Mingo, Pilot Knob and Ozark Cavefish 

National Wildlve Refuges 

Comprehensive conservation Plan Approval 

Submitted by: 

I 

Date 

Refuge Manager 

Concur: 

#/a/? 

/ Date 

hefuge Supervisor, Area 2 

Lt.ol~20d 7 

Nita M. Fuller Date 

Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System 

Approve: 

ylljhYicn.m~ APR 1 7 2007 

Robyn ~horson~ Date 

Regional Director 

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

i

Mingo, Pilot Knob and Ozark Cavefish

National Wildlife Refuges

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ..................................................................................................................1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................1

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge ..........................................................................................................1

Pilot Knob National Wildlife Refuge ....................................................................................................1

Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuge .............................................................................................3

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .......................................................................................................3

The National Wildlife Refuge System ...........................................................................................3

Refuge Purposes ...........................................................................................................................................4

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge ..........................................................................................................4

Pilot Knob National Wildlife Refuge Purpose ......................................................................................4

Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuge Purpose ...............................................................................5

Refuge Visions ..............................................................................................................................................5

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge ..........................................................................................................5

Preamble ........................................................................................................................................5

Vision Statement ...........................................................................................................................5

Pilot Knob National Wildlife Refuge ....................................................................................................6

Vision Statement ...........................................................................................................................6

Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuge .............................................................................................6

Vision Statement ...........................................................................................................................6

Purpose and Need for Plan ...........................................................................................................................6

Existing Partnerships ....................................................................................................................................6

Volunteers and Friends Group ......................................................................................................................7

Museums and Repositories ..........................................................................................................................7

History and Establishment ...........................................................................................................................7

Legal Context ................................................................................................................................................9

Chapter 2: The Planning Process ..............................................................................................................................10

Preparation of the CCP ...............................................................................................................................10

Public Involvement .....................................................................................................................................10

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................................................................10

Pilot Knob National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................................................11

Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuge ...........................................................................................12

Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ......................................................................................12

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................................................................12

Pilot Knob National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................................................16

Public Use ....................................................................................................................................16
Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ii

Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuge ...........................................................................................16

Habitat Management ..................................................................................................................16

Public Use ....................................................................................................................................17

Preparation, Publishing, Finalization and Implementation of the CCP ......................................................17

Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management ..............................................................................................19

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................19

Mingo Wilderness Area .....................................................................................................................20

Special Management Areas ...............................................................................................................20

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ..................................................................................................................20

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecosystems ........................................................................................20

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ..............................................................................................21

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan ..........................................................................22

Partners In Flight .................................................................................................................................22

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities .....................................................23

Other Recreation and Conservation Lands in the Area ......................................................................23

Socioeconomic Setting ...............................................................................................................................25

Population and Demographics ............................................................................................................25

Employment ........................................................................................................................................25

Income and Education .........................................................................................................................25

Potential Refuge Visitors ....................................................................................................................25

Climate .......................................................................................................................................................26

Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................................26

Bottomland Soils .................................................................................................................................26

Upland Soils ........................................................................................................................................26

Water and Hydrology .................................................................................................................................27

Refuge Resources .......................................................................................................................................27

Plant Communities ..............................................................................................................................27

Wetlands .....................................................................................................................................27

Upland Forests .............................................................................................................................30

Fish and Wildlife Communities ...........................................................................................................30

Birds .............................................................................................................................................30

Mammals .....................................................................................................................................31

Amphibians and Reptiles .............................................................................................................31

Fish ...............................................................................................................................................31

Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................................................................31

Threats to Resources ..........................................................................................................................31

Invasive Species ..........................................................................................................................31

Contaminants ...............................................................................................................................31

Administrative Facilities .....................................................................................................................31

Archeological and Cultural Values .....................................................................................................31

Visitation .............................................................................................................................................32

Current Management .................................................................................................................................33

Habitat Management ..........................................................................................................................33

Wetland Management ................................................................................................................33

Moist Soil Units ...........................................................................................................................34

Grassy Openings ..........................................................................................................................35

Forests .........................................................................................................................................35

Cropland and Food Plots ..............................................................................................................35
Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iii

Fire Management ........................................................................................................................35

Fish and Wildlife Monitoring ..............................................................................................................36

Surveys ........................................................................................................................................36

Studies and Investigations ..........................................................................................................37

Visitor Services ...................................................................................................................................37

Open Areas and Closed Periods ..................................................................................................37

Monitoring ..................................................................................................................................39

Fees .............................................................................................................................................39

Hunting ........................................................................................................................................39

Fishing ..........................................................................................................................................39

Observation, and Photography ....................................................................................................41

Interpretation ...............................................................................................................................41

Environmental Education .............................................................................................................42

Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation ............................................................................................42

Law Enforcement ................................................................................................................................42

Partnerships ........................................................................................................................................42

Pest Management ...............................................................................................................................43

Animal Species ............................................................................................................................43

Plant Species ...............................................................................................................................43

Archeological and Cultural Resources ................................................................................................43

Special Management Areas ...............................................................................................................43

Farm Services Administration Conservation Easements ............................................................43

Pilot Knob National Wildlife Refuge ..........................................................................................................44

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................44

Special Management Areas ...............................................................................................................44

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ..........................................................................................................44

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecosystems .................................................................................46

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ......................................................................................46

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities ............................................................46

Other Recreation and Conservation Lands in the Area ......................................................................46

Socioeconomic Setting .......................................................................................................................46

Population and Demographics .....................................................................................................46

Employment and Income .............................................................................................................46

Education .....................................................................................................................................46

Climate ...............................................................................................................................................46

Geology and Soils ...............................................................................................................................47

Water and Hydrology ..........................................................................................................................47

Refuge Resources ...............................................................................................................................47

Plant Communities .......................................................................................................................47

Fish and Wildlife Communities ...........................................................................................................47

Birds .............................................................................................................................................47

Mammals .....................................................................................................................................47

Amphibians and Reptiles .............................................................................................................47

Fish ...............................................................................................................................................47

Invertebrates ................................................................................................................................47

Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................................................................48

Threats to Resources ..........................................................................................................................48

Invasive Species ..........................................................................................................................48

Contaminants ...............................................................................................................................48

Administrative Facilities .....................................................................................................................48
Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iv

Archeological and Cultural Values .....................................................................................................48

Visitation .............................................................................................................................................48

Current Management ..........................................................................................................................48

Habitat Management ..................................................................................................................48

Fire Management ........................................................................................................................48

Fish and Wildlife Monitoring .......................................................................................................49

Visitor Services ............................................................................................................................49

Pest Management .......................................................................................................................49

Archeological and Cultural Resources ........................................................................................49

Special Management Areas ........................................................................................................49

Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................................................49

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................49

Special Management Areas ...............................................................................................................49

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ..........................................................................................................49

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecosystem ...................................................................................49

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ......................................................................................49

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities ............................................................49

Other Recreation and Conservation Lands in the Area ......................................................................49

Socioeconomic Setting .......................................................................................................................49

Population and Demographics .....................................................................................................52

Employment and Income .............................................................................................................52

Education .....................................................................................................................................52

Climate ................................................................................................................................................52

Geology and Soils ...............................................................................................................................52

Water and Hydrology ..........................................................................................................................53

Refuge Resources ...............................................................................................................................53

Plant Communities .......................................................................................................................53

Fish and Wildlife Communities ...........................................................................................................54

Birds ............................................................................................................................................54

Mammals .....................................................................................................................................54

Amphibians and Reptiles .............................................................................................................54

Fish ...............................................................................................................................................54

Invertebrates ................................................................................................................................54

Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................................................................54

Threats to Resources ..........................................................................................................................55

Invasive Species ..........................................................................................................................55

Contaminants ...............................................................................................................................55

Administrative Facilities .....................................................................................................................55

Archeological and Cultural Values .....................................................................................................55

Visitation .............................................................................................................................................55

Current Management ..........................................................................................................................55

Habitat Management ..................................................................................................................55

Fire Management ........................................................................................................................55

Fish and Wildlife Monitoring .......................................................................................................56

Visitor Services ............................................................................................................................56

Pest Management .......................................................................................................................56

Archeological and Cultural Resources ........................................................................................56

Special Management Areas ........................................................................................................56
Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

v

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction ...............................................................................................................57

Goals, Objectives and Strategies ...............................................................................................................57

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge Goals, Objectives and Strategies ..................................................57

Pilot Knob National Wildlife Refuge Goals, Objectives and Strategies ............................................82

Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuge Goals, Objectives and Strategies .....................................83

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ................................................................................................................................86

New and Existing Projects .........................................................................................................................86

Staffing .......................................................................................................................................................86

Partnership Opportunities ..........................................................................................................................86

Step-down Management Plans ..................................................................................................................88

Monitoring and Evaluation .........................................................................................................................88

Plan Review and Revision ..........................................................................................................................88

Archeological and Cultural Values .............................................................................................................89

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact ......................................................................................................91

Appendix B: Glossary .................................................................................................................................................97

Appendix C: Species Lists .......................................................................................................................................101

Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations ..........................................................................................................127

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements ...............................................................................................................131

Appendix F: Refuge Operating Needs System and Maintenance Management System ............................137

Appendix G: Mailing List .........................................................................................................................................143

Appendix H: List of Preparers .................................................................................................................................147

Appendix I: Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................151

Appendix J: Resource Conservation Priority Lists .............................................................................................155

Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment .............................................................................................159
Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

vi

Mingo, Pilot Knob and Ozark Cavefish

National Wildlife Refuges

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of Mingo, Pilot Knob and Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuges ...............................................2

Figure 2: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Ecosystems of Contiguous States ....................................................................21

Figure 3: Bird Conservation Regions .............................................................................................................................23

Figure 4: Other Conservation Lands in the Vicinity of Missouri National Wildlife Refuges ........................................24

Figure 5: Hydrologic Features of Mingo National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................................28

Figure 6: Landcover, Mingo NWR .................................................................................................................................29

Figure 7: Current Facilities, Mingo NWR ......................................................................................................................38

Figure 8: Hunting Areas at Mingo National Wildlife Refuge .......................................................................................40

Figure 9: Location of Mingo National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................................45

Figure 10: Turnback Creek Unit, Ozark Cavefish NWR ...................................................................................................50

Figure 11: Hearrel Spring Unit, Ozark Cavefish NWR .....................................................................................................51

Figure 12: Ditch Structure ..............................................................................................................................................58

Figure 13: Locations and Future Cover Type Allocations of Grassy Openings, Cropland and Food Plots, Mingo NWR 62

Figure 14: Future Facilities, Mingo NWR ........................................................................................................................69

Figure 15: Public Vehicle Access Permitted, Mingo NWR ..............................................................................................72

Figure 16: Horseback Riding, Recreational Biking, Hiking, and Jogging Use Permitted, Mingo NWR ..........................75

Figure 17: Current Staffing, Mingo NWR ........................................................................................................................87

Figure 18: Staffing Needed to Fully Implement the CCP, Mingo NWR ..........................................................................87
Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

vii

Mingo, Pilot Knob and Ozark Cavefish

National Wildlife Refuges

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

List of Tables

Table 1: Mingo NWR Research Natural Areas .............................................................................................................20

Table 2: Invasive Plants and Animals at Mingo National Wildlife Refuge ...................................................................32

Table 3: Main Habitat Management Units at Mingo NWR ..........................................................................................34

Table 4: Invasive Plant Species and Their Control at Mingo NWR ...............................................................................43

Table 5: FSA Conservation Easements Managed by Mingo NWR ...............................................................................44

Table 6: Current and Future Condition of Mingo NWR Openings .................................................................................63

Table 7: Additional Staffing Required to Fully Implement the CCP by 2022, Mingo NWR ..........................................86

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

The State of Missouri is bordered and bisected by 

two of the nation’s great rivers – the Missouri and 

the Mississippi. Missourians are stewards of and 

visitors to three national wildlife refuges in the 

southern half of the state that showcase and conserve their native wildlife heritage. The largest of 

the three – Mingo National Wildlife Refuge – preserves once common, now scarce bottomland hardwood forest and swamp along an ancient, abandoned 

channel of the Mississippi River, as well as the indigenous wild creatures that walk, hop, crawl, swim, 

swarm, slide, slither, and fly through these shadefilled sloughs and sluggish waters. The other two 

refuges – Pilot Knob NWR and Ozark Cavefish 

NWR – provide much-needed sanctuary to a pair of 

rare species clinging to existence: the Indiana bat 

and the Ozark cavefish. 

Introduction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge

Established in 1944 under authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the 21,592-acre Mingo NWR is 

located in Stoddard and Wayne counties in southeast Missouri, approximately 150 miles south of St. 

Louis. The Refuge serves as a resting and wintering 

area for migratory waterfowl, and peak waterfowl 

populations of 125,000 Mallards and 75,000 Canada 

Geese have been recorded. A shallow basin, the Refuge lies in an abandoned channel of the Mississippi 

River bordered on the west by the Ozark Plateau 

and on the east by Crowley’s Ridge. The Refuge 

contains approximately 15,000 acres of bottomland 

hardwood forest, 5,000 acres of marsh and water, 

1,275 acres of cropland and moist soil units, and 700 

acres of grassy openings.

Recreational activities on the Refuge include fishing, hunting of waterfowl, squirrel, turkey, and deer, 

canoeing, and wildlife observation. Annual visitation 

to the Refuge has averaged about 100,000 visits over 

the past 5 years. Public facilities include a Visitor 

Center, a bookstore, a 1-mile self-guided Boardwalk 

Nature Trail, a 19-mile self-guided Auto Tour Route, 

six overlooks, picnic tables, and a picnic shelter. A 

7,730-acre portion of the Refuge is designated by 

Congress as Wilderness protected under the 1964 

Wilderness Act. 

Pilot Knob National Wildlife Refuge

Pilot Knob NWR was established in 1987. The 90-

acre Refuge, a donation of the Pilot Knob Ore Company, is located on top of Pilot Knob Mountain in 

Iron County, Missouri. The Refuge contains abandoned iron mine shafts excavated in the mid-1800s 

Historic entrance sign, Mingo NWR. USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2

Figure 1: Location of Mingo, Pilot Knob and Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuges
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3

that have since become critical habitat for the federally-listed endangered Indiana bat. Bats enter the 

shafts in the fall to hibernate and exit in the spring. 

The numbers have varied, but at one point up to a 

third of the known world population of Indiana bats 

were believed to hibernate in the old mine. In the 

interest of public safety and to avoid disturbance to 

the bats, the Refuge is closed to public use. The Refuge is managed by Mingo NWR staff located 

approximately 75 miles away.

Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuge

Ozark Cavefish NWR was established in 1991 to 

protect the federally-listed endangered Ozark cavefish. The 40-acre Refuge is located in Lawrence and 

Newton counties, Missouri, 20 miles west of Springfield. Turnback Creek Cave Spring is located on the 

Refuge. The spring is the outlet of an underground 

stream that contains a population of the Ozark cavefish. Human access to the underground stream is 

through Turnback Cave, which has openings on 

adjacent Missouri Department of Conservation 

land. The Refuge includes a separate 1.3-acre parcel 

located several miles away along Hearrell Spring in 

Neosho, Missouri. It adjoins the Service’s Neosho 

National Fish Hatchery. The Refuge is closed to 

public use. Ozark Cavefish NWR is also managed by 

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge staff.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Refuges are administered by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (Service), the primary federal 

agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and 

enhancing the nation's fish and wildlife populations 

and their habitats. The Service oversees the 

enforcement of federal wildlife laws, management 

and protection of migratory bird populations, restoration of nationally significant fisheries, administration of the Endangered Species Act, and the 

restoration of wildlife habitat such as wetlands. The 

Service also manages the National Wildlife Refuge 

System.

The National Wildlife Refuge System

Refuge lands are part of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, which was founded in 1903 when 

President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican 

Island in Florida as a sanctuary for brown pelicans. 

Today, the System is a network of over 545 refuges 

covering more than 95 million acres of public lands 

and waters. Most of these lands (82 percent) are in 

Alaska, with approximately 16 million acres located 

in the lower 48 states and several island territories. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world's 

largest collection of lands specifically managed for 

fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides habitat for 

more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish, and 

insects. As a result of international treaties for 

migratory bird conservation as well as other legislation, such as the Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

of 1929, many refuges have been established to protect migratory waterfowl and their migratory flyways from their northern nesting grounds to 

southern wintering areas. Refuges also play a vital 

role in preserving endangered and threatened species. Among the most notable is Aransas National 

Wildlife Refuge in Texas, which provides winter 

habitat for the whooping crane. Likewise, the Florida Panther Refuge protects one of the nation's most 

endangered predators, and the Mississippi Sandhill 

Crane Refuge an endangered, non-migratory species of the sandhill crane.

Refuges also provide unique opportunities for 

people. When it is compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation, they are places where people can 

enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation such as hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Many refuges 

have visitor centers, wildlife trails, automobile 

tours, and environmental education programs. 

Nationwide, approximately 30 million people visited 

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge national wildlife refuges in 1997.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established several important 

mandates aimed at making the management of 

national wildlife refuges more cohesive. The preparation of comprehensive conservation plans is one of 

those mandates. The legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and purposes of 

the individual refuges are carried out. It also 

requires the Secretary to maintain the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

The mission of the System 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 Refuge System’s goals are to:

# Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats, including species that are 

endangered or threatened with becoming 

endangered.

# Develop and maintain a network of habitats for 

migratory birds, anadromous and 

interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal 

populations that is strategically distributed and 

carefully managed to meet important life 

history needs of these species across their 

ranges.

# Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats, including species that are 

endangered or threatened with becoming 

endangered.

# Provide and enhance opportunities to 

participate in compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation). 

# Foster understanding and instill appreciation of 

the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

Refuge Purposes

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge

Beginning in 1944, land was acquired for Mingo 

NWR with the approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. The purpose of the Refuge 

derives from the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other 

management purpose, for migratory birds” (16 

U.S.C. 715d). In acquiring the first tract for the Refuge, the land was identified as “urgently needed for 

the protection and conservation of migratory waterfowl and other wildlife.” In a 1954 presentation to 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, the 

Refuge was described as an “important unit in the 

Mississippi Flyway” and “an important wintering 

ground for many species of waterfowl.”

One tract of the Refuge was acquired with 

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation funds. The purpose 

associated with this funding derives from the Refuge Recreation Act and includes lands “...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 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as 

amended).

An additional purpose was acquired when Congress designated the 7,730 acre Mingo Wilderness 

in 1976. The establishing legislation for the Wilderness (Public Law 94-557) states that “wilderness 

areas designated by this Act shall be administered 

in accordance with the applicable provisions of the 

Wilderness Act....” The purposes of the Wilderness 

Act are additional purposes of that part of the Refuge that is within the Mingo Wilderness. The purposes of the Wilderness Act are to secure an 

enduring resource of wilderness, to protect and preserve the wilderness character of areas within the 

National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS), 

and to administer the NWPS for the use and enjoyment of the American people in a way that will leave 

these areas unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.

Pilot Knob National Wildlife Refuge Purpose

Pilot Knob NWR protects critical habitat for the 

Indiana bat. The area was acquired by donation as 

authorized by The Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(16 U.S.C. 1534(a)(2)). The Endangered Species Act 

establishes the purpose of the Refuge: “to conserve 

(A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered 

species or threatened species....” Although not part 

of the Refuge purpose, additional reasons cited for 

establishing PilotKnob NWR were to: 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5

# Secure the land where mine entrances were 

located to prevent unauthorized use of the area 

and eliminate human disturbance of hibernating 

bats.

# Prevent the loss of bat habitat. 

# Help maintain and increase the existing bat 

population with the goal of eventually delisting 

the Indiana bat.

Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuge Purpose

Ozark Cavefish NWR protects essential habitat 

for the Ozark cavefish, gray bat, and other unique 

species associated with Turnback Creek Cave. The 

area was acquired by purchase under authority of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Endangered Species Act establishes the purpose of the 

Refuge “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are 

listed as endangered species or threatened species 

.... or (B) plants ....” The particular purpose noted in 

the Environmental Assessment pertaining to the 

acquisition of Turnback Creek Cave Springs was: 

“to insure the biological integrity of this cave ecosystem that provides essential habitat for the 

threatened Ozark Cavefish, the endangered Gray 

Bat, and other cave-adapted amphipods, isopods, 

cave snails, pseudoscorpions, millipedes, and other 

cave organisms.”

Refuge Visions

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge

Preamble

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge protects a remnant of the bottomland hardwood and cypresstupelo swamp ecosystem that once formed a 2.5 million-acre contiguous natural landscape throughout 

the Mississippi River basin. The 21,592-acre Refuge 

represents the largest area in southeast Missouri of 

remaining habitat for numerous native and threatened plant and animal species. The Refuge touches 

the southeast boundary of the Ozark Plateau and 

slopes abruptly from an upland oak-hickory forest 

to bottomland hardwood forest, lower marsh, and 

expansive swamp and ditch system. Since the beginning of the 20th century, these lands have been 

drained and deforested for agricultural purposes, 

which has highly modified the natural landscapes 

and ecosystem functions. Guided by legal mandates, 

the Refuge has successfully pioneered techniques 

that maintain a delicate balance of preservation and 

active management strategies for reforestation and 

hydrological integrity of the natural systems for the 

benefit of migratory birds, other wildlife, and wildlife-dependent public use. The Refuge is located in a 

community that appreciates both the natural diversity and the rich biological integrity of the Refuge 

and the surrounding public and private lands that 

add to the core network of the natural landscape.

Vision Statement

Applying proven and innovative management 

practices, Refuge personnel will continue to 

ensure the protection of the Refuge ecosystems, 

including the preservation of the 7,730-acre Wilderness Area, designated in 1976. Active management of non-Wilderness lands will utilize 

proactive strategies to maintain a high quality, 

sustainable, and highly diverse ecosystem. Proactive adaptive strategies will include traditional 

and accepted practices to protect the Refuge and 

surrounding lands from additional threats to the 

system, such as air quality and hydrological 

threats. The Refuge staff will continue to develop 

regeneration techniques and manage water levels 

to ensure the health and vitality of Refuge habitats.

Adaptive strategies will also assure continued 

consideration of the values and preservation of 

cultural resources where appropriate and consistent with natural resources management. Priority public-use opportunities will be provided and 

enhanced for the more than 90,000 annual visitors, in harmony with healthy habitats and sustainable wildlife populations.

This vision will be accomplished by continuing 

and expanding efforts to partner with state and 

federal agencies and the surrounding community, 

including neighboring landowners, stakeholders, 

supporters, and friends.

Stanley Creek, Mingo NWR. USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

6

Pilot Knob National Wildlife Refuge

Vision Statement

In cooperation with others, Pilot Knob NWR will 

protect and maintain critical habitat that contributes to the recovery of the federally-listed endangered Indiana bat and gray bat. Visitors will 

enjoy scenic beauty and learn about the Refuge 

and the surrounding area in ways that are safe 

and that do no harm to the habitat or the bats 

that depend on it.

Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuge

Vision Statement

In cooperation with others, Ozark Cavefish NWR 

will contribute to the recovery of the federallylisted threatened Ozark cavefish and other subterranean species through habitat conservation, 

landowner education, and watershed protection 

within the Springfield Plateau.

Purpose and Need for Plan

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) 

articulates the management direction for the Refuges for the next 15 years. Through the development of goals, objectives, and strategies, this CCP 

describes how the refuges also contribute to the 

overall mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Several legislative mandates within the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 have guided the development of this plan. 

These mandates include: 

# Wildlife has first priority in the management of 

refuges.

# Wildlife-dependent recreation activities – 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education and 

interpretation – are priority public uses of 

refuges. We will facilitate these activities when 

they do not interfere with our ability to fulfill 

the refuges’ purpose or the mission of the 

Refuge System.

# Other uses of the refuge will only be allowed 

when determined appropriate and compatible 

with refuge purposes and mission of the Refuge 

System.

The plan will guide the management of the refuges by:

# Providing a clear statement of direction for the 

future management of the refuges.

# Providing refuge neighbors, users, and the 

general public with an understanding of the 

Service’s management actions on and around 

the refuge.

# Ensuring the refuges’ management actions and 

programs are consistent with the mandates of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System.

# Ensuring that refuge management considers 

federal, state, and county plans.

# Establishing long-term continuity in refuge 

management.

# Providing a basis for the development of budget 

requests on the refuges’ operational, 

maintenance, and capital improvement needs.

Existing Partnerships

Working with others via intra- and interagency 

partnerships is important in accomplishing the mission of the Service as well as assisting Mingo, Pilot 

Knob and Ozark Cavefish national wildlife refuges 

in achieving their purposes. Partnerships with other 

federal and state agencies and with a diversity of 

public and private organizations are increasingly 

important. Other agencies can provide invaluable 

assistance in research and maintenance. Private 

groups and non-profit organizations greatly 

enhance public involvement in the Refuge, building 

enthusiasm and support for its mission.

Within the Ozark Plateau Ecosystem that encompasses all three refuges, the Service partners with a 

number of other agencies and institutions, both governmental and non-governmental. These include:

# State agencies, including the Missouri 

Department of Conservation and the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources;

# Federal agencies, including the U.S. Forest 

Service, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, National Park Service, U.S. Geological 

Survey Biological Resources Division, and U.S. 

Department of Agriculture;

# Local governments;

# Universities;

# Local landowners;

# Non-governmental conservation organizations, 

such as The Nature Conservancy, the Trust for 

Public Land, and Bat Conservation 

International; Caving Clubs and Spelunkers.

Besides the partnerships that the Fish and Wildlife Service holds on the national and regional (eco-
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

7

system) level, Mingo NWR maintains informal 

partnerships with the following agencies:

# Missouri Department of Conservation

# Missouri Department of Natural Resources

# Missouri Department of Transportation

# Missouri Highway Patrol

# USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation 

Service or SCS)

# Ducks Unlimited

# U.S. Navy Seabees

# U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

# Farm Services Agency

# U.S. Forest Service

# Gaylord Laboratory, University of Missouri

Volunteers and Friends Group

The Refuge also relies on the selfless dedication 

of volunteers to extend the efforts of staff. Volunteers play a vital role in the management and maintenance of the fish and wildlife resources on Mingo 

NWR. In an era of flat or declining budgets, it is 

more important now than ever that volunteers step 

forward to help protect and preserve our natural 

resource heritage for present and future generations to enjoy. 

Mingo NWR is especially fortunate in enjoying 

the support of a particularly committed group of 

volunteers, the Friends of Mingo Swamp. The 

Friends have raised tens of thousands of dollars to 

fund projects like butterfly gardens, benches, food 

plots and interpretive signs (McCarty, 2004). 

Museums and Repositories

The Refuge museum collections include primarily 

archeological materials. The Refuge has no collections of artwork, Service history paraphernalia 

(e.g., signs, equipment), botany, zoology, geology, 

paleontology. The archeological collection consists of 

more than 47,000 items, 22 of which are on display at 

the Refuge Visitor Center. Collections are stored 

under terms of a curatorial cooperative agreement 

with the University of Missouri at Columbia. 

History and Establishment

About 25,000 years ago, the Mississippi River ran 

between the Ozark Mountains and Crowley's Ridge. 

Approximately 18,000 years ago, the river shifted, 

slicing its way through Crowley's Ridge to join the 

Ohio River farther north. The abandoned river bed 

developed into a rich and fertile swamp (USFWS, 

no date-b).

Native Americans were attracted to the swamp 

because of the abundant wildlife. Most likely, Native 

American occupation was seasonal and related to 

hunting opportunities in the swamp. Water-loving 

animals, such as beaver, river otter, raccoons, and 

rabbit thrived. White-tailed deer, Wild Turkey, 

Ruffed Grouse and timber wolves were common on 

the edges of the swamp and nearby bluffs.

In 1804, the Louisiana Purchase acquired this 

territory for the United States. At that time, the 

population of Missouri’s entire Bootheel was very 

low and the swamp area that is now the Refuge was 

considered inaccessible. When Missouri became a 

state in 1821, all of the counties in southeast Missouri had settlers, except Stoddard and Dunklin 

counties, although Cape Girardeau was one of the 

most important river towns in Missouri.

Settlers first approached the swamp because of 

its extensive old-growth cypress and tupelo forests. 

Friends member Leroy Romine maintaining ADA hunting 

blinds on Mingo NWR. USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

8

The giant cypress trees were the first to be felled 

and converted into railroad ties and building lumber. 

The T.J. Moss Tie Company was a large Bootheel 

lumbering operation headquartered in Puxico. By 

1888, T.J. Moss was the largest tie contractor in the 

state, and many of their ties were cut from trees 

taken from Mingo Swamp. A large sawmill was 

operated just north of Puxico on land now within 

Mingo NWR. Production of the Bootheel lumber 

industry peaked between 1900 and 1910. During its 

peak, the Bootheel was consistently the leading lumber-producing area of Missouri. However, by 1935 

most of the large operations had ceased. The giant 

trees had been removed and it was necessary to find 

suitable lumber in other places.

Yet the powerful and wealthy lumber companies 

had not lost interest in the Bootheel. If the swampy 

land could be drained it could once more become an 

important source of revenue. The size of the 

projects remained small because of the expanse 

involved. The lumber companies had considerable 

capital to invest, but demanded large grants of land 

for the drainage and were frequently more interested in the land than in efficiency of their drainage 

ditches. The State Legislature passed an act that 

allowed the formation of drainage districts, financed 

by long-term bonds. For the first time, drainage 

projects could be adequately financed and many 

drainage districts were created in the Bootheel.

In 1914, more than 20 drainage districts existed 

in Stoddard County. One of them was the Mingo 

Drainage District, a small district in the Advance 

Lowlands near Puxico. More than $1 million was 

spent to make Mingo Swamp suitable for farming. A 

system of seven major north-south ditches was constructed to drain water from the swamp into the St. 

Francis River, about 10 miles south of Puxico. 

Except for the narrow southern extension of the district south of Puxico, the District's boundary and the 

Mingo NWR boundary are essentially the same. 

The ditches constructed by the District are used 

today by the Refuge for water control and management.

During the Great Depression, land values plummeted and many of the large landholders (lumber 

companies) defaulted on payment of taxes rather 

than continue to maintain unprofitable investments 

in the land. Throughout the Bootheel, many drainage districts were unable to meet financial obligations and defaulted on bond payments, largely 

because they couldn't absorb the loss of revenue created by the large landholders. Mingo District was 

one of these.

Drainage attempts at Mingo had not been completely successful, at least in part because of the 

overflow from the St. Francis River. Also, the soil 

was not as productive as in other areas of the 

Bootheel. During the 1930s, Mingo District became 

insolvent.

The remaining timber was cut by anyone without 

regard to ownership. The area had become open 

range country, with cattle and hogs roaming freely 

across the entire swamp. To maintain this grassy 

condition, the land was burned frequently, as much 

as several times a year. Hogs and cattle became so 

numerous that they overflowed into the small towns 

near the swamp. Indiscriminate shooting of waterfowl was common. Other wildlife species were also 

not faring well. Beaver and deer had disappeared 

and Wild Turkey had nearly been extirpated from 

the swamp. 

In 1944, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service purchased 21,592 acres of the Mingo Swamp and established the Mingo National Wildlife Refuge. The 

condition of the land and its living resources was 

deplorable. Over the previous half-century, humans 

had reduced a beautiful swamp, lush with the 

growth of plants and alive with animals, into a 

burned and eroded wasteland. Through careful 

management, most of the natural plants and animals 

were restored. Native trees have replaced much of 

the brush and briers, and a canoe trip down the 

Mingo River will now reveal little to the casual 

observer of the abuses to which this land was subjected in years past. Deer, Wild Turkey, bobcat and 

beaver are once again plentiful. The Refuge is now 

able to pursue its primary purpose: providing food 

and shelter for migratory birds.

Sweet’s Cabin, Mingo NWR. USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

9

Legal Context

In addition to the Refuge’s establishing legislation and the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, several Federal laws, 

executive orders, and regulations govern administration of the Refuge. Appendix F contains a partial 

list of the legal mandates that guided the preparation of this plan and those that pertain to Refuge 

management activities.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

10

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Preparation of the CCP

The comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and 

environmental assessment (EA) for Mingo, Pilot 

Knob and Ozark Cavefish national wildlife refuges 

will guide management decisions on wildlife, habitat 

and visitor services management for the next 15 

years. This document is intended to give everyone 

interested in the refuges’ future an opportunity to 

both to see how the Service plans to manage the refuges and to offer comments on the proposed management direction.

Work on the Draft CCP for the three refuges 

began in September 2003 with a kickoff meeting for 

planners, biologists and Refuge staff who toured 

Mingo NWR. The group reviewed its purpose, history, ecology and management, and discussed the 

issues and challenges the Refuge faces and how we 

might solve them.

An internal scoping meeting was conducted at 

Region 3 headquarters in Minnesota in April 2004 to 

learn what issues and opportunities Service leaders 

perceived at the three refuges. Representatives of 

various programs within the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service met to discuss what they thought should be 

addressed in the planning process. 

Public Involvement

Public involvement is the cornerstone of comprehensive conservation planning. The planning process begins with asking neighbors, state and federal 

agencies, and non government organizations to 

identify management issues and opportunities that 

should be addressed in planning. These comments 

are addressed in the CCP, and stakeholders are 

invited to review the plan and offer comments that 

are then addressed in the final plan.

Planning for Mingo, Pilot Knob and Ozark Cavefish national wildlife refuges began with a series of 

public open houses in the areas surrounding the refuges. Citizens, non-governmental conservation 

organizations (NGOs), and employees of tribal, 

state, and local agencies have all contributed time 

and expertise in addressing a variety of issues. This 

participation is vital and the ideas offered have been 

valuable in determining the future direction of the 

three refuges. Refuge and regional staff – indeed, 

the entire U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – are 

grateful to all of those who have contributed time, 

expertise and ideas throughout the comprehensive 

conservation planning process. We appreciated the 

enthusiasm and commitment expressed by many for 

the lands and living resources administered by 

Mingo NWR.

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge

Two public scoping meetings were held to provide 

an opportunity for neighbors, local communities, 

and representatives of state and federal agencies to 

discuss issues and opportunities with Refuge and 

planning staff. The first open house was conducted 

on January 8, 2004, from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Puxico High School gymnasium. Refuge staff made a 

Wood Duck Brood on Mingo NWR. USFWS
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

11

presentation on the planning process and NEPA at 

7 p.m. More than 50 people attended the meeting.

A second open house was held on January 9, 2004, 

at the Three Rivers Community College in Poplar 

Bluff from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. No one attended.

The Refuge hosted a meeting of surrounding 

State and Federal organizations on January 9, 2004. 

Representatives from USDA Rural Development, 

Missouri Department of Conservation, the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Mingo Job Corps, and 

the University Forest attended. Participants provided an overview of opportunities available on the 

various ownerships and discussed opportunities for 

cooperation.

In addition, a 1-day focus group meeting was held 

at the Refuge Visitor Center on January 10, 2004. 

Refuge staff invited representatives of state agencies, conservation groups as well as individuals 

interested in the future of Mingo NWR. A morning 

session focused on public use issues, and the afternoon session on habitat management issues. 

Approximately 25-30 people in total attended with 

some overlap between the two sessions.

We heard a variety of issues. Some people urged 

the Refuge to improve habitat for waterfowl and 

swamp rabbit by reducing forest cover. Some people 

urged the Refuge to concentrate on controlling deer 

numbers. Many views were expressed on huntingrelated issues. Some people said that opportunities 

for bow hunting should be expanded, and others 

said that bow hunting should be rotated from the 

east side of the Refuge to the west side. Some people said that modern firearms should not be permitted on the Refuge, and others said that more open 

areas should be provided for bow hunting. Some 

people said that hunting opportunities should be 

provided for non-traditional user groups, such as 

women and disabled people. Related to this issue, 

some people said that the Refuge should plant more 

crops and open up more farming on the Refuge. In 

discussing this comment with people, we heard that 

interest in farming generally relates to interest in 

improving hunting opportunities.

Some people asked that the Refuge consider creating multi-use trails that would accommodate 

horse-back riding, and other people said that horseback riders would be willing to help with developing 

and maintaining multi-use trails.

Some people said that fishing should be restored 

on the Refuge, and others specified that Red Mill 

Pond should be enhanced/restored for fishing purposes.

Other participants suggested that the Refuge 

repair and update signs and fences and clean out 

ditches. Some said that grass should be managed so 

it does not interfere with wildlife viewing.

Some people said that Rockhouse Marsh should 

be cleaned and rehabilitated.

Pilot Knob National Wildlife Refuge

An open house for Pilot Knob NWR was conducted on January 13, 2004, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. at 

the Fort Davidson Café in Pilot Knob, Missouri, and 

was attended by 17 people. A suggestion for additional public involvement opportunities made at this 

first event prompted a second open house held on 

February 26, 2004, at the Fort Davidson Historic 

Site Visitor Center from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. It was 

attended by 10 people.

Opening the Refuge was the theme of several 

comments. Some encouraged the Service to make 

the Refuge more accessible with roads and trails, 

and possibly enter into an agreement with other 

agencies. Others said that the Refuge should be 

opened to hunting and other public uses. Others said 

that the Refuge should balance protection of the Bottomland hardwood forest on Pool 5 at Mingo NWR, USFWS
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

12

federally-listed endangered Indiana bat and allow 

for some level of accessibility for the public. 

Some people suggested specific approaches to 

public use. One idea voiced in the meeting was to 

place an observation platform to take advantage of a 

360-degree vista that is unique in the area. The Refuge was encouraged to explore alternative fencing 

techniques for keeping people away from the mine 

entrance to protect the bats and for public safety, 

but that still allows access to the rest of the Refuge. 

Others said that the Refuge presents an opportunity 

to educate people about the area’s geology. Some 

people said that the Refuge should consider seasonal closure of the Refuge to accommodate public 

use of the sites while others said that any public use 

plan would have to consider the bats and public 

safety.

The Service was encouraged to consider a cooperative agreement with the Missouri Department of 

Conservation to better police the Refuge and reduce 

illegal use. Others suggested that the Service consider an interagency agreement with the Department for management of Pilot Knob NWR. Another 

suggestion offered was for the Service to develop a 

local body to assist in the management of the Refuge. Others said that the Refuge should be added to 

the State’s natural area system.

Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuge

An open house meeting for Ozark Cavefish NWR 

was held on January 12, 2004, from 1 p.m to 4 p.m. 

at the Southwest Center of the University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station near Mount 

Vernon, Missouri. The meeting was attended by 15 

people, most representing state or federal agencies. 

We heard many comments urging the Service to 

work more closely with the Missouri Department of 

Conservation on Ozark cavefish conservation, specifically to consider leasing property to the Missouri 

DOC through a Memorandum of Agreement, 

explore cooperative management options with the 

Department, work with the Department’s private 

lands program, and review the DOC’s Ozark cavefish action plan. Some people said that state-listed 

crayfish and amphipod may also occur on the Refuge.

Some people said that the Refuge should consider 

adding Sercoxie Cave as part of the Refuge. The 

Refuge was encouraged to conserve recharge areas 

as part of the effort to protect the Ozark cavefish. 

Others suggested that the Service expand the Refuge to include other Ozark cavefish sits and to provide protection of the adjoining watersheds. Some 

people also encouraged the Service to add staff who 

would be available to focus on Ozark Cavefish NWR 

and the surrounding area and others said the Service should consider establishing a field station in 

the area.

Some participants said that hazardous material 

spills along Highway 44 are a threat to the Refuge 

and the Refuge should look for ways to mitigate 

spills along highways within recharge areas 

Some people said that the Refuge should be open 

to public use while others said that it should remain 

closed. Some people said that vehicular and foot 

traffic should be kept away from the spring and its 

spring branch. A lack of law enforcement presence 

makes it challenging to enforce Refuge closure, others said. Some people said that the Refuge should 

use environmental education to improve public 

awareness of the hazards to Ozark cavefish. The 

Refuge was encouraged to consider placing interpretive signing regarding the Refuge.

Summary of Issues, Concerns 

and Opportunities

Based on what we heard from the public as well 

as from representatives of various Service programs, we have developed a list of issues for each of 

the three refuges. The management alternatives 

explored in the draft EA addressed these issues.

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge

Issue Statement: Waterfowl, deer, and turkey are 

not visibly concentrated on the Refuge.

Background 

A number of people commented that they do not 

see as much wildlife, especially waterfowl, deer, and 

turkey, as in past years. They attribute the decline 

to a lack of cropland, and support planting more 

crops to attract and feed wildlife. Wildlife viewing 

and hunting are popular activities at Mingo NWR, 

and wildlife drawn into the open by crops is more 

visible than wildlife within the surrounding forest. 

But cropland is not native habitat, it requires intensive management, and it provides little value to 

wildlife for much of the year. Presently, there are 

411 acres of cropland maintained through cooperative agreements with local farmers, and an additional 95 acres of food plots maintained by Refuge 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

13

staff and volunteers. Service policy supports converting cropland to native habitats that are more 

valuable to wildlife. 

Issue Statement: Vegetation changes in former 

grazing and haying areas and Rockhouse Marsh are 

reducing viewing opportunities and food availability 

for wildlife.

Background 

Open habitats such as fields and marshes provide 

unobstructed opportunities for wildlife viewing. 

Many of the 474 acres of open fields popular with 

wildlife watchers are former grazing and haying 

areas. Grazing was phased out on the Refuge beginning in 2000 and eliminated entirely in 2002. Most 

haying was eliminated by 2004. Fescue planted in 

these areas as forage for livestock is now overtaking 

many of these sites, reaching heights of 2 to 5 feet, 

reducing their value to wildlife and obscuring visitors’ views. Similarly, visitors are accustomed to 

Rockhouse Marsh being an open area where wildlife 

is easily seen. Since 2000, maintenance efforts have 

focused largely on removing sediment from the 

drainage ditches, meaning much less time spent 

mowing or removing brush within the marsh. 

Woody vegetation, especially willow, is now more 

abundant, reducing visibility for wildlife viewing. 

Also, some believe that the disappearance of these 

open areas, and the easily seen wildlife along with it, 

means there is insufficient food and less wildlife. A 

number of people supported eliminating the fescue 

and woody vegetation to keep the fields and marsh 

open. Service policy supports restoring these areas 

to native habitat, which in most cases would be bottomland forest, canebrakes, or grassy openings like 

those seen along Crowley’s Ridge.

Issue Statement: Otter and beaver numbers and 

distribution affect management activities and 

wildlife-dependent public uses.

Background

Although a small number of river otters survived 

in the southeastern portion of the state, including 

within the Refuge, habitat degradation and unregulated harvest eliminated them from much of Missouri by the 1930s. In the 1980s, the Missouri 

Department of Conservation began reintroducing 

otters into streams where they had been absent for 

more than 40 years. Fish numbers declined on the 

Refuge at about the same time, and although otters 

were present long before the decline, some believe 

they contributed to the decrease. Across Missouri 

otter numbers climbed and in some places reached 

nuisance levels, especially for those raising fish. By 

1996, the population was sufficient to support a trapping season. Fish numbers and angling success are 

improving on the Refuge, probably because of ditch 

cleaning, but some support otter trapping as an 

additional means of increasing fish numbers. Presently otter trapping is not allowed on the Refuge.

Beaver are common across the Refuge and a 

number of comments supported trapping to reduce 

their numbers. Beaver routinely burrow dens, 

weakening areas along the roads and levees that cut 

across the Refuge. Beaver dams cause flooding that 

sometimes hampers access and kills bottomland 

hardwoods. Presently, beaver trapping is not 

allowed on the Refuge. If necessary, nuisance animals and dams are removed by Refuge staff.

Issue Statement: There is demand for expansion of 

existing public uses on the Refuge. Some of the 

uses are not wildlife-dependent.

Background

Service policy encourages national wildlife refuges to provide opportunities for six wildlife dependent public uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation. Additionally, Mingo 

NWR provides opportunities for canoeing, kayaking, horseback riding, biking, hiking, jogging, berry 

and mushroom gathering, and picnicking. Careful 

zoning of these uses in both duration and extent 

helps avoid conflicts between user groups. At 

present, nearly all of the Refuge is open to some 

type of use throughout the year. A number of comments supported increasing the duration, available 

area, or number of facilities for one or more of the 

existing uses. These uses and any others must not 

interfere with fulfilling the Refuge purposes or the 

goals of the Refuge system. 

Issue Statement: The amount of early successional 

habitat is decreasing, making the Refuge less 

favorable to wildlife and wildlife-dependent uses 

associated with these habitats.

Background

A number of comments supported increasing the 

amount of younger forest within the Refuge. Young 

forest gets its start when older forest is disrupted 

either naturally or through active management such 

as timber harvesting. Many wildlife species, especially those popular with wildlife watchers and hunters, favor younger forest. At 80 to 100 years old, the 

forests that cover much of the Refuge are middle-
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

14

aged or beyond. This older forest favors wildlife different than that prized by many hunters and wildlife 

watchers. Forest aging is normal, so is forest 

renewal. Tree falls caused by flooding or wind usually create openings that allow more sunlight to 

reach the forest floor. This encourages seed germination as well as growth of tree seedlings and other 

plants wildlife feed on. Prolonged flooding within 

Refuge bottomlands drowns the young forest that 

normally grows in such openings. 

Some people supported increasing other types of 

early successional habitat. Early successional habitat occurs where plants colonize treeless areas such 

as abandoned farm fields, beaver meadows, or bare 

soil created by river action. Soon vines, shrubs, and 

trees begin growing, creating a thicket of low growing habitat favored by wildlife like quail and swamp 

rabbits. In some places these thickets remain for 

years, but without natural disturbance or management action such as mowing, burning, or brushing 

many eventually revert to forest. The amount of this 

habitat is decreasing within the Refuge. 

Issue Statement: Prolonged annual flooding is 

killing mature trees, preventing regeneration of 

young trees, and threatening the long-term 

existence of the bottomland hardwood forest.

Background

Bottomland forests are well suited to floods that 

recede within weeks. Floods lasting longer kill 

mature trees and seedlings, threatening the future 

of the forest and its wildlife. Floodwaters once 

flowed across the entire basin, wending their way 

over and around the shallow ridges that interrupt 

the otherwise flat bottomland. More than a century 

of alterations including roads, dikes, and levees narrowed or blocked drainage pathways, slowing water 

movement. Ditches totaling more than 50 miles, 

most dug in the 1920s, adequately channeled floodwaters for years, but did not play the same role as 

sprawling flow across the basin. Eventually, drainage grew sluggish as the ditches filled with sediment, causing longer floods. Ditch dredging, 

underway since 1997, clears sediment and improves 

channel flow, but is time consuming, expensive, and 

does not restore widespread flow across the basin. 

Recent changes to several dikes along the ditch system slowed sediment build up, but more than 30 

miles of ditches are still clogged.

Issue Statement: There are threats to the ecological 

integrity of Refuge ecosystems as well as 

restoration opportunities.

