Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Hillside, Mathews Brake, Morgan Brake, Panther Swamp, and Yazoo National Wildlife Refuges

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
W
C
Theodore Roosevelt
National Wildlife
Refuge Complex
Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
Prothonotary Warbler -
Protonotaria citrea
Photograph by: Mike Kelly
USFWS Photo
Hillside, Mathews Brake, Morgan Brake,
Panther Swamp, and Yazoo
National Wildlife Refuges
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for
management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies
needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and identify the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above
current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service
strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans
do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational
and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
THEODORE ROOSEVELT
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX
HOLLANDALE, MISSISSIPPI
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
1875 Century Boulevard
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
October 2005
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................1
Introduction..................................................................................................................................1
Purpose And Need For Plan.........................................................................................................2
Fish and Wildlife Service ..............................................................................................................2
National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................................2
Relationship To The Mississippi Department Of Wildlife, Fisheries, And Parks...........................4
Assistance To Private Landowners ..............................................................................................4
Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley Ecosystem ......................................................................6
Overview .............................................................................................................................6
Threats and Problems.........................................................................................................6
Conservation Priorities ......................................................................................................10
II. THE REFUGE COMPLEX ..............................................................................................................17
Introduction And History .............................................................................................................17
Purpose And Ecosystem Context...............................................................................................17
Legal Policy ...............................................................................................................................22
Resource And Management Descriptions ..................................................................................22
Physical Environment........................................................................................................22
Biological Environment......................................................................................................33
Socioeconomic Environment.............................................................................................35
Cultural Environment.........................................................................................................39
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................43
Overview....................................................................................................................................43
Public Involvement And Planning Process .................................................................................43
Issues ........................................................................................................................................44
Fish and Wildlife Populations ............................................................................................44
Habitats .............................................................................................................................49
Visitor Services .................................................................................................................54
Land Protection .................................................................................................................65
General Administration......................................................................................................67
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION .........................................................................................................71
Introduction................................................................................................................................71
Vision.........................................................................................................................................72
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..............................................................................................72
Goal 1. Habitat and Species Management ......................................................................73
Goal 2. Control and Manage Invasive, Pest, and Nuisance Species.............................100
Goal 3. Expand research and monitoring on the complex through partnerships ...........102
Goal 4: Develop land protection and conservation partnerships....................................111
Goal 5: Cultural Resources ............................................................................................117
Goal 6: Provide visitor services......................................................................................118
Goal 7: Administration....................................................................................................129
ii Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION...........................................................................................................145
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................145
Proposed Projects....................................................................................................................145
Habitat and Species Management..................................................................................145
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................152
Cultural Resources .........................................................................................................152
Visitor Services ...............................................................................................................152
Administration .................................................................................................................156
Funding and Personnel ............................................................................................................157
Step Down Management Plans................................................................................................159
Partnership Opportunities.........................................................................................................159
Monitoring and Evaluation........................................................................................................159
Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................161
SECTION B. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................163
Purpose And Need For Action..................................................................................................163
Migratory Birds................................................................................................................163
Other Fish and Wildlife. ..................................................................................................164
Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................164
Habitat Management.......................................................................................................164
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................164
Cultural Resources. ........................................................................................................164
Visitor Services. ..............................................................................................................164
Administration. ................................................................................................................164
Decisions To Be Made .............................................................................................................164
Decision Framework. ......................................................................................................164
Planning Study Area. ......................................................................................................164
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility. ............................................................165
Issues And Concerns ...............................................................................................................165
II. ALTERNATIVES..........................................................................................................................167
Formulation Of Alternatives......................................................................................................167
Migratory Birds................................................................................................................167
Other Fish, Wildlife, and Plants.......................................................................................167
Habitats..........................................................................................................................167
Visitor Services and Recreation......................................................................................167
Resource Threats ...........................................................................................................167
Land Protection...............................................................................................................167
Refuge Administration. ...................................................................................................167
Other Human Dimensions...............................................................................................167
Description Of Alternatives.......................................................................................................168
Alternative A – Current Management (No Action)...........................................................168
Alternative B - Balanced Habitat and Public Use Emphasis (Preferred Alternative).......168
Alternative C - Public Use Emphasis ..............................................................................170
Alternative D - Interior Forest Habitat Emphasis.............................................................170
Comparison Of Alternatives .....................................................................................................171
Table of Contents iii
III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................................185
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES......................................................................................187
Effects Common To All Alternatives .........................................................................................187
Compatible Uses.............................................................................................................187
Environmental Justice. ....................................................................................................187
Co-management of Lands with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)...........................187
Climate Change Impacts.................................................................................................188
Other Management. ........................................................................................................188
Cultural Resources..........................................................................................................188
Land Acquisition..............................................................................................................188
Refuge Revenue-Sharing................................................................................................188
Expansion of Visitor Services..........................................................................................189
Comparison Of Effects By Alternative ......................................................................................189
Alternative A: No Action ..................................................................................................189
Alternative B: Balanced Habitat and Public Use Emphasis (Preferred Alternative) .......190
Alternative C: Public Use Emphasis................................................................................190
Alternative D: Interior Forest Habitat Emphasis ..............................................................191
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION....................................................................................203
SECTION C. APPENDICES
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................209
APPENDIX II. BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................227
APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES .............................................................................239
APPENDIX IV. REFUGE BIOTA.......................................................................................................249
APPENDIX V. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS......................................................................273
APPENDIX VI. PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES AND SPECIES SUITES ...............................................295
APPENDIX VII. BUDGET REQUESTS.............................................................................................309
APPENDIX VIII. EXAMPLES OF PROPOSED PUBLIC USE FACILITIES AT YAZOO NWR .........313
iv Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley..................................................................................8
Figure 2. Forest cover changes in the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley ....................................9
Figure 3. Migratory Bird Conservation Zone priorities ........................................................................12
Figure 4. Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex......................................................18
Figure 5. Farm Service Agency properties managed by the Complex ...............................................19
Figure 6. Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge current managed habitats .................................................24
Figure 7. Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge current managed habitats..................................26
Figure 8. Hillside National Wildlife Refuge current managed habitats................................................28
Figure 9. Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge current managed habitats.....................................29
Figure 10. Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge current managed habitats.................................31
Figure 11. Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge current visitor services ....................................................55
Figure 12. Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge current visitor services.....................................56
Figure 13. Hillside National Wildlife Refuge current visitor services...................................................57
Figure 14. Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge current visitor services........................................58
Figure 15. Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge current visitor services......................................59
Figure 16. Conservation Partners Focus Area. ................................................................................113
Figure 17. Proposed managed habitats of Hillside National Wildlife Refuge....................................134
Figure 18. Proposed managed habitats of Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge......................135
Figure 19. Current and proposed managed habitats of the Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Northern Unit (Carter Tract)............................................................................................136
Figure 20. Proposed managed habitats of Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge ......................137
Figure 21. Proposed managed habitats of Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge.........................138
Figure 22. Proposed managed habitats of Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge .....................................139
Figure 23. Proposed visitor services for Hillside National Wildlife Refuge .......................................140
Figure 24. Proposed visitor services for Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge .........................141
Figure 25. Proposed visitor services for Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge ..........................142
Figure 26. Proposed visitor services for Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge ............................143
Figure 27. Proposed visitor services for Hillside National Wildlife Refuge .......................................144
Table of Contents v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Acres managed by station and approved Full-time Equivalent (FTEs).................................20
Table 2. Refuge establishment date, legislation, and defined purpose (excluding Holt Collier and
Theodore Roosevelt NWRs). ................................................................................................21
Table 3. Refuge location (excluding Theodore Roosevelt and Holt Collier NWRs). ...........................23
Table 4. Percent of land base used for agricultural production in counties surrounding Complex
refuges .................................................................................................................................36
Table 5. Employment data for counties surrounding Complex refuges ..............................................36
Table 6. Demographics for Complex vicinity.......................................................................................37
Table 7. Activities by participants, 16 years old and older, throughout Mississippi.............................39
Table 8. Estimated county tourism and recreation (T&R) revenues/employment...............................40
Table 9. Archaeological surveys conducted on the Complex to date .................................................40
Table 10. Number of “hunt days” by refuge and species or group, 2004............................................60
Table 11. Acres managed by station, approved full-time equivalents (FTEs), and full-time positions
funded by other sources........................................................................................................68
Table 12. Lower Mississippi Joint Venture step-down objectives (2003) for dabbling ducks for the
Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex .......................................................74
Table 13. Water control structures and wells* ....................................................................................76
Table 14. Reforestation shown in 10-year increments by acreage per refuge and Farm Service
Agency tracts ........................................................................................................................91
Table 15. Estimated Costs to upgrade ATV Trails to “Satisfactory” Condition .................................124
Table 16. Additional staff needed to implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the
Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex .....................................................132
Table 17. Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex Proposed Staffing Chart. ........................................158
Table 18. Proposed schedule for Step-down Management Plans....................................................160
Table 19. Summary of management alternatives for the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge
Complex ..............................................................................................................................172
Table 20. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife
Refuge Complex..................................................................................................................192
Table 21. Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex planning team members............204
Table 22. Contributors to the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and their area(s) of expertise. ...............................................................205
vi Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed this Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan (CCP) to provide a foundation for the management and use of refuges in the Theodore
Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex (Complex) over the next 15 years. The Complex
is comprised of seven refuges: Holt Collier (2004), Hillside (1975), Mathews Brake (1980), Morgan
Brake (1977), Panther Swamp (1978), Theodore Roosevelt (2004), and Yazoo National Wildlife
Refuge (1936).
Prior to January 2004, the Complex was known as the Central Mississippi National Wildlife Refuge
Complex. When the January 23, 2004, Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Act (Section
145 of PL 108-199 - the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004) was signed into law by President
Bush, the Complex name was changed to the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
The Act also designated the geographically separate Bogue Phalia Unit of Yazoo NWR as the new
Holt Collier NWR and directed the Secretary of the Interior to establish the 6,600-acre Theodore
Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge. The two new refuges were assembled from Farm Service
Agency (formerly known as Farmers Home Administration) lands already in Service possession.
Management and uses of the two new refuges (Theodore Roosevelt and Holt Collier NWRs) will be
addressed in a future CCP.
This CCP was developed in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 (1997 Refuge Act), and Part 602 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 this Act is being achieved through the involvement of the public and the
inclusion of an Environmental Assessment (EA) (Section B). When fully implemented, this plan will
help to achieve the vision and goals and fulfill the purposes of each refuge within the Complex.
The CCP’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which each refuge was
established. Fish and wildlife are the first priority in refuge management, and public use (wildlife-dependent
recreation) is allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with the refuge’s mission
and purposes.
The CCP and EA were prepared by a planning team composed of representatives from various
