Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment White River National Wildlife Refuge

              DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WHITE RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Desha, Monroe, Arkansas, and Phillips Counties, Arkansas
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
October 2011
White River National Wildlife Refuge
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose and Need for THE Plan .................................................................................................. 1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................................... 2
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2
Legal Policy Context ..................................................................................................................... 4
North American Waterfowl Management Plan .................................................................... 5
Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plan ........................................................................... 6
United States Shorebird Conservation Plan ........................................................................ 6
Fisheries Vision for the Future ............................................................................................ 6
American Woodcock Management Plan ............................................................................. 7
Relationship to State Wildlife Agency ........................................................................................... 7
II. Refuge Overview .............................................................................................................................. 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 9
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 11
Sugarberry Research Natural Area ................................................................................... 11
Mink Bayou Natural Area .................................................................................................. 13
Brooks Island Natural Area ............................................................................................... 13
Striplin-Deane Natural Area .............................................................................................. 13
Waters Bayou Natural Area .............................................................................................. 14
Dial Creek Natural Area .................................................................................................... 14
Baptize Lakes Natural Area .............................................................................................. 14
Other designations ............................................................................................................14
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 15
Overview ........................................................................................................................... 15
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Priorities ................................................................... 17
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 17
The Big Woods of Arkansas .............................................................................................. 17
Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan ........................................................................................... 17
Ecological Threats and Problems ...............................................................................................18
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 18
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 18
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 19
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 20
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 20
Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 27
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 28
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 28
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 28
Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................32
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 50
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 52
ii White River National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 56
Land Protection and Conservation ................................................................................... 56
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 67
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance......................................................................... 80
III. Plan Development ......................................................................................................................... 87
Pre-Planning .............................................................................................................................. 87
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 87
Fish and Wildlife Population and Habitat Management .................................................... 88
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 88
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 90
Wilderness Review ........................................................................................................... 91
IV. Management Direction ................................................................................................................ 93
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 93
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 95
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 95
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 95
Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 124
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 144
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 155
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 167
V. Plan Implementation .................................................................................................................. 175
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 175
Proposed Projects .................................................................................................................... 175
Fish And Wildlife Population Management ..................................................................... 175
Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 178
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 185
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 188
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 193
Partnership/Volunteers Opportunities ...................................................................................... 208
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 209
Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................ 210
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. Background .................................................................................................................................. 211
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 211
Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................... 211
Decision Framework................................................................................................................. 211
Planning Study Area ................................................................................................................ 211
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ....................................................................... 212
Compatibility ................................................................................................................... 212
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ......................................................................... 212
II. Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 215
Table of Contents iii
II. Description of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 217
Formulation of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 217
Description of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 217
Alternative A (Current Management - No Action) ............................................................ 217
Alternative B (Minimal Resource and Public Use Management) .................................... 220
Alternative C (Enhanced Resource and Public Use management) - Proposed Alternative
....................................................................................................................................... 223
Features Common to all Alternatives ....................................................................................... 227
Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................. 229
Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Further Analysis ............................................... 241
IV. Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................. 243
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 243
Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 243
Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 243
Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 243
Other Management ......................................................................................................... 244
Land Acquisition ..............................................................................................................245
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 245
Refuge Revenue-Sharing ................................................................................................ 245
Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 245
Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 246
Alternative A (Current Management - No Action) ............................................................ 246
Alternative B – Minimal Resource and Public Use Management .................................... 247
Alternative C – Enhanced Resource and Public Use management (Proposed Alternative)
....................................................................................................................................... 250
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 259
Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ........................................... 259
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 259
Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 260
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 260
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 260
Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 260
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 261
Anticipated Impacts on Wildlife Species ......................................................................... 261
Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Programs, Facilities, Cultural Resources, Environmental
Justice, Environmental Resources, and Surrounding Communities ............................... 266
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 268
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 268
V. Consultation and Coordination .................................................................................................. 269
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Glossary ..................................................................................................................... 271
Appendix B. References and Literature Citations ....................................................................... 281
Appendix C. Relevant Legal Mandates and Executive Orders ................................................... 287
iv White River National Wildlife Refuge
Appendix D. Public Involvement ................................................................................................... 289
Pre-Planning ............................................................................................................................ 289
Public Involvement and Planning Process ............................................................................... 289
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 290
Wildlife and Fish Population and Habitat Management .................................................. 290
Public Use ....................................................................................................................... 290
Administration (Staffing and Facilities)............................................................................ 292
Appendix E. Appropriate Use Determinations ............................................................................. 295
Appendix F. Compatibility Determinations .................................................................................. 313
Appendix G. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation ....................................................... 361
Appendix H. Wilderness Review ................................................................................................... 369
Appendix I. Refuge Biota ............................................................................................................... 371
Ducks and Geese ............................................................................................................................. 371
Appendix J. Budget Requests ....................................................................................................... 413
Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ............................................................................... 413
Maintenance Management System Needs .............................................................................. 413
(to be included in Final CCP) ................................................................................................... 413
Appendix K. List of Preparers ....................................................................................................... 415
Table of Contents v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. White River NWR location map ......................................................................................... 10
Figure 2. Location of designated natural areas at White River NWR................................................ 12
Figure 3. Service-designated ecosystems in the conterminous U.S. ................................................ 16
Figure 4. Habitat types on White River NWR .................................................................................... 29
Figure 5. Mid-winter bald eagle survey results, 1986-2007 .............................................................. 33
Figure 6. Percent of total participants by activity in Arkansas ........................................................... 54
Figure 7. Impoundments with management capabilities on White River NWR ................................. 60
Figure 8. Acres of forest thinnings at White River NWR by decades, April 2010.............................. 62
Figure 9. North Unit roads and bridges, White River NWR ............................................................... 69
Figure 10. South Unit roads and bridges, White River NWR .............................................................. 70
Figure 11. Public use areas – North Unit, White River NWR .............................................................. 71
Figure 12. Public use areas – South Unit, White River NWR ............................................................. 72
Figure 13. Number of deer harvested on White River NWR, 1956-2007 ............................................ 77
Figure 14. Condition of gravel and paved refuge roads in 2001 ......................................................... 83
Figure 15. White River NWR staffing chart ....................................................................................... 207
vi White River National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Relative size of White River NWR forest types ................................................................... 31
Table 2. Listing of species/communities of concern ......................................................................... 34
Table 3. Black bear den characteristics on White River NWR .......................................................... 44
Table 4. Number of participants in wildlife-associated recreation in Arkansas in 2006 .................... 53
Table 5. Information from the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation for Arkansas ..................................................................... 55
Table 6. Comparison of demographic statistics for Desha, Monroe, Arkansas,
and Phillips Counties, Arkansas, and the USA .................................................................. 58
Table 7. Invasive species and their locations on White River NWR ................................................. 66
Table 8. Summary of roads and trails at White River NWR .............................................................. 68
Table 9. Refuge lakes with improved boat ramps and gravel road access ...................................... 73
Table 10. Primary public access entrances for White River NWR ...................................................... 74
Table 11. Chronology of hunting milestones on White River NWR, 1932 to present ......................... 76
Table 12. Refuge roadways ................................................................................................................ 82
Table 13. Hypothesized forest area (hectares) required to support viable
populations of 500 breeding birds within the MAV ........................................................... 101
Table 14. Managed waterfowl units and habitat target and objectives for a typical year .................. 129
Table 15. Carrying capacity of selected foraging habitats (expressed as
duck energy days/acre) of dabbling ducks wintering in the LMRJV ................................. 130
Table 16. Summary of projects ......................................................................................................... 200
Table 17. Funding and personnel ..................................................................................................... 204
Table 18. National wildlife refuge step-down management plans related
to the goals and objectives of the comprehensive conservation plan .............................. 209
Table 19. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for White River NWR ....................... 229
Table 20. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, White River NWR ............................... 252
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for
White River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was prepared to guide management actions and
direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge management;
wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and
does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for which it was established.
A planning team comprised of Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and state wildlife agency personnel,
non-governmental organizations, and others developed a range of alternatives to refuge
management that the Service could reasonably undertake to achieve the goals and fulfill the purpose
for White River NWR. This Draft CCP/EA describes the proposed plan, as well as other alternatives
considered and their effects on the environment. Each alternative consisted of different sets of goals
and objectives for management of the refuge.
The Draft CCP/EA will be made available to state and federal government agencies, conservation
partners, and the general public for review and comment. Comments from each entity will be
considered in the development of the final CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the Draft CCP/EA is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the purposes of
the refuge, attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge, ensures that the refuge contributes
to the National Wildlife Refuge System’s mission, and addresses key problems, issues and relevant
mandates, consistent with sound principals of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the Draft CCP/EA is needed to:
 provide a clear statement of management direction for the refuge;
 provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
 ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation and
education programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
 ensure that refuge management is consistent with the purpose for which the refuge was
established;
 ensure that refuge management is consistent with federal, state, and local plans and
contributes to the mission of the ecosystem in which it is located; and
 provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
2 White River National Wildlife Refuge
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved
with research and fish culture. The once-independent commission was renamed the Bureau of
Fisheries and placed in the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals
to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals so the name was changed to
the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956 and finally back to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Service is responsible for conserving, enhancing, and protecting fish and wildlife and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of people through federal programs relating to wild birds,
endangered species, certain marine mammals, inland sport fisheries, and specific fishery and wildlife
research activities (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United
States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service
enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state
fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) established, for the
first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System
(Refuge System). Actions were initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation,
including an effort to complete comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which
are completed with full public involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
establishing natural resources and recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvlement
Act, approved plans will serve as the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The
Improvement Act states that each refuge shall be managed to:
 Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the Refuge System;
 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System; and
 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine
compatible public uses.
The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island
NWR, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting birds in Florida
such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established for American
bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep (1936) after over-hunting,
competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once abundant herds. The drought
conditions of the 1930s Dust Bowl severely depleted breeding populations of ducks and geese.
Refuges established during the Great Depression focused on waterfowl production areas (i.e.,
protection of prairie wetlands in America’s heartland). The emphasis on waterfowl continues today
but also includes protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic loss of bottomland
hardwoods. By 1973, the Service began to focus on establishing refuges for endangered species.
