Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

February 2006 
2 
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

THEODORE ROOSEVELT 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX 

Hollandale, Mississippi 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

1875 Century Boulevard 

Atlanta, Georgia 30345 

February 2006 

 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................1

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

Purpose And Need For Plan.........................................................................................................2

Fish and Wildlife Service ..............................................................................................................2

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

Relationship To The Mississippi Department Of Wildlife, Fisheries, And Parks...........................4

Assistance To Private Landowners ..............................................................................................5

Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley Ecosystem ......................................................................6

Overview .............................................................................................................................6

Threats and Problems.........................................................................................................6

Conservation Priorities......................................................................................................10

II. THE REFUGE COMPLEX ..............................................................................................................15

Introduction And History .............................................................................................................15

Purpose And Ecosystem Context...............................................................................................15

Legal Policy ................................................................................................................................20

Resource And Management Descriptions ..................................................................................20

Physical Environment........................................................................................................20

Biological Environment......................................................................................................31

Socioeconomic Environment.............................................................................................33

Cultural Environment.........................................................................................................37

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................41

Overview.....................................................................................................................................41

Public Involvement And Planning Process .................................................................................41

Issues .........................................................................................................................................42

Fish and Wildlife Populations............................................................................................42

Habitats.............................................................................................................................47

Visitor Services .................................................................................................................52

Land Protection.................................................................................................................63

General Administration......................................................................................................65

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION .........................................................................................................69

Introduction.................................................................................................................................69

Vision..........................................................................................................................................70

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..............................................................................................70

Goal 1. Habitat and Species Management ......................................................................70

Goal 2. Control and Manage Invasive, Pest, and Nuisance Species...............................98

Goal 3. Expand research and monitoring on the complex through partnerships ...........100

Goal 4: Develop land protection and conservation partnerships....................................109

Goal 5: Cultural Resources............................................................................................114

Goal 6: Provide visitor services......................................................................................116

Goal 7: Administration....................................................................................................126
 ii

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION...........................................................................................................143

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................143

Proposed Projects....................................................................................................................143

Habitat and Species Management..................................................................................143

Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................149

Cultural Resources .........................................................................................................150

Visitor Services ...............................................................................................................150

Administration .................................................................................................................154

Funding and Personnel ............................................................................................................155

Step Down Management Plans................................................................................................157

Partnership Opportunities.........................................................................................................157

Monitoring and Evaluation........................................................................................................157

Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................157

SECTION B. APPENDICES 

APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY................................................................................................................159

APPENDIX II. BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................175

APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES.............................................................................185

APPENDIX IV. REFUGE BIOTA ......................................................................................................195

APPENDIX V. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS......................................................................221

APPENDIX VI. PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES AND SPECIES SUITES...............................................247

APPENDIX VII. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................261

APPENDIX VIII. EXAMPLES OF PROPOSED PUBLIC USE FACILITIES AT YAZOO NWR .........265

APPENDIX VIII. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT CCP/EA..................................275

APPENDIX IX. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT................................................................277
 iii

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley ...............................................................................8

Figure 2. Forest cover changes in the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley..................................9

Figure 3. Migratory Bird Conservation Zone priorities......................................................................12

Figure 4. Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex...................................................16

Figure 5. Farm Service Agency properties managed by the Complex.............................................17

Figure 6. Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge current managed habitats...............................................22

Figure 7. Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge current managed habitats ...............................24

Figure 8. Hillside National Wildlife Refuge current managed habitats .............................................26

Figure 9. Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge current managed habitats ..................................27

Figure 10. Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge current managed habitats................................29

Figure 11. Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge current visitor services....................................................54

Figure 12. Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge current visitor services ....................................55

Figure 13. Hillside National Wildlife Refuge current visitor services. .................................................56

Figure 14. Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge current visitor services. ......................................57

Figure 15. Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge current visitor services.....................................58

Figure 16. Conservation Partners Focus Area.................................................................................111

Figure 17. Proposed managed habitats of Hillside National Wildlife Refuge...................................131

Figure 18. Proposed managed habitats of Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge.....................132

Figure 19. Current and proposed managed habitats of the Panther Swamp National Wildlife 

 Refuge Northern Unit (Carter Tract). ..............................................................................133

Figure 20. Proposed managed habitats of Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge......................134

Figure 21. Proposed managed habitats of Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge........................135

Figure 22. Proposed managed habitats of Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge ....................................136

Figure 23. Proposed visitor services for Hillside National Wildlife Refuge.......................................137

Figure 24. Proposed visitor services for Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge.........................138

Figure 25. Proposed visitor services for Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge..........................139

Figure 26. Proposed visitor services for Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge............................140

Figure 27. Proposed visitor services for Hillside National Wildlife Refuge.......................................141
 iv

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Acres managed by station and approved Full-time Equivalent (FTEs)..............................18

Table 2. Refuge establishment date, legislation, and defined purpose (excluding Holt Collier 

 and Theodore Roosevelt NWRs). ......................................................................................19

Table 3. Refuge location (excluding Theodore Roosevelt and Holt Collier NWRs) .........................21

Table 4. Percent of land base used for agricultural production in counties surrounding 

 Complex refuges................................................................................................................34

Table 5. Employment data for counties surrounding Complex refuges ...........................................34

Table 6. Demographics for Complex vicinity....................................................................................35

Table 7. Activities by participants, 16 years old and older, throughout Mississippi..........................37

Table 8. Estimated county tourism and recreation (T&R) revenues/employment............................38

Table 9. Archaeological surveys conducted on the Complex to date ..............................................38

Table 10. Number of “hunt days” by refuge and species or group, 2004...........................................53

Table 11. Acres managed by station, approved full-time equivalents (FTEs), and full-time 

 positions funded by other sources.....................................................................................67

Table 12. Lower Mississippi Joint Venture step-down objectives (2003) for dabbling ducks for 

 the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex..............................................72

Table 13. Water control structures and wells*....................................................................................74

Table 14. Reforestation shown in 10-year increments by acreage per refuge and Farm 

 Service Agency tracts ........................................................................................................89

Table 15. Estimated Costs to upgrade ATV trails to “satisfactory” condition ...................................121

Table 16. Additional staff needed to implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

 the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex............................................129

Table 17. Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex Proposed Staffing Chart.........................................156

Table 18. Proposed schedule for step-down management plans....................................................158
 1

SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. Background

INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) developed this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) 

to provide a foundation for the management and use of refuges in the Theodore Roosevelt National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex (Complex) over the next 15 years. The Complex is comprised of 

seven refuges: Holt Collier (2004), Hillside (1975), Mathews Brake (1980), Morgan Brake (1977), 

Panther Swamp (1978), Theodore Roosevelt (2004), and Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge (1936). 

Prior to January 2004, the Complex was known as the Central Mississippi National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex. When the January 23, 2004, Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Act (Section 

145 of PL 108-199 - the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004) was signed into law by President 

Bush, the Complex name was changed to the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

The Act also designated the geographically separate Bogue Phalia Unit of Yazoo NWR as the new 

Holt Collier NWR and directed the Secretary of the Interior to establish the 6,600-acre Theodore 

Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge. The two new refuges were assembled from Farm Service 

Agency (formerly known as Farmers Home Administration) lands already in Service possession. 

Management and uses of the two new refuges (Theodore Roosevelt and Holt Collier NWRs) will be 

addressed in a future CCP. 

This CCP was developed in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 (1997 Refuge Act), and Part 602 of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. The actions 

described within this plan also meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969. Compliance with this Act was achieved by soliciting input from the public in the preparation of 

this plan, and through the preparation of an Environmental Assessment, which was Section B of the 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex. When fully implemented, this plan will help to achieve the vision and goals and fulfill the 

purposes of each refuge within the Complex. 

The CCP’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which each refuge was established. 

Fish and wildlife are the first priority in refuge management, and public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) is 

allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with the refuge’s mission and purposes. 

The CCP and EA were prepared by a planning team composed of representatives from various 

Service programs, including the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuges, Realty, and Visitor 

Services), Fisheries, Ecological Services, and Migratory Birds. During CCP development the 

planning team incorporated the input of the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks; 

other state and federal agencies; non-governmental organizations; local citizens; and other 

stakeholders. This public involvement and the planning process itself are described in the Plan 

Development section (Chapter III). 

After reviewing a wide range of public comments and management needs, the Service developed 

three alternatives in an attempt to determine how best to meet the goals and objectives of the 

Complex. The CCP represents the Service’s proposed alternative and is being put forward after 

considering the three alternative plans, as described in the Environmental Assessment. The 

proposed alternative is the Service’s recommended course of action for the management of the 

refuges, and is embodied in this CCP. 
 2

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PLAN 

The purpose of this CCP is to identify the role that the Complex will play in support of the System’s 

mission and to provide long-term guidance to the Complex’s management programs and activities. 

The CCP is needed to: 

• Provide a clear statement of direction for future Complex management; 

• Communicate with the public and include public participation in efforts to carry out the 

National Wildlife Refuge System’s mission; 

• Provide neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the Service’s 

management actions on the Complex; 

• Ensure that the Service’s management actions, including land protection and recreational and 

educational programs, are consistent with the mandates of the 1997 Refuge Act; 

• Ensure that the management of the Complex is coordinated with federal, state, and county 

plans; and 

• Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for the Complex’s operational, 

maintenance, and capital improvement needs. 

Many agencies, organizations, institutions, businesses, and private citizens have developed 

relationships with the Service to advance the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System. When 

final, this CCP will support the Partners-in-Flight Initiative, the Lower Mississippi Valley Migratory Bird 

Wetland Conservation Initiative, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Western 

Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, the National Woodcock Management Plan, and the 

National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

“The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, working with others, is to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” 

The Service manages the 96-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, comprised of more than 

544 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands, and other special management areas. 

The Service also operates 66 national fish hatcheries and 78 ecological services field stations. The 

agency enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory 

bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such 

as wetlands, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. The Service also 

oversees the Federal Aid Program and its distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars in excise 

taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies. 
 3

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the largest network of lands in the world specifically managed 

for wildlife. The mission of the Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, is: 

“... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans”. 

The 1997 Refuge Act established, for the first time, a clear mission of wildlife conservation for the 

Refuge System. The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to: 

• Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; 

• Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; 

• Consider the needs of fish and wildlife first; 

• Fulfill the requirement of developing a comprehensive conservation plan for each unit of the 

Refuge System, and fully involve the public in the preparation of these plans; 

• Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System; 

• Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are 

legitimate and priority public uses; and 

• Retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses. 

Following passage of the 1997 Refuge Act, the Service immediately began work to carry out the new 

legislation, including the preparation of comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. Consistent 

with the 1997 Refuge Act, all refuge CCPs are being prepared in coordination with stakeholders, 

including federal and state agencies, the public, non-governmental conservation organizations, and 

others. Each refuge is required to complete its own CCP within the 15-year schedule. 

Many refuges were established to protect waterfowl-hunting opportunities, but as public 

interests have expanded beyond consuming wildlife to emphasize watching and photographing 

wildlife, the role of refuges has also evolved. Economists have reported that national wildlife refuge 

visitors contribute more than $400 million annually to local economies (Caudill and Henderson, 

Banking on Nature 2002). In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges in 14 states around the nation, 

it was shown that people visited refuges more than 35.5 million times for recreation and 

environmental education. Their spending generated $809.2 million of sales in regional economies. As 

this spending flowed through the economy, nearly 19,000 people were employed and $315.2 million 

in employment income was generated. 

In seven years, refuge visitation has grown 36 percent. At the same time, the number of jobs 

generated in surrounding communities grew to 120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more 

than $2.2 million into local economies. Communities near refuges also benefit economically. 

Expenditures on food, lodging, and transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from 
 4

$5.2 million in 1995. For each federal dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities 

benefited with $4.43 in recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and 

Henderson, Banking on Nature 2002). 

Volunteerism continues to be a major contributor to the successes of the Refuge System. In 2002, 

volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours of work on refuges nationwide, a service valued at 

more than $22 million. 

The wildlife and habitat vision for the Refuge System emphasizes the following principles: 

• Wildlife comes first; 

• Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; 

• Refuges must be “healthy”; 

• Growth of refuges must be strategic; and 

• The National Wildlife Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with broad 

participation from others. 

RELATIONSHIP TO THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE, FISHERIES, AND PARKS 

A provision of the 1997 Refuge Act and subsequent agency policy is that the Service shall ensure 

timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other federal agencies and state fish and 

wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. This cooperation is essential 

in providing the foundation for the protection and sustainability of fish and wildlife throughout the 

United States. 

The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) is a state-partnering agency 

with the Service, charged with enforcement responsibilities for migratory birds and endangered 

species, as well as with managing the state’s natural resources. The State of Mississippi owns or 

manages 828,408 acres for wildlife, recreation, and fisheries, including 42 wildlife management areas 

(WMAs), 29 state parks encompassing 823,297 acres, and 21 lakes totaling 5,111 acres. 

The MDWFP coordinates the state’s wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation 

opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program, on several WMAs and parks 

located near the Complex. The MDWFP’s participation and contribution throughout this 

comprehensive conservation planning process has been invaluable. This agency continues to work 

with the Service to provide ongoing opportunities for open dialogue with the public on fish and wildlife 

issues in Mississippi. Not only has the MDWFP participated in biological reviews, public meetings, 

and field reviews during this process, but also the MDWFP is an active partner in annual hunt 

coordination planning and in various wildlife and habitat surveys. A key part of the comprehensive 

conservation planning process is the integration of common mission objectives between the Service 

and the MDWFP, where appropriate. 
 5

ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE LANDOWNERS 

Service policies for involvement with private landowners to develop and implement habitat 

improvement projects were generated by the 1997 Refuge Act and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

(PFW) Program. Additional authorities reside within the 1997 Refuge Act and the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act. Section 5, Item (4) (E) of the 1997 Refuge Act specifically states that the Service 

shall “ensure effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with owners of land adjoining 

refuges and the fish and wildlife agency of the States in which the units of the System are located”. 

The PFW Program Policy states that in ranking and selecting private lands projects for funding and 

technical assistance, the highest priority shall be placed on those projects that would provide 

important and direct benefits to the goals and objectives of any nearby units of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, or to those projects that would improve habitat for species the Service considers to 

be at risk or of special concern. 

Most of the land surrounding refuges in the Complex is privately owned. These privately owned 

lands could play an important role in the restoration and reestablishment of native habitats needed to 

support a diverse fish and wildlife resource historically known for this geographic area. Existing or 

potential habitat on private lands is important for achieving the goals and objectives of national and 

regional plans such as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners-in-Flight, 

Mississippi River Alluvial Valley Bird Conservation Plan, and Strategic Fisheries Plan. 

The Service offers private landowners several programs that provide technical assistance and 

funding for priority habitat projects on private or tribal lands. The Service’s primary project delivery 

mechanism for habitat projects on private lands currently resides within the PFW Program. Additional 

funding and technical assistance for private landowners are also available through several other 

Service funded programs, including the Mississippi Partners Program, Challenge Cost-Share 

Program, the Mississippi Partners for Wildlife Program, Migratory Birds Program, and several grant 

programs associated with threatened and endangered species. 

Under the PFW Program, landowners may receive up to $25,000 for on-the-ground project 

implementation. Exceptions to the $25,000 limit per private landowner may be requested in unique or 

special circumstances. PFW projects typically receive a minimum 50 percent in-kind cost share and 

require a minimum 10-year commitment from the landowner. Typically, landowner agreements are 

for more than 20 years. Since the PFW Program was initiated in 1988, approximately 87,000 acres of 

bottomland hardwood forest wetlands have been planted, and over 20,000 acres of other habitat 

projects have been completed within the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley (LMRAV). Over the 

past several years, the PFW Program has provided $300,000 to $400,000 in project funds each year 

for projects within the entire LMRAV. 

The Mississippi Partners Program is funded separately from the PFW Program, receiving funding 

primarily through the Service’s Refuge Challenge Cost-Share Program and Migratory Birds 

Programs. The Challenge Cost-Share Program also requires at least a 50 percent cost share 

from other partners. In Mississippi, this partnership involves private landowners, Ducks Unlimited, 

Delta Wildlife, the Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the MDWFP. A total of $40,000 

in Service funds is made available each fiscal year through this partnership agreement with 

additional partner contributions reaching $200,000. These funds are used to provide watercontrol structures to private landowners to flood harvested cropland during the fall/winter 

(approximately November 15-February 28). This partnership provides significant benefits for 

wintering waterfowl, other migratory birds, and water quality. 
 6

The Farm Bill Conservation Programs, available through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

under the 2002 Farm Bill, provide significant opportunities for the development and implementation of 

habitat improvement projects on private lands. These programs include the Wetland Reserve 

Program (WRP), the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 

(WHIP), and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Millions of dollars are available 

to eligible private landowners for habitat conservation under these programs. For example, under the 

WRP administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), over 100,000 acres of 

permanent and 30-year easements, directed to restore natural wetlands and native vegetation, have 

been implemented in Mississippi since 1990. The newly enacted Farm Bill (2002) provides 

authorization for over 1,000,000 additional acres at a rate of approximately 250,000 acres per year. 

Much of the enrolled acres for the WRP (over 45 percent) have previously come from the LMRAV. 

Service private lands partnerships compliment USDA conservation programs by providing 

supplemental funding and scientific biological technical assistance that help to support Service 

objectives and produce benefits for Federal trust species. All the conservation programs of the USDA 

Farm Bill have specific eligibility and other important project selection criteria. This information is 

readily available through the Internet or from USDA, and Service biologists assigned to work with 

private landowners are very knowledgeable of these programs. 

LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ALLUVIAL VALLEY ECOSYSTEM 

OVERVIEW 

Refuges in the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Complex are located within a physiographic 

region known as the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley (LMRAV) (Figure 1). Historically the 

LMRAV was a 25-million-acre complex of forested wetlands that extended along both sides of the 

Mississippi River from Illinois to Louisiana. The extent and duration of seasonal flooding from the 

Mississippi River fluctuated annually, recharging the LMRAV’s aquatic systems and creating a 

diversity of dynamic habitats that supported a vast array of fish and wildlife resources. 

THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

Forest Loss and Fragmentation 

The LMRAV has changed markedly over the last 100 years as civilization spread throughout the 

area. Since European settlement, it has been estimated that 20 million acres of bottomland forested 

wetlands have been lost (USFWS 1999) (Figure 2). The greatest changes to the landscape have 

been land clearing for agriculture and flood control projects. Although these habitat alterations have 

allowed people to settle and earn a living in the area, they have had a negative effect on biological 

diversity and integrity and the environmental health of the LMRAV. Immense areas of bottomland 

hardwoods have been reduced to forest fragments, ranging in size from very small tracts of limited 

functional value to a few large areas that have retained many of the original functions and values of 

bottomland hardwood forest. Species endemic to the LMRAV that have become either extinct, 

endangered, or threatened include the red wolf, Florida panther, Louisiana black bear, Bachman’s 

warbler, Carolina parakeet, ivory-billed woodpecker, and Bachman’s sparrow. 

Breeding bird surveys show continuing declines in species and populations. The avian species most 

adversely affected by fragmentation are species that depend on large contiguous blocks of hardwood 

forest, forest interiors, or good water quality, and species that have special habitat requirements such 

as mature forests or a particular food source. 
 7

More than 70 species of breeding neotropical migratory birds are found in the region. Some of these 

species, including Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, swallow-tailed kite, wood thrush, and cerulean 

warbler, have declined significantly and need large forested blocks to recover and to sustain their existence. 

The fragmentation of bottomland hardwoods has produced forested islands of habitat in a sea of 

agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed most of the forested corridors along sloughs 

that formerly connected forest patches. The loss of connectivity between the remaining forested 

tracts hinders the movement of wildlife between tracts, reduces the functional values of many 

remaining smaller forest tracts, and results in a loss of gene flow. For some wide-ranging species, 

restoring connections between habitats and reestablishing travel corridors is particularly important. 

Alterations to Hydrology 

In addition to the loss of the majority of bottomland forested wetlands, there have been significant 

alterations in the region’s hydrology due to urban development, river channel modification, flood 

control levees, reservoirs, and deforestation. There has also been degradation to aquatic systems 

from excessive sedimentation and contaminants. 

The natural hydrology of a region directly impacts the connectedness of forested wetlands and is 

indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on topography 

and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to forested 

wetlands and waterfowl-habitat relationships (Fredrickson and Heitmeyer 1988). 

In the LMRAV large-scale, man-made hydrological alterations (involving channelizations, flood 

control, and navigation projects) have produced widespread changes in the spatial and temporal 

patterns of flooding. The alterations have reduced both the extent and duration of the annual 

seasonal flooding, significantly affecting the forested wetlands and their associated wetlanddependent species. Since wetland ecosystems depend on a dynamic interface of hydrologic regimes 

to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes, the LMRAV’s historic functions 

and values cannot be restored in their entirety (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). 

Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems 

Land clearing and hydrologic alterations have led to an accelerated accumulation of sediments and 

contaminants in all aquatic ecosystems in the LMRAV, including wetlands, lakes, rivers, sloughs, and 

bayous. Many aquatic areas have filled up with sediments, reducing both depth and surface area. 

Concurrently, non-point source runoff of silt, excess nutrients, and chemicals threaten the area’s 

remaining aquatic resources. 

Hydrologic alterations have also ceased the natural processes that historically created oxbow lakes, 

sloughs, and river meander scars. 
 8

Figure 1. Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley (2004TRNWRmd) 

Legend

National Forest

State Boundary

National Wildlife Refuges

Lower MS Alluvial Valley

Theodore Roosevelt National

Wildlife Refuge Complex
 9

Figure 2. Forest cover changes in the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley 

(2004trnwrmdforestcover) 
 10

Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants and Animals 

The degradation of the LMRAV’s aquatic ecosystems is compounded by growing threats from invasive 

aquatic vegetation. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding and reduced water depths 

resulting from excessive sedimentation have created conditions favorable for the establishment and 

proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants, such as alligator weed (Alternanthera 

philoxeroides) and coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum). The introduction of exotic (non-native) 

vegetation, such as soda apple (Solanum viarum), Old World climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum), and 

others, which are capable of out-competing native species and of aggressive growth, is further 

threatening the health and viability of aquatic systems. The overgrowth of invasive aquatic species 

reduces open water areas, adversely affects fish and other aquatic species, and can prevent boat access 

and other recreational use. Non-native wildlife and fish have also been successfully introduced or 

released in this temperate climate, often out-competing native wildlife for limited resources. 

CONSERVATION PRIORITIES 

Declines in the LMRAV’s bottomland hardwood forests and their associated fish and wildlife resources have 

prompted the Service to designate the bottomland forest system as an ecosystem of special concern. A 

collaborative effort involving private, state, and federal conservation partners is underway to restore some 

forested wetlands in the LMRAV by prioritizing areas for reforestation and by managing remaining forested 

wetlands to most effectively maintain and restore biological diversity. However, most of the 25+ million acres 

of forested wetlands that have been cleared and converted to other uses in the LMRAV will not be reforested. 

Some areas have been identified for intensive management for non-forest-dependent species, such as 

waterfowl and shorebirds. Through coordinating cooperative efforts, apportioning resources, and focusing of 

available programs, the LMRAV’s biological diversity can be improved. 

Several coordinated efforts have been initiated to set priorities and establish focus areas to overcome 

the impacts of hydrologic changes and forest fragmentation. A cooperative private-state-federal 

partnership known as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Lower Mississippi Valley 

Joint Venture (LMVJV), was established in 1986 to help provide sufficient wintering waterfowl habitat 

throughout the LMRAV. Partners operating in the LMVJV have helped to establish step-down 

management objectives (expressed in duck-use-days and number of acres of flooded habitat) for 

public and private lands throughout the LMRAV. 

The initial LMVJV effort for waterfowl was expanded to include population objectives for shorebirds 

and neotropical forest-nesting birds. The LMVJV is working with the U.S. Shorebird Conservation 

Working Group to establish step-down objectives for shorebird foraging habitat for the fall migration 

period throughout the LMRAV. 

Another cooperative private-state-federal partnership involving the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan, Partners-in-Flight, and the LMVJV has identified a number of Migratory Bird 

Conservation Zones (MBCZs) (Figure 3). Refuges in the Complex are identified in these zones as core 

areas. The purpose of identifying these zones is to focus a number of private, state, and federal 

restoration programs into specific areas in an effort to provide maximum program benefits for neotropical 

forest interior-nesting birds. The goal is to provide larger islands or blocks of forested habitat in an 

otherwise highly fragmented landscape. The targeted block sizes range from 10,000 to 100,000 acres. 

Such areas are large enough to support viable populations of various suites of neotropical songbirds and 

other species (such as the Louisiana black bear) that require large forested blocks. 
 11

Most MBCZs encompass an existing or proposed wildlife management area or national wildlife 

refuge. Public lands serve as anchors of biodiversity that are enhanced and supported by the 

expansion of forested blocks, either through public or private management. 

One of the principal challenges to the restoration efforts underway in the LMRAV, and one that affects 

refuges in particular, is the need to meet long-term management objectives that address comprehensive 

ecosystem needs, including those of wintering waterfowl, neotropical birds, shorebirds, wading birds, 

bears, and other wide-ranging species. Management for one species or species group can conflict with 

management objectives for another species or species group. The tendency is to pursue short-term 

priorities that frequently change as scientific knowledge expands and interests in special resources shift. 

Caution must be exercised to prevent the initiation of restoration actions that are difficult to reverse and 

fail to meet the long-term, comprehensive management needs of the ecosystem or of a specific area 

within the ecosystem. For example, a goal to reforest all of Yazoo NWR in an effort to reduce 

fragmentation and create a 10,000 acre forest block to meet an objective for forest interior-nesting birds 

would overlook the critical habitat needs of waterfowl and shorebirds, which require a mosaic of 

seasonally flooded croplands, moist soil areas, and forested wetlands. 

The habitat goals of the LMVJV can only be met through the active management of croplands, moistsoil areas, and forested wetlands on both public and private land (Reinecke and Baxter 1996). Active 

management (i.e., vegetation manipulation and hydrology restoration) is required to compensate for 

the spatial and temporal habitat changes that have been caused by deforestation and hydrologic 

alterations throughout the LMRAV. The Complex uses a system of levees, water control structures, 

and wells to provide dependable seasonally flooded croplands and moist-soil areas as part of its 

waterfowl and shorebird habitat step-down objectives. If totally reforested, the Complex would not be 

able to meet its waterfowl/shorebird habitat step-down objectives. Setting habitat and species 

objectives from the perspective of the LMRAV enables managers to plan and provide habitat for a 

diversity of species throughout their ranges. 

Although reforestation is probably the best solution for restoring the forests that have been converted 

to row-crop agriculture, flooding drives the ecological system in the LMRAV, and the plant and animal 

communities throughout the LMRAV are dependent upon the hydrologic cycle. Therefore, to meet 

waterfowl and shorebird habitat objectives, land managers must manage water and mimic the flood 

cycles that historically characterized the LMRAV. 

Complex Recreational Use 

The Complex contains large populations of fish and wildlife, including a number of game species. 

The primary recreational activities are public hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation. Public use 

activities on these refuges are provided in accordance with federal, state, and refuge regulations. 

Deer hunting is the most popular public use activity on refuges in the Complex, followed by duck 

hunting and then fishing. Hunting programs also offer opportunities to take dove, rabbits, squirrels, 

raccoons, other fur bearers, turkey, and feral swine. Large portions of some of the refuges are 

accessible by all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) on designated trails. The use of ATVs is allowed only for 

hunting and fishing purposes. There are numerous lakes and streams suitable for fishing, and boat 

ramps are available on Panther Swamp and Mathews Brake NWRs. On Yazoo NWR pesticide levels 

in fish prohibit fishing. 
 12

Figure 3. Migratory Bird Conservation Zone priorities 

(migbirdconszones) 



	
 	





 








	
 



 
 
!



"#	$

%&		

		



"#$%	 !!
"

 

	 


 



 
	


"'#'









&'!(
 !!

)

 

 	

	(	

)	
 *	

	
	"	! 
+	

)	


+ 	,
$
 13

Wildlife observation is increasing in popularity as infrastructure is developed for viewing opportunities. 

Two observation platforms were completed on Yazoo NWR in 2003: the Holt Collier Boardwalk Trail 

and Tower and the Alligator Pond Wildlife Viewing Platform. Additional public use recreation activities 

are planned, particularly on Yazoo and Morgan Brake NWRs, where access to natural areas is not 

restricted by annual seasonal flooding. 

Yazoo Backwater Area 

Refuges in the Complex are all located within the physiographic region known as the Yazoo 

Backwater Area (YBWA). Land-use trends within the YBWA have generally paralleled those of the 

LMRAV as a whole. Early settlements were typically restricted to natural levees associated with the 

Mississippi River and its primary meander belts. Because natural levees were the best drained and 

least flood-prone, settlers initially inhabited those lands. Forested lands at the highest elevations 

were cleared to produce food crops and silage for local consumption, and logging became an 

economic mainstay of the time. 

As settlement progressed, small-scale, local drainage and flood control projects were initiated. 

Simultaneously, federal navigation improvements were constructed on the Mississippi River and on 

numerous tributaries. As a result of those early infrastructure improvements, additional forested 

acreage was cleared to produce cotton and other commodity crops for export, rather than local 

consumption. However, up through the 1920s, agricultural expansion beyond the natural levees and 

terraces was limited by the direct effects of flooding, lack of drainage, and relatively poor production 

techniques. With the advent of federal flood control and drainage in 1928, coupled with postdepression expansion of the national economy and increased mechanization, the stage was set for 

agricultural encroachment into the more poorly drained, frequently flooded portions of the LMRAV. At 

that point in time (the early 1950s), agriculture was generally restricted to the higher, better-drained 

soil associations. As a matter of record, the YBWA has historically served as a storage area for flood 

waters from the Mississippi River and for runoff from the upper Yazoo Delta. 

The 1950s ushered in an era of major agricultural expansion into the poorly drained, frequently 

flooded portions of the LMRAV. Fueled by expanding world markets, inflating land prices, and federal 

flood control projects, agricultural expansion continued into the 1970s under highly favorable 

economic conditions with a 20-year period in which major floods were lacking on the Mississippi 

River. From 1947 to 1977, more than 3.5 million acres of forested wetlands were converted to 

agriculture in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi (USFWS 1999). Forested wetlands totaling 

317,155 acres within a 6-county area (Sharkey, Issaquena, Humphreys, Yazoo, Washington, and 

Warren) were converted to agriculture between 1957 and 1977 (MacDonald et al., 1979). By the late 

1970s, however, that era of agricultural expansion had run its course in the YBWA. 

The late 1970s and the decade of the 1980s were a period of stable land use, but turbulent economic 

conditions within the agricultural community in the YBWA (and the LMRAV as a whole). The 1973 

flood, which inundated nearly 15 million acres of the LMRAV, including about 640,000 acres of the 

YBWA, broke the 20-year dry spell, and a period of normal to above-normal rainfall produced 

significant flooding within the YBWA in 1974, 1975, 1979, 1982, 1983, and 1989. The implications of 

farming high-risk areas came to the forefront at a time when the condition of the agricultural economy 

was essentially the reverse of the expansion years. Delinquent loans and foreclosures became 

commonplace in the 1980s. The Federal Land Bank, the Farmers Home Administration, insurance 

companies, and other private lending institutions became major landowners, holding an inventory 

most often represented by cleared wetlands. 
 14

The combination of economic and hydrologic conditions that made marginal yields on high-risk lands 

profitable proved to be temporary and transient. Land use and land capability had become 

substantially misaligned, and “land that should never have been cleared” became part of the lexicon 

of the agricultural community. Thirty years of agricultural expansion left a landscape that failed to 

meet the tests of either economic or ecological sustainability. 

As the farm crisis in the early 1980s brought an almost immediate end to the long-standing trend of 

agricultural expansion into wetlands, the socio-political and socio-economic forces that had driven 

that trend also began to change. Passage of the 1985 Food Security Act (or Farm Bill) marked a 

public recognition that factors underlying historic land-use trends, which had previously been treated 

as almost mutually exclusive should be addressed in the context of their interdependency. Federal 

programs and policies to remove marginal agricultural lands from production, reduce damagesusceptible floodplain development and associated flood disaster payments, protect and restore 

wetlands, and provide for sustainable ecological and economic development have steadily advanced 

since then. These programs were given additional impetus by the 1993 flood (and subsequent postflood evaluations) on the upper Mississippi River. 

During the 1980s, land use remained relatively constant. However, between 1990 and 1998, the 

historic wetland decline in the YBWA was replaced by a new land-use trend. More than 40,700 acres 

of cleared agricultural lands were restored to wetland conservation uses, and an additional 16,664 

acres of forested lands were protected during that 8-year period (Pers. comm., C. Baxter 2000). 
 15

II. The Refuge Complex 

INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY 

Refuges in the LMRAV provide important habitat for resting, feeding, and breeding needs for 

waterfowl, other birds, and resident wildlife. Refuges in the Complex were primarily established to 

provide and maintain habitat for wintering waterfowl and other migratory birds traveling throughout 

the Mississippi Flyway. The Complex is comprised of seven refuges, with a Complex headquarters 

located at the Yazoo NWR near Hollandale, Mississippi (Figure 4). This CCP covers five of the seven 

refuges: Hillside, Mathews Brake, Morgan Brake, Panther Swamp, and Yazoo NWRs. Refuge 

offices are also located at Morgan Brake NWR and Panther Swamp NWRs. The refuge staff located 

at the Morgan Brake NWR Office manages Morgan Brake, Hillside, and Mathews Brake NWRs. The 

refuge staff located at Panther Swamp NWR manages Panther Swamp NWR and the Hillside NWR 

expansion area known as the Carter Tract. In addition, the Complex manages over 12,000 acres of 

Farm Service Agency fee title tracts in seven counties (Figure 5). 

The Complex includes 18 positions: 16 approved full-time permanent budgeted positions (Table 1) 

and two full-time permanent positions that are funded by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ funding and 

hunt program permit fees. Two “floating” equipment operator positions are shared among all the 

refuges in the Complex. Both employees report to Yazoo NWR, travelling to the remaining refuges 

as needed to support maintenance, projects, law enforcement, and other needs. Between two and 

four temporary seasonal positions provide additional support each year when it is most needed 

during the hunting season, and for maintenance, habitat management, and administrative tasks. 

Each spring a volunteer is recruited from the Student Conservation Association to work for 17 weeks 

to assist with the Yazoo NWR wood duck nest box program and other biological tasks. Each summer 

for two months, the Youth Conservation Corps provides 6-9 youths to mow grass, trim trees, paint, 

perform facility maintenance, and conduct other tasks on Yazoo, Morgan Brake, and Panther Swamp 

NWRs. A new Friends Group, the Theodore Roosevelt Society, was established in June 2004, and 

efforts are currently underway to recruit members. 

PURPOSE AND ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

Although the Complex has an overriding purpose of providing for the habitat needs of migratory birds, with 

an emphasis on waterfowl, each refuge within the Complex has a unique purpose and establishing 

legislation (Table 2). The plan identifies specific goals, objectives, and strategies that are intended to 

support these individual refuge purposes. Management for the entire Complex of lands is combined due 

to the refuges’ proximity, their similarity of issues and habitats, and the added value of managing refuges 

cooperatively as a network of habitats within the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. 

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan’s Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture office, 

working through a collaborative effort with private, state, and federal agencies, has established 

certain habitat objectives for the LMRAV. These objectives have been stepped down for private and 

public lands throughout the LMRAV. The step-down objectives for the Complex are to provide a 

minimum of 8,287 acres of managed water, including 4,505 acres of flooded moist-soil plants, 2,760 

acres of flooded timber, and 1,022 acres of unharvested crops. Managed water is defined as areas 

that can be flooded through management actions taken by refuge staff, such as the pumping of water 

and the closing of gates on water control structures. The Complex also has an objective from the 

Joint Venture to provide 300 acres of shorebird habitat during the annual fall migration period from 

July 15 through October 15. 
 16

Figure 4. Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 





















	
 









 




  !



 
 "#$	 %$	

$	

&$	

'$	 !'$	

($	

)$	

	$	



	

	


	




	



	

















	












*+

*+

(



*+

, 


   

%("(
-

0 ./)
% .#./))


1 	


 

 

 	











# 
2
 17

Figure 5. Farm Service Agency properties managed by the Complex 



	
 









 




  !



 















	




 




"# $%&


 !
" 



 

 '()(
*



  	
 18

Table 1. Acres managed by station and approved Full-time Equivalent (FTEs). 

Note: Two FTEs for equipment operators and one position for a tractor operator are shared by all refuges in the 

Complex. Two positions (Tractor Operator, GS-6 and Office Clerk, GS-5) are funded by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers and hunt program permit fees. 

Refuge Office Refuge(s) 

Managed Acres Managed Complex/Refuge Staff 

Complex 

Headquarters 

(located at Yazoo 

NWR) 

Hillside 

Holt Collier 

Mathews Brake 

Morgan Brake 

Panther Swamp 

Theodore 

Roosevelt 

Yazoo 

77,090 acres of refuge 

lands inside acquisition 

boundaries. 

 

12,291 acres in (43) 

Farm Service Agency 

Fee Title 

998 acres in (12) Farm 

Service Agency 

easement 

80 acres in (1) MDOT 

Transfer (included in 

Carter Tract) 

80 acres in (1) Fee Title 

(Theunissen) Darlove 

Tract 

 Total 90,459 acres 

Project Leader (GS-14) 

Deputy Project Leader (GS13) 

Forester (GS-12) 

Park Ranger (LE) (GS-9) 

Private Lands Biologist (GS11) Wildlife Biologist (GS-11) 

Administrative Officer (GS-9) 

Tractor Operator (WG-6)* 

(Shared) 

Office Clerk (GS-5)** 

Yazoo NWR Yazoo 13,022 acres Automotive Worker (WG-8) 

Equipment Operator (WG-9) 

(Shared) 

Morgan Brake 

NWR 

Hillside, Mathews 

Brake, and 

Morgan Brake 

25,371 acres Refuge Manager (GS-11) 

Biological Technician (GS-7) 

Park Ranger 

(Interpretive)(GS-7) 

Equipment Operator (WG8)++ (Shared) 

Panther Swamp 

NWR 

Panther Swamp 38,697 acres Refuge Manager (GS-11) 

Park Ranger (Interpretive) 

(GS-7) Equipment Operator 

(WG-10) 

TOTAL Complex Staff 18 

*Funded by Corps of Engineers funds 

**Funded by Hunt Permit Fees 

++FTE for a WG-8 Equipment Operator position is currently stationed at Yazoo NWR. 
 19

Table 2. Refuge establishment date, legislation, and defined purpose (excluding Holt Collier 

and Theodore Roosevelt NWRs). 

Refuge Year 

Established 

Establishing 

Legislation Refuge Purpose 

Yazoo 1936 Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act 

(1929), Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act (1918) 

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

any other management purposes, for 

migratory birds...” 

Hillside 1975 Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act 

“...shall be administered by him (Secretary 

of Interior) directly or in accordance with 

cooperative agreements...and in 

accordance with such rules and regulations 

for the conservation, maintenance, and 

management of wildlife resources thereof, 

and its habitat thereon...” 

Panther 

Swamp 

1978 Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act 

(1929), 

Refuge Recreation Act 

(1962) 

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

any other management purposes, for 

migratory birds...” 

“...suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreation development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the 

conservation of endangered species or 

threatened species...” 

Mathews 

Brake 

1980 Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act 

(1929) 

”...to contribute to perpetuation of the 

migratory waterfowl resource in the lower 

Mississippi River Delta..." 

Morgan 

Brake 

1977 Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act 

(1929) 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act 

”...to contribute to perpetuation of the 

migratory waterfowl resource in the lower 

Mississippi River Delta..." 

“...shall be administered by him (Secretary 

of Interior) directly or in accordance with 

cooperative agreements...and in 

accordance with such rules and regulations 

for the conservation, maintenance, and 

management of wildlife resources thereof, 

and its habitat thereon...” 
 20

A core forest area is currently defined as a contiguous block of forest that is 1.6 miles from the forest edge 

(LMVJV 2001). This protective core forest habitat is essential to many of the highest priority bird species, 

such as the cerulean warbler and swallow-tail kite. There are interior forest objectives for each of the 

refuges within the Complex, supporting the Partners-in-Flight Plan. A 100,000-acre forest objective was 

established in the area around Panther Swamp, linking it with Delta National Forest (>60,000 acres) and 

Lake George Wildlife Management Area (>8,000 acres). A 10,000-acre interior forest habitat objective 

was identified for Yazoo NWR, linking and reforesting the areas around it and Leroy Percy State Park. In 

addition, each of the remaining refuges has a 10,000-acre objective, to be met by reforesting lands within 

current acquisition boundaries and by working with adjacent private landowners interested in reforestation 

projects, which would link forested habitats. Waterways and wetlands within forest blocks are included in 

the proposed acreage. These minimum objectives would establish one core forested area of 100,000 

and four core forested areas of 10,000 acres. 

One species of concern, the American woodcock, is showing significant long-term declines in the 

eastern United States. Habitat loss, including the loss of preferred, safe, nocturnal wintering habitats, 

is likely a key factor. The Complex may be important in helping the Service to meet its objectives in 

the North American and Regional Woodcock Management Plans. 

LEGAL POLICY 

Refuge management, development, and administration are guided by a variety of international treaties, 

federal laws, and executive orders. Management options under each refuge’s establishing authority and 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (the legal and policy guidance for the 

operation of national wildlife refuges) are contained in the documents and acts listed in Appendix III. 

RESOURCE AND MANAGEMENT DESCRIPTIONS 

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 

Climate 

The area climate is a humid, warm-temperate, continental type characteristic of the southern United 

States. The average yearly rainfall is 52.48 inches, with March being the wettest month (averaging 

5.62 inches) and August being the driest (2.37 inches.) Tropical storms or hurricanes originating from 

the Gulf of Mexico may occasionally bring several days of heavy rain. Thunderstorms, which usually 

bring the heaviest rains, are only occasionally accompanied by hail and tornados. Drought conditions 

during the summer may increase the danger of fire. Average yearly snowfall is less than an inch. 

January is generally the coldest month, while July is the hottest. Winters are mild, with temperatures 

seldom remaining below freezing for more than 24 hours. Summers are hot and humid with heat indexes 

commonly reaching 110-115°F. The average growing season is 219 days from March 25 to October 30. 

Physiography and Geography 

The “Mississippi Delta” (Delta) is an alluvial plain created by meanderings of the Mississippi River. 

The Delta extends from Memphis, Tennessee to Vicksburg, Mississippi, and is 75 miles wide at the 

widest point, tapering on each end. The Mississippi River flows along the Delta’s western edge, while 

the eastern edge is bordered by steep bluffs that rise 300 feet above the elevation of the Delta. The 

Delta is composed of alluvial soils deposited primarily by the Mississippi River, with surface features 

resulting from the meandering of the Mississippi River and lesser streams such as the Yazoo River. 

The Delta has a slight downward slope to the east as a result of natural levee formation. This slope 
 21

causes most of the drainage to be away from the Mississippi River, eventually flowing into the Yazoo 

River before joining the Mississippi River at the lower extremity of the Delta. Old channels, oxbow 

lakes, brakes, sloughs, and other features developed in areas that bordered the main river channels, 

while low-lying slackwater areas separated from currents and the channel resulted in broad flats. 

These features intermixed as the Mississippi River meandered across the Delta. 

Table 3. Refuge location (excluding Theodore Roosevelt and Holt Collier NWRs) 

Refuge County Location 

Hillside Holmes and Yazoo 13 miles north of Yazoo City, Mississippi and 

3.5 miles east of Thornton 

Mathews Brake Leflore and Holmes 9 miles south of Greenwood and 5 miles 

west of Sidon, Mississippi, between Highway 

49 and Highway 7 

Morgan Brake Holmes 2 miles north of Tchula, turn right on 

Providence Road. The refuge lies between 

U.S. Highway 49 and the adjacent loess hills 

north of Tchula 

Panther Swamp Yazoo and Humphreys 4 miles east of Holly Bluff and four miles 

west of Yazoo City 

Yazoo Washington 28 miles south of Greenville, lying between 

Highways 1 and 61 

Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge 

Yazoo NWR encompasses 13,706 acres and is located 4 miles east of the Mississippi River in 

Washington County. Elevations vary 23 feet, from 90 feet mean sea level (MSL) in Steele Bayou to 

113 feet MSL at the Headquarters Office. The primary habitat feature is Swan Lake, a 3,600-4,000-

acre oxbow lake (Figure 6). Swan Lake has been divided into four management compartments by 

cross-levees and water control structures. Yazoo NWR includes 65 impoundments, which flood 

about 2,000 acres, including 650 acres in moist-soil management and 1,350 acres of bottomland 

hardwood forests that are flooded in the winter to provide habitat for waterfowl. Several 

impoundments are a combination of habitats, with permanent water (345 acres) in deeper areas and 

a seasonally flooded forest in the shallow areas. 

Yazoo NWR habitat types

Wetlands/Swamps 3,500 acres

Moist Soil 650 acres

Green Tree Reservoirs 1,350 acres

Cropland 3,942 acres

Bottomland Hardwoods 2,293 acres

Reforested 1,507 acres

Grasslands 346 acres

Administrative Lands 118 acres

Total 13,706 acres
 22

Figure 6. Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge current managed habitats 
 23

Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge 

Panther Swamp NWR encompasses 38,697 acres in the middle of the lower Delta along the Will M. 

Whittington Channel, roughly between Silver Creek on the west and the Yazoo River on the east 

(Figure 7). Lake George Wildlife Management Area mitigation lands purchased by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (COE) and managed by the state border the refuge on the south and southwest. 

The refuge is situated at a lower elevation than any refuge in the Complex, from 75 feet MSL to 

slightly over 100 feet MSL. Management is challenged by regular flood events and the expansive 

beaver population. Beaver dams flood mature bottomland hardwood trees and hardwood reforested 

areas, causing extensive damage. 

Panther Swamp NWR includes a COE overlay area within the acquisition boundary. The COE’s 7,067 

acres fall primarily in the Big Twist area, lands that were set aside as bottomland hardwood forest mitigation 

for the COE’s Upper Yazoo Basin Project. A perpetual agreement between the COE and Fish and Wildlife 

Service assigns the Service with management responsibilities for the Big Twist area. As defined in the 

mitigation agreement, the entire tract must be maintained in bottomland hardwood habitat. 

Panther Swamp NWR habitat types

Wetlands/Swamps 5,212 acres

Cropland/Moist Soil 2,350 acres

Grasslands 505 acres

Hardwood Forest 19,933 acres

Early Successional 7,688 acres

Administrative Lands 252 acres

Subtotal 35,940 acres

Carter Tract habitat types

Moist Soil 600 acres

Reforested areas 1,457 acres

Cropland 700 acres

Subtotal 2,757 acres

Total 38,697 acres

Hillside National Wildlife Refuge 

Hillside NWR occupies 15,572 acres on the eastern edge of the lower Delta (Figure 8) between the 

loessal bluffs and the COE levee on the west. The elevation rises from less than 100 feet MSL on 

the south end to about 135 feet MSL on the north, where Black Creek forms an alluvial fan as it 

enters the Delta from the hills. The eastern boundary includes a small portion of the loessal bluffs. 

Within the refuge’s boundary, the elevation rises abruptly to 300 feet MSL 
 24

Figure 7. Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge current managed habitats 













































 

 











	


	



	











 



 	












 



	




		





	

 	!""#$

%&	

	&'	

"(#	

)*
	 +)

	  +	  "+	

 
,
	

(-./
 25

Refuge lands were purchased by the COE for its Hillside floodway, “Yazoo Basin Headwater Project.” 

The COE project transformed most of the land into a silt collection sump via a cutoff levee containing 

the altered channels of the Black and Fannegusha Creeks. The COE project was designed to allow 

silt to settle out of the water before reaching the Yazoo and Mississippi Rivers, to prevent costly 

dredging projects. Upon project completion, the land was transferred to the Service for management. 

The COE retains the right to manipulate water and any ditches it deems necessary. Prior to the COE 

project the dominant habitat type was bottomland hardwoods. Today willow and cottonwood trees 

grow in areas affected by the accumulated silt. 

Hillside NWR habitat types

Bottomland Hardwood Forest 6,673 acres

Black Willow/Cottonwood 5,010 acres

Croplands 1,448 acres

Early Successional 1,069 acres

Sloughs and Streams 374 acres

Borrow Ponds 285 acres

Other Lands (e.g., roads and levees) 713 acres

Total 15,572 acres

Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge 

Morgan Brake NWR encompasses 7,383 acres and is located approximately 3 miles north of Hillside 

NWR (Figure 9). The refuge borders the eastern edge of the Delta adjacent to the loess bluffs. 

Elevation varies from less than 100 feet to 120 feet MSL at the base of the bluffs. Portions of the 

boundary include the loessal bluffs, which rise to more than 300 feet MSL. The main wetland 

features of the refuge are Morgan Brake, which lies half in and half out of the refuge, Around-theWorld Brake, and Commander Brake, adjacent to the bluffs. 

Morgan Brake NWR habitat types

Bottomland Hardwoods w/ Brakes 3,134 acres

Early Successional 1,623 acres

Former Catfish Ponds 489 acres

Croplands 860 acres

Shrub Swamp/marsh 677 acres

Forested Uplands 570 acres

Administrative Lands 30 acres

Total 7,383 acres

MATHEWS BRAKE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Mathews Brake NWR encompasses 2,418 acres and is located 7 miles north of Morgan Brake NWR 

(Figure 10). The primary habitat feature is a shallow, 1,810-acre baldcypress/tupelo brake with 

expansive open water. The majority of the refuge is only accessible by boat. Portions of the Brake 

are privately owned. Secondary habitat types include 422 acres of bottomland hardwood forest and 

186 acres of reforested lands that are in the early successional stages. 
 26

Figure 8. Hillside National Wildlife Refuge current managed habitats 

 



















 

	




	









	


	



 






	




	

	

 	












	
	


	

			



	 
!"	#		

	
$		%

%		%&$

 '	

	 '	 		
	

"()&



 !"
 27

Figure 9. Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge current managed habitats 













































































































 



 



  

 















	




	



	


	

	
	


	




		


	



	


	






	



 
	
!	
"	

 
#$
	

%$&&$

'


$ 
#

#

(
	

 

	
#

 


)





* + * , - 

.
!



/


	0



 



	






	


 28

Mathews Brake NWR habitat types

Cypress/tupelo Brake 1,810 acres

Bottomland Hardwood Forest 422 acres

Reforested Areas 186 acres

Total 2,418 acres

Soils 

The alluvial soils in the lower Delta range from silts and clays in the poorly drained areas to sandier, 

coarser-grained soils on natural levees and ancient sandbars. Most of the soils in the Complex are 

silts and clays, which have fine texture, low permeability, and high shrink-swell potential. The surface 

layer is often hard when dry, friable when moist, and plastic when wet, making moisture content an 

important consideration when working the soil. There are lighter soils in limited areas, such as 

natural levees, but most of the broad natural levees adjacent to major streams are privately owned 

cotton production areas. 

Hydrology 

Historically, the refuges were subject to flooding by the Mississippi River in winter and spring. The lower 

Delta was completely flooded five times between 1882 and 1927, despite the river levee. Since then, the 

Steele Bayou levee and floodgate have been completed, preventing widespread flooding from the river. 

However, water from the Yazoo and Sunflower River systems causes annual backwater flooding on 

Panther Swamp NWR due to its lower elevation. Floodwaters are often present for 6 months, eventually 

draining through Panther Creek to the Big Sunflower River on the west side and the Landside Ditch and 

Lake George on the east, both leading back to the Yazoo River. 

Yazoo NWR receives runoff water from a 300-square-mile area of croplands and municipalities to the 

north. Most of this drainage enters the refuge through Silver Lake Bayou, Ditch No. 11 (locally called 

No. 9) and Black Bayou. Fortunately, Silver Lake Bayou and Ditch No. 11 no longer flow into Swan 

Lake, where they were causing serious siltation and contamination problems. As the COE completed 

the Steele Bayou project, it constructed a channel and levee to divert the flow directly into Steele 

Bayou from Silver Lake Bayou and Ditch No. 11. The channel and levee keep water from the 300-

square-mile watershed from entering Swan Lake. However, drainage swales, ditches, and other 

channels continue to carry agricultural runoff into Swan Lake from the west side, resulting in 

eutrophication and pesticide contamination problems in Swan Lake. 

Backwater flooding is uncommon on Yazoo NWR and is usually very limited. The COE levee, which 

lies along the east side of Swan Lake, and separates Swan Lake from Steele Bayou, has a spillway 

set at 100 feet MSL. Waters rising over 101 feet MSL can overtop some of the major impoundment 

levees, and spill into Swan Lake. The design elevation of the top of the COE levee is 106 feet MSL. 
 29

Figure 10. Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge current managed habitats 











  		




	



	


 "
	
#	 
 ! 


   
	
 	
 	

 	
	



$

%

!

  

	
&

 
&

 #	
' 

	



 





()* ( ()* "









!
%




$ 
	)





	
  


    



 30

 Morgan Brake NWR receives surface drainage along the east and south boundary and drainage 

from farmlands north and west of Morgan Brake proper, either from the overflow of Mileston Bayou or 

directly from smaller drainages and ditches. Chicopa Creek/Spring Branch and Everett Branch 

coming out of the hills are major tributaries to the drainage. Overflows from Mileston Bayou and 

Spring Branch often flood a major portion of the refuge. These waters eventually leave the refuge 

through an arm of Tchula Lake on the west side and Spring Branch flows through the middle of the 

refuge. Other drainage into the refuge comes from cropland on the southwest side into a forested 

wetland area. Constant seepage from the hills appears in various places at the base of the bluffs and 

maintains hydrology in some of the middle hill ponds throughout the year. 

Mathews Brake is a shallow lake that formerly filled up from rainfall in the vicinity of the Brake. Abiaca 

Creek is the natural source of water, but because of silt deposits blocking the mouth, water was diverted 

each year into the brake from off-refuge. In February 2003, the water source was completely blocked 

after a significant rain event dislodged a road culvert and allowed sand and sediment-laden water to fill 

the inflow channel. To remedy the situation, a new channel was constructed in 2004 to direct water from 

a tributary of Abiaca Creek into the brake. Water levels in the brake are now controlled by two water 

control structures at the head of the channel. Because a portion of the brake is privately owned, refuge 

personnel coordinate water level adjustments with the private landowner. 

Water Quality 

Agricultural runoff from almost any source in the Delta carries organochlorine (OC) pesticides, which are 

bound to soil particles. These pesticides, heavily used for years in the Delta, have persisted in the soil for 

over 15 years since their use was banned, and likely will exist for many more. Pesticide contamination is 

an issue on all refuges in the Complex. Fish and wildlife species are subject to contain OC compounds 

that may exceed predator protection levels or human consumption concern levels. 

A second chemical of concern is polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) on Hillside NWR, which receives 

urban runoff and sewage treatment effluent from the town of Lexington, Mississippi, via Black Creek. 

Siltation, whether pesticide-laden or not, is a concern throughout the Complex, particularly in 

wetlands that receive agricultural runoff, such as Swan Lake on Yazoo NWR, Blissdale Swamp 

on Hillside NWR, Morgan Brake NWR, Mathews Brake NWR, and the Deep Bayou area on 

Panther Swamp NWR. Silt diminishes water quality and reduces the capacity for water storage, 

resulting in a loss of aquatic habitat. 

On Hillside NWR, flooding occurs from headwaters sources in the adjacent hills. Black Creek and 

Fannegusha Creek deposit large amounts of silt annually on refuge lands in accordance with the COE’s 

Hillside Floodway Project design. However, in a little over half of its projected 50-year life, the silt collection 

capacity of the land is nearing design capacity. The accumulated silt is producing a build-up of silt deposits 

and alterations of stream channels, which is most noticeable in the borrow ponds along the northwest side. 

Shallowing aquatic areas are losing fish as the silt displaces the water. Forest composition and structure 

have also been altered by the silt deposition and altered hydrological regime. 
 31

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 

Flora 

Prior to European settlement, the Delta cover type was primarily bottomland hardwood forest. 

Around 1820, settlers began clearing the forest. The dominant forest type was oak-gum-cypress, 

with canebrakes covering the understory of broad flats on slightly higher ground. Canebrakes were 

very extensive on natural levees, forming almost pure stands. Most of the surviving forests now 

occupy low-lying ground that is too wet for agriculture, and are dominated by wet-site species. These 

wetlands have a fluctuating water level and are semi-dry part of the year. The lowest areas contain 

cypress and buttonbush throughout the Complex. Cypress is complemented or nearly replaced in 

some low areas by swamp tupelo on all Complex refuges except Yazoo NWR, where swamp tupelo 

does not occur. Other woody species in permanent or semi-permanent flooded areas include swamp 

privet, water elm, black willow, and water locust. 

Green ash, red maple, cottonwood, sugarberry, honey locust, sycamore, bitter pecan, overcup oak, 

American elm, and Nuttall oak dominate slightly higher sites. Extensive flats on Panther Swamp 

NWR support scattered deciduous holly (possum haw) in the mid-story, while higher elevations 

support extensive stands of dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor). Hardwoods on still higher sites include 

willow oak (especially Panther Swamp NWR), sweet pecan, sweet gum, black locust, and water oak. 

Prominent vines include poison ivy, cross-vine, Virginia creeper, muscadine grape, and false grape in 

forested areas, and ladies’ eardrops, peppervine, and trumpet creeper in more open sites. 

Vegetation associations vary among the refuges. Panther Swamp NWR has distinctively lower 

ground with fewer areas that can support species found on well-drained soils. Yazoo NWR has more 

topographic relief with distinct ridges and greater overall diversity. One ridge (<10 feet high) on 

Yazoo NWR has Shumard oak and bitternut hickory, both of which are rarely seen in the lower Delta. 

The loessal bluffs adjacent to Hillside and Morgan Brake NWRs support a completely different floral 

assemblage. Some trees, such as northern red oak, swamp chestnut oak, Florida maple, 

yellowwood, and cucumber tree are considered unusual in the Delta. American beech, tulip poplar, 

white oak, red buckeye, and hornbeam, among other species, occupy the lower and middle loess 

slopes, with flowering dogwood, southern red oak, and black gum at the top of the bluff. Refuge staff 

identified 44 species of woody plants on a cursory survey of a very small area on the bluff. 

Herbaceous species included abundant jack-in-the pulpit, Christmas fern, and trillium. 

Fauna 

Mammals: 

Mammals occurring on the Complex represent most of the extant species in the Delta. Large 

mammals include the abundant white-tailed deer, feral hogs (an invasive species found primarily on 

Panther Swamp and Morgan Brake NWRs), and the Louisiana black bear which has been seen most 

recently on Yazoo NWR. In 2004, four Louisiana black bears were seen on Yazoo NWR. Refuge 

staff collaborated with the Mississippi State Bear Biologist to capture the visiting 115-pound male 

black bear on the refuge and fit him with a radio collar to track his subsequent travels. Radio 

telemetry revealed later that the bear remained on the refuge after the trapping event, well into the 

winter hibernation period. 
 32

Medium-sized mammals occurring on the Complex include opossum, armadillo, eastern cottontail 

and swamp rabbits, beaver, muskrat, nutria, coyote, red fox, gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, river 

otter, and bobcat. Nutria populations (introduced from South America) cause significant habitat 

damage, as do beavers, especially on Panther Swamp NWR. During the latter half of the 20th

century, armadillos extended their range into the Delta region of Mississippi. Their impact here has 

not been fully investigated. Coyotes are a recent arrival, with the first refuge sightings recorded in the 

mid-1980s. Their presence is thought to be responsible, among other things, for the scarcity of foxes. 

River otters appear to have made a comeback in recent years. Raccoons are abundant and tend to 

overpopulate. Surveys for small mammals have not been conducted, but the following species are 

thought to inhabit complex refuges. 

Species # of species 

Shrews 3 

Bats 12 

Chipmunks 1 

Squirrels 3 

New world rats and mice 7 

Voles 1 

Old world rats and mice 3 

Weasels 1 

Mink 1 

Birds 

More than 225 species of migratory birds use the Complex, with 77 species breeding on Complex 

lands. Ten species with Partners-in-Flight “concern scores” of 20 or more are common or abundant, 

including prothonotary warbler, painted bunting, red-headed woodpecker, yellow-billed cuckoo, wood 

thrush, white-eyed vireo, yellow-breasted chat, Carolina chickadee, loggerhead shrike, and dickcissel. 

Mallards are the most abundant wintering waterfowl species, followed variously by gadwall, 

greenwing teal, pintails, and shovelers. Snow geese occupy Morgan Brake NWR and Yazoo NWR in 

large numbers during winter, with flocks sometimes exceeding 100,000 birds. Wood ducks and 

hooded mergansers are common nesters in the spring and summer, depending on the size of the 

nest box program on each refuge. 

Wading bird rookeries exist on Yazoo, Hillside, and Morgan Brake NWRs. Nesting species include 

the great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, little blue heron, cattle egret, black-crowned night 

heron, anhinga, tricolored heron, and, more recently, the double-crested cormorant. White ibis have 

occupied rookeries on Morgan Brake NWR in the past, but currently are the dominant species using a 

large rookery adjacent to Panther Swamp NWR. 

About 20 species of shorebirds use the Complex, especially Yazoo and Morgan Brake NWRs, where 

moist-soil habitat is managed intensively. Some of the most numerous species are least sandpipers, 

pectoral sandpipers, lesser yellowlegs, and stilt sandpipers. 
 33

Reptiles 

Although a formal survey of reptiles has not been conducted on any of the refuges, a list of species has 

been prepared based on species ranges and personal encounters by refuge staff. The list includes 

American alligators, turtles (15 species); lizards (7 species); and snakes (27 species). A survey of the 

loessal bluff area may expand the list by revealing a variety of predominantly upland species. 

Several species of water snakes are common or abundant, especially the broad-banded, diamondbacked, and green water snakes. Venemous snakes include the copperhead, cottonmouth, and 

timber (canebrake) rattlesnake. Panther Swamp NWR is known for a high population of 

cottonmouths. Rat snakes of mixed or uncertain subspecies are significant nest predators, and are 

abundant on the Complex. Racers are common. The most common turtle species is likely the redeared turtle. Alligator snapping turtles are locally abundant and common snapping turtles are located 

throughout the Complex. Soft-shelled turtles occur in some waterways. The ground skink and the 

broad-headed skink are two of the most common lizard species. 

Amphibians 

Although calling frog surveys and searches for salamander breeding sites have been conducted on 

Yazoo NWR, no formal surveys have been conducted Complex-wide. The numbers of species that 

may occur on the refuge include: salamanders (7); toads (2); treefrogs (6); chorus frog (1); narrowmouthed toad (1); and true frogs (5). Cricket frogs, green treefrogs, bullfrogs, and southern leopard 

frogs are abundant. Bronze frogs are present and in some areas are common. Central newts or 

ambystomatid species are rarely encountered. Few breeding sites have been identified. Sirens or 

amphiumas are common in suitable habitat, which is widespread. 

Fish 

Fish populations consist mostly of rough fish, which can withstand hot, murky water with low oxygen 

content, including long-nosed gar, buffalo, carp, bowfin, and catfish. Sport fish include largemouth bass, 

bream (sunfish), and channel catfish, which have been stocked in suitable waters such as certain borrow 

ponds on Hillside NWR and former catfish ponds on Morgan Brake NWR selected for public fishing use. 

A wide variety of fish species exists in the streams and bayous, including largemouth bass, various 

bream, and crappie. When flooded, Panther Swamp NWR is accessible to paddlefish, pallid sturgeon, 

and other species using the Lower Mississippi/Yazoo River drainage system. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Refuges in the Complex are located in Yazoo, Holmes, Leflore, Washington, and Humphreys 

counties. In addition, several Farm Service Agency properties with management responsibilities 

assigned to the Complex also occur in Issaquena, Warren, and Madison counties. All of these 

counties are located within an area locally referred to as the “Delta”, except those in Madison County. 

The Delta is typically characterized as rural, with an economy based on manufacturing and the 

production of catfish, cotton, soybeans, corn, and rice. Most of the counties’ land bases are in 

agriculture (Table 4). The largest communities in these counties are Greenville (Washington County), 

population 41,633; Yazoo City (Yazoo), population 14,550; Greenwood (Leflore), population 18,425; 

Durant (Holmes), population 2,932; and Belzoni (Humphreys), population 2,663. 
 34

Table 4. Percent of land base used for agricultural production in counties surrounding 

Complex refuges 

County Total Area (square miles) Area used for agriculture (%) 

Washington 733 536 (73%) 

Yazoo 933 488 (52%) 

Humphreys 430 310 (72%) 

Holmes 759 297 (39%) 

Leflore 605 418 (69%) 

(Source: USDA, 2003) 

Mississippi is the most economically depressed state in the nation (Tables 5 and 6), and the counties 

in which the refuges are located contribute significantly to this economic depression. These counties 

rank below the national averages for employment, education, and average income. Unemployment 

figures in 2002 varied from 8 percent in Yazoo County to 18 percent in Holmes County. 

Table 5. Employment data for counties surrounding Complex refuges 

County Leading Industry Percent of 

Earnings Earnings Unemployment Rate* 

Yazoo Manufacturing 27.2% $266,380 8.0% 

Leflore Government 26.9% $484,569 10.0% 

Washington Services 28.0% $790,354 11.2% 

Holmes Government 30.9% $118,981 18.0% 

Humphreys Government 23.4% $109,196 11.7% 

*Mississippi’s average unemployment rate is 5.7 percent. (Source of statistics: Department of Mississippi Development 

Authority 2002) 
 35

Table 6. Demographics for Complex vicinity. 

County Land Area (sq. miles) Popu- lation 

% pop. 

change 

(1990-

2000) 

Median 

Age 

Per 

capita 

Income 

**% 

below 

poverty 

% 

White 

% 

Black 

% 

Hispanic 

Washington 733 61,827 -7.3 31.5 $19,237 25.8 34.0 64.6 0.8 

Yazoo 933 27,809 10.4 33.7 $17,314 28.9 44.7 54.0 4.4 

Humphreys 430 11,206 -7.6 30.5 $17,054 32.0 27.2 71.5 1.5 

Holmes 759 21,476 0.0 29.7 $13,424 33.0 20.5 78.7 0.9 

Leflore 605 37,316 1.6 30.1 $18,809 27.2 30.0 67.7 1.9 

Source: Mississippi Development Authority, 2002-03 Community Profile data, U.S. Census Bureau, **1998 and 2000 data, “The Changing Delta, 1990-2000," Tom Kersen 2002 
 36

Recreation 

Public hunting and fishing provide the primary source of recreation activities on the Complex, as 

regulated by various federal and state laws. Hunting is the most popular recreational activity on 

refuges in the Complex. The Complex contains large populations of fish and wildlife, including a 

number of game species. Public hunting programs for deer, rabbits, squirrels, raccoons, waterfowl, 

doves, and turkey are available during authorized hunting seasons. 

All hunting and fishing programs are monitored and partially funded through general ($12.00) and 

limited draw ($12.50) hunt permits and fees. Each year approximately 5,800 general recreation 

permits are issued for hunting and fishing, and approximately 2,000 special limited hunt permits are 

issued to hunters for white-tailed deer and wild turkey. Certain portions of the refuges are 

inaccessible to passenger cars or pickups. Hunting access is therefore provided by a limited number 

of ATV trails that are open to ATV traffic only during the hunting season. 

Fishing is the second most popular activity on the refuge. In 2004, 14,490 visits were 

associated with fishing (Complex Refuge Management Information System 2004 data). Most 

fishing occurs on Mathews Brake NWR where access is provided via a boat ramp on the east 

side, and on Panther Swamp NWR where access is provided by two boat ramps, one at Lake 

George and the other at Deep Bayou. 

Wildlife observation and photography is encouraged on all refuges in the Complex. A few trails 

provide opportunities for hiking, and many refuge roads are also open to the public. Each year 

several special use permits are issued to photographers. Two new disabled accessible wildlife 

observation platforms are available for the public at Yazoo NWR, and one disabled accessible 

interpreted nature trail is available at Hillside NWR. Although occasional visitors stop by to observe 

wildlife and take a few pictures, most wildlife observation and photography is associated with hunting 

and fishing because the Complex lacks the staff and resources to establish formal programs that 

would expand or improve participation. 

Environmental education and interpretation are provided upon request, but there are no refugespecific programs and no staff available to develop and conduct effective education and outreach 

programs. The Complex has no camping facilities. 

In 2004, refuges in the Complex counted approximately 163,105 visitor-use-days for all activities 

(Complex Refuge Management Information System 2004 data). 

Outdoor Recreation Economics 

Fish and wildlife habitats and species associated with the Delta are economically important. Local 

businesses benefit from hunting and recreational fishing, wildlife viewing and photography, and 

commercial fishing (Table 7). Resident and nonresident hunting and fishing revenues for the state 

totaled $13.7 million for 525,479 licenses (Mississippi Development Authority 2002). 

In addition, $6.2 million in resident and nonresident fishing license revenues were reported in FY 2002. 
 37

Table 7. Activities by participants, 16 years old and older, throughout Mississippi 

Activity 

Number 

of Participants 

Activity 

Days 

Avg. 

Days 

per 

person 

Total 

Expenses 

($1,000) 

Triprelated 

Expenses 

($1,000) 

Equipment 

and 

Other 

($1,000) 

Average 

$ per 

person 

Avg. Trip 

Expenses 

per day 

Fishing *586,000 9.5M 16 $211,000 $118,000 $93,000 $363 $13 

Hunting **357,000 8.5M 24 $360,000 $132,000 $227,000 $969 $16 

Wildlife 

Observation 

***631,000 NA NA $303,000 $36,000 $267,000 $481 NA 

*136,000 Nonresidents, 450,000 residents 

**111,000 Nonresidents, 245,000 residents 

***55,000 Nonresidents, 576,000 residents 

(Source: 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation in Mississippi) 

Wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities contribute to the economic base for rural communities. 

The Complex can enhance existing opportunities through improved access, facilities, and staffing. 

Hunting and fishing, and more recently, eco-tourism involving wildlife observation, photography, and 

environmental interpretation are increasingly being viewed as desirable industries. Land alterations 

and development for agriculture and other purposes have resulted in the loss of valuable fish and 

wildlife habitat. Refuges in the Complex serve a vital role, not only by restoring, protecting, and 

providing habitat for a diversity of plant and wildlife species, but also by providing natural areas where 

people can enjoy wildlife observation, photography, hunting, or fishing. 