Service programs, including the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuges, Realty, and Visitor
Services), Fisheries, Ecological Services, and Migratory Birds. During CCP development the
planning team incorporated the input of the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks;
other state and federal agencies; non-governmental organizations; local citizens; and other
stakeholders. This public involvement and the planning process itself are described in the Plan
Development section (Chapter III).
After reviewing a wide range of public comments and management needs, the Service developed
three alternatives in an attempt to determine how best to meet the goals and objectives of the
Complex. The CCP represents the Service’s proposed alternative and is being put forward after
considering the three alternative plans, as described in the accompanying Environmental
Assessment. The proposed alternative is the Service’s recommended course of action for the future
management of the refuges, and is embodied in this CCP.
2 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PLAN
The purpose of this CCP is to identify the role that the Complex will play in support of the System’s
mission and to provide long-term guidance to the Complex’s management programs and activities.
The CCP is needed to:
• Provide a clear statement of direction for future Complex management;
• Communicate with the public and include public participation in efforts to carry out the
National Wildlife Refuge System’s mission;
• Provide neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the Service’s
management actions on the Complex;
• Ensure that the Service’s management actions, including land protection and recreational and
educational programs, are consistent with the mandates of the 1997 Refuge Act;
• Ensure that the management of the Complex is coordinated with federal, state, and county
plans; and
• Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for the Complex’s operational,
maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
Many agencies, organizations, institutions, businesses, and private citizens have developed
relationships with the Service to advance the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System. When
final, this CCP will support the Partners-in-Flight Initiative, the Lower Mississippi Valley Migratory Bird
Wetland Conservation Initiative, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Western
Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, the National Woodcock Management Plan, and the
National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
“The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, working with others, is to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.”
The Service manages the 96-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, comprised of more than
544 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands, and other special management areas.
The Service also operates 66 national fish hatcheries 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. The Service also
oversees the Federal Aid Program and its distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars in excise
taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the largest network of lands in the world specifically managed
for wildlife. The mission of the Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, is:
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
“... 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 1997 Refuge Act established, for the first time, a clear mission of wildlife conservation for the
Refuge System. The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to:
• Fulfill the individual purposes 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 1997 Refuge Act, the Service immediately began work to carry out the new
legislation, including the preparation of comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. Consistent
with the 1997 Refuge Act, all refuge CCPs are being prepared in coordination with stakeholders,
including federal and state agencies, the public, non-governmental conservation organizations, and
others. Each refuge is required to complete its own CCP within the 15-year schedule.
Many refuges were established to protect waterfowl-hunting opportunities, but as public
interests have expanded beyond consuming wildlife to emphasize watching and photographing
wildlife, the role of refuges has also evolved. Economists have reported that national wildlife refuge
visitors contribute more than $400 million annually to local economies (Caudill and Henderson,
Banking on Nature 2002). In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges in 14 states around the nation,
it was shown that people visited refuges more than 35.5 million times for recreation and
environmental education. Their spending generated $809.2 million of sales in regional economies. As
this spending flowed through the economy, nearly 19,000 people were employed and $315.2 million
in employment income was generated.
In seven years, refuge visitation has grown 36 percent. At the same time, the number of jobs
generated in surrounding communities grew to 120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more
than $2.2 million into local economies. Communities near refuges also 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 Refuge System, surrounding communities
benefited with $4.43 in recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and
Henderson, Banking on Nature 2002).
4 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Volunteerism continues to be a major contributor to the successes of the Refuge System. In 2002,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours of work on refuges nationwide, a service valued at
more than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for the Refuge System emphasizes the following principles:
• Wildlife comes first;
• Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management;
• Refuges must be “healthy”;
• Growth of refuges must be strategic; and
• The National Wildlife Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with broad
participation from others.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE, FISHERIES, AND PARKS
A provision of the 1997 Refuge Act and subsequent agency policy is that the Service shall ensure
timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other federal agencies and state fish and
wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. This cooperation is essential
in providing the foundation for the protection and sustainability of fish and wildlife throughout the
United States.
The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) 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 State of Mississippi owns or
manages 828,408 acres for wildlife, recreation, and fisheries, including 42 wildlife management areas
(WMAs), 29 state parks encompassing 823,297 acres, and 21 lakes totaling 5,111 acres.
The MDWFP coordinates the state’s wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation
opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program, on several WMAs and parks
located near the Complex. The MDWFP’s participation and contribution throughout this
comprehensive conservation planning process has been invaluable. This agency continues to work
with the Service to provide ongoing opportunities for open dialogue with the public on fish and wildlife
issues in Mississippi. Not only has the MDWFP participated in biological reviews, public meetings,
and field reviews during this process, but also the MDWFP is an active partner in annual hunt
coordination planning and in various wildlife and habitat surveys. A key part of the comprehensive
conservation planning process is the integration of common mission objectives between the Service
and the MDWFP, where appropriate.
ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE LANDOWNERS
Service policies for involvement with private landowners to develop and implement habitat
improvement projects were generated by the 1997 Refuge Act and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
(PFW) Program. Additional authorities reside within the 1997 Refuge Act and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act. Section 5, Item (4) (E) of the 1997 Refuge Act specifically states that the Service
shall “ensure effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with owners of land adjoining
refuges and the fish and wildlife agency of the States in which the units of the System are located”.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
The PFW Program Policy states that in ranking and selecting private lands projects for funding and
technical assistance, the highest priority shall be placed on those projects that would provide
important and direct benefits to the goals and objectives of any nearby units of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, or to those projects that would improve habitat for species the Service considers to
be at risk or of special concern.
Most of the land surrounding refuges in the Complex is privately owned. These privately owned
lands could play an important role in the restoration and reestablishment of native habitats needed to
support a diverse fish and wildlife resource historically known for this geographic area. Existing or
potential habitat on private lands is important for achieving the goals and objectives of national and
regional plans such as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight,
Mississippi River Alluvial Valley Bird Conservation Plan, and Strategic Fisheries Plan.
The Service offers private landowners several programs that provide technical assistance and
funding for priority habitat projects on private or tribal lands. The Service’s primary project delivery
mechanism for habitat projects on private lands currently resides within the PFW Program. Additional
funding and technical assistance for private landowners are also available through several other
Service funded programs, including the Mississippi Partners Program, Challenge Cost-Share
Program, the Mississippi Partners for Wildlife Program, Migratory Birds Program, and several grant
programs associated with threatened and endangered species.
Under the PFW Program, landowners may receive up to $25,000 for on-the-ground project
implementation. Exceptions to the $25,000 limit per private landowner may be requested in unique or
special circumstances. PFW projects typically receive a minimum 50 percent in-kind cost share and
require a minimum 10-year commitment from the landowner. Typically, landowner agreements are
for more than 20 years. Since the PFW Program was initiated in 1988, approximately 87,000 acres of
bottomland hardwood forest wetlands have been planted, and over 20,000 acres of other habitat
projects have been completed within the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley (LMRAV). Over the
past several years, the PFW Program has provided $300,000 to $400,000 in project funds each year
for projects within the entire LMRAV.
The Mississippi Partners Program is funded separately from the PFW Program, receiving funding
primarily through the Service’s Refuge Challenge Cost-Share Program and Migratory Birds
Programs. The Challenge Cost-Share Program also requires at least a 50 percent cost share from
other partners. In Mississippi, this partnership involves private landowners, Ducks Unlimited, Delta
Wildlife, the Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the MDWFP. A total of $40,000 in Service
funds is made available each fiscal year through this partnership agreement with additional partner
contributions reaching $200,000. These funds are used to provide water-control structures to private
landowners to flood harvested cropland during the fall/winter (approximately November 15-February
28). This partnership provides significant benefits for wintering waterfowl, other migratory birds, and
water quality.
The Farm Bill Conservation Programs, available through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
under the 2002 Farm Bill, provide significant opportunities for the development and implementation of
habitat improvement projects on private lands. These programs include the Wetland Reserve
Program (WRP), the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
(WHIP), and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Millions of dollars are available
to eligible private landowners for habitat conservation under these programs. For example, under the
WRP administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), over 100,000 acres of
permanent and 30-year easements, directed to restore natural wetlands and native vegetation, have
6 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
been implemented in Mississippi since 1990. The newly enacted Farm Bill (2002) provides
authorization for over 1,000,000 additional acres at a rate of approximately 250,000 acres per year.
Much of the enrolled acres for the WRP (over 45 percent) have previously come from the LMRAV.
Service private lands partnerships compliment USDA conservation programs by providing
supplemental funding and scientific biological technical assistance that help to support Service
objectives and produce benefits for Federal trust species. All the conservation programs of the USDA
Farm Bill have specific eligibility and other important project selection criteria. This information is
readily available through the Internet or from USDA, and Service biologists assigned to work with
private landowners are very knowledgeable of these programs.
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ALLUVIAL VALLEY ECOSYSTEM
OVERVIEW
Refuges in the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Complex are located within a physiographic
region known as the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley (LMRAV) (Figure 1). Historically the
LMRAV was a 25-million-acre complex of forested wetlands that extended
along both sides of the Mississippi River from Illinois to Louisiana. The extent and duration of
seasonal flooding from the Mississippi River fluctuated annually, recharging the LMRAV’s aquatic
systems and creating a diversity of dynamic habitats that supported a vast array of fish and wildlife
resources.
THREATS AND PROBLEMS
Forest Loss and Fragmentation
The LMRAV has changed markedly over the last 100 years as civilization spread throughout the
area. Since European settlement, it has been estimated that 20 million acres of bottomland forested
wetlands have been lost (USFWS 1999) (Figure 2). The greatest changes to the landscape have
been land clearing for agriculture and flood control projects. Although these habitat alterations have
allowed people to settle and earn a living in the area, they have had a negative effect on biological
diversity and integrity and the environmental health of the LMRAV. Immense areas of bottomland
hardwoods have been reduced to forest fragments, ranging in size from very small tracts of limited
functional value to a few large areas that have retained many of the original functions and values of
bottomland hardwood forest. Species endemic to the LMRAV that have become either extinct,
endangered, or threatened include the red wolf, Florida panther, Louisiana black bear, Bachman’s
warbler, Carolina parakeet, ivory-billed woodpecker, and Bachman’s sparrow.
Breeding bird surveys show continuing declines in species and populations. The avian species most
adversely affected by fragmentation are species that depend on large contiguous blocks of hardwood
forest, forest interiors, or good water quality, and species that have special habitat requirements such
as mature forests or a particular food source.
More than 70 species of breeding neotropical migratory birds are found in the region. Some of these
species, including Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, swallow-tailed kite, wood thrush, and
cerulean warbler, have declined significantly and need large forested blocks to recover and to sustain
their existence.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
The fragmentation of bottomland hardwoods has produced forested islands of habitat in a sea of
agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed most of the forested corridors along sloughs
that formerly connected forest patches. The loss of connectivity between the remaining forested
tracts hinders the movement of wildlife between tracts, reduces the functional values of many
remaining smaller forest tracts, and results in a loss of gene flow. For some wide-ranging species,
restoring connections between habitats and reestablishing travel corridors is particularly important.
Alterations to Hydrology
In addition to the loss of the majority of bottomland forested wetlands, there have been significant
alterations in the region’s hydrology due to urban development, river channel modification, flood
control levees, reservoirs, and deforestation. There has also been degradation to aquatic systems
from excessive sedimentation and contaminants.
8 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Figure 1. Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley
(2004TRNWRmd)
Legend
National Forest
State Boundary
National Wildlife Refuges
Lower MS Alluvial Valley
Theodore Roosevelt National
Wildlife Refuge Complex
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Figure 2. Forest cover changes in the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley
(2004trnwrmdforestcover)
10 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
The natural hydrology of a region directly impacts the connectedness of forested wetlands and is
indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on topography
and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to forested
wetlands and waterfowl-habitat relationships (Fredrickson and Heitmeyer 1988).
In the LMRAV large-scale, man-made hydrological alterations (involving channelizations, flood
control, and navigation projects) have produced widespread changes in the spatial and temporal
patterns of flooding. The alterations have reduced both the extent and duration of the annual
seasonal flooding, significantly affecting the forested wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent
species. Since wetland ecosystems depend on a dynamic interface of hydrologic regimes
to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes, the LMRAV’s historic functions
and values cannot be restored in their entirety (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993).
Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems
Land clearing and hydrologic alterations have led to an accelerated accumulation of sediments and
contaminants in all aquatic ecosystems in the LMRAV, including wetlands, lakes, rivers, sloughs, and
bayous. Many aquatic areas have filled up with sediments, reducing both depth and surface area.
Concurrently, non-point source runoff of silt, excess nutrients, and chemicals threaten the area’s
remaining aquatic resources.
Hydrologic alterations have also ceased the natural processes that historically created oxbow lakes,
sloughs, and river meander scars.
Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants and Animals
The degradation of the LMRAV’s aquatic ecosystems is compounded by growing threats from
invasive aquatic vegetation. 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, such as alligator weed
(Alternanthera philoxeroides) and coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum). The introduction of exotic
(non-native) vegetation, such as soda apple (Solanum viarum), Old World climbing fern (Lygodium
microphyllum), and others, which are capable of out-competing native species and of aggressive
growth, is further threatening the health and viability of aquatic systems. The overgrowth of invasive
aquatic species reduces open water areas, adversely affects fish and other aquatic species, and can
prevent boat access and other recreational use. Non-native wildlife and fish have also been
successfully introduced or released in this temperate climate, often out-competing native wildlife for
limited resources.
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES
Declines in the LMRAV’s bottomland hardwood forests and their associated fish and wildlife resources have
prompted the Service to designate the bottomland forest system as an ecosystem of special concern. A
collaborative effort involving private, state, and federal conservation partners is underway to restore some
forested wetlands in the LMRAV by prioritizing areas for reforestation and by managing remaining forested
wetlands to most effectively maintain and restore biological diversity. However, most of the 25+ million acres
of forested wetlands that have been cleared and converted to other uses in the LMRAV will not be reforested.
Some areas have been identified for intensive management for non-forest-dependent species, such as
waterfowl and shorebirds. Through coordinating cooperative efforts, apportioning resources, and focusing of
available programs, the LMRAV’s biological diversity can be improved.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Several coordinated efforts have been initiated to set priorities and establish focus areas to overcome
the impacts of hydrologic changes and forest fragmentation. A cooperative private-state-federal
partnership known as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Lower Mississippi Valley
Joint Venture (LMVJV), was established in 1986 to help provide sufficient wintering waterfowl habitat
throughout the LMRAV. Partners operating in the LMVJV have helped to establish step-down
management objectives (expressed in duck-use-days and number of acres of flooded habitat) for
public and private lands throughout the LMRAV.
The initial LMVJV effort for waterfowl was expanded to include population objectives for shorebirds
and neotropical 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 LMRAV.
Another cooperative private-state-federal partnership involving the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, Partners-in-Flight, and the LMVJV has identified a number of Migratory Bird
Conservation Zones (MBCZs) (Figure 3). Refuges in the Complex are identified in these zones as
core areas. The purpose of identifying these zones is to focus a number of private, state, and federal
restoration programs into specific areas in an effort to provide maximum program benefits for
neotropical forest interior-nesting birds. The goal is to provide larger 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 songbirds and other species (such as the Louisiana black bear) that require large forested
blocks.
Most MBCZs encompass an existing or proposed wildlife management area or national wildlife
refuge. 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 principal challenges to the restoration efforts underway in the LMRAV, 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 waterfowl, neotropical birds,
shorebirds, wading birds, bears, and other wide-ranging species. Management for one species or
species group can conflict with 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 initiation of
restoration actions that are difficult to reverse and fail to meet the long-term, comprehensive
management needs of the ecosystem or of a specific area within the ecosystem. For example, a goal
to reforest all of Yazoo NWR in an effort to reduce fragmentation and create a 10,000 acre forest
block to meet an objective for forest interior-nesting birds would overlook the critical habitat needs of
waterfowl and shorebirds, which require a mosaic of seasonally flooded croplands, moist soil areas,
and forested wetlands.
12 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Figure 3. Migratory Bird Conservation Zone priorities
(migbirdconszones)
����
􀀀            