Background

Service policy supports maintaining and restoring where appropriate, biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health. There are a number of 

threats to these elements including the introduction 

and spread of invasive plant and animal species, 

mercury deposition and accumulation, and rising 

amounts of atmospheric pollutants. There are also 

opportunities to restore drainage pathways and 

reintroduce species that formerly existed within the 

Refuge.

Issue Statement: Mingo NWR’s designated 

Wilderness Area requires special management to 

maintain its integrity.

Background

Congress designated the western portion of the 

Refuge as the Mingo Wilderness Area in 1976. Wilderness policy allows hiking, backpacking, fishing, 

wildlife observation, and environmental education 

and interpretation. It generally prohibits motorized 

activities. Ditches and levees, specifically excluded 

from the Wilderness designation, help approximate 

water level fluctuations that once happened naturally. All Wilderness Areas established before 1977 

and greater than 5,000 acres are Class I air quality 

areas, which implies a legal obligation to preserve or 

restore their outstanding air quality, including visibility. Diminishing air quality is a growing concern 

within the Mingo Wilderness Area in part because 

of proposed coal-burning power plants in the region 

that could further aggravate problems with haze 

and deposition of contaminants like mercury, 

nitrates, and sulfates emitted from their smokestacks. Mingo National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

15

Issue Statement: The amount of maintenance needs 

exceeds existing maintenance capacity.

Background

The Refuge maintenance staff is responsible for 

maintaining more than 60 miles of roads and levees, 

52 miles of ditches, 57 water control mechanisms, 

and various other facilities. Additionally, they regularly assist with habitat management activities such 

as mowing and brushing. In recent years, with 

increased emphasis on removing ditch sediment, 

less time is available to complete other maintenance 

tasks. This is compounded by the loss of two fulltime and two part-time maintenance positions 

through the years as well as aging infrastructure 

that requires more frequent attention. A number of 

people commented that more maintenance workers 

are needed.

Issue Statement: Automobiles on Bluff Road cause 

high seasonal reptile and amphibian mortality when 

snakes, toads, and frogs are migrating.

Background

The Refuge is endowed with an abundance of reptiles and amphibians. At certain times of the year, 

large numbers of reptiles or amphibians migrate 

across Refuge roads from bottomlands to peripheral 

bluffs and back again. At these times, they are particularly vulnerable to being run over and killed by 

motorists on certain Refuge roads.

Issue Statement: Current management activities do 

not emphasize habitat for King Rail and Black Rail, 

two migratory bird species that are rare or 

decreasing in number.

Background

Providing habitat for migratory birds is the primary purpose of the Refuge. King Rail and Black 

Rail are migratory birds that are rare or decreasing 

in number that would benefit from alternative management strategies within Refuge moist soil units. 

These species are known to migrate through the 

area and may be able to nest on the Refuge under 

different habitat conditions.

Issue Statement: Some visitor services programs 

and facilities do not meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service standards or Refuge System goals.

Background

With few improvements since the 1980s, visitor 

services infrastructure and programming including 

information kiosks, entrance, directional, and 

boundary signing, and trails, boardwalks, and 

observation sites are outdated or in poor condition. 

A number of sites are potentially hazardous or do 

not meet federal accessibility standards, notably a 

portion of the popular Boardwalk Nature Trail. The 

Visitor Center, built in 1975, requires renovation 

and repairs throughout the building. Many exhibits 

are faulty, outdated, or do not effectively communicate the Refuge System mission. Present environmental education and interpretive programming as 

well as outreach activities do not contain information on the unique resources found on the Refuge.

Issue Statement: Many of the cultural resource sites 

on the Refuge are not adequately identified or 

protected.

Background

There are more than 140 known cultural resource 

sites within the Refuge, but specific locations are 

lacking for many sites and it is likely there are 

undiscovered sites. The National Historic Preservation Act as well as other laws and regulations 

require the Service to avoid disturbing cultural 

resource sites and to work in coordination with the 

State Historic Preservation Officer. Specifically, a 

number of people commented that Sweet’s Cabin, a 

Depression era homestead, should be restored and 

made more accessible to visitors.

Issue Statement: The Refuge faces funding and 

staffing challenges to meet existing and predicted 

future demands.

Background

The number of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs), a 

measure indicating the amount of available workforce, averaged 10.1/year throughout the 1990s, but 

dropped to an average of 8.7/year since 2000. Infrastructure and facilities as well as habitat management and visitor services programs, built with a 

comparatively larger workforce, today challenge a 

Refuge staff with fewer FTEs. Creative partnerships and volunteer assistance, although helpful, are 

not a complete or always reliable solution. Consequently, less gets done with a corresponding decline 

in Refuge programs, infrastructure, and facilities. 

Visitor numbers and associated demands are 

expected to increase in coming years.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

16

Issue Statement: The effects of some management 

activities as well as public use are not well 

understood.

Background

Sustaining wildlife populations is central to the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, but 

in many cases information is lacking regarding the 

success of management activities or the effect of 

public uses on Refuge wildlife. This hampers the 

ability of managers to adapt habitat management 

practices or modify public uses in ways that best 

sustain wildlife numbers.

Pilot Knob National Wildlife Refuge

Public Use

Issue Statement: There is demand for public use of 

the Refuge. Public use may harm the Indiana bat 

and expose visitors to hazards.

Background

There is support in the local communities for 

allowing public use of the Refuge. The summit of 

Pilot Knob, where the Refuge is located, has a number of unique geological features and provides a 360-

degree vista of the surrounding area including a 

view of a Civil War battlefield. Supporters feel it is 

possible to allow access in a way that protects the 

bats and maintains public safety. Fencing of hazardous sites and those important to the Indiana bat, 

seasonal closure of the Refuge, road and trail 

access, geological interpretation, and an observation 

platform near the summit of Pilot Knob are among 

the considerations for public use of the site. Local 

elected officials and citizens are willing to work with 

the Service to develop a mutually agreeable public 

use plan. Information on hazards and sites important to the bats is lacking. Funding for information 

gathering, analysis, planning, and construction 

associated with any facilities or infrastructure must 

also be addressed. 

Issue Statement: Refuge administrators are not 

visible in the local community. Low visibility 

contributes to lack of community support and 

coordination on local issues.

Background 

A number of local citizens, including several 

elected officials, want greater input into the administration and management of the Refuge. It has 

been administered by the staff at Mingo NWR, 90 

miles away, from the time it was established in 1987. 

A number of comments indicated that the Refuge 

lacks public visibility or support largely because it is 

not administered locally. Local people want a local 

contact or individual they can work with regarding 

issues associated with the Refuge. Some people suggested that the Service enter into a cooperative 

agreement with the Missouri Department of Conservation or some other local agency to assist with 

management and law enforcement of the Refuge. 

Others suggested developing a local body of citizens 

to provide input into the management and administration of the Refuge. 

Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuge

Habitat Management

Issue Statement: Actions beyond the Refuge’s 

established boundaries are necessary to adequately 

protect Ozark cavefish.

Background

Presently the Refuge includes 40 acres along 

Turnback Creek in Lawrence County. It has been 

suggested that the Refuge expand to include other 

Ozark cavefish sites, such as Sercoxie Cave, and 

Refuge employee Jack Richmond inspects a water control structure on Mingo NWR. USFWS
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

17

provide protection for their surrounding watersheds. It also was noted that a 10-acre parcel to the 

north of the Refuge, which contains the federally 

listed threatened Missouri bladder pod, may have a 

willing seller. Other comments noted that protecting 

and conserving recharge areas for streams known 

to contain Ozark cavefish would provide the greatest protection for the species. Still others observed 

that hazardous material spills along Highway 44 

within the recharge area for Turnback Creek posed 

the greatest threat to the Ozark cavefish on the Refuge. A spill could contaminate surface water and 

have adverse effects on the Ozark cavefish and 

other subterranean species. Placing highway signs, 

developing mitigation for potential spills, working 

with private landowners, and environmental education were suggested as ways to conserve and protect 

recharge areas, and ultimately Ozark cavefish.

Public Use

Issue Statement: The Refuge suffers from 

unenforced regulations and possibly unrealized 

public use potential. 

Background

A number of comments from the public suggested the Refuge would benefit if it were locally 

administered and managed. The Refuge has been 

administered by the staff at Mingo NWR, 240 miles 

away, from the time it was established in 1991. 

Because of the distant location, the Refuge is visited 

infrequently and little management or law enforcement activities are carried out on the property. Suggested changes included establishing a field station 

in the local area, adding staff to focus on the Refuge 

and surrounding area, and exploring cooperative 

management of the Refuge with the Missouri 

Department of Conservation.

One comment from the Missouri Department of 

Conservation suggested opening the Refuge to public use. This would make it consistent with access to 

the Paris Springs, an adjoining state-owned property that contains the entrance to Turnback Cave. 

The Refuge contains the resurgence of Turnback 

Creek, but no access to the cave. With no local personnel, the closure is difficult to enforce. A number 

of comments noted that the subterranean nature of 

the Ozark cavefish and lack of access to the cave 

make it unlikely that public use of the Refuge would 

cause adverse effects.

Issue Statement: The Refuge contains a number of 

federal and state listed rare species, and there are 

currently no provisions for managing and protecting 

these species.

Background

The Refuge has restoration potential for the federally-listed threatened Missouri bladder pod. Controlling exotic species, placing interpretive signing, 

working with The Nature Conservancy, restoring 

the Missouri bladder pod, improving and expanding 

riparian habitat, and restoration of wet prairie are 

various management options.

Preparation, Publishing, 

Finalization and 

Implementation of the CCP

The Mingo NWR, Pilot Knob NWR and Ozark 

Cavefish NWR CCP was prepared by a contractor 

with a great deal of input, review, and support from 

Refuge staff and the Service’s Regional Office. The 

CCP was published in two phases and in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). The Draft Environmental Assessment presented a range of alternatives for future management and identified the preferred alternative, which 

is also the Draft CCP. The alternative that was 

selected has become the basis of the Final CCP. This 

document then, becomes the basis for guiding management on the Refuges over the coming 15-year 

period. It will guide the development of more 

detailed step-down management plans for specific 

resource areas and it will underpin the annual budgeting process through Refuge Operating Needs 

System (RONS) and Maintenance Management 

System (MMS). Most importantly, it lays out the 

general approach to managing habitat, wildlife, and 

people at Mingo, Pilot Knob and Ozark Cavefish 

national wildlife refuges that will direct day-to-day 

decision-making and actions.

The Draft CCP/EA was released for public 

review and comment in June 2006. A Draft CCP/EA 

or a summary of the document was sent to more 

than 276 individuals, organizations, and local, state, 

and federal agencies and elected officials. Three 

open houses, one for each Refuge, were held in June 

2006 following release of the draft document. 

Eleven people attended the open house for Mingo 

NWR; two people attended the open house for 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

18

Ozark Cavefish NWR; and three people attended 

the open house for Pilot Knob NWR. 

By the conclusion of the comment period we 

received 37 responses and identified more than 200 

individual comments within those responses. We 

consolidated similar comments, reducing the total to 

160 comments.

Appendix K of the CCP summarizes these comments and our responses. Several of the comments 

resulted in changes in the CCP.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

19

Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and 

Management

Introduction

Established in 1944 under authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the 21,592-acre Mingo 

National Wildlife Refuge covers portions of Stoddard and Wayne counties in southeast Missouri, 

approximately 150 miles south of St. Louis. It contains 15,000 acres of bottomland hardwood forest, 

the largest remnant of the 2.5 million acres that 

once enveloped southeastern Missouri, and serves 

as a resting, breeding, and wintering area for migratory birds. The Refuge also includes 3,500 acres of 

marsh and water, 411 acres of cropland, 704 acres of 

moist soil units, and 474 acres of grassy openings.

Clearing of the region’s bottomland hardwood 

forests for lumber and railroad ties began in the 

1880s and continued into the 1930s, feeding the 

demand of a growing nation. Conservation and sustainable yield – notions still in their infancy – lost 

out to short-term economic gain, and the once 

expansive bottomland forests disappeared. Timber 

companies looking to reap additional revenue from 

the cleared landscape funded projects aimed at dewatering the swamp. Ultimately, legislation passed 

allowing the formation of drainage districts financed 

by long-term bonds. In 1914 more than 20 such districts existed in Stoddard County, including the 

Mingo Drainage District near Puxico. 

The Mingo Drainage District struggled. Overflow 

from the St. Francis River thwarted permanent 

drainage, and soils proved less productive than 

those in other areas of the Missouri Bootheel. When 

land values plummeted during the Great Depression 

many drainage district land owners defaulted on tax 

payments rather than maintain unprofitable investments. The financially strapped Mingo Drainage 

District defaulted on bond payments and went 

bankrupt. Unregulated land uses followed until the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acquired the property in 1945. By that time the lands had been deforested, drained with an extensive system of ditches, 

burned by wildfires, and grazed indiscriminately by 

livestock.

Through time and careful stewardship the land 

recovered, and along with it the flora and fauna once 

common to the swamp. Today the ditches and levees 

intended to drain Mingo Swamp allow Refuge staff 

to control and manage water levels, mimicking once 

natural water fluctuations. Drainage districts 

throughout the remainder of the Missouri Bootheel 

survive to this day, rendering it suitable for agriculture and human habitation. This widespread conversion of the bottomland forest with its intermingled 

streams, lakes, swamps, bayous, and sloughs to an 

Stanley Creek on Mingo NWR. USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

20

agricultural landscape with roads, dikes, and levees 

permanently altered drainage patterns and seasonal flooding regimes. 

Mingo Wilderness Area 

Congress designated the western portion of the 

Refuge as the Mingo Wilderness Area in 1976. The 

7,730-acre wilderness is one of 71 such areas managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1964, 

Congress passed and the president signed the Wilderness Act, which established the National Wilderness Preservation System. The legislation set aside 

certain federal lands as wilderness areas. The act 

says that they are areas, “...where the earth and its 

community of life are untrammeled by man, where 

man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” Four 

federal agencies of the United States government 

administer the National Wilderness Preservation 

System, which includes 662 designated areas and 

more than 105 million acres.

Wilderness policy permits hiking, backpacking, 

fishing, wildlife observation, and environmental 

education and interpretation. It generally prohibits 

motorized activities, although tools like chainsaws 

may be used in wildland fire management, after a 

MIST (Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics) analysis. Ditches and levees, specifically excluded from 

Wilderness designation, help approximate water 

level fluctuations that once happened naturally.

Special Management Areas

There are seven research natural areas on the 

Refuge; six are within the Mingo Wilderness Area 

(Table 1). Each research natural area is part of a 

national network of reserved areas under various 

ownerships intended to represent the full array of 

North American ecosystems with their biological 

communities, habitats, natural phenomena, and geological and hydrological formations. The designation 

is employed by a number of federal land management agencies including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service.

In research natural areas, as in designated wilderness, natural processes predominate without 

human intervention. Under certain circumstances, 

deliberate manipulation may be used to maintain 

the unique features for which the research natural 

area was established. Activities such as hiking, bird 

watching, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and 

photography are permissible, but not mandated, in 

research natural areas. Research natural areas may 

be closed to all public use if such use is determined 

to be incompatible with primary Refuge purposes. 

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge is located in an 

area known as the Bootheel region of southeast Missouri. Once an expansive swamp of bottomland 

hardwoods, the Bootheel was converted to agriculture during the last century and today is largely 

farmed for row crops. The Refuge is bordered to the 

west by the Missouri Ozarks and to the east by 

Crowley’s Ridge, a prominent landform in the otherwise level Mississippi floodplain. Waters from the 

Refuge flow south to the St. Francis River via Mingo 

Creek and a series of drainage ditches. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecosystems

In 1994 the Service adopted an ecosystem 

approach as a framework and extension of its ongoing conservation efforts. An ecosystem approach 

demands looking beyond administrative boundaries 

to develop strategies that address threats and challenges to the conservation of natural resources. The 

Service recognizes 53 ecosystems across the United 

States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands (see 

Figure 2). Each of these ecosystems is a grouping of 

watersheds as defined by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Hydrologic Unit Map. Teams of Service 

employees work with cooperating partners throughout each ecosystem to identify and address conservation issues that consider biological resources as 

well as the economic health of communities within 

each watershed.

Table 1: Mingo NWR Research Natural Areas

Research Natural 

Area

Primary Cover Type Acres

Cherrybark Cherrybark OakSwamp Chestnut Oak60

Cypress-Tupelo Bald Cypress-Water 

Tupelo

80

Elm-Ash-Maple Black Ash-American 

Elm-Red Maple

80

Oak-Hickory White Oak-Red OakHickory140

Overcup Oak Overcup Oak 45

Pin Oak Pin Oak-Sweet Gum 180

Willow Oak Willow Oak-Sweet Gum 40

Total 625
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

21

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge lies at the northern tip of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem 

where it meets the Ozark Plateau Ecosystem. The 

forested wetlands found across the Mingo basin are 

characteristic of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem, while the upland forests found along the 

bluffs are characteristic of the Ozark Plateau Ecosystem.

The Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem was a 

25-million-acre complex of forested wetlands that 

extended along both sides of the Mississippi River 

from Illinois to Louisiana. The extent and duration 

of seasonal flooding from the Mississippi River fluctuated annually, recharging aquatic systems and 

creating a diversity of dynamic habitats that supported a vast array of fish and wildlife. Today less 

than 20 percent of the bottomland hardwood forest 

remains and most is fragmented or in scattered 

patches throughout the region. Conservation and 

restoration of these forests is a top priority for the 

Service.

The Ozark Plateau is a dome-shaped uplift 

approximately 50,000 square miles in size, spread 

across portions of Arkansas, Oklahoma and Missouri. It is characterized by limestone-based karst 

geology that includes horizontal bedrock, caves, sink 

holes, and natural springs. The main vegetation 

communities are upland oak-hickory forest and bottomland hardwood forest in the floodplains of large 

rivers. The Ozark Plateau Ecosystem is home to 

numerous rare and declining species, unique 

endemics, neotropical migrant birds, and other species that are of concern to the Service. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

Over the last decade, bird conservation planning 

has evolved from a largely local, site-based focus to 

a more regional, landscape-oriented perspective. 

Significant challenges include locating areas of highquality habitat for the conservation of particular 

guilds and priority bird species, making sure no species are inadvertently left out of the regional planFigure 2: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Ecosystems of Contiguous States
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

22

ning process, avoiding unnecessary duplication of 

effort, and identifying unique landscape and habitat 

elements of particular tracts targeted for protection, management and restoration. Several migratory bird conservation initiatives have emerged to 

help guide the planning and implementation process. Collectively, they comprise a tremendous 

resource as Mingo NWR engages in comprehensive 

conservation planning and its translation into effective on-the-ground management.

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan

Signed in 1986, the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan (NAWMP) outlines a broad 

framework for waterfowl management strategies 

and conservation efforts in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The goal of the NAWMP is to 

restore waterfowl populations to historic levels. The 

NAWMP is designed to reach its objectives through 

joint ventures of private, state, and federal entities 

focusing effort within defined geographic areas, or 

on particular species.

The Refuge is in the Lower Mississippi Valley 

Joint Venture, one of 12 habitat-based joint ventures. Its focus has expanded beyond the Mississippi Alluvial Valley to include the West Gulf Coastal 

Plain, encompassing portions of Missouri, Arkansas, 

Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky. The goal of this Joint Venture is 

to increase populations of waterfowl and other wetland wildlife by protecting, restoring and enhancing 

wetland and associated upland habitats within the 

Joint Venture region.

The Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture 

strives to provide habitat for over-wintering waterfowl in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley and West Gulf 

Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Regions. As such, 

the Joint Venture assumes that the availability of 

foraging habitat is the most important factor affecting the number of dabbling ducks that can be 

accommodated during winter. Based on a “stepdown” process, the LMVJV established habitat 

objectives that link continental waterfowl populations to on-the-ground habitat objectives. Habitat 

objectives are apportioned among three categories: 

public managed, private managed, and natural 

flooding within each state (in the LMVJV administrative boundaries). By doing so, each national wildlife refuge (e.g., Mingo NWR) is responsible for 

contributing to some portion of the habitat objectives. 

Partners In Flight

Formed in 1990, Partners In Flight (PIF) is concerned primarily with landbirds and has developed 

Bird Conservation Plans for numerous Physiographic Areas across the U. S. (see http://www.partnersinflight.org). These plans include priority 

species lists, associated habitats, and management 

strategies. Mingo NWR lies within PIF Physiographic Area (PA) 05, the Mississippi Alluvial Valley 

Physiographic Area.

 The U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and the 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan are 

plans that address the concerns for shorebird and 

waterbirds. These larger scale plans identify priority species and conservation strategies.

In a continental effort, PIF, NAWMP, U. S. 

Shorebird Conservation, and the North American 

Waterbird Conservation plans are being integrated 

under the umbrella of the North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative (NABCI). The goal of 

NABCI is to facilitate the delivery of the full spectrum of bird conservation through regionally-based, 

biologically-driven, landscape-oriented partnerships. The NABCI strives to integrate the conservation objectives for all birds in order to optimize the 

effectiveness of management strategies. NABCI 

uses Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) as its planning units. BCRs are becoming increasingly common as the unit of choice for regional bird 

conservation efforts; Mingo NWR lies at the interface of two regions: BCR 24 Central Hardwoods, 

and BCR 26 Mississippi Alluvial Valley (see 

Figure 3).

Each of the four bird conservation initiatives has 

a process for designating conservation priority species, modeled to a large extent on the PIF method of 

calculating scores based on independent assessments of global relative abundance, breeding and 

wintering distribution, vulnerability to threats, area 

importance (at a particular scale, e.g. PA or BCR), 

and population trend. These scores are often used 

by agencies in developing lists of bird species of concern; e.g., the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service based 

its assessments for its 2001 list of nongame Birds of 

Conservation Concern primarily on the PIF, shorebird, and waterbird status assessment scores.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

23

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities

Every species is important, however the number 

of species in need of attention exceeds the resources 

of the Service. To focus effort effectively, Region 3 of 

the Fish and Wildlife Service compiled a list of 

Resource Conservation Priorities. The list includes:

# all federally listed threatened and endangered 

species and proposed and candidate species that 

occur in the Region

# migratory bird species derived from Service 

wide and international conservation planning 

efforts

# rare and declining terrestrial and aquatic plants 

and animals that represent an abbreviation of 

the Endangered Species program’s preliminary 

draft “Species of Concern” list for the Region.

Appendix J lists 52 Resource Conservation Priority species relevant to the Refuge.

Other Recreation and Conservation Lands in the 

Area

Figure 4 displays other ownerships surrounding 

the Refuge. The 6,190-acre Duck Creek Conservation Area managed by the Missouri Department of 

Conservation adjoins the Refuge to the northeast. 

The Poplar Bluff Ranger District of the 1.5-millionacre Mark Twain National Forest lies several miles 

southwest of the Refuge. Wappapello Lake, a 

44,000-acre reservoir along the St. Francis River, 

and much of the surrounding land is managed by 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wappapello 

State Park, which is administered by the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources, borders a portion of the reservoir.

Figure 3: Bird Conservation Regions
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

24

Figure 4: Other Conservation Lands in the Vicinity of Missouri National Wildlife Refuges
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

25

Socioeconomic Setting

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge is located in 

Wayne and Stoddard counties, and is adjacent to 

Bollinger and Butler counties. Compared to the 

State of Missouri, this four-county area has a 

smaller population growth rate and is less racially 

and ethnically diverse. The area’s population has a 

lower average income, and less high school and college education than the state’s population as a 

whole.

Population and Demographics

The total population of the four counties was 

95,861 in the 2000 Census. The population increased 

6.9 percent during the 1990s while the State’s population increased 9.3 percent. Wayne County grew 

the most at 14.9 percent, and Stoddard County grew 

the least at 2.8 percent. The four-county population 

was 95.2 percent white in 2000; the State population 

was 84.9 percent white. In Missouri, 5.1 percent of 

the people 5 years and older speak a language other 

than English at home; in the four-county area it is 

2.5 percent.

Employment

In 2000 there were a total of 47,522 full- and parttime jobs in the four-county area. Farm employment 

accounted for 8.0 percent of the jobs across the area. 

Bollinger County had the highest proportion of farm 

employment, 19.9 percent. Other sectors with sizable proportions of jobs are the services, retail, and 

manufacturing sectors.

Income and Education

Average per-capita income in the four-county 

area was $14,814 in 1999; in Missouri it was $19,936. 

The median household income in the four-county 

area was $27,114 in 1999; in the state it was $37,934.

In the four-county area, 9.9 percent of persons 

over 25 years of age hold a bachelor’s degree or 

higher. The comparable figure in the state is 21.6 

percent.

Potential Refuge Visitors

In order to estimate the potential market for visitors to the Refuge, we looked at 1998 consumer 

behavior data for an area within an approximate 60-

mile radius. The data were organized by zip code 

areas. We used a 60-mile radius because we thought 

this was an approximation of a reasonable drive to 

the Refuge for an outing. 

The consumer behavior data used in the analysis 

is derived from Mediamark Research Inc. data. The 

company collects and analyzes data on consumer 

demographics, product and brand usage, and exposure to all forms of advertising media. The consumer behavior data were projected by Tetrad 

Computer Applications Inc. to new populations 

using Mosaic data. Mosaic is a methodology that 

classifies neighborhoods into segments based on 

their demographic and socioeconomic composition. 

The basic assumption in the analysis is that people 

in demographically similar neighborhoods will tend 

to have similar consumption, ownership, and lifestyle preferences. Because of the assumptions made 

in the analysis, the data should be considered as relative indicators of potential, not actual participation.

We looked at potential participants in birdwatching, photography, freshwater fishing, hunting, and 

hiking. In order to estimate the general environmental orientation of the population we also looked 

at the number of people who potentially might hold 

a membership in an environmental organization.

The consumer behavior data apply to persons 

more than 18 years old. For the area that we 

included in our analysis, out of a total population of 

673,773 people, the number of persons more than 18 

years old was 504,913. The estimated maximum participants in the 60-mile radius for each activity are: 

birdwatching (37,280), photography (50,452), hunting (48,602), freshwater fishing (83,537), and hiking 

(43,791). The number of persons who might hold a 

membership in an environmental organization is 

estimated at about 9,300. The projections represent 

the core audience for repeated trips to the Refuge. 

On days with special events or major attractions 

Monopoly Marsh from Ditch 6 Road on Mingo NWR. USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

26

such as when large numbers of birds are at the Refuge, visitors can be expected to travel longer distances.

Climate

This discussion is modified from the climate section of the Stoddard County Soil Survey. Long, hot 

summers and rather cool winters characterize the 

climate of the Refuge and surrounding area. An 

occasional cold wave brings near freezing or subfreezing temperatures but seldom much snow. Precipitation is fairly heavy throughout the year, and 

prolonged droughts are rare. Summer precipitation 

falls mainly in the form of afternoon thunderstorms.

In winter the average temperature is 37 degrees 

Fahrenheit, and the average daily minimum temperature is 28 degrees. In summer the average daily 

temperature is 78 degrees, and the average daily 

maximum temperature is 90 degrees. Total annual 

precipitation is 48 inches. Of this, about 25 inches, or 

50 percent, usually falls between April and September. In 2 years out of 10, the rainfall between April 

and September is less than 20 inches. Thunderstorms occur on about 55 days each year, mostly in 

summer. The average annual snowfall is 11 inches. 

On average, 9 days of the year have at least 1 inch of 

snow on the ground. The number of such days varies 

greatly from year to year.

The average relative humidity in mid afternoon is 

about 55 percent. Humidity is higher at night, and 

the average at dawn is about 80 percent. The sun 

shines 75 percent of the time possible in summer 

and 50 percent in winter. The prevailing wind is 

from the south. The average wind speed is at its 

highest, 12 miles per hour, in March. Severe local 

storms, including tornadoes, may strike occasionally. These are usually of short duration, and damage is variable and spotty.

Geology and Soils

The Refuge lies in an abandoned channel of the 

Mississippi River known as the Advance Lowlands, 

bounded by the limestone bluffs of Crowley’s Ridge 

to the south and east, and the Ozark Escarpment to 

the north and west. The St. Francis River flows 

from the Ozark Hills into the Advance Lowlands 

just south and west of the Refuge. When the Mississippi River shifted course, joining the Ohio River 

farther north approximately 18,000 years ago, an 

alluvial fan built up where the St. Francis River 

entered the lowlands. The Castor River, north and 

east of the Refuge, developed a similar alluvial fan. 

These alluvial fans act as natural levees, slowing 

drainage through the basin.

Several small sand ridges interrupt the otherwise 

level basin. The ridges, which vary in shape, may be 

ancient sand bars deposited by the Mississippi 

River or sand forced to the surface by earthquakes. 

The Refuge is in the heart of the New Madrid seismic zone, the source of some of the most powerful 

earthquakes in North America.

Bottomland Soils

The most extensive soil type is Waverley Silt 

Loam, with a grayish brown silt loam surface layer 

and gray silt loam subsoil that is mottled throughout. A poorly drained acidic soil formed under wet 

conditions and a high water table, it occupies 

approximately 50 to 60 percent of the Refuge. 

Falaya Silt Loam occupies a small part of the bottom 

in areas such as Stanley Creek and Lick Creek. It 

also borders the upland and the channel of Mingo 

Creek. Falaya soils have brown silt loam surface layers over grayish brown silt loam underlain at about 

40 inches by fray silty clay loam. This soil is somewhat poorly drained, acidic, and subject to flooding 

or ponding. Organic soils occupy 800 to 900 hundred 

acres in Rockhouse and Monopoly marshes and consist of dark colored soils derived from organic matter. They were formed under wet marshy conditions 

in some of the lowest elevations.

Upland Soils

The cherty soils of the steep slopes and stone outcropping along the west side of the Refuge are of 

the Doniphan series. Doniphan soils have light 

brown cherty silt loam surface layers and red clay 

subsoils. The ridgetops above Doniphan cherty silt 

loam are narrow and undulating and have about 

three feet of loess deposits. The soil is Union Silt 

Loam. The moderately well-drained Union soils 

have dark grayish brown silt loam surface horizons 

that are underlain by brown silty clay loam subsoils. 

They have fragipan layers at depths of 2.0 or 3.0 

feet. On the moderate slopes of the uplands, especially along Highway 51 north of Puxico, there are 

deep, well-drained soils developed in thick lows. 

These soils are Loring Memphis Silt Loams and 

have brown silt loam surface layers and brown silt 

loam subsoils.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

27

Water and Hydrology

Accumulation, movement, and drainage of water 

drive the ecology of Mingo NWR. The Refuge is 

within the lower portion of the St. Francis River 

basin, and acts as a reservoir during periods of 

flooding. Water enters from all directions until runoff is complete and water levels stabilize. Water flow 

within the Refuge is complex and varies depending 

on water depths within each of the pools. Poor drainage within the basin is slowed further by the dikes, 

levees, and ditches across the Refuge. Water exits 

the Refuge and flows south to the St. Francis River.

The St. Francis River flows 225 miles from Iron 

County in Missouri to the Arkansas/Missouri border, and another 207 miles through Arkansas until it 

joins with the Mississippi River. Hydrology of the 

St. Francis River and entire Bootheel region has 

been drastically altered. Extensive networks of 

ditches and levees drain the floodplain, and control 

seasonal flooding that once predominated. 

 Figure 5 shows the ditch system that dominates 

the surface hydrology of Mingo NWR. 

Refuge Resources

Plant Communities

Refuge vegetation may be broadly divided into 

wetlands, comprised mainly of bottomland mixed 

hardwood forests, and upland forest. Figure 6 displays the principal plant communities at Mingo 

NWR.

Wetlands

With the exception of the bluffs on either side of 

the Refuge, most of the area is subject to seasonal 

flooding and is wet during at least a portion of each 

year (see Figure 5 and Figure 6). Vegetation varies 

along a narrow elevational gradient that corresponds to duration of flooding. Four community 

types are delineated within the Refuge based on 

dominant species, elevation, and inundation. 

Terrace Bottoms Community – Terrace or second 

bottoms are located at the base of lower slopes, flat 

banks, and watercourse margins. These welldrained and rarely flooded transitional areas support a mixture of upland and flood plain woody species. Major trees are:

# Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum)

# Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra)

# Shagbark Hickory, Bitternut Hickory (Carya 

cordiformis)

# Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)

# American Elm (Ulmus americana)

# Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis)

# Box Elder (Acer negundo)

# Chinkapin Oak, Blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica)

# Black Walnut, Butternut (Juglans cinerea)

# Black Cherry (Prunus serotina)

# Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa)

# Southern Red Oak (Quercus falcata).

Oak Hardwood Bottoms Community – The most 

extensive bottomland forest type is the Oak Hardwood Bottoms. These Pin Oak flats occupy shallowly 

inundated areas along the banks between drainage 

ditch levees, and the low floodplains surrounding 

Rockhouse and Monopoly Marshes. Major trees are:

# Pin Oak (Quercus palustris)

# Willow Oak (Quercus phellos)

# Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata)

# Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. 

subintegerrima)

# Slippery Elm (Ulmus rubra)

# American Elm, Red Maple (Acer rubrum)

# Sweetgum, Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda)

# Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii)

# Swamp White Oak (Quercus bicolor)

# Box Elder, Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata)

# Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)

Mixed Soft-Hardwood Levees Community – This 

community type exists along drainage ditch levees, 

stream margins, roadside embankments, and other 

watercourse borders. Tree species include:

# Black Willow (Salix nigra)

# Cottonwood (Populus deltoides)

# Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum)

# Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)

# River Birch (Betula nigra)

Later successional species occurring in this community are similar to the Oak Hardwood Bottoms 

community.

Shallow Swamp Community – This community 

type occupies inundated areas such as Monopoly 

Marsh, Rockhouse Marsh, Mingo Creek, and Stanley Creek. The predominant species in these 

wooded swamps are:
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

28

Figure 5: Hydrologic Features of Mingo National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

29

Figure 6: Landcover, Mingo NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

30

# Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum)

# Swamp Blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var. 

biflora), Swamp Cottonwood (Populus 

hetrerophylla)

# Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Pumpkin Ash 

(Fraxinus tomentosa)

# Black Willow, Water Locust (Gleditsia 

aquatica)

# Green Ash and Water Hickory (Carya 

aquatica)

Upland Forests

Oak-hickory forest type predominates on the 

cherty upland areas. Three community types are 

recognized.

Upland Old Fields Community – These areas 

include scattered woodland clearings, abandoned 

fields or pastures, and ridge roadsides which are

reverting to an oak-hickory forest. Principal trees 

and shrubs are:

# Sassafras (Sassafras albidum)

# Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)

# Honey Locust (Gleditsia triacanthos)

# Sumac (Rhus spp.)

# Elm (Ulmus spp.)

# Black Walnut (Juglans nigra)

# Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana)

# Blackberry (Rubus allegheniensis)

# Dewberry (Rubus spp.)

# Coralberry (Symphoricarpos orbiculatus)

# Multiflora Rose (Rosa spp.).

Xeric Ridge Crests Community – The driest and 

most exposed forest community exists on ridge 

crests, bluff tops, and upper slopes on thin, excessively drained soils. Over-story trees include:

# Black Oak (Quercus velutina)

# Post Oak (Q. stellata)

# White Oak (Q. alba)

# Black Hickory (Carya texana)

# Mockernut Hickory (C. tomentosa)

# Elm and White Ash (Fraxinus americana)

Understory trees and shrubs are:

# Serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.)

# Winged Elm (Ulmus alata)

# Big Tree Plum (Prunus mexicana)

# Sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum)

# Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.)

# Southern Blackhaw (Viburnum spp.)

# Sumac (Rhus spp.)

# Blueberry (Vaccinium spp.)

# St. Andrew’s Cross (Ascyrum hypericoides).

Mesic Slopes Community – Great species diversity occurs on the middle to lower slopes because of 

improved temperature-moisture conditions. Important trees and shrubs include: 

# White Oak, Mockernut Hickory, Shagbark 

Hickory (Carya ovata)

# Chinkapin Oak (Quercus muehlenbergii)

# White Ash, Sassafras, Flowering Dogwood 

(Cornus florida)

# Mulberry (Morus spp.)

# Pawpaw (Asimina triloba)

# Bladdernut (Staphylea trifolia)

# Spicebush (Lindera spp.)

# Devil’s Walking Stick (Aralia spinosa)

# Wild Hydrangea (Hydrangea arborescens).

Fish and Wildlife Communities

Birds

A total of 279 resident and migratory bird species 

use Refuge habitats throughout each year. Tens of 

thousands of Mallards, Canada Geese, and other 

migrating waterfowl use Refuge wetlands as stopover or wintering habitat. Hooded Mergansers and 

Wood Ducks are resident breeders on the Refuge. 

Great Blue Heron on the shore of May Pond, Mingo NWR. 

USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

31

Monopoly Marsh draws Wood Ducks from a fivestate area during molting season. Bald Eagles, 

Least Bitterns, and Mourning Doves are among the 

108 bird species that regularly breed on the Refuge. 

Appendix F contains a complete list of birds known 

to occur on the Refuge.

Mammals

Thirty-eight mammal species are found within 

the Refuge. White-tailed deer, a species popular for 

hunting and viewing, are abundant at a population 

density of up to 35 per square mile. There is a wide 

diversity of small mammals including three species 

of squirrels, two species of bats, and various mice, 

rats, and voles. The Refuge is one of the few places 

in Missouri where the swamp rabbit, a larger relative of the eastern cottontail rabbit, is known to 

occur. Unlike other rabbits, the swamp rabbit regularly takes to the water to move about and avoid 

predators. Appendix F contains a complete list of 

mammals found at Mingo NWR.

Amphibians and Reptiles

Amphibians and reptiles are abundant on the 

Refuge with more than 30 species of frogs, toads, 

salamanders, and snakes including the venomous 

western cottonmouth, southern copperhead, and 

timber rattlesnake. Many of these species hibernate 

within the cracks and crevices of the bluffs along the 

perimeter of the Refuge.

Fish

A complete list of fish species is not available. At 

least 46 species, including channel catfish, white 

crappie, spotted bass, and green sunfish, are known 

to occur in the ponds and ditches of the Refuge.

Threatened and Endangered Species

The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

occurs as a winter migrant and a summer breeder 

on Mingo NWR. The wintering Bald Eagle population can reach as high as 50 birds. Three active nesting territories existed in 2004 including one that has 

fledged 43 young over 19 years. The Bald Eagle is 

currently listed as a threatened species but is proposed to be delisted.

Threats to Resources

Invasive Species

At least eight invasive species – non-native species of plants and animals that adversely affect 

native species – are found on the Refuge. (See 

Table 2)

Contaminants

In 2001, the Missouri Department of Health 

issued its first fish consumption advisory for mercury. The state-wide advisory includes Mingo NWR. 

Presently, Refuge waters are not monitored for 

mercury concentrations. The mercury pathway into 

the food chain is complex and affected by many factors. But anaerobic conditions found in many wetland soils help convert mercury to its more 

biologically reactive form that accumulates up the 

food chain.

In 2002 the Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources began operation of a mercury monitoring 

station on the Refuge that serves as one site in the 

national Mercury Deposition Network (MDN). The 

station monitors atmospheric mercury deposition. 

The objective of the MDN is to develop a national 

database of weekly concentrations of total mercury 

in precipitation and the seasonal and annual flux of 

total mercury in wet deposition. The data will be 

used to develop information on spatial and seasonal 

trends in mercury deposited to surface waters, forested watersheds, and other sensitive receptors.

Administrative Facilities

The administrative facilities for the Refuge are 

located 1 mile north of Puxico, Missouri. The Refuge 

Office includes a visitor center. The maintenance 

shop, carpentry shop, vacant former Refuge office, 

eight-stall maintenance building, and four-bayed 

pole barn are located slightly north of the Visitor 

Center entrance along the west side of State Highway 51. A storage building containing flammable liquids and other materials is located in the area as 

well. Two residences housing employees and volunteers are located near the maintenance facilities. No 

administrative facilities are located at Pilot Knob 

NWR or Ozark Cavefish NWR. These refuges are 

administered and managed by Mingo NWR staff 

and facilities.

Archeological and Cultural Values

As of September 2003, Stoddard and Wayne 

counties listed seven properties on the National 

Register of Historic Places, probably not indicative 

of the kinds of historic places that exist in the two 

counties. The Refuge contains one of the National 

Register properties, the Mingo National Wildlife 

Refuge Archeology District.

Completed archeological surveys of the Refuge, 

including the Mingo Job Corps campus, have covered almost 7,200 acres. These surveys and other 

sources have identified more than 140 cultural 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

32

resources sites on the Refuge. These sites represent 

all Midwest United States cultural periods from the 

earliest Paleo-Indian through 20th century Western, 

a period of about 12,000 years. Nevertheless, evidence shows no human presence in the Refuge and 

vicinity at the time Europeans first entered the 

region. One standing structure on the Refuge, the 

Patrol or Sweet’s Cabin from the early 20th century, 

is representative of Depression era homesteads in 

the region, it is historically significant and may be 

eligible for the National Register.

The North American Consultation Database run 

by the Park Service to assist Federal agencies 

responding to the requirements of the Native American Graves and Protection and Repatriation Act 

lists no tribes with identified interests in Stoddard 

and Wayne counties. The database, however, is not a 

comprehensive list, being based on a limited number 

of legal sources. Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Delaware, Miami, Mingo (Iroquois), Osage, Quapaw, 

Seneca, and Shawnee may have had limited historic 

period interest in the Refuge area, the Chickasaw 

and Tunica may have had protohistoric period interest, and the antecedent Pawnee and Wichita may 

have had prehistoric interest. Other interest groups 

that might have a cultural resources concern about 

the Refuge have not yet been identified.

Cultural resources are important parts of the 

nation’s heritage. The Service preserves valuable 

evidence of human interactions with each other and 

the landscape. Protection is accomplished in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to protect fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources. 

Visitation

In fiscal year 2004, Mingo NWR received 119,439 

total visits, including 7,446 visits to the Visitor Center. A total of 71,491 visitors participated in interpretation and nature observation. A total of 2,298 

students participated in environmental education 

programs. In 2004, 3,760 visits to the Refuge were 

for hunting and 2,324 visits were for fishing. There 

were 7,446 visits to the Wilderness Area. The RefTable 2: Invasive Plants and Animals at Mingo National Wildlife Refuge

Species Name Summary

Nutria Nutria, a large, dark-colored, semi-aquatic rodent native to southern South America, was 

introduced into North America as early as 1899. It was first discovered on the Refuge in 2000. The 

nutria’s prolific burrowing weakens dikes, levees, and other structures. The rodent also feeds on 

native vegetation and crops, and can cause damage when it occurs in higher numbers.

Sericia lespedeza Sericea lespedeza is a native of eastern Asia. It was first introduced in southern United States, and 

has now become naturalized from Maryland, Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri, and Texas, north to 

Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Oklahoma. It has been introduced into various areas as 

a soil cover for erosion control, for soil improvement, as food and cover for bob-white, wild turkey, 

and other wildlife, and to a lesser extent, for forage and hay. In open areas such as roadsides and 

levees, it out-competes other species, creating a monoculture and decreasing diversity.

Johnson Grass Originally native to the Mediterranean, this grass now occurs in all warm-temperate regions of the 

world. It is found in all the major river bottoms of Missouri, with more than 300,000 acres infested 

in the Missouri Bootheel alone. It invades riverbanks and disturbed sites crowding out native 

species and slowing succession.

Bull Thistle Native to Europe, bull thistle was introduced to North America during colonial times, and is now 

found in all 50 states. It thrives in fields and disturbed areas, degrading habitat quality.

Reed Canary 

Grass

This grass is native to lowland areas of northwestern Missouri and has escaped from cultivation in 

other regions. It is a major threat to marshes and natural wetlands because its hardiness, 

aggressive nature, and rapid growth allow it to displace native wetland plant species.

Multiflora Rose Originally introduced to the East Coast from Japan in 1886 as rootstock for cultivated roses. It was 

widely used to control soil erosion. It is a thorny, bushy shrub that forms impenetrable thickets 

and out-competes native vegetation.

Feral Hogs Since the days of open range, a few Missouri counties have had populations of domestic wild hogs. 

In recent years those hogs have been crossed with the European boar strain to produce animals 

that reproduce prolifically and have strong survival instincts that make them especially wary. 

Feral hogs cause damage to livestock, wetlands and wildlife.

Autumn Olive Autumn olive was introduced into U.S. cultivation in 1830 from its native range in China, Japan, 

and Korea. Autumn olive crowds out native plant species.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

33

uge staff reached more than 9,053 people in off-site 

outreach activities during the year.

Current Management

Habitat Management

Management emphasizes the natural productivity of the swamp. Acorns from oak trees provide an 

important source of food for dabbling ducks as well 

as for turkey, deer, and squirrel. Open marsh areas 

produce seed-bearing moist soil plants such as wild 

millet as well as large numbers of invertebrates, 

both of which are important to waterfowl and other 

waterbirds. Water levels are manipulated through 

use of water control structures, ditches and dikes, 

helping produce an annual crop of natural food.

Food for wildlife is also produced by farming 

about 600 acres. Most of this land is tilled by neighboring farmers on a sharecrop basis. The Refuge’s 

share of the crop is left standing in the field for wildlife.

Wetland Management

Excluding the bluffs along the periphery of the 

Refuge, elevation across the basin varies less than 

10 feet, rising from 335 to 344 feet above mean sea 

level. Minor changes in water levels result in vast 

differences in area flooded. Four green tree reservoirs totaling 3,721 acres and two open marsh 

impoundments totaling 3,305 acres are managed for 

waterfowl and other wetland associated wildlife. 

Current management of these areas is described in 

the following paragraphs.

Green Tree Reservoirs – The presence of live 

trees and the ability to manipulate water levels 

define green tree reservoirs (GTR). Flooded annually for no more than 130 consecutive days between 

November and March, water is drained during the 

growing season to encourage regeneration and 

avoid killing trees. Seasonally flooding these lowland forests makes mast available to wintering 

waterfowl, and mimics flooding that occurred before 

ditches, levees, and roads altered drainage within 

the Refuge and surrounding basin.

Open Marsh – Monopoly Marsh is drawn down 

once every 5 years, shrinking the flooded area from 

2,400 acres to 30 acres. Drawdowns aerate the soil, 

enhance invertebrate populations, decrease rough 

fish populations, and allow bald cypress and oak 

regeneration. Upon completion of each drawdown 

the pool is held at a slightly lower level to avoid killing bald cypress seedlings along the perimeter. This 

process is slowly restoring the marsh to a bald 

cypress swamp. When not drawn down, the marsh is 

maintained at a constant level and is a nursery for 

young fish. The constant water levels increase the 

abundance of American lotus, an aquatic plant that 

out competes other vegetation under stable water 

levels. American lotus provides habitat for waterfowl, and is of greatest benefit when it covers no 

more than half of the surface area of the marsh.

Rockhouse Marsh is drawn down completely by 

May 15 every other year to maintain it as an open 

marsh. During the drawdown, woody vegetation 

such as willow that competes with bald cypress 

trees are removed or mowed. Reflooding the marsh 

begins on October 1.

