North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
M
W
C
North Mississippi
National Wildlife
Refuges Complex
CCoompprreehheennssiivvee CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn Pllaann
USFWS Photo
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.
North Mississippi National Wildlife
Refuges Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
November 2005
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
NORTH MISSISSIPPI NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES COMPLEX
GRENADA, MISSISSIPPI
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
1875 Century Boulevard
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
November 2005
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................1
Introduction.........................................................................................................................1
Purpose and Need for Plan .................................................................................................1
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................2
The National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................2
North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan.4
Legal Policy Context............................................................................................................4
Relationship to the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks .....................4
Assistance to Private Landowners ......................................................................................5
Lower Mississippi River Valley Ecosystem..........................................................................6
Overview ....................................................................................................................6
Ecological Threats and Problems ..............................................................................6
Conservation Priorities and Initiatives ......................................................................10
II. THE COMPLEX .....................................................................................................................15
Introduction and History.....................................................................................................15
Purpose and Ecosystem Context ......................................................................................15
Wintering Habitat for Waterfowl ...............................................................................15
Habitat for Forest-Dependent Birds .........................................................................20
Scrub/Shrub Habitat.................................................................................................22
Grassland Habitat ....................................................................................................23
Habitat for Migrating Shorebirds ..............................................................................24
Habitat for Marshbirds and Colonial Waterbirds/Wading Birds ................................25
Monitoring Raptors...................................................................................................25
Replicating Historic Forest Conditions .....................................................................25
Legal Policy .......................................................................................................................26
Resource and Management Descriptions .........................................................................26
Coldwater River National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................26
Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge ..........................................................................28
Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge ......................................................................28
Climate .....................................................................................................................28
Physiography, Geography, and Soils.......................................................................31
Hydrology .................................................................................................................31
Water Quality ...........................................................................................................32
Flora .........................................................................................................................33
Fauna.......................................................................................................................33
Threatened and Endangered Species .....................................................................35
Cultural Resources...................................................................................................36
Recreation and Visitor Services ...............................................................................38
Socioeconomic Environment .............................................................................................39
Outdoor Recreation Economics ...............................................................................40
Tourism ....................................................................................................................40
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................43
Overview...........................................................................................................................43
ii North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
Planning Process and Public Involvement ........................................................................ 43
Issues and Current Conditions.......................................................................................... 45
Fish and Wildlife Populations................................................................................... 46
Habitats.................................................................................................................... 49
Ecological Integrity................................................................................................... 52
Recreation and Visitor Services............................................................................... 53
Cultural Resources Management ............................................................................ 56
Private Lands and Forest Fragmentation................................................................. 56
General Administration ............................................................................................ 57
IV. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN...................................................................... 59
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 59
Vision ............................................................................................................................... 59
Comprehensive Conservation Plan................................................................................... 60
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies............................................................................ 60
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION.................................................................................................. 103
Funding ........................................................................................................................... 103
Refuge Operating Needs – Tier 1 (Highest Priority)........................................................ 103
Future Staffing Requirements ......................................................................................... 109
Step-down Management Plans ....................................................................................... 112
Partnership Opportunities................................................................................................ 112
Monitoring and Evaluation............................................................................................... 112
Plan Review and Revision............................................................................................... 113
SECTION B. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................... 115
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................... 117
APPENDIX C: PRIORITY COMPLEX OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE NEEDS.......... 121
APPENDIX D: COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ............................................................ 131
APPENDIX E: SPECIES LISTS............................................................................................... 191
APPENDIX F: LEGAL MANDATES......................................................................................... 207
APPENDIX G: BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES CITED................................................ 211
APPENDIX H: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................. 215
Comments On The Draft CCP-EA, And Service Responses................................. 215
APPENDIX I: WILDERNESS REVIEW SUMMARY ................................................................ 219
Table of Contents iii
APPENDIX J. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION............................221
APPENDIX K. FINDING OF NO-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS .....................................................225
iv North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley ...........................................................................................8
Figure 2. Forest cover changes in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley..............................................9
Figure 3. Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Forest Bird Conservation Areas ......................................13
Figure 4. Regional vicinity map of North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex ..................16
Figure 5. Coldwater River National Wildlife Refuge land cover types ................................................27
Figure 6. Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge land cover types...........................................................29
Figure 7. Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge land cover types.......................................................30
Figure 8. North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex focus areas .....................................89
Figure 9. North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex current staffing chart .....................110
Figure 10. North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex proposed staffing chart ...............111
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Acres managed by current staffing, North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex .17
Table 2. Land acquisition history, North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex...................17
Table 3. Location of each refuge, North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex...................18
Table 4. Establishment date, legislation, and purpose of each refuge within the North Mississippi
National Wildlife Refuges Complex.......................................................................................18
Table 5. Migrating and wintering waterfowl foraging habitat objectives established by the LMRVJV for
the Complex (acres)..............................................................................................................19
Table 6. Forest-dependent birds in the Complex work area...............................................................20
Table 7. Bird Conservation Area (BCA) forest core acreages and deficit in the Complex work area.21
Table 8. Scrub/shrub associated birds in the Complex work area......................................................22
Table 9. Grassland-dependent birds in the Complex work area.........................................................24
Table 10. Percent of the Tallahatchie, Grenada, Bolivar and Quitman counties’ land base used for
agricultural production........................................................................................................39
Table 11. County employment data....................................................................................................39
Table 12. Geographic and demographic statistics for the four counties including refuges within the
Complex............................................................................................................................41
Table 13. Activities by participants, 16 years old and older, throughout Mississippi ..........................41
Table 14. Estimated county tourism & recreation (T&R) revenues/employment ................................42
Table 15. Habitat objectives for migratory waterfowl (acres)..............................................................61
Table 16. Additional staff identified to implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the North
Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex ...............................................................109
Table 17. Step-down Management Plans.........................................................................................112
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) to
provide a foundation for the management and use of the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges
Complex (Complex), headquartered in Grenada, Mississippi. The North Mississippi National Wildlife
Refuges Complex is comprised of Coldwater River, Dahomey, and Tallahatchie National Wildlife
Refuges and the Farm Service Agency tracts of land in the area. The Complex provides habitat for
large concentrations of wintering waterfowl and numerous species of neotropical migratory birds.
This comprehensive conservation plan is intended to serve as a working guide for the Complex’s
management programs and actions over the next 15 years.
The plan was developed in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 and Part 602, National Wildlife Refuge System Planning, of the Fish and Wildlife Service
Manual. The actions described within this plan also meet the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Compliance with NEPA was met with public involvement
throughout the CCP process and the development of an environmental assessment. When fully
implemented, this plan will strive to achieve the vision and purposes of each refuge within the
Complex.
The plan’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which each refuge was
established. Fish and wildlife are the first priority in refuge management, and public use (wildlife-dependent
recreation) is allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, or does not detract
from, each refuge’s mission and purposes.
The plan has been prepared by a planning team composed of representatives from each of the
refuges in the Complex; the Service’s Jackson, Mississippi, Ecological Services field office; with the
assistance of an environmental contractor. In developing this plan, the planning team and refuge
staff incorporated the input of the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, other
agencies, non-governmental organizations, local citizens, the public, and stakeholders. This public
involvement and the planning process itself are further described in Chapter III. Plan Development.
This plan represents the Service’s preferred alternative and is being put forward after considering
three other alternatives, as described in the draft EA. After reviewing public scoping comments and
management needs, the planning team developed these alternatives in an attempt to determine how
to best meet the goals and objectives of the Complex. The preferred alternative is the Service’s
recommended course of action for the future management of the Complex.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PLAN
The purpose of this comprehensive conservation plan is to identify the role that the North Mississippi
National Wildlife Refuges Complex will play in support of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge
System, and to provide long-term guidance to the refuges’ management programs and activities. The
plan is needed to:
• Provide a clear statement of direction for the future management of the Complex;
2 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
• Provide neighbors, visitors, non-governmental partners, and government officials with an
understanding of the Service’s management actions on and around the Complex;
• 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 Complex considers federal, state, and county plans; and
• Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for the Complex’s operational,
maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
A critical management consideration for the Service is to communicate with the public and include
public participation in its efforts to carry out the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Many
agencies, organizations, institutions, businesses, and private citizens have developed relationships
with the Service to advance the goals of the Refuge System.
This comprehensive conservation plan supports the Partners-in-Flight Initiative, Lower Mississippi
Valley Migratory Bird Wetland Conservation Initiative, North American Waterfowl Management Plan,
Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, National Woodcock Management Plan, and the
National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan.
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency responsible for the conservation,
protection, and enhancement of the nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Although
the Service shares some conservation responsibilities with other federal, state, local, tribal, and
private entities, it has specific trustee obligations for migratory birds, threatened and endangered
species, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. In addition, the Service administers a
national network of lands and waters for the management and protection of these resources.
“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.”
As part of its mission, 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 throughout the nation, including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 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 NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the largest collection of lands and waters specifically
managed for 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.”
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear
mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Act states that the
Service will manage each refuge to:
• Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
• Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
• Consider the needs of fish and wildlife first;
• Fulfill the requirement of developing a 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;
and
• Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are
legitimate and priority public uses.
Following passage of the Act in 1997, the Service immediately began efforts to carry out the direction
of the new legislation, including the preparation of comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges.
The development of these plans is now ongoing nationally. Consistent with the Act, the Service is
preparing all refuge comprehensive conservation plans in conjunction with public involvement, and is
requiring each refuge to complete its plan within a 15-year schedule.
Approximately 38 million people visited the country’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, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed
wildlife, which generated $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 local economies. Other findings also validate the belief that communities
near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and transportation grew to $6.8
million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each federal dollar spent on the
Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation expenditures and $1.42
in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland, unpubl. data).
Volunteerism continues to be a major contributor to the successes of the Refuge System. In the
Southeast Region for 2004, 6,349 volunteers supported 125 stations and contributed 293,937 hours,
a service valued at $5,052,777.
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.
• Ecological integrity must be maintained.
• Growth of refuges must be strategic.
• The National Wildlife Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with broad
participation from others.
4 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
NORTH MISSISSIPPI NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES COMPLEX COMPREHENSIVE
CONSERVATION PLAN
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex,
consisting of three national wildlife refuges – Coldwater River, Dahomey, and Tallahatchie – as well
as a number of smaller fee title properties and floodplain and conservation easements, is being
prepared as mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, to guide
management actions and direction for the Complex over the next 15 years. Fish and wildlife
conservation will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be
allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, or does not detract from, the legislated
purposes of the three refuges that make up the Complex.
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. Refer to Appendix F for a complete listing of relevant legal mandates.
By law, lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically
opened. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Those mandates are to:
• Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
• Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
• Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
• Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses, as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public (these uses include
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation); and
• Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE, FISHERIES, AND PARKS
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 and state fish and wildlife agencies 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.