     
􀀀

           
   
􀀀
            
􀀀
      
         
􀀀
            
 
         
􀀀
!    "     
  #
$ %      
                
􀀀    􀀀            

   

                           
                               
  
                   
          !                 
  !      "#$      
!&"& 􀀀
􀀀
   
 
%
   &      '              
           (
􀀀                
        '           (     
)    
                   !    
   *     (     
       *

  +  #   
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
The habitat goals of the LMVJV can only be met through the active management of croplands, moist-soil
areas, and forested wetlands on both public and private land (Reinecke and Baxter 1996). Active
management (i.e., vegetation manipulation and hydrology restoration) is required to compensate for
the spatial and temporal habitat changes that have been caused by deforestation and hydrologic
alterations throughout the LMRAV. The Complex uses a system of levees, water control structures,
and wells to provide dependable seasonally flooded croplands and moist-soil areas as part of its
waterfowl and shorebird habitat step-down objectives. If totally reforested, the Complex would not be
able to meet its waterfowl/shorebird habitat step-down objectives. Setting habitat and species
objectives from the perspective of the LMRAV enables managers to plan and provide habitat for a
diversity of species throughout their ranges.
Although reforestation is probably the best solution for restoring the forests that have been converted
to row-crop agriculture, flooding drives the ecological system in the LMRAV, and the plant and animal
communities throughout the LMRAV are dependent upon the hydrologic cycle. Therefore, to meet
waterfowl and shorebird habitat objectives, land managers must manage water and mimic the flood
cycles that historically characterized the LMRAV.
Complex Recreational Use
The Complex contains large populations of fish and wildlife, including a number of game species.
The primary recreational activities are public hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation. Public use
activities on these refuges are provided in accordance with federal, state, and refuge regulations.
Deer hunting is the most popular public use activity on refuges in the Complex, followed by duck
hunting and then fishing. Hunting programs also offer opportunities to take dove, rabbits, squirrels,
raccoons, other fur bearers, turkey, and feral swine. Large portions of some of the refuges are
accessible by all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) on designated trails. The use of ATVs is allowed only for
hunting and fishing purposes. There are numerous lakes and streams suitable for fishing, and boat
ramps are available on Panther Swamp and Mathews Brake NWRs. On Yazoo NWR pesticide levels
in fish prohibit fishing.
Wildlife observation is increasing in popularity as infrastructure is developed for viewing opportunities.
Two observation platforms were completed on Yazoo NWR in 2003: the Holt Collier Boardwalk Trail
and Tower and the Alligator Pond Wildlife Viewing Platform. Additional public use recreation activities
are planned, particularly on Yazoo and Morgan Brake NWRs, where access to natural areas is not
restricted by annual seasonal flooding.
Yazoo Backwater Area
Refuges in the Complex are all located within the physiographic region known as the Yazoo
Backwater Area (YBWA). Land-use trends within the YBWA have generally paralleled those of the
LMRAV as a whole. Early settlements were typically restricted to natural levees associated with the
Mississippi River and its primary meander belts. Because natural levees were the best drained and
least flood-prone, settlers initially inhabited those lands. Forested lands at the highest elevations
were cleared to produce food crops and silage for local consumption, and logging became an
economic mainstay of the time.
14 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
As settlement progressed, small-scale, local drainage and flood control projects were initiated.
Simultaneously, federal navigation improvements were constructed on the Mississippi River and on
numerous tributaries. As a result of those early infrastructure improvements, additional forested
acreage was cleared to produce cotton and other commodity crops for export, rather than local
consumption. However, up through the 1920s, agricultural expansion beyond the natural levees and
terraces was limited by the direct effects of flooding, lack of drainage, and relatively poor production
techniques. With the advent of federal flood control and drainage in 1928, coupled with post-depression
expansion of the national economy and increased mechanization, the stage was set for
agricultural encroachment into the more poorly drained, frequently flooded portions of the LMRAV. At
that point in time (the early 1950s), agriculture was generally restricted to the higher, better-drained
soil associations. As a matter of record, the YBWA has historically served as a storage area for flood
waters from the Mississippi River and for runoff from the upper Yazoo Delta.
The 1950s ushered in an era of major agricultural expansion into the poorly drained, frequently
flooded portions of the LMRAV. Fueled by expanding world markets, inflating land prices, and federal
flood control projects, agricultural expansion continued into the 1970s under highly favorable
economic conditions with a 20-year period in which major floods were lacking on the Mississippi
River. From 1947 to 1977, more than 3.5 million acres of forested wetlands were converted to
agriculture in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi (USFWS 1999). Forested wetlands totaling
317,155 acres within a 6-county area (Sharkey, Issaquena, Humphreys, Yazoo, Washington, and
Warren) were converted to agriculture between 1957 and 1977 (MacDonald et al., 1979). By the late
1970s, however, that era of agricultural expansion had run its course in the YBWA.
The late 1970s and the decade of the 1980s were a period of stable land use, but turbulent economic
conditions within the agricultural community in the YBWA (and the LMRAV as a whole). The 1973
flood, which inundated nearly 15 million acres of the LMRAV, including about 640,000 acres of the
YBWA, broke the 20-year dry spell, and a period of normal to above-normal rainfall produced
significant flooding within the YBWA in 1974, 1975, 1979, 1982, 1983, and 1989. The implications of
farming high-risk areas came to the forefront at a time when the condition of the agricultural economy
was essentially the reverse of the expansion years. Delinquent loans and foreclosures became
commonplace in the 1980s. The Federal Land Bank, the Farmers Home Administration, insurance
companies, and other private lending institutions became major landowners, holding an inventory
most often represented by cleared wetlands.
The combination of economic and hydrologic conditions that made marginal yields on high-risk lands
profitable proved to be temporary and transient. Land use and land capability had become
substantially misaligned, and “land that should never have been cleared” became part of the lexicon
of the agricultural community. Thirty years of agricultural expansion left a landscape that failed to
meet the tests of either economic or ecological sustainability.
As the farm crisis in the early 1980s brought an almost immediate end to the long-standing trend of
agricultural expansion into wetlands, the socio-political and socio-economic forces that had driven
that trend also began to change. Passage of the 1985 Food Security Act (or Farm Bill) marked a
public recognition that factors underlying historic land-use trends, which had previously been treated
as almost mutually exclusive should be addressed in the context of their interdependency. Federal
programs and policies to remove marginal agricultural lands from production, reduce damage-susceptible
floodplain development and associated flood disaster payments, protect and restore
wetlands, and provide for sustainable ecological and economic development have steadily advanced
since then. These programs were given additional impetus by the 1993 flood (and subsequent post-flood
evaluations) on the upper Mississippi River.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
During the 1980s, land use remained relatively constant. However, between 1990 and 1998, the
historic wetland decline in the YBWA was replaced by a new land-use trend. More than 40,700 acres
of cleared agricultural lands were restored to wetland conservation uses, and an additional 16,664
acres of forested lands were protected during that 8-year period (Pers. comm., C. Baxter 2000).
16 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
II. The Refuge Complex
INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY
Refuges in the LMRAV provide important habitat for resting, feeding, and breeding needs for
waterfowl, other birds, and resident wildlife. Refuges in the Complex were primarily established to
provide and maintain habitat for wintering waterfowl and other migratory birds traveling throughout
the Mississippi Flyway. The Complex is comprised of seven refuges, with a Complex headquarters
located at the Yazoo NWR near Hollandale, Mississippi (Figure 4). This CCP covers five of the seven
refuges: Hillside, Mathews Brake, Morgan Brake, Panther Swamp, and Yazoo NWRs. Refuge
offices are also located at Morgan Brake NWR and Panther Swamp NWRs. The refuge staff located
at the Morgan Brake NWR Office manages Morgan Brake, Hillside, and Mathews Brake NWRs. The
refuge staff located at Panther Swamp NWR manages Panther Swamp NWR and the Hillside NWR
expansion area known as the Carter Tract. In addition, the Complex manages over 12,000 acres of
Farm Service Agency fee title tracts in several counties (Figure 5).
The Complex includes 18 positions: 16 approved full-time permanent budgeted positions (Table 1)
and two full-time permanent positions that are funded by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ funding and
hunt program permit fees. Two “floating” equipment operator positions are shared among all the
refuges in the Complex. Both employees report to Yazoo NWR, travelling to the remaining refuges
as needed to support maintenance, projects, law enforcement, and other needs. Between two and
four temporary seasonal positions provide additional support each year when it is most needed
during the hunting season, and for maintenance, habitat management, and administrative tasks.
Each spring a volunteer is recruited from the Student Conservation Association to work for 17 weeks
to assist with the Yazoo NWR wood duck nest box program and other biological tasks. Each summer
for two months, the Youth Conservation Corps provides 6-9 youths to mow grass, trim trees, paint,
perform facility maintenance, and conduct other tasks on Yazoo, Morgan Brake, and Panther Swamp
NWRs. A new Friends Group, the Theodore Roosevelt Society, was established in June 2004, and
efforts are currently underway to recruit members.
PURPOSE AND ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
Although the Complex has an overriding purpose of providing for the habitat needs of migratory birds,
with an emphasis on waterfowl, each refuge within the Complex has a unique purpose and
establishing legislation (Table 2). The plan identifies specific goals, objectives, and strategies that
are intended to support these individual refuge purposes. Management for the entire Complex of
lands is combined due to the refuges’ proximity, their similarity of issues and habitats, and the added
value of managing refuges cooperatively as a network of habitats within the Lower Mississippi River
Ecosystem.
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan’s Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture office,
working through a collaborative effort with private, state, and federal agencies, has established
certain habitat objectives for the LMRAV. These objectives have been stepped down for private and
public lands throughout the LMRAV. The step-down objectives for the Complex are to provide a
minimum of 8,287 acres of managed water, including 4,505 acres of flooded moist-soil plants, 2,760
acres of flooded timber, and 1,022 acres of unharvested crops. Managed water is defined as areas
that can be flooded through management actions taken by refuge staff, such as the pumping of water
and the closing of gates on water control structures. The Complex also has an objective from the
Joint Venture to provide 300 acres of shorebird habitat during the annual fall migration period from
July 15 through October 15.
18 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Figure 4. Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
 