Tourism 

Music, festivals, historical sites, and outdoor recreation are some of the tourism opportunities 

available, but infrastructure and expertise is lacking to effectively position the Delta as a cultural 

tourism or outdoor recreation destination. The State of Mississippi has initiated plans to develop the 

“Mississippi Millennium Blues Trail,” which would pass through the counties surrounding the 

Complex. The Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) is working to designate Highway 1, 

which borders the west side of Yazoo NWR, as a state scenic highway. MDOT’s next step is to 

support the designation of Highway 1 as a Federal Scenic Highway. Overall, tourism (excluding 

hunting and fishing) in Washington, Holmes, Yazoo, Leflore, and Humphreys counties does not 

currently contribute significantly to the local economy (Table 8). Washington County generates 

additional revenues from casinos located along the Mississippi River, but offers few other established 

attractions that regularly draw tourists to this area. 

CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 

Prior to Old World settlement, several Native American tribes inhabited the Delta. North of the 

Complex, the Quizquiz tribe was a predecessor of the historic Tunica. Only one village of Quapaw 

was identified in 1763, with the rest in Arkansas. The Yazoo, Koroa, and Tunica tribes occupied 

areas along the lower Yazoo River. The first Europeans to travel through the Delta were the 

Spaniards of De Soto’s 1540 expedition. The French arrived in the mid-600s. They noted many 

tribes; however, nearly all the tribes mentioned by the French in the mid-1600s had disappeared by 
 38

1750, due to the introduction of European diseases that killed many, warfare, and migration. In 1803, 

the land was sold to the United States as part of the Louisiana Purchase (Heisler 1978). 

Table 8. Estimated county tourism and recreation (T&R) revenues/employment 

County Total T&R 

Revenues 

Total T&R 

Employment 

Total Establishment 

Based Employment 

T&R 

Employment 

Percentage 

Washington 148,053,836 1,565 23,050 6.8% 

Yazoo 11,874,082 150 6,600 2.3% 

Leflore 29,476,106 475 16,340 2.9% 

Humphreys 2,173,617 27 3,060 0.9% 

Holmes 4,205,929 67 4,230 1.6% 

(Mississippi Development Authority, Division of Tourism 2003) 

Numerous cultural resource inventories have been completed on approximately 25,000 acres 

throughout the Complex (Table 9). Comprehensive surveys were conducted on Yazoo, Mathews 

Brake, and Hillside NWRs prior to and following land acquisition. The only refuge in the Complex that 

has been identified as containing significant cultural value (to date) is Yazoo NWR. Five properties 

on Yazoo NWR are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, including the Swan Lake 

Indian mounds, Deer Lake Village, Deer Lake Village South, the Steele Bayou site, and the Big Lake 

site. The five sites were nominated for the Register in 1973; however, the State has not yet 

completed the process, and further coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the 

Service’s Regional Archaeologist is needed to move this process forward. 

Previous cultural resource surveys have recommended that the Swan Lake Indian Mounds be closed 

to the public. However, the Indian Mounds are the most obvious and well-known cultural resource 

site in the area. The impressive Temple Mound on Yazoo Refuge Road is a source of great curiosity 

by the visiting public, and the refuge’s proximity to the Winterville Mounds and Museum in Greenville, 

Mississippi, increases the likelihood that visitors in the area will stop by and visit the refuge’s mounds. 

Only minimal infrastructure would be required to prepare the Temple Mound for interpretive display. 

Table 9. Archaeological surveys conducted on the Complex to date 

Refuge Acres Surveyed Known Archeological 

Properties 

Properties eligible for 

the NRHP* 

Yazoo 5,000 27 5 

Panther Swamp 175 0 0 

Hillside 15,406 0 0 

Morgan Brake 2,000 0 0 

Mathews Brake 2,418 0 0 

*NRHP= “National Register of Historic Places” 

(Source: Central MS Complex Cultural Resource files) 
 39

Indian Mounds 

Although the first people may have entered what is now Mississippi about 12,000 years ago, the 

earliest major phase of earthen mound construction in this area did not begin until approximately 

2,100 years ago. Mounds continued to be built sporadically for another 1,800 years. Of the mounds 

that remain today, some of the earliest were built to bury important members of local tribal groups. 

The burial mounds were usually rounded, dome-shapes. Later mounds were rectangular, flat-topped, 

earthen platforms upon which temples or residences of chiefs were erected. 

Eight hundred years ago the Delta was home to highly organized societies. There were roads, 

commerce, and cultural centers anchored by awe-inspiring earthen monuments. Wonders of 

geometric precision, these earthworks were the centers of life. However, mound construction was in 

a period of decline in the 1500s when the first Europeans arrived in the region and brought epidemic 

diseases, which decimated native populations across the Southeast. As a result, by the time 

sustained contact with European colonists began around 1700, the long tradition of mound building 

was reaching its end. Today mounds owned by state or federal agencies are protected along with 

the lands for which those agencies are responsible. Most of the mounds in Mississippi, however, are 

on privately owned land. Many mounds have been irreparably damaged or completely destroyed by 

modern development and looting. As a result, Indian mounds are critically endangered cultural sites. 

(Indian Mounds of Mississippi, National Park Service 2002). 
 40
 41

III. Plan Development 

OVERVIEW 

Early in the draft plan development process, the planning team identified a list of issues and concerns 

that were likely to be associated with Complex conservation and management. The list of issues 

grew with the addition of concerns from governmental partners and the public. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND PLANNING PROCESS 

The planning process was initiated with a meeting of planning team members in August 2000. The 

planning team subsequently identified an initial list of issues and prepared a mailing list that included 

the general public, adjacent landowners, state agencies, private organizations, governments, and 

other interested parties. Letters were mailed to individuals and groups on the mailing list to explain 

the comprehensive conservation planning process and to request permission to include them on 

future meetings. The letters also requested that the recipients identify other individuals who may be 

interested in the planning effort. In addition, announcements were made at meetings of civic groups 

and public service announcements were aired on local radio stations. 

Three refuge biological reviews (Yazoo and Panther Swamp NWRs, and a combined Hillside, 

Mathews Brake, and Morgan Brake NWRs) were conducted between October 2000 and January 

2001 to obtain recommendations for future refuge management activities from a diverse team of Fish 

and Wildlife Service staff, federal and state agency representatives, non-governmental organizations, 

and universities. The combined expertise of the group represented the most respected and 

experienced wildlife and habitat managers in the state. The diverse range of interests among these 

groups provided the means for a critical examination of current programs. The reviews produced a 

range of alternatives that identified data needs, habitat objectives, opportunities for improvement, and 

other information, while lending support to future partnership opportunities on mutual interests. 

Three separate reports summarized the recommendations submitted by the biological review teams. 

In February 2001, two refuge public use reviews (Yazoo/Panther and Hillside/Mathews/Morgan) were 

completed. The public use review team (comprised of Service staff) developed a “Public Use Review 

Report” for each of the refuges that outlined recommendations made in the field. In May 2001, three 

public scoping meetings were conducted to obtain information and concerns from individuals and 

groups occupying the communities around the five refuges. Meeting announcements were sent to 

everyone on the mailing list, and flyers were distributed with details about the meetings. Articles 

announcing the meetings were published in newspapers and magazines, and announcements were 

made on radio and television stations. 

A presentation at the beginning of each meeting outlined the planning process, the purpose(s) of 

each refuge, and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Participants were assigned to 

groups and each group was provided with individuals who served as facilitator and recorder for that 

group. Each group completed an “Issues Worksheet”, which gave an indication of the value each 

person placed on the Complex’s various resources. 

Following the “Issue Worksheet” outline, participants were asked to present specific issues related to 

each topic (e.g., waterfowl, shorebirds, hunting, and law enforcement). All comments and issues 

were recorded. At the end of the meeting, all worksheets were collected. The worksheet also 

provided an additional comment section to accommodate those individuals who felt more comfortable 

providing their comments in writing. Additional “Issue Worksheets” were mailed to those individuals 
 42

and groups on the mailing list who did not attend the meetings. Several letters were received from 

interested parties and organizations addressing their concerns for the future management of the 

Complex. The draft plan considered all input obtained from the meetings and the correspondence. 

Although no local tribes are located in the area, letters were sent to the tribal chairs of the Quapaw 

and Tunica tribes of Oklahoma and Louisiana, respectively. The letters explained the planning 

process and requested that they contact the planning team if they had any tribal lands in the area or 

concerns about planning. No response was received. 

The biological and public use reviews and scoping meetings provided a list of issues that participants 

believed needed to be addressed in the comprehensive conservation plan. Alternatives to address 

identified issues were developed (Environmental Assessment, Section B of the Draft CCP). The 

preferred alternative formed the basis for selection of objectives and strategies that are expected to 

achieve the goals identified by the planning team. The process ensured that the more important 

issues would be resolved or given priority over the life of this plan. 

ISSUES 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

The protection and recovery of threatened and endangered plants and animals is an important 

responsibility of the Service and the Service’s national wildlife refuges. Several threatened and 

endangered species use or could use the Complex, including the bald eagle, Louisiana black bear, 

pondberry, interior least tern, and pallid sturgeon. 

Recovery plans for the Louisiana black bear address the need to eventually reestablish a population 

within its historical range, including the State of Mississippi. Large blocks of interior forest, such as 

the forest on Panther Swamp NWR and the neighboring Delta National Forest, could serve as 

potential sites for reestablishment. Until recently, most restoration efforts have been focused on the 

Louisiana black bear within the State of Louisiana. However, bear sightings in the lower Mississippi 

Delta have increased over the last few years, suggesting a possible expansion of these bears across 

the Mississippi River from existing natural and repatriated bear populations in Louisiana and 

Arkansas. Some discussion among black bear conservationists has identified Panther Swamp NWR 

as a potential site for reintroductions as early as 2006. 

Pondberry, an endangered plant species, is known to occur on areas surrounding the Complex (e.g., 

Delta National Forest). No formal surveys have been conducted on the Complex to identify colonies 

of this rare shrub, but there have been attempts by USDA Forest Service researchers to reestablish 

and study small plantings of pondberry on various refuges. A formal survey needs to be conducted to 

determine whether any plant communities exist, particularly on Panther Swamp NWR, which is 

adjacent to Delta National Forest. 

Bald eagles nest in areas near Complex refuges, but no known nests occur on the refuge lands. 

Eagles are often seen during the winter months when waterfowl numbers are abundant and they are 

occasionally seen perched in trees near larger refuge water bodies. Surveys during the nesting 

season are needed to determine possible eagle nesting on the Complex. 

The pallid sturgeon is known to occur in drainage systems connected to refuge waters, but no formal 

surveys or studies have been conducted. Such surveys or studies need to be initiated. 
 43

Invasive Species 

An "invasive species" is defined here as a species 1) that is non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem 

under consideration and 2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health (Executive Order 13112). Invasive species can be 

plants, animals, and other organisms (e.g., microbes). Human actions are the primary means of 

invasive species introductions. 

Several invasive species occur on the Complex. Some of the more prominent and obvious are feral 

hogs, coyote, nutria, and armadillo. These species were either accidentally released and became 

acclimated to living in the wild, were intentionally released for sport or trade, or have expanded their 

ranges. These invasive species have been sporadically suppressed by lethal means. 

Invasive plants, insects, and smaller organisms are more difficult to recognize and monitor. The 

Complex does not have an invasive species monitoring program to detect initial introductions, rate of 

spread, and impacts. However, several invasive plants, such as alligator weed and kudzu, are known 

to occur in widespread areas across the Complex, overtaking native vegetation. Attempts at control 

have been opportunistic and sporadic, using both biological and chemical means. 

The Complex does not have a formal “Invasive Species Management Plan.” There are currently no 

structured programs or funding specifically provided for an invasive species management program. 

However, a plan will be developed and implemented by 2006, subject to available staff and funding. 

Resident Wildlife 

The primary mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System is the protection of 

federal trust species (migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, anadromous fish, and 

marine mammals). Responsibility is also assumed for managing resident wildlife that is dependent 

on refuge resources, but not to the exclusion or detriment of the purposes for which a refuge was 

established. A variety of wildlife species indigenous to the LMRAV inhabit the Complex. Some 

species are readily recognized by the general public, including white-tailed deer, wild turkey, 

cottontail rabbits, and others. Animals that are valued by the public for hunting opportunities are 

elevated in importance to land managers with hunting programs. 

The vision of the Refuge System “requires us to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System.” To better understand the biodiversity and 

environmental health of refuge lands, baseline information on wildlife and their habitats must be 

collected. These data will document presence or absence, monitor trends, and identify the impacts of 

refuge programs on species. Historically, most land managers in the Refuge System focused 

management efforts on more common, sometimes recreational, wildlife species. However, the 

Refuge System’s mission does not give preference to any one group of species, except for an 

overriding responsibility to protect and manage habitat for federal trust species (migratory birds, 

threatened and endangered species, anadromous fish, and marine mammals). 

Each biological review team member recognized that the Complex lacked specific data on many resident 

wildlife species, particularly nongame wildlife, such as reptiles, amphibians, mussels, insects, small 

mammals, and their habitats. Most efforts to collect data on resident wildlife have focused on studying and 

managing game species, such as white-tailed deer. While it is recognized that this is an important animal, 

especially to the habitat and hunting public, dozens of refuge wildlife and plant species deserve study. The 

needed studies on species and habitats will require additional staff and funding. 
 44

The northern bobwhite quail historically and traditionally has been one of the most popular game 

birds in the south. Around the turn of the twentieth century, bobwhite quail numbers reached all time 

highs, but since then have been in constant decline. Land use practices from 1900 through the 

1950s produced habitats that were conducive to the birds. Early settlers carved out small farms in 

large expanses of forests and along with the associated grazing of livestock and cropping, provided 

the right mosaic of early successional habitats that the birds require. However, for the last several 

decades, bobwhite quail and many other small game species associated with early successional 

stages and grasslands have declined at an average of three percent per year. In the last 10 years, 

the rate of decline has increased to about six percent per year. While many factors have contributed 

to this decline, including predators, pathogens, and pesticides, deteriorating habitat quality is the 

primary cause of decline. This is due to advanced natural succession, intensive monoculture farming, 

more intensive timber management, less use of prescribed burning, and the extensive use of exotic 

grasses, such as fescue and Bermuda. 

Agricultural farming practices have become more mechanized, and chemical control for pests has 

increased dramatically. Small patchwork farms that once provided nesting, brood rearing, and 

protective cover have been replaced by large monoculture farm operations that have eliminated 

thousands of miles of weedy ditch banks and fence rows. Bobwhite quail prefer an interspersion of 

woodlands, brush, grass, and croplands. Currently, there are no active management programs for 

quail throughout the Complex. However, coveys of quail have survived and expanded in favorable 

habitats existing on Panther Swamp, Hillside, and Morgan Brake NWRs. 

Wild turkey, an upland game species, can be found on every refuge in the Complex, except Mathews 

Brake NWR. Flooding and predation have caused dramatic population declines in the past, causing 

the closure or limiting of wild turkey hunting seasons. Monitoring efforts should be initiated to ensure 

that populations are not over-harvested on those refuges that offer wild turkey hunting programs. 

Management actions for quail and grassland birds would also benefit turkey production and survival. 

Many comments were received requesting the active management of these upland game birds in 

particular to provide a huntable population. 

White-tailed deer have the potential to adversely affect habitats unless their numbers are kept at or 

slightly below the carrying capacity. The Complex refuge hunt program is designed to maintain the herd 

while offering quality hunting opportunities to the public. An appropriate harvest (related to habitat 

conditions) has been maintained with occasional fluctuations due to weather and habitat conditions. 

Population level indicators could include monitoring, harvest data, and periodic health checks. 

Hunting programs provide opportunities for raccoon, rabbits, squirrel, and the incidental taking of 

beaver, coyote, and feral hogs during hunt seasons because overpopulation of raccoon, beaver, 

coyote, and feral swine adversely impact other species. For example, raccoon predation on the nests 

of turkey, wood ducks, and songbirds can limit their reproductive success. Raccoon also spread 

canine distemper, a common close-contact disease, to other species such as fox. Beaver have 

become pests, building dams that hold water on trees, causing massive die-offs of large tracts of 

mature bottomland hardwoods, which take decades to recover. On Panther Swamp NWR, trapping 

efforts by staff, volunteers, and the issuance of special use permits to commercial trappers have not 

effectively reduced these losses. 
 45

Migratory Birds 

Ducks. Most refuges in the Complex (except Hillside, Holt Collier, and Theodore Roosevelt NWRs) 

have legislated purposes that set higher priorities for migratory birds than all other wildlife species. 

These purposes guide the primary operation and management actions on the refuges. Habitat 

management actions include providing agricultural “hot foods”, such as rice, corn, milo, and millet, 

and managing and maintaining moist-soil areas and forested wetlands to meet the feeding, resting, 

and breeding needs of migratory and resident waterfowl. Comments of biological review teams and 

the public provided overwhelming support to continue or expand habitat management programs for 

migratory and resident waterfowl, with specific stipulations for improving and focusing efforts. 

To support the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Complex worked cooperatively with 

the LMVJV office and other public lands managers to develop foraging habitat objectives that can be 

expressed as acres by habitat type or duck-use-days. The objectives are based on the best available 

information; however, there are currently several research projects in progress that study the 

available resources and habitats on private lands. The results of these studies will likely alter refuge 

habitat management objectives in the future. 

Particular attention was given to the amount of refuge croplands and moist-soil areas needed to meet 

habitat objectives and to the numbers of waterfowl that these cropland and moist-soil areas can 

support. Lands currently in agricultural crops that exceed acreages needed to meet objectives would 

be evaluated for conversions to moist soil, early successional habitats, or reforestation to address the 

needs of other species of migratory and nonmigratory birds and mammals. Providing undisturbed 

waterfowl sanctuaries, while at the same time providing quality hunting opportunities, is another issue 

that must be addressed. 

Geese. Geese were addressed separately due to their unique habitat needs compared to ducks. Goose 

species, including snow, white-fronted, and Canada, prefer feeding and resting in open fields with little or no 

standing water. Thousands of geese winter on Yazoo NWR with minimum historic use on the remaining 

Complex refuges. In particular, large concentrations (>100,000) of snow geese routinely feed and loaf on 

agricultural lands on and around Yazoo NWR from November through January. These large concentrations 

have a significant impact on crops planted for wintering ducks. Minimum acreage objectives for “hot foods”, 

including small grains and green browse, were obtained based on preferred overwintering populations. The 

acreage and crops would be provided in areas that meet the feeding and resting habitat requirements 

needed by geese. Any management actions for snow geese should support the “Arctic Tundra Habitat 

Emergency Conservation Act,” to reduce the snow/Ross’ goose populations that have shown rapid 

population growth, reaching levels that damage habitats on their arctic and sub-arctic breeding areas. The 

degradation negatively impacting other bird populations that are dependent on the habitat may be 

irreversible. Natural marsh habitats on some migration and wintering areas also have been impacted. 

Goose damage to agricultural crops has also become a problem. There is increasing evidence that lesser 

snow and Ross’ geese act as reservoirs for the bacterium that causes avian cholera. The threat of avian 

cholera to other bird species likely will increase as these goose populations expand. 

Nongame Birds 

Neotropical migratory birds. These birds are a species group of special management concern. 

Broad species groups include breeding forest landbirds, breeding scrub/shrub landbirds, transient 

song (land) birds, marsh and grassland birds, shorebirds, colonial waterbirds/wading birds, and 

raptors. The Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan for the LMRAV has habitat objectives for 

these groups of birds. 
 46

Habitat needed for the most area-sensitive species (interior forest-dependent birds) has been 

evaluated and objectives have been established. Each of the four refuges (except Panther Swamp 

NWR) has one 10,000-acre interior forest objective. Two 100,000-acre forest objectives have been 

identified for the LMRAV, including one that combines Panther Swamp NWR with Delta National 

Forest and the Lake George Wildlife Management Area. Interior forests in 10,000-acre and 100,000-

acre blocks are extremely rare along the entire LMRAV due to land clearing, primarily for agriculture. 

In spite of the loss of important forest and wetland habitat along the LMRAV, the birds continue to 

follow their historical migratory pathways along the Mississippi Flyway. This has resulted in a direct 

correlation between the decline of forests and the decline of populations of bird species, particularly 

those with sensitive habitat needs. Balancing the needs of waterfowl, including geese, which require 

more open habitat, with the needs of imperiled songbirds, which require forest habitat, is an important 

issue that has generated much discussion. 

Another issue is lack of baseline information on all these groups of birds throughout the Complex. 

There have been some limited surveys on specific areas on the Complex (e.g., shorebird surveys on 

the Cox Ponds), but no comprehensive or standardized surveys have been conducted on all of the 

refuges and habitat types. 

Shorebirds. Habitat for spring (northbound) shorebird migration in the LMRAV is not considered to be 

in short supply. Open, bare-soil areas, flooded by spring rains are, at this point, considered to 

provide ample habitat. Northward migration occurs from March to mid-May. Southbound migration 

starts in early July, peaks August through September, and tapers off toward winter, usually lasting 

until at least the end of October. The lack of shallow-flooded or mud-flat habitats in late summer and 

fall results in a severe shorebird habitat shortage. 

Managing moist soil for both waterfowl and shorebirds is possible if managers have adequate water 

level management capabilities that enable them to draw down and flood impoundments at critical 

times. The Complex has focused shorebird management efforts on the Cox Ponds at Yazoo NWR. 

Research demonstrates the success of these habitats for both waterfowl and shorebirds. The 

biological review team identified additional opportunities for shorebird habitat management on former 

catfish ponds at Morgan Brake NWR. 

To support a tentative population objective of 500,000 shorebirds during southbound migration, an 

objective of 1,500 acres of strategically located shallow-water and mud-flat habitat has been identified 

as a target for the entire State of Mississippi. The migration figure is based on some tentative 

assumptions and experts believe that the objective may need to be as much as twice the estimate. 

Colonial Waterbirds/Wading Birds 

The Complex supports 20 species of colonial waterbirds/wading birds. Of these, 65 percent breed on 

refuge lands. Various sites on Yazoo, Hillside, and Morgan Brake NWRs have been used as 

rookeries. High priority species include the federally listed least tern, breeding white ibis, and 

wintering American white pelican. The least tern has been known to forage on open waters on Yazoo 

and Morgan Brake NWRs. White Ibis use the Cox Ponds extensively for foraging throughout the 

breeding and post-breeding periods and even through the winter in warm years. Although white ibis 

do not nest in any refuge rookeries, the largest white ibis rookery known to occur in Mississippi is 

located on private lands in the White’s Lane rookery adjacent to Panther Swamp NWR within that 

refuge’s acquisition boundary. 
 47

Birds of local or regional interest include the wood stork, roseate spoonbill, glossy ibis, double-crested 

cormorant, anhinga, great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, little blue heron, cattle egret, green heron, 

black-crowned night heron, and yellow-crowned night heron. Each of these species (except the wood 

stork, roseate spoonbill, and glossy ibis) nests or has nested in recent years on the Complex. 

Concern has arisen recently about the double-crested cormorant nesting in the Swan Lake rookery on 

Yazoo NWR and in the White’s Lane rookery adjacent to Panther Swamp NWR. Rapid proliferation of 

nesting pairs, fueled involuntarily by the artificial habitat of the aquaculture industry, causes concern that 

cormorant numbers may build rapidly, displacing other species in rookery habitat. 

In addition to the preservation of appropriate vegetation, water levels must be maintained during the 

nesting season and the rookery area protected from extensive disturbance. Rookery die-offs in 1990 

and 1991 were attributed to deliberate aerial spraying. There may not be a serious likelihood that 

such an incident will recur (Grand Jury investigations were conducted on the last incident), however, 

rookeries are still vulnerable to unintentional aerial spraying and drifts from chemicals used on crops. 

HABITATS 

Bottomland Hardwood Management and Restoration. The Complex is situated within the 

physiographic region known as the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley (LMRAV). The LMRAV 

was historically a 25-million-acre forested wetland complex that extended along both sides of the 

Mississippi River from southern Illinois to southeastern Louisiana. The extent and duration of 

flooding from the Mississippi River fluctuated annually and served to recharge aquatic systems, 

creating rich, dynamic habitats that supported diverse fish and wildlife resources. 

As civilization pushed westward, the highest, least flood prone lands were cleared and converted 

to rich farmland. With success in agriculture and an expanding human population, more land was 

cleared and additional flood control measures were implemented. Today, the LMRAV is crisscrossed by levees and a myriad of flood control projects supporting less than 5 million acres of 

mostly fragmented bottomland hardwood forests. Declines in the fish and wildlife resources have 

mirrored the decline of the forest. 

Although reforestation is an obvious solution to replace the forests converted to row-crop 

agriculture, reforestation would restore only one component of the landscape. In addition to 

reforestation, restoring or mimicking the historic hydrologic cycle is needed because flooding 

drives the ecological system in the LMRAV. 

Recently, reforestation has been identified as a method for removing carbon dioxide (the principal 

greenhouse gas) from the atmosphere. Reforestation can help offset greenhouse gas production by 

storing carbon dioxide in vegetation biomass. To date, a total of 20,837 acres have been reforested on 

lands in the Complex, including 5,796 acres of COE lands and 8,669 acres of Farm Service Agency 

lands. Reforestation projects help restore habitat for forest species, decrease forest fragmentation, and 

help establish larger “core” forest areas that are valuable for interior forest-dependent species. However, 

little is known about restoring and managing reforested bottomland hardwood habitats. 

Little to no historical information is available on how forests were structured prior to European 

settlement. Studies have begun only recently to address management after restoration. Initial 

reforestation efforts considered that any tree planting was good, no matter where the trees 

were planted. Recent evidence has shown that some of the smaller, isolated reforested lands, 

such as Farm Service Agency properties, perpetuate the hostile “edge” effect for some species. 

These smaller reforested sites provide little habitat for neotropical migratory species of special 
 48

concern, and in retrospect, maintaining some of these areas in a scrub/shrub habitat would 

possibly have better benefited priority bird species. 

Because natural succession in reforested areas does not produce the preferred habitat rapidly, 

timber harvest is used to increase diversity and the desired forest composition. Commercial 

harvests have been a valuable (and often the only) tool for managing existing hardwood stands. 

Scheduled harvests are essential to maintaining a healthy forest that is diverse and provides 

structure and desirable tree species. Future opportunities to reforest lands will be available as 

row crop agriculture is reduced on the Complex, and additional agricultural lands within the 

acquisition boundaries are purchased. 

Agricultural Crops for Waterfowl. To support the specific waterfowl objectives set for each 

refuge, farming operations are conducted on all refuges in the Complex except Mathews Brake 

NWR. Agricultural crops provide cover and high calorie “hot foods” to supplement natural 

foods. In addition, farming is used to set back succession and control weeds in moist-soil units. 

All farming operations are conducted cooperatively in a mutually beneficial manner by local 

farmers. Cooperative farming has long been an accepted, efficient, and necessary method of 

producing crops for waterfowl foods. Cooperative farmers are allowed to farm refuge land 

under certain guidelines and restrictions, including crop location, tilling techniques, crops 

planted, and chemicals used. In return for providing the land, the refuge receives a share, 

usually 20 - 25 percent of the crop. 

Depending on waterfowl needs, the refuge’s share of the crops may be left in the field to 

provide immediate food and cover, or may be harvested and stored for later use. Title 50, Part 

29, of the Code of Federal Regulations, and Service policies require that the value of a refuge’s 

share of cooperatively grown crops be set at rates that reflect the fees and charges received by 

private landowners in the vicinity for similar privileges. The value can be established through 

the use of competition in selecting cooperators or through an analysis of local market conditions 

to establish the prevailing rates in the nearest comparable area. 

Approximately 9,600 acres of refuge lands in the Complex are farmed by seven cooperative 

farmers. Under the current cooperative farm program guidelines for crop sharing and rotation, 

this amount of production is needed to meet the current minimum objective for the Complex. 

The optimum farm-acre objective has not been determined, but will be decided in conjunction 

with the LMVJV step-down plans. The LMVJV is reevaluating unharvested crop objectives on 

refuges. New studies on the value of harvested agricultural crops on private lands indicate that 

earlier harvest dates and more efficient harvest techniques significantly reduce the waste grain 

available for wintering waterfowl. Based on this new information, unharvested crop objectives 

on refuge lands may increase. These acres include leveled farmland, as well as impoundments 

that have yet to be rehabilitated to allow for active moist-soil management. In the early 1980s 

and again in 1994, cropland management plans were developed that identified the need to 

ensure all farming operations followed best management practices (BMPs). Improved methods 

and chemicals will provide more opportunity to meet BMPs. A brief description of current 

farming practices and the benefits of implementing some of these BMPs, follow. 
 49

Buffer Strips. Buffer strips up to 200 feet wide were established along most refuge fields in the 

early 1980s as part of a BMP project to create habitat (ecotone strips), reduce erosion from 

agricultural fields, and provide a transition between open fields and open woods. Over the 

years, these areas have been planted to trees or allowed to undergo natural succession, 

compromising some of the benefits intended by BMPs. Although unpopular with cooperative 

farmers because the buffer strips removed lands from crop production and reduced potential 

yields and profits, the strips provided valuable habitat for small mammals, birds, etc. In 

addition to wildlife habitat and water quality, these conservation buffers also provided myriad 

other benefits including: 

• Slowing water runoff; 

• Trapping sediment and enhancing infiltration within the buffer; 

• Trapping fertilizers, pesticides, pathogens, and heavy metals; 

• Reducing soil erosion in areas with strong winds; 

• Stabilizing streams and reducing their water temperatures; 

• Offering a setback distance for agricultural chemical use from water sources; 

• Providing a source of food, nesting cover, and shelter for many wildlife species; 

• Acting as mini corridors that enable wildlife to move safely from one habitat area to another; 

and 

• Providing habitat for small mammals which also serve as prey for raptors. 

The step-down plan will be updated to address current BMP needs and opportunities. 

Burning Wheat. No-till farming in harvested wheat fields is the preferred farming method and continues to 

be encouraged, but weed infestations, limited approved chemical use on the refuge, and high chemical 

costs have reduced the extent of this practice. To reduce production and chemical costs, cooperative 

farmers have been permitted to burn wheat stubble. Historically, these burns were 200 acres or less and 

were set and managed by the farmer. Today, trained refuge staff members conduct all the prescribed 

burns. Burning is the easiest means to clear a field for planting and eliminates the need of mechanically 

disking crop residues, usually resulting in a higher profit for the farmer. While it is the most economical 

method, burning, like disking, may cause impacts to the area including exposing the unprotected soil to 

erosive effects of wind and water. Smoke from burning crop residues may cause a smoke nuisance or 

health and safety hazards. Also, tests have shown that only portions of the nutrients in crop residues are 

returned to the soil by burning; the rest (primarily nitrogen) are lost into the air (D. Westover, University of 

Nebraska 1984). When the stubble is turned under by disking or is left in place, these nutrients are not 

lost. However, disking results in soil moisture loss and delayed planting because disked areas require a 

rain event before planting. 

Water Furrows. Farmers use water furrows to drain water from depressions in the fields, allowing the 

soil to dry more quickly and evenly, which also allows earlier planting. Heavy rains cause run-off of 

silt-laden waters, which carry eroded topsoil. If not filtered through grassy waterways or buffer strips, 

these silt-laden waters enter wetlands. Crops planted earlier in the season are less susceptible to 

moisture shortages and pest problems, therefore requiring fewer chemicals. To minimize the 

introduction of silt-laden waters into wetlands and streams, water furrows on refuge cooperative 

farmland will be filtered through grassy waterways or buffer strips. 

Disking. Fall disking is permitted on some agricultural lands in the Complex to facilitate early corn 

planting. Early planting reduces chemical uses and early rains provide sufficient moisture for the 

corn. The Complex requires some type of cover be planted on these disked fields to provide cover 

for wildlife, and to reduce erosion from wind and water. 
 50

Force Account Farming. Cooperative farming has been a long-standing practice throughout the 

refuge system nationwide, and is a mutually beneficial program. However, due to more restrictive 

regulations regarding approved chemicals, agricultural burning, and the encouraged use of BMPs, it 

is becoming more challenging to find farmers who are willing to alter their familiar farming techniques 

to meet refuge requirements. In addition, the steady decline in crop prices over the previous few 

years has reduced the cooperative farmer’s profit margin. As restrictions increase, the number of 

willing cooperative farmers will diminish due to hardship and profit loss. Therefore, the use of 

cooperative farming to achieve waterfowl objectives may not be a management option in the future. 

If Service resources were used to replace cooperative farming, a significant increase in funding would 

be necessary for initial start-up costs and annual farming efforts. The cooperative farmer’s objective 

is to grow crops that produce maximum yields. Refuge farming efforts would focus on supplementing 

food sources for migratory waterfowl. Therefore, chemical use to control weeds and insects would be 

reduced. Force account farming would allow a reduction in the number of acres farmed. However, 

additional staff and equipment would be needed to farm refuge lands to meet the stated objectives, 

and it is unlikely that these resources could be obtained. 

Acres that could be flooded and those used historically by Canada and white-fronted geese would 

rank highest to farm. A portion of the lands removed from agriculture would be converted to early 

successional habitats such as grassland, scrub/shrub, and moist-soil because reforesting these lands 

would not contribute to interior forest objectives at Yazoo NWR. If needed, early successional habitat 

could be converted back to agricultural production. 

Moist-Soil Management. The LMVJV has established moist-soil objectives for the Complex to 

support the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Moist-soil management refers to 

management that promotes moist-soil conditions to encourage the natural production of beneficial 

plants. Seeds and plant parts produced by these plants often attract and concentrate waterfowl and 

other wetland wildlife species. The decomposing vegetative parts of moist-soil plants also provide 

substrata for invertebrates, which are vital foods for many wetland wildlife species. Factors that 

determine the success of moist-soil management include the timing and rate of drawdowns, soil 

disturbance and the stages of plant succession, and the timing and rate of re-flooding. Best success 

is achieved when water levels can be controlled, although good results can be obtained under natural 

conditions when artificial draining and flooding are not possible (1995-2002 Conservation 

Commission of Missouri). 

Waterfowl depend on nutrient rich seeds and invertebrates for various parts of their lifecycles. While 

high-calorie agricultural crops (hot foods) provide the needed energy for wintering migratory 

waterfowl, it is equally important that waterfowl receive the nutrients needed to remain healthy and to 

reproduce. Natural wetlands such as moist soil are best utilized when in close proximity to “hot 

foods” to facilitate waterfowl access to aquatic invertebrates and other natural foods that are 

comparatively scarce in croplands (Biological Review Report, Rick Kaminski 2001). 

While the Complex has areas identified as “moist soil”, not all areas have full water management 

capability. A lack of water management capability limits the production of maximum desirable foods 

while controlling undesirable plants. An analysis of the Complex’s current acreage and management 

of moist-soil areas is needed to determine how to best meet the objective, and to develop funding 

and staffing strategies to maximize management of these areas. Particular attention should be given 

to proper record-keeping on water level management and subsequent plant and waterbird responses. 

Aquatic Habitat Management. On Yazoo NWR, Steele Bayou flows along the north and east side 

of the refuge. The COE has channelized and dredged Steele Bayou, and used the spoil material to 

construct a levee. The levee separates the water in Steele Bayou from Swan Lake, the refuge’s 
 51

largest body of water. The levee is designed to divert floodwaters (and pesticide laden silt) around 

Swan Lake. However, the material on which the levee lanes are constructed is not suitable and the 

levee has failed in some areas. As a result, the COE has not completed the Steele Bayou 

Channelization project, and is currently studying plans to relocate a portion of the channel to an area 

with soils that are more suitable and where a firmer foundation is available. 

The largest body of water on Yazoo NWR is Swan Lake, which the COE has divided into four 

management compartments. Swan Lake is bounded on the east side by Steele Bayou and contains 

mostly water-adapted trees (bald cypress, willow, water elm, ash, swamp privet) and shrubs (buttonbush) 

interspersed with open water. The Compartments are numbered beginning with #1 on the southeast side 

of Swan Lake. Compartment #1 is separated hydrologically from the other three compartments and 

contains relatively higher ground. Compartment #1 is managed as a greentree reservoir (GTR). 

Compartment #2 is flooded by rainfall and runoff in the fall and winter and drained in the spring to allow 

moist-soil plant growth and to protect important mast trees around its edge (Nuttall oak) that are less 

adapted to flooding. Pipe-arch structures allow water to flow into Swan Lake Compartments #3 and #4 

from Silver Lake Bayou on the north end of the lake. The structures are opened in the fall when silt loads 

are low in the bayou. Compartment #4 is the largest and deepest compartment, and is maintained as a 

permanent swamp. Compartment #4 contains a large colonial waterbird rookery. 

The segment of Steele Bayou within the refuge boundary is controlled by the COE at a weir 

downstream from the refuge. Weir E, located at the mouth of Silver Lake Bayou on the north end of 

the refuge, controls water levels in Silver Lake Bayou. Weir E is manipulated by refuge personnel for 

habitat management purposes and to reduce flooding impacts to private lands upstream. A 

controversy (from private landowners) over the elevation of the weir shortly after construction resulted 

in the removal of a 1-foot elevation of concrete from the weir. As a result, water levels upstream of 

the weir do not provide adequate flow into Swan Lake for habitat management. 

In the central interior area of Yazoo NWR, Deer Lake is an area of permanent water containing marsh 

habitat with giant cutgrass in shallower areas. Several species of marsh birds use it for nesting and broodrearing. Deer Lake is relatively shallow (<6 feet) and subject to lotus overgrowth. Refuge personnel treat 

the lake with glyphosate periodically to reduce the American lotus. Deer Lake historically has produced the 

greatest numbers of wood ducks compared to other habitats on the refuge, possibly due to the greater 

number of wood duck nest boxes in the lake and the habitat that it provides. 

Alligator Pond is an area of permanent water located on the southwest side of Yazoo NWR. This area is 

also a productive wood duck nesting site, is subject to overgrowth of American lotus, and glyphosate is 

applied periodically. Water levels are raised in the winter to flood the surrounding hardwoods (as in a GTR). 

The majority of remaining permanent-water impoundments, such as Beargarden Lake, Lizard Lake, and Big 

Lake, are also managed to produce a GTR in the surrounding backwater areas during winter. 

On Panther Swamp NWR, a water control structure in Deep Bayou controls a major portion of the east side 

drainage. During the winter, water levels are raised to flood brakes and forested areas. In the spring, water 

is released to protect bottomland hardwoods. A rapid release of water is desirable to discourage beaver 

activity and to prevent silt buildup. A deterrent to the rapid release of water is the fixed-level COE weir which 

is located downstream in the Landside Ditch. The purpose of the weir is to hold water, which controls 

vegetation in the Landside Ditch. The Landside Ditch drains the entire east side of the refuge. The 

Landside Ditch weir slows water flows, which allows silt build-up in refuge drainage/waterways. The silt 

build-up makes it easier for beavers to build dams, causing increased expenditures of time and effort for 

dam removal, resulting in the loss of mature bottomland hardwoods. 
 52

Mathews Brake NWR includes a 1,810-acre oxbow lake with ridge-and-swale topography. Deeper 

water areas contain baldcypress and water tupelo, and higher elevations contain bottomland 

hardwoods. Portions of the lake are in private ownership. Historically, water flowed into the 

southeast corner of Mathews Brake via a tributary of Abiaca Creek. During periods of normal water 

levels in the Abiaca tributary, water was allowed to pass through a 40-inch pipe under a road. To 

prevent the brake from completely drying up during the hot summer months, refuge staff diverted 

water into the brake through the 40-inch pipe starting in June. By the beginning of duck season, rains 

and continued water diversions filled the brake to the desired level. After heavy rains, when the 

stream carried a substantial silt burden, the pipe was closed. A significant rain event early in 2003 

dislodged the pipe and incoming flows filled up the channel with sand and silt, effectively preventing 

the inflow of water to the brake. In late 2004, a new channel was constructed from a tributary of 

Abiaca Creek to the brake to provide a reliable source of water. Water levels in the brake are 

controlled by two water control structures at the head of the channel. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Priority Public Uses 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established six priority public uses on 

refuge lands when they are compatible with the defined purpose(s) of that refuge. The priority uses are 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

Historically, the Complex’s visitor services program focused on traditional recreational uses, primarily 

hunting and fishing. Figures 11-15 depict current visitor services at refuges within the Complex. This 

CCP addresses opportunities to expand visitor services to encompass non-consumptive uses, such as 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. With adequate 

staff and funding, a variety of public uses can be developed for refuge visitors. 

Hunting. Managing wildlife populations and their habitats is a primary responsibility of the Complex and a 

required component of the Service's "wildlife first" mission. If managed appropriately, hunting provides a 

biologically sound form of outdoor recreation that is used extensively throughout the Refuge System to 

manage wildlife populations. The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act, other laws, and Fish and Wildlife 

Service policy permits hunting on refuges when it is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge 

was established. The Complex hunting program is coordinated annually with the MDWFP, and hunting 

activities are managed so as not to cause disturbance to migratory waterfowl in sanctuary areas. 

Hunting accounts for more than 90 percent of refuge visitation (of the approximately 160,000 visitors 

each year), and the Complex’s hunting programs provide the public with 1,363 days of hunting per 

year (Table 10). The Complex is well-known throughout the surrounding area and adjacent states for 

high quality deer and duck hunting opportunities. Hunting programs are also offered for small game 

(squirrels, rabbits, raccoons), dove, wild turkey, and bobwhite. 
 53

Table 10. Number of “hunt days” by refuge and species or group, 2004 

Refuge White-tailed 

deer Turkey Waterfowl Small Game Total 

Yazoo 75 0 0 66 141 

Panther Swamp 114 44 43 129 330 

Morgan Brake 106 0 48 125 279 

Hillside 106 0 48 125 279 

Mathews Brake 123 0 60 151 334 

Total 524 44 199 596 1,363 

From October 1 to the end of February each year, a large percentage of the staff’s time is devoted to 

managing the hunt program. The Complex employs one full-time office clerk who devotes 100 

percent of her time to processing and issuing special use permits for general hunting, fishing, and 

quota hunt permits. The office clerk also responds to telephone and visitor inquiries and manages 

the computerized hunt draw program. From October 1 to mid-November, the office clerk works about 

30 hours of overtime per pay period to complete the necessary work to support the special use permit 

program and other duties assigned to the position (e.g., computer updating and website 

management). In the 2003/2004 hunting season, 6,089 unlimited and 1,522 limited/lottery permits 

were sold to hunters and anglers, generating nearly $92,308. 

From October 1 to the end of February, law enforcement staff patrol and conduct surveillance, check 

hunter permits, operate deer check stations, respond to hunter emergencies, enforce laws and 

regulations, ensure public safety, and protect refuge resources. In the 2003/2004 hunting season, 

the Complex employed nine law enforcement officers (1 full-time, 4 dual function, and 4 seasonal 

officers) to accomplish this work on five refuges and 43 Farm Service Agency tracts. The dual 

function law enforcement officers devoted 100 percent of their time to law enforcement duties during 

the hunting season, worked additional hours beyond their scheduled shifts, and managed or 

maintained refuge resources the remaining six months of the year in the following positions: refuge 

managers, biological science technicians, and equipment operators. 

Law enforcement officers typically handle approximately 4,600 incidents or violations each year, 

including incidents associated with vandalism, suspicious person reports, weapons violations, and 

natural resource violations. Refuge law enforcement officers also respond to requests for assistance 

to locate lost hunters or anglers, accidents, periodic flooding events that cover roads and traps 

visitors, and violations involving Farm Service Agency lands. 
 54

Figure 11. Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge current visitor services 



 



		


























 













 







 









	







	



	
 







 !

"

#"

$% #&"  "'()

*
+
  '
$  (#
!  +%
!  ",-





	







 55

Figure 12. Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge current visitor services 































	


	



	


	
	



	




	



		


 	

 

 
	

 !"
!
 


#$

 %
&	



 %
&	
 
'&

 	
	
	  




()*











 



+ , + - . /







	







 56

Figure 13. Hillside National Wildlife Refuge current visitor services 



 



	




















 











 

 	












	







	

	


   

 !

"
#


	







	



	




  !"

#
$ 	$%$ &'('  &'  

  

	 $%&%

)


 57









 















	




	



	


	

	
	


		



	




	








	


	
	 


	



	
 

 !"
!
 
#	

$#  
#	  


%
&


 '	
	
	  




(')'*+

, - , . / 0

!

%


 

%%
	1



 



	








Figure 14. Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge current visitor services 
 58









  		




	



	




	

 


 
	

 

	

 
	
 	
	







  
	

   !	
	
	 "!#!$%

	

 





&'( & &'( )









*+





, 
	'





  
  


 
   




Figure 15. Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge current visitor services 
 59

Between 2003 and 2004, the Complex lost 5 law enforcement officers to employee resignations and 

Service policy changes. Two full-time dual function law enforcement officers/biological science 

technicians resigned; one full-time dual function Law Enforcement Officer/Project Leader relinquished 

law enforcement authority due to Service policy changes; and two seasonal temporary law 

enforcement employees and one full-time dual function officer were lost due to new Service policy 

changes on refuge law enforcement. Subsequently, in 2004, the Complex employed only one fulltime and three dual-function law enforcement officers to cover the same work nine officers performed 

in 2003. The full-time law enforcement officer devotes 100 percent of his time to law enforcement. 

During the 6-month-long hunting season, the dual function law enforcement officers devote 100 

percent of their scheduled shifts to law enforcement, plus an additional 40 hours per pay period 

beyond their shifts’ limits during peak hunting periods. 

Two of the five lost officers were biological science technicians who conducted refuge maintenance and 

resource management duties during non-hunting season. The loss of these employees has severely 

hampered law enforcement capability during the hunting season, and reduced the Complex’s ability to 

conduct refuge maintenance and habitat management during the remainder of the year. 

At public scoping meetings, more than 90 percent of the comments were related to hunting. Some of 

the identified issues included hunter overcrowding, public safety, a lack of law enforcement presence, 

declining deer harvest on Panther Swamp NWR, a lack of upland game bird hunting, all-terrain 

vehicle use, expanded waterfowl hunting, disabled and youth hunts, and others. Most of the 

identified issues directly affect the Complex’s responsibility for maintaining healthy wildlife populations 

and meeting refuge purposes, while providing visitors with a high quality and safe hunting experience. 

One of the important issues discussed at the public meetings was hunter overcrowding on Mathews 

Brake NWR during the duck hunting season. Mathews Brake NWR provides 60 days of waterfowl 

hunting. There is no current restriction on the number of hunters who can use this small area. Recent 

articles in outdoor magazines have identified Mathews Brake NWR as a premier waterfowl hunting area. 

While this coverage is favorable, the notoriety created by the articles has increased visits by larger 

numbers of local and out-of-state hunters, greatly reducing the quality and safety of the hunt. 

White-tailed deer hunting is a popular activity throughout the region, and the Complex has a reputation for 

providing outstanding deer hunting opportunities. The Complex offers 524 days of white-tailed deer hunting. 

Because four of the five refuges in the Complex were established for migratory birds, deer populations must 

be controlled to prevent adverse impacts to migratory bird habitat. Harvest and habitat data collected over the 

years have clearly demonstrated the need to remove approximately one third of the deer annually in order to 

maintain a healthy herd and to prevent habitat damage. In the absence of large predators, such as wolves or 

cougars, deer populations can rapidly increase and destroy migratory bird habitat. Deer consume agricultural 

crops planted as high calorie foods for wintering waterfowl and browse the understory vegetation in forested 

areas, preventing tree regeneration and altering the structure and species (flora and fauna) composition of the 

forest. Over-browsed habitat cannot provide food or cover for scrub/shrub-dependent species, and habitat for 

birds is reduced when deer consume vegetation used for cover or nesting. 

Yazoo NWR produces approximately 200 deer a year which exceed healthy population maintenance 

(Yazoo NWR data files). As deer herds radically reduce their food resources, they can starve or 

become susceptible to diseases that healthy deer do not contract under normal circumstances. A 

lack of sufficient food on refuge lands would force deer to move beyond refuge boundaries onto 

adjacent private lands where they can consume agricultural crops planted by refuge neighbors. 

Allowing hunters to remove surplus deer reduces the potential for refuge habitat damage and 

agricultural crop losses, and negates the expense of controlling the deer herd with refuge employees. 
 60

The Complex's deer population management program is dependent upon the availability of a 

sufficient number of hunters to reduce the deer population to below carrying capacity. During normal 

reproductive years, the refuge's objective would be to remove approximately 33 percent of the deer 

population. On refuges in the Mississippi Delta region where deer are abundant and reproduction 

success is high, refuges are challenged to attract a sufficient number of hunters to reduce the 

population to the targeted level. Typical deer do not provide an incentive to the hunting public 

because hunters can take typical deer at a variety of hunting areas throughout the Delta. To draw 

hunters to refuges for deer hunting, an element must be added that is not available to the average 

hunter elsewhere in the Delta. Historically this has been accomplished by providing the expectation 

that a trophy buck can be harvested from refuge lands. 

To ensure that migratory bird habitat is not adversely affected by deer populations, annual public deer 

hunting opportunities will be offered. The program will aim for removal of approximately one-third of 

the herd annually with a 1:1 harvest ratio of the sexes. The regulation of season lengths, hunting 

areas, and hunter quotas will ensure a balance between population levels and carrying capacity, 

while providing for public safety during hunting season. The Complex's hunt program is designed to 

optimize the number of deer taken while maintaining a percentage of older bucks (5 to 10 percent) in 

the trophy class each year to attract enough hunters to reduce the herd by 33 percent. To date, 

Complex efforts have attracted sufficient hunters to remove the desired number of deer, as evidenced 

by the presence of hunters from 26 states during the 2003 hunt year. 

Hunting is also offered for other small game from populations of animals capable of sustaining 

harvest, including ducks, rabbit, squirrel, raccoon, and quail. These hunting programs are very 

popular and contribute to the Complex’s public use program. 

Fishing. Currently, fishing is the second most popular public use activity on the Complex. All refuges within 

the Complex, with the exception of Yazoo NWR, are currently open to fishing at certain periods throughout 

the year. The closure of Yazoo NWR to fishing is based upon the presence of high organochlorine levels, 

including DDT, in fish on the refuge. These levels have exceeded minimum federal standards. 

The 1997 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Strategic Plan (1997 Fisheries Strategic Plan) recognizes the 

importance of fisheries and aquatic resource management and identifies goals to meet fisheries needs. 

Goal 5 directs the Service to “Provide for sustainable recreational fishing opportunities in the Southeast 

adequate to meet public needs.” An objective under this goal states, “Provide and maintain recreational 

fishing opportunities on Service lands” and lists several tasks in conjunction with this pursuit, including 

“establish new recreational fishing opportunities,” “increase access to recreational fishing sites on and 

across Service lands,” and “develop methods for integrated management of migratory bird populations, 

other animals and plants, and recreational fisheries on Service lands.” 

Challenges associated with meeting the goals of the 1997 Fisheries Strategic Plan include local water 

quality issues, such as sedimentation, contaminants, channelization, and agricultural impacts. Most streams 

or rivers in the Complex have been channelized or altered, and open-water aquatic sites on the refuges that 

are suitable for fishing are predominantly commercial catfish ponds that have been acquired and modified. 

These issues hinder the ability of the Complex to meet the goals of the 1997 Fisheries Strategic Plan. In 

addition, barriers to the natural migration of desirable game fish into refuge waters due to hydrological 

alterations have resulted in a higher proportion of “rough fish,” such as carp, in refuge waters. 

Secondary challenges to meeting the goals of the 1997 Fisheries Strategic Plan include: 

• The lack of public access to fishable waters (e.g., roads, trails, and boat ramps). 

• The lack of fishing facilities that would enable public fishing (e.g., docks and fishing piers). 
 61

• Providing angler access while minimizing disturbance to waterfowl, shorebirds, and other 

waterbirds. 

• Meeting habitat objectives for waterbirds while incorporating fisheries management into the 

same impoundments. 

Roads and Trails, Interior and Exterior 

Federal, state, or county highways and COE levee roads currently provide access. Many interior 

roads were constructed to facilitate farming and timber-harvest programs. Some roads provide all 

weather access with a minimum clearance 2-wheel drive vehicle. However, many roads on the 

refuges are impassible to 2-wheel-drive vehicles during wet weather and some roads are impassible 

to 4-wheel drive vehicles during wet weather. 

Road maintenance is expensive, time-consuming, and in some areas on a few refuges only 

possible in late summer during the driest conditions. The staff devotes a large portion of its 

time to road maintenance (e.g., grading, mowing, and spraying), particularly on Panther Swamp 

NWR where local soils are not suitable substrate for roads. Often even minimal traffic produces 

ruts and potholes that preclude subsequent vehicle access. The lack of public access by 

conventional vehicles to large portions of the refuges has been addressed somewhat by the use 

of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). 

Studies have shown that excessive off-trail ATV use has a detrimental effect on habitats. Impacts 

can include soil erosion, natural water flow alterations, the destruction of plant root systems, the 

spread of exotic and invasive plants, noise, and air pollution. However, access to some portions of 

the refuges is not available without ATVs. Per capita, there are more ATVs sold in Mississippi than 

any state in the nation, primarily due to their ability to provide access to remote areas that are 

inaccessible by car or truck. As larger and more powerful ATVs are designed, more passengers can 

be carried, and a larger footprint of impact is produced. 

Panther Swamp NWR currently offers 38 miles of ATV trails, Hillside NWR offers 9 miles, and Morgan 

Brake NWR offers 8 miles of trails, for a combined total of 55 miles. All trails are well defined on hunt 

brochure maps and are open only during periods of hunting and fishing. Trails are difficult, time 

consuming, and expensive to maintain. The ATV trails on Panther Swamp NWR are the most difficult 

to maintain. When ATV operators cannot navigate an impassible portion of the trail, they often drive 

off-trail through the forest, damaging habitat as they proceed. Larger ATVs produce more damage 

then lighter ATVs and with heavy use and abundant rainfall, the wet, poorly drained soils become 

heavily rutted. During the winter season and after rain events many ATV trails function as waterways, 

eroding soil along the way and increasing sedimentation in the forests and other types of habitats. 

Two executive orders regulate ATV use on federal public lands: Executive Order 11644 signed by 

President Nixon in 1972 and Executive Order 11989 signed by President Carter in 1977. Together 

these orders require that off-road-vehicle use on public lands must be managed to “protect the 

resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to minimize conflicts 

among the various uses of those lands.” The orders also require that when ATV routes are 

designated, federal land managers must minimize damage to soils, watershed, vegetation, and other 

land resources, minimize wildlife harassment and impacts to wildlife habitat and minimize conflicts 

between ATV use and other uses of the land. In compliance with these executive orders, Service 

policy requires all ATV use to be in conjunction with wildlife-dependent activities only, and ATV use is 

confined to designated areas or trails. 
 62

Public comments on the value of ATVs were mixed, centering mainly on two factors: the desired use 

of ATVs to access remote hunting areas and to retrieve harvested deer, and the opposition to ATV 

use due to the impacts and disturbance they produce. With the currently accepted use of ATVs and 

the public’s perception that ATVs are a necessity to access hunting and fishing areas, it would be 

difficult to develop an effective public use program that provides maximum area use for hunting and 

fishing opportunities without providing for some limited ATV use. One of the most popular activities 

on the Complex is deer hunting, and in order to obtain the targeted harvest level of white-tailed deer, 

it is necessary to disperse hunters over as much of the Complex as possible. A wide dispersal of 

hunters also reduces problems associated with hunter overcrowding along roads that remain 

accessible throughout most of the year. 

These factors combined can produce challenges that restrict public access and prevent hunter 

dispersal. One potential solution for several of these factors would be to acquire county road access 

along the outside perimeter of all of the refuges (subject to the availability of willing sellers.) 

Visitor Centers and Contact Stations. No visitor center is available on any of the refuges in the Complex. 

The Complex currently maintains only three offices, the Complex headquarters at Yazoo NWR, the refuge 

office at Panther Swamp NWR, and the refuge office at Morgan Brake NWR. Two of the office facilities, 

including the Complex headquarters located at Yazoo NWR, and the refuge office at Panther Swamp 

NWR, are very inadequate for staff and visitor needs. Both the biological and public use review reports 

recognized the need to construct new facilities in order to provide opportunities for program development 

and to properly welcome and orient visitors. A small office is located in the shop at Hillside NWR, but this 

refuge is unstaffed. Mathews Brake NWR has no office and is also unstaffed. 

The headquarters at Yazoo NWR was built in 1959 as a shop/office and has been modified over the 

years to accommodate a growing staff. The shop bays have been converted to offices, and the 

building now contains offices for 8 staff members. Office spaces are cramped and outdated, and 

storage areas for files and other refuge documents are very limited. A gravel drive and parking lot 

introduces gravel dust into the office that settles into keyboards, computers, printers, and other office 

electronic equipment. The building contains one small room that provides space for both visitor 

reception and office space for two staff members. Only a single-unit restroom is available for the 

staff, and it is often shared with visitors. 

The headquarters office water supply is a well-water treatment system and 900-gallon holding tank 

that was installed in 2001. Drinking water in the headquarters office is available only from the 

restroom sink, or from an outside water spigot at the side of the building. The water supply system 

also supplies drinking water to two maintenance shops, two volunteer trailers, and two quarters’ 

houses. No public drinking water or public restrooms are available to the public. 

Although Yazoo NWR actually receives over 60,000 visitors annually, Refuge Management 

Information System (RMIS) data reports that the Complex headquarters office receives only about 

11,000 visitors annually. These numbers demonstrate the difference between the abundance of 

visitors using the refuge and the much fewer numbers of visitors stopping by the headquarters office. 

The primary reason for the difference is due to the lack of drinking water, public restrooms, public use 

programs, interpretation information, and visitor services facilities at the headquarters office. 
 63

Morgan Brake NWR received funding for a new office in 2003. The refuge receives about 6,500 

visitors annually. The refuge office was constructed in 2004 to replace the previous refuge office, a 

converted ranch-style house that was purchased as part of the land acquisition program and modified 

to serve as the refuge office. Funding was obtained for a new office after an inspection revealed 

extensive degrading asbestos materials in the converted ranch-style house. The new office will 

provide ample office space for the 4-5 person staff. 

Panther Swamp NWR’s office is also a converted ranch-style house that was originally constructed in the 

1970s. In addition to structural issues associated with the concrete slab foundation, the wiring is outdated, 

the air conditioner and heater require frequent repair, and the septic system’s capacity is very limited. In 

addition, the office has flooded several times in the past 10 years during significant flood events in the area. 

Public Use on Farm Service Agency Fee Title Tracts. Forty-three widely scattered fee title Farm Service 

Agency tracts are included in the Complex, totaling over 12,000 acres. In January 2004, legislation 

sponsored by Senator Thad Cochran and Congressman Bennie Thompson created two new refuges in the 

Complex. No additional land was purchased to create the refuges. Instead, many of the existing Farm 

Service Agency fee title tracts were redesignated as the new Holt Collier and Theodore Roosevelt NWRs. 

Management plans for the two new refuges will be addressed in a separate CCP. 

Of the 43 Farm Service Agency tracts (including those designated as the new refuges), 10 include public access 

and are large enough to provide quality, limited public hunting opportunities. Overall, the lack of adequate public 

access and poor quality of both interior and exterior roads has limited the amount of public use. 

LAND PROTECTION 

Contaminants and Sedimentation on the Complex 

Complex refuges are surrounded by extensive agricultural row crop production, and contaminants 

and sedimentation from past agricultural practices have impacted every refuge in the Complex. 

Historical use of organochlorine pesticides (e.g., DDT, PCB’s, toxaphene, dieldrine, and lindane), 

which contain heavy metals (mercury) were commonly used in farming operations (especially cotton) 

prior to being banned in the 1970s. These chemicals do not break down readily into harmless 

compounds and still remain in the substrate, attached to sediments that were deposited in waters 

within and surrounding the refuges. The chemicals continue to contaminate fish and other aquaticdependent resources such as fish-eating birds, wood ducks, and raccoons. Birds feeding on 

contaminated fish ingest the chemicals or their bioproducts, and species feeding on the birds 

continue the bioaccumulation process. DDT and toxaphene levels found in sampled fish in Steele 

Bayou on Yazoo NWR have led to a prohibition on fishing in the Bayou on the refuge. 

To provide sufficient water for managed water-dependent habitats, all of the refuges are dependent 

on water from the surrounding contaminated watersheds, streams, and rivers. Mathews Brake NWR 

receives water from Abiaca Creek, and Hillside NWR receives water from the Black and Fannegusha 

Creeks. Both of these creeks are listed on the state of Mississippi’s Section 303(d) list of impaired 

waterbodies. Section 303(d) streams do not meet one or more of their designated uses because 

water quality in the streams is impaired. Water quality data collected by the Mississippi Department 

of Environmental Quality demonstrates that the water quality in these creeks has been impaired by 

high concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria. Water contaminated by intestinal bacteria could also 

contain salmonella, and there is concern that bacteria in stream water could overflow into wetlands in 

the area and cause diseases in waterfowl populations. 
 64

In addition to chemical and fecal coliform bacteria contamination, studies have shown that runoff from 

agricultural fields and upstream gravel mining operations have introduced excessive siltation and 

turbidity in waterbodies throughout the Complex. Studies conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey 

have shown that, overall, sedimentation has resulted in the loss of important wildlife (including 

migratory birds) and habitat, and has increased densities of undesirable fish populations (common 

carp, buffalo, gar, bowfin, and freshwater drum). For example, data for Abiaca Creek, which supplies 

water to Mathews Brake, indicate that the stream has introduced large sediment loads into the 

refuge, filling in the brake and destroying bottomland hardwood wetland habitats. Silt deposits have 

also reduced the depth and extent of wetland habitat and altered normal drainage patterns on the 

refuge. Repeated silt deposits have killed trees and converted forest composition from water tolerant 

species to less water tolerant species having fewer benefits to fish and wildlife. Open water aquatic 

habitat has been lost as silt deposits fill up waterbodies and reduce the depth of the water. 

Hillside NWR was purchased fee title by the COE for its Hillside floodway “Yazoo Basin Headwater 

Project.” The purpose of the project was to allow silt-laden waters to drop their sediment loads before 

reaching the Yazoo and Mississippi Rivers, preventing costly dredging projects. The COE project has 

transformed most of the land into a silt collection sump via a cutoff levee containing the altered channels 

of Black and Fannegusha Creeks. Although the Hillside floodway project is just beyond half of its 

estimated 50-year life, the silt collection capacity of the land is nearing the 50-year estimated capacity. 

Cultural Resources 

With the enactment of the American Antiquities Act of 1906, the U.S. Government recognized the 

importance of cultural resources to the national identity and sought to protect archaeological sites and 

historic structures on those lands owned, managed, or controlled by the United States. Historic 

preservation laws have expanded dramatically since 1906. Several themes recur in the laws and the 

promulgating regulations, including directives that Federal agencies will: 

1. Systematically inventory holdings for “historic properties” and scientifically assess each 

property’s eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places; 

2. Consider the impacts to cultural resources during agency management activities and seek to 

either avoid or mitigate adverse impacts; 

3. Protect cultural resources from looting and vandalism by informed management, law 

enforcement efforts, and public education; 

4. Increase consultation with relevant groups (such as Native American tribes and African 

American communities), to address how a project or management activity may impact specific 

archaeological sites and landscapes deemed important to those groups; and 

5. Identify, research, and protect historic properties, and provide cultural interpretation for the public. 

Cultural resource inventories have been completed on about 25,000 acres throughout the Complex. 

Yazoo, Mathews Brake, and Hillside NWRs have been surveyed prior to and following acquisition. 

The only refuge in the Complex with significant cultural resources to date is Yazoo NWR, with five 

properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Yazoo’s potential National 

Register sites include the Swan Lake Indian mounds, Deer Lake Village, Deer Lake Village South, 

the Steele Bayou site, and the Big Lake site. These sites need to be added to the National Register. 

 
 65

Private Lands and Forest Fragmentation 

Panther Swamp NWR contains the largest contiguous block (21,000 acres) of forest in the Complex. 

Actively managed to improve forest composition for wildlife dependent on interior forest habitats, 

Panther Swamp NWR’s forestlands are rare in the Mississippi Delta region. Although federal- and 

state-owned lands are managed and protected, habitat losses on private lands continue. Land 

clearing, one-time “high-grade” timber harvests, aquaculture, and urbanization are ongoing threats to 

the few remaining forests on private lands. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System could never acquire enough land to meet the habitat needs of all 

resident and migratory wildlife. Imperiled wildlife such as neotropical migratory birds, some waterfowl, 

and threatened and endangered species are dependent on lands in private ownership, as well as 

government owned lands. While many landowners are actively managing all or portions of their lands for 

wildlife, many others depend on their lands to produce an income for them and their families. 

Technical and financial assistance is available to help private landowners develop and manage 

habitat. Financial assistance would provide funding for habitat restoration projects that can restore 

habitat for species at risk, wetland species, forest interior species, and threatened and endangered 

species. Because government-based financial resources are becoming limited, efforts to restore 

habitat will be prioritized for areas of greatest need. 

Former Farmers Home Administration Lands 

The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 authorized the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), now known 

as the Farm Services Agency, to transfer easement or fee title interest in inventory farm property, 

without reimbursement, to federal or state agencies for conservation purposes. During the late 1980s 

and early 1990s, several thousands of acres of easements and fee title interests were transferred to 

the Service, primarily in the southeastern United States. Within the Complex, the Service manages 

12,291 acres of fee title transfers (43 tracts) and 998 acres in easements (12 tracts). These tracts 

range in size form a few acres to several thousand acres and some pose significant management 

problems for the Service due to several reasons, including distance from existing stations, lack of 

manpower and funding to manage and patrol, trespass issues, etc. 

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 

Funding and Staffing 

Limited staff, facilities, equipment, water management capability, and other factors have prevented 

refuges in the Complex from accomplishing many defined purposes and management objectives. 

Staff shortages at Panther Swamp, Hillside, Morgan Brake, and Mathews Brake NWRs (Table 11) 

have limited management capabilities over the years. The 63,344 acres on these four refuges are 

currently staffed with only five staff members and three intermittent employees. Panther Swamp 

NWR has only three approved FTEs, and currently only two positions are filled. Hillside and Mathews 

Brake NWRs are unstaffed. Staff shortages are compounded by the necessity of sharing limited 

equipment and facilities with other refuges in the Complex. Further, problems are introduced by the 

necessity of managing large expanses of refuge lands that are separated by 50 or more miles. The 

end result is a serious negative impact on biological, maintenance, and visitor services programs, 

degraded facilities, limited wildlife and habitat projects, and nonexistent visitor services programs. 

Biological and public use review teams and the public identified the need for additional staff, 

especially at Panther Swamp, Morgan Brake, Mathews Brake, and Hillside NWRs. 
 66

Monitoring, Inventory, Research, and Adaptive Management 

To date, management decisions have been based on the best available data and best professional 

judgment. Due to limited personnel and funding, refuge management activities have focused on 

producing habitats that support priority species, instead of species monitoring and inventory. 

Therefore, baseline information is absent for: 

• Habitats, wildlife, fisheries, and biodiversity. 

• Comprehensive, Complex-wide species-based habitats. 

• Geographic Information Systems-based data. 

• Population inventory and monitoring. 

• Current populations, rate of spread, and structured control measures for invasive species. 

• Centralized data storage program. 

Although this information is vital to adequately support scientifically based management decisions, 

refuges in the Refuge System are typically not staffed or funded to function as research stations. 

Therefore the Complex is dependent upon partnerships with other federal agencies, state agencies, 

non-governmental offices, and universities to conduct research that will guide and support habitat 

management decisions and habitat restoration projects. 
 67

Table 11. Acres managed by station, approved full-time equivalents (FTEs), and full-time 

positions funded by other sources 

Refuge Office Refuge(s) Managed Acres Managed Complex/Refuge Staff 

Complex 

Headquarters 

(located at Yazoo 

NWR) 

Hillside 

Holt Collier 

Mathews Brake 

Morgan Brake 

Panther Swamp 

Theodore Roosevelt 

Yazoo 

77,090 acres of refuge 

lands inside acquisition 

boundaries. 

 

12,291 acres in (43) Farm 

Service Agency Fee Title 

998 acres in (12) Farm 

Service Agency 

easements 

80 acres in (1) MDOT 

Transfer (included in 

Carter Tract) 

80 acres in (1) Fee Title 

(Theunissen) Darlove 

Tract 

 Total 90,459 acres 

Project Leader (GS-14) 

Deputy Project Leader (GS13) 

Forester (GS-12) 

Park Ranger (LE) (GS-9) 

Private Lands Biologist 

(GS-11) Wildlife Biologist 

(GS-11) Administrative 

Officer (GS-9) 

Tractor Operator (WG-6)* 

(Shared) 

Office Clerk (GS-5)** 

Yazoo NWR Yazoo 13,022 acres Automotive Worker (WG-8) 

Equipment Operator (WG9) (Shared) 

Morgan Brake 

NWR 

Hillside, Mathews 

Brake, and Morgan 

Brake 

25,371 acres Refuge Manager (GS-11) 

Biological Technician (GS7) 

Park Ranger 

(Interpretive)(GS-7) 

Equipment Operator (WG8)++ (Shared) 

Panther Swamp 

NWR 

Panther Swamp 38,697 acres Refuge Manager (GS-11) 

Park Ranger (Interpretive) 

(GS-7) Equipment Operator 

(WG-10) 

TOTAL Complex Staff 

16 approved FTEs + 2 

positions funded by COE 

and Hunt Permit Fees 

*Funded by Corps of Engineers funds 

**Funded by Hunt Permit Fees 

++FTE for a WG-8 Equipment Operator position is currently stationed at Yazoo NWR. 

Note: Two FTEs for equipment operators are stationed at Yazoo NWR, but the employees in these positions serve more 

than half their time at Morgan Brake, Mathews Brake, or Panther Swamp NWRs. Two staff positions (Tractor Operator 

(WG-6) and Office Automation Clerk (GS-5) are occupied by full-time staff but their positions are not approved FTEs. 
 68
 69

 IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the goals, objectives, and strategies that would be used to implement a 

science-based stewardship program for fish and wildlife resources on the Complex. Over the next 15 

years the management directions outlined in this CCP will guide how the Complex will: 

• Meet refuge objectives and support the mission of the Refuge System; 

• Manage native wildlife to achieve habitat management objectives for federal trust species, and 

• Achieve biological integrity for other native flora and fauna. 

While the priority of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System is the protection of federal 

trust species (e.g., migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, anadromous fish and marine 

mammals), the mission identifies responsibility for all fish, wildlife and plant resources. On national 

wildlife refuges, wildlife conservation is the first priority in refuge management. Wildlife-dependent 

recreation (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation) will be emphasized. Public uses are allowed if they are compatible and 

appropriate with wildlife and habitat conservation. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“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 Service assumes responsibility for managing non-migratory wildlife that is dependent on refuge 

resources, but never to the detriment of the purpose for which the refuge was established. A variety of 

LMRAV wildlife species inhabit refuge lands on the Complex, and some of those species are highly visible 

and valued by the public (e.g., white-tailed deer, wild turkey, and cottontail rabbits). Although these game 

species are important to the public for their recreational values, non-game species are equally important. 

To maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System, 

management should include baseline information on all wildlife and their habitats to document their 

existence, monitor trends, and understand the impacts of refuge programs on biodiversity. 

Four alternatives were identified for managing Complex lands: 

• A - No Action, 

• B - Balanced Habitat and Public Use Emphasis, 

• C - Public Use Emphasis, and 

• D - Interior Forest Habitat Emphasis. 

All of the alternatives are described in the Alternatives section of the Environmental Assessment, 

which was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Theodore Roosevelt 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. However, the Service selected Alternative B, Balanced Habitat 

and Public Use Emphasis, as the preferred alternative, since it was determined to best meet the 

goals and vision of the Complex and the refuges. Implementing Alternative B will result in a diversity 
 70

of habitats for a variety of fish and wildlife species, while meeting the Complex’s primary purpose of 

providing habitat for waterfowl. Alternative B will increase waterfowl and songbird use and 

production, increase protection for forest interior-dependent wildlife on Panther Swamp NWR, 

enhance resident wildlife populations, restore wetlands and hydrology, and provide greater 

opportunities for a variety of compatible wildlife-dependent recreation and education activities. 

VISION 

The vision for the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex is: 

Based on sound science, the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex will 

protect, manage, and, where appropriate, restore a system of lands and waters to 

provide for wildlife, fisheries, and plants and their habitats within the Mississippi River’s 

Yazoo Backwater Area for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. 

The Complex will expand its role in land protection efforts by acquiring (from willing 

sellers) additional habitats for migratory birds and other federal trust species while 

working with all interested parties to promote conservation efforts on non-refuge lands. 

The Complex will play a critical role in reducing forest fragmentation and lead in 

reforestation and restoration of bottomland hardwoods and other wetlands. The 

Complex will provide and promote research opportunities that lead to an understanding 

of the resource management needs of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. 

The Complex will build partnerships to protect and promote the ecological viability of the 

landscape, wildlife-dependent recreation, and the historical and cultural resources of the 

region. When compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities for hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation will be provided while promoting the public’s understanding of the 

purposes of the Complex and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

Seven goals have been identified to meet the issues, concerns, and needs expressed by the planning 

team, the refuge staff, the governmental partners, and the public. 

The defined objectives and strategies for each goal reflect the Service's commitment to the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Partners-in-Flight Plan, and the 

purposes of and vision for the Complex. Goal accomplishment is dependent upon the availability of 

adequate funds and staff over the next 15 years. Maps for proposed habitat management and visitor 

services can be found at the end of this chapter. 

GOAL 1. HABITAT AND SPECIES MANAGEMENT – Maintain habitat and species representative of 

the lower mississippi river valley, with special emphasis on waterfowl, other migratory birds, and 

threatened and endangered species. 

Discussion: The Complex provides a diversity of habitats for resident and migratory species. Although four of 

the refuges in the Complex were established to provide for the habitat needs of migratory birds with an emphasis 

on waterfowl, refuges in the Refuge System are responsible for all native species occurring on refuge lands. 

Therefore, habitat for fish and other wildlife is managed to suit the needs of the largest variety of species. 
 71

All five refuges in the Complex have been designated by the Audubon Society as “Important Bird 

Areas.” Complex lands provide forest habitat, grasslands, and scrub/shrub habitat for neotropical 

migratory birds, such as prothonotary warblers, bobolinks, dickcissels, painted buntings, and whiteeyed vireos. A diversity of habitats, including sanctuary areas for waterfowl, provide feeding, resting, 

and loafing habitat for tens of thousands of wintering ducks and geese, and nesting habitat for wood 

ducks and hooded mergansers. Moist-soil management areas provide foraging habitat for non-game 

waterbird groups, including shorebirds, marsh birds, and colonial waterbirds/wading birds. 

Breeding colonial wading birds use nesting habitat in brakes, swamps, and a few wooded impoundments 

throughout the Complex. Yazoo NWR’s Deer Lake provides extensive beds of giant cutgrass for nesting 

habitat for marsh species, such as grebes, moorhens, gallinules, rails, and bitterns. 

Panther Swamp NWR contains one of the few remaining large interior forests in Mississippi, similar to 

the forests that historically supported millions of songbirds in the LMRAV. Its proximity to larger 

blocks (>10,000 acres) of similar forested habitat, such as Delta National Forest, provides an 

opportunity to link management efforts with partnering Federal and State agencies to manage habitat 

for priority interior forest-dependent birds. 

Concern over waterfowl population declines in the 1980s resulted in the establishment of the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan, which focused the attention of federal, state, and private 

conservation groups on critical wintering and breeding areas. The LMVJV was selected as one of the 

wintering focus areas. In setting habitat objectives for the LMVJV, the consensus was that foraging 

habitat is the limiting factor. The objectives are based on food production goals by habitat types 

including harvested and unharvested cropland, moist-soil areas, and bottomland hardwood wetlands. 

Each of these habitat types is required to provide the variety of food resources (i.e., native plant 

seeds, small grains, and invertebrates) required by waterfowl wintering in the Lower Mississippi River 

Valley. Step-down objectives were established in Mississippi for public and private lands. 

Guidelines for minimum duck-use-day objectives were determined by using a series of step-down 

plans starting with the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) population objectives. 

These objectives were further stepped down to the LMVJV, which were then allocated to each state. 

Coordination meetings were held in each state to determine who could provide the habitat 

requirements and where the habitat would be located (public or private lands). Taking into account 

sanctuary requirements (in addition to foraging requirements), public land managers determined the 

potential for meeting state objectives. Each of the refuges within the Complex was then allocated a 

minimum number of duck-use-days (Table 12) based on past wintering waterfowl surveys and 

available habitat types. These population objectives were translated into minimum habitat objectives 

for bottomland hardwoods, moist soil, and unharvested crops. 
72

Table 12. Lower Mississippi Joint Venture step-down objectives (2003) for dabbling ducks for the Theod

National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

*25 percent share of cooperatively farmed crops 

Refuge/ 

Unit 

DUD 

Objective 

Greentree 

Reservoir 

(Objective) 

Greentree 

Reservoir 

(Current) 

Moist Soil 

(Objective) 

Moist Soil 

(Current) 

Unharvested 

Crops 

(Objective) 

Yazoo 6,521,991 275 1,350 559 650 350 Panther Swamp 8,172,000 0 0 1,235 400 300 Carter Tract 2,155,700 0 0 600 600 100 Hillside 2,529,533 1,200 200 236 200 50 Morgan Brake 5,951,004 0 0 1,175 589 222 Mathews Brake 975,350 50 50 700 0 0 TOTALS 26,305,578 1,525 1,600 4,505 2,439 1,022 
 73

Currently, 9,600 acres of small grain crops are planted on refuge lands (excluding Mathews Brake 

NWR). Assuming a 25 percent refuge share, 2,400 acres would be available to provide small grain 

crops for waterfowl. This exceeds the NAWMP’s 1,022-acre goal for ducks; however, the Waterfowl 

Focus Group identified an additional objective of 1,200 acres of unharvested grain crops for geese, 

bringing the total unharvested grain crop minimum objective to 2,222 acres (1,022-acre NAWMP 

objective for ducks, and 1,200-acre Waterfowl Focus Group objective for geese). Complex 

agricultural acres have already been reduced by approximately 20,840 acres since 1980 and will 

continue to be reduced to a level commensurate with identified waterfowl objectives. 

The initial duck-use days and habitat objectives are currently being reevaluated by the LMVJV. 

Foods (including waste grain), suitable habitat available on private lands, and the evaluation of 

wintering waterfowl population surveys on the Complex may produce changes in the objectives in the 

near future. New information preliminarily demonstrates that earlier harvests and more efficient 

harvest techniques have resulted in less available waste grain for wintering waterfowl on private 

lands. When crops are harvested earlier in the year, waste grain sprouts and grows, eliminating its 

use for waterfowl during the wintering season. 

As the studies are concluded, the objectives will be re-evaluated. For this reason, most 

agricultural lands targeted for removal from the cooperative farming program will be converted 

to scrub/shrub, grasslands, and moist-soil habitat. This will provide habitat for a variety of 

wildlife, and would allow the conversion back to crop lands should the objectives for 

unharvested crops be increased. In the future, if the need for additional crop lands is 

determined unnecessary, a portion of the lands converted to scrub/shrub, grasslands, and 

moist-soil habitat could be restored to bottomland hardwoods. 

Sub-Goal 1A. Waterfowl sanctuary – Provide effective waterfowl sanctuaries on all refuges within the 

Complex. 

Discussion: Sanctuaries are necessary to reserve the habitat elements essential for waterfowl 

survival and to serve as reservoirs from which populations can be replenished. Sanctuaries also 

protect waterfowl from over-harvest (Munro 1964). Sanctuaries have long been considered an 

important part of waterfowl management (Bellrose 1954), although research on their role in 

maintaining populations has received limited attention. However, individual studies have illustrated 

some of the biological values of sanctuaries. Banding on and off refuges has shown that sanctuaries 

reduce the effects of hunting mortality on mallards (Blohm et al., 1987). Excessive disturbance by 

hunters has been shown to reduce the fat storage and feeding success of greater snow geese (Feret 

et al., 2003) and increase energy expenditure by several species of migrating and wintering waterfowl 

(Havera et al., 1992, Kahl 1991). Also, mallards and other species preferentially use undisturbed 

forested wetlands for pairing and other social activities in the Lower Mississippi Valley during winter 

(Fredrickson and Heitmeyer 1988). Sanctuaries provide wintering waterfowl with food, cover, and 

water, and provide areas for pair bonding. Waterfowls in sanctuary areas can maintain vital fat 

reserves that they will need for long distance migration. Ducks lacking sanctuary use more energy, 

reducing their fat reserves. 

Objective 1A. Maintain a minimum of 18,300 acres for waterfowl sanctuary Complex-wide, 

where few to no disturbance factors are allowed during the critical winter period (January 1 

through March 15.) 

Discussion: The establishing legislation for four of the refuges (excluding Hillside NWR) is “for use as 

an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds.” 
 74

Strategy: 

• Designate the listed minimum acres of sanctuary by posting signs, closing gates, and 

providing information in brochures and other public information. 

Yazoo NWR 1,981 acres 

Panther Swamp NWR 9,255 acres 

Hillside NWR 2,029 acres 

Morgan Brake NWR 4,190 acres 

Mathews Brake NWR 833 acres 

Sub-goal 1B. Moist-soil/shallow-water impoundments – Provide moist-soil/shallow-water 

impoundments for a variety of species. 

Discussion: “The principle of increasing the seed production of annual plants with seasonal 

drawdowns of moist-soil sites was recognized in the 1940s but not applied as a management strategy 

until the 1970s. Moist-soil habitats are natural or managed, seasonally flooded wetlands dominated 

by grasses, sedges, or other herbaceous plants. The availability of plant seeds attracts and 

concentrates waterfowl and other wetland wildlife species. Decomposing vegetative parts of moistsoil plants also provide substrata for invertebrates, which are vital foods for many wetland wildlife and 

fish. Moist-soil impoundments generally produce more food and are more consistently productive 

than bottomland forests.” (Reinecke et al., 1989). 

Because moist-soil management requires personnel, equipment (wells, pumps, tractors, disks, 

mowers), chemicals, and energy resources (gasoline, diesel, electricity), costs can be substantial 

compared to cooperative farming. However, natural wetland losses in areas surrounding refuge 

lands in the Complex have created the need for managed wetlands on protected areas, to ensure 

essential habitat and food resources for wetland-dependent wildlife species’ health and survival. A 

variety of waterfowl species use moist soil and shallow water impoundments. Table 13 depicts 

current water management capability on the Complex. 

Table 13. Water control structures and wells* 

Refuge Existing WCS Existing Wells

Yazoo 92 18 

Panther Swamp 36 5 

Carter Tract 22 9 

Hillside 12 3 

Morgan Brake 30 14 

TOTALS 192 49 

*Needs for water control structures and wells are addressed in Maintenance Management System (MMS) and Refuge 

Operating Needs System (RONS) documents 
 75

Objective 1B.1. Waterfowl: Annually, provide a minimum of 4,500 acres of moistsoil/shallow-water habitats for waterfowl to support national and regional plans. 

As discussed in “Habitat Management for Migrating and Wintering Waterfowl in North America” 

(Reinecke et al., 1989), “the objectives of many waterfowl management areas in the Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley (MAV) are to provide habitat for migrating and wintering waterfowl and maintain a 

diversity of wildlife species.” Habitat complexes can satisfy these objectives more effectively than 

individual habitats because the strengths of one management method compensate for the 

weaknesses of another. Forested wetlands provide excellent wildlife habitat with low management 

costs, but food production for waterfowl is limited. Moist-soil impoundments are intermediate in 

management costs and food production, and provide habitat for a diversity of wetland and upland 

wildlife species. Crop production provides the greatest yield of waterfowl food per unit area, but 

management costs are high and benefits to other wildlife generally are low. Habitat complexes are 

also complementary regarding quality of waterfowl foods produced. Croplands primarily provide 

energy, whereas natural foods contribute energy, protein, and other nutrients. 

Although the advantages of habitat complexes are clear, the best ratio of habitat types is less 

obvious. Farming probably should be limited to the minimum area necessary to satisfy food 

production objectives that are not attainable with moist-soil impoundments and forested wetlands. 

Moist-soil impoundments generally produce more food and are more consistently productive than 

bottomland hardwood forests. Forested wetlands should remain an important habitat on refuges in 

the MAV because of their low management costs and general wildlife habitat values.” 

In order to meet the 19.1 million duck-use-day minimum objective in national and regional plans, 

including the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, appropriate Complex lands will be 

managed to provide habitat, food resources, and sanctuary for ducks. 

The Complex will manage a minimum of 4,505 acres of moist-soil habitat within current acquisition 

boundaries to encourage the growth of moist-soil plants for seed production, and to encourage 

invertebrates that will provide a food resource for a variety of wetland-dependent migratory birds. 

Strategies: 

• Install water level gauges on all managed impoundments with infrastructure in place for 

complete water control. 

• Maintain early successional moist-soil plant communities and control undesirable plants by 

such means as mechanical disking, herbicides, periodically rotating agricultural crops, and 

water level management. 

• Implement a system to record water levels, habitat manipulations, plant coverage, and 

migratory bird response in all appropriate impoundments, and use adaptive management 

procedures to improve results. 

• Continue to use the rotational management scheme at the Cox Ponds (Yazoo NWR) to 

develop a cycle of early successional development and renewal that will supply optimum 

forage and habitat conditions for target species. Apply successful techniques from the Cox 

Ponds to other moist-soil impoundments throughout the Complex. 

• Develop infrastructure to provide the capability for complete water control on all appropriate 

impoundments. 

• Develop a protocol for managing moist-soil areas with only partial water control, using 400 

pounds-per-acre as a minimum production rate. If the minimum cannot be achieved, consider 

planting millet or converting to row crops. 
 76

• Develop a GIS database of all water management units that includes floodable acreage, water 

control structures, soil types, vegetation transects, flood chronologies, and manipulations. 

• Conduct and keep records of in-depth plant surveys at least twice annually in all moist-soil 

management units. 

• Replace water control structures and wells (as needed) on the Complex and install new wells 

and water control structures to provide maximum water control. 

Objective 1B.2. Long-legged Waders: Provide a minimum of 700 acres of shallow-water 

habitat during the nesting and post-nesting periods for long-legged waders. 

Discussion: On selected impoundments, moist-soil and shallow-water management strategies can be 

structured to provide foraging habitat for long-legged waders. This is especially important during 

brood-rearing and post-nesting periods. 

Strategies: 

• Draw down selected deep-water/moist-soil impoundments at Yazoo and Morgan Brake NWRs 

and the Carter Tract to a depth of 12" on April 1, prior to the shorebird drawdown in July, to 

provide foraging habitat for wading birds during the nesting and post nesting periods. 

• Draw down deep-water/moist-soil impoundments slowly over the season to allow crawfish to 

burrow-in for reproduction. 

• Incorporate red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarki) production scheme into moist-soil and 

rice-management programs to enhance aquatic resources for wildlife and enrich wildlife 

observation opportunities. 

• Provide shallow-water areas in late spring and early summer to concentrate prey for long-legged 

waders, such as the state-listed wood storks, little blue herons, and the declining white ibis. 

Objective 1B.3. Marsh birds: Annually, provide a minimum of 60 acres of marsh bird habitat for 

nesting and migration in three 20-acre ponds: one at Morgan Brake and two at the Carter Tract. 

Discussion: Management strategies to benefit marshbirds will be developed with special emphasis 

on habitat for black rails, yellow rails, and least bitterns. 

Strategies: 

• Manage one 20-acre pond at Morgan Brake NWR and two 20-acre ponds at the Carter Tract 

for marsh habitat. 

• Maintain marshbird habitat at Deer Lake, with a mix of perennial marsh species such as giant 

cutgrass, sedges, rushes, and cattail. 

Objective 1B.4. Shorebirds: Provide a minimum of 435 acres of shallow-water habitat for fall 

shorebird migration. 

Discussion: Shorebirds forage in mud flats and other moist soil areas. Peak northbound migration 

occurs from March to mid-May. Existing habitat for northbound migration is considered adequate in 

the LMRAV. Southbound migration starts in early July, peaks August through September, and tapers 

off toward winter, usually lasting until at least the end of October. Severe shorebird habitat shortages 

occur when shallow-flooded or mudflat habitats are unavailable in late summer/fall. 
 77

For Mississippi, a 1,500-acre habitat target that would support a tentative 500,000 LMRAV population 

objective has been established for southbound migration. This objective is based on conservative 

assumptions, and experts believe that the figure may be as much as twice that estimated. Because 

shorebird habitat is one of the highest non-game bird priorities for the Complex, existing shorebird 

management practices will be continued and opportunities for improvement will be implemented. 

Strategies: 

• Based on current management capability, manage 240 acres at Yazoo NWR’s Cox Ponds and 

300 acres at Morgan Brake NWR’s moist-soil ponds on a 4-year rotation; 600 acres at the Carter 

Tract and 300 acres at Morgan Brake NWR on a 3-year rotation, resulting in 60, 75, 200, and 100 

acres in each area, respectively, (total 435 acres) for fall shorebird habitat each year. 

• Manage shallow-water habitat on at least 435 acres, Complex-wide, to provide shorebirds with 

adequate protection from disturbance and to provide optimal feeding conditions for 

southbound shorebirds. Habitat should consist of a combination of mudflats and shallow 

water (0 - 4") with a dense invertebrate population, and be available July 15–October 31. 

• Begin final draw-down of water levels in mid-summer to expose mud flats for southbound 

shorebirds. Draw-downs among moist-soil units should be staggered and overlapped to continue 

to provide mud-flat habitat throughout the entire mid-July to November migration period. 

• Develop a moist-soil/shallow-water habitat rotation scheme to provide fall shorebird habitat on 

at least 25 percent of the acreage being rotated. 

• Install tilt pipes for precise water control in all shorebird management impoundments. 

Sub-goal 1C. Enhance Wetlands and Aquatic Sites on the Complex 

Discussion: 

Yazoo NWR: The largest body of water on Yazoo NWR is Swan Lake, which is divided into four 

management compartments, and is bounded on the east side by Steele Bayou. The majority of 

Swan Lake contains water-adapted trees (bald cypress, willow, water elm, ash, swamp privet) and 

shrubs (buttonbush) interspersed with open water. The largest and deepest compartment (#4) is 

maintained as a permanent swamp and contains a large colonial waterbird rookery. The adjacent 

compartments (#2 and #3) are flooded by rainfall and runoff in the fall and winter and are drained in 

the spring to allow moist-soil plant growth and to protect important mast trees (such as Nuttall oak) 

around the edge that are less adapted to flooded conditions. 

Pipe-arch structures allow water to inflow from Silver Lake Bayou to fill Compartments #3 and #4 in 

the fall. This is an option that can be used when silt loads are low in the bayou. Compartments #2 

and #3 are drained in the spring and water levels in Compartment #4 are lowered. Much of 

Compartment #1 is managed as a GTR. It is separated hydrologically from Compartments #2, #3, 

and #4 and contains relatively higher ground, but is flooded on the same schedule. 

The portion of Steele Bayou that lies within the refuge boundary is controlled by a COE weir 

downstream from the refuge. Weir E, located at the mouth of Silver Lake Bayou on the north end of 

the refuge, controls water levels in Silver Lake Bayou. Weir E is manipulated by refuge personnel for 

habitat management and to reduce flooding impacts to private lands upstream. A controversy (from 
 78

private landowners) over the elevation of the weir shortly after construction resulted in the removal of 

one foot of concrete from the weir. As a result, water levels upstream of the weir do not provide 

adequate flow into Swan Lake for habitat management purposes. 

The COE proposes to relocate a portion of Steele Bayou on the north end of the refuge, to resolve 

issues associated with unstable soils. When the COE purchases additional land to relocate the 

channel, there is a potential that this land could be donated to the refuge, altering the refuge 

boundary on the north side. 

Deer Lake is a permanent water area with marsh habitat containing giant cutgrass in shallower areas. 

Several species of marsh birds use it for nesting and brood-rearing. Deer Lake is relatively shallow 

(<6 feet) and subject to lotus overgrowth. The staff treats the lake with glyphosate periodically to 

reduce the American lotus. Deer Lake historically has produced the greatest numbers of wood ducks 

compared to other habitats on the refuge, possibly due to the greater number of wood duck nest 

boxes in the lake, and the habitat Deer Lake provides. 

Alligator Pond, also a productive wood duck nesting site, is subject to overgrowth of American lotus, 

and glyphosate is applied periodically. Water levels are raised in winter to flood the surrounding 

hardwoods (as in a GTR). The majority of remaining permanent-water impoundments such as 

Beargarden Lake, Lizard Lake, and Big Lake incorporate a GTR management component in the 

surrounding backwater areas. 

Panther Swamp NWR: A water control structure in Deep Bayou controls a major portion of the east side 

drainage on this refuge. During the winter, water levels are raised to flood brakes and forested areas. In the 

spring, water is released to protect bottomland hardwoods. A rapid release of water is desirable to 

discourage beaver activity and to prevent silt buildup. A deterrent to the rapid release of water is the fixedlevel COE weir that is located downstream in the Landside Ditch. The purpose of the weir is to hold water, 

which controls vegetation in the Landside Ditch. The Landside Ditch drains the entire east side of the 

refuge. The Landside Ditch weir slows water flows, which allows silt build-up in refuge drainage/waterways. 

The silt build-up makes it easier for beavers to build dams, causing increased expenditures of time and 

effort for dam removal, resulting in the loss of mature bottomland hardwoods. 

Mathews Brake NWR: Mathews Brake NWR includes a 1,810-acre oxbow lake with ridge-and-swale 

topography. Deeper water areas contain baldcypress and water tupelo, and higher elevations 

contain bottomland hardwoods. Portions of the lake are in private ownership. Historically, water 

flowed into the southeast corner of Mathews Brake via a tributary of Abiaca Creek. During periods of 

normal water levels in the Abiaca tributary, water was allowed to pass through a 40-inch pipe under a 

woods road. To prevent the brake from completely drying up during the hot summer months, refuge 

staff diverted water into the brake through the 40-inch pipe starting in June. By the beginning of duck 

season, rains and water diversions had filled the brake to the desired level. After heavy rains, when 

the stream carried a substantial silt burden, the pipe was closed. 

A flood event in February 2004 washed out the pipe, silted in the channel, and effectively cut off 

Mathews Brake’s water supply. A new channel was proposed to provide water to the brake via a 

tributary of Abiaca Creek. Because the channel construction project would result in the deposition of 

fill material in wetlands, the COE was contacted in March 2004. Refuge staff met with COE 

personnel on-site, and discussed permit requirements. Subsequently, a COE Section 404 nationwide 

permit was verified to authorize the work, and the new channel was constructed in late 2004. Water 

levels in the brake are now controlled by two water control structures at the head of the new channel. 
 79

Objective 1C.1. Improve water management capabilities on Yazoo, Mathews Brake, Panther 

Swamp, Hillside, and Morgan Brake NWRs to address habitat management issues. 

Strategies: 

• On Yazoo NWR, work with the COE to raise the elevation of Weir E by one foot to ensure 

gravity flow of water into Swan Lake. 

• On Yazoo NWR, work with the COE to minimize habitat impacts during the COE’s completion 

of the Swan Lake project. 

• Establish and cultivate partnerships with the COE to develop plans for lowering the weir at 

Landside Ditch above Cotton’s bridge to increase water velocity and reduce siltation in 

sloughs on the east side of Panther Swamp NWR. 

• On Hillside NWR, work with the COE to minimize siltation from upland sources. 

• On Morgan Brake NWR, divert the road 200 feet away from the spring adjacent to North Hill 

Ponds, and revegetate the area surrounding the spring with native shrubs. 

Objective 1C.2. Within 1 year of CCP approval, control beaver populations to ensure that no 

more than 5 percent of bottomland hardwood wetlands are converted to aquatic sites. 

Discussion: Refuge lands in the Complex contain extensive expanses of wetlands with varying 

sources and extent of hydrology, from deepwater swamps to bottomland hardwood wetlands. 

Panther Swamp NWR has the largest contiguous block (20,000 acres) of bottomland hardwood 

wetlands in the Complex. Although beaver ponds do provide limited habitat for some waterfowl and 

aquatic species (wading birds, reptiles, amphibians), forest losses are substantial. 

Strategies: 

• Aerial plant rice or Japanese millet for waterfowl on 10 percent of areas with beaver-killed 

trees as they are drained. 

• Allow areas to undergo natural succession as beaver-killed areas are drained. 

• Employ a full-time GS-7 biological technician to implement a beaver and nutria control program 

(including shooting and trapping and removing dams) and to monitor and record tree damage. 

Objective 1C.3. Provide and protect habitat for threatened and endangered species on 

Complex lands. 

Discussion - Interior Least Tern: Interior least terns have historically bred and nested from late April 

to August on barren and sparsely vegetated sandbars, as well as sand and gravel pits along the 

Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Red, and Rio Grande Rivers. They feed in shallow waters on fish, 

insects, crustaceans, mollusks, and annelids (Whitman 1988). However, river channel alterations for 

navigation, hydropower, irrigation, and flood control have destroyed their nesting and breeding 

habitat. Many remaining sandbars are unsuitable for nesting due to vegetation encroachment or 

frequent flooding. As a result, the number and distribution of interior least terns have declined. In 

1985, interior least terns were placed on the Endangered Species List in many states, including 

Mississippi, and the recovery plan was developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1990. 

Small numbers of interior least terns forage in Swan Lake on Yazoo NWR in the summer. Since the 

refuge lies only 4 miles from the Mississippi River, an opportunity exists to provide summer foraging 

habitat at the Cox Ponds moist-soil areas, if a suitable forage species can be provided in the 

management scheme. They have been known to breed along the Mississippi River in Washington 
 80

County in the vicinity of Yazoo NWR, and have been observed foraging at Yazoo and Morgan Brake 

NWRs by refuge staff. 

Strategies: 

• Provide foraging habitat for interior least terns. 

• Stock open-water areas on selected deep-water impoundments with forage fish (e.g., shad 

and other suitable fish). 

Discussion - Pallid Sturgeon: Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) are bottom-feeding fish that 

prefer large, muddy rivers with rocky or sandy bottoms. They can be found in backwaters, side 

channels, sloughs, and in the main channels. Historically found throughout the Missouri River, from 

Montana to the Mississippi River and then south to Louisiana, virtually all of pallid sturgeon habitat 

has been altered by dams, reservoirs, and channelization projects. The pallid sturgeon is known to 

occur in the Yazoo River, adjacent to Panther Swamp NWR. 

Strategy: 

• Protect pallid sturgeon and their habitat and minimize threats from existing and proposed 

activities on refuge lands by ensuring that loggers implement appropriate Best Management 

Practices (BMP’s) during forest harvest operations on refuge lands adjacent to the Yazoo 

River. 

Discussion - Pondberry: Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) is a deciduous shrub that grows to about 2 

meters in height. Yellow flowers in early spring yield a fleshy bright red drupe in fall. This 

endangered shrub grows in bottomland forests, poorly drained depressions, and in limestone sinks. 

Habitat loss is the primary threat to the continued existence of this species. Pondberry has been 

introduced in experimental populations on Yazoo, Morgan Brake, and Hillside NWRs. 

Strategies: 

• Work with Jackson, Mississippi, Ecological Services Field Office to identify pondberry 

populations on Complex lands. 

• Provide suitable habitat for additional pondberry introductions. 

Objective 1C.4. Wood ducks: Provide brood habitat and nest sites to support a target of 3,000 

hatchling wood ducks each year on Complex lands. 

Discussion: Overharvesting by market hunters coupled with the destruction of mature hardwood 

trees in the early 1900s nearly extirpated wood duck populations. The dramatic rebound of wood 

duck populations since that time can largely be attributed to protection provided by the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act of 1918. However, the recovery of the wood duck was also assisted by the advent of 

artificial nesting structures, or wood duck boxes. Studies demonstrate a continuing scarcity of 

suitable nesting cavities in existing bottomland hardwoods. In addition, competition from raccoons, 

squirrels, and owls for suitable cavities further limits nesting habitat. Wood ducks are not territorial, 

and often more than one hen will lay eggs in the same nest. The hen will typically lay 12-14 eggs. 

Dump nests containing 25 or more eggs are common, and often produce successful broods. 

Although wood ducks may seek cavities in trees within a mile of water, brood survival is higher where 

nests are closer to water. Preferred habitats include forested wetlands, wooded and shrub swamps, 

tree-lined rivers, streams, sloughs, and beaver ponds. Wood ducks seek acorns, other soft and hard 
 81

mast, weed seeds, and invertebrates in shallow flooded timber, shrub swamps, and along stream 

banks. They loaf and roost in more secluded areas and in dense shrub swamps. 

Wood duck nest boxes should be maintained and checked at appropriate intervals throughout the 

breeding season. Box cleaning after the initial nesting peak (about mid-April) will help improve 

annual production. Wood duck nest boxes must be fitted with functional predator guards, and 

maintained, or they become traps for the hen and her clutch. 

Waterfowl biologists have long known that nest success is of primary importance for wood duck 

populations. However, hatched ducklings comprise only one component of the equation. Another critical 

component is duckling survival after nest exit. Historically, natural nest cavities may have been more 

widely dispersed throughout bottomland hardwoods, with more extensive scrub/shrub habitats than today. 

Hens and their broods were better able to disperse and avoid detection by predators in these natural 

settings. Studies on duckling mortalities associated with wood duck boxes on Yazoo NWR by Mississippi 

State University revealed that overall duckling survival was only 20 percent, with predators accounting for 

69 percent of loss. When ducklings traveled to scrub/shrub and bottomland forest habitats with no wood 

duck nest boxes, duckling survival was 60 percent (Kaminski et al., 2003). Possibly, predators have 

learned to target areas with a high density of wood duck nest boxes, which may result in an “ecological 

trap” for ducklings. Because fall is normally the driest time in the LMRAV, wood ducks are often forced to 

seek food and cover in wetland areas of limited size. Management strategies that ensure adequate 

wetland habitat during dry times should be developed. 

Yazoo NWR has actively managed wood duck nest boxes for nearly three decades. Today, more 

than 250 nest boxes are maintained and checked annually. Many studies have been conducted over 

the years on the Yazoo NWR wood duck nest box program. During most years, the wood duck nest 

box program has been successful, with some boxes used 3 and 4 times during the nesting season. 

Strategies: 

• Provide year-round habitat and maintain a minimum of 300 nest boxes throughout the 

Complex to enhance wood duck populations. 

• As existing wood duck nest boxes deteriorate, replace and relocate boxes to meet guidelines. 

• Place boxes in areas that are readily accessible for inspections. 

• Maintain predator guards on all box structures. 

• Place boxes in water and close to scrub/shrub habitat when possible. 

• Maintain all cull trees that have, or may develop natural nesting cavities and are located within 

1 mile of suitable aquatic habitat. This will also benefit many other cavity-nesting species 

(e.g., woodpeckers, mergansers, and squirrels). 

• If possible, place boxes above the 10-year high water mark to prevent them from being 

flooded and to facilitate access for box maintenance and checks. This is particularly critical on 

Hillside and Panther Swamp NWRs, two refuges that are flooded on a regular basis. 

• Maintain sufficient water levels for brood rearing from February through September. 

Objective 1C.5. Colonial Waterbirds: Within 5 years of CCP approval, provide habitat to 

support a minimum of five colonial bird rookeries on Complex lands. 

Discussion: Deep-water wetland habitats on refuge lands in the Complex have supported several 

colonial waterbird rookeries for many years. On Yazoo NWR, a large, very diverse rookery exists in 

Swan Lake, with breeding anhinga, great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, little blue heron, cattle 

egret, green heron, tri-colored heron, double-crested cormorant, and black-crowned night heron. 
 82

Several smaller rookeries in other refuge areas have been used intermittently over the years. Hillside 

NWR supports a large great blue heron/great egret/anhinga/black-crowned night heron rookery, and 

Morgan Brake NWR has, at various times, supported rookeries containing mostly little blue herons, 

cattle egrets, and white ibis. Panther Swamp NWR presently has no known rookery. However, a 

large rookery is located adjacent to the Panther Swamp NWR (White’s Lane) that is of some 

importance for its size and species makeup. This rookery is the largest, and may be the only 

breeding site in the area for the white ibis, a high priority species that nests here by the thousands. 

Roseate spoonbills were documented as nesting in the White’s Lane rookery in 2004. All other 

species found in the Swan Lake rookery are also found at the White’s Lane rookery. 

Foraging habitat for wading birds is present in wetlands throughout the Complex, but particularly in 

intensively managed moist-soil areas on Yazoo and Morgan Brake NWRs. Hundreds of wading birds 

gather to feed in the spring and summer, especially during drawdown phases. Much foraging activity 

is also done off-refuge, particularly at aquaculture facilities throughout the area, where they are 

subject to anti-depredation loss. The wood stork, a state-listed species, occurs in fair numbers every 

summer at Panther Swamp NWR, as well as at other stations. Roseate spoonbills have been 

documented using wetland impoundments at Yazoo and Morgan Brake NWRs. 

Priority Species: 

• High – Least tern, American white pelican, tri-colored heron, black-crowned night heron 

• Local or Regional Interest – Wood stork, roseate spoonbill, glossy ibis, white ibis, anhinga, 

great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, little blue heron, cattle egret, green heron, yellowcrowned night heron. 

Strategies: 

• Protect colonial waterbird rookeries or roosts. 

• Provide foraging habitat to support colonial waterbirds. 

• Secure protection for the White’s Lane rookery adjacent to Panther Swamp NWR through 

acquisition (from willing sellers) or easement. 

Objective 1C.6. Reptiles: Maintain a population of at least 700 alligators, and protect habitats 

for reptiles, turtles, snakes, lizards, and crocodilians on Complex lands. 

Discussion: The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) was previously listed on the 

Endangered Species List due to over-harvest and habitat loss. Populations increased with legislated 

protection, and the alligator was removed from the list in 1987. These large reptiles are a major draw 

for visitors seeking wildlife observation opportunities. However, nesting alligators are sometimes 

harassed by the visiting public and can be injured when individuals throw food, debris, or rocks at the 

alligators to encourage them to move. Since the alligator can be considered a keystone species, the 

protection of habitat for alligators would also ensure habitat for turtles, snakes, and lizards. 
 83

Strategies: 

• Map alligator nesting sites using GIS technology. 

• Place signs in appropriate locations prohibiting alligator feeding or harassment. 

• Protect alligator nesting sites from human disturbance. 

• Manage water levels sufficient to support 700 alligators on Complex lands. 

• Ensure sufficient bottomland hardwood habitat adjacent to wetlands to provide cover, 

foraging, and nesting habitat for turtles, snakes, and lizards. 

Objective 1C.7. Amphibians: Maintain existing habitat and breeding sites to support resident 

amphibians on Complex lands. 

Discussion: Identifying and conserving breeding sites for amphibians, especially salamander 

species, are vital for reproductive success. Preferred habitat type is variable according to species. 

Ephemeral pools (depressions that hold water for less than a year) are especially important for 

salamanders, and can be found in almost any area, but additional factors such as vegetation 

characteristics, water quality, and historic use also determine whether a given species would use 

them for breeding sites. Amphibians are usually philopatric, returning as adults to the site where they 

hatched and developed, for their breeding activity. If breeding sites are active, this is an indication 

that suitable habitat exists or has recently existed nearby to support adult populations. 

Because salamanders are less mobile than frogs, toads, and reptiles, they are more likely to be impacted 

by losses in their breeding sites. To maintain and improve reptile and amphibian diversity, and to ensure 

that habitat is managed for all native species, breeding sites should be identified and conserved, 

especially for salamander species that are in decline. The following strategies have been identified to 

conserve reptile and amphibian fauna in support of Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation. 

Strategies: 

• Using GIS equipment, identify and map breeding sites for amphibian species. 

• Conserve breeding sites by maintaining or improving the current vegetation component and 

water regime. 

• Establish buffer zones around breeding sites, if necessary, to protect habitat from pesticide or 

silt contamination. 

Objective 1C.8. Fish: Maintain and/or enhance a minimum of 2,000 acres of deepwater 

aquatic habitat for a viable fishery. 

Discussion: Fish are an important component of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. Historically, 

the ecosystem supported a great variety of fish adapted to the seasonal flooding of a large river. The 

inherent productivity of the fishery has changed due to hydrological alterations that have isolated 

habitats outside the main river levees. The resultant habitat favors species of fish that are less 

adapted to riverine habitats with dynamic seasonal flooding regimes. Except during extreme flood 

events, most lands in the Complex are separated from the influence of the Mississippi and Yazoo 

Rivers. Because it is not possible to reestablish or mimic the river’s influence on the majority of the 

Complex’s aquatic habitats, existing deepwater areas will be managed to provide a viable fishery. 

Public fishing will be encouraged wherever appropriate and compatible. 

The listed strategies have been identified to protect and promote self-sustaining fish populations. 
 84

Strategies: 

• Develop and implement fisheries management (e.g., stocking, ratio adjustment, and habitat 

improvements) in deepwater aquatic habitats with an emphasis on increasing and maintaining 

a balanced and healthy sport fish population. 

• Develop vegetation buffers of site-appropriate, native vegetation around perimeters of 

deepwater aquatic sites to cool and shade the water during the summer, and provide roots 

below the water’s surface for fish habitat. 

• Place stumps, large woody debris, or other native structure in deepwater aquatic sites to 

mimic naturally occurring cover. 

• Improve water quality by reducing siltation and contaminant loads and turbidity in refuge 

waters by working with Service contaminants specialist, Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality, and surrounding landowners. 

 Sub-goal 1D. Agricultural land – Provide grain crops for waterfowl and geese. 

Discussion: The Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) is one of two major wintering areas in the lower 

Mississippi River Gulf Coast region. For many years, the availability of waterfowl migration and 

wintering habitat was thought to have little effect on waterfowl populations. However, the loss of 

wintering habitat, coupled with studies showing the interdependence of waterfowl requirements 

throughout the annual cycle, has led to a clearer understanding of breeding, migration, and wintering 

habitats requirements. Scientists now believe that a complex of habitats is required to meet 

waterfowl needs (Reinecke et al., 1989). “Farming has been an important management practice in 

the MAV since the first waterfowl refuges were established during the 1930s. Crop production 

provides the greatest yield of waterfowl food per unit area” (Reinecke et al., 1989). Cooperative 

farming, an arrangement where refuge land is provided to a farmer in exchange for a portion of the 

crop, has long been the most economical method for meeting refuge crop objectives. Management, 

operation, and maintenance costs would be higher if force account farming were conducted by refuge 

staff using refuge equipment. A few other species like deer, turkey, woodcock, and raccoon benefit 

from the crops and agricultural land. Crops like corn, milo, and rice primarily provide energy, whereas 

natural foods contribute energy, protein, and other nutrients. Farming should be limited to the area 

necessary to satisfy food production objectives. 

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) proposes to provide migration and 

wintering habitat for mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) and northern pintails (A. acuta) in the lower 

Mississippi River and Gulf Coast. To support the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the 

minimum habitat objective for unharvested small grain crops is approximately 1,100 acres for the 

entire Complex. To meet this objective, refuge lands must produce the maximum amount of 

desirable grain without compromising the cooperative farmer’s ability to meet his/her economic 

burden of crop production. Because corn, rice, and milo are desirable as “hot foods” for migratory 

waterfowl, cooperative farmers are asked to plant these crops for the refuge share. 

Currently, 9,600 acres of small grain crops are planted on refuge lands except Mathews Brake NWR. 

Assuming a 25 percent refuge share, 2,400 acres would be available to provide small grain crops for 

waterfowl. This exceeds the NAWMP 1,022-acre goal for ducks; however the Waterfowl Focus 

Group identified an additional objective of 1,200 acres of unharvested grain crops for geese, bringing 

the total unharvested grain crop minimum objective to 2,222 acres (1,022 NAWMP for ducks, and 

1,200 Waterfowl Focus Group for geese). 
 85

Objective 1D.1. Waterfowl: Complex-wide, provide 2,860 acres of agricultural crops and moist 

soil for ducks, and on Yazoo NWR provide 1,200 acres in agricultural grain crops, green 

browse, and moist soil to overwinter migratory Canada, white-fronted, and snow geese. 

Yazoo NWR is the only refuge in the Complex with both key habitat and consistent historical use by 

geese. Geese typically prefer large open areas for feeding and resting (personal conversation, Don 

Orr 2000). Historically, the refuge supported Canada and white-fronted geese by providing winter 

grazing and “hot foods.” To meet the NAWMP and Waterfowl Focus Group’s identified minimum 

objectives, 1,022 acres of unharvested grain crops are needed to support ducks and 1,200 acres of 

unharvested grain crops and green browse are needed to support goose needs. The Waterfowl 

Focus Group identified target populations of Canada, white-fronted, and snow geese 2,000, 8,000 

and 10,000, for each species, respectively. 

However, additional acreage (> the 2,222 acres identified above) is needed to compensate for loss of 

grain crops consumed by overpopulations of snow geese. (The 2003-2004 waterfowl surveys on 

Yazoo NWR identified peak populations of 200 Canada, 8,000 white-fronted, and 250,000 

snow/Ross’ geese.) 

Strategies: 

• Provide a minimum of 1,022 acres of hot foods (rice, corn, milo) and 4,505 acres of moist-soil 

habitat to meet the duck use day objectives for refuges within the Complex. 

• Provide a minimum of 1,200 acres in agricultural grain crops, green browse, and moist soil on 

Yazoo NWR to overwinter 10,000 snow geese, 8,000 white-fronted geese, and 2,000 

migratory Canada geese. 

• Maintain open areas of sufficient size (> 1,200 acres) and shape that promote goose use. 

• For each refuge with cropland goals, employ one Refuge Operations Specialist or Biological 

Technician, GS-7/9, to manage the farming program. 

• Continue to work with Natural Resources Conservation Service to improve Best Management 

Practices to address siltation, contaminants, and other off-refuge impacts. 

• Give highest priority to retaining those fields that can be flooded, are within waterfowl 

sanctuary areas, do not contribute to linking or creating interior forest habitats, are not easily 

disturbed when waterfowl are present, or have a history of good production and high duck 

use. Redistribute habitat objectives, where appropriate, throughout the Complex using the 

example criteria in Table 12. 

• Work with the LMVJV to determine optimum unharvested crop acres (currently under 

evaluation). Until the optimum acreage objectives are established, exceed minimum acres to 

compensate for grain losses due to non-target species (e.g., deer, raccoon, and blackirds). 

• Convert farm acres above the optimum level to other habitat types to fulfill moist-soil 

objectives, and to meet habitat needs of waterfowl, other federal trust species, and native 

fish and wildlife. 

• Expand hunting opportunities for snow geese in support of the “Arctic Tundra Habitat 

Emergency Conservation Act” and to reduce the overabundant populations that are damaging 

habitat and agricultural lands. 
 86

Objective 1D.2. Raptors: Within 5 years of CCP approval, provide 10 miles of native 

vegetative buffer at least 30 feet wide adjacent to cropland fields. 

Strategy: 

• Develop new buffer strips and manage existing buffer strips along refuge agricultural fields 

and roadsides a minimum of 30 feet wide to increase habitat for small mammals and birds. 

Sub-Goal 1E. Forest lands – Conserve, manage, and enhance forest lands on all Complex refuges 

for the benefit of native wildlife species. 

Discussion: Bottomland hardwood forests provide a complex of habitats including temporarily and 

seasonally flooded bottomland hardwoods, and permanently and semipermanently flooded shrub and 

wooded swamps. Prior to settlement, the LMRAV contained over 24 million acres of bottomland 

hardwood forests that supported a wide variety of wildlife species. Today, over 80 percent of the original 

forests have been cleared for agriculture, transportation, industrialization, and urbanization. Most of the 

remaining 4.8 million acres is composed of numerous isolated habitat islands in a sea of agriculture. 

“Forested wetlands provide food resources in the form of mast (nuts and acorns); therefore, mast 

production is an important and vital component of habitat management. Site characteristics often limit the 

extent to which managers can increase mast production in existing forest stands because red oaks (the 

tree type that produces optimal mast) occurred on high sites that were historically cleared. Lower-lying 

forest stands dominated by overcup oak and other water-tolerant species cannot be managed for red 

oaks because of excessive flooding or soil saturation. Poor soil drainage also limits crop production as an 

alternative on these sites, but may be compatible with moist-soil management unless flooding is severe 

enough to damage levees and water control structures” (Reinecke et al., 1989). 

“The length of time needed to restore or alter the species composition of forested wetlands can be 

problematic because public agencies often acquire bottomland hardwoods tracts that have been 

managed with little concern for future stand compositions. A minimum of 20-30 years is needed to 

restore acorn production on these sites, assuming adequate seed sources are available and efforts 

are made to encourage the growth of oaks” (Reinecke et al., 1989). 

“Historically, mallards wintering in the MAV satisfied most of their habitat requirements in forested wetlands. 

Given the original extent of bottomland forests, mallards probably found abundant food, especially acorns, 

and favorable water conditions somewhere in the MAV during most winters. A complex of natural habitats 

enabled mallards to feed on acorns and invertebrates in flooded forests or on seeds of moist-soil plants in 

beaver swamps and slough margins, to roost and court in more open marshes and sloughs, and to escape 

predation and social harassment in shrub swamps” (Reinecke et al., 1989). 

“Continued management of forested wetland complexes provides valuable habitat for waterfowl and a 

variety of other wildlife species. However, forested wetlands no longer afford complete winter habitat 

for mallards. Forested wetlands provide excellent wildlife habitat with low management costs, but 

food production for waterfowl is limited. When mast production fails locally, there are not enough 

alternative bottomland hardwood sites remaining for mallards to find sufficient food elsewhere. 

Consequently, management of forested wetlands should be integrated with other management 

methods that provide alternative foods, such as croplands and moist soil” (Reinecke et al., 1989). 
 87

Objective 1E.1. Forest Management: Over the life of the CCP, manage a minimum of 42,000 

acres of mature forest for native resident and migratory species. 

Discussion: The alluvial valley of the Mississippi River, characterized by ridge and swale topography, 

is one of the most unique and productive hardwood and wildlife habitats on the continent. A few feet 

change in elevation can mean the difference between a baldcypress swamp in standing water and a 

swamp chestnut oak-cherrybark oak type forest growing on the ridges. The timing and duration of 

flooding generally determines the type of vegetation, animal species, and biological system functions. 

Ridge and swale topography extends from Yazoo NWR (which contains an old oxbow of the 

Mississippi River) to the loess bluffs on Morgan Brake and Hillside NWRs. Important mast species 

(willow oak and water oak) are found predominantly in overflow areas of the basin. Other species 

include sycamore, sweetgum, green ash, American elm, cedar elm, sugarberry, Nuttall oak, black 

locust, honey locust, overcup oak, bitter pecan, sweet pecan, black willow, and cottonwood. 

A rich understory of grasses, herbs, and soft-mast plants are associated with forests of the area. 

However, some stands are almost devoid of understory plants due to the water regime and crown 

closure, which shades the forest floor. This is clearly demonstrated at Panther Swamp NWR, where 

most of the east side of the refuge floods every year and the understory is sparse. 

Widely different from forest species of the alluvial valley, are those of the loess bluff. The loess bluff habitat 

on Hillside and Morgan Brake NWRs contains mostly upland forest trees including white oak, swamp 

chestnut oak, hickory, Florida maple, American beech, and hornbeam. Understory species include red 

buckeye, jack-in-the-pulpit, mayapple, Christmas fern, green dragon, and a variety of other wildflowers. 

To date, the only active forest management on the Complex is on Panther Swamp NWR, which contains 

approximately half of the Complex’s total forestland. The Panther Swamp NWR Forest Management Plan 

was drafted in the early 1980s and was developed to guide forest management activities through 2005. 

Implementation is behind schedule due to staff shortages. Forest management plans on all the remaining 

refuges will be developed and implemented as resources become available. 

During the 1990s, agricultural land reforestation was a priority for the Complex. The Complex 

contains approximately 42,000 acres of forest, not including reforestation areas. Most of the forested 

acreage consists of mid- to older-aged woodlands. Many of the older trees are cull remnants from 

logging that occurred prior to refuge establishment. Overall, the forests contain a mixture of evenand uneven-aged stands resulting from past burning, grazing, timber harvest, and other disturbances. 

One goal is to create and manage for older-aged type conditions within several of the current midaged stands. In these stands, single-tree selection, group selection, and 1- 3-acre patchcuts will be 

implemented on the ridge sites to provide a more complex forest stand structure that contains large 

tree crowns interspersed with openings to promote vertical structure. This will not only benefit 

neotropical migratory birds, but most fauna of the area. 

On the east side of Panther Swamp NWR in areas of unique red oak flats, regeneration cuts will be 

used on areas up to 10 acres in size. These larger cuts will provide additional sunlight to the forest 

floor to improve red oak regeneration. Although this even-aged harvest method of regeneration does 

not initially produce vertical structure, over time other 10-acre clearcuts established every 15 years 

adjacent to these cuts will produce an all-age forest of even-aged blocks. Various stand 

manipulations will enhance habitat conditions across the Complex, and meet the requirements for all 

wildlife species on the refuge. 
 88

Up to 5 percent of the forests on Panther Swamp NWR will be designated as an old growth and NoCut/Management Zone. The avian and old growth habitat relationships should exhibit relatively selfsustaining and preferred habitat characteristics that support priority songbird species found in the 

LMRAV, such as the Cerulean warbler. As a complex canopy structure develops and tree fall gaps 

occur, super-dominant trees will be present and patches of dense understory can emerge. Areas of 

dense understory will provide suitable habitat for species such as the Swainson’s warbler. The NoCut/Management Zone will also be used as a future natural area research site. 

Strategies: 

• Develop and implement a Forest Habitat Management Plan for the Complex, utilizing the 

existing 1995 Panther Swamp Forest Management Plan and Goelz 1995, A Stocking Guide 

for Southern Bottomland Hardwoods, in the interim. 

• Complete stand inventory and mapping to build GIS database of forested habitat. 

• Maintain records on silvicultural practices, stand growth and development, and stand health. 

• Acquire commercial timber harvesting machine to allow Complex staff to conduct mechanical 

thinnings (timber stand improvement practice) in areas that are not viable for commercial 

harvest (e.g., reforestation areas and GTRs). 

• Maintain red oak component on appropriate sites. 

• In patch cuts and regeneration cuts, all stems should be cut down to the 1-inch class. 

• Prior to the placement of patch cuts, determine if adequate oak regeneration is present using 

currently accepted techniques. 

• Conduct small regeneration cuts (10 acres or less), shelterwoods, and select harvests (singletree and group selection) on Panther Swamp NWR, including ridge sites, to increase species 

and age diversity, and to perpetuate the red oak component, as appropriate. 

• Set aside up to 5 percent of the existing forest on Panther Swamp NWR as a No 

Cut/Management Zone to create an old growth forest for wildlife and to create a future natural 

area research site. 

• Continue to implement the Panther Swamp NWR Forest Management Plan. Ensure that two 

1,000-acre compartments will be treated (cruised, marked, and manipulated, as per 

prescription) annually for the next 15 years. 

• Work with adjacent landowners and the state to eradicate and prevent further spread of kudzu 

along the bluff areas of Morgan Brake and Hillside NWRs. 

• Restore appropriate hydrology to remnant stands of bottomland hardwoods by blocking 

select drainages. 

Objective 1E.2. Reforestation Program: Ensure that 21,000 acres of planted forest is managed 

to produce forest with structure and wildlife diversity. 

In 1992, a Complex Reforestation Plan was developed. To expand existing forests and create a 

contiguous forest interior, over 21,000 acres have been replanted and are interspersed with lakes, 

wetlands, and other habitats. This diversity of habitats will provide optimum habitat and refuge to 

resident and migratory wildlife. The oldest reforestation areas are located on Yazoo NWR (planted in 

1968) (Table 14) using both seedlings and direct-seeding techniques. Reforestation will continue as 

directed by the 1992 Reforestation Plan, although most areas identified by this plan have already 

been reforested. Following reforestation, approximately 3,000 acres were re-planted to ensure a 

timber stand. Some areas were re-planted three times. 
 89

Reforested areas with poor survival may be allowed to undergo natural succession to ensure that an 

adequate amount of scrub/shrub habitat is available for the painted bunting, white-eyed vireo, 

American woodcock, and other species. Heavy-seeded species such as oak and pecan will continue 

to be a large component in future plantings. As more options become available, a diverse species 

mix will be used in future plantings. Generally, heavy seeded species are more difficult to establish, 

while light-seeded species in close proximity invade naturally. At least 20 tree species have been 

planted on refuge lands, including persimmon and baldcypress. However, many of the initial 

reforested areas consist primarily of oak species. Reforestation will continue as lands that contribute 

to core forest development become available or other opportunities arise. 

Table 14. Reforestation shown in 10-year increments by acreage per refuge and Farm Service 

Agency tracts 

Management Area 1968 1973-1982 1983-1992 1993-2002 Total 

Yazoo 50.3 400 720.6 153.5 1,324.4

Panther Swamp 0 0 268.8 1,492.6 1,761.4

Hillside 0 287.6 632.5 578.2 1,498.3

Morgan Brake 0 0 724.8 579 1,303.8

Mathews Brake 0 0 131 55 186

COE Lands 0 0 425 5,766 6,191

Carter Tract 

(northern unit of 

Panther Swamp) 

0 0 0 1,457 1,457

Other Farm Service 

Agency 0 0 1,152.8 6,294.50 7,447.3

Total 50.3 687.6 4,055.5 16,375.8 21,169.2

To help stratify forest canopies and produce stands that support priority bird species, light-seeded 

species such as sweetgum should be added. Cottonwood and sycamore should be used to produce 

super-dominant trees. Single-tree selection, group selection, and small patchcuts or pre-commercial 

thinnings will be incorporated to modify reforested stands to allow sunlight to reach the forest floor 

and encourage the growth of herbaceous understory. 
 90

Strategies: 

• Use pre-commercial thinning techniques including felling machinery, dozer, herbicide 

injection, and firewood harvesting to create diverse habitat. 

• Thin reforested stands at crown closure (after approximately 15 - 25 years). 

• Establish firelanes around reforestation areas until fuel levels are depleted due to crown 

closure (approximately 15 - 25 years). 

• Add light-seeded species (e.g., ash, elm, and sweetgum), to all future planting mixes. 

• Create forested buffers along riparian areas to intercept siltation and contaminants from 

agricultural runoff. 

• Create forested screens along roads and wetlands to reduce disturbance to wildlife and 

prevent illegal hunting. 

• To prevent encroachment and define refuge boundaries, survey and reforest borders adjacent 

to private agricultural lands, where appropriate. 

• As habitat objectives are reevaluated for wintering waterfowl and other priority waterbirds, 

seek opportunities for reforestation that would contribute to the creation of interior forest 

habitat. 

Objective 1E.3. Carbon Sequestration: Establish partnerships with industry, organizations, 

and other entities interested in restoring forests for carbon sequestration. 

As part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) three-part approach to managing carbon 

emissions, forest management practices that sequester carbon have been initiated and funded by 

energy companies on private and public lands. Since this program began, most efforts have focused 

on bottomland hardwood reforestation on marginal agricultural areas in the LMRAV. The Southeast 

Region of the Fish and Wildlife Service has entered into a number of partnerships with the energy 

industry. To date, 55,646 acres have been reforested in the Region, and over 11,000 of those acres 

have been added to the Refuge System. Although this program has been voluntary in the past, 

predictions are that energy companies will be required to mitigate their emissions through this and 

other DOE programs in the future. Opportunities may arise to partner on projects and possibly 

receive donated lands for protection. The Complex will actively pursue partnerships with corporations 

that are participating in the carbon sequestration program to acquire the resources needed to meet 

reforestation and interior forest objectives, and to address national, regional, and ecosystem goals. 

Strategies: 

• Focus partnership efforts within the identified Migratory Bird Conservation Priority Zones 

(Figure 3). 

• Work through the carbon sequestration program and develop partnerships with landowners, 

non-governmental organizations, and other state and federal agencies to reforest certain 

lands within the Migratory Bird Conservation Zone priorities, giving the highest priority to those 

lands adjacent to existing and interior forests. 

• Develop proposals which identify priority reforestation areas on the Complex, and present 

proposals to interested partners. 

Objective 1E.4. Greentree Reservoirs: Manage approximately 4,000 acres of forest as green 

tree reservoirs on Complex lands. 

Discussion: Several species of waterfowl rely heavily on flooded forested habitat in winter for resting 

and foraging (acorns, fruits, various seeds, and invertebrates). Wood ducks seek these habitats 
 91

almost exclusively over other habitats. Mallards, gadwall, and wigeon all use flooded forested habitat 

as one of a complex of preferred habitats. In the absence of naturally flooded bottomland hardwood 

forests, GTRs can artificially produce habitat that mimics naturally flooded forested habitat. Yazoo 

NWR has the greatest management capabilities for GTRs, and currently manages several for duck 

habitat during the wintering period. Panther Swamp NWR enhances natural winter flooding during 

the duck season with water control structures. 

Appropriate and effective water management and red oak species perpetuation are keys to a successful 

GTR. Ideally, GTRs should be flooded only during the dormant period specific to common deciduous 

hardwood trees in each impoundment. Flooding should never occur before the dormant period starts in 

late fall (mid-November to late-December) and only rarely after dormancy breaks in the spring. Flooding 

dates and duration should be varied annually, and periodically the GTR should not be flooded. Poorly 

managed water levels resulting in deep water (>18 inches) provide little benefit to waterfowl and will 

eventually kill trees in the GTR or convert the forest to more water tolerant species typical in a deeper 

water habitat (Greentree Reservoir Management, Fredrickson et al., 1992). 

Strategies: 

• Install gauges to monitor water levels. 

• Use GIS technology to map and quantify GTR acreage. 

• Flood GTRs 1 out of 3 years, varying dates and duration annually. 

• Flood GTRs no earlier than late November and de-water entirely by March 15. 

• Underplant red oaks in the forest stand or encourage natural regeneration on 1- to 5-acre 

openings on a 10- 15-year cutting cycle. 

• Modify GTR management actions to meet waterfowl needs. 

Objective 1E.5. Forest Breeding Birds: Over the life of the CCP, provide a minimum of 20,000 

acres of forest interior habitat for forest breeding birds. 

Discussion: Refuge forested habitats are predominantly bottomland hardwoods consisting of mature, 

intermediate, and early successional stages. Panther Swamp NWR has the only large interior forest 

habitat on the Complex (core 20,000 acres.) Refuge lands in the Complex are located within Bird 

Conservation Areas, which have been identified for protection and enhancement in the Partners-inFlight plan. Most refuge lands have also been designated by Audubon as “Important Bird Areas.” 

Most of the forested land on Yazoo and Morgan Brake NWRs is on the perimeter of the refuge. 

Opportunities exist for expanding interior forests at Yazoo NWR in partnership with Leroy Percy State 

Park, government partners, and private landowners. However, reforesting lands inside the refuge 

would sacrifice valuable moist-soil habitat used by a variety of waterbirds and high calorie food plots 

needed for wintering waterfowl. On Hillside NWR, siltation is converting the historic bottomland 

hardwood forest to a monoculture of black willow. Given that the designated purpose of the COE’s 

Hillside Floodway Project is to capture silt from upland sources, the potential to manage this refuge 

for forest interior birds is limited. 

The priority bird species for the Complex are indicated as follows: 

Extremely High - Swainson’s warbler (breeding--nests in dense understory, forages on open, moist 

ground), swallow-tailed kite (breeding--nests in super-dominant trees, possibly cypress), cerulean 

warbler (breeding--nests and forages in canopy of sawtimber trees); 
 92

High - Prothonotary warbler (breeding--cavity nester, usually in trees over open water), red-headed 

woodpecker (breeding--cavity nester), northern parula (breeding--canopy, usually with spanish moss), 

Kentucky warbler (breeding--nests in patches of dense ground cover), yellow-billed cuckoo (breeding-

-nests in midstory and canopy), wood thrush (breeding--midstory, forages on moist ground), 

American woodcock (forages on open, moist ground but under very dense understory cover), black 

duck (wintering - open water). 

Moderate - Wood duck (breeding--cavity nesting over or near open water), acadian flycatcher 

(breeding--open midstory), eastern wood-pewee (breeding--open canopy), Carolina chickadee 

(breeding--cavity nester), Mississippi kite (breeding--nests in trees along edges in open country), 

Baltimore oriole (breeding--scattered hardwoods in open country), ruby-throated hummingbird 

(breeding--woody vegetation in moist habitats, usually near tubular flowers), blue-gray gnatcatcher 

(breeding--mature and moist hardwood forests), hooded warbler (breeding--dense understory), bald 

eagle (breeding--nests in super-dominant trees large enough to support massive nests), rusty 

blackbird (wintering--winter roost in canopy, forages on the ground). 

Local or Regional Interest - Yellow-throated warbler (breeding - canopy, usually with spanish moss), 

American redstart (breeding - hardwood forests, usually near water), yellow-throated vireo (breeding - 

open canopy), summer tanager (breeding - open canopy), pileated woodpecker (breeding - mature 

and extensive forest, with dead trees for nesting). 

Strategies: 

• Develop and implement a forest management plan designed to maintain a diversity of tree 

species compositions, tree age class distributions, and structure for forest interior birds. 

• Cooperate with state and federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, conservation 

organizations, and private landowners to connect forest at Panther Swamp NWR with Lake 

George and Delta National Forest, and examine additional opportunities to link forest lands 

with other refuge lands to increase the core area and provide travel corridors. 

• Develop and maintain GIS databases to monitor forest restoration progress and forest stand 

management results. 

• Employ one full-time forester on Panther Swamp NWR, one full-time forestry technician for the 

Complex, and three seasonal forestry technicians to manage refuge forest lands. 

Objective 1E.6. Threatened and Endangered Forest Species (Louisiana black bear, pondberry, 

bald eagle, ivory-billed woodpecker): Contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered 

forest species on the Complex, as well as on other public and private lands situated in the 

lower Mississippi Delta. 

Discussion: The only known federally listed threatened or endangered species that occur in or 

potentially use forests on the refuge are Louisiana black bear, pondberry, and the bald eagle. 

 

Louisiana black bear: 

The Louisiana black bear is listed on the Endangered Species List as a threatened species. 

Louisiana black bears historically occurred throughout the south half of Mississippi and were 

reportedly common in the LMRAV. Habitat loss through lands converted to agricultural fields and 

excessive harvest throughout their range have greatly reduced black bear populations. 
 93

Strategies: 

• Provide den habitat by protecting existing and potential den trees (trees that may someday 

develop a cavity above the flood line large enough to accommodate a bear). Also, create den 

areas by developing dense thickets and leaving felled treetops or brush for ground nesting 

cover on areas of higher elevation, where possible, especially in areas lacking in ground cover 

above the 10-year flood zone. 

• Provide habitat to support the recovery of the Louisiana black bear by providing a mix of hardand soft-mast producing species for year-round foods. 

• Identify opportunities to create interior forested habitat and forested corridors by linking 

remnant forested habitats on state, federal, and private lands needed for any future 

reintroduction efforts of the Louisiana black bear. Projects will be completed through 

partnerships or land acquisition from willing sellers. 

• Participate in repatriation efforts for the Louisiana black bear at Panther Swamp NWR and 

other lands situated in the lower Mississippi Delta. 

• Provide education and training on black bear to the public, as well as Complex personnel. 

This training may be in the form of school programs, landowner workshops, posted signs, and 

pamphlets. 

• Train Service personnel in bear relocation and human/bear conflicts. Complex personnel will 

be encouraged to work with state bear restoration groups and others to accomplish this goal. 

Pondberry: 

Pondberry is a rare shrub that grows in seasonally flooded wetlands and on the edges of sinks and 

ponds. Much of the land on which pondberry was historically found has been converted to 

agricultural fields. Wetland drainage and timber harvests have also reduced pondberry populations. 

Strategies: 

• Work with Jackson, Mississippi, Ecological Services Office to identify pondberry colonies on 

Complex lands. 

• Provide suitable habitat for additional pondberry introductions. 

Bald eagle: 

Bald eagles breed aerially and nest in super-dominant trees that are large enough to support massive 

nests. Bald eagles are becoming more frequent sightings throughout the Complex and nesting has 

been documented in Lake Washington only two miles from Yazoo NWR. 

Strategy: 

• Encourage the growth of super-emergent trees at the edges of lakes and streams to provide 

nesting habitat for the bald eagle. 

 
 94

Ivory-billed woodpecker: 

The ivory-billed woodpecker is North America’s largest and rarest woodpecker and until recently was 

believed to be extinct. Prior to the recent rediscovery of the ivory-billed woodpecker at Cache River 

NWR in Arkansas, there had been no confirmed sightings of this bird in more than 60 years. There is 

currently no evidence that the ivory-billed woodpecker exists on the Theodore Roosevelt NWR 

Complex, however, habitat conditions that may support this species are likely to improve over time 

with respect to both larger areas existing and being reforested (Panther Swamp NWR, in particular), 

and habitat structure through a variety of active and passive forestry activities. 

Strategy:

• Future actions would be based on recovery plan efforts currently being developed. In the 

interim, continue to manage for large tracts of old growth hardwoods at Panther Swamp NWR. 

Objective 1E.7. Wild Turkey: Provide habitat diversity to include mature bottomland 

hardwoods, scrub/shrub, and grasslands sufficient to support 300-500 birds. 

Discussion: Turkey populations reached an all-time low in the early 1900s due to excessive hunting, 

domestic poultry diseases, and habitat destruction. Recently, turkeys have made a comeback largely 

due to extensive restocking efforts. Current population estimates for Mississippi range from 250,000 

to 300,000 birds. Wild turkeys must have suitable food, shelter, nesting, and brooding places, and 

minimal disturbance. Their habitat requirements are more specific than for other forest species, such 

as deer, which can adapt to a broader range of conditions. Turkeys spend most of the year in flocks, 

so habitat must be sufficient to support a flock rather than just a few individual birds. Wild turkeys are 

birds of the forest during the winter and are found in field margins, cutover areas, and openings 

during the summer. Adequate, uneven-aged forestland interspersed with openings that can provide 

diverse food sources, brood rearing habitat, edges for nesting, and room for courtship is important. 

Openings (old fields, cropland, pastures or early successional scrub/shrub habitats) work well, but 

turkeys will use also use power lines, pipelines, levees, roadsides and rights-of-way. 

Due to their particular requirements, woodland changes influence wild turkeys more than other forest 

game species. Bottomland hardwoods have the capability of producing large amounts of hard mast, 

an important food source for turkeys. Forest management practices, including selective improvement 

harvest, thinning, and group select cuts provide important habitat needs. Good turkey habitat 

includes mature mast-producing hardwoods (mostly oaks), smaller hardwoods, and a mixture of 

understory plants, such as dogwood and cherry. Because young turkeys need a high protein diet in 

the form of insects, good habitat also contains insect-producing areas, such as small openings, 

agricultural fields, pastures and roadsides, as well as easy access to water. 

Strategies: 

• Develop and maintain habitat emphasizing hard and soft-mast producers, such as oak, pecan, 

dogwood, wild cherry, grapes, and berries for year-round food sources. 

• Maintain fire lanes around reforested areas to encourage growth of native seed- producing plants. 

• Maintain permanent openings (grasslands), including roadside, power line, and gas line rights-ofway, to provide nesting and brood cover and a diversity of foods, such as seeds and insects. 

• Work with the COE to delay levee burning and mowing on Panther Swamp and Hillside NWRs 

until July to provide nesting, brooding, and foraging habitat. 
 95

Sub-Goal 1F. Scrub/Shrub Habitats – Establish and maintain scrub/shrub habitats on the Complex. 

Discussion: Scrub/shrub habitat is particularly important for ground-nesting birds, and for cover and refuge 

for a variety of migratory songbirds. Of the seven refuges in the Complex, Yazoo NWR is best suited for the 

establishment and maintenance of scrub/shrub habitat. Habitat management efforts will focus on important 

wildlife species that rely on scrub/shrub habitats for breeding, foraging, nesting, and cover. 

Objective 1F.1. Woodcock: Within 5 years of the date of this CCP, provide a minimum of 125 

acres of moist mid-story (scrub/shrub habitat) and ground-story vegetation (thickets) for 

daytime cover and foraging habitat and for nighttime foraging habitat, contribute a minimum 

of 250 acres in 5- to 20-acre blocks of open habitat in moist croplands and grasslands near 

scrub/shrub areas. Specific sites will be determined through surveys and research. 

Discussion: Woodcock are migratory game birds that inhabit forested areas in the eastern United 

States and feed on earthworms. Woodcock populations in the Central Region, where the Complex is 

located, have declined 19 percent since 1968. Population declines are thought to be due to land-use 

changes associated with land conversion and to the maturing of forest habitats. Although woodcock 

use a variety of habitat types (scrub/shrub, mid-story forest, grasslands, and croplands), scrub/shrub 

habitat is the limiting factor for reproduction success, because woodcock move to open or brushy 

fields at dusk to forage and conduct courtship activities throughout the night. Wintering habitats 

include moist bottomland hardwood forests with underlying brush and understory in close association 

with agricultural fields. Preferred sites are typically wet thickets (e.g., privet, cane, briars) with a high 

density of plant stems and clear, open ground. 

In 1990, the American Woodcock Management Plan set an objective to protect and enhance winter 

and migration habitat on public lands to increase woodcock carrying capacity. The plan also set 

objectives to inventory and monitor woodcock habitat and develop management demonstration 

areas. The following strategies have been identified for habitat management. 

Strategies: 

• When and where appropriate conduct timber stand improvement in areas to help develop a 

thicker under-story/mid-story component of saplings and seedlings conducive to nongame bird 

groups and woodcock. 

• Preserve all “cane” habitat areas and create/maintain scrub/shrub wetlands and uplands 

preferred by this species. Investigate opportunities to restore cane brakes. 