The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) (http://www.mdwfp.com) is a
state-partnering agency with the Service. It is charged with enforcement responsibilities for migratory
birds and endangered species, as well as managing the state’s natural resources. The total area
owned or managed by the State of Mississippi in support of wildlife, recreation, and fisheries is
828,408 acres, including 42 wildlife management areas (WMA’s), 29 state parks encompassing
823,297 acres; and 21 lakes totaling 5,111 acres.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
The MDWFP directs the state’s wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation
opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program, on several WMAs and parks
located near the Complex. The MDWFP’s participation and contribution throughout this
comprehensive conservation planning process has been valuable. It is continuing its work with the
Service to provide ongoing opportunities for an open dialogue with the public to improve the condition
of fish and wildlife populations in Mississippi. Not only has the MDWFP participated in biological
reviews, public meetings, and field reviews as part of the planning process, it is also an active partner
in annual hunt coordination, planning, and various wildlife and habitat surveys. Two of the three
refuges in the Complex, Dahomey and Tallahatchie, have an active hunting and fishing program
conducted in cooperation with the MDWFP. A key part of the planning process is the integration of
common objectives between the Service and the MDWFP.
ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE LANDOWNERS
Service policy for involvement with private landowners in developing and implementing habitat
improvement projects was outlined in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
(NWRSIA) of 1997, and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW) Program. Additional authorities
reside within the Fish and Wildlife Act (1956) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934).
Section 5, Item (4) (E) of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 specifically
states that the Service shall “ensure effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with owners
of land adjoining refuges and the fish and wildlife agency of the States in which the units of the
Refuge System are located.”
The PFW Program Policy states that in ranking and selecting private lands projects for funding and
technical assistance, the highest priority shall be placed on those projects that would provide
important and direct benefits to the goals and objectives of any nearby units of the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
Most of the land within the Complex work area is privately owned. These privately owned lands
should play an important role in the restoration and reestablishment of native habitats needed to
support the diverse fish and wildlife resource for which this geographic area was historically known.
Existing or potential habitat on private lands is essential for achieving the goals and objectives of
national and regional plans.
The Service has several existing programs that are dedicated to providing technical assistance and
funding for priority habitat projects on private lands. The Service’s primary project delivery
mechanism for habitat projects on private lands currently resides within the PFW Program. Additional
funding and technical assistance for private lands are also available through several other Service-funded
programs, including the Challenge Cost-Share Program (CCS), the Mississippi Partners for
Wildlife Program, Migratory Birds Program, and several grant programs within the Threatened and
Endangered Species Program.
Under the PFW Program, landowners may receive up to $25,000 for on-the-ground project
implementation. Exceptions to the $25,000 limit per private landowner may be requested in unique or
special circumstances. PFW projects typically receive a minimum 50 percent in-kind cost share and
require a minimum 10-year commitment from the landowner. Typically, landowner agreements are
for more than 20 years. Since the PFW Program was initiated in 1988, approximately 87,000 acres of
bottomland hardwood forest wetlands have been planted, and over 20,000 acres of other habitat
projects have been completed within the Lower Mississippi River Valley (LMRV). Over the past
6 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
several years, the PFW Program has provided from between $350,000 to $400,000 in project funds
each year for projects within the entire LMRV.
The Mississippi Partners for Wildlife Program is funded separately from the PFW Program, receiving
funding primarily through the Service’s Refuge Challenge Cost-Share Program. This program also
requires at least a 50 percent cost-share from other partners. In Mississippi, this partnership involves
private landowners, Ducks Unlimited, and the MDWFP. Approximately $50,000 in Service funds are
made available each fiscal year through this partnership agreement. These funds are used to
provide water-control structures to private landowners to flood harvested cropland during the fall and
winter (November 15-February 28). This partnership provides significant benefits for wintering
waterfowl, other migratory birds, and water quality.
The Farm Bill Conservation Programs, available through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
under the 2002 Farm Bill, provide significant opportunities for the development and implementation of
habitat improvement projects on private lands. These programs include the Wetland Reserve
Program (WRP), the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program,
and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Many millions of dollars are available to eligible
private landowners for habitat conservation under these programs. For example, under the WRP,
administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), over 100,000 acres of
permanent and 30-year easements, directed to restore natural wetlands and native vegetation, have
been implemented in Mississippi since 1990. The 2002 Farm Bill provides authorization for over
1,000,000 additional acres at a rate of approximately 250,000 acres per year. Much of the enrolled
acreage for the WRP (over 45 percent) has previously come from the LMRV.
All of the various conservation programs under the Farm Bill have specific eligibility and other
important project selection criteria. This information is readily available through the Internet or from
USDA, and Service biologists assigned to work with private landowners are very knowledgeable
about these programs.
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER VALLEY ECOSYSTEM
OVERVIEW
The North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex lies within a physiographic region known as
the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley (LMRV; Figure 1). The LMRV was once a 25-million-acre
complex of forested wetlands that extended along both sides of the Mississippi River from Illinois to
Louisiana. Historically, the extent and duration of seasonal flooding from the Mississippi River
fluctuated annually, recharging the LMRV’s aquatic systems and creating a rich diversity of dynamic
habitats that supported a vast array of fish and wildlife resources.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
Forest Loss and Fragmentation
The LMRV has changed markedly over the last 100 years as civilization spread throughout the
region. Since European settlement, it has been estimated that 20 million acres of bottomland
hardwood forested wetlands have been lost (Figure 2). The greatest changes to the landscape have
been in the form of land clearing for agriculture and flood control projects.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living in the area, they have had a
tremendous effect on biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of the Lower
Mississippi River Alluvial Valley. Immense areas of bottomland hardwood forests have been reduced
to forest fragments ranging from very small tracts just a few acres in size, with limited functional
value, to a few large areas of more than 10,000 acres that have maintained many of the original
functions and values of bottomland hardwood forests. Species endemic to the LMRV that have
become extinct, endangered, or threatened include the red wolf, Florida panther, ivory-billed
woodpecker, and Louisiana black bear.
Breeding bird surveys show continuing declines in species and species populations. The avian
species most adversely affected by fragmentation include those that are area-sensitive (dependent
on large continuous blocks of hardwood forest); those that depend on forest interiors; those that
depend on special habitat requirements, such as mature forests or a particular food source, and/or
those that depend on good water quality.
More than 70 species of breeding migratory songbirds are found in the region. Some of these
species, including Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, wood thrush, and cerulean warbler,
have declined significantly and need large forested blocks to recover, survive, and thrive.
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 wildlife between tracts
and reduces the functional values of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The lost connections also
result in a loss of gene flow needed to maintain genetic viability and diversity within wildlife
populations. Restoring the connections to allow gene flow and reestablish travel corridors is
particularly important for some wide-ranging species.
Alterations to Hydrology
In addition to the loss of vast acreage of bottomland forested wetlands, there have been significant
alterations in the region’s hydrology due to urban development, river channel modification, flood
control levees, reservoirs and deforestation, as well as degradation to aquatic systems from
excessive sedimentation and contaminants.
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 (Fredrickson and Heitmeyer 1988).
Instead of natural hydrology, large-scale, man-made hydrological alterations have changed the
spatial and temporal patterns of flooding throughout the entire LMRV. In addition, these alterations
have reduced both the extent and duration of annual seasonal flooding (with some conspicuous
exceptions, like most of the Coldwater River Refuge). The loss of this annual flooding regime has
had an enormous impact on the forested wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent species.
In view of the hydrologic changes, it is very difficult – if not impossible – to fully emulate and
reconstruct the structure and functions of a natural wetland. Because wetlands depend on a dynamic
interface of hydrologic regimes to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes,
restoration is especially difficult (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993).
8 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
Figure 1. Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Figure 2. Forest cover changes in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley
10 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems
Aquatic systems, including lakes, rivers, sloughs, and bayous, have been degraded as a result of
deforestation and hydrologic alteration. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an
accelerated accumulation of sediments and contaminants in all aquatic systems. Many water bodies
are now filled with sediments, greatly reducing their surface area and depth. Concurrently, the non-point
source runoff of excess nutrients and contaminants is threatening the area’s remaining aquatic
resources.
Hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphological processes that created oxbow
lakes, sloughs, and river meander scars. Consequently, the protection, conservation, and restoration
of these aquatic resources take on an added importance in light of the alterations associated with
flood control and navigation.
Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants and Animals
Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic
vegetation like coffeeweed 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 (non-native) vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening
viability of aquatic systems. These invasive aquatic species threaten the natural aquatic vegetation
important to aquatic systems, and choke waterways to a degree that often prevents recreational use.
Furthermore, non-native wildlife and fish have been successfully introduced or released in this
temperate climate. Animals like the nutria compete with native wildlife for limited resources and
many, like feral hogs, have caused extensive habitat damage and alterations.
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES AND INITIATIVES
Declines in the LMRV’s bottomland hardwood forests and their associated fish and wildlife resources
have prompted the Service to designate this forest system as an area of special concern. A
collaborative effort involving private, state, and federal conservation partners is now underway to
implement a variety of tools to restore the functions and values of wetlands in the LMRV. The goal is
to prioritize and manage wetlands to most effectively maintain and possibly restore the biological
diversity in the LMRV. Some areas are prioritized as focus areas for reforestation.
It is widely recognized, however, that most of the 20+ million acres of forested wetlands that have
been cleared and converted to other uses in the LMRV will not be reforested. Some areas would
have lower value for reforestation and are targeted for intensive management for non-forest-dependent
species, such as waterfowl and shorebirds. Through cooperative efforts, apportioning
resources, and the focusing of available programs, the LMRV’s biological diversity can be improved.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture
Several coordinated efforts have been initiated to set priorities and establish focus areas to overcome
the impacts of hydrologic changes and forest fragmentation. A cooperative private-state-federal
partnership known as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Lower Mississippi Valley
Joint Venture (LMRVJV), was established in 1986 to help provide sufficient wintering waterfowl
habitat throughout the LMRV. LMRVJV partners have helped to establish step-down management
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
objectives (expressed in duck-use-days and number of acres of flooded habitat) for public and private
lands throughout the LMRV.
The initial LMRVJV effort has expanded to also establish population objectives for shorebirds and
neotropical migratory forest-nesting birds. The LMRVJV is working with the U.S. Shorebird
Conservation Working Group to establish step-down objectives for shorebird foraging habitat for the
fall migration period throughout the LMRV.
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 (PIF) in 1990. PIF 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. PIF
has a number of initiatives underway, including a North American Landbird Conservation Plan.
Migratory Bird Conservation Zones
Another cooperative private-state-federal partnership involving the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, PIF, and the LMRVJV has identified a number of Migratory Bird Conservation
Zones. LMRV Forest Bird Conservation Areas are shown in Fig. 3. The three refuges in the
Complex are identified in these zones and are core areas. The purpose of identifying these zones is
to focus a number of private, state, and federal restoration programs into specific areas in an effort to
provide maximum benefits for neotropical migratory forest interior-nesting birds.
The goal of this collaborative restoration effort is to provide islands or blocks of forested habitat in an
otherwise highly fragmented landscape. The targeted block sizes range from 10,000 to 100,000
acres. Such areas are large enough to support viable populations of various suites of neotropical
migratory songbirds. These areas will also support other species, like the Louisiana black bear, that
prefer and thrive in large forested blocks.
