Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge
224 Office Road - Brooksville, MS 39739
Telephone: (662)323-5548
Fax: (662)323-5806
email: Noxubee@fws.gov
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1 800/344 WILD
http://www.fws.gov
March 2004
Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 224 Office Road Brooksville, MS 39739 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - 1 800/344 WILD http://www.fws.gov
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment
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.
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
i
Table of Contents
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter I. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Purpose and Need for the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
National Wildlife Refuge System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Legal Policy Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Relationship to State Wildlife Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Ecosystem Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Ecological Threats and Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Conservation Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Chapter II. Refuge Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Refuge History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Refuge Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Refuge Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Refuge Administration and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Physical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Social and Economic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Ecological Threats and Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Conservation Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Chapter III. Plan Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Scoping Issues and Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Fish and Wildlife Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Land Protection and Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Education and Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Refuge Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Chapter IV. Management Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
A. Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
B. Fish and Wildlife Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
C. Land Protection and Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
D. Education and Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
E. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
F. Refuge Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Chapter V. Plan Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Proposed Projects and Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Funding and Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Partnership Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Step-Down Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Monitoring and Adaptive Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
ii
Section B. Environmental Assessment
Chapter I. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Purpose and Need for the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Decisions to be Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Planning Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Public Involvement in Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Wildlife and Habitat Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Recreation and Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Land Protection and Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Refuge Administration and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Chapter II. Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Formulation of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Description of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Alternative 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Alternative 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Features Common to All Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Comparison of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis . . . . . 115
Compatible Secondary Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Other Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Chapter III. Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Chapter IV. Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Effects Common to All Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Physical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Social and Economic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Chapter V. Consultation and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Appendices
A. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
B. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
C. Relevant Legal Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
D. Biota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
E. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
F. Compatibility Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
G. Land Aquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
H. Comments and Service Responses to the Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Figures
1. Fish and Wildlife Service's Central Gulf Ecosystem Region . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Priority Migratory Neotropical Bird Species found at
Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. Current Refuge Land Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
iii
5. Forest Types and Acreages at Noxubee National
Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. Current Refuge Management Areas and Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Projected Public Use at Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . 28
8. Approved Acquisition Boundary for Noxubee National
Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
9. Existing and Proposed Visitor Facilites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
10. Proposed Project and Personnel Cost Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
11. Personnel Needed to Fully Implement Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
12. Planning Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
13. Alternative 1, Current Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
14. Alternative 1, Staffing Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
15. Alternative 2, Proposed Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
16. Alternative 3, Proposed Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
17. Alternatives 2 and 3, Staffing Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
18. Comparison of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
19. Comprehensive Conservation Planning Team for Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
20. Protection Priorities for the Proposed Expansion at Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge and Recommended Methods
of Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
21. Land Acquisition Priorities for the Proposed Expansion at
Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
iv
Guiding Principals of the
National Wildlife Refuge System
We are land stewards, guided by Aldo Leopold’s teachings that land is a community of life and that love
and respect for the land is an extension of ethics. We seek to reflect that land ethic in our stewardship
and to instill it in others.
Wild lands and the perpetuation of diverse and abundant wildlife are essential to the quality of the
American life.
We are public servants. We owe our employers, the American people, hard work, integrity, fairness, and
a voice in the protection of their trust resources.
Management, training from preservation to active manipulation of habitats and populations, is necessary
to achieve the missions of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Wildlife-dependent uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and envi-ronmental
education and interpretation, when compatible, are legitimate and appropriate uses of the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
Partnerships with those who want to help us meet our mission are welcome and indeed essential.
Employees are our most valuable resource. They are respected and deserve an empowering, mentoring,
and caring work environment.
We respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of our neighbors.
_______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER I - Background
I. BACKGROUND
Introduction
Contained in this Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge is a description of the long-term manage-ment
actions and direction for the refuge. When fully implemented,
this plan should achieve the refuge vision. Overriding considera-tions
reflected in the plan are that fish and wildlife conservation
requires first priority in refuge management; and that wildlife-dependent
recreation is allowed and encouraged as long as it is
compatible with, or does not detract from, the mission of the refuge
or the purposes for which it was established.
A planning team developed a
range of alternatives that could
best achieve the goals of the
refuge and that could be imple-mented.
After reviewing com-ments
and management needs
the alternatives were evaluated.
The alternative chosen to man-age
the refuge is described in
Section A, Chapter IV,
Management Direction. The
other alternatives which were
considered are addressed in
Section B, Environmental
Assessment.
Purpose and Need for the Plan
The purpose of the plan is to pro-vide
a 15-year management
scheme that will address conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources
and their related habitats while providing opportunities for compatible
wildlife-dependent recreation uses. This document identifies the overar-ching
wildlife, public use, and management needs of the refuge.
Specifically, the plan will:
• Provide a clear statement of management direction for the refuge;
• Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with
an understanding of Service management actions on and around
the refuge;
• Ensure that Service management actions, including land
protection and recreation/education programs, are consistent with
the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
• Ensure that management of the refuge is consistent with federal,
state, and county plans;
• Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for
operational, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
Many agencies, organizations, institutions, and businesses have
developed relationships with the Service to advance the mission of
national wildlife refuges. This Comprehensive Conservation Plan
White-tailed deer
USFWS Photo
2 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge ___________________________________________________________________________________
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER I - Background
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
supports the Partners-in-Flight Initiative; the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan; the American Woodcock Management
Plan; the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network; and the
National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. For further informa-tion
regarding migratory birds, see website http://birds.fws.gov.
Fish and Wildlife Service
Mission
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 550 national
wildlife refuges covering over 92 million acres. These areas com-prise
the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world's largest col-lection
of lands dedicated to wildlife, with 77 million acres in Alaska,
and the remaining acreage spread across the other 49 states and
several island territories.
Description
The Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency respon-sible
for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the Nation's fish and
wildlife populations and their habitats. Although the Service shares
some conservation responsibilities with other federal, state, tribal,
local, and private entities, it has specific trust responsibilities for
migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, anadromous
fish, and certain marine mammals. In addition, the Service adminis-ters
a national network of lands and waters for the management and
protection of these resources.
National Wildlife Refuge System
Mission
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, is:
"...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the con-servation,
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."
Description
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997,
established, for the first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife
conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Activities
were initiated in 1997 to complement the direction of this new legis-lation,
including an effort to complete comprehensive conservation
plans for all refuges within a 15-year time frame. These plans,
which are developed with full public involvement, will assist in guid-ing
management of refuges by establishing natural resource pro-grams
as well as recreation/education programs.
The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to:
• Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
• Fulfill the individual purpose of each refuge;
• Consider the needs of wildlife first;
• Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are
prepared for each unit of the refuge system;
_______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER I - Background
• 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.
The Act also retains refuge managers' authority to use sound profes-sional
judgement in determining compatible uses on national wildlife
refuges and whether or not they will be allowed. It establishes a for-mal
process for determining "compatible use."
Approximately 37.5 million people visited national wildlife refuges in
1998–most to observe wildlife in their natural habitats. As visitation
grows on refuges, there are significant economic benefits to local
communities. Economists found that refuge visitors contribute more
than $400 million annually to local economies. Nearly 40 percent of
the country's adults spent $101 billion on wildlife-related pursuits in
1996, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service's National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Volunteers
continue to be a major contributor to the success of the refuge sys-tem.
In 1998, volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on
refuges nationwide, a service valued at more than $20.6 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses
that wildlife come first; that ecosystems and biodiversity are vital
concepts in refuge management; that refuges must be healthy and
growth strategic; and that the refuge system serves as a model for
habitat management with broad participation from others.
Legal Policy Context
The mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System,
Congressional legislation, Presidential Executive Orders, and interna-tional
treaties guide administration of national wildlife refuges.
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. Management options of the refuge's establishing
authorities, Public Law 104, Stat. 2957 (Section 108, H.R. 3338), 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 documents and acts listed in Appendix C.
Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to
public uses unless specifically and legally 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;
Wildlife viewing
USFWS Photo
4 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge ___________________________________________________________________________________
• Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses that benefit the
conservation of fish and wildlife resources and contribute to
the enjoyment of the public; and
• Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
Relationship to State Wildlife Agency
A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act of 1997, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall
ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with State
fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing
refuges. State wildlife management areas and national wildlife
refuges provide foundations for protection and contribute to the over-all
health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species in Mississippi.
The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks is a
state-partnering agency with the Service, charged with enforcement
responsibilities for migratory birds and endangered species as well
as managing state natural resources. The state's participation and
contribution throughout the comprehensive conservation planning
process have provided for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue
to improve the ecological integrity of fish and wildlife in Mississippi.
An integral part of the planning process has been integrating com-mon
mission objectives, where appropriate.
The mission of the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries,
and Parks is to conserve and enhance Mississippi's natural
resources, to provide continuing outdoor recreational opportunities,
to maintain the ecological integrity and aesthetic quality of the
resources, and to ensure socioeconomic and educational opportuni-ties
for present and future generations. For more information about
the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, see
website http://www.mdwfp.com.
Ecosystem Context
Overview
Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge is managed within the Fish and
Wildlife Service's biological watershed referred to as the Central
Gulf Ecosystem (Fig. 1). This ecosystem once supported a vast col-lection
of habitats. Dominant forces include heavy rainfall support-ing
abundant flood waters and frequent thunderstorms serving as an
ignition source for natural fires. But, flood control, agricultural con-version,
intense timber removal/alteration, past logging practices,
and other human-induced alterations have affected this ecosystem,
leading to significant impacts to water and soil quality, as well as
plant and animal abundance and diversity.
Biological diversity, including oak/hickory/pine and bottomland
hardwood forests and longleaf pine savannahs, has been severely
altered from historic conditions. This has resulted in degrada-tion
of the rich composition that once supported diverse commu-nities.
Forest structure and quality are influenced by site condi-tions
and fire, as well as past logging practices. Hardwoods are
dominant over pine in many stands depending on soil moisture,
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER I - Background
_______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
Figure 1. Fish and Wildlife Service's Central Gulf Ecosystem
6 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge ___________________________________________________________________________________
past disturbance, and landowner preference. Most forests are
closed-crowned, but longleaf pine savannahs also occur on dry
and fire-affected sites. Historically, longleaf pine savannahs
were widely dominant on the central gulf coastal plain. The
elimination of longleaf pine habitats has decimated some associ-ated
wildlife species throughout the ecosystem. Species most
adversely affected are area- sensitive or dependent on special
habitat requirements, such as the endangered red-cockaded
woodpecker which uses open pine habitat (trees 80 to 100 years
old) with very open understory maintained by frequent fires.
Most privately owned lands in this ecosystem are disturbed by
logging and agriculture and not managed for biological diversity.
The financial and technical assistance offered through federal
agencies focuses management toward promoting conservation,
water quality protection, and fish and wildlife stewardship. This
situation is helping the Fish and Wildlife Service to build conser-vation
partnerships, increase species diversity, establish common
conservation priorities and goals, and solve common conservation
threats and problems.