􀀀         
 
 
 
 
          
 
 
       
       
 
 
            
 􀀀            
       
 
            
 
 
!    "    #   
$     #   
          #   
        %   #   
   &#   
         &#   
'   #   
   (  #   
     #   
􀀀    
      
   
 􀀀
     
   

      
  
     
      􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
  
  
  
  
  
  
􀀀          
 
 

  
  
 

)*
)*
'
􀀀
)*
+               
 
             
$'!' ,
-    "   - .(          (       
- .(      
  $    
  /         􀀀      0      
   
  
  
   
            

  
    
     
􀀀                
         
􀀀
   
 
              "   
 
    
   1
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
􀀀
􀀀         
 
 
 
􀀀
          
 
􀀀
       
       
 
􀀀
            
 􀀀            
       
 
            
 
 
              
 
􀀀    􀀀       
􀀀
   
 
    
    
              
             
!
 " 􀀀          
         #$   
   %
 
            
                             
           !    
&'(' )
􀀀                
Figure 5. Farm Service Agency properties managed by the Complex
20 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Table 1. Acres managed by station and approved Full-time Equivalent (FTEs).
Note: Two FTEs for equipment operators and one position for a Tractor Operator are shared by all refuges in
the Complex. Two positions (Tractor Operator, GS-6 and Office Clerk, GS-5) are funded by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and hunt program permit fees.
Refuge Office Refuge(s)
Managed Acres Managed Complex/Refuge Staff
Complex
Headquarters
(located at Yazoo
NWR)
Hillside
Holt Collier
Mathews Brake
Morgan Brake
Panther Swamp
Theodore
Roosevelt
Yazoo
77,090 acres of refuge
lands inside acquisition
boundaries.
12,291 acres in (43)
Farm Service Agency
Fee Title
998 acres in (12) Farm
Service Agency
easement
80 acres in (1) MDOT
Transfer (included in
Carter Tract)
80 acres in (1) Fee Title
(Theunissen) Darlove
Tract
Total 90,459 acres
Project Leader (GS-14)
Deputy Project Leader (GS-
13)
Forester (GS-12)
Park Ranger (LE) (GS-9)
Private Lands Biologist (GS-
11) Wildlife Biologist (GS-11)
Administrative Officer (GS-9)
Tractor Operator (WG-6)*
(Shared)
Office Clerk (GS-5)**
Yazoo NWR Yazoo 13,022 acres
Automotive Worker (WG-8)
Equipment Operator (WG-9)
(Shared)
Morgan Brake
NWR
Hillside, Mathews
Brake, and
Morgan Brake
25,371 acres Refuge Manager (GS-11)
Biological Technician (GS-7)
Park Ranger
(Interpretive)(GS-7)
Equipment Operator (WG-
8)++ (Shared)
Panther Swamp
NWR
Panther Swamp 38,697 acres Refuge Manager (GS-11)
Park Ranger (Interpretive)
(GS-7) Equipment Operator
(WG-10)
TOTAL Complex Staff 18
*Funded by Corps of Engineers funds
**Funded by Hunt Permit Fees
++FTE for a WG-8 Equipment Operator position is currently stationed at Yazoo NWR.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Table 2. Refuge establishment date, legislation, and defined purpose (excluding Holt Collier
and Theodore Roosevelt NWRs).
Refuge Year
Established
Establishing
Legislation Refuge Purpose
Yazoo 1936 Migratory Bird
Conservation Act
(1929), Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (1918)
“...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for
any other management purposes, for
migratory birds...”
Hillside 1975 Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act
“...shall be administered by him (Secretary
of Interior) directly or in accordance with
cooperative agreements...and in
accordance with such rules and regulations
for the conservation, maintenance, and
management of wildlife resources thereof,
and its habitat thereon...”
Panther
Swamp
1978 Migratory Bird
Conservation Act
(1929),
Refuge Recreation Act
(1962)
“...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for
any other management purposes, for
migratory birds...”
“...suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented
recreation development, (2) the
protection of natural resources, (3) the
conservation of endangered species or
threatened species...”
Mathews
Brake
1980 Migratory Bird
Conservation Act
(1929)
”...to contribute to perpetuation of the
migratory waterfowl resource in the lower
Mississippi River Delta..."
Morgan
Brake
1977 Migratory Bird
Conservation Act
(1929)
Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act
”...to contribute to perpetuation of the
migratory waterfowl resource in the lower
Mississippi River Delta..."
“...shall be administered by him (Secretary
of Interior) directly or in accordance with
cooperative agreements...and in
accordance with such rules and regulations
for the conservation, maintenance, and
management of wildlife resources thereof,
and its habitat thereon...”
z
22 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
A core forest area is currently defined as a contiguous block of forest that is 1.6 miles from the forest
edge (LMVJV 2001). This protective core forest habitat is essential to many of the highest priority
bird species, such as the cerulean warbler and swallow-tail kite. There are interior forest objectives
for each of the refuges within the Complex, supporting the Partners-in-Flight Plan. A 100,000-acre
forest objective was established in the area around Panther Swamp, linking it with Delta National
Forest (>60,000 acres) and Lake George Wildlife Management Area (>8,000 acres). A 10,000-acre
interior forest habitat objective was identified for Yazoo NWR, linking and reforesting the areas
around it and Leroy Percy State Park. In addition, each of the remaining refuges has a 10,000-acre
objective, to be met by reforesting lands within current acquisition boundaries and by working with
adjacent private landowners interested in reforestation projects, which would link forested habitats.
Waterways and wetlands within forest blocks are included in the proposed acreage. These minimum
objectives would establish two core forested areas of 80,000 and 8,000 acres.
One species of concern, the woodcock, is showing significant long-term declines in the eastern
United States. Habitat loss, including the loss of preferred, safe, nocturnal wintering habitats, is likely
a key factor. The Complex may be important in helping the Service to meet its objectives in the North
American and Regional Woodcock Management Plans.
LEGAL POLICY
Refuge management, development, and administration are guided by a variety of international
treaties, federal laws, and executive orders. Management options under each refuge’s establishing
authority and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (the legal and policy
guidance for the operation of national wildlife refuges) are contained in the documents and acts listed
in Appendix III.
RESOURCE AND MANAGEMENT DESCRIPTIONS
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
Climate
The area climate is a humid, warm-temperate, continental type characteristic of the southern United
States. The average yearly rainfall is 52.48 inches, with March being the wettest month (averaging
5.62 inches) and August being the driest (2.37 inches.) Tropical storms or hurricanes originating from
the Gulf of Mexico may occasionally bring several days of heavy rain. Thunderstorms, which usually
bring the heaviest rains, are only occasionally accompanied by hail and tornados. Drought conditions
during the summer may increase the danger of fire. Average yearly snowfall is less than an inch.
January is generally the coldest month, while July is the hottest. Winters are mild, with temperatures
seldom remaining below freezing for more than 24 hours. Summers are hot and humid with heat
indexes commonly reaching 110-115°F. The average growing season is 219 days from March 25 to
October 30.
Physiography and Geography
The “Mississippi Delta” (Delta) is an alluvial plain created by meanderings of the Mississippi River.
The Delta extends from Memphis, Tennessee to Vicksburg, Mississippi, and is 75 miles wide at the
widest point, tapering on each end. The Mississippi River flows along the Delta’s western edge, while
the eastern edge is bordered by steep bluffs that rise 300 feet above the elevation of the Delta. The
Delta is composed of alluvial soils deposited primarily by the Mississippi River, with surface features
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
resulting from the meandering of the Mississippi River and lesser streams such as the Yazoo River.
The Delta has a slight downward slope to the east as a result of natural levee formation. This slope
causes most of the drainage to be away from the Mississippi River, eventually flowing into the Yazoo
River before joining the Mississippi River at the lower extremity of the Delta. Old channels, oxbow
lakes, brakes, sloughs, and other features developed in areas that bordered the main river channels,
while low-lying slackwater areas separated from currents and the channel resulted in broad flats.
These features intermixed as the Mississippi River meandered across the Delta.
Table 3. Refuge location (excluding Theodore Roosevelt and Holt Collier NWRs).
Refuge County Location
Hillside Holmes and Yazoo 13 miles north of Yazoo City, Mississippi and
3.5 miles east of Thornton
Mathews Brake Leflore and Holmes 9 miles south of Greenwood and 5 miles
west of Sidon, Mississippi, between Highway
49 and Highway 7
Morgan Brake Holmes 2 miles north of Tchula, turn right on
Providence Road. The refuge lies between
U.S. Highway 49 and the adjacent loess hills
north of Tchula
Panther Swamp Yazoo and Humphreys 4 miles east of Holly Bluff and four miles
west of Yazoo City
Yazoo Washington 28 miles south of Greenville, lying between
Highways 1 and 61
Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge
Yazoo NWR encompasses 13,706 acres and is located 4 miles east of the Mississippi River in
Washington County. Elevations vary 23 feet, from 90 feet mean sea level (MSL) in Steele Bayou to
113 feet MSL at the Headquarters Office. The primary habitat feature is Swan Lake, a 3,600-4,000-
acre oxbow lake (Figure 6). Swan Lake has been divided into four management compartments by
cross-levees and water control structures. Yazoo NWR includes 65 impoundments, which flood
about 2,000 acres, including 650 acres in moist-soil management and 1,350 acres of bottomland
hardwood forests that are flooded in the winter to provide habitat for waterfowl. Several
impoundments are a combination of habitats, with permanent water (345 acres) in deeper areas and
a seasonally flooded forest in the shallow areas.
Yazoo NWR Habitat Types:
Wetlands/Swamps 3,500 acres
Moist Soil 650 acres
Green Tree Reservoirs 1,350 acres
Cropland 3,942 acres
Bottomland Hardwoods 2,293 acres
Reforested 1,507 acres
Grasslands 346 acres
Administrative Lands 118 acres
Total 13,706 acres
24 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Figure 6. Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge current managed habitats
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Panther Swamp NWR encompasses 38,697 acres in the middle of the lower Delta along the Will M.
Whittington Channel, roughly between Silver Creek on the west and the Yazoo River on the east
(Figure 7). Lake George Wildlife Management Area mitigation lands purchased by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) and managed by the state border the refuge on the south and southwest.
The refuge is situated at a lower elevation than any refuge in the Complex, from 75 feet MSL to
slightly over 100 feet MSL. Management is challenged by regular flood events and the expansive
beaver population. Beaver dams flood mature bottomland hardwood trees and hardwood reforested
areas, causing extensive damage.
Panther Swamp NWR includes a COE overlay area within the acquisition boundary. The COE’s
7,067 acres fall primarily in the Big Twist area, lands that were set aside as bottomland hardwood
forest mitigation for the COE’s Upper Yazoo Basin Project. A perpetual agreement between the COE
and Fish and Wildlife Service assigns the Service with management responsibilities for the Big Twist
area. As defined in the mitigation agreement, the entire tract must be maintained in bottomland
hardwood habitat.
Panther Swamp NWR Habitat Types:
Wetlands/Swamps 5,212 acres
Cropland/Moist Soil 2,350 acres
Grasslands 505 acres
Hardwood Forest 19,933 acres
Early Successional 7,688 acres
Administrative Lands 252 acres
Subtotal 35,940 acres
Carter Tract:
Moist Soil 600 acres
Reforested areas 1,457 acres
Cropland 700 acres
Subtotal 2,757 acres
Total 38,697 acres
26 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
􀀀 􀀀
 􀀀
 􀀀  􀀀  􀀀
 􀀀  􀀀 􀀀  􀀀  􀀀
 􀀀  􀀀
 􀀀 􀀀
 􀀀  􀀀
 􀀀
 􀀀
 􀀀  􀀀  􀀀
 􀀀
 􀀀
 􀀀
 􀀀
 􀀀
 􀀀
 􀀀
 􀀀
 􀀀
 􀀀  􀀀
 􀀀 􀀀
  