Most MBCZs encompass an existing or proposed wildlife management area or national wildlife
refuge. These public lands serve as anchors of biodiversity that are enhanced and supported by the
expansion of forested blocks, either through public or private management.
One of the biggest challenges to the restoration efforts underway in the LMRV, and one that affects
refuges in particular, is the need to meet long-term management objectives that address
comprehensive ecosystem needs, including those of wintering migratory waterfowl, neotropical
migratory birds, shorebirds, wading birds, bears, and other wide-ranging species. Oftentimes,
management for one species or species group conflicts with the management objectives for another
species or species group. The tendency is to pursue short-term priorities that frequently change as
scientific knowledge expands and interests in special resources shift. Caution must be exercised to
prevent the start-up of restoration actions that are difficult to reverse and fail to meet the long-term,
comprehensive management needs of the ecosystem or a specific area within the ecosystem. An
example might be a tendency to totally reforest Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge in an effort to
reduce fragmentation and create acreage to meet an objective for forest interior-nesting birds. Such
an approach would overlook the critical habitat needs of waterfowl and shorebirds that require a
complex of seasonally flooded croplands, moist-soil areas, and forested wetlands.
12 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
The habitat goals of the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture can only be met through active
management of croplands, moist-soil areas, and forested wetlands on both public and private land
(Reinecke and Baxter 1996). Active management (i.e., vegetation manipulation and hydrology
restoration) is required to compensate for the spatial and temporal habitat changes that have been
caused by deforestation and hydrologic alterations throughout the LMRV. The North Mississippi
National Wildlife Refuges Complex uses a system of levees, water control structures, pumps, and
wells to provide dependable seasonally flooded croplands and moist-soil areas as part of its
waterfowl and shorebird habitat step-down objectives. If totally reforested, the Complex would not be
able to meet its waterfowl/shorebird habitat step-down objectives. Setting habitat and species
objectives from the perspective of the LMRV is advantageous because it looks at the regional context
(i.e., the “big picture”) and enables managers to plan and provide habitat for a diversity of species
throughout their range.
Although reforestation is probably the best solution for restoring the vast forests that have been
converted to row-crop agriculture, it must be remembered that the flooding and drying regime drives
the ecosystem in the LMRV. The plant and animal communities throughout the LMRV are dependent
upon the hydrologic cycle. It is incumbent upon land managers to manage hydrology in an effort to
restore the ecological diversity that once characterized the LMRV. Ditches can be plugged and
structures installed to control and manage water in an effort to mimic historic flood cycles and to meet
waterfowl/shorebird habitat objectives.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Figure 3. Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Forest Bird Conservation Areas
14 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
II. The Complex
INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY
The North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex, formerly the Mississippi Wetland
Management District, is comprised of three distinct work areas. Each contains a national wildlife
refuge and all Farm Service Agency tracts within that area. The three refuges plus 128 Farm Service
Agency properties total 33,746 acres, with the Complex headquartered in Grenada (Figure 4). Since
the Complex was established in 1989 and assigned administrative responsibility for Coldwater River,
Dahomey, and Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuges, the overriding collective thrust has been the
creation, restoration, and enhancement of wetlands on public and private lands. The Complex
provides habitat for large concentrations of wintering waterfowl and numerous species of neotropical
migratory birds (Public Use Review, 1, 3).
The Complex has a staff of ten full-time permanent employees (Table 1). In 2004, 42 volunteers
contributed approximately 1,000 hours towards wildlife and maintenance projects for Dahomey refuge
and Tallahatchie refuge. There are also active Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) and internship
programs.
PURPOSE AND ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
Although the Complex has an overriding purpose of providing for the habitat needs of migratory birds,
with an emphasis on waterfowl, each refuge within the Complex has a unique purpose and
establishing legislation. For this plan, we are combining the refuges due to their proximity to each
other, the similarity of issues and habitats, shared management and personnel, and in order to
address the value of managing these refuges as a true complex of lands within the LMRV. The
collective goals, objectives, and strategies of the complex will not detract from, but rather support the
individual purposes guiding each refuge in the Complex.
WINTERING HABITAT FOR WATERFOWL
The LMRV is a critical ecoregion for wintering North American migratory waterfowl (Reinecke et al.,
1989). The Complex provides important foraging and resting (refuge) habitats within the LMRV for
migratory ducks and geese and thus fits into the large-scale, collaborative planning and habitat
management initiative called the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), described
in Chapter I of this CCP. NAWMP selected the LMRVJV as one of the wintering habitat focus areas.
One of the LMRVJV’s first tasks was to find a model or decision tool for determining how much
habitat was needed and a way to relate this objective to the population goals of NAWMP. The
solution was to view wintering areas as responsible for contributing to the spring breeding population
goals of NAWMP proportional to the percentage of ducks historically counted in wintering areas
(Loesch et al., 1994, Reinecke and Loesch 1996).
16 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
Figure 4. Regional vicinity map of North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Table 1. Acres managed by current staffing, North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges
Complex
Refuge Headquarters Refuges Managed Acres Managed Complex/Refuge Staff
Complex Headquarters
(located in Grenada,
MS)
Coldwater River
NWR
(2,374 acres)
Dahomey NWR
(9,431 acres)
Tallahatchie NWR
(4,199 acres)
16,004 acres in refuges
(fee title)
+ 260 acres (school
board lease) +
17,212 acres in 128
Farm Service Agency
tracts = 33,476 total
acres managed by
complex
Project Leader
(GS-13)
Refuge Manager
(GS-12)
Dahomey: Refuge
Manager (GS-12)
Private Lands Biologist
(GS-12)
Wildlife Biologist
(GS-12)
Refuge Operations
Specialist (GS-9)
Park Ranger (GS-9)-
vacant
Office Automation
Assistant (GS-7)
Equipment Operator x2
(WG-10)
Complex Staff TOTAL 10
Sources: Biological Review (2003), Public Use Report (2002) and 2002 Annual Narrative
There is currently no staff based at Coldwater River or Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuges.
Development/management there is handled by the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges
Complex.
Table 2. Land acquisition history, North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
YEAR Coldwater River NWR
(acres)
Dahomey NWR (acres) Tallahatchie NWR
(acres)
2003 116
2001 306
1997 1,656
1996 298 260
1995 40
1993 9,269
1992 1,870
1991 1,730 162 557
TOTAL 2,374 9,691 4,199
Source: USFWS – Realty
18 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
Table 3. Location of each refuge, North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
Refuge County Location
Coldwater River Quitman/Tallahatchie 5 miles south of Crowder, MS, on Dummy Line Road
Dahomey Bolivar 10 miles southwest of Cleveland, MS, and 22 miles
northeast of Greenville
Tallahatchie Grenada/Tallahatchie 9 miles west of Holcomb, MS, on U.S. Highway 8
Table 4. Establishment date, legislation, and purpose of each refuge within the North
Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
Refuge Year
Established
Establishment
Legislation Refuge Purpose
Coldwater
River
1991 as Black
Bayou unit of
Tallahatchie
NWR
2000 as ”stand
alone” refuge
Migratory Bird
Conservation Act;
Consolidated Farm
and Rural
Development Act
“...for use as inviolate sanctuary, or for
any other management purpose, for
migratory birds,”
and for conservation purposes, under
the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act
Dahomey 1992
Migratory Bird
Conservation Act;
Fish and Wildlife Act
of 1956;
Emergency Wetlands
Resource Act of
1986
“...for use as inviolate sanctuary, or for
any other management purpose, for
migratory birds,”
“…for the development, advancement,
management, conservation, and
protection of fish and wildlife
resources…”
and “for the conservation of the
Wetlands of the Nation in order to
maintain the public benefits they provide
and to help fulfill international
obligations contained in various
migratory bird treaties and conventions.”
Tallahatchie 1991
Migratory Bird
Conservation Act,
Consolidated Farm
and Rural
Development Act
“...for use as inviolate sanctuary, or for
any other management purpose, for
migratory birds,”
and for conservation purposes, under
the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act
To contribute ducks to spring populations, wintering areas have to provide sufficient habitat to ensure
adequate winter survival. To quantify winter habitat requirements, the LMRVJV had to identify limiting
factors and the LMRVJV assumed foraging habitat was most likely to limit waterfowl populations in
the LMRV (Reinecke et al., 1989). The methodology for doing so is discussed more thoroughly in the
2002 Biological Review for the Complex.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
The LMRVJV has established habitat objectives for the LMRV. These objectives were based on food
production and acres by habitat type for the complex of habitats, including harvested and
unharvested cropland, moist-soil areas, and flooded forest land. Each of these habitats is required to
provide an important part of the food resources (e.g., native weed seeds, small grains, and
invertebrates) required by waterfowl wintering in the LMRV. Agricultural grains are high in
carbohydrates (i.e., “hot foods”) needed by waterfowl to maintain body temperature during cold
periods in winter. Acorns and other native weed seeds (moist-soil seeds) and invertebrates provide
higher levels of protein and other nutrients used by waterfowl to complete other important functions
during the winter period, such as molting and improving body condition for return migration to the
breeding grounds, as well as egg-laying. These objectives have been stepped down for private and
public lands throughout the LMRV, including the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges
Complex. They are shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Migrating and wintering waterfowl foraging habitat objectives established by the
LMRVJV for the Complex (acres)
Habitat Objective
(Acres)
Current Capability
(Acres) (+/-Acres)
Coldwater River NWR
Forested wetland
Scrub/shrub
Moist-soil
Unharvested cropland
700
0
190
0
01
31
1902
0
-700
+ 31
0
0
Dahomey NWR
Forested wetland
Moist-soil
Unharvested cropland
Harvested cropland
750
318
218
0
440
2004
845
2535
-3103
-118
-134
+253
Tallahatchie NWR
Forested wetland
Moist-soil
Unharvested cropland
80
852
212
0
690
50
-806
-162
-162
Farm Service Agency
Forested wetlands
Moist-soil
Unharvested crop
0
3,000
0
0
07
0
0
-3,000
0
1 700-acre reforested area with water management capability (currently not functional) could serve as
a greentree reservoir in the future.
2 Current capability is actually 415 acres of which 225 acres are devoted to fall migrating shorebird
habitat.
3 Ducks Unlimited MARSH Agreement assumes 800 acres flooded, refuge estimates 750 acres are
flooded, actual acres flooded is estimated to be 440 acres.
4 Assumes one of two 100-acre impoundments on the south end of the refuge is in moist-soil every
year.
5 Assumes that agricultural grain crops are cooperatively farmed at a 75:25 exchange rate, with the
refuge receiving 25 percent unharvested crop that is left in the field and 75 percent of the crop
harvested; all is flooded in winter.
6 100-acre reforested area with water management capabilities could possibly serve as a greentree
reservoir in the future.
7 Foraging habitat capabilities on these properties are unknown due to the lack of accurate
information.
20 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
HABITAT FOR FOREST-DEPENDENT BIRDS
Despite being highly fragmented, the productive hardwood forests of the Mississippi Delta play an
important role in providing migration and breeding habitat for forest-breeding birds, as well as those
dependent on forests for other activities, such as foraging or wintering. By increasing block size and
improving timber stand structure, this habitat has the potential to provide much greater benefit for this
wide variety of non-game birds, many of which are listed in Table 6.