Open Water – Stanley Creek impoundment takes 

its name from Stanley Creek, a small tributary that 

enters the Refuge from the west and intersects 

Ditch 10 before entering Mingo Creek. Ditches, constructed when the area was a drainage district, 

divert much of the flow from Mingo Creek. An 

earthen plug constructed along Ditch 10 and a water 

control structure at Flat Banks impound water 

within the former stream channel, helping sustain a 

fishery. Stanley Creek impoundment floods when 

runoff overwhelms the water control structure at 

Flat Banks, sending overflow into adjacent lowland 

forests. The aim is to keep the flood duration short, 

maintain the creek within its banks, and sustain the 

fishery.

Nearly 60 miles of ditches form a drainage network that moves water onto, around, and off the 

Refuge. These ditches hold water year round and 

often provide refuge for fish species during low 

water periods. Years of sediment accumulation 

Mingo River in July, Mingo National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

34

decreased the depth of the ditches, reducing their 

effectiveness for moving water. This hampered the 

already poor drainage within the Refuge. Lowland 

forests adapted to short duration flooding held 

water for most or all of the year, killing large 

patches of trees. Sediment removal initiated in 1999 

improved drainage and water level management 

across the Refuge.

Red Mill Pond is drawn down once every 5 years 

from May to October to relieve stress on flooded 

shrubs, and encourage growth of woody vegetation. 

This scrub/shrub pond, managed for Wood Duck 

nesting and brood cover, also contains sunfish that 

are locally abundant but rare within the State.

May Pond and Fox Pond were built to catch sediment eroded from the bluffs on the west side of the 

Refuge. Managed for fishing, stocked blue gill and 

bass populations are now self-sustaining, while more 

easily caught catfish are restocked every 2-3 years.

Pool 3, also known as Gum Stump, is a natural 

backwater closely linked to Monopoly Marsh. The 

pool stores overflow carried by Ditch 3 during high 

water levels. When not used for storage, water levels rise and fall in conjunction with management of 

Monopoly Marsh. Oak forest covers half of the pool, 

a mixture of bald cypress and tupelo about 10 percent, and scrub/shrub the remainder.

Pool 6 is formed by a levee placed along the 

northern portion of Rockhouse Marsh. About 40 

percent of the pool is managed for moist soil habitat. 

The remainder is managed to provide overhead 

cover and food for Wood Duck broods. Periodically, 

taller shrubs are removed to encourage growth of 

understory shrubs. Removing the taller shrubs 

increases sunlight to the understory, and eliminates 

potential perches for avian predators.

Table 3 lists each of the water bodies and other 

habitat units on the Refuge.

Moist Soil Units

Sixteen moist soil units totaling 704 acres are 

managed to produce food for migrating waterfowl 

and shorebirds. Moist soil units (MSUs) are former 

farm fields developed to impound water through 

construction of dikes and water control structures. 

Moist soil management entails manipulating water 

levels to encourage growth of plants occurring naturally in the seed bank. The plants produce seeds 

that are high energy food for migrating waterfowl. 

Flooding of moist soil units begins in October or 

November and proceeds in stages. Initially, onethird of each MSU is flooded. Once waterfowl 

Table 3: Main Habitat Management Units at Mingo NWR

Unit Name Acres Description

Pool 4 29 Green Tree Reservoir

Pool 5 501 Green Tree Reservoir

Pool 7 876 Green Tree Reservoir

Pool 8 1191 Green Tree Reservoir

Monopoly

Marsh (Pool 1)

2405 Open Marsh

Rockhouse

Marsh (Pool 2)

900 Open Marsh

Stanley Creek

Impoundment

Flood Control/Fisheries

Pool 3 (Gum Stump) 1021 50% Oaks

40% Scrub/Shrub

10% Cypress/Tupelo

Pool 6 80 40% Moist Soil Unit

60% wood duck brood habitat

MS-1, MS-2S, MS-2N, MS-3, MS-4N, 

MS-4W, MS-4S, MS-5, MS-6, MS-7N, 

MS-7S, MS-8E, MS-8W, MS-9N, MS9S, MS-10, MS-11, MS-12 704 Moist Soil Units

Farm Units 587 Cropland/Food Plots

Haying Units 421 Grassy Openings
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

35

deplete the food supply an additional one-third is 

flooded, and finally the units are entirely flooded. 

Progressive flooding concentrates feeding waterfowl more fully utilizing moist soil foods. February 

through April waterfowl feed on invertebrates 

found in the MSUs. Draining begins in March and 

by April exposes mud flats attracting migrating 

shorebirds which also feed on invertebrates. The 

MSUs remain dry throughout the growing season to 

produce food for the following year.

Grassy Openings

There are a number of grassy openings mostly 

located along the perimeter of the Refuge that total 

474 acres. These areas provide habitat diversity 

within the largely forested Refuge.

Forests

Other than water level manipulations described 

under the wetland management section, the forested areas of the Refuge are not actively managed. 

The majority of the upland oak/hickory forest lies in 

or adjacent to the wilderness area, where policy prohibits active management. Until recently, lowland 

forests were too wet to allow timber harvest operations, but ditch cleaning has improved drainage and 

water level control throughout the Refuge.

Cropland and Food Plots

Annually, food crops such as corn, milo, and soybeans are planted on 411 acres of cropland maintained through cooperative agreements with local 

farmers, and on an additional 95 acres of food plots 

maintained by Refuge staff and volunteers. Tilling 

prevents trees from reclaiming the ground, maintaining open habitat that adds diversity to mostly 

forested Refuge. All or a portion of each crop is left 

as food for wildlife, and is especially important for 

resident species during severe winters.

Fire Management

Mingo NWR has a Fire Management Plan 

(FMP), adopted in 2003, which provides a detailed 

course of action to implement fire management policies for the Refuge (USFWS, 2003a; USFWS, 

2003b). The FMP describes the responsibilities of 

each member of the fire management team, including training, experience, physical fitness requirements, and fire duty assignments.

The general fire management goals for the Refuge FMP are:

# Firefighter and public safety is the priority of 

the program. All Fire Management activities 

will reflect this commitment.

# Protect life, property, and other resources from 

unplanned fire.

# Use prescribed fire where appropriate to 

accomplish resource management objectives.

# Restore fire into the ecological process.

# Develop and implement a process to ensure the 

collection, analysis, and application of fire 

management information needed to make 

management decisions.

Mingo NWR’s fire management objectives are 

the following:

# Protect from fire all important scientific, 

cultural, historic, prehistoric, visitor facilities, 

administrative sites, and Refuge 17 housing.

# Restore and perpetuate habitat important to 

migratory and native wildlife species by 

maintaining a diversity of plant communities in 

various successional stages.

# Use prescribed fire to the fullest extent possible 

to restore natural ecological processes, fire 

regimes, and vegetative communities on the 

Refuge, including native warm season grasses.

# Prevent human-caused wildland fires.

# Educate the public regarding the role of 

prescribed fire within the Refuge.

# Maintain and enhance moist soil units by 

retarding the invasion of woody species and 

noxious weeds.

# Use prescribed fire when it is the most effective 

and efficient means for achieving management 

objectives.

# Manage the risks associated with hazard fuels. 

Use prescribed fire near the urban wildland 

interface, sensitive resources and sensitive 

boundary areas to reduce risk from wildland 

fire damage.

All of Mingo NWR is considered as a single Fire 

Management Unit (FMU) for the purpose of wildland fire suppression. All wildland fires at Mingo 

NWR are suppressed. In the Refuge’s Wilderness 

Area, wildland fires will be suppressed utilizing 

Minimum Impact Suppression Techniques (MIST). 

Prescribed fires on the Refuge are located in one of 

four prescribed FMUs. 

Prescribed fire is currently not used in the Wilderness Area.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

36

Fish and Wildlife Monitoring

A number of surveys, censuses, studies, and 

investigations are conducted at Mingo NWR that 

help monitor the status of its fish and wildlife populations (USFWS, 2002). 

Surveys

Waterfowl – Geese, ducks, swans, and Great Blue 

Herons are surveyed from vehicles along roads and 

levees weekly from October through March. Aerial 

counts are conducted biweekly by the Missouri 

Department of Conservation. 

Bald Eagle – Annual roadside surveys are conducted to determine peak populations (about 30) 

and locations of wintering Bald Eagles. Three active 

nest sites are monitored during the breeding season 

to determine activity and success.

Mourning Dove – Two 25-mile off-Refuge routes 

assigned by the Service’s Office of Migratory Bird 

Management are conducted annually. The Refuge 

Biologist runs the routes in late May to early June. 

Survey consists of driving 1 mile, stop, listen and 

count birds and coos for 3 minutes, then repeat for 

each mile on the route.

Mid-winter Waterfowl Survey – This is an annual 

survey conducted throughout the nation by the Service in cooperation with state conservation agencies. 

During the specified week, all waterfowl on the Refuge are counted and reported on a supplied 

datasheet to the Missouri Department of Conservation. Simultaneous surveys occur across the nation 

during this same time period. The objective of the 

survey is to estimate the distribution and habitat 

utilization of waterfowl throughout the country.

Christmas Bird Count – The East Ozark Audubon Chapter from Farmington, Missouri sponsors 

this annual survey, which has about 30 participants. 

The survey includes the entire Refuge.

Breeding Bird Count – This survey is based on 

observations within 25 meters from each of 60 

points spaced 150 meters apart in a grid pattern. 

Observers record visual and audible observations to 

determine presence or absence of species. It takes 

about 4 days to complete the count, which averages 

41 species.

Deer – Three counts are conducted in December 

and three in January (Pre- and post-hunting season). Counts are made along a 25-mile transect at 

night using held lights from an auto; the driver does 

not assist the observer. Counts are made during the 

dark of moon to assure maximum deer activity. The 

driver maintains 10 mph in wooded areas and 15 

mph in open habitat. The observer counts all deer 

seen within 30 yards in wooded areas and 300 yards 

in open areas. Data have been used to modify hunts 

and habitat management at least seven times in 

recent years. Deer density is about 40 per square 

mile, down from an overpopulated density of 63 per 

square mile in the 1970s.

Deer Habitat Exclosures – Three exclosures, 

fenced areas that exclude deer, are monitored annually to assess browse rates. There has been no significant difference in habitat quality inside and out 

of the exclosures. Evaluations are made once a year.

Bottomland Hardwood Regeneration – This is an 

annual cooperative study with MDC Forestry to 

determine senesce dates of mast tree seedlings in 

order to avoid flood-kills of seedlings during fall 

flooding of moist soil and green tree reservoir units.

Scent Post Surveys – This is an annual survey 

involving 15 stations with a 3-foot sand base circle. 

There have been no surprise visitors.

Moth Survey – This is an annual survey done by 

a private individual.

Mushroom Survey Assessment – The Mycological Society of St. Louis conducts a survey annually 

to inventory mushroom species.

Vegetation Transects on Moist Soil Units – This 

an annual survey is conducted three times in the 

spring on moist soil units immediately after germination. Random plots are used to determine species, 

density, germination dates to determine management needs for the moist soil units for the year.

Mingo NWR Refuge Biologist Charley Shaiffer assessing habitat 

conditions on Mingo NWR. USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

37

Studies and Investigations

Least Bittern Nesting Ecology – Mingo NWR is 

one of three study areas established by the University of Missouri Gaylord Lab to study the nesting 

ecology of the Least Bittern. The giant cutgrass 

patches in Monopoly Marsh are continually 

searched by Lab students for nests between June 

through August. This study should result in a better 

definition of the breeding ecology of this species. 

Tree Frog Surveys – A University of Missouri 

graduate student visits the Refuge once a year to 

listen for calls of the green and grey tree frogs. Call 

counts are used for population density estimations. 

This survey is to be done for 2 years.

Woodcock/Radio Tagged Birds – This is a Migratory Bird Office (MBO) study to track migrating 

Woodcocks. Non-Refuge personnel visit the Refuge 

in the fall to see if any tagged birds are using the 

Refuge. This is an ongoing study likely to continue 

to 2006.

Wood Duck and Hooded Merganser – Annually, 

100 nest boxes are checked to determine estimated 

day of hatching and young are banded on the day of 

hatching. Plasticine bands are stainless steel with a 

clay-base liner that deteriorates as a ducking grows, 

leaving only the steel portion by the time the bird is 

full grown. The banded birds are often recaptured 

during Wood Duck banding, giving a reference for 

estimating the ratio of box nesters versus natural 

cavity nesters. The nest box checks are completed in 

conjunction with student helpers from Gaylord Lab.

Swamp Rabbits – This is a search for droppings 

to identify location of existing populations. MDC did 

this survey one year.

Mussel Survey – This was a monitoring survey to 

compare long-term species composition and location. Larvae movements and recruitment are inhibited by the outlet structure at end of Ditch 11. This 

was a repeat of an earlier survey and will not likely 

be repeated unless there is an identified need.

Bottomland Hardwood Bird Community Study 

– A Southeast Missouri State graduate student conducts forest bird surveys in Pools 3 and 7 to determine changes in the forest bird community relative 

to a hydrologic gradient, determine changes in forest bird activity relative to a hydrologic gradient, 

identify habitat characteristics related to high bird 

species richness, and determine if modifications in 

management would create a more desirable habitat 

for bird species. This study was initiated in 2005.

Region 3/5 Impoundment/Shorebird Study – 

This study involves numerous Refuges in Regions 3 

and 5 and is focused on the timing of impoundment 

drawdowns and impact on waterbird, invertebrate, 

and vegetation communities within managed wetlands. Refuge biological personnel conduct waterbird/shorebird surveys, vegetation survey, and 

invertebrate surveys to contribute to the larger 

database collected from all participating refuges. 

Two moist-soil impoundments were selected for this 

study and will be manipulated according to study 

protocol for the duration of the study. This study 

was initiated in 2005 and will continue at least two 

years.

Spotted Skunk Survey – A University of Missouri 

graduate student conducted surveys on the Refuge 

to determine presence of spotted skunks. Scent stations were set up in Pools 8 and 7, with both track 

detection and photo devices to document presence 

of spotted skunks. No spotted skunks were detected 

in 2005.

Fisheries Assessment – The Refuge, in coordination with the Missouri Department of Conservation, 

is assessing fisheries populations on the Refuge 

with a focus on the Mingo Wilderness Area.

Visitor Services

Each year thousands of people visit Mingo NWR 

(119,439 visits in 2004) to enjoy the resources found 

there. The Refuge provides opportunities for six 

wildlife dependent public uses: hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Additionally, 

the Refuge provides opportunities for canoeing, 

kayaking, horseback riding, biking, hiking, jogging, 

berry and mushroom gathering, and picnicking. At 

present, nearly all of the Refuge is open to some 

type of use throughout the year. A variety of facilities are available to enhance visitor experiences (see 

Figure 7). 

Open Areas and Closed Periods

The Wilderness Area, Red Mill Drive, a portion 

of the Auto Tour Route, and the Boardwalk Nature 

Trail are open year-round to visitors. The hunting 

area is closed to general visitation from October 1 to 

March 1 and open the rest of the year. The canoe 

route is open year-round. Boating use is permitted 

throughout the Refuge except on Ditches 3, 4, 5 and 

Monopoly Marsh, which are closed from October 1 

to March 1. The use of gasoline powered boat 

motors is prohibited. Electric motors are permitted 

outside the Wilderness Area but not within it. The 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

38

Figure 7: Current Facilities, Mingo NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

39

moist soil units, Monopoly Marsh, and Rockhouse 

Marsh are closed to all entry from October 1 to 

March 1 during the period of peak waterfowl. 

Monitoring 

The number of people visiting the Refuge is estimated using car counters, counting visitors entering 

the Visitor Center, hunter registration stations, and 

counting participants at special events.

Fees 

From March 15 through November 30, all visitors 

are required to purchase a user fee permit or hold a 

Federal Duck Stamp, Golden Age or Access Passport. The Refuge began the entrance fee program in 

1988. The entrance fee is $3 per vehicle per day or 

$12 for an annual pass.

Hunting

A public hunting area is designated within the 

Refuge (Figure 8). Within this area archery deer 

and turkey hunting, spring firearm turkey hunting, 

and squirrel hunting are allowed concurrent with 

the State seasons. All hunters must register at the 

Hunters Sign-in Station and record the number of 

hours hunted and any animals harvested upon leaving the Refuge. The Refuge is open for hunters from 

1 and a half hours before sunrise to 1 and a half 

hours after sunset. 

Squirrel – Squirrel hunting is permitted from the 

Saturday preceding Memorial Day through September 30. Squirrel hunters may use a .22 rifle or a 

shotgun.

Deer and Turkey (Archery) – The archery turkey 

season opens September 15 and runs through January 15. The archery deer season opens September 

15 and runs through January 15. Bow hunters can 

harvest two deer during the archery season. During 

the firearms deer season in November hunters with 

a valid firearms deer permit can archery deer hunt 

on the Refuge. Tree stands are permitted from 2 

weeks before the season until 2 weeks after the season. All stands must be clearly marked with owner 

name, address, and phone number.

Managed Deer Hunt – A muzzleloading firearms 

deer hunt is conducted in coordination with the Missouri Department of Conservation on a western portion of the Refuge (Figure 8). Hunters are selected 

through a lottery system. In 2004, 1,293 people 

applied for the 135 available permits. A hunter was 

permitted to take one deer of either sex. During the 

hunt, the firearms hunt area is closed to other visitors, including anglers, Auto Tour Route users, and 

canoe trail users.

Turkey (Spring) – A spring turkey hunt is 

allowed that runs approximately the last week of 

April through the first 2 weeks of May in the General Hunt Area. The Refuge also participates in the 

state-wide spring youth turkey hunt that occurs 1 to 

2 weeks prior to the regular turkey season.

Waterfowl – Waterfowl hunting is permitted in 

Pool 8 (Figure 8), a 1,191-acre Green Tree Reservoir, concurrent with the state season. The unit is 

managed through a cooperative agreement with the 

Missouri Department of Conservation as a wade-in 

hunting area. Duck Creek Conservation Area conducts the duck hunt on a draw operation where 

hunters may choose a blind in the state area or the 

wade-in hunting area. Many hunters prefer to hunt 

the flooded timber in the wade-in area. Dogs are 

permitted for waterfowl hunting only and must be 

leashed or under voice command.

Universally Accessible Hunts – The Refuge manages an area with five blinds that can be reached by 

an asphalt trail. These blinds are used to hunt squirrels and spring turkeys with firearms and turkey 

and deer with bows. If hunters have the necessary 

permit from the State of Missouri, they can also 

hunt from a parked vehicle on pulloffs along Red 

Mill Drive. The Refuge has set aside a designated 

area for an accessible hunt during the Managed 

Deer Hunt (Figure 8). Five temporary blinds are 

used during this hunt.

Fishing

Fishing is allowed on the Refuge concurrent with 

state seasons and regulations. All of the Refuge is 

open year-round except Ditches 3, 4, 5, the moist 

soil units, and Monopoly Marsh, which are closed 

from September 15 to March 1. The road between 

May Pond and Fox Pond and the road between 

Ditches 2 and 3 are open to vehicular traffic access 

from May 15 to September 30. Fishing in the Managed Deer Hunt Area is closed during the weekend 

of the hunt.

Weather changes and water management objectives cause the fishing conditions to fluctuate 

greatly throughout the season and from year to 

year. The species most commonly sought are crappie, bass, bluegill, and catfish. It is permissible to 

take non-game fish for personal use, but not for 

commercial purposes, with nets and seines from 

March 1 to September 15.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

40

Figure 8: Hunting Areas at Mingo National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

41

Observation, and Photography

Although observation and photography occur 

throughout the Refuge, facilities that support these 

activities by bringing the visitor closer to wildlife 

include the Auto Tour Route, eight overlooks and 

observation platforms, and five trails. The 19-mile 

Auto Tour Route is open during April, May, October, 

and November. The trails are open year-round. The 

primary attraction during the spring on the Auto 

Tour Route is spring wildflowers. The attractions in 

the fall are the changing colors of foliage and 

migrating birds.

Visitors use Bluff Road along the east side of the 

Refuge to view white-tailed deer and Wild Turkeys, 

which are commonly seen year-round. Wildlife 

observation appears to be weather related – the 

cooler the summer and milder the fall the more visitors. In the fall and winter, visitors come to see concentrations of ducks, geese, swans, and Bald Eagles. 

Peak months for wildlife observation are May and 

October.

Interpretation

Interpretation facilities on the Refuge include the 

Visitor Center, exhibits along the Auto Tour Route, 

and five trails. The Visitor Center contains an audiovisual program, exhibits, dioramas, and displays on 

wildlife management, swamp ecology, archaeology, 

geology, and history. An Auto Tour Route flier interprets points of interest, Refuge management techniques, and wildlife habitat.

Interpretive Foot Trails

 The Boardwalk Nature Trail, Hartz Pond Trail, 

and the Trail to Sweet’s Cabin offer visitors to the 

Refuge an opportunity to view wildlife in three distinct ecological settings. 

The Boardwalk Nature Trail attracts the most 

visits. The trail is constructed of a raised boardwalk 

traversing bottomland hardwoods and Rockhouse 

Marsh. It is 0.8-mile long with a 0.2-mile spur leading to an overlook of Rockhouse Marsh. A spotting 

scope enhances wildlife viewing. The Boardwalk 

Trail is a highlight of the Refuge for visitors. Many 

local residents routinely walk the trail for exercise. 

Monthly tours by school group activities and other 

environmental education programs were conducted 

on the Boardwalk Nature Trail this year while taking advantage of easy access into the hardwood 

swamp and the opportunity to view many different 

species of flora and fauna. 

The Hartz Pond Trail is a 0.2-mile loop around a 

small pond ecosystem near the Visitor Center. Due 

to its easy access and proximity to the Visitor Center, the trail remained popular with school groups 

for aquatic biology studies and other interpretive 

classes. 

The 1.5-mile Trail to Sweet’s Cabin offers wilderness hiking and photography opportunities for the 

public during the Auto Tour Route months of April, 

May, October, and November. Winding along a 

riparian forested environment on the edge of the 

Ozark Uplands, this trail provides access to Sweet’s 

historic cabin and the serene environment near 

Stanley Creek. Recent improvements to the trail 

have also reopened some of the areas that had once 

been blocked by downed trees from tornado damage 

in past years. 

 Interpretive Auto Tour Route 

Open the months of April, May, October, and 

November, the Auto Tour Route provides access for 

mobility-impaired and other visitors of all ages and 

outdoor interest. With the assistance of a selfguided interpretive pamphlet available at the 

entrance kiosks, visitors enjoy a view of the Refuge 

that denotes key points of interest, Refuge management techniques, and wildlife habitat of many differPark Ranger Vergial Harp addressing Ecology Day students at 

Mingo NWR. USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

42

ent varieties for the 19-mile drive. The autumn 

foliage attracted an estimated 4,263 visitors in 2004. 

Spring visitors number as many as 1,761 visitors 

who came to view the abundance of blooming wildflowers set on a backdrop of hardwood-forestedswamp and riparian environments, Ozark foothills 

and meadows. The Auto Tour Route is also open 

during the week of the Puxico Homecoming in early 

August. In 2004 174 visitors utilized the Auto Tour 

Route during this period.

Special Events

The Refuge staff participate in two special events 

each year that bring the Refuge message to large 

numbers of people. In one event the Refuge cooperates with the Missouri Department of Conservation 

to provide an exhibit at the Southeast Missouri District Fair. Approximately 25,000 people are contacted each year in this cooperative effort. In the 

second event the Refuge participates in the Puxico’s 

Community Homecoming Parade and visitors to the 

community include a visit to the Refuge in their 

return to the community. In 2004 approximately 

2,675 visitors to the Refuge were from the Puxico 

Homecoming celebration.

Environmental Education

The Refuge hosts Ecology Days for Stoddard and 

Butler Counties. Fifth grade students from seven 

schools in Stoddard County and fourth grade students in Butler County participate. Ecology Days 

reinforces what students learn about Missouri’s natural resources in the classroom. The objective of the 

program is to prepare students for the Missouri 

Mastery Achievement Test, a statewide test administered in public schools.

In addition, staff conduct environmental education programming throughout the year. In 2004, a 

total of 2,298 students participated in Refuge environmental education activities.

Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation

Horseback riding is allowed on the Refuge roads 

that are open to vehicular traffic sometime during 

the year. The route of the Auto Tour Route, for 

instance, is open year-round to horseback riding, 

hiking, and biking.

The canoe trail is open year round. Canoeists are 

primarily using the trail for bird watching and, to a 

lesser extent, for fishing.

Berry, mushroom, pokeweed, and nut gathering 

occurs near the Rockhouse Overlook and along Bluff 

Drive. These activities are permitted outside the 

Wilderness Area as long as the ground is not disturbed. 

Law Enforcement

Refuge staff members with law enforcement 

authority work in close cooperation with Missouri 

Department of Conservation agents and Stoddard 

County deputies. The number of public contacts far 

exceeds the citations and warnings issued during a 

year. Past violations have included trespass, poaching, traffic, and parking. Problems of vandalism and 

littering exist, but violators are not often caught.

Partnerships

The Mingo Swamp Friends Incorporated was 

organized as a Refuge Friends group in 2001. The 

Friends offer support to the Refuge through a number of activities including outreach activities, operation of the cooperative sales unit, and improvement 

of facilities such as the boardwalk.

The volunteer program supports all aspects of 

Refuge operations. In 2004, volunteers donated a 

total of 2,682 hours. Volunteers helped with studies, 

habitat management, wildlife management, visitor 

services, infrastructure maintenance and improvements, and outreach.

The 84-acre Mingo Job Corps Center is adjacent 

to the southeast corner of the Refuge. Built in 1965, 

it was administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service 

until it was transferred to the U.S. Forest Service in 

January 2005. Mingo Job Corps is one of more than 

120 Job Corps campuses nation-wide that deliver 

education and vocational training to help young people ages 16 through 24 find a career. In addition to 

on-site instruction, students receive on-the-job 

training by conducting work activities in the local 

community. The Refuge continues to partner with 

Mingo Job Corps Center on a variety of projects.

In addition to these groups, the Refuge cooperates on projects of mutual benefit with a number of 

partners, including: 

# Duck Creek Management Area

# U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (Lake 

Wapappello Project Area; Regulatory Branch, 

Memphis)

# Ducks Unlimited 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

43

# U.S. Navy SeaBees

# Mark Twain National Forest

# Stoddard County Sheriff

# Missouri Department of Conservation 

(Protection Branch; Fisheries Office; 

Environmental Education Branch; Private 

Lands Biologist) 

# Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

# USFWS Air Quality Office (Denver, Colorado)

# Butler and Stoddard County Extension Offices

# City of Puxico 

# Duck Creek Township

# USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service

# Gaylord Laboratory of the University of 

Missouri 

# University of Missouri, Columbia

# Audubon (Gape Girardeau and St. Louis 

chapters)

Pest Management

Animal Species

Refuge staff dispose of nutria whenever they are 

found. This invasive species, which was first discovered on the Refuge in 2000, causes damage to dikes, 

levees, and vegetation, especially where it occurs in 

high numbers. Presently, it does not occur in high 

numbers on the Refuge. 

Beaver are native to the Refuge, but can cause 

problems by undermining roads, girdling trees, and 

plugging culverts and water control structures. 

Beaver problems are addressed on a case-by-case 

basis by Refuge staff. 

Plant Species

Table 4 indicates the various ways pest plant species are controlled on the Refuge. Although invasive 

species, these plants are usually restricted to disturbed sites such as fields, roadsides, and levees. 

Archeological and Cultural Resources

Cultural resources management in the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service is the responsibility of the 

Regional Director and is not delegated for the Section 106 process when historic properties could be 

affected by Service undertakings, for issuing archeological permits, and for Indian tribal involvement. 

The Regional Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) 

advises the Regional Director about procedures, 

compliance, and implementation of the several cultural resources laws. The Refuge Manager assists 

the RHPO by early and timely notification of the 

RHPO about Service undertakings, by protecting 

archeological sites and historic properties on Service-managed and administered lands, by monitoring archeological investigations by contractors and 

permittees, and by reporting violations. More than 

140 sites are known on the Refuge, and the potential 

for additional sites is high.

Special Management Areas

No management activities occur within the 

Research Natural Areas, but they are affected by 

water level manipulations that occur across the Refuge.

Farm Services Administration Conservation Easements

Mingo NWR manages 17 Farm Services Agency 

(FSA) conservation easements totaling nearly 448 

acres within a 48-county region in the southern 

third of the state (Table 5). All easement properties 

are inspected, have management plans, and are 

posted with signs indicating the properties are 

under conservation easements. 

The Farm Services Agency, formerly known as 

the Farm Services Administration, is an agency 

within the U. S. Department of Agriculture. The 

FSA makes loans to farmers and ranchers temporarily unable to obtain credit from commercial lending institutions. The FSA sometimes obtains title to 

real property when a borrower defaults on a loan 

Table 4: Invasive Plant Species and Their Control at Mingo NWR

Species Name Control Method

Sericia lespedeza Mowing and herbicide application

Johnson Grass Spot spraying with herbicide

Bull Thistle Spot spraying with herbicide

Reed Canary Grass Herbicide application

Multiflora Rose Tilling if possible otherwise herbicide application

Autumn Olive Removing trees and saplings
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

44

secured by the property and holds such properties 

in inventory until sale or other disposal. 

The Service is involved in the inventory disposal 

program because some FSA inventory properties 

contain or support significant fish and wildlife 

resources or have healthy restorable wetlands or 

other unique habitats. Some qualifying properties 

are transferred to the Service and become part of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. Others are 

sold with restrictions known as conservation easements, which protect wetlands or other habitats. In 

most cases, the Service is responsible for the management and administration of properties with conservation easements. 

Pilot Knob National Wildlife 

Refuge

Introduction

Pilot Knob National Wildlife Refuge, located on 

top of Pilot Knob Mountain in Iron County, Missouri, is managed by staff at Mingo NWR (see 

Figure 9). Acquired by donation from the Pilot 

Knob Ore Company on July 22, 1987, the 90-acre 

Refuge contains iron mine shafts dating to the mid1800s that are critical habitat for the federally-listed 

endangered Indiana bat. The abandoned shafts, 

excavated in rhyolite (a light-colored, igneous rock 

consisting primarily of the mineral silica), are wellventilated by upper and lower entrances. The mine 

traps cold air and provides ideal conditions for 

hibernating bats, which enter the shafts in the fall 

and exit in the spring. Up to a half of Missouri’s 

known population of Indiana bats is believed to 

hibernate in the old mine. 

The Refuge was created expressly to protect the 

Indiana bat; there is no other management emphasis. Public use is prohibited at this time.

Special Management Areas

There are no special management areas on the 

Refuge. 

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

Pilot Knob NWR is located in southeast Missouri 

in Iron County. It consists of a steep conical hill, 

ascending more than 560 feet above the Arcadia Valley floor. 

Table 5: FSA Conservation Easements Managed by Mingo NWR 

Original 

Landowner

Tract County Easement 

Acres

A. Lenz BR10c Barton 42

J. Reaves BR12c Barton 50

D. Eaton BL09c Butler 14

A. McCombs BL10c Butler 17

H. Petty BL11c Butler 36

D. Seabaugh CP10c Cape Girardeau1 16

Probst Hog Farm CP11c Cape Girardeau2 30

C. Decker DA11c Dade 31

D. Eaton DU10c Dunklin 35

R. Mattlage LW10c Lawrence 4

M. Herman PR02n Perry 6

H. Asher RI10c Ripley 32

S. Kleffer SD10c Stoddard 13

R. Crowell SD11c Stoddard 19

S. Lynch SD12c Stoddard 29

D. Ast VE10c Vernon 66

Goucher Hickory 25

Total 465

1.These acres are assumed from past reports but could not be verified.

2.These acres are assumed from past reports but could not be verified
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

45

Figure 9: Location of Mingo National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

46

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecosystems

Like Mingo NWR, Pilot Knob NWR is situated 

near the boundary of the Ozark Plateau Ecosystem 

and the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. See 

the description of these in Chapter 1 and in Chapter 

3 under Mingo NWR, respectively. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

See the discussion of these initiatives in the discussion of Mingo NWR, “Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives” on page 21. 

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation 

Priorities

See the discussion of these priorities under 

Mingo NWR, “Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource 

Conservation Priorities” on page 23.

Other Recreation and Conservation Lands in the 

Area

The Fredericktown Ranger District of the 1.5-

million-acre Mark Twain National Forest lies 

approximately 2 miles east of the Refuge. 

Socioeconomic Setting

Pilot Knob NWR is located in rural Iron County, 

Missouri. Iron County lost population between 2000 

and 2003, in contrast to the State of Missouri, which 

grew by about 2 percent; the county is also less 

racially and ethnically diverse than the state. Its 

population has a lower average income, and less 

high school and college education than the state’s 

population as a whole. 

When white settlers arrived in what is now Iron 

County in about 1800, lured mostly by its mining 

potential, they encountered native Osage Indians as 

well as displaced eastern tribes, including Delaware, 

Shawnee, Piankasha, Miami and Peoria (McClure, 

2004). Iron County was created in 1857 by a special 

act of the Missouri Legislature. The St. Louis and 

Iron Mountain Railroad to Pilot Knob was completed the same year to haul iron ore from the mine 

there. With the arrival of the railroad, cutting wood 

and making charcoal for the engines became a big 

business locally. In the 1860s, Iron County saw its 

share of Civil War action. Today, Iron County is 

known for its historical sites like the Civil War-era 

Fort Davidson and outdoor recreation opportunities 

in the Mark Twain National Forest and several state 

parks. 

Population and Demographics

The 2003 population estimate for Iron County 

was 10,306, which was a 3.7 percent decline from the 

population in 2000 (Census, 2005a). This population 

decline perpetuated and accelerated a 0.3 percent 

decline in the county’s population from 1990 to 2000. 

Iron County’s rural character is shown by its population density in 2000 of 19 persons per square mile; 

Missouri’s population density was 81 per square 

mile in the same year. The county’s population is 

less diverse than the state as a whole. Iron County 

was 97 percent white in 2000, compared with Missouri as a whole which was 85 percent white. In Missouri, 5 percent of the people 5 years and older 

speak a language other than English at home; in 

Iron County the corresponding figure is 2 percent. 

Less than 1 percent of the population was foreignborn. 

Employment and Income

Private non-farm employment numbered 2,116 in 

2001. Mean travel time to work was slightly higher 

than the state mean. The unemployment rate of 9-10 

percent is almost double the national average of 

about 5 percent (BLS, 2005). Median household 

income in 1999 was $26,080, 30 percent lower than 

the $37,934 median for Missouri as a whole. The 

1999 poverty rate of 19 percent for the county was 

substantially higher than the statewide average of 

12 percent, although this higher rate is typical for 

rural counties.

Education

As with most rural counties, educational attainment in Iron County is lower than the state and 

nation. In 2000, 65 percent of Iron County residents 

25 years old or older had a high school diploma, 

compared with 81 percent for the state as a whole 

and 80 percent for the entire United States. With 

regard to higher education, 8 percent of Iron 

County residents 25 years old or older had earned a 

Bachelor’s degree or higher, in comparison with 22 

percent of state residents 25 years old or older as a 

whole and 24 percent of all Americans. 

Climate 

The climate of the Refuge is humid continental 

with warm summers and cool winters. Mean annual 

temperature of Iron County is 56 degrees Fahrenheit (F) with a mean January temperature of 32 

degrees F and a mean July temperature of 73 

degrees F. Mean annual precipitation is 44.3 inches 

and is rather evenly distributed throughout the year 

with an average of 3.7 inches per month. Mean 

length of the growing season in Iron County is 185 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

47

days with the average first freeze date occurring 

October 11 and the average last freeze date occurring April 27.

Geology and Soils

Pilot Knob diverges from the general igneous 

hills in many aspects. It is cone-shaped and largely 

separated from the adjoining porphyry hills, connected on the east by a low neck of igneous rock that 

emerges only about 200 feet above the surrounding 

Cambrian rocks. It has a basal diameter of threequarters of a mile and rises about 600 feet above the 

surrounding valley, attaining an elevation of approximately 1,500 feet above sea level. Buzzard Mountain is located north of Pilot Knob, across a narrow 

valley. Cedar Hill is located northwest of Pilot Knob, 

and Shepherd Mountain lies to the southwest. Other 

mountains can be seen to the east and southeast, all 

of which are composed of compact, reddish brown 

porphyry (igneous rock) that does not differ essentially from that constituting the lower portion of 

Pilot Knob. 

The majority of Pilot Knob mountain soils are 

comprised of Killarney very cobbly silt loam, 14 to 

50 percent slopes, and rubbly. This is a well drained 

soil with a dark grayish brown very cobbly silt loam 

about 3 inches thick. The subsurface soil is a very 

brown cobbly silt loam about 4 inches thick. The 

upper 29 inches of the subsoil is yellowish brown 

very cobbly silt loam, and very gravelly silty clay

loam. The surface runoff is high and erosion is a 

major hazard. The Killarney soil type covers 

approximately 50-60 percent of the mountain’s base.

The second soil type is Irondale very cobbly silt 

loam, 15 to 40 percent slopes, and rubbly. Stones and 

boulders generally cover 15 to 50 percent of the surface. The surface layer is extremely dark grayish 

brown very cobbly silt loam about 3 inches thick. 

The subsurface layer is a brown very cobbly silt 

loam about 5 inches thick. The subsoil is very cobbly 

silt loam about 32 inches thick. It is yellowish brown 

in the upper part and reddish brown in the lower 

part. Rhyolite bedrock is at a depth of about 35 

inches. Permeability is moderate, but surface runoff 

is rapid. The organic content is low, and the surface 

layer is friable but cannot be easily tilled because it 

commonly has 50 percent or more rock fragments.

Water and Hydrology

As indicated in a previous section, annual mean 

precipitation at Pilot Knob NWR is about 44 inches, 

more or less evenly distributed throughout the year, 

and falling as rain.

Refuge Resources

Plant Communities

Forests

Upland forest covers the Refuge. Oak-hickory

forest types predominate on the cobbly silt loam 

areas, and are interspersed with shortleaf pine in 

places. These shallow soils support various forbs 

and native grasses, such as sumac (Rhus spp.), coralberry (Symphoricarpos orbiculatus), little 

bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), big bluestem 

(Andropogon gerardii), and indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans).

Fish and Wildlife Communities

Birds

Appendix C shows the bird species that have 

been documented at Pilot Knob NWR. 

Mammals

See Appendix C for a list of the mammals documented or suspected to occur at Pilot Knob NWR.

Amphibians and Reptiles

See Appendix C for a list of amphibians and reptiles found on the Refuge. 

Fish

Due to its location atop a hill or small mountain, 

there are no water bodies that contain or might contain fish at Pilot Knob NWR.

Invertebrates

At this time, the Refuge does not possess a list of 

invertebrates whose presence on the Refuge has 

been documented.

Indiana bat on Pilot Knob NWR. USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

48

Threatened and Endangered Species

The federally-listed endangered Indiana bat 

hibernates within the abandoned mine shaft located 

at the peak of Pilot Knob Mountain. There are differing estimates of Pilot Knob NWR’s Indiana bat 

population, but the number is likely within the range 

of 50,000 to 100,000. The bats generally arrive in 

September and leave in April. The bat’s historic 

range includes Missouri, and its summer habitat 

preference is small to medium river and stream corridors with well developed riparian woods, woodlots 

within 1 to 3 miles of small to medium rivers and 

streams, and upland forests. 

The Indiana bat was added to the federal endangered species list in 1967. Its dwindling population 

continues to cause concern and support its protection at the Refuge. Its decline has many different 

contributing factors, including the commercialization of roosting caves, wanton destruction of habitat 

by vandals, disturbances caused by increased numbers of spelunkers, bat banding programs, use of 

bats as laboratory experimental animals, and suspected insecticide poisonings (USFWS, no date-d). 

The gray bat also hibernates in the mine, and is 

federally listed as an endangered species. The bat’s 

fall migration begins in early September and is generally completed by early November. 

Since its placement on the endangered species 

list in 1976, the gray bat has become of particular 

concern. Its population decline is believed to be due 

primarily to human disturbances. These disturbances include vandalism, excessive pesticide use, 

overall insect prey decline due to pollution, and cave 

commercialization. The decline in gray bat populations can also be attributed to natural catastrophes. 

Collapsing caves and flooding have been known to 

render many gray bats homeless. 

Since 1976, efforts have been made to assist the 

recovery of these nearly extinct animals. Some of 

the major recovery goals include: 

# Preserving critical winter habitat by securing 

primary caves and mines and restricting entry.

# Initiating informational and educational 

programs.

# Monitoring population levels and habitat to 

include an evaluation of pesticide effects. 

Threats to Resources

Invasive Species

There are no invasive species known to occur on 

Pilot Knob NWR.

Contaminants

Contaminants have not been studied or documented on the Refuge, but may be expected to occur 

in at least low concentrations, as they do in virtually 

all locations. Whether or not these concentrations 

pose a threat to wildlife and listed species at Pilot 

Knob NWR is yet to be determined.

Administrative Facilities

No administrative facilities are present on the 

Refuge. The Refuge is managed entirely by staff 

from Mingo NWR, 75 miles to the southeast.

Archeological and Cultural Values

No archeological investigations have occurred at 

Pilot Knob NWR. The iron mine probably is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 

The summit of Pilot Knob encompassed by the Refuge is thought to have historic significance related 

to a Civil War battle fought nearby.

Cultural resources are important parts of the 

Nation’s heritage. The Service is committed to protecting valuable evidence of human interactions with 

each other and the landscape. Protection is accomplished in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to 

protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources. 

Visitation

Pilot Knob NWR has never been managed for, 

nor open to, the public. It has always been managed

strictly to protect and enhance Refuge habitat to 

maintain or increase use by endangered species. 

Scientific investigations, research, and monitoring 

are allowed by permit only.

Current Management

Habitat Management

There is no active habitat management program 

at Pilot Knob NWR.

Fire Management

Fire management at Pilot Knob NWR is guided 

by a Fire Management Plan (FMP) adopted in 2003 

(USFWS, 2003c). The FMP describes the responsibilities of each member of the fire management 

team, including training, experience, physical fitness requirements, and fire duty assignments.

All wildland fires are suppressed at Pilot Knob 

and wildland fire use for resource benefit is not be 

utilized at the present time. Currently prescribed 

fire is not used either for fuel reduction or habitat 

management on the Refuge.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

49

Fish and Wildlife Monitoring

Annual bat capture surveys and temperature 

monitoring in the mine shafts are conducted in conjunction with the Missouri Department of Conservation. Comparison of capture rates helps 

determine the population trend for Indiana bats.

Visitor Services

The Refuge is not open to the public. No hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation or photography take 

place on Pilot Knob NWR. Refuge staff have 

recently conducted interpretive hikes as part of the 

Civil War reenactments at Fort Davidson State Historic Park. In addition, approximately 40 college 

geology students visit the Refuge annually to study 

the unique geomorphology. This is done under special use permit and is a Refuge staff member accompanies students.

Non-wildlife dependent recreation is not currently permitted.

Pest Management

No pest management is conducted on the Refuge.

Archeological and Cultural Resources

No management of archeological or cultural 

resources takes place on the Refuge.

Special Management Areas

The Refuge has no special management areas.

Ozark Cavefish National 

Wildlife Refuge

Introduction

The 40-acre Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife 

Refuge, located 20 miles west of Springfield in 

Lawrence County, Missouri, was acquired in 1991 to 

protect a federally-listed endangered species, the 

Ozark cavefish (Figure 10). Turnback Creek Cave 

Spring is located on this property and is the outlet of 

an underground stream known to contain a population of the endangered Ozark cavefish. According to 

the preliminary project proposal approved in 1991, 

Turnback Creek Cave was one of 21 Ozark cavefish 

sites in three states identified for potential inclusion 

in the Refuge, but a detailed plan including all sites 

was not completed. Land acquisition and planning 

was limited to the existing parcels. Access to the 

stream is gained via Turnback Cave, which has 

openings on adjacent property owned by the Missouri Department of Conservation. There is also a 

separate 1.3-acre parcel of the Refuge located several miles away along the Hearrell Spring in 

Neosho, Missouri, that adjoins the Service’s Neosho 

National Fish Hatchery. Ozark cavefish are known 

to inhabit this site (Figure 11). The Refuge is managed by staff at Mingo NWR in Puxico, Missouri, 

some 200 miles east of the Refuge.

Special Management Areas

Ozark Cavefish NWR does not contain any special management areas. 

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecosystem

Like Mingo NWR, Ozark Cavefish NWR is 

within the Ozark Plateau Ecosystem. See the 

description of this ecosystem in Chapter 3 under 

Mingo NWR. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

See the discussion of these initiatives under 

Mingo NWR, “Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives” on page 21.

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation 

Priorities

See the discussion of these priorities under 

Mingo NWR, “Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource 

Conservation Priorities” on page 23.

Other Recreation and Conservation Lands in the 

Area

The 208-acre Paris Springs Access managed by 

the Missouri Department of Conservation adjoins 

the Refuge to the south.

Socioeconomic Setting

All but 1.3 acres of Ozark Cavefish NWR is 

located in Lawrence County, Missouri. The county, 

organized in 1845 out of northern Barry and southOzark cavefish. USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

50

Figure 10: Turnback Creek Unit, Ozark Cavefish NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

51

Figure 11: Hearrel Spring Unit, Ozark Cavefish NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

52

ern Dade counties, was named for Captain James 

Lawrence, a hero of the War of 1812. The first settlers of European descent began arriving in what is 

now Lawrence County in the early 1830s, about 5 

years after the Indian Removal of 1825. These 

migrants came primarily from Virginia, Kentucky, 

North and South Carolina and Tennessee. Today the 

county has 14 townships with Mt. Vernon being the 

county seat (MOGenWeb, 2004). 

Lawrence County is primarily agricultural, its 

principal products including wheat, hay, oats, barley, 

corn, apples, peaches, and vegetables. Farmers also 

raise turkeys and cattle and there is a dairy industry. Manufacturing, primarily dairy and grain products, occurs in the towns of Aurora, Mt. Vernon, 

Pierce City, and Marionville.

Population and Demographics

The 2003 population estimate for Lawrence 

County was 36,426, which was a 3.5 percent increase 

from the population in 2000 (Census, 2005b), nearly 

double the rate of population growth in Missouri as 

a whole (1.9 percent from 2000 to 2003). This population growth continued a trend from the 1990s during 

which the county’s population grew by 16.4 percent, 

in comparison to 9.3 percent for the state. Lawrence 

County’s population density in 2000 was 57 persons 

per square mile, a little less Missouri’s density of 81 

per square mile in the same year. The county’s population is less diverse than Missouri’s. Lawrence 

County was 96 percent white in 2000, compared with 

Missouri as a whole which was 85 percent white. 

Blacks comprised 0.3 percent of the county population versus 11 percent in the entire state. The population of people of Asian descent was 0.2 percent, 

which compares to 1.1 percent in the entire state. 