Ecological Threats and Problems
National wildlife refuges in the Central Gulf Ecosystem are present-ed
with a tremendous challenge to sustain and perpetuate biological
diversity. Man's activities and the cumulative effects of human
development form the basis for significant threats and problems
affecting long-term biological diversity. The underlying threats and
problems to biological diversity within the ecosystem include:
• Simplification and elimination of wildlife communities and habitats;
• Development and conversion of longleaf pine forests to other pine
forest plantations;
• Suppression of fire and the difficulty of public acceptance to use
fire as a management tool;
• Development and management of flood control/stream
alterations, and water diversion projects;
• Increased demand for consumptive and non-consumptive public
uses, including demand for opportunities related to fish and
wildlife resources;
• Cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource
development activities; and
• Loss of riverine habitats.
As a result of these conservation issues, many species that were
endemic to the ecosystem have become either threatened, endan-gered,
or rare as identified under the Endangered Species Act.
Others have even become extinct. Within the ecosystem, some 76
species of plants and animals are listed as threatened or endan-gered,
140 species are listed as species of special concern, and 53
species, which once inhabited the ecosystem, are known to be
extinct. The State of Mississippi lists 41 plant and animal species
as either threatened or endangered. Conservationists are con-cerned
with the survival of diversity in this biologically rich
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER I - Background
Loblolly pine
USFWS Photo
_______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
region. Many species of land birds have declining populations,
including the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. Wood stork
populations are declining due to man's alteration of wetlands and
non-protection of nesting areas.
The land uses of the ecosystem are dominated by agriculture and
managed forests. Extensive conversion of upland forests to agricul-ture
and pine monocultures has resulted in reductions of species,
species diversity, and fire frequency. Conversely, there have been
increases in soil erosion, sediment loads, and introductions of exotic
and invasive species. Although forest cover has continued to
increase during the past 10 years, this increase largely occurs in
intensively managed, often monotypic stands of pine.
Through simplification and elimination of forest habitats, including
upland forests, composition has been dramatically altered in this
ecosystem. The increasing demand for pulpwood and the economic
incentives for shorter rotation and conversion to pine forest planta-tions
have caused pine to become more of an economic issue. Nearly
all forests are second-growth, and many sites have experienced soil
erosion and loss of fertility during logging and agricultural use.
Forests have been converted to farmland, industrial parks, and
urban areas. Hydrological changes are caused by sedimentation,
construction of dams and other barriers, and channelization.
Portions of almost all the watersheds in the ecosystem have been
impounded during the last 75 years.
Some logged lands have been converted to plantation forestry, a
practice that results in low-diversity pine stands. Surviving old-growth
forests have experienced human-caused changes, including
the loss of large grazing animals (e.g., woodland bison, eastern elk),
the loss of predators (e.g., red wolves, black bears, mountain lions),
periods of understory livestock grazing (e.g., feral pigs), recent
increases in white-tailed deer populations, invasions by non-indige-nous
species, and reductions in fire frequency.
Pine stands that originated through fire or farm abandonment face a
constant management challenge–a native insect known as the south-ern
pine beetle. Outbreaks of this insect are more common in older
and stressed trees. Human activities may have resulted in larger
blocks of pine forests of relatively uniform age becoming more sus-ceptible
to large outbreaks of this beetle. Although these outbreaks
can be alarming and can render trees hazardous to human life and
property, the southern pine beetle may play a role in natural fire
regimes by helping produce heavy fuel loads (White 1987). In addi-tion,
human-induced fire has played a key role in shaping this
ecosystem over the past 7,000 years. However, managing prescribed
burns to improve wildlife habitat is problematic due to the lack of
public acceptance of the procedure, and the difficulty in acquiring
the necessary permits to burn.
In general, the surviving old-growth forests represent a biased sam-ple
of the original forests; they tend to be on steeper, drier, rockier,
or wetter sites that were harder to farm or less valuable for harvest
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER I - Background
8 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge ___________________________________________________________________________________
(White and White 1995). The mid- to late-1900s represented a peri-od
of reduced fire frequency, size, and intensity. This, in turn, led to
increases in species adapted to moister conditions, understory stem
density and woody cover, and decreases in fire-dependent species.
Exotics can be very invasive and detrimental to indigenous species
of the ecosystem. Exotic species such as kudzu, bicolor lespedeza,
water hyacinth, and feral hogs are posing major problems to declin-ing
wildlife populations. Action must be taken annually to control
these populations.
Throughout the southeast, natural flooding and erosion dynamics of
rivers are important natural processes to maintain biological diversity.
Impoundments, changes in the quality and quantity of water, draining
of bottomlands, and channelizing of rivers are major causes of loss in
biological diversity dependent on dynamic stream and river systems.
Modifications to the historic flood plains have caused major declines
in fishery and aquatic resource productivity. The reduction of eco-logical
functions from non-point source runoff of sediments, excess
nutrients, and pesticides is a continual problem. Paddlefish and
mussel populations are declining due to the chain of water manage-ment
modification and management along the Tennessee-Tombigbee
River Watershed. Alteration of the hydrological regime is a common
disturbance in bottomland and floodplain forests, rivers, streams,
and lakes. Hydrological change has altered flood depth, duration,
frequency, and seasonal timing in many of these systems leading to a
change in the water table in specific cases.
Channel modifications, which include straightening the streambed,
smoothing bottom contours, and removing logs, obstructions, and
plants, alter the rate and timing of water flow (the local water table
is lowered, resulting in increased downstream flooding, decreased
aquatic productivity, micro-habitats within the channel, and disrupt-ed
food webs). Sedimentation, blockages, and channel modifications
often occur within one river system, leading to decreases in native
fishes and other aquatic species, a loss of species intolerant of such
changes, and increases in tolerant species and non-indigenous
species (Crumby et al., 1990). Non-point source pollution and sedi-mentation
are hard to control. Sedimentation is a serious problem
for most aquatic organisms, particularly primary producers as well
as benthic (bottom-dwelling) invertebrates and fishes that require
gravel or rock substrates.
Other factors responsible for depletion of aquatic faunas are pollu-tion
(including chemical and thermal pollution) and introduction of
non-native fish and aquatic plants. Invasive, non-native plants that
are capable of altering function (i.e., hydrology, photosynthesis, food
webs), in aquatic systems in the ecosystem include hydrilla and
water hyacinth (Hotchkiss 1967; Lachner et al., 1970), which can
form homogenous stands and exclude more desirable native species.
Remaining waters are influenced by levee construction, channel
modification, agricultural runoff, cattle grazing, timber harvest, and
invasion of non-native species.
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER I - Background
_______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
The demand for public recreation and environmental education in the
ecosystem, as well as throughout the refuge system, is constantly
increasing. As the population increases, it brings about a correspon-ding
increase in urban and industrial development. The result is a con-tinuous
decrease in the amount of rural land where people typically
carry out wildlife-dependent activities such as hunting, fishing, bird-watching,
etc. As these changes occur, the public demand for these
activities falls increasingly on public land, both state and federal.
Conservation Priorities
Conservation priorities for national wildlife refuges in the Central
Gulf Ecosystem focus on threatened and endangered species, trust
species, and species of area concern. By working with others, the
Service is more effective in achieving its overall mission and man-agement
goals. A combination of land protection and habitat man-agement
methods is utilized by the Service and others to compen-sate
for old growth pine and floodplain woods habitat loss and to
meet shared/common long-term goals established for this area.
Sustainable communities and species conservation and recovery on
refuges require the joint efforts of private landowners, local communi-ties,
and state and federal governments. The Fish and Wildlife
Service is adopting collaborative resource partnerships both within
and outside of national wildlife refuges to reduce the declining trend
of fish and wildlife populations and biological diversity; to establish
conservation priorities; to clarify goals; and to solve common threats
and problems associated with fish and wildlife resources. Biological
objectives in the ecosystem for species targeted in this plan reflect the
Partners-in-Flight Plan, North American Waterfowl Management
Plan, and the recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Biological objectives for refuges are derived from recommendations of
the ecosystem planning team as well as from conservation initiatives
of other agencies–both governmental and non-governmental. These
conservation initiatives are jointly managed by government agencies,
conservation organizations, and private landowners. The ecosystem
team has identified the following four priority tasks, each of which the
refuge will work to support. These tasks are reflected in the goals
presented in Chapter IV.
• Manage populations of migratory birds, including restoring
and protecting key habitats;
• Restore and protect important pine habitats and their associated
plant and animal communities;
• Restore and protect the important functions and values of
riverine habitats; and
• Undertake activities to increase public awareness and interest in
fish and wildlife, their habitats, and the ecosystems upon which
they depend.
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER I - Background
10 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge __________________________________________________________________________________
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER I - Background
______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER II -
Refuge Description
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge II. REFUGE DESCRIPTION
Introduction
Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge is located within three counties
(Noxubee, Oktibbeha, and Winston) in east-central Mississippi,
approximately 17 miles south-southwest of Starkville and approxi-mately
80 miles north-northeast of Jackson. Primary access to the
refuge is by either Oktoc Road from Starkville, or by Highway 25
via Loakfoma Road and Brooksville/Louisville Road (Fig. 2).
Refuge History
The refuge was established in
1940 from lands acquired
through the 1930s Resettlement
Administration. Initially, it was
established by Executive Order
8444 on June 14, 1940. This
order reserved lands acquired
by the Rural Resettlement
Administration as a refuge and
breeding ground for migratory
birds and other wildlife. On
January 27, 1944, Public Land
Order 205 modified the refuge
boundary by adding lands
thought to be suitable for
wildlife, and eliminating land
requested by the Soil
Conservation Service.
Another similar modification
occurred in 1947 (Public Land Order 401). Since those initial acqui-sitions,
most land acquired by the refuge has been by exchange,
under the authority of Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant
Act. A smaller amount of land has been acquired by purchase,
under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929
(45 Stat. 1222). Currently, the refuge owns 47,049 acres within the
56,451-acre approved acquisition boundary, leaving over 8,000 acres
in private ownership.
Prior to government ownership, the land area within the present
refuge boundary was intensively farmed and over-grazed by cattle.
Today, after 50 years as a national wildlife refuge, the area has seen
a return of bountiful wildlife populations and a progression towards
restoration of the pine and hardwood forest types that were elimi-nated
in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
Approximately 42,500 acres of the refuge are bottomland hard-wood,
upland hardwood, mixed pine/hardwood and pine forests.
These forest lands are occupied by a variety of upland species
including turkey, deer, and quail. The endangered red-cockaded
woodpecker relies on old growth pine habitat managed by the
refuge for its survival. In addition, many neotropical migratory bird
USFWS Photo
12 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge __________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 2. Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge Location
______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER II -
Refuge Description
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
species greatly benefit from the refuge forests. Four greentree
reservoirs, two major lakes, numerous natural ponds, and sixteen
man-made impoundments provide important habitat for other migra-tory
birds, including wintering habitat for waterfowl and bald eagles.