     
  
  
  
  
  
  
 􀀀 
􀀀     􀀀   
 
  
   􀀀   
􀀀     
       
  
  
           􀀀
   
   
         
 
 
􀀀
   
 
􀀀   􀀀         
􀀀 􀀀  
    
                    
 
   
         
   

     
            
        
    
         

               
       
  
        
    !  !"     # 
$ %       
  
    % &    
 !  ' "   
(
 
  )     
       
 􀀀 * 
      
    (
  

    
   *    
    !  *    
 􀀀        +       
   
' , -.
Figure 7. Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge current managed habitats
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Hillside National Wildlife Refuge
Hillside NWR occupies 15,572 acres on the eastern edge of the lower Delta (Figure 8) between the
loessal bluffs and the COE levee on the west. The elevation rises from less than 100 feet MSL on
the south end to about 135 feet MSL on the north, where Black Creek forms an alluvial fan as it
enters the Delta from the hills. The eastern boundary includes a small portion of the loessal bluffs.
Within the refuge’s boundary, the elevation rises abruptly to 300 feet MSL
Refuge lands were purchased by the COE for its Hillside floodway, “Yazoo Basin Headwater Project.”
The COE project transformed most of the land into a silt collection sump via a cutoff levee containing
the altered channels of the Black and Fannegusha Creeks. The COE project was designed to allow
silt to settle out of the water before reaching the Yazoo and Mississippi Rivers, to prevent costly
dredging projects. Upon project completion, the land was transferred to the Service for management.
The COE retains the right to manipulate water and any ditches it deems necessary. Prior to the COE
project the dominant habitat type was bottomland hardwoods. Today willow and cottonwood trees
grow in areas affected by the accumulated silt.
Hillside NWR Habitat Types:
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 6,673 acres
Black Willow/Cottonwood 5,010 acres
Croplands 1,448 acres
Early Successional 1,069 acres
Sloughs and Streams 374 acres
Borrow Ponds 285 acres
Other Lands (e.g., roads and levees) 713 acres
Total 15,572 acres
Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge
Morgan Brake NWR encompasses 7,383 acres and is located approximately 3 miles north of Hillside
NWR (Figure 9). The refuge borders the eastern edge of the Delta adjacent to the loess bluffs.
Elevation varies from less than 100 feet to 120 feet MSL at the base of the bluffs. Portions of the
boundary include the loessal bluffs, which rise to more than 300 feet MSL. The main wetland
features of the refuge are Morgan Brake, which lies half in and half out of the refuge, Around-the-
World Brake, and Commander Brake, adjacent to the bluffs.
Morgan Brake NWR Habitat Types:
Bottomland Hardwoods w/ Brakes 3,134 acres
Early Successional 1,623 acres
Former Catfish Ponds 489 acres
Croplands 860 acres
Shrub Swamp/marsh 677 acres
Forested Uplands 570 acres
Administrative Lands 30 acres
Total 7,383 acres
28 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
􀀀
 􀀀
 􀀀 􀀀 􀀀
 􀀀
 􀀀 􀀀
 􀀀  􀀀
 􀀀
 􀀀
  
  
  
 􀀀  􀀀         
􀀀 
􀀀           
  
􀀀 

     
 

     
 
􀀀
   
 

    
                     
            
            
           􀀀
                        

     
            
               
    
         

       
  
         
 
 
        
       
    ! "   
        #      $
   
$     $ % 
#
    
     
 􀀀 & 
      
     
  

    
   &    
 􀀀     
    
     
! ' (%
  
  !
Figure 8. Hillside National Wildlife Refuge current managed habitats
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀  􀀀 
􀀀 􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 􀀀
 
􀀀 
􀀀  􀀀 
􀀀  􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀  􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀  􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀  􀀀  􀀀  􀀀  􀀀 􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀  􀀀 􀀀 
􀀀  􀀀 
     
  
     
  
        
     
  
  
  
􀀀
􀀀   
    
􀀀         
   
􀀀
    
  
 
       
  
   
     
􀀀          
     
 
          
   
    
     
         
 
      
      
     
 
        

        
     
    
          !    
     "   # 
      
$    #%    %#      
   & 
 
       #     "   
"    '           
􀀀      
    
  " 
    
  
        
􀀀       (      
  
 
􀀀     
) * ) + ,     
-        
      
   . 
  
         /
􀀀
   
 
    
   
     
     
   
          
Figure 9. Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge current managed habitats
30 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
MATHEWS BRAKE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Mathews Brake NWR encompasses 2,418 acres and is located 7 miles north of Morgan Brake NWR
(Figure 10). The primary habitat feature is a shallow, 1,810-acre baldcypress/tupelo brake with
expansive open water. The majority of the refuge is only accessible by boat. Portions of the Brake
are privately owned. Secondary habitat types include 422 acres of bottomland hardwood forest and
186 acres of reforested lands that are in the early successional stages.
Mathews Brake NWR Habitat Types
Cypress/tupelo Brake 1,810 acres
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 422 acres
Reforested Areas 186 acres
Total 2,418 acres
Soils
The alluvial soils in the lower Delta range from silts and clays in the poorly drained areas to sandier,
coarser-grained soils on natural levees and ancient sandbars. Most of the soils in the Complex are
silts and clays, which have fine texture, low permeability, and high shrink-swell potential. The surface
layer is often hard when dry, friable when moist, and plastic when wet, making moisture content an
important consideration when working the soil. There are lighter soils in limited areas, such as
natural levees, but most of the broad natural levees adjacent to major streams are privately owned
cotton production areas.
Hydrology
Historically, the refuges were subject to flooding by the Mississippi River in winter and spring. The
lower Delta was completely flooded five times between 1882 and 1927, despite the river levee. Since
then, the Steele Bayou levee and floodgate have been completed, preventing widespread flooding
from the river. However, water from the Yazoo and Sunflower River systems cause annual
backwater flooding on Panther Swamp NWR due to its lower elevation.
Floodwaters are often present for 6 months, eventually draining through Panther Creek to the Big
Sunflower River on the west side and the Landside Ditch and Lake George on the east, both leading
back to the Yazoo River.
Yazoo NWR receives runoff water from a 300-square-mile area of croplands and municipalities to the
north. Most of this drainage enters the refuge through Silver Lake Bayou, Ditch No. 11 (locally called
No. 9) and Black Bayou. Fortunately, Silver Lake Bayou and Ditch No. 11 no longer flow into Swan
Lake, where they were causing serious siltation and contamination problems. As the COE completed
the Steele Bayou project, it constructed a channel and levee to divert the flow directly into Steele
Bayou from Silver Lake Bayou and Ditch No. 11. The channel and levee keep water from the 300-
square-mile watershed from entering Swan Lake. However, drainage swales, ditches, and other
channels continue to carry agricultural runoff into Swan Lake from the west side, resulting in
eutrophication and pesticide contamination problems in Swan Lake.
Backwater flooding is uncommon on Yazoo NWR and is usually very limited. The COE levee, which
lies along the east side of Swan Lake, and separates Swan Lake from Steele Bayou, has a spillway
set at 100 feet MSL. Waters rising over 101 feet MSL can overtop some of the major impoundment
levees, and spill into Swan Lake. The design elevation of the top of the COE levee is 106 feet MSL.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
􀀀 
􀀀 
  
  
􀀀
􀀀          

     
    

     
    
􀀀          
     
 
        

          
   
      
     
 
   
    
     
􀀀      
   
           
!          "    
      􀀀  
  # 
  $
􀀀            
       
    
  % 
    
 
         % 
    
 
􀀀 "    &   
􀀀     
    
  
       
                      
􀀀 '() ' '() !    
   