However, both American Indians and Hispanics are 

represented in greater proportions in the county 

population than in the state’s population. Hispanics 

compose 3.4 percent of the Lawrence County population compared to 2.1 percent of Missouri’s population, while American Indians make up 0.8 percent of 

the county population compared to 0.4 percent of 

the state as a whole. Approximately 2 percent of the 

county population was foreign-born, about the same 

percentage as the state’s foreign-born population 

(Census, 2005b). 

Employment and Income

Private non-farm employment in Lawrence 

County numbered about 7,000 in 2001. Mean travel 

time to work was almost identical to the state mean, 

23.6 compared to 23.8 minutes. The county unemployment rate of 4-5 percent is very close to the 

national average (BLS, 2005). Median household 

income in 1999 was $31,239, 18 percent lower than 

the $37,934 median income for Missouri as a whole. 

The 1999 poverty rate of 14 percent for the county 

was slightly higher than the statewide average of 12 

percent, although this higher rate is typical for rural 

counties (Census, 2005b). 

Education

Average educational attainment in Lawrence 

County is slightly lower than averages for the state 

and nation. In 2000, 77 percent of county residents 

25 years old or older had a high school diploma, 

compared with 81 percent for the state as a whole 

and 80 percent for the entire United States. With 

regard to higher education, 12 percent of Lawrence 

County residents 25 years old or older had earned a 

Bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 22 percent 

of state residents 25 years old or older as a whole 

and 24 percent of all Americans. 

Climate

The climate of Lawrence County is humid continental with warm summers and cool winters. Mean 

annual temperature of Lawrence County is 55.9 

Fahrenheit with a mean January temperature of 

32.6 F and a mean July temperature of 77.7 F. Rainfall is fairly heavy with mean annual precipitation of 

39.74 inches and is rather evenly distributed 

throughout the year with an average of 3.3 inches 

per month. Mean length of the growing season in 

Lawrence County is 189 days with the average first 

freeze date occurring October 14 and the average 

last freeze date occurring April 28.

Geology and Soils

Wilderness cherty silt loam, the primary soil type 

found on the Refuge, has 2 to 9 percent slopes. It is 

deep, gently or moderately sloping, and moderately 

well drained. Some areas have small and large sinkholes. Coarse fragments of chert are on the surface.

Generally, the surface layer is dark grayish brown 

cherty silt loam about 2 inches thick. The subsurface 

layer is brown cherty silt loam about 8 inches thick. 

The subsoil above the fragipan is about 11 inches 

thick, with the upper part being a yellowish brown,

friable cherty silt loam, and the lower part a brown, 

firm cherty silty clay loam. The fragipan is about 35 

inches thick. The upper part is pale brown, firm, 

cherty silt loam, and the lower part is mottled, multicolored, firm very cherty silty clay loam. The subsoil below the fragipan is dark red, very firm cherty 

clay to a depth of 72 inches. Some areas are stony. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

53

This soil is moderately permeable and surface runoff is medium.

Water and Hydrology

Turnback Cave is developed in Mississippian 

Burlington-Keokuk Limestone on the west side of 

Turnback Creek in Lawrence County. It is an extensive cave containing over 3,000 feet of interconnecting passages. The stream passage is a few hundred 

feet from the main entrance and trends roughly 

north. Water enters the stream passage at the 

southern end, and exits the cave through a spring 

along Turnback Creek to the north. Turnback Creek 

originates in northwestern Christian County about 

12 miles southeast of Turnback Cave.

Refuge Resources

Plant Communities

Wetlands

Terrace Bottoms Community – Terrace or second bottoms are located at the base of lower slopes, 

flat banks, and watercourse margins. These welldrained and rarely flooded transitional areas support a mixture of upland and flood plain woody species. Major trees are:

# Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum)

# Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra)

# Shagbark Hickory (Carya ouata), Bitternut 

Hickory (Carya cordiformis)

# Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)

# American Elm (Ulmus americana)

# Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis)

# Box Elder (Acer negundo)

# Chinkapin Oak (Q. muehlenbergii)

# Blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica)

# Black Walnut (Juglans nigra)

# Butternut (Juglans cinerea)

# Black Cherry (Prunus serotina)

# Bur Oak (Q. macrocarpa)

# Southern Red Oak (Q. falcata)

Mixed Soft-Hardwood Levees Community – This 

community type exists along drainage ditch levees, 

stream margins, roadside embankments, and other 

watercourse borders. Tree species include:

# Black Willow (Salix nigra)

# Cottonwood (Populus deltoides)

# Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum)

# Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)

# River Birch (Betula nigra)

Later successional species occurring in this community are similar to the Oak Hardwood Bottoms 

community.

Forests

Upland Old Fields Community – These areas 

include scattered woodland clearings, abandoned 

fields or pastures, and ridge roadsides which are

reverting to an oak-hickory forest. Principal trees 

and shrubs are:

# Sassafras (Sassafras albidum)

# Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)

# Honey Locust (Gleditsia triacanthos)

# Sumac (Rhus spp.)

# Elm (Ulmus spp.)

# Black Walnut (Juglans nigra), Red Cedar 

(Juniperus virginiana)

# Blackberry (Rubus allegheniensis)

# Dewberry (Rubus spp.)

# Coralberry (Symphoricarpos orbiculatus)

# Multiflora Rose (Rosa spp.)

Xeric Ridge Crests Community – The driest and 

most exposed forest community exists on ridge 

crests, bluff tops, and upper slopes on thin, excessively drained soils. Over-story trees include:

# Black Oak (Quercus velutina)

# Post Oak (Q. stellata)

# White Oak (Q. alba)

# Black Hickory (Carya texana)

# Mockernut Hickory (C. tomentosa)

# Elm (Ulmus spp.) and White Ash (Fraxinus 

americana)

Understory trees and shrubs are:

# Serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.)

# Winged Elm (Ulmus alata)

# Big Tree Plum (Prunus mexicana)

# Sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum)

# Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.)

# Southern Blackhaw (Viburnum spp.)

# Sumac, Blueberry (Vaccinium spp.)

# St. Andrew’s Cross (Ascyrum hypericoides).

Mesic Slopes Community – Great species diversity occurs on the middle to lower slopes because of 

improved temperature-moisture conditions. Important trees and shrubs include: 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

54

# White Oak (Quercus alba), Mockernut Hickory 

(Carya alba) Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovata)

# Chinkapin Oak (Quercus muehlenbergii)

# White Ash (Fraxinus americana), Sassafras 

(Sassafras albidum), Flowering Dogwood 

(Cornus florida)

# Mulberry (Morus spp.)

# Pawpaw (Asimina triloba)

# Bladdernut (Staphylea trifolia)

# Spicebush (Lindera spp.)

# Devil’s Walking Stick (Aralia spinosa)

# Wild Hydrangea (Hydrangea arborescens).

Fish and Wildlife Communities

Birds 

The Service has no information on the species of 

birds that may be present on the Refuge; the Refuge has no bird list. However, a number of avian 

species nest or migrate through the area and these 

may be expected to occur at least seasonally on 

Ozark Cavefish NWR. 

Mammals

At this time, the Refuge does not have a mammal 

list, though a number of species would be expected 

to occur at Ozark Cavefish NWR.

Amphibians and Reptiles

At this time, the Refuge does not have a list of 

amphibians and reptiles, though a number of species 

would be expected to occur at Ozark Cavefish NWR.

Fish

At this time, the Refuge does not have a list documenting which species of fish are present. 

Invertebrates

There is not a complete list of invertebrates 

occurring on the Refuge, but the Bristl Cave crayfish (Cambarus setosus), a Missouri state-listed species of conservation concern, is known to occur 

within Turnback Creek Cave Spring.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Two species that are listed as endangered, threatened, or rare species occur on Ozark Cavefish 

NWR.

A population of federally-listed threatened Ozark 

cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) inhabits Turnback 

Creek Cave Spring within the Ozark Cavefish 

NWR. The Ozark cavefish was listed as threatened 

in 1984. A colorless fish about 2 and one-quarterinches long, its head is flattened, and it has a slightly 

protruding lower jaw. The fish has no pelvic fin and 

its dorsal and anal fins are farther back than on 

most fish. The Ozark cavefish has only rudimentary 

or vestigal eyes and no optic nerve. However, it is 

well-adapted to dark environment of caves through 

well-developed sensory papillae. The reproductive 

rate of Ozark cavefish is comparatively low 

(USFWS, 1992).

The Ozark cavefish lives its entire life in cave 

streams, underground waters, and springs. It uses 

sense organs located on the sides of its head, body, 

and tail to find food. Its range is restricted to caves 

in Missouri, Arkansas, and Oklahoma; as of 1992, 15 

caves had verified populations. Ozark cavefish rely 

heavily on microscopic organisms like plankton as a 

food source, but also feed on small crustaceans, salamander larvae, and bat guano.

Factors that have led to the decline of the Ozark 

cavefish include habitat destruction, collecting of 

specimens, and disturbance by spelunkers (cavers). 

In terms of its recovery, protection of caves containing cavefish is the most important task. This 

includes monitoring the quality of water flowing into 

these caves, and erecting fences or gates that limit 

access by humans but that do not interfere with bat 

populations. In many caves, the principal source of 

energy for the organisms on which cavefish feed is 

bat guano. Therefore, Ozark cavefish survival 

depends on the survival of bats. 

The federally-listed endangered gray bat utilizes 

Turnback Cave in the summer for reproductive and 

Deer fawn along the Auto Tour Route, Mingo NWR.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

55

rearing purposes. As mentioned above, guano produced by the bats provides an important food source 

for Ozark cavefish. 

Threats to Resources

Invasive Species

No invasive species are known to occur on Ozark 

Cavefish NWR.

Contaminants

The situation with regard to contaminants on the 

Refuge is unknown.

Administrative Facilities

No administrative facilities are present on the 

Refuge. The Refuge is managed entirely by staff 

from Mingo NWR 200 miles to the east.

Archeological and Cultural Values

No archeological investigations have occurred at 

Ozark Cavefish NWR, and no cultural resources 

have been identified on the Refuge.

Cultural resources are important parts of the 

Nation’s heritage. The Service is committed to protecting valuable evidence of human interactions with 

each other and the landscape. Protection is accomplished in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to 

protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources. 

Visitation

The Refuge is not open to the public, and no visitor services are provided.

Current Management

Ozark Cavefish NWR is not managed for, nor is 

open to the public. It is managed strictly to protect 

and enhance Refuge habitat to maintain or increase 

use by endangered species, in particular the fish for 

which it is named – the Ozark cavefish, and the Federally endangered gray bat, on whose guano the 

cavefish depends in part. Scientific investigations, 

research, and monitoring are allowed by permit 

only.

Specific objectives include, but are not limited to:

# Ensure protection of the federally-listed 

endangered gray bat maternity colony 

inhabiting the cave and utilizing the Refuge.

# Ensure protection of the federally-listed 

endangered Ozark cavefish population 

inhabiting the cave stream.

# Protect the uncommon bristle cave crayfish 

population inhabiting the cave stream. 

# Prohibit recreational visitation to the site.

# Prevent potentially adverse impacts on the site 

and its ecosystem from surface management 

practices.

Habitat Management

There is no active habitat management program 

at Ozark Cavefish NWR at the present time. 

Fire Management

Fire management at Ozark Cavefish NWR is 

guided by a Fire Management Plan (FMP) adopted 

in 2003 (USFWS, 2003c). The FMP describes the 

responsibilities of each member of the fire management team, including training, experience, physical 

fitness requirements, and fire duty assignments.

All wildland fires are suppressed at Ozark Cavefish and wildland fire use for resource benefit is not 

be utilized at the present time. Currently prescribed 

fire is not used either for fuel reduction or habitat 

management on the Refuge.

Food aplenty on Rockhouse Marsh, Mingo NWR.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environments and Management

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

56

Fish and Wildlife Monitoring

Other than observation and monitoring of the 

rare, threatened and endangered species that exist 

on the Refuge, no additional fish and wildlife monitoring takes place.

Visitor Services

The Refuge is not open to the public, and no visitor services are provided. Priority public uses 

including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation are not allowed. Non-wildlife dependent recreation is not permitted at present.

There is an underwater camera installed at 

Hearell Springs. Visitors to the Neosho National 

Fish Hatchery have an opportunity to view a video 

image of this elusive species. Approximately 40,000 

to 45,000 people visit the hatchery annually.

Pest Management

No pest management is conducted on the Refuge.

Archeological and Cultural Resources

No management of archeological or cultural 

resources takes place on the Refuge.

Special Management Areas

The Refuge has no special management areas.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

57

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Goals, Objectives and 

Strategies

The Environmental Assessment in Appendix A 

describes and analyzes a series of management 

alternatives: four for Mingo NWR, two for Pilot 

Knob NWR, and two for Ozark Cavefish NWR. The 

Service identifies one preferred alternative for each 

refuge. These preferred alternatives are described 

in the following chapter as the proposed future management direction that would guide activities on the 

three refuges for the next 15 years. In some cases 

the proposed future management direction 

describes initial steps of a long term vision that may 

take 100 years or more to achieve.

Goals, objectives, and strategies comprise the 

proposed future management direction. Goals are 

descriptive broad statements of desired future conditions that convey a purpose. There are six goals 

for Mingo NWR and two each for Pilot Knob NWR 

and Ozark Cavefish NWR. Goals are followed by 

objectives, specific statements that describe management intent. Objectives provide detail and are 

supported by rationale statements that describe 

background, history, assumptions, and technical 

details to help understand how the objective was 

formulated. Finally, beneath each objective are lists 

of strategies—specific actions, tools, and techniques 

required to fulfill the objective. 

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge Goals, Objectives 

and Strategies

Goal 1: Habitat

The Refuge will actively conserve a mosaic of upland and 

wetland habitats, including designated wilderness, through 

appropriate management strategies that preserve, protect, 

and enhance the vitality and health of the natural environment. 

Objective 1.1: Ditch System

Over the next 15 years, maintain the rate and volume of water movement at or above 2005 levels 

within a portion of Ditch 10 and all of Ditches 1, 2, 

3, 5, 6, and 11, totaling approximately 34 miles, by 

ensuring that at least 75 percent of the depth 

along these stretches is free of sediment and the 

length is free of obstructions that impede water 

flow. Maintain rate and volume of water movement at or above 2005 levels within the remaining 

ditches based on measurements of water flow, 

sedimentation rates, and duration of flooding..

Bullfrog on Mingo NWR. USFWS
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

58

Supporting Rationale

Actions to improve water transport throughout 

the ditch network reduce flood duration and 

improve bottomland forest dynamics, helping meet 

the Refuge purpose of providing habitat for migratory birds. Floodwaters that once flowed across the 

entire Mingo basin are now channeled by ditches 

totaling more than 50 miles. Land use changes 

within much of the watershed that increased sedimentation rates prevent restoration of sprawling 

flow across the Mingo basin. The ditch network 

traps the increased amount of sediment that would 

choke existing habitats if carried by slower sprawling flow. Dikes and water control structures placed 

along the ditch system that assisted water management also reduced water velocity increasing the rate 

of sedimentation. A 1995 survey showed 5-7 feet of 

sediment accumulation throughout most of the ditch 

network. This diminished the ditch network’s ability 

to transport and hold water causing prolonged 

flooding that adversely affected the bottomland forest as well as fish populations. Total ditch depth varies across the Refuge and is measured vertically 

from the water surface to the surface of harder 

underlying soils when the water level is at 334 feet 

MSL. See Figure 12.

Strategies:

1. Use an excavator to remove sediment from 

the ditches and pile it along adjacent banks.

2. Seek funding and full-time (1.0 FTE) heavy 

equipment operator to accelerate the rate of 

sediment removal.

3. Within 3 years of CCP approval, develop an 

MOU between Mingo NWR and Duck Creek 

Wildlife Management Area to manage water 

jointly, both for public use and habitat management.

4. Maintain thorough records of when each 

reach of each ditch was cleaned out. Monitor 

depths and widths of ditches over time to 

assess rate of future sedimentation and 

develop a timetable for systematic ditch maintenance.

5. Continually investigate possible ways of 

speeding up ditch cleaning or making it more 

efficient.

6. Repair, replace and upgrade water control 

structures (converting to bottom draw) as 

needed, including Ditch 2 pump.

7. Consider hiring a professional hydrologist 

and conducting an elevation survey to guide 

improvements to the drainage network.

8. Maintain levees after silt removal to provide 

maintenance access.

9. Plant cover crops on levees for wildlife use.

10. Place water control structure along Ditch 10.

11. Maintain spring drainage so that system is 

flushed from bottom of water column.

Objective 1.2: Forest

Over the long-term (100-200 years), on 15,547 

acres of the Refuge, achieve a mosaic of bottomland hardwood stands of different age and structural classes distributed across a narrow 

elevation gradient ranging from 335.5-339.5 feet 

MSL with lower elevations dominated by bald 

cypress and water tupelo, mid elevations dominated by overcup oak and red maple, and upper 

elevations dominated by red oak species and willow oak. Within 15 years, ensure that approximately 20 percent (with a long-term target of 40 

percent) of stands presently dominated by overcup oak, red maple and their associates are converting to red oak species, willow oak and their 

associates based on regeneration surveys.

Supporting Rationale

Land use practices and modifications to the 

hydrology of the Mingo basin over the past 120 

years impeded drainage, causing seasonal flooding to persist for longer than had occurred historically (Heitmeyer et al. 1989). The prolonged 

flooding helped shift composition of bottomland 

hardwood forests towards species with greater 

Figure 12: Ditch Structure
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

59

water tolerances, and largely eliminated regeneration resulting in single-aged mature stands. 

Changes to the drainage system now allow for 

water management that more closely resembles 

those earlier conditions and the restoration of 

species associated with those conditions. This 

objective represents the Refuge’s intent to more 

actively manage bottomland forest habitat to 

benefit forest-dependent wildlife, especially certain species of migratory waterfowl, neotropical 

migratory birds and mammals (like swamp rabbit). The 15,547-acre objective represents an 

increase of 547 acres over existing acreage; the 

additional amount comes from conversion of 225 

acres of open marsh and 322 acres of other open 

habitats.

Strategies for Green Tree Reservoirs (Pools 5, 7, 

and 8 totaling about 3,040 acres)

1. Continue to flood three Green Tree Reservoirs (Pools 5, 7, and 8), totaling 3,040 acres, 

for no more than 130 consecutive days 

between November and March. Drain water 

prior to growing season to encourage regeneration and avoid killing trees. Under dry 

conditions may hold water in Green Tree Reservoirs into spring.

Strategies for Bottomland Hardwoods (includes 

Green Tree Reservoirs)

2. Conduct forest surveys or inventories every 5 

years to monitor changes in health, composition, and structure of lowland and upland forests.

3. Develop and implement 5-year forest management plan.

4. Manage timber to promote regeneration of 

willow oak, pin oak, and red oak.

5. As indicated, conduct forest management 

activities such as thinning dense stands or 

midstory and selective harvest on a small 

scale to allow for habitat diversity and opening of canopy to stimulate plant growth, 

regeneration and recruitment on forest floor.

6. Provide vernal pools where feasible.

7. Allow water levels to fluctuate between midDecember to April. Have areas flooded no 

more than 130 consecutive days between 

November and March. 

8. Conduct a study to learn more about the 

hydrology and geomorphology of the Refuge.

Objective 1.3: Open Marsh

Over the next 15 years, maintain approximately 

3,075 acres of open marsh habitat within Rockhouse Marsh (900 acres) and Monopoly Marsh 

(2,175 acres) comprised of a mixture of submergent vegetation such as coontail (Ceratophyllum 

demersum) and American pondweed (Potamogeton nodosus), floating vegetation such as water 

lily (Nymphaea odorata) and watershield (Brasenia schreberi), and emergent vegetation such as 

narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) and lizard’s tail (Saururus cernuus), and convert 

approximately 225 acres of Monopoly Marsh 

from open marsh habitat to wet forest dominated 

by bald cypress and water tupelo.

Supporting Rationale

Monopoly and Rockhouse marshes encompass 

3,300 acres of Refuge lands. These open marshes 

provide vital nesting, resting, and feeding habitat 

to a wide variety of waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

wading birds. Wood ducks utilize the marshes of 

Mingo throughout the year as they provide the 

proper habitat requirements for all life stages of 

this species and ducklings from over a 10 mile 

radius migrate to Monopoly every year. The 

marshes receive a combined total of over nine 

million waterfowl use days annually. Many other 

species of birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and 

mammals utilize the marshes on a regular basis. 

Strategies:

1. Draw down Monopoly Marsh once every 2-3 

years, temporarily shrinking the flooded area 

to 30 acres.

2. Draw down Monopoly Marsh incrementally 

over 10 years to progressively expose edge 

habitats allowing for eventual conversion of 

about 225 acres to bald cypress and water 

tupelo.

3. Accelerate removal of willow and promote 

fluctuating water levels via enhanced water 

level control capability.

4. Restore ingress/egress fish (and other aquatic 

species) passages to both marshes and assess 

and enhance fish passage as necessary during 

draw downs.

5. Consider that Monopoly Marsh is located 

within the Wilderness Area and manage 

accordingly, i.e. through use of minimal tools. 

6. Drawdown Rockhouse Marsh to 334 feet 

MSL by May 15 every other year, and remove 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

60

woody vegetation (willow) during drawdown. 

Reflood the marsh beginning on October 1.

7. Conduct vegetation surveys every 5 years to 

gauge success of reforestation along perimeter of Monopoly Marsh.

8. Conduct vegetation surveys every 2 years to 

monitor expansion of emergent vegetation in 

the basin including cut grass. 

Objective 1.4: Open Water (excluding ditches)

Over the next 15 years, maintain the amount of 

open water at or above 2005 levels (9.2 miles of 

streams and 200 acres of other open water) 

within Red Mill Pond, May Pond, Fox Pond, Stanley Creek, Mingo River, Lick Creek, and Cow 

Creek, and decrease the amount of open water in 

Gum Stump. Within 5 years increase the amount 

of open water by about 20 acres within the Binford Unit and increase the amount of structure 

within Fox Pond.

Supporting Rationale

Water not only drives the ecology of Mingo NWR, 

but is a valuable habitat type in its own right for 

innumerable invertebrates and all five orders of 

vertebrates, including many species of birds, 

mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and fish. Mingo’s 

watershed is comprised of approximately 90 

square miles which includes nearly 60 square 

miles outside of the Refuge boundary. The refuge 

is within the lower portion of the St. Francis 

River basin and acts as a storage reservoir or 

detention basin during periods of flooding. Most 

of the open water on the refuge exists due to 

impoundment by water control structures and/or 

levees and recharge is dependent upon runoff 

and direct precipitation. Water levels of Stanley 

Creek, the Mingo River, Red Mill Pond, and Gum 

Stump are managed in accordance with the 

Annual Water Management Plan. 

Strategies 

1. Continue to manage ponds, pools, and 

impoundments using the appropriate tools 

such as periodic drawdowns, vegetation 

removal, and levee and structure maintenance. 

2. Ensure appropriate consultation and cooperation between fishery biologists and engineers 

in construction of open water on Binford Unit 

and in the rehabilitation of Hartz Pond.

3. Use tree drops in some ponds to create habitat structure and fish cover.

4. By 2010, construct about 20 acres of open 

water at Binford Unit to provide additional 

fishing opportunities.

5. By 2010, rehabilitate Hartz Pond for fishing 

opportunities.

Objective 1.5: Moist Soil Units

Over the next 15 years, manage Moist Soil Units 

to provide a diversity of native herbaceous plant 

foods such as wild millet (Echinochloa spp.), 

panic grass (Panicum spp.), sedges (Cyperus

spp. and Carex spp.), and beggarticks (Bidens

spp.) with an annual seed/rhizome/tuber production of at least 1,000 lbs/acre above ground and 

600 lbs/acre below ground based on grid sampling 

as defined by Laubhan and Fredrickson (1992). 

Supporting Rationale

Moist soil management is a widespread practice 

for producing a diverse mixture of native herbaceous plant foods and invertebrates that has its 

origins at Mingo NWR (Fredrickson and Taylor 

1982). It partially mimics seasonal flooding that 

has long occurred in the lowlands of the Mingo 

basin, but moist soil units – areas impounded by 

levees, dikes, and structures that permit precise 

control of water levels – allow managers to consistently produce conditions favorable to growth 

of native plants. Seeds produced by these plants 

provide balanced nutrition for migrating waterfowl, and also provide food and habitat for other 

migratory birds and wildlife. The diverse mixture 

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

61

of native plants also creates conditions that produce abundant invertebrates, a high protein wildlife food source.

Strategies:

1. Disturb (through mowing, disking, fire, etc...) 

an average of one-third of Moist Soil Unit 

acreage annually to set back succession.

2. Moist soil units will be maintained in early 

successional native plant communities for the 

production of annual seed crops. 

3. Flood Moist Soil Units in stages beginning in 

October or November, initially flooding onethird and progressively flooding more of each 

unit as waterfowl deplete the food supply 

until units are entirely inundated.

4. Maintain MSUs dry throughout the growing 

season to produce food for migratory birds. 

5. Maintain pumps, dikes and water control 

structures in good working order.

6. Maintain units to demonstrate comparison 

practices for educational purposes.

7. Replace water control structures and slope 

sides of borrow pits, thereby increasing 

opportunities for wildlife observation and 

environmental education and research.

8. Develop waterfowl public educational seminars and tours course conducted by Leigh 

Fredrickson and Mickey Heitmeyer.

9. Develop MOU with MDC on management of 

Moist Soil Unit 11 (Luken Farm).

10. Explore land exchange with MDC for Luken 

Farm property.

11. Provide additional fall-flooded, shallow-water 

habitat for shorebirds when feasible.

12. Maintain stable water levels at 1 to 6 inches 

across 80 to 90 acres of moist soil units from 

March through July 31 and encourage a 

mosaic of moist soil plants such as softstem 

bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani), 

giant cutgrass (Zizaniopsis miliacea), prairie 

cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) and cattail 

(Typus spp.) to provide medium height cover 

(2-6 feet) interspersed with small areas of 

mud flats and shallow depressions as nesting 

habitat for King Rails.

13. With the exception of those acres managed 

for Black Rail and King Rail, begin draining 

moist soil units in March to expose mudflats 

by April to benefit migrating shorebirds 

which can feed on invertebrates. 

14. Maintain stable water levels of 1 inch or less 

across 10 to 20 acres of moist soil units from 

April through August 15, and encourage a 

vegetative monotype of Eleocharis spp. 

(spikerushes), sedges, or other wetland/wet 

prairie grasses that provide dense low cover 

(2 feet or less) interspersed with small areas 

of mudflats and shallow depressions to provide nesting habitat for Black Rails.

15. Annually disturb the 10 to 20 acres of moist 

soil managed for Black Rails to remove 

unwanted vegetation while maintaining level 

ground capable of providing stable water levels of 1 inch or less.

16. Begin draining in March to expose mud flats 

by April to benefit migrating shorebirds that 

feed on the invertebrates.

Objective 1.6: Grassy Openings, Cropland, and Food Plots

Maintain 205 acres of grassy openings, 253 acres 

of cropland, and 73 acres of food plots. Convert 

the remaining 449 acres to cane (15 acres), oak 

savanna (112 acres), and young bottomland forest 

(322 acres), early successional habitats that 

would benefit species such as quail, turkey, doves, 

and swamp rabbits (see Figure 13 and Table 6). 

Within 15 years, develop a soft edge – a vegetative gradient from open to forested habitats – 

along the perimeters of these areas, and replace 

fescue with native vegetation. 

Supporting Rationale

Grassy openings, cropland, and food plots located 

mostly around the perimeter of the Refuge partially 

simulate lost native habitat. The Refuge is situated 

at the interface of the Ozark Highlands and Crowley’s Ridge, encompassing portions of each along 

with the bottomlands between. Temporary and permanent forest openings are part of the historic vegetative condition of the Refuge.

Fire, wind, and other disturbance agents likely 

kept about 3-5 percent (450-750 acres at Mingo 

NWR) of bottomland forests in temporary openings 

(Heitmeyer et al, 2005; Hartshorne, 1980; Heitmeyer et al, 1989; King and Antrobus, 2001). Caused 

by death or wind throw of one or more trees, such 

open habitats normally are quickly colonized by herbaceous plants, shrubs, and tree seedlings. These 

temporary openings provide diversity within the 

otherwise forested matrix, and are important habitat for wildlife such as swamp rabbits and Swainson’s warblers. At Mingo NWR, years of prolonged 

annual floods caused by poor drainage impeded col-
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

62

Figure 13: Locations and Future Cover Type Allocations of Grassy Openings, Cropland and Food Plots, Mingo NWR1

1. In some locations, future cover types may vary based on site potential and restoration costs.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

63

Table 6: Current and Future Condition of Mingo NWR Openings

Current Condition Future Condition

Name Habitat Type Acres Habitat Type Acres

Schoolhouse East Food Plot 8 Shrub/Forest 3

Food Plots 5

Schoolhouse West Food Plot 2 Shrub/Forest 2

Company Farm Food Plot 8 Shrub/Forest (early 

succession)

2

Cane Restoration 4

Food Plot 2

Sassafras-East Food Plot 2 Shrub/Forest 2

Sassafras-West Food Plot 12 Shrub/Forest (early 

succession)

4

Cane Restoration 5

Food Plot 3

Sandblow Food Plot 10 Short grass prairie with forbs 2

Cane Restoration 6

Shrub/Forest (early 

succession)

2

Lick Creek Bottoms 

North

Fallow Field and 

Cropland

56 Shrub/Forest (early 

succession) with scoured 

wetlands

30

Old Field with scoured 

wetlands

18

Food Plot 8

Goose Pen Food Plot 21 Food Plot 21

Triangular Field Food Plot 3 Food Plot 3

East end Egypt Gate Food Plot 5 Food Plot 5

Flat Banks Shrub/Forest 5

Food Plot 15 Food Plot 10

Spillway Road Fallow Field 4 North End Shrub/Forest 7

Food Plot 9 South End Food Plot 6

Battleshell North Fallow Field 75 Shrub/Forest 34

Shrub/Forest (early succession 

with scoured wetlands)

20

Grassy Opening 21

McGee Fields Cropland 292 Cropland 225

Shrub/Forest 67

Fox Pond area Fallow Field 87 Shrub/Forest 20

Grassy opening with scattered 

trees

67

Lick Creek Bottoms 

South

Fallow Field 51 Sedge meadow 7

Shrub/ Forest 44

Cow Creek Field North Fallow Field 15 Sedge meadow 15

Cow Creek Field South Fallow Field 29 Shrub/Forest 29
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

64

onization of these openings by plants and young 

trees, eliminating much of this habitat. Food plots 

and cropland largely around the perimeter of the 

Refuge provide partial replacement of this lost habitat as well as wildlife viewing opportunities for visitors. Over the life of the plan (15 years), the need to 

maintain these permanent openings is expected to 

diminish as improvements to the ditch system 

(Objective 1.1) and changes in forest management 

(Objective 1.2) restore bottomland forest dynamics.

Grassy openings are part of the historic vegetative condition within the portions of the Refuge that 

grade into the bluffs of the Ozark Highlands on the 

west and Crowley’s Ridge on the east (Dr. Leigh 

Fredrickson and Dr. Mickey Heitmeyer, personal 

communication). Invasive species such as fescue 

quickly colonize these areas crowding out native 

species. Periodic farming is one low cost method 

used to disturb these sites and temporarily diminish 

the amount of invasive plant cover. On these sites, 

totaling about 205 acres, farming typically occurs 

for 1-2 years followed by a 2-3 year fallow period 

during which native species dominate.

Strategies:

1. Maintain cooperative agreements, which 

require cooperating farmers to leave 33 percent of the corn, milo, or 100 percent of winter 

wheat or clover for wintering waterfowl and 

resident species.

2. Mow fields as often as necessary to set back 

encroaching woody growth.

3. Provide food sources in upland openings for 

wildlife use during inclement weather.

4. Utilize mowing/haying to create and maintain 

forage.

5. Mow or plant food plots to provide for 

expanded opportunities for wildlife observation by public.

6. Seek partnerships to enhance funding and 

staffing resources to replace cooperative 

farming program to maintain open areas and 

provide early successional edge habitat.

7. Plant mast trees to speed succession of open 

areas.

Objective 1.7: Invasive/Exotic/Nuisance Plants

Annually work to maintain exotic or invasive vegetation on the Refuge at or below levels to be 

determined within 2 years of plan approval (of 

present concern are Johnson grass, Sericea lespedeza, bull thistle, reed canary grass, autumn 

olive, and multiflora rose).

Supporting Rationale

Exotic or non-native plants are those that have 

been deliberately or inadvertently transported 

and transplanted by humans outside their native 

range, often found on another continent. Certain 

exotic plants become “invasive” if they survive 

and begin to spread on their own, in the absence 

of the population controls (e.g. diseases, parasites, environmental constraints, organisms that 

fed on them) that held their propagation in check 

Battleshell Central Cropland 35 Food Plot 10

Shrub/Forest 25

Egypt Gate Fallow Field 71 Convert higher elevations to 

mixed grass prairie

41

Lower elevations to be 

maintained as grassy openings

30

Hwy. 51 Field South Cropland 28 Cropland (1/2 idle in 

alternating years)

28

Hwy. 51 Field North Fallow Field 45 Oak savanna with scoured 

wetlands)

45

Shop Field Fallow field 4 Grassy Opening 4

Battleshell South Fallow Field 26 Scrub/Forest 26

South Boundary Field Fallow Field 43 Grassy opening 43

Battleshell West Fallow Field 24 Grassy opening 24

Table 6: Current and Future Condition of Mingo NWR Openings

Current Condition Future Condition

Name Habitat Type Acres Habitat Type Acres
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

65

in their native ranges. Invasive exotics are troublesome because they displace native vegetation 

on which native animal species have come to 

depend over many millennia of adaptation and coevolution. Refuge staff attempts to slow the 

spread of these invasive plants by a variety of 

mechanical and chemical means. Success will be 

determined based on factors which include reduction in spreading, shrinkage of infestation, complete eradication, and/or stabilization of 

infestation depending on the individual species, 

its negative impacts, and the feasibility of control.

Strategies:

1. Actively communicate with other state and 

federal resources agencies, as well as nongovernmental organizations, to stay abreast 

of emerging exotic threats, as well as management strategies and techniques.

2. Coordinate control strategies with Regional 

Office and other state and federal agencies.

3. Maintain good records of control efforts and 

results.

4. Complete a comprehensive inventory to 

assess invasive plant infestations.

5. Use mechanical, chemical, and biological controls to slow the spread of invasive plant species.

Goal 2: Wildlife

The Refuge will provide for a diversity of migratory birds 

and native fish and wildlife associated with healthy Refuge 

habitats and contributing to the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

Objective 2.1: Migratory Bird Monitoring

Within 3 years of plan approval, implement a 

monitoring program to establish abundance, population trends, and habitat associations of 

selected migratory bird species or groups of species (e.g. waterfowl, migrating land birds, shorebirds, marsh birds).

Supporting Rationale:

Mingo NWR was established under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, so that its very purpose is 

to conserve habitat for and populations of migratory birds, including waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

neotropical birds. Forty-four species of waterfowl 

have been documented on the Refuge at one season or another. Most of these birds are migrants, 

either passing through Mingo NWR on journeys 

north and south in the spring and fall, or wintering on the Refuge. Four species of waterfowl are 

known to breed at the Refuge: Canada Goose, 

Wood Duck, Pied-billed Grebe and Hooded Merganser. In addition, the Green-winged Teal, Mallard, Northern Pintail, Northern Shoveler, 

Gadwall, American Widgeon, and Ring-necked 

Duck are listed as common or abundant at Mingo 

NWR during at least one season. 

About 20 species of shorebirds use the Refuge at 

least one season of the year; of these, seven species – including the Killdeer, Lesser Yellowlegs, 

Spotted Sandpiper, Solitary Sandpiper, Pectoral 

Sandpiper, Common Snipe and American Woodcock – are listed as common at least one season of 

the year. The last two species (Common Snipe 

and American Woodcock) tend to be found in 

moist or swampy wooded areas while the others 

favor the shorelines of shallow, open marshes.

 Mingo NWR also sports a number of species of 

passerines (perching birds) and songbirds – notably the warblers, but also tanagers, thrushes, and 

others – that are neotropical migrants, breeding 

in the summer in North America and wintering in 

Central America, the Caribbean, and South 

America. Most of these neotropical migrants 

depend on wooded habitats. Some of the neotropical migrants breed at Mingo NWR but many 

others pass through the Refuge in the spring and 

fall.

Strategies:

1. Conduct waterfowl surveys, Bald Eagle surveys, Christmas Bird Counts, and breeding 

bird surveys.

2. Conduct shorebird surveys using the International Shorebird Survey Protocol to track 

occurrence, relative abundance, and response 

to management regimes.

3. Develop an Inventory and Monitoring stepdown management plan based on direction 

contained in part 701 FW 2 of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual.

4. Partner with conservation and private organizations to assist with monitoring, inventory, 

and educational efforts.

5. Conduct pre- and post-bird monitoring in conjunction with habitat management efforts 

including conversions and restoration/regeneration efforts. 

Objective 2.2: Fish/Aquatic Species

Over the next 15 years, create or maintain 

diverse, self-sustaining fisheries in Refuge ponds, 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

66

streams, and ditches; and within 4 years begin 

reintroduction of extirpated, native species (of 

present interest is alligator gar) to help restore 

aquatic ecosystems to historic conditions.

Supporting Rationale

The Refuge has a rich historic diversity and 

abundance of swamp-dependent fisheries species. 

Previous Refuge surveys identified over 38 species, including alligator gar. A 2005 survey identified an additional nine species bringing the 

Refuge total to 46 fish species, many of which are 

limited to swamp habitat. Since the loss of nearly 

2.5 million acres of bottomland swamp habitat in 

the Bootheel, many swamp dependent species 

have been restricted to isolated areas. On the 

Refuge, many species are described as locally 

abundant, but are rare State-wide. This would 

include such species as bantam sunfish, banded 

pygmy sunfish, flier, swamp darter, cypress 

darter, dollar sunfish, slough darter, and brown 

bullhead. Changes in the Lake Wappapello Corps 

of Engineers Project discharge rates and the construction of the Spillway Water Control Structure 

several feet above the bottom of the ditch have 

prevented fish movement and natural restocking 

of the impounded system of the Refuge. In addition, several of the interior water control structures on the Refuge serve as fish barriers 

preventing natural migration. These conditions 

compounded with an acceleration of the accumulation of sediment in the ditch system since the 

early 1980s caused shifts in abundance and diversity of fish species. Water clarity and dissolved 

oxygen levels decreased along with populations of 

most popular sport fish. Although surveys are 

lacking, it is likely diminished water quality also 

caused declines in numbers of freshwater mussels. Ditch restoration efforts, beginning in 1999, 

have already shown improvements in abundance 

and diversity of fish species. The diverse habitats 

on the Refuge such as clear creeks, ponds, 

springs and small streams, temporary forest and 

meadow flooding, marshes, and ditches offer a 

mixture of habitats that help maintain a diverse 

aquatic system. 

Strategies:

1. In cooperation with MDC, conduct annual 

population censuses of sport fishery using 

electro-shocking or other techniques. 

2. Working with MDC, stock catfish and other 

native game fish in ditches and ponds as 

needed.

3. By 2009, reintroduce alligator gar to provide 

added sport fishing opportunities and to 

restore a critical component of the aquatic 

ecosystem.

4. By 2008, conduct a comprehensive aquatic 

resources survey in cooperation with MDC.

5. Improve fisheries resources at Fox Pond by 

creating a balanced and self-sustaining fishery.

6. Continue removal of barriers and modify 

existing water control structures to enhance 

fish passage.

7. Use tree drops in ditches at appropriate locations to create habitat structure and fish 

cover.

8. Work with COE to periodically modify water 

discharge rates from Wappapello Lake to 

enhance opportunities for fish passage at the 

Refuge spillway.

9. By 2015, restore and enhance mussel populations by allowing for reintroduction of host 

fish, through the modification of the spillway 

structure.

Objective 2.3: Reptiles and Amphibians

Within 3 years of plan approval, implement a 

monitoring program to establish abundance, population trends, and habitat associations of 

selected reptile and amphibian species.

Supporting Rationale

Due to its diversity of habitats and the ample supply of water, amphibians and reptiles abound at 

Mingo NWR. More than 65 species have been 

documented, including frogs, toads, salamanders, 

lizards, turtles, and snakes. Among the snakes 

are the venomous cottonmouth (all three subspecies), southern copperhead, and timber rattlesnake. Many of these species hibernate along the 

bluff on the perimeter of the Refuge. Several species of reptiles and amphibians that occur on 

Mingo are endangered or threatened either federally or at the state level including the alligator 

snapping turtle and the three-toed amphiuma. 

Amphibians are especially sensitive to changes in 

their environment and their populations are 

declining worldwide (Houlahan et al. 2000) (Wake 

1991) (Blaustein 1994). Monitoring the health of 

reptile and amphibian populations at Mingo 

NWR may help detect other environmental problems. Baseline data on reptiles and amphibians 

that occur on Mingo NWR are outdated and some 

is unreliable. 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

67

Strategies:

1. Monitor reptile and amphibian migration 

mortality due to vehicular use along Auto 

Tour Route and modify the opening and closure of the route to minimize mortality. 

2. With partners, conduct research on mortality, 

mercury levels, and habitat use and availability.

3. Provide or enhance vernal pool habitat.

4. Conduct pre- and post-monitoring in conjunction with habitat management efforts including conversions and restoration/regeneration 

efforts.

5. Partner with conservation and private organizations to assist with monitoring inventory 

and educational efforts.

Objective 2.4: Invasive/Exotic/Nuisance Animal

Annually work to maintain levels of exotic or 

invasive animals on the Refuge at or below levels to 

be determined within 2 years of plan approval (of 

present concern are nutria, beaver, and feral hogs).

Supporting Rationale

Beaver are native to the Refuge, but can cause 

problems by undermining roads, girdling trees, 

and plugging culverts and water control structures, which causes extensive flooding. The Refuge previously enlisted trappers to help control 

beaver numbers, but due to the successful expansion of river otter, a desirable species, trapping 

was discontinued to avoid accidental take. Refuge 

Staff currently dispose of nuisance beaver in 

problem areas as needed. Successful control of 

this species will be based on the reduction of the 

observation of beaver dams, reduction of flooding 

of sensitive habitats not intended to be flooded, 

reduction of complaints from adjacent landowners of beaver caused flooding, and decrease in the 

occurrence of road, levee, and water control 

structure damage from burrowing and dam and 

den construction. 

The nutria is a large, dark-furred, semi-aquatic 

rodent native to southern South America and 

introduced into North America as early as 1899. 

It was first discovered on the Refuge in 2000. The 

nutria’s relentless burrowing weakens dikes, 

levees, and other earthen structures. Nutria also 

feed on native vegetation and can cause damage 

when they occur in high numbers. Refuge Staff 

dispose of nutria whenever they are found. Presently, nutria do not occur in high numbers on the 

Refuge. Successful control of this species will be 

based upon the reduction of the observation of 

damage to wetland habitats from foraging of the 

rodent and decrease in the occurrence of road 

and levee damage from burrowing.

Feral hogs or swine have emerged as a serious 

problem on many national wildlife refuges in 

recent years. They both harm habitat and displace native wildlife. Feral swine are elusive and 

widely scattered in Missouri; moreover, they use 

heavy cover and are difficult to find (MDC, 

2004b). Thus, hunting specifically for wild hogs is 

usually unproductive, but they can be hunted 

incidentally when hunting other animals. Because 

they cause damage to streams, undergrowth and 

wildlife, the Missouri Conservation Department 

as well as the Service, hope to enlist the public in 

helping to control or eradicate them. In some 

places, trapping hogs by luring them with bait 

into pens and then disposing of them has proven 

successful in reducing hog populations. Successful control of this species will be measured on 

number of incidental sightings and signs including tracks, routing areas, and wallows. 

Strategies:

1. Control nutria and feral hogs on the Refuge.

2. Promote incidental hunting of hogs if the population expands.

3. Monitor beaver populations and control nuisance beaver.

4. Document habitat impacts and infrastructure 

damage caused by beavers, nutria, and feral 

hogs.

Mingo Wilderness Area. USFWS
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

68

5. In cooperation with MDC and neighbors, consider the use of trapping to reduce feral hog 

numbers. 

Objective 2.5: White-tailed Deer

Upon plan approval, manage the deer herd to 

sustain a healthy population ranging from 800-

1,200 deer at a density considered optimal in this 

portion of Missouri (24-35 per square mile). 

Supporting Rationale

The white-tailed deer is the only large native 

mammal that occurs at Mingo NWR. It is a species popular for both hunting and viewing, bringing in an estimated 21,000 visits in 2004. Deer 

management on Mingo is based on a large data 

set that spans over 15 years. Spotlight surveys, 

deer track surveys, deer exclosures, and harvest 

data are utilized and interpreted to determine 

population sizes and make management recommendations. Emigration and immigration can 

greatly alter population size and density and can 

be extremely variable from year to year. Food 

availability, mainly mast production, is largely 

responsible for these variations in deer demographics. Damage to surrounding landowners 

can occur during years of poor mast production if 

the population rises above the target level. Overpopulation of deer can lead to the damage of 

seedlings, especially oaks, which can impede 

regeneration success in the bottomland hardwood 

areas of the Refuge. Overgrazing can lead and 

contribute to changes in species composition 

which in turn can result in negative effects on 

other plant and animal species (Rooney and 

Waller 2002). A firm understanding of population 

size and strong management decisions based on 

annual survey information prevents these negative effects, while sustaining a viable population 

to satisfy the needs of the public. 

Strategies:

1. Monitor the size and population density of the 

deer herd through surveys conducted in 

December and January and conduct presence/absence survey following closure of bow 

season.

2. Monitor Refuge exclosures for signs of habitat damage that would indicate that carrying 

capacity has been surpassed.

3. Evaluate the health of individual animals and 

herds using standard techniques.

Goal 3: Visitor Services

Provide a variety of wildlife-dependent recreational and 

educational opportunities to allow the public to enjoy the 

resources of the Refuge and support the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. (Figure 14)

Objective 3.1: Hunting

Within 4 years of plan approval, provide opportunities for approximately 4,200 hunting visits per 

year while maintaining sustainable resources and 

providing participants with minimal conflicts with 

other user groups.

Supporting Rationale

As one of the six priority recreational uses identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, hunting provides traditional recreational activities on the Refuge and in 

the local area with no definable adverse impacts 

to the biological integrity or habitat sustainability 

of the Refuge resources. 