National wildlife refuges connect visitors to their natural resource heritage and provide them with an
understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology to help them understand their role in the
environment. Wildlife-dependent recreation on refuges also generates economic benefits to local
communities. According to the report, Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local
Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation, approximately 34.8 million people visited national
wildlife refuges in Fiscal Year 2006, generating almost $1.7 billion in total economic activity and
creating almost 27,000 private sector jobs producing about $542.8 million in employment income
(Carver and Caudill 2007). Additionally, recreational spending on refuges generated nearly $185.3
million in tax revenue at the local, county, and state, and federal levels (Carver and Caudill 2007). As
the number of visitors grows, significant economic benefits are realized by local communities. In
2006, nearly 71 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife spending
$45.7 billion and generating $122.6 billion (Leonard 2008).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2005,
approximately 38,000 refuge volunteers donated more than 1.4 million hours. The value of their
service was more than $25 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
4 White River National Wildlife Refuge
The Improvement Act stipulates that comprehensive conservation plans be prepared in consultation
with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a
process to ensure an opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every
15 years) of the plans.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved comprehensive
conservation plan that will guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge
unit purposes. The plan will be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices,
and legal mandates including Service compatibility standards, and other Service policies, guidelines,
and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT
LEGAL MANDATES, ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLICY GUIDELINES, AND OTHER SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS
The mission and goals of the Refuge System, congressional legislation, presidential executive orders,
and international treaties guide administration of national wildlife refuges. Policies for management
options of refuges are defined in administrative guidelines established by the Secretary of the Interior
and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Management
options are guided by a refuge’s establishing authorities, Public Law 104, Stat. 2957 (§108, H.R.
3338), and the Improvement Act (see Appendix C for more information on legal and policy guidance
for the operation of national wildlife refuges). Key guidance and direction can be found in:
● National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966;
● Refuge Recreation Act of 1962;
● Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
● U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual; and
● National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural
resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation
between White River NWR and its partners. Examples of partners include the Arkansas Game and
Fish Commission (AGFC), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Ducks Unlimited, Friends of White River
NWR, and private landowners.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened.
No refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use
that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or
detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All
programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. Those
mandates are to:
● Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
●Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
●Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
●Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish and
wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
●Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
As priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over other public
uses in planning and management.
BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY, DIVERSITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH POLICY
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are “…maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans…” The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while
achieving refuge purpose(s) and Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and
associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge
managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contributions to biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional
judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, the refuge’s role within an
ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science including consultation with others both inside
and outside the Service.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PRIORITIES AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this Draft CCP/EA.
Conservation priorities for national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley focus on
threatened and endangered species, trust species, and species of local concern. Goals and
objectives in this Draft CCP/EA are stepped down from the following plans:
 North American Waterfowl Management Plan;
 Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan;
 North American Bird Conservation Initiative;
 United States Shorebird Conservation Plan;
 Fisheries Vision for the Future; and
 American Woodcock Management Plan.
NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan, signed by the United States and Canadian
governments in 1986, undertook an intensive effort to protect and restore North America’s waterfowl
populations and their habitats. With its update in 1994, Mexico became a signatory to the plan.
Restoration of wetlands and associated ecosystems is the main premise of the plan in order to
restore waterfowl populations to levels observed in the 1970s.
White River NWR provides important foraging and resting (sanctuary) habitats for waterfowl and
serves an integral role in a large, cooperative planning and habitat management effort.
6 White River National Wildlife Refuge
PARTNERS IN FLIGHT BIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation led efforts in the 1990s to form the Partners in Flight
program that combines resources and knowledge to protect the natural diversity of our continent.
Many partners have made the program successful by joining Working Groups to develop Regional
Bird Conservation Plans that set conservation priorities and habitat and population objectives.
White River NWR is located within Physiographic Area 5 and can contribute to the plan’s actions for
restoration projects to benefit migratory landbirds. Habitats found on the refuge and those associated
bird focal species that use them are:
 Bottomland hardwood forests – ivory-billed woodpecker, swallow-tailed kite, Swainson’s
warbler, cerulean warbler, prothonotary warbler, and northern parula;
 Secondary growth – painted bunting and Bell’s vireo; and
 Moist cleared land – shorebirds and waterfowl.
NORTH AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
This initiative is a broad coalition of governmental, non-governmental, and academic organizations
interested in coordinating efforts to conserve bird populations and the landscapes upon which they
depend. It evolved in 1998 when conservationists recognized the value of coordinating and
integrating planning, implementation, and evaluation efforts of the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, Partners in Flight, U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and colonial waterbirds.
UNITED STATES SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The United States Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership involving organizations throughout
the United States committed to the conservation of shorebirds. Primary objectives of this plan are to:
 develop a scientifically sound monitoring system to provide practical information to
researchers and land managers;
 identify principles upon which management plans can integrate shorebird habitat
conservation with multiple species strategies; and
 design a strategy for increasing public awareness and information concerning wetlands
and shorebirds.
White River NWR is included in the Lower Mississippi/Western Gulf Coast Shorebird Planning
Region. Bird species that should be considered a high priority for the refuge include: piping plover,
American golden-plover, marbled godwit, ruddy turnstone, red knot, sanderling, buff-breasted
sandpiper, American woodcock, and Wilson’s phalarope.
FISHERIES VISION FOR THE FUTURE
In 2001, the Service worked with partners to refocus its Fisheries Program and develop a vision. This
vision of the Service and its Fisheries Program “is working with partners to restore and maintain fish
and other aquatic resources at self-sustaining levels and to support Federal mitigation programs for
the benefit of the American public.”
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
To achieve the vision, the Fisheries Program works with its partners to:
 protect the health of aquatic habitats;
 restore fish and other aquatic resources; and
 provide opportunities to enjoy the benefits of healthy aquatic resources.
AMERICAN WOODCOCK MANAGEMENT PLAN
Developed by the Service in 1990, the American Woodcock Management Plan sets management
goals to restore woodcock population to levels consistent with the demands of consumptive and
non-consumptive users (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990). Reliable annual population
estimates, harvest estimates, and information on recruitment and distribution are essential for
comprehensive woodcock management, as well as conserving and managing habitat. No step-down
management plans have been written but the plan provides general guidance for habitat
population management at the national level.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the Improvement 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. State wildlife management
areas and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for protection of species, and contribute to
the overall health and diversity of fish and wildlife species in the State of Arkansas.
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) is the state fish and wildlife agency partnering
with the Service. The AGFC plays an important role in keeping “The Natural State” true to its name.
Over the past 100 years, AGFC has overseen the protection, conservation, and preservation of
various species of fish and wildlife in Arkansas. This is done through habitat management, fish
stocking, hunting and fishing regulations, and a host of other programs conducive to helping
Arkansas’ wildlife flourish. The AGFC also manages over 280,000 acres of state-owned natural
areas and wildlife management areas.
The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process provides for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological health and diversity of fish and wildlife. A
vital part of the planning process is integrating common mission objectives, where appropriate.
In 2006, AGFC published the Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan (AWAP), which is built upon a strong
foundation of game and nongame conservation. The AWAP exceeds any other conservation
effort written for the state in scope and direction and provides a venue for the most innovative
collaboration conducted in the state thus far. The main focus of the AWAP is to “develop a living
planning tool, rather than a static funding document, that could be useful to professional partners,
citizen conservationists and land managers” (Anderson 2006). The AWAP describes seven
ecoregions, 396 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), 43 terrestrial habitats and 18
“ecobasins.” Within each ecoregion, SGCN, habitats, problems facing species, and actions are
described. This Draft CCP/EA for White River NWR was developed with the cooperation of
AGFC and incorporates many elements of the AWAP.
8 White River National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
National wildlife refuges provide important habitat for native plants and many species of mammals,
birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and insects. They also play a vital role in conserving endangered
and threatened species. Refuges offer a wide variety of wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities,
and many have visitor centers, wildlife trails, and environmental education programs.
This chapter provides an overview of White River NWR’s history and purpose, special designations,
ecosystem context, ecological threats and problems, physical and biological resources, cultural
resources, socioeconomic context, and refuge administration and management.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
Extending along both banks of the lower White River, a tributary of the Mississippi River in southeastern
Arkansas (Figure 1), White River Migratory Waterfowl Refuge was established by Executive Order 7173
of President Franklin D. Roosevelt on September 5, 1935. The purpose of the refuge was to protect
and conserve migratory birds and other wildlife resources in accordance with the following laws:
 "as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife....”
(Executive Order 7173);
 “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds."
16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act);
 "shall be administered by him [Secretary of the 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...(Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act);
 “suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the
protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened
species..”, 16 U.S.C., 460k-1; "... the Secretary...may accept and use ...real...property. Such
acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants
imposed by donors...”, 16 U.S.C. , 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. , 460k-460k-4],
as amended);
Executive Order 7173 authorized the fee-title acquisition of approximately 110,000 acres, which was
completed immediately thereafter. Many parcels were purchased with a timber reservation, much of
which was selectively cut in the 1940s. Minor adjustments were made over the years with various
land exchanges and a few purchases. Prior to the Arkansas-Idaho Land Exchange Act of 1992, White
River NWR’s total acreage was 112,771 acres. Of this total, approximately 9,000 acres are located
north of Arkansas Highway 1, and are therefore considered a part of the Northern Unit for public use
regulations (USFWS 2008a).
10 White River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. White River NWR location map
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Thus, with the exception of a very small acreage of inholdings obtained later, acquisition of the entire
Southern Unit of the White River NWR was completed in the late 1930s. The few legal encumbrances to
these lands include the rights-of-way for State Highway 1 and U.S. Highway 79, underground oil and gas
pipelines, above ground power transmission lines, the Arkansas Post Canal, the White River Levee and
associated Graham-Burke Pump Station, and the White River channel maintenance authority of the
Army Corps of Engineers (COE). In conjunction with the latter activities, a special use permit to deposit
dredged material on 184 acres of land located near the south end of the refuge has been granted to the
COE. The United States owns and the Service controls management of the White River levee on the
east side of the refuge, and has a right-of-way permit with the White River Drainage District, which in turn
maintains the levee. Finally, the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC) holds a conservation
easement on the 30-acre Striplin Woods State Natural Area. This easement restricts development and
other land management practices in this old-growth forest area.