 
    $      
      
   # 
  
         (
􀀀 􀀀  
􀀀          
   

  
  
  
Figure 10. Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge current managed habitats
32 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
On Hillside NWR, flooding occurs from headwaters sources in the adjacent hills. Black Creek and
Fannegusha Creek deposit large amounts of silt annually on refuge lands in accordance with the
COE’s Hillside Floodway Project design. However, in a little over half of its projected 50-year life, the
silt collection capacity of the land is nearing design capacity. The accumulated silt is producing a
build-up of silt deposits and alterations of stream channels, which is most noticeable in the borrow
ponds along the northwest side. Shallowing aquatic areas are losing fish as the silt displaces the
water. Forest composition and structure have also been altered by the silt deposition and altered
hydrological regime.
Morgan Brake NWR receives surface drainage along the east and south boundary and drainage from
farmlands north and west of Morgan Brake proper, either from the overflow of Mileston Bayou or
directly from smaller drainages and ditches. Chicopa Creek/Spring Branch and Everett Branch
coming out of the hills are major tributaries to the drainage. Overflows from Mileston Bayou and
Spring Branch often flood a major portion of the refuge. These waters eventually leave the refuge
through an arm of Tchula Lake on the west side and Spring Branch flows through the middle of the
refuge. Other drainage into the refuge comes from cropland on the southwest side into a forested
wetland area. Constant seepage from the hills appears in various places at the base of the bluffs and
maintains hydrology in some of the middle hill ponds throughout the year.
Mathews Brake is a shallow lake that formerly filled up from rainfall in the vicinity of the Brake.
Abiaca Creek is the natural source of water, but because of silt deposits blocking the mouth, water
was diverted each year into the brake from off-refuge. In February 2003, the water source was
completely blocked after a significant rain event dislodged a road culvert and allowed sand and
sediment-laden water to fill the inflow channel. To remedy the situation, a new channel was
constructed in 2004 to direct water from a tributary of Abiaca Creek into the brake. Water levels in
the brake are now controlled by two water control structures at the head of the channel. Because a
portion of the brake is privately owned, refuge personnel coordinate water level adjustments with the
private landowner.
Water Quality
Agricultural runoff from almost any source in the Delta carries organochlorine (OC) pesticides, which
are bound to soil particles. These pesticides, heavily used for years in the Delta, have persisted in
the soil for over 15 years since their use was banned, and likely will exist for many more. Pesticide
contamination is an issue on all refuges in the Complex. Fish and wildlife species are subject to
contain OC compounds that may exceed predator protection levels or human consumption concern
levels.
A second chemical of concern is polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) on Hillside NWR, which receives
urban runoff and sewage treatment effluent from the town of Lexington, Mississippi, via Black Creek.
Siltation, whether pesticide-laden or not, is a concern throughout the Complex, particularly in
wetlands that receive agricultural runoff, such as Swan Lake on Yazoo NWR, Blissdale Swamp on
Hillside NWR, Morgan Brake NWR, Mathews Brake NWR, and the Deep Bayou area on Panther
Swamp NWR. Silt diminishes water quality and reduces the capacity for water storage, resulting in a
loss of aquatic habitat.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
Flora
Prior to European settlement, the Delta cover type was primarily bottomland hardwood forest.
Around 1820, settlers began clearing the forest. The dominant forest type was oak-gum-cypress,
with canebrakes covering the understory of broad flats on slightly higher ground. Canebrakes were
very extensive on natural levees, forming almost pure stands. Most of the surviving forests now
occupy low-lying ground that is too wet for agriculture, and are dominated by wet-site species. These
wetlands have a fluctuating water level and are semi-dry part of the year. The lowest areas contain
cypress and buttonbush throughout the Complex. Cypress is complemented or nearly replaced in
some low areas by swamp tupelo on all Complex refuges except Yazoo NWR, where swamp tupelo
does not occur. Other woody species in permanent or semi-permanent flooded areas include swamp
privet, water elm, black willow, and water locust.
Green ash, red maple, cottonwood, sugarberry, honey locust, sycamore, bitter pecan, overcup oak,
American elm, and Nuttall oak dominate slightly higher sites. Extensive flats on Panther Swamp
NWR support scattered deciduous holly (possum haw) in the mid-story, while higher elevations
support extensive stands of dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor). Hardwoods on still higher sites include
willow oak (especially Panther Swamp NWR), sweet pecan, sweet gum, black locust, and water oak.
Prominent vines include poison ivy, cross-vine, Virginia creeper, muscadine grape, and false grape in
forested areas, and ladies’ eardrops, peppervine, and trumpet creeper in more open sites.
Vegetation associations vary among the refuges. Panther Swamp NWR has distinctively lower
ground with fewer areas that can support species found on well-drained soils. Yazoo NWR has more
topographic relief with distinct ridges and greater overall diversity. One ridge (<10 feet high) on
Yazoo NWR has Shumard oak and bitternut hickory, both of which are rarely seen in the lower Delta.
The loessal bluffs adjacent to Hillside and Morgan Brake NWRs support a completely different floral
assemblage. Some trees, such as northern red oak, swamp chestnut oak, Florida maple,
yellowwood, and cucumber tree are considered unusual in the Delta. American beech, tulip poplar,
white oak, red buckeye, and hornbeam, among other species, occupy the lower and middle loess
slopes, with flowering dogwood, southern red oak, and black gum at the top of the bluff. Refuge staff
identified 44 species of woody plants on a cursory survey of a very small area on the bluff.
Herbaceous species included abundant jack-in-the pulpit, Christmas fern, and trillium.
Fauna
Mammals:
Mammals occurring on the Complex represent most of the extant species in the Delta. Large
mammals include the abundant white-tailed deer, feral hogs (an invasive species found primarily on
Panther Swamp and Morgan Brake NWRs), and the Louisiana black bear which has been seen most
recently on Yazoo NWR. In 2004, four Louisiana black bears were seen on Yazoo NWR. Refuge
staff collaborated with the Mississippi State Bear Biologist to capture the visiting 115-pound male
black bear on the refuge and fit him with a radio collar to track his subsequent travels. Radio
telemetry revealed later that the bear remained on the refuge after the trapping event, well into the
winter hibernation period.
34 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Medium-sized mammals occurring on the Complex include opossum, armadillo, eastern cottontail
and swamp rabbits, beaver, muskrat, nutria, coyote, red fox, gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, river
otter, and bobcat. Nutria populations (introduced from South America) cause significant habitat
damage, as do beavers, especially on Panther Swamp NWR. During the latter half of the 20th
century, armadillos extended their range into the Delta region of Mississippi. Their impact here has
not been fully investigated. Coyotes are a recent arrival, with the first refuge sightings recorded in the
mid-1980s. Their presence is thought to be responsible, among other things, for the scarcity of foxes.
River otters appear to have made a comeback in recent years. Raccoons are abundant and tend to
overpopulate. Surveys for small mammals have not been conducted, but the following species are
thought to inhabit complex refuges.
Species # of species
Shrews 3
Bats 12
Chipmunks 1
Squirrels 3
New world rats and mice 7
Voles 1
Old world rats and mice 3
Weasels 1
Mink 1
Birds
More than 225 species of migratory birds use the Complex, with 77 species breeding on Complex
lands. Ten species with Partners-in-Flight “concern scores” of 20 or more are common or abundant,
including prothonotary warbler, painted bunting, red-headed woodpecker, yellow-billed cuckoo, wood
thrush, white-eyed vireo, yellow-breasted chat, Carolina chickadee, loggerhead shrike, and dickcissel.
Mallards are the most abundant wintering waterfowl species, followed variously by gadwall,
greenwing teal, pintails, and shovelers. Snow geese occupy Morgan Brake NWR and Yazoo NWR in
large numbers during winter, with flocks sometimes exceeding 100,000 birds. Wood ducks and
hooded mergansers are common nesters in the spring and summer, depending on the size of the
nest box program on each refuge.
Wading bird rookeries exist on Yazoo, Hillside, and Morgan Brake NWRs. Nesting species include
the great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, little blue heron, cattle egret, black-crowned night
heron, anhinga, tricolored heron, and, more recently, the double-crested cormorant. White ibis have
occupied rookeries on Morgan Brake NWR in the past, but currently are the dominant species using a
large rookery adjacent to Panther Swamp NWR.
About 20 species of shorebirds use the Complex, especially Yazoo and Morgan Brake NWRs, where
moist-soil habitat is managed intensively. Some of the most numerous species are least sandpipers,
pectoral sandpipers, lesser yellowlegs, and stilt sandpipers.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Reptiles
Although a formal survey of reptiles has not been conducted on any of the refuges, a list of species
has been prepared based on species ranges and personal encounters by refuge staff. The list
includes American alligators, turtles (15 species); lizards (7 species); and snakes (27 species). A
survey of the loessal bluff area may expand the list by revealing a variety of predominantly upland
species.
Several species of water snakes are common or abundant, especially the broad-banded, diamond-backed,
and green water snakes. Poisonous snakes include the copperhead, cottonmouth, and
timber (canebrake) rattlesnake. Panther Swamp NWR is known for a high population of
cottonmouths. Rat snakes of mixed or uncertain subspecies, are significant nest predators, and are
abundant on the Complex. Racers are common. The most common turtle species is likely the red-eared
turtle. Alligator snapping turtles are locally abundant and common snapping turtles are located
throughout the Complex. Soft-shelled turtles occur in some waterways. The ground skink and the
broad-headed skink are two of the most common lizard species.
Amphibians
Although calling frog surveys and searches for salamander breeding sites have been conducted on
Yazoo NWR, no formal surveys have been conducted Complex-wide. The numbers of species that
may occur on the refuge include: salamanders (7); toads (2); treefrogs (6); chorus frog (1); narrow-mouthed
toad (1); and true frogs (5). Cricket frogs, green treefrogs, bullfrogs, and southern leopard
frogs are abundant. Bronze frogs are present and in some areas are common. Central newts or
ambystomatid species are rarely encountered. Few breeding sites have been identified. Sirens or
amphiumas are common in suitable habitat, which is widespread.
Fish
Fish populations consist mostly of rough fish, which can withstand hot, murky water with low oxygen
content, including long-nosed gar, buffalo, carp, bowfin, and catfish. Sport fish include largemouth
bass, bream (sunfish), and channel catfish, which have been stocked in suitable waters such as
certain borrow ponds on Hillside NWR and former catfish ponds on Morgan Brake NWR selected for
public fishing use. A wide variety of fish species exists in the streams and bayous, including
largemouth bass, various bream, and crappie. When flooded, Panther Swamp NWR is accessible to
paddlefish, pallid sturgeon, and other species using the Lower Mississippi/Yazoo River drainage
system.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Refuges in the Complex are located in Yazoo, Holmes, Leflore, Washington, and Humphreys
counties. In addition, several Farm Service Agency properties with management responsibilities
assigned to the Complex also occur in Issaquena, Warren, and Madison counties. All of these
counties are located within an area locally referred to as the “Delta”, except those in Madison County.
The Delta is typically characterized as rural, with an economy based on manufacturing and the
production of catfish, cotton, soybeans, corn, and rice. Most of the counties’ land bases are in
agriculture (Table 4). The largest communities in these counties are Greenville (Washington County),
population 41,633; Yazoo City (Yazoo), population 14,550; Greenwood (Leflore), population 18,425;
Durant (Holmes), population 2,932; and Belzoni (Humphreys), population 2,663.
36 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Table 4. Percent of land base used for agricultural production in counties surrounding
Complex refuges
County Total Area (square miles) Area used for agriculture (%)
Washington 733 536 (73%)
Yazoo 933 488 (52%)
Humphreys 430 310 (72%)
Holmes 759 297 (39%)
Leflore 605 418 (69%)
(Source: USDA, 2003)
Mississippi is the most economically depressed state in the nation (Tables 5 and 6), and the counties
in which the refuges are located contribute significantly to this economic depression. These counties
rank below the national averages for employment, education, and average income. Unemployment
figures in 2002 varied from 8 percent in Yazoo County to 18 percent in Holmes County.
Table 5. Employment data for counties surrounding Complex refuges
