St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              St. Catherine Creek
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
August, 2006
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
ST. CATHERINE CREEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Adams and Wilkinson Counties, Mississippi
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
1875 Century Boulevard
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
August 2006
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................1
Introduction..................................................................................................................................1
Purpose and Need for the Plan ....................................................................................................1
Planning Process.........................................................................................................................2
Identifying the Priority Issues ..............................................................................................2
Policies and Legal Mandates........................................................................................................3
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.............................................................................................3
National Wildlife Refuge System.........................................................................................4
Other Legal Mandates.........................................................................................................5
National and Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ...........................................................5
Lower Mississippi River Joint Venture ................................................................................6
North American Waterfowl Management Plan ....................................................................6
Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture ...............................................................................6
Partners in Flight .................................................................................................................6
United States Shorebird Conservation Plan........................................................................7
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan ....................................................................7
Migratory Bird Conservation Zones.....................................................................................7
Black Bear Conservation Committee – Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan ....................8
Ecosystem Context.......................................................................................................................9
Ecological Threats and Problems .......................................................................................9
Alterations to Hydrology ....................................................................................................12
Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems ........................................................................................12
Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants and Animals ........................................................13
Relationship to State Wildlife Agency.........................................................................................13
II. REFUGE DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................15
Introduction................................................................................................................................15
Refuge Purposes.......................................................................................................................19
Special Designations of the Refuge ...........................................................................................19
Resource Threats and Problems................................................................................................20
Ecological Threats and Problems .....................................................................................20
Conservation Priorities at the St. Catherine Creek Refuge ........................................................20
Refuge Environment...................................................................................................................20
Physical Resources...........................................................................................................20
Biological Resources.........................................................................................................22
Refuge Management and Administration..........................................................................34
Education and Visitor Services .........................................................................................38
Cultural Resources............................................................................................................39
Socioeconomic Environment.............................................................................................40
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................43
Overview....................................................................................................................................43
Planning Process and Public Involvement .................................................................................43
Issues and Concerns..................................................................................................................44
ii St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Fish and Wildlife Populations............................................................................................44
Habitat ..............................................................................................................................44
Land Protection and Conservation ...................................................................................45
Education and Visitor Services .........................................................................................45
Continued Public and Agency Involvement ......................................................................45
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION........................................................................................................49
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................49
Vision ........................................................................................................................................49
Management Plan Summary......................................................................................................50
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..............................................................................................50
Goal 1 – Fish and Wildlife Populations .............................................................................50
Goal 2 ��� Habitat................................................................................................................59
Goal 3 – Land Protection and Conservation.....................................................................62
Goal 4 – Wildlife-dependent Recreation and Environmental Education ...........................67
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION.............................................................................................................73
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................73
Project Summaries.....................................................................................................................73
Staffing and Funding ..................................................................................................................80
Partnership Opportunities...........................................................................................................81
Step-Down Management Plans..................................................................................................81
Monitoring and Adaptive Management.......................................................................................81
Plan Review and Revision..........................................................................................................82
SECTION B. APPENDICES
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY..................................................................................................................83
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED ................................................................89
APPENDIX III. LEGAL MANDATES...................................................................................................93
APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...........................................................................................97
Summary of Public Scoping Comments.....................................................................................97
Public Comments on The Draft CCP/EA and Service Responses.............................................98
APPENDIX V. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS......................................................................105
APPENDIX VI. WILDERNESS REVIEW SUMMARY.......................................................................125
APPENDIX VII. SPECIES LISTS......................................................................................................127
APPENDIX VIII. BUDGET REQUESTS ...........................................................................................137
APPENDIX IX. LAND ACQUISITION HISTORY ..............................................................................139
APPENDIX X. INTRA-SERVICE CONSULTATION .........................................................................141
Table of Contents iii
APPENDIX XI. LIST OF PREPARERS.............................................................................................145
APPENDIX XII. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION...............................................................147
APPENDIX XIII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT..............................................................149
iv St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley................................................................................10
Figure 2. Forest cover changes in the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley ..................................11
Figure 3. Regional location .................................................................................................................16
Figure 4. Management Units of St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge ..................................17
Figure 5. Approved acquisition boundary, St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge ..................18
Figure 6. Reforestation sites...............................................................................................................28
Figure 7. Waterfowl Management Units .............................................................................................33
Figure 8. Wildlife Management Areas in relation to St. Catherine Creek ...........................................35
Figure 9. Farming areas, St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge ............................................37
Figure 10. Proposed Conservation Focus AreaFigure 11. Existing and proposed public use facilities
at St. Catherine Creek NWR..............................................................................................46
Figure 11. Existing and proposed public use facilities at St. Catherine Creek NWR..........................47
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Mussels at St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge.....................................................26
Table 2. St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge, 1990 and 1999 habitats. ..............................27
Table 3. Largest permanent lakes on the refuge. ...............................................................................29
Table 4. Activities by participants, 16 years old and older, throughout Mississippi. ...........................41
Table 5. Estimated county tourism revenues/employment (FY 2003). ...............................................41
Table 6. Refuge revenue-sharing payments, 1999–2003...................................................................42
Table 7. Summary of projects and costs for St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge. ..............79
Table 8. Current staff at St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge. .............................................80
Table 9. Additional staff identified to implement the comprehensive conservation plan for
St. Catherine Creek NWR.....................................................................................................80
Table 10. Step-down plans to be developed or updated. ...................................................................82
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to
provide a foundation for the management and use of St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge,
headquartered in Sibley, Mississippi. The plan is intended to serve as a working guide for the
refuge’s management programs and actions over the next 15 years.
The plan was developed in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and Wildlife Service
Manual. The actions described within this plan also meet the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Compliance with the Act was achieved through the involvement of
the public and the inclusion of a Draft Environmental Assessment. When fully implemented, this plan
will strive to achieve the vision and purposes of the refuge.
The plan’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which the refuge was established.
Fish and wildlife are the first priority in refuge management, and public use (wildlife-dependent
recreation) is allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, or does not detract from, the
refuge’s mission and purposes.
The plan was prepared by a core Service planning team composed of representatives from the
refuge; the Service’s Jackson, Mississippi, field office; and the Mangi Environmental Group, a Service
contractor. In developing this plan, the core team incorporated a number of suggestions and
recommendations from the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks; other state,
federal, and local agencies; nongovernmental organizations; local citizens; the general public; and
stakeholders. This public involvement and the planning process itself are described in Chapter III,
Plan Development. The plan represents the Service’s preferred alternative and is being put forward
after considering three other alternatives, which were described in the draft environmental
assessment. After reviewing the public comments and management needs, the core team developed
these alternatives in an attempt to determine how to best meet the goals and objectives of St.
Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, is the Service’s
recommended course of action for the future management of the refuge, and is embodied in this plan.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires the development of
comprehensive conservation plans for all national wildlife refuges by 2012. This plan for the St.
Catherine Creek Refuge will identify the role of the refuge in supporting the mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System and provide guidance in refuge management and public use activities. The
plan articulates the refuge’s management direction (goals, objectives, and strategies) for the next 15
years. Specifically, the plan is needed to
• provide a clear statement of management direction for the refuge;
• provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the
Service’s management actions on and around the refuge;
2 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
• ensure that the Service’s management actions, including its land protection, recreational, and
educational 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; and
• provide a basis for development of the refuge’s budget requests for operational, maintenance,
and capital improvement needs.
This comprehensive conservation plan was developed to address the refuge’s important natural
resource, compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, and administrative needs. Specifically, there is a
need to restore and conserve diverse habitats, species populations, and biological integrity; conserve
natural and cultural resources through partnerships, protection, and land acquisition from willing
sellers; provide opportunities for appropriate, compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, environmental
education, and interpretive programs; and provide effective and efficient administration of the refuge.
PLANNING PROCESS
This plan outlines a vision for the refuge and was prepared in compliance with the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended.
In complying with these Acts, the refuge has actively sought the involvement of the public in its
comprehensive planning. The Acts also require the Service to seriously consider all reasonable
alternatives to major actions on national wildlife refuges, including a no action alternative. These
alternatives, including the no action alternative, were described in the draft environmental
assessment.
In developing this plan, the Service completed a four-step planning process, as follows:
• Established and organized a planning team for the purpose of developing the refuge’s
comprehensive conservation plan;
• Held a public scoping meeting to identify the important opportunities, concerns, and issues
relating to future management of the refuge;
• Prepared a draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment for public
review and comment; and
• Evaluated the comments of the public in the preparation of this comprehensive conservation
plan.
IDENTIFYING THE PRIORITY ISSUES
In August 2003, the Service assembled a planning team at the refuge headquarters to begin the
scoping process for developing a draft plan for St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge. The
planning team members included staff from the St. Catherine Creek Refuge; a refuge planner from
the Service’s Jackson, Mississippi, field office; and representatives from other refuges. They are
listed in Appendix XIII, Consultation and Coordination.
The planning team developed a vision statement for the refuge and identified a number of issues and
concerns that were likely to affect future management of the refuge. The team also identified several draft
goals for the management direction of the refuge, and planned the agenda for a public scoping meeting.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
The public scoping meeting was held at the Natchez Convention Center in Natchez, Mississippi, on
November 6, 2003. The meeting attendees identified a variety of issues, concerns, and opportunities
for future management of the refuge. Their comments, as well as those written on comment sheets
provided at the meeting, are summarized in Appendix IV.
After identifying the priority issues and opportunities, the planning team began the process of
preparing sections of the draft plan and environmental assessment. Information concerning the
refuge’s physical, biological, and socioeconomic environment was compiled and is described in
Chapter II, Refuge Environment.
Possible alternatives for the management of the refuge were identified. These alternatives and their
sets of objectives or management actions were described in Chapter III of the draft environmental
assessment. The potential impacts of each alternative on the physical, biological, cultural and
historic, and socioeconomic environments were also described in the draft environmental
assessment.
This planning process included lands within and adjacent to the refuge’s current approved acquisition
boundary. The process identified a continued need over the next few years to acquire the remaining
inholdings within the acquisition boundary from willing sellers as opportunities arise. Particular
acquisition efforts were focused on the divestiture of three disjunct tracts in exchange for lands within
the approved acquisition boundary, as outlined in Chapter I of the draft environmental assessment.
This final plan is now being distributed to officials of federal, state, and local government agencies;
private organizations; and the general public.
POLICIES AND LEGAL MANDATES
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, working with others, is to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages the 96-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System,
comprised of more than 540 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands, and other special
management areas. It also operates 66 national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78
Ecological Services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws; administers the
Endangered Species Act; manages migratory bird populations; restores nationally significant
fisheries; conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands; and helps foreign governments
with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of
millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.
The Service is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the
nation's fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Although it shares some conservation
responsibilities with other federal, state, tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has specific
trustee responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, anadromous fish,
and certain marine mammals.
4 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The National Wildlife Refuge System manages over 96 million acres on refuges throughout the
nation, including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It is the world’s largest collection of lands
and waters specifically managed for fish and wildlife.