Table 6. Forest-dependent birds in the Complex work area
Species Priority Use Preferred habitat
Swainson’s warbler Extremely high Nesting
Foraging
Dense understory
Open moist ground
Cerulean warbler Extremely high Breeding, nesting
and foraging
Canopy of sawtimber
trees (mature timber)
Swallow-tailed kite Extremely high Breeding and
nesting
Superemergent trees,
possibly cypress
Prothonotary warbler High Breeding Cavity nester – usually in
trees above open water
Red-headed woodpecker High Breeding Cavity nester
Northern parula High Breeding Canopy, usually with
Spanish moss
Kentucky warbler High Breeding Nests in patches of
dense ground cover
Yellow-billed cuckoo High Breeding Midstory and canopy
Wood thrush High Breeding
Foraging
Midstory
Moist ground
American woodcock High Foraging Open moist ground but
under very dense
understory cover
Black duck High Wintering Open water
Wood duck Moderate Breeding Cavity nesting over or
near open water
Acadian flycatcher Moderate Breeding Open midstory
Eastern wood-pewee Moderate Breeding Open canopy
Carolina chickadee Moderate Breeding Cavity nester
Mississippi kite Moderate Breeding nests in trees along
edges in open country
Baltimore oriole Moderate Breeding Scattered hardwoods in
open country
Ruby-throated
hummingbird
Moderate Breeding Woody vegetation in
moist habitats, usually
near tubular flowers
Blue-gray gnatcatcher Moderate Breeding Mature and moist
hardwood forests
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Species Priority Use Preferred habitat
Hooded warbler Moderate Breeding Dense understory
Bald eagle Moderate Breeding Nests in superemergent
trees large enough to
support massive nests
Rusty blackbird Moderate Wintering Winter roost in canopy;
forages on the ground
Yellow-throated warbler Local/regional
interest
Breeding Canopy, usually with
Spanish moss
American redstart Local/regional
interest
Breeding Hardwood forests,
usually near water
Yellow-throated vireo Local/regional
interest
Breeding Open canopy
Summer tanager Local/regional
interest
Breeding Open canopy
Pileated woodpecker Local/regional
interest
Breeding Mature and extensive
forest, with dead trees for
nesting
As it has with setting waterfowl habitat objectives, the LMRVJV has undertaken a coordinated effort
to identify Bird Conservation Areas (BCA’s) throughout the LMRV for restoration of forest blocks that
support sustainable breeding populations of area-sensitive, high priority forest-breeding bird species.
There are seven BCA’s in the Complex work area with established forest block size objectives (Table
7). Selective reforestation through private land programs or expansion of existing refuges would
contribute toward forest block objectives.
Overall future desired condition of mature wetland forests would be to emphasize (1) increasing stand
structural diversity by favoring retention of largest trees (removing surrounding potentially competing
trees), (2) opening up stands to allow light to reach the ground in support of better understory
structure, and (3) group selection-sized openings to further structural complexity and support
regeneration of shade-intolerant tree species (oaks) where needed.
Table 7. Bird Conservation Area (BCA) forest core acreages and deficit in the Complex work
area
BCA Name Core goal Core
acreage Deficit
Coldwater Creek
(Coldwater River NWR)
2,100 0 -2,100
Coahoma 8,106 14,216 Achieved
O’Keefe 2,100 472 -1,628
Tunica 5,200 15,383 Achieved
Malmaison (Tallahatchie
NWR)
5,200 6,654 Achieved
Dahomey (Dahomey
NWR)
2,100 521 -1,579
Whittington 7,300 37,215 Achieved
22 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
A core forest area is that contiguous block of interior forest that is 1.6 miles from all forest edges.
This protective core forest habitat is essential to many of the highest priority bird species, such as the
cerulean warbler and swallow-tailed kite. Based on this definition, Dahomey is the only refuge of the
three in the Complex to have sufficient acreage to refer to its core forest habitat. Research has
shown that up to 20-30 percent of a study tract can be degraded by fragmentation before neotropical
migratory songbirds begin treating a contiguous tract as separate patches. If a mile buffer (in which
there have been substantial encroachments) within the BCA surrounding Dahomey refuge is included
in this calculation, the 20-30 percent figure has already been surpassed. Managed early
successional openings of between 1 and 5 acres that serve as habitat for resident and migratory
wildlife game species are not considered to impact the block nature of the forest tract [BioReview, 37-
38].
One species of interest, the American woodcock, is showing significant long-term declines in the
eastern United States. Habitat loss, including the loss of preferred, safe, nocturnal wintering habitats,
is likely a key factor. The Complex may be important in helping the Service to meet its objectives in
the North American and Regional Woodcock Management Plans. Woodcock/quail management is
an explicit goal of Coldwater River refuge [BioReview, 43].
SCRUB/SHRUB HABITAT
Scrub/shrub (or early successional) associated birds are another group of vulnerable avian species
within the southeast (see Table 8). These species are generally considered a lower priority than
mature forest species within the LMRV, but some species may benefit temporarily during the early
years of reforestation, especially the white-eyed vireo, painted bunting, orchard oriole, and Bell’s
vireo. However, good opportunities exist for overall effective bird conservation through the
establishment and maintenance of scrub/shrub sites throughout the Complex, including edges and
small blocks within existing refuges and Farm Service Agency tracts. Many of these tracts are
generally isolated from larger forest blocks.
Table 8. Scrub/shrub associated birds in the Complex work area
Species Priority Use Preferred habitat
Breeding
Painted bunting High Breeding Dense thickets of shrubs, saplings,
or second-growth trees
White-eyed vireo High Breeding Dense and usually moist thickets
Bell’s vireo High Breeding Streamside thickets or upland
scrub oaks
Orchard oriole High Breeding Scattered hardwood trees in open
country
Yellow-breasted chat Moderate Breeding Dense cover of shrubs or saplings
Northern bobwhite Moderate Breeding Ground-nester
Field sparrow Moderate Breeding?
Wintering
Transients
Golden-winged warbler Extremely
high
Cerulean warbler High
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Species Priority Use Preferred habitat
Transients
Blue-winged warbler High
Bay-breasted warbler High
Canada warbler High
Blackburnian warbler High
Palm warbler High
Bobolink High
Veery High
Philadelphia vireo High
Black-billed cuckoo Moderate
Olive-sided flycatcher Moderate
Willow flycatcher Moderate
Least flycatcher Moderate
Chestnut-sided warbler Moderate
Black-throated green
warbler
Moderate
Mourning warbler Moderate
Scrub/shrub species apparently are able to withstand cowbird and depredation problems better within
smaller blocks of habitat (i.e., 50-100 acres, possibly as small as 25-acre patches) than mature forest
priority species, many of which require thousands of contiguously forested acres. With better
information, the project leader and his staff may want to consider targeting certain sites for this habitat
phase. Sites selected for long-term maintenance of scrub/shrub will require periodic disturbances.
One option for minimizing the frequency of disturbance (to set back succession) necessary to
maintain scrub/shrub habitat would be to plant areas with native fruit-producing, shrub species such
as plum, swamp dogwood, devil’s-walking-stick, deciduous holly, and various species of hawthorn.
GRASSLAND HABITAT
The emphasis on “grassland” habitat conditions used by high priority species on the Complex is likely
restricted to forest restoration sites actually more often dominated by “brushy” annuals. Priority
grassland species are mostly found at the Complex during migration and winter, but a few species
may breed in small numbers (Table 9). Recently planted reforestation sites constitute the primary
habitats on the refuges. However, higher sites with sandy soils (i.e., poorer quality sites) dominated
by broomsedge (Andropogon spp.) should be maintained in particular for wintering LeConte’s
sparrows. Priority grassland species include sparrows (principally LeConte’s, but also grasshopper
and possibly lark), sedge wren, bobolink, and raptors (most notably bald eagle, northern harrier,
short-eared owl, and loggerhead shrike).
24 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
Table 9. Grassland-dependent birds in the Complex work area
Species Priority Use Preferred habitat
Henslow’s sparrow High Wintering
LeConte’s sparrow High Wintering
Sedge wren High Wintering
Short-eared owl High Wintering
Dickcissel Moderate Breeding Herbaceous cover where
vegetation is at least 2
feet high
Northern bobwhite Moderate Breeding Ground-nester
Loggerhead shrike Moderate Breeding
Foraging
Tree or shrub nesting
Forages on ground
Field sparrow Moderate Breeding
Wintering
scattered saplings,
shrubs, and tall herbac-eous
cover;
wintering - dense cover
of herbs, particular tall
composites
Northern harrier Moderate Wintering
Grasshopper sparrow Moderate Wintering
Field sparrow Moderate Breeding?
Wintering
HABITAT FOR MIGRATING SHOREBIRDS
Throughout the LMRV, habitat for spring (northward) shorebird migration is probably provided in most
years with normal rainfall and evaporation rates. Peak migration is expected April to mid-May (but
extends from mid-March to late May). Southbound migration starts in early July, peaks August
through September, and ends by mid-October.
Disruption of normal evaporation patterns over the last 50 years in the LMRV and the lack of rainfall
in this highly modified hydrological environment have led to a severe shortage of fall habitat for
shorebirds. Opportunities do exist, however, to provide good quality habitat for southbound migrants
in fall. A focus on providing shorebird habitat is considered the highest non-game bird priority for the
Complex. The LMRVJV-coordinated shorebird (fall migration) habitat objective for Coldwater River
refuge is 225 acres of mudflats and for former FmHA tracts is currently listed as an additional 100-
200 acres.
Within the larger context, about 1,500 acres of habitat have been tentatively identified for Mississippi
towards supporting a tentative LMRV population objective of 500,000 shorebirds during southbound
migration.
High priority shorebird species include the stilt sandpiper, buff-breasted sandpiper, western
sandpiper, short-billed dowitcher, and Wilson’s phalarope. Those of moderate priority are the
semipalmated sandpiper, sanderling, greater yellowlegs, dunlin, common snipe, least sandpiper,
willet, American avocet, and killdeer.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
HABITAT FOR MARSHBIRDS AND COLONIAL WATERBIRDS/WADING BIRDS
Secretive marshbirds, including rails and bitterns, are mostly found on the Complex during migration
and winter, but may breed in small numbers. Ricefields, moist-soil units, and unmanaged
herbaceous marsh dominated by cattail, rushes, and other perennials constitute the primary habitats
on the Complex. Management for these species coincides well with ongoing wetland restoration
practices on many of the former FmHA sites and, to a lesser degree, management practices targeting
waterfowl. Included in this group are “secretive marshbirds” (e.g., rails, bitterns, grebes, moorhens,
and coots) and raptors (most notably bald eagle and northern harrier).
Complex holdings support several colonial wading bird rookeries. Shallow water areas found on the
refuge during late summer and fall provide critical foraging opportunities for long-legged wading birds
such as wood storks, herons, egrets, and ibis. The primary management tools are to 1) protect
rookeries from disturbance and, where possible, maintain standing water under nest trees throughout
the nesting season to minimize nest predation by raccoons, and 2) incorporate water level
management for wading birds into shallow water management for waterfowl and shorebirds. In the
shallow water provided for wading birds, they will be searching for foraging habitat rich in small fish
and crustaceans, a much different food source than is targeted in waterfowl and shorebird
management.