• Maintain 50 acres of grasslands near scrub/shrub habitat. 

• To meet objectives of the Complex, provide woodcock roosting and foraging habitat near 

agricultural areas that are not fall disked. 

• Develop woodcock habitat demonstration sites on the Complex. 

• Include woodcock habitat needs in the Forest Habitat Management Plan and implementation. 
 96

Objective 1F.2. Nesting Scrub/Shrub Birds: Provide and maintain a minimum of 1,500 acres 

of scrub/shrub habitat for nesting birds. 

Discussion: Scrub/shrub (early successional) species are also considered vulnerable in the 

southeastern United States, although they are generally considered a lower priority than mature 

forest species within the LMRAV. During reforestation, when trees are maturing, some scrub/shrub 

species will benefit from the early successional habitat provided in forest lands during early phases 

(especially white-eyed vireo, painted bunting, and orchard oriole). Conversely, an extensive edge 

habitat with elevated numbers of nest predators and brown-headed cowbirds may interfere with a 

healthy and complete forest breeding bird community until reforestation efforts are well advanced. 

Because scrub/shrub species are apparently able to withstand cowbird and depredation problems 

better within smaller blocks of habitat (i.e., 50-100 acres and possibly as small as 25-acre patches), 

sites will be selected for periodic disturbances and long-term maintenance. 

Priority Species: 

• High - Painted bunting (breeding--dense thickets of shrubs, saplings, or second-growth trees), 

white-eyed vireo (breeding--dense, and usually moist thickets), Bell’s vireo (breeding--

streamside thickets or upland scrub oaks), orchard oriole (breeding--scattered hardwood trees 

in open country); 

• Moderate - Yellow-breasted chat (breeding--dense cover of shrubs or saplings), northern 

bobwhite (breeding--ground-nester), field sparrow (wintering). 

Strategies: 

• Maintain existing early successional habitats along buffer strips to scrub/shrub habitat 

(vegetation no more than 20 ft. high) by plantings, disking, chemicals, or burning. 

• Convert additional agricultural lands throughout the Complex to scrub/shrub (early 

successional) habitat to meet a 1,500-acre goal for priority scrub/shrub breeding species. 

Plant species such as native plum, rough-leaf dogwood, devil’s walking stick, deciduous holly, 

and hawthorn. 

• After 5 years of surveys, consider more involved protocols to address not only species 

occurrences, but also relative rates of reproductive success and/or post fledging survival in 

response to management protocols, with focus on painted buntings, white-eyed vireos, and 

orchard orioles. 

• Monitor bird response over 15 years to determine success for attracting priority breeding 

species. If success is low or habitat maintenance is too costly, reforest the scrub/shrub areas 

with plantings, or by allowing natural regeneration. 

Objective 1F.3. Bobwhite Quail: Provide up to 500 acres of suitable habitat Complex-wide. 

Discussion: The northern bobwhite traditionally has been one of the most valued game birds in the 

South. Around the turn of the twentieth century, bobwhite numbers reached all time highs, but have since 

begun a constant decline. Changes in agricultural practices that create large monoculture farms with 

relatively few vegetated field borders and ditches have compromised quail habitat, and declining areas of 

habitat in other areas have adversely affected quail populations. Bobwhites do not forage well in leaf litter 

nor maneuver easily through thick brush. Virtually all of the bobwhite’s food and cover requirements are 

met in habitat with a layer of seed-producing vegetation within 3 feet of the ground. Forests with closed 

canopies that do not support understory vegetation do not provide adequate habitat. 
 97

Although remnant populations of birds in the Complex are expanding with reforestation projects, more 

opportunities exist to combine their habitat needs with those of federal trust species, such as 

grassland migrating birds, where management programs will benefit a diversity of wildlife. Permanent 

forest openings can be vital for providing adequate brood and nesting cover and a diversity of foods 

from grass seeds to insects. Roadsides, power lines, and gas line rights-of-way can all effectively 

provide these openings in the forest. Generally, the higher the percentage of forest land that can be 

maintained in permanent openings ensures the better habitat. 

Quail habitat can be provided on agricultural lands if certain factors are considered, including crop 

type, field size and shape, chemical usage, and the condition of idle areas such as buffer strips and 

ditches. Preferred crops include corn, soybeans, and wheat, with the outer rows left unharvested. 

Strategies: 

• Evaluate all refuges in the Complex for suitable grassland habitat sites that could be managed 

for a variety of grassland species. 

• Develop and maintain a minimum 30-foot-wide buffer adjacent to selected agricultural fields. 

• Within those fields managed for quail, maintain 15-20 percent woody cover, 10-15 percent 

fallow areas, 15-20 percent grassy areas, and 40-60 percent row crop (Mississippi State 

University Extension Service). Woody cover should be available every 200 yards. 

• In the spring, lightly disk 30 percent of grassland fields to disturb soil and vegetation, set back 

succession, expose bare soil, and promote seed-producing plants. 

• Lightly disk firelanes surrounding forested stands to encourage the growth of legumes, attract 

insects, and create a mosaic of bare ground and vegetation that provides feeding and broodrearing cover. 

• Monitor population responses to quail management practices. 

Sub-Goal 1G. Provide grassland habitat for high and moderate priority grassland birds. 

Discussion: Priority grassland species occupy refuge lands primarily during migration periods and 

winter, although a few species may breed in small numbers throughout the year. Newly reforested 

areas, levees, archaeological sites, and converted agricultural lands constitute the majority of 

grassland habitats on the Complex. 

Priority Species: 

• High-Henslow’s sparrow (wintering), sedge wren (wintering), short-eared owl (wintering), 

LeConte’s sparrow (wintering) 

• Moderate-Dickcissel (breeding--herbaceous cover where vegetation is at least 2 feet [0.6 m] 

high), northern bobwhite (breeding--ground-nester), loggerhead shrike (breeding and 

wintering--tree or shrub nesting, forages from a perch), field sparrow (breeding--scattered 

saplings, shrubs, and tall herbaceous cover; wintering--dense cover of herbs, particularly tall 

composites), northern harrier (wintering), grasshopper sparrow (wintering), field sparrow 

(breeding and wintering in abandoned fields). 
 98

Objective 1G.1. Maintain existing and create a minimum of 500 acres of open grassyherbaceous dominated ground conditions to support priority grassland bird species. 

Strategies: 

• Identify poorer quality sites with sandy soils and promote the development of grassyherbaceous ground cover (Andropogon spp.) on up to 500 acres. 

• Maintain diverse habitat in the grassland stage by burning, mowing, disking, using appropriate 

herbicides, and select plantings. 

• Request that the COE delay levee mowing and burning on Panther Swamp and Hillside 

NWRs until July. 

GOAL 2. CONTROL AND MANAGE INVASIVE, PEST, AND NUISANCE SPECIES 

Discussion: Numerous native and non-native invasive species are known to occur on refuge lands in 

the Complex, and some have caused damage to important wildlife habitats or species. Feral swine 

on Morgan Brake, Mathews Brake, Hillside, and Panther Swamp NWRs destroy habitat by rooting up 

vegetation and trees in forests and depleting acorn mast, a preferred food for waterfowl and other 

native species. They destroy levees and crops. These species can transmit diseases, such as 

pseudorabies, to other wildlife. In addition, Complex lands have populations of nutria, armadillo, 

coyote, alligator weed, and kudzu. 

In many areas of Mississippi, double-crested cormorant populations are at an all-time high. Currently, 

the cormorant has not been identified as either an invasive species or a nuisance species on refuge 

lands. Commercial aquaculturists (especially catfish farmers) suffer economic losses due to 

cormorant depredation on catfish ponds. Similar problems have been reported from white pelicans. 

In 1988, of 281 catfish farmers queried in the Mississippi Delta, 87 indicated that they had a bird 

problem. Fifty-seven percent of Delta farmers reported moderate to heavy cormorant activity (defined 

as at least 25 birds per day). Catfish farmers reported losses (harassment costs plus the value of lost 

fish) estimated at $5.4 million (3 percent of total sales) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997). 

Although cormorant depredation was not an issue identified by the Service or the public, soaring 

cormorant populations in an area with numerous catfish farms are likely to produce economic losses. 

Objective 2A - Invasive Species: Control or eradicate invasive species on all Complex lands. 

Discussion: Feral swine impact crops planted for waterfowl and negatively alter a variety of habitats, 

including reforested lands. An on-going feral swine eradication program is conducted on Panther 

Swamp and Morgan Brake NWRs. Armadillo have invaded refuge lands, but the impacts of their 

presence have not been extensively studied. Coyotes have virtually eliminated gray fox and red fox 

on refuge lands. Alligator weed, bull thistle, Johnsongrass, sicklepod, and kudzu have also displaced 

native plant species on refuge lands. 

Strategies: 

• Develop an Invasive Species Management Plan by 2006 that includes management guidelines 

(e.g., contracts, special use permits, and special conditions) for trapping or other invasive control 

programs consistent with sound biology, Service guidelines, and refuge purposes. 
 99

• Consistently implement a feral swine and nutria control program using a variety of techniques, 

including sustained baiting, trapping, and lethal means. Conduct only controlled removal by 

Service personnel. Note: no public hunts would be established for feral swine because that 

would produce an incentive for the continued release of domestic swine on refuge lands. 

• Encourage adjacent landowners to dispatch feral swine on private lands. 

• Employ one full-time GS-7 biological technician and one term (six-month) GS-5 biological 

technician to conduct a Complex-wide Invasive Species Management Program. 

• Develop strategies for controlling invasive plants on refuge lands. 

• Develop strategies for controlling or eradicating populations of coyote and armadillo. 

Objective 2B - Pest and Nuisance Species: Reduce populations of nuisance species to nondestructive levels. 

Discussion: Nuisance species are terrestrial or aquatic plants or animals that interfere or threaten to 

interfere (at an unacceptable level) with the attainment of refuge objectives, or that pose a threat to 

human health. Currently, several species occur on the Complex, which have achieved this status. 

Beaver, although native, have thrived and overpopulated in bottomland hardwoods because their 

historic natural predators are now absent or reduced in number. Beavers construct large dams and 

block water control structures, holding and deepening water. This causes wide-spread damage to 

trees, and is particularly evident on Panther Swamp NWR, where hundreds of acres of trees have 

been killed by flooding from beaver dams. 

Raccoon and skunk also flourish on refuge lands and surrounding agricultural areas, and as with beaver, 

they lack natural predators and have become nuisance species. Raccoon and skunks prey upon bird 

nests and eat crops planted for waterfowl. Over-abundant raccoon populations limit cavity nesting 

species, often killing the occupant during the nest incubation. They also spread diseases, including rabies. 

Snow geese congregate on refuge lands during the wintering season in large numbers, and consume 

agricultural grains planted for high priority migratory waterfowl. In 2004, more than 250,000 snow 

geese were observed on Complex lands. 

Strategies: 

• Continue to use approved biological, chemical, and lethal means to eradicate nuisance 

species. 

• Develop an outreach program to educate the public on the impacts and potential sources of 

invasive species, and techniques for eradication and control. 

• Increase opportunities for raccoon hunting throughout the Complex. 

• Remove (by hand, using mechanical means, or with explosives) or alter all beaver dams that are 

causing undesirable impacts to forested areas. All safety precautions and policies must be met 

when removing dams, especially when using explosives and removing dams from culverts. 

• Use lethal means to control beavers to prevent damage to reforested areas. 

• Install effective beaver guards or water diversion devices on all water control structures that 

are continually disabled by beaver dams. 

• Encourage snow goose hunting by providing information in hunt brochures and public 

contacts regarding goose hunting opportunities on Complex refuges. 

• Conduct cormorant and white pelican population management control with USDA Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service in accordance with 50 CFR 21.47, to minimize habitat 

damage and wildlife displacement. 
 100

GOAL 3. EXPAND RESEARCH AND MONITORING ON THE COMPLEX THROUGH 

PARTNERSHIPS 

Discussion: To ensure that management decisions are based on sound science, the Complex’s 

research and monitoring program should be expanded to include additional surveys, selected 

management studies, and other research needs. Because funding is limited, and the Complex is not 

staffed as a research station, it is unlikely that all inventory, monitoring, and research needs can be 

conducted by refuge staff. Therefore, most research and monitoring will be conducted by visiting 

researchers and scientists. Monitoring protocols, standardized routes, and computerized databases 

would be incorporated into the research to make inventorying more efficient and produce more 

consistent results. 

Objective 3A - Ensure that management decisions are based on sound science by using 

research results to apply adaptive management strategies. 

Strategies: 

• Develop a research and monitoring program to cover priority research needs on all refuges in 

the Complex, and Farm Service Agency transfer lands. 

• Work closely with the Sevice’s Division of Migratory Birds’ biologists and Lower Mississippi 

Valley Joint Venture biologists to develop and implement research projects. 

• Actively solicit and logistically support research by universities, U.S. Geological Survey, USDA 

Forest Service, or other research entities to conduct applied investigations to answer 

management questions and enhance capabilities to provide for target species. This includes 

providing housing, stipends, research sites, and selected equipment. 

Threatened and Endangered Species: 

Discussion: Complex lands support Louisiana black bear (T), interior least tern (E), bald eagle (T), 

and pallid sturgeon (E). Experimental plantings of pondberry, Lindera melissifolia, have been 

introduced in the Complex to investigate seedling survival in selected habitats. These planted areas 

are not considered reintroductions and do not constitute naturalized populations. 

The Louisiana black bear occurs sporadically on Yazoo NWR, using refuge lands for varying lengths 

of time. In 2004, a young male black bear was captured on the refuge near Alligator Pond and fitted 

with a radio collar to track his travels. He remained on the refuge well into the denning season. 

Visitors reported seeing a sow and cubs and two additional adult male bears as well. As black bear 

repatriation efforts continue within the historic range in Mississippi, the chances of having a resident 

breeding population will increase. 

Least terns use open water areas for foraging during their breeding and post-breeding periods. 

Better quality foraging habitat would be helpful to this species, which nests nearby on the Mississippi 

River. The bald eagle nests in the vicinity of the refuges, but at this point, no nests have been found 

on any station of the Complex. They occasionally forage on the refuges during the breeding season. 

Bald eagles from the north migrate to the area and are seen regularly, usually as singles, during the 

migration season. They are usually associated with large populations of waterfowl in the winter. The 

pallid sturgeon has never been reported in refuge waters, however, it is reported to occur in the 

Yazoo River. Overflow water from the Yazoo River backs up into Panther Swamp NWR, and this 

may provide the opportunity for the pallid sturgeon to use refuge waters during flood events. 
 101

Strategies: 

• Support the implementation of national and regional threatened and endangered species 

recovery plans by inventorying the distribution, population status, and habitat use of all 

threatened and endangered species, candidate species, and species of special concern. 

• Participation in repatriation efforts for the Louisiana black bear at Panther Swamp NWR. 

• Document all sightings of least terns including activity, habitat, and breeding pairs and report 

results to the COE biologists monitoring tern populations, as outlined in the recovery plan. 

• Monitor and maintain records of sightings of all threatened and endangered species on the 

Complex, including location and habitat type. Participate in surveys for threatened and 

endangered species within the Yazoo watershed, including, but not limited to, pallid sturgeon 

and paddlefish. 

• Monitor and record use by least terns in conjunction with International Shorebird surveys. 

• Support experimental pondberry research (not related to recovery plan) on the Brown Tract 

and Hillside and Yazoo NWRs. 

Ducks and Geese: 

Strategies: 

• Prepare a Biological Inventory/Monitoring Plan that includes refuge-specific waterfowl 

inventory and monitoring protocols, standardized routes, and computerized databases. 

• Conduct waterfowl inventories at least twice monthly (October to mid-March) with emphasis 

on the more visible areas of the refuge where ground/ocular surveys can be made using 

standard techniques and survey routes. 

• Conduct a special August/September survey for blue-winged teal within key wetlands using 

standardized techniques and routes. 

• Monitor periods of use, populations, and species of geese using the Complex. 

• After 5 years, evaluate population estimates and species compositions to determine if 1,200 

acres of agricultural grain crops will meet the needs of migrating geese. 

Wood Ducks: 

Discussion: Because wood ducks are secretive, their population status and survival are difficult to 

monitor using visual counts. Pre-season wood duck banding is the only practical method for 

estimating wood duck populations, survival, and possibly other population parameters. State banding 

quotas by sex and age have been established by the Mississippi and Atlantic Flyways and the state 

quotas have been allocated to various state and federal facilities around the State of Mississippi. The 

Complex (particularly Yazoo NWR) contributes toward achieving the annual Mississippi pre-season 

banding quota. The pre-season period extends from July through September. For statistical 

purposes, all ducks banded during this 3-month period are assumed to have the same survival rate 

for each age and sex class. In Mississippi, and several other southern states with a special wood 

duck or teal season, the pre-season banding period ends September 15 to prevent any potential 

conflicts (i.e., baiting) with hunters. 
 102

Wood duck quotas assigned to the Complex are for the pre-season (July to September 15) banding 

period. In the past and prior to July 1 of each year, the Complex banded 100+ adult hens using trap 

nest boxes. These ducks are more vulnerable due to nesting and brood rearing and have survival 

rates lower than those banded later in summer, and therefore are not used for statistics in the 

banding program. (Early summer banding may occur every 3 years to assess survival rates and 

return of nesting hens for the refuge.) This presents a problem in that, especially in recent years, it 

has become extremely difficult to attract wood ducks to bait between July 1 and September 30. 

Strategies: 

• Expand banding program to include all refuges throughout the Complex, particularly after the 

wood duck box program is expanded. 

• Meet or exceed the preseason (July to September 15) flyway and state banding goal of 400 

birds. Emphasize that goals will include the entire Complex. 

• Employ two GS-5, 6-month seasonal biological technicians to conduct a trapping and banding 

program, maintain wood duck boxes, and monitor success throughout the Complex. 

• Continue to examine the most effective means of trapping and banding wood ducks, ensuring 

the objective is met with minimal effort and resources. 

• Check wood duck boxes at least three times a year (pre-season, at the end of the first peak of 

nesting, and at the end of the season). Monthly checks (April through July) are preferable to 

capture accurate nesting statistics, clean out used nests and dumped eggs for increased 

hatchability and box use, and monitor predation and other problems. 

• Work with universities and researchers to determine other means to increase duckling 

survival. 

• Evaluate nest efficiency and nesting success in boxes and adjust the program accordingly. 

Marshbirds: 

Discussion: Giant cutgrass, lotus, cattail, rice fields, and moist-soil units are the primary habitats for 

secretive marshbirds (rails, bitterns, grebes, moorhens, gallinules, coots, and others). Although no 

specific population objectives have been established, secretive marshbird surveys can be used to 

track peak movements in and out of the refuge and to document responses to habitat management. 

Surveys employ a taped playback-response protocol along a designated route for breeding species. 

The protocols were intended to survey breeding birds, but should also be useful for surveying birds 

during migration (and winter) as most rails vocalize all year. 

Priority species: High – black rail, yellow rail; Moderate – American bittern, king rail, Local or 

Regional Interest – least bittern. 

Strategies: 

• Conduct surveys for secretive marshbirds in vegetated, flooded moist-soil areas, flooded rice 

fields, and permanent impoundments containing rank emergent vegetation in shallow water. 

Record bird usage by date, location, and habitat type. 

• Conduct surveys three times per month (mid-March to mid-April, and mid-August to lateNovember), on actively managed units to analyze responses to habitat differences. 
 103

Colonial Waterbirds: 

Strategies: 

• Annually locate and delineate colonial waterbird rookeries. 

• Survey rookeries at least annually and provide information to the Colonial Bird Monitoring 

Program administered by the Mississippi Museum of Natural Science. 

• Determine foraging areas for white ibis from the White’s Lane rookery. 

• Beginning May 10 and ending on at least a semi-monthly basis, monitor use of deepwater/moist soil impoundments by wading birds 

Shorebirds: 

Discussion: Studies are needed on overall shorebird use in the Complex and on peak passage 

periods for various shorebird species. 

Priority Species: 

High – stilt sandpiper*, buff-breasted sandpiper, western sandpiper, short-billed dowitcher, 

and Wilson’s phalarope; 

Moderate – semipalmated sandpiper*, sanderling, greater yellowlegs, dunlin, common snipe*, 

least sandpiper*, willet, American avocet, killdeer*. 

(*Commonly occurs on the Complex. Others species are present, but usually in low 

numbers.) 

Strategies: 

• Conduct shorebird surveys in accordance with International Shorebird Survey protocol at 

Yazoo and Morgan Brake NWRs and the Carter Tract. 

• Determine the optimum acres of shallow-water habitat needed for a rotation scheme to meet 

shorebird objectives. 

• Investigate and research methods of habitat treatment that favor midge proliferation in a 

shallow-water rotation scheme (shorebird phase). 

• Record habitat conditions (including the date that mudflats are exposed) and water levels at 

least semi-monthly. 

• Pursue research opportunities to better understand shorebird management, especially food 

production and utilization. 

Woodcock: 

Discussion: Woodcock populations in the Central Region (including the Complex area) have declined 19 

percent since 1968. Population declines are thought to be the result of land use changes associated with 

land conversion and the maturing of forest habitats. In 1990, the American Woodcock Management Plan 

was completed and an objective set to protect and enhance winter and migration habitat on public lands 

to increase woodcock carrying capacity. The plan also set objectives to inventory and monitor woodcock 

habitat and develop management demonstration areas. 
 104

Strategies: 

• Inventory suitable woodcock wintering habitat (daytime cover areas in scrub/shrub, thickets, 

and/or early reforestation areas) and nighttime feeding areas (croplands and grasslands). 

• Conduct crepuscular flight and nighttime counts at least twice a month, mid-November 

through mid-March, to assess woodcock usage on the Complex. 

Scrub/Shrub Nesting Birds: 

Strategies: 

• Monitor scrub/shrub fields for use by nesting species using currently established protocol for 

point counts. 

• Monitor bird population responses to habitat restoration using direct and point counts. 

• After 5 years of surveys, collect information not only on species occurrences, but also relative 

rates of reproductive success and/or post fledging survival in response to management 

protocols, with a focus on painted buntings, white-eyed vireos, and orchard orioles. 

Interior Forest Breeding Birds: 

Discussion: No comprehensive survey of all forest birds, breeding or migratory, has been completed 

on the Complex. Therefore, additional information is needed to determine which habitats are most 

widely used, particularly for high priority species such as Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, 

red-headed woodpecker, northern parula, Kentucky warbler, yellow-billed cuckoo, and wood thrush. 

Strategies: 

• Survey all refuges for migratory and nesting forest species. 

• Survey forest breeding birds with point counts tied to spatially discrete, geo-referenced, 

habitat-specific locations to assess the preferred habitat, presence/absence, and relative 

abundance of all forest-breeding species. 

• Report all data to the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Office Evaluation Coordinator. 

• Surveys should be designed using the protocol in (Hamel et al., 1996). A Land Manager’s Guide 

to Point Counts of Birds of the Southeast. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-120. New Orleans, Louisiana: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 39 pp.). 

• Each point count survey should be conducted annually during mid- to late-May. 

• Conduct the point counts in the same sequence from one year to the next (i.e., same 

direction, and sequence of points within a morning and among mornings), with the same 

observer, if possible. 

• Compare breeding bird productivity in mature forests adjacent to agricultural fields, to those in 

mature forests adjacent to moist-soil, scrub/shrub or reforested edges. 

• After 5 years of baseline data, begin more involved protocols to address not only species 

occurrences, but also relative rates of reproductive success in response to management. 

• Generate a GIS layer that displays geo-referenced survey points by habitat types and 

associated structure and species distribution and occurrence. 

• Collect baseline data and continue annual surveys to monitor breeding bird population 

responses to habitat restoration and enhancement programs using point counts (breeding 

birds) and transects (Project Prairie Bird) protocols. 
 105

• Establish experimental plots, stratified by age, to determine the best procedures to manage 

reforestation sites. Emphasize maximizing tree height, and promoting greater availability of 

cavities while increasing understory structure to benefit both canopy and understory species. 

• Establish at least 30 control plots (Complex-wide), emphasizing passive management where 

only monitoring of bird populations and vegetation occur. 

• Establish at least 20 experimental plots each, emphasizing management using single tree 

cuts and group cuts to reduce basal area. 

• Monitor bird population responses to habitat restoration using, at a minimum, point counts, which 

will include data for both canopy and understory species at each of the plots. Collect pretreatment data for at least 2 years to establish baseline and continue through post-treatment. 

Transient Land Birds: 

Discussion: The relative importance (use) of small versus large woodland tracts by landbirds during 

migration remains unclear, particularly in the highly fragmented LMRAV. These migratory birds are 

searching not only for protective habitat, but also for food sources, especially fleshy-fruiting shrubs, to 

meet their high-energy needs. 

Priority Species: 

Extremely High - Golden-winged warbler; High-- cerulean warbler, blue-winged warbler, baybreasted warbler, bobolink, Canada warbler, veery, Philadelphia vireo, blackburnian warbler, 

palm warbler; Moderate - black-billed cuckoo, olive-sided flycatcher, willow flycatcher, least 

flycatcher, chestnut-sided warbler, black-throated green warbler, mourning warbler. 

Strategies: 

• Retain and promote fleshy-fruit producing shrubs in all future forest restoration and 

management techniques. 

• Survey the species and abundance of transient land birds that use the Complex and 

determine the best long-term strategy to maintain adequate stopover habitat for transient 

landbirds. 

• Monitor bird population responses to habitat restoration using transect (migration monitoring) 

protocols to record timing and extent of transient landbird use. 

• Establish at least one 1-mile forested edge transect on Yazoo, Hillside, and Panther Swamp 

NWRs; and one 1-mile interior forest transect on Panther Swamp NWR. Survey each transect 

weekly or bi-weekly during both spring and fall migrations. To record the greatest variety of 

species, establish transects in reforestation plots, scrub/shrub areas, and grassland areas in 

habitat patches that are large enough to allow for at least a 0.5-mile (~0.8 km) long transect. 

• Survey the bird and tree species occupying the loess bluff habitat on Morgan Brake and 

Hillside NWRs. 

• Point counts should be distributed among habitats in proportion to the availability of habitat 

types, with a minimum of 30 points per habitat type if possible (based on a minimum spacing 

of 820 x 820 ft (250 x 250 m) (C. Hunter, Biological Review 2001). 
 106

Grassland Birds: 

Strategies: 

• Conduct baseline species surveys. 

• Monitor bird responses to management and habitat alterations. 

• Survey/inventory/monitor bird populations using point counts and transects (project prairie 

bird) protocols focusing on breeding and wintering species. Conduct 3-6 surveys per season 

with at least one or two within each of the following periods: (1) November 15-December 31; 

(2) January 1-February 15; and (3) February 16-March 10. 

• Establish at least one 100-m transect in each discrete patch of habitat in open grassy-herbaceous 

dominated condition, and use Project Prairie Bird protocol to count wintering bird populations. 

Raptors: 

Discussion: Northern harrier, loggerhead shrike, and other raptors are best surveyed along an 

established route (i.e., roadside surveys). Conducting surveys at least twice per month from midSeptember to the end of March is recommended for non-breeding populations, including transients 

(and may include some early breeding for some species). Surveying throughout the year is optional. 

Priority Species: 

Extremely High - Swallow-tailed kite (migration, breeding - nest in superdominant trees, 

possibly cypress). 

Moderate - Mississippi kite (breeding--nests in trees along edges in open country), loggerhead 

shrike (breeding--nests in tree or shrub, forages on ground, wintering), northern harrier 

(wintering), bald eagle (wintering, nesting possible--nests in super-dominant trees large 

enough to support massive nests). 

Strategies: 

• Use roadside counts and “Migration Hawkwatch” protocols to institute a network of roadside 

surveys for wintering and breeding raptors, focusing on priority species. 

• Conduct annual National Midwinter Bald Eagle count and report the data to the National 

Coordinator, Raptor Research and Technical Assistance Center in Boise, Idaho. 

Deer: 

Discussion: Refuge deer populations are an important component of the biota of the Complex. 

Consistent population management is a key not only to the public use program, but also to the 

health of the population and to habitat carrying capacity. In the Mississippi Delta’s productive 

environment, deer overpopulation can occur quickly, causing damage to the habitat and to 

agricultural crops planted for migratory waterfowl. Overpopulated deer herds can suffer from 

malnutrition, contract epidemic diseases, and increase the incidence of vehicle strikes. Public 

hunting programs are needed to consistently reduce the deer population by at least one third 

annually to keep pace with reproduction. A well-run, quality hunting program is needed to 

encourage hunters to continue to use Complex refuges. 
 107

Strategies: 

• Conduct herd health checks every 3-5 years and monitor habitat conditions to determine the 

health and population of deer on the Complex. 

• Operate check stations, as necessary, to collect the following data on harvested deer: age, sex, 

field-dressed weight, lactation, antler measurements and signs of hemorrhagic or other diseases. 

• Evaluate deer populations annually, especially on Panther Swamp NWR following large flood 

events, and adjust hunting programs if needed. 

Reptiles and Amphibians: 

Discussion: Reptiles and amphibians are abundant on Complex lands, functionally important in 

freshwater and terrestrial habitats, and are key components of the ecosystem. In addition, many 

species of herpetofauna are wide-ranging and may serve as key indicator species for evaluating the 

environmental health of an ecosystem. 

Strategies: 

• Develop standardized data collection procedures for amphibians and reptiles. 

• Conduct amphibian and reptile inventories to establish baseline information on species 

occurrence and habitat use. 

• Use GIS technology to identify and map alligator nest locations. 

• Use GIS technology to map amphibian breeding sites and identify species. 

• On salamander (or other amphibians) breeding sites, conduct annual egg mass counts to 

determine use. 

• Conduct calling frog surveys annually according to accepted protocols. 

• Establish standardized reporting methods for important incidental sightings that include (at a 

minimum): species, date, specific location, and habitat type. Where possible, include size, 

sex, and age. 

Fish: 

Strategies: 

• Survey refuge waters to identify fish species, age classes, and fish health. 

• Use GIS technology to map fishery habitats on the Complex. 

• Identify sources of contaminants from off-refuge lands, and work with Service contaminants 

specialist and Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality to conduct testing for 

pesticides and water quality. 

• Conduct water quality testing on the spring at Morgan Brake NWR adjacent to North Hill 

Ponds to determine whether the spring’s flow of groundwater is rich in calcium and 

magnesium bicarbonates, and should be properly classified as a fen. Fens typically contain 

rare plants and aquatic species that are rare in the Delta region. 

• Conduct a baseline survey of fish and aquatic species in the spring at Morgan Brake NWR 

adjacent to North Hill Ponds. 
 108

Insects: 

Discussion: The Complex has estimates of species for mammals and birds and a preliminary list of 

herpetiles, but for insects (95 percent of the biodiversity of the Complex) no information is available. 

Strategies: 

• Work with USDA and other researchers to survey insects on the Complex. Following 

collection, work with insect specialists to correctly classify species. 

• Classify collected insects by Class, Subclass, and Family. 

• Survey butterflies and moths for use in wildlife observation and photography for lepidopterans. 

Invasives and Nuisance Species: 

Strategies: 

• Complete an inventory of all invasive and nuisance species on the Complex. Determine 

which species are causing, or may cause, ecological damage or other important problems and 

formulate plans to control or eradicate them. 

• Continue monitoring cormorant populations and determine the impacts of cormorant 

populations on adjacent aquaculture ponds. 

• Monitor cormorant nesting in Swan Lake and possibly White’s Lane rookeries. Work with 

Wildlife Services and others to determine impacts on habitat and other rookery species. 

• Collect baseline data on raccoon, beaver, nutria, coyote, armadillo, feral hogs, and other 

nuisance species and evaluate their effects on refuge resources. 

Mussels: 

Discussion: The Complex lies within the geographic range of 41 species of mussels. Of those, five 

are listed as either threatened or endangered. Historically, mussels were once abundant; however, 

dredging and channelization have altered habitat to such an extent that diversity has been greatly 

reduced. Only a fraction of the species have been found and identified, and many species may no 

longer exist on Complex lands. Remaining mussels and their habitats must be identified so that such 

information can be included in management decisions to prevent further losses. 

Strategies: 

• Survey refuge waters at 5-year intervals to identify species and distribution of mussels. 

• Map collection sites or known locations of mussels and add data by species as encountered. 

• Assemble a reference collection of mussel shells found on the Complex for aid in 

identification. 

Bottomland Hardwoods: 

Discussion: Complex lands contain some of the earliest known bottomland hardwood plantings in the 

LMRAV. Forest restoration enhances wildlife habitat, produces trees, reduces siltation, and captures 

carbon emissions. Given the proximity of the Complex to universities and interested federal 

agencies, opportunities exist to provide scientists with reforested research sites on Complex lands. 

Existing bottomland hardwoods that are artificially flooded during the winter season also provide 

opportunities for scientists to study habitat and species in GTRs. 
 109

Strategies: 

• Promote research on Complex forestlands to identify management practices that can improve 

species diversity and habitat values. 

• Build partnerships with universities to establish graduate programs that focus on the best 

methods for reforestation/afforestation and on hardwood forest management in the LMRAV. 

• In GTRs, inventory and monitor tree vigor and diversity, including red oak regeneration. 

• Monitor waterfowl use in GTRs. 

• In GTRs, conduct GIS inventory and map full pool levels. 

• In GTRs, maintain annual flooding records, drawdown dates, and water levels. 

GOAL 4: DEVELOP LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIPS 

Discussion: Opportunities to work in partnership with private landowners, federal and state agencies, 

and non-governmental organizations are increasingly available. Linking habitat restoration and 

management projects can increase landscape level management for lands both inside and outside 

Complex boundaries. Although a large percentage of lands inside current acquisition boundaries 

have been acquired, some critical in-holdings are needed to meet habitat objectives, provide access 

to visitors, reduce off-refuge impacts, and protect unique habitats. Complex lands and surrounding 

areas have been identified for interior forest objectives by the LMVJV in support of the Partners-inFlight Plan for the LMRAV. 

Objective 4A: Support fish, wildlife, and cultural resources protection and restoration in the 

Yazoo Backwater Area and the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley by acquiring the 

remaining 34,682 acres of land, from willing sellers, within the current acquisition boundaries, 

with special emphasis on those areas that would: (1) contribute to national and regional 

objectives, (2) provide additional wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, (3) improve 

access, and/or (4) reduce impacts to refuge resources. 

Strategies: 

• Develop an outreach program that provides information on land acquisition and easement 

programs to landowners within the boundary expansion areas. 

• Develop partnerships with conservation organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy, 

Trust for Public Land, and The Conservation Fund, to support land acquisition needs. 

Objective 4B: Emphasize partnership efforts (e.g., Partners for Fish and Wildlife and carbon 

sequestration) in future boundary expansion proposals and easement programs in a 

“Conservation Partners” Focus Area. 

A long-range goal of the Service is to establish a forested corridor to connect several refuges within 

the Complex. Such a corridor would be beneficial to migratory birds and the Louisiana black bear 

and promote bottomland hardwood reforestation. Morgan Brake NWR, Hillside NWR, Panther 

Swamp NWR, and the Carter Unit are located from north to south through Holmes, Humphreys, and 

Yazoo Counties with no connectivity. This Focus Area consists predominantly of cleared agricultural 

lands interspersed with remnants of bottomland hardwood forests, seasonally flooded and permanent 

wetlands, and cypress swamps. The primary influence is hydrology. In addition, intermittent 

backwater flooding from the Mississippi and Yazoo Rivers drives habitat processes. Due to low 

elevations and hydrological influences, most of the agricultural land is considered marginal for crop 

production. The Focus Area also includes steep loess bluff habitat bordering the east side of Hillside 
 110

and Morgan Brake NWRs. A rapid transition from 70 feet MSL to 300 feet MSL produces abrupt 

changes in habitat, supporting unique plant and animal species, particularly for nesting and migrating 

songbirds. However, continued clearing for tree harvest and development off-refuge dramatically 

increases erosion and sedimentation on downstream refuge lands and waters. To focus available 

resources, the objective for this “Conservation Partners” Focus Area (Figure 16) will be to work with 

partners (state, federal, and non-governmental organizations and private landowners) to: 

• Help achieve the objectives of national and regional plans; 

• Restore migratory paths for wildlife; 

• Create habitat for wintering and breeding waterfowl; 

• Reduce off-refuge impacts to refuge resources; 

• Provide better public access to refuge lands; 

• Restore critical interior forest habitat for trust species, including the threatened cerulean 

warbler, swallow-tailed kite, and Louisiana black bear; and 

• Restore the hydrology of the Yazoo Backwater Area. 

Strategies: 

• Compile a mailing list of potential state, federal, and conservation organization partners, and 

offer opportunities for these partners to assist the Complex to implement this CCP. 

• Develop partnerships with Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks and 

interested non-governmental organizations to assist in upland game bird management. 

• Evaluate opportunities to link conservation efforts with private landowners. 

• Develop a “Conservation Partners” outreach program to educate and involve private 

landowners, conservation organizations, and federal and state partners in partnership efforts. 

• Coordinate efforts with the LMJV Office in Vicksburg, Mississippi, and the Wildlife and Habitat 

Management Office in Jackson, Mississippi, to keep those offices updated on acres restored by 

habitat type, while ensuring partnership projects address the highest priorities within the LMRAV. 

Objective 4C: Provide technical and financial assistance through the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program for projects on at least 2,000 acres of private lands within the 9-county 

private lands program focus area. Focus on cropland enhancements for wintering waterfowl 

and reforestation objectives of national and regional plans for the LMRAV. 

Private lands are important components to the restoration and reestablishment of native habitats. 

Although the historically diverse fish and wildlife resources of pre-settlement America cannot be restored 

entirely, habitat restoration on private lands is important to the process. Objectives in national and 

regional plans, such as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners-in-Flight Plan, 

Mississippi River Alluvial Valley Bird Conservation Plan, and Strategic Fisheries Plan, will be emphasized. 

The Service has two programs that provide technical assistance and funding for priority habitat projects 

on private lands. The Mississippi Partners Program (MPP) is an important cooperative program that 

provides pipe to develop winter water on harvested croplands for waterfowl. Partners include Mississippi 

Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks, Delta Wildlife, Ducks Unlimited, and Wildlife Mississippi. 

MPPs are considered enhancement projects and require a 10 to 15-year agreement. By 2004, MPP had 

developed agreements with over 968 landowners and provided over 3,554 water control structures 

designed to impound over 110,544 acres of winter water. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

(PFW) provides financial and technical assistance to private landowners who are interested in developing 

habitat on their lands. The PFW requires a minimum 10-year agreement. 
 111

Figure 16. Conservation partners focus area 



	
 	





 








	
 



 
 
!



"#	$

%&		

		



!
#  
!"
 


 

 


 	



	
 "'#'









$ %

 
 &'

 

 	

(	

)	


( 	*
$
 112

 Strategies: 

• Work with the LMVJV and the Lower Mississippi Ecosystem Team to develop a 5-year 

Strategic Plan for habitat improvement projects on private lands. 

• Establish an Annual Work Plan to address priority private lands issues that were identified 

under the 5-year plan and other appropriate sources. 

• Expand the PFW program to more effectively involve key partners such as the Mississippi 

Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks, and other state, private, and national conservation 

organizations, in project development and implementation. 

• Use Service project funds in coordination with private landowners and other partners to 

stretch habitat restoration dollars. 

• Develop and implement follow-up studies on selected habitat improvements and technical 

practices, and distribute information to habitat restoration biologists. 

• Integrate Service private lands programs and initiatives with USDA Farm Bill conservation 

programs. Coordinate appropriate Service projects on private lands with NRCS District 

Conservationist to maximize technical assistance and access to all appropriate conservation 

programs and opportunities. 

• Ensure that the Complex PFW biologist is fully utilized in developing and carrying out 

authorized activities under approved Service strategic plans and activities defined under the 

PFW and other private lands initiatives. 

• Partner with NRCS to provide landowners with information on the benefits of “conservation 

farming” and “best management practices” to reduce contaminant introduction through 

siltation, while enriching soil and improving water quality. 

• Give highest priority to those projects located in the “Conservation Partners” Focus Area 

(Figure 16). 

• Employ one GS-7/9 private lands biologist to assist the existing GS-11 PFW biologist to 

expand assistance, increase restoration, and conduct monitoring. 

Objective 4D: Over the life of the CCP, address contaminants issues in refuge fish and wildlife 

and aquatic habitat by reducing siltation in the watershed. 

Discussion: Because most of the lands in the watershed have been cleared and converted to 

agricultural row crop production, erosion introduces agricultural chemicals into runoff. Over the years, 

agricultural chemicals have bio-accumulated to unacceptable levels in fish and other wildlife species. 

Strategies: 

• Implement best management practices (e.g., drop inlet structures, reforestation, vegetative 

field borders) on Complex agricultural lands. 

• Work with adjacent landowners in the watershed to improve water quality. Enroll riparian 

areas in conservation programs and cooperate with NRCS to provide technical assistance on 

“best management practices” to landowners. 

• Develop and implement a contaminants monitoring plan to identify contaminant 

concentrations in refuge water, sediment, and fish and wildlife species. 
 113

Objective 4E: Over the life of this CCP, address fecal coliform bacteria issues in Black and 

Fannegusha Creeks on Hillside NWR. 

Discussion: Water quality data collected by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality indicate 

high concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria in Black and Fannegusha Creeks. Because fecal coliform 

bacteria are present in these areas, there is a high likelihood that other forms of bacteria, such as 

salmonella, are also present. Therefore, as Black and Fannegusha Creeks overflow into wetlands on 

refuge lands, disease-causing bacteria could affect resident waterfowl populations. 

Strategy: 

• Coordinate closely with the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality to ensure that 

sources of fecal bacteria are identified and eliminated. 

Objective 4F: Over the life of this CCP, address increased sedimentation in refuge waterways 

resulting from upstream gravel mining and timber harvest operations. 

Discussion: The Black, Fannegusha, Tesheva, and Abiaca Creeks introduce large sediment loads on 

refuge lands and produce a build-up of silt in bottomland hardwoods. Most of the sedimentation is 

due to upstream gravel mining operations, farming practices that do not address erosion, and timber 

harvests on adjacent lands. 

Strategies: 

• Coordinate closely with the Ecological Services Office in Jackson, Mississippi, to ensure that 

measures are included in gravel mining permits to substantially reduce sedimentation. 

• Involve PFW biologist with adjacent landowners to provide technical assistance on timber 

harvest “best management practices.” 

• Identify lands in close proximity to refuges that contribute to the contamination and siltation on 

refuge lands and incorporate these areas into any future land acquisition boundary 

expansions. 

• Develop an outreach program in cooperation with NRCS that can be used to educate 

surrounding landowners on the techniques for and benefits of reducing soil erosion. 

Objective 4G: Manage Farm Service Agency properties by habitat type as they relate to the 

objectives established in this plan, and evaluate opportunities for wildlife-dependent 

recreation and demonstration sites. 

Discussion: Many of the fee title Farm Service Agency properties managed by the Complex have been 

reforested, leaving few management options. Some are small in size, less than 100 acres and disjunct 

from other protected lands. Management and protection of these areas are challenging because the 

lands managed in the Complex encompass acres widely scattered across central Mississippi. The most 

beneficial properties are those that have contributed to boundary expansions or are large enough to serve 

as a nucleus for additional units (e.g., Carter and Darlove tracts) and research (Brown Tract). (Farm 

Service Agency lands include the five tracts that were re-designated as the Holt Collier Refuge in the 

2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act and are managed by the Complex.) 
 114

Strategies: 

• Monitor reforested areas and evaluate suitability of replanting areas that have poor survival rates. 

• Maintain unforested properties, <200 acres, in grassland and scrub/shrub habitat for migratory birds. 

• Provide hunting opportunities for deer, small game, and upland game birds on properties, 

>300 acres, as populations reach harvestable levels. 

• Assign law enforcement and habitat management responsibilities for each Farm Service 

Agency property to the refuge headquarters or specific subheadquarters. 

• Evaluate properties to determine if any areas are suitable as demonstration sites for 

landowners who want to restore their properties for wildlife. 

• Identify properties that may be suitable for wildlife observation and photography, including 

refuge-led birding tours, and for establishing photo blinds. 

• Exchange Farm Service Agency properties, where possible, to help achieve refuge missions, 

goals, and objectives. 

Objective 4H: Threatened and Endangered Species: Support recovery efforts for the 

Louisiana black bear. 

Discussion: The Louisiana black bear is a threatened species that historically occurred throughout 

the south half of Mississippi and was reportedly common in the LMRAV. Habitat loss resulting from 

habitat conversions to agricultural fields and black bear exploitation throughout its range has 

seriously reduced populations. Recovery team efforts to introduce Louisiana Black bear in optimal 

habitat are ongoing. Since Panther Swamp NWR contains one of the largest contiguous blocks of 

bottomland hardwoods in the State of Mississippi, and forest habitat is optimal for black bear, plans 

are to relocate individuals to Panther Swamp NWR in 2006 (personal conversation with 

representative of Mississippi Black Bear Restoration Task Force, December 2003). 

Strategies: 

• Enhance, restore, protect, and manage imperiled species habitat using available conservation 

tools including habitat management on existing land (federal, state and private) conservation 

easements, partnership agreements, conservation agreements, and land acquisition from 

willing sellers. 

• Work with recovery team and Service Ecological Services Field Offices to establish Louisiana 

black bear populations in Panther Swamp NWR. 

GOAL 5: CULTURAL RESOURCES – identify and protect cultural resources on the complex 

Discussion: Cultural resources include archaeological resources, historic and architectural 

properties, and areas or sites of traditional or religious significance to Native Americans. (614 FW 1, 

Policy, Responsibilities, and Definitions.) Cultural resource inventories have been completed on 

25,000 acres throughout the Complex, including comprehensive surveys on Yazoo NWR in 1978 and 

1979 and selected surveys related to acquisition and construction on refuges in the Complex. The 

cultural resource inventories to date revealed that only Yazoo NWR has archaeology sites of 

significant cultural value. Five of the identified sites at Yazoo NWR are eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including the Swan Lake Indian Mounds, Deer Lake Village and 

Deer Lake Village South, the Steele Bayou site, and the Big Lake site. 
 115

Objective 5A: Identify and protect cultural resources on the Complex in accordance with 

federal and state historic preservation laws and regulations. 

Discussion: Indian Mounds are the most obvious and well-known cultural resources in the Mississippi 

Delta region. As required by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 and other laws, 

land management agencies must identify, research, and protect cultural resources, and provide 

cultural interpretation for the public. The Swan Lake Temple Mound near the bridge over Swan Lake 

on Yazoo Refuge Road is a source of great curiosity by the visiting public, and the refuge’s proximity 

to the Winterville Mounds and Museum in Greenville, Mississippi, increase the likelihood that visitors 

already in the area will come by the refuge. Only minimal infrastructure would be required to prepare 

the Temple Mound for public use interpretation. 

Strategies: 

• Develop the infrastructure to provide interpretive information on Swan Lake Temple Mound 

Complex. 

• Develop a scope of work for a comprehensive archaeological survey of any unsurveyed 

acreage, including a cost estimate and ranking factors for contractor selection. 

• Develop and implement a plan to protect identified sites in consultation with federally 

recognized Native American tribes, the Mississippi State Historic Preservation Officer, and the 

professional archaeological community. 

• Compile a comprehensive literature review of past archaeological, anthropological, and 

historical investigations within and near the Complex. Utilizing the Regional Archaeologist, 

produce an annotated bibliography to document the region’s history and the utility of the 

scientific methodology. 

• Develop a GIS layer for the archaeological and historic sites of the Complex that will mesh 

with existing layers for habitat type, vegetative cover, hydrology, and soils. 

• Report new cultural resources sites to the Regional Historic Preservation Officer. 

Objective 5B: Protect those cultural resource sites eligible for National Register listing from 

potential impacts by visitors. 

Strategies: 

• Develop and implement law enforcement procedures to protect these resources from looting 

and vandalism, and require all Complex law enforcement officers to take the “Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act” training course. 

• Refer all requests for research, investigation, excavation, or removal of cultural resources to 

the Regional Historic Preservation Officer. 

• Issue Special Use Permits, as appropriate, with the advice of the Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer to recipients of approved permits for cultural resource studies and research. 

• Regulate visitor use on sensitive cultural resources, such as the Indian mounds on Yazoo NWR. 
 116

GOAL 6: PROVIDE VISITOR SERVICES – develop appropriate and compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation, environmental education, and interpretive programs that lead to enjoyable experiences 

and a greater understanding of fish, wildlife, and habitat conservation by the public. 

Discussion: National wildlife refuges provide a variety of recreational opportunities for the visiting 

public. The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act identified six priority public uses 

on refuge lands, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. With the appropriate infrastructure, Complex lands can 

provide opportunities for all of these priority public uses. Historically, hunting has been the primary 

public use activity on Complex lands. A primary goal for the Complex is to increase public 

understanding, use, and enjoyment of Complex lands, and to increase an appreciation for the Refuge 

System through a transition toward developing more infrastructure and providing personnel to support 

the five remaining priority public uses. A public use plan will include options for minimizing potential 

conflicts between hunting and fishing, and non-consumptive uses. 

Objective 6A. Provide public hunting for deer, ducks, small game, and wild turkey. 

Discussion: Managing wildlife populations and their habitats is the primary responsibility of the 

Complex and a required component of the Refuge System’s "wildlife first" mission. If managed 

appropriately, hunting provides a biologically sound form of outdoor recreation that is used 

extensively throughout the Refuge System to manage wildlife populations. The 1997 Improvement 

Act, other laws, and Fish and Wildlife Service policy permits hunting on refuges when it is compatible 

with the purposes for which the refuge was established. The Complex hunting program is 

coordinated annually with the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks and hunting 

activities are managed so as not to cause disturbance to waterfowl. 

White-tailed deer hunting is a popular activity throughout the region and the Complex has a 

reputation for outstanding deer hunting opportunities. Harvest and habitat data collected over the 

years have clearly demonstrated the need to remove approximately one third of the deer annually in 

order to maintain a healthy herd and to prevent habitat damage. In the absence of large predators, 

such as wolves or cougars, deer populations can rapidly increase and destroy valuable wildlife 

habitat. Deer eat the understory in forested areas, preventing tree regeneration and altering the 

structure and species (flora and fauna) composition of the forest. Deer also consume agricultural 

crops planted as high calorie foods for wintering waterfowl. 

Because four of the refuges in the Complex were established for migratory birds, deer populations 

must be controlled to prevent adverse impacts to migratory bird habitat. Deer possess the ability to 

overpopulate and exceed the carrying capacity of refuge habitats in a relatively short time frame. 

Overcrowded deer herds degrade their own habitat, as well as habitat needed by numerous other 

wildlife species when they consume vegetation. Over-browsed habitat cannot provide food or cover 

for scrub- shrub-dependent species. Deer can also eliminate habitat for other birds when they 

consume the vegetation that the birds use for cover or nesting habitat. 

Yazoo NWR produces approximately 200 deer each year that are surplus to population maintenance 

(Yazoo NWR data files). Deer herds can radically reduce food resources to such an extent that they 

starve or contract diseases that under normal circumstances they would not contract. The lack of 

sufficient food on refuge lands would force deer to move beyond refuge boundaries onto adjacent 

private land where they consume agricultural crops planted by refuge neighbors. Allowing hunters to 

remove surplus deer reduces the potential for refuge habitat damage and agricultural crop losses, 

and negates the expense of controlling the deer herd with refuge employees. 
 117

The Complex's deer population management program is dependent upon the ability to attract 

sufficient refuge hunters each year to reduce the deer population to below carrying capacity. During 

normal reproductive years, the refuge's objective would be to remove approximately 33 percent of the 

deer population. Refuges are challenged to attract a sufficient number of hunters to reduce the 

population to the targeted level. Typical deer do not provide an incentive to the hunting public 

because hunters can take typical deer at alternate hunting areas throughout the Delta. To pique 

interest and draw hunters to refuges for deer hunting, an element must be added that is not available 

to the average hunter elsewhere in the Delta. Historically, this has been accomplished by providing 

the expectation that a trophy buck can be harvested from refuge lands. 

The Complex's hunt program is designed to optimize the number of deer taken while maintaining a 

percentage of older bucks (5 to 10 percent) in the trophy class each year to attract enough hunters to 

reduce the herd by 33 percent. To date, Complex efforts have attracted sufficient hunters to remove 

the desired number of deer. Although total numbers of out-of-state hunters were not recorded, refuge 

personnel noted the presence of hunter vehicles from 26 states during the 2003 hunt year. 

To ensure that migratory bird habitat (the purpose for which four of the refuges were established) is not 

adversely affected by deer populations, annual public deer hunting opportunities will be offered. The 

program will aim for removal of approximately one-third of the herd annually with a 1:1 harvest ratio of the 

sexes. The regulation of season lengths, hunting areas, and hunter quotas will ensure a balance 

between population levels and carrying capacity, while providing for public safety during hunting season. 

Hunting is also offered for populations of animals capable of sustaining harvest, including ducks, 

rabbit, squirrel, raccoon, opossum, and quail. Hunting programs for these species are not aimed at 

controlling the numbers of animals to reduce habitat destruction, with one exception. Raccoons prey 

upon wood ducks and their eggs, and those of other nesting birds, and occasionally eggs from 

alligator nests. Hunting programs for ducks and other small game are very popular and contribute to 

the Complex’s public use program. 

Strategies: Strategies are dependent upon the availability of funding and adequate law enforcement 

staff to manage the hunts. 

• Maintain a stable deer population through a program of either-sex hunting. 

• Coordinate with Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, interested 

conservation organizations, and natural resource agencies when developing hunt programs. 

• Construct a self-service visitor resources kiosk at the Complex Headquarters at Yazoo NWR 

and refuge offices at Morgan Brake and Panther Swamp NWRs to provide maps, regulations, 

hunting brochures, permit applications, fact sheets, and other visitor services information. 

• Develop a hunting program section in the step-down Visitor Services Plan. 

• Provide limited draw youth hunts for white-tailed deer on Morgan Brake NWR. 

• Provide youth waterfowl hunts on Yazoo NWR and the Carter Tract and limited-draw youth 

turkey hunts on Hillside, Morgan Brake, and Yazoo NWRs. 

• Provide additional hunting opportunities for bobwhite (when it is determined that birds are at 

harvestable levels) on the following Farm Service Agency properties: Herron, Brown, and 

Carter Tracts. Open season dates will coincide with the dates for the rabbit (with dogs) hunt. 

• Provide limited-draw turkey hunting opportunities on Hillside, Morgan Brake, and Yazoo 

NWRs as bird populations reach harvestable levels. 

• Develop limited-draw waterfowl hunts at Mathews Brake NWR to address overcrowding 

and safety issues. 
 118

• Promote and encourage hunting opportunities on the Complex through the Internet site, 

brochures, kiosks, news releases, displays, and special events. 

• Explore and develop handicapped-accessible hunting opportunities for deer and turkey. 

• Provide opportunities for senior citizens to hunt deer and turkey. 

Objective 6B: Provide hunters with a high quality, safe hunting experience on refuge lands, 

while balancing consumptive and non-consumptive public uses. 

Discussion: The congregation of game species in a small geographic area leads to concentrations of 

hunters in the same area. The cultural pressure associated with taking a trophy buck or a limit of 

ducks produces intense law enforcement (LE) challenges that are not encountered during nonconsumptive public use activities, such as bird watching, nature trail hikes, or wildlife photography. 

Many hunts require a minimum of two, and at times, more LE officers to meet resource and public 

protection needs. Limited draw permit hunts require more LE attention than unlimited hunts, and 

deer hunts require the most attention. In 2003, LE Officers issued 143 Notices of Violations, while an 

estimated 5000+ incidents (e.g., vehicle break-ins, stolen property, vandalism, firearm violations, 

disorderly conduct, driving under the influence, poaching, and trespass) were noted. 

One option for coping with staff shortages is to reduce hunting programs to a level that available LE 

staff can cover. Proposed consolidations/restructuring for deer hunts yield the greatest potential for 

conserving LE staff, while continuing with other hunting programs, because deer hunting produces 

the greatest need for LE presence. Contentious interactions between hunters and LE officers, issues 

involving weapons and public safety, public hunting pressure expressed by numbers of hunters 

(thousands), and the need to provide LE coverage on all refuges during all peak deer hunting 

seasons are important factors. 

Strategies for an LE Staff of 11: 4 full-time law enforcement officers and 7 dual function officers: 

• Provide safe, year-round public protection for visitors to refuge lands. 

• Schedule law enforcement officers on a year-round basis to cover expanded public use 

activities and to ensure a balance between non-consumptive public use activities, hunting, 

and fishing programs. 

• Continue existing 6-month long hunting seasons for 15 separate hunting programs. 

• Expand white-tailed deer hunting opportunities for youth by providing limited draw youth hunts 

on Morgan Brake NWR. 

• Expand waterfowl hunting opportunities for youth by providing waterfowl hunts on Yazoo NWR 

and the Carter Tract, and limited-draw youth turkey hunts on Hillside, Morgan Brake and 

Yazoo NWRs. 

• Expand hunting opportunities for bobwhite (when it is determined that birds are at harvestable 

levels) on the following Farm Service Agency properties: Herron, Brown, and Carter tracts. 

• Expand turkey hunting opportunities by providing limited-draw turkey hunting on Hillside, 

Morgan Brake, and Yazoo NWRs as bird populations reach harvestable levels. 

• Expand waterfowl hunting opportunities by developing limited-draw waterfowl hunts at 

Mathews Brake NWR. 

• Employ an aggressive promotional program to encourage hunting on the Complex through the 

Internet site, brochures, kiosks, news releases, displays, and special events. 

• Expand opportunities for handicapped hunters to take deer or turkey. 
 119

Strategies for an LE Staff of five: 

• Notify the public that changes are proposed in the Complex’s hunting programs. Notify the 

public by contacting Mississippi’s federal and state agencies and elected officials; distribute 

news releases and public service announcements; publish new Hunt Brochures; post notices 

on the Complex Website, kiosks, and hunter check stations. Proposed reductions would be 

as follows: 

*All current unlimited permit hunts would remain the same, EXCEPT: 

• The Panther Swamp NWR muzzleloader deer hunt would be changed to a limited permit draw 

hunt and reduced from 15 to 5 days (December 4 through December 8). 

• The Morgan Brake and Hillside NWR’s muzzleloader deer hunts would be changed to limited 

permit draw hunts and reduced from 13 to 5 days (November 28 through December 1). 

• Limited permit draw hunts on Morgan Brake, Hillside, and Panther Swamp NWRs would be 

scheduled to ensure that only one limited permit hunt would be held on any of these refuges 

at any given time (no overlapping days on one or more refuges). 

• Mathews Brake NWR would be closed to hunting and all other forms of public use from 

November 20 to December 20 to prevent compromising public safety. 

• Morgan Brake, Mathews Brake, and Hillside NWRs would remain closed to all public use 

during the Panther Swamp NWR limited permit draw gun deer hunts (November 20-22, and 

December 16 -20); and the limited permit draw muzzleloader deer hunts December 4-8. 

Strategies for an LE staff of four or less: 

• Limited permit draw 2-day gun deer hunts on Yazoo (150 youth permits each day); Hillside 

(250 permits each day); Morgan Brake (50 permits each day); and Panther Swamp NWR (800 

permits each day). 

• Close all refuges to non-consumptive public use activities (except Yazoo NWR) during limited 

permit hunt days. 

• No unlimited permit deer gun hunting. 

• Unlimited permit archery hunts for deer and small game. 

• Farm Service Agency tracts open to archery hunts for small game and deer. 

*Note: Any additional unforeseen reductions in law enforcement capability would require further 

reductions in hunting programs. 

Objective 6C: Within 5 years of the date of this CCP, provide accessibility to disabled hunters 

by constructing accessible, dedicated hunting areas and offering sponsored hunts. 

Strategies: 

• Partner with local groups to sponsor a 2-day disabled annual waterfowl hunt on Morgan 

Brake, Hillside, Yazoo, and Mathews Brake NWRs. Rotate hunters to different refuges 

annually to provide a diversity of experiences. 

• Provide disabled hunting blinds on Morgan Brake and Hillside NWRs where persons with 

physical impairments can use all-terrain vehicles to hunt deer. 

• Provide opportunities for disabled individuals to hunt turkey on Yazoo, Panther, Hillside and 

Morgan Brake NWRs. 
 120

Objective 6D: Annually provide high quality fishing opportunities consistent with sound 

biological principles while meeting the Complex purposes and objectives for migratory birds. 

Discussion: Contaminants (DDT and toxaphene) in fish accompanied by accelerated siltation have 

reduced the quality of the fishery on Yazoo NWR, introduced chemical contamination in resident fish, 

and effectively eliminated fishing as a public use activity. Fishing is available on Morgan Brake, 

Panther Swamp, and Mathews Brake NWRs, but generally lacking on Hillside NWR due to shallow 

waters. Opportunities to offer quality fishing should be pursued, and areas open for fishing should be 

located so as to minimize disturbance to migratory birds. 

Strategies: 

• Develop a public fishing management section in the Visitor Services Plan in consultation with 

state management agencies, federal partners, conservation organizations, and the public. 

• Consult with the Service’s Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Fishery Resources Office to obtain 

assistance for inventory and evaluation, and habitat improvement recommendations for the 

Complex’s fishery resources. 

• Develop a youth fishing area at Holt Collier Horseshoe Pond (Yazoo NWR) to provide 

educational and recreational opportunities to youth. This pond is hydrologically separate from 

Steele Bayou, the primary source of DDT and toxaphene contaminants on the refuge, and can 

potentially provide contaminant-free fishing opportunities. 

• Periodically monitor fish populations at Holt Collier Horseshoe Pond to ensure that 

contaminant levels are not prohibitive. 

• Develop abandoned bridge at Stricklands Crossing (Panther Swamp NWR) for use as a 

universally accessible fishing pier. 

• Develop at least three walk-in bank fishing sites on Caldwell Road (Mathews Brake NWR), 

and mark and maintain an access trail. 

• Develop individual fishing brochures for refuges offering fishing opportunities. 

• Promote and publicize public fishing via the web, brochures, news releases, displays, and 

special events. 

• Conduct annual fishery/creel surveys to assess success and to provide a visible presence that 

will support law enforcement efforts to reduce unauthorized fishing, littering, and other 

unlawful incidents. 

Objective 6D: Provide hunters with adequate ingress and egress to ensure a sufficient deer 

harvest by maintaining suitable ATV trails, establishing walking/retrieval trails, and 

constructing boat ramps at suitable locations. 

Discussion: The dispersal of hunters over a large area reduces problems associated with hunter 

overcrowding, and improves the deer harvest rate. Currently dispersal is accomplished by a limited 

number of roads and ATV trails. ATV trails are available on Panther Swamp, Hillside, and Morgan Brake 

NWRs in accordance with established mandates and Service policy (see Issues and Concerns; Chapter 

III). The ATV trails are well defined on hunt brochure maps and are open only during periods of hunting 

and fishing. However, on Panther Swamp NWR, the local “gumbo” soils do not support trails or roads. 

Most trails are currently degraded to the point that even foot traffic is difficult. Degraded ATV trails are 

nearly impossible to navigate by ATV, so operators cause additional habitat damage when they divert 

from the established (although degraded) trail and drive the ATV through the forest. 
 121

Costs for improving ATV trails to a satisfactory condition are estimated by Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s Engineering Division in Atlanta, Georgia, at approximately $50,000 per mile. At that 

price, the cost of improving Panther Swamp NWR’s approximately 38 miles of trails would be 

approximately $3.4 million (Table 15). This is more than the entire refuge Complex budget and 

the Service cannot responsibly cover such high maintenance costs solely to provide hunter 

access. Even with a substantial amount of expensive maintenance, some trails on Panther 

Swamp will never support sustained traffic. 

To reduce maintenance costs and minimize habitat damage on Panther Swamp NWR, 19.78 miles 

of existing ATV trails will be closed or converted to walking/retrieval trails. Walking/retrieval trails 

can be used as ATV trails only to pick up and retrieve deer or to carry decoys and other equipment 

to duck hunting areas during hunting season. Approximately 3.5 miles of interior roads will be 

opened to ATV use during hunting season. ATV access will be improved in 9.6 miles of established 

powerline (Entergy) and pipeline (Southern Natural Gas) rights-of-way, and on trails that can be 

improved and maintained in satisfactory condition without significant expense. The powerline and 

pipeline rights-of-way have been selected to provide ATV access because they are currently 

established, permanent corridors through the forest that have already been cleared and are 

regularly maintained to eliminate the establishment of woody vegetation. Trails branching off the 

rights-of-way will be converted to walking/retrieval trails, where practicable. If access is acquired 

on the east side of the refuge off River Road, the ATV trails that provide access south of the gas 

pipeline right-of-way will be converted to walking/retrieval trails. 

Some ATV trails that provide access to duck hunting areas will be improved to ensure that duck 

hunters can carry their equipment (e.g., decoys and blinds) to hunting sites. To compensate for trail 

closures and for ATV trail conversions to walking/retrieval trails, access by water will be improved. 

Two 20-foot-wide concrete boat ramps will be constructed at Wade Bayou off the east levee and at 

Lake George off the west levee south of Bobcat Trail. 

Table 15. Estimated Costs to upgrade ATV trails to “satisfactory” condition 

Refuge Miles of 

ATV Trails 

Cost Per Mile to 

Improve Total Cost to Upgrade 

Panther Swamp NWR 38 $90 - 120,000 $3,420,000+

Hillside NWR 9 $20,000 $180,000

Morgan Brake NWR 8* $15,000 $120,000

Yazoo NWR 0 -- --

Mathews Brake 0 -- --

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Engineering Division, Atlanta, Georgia 

*Morgan Brake NWR allows ATV users to use certain refuge roads during hunting season. None of the roads are 

defined as ATV trails. 

Strategies: 

• Reduce ATV trail maintenance on all refuges in the Complex by closing high maintenance 

trails and converting the remaining trails to retrieval/walking trails. 

• Obtain funding to rehabilitate selected trails on Panther Swamp, Hillside, and Morgan Brake NWRs. 
 122

• Update ATV trail use specifications and use plans for Panther Swamp, Morgan Brake, and 

Hillside NWRs. These plans will: Define “ATV” based upon manufacturer’s recommended 

number of passengers, engine size, vehicle weight, length and width, and tire size. Identify 

ATV trails that are open for public use. Specify minimum trail standards, including width and 

required surface material. Include measures to reduce impacts to wetlands, aquatic habitats, 

and streams. Identify precautions to protect habitat and minimize disturbance to wildlife. Limit 

ATV use on retrieval trails to retrieving deer killed during refuge hunts. 

• After selected ATV trails have been restored, establish an ATV use permit fee to cover trail 

maintenance and program management. Monies obtained from this fee will be specifically 

used for maintenance of existing ATV trails. 

• Provide funding to develop or improve parking areas at all trail heads. 

• Establish a total of 14 trail heads on Panther Swamp, Hillside, and Morgan Brake NWRs with 

kiosks containing information on regulations, safety, maps, and areas of interest. 

• Convert 3 trails on Panther Swamp NWR (that currently provide access by boat from Lake 

George or are located in close proximity to another ATV trail) to walking trails. 

• Shorten existing ATV trails where appropriate and convert the restricted sections to walking trails. 

• Eliminate unneeded trails as land is acquired on the east side of the refuge and access improves. 

Objective 6E. Provide an environmental education program, on- and off-refuge, to no less 

than 2,000 students (preschool to high school) and 500 adults annually. Aim for a 2 percent 

annual growth in individuals educated. 

Discussion: There are no established educational programs or facilities within the communities 

surrounding the Complex that provide students or adults with a better understanding of the 

environmental resources in the LMRAV. A quality environmental education program would lead to 

increased awareness and stewardship for the environment, strengthen the connection between 

wildlife and people, and foster understanding and support for refuge purposes, issues, and programs. 

The programs will be community-based and developed with support from Visitor Services’ staff, area 

schools, and other area educational organizations. 

Strategies: 

• Recruit two full-time GS-7 Park Ranger (Interpretive) environmental education specialists. 

These positions will support the Complex Outdoor Recreation Planner and Outdoor 

Recreation Specialist. 

• To ensure the materials are dynamic and meet the needs of adults and students in preschool 

through high school, the Complex’s environmental education curriculum will be developed in 

coordination with Visitor Services staff and local educators. The programs will focus on refuge 

issues and will be reviewed every 4 years to ensure they are meeting the needs of groups and 

schools, while providing up-to-date information on refuge programs. 

• Effectively promote the environmental education program through the Internet, public news 

releases, refuge kiosks, and visitation to local communities and schools. 

• Use partnership agreements with local schools in order to clearly articulate program goals and 

objectives and to build strong educational partnerships. 

• Ensure that the construction of any visitor services facilities provides a classroom setting, 

materials, and displays that can be incorporated into an on-refuge education program. 

• Conduct at least one teacher workshop each year using established programs developed by 

the Service and the Visitor Services’ staff (e.g., Project Wild or Project Learning Tree). 

• Develop 5 -10 subject-specific “canned” programs that refuge staff, teachers, or volunteers 

can present at the schools. 
 123

• Train volunteers to lead group education programs on the refuge and possibly take the 

programs to the schools. 

• Develop environmental education sites and a teacher activity guide for Deer Lake, Alligator 

Pond Observation Platform, Holt Collier Boardwalk Trail and Tower (Yazoo NWR), and 

Alligator Slough Nature trails (Hillside NWR), including bus parking, activity sites, and shelter. 

Develop 50 individual activity backpacks that can be used for these programs. 

• Link the Complex website with local chambers of commerce and other visitor service 

providers to inform and educate the public about the resources and wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities provided on the Complex. 

Objective 6F: Provide the infrastructure for a minimum of 10,000 high quality wildlife 

interpretive visits per year to increase awareness of habitat features, wildlife values, and 

purposes, and management programs on the Complex and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 

Discussion: Education and interpretation programs are important components to ensure public 

understanding and appreciation for the natural environment and the fish and wildlife that inhabit 

refuge lands. The implementation of this plan will lead to greater support for refuges at both local and 

national levels. 

Strategies: 

• Identify key resource issues and concerns to develop an effective interpretive program. 

• Promote a wildlife-first scheme Complex-wide for all interpretive programs. 

• At all major entrances, check stations, boat ramps, and parking areas, provide a kiosk that 

orients the visitor and provides information regarding the Complex and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

• At all observation sites (e.g., towers, platforms, and parking areas) provide appropriate 

interpretive panels describing ongoing management practices on refuges and their 

benefits to fish and wildlife. 

• Develop fact sheets on key resource issues and distribute them at outreach programs, post 

them on kiosks, and add to the Complex’s Internet site. 

• Develop a visitor brochure for each refuge office or visitor contact station (Yazoo, Panther 

Swamp, and a combined Hillside, Mathews Brake, and Morgan Brake NWRs) to identify 

refuge purpose, resource values, the refuge’s importance in the LMRAV, and wildlifedependent recreational programs available at that refuge. 