More than 150,000 visitors participate in several activities each year
including fishing, hunting, hiking, wildlife photography, wildlife
observation, and environmental education and interpretation. The
refuge serves as an outdoor classroom for Mississippi State
University, Starkville City School District, and other local education-al
institutions.
Refuge Purpose
The primary establishing legislation for the refuge was Executive
Order 8444, dated June 14, 1940, with the stated purpose "...as a
refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other
wildlife...." 16 U.S.C., 715 (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).
"...conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife,
and plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and
future generations of Americans." 16 U.S.C., 668dd(a)(2) (National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act).
"...for the development, advancement, management, conservation,
and protection of fish and wildlife resources...." 16 U.S.C., 742f(a)(4).
"...for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in
performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be
subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or
condition of servitude...." 16 U.S.C., 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife
Act of 1956).
Subsequently, a small amount of land purchased with Migratory Bird
Conservation Stamp monies held the following purpose "...for use as an
inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migrato-ry
birds." 16 U.S.C., 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).
Refuge Environment
Biological Resources
The rich variety of habitats on the refuge provide for a wide diversi-ty
of fish and wildlife species. At least 254 species of birds; 47 mam-mals;
34 reptiles; 23 amphibians; 25 fish; and untold numbers of
invertebrates inhabit the refuge. Migratory birds move with the
changing of the seasons. In the spring, as most waterfowl leave the
refuge for their northward migration, thousands of neotropical
migratory birds begin to arrive from their wintering grounds in
Central and South America. The majority will continue north after
replenishing their energy reserves, but many, such as the prothono-tary
warbler, great-crested flycatcher, and summer tanager use the
refuge for nesting. A list of bird species known to inhabit the refuge
is included in Appendix D.
14 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge __________________________________________________________________________________
Threatened and Endangered Species
The red-cockaded woodpecker, bald eagle, and wood stork are listed
as either threatened or endangered and each utilize the refuge. The
endangered red-cockaded woodpecker is a resident species and many
of the refuge's management programs are directed toward its sur-vival.
This small resident bird has disappeared over large portions of
its former range in the southeastern United States due to the sup-pression
of natural fires and over-cutting of pine forests. This bird
requires precise conditions within mature pine forests with very open
understory managed by frequent fires. The threatened American
bald eagle is sighted on a regular basis from November through
February. The golden eagle is occasionally seen during this period.
The wood stork is a state-listed species commonly sighted during the
late summer months when the lakes are drawn down. Price's potato-bean
is a federally listed threatened plant that may occur on the
refuge. While it has been found in Oktibbeha County, no populations
have been documented on the refuge (Price's Potato-bean Recovery
Plan 1993). Six species of endangered freshwater mussels (i.e.,
southern clubshell, Judge Tait's, penitent, Alabama moccasinshell,
orange-nacre mucket, ovate clubshell) have been found in streams
and rivers near the refuge, and there is a possibility that these
species may occur on the refuge.
The most diverse vertebrate group found in the ecosystem is birds,
with at least 254 species, most of which are forest-dwelling to some
degree. Songbirds are found throughout refuge habitats, with some
of the most noticeable species being pine warblers, prothonotary
warblers, common yellowthroats, white-eyed vireo's, Bachman's
sparrows, cardinals, wood thrushes, and brown-headed nuthatches.
Priority migratory neotropical bird species identified as special man-agement
concern by the Partners-In-Flight Plan and found on the
refuge are listed in Figure 3. Game birds such as eastern wild
turkey and bobwhite quail are found on the refuge.
Waterfowl
Many birds are seen in the refuge's wetlands. About 18 waterfowl
species utilize the refuge and receive significant management atten-tion.
Mallards, wood ducks, ring-necked ducks, and Canada geese
make up the bulk of the waterfowl found on the refuge, with popula-tions
peaking in winter, sometimes up to 15,000. At this time as
many as 300 migrating geese join the 600 resident giant Canada
geese on the refuge.
Wading Birds
Large numbers of wading birds are present, including wood storks,
great and little blue herons, little green herons, great and snowy
egrets, and a large nesting colony of cattle egrets. Two rookeries
are established on the refuge–one that contains five thousand breed-ing
pairs of cattle egrets plus snowy egrets, little blue herons, and
white ibis, and one that contains several hundred great blue herons
and great egrets.
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER II -
Refuge Description
Bachman’s sparrow
USFWS Photo
Red-cockaded woodpecker
USFWS Photo
______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Raptors
Common raptors include red-shouldered, Cooper's, red-tailed,
and sharp-shinned hawks; barred owls; both black and turkey
vultures; and occasionally Mississippi kites. Bald eagles are win-ter
residents of the refuge, and a nesting pair was discovered in
2003. Golden eagles are occasionally spotted on the refuge, as
are peregrine falcons.
Mammals
Of the 47 mammal species found on the refuge, the most prominent
and abundant is the white-tailed deer. The refuge places consider-able
management effort on controlling its population. Other common
mammals include beavers, gray and fox squirrels, swamp and east-ern
cottontail rabbits, grey foxes, coyotes, and several species of
small rodents such as mice, rats, and voles. Surprisingly, one of the
most diverse groups of mammals is bats with seven species likely to
occur on the refuge.
Reptiles
Thirty-four reptile species are known to occur on the refuge and the
largest and most notable is the alligator. The most common snakes
are black racers, gray rat snakes, Western cottonmouths, and sever-al
species of water snakes. Common lizards include four species of
skinks, Carolina anoles, and Northern fence lizards. Turtle species
include red-eared sliders, river cooters, common and alligator snap-ping
turtles, and three-toed box turtles.
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER II -
Refuge Description
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Priority Migratory Neotropical Bird Species found at Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge
Highest Priority Species Refuge Habitat
Bachman's sparrow Open pine/oak forest; palmetto scrub; bushy pastures
Red-cockaded woodpecker Open pine forests
Swainson's warbler Swamps; bottomland hardwood forests
Brown-headed nuthatch Open pine forests
Kentucky warbler Forest undergrowth
Northern bobwhite quail Fields; brushy open areas; roadsides; forest edge
Orchard oriole Forest edges and clearings
Prairie warbler Brushy slashings; bushy pastures; low pines
Prothonotary warbler Forest swamps
Red-headed woodpecker Forest edges; open pine woods; tall deciduous trees
Chuck-will's-widow Pine forests; bottomland hardwood forests
Worm-eating warbler Dense deciduous forests
Yellow-billed cuckoo Forests; thickets; forest edges
Species occurrence based on point count surveys conducted by Chris Reynolds, Mississippi State
University 1999.
16 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge __________________________________________________________________________________
Amphibians
Thirty-four species of amphibians are known to occur on the refuge,
the largest of which is the three-toed amphiuma. Several species of
salamanders, including the marbled and slimy, are commonly seen.
Frogs and toads such as Spring peepers, bull, green tree, bird-voiced
tree, and Fowlers are common on the refuge.
Fish
Bluff Lake, Loakfoma Lake, Ross Branch Reservoir, and the
Noxubee River harbor 25 species of fish, of which 5 are primary
game species. Popular game fish include several species of catfish,
largemouth bass, black and white crappie, and numerous species of
bream, redear, and bluegill. Nongame fish include common carp,
bowfin, and several species of shiners and darters. The paddlefish is
a species of special concern as identified in the Southeast Region's
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Strategic Plan. The fish may have
traditionally spawned up Oktoc Creek prior to levee construction
and development of Bluff Lake. Annual refuge reports from the
1940s and 1950s indicate that hundreds of these fish were taken in
Bluff Lake, possibly a result of fish being impounded by flood events
of the Noxubee River.
Habitats
Refuge habitats can be divided into three primary types: Forests;
Fields and Grasslands; and Wetlands. Of these types, forests are by
far the majority of the habitat totaling 45,186 acres. Fields and
grasslands include several forest openings (1-150 acres) and the
Morgan Hill prairie restoration area plus utility rights-of-way, all
totaling 958 acres. Wetlands (not including bottomland forest habi-tats)
include Bluff and Loakfoma lakes, Ross Branch Reservoir,
Noxubee River, Prisock Moist-Soil Management Area, and numer-ous
small streams and ponds scattered throughout the refuge.
These wetland habitats total approximately 2,400 acres. Below is a
more detailed description of these primary habitat types.
Forests
Ninety-three percent of the refuge consists of forested habitat, with
forest types including upland pines (loblolly, shortleaf pine, and a
small amount of longleaf); upland hardwoods (white, southern red,
and post oaks, black cherry and several hickories); bottomland hard-woods
(cherry bark, swamp, overcup, water and willow oaks, beech,
box elder, sweetgum, river birch, yellow-poplar, red maple, elm, and
sycamore); and mixed pine/hardwood and cypress stands. Refuge
forests consist of five primary types: pine; pine/hardwood; upland
hardwood; bottomland hardwood; and cypress. About 23,619 acres
are dominated by loblolly pine interspersed with shortleaf pine.
Pine/hardwood stands total 2,851 acres and are dominantly loblolly
pine; however, there is a substantial amount of hardwood species
such as oaks, hickories, blackgum and sweetgum. Upland hardwood
stands total 3,263 acres and consist primarily of white oak, post oak,
southern red oak, and hickory species with dogwood and redbud
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER II -
Refuge Description
American alligator hatchlings
USFWS Photo
______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
common in the understory. Bottomland hardwood stands total
15,308 acres and consist primarily of water, overcup, willow, and
cherrybark oak species along with other hardwood species such as
American beech, blackgum, and sweetgum. Cypress stands total 145
acres and consist of pure or nearly pure stands of American bald
cypress. (See Figure 4 for the current refuge land cover and Figure
5 for forest types and acreages.)
Grasslands
The Morgan Hill area is the only part of the refuge managed as a
natural grassland. In 1993, test plots of Indian, switch, and big
bluestem grasses were sown in an attempt to restore a representa-tive
portion of the Alabama black belt prairie that historically
occurred in the area. Historical reports show the area originally
consisted of tallgrass prairie interspersed with groves of cedar, oak,
and hickory. The area is treated with prescribed fire about every 2
years to control encroachment of woody vegetation.