County Leading Industry Percent of
Earnings Earnings Unemployment
Rate*
Yazoo Manufacturing 27.2% $266,380 8.0%
Leflore Government 26.9% $484,569 10.0%
Washington Services 28.0% $790,354 11.2%
Holmes Government 30.9% $118,981 18.0%
Humphreys Government 23.4% $109,196 11.7%
*Mississippi’s average unemployment rate is 5.7 percent. (Source of statistics: Department of
Mississippi Development Authority 2002)
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Table 6. Demographics for Complex vicinity.
County
Land
Area
(sq.
miles)
Popu-lation
% pop.
change
(1990-
2000)
Media
n Age
Per
capita
Income
**%
below
povert
y
%
White
%
Black
%
Hispanic
%
Asian
% Native
American
Washington 733 61,827 -7.3 31.5 $19,237 25.8 34.0 64.6 0.8 0.5 0.1
Yazoo 933 27,809 10.4 33.7 $17,314 28.9 44.7 54.0 4.4 0.2 0.2
Humphreys 430 11,206 -7.6 30.5 $17,054 32.0 27.2 71.5 1.5 0.3 0.1
Holmes 759 21,476 0.0 29.7 $13,424 33.0 20.5 78.7 0.9 0.2 0.1
Leflore 605 37,316 1.6 30.1 $18,809 27.2 30.0 67.7 1.9 0.6 0.1
Source: Mississippi Development Authority, 2002-03 Community Profile data, U.S. Census Bureau,
**1998 and 2000 data, “The Changing Delta, 1990-2000," Tom Kersen 2002
38 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Recreation
Public hunting and fishing provide the primary source of recreation activities on the Complex, as
regulated by various federal and state laws. Hunting is the most popular recreational activity on
refuges in the Complex. The Complex contains large populations of fish and wildlife, including a
number of game species. Public hunting programs for deer, rabbits, squirrels, raccoons, waterfowl,
doves, and turkey are available during authorized hunting seasons.
All hunting and fishing programs are monitored and partially funded through general ($12.00) and
limited draw ($12.50) hunt permits and fees. Each year approximately 5,800 general recreation
permits are issued for hunting and fishing, and approximately 2,000 special limited hunt permits are
issued to hunters for white-tailed deer and wild turkey. Certain portions of the refuges are
inaccessible to passenger cars or pickups. Hunting access is therefore provided by a limited number
of ATV trails that are open to ATV traffic only during the hunting season.
Fishing is the second most popular activity on the refuge. In 2004, 14,490 visits were associated with
fishing (Complex Refuge Management Information System 2004 data). Most fishing occurs on
Mathews Brake NWR where access is provided via a boat ramp on the east side, and on Panther
Swamp NWR where access is provided by two boat ramps, one at Lake George and the other at
Deep Bayou.
Wildlife observation and photography is encouraged on all refuges in the Complex. A few trails
provide opportunities for hiking, and many refuge roads are also open to the public. Each year
several special use permits are issued to photographers. Two new disabled accessible wildlife
observation platforms are available for the public at Yazoo NWR, and one disabled accessible
interpreted nature trail is available at Hillside NWR. Although occasional visitors stop by to observe
wildlife and take a few pictures, most wildlife observation and photography is associated with hunting
and fishing because the Complex lacks the staff and resources to establish formal programs that
would expand or improve participation.
Environmental education and interpretation are provided upon request, but there are no refuge-specific
programs and no staff available to develop and conduct effective education and outreach
programs. The Complex has no camping facilities.
In 2004, refuges in the Complex counted approximately 163,105 visitor-use days for all activities
(Complex Refuge Management Information System 2004 data).
Outdoor Recreation Economics
Fish and wildlife habitats and species associated with the Delta are economically important. Local
businesses benefit from hunting and recreational fishing, wildlife viewing and photography, and
commercial fishing (Table 7). Resident and nonresident hunting and fishing revenues for the state
totaled $13.7 million for 525,479 licenses (Mississippi Development Authority 2002).
In addition, $6.2 million in resident and nonresident fishing license revenues were reported in FY
2002.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
Table 7. Activities by participants, 16 years old and older, throughout Mississippi
Activity
Number
of Partici-pants
Activity
Days
Avg.
Days
per
person
Total
Expenses
($1,000)
Trip-related
Expenses
($1,000)
Equip-ment
and
Other
($1,000)
Average
$ per
person
Avg. Trip
Expenses
per day
Fishing *586,000 9.5M 16 $211,000 $118,000 $93,000 $363 $13
Hunting **357,000 8.5M 24 $360,000 $132,000 $227,000 $969 $16
Wildlife
Obser-vation
***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)
Wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities contribute to the economic base for rural communities.
The Complex can enhance existing opportunities through improved access, facilities, and staffing.
Hunting and fishing, and more recently, eco-tourism involving wildlife observation, photography, and
environmental interpretation are increasingly being viewed as desirable industries. Land alterations
and development for agriculture and other purposes have resulted in the loss of valuable fish and
wildlife habitat. Refuges in the Complex serve a vital role, not only by restoring, protecting, and
providing habitat for a diversity of plant and wildlife species, but also by providing natural areas where
people can enjoy wildlife observation, photography, hunting, or fishing.
Tourism
Music, festivals, historical sites, and outdoor recreation are some of the tourism opportunities
available, but infrastructure and expertise is lacking to effectively position the Delta as a cultural
tourism or outdoor recreation destination. The State of Mississippi has initiated plans to develop the
“Mississippi Millennium Blues Trail,” which would pass through the counties surrounding the
Complex. The Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) is working to designate Highway 1,
which borders the west side of Yazoo NWR, as a state scenic highway. MDOT’s next step is to
support the designation of Highway 1 as a Federal Scenic Highway. Overall, tourism (excluding
hunting and fishing) in Washington, Holmes, Yazoo, Leflore, and Humphreys counties does not
currently contribute significantly to the local economy (Table 8). Washington County generates
additional revenues from casinos located along the Mississippi River, but offers few other established
attractions that regularly draw tourists to this area.
CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
Prior to Old World settlement, several Native American tribes inhabited the Delta. North of the
Complex, the Quizquiz tribe was a predecessor of the historic Tunica. Only one village of Quapaw
was identified in 1763, with the rest in Arkansas. The Yazoo, Koroa, and Tunica tribes occupied
areas along the lower Yazoo River. The first Europeans to travel through the Delta were the
Spaniards of De Soto’s 1540 expedition. The French arrived in the mid-1600s. They noted many
40 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
tribes; however, nearly all the tribes mentioned by the French in the mid-1600s had disappeared by
1750, due to the introduction of European diseases that killed many, warfare, and migration. In 1803,
the land was sold to the United States as part of the Louisiana Purchase (Heisler 1978).
Table 8. Estimated county tourism and recreation (T&R) revenues/employment
County Total T&R
Revenues
Total T&R
Employment
Total Establishment
Based Employment
T&R
Employment
Percentage
Washington 148,053,836 1,565 23,050 6.8%
Yazoo 11,874,082 150 6,600 2.3%
Leflore 29,476,106 475 16,340 2.9%
Humphreys 2,173,617 27 3,060 0.9%
Holmes 4,205,929 67 4,230 1.6%
(Mississippi Development Authority, Division of Tourism 2003)
Numerous cultural resource inventories have been completed on approximately 25,000 acres
throughout the Complex (Table 9). Comprehensive surveys were conducted on Yazoo, Mathews
Brake, and Hillside NWRs prior to and following land acquisition. The only refuge in the Complex that
has been identified as containing significant cultural value (to date) is Yazoo NWR. Five properties
on Yazoo NWR are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, including the Swan Lake
Indian mounds, Deer Lake Village, Deer Lake Village South, the Steele Bayou site, and the Big Lake
site. The five sites were nominated for the Register in 1973; however, the State has not yet
completed the process, and further coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the
Service’s Regional Archaeologist is needed to move this process forward.
Previous cultural resource surveys have recommended that the Swan Lake Indian Mounds be closed
to the public. However, the Indian Mounds are the most obvious and well-known cultural resource
site in the area. The impressive Temple Mound on Yazoo Refuge Road is a source of great curiosity
by the visiting public, and the refuge’s proximity to the Winterville Mounds and Museum in Greenville,
Mississippi, increases the likelihood that visitors in the area will stop by and visit the refuge’s mounds.
Only minimal infrastructure would be required to prepare the Temple Mound for interpretive display.
Table 9. Archaeological surveys conducted on the Complex to date
Refuge Acres Surveyed Known Archeological
Properties
Properties eligible for
the NRHP*
Yazoo 5,000 27 5
Panther Swamp 175 0 0
Hillside 15,406 0 0
Morgan Brake 2,000 0 0
Mathews Brake 2,418 0 0
*NRHP= “National Register of Historic Places”
(Source: Central MS Complex Cultural Resource files)
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
Indian Mounds
Although the first people may have entered what is now Mississippi about 12,000 years ago, the
earliest major phase of earthen mound construction in this area did not begin until approximately
2,100 years ago. Mounds continued to be built sporadically for another 1,800 years. Of the mounds
that remain today, some of the earliest were built to bury important members of local tribal groups.
The burial mounds were usually rounded, dome-shapes. Later mounds were rectangular, flat-topped,
earthen platforms upon which temples or residences of chiefs were erected.
Eight hundred years ago the Delta was home to highly organized societies. There were roads,
commerce, and cultural centers anchored by awe-inspiring earthen monuments. Wonders of
geometric precision, these earthworks were the centers of life. However, mound construction was in
a period of decline in the 1500s when the first Europeans arrived in the region and brought epidemic
diseases, which decimated native populations across the Southeast. As a result, by the time
sustained contact with European colonists began around 1700, the long tradition of mound building
was reaching its end. Today mounds owned by state or federal agencies are protected along with
the lands for which those agencies are responsible. Most of the mounds in Mississippi, however, are
on privately owned land. Many mounds have been irreparably damaged or completely destroyed by
modern development and looting. As a result, Indian mounds are critically endangered cultural sites.
(Indian Mounds of Mississippi, National Park Service 2002).
42 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
III. Plan Development
OVERVIEW
Early in the draft plan development process, the planning team identified a list of issues and concerns
that were likely to be associated with Complex conservation and management. The list of issues
grew with the addition of concerns from governmental partners and the public.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND PLANNING PROCESS
The planning process was initiated with a meeting of planning team members in August 2000. The
planning team subsequently identified an initial list of issues and prepared a mailing list that included
the general public, adjacent landowners, state agencies, private organizations, governments, and
other interested parties. Letters were mailed to individuals and groups on the mailing list to explain
the comprehensive conservation planning process and to request permission to include them on
future meetings. The letters also requested that the recipients identify other individuals who may be
interested in the planning effort. In addition, announcements were made at meetings of civic groups
and public service announcements were aired on local radio stations.
Three refuge biological reviews (Yazoo and Panther Swamp NWRs, and a combined Hillside,
Mathews Brake, and Morgan Brake NWRs) were conducted between October 2000 and January
2001 to obtain recommendations for future refuge management activities from a diverse team of Fish
and Wildlife Service staff, federal and state agency representatives, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), and universities. The combined expertise of the group represented the most respected and
experienced wildlife and habitat managers in the state. The diverse range of interests among these
groups provided the means for a critical examination of current programs. The reviews produced a
range of alternatives that identified data needs, habitat objectives, opportunities for improvement, and
other information, while lending support to future partnership opportunities on mutual interests.
Three separate reports summarized the recommendations submitted by the biological review teams.
In February 2001, two refuge public use reviews (Yazoo/Panther and Hillside/Mathews/Morgan) were
completed. The public use review team (comprised of Service staff) developed a “Public Use Review
Report” for each of the refuges that outlined recommendations made in the field. In May 2001, three
public scoping meetings were conducted to obtain information and concerns from individuals and
groups occupying the communities around the five refuges. Meeting announcements were sent to