• Ensure that interpretive exhibits relative to the resources of the Complex and the LMRAV are 

placed in any future visitor services centers. 

• Develop a Sign Plan that addresses orienting visitors while interpreting the natural resources 

of the Complex and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

• In cooperation with refuge volunteers and others, conduct no fewer than 50 quality interpretive 

programs annually. Keep interpretive programs relevant and up-to-date by continually 

updating, improving, and/or replacing individual programs. 

• Develop new and improve existing foot-traffic-only interpretive nature trails, for the 

following refuges: Yazoo NWR: Yankee Run Trail near Alligator Pond, Bear Paw Trail 

near Lizard Lake, Carbon Sequestration Demonstration Trail on Yazoo Refuge Road. 

Morgan Brake: Loess Bluff Trail on southeast corner of Morgan Brake NWR. Hillside 

NWR: Alligator Slough Nature Trail near Alligator Slough. Panther Swamp NWR: 

Panther Run Trail on the north end of Lower Twist. 
 124

• If the land can be acquired from willing sellers, or an easement for access is obtained, 

develop a kiosk station on the bluff overlooking Morgan Brake NWR, providing an 

interpretation of refuge habitat and information on wildlife and fisheries management 

programs. 

• Develop an orientation film that interprets refuge resources and the unique values of the 

LMRAV. 

• Update or install three-panel informational kiosks at the Complex headquarters and at the 

Panther Swamp and Morgan Brake refuge offices. 

• Promote and encourage wildlife interpretation opportunities on the Complex through the 

Internet site, brochures, news releases, displays, and special events. 

Objective 6G: Provide additional opportunities and facilities for wildlife observation and 

photography on each of the refuges within the Complex. 

Discussion: Although opportunities for wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and other related 

activities, such as hiking and birdwatching, are excellent, the infrastructure to develop these public 

use activities is limited. The Holt Collier Boardwalk and Observation Tower and Alligator Pond 

Observation Tower at Yazoo NWR were constructed in 2002, and were the first of the Complex’s 

planned public use structures and features. Morgan Brake NWR’s Trillium Bluff Trail is planned for 

2006. As more facilities are constructed and outreach is extended to the public about their 

availability, non-consumptive public use activities on the Complex are expected to increase. 

Strategies: 

• Develop an accessible waterfowl observation and photography platform on the Pryor 

Impoundment on Yazoo NWR. 

• Re-name the Cope Impoundment to Beargarden Lake and construct the Beargarden 

Lake Trail and Lookout Platform to observe and photograph the colonial waterbird 

rookery and other birds. 

• Develop Theodore Roosevelt Auto Tour and Lost Pool Drive wildlife observation and 

interpretation drives on Yazoo NWR and Panther Creek Auto Tour at Panther Swamp NWR. 

• Develop a walking trail on Morgan Brake NWR around the Providence Ponds to provide 

opportunities for viewing and photographing waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds. 

• Develop a public viewing area with informational kiosk at Alligator Alley adjacent to 

Headquarters at Yazoo NWR, to enable visitors to view resident alligators, and learn about 

their reproductive and habitat requirements. 

• Provide the public with no fewer than five (one for each refuge) portable photography blinds to 

be used at selected sites throughout the Complex. 

• Work with local partners to sponsor an annual Complex photography or art contest. 

• Complete Gator Walk, an observation and photography foot trail at Alligator Pond on Yazoo 

NWR, including parking areas and kiosks. 

• Develop an observation platform on Mathews Brake NWR at the “old cold well camp site” 

south of the boat ramp. 

• Develop a wildlife observation foot trail off the west levee on Panther Swamp NWR. 

• Develop the Anhinga Swamp Canoe Trail at Yazoo NWR (in Swan Lake), and additional 

canoe trails at Mathews Brake and Panther Swamp NWR (Panther Creek). 

• Develop an observation platform at Morgan Brake NWR overlooking the moist-soil 

impoundments (former catfish ponds). 
 125

• Develop an observation site off the west levee of Panther Swamp NWR overlooking the 

panorama of the refuge at the Lower Twist fields, providing interpretive panels of refuge 

resources and management programs. 

• Upgrade the boardwalk areas along the Alligator Slough Nature Trail (Hillside NWR) to meet 

accessibility and safety standards. 

• With refuge staff or volunteers, conduct no fewer than eight birdwatching/wildlife observation 

programs for the public each year. In addition, conduct no fewer than two similar tours for 

disabled visitors each year. 

• Cooperate with the local garden clubs to offer a butterfly garden with host and nectar plants 

at the refuge headquarters and each refuge office. Display a collection of butterfly species at 

the visitor contact stations. 

• Create a Complex website to extend information about wildlife observations and opportunities 

to the public. Link the Complex’s Internet site to other important wildlife observation sites, 

including state conservation and natural resource agencies. 

• Promote and encourage wildlife observation and photography on the Complex through 

brochures, news releases, displays, special events, and Internet. 

Objective 6H: Provide a highly visible and dynamic volunteer and intern workforce and 

establish a Friends Group to assist and support all aspects of Complex operations, including 

environmental education, wildlife interpretation, habitat improvement, visitor facilities 

maintenance, and funding needs. 

Discussion: Effective volunteer, intern, and Friends Group programs are key to the success of this 

plan. The benefits of these dedicated private citizens go far beyond their contributions to the 

workforce on the Complex. They can be the voice, eyes, and ears for their communities and they 

bring innovation and support to all refuge programs. 

Strategies: 

• Develop an outreach program and campaign to recruit volunteers to assist in executing refuge 

programs, including data collection and habitat management, interpreters and educators, and 

maintenance. 

• As the volunteer program grows, establish a “Volunteer Council” group that will provide 

support and bring a variety of perspectives to the Complex on volunteer issues. 

• Enhance communication with Complex volunteers and other members of the interested public 

through various forms, including periodic newsletters, the Complex’s Internet website, and 

recognition events. 

• Develop high-quality training for refuge volunteers so they are able to effectively and efficiently 

complete projects and responsibilities. 

• Expand efforts to provide volunteer opportunities to members of the disabled public 

• Develop agreements with universities, colleges, and technical schools to provide internship 

opportunities conducive to all programs conducted on the Complex. 

• Work with local communities and refuge users to develop a “Friends Group,” a grassroots 

nonprofit organization that can provide volunteer and financial support to the Complex and 

serve as an advocate for the Complex, the LMRAV, and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
 126

Objective 6I: Develop new and maintain existing facilities to promote public advocacy and 

use. Ninety percent of visitors will report satisfaction with the safety, comfort, and 

functionality of these facilities and express a desire for a return visit. 

Discussion: Public use facilities will be developed and maintained at a high standard, ensuring public 

safety and reflecting a positive impression on visitors. Included on this list of facilities are refuge 

trails, parking lots, and the future visitor contact center and stations. To the extent practical, all 

facilities will be made accessible to disabled visitors. Appendix VI includes examples of proposed 

facilities for Yazoo NWR. 

Strategies: 

• Construct a Visitor Center/Complex Headquarters facility on Yazoo NWR and Visitor Contact 

Stations/Office at the two refuge offices on Panther Swamp and Morgan Brake NWRs. The 

Visitor Center at Yazoo NWR will be located at the west end of Beargarden Road at the 

intersection of Yazoo Refuge Road. The refuge office on Panther Swamp NWR will be 

relocated to higher ground on main access roads when opportunities to acquire the land from 

willing sellers or donators become available. These relocations would make visitor contact 

areas more pleasant, visible, and accessible, and improve proximity to interpretive 

opportunities. 

• All existing and new Complex visitor facilities will be reviewed to determine what measures 

need to be taken to make them more accessible to disabled persons. Following this review, 

an implementation plan will be developed and funding will be sought to upgrade these 

facilities. 

• Obtain operational funding to employ a WG-6 maintenance worker to enhance the Complex’s 

capability to maintain new and existing public use facilities. 

• Seek sufficient increase in funds to maintain, to a high standard, new, and existing visitor 

service facilities such as signs, trails, kiosks, and visitor contact stations. 

• Employ a GS-11 Outdoor Recreation Planner who will initiate early planning for the proposed 

Visitor Center at the Headquarters and Visitor Contact Stations at each refuge office. 

Following completion, this employee will assume responsibilities for operations of these and 

all other visitor facilities. 

• Construct public restroom facilities at the headquarters office and refuge offices sufficient to 

provide for groups of ten or greater. 

• Construct four additional parking lots, to include bus parking, in areas designated as Outdoor 

Classrooms. 

GOAL 7: ADMINISTRATION – obtain and implement approprate management strategies to improve 

infrastructure and add support staff to meet the needs of an expanding visitor public, and to facilitate 

responsible biological, maintenance, and law enforcement programs. 

Discussion: Refuges require adequate staff, facilities, equipment, and funding to accomplish their 

defined purposes, and the goals, objectives, and strategies identified in this CCP. Administrative 

functions include a wide variety of activities that are vital to the Refuge System mission including 

budget execution, personnel management, personnel training, habitat and public use planning and 

management, computerized databases, road infrastructure, law enforcement, facilities management 

and maintenance, community relations, and partnerships. 
 127

Objective 7A: Provide adequate and functional offices and maintenance facilities to support existing 

and future expansion of refuge programs and to ensure safe and efficient refuge operations. 

Discussion: Office space at the Complex Headquarters and refuge office at Panther Swamp NWR 

are currently inadequate for present needs. A new refuge office was constructed at Morgan Brake 

NWR in 2004. An immediate need exists to construct a new facility at Yazoo NWR to function as a 

Headquarters Office for the Complex, and as an area to greet the public and provide for their wildlifedependent recreation requests. The new facility would contain an educational visitor resources 

center with reception area, display room, public restrooms, employee restrooms, conference room, 

songbird viewing and feeding atrium, office space for refuge staff, and other resources to enhance 

public use of the refuges within the Complex. An equally immediate need exists to construct a new 

refuge office for Panther Swamp NWR. 

The current Headquarters Office was constructed in 1958 and is functionally outdated. It provides 

only one restroom for both male and female employees, and the sink in the bathroom provides the 

only running water in the office. The office is not disabled accessible, and individuals in wheelchairs 

would not have access to the one restroom due to a narrow doorway and cramped quarters inside 

the restroom. The heating system is a propane gas-based furnace that is outdated. The building 

lacks storage for basic office needs. Because the front door of the office is located on the side of the 

building facing away from the highway, and for other structural reasons, the office does not provide a 

favorable appearance to the visiting public. 

Panther Swamp NWR’s office consists of a deteriorated house and shop area, both in need of 

replacement. The office is subject to flooding 2 out of 10 years and the repeated flooding has 

deteriorated the building and foundation. Water damage producing slab upheaval, substandard 

wiring, an aged septic system, and heating and cooling systems reaching the end of their lifespans 

require expensive repairs. 

Strategies: 

• Construct a Complex Headquarters/Visitor Center on Yazoo NWR, at the intersection of 

Beargarden Road and Yazoo Refuge Road, with ample space to accommodate staff, storage, 

safety, and visitor needs. 

• Construct a refuge office at Panther Swamp NWR either on Highway 49 or River Road 

(outside of the floodplain), and convert the current office “house” to refuge housing for 

volunteers and seasonal employees. 

• Expand equipment storage facilities at Panther Swamp NWR. 
 128

Objective 7B: Provide adequate staff and sufficient resources to manage the refuges and Farm 

Service Agency tracts in Complex in accordance with the purpose for which each refuge was 

established and the mission of the Refuge System. 

Discussion: The Complex lacks sufficient staff to achieve management goals and objectives. Critical 

staff needs include law enforcement; refuge managers; resource specialists such as foresters, 

biologists, biological technicians; interpretive staff; GIS Specialists; outdoor recreation planners; 

administrative support staff; and maintenance personnel. Currently there are 17 full-time employees 

to manage all seven refuges in the Complex. Refuge lands are scattered across central Mississippi, 

and encompass more than 90,000 acres. Travel time from the Headquarters to Panther Swamp or 

Morgan Brake NWRs is approximately 1 hour. Four refuges remain unstaffed (Holt Collier, Theodore 

Roosevelt, Mathews Brake, and Hillside NWRs) and management activities on these refuges must be 

accomplished by sending staff from Yazoo and Morgan Brake NWRs. 

Due to the lack of adequate personnel and funding, growth for new refuge programs has been halted 

and refuge management has been negatively affected. Baseline information on species is absent, 

needed maintenance has been delayed, and the ability to reach out to the public with visitor services 

and facilities is minimal. To implement this CCP and accomplish the vision identified for this 

Complex, additional staffing and funding are needed (Table 16). 

Panther Swamp NWR has the greatest need for additional staff. Thirty one percent of the identified 

staff needs in Table 16 are located at Panther Swamp, followed by Hillside (18 percent), Yazoo (18 

percent), Morgan Brake (13 percent), and Mathews Brake (10 percent). The top three staffing needs 

are for biological technicians, refuge managers, and law enforcement officers. 

Strategies: 

• Increase refuge staff positions to implement programs needed to address and/or resolve the 

issues addressed in this plan. 

• Provide continuing education and training opportunities to all staff. 

• Provide safe and efficient equipment and vehicles to perform needed refuge operations and 

maintenance. 

• Provide up-to-date computer-based systems to perform refuge operations and planning 

functions. 

• Provide training to refuge staff on computer-based systems to ensure all data is stored in a 

manageable, retrievable database that can be used for analysis and data sharing. 

Objective 7C: Provide highly trained and effective law enforcement personnel to ensure trust 

resource protection, visitor safety, and enforcement of all refuge related acts and regulations. 

Discussion: The Refuge System consists of more than 544 refuges and 37 wetland management 

districts. The Refuge System manages over 96 million acres, in every state and several territories. 

Visitation is increasing at an annual average of 6.6 percent. Given current trends, 2.3 - 2.4 million 

additional people will visit national wildlife refuges over the next several years. 
 129

Protecting the natural resources of the Complex and ensuring the safety of refuge visitors are 

fundamental responsibilities of the Refuge System. In 2003, the Complex law enforcement program 

consisted of one full-time law enforcement park ranger, six dual-function officers, and two seasonal 

dual-function officers. In 2004, staff shortages reduced the LE staff to five, one full-time Park Ranger 

and four dual function officers whose primary function varies from biological technical duties to heavy 

equipment operation. During periods of high public use such as hunting seasons, the majority of 

dual-function officers’ time is spent conducting law enforcement activities, many times at the sacrifice 

of other equally crucial functions. 

This 15-year CCP recommends a substantial increase in public use facilities and infrastructure to 

accommodate increasing numbers of visitors. Visitation will also continue to grow on its own. This 

will increase the need for effective and adequate law enforcement so that visitors enjoy a safe and 

pleasant experience on Complex lands, and to ensure resource protection. Additional full-time law 

enforcement officers are necessary to accomplish these goals. 

Strategies: 

• Provide four (combined total) full-time law enforcement park rangers, GS-7, at Yazoo, Panther 

Swamp, Hillside, and Mathews Brake NWRs. 

• Provide a minimum of 5 dual function officers to assist during heavy public use period and 

provide backup for full-time officers. 

• Provide two seasonal law enforcement park rangers, GS-5, during high public use periods, 

such as hunting seasons. 

• Provide up-to-date training and equipment for law enforcement officers. 

• Develop Memorandums of Understanding with state and local law enforcement agencies to 

facilitate cooperation and assistance in law enforcement activities. 

• Provide education and outreach programs in the local community as part of a preventive law 

enforcement effort. 

• Provide assistance to Service Special Agents and Mississippi Department of Wildlife, 

Fisheries and Parks conservation officers for off-refuge activities as needed and appropriate. 
 130

Table 16. Additional staff needed to implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the 

Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Position

Full-time 

Equivalents 

(FTEs)

Refuge Office

Refuge Operations 

Specialist 

9 Complex Headquarters (1), Yazoo (2), Panther Swamp 

(2), Hillside (1), Morgan Brake (2) Mathews Brake (1) 

Forester 2 Panther Swamp (1), Yazoo (1) 

Forestry Tech 1 Complex Headquarters (1) 

Park Ranger (Law 

Enforcement)* 

6 Yazoo (2), Panther Swamp (1.5), Morgan Brake (1), 

Hillside (1), Mathews Brake (.5) 

Outdoor Recreation 

Planner 

2 Complex Headquarters (1), Yazoo (1) 

Outdoor Recreation 

Specialist 

1 Hillside (1) 

Park Ranger (Interpretive) 1 Complex Headquarters (1) 

Refuge Planner 1 Complex Headquarters (1) 

GIS/IT Specialist 1 Complex Headquarters (1) 

Biological Technician** 8 Yazoo (1), Panther Swamp (2), Hillside (2), Morgan 

Brake (2), Mathews Brake (1) 

Wildlife Biologist 3 Yazoo (1), Panther Swamp (1), Hillside (1) 

Secretary/Receptionist 3.5 Complex Headquarters (1), Panther Swamp (1.5), 

Morgan Brake (1) 

Equipment Operator** 2 Panther Swamp (1), Morgan Brake (1) 

Maintenance Worker 2 Panther Swamp (1), Yazoo (1), 

TOTAL FTEs 42.5 

Complex Headquarters (17%), Yazoo (21%), 

Panther Swamp (27%), Hillside (12%), Morgan 

Brake (17%), Mathews Brake (6%) 

Assumes 2003 level of collateral duty officers 
 131



 



	




























	




	









	

    	












	
	


	


 !
 

			

"#$	%

"#

	&"


"'(	)			
!"		*

*"		*+! $	"

	 $	 		
	

 !

"#

$%

 

Figure 17. Proposed managed habitats of Hillside National Wildlife Refuge 
 132











  

   

 









   



















 





 

 







	





	


	

	
	


	



	







	



	


 








! 
"#
#$
% &


'		

#
($ '	

 

)
	



#


 

	


 

 * 




(*+

	







 



,-,./ &







!
0




$


	1

Figure 18. Proposed managed habitats of Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge 
 133

Figure 19. Current and proposed managed habitats of the Panther Swamp National Wildlife 

Refuge Northern Unit (Carter Tract). 
 134









		




	



	

$	!
"# !
"#    	
 


	

 	

 


 
	
 	
	


"#



 

	!
 $	!


 !
 %&"

	

 


'() ' '() *!







 #
+



!!
, 
	!(






  



    




Figure 20. Proposed managed habitats of Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge 
 135















































































































 



 



  

 















	




	



	


	

	
	


	





	


		


	







	

 
!


 	



!
"
	

#


"!


$""% 

	


 

 
&



$'()

*+*,- !

%
.



/


	0



 



	







Figure 21. Proposed managed habitats of Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge 
 136



 



		
































































































































 



 













 



  



 





















	

		

	
	

	










 

 	







 	 
   







 !

"#

$"

%&

'(

)&*


(+)


'


,$ ,

$

$

)% - .
/
$ '0)$ &)'1&)'2

 )% &)'

 &

/+

)

- , 3



	








Figure 22. Proposed managed habitats of Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge 
 137



 



	






















 











  	












	






   

 !

"

 #


	







	



	






 !"

#
$

%


&'(
	

 

	$)
 *%+%  *%  

  

	

! , #-

.



Figure 23. Proposed visitor services for Hillside National Wildlife Refuge 
 138































	





	


	

	
	



	




	



		 




	

 
	

 
 ! 	



"

#
	

 
$! 


%&

'	
( )




 !
#
*

 (
	
#
*  )
"+



 ,)$

	



	



 



- . - / 0 1







	








Figure 24. Proposed visitor services for Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge 
 139







































  		




	



	




	

 
	

 


 
	

 
	

 

	

 
	
 	
	



		
 
	

 

 


!"



 #	
	
	 

	



 






$%& $ $%& '









(
!
"



) ""
	%





  
  


 
   




Figure 25. Proposed visitor services for Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge 
 140









 















	




	



	


	

	
	


		



	




	








	


	 
	
 





!
	

 	



 "
 
 
	
!
#  
	  


$%
&


 '	
	
	

()
	
   




*'+',-

. / . 0 1 2

 
$
%


)

%%
	3



 



2
	


,

%
"
)

Figure 26. Proposed visitor services for Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge 
 141



 



	






















 











  	












	






   

 !

"

 #


	







	



	






 !"

#
$

%


&'(
	

 

	$)
 *%+%  *%  

  

	

! , #-

.



Figure 27. Proposed visitor services for Hillside National Wildlife Refuge 
 142
 143

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

The goals and objectives outlined in Chapter IV addressed specific refuge management needs for 

habitat and species management, research and monitoring, land protection, cultural resources, visitor 

services, and administration on more than 90,000 acres of land in the Theodore Roosevelt NWR 

Complex. Habitat management will be tailored to meet priority species’ needs (waterfowl and other 

migratory birds), while meeting the needs of other fish and wildlife dependent upon refuge lands. 

Because the rate at which each refuge in the Complex achieves its full potential is dependent on the 

level of resources that are invested, wildlife populations that are locally, regionally, and nationally 

important may be delayed until staffing and funding are adequate to meet the identified needs. 

Proposed priority public use programs that will establish and expand opportunities for wildlifedependent public recreation cannot be implemented and accomplished without specialized staff and 

substantial funding increases. (Note: This plan does not constitute a commitment from Congress for 

staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.) 

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

The following proposed projects reflect high-priority needs identified by Service staff, the public, and 

the planning team members for habitat and species management, non-native invasive and 

nuisance species management and control, research and monitoring, land protection and 

conservation, cultural resources, visitor services, and administration. The projects are not 

ranked in priority order. Project plans may be revised as new data become available, funding and 

staffing levels fluctuate, and adaptive management strategies are implemented. 

Annual funding requests for new projects or personnel that are needed to implement the goals, 

objectives, and strategies outlined in this CCP will be included in the Refuge Operating Needs 

System (RONS), a national database which contains unfunded operational needs for each refuge. 

Projects for new equipment, road projects, required maintenance and other refuge management 

needs will be included in the Maintenance Management System (MMS) Database, a computerized 

database and management tool used for planning and budgeting maintenance, capital improvements, 

and equipment replacement. 

Substantial changes in habitat management may be needed over time, as new information becomes 

available and habitat conditions evolve. These changes will be included in CCP revisions. Stepdown plans (not included in this CCP) will be developed in conjunction with future Visitor Services 

Program Plans and Forest Management Plans, among others. 

HABITAT AND SPECIES MANAGEMENT 

The Complex provides a diversity of habitats for resident and migratory species, including moist-soil, 

wetland and aquatic sites, cropland, forestlands, and scrub/shrub habitats. Four refuges in the Complex 

were established primarily for migratory birds with an emphasis on waterfowl. However, Panther Swamp, 

Hillside, and Morgan Brake NWRs’ purposes include other fish and wildlife, recreation, and endangered 

species in their establishing legislation. With that in mind, the following projects for habitat and species 

management have been identified as high-priority needs for the Complex: 
 144

Project 1 - Cultivate partnerships with the COE, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), and others to identify and implement measures to resolve habitat issues associated 

with water management. 

• Yazoo NWR - work with the COE to ensure that the Swan Lake project (COE Steele Bayou 

project) functions as designed. 

• Yazoo NWR - work with the COE to minimize habitat impacts during the COE’s completion of 

the Swan Lake (COE Steele Bayou) project. 

• Yazoo NWR - work with the COE to raise the elevation of Weir E by one foot to ensure gravity 

flow of water into Swan Lake. 

• Panther Swamp NWR - work with the COE to develop plans for lowering the weir at Landside 

Ditch above Cotton’s bridge to increase water velocity, thereby reducing siltation and issues 

associated with beaver dams in sloughs on the east side of Panther Swamp NWR. 

• Hillside NWR - work with the COE and NRCS to address siltation from upland sources. 

• Hillside NWR - work with the COE to resolve siltation and flooding issues associated with 

Tcheva Creek. 

• Morgan Brake NWR - work with NRCS to resolve the flooding issues associated with Chicopa 

Creek. 

• Work with private landowners, tribes, corporations, industry, and others through the Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife Program to restore wetlands, improve fisheries, and enhance habitat to 

resolve issues associated with water management. 

• Work with private landowners through the Mississippi Partners Program to provide water on 

private lands during the winter migration season. 

Project 2 - On Morgan Brake NWR divert a gravel road 200 feet away from the North Hill Ponds 

spring, and restore a 200-foot zone surrounding the spring by planting native shrubs. 

Morgan Brake NWR contains a coldwater spring adjacent to the North Hill Ponds that currently lies 

only 10 feet off the gravel road. Initial costs to re-route the road are estimated at $10,000 with 

recurring annual costs of $1,000 per year. 

Project 3 - Control beaver populations to ensure that no more than 5 percent of bottomland 

hardwood forests are converted to aquatic sites. 

Refuge lands in the Complex contain extensive wetland acreage with varying sources and duration of 

hydrology, from deepwater swamps to bottomland hardwood forests. Panther Swamp NWR contains 

the largest contiguous block (20,000 acres) of bottomland hardwoods in the Complex. However, 

beaver have constructed dams that hold water and kill trees. Although beaver ponds do provide 

good habitat for some waterfowl and aquatic species (wading birds, reptiles, amphibians), forest 

losses have been substantial. Beaver suppression is required on all refuges in the Complex. In 

addition to costs associated with employing biological science technicians and associated 

personnel to conduct the work, annual beaver suppression costs are estimated at $40,000.
 145

Project 4 - Provide and protect habitat for threatened and endangered species on Complex lands 

(i.e., interior least tern, bald eagle, pallid sturgeon, pondberry, and Louisiana black bear). 

Interior Least Tern: Interior least terns have historically bred and nested from late April to August on 

barren and sparsely vegetated sandbars, and sand and gravel pits along the Mississippi, Missouri, 

Ohio, Red, and Rio Grande Rivers. They feed in shallow waters on fish, insects, crustaceans, 

mollusks, and annelids (Whitman 1988). However, river channel alterations for navigation, 

hydropower, irrigation, and flood control have destroyed their nesting and breeding habitat. Many 

remaining sandbars are unsuitable for nesting due to vegetation encroachment or frequent flooding. 

In 1985, interior least terns were placed on the Endangered Species List in many states, including 

Mississippi, and the Fish and Wildlife Service developed the recovery plan in 1990. 

Small numbers of interior least terns forage in Swan Lake on Yazoo NWR in the summer. Interior 

least terns have been known to breed along the Mississippi River in Washington County in the vicinity 

of Yazoo NWR, and have been observed foraging at Yazoo and Morgan Brake NWRs by refuge staff. 

Since Yazoo NWR lies only 4 miles from the Mississippi River, efforts to provide habitat for interior 

least terns would be more likely to benefit the nearby Mississippi River populations. On Yazoo NWR, 

an opportunity exists to provide summer foraging habitat at the Cox Ponds moist soil areas, if a 

suitable forage species can be provided in the management scheme. 

Bald Eagles: Bald eagles are becoming more frequent sightings throughout the Complex and nesting 

has been documented in Lake Washington only 2 miles from Yazoo NWR. However, no nests have 

been identified on any of the refuges in the Complex. To encourage bald eagle nesting, superdominant trees will be protected at the edges of lakes and streams to provide nesting habitat. 

Pallid Sturgeon: Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) are bottom-feeding fish that prefer large, 

muddy rivers with rocky or sandy bottoms. They are known to occur in the Yazoo River, adjacent to 

Panther Swamp NWR, where they can be found in backwaters, side channels, sloughs, and in the 

main channel. Historically found throughout the Missouri River from Montana to the Mississippi River 

and south to Louisiana, virtually all of pallid sturgeon habitat has been altered by dams, reservoirs, 

and channelization projects. The Complex will protect pallid sturgeon and their habitat and minimize 

threats from existing and proposed activities. 

Pondberry: Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) is a deciduous shrub that grows to about 2 meters in 

height. Yellow flowers in early spring yield a fleshy, bright red drupe in fall. This endangered shrub 

grows in bottomland forests, poorly drained depressions, and in limestone sinks. Habitat loss is the 

primary threat to the continued existence of this species. Pondberry has been introduced in 

experimental populations on Yazoo NWR. The Complex will work with the Service’s Jackson, 

Mississippi, Ecological Services Office to identify natural pondberry colonies on Complex lands, 

protect the existing colonies that have been introduced as experimental populations, and provide 

suitable habitat for additional pondberry introductions. 

Louisiana Black Bear: The Louisiana black bear is a threatened species that historically occurred 

throughout the central and south part of Mississippi and was reportedly common in the southern portion of 

the LMRAV. Habitat loss through lands converted to agricultural fields and excessive harvest throughout 

its range has seriously reduced populations. The Complex will work with state bear restoration groups and 

others to help implement an education and training program, manage habitat on public and private lands 

to support the recovery of the Louisiana black bear, and participate in repatriation efforts at Panther 

Swamp NWR and other areas within the lower Mississippi Delta. In addition to personnel costs, 

habitat management and education/training costs are estimated at $35,000 annually. 
 146

Project 5 - Waterfowl: Provide a minimum of 4,500 acres of moist soil/shallow water habitat 

for waterfowl to support national and regional plans. 

In order to meet the 19.1 million duck-use-day minimum objective in national and regional plans, 

including the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, appropriate Complex lands will be 

managed to provide habitat, food resources, and sanctuary for ducks. Currently, the Complex 

manages 2,439 acres of moist soil. To expand moist-soil habitats for waterfowl, the Complex will 

increase moist-soil acreage by 2,066 acres within current acquisition boundaries. This would involve 

the development of site plans, construction of berms and levees, and water control structures in 

addition to increased management and maintenance to manipulate water levels. The moist-soil areas 

will encourage the growth of moist-soil plants for seed production and encourage invertebrates that 

will provide a food resource for a variety of wetland-dependent migratory birds. To manage 4,505 

acres of moist-soil/shallow-water habitat, initial costs are estimated at $250,000 with a 

recurring annual cost of $150,000.

Project 6 - Shorebirds: Provide a minimum of 435 acres of shallow-water habitat for fall 

shorebird migration. 

Shorebirds forage in mud flats and other moist-soil areas. Peak northbound migration occurs from 

March to mid-May. Existing habitat for northbound migration is considered adequate in the LMRAV. 

Southbound migration starts in early July, peaks August through September, and tapers off toward 

winter, usually lasting until at least the end of October. Severe shorebird habitat shortages occur 

when shallow-flooded or mudflat habitats are unavailable in late summer/fall. 

For Mississippi, a 1,500-acre habitat target that would support a tentative 500,000 LMRAV population 

objective has been established for southbound migration. This objective is based on conservative 

assumptions, and experts believe that the figure may be as much as twice that estimated. Because 

shorebird habitat is one of the highest non-game bird priorities for the Complex, existing shorebird 

management practices will be continued, and opportunities for improvement will be implemented. 

Costs to accomplish these habitat management strategies are estimated at $30,000 annually. 

Project 7 - Colonial Waterbirds: Provide habitat to support a minimum of five colonial 

waterbird rookeries on Complex lands. 

Deepwater wetland habitats on refuge lands in the Complex have supported several colonial 

waterbird rookeries for many years, including two rookeries on Yazoo NWR, a small rookery on the 

south side of Morgan Brake NWR, and a rookery on Hillside NWR. Foraging habitat for wading birds 

is present in wetlands throughout the Complex, but particularly in intensively managed moist-soil 

areas on Yazoo and Morgan Brake NWRs. Hundreds of wading birds gather to feed in the spring 

and summer, especially during drawdown phases. The Complex will continue to protect colonial 

waterbird rookeries or roosts and provide foraging habitat to support colonial waterbirds. In addition 

to staff time, costs are estimated at $5,000 for surveys and approximately $5,000 annually for 

potential easements.

Project 8 - Wood ducks: Provide brood habitat and nest sites to support 3,000 hatchling wood 

ducks each year on Complex lands. 

Today wood ducks are common LMRAV residents, due in part to the introduction of wood duck nest 

boxes in preferred habitats. Although wood ducks may seek cavities in trees within a mile of water, 

brood survival is higher where nests are closer to water. Preferred habitats include forested 

wetlands, wooded and shrub swamps, tree-lined rivers, streams, sloughs, and beaver ponds. Wood 
 147

ducks seek acorns, other soft and hard mast, weed seeds, and invertebrates in shallow flooded 

timber, shrub swamps, and along stream banks. They loaf and roost in more secluded areas 

and dense shrub swamps. 

Currently over 250 nest boxes are maintained and checked annually. Many studies have been 

conducted over the years on the Yazoo NWR wood duck nest box program. During most years the 

wood duck nest box program has been successful, with some nests used 3 and 4 times during the 

nesting season. The Complex will provide year-round habitat and maintain a minimum of 300 nest 

boxes throughout the Complex to enhance wood duck populations and maintain sufficient water 

levels for brood habitat from July through November. The proposed wood duck nest box program 

initial start-up costs for an expanded program are estimated at $25,000 with annual recurring 

costs of $40,000. This amount includes funding for a Biological Science Technician. 

Project 9 - Reptiles: Maintain a population of at least 700 alligators, and protect habitats for 

turtles, snakes, lizards, and crocodilians on Complex lands. 

The American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) was previously listed on the Endangered Species 

List due to over-harvest and habitat loss. Populations increased with legislated protection, and the 

alligator was removed from the list in 1987. No surveys have been conducted to identify the numbers 

of alligators on refuge lands. However, the Project Leader has gained knowledge of the numbers of 

alligators during his 24 years on the Complex and he estimates that approximately 700 alligators 

reside on refuge lands. Since the alligator can be considered a keystone species, the protection of 

habitat for alligators would also provide habitat for turtles, snakes, and lizards. The Complex will map 

the locations of alligator nesting sites, protect alligator nesting sites from disturbance, and manage 

water levels to support alligators on Complex lands. Initial start-up costs are estimated at $10,000 

with recurring annual costs of $5,000.

Project 10 - Amphibians: Maintain existing habitat and breeding sites to support resident 

amphibians on Complex lands. 

Identifying and conserving breeding sites for amphibians, especially salamander species, is vital for 

their reproductive success. Because salamanders are less mobile than frogs and toads, they are 

more likely to be impacted by losses in their breeding sites. To maintain and improve reptile and 

amphibian diversity, and to ensure that habitat is managed for all native species, breeding sites 

should be identified and conserved, especially for salamander species that are in decline. The 

Complex will map breeding sites for amphibian species, conserve breeding areas, and establish 

buffer zones to protect habitat from pesticide or silt contamination. Initial start-up costs are 

estimated at $10,000 with recurring annual costs of $5,000.

Project 11 - Fish: Maintain and/or enhance a minimum of 2,000 acres of deepwater aquatic 

habitat for viable fishery. 

Fish are an important component of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. Historically, the 

ecosystem supported a great diversity of fish adapted to the seasonal flooding of a large river. 

The inherent productivity of the fishery has changed, due to hydrological alterations that have 

isolated habitats outside the main river levees. The resultant habitat favors species of fish that 

are less adapted to riverine habitats with dynamic seasonal flooding regimes. Because it is not 

possible to reestablish or mimic the river’s influence on the majority of the Complex’s aquatic 

habitats, existing deepwater areas will be managed to provide a quality fishery that will likely be 

appropriate in many instances for public fishing. Initial start-up costs are estimated at $15,000 

with recurring annual costs of $5,000. 
 148

Project 12 - Provide agricultural grains for waterfowl and other wildlife 

 

“Farming has been an important management practice in the MAV since the first waterfowl refuges 

were established during the 1930s. Crop production provides the greatest yield of waterfowl food per 

unit area” (Reinecke et al., 1989). Cooperative farming, an arrangement where refuge land is 

provided to a farmer in exchange for a portion of the crop, has long been the most economical 

method for meeting refuge crop objectives. To support the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan, the minimum habitat objective for unharvested small grain crops is approximately 1,100 acres 

for the entire Complex. To meet waterfowl objectives, provide 2,860 acres of agricultural crops 

for ducks Complex wide: 1,100 acres for waterfowl; 1,200 acres for geese on Yazoo NWR; 

green browse to over-winter migratory Canada, white fronted, and snow geese; and 660 acres 

to compensate for the acres of grains lost to overpopulations of snow geese. 

Project 13 - Manage a minimum of 42,000 acres of mature forest for native resident and 

migratory species. 

Bottomland hardwood forests provide a complex of habitats, including temporarily and seasonally 

flooded bottomland hardwoods, and permanently and semi-permanently flooded shrub and wooded 

swamps. Forested wetlands provide food resources in the form of hard mast (such as acorns and 

other nuts), an important and vital component of wildlife food needs. Historically, mallards wintering 

in the MAV satisfied most of their habitat requirements in forested wetlands. A complex of natural 

habitats enabled mallards to feed on acorns and invertebrates in flooded forests or on seeds of moistsoil plants in beaver swamps and slough margins, to roost and court in more open marshes and 

sloughs, and to escape predation and social harassment in shrub swamps” (Reinecke et al., 1989). 

Additional staff will be needed to implement the current forest management plan and develop new 

plans to cover future management efforts. Two additional GS-7/9 foresters would be needed with 

a first year cost of $220,000 and a recurring annual cost of $150,000. 

Project 14 - Provide and maintain a minimum of 1,500 acres of scrub/shrub habitats for 

ground-nesting birds and migratory songbirds. 

Habitat management efforts will focus upon priority species that rely upon scrub/shrub habitats for 

breeding, foraging, nesting, and cover. Scrub/shrub habitat will be created with plantings and habitat 

manipulation (per Twedt recommendations.) After establishment, the habitat will be mowed, disked, 

and burned to maintain the necessary successional stage. Initial costs are estimated at $50,000 

with a recurring annual cost of $20,000.

 

Project 15 - Maintain existing and provide a minimum of 500 acres of new habitat for 

grasslands species 

Priority grassland species occupy refuge lands primarily during migration periods and winter, although 

a few species may breed in small numbers throughout the year. Newly reforested areas, levees, and 

converted agricultural lands constitute the majority of grassland habitats on the Complex. New 

grassland habitat will be established as agricultural acreage is reduced complexwide. Former 

agricultural lands will be planted to warm season native grasses. Habitat maintenance (e.g., mowing, 

burning, and disking) will be required on a regular basis to maintain grassland habitat. Initial costs 

are estimated at $20,000, with annual recurring costs of $20,000.
 149

Non-native and Native Invasive Species Control and Management and Pest and Nuisance Animal 

Control and Management 

Project 16 - Eradicate or control non-native or native invasive species, pest species, and 

nuisance animals. 

Numerous non-native invasive species are known to occur on refuge lands in the Complex. Some 

have caused damage to important wildlife habitats or species. Feral swine on Morgan Brake, 

Mathews Brake, Hillside, and Panther Swamp NWRs destroy habitat by rooting up vegetation and 

trees in forests and deplete acorn mast, a preferred food for waterfowl and other native species, and 

transmit diseases such as pseudorabies to other wildlife. Feral swine also destroy water control 

structure levees and crops. Yazoo, Hillside, and Morgan Brake NWRs have populations of nutria, 

armadillo, coyote, alligator weed, and kudzu that damage habitat for native species. Management 

efforts will emphasize the eradication of non-native and native invasive species, and the eradication 

and control of pest species and nuisance animals on all Complex lands. Costs associated with this 

project include funding for herbicides, spray equipment, trapping equipment, and personnel to 

develop a plan and conduct the work. Start-up costs and staff for an invasive and nuisance 

animals eradication and control program are estimated at $250,000-300,000 with recurring 

annual costs of $200,000-250,000.

Research and Monitoring 

Project 17 - Expand Complex’s research and monitoring program to ensure that management 

decisions continue to be based upon sound science. 

To apply adaptive techniques to habitat management on refuge lands, specific survey, inventory, and 

monitoring protocols will be needed. This information will be used to refine approaches and 

determine how effectively the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations will include LMVJV, 

ecosystem team, and other appropriate partner participation. If monitoring and evaluation indicate 

undesirable effects for target and non-target species or communities, then alterations to the 

management projects will be made. Subsequently, the CCP will be revised. Specific monitoring and 

evaluation activities will be described in the step-down management plans (if needed). Because 

funding is limited, most research and monitoring would likely be conducted by visiting researchers 

and scientists. However, systematic surveys can identify the presence and distribution of priority 

wildlife species and provide baseline data to assist managers in habitat management practices. To 

gather this data, the Complex is proposing to add additional biological staff. Baseline data collection 

and studies will require additional staff and support from partnering federal and state agencies, 

conservation organizations, universities, and scientists. The estimated first-year cost of this 

project is $500,000 with a recurring cost of $300,000-400,000 per year. 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

A major objective of the CCP is to establish partnerships with local volunteers, landowners, private 

organizations, and state and federal natural resource agencies to accomplish mutual goals and objectives. 
 150

Project 18 - Provide technical and financial assistance for habitat restoration to private 

landowners and non-governmental conservation organizations through the Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program and the Mississippi Partners Program. 

Private lands are important components to the restoration and reestablishment of native habitats. 

Although the historically diverse fish and wildlife resources of pre-settlement America cannot be 

restored entirely, habitat restoration on private lands is important to the process. Objectives in 

national and regional plans such as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners-inFlight Plan, Mississippi River Alluvial Valley Bird Conservation Plan and Strategic Fisheries Plan will 

be emphasized. The Complex will seek projects focusing on cropland enhancements for wintering 

waterfowl and reforestation projects on at least 2,000 acres of private lands within the 9-county 

private lands program focus area. Additional staff would be needed to expand the existing private 

lands program. Start up costs for an expanded program would be $110,000 with recurring 

annual costs of $80,000.

Project 19 - Emphasize partnership efforts in the Conservation Partners Focus Area to restore 

habitat, place lands under conservation easements from willing participants, enroll land in the 

USDA Farm Bill conservation programs, or offer land for reforestation under the carbon 

sequestration initiative. 

Waterfowl habitat management is the primary purpose for four refuges. Therefore, efforts will focus 

on working with partners in the “Conservation Partners” Focus Area to provide migratory bird habitat. 

This emphasis will ensure that efforts address local, national, and regional plans through future 

partnerships. Initial costs are estimated at $110,000 with annual recurring costs of $70,000.

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Project 20 - Develop the Swan Lake Temple Mound Trail and Interpretive Site at Yazoo NWR. 

As required by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and others, it is the duty of each land 

management agency to identify, research, protect, and provide cultural interpretation for the public. 

To comply with historic preservation laws and regulations, the Swan Lake Temple Mound complex on 

Yazoo NWR would be developed for public interpretation. A foot path loop trail and footbridges would 

be constructed from parking areas to the Temple Mound. Interpretive kiosks would be placed at 

appropriation locations, and a rest/viewing area would be provided. Initial start-up costs to develop 

trails, kiosks, and interpretive infrastructure are estimated at $80,000, with a recurring annual 

cost of approximately $10,000. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Public use activities (Appendix IV, Proposed Public Use Activities) to increase opportunities for 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation will be 

developed to add to the existing Complex hunting and fishing opportunities. Existing hunting and 

fishing programs will be enhanced to expand opportunities. 
 151

Project 21 - Enhance hunting and fishing programs. 

The Complex's hunt program is designed to optimize the number of deer taken while maintaining a 

percentage of older bucks (5 to 10 percent) in the trophy class, to attract enough hunters to reduce 

the herd by 33 percent. Hunting is also offered for ducks and other small game, from populations of 

animals capable of sustaining harvest, including ducks, rabbit, squirrel, raccoon, possum, and quail. 

Fishing is available on Morgan Brake, Panther Swamp, and Mathews Brake NWRs. Opportunities to 

offer quality fishing will be pursued and areas designated as open to fishing will be situated to 

minimize disturbance to migratory birds. 

Improvements are planned to accommodate the increasing demand from hunters to purchase 

permits, gain access to refuge lands, acquire information, comply with hunting regulations, and 

provide opportunities for physically challenged hunters. The Complex will construct kiosks, hunting 

blinds, fishing piers, boat ramps, and expand hunting opportunities. Start-up costs for these 

hunting and fishing opportunity improvements are estimated at $250,000-300,000 with annual 

recurring costs of $80,000. 

Project 22 - Construct Bear Paw Self Guided Nature Trail, an extension of the Holt Collier Trail 

at Yazoo NWR. 

This project would enhance the existing Holt Collier Boardwalk Trail and Observation Platform. A trail 

would be constructed from the existing Holt Collier boardwalk through the forest adjacent to Lizard 

Lake. Pamphlets with a layout of the trail and identifying information about trees, plants, and other 

features along the trail would be provided at a kiosk at the trail head. Initial start-up costs are 

estimated at $50,000 with a recurring annual cost of $15,000.

Project 23 - Improve existing roads to develop the Theodore Roosevelt Wildlife Drive, Yazoo NWR. 

This project would provide wildlife observation opportunities for those who prefer to see wildlife and 

natural settings from an air-conditioned or heated vehicle. The Theodore Roosevelt Wildlife Drive, 

including parking areas, would provide views of Swan Lake’s mature bald cypress trees, large 

alligator populations, and native swamp species. The tour would also include small parking areas 

and an observation platform in Pryor Lake (formerly Pryor Impoundment) to view wildlife. The tour 

would then continue past the Cox Ponds for a view of shorebirds, wading birds, and raptors. Initial 

start-up costs are estimated at $500,000 with recurring annual costs of $50,000.

Project 24 - Carbon Sequestration Forest Demonstration Area, Yazoo NWR. 

This project would provide visitors with an opportunity to learn how forests function in carbon 

sequestration and would contain a self-guided trail through trees planted under the carbon sequestration 

initiative to capture carbon. Several stages of forest succession would be interpreted with informational 

kiosks at appropriate locations along a self guided trail, and numerous trees would be identified. Initial 

start-up costs are estimated at $20,000 with recurring annual costs of $5,000.
 152

Project 25 - Construct an informational kiosk at Live Oak Mound, Yazoo NWR. 

A live oak tree (about 150 years old) grows on a small rounded mound at Yazoo NWR. 

Archaeological investigations have not revealed any evidence that the mound was constructed by the 

prehistoric mound-building Native Americans that lived in the region. Live Oak trees are not native to 

this area, so it is likely that the tree was planted by European settlers. Many visitors have inquired 

about this interesting sight, and an informational kiosk is planned to provide answers to most 

frequently asked questions. Initial start up costs are estimated at $20,000 with recurring annual 

costs of $2,000.

Project 26 - Develop the infrastructure for Anhinga Swamp Canoe Trail and Rookery Lookout 

Platform at Yazoo NWR. 

On Yazoo NWR, Swan Lake is an ancient oxbow lake of the Mississippi River that is presently a 

baldcypress shallow swamp. The portion of the lake bounded on the north by the Yazoo Refuge 

Road bridge (Long Dump) and on the south by Dike #4 is known as Anhinga Swamp. This area 

offers extraordinary views of towering bald cypress trees and a rookery supporting numerous species 

of waterbirds. Planning is underway to develop a canoe trail through the Anhinga Swamp to an 

observation platform situated to view rookery activities. A boat launch area and parking lot, improved 

road access, and canoe trails throughout the swamp are planned. Outreach materials to assist 

visitors would include an interpretive brochure and map and trailhead kiosks. Initial start-up costs 

are estimated at $80,000 with recurring annual costs of $8,000.

 

Project 27 - Plan and construct Yankee Run, a self-guided Nature Trail at Yazoo NWR. 

One refuge in the Complex is named in honor of Holt Collier, a legendary African-American born a 

slave in 1846 who fought with the Confederate Army against the Union Army. The Yankee Run 

Nature Trail would be a self-guided trail throughout the forest and swamp, named in honor of one of 

the legends about Holt Collier. Informational kiosks would be constructed at the trail head, with trail 

maps and a story of the Holt Collier Yankee tale. Initial start-up costs are estimated at $30,000 

with annual recurring costs of $9,000.

Project 28 - Construct the Beargarden Lake Trail and Lookout at Yazoo NWR. 

To provide visitors with a view of rookery inhabitants and other wildlife in Beargarden Lake (formerly 

the Cope Impoundment) on Beargarden Road, parking facilities, a footpath, informational kiosk, and 

an observation platform would be constructed. Initial start-up costs are estimated at $70,000 with 

recurring annual costs of $10,000.

Project 29 - Construct the Alligator Alley Environmental Education Kiosk at Yazoo NWR. 

On Yazoo Refuge Road next to the Complex’s current Headquarters Office, approximately five adult 

alligators inhabit a pond constructed for wildlife use. They can often be seen on sunny days, basking 

on logs or floating motionless in the water. This area is located on the primary road through the 

refuge and is one of the most popular sights. To enhance the wildlife observation experience and 

educate visitors about alligators, an environmental education kiosk would be constructed adjacent to 

the pond. The kiosk would provide information about alligators, their breeding requirements, life 

span, preferred foods, and other facts. The kiosk would also contain a solar powered audio tape of 

alligator courtship sounds such as bellowing, slapping their heads on the water, and rumbling. Initial 

start-up costs are estimated at $40,000 with recurring annual costs of $5,000. 
 153

Project 30 - Develop Morgan Brake Bluff Trail on Morgan Brake NWR. 

The loess bluff habitat on Morgan Brake NWR contains a rare assortment of trees, shrubs, and 

herbaceous vegetation that does not occur in the Delta. To provide opportunities for visitors to view 

these unusual plants in a unique geographical setting, a hiking trail will be constructed along the bluff. 

The trail would include steps and walkways where necessary in areas of steep terrain, and a 

brochure would be developed to allow for interpretation at several stations along the trail. Initial 

start-up costs are estimated at $80,000 with recurring annual costs of $20,000.

Project 31 - Develop Auto Wildlife Tour on Morgan Brake NWR. 

This project would provide wildlife observation opportunities for those who prefer to see wildlife and 

natural settings from a vehicle. The Commander Brake Wildlife Drive, including parking areas, would 

provide views of mature bald cypress trees, water birds, alligators, and other native species. The tour 

would also include a pull-off to allow visitors to access an observation platform on Blockaway Road to 

view migratory waterfowl and other wildlife. The tour would then continue past the moist-soil units for 

a view of shorebirds, wading birds, and raptors. Initial start-up costs are estimated at $250,000 

with recurring annual costs of $40,000.

Project 32 - Develop Panther Creek Wildlife Drive on Panther Swamp NWR. 

This project would provide wildlife observation opportunities for those who prefer to see wildlife and 

natural settings from a vehicle. The Panther Creek Wildlife Drive, including parking areas, would provide 

views of mature bottomland hardwoods, reforested areas, and wetlands. The tour would also include a 

small parking area to allow visitors to access an observation platform in the Wood Duck Roost Lake to 

view waterfowl and other wildlife. The tour would cross Panther Creek where visitors could fish. Initial 

start-up costs are estimated at $400,000 with recurring annual costs of $50,000.

Project 33 - Develop Panther Swamp NWR Observation Tower in Lower Twist. 

To provide visitors with a view of waterfowl and other wildlife in a mixed moist soil/agricultural habitat in the 

Lower Twist area, parking facilities, a footpath, informational kiosk, and an observation platform would be 

constructed. Initial start-up costs are estimated at $70,000 with recurring annual costs of $10,000.

Project 34 - Develop observation tower at Morgan Brake NWR. 

To provide visitors with a view of moist-soil/shallow-water habitats, shorebirds, waterfowl, and rookery 

inhabitants, parking facilities, an informational kiosk, and an observation platform would be constructed. 

Initial start-up costs are estimated at $50,000 with recurring annual costs of $7,000.

Project 35 - Improve public access to information by developing and maintaining up-to-date 

websites for the Complex and each individual refuge. (This project would require the 

installation of a new satellite system at Morgan Brake and Panther Swamp NWRs to replace 

the antiquated telephone dial-up system now in use.) 

No website currently exists for the Complex and the existing websites for the individual refuges 

contain a simple Fact Sheet. The Complex can more effectively reach the public and advance 

environmental education goals with upgraded, interactive web pages. In addition to the narrative, the 

web sites would contain several color photos. Initial start-up costs are estimated at $20,000 with 

recurring annual costs of $10,000. 
 154

Project 36 - Provide adequate protection for refuge resources, Federal trust species, 

personnel, and the visiting public. 

The Complex hosts more than 100,000 visitors annually for hunting, fishing, and wildlife-dependent 

recreation. Visitation is expected to increase as public use activities for wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation are added or expanded. Additional LE 

personnel are needed to: 

• Protect hunters and other visitors from vandalism, burglary, and assault; 

• Ensure that refuge regulations are followed; 

• Rescue lost hunters and aid stranded visitors; and 

• Protect refuge properties, equipment, cultural and natural resources, and infrastructure. 

Four additional LE personnel are needed to provide a minimum level of resource and visitor 

protection needs. Initial start-up costs are estimated at $400,000-500,000 with recurring annual 

costs of $250,000-300,000. 

Project 37 - Employ specialized staff to plan and implement public use activities. 

Public use activities planned for refuges in the Complex are dependent upon the availability of 

personnel with experience and training in public outreach. To introduce new public use activities and 

expand existing activities, Park Rangers (Interpretive), Maintenance Staff, Law Enforcement 

personnel, and a Complex Outdoor Recreation Planner are needed. Efforts will also target the 

establishment of a Friends group and volunteer recruitment program to conduct public use activities, 

interact with visitors, develop and maintain public use facilities, and greet and orient visitors. FTEs to 

accomplish these activities are outlined in “Administration” below.

ADMINISTRATION 

This draft plan outlines proposed projects that would exceed budget allocations. Therefore, CCP 

implementation will require increased funding and personnel from internal and external sources. New 

projects are identified in RONS, while maintenance needs for existing facilities and projects are 

identified through MMS. 

Project 38 - Increase FTEs from 19 to 61.5 to manage refuge lands, conduct research and 

monitoring, manage refuge personnel, and plan and implement public use activities. 

Implementing the vision set forth in this CCP will require changes in the organizational structure of the 

Complex and each of the refuges. The organizational tables identify additional positions and the 

intended structure of the Complex. 

Project 39 - Construct a Visitor’s Center and Headquarters Facility for Theodore Roosevelt 

NWR Complex. 

An immediate need exists to construct a new facility at Yazoo NWR to function as a Headquarters 

Office for the Complex where personnel would meet and greet the public and provide for their wildlife 

dependent recreation and other requests. The current Headquarters Office is 46 years old 

(constructed in 1958) and is functionally outdated. The Headquarters Office provides only one 

restroom for both male and female employees, and the sink in the bathroom provides the only 

running water in the office. The bathroom is not ADA accessible due to narrow doorways and 
 155

cramped space inside the bathroom. The heating system is a propane-gas-based furnace that is 

outdated. The building lacks storage for basic office needs. Because the front door of the office is 

located on the back of the building, facing away from the highway, the office does not provide a 

favorable appearance to the visiting public. The new facility would be located at the intersection of 

Beargarden Road and Yazoo Refuge Road, and would contain an educational visitor resources 

center with reception area, display room, public restrooms, employee restrooms, conference center, 

songbird viewing and feeding atrium, office space, educational auditorium, and other resources to 

enhance public use of the refuges in TR NWR Complex. Initial start-up costs are estimated at $3 

M with recurring annual costs of $50,000.

Project 40 – Meet current and expand the ability to meet growing maintenance needs. 

With over 90,000 acres of refuge lands scattered throughout central Mississippi, the maintenance 

staff is challenged to adequately provide for existing needs. To adequately maintain existing needs 

and develop future infrastructure for public use activities and habitat management, and to comply with 

SAMMS Database requirements, additional staff, equipment, office space, and funding is needed. 

Additional funding and personnel would be used to construct new roads and trails, maintain existing 

roads and trails, develop and maintain observation platforms, maintain water control structures, 

levees and refuge facilities, maintain equipment and vehicles, input and manage information in 

SAMMS, and other refuge maintenance needs. In addition to personnel costs annual 

maintenance needs are estimated at $250,000 annually.

Project 41 - Improve fire suppression and prescribed burning capabilities. 

Provide necessary training and equipment to personnel involved in fire suppression and 

presuppression activities. Provide personnel to address wildfires and prescribed burn activities on 

the Complex. Conduct prescribed burn treatments for habitat management and enhancement. 

Annual costs are estimated at $15,000.

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

Implementation of this plan will require increased funding and personnel support that will come from a 

variety of internal and external sources. New projects are identified in RONS, while maintenance 

needs for existing facilities and projects are identified through MMS. This draft plan outlines 

proposed projects that are substantially above current budget allocations. The plan does not 

constitute a commitment (from Congress) for staffing increases, operational and maintenance 

increases, or funding for future land acquisition, but represents wildlife resource needs based on 

sound biological science and input from the public. 

According to predictions based on the RONS database, the refuge staff will need to increase from a 

total of 19 in Fiscal year 2004 to a total of 31 by 2011 (Table 17). This increase in staff will also 

necessitate an increase in base funding above standard yearly increases that allow only for inflation. 

Implementing the vision set forth in this CCP will require changes in the organizational structure of the 

Complex and each of the refuges. Existing staff will direct their time and energy in new directions and 

new staff members will be added to assist these efforts. The following tables and organizational chart 

identify the additional positions and future structure of the Complex. 
156

Table 17. Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex Proposed Staffing Chart. Existing staff are depicted with a “*” 

Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex 

*Refuge Complex Manager (GS-14) 

*Deputy Project Leader (GS-13)

Hillside National Wildlife Refuge

Refuge Operations Specialist (GS-9) 

Wildlife Biologist (GS-9) 

Park Ranger (LE), GS-7 

Outdoor Rec Specialist (GS-9) 

*Biological Technician (GS-7) 

Biological Technician (GS-7) Biological Technician (GS-5) 

*Equipment Operator (WG-8), currently not 

funded 

Complex Headquarters 

*Complex Forester (GS-11, Upgrade To 12) 

Forestry Tech (GS-7) 

*Administrative Officer (GS-9) 

*Office Clerk (GS5) 

Secy/Receptionist (GS-5) 

*Complex Wildlife Biologist (GS-11/12) 

Outdoor Recreational Planner (GS-11/12) 

*Lead Park Ranger (Le), (GS-9) 

GIS/It Specialist (GS-9/11) 

Refuge Planner (GS-11/12) 

*Private Lands Biologist (GS-11) 

ROS (Safety/Samms) (GS-9) 

Park Ranger (Interpretive), (GS-7

Panther Sw

*Refuge Manager (GS

Office Cle

Office Clerk, s

Refuge OperationRefuge Operation

Foreste

Wildlife Bio

*Biological Tec

Park Range

Park Ranger (LE

Biological Technic

Biological Tec

*Equipment Op

Maintenance W

Equipment Op

Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge

(2) Refuge Operations Specialists (GS-11/12) 

Outdoor Rec Planner (GS-9) 

Wildlife Biologist (GS-9) 

(2) Park Ranger (LE) (GS-7) Seasonal 

Park Ranger (LE) (GS-5/7) FT 

Biological Technician (GS-7 

Maintenance Worker (WG-6) 

*Automotive Worker (WG-8) 

*2 Equipment Operators (WG-8) 

Forester (GS-9) 

Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge

*Refuge Manager (GS-11, upgrade to GS-12) 

(2) Refuge Operations Specialists (GS-9) 

Park Ranger (Interpretive) (GS-7/9) 

Park Ranger (LE) GS-9 

Secy/Receptionist (GS-5) 

*Biological Technician (GS-7) 

(2) Biological Technician (GS-7) 

Equipment Operator (WG-8) 

Mathews Brake Nat

Refuge Operation

Biological Tec

Park Ranger (LE) 
 157

STEP DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

A comprehensive conservation plan is a strategic plan that guides the management direction of the 

Complex. Implementation of this plan will require strategies detailed in step-down management 

plans. Current refuge plans need to be updated. New plans will be developed as needed (Table 18). 

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES 

A major objective of this comprehensive conservation plan is to establish partnerships with local 

volunteers, landowners, private organizations and state and federal natural resource agencies. In the 

immediate vicinity of the refuge, opportunities exist to establish partnerships with sporting clubs, 

elementary and secondary schools, and community organizations. At regional and state levels, 

partnerships might be established with organizations such as the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, 

Fisheries, and Parks, Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society, National Wild 

Turkey Federation, and Mississippi Wildlife Federation, Wildlife Mississippi, and Delta Wildlife. 

The refuge volunteer program and other partnerships generated will depend upon the number of staff 

positions the Service provides the refuge. As staff and resources are committed to the refuge, 

opportunities to expand the volunteer program and develop partnerships will be enhanced. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term management of biotic resources that is directed 

over time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities and other information. More specifically, adaptive 

management is a process by which projects are implemented within a framework of scientifically driven 

experiments to test the predictions and assumptions outlined within a plan. 

To apply adaptive management, specific survey, inventory, and monitoring protocols will be adopted 

for the Complex. The habitat management strategies will be systematically evaluated to determine 

management effects on wildlife populations. This information will be used to refine approaches and 

determine how effectively the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations will include LMVJV, 

ecosystem team, and other appropriate partner participation. If monitoring and evaluation indicate 

undesirable effects for target and non-target species and/or communities, then alterations to the 

management projects will be made. Subsequently, the CCP will be revised. 

Specific monitoring and evaluation activities will be described in the step-down management plans. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

This CCP will be reviewed annually to determine the need for revision. A revision would occur if and when 

significant information becomes available, such as a change in ecological conditions or a major Complex 

expansion. The final plan would be augmented by detailed step-down management plans to address the 

completion of specific strategies in support of the refuge’s goals and objectives. Revisions to the CCP and 

the step-down management plans would be subject to public review and NEPA compliance. 
 158

Table 18. Proposed schedule for step-down management plans 

Plan Date Completed/ 

Updated Update/Develop By

Endangered Species 2007 

Wildlife Management Plans

Waterfowl 2009 

Shorebird & Water Bird 2009 

Neo-tropical migrant/Birds of concern 1992 2009 

Resident Game Species 2009 

Non-game Species 2006 

Fisheries 1989 2009 

Wildlife Inventory 1985 2005 

Integrated Pest Management Plans 1997 2006 

Invasive Species Management Plan 2006 

Habitat Management Plans

Moist Soil/Water 2009 

Forest Habitat 1995 2006 

Grassland 2005 

Cropland 2009 

Fire Management 2001 2006 

Visitor Services Plans

Hunting and Trapping 1991 2006 

Fishing 1992 2007 

Wildlife Observation, Environmental 

Education & Interpretation, Photography 

2001 2007 

All Terrain Vehicle Use 1986 2005 

Sign 1985 2005 

Law Enforcement 2001 2005 

All Terrain Vehicle Use 1986 2005 
 159

SECTION B. APPENDICES 

Appendix I. Glossary 

Adaptive management A process in which projects are implemented within a 

framework of scientifically driven experiments to test 

predictions and assumptions outlined within the 

comprehensive conservation plan. The analysis of the 

outcome of project implementation helps managers 

determine whether current management should continue 

as is or whether it should be modified to achieve desired 

conditions. 

Alternative A reasonable way to fix the identified problem or satisfy 

the stated need (40 CFR 1500.2) [see also management 

alternative below]. 

Approved acquisition boundary A project boundary which the Director of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service approves upon completion of the 

detailed planning and environmental compliance 

process. 

Aquatic Growing in, living in, or dependent upon water. 

Biological integrity Composition, structure, and function at the genetic, 

organism, and community levels consistent with natural 

conditions, and the biological processes that shape 

genomes, organisms, and communities. 

Biological or natural diversity The abundance, variety, and genetic constitution of 

animals and plants in nature. Also referred to as 

“biodiversity.” 

Breeding habitat Habitat used by migratory birds or other animals during 

the breeding season. 

Buffer zones Protective land borders around critical habitats or water 

bodies that reduce runoff and nonpoint source pollution 

loading; areas created or sustained to lessen the 

negative effects of land development on animals and 

plants and their habitats. 

Candidate species Those species for which the Service has on file sufficient 

information on biological vulnerability and threats to 

propose them for listing. 
 160

Canopy A layer of foliage; generally the upper-most layer, in a 

forest stand. It can be used to refer to mid- or understory vegetation in multi-layered stands. Canopy colsure 

is an estimate of the amount of overhead tree cover (also 

canopy cover). 

Carrying capacity The size of the population that can be sustained by a 

given environment. 

Categorical Exclusion 

(CE, CX, CATEX, CATX) A category of actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 

environment and have been found to have no such effect 

in procedures adopted by a Federal agency pursuant to 

the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4). 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations. 

Challenge Cost-Share Program A grant program administered by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service providing matching funds for projects supporting 

natural resource education, management, restoration 

and protection on Service lands, other public lands and 

on private lands. 

Community The area or locality in which a group of people resides 

and shares the same government. 

Community type A particular assemblage of plants and animals, named 

for the characteristic plants. 

Compatible use An allowed use that will not materially interfere with, or 

detract from, the purposes for which the unit was 

established (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4). 

Compatibility determination A compatibility determination is required for a wildlifedependant recreational use or any other public use of a 

refuge. A compatible use is one which, in the sound 

professional judgment of the Refuge Manager, will not 

materially interfere with or detract from fulfillment of the 

Refuge System Mission or refuge purpose(s) 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) A document that describes the desired future conditions 

of a refuge or planning unit and provides long-range 

guidance and management direction to achieve the 

purposes of the refuge, help fulfill the mission of the 

System, maintain and, where appropriate, restore the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of 

each refuge and the System, and meet other mandates. 
 161

Conservation The management of natural resources to prevent loss or 

waste. Management actions may include preservation, 

restoration, and enhancement. 

Conservation agreements Written agreements reached among two or more parties 

for the purpose of ensuring the survival and welfare of 

unlisted species of fish and wildlife and/or their habitats, 

or to achieve other specified conservation goals. 

Participants voluntarily commit to implementing specific 

actions that will remove or reduce the threats to these 

species. 

Conservation easement A legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust 

(a private, nonprofit conservation organization) or 

government agency that permanently limits a property's 

uses in order to protect its conservation values. A 

perpetual conservation easement usually grants 

conservation and management rights to a party in 

perpetuity. 

Cooperative agreement The legal instrument used when the principal purpose of 

the transaction is the transfer of money, property, 

services or anything of value to a recipient in order to 

accomplish a public purpose authorized by Federal 

statute and substantial involvement between the Service 

and the recipient is anticipated. 

Cover type The present vegetation of an area. 

Cultural resources Evidence of historic or prehistoric human activity, such 

as buildings, artifacts, archaeological sites, documents, 

or oral or written history. 

Cultural resource inventory A professionally conducted study designed to locate and 

evaluate evidence of cultural resources present within a 

defined geographic area. Inventories may involve various 

levels, including background literature search, 

comprehensive field examination to identify all exposed 

physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample 

inventory to project site distribution and density over a 

larger area. Evaluation of identified cultural resources to 

determine eligibility for the National Register follows the 

criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 (Service Manual 614 FW 1.7). 
 162

Cultural resource overview A comprehensive document prepared for a field office that 

discusses, among other things, its prehistory and cultural 

history, the nature and extent of known cultural resources, 

previous research, management objectives, resource 

management conflicts or issues, and a general statement 

on how program objectives should be met and conflicts 

resolved. An overview should reference or incorporate 

information form a field offices background or literature 

search described in Section VIII. of the Cultural Resource 

Management Handbook (Service Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Cypress and tupelo swamp Found in low-lying areas-swales and open ponds-that 

hold water several months, if not all of the year. 

Deciduous Pertaining to perennial plants that are leafless for 

sometime during the year. 

Digitizing The process of converting information from paper maps 

into geographically referenced electronic files for a 

geographic information system (GIS). 

Easement An agreement by which a landowner gives up or sells 

one of the rights on his/her property. For example, a 

landowner may donate a right of way across his/her 

property to allow community members access. 

Ecological succession The orderly progression of an area through time in the 

absence of disturbance from one vegetative community 

to another. 

Ecosystem A biological community together with its environment, 

functioning as a unit. For administrative purposes, the 

Service has designated 53 ecosystems covering the 

United States and its possessions. These ecosystems 

generally correspond with watershed boundaries and 

vary in their sizes and ecological complexity. 

Ecotourism A type of tourism that maintains and preserves natural 

resources as a basis for promoting economic growth and 

development resulting from visitation to an area. 

Ecosystem approach A way of looking at socio-economic and environmental 

information based on ecosystem boundaries, rather than 

town, city, or county boundaries. 

Ecosystem-based management An approach to making decisions based on the 

characteristics of the ecosystem in which a person or 

thing belongs. This concept takes into consideration 

interactions between the plants, animals, and physical 

characteristics of the environment when making 

decisions about land use or living resource issues. 
 163

Ecosystem services The benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly, 

from ecosystem functions (e.g., gas regulation, disturbance 

regulation, soil formation, pollination, raw materials). 

Emergent wetland Wetlands dominated by erect, rooted, herbaceous plants. 

Endangered species A federally protected species which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

Endemic species Plants or animals that occur naturally in a certain region and 

whose distribution is relatively limited to a particular locality. 

Environmental education Education aimed at producing a citizenry that is 

knowledgeable concerning the biophysical environment 

and its associated problems, aware of how to help solve 

these problems, and motivated to work toward their 

solution (Stapp et al., 1969). 

Environmental Assessment (EA) A concise public document, prepared in compliance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly 

discusses the purpose and need for an action, 

alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient 

evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether 

to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding 

of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) A detailed written statement required by section 

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, 

analyzing the environmental impacts of a proposed 

action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be 

avoided, alternative courses of action, short-tern uses of 

the environment versus the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity, and any 

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources 

(40 CFR 1508.11). 

Even-aged forest Forest that are composed of trees with a time span of 

less than 20 years between oldest and youngest 

individuals. 

Extirpated No longer occurring in a given geographic area. 

Fauna All the vertebrae or invertebrate animals of an area. 

Federal land Public land owned by the Federal government, including 

lands such as National Forests, National Parks and 

National Wildlife Refuges. 
 164

Federal trust species All species where the Federal Government has primary 

jurisdiction including federally threatened or endangered 

species, migratory birds, anadromous fish, and certain 

marine mammals. 

Federally listed species A species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended, either as endangered, threatened or 

species at risk (formerly candidate species). 

Fee title The acquisition of most or all of the rights to a tract of land. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) A document prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, supported by an 

environmental assessment, that briefly presents why a 

Federal action will have no significant effect on the 

human environment and for which an environmental 

impact statement, therefore, will not be prepared 

(40 CFR 1508.13). 

Forested land Land dominated by trees. For the purposes of the 

impacts analysis in this document, all forested land was 

assumed to have the potential to be occasionally 

harvested, and forested land owned by timber 

companies was assumed to be harvested on a more 

intensive, regular schedule. 

Fragmentation The process of reducing the size and connectivity of 

habitat patches. The disruption of extensive habitats into 

isolated and small patches. 

Geographic information system (GIS) A computerized system used to compile, store, analyze 

and display geographically referenced information. Can 

be used to overlay information layers containing the 

distributions of a variety of biological and physical 

features. 

Goal Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of 

desired future conditions that conveys a purpose but 

does not define measurable units. 

Grant agreement The legal instrument used when the principal purpose of 

the transaction is the transfer of money, property, services 

or anything of value to a recipient in order to accomplish a 

public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by 

Federal statute and substantial involvement between the 

Service and the recipient is not anticipated. 

