North Mississippi National Wildlife 

Refuges Complex 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

November 2005

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

NORTH MISSISSIPPI NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES COMPLEX 

GRENADA, MISSISSIPPI 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

1875 Century Boulevard 

Atlanta, Georgia 30345 

November 2005 

Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

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

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

Purpose and Need for Plan .................................................................................................1

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................2

The National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................2

North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan.4

Legal Policy Context............................................................................................................4

Relationship to the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks .....................4

Assistance to Private Landowners ......................................................................................5

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

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

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

Conservation Priorities and Initiatives......................................................................10

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

Introduction and History.....................................................................................................15

Purpose and Ecosystem Context ......................................................................................15

Wintering Habitat for Waterfowl ...............................................................................15

Habitat for Forest-Dependent Birds .........................................................................20

Scrub/Shrub Habitat.................................................................................................22

Grassland Habitat ....................................................................................................23

Habitat for Migrating Shorebirds ..............................................................................24

Habitat for Marshbirds and Colonial Waterbirds/Wading Birds ................................25

Monitoring Raptors...................................................................................................25

Replicating Historic Forest Conditions .....................................................................25

Legal Policy .......................................................................................................................26

Resource and Management Descriptions .........................................................................26

Coldwater River National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................26

Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge ..........................................................................28

Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge ......................................................................28

Climate.....................................................................................................................28

Physiography, Geography, and Soils.......................................................................31

Hydrology.................................................................................................................31

Water Quality ...........................................................................................................32

Flora.........................................................................................................................33

Fauna.......................................................................................................................33

Threatened and Endangered Species .....................................................................35

Cultural Resources...................................................................................................36

Recreation and Visitor Services ...............................................................................38

Socioeconomic Environment .............................................................................................39

Outdoor Recreation Economics ...............................................................................40

Tourism ....................................................................................................................40

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................43

Overview............................................................................................................................43
ii North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Planning Process and Public Involvement ........................................................................ 43

Issues and Current Conditions.......................................................................................... 45

Fish and Wildlife Populations................................................................................... 46

Habitats.................................................................................................................... 49

Ecological Integrity................................................................................................... 52

Recreation and Visitor Services............................................................................... 53

Cultural Resources Management ............................................................................ 56

Private Lands and Forest Fragmentation................................................................. 56

General Administration ............................................................................................ 57

IV. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN...................................................................... 59

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 59

Vision ................................................................................................................................ 59

Comprehensive Conservation Plan................................................................................... 60

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies............................................................................ 60

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION.................................................................................................. 103

Funding ........................................................................................................................... 103

Refuge Operating Needs – Tier 1 (Highest Priority)........................................................ 103

Future Staffing Requirements ......................................................................................... 109

Step-down Management Plans ....................................................................................... 112

Partnership Opportunities................................................................................................ 112

Monitoring and Evaluation............................................................................................... 112

Plan Review and Revision............................................................................................... 113

SECTION B. APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A: LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................... 115

APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................... 117

APPENDIX C: PRIORITY COMPLEX OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE NEEDS.......... 121

APPENDIX D: COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ............................................................ 131

APPENDIX E: SPECIES LISTS............................................................................................... 191

APPENDIX F: LEGAL MANDATES......................................................................................... 207

APPENDIX G: BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES CITED ................................................ 211

APPENDIX H: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................. 215

Comments On The Draft CCP-EA, And Service Responses................................. 215

APPENDIX I: WILDERNESS REVIEW SUMMARY ................................................................ 219
Table of Contents iii

APPENDIX J. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION............................221

APPENDIX K. FINDING OF NO-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS .....................................................225
iv North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

LIST OF FIGURES 

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

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

Figure 3. Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Forest Bird Conservation Areas ......................................13

Figure 4. Regional vicinity map of North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex ..................16

Figure 5. Coldwater River National Wildlife Refuge land cover types ................................................27

Figure 6. Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge land cover types...........................................................29

Figure 7. Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge land cover types.......................................................30

Figure 8. North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex focus areas .....................................89

Figure 9. North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex current staffing chart .....................110

Figure 10. North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex proposed staffing chart ...............111

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Acres managed by current staffing, North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex .17

Table 2. Land acquisition history, North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex...................17

Table 3. Location of each refuge, North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex...................18

Table 4. Establishment date, legislation, and purpose of each refuge within the North Mississippi 

National Wildlife Refuges Complex.......................................................................................18

Table 5. Migrating and wintering waterfowl foraging habitat objectives established by the LMRVJV for 

the Complex (acres)..............................................................................................................19

Table 6. Forest-dependent birds in the Complex work area...............................................................20

Table 7. Bird Conservation Area (BCA) forest core acreages and deficit in the Complex work area.21

Table 8. Scrub/shrub associated birds in the Complex work area......................................................22

Table 9. Grassland-dependent birds in the Complex work area.........................................................24

Table 10. Percent of the Tallahatchie, Grenada, Bolivar and Quitman counties’ land base used for 

agricultural production........................................................................................................39

Table 11. County employment data....................................................................................................39

Table 12. Geographic and demographic statistics for the four counties including refuges within the 

Complex.............................................................................................................................41

Table 13. Activities by participants, 16 years old and older, throughout Mississippi ..........................41

Table 14. Estimated county tourism & recreation (T&R) revenues/employment ................................42

Table 15. Habitat objectives for migratory waterfowl (acres)..............................................................61

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

Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex ...............................................................109

Table 17. Step-down Management Plans.........................................................................................112
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

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

provide a foundation for the management and use of the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex (Complex), headquartered in Grenada, Mississippi. The North Mississippi National Wildlife 

Refuges Complex is comprised of Coldwater River, Dahomey, and Tallahatchie National Wildlife 

Refuges and the Farm Service Agency tracts of land in the area. The Complex provides habitat for 

large concentrations of wintering waterfowl and numerous species of neotropical migratory birds. 

This comprehensive conservation plan is intended to serve as a working guide for the Complex’s 

management programs and actions over the next 15 years. 

The plan was developed in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 and Part 602, National Wildlife Refuge System Planning, of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual. The actions described within this plan also meet the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Compliance with NEPA was met with public involvement 

throughout the CCP process and the development of an environmental assessment. When fully 

implemented, this plan will strive to achieve the vision and purposes of each refuge within the 

Complex. 

The plan’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 (wildlifedependent recreation) is allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, or does not detract 

from, each refuge’s mission and purposes. 

The plan has been prepared by a planning team composed of representatives from each of the 

refuges in the Complex; the Service’s Jackson, Mississippi, Ecological Services field office; with the 

assistance of an environmental contractor. In developing this plan, the planning team and refuge 

staff incorporated the input of the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, other 

agencies, non-governmental organizations, local citizens, the public, and stakeholders. This public 

involvement and the planning process itself are further described in Chapter III. Plan Development. 

This plan represents the Service’s preferred alternative and is being put forward after considering 

three other alternatives, as described in the draft EA. After reviewing public scoping comments and 

management needs, the planning team developed these alternatives in an attempt to determine how 

to best meet the goals and objectives of the Complex. The preferred alternative is the Service’s 

recommended course of action for the future management of the Complex. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PLAN 

The purpose of this comprehensive conservation plan is to identify the role that the North Mississippi 

National Wildlife Refuges Complex will play in support of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, and to provide long-term guidance to the refuges’ management programs and activities. The 

plan is needed to: 

• Provide a clear statement of direction for the future management of the Complex; 
2 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

• Provide neighbors, visitors, non-governmental partners, and government officials with an 

understanding of the Service’s management actions on and around the Complex; 

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

educational programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997; 

• Ensure that the management of the Complex considers 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. 

A critical management consideration for the Service is to communicate with the public and include 

public participation in its efforts to carry out the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Many 

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

with the Service to advance the goals of the Refuge System. 

This comprehensive conservation plan supports the Partners-in-Flight Initiative, Lower Mississippi 

Valley Migratory Bird Wetland Conservation Initiative, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 

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

National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. 

THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency responsible for the conservation, 

protection, and enhancement of the nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Although 

the Service shares some conservation responsibilities with other federal, state, local, tribal, and 

private entities, it has specific trustee obligations for migratory birds, threatened and endangered 

species, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. In addition, the Service administers a 

national network of lands and waters for the management and protection of these resources. 

“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.” 

As part of its mission, the Service manages the 96-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, 

comprised of more than 540 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands, and other special 

management areas throughout the nation, including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It also 

operates 66 national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field 

stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, 

manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores 

wildlife habitat, such as wetlands, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It 

also oversees the Federal Aid Program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes 

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

THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the largest collection of lands and waters specifically 

managed for fish and 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.” 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear 

mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Act states that the 

Service will manage each refuge to: 

• Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; 

• Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; 

• 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; 

and 

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

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

legitimate and priority public uses. 

Following passage of the Act in 1997, the Service immediately began efforts to carry out the direction 

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

The development of these plans is now ongoing nationally. Consistent with the Act, the Service is 

preparing all refuge comprehensive conservation plans in conjunction with public involvement, and is 

requiring each refuge to complete its plan within a 15-year schedule. 

Approximately 38 million people visited the country’s national wildlife refuges in 2002, mostly to 

observe wildlife in their natural habitats. As this visitation continues to grow, significant economic 

benefits are being generated to local communities that surround the refuges. Economists have 

reported that national wildlife refuge visitors contribute more than $400 million annually to the local 

economies. In 2001, 82 million U.S. residents, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed 

wildlife, which generated $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges in 14 states 

around the nation, visitation had grown 36 percent in seven years. 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. Other findings also validate the belief that communities 

near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and transportation grew to $6.8 

million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each federal dollar spent on the 

Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation expenditures and $1.42 

in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland, unpubl. data). 

 

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

Southeast Region for 2004, 6,349 volunteers supported 125 stations and contributed 293,937 hours, 

a service valued at $5,052,777. 

The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses the following principles: 

• Wildlife comes first. 

• Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital considerations in refuge management. 

• Ecological integrity must be maintained. 

• Growth of refuges must be strategic. 

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

participation from others. 
4 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

NORTH MISSISSIPPI NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES COMPLEX COMPREHENSIVE 

CONSERVATION PLAN 

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex, 

consisting of three national wildlife refuges – Coldwater River, Dahomey, and Tallahatchie – as well 

as a number of smaller fee title properties and floodplain and conservation easements, is being 

prepared as mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, to guide 

management actions and direction for the Complex over the next 15 years. Fish and wildlife 

conservation will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be 

allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, or does not detract from, the legislated 

purposes of the three refuges that make up the Complex. 

LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT 

Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, congressional legislation, Presidential executive orders, and international treaties. 

Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines 

established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Refer to Appendix F for a complete listing of relevant legal mandates. 

By law, lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically 

opened. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Those mandates are to: 

• Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals; 

• Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats; 

• Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants; 

• Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses, as those uses benefit the conservation of fish 

and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public (these uses include 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation); and 

• Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes. 

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

A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 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) (http://www.mdwfp.com) is a 

state-partnering agency with the Service. It is charged with enforcement responsibilities for migratory 

birds and endangered species, as well as managing the state’s natural resources. The total area 

owned or managed by the State of Mississippi in support of wildlife, recreation, and fisheries is 

828,408 acres, including 42 wildlife management areas (WMA’s), 29 state parks encompassing 

823,297 acres; and 21 lakes totaling 5,111 acres. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

The MDWFP directs 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 valuable. It is continuing its work with the 

Service to provide ongoing opportunities for an open dialogue with the public to improve the condition 

of fish and wildlife populations in Mississippi. Not only has the MDWFP participated in biological 

reviews, public meetings, and field reviews as part of the planning process, it is also an active partner 

in annual hunt coordination, planning, and various wildlife and habitat surveys. Two of the three 

refuges in the Complex, Dahomey and Tallahatchie, have an active hunting and fishing program 

conducted in cooperation with the MDWFP. A key part of the planning process is the integration of 

common objectives between the Service and the MDWFP. 

ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE LANDOWNERS 

Service policy for involvement with private landowners in developing and implementing habitat 

improvement projects was outlined in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

(NWRSIA) of 1997, and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW) Program. Additional authorities 

reside within the Fish and Wildlife Act (1956) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934). 

Section 5, Item (4) (E) of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 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 

Refuge 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. 

Most of the land within the Complex work area is privately owned. These privately owned lands 

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

support the diverse fish and wildlife resource for which this geographic area was historically known. 

Existing or potential habitat on private lands is essential for achieving the goals and objectives of 

national and regional plans. 

The Service has several existing programs that are dedicated to providing technical assistance and 

funding for priority habitat projects on private 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 lands are also available through several other Servicefunded programs, including the Challenge Cost-Share Program (CCS), the Mississippi Partners for 

Wildlife Program, Migratory Birds Program, and several grant programs within the Threatened and 

Endangered Species Program. 

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 Valley (LMRV). Over the past 
6 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

several years, the PFW Program has provided from between $350,000 to $400,000 in project funds 

each year for projects within the entire LMRV. 

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

funding primarily through the Service’s Refuge Challenge Cost-Share Program. This program also 

requires at least a 50 percent cost-share from other partners. In Mississippi, this partnership involves 

private landowners, Ducks Unlimited, and the MDWFP. Approximately $50,000 in Service funds are 

made available each fiscal year through this partnership agreement. These funds are used to 

provide water-control structures to private landowners to flood harvested cropland during the fall and 

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

waterfowl, other migratory birds, and water quality. 

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

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

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

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

and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Many 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 2002 Farm Bill provides authorization for over 

1,000,000 additional acres at a rate of approximately 250,000 acres per year. Much of the enrolled 

acreage for the WRP (over 45 percent) has previously come from the LMRV. 

All of the various conservation programs under the 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 

about these programs. 

LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER VALLEY ECOSYSTEM 

OVERVIEW 

The North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex lies within a physiographic region known as 

the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley (LMRV; Figure 1). The LMRV was once a 25-million-acre 

complex of forested wetlands that extended along both sides of the Mississippi River from Illinois to 

Louisiana. Historically, the extent and duration of seasonal flooding from the Mississippi River 

fluctuated annually, recharging the LMRV’s aquatic systems and creating a rich diversity of dynamic 

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

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

Forest Loss and Fragmentation 

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

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

hardwood forested wetlands have been lost (Figure 2). The greatest changes to the landscape have 

been in the form of land clearing for agriculture and flood control projects. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living in the area, they have had a 

tremendous effect on biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of the Lower 

Mississippi River Alluvial Valley. Immense areas of bottomland hardwood forests have been reduced 

to forest fragments ranging from very small tracts just a few acres in size, with limited functional 

value, to a few large areas of more than 10,000 acres that have maintained many of the original 

functions and values of bottomland hardwood forests. Species endemic to the LMRV that have 

become extinct, endangered, or threatened include the red wolf, Florida panther, ivory-billed 

woodpecker, and Louisiana black bear. 

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

species most adversely affected by fragmentation include those that are area-sensitive (dependent 

on large continuous blocks of hardwood forest); those that depend on forest interiors; those that 

depend on special habitat requirements, such as mature forests or a particular food source, and/or 

those that depend on good water quality. 

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

species, including Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, wood thrush, and cerulean warbler, 

have declined significantly and need large forested blocks to recover, survive, and thrive. 

Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts as 

biological oases surrounded by inhospitable 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 

and reduces the functional values of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The lost connections also 

result in a loss of gene flow needed to maintain genetic viability and diversity within wildlife 

populations. Restoring the connections to allow gene flow and reestablish travel corridors is 

particularly important for some wide-ranging species. 

Alterations to Hydrology 

In addition to the loss of vast acreage 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, as well as degradation to aquatic systems from 

excessive sedimentation and contaminants. 

The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of forested wetlands 

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

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

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

Instead of natural hydrology, large-scale, man-made hydrological alterations have changed the 

spatial and temporal patterns of flooding throughout the entire LMRV. In addition, these alterations 

have reduced both the extent and duration of annual seasonal flooding (with some conspicuous 

exceptions, like most of the Coldwater River Refuge). The loss of this annual flooding regime has 

had an enormous impact on the forested wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent species. 

In view of the hydrologic changes, it is very difficult – if not impossible – to fully emulate and 

reconstruct the structure and functions of a natural wetland. Because wetlands depend on a dynamic 

interface of hydrologic regimes to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes, 

restoration is especially difficult (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). 
8 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Figure 1. Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

 Figure 2. Forest cover changes in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley 
10 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems 

Aquatic systems, including lakes, rivers, sloughs, and bayous, have been degraded as a result of 

deforestation and hydrologic alteration. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an 

accelerated accumulation of sediments and contaminants in all aquatic systems. Many water bodies 

are now filled with sediments, greatly reducing their surface area and depth. Concurrently, the nonpoint source runoff of excess nutrients and contaminants is threatening the area’s remaining aquatic 

resources. 

Hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphological processes that created oxbow 

lakes, sloughs, and river meander scars. Consequently, the protection, conservation, and restoration 

of these aquatic resources take on an added importance in light of the alterations associated with 

flood control and navigation. 

Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants and Animals 

Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic 

vegetation like coffeeweed and willows. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding and 

reduced water depths resulting from excessive sedimentation have created conditions favorable for 

the establishment and proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the 

introduction of exotic (non-native) vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening 

viability of aquatic systems. These invasive aquatic species threaten the natural aquatic vegetation 

important to aquatic systems, and choke waterways to a degree that often prevents recreational use. 

Furthermore, non-native wildlife and fish have been successfully introduced or released in this 

temperate climate. Animals like the nutria compete with native wildlife for limited resources and 

many, like feral hogs, have caused extensive habitat damage and alterations. 

CONSERVATION PRIORITIES AND INITIATIVES 

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

have prompted the Service to designate this forest system as an area of special concern. A 

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

implement a variety of tools to restore the functions and values of wetlands in the LMRV. The goal is 

to prioritize and manage wetlands to most effectively maintain and possibly restore the biological 

diversity in the LMRV. Some areas are prioritized as focus areas for reforestation. 

It is widely recognized, however, that most of the 20+ million acres of forested wetlands that have 

been cleared and converted to other uses in the LMRV will not be reforested. Some areas would 

have lower value for reforestation and are targeted for intensive management for non-forestdependent species, such as waterfowl and shorebirds. Through cooperative efforts, apportioning 

resources, and the focusing of available programs, the LMRV’s biological diversity can be improved. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture 

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 (LMRVJV), was established in 1986 to help provide sufficient wintering waterfowl 

habitat throughout the LMRV. LMRVJV partners have helped to establish step-down management 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

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

lands throughout the LMRV. 

The initial LMRVJV effort has expanded to also establish population objectives for shorebirds and 

neotropical migratory forest-nesting birds. The LMRVJV 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 LMRV. 

Partners in Flight 

Growing concern about declines in many land bird species not covered by existing conservation 

initiatives led to the launching of Partners-in-Flight (PIF) in 1990. PIF is an international, cooperative 

effort of government agencies, philanthropies, professional organizations, conservation groups, 

industry, academia, and private individuals. Its initial focus was on neotropical migratory birds – 

species that breed in North America and winter in Central and South America – but its emphasis has 

now expanded to encompass most land birds and other species requiring terrestrial habitats. PIF 

has a number of initiatives underway, including a North American Landbird Conservation Plan. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Zones 

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

Management Plan, PIF, and the LMRVJV has identified a number of Migratory Bird Conservation 

Zones. LMRV Forest Bird Conservation Areas are shown in Fig. 3. The three refuges in the 

Complex are identified in these zones and are 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 benefits for neotropical migratory forest interior-nesting birds. 

The goal of this collaborative restoration effort is to provide islands or blocks of forested habitat in an 

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

acres. Such areas are large enough to support viable populations of various suites of neotropical 

migratory songbirds. These areas will also support other species, like the Louisiana black bear, that 

prefer and thrive in large forested blocks. 

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

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

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

One of the biggest challenges to the restoration efforts underway in the LMRV, and one that affects 

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

comprehensive ecosystem needs, including those of wintering migratory waterfowl, neotropical 

migratory birds, shorebirds, wading birds, bears, and other wide-ranging species. Oftentimes, 

management for one species or species group conflicts with the management objectives for another 

species or species group. The tendency is to pursue short-term priorities that frequently change as 

scientific knowledge expands and interests in special resources shift. Caution must be exercised to 

prevent the start-up of restoration actions that are difficult to reverse and fail to meet the long-term, 

comprehensive management needs of the ecosystem or a specific area within the ecosystem. An 

example might be a tendency to totally reforest Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge in an effort to 

reduce fragmentation and create acreage to meet an objective for forest interior-nesting birds. Such 

an approach would overlook the critical habitat needs of waterfowl and shorebirds that require a 

complex of seasonally flooded croplands, moist-soil areas, and forested wetlands. 
12 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

The habitat goals of the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture can only be met through active 

management of croplands, moist-soil areas, and forested wetlands on both public and private 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 LMRV. The North Mississippi 

National Wildlife Refuges Complex uses a system of levees, water control structures, pumps, 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 LMRV is advantageous because it looks at the regional context 

(i.e., the “big picture”) and enables managers to plan and provide habitat for a diversity of species 

throughout their range. 

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

converted to row-crop agriculture, it must be remembered that the flooding and drying regime drives 

the ecosystem in the LMRV. The plant and animal communities throughout the LMRV are dependent 

upon the hydrologic cycle. It is incumbent upon land managers to manage hydrology in an effort to 

restore the ecological diversity that once characterized the LMRV. Ditches can be plugged and 

structures installed to control and manage water in an effort to mimic historic flood cycles and to meet 

waterfowl/shorebird habitat objectives. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

 Figure 3. Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Forest Bird Conservation Areas 
14 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

II. The Complex 

INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY 

The North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex, formerly the Mississippi Wetland 

Management District, is comprised of three distinct work areas. Each contains a national wildlife 

refuge and all Farm Service Agency tracts within that area. The three refuges plus 128 Farm Service 

Agency properties total 33,746 acres, with the Complex headquartered in Grenada (Figure 4). Since 

the Complex was established in 1989 and assigned administrative responsibility for Coldwater River, 

Dahomey, and Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuges, the overriding collective thrust has been the 

creation, restoration, and enhancement of wetlands on public and private lands. The Complex 

provides habitat for large concentrations of wintering waterfowl and numerous species of neotropical 

migratory birds (Public Use Review, 1, 3). 

The Complex has a staff of ten full-time permanent employees (Table 1). In 2004, 42 volunteers 

contributed approximately 1,000 hours towards wildlife and maintenance projects for Dahomey refuge 

and Tallahatchie refuge. There are also active Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) and internship 

programs. 

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. For this plan, we are combining the refuges due to their proximity to each 

other, the similarity of issues and habitats, shared management and personnel, and in order to 

address the value of managing these refuges as a true complex of lands within the LMRV. The 

collective goals, objectives, and strategies of the complex will not detract from, but rather support the 

individual purposes guiding each refuge in the Complex. 

WINTERING HABITAT FOR WATERFOWL 

The LMRV is a critical ecoregion for wintering North American migratory waterfowl (Reinecke et al., 

1989). The Complex provides important foraging and resting (refuge) habitats within the LMRV for 

migratory ducks and geese and thus fits into the large-scale, collaborative planning and habitat 

management initiative called the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), described 

in Chapter I of this CCP. NAWMP selected the LMRVJV as one of the wintering habitat focus areas. 

One of the LMRVJV’s first tasks was to find a model or decision tool for determining how much 

habitat was needed and a way to relate this objective to the population goals of NAWMP. The 

solution was to view wintering areas as responsible for contributing to the spring breeding population 

goals of NAWMP proportional to the percentage of ducks historically counted in wintering areas 

(Loesch et al., 1994, Reinecke and Loesch 1996). 
16 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Figure 4. Regional vicinity map of North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

Table 1. Acres managed by current staffing, North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex 

Refuge Headquarters Refuges Managed Acres Managed Complex/Refuge Staff 

Complex Headquarters 

(located in Grenada, 

MS) 

Coldwater River 

NWR 

(2,374 acres) 

Dahomey NWR 

(9,431 acres) 

Tallahatchie NWR 

(4,199 acres) 

16,004 acres in refuges 

(fee title) 

+ 260 acres (school 

board lease) + 

17,212 acres in 128 

Farm Service Agency 

tracts = 33,476 total 

acres managed by 

complex 

Project Leader 

(GS-13) 

Refuge Manager 

(GS-12) 

Dahomey: Refuge 

Manager (GS-12) 

Private Lands Biologist 

(GS-12) 

Wildlife Biologist 

(GS-12) 

Refuge Operations 

Specialist (GS-9) 

Park Ranger (GS-9)-

vacant 

Office Automation 

Assistant (GS-7) 

Equipment Operator x2 

(WG-10) 

Complex Staff TOTAL 10 

Sources: Biological Review (2003), Public Use Report (2002) and 2002 Annual Narrative 

There is currently no staff based at Coldwater River or Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuges. 

Development/management there is handled by the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex. 

Table 2. Land acquisition history, North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

YEAR Coldwater River NWR 

(acres) Dahomey NWR (acres) Tallahatchie NWR (acres) 

2003 116

2001 306

1997 1,656

1996 298 260

1995 40

1993 9,269

1992 1,870

1991 1,730 162 557

TOTAL 2,374 9,691 4,199

Source: USFWS – Realty 
18 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Table 3. Location of each refuge, North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Refuge County Location 

Coldwater River Quitman/Tallahatchie 5 miles south of Crowder, MS, on Dummy Line Road 

Dahomey Bolivar 10 miles southwest of Cleveland, MS, and 22 miles 

northeast of Greenville 

Tallahatchie Grenada/Tallahatchie 9 miles west of Holcomb, MS, on U.S. Highway 8 

Table 4. Establishment date, legislation, and purpose of each refuge within the North 

Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Refuge Year 

Established 

Establishment 

Legislation Refuge Purpose 

Coldwater 

River 

1991 as Black 

Bayou unit of 

Tallahatchie 

NWR 

2000 as ”stand 

alone” refuge 

Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act; 

Consolidated Farm 

and Rural 

Development Act 

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

any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds,” 

and for conservation purposes, under 

the Consolidated Farm and Rural 

Development Act 

Dahomey 1992 

Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act; 

Fish and Wildlife Act 

of 1956; 

Emergency Wetlands 

Resource Act of 

1986 

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

any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds,” 

“...for the development, advancement, 

management, conservation, and 

protection of fish and wildlife 

resources...” 

and “for the conservation of the 

Wetlands of the Nation in order to 

maintain the public benefits they provide 

and to help fulfill international 

obligations contained in various 

migratory bird treaties and conventions.” 

Tallahatchie 1991 

Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act, 

Consolidated Farm 

and Rural 

Development Act 

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

any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds,” 

and for conservation purposes, under 

the Consolidated Farm and Rural 

Development Act 

To contribute ducks to spring populations, wintering areas have to provide sufficient habitat to ensure 

adequate winter survival. To quantify winter habitat requirements, the LMRVJV had to identify limiting 

factors and the LMRVJV assumed foraging habitat was most likely to limit waterfowl populations in 

the LMRV (Reinecke et al., 1989). The methodology for doing so is discussed more thoroughly in the 

2002 Biological Review for the Complex. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

The LMRVJV has established habitat objectives for the LMRV. These objectives were based on food 

production and acres by habitat type for the complex of habitats, including harvested and 

unharvested cropland, moist-soil areas, and flooded forest land. Each of these habitats is required to 

provide an important part of the food resources (e.g., native weed seeds, small grains, and 

invertebrates) required by waterfowl wintering in the LMRV. Agricultural grains are high in 

carbohydrates (i.e., “hot foods”) needed by waterfowl to maintain body temperature during cold 

periods in winter. Acorns and other native weed seeds (moist-soil seeds) and invertebrates provide 

higher levels of protein and other nutrients used by waterfowl to complete other important functions 

during the winter period, such as molting and improving body condition for return migration to the 

breeding grounds, as well as egg-laying. These objectives have been stepped down for private and 

public lands throughout the LMRV, including the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex. They are shown in Table 5. 

Table 5. Migrating and wintering waterfowl foraging habitat objectives established by the 

LMRVJV for the Complex (acres) 

Habitat Objective 

(Acres) 

Current Capability 

(Acres) (+/-Acres) 

Coldwater River NWR 

Forested wetland 

Scrub/shrub 

Moist-soil 

Unharvested cropland 

 700 

 0 

 190 

 0 

 01

 31 

 1902

 0 

 -700 

 + 31 

 0 

 0 

Dahomey NWR 

Forested wetland 

Moist-soil 

Unharvested cropland 

Harvested cropland 

 750 

 318 

 218 

 0 

 440 

 2004

 845

 2535

 -3103

 -118 

 -134 

 +253 

Tallahatchie NWR 

Forested wetland 

Moist-soil 

Unharvested cropland 

 80 

 852 

 212 

 0 

 690 

 50 

 -806

 -162 

 -162 

Farm Service Agency 

Forested wetlands 

Moist-soil 

Unharvested crop 

 0 

 3,000 

 0 

 0 

 07

 0 

 0 

 -3,000 

 0 

1

 700-acre reforested area with water management capability (currently not functional) could serve as 

a greentree reservoir in the future. 

2

 Current capability is actually 415 acres of which 225 acres are devoted to fall migrating shorebird 

habitat. 

3

 Ducks Unlimited MARSH Agreement assumes 800 acres flooded, refuge estimates 750 acres are 

flooded, actual acres flooded is estimated to be 440 acres. 

4

 Assumes one of two 100-acre impoundments on the south end of the refuge is in moist-soil every 

year. 

5

 Assumes that agricultural grain crops are cooperatively farmed at a 75:25 exchange rate, with the 

refuge receiving 25 percent unharvested crop that is left in the field and 75 percent of the crop 

harvested; all is flooded in winter. 

6

 100-acre reforested area with water management capabilities could possibly serve as a greentree 

reservoir in the future. 

7

 Foraging habitat capabilities on these properties are unknown due to the lack of accurate 

information. 
20 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

HABITAT FOR FOREST-DEPENDENT BIRDS 

Despite being highly fragmented, the productive hardwood forests of the Mississippi Delta play an 

important role in providing migration and breeding habitat for forest-breeding birds, as well as those 

dependent on forests for other activities, such as foraging or wintering. By increasing block size and 

improving timber stand structure, this habitat has the potential to provide much greater benefit for this 

wide variety of non-game birds, many of which are listed in Table 6. 

Table 6. Forest-dependent birds in the Complex work area 

Species Priority Use Preferred habitat 

Swainson’s warbler Extremely high Nesting 

Foraging 

Dense understory 

Open moist ground 

Cerulean warbler Extremely high Breeding, nesting 

and foraging 

Canopy of sawtimber 

trees (mature timber) 

Swallow-tailed kite Extremely high Breeding and 

nesting 

Superemergent trees, 

possibly cypress 

Prothonotary warbler High Breeding Cavity nester – usually in 

trees above open water 

Red-headed woodpecker High Breeding Cavity nester 

Northern parula High Breeding Canopy, usually with 

Spanish moss 

Kentucky warbler High Breeding Nests in patches of 

dense ground cover 

Yellow-billed cuckoo High Breeding Midstory and canopy 

Wood thrush High Breeding 

Foraging 

Midstory 

Moist ground 

American woodcock High Foraging Open moist ground but 

under very dense 

understory cover 

Black duck High Wintering Open water 

Wood duck Moderate Breeding Cavity nesting over or 

near open water 

Acadian flycatcher Moderate Breeding Open midstory 

Eastern wood-pewee Moderate Breeding Open canopy 

Carolina chickadee Moderate Breeding Cavity nester 

Mississippi kite Moderate Breeding nests in trees along 

edges in open country 

Baltimore oriole Moderate Breeding Scattered hardwoods in 

open country 

Ruby-throated 

hummingbird 

Moderate Breeding Woody vegetation in 

moist habitats, usually 

near tubular flowers 

Blue-gray gnatcatcher Moderate Breeding Mature and moist 

hardwood forests 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

Species Priority Use Preferred habitat 

Hooded warbler Moderate Breeding Dense understory 

Bald eagle Moderate Breeding Nests in superemergent 

trees large enough to 

support massive nests 

Rusty blackbird Moderate Wintering Winter roost in canopy; 

forages on the ground 

Yellow-throated warbler Local/regional 

interest 

Breeding Canopy, usually with 

Spanish moss 

American redstart Local/regional 

interest 

Breeding Hardwood forests, 

usually near water 

Yellow-throated vireo Local/regional 

interest 

Breeding Open canopy 

Summer tanager Local/regional 

interest 

Breeding Open canopy 

Pileated woodpecker Local/regional 

interest 

Breeding Mature and extensive 

forest, with dead trees for 

nesting 

As it has with setting waterfowl habitat objectives, the LMRVJV has undertaken a coordinated effort 

to identify Bird Conservation Areas (BCA’s) throughout the LMRV for restoration of forest blocks that 

support sustainable breeding populations of area-sensitive, high priority forest-breeding bird species. 

There are seven BCA’s in the Complex work area with established forest block size objectives (Table 

7). Selective reforestation through private land programs or expansion of existing refuges would 

contribute toward forest block objectives. 

Overall future desired condition of mature wetland forests would be to emphasize (1) increasing stand 

structural diversity by favoring retention of largest trees (removing surrounding potentially competing 

trees), (2) opening up stands to allow light to reach the ground in support of better understory 

structure, and (3) group selection-sized openings to further structural complexity and support 

regeneration of shade-intolerant tree species (oaks) where needed. 

Table 7. Bird Conservation Area (BCA) forest core acreages and deficit in the Complex work 

area 

BCA Name Core goal Core 

acreage 

Deficit 

Coldwater Creek 

(Coldwater River NWR) 

2,100 0 -2,100

Coahoma 8,106 14,216 Achieved

O’Keefe 2,100 472 -1,628

Tunica 5,200 15,383 Achieved

Malmaison (Tallahatchie 

NWR) 

5,200 6,654 Achieved

Dahomey (Dahomey 

NWR) 

2,100 521 -1,579

Whittington 7,300 37,215 Achieved
22 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

A core forest area is that contiguous block of interior forest that is 1.6 miles from all forest edges. 

This protective core forest habitat is essential to many of the highest priority bird species, such as the 

cerulean warbler and swallow-tailed kite. Based on this definition, Dahomey is the only refuge of the 

three in the Complex to have sufficient acreage to refer to its core forest habitat. Research has 

shown that up to 20-30 percent of a study tract can be degraded by fragmentation before neotropical 

migratory songbirds begin treating a contiguous tract as separate patches. If a mile buffer (in which 

there have been substantial encroachments) within the BCA surrounding Dahomey refuge is included 

in this calculation, the 20-30 percent figure has already been surpassed. Managed early 

successional openings of between 1 and 5 acres that serve as habitat for resident and migratory 

wildlife game species are not considered to impact the block nature of the forest tract [BioReview, 37-

38]. 

One species of interest, 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. Woodcock/quail management is 

an explicit goal of Coldwater River refuge [BioReview, 43]. 

SCRUB/SHRUB HABITAT 

Scrub/shrub (or early successional) associated birds are another group of vulnerable avian species 

within the southeast (see Table 8). These species are generally considered a lower priority than 

mature forest species within the LMRV, but some species may benefit temporarily during the early 

years of reforestation, especially the white-eyed vireo, painted bunting, orchard oriole, and Bell’s 

vireo. However, good opportunities exist for overall effective bird conservation through the 

establishment and maintenance of scrub/shrub sites throughout the Complex, including edges and 

small blocks within existing refuges and Farm Service Agency tracts. Many of these tracts are 

generally isolated from larger forest blocks. 

Table 8. Scrub/shrub associated birds in the Complex work area 

Species Priority Use Preferred habitat 

Breeding 

Painted bunting High Breeding Dense thickets of shrubs, saplings, 

or second-growth trees 

White-eyed vireo High Breeding Dense and usually moist thickets 

Bell’s vireo High Breeding Streamside thickets or upland 

scrub oaks 

Orchard oriole High Breeding Scattered hardwood trees in open 

country 

Yellow-breasted chat Moderate Breeding Dense cover of shrubs or saplings 

Northern bobwhite Moderate Breeding Ground-nester 

Field sparrow Moderate Breeding? 

Wintering 

Transients 

Golden-winged warbler Extremely 

high 

Cerulean warbler High 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

Species Priority Use Preferred habitat 

Transients 

Blue-winged warbler High 

Bay-breasted warbler High 

Canada warbler High 

Blackburnian warbler High 

Palm warbler High 

Bobolink High 

Veery High 

Philadelphia vireo High 

Black-billed cuckoo Moderate 

Olive-sided flycatcher Moderate 

Willow flycatcher Moderate 

Least flycatcher Moderate 

Chestnut-sided warbler Moderate 

Black-throated green 

warbler 

Moderate 

Mourning warbler Moderate 

Scrub/shrub species apparently are able to withstand cowbird and depredation problems better within 

smaller blocks of habitat (i.e., 50-100 acres, possibly as small as 25-acre patches) than mature forest 

priority species, many of which require thousands of contiguously forested acres. With better 

information, the project leader and his staff may want to consider targeting certain sites for this habitat 

phase. Sites selected for long-term maintenance of scrub/shrub will require periodic disturbances. 

One option for minimizing the frequency of disturbance (to set back succession) necessary to 

maintain scrub/shrub habitat would be to plant areas with native fruit-producing, shrub species such 

as plum, swamp dogwood, devil’s-walking-stick, deciduous holly, and various species of hawthorn. 

GRASSLAND HABITAT 

The emphasis on “grassland” habitat conditions used by high priority species on the Complex is likely 

restricted to forest restoration sites actually more often dominated by “brushy” annuals. Priority 

grassland species are mostly found at the Complex during migration and winter, but a few species 

may breed in small numbers (Table 9). Recently planted reforestation sites constitute the primary 

habitats on the refuges. However, higher sites with sandy soils (i.e., poorer quality sites) dominated 

by broomsedge (Andropogon spp.) should be maintained in particular for wintering LeConte’s 

sparrows. Priority grassland species include sparrows (principally LeConte’s, but also grasshopper 

and possibly lark), sedge wren, bobolink, and raptors (most notably bald eagle, northern harrier, 

short-eared owl, and loggerhead shrike). 
24 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Table 9. Grassland-dependent birds in the Complex work area 

Species Priority Use Preferred habitat 

Henslow’s sparrow High Wintering 

LeConte’s sparrow High Wintering 

Sedge wren High Wintering 

Short-eared owl High Wintering 

Dickcissel Moderate Breeding Herbaceous cover where 

vegetation is at least 2 

feet high 

Northern bobwhite Moderate Breeding Ground-nester 

Loggerhead shrike Moderate Breeding 

Foraging 

Tree or shrub nesting 

Forages on ground 

Field sparrow Moderate Breeding 

Wintering 

scattered saplings, 

shrubs, and tall herbaceous cover; 

wintering - dense cover 

of herbs, particular tall 

composites 

Northern harrier Moderate Wintering 

Grasshopper sparrow Moderate Wintering 

Field sparrow Moderate Breeding? 

Wintering 

HABITAT FOR MIGRATING SHOREBIRDS 

Throughout the LMRV, habitat for spring (northward) shorebird migration is probably provided in most 

years with normal rainfall and evaporation rates. Peak migration is expected April to mid-May (but 

extends from mid-March to late May). Southbound migration starts in early July, peaks August 

through September, and ends by mid-October. 

Disruption of normal evaporation patterns over the last 50 years in the LMRV and the lack of rainfall 

in this highly modified hydrological environment have led to a severe shortage of fall habitat for 

shorebirds. Opportunities do exist, however, to provide good quality habitat for southbound migrants 

in fall. A focus on providing shorebird habitat is considered the highest non-game bird priority for the 

Complex. The LMRVJV-coordinated shorebird (fall migration) habitat objective for Coldwater River 

refuge is 225 acres of mudflats and for former FmHA tracts is currently listed as an additional 100-

200 acres. 

Within the larger context, about 1,500 acres of habitat have been tentatively identified for Mississippi 

towards supporting a tentative LMRV population objective of 500,000 shorebirds during southbound 

migration. 

High priority shorebird species include the stilt sandpiper, buff-breasted sandpiper, western 

sandpiper, short-billed dowitcher, and Wilson’s phalarope. Those of moderate priority are the 

semipalmated sandpiper, sanderling, greater yellowlegs, dunlin, common snipe, least sandpiper, 

willet, American avocet, and killdeer. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

HABITAT FOR MARSHBIRDS AND COLONIAL WATERBIRDS/WADING BIRDS 

Secretive marshbirds, including rails and bitterns, are mostly found on the Complex during migration 

and winter, but may breed in small numbers. Ricefields, moist-soil units, and unmanaged 

herbaceous marsh dominated by cattail, rushes, and other perennials constitute the primary habitats 

on the Complex. Management for these species coincides well with ongoing wetland restoration 

practices on many of the former FmHA sites and, to a lesser degree, management practices targeting 

waterfowl. Included in this group are “secretive marshbirds” (e.g., rails, bitterns, grebes, moorhens, 

and coots) and raptors (most notably bald eagle and northern harrier). 

Complex holdings support several colonial wading bird rookeries. Shallow water areas found on the 

refuge during late summer and fall provide critical foraging opportunities for long-legged wading birds 

such as wood storks, herons, egrets, and ibis. The primary management tools are to 1) protect 

rookeries from disturbance and, where possible, maintain standing water under nest trees throughout 

the nesting season to minimize nest predation by raccoons, and 2) incorporate water level 

management for wading birds into shallow water management for waterfowl and shorebirds. In the 

shallow water provided for wading birds, they will be searching for foraging habitat rich in small fish 

and crustaceans, a much different food source than is targeted in waterfowl and shorebird 

management. 

High priority species are the least tern (interior population-foraging on open water), white ibis 

(breeding?, migrant), and the American white pelican (wintering). Species of local or regional 

interest include the wood stork (migrant), roseate spoonbill (migrant), glossy ibis (migrant), doublecrested cormorant (breeding, wintering), anhinga (breeding), great blue heron (breeding), great egret 

(breeding), snowy egret (breeding), little blue heron (breeding), cattle egret (breeding), green heron 

(breeding), yellow-crowned night-heron (breeding). 

MONITORING RAPTORS 

The Complex has two records (from August 1999) of one extremely high priority raptor: the swallowtailed kite (migration, breeding - nest in superemergent trees, possibly cypress). However, these 

individuals appear to have been dispersing juveniles rather than residents. The Complex also has 

several species of moderate priority, including the Mississippi kite (breeding - nest in trees along 

edges in open country), loggerhead shrike (breeding - nest in tree or shrub, forages on ground, 

wintering), northern harrier (wintering), and bald eagle (wintering, nesting possible - nests in 

superemergent trees large enough to support massive nests). The Complex will identify and monitor 

year-round occurrence and abundance of raptors. 

REPLICATING HISTORIC FOREST CONDITIONS 

About 80 percent of the forestlands in the LMRV has been cleared and converted to other land uses, 

leaving only remnant, fragmented forested tracts. Fish and wildlife resources have been similarly 

impacted, leaving remnant populations that must be managed to meet refuge purposes and to 

achieve their maximum potential. Some of the most unique forested habitats remaining in the delta 

are forested ridges. Because of the importance of the remaining delta forests to the wildlife 

resources on the Complex and conservation priorities set forth in various plans, forest resources 

should be managed to mimic old growth forests and increase vertical vegetative structure. 
26 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Several species of waterfowl heavily utilize flooded forested habitat in winter for resting and foraging 

for acorns, other fruits, various seeds, and invertebrates. Wood ducks seek these areas almost 

exclusive of other habitats. Mallards, gadwall, and wigeon all utilize flooded forested habitat as one 

of the complex of preferred habitats. 

Flooding of forest habitat in winter should mimic or enhance natural flood conditions. Typically, 

flooding should occur only during the dormant period for deciduous hardwoods common in each 

impoundment. Flooding should never occur before the dormant period starts in late fall (midNovember to late-December) and only rarely after green-up in the spring. Flooding dates and 

duration should be varied annually and in some years given stands should not be flooded. 

LEGAL POLICY 

The administration of the Complex is guided by a variety of international treaties, federal laws, and 

Presidential 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 F. 

RESOURCE AND MANAGEMENT DESCRIPTIONS 

COLDWATER RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Coldwater River National Wildlife Refuge, formerly the Black Bayou Unit of the Tallahatchie National 

Wildlife Refuge, consists of 2,469 acres of fee title lands (see Figure 5). Over half of this acreage is 

abandoned old fields of poorly drained soils that flood most winters. 

A 495-acre portion of Coldwater River refuge contains 25 ponds that were previously managed as a 

commercial catfish operation. These ponds range in size from 9 to 21 acres, and are now managed 

for shorebirds, migratory waterfowl, and marsh birds. A Water Management Plan guides the active 

management on the 16 ponds with wells and water control structures. Coldwater River refuge’s 

unique mix of habitats and proximity to the migration corridors of the Little Tallahatchie River and the 

Panola-Quitman Floodway attract a high diversity of migrant waterbirds all year round. 

About 300 acres of old-field habitat on the west side of the refuge are managed for grassland birds. 

A natural sump of 250 to 300 acres along the east side and a similar area in the west central portion 

of the refuge have been reforested with hardwoods, but due to the wetness, Baccharis, willow, and 

button bush thickets now dominate many acres. This area holds thousands of mallards during annual 

winter flooding. Another approximately 750 acres have been reforested with native hardwoods with 

varying degrees of success. No cooperative farming is used on Coldwater River refuge. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

Figure 5. Coldwater River National Wildlife Refuge land cover types 
28 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

DAHOMEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge is located in Bolivar County in the western part of the Complex 

near the Mississippi River (see Figure 6). Dahomey refuge’s woodlands are the largest contiguous 

tract of bottomland hardwood habitat occurring outside the Mississippi River main line levee in 

northwest Mississippi. The refuge’s forestland is a relic of a habitat type that once predominated 

throughout the Lower Mississippi Delta. Unfortunately, stream channelization and levee construction 

activities in the vicinity of the refuge have reduced historical flooding regimes to the point that a 

significant portion of the habitat within the refuge is no longer subject to periods of seasonal 

inundation. 

In 1994, the Complex installed levees, pipes, and water control structures in two streams occurring 

within the refuge, creating an approximately 600-acre greentree reservoir. During 1999, the Complex 

converted an 85-acre agricultural field into four moist-soil impoundments. In 2001, Ducks Unlimited 

constructed two levees on the southern portion of the refuge to create two moist-soil units totaling 

223 acres. 

Dahomey refuge consists of 8,126 acres of mature bottomland hardwood forest (596 of which are 

occupied by the greentree reservoir), 104 acres of fallow fields, 308 acres of moist-soil units, 297 

acres of agricultural fields, 849 acres of early successional reforestation areas, and 7 acres of 

permanent water (in a lake and numerous drainage ditches). The moist-soil units are managed 

primarily for wintering waterfowl. 

TALLAHATCHIE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Until 2000, Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge consisted of the Bear Lake and Black Bayou Units. 

In 2000, Black Bayou Unit became a separate refuge – Coldwater River National Wildlife Refuge. 

The Bear Lake unit retained the name Tallahatchie. Today, the refuge is a 4,199-acre patchwork of 

cultivated farmlands, old fields, reforested lands, and small, scattered plots of bottomland hardwood 

forest bisected by the meandering Tippo Bayou, its centerpiece. The refuge is located in Grenada 

and Tallahatchie counties (see Figure 7). Its lands, like those of Coldwater River and Dahomey 

refuges, lie within the Mississippi River Alluvial Valley, referred to locally as the ”Delta,” where 

topography is flat and much of the soil is of the heavy clay, hydric variety that has been subject to 

extensive clearing and drainage efforts. The old oxbows and low-lying fields along Tippo Bayou are 

permitted to flood each winter and hold large concentrations of waterfowl. Most of the agricultural 

land (628 acres) on the refuge is devoted to corn, soybeans, and rice. This represents about 15 

percent of the refuge land use. Twenty-five percent of the crops produced are left on the ground for 

wildlife through the Service’s cooperative farming program. Most of the remainder of the refuge has 

been reforested through planting efforts by Complex staff. 

CLIMATE 

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

States. The average yearly rainfall is 52 inches; March is the wettest month with an average of 5.6 

inches and August the driest with 2.4 inches. Tropical storms or hurricanes coming from the Gulf of 

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

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

summer may increase the danger of fire. Average annual snowfall is less than an inch. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

Figure 6. Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge land cover types 
30 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Figure 7. Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge land cover types 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

January is usually the coldest month, while July is normally the hottest. Winters are mild, with 

temperatures seldom remaining below freezing for long. Summers are hot and humid with heat 

indexes commonly reaching 110-115EF. The average growing season is 219 days, from March 25 to 

October 30. 

PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY, AND SOILS 

Within the region, the Mississippi Delta is an alluvial plain of the Mississippi River reaching from 

Memphis, Tennessee, to Vicksburg, Mississippi. It is 75 miles wide at the widest point near the 

middle, tapering on each end. The river flows along the western edge, while the eastern edge is 

bordered by steep bluffs that rise 200 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 and lesser streams like the Tallahatchie River. Old channels, oxbow 

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

while slackwater areas farther from the channel resulted in broad flats. These features intermixed as 

the Mississippi meandered across the Delta. 

The alluvial soils in the lower Mississippi Delta range from silts and clays in the more poorly drained 

areas to sandier, coarser-grained soils on natural levees and ancient sandbars. Due to the location 

of waterfowl-oriented refuges in wetland areas, most of the soils within 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, but most of the broad 

natural levees adjacent to major streams are privately owned cotton production areas. 