Except for the approximately 9,000-acre tract of the original White River NWR, which is located north of
Arkansas Highway 1, most of the remaining 40,749 acres of land in the Northern Unit was transferred to
the Service from the Potlatch Corporation in January 1993, as a result of the Arkansas-Idaho Land
Exchange Act of 1992. The United States retains all rights to these lands, with the following exceptions:
(1) undivided one-half interest on 20 acres; (2) lifetime reservation of hunting and fishing rights on 160
acres; and, (3) perpetual hunting and fishing rights on 1,156 acres. Navigation on the White River, and
associated maintenance activities, also occurs along the length of the refuge. There are also several
inholdings to which limited rights of access have been provided to private landowners. Several former
inholdings have been acquired through Timber-for-Land Exchanges (USFWS 2008a).
In 1989, the public lands included in the three state-run wildlife management areas and two national
wildlife refuges in this ecosystem, collectively designated as the "Cache/Lower White Rivers Joint Venture
Area," were dedicated as "Wetlands of International Importance" under the auspices of the "Convention
on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat," commonly referred to as the
Ramsar Convention. At that time, 147,079 acres were included in the designation. (Only lands under
management control by conservation agencies qualify for designation.) The Ramsar Convention criteria
under which these lands qualified as the eighth U.S. Wetlands of International Importance were: (1)
Volume of use by migratory and resident waterfowl, especially mallards; (2) outstanding example of a
wetland community characteristic of its biogeographic region; (3) endangered species; (4) species
diversity; (5) research value; and, (6) practicality of conservation and management (USFWS 2008a)
Ongoing federal and state acquisition programs resulted in significant acreages of land being added to
public ownership between 1989 and 1993. Therefore, Amendment 1 was filed with the Ramsar
Convention Office (Gland, Switzerland) in 1993, and 53,999 acres were added to the original
designation. Thus, the designated Wetlands of International Importance within this ecosystem currently
total 201,178 acres. Periodic amendments will continue to add wetlands to the designation as the state
and federal areas are expanded in the future.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
White River NWR has several natural areas of special significance (USFWS 2008a), as described in
the following sections and shown in Figure 2.
SUGARBERRY RESEARCH NATURAL AREA
Sugarberry Research Natural Area (RNA) is located in the southeastern portion of the refuge, between
the White River Levee and White River, almost entirely surrounded by Scrubgrass Bayou (Figure 2). The
site is approximately 1,000 acres (officially listed as 973 acres) of bottomland hardwood forest and
12 White River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 2. Location of designated natural areas at White River NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
cypress swamp. Dominant tree species include sugarberry, overcup oak, sweet pecan, green ash, and
Nuttall oak. Topography is ridge/swale and low flats, with high ridges along the bank of Scrubgrass
Bayou. The forest is considered to be in an “old growth” condition, where large gaps are created by wind-throw,
ice damage or some other natural disturbance common with secondary succession. Present gaps
are of various ages and size and represent many points along the successionary continuum. Average
diameter at breast height (dbh) is approximately 24 inches or 2 feet, with larger diameter trees (greater
than 50 inches dbh) scattered throughout the area. Gaps are prevalent and species and structural
diversity are high, creating suitable habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species.
Sugarberry RNA is one of the few remaining old growth bottomland sites in the south. It contains
individual sites recognized by the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission as outstanding examples of
overcup oak forest and willow oak "flats." The area has not been logged since acquisition in the mid-
1930s, if ever. Because it is nearly surrounded by Scrubgrass Bayou, which was used by steamships
as a shortcut between the White River and the Mississippi Rivers in the 1800s, it is possible that ships
passing through obtained wood for fuel and other uses from this area.
Sugarberry RNA was designated a natural area by the Service in the 1940s and formally declared an
RNA by the Service Director in 1967. This area was later designated as a National Registry of
Natural Landmarks site in 1975.
MINK BAYOU NATURAL AREA
Formerly referred to as the Administratively Removed Natural Area, this 3,300-acre natural area is
between White River and Parish and East Moon Lakes (Figure 2). It is bounded on the north by Mossy
Lake and on the south by Car Body Road and Six Mile Bayou to East Moon Campground. Dominant tree
species include overcup oak, bitter pecan, sugarberry, honeylocust, black willow, and Nuttall oak.
Topography is mostly low flats, with a few ridge-swales and higher ridges along the bank of White River.
Most of this area is thought to have been cut by timber reservations in the late 1930s. Maps also
show the persimmon was sold in 1967 on a diameter limit basis. Otherwise, no logging has occurred
in most of this area for over 60 years. The Overcup oak - Bitter pecan forest type provides
moderately good waterfowl habitat with the generally single canopy layer of overstory and good stand
of wetland grasses on the ground layer.
BROOKS ISLAND NATURAL AREA
White River and Brooks Bayou surround this 4,400-acre tract (Figure 2). Dominant tree species
include overcup oak, bitter pecan, Nuttall oak, sugarberry, and ash. Topography is mostly low flats,
with a few ridge-swales and higher ridges along the banks of White River and Brooks Bayou.
The refuge selectively thinned this area in the 1970s, with access via a barge converted into a bridge
across Brooks Bayou just past Wolf Lake. The bridge-barge has since washed off the pilings,
severely limiting vehicle access to the island. The island has been a “No Motorized Vehicles” area
since the early 1990s. Roads have subsequently re-vegetated with shrubs and trees.
STRIPLIN-DEANE NATURAL AREA
This 130-acre tract is located just south of St. Charles on the west bank of White River (Figure 2). It
includes the 30-acre Striplin Woods that is said to have not been logged. Also included are 13.6
acres northerly of the Striplin Tract up to Arkansas Highway 1. Most of the parcel south of the Striplin
Tract between White River and the county road that was purchased from the Deane family in the late
14 White River National Wildlife Refuge
1990s is part of this area. A small portion of the old refuge is included in this area, using a natural
slough for the boundary of this natural area.
Relatively easy access to a forest in an “old growth” condition is rare in the southeast. The Striplin
Woods portion was dedicated as a state natural area by the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission
in 1979. It exhibits signs of active gap phase dynamics, where tree fall gaps that are created by wind,
disease, or other natural causes are occupied by replacement trees on both the upland and
bottomland hardwoods. Forest type ranges from wet bottomland forest to dry bottomland forest.
WATERS BAYOU NATURAL AREA
This 100-acre tract is on the north and west side of Arkansas Highway 1 and south and east of
Waters Bayou, east of the Swan Lake Road (Figure 2). In time, this area can provide a
representative area of only protective management with relatively easy access, right off the highway.
DIAL CREEK NATURAL AREA
This 900-acre area is interlaced by tupelo-cypress lined creeks and brakes with high ridges of
cherrybark red oak. It is the area of the refuge east of Walker Cypress Creek southeasterly from the
refuge boundary at the northwest corner of the east half of the southwest quarter of Section 34,
Township 1 South, Range 2 West, in Monroe County (Figure 2).
The intermingling of a variety of habitats provides diversity. By using protective management only,
this area can serve as an example of these habitats without manipulation by forest management that
can assist in evaluating the effectiveness of refuge management programs.
BAPTIZE LAKES NATURAL AREA
Located in the northeast corner of the refuge (Figure 2), this 500-acre area is interlaced by tupelo-cypress
lined creeks and brakes with high ridges. The intermingling of a variety of habitats furnishes
diversity. By using protective management only, this area can serve as an example of these habitats
without manipulation by forest management that can assist in evaluating the effectiveness of refuge
management programs. In other words, it can serve as an environmental baseline.
OTHER DESIGNATIONS
The American Bird Conservancy designated the refuge a Globally Important Bird Area 2001, and
Audubon Arkansas has recognized it as an Arkansas Important Birding Area. White River NWR is
part of The Nature Conservancy’s Big Woods Project. The refuge currently has the Arkansas State
Champion Bald Cypress Tree, as certified by the Arkansas Forestry Commission, and several others
are under consideration – Nuttall oak, sycamore, and tupelo (for national status).
No designated national wilderness areas are set aside on White River NWR. This issue was
originally reviewed in 1972 when the White River NWR Wilderness Study was completed. In the
wilderness proposal, two areas were believed to qualify as wilderness areas:
 Area A - Scrubgrass Bayou (Sugarberry RNA) 1,000 acres.
 Area B - Parrish Lake, East Moon area 4,000 acres.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
It was believed that by combining these two sites, they would meet the required 5,000-acre minimum
required to be designated by Congress as a national wilderness area under the Wilderness Act of
1964. At a public meeting to consider wilderness designation held in DeWitt on May 25, 1972, a
majority of the 78 attendees was not in favor of the wilderness proposal because of the perceived
restrictions limiting motorized access for hunting and fishing opportunities.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
OVERVIEW
The Service is increasing its efforts to adopt collaborative resource partnerships with private
landowners and local communities, as well as state and federal governments within ecosystems. The
purpose is to reduce the declining trend of fish and wildlife populations and biological diversity, to
establish conservation priorities, to clarify goals, and to solve common threats and problems
associated with fish and wildlife resources. The synergy of all federal, state, tribal, and private
organizations, working together, will ensure that the Service not only protects the more important
areas, but also reduces redundancy and overlap.
White River NWR is situated in the northwestern part of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem
(LMRE) (Figure 3) and is also located in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) Bird Conservation
Region. The refuge is a member and active participant of the Service’s LMRE Team. The LMRE is the
primary wintering habitat for mid-continent waterfowl populations. It is also important breeding and
migration habitat for songbirds returning from Central and South America, and it provides high-quality
habitat for resident wildlife species.
The refuge is a component of many regional and ecosystem conservation planning initiatives, and has the
opportunity to contribute to several such plans. Refuge management has utilized an integrated, multi-species
approach that focuses on habitat and wildlife communities rather than on single species. For
example, bottomland hardwood forest restoration and management can often benefit neotropical
migratory forest birds, wintering waterfowl, and resident land birds (USFWS 2008a).
Waterfowl and many other migratory birds benefit from food, protection, and sanctuary provided by
managed croplands and moist-soil units. Outdoor recreation such as hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, and wildlife photography are maintained and enhanced by refuge management
programs. Water quality is enhanced by better managing hydrology on refuge wetland and cropland
units. Since most of the species-of-concern in this ecosystem are closely associated with aquatic
environments, efforts have been directed at improving water quality and approximating more historic
hydrologic processes that benefit all of these sensitive species.