Wetlands
The majority of wetland habitat on the refuge occurs in Bluff and
Loakfoma lakes (1,200 and 600 acres, respectively). Both lakes consist
of primarily shallow water habitats (3-12 feet deep) towards their cen-ters
with edges that become progressively more shallow. These shal-low
edges support the bulk of vegetation in the lakes, which consists
primarily of emergent species including cattail, smartweed, lotus, and
bald cypress. Ross Branch Reservoir (43 acres) is also a man-made
impoundment with similar habitat; however, it has slightly deeper
water due to its steep banks. Riverine areas comprise the other pri-mary
type of wetland habitat found on the refuge (i.e., Noxubee River
and its tributaries). During flood events, the Noxubee River and its
tributaries can inundate approximately 8,750 acres of the total 14,186
acres of bottomland hardwood forests found on the refuge. Prominent
plant species found in aquatic environments include fragrant water lily,
American lotus, Juncus, swamp smartweed, duckweed, and wild millet.
Refuge Administration and Management
Refuge administration refers to the operation and maintenance of
refuge programs and facilities including construction. The refuge
has 17 permanent employees and receives substantial assistance
from volunteers, college student interns, and Youth Conservation
Corps enrollees. The major management activities conducted on the
refuge include managing forest areas and water impoundments for
migratory birds and wildlife diversity, and providing education and
visitor services in support of hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpreta-tion.
The refuge has an important management partnership with
the Starkville School District, each providing environmental educa-tion
and interpretation at the Noxubee Conservation Center for
local children. The refuge and Mississippi State University also
have an active partnership. University students and faculty con-tribute
many hours towards conducting investigations and research
projects on the refuge.
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER II -
Refuge Description
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
18 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge __________________________________________________________________________________
The refuge also manages the following special designation areas:
• Old Robinson Road Research Natural Area (46 acres of
cypress forests);
• Morgan Hill Research Natural Area (67 acres of red
cedar/pine/hardwood forests);
• Wilderness Study Area (1,090 acres of bottomland
hardwood forests);
• Old Robinson Road National Historic Landmark (approximately
400 acres of various forest types forming a corridor along
1.9 miles of the historic roadway).
These management areas (Fig. 6) possess unique qualities and
attributes and are managed according to specific guidance (refer to
http://policy.fws.gov/603fw2.html, and click on Fish and Wildlife
Service Manual for further details).
Special Management Areas
The Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-577), required that the
Secretary of the Interior review every roadless area of 5,000 acres
or more and every roadless island, regardless of size, within the
National Wildlife Refuge System, and report recommendations to
the President as to the suitability or non-suitability of such areas
for preservation as wilderness. The President was then to for-ward
recommendations for wilderness to Congress. The Service
(then called the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife) completed
a wilderness review of Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge in 1974,
identifying a 1,200-acre area as suitable for wilderness designa-tion.
The wilderness proposal was transmitted to Congress on
December 4, 1974. However, Congress has yet to act on the
wilderness proposal. The refuge revised the wilderness proposal
in 1999 and 2000, and excluded 110 acres separated from the main
portion of the proposed wilderness by a levee and the Noxubee
River, this area also had been impacted by past timber harvesting.
This revision to the proposed wilderness boundary was originally
recommended by the refuge manager in March 1975.
The refuge's proposed wilderness area includes 1,090 acres of sea-sonally
flooded and timbered bottomland hardwoods bound by the
Noxubee River on the west and north, and Oktoc Creek on the
south. The forest in the area has not been harvested since the
1930s, several years before the refuge was established. As such, the
area is likely the best representation of an old growth bottomland
hardwood forest to be found in east-central Mississippi.
Service policy requires that areas outside Alaska, pending
Congressional action, be managed to preserve the wilderness
resource. The proposed wilderness at Noxubee refuge is managed
under guidance found in the Refuge Manual under 6 RM 8,
Wilderness Area Management. The Service is proposing to revise
this policy; the Draft Wilderness Stewardship Policy was published in
the Federal Register on January 16, 2000. The draft policy provides
additional guidance on management of wilderness and proposed
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER II -
Refuge Description
20 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge __________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
wilderness. The only management activities conducted in the pro-posed
wilderness are research projects and maintenance of the
Wilderness Trail (foot trail). Research projects are basically limited
to collections and surveys which have no impact on the area's wilder-ness
character. The Wilderness Trail forms a loop of approximately
4 miles through the area, with the trailhead located at the end of
Keaton Tower Road. The trail is maintained with chainsaws and
hand tools. In addition to hiking and wildlife observation, hunting
and fishing are allowed in the area.
Forest Management
Of the 45,186 acres of forests on the refuge, 42,867 acres (95
percent) are under long-term management as described in the
1996 Forest Management Plan. A variety of silvicultural tech-niques
is used to manage forest habitats, always with an empha-sis
on providing habitat for threatened and endangered species,
migratory birds, and other resident wildlife. Commercial timber
harvesting is utilized, where appropriate, to accomplish silvicul-tural
treatments such as selective thinning, stand regeneration,
and disease control.
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER II -
Refuge Description
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5. Forest Types and Acreages at Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge.
Pine 23,619
Pine/Hardwood 2,851
Upland Hardwood 3,263
Bottomland Hardwood 15,308
Cypress 145
Current Management of Desired Age-Class Distribution (Pine Acreage)
Stand Age in Years Age Class Total Forest Desired Total Forest Present
0-10 Regeneration 10% 5%
11-30 Immature 20% 5%
31-80 Mature 50% 84%
80+ Old Growth 20% 6%
Current Management of Desired Age-Class Distribution (Hardwood Acreage)
Stand Age in Years Age Class Total Forest Desired Total Forest Present
0-10 Regeneration 5% 3%
11-30 Immature 10% 7%
31-120 Mature 65% 90%
120+ Old Growth 20% 0%
22 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge __________________________________________________________________________________
Selective thinning consists of removing selected trees for the
purpose of enhancing the health and vigor of remaining trees.
This technique is especially important in maintaining healthy
stands of pines that are resistant to attack by southern pine
beetles. The technique is also occasionally used in hardwood
stands where mast-bearing trees need to be released from com-petition
with other species that are less valuable to wildlife.
Stand regeneration consists of removing most or all of the over-story
trees to facilitate the regeneration of young trees. This tech-nique
is used to achieve a more even distribution of age classes with-in
the refuge's forest stands and to provide early successional habi-tat
needed by several wildlife species, especially certain groups of
neotropical migratory birds. Regeneration is done in such a way
that it mimics natural regeneration processes such as wind throw
and southern pine beetle outbreaks.
Prescribed fire is also used to treat approximately 6,000 acres of
forest habitat each year. The majority of this burning is done in
pine habitats, and to a lesser extent in pine/hardwood habitats.
Prescribed fire is a valuable tool that primarily retards succession
in the mid- and lower-story vegetation as it eliminates shrubs and
small trees, allowing grasses and herbaceous plants to grow
instead. This sort of habitat improvement is absolutely essential to
maintaining habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers, Bachman's
sparrow, bobwhite quail, and several other wildlife species.
Additional benefits of prescribed fire include reducing the risk and
catastrophic effect of wildfire, as well as functioning to recycle
nutrients locked up in woody vegetation.
Fields
Refuge fields are managed to produce a variety of vegetation
types. Many fields are planted with grain crops such as sorghum,
wheat, or lespedeza to provide food for wildlife species such as
waterfowl and quail. Other fields are left fallow to provide a more
natural plant community of native forbs and grasses, many of
which have value as food or cover for wildlife. Still other fields are
maintained in perennial grasses, such as bermuda, dallis, and fes-cue.
Prescribed fire and mowing are the primary tools used to
maintain field habitats.
Water Impoundments
Bluff and Loakfoma lakes are man-made and have water control
structures that allow the refuge to actively manage water levels.
The shallow backwater portions of these lakes provide extensive
moist-soil habitat. By discing and mowing these areas during sum-mer
draw downs, the refuge is able to encourage moist-soil plants
such as wild millet, smartweed, and sedges that are very important
waterfowl foods. These draw-down events also provide important
feeding opportunities for wood storks, as fish and other small ani-mals
are concentrated in small pools.
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER II -
Refuge Description
Mallard ducks in flooded timbers
USFWS Photo
24 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge __________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
To attract waterfowl, four greentree reservoirs were constructed
and are now managed to permit winter flooding of certain bottom-land
areas. This allows active management of water levels in these
areas that mimics the natural flooding regime caused by winter rains.
These areas provide essential habitat to migratory waterfowl, espe-cially
mallards and wood ducks, as well as a variety of wading birds.
Ross Branch Reservoir is used to store water to flood the Prisock
Moist-Soil Management Area. This area consists of 220 acres subdi-vided
into 12 small impoundments that are managed intensively for
waterfowl. Management practices are designed to produce high
quality waterfowl foods through the planting of crops such as
sorghum, rice, or millet, or by managing native moist-soil plants.
Invasive Species/Pests
Infestations of southern pine beetle, kudzu, cogon grass, and
American lotus require on-going eradication efforts. Integrated
invasive plant management and a combination of technologies are
utilized which may include biological, mechanical, or chemical appli-cations
to control or eradicate certain species.
Other Management
Other activities administered by the refuge include routine mainte-nance,
law enforcement, management of utility and conservation
easements, wildlife propagation and stocking, scientific collections,
marking and banding, disease prevention and control, maintenance
of facilities, and acquiring key properties from willing sellers. The
refuge staff also provides technical assistance to private landowners
who implement conservation practices.
Physical Resources
Soils and Topography
The refuge lies within the coastal plain physical division; however, it
extends over three separate soil association regions: interior flat-woods,
which typically are poorly drained clays; upper coastal plain
with soils that are more sandy clays, usually well drained due to
topography; and black belt prairie with soils that are calcareous
based clays and loams with moderate drainage (Miller 1967). The
majority of the refuge is in the interior flatwoods region which is rel-atively
flat with elevations rarely varying more than 20 feet through-out
the area. The extreme west and southwest portion of the refuge
(Bevills Hill area) lies in the upper coastal plain region. This region
is best described as hilly, and has the greatest variation in elevations
found on the refuge. Here, elevations can vary as much as 100 feet
over a distance of several hundred feet. A small portion of the
southeast corner of the refuge (Morgan Hill area) is in the black belt
prairie region, and has topography that is intermediate between the
two previous regions. The area is flat to gently rolling with eleva-tions
varying as much as 100 feet, but over a longer distance, such as
several thousand feet. Overall refuge elevations range from 200 to
560 feet Mean Sea Level.
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER II -
Refuge Description
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
26 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge __________________________________________________________________________________
The prominent soil associations found on Noxubee refuge are:
Stough-Freest-Vimville; Falkner-Longview-Savannah; Longview-
Falkner-Prentiss; Mathiston-Urbo; Maben-Ruston-Savannah;
Stough-Prentiss-Myatt; Sweatman-Boswell; Wilcox-Falkner;
Kipling-Savannah-Oktibbeha; and Wilcox.
Hydrology
The waters of the refuge drain through the Noxubee River towards
the southeast, into the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, which in turn
drains into the Mobile River and eventually into the Gulf of Mexico.