HYDROLOGY 

The water table is very shallow in the Delta. Irrigation wells are drilled to a depth of 100-120 feet, 

reaching an aquifer connected to the Mississippi River. 

Historically, the refuges were subject to winter/spring flooding by the Mississippi River. The Lower 

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

the mainline Mississippi River levee has been substantially upgraded, preventing widespread flooding 

from the river. 

Within the vicinity of, and in Dahomey refuge, stream channelization and levee construction activities 

have reduced historical flooding regimes to the point that a significant portion of the habitat within the 

refuge is no longer subject to periods of seasonal inundation. This has had a striking impact on the 

refuge’s vegetation community, a remnant of a habitat type that was once dominant throughout the 

Lower Mississippi Valley. Therefore, one of the Complex’s objectives for Dahomey refuge is to 

restore and manage seasonal hydro-periods within its wetland habitat. 

In 1994, the Complex installed levees, pipes, and water control structures in two streams occurring 

within Dahomey refuge, creating an approximately 600-acre greentree reservoir. During 1999, the 

Complex converted an 85-acre agricultural field into 4 moist-soil impoundments. In 2001, Ducks 

Unlimited constructed two levees on the southern portion of the refuge to create two moist-soil units 

totaling 223 acres. 
32 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Tippo Bayou bisects the portion of the Tallahatchie refuge north of State Highway 8 and generally 

forms the eastern boundary of the refuge south of State Highway 8. Normally highly turbid, Tippo 

Bayou depends primarily on rice field runoff for base flow. Except for high water periods, the bayou is 

shallow and has low dissolved oxygen levels. Out-of-bank flooding of Tippo Bayou occurs on an 

annual basis and may cause portions of the refuge to be inaccessible from December to April. Eight 

water control structures have been installed and one levee has been constructed. 

Coldwater River refuge is located 4.5 miles north of the confluence of the Panola-Quitman Floodway 

and the Tallahatchie River. Bounded by those two water bodies, the refuge experiences heavy 

flooding. Typically beginning in November, water begins to accumulate north of the confluence and 

backs northward to the refuge. A large portion of Coldwater River refuge is under water from 

November to April. 

WATER QUALITY 

Agricultural runoff from any source in the Delta carries organochlorine 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 to be confronted on all stations of the Complex. Fish and wildlife species are subject to 

contain OC compounds that may exceed predator protection levels or human consumption concern 

levels. 

North Carolina State University completed the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Study, which 

determined chemical contamination at 26 national wildlife refuges in the LMRV. Field sampling for 

the study spanned a 6-year period from 1995 to 2000. Dahomey and Tallahatchie refuges were 

included in the study. 

Results of the sample analyses indicate that contaminant/water quality problems occur on both 

Dahomey and Tallahatchie refuges. Concentrations of DDTM were above concern levels in sediment 

samples. DDTM, toxaphene, and current use pesticide concentrations in water samples exceeded 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s chronic water quality criteria for those contaminants. It also 

appears that several of the waterbodies contain high levels of suspended solids, turbidity, and 

nutrients, and that dissolved oxygen levels are at or near zero for extended periods. 

Contaminated runoff from agricultural land is likely causing the contaminant/water quality problems. 

To reduce contaminated runoff entering the refuge, best management practices (BMPs) such as drop 

inlet structures, minimum till practices, vegetative field borders, and grassed waterways should be 

installed on agricultural land in the watersheds, and some of the agricultural land with high erosion 

rates should be revegetated. In addition, concentrations of DDTM, toxaphene, and current use 

pesticides should be monitored in fish and wildlife, and investigations should be undertaken to 

determine organochlorine pesticides concentrations in fish, and aquatic oriented wildlife such as 

wood ducks, raccoons, and fish eating birds and mammals. Also, temperature and pH, along with 

concentrations of suspended solids, nutrients, and turbidity should be determined for the streams and 

lakes. 

BMPs can also be implemented through the Service’s Private Lands Program, the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service’s Wetland Reserve and Conservation Reserve Programs, and the Mississippi 

Soil and Water Conservation Commission’s Clean Lakes Program. These federal and state agency 

programs pay about 75 percent of the cost of the BMPs, and the landowner pays the remainder. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

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

that receive agricultural runoff such as those on Dahomey refuge, and the Tippo Bayou area in 

Tallahatchie refuge. These areas not only have diminished water quality, but are filling in, resulting in 

a loss of aquatic habitat. 

FLORA 

The cover type for the Delta was primarily bottomland hardwood forest prior to the clearing, which 

began with settlement by Europeans around 1820. The dominant forest type was oak-gum-cypress. 

Canebrakes originally covered the broader flats of slightly higher ground. They were very extensive 

on the natural levees forming almost pure stands. Most of the surviving forests now occupy lower 

ground 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 somewhat replaced in some low 

areas by swamp tupelo on all the stations. Other woody species in permanent or semi-permanent 

flooded areas include swamp privet, water elm, black willow, and water locust. At slightly higher 

elevations are green ash, red maple, cottonwood, sugarberry, honey locust, sycamore, bitter pecan, 

overcup oak, American elm, and Nuttall oak. Extensive flats support scattered deciduous holly 

(possum haw) in the mid-story, while higher elevations grow extensive stands of dwarf palmetto 

(Sabal minor). Hardwoods on still higher sites include willow oak, 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 situations. 

Vegetation associations vary between refuges. Coldwater River refuge has distinctly wetter 

conditions, with fewer areas to support species found on well-drained soils. Since the refuge was 

acquired, over 1,300 acres of marginal agricultural fields have been reforested with bottomland 

hardwood tree species such as Nuttall oak, willow oak, water oak, bald cypress, green ash, and 

others [5-page gloss on Coldwater]. Black willows are prevalent along all internal drainages [Bio rev, 

iii]. Similarly, over 1200 acres of marginal agricultural fields have been reforested with bottomland 

hardwood tree species on Tallahatchie refuge. 

Vegetation also varies within refuges, according to topography. The distribution of bottomland 

hardwood species across floodplains is primarily a function of a soil moisture gradient in which a 

couple of feet can be telling [FMPH, 80]. On Dahomey refuge, red oak-gum is the principle forest 

type. Cruise observations reveal a transition to elm-ash-sugarberry forest type [FHMP, 87]. 

FAUNA 

Mammals 

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

include the whitetail deer, which are abundant on all stations, the feral hog (an invasive species), 

especially on Tallahatchie, and the American black bear, which occasionally is seen on Dahomey 

refuge (though not a permanent resident). 

Medium-sized mammals include opossum, armadillo, eastern cottontail, swamp rabbits, beaver, 

muskrat, mink, nutria, coyote, red fox, gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, river otter, and bobcat. The 

nutria was introduced from South America and is a noteworthy invasive species. Beavers have a 

tremendous potential impact on bottomland hardwoods. They interfere with wildlife control activities 

by plugging culverts, ditches, and water control structures [2002 annual review, 12]. Problems 
34 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

associated with the impounding of water by beaver are proving to be the single greatest threat to 

timber resources within the Complex [FHMP, 86]. 

Armadillos extended their range into this part of Mississippi some time during the latter half of the 

20th century. Their impact here has not been investigated. Coyotes are also a recent arrival, with 

first sightings recorded in the 1980s. Their presence is thought to be responsible, among other 

things, for the scarcity of foxes. River otters seem to have made a comeback in recent years. 

Raccoons are abundant and tend to overpopulate. 

Small mammals have not been surveyed on the Complex, but potentially include (number of species 

in parentheses) shrews (3), bats (12), chipmunk (1), squirrel (3), new world rats and mice (7), voles 

(1), old world rats and mice (3), weasel (1), rabbits(2) [FHMP, 17], and mink (1). 

Birds 

Over 225 species of migratory birds use the Complex, of which some 77 species breed here. 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. 

The most abundant wintering waterfowl species is the mallard followed variously by green-winged 

teal, northern pintail, northern shoveler, and gadwall, among the ducks, and snow and blue geese, 

and greater white-fronted geese among the geese. Wood ducks and hooded mergansers are 

common nesters in the spring and summer. 

The Complex provides excellent habitat for breeding colonial wading birds. Nesting species include 

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

heron, anhinga, green heron, and more recently, double-crested cormorants. White ibis have 

occupied rookeries in the past, but have not nested on the refuges for several years. They are 

considered a priority species under the colonial waterbird objective for the Complex. 

About 20 species of shorebirds use the refuge complex, especially where habitat is managed 

intensively. Some of the most numerous species are least sandpipers, pectoral sandpipers, 

semipalmated plovers, greater yellowlegs, and stilt sandpipers. 

Reptiles 

A survey of reptiles has not been done on any of the refuges. In 2001, the refuge staff initiated 

calling frog surveys to monitor refuge frog populations, as well as beginning an overall inventory of 

amphibians and reptiles on the three traditional refuge properties (Coldwater River, Dahomey, and 

Tallahatchie refuges.) [BioReview, 44] A list has been prepared based on species ranges and 

personal encounters by the refuge staff; including alligators (1 species), turtles (15 spp.), lizards (8 

spp.), and snakes (31 spp.). 

Various species of water snakes are common or abundant, especially the broad-banded and 

diamond-backed water snakes. Poisonous snakes include the copperhead, cottonmouth, and timber 

(canebrake) rattlesnake. Rat snakes of mixed or uncertain subspecies are a serious nest predator, 

climb well, and are abundant on the Complex. Racers and western ribbon snakes are also common. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

The most commonly seen turtle species is the red-eared slider, whose range spans the three refuges in 

the Complex. Alligator snappers have been trapped on the Tallahatchee refuge, while common snappers 

and western spiny softshell turtles are known to inhabit all three refuges [annual nar. 2002, 4]. 

The ground skink and the five-lined skink are two of the most common lizard species. 

Amphibians 

Calling frog surveys and searches for salamander breeding sites were begun in 2001 throughout the 

Complex. The numbers of species that may occur on the refuge include: salamanders (12), toads 

(3), treefrogs (9), narrow-mouthed toad (1), spadefoot toads (1) and true frogs (5). Cricket frogs, 

green treefrogs, bullfrogs, bronze frogs, and southern leopard frogs are abundant. Salamanders, 

although present, are rarely encountered with the exception of the marbled salamander, which can 

frequently be found in the spring at Dahomey refuge. When completed, the results from the reptile 

and amphibian inventory, as well as the calling frog surveys, will be incorporated into a GIS-based 

database. The calling frog survey data will be submitted to the North American Amphibian Monitoring 

Program, a national database. 

Fish 

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

oxygen content such as long-nosed gar, buffalo, carp, bowfin and shad. Sport fish such as 

largemouth bass, bream (panfish), and channel catfish have been stocked in suitable waters. A 

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

various bream, and crappie. 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

Animals 

Several federally listed threatened and endangered animals may occur on the Complex. Numbers of 

the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are on the rise locally and this large raptor is 

more frequently sighted throughout the Complex than it used to be. Nesting has been documented at 

nearby lakes. The endangered least tern (Sterna antillarum) is an occasional visitor to managed 

moist-soil units and open water wetlands in search of foraging habitat mostly during summer months. 

The interior population of the least tern breeds in isolated areas along the Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, 

Red, and Rio Grande river systems. From late April to August, terns use barren to sparsely 

vegetated sandbars along rivers, sand and gravel pits, or lake and reservoir shorelines. Dams, 

reservoirs, channelization, and other changes to river systems have eliminated most historic least 

tern habitat. The endangered wood stork (Mycteria americana) is provided excellent habitat for 

breeding within the Complex. Shallow water areas found on the Complex during late summer and fall 

provide long-legged wading birds with critical foraging opportunities. 

The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), an occasional visitor to the Complex, was listed as an 

endangered species in 1970, but was de-listed in 1999, as a result of recovery of its populations from 

successful efforts at captive breeding and reintroductions. The paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) can 

reach nearly 7 feet in length and 200 pounds. It is a former candidate species for federal listing and 

is still considered a species of management concern. It was once abundant in the Mississippi, 

Missouri, and Gulf Coast drainages, so much so that it was commercially harvested as a source of 

eggs for caviar. There is evidence that Tippo Bayou is a staging ground for spawning by the 

paddlefish. To date, however, spawning has not been documented. 
36 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

The black bear was once distributed throughout Mississippi. However, because of excessive harvest 

and habitat loss, black bear populations have been severely reduced. The Complex is located 

entirely within the historic range of the state-listed endangered American black bear (Ursus a. 

americanus). It also borders, to the south, the range of the federally listed threatened Louisiana black 

bear (Ursus a. luteolus). Though no breeding population has been documented in Mississippi, 

several individual bears, including females with cubs, have been sighted on the Complex, most 

notably along the Mississippi River in Bolivar County. 

Efforts by the Black Bear Conservation Committee and its member agencies are currently underway 

to restore bears to their historic range, with current focus on the Louisiana black bear within the State 

of Louisiana. However, bear sightings in the lower Mississippi Delta have increased dramatically 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. 

Also, a breeding population of black bears currently exists in the White River National Wildlife Refuge 

in southeast Arkansas, to the west and across the Mississippi River from the Complex. Individual 

bears have been documented crossing the river into Mississippi. Consequently, there is a possibility 

that more White River refuge bears could immigrate into the Complex. It should be noted that the 

subspecific status of the White River refuge bear population is unresolved. 

Plants 

The endangered pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) is a rarely seen deciduous shrub that grows in 

seasonally flooded wetlands and on the edges of sinks and ponds. Much of the lands where 

pondberry was historically found have been ditched and converted to agricultural fields. The 

drainage and flooding of wetlands, cattle grazing, domestic hog foraging, and timber cutting have also 

adversely affected pondberry abundance. Pondberry has been found on Service property in Bolivar 

County. Its presence on Dahomey refuge in Bolivar County has not yet been verified; however, an 

ecological assessment conducted there concludes that suitable habitats for pondberry do exist and 

that its presence there is very likely (Stewart 1990). It has not yet been documented on other 

properties administered by the Complex. [FHMP, 18] 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural resources include historic properties as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), cultural items as defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 

archaeological resources as defined in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), sacred 

sites as defined in Executive Order 13007, Protection and Accommodation of Access To "Indian 

Sacred Sites," to which access is provided under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and 

collections. As defined by the NHPA, a historic property or historic resource is any prehistoric or 

historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including any artifacts, records, and remains that are related to 

and located in such properties. The term also includes properties of traditional religious and cultural 

importance (traditional cultural properties), which are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as a result of 

their association with the cultural practices or beliefs of an American Indian tribe. Archaeological 

resources include any material of human life or activities that is at least 100 years old, and that is of 

archaeological interest. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

Section 106 of the NHPA provides the framework for federal review and consideration of cultural 

resources during federal project planning and execution. The implementing regulations for the 

Section 106 process (36 CFR Part 800) have been promulgated by the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation. The Secretary of the Interior maintains the NRHP and sets forth significant criteria (36 

CFR Part 60) for inclusion in the register. Cultural resources may be considered “historic properties” 

for the purpose of consideration by a federal undertaking if they meet NRHP criteria. The 

implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800.16(v) define an undertaking as “a project, activity, or 

program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, 

including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with Federal 

financial assistance; those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval; and those subject to state 

or local regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a Federal agency.” Historic 

properties are those that are formally placed in the NRHP by the Secretary of the Interior, and those 

that meet the criteria and are determined eligible for inclusion. 

Like all federal agencies, the Service must comply with Section 106 of the NHPA. Cultural resources 

management in the Service is the responsibility of the Regional Director and is not delegated for the 

Section 106 process when historic properties could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing 

archaeological permits, and for Indian tribal involvement. The Regional Historic Preservation Officer 

(RHPO) advises the Regional Director about procedures, compliance, and implementation of the 

several cultural resources laws. The Refuge Manager assists the RHPO by early informing the 

RHPO about Service undertakings, by protecting archaeological sites and historic properties on 

Service managed and administered lands, by monitoring archaeological investigations by contractors 

and permittees, and by reporting violations. 

The Complex follows these procedures to protect the public’s interest in preserving its cultural/historic 

legacy that may potentially occur on the Complex. Whenever construction work is undertaken that 

involves any excavation with heavy earth-moving equipment like tractors, graders, and bulldozers, 

such as for the development of moist-soil units, the Complex contracts with a qualified 

archaeologist/cultural resources expert to conduct an archaeological survey of the subject property. 

The results of this survey are submitted to the RHPO, as well as the State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO), which in Mississippi is an official within the Historic Preservation Division of the 

Mississippi Department of Archives and History. The SHPO reviews the surveys and determines 

whether cultural resources will be impacted, that is, whether any properties listed in or eligible or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP will be affected. If cultural resources are actually encountered during 

construction activities, the Complex is to notify the SHPO immediately. To date, no properties on the 

Complex have been determined to be eligible for the NRHP. 

This region of Mississippi has long been settled and used by humans, in good part because of its mild 

winters and abundant fish and wildlife resources. Prior to European settlement, a number of Indian tribes 

inhabited the Delta. In the northern part 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 first 

Europeans to travel through the Delta were the Spaniards of De Soto’s expedition of the 1540s. Next 

were the French, who arrived in the mid-1600s. The Europeans had a devastating effect on the Indians 

of this area. A number of tribes are mentioned by the French as living in the Delta, but almost all had 

disappeared from the area by 1750, as a result of disease, warfare, and migration. In 1802 the land was 

sold to the United States as part of the Louisiana Purchase (Heisler, 1978). 
38 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

The Lower Mississippi River is noted for its prehistoric earthen mounds, erected by the area’s 

indigenous inhabitants. Although the first people 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 some 

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. 

These 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 lower Mississippi Delta was home to highly organized societies. There 

were roads, commerce, and cultural centers anchored by large and impressive earthen monuments. 

Wonders of geometric precision, these earthworks were the centers of human life. However, mound 

construction was already in a period of decline in the 1500s, when the first Europeans arrived in the 

region and brought with them epidemic diseases that decimated native populations across the 

southeast. As a result, by the time sustained contact with European colonists began about 1700, the 

long tradition of mound building was reaching its end. Surviving mounds are protected because they 

are owned by state or federal agencies committed by law to their preservation. Most of the mounds 

in Mississippi, however, are on privately owned land. As a result, many mounds have been 

irreparably damaged or completely destroyed by modern development and looting. Indian mounds, 

therefore, are critically endangered cultural sites (Indian Mounds of Mississippi, NPS 2002). The 

Complex includes at least one documented mound on the Pennington Farm Service Agency property. 

RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 

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

The opportunity for consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife-dependent recreation attracts many 

members of the public to the refuges and Farm Service Agency properties; in recent years the 

Complex has received about 100,000 visits annually. Hunting and fishing are the most popular public 

uses on the Complex’s three refuges and many Farm Service Agency properties, and are provided in 

accordance with federal, state, and refuge regulations. 

Hunting is the most popular recreational activity throughout the Complex. This includes hunting on 

some of the Farm Service Agency fee title properties where the activity had existed prior to 

acquisition by the Complex [public use review,1]. The hunting program is monitored and partially 

funded through general hunt permits, currently $12.50 each, and valid for most types of game. Deer, 

rabbits, squirrels, raccoons, waterfowl, feral swine, and turkey may be taken on the Complex during 

the appropriate seasons. In 2003, approximately 1,500 hunters received hunting permits for the 

Complex. That same year, only a very limited number of fishing permits were issued. On Dahomey 

refuge, an 8-acre lake was constructed in 1999 and stocked with bass, bream, and catfish. It was 

subsequently opened to fishing by the public. 

Wildlife observation and photography are other public uses at the Complex. Coldwater River refuge 

is closed to the general public because of its critical importance as a wildlife sanctuary, but wildlife 

may be observed from public roads on the eastern and western boundaries of the refuge. On 

Dahomey and Tallahatchie refuges, many of the refuge roads are open to the public and several 

Special Use Permits are issued annually to photographers. Nonetheless, most of the participation in 

these activities is incidental, as there are no formal programs to encourage expanding and 

participating in these activities. 

Environmental education and interpretation are also provided on an as-needed basis. The staff has 

responded to requests for interpretive programs, but there are no refuge-specific programs and no 

dedicated staff to develop and conduct an effective education and outreach program. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The traditional refuges administered by the Complex lie within the counties of Tallahatchie, Bolivar, 

Grenada, and Quitman. In addition, complex-administered Farm Service Agency properties occupy 

these, as well as eleven surrounding counties. The westernmost counties are found within what is 

referred to as the Mississippi Delta while the easternmost counties are located in the Mississippi Hill 

Country. The entire Complex region is largely rural, and the Delta area containing the three refuges 

has an economy based on manufacturing and agriculture; principle crops are cotton, soybeans, corn, 

rice, and catfish. Much or most of the counties’ land bases are used for agriculture (see Table 10). 

Table 10. Percent of the Tallahatchie, Grenada, Bolivar and Quitman counties’ land base used 

for agricultural production

County Total Area (square miles) Area used for agriculture 

2002* sq. miles (%) 

Tallahatchie 652 331 (51%) 

Grenada 449 99 (22%) 

Bolivar 906 578 (64%)

Quitman 406 207 (51%) 

* Includes cultivated and grazing land (pasture) but not forestry/timberland 

(Source: Agricultural Statistical Service, USDA, conversion of head of cattle to acres performed by 

Jack Curry, Mississippi Development Authority, 2/02, 2/03, 2/24, 2004) 

Mississippi is the most economically depressed state in the nation, with lower than average 

household and per capita income and educational attainment levels. However, with the exception of 

Bolivar County (8.3 percent unemployment in the 2000 U.S. Census), the counties surrounding the 

Complex actually have unemployment rates below the national average. Tables 11 and 12 provide 

additional demographic and geographic information about Tallahatchie, Grenada, Bolivar, and 

Quitman counties. 

Table 11. County employment data 

County Leading Industry Sources of 

Earnings 

Unemployment Rate 

(MS state, 5.7%) 

Tallahatchie Manufacturing 23.3% 4.9% 

Grenada Manufacturing 27.7% 3.4% 

Quitman Educational, health 

and social services 19.6% 4.4% 

Bolivar 

Educational, 

health and social 

services 

26.2% 8.3% 

Source: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data, American Fact Finder, U.S. Census Bureau 
40 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

OUTDOOR RECREATION ECONOMICS 

The fish and wildlife of the Mississippi Delta, including those of the Complex, are economically 

important (Table 13). In addition to commercial fishing on the Mississippi River, hunting, recreational 

fishing, wildlife viewing, and wildlife photography are economically important to local businesses. 

Resident and nonresident hunting and fishing revenues for the state total $13.7 million dollars for 

525,479 licenses (MS Development Authority 2002). These hunters and anglers spend an estimated 

$1.8 billion in the state annually (Gillette 2000). 

Unfortunately, a general lack of regard for the preservation of fish and wildlife resources, combined 

with wetland clearing and draining, has led to the loss of valuable fishery spawning grounds and the 

loss of habitat for many wildlife species. In the attempt to restore and protect some of these 

resources, the Complex serves an important role, not only by providing habitat for a diversity of plant 

and wildlife species, but also as a place where people can go to enjoy these resources, either 

through observation or more directly through hunting or fishing. 

The refuges of the Complex have become vital to the rural communities economies’ in which they 

reside, not only with the activities they provide, but through employment opportunities to individuals 

who themselves contribute to the local economy. With improved access, facilities and staffing, these 

refuges can serve as pivotal attractions providing a much needed and important commodity in the 

economic life of these communities. Hunting and fishing and more recently, eco-tourism, including 

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental interpretation, are increasingly being seen 

as desirable industries. As the population increases and the number of places left to enjoy wildlife 

decreases, the Complex may become even more important to the local community. It can benefit the 

community directly by providing recreational and employment opportunities for the local population, 

and indirectly by attracting tourists from outside the area to generate additional dollars to the local 

economy. 

TOURISM 

Overall, tourism within the counties of Tallahatchie, Bolivar, Grenada, and Quitman does not 

contribute significantly to the local economy (Table 14). Music, festivals, casinos, historical sites, and 

outdoor recreation are some of the tourism opportunities available in northern Mississippi. It has 

been recognized that there are tourism opportunities in these counties, but there is a lack of 

infrastructure and expertise to effectively position these areas as heritage and cultural tourism 

destinations. The State of Mississippi has initiated plans to develop the “Mississippi Millennium Blues 

Trail,” which would pass through the counties surrounding the Complex. A study was commissioned 

by the Mississippi Department of Tourism to determine the baseline and potential development of 

new and existing attractions that may draw tourists to this area. It was identified that the potential 

was here, but that for the most part, had yet to be developed and promoted. The local chapter of the 

Audubon Society is currently developing a Mississippi River birding trail, which would follow Highway 

1 (Old River Road) along the Mississippi River mainline levee. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 12. Geographic and demographic statistics for the four counties including refuges within the Com

County Land Area (sq. miles) Population

% 

population 

change 

(1990-2000)

Median 

Age 

Per capita 

Income 

($) 

**% 

below 

poverty 

% 

White 

% 

Black

% 

Hisp

Tallahatchie 652 14,903 -2.0 33.3 10,749 26.8 39.4 59.4 Bolivar 906 40,633 -3.0 29.8 12,088 27.9 33.2 65.1 Grenada 449 23,263 7.9 35.7 13,786 17.6 57.9 40.9 Quitman 406 10,117 -3.6 30.8 10,817 28.6 30.5 68.6 Sources: U.S. Census 2000, Demographic Profiles, U.S. Census Bureau; Fact Finder, U.S. Census Bureau; CeStudies, University of Mississippi; Table 13. Activities by participants, 16 years old and older, throughout Mississippi 

Activity # of Participants Activity Days Average Days/ participant Total Expenditures ($1,000) Trip-related Expenditures ($1,000) Equipment and Other ($1,000) Aver

$/parti

Fishing *586,000 9,500,000 16 $211,000 $118,000 $93,000 Hunting **357,000 8,500,000 24 $360,000 $132,000 $227,000 Wildlife Watching ***631,000 NA NA $303,000 $36,000 $267,000 

 *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 
42 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Table 14. Estimated county tourism & recreation (T&R) revenues/employment

County Total T&R 

Revenues 

Total T&R 

Employment 

Total Establishment 

Based Employment 

T&R Employment 

Percentage 

Tallahatchie $1,904,596 24 2,410 1

Bolivar $22,475,718 382 13,300 2.9

Grenada $34,162,697 615 11,270 5.5

Quitman $2,258,241 25 1,830 1.4

(Mississippi Development Authority, Division of Tourism 2003) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

III. Plan Development 

OVERVIEW 

In preparation for developing this comprehensive conservation plan, the Complex conducted a 

biological review and a public use review in the summer of 2002. Initial planning began in September 

2003 with a meeting of planning team members. Early in the process of developing this plan, the 

planning team identified a list of issues and concerns that were likely to be associated with the 

conservation and management of the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex. Formal 

public involvement began with the scoping process in November 2003, through which interested 

stakeholders were able to register their concerns, thereby ensuring that they would be considered in 

developing the comprehensive conservation plan. 

Planning team members reviewed the results of this internal and external scoping and used them, 

along with supporting goals, objectives and strategies, to develop four different management 

alternatives for the Complex. The four alternatives were evaluated in an environmental assessment, 

and the preferred alternative forms the basis of this plan. The draft comprehensive conservation plan 

and environmental assessment were released to the public for review and comment. The Service 

considered all comments and suggestions received in the preparation of this final plan, which will 

become the general plan guiding management decisions and actions on the Complex for the next 10-

15 years. 

Refuge planning policy requires a Wilderness Review concurrent with the comprehensive 

conservation planning process. The Service inventoried refuge lands within the planning area and 

found no areas that meet the eligibility criteria for a Wilderness Study Area, as defined by the 

Wilderness Act. Therefore, the suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation is not analyzed 

further in this plan. The results of the wilderness inventory are included in Section B, Appendix I. 

PLANNING PROCESS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Prior to starting the planning process, the Complex conducted a biological review and a public use 

review in 2002 (finalized in 2003), which provided detailed analysis of resources and existing 

programs in these fundamental areas, and offered recommendations for future management in the 

form of goals, objectives, and strategies. 

The biological review was held during the week of June 3-7, 2002. The team was comprised of 

biologists, managers, foresters, and non-Service managers/biologists whose combined expertise 

represented some of the premier wildlife and habitat management experience found in the state. The 

biological review team provided a critical examination of current programs, culminating in a range of 

alternatives identifying data needs, habitat objectives, opportunities for improvement, and so forth, all 

while emphasizing future partnership opportunities on mutual interests. The October 2003 final 

Biological Review report summarizes the recommendations submitted by the biological review teams. 

The public use review team (comprised of Complex and Regional Office staff) also met in 2002. After 

reviewing existing public use programs, facilities and opportunities, the team prepared a Public Use 

Review Report that outlines recommendations on public use at the Complex. Emphasis was placed 

on the main six, generally compatible wildlife-dependent public use opportunities, namely hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 
44 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Initial planning began in September 2003 with a meeting of planning team members. At and following 

this meeting, an initial list of issues was identified by the planning team and refuge staff. The team 

also developed a mailing list of the public, landowners, state and tribal agencies, non-profit 

organizations, local governments, and other interested stakeholders. Letters were then sent notifying 

these parties of the planning process that was just getting underway, encouraging their participation, 

and informing them of two upcoming open house-style scoping meetings that would be held in 

November 2003 at the Complex headquarters in Grenada, Mississippi, and at Delta State University 

in Cleveland, Mississippi. That letter and notices published in local newspapers also stated that even 

if a person or group was unable to attend either of these meetings, they could send in written 

comments to the Complex headquarters. 

On November 11, 2003, at the Complex headquarters, and on the following day at Delta State 

University, the public scoping meetings were conducted to obtain information and concerns from the 

public. The open house sessions each lasted from 5 to 9 p.m. with brief presentations at 7 p.m. by 

members of the planning team. The presentations touched on the need to prepare a comprehensive 

conservation plan, its purpose, how the public could participate, and an overview of the resources 

and programs of the Complex. Planning team staff had prepared maps and exhibits and placed 

these around the room for the public to view. 

Six people attended the first open house in Grenada and about fifteen people attended the second 

open house at Delta State University. After the presentations, participants were invited to make oral 

comments or ask questions, which a number did. A comment form was also made available to 

attendees, which asked questions prompting written responses about what they saw as the main 

issues facing Coldwater River, Dahomey, and Tallahatchie refuges. Overall, the Complex received 

about a dozen sets of written comments, both comment forms and letters. A total of approximately 25 

individuals provided oral and/or written comments. Input obtained from all of these meetings and 

correspondence was considered in developing this plan. 

The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 2004, and ended on October 21, 

2004. Public comments and Service responses are addressed in Appendix H. 

The following comments were received via the public scoping process: 

Recreation and Visitor Services 

• Upgrade and maintain the refuges so that they are accessible (especially to the inner-most 

parts of the refuges) as well as visitor-friendly (especially for handicapped persons) (x3). 

• Long-range plans should include facilities for bird watching, photography, and wildlife 

observation. Incorporate Dahomey refuge into Audubon birding trail. 

• Should develop new programs for public use, thereby attracting more tourists to the Delta. 

• Road system is good. 

• ATVs should be allowed on specified gravel paths for retrieving of game, with due restrictions 

placed on their use (x2). 

• Better enforce closed areas on refuges from encroaching hunters. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

• Allow for a limited amount of rifle and muzzle-loading hunting on Dahomey refuge. 

• The Complex offers some of the only public hunting opportunities in the vicinity. 

• Should use available resources/funds to try to acquire more land. 

Wildlife Management 

• Increase the populations of game species, especially deer, on Dahomey refuge (x4). 

• Increase the deer population by limiting the number of does harvested for several years. 

• Remove size restriction on bucks for the youth hunt. Increase the size restriction on bucks for 

general hunts (X2). 

• Determine impacts of wild hogs and coyotes on deer and other game species (x2). 

• Forest management should take hunters more into consideration. 

• Increase number of food plots. 

• Habitat management is right on track. No changes necessary (x3). 

• Repair levees (x2). 

• There seem to be fewer pintail and canvasback ducks than in the past. 

Staff and Staffing 

• More staff needed (x3). 

• Staff should be more considerate of visitors/ hunters with health problems. 

• Partners for Fish and Wildlife. 

• The Partners for Wildlife program is very successful and appreciated (x2). 

• CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) good for this area. 

ISSUES AND CURRENT CONDITIONS 

A result of these biological and public use reviews and scoping meetings was the development of a 

list of significant issues that needed to be addressed in the comprehensive conservation plan. 

Alternatives for addressing these issues were developed in the environmental assessment. The 

preferred alternative formed the basis for the objectives and strategies to achieve the goals 

developed by the planning team. This process ensures that the most significant issues are resolved 

or given priority over the life of this plan. Below is a summary of these significant issues along with 

some discussion of their impacts to the resources. 
46 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Recovery and protection of threatened and endangered plants and animals is an important 

responsibility delegated to the Service and its national wildlife refuges. Several federal threatened 

and endangered species are thought to use, or could use, the North Mississippi National Wildlife 

Refuges Complex, including the bald eagle, wood stork, Louisiana black bear, and the least tern 

[FHMP, 122]. The bald eagle and Louisiana black bear are threatened (the bald eagle is proposed 

for delisting), while the wood stork and least tern are both endangered. 

Pondberry, the only threatened or endangered plant species believed to occur on the Complex, has 

been found on Service property in Bolivar County. Its presence on Dahomey refuge in Bolivar County 

has not yet been verified; however, an ecological assessment conducted there concludes that 

suitable habitats for pondberry do exist and that its presence there is very likely (Stewart 1990). It 

has not yet been documented on other properties administered by the Complex. [FHMP, 18] 

Invasive Species 

An "invasive species" is defined as a species that is 1) 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). Deliberate or inadvertent 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 wildlife species were either accidentally released and 

became acclimated to living in the wild, were intentionally released for sport or trade, or have 

expanded their range. These animals have been sporadically controlled 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 not only their initial 

introduction, but rate of spread and their impacts. However, we know several invasive plants, such 

as Johnson grass and kudzu, which have spread across the Complex, overtaking and displacing 

native vegetation. Control of these invasive plant species has been opportunistic and sporadic, using 

both biological and chemical means. 

The Complex does not have an “Invasive Species Management Plan”. There are no structured 

programs or funding specifically provided for an invasive species management program. 

Resident Wildlife 

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." 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

While the Service and the Refuge System’s priority is the protection of federal trust species (migratory 

birds, threatened and endangered species, interjurisdictional fishes and marine mammals), this 

mission clearly states that these refuges should also provide for other wildlife, such as resident 

species. In other words, by acquiring refuge lands, we also assume responsibility for managing the 

resident wildlife that may be dependent on refuge resources, but not to the exclusion or detriment of 

the purpose for which the refuge was established. A variety of wildlife species indigenous to the 

LMAV inhabit the Complex. Some of the more notable are those easily seen by the general public, 

such as white-tailed deer, wild turkey, and cottontail rabbits. Many of these species are also 

available to the public for hunting opportunities, which elevates their importance to the public and 

land managers. 

The Northern bobwhite quail historically and traditionally has been one of the most important and 

cherished of game birds in the south. 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 3 percent per year, and in the last 10 years the rate of decline has 

escalated to about 6 percent per year. While many factors have contributed to this decline – 

including predators, pathogens, and pesticides – the primary cause of decline is deteriorating habitat 

quality. This is due to advanced natural succession, intensive monoculture farming, more intensive 

timber management, reduced use of prescribed burning, and the extensive use of exotic grasses, 

including fescue and Bermuda grass. Bobwhite quail prefer an interspersion of woodlands, brush, 

grass, and croplands. Although early successional habitat is present on the Complex properties, it 

does not meet the annual needs of the target species. Quail and other wildlife have little or no 

accessible protective cover adjacent to feeding/nesting areas [BioReview, 39]. 

Agricultural farming practices have become more mechanized, and chemical control of 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. 

Another upland game species, wild turkey, can be found on every refuge in the Complex. Predation 

and habitat loss have caused dramatic population declines in the past, causing the closure or limiting 

of hunting seasons. Hunted populations should continue to be monitored to ensure they are not overharvested. Management actions for quail and grassland birds would also benefit turkey production 

and survival. 

Beaver, another resident wildlife species, have become pests, building dams that hold water on trees, 

causing die-offs of mature bottomland hardwoods. Incidental trapping by Special Use Permit has 

been ineffective in the past. However, this issue must be addressed or many more acres of critical 

forests will be lost and will take decades to recover. 

Migratory Birds 

Ducks 

All refuges within the Complex have a purpose that gives priority to migratory birds over all other 

wildlife species. This purpose guides a majority of the operation and management actions on the 

refuges. Management actions include providing agricultural hot foods, moist-soil areas, and forested 

wetlands to meet the feeding, resting, and breeding needs of migratory and resident waterfowl. 

Comments from the biological review teams and the public provided overwhelming support to 

continue or expand these programs with specific stipulations for improving and focusing efforts. In 

support of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the LMVJV office assigned each refuge 
48 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

minimum habitat objectives needed to provide sufficient water, food, sanctuary, and resting/loafing 

areas to meet the needs of wintering waterfowl. The objectives are based on the best available 

information available. There currently are a number of research projects studying the available 

resources and habitat on private lands, the results of which will likely alter objectives in the future. 

The amount of refuge croplands and moist-soil areas needed to meet the habitat objectives and the 

numbers of waterfowl that these areas can support merit particular attention. Lands currently in 

agricultural crops that exceed that needed to meet the objectives would be evaluated for conversions 

to moist-soil, early successional habitats or reforestation to address the needs of other species of 

migratory and non-migratory birds and mammals. Providing undisturbed waterfowl sanctuaries while 

providing quality hunting opportunities is another significant issue. 

Geese 

Geese were addressed separately due to their unique habitat needs compared to ducks. Goose 

species, including snow, white-fronted, and Canada geese, prefer feeding and resting in more open 

fields with little or no standing water. Thousands of geese winter on the Complex. Goose use on the 

Complex tends to be sporadic and primarily restricted to Coldwater River and Tallahatchie refuges 

and only a few Farm Service Agency tracts. Concentrations are generally restricted to less than 

5,000 birds at any one time. 

Any management actions for snow geese should support the “Arctic Tundra Habitat Emergency 

Conservation Act” to reduce the snow/Ross’ goose populations that have experienced rapid 

population growth reaching levels such that they are damaging habitats on their arctic and sub-arctic 

breeding areas in Canada. This degradation may be irreversible and has negatively impacted other 

bird populations. Natural marsh habitats on some migration and wintering areas also have been 

impacted. In addition, goose damage to agricultural crops has 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. 

Non-game birds 

Neotropical migratory 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 (addressed below), colonial waterbirds/wading birds, and 

raptors. The Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley has habitat 

objectives for all these groups of birds, but all of these groups can be accommodated on existing and 

restored habitats throughout the Complex. Habitat needed for the most area-sensitive species, 

namely interior forest-dependent birds, has been evaluated and habitat objectives established. The 

plan identifies Dahomey refuge as the only refuge within the Complex currently having the necessary 

size for creating a block of interior forest habitat that meets minimum critical standards. The other 

two refuges will need to be expanded first. Large interior forest blocks are extremely rare along the 

entire LMRV due to clearing of lands, primarily for agriculture. Nevertheless, the birds continue to 

follow historical migratory pathways along the Mississippi Flyway. This has resulted in a direct 

correlation between the decline of the forests and the decline of the populations of bird species, 

particularly those with sensitive habitat needs. Balancing the needs of waterfowl, which requires 

more open habitat, with the needs of these imperiled songbirds, is a significant issue that generated 

much discussion during the biological review. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

Another issue is lack of baseline information on all groups of birds throughout the Complex. There 

have been limited surveys on specific areas on the Complex (mostly presence/absence data for 

species occurrence), as well as aerial winter waterfowl surveys of the Complex’s refuges and 

properties since 1996, but comprehensive and standardized surveys of all of the refuges and for all 

habitat types are lacking. 

Shorebirds 

Habitat for spring (northbound) shorebird migration in the LMRV is not considered to be limited. The 

acreage of open, bare-soil areas, flooded by spring rains, at this point, provides ample habitat. Peak 

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 mudflat 

habitats in late summer/fall results in a severe shortage of shorebird habitat. Given that a focus on 

providing shorebird habitat is considered one of the highest non-game bird priorities for the Complex, 

it is important that existing shorebird management practices be continued and improved upon. 

A 1500-acre habitat target has been identified for the entire State of Mississippi as necessary to 

support a tentative LMRV population objective of 500,000 shorebirds during southbound migration. 

This migration figure is based on conservative assumptions, and experts believe that the objective 

figure may need to be as much as twice that amount. An information need in connection with this 

effort is to document overall use of the Complex and determine peak passage of the various 

shorebird species. 

Managing moist soil for both waterfowl and shorebirds can be done provided managers have full 

water level management capabilities enabling them to ensure drawdown and flooding of 

impoundments at critical times. The Complex has been focusing its shorebird management efforts on 

Coldwater River refuge. There is good water level control, as well as data on the success of these 

impoundments, providing for both waterfowl and shorebirds. It was recognized by the biological 

review team that there are also other opportunities within the Complex, including former catfish ponds 

at the Henson and Kimbrough Farm Service Agency Tracts, to conduct similar successful programs. 

HABITATS 

Bottomland Hardwood Management and Restoration 

The Complex is situated within the physiographic region known as the Lower Mississippi Valley 

(LMRV). The LMRV was once a 25-million-acre forested wetland complex that extended along both 

sides of the Mississippi River from Illinois to southern Louisiana. The extent and duration of annual 

flooding of the Mississippi River fluctuated annually, and served to recharge aquatic systems and 

create rich, dynamic habitats that supported a vast array of 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 being 

cleared and additional flood control measures were implemented. Today, the LMRV is bisected by 

levees and a myriad of flood control projects and supports less than five million acres of bottomland 

hardwood forests. The fish and wildlife resources have mirrored the decline in the forests. 
50 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Although reforestation is the obvious “fix” for the vast forests that have been converted to row-crop 

agriculture, it must always be remembered that hydrology (flooding) drives the ecological system in 

the LMRV. It is imperative that managers remember that reforestation is only part of the solution. 

Restoring or mimicking a natural hydrologic cycle in conjunction with reforestation is needed. 

Large areas have been reforested on the Complex. In many areas, fragmentation has decreased 

and structure and food sources have been generated. Federal programs, such as carbon 

sequestration, have driven some of these efforts. Nevertheless, little is known about managing these 

reforested bottomland hardwood habitats. There is little historical information on “what was here” and 

“how it was structured” prior to European settlement. Only recently have studies addressed this 

issue. It has been assumed, in many cases, that all trees are good, no matter where they are 

planted. Further, we have come to realize that some of the smaller, isolated reforested lands, such 

as Farm Service Agency properties, serve to perpetuate the hostile “edge effect” for some species. 

These smaller reforested sites provide little habitat for neotropical migratory species of special 

concern. Hindsight tells us that leaving some of these areas in a scrub/shrub habitat would have 

been more conducive to the priority bird species using these small areas. 

The other issue related to reforestation is the discussion on diverse structure and stands that are 

attractive to commercial harvest. Commercial harvests have been a valuable tool in managing 

existing hardwood stands, often the only tool. Scheduled harvests are essential to maintaining a 

healthy forest that is diverse and provides structure and desirable tree species. While nature will 

eventually alter forest conditions, this slow process on the limited remaining acres will not provide the 

most desirable habitat in the interim. 

As lands are removed from row crop agriculture and previously converted agricultural lands are 

acquired, the potential for reforestation in conjunction with water management capabilities will 

expand. 

Agricultural Crops for Waterfowl 

Farming operations within the Complex are conducted in support of specific waterfowl objectives set 

for each refuge. Specific agricultural crops provide cover and supplement more nutritional “natural 

foods” with high calorie “hot foods” for migratory waterfowl. In addition, farming can be used to set 

back succession and control weeds in moist-soil units. The main cooperative farming crops on the 

Complex are rice, corn, milo, and soybeans. 

All farming operations are conducted cooperatively with local farmers (except at Coldwater River 

refuge, where co-op farming is not practiced). Cooperative farming is a mutually beneficial 

arrangement where the farmer is allowed to farm refuge land under certain guidelines and 

restrictions, including location of crops, techniques, crops planted, and chemicals used. Title 50, Part 

29, of the Code of Federal Regulation 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. Cooperative farmers are authorized through the 

current Farm Bill to receive direct and counter-cyclical payments. 

Approximately 1,200 acres of the Complex are farmed by 3 cooperative farmers. Under the current 

cooperative farm program guidelines of crop sharing and rotation, this amount of production is 

needed to meet the current 430-acre objective for the Complex. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

Cooperative farming has been a long-standing practice throughout the Refuge System nationwide, 

and has been a mutually beneficial program for both refuge programs and for farmers. However, due 

to more restrictive regulations regarding approved chemicals, agricultural burning, and the 

encouraged use of “Best Management Practices,” the use of cooperative farming to achieve 

objectives needs to be reviewed. Furthermore, due to the steady declines in crop prices in recent 

years, cooperative farming may no longer be a profitable endeavor for the average farmer. It is 

becoming more challenging to find farmers who are willing to alter their familiar farming techniques to 

meet Service agricultural policies. As restrictions are implemented in the name of environmental 

protection and wildlife conservation, we run the risk of losing our current corps of willing farmers due 

to hardship and loss of profit. 

If Fish and Wildlife Service resources were used to fully meet the habitat objectives, there would need 

to be a significant increase in funding following initial one-time costs. As cooperative farming on the 

Complex does not place emphasis on growing crops for maximum yield, the use of chemicals to 

control weeds and insects would be reduced and Best Management Practices (BMP’s) could be fully 

implemented. However, the 430-acre objective would need to be adjusted for this reduced 

production, BMP programs (such as buffer strips), and crop rotation. Additional staff and equipment 

would be needed to meet the stated objectives. 

Acres that could be flooded or that have been historically used by waterfowl would be given the 

highest priority for meeting this objective. Most of the surplus acres would be converted to early 

successional habitats, such as grassland, scrub/shrub, and moist-soil. Many of these lands are 

adjacent to similar early successional habitats. Reforesting most of these lands would not contribute 

to interior forest objectives due to their size and distribution. There may be opportunities to reforest 

lands that would create buffers to human disturbance along roadsides and trails. In addition, the 

LMRVJV is reevaluating unharvested crop objectives based on new studies that are determining the 

value of harvested agricultural fields on private lands. Preliminary results indicate that earlier harvest 

dates and more efficient harvest techniques have significantly reduced the waste grain available 

when wintering waterfowl arrive in the Delta. Based on this new information, unharvested crop 

objectives may increase. Acres maintained in early successional habitat would be more easily 

converted back to agricultural production. 

Moist-Soil Management 

The LMJV has established moist-soil objectives in support of the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan for the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex. Moist-soil 

management refers to management that provides moist-soil conditions during the growing season to 

promote the natural production of beneficial plants. Seeds produced by these plants often attract and 

concentrate waterfowl and other wetland wildlife species. The decomposing vegetative parts of 

moist-soil plants also provide substrate for invertebrates, which are critical food for many wetland 

wildlife species. Factors that determine the success of moist-soil management include the timing and 

rate of the dewatering, soil disturbance, the stage of plant succession, and the timing and rate of 

reflooding. 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. 

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 they receive the nutrients needed to remain healthy and reproduce. 

“Hot foods” must be in close proximity to natural wetlands and moist-soil units to facilitate waterfowl 

access to aquatic invertebrates and other natural foods that are comparatively scarce in croplands. 
52 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY 

Maintenance of the ecological integrity of the Refuge System is required by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. If we are to truly understand the ecological integrity of 

these lands, we must gather baseline information on all wildlife and their habitats to document their 

existence, monitor trends, and understand the impacts of refuge programs on biodiversity. It has 

been the history of the Refuge System and most land managers, often due to lack of expertise, to 

focus their efforts on the more common, sometimes recreational, wildlife species. Nevertheless, the 

mission of the Refuge System, with the exclusion of federal trust species, does not give preference to 

any one group. 

The biological review team recognized that the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

is lacking specific data on many resident wildlife species, but in particular, non-game wildlife, such as 

reptiles, amphibians, mussels, insects, small mammals, and their habitats. Most efforts have focused 

on studying and managing game species like white-tailed deer. While it is recognized that this is an 

important animal, especially to the hunting public, dozens of other wildlife species and associated 

habitats still need to be studied. Directing staff and resources to address these data gaps will be 

critical. 

Contaminants and sedimentation have impacted every refuge within the Complex. Agricultural row 

crops are grown on much of the lands that surround refuges within the Complex. As a result, 

drainage from watershed lands brings agricultural chemicals into the refuges waters, which are 

bioaccumulating in fish. Historical use of organochlorine pesticides (DDT, PCB’s, toxaphene, 

dieldrine, lindane, etc.), which contain heavy metals (mercury) were commonly used in farming 

operations, particularly cotton, prior to being banned in the 1970s. Unfortunately, these chemicals do 

not readily break down and still remain in the substrate of the sediment that was deposited in waters 

within and surrounding the refuges. These chemicals continue to contaminate fish and other aquaticdependent resources such as fish-eating birds, wood ducks, and raccoons. 