16 White River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Service-designated ecosystems in the conterminous U.S. with Lower Mississippi
River Ecosystem highlighted
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ECOSYSTEM PRIORITIES
The goals of the LMRE Plan are to:
1. Conserve, enhance, protect, and monitor migratory bird populations and their habitats in the
LMRE.
2. Protect, restore, and manage the wetlands of the LMRE.
3. Protect and/or restore imperiled habitats and viable populations of all endangered, threatened,
and candidate species and species of concern in the LMRE.
4. Protect, restore, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources historically associated
with the wetlands and waters of the LMRE.
5. Restore, manage, and protect national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries.
6. Increase public awareness and support for LMRE resources and their management.
7. Enforce natural resource laws.
8. Protect, restore, and enhance water and air quality throughout the LMRE.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
THE BIG WOODS OF ARKANSAS
The Nature Conservancy and its partners, including the Service, have protected more than 242,000
acres in the Big Woods of Arkansas, a 550,000-acre corridor of floodplain forest along the Mississippi
River. Some of the corridor includes refuge system lands. The Cache River National Wildlife
Refuge, just to the north of White River NWR, was established in 1986 when the Conservancy
transferred 380 acres to the Service. In 2004, the ivory-billed woodpecker, thought to be extinct, was
rediscovered within the corridor. Major restoration and conservation priorities for the Big Woods
have been identified. Efforts by Conservancy, the Service, the Arkansas Natural Heritage
Commission, the AGFC, and others continue to focus on these ecologically important lands.
ARKANSAS WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN
Each state, including Arkansas, has developed a wildlife action plan to determine comprehensive wildlife
conservation strategies for flora and fauna within the state. The AWAP, as noted in Chapter I, was
published in 2006. The AWAP identified 18 categories of threats to the wildlife of Arkansas, the condition
of the state’s wildlife health, and determined associated management actions needed to conserve wildlife
and important habitat before they become more rare and costly to protect. Many of these threats are also
of concern to the Service, such as hydrological alteration, habitat destruction, contaminants, predation
and disease, and resource depletion. The Service and the AGFC work cooperatively on many projects to
combat the effects of these threats.
18 White River National Wildlife Refuge
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
National wildlife refuges in the LMV serve as part of the last safety net to support biological diversity –
the greatest conservation challenge facing the Service. According to the LMRE Team, the greatest
threats to biological diversity within the LMV include:
 the loss of sustainable ecological communities, including the loss of 20 million acres of
bottomland hardwood forests;
 the loss of connectivity between bottomland hardwood forest sites (e.g., forest fragmentation);
 the effects of agricultural and timber harvesting practices;
 the simplification of the remaining wildlife habitats within the ecosystem and gene pools;
 the effects of constructing navigation and water diversion projects; and
 the cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource development activities.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
Typically, Arkansas County (location of the St. Charles weather recording station) has hot and humid
summers, mild winters, and generally abundant rainfall. Below-freezing periods are brief and sub-zero
temperatures rare with snowfall rare as well. Annual precipitation averages around 53 inches
per year and in a typical year, the county will have 50-55 thunderstorms. Tornados and/or warnings
seem to occur annually, however the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
indicated in the 1961 Soil Survey of Arkansas County that only 35 tornados were observed from 1916
to 1961 (0.78 per year). This number is higher today, no doubt in part to the ability of Doppler radar
as well as the developed system of trained storm spotters across the county (USFWS 2008b).
The potential for rapid and lasting climate warming poses a significant challenge for fish and wildlife
conservation. Species’ abundance and distribution are dynamic, relative to a variety of factors,
including climate. As climate changes, the abundance and distribution of wildlife and fish will also
change. Climate warming will be a particular challenge for threatened, endangered, and other “at
risk” species (USFWS 2008a).
A changing climate will force change in the stewardship of the Refuge System. Potential challenges
posed by a changing climate might include:
 Changing fire regimes;
 Changing patterns of rain and snowfall;
 Changing access to water resources;
 Altered hydrology in rivers and wetlands;
 Increased frequency of extreme weather events;
 Changes in plant community types;
 Changing abundance and distribution of fish, wildlife, and plant species;
 Changes in the timing (phenology) of synchronized, interdependent phenomena, so that they
no longer coincide.
Service managers already are seeing evidence of some of these effects in Alaska, where observed
warming has been 2-4 times that of global averages and change has been more rapid and visible.
Though other Regions of the Service likely will not be confronted with climate change impacts on the
same scale or pace as Alaska, climactic changes in the lower 48 states will amplify current
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
management challenges involving habitat fragmentation, urbanization, invasive species, disease,
parasites, and water management. Highly specialized or endemic species are likely to be most
susceptible to the additional stresses of changing climate.
The Refuge System is considering climate change in its comprehensive conservation plans, which
provide a framework for guiding refuge management decisions. The Refuge System is also looking
at how projected sea level rise could affect selected coastal refuges and how wildfire could change as
the result of a warming climate. This is particularly important since 177 refuges are on the coast.
The Service is currently planning a series of regional forums to help collect information on the potential
effects of climate change in coastal areas, mountains, prairies, and other landscapes, and to identify ways
we might better prepare for managing our valuable natural resources in the coming decades.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
Paleozoic bedrock crops out on the western edge of the Mississippi Delta, and dips to the southeast,
where it is overlain by more recent alluvial and ioessal strata deposited during alternating inundations
and recessions of the Gulf of Mexico. The bedrock below the White River system is from almost
1,000 to over 4,000 feet below sea level. Various overlying strata of gravel and sand support several
important and productive aquifers, alternating with confining strata of silts and clays (ASWCC 1988).
The surface strata of the Lower White River basin are all Quaternary deposits of alluvium and loess.
Holocene alluvial deposits of the existing major rivers, abandoned meanders, and areas near
channels form the current "bottomland" areas. These are the lowest areas in the basin, and are the
most likely to be forested and retain other obvious wetland characteristics. Immediately upslope of
these most recent deposits are one or more terraces of Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Lands at this
and higher elevations have largely been cleared for agricultural production. Older deposits are
exposed in only very limited circumstances in the basin. These include an area of dune sand located
in Woodruff County between the Cache River and Bayou DeView, and some isolated pockets of
exposed silt and sand along Bayou DeView north and east of Jonesboro, Arkansas (USFWS 1994).
The elevation at the north end of the basin at the Missouri state line is approximately 300 feet mean sea
level (MSL), compared to 125 feet MSL at the mouth of the White River. This drop in elevation across
185 air miles represents an average slope of only 0.018 percent across the entire basin. Although
relatively flat, the topography of the basin can be somewhat complex, with numerous current stream and
river channels, old meanders, and oxbow lakes surrounded by one or more terrace levels or bottoms.
The topography is usually one of three basic types: braided-stream terraces which display a
characteristic dendritic drainage pattern; meander belts which contain areas of past or present channel
migration with numerous parallel, crescent-shaped ridges and swales; and, backswamps which are flat
areas that remained peripheral to channel migration and slowly filled with layers of fine sediments.
Thus, in contrast to the apparent "flatness" of the landscape, the subtle complexity resulting from past
and ongoing geologic forces has a dramatic and pronounced effect on the processes which drive this
ecosystem and its provision of ecosystem functions, and which in turn dictates the complexity of
associated biotic communities which evolved here (USFWS 1994).
20 White River National Wildlife Refuge
SOILS
The soil types in the Lower White River basin for the most part are hydric, and the spatial
relationships of the various soil types and associations present further evidence of their fluvial
(riverine) origin and influence. By and large, the soils of the basin are rich and fertile. The reason for
drainage and clearing of most of the original forests was for agricultural production. Most of the soils
have a high clay content, which results in their capability to perch and pond water at the surface but
also prevents most areas from contributing to significant groundwater recharge through infiltration.
These soil characteristics make cultivation of rice possible over a large percentage of the lands in the
basin. Where water retention and flooding characteristics of individual soils are not suitable for rice,
the dominant crops are soybeans, winter wheat, and milo, with minor acreages of corn and cotton
occurring on the highest, most well-drained sites (USFWS 1994).
HYDROLOGY
Pre-settlement Conditions
The White River ecosystem was a forested wetland habitat complex whose composition, structure,
and function were largely determined by the frequency, duration, and depth of inundation. The
abundant annual rainfall, flat topographic profile, and other influences resulted in flooding which
ranged from frequent, deep, and prolonged adjacent to the major drainages and in the lower portion
of the system, to shallow and temporary in the topographically higher areas of the bottoms and in
isolated, but often extensive depressions throughout the terrace lands (USFWS 1994).
The annual hydrologic cycle reflected seasonal rainfall patterns, with lowest flows occurring in July
through October, and flooding along the river bottoms typically beginning in December or January and
peaking in May on the lower White River (ASWCC 1988). The system had an abundance of stream
channels, sloughs, oxbow lakes, and scrub/shrub swamps which contained water throughout the year in
all but the driest years. Extremely dry periods, during which a significant percentage of the smaller stream
channels were exposed, were infrequent but must have occurred every few centuries.
The extreme dynamism of the hydrology within the system, over both the short- and long-term, was
one of its most important pre-settlement characteristics. There also was and is a significant degree of
spatial variation in the hydrology within the ecosystem. Relatively shallow depressions in the
bottomlands and terraces are the first areas to be annually influenced by inundation through a
process termed "puddling," when they gradually fill with the onset of fall rains in November. With
continuing rains, these areas expand and interconnect, affecting larger and larger acreages. These
depressions would also have been among the last seasonally inundated wetlands to dry during late
spring with the end of the rainy period.
With the continuation of fall rains, the upper reaches of the streams' floodplains were most affected
by ���headwater flooding,” which is the relatively rapid flooding of drainage areas due to heavy rainfalls
during short periods of time. Heavy rains, in conjunction with the natural constraints of small
channels and broad, vegetated floodplains, can exceed the short-term capacity of the system to carry
away the rainfall. As this process proceeded with additional winter and spring rains, and major
drainages like the White and Mississippi Rivers filled to capacity, gradual filling of larger areas of flats
and floodplains were inundated by “backwater flooding” caused by water “backing” into higher areas
as a result of flows greatly in excess of stream channel capacities and/or impeded drainage in lower
portions of the system by excess water (USFWS 1994).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
For example, high flows on the Mississippi River greatly affect the hydrology of the lower half of
the White River NWR by reducing the ability of the White River to discharge into it. Conversely,
high flows of the White River may carry away floodwaters relatively easily if the Mississippi River
is low. The same situation exists at the confluence of the Cache and White Rivers at Clarendon,
and at other tributary confluences at a smaller scale. Thus, under the pre-settlement conditions
that prevailed for thousands of years, there were complex hydrologic interrelationships between
the tributaries and primary rivers within the ecosystem, and between the lower White River and
the Mississippi and Arkansas Rivers.