The mission of the System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997, is:
... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where
appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United
States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear
mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Act states that each
refuge shall be managed to
• fulfill the individual purpose of each refuge;
• fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
• consider the needs of fish and wildlife first; fulfill the requirement of developing a
comprehensive conservation plan for each unit of the Refuge System, and fully involve the
public in the preparation of these plans;
• maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
• recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are
legitimate and priority public uses; and
• retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses.
Following passage of the Act in 1997, the Service immediately began efforts to implement the
direction of the new legislation, including the preparation of comprehensive conservation plans for all
refuges. The development of these plans is ongoing nationally. Consistent with the Act, all
comprehensive conservation plans are being prepared in conjunction with public involvement, and
each refuge is required to complete its plan within a 15-year schedule.
Approximately 38 million people visited the country’s national wildlife refuges in 2002, mostly to
observe wildlife in their natural habitats. As this visitation continues to grow, significant economic
benefits are being generated to local communities that surround the refuges. Economists have
reported that national wildlife refuge visitors contribute more than $400 million annually to the local
economies. In 2001, 82 million U.S. residents aged 16 years and older fished, hunted, or observed
wildlife, generating a national total of $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges in 14
states around the nation, visitation had grown 36% in seven years. At the same time, the number of
jobs generated in the surrounding communities grew to 120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995,
pouring more than $2.2 million into the economies of local communities. Other findings also validate
the belief that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and
transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31% from $5.2 million in 1995. For each federal
dollar spent on the National Wildlife Refuge System, the surrounding communities have benefited
with $4.43 in recreational expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (U.S. Census Bureau 2002).
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
Volunteerism continues to be a major contributor to the successes of the Refuge System. In 2002,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million person-hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at
more than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for the national wildlife refuges stresses the following principles:
• Wildlife comes first.
• Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital considerations in refuge management.
• Refuges must be healthy.
• Growth of refuges must be strategic.
• The National Wildlife Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with broad
participation from others.
OTHER LEGAL MANDATES
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties.
Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines
established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the
Fish and Wildlife Service. The 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 described in Appendix III.
Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public uses unless specifically and
legally opened. The Service must evaluate all programs and uses based on the following mandates
set forth in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. These mandates are to
• contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
• conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
• monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
• manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses, as those uses benefit the conservation of fish and
wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public (these uses include hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation); and
• ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Conservation priorities for national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi River Valley focus on
threatened and endangered species, trust species, and species of concern. By working with others,
the Service is more effective in achieving its overall mission and management goals. The Service
uses a combination of land protection and habitat management methods to compensate for
bottomland hardwood habitat loss and to meet shared/common long-term goals established for this
area. Several national and regional conservation plans and initiatives help the Service to focus its
management, including the Lower Mississippi River Joint Venture; the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan; Partners is Flight; U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan; North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan; Migratory Bird Conservation Zones; and the Black Bear Conservation Committee.
6 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER JOINT VENTURE
The Service and other agencies rank bottomland hardwood forests along the lower Mississippi River
as the highest conservation priority for management efforts. The Lower Mississippi River Joint
Venture (a consortium of public and private conservation groups) has initiated cooperative efforts to
restore lands that provide maximum benefits to migratory songbirds. It has also identified
conservation areas on which to focus future land protection and restoration efforts. The long-term
goal is to provide forested islands, called forest bird conservation zones, in the Lower Mississippi
River Valley that range in size from 10,000 to more than 100,000 acres. The forest bird conservation
zones are also priority areas for forest restoration and will someday serve as important anchors for
biological diversity.
NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is an international action plan to conserve
migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is to return migratory waterfowl populations
to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitats. Canada, the United States, and
Mexico are signatories to the plan. The plan is a partnership of federal, state, provincial, and
municipal governments, nongovernmental organizations, private companies, and many individuals, all
working toward the achievement of better wetland habitats for the benefit of migratory birds, other
wetland-associated species, and people (Reinecke and Baxter 1996).
LOWER MISSISSIPPI VALLEY JOINT VENTURE
Several coordinated conservation efforts have been initiated to set priorities and establish focus
areas to overcome the impacts of human-caused hydrologic changes and forest fragmentation.
Under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, a cooperative private-state-federal
partnership known as the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture (LMVJV) was established in 1986.
Its intent is to help provide sufficient wintering waterfowl habitat throughout the Lower Mississippi
Valley. The LMVJV partners have worked together to establish step-down management objectives
(expressed in the number of duck-use-days and the number of acres of flooded habitat) for public and
private lands throughout the Lower Mississippi Valley.
The initial LMVJV effort has expanded to also establish population objectives for shorebirds and
neotropical migratory forest-nesting birds. The LMVJV is working with the U.S. Shorebird
Conservation Working Group to establish step-down objectives for shorebird foraging habitat for the
fall migration period throughout the Lower Mississippi Valley.
PARTNERS IN FLIGHT
Growing concern about declines in many land bird species not covered by existing conservation
initiatives led to the launching of Partners in Flight in 1990. Partners in Flight is an international
cooperative effort of government agencies, philanthropies, professional organizations, conservation
groups, industry, academia, and private individuals. Its initial focus was on neotropical migrants—
species of birds that breed in North America and winter in Central and South America—but its
emphasis has now expanded to encompass most land birds and other species requiring terrestrial
habitats. Partners in Flight has a number of initiatives underway, including a North American
Landbird Conservation Plan. St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge is in the Mississippi
Alluvial Valley Physiographic Area Plan under Partners in Flight (Partners in Flight, n.d.).
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
UNITED STATES SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort being undertaken throughout the United
States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird species are restored and
protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies, organizations, and shorebird
experts for separate regions of the country. It identifies conservation goals; critical habitat
conservation needs; key research needs; and proposed education and outreach programs to
increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face. The St. Catherine Creek Refuge lies
within the Lower Mississippi Valley/Western Gulf Coastal Plain planning region.
NORTH AMERICAN WATERBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The Waterbird Conservation for the Americas initiative, launched in 1998, provides a continental
framework and guide for conserving the waterbirds of North America, Central America, and the
Caribbean. A product of the initiative is the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. The plan
provides for the conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds, including seabirds,
coastal waterbirds, wading birds, and marsh birds. The refuge contributes to the implementation of
this plan by providing potential habitat for the little blue heron, tricolored heron, reddish egret, white
ibis, and wood stork.
MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ZONES
Another cooperative private-state-federal partnership involving the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan, Partners in Flight, and the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture has identified a number of Migratory
Bird Conservation Zones. The refuge is identified in these zones. The purpose of identifying these zones is
to focus a number of private, state, and federal restoration programs into specific areas in an effort to
provide maximum benefits for neotropical migratory forest interior-nesting birds.
The goal of this collaborative restoration effort is to provide islands or blocks of forested habitat in an
otherwise highly fragmented landscape. The targeted block sizes range from 10,000 to 100,000
acres. Such areas are large enough to support viable populations of various suites of neotropical
migratory songbirds. These areas will also support other species, such as the Louisiana black bear,
that prefer and thrive in large forested blocks.
Most Migratory Bird Conservation Zones encompass an existing or proposed wildlife
management area or national wildlife refuge. These public lands serve as anchors of
biodiversity that are enhanced and supported by the expansion of forested blocks, either
through public or private management.
One of the biggest challenges to the restoration efforts underway in the Lower Mississippi Valley, and
one that affects refuges in particular, is the need to meet long-term management objectives that
address comprehensive ecosystem needs, including those of wintering migratory waterfowl,
neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, wading birds, bears, and other wide-ranging species.
Management for one species or species group often conflicts with the management objectives for
another species or species group. The tendency is to pursue short-term priorities that frequently
change as scientific knowledge expands and interests in special resources shift. Caution must be
exercised to prevent the start-up of restoration actions that are difficult to reverse and fail to meet the
long-term, comprehensive management needs of the ecosystem or a specific area within the
ecosystem. An example might be a tendency to totally reforest large portions of a refuge in an effort
to reduce fragmentation and create acreage to meet an objective for forest interior-nesting birds.
8 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Such an approach would overlook the critical habitat needs of waterfowl and shorebirds that require a
complex of seasonally flooded croplands, moist soil areas, and forested wetlands.
The habitat goals of the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture can only be met through active
management of croplands, moist soil areas, and forested wetlands on both public and private lands.
Active management (i.e., vegetation manipulation and hydrology restoration) is required to
compensate for the spatial and temporal habitat changes that have been caused by deforestation and
hydrologic alterations throughout the Lower Mississippi Valley. To compensate for these habitat
changes on refuge lands, the St. Catherine Creek Refuge—as part of its waterfowl and shorebird
habitat step-down objectives—uses a system of levees, water control structures, pumps, and wells to
provide dependable, seasonally flooded croplands and moist soil areas. If it is totally reforested, the
refuge would not be able to meet its waterfowl and shorebird habitat step-down objectives. Setting
habitat and species objectives from the perspective of the Lower Mississippi Valley is advantageous
because it looks at the regional context—the big picture—and enables managers to plan and provide
a diverse spectrum of habitats for a diversity of species throughout their range.
Although reforestation is probably the best solution for restoring the vast forests that have been
converted to row-crop agriculture, it must be remembered that hydrology (flooding) drives the
ecosystem in the Lower Mississippi Valley. The plant and animal communities throughout the valley
are dependent upon the hydrologic cycle. It is incumbent upon land managers to manage hydrology
in an effort to restore the ecological diversity that once characterized the Lower Mississippi Valley.
Ditches can be plugged and structures installed to control and manage water in an effort to mimic the
historic flood cycles and meet waterfowl and shorebird habitat objectives.
BLACK BEAR CONSERVATION COMMITTEE – LOUISIANA BLACK BEAR RECOVERY PLAN
The Louisiana black bear is a threatened subspecies that occurs on the refuge. The recovery goals
for this species, as identified in the recovery plan, are to establish two viable populations in Louisiana
and restore and protect habitat supporting and connecting those populations. The Service, in
conjunction with many partners, has prioritized habitat restoration areas for black bears in Louisiana.
Similar areas (zones) are being developed for Mississippi that would complement those in Louisiana.
The movement of black bears through habitat corridors that connect large forested blocks would then
promote genetic exchange among the current isolated bear populations in the Lower Mississippi
River Valley. The refuge is within the highest rankings of these Mississippi zones. The purpose of
identifying these zones is to focus a number of private, state, and federal restoration programs into
specific areas in an effort to provide maximum benefits for the Louisiana black bear, through the
restoration of habitat and travel corridors and the protection and expansion of existing habitats.
The goal of this effort is to identify potential priority corridors to connect existing blocks of habitat,
both public and private. These lands serve as anchors of biodiversity that are enhanced and
supported by the expansion of forested blocks, either through public or private management. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture is working with the Service and landowners to restore forests on
private lands to contribute to the recovery of the Louisiana black bear. Conservation management on
private lands is extremely important to fish and wildlife resources. The synergy of all federal, state,
tribal, and private organizations—working together—will ensure that the Service not only protects the
more important areas, but also reduces redundancy and overlap.