Contaminant levels are particularly extreme on Tallahatchie refuge. Due to levels of current use 

pesticides, DDTM and toxaphene, found in sampled fish, stream water, and sediment, the MDEQ has 

issued a limit fish consumption advisory for both benthic and predatory fish at the refuge. All of the 

refuges are dependent on watersheds and streams and rivers to provide some of the water resources 

to manage water-dependent habitats. Principal drainage on Dahomey refuge, for example, consists 

of four bayous in addition to man-made ditches and canals. On Coldwater River refuge, where 90 

percent of the unit is inundated each spring, floodwaters come from the Tallahatchie, the Yocona, 

and Little Tallahatchie rivers, as well as the Panola-Quitman Floodway. Studies have shown that 

runoff from agricultural fields and upstream gravel mining operations has resulted in excessive 

siltation and turbidity in water bodies throughout the Complex. Wetlands have been filled in, 

hydrology has been altered, trees have been killed by deepening deposits, and open water habitats 

have become shallow due to silt-laden waters traversing these areas. This has resulted in loss of 

important wildlife habitat, including migratory bird habitat, and has increased densities of undesirable 

fish populations (e.g., common carp, buffalo, gar, bowfin, and freshwater drum). This is supported by 

studies conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey. In order to maintain ecological integrity on the 

refuges, water quality issues, both on and off refuges, need to be addressed. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 

Priority Public Use 

The National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 has established six priority public uses on 

refuge lands when they are compatible and desirable for that specific refuge. These priority uses are 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. The visitor services program of the Complex has always focused on “traditional” 

recreational uses, primarily hunting, with little emphasis on interpretive and educational activities due 

to the lack of staff. This lack of effective outreach is evidenced by the general public, either 

misunderstanding the purposes of the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, or simply being unaware of their existence. It is the intent of the 

Complex to expand its visitor services to include these historically “non-traditional” uses (e.g., wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation) without alienating 

the more “traditional” visitors. The challenge will be to what degree these expanded activities can be 

provided while minimizing conflicts among user groups. 

Hunting 

Dahomey and Tallahatchie refuges allow hunting for squirrel, rabbit, bobwhite quail, raccoon, deer, 

turkey (Dahomey only), waterfowl, snipe, woodcock and feral hogs. In addition, there are youth hunts 

for deer, turkey (Dahomey only), waterfowl and squirrel. Special facilities are available for mobilityimpaired hunters. Each hunter must obtain from one of the Hunter Information Stations a user 

information card. The card must be filled out before hunting and displayed on the vehicle dash. Prior 

to leaving the refuge, the reverse side of the card must be completed and deposited at one of the 

Hunter Information Stations. There is a $12.50 permit required to hunt on Dahomey refuge, 

Tallahatchie refuge, and select Farm Service Agency tracts (small game only). 

At present, hunting is not allowed on Coldwater River refuge, and one issue is whether or not this 

policy should be maintained. Another issue is whether to allow off road vehicles (ORVs) for hunting. 

The Complex does not currently permit the use of ORVs for hunting (retrieving game) due to their 

disruption of wildlife and damage to habitat. Overall, there appears to be broad appreciation among 

the public that the refuges in the Complex offer some of the best hunting opportunities in the vicinity, 

a sentiment expressed during public scoping meetings for the CCP. 

Fishing 

Coldwater River, Dahomey, and Tallahatchie refuges are currently open to fishing at certain periods 

throughout the year. There are, however, very few fishing opportunities on the Complex. The Complex does 

not support a high-quality fishery. Only a very limited number of permits for fishing was issued in 2003. 

The Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Strategic Plan for the Southeast Region is a Service management 

document completed in 1997. The plan recognizes fisheries and aquatic resource management as important. 

Service activities, both on and off refuges, list several goals in pursuit of these endeavors. Goal 5 directs the 

Service to “Provide for sustainable recreational fishing opportunities in the southeast adequate to meet public 

needs.” Objective F under this goal states, “Provide and maintain recreational fishing opportunities on FWS 

(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 FWS (Service) lands,” and 

“develop methods for integrated management of migratory bird populations, other animals and plants, and 

recreational fisheries on FWS (Service) lands.” 
54 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Sedimentation, contaminants, and access have been some of the issues hindering the development 

of a quality fishing program. Most waterways within the Complex have been altered or are artificial, 

such as former catfish ponds, preventing or impeding natural stocking of desirable gamefish into 

these waters. This has resulted in larger concentrations of “rough fish.” In addition, the Mississippi 

Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has issued a health recommendation to not eat bottom 

feeders more than two times per month, due to their contaminant concentrations. There is a need for 

consistent notices at boat launching ramps and other places where fisherman can be contacted about 

MDEQ warning. 

Fishing opportunities at the Complex can be maintained and expanded by developing kids fishing 

days, parking areas, one or more handicapped-accessible piers, and maintaining bank fishing areas. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Currently, there are limited wildlife viewing opportunities on the Complex. Coldwater River refuge has 

the greatest potential for wildlife observation. The number and variety of shorebirds, wading birds, 

and waterfowl there create a spectacular sight. The proximity of this north-most refuge to Memphis, 

and to Interstate 55 provide a potentially larger population base from which to attract visitors. The 

Audubon Society is proposing to develop a Great River Road Birding Trail that would include 

Dahomey refuge. 

The Complex has two photo-blinds available for wildlife photographers that can be used on a firstcome, first-serve basis. There are a number of opportunities for expanding wildlife observation and 

photography on the Complex, including development of trails and observation decks at some of the 

more opportune sites on all three refuges. For example, a walking trail around the impoundments at 

Coldwater River refuge and an accompanying observation deck would offer wildlife watchers and 

photographers great views of shorebirds, wading birds, and waterfowl. Efforts to increase such 

opportunities appear to have the broad support of surrounding communities and the public. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Previously, the Complex had a staff person who developed a significant environmental program that 

included providing programs to schools and developing kits on endangered species and wetlands for 

teachers to use. While demand was high for these programs, the Complex lost this position. Groups 

that are interested in partnering with the Complex to develop environmental education opportunities 

include Delta State University and the Audubon Society. There are four universities within a 1-hour 

drive of Grenada, each of which has an annual conservation festival. Environmental education could 

be expanded in a number of ways, such as staging events like career days, developing an 

educational natural trail, and using seasonal hires and volunteers to develop and implement 

environmental education programs, camps, and kits/trunks. 

Currently, there is limited interpretation on the three refuges. Through a partnership with Ducks 

Unlimited, an interpretive trail (Hasserway Trail) was developed at Grenada Lake Recreation Area. 

There are no interpretive panels at any of the refuges. These can be developed and installed at all 

three refuges. Interpretation can be organized by themes that reinforce important messages for 

visitors. Examples of such themes include migratory birds (both waterfowl and neotropical), 

reforestation, history of Farm Service Agency lands, culture, and history of the area, bottomland 

hardwoods, and the wildlife that depend on this diminished habitat. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

The Complex already engages in a significant amount of outreach. Staff persons are members of 

local civic groups like the Chamber of Commerce. They help judge the local science fairs and have 

participated in community events at the Grenada Lake Recreation Area. When staff is available, the 

refuge conducts some special events, such as Migratory Bird Day or National Wildlife Refuge Week. 

Opportunities for improving outreach include developing a more extensive website, placing general 

brochures in the State’s Welcome Center on Interstate 55, and placing a portable display in 

appropriate locations and a permanent display at the Grenada Lake Visitor Center, which is operated 

by the Corps of Engineers. 

Interior Roads and Trails 

All roads within the Complex that are currently open to the public are in fair to good shape and 

usually provide all weather access with a minimal clearance two-wheel drive vehicle (except when 

flooded during the winter months). Federal, state or county highways and U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers levees currently run adjacent to or bisect portions of all refuges within the Complex. 

Coldwater River refuge is presently not open to the public. Many of the current interior roads were 

constructed to facilitate farming and/or timber harvest. As refuge programs were developed, only 

certain roads and trails were maintained for public and refuge use. 

Two Executive Orders govern off-road vehicle (ORV) 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 ORVs 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 ORV 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 ORV use and other uses of the land. These policies and orders have a direct effect on our 

ban of ORVs on the refuges of the Complex. Studies have shown that the excessive off-trail use of 

ORVs can have a detrimental effect on habitats. These impacts can include soil erosion, altering 

natural water flow, destroying the root systems of plants, and spreading noxious and invasive weeds. 

Thus, we have prohibited their use on the Complex. Also, due to the small size of the refuges within 

the Complex and several good access points, there is little to no need for ORV use. Most Complex 

users have no problem with this policy, though some hunters have requested the use of ORVs to 

retrieve game. 

Visitor Facilities 

Currently, the Complex has two offices. The first office is located in Grenada, Mississippi, on 

Highway 7 and is the headquarters for the Complex. This office receives about 11,000 visitors 

annually. The second office is located at Dahomey refuge in Boyle, Mississippi, on Hwy 446. Both 

offices serve the purpose of providing office space for staff and general information for visitors. At 

present, no refuge of the Complex, or the Complex itself, has a visitor center. Furthermore, neither 

Tallahatchie nor Coldwater River refuges have manned offices. 

Although Tallahatchie and Dahomey refuges offer several miles of hiking trails through the use of 

gravel roads and abandoned logging roads, the Complex is significantly lacking designated 

interpretive trails and signage. 
56 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Recreation Opportunities on Farm Service Agency Fee Title Tracts 

The Complex contains 128 separate Farm Service Agency tracts, totaling over 17,000 acres and 

dispersed throughout the Complex work area. The public use on these tracts is largely confined to 

small game hunting on a limited number of properties. These tracts of land are scattered throughout 

northern Mississippi and most are blocks of land smaller than 200 acres. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

With the enactment of the Antiquities Act of 1906, the Federal 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. The body of 

historic preservation laws has grown dramatically since 1906. The National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966 and its Section 104 have a particular bearing on all federal agencies. Several themes recur 

in the laws and the promulgating regulations. They include: 1) each agency is to systematically 

inventory the “historic properties” on their holdings and to scientifically assess each property’s 

eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places; 2) federal agencies are to consider the impacts 

to cultural resources during the agencies’ management activities and seek to avoid or mitigate 

adverse impacts; 3) the protection of cultural resources from looting and vandalism are to be 

accomplished through a mix of informed management, law enforcement efforts, and public education; 

and 4) the increasing role of consultation with 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. 

Several targeted cultural resource inventories have been completed at different sites throughout the 

Complex. Whenever the Complex proposes an action that will result in excavation or substantial 

ground disturbance, like constructing a moist-soil unit, it conducts a cultural resources survey. 

However, no overall inventory of the Complex’s cultural resources has been carried out to date, and 

the Complex currently has no Cultural Resources Management Plan. 

PRIVATE LANDS AND FOREST FRAGMENTATION 

The three refuges that comprise the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex are truly islands in a 

sea of privately owned agricultural lands, particularly Dahomey refuge. The refuges, along with other federaland state-owned tracts, are some of the best examples of the bottomland habitat that once dominated the 

landscape of the Mississippi Delta. In fact, Dahomey refuge’s 8,126-acre bottomland hardwood forest is the 

largest contiguous tract of bottomland hardwood habitat outside the Mississippi River main line levee in northwest 

Mississippi [2002 Annual Narrative, p. vii]. Continual threats to these remaining habitats and the fish and wildlife 

that inhabit them are fragmentation and destruction through intensive agriculture, one-time high-grade timber 

harvests, federal flood control projects, and certain catfish farming practices. 

It is recognized by all federal land managers that there will never be enough land owned to meet the habitat 

needs of resident and migratory wildlife with which managers have been entrusted. The vast majority of these 

needed lands is in private ownership. While many landowners are actively managing their lands for wildlife, 

many would benefit from assistance, both in knowledge and resources, to provide the optimal benefit to some of 

the more imperiled wildlife species, including forest-interior songbirds and endangered and threatened species. 

With limited resources, it is necessary to identify a management “Focus Area” in which to concentrate efforts. 

This area would also be studied for those lands that would be suitable and beneficial for inclusion in the Refuge 

System to meet the goals and objectives of the Complex, and national, state, and regional plans to preserve and 

protect wildlife, fisheries, and their habitats. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 

Funding and Staffing 

Funding has been insufficient to support current refuge programs. Lack of staff and inadequate 

facilities has prevented the Complex from realizing its purposes and management objectives. While 

this is true for all the refuges within the Complex, it is especially noteworthy at Coldwater River 

refuge, where intensive management of the former catfish pond moist-soil management complex is 

highly recommended; there is simply not adequate staffing. Overall, at the Complex, the lack of 

adequate staff has had a negative impact on biological, maintenance, and visitor services programs, 

including degrading facilities, limiting wildlife and habitat projects, and restricting the development of a 

visitor services program. 

Biological and public use review teams, as well as the public, identified a need for additional staff. 

The biological review identifies a need to add two or three biologists, a forester, and three or four 

biological/forestry technicians/equipment operators to the current staff. The top recommendation in 

the public use review is for a full-time public use staff person. 

Three full-time employees departed in 2002. There is currently no staff based at Coldwater River or 

Tallahatchie refuges. Development/management there is handled by the North Mississippi National 

Wildlife Refuges Complex. 

Monitoring, Inventory, Research, and Adaptive Management 

Management decisions are currently based on the best available data and past personal 

experiences. In preparing for the biological review and further evidenced by comments received by 

the review team, it is apparent that there are vast data gaps with regard to the habitat, wildlife, 

fisheries, and biodiversity within the Complex. 

Issues addressed by the review team and identified by refuge staff include lack of baseline 

information on many of the fish, plants, insects, and wildlife dependent on these refuge lands. The 

review team also recognized the lack of scientifically sound inventory and monitoring methods which, 

in turn, hinders the setting of Complex and national objectives. In addition, a lack of information on 

the current population, rate of spread, and structured control measures of invasive species has 

resulted in random control methods that may not be the most effective techniques in the long term. 

There is a tremendous opportunity to cooperate with partners, including other federal agencies, state 

agencies, non-governmental organizations, and universities to conduct research on the various 

resources and habitat restoration programs being carried out on the Complex. There are several 

projects that have been completed and contributed to our understanding of the Complex resources. 

However, there are many more opportunities to actively pursue partnerships that not only can benefit 

the Complex, but also further other management and restoration efforts throughout the LMRV. 
58 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

IV. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

INTRODUCTION 

This proposed plan contains the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used to achieve the 

refuge vision over the next 15 years. 

Three other alternatives for managing the Complex were considered and the planning team chose 

Alternative D (Enhanced Wildlife Management and Public Use Program) as the preferred alternative 

or proposed action. The other alternatives evaluated were Alternative A - No Action (Current 

Management Direction), Alternative B, Public Use Emphasis, and Alternative C, Wildlife Management 

Emphasis. All of these alternatives are described and evaluated in the Environmental Assessment. 

Implementing the preferred alternative will result in a diversity of habitats for a variety of wildlife and 

fish species while meeting the Complex’s primary purpose of providing habitat for wintering waterfowl. 

Specific results will include increased waterfowl and songbird use and production; increased habitat 

for forest interior-dependent wildlife; enhanced resident wildlife populations; restored wetlands and 

hydrology; and greater opportunities for a variety of compatible wildlife-dependent public use. 

An overriding concern reflected in this CCP is that wildlife conservation is the first priority in refuge 

management. Public use is allowed if compatible and appropriate with wildlife and habitat 

conservation. Wildlife-dependent public uses – hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education and interpretation – will be emphasized. Each of these activities is 

specifically mentioned in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 as being a 

generally appropriate use of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Of course, for any given refuge, 

managers must still determine the compatibility of a particular use given specific circumstances. 

VISION 

The vision for the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex is as follows: 

Based on sound science, the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 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 northern Mississippi for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans. These refuges contain some of the most important migratory bird habitats 

in the National Wildlife Refuge System and will continue to be focal points for the protection, 

management, restoration, and enjoyment of resident wildlife, migratory birds, and other federal trust 

resources within the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley and Central Gulf ecosystems. 

The Complex will expand its role in land protection efforts by acquiring, within approved acquisition 

boundaries, additional habitats for migratory birds and other federal trust species and by 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 

address an understanding of the resource management needs of the Lower Mississippi River and 

Central Gulf Ecosystems. 
60 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

The Complex will build partnerships to promote the ecological health of the landscape, wildlifedependent 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 for the Complex and the mission of the Refuge System. 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

The goals, objectives, and strategies outlined below are the Service's response to the issues, 

concerns, and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff, and the public. These goals, 

objectives, and strategies reflect the Service's commitment to achieve the mandates of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the mission of the Refuge System, the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the vision for the North 

Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex, and the purposes of Coldwater River, Dahomey, and 

Tallahatchie refuges. Depending upon the availability of funds and staff, the Service intends to 

accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies during the next 15 years. 

Goal 1 – Promote the conservation and management of migratory birds within northern 

Mississippi in a manner that supports treaties and national and international plans and 

initiatives. 

Background: The paramount purpose of the Complex is to provide habitat for migratory birds. Each 

of the three refuges has been nominated as an “Important Bird Area,” based on significant numbers 

of birds found on the refuges at different times of the year. 

The Complex has a variety of habitats, including flooded timber, grasslands, ponds, and moist soil, as 

well as management programs including croplands and waterfowl sanctuary areas, that provide 

feeding, resting, and loafing habitat for tens of thousands of wintering ducks and geese each year 

and nesting habitat for wood ducks and hooded mergansers. 

Non-game waterbird groups include shorebirds, marsh and wading birds, and colonial waterbirds. 

The most important foraging habitats for these groups consist of former commercial catfish ponds 

converted to moist-soil management units. Breeding colonial/wading birds find nesting habitat in 

brakes, swamps, and a few wooded impoundments throughout the Complex. 

Objective 1-1: Migratory Waterfowl

Over the next 15 years, provide habitat to increase current objectives for migrating and wintering 

waterfowl as shown in Table 15 below. Annually monitor waterfowl response to management actions. 

Discussion: 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 LMRVJV was selected as 

one of the wintering focus areas. In setting habitat objectives for the LMRVJV, it was agreed that 

foraging habitat was the limiting factor and objectives were set based on food production and acres 

by habitat type for the complex of habitats, including harvested and unharvested cropland, moist-soil 

areas, and flooded forest land. Each of these habitat types is required to provide the variety of food 

resources (i.e., native seeds, small grains, and invertebrates) required by waterfowl wintering in the 

LMRV. Step-down objectives were established by state for public and private lands. Each segment 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

of habitat must be provided if the wintering waterfowl needs in the LMRVJV area are to be met. 

These step-down objectives are shown in Table 5 of this CCP. 

Table 15. Habitat objectives for migratory waterfowl (acres) 

Habitat Current Objective Increased Objective 

Coldwater River NWR 

Forested wetland 700 2520 

Moist-soil 190 684 

Dahomey NWR 

Forested wetland 750 900 

Moist-soil 318 382 

Unharvested crop 218 262 

Tallahatchie NWR 

Forested wetland 80 528 

Moist-soil 852 5623 

Unharvested crop 212 1399 

Strategies: 

Prepare a Biological Inventory/Monitoring Plan by 2008, which includes refuge-specific waterfowl 

inventory and monitoring protocols, standardized routes, and computerized databases. 

Conduct waterfowl inventories at least twice monthly (October to mid-March). Couple aerial counts 

with ground counts on the more visible areas of the refuge to establish a correction factor for aerial 

surveys. 

Continue the long-term process of seeking willing sellers of lands with value or potential value as 

waterfowl habitat within the authorized acquisition boundaries of each refuge. 

Objective 1-2: Wood Duck Nest Boxes

Per the biological review, provide year-round habitat and maintain a program of 600 well-maintained 

nest boxes throughout the Complex necessary to enhance wood duck populations. 

Discussion: Wood ducks are common year-round residents of the LMRV and the Complex. 

Preferred habitats include forested wetlands, wooded and shrub swamps, tree-lined rivers, streams, 

sloughs, and beaver ponds. Wood ducks seek food in the form of acorns, other soft and hard mast, 

weed seeds, and invertebrates found in shallow flooded timber, shrub swamps, and along stream 

banks. They loaf and roost in more secluded areas and dense shrub swamps. Wood ducks are 

cavity nesters, seeking cavities in trees within a mile of water. Brood survival is higher in situations 

where nests are close to water. Due to loss of bottomland hardwoods and over-harvest, wood ducks 

were almost extirpated in the early 1900s. Even today, forestry practices and competition for nest 
62 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

sites from a host of other species limit reproduction. Nest boxes are commonly used to supplement 

natural cavities and increase local production of wood ducks. Box programs are not a panacea. 

They must be maintained – requiring time to clean and repair at least annually. Production can be 

increased by more frequent checks and cleaning of boxes, but this must be weighed with other time 

constraints. 

Currently there are approximately 75 nest boxes on the Complex. Adequate habitat is available to 

support 2-3 times as many on existing lands in the refuges. The numerical target of 600 nest boxes 

assumes both intensification of efforts on existing habitats and expansion of lands within the refuges 

up to the authorized boundaries. 

Strategies: 

Place a minimum of 50 new boxes per year for the next 10 years as habitat and staffing limitations 

allow. 

Replace and relocate boxes to meet regional guidelines as existing wood duck nest boxes 

deteriorate. 

Place boxes such that they are not visible from one box to the next or at least 100 yards apart. 

Place boxes in areas that are readily accessible for semiannual inspections. 

Check boxes at least twice annually (once pre-season and once at the end of the first peak of 

nesting). 

Place predator guards on all box structures. 

Place boxes no more than one mile from a water source and close to available scrub/shrub habitat. 

Where feasible and where dump nesting does not occur, place boxes over standing water. 

Maintain all cull trees that have or may develop natural nesting cavities and are within one mile of a 

water source. This will also benefit many other cavity nesting species (woodpeckers, mergansers, 

squirrels, etc.). 

Place boxes above mean high water mark to prevent them from being flooded and to facilitate 

management of the program (i.e., maintenance, box checks, etc.). 

Evaluate nest efficiency and nesting success in boxes and adjust the program accordingly. 

Evaluate duckling survival in and use of various habitats on each refuge. 

Objective 1-3: Wood Duck Banding

Increase the preseason (July-September 15) flyway and state banding objective by eight times 

(corresponding to the increase in nest boxes), with increased emphasis on the entire Complex 

contributing to these data. 

Discussion: Because wood ducks are secretive, it is difficult to monitor their population status and 

survival using visual counts similar to the method used for most other species of waterfowl. Preseason wood duck banding is the only method used 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 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

various state and federal facilities around Mississippi. The Complex contributes toward achieving the 

annual Mississippi pre-season banding quota. The pre-season period extends from July through 

September and, for statistical purposes, it is assumed that all ducks that are in the same age and sex 

class and banded during this 3-month period, have the same survival rate. In Mississippi and several 

other southern states with a special wood duck or teal season, the pre-season banding period is 

stopped September 15 to prevent any potential conflicts (i.e., baiting) with hunters. 

All wood duck quotas assigned to the Complex are for the preseason (July - September 30) banding 

period. In the past, the Complex banded quite a few adult hens in boxes prior to July 1. These ducks 

are more vulnerable to predation during periods of nesting and brood rearing and have survival rates 

lower than those banded later in summer. Breeding season banding may occur when staff is 

available to assess survival rates and return of nesting hens. 

Strategies: 

Expand banding program to include more sites throughout the Complex, particularly as the wood 

duck box program is expanded. 

As funding becomes available, hire two, GS-5, six-month seasonal biological technicians to monitor 

and maintain wood duck boxes and conduct preseason trapping and banding program 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. 

Objective 1-4: Marsh and Wading Birds

Within three years of the plan’s approval, determine marsh and wading bird use of wetland habitats, 

with special emphasis on the black rail, yellow rail, king rail, American bittern, least bittern, and wood 

stork. Annually conduct management activities that will enhance marsh bird habitat. 

Discussion: In addition to wetlands such as the former catfish ponds, rice fields and moist-soil units 

would be the primary habitat for this group on the Complex. Included in this group are “secretive 

marshbirds” (e.g., rails, bitterns, grebes, moorhens, gallinules, and coots). 

No specific population objectives have been established for these species at this time within the 

LMRV, but survey/monitoring protocols (secretive marshbird surveys) can be used for tracking peak 

movements in and out of the Complex and to document responses to habitat management. 

“Secretive marshbird surveys” employ a taped playback-response protocol along a designated route 

for pied-billed grebes (breeding), rails and bitterns. The protocols developed were intended to survey 

breeding birds, but these should also be useful for surveying birds during migration (and winter) as 

most rails vocalize all year. 

Priority species include the following: High – black rail, yellow rail; Moderate – American bittern, king 

rail, bald eagle, northern harrier; Local or Regional Interest – least bittern. 

Strategies: 

Collect baseline data on marshbird populations, use of impoundment habitats and responses to 

various water management regimes, with special emphasis on black and yellow rails and least 

bitterns. 
64 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Track bird use by date, location, and habitat type (vegetated, flooded moist-soil areas, flooded rice 

fields, and permanent impoundments containing a significant amount of rank emergent vegetation in 

shallow water). 

By 2007, establish a route along levee roads most likely to support marsh habitats for summer, 

migration, and winter secretive marshbird counts, with summer counts focusing on black rail, king rail, 

and least bittern. Surveys can be set up as a random sample of stops across the refuge or may be 

targeted on actively managed versus unmanaged units to judge responses to management practices. 

By 2007, establish an additional roadside route within each refuge’s acquisition boundary along 

wetlands which potentially support marshbirds. 

Conduct surveys three times per month, with priority on mid-March to mid-April and mid-August to 

late November. The direction of the survey should be alternated from one survey to the next. 

Through the effective use of moist-soil management, maintain a diversity of marsh plant communities 

among impoundments to support an equally diverse marsh associated avifauna. 

Objective 1-5: Colonial Waterbirds

Within two years of the plan’s approval, identify, map, and develop monitoring protocol for colonial 

waterbird rookeries and provide foraging habitat. 

Discussion: Complex provides excellent habitat for breeding colonial wading birds. For example, 

Coldwater River refuge has a rookery dominated by great blue herons and great egrets. Shallow 

water areas found on the refuge during late summer and fall provide critical foraging opportunities for 

long-legged wading birds such as wood storks and herons, egrets, and ibis. The primary 

management tools are to 1) protect rookeries from disturbance and, where possible, maintain 

standing water under nest trees throughout the nesting season to minimize nest predation by 

raccoons, and 2) incorporate water level management for wading birds into shallow water 

management for waterfowl and shorebirds. (In the shallow water habitat provided for wading birds, 

they will be searching for foraging habitat rich in small fish and crustaceans, a much different food 

source than is targeted in waterfowl and shorebird management.) 

Priority species include the following: High - least tern (interior population-foraging on open water), 

white ibis (breeding?, migrant), American white pelican (wintering); Local or Regional Interest - wood 

stork (migrant), roseate spoonbill (migrant), glossy ibis (migrant), anhinga (breeding), great blue 

heron (breeding), great egret (breeding), snowy egret (breeding), little blue heron (breeding), cattle 

egret (breeding), green heron (breeding), yellow-crowned night-heron (breeding). 

Strategies: 

By 2009, provide additional nesting structures to expand rookeries. 

By 2010, provide data on nesting success to the state coordinator. 

Locate, geo-reference, protect from disturbance, and monitor (nesting population by species) colonial 

waterbird rookery sites in the Complex work area, especially on refuge properties. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

Conduct aerial survey of work area to locate rookeries in April and determine potential disturbance 

factors. Survey active rookeries in June following existing Colonial Waterbird Monitoring Program 

guidelines established through the Mississippi Museum of Natural Science and coordinate data 

transfer to the Museum of Natural Science (contact Museum Ornithologist for information). This 

monitoring program may be modified to meet regional or national standards. 

Record white pelican use on refuges to determine periods of use and peak annual populations. Make 

contact with local aquaculture facilities to gain information on the presence and numbers of pelicans 

in the area. 

Where possible, provide foraging habitat by maintaining shallow ponds and “run-out” sites in summer 

and fall. Attempt to integrate waterbird foraging habitat management into waterfowl and shorebird 

habitat management. 

Work with the LMRVJV Office to update colonial waterbird step-down objectives for the Complex. 

Objective 1-6: Shorebirds (including Woodcock)

By 2014, provide 653 acres of high quality migration habitat for shorebirds, including woodcock. 

Annually monitor shorebird use and contribute data to the International Shorebird Survey. 

Discussion: Throughout the LMRV, habitat for spring (northward) shorebird migration is probably 

provided in most years with normal rainfall and evaporation rates. Peak migration is expected April to 

mid-May (but extends from mid-March to late-May). 

Southbound migration starts in early July, peaks August through September, and ends by midOctober. Disruption of normal evaporation patterns over the last 50 years in the LMRV and the lack 

of rainfall in this highly modified hydrological environment lead to a severe shorebird habitat shortage. 

Opportunities do exist, however, to provide good quality habitat for southbound migrants in fall. A 

focus on providing shorebird habitat is considered the highest non-game bird priority for the Complex. 

The current LMRVJV coordinated shorebird (fall migration) habitat objective for Coldwater River 

refuge is 225 acres of mudflats and for Farm Service Agency tracts is an additional 100-200 acres. 

Within the larger context, about 1,500 acres of habitat have been tentatively identified for Mississippi 

towards supporting a tentative LMRV population objective of 500,000 shorebirds during southbound 

migration. Habitat objectives for shorebirds are tentative with the assumptions that 1) an average 

shorebird weighs 45 grams; 2) stays at a site for 10 days; 3) requires about 8 grams of food per day; 

4) chironomids are the primary food source; and that 5) they must gain 1 gram of biomass per day to 

continue their migration. 

Priority species include the following: High - stilt sandpiper, buff-breasted sandpiper, western 

sandpiper, short-billed dowitcher, Wilson’s phalarope; Moderate - semipalmated sandpiper, 

sanderling, greater yellowlegs, dunlin, common snipe, least sandpiper, willet, American avocet, and 

killdeer. 

Shorebird habitat should be a combination of mudflats and shallow water (0-4") with a dense 

invertebrate population available July 15–October 31. Monitoring shorebird responses to habitat 

management would include a greater focus on habitat conditions, including a weekly survey of water 

levels, vegetative response to water regimes, invertebrate food productivity, and whether shorebirds, 

in general, are present or not. 
66 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

American woodcock populations in this region have declined an average of 1.6 percent per year 

from1968 – 2002 (Kelley 2002). Population declines are thought to be the result of land use changes 

associated with land conversion and the maturing of forest habitats. Woodcock numbers appear low 

on the Complex because of insufficient nesting and brood habitat types. Woodcock and quail need 

exposed soil and patchy cover for optimum foraging. In addition, the woodcock needs moist thickets 

containing high understory stem basal area (BA) with little or no ground litter. 

Wintering habitat includes moist bottomland hardwood forests with dense brush and understory, 

especially when found in close association with agricultural fields and old field habitat. These sites 

are typically wet thickets with a high density of plant stems with the ground open and clear. Typical 

cover includes privet, cane, and briars that result from openings in the canopy. The scrub/shrub and 

dense habitats found in certain portions of the refuges provide good daytime cover for woodcock. 

These habitats result from reforestation, old field succession, and ice storms. 

At dusk, woodcocks move to open or brushy fields to forage and conduct courtship activities. These 

habitats include agricultural fields that were not fall disked and sparse grasslands that may have 

received a cool fall burn to create patchy openings of exposed soil interspersed between grass 

clumps 1 to 3 feet in height. Woodcock are closely tied to earthworms, which are their major food 

resource. The grassland areas provide habitat preferred by other priority species (e.g., Northern 

bobwhite and winter grassland birds). 

Strategies: 

Conduct annual shorebird surveys following the International Shorebird Survey (ISS) protocol to 

document shorebird use of the Complex overall and peak passage of the various shorebird species. 

The ISS is essentially a route selected by refuge staff using existing roads and covering as much 

potential habitat as possible. 

Investigate and research methods of habitat management favoring proliferation of Chironomids in the 

moist-soil rotation scheme (shorebird phase). Drawdowns among moist-soil units should be 

staggered and overlapped and continue slowly to provide mud-flat habitat throughout the entire 

migration period, mid-July to November. 

Develop a moist-soil habitat rotation scheme which provides fall shorebird habitat on at least 25 

percent of the acreage being rotated. 

Install tilt pipes for precise water control in all impoundments used for shorebird management. 

Keep records of habitat conditions, including water levels (weekly). Record dates that mudflats are 

exposed. 

Develop forest management plans that provide preferred woodcock habitat that include: Diurnal 

cover and foraging habitat (i.e., thickets and shrub areas with high vertical stem density in the 

understory and wet soil). These habitats can be created in existing forest stands through patch or 

group thinning and patch clearcuts that also benefit other high priority bird species; and nocturnal 

habitat (wet agricultural fields (not fall disked) and wet “old field” or grassland habitats with exposed 

soil and patchy cover 1 to 3 feet in height created by cool fall burns). The 275-acre field at Coldwater 

River refuge should be maintained as an old field by strip disking and burning portions on a 3-year 

rotation. 

Take advantage of rights-of-way and other permanent forest openings to create woodcock habitat. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

Inventory suitable woodcock wintering habitat on the refuges. Conduct evening flight counts, 

nighttime counts, and flush counts to assess woodcock presence/absence and relative abundance on 

the refuge at least twice monthly from mid-November to mid-March. Night-lighting in the fields is 

another option preferred by some experienced in woodcock surveys to determine use. 

Utilize hunter surveys and flush counts using dogs (pointers) to assess presence/absence and 

relative densities of woodcock. 

Preserve all “cane” habitat areas on the refuge and recognize the need to maintain scrub/shrub 

wetlands/uplands preferred by this species. 

Determine the feasibility of developing woodcock habitat demonstration sites to serve as educational 

opportunities for public and private land managers, realizing that habitat management for woodcock 

is similar to management for other priority species. 

Objective1-7: Forest Birds

Within two years of the plan’s approval, survey forest breeding birds with point counts tied to spatially 

discrete, georeferenced, habitat-specific locations to assess the preferred habitat, presence/absence, 

and relative abundance of all forest breeding species 

Discussion: No comprehensive survey of forest birds, breeding or migratory, has been completed on 

the Complex. As such, there is no information on what areas and habitats are most widely used. 

Despite being highly fragmented, the productive hardwood forests of the Mississippi Delta play an 

important role in providing migration and breeding habitat for forest breeding birds. By increasing 

block size and improving timber stand structure, there is potential for this habitat to play a much larger 

role for this wide range of non-game birds. As it has with setting waterfowl habitat objectives, the 

LMRVJV has undertaken a coordinated effort to identify Bird Conservation Areas (BCA’s) throughout 

the LMRV for restoration of forest blocks that support sustainable breeding populations of areasensitive, high priority forest breeding bird species. There are seven BCA’s in the Complex work area 

with established forest block size objectives. Selective reforestation through private land programs or 

expansion of existing refuges would contribute toward forest block objectives. 

Bird population data are very limited for many of the refuges in Region 4. The Complex is no 

exception. Bird population data are critical for establishing baseline conditions that can later be used 

to assess management actions and compare future habitat conditions. Forest breeding birds should 

be surveyed with point counts using the protocol in Hamel et al., (1996). 

In terms of achieving population objectives for forest landbirds, an average of 6-9 pairs of Swainson’s 

warblers (drier end of the spectrum) and 11-19 pairs of prothonotary warblers (wetter end of the 

spectrum) per 100 acres within optimal habitat could be considered as indicators of healthy 

neotropical migratory bird populations overall. Spot-map protocols could provide these data. 

Monitoring nest success would provide better evidence of population health. 

Overall future desired condition of mature wetland forests would be to emphasize: (1) increasing 

stand structural diversity by favoring retention of largest trees (removing surrounding potentially 

competing trees), (2) opening up stands to allow light to reach the ground in support of better 

understory structure, and (3) group selection-sized openings to further structural complexity and 

support regeneration of shade-intolerant tree species (oaks) where needed. (Refer to “General 

Recommendations for Hardwood Forest Management to Improve Wildlife Habitat in the LMRV.”) 
68 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Priority species include the following: Extremely High - Swainson’s warbler (breeding - nest in dense 

understory, forages on open moist ground), swallow-tailed kite (breeding - nest in superemergent 

trees, possibly cypress), cerulean warbler (breeding - nest and forage in canopy of sawtimber trees); 

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 - nest in patches of dense ground cover), yellow-billed Cuckoo 

(breeding - midstory and canopy), wood thrush (breeding - midstory, forage 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 - nest in trees along 

edges in open country), Baltimore oriole (breeding - scattered hardwoods in open country), rubythroated 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 superemergent 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 and ivory-billed 

woodpecker (breeding - mature and extensive forest, with dead trees for nesting). 

Strategies: 

Over the life of the CCP, increase existing acreage of mature forested habitats and increase the 

vertical structural diversity of reforested sites to significantly improve habitat conditions for forest 

breeding birds, with emphasis on priority species to meet the objectives established by Partners-inFlight and the LMRVJV [see Table 7]. 

Collect baseline bird population data and monitor bird population responses to habitat restoration and 

management using, at a minimum, point counts (with 30 or more points per refuge) that will provide 

data for both canopy and understory species. All habitat types should be sampled proportionately, 

according to their presence on the refuge. All data will be reported to the LMVJV office. 

Conduct annual surveys using the established protocol. 

Ensure that georeferenced (GPS) habitat data are collected and documented on all point locations. 

All data should be translated into a GIS format for analysis and distribution. 

Generate a GIS layer that displays georeferenced survey points by habitat types and associated 

structure and species distribution and occurrence. 

Conduct point count surveys once per year 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 productivity of breeding birds in mature forest adjacent to “hard” agricultural edges and 

adjacent to “soft” moist-soil, scrub/shrub or reforested edges. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

Begin more involved protocols after collecting five years of baseline data. These protocols should 

address not only species occurrences, but also their relative rates of reproductive success and/or 

post-fledging survival in response to management protocols. 

Use a combination of private lands, land acquisition, and on-refuge work to reforest some strategic 

tracts, increasing the forest block size of BCA’s and providing the greatest benefits to priority forest 

breeding birds. The LMRVJV has developed a model and maps that show priority reforestation sites 

that will provide the greatest benefits for forest breeding birds. The long-term objective is to meet the 

forest core objectives for each of the BCA’s in the Complex work area. 

Objective 1-8: Scrub/Shrub Birds

Maintain existing early successional habitats along buffer strips and within two years after the plan’s 

approval convert up to 10 percent of acquired agricultural lands throughout the Complex to 

scrub/shrub, supporting priority scrub/shrub breeding species. 

Discussion: The extensive edge habitat and likely elevated numbers of nest predators and brownheaded cowbirds may work against having a healthy and complete forest breeding bird community 

until reforestation efforts are well-advanced. Scrub/shrub associated species are another group of 

vulnerable species within the southeast. These species are generally considered a lower priority than 

mature forest species within the LMRV, but possibly some species will benefit temporarily during the 

early years of reforestation, especially white-eyed vireo, painted bunting, and orchard oriole (only one 

record for Bell’s vireo from the area - Tunica County, but areas on and around the refuge should be 

searched for the presence of this species). However, good opportunities for overall effective bird 

conservation through the establishment and maintenance of scrub/shrub sites throughout Complex, 

including edges and small blocks within existing refuges and many of the Farm Service Agency 

tracts. Many of these tracts are generally isolated from larger forest blocks. 

Scrub/shrub species apparently are able to withstand cowbird and depredation problems better within 

smaller blocks of habitat (i.e., 50-100 acres, possibly as small as 25-acre patches) than mature forest 

priority species, many of which require thousands of contiguously forested acres. With better 

information, the project leader and staff may want to consider targeting certain sites for this habitat 

phase. Sites selected for long-term maintenance of scrub/shrub will require periodic disturbances. 

One option for minimizing the frequency of disturbance (to set back succession) necessary to 

maintain scrub/shrub habitat would be to plant areas with native fruit-producing, shrub species such 

as plum, swamp dogwood, devil’s-walking-stick, deciduous holly, and various species of hawthorn. 

Habitat for these species should increase on existing reforested areas during the next five years. 

Each of these fields should be monitored for use by these species. This could be accomplished by 

conducting a series of point counts (if the habitat patch allows for several points to be established). 

Priority species include the following: 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 (breeding?, winter). 

Strategies: 

Test restoration of scrub/shrub habitats using 500 acres of converted agricultural land in patches of 

20 to 100 acres at 5 to 20 locations. In the long term (15 year planning horizon), monitor bird 

response and if not getting breeding priority species (see below) or if maintenance of scrub/shrub 
70 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

habitats is too costly, then these areas should be reforested - either through replanting in trees or 

through natural succession. 

Maintain scrub/shrub habitat and structure (vegetation no more than 20 ft. high), through species 

planted, disking, chemicals, or burning to set back succession. 

Monitor bird population presence and responses to habitat restoration using direct counts and point 

counts focusing on breeding painted buntings, white-eyed vireos, and orchard orioles. 

Establish line transects through scrub/shrub habitats to monitor transient songbird occurrence and 

stop-over activities. Transects should be surveyed a minimum of weekly (or at least bi-weekly) during 

both spring and fall migrations. It is recommended that coverage of two routes on consecutive 

mornings, once each week, from the last week of March to the last week of May, and again from late 

August (early July if possible) to the end of October be surveyed. 

Reevaluate newly acquired/protected lands for the value of maintaining the scrub/shrub habitats vs. 

reforesting these areas to contribute to the creation of interior forest habitats. 

Objective 1-9: Grassland Birds 

Maintain existing acres of grasslands and within five years of the plan’s approval convert up to 10 

percent of acquired agricultural lands throughout the Complex to grasslands to support priority 

grassland bird species. Conduct baseline information surveys and continue to monitor bird 

responses to management and habitat alterations. 

Discussion: The emphasis on “grassland” habitat conditions used by high priority species on the 

Complex is likely restricted to forest restoration sites actually more often dominated by “brushy” 

annuals. Priority grassland species are mostly found at the Complex during migration and winter, but 

a few species may breed in small numbers. Recently planted reforestation sites should constitute the 

primary habitats on the refuge. However, higher sites with sandy soils (i.e., poorer quality sites) 

dominated by broomsedge (Andropogon spp.) should be maintained in particular for wintering 

LeConte’s sparrows. Priority grassland species include sparrows (principally LeConte’s, but also 

grasshopper and possibly lark), sedge wren, bobolink, and raptors (most notably bald eagle, northern 

harrier, short-eared owl, and loggerhead shrike). 

No specific population objectives have been established for these species at this time within the 

LMRV, but survey and monitoring protocols (i.e., transects and area searches) can be used for 

tracking peak movements on and off of the refuges and to document responses to habitat 

management. 

Priority species include the following: 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 - tree or shrub nesting, forages on ground), field sparrow 

(breeding - scattered saplings, shrubs, and tall herbaceous cover; wintering - dense cover of herbs, 

particular tall composites), northern harrier (wintering), grasshopper sparrow (wintering), field sparrow 

(breeding?, winter). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

Strategies: 

 

Create and maintain open grassland habitat for selected bird species. The most likely candidate 

areas are the 275-acre field at Coldwater River refuge and Farm Service Agency tracts with 

unsuccessful reforestation to date. 

Determine the location of “hotspots” (e.g., poorer quality sites with sandy soils) and promote the 

development of grassy-herbaceous ground cover, in particular, broomsedge. 

Determine the extent and evaluate the use of grasslands and associated bird communities using 

point count and transect (e.g., 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) 15 November-31 December, (2) 1 January-15 February, and (3) 16 February-10 March. 

Maintain grassland habitat through burning, disking, chemicals, and select plantings. 

Delay mowing and burning of levees and fields from March through mid-August. 

Establish at least one transect of 100 m in each discrete patch of grassland habitat and use project 

prairie bird protocol to count wintering bird populations (as other areas are located/added, add new 

transects). If these habitats do not receive the bird response or become unmanageable, 

consideration must be given to allowing these areas, which were probably forested under natural 

conditions, to return to a forest condition. Refuge priorities to maintain grassland habitat must be 

weighed against other habitat and population management priorities to most effectively meeting the 

refuge purposes with limited staff and equipment. 

Objective 1-10: Raptors 

Within two years of the plan’s approval, determine the extent and evaluate the use of refuge habitats 

by raptors at a Complex-wide scale. 

Discussion: The northern harrier and all other raptors, as well as the loggerhead shrike, are best 

surveyed along an established route (i.e., roadside survey). Conducting surveys at least twice per 

month from mid-September to the end of March is recommended for non-breeding populations, 

including transients (and may include some early breeding for some species). The refuge staff 

should also participate in the National Midwinter Bald Eagle Count and report the data to the Raptor 

Research and Technical Assistance Center in Boise, Idaho. 

Priority species include the following: Extremely High - swallow-tailed kite (migration, breeding - nest 

in superemergent trees, possibly cypress), Moderate - Mississippi kite (breeding - nest in trees along 

edges in open country), loggerhead shrike (breeding - nest in tree or shrub, forages on ground, 

wintering), northern harrier (wintering), bald eagle (wintering, nesting possible - nests in 

superemergent trees large enough to support massive nests). 

Strategies: 

Provide perching and nesting structures where necessary to enhance populations. 

Implement a network of roadside surveys for wintering and breeding raptors, focusing on priority 

species. Alternate direction from one survey to the next. 
72 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Establish a migration hawk-watch station at a prominent site(s) on the refuge(s) to survey for 

migrating raptors. 

Conduct transient bird surveys at least twice per month from mid-September to the end of March. 

Conduct annual National Midwinter Bald Eagle count and report the data to the Raptor Research and 

Technical Assistance Center in Boise, Idaho. 

GOAL 2 – Implement a program of science-based stewardship of the fish and wildlife 

resources associated with the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex. 

Background: 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." 

While the Service and Refuge System’s priority is the protection of federal trust species (migratory 

birds, threatened and endangered species, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammals) this mission 

clearly states that these refuges also should provide for other wildlife, such as resident species. In 

other words, by acquiring refuge lands, we also assume responsibility for managing the resident 

wildlife that also may be dependent on these refuge resources. However, this management must 

never be to the exclusion or detriment of the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

A variety of wildlife species indigenous to the LMRV inhabit the Complex. Some of the more notable 

wildlife are those easily seen by the general public (e.g., white-tailed deer, wild turkey, and cottontail 

rabbits). Many of these species are also available to the public for hunting opportunities, which 

elevates their importance to the public and land managers with hunting programs. However, Service 

policy requires us to maintain the “biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System” (Federal Register, January 16, 2001). If we are to truly understand 

the biodiversity and environmental health of these lands, we must gather baseline information on all 

wildlife and their habitats to document their existence, monitor trends, and understand the impacts of 

refuge programs. 

The following objectives are intended to provide the biological foundation to pursue the purpose and 

maximize the wildlife values of the Complex. Depending upon the availability of funds and personnel, 

Complex managers should attempt to fulfill these objectives within 15 years. Periodic reviews of the 

progress made toward accomplishment of these objectives and possible modifications should be 

conducted as advances are made in scientific knowledge affecting the management of fish and 

wildlife resources. The Complex plays a key role in a number of national, regional, and system-wide 

conservation plans that are referenced in this report. Fulfillment of the following objectives and 

strategies will contribute significantly to those plans. 

Objective 2-1: Game Species

For the duration of the plan, manage game populations to maximize quality hunting opportunities 

while maintaining habitat for federal trust resources. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

Discussion: Most resident game species are habitat generalists while the desired migratory bird 

community tends to gravitate toward habitat specialization. Three of five key game species (e.g., 

deer, rabbit, and quail) tend toward early habit successional stages, one (e.g., tree squirrels - both fox 

and gray) tends toward later habitat successional stages, and one (e.g., wild turkey) needs important 

components of both early and later successional stages. 

 

The majority of early successional habitat on the Complex is a by-product of other management 

actions. The early successional habitats occurring on the Complex seem to be a function of one of 

three things: farming (USFWS or co-op; comprising a very small percentage [<5 percent] of total land 

area), reforestation efforts (currently available early successional habitat will be lost in less than 5 

years), or flooding regimes (natural or man-made). The Complex currently maintains approximately 

600 acres of fallow fields. These fields are mowed periodically to prevent invasion by wood plants. 

Wildlife game studies have found that as little as 3-5 percent of a land base managed in early 

successional openings can yield appreciable population gains. This is demonstrably true for whitetailed deer, northern bobwhite, and wild turkey. It is also true for migratory species such as American 

woodcock, as well as herptile and invertebrate populations. Whether the openings occur as a result 

of small clearcuts, roadways, pipelines, tornadoes, or bulldozers, is of little importance. The 

important point is to maintain these critical feeding and reproductive areas – especially in the 

Complex where the emphasis is on contiguous blocks of bottomland hardwood forests. In fact, for 

resident wildlife game species, it would be difficult to overstate the importance of managed early 

successional areas in the Complex. Scarcity of areas important for brood-rearing or “bugging” for 

ground-nesting birds assures these patch openings will be used in far greater proportion to their 

availability. Mature, open, bottomland hardwood forests are biological deserts for most resident 

wildlife game species for nine months of every year if judged on food availability, brood-rearing, and 

nesting cover, although with good forest management this can be remedied. Focusing grassland and 

shrub management for birds on smaller blocks of land, such as Farm Service Agency properties, may 

be a practical alternative, depending on the surrounding habitat. 

Hard mast production is highly variable in the south compared to the midwest. Southern hard mast 

crops may fail two out of every five years. Heavy hard mast crops occur generally every 4-6 years. 