Grassroots conservation organization Any group of concerned citizens who come together to 

actively address a conservation need. 
 165

Ground story Vascular plants less than one meter in height, excluding 

tree seedlings. 

Habitat The place where a particular type of plant or animal lives. 

An organism's habitat must provide all of the basic 

requirements for life and should be free of harmful 

contaminants. 

Habitat conservation The protection of an animal or plant's habitat to ensure 

that the use of that habitat by the animal or plant is not 

altered or reduced. 

Habitat fragmentation Breaking up of a specific habitat into smaller 

unconnected areas. A habitat area that is too small may 

not provide enough space to maintain a breeding 

population of the species in question. 

Herbaceous wetland Annually or seasonally inundated area with vegetation 

consisting primarily of grasses, sedges, rushes and cattail. 

Historic conditions These are the composition, structure, and functioning 

of ecosystems resulting from natural processes that 

we believe, based on sound professional judgment, 

were present prior to substantial human related 

changes to the landscape. 

Indicator species A species of plant or animal that is assumed to be 

sensitive to habitat changes and represents the needs of 

a larger group of species. 

In-holding Privately owned land inside the boundary of a national 

wildlife refuge. 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Sustainable approach to managing pests by combining 

biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way 

that minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks. 

Interjurisdictional fish Populations of fish that are managed by two or more 

states or national or tribal governments because of the 

scope of their geographic distributions or migrations. 

Interpretive facilities Structures that provides information about an event, 

place or thing by a variety of means including printed 

materials, audiovisuals or multimedia materials. 

Examples of these would be kiosks which offer printed 

materials and audiovisuals, signs and trailheads. 

Invasive exotic species Non-native species which have been introduced into an 

ecosystem, and, because of their aggressive growth habits 

and lack of natural predators, displace native species. 
 166

Issue Any unsettled matter that requires a management 

decision; e.g., a Service initiative, an opportunity, a 

management problem, a threat to the resources of the 

unit, a conflict in uses, a public concerns, or the 

presence of an undesirable resource condition. Issues 

should be documented, described, and analyzed in the 

CCP even if resolution cannot be accomplished during 

the planning process (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4). See 

also: key issue. 

Long-term protection Mechanisms such as fee title acquisition, conservation 

easements or binding agreements with landowners that 

ensure land use and land management practices will 

remain compatible with maintenance of the species 

population at the site. 

Management alternative A set of objectives and the strategies needed to 

accomplish each objective (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4). 

Management plan A plan that guides future land management practices on 

a tract of land. In the context of this environmental 

impact statement, management plans would be designed 

to produce additional wildlife habitat along with the 

primary products, such as timber or agricultural crops. 

See cooperative agreement. 

Management strategy A general approach to meet unit objectives. A strategy 

may be broad, or it may be detailed enough to guide 

implementation through specific actions, tasks, and 

projects (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4). 

Migratory The seasonal movement from one area to another 

and back. 

Migratory game birds Birds regulated under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and 

state laws, that are legally hunted, includes ducks, 

geese, woodcock, rails. 

Mission statement Succinct statement of the unit's purpose and reason for 

being (Region 7 Planning Staff). 

Mitigation Actions taken to compensate for the negative effects of 

a particular project. Wetland mitigation usually takes the 

form of restoration or enhancement of a previously 

damaged wetland or creation of a new wetland. 
 167

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine 

the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in 

the planning and implementation of all actions. Federal 

agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning 

requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA documents 

to facilitate better environmental decision making (from 

40 CFR 1500). 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Mission (mission) “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.” 

Native plant A plant that has grown in the region since the last 

glaciation and occurred before European settlement. 

Native species Species that normally live and thrive in a particular 

ecosystem. 

Neotropical migratory bird A bird species that breeds north of the United 

States/Mexican border and winters primarily south of that 

border. 

Non-consumptive, 

wildlife-oriented recreation Photographing or observing plants, fish and other 

wildlife. 

Non-point source pollution Nutrients or toxic substances that enter water from 

dispersed and uncontrolled sites. 

Non-forested wetlands Wetlands dominated by shrubs or emergent vegetation. 

Objective 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. Make objectives 

attainable, time-specific, and measurable. 

Old field An area that was formerly cultivated or grazed and 

where woody vegetation has begun to invade. If left 

undisturbed, it will eventually succeed into a forest. 
 168

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program A voluntary habitat restoration program undertaken by 

the Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with other 

governmental agencies, public and private organizations, 

and private landowners to improve and protect fish and 

wildlife habitat on private lands while leaving the land in 

private ownership. 

Partnership A contract or agreement entered into by two or more 

individuals, groups of individuals, organizations or 

agencies in which each agrees to furnish a part of the 

capital or some in–kind service, i.e., labor, for a mutually 

beneficial enterprise. 

Planning area A planning area may include lands outside existing 

planning unit boundaries that are being studied for 

inclusion in the unit and/or partnership planning efforts. 

It may also include watersheds or ecosystems that affect 

the planning area. 

Planning team A planning team prepares the comprehensive 

conservation plan. Planning teams are interdisciplinary 

in membership and function. A team generally consists 

of a planning team leader; refuge manager and staff 

biologist; staff specialists or other representatives of 

Service programs, ecosystems or regional offices; and 

state partnering wildlife agencies as appropriate. 

Population monitoring Assessments of the characteristics of populations to 

ascertain their status and establish trends related to their 

abundance, condition, distribution, or other 

characteristics. 

Preferred alternative This is the alternative determined by the decision maker 

to best achieve the refuge purpose, vision, and goals; 

contributes to the refuge system mission, addresses the 

identified issues; and is consistent with principles of 

sound fish and wildlife management. 

Prescribed fire The application of fire to wildland fuels to achieve 

identified land use objectives (Service Manual 621 FW 

1.7), either from natural or intentional ignition. 

Proposed Action Activities for which an Environmental Assessment is 

being written; the alternative containing the actions and 

strategies recommended by the planning team. The 

proposed action is, for all practical purposes, the draft 

CCP for the refuge. 
 169

Protection Mechanisms such as fee title acquisition, conservation 

easements or binding agreements with landowners that 

ensure land use and land management practices will 

remain compatible with maintenance of the species 

population at the site. 

Public land Land that is owned by the local, State, or Federal 

government. 

Purpose of the refuge The purpose of the refuge is specified in or derived from 

the law, proclamation, Executive Order, agreement, 

public land order, donation document, or administrative 

memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a 

refuge and refuge unit. 

Rare species Species identified in Appendix 3–6 as Species of Special 

Emphasis due to their uncommon occurrence within the 

watershed. 

Rare community types Plant community types classified as rare by any of the 

four state Natural Heritage Programs. As used in this 

environmental impact statement, is inclusive of the 

exemplary community types. The types are listed in 

Appendix 3-4. 

Record of Decision (ROD) A concise public record of decision prepared by the 

Federal agency, pursuant to NEPA, that contains a 

statement of the decision, identification of all alternatives 

considered, identification of the environmentally 

preferable alternative, a statement as to whether all 

practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm 

from the alternative selected have been adopted (and if 

not, why they were not), and a summary of monitoring 

and enforcement where applicable for any mitigation 

(CFR 1505.2). 

Refuge goals Descriptive, open-ended and often broad statements of 

desired future conditions that convey a purpose but do 

not define measurable units (Writing Refuge 

Management Goals and Objectives: A Handbook). 

Refuge purposes The purposes specified in or derived from the law, 

proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land 

order, donation document, or administrative 

memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a 

refuge, a refuge unit, or refuge subunit, and any 

subsequent modification of the original establishing 

authority for additional conservation purposes (Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.4). 
 170

Refuge lands Those lands in which the Service holds full interest in fee 

title, or partial interest such as easements. 

Refuge Operating Needs System 

(RONS) The Refuge Operating Needs System is a national 

database which contains the unfunded operational needs 

of each refuge. We include projects required to 

implement approved plans, and meet goals, objectives, 

and legal mandates. 

Restoration The artificial manipulation of a habitat to restore it to 

something close to its natural state. Involves taking a 

degraded grassland and re-establishing habitat for native 

plants and animals. Restoration usually involves the 

planting of native grasses and forbs, and may include 

shrub removal and prescribed burning. 

Seral forest A forest in the mature stage of development, usually 

dominated by large, old trees. 

Sink A habitat in which local mortality exceeds local 

reproductive success for a given species. 

Sink population A population in a low-quality habitat in which birth rate is 

generally less than the death rate and population density 

is maintained by immigrants from source populations. 

Source A habitat in which local reproductive success exceeds 

local mortality for a given species. 

Source population A population in a high-quality habitat in which birth rate 

greatly exceeds death rate and the excess individuals 

leave as migrants. 

Species of concern Species present in the watershed for whom the refuge 

has a special management interest. The following 

criteria were used to identify “species of concern”: 

 1. Federally listed as threatened or endangered; 

 2. Migratory bird, especially declining species, Neotropical 

 migrants, colonial waterbirds, shorebirds, or waterfowl; 

 3. Marine mammal; 

 4. Sea turtle; 

 5. Interjurisdictional fish; 

 6. State-listed as threatened, endangered, or special concern. 
 171

Step-down management plans Step-down management plans describe management 

strategies and implementation schedules. Step-down 

management plans are a series of plans dealing with 

specific management subjects (e.g., croplands, 

wilderness, and fire) (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4). 

Strategy A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of 

actions, tools, and techniques used to meet unit 

objectives. 

Threatened species A federally protected species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

Tributary A stream or river that flows into a larger stream, river or lake. 

Trust resource One that through law or administrative act is held in trust 

for the people by the government. A federal trust 

resource is one for which trust responsibility is given in 

part to the federal government through federal legislation 

or administrative act. Generally, federal trust resources 

are those considered to be of national or international 

importance no matter where they occur, such as 

endangered species and species such as migratory birds 

and fish that regularly move across state lines. In 

addition to species, trust resources include cultural 

resources protected through federal historic preservation 

laws, nationally important and threatened habitats, 

notably wetlands, navigable waters, and public lands 

such as state parks and national wildlife refuges. 

Understory Any vegetation with canopy below or closer to the 

ground than canopies of other plants. 

Unit objective Desired conditions which must be accomplished to 

realize a desired outcome. Objectives are the basis for 

determining management strategies, monitoring refuge 

accomplishments, and measuring the success of the 

strategies. Objectives should be attainable and timespecific and may be stated quantitatively or qualitatively 

(Service Manual 602 FW 1.4). 

Universally accessible A universally accessible recreation site is designed to 

accommodate people with physical disabilities. 

Interpretive materials at such a sight would be accessible 

to the visually impaired. 

Vision statement Concise statement of what the unit could be in the next 

10 to 15 years (Region 7 Planning Staff). 
 172

Visitor center A permanently staffed building offering exhibits and 

interpretive information to the visiting public. Some 

visitor centers are co-located with refuge offices, other 

include additional facilities such as classrooms or wildlife 

viewing areas. 

Watchable wildlife All wildlife is watchable. A watchable wildlife program is 

a strategy to help maintain viable populations of all 

native fish and wildlife species by building an effective, 

well-informed constituency for conservation. Watchable 

wildlife programs are tools by which wildlife conservation 

goals can be met while at the same time fulfilling public 

demand for wildlife recreational activities (other than 

sport hunting, trapping or sport fishing). 

Watershed The geographic area within which water drains into a 

particular river, stream or body of water. A watershed 

includes both the land and the body of water into 

which the land drains. 

Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service's definition of wetlands 

states that "Wetlands are lands transitional between 

terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is 

usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by 

shallow water." (Cowardin et al., 1979) 

Wilderness The legal definition is found in the Wilderness Act of 

1964 Section 2c (P.L. 88-577): “A wilderness, in 

contrast with those areas where man and his own 

works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized 

as an area where the earth and its community of life 

are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a 

visitor who does not remain.” This legal definition 

places wilderness on the “untrammeled” or “primeval” 

end of the environmental modification spectrum. 

Wilderness is roadless lands, legally classified as 

component areas of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System, and managed so as to protect its 

qualities of naturalness, solitude and opportunity for 

primitive types of recreation (Hendee 1990). 

Wilderness management Government and citizen activity to identify–within the 

constraints of the Wilderness Act–goals and objectives 

for classified wildernesses and the planning, 

implementation, and administration of policies and 

management actions to achieve them. Involves the 

application of guidelines and principles to achieve 

established goals and objectives, including management 

of human use and influences to preserve naturalness 

and solitude (Hendee 1990). 
 173

Wildlife corridor A landscape feature that facilitates the biologically 

effective transport of animals between larger patches of 

habitat dedicated to conservation functions. Such 

corridors may facilitate several kinds of traffic, including 

frequent foraging movement, seasonal migration, or the 

once in a lifetime dispersal of juvenile animals. These 

are transition habitats and need not contain all the 

habitat elements required by migrants for long-term 

survival or reproduction. 

Wildlife-dependent recreational use “A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, or environmental 

education and interpretation.” These are the six priority 

public uses of the System as established in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended. 

Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other than the six 

priority public uses, are those that depend on the 

presence of wildlife. We also will consider these other 

uses in the preparation of refuge CCPs, however, the six 

priority public uses always will take precedence. 
 174
 175

Appendix II. Bibliography 

Allen, J.A., B.D. Keeland, J.A. Stanturf, A.F. Clewell and H.E. Kennedy, Jr. 2001. A Guide to Bottomland 

Hardwood Restoration: U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Information and 

Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR-2000-0011, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station, General Technical Report SRS-40. 132 pp. 

Andrews, Lee. August 2002. Summary of Carbon Sequestration Efforts. Department of the Interior, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. 7 pp. 

Beccasio, A.D., A.E. Redfield, R.L. Frew, W.M. Levitan, and J.E.Smith. 1983. Lower Mississippi 

Valley ecological inventory user’s guide and information base. USFWS, Division of Biological 

Services. FWS/OBS-83-19. 84 pp. 

Belli, Keith L. C.P. Hart, J.D. Hodges, J.A. Stanturf. 1999. Assessment of the Regeneration 

Potential of Red Oaks and Ash on Minor Bottoms of Mississippi. Reprinted from the Southern 

Journal of Applied Forestry Volume 23, No. 3, pages 133-138. 

Bellrose, F. C. 1954. The value of waterfowl refuges in Illinois. Journal Wildlife Management 18:160-169. 

Black Bear Conservation Committee. 2003. Ecology and Management of the Louisiana Black Bear. 

Mississippi State University Extension Service, Mississippi State, MS. 13 pp. 

<http://msucares.com/pubs/publications/pub2193.htm> 

Blohm, R. J., R. E. Reynolds, J. P. Bladen, J. D. Nichols, J. E. Hines, K. H. Pollock, and R. T. 

Eberhardt. 1987. Mallard mortality rates on key breeding and wintering areas. Trans. N. Am. 

Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 52:246-257. 

Bourne, John. April 2001. Control of Beaver Damage. Alberta Agriculture, Canada. 8 pp. 

<http://www.agric.gov.al.ca/agdex/600/681-1.html> 

Braun, Clait. Shared History: How game bird management launched American bird conservation. Pp. 

6-7 in American Bird Conservancy Bird Conservation, Issue 16. 

Brinson, Ayeisha A. and D.E. Benson, Ph.D. 2002. Values and Attitudes of National Wildlife Refuge 

Managers and Biologists: Report to Respondents: Open File Report OF 02-459. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, For Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, CO. 19 pp. 

Brown, Cynthia R., C. Baxter, and D.N. Pashley. 2001. The Ecological Basis for the Conservation of 

Migratory Birds in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. The Nature Conservancy, Baton Rouge, LA; 

USFWS, Vicksburg, MS; American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, VA. 8 pp. 

<http://birds.cornell.edu/pifcapemay.brown.htm> 
 176

Brown, R.D., B. Higginbotham, and D. Steinbach. 1998. The impact of changing demographics on 

the future of deer hunting in America. P. 16 in The Twenty-First Annual Southeast Deer Study 

Group Meeting: Jekyll Island, GA. 68 pp. 

<http://www.wildflorida.org/sedsg/abstracts/ga6.htm> 

Brown, Stephen, Catherine Hickey and Brian Harrington, Editors. August 2000. United States Shorebird 

Conservation Plan. Manomet Center for conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. 60 pp. 

Caudill and Henderson, 2003. Banking of Nature. The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of 

National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, DC. September 2003. 

Central Mississippi Refuges Complex. 2002. Refuge Management Information System. Department 

of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Conservation Commission of Missouri. February 2002. Managing Wetlands: Moist-Soil Management 

(Seasonally Flooded Impoundments). Missouri Department of Conservation. 2 pp. 

<http://www.conservation.state.mo.us> 

 

Cordell, H. Ken, J. Teasley, G. Super. August 1997. A Report for USDA Forest Service: Outdoor 

Recreation in the United States: Results from the National Survey on Recreation and the 

Environment: All Forest Service Regions. Prepared by the Outdoor Recreation and 

Wilderness Assessment Group, USDA Forest Service, Athens, GA, and the Department of 

Agriculture and Applied Economics, University of Georgia. 4 pp. 

Council on Environmental Quality. 1986. CEQ Implementing Regulations: Regulations for 

Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. Reprint 40 

CFR Parts 1500-1508 (as of July 1, 1986). Executive Office of the President of the United 

States, Washington, D.C. 34 pp. 

DeLong, Anita K. April 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds - a literature review 

of impacts and mitigation measures - prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. 

Appendix L (114 pp.) In Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex final environmental 

impact statement for the comprehensive conservation plan and boundary revision (Vol. II). 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 

Division of Refuges. October 1995. 701 FW 2, Inventory and Monitoring of Populations: Population 

Management at Field Stations. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Division of Refuges. 6 pp. <http://policy.fws.gov/701fw2.html< 

Division of Refuges. June 2000. 602 FW 1 Refuge Planning Overview: FWM # 355 (Supersedes 

602 FW 1, 6/23/96, FWM 201). PDF Version. Series: Refuge Management: Part 602: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System 

Planning, Division of Refuges. 34 pp. 

Feret, M., G. Gauthier, A. Bechet, J. F. Giroux, and K. A. Hobson. 2003. Effect of a spring hunt on nutrient 

storage by greater snow geese in Southern Quebec. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:796-807. 

Field, Libby Y. and B.A. Engle. 2002. Best Management Practices for Soil Erosion. Agricultural and 

Biological Engineering Department, Purdue University. <http://agen521.www.ecn.purdue.edu> 
 177

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2003. FWC Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA) Information. State of Florida, FFWCC, Tallahassee, FL. 

<cindy.hoffman@fws.state.fl.us> 

Frederickson, Leigh H. and Donald L. Batema. Greentree Reservoir Management Handbook: Gaylord 

Memorial Laboratory Wetland Management Series: Number 1. Gaylord Memorial Laboratory, The 

School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri-Columbia, Puxico, MO. 88 pp. 

Fredrickson, L. H., and M. E. Heitmeyer. 1988. Waterfowl use of forested wetlands of the southern 

United States: an overview. Pages 307-323 in M. W. Weller, ed. Waterfowl in winter. Univ. 

Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 624pp. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and M.E. Heitmeyer. 1988. Waterfowl Use of Forested Wetlands of the Southern 

United States: An Overview. Pages 307-323 in M.W. Weller, editor. Waterfowl in Winter. 

University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. 

Gates, Robert J., D.F. Caithamer, W.E. Moritz and T.C. Tacha. January 2001. Wildlife Monographs 

(ISSN:0084-0173): A Publication of the Wildlife Society: Bioenergetics and Nutrition of 

Mississippi Valley Population Canada Geese During Winter and Migration: No. 146: 

Supplement to The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 65 No. 1, January 2001. 

Goetz, J.C.G. 1995. A Stocking Guide for Southern Bottomland Hardwoods. Southern Journal of 

Applied Forestry, Vol. 19, No. 3, August 1995, pages 103-104. 

Grado, Stephen C., R. M. Kaminski, I. A. Munn, and T. A. Tullos. 2001. Economic impacts of 

waterfowl hunting on public lands and at private lodges in the Mississippi Delta. Reprinted 

from Wildlife Society Bulletin Vol. 29, No. 3, Fall 2001: 846 - 855. 

Habitat Management for Migrating and Wintering Waterfowl in North America: Mississippi Alluvial 

Valley. 1989. K.J. Reinecke, R.M. Kaminski, D.J. Moorhead, J.D. Hodges, J.R. Nassar. 

Selected text, page 203, 230-31. Texas Tech University Press 

Hamel, P.B. 1992. The Land Manager’s Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy 

and the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Atlanta, GA. 

Hamel, Paul B., D.J. Twedt, T.J. Nuttle, C. A. Woodson, F. Broerman, and J.M. Wahome. 2002. 

Winter bird communities in afforestation: Should we speed up or slow down ecological 

succession? USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Stoneville, MS. 10 pp. 

<phamel@fs.fed.us> 

Harrison, Robert W. and J.F. Mooney, Jr. July 1993. Flood Control and Water Management in the 

Yazoo-Mississippi Delta. Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee District, Social Science Research 

Center, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS. 28 pp. 

<http://www.leveeboard.org/flood1.htm> 

Hartfield, Emily. 2002. A Mussel Survey of Hillside National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Ecological Services, Jackson, MS. 29 pp. 

Hartfield, Emily. 2002. A Mussel Survey of Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Ecological Services, Jackson, MS. 24 pp. 
 178

Hartfield, Emily. 2002. A Mussel Survey of Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Ecological Services, Jackson, MS. 30 pp. 

Havera, S. P., L. R. Boens, M. M. Georgi, and R. T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl 

on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:290-298. 

Haynes, Ronnie. 2002. Private Lands Program Recommendations. Biological Review, North 

Mississippi National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 3 pp. 

Heisler, David M. 1978. Archaeological Survey: Cultural Resources Reconnaissance: Yazoo 

National Wildlife Refuge, Mississippi: Volume I. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, 

University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS. 36 pp. 

Heisler, David M. 1978. Archaeological Survey Part II: Cultural Resources Reconnaissance: Yazoo 

National Wildlife Refuge, Mississippi: Volume II. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, 

University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS. 83 pp. 

Herman, Steven G. 2002. Invited Paper: Wildlife Biology and Natural History: Time for a Reunion. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 66 (4): 933-946 

Hunter, W.C., D.N. Pashley and R.E.F. Escano. 1992. Neotropical migratory landbirds species and 

their habitats of special concern within the Southeast region. Pages 159-169 in D.M. 

Hutt, Sherry, E.W. Jones and M.E. McAllister. 1992. Archeological Resource Protection. The Preservation 

Press, National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, Washington, D.C. 178 pp. 

Johnson, Joseph R., Herby Bloodworth, David Summers. Agricultural Land and Water Use in 

Mississippi, 1982-1998. Published by the Office of Agricultural Communications, a unit of the 

Division of Agriculture, Forestry and Veterinary Medicine at Mississippi State University. 24 pp. 

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:242-248. 

Kaminski, Rick and B. Davis. October 2002. Wood Duck Broods in Dixie: Striving to Survive Early 

Life. Research Advances, Vol. 7, No. 2, Mississippi State University, Forest and Wildlife 

Research Center, Mississippi State, MS. 4 pp. <http://www.cfr.msstate.edu> 

Kelley, J.R., Jr. 1997. Wood duck population monitoring initiative: Final report. Atlantic Flyway 

Council, Mississippi Flyway Council, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Administrative 

Report. Laurel, MD. 248 pp. 

Kelley, James R., Jr. and L.H. Fredrickson. August 1991. 13.4.18. Chufa Biology and 

Management. Waterfowl Management Handbook, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13, Washington, D.C. 6 pp. 

Korschgen, Carl E. and R.B. Dahlgren. 1992. 13.2.15. Human Distrubances of Waterfowl: Causes, 

Effects and Management. Waterfowl Management Handbook, Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 

13.2.15., Washington, D.C. 8 pp. 
 179

Krementz, David G. and Jeffery J. Jackson. September 1999. Woodcock in the Southeast: Natural 

History and Management for Landowners. The University of Georgia College of Agricultural 

and Environmental Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service, Athens, GA. 16 pp. 

Kushlan James A., Melanie J. Steinkamp, Katharine C. Parsons, Jack Capp, Martin Acosta Cruz, 

Malcom Coulter, Ian Davidson, Loney Dickson, Naomi Edelson, Richard Elliot, R. Michael Erwin, 

Scott Hatch, Stephen Kress, Robert Milko, Steve Miller, Kyra Mills, Richard Paul, Roberto Phillips, 

Jorge E. Saliva, Bill Sydeman, John Trapp, Jennifer Wheeler, and Kent Wohl. 2002. Waterbird 

Conservation for the Americas: The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1. 

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, D.C. 78 pp. 

Lawler, Mark. June 2000. Shattered Solitude/Eroded Habitat: The Motorization of the Lands of 

Lewis and Clark. Sierra Club Northwest/Alaska Office, Seattle, WA, and Sierra Club Northern 

Plains Office, Sheridan, WY. 35 pp. 

Leopold, Bruce D., Ph.D. and James Earl Kennamer, Ph.D. March 1999. Predators and Their Place 

on the Land. Article from “Wildlife Issues.” Mississippi Wildlife Fisheries and Parks. 6 pp. 

Loesch, C.R. November 1993. Methods for Establishing Canada and Snow Goose Use Days. 3 pp. 

Loesch, C. R., D. J. Twedt, K. Tripp, W. C. Hunter, and M. S. Woodrey. Development of 

Management Objectives for Waterfowl and Shorebirds in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley in R. 

Bonney, D. N. Pashley, R. J. Cooper, and L. Niles, eds. 1999. Strategies for Bird 

Conservation: The Partners in Flight Planning Process. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 

Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Team. April 14, 2000. Final Draft: Lower Mississippi River 

Ecosystem Plan: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Version 2.5. 

Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture and Randy R. Wilson. 2001. Establishment of Goose (Foraging) 

Habitat Objectives on Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge. LMVJV, Vicksburg, MS. 2 pp. 

LMVJV Migratory Bird Science Team. 2002. Developing and Refining the Biological Foundation of the 

Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture: An Assessment of Bioliogical Planning, Monitoring, and 

Evaluation Issues. Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Office, Vicksburg, MS. 16 pp. 

Mississippi Counties. 2002. Historical Information: General Information. 

<http://www.mscounties.com/info.cfm?ID=76> 

Mississippi Development Authority. January 2003. Fiscal Year 2002 Economic Impact for Tourism 

and Recreation in Mississippi: January 2003. Prepared by: Mississippi Development 

Authority, Division of Tourism Development, Research Unit, Jackson, MS. 100 pp. 

Mississippi Development Authority. February 2003. Mississippi State and County Information. 

Prepared by the Mississippi Development Authority; Mississippi Department of Agriculture and 

Commerce; and Mississippi State University; Jackson, MS. 46 pp. 

Mississippi Development Authority, Division of Tourism Development Research Unit. January 2003. Fiscal 

Year 2002 Economic Impact for Tourism and Recreation in Mississippi. Prepared by: Mississippi 

Development Authority, Division of Tourism Development Research Unit, Jackson, MS. 48 pp. 
 180

Morton, John M. 1995. Managing human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59 - F86 

in W.R. Whitman, T. Strange, L. Widjeskog, R. Whittemore, P. Kehoe and L. Roberts (eds.). 

Waterfowl Habitat Restoration, Enhancement and Management in the Atlantic Flyway. 

Atlantic Flyway Council and DE Div. Fish and Wildlife, Dove, DE. 1114 pp. 

Mississippi State University Extension Service. March 2003. Forest Management Strategies for 

Bobwhite Quail. MSU Coordinated Access to the Research and Extension System, 

Mississippi State, MS. 5 pp. <http://msucares.com/pubs/publications/pub2087.htm> 

Mississippi State University Extension Service. March 2003. Ecology and Management of the 

Northern Bobwhite. MSU Coordinated Access to the Research and Extension System, 

Mississippi State, MS. 10 pp. <http://msucares.com/pubs/publications/pub2179.htm> 

Mississippi State University Extension Service. March 2003. Forest Management for Wild Turkeys. 

MSU Coordinated Access to the Research and Extension System, Mississippi State, MS. 5 

pp. <http://msucares.com/pubs/publications/pub2033.htm> 

Mississippi State University. August 2002. Bird Communities in Bottomland Hardwood Restoration 

Sites in the Mississippi Delta. Mississippi State University, Forest and Wildlife Research 

Center, Department of Wildlife Fisheries Research. 3 pp. 

<http://www.cfr.msstate.edu/fwrc/wildlife/bird.htm> 

Mississippi State University. August 2002. Northern Bobwhite Habitat Ecology. Mississippi State 

University, Forest and Wildlife Research Center, Department of Wildlife Fisheries Research. 

3 pp. <http://www.cfr.msstate.edu/fwrc/wildlife/bobwhite.htm> 

Moore, L. 1993. Population dynamics and habitat requirements of wild turkeys in the Quachita 

Mountain range. Annual Progress Report, University of Arkansas Cooperative Wildlife and 

Fish Unit, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 4 pp. 

Morse, Thomas E. and H.M. Wight. Dump Nesting and Its Effect on Production in Wood Ducks. 

Pages 284-293 in Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 33, No. 2, April 1969. 

Mueller, Allan J., D.J. Twedt, and C.R. Loesch. 2001. Development of Management Objectives for 

Breeding Birds in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. USFWS, Conway, AR; USGS Patuxent 

Wildlife Research Center, Vicksburg, MS; USFWS, Bismarck, ND. 16 pp. 

<http://birds.cornell.edu/pifcapemay/mueller.htm> 

Mueller, A. J., D.J. Twedt, and C.R. Loesch. Development of Management Objectives for breeding 

birds in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley in R. Bonney, D. N. Pashley, R. J. Cooper, and L. Niles, 

eds. 1999. Strategies for Bird Conservation: The Partners in Flight Planning Process. 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. November 2002. Buffer Strips: Common Sense 

Conservation. U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS. 

<http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/feature/buffers/index.html> 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1002. Wetland Management for Waterfowl Handbook. 

Edited and compiled by Kevin D. Nelms, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

Mississippi. 119 pp. 
 181

NASS, USDA, February 2003. Data provided per county regarding Cash Receipts, Largest 

Manufacturing, Agricultural Acres. NASS, USDA, Jackson, MS. 

Natural Trails & Waters Coalition. November 2002. Impacts on Soils and Plants. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Forest Service. <http://www.naturaltrails.org/> 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. April 2003. Erosion Control 

Structures. N.C. Division of Forest Resources, Raleigh, NC. 6 pp. 

<http://www.dfr.state.nc.us/water_quality/wq_erosioncontrol.htm> 

North Carolina State University. September 1995. Bobwhite Quail: Habitat Requirements. NC State 

University, NCCES-Working with Wildlife - Bobwhite Quail. 5 pp. 

<http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/nreos/forest/steward/www8.html> 

National Invasive Species Council. January 18, 2001. Management Plan: Meeting the Invasive 

Species Challenge: National Invasive Species Council. Washington, D.C. 88 pp. 

National Wildlife Refuge Association. October 2002. Silent Invasion. Invasive Species Will Take Over 

America’s Wildlife Refuges Unless We Act Now: A Call to Action from the National Wildlife Refuge 

Association. Published by: National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington, D.C. 16 pp. 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Fall 2001. Visitors highly satisfied with their trips to refuges. Page 

4 in Refuge Reporter. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, Millwood, VA. 

News Media Directories. 2001. Mississippi News Media Directory: Information on: Dailies, Weeklies, 

Magazines, Radio, Television, ...and their personnel. Published by Betty Highberger, Mount 

Dora, FL. www.newsmediadirectories.com 

Owen, James. March 2003. Deer Behind Britain’s Great Bird Decline. Article in the United Kingdom 

for National Geographic News. <http://news.nationalgeographic.com> 

Pashley, David N., C.J. Beardmore, J.A. Fitzgerald, R.P. Ford, W.C. Hunter, M.S. Morrison, K.V. 

Rosenberg. 2002. Partners In Flight: Conservation of the Land Birds of the United States. 

Published by: American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, VA. 91 pp. 

Paulter, Matthew. February 2003. Highlights of Mississippi Agriculture: Cash Receipts. NASS, 

USDA, Jackson, MS. 1 page. 

Pierce, Marvin. March 1994. Final Survey Report on Farming Operations on National Wildlife 

Refuges, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (No. 94-I-408). U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Office of Inspector General, Headquarters Audits, Arlington, VA. 11 pp. 

Perry, Matthew C., P.C. Osenton, G.A. Gough, J.S. Hatfield, and E.J.R. Lohnes. February 2003. 

Moist-Soil Management of Wetland Impoundments for Plants and Invertebrates. USGS 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. 5 pp. 

<http://www.pwrc.nbs.gov/resshow/perry/impound/impound.htm> 

Randall Travel Marketing, Inc. September 2001. Mississippi Millennium Blues Trail: Strategic 

Marketing Plan for Travel and Tourism: Market Research Report and Analysis. Prepared by: 

Randall Travel Marketing, Inc., Mooresville, N.C. 323 pp. 
 182

Rankins, A. D. Shaw and M. Boyette. Effectiveness of perennial grasses as vegetative filter strips for 

reducing sediment and herbicide losses in surface runoff. Department of Plant and Soil 

Sciences, Mississippi State University. 

Reid, Frederic A. and L.H. Frederickson. April 1987. Managing Waterfowl Habitats: Invertebrate 

response to wetland management. Gaylord Memorial Laboratory, School of Forestry, 

Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Missouri-Columbia, Puxico, MO. 5 pp. 

Reincke, K.J. and C.K. Baxter. 1996. Waterfowl Habitat Management in the Mississippi Alluvial 

Valley. Pages 159-167 in 7th International Waterfowl Symposium. J.T. Ratti, Editor. 

Ringelman, James K. 1992. 13.2.7. Identifying the Factors That Limit Duck Production. Waterfowl 

Management Handbook, Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.2.7., Washington, D.C. 8 pp. 

Schleifstein, Mark. July 2001. Article on Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia. Gulf’s Dead Zone Has Gone 

Godzilla: Expert Says Dead Zone in Gulf of Mexico Goes Godzilla: Oxygen-deprived area 

reaches records size. The Times-Picayune. <mschleifstein@timespicayune.com> 

Shea D., C.S. Hofeltet, D.R. Luellen, A. Huysman, P.R. Lazaro, R. Zarzecki, and J.R. Kelly. 2001. 

Chemical contamination at National Wildlife Refuges in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. 

Report by NC State University to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 40 pp. 

Sidle, John G.; Harrison, William F. September 1990. Recovery Plan for the Interior Population of 

the Least Term (Sterna antillarum). Prepared by: John G. Sidle, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Grand Island, NE, and William F. Harrison, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin 

Cities, MN. 90 pp. 

Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association and the USDA Forest Service. April 1997. Emerging 

Markets for Outdoor Recreation. Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association and USDA 

Forest Service, Athens, GA. 

Stanek, Donna. July 2001. Public Use Review Report: Yazoo NWR, Panther Swamp NWR, Hillside 

NWR, Morgan Brake NWR, Mathews Brake NWR. U.S. Department of the Interior, Southeast 

Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 56 pp. 

Sweeney, Caitlin. September 2000. Public Access and Wildlife Compatibility Survey Results Report. 

State of California, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, San 

Francisco, CA. 36 pp. <http://ceres.ca.gov.bcdc/> 

Teskey, R.O., and T.M. Hinckley. 1977. Impact of water level changes on woody riparian and 

wetland communities. Vol. II: Southern Forest Region. USFWS, Biological Services Program. 

FWS/OBS-77/59. 46 pp. 

Twedt, Daniel, David Pashley, Chuck Hunter, Allen Mueller, Cindy Brown and Bob Ford. September 

1999. Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley 

(Physiographic Area #05): Version 1.0. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University of Memphis, 

Memphis, TN. 56 pp. 

USDA Agricultural Statistics and Mississippi Cooperative Extension. 2003. Agriculture at a Glance: 

In Celebration of Mississippi Agriculture. Mississippi Department of Agriculture and 

Commerce. <http://www.mdac.state.ms.us/Library/Misc/AgAtAGlance.html> 
 183

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. Statistics of the Population of the United 

States in 2000. Twenty-second Census. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1996-2000. U.S.A. Counties,General 

Profile, Washington, Yazoo, Holmes, Humphreys, Leflore. Washington, D.C.:U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife 

Associated Recreation. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. May 1986. North American Waterfowl Management Plan: A Strategy 

for Cooperation. Environment Canada, United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 31 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Recovery Plan for Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia). U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 56 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. Jackson, MS. 52 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife. September 2001. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Light Goose 

Management. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Management, 

Washington, D.C. 120 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April 2003. USFWS Regional Plans: Partners in Flight Bird 

Conservation Plan: U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 104 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. October 2000. Preliminary Draft: Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge 

Biological Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hollandale, MS. 55 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. November 2000. Preliminary Draft: Panther Swamp National Wildlife 

Refuge Biological Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hollandale, MS. 52 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Southeast Regional Report: National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation FY99 Needs Assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 68 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. January 2001. Preliminary Draft: Hillside National Wildlife Refuge, 

Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge, and Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge 

Biological Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hollandale, MS. __ pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. February 2003. America’s National Wildlife Refuge System: Why are 

hunting, fishing and trapping allowed on National Wildlife Refuges? U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Wildlife Refuge System. <http://refuges.fws.gov/faqs/hunting.html> 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. March 2003. Hunting Statistics. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Hollandale, MS. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce. 1996 

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation: Mississippi: FHW/96 

MS: Issued March 1998. 
 184

U.S. Department of the Interior. July 1999. Fulfilling the Promise. The National Wildlife Refuge 

System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuges, Arlington, VA. 94 pp. 

<http://refuges.fws.gov> 

U.S. Department of the Interior. April 1992. Preliminary Project Proposal: Proposed Expansion of 

Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge: Leflore County, Mississippi. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. November 2002. Off Road Vehicles Harm Public Lands. Bureau of 

Land Management and U.S. Forest Service. 

<http://www.americanlands.org/forestweb/off_road_vehicles.htm> 

U.S. Department of the Interior. March 1995. Preliminary Project Proposal: Mitigation Land 

Acquisition Proposals for the Upper Steele Bayou and Upper Yazoo Project: Washington, 

Warren, Yazoo and Holmes Counties, Mississippi. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. 12 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. August 1991. Final Environmental Assessment: Proposed Expansion of 

Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge: Holmes County, Mississippi. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, GA. 29 pp. 

Waterfowl Tomorrow- Survival of the Species in Canada. 1964. Page 537. David Munro. Bureau of 

Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, US Department of the Interior. 

Westover, Donald E. March 1984. NebGuide: Open Burning. Published by Cooperative Extension, 

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. 

Wildlife Resources Management Manual. Chufa (Cyperus esculentus): Section 7.4.1, pages 3 - 13 in

US Army Corps of Engineers, Wildlife Resources Management Manual. 

Wiley, A.G. 1987. Feral hog management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area; Proc. Calif. 

Confer. Conserv. Manage. Pages 189-191.

Wilson, R. Randy and D.J. Twedt. Spring Bird Migration in Mississippi Alluvial Valley Forests. Am. 

Midl. Nat. 149: 163-175. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Lower Mississippi Valley 

Joint Venture, Vicksburg, MS. <Dan_twedt@usgs.gov> 

Van Hyning, Tom E. 2003. Estimated Fiscal Year 2003 Tourism and Recreation Revenues. State of 

Mississippi, Division of Tourism, Jackson, MS. <tvanhyning@mississippi.org> 

Yarrow, G.K. 1987. The potential for interspecific resource competition between white-tailed deer 

and feral hogs in the post oak savannah region of Texas. M.S. Thesis. Stephen R. Austin 

State University. 222 pp. 

Yazoo Backwater Evaluation Team. September 1999. A Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act: 

Planning-Aid Report on the Yazoo Backwater Area Project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. 27 pp. 
 185

Appendix III. Relevant Legal Mandates 

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and services. 

Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 431 - 433): The Act of June 8, 1906, (34 Stat. 225) authorizes the 

President to designate as National Monuments objects or areas of historic or scientific interest 

on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The Act required that a permit be obtained 

for examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological sites and the gathering of objects of 

antiquity on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, and Army, 

and provided penalties for violations. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 469-469c): Public Law 86-523, approved 

June 27, 1960, (74 Stat. 220) as amended by Public Law 93-291, approved May 24, 1974, (88 Stat. 

174) to carry out the policy established by the Historic Sites Act (see below), directed Federal 

agencies to notify the Secretary of the Interior whenever they find a Federal or Federally assisted, 

licensed or permitted project may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, prehistoric or 

archaeologic data. The Act authorized use of appropriated, donated, and/or transferred funds for the 

recovery, protection and preservation of such data. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa - 470ll): Public Law 96-95, approved 

October 31, 1979, (93 Stat. 721) largely supplanted the resource protection provisions of the 

Antiquities Act for archaeological items. 

This Act established detailed requirements for issuance of permits for any excavation for or removal 

of archaeological resources from Federal or Indian lands. It also established civil and criminal 

penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, or damage of any such resources; for any 

trafficking in such resources removed from Federal or Indian land in violation of any provision of 

Federal law; and for interstate and foreign commerce in such resources acquired, transported or 

received in violation of any State or local law. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally owned, leased, or funded buildings and 

facilities to be accessible to persons with disabilities. 

Bald Eagle Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; 54 Stat. 250; 50 CFR Subchapter), as amended. 

Provides for protection of the bald eagle (the national emblem) and the golden eagle. 

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for major 

wetland modifications. 

Criminal Code of Provisions of 1940 as amended, (18 U.S.C. 41). 

States the intent of Congress to protect all wildlife within federal sanctuaries, refuges, fish hatcheries, 

and breeding grounds. Provides that anyone (except in compliance with rules and regulations 

promulgated by authority of law) who hunts, traps, or willfully disturbs any such wildlife, or willfully 

injures, molest, or destroys any property of the United States on such land or water, shall be fined up 

to $500 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months or both. 
 186

Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986 

This Act authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water Conservation Fund moneys, 

removing a prior prohibition on such acquisitions. The Act also requires the Secretary to establish a 

National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, requires the States to include wetlands in their 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 

amount equal to import duties on arms and ammunition. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 and recent amendments (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), 

as amended. (Establishing legislation.) 

Public Law 93-205, approved December 28, 1973, repealed the Endangered Species Conservation 

Act of December 5, 1969 (P.L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275). The 1969 act had amended the Endangered 

Species Preservation Act of October 15, 1966 (P.L. 89-669, 80 Stat. 926). 

The 1973 Endangered Species Act provided for the conservation of ecosystems upon which 

threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend, both through Federal action 

and by encouraging the establishment of State programs. The Act: 

• Authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened; 

• Prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species; 

• Provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land and water 

conservation funds; 

• Authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to States that establish 

and maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; 

• Authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the Act or regulations; 

and 

• Authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing information leading to arrest and 

conviction for any violation of the Act of any regulation issued thereunder. 

Environmental Education Act of 1990 (20 U.S.C. 5501-5510; 104 Stat. 3325) 

Public Law 101-619, signed November 16, 1990, established the Office of Environmental 

Education within the Environmental Protection Agency to develop and administer a Federal 

environmental education program. 

Responsibilities of the Office include developing and supporting programs to improve understanding 

of the natural and developed environment, and the relationships between humans and their 

environment; supporting the dissemination of educational materials; developing and supporting 

training programs and environmental education seminars; managing a Federal grant program; and 

administering an environmental internship and fellowship program. The Office is required to develop 

and support environmental programs in consultation with other Federal natural resource management 

agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 
 187

Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management

The purpose of this Executive Order, signed May 24, 1977, is to prevent Federal agencies from 

contributing to the “adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of floodplains” and 

the “direct or indirect support of floodplain development.” In the course of fulfilling their respective 

authorities, Federal agencies “shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the 

impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and 

beneficial values served by floodplains.

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. 

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.

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 1119; 16 U.S.C. 742a-742J), as amended. 

Establishes a comprehensive fish and wildlife policy and directs the Secretary of the Interior to 

provide continuing research; extension and conservation of fish and wildlife resources. 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-366, September 29, 1980, 16 U.S.C. §§ 

2901-2911, as amended 1986, 1988, 1990 and 1992) 

Created a mechanism for federal matching funding of the development of state conservation plans for 

non-game fish and wildlife. Subsequent amendments to this law require that the Secretary monitor and 

assess migratory nongame birds, determine the effects of environmental changes and human activities, 

identify birds likely to be candidates for endangered species listing, and identify conservation actions that 

would prevent this from being necessary. I 1989, Congress also directed the Secretary to identify lands 

and waters in the Western Hemisphere, the protection, management or acquisition of which would foster 

conservation of migratory nongame birds. All of these activities are intended to assist the Secretary in 

fulfilling the Secretary’s responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Migratory Bird 

conservation Act, and provisions of the Endangered Species Act implementing the Convention on Nature 

Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere. 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978: This act was passed to improve the administration of fish 

and wildlife programs and amends several earlier laws, including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National 

Wildlife Refuge 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 volunteer programs. 
 188

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 461-462, 464-467): The Act of August 21, 

1935, (49 Stat. 666) popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended by Public Law 89-249, 

approved October 9, 1965, (79 Stat. 971) declared it a national policy to preserve historic sites and 

objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. It provided procedures for 

designation, acquisition, administration and protection of such sites. Among other things, National 

Historic and Natural Landmarks are designated under authority of this Act. As of January, 1989, 31 

national wildlife refuges contained such sites. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA) of 1965: Provides funds from leasing bonuses, 

production royalties and rental revenues for offshore oil, gas, and sulphur extraction to the Bureau of 

Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and State and 

local agencies for purchase of lands for parks, open space, and outdoor recreation. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e,715f-715r)

This Act established the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission which consists of the Secretaries of 

the Interior (chairman), Agriculture, and Transportation, two members from the House of 

Representatives, and an ex-officio member from the state in which a project is located. The 

Commission approves acquisition of land and water, or interests therein, and sets the priorities for 

acquisition of lands by the Secretary for sanctuaries or for other management purposes. Under this 

Act, to acquire lands, or interests therein, the state concerned must consent to such acquisition by 

legislation. Such legislation has been enacted by most states.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715-s, 45 Stat. 1222), as amended: 

Authorizes acquisition, development, and maintenance of migratory bird refuges; cooperation with 

other agencies, in conservation; and investigations and publications on North American birds. 

Authorizes payment of 25 percent of net receipts from administration of national wildlife refuges to the 

country or counties in which such refuges are located.

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718-718h; 48 Stat. 51), as amended: 

Requires that all waterfowl hunters, sixteen (16) years of age or older, possess a valid duck stamp. 

Net revenues from the sale of duck stamps are used to acquire migratory bird refuges and waterfowl 

production areas. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711; 50 CFR Subchapter B), as amended: 

Implements treaties with Great Britain (for Canada) and Mexico for protection of migratory birds 

whose welfare is a federal responsibility. Provides for regulations to control taking, possession, 

selling, transporting, and importing of migratory birds and provides penalties for violations. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, 83 

Stat. 852) as amended by P.L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, 89 Stat. 258, and P.L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, 89 

Stat. 424). Declares national policy to encourage a productive and enjoyable harmony between humans 

and their environment. Section 102 of that Act directs that “to the fullest extent possible: 

• The policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and 

administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this Act, and 

• All agencies of the Federal Government shall...insure that presently unquantified 

environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision 

making along with economic technical considerations...” 
 189

Section 102(2)c of NEPA requires all federal agencies, with respect to major federal actions 

significantly affecting the quality the quality of the human environment, to submit to the Council on 

environmental Quality a detailed statement of: 

• The environmental impact of the proposed action; 

• Any adverse environmental effect which cannot be avoided should the proposal be 

implemented; 

• Alternatives to the proposed action; 

• The relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity; and 

• Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the 

proposed action, should it be implemented. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-669; 80 Stat. 929; 

16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended. 

This Act defines the National Wildlife Refuge System as including wildlife refuges, areas for protection 

and conservation of fish and wildlife which are threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game 

ranges, wildlife management areas, and waterfowl production areas. The Secretary is authorized to 

permit any use of an area provided such use is compatible with the major purposes for which such 

area was established. The purchase consideration for rights-of-way go into the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund for the acquisition of lands. By regulation, up to 40% of an area acquired for a 

migratory bird sanctuary may be opened to migratory bird hunting unless the Secretary finds that the 

taking of any species of migratory game birds in more than 40% of such area would be beneficial to 

the species. The Act requires an Act of Congress for the divestiture of lands in the system, except 

(1) lands acquired with Migratory Bird Conservation Commission funds, and (2) lands can be 

removed from the system by land exchange, or if brought into the system by a cooperative 

agreement, then pursuant to the terms of the agreement. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57, October 9, 1997, 

Amendment to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966). 

This act defines the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System: 

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. 

Key provisions include the following: 

• A requirement that the Secretary of the Interior ensures maintenance of the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

• The definition of compatible wildlife-dependent recreation as “legitimate and appropriate 

general public use of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System;” 
 190

• The establishment of hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation as “priority public uses” where compatible with the 

mission and purpose of individual national wildlife refuges; 

• The refuge managers’ authority to use sound professional judgment in determining which 

public uses are compatible on national wildlife refuge an whether or not they will be allowed (a 

formal process for determining “compatible use” is currently being developed); and 

• The requirement of open public involvement in decisions to allow new uses of national wildlife 

refuges and renew existing ones, as well as in the development of Comprehensive 

conservation Plans for National Wildlife Refuges. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (103 Stat. 1968; 16 U.S.C. 4401-4412)

Public Law 101-233, enacted December 13, 1989, provides funding and administrative direction for 

implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite Agreement on 

wetlands between Canada, U.S. and Mexico. 

The Act converts the Pittman-Robertson account into a trust fund, with the interest available without 

appropriation through the year 2006 to carry out the programs authorized by the Act, along with an 

authorization for annual appropriation of $15 million plus an amount equal to the fines and forfeitures 

collected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Available funds may be expended, upon approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, for 

payment of not to exceed 50 percent of the United States share of the cost of wetlands conservation 

projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent of the cost of projects on Federal 

lands). At least 50 percent and no more than 70 percent of the funds received are to go to Canada 

and Mexico each year. 

National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12401; 104 Stat. 3127)

Public Law 101-610, signed November 16, 1990, authorizes several programs to engage citizens of 

the U.S. in full- and/or part-time projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, provide job skills, 

enhance educational skills, and fulfill environmental needs. Several provisions are of particular 

interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps – As a Federal grant program established under 

Subtitle C of the law, the Corps offers an opportunity for young adults between the ages of 16-25, or 

in the case of summer programs, 15-21, to engage in approved human and natural resources 

projects which benefit the public or are carried out on Federal or Indian lands. 

To be eligible for assistance, natural resources programs will focus on improvement of wildlife habitat and 

recreational areas, fish culture, fishery assistance, erosion, wetlands protection, pollution control and 

similar projects. A stipend of not more than 100 percent of the poverty level will be paid to participants. A 

Commission established to administer the Youth Service Corps will make grants to States, the 

Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior and the Director of ACTION to carry out these responsibilities. 

National and Community Service Act – Will make grants to States for the creation of full-time 

and/or part-time programs for citizens over 17 years of age. Programs must be designed to fill unmet 

educational, human, environmental, and public safety needs. Initially, participants will receive 

post-employment benefits of up to $1000 per year for part-time and $2500 for full-time participants. 
 191

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470-470b, 470c-470n): Public Law 89-665, 

approved October 15, 1966, (80 Stat. 915) and repeatedly amended, provided for preservation of 

significant historical features (buildings, objects and sites) through a grant-in-aid program to the 

States. It established a National Register of Historic Places and a program of matching grants under 

the existing National Trust for Historic Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468-468d). 

The Act established an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which was made a permanent 

independent agency in Public Law 94-422, approved September 28, 1976 (90 Stat. 1319). That Act 

also created the Historic Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are directed to take into account the 

effects of their actions on items or sites listed or eligible for listing in the National Register. 

As of January, 1989, 91 historic sites on national wildlife refuges have been placed on the National Register. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470-470b, 470c-470n, 80 Stat. 915), as 

amended: There are various laws for the preservation of historic sites and objects. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-669; 80 Stat. 929; 

16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended. 

Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit the use of any area within the System for any 

purpose including, but not limited to, hunting, fishing, public recreation and accommodations, and 

access whenever he determines that such uses are compatible with the major purposes for which 

such areas were established. Consolidates authorities for the various categories of areas previously 

established that are administered by the Secretary of the Interior for conservation of fish and wildlife, 

including species that are threatened with extinction, all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges, etc., which are hereby designated as the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Provides that the Secretary may authorize hunting and fishing to the extent 

practicable and consistent with State fish and wildlife laws and regulations. 

Public Law 100-588, approved November 3, 1988, (102 Stat. 2983) lowered the threshold value of 

artifacts triggering the felony provisions of the Act from $5,000 to $500, made attempting to commit 

an action prohibited by the Act a violation, and required the land managing agencies to establish 

public awareness programs regarding the value of archaeological resources to the Nation. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962: This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer 

refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use, when such uses do not 

interfere with the area’s primary purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of recreational 

facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development 

or protection of natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for public uses. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s): Section 401 of the Act of June 15, 1935, (49 

Stat. 383) provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from the 

sale of products from refuges. 

Public Law 88-523, approved August 30, 1964, (78 Stat. 701) made major revisions by 

requiring that all revenues received from refuge products, such as animals, timber and 

minerals, or from leases or other privileges, be deposited in a special Treasury account and net 

receipts distributed to counties for public schools and roads. 

Public Law 93-509, approved December 3, 1974, (88 Stat. 1603) required that moneys remaining in 

the fund after payments be transferred to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for land acquisition 

under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. 
 192

Public Law 95-469, approved October 17, 1978, (92 Stat. 1319) expanded the revenue sharing 

system to include National Fish Hatcheries and Service research stations. It also included in the 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund receipts from the sale of salmonid carcasses. Payments to counties 

were established as follows: 

• On acquired land, the greatest amount calculated on the basis of 75 cents per acre, 

three-fourths of one percent of the appraised value, or 25 percent of the net receipts produced 

from the land; and 

• On land withdrawn from the public domain, 25 percent of net receipts and basic payments 

under Public Law 94-565 (31 U.S.C. 1601-1607, 90 Stat. 2662), payment in lieu of taxes on 

public lands. 

This amendment also authorized appropriations to make up any difference between the amount 

in the Fund and the amount scheduled for payment in any year. The stipulation that payments 

be used for schools and roads was removed, but counties were required to pass payments 

along to other units of local government within the county which suffer losses in revenues due 

to the establishment of Service areas. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-469, October 17, 1978, [amended 16 

U.S.C. 715s]; 50 CFR, part 34): Changed the provisions for sharing revenues with counties in a 

number of ways. It makes revenue sharing applicable to all lands administered by the Service, 

whereas previously it was applicable only to areas in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 

new law makes payments available for any governmental purpose, whereas the old law restricted 

the use of payments to roads and schools. For lands acquired in fee simple, the new law 

provides a payment of 75 cents per acre, 3/4 of 1 percent of fair market value or 25 percent of net 

receipts, whichever is greatest, whereas the old law provided a payment of 3/4 of 1 percent 

adjustment cost or 25 percent of net receipts, whichever was greater. The new law makes 

reserve (public domain) lands entitlement lands under Public Law 94-565 (16 U.S.C. 1601-1607, 

and provides for a payment of 25 percent of net receipts. 

The new law authorizes appropriations to make up any shortfall in net receipts, to make payments in 

the full amount for which counties are eligible. The old law provided that if net receipts were 

insufficient to make full payment, payment to each county would be reduced proportionality. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1966 (Public Law 87-714; 76 Stat. 653-654; 16 U.S.C. 460k et seq.):

Authorizes appropriate, incidental, or secondary recreational use on conservation areas administered 

by the Secretary of the Interior for fish and wildlife purposes. 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 28, 1906 (18 U.S.C. 41; 43 Stat. 98, 18 U.S.C. 145). 

Provided first Federal protection for wildlife on national wildlife refuges. This Act made it unlawful to 

hunt, trap, capture, willfully disturb, or kill any bird or wild animal, or take or destroy the eggs of any 

such birds, on any lands of the United States set apart or reserved as refuges or breeding grounds 

for such birds or animals by any law, proclamation, or executive order, except under rules and 

regulations of the Secretary. The Act also protects government property on such lands. 
 193

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (18 U.S.C. 41. Stat 686) – Section 41 of the Criminal code, 

title 18: Consolidates the penalty provisions of various acts from January 24, 1905 (16 U.S.C. 684-687; 

33 Stat. 614), through March 10, 1934 (16 U.S.C. 694-694b; 48 Stat. 400) and restates the intent of 

Congress to protect all wildlife within Federal sanctuaries, refuges, fish hatcheries and breeding grounds. 

The Act provides that anyone (except in compliance with rules and regulations promulgated by authority 

of law) who hunts, traps or willfully disturbs any wildlife on such areas, or willfully injures, molest or 

destroys any property of the United States on such lands or waters, shall be fined, imprisoned, or both. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794 )as amended Title 5 of P.L. 93-112 (87 Stat. 355), signed 

October 1, 1973, prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap under any program or activity receiving 

Federal financial assistance. 

Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500; 86 Stat. 816, 33 

U.S.C. 1411) : Requires any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity which may 

result in a discharge into navigable waters to obtain a certification from the state in which the discharge 

originates or will originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having 

jurisdiction over navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates or will originate, that the 

discharge will comply with applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. A certification 

obtained for construction of any facility must also pertain to subsequent operation of the facility. 

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500, 86 Stat. 816): 

Authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to issue permits, after notice 

and opportunity for public hearing, for discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters of the 

United States, including wetlands, at specified disposal sites. Selection of disposal sites will be in 

accordance with guidelines developed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in 

conjunction with the Secretary of the Army. Furthermore, the Administrator can prohibit or restrict use of 

any defined area as a disposal site whenever she/he determines, after notice and opportunity for public 

hearings, that discharge of such materials into such areas will have an unacceptable adverse effect on 

municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, fishery areas, wildlife, or recreational areas. 

Thousand Points of Light – Creates a non-profit Points of Light Foundation to administer programs 

to encourage citizens and institutions to volunteer in order to solve critical social issues, and to 

discover new leaders and develop institutions committed to serving others. 

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation purposes Act of 1948 

This Act provides that upon 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 the Interior if the land has particular value for migratory birds, or to 

a State agency for other wildlife conservation purposes. 

Wilderness Act of 1964: Public Law 88-577, approved September 3, 1964, directed the Secretary of 

the 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 for inclusion in 

the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Administration of national wildlife refuges is governed by bills passed by the United States Congress and 

signed into law by the President of the United States, and by regulations promulgated by the various 

branches of the government. Following is a brief description of some of the most pertinent laws and 

statues establishing legal parameters and policy direction for the National Wildlife Refuge System: 
 194

Wilderness Preservation and Management (50 CFR 35; 78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1131-1136; 43 

U.S.C. 1201): Provides procedures for establishing wilderness units under the Wilderness Act of 

1964 on units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
 195

Appendix IV. Refuge Biota 

Theodore Roosevelt National wildlife Refuge Complex 

Bird List 

Seasonal Appearance 

F Fall September - November 

W Winter December - February 

Sp Spring March - May 

S Summer June – August 

Seasonal Abundance 

c - common (certain to be seen in suitable habitat) 

u - uncommon (present but difficult to find) 

o - occasional (seen only a few times in a season) 

r - rare (seen at irregular intervals) 

* - Breeding 

Locations: H - Hillside NWR; P - Panther Swamp NWR; Y - Yazoo NWR; 

V - Vicinity/Off Refuges, C - Complex Area (all refuges) 

Seasonal Appearance Bird Groups Location Sp S F W 

Loons 

Common Loon H R R 

Grebes 

Pied-billed Grebe H, P, Y* C C C C 

Horned Grebe Y R 

Eared Grebe V R 

Pelicans and Allies 

American White Pelican C O U O 

Double-Crested Cormorant Y*, P, H U U U C 

Anhinga H, P, Y* C C C O 

Herons, Egrets and Allies 

American Bittern C O O O 

Least Bittern Y* C C U 

Great Blue Heron H*,Y*,P C C C C 

Great Egret H*,Y*,P C C C U 

Snowy Egret H*,Y*,P C C C 

Little Blue Heron H*,Y*,P C C C O 

Tricolored Heron H, P, Y* O O 

Cattle Egret C* C C C U 

Green-backed Heron C* C C C O 

Black-crowned Night-Heron H*, P, Y* C C C O 

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron C* U U U O 

Ibises, Spoonbill, and Storks 

Glossy Ibis C O O O R 

White Ibis C* C C C O 

Roseate Spoonbill C R O R 

Wood Stork C O O 
 196

Seasonal Appearance Bird Groups Location Sp S F W 

Waterfowl 

Fulvous Whistling-Duck Y R 

Black-bellied Whistling Duck Y R R 

Tundra Swan H, Y O 

Greater White-fronted Goose C U C C 

Snow Goose C U C C 

Ross’ Goose Y U U 

Canada Goose C, Y* U U C U 

Wood Duck C* C C C C 

Green-winged Teal C U C C 

American Black Duck C O O U 

Mallard C* C U C C 

Northern Pintail C O C C 

Blue-winged Teal C C O C U 

Cinnamon Teal C R R 

Northern Shoveler C C C C 

Gadwall C C C C 

American Wigeon C C C C 

Canvasback C O O O 

Redhead C O O 

Ring-necked Duck C C C C 

Greater Scaup C O 

Lesser Scaup C U C C 

Oldsquaw V R 

Surf Scoter V R 

White-winged Scoter V R 

Common Goldeneye C O 

Bufflehead C C C C 

Hooded Merganser C* C U U C 

Common Merganser C R 

Red-breasted Merganser P R 

Ruddy Duck C U U C 

Vultures, Hawks and Allies 

Black Vulture H, P O O O O 

Turkey Vulture H, P C C C C 

Osprey C O R O 

Mississippi Kite C* C C U 

Bald Eagle C, V* O O O U 

Northern Harrier C U U C 

Sharp-shinned Hawk C U U U 
 197

Seasonal Appearance Bird Groups Location Sp S F W 

Cooper’s Hawk C U U U 

Red-shouldered Hawk C U U U 

Broad-winged Hawk C U O O 

Red-tailed Hawk C C U C C 

Harlan’s Hawk Y O O O 

Golden Eagle C R O 

Crested Caracara H R 

American Kestrel C C O C C 

Merlin C O U 

Gallinaceous birds 

Wild Turkey H, P*, Y* U U U U 

Northern Bobwhite H*, P* U U U U 

Rails, Gallinules and Coots 

King Rail H, Y R R R 

Sora H, P, Y U O U O 

Purple Gallinule Y* U C U R 

Common Moorhen H*, Y* C C C U 

American Coot C C O C C 

Sandhill Crane V R R R 

Plovers, Sandpipers and Allies 

Lesser Golden Plover C O O 

Black-bellied Plover C O O 

Semipalmated Plover C O U U O 

Killdeer C* C C C C 

Black-necked Stilt C O C C 

American Avocet C O R 

Greater Yellowlegs C C U C O 

Lesser Yellowlegs C C C C 

Solitary Sandpiper C C C C 

Spotted Sandpiper C U C U 

Upland Sandpiper C O O 

Marbled Godwit Y R 

Sanderling Y R 

Semipalmated Sandpiper C C C C 

Western Sandpiper C O O O 

Least Sandpiper C C C C U 

Baird’s Sandpiper H, Y O O 

Pectoral Sandpiper C O C C 

Dunlin Y O U O 

Long-billed Dowitcher H, Y U U C 
 198

Seasonal Appearance Bird Groups Location Sp S F W 

Short-billed Dowitcher H, Y O 

Common Snipe C C C C 

Wilson’s Phalarope C O O R 

Red-necked Phalarope R 

American Woodcock C U U U 

Gulls, Terns and Skimmers 

Franklin’s Gull Y R 

Bonaparte’s Gull Y R O O 

Ring-billed Gull Y C C C 

Herring Gull C O U U 

Least Tern Y O O O O 

Black Tern Y R R 

Pigeons and Doves 

Rock Dove C* C C C C 

White-winged Dove V R 

Mourning Dove C* C C C C 

Common Ground-Dove H O O O 

Eurasion Collared Dove C U U U U 

Cuckoos 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo C* C C O 

Owls 

Barn Owl Y, H*, P* O O O O 

Eastern Screech-Owl C* C C C C 

Great Horned Owl C* U U U U 

Burrowing Owl V R 

Barred Owl C* C C C C 

Short-eared Owl C R R 

Goatsuckers 

Common Nighthawk C* U U O 

Chuck-will’s-widow C O O 

Whip-poor-will C O 

Swifts 

Chimney Swift C* U C U 

Ruby-throated Hummingbird C* U C C 

Rufous Hummingbird C R R 

Kingfishers 

Belted Kingfisher C U C C U 

Woodpeckers 

Red-headed Woodpecker C* C C C C 

Red-bellied Woodpecker C* C C C C 
 199

Seasonal Appearance Bird Groups Location Sp S F W 

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker C U U C 

Downy Woodpecker C* C C C C 

Hairy Woodpecker C* U U U U 

Northern Flicker C* C U U C 

Pileated Woodpecker C* U U U U 

Flycatchers 

Olive-sided Flycatcher Y R R 

Eastern Wood-Pewee C* C C U 

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher C R 

Acadian Flycatcher C* U C C 

Eastern Phoebe C C U C C 

Vermilion Flycatcher Y R 

Great Crested Flycatcher C* U U U 

Western Kingbird V R 

Eastern Kingbird C* U C C O 

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Y R 

Larks 

Horned Lark C* C U U C 

Martins and Swallows 

Purple Martin C* C C C 

Tree Swallow C C C O 

Northern Rough-wing Swallow C U U U 

Cliff Swallow V R O O 

Barn Swallow C* C C C 

Jays and Crows 

Blue Jay C* C C C C 

American Crow H*, P, Y U U U U 

Fish Crow H, P, Y O O O O 

Chickadees and Titmice 

Carolina Chickadee C* C C C C 

Tufted Titmouse C* C U C C 

Nuthatches 

Red-breasted Nuthatch C O O 

White-breasted Nuthatch C R R O 

Creepers 

Brown Creeper C O U 

Wrens 

Bewick’s Wren Y R R R 

House Wren C O O O O 

Winter Wren C U U U 
 200

Seasonal Appearance Bird Groups Location Sp S F W 

Carolina Wren C C C C C 

Sedge Wren C O O O 

Marsh Wren C O O U 

Kinglets and Gnatcatchers 

Golden-crowned Kinglet C U U C 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet C U U C 

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher C* U U U O 

Bluebirds, Thrushes and Robins 

Eastern Bluebird C C C C U 

Veery Y U U 

Gray-cheeked Thrush Y U U 

Swainson’s Thrush Y U U 

Hermit Thrush C U U U 

Wood Thrush C* C C U 

American Robin C* C U C C 

Mockingbirds, Thrashers and Allies 

Gray Catbird C* U U O O 

Northern Mockingbird C* C C C U 

Brown Thrasher C* C C C U 

Pipits 

American Pipit C U U U 

Waxwings 

Cedar Waxwing C C C C 

Shrike 

Loggerhead Shrike C, Y* U U C C 

Starlings 

European Starling C* C C C C 

Vireos 

White-eyed Vireo C* C U U O 

Solitary Vireo C O O U 

Yellow-throated Vireo C* O U O 

Warbling Vireo C R R 

Philadelphia Vireo C O O 

Red-eyed Vireo C C C O 

Warblers 

Blue-winged Warbler C O O 

Golden-winged Warbler C O O 

Tennessee Warbler C C U 

Orange-crowned Warbler C U 

Nashville Warbler C U U 
 201

Seasonal Appearance Bird Groups Location Sp S F W 

Northern Parula C* C C U 

Yellow Warbler C U U 

Chestnut-sided Warbler C U U 

Magnolia Warbler C C U 

Black-throated Blue Warbler C R R 

Black-and-white Warbler C U U U 

Yellow-rumped Warbler C U C C 

Black-throated Green Warbler C C U O 

Blackburnian Warbler C U O 

Yellow-throated Warbler C U U U 

Pine Warbler C O U 

Prairie Warbler V O R 

Bay-breasted Warbler C U O 

Blackpoll Warbler C U O 

Cerulean Warbler C O 

American Redstart C U O U 

Prothonotary Warbler C* C C U 

Worm-eating Warbler C O 

Swainson’s Warbler H O O 

Ovenbird C U U 

Northern Waterthrush C R 

Louisiana Waterthrush C U U U 

Kentucky Warbler C* U U U 

Mourning Warbler V R R 

Common Yellowthroat C* C C U U 

Hooded Warbler C U U 

Wilson’s Warbler C O U 

Canada Warbler C U U 

Yellow-breasted Chat C* C C 

Tanager 

Summer Tanager C* C C C 

Scarlet Tanager C U U 

New World Finches 

Northern Cardinal C* C C C C 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak C U O 

Blue Grosbeak H, Y* U O 

Indigo Bunting C* C C C 

Painted Bunting C* U U U 

Dickcissel C* C C C R 
 202

Seasonal Appearance Bird Groups Location Sp S F W 

Sparrows 

Rufous-sided Towhee C* C U U C 

Spotted Towhee V R 

American Tree Sparrow V R 

Chipping Sparrow C U U U 

Field Sparrow C U U U U 

White-crowned sparrow C U U U U 

Vesper Sparrow V U U U 

Lark Sparrow V R 

Savannah Sparrow C C U C 

Grasshopper Sparrow Y* U U U U 

Henslow’s Sparrow Y R 

LeConte’s Sparrow Y O O 

Fox Sparrow C U U U 

Song Sparrow C C C C 

Lincoln’s Sparrow Y O O U 

Swamp Sparrow C C C C 

White-throated Sparrow C C C C 

Dark-eyed Junco C U U C 

Lapland Longspur Y O 

Blackbirds, Grackles, Cowbirds and Orioles 

Bobolink C U O 

Red-winged Blackbird C* C C C C 

Eastern Meadowlark C* C C C C 

Rusty Blackbird C U U C 

Brewer’s Blackbird C U U U 

Common Grackle C* C C C C 

Brown-headed Cowbird C* C C C C 

Orchard Oriole C* U C U 

Northern Oriole C* U C U R 

Purple Finch 

Purple Finch C U U U 

House Finch C U U U C 

Pine Siskin Y U 

American Goldfinch C U U C 

Evening Grosbeck Y R 

Old World Sparrows 

House Sparrow C* C C C C 

Source: Refuge data Files, 2003 
 203

Theodore Roosevelt National wildlife Refuge Complex 

Mammal List 

O - Within the animal’s range and contains suitable habitat 

X - Presence has been documented 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Yazoo Panther Hillside Morgan Mathews 