High priority species are the least tern (interior population-foraging on open water), white ibis
(breeding?, migrant), and the American white pelican (wintering). Species of local or regional
interest include the wood stork (migrant), roseate spoonbill (migrant), glossy ibis (migrant), double-crested
cormorant (breeding, wintering), anhinga (breeding), great blue heron (breeding), great egret
(breeding), snowy egret (breeding), little blue heron (breeding), cattle egret (breeding), green heron
(breeding), yellow-crowned night-heron (breeding).
MONITORING RAPTORS
The Complex has two records (from August 1999) of one extremely high priority raptor: the swallow-tailed
kite (migration, breeding - nest in superemergent trees, possibly cypress). However, these
individuals appear to have been dispersing juveniles rather than residents. The Complex also has
several species of moderate priority, including the Mississippi kite (breeding - nest in trees along
edges in open country), loggerhead shrike (breeding - nest in tree or shrub, forages on ground,
wintering), northern harrier (wintering), and bald eagle (wintering, nesting possible - nests in
superemergent trees large enough to support massive nests). The Complex will identify and monitor
year-round occurrence and abundance of raptors.
REPLICATING HISTORIC FOREST CONDITIONS
About 80 percent of the forestlands in the LMRV has been cleared and converted to other land uses,
leaving only remnant, fragmented forested tracts. Fish and wildlife resources have been similarly
impacted, leaving remnant populations that must be managed to meet refuge purposes and to
achieve their maximum potential. Some of the most unique forested habitats remaining in the delta
are forested ridges. Because of the importance of the remaining delta forests to the wildlife
resources on the Complex and conservation priorities set forth in various plans, forest resources
should be managed to mimic old growth forests and increase vertical vegetative structure.
26 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
Several species of waterfowl heavily utilize flooded forested habitat in winter for resting and foraging
for acorns, other fruits, various seeds, and invertebrates. Wood ducks seek these areas almost
exclusive of other habitats. Mallards, gadwall, and wigeon all utilize flooded forested habitat as one
of the complex of preferred habitats.
Flooding of forest habitat in winter should mimic or enhance natural flood conditions. Typically,
flooding should occur only during the dormant period for deciduous hardwoods common in each
impoundment. Flooding should never occur before the dormant period starts in late fall (mid-
November to late-December) and only rarely after green-up in the spring. Flooding dates and
duration should be varied annually and in some years given stands should not be flooded.
LEGAL POLICY
The administration of the Complex is guided by a variety of international treaties, federal laws, and
Presidential executive orders. Management options under each refuge’s establishing authority and
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (the legal and policy guidance for the
operation of national wildlife refuges) are contained in the documents and acts listed in Appendix F.
RESOURCE AND MANAGEMENT DESCRIPTIONS
COLDWATER RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Coldwater River National Wildlife Refuge, formerly the Black Bayou Unit of the Tallahatchie National
Wildlife Refuge, consists of 2,469 acres of fee title lands (see Figure 5). Over half of this acreage is
abandoned old fields of poorly drained soils that flood most winters.
A 495-acre portion of Coldwater River refuge contains 25 ponds that were previously managed as a
commercial catfish operation. These ponds range in size from 9 to 21 acres, and are now managed
for shorebirds, migratory waterfowl, and marsh birds. A Water Management Plan guides the active
management on the 16 ponds with wells and water control structures. Coldwater River refuge’s
unique mix of habitats and proximity to the migration corridors of the Little Tallahatchie River and the
Panola-Quitman Floodway attract a high diversity of migrant waterbirds all year round.
About 300 acres of old-field habitat on the west side of the refuge are managed for grassland birds.
A natural sump of 250 to 300 acres along the east side and a similar area in the west central portion
of the refuge have been reforested with hardwoods, but due to the wetness, Baccharis, willow, and
button bush thickets now dominate many acres. This area holds thousands of mallards during annual
winter flooding. Another approximately 750 acres have been reforested with native hardwoods with
varying degrees of success. No cooperative farming is used on Coldwater River refuge.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Figure 5. Coldwater River National Wildlife Refuge land cover types
28 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
DAHOMEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge is located in Bolivar County in the western part of the Complex
near the Mississippi River (see Figure 6). Dahomey refuge’s woodlands are the largest contiguous
tract of bottomland hardwood habitat occurring outside the Mississippi River main line levee in
northwest Mississippi. The refuge’s forestland is a relic of a habitat type that once predominated
throughout the Lower Mississippi Delta. Unfortunately, stream channelization and levee construction
activities in the vicinity of the refuge have reduced historical flooding regimes to the point that a
significant portion of the habitat within the refuge is no longer subject to periods of seasonal
inundation.
In 1994, the Complex installed levees, pipes, and water control structures in two streams occurring
within the refuge, creating an approximately 600-acre greentree reservoir. During 1999, the Complex
converted an 85-acre agricultural field into four moist-soil impoundments. In 2001, Ducks Unlimited
constructed two levees on the southern portion of the refuge to create two moist-soil units totaling
223 acres.
Dahomey refuge consists of 8,126 acres of mature bottomland hardwood forest (596 of which are
occupied by the greentree reservoir), 104 acres of fallow fields, 308 acres of moist-soil units, 297
acres of agricultural fields, 849 acres of early successional reforestation areas, and 7 acres of
permanent water (in a lake and numerous drainage ditches). The moist-soil units are managed
primarily for wintering waterfowl.
TALLAHATCHIE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Until 2000, Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge consisted of the Bear Lake and Black Bayou Units.
In 2000, Black Bayou Unit became a separate refuge – Coldwater River National Wildlife Refuge.
The Bear Lake unit retained the name Tallahatchie. Today, the refuge is a 4,199-acre patchwork of
cultivated farmlands, old fields, reforested lands, and small, scattered plots of bottomland hardwood
forest bisected by the meandering Tippo Bayou, its centerpiece. The refuge is located in Grenada
and Tallahatchie counties (see Figure 7). Its lands, like those of Coldwater River and Dahomey
refuges, lie within the Mississippi River Alluvial Valley, referred to locally as the ”Delta,” where
topography is flat and much of the soil is of the heavy clay, hydric variety that has been subject to
extensive clearing and drainage efforts. The old oxbows and low-lying fields along Tippo Bayou are
permitted to flood each winter and hold large concentrations of waterfowl. Most of the agricultural
land (628 acres) on the refuge is devoted to corn, soybeans, and rice. This represents about 15
percent of the refuge land use. Twenty-five percent of the crops produced are left on the ground for
wildlife through the Service’s cooperative farming program. Most of the remainder of the refuge has
been reforested through planting efforts by Complex staff.
CLIMATE
The area’s climate is a humid, warm-temperate, continental type characteristic of the southern United
States. The average yearly rainfall is 52 inches; March is the wettest month with an average of 5.6
inches and August the driest with 2.4 inches. Tropical storms or hurricanes coming from the Gulf of
Mexico may occasionally bring several days of heavy rain. Thunderstorms, which usually bring the
heaviest rains, are occasionally accompanied by hail and tornados. Drought conditions during the
summer may increase the danger of fire. Average annual snowfall is less than an inch.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Figure 6. Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge land cover types
30 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
Figure 7. Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge land cover types
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
January is usually the coldest month, while July is normally the hottest. Winters are mild, with
temperatures seldom remaining below freezing for long. Summers are hot and humid with heat
indexes commonly reaching 110-115EF. The average growing season is 219 days, from March 25 to
October 30.
PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY, AND SOILS
Within the region, the Mississippi Delta is an alluvial plain of the Mississippi River reaching from
Memphis, Tennessee, to Vicksburg, Mississippi. It is 75 miles wide at the widest point near the
middle, tapering on each end. The river flows along the western edge, while the eastern edge is
bordered by steep bluffs that rise 200 feet above the elevation of the Delta. The Delta is composed
of alluvial soils deposited primarily by the Mississippi River with surface features resulting from the
meandering of the Mississippi and lesser streams like the Tallahatchie River. Old channels, oxbow
lakes, brakes, sloughs, and other features developed in areas that bordered the main river channels,
while slackwater areas farther from the channel resulted in broad flats. These features intermixed as
the Mississippi meandered across the Delta.
The alluvial soils in the lower Mississippi Delta range from silts and clays in the more poorly drained
areas to sandier, coarser-grained soils on natural levees and ancient sandbars. Due to the location
of waterfowl-oriented refuges in wetland areas, most of the soils within the Complex are silts and
clays, which have fine texture, low permeability and high shrink-swell potential. The surface layer is
often hard when dry, friable when moist, and plastic when wet, making moisture content an important
consideration when working the soil. There are lighter soils in limited areas, but most of the broad
natural levees adjacent to major streams are privately owned cotton production areas.
HYDROLOGY
The water table is very shallow in the Delta. Irrigation wells are drilled to a depth of 100-120 feet,
reaching an aquifer connected to the Mississippi River.
Historically, the refuges were subject to winter/spring flooding by the Mississippi River. The Lower
Delta was completely flooded five times between 1882 and 1927, despite the river levee. Since then,
the mainline Mississippi River levee has been substantially upgraded, preventing widespread flooding
from the river.
Within the vicinity of, and in Dahomey refuge, stream channelization and levee construction activities
have reduced historical flooding regimes to the point that a significant portion of the habitat within the
refuge is no longer subject to periods of seasonal inundation. This has had a striking impact on the
refuge’s vegetation community, a remnant of a habitat type that was once dominant throughout the
Lower Mississippi Valley. Therefore, one of the Complex’s objectives for Dahomey refuge is to
restore and manage seasonal hydro-periods within its wetland habitat.
In 1994, the Complex installed levees, pipes, and water control structures in two streams occurring
within Dahomey refuge, creating an approximately 600-acre greentree reservoir. During 1999, the
Complex converted an 85-acre agricultural field into 4 moist-soil impoundments. In 2001, Ducks
Unlimited constructed two levees on the southern portion of the refuge to create two moist-soil units
totaling 223 acres.
32 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
Tippo Bayou bisects the portion of the Tallahatchie refuge north of State Highway 8 and generally
forms the eastern boundary of the refuge south of State Highway 8. Normally highly turbid, Tippo
Bayou depends primarily on rice field runoff for base flow. Except for high water periods, the bayou is
shallow and has low dissolved oxygen levels. Out-of-bank flooding of Tippo Bayou occurs on an
annual basis and may cause portions of the refuge to be inaccessible from December to April. Eight
water control structures have been installed and one levee has been constructed.
Coldwater River refuge is located 4.5 miles north of the confluence of the Panola-Quitman Floodway
and the Tallahatchie River. Bounded by those two water bodies, the refuge experiences heavy
flooding. Typically beginning in November, water begins to accumulate north of the confluence and
backs northward to the refuge. A large portion of Coldwater River refuge is under water from
November to April.