To avoid constant fluxes in resident wildlife game populations due to hard mast crop variability, there 

must be openings somewhere in order to meet critical nesting, brood-rearing, “bugging”, and browse 

habitat needs for ground nesting birds and white-tailed deer. With planning, these openings can be 

accomplished without sacrificing habitat requirements for desired avian species, such as neotropical 

migratory birds. 

Managed early successional openings for resident and migratory wildlife game species do not mean 

agricultural co-op farming. Neither does it mean a clearcut allowed to regenerate naturally. It does 

mean an intended permanent opening allowed to regenerate in strips of natural vegetation up to 3 

years, or openings that may be planted in an annual or perennial legume requiring a minimum of 

maintenance, while benefiting ground nesting resident game birds and white-tailed deer. These 

areas will be clear at ground level and will enhance invertebrate production. They may be strips 

within a field or may be an entire field. Openings should remain between 1-5 acres. By maintaining 

pH at or near 7.0 for optimum seed germination, combined with fall mowing or light fall disking, these 

openings should require only a single planting lasting for 5-7 years. However, in the interest of good 

forest management and the reduction of fragmentation, these openings should be along road 

shoulders, fire breaks, and other necessary and existing openings. 
74 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Strategies: 

General 

By 2007, develop and implement a Biological Inventory and Monitoring Plan. This plan will include 

key indicator resident wildlife species. Integrate population objectives for resident species into the 

refuge’s habitat management plans. 

Encourage research, inventory, and monitoring activities on the Complex, when compatible with the 

refuge purpose and management. 

Manage lands to maintain representative flora and fauna characteristic of the LMRV, and serve as a 

repository of fauna and flora native to the LMRV and the Complex, when compatible with refuge 

purposes and management. 

Identify and maintain 3-4 percent of Complex landbase in a variety of early successional areas in 

ecotonal sites as critical nesting and brood-rearing sites for resident wildlife reproduction. 

Identify, maintain, and enhance areas/species of soft mast production to help mitigate effects of 

drought and lack of hard mast availability during the year. 

Maintain annual survey indices (e.g., call counts, spotlight surveys, brood surveys) and harvest/visitor 

use records for resident wildlife game species. 

Burn (wherever possible), strip disk (on the thirds principle) or herbicide (spot treat as needed) old 

fields to set back natural plant succession, and increase nesting and brood rearing habitat in larger 

areas not reforested in oak seedlings. Lightly disk fire lanes surrounding forested stands to 

encourage growth of legumes, attract insects, and create a mosaic of bare ground and vegetation 

that provides feeding and brood-rearing cover. 

White-tailed deer 

Maintain a stable deer population through a program of either-sex hunting. Aim for removal of 

approximately one-third to one-half of the herd annually with a 1:1 harvest ratio of the sexes. 

Conduct herd health checks every 5-7 years and monitor habitat conditions to determine the health 

and population of deer on the Complex. 

Construct deer grazing exclosures (10' x 10' or larger) throughout habitat types and in closed areas 

(where deer become concentrated) to help gauge herd densities and impacts to refuge vegetative 

communities and migratory bird management programs. 

Evaluate deer populations and adjust hunting programs as needed. Be prepared to increase the 

length of deer season, the use of rifles, the doe harvest, or all the above as the deer population 

increases. 

Upland game birds 

Refrain from mowing levees, powerline/pipeline rights-of-way, and roadsides until August 1. These 

are the only reproduction areas for resident ground nesting birds (especially as seedlings in 

reforestation areas increase in age). Peak reproductive effort barring a flood year will have occurred 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

prior to August, even for second and third re-nesting efforts. Areas of high vehicular use should be 

mowed prior to May 1 to make them less attractive to birds attempting to nest. These practices will 

also minimize brown-headed cowbird habitat. 

Plant and maintain understory species such as dogwood, wild cherry, grapes, and berries. All of 

these are important in the wild turkey's year-round diet. These species benefit a variety of both 

wildlife and migratory birds and should be protected wherever they appear during cutting and thinning 

operations. 

Leave field borders or 20-ft. buffer strips around large fields. This small field loss can result in 20-25 

percent gains in reproductive effort. Reduce back to bare soil every third year. 

Do not use chemicals on the buffer strips and use chemicals minimally within fields. Some chemicals 

have direct toxic impacts on quail, particularly chicks, and chemicals have indirect impacts by 

reducing the insect populations that quail depend on for food. 

Within fields maintained for quail habitat, maintain 15-20 percent woody cover, 10-15 percent fallow 

areas, 15-20 percent grassy areas, and 40-60 percent row crop. Woody cover should be available 

every 200 yards. 

Monitor population responses to quail management practices and hunting programs. 

Develop partnerships with Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks and interested 

non-governmental organizations to assist in upland game bird management. 

Objective 2-2: Non-Game Species

Within 10 years of the plan’s approval, reestablish historical hydrological and habitat regimes to 

increase refuge biodiversity to the maximum extent feasible. Biannually monitor non-game species 

response to restoration activities. 

Discussion: Historically, the extent and duration of seasonal flooding from the Mississippi River 

fluctuated annually, recharging the LMRV’s aquatic systems and creating a rich diversity of dynamic 

habitats that supported a vast array of fish and wildlife resources. Instead of natural hydrology, largescale man-made hydrological alterations have changed the spatial and temporal patterns of flooding 

throughout the entire LMRV. In addition, these alterations have reduced both the extent and duration 

of annual seasonal flooding (with the conspicuous exception of most of Coldwater River refuge). The 

loss of this annual flooding regime has had a huge impact on the forested wetlands and their 

associated wetland-dependent species. 

In view of these profound hydrologic changes, it is very difficult – if not impossible – to fully simulate or reconstruct 

the structure and functions of a natural wetland. Restoration of wetland functions is especially difficult since 

wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of hydrologic regimes to maintain water, vegetation, and animal 

complexes and processes. Attempts to restore the hydrological regime in the LMRV and on the Complex 

include greentree reservoirs and water control devices that serve to manage and create moist-soil units. 

Reptiles and amphibians are significant components of the LMRV. They are abundant on the Complex and are 

functionally important in most freshwater and terrestrial habitats. Many species of herpetofauna are wide-ranging 

and may serve as key indicator species in evaluating the environmental health of an ecosystem. Knowledge of 

which species occur on the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex is fundamental to an 

understanding of the biological diversity of the area. 
76 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Identifying and conserving breeding sites for amphibians, especially for salamander species, are 

critical. The habitat type is variable according to species, but one type, which is easily overlooked in 

management, is ephemeral pools. Depressions that hold water for less than a year may be found in 

almost any area, but additional factors such as vegetation characteristics, water quality, and historic 

use determine whether a given species may use them for breeding sites. Many salamanders are 

philopatric, returning as adults to breed in the site where they hatched and developed. If breeding 

sites are active, this is an indication that suitable habitat exists or has recently existed nearby to 

support adult populations. 

Manipulating habitats for other species opens the possibility of inadvertently eliminating breeding 

sites. This would be highly disruptive and possibly devastating to the local population, especially in 

the case of salamanders, which are less mobile than frogs and reptiles and more apt to be impacted 

by loss of a breeding site. In the interest of diversity and of managing for all native species, breeding 

sites should be identified and conserved, especially for species which are not common. 

Currently, the refuge staff is conducting calling frog surveys to monitor refuge frog populations, as 

well as beginning an overall inventory of amphibians and reptiles on the three traditional refuge 

properties. This information will be incorporated into a GIS-based database. The calling frog survey 

data will be submitted to a national database (the North American Amphibian Monitoring Program). 

In terms of monitoring populations, clearly not everything can be done (or even the majority of items) 

without additional personnel and financial support. However, the highest priority needs may be 

identified and then a determination made as to which protocols can be accomplished immediately, 

which can be done with additional volunteers or slight adjustments to present staff work schedules, 

requiring additional resources. 

Although the majority of acreage in the Complex has been in the National Wildlife Refuge System for 

over 10 years, very little is known regarding the species which exist on this acreage. In order to fully 

inventory the species occurring on the complex, it will be necessary to obtain additional staff 

(Biologist, Biological Technician, etc.) and develop partnerships with local universities and museums. 

Most properties managed by the Complex are located in the Mississippi Delta. Additional attention 

needs to be directed to the few properties located in the hills’ portion of the state. There are likely to 

be species on these properties that are absent from the sites on the Delta. 

Strategies: 

General 

By 2007, develop and implement a Biological Inventory and Monitoring Plan (also mentioned under 

previous objective). This plan will include key indicator resident wildlife species, including non-game 

animals. 

Encourage research, inventory, and monitoring activities on the Complex, when compatible with the 

refuge purpose and management. 

Manage lands to maintain representative flora and fauna characteristic of the Delta region of the 

LMAV, and serve as a repository of flora and fauna native to the LMAV and the Complex, when 

compatible with refuge purpose and management. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

Work with partners (e.g., state museum and universities) to conduct formal censuses on refuge 

properties, including Farm Service Agency lands. 

By 2007, develop and maintain a GIS database for recording wildlife sightings on refuge properties. 

Conduct timber stand improvement to help develop a thicker understory/midstory component of 

saplings, seedlings, etc., conducive to non-game bird groups and woodcock. 

Non-game birds 

See previous sections under Goal 1. 

Reptiles and amphibians 

By 2008, conduct amphibian and reptile inventories to establish baseline information on species 

occurrence and habitat utilization. 

Locate and map (using GIS) reptile and amphibian breeding sites and identify species of use. 

Conserve breeding sites by maintaining the current vegetation component and water regime. 

Establish buffer zones, if necessary, to protect from pesticide or silt contamination. 

Conduct annual counts of egg masses to determine use of sites by salamanders and frog species. 

Conduct a calling frog survey, at least three times annually, according to the North American 

Amphibian Monitoring Program protocols. 

Establish standardized reporting methods for incidental sightings to include: species, date, property, 

specific location, and habitat type, as minimum information, and size, sex, and age data as additional 

information where possible. 

Objective 2-3: Fishes

For the duration of the plan, continue to enhance spawning habitats and improve water quality at 

Coldwater River, Dahomey and Tallahatchie refuges to maintain healthy, sustainable fish 

populations. 

Discussion: There is evidence that Tippo Bayou, the most notable aquatic resource on Tallahatchie 

refuge, is being used as a staging area for spawning by paddlefish. Spawning, however, has not 

been documented on the refuge to date. 

For all three refuges in the Complex, very little is known regarding non-game fish occurrence. 

Coldwater River refuge experiences flooding on an annual basis with water backing up from the 

Tallahatchie River and the Panola-Quitman Floodway. Dahomey refuge is transected by numerous 

drainage ditches and bayous. In addition to Tippo Bayou, Tallahatchie refuge has numerous oxbows 

and sloughs that are disconnected from any flowing waters. All three of these refuges should host a 

diverse assortment of minnows and rough fish. 

Strategies: 

Support efforts of Private John Allen National Fish Hatchery to restore warm and cool water species 

of concern in the Central Gulf Coast and Lower Mississippi Valley Ecosystems. 
78 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Provide assistance when requested by the Private John Allen National Fish Hatchery. 

Conduct fish inventories to establish baseline information on species occurrence and habitat 

utilization. 

Work with Private John Allen National Fish Hatchery or other interested groups to determine the 

extent of use of Tippo Bayou by paddlefish. 

GOAL 3 – Protect and restore habitat for federal and state threatened and endangered species 

found in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. 

Background: Recovery and protection of threatened and endangered plants and animals is an 

important responsibility delegated to the Service and its national wildlife refuges. Several federal 

threatened and endangered species are thought to use, or could use, North Mississippi National 

Wildlife Refuges Complex lands, including the bald eagle, wood stork, Louisiana black bear, and the 

least tern. In addition, the federally listed endangered pondberry potentially exists on the refuge. It 

has been found on a Service easement in Bolivar County. Its presence on Dahomey refuge in 

Bolivar County has not yet been verified; however, an ecological assessment concludes that suitable 

habitats for pondberry do exist and that its presence there is very likely. 

As do many states, the State of Mississippi keeps a continually updated list of sensitive plants and 

animals that are threatened, endangered, or of concern in Mississippi itself. The Mississippi Natural 

Heritage Inventory, maintained by the Mississippi Museum of Natural History, uses a ranking system 

developed by The Nature Conservancy, under which each listed species is assigned two ranks, one 

representing its range-wide or global status, and the other representing its status in the state. With 

regard to animals, Bolivar County has fifteen listed species, Grenada has six species, Quitman has 

one species, and Tallahatchie has five species. The species represent a wide range of taxa, 

including birds, mollusks, turtles, fish, and crustaceans. With regard to plants, Bolivar County has 

nine listed species, Grenada has forty-two species, Quitman five species, and Tallahatchie County 

has twelve species. A number of these species undoubtedly occur on the Complex refuges and 

Farm Service Agency properties. 

Objective 3-1: Inventory

By 2009, inventory the distribution and habitat use of all threatened and endangered species on the 

Complex and contribute to their recovery. 

Discussion: In that the three listed bird species (bald eagle, wood stork, least tern) above are 

occasional visitors to the Complex and the one plant species has not actually been discovered to 

date (although it is strongly suspected to occur), the most appropriate actions staff can take at this 

time are to inventory and monitor occurrences of threatened and endangered species. Likewise with 

state-listed species, no systematic inventories have been taken. 

Strategies: 

Support the efforts of Private John Allen National Fish Hatchery to restore populations of paddlefish, 

alligator gar, pallid sturgeon, and native walleye within the Central Gulf and Mississippi Alluvial Valley 

Ecosystems. 

Support the efforts of the Jackson Field Office to restore populations of Louisiana and American black 

bear to the Mississippi delta. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

By 2007, prepare a Biological Inventory and Monitoring Plan for the Complex, to include protocols for 

monitoring threatened and endangered species. 

Monitor and maintain records of sightings of all threatened and endangered species on the Complex 

including location and habitat type. 

Implement vertebrate and invertebrate species inventories on the Complex to identify the presence, 

population status, and distribution of threatened and endangered species. 

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. 

Monitor the population status of species of special concern and candidate species on the Complex. 

Objective 3-2: Habitat development and management for black bears

By 2015, ensure that the Forest Management Plan is compatible with habitat management for black 

bears. 

Discussion: Special consideration should be given to population monitoring and habitat management 

for any black bears on the Complex. Due to the lack of substantial blocks of forested habitats in the 

upper Mississippi River Delta, reforestation of bottomland hardwood forests could provide connecting 

corridors from the river riparian area to much of the Complex. This would provide additional habitats 

for an expanding population of bears. Efforts with regards to bears should focus on forest 

management and education. 

Habitat management to benefit bears generally focuses on maintaining suitable den sites, ensuring 

availability of preferred food resources, and maintaining or creating adequate travel and dispersal 

corridors. Timber species, size classes, cavities, openings, corridors, food sources, etc., are 

important considerations for all phases of forest management. However, most forest management 

practices for resident fish and wildlife populations will generally benefit bears. Identification of 

properties that could provide wooded corridors between the Mississippi River riparian areas and the 

Complex should be given a priority. 

Whether bears move naturally into the area or are reintroduced, public education is vital. This may 

come in the form of school programs, landowner workshops, posted signs, pamphlets, town 

meetings, etc. The Complex should have Service personnel trained in bear relocation techniques. 

Also, protocol to deal with potential human/bear conflicts should be established. Complex personnel 

are also encouraged to work with state bear restoration groups and others to accomplish this goal. 

Strategies: 

Forest Management 

Provide a diverse mix of hard and soft mast producing species to provide year-round food and cover. 

Protect existing den trees and create den areas by leaving felled treetops for ground nesting cover on 

areas of higher elevation. 

Utilize uneven age stand management and limit clearcut areas. 
80 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Monitor and maintain records of bear sightings, bear sign (scat, prints, clawed trees), and potential 

den trees (>36” dbh, especially if cypress, tupelo or oak and containing a cavity, or any large tree with 

claw marks), including exact location and habitat type. Records should also be reported to the 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks state bear biologist. 

Establish forested corridors connecting areas of the Complex with other forested lands and the 

riparian lands along the Mississippi River through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and the 

formation of other partnerships. 

Education 

Provide staff training to promote bear awareness and education in the vicinity of the Complex. 

Provide staff training on bear relocation and human/bear issues. 

GOAL 4 – Maintain and/or restore ecological systems within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley 

and Central Gulf Ecosystems, which mimic historical conditions. 

Background: Habitat management will be used to maintain and, where appropriate and practical, 

restore elements of ecological integrity, while providing benefits to a wide range of resident, 

migratory, and threatened and endangered species. The refuge’s habitat management procedures, 

including activities ranging from no intervention to intensive manipulation of soils, water, topography, 

and vegetation, would be consistent with the Service's Refuge Manual. 

Objective 4-1: Moist Soil

Manage a minimum of 6,689 acres of shallow impounded wetlands (see Table 15) on the 3 traditional 

refuges for optimum production of moist-soil plants, invertebrates, or hard mast for a variety of 

wetland-dependent migratory birds while meeting the objectives established for dabbling ducks by the 

LMRVJV. 

Discussion: Moist-soil management refers to management of land to provide moist-soil conditions 

during the growing season to promote the natural production of beneficial plants. Seeds produced by 

these plants often attract and concentrate waterfowl and other wetland wildlife species. The 

decomposing vegetative parts of moist-soil plants also provide substrate for invertebrates, which are 

critical food for many wetland wildlife and fish. Although small grain crops provide high energy for 

migrating waterfowl, these artificial foods do not provide the same nutrients found in these natural 

foods. The loss of wetlands in the surrounding areas has made these artificial wetlands essential to 

the health and survival of wetland-dependent wildlife species. 

It is imperative to only manage those acres which can be managed well. Poorly managed moist-soil 

units provide greatly reduced benefits to waterfowl and shorebirds and may develop into thick willow 

stands or cultivate invasive and pest plants. 

Strategies: 

Install depth gauges on all impoundments. 

Maintain early successional moist-soil plant communities and control undesirable plants by 

mechanical disking, herbicides, water level manipulation, or rotating agricultural crops periodically 

(considering the magnitude of the moist-soil objective, every effort needs to be made in terms of 

strategies to keep the designated acreage in moist-soil habitat). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81

Control perennials and other emergents, maintain deep water levels, greater than 3 feet, while 

providing loafing and feeding areas for waterfowl and waterbirds, and habitat for fish and developing 

populations of invertebrates, including crawfish. 

Provide shallow water depths in late spring and early summer to concentrate prey for long-legged 

waders such as wood storks (state listed), little blue herons, and white ibis (both declining). 

Begin final drawdown of water levels in mid-summer to expose mud-flats for southbound shorebirds. 

Actively solicit and logistically support research by universities, U.S. Geological Survey, or other 

research entities to conduct applied investigations to answer management questions and enhance 

capabilities to provide for target species. 

Work closely with Wildlife Habitat and Management and LMRVJV biologists to develop and 

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. 

Work toward complete water control on all shallow impoundments managed for waterfowl. 

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. 

Develop a step-down management plan for all impounded water, including moist-soil, field 

impoundments, permanent water, and greentree reservoirs, incorporating all listed strategies. 

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. 

Objective 4-2: Forest Management

Manage existing forest areas according to the existing forest management plan for the Complex. 

Reforest additional acquisitions where appropriate. 

Discussion: About 80 percent of the forest lands in the LMRV has been cleared and converted to 

other land uses, leaving only remnant forested tracts. Fish and wildlife resources have been similarly 

affected, leaving remnant populations that must be managed to meet the refuge purpose and to 

achieve the maximum potential. To date, the forest resources have had a minimum of inventory work 

conducted. A stand inventory and GIS mapping database must be established. A Forest Habitat 

Management Plan has recently been completed. Some of the most unique forested habitat 

remaining in the Delta is forested ridges. Because of the importance of the remaining forests to the 

wildlife resources on the refuge and conservation priorities set forth in various plans, the forest 

resources should be managed to mimic old growth forests and increase vertical vegetative structure. 

Several species of waterfowl heavily utilize flooded forested habitat in winter for resting and foraging 

for acorns, other fruits, various seeds, and invertebrates. Wood ducks seek these habitats almost 

exclusive of other habitats. Mallards, gadwall, and wigeon all utilize flooded forested habitat as one 

of the complex of preferred habitats. 
82 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

These areas are vital to waterfowl for pair bonding, loafing, sanctuary, thermal cover, and feeding. It 

is important to manage these areas to provide all of these elements. These areas can be enhanced 

for waterfowl utilization by making them more accessible. Ducks like openings in the woods to allow 

them easy access. Small groups of trees (3-5) that dominate canopy coverage can be removed to 

provide the opening that ducks prefer for landing. Care should be taken in the timing, frequency, and 

duration of flooding. 

Flooding in winter should mimic or enhance natural flood conditions. Typically, flooding should occur 

only during the dormant period for deciduous hardwoods common in each impoundment. Flooding 

should never occur before the dormant period starts in late fall (mid-November to late-December) and 

only rarely after green-up in the spring. Flooding dates and duration should be varied annually and in 

some years should not be flooded. Fredrickson’s Greentree Reservoir Management Handbook 

(Fredrickson and Batema 1993) should be consulted for management guidance. 

Strategies: 

Follow the recently developed Forest Habitat Management Plan, including its wildlife and tree species 

to be favored, reforestation methods, prescription-writing methods, timber marking and thinning 

procedures, harvest policy, and record-keeping procedures. 

Complete a forest inventory and a GIS mapping database of the refuge forests. Utilize database 

information to schedule stand treatments and project manpower and other resource needs. The 

inventory may be a light baseline inventory of approximately 1 percent using the compartmental 

breakdown of like habitats noted in the Dahomey refuge assessment. A more intense cruise will be 

needed prior to prescription writing. 

Take advantage of carbon sequestration dollars to complete remaining reforestation activities (new 

plantings and re-plantings). 

Prioritize reforestation efforts to enhance or create: (1) landscape linkages for wide-ranging species 

such as black bear, and (2) a critical forested habitat mass to benefit forest interior birds and other 

species needing larger blocks of habitat. 

Manage for a natural representation of tree species and densities in reforestation efforts, with 

reasonable attempts made at mimicking natural spacing (i.e., avoid “planted rows”). 

Direct reforestation efforts to produce a merchantable forest that is desirable to commercial loggers to 

help implement forest management practices in the future. 

Consider increasing species diversity at time of establishment. Plant a greater percentage of hard 

mast species in areas where light-seeded species are less than 1/4 mile away, allowing those 

species to reseed naturally. 

Develop and implement management guidelines and practices for existing hardwood plantations 

using the attached “General Recommendations for Hardwood Forest Management to Improve Wildlife 

Habitat in the Lower Mississippi River Valley.” 

Develop treatments to improve species diversity and habitat value of plantations. Pursue a general 

forest management strategy to provide the most natural species representation and structure to 

benefit the widest array of site-appropriate species and forest management options. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83

Consider the feasibility of spot planting specially grown containerized trees (e.g., root pruned or 

other) to help ensure a hard mast component within a reasonable period of time, especially on Farm 

Service Agency properties. 

Flood greentree reservoirs only during the dormant period - never flood before dormancy and rarely 

after green-up. Flooding dates and duration should be varied annually and in some years should not 

be flooded. 

Inventory and monitor tree vigor and diversity, including regeneration of red oaks. Modify flood 

management to achieve forest and wildlife management objectives. 

Continue to establish firelanes around reforestation areas until crown closure lowers the level of fuels 

resulting from herbaceous plants in the understory. 

Hire a forester even though the forested land base is currently fairly small. Areas such as Dahomey 

refuge will not receive the attention they deserve until a position is created for someone who can 

devote a considerable amount of time to caring for the forest. Additionally, hire a technician to assist 

in management activities, such as cruising timber, marking, and monitoring. 

Survey refuges for any potential endangered species (e.g., pondberry) that may influence timber 

management decisions. 

Objective 4-3: Invasive and Pest Management 

For the duration of the plan, inventory, monitor, and control, where possible, invasive plant and 

animal populations to minimize or eliminate negative effects on native flora and fauna. 

Discussion: A pest is any terrestrial or aquatic plant or animal which interferes or threatens to 

interfere at an unacceptable level with the attainment of refuge objectives or which poses a threat to 

human health. Currently there are several species of plants and wildlife occurring on the Complex 

that have achieved this status as a “pest.” 

Many invasive moist-soil plant species are difficult to control without intensive herbicide use. Soil 

disturbances and water level fluctuations necessary for migratory shorebird and waterfowl 

management often encourage germination of those invasive species present in the natural seed 

bank. Eradication of undesirable species is often impossible and unnecessary to achieve. Some of 

these plants, such as coffeeweed (Sesbania spp.) and willow (Salix spp.), offer desirable vertical 

structure when occurring in low densities in southern moist-soil impoundments. Other aggressive 

plant species, such as trumpet creeper, morning glory, and redvine, offer little food value or cover and 

are extremely difficult to control once established except with approved herbicide treatments. 

Similarly, wildlife pests, some native, some non-native, are often difficult to control and impossible to 

eradicate. The nutria is an introduced species that can rapidly attain high population levels. Nutria 

feed largely on aquatic plants, typically uprooting the plant as it feeds. At high densities, nutria can 

rapidly remove a large proportion of the wetland vegetation. Additionally, nutria burrow into earthen 

levees and can cause them to leak or blow out. Currently, the Walker Tract of Tallahatchie refuge 

and Coldwater River refuge support high densities of nutria. Nutria occur throughout the Delta and 

have been detected infrequently on Dahomey refuge and the main tract of Tallahatchie refuge. 
84 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

The beaver is a native species with both advantages and disadvantages. Situated along major 

watercourses, the Complex will continue to hold and attract beaver. Periodic and persistent dam 

removal should occur as needed where dams impede desired water flow necessary for shorebird and 

waterfowl management or cause damage to bottomland hardwood forests and reforestation sites. 

The Complex should be extremely concerned with the presence of wild hogs. In addition to a hog’s 

ability as an omnivore to eat virtually anything, studies have shown that an adult wild hog will 

consume 160 pounds of hard mast during a single winter. Where hard mast is present, as much as 

84 percent of a hog’s diet will consist of acorns. In areas like the Complex where the major habitat 

type is bottomland hardwoods and its associated hard mast production, feral hogs will be efficient 

competitors with native wildlife, including deer, turkey, quail, squirrels and waterfowl, for available 

hard mast resources. Competition for food resources is only one part of a feral hog problem. In 

addition to being a host of various diseases, such as swine brucellosis, feral hogs cause enormous 

structural damage to levees and roadways by rooting large holes while feeding on grasses, roots, and 

stems. The feral hog population on the Complex should be curtailed by any means possible; such 

control is both practical and attainable. 

Other native species such as striped skunks, raccoons, and double-crested cormorants can 

occasionally reach such high population densities that they interfere with Complex objectives and 

may require control. 

Strategies: 

By 2008, develop GIS inventory and monitoring of problem areas for plants, as well as areas in the 

natural seed bank that are producing beneficial wildlife plants that meet refuge objectives. Inventory, 

monitor, and control populations of wildlife that have become pests. 

To control willows, cut and flood, dry and apply Roundup, or hack and squirt using herbicides. Disk 

every 3 years to set back succession. 

In problem impoundments, use Rodeo to kill unwanted vegetation prior to manipulating water levels. 

Thus, desirable moist-soil plants can thrive. Disking and mowing may also be advantageous in 

certain scenarios. Consider using cooperative farming in problem impoundments when staff is 

unavailable to help set back succession. 

By 2008, establish standardized method of reporting problem areas where plants/animals are 

discovered. 

Track hog movements as it tends to establish movement patterns. Use baiting in the summer to 

attract individual feral hogs to a trap. Use “repeater traps” to increase the number of hogs captured in 

a single trap. Take advantage of naturally occurring funnels leading into fields used by feral hogs to 

set traps. 

Increase hunter harvest of feral hogs through education and additional hunting opportunities. 

Use traps and rifles to reduce nutria populations. Focus efforts in late winter and early spring when 

the young are most vulnerable and the adults appear less wary. 

Utilize GS-7 biological technician to implement trapping program of identified pest species (e.g., 

beaver, nutria, hogs) on the Complex. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85

Develop management guidelines (contracts, special use permits, and special conditions) to 

administer a trapping program consistent with sound biology, Service guidelines, refuge purposes, 

and the conservation of ecosystem functions. 

Set protocol in dealing with different species. Some species can be managed with mechanical 

disturbance or simply adjusting the timing of the initiation and rate of drawdown. If necessary, use 

herbicides to control aggressive plant species, ensuring that label directions are followed. (Monitor 

areas that are sprayed to ensure that non-target organisms are not impacted. Discontinue use of 

herbicide if negative impact is detected.) If beaver are not impacting a roadway, water control 

structure, or other critical juncture, they should be left alone. 

Establish and prioritize units that most need protection from invasive plant or animal pest species 

presence. 

Identify and take advantage of naturally occurring beneficial plant stands or beaver “ponds” that can 

be drawn down and seeded in late summer then reflooded by beavers for waterfowl use. 

Develop a Complex-wide Integrated Pest Management Plan by 2006. 

Install effective beaver guards or water diversion structures on all water control structures that are 

perpetually disabled by beaver dams. 

GOAL 5 – Increase the land base of the Complex and contribute to the protection and 

restoration of fish and wildlife resources found within Northern Mississippi. 

Background: The authorized acquisition boundaries of Coldwater River, Dahomey and Tallahatchie 

refuges allow for considerable expansion in the size of individual refuges within the Complex. This 

expansion will take place over the long term, and will emphasize those tracts that have the greatest 

potential to enhance the ecological integrity of the protected land base. 

Objective 5-1: Land Acquisition

Continue to acquire the remaining 31,573 acres of land within the current refuge acquisition 

boundaries, with special emphasis on those areas that would (1) improve access, (2) contribute to 

national and regional objectives, (3) reduce impacts to refuge resources, or (4) provide additional 

wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

Discussion: The Complex has acquired approximately one third of the lands within its current 

acquisition boundaries. Certain critical inholdings are still needed to meet habitat and public use 

objectives. These include foraging and sanctuary habitats for waterfowl and Bird Conservation Area 

forest block objectives, as well as providing access to visitors, reducing off-refuge impacts, and 

protecting unique habitats, with opportunities to expand and establish manageable units. The lands 

within and surrounding Dahomey refuge are part of interior forest objectives established by the 

LMRVJV in support of the Partners-in-Flight Plan for the LMRV. 

Strategies: 

Highest acquisition priority should be placed on acquiring inholdings and other tracts that will 

significantly improve management opportunities to meet objectives established by various national 

and regional plans. 
86 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

By 2006, develop an outreach program that provides information on land acquisition and easement 

programs, for the benefit of landowners within the boundary expansion areas. 

Develop partnerships with conservation organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, The Trust 

for Public Land, and The Conservation Fund to support land acquisition needs. 

Focus land acquisition efforts on properties adjacent to existing refuge lands within the Bird 

Conservation Areas. 

Objective 5-2: Private Lands

Provide assistance to private landowners within the 26-county Complex work area. This assistance 

will be directed towards restoring habitats for wintering waterfowl and forested wetlands to achieve 

objectives of national and regional plans for the LMRV and Central Gulf Ecosystems. 

Discussion: Service authorities for involvement with private landowners in developing and carrying 

out habitat improvement projects are found in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 and the policy documents for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFW). Additional 

authorities reside within the Fish and Wildlife Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. 

Much of the land in the vicinity of the Complex is privately owned. These privately owned lands play 

an important role in the restoration and reestablishment of native habitats needed to support the 

diverse fish and wildlife resource for which this geographic area was historically known. Existing or 

potential habitat on private lands is essential 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 has several existing programs that are directed to providing technical assistance and 

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

mechanism for habitat projects on private lands is the PFW Program. Additional funding and 

technical assistance support for private lands is also available through several other Service funded 

programs, including the Challenge Cost-Share Program, the Mississippi Partners for Wildlife 

Program, Migratory Birds Program, and several grant programs within the Threatened and 

Endangered Species Program. 

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

implementation. 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 LMRV. The PFW Program provides base funding for one 

full-time private lands biologist stationed at the Complex. 

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

funding primarily through the Service’s Refuge Challenge Cost-Share (CCS) Program. The CCS 

Program also requires at least a 50 percent cost-share from other partners. In Mississippi, this 

partnership involves the private landowners, Ducks Unlimited, Delta Wildlife, Mississippi Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation, and the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. Approximately 

$40,000 in Service funds are made available each fiscal year through this partnership agreement. 

These funds are used to provide water-control structures to private landowners to flood harvested 

cropland during the fall/winter (November 15-February 28). This partnership provides significant 

benefits for wintering waterfowl, other migratory birds, and water quality. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87

The Farm Bill conservation programs, available through the 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, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and the Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program. Many 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, 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. 

Strategies: 

Develop a 5-year Strategic Plan for developing and carrying out habitat improvement projects within 

defined habitat focus areas on private lands within the Complex work area. The plan should focus 

restoration and other efforts on priority reforestation sites established by coordinated planning efforts 

like the LMRVJV, rather than simply an opportunistic approach to project selection. 

Develop and carry out an Annual Work Plan for addressing priority private lands issues identified 

under the 5-year plan and other appropriate sources. 

Target private lands within Bird Conservation Areas for projects through the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife (PFW) program. 

Expand the PFW/private lands program at the Complex to more effectively involve other interested 

partners, such as the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, NRCS, Delta Wildlife, 

Ducks Unlimited, and the Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Foundation, in program development, policy, 

and implementation. 

To the extent possible, leverage Service project funds and technical assistance with private 

landowners and other partners (e.g., Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, Ducks 

Unlimited, Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Foundation, etc.). 

Integrate Service private lands programs and initiatives with existing USDA conservation programs 

under the 2002 Farm Bill. Ensure that all Service projects on private lands are coordinated with the 

appropriate district conservationist with NRCS in order to maximize technical assistance and access 

to all appropriate conservation programs and opportunities. 

Ensure that the PFW biologist assigned to the Complex 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. 

Objective 5-3: Focus Areas

Use conservation tools such as conservation easements, partnership agreements, and technical 

assistance to protect, restore, and manage the highest priority habitats within this area (see Figure 8). 

Discussion: The work area for the Complex includes 28 counties in northern Mississippi. Within this 

work area are two “focus areas.” Each focus area is a contiguous block made up of refuge lands, 

Bird Conservation Zones, other public lands, and private lands. The objective for these “Partners for 

Conservation” focus areas will be to work with partners (state, federal, and non-governmental 

organizations) and private landowners to focus available resources to (1) help achieve the objectives 

of national and regional plans; (2) develop corridors for wildlife; (3) create habitat for waterfowl, 

wintering and breeding; (4) reduce off-refuge impacts to refuge resources; (5) provide better public 
88 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

access to refuge lands; and (6) restore critical interior forest habitat for trust species needing large 

blocks of interior bottomland hardwood forests. By concentrating efforts within these focus areas, the 

program is likely to provide more wildlife benefits than if the effort were spread throughout the 

Complex work area. 

The focus areas are primarily cleared agricultural lands interspersed with small remnants of 

bottomland hardwoods, seasonally flooded and permanent wetlands, and cypress brakes. Alluvial 

floodplains, hydric soils, and old river scars characterize this area. Although now a landscape of 

cotton, corn, soybeans, rice, and catfish ponds, this area was once a rich network of bottomland 

hardwood wetlands interspersed with natural openings that supported an immense variety of forest 

interior birds and other fish and wildlife. 

As with any plan or recovery project, by concentrating resources and partnership efforts, a more 

structured program can be created that will encourage future endeavors to be “focused” on lands that 

will have the greatest impact on national and regional recovery and management plans for imperiled 

federal trust species and their habitats. The three refuges in the Complex are identified in separate 

Bird Conservation Zones (BCZ), in an effort to provide maximum benefits for neotropical migratory 

birds. The “Partners for Conservation” focus areas will link several BCZ’s and provide increased 

opportunities for partnership efforts. These areas include: 1) Dahomey refuge BCZ, the Whittington 

BCZ along the east side of the Mississippi River, and lands linking the two areas, and 2) the 

Malmaison BCZ surrounding Tallahatchie refuge, the O’Keefe BCZ surrounding Coldwater River 

refuge, the Coldwater Creek BCZ to the north of Coldwater River refuge, and lands linking these 

three BCZs. 

Strategies: 

Conduct further analysis of habitats and land ownership within the focus areas to serve as a basis for 

building partnerships with landowners desiring to improve wildlife habitat on their lands. 

By 2008, develop a “Partners for Conservation” outreach program that explains the concept and 

objectives of this focused partnership, private lands effort. 

Maintain a list of landowners within the “Partners for Conservation” focus area to provide information 

on opportunities to participate in future conservation programs in their area. 

All future boundary expansion proposals will be within these focus areas. 

Within one year of the plan’s approval, develop a mailing list of potential partners, including state, 

federal, and conservation organizations. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89

Figure 8. North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex focus areas 
90 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Objective 5-4: Contaminants and Siltation

Continue to monitor contaminants concentrations in fish, wildlife, and waterbodies of the refuges 

while reducing siltation. 

Discussion: The Fish and Wildlife Service contracted with North Carolina State University to conduct 

the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Study, which investigated chemical contamination at 26 

national wildlife refuges in the LMRV. The field sampling for the study spanned a 6-year period and 

involved sampling water, sediment, and fish at the refuges. Dahomey and Tallahatchie refuges were 

included in the study. Sixty-four water samples, ten fish samples, and fourteen sediment samples 

were collected from the refuges and analyzed for organochlorine pesticides, mercury, and current use 

pesticides. The benthic fish species collected included common carp, channel catfish, and 

smallmouth buffalo, and the predator fish species included largemouth bass, white crappie, and 

spotted gar. 

Results of the analyses of the samples indicate that contaminant problems exist at both refuges. 

Concentrations of DDTM were above the predator protection level of 1.0 ppm in benthic fish species, 

and those concentrations are high enough to issue a limit consumption advisory for benthic fish. The 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality will issue a limit fish consumption advisory when 

DDTM concentrations in fish reach 1.0 ppm. Toxaphene concentrations were above the predator 

protection level of 0.1 ppm in benthic and predator fish. Toxaphene concentrations were high enough 

to issue a limit fish consumption advisory for both benthic and predatory fish. Fish consumption 

advisories are issued when toxaphene reaches a concentration of 0.4 ppm in fish. DDTM 

concentrations were above concern levels in sediment samples. Concentrations of current use 

pesticides, DDTM, and toxaphene exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s chronic 

water quality criteria in water samples. 

Field inspections have been completed on the stream and lakes. It is suspected that concentrations 

of suspended solids, nutrients, and turbidity are elevated most of the year in the waterbodies, and 

that there are extended periods when dissolved oxygen levels are at or near zero. In addition, water 

temperatures in the streams probably rise above 95 degrees Fahrenheit during the summer months. 

Many of the fertilizers and pesticides leave fields attached to soil particles and it appears that sheet 

erosion on agricultural land in the watershed is the cause of the contaminants/water quality problems 

common throughout the Lower Mississippi Valley. It is also the primary source of the contaminant 

problems at the refuge. 

Beginning in 2001, malformed frog surveys have been conducted annually on Dahomey and 

Tallahatchie refuges. Surveys have shown that as much as 17 percent of the metamorphs collected 

had some type of deformity. The normal rate of deformity is about 3 percent or less. This finding 

indicates that something may be adversely affecting amphibians on the refuge. Some possible 

causes of the high rate of deformities include pesticides, metals, bacteria, viruses, ultraviolet radiation 

from thinning of the ozone layer, and elevated nutrients. 

Coldwater River refuge is composed of abandoned catfish ponds and former agricultural fields. 

During normal rainfall, drainage from the adjacent agricultural lands flows east to the Tallahatchie 

River, and does not flow onto the refuge lands. However, highly turbid, contaminated flood waters 

from the Tallahatchie River appear to back onto the refuge where the water slows, allowing larger soil 

particles to drop out of suspension and colloidal particles are adsorbed onto leaves, trees, and woody 

debris. When the flood waters reach the abandoned catfish ponds, most of the contaminated soil has 

fallen out in the surrounding forested land. As a result, it is not likely that serious contaminant/water 

quality problems occur on the refuge. Even though serious contaminant/water quality problems are 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91

not expected, investigations should be conducted to determine contaminant levels in water, sediment, 

fish, and aquatic oriented wildlife. 

Also at Coldwater River refuge, large growths of filamentous algae can occur during the late spring 

and summer months on the catfish ponds. These large algae growths likely deplete the oxygen in the 

ponds when they begin to die. The large algal blooms are likely caused by nutrients originating from 

the surrounding agricultural land. These nutrients reach the abandoned catfish ponds because they 

are water soluble and would not fall out of suspension. These ponds typically receive water from the 

surrounding drainage ditches that is backed into the ponds during the late fall and winter. Spraying 

the algae with herbicides or adding super-phosphate would help control the algae. 

Strategies: 

Reduce sheet erosion within the watershed. 

Determine if DDTM and toxaphene are elevated in aquatic-oriented wildlife species, including wood 

ducks, raccoons, and fish eating birds and mammals. 

At a minimum of once every five years, monitor contaminants concentrations in fish and wildlife 

species of the refuges. 

On a bimonthly basis, determine concentrations of nutrients, suspended solids, fecal coliform 

bacteria, and dissolved oxygen on lakes and streams. 

Implement BMPs (drop inlet structures, reforestation, vegetative field borders, etc.) on agricultural 

land with high sediment yields by using the Service’s Private Lands Program, the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service’s Wetland Reserve and Conservation Reserve Programs, and the Mississippi 

Soil and Water Conservation Commission’s Clean Lake Program. 

Collect fish samples every three to five years and have the samples analyzed for organochlorine 

pesticides. 

Write contaminants study proposals and submit to the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Team, the 

Washington Office, and outside sources for funding. 

Continue to monitor breeding pools to determine extent and severity of malformations in frogs. 

Obtain funding to conduct contaminant investigations on the areas at Dahomey refuge that contained 

frogs with a high rate of deformity. Monitor areas receiving runoff from herbicides applied to manage 

invasive species on the refuge to ensure that refuge management activities are not adversely 

affecting non-target organisms. 

Reduce large, filamentous algal blooms in the catfish ponds through application of herbicides at the 

appropriate time. 

GOAL 6 – Identify and protect cultural resources on the Complex in accordance with federal 

and state historic preservation laws and regulations. 

Objective 6-1: Cultural Resources

By 2010, identify, evaluate the importance of, and seek the appropriate protective designation of 

cultural resources throughout the Complex, in accordance with existing legal requirements, 
92 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

regulations, and professional standards. Where significant cultural resources exist, provide public 

outreach opportunities where appropriate. 

Background: The Complex follows standard National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 

procedures to protect the public’s interest in preserving its cultural/historic legacy that may potentially 

occur on the Complex. Whenever construction work is undertaken that involves any excavation with 

heavy earth-moving equipment like tractors, graders and bulldozers, such as for the development of 

moist-soil units, the Complex contracts with a qualified archaeologist/cultural resources expert to 

conduct an archaeological survey of the subject property. The results of this survey are submitted to 

the RHPO as well as the SHPO, which in Mississippi is an official within the Historic Preservation 

Division of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History. The SHPO reviews the surveys and 

determines whether cultural resources will be impacted, that is, whether any properties listed in or 

eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) will be affected. If cultural 

resources are actually encountered during construction activities, the Complex is to notify the SHPO 

immediately. To date, no properties on the Complex have been determined to be eligible for the 

NRHP. 

Strategies: 

By 2010, conduct a Phase I archaeological survey of the non-flooded areas of the refuges, by 

qualified personnel, as a necessary first step in cultural resources management. 

Conduct a Phase II investigation if archaeological resources are identified during the Phase I survey. 

In this, the eligibility of identified resources for listing on the NRHP is evaluated prior to any 

disturbance. 

Conduct a Phase III data recovery if resources identified in Phases I and II are determined to be 

eligible. This will recover data and mitigate adverse effects of any undertaking. 

By 2009, prepare a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) for the Complex. 

Follow procedures outlined in CRMP for consultation with RHPO, SHPO, and potentially interested 

American Indian tribes. 

Follow procedures detailed in CRMP for inadvertent discoveries of human remains. 

Ensure archaeological and cultural values are described, identified, and taken into consideration prior 

to implementing undertakings. 

Develop a step-down plan for surveying lands to identify archaeological resources and for developing 

a preservation program. 

GOAL 7 – Increase the public understanding, use, and enjoyment of the natural resources of 

the Complex, consistent with the principle that wildlife comes first on national wildlife refuges. 

Background: The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, states that compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses are the priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System (hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation) and will 

receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses. Other uses will be permitted only 

when it is determined that they are legally mandated, provide benefits to the Service, occur due to 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93

special circumstances, or facilitate one of the priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. See 605 

FW 1, General Guidance, and 603 FW 1, Appropriate Refuge Uses. Where conflicts do not exist with 

the refuge purpose (e.g., migratory bird management, where applicable), refuge properties should be 

open for priority, wildlife-dependent public uses of the refuges as listed in the National Wildlife Refuge 

Improvement Act of 1997. 

Objective 7-1: Visitor Services Plan

By 2009, develop a Visitor Services Plan. 

Discussion: Through comprehensive conservation plans and visitor services plans, goals are set, 

measurable objectives are determined, strategies identified, and evaluation criteria established for all 

visitor services. Careful planning provides the visiting public with opportunities to enjoy and 

appreciate fish, wildlife, plants, and other resources. As a result, the visiting public will develop an 

understanding and will build an appreciation of each individual’s role in the environment today and 

into the future. 

Currently there is not a Visitor Services Plan for the Complex. 

Strategies: 

By 2009, develop a Visitor Services Plan that reflects current legislation, director’s orders, initiatives, 

policy, and the mission of the Complex, the Refuge System and the Service. The plan should also 

address the current and future visitor services and recreation needs of refuge visitors. 

When funding becomes available, hire one public use staff person for the Complex. 

Objective 7-2: Visitor Centers

By 2014, explore the feasibility of building visitor centers on Highway 82 at the Povall Farm Service 

Agency Tract and jointly with the Private John Allen National Fish Hatchery. 

Discussion: At the present time, the Complex does not have a visitor center. It is proposed to add 2 

in the next 15 years that would be located to attract visitors in different parts of the Complex. The 

Service should consider cooperating with the Private John Allen National Fish Hatchery in planning, 

constructing, and operating a visitor center that would serve both the hatchery and the Complex. 

Strategies: 

Work with the Service to develop visitor centers with architecture that is resource-efficient and 

energy-conserving, and/or reflective of local or regional cultural and historic themes. 

Complex management and outreach personnel should work closely with exhibit designers to develop 

exhibits based on appropriate themes for the Complex. 

One or both visitor centers should have a small theater that could project slide shows or wildlifeoriented documentary films. 

By 2009, develop an introductory audio-visual program to welcome and orient visitors to the Complex. 

Develop a cadre of volunteers who could assist with staff of the visitor centers. 
94 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Objective 7-3: Visitor Contact/Administration Stations

By 2014, develop Visitor Contact/Administration Stations at all 3 traditional refuges on the Complex. 

Discussion: At present, the Complex has two visitor contact/administration stations, one at the 

Complex headquarters in Grenada, and one at Dahomey refuge. At both locations, visitors can 

obtain Complex brochures, maps, hunting and fishing regulations, and other Service information. 

They can also meet and speak with Complex staff. This objective would keep these two visitor 

contact stations and add two more at Coldwater River and Tallahatchie refuges. These stations 

would be in addition to the two proposed visitor centers mentioned above. 

Strategies: 

Obtain and place good signs for motorists on approach routes to visitor contact stations. 

Work with Mississippi DOT to place road signs at nearby intersections of major routes. 

Visitor contact stations should be well-stocked with adequate informational literature and staffed, if 

possible. 

To serve the public after hours or when the visitor contact station is closed, install kiosks at all visitor 

contact stations with information and brochures about the Fish and Wildlife Service, Refuge System, 

and Complex. 

Objective 7-4: Hunting

Expand current hunting program throughout the Complex and continue to provide a quality and safe 

outdoor experience. 

Discussion: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 recognizes hunting as 

one of the six priority public uses of the Refuge System. These uses, “where compatible with the 

Refuge System mission and purposes of the individual refuges,” are considered “legitimate and 

appropriate public uses...through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and 

wildlife” and shall receive “priority consideration in refuge planning and management.” The Act 

further states that, “In administering the Refuge System, the Secretary shall...provide increased 

opportunities for families to experience compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, particularly 

opportunities for parents and their children to safely engage in traditional outdoor activities, such as 

hunting and fishing....” 

Dahomey and Tallahatchie refuges allow hunting for squirrel, rabbit, bobwhite quail, raccoon, deer, 

turkey (Dahomey only), waterfowl, snipe, woodcock, and feral hogs. In addition, there are youth 

hunts for deer, turkey (Dahomey only), waterfowl, and squirrel. Dates for small game, bow hunting 

(deer), and primitive weapon hunting (deer) approximate the state’s seasons. Duck and goose 

hunting are allowed Wednesday/Saturday/ Sunday mornings during state seasons. During the 

conservation order, snow goose hunting is allowed seven days a week, one-half hour before sunrise 

to one-half hour after sunset. Unplugged shotguns and electronic calling devices are allowed and 

there are no bag or possession limits and no stamps needed. Special facilities are available for 

mobility impaired hunters. Each hunter must obtain from one of the Hunter Information Stations a 

user information card. There is a $12.50 permit required to hunt on Dahomey refuge, Tallahatchie 

refuge, and select Farm Service Agency tracts (small game only). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95

Strategies 

Develop 1-2 panel kiosks at each check station and at the boat launch that state the Service and 

Refuge System missions along with refuge purposes. Consider the use of in-house graphics in the 

short-term. 