The recovery of the Louisiana black bear involves a major conservation endeavor between federal,
state, and private participants. These include the Service; the Natural Resources Conservation
Service; state agencies; universities; private conservation organizations (Bear Education and
Restoration group of Mississippi); and the Black Bear Conservation Committee. The mission of the
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Black Bear Conservation Committee, which includes public and private partners in Mississippi,
Louisiana, and east Texas, is to promote the restoration of the Louisiana black bear in its historic
range through education, research, and habitat management. The committee’s efforts focus on the
goals identified in the Service’s recovery plan, which are to establish viable populations; promote
various land protection methods that will establish migration corridors; and protect habitat. The goal
is to restore and protect a series of large forest blocks and to identify specific focus areas that would
provide connecting corridors between these blocks.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
The Lower Mississippi River Valley once supported a vast bottomland hardwood forest complex that
extended along the Mississippi River from Illinois to Louisiana. Today, less than 20 percent of this
bottomland hardwood forest remains. Most of it is fragmented or occurs in scattered patches
throughout the region. Figure 1 provides an overview of the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley
and the conservation lands in and around it.
Floodwaters once recharged the valley’s wildlife habitats and created rich, dynamic systems that
supported a diverse abundance of fish and wildlife. Today, the Mississippi River Valley is bisected by
levees. Its hydrologic flows are restricted by flood control projects and agricultural diversions. Its
water quality is significantly impacted by agricultural and industrial runoff. The rivers and water
bodies throughout are highly turbid and laden with pesticides, and support only a small fraction of the
once abundant aquatic resources. These declines have prompted the Service to designate the
bottomland hardwood forests found in this ecosystem as areas of special concern (Bailey 1995).
Sustainable communities and species conservation and recovery require the joint efforts of private
landowners and local communities, as well as state and federal governments. The Service is focusing
efforts to adopt collaborative resource partnerships within and outside the agency to reduce the declining
trend of fish and wildlife populations and their biological diversity; establish conservation priorities; clarify
goals; and solve common threats and problems associated with fish and wildlife resources. The specific
biological objectives for species groups in the Lower Mississippi River Valley—which are targeted in this
comprehensive conservation plan—reflect those of the Partners in Flight Plan; North American Waterfowl
Management Plan; U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan; Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network;
and plans for the recovery of the Louisiana black bear.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
National wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi River Valley serve as part of the last safety net to
support biological diversity, which is the greatest challenge facing the Service. The impacts,
underlying causes, and threats to biological diversity within the Lower Mississippi River Valley include
• the loss of sustainable communities, including the loss of 20 million acres of bottomland
hardwood forests (Figure 2);
• the loss of connectivity between bottomland hardwood forest sites (e.g., forest fragmentation);
• the effects of constructing navigation and water diversion projects;
• the effects of agricultural and timber harvesting practices;
• the simplification of the remaining wildlife habitats within the ecosystem and their gene pools; and
• the cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource development activities.
As a result of these causes and threats, many species endemic to the Lower Mississippi River Valley
have become threatened, endangered, or extinct.
10 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Figure 2. Forest cover changes in the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley
12 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Elimination of forest habitats and forest fragmentation have decimated wildlife species throughout the
Lower Mississippi River Valley. Wildlife most adversely affected by fragmentation are those that are
area-sensitive or dependent on special habitat requirements, such as large, mature blocks of forest
that offer secure nesting habitat and a particular food source.
The more than 70 species of songbirds that use the region for breeding and migration habitat are
affected by forest fragmentation, primarily through high rates of nesting failure due to predation and
cowbird parasitism. Some of these species, including the Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler,
wood thrush, and cerulean warbler, have declined significantly. They need the benefits of large forest
blocks to recover and sustain their existence. The lack of bottomland hardwood forests and the
impacts associated with fragmented forests also pose a serious threat to other migratory bird
populations, the black bear, and other resident wildlife species.
Modifications to the historic floodplains have also caused major declines in the fishery and in aquatic
resources productivity. The non-point source runoffs of sediments, excess nutrients, pesticides, and
herbicides have reduced the ecological functions of the area’s remaining fishery resources, and are a
continuing threat. The Service’s Draft Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Strategic Management Plan for
the Lower Mississippi River Valley ecosystem identifies 67 species of fish as endangered and 39 species
as threatened. In addition, 16 other species are species of concern or proposed for federal listing.
ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY
In addition to the loss of vast acreages of bottomland-forested wetlands, significant alterations have
occurred in the region’s hydrology due to urban development; river channel modification; flood control
levees; reservoirs; and deforestation, as well as degradation of aquatic systems from excessive
sedimentation and contaminants.
The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of forested wetlands
and indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on
topography and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to
forested wetlands and waterfowl-habitat relationships.
Instead of natural hydrology, large-scale, man-made hydrological alterations have changed the
spatial and temporal patterns of flooding throughout the entire Lower Mississippi Valley. In addition,
these alterations have reduced both the extent and duration of annual seasonal flooding. The loss of
this annual flooding regime has had an enormous impact on the forested wetlands and their
associated wetland-dependent species.
In view of the hydrologic changes, it is very difficult—if not impossible—to fully emulate and
reconstruct the structure and functions of a natural wetland. According to Mitsch and Gosselink
(1993), restoration of wetland functions is especially difficult because wetlands depend on a dynamic
interface of hydrologic regimes to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes.
SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
Aquatic systems, including lakes, rivers, sloughs, and bayous, have been degraded as a result of
deforestation and hydrologic alterations. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an
accelerated accumulation of sediments and contaminants in all aquatic systems. Many water bodies are
now filled with sediments, greatly reducing their surface area and depth. Concurrently, non-point source
runoffs of excess nutrients and contaminants are threatening the area’s remaining aquatic resources.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
The hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphological processes that created
oxbow lakes, sloughs, and river meander scars. Consequently, the protection, conservation, and
restoration of these aquatic resources take on an added importance in light of the alterations
associated with flood control and navigation.
PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic
vegetation such as coffeeweed and willows. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding
and reduced water depths resulting from excessive sedimentation have created conditions favorable
for the establishment and proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the
introduction of exotic (nonnative) vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening the
viability of aquatic systems. These invasive aquatic plants threaten the natural aquatic vegetation
important to aquatic systems, and choke waterways to a degree that often prevents recreational use.
Furthermore, nonnative wildlife and fish have been successfully introduced or released in this
temperate climate. Animals such as nutria and wild hogs compete with native wildlife for limited
resources, and have caused extensive habitat damage and alterations.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent bureau
policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other
federal agencies and state fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing
refuges. This cooperation is essential in providing the foundation for the protection and sustainability
of fish and wildlife throughout the United States.
The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks is a state-partnering agency with the
Service, charged with enforcement responsibilities for migratory birds and endangered species, as
well as with managing the state’s natural resources. The total area owned or managed by the
Department in support of the state’s wildlife, recreation, and fisheries is 828,408 acres. This includes
42 state wildlife management areas and 29 state parks encompassing 823,297 acres, and 21 lakes
totaling 5,111 acres (Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, n.d.).
The Department directs the state’s wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation
opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program, on several wildlife management
areas and parks located near the refuge. The Department’s participation and contribution throughout
the refuge’s comprehensive conservation planning process has been invaluable. It continues to work
with the Service to provide ongoing opportunities for an open dialogue with the public to improve the
ecological sustainability of fish and wildlife in Mississippi. Not only has the Department staff
participated in biological reviews, public meetings, and field reviews as part of the planning process,
they also are an active partner in the coordination and planning of hunting programs and various
wildlife and habitat surveys. A key part of the comprehensive planning process is the integration of
common objectives between the Service and the Department, where appropriate.
14 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
II. Refuge Description
INTRODUCTION
St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1990 to preserve wintering
habitat for mallards, pintails, and blue-winged teal and to provide production habitat for wood
ducks to meet the goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The refuge’s
management practices provide excellent wintering waterfowl habitat. The refuge also provides
critical resources for wading birds, shorebirds, neotropical migratory birds, and resident wildlife
in the Lower Mississippi River Valley.
The refuge is located within Adams and Wilkinson counties in west central Mississippi (Figure
3). Its western boundary lies along about 18 miles of the Mississippi River, approximately seven
miles south of the City of Natchez. The northernmost boundary is about two miles south of
Natchez. The eastern boundary generally follows the bluffs that run along the eastern side of
the Mississippi River from Vicksburg, Mississippi, to Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The Homochitto
River forms the refuge’s southern boundary. The refuge can be reached by U.S. Highway 61
and several county roads.
There are three contiguous units on the refuge: the northernmost Cloverdale Unit, the Butler
Lake Unit, and the southernmost Sibley Unit (Figure 4). The refuge’s headquarters facility is
located on the Sibley Unit and can be reached by York Road, which is maintained by Adams
County. On the refuge, Pintail Lane is the main access and service road to the Sibley Unit.
Hutchings Landing provides the main access to the Butler Lake Unit. The Cloverdale Unit is a
waterfowl sanctuary and is closed to public access. The main refuge road to the Cloverdale
Unit is often submerged during flooding.
The refuge also includes three disjunct tracts, which were described in Chapter I of the draft
environmental assessment. Two of these tracts were acquired through Farmers Home
Administration farm foreclosures and were assigned to the refuge in 1995. The third tract was
part of the Sibley Unit acquisition and is outside the established acquisition boundary (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2001a; 2004b).
The refuge currently owns a total of 24,931 acres within an approved acquisition boundary of
34,732 acres (Figure 5). This ownership includes 502 acres of 16th section land leased from the
Adams County School Board. A history of the refuge’s acquisition of lands, purchased from
willing sellers within the approved acquisition boundary, is provided in Appendix IX.
Efforts to acquire additional lands within the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary remain an
ongoing process. Considerable efforts to lease or acquire both 16th section lands within the
acquisition boundary have not been successful.
Historically, the refuge lands were entirely forested; however, nearly two-thirds of the refuge
was cleared and converted to row-crop agriculture during the 1960s before Service ownership.
Flooding from the Mississippi and Homochitto rivers was, and still is, an annual event. Farming
under these conditions was difficult and required unconventional methods. These methods
included the construction of levees on the floodplain; the use of pumps to dewater parts of the
area; and the planting of crops by aerial application. The former owners leased exclusive
hunting rights to the property, particularly on the Sibley Farms Unit where deer and waterfowl
were the primary attractions. Several conservation features were initiated and waterfowl use of
the area was very high.
16 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Regional location
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Figure 4. Management Units of St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
18 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5. Approved acquisition boundary, St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
About 9,100 acres of the refuge’s management boundary consist of bottomland hardwoods and
bluff forest habitat. Several endangered or threatened species inhabit or nest on the refuge.
Many species of neotropical migratory birds and bats use the refuge’s forests. In addition,
several impoundments and flooded timber in two lakes provide greentree reservoirs and habitat
for other migratory birds, including wintering habitat for waterfowl and bald eagles. The refuge
provides the potential for roughly 1,500 acres of moist soil habitat, which is essential for the
thousands of shorebirds, migratory waterfowl, and wading birds that visit the refuge every year.