Refuge waters include more than 55 miles of streams and creeks, 20
miles of the Noxubee River, and 1,900 acres of lakes (primarily Bluff
and Loakfoma). Water movement is slow in low-lying areas.
Climate
The refuge has long, hot summers because moist tropical air from
the Gulf of Mexico persistently covers the area. Winters are cool
and fairly short with only a rare cold wave that usually moderates in
a few days. Precipitation is fairly heavy throughout the year, with
prolonged droughts being rare. In winter, the average temperature
is 45 degrees Fahrenheit, and the average daily minimum tempera-ture
is 34 degrees. In summer, the average daily temperature is 80
degrees, and the average daily maximum temperature is 91 degrees.
Temperatures regularly fall below freezing in the winter, and rise
above 90 degrees in the summer, with occasional heat waves pushing
mid-day temperatures into the 100s.
The normal rainy season occurs from December to May, with an
average annual precipitation of about 56 inches. Thunderstorms
occur regularly throughout the summer. The average seasonal
snowfall is 1 inch. During an average year, measurable snowfall
takes place during December through March. The average relative
humidity in mid-afternoon is about 55 percent. Humidity is higher
at night, and the average at dawn is about 90 percent. The prevail-ing
wind is from the south. Wind speed is highest in spring averag-ing
8 miles per hour. Severe local storms, including tornadoes, occa-sionally
strike in the area. Storms are short in duration and can
cause damage in localized areas. Every few years, in summer or
autumn, a tropical depression or remnant of a hurricane that has
moved inland from the Gulf of Mexico causes extremely heavy rains,
lasting 2 or 3 days.
Social and Economic Environment
The refuge consists of 47,049 acres within a 56,451-acre approved
acquisition boundary, with 8,556 acres in private ownership (inhold-ings
within the approved acquisition boundary). Its northern bound-ary
is about 5 miles south-southwest of Starkville, Mississippi, and
about 12 miles west of Brooksville, Mississippi. The largest munici-pality
and population center in the area is Columbus, Mississippi,
about 35 miles to the northeast, in Lowndes County.
The region encompassing the refuge, often referred to as the Golden
Triangle, is supported by an agricultural and timber economy. Much
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER II -
Refuge Description
______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
of the area is forested, and the forest products industry is vital to
the region's local economy. Forestry is second only to farming as the
largest industry in Mississippi. Manufacture of wood products also
forms the second largest manufacturing sector in Mississippi. Most
of the forest industry is based on privately owned forest land, which
tends to be in smaller scattered parcels. Concurrently, the number of
working farms is declining and the size of larger corporate farms is
increasing regionally. While agricultural and timber products have
always been a large component of the economy, beginning in the
1950s and continuing until the national recession in the 1980s, manu-facturing
became the primary source of employment and income for
the area's population. Growth in this sector slowed somewhat during
the late 1990s. Currently, value-added manufacturing is seen as the
most promising field for economic development in the region.
The total population of the three counties in which the refuge is
located is about 70,400 people, or only about 3 percent of the state's
population, and grows at about 2.4 percent every 5 years. The peo-ple
in these counties typically are native to the state, have a per
capita income of about $8,000 (about 82 percent of the state rate),
with only about 64.2 percent of persons over 25 having high school
diplomas (nearly identical to the 64.3 percent state rate). In the
area, approximately 17 percent of households rely on some sort of
public assistance income (compared to 15 percent of the state's
households). Occupations vary with the locale; the larger municipal
areas (Starkville and Columbus) have a comparatively high percent-age
of professional, managerial, and administrative support occupa-tions,
whereas the smaller towns and rural areas tend to have a
higher proportion of employed persons working as operators, han-dlers,
laborers, and assemblers. Unemployment rates in the popula-tion
centers tend to remain below the national average, at about 3
percent annually (vs. 5 percent). The unemployment rates are sub-stantially
higher in the surrounding rural areas, fluctuating from
around 7 to almost 10 percent.
The above statistics were compiled from the 1990 Census of Housing
and Population, the Starkville Visitors and Convention Council, and
the Golden Triangle Planning and Development District, Inc.
Land Uses
The management of public lands is essential for sustaining and
enhancing wildlife habitat used and enjoyed by growing numbers of
people in Mississippi. There are 13 national wildlife refuges, 2
national forests, and 3 national parks within the state. There are 3
wilderness areas in Mississippi, 2 are managed by Desoto National
Forest and the other is managed by the National Park Service at
Gulf Islands Seashore.
The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks man-ages
approximately 38 wildlife management areas, 21 fishing lakes,
28 state parks, and brackish and saltwater fishing areas along the
coast totaling some 800,000 acres. The Department coordinates the
state wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation
opportunities including an extensive hunting and fishing program.
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER II -
Refuge Description
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
28 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge __________________________________________________________________________________
The closest wildlife management areas to the refuge include the
5,333-acre Black Prairie, 8,244-acre John W. Starr, and the 24,314-
acre Choctaw–all within an hour's drive of the refuge. The nearest
sport fishing lake is Oktibbeha County Lake and the nearest parks
are Lake Lowndes and Legion State.
Education and Visitor Services
The refuge plays an important role in the economy of local communi-ties
and the region. With annual visitation approaching 200,000, the
refuge is obviously an important destination for people seeking
recreational and educational opportunities, attracting local residents
as well as tourists (Fig. 7). Approximately one-third of these visitors
is participating in consumptive use activities such as hunting and
fishing, while the other two-thirds are involved in non-consumptive
recreation (e.g., birdwatching, sightseeing, hiking, picnicking, etc.)
or education. Most, if not all, utilize services provided by local ven-dors,
thus infusing money into the local economy.
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER II -
Refuge Description
Figure 7. Projected Public Use at Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge.
(Projection generated by Starkville Convention and Visitors Bureau based on anticipated regional growth.)
______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
The Noxubee Conservation Center is a major attraction of the
refuge, and utilized by the Starkville School District. The 7,000-
square-foot facility was opened to the public in 2000, and is capable
of serving up to 18,000 students per year.
Forest Revenues
The forest management program also has a very direct impact on
the local economy. To accomplish needed habitat management, the
refuge will typically thin from 200 to 600 forested acres per year,
roughly half of which is in pine forests and half in hardwood
forests. Likewise, approximately 100 to 200 acres are harvested
per year to regenerate new stands of trees, primarily in pine
forests. Sometimes additional timber harvests, averaging 50 to 100
acres per year, occur to salvage trees that are damaged by storms
or southern pine beetle infestations. Collectively, these timber har-vests
often amount to more than a million board feet of sawtimber
and several thousand cords of pulpwood per year. The value of
these raw products is several hundred thousand dollars per year.
These timber harvests not only provide raw material for both
regional saw and pulp mills, but also provide employment for local
loggers, foresters, and others.
Cooperative Farming
Cooperative farming is the term used for cropping activities done by
a third party on land that is owned by the Service in fee title, or con-trolled
by the Service through a restrictive easement. This type of
activity is usually done on a short-term basis (3 years or less) to pre-pare
an optimum seed bed for migratory bird species and native
grassland species.
The cropping is done under the terms and conditions of a
Cooperative Farming Agreement or Special Use Permit issued by
the refuge manager. The terms of the agreement or permit ensure
that all current restrictions are followed. Cooperative farming activ-ities
are only compatible on previously disturbed areas that have
acceptable levels of chemical residue, noxious weeds or non-native
plant species or ecotypes, or to honor the land use clauses of a pur-chase
agreement. To ensure that all Service policies are met, all
such land use clauses must be approved prior to Service acceptance
of the purchase agreement.
Previously, the cooperative farming program at the refuge empha-sized
the production of soybeans and corn. In recent years, these
management activities have been phased out with only two coopera-tive
farmers remaining both harvesting hay from refuge fields. The
decrease is primarily the result of changes in the price of commodi-ties.
In particular, the price of soybeans and corn decreased while the
price of pine pulpwood and sawtimber increased, causing most local
farmers to stop farming, placing acreage, instead, in pine plantations.
Refuge Operating Base Funds
The refuge's need for goods and services also plays a small but no
less direct role in local economies, as local businesses provide many
of these. The refuge received $983,000 in FY 2002, in the form of
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER II -
Refuge Description
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
30 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge __________________________________________________________________________________
base operating funds and special programs (such as fire manage-ment,
expenses for timber sales, etc.), that are typically funded each
year. Nearly all of this money goes into the local economy either as
the salaries of refuge employees or payments to vendors and con-tractors
for supplies and services.
In addition, improvements made to the refuge also benefit local
economies and communities. Recent examples are the paving of 6
miles of county roads which are the primary entrances to the refuge.
This was accomplished with refuge funds through an agreement
allowing joint maintenance of county-owned roads. Other examples
are the Noxubee Conservation Center, built to facilitate environmen-tal
education for local students, and the new Refuge Office/Visitor
Center to be completed by 2003. Both of these facilities are/will be
responsible for attracting many people to the area, thereby infusing
money into local economies.
The Noxubee Conservation Center provides environmental educa-tion
programs to approximately 8,000 students per year (primarily
K-12). Likewise, a formal Memorandum of Understanding exists
allowing faculty from Mississippi State University to utilize the
refuge as an outdoor classroom for a variety of classes including nat-ural
resources, architecture, and archaeology. Refuge staff provide
presentations to numerous school classes and civic clubs each year.
The visitor center portion of the new Refuge Office/Visitor Center
will provide many educational opportunities for the public.
Land Protection and Conservation
By law, the refuge is exempt from paying property tax, and instead
makes revenue sharing payments to three counties in which it is
located: Oktibbeha, Noxubee, and Winston. This payment is made
through the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act established by Congress.
The program provides a method of collecting monetary receipts
from revenue generating activities on refuges within the nation,
pooling them together, and paying them out to counties containing
refuge lands. Payment for acquired land is computed on whichever
of the following formulas is greatest: (1) three-fourths of one percent
of the fair market value of the lands acquired in fee title; or (2) 25
percent of the net refuge receipts collected; or (3) 75 cents per acre
of the lands acquired in fee title within the county. If the receipts
generated on refuges do not meet the entitlement amount, Congress
may approve additional funds to make up the shortfall. The follow-ing
is a summary of payments made by Noxubee National Wildlife
Refuge over 5 years:
Year Oktibbeha County Noxubee County Winston County
2000 $149,581 $107,101 $167,068
1999 $170,516 $122,090 $190,100
1998 $183,148 $131,135 $203,987
1997 $194,610 $139,342 $216,753
1996 $ 97,835 $ 78,749 $134,610
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER II -
Refuge Description
______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Cultural Resources
Past archaeological investigations at the refuge have been mostly limit-ed
to compliance surveys prior to construction projects and land
exchanges. A variety of resources has been discovered ranging from
relics of early Native-American settlements to more recent sites where
farm houses and other structures were located at the time the refuge
was established. The earliest known site was located by Dr. Janet
Rafferty, near Oktoc Creek, and it produced artifacts dating to the
early Archaic period (ca. 9000-7000 B.C.). Another well-studied site is
located on the shore of Bluff Lake and dates back to the Gulf
Formational through Miller periods (ca. 1000 B.C.), with artifacts con-sisting
of ceramic shards, projectile points, drill bits, hammerstones,
and fire-cracked rocks.