Hydrologic Modifications
Pre-settlement hydrologic patterns and relationships and their effects on other functions of the White
River ecosystem have been incrementally but significantly altered since Euro-American settlement. It
is helpful to view the hydrologic alteration of the White River watershed within the perspective of
historic flood control and drainage policies of the MAV as a whole (Baxter and Sunderland 1985).
During initial settlement in the late 1800s and early 1900s, there were many uncoordinated, local
flood control and drainage projects. Although these early projects may have had a significant
cumulative impact on the terrace lands within the ecosystem, they had less effect on natural
headwater and backwater flooding of the major drainages (USFWS 1994).
However, after the major Mississippi River flood of 1927, when much of the Arkansas Delta was
inundated, a comprehensive federal flood control program was begun. This resulted in the
construction of the Mainstem Mississippi River levees, as well as levee projects on major tributaries
like the White River. The White River is enclosed by a levee system and/or uplands beginning
approximately 8 miles from its mouth at the Mississippi River northward for approximately 50 river
miles. These projects constricted the floodplains of the Mississippi and its tributaries such that lower
flows now result in higher elevations of flooding than was the case under pre-settlement hydrology.
A related hydrologic alteration was the construction of the Kerr/McClellan Navigation Project on the
Arkansas River. To expedite barge traffic between the Arkansas and Mississippi Rivers, a shipping
canal was excavated to connect mile I0 on the White River to the Arkansas River. The most obvious
effect of these major levee and navigation projects on the Lower White system is that the south end
of the White River NWR is now subject to more extensive, prolonged, and deeper inundation than
that in which the biotic components of the system evolved.
Conversely, of increasingly obvious importance is the modification of the hydrology of the Mississippi
River. Entrainment of the Mississippi into an unnaturally narrow channel by wing dams constructed for
the purpose of providing a navigation channel has caused it to flow at lower elevations during moderate-to
low-flow periods. Thus, during low-flow conditions it is likely that the lower White River and its
tributaries are being unnaturally drained. This is manifesting itself in down-cutting, bank scouring, and an
increasing need for White River dredging to maintain navigation. Over the long term, it may cause
changes in wetland vegetative communities along the lower White River and tributaries (USFWS 1994).
Another byproduct of the era of major flood control projects was the extensive conversion of
bottomland hardwoods to agricultural production, much of it occurring in the Cache River/Lower White
River basin from the 1940s through the mid-1970s. Farmers quickly cleared land now protected from
flooding by the major levee systems and brought it into agricultural production. The federal Flood
Control Acts of 1944 and 1965 contained a policy of bottomland hardwood conversion, and the 1965
Act included as a part of its justification the induced clearing of 4.9-million acres in the MAV (Baxter
and Sunderland 1985). Much of this took place in the Cache River/Lower White River basin. With
22 White River National Wildlife Refuge
this federal policy in place, many local drainage and flood control projects, now coordinated to some
extent by the COE, continued up the tributaries through the mid-1980s.
Flows on the White River have been controlled to some extent since 1943 by a system of dams
situated on the upper White River and two of its tributaries in the Ozark Highlands. Beaver, Table
Rock, Bull Shoals, and Norfork Lakes are located on the White River, with Greers Ferry Lake on the
Little Red River in north-central Arkansas and Clearwater Lake in southeast Missouri on the upper
Black River. One of the primary purposes for construction and operation of this impoundment system
is flood control for agricultural areas along the upper and middle White River. This system can
provide a significant degree of flow regulation on the White River, being characterized as
“appreciable” at Clarendon (confluence of the White and Cache Rivers), although the level of control
decreases with distance down the system (USGS 1986). Management of this system by the COE is
guided by an operating plan developed in cooperation with several state and federal agencies, and
representatives from the agricultural, hydropower, and recreational industries.
The principal flood control objective of the operating plan is to “desynchronize” flow conditions,
that is, to store flood water and distribute its release over the year, but in a highly artificial pattern.
COE data illustrate that the net effect of this operating objective has been to decrease peak flows
during winter and late spring, and to increase average flows during summer, in comparison with
pre-project estimates and pre-settlement conditions. For example, the 7-day, 10-year low flow
has increased from 4,090 cubic feet per second (cfs) for the period 1928-81 to 6,020 cfs during
the later 1958-81 period (USFWS 1994).
In addition to their influence on the timing and quantity of river flows, operation of the dams has also
affected other parameters such as downstream water temperatures. The collective result of over a
century of flood control activities has been: (1) The drainage and clearing of the vast majority of the
terrace lands and driest portions of the forested wetland habitats of the entire system but especially
within the Cache River/Bayou DeView basin where clearing to the riverbanks has occurred in many
areas; (2) constriction of the floodplain of the lower White River with levees, and the clearing of lands
protected by those levees; and (3) the modification of the natural hydrologic patterns (timing,
frequency, flow rates, etc.) throughout the Lower White ecosystem.
It is noteworthy that from the biological perspective that these alterations have occurred within a
single generation of trees. Approximately 85 percent of the basin has been cleared of its hardwoods,
and most of these lands were forested wetlands.
A relatively recent and continuing hydrologic modification is the increasing withdrawal of surface water
from essentially all available streams for agricultural irrigation. These withdrawals occur at the farm
level, are individually relatively small, and are scattered throughout the basin. There is no available
estimate of current withdrawal rates, but they are known to be collectively substantial. The recent
average stream flow of the White River at Clarendon has decreased slightly, and this has been
speculated to be the result of surface withdrawals for irrigation. Several large-scale inter-basin transfer
irrigation projects for the Arkansas Delta have been proposed and aggressively pursued by the
ASWCC, Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and COE, with White River being the primary source for all
of them (USFWS 1994). One of these projects, the Grand Prairie irrigation project is currently under
construction with a water intake pumping station on the White River near DeValls Bluff, Arkansas.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Current Hydrologic Status
Historically, the lowest river flows occurred July through October while the highest flows peaked in
April and May. Due to the construction of the large reservoirs mentioned above, upstream from the
refuge, all of the historical flood dates have been slightly altered and have moved these peak flows
(particularly spring flows) later into the spring (USFWS 2008a).
The lower White River is somewhat unusual in that flooding in the system can be influenced by the
Mississippi River, White River, Arkansas River, and even local rainfall patterns. All of these influences
can determine flooding depths and duration both independently or collectively and to varying degrees.
According to the flood classification, the refuge and the Lower White River System typically receive
only one type of flooding called Slow-Onset Flooding, but within that classification is the flooding
caused by “backwater and headwater.” The most common phrase used is “backing and stacking.”
This is a process by which water begins backing up the White River from the Mississippi River,
essentially slowing or stopping the flow of water moving downstream. As this happens, water moving
downstream meets the backing water causing it to rise, thus the term “backing and stacking.”
Essentially this entire process is influenced by the Mississippi and White Rivers, and to a lesser
degree, the Arkansas River. Local rainfall patterns provide additional influence by starting the
process of puddling. As noted above, puddling begins as the numerous small depressions scattered
throughout the bottoms begin filling during winter rains and over time puddles begin interconnecting,
gradually increasing the acreage of flooded forest land in the bottoms. As the main stem of the
rivers, bayous, and other water courses rise over the stream banks, then the entire river bottom
becomes one body of water.
Headwater flooding occurs when large rains upstream of the refuge fill the channel and send large
amounts of water downstream. These Rapid-Onset Floods (headwater) can create flash flood
situations in the upper segments of the watershed (> 100 river miles above the refuge); however, as
this large volume of water reaches the lower White River the high water is slowed as it spreads.
Large torrential rains upstream on the White River (Batesville area) may take up to two weeks to
reach the refuge due to the distance and the widening floodplain.
Backwater flooding can develop when the Mississippi River reaches full capacity and blocks or slows
water exiting the White River. During winter months large rains create headwater flooding particularly
in the upper sections of watershed that are generally in conjunction with the timing of the main stem
of the White River filling to capacity (USFWS 2008a).
The entire process hinges on the level of the Mississippi River. If the Mississippi River is low then
water from the White River exits quickly and without hindrance. However, as the Mississippi River
rises, the exiting flow from the White River is slowed. This can also be restricted by the Arkansas
River; however, to a lesser degree.
These complex processes have occurred over the millennium and are the driving force determining
forest composition and associated plant communities across the bottoms. These processes also
influence fish species assemblages in the hundreds of lakes, sloughs, and bayous. Also, many
species of birds, such as the prothonotary warbler, are dependent on flooding which can influence the
success and failure of nesting efforts.
24 White River National Wildlife Refuge
Today some portions of the White River have been modified with construction of bank armoring, but
the greatest impact to the hydrology of the Lower White River was the construction of the White River
Levee in 1939. This levee, along with hundreds of miles of other levees throughout the MAV, was
erected in response to the catastrophic flood of 1927 that inundated a large portion of the Arkansas
Delta. As noted above, within 10 years, numerous flood control projects were initiated in an effort to
prevent this extensive damage (USFWS 2008a).
Even though the basic processes of puddling and headwater and backwater flooding still operate
within the basin today, these hydrologic functions have been profoundly modified both quantitatively
and qualitatively. The overall hydrologic effects on the system can be described as occurring at both
ends of the spectrum: drier in most areas, wetter in some. The many local efforts directed at
drainage associated with agricultural production and transportation (e.g., road ditches) have
significantly reduced the area affected by, and amount of water which could be held as a result of
puddling. These areas were most easily drained, and now contribute virtually none of their original
hydrologic function to the system, immediately discharging excess rainfall as runoff to the
watercourses (USFWS 1994).
When the acreage influenced by flood control projects intended to reduce the impacts of headwater
flooding are added to the above areas, the vast majority of the ecosystem is now included. This area
no longer holds temporary water as it did historically, and now relatively rapidly discharges runoff to
the rivers. Thus, these areas, comprising most of the higher elevations of the ecosystem, are drier
than they were historically, being inundated much less frequently and for much shorter durations.