ORDER MARSUPIALIA (Marsupials) 

Family Didelphidae - Opossums 

Opossum Didelphis marsupialis X X X X X 

ORDER INSECTIVORA (Insectivores) 

Family Soricidae - Shrews 

Short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda O O O O O 

Least shrew Cryptotis parva O O O O O 

Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus O O O O O 

ORDER CHIROPTERA (Bats) 

Family (Various) 

Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus O O O O O 

Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius O O O O O 

Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans O O O O O 

Eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus O O O O O 

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus O O O O O 

Red bat Lasiurus borealis X O O O O 

Seminole bat Lasiurus seminolus X O O O O 

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus O O O O O 

Evening bat Nycticeius humeralis O O O O O 

Eastern big-eared bat Plecotus rafinesquei O O O O O 

Brazilian free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis O O O O O 
 204

Common Name Scientific Name 

Yazoo Panther Hillside Morgan Mathews

ORDER EDENTATA 

Family Dasypodidae – Armadillos 

Nine-banded armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus X X X X X 

ORDER LAGOMORPHA 

Family Leporidae – Rabbits and Hares 

Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus X X X X X 

Swamp rabbit Sylvilagus aquaticus X X X X X 

ORDER RODENTIA (Rodents) 

Family Sciuridae – Squirrels 

Eastern chipmunk Tamias sciurus X O X X X 

Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis X X X X X 

Fox squirrel Sciurus niger X X X X X 

Southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans X X X X X 

Family Castoridae – Beaver 

Beaver Castor canadensis X X X X X 

Family Cricetidae – Cricetid Rats and Mice 

Rice rat Oryzomys palustris X O O O O 

Eastern harvest mouse Reithrodontomys humulis O O O O O 

White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus O O O O O 

Cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus X O O O O 

Golden mouse Peromyscus nuttalli O O O O O 

Hispid cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus X X X X X 

Eastern wood rat Neotoma floridana X X X X X 

Pine vole Microtus pinetorum X O O O O 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus X X X X X 

Family Muridae - OldWorld Rats and Mice 

Black rat Rattus rattus O O O O O 

Norway rat Rattus norvegicus X X X X O 

House mouse Mus musculus X X X X O 

Family Capromyidae – Nutrias and Coypus 

Nutria Myocastor coypus X X X X X 
 205

Common Name Scientific Name 

Yazoo Panther Hillside Morgan Mathews

ORDER CARNIVORA (Carnivores) 

Family Ursidae – Bears 

Louisiana black bear Ursus americanus louisianensis X X X O O 

Family Canidae – Wolves, Dogs and Allies 

Coyote Canis latrans X X X X X 

Red fox Vulpes fulva X X X X X 

Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus X X X X X 

Family Procyonidae – Raccoons and Allies 

Raccoon Procyon lotor X X X X X 

Family Mustelidae – Weasels, Skunks, and Allies 

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata O O X O O 

Mink Mustela vison X X X X X 

Eastern spotted skunk Spilogale putorius X O X X O 

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis X X X X X 

River otter Lutra canadensis X X X X X 

Family Felidae – Cats and Allies 

Bobcat Lynx rufus X X X X X 

Cougar Felis concolor X 

ORDER ARTIODACTYLA (Even-toed Ungulates) 

Family Cervidae - Deer and Allies 

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginiana X X X X X 

Source: Refuge Data Files, 2003 
 206

Theodore Roosevelt National wildlife Refuge Complex 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

O - Within the animal’s range and contains suitable habitat X - Presence has been documented 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Yazoo Panther Hillside Morgan Mathews

American alligator Alligator mississippiensis X X X X X 

Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina X X X X X 

Alligator snapping turtle Macroclemmys temmincki X X X X X 

Stinkpot Sternotherus odoratus X X X X X 

Razor-backed musk turtle Sternotherus carinatus O O O O O 

Mississippi mud turtle Kinosternon subrubrum hippocrepis X X O O O 

Mississippi map turtle Graptemys kohni O O O O O 

Quachita map turtle Graptemys pseudogeographica 

ouachitensis

O O O O O 

Red-eared turtle Pseudemys scripta elegans X X X X X 

Slider Chrysemys concinna heiroglyphica X O O O O 

Missouri slider Pseudemys floridana hoyi O O O O O 

Southern painted turtle Chrysemys picta dorsalis X O O O O 

Chicken turtle Deirochelys reticularia miaria O O O O O 

Smooth softshell Trionyx muticus X O X X X 

Spiny softshell Trionyx spinifer sspp. O O X O O 

Green anole Anolis carolinensis X X X X X 

Ground skink Scincella laterale X X X X O 

Five-lined skink Eumeces fasciatus O O O O O 

Broad-headed skink Eumeces laticeps X X O O O 

Southeastern five-lined skink Eumeces inexpectatus O O 

Slender glass lizard Ophisaurus attenuatus X O O O O 

Green water snake Nerodia cyclopion cyclopion X X X X X 

Diamond-backed water snake Nerodia rhombifera rhombifera X X X X X 

Yellow-bellied water snake Nerodia erythrogaster flavigaster X X X X X 

Broad-banded water snake Nerodia faciata confluens X X X X X 

Graham’s water snake Nerodia grahami X O O O O 

Queen snake Nerodia septemerittata X O O O O 

Midland brown snake Storeria dekayi wrightorum X O O O O 
 207

Common Name Scientific Name 

Yazoo Panther Hillside Morgan Mathews

Red-bellied snake Storeria occipitomaculata O O O O O 

Eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis X X X X X 

Western ribbon snake Thamnophis proximus proximus X X X X X 

Smooth earth snake Virginia valeriae X O O O O 

Rough earth snake Virginia striatula O O O O O 

Eastern hognose snake Heterodon platyrhinos X X O O O 

Mississippi ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus stictogenys X O O O O 

Mud snake Farancia abacura X X X X X 

Racer Coluber constrictor sspp. X X X X X 

Rough green snake Opheodrys aestivus X X X X X 

Rat Snake Elaphe obsoleta sspp. X X X X X 

Speckled kingsnake Lampropeltis getulus holbrooki X X O O O 

Red milk snake Lampropeltis triangulum syspila X O O O O 

Scarlet snake Cemophora coccinea X O O O O 

Coral snake Micrurus fulvius O O O O O 

Southern copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix contortrix X X X X X 

Cottonmouth Agkistrodon piscivorus piscivorus X X X X X 

Pygmy rattlesnake Sistrurus miliarius streckeri X O O O O 

Canebrake rattlesnake Crotalus horridus atricaudatus X X X X X 

Three-toed amphiuma Amphiuma tridactylum X O O O O 

Lesser siren Siren intermedia X O O O O 

Mole salamander Ambystoma talpoideum O O O O O 

Marbled salamander Ambystoma opacum O O O O O 

Small-mouthed salamander Ambystoma texanum O O O O O 

Spotted salamander Ambystoma maculatum O O O O 

Central newt Notophthalmus viridescens 

louisianensis X O O O O 

American toad Bufo americanus X X X X X 

Fowler’s toad Bufo woodhousei fowleri X O O O O 

Southern cricket frog Acris gryllus gryllus X O O O O 

Northern cricket frog Acris crepitans crepitans X X O O O 
 208

Common Name Scientific Name 

Yazoo Panther Hillside Morgan Mathews

Spring peeper Hyla crucifer X X O O O 

Green treefrog Hyla cinerea X X X X X 

Barking treefrog Hyla gratiosa X O O O O 

Gray treefrog Hyla versicolor O O O O O 

Bird-voiced treefrog Hyla avivoca O O O O O 

Upland chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata feriarum O O 

E. narrow-mouthed toad Gastrophryne carolinensis O O O O O 

Bull frog Rana catesbeiana X X X X X 

Bronze/Green frog Rana clamitans X O O O O 

Southern leopard frog Rana utricularia X X X X X 

Pickerel frog Rana palustris X O O O O 

Crawfish frog Rana areolata O O O O O 

Source: Refuge data files, 2003 
 209

Theodore Roosevelt National wildlife Refuge Complex 

Fish Species 

 (known (x) or that may occur) 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Yazoo 

Panther 

Swamp 

Hillside 

Morgan 

Brake 

Mathews 

Brake 

Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus X X X X X 

Spotted Gar Lepisosteus oculaatus X X X X X 

Alligator Gar Lepisosteus spatula X X X X X 

Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus X X X X X 

Paddlefish Polyodon spatula X X X X X 

Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorhynchus X X X X X 

Bowfin Amia calva X X X X X 

Channel Catfish Ictalurus furcatus X X X X X 

Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis X X X X X 

Flathead Catfish Pylodictus olivaris X X X X X 

Black Bullhead Catfish Ameiurus melas X X X X X 

Brown Bullhead Catfish Ameiurus nebulosus X X X X X 

Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus X X X X X 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus X X X X X 

Redear Sunfish Lepomis microlophus X X X X 

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus X X X X X 

Orange-spotted sunfish Lepomis humilis X X X X X 

Red-spotted sunfish Lepomis miniatus X X X X X 

Bantam Sunfish Lepomis Symmetricus X X X X X 

Banded Pygmy Sunfish Elassoma zonatum X X X X X 

Longear Sunfish (Delta 

Subspecies) Lepomis megalotis X X X X X 

Longear Sunfish (Loess Hill 

Subspecies) Lepomis megalotis X 

Black Crappie Pomoxis annularis X X X X X 

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus X X X X X 

Yellow Bass Morone mississippiensis X X X X X 
 210

Common Name Scientific Name 

Yazoo 

Panther 

SAwamp 

Hillside 

Morgan 

Brake 

Mathews 

Brake 

Shadow Bass Ambloplites ariommus 

White Bass Morone chrysops X X X X X 

Striped Bass Morone saxatillis 

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides X X X X X 

Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus X 

Common Carp (intro.) Cyprinus carpio X X X X X 

Threadfin Shad Dorosoma petenense X X X X X 

Gizzard Shad Donosoma cepedianum X X X X X 

Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus X X X X X 

Bigmouth Buffalo Itiobus cyprinellus X X X X X 

Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger X X X X X 

Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus X X X X X 

Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens X X X X X 

Grass Pickerel Esox americanus X X X X X 

Red Shiner Cyprinella lutrensis X 

Blacktail Shiner Cyprinella venusta X X X X X 

Pirate Perch Aphredoderus sayanus X X X X X 

Golden Killifish Fundulus chrysotus X X X X X 

Blackstripe Killifish Fundulus notatus X X X X X 

Blackspotted Killifish Fundulus olivaceus X X X X X 

Western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis X X X X X 

Brook Silverside Labidesthes sicculus X X X X X 

Flier Centrarchus macropterus X X X X X 

Bluntnose Darter Etheostoma chlorosma X X X X X 

Slough Darter Etheostoma gracile X X X X X 

Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens X X X X X 

Source: Refuge data files, 2003 and Mike Stigall, Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 
 211

Theodore Roosevelt National wildlife Refuge Complex 

Plant List 

(x) = documented/collected 

Family Genus Species Common Name 

Yazoo 

Panther 

Swamp 

Hillside 

Morgan 

Brake 

Matthews 

Brake 

Acanthaceae Justicia americana Water-willow X 

Acanthaceae Ruellia sp. Wild petunia X 

Aceraceae Acer barbatum Florida maple X 

Aceraceae Acer negundo Boxelder X 

Aceraceae Acer rubra Red maple X 

Aizoaceae Mollugo verticillata Indian chickweed, 

carpet weed X 

Alismataceae Echinodorus cordifolius Erect burhead 

Alismataceae Echinodorus rostratus Creeping burhead 

Alismataceae Sagittaria platyphylla Delta arrow-head, 

Delta duck potato X 

Amaranthaceae Alternathera philoxeroides Alligator weed X 

Amaranthaceae Amaranthus sp. Pigweed X 

Amarillidaceae Hymenocallis occidentalis Spider lily X 

Anacardiaceae Rhus copallina Winged sumac X 

Anacardiaceae Rhus glabra Smooth sumac X 

Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron radicans Poison ivy X 

Annonaceae Asimina triloba Pawpaw X 

Apiaceae Cynosciadium digitatum X 

Apiaceae Daucus carota Queen Anne’s lace 

(natzd) X 

Apiaceae Foeniculum vulgare Fennel (natzd) X 

Apiaceae Hydrocotyle ranunculoides Pennywort X 

Apiaceae Oxypolis filiformis Water dropwort X 

Apiaceae Ptilimnium capillaceum Bishop weed X 

Apiaceae Trepocarpus aethusae Trepocarpus X 

Apocynaceae Trachelospermum difforme Climbing dogbane X 

Aquifoliaceae Ilex decidua Possum haw, 

Deciduous holly X 

Aquifoliaceae Ilex opaca American holly X 

Araceae Arisaema atrorubens Jack-in-the-pulpit X 

Araceae Arisaema dracontium Green dragon X X 

Arailiaceae Aralia spinosa Hercules club; 

devil’s walking stick X 

Arecaceae Sabal minor Dwarf palmetto X 

Asclepiadaceae Asclepias spp. Milkweed X 
 212

Family Genus Species Common Name 

Yazoo 

Panther 

Swamp 

Hillside 

Morgan 

Brake 

Matthews 

Brake 

Asteraceae Achillea millefolium Yarrow X 

Asteraceae Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common ragweed X 

Asteraceae Ambrosia spp. Ragweed X 

Asteraceae Ambrosia trifida Giant ragweed X 

Asteraceae Aster spp. Aster X 

Asteraceae Baccharis halimifolia Groundsel-tree X 

Asteraceae Bidens tripartita Beggar ticks X 

Asteraceae Eclipta alba Yerba De tajo X 

Asteraceae Erigeron annuus White-top fleabane X 

Asteraceae Erigeron spp. Fleabane X 

Asteraceae Iva annua Sumpweed X 

Asteraceae Krigia virginica Dwarf dandelion X 

Asteraceae Pluchea sp. Stinkweed X 

Asteraceae Rudbeckia heliopsidis Black-eyed Susan X 

Asteraceae Senecio glabellus Butterweed X 

Asteraceae Senecio Vulgaris Common grounsel X 

Asteraceae Solidago Altissima Tall golden rod X 

Asteraceae Spilanthes Americana Spilanthes X 

Asteraceae Taraxacum Officinale Common dandelion 

(natzd) X 

Asteraceae Verbesina Virginica White crown-beard X 

Asteraceae Xanthium Strumarium Cocklebur X 

Balsaminaceae Impatiens Capensis Touch-menot;jewelweed X 

Berberidaceae Podophyllum Peltatum May-apple X 

Betulaceae Carpinus Caroliniana American 

hornbeam X 

Betulaceae Ostrya Virginiana Eastern 

hophornbeam X 

Bignoniaceae Bignonia Capreolata Cross vine X 

Bignoniaceae Campsis Radicans Trumpet creeper X 

Bignoniaceae Catalpa Bignonioides Catalpa (cult) X 

Boraginaceae Heliotropium Indicum Turnsole X 

Brassicaceae Arabidopsis Thaliana Mouse-ear cress 

(natzd) X 

Brassicaceae Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd’s purse 

(natzd) X 

Brassicaceae Draba Verna Whitlow-grass 

(natzd) X 

Brassicaceae Lepidium Virginicum Poor man’s pepper X 
 213

Family Genus Species Common Name 

Yazoo 

Panther 

Swamp 

Hillside 

Morgan 

Brake 

Matthews 

Brake 

Bromeliaceae Tillandsia Usneoides Spanish moss X 

Callitrichaceae Callitriche sp. Water starwort X 

Campanulaceae Lobelia Cardinalis Cardinal flower X 

Campanulaceae Specularia Biflora Venus’ looking 

glass X 

Caprifoliaceae Lonicera Japonica Japanese 

honeysuckle X 

Caprifoliaceae Lonicera Sempervirens Coral honeysuckle X 

Caprifoliaceae Sambucus Canadensis Elderberry X 

Caprifoliaceae Viburnum Rufidulum Rusty blackhaw X 

Caryophyllaceae Cerastium Glomeratum Mouse-ear 

chickweed X 

Caryophyllaceae Stellaria Media Chickweed X 

Ceratophyllacea Ceratophyllum Demersum Common coontail X 

Commelinaceae Commelina Communis Dayflower X 

Convolvulaceae Convolvulus Arvensis Bindweed X 

Convolvulaceae Cuscuta sp. Dodder X 

Convolvulaceae Ipomoea Purpurea Morning glory X 

Convolvulaceae Ipomoea Wrightii Morning glory X 

Cornaceae Cornus Drummondii Rough-leaf 

dogwood X 

Cornaceae Cornus Florida Flowering dogwood X 

Cornaceae Nyssa Aquatica Swamp tupelo X 

Cornaceae Nyssa Sylvatica Black gum X 

Cucurbitaceae Melothria Pendula Creeping 

cumcumber X 

Cupressaceae Juniperus Virginiana Eatern red cedar 

(cult & escap) X 

Cyperaceae Carex crus-corvi Raven-foot sedge X 

Cyperaceae Carex Fissa Caric-sedge X 

Cyperaceae Carex spp. Sedge X 

Cyperaceae Carex stipata Sedge X 

Cyperaceae Cyperus erythrorhizos Red-rooted sedge X 

Cyperaceae Cyperus esculentus Yellow nutsedge: 

chufa X 

Cyperaceae Cyperus odoratus Flatsedge X 

Cyperaceae Cyperus pseudovegetus Flatsedge X 

Cyperaceae Cyperus rotundus Purple nutsedge X 

Cyperaceae Eleocharis obtuse Blunt spikerush X 

Cyperaceae Rhynchospora corniculata Beak-rush X 
 214

Family Genus Species Common Name 

Yazoo 

Panther 

Swamp 

Hillside 

Morgan 

Brake 

Matthews 

Brake 

Droseraceae Drosera sp. Sundew X 

Ebenaceae Diospyros virginiana Persimmon X 

Ericaceae Vaccinium arboretum Tree sparkleberry X 

Euphorbiaceae Croton spp. Croton X 

Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia corollata Flowering spurge X 

Fabaceae Albizia julibrissin Mimosa (escaped) X 

Fabaceae Amorpha georgiana X 

Fabaceae Apios americana Potato bean; 

ground nut X 

Fabaceae Cassia fasciculata Patridge pea X 

Fabaceae Cassia nictitans Wild sensitive plant X 

Fabaceae Cassia obtusifolia Sicklepod X 

Fabaceae Cassia occidentalis Coffee senna X 

Fabaceae Centrosema virginianum Butterlfy pea X 

Fabaceae Cercis canadensis Redbud X 

Fabaceae Clitoria mariana Butterfly pea X 

Fabaceae Desmanthus illnoensis Prairie mimosa X 

Fabaceae Desmodium tortuosum Florida beggar 

weed X 

Fabaceae Gleditsia aquatica Water locust X 

Fabaceae Gleditsia triacanthos Honey locust X 

Fabaceae Glycine max Soybean X 

Fabaceae Lathyrus hirsutus Winterpeas X 

Fabaceae Lespedeza bicolor Bicolor lespedeza X 

Fabaceae Lespedeza cuneata Lespedeza X 

Fabaceae Medicago sativa Alfalfa X 

Fabaceae Phaseolus sp. Wild bean X 

Fabaceae Pueraria lobata Kudzu 

Fabaceae Robinia pseudo-acacia Black locust X 

Fabaceae Schrankia microphylla Sensitive briar X 

Fabaceae Sesbania exaltata Hemp sesbania X 

Fabaceae Tephrosia sp. Goat’s rue X 

Fabaceae Trifolium incarnatum Crimson clover X 

Fabaceae Trifolium repens White clover X 

Fabaceae Vicia spp. Vetch X 

Fabaceae Vigna sinensis Cowpeas X 

Fabaceae Wisteria spp. Wisteria X 

Fagaceae Cladrastis kentukea Yellowwood X 

Fagaceae Fagus grandifolia American beech X 
 215

Family Genus Species Common Name 

Yazoo 

Panther 

Swamp 

Hillside 

Morgan 

Brake 

Matthews 

Brake 

Fagaceae Quercus alba White oak X 

Fagaceae Quercus falcata Southern red oak X 

Fagaceae Quercus falcata var. 

pagodaefolia 

Cherrybark oak X 

Fagaceae Quercus marilandica Blackjack oak X 

Fagaceae Quercus Michauxii Swamp chestnut 

oak X 

Fagaceae Quercus Nigra Water oak X 

Fagaceae Quercus Nuttallii Nuttall oak X 

Fagaceae Quercus Phellos Willow oak X 

Fagaceae Quercus Rubra Northern red oak X 

Fagaceae Quercus Shumardii Shumark oak X 

Fagaceae Quercus Virginiana Live oak X 

Fagaceae Quercus Falcate Southern red oak X 

Fagaceae Quercus Stellata Post oak X 

Geraniaceae Geranium Dissectum Cranesbill X 

Haloragidaceae Myriophyllum Heterophyllum Water-milfoil X 

Hamamelidaceae Liquidambar Styraciflua Sweetgum X 

Hippocastanaceae Aesculus Pavia Red buckeye X 

Iridaceae Sisyrinchium spp. Blue-eyed grass X 

Juglandaceae Carya Aquatica Water hickory X 

Juglandaceae Carya Cordiformis Bitternut hickory X 

Juglandaceae Carya Glabra Pignut hickory X 

Juglandaceae Carya Illinoensis Pecan X 

Juglandaceae Carya Leiodermis Swamp hickory X 

Juglandaceae Carya Tomentosa Mockernut hickory X 

Juglandaceae Juglans Nigra Black walnut 

(introd. & esc.) X 

Juncaceae Juncus spp. Rush X 

Lamiaceae Lamium Amplexicaule Henbit X 

Lauraceae Sassafras Albidum Sassafras X 

Lemnaceae Lemna spp. Duckweed X 

Lentibulariaceae Utricularia spp. Bladderwort X 

Liliaceae Hemerocallis Fulva Daylily (esc.) X 

Liliaceae Smilax Glauca Greenbriar X 

Liliaceae Smilax Rotundifolia Common 

greenbriar X 

Liliaceae Trilllium Sessile Wake robin X 

Loranthaceae Phoradendron Serotinum Mistletoe X 
 216

Family Genus Species Common Name 

Yazoo 

Panther 

Swamp 

Hillside 

Morgan 

Brake 

Matthews 

Brake 

Lythraceae Ammania Coccinea Tooth-cup X 

Lythraceae Lagerstroemia Indica Crepe-myrtle 

(introd) X 

Lythraceae Lythrum Lineare Loosestrife X 

Magnoliaceae Liriodendron Tulipifera Yellow poplar X 

Magnoliaceae Liriodendron Tulipifera Yellow poplar 

(introd) X 

Magnoliaceae Magnolia Acuminate Cucumbertree X 

Magnoliaceae Magnolia Grandiflora Southern magnolia X 

Malvaceae Hibiscus spp. Hibiscus X 

Malvaceae Hibiscus Syriacus Rose of Sharon; 

althea (introd.) X 

Malvaceae Sida Spinosa Prickly sida X 

Melastomataceae Rhexia spp. Meadow beauty X 

Meliaceae Melia Azedarach Chinaberry (introd. 

& esc.) X 

Menispermaceae Cocculus Carolinus Coralbeads X 

Menispermaceae Menispermum Canadense Moonseed X 

Moraceae Maclura Pomifera Osage orange X X 

Moraceae Morus Rubra Red mulberry X X 

Nelumbonaceae Nelumbo Lutea American lotus X 

Nymphaceae Brasenia schreberi Water-shield X 

Nymphaceae Nuphar luteum Yellow pond lily X 

Nyssaceae Nyssa aquatica Water tupelo; 

swamp tupelo X 

Nyssaceae Nyssa sylvatica Black gum X 

Oleaceae Forestiera acuminata Swamp privet X 

Oleaceae Fraxinus pennyslvanica Green ash X 

Oleaceae Fraxinus profunda Pumpkin ash X 

Oleaceae Ligustrum sinense Privet X 

Onagraceae Ludwigia glandulosa Cylindric seedbox X 

Onagraceae Ludwigia peploides Floating seedbox X 

Onagraceae Ludwigia spp. Water primrose X 

Onagraceae Ludwigia umbrosum Marsh purslane X 

Onagraceae Oenothera speciosa Evening primrose X 

Passifloraceae Passiflora incarnata Passion flower; 

maypop 

X 

Philadelphus Coronarius syringa Mock orange X 

Phytolaccaceae Phytolacca americana Poke salad; 

pokeweed X 
 217

Family Genus Species Common Name 

Yazoo 

Panther 

Swamp 

Hillside 

Morgan 

Brake 

Matthews 

Brake 

Pinaceae Pinus taeda Loblolly pine X 

Pinaceae Pinus taeda Loblolly pine (intro. 

& esc.) X 

Plantaginaceae Plantago spp. Plantain X 

Platanaceae Plantus occidentalis Sycamore X 

Poaceae Andropogon virginicus Broom sedge X 

Poaceae Arundinaria gigantea Cane X 

Poaceae Cynodon dactylon Bermudagrass X 

Poaceae Echinochloa colonum Jungle rice X 

Poaceae Echinochloa crusgalli Mild millet X 

Poaceae Echinochloa walteri Walter’s millet X 

Poaceae Eragrostis spp. Lovegrass X 

Poaceae Festuca arundinaceae Fescue X 

Poaceae Leersia lenticularis Catchfly grass X 

Poaceae Leptochloa filiformis Red spangletop X 

Poaceae Paspalum laeve Paspalum X 

Poaceae Paspalum spp. Paspalum X 

Poaceae Setaria spp. Foxtail X 

Poaceae Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass 

(introd) X 

Poaceae Zizaniopsis miliacea Giant cutgrass; 

water millet; S. 

wildrice 

X 

Polemoniaceae Phlox paniculata X 

Polemoniaceae Phlox sp. Phlox X 

Polygonaceae Brunnichia cirrhosa Eardrop vine X 

Polygonaceae Brunnichia ovata Ladies’ eardrops; 

redvine X 

Polygonaceae Polygonum cespitosum Knotweed X 

Polygonaceae Polygonum hydropiperoides Swamp smartweed X 

Polygonaceae Polygonum lapathifolium Smartweed X 

Polygonaceae Polygonum pensylvanicum Smartweed; 

pinkweed X 

Polygonaceae Polygonum punctatum Water smartweed X 

Polygonaceae Rumex crispus Curly dock X 

Polygonaceae Rumex Verticillatus Swamp dock X 

Polypodiaceae Adiantum Pedatum Maidenhair fern X 

Polypodiaceae Asplenium sp. Spleenwort X 

Polypodiaceae Botrychium Virginianum Rattlesnake fern X 

Polypodiaceae Onoclea Sensibilis Sensitive fern X 
 218

Family Genus Species Common Name 

Yazoo 

Panther 

Swamp 

Hillside 

Morgan 

Brake 

Matthews 

Brake 

Polypodiaceae Polypodium Polypodioides Resurrection fern X 

Polypodiaceae Polystichum Acrosticoides Christmas fern X 

Polypodiaceae Pteridium Aquilinum Bracken X 

Polypodiaceae Thelypteris Hexagonoptera Broad beech fern X 

Polypodiaceae Thelypteris Phegopteris Northern beech 

fern X 

Polypodiaceae Woodsia Obtuse Wood fern X 

Portulacaceae Portulaca Oleracea Purslane X 

Potamogetonaceae Potamogeton Diversifolius Pondweed X 

Potamogetonaceae Potamogeton spp. Pondweed X 

Primulaceae Hottonia Inflate Featherfoil X 

Ranunculaceae Clematis Crispa Leather-flower; 

blue jasmine X 

Ranunculaceae Myosurus Minimus Mouse-tail X 

Ranunculaceae Ranunculus spp. Buttercup X 

Rhamnaceae Berchemia Scandens Rattan vine X 

Rosaceae Duchesnea Indica Mock strawberry X 

Rosaceae Geum Laciniatum Rough avens X 

Rosaceae Prunus Americana Wild plum X 

Rosaceae Prunus Angustifolia Multiflora rose X 

Rosaceae Prunus Mexicana Mexican plum X 

Rosaceae Prunus Serotina Black cherry X 

Rosaceae Pyrus Communis Pear (introd.) X 

Rosaceae Rubus Argustus Highbush 

blackberry X 

Rosaceae Rubus Trivialis Southern dewberry X 

Rubiaceae Cephalanthus Occidentalis Buttonbush; button 

willow; elbow bush X 

Rubiaceae Diodia Virginiana Diodia X 

Rubiaceae Galium sp. Bedstraw 

Rubiaceae Houstonia Caerulea Bluet X 

Rubiaceae Mitchella Repens Partridge berry X 

Salicaceae Populus Deltoids Eastern 

cottonwood X 

Salicaceae Populus Heterophylla Swamp cottonwood X 

Salicaceae Salix Interior Sandbar willow X 

Salicaceae Salix Nigra Black willow X 

Sapindaceae Cardiospermum Halicababum Balloon vine X 

Sapotaceae Bumelia Lycioides Buckthorn X 

Saururaceae Saururus Cernuus Lizard’s tail X 
 219

Family Genus Species Common Name 

Yazoo 

Panther 

Swamp 

Hillside 

Morgan 

Brake 

Matthews 

Brake 

Saxifragaceae Hamamelis Virginiana Witch hazel X 

Saxifragaceae Hydrangea sp. Oakleaf hydrangea X 

Scrophulariacea Linaria Canadensis Toadflax X 

Scrophulariacea Pedicularis Canadensis Lousewort X 

Scrophulariaceae Gratiola Brevifloia Hedge hyssop X 

Scrophulariaceae Micranthemum Umbrosum Shade Mudflower X 

Solanaceae Solanum Carolinense Nightshade X 

Styracaceae Styrax Americana American 

Snowbell; Storax X 

Taxodiaceae Taxodium Distichum Baldcypress X 

Tiliaceae Tilia Caroliniana Basswood X 

Typhaceae Typha latifolia Cattail X 

Ulmaceae Celtis laevigator Sugarberry X 

Ulmaceae Planera aquatica Planer Tree X 

Ulmaceae Ulmus americana White Or American 

Elm X 

Ulmaceae Ulmus crassifolia Cedar Elm X 

Ulmaceae Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm X 

Ulmaceae Ulmus alata Winged Elm X 

Urticaceae Boehmeria cylindrica False Nettle X 

Urticaceae Urtica chamydryoides Stinging Nettle X 

Valerianaceae Valerianella spp. Corn Salad X 

Verbenaceae Callicarpa americana French Mulberry; 

American 

Beautyberry 

X 

Verbenaceae Lippia lanceolata Northern Frog Fruit X 

Verbenaceae Lippa nodiflora Frog Fruit X 

Verbenaceae Verbena brasiliensis Verbena X 

Violaceae Viola emarginata Triangle-Leaved 

Violet X 

Violaceae Viola papilionacea Common Violet; 

Butterfly Violet X 

Violaceae Viola pedata Bird-Foot Violet X 

Violaceae Viola tricolor Wild Pansy, 

Johnny Jump-Up X 

Vitaceae Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper X 

Vitaceae Vitis rotundifolia Muscadine X 

Source: Refuge data files, 2003 
 220

Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Mussel List 

(x) = Mussel surveyed on refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Yazoo 

Panther 

Swamp 

Hillside 

Morgan 

Brake 

Mathew

s Brake 

Threeridge A. plicata x X x 

Flat Floater A. suborbiculata x X x 

Rock Pocketbook A. confragosus x 

Plain Pocetbook L. cardium x 

Yellow Sandshell L. teres x X x 

Fragile Papershell L. fragilis x X x 

Pondmussel U. imbecillis x x 

Washboard M. nervosa x x 

Bankclimber P. dombeyanus x X x 

Pink Papershell P. ohiensis x 

Giant Floater P. grandis x X x 

Wartyback Q. nodulata x x 

Pimpleback Q. pustulosa x X x 

Mapleleaf Q. quadrula x X x 

Lilliput T. parvus x 

Texas Lilliput T. texasiensis x X x 

Pistolgrip T. verrucosa x x 

Paper Pondshell U. imbecillis x X x 

Asian Clam C. fluminea x X x 

Threehorn 

Wartyback 

O. reflexa X x 

Pondhorn U. tetralasmus X x 

Bleufer P. purpuratus x 

Deertoe T. truncata x 

Source: Mussell Surveys for Yazoo, Panther Swamp and Hillside, NWRs, FWS, Emily Hartfield, 2002. 
 221

Appendix V. Compatibility Determinations 

Introduction 

In accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, the Refuge 

Recreation Act of 1962, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the 

Service may not permit secondary uses on a national wildlife refuge before the uses are determined 

compatible with the purpose of the Refuge System and individual refuge purposes and mission. 

Therefore, twelve compatibility determinations were prepared for the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 

B. These determinations were offered for public review and comment, along with the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: As outlined in the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 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 establishing legislation and refuge purposes (see following Table) for each refuge in the Complex 

are similar, with a primary mission to manage for migratory birds and fish and wildlife resources. The 

refuges all lie within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, in an area known as the Delta. Therefore, habitats 

are predominantly similar on all seven refuges. The refuges are managed as a system and are made 

up of the following: Hillside, Holt Collier, Mathews Brake, Morgan Brake, Panther Swamp, 

Theodore Roosevelt, and Yazoo. 

The compatibility determinations have been drafted to apply collectively to the following twelve uses, 

for applicable refuges and Farm Service Agency tracts managed by the Complex. 

1. Commercial Photography 

2. Cooperative Farming (Hillside, Hillside Expansion Unit, Morgan Brake, Panther 

Swamp, and Yazoo NWRs) 

3. Environmental Education 

4. Interpretation 

5. Wildlife Observation 

6. Wildlife Photography 

7. Firewood Cutting 

8. Fishing – Recreational, including Frogging (Hillside, Mathews Brake, Morgan Brake, 

Panther Swamp, and Yazoo NWRs) 

9. Hunting 

10. Research 

11. Timber Harvest for Forest Management 

12. Trapping 
 222

Refuge Establishing 

Legislation Refuge Purpose

Yazoo 

Established 

1936 

Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act (1929), Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act (1918) 

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

management purposes, for migratory birds...” 

Panther 

Swamp 

1978 

Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act (1929), 

Refuge Recreation Act 

(1962) 

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

management purposes, for migratory birds...” 

“...suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented 

recreation development, (2) the protection of natural 

resources, (3) the conservation of endangered 

species or threatened species...” 

Hillside 

1975 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act 

“...shall be administered by him (Secretary of 

Interior) directly or in accordance with cooperative 

agreements...and in accordance with such rules and 

regulations for the conservation, maintenance, and 

management of wildlife resources thereof, and its 

habitat thereon...” 

Morgan Brake 

1977 

Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act (1929) 

Refuge Recreation Act 

(1962). 

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

management purpose, for migratory birds.” 

“...for the development, advancement, management, 

conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources...” 

“...for the benefit of the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the 

terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or 

condition of servitude..” 

Mathews Brake 

1980 

Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act (1929) 

”...to contribute to perpetuation of the migratory 

waterfowl resource in the lower Mississippi River 

Delta...” 

Theodore 

Roosevelt 

2004 

Consolidated Farm and 

Rural Development Act “for conservation purposes” 

Holt Collier 

2004 

Consolidated Farm and 

Rural Development Act; 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act 

“for conservation purposes” 

“. . . conservation, maintenance, and management 

of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon. 

. .” 
 223

Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies: 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225) 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (15 U.S.C. 703-711; 40 Stat. 755) 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715r; 45 Stat. 1222) 

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718-178h; 48 Stat. 451) 

Criminal Code Provisions of 1940 (18 U.S.C. 41) 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; 54 Stat. 250) 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948, (18 U.S.C. 41; 62 Stat. 686) 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j; 70 Stat.1119) 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4; 76 Stat. 653) 

Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131; 78 Stat. 890) 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.; 80 Stat. 915) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee; 80 Stat. 927) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.; 83 Stat. 852) 

Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (Exec. Order 11644, as amended by E.O. 10989) 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 87 Stat. 884) 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as amended in 1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s; 92 Stat. 1319) 

National Wildlife Refuge Regulations for the Most Recent Fiscal Year (50 CFR Subchapter C; 43 CFR 3101.3-3) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (S.B. 740) 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1990 

Food Security Act (Farm Bill) of 1990 as amended (HR 2100) 

The Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution Article IV 3, Clause 2 

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57, USC668dd) 

E. O. 12996, Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System, March 25, 1996 

Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 25-33 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

1. Commercial Photography

Refuge: Hillside, Holt Collier, Mathews Brake, Morgan Brake, Panther Swamp, Theodore 

Roosevelt, and Yazoo NWRs, and Farm Service Agency lands 

Description of Use: General public access by commercial photographers to photograph wildlife and 

refuge habitats for commercial purposes. The use includes access by individual in vehicles on 

improved roads, by foot or ATV on unimproved roads, and by boat, canoe, or kayak on refuge 

sloughs, lakes, or other waters. Activities may include vehicular use of roadways normally restricted 

to foot traffic, or emplacing temporary structures, such as blinds or photography frameworks. 

Currently, commercial photography occurs at many locations on the refuges, particularly in areas 

where migratory waterfowl congregate, alligators bask in the sun, or in areas frequented by 

neotropical migratory birds. However, any location that provides a desired photographic opportunity 

is accessed. Commercial photography occurs during daylight hours throughout the year. 

Availability of Resources: The refuge would normally incur no expense except administrative costs 

for issuance of a Special Use Permit and staff time to conduct compliance checks. 
 224

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Activities associated with commercial photography have shown no 

measurable environmental impacts to the refuge, its habitats, or wildlife species. The use can cause 

temporary minor disturbance to waterfowl due to human proximity, particularly in winter, spring, and 

during the early summer nesting and brood rearing period. However, random and limited use by the 

public is expected to be temporary and should not create more than minor disturbance. Any 

malicious or unreasonable harassment of wildlife would be grounds for the manager to restrict the 

uses to minimize harm. 

Commercial photography can increase visitors' knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife 

on the refuge, and lead to greater understanding of the Refuge System’s public stewardship 

mission. Photographs taken on refuge lands, when provided to refuge staff for outreach and 

public use program enhancement, complement Service actions and enhance its ability to draw 

more visitors to the refuge. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was provided for public review and 

comment during the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan comment period, which began on 

October 14, 2005, and ended on November 25, 2005. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The following stipulations are required to ensure 

compatibility: 

a. All commercial photographers must have a Special Use Permit (SUP) that specifies road 

conditions, times, and routes of access, if necessary, and other conditions to prevent 

excessive disturbance to wildlife, damage to habitat, or conflicts with other public use or 

management activities. The SUP will stipulate that imagery produced on Complex lands be 

made available to the refuge for use in outreach, interpretation, internal documents, or other 

suitable uses. 

b. The commercial photography use must demonstrate a means to extend public appreciation 

and understanding of wildlife, natural habitats, enhance education, appreciation and/or 

understanding of the Refuge System, or further outreach and education goals of the refuge. 

c. Commercial products must include appropriate credits to the refuge and to the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Justification: When administered by SUP, commercial photography will provide images and related 

materials that can be used to support refuge outreach goals, enhance outdoor education and 

interpretation, and increase appreciation and understanding of the Refuge System. 

 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space. 

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: January 20, 2016
 225

2. Cooperative Farming

Refuge: Hillside, Morgan Brake, Panther Swamp, Yazoo NWRs, and agricultural lands on the 

Hillside Expansion Unit. 

Description of Use: Cooperative farming is an arrangement with local farmers that provides refuge 

land to the farmer in exchange for a portion of the crop. Cooperative farming has long been the most 

economical method for meeting refuge crop objectives. Certain agricultural crops (e.g., rice, corn, 

milo, wheat) provide the greatest yield of waterfowl food per unit area, supplementing natural foods 

that contribute energy, protein, and other nutrients. The agricultural lands are scattered throughout 

the refuges to maintain a diversity of habitats. 

In the cooperative farming program the farmer uses his/her own equipment and fuel to prepare the ground, 

plant the fields, apply herbicide and pesticide, and harvest a percentage (usually 75 percent) of the crop. 

The remaining crop (25 percent) is left in the field as food for waterfowl and other wildlife. Cooperative 

farmers also assist with habitat management (i.e., disk moist-soil management areas to control woody 

vegetation) and refuge maintenance activities (i.e., mowing roads, repairing roads damaged as result of 

farming operations, mowing turn-rows, etc.), that help refuges maintain refuge resources. 

The Complex partners with approximately nine local farmers to produce crops, on a share basis, on 

about 6,500 acres of agricultural land on Hillside, the Hillside Expansion Unit, Morgan Brake, Panther 

Swamp, and Yazoo NWRs. Cooperative farmers are permitted to plant only rice, corn, soybeans, 

milo, millet, sunflower, winter wheat, and other crops beneficial to wildlife. These crops provide 

cover, high calorie “hot foods” that supplement natural foods, and yield large amounts of 

metabolizable energy for geese and certain duck species during the wintering migration season. 

Winter wheat provides green browse for Canada and white-fronted geese. 

The refuge determines where the crops will be left in the field to ensure greatest benefit to waterfowl. 

Crops taken by farmers generally include rice, corn, soybeans, and winter wheat, while those left for 

wildlife include rice, corn, milo, and millet. Although the cooperative farming program is intended 

primarily to provide food for wintering waterfowl, agricultural crops benefit game species as well, 

including deer, wild turkey, woodcock, and raccoon. 

Availability of resources: The cooperative farming program requires an adequate level of staff to 

ensure that annual agreements are developed and signed, farming activities are monitored to ensure 

compliance with the annual agreement, and the administrative work associated with the Pesticide 

Use Permit process is accomplished. 

 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The cooperative farming program impacts refuge lands by 

producing vital food and cover for waterfowl during the wintering season, as well as food and cover 

for game species such as deer and wild turkey. The farming program also exposes refuge lands to 

chemicals, increased erosion, and the resultant runoff into refuge lakes, rivers, and wetlands. 

Waterfowl expend considerable energy to obtain mates, maintain body temperatures during cold 

weather, and migrate from area to area in search of food, cover, and water. Therefore, ready 

availability of food resources during the wintering season is vital for survival. 
 226

Farmers use pesticides and herbicides to control pests and weeds that reduce crop yields. The 

chemicals can have a variety of direct and indirect effects on wildlife. Therefore, the Service requires 

that chemicals used on refuge lands are approved for use through the annual Pesticide Use Proposal 

(PUP) process. The process includes application requirements and varying levels of review 

depending upon the nature of the chemical and how it is applied. The PUP process ensures that 

relatively safe pesticides are applied to refuge lands and that threatened and endangered species are 

not adversely affected. 

Impacts are reduced and effects on refuge lands minimized through the annual cooperative farming 

agreement. These agreements are prepared annually with each cooperative farmer. The agreement 

specifies which crops will be planted, which pesticides have been approved for use on areas they 

farm, prohibited activities such as applying chemicals aerially without the refuge manager’s approval, 

and best management practices to reduce erosion and surface runoff into refuge lakes, streams, and 

wetlands. The cooperative farming program is evaluated annually and ongoing monitoring is 

conducted to ensure that the conditions specified in the Cooperative Farming Agreement are being 

met and that the overall condition of the area is not being degraded. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was provided for public review and 

comment during the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan comment period, which began on 

October 14, 2005, and ended on November 25, 2005. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

a. Cooperative farmers are required to sign and comply with an annual Cooperative Farming 

Agreement that specifies which crops will be planted, refuge/farmer share, compliance with 

the PUP process, Best Management Practices, and other details. 

b. Refuge staff will conduct ongoing monitoring on farming activities to ensure that impacts on 

refuge lands are minimal and that cooperative farmers comply with the annual Cooperative 

Farming Agreement. 

Justification: The cooperative farming program is a critical component of management for migratory 

waterfowl and supports the objectives of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan by 

providing food resources and a diversity of wildlife habitat for waterfowl and a suite of additional 

species. The use is in compliance with the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and furthers the goals 

and missions of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space. 

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: January 20, 2016
 227

3-6. Environmental Education, Interpretation, Wildlife Observation, and Wildlife Photography

Refuge: Hillside, Holt Collier, Mathews Brake, Morgan Brake, Panther Swamp, Theodore 

Roosevelt, and Yazoo NWRs, and Farm Service Agency lands lands.

Environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography (wildlife- dependent 

activities) have been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 as priority 

public uses, provided they are compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation and wildlife photography occur during 

daylight hours throughout the year. Access is by refuge roads, trails, fields, or other ingress and 

egress points. Refuge roads prohibited to public access, or refuge closed areas are clearly marked 

with signs. Entry on all or portions of refuge roads and trails may be temporarily suspended by 

posting upon occasions of unusual or unsafe conditions affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife 

populations, or public safety. 

Environmental education and interpretation consist of public outreach and onsite activities conducted 

by refuge staff, volunteers, teachers, Friends Group members, conservation partners, university 

professors, and others. Interpretation occurs when information is interpreted for the public by refuge 

staff or others using exhibits, displays, signs, kiosks, facilities, and brochures. Environmental 

education and interpretation includes activities carried out at refuge observation towers, nature trails, 

Indian mounds developed for interpretation, refuge areas of interest, the refuge Headquarters Office, 

and other areas suitable for these uses. Refuge facilities and lands may be used as outdoor 

classrooms by groups of students with a teacher and a formalized plan of environmental study, by 

members of organizations such as Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts, or by other members of the public. 

Educational activities may be conducted in areas and at times approved by the refuge manager. 

Refuge environmental resources may be used to demonstrate principles of environmental science. 

Environmental education and interpretation activities can occur throughout the year, but generally 

occur mostly in the spring and fall. All environmental education and interpretation activities are 

conducted with the refuge's primary goals, objectives, and habitat management requirements as the 

guiding principles. Activities conducted under these restrictions allow the refuge to accomplish its 

management goals and provide for the safety of visitors. 

Wildlife observation and photography occurs on refuge lands where wildlife congregate and the public 

can see them. General public access to observe or to photograph wildlife and refuge habitats 

includes driving, hiking, bicycling, or boating. Currently, Yazoo Refuge offers wildlife observation 

towers at Lizard Lake and Alligator Pond; however, wildlife observation and photography can occur at 

any location on refuge lands that is not prohibited to public access. 

Wildlife observation and photography are allowed wherever and whenever visitor access is allowed 

throughout the Complex. Visitors must comply with existing laws, regulations, and policies concerning 

access and harassment of wildlife. Much of the wildlife observation will be done from privately owned 

vehicles. Observation platforms, boardwalks, trails, and parking areas have been constructed to provide 

safe, convenient areas for visitors to use. Off-trail use will be allowed, but it will not be concentrated or 

restricted to a given area. Vehicle use will be restricted to all-weather roads. 
 228

Availability of Resources: The current levels of environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife 

observation and photography require minimal resources. Accessible lands on the refuge have been 

open to public use for many years, thus, access trails, parking lots, signs, and other facilities, as well 

as staff to enforce regulations and maintain these facilities, have been provided by the Service. The 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan recommends some strategies to improve outreach and facilities 

and to increase visitor use. Full implementation of these strategies will require additional funding and 

staffing. Funds are currently available to maintain existing programs. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Wildlife observation and photography have shown no measurable 

environmental impacts to the refuge, its habitats, or wildlife species. Access is typically by individuals 

or small groups in vehicles. Foot travel occurs on refuge roads and trails and produces only 

temporary disturbance to wildlife. The most likely impact to refuge purposes would be during spring 

and early summer nesting and brood rearing, and during spring and fall migration. However, the 

expected sporadic and limited use by the public should not create unreasonable impacts. Winter 

activities pose no impacts to nesting waterfowl and little impact to vegetation. The winter disturbance 

to resident wildlife is temporary and minor. Large groups of visitors typically use established foot 

trails and produce little impact to vegetation. Disturbance to wildlife, such as flushing a nesting bird, is 

inherent to these activities; however, the disturbance is temporary and generally not malicious. Any 

unreasonable harassment would be grounds for the manager to close the area to these uses or 

restrict the uses to minimize harm. Restrictions on refuge road use will assure minimal impacts on 

priority species and restrict disturbance to wildlife and other public use activities. 

Structural damage from vandalism, as well as natural occurrences such as falling limbs or trees, is 

expected to occur to wildlife observation platforms, boardwalks, facilities, and trails. Maintenance 

activities to repair damages will ensure public access and minimize damage over time. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was provided for public review and 

comment during the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan comment period, which began on 

October 14, 2005, and ended on November 25, 2005. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

a. All wildlife observation and photography activities will be conducted with the refuge's primary 

objectives, habitat management requirements, and goals as the guiding principles. 

b. Modes of access are limited to any legal means on designated refuge roads, public roads, 

trails, parking lots, and aquatic areas open to the public. 

c. Adequate precautions will be taken to ensure that permanent facilities, such as trails, 

platforms, and boardwalks, are sited an adequate distance from sensitive wildlife areas, such 

as heron rookeries or eagle nests. 

d. Harassment of wildlife and excessive damage to vegetation are prohibited. Wildlife observation 

facilities located near sensitive areas, such as rookeries, must have adequate signing and 

supervision to deter harassment or enforce regulations against harassment of wildlife. 
 229

e. Refuge staffing must be adequate to provide maintenance and litter control on trails, 

boardwalks, and platforms. 

f. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited. 

Justification: Environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography 

are priority public uses on National Wildlife Refuge System Lands as identified in the Refuge 

Improvement Act of 1997. By facilitating these uses on the refuge, we will increase visitors' 

knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife, which will lead to increased public stewardship of fish 

and wildlife and their habitats on the refuge and in general. Increased public stewardship will support 

and complement the Service's actions in achieving the refuge's purposes and the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space. 

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: January 20, 2021
 230

7. Firewood Gathering

Refuge: Hillside, Holt Collier, Mathews Brake, Morgan Brake, Panther Swamp, Theodore 

Roosevelt, and Yazoo NWRs, and Farm Service Agency lands.

Description of Use: Firewood gathering is the cutting and removal of woody material for private use 

by the individual removing the firewood. Firewood gathering is offered to the public following timber 

stand improvement or forest thinning in small lots or areas, or at times when timber sales are not 

feasible. In young tree plantations, firewood gathering could be offered in lieu of a commercial timber 

harvest operation. It may also be permitted when trees that have fallen across roads, trails, or 

firebreaks must be removed. 

Private individuals are permitted to remove, for personal use only, fallen timber or marked standing 

timber as designated by the refuge manager. The scope of the use will be determined by the 

management objective for the area and by the quantity and quality of available wood. Harvest sites 

will vary in size from a portion of an acre up to several hundred acres depending on the site and 

management objectives. Wood removal activities may be authorized throughout the year when 

ground conditions allow access without damaging refuge roads and resources. 

Chainsaws and axes may be used to harvest firewood. Access may be by car and trailer or pickup 

truck. Differences in scope and necessary equipment will occur depending on the amount and type 

of wood available for removal. This activity will only occur where the Service has determined that a 

management need exists to remove wood. 

Availability of Resources: Excess woody material is plentiful on all seven refuges in the Complex. 

Public firewood gathering requires oversight and administration by the refuge forester, as time allows, 

or by other staff experienced with the program. Refuge operations and maintenance funding would 

be needed to cover salaries of staff members who complete paperwork and administer the program, 

and for marking paint, flagging, vehicles, and fuel. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The potential exists to directly impact wildlife by displacing animals 

from localized areas due to disturbance, noise, or removal of nesting areas. Due to the small scale of 

firewood gathering on the Complex, disturbance to wildlife would be negligible. Avoidance of nesting 

periods for migratory birds would reduce impacts on populations. Most impacts can easily be avoided 

by timing of season in accordance with site-specific characteristics. 

Large, dead, and downed trees and standing snags are extremely important habitat components that 

should remain on the refuge unless they pose a danger to the public in concentrated use areas or to 

refuge operations. Unlikely incidents affecting hunters during general hunts would not be considered 

reason enough to remove snags. In some cases, the removal of trees along roads, trails, and dikes 

is necessary to reduce hazards to users caused by falling trees and limbs. 

Impacts to refuge roads and trails due to soil compaction from vehicles, rutting, or root damage are 

possible, but can be avoided by restricting use to dry ground conditions. Traffic on refuge roads will need 

to be carefully controlled (via special use permit) to avoid impacts such as rutting and potholes. Because 

few requests are received for this type of activity, halting the practice entirely should not create a problem 

because local residents do not generally rely upon a supply of wood for home heating. 
 231

Firewood cutting benefits the public and can be used as a management tool in forested habitats and 

as a maintenance tool on roads, trails, and grounds. The removal of dead trees reduces litter buildup 

and the potential for damaging wildfires. Direct impacts on wildlife can be avoided by timing the 

activity so that it is not coincident with the breeding/production season. Individuals gathering 

firewood would be required to comply with special use permit conditions and site-specific stipulations 

to ensure that resources are protected and management goals are achieved. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was provided for public review and 

comment during the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan comment period, which began on 

October 14, 2005, and ended on November 25, 2005. 

 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

a. Firewood gathering would be regulated by Special Use Permit so that site-specific impacts 

can be reduced or eliminated and Service management goals are met. The permit would 

include stipulations that ensure the practice is allowed only when it benefits refuge operations 

or habitat conditions, areas and times of use are specified, ingress and egress points 

controlled, trees to be removed are marked by refuge staff, allowable equipment is identified, 

and other important conditions are specified. 

b. The use would be restricted to periods of dry ground conditions to avoid rutting and soil 

compaction on refuge roads, to the extent practicable. 

c. Firewood removed from refuge lands is for personal use only and may not be sold. 

Justification: With the stipulations above, firewood gathering is in compliance with the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and furthers the goals and missions of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System and the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space. 

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: January 20, 2016
 232

8. Fishing – including Frogging: 

Refuge: Hillside, Mathews Brake, Morgan Brake, Panther Swamp, and Yazoo NWRs.

Description of Use: Recreational fishing (a wildlife-dependent activity) has been identified in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 as a priority public use, provided it is 

compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Sport fishing and frogging in refuge waters are an integral part of the overall public use program in 

the Mississippi Delta. Several of the refuges in the complex have partnered with the state 

conservation department to install boat ramps. Refuges have constructed accessible piers, signs, 

and information kiosks to inform the public of the need for stewardship of public lands and waters and 

to increase the awareness of our natural resources. 

Recreational fishing and frogging are common public uses in refuge waters on Hillside, Mathews 

Brake, Morgan Brake, and Panther Swamp NWRs, where fish populations support a sustainable 

harvest under a regulated fishing program. The refuge annual hunting and fishing permit is required 

to fish on the refuge. Fishing is conducted year-round from sunrise to sunset, subject to regulations 

established by the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. Fish and Wildlife Service 

specific regulations further restrict fishing by prohibiting commercial fishing on the refuge, the use of 

certain fishing methods, and access after dark. Frogging is the only activity (except coon hunting) 

that is permitted after dark. 

Several methods of fishing are employed, including boat fishing, wade fishing, and bank fishing. Boat 

and bank fishing are permitted, as provided by refuge special regulations and those published in Title 

50, Code of Federal Regulations. Bank fishing will take place on areas with shallow slopes, mostly 

on existing footpaths or access trails. Frogging is conducted at night with gigs and by hand grabbing. 

Coordination with the Service and State fisheries offices for monitoring fish populations, contaminants, 

and habitat conditions is handled by individual refuge managers. Yazoo NWR is closed to public fishing 

due to elevated levels of DDT and toxaphene in refuge waters. Should contaminant levels decline to an 

acceptable level in the future, Yazoo NWR’s Steele Bayou may be opened to fishing, with restrictions. In 

addition, future plans on Yazoo NWR include a youth fishing area at Holt Collier Horseshoe Pond, for 

youth 15 years and younger when accompanied by an adult. The Holt Collier Horseshoe Pond is not 

connected to Steele Bayou where the contamination exceeds Federal limits, and it is anticipated that 

fishing in this area will be appropriate. Additional work is needed to develop the pond as a fishing area, 

including levee modification and fish stocking. Holt Collier and Theodore Roosevelt NWRs do not support 

fish populations sufficient to offer a sustainable harvest. 

Availability of Resources: Annual refuge budget funds for operations and maintenance and fees 

collected under the refuge annual hunting and fishing permit have funded the cost of road and boat 

ramp maintenance. Funding has been marginally sufficient to properly maintain existing program 

levels. Additional funds and/or staff would be required to install additional boat ramps, fishing piers, 

and related fishing facilities. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Cooperation with state fisheries biologists in pond surveys and 

sampling helps to provide data for refuge management purposes. Littering and potential gasoline 

contamination in refuge waters may occur. Impacts are expected to be minor in nature. Wake 

damage has not been a serious problem in the past, as most motoring is necessarily slow due to the 

nature of the aquatic environment. Erosion and damage to vegetation due to foot traffic are expected 

to be minimal. Minor facility repair or rehabilitation would be completed when needed. 
 233

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was provided for public review and 

comment during the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan comment period, which began on 

October 14, 2005, and ended on November 25, 2005. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the following stipulations: 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The following stipulations are required to ensure 

compatibility: 

a. All sport fishing activities, including permitted methods of taking, limits, species and 

open/closed seasons, will be consistent with applicable state regulations. Enforcement efforts 

will be conducted by Fish and Wildlife Service’s refuge law enforcement officers and agents 

from the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, when available. 

b. Fishing is permitted from dawn to dusk. No fishing is allowed after dark. 

c. Commercial fishing, or possession or use of jugs, seines, nets, had-grab baskets, or similar 

devices is prohibited. 

d. Limits and size of boat motors for certain areas will be posted on refuge kiosks and 

informational boards, and published in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations. 

e. A public use General Permit is required to fish in refuge waters. 

f. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited. 

Justification: The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act identified fishing as one of the 

priority public uses on national wildlife refuges, where compatible with refuge purposes. This use is 

legitimate and appropriate, and is dependent upon healthy fish populations. Use is in compliance 

with the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and furthers the goals and missions of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space. 

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: January 20, 2021
 234

9. Hunting

Refuge: Hillside, Holt Collier, Mathews Brake, Morgan Brake, Panther Swamp, and Yazoo 

NWRs, and Farm Service Agency lands. 

 

Recreational hunting (a wildlife-dependent activity) has been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 as a priority public use, provided it is compatible with the purpose 

for which the refuge was established. Recreational hunting is offered from October through April 

each year for deer, waterfowl, dove, quail, wild turkey, squirrel, rabbit, and raccoon. Hunters are also 

allowed to take feral hogs, raccoon, opossum, coyote, beaver, bobcat, and nutria during regular 

hunting seasons using the firearm permitted for that season. 

Deer Hunting: 

Deer consume agricultural crops planted as high calorie foods for wintering waterfowl and browse the 

understory vegetation in forested areas, preventing tree regeneration and altering the forest structure 

and species (flora and fauna) composition. Over-browsed habitat does not provide food or cover for 

scrub/shrub-dependent species, and bird habitat is damaged when deer consume the vegetation 

birds would use for cover or nesting. When deer herds reduce their food resources, they can starve 

or become susceptible to diseases that healthy deer do not contract under normal circumstances. A 

lack of sufficient food on refuge lands can promote migration of deer beyond refuge boundaries onto 

adjacent private lands where they can consume agricultural crops planted by refuge neighbors. 

Allowing hunters to remove surplus deer reduces the potential for refuge habitat damage and 

agricultural crop losses, and negates the expense of controlling the deer herd with refuge employees. 

Regulation of season lengths, hunting areas, and hunter quotas ensures balance between population 

levels and carrying capacity. 

Hunting for wild turkey, ducks, dove, quail, and small furbearers: 

Hunting is also offered for wild turkey (on Panther Swamp NWR) waterfowl (on Panther Swamp, 

Hillside, Morgan Brake, and Mathews Brake NWRs) and small game animals from populations of 

animals capable of sustaining harvest, including rabbit, squirrel, raccoon, dove, and quail. Waterfowl 

hunting is offered in designated waterfowl hunt areas at designated times on Panther Swamp, 

Hillside, Morgan Brake, and Mathews Brake NWRs. 

Squirrel and rabbit hunting (with and without dogs) is offered on specific refuges during designated 

seasons within the State season. Rabbits only may be hunted on the Carter Tract, Herron Tract, 

Brown Tract, and Holt Collier NWR. Raccoon and opossum hunting with dogs is allowed in 

designated areas during designated seasons on Yazoo, Panther Swamp, Morgan Brake, Mathews 

Brake, and Hillside NWRs. 

Hunting Access 

Vehicular access to hunting areas is limited by road conditions during hunting season. Without 

access, remote refuge areas would be under-harvested and the overall reduction of the deer herd 

would be insufficient to maintain the herd below carrying capacity. For these reasons, all- terrain 

vehicles (ATVs) are allowed on Panther Swamp, Morgan Brake, and Hillside NWRs as the primary 

means of deer hunter access via ATV trails. Yazoo NWR allows ATV-assisted deer retrieval only by 

permission on refuge roads and turn-rows not open to public vehicles. 
 235

Nuisance Animal Hunting: 

Snow geese may be hunted by Special Use Permit as a means of reducing the population or 

discouraging the overabundant snow goose flocks from devastating feeding areas managed for other 

waterfowl. Hogs and furbearers may be taken by valid permit holders on any hunt except turkey and 

dove hunts with firearms legal for that hunt. Furbearers include raccoon, opossum, coyote, beaver, 

bobcat, and nutria. Raccoons may also be taken during any other hunt with firearms legal for that hunt. 

Availability of Resources: The Complex’s ability to offer recreational hunting is dependent upon an 

adequate infrastructure with three key components: (A) staff to administer a hunting program, (B) 

adequately maintained access roads and trails, and (C) an adequate number of law enforcement officers. 

A. Adequate administrative staff: From mid-September to the end of February each year, a large 

percentage of the staff’s time is devoted to managing the Complex’s comprehensive hunt program. 

Each year the Complex issues approximately 7,800 permits; 2,000 limited special hunt permits for 

deer and wild turkey, and 5,800 permits for unlimited hunts. One full-time staff member devotes 100 

percent of her normal tour of duty hours (plus an additional 15 hours per week during peak periods) 

to processing and issuing special use permits for general hunting, fishing, and quota hunt permits, 

and responding to about 2/3 of the thousands of telephone and visitor inquiries. She is assisted by 

one part-time staff member who works approximately 40 hours per week for 6 months greeting 

visitors, answering the telephone, entering data into the hunt program, and performing other visitor 

assistance duties. The assistant refuge managers on Panther Swamp and Morgan Brake NWRs, the 

Complex Biologist, Forester, and maintenance staff support the hunting program by answering 

telephones during busy times, greeting hunters, assisting hunters with directions or lost hunting gear, 

and operating deer check stations at Yazoo, Panther Swamp, and Hillside NWRs. The project leader 

and deputy assist with telephone and visitor assistance. 

B. Adequately maintained roads and trails: Refuge staff devote a considerable amount of time to 

road maintenance (e.g., grading, mowing, and spraying), particularly on Panther Swamp NWR where 

local soils are not suitable substrate for roads. Interior roads constructed for farming or timberharvest are often impassible to 2-wheel-drive vehicles and sometimes impassible to 4-wheel drive 

vehicles during wet weather. Since wet weather season coincides with hunting seasons, access is 

often one of the most expensive and time-consuming refuge maintenance tasks. Road maintenance 

consumes large amounts of fuel, chemicals, and time, and logs thousands of hours on refuge 

maintenance equipment. In some areas on a few refuges, particularly Panther Swamp NWR, road 

maintenance is possible only in late summer or early fall during the driest conditions. 

The challenges associated with inadequate road maintenance, and the resulting lack of public access 

by conventional vehicles to large portions of the refuges, have been addressed somewhat by allowing 

the limited use of ATVs. Panther Swamp NWR currently offers 38 miles of ATV trails, Hillside NWR 

offers 9 miles, and Morgan Brake NWR offers 8 miles of trails, for a combined total of 55 miles. All 

trails are well defined on hunt brochure maps and are open only during periods of hunting and fishing. 

However, during the winter season and after rain events many ATV trails function as waterways, 

eroding soil along the way and increasing sedimentation in the forest and other types of habitats. 

Hunters on ATVs can get stuck in degraded ATV trails and veer off the trails through the forest. 

Excessive off-trail ATV use has a detrimental effect on habitat, including soil erosion, disruptions or 

diversions of water flow, the destruction of plant root systems, the spread of exotic and invasive 

plants, noise, and air pollution. 
 236

C. Adequate Numbers of Law Enforcement Officers: Complex law enforcement officers patrol and 

conduct surveillance, check hunter permits, assist with deer check stations, respond to hunter 

emergencies, enforce laws and regulations, ensure public safety, and protect refuge resources. The 

officers typically handle approximately 4,600 incidents or violations each year, including incidents 

associated with vandalism, suspicious person’s reports, weapons violations, and natural resource 

violations. Refuge law enforcement officers also respond to additional requests for assistance to locate 

lost hunters, attend to hunting accidents, provide support for periodic flooding events that cover roads and 

trap hunters, and handle violations on refuge managed Farm Service Agency lands. During the 6-monthlong hunting season, law enforcement officers devote 100 percent of their scheduled shifts to law 

enforcement plus an additional 20 hours of overtime per week during peak hunt periods to cover the 

refuges from 4 a.m. when hunters arrive, to 8 p.m., when most hunters have departed the refuge. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: 

Impacts on Deer: Allowing hunters to remove surplus deer reduces the potential for habitat damage 

and agricultural crop losses, and negates the expense of controlling the deer herd with refuge 

employees. During normal reproductive years, the refuge's objective would be to annually remove 

approximately 33 percent of the deer population with a 1:1 harvest ratio of the sexes. The program is 

designed to optimize the number of deer taken, while maintaining a percentage of older bucks (5 to 

10 percent) in the trophy class each year to attract enough hunters to reduce the herd by 33 percent. 

Regulation of season lengths, hunting areas, and hunter quotas ensure a balance between 

population levels and carrying capacity, while providing for public safety during hunting season. 

Impacts on Habitat due to Access: ATV access allows hunters to hunt in areas that would 

otherwise be under-harvested, improving the overall herd reduction. ATVs serve to distribute hunters 

more evenly over the landscape, improving harvest results. Two executive orders regulate ATV use 

on federal public lands: Executive Order 11644, signed by President Nixon in 1972, and Executive 

Order 11989, signed by President Carter in 1977. Together these orders require that off-road-vehicle 

use on public lands must be managed to “protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety 

of all users of those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands.” The 

orders also require that when ATV routes are designated, federal land managers must minimize 

damage to soils, watershed, vegetation, and other land resources, minimize wildlife harassment and 

impacts to wildlife habitat, and minimize conflicts between ATV use and other uses of the land. To 

comply with the orders, Service policy requires all ATV use to be in conjunction with wildlifedependent activities only, with ATV use confined to designated areas or trails. 

Impacts on Other Species: Hunting for ducks, wild turkey, and other game species is very popular, 

contributing considerably to the Complex’s public use program. Turkey hunting produces little 

disturbance to waterfowl because the turkey hunting season is in the spring, after waterfowl have already 

migrated through the region. Hunting for squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, and opossum reduce excess numbers 

of these species which, without some type of harvest, would tend to experience population peaks and 

crashes. Hunting reduces fluctuations in the population and the incidence of disease and mortality in 

years of population surges. Duck hunting will disturb ducks, prompting their move to other areas, typically 

the waterfowl sanctuary area. Minor disturbance to other waterbirds may occur. 
 237

Impacts on Nuisance Animals: In compliance with the Fish and Wildlife Service’s conservation 

order, hunters are allowed to take snow, blue, and Ross’ geese during specific periods between 

October and March. Overpopulations have caused environmental damage to nesting grounds in the 

arctic and geese numbers have exceeded 250,000 at times on the refuges. Snow goose numbers 

will be reduced by the conservation order, although not substantially. Hunter presence will create 

enough disturbance to keep the flocks moving from one feeding area to another, and possibly move 

them off the refuge temporarily, leaving at least a portion of the food resources for other waterfowl. 

The taking of hogs and other furbearers in conjunction with other seasons will have little impact on 

hog and furbearer populations, as they are only occasionally taken. 

Impacts on the public and refuge resources from unlawful acts: Law enforcement officers 

moderate conflicts between hunters that, without attention, could escalate into life-threatening 

situations. During hunting season, interactions between hunters, accidents, and conflicts are 

frequent. Deer hunting produces the greatest need for law enforcement presence as deer tend to 

congregate in relatively close proximity, and hunters gather in the same small areas to hunt. 

Thousands of firearm-carrying hunters converge each year in these choice hunting areas. Every year 

hunting equipment or gear is stolen, vehicles vandalized, and accidents occur. During deer-hunting 

season, an adequate law enforcement presence is needed to maintain the peace and safety of 

visitors and to prevent abuse of the wildlife resource. Limited draw hunts require a minimum of two 

and at times more law enforcement officers to adequately meet resource and public protection needs. 

Unstaffed refuges (Holt Collier, Mathews Brake, Hillside NWRs) present law enforcement challenges 

because officers must provide coverage on all refuge lands during all peak deer hunting seasons. 

Hillside, Morgan Brake, and Mathews Brake are separated by a distance of approximately 25 miles. 

Panther Swamp NWR is separated from Hillside, Morgan Brake, and Mathews Brake by an hour’s 

drive, and Yazoo NWR is separated from all the other refuges by at least an hour’s drive. Adequate 

numbers of law enforcement officers are necessary to provide coverage from 4 a.m. to about 8 p.m., 

7 days a week during the 6-month-long hunting season and to cover all hunting programs on all 

refuges concurrently. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was provided for public review and 

comment during the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan comment period, which began on 

October 14, 2005, and ended on November 25, 2005. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the following stipulations: 

a. Hunters must comply with relevant laws and all rules and regulations in the Theodore 

Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex hunting and fishing regulations. 

b. Hunters may use ATVs for deer hunting only on Hillside, Morgan Brake, and Panther Swamp 

NWRs. Harvested deer must be dragged or carted to the ATV trail where they can be loaded 

onto an ATV. ATVs are not allowed off trails. 

c. Adequate numbers of law enforcement staff are necessary to manage the hunts and to protect 

refuge resources and the public. The project leader may close any hunt at any time if he/she 

determines that there is an insufficient number of law enforcement officers to manage the hunts. 
 238

Justification: Hunting will be subject to the stipulations listed, and will not interfere with the primary 

purposes for which the refuge was established. With respect to white-tailed deer hunting, a deer harvest 

is essential to maintain desired bird habitat and wildlife health conditions. With stipulations, use is in 

compliance with the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and furthers the goals and missions of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space. 

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: January 20, 2021
 239

10. Research

Refuge: Hillside, Holt Collier, Mathews Brake, Morgan Brake, Panther Swamp, Theodore 

Roosevelt, and Yazoo NWRs, and Farmers Home Administration Lands. 

Description of Use: The Complex currently offers university professors and their students, 

partnering federal and state agencies, scientists, contractors, and others to conduct short- and longterm research projects, monitoring studies, and surveys on refuge lands. Research projects 

contribute to a better understanding of refuge wildlife and habitat resources, provide information to 

improve adaptive management decisions, and increase life history information on species of concern. 