Numerous other Native-American sites occur throughout the
refuge, where projectile points and pottery shards are commonly
found. However, none of these sites has been studied in detail.
Although the Choctaw tribe is now the most prominent tribe in this
part of Mississippi, the Choctaw culture did not form until after
European contact, as remnants of other tribes, decimated by intro-duced
diseases, came together to form a new political and ethnic
body. All of the sites described above pre-date the Choctaw cul-ture,
and so far no sites have been discovered on the refuge which
can definitely be assigned to the Choctaws.
Evidence of Euro-American settlements is also abundant on the
refuge. The oldest documented Euro-American site was located in
1997, during an archaeological survey conducted in preparation for
the widening of State Highway 25. Named the Colclough Farmstead
Site, and dating back to the 1800s and early 1900s, it is considered
representative of a middle class slaveholding farmer. Features of
the site included a smokehouse, root cellar, piers or posts of a house
and several outbuildings, the remains of an animal pen, a bottle
dump, and tire ruts. Artifacts recovered included cut and wire nails,
handmade brick fragments, window glass, amethyst glass, white-ware,
pearlware, salt- and alkaline-glazed stoneware shards, and
bones of white-tailed deer and domestic pigs.
Other notable cultural resources located on or near the refuge
include the Old Robinson Road, built in1821, by Raymond Robinson,
to serve as a major route between Columbus and Jackson,
Mississippi. A portion of the road is located on the refuge and was
listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1975. Numerous
other Euro-American sites are found on the refuge, including eleven
cemeteries, six churches, four schools, four mill sites (sawmills and
gristmills), and one diversion canal.
The refuge is currently collecting information from some of the
older refuge employees on a variety of historic sites such as
farms, agricultural outbuildings, cattle dips, and cemeteries.
Future plans include limited testing at several historic sites to
determine site limits, dates of occupation, function, and integrity
of archaeological deposits.
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER II -
Refuge Description
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
32 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge __________________________________________________________________________________
Ecological Threats and Problems
The loss of large, forested tracts (at least 20,000 acres) of old pine
and mixed stands of pine and hardwood has led to the decline of area
sensitive species, such as the red-cockaded woodpecker. Fire sup-pression
in pine stands has exacerbated the problem. Flood control
on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway and the Noxubee River has
led to a decline of fish and other aquatic populations, including pad-dlefish
and six species of mussels. Management of invasive species is
difficult without sufficient staff and equipment. The lack of funding
for investigations and evaluations of biological programs pertaining
to avifauna, mollusks, herbivores, invertebrates, plants, and cultural
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER II -
Refuge Description
Management Area Management Issue or Problem
Forests Loss of large stands of old growth and mature forests;
Changes in habitat composition and species diversity due to fire
suppression;
Management of red-cockaded woodpecker may come at the expense of
other species;
Suppression of natural fire in and around developed urban areas;
Increase in exotic and noxious plant and animal species;
Construction of access roads for forest management activities;
Lakes, Streams, Wetlands Water pollution and sewage discharge generated from development
upstream from refuge habitats to the north and east;
Loss of riverine habitat and degraded water quality from off-refuge
discharge;
Increased demands on local water supplies;
Manipulation of water levels in lakes for waterfowl management at the
expense of fisheries resources;
Development and management of flood control systems;
Increases in exotic and noxious plant and animal species;
Use of insecticides and herbicides;
Grassland/Prairie Vegetation Conversion of native grasslands to improved pasture/agriculture;
Lack of funding to support long-term maintenance of prairie
restoration site;
Public Use Increase in overall public use without adequate staff and facilities to
accommodate the increase;
Pressure to provide more hunting opportunities;
General Administration Maintenance of numerous entry points and access roads;
Lack of staff to conduct baseline biological surveys and monitoring;
resources is an ongoing problem. The present staff and budget are
not sufficient to manage the increasing demand for recreation and
environmental education activities. Overall, the refuge is faced with
a tremendous challenge of managing for the cumulative habitat
effects of land and water resource development activities. The pri-mary
ecological threats and problems associated with the refuge are
listed on the previous page.
Land management activities to the north and east of the refuge pose
a serious threat to wildlife resources on the refuge. These land man-agement
activities include commercial, residential, and industrial
development. Private lands bordering the refuge to the north and
east are close to the growing communities of Starkville and
Longview, and busy travel routes–Highways 12 and 25. This devel-opment
threatens wildlife resources in a variety of ways, primarily
through direct loss of habitat, but also indirectly through water pol-lution
generated from runoff and sewage discharges.
A large industrial hog farm is located east of the refuge and there is
a considerable threat of other industrial farming operations (i.e.,
chicken houses, catfish ponds) locating nearby. Private parcels bor-dering
refuge lands are becoming increasingly fragmented through
home building.
Conservation Priorities
Priorities identified for Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge in the
Central Gulf Ecosystem Five-Year Action Plan include a strong
emphasis on managing for the red-cockaded woodpecker and contin-ued
emphasis on managing to support the overall health of the
ecosystem. Specific priorities include:
• Restore and protect key habitats and manage populations for
migratory birds;
• Restore and protect pine habitats and their associated plant and
animal communities including red-cockaded woodpeckers;
• Collect breeding bird census information;
• Complete additional phases of environmental education center in
cooperation with local schools;
• Develop a refuge friends group (nonprofit);
• Develop projects in partnership with federal, state, and local
agencies, and non-governmental organizations that focus on
long-term public education opportunities.
________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER II -
Refuge Description
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
34 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge __________________________________________________________________________________
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER II -
Refuge Description
______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER III -
Plan Development
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Overview
Early in the process of developing this plan and after public scoping
meetings conducted in 1998, the planning team identified a list of
issues and concerns that was likely to be associated with the conser-vation
management of the refuge.
Scoping Issues and Concerns
Issue identification is a major factor in determining management
goals and objectives and the management direction for the refuge.
To ensure that management of the refuge is reflective of the issues
and concerns, a series of meet-ings
were conducted to guide
the planning effort. The plan-ning
process was coordinated
with government agencies, vari-ous
organizations, and sur-rounding
communities. This
coordination is essential to
ensure support for the plan and
projects identified for the
refuge.
Community participation is an
integral component of any plan-ning
process. Initial planning
efforts for this plan began in
January 1998. On March 11,
1998, the refuge staff, regional
planning staff, and a group of
local citizens met to identify refuge issues, concerns, and opportuni-ties;
to develop a mailing list of concerned and interested publics;
and to develop planning and public involvement strategies. Local
citizens participated in open discussions. Those citizens included
environmentalist and refuge volunteer, Margaret Copeland, Co-
President of the Oktibbeha County Audubon Society; refuge user,
commercial logger, hunter, fisherman, and land in-holder, Travis
Prisock; and academic, Dr. Randy Robinette, Head, Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries, Mississippi State University. The pre-plan-ning
meeting was professionally facilitated by contractors from
Patrick C. Moore, ASLA, Alexandria, Louisiana.
On May 12, 1998, a scoping meeting was held on the Mississippi
State University campus to garner public opinion on management
of the refuge. The meeting was advertised through local newspa-pers
and open to the public. Mr. Tony Thompson of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service facilitated the meeting of 24
members of the local community. To further ensure public involve-ment
in the planning process, the refuge manager developed a
Dozing fire breaks
USFWS Photo
36 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge __________________________________________________________________________________
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER III -
Plan Development
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
questionnaire to solicit public opinion of the refuge and suggestions
for its management. A summary of the public scoping meeting and
the 85 responses received from the questionnaire is reflected below.
Habitats
--There is concern expressed by turkey hunters about the timing
of prescribed fires and smoke coinciding with turkey hunting
season. Other citizens are concerned about the effects of
prescribed burning on various other species and the impacts to
air quality.
--Local loggers would like for the level of timber harvesting to
increase on the refuge, while others would like to see the level of
timber harvesting decreased.
--The effects on game fish populations from manipulating water levels
in Bluff and Loakfoma lakes to provide for waterfowl are a
concern expressed by some citizens.
Fish and Wildlife Populations
--A few citizens are concerned about the need to control
beaver population levels on the refuge.
--Visitors and staff are concerned that some alligators are
becoming overly accustomed to people, and where this is
occurring, the welfare and safety of the public and staff
may be at risk.
--Commercial catfish operators near the refuge are concerned
about the increase in cormorants roosting on the refuge and
feeding on catfish in their rearing ponds.
Land Protection and Conservation
---Some citizens are concerned that too many resources
(staff/funds) may be directed towards management of the
proposed wilderness and research natural areas.
--Some citizens are concerned that management of private
inholdings on lands inside the refuge acquisition boundary limit
the ability of managers to achieve and contribute to overall
habitat configuration and wildlife population goals. It is
recognized that these in-holdings, particularly on non-forested
lands, increase edge effects which are ongoing problems.
Education and Visitor Services
--Waterfowl hunters would like for the refuge to bring back and
manage an annual waterfowl hunt.
--Fishermen would like to see an increase in sport fishing access
and opportunities on refuge-managed waters.
--Citizens want to improve entrance roads and directional and
informational signs on the refuge.
--Some citizens would like for birdwatching and hiking to be
separated–away from areas open to hunting. They would like a
______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER III -
Plan Development
reduction in the interaction between hunters and other
recreational users of the refuge during hunting season.
--Several citizens would like the refuge to improve and increase
wildlife viewing facilities.
Refuge Administration
--Several citizens expressed a desire for the Fish and
Wildlife Service to locate, investigate, and protect cultural
resources that may be on refuge lands. Once this is
accomplished, citizens would like for the refuge to provide
interpretation programs concerning these resources.
38 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge __________________________________________________________________________________
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER III -
Plan Development
______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER IV -
Management Direction
IV. MANAGEMENT
DIRECTION
Introduction
The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats considering the
needs of all resources in decision-making. But first and foremost,
fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge manage-ment.
A requirement of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, is for the Service to maintain the ecologi-cal
health, diversity, and integrity of refuges. The refuge is a vital
link in the overall function of the ecosystem. Refuges in the Central
Gulf Ecosystem include man-aged
forests and wetlands for
waterfowl. To offset the historic
and continuing loss of these
habitats within the ecosystem,
the refuge and other public
lands provide the biological
"safety-net" for migratory non-game
birds and waterfowl,
threatened and endangered
species, and resident species.