However, as a direct result of the increased rate of drainage from most of the basin, the lower
elevations and those areas nearest the Cache River, Bayou DeView, and White River now receive all
this water more rapidly and in quantities more frequently exceeding the capacity of the system to
carry and discharge into the Mississippi River. Moreover, the discharge capacities of the White
River into the Mississippi River and Cache River into the White River are often reduced from historic
conditions due to the effects of the levee projects mentioned above.
Thus, the areas immediately adjoining the upper and middle Cache River and Bayou DeView, being
subject to unregulated flows, can be characterized as being subject to more frequent flooding at
greater depth but for shorter durations than in the natural ecosystem. The stochastic dynamics of the
natural system have in many ways been exaggerated by hydrologic modifications. On the other
hand, the lowest portions of the Cache and lower White Rivers now seem to be subjected to more
frequent flooding, at greater depth, and for longer durations than was the historic tendency, with this
effect being greatest in the southern half of the White River NWR. In this case, the hydrologic
dynamics of the natural ecosystem may have been stabilized around a more hydric state relative to
pre-settlement conditions (USFWS 1994).
Hydrologic Connectivity
All refuge lakes and bayous are intricately connected with the White River as well as adjacent
streams and ephemeral channels, a concept referred to as connectivity. Distance to the river does
not determine connection either temporally or spatially. Rather, these connections are determined
not only by the river and adjacent bayous but more importantly the geomorphology that has created
the ridge and swell topography. It is the minor changes that provide flood water courses that only
become visible as the river and other streams begin flowing through the bottoms. An example is a
small portion of the refuge where six lakes and four bayous are affected by flood waters. Each of
these is dependent on flows from the White River, yet each system is somewhat independent with its
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
own unique geomorphology and in some cases fish assemblages. This example of complex
connections can be extended to all of the refuge’s 356 lakes.
When the White River gauge at St. Charles reaches 21 feet, the river enters Little Moon Entry Point
where the channel makes an arch to the east. Here it meets Little Moon Lake and continues through
the lake where it intersects with Waters Bayou that parallels Highway 1 and ultimately joins Indian
Bay. This example is an easy-to-follow and discernable chute flow feed system with the exception of
where it hits the Brown Shanty Road located at the east end of Little Moon Lake. This road fill was
installed sometime during the late 1940s by refuge staff to allow traffic access to the North Unit.
Water crosses the road when the St. Charles gauge reaches 22.8 feet. Throughout the year the
“connection channel” remains dry.
In close proximity and north of Little Moon is Swan Lake which is fed by yet another channel from
Lambert Bayou. This bayou has its entry point further upstream where it connects with the river.
Throughout a majority of the year, Lambert Bayou becomes a stagnant pool until it reconnects with
the river. The connectivity of Lambert Bayou is slightly higher than Little Moon.
To the east of Swan is Hog Thief Lake, which is connected to an unidentified channel or basically an
offshoot of Indian Bayou located further to the east. Hog Thief Lake will remain connected when
White River is 18.5 to 19 feet while Goose Lake located to the west will not connect until White River
is over 20 feet. All excess water from Hog Thief runs south into Indian Bay via a channel that
intersects Waters Bayou. Indian Bayou receives all of its flow from Maddox Bay located to the north.
Buck Lake is slightly higher in elevation and does not receive any excess water from these systems
until the river is above 23 feet and co-receives water with Crows Foot Lake which is “refilled” via an
ephemeral channel running from Waters Bayou slightly east of Little Moon Lake.
From the standpoint of the fisheries and biotic resources, each lake has distinctive species assemblages
which are directly tied to the connectivity and this connectivity also varies slightly between direct and
indirect connections with the river, ephemeral channels, and bayous resulting from flooding.
Flood control lakes on the Upper White River and tributaries affect the hydro-period on the refuge.
Bull Shoals on the White, Norfork on the Norfork River, Clearwater Reservoir on a tributary to the
Black River, and Greer’s Ferry on the Little Red River all influence the stage and flow of the White
River at Clarendon and St. Charles. Analysis of gauge readings indicate that floods are less flashy,
with clipped peaks, but with longer durations. About every 7 or 8 years, extensive spring rains in the
watershed results in the flood control reservoirs being very high through summer. During these
events the COE releases water at levels that limits summer flooding to row crops downstream from
the dams. However, the volume of water keeps river levels from falling well down in the banks in
June, July, and August. Subsequently, forested areas remain flooded due to direct or indirect
connection to the river level. Some areas are directly connected in that ephemeral channels will still
have river water standing that connects to low forests, keeping these areas flooded or saturated in
the root zone. Other areas are indirectly connected in that with higher river levels, groundwater levels
remain high and connected to surface water in low forests. With soil saturation in the root zone
throughout summer, tree roots and other organisms drown, resulting in loss of root viability. These
damaged trees easily succumb to droughts in subsequent years.
26 White River National Wildlife Refuge
Groundwater Hydrology
Although often not directly considered in relation to fish and wildlife resources, groundwater
conditions in the basin are crucial to the success of ecosystem conservation. The surrounding
agricultural community, which depends on groundwater, is an important partner in achieving this.
Because of shrinking profit margins, farmers increasingly consider irrigation as necessary for crop
production. If available and accessible, surface water is the farmers' choice due to its lower relative
cost. However, many farmers do not have access to surface water and therefore have become
increasingly reliant on groundwater for irrigation.
The two principal aquifers used for irrigation in the basin are the Quaternary alluvial aquifer, used primarily
in the Cache River/Bayou DeView region, and the area west of the lower White River, and the Sparta
Sand aquifer available primarily in the eastern lower White River area. These aquifers have in the past
yielded relatively good quality and quantities of groundwater. However, the extensive development of
wells and pumping conducted at levels significantly exceeding recharge rates during the last 50 years has
had significant effects on water tables over extensive areas. Average water table declines in the Alluvial
aquifer in the east half of the Cache River-Bayou DeView basin vary from 20-50 feet, while average
declines in the Alluvial and Sparta Sand aquifers west of the lower White River are from 20-80 feet and
80-200 feet, respectively (Bryant et al. 1985). The dropping water table is increasing pumping costs for
farmers, and current rates of withdrawal have been recognized as being both unsustainable and
insufficient to meet future irrigation requirements (ASWCC 1988).
Further, excessive withdrawals have also caused groundwater quality problems in northeast Monroe
County and southern Woodruff County by allowing intrusion of saline water into the alluvial aquifer
from deeper strata, rendering the contaminated water unusable for irrigation (Bryant et al. 1985).
While these groundwater problems do not have a significant direct impact on wildlife and wetland
resources in the basin, they do result in greater pressure being placed on surface water for irrigation,
which of course, does have a significant effect on wetland-dependent wildlife resources.
Connections between the surface and groundwater resources are not extensive in the Delta or
Cache/Lower White Rivers basin. The preponderance of tight clay soils prevents any significant
widespread recharge of the aquifers from surface waters. The southeastward-sloping geological strata of
the Delta result in most of the recharge to the aquifer underlying the basin coming from the north and
west, where the aquifers' bearing strata intersect the surface. However, an important exception is that
the areas in the immediate vicinity of the Cache River and east of the lower White River are rated by the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to have moderate recharge potential for the alluvial aquifer (Bryant et al.
1985), although a study at Black Swamp WMA indicates that there is sufficient head in the groundwater
for a portion of the Cache River to be a discharge area much of the year (Kleiss 1993).
The conditions of the groundwater in the basin and elsewhere in the Arkansas Delta have resulted in
multiple proposals for significant withdrawals of water from the White River to be conveyed via both
constructed and stream channels throughout the Delta. One of these projects, the Grand Prairie is
currently under construction and planning continues for up to three additional irrigation projects that
would withdraw water from the White River. These activities will further increase the complexity of
hydrologic alteration and management of the ecosystem. Thus, although the technical aspects of the
groundwater/surface water relationships have not been thoroughly evaluated, the indirect importance
of the groundwater resources to the surface hydrology and biotic resources of the system is evident
and manifested through their direct relationship to agricultural irrigation requirements (USFWS 1994).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
WATER QUALITY
Historical data on water quality parameters for the system are largely absent. Water quality in pre-settlement
times, as in most areas, would be expected to have been good. Water throughout this
extensive wetland system, with little erosion except for bank erosion along rivers, would have been
anticipated to be relatively clear. In fact, some current long-time residents at the Cache River
describe it as being clear as recently as 50 years ago. However, it is apparent that the byproducts of
land clearing and subsequent agricultural production, which expose soils to erosion from runoff during
storm events, on most of the basin's surface area are now driving water quality parameters. A 1984
study by the USGS cited potential pollution of groundwater and accumulation of pesticides in bottom
sediments as a major concern, although it indicated that potential effects were yet to be quantified in
eastern Arkansas (USGS 1984). Another 1985 USGS study further characterized the lower White
River as degraded by nutrients, pesticides, and silt resulting from agricultural activities (USGS 1986).
Since about 1975, water quality monitoring programs of agencies such as the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), USGS, and the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
have resulted in a relative abundance of data (approximately 13 monitoring stations) for the
Cache/Lower White Rivers ecosystem. A USGS trends analysis (Petersen 1990) provides some
summary information on some aspects of water quality trends in the basin up to 1990 in relation to
other areas in eastern Arkansas.
The main channel of the White River exhibited relatively low concentrations of major dissolved
constituents, nutrients, and bacteria. Middle and lower White River water quality apparently benefits
to some extent from its relatively high quality as it leaves the Ozarks, essentially as a point source
entering the Delta, and by virtue of the related dilution factor of “Delta water” by “Ozark water.” Most
of the water quality problems of the system are associated directly or indirectly with erosion of
sediments from agricultural lands into the streams. Many chemical contaminants are bound to and
carried by sediment particles.
There are several possible sources for contaminants on the refuge:
 Commercial barge traffic – This occurs on both the Arkansas River (canal) and White River.
The 445-mile long McCellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System uses a portion of the
White River as its route to access the Mississippi River. At this time the two locks (#1 and #
2) which are located on the refuge currently average 15 tows per day throughout the year
while the White River (above the confluence of the canal), which is currently serviced by one
tow company, averages two trips per week from December through April. Commercial
traffic on the White River is totally dependent on river levels at St. Charles remaining at or
above 12 feet on the river gauge.