WATER QUALITY
Agricultural runoff from any source in the Delta carries organochlorine pesticides, which are bound to
soil particles. These pesticides, heavily used for years in the Delta, have persisted in the soil for over
15 years since their use was banned, and likely will exist for many more. Pesticide contamination is
an issue to be confronted on all stations of the Complex. Fish and wildlife species are subject to
contain OC compounds that may exceed predator protection levels or human consumption concern
levels.
North Carolina State University completed the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Study, which
determined chemical contamination at 26 national wildlife refuges in the LMRV. Field sampling for
the study spanned a 6-year period from 1995 to 2000. Dahomey and Tallahatchie refuges were
included in the study.
Results of the sample analyses indicate that contaminant/water quality problems occur on both
Dahomey and Tallahatchie refuges. Concentrations of DDTM were above concern levels in sediment
samples. DDTM, toxaphene, and current use pesticide concentrations in water samples exceeded
the Environmental Protection Agency’s chronic water quality criteria for those contaminants. It also
appears that several of the waterbodies contain high levels of suspended solids, turbidity, and
nutrients, and that dissolved oxygen levels are at or near zero for extended periods.
Contaminated runoff from agricultural land is likely causing the contaminant/water quality problems.
To reduce contaminated runoff entering the refuge, best management practices (BMPs) such as drop
inlet structures, minimum till practices, vegetative field borders, and grassed waterways should be
installed on agricultural land in the watersheds, and some of the agricultural land with high erosion
rates should be revegetated. In addition, concentrations of DDTM, toxaphene, and current use
pesticides should be monitored in fish and wildlife, and investigations should be undertaken to
determine organochlorine pesticides concentrations in fish, and aquatic oriented wildlife such as
wood ducks, raccoons, and fish eating birds and mammals. Also, temperature and pH, along with
concentrations of suspended solids, nutrients, and turbidity should be determined for the streams and
lakes.
BMPs can also be implemented through the Service’s Private Lands Program, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service’s Wetland Reserve and Conservation Reserve Programs, and the Mississippi
Soil and Water Conservation Commission’s Clean Lakes Program. These federal and state agency
programs pay about 75 percent of the cost of the BMPs, and the landowner pays the remainder.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Siltation, whether pesticide-laden or not, is a concern throughout the Complex, particularly wetlands
that receive agricultural runoff such as those on Dahomey refuge, and the Tippo Bayou area in
Tallahatchie refuge. These areas not only have diminished water quality, but are filling in, resulting in
a loss of aquatic habitat.
FLORA
The cover type for the Delta was primarily bottomland hardwood forest prior to the clearing, which
began with settlement by Europeans around 1820. The dominant forest type was oak-gum-cypress.
Canebrakes originally covered the broader flats of slightly higher ground. They were very extensive
on the natural levees forming almost pure stands. Most of the surviving forests now occupy lower
ground too wet for agriculture, and are dominated by wet-site species. These wetlands have a
fluctuating water level and are semi-dry part of the year. The lowest areas contain cypress and
buttonbush throughout the Complex. Cypress is complemented or somewhat replaced in some low
areas by swamp tupelo on all the stations. Other woody species in permanent or semi-permanent
flooded areas include swamp privet, water elm, black willow, and water locust. At slightly higher
elevations are green ash, red maple, cottonwood, sugarberry, honey locust, sycamore, bitter pecan,
overcup oak, American elm, and Nuttall oak. Extensive flats support scattered deciduous holly
(possum haw) in the mid-story, while higher elevations grow extensive stands of dwarf palmetto
(Sabal minor). Hardwoods on still higher sites include willow oak, pecan, sweet gum, black locust,
and water oak. Prominent vines include poison ivy, cross-vine, Virginia creeper, muscadine grape,
and false grape in forested areas, and ladies’ eardrops, peppervine, and trumpet creeper in more
open situations.
Vegetation associations vary between refuges. Coldwater River refuge has distinctly wetter
conditions, with fewer areas to support species found on well-drained soils. Since the refuge was
acquired, over 1,300 acres of marginal agricultural fields have been reforested with bottomland
hardwood tree species such as Nuttall oak, willow oak, water oak, bald cypress, green ash, and
others [5-page gloss on Coldwater]. Black willows are prevalent along all internal drainages [Bio rev,
iii]. Similarly, over 1200 acres of marginal agricultural fields have been reforested with bottomland
hardwood tree species on Tallahatchie refuge.
Vegetation also varies within refuges, according to topography. The distribution of bottomland
hardwood species across floodplains is primarily a function of a soil moisture gradient in which a
couple of feet can be telling [FMPH, 80]. On Dahomey refuge, red oak-gum is the principle forest
type. Cruise observations reveal a transition to elm-ash-sugarberry forest type [FHMP, 87].
FAUNA
Mammals
Mammals occurring on the Complex represent most species extant in the Delta. Large mammals
include the whitetail deer, which are abundant on all stations, the feral hog (an invasive species),
especially on Tallahatchie, and the American black bear, which occasionally is seen on Dahomey
refuge (though not a permanent resident).
Medium-sized mammals include opossum, armadillo, eastern cottontail, swamp rabbits, beaver,
muskrat, mink, nutria, coyote, red fox, gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, river otter, and bobcat. The
nutria was introduced from South America and is a noteworthy invasive species. Beavers have a
tremendous potential impact on bottomland hardwoods. They interfere with wildlife control activities
by plugging culverts, ditches, and water control structures [2002 annual review, 12]. Problems
34 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
associated with the impounding of water by beaver are proving to be the single greatest threat to
timber resources within the Complex [FHMP, 86].
Armadillos extended their range into this part of Mississippi some time during the latter half of the
20th century. Their impact here has not been investigated. Coyotes are also a recent arrival, with
first sightings recorded in the 1980s. Their presence is thought to be responsible, among other
things, for the scarcity of foxes. River otters seem to have made a comeback in recent years.
Raccoons are abundant and tend to overpopulate.
Small mammals have not been surveyed on the Complex, but potentially include (number of species
in parentheses) shrews (3), bats (12), chipmunk (1), squirrel (3), new world rats and mice (7), voles
(1), old world rats and mice (3), weasel (1), rabbits(2) [FHMP, 17], and mink (1).
Birds
Over 225 species of migratory birds use the Complex, of which some 77 species breed here. Ten
species with Partners-in-Flight concern scores of 20 or more are common or abundant, including
prothonotary warbler, painted bunting, red-headed woodpecker, yellow-billed cuckoo, wood thrush,
white-eyed vireo, yellow-breasted chat, Carolina chickadee, loggerhead shrike, and dickcissel.
The most abundant wintering waterfowl species is the mallard followed variously by green-winged
teal, northern pintail, northern shoveler, and gadwall, among the ducks, and snow and blue geese,
and greater white-fronted geese among the geese. Wood ducks and hooded mergansers are
common nesters in the spring and summer.
The Complex provides excellent habitat for breeding colonial wading birds. Nesting species include
the great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, little blue heron, cattle egret, yellow-crowned night
heron, anhinga, green heron, and more recently, double-crested cormorants. White ibis have
occupied rookeries in the past, but have not nested on the refuges for several years. They are
considered a priority species under the colonial waterbird objective for the Complex.
About 20 species of shorebirds use the refuge complex, especially where habitat is managed
intensively. Some of the most numerous species are least sandpipers, pectoral sandpipers,
semipalmated plovers, greater yellowlegs, and stilt sandpipers.
Reptiles
A survey of reptiles has not been done on any of the refuges. In 2001, the refuge staff initiated
calling frog surveys to monitor refuge frog populations, as well as beginning an overall inventory of
amphibians and reptiles on the three traditional refuge properties (Coldwater River, Dahomey, and
Tallahatchie refuges.) [BioReview, 44] A list has been prepared based on species ranges and
personal encounters by the refuge staff; including alligators (1 species), turtles (15 spp.), lizards (8
spp.), and snakes (31 spp.).
Various species of water snakes are common or abundant, especially the broad-banded and
diamond-backed water snakes. Poisonous snakes include the copperhead, cottonmouth, and timber
(canebrake) rattlesnake. Rat snakes of mixed or uncertain subspecies are a serious nest predator,
climb well, and are abundant on the Complex. Racers and western ribbon snakes are also common.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
The most commonly seen turtle species is the red-eared slider, whose range spans the three refuges in
the Complex. Alligator snappers have been trapped on the Tallahatchee refuge, while common snappers
and western spiny softshell turtles are known to inhabit all three refuges [annual nar. 2002, 4].
The ground skink and the five-lined skink are two of the most common lizard species.
Amphibians
Calling frog surveys and searches for salamander breeding sites were begun in 2001 throughout the
Complex. The numbers of species that may occur on the refuge include: salamanders (12), toads
(3), treefrogs (9), narrow-mouthed toad (1), spadefoot toads (1) and true frogs (5). Cricket frogs,
green treefrogs, bullfrogs, bronze frogs, and southern leopard frogs are abundant. Salamanders,
although present, are rarely encountered with the exception of the marbled salamander, which can
frequently be found in the spring at Dahomey refuge. When completed, the results from the reptile
and amphibian inventory, as well as the calling frog surveys, will be incorporated into a GIS-based
database. The calling frog survey data will be submitted to the North American Amphibian Monitoring
Program, a national database.
Fish
Fish populations consist mostly of rough fish that can withstand hot, murky water with low
oxygen content such as long-nosed gar, buffalo, carp, bowfin and shad. Sport fish such as
largemouth bass, bream (panfish), and channel catfish have been stocked in suitable waters. A
wide variety of fish species exists in the larger streams and bayous, including largemouth bass,
various bream, and crappie.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Animals
Several federally listed threatened and endangered animals may occur on the Complex. Numbers of
the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are on the rise locally and this large raptor is
more frequently sighted throughout the Complex than it used to be. Nesting has been documented at
nearby lakes. The endangered least tern (Sterna antillarum) is an occasional visitor to managed
moist-soil units and open water wetlands in search of foraging habitat mostly during summer months.
The interior population of the least tern breeds in isolated areas along the Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio,
Red, and Rio Grande river systems. From late April to August, terns use barren to sparsely
vegetated sandbars along rivers, sand and gravel pits, or lake and reservoir shorelines. Dams,
reservoirs, channelization, and other changes to river systems have eliminated most historic least
tern habitat. The endangered wood stork (Mycteria americana) is provided excellent habitat for
breeding within the Complex. Shallow water areas found on the Complex during late summer and fall
provide long-legged wading birds with critical foraging opportunities.
The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), an occasional visitor to the Complex, was listed as an
endangered species in 1970, but was de-listed in 1999, as a result of recovery of its populations from
successful efforts at captive breeding and reintroductions. The paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) can
reach nearly 7 feet in length and 200 pounds. It is a former candidate species for federal listing and
is still considered a species of management concern. It was once abundant in the Mississippi,
Missouri, and Gulf Coast drainages, so much so that it was commercially harvested as a source of
eggs for caviar. There is evidence that Tippo Bayou is a staging ground for spawning by the
paddlefish. To date, however, spawning has not been documented.