Visitors enjoy public use of the refuge for fishing, hunting, hiking, wildlife photography, wildlife
observation, and environmental education and interpretation. The refuge also hosts several
activities each year, including special birding events and youth fishing and hunting events.
REFUGE PURPOSES
St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge was established in January 1990 under the
authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. & 715d). The purposes of the
refuge are to
• provide “wintering habitat for wood ducks and to meet the habitat goals presented in the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan”;
• “… preserve a dynamic alluvial floodplain ecosystem, provide needed waterfowl winter
habitat in the Lower Mississippi River Valley, and assure available water during December
for migrating waterfowl”;
• preserve wintering habitat for mallard, pintail, blue-winged teal, and wood duck; and
• provide wintering and production habitat for migratory and resident waterfowl.
The intent of the refuge then is clearly for preservation, improvement, and creation of wintering
and reproductive habitat for waterfowl.
Management efforts since 1990 have focused on the following objectives:
• Provide and maintain optimum habitat for migratory waterfowl consistent with the overall
objectives of the Mississippi Flyway and North American Waterfowl Management plans.
• Provide habitat and protection for all migratory birds, endangered species, and other trust
resources.
• Provide habitat for a more natural-like diversity of wildlife and plant species.
• Provide opportunities for wildlife-oriented recreation and environmental education, when
and where appropriate and compatible with other refuge objectives.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS OF THE REFUGE
The Partners in Flight initiative has identified the Homochitto Forest Bird Conservation Area as a
potential 20,000-acre forest block objective. This area includes (1) the refuge’s Sibley Unit and
(2) another 10, 000-acre forest block objective, the St. Catherine Creek Forest Bird
Conservation Area, which includes the refuge’s Butler Lake and Cloverdale units.
Although they do not have a special designation, the loess bluffs, which flank the eastern side of
the Mississippi River from Vicksburg, Mississippi, to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, provide a unique
habitat at the refuge. The freshwater springs flowing from the base of the bluffs are habitat for
unique or rare fish, plant, and insect species, including the spring darter (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2004d).
20 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
RESOURCE THREATS AND PROBLEMS
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
National wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi River Valley serve as part of the last safety net to
support biological diversity and this is the ultimate challenge facing the Service. Like other refuges
in this river valley, the St. Catherine Creek Refuge has lost bottomland hardwood forests;
experienced the effects of agriculture on the historic habitats that once flourished on refuge lands;
and struggles to manage the conditions resulting from the near annual flooding from the Mississippi
and Homochitto rivers, which often deposits large amounts of sediment and frequently damages the
levees on the refuge.
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES AT THE ST. CATHERINE CREEK REFUGE
The refuge is an important conservation area in the Lower Mississippi River Valley. It provides
a diversity of wetland habitats for migratory birds, including wintering waterfowl; shorebirds;
wading birds; neotropical migratory birds; and raptors, as well as habitat for other resident
wildlife, including threatened and endangered species.
The refuge contains numerous lakes, ponds, and impoundments that provide critical habitat for
migratory birds. Some of these impoundments are managed to provide moist soil habitat for
migratory waterfowl. The Service, in partnership with conservation organizations and private
industry, has also reforested almost 12,000 acres of formerly cleared agricultural land at the refuge,
primarily with bottomland hardwood species, to restore habitat for resident and migratory birds , two
special concern bat species, and other wildlife.
REFUGE ENVIRONMENT
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soils and Topography
The refuge lies at the eastern edge of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain ecosystem province, at the
base of the loess bluffs that parallel the Mississippi River. The province consists of flat to gently
sloping, broad floodplain and low terraces made up of alluvial soils and loess deposits. The
only noticeable slopes are sharp terrace scarps and natural levees that rise sharply to several
meters above the adjacent bottomlands or stream channels. Oxbow lakes are prevalent.
The refuge consists of several distinct topographic features: the riverfront, natural levees, ridges
and swales, basins and flats, and loess bluff hills. The riverfront is a flat, low-lying area between
natural levees and the Mississippi River. These areas consist of sandbars and old river scars in
various stages of oxbow development.
The natural levees parallel the river and are formed by the heaviest sediments, which are the
first to settle as the river seasonally rises and inundates the floodplain. The surface texture of
the soils on natural levees and low riverfronts are silt loam to sandy loam, and most soils have a
clay horizon and associated subsoil clay increase. Soil drainage is related to its position on the
levee and ranges from well to poorly drained.
The ridges and swales are the remnant landforms resulting from the river’s historic meanders.
The basins and flats consist of bottomland swamp areas occupying low elevations near the bluff
line. The soils in the bottomland swamp areas are normally clayey and poorly drained.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
The loess bluff hills are characterized by irregular topography with rolling hills punctuated by
steep bluffs and deep ravines. The soils on these hills consist of thick deposits of loess on top
of coastal plain sediment.
The prominent soil associations found on the St. Catherine Creek Refuge are Sharkey;
Crevasse-Commerce-Robinsonville; Sharkey-Tunica-Newellton; Alder-Convent; Memphis-
Natchez; and Newellton-Commerce (Scott 2000; State Soil Geographic, n.d.).
Hydrology
The refuge’s hydrology is greatly influenced by the annual inundation of floodwaters from the
Mississippi and Homochitto rivers. There are approximately 1,300 acres of perennially flooded
lakes, including Gilliard Lake; Butler Lake; Salt Lake; Lake Lucille; and an impounded wetland
called Swamp Lake. Salt Lake and Lake Lucille are oxbows formed by the Mississippi River. In
addition, Old Saint Catherine Creek, a perennial stream, flows from north to south though the
refuge into the Mississippi River at Catherine Bend.
The remaining water bodies, which total 1,700 acres, consist of 35 impoundments ranging from
two to 200 acres in size. These are formed by earthen natural and/or man-made levees that
hold intermittent floodwaters. In the absence of natural floodwaters, the refuge staff is able to
flood 700 acres of these impoundments by pumping water from four water wells. An additional
350 acres can be flooded by using Swamp Lake.
These refuge impoundments, along with several commercial aquaculture ponds distributed
throughout the region, provide bodies of moist soil and mudflat habitat for shorebirds
(Mississippi Alluvial Valley/West Gulf Coastal Plain Working Group 2000).
Water Quality
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires the states to identify water bodies that do not
meet one or more applicable water quality standards and for which total maximum daily levels
are needed. Mississippi's Section 303(d) List of Water Bodies identifies the impaired water
bodies, and also establishes a priority ranking for such waters, taking into account the severity
of the pollution and the uses to be made of the water bodies. The Section 303(d) listing
requirement applies to water bodies impaired by point and non-point sources.
Like the Mississippi River, Butler Lake and Old Saint Catherine Creek are listed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency as 303(d)-listed impaired waters for aquatic life support. The
pollutants that exceed water quality standards include pesticides, nutrients, and sediment. Both
Butler Lake and Old Saint Catherine Creek also have low dissolved oxygen (Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality 2004).
Climate
The summer and fall seasons in southwestern Mississippi are typically very warm and humid,
sustained by persistent tropical air flowing in from the Gulf of Mexico. Thunderstorms are
frequent during these seasons and keep rain and river levels fluctuating. Prolonged droughts
are rare. Winters are mild, with temperatures averaging around 50 degrees Fahrenheit, and
very seldom going below freezing.
22 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
In summer, the average daytime temperature stays close to 80 degrees, though temperatures
near 100 are not uncommon. The relative humidity is also high during the summer months,
averaging around 90 percent.
The prevailing wind is from the south, and is highest in the spring at about 8 miles per hour.
Severe local storms, including tornadoes, occasionally strike in the area, causing damage in
local 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
two or three days.
The normal rainy season occurs from December to May, with an annual average precipitation of
about 75 inches. Backwater flooding from the Mississippi River has a major impact on refuge
management, because 90 percent of the refuge lies within the alluvial floodplain. River stage
information is closely monitored throughout the year, and is imperative for successful short-term
and long-term water management planning at the refuge.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The habitats on the refuge offer a wide variety of ecological niches for wildlife. Bottomland
hardwood forests, including cypress swamps and upland hardwood forests, cover 90 percent of
the refuge. The other habitats consist of wetlands, cleared land, and open water.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Three threatened and three endangered species are known to occur on the refuge: the bald
eagle, Louisiana black bear, fat pocketbook mussel, least tern, and wood stork (if east coast
population), respectively.
Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), a threatened species, nest on the refuge. Three bald
eagle nests were located in the 1999 nesting season; two were active and produced five young.
In 2002 there were at least seven individual bald eagles (four adults and three sub-adults) on
the refuge at one time. Nest sites on the refuge are protected and disturbance is minimized.
Sightings of the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), a threatened by similarity of
appearance species, are common on the refuge. At this time, no active management occurs
outside of protection for this species.
The Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) has been observed on the refuge. It is
threatened throughout its historic range, which includes eastern Texas, Louisiana, and
southwest Mississippi. Currently, no single systematically derived population estimate exists for
the Louisiana black bear; however, based upon numerous studies of bears in Louisiana
conducted by Louisiana State University and University of Tennessee researchers, the
Louisiana black bear population is roughly estimated at 300 to 400 adult animals.
While male bears may be found throughout their range, reproducing females were only known
to occur in four disjunct areas (referred to as occupied habitat) in Louisiana until one
reproducing female was documented in Mississippi in 2005.
In 2001, the Service, in cooperation with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the
Black Bear Conservation Committee, and Louisiana State University, began a multi-year
Louisiana black bear repatriation project. The purpose of that project is to encourage the
genetic exchange and dispersal of bears into unoccupied habitats by establishing a new, viable
subpopulation between the existing subpopulations in the Tensas and Upper Atchafalaya
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Basins. The project involves translocating Louisiana black bears to an unoccupied portion of
their historic range in east central Louisiana. The repatriation area is a 100,000-acre complex of
publicly owned lands (consisting of Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge and the Red River
and Three Rivers Wildlife Management Areas) in Avoyelles and Concordia Parishes, Louisiana,
located just southwest across the Mississippi River from the St. Catherine Creek Refuge.
Since March 2001, 23 adult females and 55 cubs have been translocated as part of that
ongoing project. There are two known occurrences of bears from that population crossing the
Mississippi River into the State of Mississippi. Specifically, in March 2005, a radio-collared
female from Louisiana crossed the river and had five cubs in Wilkinson County, south of the
refuge. The next month, another female crossed the river and was last tracked on Glascock
Island, bordering the western edge of the refuge. A general increase of bear sightings in
southwest Mississippi over the last two years further indicates a potential for increased bear use
of the refuge area.
The endangered fat pocketbook mussel (Potamilus capax) has been documented on the refuge
in the Old Saint Catherine Creek channel. The mussel is characterized by a rounded, greatly
inflated shell, thin to moderately thick, with an S-shaped hinge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2003a).
The interior population of the least tern (Sterna antillarum) is an endangered species and has
recently been sighted on the refuge. It breeds in isolated areas along the Missouri, Mississippi,
Ohio, Red, and Rio Grande river systems. Dams, reservoirs, and other changes have
eliminated most of the historic habitat for the interior population of least tern.