Vision
The vision for Noxubee National
Wildlife Refuge is to manage the
refuge so that it exemplifies a
model of land management with
a wide diversity of native flora,
fauna, and habitats. The refuge
someday will be a 56,000-acre
contiguous tract of land pieced together by connecting habitats of
pine forests, old growth and mixed structural pine/hardwood
forests, cypress/tupelo swamps, wetlands, Alabama black belt
prairie, and vast stands of bottomland hardwood forests. The fore-seeable
future is one where conservation, partnerships, habitat
management, research, and priority public uses, including environ-mental
education, will be part of refuge management practices.
Wildlife abundance and high quality facilities will attract many visi-tors
each year. Partners will collaborate to provide a wide range of
public use and educational activities, allowing the refuge to con-tribute
to the region's economic stability and enhance the quality of
life in central Mississippi.
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
The goals, objectives, and strategies addressed below are the
Service's response to the issues, concerns, and needs expressed by
the planning team, refuge staff, and public. These goals, objectives,
and strategies reflect the Service's commitment to achieve the man-dates
of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan, and the purpose and vision
Flooded bottomlands
USFWS Photo
40 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge __________________________________________________________________________________
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER IV -
Management Direction
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
for which Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge was established. The
following pages describe the goals established for major manage-ment
areas, objectives for achieving those goals, and the specific
strategies that will be employed by refuge staff. The goals are
organized in broad categories of Habitats, Fish and Wildlife
Populations, Land Protection and Conservation, Education and
Visitor Services, Cultural Resources, and Refuge Administration.
Goal A: Habitats
Perpetuate a diversity of high quality, more natural-like communi-ties
as habitats for trust and resident species.
Objective A.1 Pine and Pine/Hardwood Forest Stands
Maintain species diversity within 26,470 acres of pine and
pine/hardwood forests (as outlined in the current Forest
Management Plan) that emphasizes providing habitat for the
endangered red-cockaded woodpecker and other wildlife dependent
on late successional pine habitat.
Discussion: A long-term refuge and Central Gulf Ecosystem goal
includes supporting recovery efforts for the red-cockaded wood-pecker.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers have very specific require-ments
to support reproduction and foraging. It is the only endan-gered
species that is a permanent resident of the refuge. Forty-five
groups are located and mapped on refuge lands. Management for
this species is directed by the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery
Plan, which specifies a target population of 88 groups for the
refuge. The refuge maintains a diversity of vegetative conditions
and complex forest structure in its pine and pine/hardwood stands
to support habitat requirements for red-cockaded woodpeckers,
migratory birds, and a host of resident species. The current forest
management plan is designed to ensure that late successional pine
habitats are available to sustain and expand overall red-cockaded
woodpecker populations.
Disturbance patterns created by natural processes such as fire are
essential for maintaining biodiversity. For example, the use of pre-scribed
burns for lowering the risk of catastrophic wildfires and
maintaining characteristic patterns of vegetation is an applied prac-tice
on refuges. Noxubee refuge uses prescribed burns to simulate
historic disturbance patterns that help sustain the patchwork of
native communities or seral stages that naturally occur within the
landscape. The refuge's fire management program is designed to
maintain habitat conditions as well as to protect life, property, and
natural resources.
Habitat management can include intensive forest applications
including commercial timber harvests and prescribed burning to
maintain desired stand structure. The refuge manages a mosaic of
26,470 acres of upland pine and pine/hardwood habitats, of which
4,000 to 8,000 acres per year are burned to mimic an understory
fire disturbance regime (a regime in which fires are generally not
______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER IV -
Management Direction
lethal to the dominant vegetation and do not substantially change
the structure of dominant vegetation). Approximately 80 percent or
more of the above-ground dominant vegetation survives fire, leav-ing
mainly mature and old growth trees.
Strategies:
A.1.1 Evaluate pine and pine/hardwood compartments every 10 years.
A.1.2 Ensure regeneration of approximately 1 percent of pine and
pine/hardwood acreage each year.
A.1.3 Monitor active and artificial cluster areas and regulate basal
areas to 50-80 sq. feet/acre.
A.1.4 Monitor remaining area, and when basal areas exceed 100,
thin to 75-85 sq. feet/acre, primarily to guard against
devastating attacks by southern pine beetles.
A.1.5 Reduce and prevent mid-story development primarily
through prescribed burning on a 1- 4-year cycle and using
mechanical control when necessary.
A.1.6 Continue to research effects of prescribed burning on
individual plant and animal species and on natural
communities.
Objective A.2 Hardwood Forests
Maintain species diversity within 15,308 acres of hardwood forest
stands and increase overall mast production and regeneration of
mast producing species. This would follow the current Forest
Management Plan designed to emphasize older-aged classes that
support late-successional migratory birds and resident wildlife.
Discussion: Habitat diversity is achieved by managing forest
stands of varying species composition and age. Because little of the
refuge bottomland hardwood forest area is home to endangered
species, much of it is managed to support waterfowl and other
migratory birds.
The refuge is located off the principal migratory route and winter-ing
range of most waterfowl species. However, it provides a major
wintering and breeding area for wood ducks. At times, significant
numbers of mallards also utilize the bottomlands as a wintering
area. Forest management for wood ducks focuses on protecting
nest cavity trees along waterways and enhancing food production.
Several neotropical migrant birds also depend on hardwood forest
habitat for breeding and/or stop-over habitat during migration.
Some of these species need late successional hardwood stands with
mature canopies, while others need early successional habitats such
as shrubs and saplings.
Events like windstorms, tornadoes, and flooding by beavers are
natural disturbances that affect hardwood forests and drive cycles
of regeneration. Managers use timber harvesting to mimic these
events and produce stands that resemble those found in natural
forests. Selective harvesting helps generate uneven-aged stands
42 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge __________________________________________________________________________________
and the heterogeneity that supports biodiversity. Selective thinning
is designed to favor tree species that produce mast and cavities.
Strategies:
A.2.1 Evaluate bottomland hardwood compartments every 15 years.
A.2.2 Ensure regeneration of approximately 0.5 percent of
hardwood acreage per year.
A.2.3 Regulate stand composition to favor hard- and soft-mast
producing trees.
A.2.4 Restore hydrology where needed (through beaver control
and dam removal) to minimize water retention during the
growing season.
Objective A.3. Waters and Wetlands
Maintain existing species diversity in 300 acres of moist-soil
impoundments, 1,900 acres of lakes, and 1,150 acres of greentree
reservoirs with emphasis on supporting habitat for migratory birds
(e.g., wood ducks and mallards), colonial nesting birds, and native
aquatic fauna; develop a comprehensive water quality monitoring
program refuge-wide.
Discussion: Current management of lakes and wetlands provides
habitat for wintering waterfowl and resident species. Bluff and
Loakfoma lakes are drawn down during summer to encourage
growth of wetland plants that are valuable as waterfowl food. The
lakes are filled again in the fall to allow waterfowl access to these
food plants. Greentree reservoirs are managed similarly through
forest management that enhances mast production and the manipu-lation
of water levels to mimic natural flooding regimes, and makes
mast crops available to waterfowl. Managed wetlands like the
Prisock moist-soil areas are also manipulated to benefit waterfowl.
These impoundments are either disced or mowed to encourage the
growth of natural waterfowl foods, or they are planted with such
crops as millet to serve as a food source. Although providing water-fowl
habitat is often the driving force in managing lakes and wet-lands,
benefits extend far beyond waterfowl. Hundreds of other
wildlife species such as wading birds, water birds, reptiles, and
amphibians benefit from the management of these wetland areas.
Another key function of refuge forests is to sustain natural flood
events. Protecting and restoring natural-like flooding regimes is
essential to conserving riparian areas, ephemeral wetlands, and
moisture gradients that are crucial to maintaining habitat diversity.
Sport fish species found in refuge waters include largemouth bass,
crappie, bream, and catfish. These populations can be enhanced by
active management such as stocking, creel, and size limits.
Sportfishing is a very important public use on the refuge, and some
controversies arise when fishery management conflicts with water-fowl
management.
Numerous non-game species are found in aquatic and wetland habi-tats
on the refuge. Comprehensive surveys of fish, mussels,
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER IV -
Management Direction
______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
amphibians, and reptiles are needed to improve management of
these species. At least six threatened and/or endangered mussel
species are known to occur in nearby waters, and may possibly
occur on the refuge. Previous mussel surveys documented more
than twenty-two species occurring in refuge waters. A shell of the
threatened orange-nacre mucket was also found in refuge waters.
Hollis Creek receives treated sewage from the city of Starkville's
sewage ponds, and the Browning Creek floodplain contains a concen-trated
animal feeding facility directly upstream of the refuge. For
these reasons, these waterways are considered to have a high risk of
possible contamination or pollution and are currently monitored.
Long-term land-use changes are occurring in the Noxubee watershed
as urban development continues, additional highways are built, and
shifts occur in farming and forestry practices. These land-use
changes affect local hydrology, and ultimately affect the overall
hydrology of Noxubee River, Oktoc Creek, and other refuge waters.
Such changes in the frequency, duration, and amplitude of flooding
can greatly impact bottomland hardwood forests and other floodplain
habitats. Currently, the nearest water gauge monitoring these
changes is located on the Noxubee River near Macon, Mississippi.
Strategies:
A.3.1 Manipulate water levels to favor moist soil-plant production.
A.3.2 Disc, plow, and plant units.
A.3.3 Control exotic, invasive, and nuisance plant species where
appropriate.
A.3.4 Control beaver populations and remove dams where
appropriate.
A.3.5 Continue monitoring of herpetofauna and mussel populations.
A.3.6 Develop water quality monitoring program assessing the
impact of environmental contaminants affecting the refuge.
A.3.7 Work with U.S. Geological Survey to install water gauge on
Noxubee River.
Objective A.4. Fields/Grasslands
Maintain fields and grasslands, including restoration of 958 acres of
grassland/prairie habitat (grasses and light- and heavy-seeded
broadleaf and tuberous perennials) at Morgan Hill.
Discussion: In 1993, the refuge embarked on a prairie restoration
project with the assistance of Mississippi State University. A refuge
field, Morgan Hill, is located on the western edge of the Alabama
Blackbelt Prairie. Before settlement, this area consisted of a tall
grass prairie where the dominant vegetation was big bluestem, little
bluestem, switchgrass, and Indian grass interspersed with cedar and
oak/hickory groves (Harper-Lore e. 1999). It is reported that buffa-lo
once roamed this area. Test plots of Indian, switch, and big
bluestem grasses were sown in 1993. No formal follow-up on these
plots has been done since planting. Henslow's sparrows were
recorded in the upper field. This is a significant find of this species,
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER IV -
Management Direction
44 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge __________________________________________________________________________________
which usually winters farther south
(http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/id/framlst/i5470id.html).