The Refuge has a designated hunting area which 

consists of 8,960 acres and an additional 6,891 

acres during the Managed Deer Hunt, a muzzleloader hunt. The diversity of hunting opportunities include archery deer and turkey hunting, 

spring firearm turkey hunting, and squirrel hunting. Waterfowl hunting is permitted in Pool 8, a 

1,191- acre green tree reservoir. The unit is managed through a cooperative agreement with the 

MDC as a wade-in hunting area. In 2004, hunting 

accounted for 3,760 hunting visits with annual 

increases and decreases in visits based on local 

conditions. 

Refuge management strategies reduce visitor 

conflicts and provide for a variety of uses through 

the use of personal contacts and designated hunting and fishing pamphlets and general recreational activities pamphlets. In addition, 

recreational uses are designated in specific areas, 

during specific times of the year, and specific 

durations. 

Hunting activities are managed with kiosk information centers and require hunters to sign-in and 

sign-out and the record the number of hours 

hunted and any animals harvested. Biologists 

conduct pre and post hunting season deer surveys to assess the effects of hunting on the population and determine if the Refuge is meeting 

herd size goal of 800-1,200 deer. 

All recreational activities are secondary to the 

primary purpose in which the Refuge was estab-
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

69

Figure 14: Future Facilities, Mingo NWR
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

70

lished, and must be compatible. Uses identified in 

the Refuge Improvement Act (hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, and environmental education) receive special recognition by the Service and are 

accommodated when compatible with the original 

purpose of the Refuge as a resting and wintering 

area for migratory waterfowl and other migratory birds. 

Strategies:

1. Manage hunts to minimize conflicts with 

other uses and resources.

2. Maintain good communication with hunters 

and other user groups so as to minimize conflicts and any friction between different users.

3. Host participants of Missouri Department of 

Conservation’s Spring Turkey Women’s Outdoor Skills Event within the public hunting 

area.

4. Offer educationally based fall youth firearms 

deer hunt within the public hunting area.

5. Offer Refuge hosted hunter education 

courses.

6. Offer access to Ditch 3 area by opening Sand 

Blow Ridge Road year-round except when it 

is flooded.

7. Request assistance from MDC for muzzleloader hunt.

8. Participate in State waterfowl drawing held at 

Duck Creek that includes Pool 8.

9. Offer waterfowl hunting on Pool 8 as follows: 

when the water level reaches a suitable elevation. Provide a maximum of 40 individuals 

through a daily drawing.

Objective 3.2: Fishing

Within 4 years of plan approval, offer opportunities for 4,500 fishing visits per year while maintaining sustainable resources and providing 

participants with minimal conflicts with other 

user groups.

Supporting Rationale

As one of the six priority recreational uses identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, fishing provides traditional recreational activities on the Refuge and in 

the local area with no definable adverse impacts 

to the biological integrity or habitat sustainability 

of the Refuge resources. 

In 2004, fishing accounted for 2,324 recreational 

visits to the Refuge. The number of anglers is 

based on extrapolations from the readings of traffic counters strategically placed at popular destinations. The counters are read at least two times 

monthly and figures are reported in a public use 

data base by month. Most anglers visiting the 

Refuge are families including women, children, 

and the elderly out for a day-long visit which usually includes picnicking. Approximately 10 percent of the Refuge anglers access the Refuge by 

boat or canoe in areas restricting motors. Popular 

destinations include; Stanley Creek, May and Fox 

Ponds, Flat Banks, Red Mill Pond, the downstream end of water control structures, and Ditch 

11 and other ditches. 

In the ditches, improvements in fish species composition and abundance, since ditch cleaning 

efforts were begun in 1999, are evident. The species most commonly caught are crappie, bass, 

bluegill, bowfin, and catfish. Periodic assessments 

of fisheries resources will be utilized to monitor 

species, relative abundance, and location. 

Refuge management strategies reduce visitor 

conflicts and provide for a variety of uses through 

the use of personal contacts and designated hunting and fishing pamphlets and general recreational activities pamphlets. In addition, 

recreational uses are designated in specific areas, 

during specific times of the year, and specific 

durations. 

All recreational activities are secondary to the 

primary purpose in which the Refuge was established, and must be compatible. Uses identified in 

the Refuge Improvement Act (hunting, fishing, 

Fisherman on May Pond. USFWS 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

71

wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, and environmental education) receive special recognition by the Service and are 

accommodated when compatible with the original 

purpose of the Refuge as a resting and wintering 

area for migratory waterfowl and other migratory birds. 

Strategies:

1. Offer fishing from March 1 to September 15 

in the area north of Ditch 11 between and 

including Ditch 2 and Ditch 6.

2. Offer fishing year-round on Ditch 1, Ditch 2, 

Ditch 11, Mingo River, Stanley Creek, May 

Pond, Fox Pond, and Red Mill Pond.

3. Offer fishing from March 1 to September 15 

on Ditches 3, 4, 5, Monopoly Marsh, Rockhouse Marsh, and Gum Stump.

4. By 2010 construct a recreational fishing pond 

in the Binford Unit that would include disabled access and be available for special 

events.

5. Add universally accessible fishing piers at 

Flat Banks Entrance Area, Burris Bridge, 

Ditch 1, May Pond, Fox Pond.

6. Add mowed bank fishing access along ditches, 

Flat Banks, and Pierman Lane when possible.

7. Offer fishing year-round at the Ditch 5 and 

Ditch 11 water control structures.

8. Eliminate bow fishing and gigging on the Refuge.

9. Provide boat access to Monopoly Marsh, as 

feasible, under varying water levels.

Objective 3.3: Wildlife Observation and Photography

Within 5 years of plan approval, provide a range 

of wildlife observation and photography opportunities for 75,000 visits per year that allow for 

viewing a variety of wildlife species and habitats 

with minimal conflicts with other user groups.

Supporting Rationale

Wildlife observation and photography are both 

priority public-use activities, which are listed in 

the NWRS Improvement Act of 1997. In 2004, 

wildlife observation and photography accounted 

for 71,491 visits. The number of wildlife observer 

and photographer visits is based on extrapolations from the readings of traffic counters strategically placed at popular viewing and 

photography destinations. The counters are read 

at least two times monthly and figures are 

reported in a public use data base by month. 

Facilities that support these activities include the 

Visitor Center and associated interpretive displays, the Auto Tour Route, eight overlooks and 

observation platforms, informational kiosks, and 

five trails, including a five-mile canoe trail and 

the Boardwalk Nature Trail. The canoe trail 

offers a wilderness experience of solitude on the 

Mingo River and opportunities to view and photograph wildlife in a primitive setting. 

Refuge management strategies reduce visitor 

conflicts and provide for a variety of uses through 

the use of personal contacts, designated hunting 

and fishing pamphlets and general recreational 

activities pamphlets. In addition, recreational 

uses are designated in specific areas, during specific times of the year, and specific durations and 

group size is limited as needed.

All recreational activities are secondary to the 

primary purpose in which the Refuge was established, and must be compatible. Uses identified in 

the Refuge Improvement Act (hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, and environmental education) receive special recognition by the Service and are 

accommodated when compatible with the original 

purpose of the Refuge as a resting and wintering 

area for migratory waterfowl and other migratory birds. 

Strategies:

1. Along 13 miles of the Auto Tour Route, offer 

seasonal vehicle access from March 1 through 

November 30 except for closure during State 

firearm deer season and as needed during 

reptile and amphibian migrations. (Figure 15)

2. Offer year round vehicle access along 6 miles 

of the Auto Tour Route, and the entire 5-mile 

length of Red Mill Drive. 

3. Offer year round vehicle access along the 

entire 3-mile length of Sand Blow Ridge 

Road.

4. Offer seasonal vehicle access from May 15 

through September 30 on the 1 mile road segment between Monopoly Overlook and Fox 

Pond.

5. Open Auto Tour Route for selected events 

during winter months (December 1 to end of 

February).
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

72

6. Offer a number of observation sites and structures that include universally accessible sites.

7. Open Monopoly Marsh to public use from 

March 1 to September 15.

8. Install Web Cam for remote viewing of Refuge.

9. Provide a photo blind/observation site. Potential sites include Red Mill Pond or near Rockhouse Cypress Marsh Overlook.

10. Maintain or improve opportunities for viewing wildlife at overlooks and at selected open 

fields and farm units.

11. Maintain existing and provide additional foot 

bridges to improve access to the Refuge.

12. Provide wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities west of Ditch 6 year round.

13. Provide wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities east of Ditch 6 to the eastern 

Refuge boundary from March 1 to September 

15.

14. From September 15 to March 1, close to all 

public use the area between Ditch 4 and Ditch 

5 south of Monopoly Marsh and north of Ditch 

11 to provide an area for wildlife that is free of 

disturbance.

15. Designate Red Mill Drive as a second auto 

tour route with interpretive information.

Objective 3.4: Environmental Education

Within 4 years of plan approval, establish an environmental education program that provides a 

diverse balance of educational topics to over 2,000 

students annually. 

Supporting Rationale

Environmental education, is one of the six priority public-use activities listed in the NWRS 

Figure 15: Public Vehicle Access Permitted, Mingo NWR
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

73

Improvement Act of 1997, and generates continued support from area schools and youth conservation groups. The program is designed to 

complement the Missouri public schools curriculum that requires students to learn about natural 

resources in preparation for the annual Missouri 

Mastery and Achievement Test. Environmental 

education programs focus on Refuge-specific 

issues including wildlife, history, archaeology, culture, and habitats. Weekly visits by area schools, 

home school groups, scouts, etc are common with 

other special programs occurring both on and off 

the Refuge. In recent years, the Refuge has averaged about 1,800 students for environmental education programs annually. Individual attendees 

are counted and submitted in the public use database each month. 

Programming will be monitored to ensure a variety of programming topics are being presented. 

When mission is in all programming and four different educational topics are available annually, 

the environmental education programs will be 

considered diverse and balanced.

Strategies:

1. Offer environmental education programs for 

youth groups, schools, and general public with 

a reptile and amphibian focus at times of the 

year when they are most likely to be seen.

2. Offer teacher workshops for environmental 

education.

3. Develop programs specific to Mingo NWR 

(e.g. ditch system, snakes, waterfowl).

4. Work with scouting groups on merit badge 

projects.

5. Renovate Hartz Pond and trail for environmental education.

6. Add a full-time (1.0 FTE) Park Ranger to 

assist with weekend visitor center operations, 

programming, special events, and maintenance of visitor facilities.

7. Insert more information on reptiles and 

amphibians in environmental education materials.

8. Continue to maintain existing environmental 

education facilities and materials.

Objective 3.5: Interpretation

Within 4 years of plan approval, incorporate the 

agency mission and the purposes of the Refuge 

into all direct contacts and 75 percent of selfguided interpretive programs.

Supporting Rationale

Interpretation is one of the six priority public-use 

activities listed in the NWRS Improvement Act of 

1997. Interpretation on the Refuge focuses primarily on self-guided exhibits, interpretive panels, and brochures. Many facilities are utilized to 

support this popular use such as the Refuge Visitor Center exhibits, the Boardwalk Nature Trail, 

the Auto Tour Route, kiosks, and overlooks. In 

2004, over 16,000 visits occurred to the Boardwalk Nature Trail, over 8,000 individuals visited 

the Visitor Center exhibits, over 6,000 visits 

occurred to the interpretive Auto Tour Route, 

and over 21,000 individuals visited Refuge interpretive panels and kiosks. The Refuge hosts special events focusing on environmental topics and 

Refuge specific activities. On-site special events 

include: Bald Eagle Days, Kid’s Free Fishing 

Day, Migratory Bird Day, National Public Lands 

Day, and National Wildlife Refuge Week. Every 

other year, the Refuge and MO DOC host Eagle 

Days. Bald Eagle Days attracts over 800 individuals annually. Every special event focuses on a 

Refuge specific interpretive message. Off-site 

special events conducted by staff include staffed 

exhibit at the Southeast Missouri District Fair in 

cooperation with the Missouri Department of 

Conservation (MO DOC). This event contacts 

over 25,000 individuals each year. In 2004, over 

9,000 individuals were contacted by Refuge staff 

off-site. Interpretative programming and special 

events helps foster an appreciation, support, and 

understanding of the Refuge specific topics and 

the National Wildlife Refuge System as a whole.

Refuge staff conducting environmental education on 

Mingo NWR. USFWS
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

74

Strategies:

1. Partner with other agencies for special 

events.

2. Continue to operate Visitor Center with 

exhibits during week days year-round and 

extend operations to include weekends from 

March 1 to November 30.

3. Develop interpretive panels at Monopoly 

Overlook.

4. Complete renovation of the Boardwalk 

Nature Trail.

5. Complete observation platform and interpretive panels along Highway 51.

6. Partner with Friends and others to provide 

guided wildlife interpretive tours.

7. Develop an annual wildlife festival.

8. Provide historic “living history” programming such as timber harvest with mules.

9. Provide additional interpretive programming 

along the Auto Tour Route.

10. Develop one or more exhibits on reptiles and 

amphibians for the Visitor Center.

11. Continue to maintain existing interpretive 

facilities and materials including the Visitor 

Center, exhibits, brochures, waysides, etc...

12. Increase off-site outreach efforts to attract 

long distance visitors.

13. Insert more information on reptiles and 

amphibians in interpretive materials.

Objective 3.6: Other Compatible Recreational and Consumptive Uses

Throughout the life of the plan, provide compatible opportunities for horseback riding, canoeing, 

biking, hiking, jogging, and gathering of wild edible plants for a total of 2,300 visits per year.

Supporting Rationale

The NWRS Improvement Act of 1997 identifies 

six priority public uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation that receive 

enhanced consideration over other general public 

uses in planning and management of the Refuge 

System. Other uses can occur but must support a 

priority public use or not conflict with priority 

public uses. No use of a national wildlife refuge 

can detract from accomplishing the purposes of 

the Refuge or the mission of the System.

Mingo NWR supports various forms of naturebased outdoor recreation that, while not exactly 

wildlife-dependent, may well be compatible with 

the purposes of the Refuge and contributes to 

public appreciation and enjoyment of it. These 

include equestrian use, canoeing, bicycling, hiking, jogging, and gathering of wild edibles. In 

2004, a total of 2,385 visits for these activities 

occurred. The number of visits is based on 

extrapolations from the readings of traffic 

counters strategically placed at popular destinations, and individual sightings of individuals 

engaged in these activities. The counters are read 

at least two times monthly and figures are 

reported in a public use data base by month.

Berry, mushroom, pokeweed, and nut gathering 

are non-wildlife dependent activities that occur 

near the Rockhouse Overlook and along Bluff 

Drive. These activities are permitted outside the 

Wilderness Area as long as the ground is not disturbed. 

Horseback riding on the Refuge has local support 

from area riding clubs, who continue to use the 

Refuge on an annual basis for single rider and 

group rides along portions of the Auto Tour 

Route. Impacts to biological resources, such as 

the introduction of invasive species and disturbance to wildlife during periods of migration, are 

a continuing concern. 

Hiking continues to occur on Refuge trails while 

bicycling has become increasingly popular in 

recent years along the established roadways. 

Likewise, canoeing has become more and more 

poplar with small groups and wilderness enthusiasts seeking solitude. Refuge management guidelines, legal mandates, and policies, such as the 

Wilderness Act of 1964, require compatibility and 

form a standard to help minimize conflicts among 

user groups while protecting resources and wildlife habitat. 

Refuge management strategies reduce visitor 

conflicts and provide for a variety of uses through 

the use of personal contacts, designated hunting 

and fishing pamphlets and general recreational 

activities pamphlets. In addition, recreational 

uses are designated in specific areas, during specific times of the year, and specific durations and 

group size is limited as needed.

Strategies:

1. Offer year round access for horseback riding, 

recreational biking, hiking, and jogging along 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

75

the entire 19-mile length of the Auto Tour 

Route and along the entire 5-mile length of 

Red Mill Drive. (Figure 16)

2. Offer year round access for horseback riding, 

recreational biking, hiking, and jogging along 

the entire 3-mile length of Sand Blow Ridge 

Road.

3. Offer seasonal access from March 1 through 

September 15 for horseback riding, recreational biking, hiking, and jogging along a 6-

mile loop between Ditch 3 and Ditch 4.

4. Offer seasonal access from May 15 through 

September 30 for horseback riding, recreational biking, hiking, and jogging on the 1 

mile road segment between Monopoly Overlook and Fox Pond.

5. Offer year round access for horseback riding, 

recreational biking, hiking, and jogging along 

a 6-mile length of Bluff Road.

6. Evaluate and authorize equestrian use, recreational biking, canoeing, and jogging involving group events through a permitting 

process.

7. Provide for the regional bike route to pass 

through the Refuge along existing roads and 

(improved) levee tops.

8. Maintain existing hiking trails and canoe 

trails.

9. Offer boating, canoeing, and kayaking from 

March 1 to September 15 in the area north of 

Ditch 11 between and including Ditch 2 and 

Ditch 6.

Figure 16: Horseback Riding, Recreational Biking, Hiking, and Jogging Use 

Permitted, Mingo NWR
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

76

10. Offer boating, canoeing, and kayaking yearround on Ditch 1, Ditch 2, Ditch 11, Mingo 

River, Stanley Creek, May Pond, Fox Pond, 

and Red Mill Pond.

11. Offer boating, canoeing, and kayaking from 

March 1 to September 15 on Ditch 3, Ditch 4, 

Ditch 5, Monopoly Marsh, Rockhouse Marsh, 

and Gum Stump.

12. Offer gathering of one gallon per day of 

mushrooms and berries and five gallons per 

day of pokeweed for personal use and without 

ground disturbance in the areas south of 

Ditch 11 and east of Ditch 6 from March 1 to 

September 15. Possession or harvest outside 

this area is prohibited.

13. Provide year-round boating access to Ditch 11 

at Burris Bridge, and Flat Banks.

14. Phase out all grills and concentrate picnic 

tables near areas of high public use.

Goal 4: Resource, Facility, and Visitor Safety and Protection

Protect natural, cultural, and man-made resources and provide for the safety of staff, volunteers, and visitors to the 

extent feasible. 

Objective 4.1: Archeological, Cultural, and Historic Protection

Over the life of the plan, avoid and protect 

against disturbance all known cultural, historic, 

or archeological sites (presently more than 140 

sites).

Supporting Rationale

Cultural resources are an important facet of the 

country’s heritage and Mingo NWR, like all 

national wildlife refuges, remains committed to 

preserving archeological and historic sites 

against degradation, looting, and other adverse 

impacts. The guiding principle for management 

occurs in the National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. and the 

Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

as amended, 16 U.S.C. 47011-mm which establish 

legal mandates and protection against identifying 

sites for the public, etc. Archeological surveys of 

the Refuge, including the Mingo Job Corps campus, have now been completed on almost 7,200 

acres of the Refuge. 

More than 140 cultural resources sites have been 

identified to date on the Refuge. These sites represent all Midwest United States cultural periods 

from the earliest Paleo-Indian through 20th century Western, a period of about 12,000 years. One 

standing structure on the Refuge, the Sweet’s (or 

Patrol) Cabin, a Depression-Era structure from 

the early 20th century, is considered eligible for 

the National Register of Historic Places. The 

importance of the cultural resources on the Refuge is evident with the Mingo NWR Archeology 

District having status on the National Register 

Places. 

Management of the rich cultural resources on the 

Refuge must include awareness of maintaining 

architectural integrity of historic structures, 

avoidance of ground disturbance practices and 

public activities, such as the picking up of arrowheads from plowed fields, and a continuing vigilance to safeguard these regional and national 

treasures. It is also essential that the Refuge document new site discoveries. It is also important 

for Refuge management to maintain an open dialogue with the Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer (RHPO) and to provide the RHPO with 

information about new archeological site discoveries. 

Strategies

1. Conduct site-specific surveys prior to ground 

disturbing projects and protect known archeological, cultural and historic sites.

2. Within 10 years of CCP approval, complete a 

Cultural Resources Management Plan 

(CRMP) and start to implement recommendations and procedures over the remaining 

life of the CCP.

3. Determine National Register eligibility of 

known sites.

4. Inform the Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer early in project planning to ensure 

compliance with Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act. 

5. Contract with cultural resources firms specializing in Missouri to conduct Phase I surveys prior to undertakings that could 

adversely affect historic resources.

6. In the event of inadvertent discoveries of 

ancient human remains, follow instructions 

and procedures indicated by the RHPO.

7. Ensure archeological and cultural values are 

described, identified, and taken into consideration prior to implementing undertakings.

8. Complete Phase I archeological surveys of 

the non-flooded areas of the Refuge, by qualified personnel when the RHPO determines 

surveys are necessary.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

77

9. Identify, inventory, preserve, and protect 

early settler grave sites on the Refuge.

Objective 4.2: Wilderness Area Management and Protection 

including Research Natural Areas

Protect and maintain the wilderness and biological character of the 7,730-acre, Class I Mingo 

Wilderness Area. 

Supporting Rationale

In 1964, Congress passed the Wilderness Act, 

which established the National Wilderness Preservation System. The legislation set aside certain 

federal lands as wilderness areas. The act says 

that such lands are areas “...where the earth and 

its community of life are untrammeled by man, 

where man himself is a visitor who does not 

remain.” In 1976, Congress designated 7,730 

acres of swamp, riparian areas, and Ozark Plateau uplands as the Mingo Wilderness Area. This 

is an area with numerous tributaries forming a 

storage watershed in the Monopoly Marsh and 

Mingo River basin. A series of ditches and levees 

adjacent to the Wilderness Area help approximate hydrologic conditions that once occurred 

naturally.

A large diversity of flora and fauna exists within 

this system which is home to indigenous species, 

such as river otter, bowfin, hairy-lip fern, and 

nesting Bald Eagles. The Wilderness Area also 

serves as an important wintering area for migratory waterfowl and critical habitat for swamp 

rabbits, Wood Ducks, migrating monarch butterflies, and other species. As the largest remaining 

tract of bottomland hardwood forest in Missouri, 

the Mingo Wilderness depends on the safeguards 

of the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990, Public Law 94-557, and the 

Draft Wilderness Stewardship Policy of 2001. 

These laws are important to protect against a loss 

of wilderness character leading to a loss of biological integrity and degradation of air and water 

quality, as well as adverse impacts of invasive species such as feral hogs, nutria, Sericia, etc. Other 

potential negative impacts also occur from the 

increase in human-use demands on the resources. 

Minimum tool analysis and other management 

guidelines help address potential human impacts 

and their effects and further safeguard against 

encroachments such as “temporary roads, motor 

vehicles, motorized equipment, motorboats, 

mechanical transport, landing of aircraft, structures, and installations.” While motorized recreational activities are prohibited inside the Mingo 

Wilderness Area, motorized traffic does occur 

along non-wilderness corridor roads alongside a 

network of waterways. Hiking, backpacking, fishing, wildlife observation, environmental education and interpretation are allowed, as well as 

biological research as approved through Refuge 

Management.

There are seven research natural areas on the 

Refuge, six of which are located within the Mingo 

Wilderness Area. Each research natural area is 

part of a national network of reserved areas 

under various ownerships intended to represent 

the full array of North American ecosystems with 

their biological communities, habitats, natural 

phenomena, and geological and hydrological formations. In research natural areas, as in designated wilderness, natural processes predominate 

without human intervention. 

Strategies:

1. Preserve and protect wilderness values 

within the area through proper signage, keeping out unauthorized entry, etc.

2. Inspect the perimeter of the Wilderness Area 

at least once every 3 years to replace signs 

that have fallen, disappeared, been damaged 

or vandalized.

3. Inspect interior of Wilderness Area at least 

once every 3 years to monitor for habitat 

changes, succession and any signs of unauthorized human disturbance.

4. Install Webcam at a location that shows daily 

and seasonal habitat changes and recreational 

activities.

5. Install photo monitoring sites that encompass 

the Monopoly Basin to help monitor air quality.

6. Implement the “Leave No Trace” program to 

teach the public about minimizing impacts to 

Wilderness Area.

7. Ensure that one or more of the Refuge staff 

have received Service training in wilderness 

management, including Minimum Tool Analysis.

8. Conduct air and water quality monitoring 

within the Wilderness Area (e.g. mercury 

contamination).

9. Mimic natural hydrology within Wilderness 

Area.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

78

Objective 4.3: Contaminants

Over the life of the plan, maintain water and airborne contaminants at levels that meet or exceed 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Protection Agency standards. 

Supporting Rationale

Mercury has been detected on the Refuge, but 

has not been measured in a consistent manner, so 

exact levels and the degree of present risk to wildlife and humans are not known. One study (Mercury 

Levels in Water and Fish Tissue Samples from 

Mingo Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, G. Bruland, 1995) offered preliminary results indicating 

mercury levels in fish tissue ranging from 0.9 to 2.5 

ppm.. These are concentrations which indicate that 

there is a problem with mercury contamination of 

the fish in the system.

Air quality monitoring for nitrates and sulfates of 

the Mingo Wilderness Area indicate that Mingo’s 

Class I Area is one of the more polluted areas of the 

23 sites the Service manages (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 3 Air Quality Briefing, January 23, 

2004). The 2001 Total Annual Light Extinction 

Rates indicate that Mingo has almost four times 

higher than the natural visibility conditions according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

“Draft Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions Under the Regional Haze Program”. 

The Refuge works cooperatively with the Air Quality Branch of the Service in Denver, Colorado on 

evaluating requested air permits from various manufacturing companies. Goals of the air quality program, based on the Clean Air Act and Wilderness 

Act, are to assess potential hazards and protect the 

Mingo Class I Wilderness Area from air pollutants 

causing visibility concerns.

Strategies

1. Within 5 years of CCP approval, expand the 

program to include monitoring on a regular 

basis of fish, reptiles and amphibians, sediments, and water quality for contamination by 

a variety of toxins. Also, conduct monthly 

drinking water tests to comply with State regulations, and periodically conduct more 

detailed tests of other contaminants like 

nitrates, leads, other heavy metals, etc.

2. Ensure that employees collecting different 

kinds of environmental quality and contaminant samples are adequately trained in standard procedures for sampling.

3. Establish sites for repeated sampling to build 

a baseline of comparable data, and obtain 

information from other locations to expand 

breadth of data and reduce risk that localized 

problems are not being overlooked.

4. Conduct cooperative research on mercury 

and other contaminants. 

Objective 4.4: Visitor and Employee Safety

Over the life of the plan, limit reported incidents 

to no more than 20 per 100,000 visits per year.

Supporting Rationale

Over the last 5 years, the Refuge has received at 

least 100,000 visitors annually participating in all 

six priority Refuge recreation activities demanding the need for safety precautions. Numerous 

hazards exist on the Refuge including poisonous 

snakes, falling trees, road hazards, becoming lost 

while hunting/hiking, rock cliffs, and poisonous 

plants. The Refuge contains a variety of natural 

and cultural resources that in addition to facilities, infrastructure, and equipment require protection both from human neglect and malfeasance 

as well as from natural disasters and time. A 

safety inspection of all facilities and grounds 

Doe on Mingo NWR. USFWS
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

79

occurs annually with corrective measures taken 

on hazardous findings to provide a safe environment for both visitors and staff. Two dual-function Refuge Officers spend a minimum of 25 

percent of their duty hours conducting regular 

patrols of all grounds to ensure public safety. Refuge Officers and several Refuge personnel are 

trained in CPR and First Aid. A Mingo Search 

and Rescue Team composed of volunteers and 

staff exists to assist with lost hunters and hikers.

In recent years, the Refuge has received approximately 24 reported incidents per 100,000 visits 

per year. Reported incidents include: safety concerns with equipment, facilities, and infrastructure utilized by staff and volunteers and reports 

of safety concerns by visitors, researchers, and 

other authorized users of the Refuge’s infrastructure and facilities supporting recreation, administration, and/or biology. 

Strategies

1. Provide regular law enforcement patrol, 

respond to search and rescue cases, and maintain facilities and infrastructure in compliance 

with OSHA and other regulations, educate 

public on environmental hazards.

2. Continue close cooperation with MDC agents, 

Stoddard County and Wayne County deputies, and the State Patrol.

3. Continue the Refuge-sponsored Search and 

Rescue Team with a designated Refuge Coordinator. 

4. Expand law enforcement patrol.

5. Maintain all facilities and infrastructure in 

compliance with OSHA and other regulations.

6. Install electric gates at entrances.

7. Add signage and information in the brochure 

about dangerous wildlife and other Refuge 

hazards.

8. Expand Visitor Center hours to include weekends from March 1 through November 30.

9. Improve directional signing along Refuge 

roads and waterways.

10. Increase staffing by two 0.8 FTEs for roadside mowing and facility/road maintenance to 

provide safe environment for visitors and 

employees.

Objective 4.5: Resource Protection

Over the life of the plan, limit the amount of documented incidents of illegal activities to no more 

than 1 incident per 60 hours of law enforcement 

effort.

Supporting Rationale

Two Refuge staff members have law enforcement 

authority and work closely with Missouri Department of Conservation agents and Stoddard 

County deputies. The number of public contacts 

far exceeds the citations and warnings issued 

during a year. Past violations have included trespass, poaching, illegal possession of a firearm in 

an area closed to weapons, artifact collection, 

hunting in closed areas, and not paying entrance 

fees. Problems of stray hunting dogs, vandalism, 

and litter exist, but violators are not often caught. 

Dual-function Refuge Officers spend a minimum 

of 25 percent of their duty hours conducting regular patrols and investigations to ensure resource 

protection.

Although wildfires on the Refuge have been relatively rare, the potential exists for resource damage by fire under extremely dry conditions. Two 

Refuge staff members currently are qualified as 

wildfire firefighters and cooperative agreements 

are in place with four Rural Fire Districts surrounding the Refuge.

The present level of documented incidents of illegal activities is one incident per 60 hours of law 

enforcement effort. 

It is expected that as law enforcement effort 

increases, the amount of documented incidents 

should increase, because as an officer spends 

more time and effort in the field, he/she becomes 

more aware of incidents and issues more notices 

of violations and warnings. These efforts, along 

with preventative law enforcement efforts such 

as distribution of literature that highlights areas Hermit Thrush. USFWS
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

80

often overlooked by Refuge visitors and explains 

Refuge specific requirements, will result in a 

reduction of documented incidents. In time, the 

initial increase in the number of documented incidents will level off and show an appreciative 

decline as the local community and visiting public 

become more aware and compliant regarding 

Refuge regulations. 

Strategies:

1. Continue close cooperation with MDC agents, 

Stoddard County and Wayne County deputies, and the State Patrol.

2. Enhance the relationship with U.S. District 

Attorney’s Office. 

3. Increase boundary and interpretive signage 

and distribution of Refuge-specific regulatory 

information.

4. Conduct electronic surveillance.

5. Develop additional cooperative law enforcement efforts with local, state, and federal law 

enforcement organizations.

6. Obtain a full-time (1.0 FTE) law enforcement 

officer.

7. Increase law enforcement efforts to prevent 

poaching of Refuge resources.

8. Revamp Refuge regulations and general 

activities pamphlets to improve clarity and 

understanding of Refuge-specific regulations.

9. Annually inspect areas where most wild edibles gathering has occurred to check for any 

habitat damage, erosion, litter, etc.

10. Conduct periodic inspections of sites known to 

be popular with gatherers and incidental 

inspections of visitors in those areas carrying 

bags, baskets or other containers that might 

be carrying wild edibles.

Goal 5: Off Refuge Conservation

Preserve, protect, and enhance Refuge Integrity and 

encourage conservation beyond Refuge boundaries.

Objective 5.1: Reducing Sedimentation from Off-Refuge 

Sources

Over the life of the plan, decrease the amount of 

sediment entering the Refuge to levels to be 

determined within 7 years of plan approval. 

Supporting Rationale

For decades, Mingo Swamp has been a sediment 

trap for sediments transported and deposited 

from the watershed upstream. Rainfall on sloping 

sites that have been recently cleared, logged, 

grazed or cultivated is prone to cause erosion and 

runoff, which in turn generate sediments. These 

sediments are then deposited in the Mingo NWR 

drainage ditch system, where the water current 

loses velocity and no longer has the energy to 

carry its sediment load. The accumulation of sediment in the ditches has reduced not only the 

water-holding and transporting capacity of the 

ditches themselves, but has damaged habitats by 

substantially reducing the ability to drain water, 

and provide deep water habitat for aquatic 

resources.

Strategies:

1. Over the life of the plan carry out strategic 

wetland restoration along the watershed of 

Duck Creek Bottoms. 

2. Over life of the plan, expand private landowner duck-hunting and wildlife observation 

opportunities from wetland restoration along 

the watershed of Duck Creek Bottoms.

3. Partner with MDC, Little River Drainage 

District and private landowners to reduce 

sediment entering the Refuge by implementing projects upstream on watersheds entering 

the Refuge.

4. Approach landowners individually or in a 

meeting arranged by the Refuge to consider 

cooperative efforts to carry out wetland restoration.

5. Explore the possibility of using the Wetland 

Reserve Program or Conservation Reserve 

Programs to help fund wetland restoration on 

private lands.

6. Try to enlist the support of local, regional, and 

national waterfowl hunting organizations like 

Ducks Unlimited.

7. Concentrate conservation efforts along Stanley Creek, Kawker Creek, Brush Creek, 

McGee Creek, Slage Creek, Cane Creek, Dry 

Creek, Malone Creek, Glassed Creek, and 

Lick Creek.

8. Add 0.5 FTE Biotech to conduct inspections 

and assist in Wetland Reserve Program and 

wetland restoration.

9. Identify lands near the Refuge, totaling 10 

percent or less of existing Refuge acreage 

(approximately 2,100 acres), for possible 

acquisition.

10. Work with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Farm Services Agency, and Mis-
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

81

souri Department of Conservation to 

establish conservation easements with land 

owners in the Stanley Creek watershed.

11. Use a variety of methods to seed, plant, level 

or otherwise cover exposed banks and slopes 

to reduce erosion and sedimentation.

12. Work with the EPA and others to asses the 

sedimentation rate and establish acceptable 

thresholds.

Objective 5.2: Rural Economic Development and Easements

Over the life of the plan, ensure compliance of 

conservation easements and restore and enhance 

wildlife habitat on 17 sites totaling 448 acres.

Supporting Rationale

The Farm Services Administration (FSA) makes 

loans to farmers and ranchers temporarily 

unable to obtain credit from commercial lending 

institutions. The FSA sometimes obtains title to 

real property when a borrower defaults on a loan 

secured by the property, and then the agency will 

hold and eventually dispose of the land. The Service participates in the inventory of properties 

that contain or support significant fish and wildlife resources or have current, former or 

degraded wetlands that can be restored, or other 

unique habitats that merit protection.

Mingo NWR manages 17 FSA conservation easements comprising approximately 448 acres within 

a 48 county region in the southern third of Missouri. All easement properties are to be 

inspected, have management plans, and be 

posted with signs indicating the properties are 

under conservation easements. Conservation 

Easements are considered to be units of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and are 

required to comply with all regulations governing 

Chapter 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Strategies:

1. Enhance efforts for compliance reviews and 

restoration opportunities by conducting 

annual site inspections and reviews on at least 

nine sites. 

2. Maintain an archive of records, files and photographs for each property to monitor 

progress towards habitat enhancement. 

3. Cooperate closely with the FSA. 

4. Increase cooperation with the FSA in visiting 

new sites with potential wildlife or habitat 

value. 

5. Add 0.5 FTE Biotech to assist with inspections and restoration work on easements. 

6. Use 15 percent of full-time law enforcement 

officer for compliance inspections. 

Goal 6: Human Resources and Facilities

Seek opportunities to obtain sufficient human resources 

and facilities through partner and agency funding mechanisms to achieve the goals and objectives of the CCP. 

Objective 6.1: Refuge

Throughout the life of the plan, establish the Refuge as a sound investment that adds value 

through natural resource management. 

Supporting Rationale

The implementation of CCP strategies requires a 

commitment from many organizational levels. 

Refuge projects are successfully funded when 

forethought and linkage to mission, goals, and 

objectives can be demonstrated. When grass-root 

support of the Refuge exists, Congressional 

interest and involvement occurs, and interagency 

partnerships are created, many projects become 

actualized and the Refuge develops credibility. 

Creative work force planning, partnerships, and 

utilizing supplemental funding opportunities are 

routes to successfully implement CCP recommendations. 

Strategies:

1. Cultivate good relations with local neighbors, 

officials, and the media.

2. Document funding needs precisely through 

memos and reports.

3. Conduct site visits for USFWS and other federal officials (e.g. Congressional offices) to 

showcase the Refuge’s achievements and 

needs; select a location and time of year that 

will best highlight these needs and accomplishments. 

4. Demonstrate precisely what would be gained 

for the Refuge and the local community if sufficient support were to be received.

5. Utilize the local media to promote Refuge 

habitat improvements, outreach activities, 

and other accomplishments.

6. Coordinate with Friends and other users 

groups (e.g. Wild Turkey Federation, Ducks 

Unlimited, Audubon, Wilderness Society etc.) 

to actively explore opportunities to promote 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation on 

the Refuge.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

82

7. Cooperate with organizations like The Nature 

Conservancy and Mingo Job Corps on habitat 

improvement projects.

8. Implement a year-round fee system to assist 

with public use administration and infrastructure improvements.

9. Promote volunteer opportunities that help 

facilitate wildlife-dependent recreation, habitat management, or other Refuge objectives.

Pilot Knob National Wildlife Refuge Goals, 

Objectives and Strategies

Goal 1: Endangered Species

Contribute to the recovery of federally-listed species and 

the conservation of their subterranean habitat on the Refuge.

Objective 1.1: Law Enforcement

Throughout the life of the plan, limit the amount 

of documented incidents of illegal activity to no 

more than 1 incident per 60 hours of law enforcement effort.

Supporting Rationale

Complications to the management of Pilot Knob 

NWR include a lack of local Refuge personnel to 

randomly patrol the area and not possessing an 

uncontested easement to the Refuge boundary. 

During public scoping for Pilot Knob NWR, some 

people suggested that the Service enter into a 

cooperative agreement with the Missouri Department of Conservation or some other local agency 

to assist with management or law enforcement on 

the Refuge. The staffing of the adjoining state 

park has a more historical focus than biological 

with their primary interest being the preservation of the Civil War Era battlefield; however, a 

Conservation Officer does reside locally.

The present (2005) level of documented incidents 

of illegal activity is 7.5 incidents per 60 hours of 

law enforcement effort. Past documented incidents of illegal activities include vandalism, wildlife disturbance while bats were hibernating, 

litter, and trespass. 

Strategies:

1. Define and upgrade existing access or acquire 

a new access to the Refuge.

2. Repair fencing and maintain boundary signs 

to help reduce illegal access.

3. Track law enforcement reports to detect 

trends in illegal activity at the Refuge.

4. Issue and monitor special use permits.

5. Develop a cooperative agreement with Missouri Department of Conservation to share 

law enforcement on the Refuge.

6. Initiate a Friends group or similar body to act 

as a “neighborhood watch” to assist in monitoring activity on the Refuge.

Objective 1.2: Bat Recovery

Over the next 15 years, contribute to the stabilization or increase of Indiana bat and gray bat numbers by protecting the hibernaculum found on the 

Refuge.

Supporting Rationale

Indiana bat and gray bat are federally endangered species. The Refuge is listed as critical 

habitat for the Indiana bat and is one of nine Priority One hibernacula identified in the Indiana 

Bat Recovery Plan. Historically, the hibernaculum provides annual winter habitat for at least 

30,000 Indiana bats. 

Strategies

1. Work with MDC, MDNR, and other partners 

to implement State and Federal recovery 

plans for the Indiana bat and gray bat.

2. Place barriers to restrict access to chasm 

leading to abandoned mine entrance.

3. Develop a survey protocol approved by the 

Indiana Bat Recovery Team for monitoring 

wintering bats within inaccessible hibernacula.

4. Investigate stabilizing the mine entrance to 

prevent its collapse.

Wildlife observation is a priority public use on national wildlife 

refuges. USFWS
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

83

5. Work with MDC, MDNR, and other partners 

to investigate summer roosting habits of Indiana bats within and surrounding the Refuge.

Goal 2: Refuge Visibility

Local residents and visitors are aware of the Refuge and its 

purpose.

Objective 2.1: Public Access and Visitor Services

Within 5 years of plan approval, allow up to 100 

visitors per year guided access to the Refuge.

Supporting Rationale

During public scoping held at the outset of the 

CCP process, it became evident that local residents support allowing public use of the Refuge. 

The summit of Pilot Knob is unique geologically 

and offers a panoramic view of the surrounding 

area, including a Civil War battlefield, Fort 

Davidson. Supporters believe access can be provided while protecting both bats and public 

safety. It has been suggested that public access 

and visitor services could use guided tours during 

times when little disturbance to the Indiana and 

gray bats might occur. This will further educate 

the local public about the importance of the bat 

species to people and local business and provide a 

biological balance, as to the need to protect the 

species.

All recreational activities are secondary to the 

primary purpose in which the Refuge was established, and must be compatible. Uses identified in 

the Refuge Improvement Act (hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, and environmental education) receive special recognition by the Service and are 

accommodated when compatible with the original 

purpose of the Refuge to conserve fish or wildlife 

which are listed as endangered or threatened 

species. 

Strategies:

1. Place barriers to restrict access to the chasm 

leading to the abandoned mine entrance.

2. Establish a minimally developed administrative/maintenance access road passable by a 

four-wheel drive vehicle for implementing 

public use activities.

3. Accurately locate and map (using GPS and 

GIS technology) mine entrances and other 

potential hazards.

4. Develop a Refuge brochure.

5. Add 0.5 FTE Refuge Operations Specialist (5/

7/9) to oversee biological monitoring, maintenance, cooperative agreements, interpretive 

programming, and outreach.

6. Explore a partnership with Fort Davidson 

State Historic Site to assist with guided tours 

and law enforcement.

7. Explore seasonal closure of the Refuge to 

avoid disturbing hibernating bats.

8. Use appropriate methods to avoid hazards 

and provide for visitor safety.

9. Work with local residents to form a Friends 

group or some similar body to communicate 

information and support the Refuge.

10. Evaluate the feasibility and compatibility of 

an observation platform on the summit of 

Pilot Knob.

11. Explore partnership opportunities with Fort 

Davidson Historic Site Friends Group.

Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuge Goals, 

Objectives and Strategies

Goal 1: Endangered Species

Contribute to the recovery of federally listed species and 

the conservation of other subterranean species and their 

habitats within the Springfield Plateau.

Objective 1.1: Habitat Management

Within 10 years of plan approval, document historic conditions, collect current data on vegetation composition consistent with standards of the 

National Vegetation Classification System, and 

identify opportunities for habitat restoration.

Supporting Rationale

The Refuge consists of 40 acres along Turnback 

Creek in Lawrence County and a 1-acre tract 

located at Hearrell Springs near the Neosho 

National Fish Hatchery. Habitats present on 

Ozark Cavefish NWR include the terrace bottoms community (well-drained and rarely flooded 

transitional areas that support a mixture of 

upland and floodplain woody species); the mixed 

hardwood-softwood levees community along 

drainage ditch levees, stream margins, roadside 

embankments, and other watercourse borders; 

the upland old fields community, including scattered woodland clearings, abandoned fields or 

pastures, and ridge roadsides reverting to oakhickory forest; and the xeric ridge crests community, the driest and most exposed forest community, which occurs on ridge crests, bluff tops, and 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

84

upper slopes on thin, excessively drained soils. To 

date, the Service has conducted no habitat management at Ozark Cavefish NWR.

Strategies

1. Develop a cooperative agreement with Missouri Department of Conservation to share 

management activities of the Refuge.

2. Develop and begin implementation of a Habitat Management Plan.

3. Add 0.5 FTE Refuge Operations Specialist (5/

7/9) to oversee Refuge management including 

habitat management, implementing recovery 

plans, building and maintaining partnerships, 

and managing visitor services.

Objective 1.2: Visitor Services and Public Awareness

Within 10 years of plan approval, 33 percent of a 

randomly selected sample of residents within the 

Turnback Creek and Hearrell Spring recharge 

areas will recognize the purpose of the Refuge.

Supporting Rationale

Presently there is no active promotion of the Refuge other than a brochure and website. During 

public scoping for the CCP, the Missouri Department of Conservation suggested opening the Refuge to public use, which would contribute greatly 

to public awareness of it and necessitate at least 

minimal visitor services and facilities. Permitting 

limited public use would make it consistent with 

access to the Paris Springs, an adjoining Stateowned property that contains the entrance to 

Turnback Cave. A greater awareness of water 

quality issues may result in land use improvements in the watersheds of the Ozark Cavefish 

and in turn contribute to the recovery of the species.

Strategies:

1. Maintain web cam at Hearrell Spring and 

provide interpretation. 

2. Develop a cooperative agreement with Missouri Department of Conservation to share 

public use management of the Refuge. 

3. Allow only scientific, educational, and interpretive uses at Hearrell Spring portion of 

Refuge. 

4. Install educational/interpretive kiosks at 

Hearrell Spring and Turnback Creek portions 

of Refuge. 

5. Offer compatible wildlife dependent recreation at the Turnback Creek portion of the 

Refuge. 

6. Develop a cooperative agreement with 

Neosho National Fish Hatchery to share 

management and oversight of the Hearrell 

Spring portion of the Refuge located in 

Neosho, Missouri near the hatchery. 

Objective 1.3: Law Enforcement

Throughout the life of the plan, limit the amount 

of documented incidents of illegal activity to no 

more than 1 incident per 60 hours of law enforcement effort.

Supporting Rationale

Presently, there are infrequent law enforcement 

inspections of the Refuge. With no local personnel, its closure to the public is difficult to enforce. 

Fencing and signage likely reduces the number of 

trespass violations, but seasonal patrols during 

hunting seasons and other peak usage periods 

are needed to monitor compliance levels. Threats 

associated with fire or destruction of habitat are 

not presently monitored on a regular basis. 

The present (2005) level of documented incidents 

of illegal activity is 22.5 incidents per 60 hours of 

law enforcement effort. Past documented incidents of illegal activities include trespass and 

poaching. 

Strategies

1. Develop a cooperative agreement with the 

Missouri Department of Conservation to 

share law enforcement oversight of the Refuge.

2. Post and maintain Refuge boundaries. 

Goal 2: Water Quality

Landowners in the recharge areas of the Refuge apply best 

management practices to maintain water quality.

Objective 2.1: Recharge Area Conservation

At least 75 percent of landowners in the Turnback 

Creek recharge area will be presented with information regarding the relationship between best 

management practices and water quality and 

encouraged to apply the practices.

Supporting Rationale

Currently there is no active program to improve 

water quality within the recharge areas for Turnback Creek or Hearrell Springs. During public 

scoping for the CCP, several commenters 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

85

observed that protecting and conserving 

recharge areas for streams known to contain 

Ozark cavefish would provide the greatest protection for the species. Hazardous material spills 

along Highway 44 within the recharge area for 

Turnback Creek pose a potential risk to the 

Ozark cavefish on the Refuge: spill could not only 

contaminate surface water, but also have adverse 

effects on the Ozark cavefish and other subterranean species.

Strategies

1. Coordinate with the Missouri Department of 

Conservation on Turnback Cave recharge 

area mapping.