Wood storks (Mycteria americana), are common on the refuge during the early summer and fall.
The east coast population of wood storks is endangered while the Mexican population is not.
Studies are currently underway to determine whether the storks that are common at St.
Catherine Creek NWR every fall are part of the east coast population or Mexican population.
Species of concern on the refuge include the peregrine falcon, Rafinesque’s big-eared bat,
southeastern myotis, white pelican, black-necked stilt, white ibis, paddlefish, and spring darters.
Birds
Preservation, improvement, and creation of habitat for waterfowl and neotropical migratory birds
are the primary goals for the refuge, which is host to at least 159 species of birds throughout the
year. Year-round residents include the wood duck, numerous songbirds and neotropicals, and
wild turkey.
With its location in the Mississippi Flyway, thousands of migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading
birds visit the refuge seasonally. The refuge provides a complex of shallow flooded habitats,
including moist soil, croplands, scrub-shrub, and bottomland forests that these birds need for
foraging.
Waterfowl
About 30,000 migratory waterfowl were found on the refuge in the 1999-2000 midwinter
migratory bird survey, including mallard, pintail, wood duck, gadwall, wigeon, and
spoonbill. Large numbers of these, as well as the green-winged teal, ringneck, and scaup,
were also found in the 2002 midwinter flight survey.
24 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Wood ducks are common year-round residents on the refuge and typically inhabit secluded
areas such as forested wetlands, wooded and shrub swamps, tree-lined rivers and sloughs, and
beaver ponds. Management of preferred habitats is somewhat limited by the drastic water level
rises on the Mississippi River that flood much of the refuge for many months each year. Swamp
Lake, Gilliard Lake, Butler Lake, and several impoundments in the Cloverdale Unit remain
flooded in fall and provide good habitat for wintering and resident wood ducks during the driest
time of the year in Mississippi, when habitat tends to be limited (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2001b; 2002b).
Shorebirds, Gulls, and Terns
The refuge is within the Central Region used for administrative management of woodcock under
the American Woodcock Management Plan. The refuge provides some preferred habitat for the
woodcock. This includes wintering habitat such as bottomland hardwood forests with brush and
understory, as well as moist to wet, dense shrubby/scrub forests or dense vine/shrub/cane
tangles in forest settings that these birds prefer in the daytime.
Other shorebirds commonly found on the refuge include greater and lesser yellowlegs,
numerous species of sandpipers, killdeer, plover, black-necked stilts, common snipe, and others
drawn to moist soil management units and other impounded wetlands. These areas provide
critical roosting and feeding habitat that these birds need as they move through the Lower
Mississippi River Valley.
Peak spring shorebird migration is April to mid-May (but tends to extend from mid-March to late
May). The almost annual spring flooding often extends well into the summer months, severely
limiting good northbound shorebird habitat on the refuge in some years. Southbound migration
starts in early July, peaks August through September, and usually ends by mid-October.
Annual backwater flooding by the Mississippi River provides an opportunity to impound some of
the floodwater for shorebirds. In most years, up to 80 percent of the refuge may be flooded by
the Mississippi River at some time during winter and spring. If adequate floodwater is
impounded or pumped until fall migration begins in late July, some of the best shorebird habitat
in the Lower Mississippi River Valley may be provided at this refuge.
Wading Birds
Large numbers of wading birds are present, including the great blue heron and great egret,
which are year-round residents. During the summer the refuge hosts large numbers of snowy
and cattle egrets, wood storks, little blue herons, green herons, and white and glossy ibises.
Black-crowned and yellow-crowned night herons are commonly seen at dusk and at night
feeding in ditches and sloughs.
Other Resident and Migratory Birds
The mature hardwood/pine stands in the loess bluffs, which cover approximately 4,000 acres
along the eastern boundary of the refuge, are a favorite neotropical migratory bird habitat and
attract birders visiting the refuge.
Several species of woodpeckers, the ruby-throated hummingbird, cardinals, jays, sparrows,
wrens, crows, finches, and a wide variety of other birds inhabit the refuge.
The refuge supports a thriving wild turkey population, which is generally limited to the loess bluff
habitat. However, turkeys are also observed in the bottomland hardwood stands along rivers,
creeks, and wetlands closely associated with the bluffs.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Raptors, including red-tailed hawks, red-shouldered hawks, and American kestrels are common
year-round residents. Northern harriers winter on the refuge. Osprey, black vultures, turkey
vultures, great horned and barred owls, barn owls, burrowing owls, and Mississippi kites are
also seen on the refuge. The bald eagle and the peregrine falcon are winter residents of the
refuge and are observed near water bodies such as Swamp Lake. Golden eagles are
occasionally spotted on the refuge.
A list of bird species known to inhabit the refuge is included in Appendix VII.
Mammals
At least 19 different species of mammals are known to occur on the refuge. Year-round
residents include the white-tailed deer, gray and fox squirrels, rabbit, raccoon, opossum, otter,
beaver, and muskrat. Nutria and wild boar, both nonnative species, also occur.
The great diversity of habitat supports an abundance of game mammals. White-tailed deer
occupy virtually all habitat types throughout the refuge, along with bobcat, coyote, raccoon, fox,
and wild hogs. Recently reforested areas provide an abundance of dense early successional
cover over the previously cleared farmland. This habitat type is highly preferred by the refuge’s
deer population, and is also used by raccoon, bobcat, coyote, and hogs, as well as eastern
cottontail and swamp rabbits.
The mosaic of remnant bottomland hardwood/cypress stands, which are distributed throughout
the alluvial floodplain, are heavily used by all of these mammals, as well as by the refuge’s very
healthy squirrel population, including both eastern gray and fox squirrels and the black phase of
the fox squirrel. Gray squirrels dominate the mixed hardwood/pine stands of the refuge’s loess
bluff hills habitat.
Because of its highly adaptable nature and reproductive capabilities, the refuge’s white-tailed
deer population has the greatest potential to negatively impact habitat over time. The refuge
currently manages the population by allowing hunting, which is restricted and monitored, with
the goal of keeping the deer population healthy and in balance with the carrying capacity of the
habitat.
Six species of bats have been documented on the refuge including Rafinesque's big-eared bats,
the least known of all North American bat species. This species has been located in only five
areas in Mississippi including St. Catherine Creek NWR. These insect-eating bats are a
species of concern and are known to roost and breed on the refuge. There are two established
maternal colonies; one colony consists of approximately 50 individuals, while the other is a
smaller colony of approximately 10 individuals.
The southeastern myotis bat has been documented from the same five areas as Rafinesque’s
big-eared bat with one additional site. Two maternal colony roosts for the southeastern myotis
have been located on property adjacent to the refuge. Both of these roost contain over 5,000
individuals and are the largest known colonies for this species in Mississippi.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Currently, 54 species of reptiles and amphibians are known to occur on the refuge. The most
notable is the American alligator. Various snakes, including the garter snake, canebrake
rattlesnake, cottonmouth, and southern copperhead, inhabit the refuge. Turtles are also
common and include the box, mud, snapping, and map turtles.
26 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Fish
Several species of fish are known to occur on the refuge. These include game fish such as
crappie, bluegill and other sunfishes; largemouth bass; and white bass, as well as flathead,
blue, and channel catfish. Carp, buffalo, and gar are also abundant. Backwater flooding from
the Mississippi River restocks permanently flooded lakes and sloughs. The Gilliard, Butler,
Swamp, and Salt lakes are permanent waters and become holding basins for fish when they are
trapped as backwaters recede. The natural restocking of fish by backwater flooding helps to
create consistent, high quality fishing opportunities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001b;
2002b).
Paddlefish and spring darters are species of concern that inhabit the refuge. A close relative of the
sturgeon, only one species of paddlefish is native to waters of the Mississippi River in the United
States. Dams have caused a sharp decline in paddlefish distribution and abundance in the United
States (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993).
Mussels
Ten species of freshwater mussels have been found on the refuge (Table 1). The fat
pocketbook mussel is the only endangered mussel species that inhabits the refuge (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2004d).
Table 1. Mussels at St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge.
Common Name Scientific Name
Yellow Sand Hill Lampsilis teres
Giant Floater Anodonta grandis
Fragile Paper Shell Leptodea fragilis
Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax
Southern Maple Leaf Quadrula apiculata)
Flat Floater Anodonta suborbiculata
Pink Paper Shell Potamilus ohiensis
Texas Lilliput Toxolasur texasensis
Maple Leaf Quadrula quadrula
Paper Pond Shell Anodonta lubeullis
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Habitats
About 50 percent of the refuge is reforested agricultural land, as shown in Table 2. The
remaining lands consist of existing upland hardwood forests in the bluffs; bottomland hardwood
forests on the alluvial plain; moist soil areas; cropland; and open water. Rain and backwater
flooding fill the depressions and basins in low areas, creating excellent habitat for waterfowl,
shorebirds, and wading birds with the exception of reforested areas and willow-invaded
abandoned agricultural fields, the forests on the refuge are mid-aged with closed canopies of
vigorous growth potential.
Table 2. St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge, 1990 and 1999 habitats.
Habitat 1990 1999
Cropland 4,500 acres 1,693 acres
Bottomland Forest 1,540 acres 7,398 acres
Moist soil 1,456 acres 1,456 acres
Bluff Forest 176 acres 1,694 acres
Permanent (Managed) Shrub/scrub 0 acres ridge
0 acres flooded
0 acres ridge
178 acres flooded
Reforested
Mixed Bottomland Hardwood
0 acres 11,728 acres
Open Water 295 acres 295 acres
TOTAL 6,511 acres 24,442 acres
The upland hardwood forests are vegetated with oak, gum, elm, ash, and pine. The hardwoods
on the loess bluffs are dominated by oak-hickory.
The 7,400 acres of bottomland hardwood forests include flooded timber (flooded forests/greentree
reservoirs) in Gilliard Lake, Swamp Lake, and several impoundments. Primarily cypress swamps,
these flooded forests provide important habitat for wood ducks, Rafinesque’s big-eared bats,
southeastern myotis, and some wading birds throughout the year.
The refuge has reforested roughly 12,000 acres of the former agricultural land in the floodplain
to restore areas to as near natural conditions as possible and provide valuable habitat for
wildlife (Figure 6). Twenty-seven species of bottomland hardwoods, including cypress, green
ash, overcup oak, and Nutall oak, have been planted as of 2000 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2001a; 2004b).
The few hundred acres of shrub/scrub provide much needed habitat for many of the avian
species present on the refuge.
28 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 6. Reforestation sites
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Due to its location on the alluvial floodplain of the Mississippi River, the refuge has an
abundance of wetland habitats, including about 1,300 acres of perennially flooded lakes and
1,500 acres of moist soil management units. The moist soil management units are managed
primarily for waterfowl. Each year, the moist soil management units support about 20,000–
30,000 shorebirds; 60,000–100,000 migratory waterfowl; and 10,000–50,000 wading birds.