Over the long term, the refuge can support restoration of prairie
grassland habitat at Morgan Hill by using surface fires (fires that
burn litter and other live and dead fuels at or near the ground,
mostly by flaming combustion) to mimic a historic fire disturbance
regime, as well as mowing and planting. As in any native plant
community, vigilant monitoring of invasive exotic species is a neces-sity,
along with strategies for their suppression or removal.
In addition to Morgan Hill, the refuge maintains about 1,276 acres
of open fields to provide habitat for edge- and field-dependent
species. These field habitats are maintained in a variety of ways
such as mowing, burning, and farming.
Strategies:
A.4.1 Maintain open nature of fields and grasslands using
prescribed fire, mowing, and farming.
A.4.2 Supplement natural food production using traditional
farming operations, the current cooperative farming
program, and integrated pest management practices.
A.4.3 Re-establish heavy-seeded and tuberous perennials to
complete restoration at Morgan Hill.
Objective A.5 Research Natural Areas and Wilderness
Continue current management of two research natural areas and
one wilderness study area within the guidelines of the Fish and
Wildlife Service Manual and complete a wilderness review and
study for the wilderness study area (research natural areas = 46-
acre bald cypress swamp and 67-acre red cedar/pine/hardwood;
wilderness study area = 1,090 acres).
Discussion: Wilderness study areas are inventoried refuge lands
and waters within the planning area that meet the eligibility criteria
for wilderness as defined by the Wilderness Act. The Wilderness
Study Area at Noxubee refuge was designated as such in 1976, by
the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Research natural areas and wilderness study areas are part of a
national network of reserved areas under various ownerships (i.e.,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, National Park Service).
This network is the result of a designation system recognized by
other federal land administering agencies.
Research natural areas are intended to represent the full array of
North American ecosystems, biological communities, and habitats.
They are areas where natural processes are allowed to predominate
without human intervention. However, under certain circumstances,
deliberate manipulation is used to maintain unique features that the
research natural area was established to protect. Activities include
research, study, observation, monitoring, and educational pursuits.
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER IV -
Management Direction
Prairie warbler
USFWS Photo
______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
Presently, the refuge has two areas established by the Society of
American Foresters as research natural areas. The Old Robinson
Road Research Natural Area was designated in 1959, and con-tains
46 acres of bald cypress swamp. The Morgan Hill Research
Natural Area was designated in 1973, and contains 67 acres of
red-cedar/pine/hardwood forest. There has been some interest in
evaluating two additional areas for potential status–Pete's Slough
and Douglas Bluff. Both of these areas exhibit habitats support-ing
unique, rare, and restricted plant species. The Douglas Bluff
area has at least 85 species of herbs, shrubs, vines, and trees
including uncommon and regionally rare chinkapin oak and fringe
trees, pachysandra, early saxifrage, and bloodroot.
The Wilderness Study Area at Noxubee refuge was designated
under a planning process described in the Department of the
Interior, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed
Noxubee Wilderness Area, Mississippi. The Draft Environmental
Impact Statement was submitted to the Council on
Environmental Quality and the public on February 28, 1974, but
final legislated designation did not occur. Since that time, the
Service has protected and managed the wilderness attributes of
this site. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement recom-mended
1,200 acres of seasonally flooded and timbered bottom-land
hardwoods as Wilderness within the National Wilderness
Preserve System. In 2000, a wilderness inventory was conducted
on the refuge, using a field review and the Service's Geographic
Information System to calculate the boundary, as illustrated in
the 1974 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The decision
was made to remove a portion along the eastern side of the
refuge that had been previously impacted by timber harvesting
and construction of a levee, and because it was very close to a pri-vate
in-holding. The revised mapping indicated a total of 1,090
acres instead of the previous 1,200 acres recommended in the
1974 report.
A wilderness review is the process the Service uses to determine
whether or not to recommend to Congress that refuge lands and
waters be designated as Wilderness. The Service evaluates lands
and waters that meet certain minimum criteria for wilderness,
and then further evaluates the resulting wilderness study area to
determine if it merits recommendation to the Secretary of the
Interior for inclusion in the Wilderness System. The wilderness
review process has three phases which include inventory, study,
and recommendation. The refuge has conducted the preliminary
inventory phase of the wilderness review. A wilderness study is
conducted to analyze all values in a designated wilderness study
area. Recommendations are made in an Environmental Impact
Statement with input from the public.
Strategies:
A.5.1 Coordinate research efforts with scientists and the
research community.
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER IV -
Management Direction
46 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge __________________________________________________________________________________
A.5.2 Continue to manage the area as wilderness until all
three phases of the wilderness review process have
been completed.
A.5.3 Coordinate future wilderness review with the public.
A.5.4 Develop research objectives and management strategies
for research natural areas.
A.5.5 Evaluate Pete's Slough and Douglas Bluff as candidates
for research natural area designations.
Goal B: Fish and Wildlife Populations
Continue to protect, maintain, and enhance populations of trust and
native plant and animal species within the guidelines of the Central
Gulf Ecosystem Five-Year Action Plan, the Red-Cockaded
Woodpecker Recovery Plan, the North American Waterfowl Plan,
the Partners-in-Flight Plan, and the Noxubee National Wildlife
Refuge Forest Management Plan.
Objective B.1 Trust Species
Monitor and maintain healthy populations of red-cockaded wood-peckers,
waterfowl, and other migratory birds (with emphasis on
late-successional migratory birds), and conduct refuge inventory
and monitoring to evaluate and improve management practices for
trust species on refuge lands.
Discussion: Present refuge management of trust species includes
red-cockaded woodpeckers, wood storks, eagles, waterfowl, and
neotropical migratory birds. Biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of trust species on the refuge are surveyed
and monitored through cooperation, assistance, and continued part-nerships
from others. Noxubee refuge plays an instrumental role in
the recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker and managing for
wood ducks, mallards, and other waterfowl populations.
Population management activities, even those implemented to bene-fit
single species, can to the extent practical, contribute to broad
diversity of indigenous flora and fauna. Forests that support the
red-cockaded woodpecker also support a variety of migratory bird
and resident wildlife species.
Several neotropical migratory bird species are imperiled through
habitat loss, and can benefit from active habitat management.
Refuge management can be directed to benefit different groups of
bird species, such as those dependent on interior forest habitats or
those dependent on early-successional habitats.
Strategies:
B.1.1 Continue monitoring, cavity augmentation, and predator
control of red-cockaded woodpeckers to reach or exceed
population target of 88 groups.
B.1.2 Monitor waterfowl populations as part of the Service's
efforts to track continental populations and to determine
responses to management actions. This will include regular
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER IV -
Management Direction
______________________________________________________________________________Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47
waterfowl surveys as well as maintaining and monitoring
wood duck boxes.
B.1.3 Monitor populations of other migratory birds through
breeding bird point counts as part of the Service's
Partners-in-Flight program to determine species responses
to management actions.
B.1.4 Monitor wading birds as appropriate.
B.1.5 Maintain approximately 150 wood duck nest boxes.
B.1.6 Annually band 200 pre-season wood ducks in support of
Service monitoring efforts.
B.1.7 Continue monitoring populations of cormorant roosts in
cooperation with U.S. Department of Agriculture, Division
of Wildlife Services.
Objective B.2 Resident and Other Species
Manage to maintain healthy, resident wildlife populations including
white-tailed deer (average harvest range 400-600 deer) and turkey.
Discussion: The refuge forests, wetlands, and grasslands are
managed to ensure healthy, viable resident wildlife populations
consistent with sound biological principles and other objectives
of this plan.
White-tailed deer have the potential to adversely affect habitats
unless their numbers are kept at or slightly below the carrying
capacity. The refuge hunt program is designed to maintain the herd
while offering quality hunting opportunities to the public. The pop-ulation
of deer has remained fairly stable through a public hunt pro-gram.
An appropriate harvest (related to habitat conditions) will be
maintained with occasional fluctuations due to weather and habitat
conditions. Population level indicators will include monitoring har-vest
data and conducting periodic health checks.
Other game mammals open for public hunting include raccoons, rab-bits,
squirrels, and the incidental taking of beavers, coyotes, and feral
hogs. These species may also have an adverse impact on other
species in the event of overpopulation. Nest predation on turkeys,
wood ducks, and songbirds may become so great as to limit their
reproductive success. Overpopulation may also facilitate the spread
of canine distemper, a common close contact type disease, to other
species such as foxes, coyotes, and domestic dogs. In an effort to pre-vent
coyote overpopulation, the species is considered an incidental
harvest species and may be taken during any open hunting season.
Populations of bobwhite quail and wild turkey remain stable on the
refuge; however, quail populations have declined markedly through-out
the southeast. Loss of early successional habitat is most com-monly
cited as causing the quail decline. Numerous other declining
bird species, such as loggerhead shrikes, prairie warblers, and indi-go
buntings are associated with these habitats as well.
Reptiles, amphibians, and bats are abundant on the refuge and
important indicators to evaluate the environmental health of the
Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge
Section A.
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CHAPTER IV -
Management Direction
48 Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge __________________________________________________________________________________
ecosystem. Knowledge of which species occur on the refuge is fun-damental
to an understanding of the biological diversity of the area.
Strategies:
B.2.1 Coordinate hunting regulations for resident wildlife with
state agencies to maintain population health and stability.
B.2.2 Monitor and manage the population of white-tailed deer and
waterfowl at current levels.
B.2.3 Identify and implement additional management activities
to benefit bobwhite quail and other early successional
wildlife species.
B.2.4 Identify thresholds of disturbance and develop associated
standards and techniques that can be applied, where
appropriate, to reduce conflicts and achieve balance
between the public and wildlife.
B.2.5 Coordinate management and safety issues with Service
public use specialists and game enforcement officials.
Objective B.3 Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Plants and Animals
Control exotic, invasive, and nuisance species (e.g., beaver) to levels
that do not negatively affect trust species.
Discussion: American lotus is an invasive species found in refuge
lakes and sloughs. Lotus plants form dense mats which shade out
other more desirable plant species that have greater value to
wildlife. In addition, lotus can impede water flow and recreational
use. Lotus in refuge lakes has been moderately controlled with her-bicides
over the past 10 years.
Kudzu and cogon grass are exotic pest plants that affect refuge
uplands. Where they occur, they often form thick monotypic stands
that crowd out other desirable plants. These species have been con-trolled
with herbicides over the past 4 years.
Bicolor lespedeza and Chinese privet are two additional exotic pest
plant species which are so widespread over the refuge that control
efforts are difficult. Water hyacinth is an aggressive exotic plant
that occurs in the Tennessee-Tombigbee River and must be moni-tored
more vigilantly.
Beavers are native to the refuge; however, their dam building activi-ty
can cause extensive flooding and kill large acreages of bottom-land
hardwood forests. In addition, their habit of burrowing can
damage refuge levees and roads. Feral hogs occasionally become a
problem on the refuge, as their rooting destroys un