At this time White River barge traffic are exclusively grain shipments, with the only potential for
contaminants being fuel/lubricant spills. The Arkansas River shipments consist of gasoline, oil,
asphalt, rock, and a wide range of material, all of which could potentially contaminate the refuge.
 Union Pacific Rail Road – Contamination would occur through normal spillage and catastrophic
failure of rails and bridges dumping excessive quantities chemicals into White River, Old River
Lake, Passmore Bayou, and Roc Roe Bayou.
U.S. Highway 79 – Normal spillage and possibility of truck hauling fuel or other hazardous
chemicals wrecking and/or dropping fuel.
28 White River National Wildlife Refuge
 Ark Highway 1 – Although not designated as a route for oversize and hazardous material
shipments, Highway 1 is chosen as a truck route because of the road quality and low traffic
volume. Arkansas DOT is in charge of monitoring HAZMAT loads moving on this route.
 Clear Lake – The Lake was at the end of a ditch running from Clarendon when a plant in town
chrome plated grocery carts. As a result the site has excessive Chromium on the bottom of the
lake. The lake located on the northeast side of the refuge is not in possession of the refuge but
was set up as mitigation by the Arkansas Department of Transportation for construction of the
Highway 79 Bridge.
 Gas Pipe lines – Two interstate gas pipe lines currently cross the refuge, resulting in the
possibility of a leak that could contaminate the refuge.
Other sources of contaminants are from agricultural operations on each side of the refuge. The east
side is predominantly corn, rice, soybeans, wheat, and cotton; while the west side is predominantly
rice, soybeans, and wheat. In addition, there can be minor spills in conjunction with forest
management operations such as occurs around skidders, etc.
A recent study (Smith et al. 2007) addressing pesticide body residue in amphipods, genus Hyalella
found the lowest concentrations of selected agricultural chemicals on refuge lakes compared to other
lakes in the Mississippi Delta. Organisms in Swan Lake, Lower White Lake and Columbus Lake had
the lowest concentrations of selected chemicals when compared to other sites in the Delta.
Other water quality issues are abandoned water wells and an irrigation well at Kansas Lake,
which is scheduled for capping and closure according to Arkansas Department of Environmental
Quality procedures.
AIR QUALITY
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) exist for six contaminants, referred to as
criteria pollutants, and apply to the ambient air. Ambient air is the air that the general public is
exposed to every day (USEPA 2002). These criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide, ozone,
particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and lead.
Areas where the ambient air quality does not meet the NAAQS are said to be non-attainment
areas. Areas where the ambient air currently meets the national standards are said to be in
attainment. The four Arkansas counties in which the refuge is found are all in attainment for all
six criteria pollutants (USEPA 2009).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
The refuge contains a variety of habitats, which is summarized below (Figure 4).
Farmland
Farmland at White River NWR occurs on the Farm Unit. Crops cultivated at this unit are mostly rice,
soybeans, milo, and/or millet. These crops primarily benefit waterfowl and to a smaller extent
resident wildlife such as deer and turkey. This open habitat also provides habitat for numerous
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Figure 4. Habitat types on White River NWR
30 White River National Wildlife Refuge
grassland species which breed on the site including dickcissel, northern bobwhite, and grasshopper
sparrow, while wintering grassland birds include LeConte’s sparrow, Lincoln’s sparrow, and clay-colored
sparrow.
In 1979 the refuge had over 600 acres in row crop production and by 1980 the acreage was still
higher with 762 acres under some type of crop production. However, by 1988 cooperative farming
had dropped to 300 acres.
The Farm Unit contains 300 acres of open agriculture fields and is the largest block of open habitat
on the refuge with initial clearing taking place in the late 1930s and final clearing taking place as late
as 1960s. The clearing in the 1960s was to create fescue/Bermuda grass pastures for the benefit of
migratory Canada geese. By the early 1990s, numbers of Canada geese were only a fraction of what
had once utilized the refuge. Consequently, the refuge did not need as many acres of open
agricultural land to meet Canada geese habitat objectives and a large portion of the fields were
restored to grasslands and forest habitat. The remaining 300 acres of agricultural land at the Farm
Unit are managed primarily to provide crop foraging habitat for wintering ducks.
Forested Habitat
In general, the lower White River is a very large, complex area containing a number of forest
communities. The site includes not only the broad, extensive floodplain of the river, but also a system
of bluffs, ravines, and slopes along the western edge of the floodplain where the highly dissected
topography of the Grand Prairie terrace is situated. The White River floodplain contains all of the
geomorphic landforms associated with a large brownwater river including natural levees, sloughs,
backswamps, ridge and swale topography, oxbow lakes, meander scars, and point bars. The
floodplain along the lower White River averages about 4.5 miles in width (USFWS 1994).
Most of the area is comprised of second and third growth, selectively logged bottomland hardwood
and swamp forest, although patches of older timber are scattered, particularly cypress stands in
deepwater swamps adjacent to oxbow lakes and meander scars. Seasonally flooded bottomland
hardwoods occupy the natural levees and terraces in the floodplain. Common canopy trees include
Nuttall oak, willow oak, overcup oak, green ash, sugarberry, sweet pecan, cottonwood, American elm,
and sweetgum. Possumhaw is the predominant shrub. Various grasses, sedges, and forbs comprise
a nearly 100 percent groundcover in some areas.
The most common community in the lower flats is the overcup oak/bitter pecan association, with less
common canopy trees being sugarberry, green ash, and honey locust. Groundcover is usually
sparse due to a generally closed canopy and prolonged flooding. In deeper sloughs and around the
margins of oxbow lakes and other watercourses, a bald cypress/tupelo gum forest is the
characteristic community. Common shrubs here include button bush, water elm, and swamp privet.
The only extensive area of upland forest is the eroded margin of the Grand Prairie terrace along the
western margin of the floodplain. It has been downcut by numerous streams and creeks draining into
the White River. Natural vegetation of these dissected uplands is predominately upland oak-hickory
forest, with common canopy trees being white oak, southern red oak, mockernut hickory, shagbark
hickory, blackgum, willow oak, and sweetgum.
Approximately 150,000 acres at White River NWR are forested, dominated by bottomland hardwood
stands. Thee major forest types and their relative size as identified in the 2007 update of the Forest
Habitat Management Plan are shown in Table 1.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Table 1. Relative size of White River NWR forest types
Forest types Approx. acreage % of refuge
Shrub-scrub 1,500 1.0
Cypress 6,000 4.0
Cypress-tupelo 4,500 3.0
Tupelo 750 0.5
Willow 750 0.5
Cottonwood 1,500 1.0
Sugarberry-Pecan 5,700 3.8
Overcup oak-Bitter pecan 45,000 30.0
Oak-Sugarberry 45,000 30.0
Oak-Gum 37,500 25.0
White oak-Hickory 1,500 1.0
Pine 300 0.2
Totals 150,000 100.0
Source: USFWS 2007a
The Forest Resources Conservation Working Group (FRCWG) of the LMVJV classified the refuge’s
forests more broadly:
Type Percentage
Swamp forest 8.5
Wet bottomland forest 30.5
Moist bottomland forest 55.0
Dry bottomland forest 1.2
Levee forest 4.8
Refuge forests have also been classified as being Early Successional (less than 30 years old), Single
Canopy (greater than 30 years old), or Multiple Canopy (greater than 30 years old) to relate the forest
structure for wildlife habitat. About 800 acres are in Early Successional as old fields, about 1,000
acres as former clearcuts, about 750 acres as willow bars, and about 1,500 acres in scrub/shrub, for
a total of about 4,000 acres of Early Successional forest on the refuge. Most of the refuge forest has
or is growing into the Single Canopy condition, an estimated 126,000 acres. About 20,000 acres are
thought to be in the Multiple Canopy condition, mostly in the oak-sugarberry forest type.
Uncommon Habitats
Several small, but important habitat types occur or should occur on the refuge where site conditions are
appropriate: cane, upland oak savannah, and prairie. Cane occurs in disturbed areas under tree canopy
along the higher natural levees along many waterways. It is used by Swainson’s warblers and other
wildlife. Upland oak savannahs occur in the transition forest from the open prairie to the floodplain along
32 White River National Wildlife Refuge
the escarpment on the west side of the refuge. Tall-grass prairies are virtually eliminated from the
surrounding landscape. However, existing man-made features may provide opportunities for restoration
of this habitat type. The grassland habitats are restricted to several isolated areas.
WILDLIFE
Threatened and Endangered Species
A key objective of White River NWR is to provide habitat and protection for threatened and endangered
species. At this time there are four federally listed endangered animal species which may be associated
with the refuge by the Service, they include the ivory-billed woodpecker, interior least tern, pink mucket
mussel, and fat pocketbook mussel. Additionally, the wood stork (though not federally listed in Arkansas,
but a listed species elsewhere in the Southeast) uses the refuge for several months each fall (August-
September). The formerly threatened bald eagle was de-listed in 2007.
Ivory-billed Woodpecker
In February 2004, Cornell Lab of Ornithology biologists became aware of a credible sighting of the
ivory-billed woodpecker (IBWO) on a portion of Bayou DeView, which is located on Cache River
NWR north of White River NWR. Subsequently, Cornell biologists and their partners documented the
presence of at least one IBWO in that area. Sixteen sightings of the IBWO were reported deep within
the cypress-tupelo swamp of the Bayou DeView in 2006.
Rediscovery of the IBWO in 2004 on the Cache River National Wildlife Refuge was announced in
2005. The larger area of the Big Woods consists of several refuges and state wildlife management
areas (WMA’s) that are considered to be potential habitat for this species. Researchers from Cornell,
with assistance from personnel from TNC, AGFC, Audubon Arkansas, and the Service, along with
volunteers, have been searching the Big Woods of Arkansas, including White River NWR, for the last
several years. There have been many reported sightings, interesting audio, and other supporting
data, but no additional video or still pictures have been recorded. The refuge has been supporting
the search team and conducting IBWO habitat inventory and assessment of the forest on the refuge
to determine potential habitat.
