 (Gautier Economic
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Development Council 2004). This plan acknowledges the Mississippi Sandhill Crane Refuge as one of
the premier local nature destinations that can attract tourists to the area for outdoor activities, such as
birding, biking, hiking, boating, fishing, crabbing, hunting, and camping. Other local attractions are
Shepard State Park, Pascagoula River Marsh, Indian Point Campground and Recreational Vehicle Resort
(privately owned), and Alf Dantzler Wildlife Preserve. The plan also presented a marketing strategy.
In late August 2005, Hurricane Katrina, a category 3 storm, slammed into Jackson County and
coastal Mississippi, wreaking catastrophic destruction on human life and property. As of December
11, 2005, the confirmed death toll in Jackson County alone stood at 12, at 230 for Mississippi as a
whole, and at least 1,383 altogether (most of which were in Louisiana). These figures may rise
considerably, because thousands of individuals are still unaccounted for (Anon. 2005c). Hurricane
Katrina was the most costly natural disaster in U.S. history. Its economic impact extends not just to
destruction of homes, businesses, and infrastructure, but widespread and long-lasting adverse
impacts on unemployment, oil production, the Mississippi gambling industry, agriculture and forestry,
fisheries and aquaculture, tax revenues, and bankruptcies (Congressional Budget Office 2005).
Reconstruction and recovery will take years or decades.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
The refuge’s ongoing management and research are aimed toward helping to recover the population
of endangered Mississippi sandhill cranes and restoring the wet pine savanna on which the crane
and other indigenous species depend. These efforts are organized under the topics of habitat
management, population management, and people management.
Wet Pine Savanna
Restoration and maintenance of the rare wet pine savanna community is one of the primary purposes
of the refuge. At the ground level, these habitats have some of the highest species packing rates
(species per area) described, with 35–40 per square meter. A partial floristic list compiled by Clewell
and Raymond (1995) included 170 species. Restoring and maintaining the health of the savannas
means reducing the woody vegetation component, keeping the hydrology intact, and increasing or
maintaining the high plant species diversity.
The decline of pine savanna was gradual at first but accelerated after World War II. Fire
suppression, silvicultural practices, and development were the main causes. Wholesale fire
suppression in the 20th century allowed the invasion of woody plants and decline of the sun-loving
herbaceous flora and quickly caused a conversion of savanna to pine scrub. Silvicultural practices
in the 1950–70s installed planting beds, ditched the savannas, and planted slash pine.
Construction of I-10 in the 1960–70s directly destroyed some savannas. More importantly, the
widespread availability of air conditioning proved a boon to coastal living; casinos and rapid
residential and commercial growth ensued, with each of these developed land uses reducing the
limited supply of wet pine savanna habitat (USFWS 2005).
By the time the refuge was established, the percentages of savanna and pineland had nearly
reversed. Between 1942 and 1981, savanna declined from 74 percent to 14 percent in ten crane
nesting areas; woodland increased from 18 percent to 70 percent; and urban land use increased from
a trace to 6 percent (USFWS 2005). Without frequent burning, the savannas have reverted to pine
scrub, also called pine and titi thickets.
36 Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
As a result of the fire suppression and pine plantations just described, afforestation is a major problem as
densely spaced trees and shrubs have supplanted the once-open savannas. Some ecologists believe up
to 90 percent of the trees on the refuge, primarily slash pine, need to be removed. In many places, trees
are too big to be suppressed by wildland or prescribed fire. In areas with a good site index, trees have
grown to commercial size and can be removed by timber sales. Besides being an efficient tree removal
method, timber sales can serve as a source of income for the local community.
The overall intent of the refuge’s habitat management efforts is to return as much of the overgrown
pine scrub back to open pine savanna as possible. Although the exact “original” character of the
landscape may not be known, a reasonable benchmark would be a combination of what was
described in the 1850s and the first aerial photographs of the area from 1942.
Restoration of the savannas since the late 1970s has included removal of trees using commercial
tree contracts, chain saws, bulldozer only, and bulldozer with roller chopper; removal of shrubs and
small trees using gyrotrac and roller chopper; and use of prescribed fire to restore and maintain
openness, recycle nutrients, and reduce woody vegetation, encouraging growth of sun-loving
savannas, graminoids, and forbs. Several thousand acres have been restored to date. Recent
success in using growing season burning has led to reduced woody vegetation and the flowering of
native bunchgrasses.
Given the poor soils over much of the refuge, many of the trees are of pre-commercial size. “Drum
chopping” pushes over and crushes small, pre-commercial pines and shrubs. Due to the area’s high
rainfall and low topography, the soils are too wet for either of these tree removal methods because
equipment would bog down and the soil would be disturbed. Hand-clearing with chain saws may be
the only way to remove trees.
Fire Management
The Mississippi Sandhill Crane Refuge has an approved Fire Management Plan and a staffed, active
fire management program (USFWS n.d.f). The refuge’s specific fire management objectives are as
follows:
1. Suppress all wildfire to protect human life, public and private property, crane nests and
nesting habitat.
2. Use management-ignited prescribed fire to restore and maintain the natural coastal wet pine
savanna fire sub-climax ecosystem toward endangered species survival.
3. Use management-ignited prescribed fire to improve or maintain nesting and roosting habitat
for the Mississippi sandhill crane.