36 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
The black bear was once distributed throughout Mississippi. However, because of excessive harvest
and habitat loss, black bear populations have been severely reduced. The Complex is located
entirely within the historic range of the state-listed endangered American black bear (Ursus a.
americanus). It also borders, to the south, the range of the federally listed threatened Louisiana black
bear (Ursus a. luteolus). Though no breeding population has been documented in Mississippi,
several individual bears, including females with cubs, have been sighted on the Complex, most
notably along the Mississippi River in Bolivar County.
Efforts by the Black Bear Conservation Committee and its member agencies are currently underway
to restore bears to their historic range, with current focus on the Louisiana black bear within the State
of Louisiana. However, bear sightings in the lower Mississippi Delta have increased dramatically over
the last few years, suggesting a possible expansion of these bears across the Mississippi River from
existing natural and repatriated bear populations in Louisiana.
Also, a breeding population of black bears currently exists in the White River National Wildlife Refuge
in southeast Arkansas, to the west and across the Mississippi River from the Complex. Individual
bears have been documented crossing the river into Mississippi. Consequently, there is a possibility
that more White River refuge bears could immigrate into the Complex. It should be noted that the
subspecific status of the White River refuge bear population is unresolved.
Plants
The endangered pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) is a rarely seen deciduous shrub that grows in
seasonally flooded wetlands and on the edges of sinks and ponds. Much of the lands where
pondberry was historically found have been ditched and converted to agricultural fields. The
drainage and flooding of wetlands, cattle grazing, domestic hog foraging, and timber cutting have also
adversely affected pondberry abundance. Pondberry has been found on Service property in Bolivar
County. Its presence on Dahomey refuge in Bolivar County has not yet been verified; however, an
ecological assessment conducted there concludes that suitable habitats for pondberry do exist and
that its presence there is very likely (Stewart 1990). It has not yet been documented on other
properties administered by the Complex. [FHMP, 18]
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources include historic properties as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), cultural items as defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act,
archaeological resources as defined in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), 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 NHPA, a historic property or historic resource is any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including any artifacts, records, and remains that are related to
and located in such properties. The term also includes properties of traditional religious and cultural
importance (traditional cultural properties), which are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as a result of
their association with the cultural practices or beliefs of an American Indian tribe. Archaeological
resources include any material of human life or activities that is at least 100 years old, and that is of
archaeological interest.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Section 106 of the NHPA provides the framework for federal review and consideration of cultural
resources during federal project planning and execution. The implementing regulations for the
Section 106 process (36 CFR Part 800) have been promulgated by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation. The Secretary of the Interior maintains the NRHP and sets forth significant criteria (36
CFR Part 60) for inclusion in the register. Cultural resources may be considered “historic properties”
for the purpose of consideration by a federal undertaking if they meet NRHP criteria. The
implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800.16(v) define an undertaking as “a project, activity, or
program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency,
including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with Federal
financial assistance; those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval; and those subject to state
or local regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a Federal agency.” Historic
properties are those that are formally placed in the NRHP by the Secretary of the Interior, and those
that meet the criteria and are determined eligible for inclusion.
Like all federal agencies, the Service must comply with Section 106 of the NHPA. Cultural resources
management in the Service is the responsibility of the Regional Director and is not delegated for the
Section 106 process when historic properties could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing
archaeological permits, and for Indian tribal involvement. The Regional Historic Preservation Officer
(RHPO) advises the Regional Director about procedures, compliance, and implementation of the
several cultural resources laws. The Refuge Manager assists the RHPO by early informing the
RHPO about Service undertakings, by protecting archaeological sites and historic properties on
Service managed and administered lands, by monitoring archaeological investigations by contractors
and permittees, and by reporting violations.
The Complex follows these procedures to protect the public’s interest in preserving its cultural/historic
legacy that may potentially occur on the Complex. Whenever construction work is undertaken that
involves any excavation with heavy earth-moving equipment like tractors, graders, and bulldozers,
such as for the development of moist-soil units, the Complex contracts with a qualified
archaeologist/cultural resources expert to conduct an archaeological survey of the subject property.
The results of this survey are submitted to the RHPO, as well as the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), which in Mississippi is an official within the Historic Preservation Division of the
Mississippi Department of Archives and History. The SHPO reviews the surveys and determines
whether cultural resources will be impacted, that is, whether any properties listed in or eligible or
eligible for listing in the NRHP will be affected. If cultural resources are actually encountered during
construction activities, the Complex is to notify the SHPO immediately. To date, no properties on the
Complex have been determined to be eligible for the NRHP.
This region of Mississippi has 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 Delta. In the northern part of the Complex, the Quizquiz tribe was a predecessor of the
historic Tunica. Only one village of Quapaw was identified in 1763, with the rest in Arkansas. The first
Europeans to travel through the Delta were the Spaniards of De Soto’s expedition of the 1540s. Next
were the French, who arrived in the mid-1600s. The Europeans had a devastating effect on the Indians
of this area. A number of tribes are mentioned by the French as living in the Delta, but almost all had
disappeared from the area by 1750, as a result of disease, warfare, and migration. In 1802 the land was
sold to the United States as part of the Louisiana Purchase (Heisler, 1978).
38 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
The Lower Mississippi River is noted for its prehistoric earthen mounds, erected by the area’s
indigenous inhabitants. Although the first people entered what is now Mississippi about 12,000 years
ago, the earliest major phase of earthen mound construction in this area did not begin until some
2,100 years ago. Mounds continued to be built sporadically for another 1,800 years. Of the mounds
that remain today, some of the earliest were built to bury important members of local tribal groups.
These mounds were usually rounded, dome-shapes. Later mounds were rectangular, flat-topped
earthen platforms upon which temples or residences of chiefs were erected.
Eight hundred years ago, the lower Mississippi Delta was home to highly organized societies. There
were roads, commerce, and cultural centers anchored by large and impressive earthen monuments.
Wonders of geometric precision, these earthworks were the centers of human life. However, mound
construction was already in a period of decline in the 1500s, when the first Europeans arrived in the
region and brought with them epidemic diseases that decimated native populations across the
southeast. As a result, by the time sustained contact with European colonists began about 1700, the
long tradition of mound building was reaching its end. Surviving mounds are protected because they
are owned by state or federal agencies committed by law to their preservation. Most of the mounds
in Mississippi, however, are on privately owned land. As a result, many mounds have been
irreparably damaged or completely destroyed by modern development and looting. Indian mounds,
therefore, are critically endangered cultural sites (Indian Mounds of Mississippi, NPS 2002). The
Complex includes at least one documented mound on the Pennington Farm Service Agency property.
RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES
The Complex contains abundant populations of fish and wildlife, including a number of game species.
The opportunity for consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife-dependent recreation attracts many
members of the public to the refuges and Farm Service Agency properties; in recent years the
Complex has received about 100,000 visits annually. Hunting and fishing are the most popular public
uses on the Complex’s three refuges and many Farm Service Agency properties, and are provided in
accordance with federal, state, and refuge regulations.
Hunting is the most popular recreational activity throughout the Complex. This includes hunting on
some of the Farm Service Agency fee title properties where the activity had existed prior to
acquisition by the Complex [public use review,1]. The hunting program is monitored and partially
funded through general hunt permits, currently $12.50 each, and valid for most types of game. Deer,
rabbits, squirrels, raccoons, waterfowl, feral swine, and turkey may be taken on the Complex during
the appropriate seasons. In 2003, approximately 1,500 hunters received hunting permits for the
Complex. That same year, only a very limited number of fishing permits were issued. On Dahomey
refuge, an 8-acre lake was constructed in 1999 and stocked with bass, bream, and catfish. It was
subsequently opened to fishing by the public.
Wildlife observation and photography are other public uses at the Complex. Coldwater River refuge
is closed to the general public because of its critical importance as a wildlife sanctuary, but wildlife
may be observed from public roads on the eastern and western boundaries of the refuge. On
Dahomey and Tallahatchie refuges, many of the refuge roads are open to the public and several
Special Use Permits are issued annually to photographers. Nonetheless, most of the participation in
these activities is incidental, as there are no formal programs to encourage expanding and
participating in these activities.
Environmental education and interpretation are also provided on an as-needed basis. The staff has
responded to requests for interpretive programs, but there are no refuge-specific programs and no
dedicated staff to develop and conduct an effective education and outreach program.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
The traditional refuges administered by the Complex lie within the counties of Tallahatchie, Bolivar,
Grenada, and Quitman. In addition, complex-administered Farm Service Agency properties occupy
these, as well as eleven surrounding counties. The westernmost counties are found within what is
referred to as the Mississippi Delta while the easternmost counties are located in the Mississippi Hill
Country. The entire Complex region is largely rural, and the Delta area containing the three refuges
has an economy based on manufacturing and agriculture; principle crops are cotton, soybeans, corn,
rice, and catfish. Much or most of the counties’ land bases are used for agriculture (see Table 10).
Table 10. Percent of the Tallahatchie, Grenada, Bolivar and Quitman counties’ land base used
for agricultural production
County Total Area (square miles) Area used for agriculture
2002* sq. miles (%)
Tallahatchie 652 331 (51%)
Grenada 449 99 (22%)
Bolivar 906 578 (64%)
Quitman 406 207 (51%)
* Includes cultivated and grazing land (pasture) but not forestry/timberland
(Source: Agricultural Statistical Service, USDA, conversion of head of cattle to acres performed by
Jack Curry, Mississippi Development Authority, 2/02, 2/03, 2/24, 2004)
Mississippi is the most economically depressed state in the nation, with lower than average
household and per capita income and educational attainment levels. However, with the exception of
Bolivar County (8.3 percent unemployment in the 2000 U.S. Census), the counties surrounding the
Complex actually have unemployment rates below the national average. Tables 11 and 12 provide
additional demographic and geographic information about Tallahatchie, Grenada, Bolivar, and
Quitman counties.
Table 11. County employment data
County Leading Industry Sources of
Earnings
Unemployment Rate
(MS state, 5.7%)
Tallahatchie Manufacturing 23.3% 4.9%
Grenada Manufacturing 27.7% 3.4%
Quitman Educational, health
and social services 19.6% 4.4%
Bolivar
Educational,
health and social
services
26.2% 8.3%
Source: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data, American Fact Finder, U.S. Census Bureau
40 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
OUTDOOR RECREATION ECONOMICS
The fish and wildlife of the Mississippi Delta, including those of the Complex, are economically
important (Table 13). In addition to commercial fishing on the Mississippi River, hunting, recreational
fishing, wildlife viewing, and wildlife photography are economically important to local businesses.
Resident and nonresident hunting and fishing revenues for the state total $13.7 million dollars for
525,479 licenses (MS Development Authority 2002). These hunters and anglers spend an estimated
$1.8 billion in the state annually (Gillette 2000).
Unfortunately, a general lack of regard for the preservation of fish and wildlife resources, combined
with wetland clearing and draining, has led to the loss of valuable fishery spawning grounds and the
loss of habitat for many wildlife species. In the attempt to restore and protect some of these
resources, the Complex serves an important role, not only by providing habitat for a diversity of plant
and wildlife species, but also as a place where people can go to enjoy these resources, either
through observation or more directly through hunting or fishing.