Objective 7-5: Fishing

Work closely with Private John Allen National Fish Hatchery to expand current fishing opportunities 

over the next 10 years as outlined in the Biological Review. 

Discussion: A 50-acre oxbow (Long Branch) on Tallahatchie refuge, as well as several Farm Service 

Agency tracts under refuge administration, has potential for aquatic resource management. Two 

tracts hold a total of ten ponds formerly used for catfish production. Three of these, a 40-acre pond 

at the Scott-90 tract, and two 20-acre ponds at the Henson-165 tract, would be managed for sport 

fishing. In addition to the Tallahatchie refuge oxbow lake, there are existing oxbows on the following 

tracts, each of which would require a water control structure, a boat ramp, and parking area: the 

Trainor-219 tract with a 10-acre oxbow of the Tallahatchie River; the Robertson-655 tract with 8-acre 

oxbow of the Yalobusha River; and the Lindsey-160 and Povall-180 tracts, each with a 10-acre 

oxbow of the Sunflower River. A 300-acre moist-soil unit on the Wilkins tract shows potential for 

incorporating crawfish production into the waterfowl management water regime and is addressed 

under “Crawfish Management.” 

If habitat alterations for sport-fishing were necessary and practical at any of these water bodies, 

recommendations outlined below would apply. Otherwise, the ponds would be surveyed and 

managed according to results of the survey. 

At Coldwater River refuge, there are 25 old commercial catfish ponds located on the north boundary, 

which range from 9 to 20 acres in size. The Baton Rouge Fisheries Resource Office proposes that 

the four northernmost ponds (units A, B, I, J) be managed as a fishery. These units, totaling 

approximately 64 acres, are adjacent to wells for filling, each has a water control structure, and their 

location at the north boundary of the refuge may limit trespass into closed areas. The key to 

establishment and maintenance of a healthy sport fishery is habitat, which includes adequate water 

quality, spawning substrate, and depth. Harvest management is also important, especially if fishing 

pressure is heavy. Only bank fishing should be allowed. 

At least 5 percent of each pond would be 8 feet deep with most of the remainder 4 to 5 feet deep. 

Banks should slope approximately 2.5:1 (4-foot depth 10 feet from bank) with very little depths 

shallower than 3 feet. Islands or bank fingers created from the excavated bottom substrates can 

serve as isolated fish spawning sites and shorebird/wading bird habitat. Additionally, at least six 10 

ft. x 10 ft. pea-gravel spawning beds for “bream” would be constructed in each unit. Ideally, the 

gravel would be enclosed in a treated-wood frame, on a level substrate at least 3 feet deep and away 

from bank fisherman disturbance. If possible, one or two of these beds should be placed around 

isolated islands away from the bank in 2 to 3 feet of water. 

Strategies: 

Annually survey waterbodies to obtain status of fish populations and suitability of existing habitats to 

support sport fisheries. 

By 2010, install water control structures on oxbows and as feasible add launch and parking facilities. 
96 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Rehabilitate those waterbodies requiring habitat enhancement measures as determined by the 

survey. 

By 2009, establish a sport fishery by rehabilitating, stocking, and managing catfish ponds A, B, I, and 

J on Coldwater River refuge and in those waterbodies where stocking is necessary, follow the 

procedure outlined below. 

Drain and rehabilitate each unit as per narrative. 

Stock bluegill and redear sunfish (1000/acre at 65 -35 percent ratio), and channel catfish (100/acre) 

in the fall. 

The following spring stock largemouth bass fingerlings at 100/acre. 

Fertilize monthly or as necessary from March 15 to October 15 using powdered N-P-K with high 

phosphorous (@40 percent) to maintain an algal bloom (18-inch visibility) to support the fish 

population. 

Initiate a 14-inch minimum length limit on bass when the season is opened for fishing, the second 

summer (2 1/2 years) after initial stocking. Restrict bass creel to three per person per day. State 

restrictions on other species should apply. 

Open the area to fishing each year as per refuge waterfowl guidelines (March 15 - October 15). 

By 2007, incorporate rice or moist-soil plant production with crawfish production to enhance aquatic 

resources for wildlife and public use on the Wilkins Farm Service Agency tract with a target yield of 

100-500 pounds of crawfish per acre. 

Incorporate crawfish life cycle requirements, which mimic rice/moist-soil plant production water 

regime (i.e., drain and plant May-June, inundate September-November) on the Wilkins Farm Service 

Agency tract. Where natural crawfish populations (red swamp) don’t exist, stock adult crawfish at 10 

pounds/acre on a one-time basis or a total of 500 pounds if the whole tract is to be managed for 

recreational crawfish harvesting. 

By 2007, allow use by the public on the Wilkins Farm Service Agency tract from April 1 through 

May 30, with a 70-pound (two onion sacks or one 48-quart cooler) limit per vehicle per day. 

Open the area to fishing each year as per refuge waterfowl guidelines (March 15 - October 15). 

Objective 7-6: Environmental Education 

Within 3 years of the plan’s approval, the Complex will receive five teacher-led class visits per year. 

Discussion: Complex staff members have developed and delivered environmental education 

programs (EE) to local school and civic groups. Additionally, there are endangered species and 

wetlands kits available for teachers to use with their classes. In general, there is a high demand for 

EE programs and current staffing levels are insufficient to meet that demand. 

Groups that are interested in partnering with the refuge to develop environmental education 

opportunities include Delta State University and the Audubon Society. There are four universities 

within a 1-hour drive of Grenada. Each of these universities has an annual conservation festival. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 97

Each refuge staff person will assess his/her potential to work with schools in providing an appropriate 

level of environmental education. The Complex intends to support, if feasible, environmental 

education through the use of facilities, equipment, educational materials, teacher workshops, and 

study sites that are safe and conducive to learning. 

Strategies: 

Designate two events per year for staff to participate, such as field days and career days. 

Develop a teacher packet for Hasserway Trail. This could be part of a pre-visit package sent from 

Corps of Engineers Grenada Lake Visitor Center (work with Regional Office EE coordinator to 

develop this packet). 

If funding permits, hire full-time, seasonal, or temporary employee to do EE work, camps, develop 

kits/trunks (possibly a teacher in summer). 

Develop an educational nature trail behind headquarters at Dahomey. 

Partner with Delta State to do EE – seek funding from National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to do the 

traveling (bookmobile) part of these efforts. 

Develop a volunteer EE staff. 

Develop one teacher workshop per year to train teachers to do self-guided field studies. 

Objective 7-7: Wildlife Interpretation

Within 5 years of the plan’s approval, at least 75 percent of visitors will understand the Complex’s 

contribution to protection and restoration of the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. 

Discussion: There is currently limited interpretation on the refuges. Through a partnership with 

Ducks Unlimited, an interpretive trail (Hasserway Trail) was developed at Grenada Lake Recreation 

Area. There are no interpretive kiosks at any of the offices. The Complex has opportunities to 

significantly expand interpretation and increase the awareness of the visiting public. Through this 

heightened awareness, the Complex hopes to inspire visitors to take positive actions supporting 

refuge goals and the Refuge System mission. 

Strategies: 

On Hasserway Trail, add directional signs at decision points on trail by 2006; arrange for or do trail 

maintenance. 

By 2006, install interpretive kiosks at Grenada and Dahomey refuge headquarters. 

By 2007, install an interpretive kiosk at Coldwater River refuge. 

Interpretation should be organized by themes that will reinforce the most important messages to 

visitors; examples of themes include: 

• deforestation and reforestation 

• history of Farm Service Agency lands 

• culture/history of the area 
98 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

• bottomland hardwoods and the wildlife that depend on this habitat 

• migratory birds (waterfowl, neotropical songbirds, shorebirds, etc.) 

• Mississippi Delta 

• Moist-soil management 

• history of the names ‘Dahomey’ and ‘Tallahatchie’ 

Objective 7-8: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Within 2 years of plan approval, develop one new trail at each refuge and one observation site/deck 

each at Coldwater River and Tallahatchie refuges. 

Discussion: Viewing and photographing wildlife in natural or managed environments will foster a 

connection between visitors and natural resources. There are limited wildlife viewing opportunities on 

the Complex at present. Coldwater River refuge has the greatest potential for wildlife observation. 

The number and variety of shorebirds, wading birds, and waterfowl create a spectacular sight. The 

proximity of this refuge to Memphis, and to the Interstate highway, provides a potentially larger 

population base from which to attract visitors. The Audubon Society is proposing to develop a Great 

River Road Birding Trail in the vicinity of Dahomey refuge. 

There are two photo-blinds at Tallahatchie refuge which could be incorporated into hiking trails. 

Strategies: 

By 2006, develop walking trail around portion of impoundments at Coldwater River refuge and partner 

with Ducks Unlimited to develop an observation deck in conjunction with the walking trail. 

By 2006, partner with Mississippi DOT to develop an observation site on Highway 8 (possibly at the 

area south of Highway 8 just before the boat launch). 

By 2006, develop a trail on Tallahatchie refuge in the area that is down the gravel road on the south 

side of Highway 8 just past the boat launch road. 

By 2006, develop a trail at Dahomey refuge next to inholding on Highway 446. 

Assist with the development of the Audubon Society’s Great River Road Birding Trail. 

Ensure there is a trail site that is accessible for a school bus and has bus parking and turn-around. 

GOAL 8: Provide personnel, funding, and facilities needed to ensure that the goals and 

objectives identified in this comprehensive conservation plan can be achieved. 

Background: The administrative functions associated with a refuge include a wide array of activities that are 

critical to the mission of the Refuge System and the purpose of each refuge. These functions include staffing, 

training, budgeting, planning, refuge access, law enforcement, facilities, community relations, partnering, and 

maintenance. Refuges must have appropriate staff, facilities, equipment, and funding in order to accomplish their 

overall goals and objectives. 

Objective 8-1: Facilities

By 2014, develop 25 percent more office space and maintenance facilities both at the Complex headquarters 

and at each refuge to enable the expansion of refuge programs and ensure safe and efficient operations – 

consistent with Service and federal standards – and commensurate with the expansion of the refuge land base. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 99

Discussion: Office space is needed at each of the three refuges if programs are going to expand at 

any level. Current strategies include additional positions to meet the goals and objectives identified in 

this plan. Facilities vary by station. A newly completed facility at Dahomey refuge contains a small 

maintenance shop and limited office space. Currently, there are no facilities at either Coldwater River 

or Tallahatchie refuges. 

Strategies: 

Build additional office space and maintenance facilities at each of the refuges as they continue to 

expand to their respective acquisition boundaries. 

Incorporate office space into proposed visitor centers. 

Utilize existing structures, if suitable, on acquired lands for either maintenance or equipment storage. 

Objective 8-2: Personnel 

By 2019, obtain additional staff (18 FTE’s) and resources needed as funding allows to accomplish the 

comprehensive management programs as outlined in this document commensurate with the 

expansion of the refuge land base. 

Discussion: Many of the proposed strategies cannot be implemented without the addition of 

personnel. For example, the maintenance of early successional habitat is labor intensive, the 

objectives for which must be modified in accordance with availability of personnel. Some work, such 

as bird count surveys, may be taken on by volunteers or interns. Slight adjustments to present staff 

work schedules can be considered, although this, too, requires additional resources. 

If the refuge is to make a serious impact on meeting migratory bird objectives and other important 

biological management objectives, there is a need to add two or three biologists, a forester, and three 

or four biological/forestry technicians/equipment operators to the current staff. This level of staffing 

would be expected to provide biological data and management needed to meet many of the “all bird” 

planning objectives coordinated by the LMRVJV. Highest priority would be to add a refuge biologist 

and biotech/equipment operator to focus work on the catfish ponds and other priority habitat 

management and population monitoring work at Coldwater River refuge. 

Following the biological review, the Complex filled an existing FTE with a biologist. However, 

although this added a biologist to the staff, it did not increase the overall number of FTE’s for the 

Complex. 

Strategies: 

Hire the personnel indicated above for the purpose of optimizing refuge management activities. 

Implement a Complex-wide program that ensures equal consideration is given to all stations within 

the Complex when funding and other resources become available. 

Have quarterly budget meetings with all refuge managers to ensure highest priority projects and 

maintenance backlogs are identified and ranked across the Complex. 

Once funding is allocated, give each refuge manager overseeing a sub-headquarters responsibility 

for managing his/her station budget based on identified priorities and planning budget exercises, 

ensuring each refuge’s needs are being met. 
100 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Provide continuing education and training opportunities to all staff to ensure a highly competent and 

motivated team. 

Provide safe and efficient equipment and vehicles to perform needed refuge operations and 

maintenance. 

Provide training to refuge staff on computer-based systems needed to ensure all refuge data is stored 

in a manageable, retrievable database that can be used for analysis and data sharing. 

By 2008, hire a public use specialist/volunteer coordinator if funding allows. 

Objective 8-3: Law Enforcement 

Improve Complex law enforcement program with 1.5 additional FTE’s and partnerships. 

Discussion: The National Wildlife Refuge System consists of more than 540 refuges and 37 wetland 

management districts. The Refuge System manages over 95 million acres, in every state and several 

territories. Visitation is increasing at an annual average of 6.6 percent. Between 2.3 and 2.4 million 

additional visitors will be serviced by refuge officers over the next several years. 

Protecting the natural resources of the Complex and ensuring the safety of refuge visitors are 

fundamental responsibilities of the Refuge System. Currently, the Complex law enforcement program 

consists of one full-time officer and two collateral duty officers. During periods of high public use, 

such as hunting seasons, the majority of collateral duty officers’ time is spent conducting law 

enforcement activities, which, many times, is at the sacrifice of other equally crucial functions. 

This plan recommends a substantial increase in public use facilities offered to the visiting public over 

the next 15 years. As a result of this increase, there will certainly be a substantial increase in 

visitation. If we are to continue offering a very safe place for visitors to enjoy the outdoors, additional 

full-time law enforcement officers are necessary. 

Strategies: 

Increase law enforcement personnel from current level to a minimum of 2 FTE’s if funding allows. 

Provide up-to-date training and equipment to law enforcement officers. 

Develop Memoranda 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. 

Objective 8-4: Friends Group, Volunteers, Partners, and Intern Programs

Provide a highly visible and dynamic volunteer and intern workforce and establish one or more Friends Groups to 

assist and support all aspects of Complex operations, including environmental education, wildlife interpretation, 

habitat improvement, visitor facilities maintenance, funding needs, etc. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 101

Discussion: Volunteers and refuge support groups fortify refuge staffs with their gift of time, skills, and energy and 

are integral to the future of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Refuge staff will initiate and nurture relationships 

with volunteers and refuge support groups, and continually support, monitor, and evaluate these groups with the 

goal of fortifying important refuge activities. The National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community 

Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-242) strengthens the Refuge System’s role in developing 

effective partnerships with various community groups. Whether through volunteers, refuge support groups, or 

other important partnerships in the community, refuge personnel should seek to make the refuge an integral part 

of the community, giving rise to a stronger Refuge System. Currently, Dahomey refuge is developing a friends 

group. 

The Complex has acquired three FEMA trailers to be used as possible housing for volunteers. At present there 

is minimal use of volunteers. The complex does have a Youth Conservation Corps crew in the summer. 

Strategies: 

Continue to look for opportunities to partner with (on-going): 

• local universities and colleges 

• Ducks Unlimited 

• local high school and elementary school system 

• Audubon Society 

• U. S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service 

• Farm Services Administration 

• Chambers of Commerce 

• The Natural Conservancy and other land trusts 

Utilize pad and trailer at Dahomey refuge and headquarters to encourage participation by individuals 

needing living space and by those with trailers needing parking space. 

Develop camper pad at Coldwater River for RV campers for bird walks, security, and maintenance. 

By 2008, hire a public use specialist/volunteer coordinator for the Complex. 
102 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 103

V. Plan Implementation 

This comprehensive conservation plan outlines an ambitious course of action for the management of 

the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex over the coming 15 years. The ability to 

enhance wildlife habitats on the Complex, while expanding the area of those habitats within the 

acquisition boundary of each refuge, will require a significant commitment of staff and funding from 

Congress and the Service. Likewise, expanding the relatively limited public use facilities now 

available on the three refuges will take increased resources. Consequently, the Complex will 

continually need appropriate operational and maintenance funding to implement the objectives in this 

plan. 

FUNDING 

In the preceding chapters, this plan has outlined a vision for the Complex and included the 

management goals, objectives, and strategies needed to realize the vision. The current level of 

refuge funding will not move the Complex beyond a slow deterioration of the current habitat and 

public use condition. Pre-plan staff levels do not allow adequate interactions with the public for 

education, interpretation, information, safety, or enforcement purposes. In addition, habitat 

management objectives and strategies are not achievable with the current staffing. The rate at which 

each refuge achieves its full potential of contributing locally, regionally, and nationally important 

wildlife outputs will depend on the resources provided for those purposes. Increased staffing and 

funding on each refuge unit will result in long-lasting protection, maintenance, and enhancements to 

Delta forest, wetland, and moist-soil habitats and public use facilities and programs. 

The following provides a brief description of the highest priority refuge projects (Tier 1), as chosen by 

the Complex staff and listed in the Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS). A full listing of 

unfunded refuge projects and operational needs can be found in Appendix C. 

REFUGE OPERATING NEEDS – TIER 1 (HIGHEST PRIORITY) 

Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge – Provide for a full-time law enforcement officer 

Objective 8-3 

Estimated cost: $123,000 

Provide for a full-time law enforcement officer at Dahomey refuge, the largest remaining tract of 

bottomland hardwoods in the northern Mississippi Delta. Dahomey refuge boasts a large hunting 

program and a growing "non-consumptive use" constituency. There is not currently a full-time law 

enforcement officer stationed at Dahomey refuge to protect visitors or wildlife and their habitats. 

Being located near Delta State University, the refuge gets extensive use by researchers, students, 

and school groups. This project will permit a law enforcement presence and also facilitate data 

collection during the long and varied hunting seasons, helping to make better informed habitat and 

public use management decisions. Project benefits will include a decrease in poaching and theft, and 

a higher degree of public safety and enjoyment on the refuge. 
104 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex – Inventory and monitor bottomland 

hardwood forests 

Objective 4-2 

Estimated cost: $108,000 

The Complex administers three national wildlife refuges and numerous Farm Service Agency lands 

that encompass approximately 32,000 acres in northwest Mississippi. Approximately 12,000 acres of 

this land consist of mature bottomland hardwood forest habitat. About 13,000 acres consist of lands 

that have either been recently reforested or will be reforested in the next 2-3 years. None of the 

mature forest lands has been completely inventoried and their overall conditions (e.g., health, 

diversity, age class structure, amount of regeneration, etc.) have not been documented or evaluated. 

A monitoring program will be implemented for all areas that have been recently reforested in order to 

evaluate their general conditions over time. Information gained will then be used to implement 

appropriate management practices within all forested areas for the enhancement of wildlife 

resources. 

Coldwater River National Wildlife Refuge – Provide for a maintenance worker 

Objectives 4-1 & 8-2 

Estimated cost: $125,000 

Provide for a maintenance worker at Coldwater River refuge, so existing facilities and resources can 

be managed and maintained. Coldwater River refuge contains moist-soil units, service-owned roads, 

and bridges. A maintenance worker is needed to maintain service-owned roads for the benefit of 

visitor and employee health and safety, and to conduct critical habitat management efforts. 

Coldwater River National Wildlife Refuge – Provide for a GS-12 Refuge Manager 

Objective 8-2 

Estimated cost: $152,000 

Provide a GS-12 Refuge Manager at Coldwater River refuge. This is a new refuge and a Refuge 

Manager meets staffing requirements. A Refuge Manager is needed to provide for adequate 

administration of all the refuge functions and operations. This project would provide for adequate 

administration of this refuge and fulfill public use needs that are currently not being met. 

Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge – Provide for a maintenance worker 

Objectives 4-1, 4-2 & 8-2 

Estimated cost: $125,000 

Provide for a maintenance worker at Dahomey refuge, so existing facilities and resources can be 

managed and maintained. This refuge does not have any maintenance personnel to maintain 

existing facilities, equipment, and other resources. Therefore, necessary habitat management and 

maintenance activities are not being implemented, and investments in facilities and habitat 

management projects are being lost. Dahomey refuge, the largest remaining tract of bottomland 

hardwoods in the northern Mississippi Delta region, contains moist-soil units, greentree reservoirs, 

service-owned roads, cooperatively farmed lands, visitor information stations, heavy and light duty 

equipment, and a headquarters facility. This project will provide a maintenance worker, so essential 

management and maintenance activities can be implemented and refuge-owned roads can be 

maintained in a manner that is safe for public use. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 105

Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge – Provide for a full-time law enforcement officer 

Objective 8-3 

Estimated cost: $123,000 

The 4,000-acre Tallahatchie refuge is experiencing poaching and theft year-round. This project will 

provide a full-time law enforcement officer, a need that remains unmet, to better ensure visitor safety 

and to better protect refuge wildlife and their habitats. An estimated 65,000 migratory waterfowl are 

documented annually on this refuge that issues 1,600 public use permits each year. Myriad other 

wildlife, from deer and turkey to otter and bobcat, use this new refuge that is undergoing extensive 

forest restoration. Resource protection and public safety are suffering without a strong law 

enforcement presence. 

Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge – Create moist-soil units 

Objective 4-1 

Estimated cost: $157,000 

Create moist-soil units on Dahomey refuge for the primary benefit of resident and migratory water 

birds, restoring 1,000 acres of wetland habitat. This project will also provide for the establishment of 

greentree reservoirs within existing forest habitat. Channelization and drainage activities 

implemented prior to refuge ownership have changed natural water patterns in these wetland areas. 

This project will include the installation of needed water control structures and other water 

management features to return the area to more natural conditions, benefiting not only water birds, 

but numerous wetland-associated wildlife species. Located in the ecologically and culturally unique 

Mississippi Delta, Dahomey refuge is the largest remaining tract of bottomland hardwoods in the 

northern Delta. 

Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge – Provide for a secretary/clerk 

Objective 8-3 

Estimated cost: $118,000 

Project will provide for a secretary/clerk on Tallahatchie refuge, a station without any on-site 

administrative support. This position is necessary to provide essential administrative assistance for 

permit sales, clerical functions, and basic visitor services that are critical for effective refuge 

operations. The refuge issues 1,600 hunting permits annually, and without a secretary, the 

administrative requirements necessary for effective operations of the refuge cannot be met unless the 

refuge manager refocuses his/her energies. This diminishes the effectiveness of habitat 

management and other public use management programs. Public needs are presently not being 

fulfilled due to the lack of necessary administrative support. 

North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex – Provide for wildlife biologist to develop 

and implement CCP 

All objectives 

Estimated cost: $139,000 

Initiate planning for the entire North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex by providing for a 

wildlife biologist who will lead the development of, and help implement, an effective management 

direction for three national wildlife refuges and more than 100 Farm Service Agency lands that total 

over 30,000 acres. The entire refuge complex does not and has not ever had a biologist to lead 

inventorying, monitoring, or research or help with long-range planning to most effectively realize 

potential benefits for wildlife and the visiting public. 
106 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Dahomey National Wildife Refuge – Provide for a secretary/clerk 

Objectives 7-4 & 8-2 

Estimated cost: $118,000 

Project will provide for a secretary/clerk on Dahomey refuge, a station without any on-site 

administrative support. This position is necessary to provide essential administrative assistance for 

permit sales, clerical functions, and basic visitor services that are critical for effective refuge 

operations. The refuge sells approximately 1,000 hunting permits annually, and without a secretary, 

the administrative requirements necessary for effective operations of the refuge cannot be met unless 

the refuge manager refocuses his/her energies. This diminishes the effectiveness of habitat 

management and other public use management programs. Public needs are presently not being 

fulfilled due to the lack of necessary administrative support. 

Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge – Provide for a maintenance worker 

Objectives 4-1 & 8-2 

Estimated cost: $125,000 

Tallahatchie refuge, boasting active public hunting and forest restoration programs, does not have a 

maintenance worker to properly maintain public facilities or help effectively manage refuge habitats to 

benefit a host of wildlife species. This project will provide a maintenance worker at this unstaffed 

refuge. Maintenance of existing roads and facilities is necessary to meet public expectations for a 

safe, enjoyable refuge visit. 

North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex – Provide for a full-time secretary/clerk 

Objective 8-2 

Estimated cost: $110,000 

Provide a full-time secretary/clerk to meet the requirements of the refuge fee program, contracting 

requirements, and other budget and administration duties/policies. Due to the large volume of work 

at this three-refuge, 30,000-acre, 100+ Farm Service Agency-tract complex, a second administrative 

person is needed to meet minimum Service compliance and enable effective operation of purchasing, 

budget tracking, property management, filing/typing, public inquiry response, and personnel actions. 

We cannot presently provide the quality and quantity of services expected by the public for the many 

refuge programs. 

Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge – Provide for a biologist for critical habitat and wildlife surveys 

Multiple objectives under Goals 1, 2 & 4 

Estimated cost: $139,000 

A newer national wildlife refuge that was never provided startup funding or staffing, Dahomey refuge 

is the largest remaining tract of bottomland hardwoods in the northern Mississippi Delta. This project 

will provide for a biologist to obtain and evaluate critical habitat and wildlife surveys. This refuge does 

not have a biologist, and biological information necessary to help make the most informed 

management decisions is not being obtained. Partnership potential to conduct inventorying and 

monitoring is great, with the refuge receiving extensive use by researchers, students, and school 

groups and being located near Delta State University. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 107

Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge – Provide for a biological technician 

Multiple objectives under Goals 1 & 2 and Objective 4-2 

Estimated cost: $97,000 

Provide a biological technician to monitor habitats and habitat restoration activities on Tallahatchie 

refuge, a newer national wildlife refuge that was never provided startup funding or staffing. This 

unstaffed refuge is a research site for the Mississippi Forestry Division and a "mitigation bank" for the 

Mississippi Department of Transportation. Tallahatchie refuge could serve as an outstanding 

example of bottomland hardwood forest restoration, yet does not have biological staff to obtain, 

interpret, and share critical habitat and wildlife survey data. Without any biological staff, information 

necessary to help make the most informed management decisions is not being obtained. 

North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex – Provide for a public outreach specialist 

Objective 7-1 

Estimated cost: $72,000 

Provide a public outreach specialist to create a quality public outreach program for the three-refuge, 

30,000-acre, 100+ Farm Service Agency-tract North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex. 

This Complex hosts some of the largest tracts of remaining bottomland hardwood forest left in the 

ecologically and culturally unique Mississippi Delta region. Currently, the Complex has no outreach 

personnel or staff to establish close partnerships with many potential community support groups, 

school groups, and other wildlife-oriented organizations, which can provide tremendous volunteer 

assistance and issues advocacy support. This position will also lead all efforts related to exhibits, 

news releases, festivals, newsletter, brochures, and public inquiries. 

Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge – Provide for an assistant refuge manager 

Multiple objectives under all goals and Objective 8-2 

Estimated cost: $107,000 

Provide an assistant refuge manager to oversee field operations and help direct overall management 

programs at Dahomey refuge. Because the refuge is understaffed, there is a 1,000-acre cooperative 

farming program that does not receive adequate supervision to properly maximize the program’s 

great potential benefit to wildlife. This project would provide the needed staff to also assist with other 

refuge activities, such as public hunting, outreach, education, and the implementation of this plan. 

Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge – Provide a forester to manage Dahomey refuge’s hardwood 

forests. 

Objective 4-2 

Estimated cost: $139,000 

Provide a forester to more effectively manage Dahomey refuge, the largest tract of bottomland 

hardwood forest in the northern Mississippi Delta. Important to a wide variety of wildlife species, the 

refuge has tremendous potential for forest restoration and management through the planting of trees, 

appropriate thinning of the existing stand, and the proper management of water levels. However, 

there is only a refuge manager and an equipment operator stationed at this 9,600-acre refuge, and 

many parts of the forests are dying due to lack of care. This project will enable forest resources of 

this refuge to be managed to their fullest potential to provide the fish and wildlife values and 

recreational benefits expected by the public. 
108 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Dahomey National Wildife Refuge – Provide a refuge manager 

Multiple objectives under all goals and Objective 8-2 

Estimated cost: $152,000 

Provide a refuge manager at Dahomey refuge to ensure effective habitat management and provide 

appropriate wildlife-oriented recreation expected by the public. This 10,000-acre refuge, the largest 

tract of bottomland hardwood forest in the northern Mississippi Delta, was established in 1992 and 

has only recently been staffed by a refuge operations specialist and biological technician. A refuge 

manager is needed on this popular refuge to provide adequate leadership and administration for all 

the required management programs, including the care of 40 outlying properties. Being located near 

Delta State University and having a strong constituency of area residents, potential refuge 

improvement projects abound, but are not being met due to lack of attention. 

Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge – Provide for a wildlife biologist 

Multiple objectives under Goals 1 & 2 and Objective 4-2 

Estimated cost: $139,000 

Provide a wildlife biologist to conduct critical wildlife surveys and manage habitat development 

projects on Tallahatchie refuge. The refuge, Mississippi Department of Transportation, and private 

partners, such as Ducks Unlimited, have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in facilities and 

habitat improvement. This unstaffed refuge is a research site for the Mississippi Forestry Division 

and a "mitigation bank," having thousands of acres recently reforested. However, this newer refuge 

was neither initially staffed nor funded. This project will enable important restoration work to be 

continued and critical habitat and wildlife surveys to be conducted. 

Tallahatchie National Wildife Refuge – Provide for a refuge operations specialist/assistant refuge 

manager 

Objective 1-1 

Estimated cost: $139,000 

Provide a refuge operations specialist/assistant refuge manager to manage existing refuge farm 

lands for the continuing benefit of wintering migratory waterfowl and other wildlife species. 

Approximately 65,000 ducks and geese utilize the refuge annually on 3,000 acres that are presently 

being farmed through private partners. However, due to lack of staffing at this unstaffed refuge, the 

farmers are not adequately supervised to ensure maximum program benefit and policy compliance. 

This position will also ensure more effective operations of other habitat management programs, as 

well as maintenance and public use programs. 

Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge – Provide for a refuge manager 

Multiple objectives under all goals and Objective 8-2 

Estimated cost: $152,000 

Tallahatchie refuge, which encompasses 4,199 acres and boasts progressive partnerships with the 

Mississippi Division of Forestry, the Mississippi Department of Transportation, and private partners in 

a large forest restoration program, contains numerous roads, levees, water control structures, and 

wetland impoundments. The refuge also has a large contingent of hunters, anglers, and other 

outdoor enthusiasts who regularly visit the area. Despite all of this, this newer refuge has never been 

staffed. Maintenance, public use coordination, habitat management, and other management 

activities that are essential for effective refuge operations are not being adequately implemented, due 

primarily to lack of staffing. This project will provide for a refuge manager to lead, coordinate, and 

enhance the overall effectiveness of refuge management programs. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 109

Appendix C contains a full list of unfunded refuge projects and operational needs on the Complex 

(RONS). This information will be updated annually along with the Maintenance Management System 

(MMS). These two databases are used to track and manage refuge operations and maintenance 

budgeting each year. These changes will focus on “means” adjustments, while major changes to the 

desired future condition will be documented in future revisions to this plan. Some adjustments to the 

means of getting to the defined future conditions may also occur when step-down plans, such as 

Visitor Services and Forest Management Plans, are prepared and a greater level of detail is 

developed. 

FUTURE STAFFING REQUIREMENTS 

Implementing the vision set forth in this plan 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. Many of the Tier 1 RONS items above 

involved obtaining new staff to carry out expanded responsibilities. The following table (Table 16) 

and organizational chart identifies the additional positions and future structure of the Complex. A 

total of 18.0 FTEs would be needed to fully implement this plan. 

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

the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Position Full-time Equivalent 

(FTEs) 

Station Assigned 

Refuge Manager 3.0 Coldwater River (1), Dahomey (1), Tallahatchie (1) 

Assistant Refuge Mgr. 1.0 Dahomey (1) 

Asst. Refuge Mgr./ 

Refuge Ops. Spec. 1.0 Tallahatchie (1) 

Law Enforcement 

Officer 2.0 Dahomey (1), Tallahatchie (1) 

Forester 1.0 Dahomey (1) 

Public Outreach Spec. 1.0 Complex (1) 

Maintenance Worker 3.0 Coldwater River (1), Dahomey (1), Tallahatchie (1) 

Wildlife Biologist 3.0 Complex HQ(1), Dahomey (1), Tallahatchie (1) 

Biological Technician 1.0 Tallahatchie (1) 

Secretary/Clerk 3.0 Complex HQ (1), Dahomey (1), Tallahatchie (1) 

TOTAL FTEs 19.0 Complex HQ (3), Coldwater River (2), Dahomey (7), 

Tallahatchie (7) 

Figure 9 is shows a staffing chart for the Complex at present and Figure 10 shows the proposed 

staffing chart, which includes the above positions. 
110 North Mississippi Nationa

Figure 9. North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex current staffing chart 

Engine

1040 Appointment

Engineering Equipment Op

43675

WG-5716-08

GS-0401-9/11/12

Private Lands Biologist

43675

NMRC

1040 Appointment

Biological Science Technician

43675

GS-0404-5

WG-5716-10

Engineering Equipment Operator

43675

NMRC

GS-0485-7/9

Refuge Operations Specialist

43675

NMRC

GS-0486-11/12

Wildlife Biologist

43675

NMRC

GS-0485-9/11/12

Refuge Manager

43645

Tallahatchie/Coldwater

GS-0025-9

Refuge Officer

43675

NMRC

Dahomey

WG-5716-08

Engineering Equipment Operator

43635

GS-0485-9/11/12

Refuge Manager

43635

Dahomey

GS-0303-7

Office Automation Assistant

43675

NMRC

GS-0485-13

Project Leader

43675

NMRC
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure 10. North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex proposed staffing chart 

GS-

Secr

4

GS

Office Auto

4

GS-0025-7/9

Refuge Officer

43675

NMRC

GS-0485-7/9

Refuge Operations Specialist

43675NMRC

WG-5716-8

Maintenance Worker

43645

Tallahatchie

TallahatchieGS-0318-5/7

Secretary/Clerk

43645

GS-0025-7/9

Refuge Officer

43645

Tallahatchie

GS-0485-9/11

Refuge Operations Specialist

43645

Tallahatchie

GS-0485-9/11/12

Refuge Manager

43645

Tallahatchie

WG-5716-8

Maintenance Worker

43676

Coldwater River

43676

Coldwater River

GS-0486-9/11/12Refuge Manager

GS-0485-12/13

Assistant Project Leader

43675

NMRC

GS-0486-9/11/12

Wildlife Biologist

43676

Coldwater River

GS-0404-5/7

Biological Technician

43645

Tallahatchie

GS-0486-9/11/12

Wildlife Biologist

43645

Tallahatchie

GS-0486-9/11/12

Wildlife Biologist

43635

Dahomey

GS-0486-9/11/12

Wildlife Biologist

43675

NMRC

GS-0023-9/11

Public Outreach Specialist

43675NMRC

GS-0401-9/11/12

Private Lands Biologist

43675

NMRC

GS-0025-7/9

Refuge Officer

43635

Dahomey

GS-0318-5/7

Secretary/Clerk

43635

Dahomey

GS-0460-9/11/12

Forester

43635

Dahomey

GS-0485-9/11

Assistant Refuge Manager

43635

Dahomey

WG-5716-8

Maintenance Worker

43635

Dahomey

Dahomey

WG-5716-08

Engineering Equipment Operator

43635

GS-0485-9/11/12

Refuge Manager

43635

Dahomey

GS-0485-12/13

Assistant Project Leader

NMRC

43675

GS-0485-14

Project Leader

43675NMRC
112 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

Several step-down management plans describe specific actions that support the accomplishment of 

refuge objectives. The management plans identified in Table 17 will be reviewed and revised as 

necessary to achieve the results anticipated in this comprehensive conservation plan. 

Table 17. Step-down Management Plans 

Plan Date 

Completed 

Anticipated 

Revision 

Forest Habitat Management Plan 2002 2012 

Biological Inventory/Monitoring Plan 2005 2015 

Integrated Pest Management Plan 2006 2016 

Strategic Plan for Private Lands 2005 2010 

Cultural Resources Management Plan 2007 2016 

Visitor Services Plan 2007 2016 

Hunt Plan 1992/97 2005 

Habitat Management Plan 2004 2014 

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES 

Partnerships are an essential element for the successful accomplishment of Complex goals, 

objectives, and strategies. Indeed, the Complex cooperates with a number of organizations and 

individuals at present, including other agencies like the USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and 

Parks; the Chamber of Commerce in Grenada; non-profit conservation groups like the Audubon 

Society and Ducks Unlimited; broad conservation initiatives like the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint 

Venture Area and Partners-In-Flight; and last but not least, many private individuals. 

The objectives outlined in this plan need the support and the partnerships of federal, state, and local 

agencies, non-governmental organizations, and private citizens. This broad-based approach to 

managing fish and wildlife resources extends beyond social and political boundaries and requires a 

foundation of support from many. The Complex will continue to seek creative partnership 

opportunities to achieve its vision for the future. 

Many national wildlife refuges have partner non-profit organizations, often called Friends groups, 

which serve as advocates for the refuge. These associations have the ability to reach out to the 

community for support and assistance for refuge projects and conservation issues. Due to the 

relative newness of each refuge in the Complex, no Friends groups have yet formed to support 

Coldwater River or Tallahatchie refuges, although the “Friends of Dahomey NWR, Inc.,” group was 

recently established. The refuge staff welcomes the assistance of a Friends group or association and 

encourages supportive local citizens to form such a group or to join the existing group. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The direction set forth in this plan, plus specifically identified strategies and projects, will be monitored 

throughout the life of the plan. On a periodic basis, the Service will assemble a station review team 

whose purpose will be to visit the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex and evaluate 

current Complex and refuge activities in light of this plan. The team will review all aspects of 

Complex and refuge management, including direction, accomplishments and funding. The goals and 

objectives presented in this plan will provide the baseline from which this field station will be 

evaluated. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 113

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

The comprehensive conservation plan for the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex is 

meant to provide guidance to Complex and refuge managers and staff over the next 10-15 years. 

However, the plan is also a dynamic and flexible document and several of the strategies contained 

herein are subject to such things as drought, floods, windstorms, and other uncontrollable events. 

Likewise, many of the strategies are dependent upon Service funding for staff and projects. Because 

of all these factors, the recommendations in the plan will be reviewed periodically and, if necessary, 

revised to meet new circumstances. 
114 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 
Appendices 115

SECTION B. APPENDICES 

Appendix A: List of Preparers 

North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Robert Barkley, Refuge Manager, North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Mike Dawson, Natural Resource Planner, Fish and Wildlife Service 

Alejandro Galvan, Refuge Manager, Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge 

Stephen Gard, Project Leader, North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Chuck Hayes, Private Lands Biologist, North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Kimberly Hayes, Refuge Operations Specialist, North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Leon Kolankiewicz, Project Manager, Mangi Environmental Group 

Becky Rosamond, Wildlife Biologist, North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 
116 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 
Appendices 117

Appendix B: Glossary 

Alternative A set of objectives and strategies needed to achieve refuge goals and 

the desired future condition. 

Biological Diversity The variety of life and its processes, including living organisms, the 

genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems 

in which they occur. 

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 wildlife-dependant 

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 A document that describes the desired future conditions of the refuge, 

and specifies management actions to achieve refuge goals and the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Community A distinct assemblage of plants that develops on sites characterized by 

particular climates and soils, and the species and populations of wild 

animals that depend on the plants for food, cover. and/or nesting. 

Ecosystem A dynamic and interrelated complex of plant and animal communities 

and their associated non-living environment. 

Ecosystem 

Approach A strategy or plan to protect and restore the natural function, structure, 

and species composition of an ecosystem, recognizing that all 

components are interrelated. 

Ecosystem 

Management Management of an ecosystem that includes all ecological, social, and 

economic components that make up the whole of the system. 

Ecotone Edge or transition zone between two or more adjacent but different 

plant communities, ecosystems, or biomes. 

Endangered Any species of plant or animal defined through the Endangered Species 

Act as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

Endangered 
118 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Species (State) A plant or animal species imperiled in the state because of rarity or 

because of some factor(s) making it vulnerable to extirpation. 

Environmental

Assessment (EA) A systematic analysis to determine if proposed actions would result in a 

significant effect on the quality of the environment. 

Extirpation The localized extinction of a species that is no longer found in a locality 

or country, but still exists elsewhere in the world. 

Goals Descriptive statements of desired future conditions. 

Issue Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision. For 

example, a resource management problem, concern, a threat to natural 

resources, a conflict in uses, or in the presence of an undesirable 

resource condition. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System All lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the Fish and 

Wildlife Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife management 

areas, waterfowl production areas, and other areas for the protection 

and conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources. 

Non-consumptive, 

Wildlife-oriented 

Recreation Photographing or observing plants, fish, and other wildlife.

Objectives Actions to be accomplished to achieve a desired outcome or goal. 

Objectives are more specific, and generally more measurable, than 

goals. 

Preferred Alternative The Service’s selected alternative identified in the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. 

Scoping A process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed by a 

comprehensive conservation plan and for identifying the significant 

issues. Involved in the scoping process are federal, state and local 

agencies; private organizations; and individuals. 

Species A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable 

characteristics, and that can interbreed and produce young. In 

taxonomy, a category of biological classification that refers to one or 

more populations of similar organisms that can reproduce with each 

other but is reproductively isolated from – that is, incapable of 

interbreeding with – all other kinds of organisms. 

Strategies A general approach or specific actions to achieve objectives. 
Appendices 119

Wildlife-dependent 

Recreational Use A use of refuge that involves hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, 

as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997. 

Threatened 

Species (Federal) Plant or animal species likely to become endangered species 

throughout all of or a significant portion of their range within the 

foreseeable future. A plant or animal identified and defined in 

accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act. 

Vegetation Plants in general, or the sum total of the plant life in an area. 

Vegetation Type A category of land based on potential or existing dominant plant species 

of a particular area. 

Visitor Center A permanently staffed building offering exhibits and interpretive 

information to the visiting public. Some visitor centers are co-located 

with refuge offices, others include additional facilities, such as 

classrooms or wildlife viewing areas. 

Visitor Contact 

Station Compared to a visitor center, a contact station is a smaller facility, 

which may not be permanently staffed. 

Watershed The entire land area that collects and drains water into a stream or 

stream system. 

Wetland Areas such as lakes, marshes, bogs, and streams that are inundated by 

surface or ground water for a long enough period of time each year to 

support, and that do support under natural conditions, plants and 

animals that require saturated or seasonally saturated soils. 

Wildlife Diversity A measure of the number of wildlife species in an area and their relative 

abundance. 
120 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 
Appendices 121

Appendix C: Priority Complex Operational 

and Maintenance Needs 

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) 

Tier 1 Project Description List 

Priority Project 

Number $000 Refuge Project Description 

10 96014 123 Dahomey Provide for a full-time law enforcement officer at 

Dahomey refuge, the largest remaining tract of 

bottomland hardwoods in the northern Mississippi 

Delta. A full-time law enforcement officer is not 

stationed at Dahomey to protect visitors or wildlife 

and their habitats on this refuge with a large hunting 

program and a growing "non-consumptive" 

constituency. Being located near Delta State 

University, the refuge receives extensive use by 

researchers, students, and school groups. This 

project will permit a law enforcement presence and 

also facilitate data collection during the long and 

varied hunting seasons, helping to make better 

informed habitat and public use management 

decisions. Project benefits will include a decrease in 

poaching and theft, and higher degree of public 

safety and enjoyment on the refuge. 

12 00033 108 North 

Mississippi 

Refuges 

Complex 

North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

administers three national wildlife refuges and 

numerous Farm Service Agency lands that 

encompass approximately 32,000 acres in northwest 

Mississippi. Approximately 12,000 acres of this land 

consist of mature bottomland hardwood forest 

habitat. About 13,000 acres consist of lands that 

have either been recently reforested or will be 

reforested in the next 2-3 years. None of the mature 

forest lands have been completely inventoried and 

the overall conditions (e.g., health, diversity, age 

class structure, and amount of regeneration) have not 

been documented or evaluated. A monitoring 

program will be implemented for all areas that have 

been recently reforested in order to evaluate their 

general conditions over time. Information gained will 

then be used to implement appropriate management 

practices within all forested areas for the 

enhancement of wildlife resources. 
122 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Priority Project 

Number $000 Refuge Project Description 

27 00013 125 Coldwater 

River 

Provide for a maintenance worker at Coldwater River 

refuge so existing facilities and resources can be 

managed and maintained. Coldwater River refuge 

contains moist-soil units, service-owned roads, 

cooperative farmed lands, and bridges. A 

maintenance worker is needed to maintain serviceowned roads, facilities, and equipment for the benefit 

of visitor and employee health and safety, and to 

conduct critical habitat management efforts. 

36 00012 152 Coldwater 

River 

Provide a GS-12 Refuge Manager at Coldwater River 

refuge. This is a new refuge and a Refuge Manager 

meets staffing requirements. A Refuge Manager is 

needed to provide for adequate administration of all 

the refuge functions and operations. This project 

would provide for adequate administration of this 

refuge and fulfill public use needs that are currently 

not being met. 

109 98002 125 Dahomey Provide for a maintenance worker at Dahomey refuge 

so existing facilities and resources can be managed 

and maintained. This refuge does not have any 

maintenance personnel to maintain existing facilities, 

equipment, and other resources. Therefore, 

necessary habitat management and maintenance 

activities are not being implemented, and 

investments in facilities and habitat management 

projects are being lost. Dahomey refuge, the largest 

remaining tract of bottomland hardwoods in the 

northern Mississippi Delta region, contains moist-soil 

units, greentree reservoirs, service-owned roads, 

cooperatively farmed lands, visitor information 

stations, heavy and light duty equipment, and a 

headquarters facility. This project will provide for a 

maintenance worker, so that essential management 

and maintenance activities can be implemented and 

refuge-owned roads can be maintained in a manner 

that is safe for public use. 
Appendices 123

Priority Project 

Number $000 Refuge Project Description 

110 96015 123 Tallahatchie The 4,000-acre Tallahatchie refuge is experiencing 

poaching and theft year-round. This project will 

provide a full-time law enforcement officer, a need 

that remains unmet, to better ensure visitor safety 

and to better protect refuge wildlife and their habitats. 

An estimated 65,000 migratory waterfowl are 

documented annually on this refuge that issues 1,600 

public use permits each year. Myriad other wildlife, 

from deer and turkey to otter and bobcat, use this 

new refuge that is undergoing extensive forest 

restoration. Resource protection and public safety 

are suffering without a strong law enforcement 

presence. 

219 96002 157 Dahomey Create moist-soil units on Dahomey refuge for the 

primary benefit of resident and migratory water birds, 

restoring 1,000 acres of wetland habitat. This project 

will also provide for the establishment of greentree 

reservoirs within existing forest habitat. 

Channelization and drainage activities implemented 

prior to refuge ownership have changed natural water 

patterns in these wetland areas. Project will include 

the installation of needed water control structures and 

other water management features to return the area 

to more natural conditions, benefiting not only water 

birds, but numerous wetland-associated wildlife 

species. Located in the ecologically and culturally 

unique Mississippi Delta, Dahomey refuge is the 

largest remaining tract of bottomland hardwoods in 

the northern Delta. 

220 00028 118 Tallahatchie Project will provide for a secretary/clerk on 

Tallahatchie refuge, a station without any on-site 

administrative support. This position is necessary to 

provide essential administrative assistance for permit 

sales, clerical functions, and basic visitor services 

that are critical for effective refuge operations. The 

refuge issues 1,600 hunting permits annually, and 

without a secretary, the administrative requirements 

necessary for effective operations of the refuge 

cannot be met unless the refuge manager refocuses 

his/her energies. This diminishes the effectiveness of 

habitat management and other public use 

management programs. Public needs are presently 

not being fulfilled due to the lack of necessary 

administrative support. 
124 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Priority Project 

Number $000 Refuge Project Description 

221 97001 139 North 

Mississippi 

Refuges 

Complex 

Initiate comprehensive conservation planning for the 

entire North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex by providing for a wildlife biologist who will 

lead the development of, and help implement, an 

effective management direction for three national 

wildlife refuges and more than 100 Farm Service 

Agency lands that total over 30,000 acres. The entire 

refuge complex does not and has not had a biologist 

to lead inventorying, monitoring, or research, or 

assist with long-range planning to most effectively 

realize potential benefits for wildlife and the visiting 

public. 

320 98028 118 Dahomey Project will provide for a secretary/clerk on Dahomey 

refuge, a station without any on-site administrative 

support. This position is necessary to provide 

essential administrative assistance for permit sales, 

clerical functions, and basic visitor services that are 

critical for effective refuge operations. The refuge 

sells approximately 1,000 hunting permits annually, 

and without a secretary, the administrative 

requirements necessary for effective operations of 

the refuge cannot be met unless the refuge manager 

refocuses his/her energies. This diminishes the 

effectiveness of habitat management and other public 

use management programs. Public needs are 

presently not being fulfilled due to the lack of 

necessary administrative support. 