4. Use management-ignited prescribed fire as a wildfire prevention tool to reduce hazardous fuel
accumulations along refuge boundaries and adjacent to refuge real property.
5. Provide for the education of the local population in the benefits of wildland fire management
and prescribed burning.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
The refuge’s Fire Team actively uses prescribed fire as a habitat management tool, specifically on
behalf of the habitat needs of the Mississippi sandhill crane. In a representative recent year, the
team conducted 31 prescribed fires, treating more than 9,000 acres (USFWS 2003b). That same
year (2001), the team suppressed 14 local wildfires.
As part of a contract with the Service’s Ecological Services Field Office in Mississippi, eight long-term
monitoring plots were established on the refuge, four in high-quality (F-02, F-03, G-05, O-06) and four
in low-quality savannas (G-07, G-08, O-04, O-10) to monitor the effects of burning on woody
vegetation and species richness. The frequencies of graminoids, forbs, and woody plants
characteristic and uncharacteristic of wet pine savannas are determined. Plots are to be
reinventoried in the twelve months after a burn (USFWS 2005).
Invasive Plant Species Management
The refuge has many invasive species, particularly on disturbed sites such as roadsides, ditches, and
crop units. The most common invasive species located on the refuge are cogon grass (Imperata
cylindrica), Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum), Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), Torpedo
grass (Panicum repens), and Japanese climbing fern (Lygodium japonica).
The exotic invasive grass, cogon grass, had been spotty in various disturbed sites. Cogon grass has
no wildlife value and displaces native vegetation, forming monoculture stands. Recently, it has
become a problem by forming monotypic stands in refuge crop units and is now beginning to supplant
native savanna vegetation. The refuge staff currently estimates the cogon grass infestation to be
approximately 140 acres, ranging in size from small patches to six acres. No acreage estimates are
available for any of the other invasive species located on the refuge.
Refuge staff and contract sprayers had been chemically and mechanically treating cogon grass with little
success in the mid- to late 1990s. In the fall of 2002, a contract sprayer chemically treated 140 acres of
cogon grass with glyphosate throughout the entire refuge. A year later, another contract sprayer
chemically treated 105 acres with an arsenal/glyphosate mixture. Refuge staff also began treating
Chinese tallow trees with injectable imazapyr capsules during the spring of 2003 (USFWS 2005).
Farming for Wildlife
Several upland sites have been cultivated to provide winter feeding areas for cranes within the safety
of the refuge. There are now 13 food plots (or crop units) totaling about 113 acres and a 40-acre
pasture on the refuge. Chufa, a sedge that produces a nut-like tuber, has been the major growing
season crop. Corn, sunflowers, and a number of other crops have been attempted. Ryegrass, winter
wheat, vetch, and other cover crops have been planted in the autumn. Deer, turkey, and other
resident wildlife also use the crop units. These areas serve well as crane observation sites as they
congregate at the crop units for concentrated food source (USFWS n.d.e).
Water Management
The radical changes in habitat and road construction have caused important changes in the natural
water regime, resulting in drier habitats and disturbance to historic crane roosts. Refuge personnel
have created roost ponds and constructed five water control structures to adjust water flow into
savanna edges during nesting season.
38 Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
In this mostly wet savanna system, water management involves restoring or maintaining hydrological
regimes, increasing water for crane nesting areas, and creating shallow-water areas. There are five
water-control structures along roads that, when closed, will back up water to increase acreage of
hydric drain edge for crane nesting. Fifteen ponds have also been created. All of them have been
used for roosting and 60 percent used for nesting. Four have been used as crane release sites for
the smaller pond pens. Besides cranes, the ponds serve as microhabitats for several other taxa,
including waterfowl, shorebirds, marshbirds, raptors, herps, and many more. The Gulf Coast Joint
Venture is funding the construction of three more ponds totaling four acres.
Several old ditches, created before the refuge was established, may be altering flow to key savannas.
They need to be mapped and plugged.
Crane Population Management
When the refuge was established in 1975, there were less than 30 free-flying cranes and no quick,
easy way to increase their numbers. The refuge currently uses a variety of methods to directly
manage the crane population.
Reintroduction
A restocking effort with captive-reared birds is used to bolster the wild population. Although cranes lay
one or two eggs each season, very rarely is more than one chick reared successfully. Beginning in 1965,
"extra" eggs, the second viable egg from a two-egg nest, were occasionally removed from the local nests
and taken to the U.S. Geological Survey’s Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Maryland to become part
of a captive flock. This flock was useful as a genetic reservoir and for physiological and behavioral
research that would be difficult with wild birds. By 1980, there were enough captive breeding pairs to
produce juveniles for release. Since 1981, captive-reared cranes have been released annually on the
refuge. This program is the largest crane release program in the world and has been so successful that
90 percent of the free-flying cranes seen today are captive-reared. All but a few of the 22 breeding pairs
are captive-reared cranes that are surviving and finally breeding. The captive flock established at the
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center has been split and now about two-thirds of the cranes reside at the
Audubon Institute's Species Survival Center near New Orleans, Louisiana, and about one-third reside at
the White Oak Conservation Center near Jacksonville, Florida.
Monitoring
Refuge personnel monitor the cranes year-round to understand as much as possible about how they
live and what they need to survive and nest successfully. Many of the cranes a