2. Explore the need for mapping the recharge 

area of Hearrell Spring portion of Refuge.

3. Work with the Service’s Partners for Wildlife 

program and the Missouri Department of 

Conservation’s private lands programs to 

develop a landowner education program, and 

to assist in the restoration of habitats that 

would contribute to the conservation of the 

recharge area.

4. Work with Missouri Department of Conservation, Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources, Missouri Department of Transportation, landowners, and others to develop 

mitigation measures for hazardous materials 

spills.

5. Monitor water quality at various locations in 

the recharge area and communicate trends to 

landowners.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

86

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

New and Existing Projects

This CCP outlines an ambitious course of action 

for the future management of Mingo, Pilot Knob, 

and Ozark Cavefish national wildlife refuges. It will 

require considerable staff commitment as well as 

funding commitment to actively manage the wildlife 

habitats and add and improve public use facilities. 

The Refuges will continually need appropriate operational and maintenance funding to implement the 

objectives in this plan. 

A full listing of unfunded Refuge projects and 

operational needs can be found in Appendix F on 

page 261. In the appendix, the highest priority Refuge projects are described briefly.

Staffing

Implementing the vision set forth in this CCP will 

require changes in the organizational structure of 

the Refuge. Existing staff will direct their time and 

energy in new directions and new staff members 

will be added to assist in these efforts. Figure 17

describes current staffing and organization at 

Mingo NWR and Figure 18 describes the staff and 

organization needed to fully implement this CCP by 

fiscal year 2022. Table 7 describes proposed fulltime equivalents (FTEs) increases for the Mingo 

NWR staff. 

Partnership Opportunities

Partnerships have become an essential element 

for the successful accomplishment of goals, objectives, and strategies at Mingo NWR, Pilot Knob 

NWR and Ozark Cavefish NWR. The objectives 

Table 7: Additional Staffing Required to Fully 

Implement the CCP by 2022, Mingo NWR

Position Full-time 

Equivalents 

(FTEs)

Refuge Operations Specialist 1

Biological Technician 1

Law Enforcement Officer 1

Park Ranger 1

Two Tractor Operators 1.6

Heavy Equipment Operator 1

Snow day on Mingo NWR. USFWS
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

87

Figure 17: Current Staffing, Mingo NWR

Figure 18: Staffing Needed to Fully Implement the CCP, Mingo NWR
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

88

outlined in this CCP need the support and the partnerships of federal, state and local agencies, nongovernmental organizations and individual citizens. 

This broad-based approach to managing fish and 

wildlife resources extends beyond social and political boundaries and requires a foundation of support 

from many. Refuge staff will continue to seek creative partnership opportunities to achieve the 

visions of the three Refuges. 

Other notable partners include:

# Mingo Swamp Friends, Inc.

# Ducks Unlimited

# East Ozarks Audubon Society

# University of Missouri’s Gaylord Memorial 

Laboratory

# U.S. Naval Construction Force

# Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS)

# Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC)

# U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

# U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

# Missouri Department of Transportation 

(MODOT)

# Ozark Border Electric Company

# Girl Scouts of America Cotton Boll Area 

Council, Inc.

# Wal Mart

# Rocky Top Gun Shop

# Dennis Outdoors

# Crappie Company

# Mingo Job Corps Center

Step-down Management Plans

Step-down management plans describe the specific strategies and implementation schedules for 

meeting general goals and objectives identified in 

the CCP. The following list shows the step-down 

management plans we intend to prepare. We completed a fire management plan that is referenced in 

the CCP.

The Fire Management Plan, approved in 2004, 

provides direction and establishes procedures to 

guide various wildland fire program activities. The 

Fire Management Plan covers the historical and 

ecological role of fire, fire management objectives, 

preparedness, suppression, fire management 

actions and responses, fire impacts, use of prescribed fire, and fire management restrictions.

Mingo NWR

# Law Enforcement

# Visitor Services

# Wilderness Management

# Habitat Management

# Fire Management

# Inventory and Monitoring

Pilot Knob NWR

# Law Enforcement

# Visitor Services

# Habitat Management

# Fire Management

# Inventory and Monitoring

Ozark Cavefish NWR

# Law Enforcement

# Visitor Services

# Habitat Management

Monitoring and Evaluation

The direction set forth in this CCP and specifically identified strategies and projects will be monitored throughout the life of this plan. On a periodic 

basis, the Regional Office will assemble a station 

review team whose purpose will be to visit Mingo, 

Pilot Knob and Ozark Cavefish national wildlife refuges and evaluate current activities in light of this 

plan. The team will review all aspects of Refuge 

management, including direction, accomplishments 

and funding. The goals and objectives presented in 

this CCP will provide the baseline from which this 

field station will be evaluated.

Plan Review and Revision

The CCP for the three refuges is meant to provide guidance to refuge managers and staff over the 

next 15 years. However, the CCP is also a dynamic 

and flexible document and several of the strategies 

contained in this plan are subject to natural uncontrollable events such as windstorms and floods. 

Likewise, many of the strategies are dependent 

upon Service funding for staff and projects. Because 

of all these factors, the recommendations in the 

CCP will be reviewed periodically and, if necessary, 
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

89

revised to meet new circumstances. If any revisions 

are major, the review and revision will include the 

public.

Archeological and Cultural 

Values

As part of its larger conservation mandate and 

ethic, the Service through the Refuge Manager

applies the several historic preservation laws and 

regulations to ensure historic properties are identified and are protected to the extent possible within 

its established purposes and Refuge System mission.

The Refuge Manager early in project planning 

for all undertakings, informs the RHPO (Regional 

Historic Preservation Officer) to initiate the Section 

106 process. Concurrent with public notification 

and involvement for environmental compliance and 

compatibility determinations if applicable, or cultural resources only if no other issues are involved, 

the Refuge Manager informs and requests comments from the public and local officials through 

presentations, meetings, and media notices; results 

are provided to the RHPO.

Archeological investigations and collecting are 

performed only in the public interest by qualified 

archeologists working under an Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act permit issued by the 

Regional Director. The Refuge Manager has found 

this third-party use of Refuge land to be compatible. 

(The requirements of ARPA apply to FWS cultural 

resources contracts as well: the contract is the 

equivalent of a permit.) Too, the Refuge Manager 

issues a special use permit. Refuge personnel take 

steps to prevent unauthorized collecting by the public, contractors, and Refuge personnel; violators are 

cited or other appropriate action taken. Violations 

are reported to the Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer.

The Refuge Manager will, with the assistance of 

the RHPO, develop a step-down plan for surveying 

lands to identify archeological resources and for 

developing a preservation program to meet the 

requirements of Section 14 of the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act and Section 110(a)(2) of 

the National Historic Preservation Act.

The Refuge Manager should have and implement 

a plan for inspecting the condition of known cultural 

resources on the Refuge and report to the RHPO 

changes in the conditions.

The Refuge Manager will initiate budget 

requests for the following activities as needed for 

Section 106 compliance:

1. Inventory, evaluate, and protect all significant 

cultural resources located on lands controlled 

by the FWS, including historic properties of 

religious and cultural significance to Indian 

tribes.

2. Identify and nominate to the National Register of Historic Places all historic properties 

including those of religious and cultural significance to Indian tribes.

3. Cooperate with Federal, state, and local agencies, Native American tribes, and the public in 

managing cultural resources on the Refuge.

4. Integrate historic preservation with planning 

and management of other resources and activities. Historic buildings are rehabilitated and 

adapted to reuse when feasible.

5. Recognize the rights of Native American to 

have access to certain religious sites and 

objects on Refuge lands within the limitations 

of the FWS mission.

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

91

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Mingo, Pilot Knob, 

and Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuges, Missouri 

An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to identify management strategies to meet 

the conservation goals of Mingo, Pilot Knob, and Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuges. 

The EA examined the environmental consequences that each management alternative could have 

on the quality of the physical, biological, and human environment, as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The EA presented and evaluated four alternatives 

for Mingo National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and two alternatives each for Pilot Knob NWR and 

Ozark Cavefish NWR for managing fish, wildlife, and plant habitats, as well as visitor services, 

on the Refuges over the next 15 years. 

Mingo NWR 

Alternative 1: Current Management Direction (No Action) 

Current management is focused on improving drainage within the Refuge by removing sediment 

fiom a portion of the ditch network. Wetlands are actively managed to benefit migratory birds, 

especially waterfowl. Grassy openings, cropland, and food plots are concentrated around the 

perimeter of the Refuge. There are opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, environmental interpretation, environmental education, horseback riding, 

canoeing, and several other activities. 

Alternative 2: Expanded Public Use 

This alternative would augment visitor services and expand public use facilities and 

opportunities on the Refuge above current levels. In pursuing the habitat goal, Alternative 2, like 

the No Action Alternative (I), would generally manage habitats as they are managed at present, 

except in cases where changes in habitat management are directly related to proposed changes in 

public use. One example is that efforts to improve drainage within the Refuge would be 

expanded to include more of the ditch network. 

Alternative 3: Expanded Habitat Management and Reduced Visitor Conflicts 

This alternative would emphasize expanding habitat management and reducing visitor conflicts 

on the Refuge generally by curtailing the amount and extent of public use below present levels. 

The bottomland forest would be actively managed and would slightly increase because of the 

conversion of some open marsh and all grassy openings, cropland, and food plots. Efforts to 

improve drainage within the Refuge would be expanded above present levels to include more of 

the ditch network. Management of some units would be altered to attract nesting marsh birds. 

Alternative 4: Balanced Expanded Public Use and Habitat Management (Preferred 

A ltern ative) 

Alternative 4 would pursue both expanded public use and habitat management in a balanced 

approach that would seek to increase the benefits of the Refuge in all respects. Under Alternative 

4, Mingo NWR would increase opportunities for a number of recreational activities particularly 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and horseback riding. The bottomland forest would be 
actively managed and would slightly increase because of the conversion of some open marsh, 

grassy openings, cropland, and food plots. Efforts to improve drainage within the Refuge would 

be expanded above present levels to include more of the ditch network. Management of some 

units would be altered to attract nesting marsh birds. 

Pilot Knob NWR 

Alternative 1: Current Management Direction (No Action) 

Under current management direction, law enforcement activities at Pilot Knob NWR would 

remain infrequent. Public access would be limited to specific authorized visits associated with 

research, education, or historic interpretation. Repair and maintenance of fencing and boundary 

signs would continue. 

Alternative 2: Expanded Species Protection and Opportunities for the Public (Preferred 

A ltern ative) 

The preferred alternative for Pilot Knob includes increased community outreach to improve 

communication with local residents, seasonal guided public access to the summit of Pilot Knob, 

and developing a formal agreement with the Missouri Department of Conservation to share law 

enforcement duties. 

Ozark Cavefish NWR 

Alternative 1: Current Management Direction (No Action) 

Under current management direction, the Refuge would continue to provide protection to the 

surface outlet of Tumback Creek and Hearrell Springs. There would be no active habitat 

management on the Refuge, and it would continue to be closed to the public. Boundaries would 

be posted and maintained, but law enforcement inspections would be infrequent. 

Alternative 2: Expanded Species Protection and Opportunities for the Public (Preferred 

Alternative) 

The preferred alternative for Ozark Cavefish includes opening the Refuge to compatible wildlife 

dependent recreation, working with surrounding land owners to improve water quality, assessing 

and managing habitat, and developing a formal agreement with the Missouri Department of 

Conservation to share management activities at this remote site. 

The alternative selected for implementation is Alternative 4 for Mingo NWR, Alternative 2 for 

Pilot Knob NWR, and Alternative 2 for Ozark Cavefish NWR. The strategies presented in the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) were developed as a direct result of the selection of 

these alternatives. Managing and expanding bottomland hardwood forest will benefit a variety of 

wildlife species identified as Resource Conservation Priority species by the Service. Habitats will 

be managed for nesting and migrating water and land birds. Visitors to the Refuges also will 

benefit from expanded recreational opportunities, especially fishing, hunting, and wildlife 

observation. 

For reasons presented above and based on an evaluation of the information contained in the 

Environmental Assessment, we have determined that the action of adopting Alternative 4 for 

Mingo NWR, Alternative 2 for Pilot Knob NWR, and Alternative 2 for Ozark Cavefish NWR as 
the management alternatives is not a major federal action which would significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment, within the meaning of Section 102 (2)(c) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

Additional Reasons: 

1. Future management actions will have a neutral or positive impact on the local economy. 

2. A cultural resource inventory completed prior to this CCP included recommendations for 

the protection of cultural, archaeological and historical resources. 

3. This action will not have an adverse impact on threatened or endangered species. 

Supporting References: 

Environmental Assessment 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Regional Wirector Date 

Appendix B: Glossary

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

97

Appendix B: Glossary

Appendix B: Glossary

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

99

Appendix B: Glossary

Alternative

A set of objectives and strategies needed to 

achieve refuge goals and the desired future condition.

Biological Diversity

The variety of life forms and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic 

differences among them, and the communities 

and ecosystems in which they occur.

Compatible Use

A wildlife-dependent recreational use, or any 

other use on a refuge that will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of 

the mission of the Service or the purposes of the 

refuge.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

A document that describes the desired future 

conditions of the refuge, and specifies management actions to achieve refuge goals and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Cultural Resources

“Those parts of the physical environment -- natural and built -- that have cultural value to some 

kind of sociocultural group ... [and] those nonmaterial human social institutions....” Cultural 

resources include historic sites, archeological 

sites and associated artifacts, sacred sites, traditional cultural properties, cultural items (human 

remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and 

objects of cultural patrimony), and buildings and 

structures.

Ecosystem

A dynamic and interrelated complex of plant and 

animal communities and their associated non-living environment.

Ecosystem Approach

A strategy or plan to protect and restore the natural function, structure, and species composition 

of an ecosystem, recognizing that all components 

are interrelated.

Ecosystem Management

Management of an ecosystem that includes all 

ecological, social and economic components that 

make up the whole of the system.

Endangered Species

Any species of plant or animal defined through 

the Endangered Species Act as being in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and published in the Federal 

Register.

Environmental Assessment

A systematic analysis to determine if proposed 

actions would result in a significant effect on the 

quality of the environment.

Extirpation

The local extinction of a species that is no longer 

found in a locality or country, but exists elsewhere in the world.

Goals

Descriptive statements of desired future conditions.

Interjurisdictional Fish

Fish that occur in waters under the jurisdiction of 

one or more states, for which there is an interstate fishery management plan or which migrates 

between the waters under the jurisdiction of two 

or more states bordering on the Great Lakes.

Issue

Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision. For example, a resource management problem, concern, a threat to natural 

resources, a conflict in uses, or in the presence of 

an undesirable resource condition.

National Wildlife Refuge System

All lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as 

wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl production areas, and 

other areas for the protection and conservation of 

fish, wildlife and plant resources.
Appendix B: Glossary

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

100

Objectives

A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how 

much we want to achieve, when and where we want 

to achieve it, and who is responsible for the work. 

Objectives derive from goals and provide the basis 

for determining strategies, monitoring refuge 

accomplishments, and evaluating the success of 

strategies.

Preferred Alternative

The Service's selected alternative identified in 

the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Scoping

A process for determining the scope of issues to 

be addressed by a comprehensive conservation 

plan and for identifying the significant issues. 

Involved in the scoping process are federal, state 

and local agencies; private organizations; and 

individuals.

Species

A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable characteristics, and that can interbreed and produce young. A category of 

biological classification.

Strategies

A general approach or specific actions to achieve 

objectives.

Threatened Species

Those plant or animal species likely to become 

endangered species throughout all of or a significant portion of their range within the foreseeable 

future. A plant or animal identified and defined in 

accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species 

Act and published in the Federal Register.

Undertaking:

“A project, activity, or program funded in whole 

or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction 

of a Federal agency, including those carried out 

by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried 

out with Federal financial assistance; those 

requiring a Federal permit, license or 

approval...,” i.e., all Federal actions.

Vegetation

Plants in general, or the sum total of the plant life 

in an area.

Vegetation Type

A category of land based on potential or existing 

dominant plan species of a particular area.

Watershed

The entire land area that collects and drains 

water into a stream or stream system.

Wetland

Areas such as lakes, marshes, and streams that 

are inundated by surface or ground water for a 

long enough period of time each year to support, 

and that do support under natural conditions, 

plants and animals that require saturated or seasonally saturated soils.

Wildlife-dependent Recreational Use

A use of refuge that involves hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation, as identified 

in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Wildlife Diversity

A measure of the number of wildlife species in an 

area and their relative abundance.

Water Birds

This general category includes all birds that 

inhabit lakes, marshes, streams and other wetlands at some point during the year. The group 

includes all waterfowl, such as ducks, geese, and 

swans, and other birds such as loons, rails, 

cranes, herons, egrets, ibis, cormorants, pelicans, 

shorebirds and passerines that nest and rely on 

wetland vegetation. 
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

101

Appendix C: Species Lists

Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

103

Appendix C: Species Lists 

Mammal Species List, Mingo NWR 

Opossum Didelphis virginiana

Golden Mouse Ochrotomys nuttalli

Shorttail Shrew Blarina brevicauda

Hispid Cotton Rat Sigmodon hispidus

Least Shrew Cryptotis parva

Eastern Woodrat Neotoma floridana

Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus

Southern Bog Lemming Synaptomys cooperi

Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus

Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster

Eastern Red Bat Lasiurus borealis

Pine Vole Microtus pinetorum

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Swamp Rabbit Sylvilagus aquaticus

Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus

Woodchuck Marmota monax

House Mouse Mus musculus

Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus

Coyote Canis latrans

Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes

Eastern Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger

Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Southern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys volans

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Beaver Castar canadensis

Longtail Weasel Mustela frenata

Nutria Myocastar coypus

Mink Mustela vison

Rice Rat Mys palustris
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

104

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis

Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis

River Otter Lontra canadensis

Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

Bobcat Lynx rufus

White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus

White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus

Cotton Mouse Peromyscus gossypinus

Amphibian Species List, Mingo NWR

Smallmouth Salamander Ambystoma texanum

Mole Salamander Ambystoma talpoideum

Marbled Salamander Ambystoma opacum

Spotted Salamander Ambystoma maculatum

Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum

Red-backed Salamander Plethodon serratus

Slimy Salamander Plethodon albagula

Central Newt Notophthalmus viridescens louisianensis

Lesser Siren Siren intermedia

Amphiuma Amphiuma tridactylum

Blanchard’s Cricket Frog Acris crepitans blanchardi 

Northern Spring Peeper Pseudacris crucifer crucifer

Green Treefrog Hyla cinerea

Western Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata

Illinois Chorus Frog Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis

Gray Treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis/versicolor

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana

Southern Leopard Frog Rana sphenocephala

Pickerel Frog Rana palustris

Bronze Frog Rana clamitans clamitans

Green Frog Rana clamitans

American Toad Bufo americanus

Fowler’s Toad Bufo fowleri

Eastern Spadefoot Scaphiopus holbrookii

Eastern Narrow-mouthed Toad Gastrophryne carolinensis

Mammal Species List, Mingo NWR (Continued)
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

105

Reptile Species List, Mingo NWR 

Common Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina

Alligator Snapping Turtle Macroclemys temminckii

Mississippi Mud Turtle Kinosternon subrubrum hippocrepis

Three-toed Box Turtle Terrapene carolina triunguis

Southern Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta belli

Red-eared Slider Trachemys scripta

Cooter Pseudemys concinna/Chrysemys floridana complex

Western Chicken Turtle Deirochelys reticularia miaria

Spiney Softshell Apalone spiniferus spiniferus

Midland Smooth Softshell Apalone muticus muticus

Map Turtle Graptemys geographica

Mississippi Map Turtle Graptemys pseudogeographica kohnii

Fence Lizard Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus

Five-lined Skink Eumeces fasciatus

Ouachita Map Turtle Graptemys ouachitensis ouachitensis

Stinkpot Sternotherus odoratus

Green Water Snake Nerodia cyclopion

Diamondback Water Snake Nerodia rhombifer

Yellow-bellied Water Snake Nerodia erythrogaster flavigaster

Broad-banded Water Snake Nerodia fasciata confluens

Graham’s Water Snake Regina grahamii

Eastern Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis

Western Ribbon Snake Thamnophis proximus proximus

Eastern Hognose Snake Heterodon platirhinos

Mississippi Ringneck Snake Diadophis punctatus stictogenys

Western Worm Snake Carphophis vermis

Race Runner Cnemidophorus sexlineatus

Ground Skink Scincella lateralis

Western Mud Snake Farancia abacura reinwardtii

Southern Black Racer Coluber constrictor priapus

Black Rat Snake Elaphe obsoleta

Speckled King Snake Lampropeltis getula holbrooki

Red Milk Snake Lampropeltis triangulum syspila
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

106

Prairie King Snake Lampropeltis calligaster calligaster

Midland Brown Snake Storeria dekayi wrightorum

Northern Red-belly Snake Storeria occipitomaculata occipitomaculata

Rough Green Snake Opheodrys aestivus aestivus

Southern Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix contortrix

Western Cottonmouth Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma

Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus

Broad-headed skink Eumeces laticeps

Reptile Species List, Mingo NWR (Continued)

Fish Species List, Mingo NWR 

Flier Sunfish Centrarchus macropterus 

Banded Pygmy Sunfish Elassoma zonatum 

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 

Warmouth Sunfish Lepomis gulosus 

Orange-spotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis 

Bluegill Lepomis macropterus 

Dollar Sunfish Lepomis marginatus

Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis

Redear Sunfish Lepomis microlophus

Red-spotted Sunfish Lepomis miniatus

Bantam Sunfish Lepomis symmatricus 

Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 

White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

Bluntnose Darter Etheostoma chlorosomum

Slough Darter Etheostoma gracile

Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum 

Cypress Darter Etheostoma proeliare

Speckled Darter Etheostoma stigmaeum

Blackside Darter Percina maculata

Swamp Darter Etheostoma fusiforme

Pirate Perch Aphredoderus sayanus 
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

107

Black Bullhead Ictalurus melas 

Yellow Bullhead Ictalurus natalis 

Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 

Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctuatus 

Tadpole Madtom Noturus gyrinus 

Lake Chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta

Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 

Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyrinellus 

Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger

Spotted Sucker Minytrema melanops 

Black Redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei

Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurm

Largescale Stoneroller Campostoma oligolepis

Cental Stoneroller Campostoma pullum

Blacktail Shiner Cyprinella venusta

Carp Cyprinus carpio 

Ozark Minnow Notropis nubilus

Striped Shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus

Redfin Shiner Lythrurus umbratilis

Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 

Taillight Shiner Notropis maculatus

Weed Shiner Notropis texanus

Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus

Pallid Shiner Notropis amnis

Pugnose Minnow Opsopoedus emilae 

Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus

Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax

Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus

Bowfin Amia calva 

Spotted Gar Lepisosteus oculatus 

Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus

Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 

Alligator Gar Lepisosteus spatula 

Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens 

Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 

Fish Species List, Mingo NWR (Continued)
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

108

Grass Pickerel Esox americanus vermiculatus 

Chain Pickerel Esox niger 

Northern Studfish Fundulus catenatus

Black-stripe Topminnow Fundulus notatus 

Starhead Topminnow Fundulus dispar 

Black-spotted Topminnow Fundulus olivaceus 

Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 

Brook Silverside Labidesthes sicculus 

Fish Species List, Mingo NWR (Continued)

Bird Species List, Mingo NWR 

Name Breeding 

Status

Seasonal Abundance Special

Spring Summer Fall Winter Designation(s)

Pied-billed Grebe

Podilymbus podiceps

Documented 

Breeder

common rare common common

Horned Grebe

Podiceps auritus

rare - rare -

Eared Grebe

Podiceps nigricollis

rare - rare -

American White Pelican

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

rare - uncommon -

Double-crested Cormorant

Phalacrocorax auritus

rare - rare - Resource 

Conservation Priority

American Bittern

Botaurus lentiginosus

common rare rare - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Least Bittern

Ixobrychus exilis

rare rare rare - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Great Blue Heron

Ardea herodias

Documented

Breeder

common common common uncommon

Great Egret

Ardea alba

uncommon uncommon uncommon -

Snowy Egret

Egretta thula

rare rare - -

Little Blue Heron

Egretta caerulea

Documented

Breeder

common common common -

Cattle Egret

Bubulcus ibis

Documented

Breeder

common uncommon common -

Green Heron

Butorides virescens

Documented

Breeder

common abundant common rare

Black-crowned Night-Heron

Nycticorax nycticorax

Documented

Breeder

rare rare uncommon - Resource 

Conservation Priority
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

109

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron

Nyctanassa violacea

Documented

Breeder

common common uncommon -

White Ibis

Eudocimus albus

uncommon rare uncommon -

Tundra Swan

Cygnus columbianus

- - - rare

Trumpeter Swan

Cygnus buccinator

- - - rare Resource 

Conservation Priority

Greater White-fronted Goose

Anser albifrons

rare - uncommon rare

Snow Goose

Anser caerulescens

uncommon - uncommon uncommon Resource 

Conservation Priority

Canada Goose

Branta canadensis

Documented

Breeder

abundant uncommon abundant abundant Resource 

Conservation Priority

Wood Duck

Aix sponsa

Documented

Breeder

common common abundant common Resource 

Conservation Priority

Green-winged Teal

Anas crecca

common - common uncommon

American Black Duck

Anas rubripes

uncommon - uncommon uncommon Resource 

Conservation Priority

Mallard

Anas platyrhynchos

abundant rare abundant abundant Resource 

Conservation Priority

Northern Pintail

Anas acuta

common - common common Resource 

Conservation Priority

Blue-winged Teal

Anas discors

abundant - common uncommon Resource 

Conservation Priority

Northern Shoveler

Anas clypeata

common - common uncommon

Gadwall

Anas strepera

common - abundant uncommon

American Wigeon

Anas americana

common - common uncommon

Canvasback

Aythya valisineria

rare - rare rare Resource 

Conservation Priority

Redhead

Aythya americana

rare - rare rare

Ring-necked Duck

Aythya collaris

common - common common

Lesser Scaup

Aythya affinis

uncommon - uncommon uncommon Resource 

Conservation Priority

Common Goldeneye

Bucephala clangula

rare - rare rare

Bufflehead

Bucephala albeola

rare - rare rare

Hooded Merganser

Lophodytes cucullatus

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon uncommon common

Bird Species List, Mingo NWR (Continued)

Name Breeding 

Status

Seasonal Abundance Special

Spring Summer Fall Winter Designation(s)
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

110

Common Merganser

Mergus merganser

rare - rare rare

Red-breasted Merganser

Mergus serrator

rare - rare -

Ruddy Duck

Oxyura jamaicensis

- - rare rare

Black Vulture

Coragyps atratus

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon uncommon rare

Turkey Vulture*

Cathartes aura

Documented

Breeder

common common common uncommon

Osprey

Pandion haliaetus

rare - rare -

Mississippi Kite

Ictinia mississippiensis

Documented

Breeder

rare uncommon - -

Bald Eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Documented 

Breeder

uncommon rare common common Threatened;

Resource 

Conservation Priority

Northern Harrier

Circus cyaneus

uncommon - common common Resource 

Conservation Priority

Sharp-shinned Hawk

Accipiter striatus

Documented

Breeder

rare rare rare rare

Cooper's Hawk

Accipiter cooperii

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon

Northern Goshawk

Accipiter gentilis

- - rare rare Resource 

Conservation Priority

Red-shouldered Hawk

Buteo lineatus

Documented

Breeder

common common common common Resource 

Conservation Priority

Broad-winged Hawk

Buteo platypterus

rare rare rare rare

Red-tailed Hawk

Buteo jamaicensis

Documented

Breeder

common common common common

Rough-legged Hawk

Buteo lagopus

rare - rare uncommon

Golden Eagle

Aquila chrysaetos

rare - rare rare

American Kestrel

Falco sparverius

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon uncommon common

Merlin

Falco columbarius

rare rare rare

Peregrine Falcon

Falco peregrinus

rare - rare rare Resource 

Conservation Priority

Ring-necked Pheasant

Phasianus colchicus

rare rare rare rare

Wild Turkey

Meleagris gallopavo

Documented

Breeder

common common common common

Northern Bobwhite

Colinus virginianus

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon

Bird Species List, Mingo NWR (Continued)

Name Breeding 

Status

Seasonal Abundance Special

Spring Summer Fall Winter Designation(s)
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

111

Yellow Rail

Coturnicops noveboracensis

rare rare - - Resource 

Conservation Priority

King Rail

Rallus elegans

rare rare - - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Virginia Rail

Rallus limicola

uncommon - uncommon -

Sora

Porzana carolina

common - common -

Purple Gallinule

Porphyrio martinicus

- rare - -

Common Moorhen

Gallinula chloropus

rare rare - - Resource 

Conservation Priority

American Coot

Fulica americana

common rare abundant common

Sandhill Crane

Grus canadensis

rare rare

American Golden-Plover

Pluvialis dominica

rare - - -

Semipalmated Plover

Charadrius semipalmatus

rare rare rare -

Killdeer

Charadrius vociferus

Documented

Breeder

common common common uncommon

American Avocet

Recurvirostra americana

rare rare rare

Greater Yellowlegs

Tringa melanoleuca

Does not 

breed

uncommon uncommon uncommon - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Lesser Yellowlegs

Tringa flavipes

Does not 

breed

common common common -

Solitary Sandpiper

Tringa solitaria

Does not 

breed

common common rare -

Willet

Catoptrophorus 

semipalmatus

rare rare rare

Spotted Sandpiper

Tringa macularia

Documented

Breeder

uncommon common rare -

Upland Sandpiper

Bartramia longicauda

Does not 

breed

rare - rare - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Sanderling

Calidris alba

Does not 

breed

rare - rare -

Semipalmated Sandpiper

Calidris pusilla

Does not 

breed

uncommon uncommon rare -

Least Sandpiper

Calidris minutilla

Does not 

breed

uncommon uncommon uncommon -

White-rumped Sandpiper

Calidris fuscicollis

Does not 

breed

rare - - -

Western Sandpiper

Calidris mauri

Does not 

breed

rare - rare -

Bird Species List, Mingo NWR (Continued)

Name Breeding 

Status

Seasonal Abundance Special

Spring Summer Fall Winter Designation(s)
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

112

Baird's Sandpiper

Calidris bairdii

- - rare -

Pectoral Sandpiper

Calidris melanotos

Does not 

breed

common common common -

Dunlin

Calidris alpina

Does not 

breed

uncommon - uncommon -

Stilt Sandpiper

Micropalama himantopus

Does not 

breed

uncommon rare uncommon - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Dowitcher Spp. uncommon rare uncommon -

Common Snipe

Gallinago gallinago

Does not 

breed

common rare common rare

American Woodcock

Scolopax minor

common rare common rare Resource 

Conservation Priority

Wilson's Phalarope

Steganopus tricolor

uncommon - uncommon - Resource

Conservation

Priority

Franklin's Gull

Larus pipixcan

rare

Ring-billed Gull

Larus delawarensis

uncommon - uncommon uncommon

Herring Gull

Larus argentatus

uncommon - uncommon uncommon

Caspian Tern

Sterna caspia

rare rare

Common Tern

Sterna hirundo

uncommon - - - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Forster's Tern

Sterna forsteri

uncommon - - - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Least Tern

Sterna antillarum

rare rare Endangered;

Resource 

Conservation Priority

Black Tern

Chlidonias niger

uncommon rare rare - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Rock Dove

Columba livia

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon

Mourning Dove

Zenaida macroura

Documented

Breeder

abundant abundant abundant common

Black-billed Cuckoo

Coccyzus erythropthalmus

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon - - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus

Documented

Breeder

abundant abundant uncommon -

Barn Owl

Tyto alba

Documented

Breeder

rare rare rare rare Resource 

Conservation Priority

Eastern Screech-Owl

Otus asio

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon

Bird Species List, Mingo NWR (Continued)

Name Breeding 

Status

Seasonal Abundance Special

Spring Summer Fall Winter Designation(s)
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

113

Great Horned Owl

Bubo virginianus

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon

Barred Owl

Strix varia

Documented

Breeder

common common common common

Short-eared Owl

Asio flammeus

rare - rare rare Resource 

Conservation Priority

Long-eared Owl

Asio otus

rare - - rare Resource 

Conservation Priority

Northern Saw-whet Owl

Aegolius acadicus

- - - rare

Common Nighthawk

Chordeiles minor

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon - -

Chuck-will's-widow

Caprimulgus carolinensis

Documented

Breeder

common common - - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Whip-poor-will

Caprimulgus vociferus

Documented

Breeder

common common - - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Chimney Swift

Chaetura pelagica

Documented

Breeder

common common uncommon -

Ruby-throated 

Hummingbird

Archilochus colubris

Documented

Breeder

common common uncommon -

Belted Kingfisher

Ceryle alcyon

Documented

Breeder

common common uncommon uncommon

Red-headed Woodpecker

Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Documented

Breeder

common common abundant abundant Resource 

Conservation Priority

Red-bellied Woodpecker

Melanerpes carolinus

Documented

Breeder

common common common common

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Sphyrapicus varius

uncommon - uncommon uncommon

Downy Woodpecker

Picoides pubescens

Documented

Breeder

common common common common

Hairy Woodpecker

Picoides villosus

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon

Pileated Woodpecker

Dryocopus pileatus

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon

Northern Flicker 

Colaptes auratus

Documented

Breeder

common common common abundant Resource 

Conservation Priority

Olive-sided Flycatcher

Contopus cooperi

uncommon uncommon - - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Eastern Wood-Pewee

Contopus virens

Documented

Breeder

common common - -

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher

Empidonax flaviventris

rare rare -

Acadian Flycatcher

Empidonax virescens

Documented

Breeder

common common - - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Alder Flycatcher

Empidonax alnorum

Does not 

breed

uncommon uncommon - -

Bird Species List, Mingo NWR (Continued)

Name Breeding 

Status

Seasonal Abundance Special

Spring Summer Fall Winter Designation(s)
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

114

Willow Flycatcher

Empidonax traillii

Does not 

breed

uncommon uncommon - -

Least Flycatcher

Empidonax minimus

Does not 

breed

uncommon uncommon - -

Eastern Phoebe

Sayornis phoebe

Documented

Breeder

common common rare rare

Great Crested Flycatcher

Myiarchus crinitus

Documented

Breeder

common common - -

Eastern Kingbird

Tyrannus tyrannus

Documented

Breeder

common common - -

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher

Tyrannus forficatus

rare rare rare

Horned Lark

Eremophila alpestris

Documented

Breeder

common uncommon uncommon common

Purple Martin

Progne subis

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon - -

Tree Swallow

Tachycineta bicolor

Documented

Breeder

abundant abundant uncommon -

Northern Rough-winged 

Swallow

Stelgidopteryx serripennis

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon - -

Bank Swallow

Riparia riparia

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon - -

Cliff Swallow

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

Documented

Breeder

rare rare - -

Barn Swallow

Hirundo rustica

Documented

Breeder

common common - -

Blue Jay

Cyanocitta cristata

Documented

Breeder

common common common common

American Crow

Corvus brachyrhynchos

Documented

Breeder

common common common abundant

Fish Crow

Corvus ossifragus

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon uncommon rare

Black-capped Chickadee

Poecile atricapillus

- - - uncommon

Carolina Chickadee

Poecile carolinensis

Documented

Breeder

common common common common

Tufted Titmouse

Baeolophus bicolor

Documented

Breeder

common common common common

Red-breasted Nuthatch

Sitta canadensis

- - - rare

White-breasted Nuthatch

Sitta carolinensis

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon common common

Brown Creeper

Certhia americana

uncommon - uncommon uncommon

Carolina Wren

Thryothorus ludovicianus

Documented

Breeder

common common common common

Bird Species List, Mingo NWR (Continued)

Name Breeding 

Status

Seasonal Abundance Special

Spring Summer Fall Winter Designation(s)
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

115

Bewick's Wren

Thryomanes bewickii

Documented

Breeder

rare rare rare rare Resource 

Conservation Priority

House Wren

Troglodytes aedon

Documented

Breeder

common common common -

Winter Wren

Troglodytes troglodytes

common - common common

Sedge Wren

Cistothorus platensis

Documented

Breeder

rare rare rare rare Resource 

Conservation Priority

Marsh Wren

Cistothorus palustris

uncommon - rare rare

Golden-crowned Kinglet

Regulus satrapa

uncommon - common common

Ruby-crowned Kinglet

Regulus calendula

uncommon - uncommon rare

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher

Polioptila caerulea

Documented

Breeder

abundant abundant uncommon -

Eastern Bluebird

Sialia sialis

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon

Veery

Catharus fuscescens

rare - rare -

Gray-cheeked Thrush

Catharus minimus

uncommon - uncommon -

Swainson's Thrush

Catharus ustulatus

uncommon - uncommon -

Hermit Thrush

Catharus guttatus

common - common uncommon

Wood Thrush

Catharus mustelinus

Documented

Breeder

common common common - Resource 

Conservation Priority

American Robin

Turdus migratorius

Documented

Breeder

common common common common

Gray Catbird

Dumetella carolinensis

Documented

Breeder

common common common rare

Northern Mockingbird

Mimus polyglottos

Documented

Breeder

common common common common

Brown Thrasher

Toxostoma rufum

Documented

Breeder

common common common uncommon

Cedar Waxwing

Bombycilla cedrorum

uncommon - uncommon uncommon

Loggerhead Shrike

Lanius ludovicianus

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon Resource 

Conservation Priority

European Starling

Sturnus vulgaris

Documented

Breeder

abundant common abundant abundant

White-eyed Vireo

Vireo griseus

Documented

Breeder

common common - -

Bell's Vireo

Vireo bellii

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon - - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Bird Species List, Mingo NWR (Continued)

Name Breeding 

Status

Seasonal Abundance Special

Spring Summer Fall Winter Designation(s)
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

116

Blue-headed Vireo

Vireo solitarius

uncommon - uncommon rare

Yellow-throated Vireo

Vireo flavifrons

Documented

Breeder

common common uncommon -

Warbling Vireo

Vireo gilvus

Documented

Breeder

common common uncommon -

Philadelphia Vireo

Vireo philadelphicus

rare - rare -

Red-eyed Vireo

Vireo olivaceus

Documented

Breeder

common common uncommon -

Blue-winged Warbler

Vermivora pinus

uncommon - rare - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Golden-winged Warbler

Vermivora chrysoptera

rare - rare - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Tennessee Warbler

Vermivora peregrina

uncommon - uncommon -

Orange-crowned Warbler

Vermivora celata

uncommon - uncommon rare

Nashville Warbler

Vermivora ruficapilla

common - uncommon -

Northern Parula

Parula americana

Documented

Breeder

common common uncommon -

Yellow Warbler

Dendroica petechia

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon uncommon -

Chestnut-sided Warbler

Dendroica pensylvanica

uncommon - uncommon -

Magnolia Warbler

Dendroica magnolia

uncommon - uncommon -

Cape May Warbler

Dendroica tigrina

rare - - - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Black-throated Blue Warbler

Dendroica caerulescens

uncommon - uncommon - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Yellow-rumped Warbler

Dendroica coronata

common - common uncommon

Black-throated Green 

Warbler

Dendroica virens

common - uncommon -

Blackburnian Warbler

Dendroica fusca

Does not 

breed

uncommon rare uncommon -

Yellow-throated Warbler

Dendroica dominica

common uncommon - -

Pine Warbler

Dendroica pinus

uncommon rare rare -

Prairie Warbler

Dendroica discolor

uncommon uncommon - - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Palm Warbler

Dendroica palmarum

uncommon - uncommon -

Bird Species List, Mingo NWR (Continued)

Name Breeding 

Status

Seasonal Abundance Special

Spring Summer Fall Winter Designation(s)
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

117

Bay-breasted Warbler

Dendroica castanea

uncommon - - -

Blackpoll Warbler

Dendroica striata

uncommon - uncommon -

Cerulean Warbler

Dendroica cerulea

uncommon uncommon - - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Black-and-white Warbler

Mniotilta varia

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon uncommon -

American Redstart

Setophaga ruticilla

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon uncommon -

Prothonotary Warbler

Protonotaria citrea

Documented

Breeder

common common uncommon - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Worm-eating Warbler

Helmitheros vermivorus

uncommon uncommon - - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Swainson's Warbler

Limnothlypis swainsonii

rare rare - - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Ovenbird

Seiurus aurocapillus

common uncommon uncommon -

Northern Waterthrush

Seiurus noveboracensis

Does not 

breed

common uncommon - -

Louisiana Waterthrush

Seiurus motacilla

Documented

Breeder

common uncommon uncommon - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Kentucky Warbler

Oporornis formosus

Documented

Breeder

common common uncommon - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Mourning Warbler

Oporornis philadelphia

uncommon - uncommon -

Common Yellowthroat

Geothlypis trichas

Documented

Breeder

common common common rare

Hooded Warbler

Wilsonia citrina

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon - -

Wilson's Warbler

Wilsonia pusilla

uncommon - uncommon -

Canada Warbler

Wilsonia canadensis

uncommon - uncommon - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Yellow-breasted Chat

Icteria virens

Documented

Breeder

common common uncommon -

Summer Tanager

Piranga rubra

Documented

Breeder

common common uncommon -

Scarlet Tanager

Piranga olivacea

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon uncommon -

Northern Cardinal

Cardinalis cardinalis

Documented

Breeder

abundant abundant abundant abundant

Rose-breasted Grosbeak

Pheucticus ludovicianus

Documented

Breeder

common rare uncommon -

Blue Grosbeak

Guiraca caerulea

uncommon rare - -

Bird Species List, Mingo NWR (Continued)

Name Breeding 

Status

Seasonal Abundance Special

Spring Summer Fall Winter Designation(s)
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

118

Indigo Bunting

Passerina cyanea

Documented

Breeder

abundant abundant common -

Dickcissel

Spiza americana

Documented

Breeder

common common - - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Eastern Towhee

Pipilo erythrophthalmus

Documented

Breeder

common common common uncommon

American Tree Sparrow

Spizella arborea

rare - rare common

Chipping Sparrow

Spizella passerina

Documented

Breeder

common common uncommon rare

Field Sparrow

Spizella pusilla

Documented

Breeder

common common uncommon uncommon Resource 

Conservation Priority

Vesper Sparrow

Pooecetes gramineus

uncommon - uncommon rare

Lark Sparrow

Chondestes grammacus

uncommon rare rare -

Savannah Sparrow

Passerculus sandwichensis

common - common rare

Grasshopper Sparrow

Ammodramus savannarum

uncommon uncommon uncommon - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Henslow’s Sparrow

Ammodramus henslowii

rare rare Resource 

Conservation Priority

Le Conte's Sparrow

Ammodramus leconteii

rare - - rare Resource 

Conservation Priority

Fox Sparrow

Passerella iliaca

uncommon - uncommon uncommon

Song Sparrow

Melospiza melodia

Documented

Breeder

common common common common

Lincoln's Sparrow

Melospiza lincolnii

rare - rare rare

Swamp Sparrow

Melospiza georgiana

common - common common

White-throated Sparrow

Zonotrichia albicollis

common - common abundant

White-crowned Sparrow

Zonotrichia leucophrys

common - common common

Harris's Sparrow

Zonotrichia querula

- - - rare

Dark-eyed Junco

Junco hyemalis

uncommon - uncommon abundant

Lapland Longspur

Calcarius lapponicus

- - - rare

Bobolink

Dolichonyx oryzivorus

rare - rare - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Red-winged Blackbird

Agelaius phoeniceus

Documented

Breeder

abundant abundant abundant abundant

Bird Species List, Mingo NWR (Continued)

Name Breeding 

Status

Seasonal Abundance Special

Spring Summer Fall Winter Designation(s)
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

119

Eastern Meadowlark

Sturnella magna

Documented

Breeder

common common common common Resource 

Conservation Priority

Western Meadowlark

Sturnella neglecta

rare rare rare Resource 

Conservation Priority

Yellow-headed Blackbird

Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus

rare rare

Rusty Blackbird

Euphagus carolinus

uncommon - uncommon common Resource 

Conservation Priority

Brewer's Blackbird

Euphagus cyanocephalus

rare - rare uncommon

Common Grackle

Quiscalus quiscula

Documented

Breeder

common common common abundant

Brown-headed Cowbird

Molothrus ater

Documented

Breeder

common common common uncommon

Orchard Oriole

Icterus spurius

Documented

Breeder

common common - - Resource 

Conservation Priority

Baltimore Oriole

Icterus galbula

Documented

Breeder

uncommon uncommon - -

Purple Finch

Carpodacus purpureus

uncommon - uncommon uncommon

Red Crossbill

Loxia curvirostra

rare rare rare

Pine Siskin

Carduelis pinus

rare - rare rare

American Goldfinch

Carduelis tristis

Documented

Breeder

common common common common

Evening Grosbeak

Coccothraustes vespertinus

- - - rare

House Sparrow

Passer domesticus

Documented

Breeder

common common common common

Western Grebe

Aechmophorus occidentalis

Casual

Anhinga

Anhinga anhinga

Casual

Tricolored Heron

Egretta tricolor

Casual

Glossy Ibis

Plegadis falcinellus

Casual

Roseate Spoonbill

Ajaia ajaja

Casual

Wood Stork

Mycteria americana

Casual

Fulvous Whistling-Duck

Dendrocygna bicolor

Casual

Mute Swan

Cygnus olor

Casual

Bird Species List, Mingo NWR (Continued)

Name Breeding 

Status

Seasonal Abundance Special

Spring Summer Fall Winter Designation(s)
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

120

Ross's Goose

Chen rossii

Casual

Brant

Branta bernicla

Casual

Cinnamon Teal

Anas cyanoptera

Casual

Greater Scaup

Aythya marila

Casual

Long-tailed Duck

Clangula hyemalis

Casual

White-winged Scoter

Melanitta fusca

Casual

Black Scoter

Melanitta nigra

Casual

Swainson's Hawk

Buteo swainsoni

Casual Resource 

Conservation Priority

Prairie Falcon

Falco mexicanus

Casual

Gyrfalcon

Falco rusticolus

Casual

Whooping Crane

Grus americana

Casual Resource 

Conservation Priority

Snowy Owl

Nyctea scandiaca

Casual

Nelson's Sharp-tailed 

Sparrow

Ammodramus nelsoni

Casual

White-winged Crossbill

Loxia leucoptera

Casual

Bird Species List, Mingo NWR (Continued)

Name Breeding 

Status

Seasonal Abundance Special

Spring Summer Fall Winter Designation(s)
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

121

Tree and Shrub Species List, Mingo NWR 

White Pine Pinus strobes

Shortleaf Pine Pinus echinata

Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum

Eastern Redcedar Juniperus virginiana

Black Willow Salix nigra

Ward's Willow Salix caroliniana

Swamp Cottonwood Populus heterophylla

Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides

Black Walnut Juglans nigra

Butternut Juglans cinerea

Water Hickory Carya aquatica

Bitter-nut Hickory Carya cordiformis

Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata

Big Shellbark Hickory Carya laciniosa

Pignut Hickory Carya glabra var. glabra

American Hazelnut Corylus americana

American Hop-Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana

American Hornbeam Carpinus caroliniana

River Birch Betula nigra

Chinese Chestnut Castanea mollissima

White Oak Quercus alba

Post Oak Quercus stellata

Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata

Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa

Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor

Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii

Shingle Oak Quercus imbricaria

Willow Oak Quercus phellos

Water Oak Quercus nigra

Blackjack Oak Quercus marilandica

Cherry-bark Oak Quercus pagoda
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

122

Black Oak Quercus velutina

Scarlet Oak Quercus coccinea

Shumard Oak Quercus shumardii

Pin Oak Quercus palustris

Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra

American Elm Ulmus americana

Winged Elm Ulmus alata

Slippery Elm Ulmus rubra

Planer Tree Planera aquatica

Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis

Sugarberry Celtis laevigata

Red Mulberry Morus rubra

Osage Orange Maclura pomifera

Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera

Pawpaw Asimina triloba

Sassafras Sassafras albidum

Spicebush Lindera benzoin

Kentucky Coffee Tree Gymnocladus dioicus

Honey-Locust Gleditsia triacanthos

Water-Locust Gleditsia aquatica

Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis

False Indigo Amorpha fruticosa

Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia

Sweet gum Liquidambar styraciflua

Sycamore Platanus occidentalis

Green Hawthorn Crataegus viridis

Wild Plum Prunus americana

Wild Black Cherry Prunus serotina

Common Hoptree Ptelea trifoliata

Smooth Sumac Rhus glabra

Winged Sumac Rhus copallinum

Tree and Shrub Species List, Mingo NWR (Continued)
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

123

Deciduous Holly Ilex decidua

Wahoo Euonymus atropurpureus

American Bladdernut Staphylea trifolia

Sugar Maple Acer saccharum

Swamp Red Maple (Drummond) Acer rubrum var. drummondii

Silver Maple Acer saccharinum

Box elder Acer negundo

Ohio Buckeye Aesculus glabra

Red Buckeye Aesculus pavia

Carolina Buckthorn Frangula caroliniana

American Basswood Tilia americana

Devil's Walkingstick Aralia spinosa

Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida

Stiff Dogwood Cornus foemina

Water-Tupelo Nyssa aquatica

Swamp Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora

Persimmon Diospyros virginiana

White Ash Fraxinus americana

Pumpkin Ash Fraxinus profunda

Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Swamp Privet Forestiera acuminata

Buttonbush Conhalanthus occidentalis

American Elder Sambucus canadensis

Southern Red Oak Quercus falcata

Tree and Shrub Species List, Mingo NWR (Continued)
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

124

Pilot Knob NWR Species List 

Birds Documented at Pilot Knob NWR

Common Name Scientific Name

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

Northern Parula Parula americana

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus

Barred Owl Strix varia

Red-bellied Woodpecker Centurus carolinus

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Brown Creeper Certhia americana

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis

Carolina Chickadee Parus carolinensis

American Robin Turdus migratorius

Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea

Summer Tanager Piranga rubra

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum

Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis

Whip-Poor-Will Caprimulgus vociferous

Eastern Wood-pewee Contopus virens

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis

Great-crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus

Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

125

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura

Wood-warblers Various Species

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens

Birds Documented at Pilot Knob NWR

Mammals Documented or Suspected to Occur at Pilot Knob NWR

Common Name Scientific Name

13 Lined Ground Squirrel Spermophilus tridecemlineatus

Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus

Eastern Wood Rat Neotoma floridana

Opossum Didelphis marsupialis

Bobcat Lynx rufus

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis

Coyote Canis latrans

Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis

Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

Whitetail Deer Odocoileus virginianus

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus

Woodchuck Marmota monax

Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis

Gray Bat Myotis grisescens

Big Eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii

Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus
Appendix C: Species Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

126

Amphibians and Reptiles Documented at Pilot Knob NWR

Common Name Scientific Name

Black Rat Snake Elaphe obsoleta 

Mole Salamander Ambystoma talpoideum

Box Turtle Terrapene carolina

Ribbon Snake Thamnophis sauritus

Broad Headed Skink Eumeces laticeps

Ringneck Snake Diadophis punctatus

Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix

Speckled Kingsnake Lampropeltis getula holbrooki

Five-lined Skink Eumeces fasciatus

Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum

Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis

Toads Various Species

Green Treefrog Hyla cinerea

Upland Chorus Frog Pseudacris feriarum feriarum
Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

127

Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations

Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

129

Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations

In accordance with the Refuge Improvement Act of 

1997, no uses for which the Service has authority to 

regulate may be allowed on a unit of Refuge System 

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 National Wildlife Refuge System 

mission or the purposes of the national wildlife 

refuge. Managers must complete a written 

compatibility determination for each use, or 

collection of like-uses, that is signed by the manager 

and the Regional Chief of Refuges in the respective 

Service region. 