321 96011 125 Tallahatchie Tallahatchie refuge, boasting active public hunting 

and forest restoration programs, does not have a 

maintenance worker to properly maintain public 

facilities or help effectively manage refuge habitats to 

benefit a host of wildlife species. This project will 

provide a maintenance worker at this unstaffed 

refuge. Maintenance of existing roads and facilities is 

necessary to meet public expectations for a safe, 

enjoyable refuge visit. 
Appendices 125

Priority Project 

Number $000 Refuge Project Description 

322 96010 110 North 

Mississippi 

Refuges 

Complex 

Provide a full-time secretary/clerk to meet the 

requirements of the refuge fee program, contracting 

requirements, and other budget and administration 

duties/policies. Due to the large volume of work at 

this 3-refuge, 17,000-acre, 100+ tract complex, a 

second administrative person is needed to meet 

minimum Service compliance and enable effective 

operation of purchasing, budget tracking, property 

management, filing/typing, public inquiry response, 

and personnel actions. The Complex cannot 

presently provide the quality and quantity of services 

expected by the public for the many refuge programs.

403 96001 139 Dahomey A newer national wildlife refuge that was never 

provided startup funding or staffing, Dahomey refuge 

is the largest remaining tract of bottomland 

hardwoods in the northern Mississippi Delta. This 

project will provide for a biologist to obtain and 

evaluate critical habitat and wildlife surveys. This 

refuge does not have a biologist, and biological 

information necessary to help make the most 

informed management decisions is not being 

obtained. Partnership potential to conduct 

inventorying and monitoring is great, with the refuge 

receiving extensive use by researchers, students, 

and school groups and being located near Delta 

State University. 

404 98001 97 Tallahatchie Provide a biological technician to monitor habitats 

and habitat restoration activities on Tallahatchie 

refuge, a newer national wildlife refuge that was 

never provided startup funding or staffing. This 

unstaffed refuge is a research site for the Mississippi 

Forestry Division and a "mitigation bank" for the 

Mississippi Department of Transportation. 

Tallahatchie refuge could serves as an outstanding 

example of bottomland hardwood forest restoration, 

yet does not have biological staff to obtain, interpret, 

and share critical habitat and wildlife survey data. 

Without any biological staff, information necessary to 

help make the most informed management decisions 

is not being obtained. 
126 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Priority Project 

Number $000 Refuge Project Description 

405 96008 72 North 

Mississippi 

Refuges 

Complex 

Provide a public outreach specialist to create a 

quality public outreach program for the 3-refuge, 

17,000-acre, 100+ tract-North Mississippi National 

Wildlife Refuges Complex containing some of the 

largest tracts of remaining bottomland hardwood 

forests left in the ecologically and culturally unique 

Mississippi Delta region. Currently, the Complex 

does not have any outreach personnel or the 

necessary staff to establish close partnerships with 

many potential community support groups, school 

groups, and other wildlife-oriented organizations that 

can provide tremendous volunteer assistance and 

issues advocacy support. This position will also lead 

all efforts related to exhibits, news releases, festivals, 

newsletter, brochures, and public inquiries. 

491 96004 107 Dahomey Provide an assistant refuge manager to oversee field 

operations and help direct overall management 

programs at Dahomey refuge. Because the refuge is 

understaffed, there is a 1,000-acre cooperative 

farming program that does not receive adequate 

supervision to properly maximize the program's great 

potential benefit to wildlife. This project would 

provide the needed staff to also assist with other 

refuge activities, such as public hunting, outreach, 

education, and the forthcoming, extensive 

comprehensive conservation planning process. 

492 96005 139 Dahomey Provide a forester to more effectively manage the 

largest tract of bottomland hardwood forest in the 

northern Mississippi Delta, Dahomey refuge. 

Important to a wide variety of wildlife species, the 

refuge has tremendous potential for forest restoration 

through the planting of trees, appropriate thinning of 

the existing stand, and the proper management of 

water levels. However, there is only a refuge 

manager and a biological science technician 

stationed at this 9,600-acre refuge, and many parts of 

the forests are dying due to lack of care. This project 

will enable forest resources of this refuge to be 

managed to their fullest potential to provide the fish 

and wildlife values and recreational benefits expected 

by the public. 
Appendices 127

Priority Project 

Number $000 Refuge Project Description 

493 96007 152 Dahomey Provide a refuge manager at Dahomey refuge to 

ensure effective habitat management and provide 

appropriate wildlife-oriented recreation expected by 

the public. This 10,000-acre refuge, the largest tract 

of bottomland hardwood forest in the northern 

Mississippi Delta, was established in 1992 and has 

only recently been staffed by a refuge operations 

specialist and biological technician. A refuge 

manager on this popular refuge is needed to provide 

for adequate leadership and administration of all the 

required management programs, including the care 

of 40 outlying properties in addition to the core 

10,000-acre refuge. Being located near Delta State 

University and having a strong constituency of area 

residents, potential refuge improvement projects 

abound but are not being met due to lack of attention.

494 96013 139 Tallahatchie Provide a wildlife biologist to conduct critical wildlife 

surveys and manage habitat development projects on 

Tallahatchie refuge. The refuge, Mississippi 

Department of Transportation, and private partners, 

such as Ducks Unlimited, have invested hundreds of 

thousands of dollars in facilities and habitat 

improvement. This unstaffed refuge is a research 

site for the Mississippi Forestry Division and a 

"mitigation bank," having thousands of acres either 

reforested or planned for reforestation. However, this 

newer refuge was never initially staffed or funded. 

This project will enable important restoration work to 

be continued and critical habitat and wildlife surveys 

to be conducted. 

495 96012 139 Tallahatchie Provide a refuge operations specialist/assistant 

refuge manager to manage existing refuge farm 

lands for the continuing benefit of wintering migratory 

waterfowl and other wildlife species. Approximately 

65,000 ducks and geese utilize the refuge annually 

on 3,000 acres that are presently being farmed 

through private partners. However, due to lack of 

staffing at this unstaffed refuge, the farmers are not 

adequately supervised to ensure maximum program 

benefit and policy compliance. This position will also 

ensure more effective operations of other habitat 

management programs, as well as maintenance and 

public use programs. 
128 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Priority Project 

Number $000 Refuge Project Description 

496 98026 152 Tallahatchie Tallahatchie refuge, which encompasses 8,000 acres 

and boasts progressive partnerships with the 

Mississippi Division of Forestry, Mississippi 

Department of Transportation, and private partners in 

a large forest restoration program, contains 

numerous roads, levees, water control structures, 

and wetland impoundments. The refuge also has a 

large contingent of hunters, anglers, and other 

outdoor enthusiasts who regularly visit the area. 

Despite all of this, this newer refuge has never been 

staffed. Maintenance, public use coordination, 

habitat management, and other management 

activities that are essential for effective refuge 

operations are not being adequately implemented, 

due primarily to lack of staffing. This project will 

provide for a refuge manager to lead, coordinate, and 

enhance the overall effectiveness of refuge 

management programs. 
Appendices 129

Refuge Operating Needs System

Project 

Number 

Org 

Code Refuge Project Title 

Cost 

Estimate 

(Thousands) 

Station 

Rank 

Region 

Rank 

98010 43635 Dahomey Acquire a transport truck 

and trailer for hauling heavy 

equipment at Dahomey 

refuge 

$190K 11 999 

98018 43635 Dahomey Acquire a low-boy transport 

for transporting heavy 

equipment. 

$150K 12 999 

98008 43635 Dahomey Acquire excavator trackhoe 

for the management and 

maintenance of wetland 

habitats. 

$150K 13 999 

98006 43635 Dahomey Acquire a large bulldozer for 

the management and 

maintenance of wetland 

impoundments. 

$160K 14 999 

98011 43635 Dahomey Acquire a backhoe for 

wetland enhancement and 

development. 

$90K 015 999 

98004 43635 Dahomey Acquire a road grader for 

the maintenance of Service 

roads. 

$150K 17 999 

98020 43635 Dahomey High pressure wash facility $30K 18 999 

98003 43635 Dahomey Acquire two ATV's $20K 19 999 

98013 43635 Dahomey Acquire fuel storage tanks $50K 20 999 

00035 43675 North 

Mississippi 

Refuges 

Complex 

Establishment of an 

environmental education 

program 

$35K 1 54 

98023 43675 North 

Mississippi 

Refuges 

Complex 

Conduct aerial waterfowl 

surveys 

$25K 2 166 

98025 43675 North 

Mississippi 

Refuges 

Compex 

Improve bottomland 

hardwood management 

capabilities. 

$140K 3 999 

98030 43675 North 

Mississippi 

Refuges 

Complex 

Improve transportation 

capabilities of fire dozer and 

plow. 

$150K 4 999 
130 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Project 

Number 

Org 

Code Refuge Project Title 

Cost 

Estimate 

(Thousands) 

Station 

Rank 

Region 

Rank 

96003 43675 North 

Mississippi 

Refuges 

Complex 

Provide a forestry 

technician to implement 

bottomland hardwood forest 

restoration. 

$124K 5 999 

96009 43675 North 

Mississippi 

Refuges 

Complex 

Improve wildfire 

suppression capabilities. 

$50K 6 999 

98027 43675 North 

Mississippi 

Refuges 

Complex 

Improve wetland 

management and road 

maintenance capabilities. 

$20K 8 999 

02001 43675 North 

Mississippi 

Refuges 

Complex 

Improve Safety, 

Environmental Compliance, 

and Asset Management 

(Assistant Manager - 

Facilities) 

$134K 999 118 

98024 43645 Tallahatchie Provide a bush-hog mower 

to facilitate mission critical 

activities of refuge 

management and public 

use. 

$20K 2 204 

00034 43645 Tallahatchie Provide a two-ton truck and 

transport needed to 

transport equipment to sites 

occurring on and off refuge. 

$150K 3 999 

98019 43645 Tallahatchie Provide an excavator for 

wetland management 

purposes. 

$150K 4 999 

98017 43645 Tallahatchie Provide a D4 bull dozer. $95K 5 999 

98016 43645 Tallahatchie Provide a bulldozer, 

essential for achievement of 

mission critical goals on 

8000 refuge acres. 

$150K 7 999 

98022 43645 Tallahatchie Provide enough ATVs to 

fulfill mission critical duties 

$25K 8 999 

00030 43645 Tallahatchie Create moist-oil units for the 

benefit of resident and 

migratory water birds. 

$150K 9 999 
Appendices 131

Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations 

Introduction 

The Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed several uses for compatibility during the comprehensive 

conservation planning process for the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex. 

Descriptions and anticipated impacts of each of these uses are addressed separately by refuge. The 

Refuge Name through the National Wildlife Refuge System Mission sections, as well as the Approval 

of Compatibility Determination section, apply to each described use, however, for brevity, are only 

listed once for each refuge. If one of these uses is considered outside of the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex, then those sections 

become part of that compatibility determination. 

Refuge Name: Coldwater River National Wildlife Refuge 

Uses: Several uses were evaluated to determine their compatibility with the Refuge System and 

mission and purposes of the refuge: 1) environmental education and interpretation; 2) recreational 

fishing; 3) hunting; 4) off-road vehicles; 5) resource research studies; and 6) wildlife observation and 

photography. 

Location: Tallahatchie and Quitman Counties, Mississippi 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 

Refuge Purposes: “...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and 

protection of fish and wildlife resources...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) “...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...” 16 U.S.C. § 

742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.” 

Description of Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Environmental education and interpretation would consist primarily of teacher workshops, visitor 

education, teaching students, and interpretation. 

Those activities seek to increase the public’s knowledge and understanding of wildlife and contribute 

to the conservation of such wildlife. Activities would include traditional environmental education such 

as teacher or staff-led on-site field trips, off-site programs in classrooms, nature study, such as 

teacher and student workshops, and interpretation of wildlife resources on the refuge. 

Environmental education and interpretation 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. 
132 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Environmental education and interpretation could occur in the core area of Coldwater River refuge, 

an area of approximately 2,000 contiguous acres located approximately 4 miles south of Crowder, 

Mississippi; the “Warwick Tract,” an approximately 300-acre tract bordering the Corps levee on the 

south beginning approximately 1⁄4 miles south of the Paducah Wells Road and continuing south for 

approximately 2 miles to the County bridge across Black Bayou; and the “Schiele Tract,” a 40-acre 

tract approximately 3 miles south of Crowder boarding the east side of the county line road. 

These are year-round activities, conducted on an as requested basis. Although the activities do not 

require special use permits, they are most often closely coordinated with the refuge manager. 

The refuge will serve as an outdoor classroom for a variety of audiences with an interest in wildlife 

conservation and management. Typically, teachers, students, and other groups will learn from 

hands-on demonstrations, projects, and activities delivered by refuge staff. Activities will be 

conducted on-site utilizing existing refuge facilities. Group size will typically be limited to ensure 

effective presentation of desired materials, which may be specifically tailored to meet the educational 

needs of the group. 

Environmental education and interpretation are utilized to encourage understanding in citizens of all 

ages to develop land ethics, foster public support, increase visibility, and improve the image of the 

Service. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for these activities is borne by annual operation and 

maintenance funds, which support activities involving the public, such as outdoor recreation, wildlife 

photography, and refuge hunting and fishing programs. The cost of operating and maintaining the 

present environmental education and interpretation program would be approximately $6,000 annually 

within the annual North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex budget of approximately 

$750,000. Therefore, the program is in compliance with specific funding requirements of the Refuge 

Recreation Act. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: $1,000 

Maintenance costs: $4,000 

Monitoring costs: $1,000 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

The use of on-site, hands-on, action-oriented activities by groups of teachers/students to accomplish 

environmental education objectives may impose a low-level impact on those sites used for these 

activities. Impacts may include trampling of vegetation and temporary disturbance to wildlife species 

in the immediate vicinity during the activities. Since most activities would take place on existing 

roads, trails and at other facilities, impacts would be minimal. 
Appendices 133

Long-term impacts: 

Current utilization of these uses is incidental to overall refuge programs and no long-term adverse 

impacts have been experienced. Long-term beneficial impacts include the furthering of the refuge 

mission through the education of the general public. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No adverse cumulative impacts are anticipated.

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004, and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: On-site activities should be held where minimal 

impact would occur. Evaluations of sites and programs should be conducted periodically to assess if 

objectives are being met and that natural resources are not being degraded. If evidence of 

unacceptable adverse impacts begins to appear, it may be necessary to change the location of the 

outdoor activities. 

Justification: Environmental education and interpretation are used to encourage understanding in 

citizens of all ages in order to act responsibly in protecting a healthy ecosystem. They are tools to 

use in building land ethic, developing political support, and decreasing wildlife violations. They 

constitute one method of increasing visibility in the community and improving the image of the 

Service. 

Environmental education at the refuge is incidental to other programs since there is no full-time staff 

to conduct these activities. However, the program is important and provides visitors with an 

awareness of refuge-specific issues, such as wetland ecology, migratory bird management, and 

issues relating to the entire Refuge System. Environmental education and interpretation activities are 

expected to increase while ensuring compatibility with the purpose for which the refuge was 

established. 

At the present time, however, public entry to include visitors involved in environmental education and 

interpretation is not permitted on the core area of Coldwater River refuge, or on the Schiele Tract, 

except by special use permit. Environmental education and interpretation are permitted on the 

Warwick Tract. 
134 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

The core area of the refuge is intensively managed for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading 

birds. Management efforts are successful with large numbers of migratory waterfowl using the refuge 

from October to March. Extensive shorebird use of the refuge occurs in March and April and again 

from July through October. Large numbers of wading birds use the refuge for foraging and roosting 

beginning in May and lasting through September. Experience has shown that birds using the refuge 

are very susceptible to disturbance. 

The core area of the refuge and the Warwick Tract experience extensive flooding annually from 

January through April or May. The only improved road on the core area of the refuge extends for 1.5 

miles and is normally under water and impassable from January to May. Periods of intensive rainfall 

frequently result in this road becoming impassable numerous times during the June to December 

timeframe. Except for this 1.5-mile road, there are no additional roads, either improved or 

unimproved, on the core area of the refuge. Due to the flooding regime and prohibitive construction 

costs, no additional roads are envisioned. There are no roads, either improved or unimproved, on the 

Warwick or Schiele Tracts. 

Depending on flooding conditions, groups interested in environmental education and interpretation 

activities can view the refuge from the public roads along the north side of the Warwick Tract, the 

west side of the Schiele Tract, and along both the east and west sides of the core area. The public 

road along the east side of the core area, and along the north side of the Warwick Tract, offers 

excellent viewing opportunities. 

Areas which are closed to all public entry are clearly marked with appropriate signs. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2020 

Description of Use: Recreational Fishing 

Fishing was a traditional recreational use of Coldwater River refuge prior to its inclusion in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and continues to be a recreational pursuit with the public. The 

refuge provides additional public fishing opportunities in an area that is lacking sufficient amounts of 

fishing open to the public. Fish populations currently support a sustainable harvest under a regulated 

fishing program. 

Fishing, a wildlife-dependent recreational pursuit, 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. 
Appendices 135

Fishing is permitted in the borrow pits at the foot of the Army Corps of Engineers’ Panola Quitman 

Floodway Levee beginning at the southeast corner of the refuge and continuing north along the 

Corps levee for approximately 3⁄4-mile. Fishing is also permitted on the Warwick Tract of Coldwater 

River refuge. The area open to fishing on the Warwick Tract consists of the borrow pits at the foot of 

the Corps levee beginning approximately 1⁄4-mile south of Paducah Wells Road and continuing south 

for approximately 2 miles to the county bridge across Black Bayou. 

The use is conducted year-round from sunrise to sunset. Fishing is conducted subject to regulations 

established by the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. Fishing is further 

restricted on the refuge by regulations, which prohibit commercial fishing on the refuge, prohibit the 

use of certain fishing methods, and prohibit access after dark. The purchase of an annual hunting 

and fishing permit is required in order to fish on the refuge. 

This use is being proposed to provide fishable waters to the public in an area where public fishing 

opportunities are limited and to utilize a sustainable natural resource. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for the fishing program is borne by annual operation and 

maintenance funds, which support activities involving the public, such as recreation, interpretation, 

environmental education, and refuge hunting and fishing programs. The North Mississippi National 

Wildlife Refuges Complex spends approximately $8,000 of a budget of approximately $750,000 in 

direct support of the fishing program on the refuge. Therefore, the program is in compliance with 

specific funding requirements of the Refuge Recreation Act. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: $5,000 

Monitoring costs: $3,000 

Offsetting revenues: $200 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

Minor impacts such as litter and gasoline contamination could occur but not at a level that would 

cause great concern. 

Long-term impacts: 

Since the number of persons fishing on the refuge is small and the activity occurs primarily during 

high-water periods in the spring, no long-term impacts are expected. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No cumulative impacts are known to occur. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004 and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 
136 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Commercial fishing and possession or use of 

jugs, seines, nets, hand-grab baskets, or any other similar devices are prohibited. Persons are 

prohibited from accessing the refuge after dark. 

Justification: While the number of participants is limited, fishing has been an important activity of 

the refuge resulting in only very temporary disturbance to refuge habitats and wildlife populations, 

and has caused no noticeable impact on the abundance of species sought or other wildlife affected 

by angler disturbance. Current regulations limit the impacts to trust species and provide a safe and 

rewarding experience for the refuge visitor. 

The areas of Coldwater River refuge closed to all public entry are clearly marked with appropriate 

signs. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2020 

Description of Use: Hunting 

Hunting consists of small game, large game, and migratory game birds. Hunting activities are 

permitted with a valid refuge hunt permit and appropriate state licenses. 

The refuge hunt program is an excellent wildlife management and public relations tool, which 

provides quality recreational opportunities for the public while regulating specific animal populations 

at desired levels. The refuge hunt plan was developed to ensure that associated public recreation 

and wildlife management objectives are met in a responsible and consistent manner. 

Hunting, a wildlife-dependent recreational pursuit, 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. 
Appendices 137

Hunting could occur in the core area of Coldwater River refuge, an area of approximately 2,000 

contiguous acres located approximately 4 miles south of Crowder, Mississippi; the “Warwick Tract,” 

an approximately 300-acre area bordering the Corps levee on the south beginning approximately 1⁄4-

mile south of the Paducah Wells Road and continuing south for approximately 2 miles to the County 

bridge across Black Bayou; and the “Schiele Tract,” a 40-acre tract approximately 3 miles south of 

Crowder bordering the east side of the county line road. 

All hunting seasons are established annually through coordination with the Mississippi Department of 

Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. 

A. Squirrel season and bag limits coincide with State season and regulations except that the 

season is closed during the general gun deer hunts. 

B. Raccoon season dates are January 1 to February 28. Bag limits per State regulations. 

C. Rabbit season dates and bag limits coincide with State season and regulations except that 

the season is closed during general gun deer hunts. 

D. Quail season dates and bag limits coincide with State season and regulations except that 

the season is closed during general gun deer hunts. 

E. Deer season dates and bag limits for archery and primitive weapons coincide with State 

seasons and regulations. The general gun deer hunt is 5 days in mid-December. State 

bag limits and regulations apply. 

F. Migratory game bird hunting (ducks, mergansers, coots, and geese) is allowed during 

specified State season on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays, 30 minutes before 

sunrise until noon. After duck, merganser, and coot season closes, light geese may be 

hunted daily during the period and time defined in the Conservation Order. 

G. Turkey season is normally held during the entire month of April with bag limits that 

coincide with State regulations. 

H. Season dates and bag limits for youth hunts for squirrel, deer with general gun, and turkey 

are set within State seasons and regulations. 

I. Feral hogs can be taken with no bag limit during any open refuge season with weapons 

legal for that hunt. 

Public hunting opportunities in the northwest delta portion of the Yazoo Basin are limited with 

Service-managed refuges and State-managed wildlife management areas representing virtually all 

the public lands open to hunting. Private lands offer hunting opportunities only to those willing and 

able to purchase hunting rights through long-term leases or private ownership. The demand for 

public hunting areas in this portion of Mississippi is increasing as the area shifts toward a more 

urbanized society, and refuges are expected to meet an increasing part of this demand. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for the hunting program is borne by annual operation and 

maintenance funds, which supports activities involving the public, such as fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The cost of 

operating and maintaining the present small game, big game, turkey, and migratory waterfowl 

seasons would be approximately $15,000 annually within the annual North Mississippi National 
138 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Wildlife Refuges Complex budget of approximately $750,000. Therefore, the program is in 

compliance with specific funding requirements of the Refuge Recreation Act. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: $5,000 

Administration costs: $4,000 

Law enforcement costs: $3,500 

Outreach, education, and monitoring costs: $1,500 

Signs, brochures, and maintenance costs: $1,000 

Offsetting revenues: $250 

The refuge is a participant in the Recreational Fee Demonstration Project, which currently returns 80 

percent of fees generated from recreational activities back to the refuge. The offsetting revenues are 

from the sale of hunting and fishing permits. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

National wildlife refuges administered by the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

have been open to hunting since 1992, with no documented disturbance to refuge habitats and no 

noticeable impact on the abundance of species hunted or other associated wildlife. While managed 

hunting opportunities may result in localized disruption of individual animals’ daily routines, no 

noticeable effect on populations has been noticed or documented. Restrictions within the hunting 

program, notably the closure of small game hunting during the general gun deer hunt, the 

requirement that all hunters, except those hunting turkey or waterfowl, wear fluorescent orangecolored material above the waistline, and the prohibition of hunting or shooting across any open field 

from ground level have been implemented due to safety concerns. These restrictions will be closely 

monitored for effectiveness. 

Long-term impacts: 

To date, there is no indication of adverse biological impacts associated with the Complex’s hunting 

program. Should, however, it become necessary, the refuge has the latitude to adjust hunting 

seasons and bag limits annually, or even close the refuge entirely if safety or other concerns merit 

such actions. This latitude, coupled with monitoring of wildlife populations and habitat conditions by 

the Service and the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, will ensure that long-term negative 

impacts to either wildlife populations and/or habitats on the refuge are unlikely. 

Should hunting pressure increase on the refuge, alternatives, such as quota hunts, a reduction in the 

number of days of hunting, or restrictions on that part of the refuge open to hunting, can be utilized to 

limit impacts. 
Appendices 139

Cumulative impacts: 

The timing and duration of the refuge’s hunting program does not coincide with most other uses of 

the refuge and would not result in cumulative impacts to refuge resources. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004 and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: At the present time, public entry to include 

hunters is not permitted on the core area of Coldwater River refuge or on the Schiele Tract. Migratory 

game bird hunting (ducks, mergansers, coots, and geese) is allowed on the Warwick Tract during the 

specified State season on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays, 30 minutes before sunrise until 

noon. After duck, merganser, and coot season closes, light geese may be hunted daily during the 

period and time defined in the Conservation Order.

Hunting seasons and bag limits are established annually as agreed upon during the annual hunt 

coordination with State personnel. These generally fall within the State framework. The refuge can, 

and has, established more restrictive seasons and bag limits to prevent over-harvest of individual 

species or disturbance to trust species. All hunters are required to purchase and possess a refuge 

hunting permit while participating in refuge hunts. This permit, which augments the State hunting 

regulations, explains not only the general hunt regulations but the refuge-specific regulations, as well. 

Law enforcement patrols are frequently conducted throughout the hunting season to ensure 

compliance with refuge laws and regulations. The refuge has included a Refuge Operating Needs 

System (RONS) project for a fulltime officer to ensure compatibility long term. 

Justification: The core area of the refuge is intensively managed for migratory waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and wading birds. Management efforts are successful with large numbers of migratory 

waterfowl using the refuge from October to March. Extensive shorebird use of the core area occurs 

in March and April and again from July through October. Large numbers of wading birds use the 

refuge for foraging and roosting beginning in May and lasting through September. Experience has 

shown that birds using the refuge are very susceptible to excessive disturbance. 

From January to May, the core area of the refuge and the Warwick Tract experience extensive 

flooding on an annual basis. When flooding of these areas begins, resident wildlife species 

congregate on small areas of high ground, which makes them vulnerable to excessive harvest. Also, 

during periods of high water, the only access road to the core area floods, halting all vehicular traffic. 
140 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Since establishment of the core area of Coldwater River refuge, all the property surrounding the 

refuge for many miles in any direction has been acquired or leased for hunting migratory waterfowl. 

The core area thus represents the only “safe harbor” waterfowl habitat in a large geographical area. 

Without this “safe harbor” habitat, waterfowl in large numbers would not be present for extended 

periods of time in the general area of the refuge. 

The Schiele Tract comprises 40 acres and with no way to regulate numbers, hunting on this small 

area would represent a safety issue. 

The recently acquired Warwick Tract is a long and narrow ownership consisting primarily of a series 

of borrow pits on one side and the Panola Quitman Floodway on the other side. Flooding is frequent, 

oftentimes with long duration. Due to scouring associated with out-of-bank flooding and the 

associated sediment deposition, habitat improvements consisting of levees, water control structures, 

and moist-soil areas are not practicable. Natural habitat does exist--the degree and value dependent 

on the impact of the last flood event. An elevated and well traveled public road on top of the Corps 

levee borders the Warwick Tract. 

Those areas of Coldwater River refuge closed to all public entry are clearly marked with appropriate 

signs. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2020 

Description of Use: Off-Road Vehicles 

The proposed use is to allow off-road vehicles (e.g., 4-wheel all-terrain) on refuge lands. 

Off-road vehicle use is not a priority public use; however, it can occur on the refuge provided it is 

compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

The general public could participate in the use of off-road vehicles year-round from sunrise to sunset 

on Coldwater River refuge, an area of approximately 2,300 acres south of Crowder, Mississippi. Offroad vehicles may be used on unimproved dirt roads and fire breaks by visitors who possess a valid 

hunting and fishing permit, and who are gaining access to interior portions of the refuge for hunting 

and fishing opportunities. 

The use of off-road vehicles is proposed in response to questions raised during the scoping process. 

These questions centered on opportunities to provide visitors who possess a valid hunting and fishing 

permit off-road vehicle access to internal areas of the refuge for the purpose of hunting and fishing. 
Appendices 141

Availability of Resources: Funding for this program would be borne by annual operation and 

maintenance funds, which support activities involving the public, such as wildlife photography, 

environmental education and interpretation, and refuge hunting and fishing programs. The North 

Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex would spend approximately $25,000 of an annual 

budget of approximately $750,000 in direct support of this program on Coldwater River refuge. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: $7,500 

Maintenance costs: $10,000 

Law enforcement costs: $5,000 

Monitoring costs: $2,500 

Offsetting revenues: $1,000 

The refuge does not have the resources to administer this use. Currently, the North Mississippi 

National Wildlife Refuges Complex does not have law enforcement personnel to monitor this activity. 

The Complex has included a Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) package for a full-time law 

enforcement officer for Coldwater River refuge. Additionally, this activity would require considerable 

operation and maintenance funds to maintain the existing unimproved dirt roads and firebreaks. It is 

expected that $1,000 of offsetting revenues would be generated by the sale of hunting and fishing 

permits to visitors who would not use the refuge unless they could also use off-road vehicles while 

accessing hunting and fishing areas. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

Adverse impacts to unimproved roads and fire breaks by the repeated use of off-road vehicles are 

well documented, and disturbance to wildlife, plants, and their habitats would occur. Such use would 

be limited primarily to the hunting and fishing seasons, which also coincide with extended periods of 

heavy rainfall. As use continues, the unimproved roads and firebreaks, which would be used for 

access, become wallowed out and rainfall accumulates in the “wet” areas. Repeated use 

exacerbates this condition. Conflicts would occur between those hunters and anglers who use offroad vehicles and those who object to the disturbance and noise associated with the vehicles. 

Long-term impacts: 

Long-term impacts from the repeated use of off-road vehicles by the public would be compounded 

over time. Unimproved roads and fire breaks would continue to deteriorate and annual maintenance 

costs would increase. Additional damage to plants and habitats would be experienced as access for 

the heavy equipment required to maintain these access routes is developed. Conflicts between 

hunters who use off-road vehicles and those who object to the associated disturbance and noise 

would continue. Repeated disturbance to feeding and resting migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

wading birds would result in a reduction of birds using the refuge. 
142 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Cumulative impacts: 

No cumulative impacts are expected because other forms of public use are not permitted on the core 

area of the refuge or on the Schiele Tract. Conflicts would continue to occur between those hunters 

and anglers who use off-road vehicles and those who object to the disturbance and noise associated 

with the vehicles. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004 and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Compatible with the following stipulations 

 X Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: None 

Justification: At the present time, public entry to include off-road vehicle users is not permitted on 

the core area of Coldwater River refuge, an area of approximately 2,000 contiguous acres 

approximately 4 miles south of Crowder, Mississippi, or on the Schiele Tract, a 40-acre tract 

approximately 3 miles south of Crowder bordering the east side of the county line road. Migratory 

game bird hunting is permitted on the Warwick Tract, an approximately 300-acre area bordering the 

Corps levee on the south beginning approximately 1⁄4-mile south of the Paducah Wells Road and 

continuing south for approximately 2 miles to the county bridge across Black Bayou. Fishing is also 

permitted in the borrow pits at the foot of the Corps of Engineers Panola Quitman Floodway Levee on 

the core area of the refuge and on the Warwick Tract. Access for fishing and migratory bird hunting is 

only available by use of the Army Corps of Engineers levee. 

The core area of the refuge is intensively managed for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading 

birds. Management efforts are successful with large numbers of migratory waterfowl using the refuge 

from October to March. Extensive shorebird use of the core area occurs in March and April and 

again from July through October. Large numbers of wading birds use the refuge for foraging and 

roosting beginning in May and lasting through September. Experience has shown that birds using 

the refuge are very susceptible to disturbance. 

From January to May, the core area of the refuge and the Warwick Track experience extensive 

flooding on an annual basis. These floodwaters inundate existing unimproved dirt roads and fire 

breaks on the core area and have prevented conversion of these unimproved roads to all-weather 

roads. 
Appendices 143

Due to the costs and the disturbance to migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds, the 

Service does not anticipate construction of all-weather roads on the core area or permitting public 

access on the core area. 

The previous owner of the Warwick Tract extensively developed the property for waterfowl hunting. A 

series of levees were constructed perpendicular to the Corps Levee and a levee was constructed 

along the top bank of the Panola Quitman Floodway. Off-road vehicle access was possible on these 

levees. However, out of bank flooding during the succeeding 2 years destroyed the levees on the 

tract. Currently, off-road vehicle access to the Warwick Tract is not possible and the Service has no 

plans to restore and maintain levees for this purpose. 

The Schiele Tract is closed to public entry due to size and the lack of access. The Service has 

reforested the tract and does not anticipate construction of access roads. Use of off-road vehicles 

would result in extensive damage to the emerging forest. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: ______________2015_______________ 

Description of Use: Resource Research Studies 

This activity would allow university professors and their students, nongovernmental researchers, and 

governmental scientists access to Coldwater River refuge’s natural environment to conduct both 

short- and long-term research projects and surveys. The outcome of this research would result in 

beneficial knowledge of our natural resources and improved methods to manage, monitor, and 

protect the refuge resources. 

Resource research studies are not a priority public use within the Service, but do support the mission 

of the Service in gathering good scientific data to make management decisions. 

These activities will be conducted throughout the refuge in a variety of habitats. Activities carried out 

during approved research projects and surveys may be limited to avoid unnecessary disturbance to 

refuge resources or ongoing management activities. 

The activities will vary in scope and duration to satisfy the requirements of the research project or 

survey. Projects may involve everything from a limited one-time sampling or survey to long-term 

study plots. 

Research projects and surveys will be conducted by universities, state and federal governmental 

representatives, and rarely by private individuals. The refuge will act solely in a supportive role, 

providing minimal assistance in most cases. 
144 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Furthering the knowledge of the impacts and benefits of management decisions, life histories of 

wildlife species utilizing the refuge, and interrelationships of habitats and wildlife occurring on the 

refuge are crucial to the effective management of the refuge. The refuge provides secure sites for 

long-term evaluation of management actions, population trends, and ecological functions within the 

bottomland hardwood ecosystems in northwest Mississippi. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for this program would be borne by annual operation and 

maintenance funds, which support activities involving the public, such as general recreation, 

interpretation, environmental education, and refuge hunting and fishing programs. The North 

Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex spends approximately $1,000 of an annual budget of 

approximately $750,000 in direct support of these programs on Coldwater River refuge. Therefore, 

the program is in compliance with specific funding requirements of the Refuge Recreation Act. 

Special equipment, facilities or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: None 

Monitoring costs: $1,000 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

There should be no significant adverse impacts from scientific research on the refuge. The 

knowledge gained from the research activities would provide information towards improving 

management techniques for trust resource species. Impacts, such as trampling vegetation, removal 

of small numbers of plants and/or animals, and temporary disturbance to wildlife could occur, but 

should not be significant. The small number of individual plants and animals that may be collected for 

further study would not have a significant effect on the refuge plant and animal populations, and 

would require management approval prior to collection. 

Long-term impacts: 

Long-term benefits associated with improved management techniques developed through research 

or from survey data would outweigh any negative impacts which may occur. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No adverse cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004 and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 
Appendices 145

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Each request for use of the refuge for research 

or surveys would be examined on its individual merit. Questions of who, what, when, where, and why 

would be asked to determine if the requested proposal contributes to the refuge purposes and could 

be best conducted on the refuge without significantly affecting the resources. If so, the researcher 

would be issued a special use permit that would clearly define allowed activities. Progress would be 

monitored and the researcher would be required to submit annual progress reports and copies of all 

publications derived from the research. 

Justification: The benefits derived from sound research provide a better understanding of species 

and the environmental communities present on the refuge. Research projects would be designed to 

minimize impacts and disturbance. 

Those areas of Coldwater River refuge closed to all public entry are clearly marked with appropriate 

signs. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2015 

Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography 

 

Wildlife observation and wildlife photography have been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 as priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses provided they are 

compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Wildlife photography, including other image-capturing activities such as videography, has occurred on 

the refuge. There are no photography blinds or platforms on the refuge and none are proposed at 

this time. However, opportunities exist for photography on the refuge. This compatibility 

determination applies to personal photography only. Commercial photography or videography, if 

allowed, would require a special use permit by the refuge with specific restrictions. 
146 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Wildlife observation and photography could occur in the core area of Coldwater River refuge, an area 

of approximately 2,000 contiguous acres located approximately 4 miles south of Crowder, Mississippi; 

the “Warwick Tract,” an approximately 300-acre tract boarding the Corps levee on the south 

beginning approximately 1⁄4-mile south of the Paducah Wells Road and continuing south for 

approximately 2 miles to the county bridge across Black Bayou; and the “Schiele Tract,” a 40-acre 

tract approximately 3 miles south of Crowder boarding the east side of the county line road. 

Wildlife observation and wildlife photography can be accomplished while driving or walking on refuge 

roads open to public vehicular traffic. Also, these priority public uses can be accomplished by boating 

on refuge waters or walking the unimproved roads and fire breaks. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 identifies wildlife observation and 

wildlife photography as priority public uses for national wildlife refuges, along with hunting, fishing, 

and environmental education and interpretation. As expressed priority uses of the Refuge System, 

these uses take precedence over other potential public uses in refuge planning and management. 

The Service strives to provide priority public uses when compatible with the purposes of the refuge 

and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for this program would be borne by annual operation and 

maintenance funds, which support activities involving the public, such as environmental education 

and interpretation, and refuge hunting and fishing programs. The cost of operating and maintaining 

the present wildlife observation and wildlife photography programs would be approximately $5,000 of 

the $750,000 annual budget of the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex. Therefore, 

the program is in compliance with specific funding requirements of the Refuge Recreation Act. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: $3,000 

Maintenance costs: $1,000 

Monitoring costs: $1,000 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

The refuge provides habitat for resident and migratory wildlife. As a result of these activities, 

individual animals may be disturbed by human contact to varying degrees. Examples of potential 

disturbance include flushing of birds from feeding, resting, or nesting areas, and trampling of plants 

from observers and photographers wandering off designated roads in order to get closer to subjects. 

Disturbance to trust species are expected to be minimal. Short-term impacts to facilities, such as 

roads and trails, can be avoided by special closures due to unsafe conditions. The wildlife 

observation and photography programs have been designed to avoid or minimize impacts anticipated 

to refuge resources and visitors. 

Long-term impacts: 

The vast majority of the activities associated with this use would be during the fall and early winter. 

Due to the recovery time between periods of expected use, no long-term impacts are expected. 
Appendices 147

Cumulative impacts: 

No cumulative adverse impacts are anticipated. However, programs can be modified in the future to 

mitigate unforeseen impacts. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004, and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: At the present time, public entry to include 

visitors involved in wildlife observation and wildlife photography is not permitted on the core area of 

Coldwater River refuge or on the Schiele Tract, except by special use permit. Wildlife observation 

and wildlife photography are permitted on the Warwick Tract. 

Justification: The core area of the refuge is intensively managed for migratory waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and wading birds. Management efforts are successful with large numbers of migratory 

waterfowl using the refuge from October to March. Extensive shorebird use of the refuge occurs in 

March and April, and again from July through October. Large numbers of wading birds use the 

refuge for foraging and roosting beginning in May and lasting through September. Experience has 

shown that birds using the refuge are very susceptible to disturbance. 

From January to April or May, the core area of the refuge and the Warwick Tract experience 

extensive flooding on an annual basis. The only improved road on the core area of the refuge 

extends for 1.5 miles and is normally under water and impassable from January to May. Periods of 

intensive rainfall frequently result in the road becoming impassable numerous times during the June 

to December timeframe. Except for this 1.5-mile road, there are no additional roads, either improved 

or unimproved, on the core area of the refuge. Due to the flooding regime and prohibitive 

construction costs, no additional roads are envisioned. There are no roads, either improved or 

unimproved, on the Warwick and Schiele Tracts. 

Depending on flooding conditions, visitors can observe and photograph wildlife from public roads 

along the north side of the Warwick Tract, the west side of the Schiele Tract, and along both the east 

and west sides of the core area of the refuge. Excellent opportunities for observing wildlife exist by 

traveling the public road, located on top of the Corps levee, along the east side of the refuge’s core 

area and along the north side of the Warwick Tract.

Those areas of Coldwater River refuge closed to all public entry are clearly marked with appropriate 

signs. 
148 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2020 
Appendices 149

Refuge Name: Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge 

Uses: Several uses were evaluated to determine their compatibility with the Refuge System and 

mission and purposes of the refuge: 1) Bicycling; 2) Environmental Education and Interpretation; 3) 

Farming Program; 4) Fishing; 5) Hunting; 6) Off-Road Vehicles; 7) Resource Research Studies; and 

8) Wildlife Observation and Photography. 

Location: Bolivar County, Mississippi 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, Refuge Recreation 

Act, Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 

Refuge Purposes: “...the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public 

benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird 

treaties and conventions...” 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986) 

“...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 

U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

“...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)...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...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and wildlife Act of 

1956) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.” 

Description of Use: Bicycling 

The proposed public use is bicycling to facilitate travel for the priority public uses on Dahomey 

National Wildlife Refuge. Priority public uses as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

Improvement Act of 1997 include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. 

The general public could participate in the proposed public use on Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge, 

an area of approximately 9,600 acres southwest of Cleveland, Mississippi. 

Bicycles may be used on designated motorized vehicle access roads. Additionally, bicycles may be 

used on unimproved dirt roads, fire breaks, and logging roads. 

To promote safety, bicycling hours are sunrise to sunset. Additionally, during the deer gun-hunting 

season, bicycling will only be allowed to facilitate hunter access. Cyclists during the deer gun-hunting 

season would need to possess a valid hunting and fishing permit. During other refuge hunting 

seasons, bicycle travel for non-consumptive priority public uses is allowed. 
150 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Bicycling to facilitate non-consumptive priority public uses involves observing the natural landscape 

from a bicycle. Riders stop to observe associated animals and plant communities. The use mainly 

occurs in groups with an average group size of 2-4 riders. Regarding consumptive uses, anglers can 

access refuge lands for fishing by bicycle travel on designated roads and trails. Hunters can do the 

same to access game. To promote safety with other users, prevent conflicts, and promote a quality 

wildlife observation environment, group size is limited to 10 bicyclists. Groups of more than 10 should 

contact the refuge office for a special use permit prior to using the refuge. This will help protect 

refuge resources and ensure that larger groups do not conflict with concurrent public uses. 

Bicycle travel on the refuge is conducted in accordance with the stipulations necessary to ensure 

compatibility. Travel is limited to designated roads and trails. 

Bicycle travel on the refuge provides increased opportunity for public participation in priority public 

uses. It is an alternative method of travel to view the refuge’s diverse biological assets and can be 

less physically demanding than pedestrian travel. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for this program is borne by annual operation and maintenance 

funds which support activities involving the public such as recreation, interpretation, environmental 

education, and hunting and fishing programs. The North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex spends approximately $3,000 of an annual budget of approximately $750,000 in direct 

support of this program on Dahomey refuge. Therefore, the program is in compliance with specific 

funding provisions of the Refuge Recreation Act. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: $1,000 

Maintenance costs: $1,000 

Monitoring costs: $1,000 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

Bicycle use can cause soil compaction, particularly when soils are wet, which can degrade plant 

communities. Soil compaction can diminish the soil porosity, aeration, and nutrient availability. 

It is anticipated that bicycle use could alter drainage features of roads and trails through erosion and 

compaction. Tires may create trail incision causing increased water channeling and erosion during 

wet conditions. These problems will be minimized because routes designated for bicycle use are 

existing improved roads, logging trails, and fire breaks. Based on current level of use and condition 

of designated routes, changes to hydrology because of this use are likely to be insignificant. 

Anticipated impacts of bicycle use on wildlife include temporal disturbances to species using habitat 

on the trail or directly adjacent to the trail. These disturbances are likely to be short-term and 

infrequent based on current level of use. 

Disturbance to trust species are minimal due to the locations of the designated gravel roads and 

unimproved roads and fire breaks. Short-term impacts to facilities, such as roads and trails, can be 

avoided by special closures. 
Appendices 151

Long-term impacts: 

No long-term impacts are anticipated. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No cumulative adverse impacts are anticipated. However, programs can be modified in the future to 

mitigate unforeseen impacts. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004 and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: A 160-acre tract located immediately behind and 

to the east of the refuge headquarters has been reserved for disabled hunters. Bicycle use in this 

area would not be permitted. Bicycling, except for hunting use, is not permitted during the deer gunhunting season. Hunters are allowed to use bicycles but they must remain on designated roads and 

trails. Bicycle group size is limited to 10 bicyclists, to promote public safety, accommodate other 

users, and provide a positive wildlife viewing experience. Group size greater than 10 requires a 

special use permit issued by the refuge manager. 

Justification: Bicycling has been determined to be compatible provided the above stipulations are 

implemented. Bicycle use, as identified in this Compatibility Determination, is not expected to 

materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the 

purposes for which the refuge was established. The use of bicycles to facilitate the priority public use 

is a reasonable mode of access on designated roads and trails. Monitoring would be conducted to 

ensure that this use remains compatible. If significant impacts are found, corrective actions would be 

taken to protect refuge resources. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2015 
152 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Description of Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Environmental education and interpretation would consist primarily of teacher workshops, visitor 

education, teaching students, and interpretation. 

Those activities seek to increase the public’s knowledge and understanding of wildlife and contribute 

to the conservation of such wildlife. Activities would include traditional environmental education, such 

as teacher or staff-led on-site field trips, off-site programs in classrooms, nature study such as 

teacher and student workshops, and interpretation of the wildlife resources incorporated in support of 

facilities such as interpretive trails, kiosks, and the visitor contact stations. 

Environmental education and interpretation 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. 

The entire refuge has the potential to be utilized for environmental education and interpretation. 

These uses are year-round activities, conducted on an as requested basis. Although the activities do 

not require a special use permit, they are most often closely coordinated with the refuge manager. 

The refuge would serve as an outdoor classroom for a variety of audiences with an interest in wildlife 

conservation and management. Typically, teachers, students, and other groups would learn from 

hands-on demonstrations, projects, and activities delivered by refuge staff. Activities would be 

conducted on-site utilizing existing refuge facilities. Group size would typically be limited to ensure 

effective presentation of desired materials, which may be specifically tailored to meet the educational 

needs of the group. 

Environmental education and interpretation are utilized to encourage understanding in citizens of all 

ages to develop land ethics, foster public support, increase visibility, and improve the image of the 

Service. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for these activities is borne by annual operation and 

maintenance funds, which support activities involving the public, such as outdoor recreation, wildlife 

photography, and the conduct of refuge hunting and fishing programs. The North Mississippi 

National Wildlife Refuges Complex spends approximately $8,000 of an annual budget of 

approximately $750,000 in direct support of these programs on Dahomey refuge. Therefore, the 

program is in compliance with specific funding requirements of the Refuge Recreation Act. 

Currently, environmental education and interpretation activities are conducted as time and resources 

permit. Expanding the refuge’s volunteer program would provide for further development of these 

activities. 

Facilities (including kiosks, interpretive signs and brochures, visitor contact stations): $2,000 

On-site activities: $2,000 

Maintenance costs: $2,000 

Monitoring costs: $2,000 

Offsetting revenues: None 
Appendices 153

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

The use of on-site, hands-on, action-oriented activities by groups of teachers/students to accomplish 

environmental education objectives may impose a low level impact on those sites used for these 

activities. Impacts may include trampling of vegetation and temporary disturbance to wildlife species 

in the immediate vicinity during the activities. Since most activities would take place on existing 

roads, trails, and at other facilities, impacts would be minimal. 

Long-term impacts: 

Current utilization of this use is incidental to overall refuge programs and no long-term adverse 

impacts have been experienced. Long-term beneficial impacts include the furthering of the refuge 

mission through the education of the general public. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No adverse cumulative impacts are anticipated.

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004 and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: On-site activities should be held where minimal 

impact would occur. Evaluations of sites and programs should be conducted periodically to assess if 

objectives are being met and that the natural resources are not being degraded. If evidence of 

unacceptable adverse impacts begin to appear, it may be necessary to change the location of the 

outdoor activities. 

Justification: Environmental education and interpretation are used to encourage understanding in 

citizens of all ages in order to act responsibly in protecting a healthy ecosystem. They are tools to 

use in building land ethic, developing political support, and decreasing wildlife violations. They 

constitute a method of increasing visibility in the community and improving the image of the Service. 
154 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Environmental education at the refuge is incidental to other programs since there is no full-time staff 

to conduct activities. However, the program is important and provides visitors with an awareness of 

refuge-specific issues such as wetland ecology, migratory bird management, and issues relating to 

the entire Refuge System. Environmental education and interpretation activities are expected to 

increase while ensuring compatibility with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2020 

Description of Use: Farming Program 

Cooperative farming has been a management tool on Dahomey refuge since 1992. Primarily serving 

as a supplement to natural food resources, this program is designed to assist the refuge in meeting 

wintering waterfowl goals. Cooperative agreements with farmers are entered into annually prior to 

the planting season. These agreements describe the location and amount of acreage to be planted 

during the coming year. The agreement is then signed by the cooperative farmer and the Service 

representative (refuge manager). Shares are acreage based with a 75 percent cooperator’s share 

and a 25 percent refuge share. The cooperator assumes responsibility for all associated costs for the 

crops raised. Modifications to the original contract may occur throughout the farming season with 

amendments agreed upon and signed by all parties involved. Currently, cooperative farming occurs 

on 531 acres. 