Common management techniques for this type of habitat vary from water level manipulation and
mechanical disturbance to agricultural production.
The nutrient-rich soils in these impoundments produce an abundant variety of moist soil
vegetation, including smartweed, common millet, red rooted nutsedge, spangletop, pigweed,
spikerush, and panic grass, all of which are used by waterfowl when water conditions are
optimal. However, dense stands of undesirable sesbania or cocklebur may grow when the
rivers flood areas from late winter until late summer and a rapid river fall is coupled with warm,
dry soil conditions. These plants are of little value to waterfowl. In some years, the refuge
staff mows the moist soil management units and applies approved pesticides to control
cocklebur infestation and stimulate growth of desirable moist soil vegetation.
A Lower Mississippi River Joint Venture foraging habitat objective for the refuge is 900 acres of
moist soil habitat. Although the refuge is managing 1,500 acres of this type of habitat, the moist
soil habitats on the refuge are flooded by Mississippi River backwaters well into the growing
season almost annually. In addition, providing shorebird habitat also reduces the amount of
moist soil foraging habitat by 20 to 40 percent annually.
The Old Saint Catherine Creek channel, Butler Lake, Gilliard Lake, Swamp Lake, and Salt Lake
are the largest permanent water features, along with numerous other smaller lakes, sloughs,
and brakes found across the refuge (Table 3).
Table 3. Largest permanent lakes on the refuge.
Gilliard Lake The Swamp Lake Butler Lake Salt Lake
A 721-acre natural wetland
located on the Sibley Unit
that contains a mosaic of
bald cypress and
buttonbush cover.
Provides fishing and a
hunting area for waterfowl.
A 163-acre lake on
the Sibley Unit that
is especially suited
for bank fishing.
A 464-acre open water
wetland with scattered
bald cypress along its
perimeter. Located on
the Butler Unit, it
provides exceptional
fishing opportunities.
Open to waterfowl
hunting during the
designated season.
On the Butler Unit,
this oxbow lake of
about 70 acres
provides prime
bass and crappie
fishing.
In 1999, about 1,700 acres of refuge land was utilized for grain crop production, which is an
important source of food and provides habitat for wildlife on the refuge. For example, the
portion of the Cloverdale unit that is currently farmed provides the hot food sources critical to
waterfowl during extreme cold periods. This crop production is achieved under Cooperative
Farm Agreements. In 2004, although 1,900 acres were available for crop production under the
co-op farming agreement, only 300 acres were planted due to backwater flooding during the
growing season.
30 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Unique Habitat
The loess bluffs, which flank the eastern side of the Mississippi River from Vicksburg,
Mississippi, to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, provide a unique habitat at the refuge. The upper third
of the bluff is habitat to many species of plants and animals of special concern in Mississippi.
Numerous freshwater springs flow from the base of the bluffs. At least 12 of these springs
occur on the refuge and several have unique or rare fish, plant, and insect species, including the
spring darter (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004d).
Special Focus Areas for Conservation
The refuge and the adjacent Homochitto National Forest are an important focus area for bird
conservation, bat conservation, and black bear recovery efforts.
The Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain identified
one potential 20,000-acre forest block objective, the Homochitto Forest Bird Conservation Area.
This area includes the refuge’s Sibley Unit and another 10,000-acre forest block, the St.
Catherine Creek Forest Bird Conservation Area, which includes the Butler Lake and Cloverdale
Units of the refuge.
There is a concerted effort to recover Louisiana black bears by protecting and expanding
existing forest habitat blocks, connecting these forest blocks with forested corridors to facilitate
movement of bears between blocks, and “repatriating” female bears into areas that are not
currently occupied. Most of this effort is now focused in Louisiana and from 2001–2005, 23
females with new born cubs have been repatriated to Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge and
the Red River/Three Rivers Wildlife Management Areas just across the Mississippi River from
the refuge.
The refuge and nearby Homochitto National Forest are the largest nearly contiguous forested
block in Mississippi that is protected. While the Louisiana black bear recovery plan focuses on
populations in Louisiana, once efforts in Louisiana are nearing completion, the refuge would be
a natural place to reintroduce bears in Mississippi and would complement the Louisiana
population. This focus area is related to the larger regional efforts of the Black Bear
Conservation Committee, which includes public and private partners in Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Texas.
The refuge is involved with the Bear Education and Restoration (BEaR) group of Mississippi, a
team representing federal and state agencies, special interests, timber companies, and others
interested in restoring black bears to their native habitat in the state of Mississippi. In a 1997
study conducted by Mississippi State University, a portion of the refuge and the adjacent
Homochitto National Forest were identified as a forest block that would be one of the best areas
in the state for initial restoration efforts. This forest block also overlays the forest bird
conservation zone that was identified by Partners in Flight and the black bear habitat restoration
zones identified by the Service and partners.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Forest Management
Crops such as soybeans and winter wheat were grown on the floodplain of the refuge before its
acquisition by the Service. The Service has placed a high priority on reforesting much of the cleared
land to benefit forest-nesting neotropical migrants and other forest-dwelling wildlife. In previous years,
seedlings were donated by partners and public entities. The Service provided equipment and personnel
from throughout the Lower Mississippi River Valley to plant these seedlings in an effort to reforest as
much land on the refuge each year before the Mississippi River inundated much of the refuge.
Past reforestation included several hundred acres of old fields on the bluffs, which provide
valuable food that is used by wildlife at various times of the year. The refuge is protecting
upland hardwoods along the bluff line for neotropical migratory songbirds.
More recently refuge reforestation occurred on the floodplain, which was cleared for agriculture
in the 1960s and 1970s. The refuge has planted 12,000 acres in this area with cypress, green
ash, overcup oak, and Nutall oak to restore areas to as near natural conditions as possible and
provide valuable habitat for wildlife. However, due to annual flooding, willow has been
aggressive in invading much of the reforested areas. It grows rapidly, shades out the desired
seedlings and small plantings, and is difficult to control without also killing desired seedlings
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001a; 2004b).
Water Management and Impoundments
Flooding from the Mississippi and Homochitto rivers is an annual event and can cover the entire
floodplain of the refuge (about 65 to 70 percent of the refuge) for a few days to several months
of the year. Historically, maximum flooding occurs in late winter and spring, while dry periods
are usually experienced in the summer and fall.
Water management is necessary to meet a primary objective of the refuge, which is to enhance
aquatic habitat to provide support for migrating and wintering waterfowl. Waterfowl
management also benefits shorebirds, wading birds, and other aquatic species. Overall, the
refuge is managing approximately 1500 acres of moist soil-impounded water for waterfowl,
wading birds, and shorebirds.
Prior to Service ownership, nearly two-thirds of the refuge was cleared and converted to row-crop
agriculture. Flooding from the rivers made farming difficult for farmers, who constructed
levees on the floodplain and used wells and pumps to manage the water levels to meet their
crop production needs. The Service has maintained and improved this system of levees and
ditches and converted them for water management for wildlife.
Water management includes the use of impoundments formed by levees containing water
control structures, which are used to manipulate impounded water. Management of these
impoundments allows the refuge staff to retain backwater and rain water to create additional
habitat in areas that would otherwise become dry. Prior to predicted flooding (usually in the
mid- to late winter), the refuge staff opens water gate structures in the levees to reduce the
impact of rising and falling floodwaters on roads and levees. As the backwater from the river
recedes (usually in early summer, but sometimes later), the staff closes the water control
structures (gates and riser boards) to capture as much water as possible for the moist soil
management units. The water in the impoundments is drawn down incrementally in spring and
summer to provide feeding and resting areas for shorebirds, wading birds, and other migrant
species and to provide moist soil habitat for wintering waterfowl. Many of these impoundments
are manipulated through moist soil management practices, including mechanical disturbance
such as mowing, to provide natural forage for waterfowl.
32 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
The refuge manages 35 impoundments that range from about two to 200 acres in size in the
Cloverdale and Sibley Farm units (Figure 7). These include a well, pump, levees, and
underground pipes provided by Ducks Unlimited through the MARSH Program in 1992. This
program facilitates water management on seven impoundments totaling at least 85 acres in the
Cloverdale Unit.
The refuge also passively manages the Butler Lake and Gilliard Lake areas.
The water management capability at the refuge is extremely limited. About 700 acres can be
flooded through either of four water wells and pumps powered by diesel engines. Swamp Lake
on the Sibley Unit is typically filled by water from the loess bluff springs. About 350 acres of a
moist soil management unit can be flooded from Swamp Lake, which, except in drought years,
has served as a reliable source of water to flood impoundments for shorebirds and waterfowl.
The remainder of the moist soil habitat depends on Mississippi River and Homochitto River
flooding and rainfall to provide water to meet waterfowl management objectives.
Invasive Plant and Pest Wildlife Species
Exotic species including kudzu, Japanese climbing fern, and Japanese honeysuckle are of great
concern. Kudzu occurs on about 20 acres of the refuge and can expand from adjoining private
property. Japanese climbing fern is wide spread on the Sibley Unit.
In recent years, common salvinia, an invasive exotic species, has become a significant problem.
Salvinia grows rapidly to cover the surface of lakes and streams, spreading aggressively by
vegetative fragments. It forms floating mats that shade and crowd out important native plants.
In 2002, salvinia covered three-quarters of Gilliard Lake and a large portion of Swamp Lake.
The refuge closed these lakes to the public to protect other lakes on and off the refuge not yet
affected, because salvinia is easily spread to other water bodies by boats, trailers, motors,
fishing tackle, and anchors. Salvinia is very detrimental to native aquatic plants and to fish and
invertebrates living in the waters. The refuge used Avast (fluridone), an approved herbicide, to
control salvinia in 2003.
Native noxious plants include black willow, cottonwood, cocklebur, and ironwood. Natural
succession is primarily to willow, cottonwood, and sycamore and then to ash and sugarberry,
with oaks, primarily overcup and Nutall oaks, in the third generation of succession. Early
successional tree species, such as eastern cottonwood and black willow, will quickly invade and
forest virtually all of the open land on the refuge. Willow has been particularly detrimental to
reforestation efforts. It grows rapidly and shades out the desired seedlings and small plantings
of hardwoods and cypress.
These species are so aggressive that woody plant control in the moist soil areas is a problem.
With or without reforestation, willow and cottonwood will quickly cover any open areas on the
refuge. Mowing removes only the above-ground portion of willows, and the root systems
resprout and grow at an accelerated rate. The seedlings being planted cannot compete well
with this accelerated growth. As a result, the refuge has used herbicides to kill the roots of
treated willows.
The refuge also attempts to control nuisance wildlife, especially wild hogs. Wild hogs continuously
root for food in levees and roadways, causing a lot of damage and weakening flood control levees,
which in turn increases the refuge’s maintenance costs. Because of their extremely diverse diet, the
wild hogs also compete heavily with native wildlife species for food. They can be aggressive toward
humans in some situations. Control techniques include shooting and capturing in baited traps.