The refuges of the Complex have become vital to the rural communities economies’ in which they
reside, not only with the activities they provide, but through employment opportunities to individuals
who themselves contribute to the local economy. With improved access, facilities and staffing, these
refuges can serve as pivotal attractions providing a much needed and important commodity in the
economic life of these communities. Hunting and fishing and more recently, eco-tourism, including
wildlife observation and photography, and environmental interpretation, are increasingly being seen
as desirable industries. As the population increases and the number of places left to enjoy wildlife
decreases, the Complex may become even more important to the local community. It can benefit the
community directly by providing recreational and employment opportunities for the local population,
and indirectly by attracting tourists from outside the area to generate additional dollars to the local
economy.
TOURISM
Overall, tourism within the counties of Tallahatchie, Bolivar, Grenada, and Quitman does not
contribute significantly to the local economy (Table 14). Music, festivals, casinos, historical sites, and
outdoor recreation are some of the tourism opportunities available in northern Mississippi. It has
been recognized that there are tourism opportunities in these counties, but there is a lack of
infrastructure and expertise to effectively position these areas as heritage and cultural tourism
destinations. The State of Mississippi has initiated plans to develop the “Mississippi Millennium Blues
Trail,” which would pass through the counties surrounding the Complex. A study was commissioned
by the Mississippi Department of Tourism to determine the baseline and potential development of
new and existing attractions that may draw tourists to this area. It was identified that the potential
was here, but that for the most part, had yet to be developed and promoted. The local chapter of the
Audubon Society is currently developing a Mississippi River birding trail, which would follow Highway
1 (Old River Road) along the Mississippi River mainline levee.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
Table 12. Geographic and demographic statistics for the four counties including refuges within the Complex
County Land Area
(sq. miles) Population
%
population
change
(1990-2000)
Median
Age
Per capita
Income
($)
**%
below
poverty
%
White
%
Black
%
Hispanic
%
Asian
% Native
American
Tallahatchie 652 14,903 -2.0 33.3 10,749 26.8 39.4 59.4 0.9 0.4 0.1
Bolivar 906 40,633 -3.0 29.8 12,088 27.9 33.2 65.1 1.2 0.5 0.1
Grenada 449 23,263 7.9 35.7 13,786 17.6 57.9 40.9 0.6 0.3 0.1
Quitman 406 10,117 -3.6 30.8 10,817 28.6 30.5 68.6 0.5 0.2 0.1
Sources: U.S. Census 2000, Demographic Profiles, U.S. Census Bureau; Fact Finder, U.S. Census Bureau; Center for Population
Studies, University of Mississippi;
Table 13. Activities by participants, 16 years old and older, throughout Mississippi
Activity # of
Participants
Activity
Days
Average
Days/
participant
Total
Expenditures
($1,000)
Trip-related
Expenditures
($1,000)
Equipment
and Other
($1,000)
Average
$/participant
Average trip
Expenditure/
day
Fishing *586,000 9,500,000 16 $211,000 $118,000 $93,000 $363 $13
Hunting **357,000 8,500,000 24 $360,000 $132,000 $227,000 $969 $16
Wildlife
Watching ***631,000 NA NA $303,000 $36,000 $267,000 $481 NA
*136,000 nonresidents, 450,000 residents
**111,000 nonresidents, 245,000 residents
***55,000 nonresidents, 576,000 residents
Source: 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation in Mississippi
42 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
Table 14. Estimated county tourism & recreation (T&R) revenues/employment
County Total T&R
Revenues
Total T&R
Employment
Total Establishment
Based Employment
T&R Employment
Percentage
Tallahatchie $1,904,596 24 2,410 1
Bolivar $22,475,718 382 13,300 2.9
Grenada $34,162,697 615 11,270 5.5
Quitman $2,258,241 25 1,830 1.4
(Mississippi Development Authority, Division of Tourism 2003)
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
III. Plan Development
OVERVIEW
In preparation for developing this comprehensive conservation plan, the Complex conducted a
biological review and a public use review in the summer of 2002. Initial planning began in September
2003 with a meeting of planning team members. Early in the process of developing this plan, the
planning team identified a list of issues and concerns that were likely to be associated with the
conservation and management of the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex. Formal
public involvement began with the scoping process in November 2003, through which interested
stakeholders were able to register their concerns, thereby ensuring that they would be considered in
developing the comprehensive conservation plan.
Planning team members reviewed the results of this internal and external scoping and used them,
along with supporting goals, objectives and strategies, to develop four different management
alternatives for the Complex. The four alternatives were evaluated in an environmental assessment,
and the preferred alternative forms the basis of this plan. The draft comprehensive conservation plan
and environmental assessment were released to the public for review and comment. The Service
considered all comments and suggestions received in the preparation of this final plan, which will
become the general plan guiding management decisions and actions on the Complex for the next 10-
15 years.
Refuge planning policy requires a Wilderness Review concurrent with the comprehensive
conservation planning process. The Service inventoried refuge lands within the planning area and
found no areas that meet the eligibility criteria for a Wilderness Study Area, as defined by the
Wilderness Act. Therefore, the suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation is not analyzed
further in this plan. The results of the wilderness inventory are included in Section B, Appendix I.
PLANNING PROCESS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Prior to starting the planning process, the Complex conducted a biological review and a public use
review in 2002 (finalized in 2003), which provided detailed analysis of resources and existing
programs in these fundamental areas, and offered recommendations for future management in the
form of goals, objectives, and strategies.
The biological review was held during the week of June 3-7, 2002. The team was comprised of
biologists, managers, foresters, and non-Service managers/biologists whose combined expertise
represented some of the premier wildlife and habitat management experience found in the state. The
biological review team provided a critical examination of current programs, culminating in a range of
alternatives identifying data needs, habitat objectives, opportunities for improvement, and so forth, all
while emphasizing future partnership opportunities on mutual interests. The October 2003 final
Biological Review report summarizes the recommendations submitted by the biological review teams.
The public use review team (comprised of Complex and Regional Office staff) also met in 2002. After
reviewing existing public use programs, facilities and opportunities, the team prepared a Public Use
Review Report that outlines recommendations on public use at the Complex. Emphasis was placed
on the main six, generally compatible wildlife-dependent public use opportunities, namely hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
44 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
Initial planning began in September 2003 with a meeting of planning team members. At and following
this meeting, an initial list of issues was identified by the planning team and refuge staff. The team
also developed a mailing list of the public, landowners, state and tribal agencies, non-profit
organizations, local governments, and other interested stakeholders. Letters were then sent notifying
these parties of the planning process that was just getting underway, encouraging their participation,
and informing them of two upcoming open house-style scoping meetings that would be held in
November 2003 at the Complex headquarters in Grenada, Mississippi, and at Delta State University
in Cleveland, Mississippi. That letter and notices published in local newspapers also stated that even
if a person or group was unable to attend either of these meetings, they could send in written
comments to the Complex headquarters.
On November 11, 2003, at the Complex headquarters, and on the following day at Delta State
University, the public scoping meetings were conducted to obtain information and concerns from the
public. The open house sessions each lasted from 5 to 9 p.m. with brief presentations at 7 p.m. by
members of the planning team. The presentations touched on the need to prepare a comprehensive
conservation plan, its purpose, how the public could participate, and an overview of the resources
and programs of the Complex. Planning team staff had prepared maps and exhibits and placed
these around the room for the public to view.
Six people attended the first open house in Grenada and about fifteen people attended the second
open house at Delta State University. After the presentations, participants were invited to make oral
comments or ask questions, which a number did. A comment form was also made available to
attendees, which asked questions prompting written responses about what they saw as the main
issues facing Coldwater River, Dahomey, and Tallahatchie refuges. Overall, the Complex received
about a dozen sets of written comments, both comment forms and letters. A total of approximately 25
individuals provided oral and/or written comments. Input obtained from all of these meetings and
correspondence was considered in developing this plan.
The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 2004, and ended on October 21,
2004. Public comments and Service responses are addressed in Appendix H.
The following comments were received via the public scoping process:
Recreation and Visitor Services
• Upgrade and maintain the refuges so that they are accessible (especially to the inner-most
parts of the refuges) as well as visitor-friendly (especially for handicapped persons) (x3).
• Long-range plans should include facilities for bird watching, photography, and wildlife
observation. Incorporate Dahomey refuge into Audubon birding trail.
• Should develop new programs for public use, thereby attracting more tourists to the Delta.
• Road system is good.
• ATVs should be allowed on specified gravel paths for retrieving of game, with due restrictions
placed on their use (x2).
• Better enforce closed areas on refuges from encroaching hunters.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
• Allow for a limited amount of rifle and muzzle-loading hunting on Dahomey refuge.
• The Complex offers some of the only public hunting opportunities in the vicinity.
• Should use available resources/funds to try to acquire more land.
Wildlife Management
• Increase the populations of game species, especially deer, on Dahomey refuge (x4).
• Increase the deer population by limiting the number of does harvested for several years.
• Remove size restriction on bucks for the youth hunt. Increase the size restriction on bucks for
general hunts (X2).
• Determine impacts of wild hogs and coyotes on deer and other game species (x2).
• Forest management should take hunters more into consideration.
• Increase number of food plots.
• Habitat management is right on track. No changes necessary (x3).
• Repair levees (x2).
• There seem to be fewer pintail and canvasback ducks than in the past.
Staff and Staffing
• More staff needed (x3).
• Staff should be more considerate of visitors/ hunters with health problems.
• Partners for Fish and Wildlife.
• The Partners for Wildlife program is very successful and appreciated (x2).
• CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) good for this area.
ISSUES AND CURRENT CONDITIONS
A result of these biological and public use reviews and scoping meetings was the development of a
list of significant issues that needed to be addressed in the comprehensive conservation plan.
Alternatives for addressing these issues were developed in the environmental assessment. The
preferred alternative formed the basis for the objectives and strategies to achieve the goals
developed by the planning team. This process ensures that the most significant issues are resolved
or given priority over the life of this plan. Below is a summary of these significant issues along with
some discussion of their impacts to the resources.
46 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS
Threatened and Endangered Species
Recovery and protection of threatened and endangered plants and animals is an important
responsibility delegated to the Service and its national wildlife refuges. Several federal threatened
and endangered species are thought to use, or could use, the North Mississippi National Wildlife
Refuges Complex, including the bald eagle, wood stork, Louisiana black bear, and the least tern
[FHMP, 122]. The bald eagle and Louisiana black bear are threatened (the bald eagle is proposed
for delisting), while the wood stork and least tern are both endangered.
Pondberry, the only threatened or endangered plant species believed to occur on the Complex, has
been found on Service property in Bolivar County. Its presence on Dahomey refuge in Bolivar County
has not yet been verified; however, an ecological assessment conducted there concludes that
suitable habitats for pondberry do exist and that its presence there is very likely (Stewart 1990). It
has not yet been documented on other properties administered by the Complex. [FHMP, 18]
Invasive Species
An "invasive species" is defined as a species that is 1) non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under
consideration, and 2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm
or harm to human health. (Executive Order 13112). Invasive species can be plants, animals, and
other organisms (e.g., microbes). Deliberate or inadvertent human actions are the primary means of
invasive species introductions.
Several invasive species occur on the Complex. Some of the more promine