In addition to providing winter food resources, this program may be utilized to maintain a newly 

acquired tract of land in an open condition until decisions are made concerning the tract’s ultimate 

vegetative community. 

Farming is used to complement natural food production on the refuge and assist in meeting the 

minimum waterfowl maintenance objectives as determined in cooperation with the Lower Mississippi 

Valley Joint Venture Office of the North American Waterfowl and Wetlands Plan. Providing wintering 

and migrating habitat can be achieved in part through a successful cropland program. By 

incorporating a system of impoundments with the cropland program, the waterfowl maintenance 

objectives can be more easily met. Preferred waterfowl crops include corn, milo, rice, millet, 

soybeans, and natural (moist-soil) foods. By planting crops such as rice and milo in the impoundment 

areas and using wells to flood the areas during the wintering season, food availability for waterfowl is 

enhanced. 

Farming is not a priority public use within the Service. 

Cooperative farming is confined to those agricultural fields acquired as part of the refuge that have 

not been reforested or maintained in other vegetative communities. Tracts acquired in the future that 

include agricultural fields may also be farmed prior to determining ultimate vegetative communities. 

Cooperative farming agreements are entered into annually, usually prior to April 15th and extend until 

the end of the harvest season. 
Appendices 155

Cooperative farming is conducted through a cooperative agreement wherein the cooperator provides 

all materials, equipment, and labor to fulfill the requirements of the contract. Facilities such as roads, 

gates, and access points are maintained by the refuge staff. 

This use is necessary to fulfill refuge obligations to provide for the wintering needs of migratory 

waterfowl. While agricultural lands are abundant off the refuge, they do not provide a secure habitat 

for wintering waterfowl. 

Availability of Resources: The North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex currently 

spends approximately $3,600 of an annual budget of approximately $750,000 in the administration of 

the refuge cooperative farming program. In order for the refuge to conduct the farming program inhouse, specialized equipment would have to be acquired and maintained. It is estimated that utilizing 

refuge staff and equipment would cost approximately $52,000 per year. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance of roads, gates, and access points for cooperative farmers: $2,600 

Monitoring cooperative contracts and cooperator activities: $1,000 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

Soil disturbance is likely to occur when the areas are disked during the spring planting season. 

These impacts are lessened by the implementation of no-till and conservation tillage farming 

methods. Buffer strips adjacent to water bodies and other sensitive areas help trap sediments and 

hold agricultural run-off. 

The application of pesticides is controlled by the Service and only used after Pesticide Use Proposals 

submitted by the refuge manager are approved. Pesticide amounts, kind, and method of application 

are controlled by the Service. Impacts are unknown but would be short-term. 

Monotypic stands of agricultural crop reduce the diversity and suitability of refuge lands for some 

species of migratory and resident wildlife species. 

Long-term impacts: 

None 

Cumulative impacts: 

The cumulative impacts should be minimal due to limits on the use and kinds of pesticides, no-till, and 

conservation tillage farming practices and the use of buffer strips adjacent to water bodies and other 

sensitive areas. 
156 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004 and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Cooperators must meet conditions outlined in a 

Cooperative Farming Agreement, which is a contractual agreement between the refuge and the local 

farmer. Additionally, cooperators must follow conditions outlined under integrated pest management 

and within the Service’s Pesticide Use Proposal process. Cooperators are subject to dismissal for 

not meeting these conditions. 

Justification: Section 6 RM 4.1 of the National Wildlife Refuge System Refuge Manual states, 

“Service policy is to use the most natural means available to meet wildlife objectives. In situations 

where objectives cannot be met through maintenance of natural ecosystems, the artificial and 

intensive method of cropland management may be employed. The acreage devoted to croplands will 

be that required to meet minimum habitat objectives.” The specific objective is as follows: 

Using food as an index to carrying capacity, to provide wintering waterfowl habitat for: 

Ducks - 0.5 million duck-use days 

Geese - 0.5 million duck-use days 

Since establishment in 1992, the acreage of agricultural lands at Dahomey refuge has been reduced 

from 1,595 acres to 531 acres. Most of the 1,064 acres of former agricultural fields have been 

reforested. Complete water management through the use of wells is available on the remaining 531 

acres of agricultural lands. Augmented with 200 acres of moist-soil areas, the existing agricultural 

lands fail to meet the food requirements for duck-use days as specified in the North American 

Waterfowl and Wetland Plan. 

Although cropland management will be directed primarily to satisfy certain habitat and life 

requirements of wintering waterfowl, other bird and mammal species will also benefit. The production 

of crops is essential for waterfowl management to meet the primary objectives for which the refuge 

was established. Farming is an essential management tool for providing “hot” foods for migratory 

birds. 
Appendices 157

The annual Cooperative Farming Agreement addresses the management of the refuge farm fields. 

These fields are farmed by a cooperator under a contractual agreement with the refuge. Under this 

agreement, the refuge receives a 25 percent share of each cooperative farmer’s allotment where one 

acre out of four is planted for waterfowl food production. For their share, 75 percent, the cooperative 

farmer plants rice, corn, soybeans, or milo. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2015 

Description of Use: Fishing 

Fishing was a traditional recreational use of Dahomey refuge prior to its inclusion to the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and continues to be a popular recreational pursuit. The refuge provides 

additional public fishing opportunities in an area that is lacking sufficient amounts of acreage open to 

the public. Currently, fish populations support a sustainable harvest under a regulated fishing 

program. 

Fishing is limited to one natural lake, one lake constructed by the refuge, and one natural stream 

course. Catfish, bluegill, crappie, and largemouth bass comprise the most sought after fish species 

on the refuge. Happy Hollow Lake, an unnamed lake south of Sawmill Road, and the stream course 

north of this unnamed lake are the water bodies on the refuge that provide fishing opportunities. 

Fishing, a wildlife-dependent recreational pursuit, 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. 

The three described water bodies, comprising perhaps 12 acres, provide the only sustainable 

fisheries on the refuge. 

Fishing occurs year-round from sunrise to sunset, and is conducted subject to regulations established 

by the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. Fishing is further restricted on the 

refuge by regulations, which prohibit commercial fishing on the refuge, which prohibit the use of 

certain fishing methods, and which prohibit access after dark. The purchase of an annual hunting 

and fishing permit is required to fish on the refuge. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for the fishing program is borne by annual operation and 

maintenance funds, which support activities involving the public, such as recreation, interpretation, 

environmental education, and refuge hunting and fishing programs. The refuge spends 

approximately $8,000 of an annual North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex budget of 

approximately $750,000 in direct support of the fishing program on the refuge. Therefore, the 

program is in compliance with specific funding requirements of the Refuge Recreation Act. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 
158 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Maintenance costs: $6,000 

Monitoring costs: $2,000 

Offsetting revenues: $200 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

Minor impacts, such as litter and gasoline contamination, could occur but not at a level that would 

cause great concern. 

Long-term impacts: 

Since the number of persons fishing on the refuge is small and the activity occurs primarily in the 

spring, no long-term impacts are expected. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No cumulative impacts are known to occur. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004 and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Commercial fishing and possession or use of 

jugs, seines, nets, hand-grab baskets, or any other similar devices are prohibited. Persons are 

prohibited from accessing the refuge after dark. 

Justification: While the number of participants is limited, fishing has been an important activity on 

the refuge resulting in only very temporary disturbance to refuge habitats and wildlife populations, 

and has caused no noticeable impact on the abundance of species sought or other wildlife affected 

by angler disturbance. Current regulations limit the impacts to trust species and provide a safe and 

rewarding experience for the refuge visitor. 
Appendices 159

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2020 

Description of Use: Hunting 

Hunting has been permitted as a compatible public use activity on Dahomey refuge since acquisition. 

The original hunting plan was completed, reviewed by the public, and approved in 1994. Refuge 

hunting seasons generally coincide with the State’s hunting seasons and require only minor changes 

annually. Portions of the refuge are closed annually to all uses except those for disabled hunters. 

Due to overlapping hunting seasons, hunting of one type of game may be closed for the duration of 

hunting of a different type of game. All hunting activities are permitted with a valid refuge hunt permit 

and appropriate State licenses. 

The refuge hunts are excellent wildlife management and public relations tools that provide quality 

recreational opportunities for the general public while regulating specific animal populations at 

desired levels. The refuge hunting plan was developed to ensure the associated public recreation 

and wildlife management objectives are met in a responsible and consistent manner. 

Hunting, a wildlife-dependent recreational pursuit, 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. 

The entire 9,691-acre refuge is open to public hunting. Note, however, a 160-acre tract immediately 

north and east of the refuge headquarters is only open to disabled hunters. 

All hunting seasons are established annually through coordination with the Mississippi Department of 

Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. 

Public hunting opportunities in the northwest delta portion of the Yazoo Basin are limited with Service 

managed refuges and State managed wildlife management areas representing virtually all the public 

lands open to hunting. Private lands offer hunting opportunities only to those willing and able to 

purchase hunting rights through long-term leases or private ownership. The demand for public 

hunting areas in this portion of Mississippi is increasing as the area shifts toward a more urbanized 

society, and refuges are expected to meet an increasing part of this demand. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for the hunting program is borne by annual operation and 

maintenance funds, which support activities involving the public such as fishing, photography, 

environmental education and interpretation, and wildlife observation. The cost of operating and 

maintaining the present small game, big game, turkey, and migratory waterfowl seasons would be 

approximately $17,500 annually within the annual North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex budget of approximately $750,000. Therefore, the program is in compliance with specific 

funding requirements of the Refuge Recreation Act. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: $5,000 
160 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Maintenance costs: $1,500 

Permit sales: $1,000 

Law enforcement costs: $8,500 

Monitoring costs: $1,500 

Offsetting revenues: $7,500 

The refuge is a participant in the Recreational Fee Demonstration Project, which currently returns 80 

percent of fees generated from recreational activities back to the refuge. The offsetting revenues are 

from the sale of hunting and fishing permits. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

Dahomey refuge has been open to hunting since its establishment in 1991 with no documented 

disturbance to refuge habitats and no noticeable impact on the abundance of species hunted or other 

associated wildlife. While managed hunting opportunities may result in localized disruption of 

individual animals’ daily routines, no noticeable effect on populations has been noticed or 

documented. Restrictions within the hunting program, notably the closure of small game hunting 

during the general gun deer hunt, the requirement that all hunters, except those hunting turkey or 

waterfowl, wear fluorescent orange-colored material above the waistline while actually hunting, and 

the prohibition of hunting or shooting across any open field from ground level have been implemented 

due to safety concerns. These restrictions will be closely monitored for effectiveness. 

Long-term impacts: 

Prior to Service ownership of Dahomey refuge, the forested wetland that constitutes the refuge was a 

private hunting club with a large membership. Discussions with members of this hunting club indicate 

that deer and turkeys were the game most heavily hunted. While deer and turkey along with squirrel 

are still the game most heavily hunted, there is no indication of adverse biological impacts associated 

with the activities. Should, however, it become necessary, the refuge has the latitude to adjust 

hunting seasons and bag limits annually, or even close the refuge entirely if safety or habitat 

concerns merit such actions. This latitude, coupled with monitoring of wildlife populations and habitat 

conditions by the Service and the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, will ensure 

that long-term negative impacts to either wildlife populations and/or habitats on the refuge are 

unlikely. 

Should hunting pressure continue to increase on the refuge, alternatives such as quota hunts, a 

reduction in the number of days of hunting, or restrictions on that part of the refuge open to hunting 

can be utilized to limit impacts. 

Cumulative impacts: 

The timing and duration of the refuge’s hunting program do not coincide with most other public uses 

of the refuge and would not result in cumulative impacts to refuge resources. 
Appendices 161

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004 and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Hunting seasons and bag limits are established 

annually as agreed upon during the annual hunt coordination with State personnel. These generally 

fall within the State framework. The refuge can, and has, established more restrictive seasons and 

bag limits to prevent over-harvest of individual species on the refuge. All hunters are required to 

purchase and possess a refuge hunting permit while participating in refuge hunts. This permit, which 

augments the State hunting regulations, explains not only the general hunt regulations but the refugespecific regulations as well. Law enforcement patrols are frequently conducted throughout the 

hunting season to ensure compliance with refuge laws and regulations. The refuge has included a 

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) project for a fulltime officer to ensure compatibility long 

term. 

Justification: Hunting has shown to be a viable management tool for controlling wildlife populations. 

Allowing these uses to continue is consistent with the refuge’s establishing purpose, management 

objectives, and follows current Service policy. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2020 

Description of Use: Off-Road Vehicles 

Off-road vehicle (4-wheel all-terrain) use is not a priority public use; however, it can occur on the 

refuge provided it is compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

The general public could participate in the proposed use of off-road vehicles year-round from sunrise 

to sunset on Dahomey refuge, an area of approximately 9,600 acres southwest of Cleveland, 

Mississippi. 
162 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Off-road vehicles may be used on unimproved dirt roads, fire breaks, and logging roads by visitors 

who possess a valid hunting and fishing permit and who are gaining access to interior portions of the 

refuge for hunting and fishing opportunities. 

The use of off-road vehicles is proposed in response to questions raised during the scoping process. 

These questions centered on opportunities to provide visitors who possess a valid hunting and fishing 

permit off-road vehicle access to internal areas of the refuge for the purpose of hunting and fishing. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for this program would be borne by annual operation and 

maintenance funds, which support activities involving the public, such as interpretation, 

environmental education, wildlife photography, and refuge hunting and fishing programs. The North 

Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex would spend approximately $37,500 of an annual 

budget of approximately $750,000 in direct support of this program on Dahomey refuge. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements to support the use: $10,000 

Maintenance costs: $20,000 

Law enforcement costs: $12,500 

Monitoring costs: $2,500 

Offsetting revenues: $2,000 

The refuge does not have the resources to administer this use. Currently, the North Mississippi 

National Wildlife Refuges Complex does not have law enforcement personnel to monitor this activity. 

The Complex has included a Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) package for a fulltime law 

enforcement officer for Dahomey refuge. Additionally, this activity would require considerable 

operation and maintenance funds to maintain the existing unimproved dirt roads, fire breaks, and 

logging roads. It is expected that $2,000 of offsetting revenues would be generated by the sale of 

hunting and fishing permits to visitors who would not use the refuge unless they could also use offroad vehicles while accessing hunting and fishing areas. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

Adverse impacts to unimproved roads, fire breaks, and logging roads by the repeated use of off-road 

vehicles are well documented and disturbance to wildlife, plants, and their habitats would occur. 

Such use would be limited to the hunting and fishing seasons, which also coincide with extended 

periods of heavy rainfall. As use continues, the unimproved roads, fire breaks, and logging roads 

used for access become wallowed out and rainfall would accumulate in these “wet” areas. Repeated 

use exacerbates this condition. Conflicts would occur between those hunters and anglers who use 

off-road vehicles and those who object to the disturbance and noise associated with the vehicles. 

Long-term impacts:

Long-term impacts from the repeated use of off-road vehicles by the public would be compounded 

over time. Unimproved roads, fire breaks, and logging roads would continue to deteriorate and 

annual maintenance costs would increase. Additional damage to plants and habitats would be 

experienced as access for the heavy equipment required to maintain these access routes is 
Appendices 163

developed. Conflicts between hunters who use off-road vehicles and those who object to the 

associated disturbance and noise would continue. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No cumulative impacts are expected because other forms of public use on the unimproved roads, fire 

breaks, and logging roads would be limited to persons bicycling or walking. The “footprint” left by 

these other forms of use is very minimal. As the facilities and road networks at the refuge are 

improved, general outdoor recreation would likely increase. With this increase in use, conflicts would 

also increase between hunters who use off-road vehicles and those visitors using the refuge who 

object to disturbance and noise. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004 and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Compatible with the following stipulations 

 X Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: None 

 

Justification: To provide hunter access, a series of all-weather roads have been constructed. 

Additional all-weather roads are planned. In addition, approximately 23 miles of fire breaks and old 

logging roads are maintained obstruction free to facilitate the use of hand held carts, bicycles, 

wagons, etc., for the purpose of retrieving deer. Additional obstruction-free unimproved dirt roads 

also occur on the refuge. These facilities eliminate the need for the average hunter to use off-road 

vehicles on the refuge and prevent the inevitable habitat destruction that accompanies this type of 

usage. Off-road vehicle usage is an activity that is not compatible with refuge objectives. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2015 
164 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Description of Use: Resource Research Studies 

This activity would allow university professors and their students, nongovernmental researchers, and 

governmental scientists access to Dahomey refuge’s natural environment to conduct both short- and 

long-term research projects and surveys. The outcome of this research would result in better 

knowledge of our natural resources and improved methods to manage, monitor, and protect the 

refuge resources. 

Resource research studies are not a priority public use within the Service, but do support the mission 

of the Service in gathering good scientific data to make management decisions. 

These activities would be conducted throughout the refuge in a variety of habitats. Activities carried 

out during approved research projects and surveys may be limited to avoid unnecessary disturbance 

to refuge resources or ongoing management activities. 

The activities would vary in scope and duration to satisfy the requirement of the research project or 

survey. Projects may involve everything from a limited one-time sampling or survey to long-term 

study plots. 

Research projects and surveys would be conducted by universities, state and federal government 

representatives, and rarely by private individuals. The refuge would act solely in a supportive role, 

providing minimal assistance in most cases. 

Furthering the knowledge of the impacts and benefits of management decisions, life histories of 

wildlife species utilizing the refuge, and interrelationships of habitats and wildlife occurring on the 

refuge is crucial to effective management. The refuge provides secure sites for long-term evaluation 

of management actions, population trends, and ecological functions within the bottomland hardwood 

ecosystems in northwest Mississippi. 

Availability of Resources: This program is borne by annual operation and maintenance funds, 

which support activities involving the public, such as recreation, interpretation, environmental 

education, and refuge hunting and fishing programs. The North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex spends approximately $3,600 of an annual budget of approximately $750,000 in direct 

support of these programs on Dahomey refuge. Therefore, the program is in compliance with specific 

funding provisions of the Refuge Recreation Act. 

Special equipment, facilities or improvement necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: $1,000 

Monitoring costs: $2,600 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

There should be no significant adverse impacts from scientific research on the refuge. The 

knowledge gained from the research would provide information to improve management techniques 

for trust resource species. Impacts such as trampling vegetation, removal of small numbers of plants 
Appendices 165

and/or animals, and temporary disturbance to wildlife could occur, but should not be significant. The 

small number of individual plants and animals that may be collected for further study would not have 

a significant effect on the refuge plant and animal populations, and would require management 

approval prior to collection. 

Long-term impacts: 

Long-term benefits associated with improved management techniques developed through research 

or surveys would far outweigh any negative impacts, which may occur. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No adverse cumulative effects are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004 and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Each request for use of the refuge for research 

or survey would be examined on its individual merit. Questions of who, what, when, where, and why, 

would be asked to determine if the requested research could contribute to the refuge purposes and 

could best be conducted on the refuge without significantly affecting the resources. If so, the 

researcher would be issued a Special Use Permit that would clearly define allowed activities. 

Progress would be monitored and the researcher would be required to submit annual progress 

reports and copies of all publications derived from the research. 

Justification: The benefits derived from sound research provide a better understanding of species 

and the environmental communities present on the refuge. Research projects would be designed to 

minimize impacts and disturbance. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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 
166 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2015 

Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Wildlife observation and photography have been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 as priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses provided they are 

compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Wildlife photography, including other image-capturing activities, such as videography, has occurred 

on the refuge. There are no photography blinds or platforms on the refuge and none are proposed at 

this time. However, opportunities exist for photography on the refuge. This compatibility 

determination applies to personal photography only. Commercial photography or videography, if 

allowed, would require a special use permit by the refuge and would include specific restrictions. 

The general public could participate in wildlife observation and photography year-round from sunrise 

to sunset on Dahomey refuge, an area approximately 9,600 acres west of Cleveland, Mississippi, 

Wildlife observation and photography could be accomplished while driving or walking on refuge roads 

open to public vehicular traffic. Also, these priority public uses could be accomplished by walking the 

23 miles of old trails/logging roads or by boating on refuge waters.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 identifies wildlife observation and 

photography as priority public uses for national wildlife refuges, along with hunting, fishing, and 

environmental education and interpretation. As expressed priority uses of the Refuge System, these 

uses take precedence over other potential public uses in refuge planning and management. The 

Service strives to provide priority public uses when compatible with the purposes of the refuge and 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for this operation is borne by annual operation and 

maintenance funds, which supports activities involving the public, such as outdoor recreation, 

environmental education and interpretation, and the conduct of refuge hunting and fishing programs. 

The North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex spends approximately $8,000 of an annual 

budget of approximately $750,000 in direct support of these programs on Dahomey refuge. 

Therefore, the program is in compliance with specific funding requirements of the Refuge Recreation 

Act. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: $4,000 

Maintenance costs: $3,000 

Monitoring costs: $1,000 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

The refuge provides habitat for resident and migratory wildlife. As a result of these activities, 

individual animals may be disturbed by human contact to varying degrees. Examples of potential 

disturbance could include flushing of birds from feeding, resting, or nesting areas, and trampling of 

plants from observers and photographers wandering off designated roads in order to get closer to 
Appendices 167

subjects. Disturbance to trust species is expected to be minimal. Short-term impacts to facilities, 

such as roads and trails, could be avoided by special closures due to unsafe conditions. The wildlife 

observation and photography programs have been designed to avoid or minimize impacts on refuge 

resources and visitors. 

Long-term impacts: 

The vast majority of the activities associated with this use would be during the fall and early winter. 

Due to the recovery time between periods of expected use, no long-term impacts are expected. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No cumulative adverse impacts are anticipated. However, programs could be modified in the future 

to mitigate unforeseen impacts. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004 and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The 160-acre tract located northeast of the 

refuge headquarters is only open to disabled persons. Two hunting blinds are located on this 160-

acre tract. Although established as barrier free hunting blinds for disabled hunters, these blinds 

provide an excellent opportunity for disabled persons to participate in wildlife observation and 

photography. 

Justification: These wildlife-dependent uses are priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. Wildlife observation and photography would provide an excellent forum for allowing public 

access and increasing understanding of refuge resources. The stipulations outlined above should 

minimize potential impacts relative to wildlife/human interactions. These wildlife dependent uses 

would not conflict with the national policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and 

environmental health of the refuge. 
168 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2020 
Appendices 169

Refuge Name: Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge 

Uses: Several uses were evaluated to determine their compatibility with the Refuge System and 

mission and purposes of the refuge: 1) Bicycling; 2) Environmental Education and Interpretation; 3) 

Farming; 4) Fishing; 5) Hunting; 6) Off-Road Vehicle Use; 7) Resource Research Studies; and 8) 

Wildlife Observation and Photography. 

Location: Grenada and Tallahatchie Counties, Mississippi 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, Consolidated Farm 

and Rural Development Act 

Refuge Purposes: “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 751d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

“...for conservation purposes...” 7 U.S.C. § 2002 (Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.” 

Description of Use: Bicycling 

The use is bicycling to facilitate travel for the priority public uses on Tallahatchie National Wildlife 

Refuge. Priority public uses as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation. 

The general public could participate in the proposed public use on Tallahatchie National Wildlife 

Refuge, an area of approximately 4,000 acres west of Holcomb, Mississippi. 

Bicycles may be used on designated motorized vehicle access roads. Additionally, bicycles may be 

used on unimproved dirt roads, fire breaks, and logging roads. 

To promote safety, bicycling would be permitted from sunrise to sunset. Additionally, during the deer 

gun-hunting season, bicycling would only be allowed to facilitate hunter access. During the deer gunhunting season, bicyclists would need to possess a valid hunting and fishing permit. During other 

refuge hunting seasons, bicycle travel for non-consumptive priority public uses would be allowed. 

Bicycling to facilitate non-consumptive priority public uses would involve observing the natural 

landscape from a bicycle. Riders would stop to observe associated animals and plant communities. 

The use would mainly occur in groups with an average size of 2-4 riders. Regarding consumptive 

uses, anglers could access refuge lands for fishing by bicycle travel on designated roads and trails. 

Hunters could do the same to access game. To promote safety with other users, prevent conflicts, 

and promote a quality wildlife observation environment, group size would be limited to 10 bicyclists. 

Groups of more than 10 would have to contact the refuge office for a special use permit prior to using 

the refuge. This would help protect refuge resources and ensure that larger groups would not conflict 

with concurrent public uses. 
170 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Bicycle travel on the refuge would be conducted in accordance with the stipulations necessary to 

ensure compatibility. Travel would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

Bicycle travel on the refuge would provide increased opportunity for public participation in priority 

public uses. It is an alternative method of travel to view the refuge’s diverse biological assets and 

could be less physically demanding than pedestrian travel. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for these programs is borne by annual operation and 

maintenance funds, which support activities involving the public, such as recreation, environmental 

education and interpretation, and hunting and fishing programs. The North Mississippi National 

Wildlife Refuges Complex spends approximately $3,000 of an annual budget of approximately 

$750,000 in direct support of these programs on Tallahatchie refuge. Therefore, the program is in 

compliance with specific funding provisions of the Refuge Recreation Act. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: $1,000 

Maintenance costs: $1,000 

Monitoring costs: $1,000 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

Bicycle use can cause soil compaction, particularly when soils are wet, which can degrade plant 

communities. Soil compaction can diminish the soil porosity, aeration, and nutrient availability. 

It is anticipated that bicycle use could alter drainage features of roads and trails through erosion and 

compaction. Tires may create trail incision causing increased water channeling and erosion during 

wet conditions. These problems would be minimized because routes designated for bicycle use are 

existing improved roads, logging trails, and fire breaks. Based on current levels of use and conditions 

of designated routes, changes to hydrology because of this use are likely to be insignificant. 

Anticipated impacts of bicycle use on wildlife include temporal disturbances to species using habitat 

on the trail or directly adjacent to the trail. These disturbances are likely to be short-term and 

infrequent based on current level of use. 

Disturbances to trust species are minimal due to the locations of the designated gravel roads and 

unimproved roads and fire breaks. Short-term impacts to facilities, such as roads and trails, can be 

avoided by special closures. 

Long-term impacts: 

No long-term impacts are anticipated. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No cumulative adverse impacts are anticipated. However, programs could be modified in the future 

to mitigate unforeseen impacts. 
Appendices 171

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004 and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: At the present time, public entry to include 

visitors involved in bicycling is not permitted on that part of the refuge located north of Highway 8 

except by special use permit. Bicycling, except for hunting use, is not permitted during the deer gunhunting season. Hunters are allowed to use bicycles but they must remain on designated roads and 

trails. Bicycle group size is limited to 10 bicyclists, to promote public safety, accommodate other 

users, and provide a positive wildlife viewing experience. Group size greater than 10 requires a 

special use permit issued by the refuge manager. 

Justification: That part of Tallahatchie refuge located north of Highway 8 is divided by the Tippo 

Bayou. There is no legal access for general public use of the northeast section of the refuge. The 

remaining refuge lands north of Highway 8 are enrolled in the cooperative farming program or 

established as waterfowl management units. Management efforts are successful with large numbers 

of migratory waterfowl using the refuge from October to March. Experience has shown that birds 

using the refuge are susceptible to disturbance. 

Bicycling has been determined to be compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. 

Bicycle use, as identified in this compatibility determination, is not expected to materially interfere 

with, or detract from, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the 

refuge was established. The use of bicycles to facilitate the priority public use is a reasonable mode 

of access on designated roads and trails. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure this use remains 

compatible. If significant impacts are found, corrective actions would be taken to protect refuge 

resources. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2015 
172 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Description of Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Environmental education and interpretation would consist primarily of teacher workshops, visitor 

education, teaching students, and interpretation. 

Those activities seek to increase the public’s knowledge and understanding of wildlife and contribute 

to the conservation of such wildlife. Activities would include traditional environmental education, such 

as teacher or staff-led on-site field trips, off-site programs in classrooms, nature study such as 

teacher and student workshops, and interpretation of the wildlife resources incorporated in support of 

facilities, such as interpretive trails, kiosks, and visitor contact stations. 

Environmental education and interpretation 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. 

All that portion of the refuge south of Highway 8 has the potential to be utilized for environmental 

education and interpretation. 

Environmental education and interpretation are year-round activities, conducted on an as requested 

basis. Although these activities do not require a special use permit, they are most often closely 

coordinated with the refuge manager. 

The refuge would serve as an outdoor classroom for a variety of audiences with an interest in wildlife 

conservation and management. Typically, teachers, students, and other groups would learn from 

hands-on demonstrations, projects, and activities delivered by refuge staff. Activities would be 

conducted on-site utilizing existing refuge facilities. Group size would typically be limited to ensure 

effective presentation of desired materials, which may be specifically tailored to meet the educational 

needs of the group. 

Environmental education and interpretation are utilized to encourage understanding in citizens of all 

ages to develop land ethics, foster public support, increase visibility, and improve the image of the 

Service. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for these activities is borne by annual operation and 

maintenance funds, which support activities involving the public, such as outdoor recreation, wildlife 

photography, and the refuge hunting and fishing programs. The North Mississippi National Wildlife 

Refuges Complex spends approximately $3,600 of an annual budget of approximately $750,000 in 

direct support of these programs on Tallahatchie refuge. Therefore, the program is in compliance 

with specific funding provisions of the Refuge Recreation Act. 

Currently, these activities are conducted as time and resources permit. Developing a volunteer 

organization for the refuge would provide for the future of these programs by providing additional 

personnel to deliver the programs. 

Facilities (including kiosks, interpretive signs and brochures): $2000 

On-site activities: $1000 

Maintenance costs: $2000 

Monitoring costs: $1,000 
Appendices 173

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

The use of on-site, hands-on, action-oriented activities by groups of teachers/students to accomplish 

environmental education objectives may impose a low level impact on those sites used for these 

activities. Impacts may include trampling of vegetation and temporary disturbance to wildlife species 

in the immediate vicinity during the activities. Since most activities would take place on existing 

roads, trails, and at other facilities, impacts would be minimal. 

Long-term impacts: 

Current utilization of these uses is incidental to overall refuge programs and no long-term adverse 

impacts have been experienced. Long-term beneficial impacts include the furthering of the refuge 

mission through the education of the general public. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No adverse cumulative impacts are anticipated.

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004 and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: On-site activities should be held where minimal 

impact would occur. Evaluations of sites and programs should be conducted periodically to assess if 

objectives are being met and that natural resources are not being degraded. If evidence of 

unacceptable adverse impacts begin to appear, it may be necessary to change the location of the 

outdoor activities. 

Justification: Environmental education and interpretation are used to encourage an understanding 

in citizens of all ages to act responsibly in protecting a healthy ecosystem. They are tools to use in 

building land ethic, developing support of the refuge, and decreasing wildlife violations. 

Environmental education and interpretation are methods of increasing visibility in the community and 

improving the image of the Service. 
174 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Environmental education at the refuge is incidental to other programs since there is no full-time staff 

to conduct these activities. However, the program is important and provides visitors with an 

awareness of refuge-specific issues such as wetland ecology, migratory bird management, and 

issues relating to the entire Refuge System. Environmental education and interpretation activities are 

expected to increase while ensuring compatibility with the purpose for which the refuge was 

established. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2020 

Description of Use: Farming 

Cooperative farming has been a management tool on Tallahatchie refuge since 1991. Primarily 

serving as a supplement to natural food resources, this program is designed to assist the refuge in 

meeting wintering waterfowl goals. Cooperative agreements with farmers are entered into annually 

prior to the planting season. These agreements describe the location and amount of acreage to be 

planted during the coming year. The agreement is then signed by the cooperative farmer and the 

Service representative (refuge manager). Shares are acreage based with a 75 percent cooperator’s 

share and a 25 percent refuge share. The cooperator assumes responsibility for all associated costs 

for the crops raised. Modifications to the original contract may occur throughout the farming season 

with amendments agreed upon and signed by all parties involved. Currently, cooperative farming 

occurs on 721 acres. 

In addition to providing winter food resources, this program may be utilized to maintain a newly 

acquired tract of land in an open condition until decisions are made concerning the tract’s ultimate 

vegetative community. 

Farming is used to complement natural food production on the refuge and assist in meeting the 

minimum waterfowl maintenance objectives, as determined in cooperation with the Lower Mississippi 

Valley Joint Venture Office of the North American Waterfowl and Wetlands Plan. Providing wintering 

and migrating habitat can be achieved, in part, through a successful cropland program. By 

incorporating a system of impoundments with the cropland program, the waterfowl maintenance 

objectives can be more easily met. Preferred waterfowl crops include corn, milo, rice, millet, 

soybeans, and natural (moist-soil) foods. By planting crops such as rice and milo in the impoundment 

areas and using wells to flood the areas during the wintering season, food availability for waterfowl is 

enhanced. 

Farming is not a priority public use within the Service. 

Cooperative farming is confined to those agricultural fields north of Highway 8 that were acquired as 

part of the refuge and have not been reforested or maintained in other vegetative communities. 

Tracts acquired in the future that include agricultural fields may also be farmed prior to determining 

ultimate vegetative communities. 
Appendices 175

Cooperative farming agreements are entered into annually, usually prior to April 15th and extend until 

the end of the harvest season. 

Cooperative farming is conducted through a cooperative agreement wherein the cooperator provides 

all materials, equipment, and labor to fulfill the requirements of the contract. Facilities such as roads, 

gates, and access points are maintained by the refuge staff. 

This use is necessary to fulfill refuge obligations to provide for the wintering needs of migratory 

waterfowl. While agricultural lands are abundant off the refuge, they do not provide a secure habitat 

for wintering waterfowl. 

Availability of Resources: The North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex currently 

spends approximately $3,600 of an annual budget of approximately $750,000 in the administration of 

the refuge cooperative farming program. In order for the refuge to conduct the farming program inhouse, specialized equipment would have to be acquired and maintained. It is estimated that utilizing 

refuge staff and equipment would cost approximately $73,000 per year. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance of roads, gates, and access points for cooperative farmers: $2,600 

Monitoring costs: $1,000 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

Soil disturbance is likely to occur when the areas are disked during the spring planting season. 

These impacts are lessened by the implementation of no-till and conservation tillage farming 

methods. Buffer strips adjacent to water bodies and other sensitive areas help trap sediments and 

hold agricultural run-off. 

The application of pesticides is controlled by the Service and only used after Pesticide Use Proposals 

submitted by the refuge manager are approved. Pesticide amounts, kinds, and methods of 

application are controlled by the Service. Impacts are unknown but would be short term. 

Monotypic stands of agricultural crop reduce the diversity and suitability of refuge lands for a variety 

of migratory and resident wildlife species. 

Long-term impacts: 

None 

Cumulative impacts: 

The cumulative impacts should be minimal due to limits on the use and kinds of pesticides, no-till and 

conservation tillage farming practices and the use of buffer strips adjacent to water bodies and other 

sensitive areas. 
176 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004 and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Cooperators must meet conditions outlined in 

the Cooperative Farming Agreements, which are contractual agreements between the refuge and 

local farmers. Additionally, cooperators must follow conditions outlined under integrated pest 

management and within the Service’s Pesticide Use Proposal process. Cooperators are subject to 

dismissal for not meeting these conditions. 

Justification: Section 6 RM 4.1 of the National Wildlife Refuge System Refuge Manual states, 

“Service policy is to use the most natural means available to meet wildlife objectives. In situations 

where objectives cannot be met through maintenance of natural ecosystems, the artificial and 

intensive method of cropland management may be employed. The acreage devoted to croplands will 

be that required to meet minimum habitat objectives.” The specific objective is as follows: 

Using food as an index to carrying capacity, provide wintering waterfowl habitat for: 

Ducks -1.2 million duck-use days 

Geese - 0.35 million duck-use days 

Since establishment in 1991, the acreage of agricultural lands at Tallahatchie refuge has been 

reduced from 1,980 acres to 600 acres. Almost all of the 1,680 acres of former agricultural fields has 

been reforested. Complete water management through the use of wells is available on the remaining 

600 acres of agricultural lands. Augmented with 718 acres of moist-soil areas, the existing 

agricultural lands fail to meet the food requirements for duck-use days as specified in the North 

American Waterfowl and Wetland Plan. 

Although cropland management will be directed primarily to satisfy certain habitat and life 

requirements of wintering waterfowl, other bird and mammal species will also benefit. The production 

of crops is essential for waterfowl management to meet the primary objectives for which the refuge 

was established. Farming is an essential management tool for providing “hot” foods for migratory 

birds. 
Appendices 177

The annual Cooperative Farming agreement addresses the management of the refuge farm fields. 

These fields are farmed by a cooperator under an agreement with the refuge. Under this agreement, 

the refuge receives a 25 percent share of each cooperative farmer’s allotment where 1 acre out of 4 

is planted for waterfowl food production. For his 75 percent share, the cooperative farmer plants rice, 

soybeans, corn, or milo. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2015 

Description of Use: Fishing 

Fishing was a traditional recreational use of Tallahatchie refuge prior to its inclusion in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and continues to be a popular recreational pursuit. The refuge provides 

additional public fishing opportunities in an area that is lacking sufficient amounts of natural stream 

fishing open to the public, and current fish populations currently support a sustainable harvest under 

a regulated fishing program. 

Fishing is permitted on that part of Tippo Bayou south of Highway 8 that basically forms the eastern 

boundary of the refuge for about 4 miles, and on Long Lake, an old channel of Tippo Bayou that is 

about 2 miles long and totally within the refuge. The refuge maintains a boat ramp on each of these 

water bodies that is open to the public with the purchase of an annual hunting and fishing permit. 

During high water periods in the late winter and spring, catfish, bluegill, and crappie are present in 

numbers to attract local anglers. However, during late summer and early fall, water levels and 

dissolved oxygen levels are sufficiently low that fish sampling has shown fish populations are 

dominated by shad, carp, and gar. Few anglers fish on the refuge during these time periods. 

Fishing, a wildlife-dependent recreational pursuit, 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. 

Fishing is permitted, year-round from sunrise to sunset, on that portion of Tippo Bayou south of 

Highway 8 that forms the eastern boundary of the refuge, and on about 2 miles of Long Lake, an old 

channel of Tippo Bayou that is entirely within the refuge. 

Fishing is conducted on the refuge subject to regulations established by the Mississippi Department 

of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. Fishing is further restricted by regulations which prohibit commercial 

fishing on the refuge, prohibit the use of certain fishing methods, and prohibit access after dark. The 

purchase of an annual hunting and fishing permit is required to fish on the refuge. 

Fishing is conducted to provide fishable waters to the public in an area where public fishing 

opportunities in natural stream habitats are limited and to utilize a sustainable natural resource. 
178 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Availability of Resources: Funding for the fishing program is borne by annual operation and 

maintenance funds, which support activities involving the public, such as recreation, interpretation, 

environmental education, and refuge hunting and fishing programs. The North Mississippi National 

Wildlife Refuges Complex spends approximately $7,000 of a budget of approximately $750,000 in 

direct support of the fishing program on the refuge. Therefore, the program is in compliance with 

specific funding requirements of the Refuge Recreation Act. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: $5,000 

Monitoring costs: $2,000 

Offsetting revenues: $200 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

 

Short-term impacts: 

Minor impacts such as litter and gasoline contamination could occur but not at a level that would 

cause great concern. 

Long-term impacts: 

Since the number of persons fishing on the refuge is small and the activity occurs primarily during 

high water periods in the spring, no long-term impacts are expected. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No cumulative impacts are known to occur. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004 and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 
Appendices 179

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Commercial fishing and possession or use of 

jugs, seines, nets, hand-grab baskets, or any other similar devices are prohibited. Persons are 

prohibited from accessing the refuge after dark. 

Justification: While the number of participants is limited, fishing has been an important activity on 

the refuge resulting in only very temporary disturbance to refuge habitats and wildlife populations, 

and has caused no noticeable impact on the abundance of species sought or other wildlife affected 

by angler disturbance. Current regulations limit the impacts to trust species and provide a safe and 

rewarding experience for the refuge visitor. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2020 

Description of Use: Hunting 

Hunting has been permitted as a compatible public use activity on Tallahatchie refuge since 

acquisition. The original hunting plan was completed, reviewed by the public, and approved in 1994. 

Refuge hunting seasons generally coincide with the State hunting seasons and require only minor 

changes annually. Only that part of the refuge south of Highway 8 is open to public hunting. Due to 

overlapping hunting seasons, hunting of one type of game may be closed for the duration of hunting 

of a different type of game. All hunting activities are permitted with a valid refuge hunt permit and 

appropriate State licenses. 

The refuge hunting program is an excellent wildlife management and public relations tool that 

provides quality recreational opportunities for the general public while regulating specific animal 

populations at desired levels. The refuge hunting plan was developed to ensure that associated 

public recreation and wildlife management objectives are met in a responsible and consistent 

manner. 

Hunting, a wildlife-dependent recreational pursuit, 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. 

The general public can participate in hunting on Tallahatchie refuge, an area of approximately 4,000 

acres west of Holcomb, Mississippi. 

All hunting seasons are established annually through coordination with the Mississippi Department of 

Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. 

Public hunting opportunities in the northwest delta portion of the Yazoo Basin are limited with Service 

managed refuges and State managed wildlife management areas representing virtually all the public 

lands open to hunting. Private lands offer hunting opportunities only to those willing and able to 

purchase hunting rights through long-term leases or private ownership. The demand for public 

hunting areas in this portion of Mississippi is increasing as there is a shift towards a more urbanized 

society, and refuges are expected to meet an increasing part of this demand. 
180 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Availability of Resources: Funding for the hunting program is borne by annual operation and 

maintenance funds, which support activities involving the public such as fishing, photography, 

environmental education and interpretation, and wildlife observation. The cost of operating and 

maintaining the present small game, big game, turkey, and migratory waterfowl seasons would be 

approximately $17,500 annually within the annual North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex budget of approximately $750,000. Therefore, the program is in compliance with specific 

funding requirements of the Refuge Recreation Act. 

Special equipment, facilities or improvements necessary to support the use: $5,000 

Maintenance costs: $1,500 

Permit sales: $1,000 

Law enforcement costs: $8,500 

Monitoring costs: $1,500 

Offsetting revenues: $7,500 

The refuge is a participant in the Recreational Fee Demonstration Project which currently returns 80 

percent of fees generated from recreational activities back to the refuge. The offsetting revenues are 

from the sale of hunting and fishing permits. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

That part of Tallahatchie refuge south of Highway 8 has been open to hunting since its establishment 

in 1992, with no documented disturbance to refuge habitats and no noticeable impact on the 

abundance of species hunted or other associated wildlife. While managed hunting opportunities may 

result in localized disruption of an individual animal’s daily routine, no noticeable effect on populations 

has been noticed or documented. Restrictions within the hunting program, notably the closure of 

small game hunting during the general gun deer hunt, the requirement that all hunters, except those 

hunting turkey or waterfowl, wear fluorescent orange-colored material above the waistline while 

actually hunting, and the prohibition of hunting or shooting across any open field from ground level 

have been implemented due to safety concerns. These restrictions will be closely monitored for 

effectiveness. 

Long-term impacts: 

Prior to Service ownership of Tallahatchie refuge, the area south of Highway 8 was in several 

ownerships. Hunting was an activity that occurred on each individual parcel either by the owners or 

by the person or persons who leased the hunting rights from the owners. Deer and migratory 

waterfowl were the most heavily hunted species. While deer and migratory waterfowl are still the 

game most heavily hunted, hunters also pursue squirrel and rabbits. To date, there is no indication of 

adverse biological impacts associated with the activities. Should it become necessary, the refuge 

has the latitude to adjust hunting seasons and bag limits annually, and to close the refuge entirely if 

safety or habitat issues become concerns. This latitude, coupled with monitoring of wildlife 

populations and habitat conditions by the Service and the State Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and 
Appendices 181

Parks, will ensure that long-term negative impacts to either wildlife populations and/or habitats on the 

refuge are unlikely. 

Should hunting pressure continue to increase on the refuge, alternatives such as quota hunts, a 

reduction in the number of days of hunting, or restrictions on that part of the refuge open to hunting 

can be utilized to limit impacts. 

Cumulative impacts: 

The timing and duration of the refuge’s hunting program does not coincide with most other public 

uses of the refuge and would not result in cumulative impacts to refuge resources. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004 and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: At the present time, public entry to include 

visitors involved in hunting is not permitted on that part of the refuge located north of Highway 8 

except by special use permit. 

Hunting seasons and bag limits are established annually as agreed upon during the annual hunt 

coordination with State personnel. These generally fall within the State framework. The refuge can, 

and has, established more restrictive seasons and bag limits to prevent over-harvest of individual 

species on the refuge. All hunters are required to purchase and possess a refuge hunting permit 

while participating in refuge hunts. This permit, which augments the State hunting regulations, 

explains not only the general hunt regulations but also the refuge-specific regulations. Law 

enforcement patrols are frequently conducted throughout the hunting season to ensure compliance 

with refuge laws and regulations. The refuge has included a RONS project for a fulltime officer to 

ensure compatibility long term. 

Justification: That part of Tallahatchie refuge located north of Highway 8 is divided by the Tippo 

Bayou. There is no legal access for general public use to the northeast section of the refuge. The 

remaining refuge lands north of Highway 8 are either enrolled in the cooperative farming program or 

established waterfowl management units. Management efforts are successful with large numbers of 

migratory waterfowl using the refuge from October to March. Experience has shown that birds using 

the refuge are susceptible to disturbance. 
182 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Hunting has shown to be a viable management tool for controlling wildlife populations. Allowing 

these uses to continue is consistent with the refuge’s establishing purpose and management 

objectives, and follows current Service policy. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2020 

Description of Use: Off-Road Vehicle Use 

Off-road vehicle (4-wheel all-terrain) use is not a priority public use; however, it can occur on the 

refuge provided it is compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. The general 

public could participate in the proposed use of off-road vehicles year-round from sunrise to sunset on 

Tallahatchie refuge, an area of approximately 4,000 acres west of Holcomb, Mississippi. 

Off-road vehicles could be used on unimproved dirt roads, fire breaks, and logging roads by visitors 

who possess a valid hunting and fishing permit and who are gaining access to interior portions of the 

refuge for hunting and fishing opportunities. 

The use of off-road vehicles is proposed in response to questions raised during the scoping process. 

These questions centered on opportunities to provide visitors who possess a valid hunting and fishing 

permit off-road vehicle access to internal areas of the refuge for the purpose of hunting and fishing. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for this program would be borne by annual operation and 

maintenance funds which support activities involving the public such as interpretation, environmental 

education, wildlife photography, and hunting and fishing programs. The North Mississippi National 

Wildlife Refuges Complex would spend approximately $27,500 of an annual budget of approximately 

$750,000 in direct support of this program on Tallahatchie refuge. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: $10,000 

Maintenance costs: $10,000 

Law enforcement costs: $5,000 

Monitoring costs: $2,500 

Offsetting revenues: $1,000 
Appendices 183

The refuge does not have the resources to administer this use. Currently, the North Mississippi 

National Wildlife Refuges Complex does not have law enforcement personnel to monitor this activity. 

The Complex has included a Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) package for a fulltime law 

enforcement officer for Tallahatchie refuge. Additionally, this activity would require considerable 

operation and maintenance funds to maintain the existing unimproved dirt roads, fire breaks, and 

logging roads. It is expected that $1,000 of offsetting revenues would be generated by the sale of 

hunting and fishing permits to visitors who would not use the refuge unless they could also use offroad vehicles while accessing hunting and fishing areas. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

Adverse impacts to unimproved roads, fire breaks, and logging roads by the repeated use of off-road 

vehicles are well documented and disturbance to wildlife, plants and their habitats would occur. Such 

use would be limited to the hunting and fishing season which also coincides with extended periods of 

heavy rainfall. As use continues, the unimproved roads and fire breaks used for access become 

wallowed out and rainfall would accumulate in these “wet” areas. Repeated use exacerbates this 

condition. Conflicts would occur between those hunters and anglers who use off-road vehicles and 

those who object to the disturbance and noise associated with the vehicles. 

Long-term impacts: 

Long-term impacts from the repeated use of off-road vehicles by the public would be compounded 

over time. Unimproved roads and fire breaks would continue to deteriorate and annual maintenance 

costs would increase. Additional damage to plants and habitats would be experienced as access for 

the heavy equipment required to maintain these access routes is developed. Conflicts between 

hunters who use off-road vehicles and those who object to the associated disturbance and noise 

would continue. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No cumulative impacts are expected because other forms of public use on the unimproved roads, fire 

breaks, and logging roads would be limited to persons bicycling or walking. The “footprint” left by 

these other forms of use is very minimal. As the facilities and road network at the refuge are 

improved, general outdoor recreation would likely increase. With this increase in use, conflicts would 

also increase between hunters who use off-road vehicles and those visitors using the refuge who 

object to disturbance and noise. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004 and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 
184 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Determination (check one below): 

 Compatible with the following stipulations 

 X Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: None 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: None 

Justification: To provide hunter access, a series of all-weather roads have been constructed. 

Additional all-weather roads are planned. In addition, the unimproved roads and fire breaks are 

maintained obstruction free to facilitate the use of hand held carts, bicycles, wagons, etc., for the 

purpose of retrieving deer. These facilities eliminate the need for the average hunter to use off-road 

vehicles on the refuge and prevent the inevitable habitat destruction that accompanies this usage 

type. Off-road vehicle usage is an activity which is not compatible with refuge objectives. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2015 

Description of Use: Resource Research Studies 

This activity would allow university professors and their students, nongovernmental researchers, and 

governmental scientists access to the Tallahatchie refuge natural environment to conduct both shortand long-term research projects and surveys. The outcome of this research would result in better 

knowledge of our natural resources and improved methods to manage, monitor, and protect the 

refuge resources. 