Research proposals on refuge lands are typically developed by research agencies, area universities, 

and colleges in coordination with the staff to support refuge special needs. Large-scale proposals are 

planned with input from the refuge. Other than staff time to review data and studies, research 

proposals and resultant studies are the responsibility and expense of the sponsoring school or group. 

The Complex supports research by authorizing housing for scientists while they are conducting their 

work, by periodic habitat manipulation (e.g., mowing and disking) and by research article review. 

Refuge funding maintains housing facilities. The Complex also provides secure sites for both shortand long-term studies, particularly in bottomland forest ecosystems of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. 

Research areas may be accessed by foot, vehicle, boat, or aerial methods. Marking of nests and individual 

animals may be required. The least invasive means required to accomplish objectives will be used.

Availability of Resources: Research and monitoring is funded by grants, other government 

agencies, universities, or by students and volunteers. Refuge staff involvement includes reviewing 

research proposals, supervising or monitoring research activities, reviewing reports, providing some 

equipment and vehicles, and occasionally participating in fieldwork. Staff time is devoted to research 

proposal/report development and/or review, Special Use Permit administration, student or volunteer 

supervision, and vehicle maintenance. The crew quarters and RVs at the Headquarters Office on 

Yazoo NWR, and the RVs at Morgan Brake and Panther Swamp are available to visiting researchers 

by special arrangement. 

Research projects have primarily been initiated and funded by universities and other federal agencies 

(e.g., USDA Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, etc.). If extended housing is offered, the refuge may, 

at its discretion, require that the cost of utilities, maintenance, refurbishing, etc., be covered by the 

research unit. Other resources may be used, as acquired, through grants or other special funding. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Research projects would be evaluated by the Complex biologist 

and refuge manager to determine whether the project is aligned with information needs of the refuge 

and surrounding landscape. Only projects that benefit resource management would be approved. 

Disturbance or removal of plants and wildlife could occur but is expected to produce only a temporary 

impact. Repopulation of the removed individuals would be expected to occur over time. Some 

temporary dispersal of animals around or off the refuge may occur from field activities. Special Use 

Permits or Cooperative Agreements would be developed to eliminate or minimize impacts to other 

uses and management activities. 
 240

Information collected from research projects will assist the refuge manager to fine-tune management 

activities, maximizing productivity of refuge lands. To ensure that studies have minimal impact on 

refuge species and habitats, research must meet the criteria in the refuge manual and the research 

outline/proposal must conform to Service guidelines. Only those studies that provide practical 

management data or can be used to further the science of wildlife management are approved. If 

approved, access to refuge lands and waters will be limited to the least invasive means required to 

accomplish the activities. Impacts on refuge purposes are all determined to be positive. Wildlife 

disturbance and impacts to refuge resources and infrastructure would be controlled through 

stipulations in a Special Use Permit issued to each user. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was provided for public review and 

comment during the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan comment period, which began on 

October 14, 2005, and ended on November 25, 2005. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The following stipulations are required to ensure 

compatibility: 

a. Researchers would be required to obtain a Special Use Permit prior to conducting their 

research. 

b. Studies proposed by outside agencies/institutions would be reviewed and approved by the 

refuge manager before access is authorized. 

c. All proposals must conform to Service guidelines and be applicable to the management needs 

of the Complex. 

Justification: Research will add to the base of knowledge in the field of wildlife management and 

will create no significant adverse affects on other refuge programs or wildlife populations. 

Use is in compliance with the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and furthers the goals and missions 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space. 

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: January 20, 2016
 241

11. Timber Harvest for Forest Management

Refuge: Hillside, Holt Collier, Mathews Brake, Morgan Brake, Panther Swamp, and Theodore 

Roosevelt NWRs. 

Description of Use: Timber harvest for forest management is currently conducted on Panther 

Swamp NWR in accordance with an approved Forest Management Plan that is designed to meet 

wildlife habitat objectives. The plan emphasizes activities that protect, restore, and manage the 

functions and values of the forest to support viable populations of native flora and fauna, consistent 

with sound biological principles. Priority is given to management activities for federal trust species 

such as migratory birds. Forest management prescriptions include timber stand improvement, 

commercial timber harvest, and reforestation. Habitat manipulations would be conducted primarily 

through commercial timber harvests of surplus forest products. The sale and disposition of forest 

products would comply with open market rules and formal bid solicitations. 

Commercial timber harvest operations cannot be significantly expanded until a comprehensive forest 

inventory has been completed on Complex refuges, and a Forest Habitat Management Plan 

prepared. In the interim, the current Forest Management Plan for Panther Swamp Refuge will 

continue to be implemented. 

Individual forest stands will be inventoried, timber harvest prescriptions developed, and timber 

harvest operations carried out in a manner that will accomplish the forest habitat management 

objectives for migratory birds, threatened or endangered species, and resident wildlife. Timber 

marking operations will select trees that would be harvested by commercial timber and pulpwood 

operators. Trees may also be removed through timber stand improvement operations or by 

permittees when commercial sales are not feasible. 

Availability of Resources: Current funding and staffing allow only limited timber harvest activities 

on one refuge in the Complex (Panther Swamp NWR.) Additional funding and staffing would be 

required to expand timber harvest to the remaining refuges. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Commercial timber harvest operations can cause adverse impacts 

on habitat values and water quality if not carefully controlled and supervised. Restrictions and 

conditions must be placed on harvesting operations to minimize adverse effects from logging 

equipment, such as excessive defacement of residual trees and negative impacts on surface water 

quality. Minor short-term impacts are expected to occur during harvesting operations, including 

mechanized operation disturbance to wildlife and trampling of the understory vegetation by 

equipment. However, these impacts are short term as the understory vegetation usually recovers in 

one growing season. 

Forest management operations are directed at providing more vertical diversity throughout the 

overstory, midstory, understory, and ground flora. Favoring trees of varying ages and sizes, including 

some of the largest dominants within each forest block, will promote the habitat requirements of 

forest-dwelling birds and other resident wildlife. Forest conditions following timber harvest are more 

beneficial to wildlife as harvest operations can help restore the functions and values typically 

associated with bottomland hardwood forests historically occurring throughout the region. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was provided for public review and 

comment during the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan comment period, which began on 

October 14, 2005, and ended on November 25, 2005. 
 242

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Forest management operations may be 

conducted throughout the year, but only according to the guidelines detailed in a Forest Management 

Plan and the special conditions section of the Special Use Permit. All harvesting would be conducted 

by Special Use Permit and carried out in accordance with the Refuge Manual. 

 

Justification: The forest management actions proposed in the comprehensive conservation plan are 

in accordance with Service guidelines for the protection, management and enhancement of habitats 

for wildlife populations on refuges. Adherence to a Forest Management Plan promotes the 

enhancement of habitats for threatened or endangered species, migratory birds and resident wildlife 

species; promotes habitat restoration; protects cultural resources; and provides opportunities for 

public recreation and environmental education. Use is in compliance with the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and furthers the goals and missions of the National Wildlife Refuge System and 

the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space. 

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: January 20, 2016
 243

12. Trapping

Refuge: Hillside, Holt Collier, Mathews Brake, Morgan Brake, Panther Swamp, Theodore 

Roosevelt, and Yazoo NWRs, and Farm Service Agency lands. 

Description of Use: Trapping is employed to prevent or reduce the loss of Federal trust species, 

prevent refuge habitat losses, and reduce habitat damage. The trapping program targets raccoon, 

coyote, bobcat, skunks, beaver, and nutria. Skunks and raccoons prey upon nests, often eating the 

eggs of wood ducks, wild turkey, and other birds. They also prey upon waterfowl and their young. 

Population numbers of both species have increased on the refuge from the lack of hunting, trapping 

and natural predators. Nutria damage habitat and impair refuge infrastructure by rooting up 

vegetation and digging holes in levees or dikes, sometimes producing significant damage. Beavers 

cause a considerable amount of damage to refuge infrastructure by burrowing into levees and dikes, 

plugging water control structures and pipes, destroying timber and crops in agricultural fields, and 

flooding or undermining roads and bridges. There are few natural predators to keep the population in 

check, thus beavers can quickly overpopulate an area. 

Cooperative partnerships with commercial trappers have helped reduce populations of beaver, 

raccoon, nutria, and bobcat. The trappers spend 2-3 weeks at each refuge during the state trapping 

season. In exchange for refuge housing in RVs at Morgan, Panther Swamp, and Yazoo NWR, they 

trap the above-identified animals and are permitted to retain the furs for later commercial purposes. 

Trappers use pick-ups, vehicles, and ATVs to access trapping sites on the refuge. They are 

permitted on refuge roads and interior trails during the time they are trapping. In the 2004 trapping 

season, 4 trappers spent approximately 700 hours trapping for beaver, nutria, and raccoon on Yazoo, 

Panther Swamp, and Morgan Brake NWRs. 

Availability of Resources: Because the Complex lacks sufficient staff to administer the trapping 

program, the cooperative partnership with visiting trappers benefits refuge resources. Staffing and 

funding are available to administer the trapping program at the current level. Existing RVs at refuge 

offices are offered for trappers’ use during the period they are trapping. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Beaver trappers using the refuge in the winter may cause 

temporary displacement of waterfowl from specific and limited areas. In the early spring they may 

disturb waterfowl or wood ducks on occasion. These impacts would be occasional, temporary, and 

isolated to small geographic areas. There have been no reported conflicts between hunters and 

trappers. To avoid contact with other refuge users, traps will not be set in the hunting areas during 

open seasons. The permit system offers the refuge manager the opportunity to specifically target 

nuisance species and regulate techniques and methods for their removal. 

Controlling populations of animals that prey on waterfowl or damage refuge habitat has positive 

impacts on waterfowl populations and refuge resources. Raccoon prey upon waterfowl at various 

stages in the production cycle, and beavers build dams that flood and kill forest habitat. The capture 

of animals, such as otters, will occur to some extent during beaver trapping, but trappers are advised 

to avoid trapping non-target species. Visiting trappers minimize the need to commit Service 

resources to a trapping program, and produce positive impacts for waterfowl and other aquatic wildlife 

species. Reducing beaver populations helps to reduce damage to forest habitat and damage to 

levees and dike infrastructure on the refuge from beaver burrowing. Likewise, an over-abundance of 

nutria can lead to an excessive loss in emergent vegetation. 
 244

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was provided for public review and 

comment during the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan comment period, which began on 

October 14, 2005, and ended on November 25, 2005. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible, with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

a. Trapping is conducted in compliance with a Special Use Permit. 

b. Trapping will not be allowed in hunting areas during open season or in high-visibility public 

use areas. 

c. Take of non-targeted animals will be minimized by trap set and locations. 

d. A trapping report will be required of the individual named in the Special Use Permit. 

e. All traps must be flagged and checked daily. 

Justification: Trapping is a valuable management tool that is used to prevent predation of Federal 

trust species and reduce damage to refuge habitat and infrastructure. With the above stipulations, 

little or no adverse effects to other refuge programs or wildlife species will occur. Use is in 

compliance with the comprehensive conservation plan and furthers the goals and missions of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space. 

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: January 20, 2016
 245

Approval of Compatibility Determinations: 

The signature of approval covers all the compatibility determinations considered within the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex. If one 

of the descriptive uses is considered for compatibility outside of the plan, the approval signature 

becomes part of that determination. 
 246
 247

APPENDIX VI. PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES 

AND SPECIES SUITES 

BCR 26 priority species (B=Breeding, N=Non-breeding, T=transient, PB=Post-breeding; 

FE=Federally Endangered, FT=Federally Threatened, SL=listed in at least one State within BCR) 

Tier I. SPECIES OF HIGH CONTINENTAL AND/OR REGIONAL CONCERN (Regional Combined 

Score presented only for Tier I species, except waterfowl) 

Immediate Management 

25 Ivory-billed Woodpecker (B, N) (extirpated?) also SL 

25 Bachman’s Warbler (B) (extirpated?) also FE, SL 

22 Buff-breasted Sandpiper (T) (USSCP Cat.=5) 

21 Henslow’s Sparrow (N) also SL 

20 Greater Prairie-Chicken (B, N) (extirpated) 

20 Prothonotary Warbler (B) 

20 Swainson’s Warbler (B) also SL 

19 American Woodcock (N) (USSCP Cat.=4) 

19 Cerulean Warbler (B) (21 T) also SL 

18 Swallow-tailed Kite (B) also SL 

18 King Rail (B) also SL 

18 “Western” Painted Bunting (B) 

16 Wood Thrush (B) 

 Northern Pintail (N) 

Management Attention

21 Golden-winged Warbler (T) 

20 Blue-winged Warbler (T) 

19 Black Rail (T) also SL 

19 Yellow Rail (N) 

19 Bay-breasted Warbler (T) 

19 Canada Warbler (T) 

18 American Bittern (N) 

18 Mississippi Kite (B) also SL 

18 Hudsonian Godwit (T) (USSCP Cat.=4) 

18 Semipalmated Sandpiper (T) (USSCP Cat.=3) 

18 Wilson’s Phalarope (T) (USSCP Cat.=4) 

18 Rusty Blackbird (N) 

18 Orchard Oriole (B) 
 248

17 American White Pelican (N) 

17 Yellow-crowned Night-Heron (B) also SL 

17 Wood Stork (N) also SL 

17 American Golden-Plover (T) (USSCP Cat.=4) 

17 American Avocet (T) (USSCP Cat.=3) 

17 Upland Sandpiper (T) (USSCP Cat.=4) 

17 Least Sandpiper (N) (USSCP Cat.=3) 

17 Stilt Sandpiper (T) (USSCP Cat.=3) 

17 Short-billed Dowitcher (T) (USSCP Cat.=4) 

17 Black Tern (T) 

17 Red-headed Woodpecker (B, N) 

17 Mourning Warbler (T) 

16 Northern Bobwhite (B, N) 

16 Horned Grebe (N) 

16 Little Blue Heron (B) also SL 

16 White Ibis (N) 

16 Northern Harrier (N) 

16 Solitary Sandpiper (T) (USSCP Cat.=4) 

16 Western Sandpiper (T) (USSCP Cat.=4) 

16 Least Tern (B) (20 Interior subspecies) also FE, SL 

16 Short-eared Owl (N) 

16 Olive-sided Flycatcher (T) 

16 Northern Parula (B) 

15 Tricolored Heron (B) 

15 Lesser Yellowlegs (T) (USSCP Cat.=3) 

15 Sanderling (T) (USSCP Cat.=4) 

15 Dunlin (T) (USSCP Cat.=3) 

15 Common Tern (T) 

15 Black Skimmer (B) 

15 Yellow-billed Cuckoo (B) 

15 Loggerhead Shrike (B, N) also SL 

15 White-eyed Vireo (B, N) 

15 Yellow-breasted Chat (B) 

15 Field Sparrow (N) 

15 Grasshopper Sparrow (N) 

15 Eastern Meadowlark (B, N) 

15 Baltimore Oriole (B) 

14 Pied-billed Grebe (B only) also SL 

14 Least Bittern (B) also SL 

14 Purple Gallinule (B) 

14 Northern Flicker (B, N) 

14 Eastern Wood-Pewee (B) 

14 Eastern Kingbird (B) 

14 Brown Thrasher (B, N) 

14 Vesper Sparrow (N) 
 249

14 Savannah Sparrow (N) 

14 Dickcissel (B) 

 Mallard (N) 

 American Black Duck (N) 

 Canvasback (N) 

 Lesser Scaup (N) 

Planning and Responsibility

18 Worm-eating Warbler (T) 

16 Wilson’s Snipe (N) (USSCP Cat.=3) 

16 Willow Flycatcher (T) 

15 Willet (T) (USSCP Cat.=3) 

15 Kentucky Warbler (B) 

14 Prairie Warbler (B) 

 Mottled Duck (B, N) 

Tier II. SPECIES NOT OTHERWISE OF CONTINENTAL NOR REGIONAL CONCERN WHERE 

MONITORING (i.e., All Planning and Responsibility) ATTENTION IS NEEDED TO ENSURE 

POPULATION STABILITY 

Planning and Responsibility

Wood Duck (B, N) 

Killdeer (B, N) 

Pectoral Sandpiper (T) (USSCP Cat.=2) 

Red-bellied Woodpecker (B, N) 

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher (T) 

Alder Flycatcher (T) 

Least Flycatcher (T) 

Philadelphia Vireo (T) 

Sedge Wren (N) 

Tennessee Warbler (T) 

Blackburnian Warbler (T) 

Le Conte’s Sparrow (N) 

Tier III. SPECIES WHERE AT LEAST MONITORING ATTENTION IS NEEDED TO ENSURE 

POPULATION PERSISTENCE (i.e., All at least Planning and Responsibility), BUT 

MANAGEMENT ATTENTION MAY OR MAY NOT BE NECESSARY BASED ON LEGAL 

REQUIREMENTS AND POLITICAL BOUNDARIES 

Tier III a. Additional Federally Listed 

Bald Eagle (B, N) FT, also SL 

Piping Plover (N) FT, also SL (USSCP Cat.=5) 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (B, N) FE, also SL 
 250

Tier III b. Additional State Listed 

Trumpeter Swan (N) KY 

Blue-winged Teal (B) KY 

Northern Shoveler (B) KY 

Hooded Merganser (B) KY 

Double-crested Cormorant (B) KY 

Anhinga (B) TN 

Great Blue Heron (B) KY 

Great Egret (B) KY, TN 

Snowy Egret (B) IL, KY, MO, TN 

Cattle Egret (B) KY 

Black-crowned Night-Heron (B) IL, KY, TN 

Osprey (B) IL, KY 

Northern Harrier (B) IL, KY, MO, TN 

Peregrine Falcon (B, T) IL, LA, KY, MO, TN 

Common Moorhen (B) IL, KY, TN 

American Coot (B only) KY 

Barn Owl (B, N) IL, KY, MO, TN 

Bell’s Vireo (B) IL, KY 

Bank Swallow (B) KY 

Fish Crow (B) KY 

Bewick’s Wren (N) IL, KY, MS, TN 

Sedge Wren (B) KY 

Brown Creeper (B) KY 

Lark Sparrow (B) KY, TN 

Tier III c. Additional politically recognized species (e.g., natureserve s1, s2)

[REFER TO EACH STATE’S NATURAL HERITAGE DATABASE; MANY SPECIES ABOVE ARE 

LIKELY INCLUDED IN MANY OF THE DATABASES WITHIN THE STATES THEY OCCUR IN] 

 

Tier IV. OTHER SPECIES OF CONSERVATION OR MANAGEMENT INTEREST, NOT 

OTHERWISE LISTED ABOVE (LOCAL OR REGIONAL INTEREST=LORI species; some species 

may be listed in more than one sub-tier below) 

Tier IV a. Locally Rare or Peripheral Species of Interest (e.g., certain nonbreeding 

hummingbird species found in the Southeast U.S., Continental Concern species with RD=1) 

Common Loon (T) 

Neotropical Cormorant (B) 

Double-crested Cormorant (B) 

Glossy Ibis (B, N) 

White-faced Ibis (B, N) 

Roseate Spoonbill (B, N) 

Sandhill Crane (T) 

Black-necked Stilt (B) (USSCP Cat.=3) 

Whimbrel (T) (USSCP Cat.=4) 

Marbled Godwit (T) (USSCP Cat.=4) 

Ruddy Turnstone (T) (USSCP Cat.=4) 

Red Knot (T) (USSCP Cat.=4) 
 251

Gull-billed Tern (B) 

Willow Flycatcher (B) 

Western Kingbird (B) 

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher (B) 

Warbling Vireo (B) 

Brown-headed Nuthatch (B, N)? 

Black-and-white Warbler (B) 

American Redstart (B) 

Worm-eating Warbler (B) 

Bachman’s Sparrow (B)? 

Tier IV b. Game Species of Particular Local or State Management or Economic Interest (e.g., 

Wild Turkey, many species of waterfowl) 

Snow Goose (Lesser subspecies, mid-continent population) 

Canada Goose (Mississippi Valley population) 

Green-winged Teal (N) 

Blue-winged Teal (N) 

Northern Shoveler (N) 

Gadwall (N) 

American Wigeon (N) 

Ring-necked Duck (N) 

Greater Scaup (N) 

Wild Turkey (B, N) 

Virginia Rail (N) 

Sora (N) 

American Coot (N) 

Mourning Dove (B, N) 

Tier IV c. Nongame Species of Particular Local or State Management or Economic Interest 

(e.g., Ruby-throated Hummingbird, Purple Martin, Eastern Bluebird) 

Green Heron (B) 

Red-shouldered Hawk (B, N) 

White-rumped Sandpiper (T) (USSCP Cat.=2) 

Baird’s Sandpiper (T) (USSCP Cat.=2) 

Long-billed Dowitcher (N) (USSCP Cat.=2) 

Bonaparte’s Gull (N) 

Forster’s Tern (T) 

Common Nighthawk (B) 

Ruby-throated Hummingbird (B) 

Pileated Woodpecker (B, N) 

Carolina Chickadee (B, N) 

Indigo Bunting 
 252

Tier IV d. Species frequently occurring as a regional concern species in other BCRs, just not 

in this one, with RD>2 (good to keep track of species where they are doing well, when in many 

BCR’s they are not doing well) 

Chuck-will’s-widow (B) 

Chimney Swift (B) 

Acadian Flycatcher (B) 

Yellow-throated Vireo (B) 

Yellow-throated Warbler (B) 

Hooded Warbler (B) 

Summer Tanager (B) 

Tier IV e. Species Important as Environmental Indicators (e.g., many species of raptors, such 

as Osprey, and herons, such as Great Blue Heron) 

Tier IV f. Nuisance or Depredating Species (e.g., crows, grackles, cowbirds, most blackbirds, 

double-crested cormorants) 

Local or Regional Population Control/Suppression

American White Pelican (non-breeding populations associated with aquacultural facilities) 

Double-crested Cormorant (non-breeding populations associated with aquacultural facilities) 

Great Blue Heron (associated with aquacultural facilities) 

Great Egret (associated with aquacultural facilities) 

Snowy Egret (associated with aquacultural facilities) 

Little Blue Heron (associated with aquacultural facilities) 

Tricolored Heron (associated with aquacultural facilities) 

Cattle Egret (associated with colonies causing potential health and safety problems, potential 

competion and replacement of higher priority colonial nesters [e.g., Little Blue Heron] 

Tier IV g. Continental Stewardship Species high RD>3 or TB=1 

*Action Level: 

IM=Immediate management needed to reverse or stabilize significant, long-term population declines 

in species with small populations, or to protect species with the smallest populations for which trends 

are poorly known. Lack of action may lead to extirpations or extinction. Generally species with a 

TB/TN=5 or a TB/TN=4+PT=5 fall under this action level. 

MA=Management or other on-the-ground conservation actions needed to reverse or stabilize 

significant, long-term population declines in species that are still relatively abundant. All other 

Regional Concern species that are not IM, fall under this action level. Some Federally or 

State/Provincial listed species not otherwise meeting either Continental or Regional Concern criteria 

may fall under this action level. 
 253

PR=Long-term Planning and Responsibility needed for species to ensure that sustainable populations 

are maintained for species for which a region has high responsibility for that species. All Continental 

Concern species that are not also Regional Concern species fall under this action level, as well as 

any additional Regional Stewardship and Continental Stewardship species and any additional LORI 

species identified. 

PC = Population Control/Suppression needed for species that are otherwise secure and increasing that 

may come into conflict with other species of higher conservation concern or other resources of interest. 

PCL = Local or Regional Population Control/Suppression that generally are species listed as in need of 

Management Attention or Long-term Planning and Responsibility, but locally may be subject to population 

control measures to alleviate documented economic, environmental, or human health and safety conflicts, 

but only when economics and conservation implications have been thoroughly considered. 

Action Level: 

IM=Immediate management needed to reverse or stabilize significant, long-term population declines 

in species with small populations, or to protect species with the smallest populations for which trends 

are poorly known. Lack of action may lead to extirpations or extinction. Generally species with a 

TB/TN=5 or a TB/TN=4+PT=5 fall under this action level. 

MA=Management or other on-the-ground conservation actions needed to reverse or stabilize 

significant, long-term population declines in species that are still relatively abundant. All other 

Regional Concern species that are not IM, fall under this action level. Some Federally or 

State/Provincial listed species not otherwise meeting either Continental or Regional Concern criteria 

may fall under this action level. 

PR=Long-term Planning and Responsibility needed for species to ensure that sustainable populations are 

maintained for species for which a region has high responsibility for that species. All Continental Concern 

species that are not also Regional Concern species fall under this action level, as well as any additional 

Regional Stewardship and Continental Stewardship species and any additional LORI species identified. 

PC = Population Control/Suppression needed for species that are otherwise secure and increasing that may 

come into conflict with other species of higher conservation concern or other resources of interest. 

PCL = Local or Regional Population Control/Suppression that generally are species listed as in need of 

Management Attention or Long-term Planning and Responsibility, but locally may be subject to population 

control measures to alleviate documented economic, environmental, or human health and safety conflicts, 

but only when economics and conservation implications have been thoroughly considered. 
254

Priority Bird-(General) Habitat Relationships for Southeastern Coastal Plain (BCR 26), Southeast U.S. Species may one habitat (only major habitats are recognized here). Species are considered permanent resident within a habitat (

major seasonal movements within the BCR) unless otherwise noted as B=breeding resident, N=non-breeding resideRegional Combined Score is used to rank Tier I species (except waterfowl) within a habitat, within an Action Level (IMManagement, MA=Management Attention, PR=Planning and Responsibility, PCL= Local or Regional population condefined at end of table; ext.?=likely extirpated or nearly so). Neartic-Neotropical migrants are identified by an asterisk 

Conservation 

Tier/Action 

Level; 

Open 

mature pine 

Mature 

Hardwood, 

forested 

wetlands, 

pinehardwood 

mix 

Shrubscrub Grassland, open lands Woodland transients Marshes/long -legged waders Open water near – shore, inland Mudflats, shallow flooded ag 

s

Tier I High Concern IM 

 Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker (25; ext?) 

American Woodcock (N, 19) 

Buffbreasted Sandpiper* (T, 22) 

Cerulean Warbler* (T, 21) 

King Rail (B, 18) 

Northern Pintail (N) 

 Bachman’s 

Warbler* (B, 25; ext.?) 

“Western” Painted Bunting * (B, 18) 

Henslow’s Sparrow (N, 21) 

 Prothonotar

y Warbler * (B, 20) 

 Greater 

PrairieChicken (20; ext.) 

 Swainson’s 

Warbler * (B, 20) 

 American 

Woodcock (N, 19) 

 Cerulean 

Warbler* (B, 16) 

 Swallowtailed Kite * 

(B, 18) 

 Wood 

Thrush * (B, 16) 
 255

Conservation 

Tier/Action 

Level; 

Open 

mature pine 

Mature 

Hardwood, 

forested 

wetlands, 

pinehardwood 

mix 

Shrubscrub Grassland, open lands Woodland transients Marshes/long -legged waders Open water near – shore, inland Mudflats, shallow flooded ag 

s

Tier I High Concern MA 

 Mississippi 

Kite * (B, 18) 

Orchard Oriole * (B, 18) 

American GoldenPlover * (T, 17) 

Goldenwinged Warbler * (T, 21) 

Yellow Rail (T, 19) 

American White Pelican (N, 17) 

Hudsonian Godwit * (T, 18) 

Bl(T

 Rusty 

Blackbird (N, 18) 

White-eyed Vireo * (15) 

Upland Sandpiper * (T, 17) 

Blue-winged Warbler * (T, 20) 

Black Rail (T, 19) 

Horned Grebe (N, 16) 

Semipalmated Sandpiper * (T, 18) 

Le(B

 Red-headed 

Woodpecker (17) 

Yellowbreasted Chat * (B, 15) 

Northern Bobwhite (16) 

Bay-breasted Warbler * (T, 19) 

American Bittern (N, 18) 

Mallard (N) Wilson’s 

Phalarope * (T, 18) 

CoTe15

 Solitary 

Sandpiper * (T, 16) 

Brown Thrasher ( 14) 

Northern Harrier (N, 16) 

Canada Warbler * (T, 19) 

Yellowcrowned Night-Heron (B, 17) 

American Black Duck (N) 

American Avocet (T, 17) 

BlSk15

 Northern 

Parula * (B, 16) 

 Shorteared Owl 

(N, 16) 

Mourning Warbler * (T, 17) 

Wood Stork (N, 17) 

Canvasback (N) 

Least Sandpiper (N, 17) 

 Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo * (B, 15) 

 Loggerhea

d Shrike (15) 

Olive-sided Flycatcher * (T, 16) 

Little Blue Heron (B, 16) 

Lesser Scaup (N) 

Stilt Sandpiper * (T, 17) 

 Baltimore 

Oriole (B, 15) 

 Field 

Sparrow (N, 15) 

 White Ibis (N, 

16) 

 Short-billed 

Dowitcher (T, 17) 

 Northern 

Flicker (14) 

 Grasshopp

er Sparrow (N, 15) 

 Tricolored 

Heron (B, 15) 

 Black Tern * (T, 

17) 

 Eastern 

WoodPewee * (B, 14) 

 Eastern 

Meadowlark (15) 

 Pied-billed 

Grebe (B, 14) 

 Solitary 

Sandpiper * (T, 16) 

 Eastern 

Kingbird * (B, 14) 

 Least Bittern * 

(B, 14) 

 Western 

Sandpiper (T, 16) 
256

Conservation 

Tier/Action 

Level; 

Open 

mature pine 

Mature 

Hardwood, 

forested 

wetlands, 

pinehardwood 

mix 

Shrubscrub Grassland, open lands Woodland transients Marshes/long -legged waders Open water near – shore, inland Mudflats, shallow flooded ag 

s

 Vesper 

Sparrow (N, 14) 

 Purple 

Gallinule * (B, 14) 

 Lesser 

Yellowlegs * (T, 15) 

 Savannah 

Sparrow (N, 14) 

 Sanderling * (T, 

15) 

 Dickcissel * 

(B, 14) 

 Dunlin (T, 15) 

 Common Tern * 

(T, 15) 

I. High Concern PR 

 Kentucky 

Warbler * (B, 15) 

Prairie Warbler * (B, 14) 

Smith’s Longspur (N, 18) 

Worm-eating Warbler * (T, 18) 

Wilson’s Snipe (N, 16) 

Mottled Duck Willet (T, 15) 

 Willow 

Flycatcher * (T, 16) 

Tier II Additional Stewardship PR 

 Wood Duck 

(B) 

 Killdeer Yellow-bellied 

Flycatcher (T) 

 Wood Duck Pectoral 

Sandpiper* (T) 

 Red-bellied 

Woodpecker 

 Sedge 

Wren (N) 

Alder Flycatcher (T) 

 Le Conte’s 

Sparrow (N) 

Least Flycatcher (T) 

 Philadelphia 

Vireo (T) 

 Tennessee 

Warbler (T) 

 Blackb 

urnian Warbler (T) 
 257

Conservation 

Tier/Action 

Level; 

Open 

mature pine 

Mature 

Hardwood, 

forested 

wetlands, 

pinehardwood 

mix 

Shrubscrub Grassland, open lands Woodland transients Marshes/long -legged waders Open water near – shore, inland Mudflats, shallow flooded ag 

s

III Additional Fed Listed 

Redcockaded Woodpecker (AR only) 

Bald Eagle Piping Plover 

(N) 

III Additional  State Listed 

 Hooded 

Merganser (B) 

Bell’s Vireo (B) 

Cattle Egret (B) 

 Great Blue 

Heron (B) 

Trumpeter Swan (N) 

Peregrine Falcon * (T) 

 Peregrine 

Falcon * (B) 

Bewick’s Wren (N) 

Northern Harrier (B) 

 Great Egret 

(B) 

Blue-winged Teal (B) 

 Brown 

Creeper (B) 

 Pererine 

Falcon * (T) 

 Snowy Egret 

(B) 

Northern Shoveler (B) 

 Barn Owl Blackcrowned 

Night-Heron (B) 

Hooded Merganser (B) 

 Sedge 

Wren (B) 

 Common 

Moorhen (B) 

Doublecrested Cormorant (B) 

 Lark 

Sparrow (B) 

 American 

Coot (B) 

Anhinga (B) 

 Osprey * (B)  Peregrine 

Falcon * (T) 

 Bank 

Swallow * (B) 

 Fish Crow 

(B) 

IV Other Local or Regional Interest PR 

Wild Turkey Redshouldered 

Hawk 

Willow Flycatcher (B) 

Sandhill Crane (T) 

 Green Heron 

(B) 

Snow Goose (N) 

Black-necked Stilt (B) 

GTe
258

Conservation 

Tier/Action 

Level; 

Open 

mature pine 

Mature 

Hardwood, 

forested 

wetlands, 

pinehardwood 

mix 

Shrubscrub Grassland, open lands Woodland transients Marshes/long -legged waders Open water near – shore, inland Mudflats, shallow flooded ag 

s

 Chuck-will’swidow (B) Wild Turkey Warbling Vireo (B) Western Kingbird 

(B) 

 Glossy Ibis Canada 

Goose (N) 

Whimbrel (T) 

 Pileated 

Woodpecker 

Mourning Dove 

 Scissortailed 

Flycatcher (B) 

 White-faced 

Ibis 

Greenwinged Teal (N) 

Marbled Godwit (T) 

 Carolina 

Chickadee 

Chimney Swift (B) 

 Common 

Nighthawk (B) 

 Roseate 

Spoonbill 

Blue-winged Teal (N) 

Ruddy Turnstone (T) 

 Brownheaded 

Nuthatch (?) 

Rubythroated Hummingbird (B) 

 Virginia Rail 

(N) 

Northern Shoveler (N) 

Red Knot (T) 

 Bachman’s 

Sparrow (B?) 

Pileated Woodpecker 

 Sora (N) Gadwall (N) White-rumped 

Sandpiper (T) 

 Acadian 

Flycatcher (B) 

 American 

Coot (N) 

American Wigeon (N) 

Baird’s Sandpiper (T) 

 Yellowthroated 

Vireo (B) 

 Ring-necked 

Duck (N) 

Long-billed Dowitcher (N) 

 Carolina 

Chickadee 

 Greater 

Scaup (N) 

 Yellowthroated 

Warbler (B) 

 Common 

Loon (T) 

 Black-andwhite 

Warbler (B) 

 Neotropical 

Cormorant (B) 

 American 

Redstart (B) 

 Doublecrested 

Cormorant (B) 
 259

Conservation 

Tier/Action 

Level; 

Open 

mature pine 

Mature 

Hardwood, 

forested 

wetlands, 

pinehardwood 

mix 

Shrubscrub Grassland, open lands Woodland transients Marshes/long -legged waders Open water near – shore, inland Mudflats, shallow flooded ag 

s

 Wormeating 

Warbler (B) 

 Bonaparte’s 

Gull (N) 

 Hooded 

Warbler (B 

 Forster’s 

Tern (N) 

 Summer 

Tanager (B) 

 Indigo 

Bunting (B) 

Tier IV Other Local and Regional Interest PCL 

 Cattle 

Egret (B) 

 Great Blue 

Heron (N) 

American White Pelican (N) 

 Great Egret 

(N) 

Doublecrested Cormorant (N) 

 Snowy Egret 

(N) 

 Little Blue 

Heron (N) 

 Tricolored 

Heron (N) 

*Nearctic-Neotropical Migrant species, those species with populations principally breeding in temperate North American areas that winte

North American and/or South America areas. 
 260
 261

APPENDIX VII. BUDGET REQUESTS 

Project Name Amount 

1. On Morgan Brake NWR divert a gravel road 200 feet away from the 

North Hill Ponds spring, and restore a 200-foot zone surrounding the 

spring by planting native shrubs. 

$11,000

2. Construct an informational kiosk at Live Oak Mound, Yazoo NWR. $22,000

3. Improve public access to information by developing and maintaining 

up-to-date websites for the Complex and each individual refuge. (This 

project would require the installation of a new satellite system at 

Morgan Brake and Panther Swamp NWRs to replace the antiquated 

telephone dial-up system now in use.) 

$30,000

4. Construct a Visitor’s Center and Headquarters Facility for TR NWR 

Complex. 

$3,500,000

5. Control beaver populations to ensure that no more than 5% of 

bottomland hardwoods are converted to aquatic sites. 

$40,000

6. Provide and protect habitat for endangered and threatened species on 

Complex lands (i.e., interior least tern, bald eagle, pallid sturgeon, 

pondberry, and Louisiana black bear). 

$35,000

7. Provide a minimum of 4,500 acres of moist soil/shallow water habitat 

for waterfowl to support national and regional plans. 

$400,000

8. Provide a minimum of 435 acres of shallow water habitat for fall 

shorebird migration. 

$30,000

9. Provide habitat to support a minimum of five colonial waterbird 

rookeries on Complex lands. 

$10,000

10. Provide brood habitat and nest sites to support 3,000 hatchling wood 

ducks each year on Complex lands. 

$65,000

11. Maintain a population of at least 700 alligators, and protect habitats 

for turtles, snakes, lizards, and crocodilians on Complex lands. 

$15,000

12. Maintain existing habitat and breeding sites to support resident 

amphibians on Complex lands. 

$15,000

13. Maintain and/or enhance a minimum of 2,000 acres of deepwater 

aquatic habitat for viable fishery. 

$20,000

14. Provide agricultural grains for waterfowl and other wildlife $200,000

15. Manage a minimum of 42,000 acres of mature forest for native 

resident and migratory species. 

$370,000

16. Provide and maintain a minimum of 1,500 acres of scrub/shrub 

habitats for ground-nesting birds and migratory songbirds. 

$70,000
 262

Project Name Amount 

17. Maintain existing and provide a minimum of 500 acres of new habitat 

for grasslands species 

$40,000

18. Eradicate or control non-native or native invasive species, pest 

species, and nuisance animals. 

$450,000 - $550,000

19. Expand Complex’s research and monitoring program to ensure that 

management decisions continue to be based upon sound science. 

$800,000 -$900,000

20. Provide technical and financial assistance for habitat restoration to 

private landowners and non-governmental conservation 

organizations through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and 

the Mississippi Partners Program 

$190,000

21. Emphasize partnership efforts in the Conservation Partners Focus 

Area to restore habitat, place lands under conservation easements 

from willing participants, enroll land in the USDA Farm Bill 

conservation programs, or offer land for reforestation under the 

carbon sequestration initiative. 

$180,000

22. Develop the Swan Lake Temple Mound Trail and Interpretive Site at 

Yazoo NWR. 

$90,000

23. Enhance hunting and fishing programs $330,000-$380,000

24. Construct Bear Paw Self Guided Nature Trail, an extension of the Holt 

Collier Trail at Yazoo NWR. 

$65,000

25. Improve existing roads to develop the Theodore Roosevelt Wildlife 

Drive, Yazoo NWR. 

$550,000

26. Carbon Sequestration Forest Demonstration Area, Yazoo NWR. $25,000

27. Develop the infrastructure for Anhinga Swamp Canoe Trail & Rookery 

Lookout Platform at Yazoo NWR. 

$88,000

28. Plan and construct Yankee Run, a self guided Nature Trail at Yazoo 

NWR. 

$39,000

29. Construct the Beargarden Lake Trail and Lookout at Yazoo NWR. $80,000

30. Construct the Alligator Alley Environmental Education Kiosk at Yazoo 

NWR. 

$45,000

31. Develop Morgan Brake Bluff Trail on Morgan Brake NWR. $100,000

32. Develop Auto Wildlife Tour on Morgan Brake NWR. $290,000

33. Develop Panther Creek Wildlife Drive on Panther Swamp NWR. $450,000

34. Develop Panther Swamp NWR Observation Tower in Lower Twist. $80,000

35. Develop observation tower at Morgan Brake NWR. $57,000

36. Provide adequate protection for refuge resources, Federal trust 

species, personnel, and the visiting public. 

$650,000-$800,000
 263

Project Name Amount 

37. Meet current and expand the ability to meet growing maintenance 

needs. 

$250,000

38. Improve fire suppression and prescribed burning capabilities $15,000

Total (does not include routine vehicle and equipment replacement) $9,697,000-

$10,097,000
 264
 265

Appendix VIII. Examples Of Proposed Public 

Use Facilities At Yazoo NWR 

Swan Lake Mounds Interpretive Exhibit and Trails 

Yazoo NWR 

Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex 

Infrastructure Required: 

• Remove cane and black locust saplings, mow mound and interpretive areas. 

• Improve existing parking areas. 

• Construct footbridge across roadside ditch to mound side of road. 

• Construct loop interpretive trail from parking areas to summit of Temple Mound, across 

prehistoric plaza to adjacent disturbed mounds along Swan Lake, to viewing/rest area, and 

back to parking area. 

• Convert existing western parking area to viewing/resting area with benches and public 

restroom (vault type). 

• Develop and construct two interpretive Kiosks, 1 at Temple Mound, 1 at viewing/rest area with 

trail maps, site interpretation, and other visitor information. 

• Outreach to make public aware of resources: Highway Road Signs on Hwy 1 and 61. Refuge 

Website page with website links to NPS Indian Mounds of MS, links to other tourism sites, 

brochures, fact sheets, pamphlets. 

Estimated Cost to Deliver: $70,000 - 80,000 initial, with recurring annual costs of $10,000 

Personnel Needed to Deliver: Complex Outdoor Recreation Planner, Park Ranger (interpretive) 

Private Sector Support Needed: Hotel/Motel Rooms in local area. Local Restaurants, Cafes 

Legend

Picnic Viewing Area PV

Parking P

Kiosk K

Trail

Footbridge

Swan Lake Temple Mound Interpretive Trail

K

PV

P

K

Yazoo Refuge Road

Swan Lake

Temple Mound
 266

Bearpaw Self-Guided Nature Trail 

Yazoo NWR 

Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex 

 Self-Guided Nature Trail Conceptual sketch of project

Infrastructure required: 

• Add 3⁄4 mile to existing hiking trail to complete loop. 

• 50’ of boardwalk across forested wetland. 

• Directional trail signs and interpretive markers. 

• Trail brochure for interpretation of selected natural and historical features. 

Estimated cost to deliver: $50,000, with recurring annual costs of $15,000

Personnel needed to deliver: Complex Public Use FTE, existing maintenance staff 

Private sector support needed: Nearby restaurants, fueling stations, convenience stores (existing) 

Outreach: Advertise on refuge website, kiosks on refuge roads 

Existing boardwalk 

and tower 

PROPOSED 

BOARDWALK 

AND TRAIL 

Existing 

trail 

Big Lake 

Lizard Lake 

Parking 

Parking 

Yazoo Refuge 

Road

Beargarden Road 

HWY 436 

= 1 mile 
 267

Bear Garden Lake Lookout Platform 

Yazoo NWR 

Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex 

Infrastructure Required: 

• Create parking area in conjunction with horseshoe pond parking area located south of Bear 

Garden Road. 

• Erect informational kiosk along toe of road bed leading to trail.with site information and other 

interpretive material; i.e., floral and faunal species potentially observed. 

• Construct boardwalk and trail to lookout platform. 

• Construct platform 

• Construct a limited number of benches and/or tables for resting while on platform. 

• Provide covering for shaded viewing and photography opportunities. 

• Outreach to make public aware of resources: Highway Road Signs on Hwy 1 and 61. Refuge 

Website, other tourism sites, brochures, fact sheets, pamphlets. 

Estimated Cost to Deliver: $70,000 initial, with recurring annual costs of $10,000 

Personnel Needed to Deliver: Complex Public Use FTE, existing maintenance staff 

Private Sector Support Needed: Motels, Bed & Breakfasts in local area (existing) 

Restaurants in local area (existing) 

Bear Garden Road

Steele

Bayou

K

Bear Garden Lake Lookout Platform

P

Kiosk K

Parking Area P

Lookout Platform

Trail

Legend
 268

Hunt Central 

Yazoo NWR Visitor Resource Station 

Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex 

Infrastructure Required: 

• Replace existing kiosk at Complex headquarters with new structure. 

• Relocate existing Hunter Information Station 

• Construct concrete foundation for kiosk and walkway around kiosk. 

• Construct new 6-panel kiosk that faces the southwest with easily accessible panels for 

changing information. 

• Informational panels: 

o Detailed map (poster size) of Yazoo NWR. 

o Hunt regulations, harvest stats and photos. 

o Recreation opportunities offered on Yazoo NWR (i.e., trails and tower, photography, 

wildlife observation, champion tree, etc.) 

o Theodore Roosevelt Refuge Complex information and other interpretive materials. 

(Large location map with major highways noted in background with site locations 

brought forward.) 

o Brochure pockets on each panel with related brochures (e.g., bird, mammal, and herp 

lists) and information for panel. 

Estimated Cost to Deliver: $40,000 initial, with recurring annual costs of $2,000 

Personnel Needed to Deliver: Complex Public Use FTE, existing maintenance staff

Private Sector Support Needed: Motel facilities, restaurants, fueling stations, convenience stores 

in local area (existing). 

Existing Kiosk New Kiosk 
 269

Theodore Roosevelt Wildlife Drive 

Yazoo NWR 

Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex 

 View of Anhinga Swamp Conceptual sketch of project 

Infrastructure required: 

• Improve 1.5 miles of road across Levee 4 with clay/gravel base. 

• Construct an auto crossing at the Levee 4 spillway. 

• Mark and maintain 12 interpretive stops along the route (supported by an interpretive 

brochure), plus directional signs. 

• Produce an interpretive brochure to be dispensed at the Indian Mound Kiosk (proposed). 

• Install an automatic gate at the Cox Pond intersection 

Estimated cost to deliver: $500,000 initial costs with recurring annual costs of $50,000

Personnel needed to deliver: Complex Outdoor Recreation Planner, Park Ranger (interpretive) 

Private sector support needed: Fuel/Gas Stations 

Outreach: Website coverage, links to tourism sites, dedication ceremony with news media coverage. 

Theodore 

Roosevelt 

Auto Tour 

Route 

Anhinga 

Swamp 

Levee 4 

= 1 mile

Canoe trail 

Indian 

Mound 
 270

Beargarden Road

Steele Bayou 

Fishing

Outlet Sloug

Parking

Pier

Existing well Inlet 

= 1000 feet 

Holt Collier Horseshoe Pond 

Youth Fishing Area 

Yazoo NWR 

Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex 

 Holt Collier Horseshoe Pond Conceptual Sketch of Project

Infrastructure Required: 

• 10-acre pond (existing), 10’ deep. 

• Inlet WCS—Filtered inlet from slough to prevent entry of rough fish. 

• WCS for drainage. 

• Well for maintaining water level (existing). 

• 3’ flashboard riser WCS in Hoot’s Dump Slough overflow. 

• 6’ x 20’ accessible fishing platform at end and side of spur levee. 

• Parking area with wheelchair accessible surface to fishing platform(s). 

• Informational sign at parking area. 4’ x 4’ 

• Litter barrel at site. 

Estimated cost to deliver: $250,000-300,000 initial, with recurring annual costs of $80,000 

Personnel needed to deliver: Complex Public Use FTE, existing maintenance staff, existing biologist 

Private sector support needed: Nearby bait shops, convenience stores, fueling stations, 

restaurants (all existing) 

Outreach: Dedication ceremony with newspaper coverage, brochures, and website.
 271

Carbon Sequestration Demonstration Trail 

Yazoo NWR 

Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex 

Infrastructure Required: 

• Bushhog area along the south side of Yazoo Refuge Road (west of Long Dump Road.) 

• Improve parking areas at each end of 1968 reforestation area. 

• Construct loop interpretive trail through reforestation area with strategically located stations 

discussing carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, thinning treatments, etc. 

• Establish descriptive signs at interpretive stations to allow for self-guided tours. 

• Place signs along trails identifying planted tree species and naturally invading species. 

• Extend trail loop north of the road to illustrate difference between thinned and non-thinned area. 

• Construct informational kiosk at trailhead with pockets for trail maps, site information, and 

other interpretive materials 

• Outreach to public: Road signs on Highways 1 and 61, refuge website, other tourism sites, 

brochures, fact sheets, and pamphlets. 

Estimated Cost to Deliver: $20,000 initial, with recurring annual costs of $5,000 

Personnel Needed to Deliver: Complex Public Use FTE, existing forester, existing maintenance staff 

Private Sector Support Needed: Motels, Bed & Breakfasts in local area (existing), restaurants in 

local area (existing), canoe rentals at Lake Washington (existing) 

Carbon Sequestration 

Demonstration Trail

K

P P

Swan Lake

Yazoo Refuge Road

Legend

Kiosk K

Parking area P

Interpretive Signs 

Trail
 272

Anhinga Swamp Canoe Trail and Rookery Observation Platform 

Yazoo NWR 

Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex 

Rookery inhabitants Conceptual Sketch of Project

Infrastructure Required: 

• Clear and mark a boat trail through cypress swamp. 

• Create a boat launch area and parking lot (location to be determined). 

• Improve access to boat launch area. 

• Construct a 20’ x 20’ platform in the swamp for viewing the wading bird rookery. 

• Produce an interpretive brochure and map. Use Indian Mound kiosk to dispense brochures. 

Estimated Cost to Deliver: $80,000 initial, with recurring annual costs of $8,000 

Personnel Needed to Deliver: Complex Public Use FTE 

Private Sector Support Needed: 

Motels, Bed & Breakfasts, restaurants, canoe rentals nearby (all existing). 

= 1 mile 

Canoe 

Boat Launch 

Theodore Roosevelt 

Auto Tour Route 

Rookery Area 

Platform 

Anhinga 

Swamp 
 273

Alligator Alley Environmental Education 

Wildlife Viewing Area 

Yazoo NWR 

Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex 

Infrastructure Required: 

• Develop and construct informational kiosk at Alligator Alley, a pond near the Headquarters 

Office that provides wildlife viewing of several resident alligators 

• Provide brochures with educational information about alligator reproduction, preferred foods, 

life span, habitat requirements, and other informational brochures. 

• Improve existing road and construct parking area 

• Outreach to make public aware of resources: Highway Road Signs on Hwy 1 and 61. Refuge 

Website page with website links to other tourism sites, fact sheets, pamphlets. 

Estimated Cost to Deliver: $10,000, with annual recurring costs of $1,000 

Personnel Needed to Deliver: Outdoor Recreation Planner FTE 

Private Sector Support Needed: Website links, hotel/motel rooms in local area, local restaurants, 

and cafes 
 274
 275

Appendix VIII. Response to Public Comment 

on Draft CCP/EA 

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT CCP/EA AND SERVICE RESPONSES 

The Environmental Compliance Officer for the Farm Service Agency (FSA) made the following comments: 

Comment: If future plans involve utilizing the former FSA properties for land swaps to acquire 

addition acreage within the designated acquisition boundaries, FSA would suggest that these plans 

be discussed in the EA as well as the CCP. 

Response: No plans have been developed for exchanging FSA properties for refuge inholdings at 

the refuges covered in this CCP. However, the congressionally mandated Theodore Roosevelt NWR 

will be a new refuge within the Complex and this refuge is to be established through the exchange of 

6,600 acres of former FSA tracts. The establishment of this new refuge will be covered in a draft 

environmental assessment due to be released for public comment in mid-January 2006. Long-range 

management of this refuge will the the subject of a separate CCP/EA. FSA will receive these draft 

documents for comment in the future. 

Comment: The discussion of the former FSA owned land transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service in fee title, as well as the easement interests, is somewhat unclear in regards to future 

management objectives. FSA would recommend that the CCP include additional background 

information on the former FSA properties and easements to the extent that their locations and 

continuity are better described for the reader to better draw a conclusion as to the importance of 

these tracts to the overall management of the NWR complex. 

Response: A discussion of the former FSA lands and easements has been added to Section III. Plan 

Development under Land Protection. Also Objective 4G (Manage Farm Service Agency properties by 

habitat type as they relate to the objectives established for this plan, and evaluate opportunities for wildlifedependent recreation and demonstration sites) has been modified to include easements. 

Comment: Another issue requiring clarification is the amount of acres and properties that were 

transferred to FWS by FSA. For example, the EA discusses 12,451 acres contained in 32 former 

FSA properties compared to the 12,291 acres contained in 43 former FSA properties discussed in the 

CCP. Also, the EA does not fully address the management of the easement interests in its analysis. 

Response: The amount of acres and number of tracts cited in the CCP (12,291 acres in 43 tracts) is 

correct. The EA has been changed to reflect this. Also more analysis of the easement interests was 

added to the CCP and EA.
 276
 277

Appendix IX. Finding of No Significant Impact 

Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Hollandale, Mississippi 

Introduction 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed a Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) to provide a foundation for the management and use of refuges in the Theodore Roosevelt 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex (Complex) over the next 15 years. The Complex is 

comprised of seven refuges: Holt Collier (2004), Hillside (1975), Mathews Brake (1980), Morgan 

Brake (1977), Panther Swamp (1978), Theodore Roosevelt (2004), and Yazoo National Wildlife 

Refuge (1936). 

An Environmental Assessment has been prepared to inform the public of the possible environmental 

consequences of implementing the CCP for the Complex. A description of the alternatives, the 

rationale for selecting the preferred alternative, the environmental effects of the preferred alternative, 

the potential adverse effects of the action, and a declaration concerning the factors determining the 

significance of effects, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, are outlined 

below. The supporting information can be found in the Environmental Assessment. 

Alternatives

In developing the CCP for the Complex, the Service evaluated four alternatives: Alternatives A, B, C, 

and D. 

The Service adopted Alternative B, the “Preferred Alternative,” as the plan for guiding the direction of 

the Refuge for the next 15 years. The overriding concern reflected in this plan is that wildlife 

conservation assumes first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependant recreational uses are 

allowed if they are compatible with wildlife conservation. Wildlife-dependent recreation uses ( 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation) will be emphasized and encouraged. 

Alternative A – Current Management (No Action) 

Existing Complex management and public outreach practices would be favored under this alternative. 

All refuge management actions would be directed towards achieving the Complex’s primary 

purposes, including: (1) preserving wintering waterfowl habitat; (2) providing production habitat for 

wood ducks; and (3) meeting the habitat conservation goals of the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan, all the while contributing to other national, regional, and state goals to protect and 

restore shorebird, neotropical breeding bird, woodcock, and threatened and endangered species. 

Refuge management programs would continue to be developed and implemented with little baseline 

biological information. Active habitat management would be implemented through water level 

manipulations, moist-soil and cropland management, and reforestation designed to provide a diverse 

complex of habitats that meet the foraging, resting, and breeding requirements for a variety of 

species. Complex staff would continue to restore and maintain existing wetlands, open waters, 

grasslands, and bottomland hardwood forest habitats. Land would be acquired from willing sellers 

within the current acquisition boundaries totaling 113,060 acres. 
 278

Hunting and fishing would continue to be the major focuses of the Complex public use program, with 

no expansion of current opportunities. Current restrictions or prohibitions would remain. All-terrain 

vehicle use would continue at its current level, with little maintenance to existing trails. Environmental 

education and wildlife observation and photography would be accommodated on a case-by-case 

basis. Plans would continue to include funding requests to construct a Complex headquarters 

office/visitor contact area on Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge and continue the rehabilitation of other 

existing facilities. 

Alternative B - Balanced Habitat and Public Use Emphasis (Preferred Alternative) 

The Service planning team has identified Alternative B as the preferred alternative. This alternative 

was developed based on public input and the best professional judgment of the planning team. The 

strategies presented in the draft comprehensive conservation plan were developed as a direct result 

of the selection of Alternative B. This alternative is described in greater detail in Chapter IV of the 

draft comprehensive conservation plan. 

This alternative would promote a greater understanding of, and protection for, the fish, wildlife, and 

their habitats and a higher quality and more evenly balanced recreational and educational program 

for visitors. Current hunting and fishing programs would continue with greater emphasis on the 

quality of the experience with more diverse opportunities, including those for youth and disabled 

hunters/anglers. Education and interpretation would be promoted through regular programs and 

partnerships with local schools. Wildlife observation and photography opportunities would be 

expanded, including trails, auto tours, photo blinds, and observation towers, highlighting refuge 

management programs and unique wildlife and habitats. All-terrain vehicle use for wildlife-dependent 

recreation (e.g., hunting and fishing) would continue to provide access to remote portions of certain 

refuges. Trails to accommodate these vehicles would be evaluated for retention based on impacts to 

refuge resources, access, duplication, and other means of access. If possible, trails removed for 

these reasons would be rerouted if needed for hunter dispersal. A user fee and permit would be 

required for all-terrain vehicles to provide additional funds needed for the costly trail maintenance 

program. 

A visitor center and headquarters office would be constructed at Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge. 

Two new subheadquarters and visitor contact stations would be constructed at Panther Swamp NWR 

and Morgan Brake NWR refuges. The new subheadquarters at Panther Swamp refuge would be 

located off Highway 49 or River Road, to provide greater visibility and access to the public. 

Reforestation efforts would focus on creating buffers along field edges to protect waterfowl and other 

waterbirds from disturbance, and define boundaries along adjacent private lands. As lands are 

acquired, they would be evaluated for their ability to contribute to step-down habitat objectives (e.g., 

moist soil) and to interior forest habitat. 

Research studies on bottomland hardwood restorations would be fostered and partnerships 

developed with universities and other agencies, providing needed resources and experiment sites, 

while meeting the needs of the Complex’s reforestation programs. Research would also benefit 

efforts throughout the LMRAV to reforest large tracts of lands to meet the objectives set by the Lower 

Mississippi Joint Venture office to address the fulfillment of the Partners-in-Flight Plan. 
 279

Additional staff and facilities would be added to accomplish objectives for establishing baseline data 

on refuge resources, managing habitats, providing opportunities and facilities for wildlife observation 

and photography, and providing educational programs that promote a greater understanding of the 

Complex purposes, issues, and resources and the unique values of the LMRAV. 

Under this alternative, 125,511 acres of refuge lands (including refuges and Farm Service Agency 

properties) would be protected, maintained, restored, and enhanced for resident wildlife, waterfowl, 

migratory nongame birds, and threatened and endangered species. A “Conservation Partners” 

Focus Area would be established to not only concentrate off-refuge resources, but for partnership 

opportunities and future boundary expansion studies to meet regional and national objectives. 

Extensive wildlife and plant censuses and inventory activities would be initiated to obtain the 

biological information needed to implement and monitor management programs on the Complex. All 

refuge management actions would be directed towards achieving each refuge’s primary purposes, 

while contributing to other national, regional, and state goals. Active habitat management programs 

would include water level manipulations, moist-soil and cropland management, reforestation, and 

existing forest management designed to provide a diverse complex of habitats that meet the foraging, 

resting, and breeding requirements for a variety of species, particularly migratory birds. An extensive 

system of levees, water control structures, and wells would be maintained and developed in an effort 

to mimic historic flooding regimes. 

As funding becomes available to either contract or conduct farming operations with Complex 

equipment and staff, acres in agricultural production would be reduced by at least half, depending 

upon the level of funding and yield. The majority of the acres would be converted to moist soil to 

meet habitat objectives and needs of wintering waterfowl and other waterbirds, and scrub/shrub and 

grassland habitats for neotropical migratory birds, woodcock, and upland game birds. Additional 

lands would be reforested, but due to the size and distribution of sites, would not be sufficient to meet 

any interior forest objectives. An assortment of step-down management plans would be created or 

updated to provide the specifics for the individual refuge programs. 

Under this alternative, the refuge would continue to seek acquisition of all willing-seller inholdings 

within the present acquisition boundary. Top priority would be lands which, if acquired, would 

address some critical issues related to habitat protection, access, and off-refuge impacts. Lands 

acquired as part of the refuge would be made available for compatible wildlife-dependent public 

recreation and environmental education opportunities. Equally important options to be used include: 

Corps of Engineers’ mitigation program, outreach and partnerships with adjacent landowners, hunt 

clubs, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to use conservation easements, cooperative 

agreements, and federal programs, such as the Wetland Reserve Program, to link bottomland 

hardwood forest tracts and contribute to overall wildlife, soil, and water conservation benefits within 

the LMRAV. 

Alternative C - Public Use Emphasis 

This approach would de-emphasize managing habitats while allowing for more public recreational 

uses (e.g., hunting and fishing), with added emphasis on environmental education, interpretation, 

wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. Any additional staff, emphasis, and resources would 

be directed to allow for more compatible public activities in all areas of the Complex. Additional moist 

soil, scrub/shrub, forested lands, and grasslands would not be restored and managed. Moist-soil 

impoundments, currently managed for waterfowl and shorebirds, would be converted to fishing ponds 

for public use. Hunting seasons would be aligned with state regulations to allow for maximum use. 

All-terrain vehicle use would continue to disperse hunters. Additional funding would be needed to 

maintain the maximum number of trails and roads for access. 
 280

Auto tours, canoe trails, foot trails, and observation towers would be added for environmental 

education and watchable wildlife programs. Additional staff would be used for developing and 

presenting both on- and off-site outreach and interpretation programs. 

A visitor center and headquarters office would be constructed at Yazoo NWR refuge. Two new 

subheadquarters and visitor contact stations would be constructed at Panther Swamp and Morgan 

Brake refuges. The new subheadquarters at Panther Swamp refuge would be relocated off Highway 

49 or River Road to provide greater visibility and access to the public. 

Land acquisition within the current acquisition boundary would continue with emphasis on those lands 

that can provide additional public use opportunities and greater access to current refuge lands by the 

public. 

Alternative D - Interior Forest Habitat Emphasis 

Under this alternative, all suitable refuge lands would be reforested in support of migratory birds and 

other wildlife dependent on interior forest habitats. Most refuge management actions would be 

directed towards creating and managing the largest amount of interior and corridor forest habitat (for 

Louisiana black bear, neotropical migratory songbirds, and other interior forest wildlife), and reducing 

forest fragmentation while supporting the overall primary purpose for the Complex of preserving 

wintering habitat for mallards, pintails, and wood ducks; and providing production habitat for wood 

ducks and other migratory birds dependent on forested habitats. Other national, regional, and state 

goals to protect and restore shorebird, grassland, and scrub- shrub bird populations would be 

supported secondarily in habitats that were not suitable for reforestation. Step-down waterfowl 

objectives for unharvested crops and moist soil, established by the Lower Mississippi Joint Venture in 

support of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, would not be met. However, wintering 

waterfowl would potentially benefit from additional flooded timber habitat, including mast and 

invertebrate production. 

Open habitat for geese would not be maintained on Yazoo NWR and farming would be eliminated 

throughout the Complex. Eliminating farming would eliminate goose use, maximize the amount of 

forests and forested corridor habitats, and minimize forest fragmentation. A forest management plan, 

designed to address this alternative’s primary goals by creating spatially and specifically diverse 

woodlands, would be developed and implemented. 

High quality wildlife-dependent recreation activities (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and 

environmental education and interpretation) would be provided. An environmental education plan, 

incorporating aggressive and proactive promotion of on- and off-site programs, would be developed 

and implemented. Improvements would be made to interior and exterior roads to provide all-weather 

vehicular access to a broad segment of the public; however, existing and proposed roads and trails 

would be evaluated for their impacts on forest fragmentation. Wildlife observation sites/platforms, 

interpretive trails, boardwalks, kiosks, and restrooms would be provided at specific sites to allow for 

fully accessible interpretation and environmental education programs. Current hunting and fishing 

programs would be maintained with fishing occurring on Panther Swamp, Hillside, Morgan Brake, and 

Mathews Brake NWRs. 
 281

Under this alternative, the Complex would continue to seek acquisition of all willing-seller inholdings 

within the present acquisition boundary. Highest priority would be given to those lands that may be 

reforested to contribute to the interior forest objectives. Lands would be made available for 

compatible wildlife-dependent public recreation and environmental education opportunities. 

Additionally, the Complex would concentrate on all future off-refuge programs and partnerships within 

the “Conservation Partners” Focus Area, with an emphasis on contributing to interior forest habitat. 

Selection Rationale 

Alternative B is selected for implementation because it directs the development of programs to best 

achieve the Refuge purpose and goals; emphasizes the restoration of open wetland and forest 

habitats; collects habitat and wildlife data; and ensures long-term achievement of Refuge and Service 

objectives. At the same time, these management actions provide balanced levels of compatible 

public use opportunities consistent with existing laws, Service policies, and sound biological 

principles. It provides the best mix of program elements to achieve desired long-term conditions. 

Under Alternatives B, refuge management actions will expand wildlife and habitat programs and 

enhance public use by focusing on the quality of experiences instead of a quantity of programs and 

facilities. 

Environmental Effects

Implementation of the Service’s management action is expected to result in environmental, social, 

and economic effects as outlined in the comprehensive conservation plan. Habitat management, 

population management, land conservation, and visitor service management activities on the 

Complex will result in increased protection for threatened and endangered species; enhanced wildlife 

populations; habitat restoration; and enhanced opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and 

environmental education. These effects are detailed as follows: 

1. Additional staff and resources will create and properly manage the diversity of habitats found on 

the Complex, including bottomland hardwoods, shrub/scrub, croplands, moist soil areas, and other 

wetlands. Active management of these communities will likely result in a greater species diversity 

and abundance of migratory birds. Baseline data will be collected on populations and habitats and 

monitoring protocols established. Invasive species will be controlled, which will have a positive effect 

on the biotic community. 

2. High quality wildlife-dependent recreational activities (hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation and 

interpretation) will continue and environmental education programs will be developed. Improved 

interpretive and informational programs will increase awareness of the refuge and wildlife and of the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

 

3. Land will be acquired in an attempt to complete the current approved boundaries of refuges within 

the Complex. 

4. Cultural resources will be surveyed, documented, and protected Complex-wide. A new Visitor 

Center/Headquarters will be constructed at Yazoo NWR. 

5. Habitat restoration and management, along with a focus on accessibility and facility 

developments, will result in improved wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. While public use 

will result in some minimal, short-term adverse effects on wildlife, and user conflicts may occur at 

certain times of the year, these effects are minimized by site design, time zoning, and implementing 

refuge regulations. Anticipated long-term impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats of implementing the 

management action are positive. In the long run, wildlife habitat and increased opportunities for 
 282

wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities could result in an increase in economic benefits to the 

local community. 

6. Implementing the comprehensive conservation plan is not expected to have any significant 

adverse effects on wetlands and floodplains, pursuant to Executive Orders 11990 and 11988, as 

actions will not result in development of buildings and/or structures within floodplain areas, nor will 

they result in irrevocable, long-term adverse impacts. 

Potential Adverse Effects and Mitigation Measures

Wildlife Disturbance 

Disturbance to wildlife at some level is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, 

regardless of the activity involved. Obviously, some activities innately have the potential to be more 

disturbing than others. The management actions to be implemented have been carefully planned to 

avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 

As currently proposed, the known and anticipated levels of disturbance of the management action are 

considered minimal and well within the tolerance level of known wildlife species and populations 

present in the area. Implementation of the public use program will take place through carefully 

controlled time and space zoning such as establishment of sanctuary areas, establishment of 

protection zones around key sites, such as bear dens, closures of unauthorized trails, and routing of 

new trails to avoid direct contact with sensitive areas, such as nesting bird habitat, etc. All public use 

activities will be conducted within the constraints of sound biological principles and refuge-specific 

regulations established to restrict illegal or non-conforming activities. Monitoring activities through 

wildlife inventories and assessments of public use levels and activities will be utilized, and public use 

programs will be adjusted as needed to limit disturbance. 

User Group Conflicts 

As public use levels expand across time, some conflicts between user groups may occur. Programs 

will be adjusted, as needed, to eliminate or minimize these problems and provide quality 

wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. Experience has proven that time and space zonings, 

such as establishment of separate use areas, use periods, and restricting numbers of users, are 

effective tools in eliminating conflicts between user groups. 

Effects on Adjacent Landowners 

Implementation of the management action should not impact adjacent or in-holding landowners. 

Essential access to private property will continue to be allowed through issuance of special use 

permits. Future land acquisition will occur on a willing-seller basis only, at fair market values within 

the approved acquisition boundary. Lands are acquired through a combination of fee title purchases 

and/or donations and less-than-fee title interests (e.g., conservation easements, cooperative 

agreements) from willing sellers. Funds for the acquisition of lands within the approved acquisition 

boundary will likely come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund or the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act. 

Land Ownership and Site Development 

Proposed acquisition efforts by the Service will result in changes in land and recreational use 

patterns, since all uses on national wildlife refuges must meet compatibility standards. Land 

ownership by the Service also precludes any future economic development by the private sector. 
 283

Potential development of access points, trails, and visitor parking areas could lead to minor 

short-term negative impacts on plants, soil, and some wildlife species. When site development 

activities are proposed, each activity will be given the appropriate National Environmental Policy Act 

consideration during pre-construction planning. At that time, any required mitigation activities will be 

incorporated into the specific project to reduce the level of impacts to the human environment and to 

protect fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

As indicated earlier, one of the direct effects of site development is increased public use; this 

increased use may lead to littering, noise, and vehicle traffic. While funding and personnel resources 

will be allocated to minimize these effects, such allocations make these resources unavailable for 

other programs. 

The management action is not expected to have significant adverse effects on wetlands and 

floodplains, pursuant to Executive Orders 11990 and 11988. 

Coordination

The management action has been thoroughly coordinated with all interested and/or affected parties. 

Parties contacted include: 

All affected landowners 

Congressional representatives 

Governor of Mississippi 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks 

Mississippi State Historic Preservation Officer 

Local community officials 

Interested citizens 

Findings

It is my determination that the management action does not constitute a major federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended). As such, an environmental impact 

statement is not required. This determination is based on the following factors (40 C.F.R. 1508.27), 

as addressed in the Environmental Assessment for the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex: 

1. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered and this action will not have a 

significant effect on the human environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 192-2012. The 

actions will not have a significant effect on public health and safety. 

3. The project will not significantly affect any unique characteristics of the geographic area such as 

proximity to historical or cultural resources, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 

(Environmental Assessment, page 164). 

4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 172-184, and page 192-201). 

5. The actions do not involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown environmental risks to the human 

environment. (Environmental Assessment, page 164). 
 284

6. The actions will not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor do they 

represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. (Environmental Assessment, pages 

172-184, and page 192-201). 

7. There will be no cumulatively significant impacts on the environment. Cumulative impacts have 

been analyzed with consideration of other similar activities on adjacent lands, in past action, and in 

foreseeable future actions. 

8. The actions will not significantly affect any site listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National 

Register of Historic Places, nor will they cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or 

historic resources. (Environmental Assessment, pages 164). 

9. The actions are not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species, or their habitats. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 192-201). 

10. The actions will not lead to a violation of federal, state, or local laws imposed for the protection of 

the environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 164). 

Supporting References

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Hollandale, Mississippi. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. 

Document Availability

The Environmental Assessment was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the 

Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex and was made available in Novemberl 2005. 

Additional copies are available by writing: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, 

Atlanta, GA 30345. 

 ________________________________ _________________________ 

... Sam D. Hamilton Date 

... Regional Director