Hunters are allowed to take them incidental to deer hunting.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Figure 7. Waterfowl Management Units
􀀀          

    
   
         
 
           
􀀀
   
                           
  
  ! "
 #      "   $ % &
34 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Nutria, an exotic species introduced from South America, are prolific breeders and very
destructive to marsh habitat. Because they are colonial in habitat, nutria often overharvest
edible plants within their small range, resulting in the killing of desirable species. They also
burrow in levees, damaging and weakening them.
The refuge attempts to control beaver because they destroy trees and interfere with the refuge’s
water management objectives. They can have a tremendous impact on bottomland hardwoods
by interfering with the refuge’s water control activities, plugging culverts, ditches, and water
control structures. Beaver control involves the removal of dams and debris that plug ditches
and culverts, as well as trapping and shooting.
Raccoons are also a nuisance. Nest predation by raccoon on turkey, wood duck, and songbirds
can become so great that it limits the reproductive success of these species. With the loss of
top predators, raccoon numbers are much higher than under more natural conditions.
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. The state has 13 national wildlife
refuges, five national forests, and three national parks. Mississippi also has three national
wilderness areas, two of which are managed by the Desoto National Forest and the other by the
National Park Service at Gulf Islands National Seashore.
The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks manages approximately 42
wildlife management areas (WMAs) and 29 state parks encompassing 823,297 acres, as
well as 21 lakes totaling 5,111 acres. Three of these WMAs and two state parks are located
near the refuge (Figure 8). The Department coordinates the state wildlife conservation
program and provides public recreation opportunities, including an extensive hunting and
fishing program. The wildlife management areas closest to the refuge are Sandy Creek and
Caston Creek, both located on the Homochitto National Forest (Mississippi Department of
Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, n.d.).
West of the refuge, on the Louisiana side of the Mississippi River, are Bayou Cocodrie National
Wildlife Refuge and the Red River/Three Rivers State Wildlife Management Area Complex near
Ferriday, Louisiana.
REFUGE MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
The refuge has a staff of six permanent employees. The staff receives assistance from
volunteers, including a Friends Group (the St. Catherine Creek Refuge Association, a 501[c] 3
nonprofit corporation); college student interns; and Youth Conservation Corps enrollees. In
addition to managing forest areas and water impoundments for migratory birds and wildlife
diversity, and efforts to acquire land within the approved refuge acquisition boundary from
willing sellers, major management and administrative activities associated with refuge programs
and facilities include:
• providing education and visitor services in support of hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation;
• administering cooperative farming agreements;
• managing oil and gas leases and easements; and
• providing and supporting other activities, such as law enforcement, various research
projects, and facility and infrastructure maintenance.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Figure 8. Wildlife Management Areas in relation to St. Catherine Creek
36 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Cooperative Farming
Cooperative farming is a term used for cropping activities done by a local farmer on land that is owned by
the Service in fee title, or controlled by the Service through a restrictive easement or other means. This
type of activity is usually conducted on a short-term basis (three years or less). It is a mutually beneficial
arrangement that produces crops for the farmer and provides food for waterfowl and other wildlife.
The cropping is done under the terms and conditions of a Cooperative Farming Agreement or Special Use
Permit issued by the refuge manager. It is only compatible on previously disturbed areas that have
acceptable levels of chemical residue, noxious weeds, or nonnative plant species or ecotypes, or on sites
that require the honoring of land use clauses under a purchase agreement. The cooperative farmers are
allowed to harvest a portion of the crop grown in exchange for leaving 25 percent of the crop unharvested,
or for providing in-kind services to enhance the farm operation and wildlife habitat.
The refuge’s cooperative farming program produces grain crops, which are an important source
of food and provide habitat for wildlife. These grains provide high calorie, hot foods to
supplement the natural foods for waterfowl during extreme cold periods. The refuge currently
has one 1,500-acre cooperative farming agreement with Davidson Farms for soybean
production on the Cloverdale Unit (Figure 9).
Oil and Gas Easements
Pre-existing oil and gas operations were on refuge lands when the refuge was first established
in 1990. While the federal government owns the surface lands in the National Wildlife Refuge
System, in some cases private parties own the subsurface mineral rights and have the legal
authority to explore for and extract oil and gas. The persons holding these privileges have the
full right to develop their minerals, subject to provisions for maximum protection of wildlife and
other resources.
At least 155 of the nation’s 575 refuges have some past or present oil and gas activities,
including exploration, drilling and production, or transit pipelines. Active oil and gas
transmission pipelines cross at least 207 refuges. Spills of oil and gas, as well as brine, which
are common by-products from active wells, can harm refuge wildlife and habitat. Infrastructure
networks can also damage refuge habitat by changing the hydrology of the refuge ecosystem
(General Accounting Office 2003).
The St. Catherine Creek Refuge has 20 active oil wells, 1 gas well, 8 saltwater injection wells,
30 inactive wells, 8 tank batteries, over 40 miles of pipeline, and unknown miles of active and
inactive flow lines. Several test wells in the last few years have yielded no results, indicating a
dying field.
At least 25 abandoned wells have been sealed under state requirements in the last 10 years.
Previously, pipelines were used to transport oil and gas off the refuge; currently tanker trucks
are used. The owners routinely inspect their equipment to ensure proper functioning and refuel
the equipment periodically.
The refuge has been aggressive in its cleanup program for removal of all nonfunctional or out-of-service
oil field infrastructure, refuse, abandoned junk, and unauthorized garbage dumps. The refuge
works closely with the Mississippi Oil and Gas Board to monitor the oil and gas companies operating
on the refuge and in coordinating the cleanup of inoperable and abandoned oil production facilities
and routine inspections. The refuge staff also works with the oil production companies to ensure that
annual upgrades and needed maintenance of facilities meets all legal and environmental compliance
requirements.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Figure 9. Farming areas, St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
38 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Law Enforcement
Regulatory and informational signs, as well as refuge brochures at the kiosk, provide
information for the public about refuge regulations and public use access. In 2002 there were
79 citations, primarily for hunting, trespassing, and fishing violations; and 204 reported
incidents, primarily for trespassing, oil and gas violations, larceny, theft, and littering (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2001b; 2002b).
Research
The refuge also supports an impressive array of ongoing research projects being conducted by
universities, the Service, and other federal agencies. These include a University of Nebraska
five-year study of parasites affecting turtle populations within the refuge; a Jackson State
University study on the rare Rafinesque’s big-eared bat; University of Memphis research on the
influence of shorebird foraging on macroinvertebrates; and U.S. Department of Agriculture
satellite telemetry studies on wood storks. The refuge supports these and other research
projects by providing refuge housing for researchers, a vehicle, and staff assistance when
available.
Road Maintenance
Road erosion is prevalent on the refuge. Backwater flooding from the rivers causes high
erosion of the refuge’s secondary roads. Roads popular for fishing and hunting activities must
be continually graded and replenished with gravel. This high maintenance endeavor is offset by
funds from the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. The funds from this program, initiated
in 1997, have been used to promote and maintain public use facilities. In 2002, funds from
1,768 permit sales were used to purchase gravel to improve refuge roads; to purchase a
telephone system for the headquarters; and to remodel the refuge shop/office to include a new
conference room.
EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES
Public awareness and interest has grown annually since the refuge was established in 1990.
Total public use in 2002 was estimated at 28,235 visitors; in 2003 at 26,845 visitors; and in 2004
at 28,980 visitors. Hiking, tours, bird watching, and photography, which are characterized as
nonconsumptive uses, have increased slowly but substantially in recent years. In order to
continue to enhance nonconsumptive use, the refuge has focused efforts on developing new, as
well as improving existing hiking trails and on providing facilities for environmental education
and for scouting activities. In 2004, the Magnolia Nature Trail, which attracts wildlife observers
interested in viewing neotropical migrants, wading birds, ducks, and raptors, was extended from
1.4 to 3.0 miles and improved with a new parking area, an interpretive kiosk, a scenic overlook,
and park benches.
The Service maintains a permanent exhibit and brochures at the City of Natchez Visitor Center.
The refuge staff often provides support for the center’s special events. The refuge headquarters
has an entrance area set aside for visitors, but there are no specific exhibits on migratory bird
management.
The refuge hosts several onsite special events, including an event for local children’s homes, as
well as an established youth deer hunting weekend, a youth turkey hunt, and a youth fishing
rodeo on a recently established 1.5-acre, youth-only fishing pond. The refuge promotes the
special events through radio and newspaper advertisements and on the refuge’s web site.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
The refuge supports the local Natchez Birding Festival. In addition, refuge staff members often
serve as guest speakers at meetings of local civic organizations and for classroom and
assembly lectures at local schools.
Hunting and fishing are the predominant consumptive public uses on the refuge. A diversity of
hunting and fishing opportunities make the refuge very popular with sportsmen in the area.
White-tailed deer, duck, and squirrel hunting are the most popular hunting activities.
Hunting is regulated and requires special permits. It closely mirrors the seasons and matches the
bag limits set by the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. Deer harvests are
limited to archery and muzzleloader. Although the muzzleloader and bow and arrow are considered
primitive methods that present more of a challenge to hunters, they are also safer in heavily visited
areas. Beaver, nutria, raccoons, bobcats, and coyote may be taken during any scheduled refuge
hunt with weapons legal for that hunt. Feral hogs may only be taken with bow and arrow and
muzzleloaders during the designated archery and primitive weapon deer seasons.
Waterfowl hunting is restricted to Butler Lake, Salt Lake, and Gilliard Lake. The duck season
occurs in December/January, with mallard, gadwall, teal, and wood duck being the most popular
harvests.
Fishing continues to grow in popularity. It is the second most popular public use activity and
requires a refuge permit. Recreational fishing is open year-round for crappie, bream and other
sunfish, largemouth bass, white bass, catfish, carp, buffalo fish, and gar.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
No cultural resource surveys have been conducted to document archeological sites, historic
buildings or structures, or ethnographic resources on refuge lands. Therefore, it is unknown if
the refuge has any unidentified cultural resources within its boundaries.
Local and regional archeological resources date from the Paleo-Indian Era (9,500–800 BC); the
Archaic Era (8,000–500 BC); the Woodland Era (500 BC–900 AD); and most significantly, the
Mississippi Era (900–1541 AD). This last era was known especially for its Temple Mound
ceremonial mound centers, several of which survive in the landscape of the Lower Mississippi
River Valley today (National Park Service 2002).
The French settled Adams County, Mississippi, in 1716 by establishing Fort Rosalie, which
stimulated European settlement in the region. The high bluffs above the Mississippi provided a
healthful climate. The river provided trade connections and the area was, and is, surrounded by
rich soils suitable to agriculture
Over time, the British (from 1763), the Spanish (in 1779), and the Americans (in 1798)
controlled the area, which later became the City of Natchez. In 1798, the area became a part of
the United States Territory and settlement increased.
By the 1790s the staple crops of tobacco and indigo were displaced by cotton, which led to the
growth of the plantation system. In 1811, steamboat service on the Mississippi River began and
Natchez was located at the geographic center of the largest cotton-producing region in the world.
There were no significant Civil War battles in the area. After the war, cotton production and the
plantation economy continued, but sharecropping replaced slavery. Migration of African Americans
out of the region made labor scarce. By 1900 the steamboat was in decline, and when the boll
weevil struck in 1908, the economy—which was based on cotton—was nearly ruined.