Since the re-discovery, there has been an ongoing partnership between AGFC, Arkansas Forestry
Commission (AFC), and non-governmental organizations, including TNC and Cornell Lab of Ornithology,
to continue to search for the ivory-billed woodpecker on the public lands, and where possible on private
lands, in the Big Woods of Arkansas. Although there is no conclusive documentation of IBWO on White
River NWR, it may be possible that one or more IBWO’s are present.
Interior Least Tern
The interior least tern is sighted occasionally on sand bars within the Lower White River Basin (one to
two sightings per year). At this time no nesting activity has been documented which is no doubt due
to the lack of suitable sand bars along the river during nesting season.
Mussel species
Two endangered mussel species – the pink mucket and fat pocketbook – occur within the main stem
of the White River within White River NWR. Because of their life history requirements, it is doubtful
they occur within the refuge itself, although large numbers of mussels are present within the lakes,
sloughs, chutes, and bayous of the refuge.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Mid-Winter Eagle Survey Results
70
61
35
39
35
24
19 18 17
10
14
20 23
44
9
16
27
8
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Year 1986-2007 N u m b e r O b s e r v e d
Two major threats to mussel species include sedimentation and chemical runoff from agriculture.
Sedimentation is created by a number of sources including agricultural runoff, headcutting in fields
and drainage tributaries, stream bank erosion, and stream channel instability and degradation. A
wide variety of chemicals are used in modern agriculture including pesticides, herbicides, defoliants,
and fertilizers. Some of these chemicals can be detrimental to fish and wildlife if they accumulate in
large enough quantities in streams and other water bodies. Malacologists (biologists who specialize
in mussels and other mollusks) generally agree that contaminants are partially responsible for the
decline of freshwater mussels.
There have been a number of mussel surveys conducted on White River, with only minor surveys
being conducted on White River NWR lakes and streams. These preliminary mussel surveys on the
refuge did not yield any threatened and endangered mussel species, although several species were
found which are listed as species of concern.
Bald Eagle
The bald eagle has been closely monitored since the 1980s with the discovery of the first eagle
nest in Arkansas. Since that time eagle nests have increased on the refuge up to a total of six
nests. The number of eagles observed during the midwinter count has steadily decreased
however (Figure 5). This is believed to be a result of the lower waterfowl numbers on the refuge
and on the surrounding private lands.
Although recently de-listed, bald eagles are still protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act and all efforts will be made to provide continued protection for the bird. Continued protection of
bald eagles year-round and future monitoring of nests will continue in keeping with a cooperative
agreement with AGFC personnel, who routinely monitor refuge nests each year. Nest monitoring to
determine success of the nest will also be important.
Species of Concern
There are also 26 known species of concern and 2 Special Element – Natural Communites on the
refuge, according to Arkansas Department of Natural Heritage Commission databases. Table 2 lists
species identified in the database and provides the status and rank.
Figure 5. Mid-winter bald eagle survey results, 1986-2007
34 White River National Wildlife Refuge
Table 2. Listing of species/communities of concern
3/15/2011 Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission
Department of Arkansas Heritage Elements of Special Concern White River National
Wildlife Refuge
Scientific Name Common Name Federal State Global State
Status Status Rank Rank
Animals-Invertebrates
Cicindela cursitans ant-like tiger beetle - INV G4 S2S3
Cyprogenia aberti western fanshell - INV G2G3Q S2
Lampsilis abrupta pink mucket LE INV G2 S2
Ligumia recta black sandshell - INV G5 S2
Obovaria jacksoniana southern hickorynut - INV G2 S2
Obovaria olivaria hickorynut - INV G4 S3
Quadrula apiculata southern mapleleaf - INV G5 S2
Quadrula cylindrica
cylindrica
rabbitsfoot C INV G3G4T3 S2
Quadrula metanevra monkeyface - INV G4 S3S4
Toxolasma lividus purple lilliput - INV G3 S2
Animals-Vertebrates
Atractosteus spatula alligator gar - INV G3G4 S2?
Crystallaria asprella crystal darter - INV G3 S2?
Cycleptus elongatus blue sucker - INV G3G4 S2
Elanoides forficatus
forficatus swallow-tailed Kite - INV G5TNR SNR
Erimyzon sucetta lake chubsucker - INV G5 S2?
Etheostoma fusiforme swamp darter - INV G5 S2?
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle - INV G5 S2B,S4N
Hiodon alosoides goldeye - INV G5 S2?
Lampetra appendix American brook lamprey - INV G4 S2?
Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler - INV G4 S3B
Moxostoma pisolabrum pealip redhorse - INV G5 S2?
Mugil cephalus striped mullet - INV G5 S1?
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
3/15/2011 Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission
Department of Arkansas Heritage Elements of Special Concern White River National
Wildlife Refuge
Scientific Name Common Name Federal State Global State
Status Status Rank Rank
Notropis maculatus taillight shiner - INV G5 S3
Notropis sabinae sabine shiner - INV G4 S2?
Ophisaurus attenuatus
attenuatus
western slender glass
lizard - INV G5T5 S3
Polyodon spathula paddlefish - INV G4 S2?
Special Elements-Natural Communities
Mississippi River Low Floodplain - - INV GNR SNR
(Bottomland) Forest
Willow oak forest INV GNR S2
Key to Status and Ranks
STATUS CODES
FEDERAL STATUS CODES
C = Candidate species. The Service has enough scientific information to warrant
proposing this species for listing as endangered or threatened under the
Endangered Species Act.
LE
=
Listed Endangered. The Service has listed this species as endangered under
the Endangered Species Act.
STATE STATUS CODES
INV = Inventory Element. The Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission is currently
conducting active inventory work on these elements. Available data suggests these
elements are of conservation concern. These elements may include outstanding
examples of Natural Communities, colonial bird nesting sites, outstanding scenic and
geologic features as well as plants and animals, which, according to current
information, may be rare, peripheral, or of an undetermined status in the state. The
ANHC is gathering detailed location information on these elements.
36 White River National Wildlife Refuge
DEFINITION OF RANKS
Global Ranks
G1 = Critically imperiled globally. At a very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity
(often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors.
G2 = Imperiled globally. At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few
populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors.
G3 = Vulnerable globally. At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively
few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors.
G4 = Apparently secure globally. Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term
concern due to declines or other factors.
G5 = Secure globally. Common, widespread, and abundant.
GH = Of historical occurrence , possibly extinct globally. Missing; known from only
historical occurrences, but still some hope of rediscovery.
GU = Unrankable. Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to
substantially conflicting information about status or trends.
GX Presumed extinct globally. Not located despite intensive searches and virtually no
likelihood of rediscovery.
GNR = Unranked. The global rank not yet assessed.
GNA = Not Applicable. A conservation status rank is not applicable.
T-RANKS= T subranks are given to global ranks when a subspecies, variety, or race is considered
at the state level. The subrank is made up of a "T" plus a number or letter
(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, H, U, X) with the same ranking rules as a full species.
State Ranks
S1
=
Critically imperiled in the state due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer
populations), very steep declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to
extirpation.
S2 =
Imperiled in the state due to very restricted range, very few populations (often
20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation.
S3 =
Vulnerable in the state due to a restricted range, relatively few populations
(often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it
vulnerable to extirpation.
S4 =
Apparently secure in the state. Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term
concern due to declines or other factors.
S5 = Secure in the state. Common, widespread and abundant.
SH =
Of historical occurrence, with some possibility of rediscovery. Its presence may
not have been verified in the past 20-40 years. A species may be assigned this
rank without the 20- 40-year delay if the only known occurrences were
destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully sought.
SU =
Unrankable. Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to
substantially conflicting information about status or trends.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
SX =
Presumed extirpated from the state. Not located despite intensive searches and
virtually no likelihood of rediscovery.
SNR = Unranked. The state rank not yet assessed.
SNA = Not Applicable. A conservation status rank is not applicable.
General Ranking Notes Q = A "Q" in the global rank indicates the element's taxonomic classification as a species is a matter
of conjecture among scientists. RANGES= Ranges are used to indicate a range of uncertainty about the status of the
element. ? = A question mark is used to denote an inexact numeric rank. B = Refers to the breeding population of a species
in the state. N = Refers to the non-breeding population of a species in the state.
Birds
Waterfowl
The MAV and particularly White River NWR have historically supported one of the largest concentrations
of mallards and other wintering waterfowl in the United States. Due to the river’s high-quality forested
wetlands and significant numbers of wintering waterfowl, White River NWR (along with Cache River NWR
and Dagmar WMA) were designated a Wetland of International Importance in 1989.
In early White River NWR Annual Narratives, the importance of the refuge to migratory waterfowl is
evident. These records indicate that at selected times, peak numbers of wintering ducks were
reported in excess of 150,000 to 250,000 in the period from 1978 to 1992. Counts of 75,000 ducks
are now fairly uncommon and in most years the refuge may approach peak numbers of 20,000 ducks
per day on resting areas such as Dry Lake, Farm Unit, and the Demonstration Area).
There is a significant response from waterfowl as the river reaches flood stage at St. Charles, as and
in all cases overall refuge wintering waterfowl numbers are dependent on river levels and rainfall
patterns. Recently, higher ambient air temperatures, coupled with an increase in managed waterfowl
habitats immediately north of Arkansas, appear to have slowed and/or stopped migration of birds and
this aspect of waterfowl migration may be a glimpse into long-term trends of waterfowl numbers
throughout the region as global temperatures continue increasing.
This trend has also occurred to a degree throughout Arkansas in recent years. While this shift has
been attributed to both warmer weather and increasing food resources north of the state as well as to
lower nest production in the prairie pothole region of the continent, there has also been a slight shift
in birds stopping in the northern half of the state.
The overall aim of the refuge is to provide habitat for migratory birds and in particular for waterfowl.
In pursuit of this aim, the refuge attempts to provide habitats sufficient to meet the habitat and
population goals of the NAWMP as stepped down through the LMVJV.
The MAV is an important ecoregion for migrating and wintering ducks and geese in North America
and White River along with Bald Knob and Cache River NWRs provide important foraging and
resting habitats within the MAV for these waterfowl as well as serving an integral role in the habitat
management efforts of the NAWMP.
38 White River National Wildlife Refuge
Over the past several decades not only have waterfowl numbers changed but also species
composition has shifted. Mallards still comprise the majority of all wintering waterfowl species on the
refuge, followed by gadwalls, wood ducks, and r