Draft compatibility determinations were included in 

the Draft CCP to allow public review and comment. 

The following compatibility determinations have 

had public review. Copies of the signed documents 

are available for viewing at Mingo NWR 

Headquarters:

# Hunting 

# Fishing 

# Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography 

# Environmental Education

# Interpretation and Special Events

# Boating, Canoeing and Kayaking

# Horseback Riding, Recreational Biking, Hiking 

and Jogging

# Firewood Harvest 

# Gather Wild Edibles: Berry, Mushroom, 

Pokeweed 

# Research by a Third Party 

# Farming 

# Haying 

The following compatibility determinations for 

Ozark Cavefish NWR have had public review. 

Copies of the signed documents are available for 

viewing at Mingo NWR Headquarters:

# Wildlife Observation, Photography, 

Interpretation, and Environmental Education 

# Fishing

# Hunting 

# Research by a Third Party

 The following compatibility determinations for 

Pilot Knob NWR have had public review. Copies of 

the signed documents are available for viewing at 

Mingo NWR Headquarters.

# Environmental Education, Wildlife 

Observation, Photography and Interpretation 

# Research by a Third Party 

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

131

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

133

Appendix E / Compliance Requirements

Rivers and Harbor Act (1899) (33 U.S.C. 403)

Section 10 of this Act requires the authorization 

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to 

any work in, on, over, or under a navigable water 

of the United States.

Antiquities Act (1906)

Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on Federal land and provides penalties for 

unauthorized removal of objects taken or collected without a permit.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)

Designates the protection of migratory birds as a 

Federal responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations including 

the closing of areas, Federal or non Federal, to 

the hunting of migratory birds.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929)

Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934), as amended

Requires that the Fish and Wildlife Service and 

State fish and wildlife agencies be consulted 

whenever water is to be impounded, diverted or 

modified under a Federal permit or license. The 

Service and State agency recommend measures 

to prevent the loss of biological resources, or to 

mitigate or compensate for the damage. The 

project proponent must take biological resource 

values into account and adopt justifiable protection measures to obtain maximum overall project 

benefits. A 1958 amendment added provisions to 

recognize the vital contribution of wildlife 

resources to the Nation and to require equal consideration and coordination of wildlife conservation with other water resources development 

programs. It also authorized the Secretary of 

Interior to provide public fishing areas and 

accept donations of lands and funds.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act 

(1934)

Authorized the opening of part of a refuge to 

waterfowl hunting.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (1935), as 

amended

Declares it a national policy to preserve historic 

sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. Provides procedures 

for designation, acquisition, administration, and 

protection of such sites.

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (1935), as amended:

 Requires revenue sharing provisions to all feetitle ownerships that are administered solely or 

primarily by the Secretary through the Service.

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act (1948)

Provides that upon a determination by the 

Administrator of the General Services Administration, real property no longer needed by a Federal agency can be transferred without 

reimbursement to the Secretary of Interior if the 

land has particular value for migratory birds, or 

to a State agency for other wildlife conservation 

purposes.

Federal Records Act (1950)

Directs the preservation of evidence of the government's organization, functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic 

historical and other information.

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)

Established a comprehensive national fish and 

wildlife policy and broadened the authority for 

acquisition and development of refuges.

Refuge Recreation Act (1962)

Allows the use of refuges for recreation when 

such uses are compatible with the refuge's primary purposes and when sufficient funds are 

available to manage the uses.
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

134

Wilderness Act (1964), as amended

Directed the Secretary of Interior, within 10 

years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or 

more acres and every roadless island (regardless 

of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and 

National Park Systems and to recommend to the 

President the suitability of each such area or 

island for inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System, with final decisions made 

by Congress. The Secretary of Agriculture was 

directed to study and recommend suitable areas 

in the National Forest System.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965):

 Uses the receipts from the sale of surplus Federal land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, 

and other sources for land acquisition under several authorities.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

(1966), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (1997)16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee. (Refuge Administration Act)

Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and 

authorizes the Secretary to permit any use of a 

refuge provided such use is compatible with the 

major purposes for which the refuge was established. The Refuge Improvement Act clearly 

defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; 

establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of 

the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation); establishes a 

formal process for determining compatibility; 

established the responsibilities of the Secretary 

of Interior for managing and protecting the System; and requires a Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act 

amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act 

and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as amended:

Establishes as policy that the Federal Government is to provide leadership in the preservation 

of the nation's prehistoric and historic resources.

Architectural Barriers Act (1968)

Requires federally owned, leased, or funded 

buildings and facilities to be accessible to persons 

with disabilities.

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)

Requires the disclosure of the environmental 

impacts of any major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment.

Uniform Relocation and Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act (1970), as amended:

 Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of 

persons who sell their homes, businesses, or 

farms to the Service. The Act requires that any 

purchase offer be no less than the fair market 

value of the property.

Endangered Species Act (1973)

Requires all Federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of endangered and 

threatened species.

Rehabilitation Act (1973)

Requires programmatic accessibility in addition 

to physical accessibility for all facilities and programs funded by the Federal government to 

ensure that anybody can participate in any program.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974)

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological data in Federal construction projects.

Clean Water Act (1977)

Requires consultation with the Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major wetland modifications.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (1977) as 

amended (Public Law 95-87) (SMCRA)

Regulates surface mining activities and reclamation of coal-mined lands. Further regulates the 

coal industry by designating certain areas as 

unsuitable for coal mining operations.

Executive Order 11988 (1977)

Each Federal agency shall provide leadership 

and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss 

and minimize the impact of floods on human 

safety, and preserve the natural and beneficial 

values served by the floodplains.

Executive Order 11990

Executive Order 11990 directs Federal agencies 

to (1) minimize destruction, loss, or degradation 

of wetlands and (2) preserve and enhance the nat-
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

135

ural and beneficial values of wetlands when a 

practical alternative exists.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of 

Federal Programs)

Directs the Service to send copies of the Environmental Assessment to State Planning Agencies 

for review.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)

Directs agencies to consult with native traditional 

religious leaders to determine appropriate policy 

changes necessary to protect and preserve 

Native American religious cultural rights and 

practices.

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act (1978)

 Improves the administration of fish and wildlife 

programs and amends several earlier laws including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and 

the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes 

the Secretary to accept gifts and bequests of real 

and personal property on behalf of the United 

States. It also authorizes the use of volunteers on 

Service projects and appropriations to carry out 

a volunteer program.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), as 

amended

Protects materials of archaeological interest from 

unauthorized removal or destruction and 

requires Federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources.

Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (1981), as 

amended

Minimizes the extent to which Federal programs 

contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible 

conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986)

Promotes the conservation of migratory waterfowl and offsets or prevents the serious loss of 

wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands and other 

essential habitats. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990)

Requires the use of integrated management systems to control or contain undesirable plant species, and an interdisciplinary approach with the 

cooperation of other Federal and State agencies.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (1990)

Requires Federal agencies and museums to 

inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession.

Americans With Disabilities Act (1992)

Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and services.

Executive Order 12898 (1994)

Establishes environmental justice as a Federal 

government priority and directs all Federal agencies to make environmental justice part of their 

mission. Environmental justice calls for fair distribution of environmental hazards.

Executive Order 12996 Management and General Public 

Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1996)

Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public 

uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It 

also presents four principles to guide management of the System.

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996)

Directs Federal land management agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of 

Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, 

maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

(1997)

Considered the “Organic Act of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Defines the mission of 

the System, designates priority wildlife-dependent public uses, and calls for comprehensive refuge planning.

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act (1998)

Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to promote volunteer programs and community partnerships for the benefit of national wildlife 

refuges, and for other purposes.

National Trails System Act

Assigns responsibility to the Secretary of Interior and thus the Service to protect the historic 

and recreational values of congressionally designated National Historic Trail sites. 
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

136

Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 

2001 (Public Law 106-554)

In December 2002, Congress required federal 

agencies to publish their own guidelines for 

ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, 

utility, and integrity of information that they disseminate to the public (44 U.S.C. 3502). The 

amended language is included in Section 515(a). 

The Office of Budget and Management (OMB) 

directed agencies to develop their own guidelines 

to address the requirements of the law. The 

Department of the Interior instructed bureaus to 

prepare separate guidelines on how they would 

apply the Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

has developed “Information Quality Guidelines” 

to address the law.

Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997, Section 6, requires the Service to make 

a determination of compatibility of existing, new and 

changing uses of Refuge land; and Section 7 

requires the Service to identify and describe the 

archaeological and cultural values of the refuge.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 

Section 106, requires Federal agencies to consider 

impacts their undertakings could have on historic 

properties; Section 110 requires Federal agencies to 

manage historic properties, e.g., to document historic properties prior to destruction or damage; Section 101 requires Federal agencies consider Indian 

tribal values in historic preservation programs, and 

requires each Federal agency to establish a program leading to inventory of all historic properties 

on its land.

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 

1979 (ARPA) prohibits unauthorized disturbance of 

archeological resources on Federal and Indian land; 

and other matters. Section 10 requires establishing 

“a program to increase public awareness” of archeological resources. Section 14 requires plans to survey lands and a schedule for surveying lands with 

“the most scientifically valuable archaeological 

resources.” This Act requires protection of all archeological sites more than 100 years old (not just sites 

meeting the criteria for the National Register) on 

Federal land, and requires archeological investigations on Federal land be performed in the public 

interest by qualified persons.

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) imposes serious 

delays on a project when human remains or other 

cultural items are encountered in the absence of a 

plan.

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

(AIRFA) iterates the right of Native Americans to 

free exercise of traditional religions and use of 

sacred places.

EO 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996), directs Federal agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use, to avoid adverse effects and avoid blocking 

access, and to enter into early consultation.
Appendix F: Refuge Operating Needs System and Maintenance Management System

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

137

Appendix F: Refuge Operating Needs System 

and Maintenance Management System

Appendix F: Refuge Operating Needs System and Maintenance Management System

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

139

Appendix F: Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance 

Management System (MMS) Priorities

Refuge Operating Needs System Projects

Project 

Number

Project

Title

Estimated 

Cost

($1,000s)

00003 Investigate mercury levels in the Mingo ecosystem 54

00007 Improve volunteer program by providing bunkhouse 170

98006 Monitoring of Mingo NWR reptiles and amphibians 74

99001 Enhance Visitor Services by providing information 24

03002 Design and implement effective kiosks, directional signs, and outdoor interpretive 

panels

28

03004 Provide fishing opportunities for mobility impaired visitors 129

03005 Develop and implement a Watchable Wildlife nature trail 37

03006 Improve marsh and moist soil access for management and wildlife observation 27

03007 Provide shelter for visitors utilizing boardwalk 25

03009 Construct an environmental education classroom 65

98003 Expand the Refuge biological program 114

98010 Inventory biological features of the Class I Wilderness Area on Mingo 31

98011 Compile biotic inventory for sensitive species occurring in the Wilderness Area of 

Mingo NWR

27

98012 Monitoring of dry and wet deposition in the Class I Wilderness Area of Mingo NWR 51

98014 Install optical monitoring equipment in the Wilderness Area of Mingo NWR 63

98017 Install automatic gates to protect closed area resources 36

98019 Increase management capabilities through implementation of a Geographical 

Information System

170

98020 Conduct swamp rabbit survey 26

98021 Reestablish the boundary along the west side of the Mingo NWR 36

98022 Create and install an interactive computer station at the Visitor Center 29

00002 Ensure visitor and resource protection of Mingo NWR 136

01005 Transition of 1,000 acres of fescue pasture to native prairie 75

01006 Preserve the ecological health and integrity of Mingo NWR by removing exotic and 

invasive species

40

01009 Improve and enhance public use program 30

01012 Organize public use supplies and materials for easy access 22

01013 Enhance audio-visual programming and develop a Mingo NWR specific video 42
Appendix F: Refuge Operating Needs System and Maintenance Management System

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

140

Maintenance Projects, Mingo NWR

Project Title Estimated 

Cost 

($1,000s)

Replace high mileage 1991 model full size dodge pickup 30

Replace worn-out 1982 Jeep CJ7 utility vehicle. 31

Replace deteriorated vault toilet at Ditch 1. 32

Remove damaged fences on retired pasture units. 39

Repair Deteriorated Boardwalk on the Nature Trail 510

Replace worn-out Crisafulli Trailer Mounted Pump, 16", Centrifugal Humpback 13

Replace worn-out Western Slip on Pumper, 200 Gal, 20 hp engine 13

Replace JI Case 2090 Ag Tractor, 108hp, w/ Cab 64

Replace Chevrolet S10 Cargo Truck 26

Replace worn-out Ford L9000 Dump Truck, 12 CY 14', 350 HP, 52000 GVWR 90

Replace deteriorated siding on the Storage / Carpenter Shop Building 52

Replace worn-out Reynolds Earth Scraper, Towed, 10 CY, Hydraulic 21

Replace worn-out Caterpillar 426C Backhoe / Loader, w/ Cab 79

Replace worn-out Gorman / Rupp Wheel Mounted Pump, 350 gpm, 4" intake/outlet 15

Replace worn-out Gorman / Rupp Wheel Mounted Pump, 350 gpm, 4" intake / outlet 15

Replace Chevrolet Astro Passenger Van 21

Replace Aero Welding Water Tank Trailer, 400 Gal, 1.5 Ton 19

Replace worn-out Motorola Quantar (C99ED) Radio Base Station 17

Replace Ford F709E Dump Truck, 5 CY, 24000 GVWR 74

Replace John Deere 2640 Ag Tractor, 70hp 53

Replace worn-out Crisafulli 16" Centrifugal Pump 13

Replace John Deere 4640 Ag Tractor, 150 hp 85

Replace worn-out John Deere 455 Plow Disk 17

Remove Debris and Silt from Drainage Ditches - Phase II [cc] 1,259

Remove Debris and Silt from Drainage Ditches - Phase I [p/d] 321

Replace corroded pipes at the Ditch 2 Pumping Station 44

Energy Retrofit the Visitor Center 264

Replace deteriorated Lick Creek Bridge on the Auto Tour Route. 112

Replace deteriorated Lateral Ditch Bridge 112

Replace deteriorated roof on the Visitor Center. 52

Replace worn-out Side Mount Mower Rotary 6' 13

Replacement of Suzuki All Terrain Vehicle 7

Repair Surfacing on Visitor Center Entrance - FHWA Route No. 010 40

Repair Surfacing on Refuge Auto Tour Route - FHWA Route No. 011 4,109

Repair Surfacing on Red Mill Entrance Road - FHWA Route No. 100 277

Repair Surfacing on Red Mill Drive - FHWA Route No. 101 1,343

Repair Surfacing on Bluff Road - FHWA Route No. 102 1,142

Repair Surfacing on Job Corps Entrance Road - FHWA Route No. 104 370

Repair Surfacing on Flat Banks Road - FHWA Route No. 105 146

Repair Surfacing on May Pond Entrance Road - FHWA Route No. 200 27

Repair Surfacing on Bow Hunters Parking Area - FHWA Route No. 902 20

Repair Surfacing on Red Mill Parking Area - FHWA Route No. 903 25
Appendix F: Refuge Operating Needs System and Maintenance Management System

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

141

Repair Surfacing on Visitor Center Parking Area - FHWA Route No. 905 28

Construct Covered Fishing Dock 28

Construct an Environmental Education Classroom 68

Rehabiliate Bluff Road by Installing Asphalt Surfacing - Phase I 125

Rehabiliate Bluff Road by Installing Asphalt Surfacing - Phase II 160

Rehabilate Marsh and Moist Soil Unit Access for Management and Wildlife Observation 28

Construct water delivery system for Moist Soil Units. 41

Construct Wildlife Observation Platform Along State Highway 51 37

Construct a Spillway in an Existing Roadway / Low Level Dam 21

Construct Kiosks, Directional Signs, and Outdoor Interpretive Panels 365

Construct a Watchable Wildlife Nature Trail 39

Seismic Safety Rehabilitation - Phase I [p/d] 50

Construct a Bunkhouse for Volunteers, Students and Interns. 522

Maintenance Projects, Mingo NWR

Project Title Estimated 

Cost 

($1,000s)

Appendix G: Mailing List

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

143

Appendix G: Mailing List

Appendix G: Mailing List

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

145

Appendix G: Mailing List

The following is an initial list of government offices, 

private organizations, and individuals who will 

receive notice of the availability of this Draft CCP. 

We will continue to add to this list throughout the 

planning process

Federal Elected Officials

Sen. Jim Talent

Sen. Christopher Bond

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson

Rep. Roy Blunt

State Elected Officials

Sen. Rob Mayer

Cities

Puxico

Arcadia

Pilot Knob

Neosho

Dexter

Poplar Bluff

Advance

Counties

Stoddard

Butler

Wayne

Bollinger

Lawrence

Newton

Iron

Organizations

The Nature Conservancy

Pheasants Forever

Ducks Unlimited

National Audubon Society

Wildlife Management Institute

PEER Refuge Keeper

The Wilderness Society

National Wildlife Federation

Sierra Club

The National Wildlife Refuge Association 

The Conservation Fund, Arlington, Virginia

Native Plant Society

Trust for Public Land

Defenders of Wildlife

Crappie Company

Appendix H: List of Preparers

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

147

Appendix H: List of Preparers

Appendix H: List of Preparers

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

149

Appendix H: List of Preparers and Contributors

Refuge Staff:

Kathleen Burchett, Refuge Manager

Phyllis Ford, Administrative Technician

Vergial Harp, Park Ranger

Julia Horrell, Park Ranger

Ray Placher, Maintenance Worker (retired)

Judy Plunkett, Park Ranger 

Charles Shaiffer, Biologist (retired)

Doug Siler, Heavy Equipment Operator

Richard Speer, Assistant Refuge Manager

Rudy Williams, Heavy Equipment Operator

Daniel Wood, Biological Technician

Division of Conservation Planning Staff:

Dean Granholm, Refuge Planner

Gabriel DeAlessio, GIS/Biologist

Jane Hodgins, Technical Writer/Editor

Region Office Staff

H. John Dobrovolny, Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer, Region 3. Historian.

Missouri Department of Conservation

Harriet Weger, Southeast Regional Supervisor

Dave Wissehr, former Duck Creek Conservation 

Area Manager

Collin Smith, former Duck Creek Conservation 

Area Manager

Mangi Environmental Group

Leon Kolankiewicz, Biologist/Environmental Planner/Consultant

Others

Leigh Fredrickson

Mickey Heitmeyer

Appendix I: Bibliography

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

151

Appendix I: Bibliography

Appendix I: Bibliography

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

153

Appendix I: Bibliography

Blaustein, A.R. 1994. Chicken little or Nero’s fiddle? 

A perspective on declining amphibian populations. 

Herpetologica 50:85-97.

(BLS, 2005) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2005. 

Unemployment Rate Missouri. Accessed online at: 

http://www2.fdic.gov/recon/

ovrpt.asp?CPT_CODE=E40&ST_CODE=29&RP

T_TYPE=Tables . 

Blumstein, D.T. 2003. Flight initiation distance in 

birds is dependent on intruder starting distance. J. 

Wildl. Manage. 67:852-857.

Blumstein, D.T., L.L. Anthony, R.G. Harcourt, and 

G. Ross. 2003. Testing a key assumption of wildlife 

buffer zones: is flight initiation distance a speciesspecific trait? Biological Conservation 110:97-100.

(Census, 2005a) U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Missouri 

QuickFacts – Iron County. Accessed online at: http://

quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29/29093/html . 

(Census, 2005b) U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Missouri 

QuickFacts – Lawrence County. Accessed online at: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29/29109/

html. 

(Drobney and Clawson, 1995) Drobney, R.D. and R. 

L. Clawson. 1995. “Indiana Bats” in Our Living 

Resources: A Report to the Nation on the Distribution, Abundance, and Health of U.S. Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Biological Service.

Fredrickson, L.H., and T.S. Taylor. 1982. Management of seasonally flooded impoundments for wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource 

Publication 148, 29 pp.

Harrison, T.L. and P.F. Hickie. 1931. Indiana’s 

swamp rabbit. Journal of Mammalogy. 12:319-320.

Hartshorne, G.S. 1980. Neotropical forest dynamics. 

Biotrophica (Suppl.) 12:23-30

Heitmeyer, M.E., R.J. Cooper, J.G. Dickson, and 

B.D. Leopold. 2005. Ecological relationships of 

warmblooded vertebrates in bottomland hardwood 

ecosystems. Pages 281-306 in L.H. Fredrickson, 

S.L. King, and R.M. Kaminski eds. Ecology and 

management of bottomland hardwood systems: the 

state of our understanding. University of MissouriColumbia, Gaylord Memorial Laboratory Special 

Publication No. 10., Puxico, MO.

Heitmeyer, M.E., L.H. Fredrickson, and G.F. 

Krause. 1989. Water and habitat dynamics of the 

Mingo Swamp in southeastern Missouri. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Research 

No. 6. 26pp.

Houlahan, J. E., Findlay, C. S., Schmidt, B. R., 

Meyer, A. H. & Kuzmin, S. L. 2000. Quantitative evidence for global amphibian population declines. 

Nature 404, 752-755.

King, S.L. and T.J. Antrobus. 2001. Canopy disturbance patterns in a bottomland hardwood forest in 

northeast Arkansas. Wetlands 21:543-553.

King, Thomas F. Cultural Resource Laws & Practice. 1998: AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek.

Laubhan, M.K. and L.H. Fredrickson, 1992. Estimating seed production of common plants in seasonally flooded wetlands. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 56(2): 329-337.

Lower Mississippi Conservation Committee. No 

date. Swamp Rabbit. Accessed online at:

http://www.lmrcc.org/Ecosystempage1_html/ET%20Species/Swamp%20Rabbit.htm .

(McCarty, 2004) McCarty, Jim. 2004. “Mingo: Last 

of the Bootheel Swamps.” Rural Missouri. September. Accessed online at: http://www.ruralmissouri.org/04SeptMingo.html . 

(McClure, 2004) Jeanette Henson McClure. 2004. 

History of Iron County, Missouri. Accessed online 

at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~moicgs/countyhistory.html . 

Missouri Department of Conservation. 2004. Swainson’s Warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii

Accessed online at http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/nathis/birds/birdatlas/maintext/

0400340.htm . 

Missouri Department of Conservation. 2004b. Feral 

Hogs. Accessed online at: http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/landown/wild/nuisance/hogs/ 

(MOGenWeb, 2004) Lawrence County Missouri: 

History and Genealogy. Accessed at: http://

www.rootsweb.com/~molawre2/ .
Appendix I: Bibliography

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

154

(MDC, 2004a) Missouri Department of Conservation. 2004. Ozark Cavefish in Missouri. Accessed 4/2/

05 on the World Wide Web at http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/nathis/endangered/endanger/

cavefis2/

(MDC, 2004b) Missouri Department of Conservation. 2004. Endangered Species Guidesheet: Indiana 

Bat. Accessed at: http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/nathis/endangered/endanger/bat/ 

National Wildlife Federation. No date. Swainson’s 

Warbler. Limnothlypis swainsonii. 

Accessed online at: http://www.enature.com/fieldguide/showSpeciesFT.asp?fotogID=720&curPageNum=7&recnum=BD0625 . 

The Nature Conservancy. 1998. Species Management Abstract: Swainson’s Warbler Limnothlypis 

swainsonii. Accessed at: http://www.conserveonline.org/2001/05/m/en/swwa.doc . 

(Porter, 2000) Ellen M. Porter. 2000. Air quality 

management in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wilderness Areas. USDA Forest Service Proceedings 

RMRS-P-15-VOL-5.2000. 

Rooney, T. P, and D. M Waller. 2003. Direct and indirect effects of white-tailed deer in forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management 181: 165–

176.

(U.S. DOE, 1999) U.S. Department of Energy, Carbon Sequestration Research and Development. 

DOE/SC/FE-1. U.S. Government Printing Office: 

Washington, DC, 1999. (available at www.ornl.gov/

carbon_sequestration).

(USFWS, 2005) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

2005. Arkansas/Red Rivers Ecosystem Endangered 

Species. Accessed on the online at: http://endangered.fws.gov/redriver.html .

(USFWS, 2003a) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

2003. Wildland Fire Management Plan, Mingo 

National Wildlife Refuge, Great Lakes – Big Rivers 

Region.

(USFWS, 2003b) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

2003. Environmental Assessment for Wildland Fire 

Management Plan, Mingo National Wildlife Refuge, 

Great Lakes – Big Rivers Region.

(USFWS, 2003c) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

2003. Wildland Fire Management Plan, Pilot Knob/

Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuges, Great 

Lakes – Big Rivers Region.

(USFWS, 2002) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

2002. Mingo National Wildlife Refuge. Annual Narrative. 

(USFWS, 1992) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

1992. Ozark Cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae). Accessed 

at: http://ifw2es.fws.gov/Oklahoma/cavefish.htm . 

(USFWS, 1991) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

1991. Species Accounts: Ozark Cavefish Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern 

United States (The Red Book) FWS Region 4. 

Accessed at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/i/e/

sae1s.html .

(USFWS, no date) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

No date. Mammals of Mingo National Wildlife Refuge, Puxico, Missouri. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

(USFWS, no date-a). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

No date. Ozark Plateau Ecosystem. Fact sheet.

(USFWS, no date-b) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

No date. History of Mingo Swamp. Accessed on 

online at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Mingo/history.html .

 (USFWS, no date-c). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No date. Lower Missouri River Ecosystem. 

Accessed at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/ecosys/

lowmiss.htm .

(USFWS, no date-d). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

No date. Pilot Knob National Wildlife Refuge. 

Accessed online at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/

PilotKnob/ .

Wake, D.B. 1991. Declining amphibian populations. 

Science 253:860.

Whitaker Jr., J. O., and B. Abrell. 1986, The swamp 

rabbit, Sylvilagus aquaticus in Indiana, 1984–1985: 

Proc. Indiana Acad. Sci. 95: 563–570.
Appendix J: Resource Conservation Priority Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

155

Appendix J: Resource Conservation Priority 

Lists

Appendix J: Resource Conservation Priority Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

157

Resource Conservation Priority Lists

Resource Conservation Priority List / 

Mingo NWR / Bird Species

Common Name Scientific Name

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus

Double-crested 

Cormorant

Phalacrocorax auritus

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus

Stilt Sandpiper Micropalama himantopus

Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis

American Woodcock Scolopax minor

Black-throated Blue 

Warbler

Dendroica caerulescens

Black-crowned NightHeronNycticorax nycticorax

Wilson's Phalarope Steganopus tricolor

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator

Common Tern Sterna hirundo

Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea

Snow Goose Anser caerulescens

Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri

Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea

Canada Goose Branta canadensis

Least Tern Sterna antillarum

Worm-eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorus

Wood Duck Aix sponsa

Black Tern Chlidonias niger

Swainson's Warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii

American Black Duck Anas rubripes

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus

Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

Barn Owl Tyto alba

Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus

Northern Pintail Anas acuta

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors

Long-eared Owl Asio otus

Dickcissel Spiza americana

Canvasback Aythya valisineria

Chuck-will's-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus

Le Conte's Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus

Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus

Bewick’s Wren Thryomanes bewickii

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta

Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus

Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis

Wood Thrush Catharus mustelinus

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius

King Rail Rallus elegans

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus

Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii

Resource Conservation Priority List / 

Mingo NWR / Bird Species

Common Name Scientific Name
Appendix J: Resource Conservation Priority Lists

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

158

Resource Conservation Priority List / Mingo NWR / Reptiles

Common Name Scientific Name

Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus horridus

Resource Conservation Priority List / Pilot Knob NWR / Mammals

Common Name Scientific Name

Gray Bat Myotis grisescens

Indiana Bat Myotis sodalist

Resource Conservation Priority List / Ozark Cavefish NWR / Fish

Ozark Cavefish Amblyopsis rosae

Bristly Cave Crayfish Cambarus setosus
Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

159

Appendix K: Response to Comments Received 

on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment

Mingo NWR .......................................................................................................................... 161

Wildlife Dependent Recreation ....................................................................................161

Other Recreation ............................................................................................................166

Habitat Management .....................................................................................................167

Wildlife and Fish ............................................................................................................171

Trapping and Animal Control ......................................................................................171

Air Quality and Contaminants .....................................................................................173

Facilities and Infrastructure ........................................................................................173

Staffing and Funding .....................................................................................................175

Other Comments Regarding Mingo NWR .................................................................176

Pilot Knob NWR.................................................................................................................. 179

Ozark Cavefish NWR...........................................................................................................181

 Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Mingo NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

161

Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP 

and EA / Mingo NWR

Wildlife Dependent Recreation

Comments 1-3

Ensure adequate fish passage between Monopoly Marsh and the ditch system during drawdowns.

Monopoly Lake should always contain a large 

pool of water to prevent fish die off.

Hold water longer in Monopoly Marsh and 

Rockhouse Marsh to allow more fishing opportunities.

Response

Monopoly Marsh and Rockhouse Marsh contain fish 

and provide fishing opportunities, but are managed 

primarily to provide habitat for migrating waterfowl. As part of that management the marshes are 

periodically drawn down to maintain the appropriate mix of vegetation and open water. We agree that 

maintaining fish passage during draw downs is 

important and have modified strategy 3 under 

Objective 1.3 Open Marsh of the selected management alternative (Alternative 4).

Comment 4

Allow overnight trotline fishing on Refuge 

waters.

Response

The Refuge is open to the public daily from one hour 

before sunrise to one hour after sunset. It is closed 

to the public at night, the time when most trotlines 

are run. There is no proposal to open the Refuge 

during night time hours for this use. 

Comments 5-6

Reintroduce alligator gar if it will improve the 

system.

Reintroducing alligator gar will adversely 

affect game fish numbers, and decrease the 

quality of fishing.

Response

The reintroduction of alligator gar is not expected to 

adversely affect game fish numbers or decrease the 

quality of fishing, and it may have a beneficial effect. 

Alligator gar are native to the Mingo basin and were 

found within Refuge waterways until at least the 

late 1960s. They are opportunistic feeders with a 

diet that includes game fish as well as shad, carp, 

buffalo and any other easily captured prey. Prey 

available in greatest abundance is likely to make up 

the bulk of the alligator gar’s diet. Recent fisheries 

surveys of Refuge waters show rough fish and other 

non-game fishes to comprise approximately 80 percent of total fish numbers on the Refuge. The high 

occurrence of these species is one factor limiting 

higher populations of other game fish. Alligator gar 

may help reduce numbers of these fish. 

Game fish are adapted to coexist with gar. Gar live 

and feed in open water, while bass, crappie, bluegill, 

and catfish live around submerged structures. Alligator should reduce the numbers of non-game fish 

within the Refuge such as larger shad, carp, and 

buffalo. This will result in more small and mediumsized shad, carp, and buffalo, which are perfect prey 

fish for game fish. Both the USFWS and the Missouri Department of Conservation believe that the 

reintroduction of Alligator gar will help re-balance 

the fish ecology at the Refuge.

Comment 7

Reintroducing alligator gar will increase wanton waste.

Response

Discarding wildlife or fish unused, often referred to 

as wanton waste, is a violation of the Wildlife Code 

of Missouri. Gar species are common wanton waste 

victims probably because they are easy targets, are 

widely considered undesirable for food, and are seen 

as competitors or predators of more popular game 

fish.

There is no direct link between reintroducing alligator gar and an increase in wanton waste. Low proposed stocking rates make it unlikely alligator gar 

will come in contact with people for years. Although 
 Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Mingo NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

162

there are those that would wantonly waste 

resources it is not a reason to avoid reintroducing a 

native species. The selected management alternative (Alternative 4) does prohibit bowfishing on the 

Refuge in part to reduce the occurrence of wanton 

waste. 

Comment 8

Do not eliminate bowfishing, but do consider 

imposing an arrow restriction.

Response

The selected management alternative (Alternative 

4) prohibits bowfishing on the Refuge. We chose to 

eliminate bowfishing for two reasons: 1) popular 

bowfishing sites on the Refuge such as the Spillway 

are in an area where possession and use of weaponry is prohibited, and 2) the sight and smell of discarded fish carcasses is chronically associated with 

these sites. Beyond wanton waste of fish, this creates an unpleasant environment that decreases the 

quality of other wildlife dependent recreation opportunities. Imposing an arrow restriction would not 

resolve these problems.

Comment 9

Creating more open water to provide additional 

fishing opportunities is a good idea, but the 

amount of open water created within the Binford Unit should be no less than 40 acres.

Response

The details of this project are being considered in a 

separate environmental assessment. In summary, 

the Binford Unit, a failed moist soil management 

area, is bounded by a low levee that encloses 

approximately 40 acres. The proposal is to excavate 

within the Binford Unit to increase the depth and to 

obtain fill to modify the existing levees. Although 

the entire 40-acre area enclosed by the levee would 

be flooded it would range in depth from 0-12 feet 

and may not all be considered open water.

Comment 10

Improve bass fishing on the Refuge, especially 

in Monopoly Lake. Monopoly Lake provides a 

quiet fishing opportunity away from outboard 

motors, but bass are scarce.

Response

The selected management alternative (Alternative 

4) contains a number of objectives and strategies 

directed at maintaining or restoring diverse fisheries within Refuge waters including bass. Monopoly 

Marsh is considered an open marsh, not a lake. It 

does contain fish and provides fishing opportunities, 

but it is managed primarily to provide habitat for 

migrating waterfowl.

Comment 11

Include rotating the archery hunt into the Wilderness Area as part of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 4).

Response

Rotating the archery hunt was considered within 

Alternative 2, but was not included as part of the 

selected management alternative (Alternative 4) 

because it would create additional administrative 

and management burdens that include: conflicts 

with other user groups, confusion among some hunters, increased road maintenance, and additional 

costs.

Comments 12-13

Do not require tree stands to be removed at the 

end of each day. This limits opportunities for 

the elderly or those with disabilities.

Oppose having to remove tree stands daily.

Response

We eliminated the strategy under Objective 3.1 

Hunting that called for removing tree stands daily. 

The Refuge regulation regarding tree stands is 

summarized below. 

Portable trees stands (as defined in the Wildlife 

Code of Missouri) for archery deer hunting may be 

placed on the first day of season and must be 

removed on the last day of the season. Stands are 

limited to one per hunter and must be plainly 

labeled on a durable material with the full name and 

address of the owner. Use of nails, screw-in steps, 

and any material or method that would damage the 

tree is prohibited.

We believe portable stands, designed to be easily 

transported and positioned, do not limit opportunities. Additionally, the Refuge offers five universally 

accessible hunting blinds.
 Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Mingo NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

163

Comment 14

Do not host the MDC Spring Turkey Women’s 

Outdoor Skills Event within the Wilderness 

Area.

Response

None of the alternatives contain a proposal to host 

the MDC Spring Turkey Women’s Outdoor Skills 

Event within the Wilderness Area. 

Comment 15

Why is lengthening the squirrel season not 

included in the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 4)?

Response

Lengthening the squirrel season was proposed 

under Alternative 2, but was not included in the 

selected management alternative (Alternative 4) 

because it would likely decrease the quality of experience for squirrel hunters and archery hunters. 

Separating uses by season and location is a longstanding practice at Mingo NWR to promote safety 

and maintain minimal conflicts between user 

groups, two elements the Service recognizes as 

important to quality hunting experiences. 

Squirrel season closes on September 30 within the 

Refuge but continues until February 15 across much 

of Missouri. The shorter Refuge squirrel season 

originated to avoid an overlap with archery season 

and any conflicts between squirrel hunters and bow 

hunters. We feel this arrangement provides each 

group quality hunting opportunities as well as 

roughly equal seasons. In recent years, the Missouri 

Department of Conservation altered the opening 

date of archery deer season from October 1 to September 15, creating an overlap with Refuge squirrel 

season. Since this regulation change, we have chosen to allow the two activities to overlap from September 15 to September 30 to avoid shortening 

either season. During this time we require all hunters to wear orange clothing that complies with the 

Wildlife Code of Missouri. We feel this measure, reasonable for a short duration, would adversely impact 

the quality of bow hunting if imposed over a longer 

duration. If squirrel season were extended this 

would be the case. Finally, squirrel season does not 

resume after the close of archery season to avoid 

disturbance to waterfowl using the bottomland forest for pair bond formation. Ultimately, we feel the 

present arrangement is fair to both groups of hunters and best meets Refuge and Service objectives.

Comment 16

The Service should play a greater role in the 

management of waterfowl hunting at Pool 8.

Response

Mingo NWR’s Pool 8 adjoins MDC’s Duck Creek 

Conservation Area. Both sites offer waterfowl hunting and for many years the daily drawing used to 

select hunters for the limited number of spots has 

included both areas. This is done to maximize hunting opportunities and for the convenience of hunters. In recent years, Refuge staff has helped 

administer the drawing, monitor use, and answer 

questions. Under the selected management alternative, this will continue. There will also be increased 

efforts to communicate management objectives and 

their effect on hunting opportunities.

Comment 17

Hunting should be prohibited at Mingo 

National Wildlife Refuge because it kills, 

harms, and disturbs wildlife; it is expensive to 

implement; and hunters comprise a small segment of the population. Also, allowing hunting 

is not consistent with the terms “Wildlife First” 

and “Refuge”.

Response

We understand some citizens’ concern with hunting 

on national wildlife refuges. Mingo NWR, as well as 

the entire National Wildlife Refuge System, is 

guided by laws enacted by Congress and the President as well as policy derived from those laws. The 

1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act identifies hunting as one of six priority 

public uses to be facilitated when compatible with 

the purposes of a refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. 

Hunting is consistent with the purposes of the Refuge. Those purposes derive from the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act and the Wilderness Act, neither of which precludes hunting. In 1949 Congress 

amended the Migratory Bird Conservation Act to 

allow waterfowl hunting on 25% of areas acquired 

under its authority. Congress increased the figure to 

the present level of 40% in 1958. In 1978 Congress 

added a provision granting the Secretary of Interior 

discretion to exceed the 40% standard by an unlimited extent when it is beneficial to the species.

While National Wildlife Refuges are managed first 

and foremost for wildlife the focus is on perpetuating populations not individuals. Hunting does 

adversely affect individual animals, but is allowed 
 Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Mingo NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

164

when it will not threaten the perpetuation of the 

population being hunted.

Comment 18

It is unsafe to allow hunting at the same time 

other uses occur on the Refuge.

Response

The safety of visitors and staff is top priority at 

Mingo NWR and is considered whenever an existing 

use is changed or expanded. Except for the three 

day muzzleloader hunt within the Mingo Wilderness 

Area, all hunting occurs within the General Hunt 

Area. Other public uses are permitted in the General Hunt Area during hunting seasons, but most 

are confined to roadways. Separating uses by season and location is a longstanding practice at Mingo 

NWR to promote safety and maintain minimal conflicts between user groups, two elements the Service recognizes as important to quality wildlife 

dependent recreation experiences. We believe these 

measures provide safe opportunities for Refuge visitors. It is common for hunting and other recreational activities to occur at the same time on State 

(Conservation Areas) and other Federal (National 

Forests and Corps of Engineers) lands.

Comment 19

Do not allow center fire rifle hunting on the 

Refuge.

Response

This comment is most likely directed at the weaponry permitted during the muzzleloader hunt within 

the Mingo Wilderness Area and/or the addition of a 

youth deer firearms hunt. Hunters are permitted to 

use any muzzleloading firearm that conforms to the 

Wildlife Code of Missouri. The 2006 version of the 

code defines a muzzleloading firearm as any firearm 

capable of being loaded only from the muzzle. This 

definition places no restrictions on firing mechanisms and there are no plans to do so during the 

Refuge muzzleloader hunt. 

The selected management alternative (Alternative 

4) also adds a youth firearms deer hunt that would 

include the use of center fire rifles. This hunt will be 

conducted in cooperation with MDC as part of their 

efforts to prepare the next generation of hunters. 

The hunt will occur within a designated portion of 

the General Hunt Area to avoid conflicts with other 

user groups. Young hunters, each accompanied by a 

mentor, will learn safe and ethical hunting practices.

Comment 20

Increasing the number of waterfowl hunters on 

Pool 8 above present levels, a likely outcome of 

initiating self-regulated hunting as proposed 

under Alternative 2, would increase the number of hunters and consequently decrease hunting quality, success, and safety as well as 

increase the amount and duration of disturbance to waterfowl.

Response

Self-regulated waterfowl hunting on Pool 8 was considered as part of Alternative 2, but is not included 

in the selected management alternative (Alternative 

4).

Comment 21

Present waterfowl hunting policy for Pool 8 

that includes a daily drawing for up to 40 hunters and prohibits hunting after 1:00 PM promotes safe, high quality hunting experiences. 

Response

Comment noted. This is the waterfowl hunting policy included in the selected management alternative 

(Alternative 4).

Comment 22

Do not eliminate the muzzleloader hunt as proposed under Alternative 3. 

Response

The muzzleloader hunt is included in the selected 

management alternative (Alternative 4).

Comment 23

Hunting opportunities should remain at 

present levels. There is no basis for increasing 

the amount of hunting opportunities on the 

Refuge. Past hunts, intended for women and 

youth and similar to those included under the 

Preferred Alternative, generated little interest 

relative to the resources required to initiate 

and maintain them. Present hunting opportunities are sufficient and do not adversely affect 

wildlife populations.

Response

The selected management alternative (Alternative 

4) does include two additional hunting opportunities. 

The youth firearms deer hunt and the women’s outdoor skills spring turkey hunt were added to support Missouri Department of Conservation 

programs intended to promote interest in hunting. 
 Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Mingo NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

165

The Refuge and MDC will work together to ensure 

adequate resources for administering the hunts. 

Participation rates will guide future planning and 

implementation of these hunts. Finally, the two new 

hunts will occur within the General Hunt Area and 

are not expected to adversely affect wildlife populations. 

Comment 24

Waterfowl hunting on Pool 8 should be operated 

as described under Alternative 1 to help relieve 

political pressure and improve public relations.

Response

Under the selected management alternative (Alternative 4), waterfowl hunting on Pool 8 would be limited to 40 individuals when water levels reach a 

suitable elevation. This is identical to the current 

condition described for Alternative 1.

Comment 25

Recreational activities, especially hunting, are 

acceptable only to the extent they do not interfere with resource protection, restoration of 

bird habitats, and wildlife viewing.