40 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Oil was found nearby in 1943. In the years following World War II, manufacturing jobs,
agriculture (cotton and soybeans), and oil production formed the basis of the local economy.
Today, timber, oil, and tourism are the major industries in the county and surrounding area (City
of Natchez, n.d.; Mississippi Department of Archives and History, n.d.; Natchez Chamber of
Commerce, n.d.).
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Population and Employment
The total population of Adams County was estimated at 33,573 in 2002, or one percent of
state’s population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). This estimate reflects a slight decline from the
34,340 people counted during the 2000 Census. The people of Adams County have a per
capita income of $15,778, just below the state average of $15,853. The percent of individuals
below the poverty level, 25.9%, is slightly higher than the state average of 19.9 percent.
Educational attainment for the county is comparable to the state average, with 73 percent of
persons over 25 with high school diplomas or higher.
Unemployment rates tend to be higher than the state or national averages. Adams County has an
annual 7.9 percent unemployment rate, compared to a state average of 6.8 percent and a national
average of 6.0 percent. The major industries for the county and the surrounding region include
paper, timber, oil, and tourism. Oil was a dominant factor in the local economy until the 1980s.
Because of the wealth of historic attractions in the area, tourism is the most rapidly growing job
sector. The City of Natchez, located to the north of the refuge, serves as the major regional
commercial and medical center for a 50-mile radius (Natchez-Adams County Economic
Development Authority, n.d.; U.S. Census Bureau 2000; U.S. Department of Labor 2002).
Outdoor Recreational Economics
The fish and wildlife resources of the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, including those of St.
Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge, are economically important (Table 4). In addition to
commercial fishing on the Mississippi River, hunting, recreational fishing, wildlife viewing, and
wildlife photography are economically important to local businesses.
The refuge provides activities that contribute to the economies of the nearby rural communities.
Hunting and fishing, and more recently, ecotourism, including wildlife observation and photography
and environmental interpretation, are increasingly being seen as desirable industries. As the
population increases and the number of places left to enjoy wildlife decreases, the refuge may
become even more important to the local community. It benefits the community directly by providing
recreational and employment opportunities for the local population and indirectly by attracting
tourists from outside the area to generate additional income to the local economy (Caudill and
Laughland 2002; Mississippi Development Authority 2004; U.S. Census Bureau 2003a). The
estimated tourism revenues for 2003 are presented in Table 5.
Refuge Revenue Sharing
By law, the refuge is exempt from paying property tax, and instead makes in lieu payments to
Adams, Wilkinson, Copiah, Lincoln, and Pike counties through the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act
established by Congress. This 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. Payments for acquired land are 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; (2) 25 percent of the net refuge receipts collected;
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
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. However, historically, these payments have been lower than
these formulas. Table 6 summarizes the revenue-sharing payments made by the Service for St.
Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge to five counties over five years
Table 4. Activities by participants, 16 years old and older, throughout Mississippi.
Activity
# of
Participants
Activity
Days
Average
Days/
participant
Total
Expenditures
($1,000)
Trip-related
Expenditures
($1,000)
Equipment
and Other
($1,000)
Average $/
participant
Average trip
Expenditure
/ day
Fishing *586,000 9,500,000 16 $211,000 $118,000 $93,000 $363 $13
Hunting **357,000 8,500,000 24 $360,000 $132,000 $227,000 $969 $16
Wildlife
Watching ***631,000 NA NA $303,000 $36,000 $267,000 $481 NA
*136,000 nonresidents, 450,000 residents
**111,000 nonresidents, 245,000 residents
***55,000 nonresidents, 576,000 residents
Source: 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation in Mississippi
Table 5. Estimated county tourism revenues/employment (FY 2003).
County Total Tourism
Revenues
Total Tourism
Employment
Total Establishment
Based Employment*
Tourism
Employment
Percentage
Adams $96,217,471 2,360 13,740 17.2
*Total Establishment Based Employment reflects CY 2002 data at the county level, per the Mississippi Employment
Security Commission’s May 2003 Annual Averages, 2001 – Forward. This is the nonagricultural employment total by
county based on monthly averages, but not the residence-based data (the Civilian Labor Force).
Source: Mississippi Development Authority/Tourism Division, 2004
42 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Table 6. Refuge revenue-sharing payments, 1999–2003.
FY Adams Copiah Lincoln Pike Wilkinson TOTALS
2003 $38,296.00 $258.00 $92.00 $53.00 $4,323.00 $43,022.00
2002 $39,845.00 $268.00 $95.00 $55.00 $4,498.00 $44,761.00
2001 $42,652.00 $287.00 $102.00 $59.00 $4,815.00 $47,915.00
2000 $41,788.00 $281.00 $100.00 $58.00 $4,717.00 $46,944.00
1999 $53,893.00 $321.00 $114.00 $71.00 $2,852.00 $57,251.00
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
III. Plan Development
OVERVIEW
In preparing for the development of this comprehensive conservation plan, a biological review was
conducted on the St. Catherine Creek Refuge in December 1999 and a visitor services review was
completed in May 2003. Initial planning began in August 2003 with a meeting of the planning team
members. Early in the process of developing the draft plan, the planning team identified a list of
issues, concerns, and opportunities that were likely to be associated with the conservation and
management of the refuge. Formal public involvement began with a public scoping meeting in
November 2003, through which the public and interested stakeholders registered their concerns.
This public input was considered in developing the plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001a;
2003d).
The planning team then combined the results of the internal and public scoping reviews and used
them, along with supporting goals, objectives, and strategies, to develop four different management
alternatives for the refuge. The four alternatives were presented and evaluated in the Draft
Environmental Assessment. The preferred alternative formed the basis of the Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan itself. The draft plan and environmental assessment was distributed to officials of
federal, state, and local government agencies, private organizations, and the general public for
review and comment. The Service examined all comments and suggestions received and decided
whether revisions to the plan were in order. The comprehensive conservation plan was then
prepared, and becomes the general guide for management decisions and actions on the refuge for
the next 15 years, subject to further revision and public review during that period, if warranted.
PLANNING PROCESS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
During the week of December 6-10, 1999, a team of biologists, managers, foresters, and non-Service
managers and biologists, whose combined expertise represented some of the premier wildlife and
habitat management experience found in the state, conducted a wildlife and habitat management
review on the refuge. This biological review team critically examined the refuge’s current programs,
and recommended a range of alternatives identifying data needs, habitat objectives, and
opportunities for improvement, all while emphasizing future partnership opportunities on mutual
interests. The biological review team presented its recommendations in a Wildlife and Habitat
Management Review Report, which was submitted in October 2001.
In 2002, a visitor services review team comprised of staff from the refuge and the Service’s Regional
Office met at the refuge. This team also included public use specialists, park rangers, and managers
from several other national wildlife refuges. After reviewing the St. Catherine Creek Refuge’s existing
public use programs, facilities, and opportunities, the team prepared a Visitor Services Review Report
in May 2003, which outlined recommendations on public use at the refuge. Emphasis was placed on
the Service’s “big six” wildlife-dependent public uses, namely hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
Work on the refuge’s draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment began in
August 2003 when a planning team consisting of refuge staff and personnel from other refuges met at
the refuge headquarters in Sibley, Mississippi. The team developed a vision statement for the refuge
and identified a number of issues and concerns that were likely to affect future management of the
refuge. The team also developed a mailing list and public outreach plan.
44 St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
The planning team held a public scoping meeting and open house on November 6, 2003, at the
Natchez Convention Center in Natchez, Mississippi. This meeting was coordinated with officials of
other government agencies, various organizations, and the surrounding communities. The meeting
was publicized in several ways. A letter and flier were sent to those on the mailing list, which
included refuge users, government and civil leaders, congressional staff, private organizations, and
other interested parties. Information announcing the public scoping meeting was also sent to the
local newspaper, and a public service announcement was sent to the local radio station.
The open house forum for the meeting was designed to solicit maximum public involvement and
interaction with refuge staff to discuss the future management of the refuge. Fifteen citizens attended
the meeting (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, n.d.a; n.d.b; 2003b; 2003c).
Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review concurrent with the comprehensive conservation
planning process. On January 27, 2005, the refuge planning team inventoried the lands within the
refuge and found no areas that meet the eligibility criteria for a Wilderness Study Area as defined by
the Wilderness Act. Therefore, the suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation is not
analyzed further in this plan. The results of the wilderness inventory are included in Appendix VI.
ISSUES AND CONCERNS
The citizens who attended the public scoping meeting and open house provided 16 comments and
suggestions for the planning team’s consideration. A summary of the public scoping comments is
provided in Appendix IV. The citizens’ issues and comments are categorized into fish and wildlife
populations; habitat; land protection and conservation; education and visitor services; and continued
public and agency involvement.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS
While considerable data is available on some populations such as white-tailed deer and waterfowl, there
is a lack of data and the subsequent need to identify and inventory current populations of plants and other
wildlife, especially those that are federally listed as threatened or endangered, and then determine which
populations are in need of monitoring on the refuge. Shorebirds need to be surveyed and data collected
in accordance with established protocols. Breeding habitat and rookery surveys for nongame birds
should be conducted on a regular basis. Inventories are needed for freshwater mussels, reptiles, and
amphibians. Citizens expressed support for increasing the regulation of deer hunting and for reducing the
number of duck hunting days to provide more sanctuary for ducks.
HABITAT
Loss of habitat and invasive species are two refuge habitat issues. Management of willows invading
the currently reforested areas is a major issue for forest habitat restoration. The amount and type of
crops needed to support migratory birds needs further definition. Baseline data are needed on the
existing shrub/scrub habitat. A comparison of research data and current water management are
needed to optimize moist soil habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and fish. The loess bluffs, running
generally north-south along the eastern boundary of the refuge adjacent to the floodplain, need
protection from erosion, which may be exacerbated by timber harvest practices when those harvests
are not properly implemented. These bluffs provide a unique and vital habitat corridor for forest-breeding
birds in the Lower Mississippi River Valley. The springs and seeps on the loess bluffs need
to be inventoried to create the buffer zones necessary to protect these unique areas on the refuge.
Some citizens suggested more aggressive control of the feral hog population, possibly by allowing
additional opportunities to harvest hogs to help decrease the hog population.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
Habitat loss and fragmentation are issues across the country. A “Conservation Partners Focus Area” should
be identified in southern Adams and northern Wilkinson counties. Within this focus area, a contiguous
forested corridor would be created between the refuge and the Homochitto National Forest (Figure 10).
Land exchanges, in particular the exchange of noncontiguous land for contiguous land within the refuge’s
current approved acquisition boundary, should be pursued. Boundary surveys need to be completed. In
addition, archaeological and cultural resource site surveys are needed, since few data exist. While citizens
had no specific comments on land protection, they did comment on refuge administration issues such as the
need to widen York Road, the main entrance; and suggested that refuge roads be built up and kept graded
for easier access and for erosion control.
EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES
Environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife observation opportun