Resource research studies are not a priority public use within the Service, but do support the mission 

of the Service in gathering good scientific data to make management decisions. 

These activities would be conducted throughout the refuge in a variety of habitats. Activities carried 

out during approved research projects and surveys may be limited to avoid unnecessary disturbance 

to refuge resources or ongoing management activities. 

The activities would vary in scope and duration to satisfy the requirement of the research project or 

survey. Projects may involve everything from a limited one-time sampling or survey to long-term 

study plots. 

Research projects and surveys would be conducted by universities, state and federal government 

representatives, and rarely by private individuals. The refuge would act solely in a supportive role, 

providing minimal assistance in most cases. 
Appendices 185

Furthering the knowledge of the impacts and benefits of management decisions, life histories of 

wildlife species utilizing the refuge, and interrelationships of habitats and wildlife occurring on the 

refuge is crucial to the effective management of the refuge. The refuge provides secure sites for 

long-term evaluation of management actions, population trends and ecological functions within the 

bottomland hardwood ecosystems in northwest Mississippi. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for this program is borne by annual operation and maintenance 

funds which support activities involving the public such as recreation, interpretation, environmental 

education, and refuge hunting and fishing programs. The North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex spends approximately $3,600 of an annual budget of approximately $750,000 in direct 

support of these programs on Tallahatchie refuge. Therefore, the program is in compliance with 

specific funding requirements of the Refuge Recreation Act. 

Special equipment, facilities or improvement necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: $1,000 

Monitoring costs: $2,600 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

There should be no significant adverse impacts from scientific research on the refuge. The 

knowledge gained from the research would provide information to improve management techniques 

for trust resource species. Impacts such as trampling vegetation, removal of small numbers of plants 

and/or animals and temporary disturbance to wildlife could occur, but should not be significant. The 

small number of individual plants and animals that may be collected for further study would not have 

a significant effect on the refuge plant and animal populations, and would require management 

approval prior to collecting. 

Long-term impacts: 

Long-term benefits associated with improved management techniques developed through research 

or surveys would far outweigh any negative impacts which may occur. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No adverse cumulative effects are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004 and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 
186 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Each request for use of the refuge for research 

or survey would be examined on its individual merit. Questions of who, what, when, where, and why, 

would be asked to determine if the requested research contributed to the refuge purposes and could 

best be conducted on the refuge without significantly affecting the resources. If so, the researcher 

would be issued a Special Use Permit that would clearly define allowed activities. Progress would be 

monitored and the researcher would be required to submit annual progress reports and copies of all 

publications derived from the research. 

Justification: The benefits derived from sound research provide a better understanding of species 

and the environmental communities present on the refuge. Research projects would be designed to 

minimize impacts and disturbance. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2015 

Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Wildlife observation and photography have been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 as priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses provided they are 

compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Wildlife photography, including other image-capturing activities such as videography, has occurred on 

the refuge. There are no photography blinds or platforms on the refuge and none are proposed at 

this time. However, opportunities exist for photography on the refuge. This compatibility 

determination applies to personal photography only. Commercial photography or videography, if 

allowed, would require a special use permit by the refuge with specific restrictions. 

The general public can participate in wildlife observation and photography year-round from sunrise to 

sunset on Tallahatchie refuge, an area of approximately 4,000 acres west of Holcomb, Mississippi. 

Wildlife observation and photography can be accomplished while driving or walking on refuge roads 

open to public vehicular traffic. Also, these priority public uses can be accomplished by boating on 

refuge waters or walking the unimproved roads and fire breaks. 
Appendices 187

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 identifies wildlife observation and 

photography as priority public uses for national wildlife refuges, along with hunting, fishing, and 

environmental education and interpretation. As expressed priority uses of the Refuge System, these 

uses take precedence over other potential public uses in refuge planning and management. The 

Service strives to provide priority public uses when compatible with the purposes of the refuge and 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for this operation is borne by annual operation and 

maintenance funds which support activities involving the public, such as environmental education, 

interpretation, hunting and fishing programs. The North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex spends approximately $6,000 of an annual budget of approximately $750,000 in direct 

support of these programs on Tallahatchie refuge. Therefore, the program is in compliance with 

specific funding requirements of the Refuge Recreation Act. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: $3,000 

Maintenance costs: $2,000 

Monitoring costs: $1,000 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

The refuge provides habitat for resident and migratory wildlife. As a result of these activities, 

individual animals may be disturbed by human contact to varying degrees. Examples of potential 

disturbance include flushing of birds from feeding, resting, or nesting areas, and trampling of plants 

from observers and photographers wandering off designated roads in order to get closer to subjects. 

Disturbance to trust species are expected to be minimal. Short-term impacts to facilities such as 

roads and trails can be avoided by special closures due to unsafe conditions. The wildlife 

observation and photography programs have been designed to avoid or minimize impacts to refuge 

resources and visitors. 

Long-term impacts: 

Due to the recovery time between periods of expected use, no long-term impacts are expected. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No cumulative adverse impacts are anticipated. However, programs can be modified in the future to 

mitigate unforeseen impacts. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on September 9, 

2004 and ended on October 21, 2004. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 
188 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, which was announced 

in the Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations: At the present time, public entry to include visitors involved in wildlife observation and 

photography is not permitted on that part of the refuge located north of Highway 8 except by special 

use permit. 

Justification: That part of Tallahatchie refuge located north of Highway 8 is divided by the Tippo 

Bayou. There is no legal access for general public use to the northeast section of the refuge. The 

remaining refuge lands north of Highway 8 are either enrolled in the cooperative farming program or 

established waterfowl management units. Management efforts are successful with large numbers of 

migratory waterfowl using the refuge from October to March. Experience has shown that birds using 

the refuge are susceptible to disturbance. The northwest section of the refuge is bisected by a public 

county road which offers an excellent opportunity for wildlife observation and photography. 

These wildlife-dependent uses are priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Providing opportunities for wildlife observation and photography would contribute toward fulfilling 

provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended in 1997. Wildlife 

observation and photography would provide an excellent forum for allowing public access and 

increasing understanding of refuge resources. The stipulations outlined above should minimize 

potential impacts relative to wildlife/human interactions. In our opinion, these wildlife dependent uses 

will not conflict with the national policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental 

health of the refuge. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: September 2020 
Appendices 189

Approval of Compatibility Determinations: 

The signature of approval covers all the compatibility determinations considered within the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex. If 

one of the descriptive uses is considered for compatibility outside of the plan, the approval signatures 

become part of that determination. 
190 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 
Appendices 191

Appendix E: Species Lists 

MASTER LIST OF BIRD SPECIES* 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps

Horned grebe Podiceps auritus

Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchus

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga

Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus

Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis

American bittern Botarus lentiginosus

Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax

Yellow-crowned night-heron Nyctanassa violacea

Green heron Butorides striatus

Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis

Snowy egret Egretta thula

Great egret Casmerodius albus

Great blue heron Ardea herodia

Wood stork Mycteria americana

Glossy ibis Plegadis falcinellus

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi

White ibis Eudocimus albus

Roseate spoonbill Ajaia ajaja

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis

Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons

Snow goose Chen caerulescens

Ross' goose Chen rossii 

Canada goose Branta canadensis 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

American black duck Anas rubripes 

Gadwall Anas strepera

American green-winged teal Anas crecca
192 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Common Name Scientific Name 

American wigeon Anas americana

Northern pintail Anas acuta

Northern shoveler Anas clypeata

Blue-winged teal Anas discors

Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis

Fulvous whistling-duck Dendrocygna bicolor

Wood duck Aix sponsa

Canvasback Aythya valisineria

Redhead Aythya americana

Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris

Greater scaup Aythya marila

Lesser scaup Aythya affinis 

Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis

Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola

Common merganser Mergus merganser

Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator

Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus

King rail Rallus elegans

Virgina rail Rallus limicola

Sora Porzana carolina

Yellow rail Coturnicops noveborasensis

Purple gallinule Porphyrula martinica

Common moorhen Gallinula chloropus 

American coot Fulica americana 

American avocet Recurvirostra americana 

Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus 

Wilson's plover Charadrius wilsonia 

Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferous 

Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatrola 

American golden plover Pluvialis dominica 

Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa 

Hudsonian godwit Limosa haemastica 

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus 
Appendices 193

Common Name Scientific Name 

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus 

Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 

Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria 

Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia 

Wilson's phalarope Phalaropus tricolor 

Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 

Red phalarope Phalaropus fulicaria 

Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus 

Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus 

Stilt sandpiper Calidris himantopus 

Common snipe Gallinago gallinago 

American woodcock Scolopax minor 

Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres 

Dunlin Calidris alpina 

Sanderling Calidris alba 

Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla 

Western sandpiper Calidris mauri 

Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla 

White-rumped sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis 

Baird's sandpiper Calidris bairdii 

Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos 

Ruff Philomachus pugnax 

Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 

Buff-breasted sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis 

Franklin's gull Larus pipixcan 

Laughing gull Larus atricilla 

Bonaparte's gull Larus philadelphia 

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis 

Herring gull Larus argentatus 

Common tern Sterna hirundo 

Forster's tern Sterna forsteri 

Least tern Sterna antillarum 

Black tern Chlidonias niger 

Caspian tern Sterna caspia 
194 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura 

Black vulture Coragyps atratus 

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Mississippi kite Ictinia mississippiensis 

American swallow-tailed kite Elanoides forficatus 

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus 

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus 

Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii 

Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus 

Broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus 

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

American kestrel Falco sparverius 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus 

Northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus 

Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo 

Rock dove Columba livia 

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura 

Common ground-dove Columbina passerine 

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus 

Barn owl Tyto alba 

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus 

Great horned owl Bubo virginianus 

Barred owl Strix varia 

Eastern screech owl Otus asio 

Chuck-will's-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis 

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferous 

Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor 

Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica 

Ruby-throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris 

Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon 

Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus 

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus 
Appendices 195

Common Name Scientific Name 

Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius 

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens 

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus 

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus 

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tryrannus 

Scissor-tailed flycatcher Tyrannus forficatus 

Great crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus 

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis 

Eastern wood-pewee Contopus virens 

Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe 

Acadian flycatcher Empidonax virescens 

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii 

Horned lark Eremophilia alpestris 

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor 

Purple martin Progne subis 

Bank swallow Riparia riparia 

Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

Cliff swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota 

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica 

Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata 

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Fish crow Corvus ossifragus 

Tufted titmouse Parus bicolor 

Carolina chickadee Parus carolinensis 

Brown creeper Certhia americana 

White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 

Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis 

House wren Troglodytes aedon 

Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes 

Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus 

Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii 

Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 

Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis 

Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa 
196 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula 

Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea 

Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis 

Wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina 

Veery Catharus fuscescens 

Swainson's thrush Catharus ustulatus 

Gray-cheeked thrush Catharus minimus 

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus 

American robin Turdus migratorius 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus 

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis 

Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos 

Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum 

American pipit Anthus rubescens 

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 

European starling Sturnus vulgaris 

White-eyed vireo Vireo griseus 

Yellow-throated vireo Vireo flavifrons 

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus 

Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus 

Philadelphia vireo Vireo philadelphicus 

Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea 

Blue-winged warbler Vermivora pinus 

Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrine 

Northern parula Parula americana 

Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia 

Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulean 

Blackburnian warbler Dendroica fusca 

Magnolia warbler Dendroica magnolia 

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata 

Black-throated green warbler Dendroica virens 

Yellow-throated warbler Dendroica dominica 

Bay-breasted warbler Dendroica castanea 

Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata 

Pine warbler Dendroica pinus 
Appendices 197

Common Name Scientific Name 

Palm warbler Dendroica palmarum 

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia 

Canada warbler Wilsonia canadensis 

Willson's warbler Wilsonia pusilla 

Hooded warbler Wilsonia citrine 

Worm-eating warbler Helmitheros vermivorus 

Swainson's warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii 

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus 

Louisiana waterthrush Seiurus motacilla 

Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis 

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens 

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla 

Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus 

Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 

Blue grosbeak Guiraca caerulea 

Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea 

Painted bunting Passerina ciris 

Rufous-sided towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum 

Le Conte's sparrow Ammodramus leconteii 

Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 

Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia 

Field sparrow Spizella pusilla 

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerine 

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis 

White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis 

White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 

Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca 

Lincoln's sparrow Melospiza lincolnii 

Swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana 

Dickcissel Spiza americana 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna 
198 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus 

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 

Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus 

Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus 

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater 

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula 

Orchard oriole Icterus spurius 

Baltimore oriole Icterus galbula 

Scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea 

Summer tanager Piranga rubra 

House sparrow Passer domesticus 

Pine siskin Carduelis pinus 

American goldfinch Carduelis tristis 

Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus 

House finch Carpodacus mexicanus 

*Birds documented on at least one of the three refuges in the Complex 
Appendices 199

MASTER LIST OF MAMMALS SPECIES* 

Scientific Name Common Name 

OrderMarsupialia 

Family Didelphidae

Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum 

Family Soricidae

Sorex logirostris southeastern shrew 

Blarina carolinensis southern short-tailed shrew 

Cryptotis parva least shrew 

Family Talpidae

Scalopus aquaticus eastern mole 

Order Chiroptera 

Family Vespertilionidae

Myotis austroriparius southeastern myotis 

Myotis grisescens gray myotis 

Myotis lucifugus little brown bat 

Myotis septentrionalis northern myotis 

Myotis sodalis Indiana myotis 

Lasionycteris noctivagans silver-haired bat 

Pipistrellus subflavus eastern pipistrelle 

Eptesicus fuscus big brown bat 

Lasiurus borealis eastern red bat 

Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat 

Lasiurus intermedius northern yellow bat 

Lasiurus seminolus Seminole bat 

Nycticeius humeralis evening bat 

Plecotus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat 

Family Molossidae

Tadarida brasiliensis Brazilian free-tailed bat 
200 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Order Xenarthra 

Family Dasypodidae

Dasypus novemcinctus nine-banded armadillo 

Order Lagomorpha 

Family Leporidae

Sylvilagus aquaticus swamp rabbit 

Sylvilagus floridanus eastern cottontail 

Order Rodentia 

Family Sciuridae

Tamias striatus eastern chipmunk 

Marmota monax woodchuck 

Sciurus carolinensis gray squirrel 

Sciurus niger fox squirrel 

Glaucomys volans eastern flying squirrel 

Family Castoridae

Castor canadensis beaver 

Family Cricetidae

Oryzomys palustris marsh rice rat 

Reithrodontomys fulvescens fulvous harvest mouse 

Reithrodontomys humulis eastern harvest mouse 

Peromyscus gossypinus cotton mouse 

Peromyscus leucopus white-footed mouse 

Peromyscus maniculatus deer mouse 

Peromyscus polionotus oldfield mouse 

Ochrotomys nuttalli golden mouse 

Sigmodon hispidus hispid cotton rat 

Neotoma floridana eatern woodrat 

Microtus pinetorum woodland vole 

Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat 
Appendices 201

Scientific Name Common Name 

Family Muridae

Rattus norvegicus Norway rat 

Rattus rattus roof rat 

Mus musculus house mouse 

Family Zapodidae

Zapus hudsonius meadow jumping mouse 

Family Myocastoridae

Myocastor coypus nutria 

Order Carnivora 

Family Canidae

Canis familiaris domestic dog 

Canis latrans coyote 

Canis rufus red wolf 

Vulpes vulpes red fox 

Urocyon cinereoargenteus gray fox 

Family Ursidae

Ursus americanus black bear 

Family Procyonidae

Procyon lotor raccoon 

Family Mustelidae

Mustela frenata long-tailed weasel 

Mustela vison mink 

Spilogale putorius eastern spotted skunk 

Mephitis mephitis striped skunk 

Lutra canadensis river otter 

Family Felidae

Felis catus domestic cat 

Felis concolor mountain lion 

Lynx rufus Bobcat 
202 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Order Artiodactyla 

Family Suidae

Sus scrofa wild pig 

Family Cervidae

Odocoileus virginianus white-tailed deer 

* at least one refuge in the Complex is within the historic 

range of the species 
Appendices 203

MASTER LIST OF AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES* 

Common Name Scientific Name CWR DAH TAL 

Spadefoot toads Pelobatidae

Eastern spadfoot toad Scaphiopus holbrookii 

Narrowmouth toads Microhylidae

Eastern narrowmouth toad Gastrophryne carolinensis X X X 

Toads Bufonidae

American toad Bufo americanus X X 

Southern toad Bufo terrestris 

Fowler's toad Bufo woodhousii fowleri X X X 

Treefrogs Hylidae

Green treefrog Hyla cinerea X X X 

Bird-voiced treefrog Hyla avivoca X 

Gray treefrog Hyla versicolor 

Cope's gray treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis 

Gray treefrog species Hyla versicolor/chrysoscelis X X X 

Upland chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata feriarum X 

Northern spring peeper Pseudacris crucifer X X 

Northern cricket frog Acris crepitans X X X 

Southern cricket frog Acris gryllus X X 

True frogs Ranidae

Bronze frog Rana clamitans X X X 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana X X X 

Southern leopard frog Rana utricularia X X X 

Northern crawfish frog Rana areolata 

Pickerel frog Rana palustris X 

Sirens Sirenidae

Western lesser siren Siren intermedia X 

Amphiumas Amphiumidae

Three-toed amphiuma Amphiuma tridactylum X 

Newts Salamandridae

Central newt Notophthalmus viridescens X 
204 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Common Name Scientific Name CWR DAH TAL 

Mole salamanders Ambystomatidae

Mole salamander Ambystoma talpoideum X 

Smallmouth salamander Ambystoma texanum 

Spotted salamander Ambystoma maculatum 

Marbled salamander Ambystoma opacum X 

Lungless salamanders Plethodontidae

Spotted dusky salamander Desmognathus fuscus 

Southern red salamander Pseudotriton ruber 

Mississippi slimy salamander Plethodon glutinosus 

Southern two-lined salamander Eurycea cirrigera 

Three-lined salamander Eurycea longicauda 

Alligators Alligatoridae

American alligator Alligator mississippiensis X 

Snapping turtles Chelydridae

Alligator snapping turtle Macroclemys temminckii X 

Common snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina X X X 

Musk turtles Kinosternidae

Common musk turtle Sternotherus odoratus X X X 

Razorback musk turtle Sternotherus carinatus 

Eastern mud turtle Kinosternon s. subrubrum 

Mississippi mud turtle Kinosternon s. hippocrepis X X 

Mud turtle sp. Kinosternon subrubrum X X 

Box and water turtles Emydidae

Ouachita map turtle Graptemys pseudogeographica 

Mississippi map turtle Graptemys kohnii X 

Southern painted turtle Chrysemys picta X 

River cooter Pseudemys concinna X 

Red-eared slider Trachemys scripta X X X 

Three-toed box turtle Terrapene carolina X X 

Midland smooth softshell turtle Apalone mutica 

Spiny softshell turtle Apalone spinifera X X 

Softshell turtle species Apalone sp. X X 
Appendices 205

Common Name Scientific Name CWR DAH TAL 

Iguanian Lizards Iguanidae

Green anole Anolis carolinensis 

Northern fence lizard Sceloperus undulatus 

Skinks Scincidae

Ground skink Scincella lateralis X X 

Five-lined skink Eumeces fasciatus X X 

Broadhead skink Eumeces laticeps 

Southeastern five-lined skink Eumeces inexpectatus 

Whiptails Teiidae

Six-lined racerunner Cnemidophorus sextineatus 

Glass lizards Anguidae

Eastern glass lizard Ophisaurus attenuatus 

Colubrids Colubridae

Midland water snake Nerodia sipedon pleuralis X 

Broad-banded water snake Nerodia fasciata confluens X X 

Yellowbelly water snake Nerodia erythrogaster 

flavigaster

 X X 

Diamondback water snake Nerodia rhombifer X X X 

Mississippi green water snake Nerodia cyclopion 

Graham's crayfish snake Regina grahamii 

Eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis X 

Eastern ribbon snake Thamnophis sauritus 

Western ribbon snake Thamnophis proximus X X X 

Midland brown snake Storeria dekayi 

Rough earth snake Virginia striatula 

Western smooth earth snake Virginia valeriae 

Mississippi ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus 

Eastern hognose snake Heterodon platirhinos 

Midwest worm snake Carphophis amoenus 

Northern scarlet snake Cemophora coccinea 

Rough green snake Opheodrys aestivus 

Western mud snake Farancia abacura X X 

Blackmask racer Coluber constrictor latrunculus X X 
206 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Common Name Scientific Name CWR DAH TAL 

Black rat snake Elaphe o. obsoleta 

Gray rat snake Elaphe o. spiloides 

Rat snake sp. Elaphe obsoleta X 

Corn snake Elaphe guttata 

Red milk snake Lampropeltis triangulum 

Scarlet kingsnake Lampropeltis triangulum 

Prairie kingsnake Lampropeltis calligaster 

Mole kingsnake Lampropeltis calligaster 

Speckled kingsnake Lampropeltis getula holbrooki X X 

Pit vipers Viperidae

Western cottonmouth Agkistrodon piscivorus X X X 

Southern copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix 

Western pigmy rattlesnake Sisturus miliarius 

Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus X 

Note: *An ‘X’ in a given column means documented occurrence at the refuge indicated; CWR 

denotes Coldwater River, DAH denotes Dahomey, and TAL denotes Tallahatchie refuges; when 

no ‘X’ appears, it means that the species is likely or suspected to occur on the Complex, but has 

not yet been observed. 
Appendices 207

Appendix F: Legal Mandates 

Rivers and Harbor Act (1899) (33 U.S.C. 403): Section 10 of this Act requires the authorization by 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to any work in, on, over, or under a navigable water of the 

United States. 

Antiquities Act (1906): Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on Federal land and 

provides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken or collected without a permit. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the protection of migratory birds as a Federal 

responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations including the closing of 

areas, Federal or non-Federal, to the hunting of migratory birds. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, 

rental, or gift of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934), as amended: Requires that the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and State fish and wildlife agencies be consulted whenever water is to be impounded, 

diverted or modified under a Federal permit or license. The Service and State agency recommend 

measures to prevent the loss of biological resources, or to mitigate or compensate for the damage. 

The project proponent must take biological resource values into account and adopt justifiable 

protection measures to obtain maximum overall project benefits. A 1958 amendment added 

provisions to recognize the vital contribution of wildlife resources to the Nation and to require equal 

consideration and coordination of wildlife conservation with other water resources development 

programs. It also authorized the Secretary of Interior to provide public fishing areas and accept 

donations of lands and funds. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934): Authorized the opening of part of a 

refuge to waterfowl hunting. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (1935), as amended: Declares it a national policy to 

preserve historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. 

Provides procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (1935), as amended: Requires revenue sharing provisions to all feetitle ownerships that are administered solely or primarily by the Secretary through the Service. 

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act (1948): Provides that 

upon a determination by the Administrator of the General Services Administration, real property no 

longer needed by a Federal agency can be transferred without reimbursement to the Secretary of 

Interior if the land has particular value for migratory birds, or to a State agency for other wildlife 

conservation purposes. 

Federal Records Act (1950): Directs the preservation of evidence of the government’s organization, 

functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic historical and other 

information. 

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy and 

broadened the authority for acquisition and development of refuges. 
208 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (1961): Authorized a major expansion of U. S. 

Department of Agriculture lending activities, which at the time were administered by Farmers Home 

Administration (FmHA), but now through the Farm Service Agency. Major loan programs include 

farm ownership, farm operating and emergency disaster loans. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use of refuges for recreation when such uses are 

compatible with the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient funds are available to manage the 

uses. 

Wilderness Act (1964), as amended: Directed the Secretary of Interior, within 10 years, to review 

every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless island (regardless of size) within 

National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Systems and to recommend to the President the suitability 

of each such area or island for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, with final 

decisions made by Congress. The Secretary of Agriculture was directed to study and recommend 

suitable areas in the National Forest System. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965): Uses the receipts from the sale of surplus Federal 

land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, and other sources for land acquisition under several 

authorities. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (1966), as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (1997) 16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee. (Refuge Administration 

Act): Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the Secretary to permit any use of 

a refuge provided such use is compatible with the major purposes for which the refuge was 

established. The Refuge System Improvement Act clearly defines a unifying mission for the Refuge 

System; establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation); 

establishes a formal process for determining compatibility; established the responsi-bilities of the 

Secretary of Interior for managing and protecting the Refuge System; and requires a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. The 1997 Act amended portions of the Refuge 

Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as amended: Establishes as policy that the Federal 

Government is to provide leadership in the preservation of the nation’s prehistoric and historic 

resources. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally owned, leased, or funded buildings and 

facilities to be accessible to persons with disabilities. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969): Requires the disclosure of the environmental impacts of 

any major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 

Uniform Relocation and Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (1970), as 

amended: Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell their homes, 

businesses, or farms to the Service. The Act requires that any purchase offer be no less than the fair 

market value of the property.

Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all Federal agencies to carry out programs for the 

conservation of endangered and threatened species. 
Appendices 209

Rehabilitation Act (1973): Requires programmatic accessibility in addition to physical accessibility 

for all facilities and programs funded by the Federal government to ensure that anybody can 

participate in any program. 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974): Directs the preservation of historic and 

archaeological data in Federal construction projects. 

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major 

wetland modifications. 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (1977) as amended (Public Law 95-87) (SMCRA): 

Regulates surface mining activities and reclamation of coal-mined lands. Further regulates the coal 

industry by designating certain areas as unsuitable for coal mining operations. 

Executive Order 11988 (1977): Each Federal agency shall provide leadership and take action to 

reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impact of floods on human safety, and preserve the 

natural and beneficial values served by the floodplains. 

Executive Order 11990 (1977): Executive Order 11990 directs Federal agencies to (1) minimize 

destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and (2) preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial 

values of wetlands when a practical alternative exists. 

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs): Directs the Service to 

send copies of the Environmental Assessment to State Planning Agencies for review. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978): Directs agencies to consult with native traditional 

religious leaders to determine appropriate policy changes necessary to protect and preserve Native 

American religious cultural rights and practices. 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act (1978): Improves the administration of fish and wildlife 

programs and amends several earlier laws including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the Secretary 

to accept gifts and bequests of real and personal property on behalf of the United States. It also 

authorizes the use of volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to carry out a volunteer 

program. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), as amended: Protects materials of 

archaeological interest from unauthorized removal or destruction and requires Federal managers to 

develop plans and schedules to locate archaeological resources. 

Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (1981), as amended: Minimizes the extent to which 

Federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of 

farmland to nonagricultural uses. 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986): Promotes the conservation of migratory 

waterfowl and offsets or prevents the serious loss of wetlands by the acquisition of 

wetlands and other essential habitats. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires the use of integrated management systems to control 

or contain undesirable plant species, and an interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other 

Federal and State agencies. 
210 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990): Requires Federal 

agencies and museums to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate cultural 

items under their control or possession. 

Americans With Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and 

services. 

Executive Order 12898 (1994): Establishes environmental justice as a Federal government priority 

and directs all Federal agencies to make environmental justice part of their mission. Environmental 

justice calls for fair distribution of environmental hazards. 

Executive Order 12996 Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (1996): Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public uses of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. It also presents four principles to guide management of the Refuge System.

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996): Directs Federal land management agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, 

avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain 

the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (1997): Considered the “Organic Act of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.” Defines the mission of the Refuge System, designates priority 

wildlife-dependent public uses, and calls for comprehensive refuge planning. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act 

(1998): Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to promote volunteer programs and community 

partnerships for the benefit of national wildlife refuges, and for other purposes.

National Trails System Act (1968), as amended: Mandates the Secretary of Interior and thus the 

Service to protect the historic and recreational values of congressionally designated National Historic 

Trail sites. 
Appendices 211

Appendix G: Bibliography and References 

Cited 

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 

Central Mississippi National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 2003. Preliminary Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. 

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. 

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. 

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 

Fredrickson, L.H., and M.E. Heitmeyer. 1998. 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. 

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. 

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. 

Kelley, J.R., Jr. 2002. American woodcock population status, 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Laurel, Maryland. 16pp. 

Korschgen, Carl E. and R.B. Dahlgren. 1992. 13.2.15. Human Disturbances of Waterfowl: Causes, 

Effects and Management. Waterfowl Management Handbook, Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 

13.2.15., Washington, D.C. 8 pp. 
212 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

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. 

Loesch, C. R., K. J. Reinecke, and C. K. Baxter. 1994. Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture 

Evaluation Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture, 

Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA. 

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 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> 

Mississippi Wetland Management District. 1998. Mississippi Wetland Management District including: 

Dahomey NWR and Tallahatchie NWR. Annual Narrative. Grenada, Mississippi. 

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. 

National Invasive Species Council. January 18, 2001. Management Plan: Meeting the Invasive 

Species Challenge: National Invasive Species Council. Washington, D.C. 88 pp. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2002. Wetland Management for Waterfowl Handbook. 

Edited and compiled by Kevin D. Nelms, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

Mississippi. 119 pp. 

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 Trails & Waters Coalition. November 2002. Impacts on Soils and Plants. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Forest Service. <http://www.naturaltrails.org/> 

North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex. 2003. Biological Review. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Grenada, MS. 

North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex. 2003. Public Use Review. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Grenada, MS. 
Appendices 213

North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex. 2002. North Mississippi National Wildlife 

Refuges Complex including: Dahomey NWR, Tallahatchie NWR, and Coldwater River NWR: 

Annual Narrative, Grenada, Mississippi. 

North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex. 2001-2016. Forest Habitat Management Plan. 

Grenada, MS. 

North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex. 2000. North Mississippi National Wildlife 

Refuges Complex including: Dahomey NWR, Tallahatchie NWR, and Coldwater River NWR: 

Annual Narrative, Grenada, Mississippi. 

Owen, James. March 2003. Deer Behind Britain’s Great Bird Decline. Article in the United Kingdom 

for National Geographic News. <http://news.nationalgeographic.com> 

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. 

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. 

Reinecke, K. J., R. M. Kaminski, D. J. Moorhead, J. D. Hodges, and J. R. Nassar. 1989. Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley. Pages 203-247 in L. M. Smith, R. L. Pederson, and R. M. Kaminski, eds. 

Habitat Management for Migrating and Wintering Waterfowl in North America. Texas Tech. 

Univ. Press, Lubbock. 

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. 

Reinecke, K. J., and C. R. Loesch. 1996. Integrating research and management to conserve 

wildfowl (Anatidae) and wetlands in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, U.S.A. Gibier Faune 

Sauvage, Game and Wildlife 13:927-940. 

Schmidt, P.R. 1993. Memorandum - Information request regarding impacts of hunting on national 

wildlife refuges. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory 

Bird Management, Washington, D.C. 7pp. 

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/> 

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. 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 Approval of Compatibility Determinations 
214 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

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. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Coldwater River National Wildlife Refuge. Fact Sheet. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge. Fact Sheet. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge. Fact Sheet. 

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. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife WildlifeAssociated Recreation. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Dahomey, Coldwater, and Tallahatchie National Wildlife 

Refuges. Brochure. 

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. 1991. Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern 

United States (The Red Book). Pondberry – Lindera melissifolia. 

Westover, Donald E. March 1984. NebGuide: Open Burning. Published by Cooperative Extension, 

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. 

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. 
Appendices 215

Appendix H: Public Involvement 

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT CCP-EA, AND SERVICE RESPONSES 

1. The Mississippi Department Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks (MDWFP), as a statepartnering agency with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, received a courtesy copy of 

the preliminary draft CCP-EA for its review and comment during the Service’s internal 

review period. In a letter dated December 14, 2004, the MDWFP furnished comments on the 

internal review draft that were considered and addressed by the CCP planning team. A 

number of these comments and suggestions were incorporated in the Draft CCP-EA. The 

MDWFP did not comment formally on the May 2005 Draft CCP and EA. 

2. A reviewer from the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries at Mississippi State 

University, in an email dated June 17, 2005, made the following comments: 

I served on the review team in 2002. I am delighted with the decision to adopt Alternative D – 

Enhanced Wildlife Management and Public Use. I believe this decision is the best course of 

action, particularly for wintering waterfowl that may be facing decreased availability of food in 

Mississippi and in the MAV [Mississippi Alluvial Valley]. 

Response to Comment: Comment acknowledged. The Service is pleased that this wildlife 

professor and authority on waterfowl ecology and management is supportive of the preferred 

management alternative for the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex. 

...our recent research has revealed abundance of waste rice in the 

MAV and soybean acreage in Mississippi has decreased significantly over the 

past 2 decades. This reduction in availability of waste agricultural seeds 

may be one of several important factors related to the decreased abundance 

of mallards and other ducks wintering in Mississippi and the MAV.... Indeed, increased 

intensive management of moist-soil habitat is an important strategy to mitigate decreased 

availability of winter food for waterfowl. 

Response to Comment: Decreasing availability of waste agricultural seeds in the Delta region 

is further justification for the Complex’s plan to expand the acreage and increase the intensity 

of moist soil management. 

Regarding management of wood duck nest box program, I am delighted the team 

followed our recommendations, many of which were based on Dr. Brian Davis’ 

doctoral research conducted at Noxubee NWR and along the Tenn-Tom Waterway.... The 

most “suitable” brood rearing habitat for wood ducks (i.e., habitat wherein ducks survived at 

greatest rates) was scrub/shrub. 

Response to Comments: Comment acknowledged. One of the strategies under Objective 1-2 

on wood duck nest boxes does call for placing boxes close to available scrub/shrub habitat. 

3. A reviewer from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in an email dated June 24, 2005, 

made the following comments: 
216 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Page 72, Objective 1-7: Forest Birds – This objective states that forest habitat is highly 

fragmented, but I did not find a strategy that specifically addresses habitat fragmentation. I 

think reforesting the “focus area” shown on Figure 8 should be identified as a strategy to 

reduce habitat fragmentation. 

Response to Comment: Objective 5-3 is specifically about focus areas within the Complex, 

and describes the Service’s intent to protect, restore, and manage the highest priority habitats 

within these areas, which are shown on Figure 8 (p. 95 in the Draft CCP). Since bottomland 

hardwoods are the original, natural vegetative community in this area of the country, most 

conservation efforts would emphasize reforestation. 

 Page 73, Strategies – where is Table 7 

Response to Comment: From the preliminary, internal review draft to the public review draft, 

Table 2-7 was relabeled as Table 7, and this change should have been reflected in the 

designation of the table in the strategy but was not. Thank you for catching this oversight. 

Page 79, Strategies – suggest establishing partnerships with Delta State and Mississippi State 

to accomplish inventory and monitoring of refuge lands. Great opportunity to get good results 

with cheap labor from grad students. 

Response to Comment: The Service presently has on going research and inventory efforts 

with DSU and will continue to expand these type activities. 

Page 84, T&E – Since Dahomey NWR is across the Mississippi River from ivory-billed 

woodpecker habitat, Dahomey could possibly support a few IBW’s. It is not too far-fetched 

that IBW’s could expand into Dahomey; 8,126 acres of mature BLH is not too small, especially 

if the “focus area” located between Dahomey and the Mississipp River is reforested. Anyone 

looked for signs of IBW’s on Dahomey? 

Response to Comment: To the knowledge of Complex staff, nobody has yet looked for signs 

of ivory-billed woodpeckers at Dahomey refuge. At present, the refuge is still mostly isolated 

from other large forested areas closer to the Mississippi, and its bottomland hardwoods 

habitat is mostly not yet mature, which makes the presence of IBW’s unlikely at this time. 

However, the Service acknowledges that this habitat matures and expands, it could well 

support IBW’s in the future, especially with increasing reforestation of other lands in the focus 

area to the west. 

General comment – Following Chapter V in the EA, does FWS include a statement that 

“based on the findings of the EA, there are no adverse impacts associated with the proposed 

action (Alternative D), therefore a FONSI is appropriate and an EIS is not warranted”? 

This determination will be made by the Regional Director after his review of the final 

Environmental Assessment. 

Good document. 

Response to Comment: Comment acknowledged. The Service appreciates the Corps’ input. 
Appendices 217

4. A private citizen, in an email dated June 24, 2005, commented that he generally agreed 

that Alternative D (the Service’s preferred alternative) is the best alternative. He 

specifically supported the proposed expansion of hunting opportunities on the refuge 

that would occur under this Alternative. 

Response to Comment: The Service and Complex management appreciate the strong show 

of support for its preferred management alternative by this member of the public. 
218 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 
Appendices 219

Appendix I: Wilderness Review Summary 

Wilderness Review 

North Mississippi Refuges Complex 

June 20, 2005 

The Planning Team met at the North Mississippi Refuges Complex Office on June 20, 2005 to gather 

information and conduct field exams for the refuges’ wilderness review. The review team included: 

Steve Gard, Project Leader 

Kimberly Hayes, Assistant Refuge Manager 

Mike Dawson, Refuge Planner 

Becky Rosamond, Wildlife Biologist 

Leon Kolankiewicz, Mangi Environmental Group 

The wilderness review is a required component of the comprehensive conservation plan. 

The Wilderness Act defines a Wilderness Area as an area of federal land retaining its primeval 

character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is managed so 

as to preserve its natural conditions and which: 

1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man=s 

work substantially unnoticeable; 

2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation; 

3) has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is of sufficient size to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; 

4) does not substantially exhibit the effects of logging, farming, grazing, or other extensive 

development or alteration of the landscape, or its wilderness character could be restored through 

appropriate management, at the time of review; 

5) is a roadless island; and 

6) may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, education, scenic, or historic 

value. 

During the inventory phase of the wilderness review, the emphasis is on an assessment of wilderness 

character within the inventory unit. Special values (i.e., ecological, geological, scenic, historical) 

should be identified, but are not required. The determination to recommend (or not recommend) a 

Wilderness Study Area to Congress for wilderness designation will be made through the 

comprehensive conservation plan decision-making process. 

Summary of Wilderness Inventory Findings 

The wilderness review inventory team could not identify any refuge units that would meet the criteria 

for a wilderness study area. 
220 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 
Appendices 221

Appendix J. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological 

Evaluation 
222 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 
Appendices 223
224 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 
Appendices 225

Appendix K. Finding of No Significant Impact 

North Mississippi Refuges Complex 

(Dahomey, Tallahatchie, and Coldwater River National Wildlife Refuges) 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Grenada, Mississippi 

Introduction 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to protect and manage certain fish and wildlife resources 

in the northern section of the Mississippi Delta, through management of the North Mississippi 

Refuges Complex (Complex). An Environmental Assessment has been prepared to inform the public 

of the possible environmental consequences of implementing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

for North Mississippi Refuges 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 Comprehensive Conservation Plan for North Mississippi Refuges Complex, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service evaluated four alternatives: Alternatives A, B, C, and D. 

The Service adopted Alternative D, the “Preferred Alternative,” as the plan for guiding the direction of 

the Complex 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. No Action Alternative 

Existing 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; 

(3) meeting the habitat conservation goals of national and international plans; and (4) preserving 

wetlands, all while contributing to other national, regional, and state goals to protect and restore 

migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and resident species. Refuge management 

programs would continue to be developed and implemented with limited baseline biological 

information. Active habitat management would be implemented through water level manipulations, 

and moist-soil, cropland, and forest management, designed to provide a diverse complex of habitats 

that meets the foraging, resting, and breeding requirements for a variety of species. A summary of 

the current acreages by habitat type can be found in Chapter II. Complex staff would continue to 

restore and maintain existing wetland, open water, moist-soil, and bottomland forest habitats. Land 

would be acquired from willing sellers within the current 47,816-acre acquisition boundaries. 

Hunting and fishing would continue to be the major focus for the Complex public use program, with 

no expansion of current opportunities. Current restrictions or prohibitions would remain. 

Environmental education, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography would be accommodated at 

present levels. If funding becomes available, a visitor center and headquarters office would be 

constructed on Highway 82 at the Povall Tract. 
226 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Alternative B.

This alternative would emphasize significantly more public recreational uses while maintaining current 

habitat management. Any additional staff, emphasis, and resources would be directed to allow for 

more public activities. Current moist-soil, cropland, forest, and wetland management would continue. 

Hunting and fishing opportunities would be increased as funding and personnel allow. 

Auto tours, canoe trails, foot trails, interpretive trail(s), observation towers, and blinds would be added 

for environmental education, photography, and watchable wildlife programs. Additional staff would be 

used for developing and presenting both on- and off-site environmental education and interpretation 

programs. An outreach coordinator would be hired for the Complex. 

A visitor center and headquarters office would be constructed on Highway 82 at the Povall Tract and 

jointly with the Private John Allen National Fish Hatchery. New sub-headquarters and visitor contact 

stations would be constructed at Coldwater River, Dahomey, and Tallahatchie NWRs. 

Land acquisition within the current acquisition boundaries would continue with emphasis on those 

lands that can provide additional public use opportunities. Any additional expansions, up to 10 

percent of the current acquisition boundaries, would focus on public use opportunities. 

Alternative C. 

Under this alternative, refuge lands on the Complex would be intensively managed to provide high 

quality habitat for wildlife, particularly migratory birds. Any area on the Complex with pumping 

capability (wells) and a water control structure would be managed for moist-soil vegetation or forceaccount farmed (with 100 percent of crops left standing) to benefit migratory waterfowl. Cooperative 

farming fields would be farmed in rice, milo, corn, or soybeans (in order of preference) and flooded 

during the late fall and winter. 

The wood duck nest box program would be expanded on all three refuges and would extend onto 

Farm Service Agency tracts with suitable brood habitat. On sites with permanent water, wood duck 

brood habitat would be developed to promote brood survival. Boxes would be cleaned and 

maintained regularly to allow two and three broods per box per year. 

Primary emphasis would be placed on meeting objectives of various step-down plans, providing 

habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds. These habitats and their use would be monitored on the 

Complex to ensure that goals and objectives were met. Population and habitat surveys would be 

conducted throughout the Complex to develop baseline data to determine initial population levels and 

habitat conditions. Staff would monitor changes over time. 

Wildlife-dependent recreation activities would be allowed, but only where and when they would not 

detract from or conflict with wildlife management activities and objectives. Infrastructure on the 

Complex (trails, blinds, etc.) would be developed primarily to conduct wildlife management activities. 

A visitor center and headquarters office would be constructed on Highway 82 at the Povall Tract. 

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 adjacent to 

existing refuge tracts and those lands supporting unique habitats. Additionally, the Complex would 

concentrate all future off-refuge partnerships on promoting more intensive wildlife management on 

privately owned lands. Personnel priorities would include hiring a biologist and/or technician for each 

refuge in the Complex, as well as for the Farm Service Agency properties (considered together) in 

addition to a forester to conduct forest management activities at Dahomey Refuge. 
Appendices 227

Alternative D

The Service planning team has identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. This alternative 

was developed based on public input and the best professional judgment of the planning team. The 

objectives and strategies presented in the Draft CCP were developed as a direct result of the 

selection of Alternative D. 

Alternative D represents a combination and/or compromise between Alternative B (Public Use 

Emphasis) and Alternative C (Wildlife Management Emphasis). Whereas these two alternatives seek 

to maximize either expanded public use or expanded wildlife management opportunities, Alternative 

D seeks to optimize the benefits of the Complex to wildlife and people, recognizing that tradeoffs may 

preclude maximizing benefits to both simultaneously. In other words, Alternative D seeks the “best of 

both” Alternatives B and C. 

Under Alternative D, refuge lands would be more intensively managed than at present to provide high 

quality habitat for wildlife, particularly migratory birds. Additional areas on the Complex with pumping 

capability (wells) and a water control structure would be managed for moist-soil vegetation or forceaccount farmed (with 100 percent of crops left standing) to benefit migratory waterfowl. Cooperative 

farming fields would be farmed in rice, milo, corn, or soybeans (in order of preference) and flooded 

during the late fall and winter. 

The wood duck nest box program would be expanded on all three refuges and may extend onto 

some Farm Service Agency tracts that have suitable brood habitat. Boxes would be cleaned and 

maintained regularly to allow two and three broods per box per year. 

Increased emphasis would be placed on meeting objectives of various step-down plans, providing 

habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds. These habitats and their use would be monitored on the 

Complex to ensure that goals and objectives were met. Population and habitat surveys would be 

conducted throughout the Complex to develop baseline data to determine initial population levels and 

habitat conditions. Staff would monitor changes over time. 

This alternative would encourage more public recreational uses even while intensifying current 

habitat management. Additional staff, emphasis, and resources would be more or less evenly divided 

between enhancing public use opportunities and wildlife/habitat management. Hunting and fishing 

opportunities would be increased as funding and personnel allow. Moist soil, cropland, forest, and 

wetland management would also intensify, to the extent permitted by funding and staffing limits. 

One auto tour, one canoe trail, one or more foot trail(s) and/or interpretive trail(s), one observation 

tower, and one or more blinds would be added for environmental education, photography, and 

watchable wildlife programs. Staff may be added for developing and presenting both on- and off-site 

environmental education and interpretation programs. 

Under Alternative D, the Complex would continue to seek acquisition of all willing-seller inholdings 

within the present acquisition boundaries, expanding Complex acreage by up to an additional 10 

percent of the current acquisition boundaries. Highest priority would be given to those lands adjacent 

to existing refuge tracts and those lands supporting unique habitats or offering compatible public use 

opportunities. Additionally, the Complex would concentrate future off-refuge partnerships on 

promoting more intensive wildlife management on privately owned lands. 
228 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

Personnel priorities would include hiring additional law enforcement officers, an outreach coordinator 

for the Complex as a whole, a biologist and/or technician for each refuge in the Complex as well as 

for the Farm Service Agency properties (considered together), and a forester to conduct forest 

management activities at Dahomey Refuge. 

A visitor center and headquarters office would be constructed on Highway 82 at the Povall Tract and 

jointly with the Private John Allen National Fish Hatchery. New sub-headquarters and visitor contact 

stations would be constructed at Dahomey, Tallahatchie and Coldwater River NWRs. 

Selection Rationale 

Alternative D is selected for implementation because it directs the development of programs to best 

achieve the Complex purpose and goals; emphasizes the restoration of open wetland and forest 

habitats; collects habitat and wildlife data; and ensures long-term achievement of Complex 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 D, refuge management actions would 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 would result in increased protection for threatened and endangered species; enhanced 

wildlife populations; bottomland hardwood wetland restoration; and enhanced opportunities for 

wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education. These effects are detailed as follows: 

1. The wood duck nest box program would be expanded on all three refuges and may extend onto 

some Farm Service Agency tracts that have suitable brood habitat. Boxes would be cleaned and 

maintained regularly to allow two and three broods per box per year. If successful, this program 

would boost production of wood ducks by at least five-fold over present. 

 

2. Increased emphasis would be placed on meeting objectives of various step-down plans and 

providing habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds. These habitats and their use would be monitored 

on the refuges to ensure that goals and objectives were met. Shorebirds, wading birds, and 

colonial nesting birds would be beneficiaries of these efforts. 

 

3. Alternative D would encourage more public recreational uses even while intensifying current 

habitat management. Hunting and fishing opportunities would be augmented as funding and 

personnel allow. Moist-soil, cropland, forest, and wetland management would also intensify. 

4. One auto tour, one canoe trail, one or more foot trail(s) and/or interpretive trail(s), one observation 

tower, and one or more blinds would be added for environmental education, photography, and 

watchable wildlife programs. In addition, both on- and off-site environmental education and 

interpretation programs would be expanded. 
Appendices 229

5. Under Alternative D, the Complex would continue to seek acquisition of all willing-seller inholdings 

within the present acquisition boundaries, expanding Complex acreage by up to an additional 10 

percent of the current acquisition boundaries. Highest priority would be given to those lands 

adjacent to existing refuge tracts and those lands supporting unique habitats or offering 

outstanding wildlife-dependent public use. Additionally, the Complex would concentrate future offrefuge partnerships on promoting more intensive wildlife management on privately owned lands. 

6. Educational and interpretive opportunities for the public would be expanded by the construction of 

one visitor center and headquarters office on Highway 82 at the Povall Tract and another visitor 

center with the Private John Allen National Fish Hatchery. The proposed new sub-headquarters 

and visitor contact stations to be constructed at Coldwater River, Dahomey, and Tallahatchie 

NWRs would also benefit the public. 

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 rookeries, 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 and 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. 
230 North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

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. 

Potential development of beach 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. 

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. 

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 

Granada County Chamber of Commerce 

Tallahatchie County Board of Supervisors 

Leflore County Board of Supervisors 

Mississippi Wildlife Federation 

Black Bear Conservation Committee 

Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

Ducks Unlimited 

National Audubon Society 

The Nature Conservancy of Mississippi 

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 North Mississippi Refuges 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 164-170). 
Appendices 231

2. The actions will not have a significant effect on public health and safety. (Environmental 

Assessment, page 160). 

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 158). 

4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 138-155, and page 164-170). 

5. The actions do not involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown environmental risks to the human 

environment. (Environmental Assessment, page 160). 

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 

138-155, and page 164-170). 

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. (Environmental Assessment, page 160). 

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 158). 

9. The actions are not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species, or their habitats. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 138-155). 

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 157). 

Supporting References

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for North Mississippi Refuges Complex, Grenada, 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 

North Mississippi Refuges Complex and was made available in June 2005. Additional copies are 

available by writing: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345.