Response

The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act and Service policy recognize six 

priority public uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation. We are directed to facilitate these 

uses when compatible with the purposes of a refuge 

and the mission of the Refuge System. We believe 

the selected management alternative (Alternative 4) 

balances opportunities for each of the priority public 

uses. Compatibility Determinations addressing each 

use were included as Appendix D of the draft CCP/

EA.

Comment 26

Extend the seasonal duration of the Auto Tour 

Route.

Response

The selected management alternative (Alternative 

4) does extend the seasonal duration of the Auto 

Tour Route by 5 months.

Comment 27

Extending the seasonal duration of the Auto 

Tour Route will increase traffic and road 

maintenance which will adversely affect wildlife, especially reptiles and amphibians.

Response

The Environmental Assessment addressed the 

effects of each alternative on vehicle-caused mortality of reptiles and amphibians. In summary, much of 

the vehicle-caused mortality occurs when reptiles 

and amphibians are migrating between the bluffs 

where they spend the winter and the bottomland 

forest where they spend the remainder of the year 

breeding and feeding. Extending the season of the 

Auto Tour Route will mean more traffic over a 

longer period of time which is likely to increase vehicle-caused mortality of reptiles and amphibians. The 

selected management alternative includes the following measures to minimize mortality: 1) closing 

the Auto Tour Route during reptile and amphibian 

migrations, 2) emphasizing reptile and amphibian 

conservation in environmental education and interpretive programming, 3) increasing law enforcement efforts, and 4) increasing monitoring to guide 

Refuge policy and management regarding reptiles 

and amphibians.

Comment 28

Do not close the Auto Tour Route during reptile 

and amphibian migrations.

Response

Closing the Auto Tour Route during migrations of 

reptile and amphibians is intended to reduce vehicle-caused mortality of these species. Aside from 

these closures, the open season of the Auto Tour 

Route is extended by five months under the selected 

management alternative (Alternative 4). See also 

the response to comment 27. 

Comment 29

Do not implement Alternative 3 because it will 

have an adverse effect on wildlife observation 

and photography.

Response

The selected management alternative is Alternative 

4.

Comment 30

I support having the Visitor Center open on 

weekends.

Comment noted. The selected management alternative (Alternative 4) includes a strategy under Objective 3.5 Interpretation to expand Visitor Center 

hours to include weekends from March 1 through 
 Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Mingo NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

166

November 30. It is important to note that this proposal, as well as all others in the plan, is contingent 

on adequate staffing and funding.

Comment 31

Support environmental education efforts.

Response

Comment noted.

Comment 32

The Mingo Swamp Friends should initiate an 

educational program that has students harvest 

corn grown on the Refuge to be distributed for 

wildlife and sold at the Visitor Center.

Response

The Mingo Swamp Friends is a non-profit group 

formed to support the Refuge. It is an independent 

organization and the CCP does not directly guide 

the actions or proposals of Mingo Swamp Friends.

Comment 33

Do not close Monopoly because of nesting 

eagles.

Response

One of the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System includes conserving endangered or threatened species. Since 1967 the Bald Eagle has been 

listed as a threatened species, and in compliance 

with the mission and goals of the Refuge System 

Mingo NWR implements management guidelines 

contained in the Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. These include limiting human disturbance 

of nesting eagles. At times this has included closing 

Monopoly Marsh to the public. Presently, the Service is in the process of delisting the Bald Eagle, and 

it is uncertain how this will affect restrictions 

regarding nesting eagles.

Other Recreation

Comment 34

Do not eliminate wild edibles gathering.

Response

The selected management alternative (Alternative 

4) does not eliminate wild edibles gathering.

Comments 35-36

Increase the daily limit for mushroom gathering to 5 gallons.

The proposed area for mushroom gathering it 

too limiting. Allow mushroom gathering wherever they occur.

Response

Restrictions on location and amount of wild edibles 

gathering are necessary to ensure compatibility of 

this activity. This is documented in a compatibility 

determination that was included in Appendix D of 

the draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment. We did increase the 

daily limit for mushroom gathering to one gallon, as 

reflected in strategy 12 under Objective 3.6 Other 

Compatible Recreational and Consumptive Uses. 

We believe the size and resources of the designated 

area provide reasonable and compatible opportunities for wild edibles gathering.

Comment 37

Do not phase out picnic tables and grills.

Response

The selected management alternative (Alternative 

4) does phase out grills, but retains picnic tables, 

concentrating them near areas of high public use. 

Grills were eliminated because grilling is not wildlife 

dependent recreation, does not directly support 

wildlife dependent recreation, and could potentially 

cause wildfires.

Comment 38

Why does the Preferred Alternative increase 

the amount of roads open to horseback riders?

Response

Wildlife observation is the most popular use of 

Mingo NWR. Horseback riding facilitates this wildlife dependent recreation activity. We increased the 

amount of roads open to horseback riding along with 

recreational biking, hiking, and jogging to provide 

additional non-motorized wildlife observation 

opportunities. A compatibility determination 

included in Appendix D of the draft CCP/EA contains a complete analysis of this activity and the 

stipulations necessary to assure it is compatible 

with the purposes of the Refuge and the Refuge 

System mission.
 Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Mingo NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

167

Comment 39

The plan should ban horseback riding, jogging, 

hiking, and recreational biking on Mingo 

NWR. These are traditional uses, not necessary to participate in wildlife dependent recreation, and are offered at other nearby areas. If 

allowed they should be tightly regulated with 

fees and permits, and offered in a much smaller 

portion of the Refuge than is proposed. These 

activities detract from the quality of experience 

for other visitors.

Response

As documented in the compatibility determinations 

included as Appendix D of the draft CCP/EA, we 

believe horseback riding, jogging, hiking, and recreational biking are compatible uses of Mingo NWR. 

The most popular activity at Mingo NWR is wildlife 

observation and these activities, although not necessary to observe wildlife, do facilitate it. These activities are confined to existing road corridors and have 

occurred together with wildlife dependent recreation for years with few conflicts.

Comment 40

The plan should ban the use of motors on Refuge waters except to provide universal access to 

persons with special needs.

Response

Electric trolling motors are allowed on Refuge 

waters outside of the Mingo Wilderness Area. The 

compatibility of this activity with the purposes of 

the Refuge and the Refuge System mission is documented in a compatibility determination that was 

included in Appendix D of the draft CCP/EA. The 

use of motors on Refuge waters is restricted by season and location and is not expected to adversely 

affect wildlife populations.

Comment 41

Hayrides should not be permitted on the Refuge.

Response

Hayrides are authorized by the Refuge Manager on 

a case by case basis when they facilitate wildlife 

dependent recreation. 

Comment 42

Horse traffic can damage unpaved roads especially during wet conditions.

Response

Horses have routinely traveled graveled Refuge 

roads for years with no evidence of road damage. 

We will continue to monitor this activity and adjust 

management as necessary if road damage occurs.

Habitat Management

Comments 43-47

The Refuge has 15,000 acres of forest and few 

openings. Do not convert openings to forest.

Do not convert grassy openings, cropland, and 

food plots to bottomland forest or cane.

Maintain existing food plots and consider 

additional food plots because they are important to wildlife and provide visitors wildlife 

viewing opportunities.

Reestablish openings that are converting to forest.

Creating edge habitat would benefit wildlife.

Response

We agree that grassy openings, cropland, and food 

plots attract wildlife, providing visitors with wildlife 

viewing opportunities. The alternatives included a 

range of options for these sites, and the selected 

management alternative (Alternative 4) converts 

some and retains others, in most cases those closely 

associated with wildlife viewing. Present Service 

policy favors restoring native habitat. In some locations grassy openings are native habitat and are 

beneficial to wildlife as well as those interested in 

viewing wildlife. Cropland and food plots are not 

native habitat, and although they attract wildlife, 

are not as diverse as native habitat. Despite this 

some cropland and food plots are included in the 

selected management alternative, primarily to provide wildlife viewing opportunities.

We also agree that grassy openings, cropland, and 

food plots are early successional habitats and create 

edge where they border other habitats. Although 

the amount of grassy openings, cropland, and food 

plots will decrease, the overall amount of early successional habitat and edge will increase. Forest, 

marsh, and moist soil management practices 

included in the selected management alternative all 
 Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Mingo NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

168

promote the creation or maintenance of early successional habitat important to some types of wildlife.

Grassy openings, cropland, and food plots do create 

habitat diversity at the local level, but these habitats 

are not rare within the broader landscape while bottomland forest is. Mingo NWR is part of a larger 

conservation network, the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, and is not solely dedicated to maximizing 

diversity at the local level. The primary purpose of 

the Refuge is to provide habitat for migratory birds. 

In addition to waterfowl, this includes many other 

water birds and migrant landbirds closely associated with bottomland forest. We believe the selected 

management alternative provides a balance of 

grassy openings, cropland, food plots, early successional habitat, and bottomland forest that provides 

migratory bird habitat and wildlife dependent recreation opportunities in a manner consistent with 

Service land management policy.

Comment 48

Continue efforts to maintain openings with 

native grasses that are beneficial to grassland 

birds such as Henslow’s Sparrow.

Response

Efforts to convert fescue to warm season grasses at 

sites where Henslow’s Sparrows have been documented will continue under the selected management alternative (Alternative 4).

Comment 49-50

Eliminate fescue at Flat Banks.

Eliminate autumn olive and Sericea lespedeza.

Response

Objective 1.7 of the CCP addresses invasive, exotic, 

and nuisance plant species such as fescue, autumn 

olive and Sericea lespedeza. These species as well as 

others are well established in many places on the 

Refuge. Also, seeds of these plants are likely transported into the Refuge from a variety of sources 

including annual floodwaters. Eliminating these 

species from the Refuge is probably not possible, 

but we will try to slow the spread through a variety 

of means.

Comment 51

Quail would disappear from the Refuge if all 

openings were eliminated as indicated under 

alternative 3.

Response

The selected management alternative (Alternative 

4) will maintain 205 acres of grassy openings, 253 

acres of cropland, and 73 acres food plots. Quail are 

expected to continue using habitats on and adjacent 

to the Refuge. 

Comment 52

Maintain Sandblow as an opening alternating 

one half in cropland and one half fallow each 

year and keep Company Farms in an open condition.

Response

Present Service policy favors restoring native habitat. In some locations grassy openings are native 

habitat and are beneficial to wildlife as well as those 

interested in viewing wildlife. We are reevaluating 

the historic habitat types of Sassafrass and Sandblow ridges which include the following openings: 

Sandblow, Sassafras West, Sassafras East, and 

Company Farm. These areas may have been historic 

sand ridges that included natural openings dominated by grasses or other early successional vegetation. In any case, these areas will have a transitional 

zone between the surrounding bottomland hardwood forest and the opening. The CCP includes a 

provision to complete a Habitat Management Plan 

to address specific habitat management practices. 

Methods for maintaining the openings referenced 

above will be addressed in the Habitat Management 

Plan. 

Comment 53-54

Consider broadcasting milo within openings.

Manage openings on a three year rotation that 

has one third in crops in any given year.

Response

The two practices mentioned have been used successfully on the Refuge. The CCP includes a provision to complete a Habitat Management Plan to 

address specific habitat management practices. 

Methods for maintaining the openings will be 

addressed in the Habitat Management Plan. 
 Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Mingo NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

169

Comment 55

Allowing openings and marshes to close in is 

not taking care of the property.

Response

The selected management alternative (Alternative 

4) maintains open marsh habitat as well as other 

types of openings. All of the alternatives analyzed in 

the environmental assessment, were developed to 

fulfill the purposes of the Refuge and the Refuge 

System mission and to be consistent with present 

Service land management policy, and Refuge goals. 

This includes restoring some open habitats to bottomland forest or other early successional habitat.

Comments 56-57

Through forest management increase the 

amount of early successional habitat favored 

by quail, turkey, doves, and swamp rabbits.

Thinning in some areas would benefit wildlife 

including swamp rabbits.

Response

The selected alternative (Alternative 4) includes forest management activities that will increase the 

amount of early successional forested habitat 

(young forest) favored swamp rabbits, turkey, quail 

and others.

Comment 58

Reduce the amount of willow within Rockhouse 

Marsh and maintain it as an open marsh to 

allow wildlife viewing.

Response

We agree as reflected in the selected management 

alternative (Alternative 4).

Comment 59

Use openings to grow crops to attract deer away 

from private property.

Response

Some cropland and food plots are included in the 

selected management alternative, primarily to provide wildlife viewing opportunities. The Refuge does 

not plant crops as a means of attracting deer away 

from private property. White-tailed deer are highly 

mobile, range over wide areas, and are abundant in 

southeast Missouri. Although deer do feed within 

the Refuge, food plots and cropland do little to 

attract deer away from surrounding property and 

increase local deer populations.

Comment 60

It is a waste of taxpayer dollars to create and 

maintain open areas that attract wildlife where 

it can be killed by hunters.

Response

A number of openings will be maintained under the 

selected management alternative (Alternative 4). 

These openings will be maintained to provide habitats consistent with historic conditions or to provide 

enhanced wildlife observation opportunities. Maintaining these open habitats, work often accomplished by volunteers, is consistent with current 

Service policy derived from the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Congress 

passed the legislation, the President signed it into 

law, and the Fish and Wildlife Service is obligated to 

implement it. See also the response to comment 17 

regarding hunting on National Wildlife Refuges.

Comment 61

Manage the moist soil units in the southeast 

corner of the Refuge to accommodate migrant 

shorebirds.

Response

The selected management alternative (Alternative 

4) includes two strategies under Objective 1.5 Moist 

Soil Units that specify measures to accommodate 

migrant shorebirds.

 Comment 62

Do not manage any moist soil units for rails as 

proposed under the Preferred Alternative 

(Alternative 4).

Response

The primary purpose of the Refuge is to provide 

habitat for migratory birds. King Rails and Black 

Rails are migratory birds that are rare and declining in number. Mingo NWR is within the breeding 

range of these species and is capable of providing 

breeding habitat. The management of 80-100 acres 

of moist soil for rails included in the selected alternative (Alternative 4) is consistent with Refuge purposes and Service policy. 
 Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Mingo NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

170

Comment 63

I concur with the concern expressed in the CCP 

that some emphasis be given to creation or restoration of rail habitat on the refuge.

Response

Comment noted. The selected management alternative (Alternative 4) includes strategies to provide 

habitat for rails under Objective 1.5 Moist Soil 

Units.

Comment 64

Carefully monitor Monopoly Marsh and alter 

management actions if they are not meeting 

objectives.

Response

We agree. Monitoring of Monopoly Marsh is 

included under Objective 1.3 of the selected management alternative.

Comment 65

Lowering the level of Monopoly Marsh is a 

good idea as long it does not affect fish spawning.

Response

We do not expect fish spawning to be adversely 

affected by lowering the level of Monopoly Marsh.

Comment 66

Do not reduce the amount of open water within 

Monopoly Marsh.

Response

The decrease of Monopoly Marsh included in the 

selected management alternative would convert 

open marsh habitat along the perimeter to bottomland forest, most likely bald cypress and tupelo. The 

amount of open water within Monopoly Marsh 

would not change.

Comment 67

Maintain the rate of flow within the ditch system at no greater than 2005 levels.

Response

The selected management alternative (Alternative 

4) calls for additional sediment removal from Refuges ditches. This is likely to increase the rate of 

flow within the ditch system beyond 2005 levels. 

Improved water transport is expected to reduce 

flood duration, improve bottomland forest dynamics, and provide additional deep water habitat for 

aquatic species. It also helps meet the Refuge purposes of providing habitat for migratory birds.

Comment 68

Manually altering water levels is not consistent with restoring natural conditions.

Response

The ditch network and the water level management 

it allows, although not part of the historic habitat 

conditions of the Refuge, do help approximate 

drainage and flooding patterns similar to those that 

occurred prior to changes on the Refuge and within 

the surrounding landscape.

Comment 69

The marshes are converting to scrub-shrub 

habitat and are less attractive as habitat for 

migrating Trumpeter Swans.

Response

Objective 1.3 Open Marsh and the associated strategies that are part of the selected management alternative (Alternative 4) prescribe a number of 

measures to maintain open marsh habitat on the 

Refuge.

Comments 70-71

I support the forest management direction contained in alternative 2.

Implement the forest management objective 

and strategies described for alternative 1 or 2.

Response

We considered a range of forest management 

options as reflected in the alternatives, and believe 

the objectives and strategies included in the 

selected management alternative (Alternative 4) 

best fulfill the purposes of the Refuge and the Refuge System mission. Specifically, the selected management alternative restores bottomland forest to 

547 acres and promotes active forest management 

to achieve a diversity of species and age classes, 

something absent from alternatives 1 and 2. Considering the age of the bottomland forest and the lack 

of regeneration we believe active management is 

best.

Comment 72

The bottomland forest needs to be managed.

Response

We agree as reflected in the selected management 

alternative (Alternative 4).
 Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Mingo NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

171

Comments 73-74

Any trees felled or killed as part of a management action should be removed and sold, 

including those within the Wilderness Area.

Any trees harvested as part of a management 

action should be left on the forest floor.

Response

The CCP includes a provision to complete a Habitat 

Management Plan and a Wilderness Management 

Plan to address specific management practices. Specific methods to be used in forest management will 

be addressed in these plans.

Comment 75

Promote oak regeneration and eliminate maple 

through proper selective cutting.

Response

We agree as reflected in the selected management 

alternative (Alternative 4).

Wildlife and Fish

Comment 76

I support the strategy to work with MDC to 

stock catfish and other native game fish 

included in the Preferred Alternative (alternative 4).

Response

Comment noted. This is included in the selected 

management alternative (Alternative 4) as a strategy under Objective 2.2 Fish/Aquatic Species.

Comment 77

I support the strategy to work with the Corps of 

Engineers to modify water discharge rates at 

Lake Wappapello to improve fish passage on 

the Refuge.

Response

Comment noted. The is included in the selected 

management alternative (Alternative 4) as a strategy under Objective 2.2 Fish/Aquatic Species..

Comment 78

The Refuge can sustain a far greater deer density than 35 per square mile.

Response

The deer density goal of 24-35 deer per square mile 

is consistent with known carrying capacity of Refuge habitats and MDC deer management goals for 

southeast Missouri.

Comment 79

Alligator gar are fish of large rivers, Mingo 

NWR is not a good site for reintroduction.

Response

Alligator gar were present throughout the Mississippi River and its tributaries, including the Mingo 

Basin and St. Francis River, in Southeast Missouri 

until the 1950s and early 1970s. They declined 

throughout the State due to the loss of spawning 

habitat and over-fishing. The reintroduction of alligator gar will be returning the species to its former 

range, which includes open water habitat and suitable spawning habitat.

Comment 80

Maintain a diverse fishery of native species 

with abundant game fish including spotted 

brown willow catfish (channel catfish) and bowfin. 

Response

The selected management alternative (Alternative 

4) contains a number of objectives and strategies 

directed at maintaining or restoring diverse fisheries within Refuge waters. This includes catfish and 

bowfin as well as other game fish.

Trapping and Animal Control

Comment 81

Control the number of river otter as a means of 

increasing fish populations.

Response

The selected management alternative (Alternative 

4) includes a number of proposals directed at 

increasing fish populations and fishing opportunities. Predator control (including river otter) is not 

among them. This is because it is unlikely otter dramatically affect fish populations, furthermore, 

otters are popular with wildlife observers, the largest user group of the Refuge. Although otters do eat 

fish and may decrease fish numbers in stocked 

ponds and commercial operations it is unlikely they 

adversely affect fish populations within the Refuge. 

Otters, like most predators, focus on prey that is 

most abundant and easiest to catch. Recent fisheries 

surveys of Refuge waters show game fish to comprise at most 20 percent of total fish numbers. This 

means approximately 80 percent are rough fish and 
 Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Mingo NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

172

other non-game species. Otter are most likely to 

feed on these more abundant slower swimming 

fishes. Low game fish numbers are more likely 

related to the quality of aquatic habitat than to the 

presence of river otters. Improving the quality of 

aquatic habitats is one focus of the selected management alternative.

Comment 82

Include a through analysis of the effects of current methods of beaver control and an evaluation of non-lethal options of beaver control 

within the final Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment.

Response

We do not believe the suggested analysis is necessary. While National Wildlife Refuges are managed 

first and foremost for wildlife the focus is on perpetuating populations not individuals. Beaver control 

does adversely affect individual animals, but it does 

not threaten the perpetuation of the beaver population on the Refuge.

Comments 83-84

If traps are used they should be padded traps 

equipped with pan tension devices.

The Environmental Assessment does not 

address the incidental take of threatened and 

endangered species by traps.

Response

Trapping does not occur at Mingo, Pilot Knob, or 

Ozark Cavefish NWRs.

Comment 85

The Service should consider non-lethal methods of beaver control such as water level control 

devices that have been successful in other locations.

Response

We have tried a number of water level control 

devices including the Beaver Baffler, dam modifications, and strategic draw downs. These methods 

were largely unsuccessful or required excessive 

maintenance.

Comment 86

Killing wildlife to resolve human/wildlife conflicts is ineffective in the long run because new 

individuals soon recolonize the site.

Response

The selected management alternative (Alternative 

4) contains objectives and strategies to help fulfill 

the purposes of the Refuge and the Refuge System 

mission. In some circumstances the actions of wildlife such as beaver or nutria threaten or prevent the 

implementation of Refuge management activities 

necessary to meet these ends. Where this occurs 

animals are eliminated. Improved drainage across 

the Refuge is expected to alter habitat conditions 

over the long term and shift most beaver activity to 

locations where they will not be in conflict with Refuge management activities. 

Comment 87-90

Allow trapping on at least a limited basis at 

Mingo NWR because it is a traditional practice, is compatible with other uses, helps maintain healthy furbearer populations, protects 

infrastructure, decreases refuge expenses, and 

is allowed on other national wildlife refuges.

Allow trapping at Mingo, Pilot Knob, and 

Ozark Cavefish NWRs.

We support prohibiting recreational trapping 

of beaver.

Any beaver or nutria control that does not 

make use of the pelts is wasting a resource. The 

Service should strive to utilize this resource 

and not wantonly destroy or waste it.

Response

Trapping is viewed by the Service as a legitimate 

recreational and economic activity when there are 

harvestable surpluses of furbearing mammals. It is 

used on some refuges to control predators and manage populations that impact refuge habitats and 

infrastructure. Trapping is not allowed at Mingo, 

Pilot Knob, or Ozark Cavefish NWRs because there 

are few problems with furbearer populations. At 

Mingo NWR beaver control is necessary, but it is 

most often required for a short duration in specific 

locations during seasons when pelts are not in prime 

condition. Other furbearers, notably otter, are popular with wildlife observers, the largest user group of 

Mingo NWR. See also the response to comment 86.
 Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Mingo NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

173

Comment 91

Trapping should be added to the list of wildlife 

dependent recreation activities noted in the 

“Purpose of and Need for Plan” section.

Response

While trapping is wildlife dependent recreation, it is 

not one of the six priority public uses identified in 

the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. This is why it is not included as such in 

the Purpose of and Need for Plan section of the 

CCP.

Comment 92

The term “control nutria” is misleading 

because it does not convey the idea that the animals will be killed.

Response

Control of nutria does include killing individual animals, but may also include other non-lethal means of 

limiting their numbers.

Air Quality and Contaminants

Comment 93

Expand contaminants monitoring beyond that 

proposed in the plan. The Refuges are all 

located near areas that have past mining activity and may contain a variety of soil, sediment, 

or water contaminants. If contaminants are 

discovered assess their extent and source.

Response

We will continue to work with the Service’s Division 

of Environmental Quality as well as the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources in developing 

contaminants monitoring that assists in achieving 

the plan objective of maintaining environmental 

quality.

Comment 94

The Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources concurs with the emphasis on air 

quality within the Mingo Wilderness.

Response

Comment noted.

Comment 95

Extending the seasonal duration of the Auto 

Tour Route would increase automobile emissions within the Wilderness Area and decrease 

air quality.

Response

Air quality within the Class I Air Quality Area associated with the Mingo Wilderness Area is a regional 

issue. Tailpipe emissions do affect air quality and 

increasing the open season of the Auto Tour Route 

would mean more cars and more emissions. But 

tailpipe emissions play a minor role in regard to air 

quality at Mingo NWR. 

Wildlife observation is consistently the heaviest use 

at Mingo NWR and the Auto Tour Route is the most 

popular method for viewing wildlife. Extending the 

open season of the tour route facilitates wildlife 

dependent recreation, and helps build support for 

the Refuge. The expected increase of tailpipe emissions within the Refuge is small relative to other 

pollution sources within the Class I air shed. 

The Refuge will continue to work with the Service’s 

Air Quality Branch to monitor air quality within the 

Mingo Wilderness. We will adjust management 

activities, including the open season of the Auto 

Tour Route, based on monitoring data and recommendations of the Air Quality Branch.

Facilities and Infrastructure

Comment 96

I support the strategies to provide overlooks 

and footbridges.

Response

Comment noted. These are included in the selected 

management alternative (Alternative 4) as strategies under Objective 3.3 Wildlife Observation and 

Photography.

Comment 97

Ensure boat access to Monopoly Marsh at any 

water level.

Response

We agree this is important and possible except during complete draw downs of Monopoly Marsh. We 

added a strategy to Objective 3.2 Fishing to reflect 

this.
 Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Mingo NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

174

Comment 98

To avoid seasonal road closure, install a culvert 

at the low water crossing near Ditch 3 structure.

Response

In recent years, Sandblow Ridge Road was opened 

to vehicle traffic, first on a seasonal basis and eventually to all times the road is passable. There are no 

plans to alter the low water crossing to further 

accommodate vehicles. Improvements necessary to 

make the road passable during flood season would 

further hinder water movement across the Refuge 

basin and detract from ongoing and planned efforts 

to restore Refuge hydrology.

Comment 99

Install boat ramps at Pierman Lane, and at the 

Spillway along Ditch 10.

Response

The CCP calls for the preparation of a Visitor Services Plan. We will consider specific proposals for 

additional facilities when the plan is prepared. We 

will not improve boat access at Pierman Lane 

because; constructing a boat ramp that meets accessibility standards would be costly and impede water 

flow within Ditch 11. 

Comment 100

Install a boat access point along Ditch 4 Road 

that provides access to Gum Stump Pool and 

Monopoly Marsh.

Response

Ditch 4 Road is not open to vehicle traffic and there 

is no plan to open it to vehicle traffic. The road and 

water crossings would have to be upgraded, further 

impeding flow across the Refuge basin.

Comment 101

Increase the amount of identification and 

directional signing within ditches, marshes, 

and the Mingo River.

Response

We agree and have added a strategy to Objective 4.4 

to reflect this.

Comment 102

Permanent blinds do not provide the best photo 

opportunities.

Response

The selected management alternative (Alternative 

4) does provide for the construction of one or more 

blinds for wildlife photography, but wildlife photography is not restricted to these sites.

Comment 103

Increase the standard of Ditch 6 Road to 

accommodate 2 way traffic and install a parking area. 

Response

Ditch 6 road is bordered on both sides by the Congressionally designated Mingo Wilderness Area, 

which means the area is to be managed in a manner 

consistent with the Wilderness Act. The single lane 

Ditch 6 roadway was specifically excluded from the 

Wilderness Area. Improving the road to accommodate two way traffic and parking would intrude into 

the Wilderness. The Wilderness Act prohibits such 

activity.

Comment 104

Make Sweet’s Cabin accessible by vehicles.

Response

Sweet’s Cabin is representative of Depression era 

homesteads in the region and may be eligible for 

listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 

In addition to historical significance, the National 

Register nomination process considers seven 

aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. 

Improving the site to allow vehicle access may affect 

one or more aspects of the property’s integrity and 

harm its eligibility for listing on the National Register. Also, the present level of access provides a measure of protection, improving access to allow vehicle 

traffic would likely increase vandalism of the site.

Comment 105

Consider adding camper hook-ups and/or a 

bunkhouse to provide temporary housing for 

volunteers.

Response

These facilities are available at Mingo NWR.
 Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Mingo NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

175

Comment 106

Improve the float route that includes the Mingo 

River as a means of attracting visitors and 

building support for the Refuge.

Response

The canoe route is within the Congressionally designated Mingo Wilderness Area, which means it must 

be managed in a manner consistent with the Wilderness Act. The present condition of the canoe route is 

consistent with wilderness management standards 

and is intended to provide visitors a wilderness 

experience.

Comment 107

Support installation of electronic surveillance 

and electric gates.

Response

Comment noted. The selected management alternative (Alternative 4) includes strategies to conduct 

electronic surveillance in support of law enforcement and to install electric gates.

Staffing and Funding

Comment 108

The Refuge lacks adequate staff and funding to 

implement the plan. The amount of staff and 

funding should be increase to allow the plan to 

be implemented in one to two years.

Response

The CCP is intended to be implemented over a 15 

year period. The plan identifies additional staffing 

required to implement the plan within that timeframe.

Comment 109

The Refuge has more activities, signs, and general upkeep than they can take care of now.

Response

Refuge staff, volunteers, and partners do operate 

and maintain an array of programs, facilities, and 

infrastructure. The plan identifies additional funding and staffing required to implement the plan, but 

it is important to note that the plan is not a commitment for staffing or funding increases. 

Comment 110

It will require all staffing and funding 

resources to meet the habitat management 

needs for the next 15 years. Staffing and funding should not be diverted to accommodating 

additional visitor services. The public will continue to use the Refuge with the present amount 

of visitor services.

Response

We believe the selected management alternative 

provides a balance of habitat management and visitor services that best fulfills the purpose of the Refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. The CCP 

identifies additional funding and staffing required to 

implement objectives and strategies for visitor services and habitat management included in the plan.

Comment 111

Try to get volunteers or a community organization to help supervise and police Sweet’s Cabin.

Response

Maintaining and repairing Sweet’s Cabin is a popular volunteer activity that has included Mingo 

Swamp Friends, Boy Scouts, and Mingo Job Corps. 

We will continue to promote volunteer assistance at 

the site, but policing activities will be conducted by 

authorized law enforcement professionals.

Comment 112

Increase the projected staffing to include two 

summer time tractor drivers.

Response

We reviewed the scope of work included in the 

selected management alternative and agree an additional Tractor Operator position is required to complete the work. We modified strategy 9 under 

Objective 4.4 to reflect this.

Comment 113

Protection, restoration, and management of 

wildlife and their habitats are a higher priority 

for the Refuge than providing recreation opportunities. The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 4) contains too many additional recreation 

opportunities that will divert staff and funding 

from habitat management activities and have a 

detrimental effect on refuge wildlife.

Response

Each of the four alternatives analyzed in the environmental assessment (EA) was developed in 

response to issues, concerns, and opportunities 

identified through the CCP scoping process. Also, 

each alternative was designed to at least minimally 

achieve Refuge goals, which were derived from the 
 Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Mingo NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

176

purposes of the Refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. This includes habitat and wildlife management as well as providing wildlife dependent 

recreation opportunities. Chapter 4 of the EA considered the effects of each alternative on Refuge 

wildlife. We believe the selected management alternative (Alternative 4) best fulfills the purposes of 

the Refuge and Refuge System mission. This 

includes identifying additional staffing and funding 

required to implement the alternative.

Comment 114

The Refuge System is not putting wildlife first, 

as directed by law, when it allows activities 

such as hunting, fishing, trapping, motor boating, and jet skiing. In many cases these activities are permitted without a thorough analysis 

of their effects on refuge wildlife.

Response

The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement 

Act, the legal basis for putting wildlife first, also 

directs refuges to facilitate opportunities for six priority public uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation. Jet skiing and trapping are not 

allowed on Mingo, Pilot Knob, or Ozark Cavefish 

NWRs. Hunting and fishing opportunities are 

included in the selected alternatives for Mingo and 

Ozark Cavefish NWRs, and boating is included at 

Mingo NWR because it directly supports the priority public uses of fishing and wildlife observation. 

Compatibility Determinations analyzing the effects 

of these activities were included in Appendix D of 

the draft CCP/EA.

Comment 115

Create an alternative that eliminates additional recreation opportunities, but retains 

habitat management activities.

Response

We considered a range of alternatives including 

Alternative 3 which placed more emphasis on habitat management and less on visitor services. We 

believe the selected management alternative (Alternative 4) provides the best balance of public use and 

habitat management in a manner consistent with 

Refuge System policy. 

Comment 116

Do not reduce the amount of visitor services 

below present levels.

Response

The selected management alternative (Alternative 

4) includes visitor services at or above present levels.

Other Comments Regarding Mingo 

NWR

Comment 117

Do not implement a year round fee system.

Response

The selected management alternative (Alternative 

4) does include a year round fee system. Fees are 

primarily used at the site they are collected and are 

an important source of revenue to enhance services 

for hunters, anglers, and others visiting national 

wildlife refuges. We understand that some oppose 

charging fees at Mingo NWR, but Congressional 

actions in recent years encourage user fees on federal public lands. In 2004 Congress passed the Federal Lands and Recreation Enhancement Act that 

included the recreation fee program. Authorized 

through 2014, this program is intended to demonstrate the feasibility of user fees in funding operation and maintenance of recreation areas, visitor 

services improvements, and habitat enhancement 

projects on federal lands. 

Comment 118

Offer an all season pass for purchase.

Response

The Refuge currently offers an annual pass for purchase.

Comment 119

Preserve and protect Sweet’s Cabin.

Response

We agree. Objective 4.1 and associated strategies 

are directed in part at historic protection.
 Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Mingo NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

177

Comment 120

The term “squirrel season” is misleading and 

should be replaced with the term “squirrel killing season”.

Response

Each occurrence of the term “squirrel season” is 

within a portion of the document related to hunting. 

We believe it is clear that the term “squirrel season” 

describes a hunting season on squirrels.

Comment 121

There is enough land within the Refuge to provide a little of everything.

Response

Comment noted. We feel the selected management 

alternative (Alternative 4) provides a mixture of 

habitat and wildlife management as well as wildlife 

dependent recreation that best fulfills the purposes 

of the Refuge and the Refuge System mission.

Comment 122

Support fire break along boundary by Mingo 

Job Corps.

Response

Comment noted.

Comment 123

Ban new roads, hunting, trapping, prescribed 

burning, and logging within the Refuge.

Response

There are no new roads proposed in the selected 

management alternative (Alternative 4). Hunting is 

identified as a priority public use in the 1997 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, 

and national wildlife refuges are directed to facilitate this use when it does not interfere with fulfilling 

the Refuge purposes or Refuge System mission. 

Trapping is not allowed on the Refuge nor is it 

included in the selected management alternative. 

Prescribed burning and logging are included as part 

of the selected management alternative because 

they are necessary to maintain habitats to fulfill the 

Refuge purposes.

Comment 124

The smoke from prescribed burning travels 

long distances and is hazardous to human 

health.

Response

Smoke and its management is a concern associated 

with prescribed burning. The Mingo NWR Fire 

Management Plan addresses air quality and smoke 

management guidelines associated with prescribed 

fire. Individual prescribed burn plans address 

smoke management and actions required to ensure 

public safety and prevent negative impacts from 

smoke.

Comment 125

In the list of maintenance needs include the age 

of equipment due for replacement.

Response

Age is not included because vehicles and other 

equipment are replaced at specified age and mileage 

standards as indicated by Service policy. 

Comment 126

A number of groups that support hunting are 

listed as partners of the Refuge, but no animal 

protection groups are listed, why?

Response

The Refuge develops partnerships with organizations to help fulfill Refuge purposes and the Refuge 

System mission. The Refuge welcomes new partners interested in migratory bird habitat, Wilderness, and wildlife dependent recreation, especially 

the six priority uses identified in the 1997 National 

Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act.

Comment 127

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act requires refuges to conduct rigorous 

scientific research on the status of refuge wildlife populations and to use this information to 

guide refuge planning.

Response

Comment noted. The Refuge does participate in scientific wildlife studies and the information gained 

from such studies does guide Refuge planning. A 

continued commitment to monitoring and research 

is reflected in the selected management alternative 

(Alternative 4). This includes completing an Inventory and Monitoring Step-down Management Plan.
 Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Mingo NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

178

Comment 128

It is our hope that the Mingo NWR management team will help to restore this public land 

system to its original purpose of providing a 

“refuge and breeding place” for “migratory 

birds, other wild birds, game animals, fur-bearing animals, and for the conservation of wild 

flowers and aquatic plants.” (Per Public Law 

268).

Response

The law and purposes cited are specific to the Upper 

Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge. Mingo 

NWR derives its purposes from the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act and the Wilderness Act. We 

believe the selected alternative (Alternative 4) best 

fulfills the purposes of the Refuge and the Refuge 

System mission.

Comment 129

As for Mingo NWR, I read all your alternative 

plans thoroughly and like numbers two and 

four the most.

Response

Comment noted. The selected management alternative is Alternative 4 of the Environmental Assessment.

Comment 130

Why were no furbearers listed in the summary 

of the Draft CCP and EA?

Response

Furbearers do occur at Mingo NWR. A summary 

contains less information than the source document 

it summarizes. A list of mammals found at Mingo 

NWR was included as an appendix to the draft 

CCP/EA.

Comment 131

I applaud your efforts in preserving part 

of Southeast Missouri as it was two hundred 

years ago.

Response

Comment noted.

Comment 132

Use best management practices during sediment removal and in the use of herbicides and 

other hazardous substances.

Response

Service policy requires the use of best management 

practices in carrying out such activities.

Comments 133-135

Overall I feel that the #4 alternative plan 

would be the most well rounded solution for the 

future use of Mingo.

I like Alternative 4 because it better looks to the 

conservation of a wider selection of plant and 

animal life.

I like the hunting program included in alternative 4.

Response

Comments noted. Alternative 4 is the selected management alternative.

Comment 136

I support the Preferred Alternative (alternative 

4)

Response

Comment noted.

Comment 137

Alternative 2 would make a good plan if the 

increase in the seasonal duration of the Auto 

Tour Route was eliminated and replaced with 

increased habitat management activities.

Response

We considered a range of alternatives and believe 

the selected management alternative (Alternative 4) 

balances habitat needs with visitor services in a 

manner that best fulfills the purposes of the Refuge 

and the mission of the Refuge System.

Comment 138

I like the idea of a webcam within the Mingo 

Wilderness Area.

Response

Comment noted. The addition of a webcam within 

the Mingo Wilderness Area is included as a strategy 

under Objective 3.3 Wildlife Observation and Photography.
 Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Pilot Knob NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

179

Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / 

Pilot Knob NWR

Comment 139

The draft plan does not specify a preferred 

alternative for Pilot Knob NWR.

Response

This was an error of omission. Alternative 2, 

Expanded Species Protection and Opportunities for 

the Public should have been identified as the Preferred Alternative. It is now the selected management alternative.

Comment 140

Why not make the objective to reduce illegal 

activity to zero instead of 1 incident per 60 

hours of law enforcement at Pilot Knob NWR.

Response

The objective has been modified as follows: 

Throughout the life of the plan, limit the amount of 

documented incidents of illegal activity to no more 

than 1 incident per 60 hours of law enforcement.

Comment 141

Establishing legal access to the Refuge must be 

first priority if other objectives are to be met.

Response

We agree and it is included as a strategy under 

Objective 1.1 Law Enforcement.

Comment 142

The chain link fence is inadequate to prevent 

illegal entry and repairing the fence is likely to 

be a short-term fix. A more successful strategy 

would be to focus protective efforts on the actual 

mine entrance using modern angle iron picket 

style fencing. A picket fence surrounding just 

the main entrance ravine would be a lot more 

effective in barring casual entry to the mine 

than the present arrangement and would also 

be a lot easier to patrol and monitor.

Response

We agree on focusing protective efforts on the mine 

entrance. This is reflected in the selected management alternative (Alternative 2) in strategy 1 under 

Objective 2.1 Public Access and Visitor Services. 

Chapter 5 of the CCP calls for completion of a Habitat Step-down management plan that will consider 

specific measures for implementing objectives and 

strategies contained in the CCP.

Comment 143

If the refuge area excluding the mine were to be 

opened to the general public additional picket 

fencing would probably be needed for safety 

considerations, to prevent people from entering 

other unstable mine entrances within the refuge.

Response

Objective 2.1 Public Access and Visitor Services

does include strategies to evaluate and if possible 

mitigate safety hazards. Until these strategies are 

funded and completed we believe the limited 

amount of guided access described in the selected 

management alternative (Alternative 2) for Pilot 

Knob NWR best fulfills the purposes of the Refuge 

and the Refuge System mission.

Comment 144

We believe that MDC biologists have already 

developed a bat survey protocol.

Response

The 1999 Agency Draft Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Revised Recovery Plan does contain mist netting guidelines. The recovery plan notes that mist 

netting is intended to determine presence or probable absence of the species, but provides insufficient 

data to determine population size or structure. The 

recovery plan also contains direction to monitor the 

status of populations in hibernacula but the methods 

described are not applicable to inaccessible hibernacula like the one at Pilot Knob NWR. It is appropriate for the Indiana Bat Recovery Team to 

address this.

Comment 145

Stabilizing the mine entrance will be critical in 

the long term, but instability of the whole hibernaculum is also a problem. One major problem 

is that the location of the actual hibernaculum 

is not known. It might be worthwhile to take a 
 Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Pilot Knob NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

180

further look inside the mine's several entrances 

to try to locate the hibernation area and assess 

stabilization needs.

Response

Stabilizing the entrance to the hibernaculum is 

included in the selected management alternative 

(Alternative 2) as a strategy under Objective 1.2 Bat 

Recovery. Further attempts to more accurately 

locate the hibernaculum are not included in the final 

CCP, but will be considered as part of a Habitat 

Management Plan that considers management 

options in greater detail.

Comment 146

The notion of instituting guided tours is OK as 

far as it goes, but seems labor intensive and 

only allows very limited access for local citizens. We believe that if our recommended strategy of securely fencing the mine entrance is 

successful, then excluding the general public 

from the refuge as a whole will become unnecessary. Allowing unrestricted access would help 

to engage the local public and would provide 

additional education opportunities.

Response

We believe the limited, guided access to the Refuge 

contained in the selected management alternative 

(Alternative 2) is appropriate considering the uncertain access and potential hazards. If these conditions change we will reevaluate public access options 

during development of the Visitor Service Stepdown Management Plan.

Comment 147

If public access is implemented to Pilot Knob 

NWR it should be on a walk in basis. Establishing vehicular access to the top of the mountain 

would invite trash, vandalism and erosion of 

the steeply graded route.

Response

We agree.

Comment 148

For any proposed projects at Pilot Knob NWR, 

consider the effects to historic properties.

Response

The final CCP includes provisions to ensure historic 

properties are identified and protected to the extent 

possible within the established purposes of the Refuge and the Refuge System mission.

Comment 149

What is being done about studying the summer 

roosting habits of these bats at Pilot Knob and 

protecting the land/forest they roost on?

Response

We added a strategy to Objective 1.2 Bat Recovery

to work with partners to investigate the use of the 

Refuge as summer roosting habitat by the Indiana 

bat.

Comment 150

Consider expanding the proposed partnership 

with Fort Davidson Historic Site to include law 

enforcement assistance.

Response

We agree and modified the strategy in the selected 

management alternative to reflect this.

Comment 151

Consider forming a partnership with the Fort 

Davidson Historic Site Friends group.

Response

We agree and added a strategy to the selected management alternative.

Comment 152

Expand Pilot Knob NWR by another 150 acres.

Response

Presently, there is no proposal to expand the Refuge. Pilot Knob NWR was established to protect the 

abandoned mine used as a hibernaculum by Indiana 

bats. At this time there is no evidence to suggest 

expanding the Refuge would further assist Indiana 

bat recovery.

Comment 153

As for Pilot Knob and Ozark Cavefish NWR, I 

applaud your efforts to protect the Indiana Bat 

and Ozark Cavefish and their environment. 

More of this needs to be done, with other species. As our world gets more crowded with 

human population, a lot of wildlife species get 

pushed to the edge and their environment needs 

to be protected.

Response

Comment noted.
 Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Ozark Cavefish NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

181

Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / 

Ozark Cavefish NWR

Comment 154

The draft plan does not specify a preferred 

alternative for Ozark Cavefish NWR.

Response

This was an error of omission. Alternative 2, 

Expanded Species Protection and Opportunities for 

the Public should have been identified as the Preferred Alternative. It is now the selected management alternative.

Comment 155

One of the action alternative goals – to collect 

data on vegetation and identify opportunities 

for habitat restoration – is peripheral to the 

purposes of the refuge. While in general we certainly favor surface habitat restoration, we 

wonder if this may be diverting scarce 

resources from water quality issues, especially 

in view of the small size of the reserve.

Response

The purposes of Ozark Cavefish NWR derived from 

the Endangered Species Act are to conserve fish, 

wildlife, or plants which are listed as threatened or 

endangered. The Refuge is within the range of the 

federally threatened Missouri bladder pod and may 

be a potential restoration site. We believe collecting 

vegetation date and evaluating restoration opportunities is consistent with the Refuge purposes.

Comment 156

It is a near certainty that the bristly cave crayfish (Cambarus setosus) and at least two species of stygobitic amphipod (Stygobromus 

onondagaensis group and S. alabamensis) do 

occur within the refuge since they occur in 

Turnback Cave – these species, in addition to 

Ambylopsis rosae, should be specifically 

included in the endangered species management goals.

Response

The three species mentioned are not listed as federally threatened or endangered species. Cambarus 

setosus and Stygobromus onondagaensis are 

included on the 2006 Missouri Species and Communities of Concern Checklist, but are not listed as 

threatened or endangered by MDC. We believe 

management actions that benefit Ozark Cavefish 

will also benefit these species should they occur in 

Turnback Cave.

Comment 157

We strongly support the emphasis on educating 

private landowners within the Turnback Cave 

watershed with regard to best management 

practices and their effect on groundwater quality.

Response

Comment noted.

Comment 158

We question whether sufficient dye-trace data 

exists to adequately delineate the watershed. If 

not, research on watershed boundaries should 

be the first priority.

Response

During the course of the CCP planning effort, the 

Missouri Department of Conservation contracted 

Ozark Underground Laboratory to delineate the 

recharge area of Turnback Creek through the use of 

dye-trace techniques.

Comment 159

The action alternative does not address the 

scoping comments that the same effort should 

be expended on other known Ozark cavefish 

watersheds.

Response

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan is intended 

to provide management direction for Ozark Cavefish NWR. Although not addressed in the plan, the 

Service, MDC, and the Nature Conservancy deliver 

a number of programs and services directed at protecting subterranean habitats and associated species at other locations. Much of these efforts are 
 Response to Comments Received on the Draft CCP and EA / Ozark Cavefish NWR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

182

directed at improving water quality by educating 

land owners within the recharge areas about appropriate management practices to prevent groundwater degradation. 

Comment 160

Only allow artificial lures, flies, and baits at 

Ozark Cavefish NWR.

Response

Sport fishing regulations as defined in the Wildlife 

Code of Missouri apply at Ozark Cavefish NWR. 

Use of live bait is permitted within Turnback Creek, 

but is restricted to those species listed as approved 

aquatic species in the Wildlife Code to limit introduction of invasive species.