everyone on the mailing list, and flyers were distributed with details about the meetings. Articles
announcing the meetings were published in newspapers and magazines, and announcements were
made on radio and television stations.
A presentation at the beginning of each meeting outlined the planning process, the purpose(s) of
each refuge, and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Participants were assigned to
groups and each group was provided with individuals who served as facilitator and recorder for that
group. Each group completed an “Issues Worksheet,” which gave an indication of the value each
person placed on the Complex’s various resources.
Following the “Issue Worksheet” outline, participants were asked to present specific issues related to
each topic (e.g., waterfowl, shorebirds, hunting, and law enforcement). All comments and issues
were recorded. At the end of the meeting, all worksheets were collected. The worksheet also
provided an additional comment section to accommodate those individuals who felt more comfortable
providing their comments in writing. Additional “Issue Worksheets” were mailed to those individuals
44 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
and groups on the mailing list who did not attend the meetings. Several letters were received from
interested parties and organizations addressing their concerns for the future management of the
Complex. The draft plan considered all input obtained from the meetings and the correspondence.
Although no local tribes are located in the area, letters were sent to the tribal chairs of the Quapaw
and Tunica tribes of Oklahoma and Louisiana, respectively. The letters explained the planning
process and requested that they contact the planning team if they had any tribal lands in the area or
concerns about planning. No response was received.
The biological and public use reviews and scoping meetings provided a list of issues that participants
believed needed to be addressed in the comprehensive conservation plan. Alternatives to address
identified issues were developed (Environmental Assessment, Section B). The preferred alternative
formed the basis for selection of objectives and strategies that are expected to achieve the goals
identified by the planning team. This process ensured that the more important issues would be
resolved or given priority over the life of the plan.
ISSUES
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS
Threatened and Endangered Species
The protection and recovery of threatened and endangered plants and animals is an important
responsibility of the Service and the Service’s national wildlife refuges. Several threatened and
endangered species use or could use the Complex, including the bald eagle, Louisiana black bear,
pondberry, interior least tern, and pallid sturgeon.
Recovery plans for the Louisiana black bear address the need to eventually reestablish a population
within its historical range, including the State of Mississippi. Large blocks of interior forest, such as
the forest on Panther Swamp NWR and the neighboring Delta National Forest, could serve as
potential sites for reestablishment. Until recently, most restoration efforts have been focused on the
Louisiana black bear within the State of Louisiana. However, bear sightings in the lower Mississippi
Delta have increased over the last few years, suggesting a possible expansion of these bears across
the Mississippi River from existing natural and repatriated bear populations in Louisiana and
Arkansas. Some discussion among black bear conservationists have identified Panther Swamp NWR
as a potential site for reintroductions as early as 2006.
Pondberry, an endangered plant species, is known to occur on areas surrounding the Complex (e.g.,
Delta National Forest). No formal surveys have been conducted on the Complex to identify colonies
of this rare shrub, but there have been attempts by USDA Forest Service researchers to reestablish
and study small plantings of pondberry on various refuges. A formal survey needs to be conducted to
determine whether any plant communities exist, particularly on Panther Swamp NWR, which is
adjacent to Delta National Forest.
Bald eagles nest in areas near Complex refuges, but no known nests occur on the refuge lands.
Eagles are often seen during the winter months when waterfowl numbers are abundant and they are
occasionally seen perched in trees near larger refuge water bodies. Surveys during the nesting
season are needed to determine possible eagle nesting on the Complex.
The pallid sturgeon is known to occur in drainage systems connected to refuge waters, but no formal
surveys or studies have been conducted. Such surveys or studies need to be initiated.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
Invasive Species
An "invasive species" is defined here as a species 1) that is non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem
under consideration and 2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or
environmental harm or harm to human health (Executive Order 13112). Invasive species can be
plants, animals, and other organisms (e.g., microbes). Human actions are the primary means of
invasive species introductions.
Several invasive species occur on the Complex. Some of the more prominent and obvious are feral
hogs, coyote, nutria, and armadillo. These species were either accidentally released and became
acclimated to living in the wild, were intentionally released for sport or trade, or have expanded their
ranges. These invasive species have been sporadically suppressed by lethal means.
Invasive plants, insects, and smaller organisms are more difficult to recognize and monitor. The
Complex does not have an invasive species monitoring program to detect initial introductions, rate of
spread, and impacts. However, several invasive plants, such as alligator weed and kudzu, are known
to occur in widespread areas across the Complex, overtaking native vegetation. Attempts at control
have been opportunistic and sporadic, using both biological and chemical means.
The Complex does not have a formal “Invasive Species Management Plan.” There are currently no
structured programs or funding specifically provided for an invasive species management program.
However, a plan will be developed and implemented by 2006, subject to available staff and funding.
Resident Wildlife
The primary mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System is the protection of
federal trust species (migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, anadromous fish, and
marine mammals). Responsibility is also assumed for managing resident wildlife that is dependent
on refuge resources, but not to the exclusion or detriment of the purposes for which a refuge was
established. A variety of wildlife species indigenous to the LMRAV inhabit the Complex. Some
species are readily recognized by the general public, including white-tailed deer, wild turkey,
cottontail rabbits, and others. Animals that are valued by the public for hunting opportunities are
elevated in importance to land managers with hunting programs.
The vision of the Refuge System “requires us to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System.” To better understand the biodiversity and
environmental health of refuge lands, baseline information on wildlife and their habitats must be
collected. These data will document presence or absence, monitor trends, and identify the impacts of
refuge programs on species. Historically, most land managers in the Refuge System focused
management efforts on more common, sometimes recreational, wildlife species. However, the
Refuge System’s mission does not give preference to any one group of species, except for an
overriding responsibility to protect and manage habitat for federal trust species (migratory birds,
threatened and endangered species, anadromous fish, and marine mammals).
Each biological review team member recognized that the Complex lacked specific data on many resident
wildlife species, particularly nongame wildlife, such as reptiles, amphibians, mussels, insects, small
mammals, and their habitats. Most efforts to collect data on resident wildlife have focused on studying and
managing game species, such as white-tailed deer. While it is recognized that this is an important animal,
especially to the habitat and hunting public, dozens of refuge wildlife and plant species deserve study. The
needed studies on species and habitats will require additional staff and funding.
46 Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex
The northern bobwhite quail historically and traditionally has been one of the most popular game
birds in the south. Around the turn of the twentieth century, bobwhite quail numbers reached all time
highs, but since then have been in constant decline. Land use practices from 1900 through the
1950s produced habitats that were conducive to the birds. Early settlers carved out small farms in
large expanses of forests and along with the associated grazing of livestock and cropping, provided
the right mosaic of early successional habitats that the birds require. However, for the last several
decades, bobwhite quail and many other small game species associated with early successional
stages and grasslands have declined at an average of three percent per year. In the last 10 years,
the rate of decline has increased to about six percent per year. While many factors have contributed
to this decline, including predators, pathogens, and pesticides, deteriorating habitat quality is the
primary cause of decline. This is due to advanced natural succession, intensive monoculture farming,
more intensive timber management, reduction in prescribed burning, and the extensive use of exotic
grasses, such as fescue and Bermuda.
Agricultural farming practices have become more mechanized, and chemical control for pests has
increased dramatically. Small patchwork farms that once provided nesting, brood rearing, and
protective cover have been replaced by large monoculture farm operations that have eliminated
thousands of miles of weedy ditch banks and fence rows. Bobwhite quail prefer an interspersion of
woodlands, brush, grass, and croplands. Currently, there are no active management programs for
quail throughout the Complex. However, coveys of quail have survived and expanded in favorable
habitats existing on Panther Swamp, Hillside, and Morgan Brake NWRs.
Wild turkey, an upland game species, can be found on every refuge in the Complex, except Mathews
Brake NWR. Flooding and predation have caused dramatic population declines in the past, causing
the closure or limiting of wild turkey hunting seasons. Monitoring efforts should be initiated to ensure
that populations are not over-harvested on those refuges that offer wild turkey hunting programs.
Management actions for quail and grassland birds would also benefit turkey production and survival.
Many comments were received requesting the active management of these upland game birds in
particular to provide a huntable population.
White-tailed deer have the potential to adversely affect habitats unless their numbers are kept at or
slightly below the carrying capacity. The Complex refuge hunt program is designed to maintain the
herd while offering quality hunting opportunities to the public. An appropriate harvest (related to
habitat conditions) has been maintained with occasional fluctuations due to weather and habitat
conditions. Population level indicators could include monitoring, harvest data, and periodic health
checks.
Hunting programs provide opportunities for raccoon, rabbits, squirrel, and the incidental taking of
beaver, coyote, and feral hogs during hunt seasons because overpopulation of raccoon, beaver,
coyote, and feral swine adversely impact other species. For example, raccoon predation on the nests
of turkey, wood ducks, and songbirds can limit their reproductive success. Raccoon also spread
canine distemper, a common close-contact disease, to other species such as fox. Beaver have
become pests, building dams that hold water on trees, causing massive die-offs of large tracts of
mature bottomland hardwoods, which take decades to recover. On Panther Swamp NWR, trapping
efforts by staff, volunteers, and the issuance of special use permits to commercial trappers have not
effectively reduced these losses.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47
Migratory Birds
Ducks. Most refuges in the Complex (except Hillside, Holt Collier, and Theodore Roosevelt NWRs)
have legislated purposes that set higher priorities for migratory birds than all other wildlife species.
These purposes guide the primary operation and management actions on the refuges. Habitat
management actions include providing agricultural “hot foods” such as rice, corn, milo, and millet and
managing and maintaining moist-soil areas and forested wetlands to meet the feeding, resting, and
breeding needs of migratory and resident waterfowl. Comments of biological review teams and the
public provided overwhelming support to continue or expand habitat management programs for
migratory and resident waterfowl, with specific stipulations for improving and focusing efforts.
To support the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the LMVJV office assigned each refuge
with a minimum acreage of habitat, objectives to provide sufficient water, food, sanctuary, and
resting/loafing areas to meet the needs of wintering waterfowl. The objectives are based on the best
available information; however, there are currently several research projects in progress that study
the available resources and habitats on private lands. The results of these studies will likely alter
refuge habitat management objectives in the future.
Particular attention was given to the amount of refuge croplands and moist-soil areas needed to meet
habitat objectives and to the numbers of waterfowl that these cropland and moist-soil areas can
support. Lands currently in agricultural crops t